Some things have been bothering me about what keeps happening in the Lake Whatcom watershed.
Despite the fact that the waters of our Reservoir rightfully belong to the citizens of Washington.
Despite the County downzone that was well-intended but botched to the point it actually encouraged rapid build-out, during which the County allowed the BIA to dictate clearing and grading policy for 18 months.
Despite the well-intended boating regulation that was so easily sabotaged by property rights advocates, and even undermined by the County Council itself.
Despite the DNR Landscape Plan that was so skillfully gutted after the State Legislature directed that a stakeholder committee produced recommendations to tighten Forest Practices.
Despite the talk about a County-led Phosphorus reduction program that turned out to be just talk.
Despite the use of Conservation Futures funds to buy down lots in Sudden Valley to further that community's voluntary density reduction program, and to acquire other watershed property for conservancy.
Despite all that, plus the City's efforts to set more stringent watershed development regulations, preserve watershed property, provide more stormwater facilities, educate citizens in Lake-Friendly practices and the like.
The 'Lake' is still being used and sold as just another amenity to sell real estate at jacked up prices.
This watershed is not affordable real estate! It is being marketed as a prime property for mega-homes for the wealthy, and the rules are being bent at will to accommodate this frenzy.
Why? Because some folks have found out they can do it without being challenged, and there is big money to be made doing it. It's just that simple.
And, the Water Districts aren't much of a help either, because they think they have to mindlessly say 'yes' to every applicant for water or sewer that applies. That's much easier than raising rates on their existing customers to pay for adequate maintenance of their facilities - which do leak with regularity directly into our water supply reservoir.
And, because some folks were smart enough to vest their properties to insure they could build, and because neither County nor City is particularly good at enforcing their regulations with consistency.
And, because the 'Growth Machine' is much better at what they do than any local government has been at doing what they should be doing to protect our public water supply!
Some very obvious, in-your-face, symptoms of what's going on include the slick, glossy brochures and ads being paid for by the Realtors, the BIA and others that actively promote 'business as usual' even in our Reservoir's watershed.
For example, I got a brochure delivered directly to my City Council address that asked:
'What is your community doing about the housing crisis?'
It then went on to list a seemingly innocuous list of 'policies' that local governments can adopt to increase housing availability and affordability. That list was OK, but it did subtly ask for a number of general things, without regard for critical and sensitive areas that require special protection.
Maybe not so subtle?
Then, the glossy, upscale 'Whatcom Magazine', published monthly by the Herald for its affluent advertising clients, touting waterfront property [you pick the water body and shoreline] appealing specifically to Californians, with messages like:
'This doesn't exist in California. And if it did, I couldn't afford it in 10 lifetimes."
That particular 'op-ad' featured Semiahmoo, but others targeted Lummi Island, Lake Whatcom, Edgemoor, Boulevard Park and the San Juan Islands. In short, every shoreline is being promoted as if there is no tomorrow, and for some, tomorrow is already here.
What does this expensive, targeted ad campaign do to our efforts to limit sprawl and protect shorelines? The answer is absolutely nothing! In fact, just the contrary. But, hey, this is America and people can live where they can afford, and trash the environment as they will.
Maybe the Real Estate people are right, we all need to get all that we can now, and the sooner the better.
Forget planning, forget protecting salmon and the environment, forget the impacts unbridled greed has on others who live here, forget this type of promotion never pays its way, except for the money-changers.
Heck, why not forget everything. If we just decided to that, we might relieve growth pressure sooner, because trashing this place would render it much less appealing in the future. Remember the Real Estate Mantra 'Location, location, location'?
That's a really grim thought, but it seems to be happening despite the good efforts of many good people.
Washington State attracts people because of its beauty, but also because it has no State income tax. Think about it. Wealthy people come here partly because property is less expensive - and also they get to pay less taxes on their wealth than say - California. Bingo!
Since our esteemed Legislature would rather touch a third rail of some thing big and electrical than address income taxes as the fairest form of tax, we get to reap the 'rewards' in the form of wealthy folk who come here to enjoy what we have, and have us subsidize them to boot. Not so smart I think, but that's just my opinion!
One afterthought: maybe another 1/4 percent Real Estate Excise Tax [REET] would help to pay for essential facilities?
Or, maybe impact fees in the unincorporated areas to help pay for the inefficient roads servicing sprawl? Nah, the County wouldn't touch that with a 10-foot pole!
How about a Real Estate Transfer Fee to help finance stormwater facilities in the Lake Whatcom Watershed? You know, have buyers pay 1% for the privilege of living there and knowing it is a special place, with special rules?
Hey, these folks can afford it! And we do need the money, don't we?
Saturday, August 25, 2007
Friday, August 24, 2007
Lake Whatcom Storm Water Management: Entranco Report Redux
Yesterday's blog received feedback that Whatcom County is looking at ideas of how to set up a Stormwater plan to include all of Lake Whatcom, which is good news! Along with the feedback was this URL link to a recent feasibility study report to create a regional stormwater utility in the Tahoe Basin:
http://www.ntcd.org/documents/DIMS_2007.pdf
It will be interesting to see what happens, how soon, and how the County decides to pay for it.
With that introduction, here's a little history on the subject of Stormwater and Lake Whatcom:
-----------------------------------------------------
On May 1 2002, I answered a Herald 'Hot-Seat' question from Gary Reid, then President of the BIA, with the following:
"That development is a primary cause of water quality degradation is generally true for any watershed, not just Lake Whatcom. This conclusion is rooted in widely accepted knowledge, based upon the extensive research of qualified experts. Our Lake Whatcom is special not only because it is the public water supply reservoir for over 85,000 people, but because it is a rarity in nature – a large lake of exceptional purity.
What a blessing it is for any community to have such a pure source of water! Many other cities, like Seattle, Tacoma, Everett and Portland, have chosen long ago to protect their essential water supplies against the risks of contamination and future unnecessary clean-up costs, by severely restricting uses in their reservoir watersheds.
The City of Bellingham and Whatcom County are only now becoming fully engaged in facing the serious problem of ensuring the sustainability of the Lake Whatcom Reservoir for future generations. It is the duty of these governments to tackle this task and to develop a sensible, effective approach that fairly takes into account the concerns of all potentially affected interests, most importantly citizens.
The so-called “Entranco Report” is one of the tasks identified in Phase I of the Lake Whatcom Comprehensive Stormwater Plan, and currently remains a work in progress, although an early draft was circulated for comment on November 22, 1999. Both City and County are working to improve stormwater runoff issues in this watershed, without waiting for this particular report to be finished before taking action."
==========================
ENTRANCO, a Bellevue based consultant with good credentials for stormwater work - but with minimal experience in working with public water supplies, like Lake Whatcom - was the firm selected for this work. So, predictably, the initial draft issued lacked adequate consideration of that essential point, and even seemed biased toward denial that the primary use of Lake Whatcom was as our source of drinking water!
The entire report is lengthy, now outdated, and was redone -after a 3-year delay- after peer review. Since that time, little has changed regarding actual progress on a County Comprehensive Stormwater Plan for Lake Whatcom.
Anyway, in late 1999, I did take strong exception to ENTRANCO's draft report, and my initial comments, submitted on 12/4/1999, are listed below. Later, I reviewed this report in much greater depth to see what might have been the motivation for the short-cuts that were being touted, and that was most revealing! Those comments are also posted below.
My apologies -again- for the reference to a lengthy document that is not immediately accessible. Despite that, these comments do reflect some very specific concerns that may not require reading of the Draft Report to understand.
-----------------------------------------------------
Initial Comments:
1. No new "solutions", data or conclusions have been offered. This seems merely a $35,000 summarization of existing reports for someone's convenience of review. Is this what was intended?
Additionally, summary comments like these two, found on page iii of the Introduction, seem particulary inane, misleading and out of place in view of the non-comprehensive scope of this work:
"Based on our work, there have not been any notable trends in water quality over the last ten years."
"Although scientists have agreed to disagree on the dissolved oxygen trends in Basin 1 of Lake Whatcom, we do not think it would be productive for the scientific community or the public to continue the dissolved oxygen debate."
Frankly, I'm disappointed that no real expertise or advice over what has already been heard is being offered by the consultants. This may be due to a combination of factors, including
(1) initial limitation of scope and budget (who wrote it? & who decided the budget?),
(2) a measure of timidity in the face of a politically charged atmosphere surrounding the Reservoir,
(3) a failure to identify persons with the right training & experience (relating to drinking water source protection) to
(a) analyze the problem in depth,
(b) write the scope/approach required,
(c) estimate the costs,
(d) get all the necessary funding,
(e) select & supervise the consultants and
(f) interpret the results correctly.
2. The Bellingham community wants and deserves a much more comprehensive study approach, oriented toward preserving our resource, not just continuing to test the water and eventually having to recommend expensive actions to fix problems that we know are occurring now and will continue to occur at an accelerated pace with more development.
This study limits itself to a business as usual approach in primarily addressing only structural remedies, which are always more costly and less reliable than non-stuctural methods. It seems the essential cost/benefit analysis of alternatives will have to be done without the possibility of comparing the least expensive and more effective choices! This approach makes no sense at all and deserves to be called stupid and shortsighted.
Why is the Lake Whatcom Management Team continuing to take this easy, short-term approach despite the growing concern of the 66,000 citizens dependent on the lake for their drinking water, who are demanding a more effective program to be conceived, funded and carried out?
3. Like the recently issued DOE report, which used the words "Drinking Water" in its title, this report makes the same mistake of comparing Lake Whatcom's watershed to other "Urban Watersheds" and not other Drinking Water Reservoirs!
Why does this mindset persist, despite repeated requests for this specific comparison? DOE water standards have little to do with drinking water standards, except as a first line of defense in the potable water supply.
Drinking water standards are administered by the Dept of Health, and their importance is never mentioned in this report.
A big part of the problem might be that between the DOE & DOH standards lies a big, expensive "gray area" called a water treatment plant, which the City had to build in 1968 and subsequently upgraded at a cost exceeding $50 million, paid for by taxpayers and water drinkers.
Many who live in the watershed or own property there, do not participate in this expense, and therefore may not see it as their problem, preferring to "externalize" it to the City. Accountability for the water quality entering this plant is therefore lacking.
Without appreciating the necessity for the water to be anything other than "treatable", we have created a problem that will continue to escalate. Indeed, we could design a plant to produce drinking water from sewage, but costs would be astronomical (as in NASA). The Navy & Saudi Arabia both produce their drinking water from seawater, also quite expensive. Other exotic treatment methods also exist, all proven but expensive.
But, with a wonderful natural freshwater source like Lake Whatcom, who in their right mind would willfully (or even unwittingly after knowing the "lake" is actually a "reservoir") pollute it, risking health & ecology in the process and ultimately condemning the citizens to paying for expensive, and largely avoidable, treatment?
DOE is not enforcing its mandate of keeping the lake "fishable & swimmable", which in itself would go a long way toward meeting drinking water reservoir standards. At the high fecal coliform levels now in the lake, children and immune-deficient people are already in particular danger. Also, according to DFW, the two native trout species are near extinction due to lack of the habitat necessary for species to reproduce naturally. Run-off from dumps, development, recreation activities & impervious surfaces is adding nutrients, metals & other toxics to the lake every day, further accelerating degradation of the waterbody. And yet, this report is able to conclude:
"Based on our work, there have not been any notable trends in water quality over the last ten years."!
I wonder just what "work" this is based on, other than a review and regurgitation of previous, inadequate reports?
Its very difficult to see any real value to the community added by this exercise, especially since it blatantly ignores
(a) the fecal coliform 303(d) listings,
(b) recent mercury findings in fish tissues,
(c) imminent listing of fish species specific to Lake Whatcom,
(d) the revelation that between 600 and 7500 new homes are apparently expected to be built in the watershed during the next several years,
(e) near passage of Proposition 1, which would have raised $4 million/year for 20 years to purchase land in the watershed as natural buffer, eliminating development,
(f) Dr. Robin Matthews' recent study showing an unusual jump in oxygen depletion levels in Basins 1 & 2,
(g) the real possibility of losing or lessening the Middle Nooksack Diversion flow for ESA purposes,
just to name a few "notable" events happening recently.
Is it possible these are indicative of a "trend"?
Is it possible that Lake Whatcom is not getting the attention it deserves because Bellingham is not yet a city of over 100,000 and does not have sufficient jurisdictional control over protection of this resource? That seems to be EPA's guideline.
But, to complicate things further, EPA then delegates its Clean Water Act responsibilities to DOE and its Clean Drinking Water Act responsibilities to DOH. Where do these different responsibilities recombine?
What is the County Health Department's role?
Perhaps our Lake Whatcom Reservoir is such a unique watershed, already complicated by "multiple uses", that our Federal/State agencies are confused over who does what & what to do? As tempting as it is to blame these remote government agencies, the real responsibility for demanding proper attention is with us, the local community, both citizenry and County & City governments, to first recognize the true nature of the Lake Whatcom Reservoir problem and then to comprehensively initiate the necessary studies and require the necessary actions be taken, preferably before really bad things do happen. This takes political will, leadership and informed action, despite vested interests who might prefer not to hear about potential problems or participate in their solution for the benefit of future public health.
The Olympic Pipe Line Disaster should have already demonstrated to us what can happen if ignorance, complacency and lack of adequate regulations & enforcement persist too long! It also demonstrates what power the local community has to effect change, when it is clearly needed.
4. Future study work should undoubtedly include modelling, which can be an effective tool for predicting future water quality effects resulting from increasing use of the watershed for human activity. But this modelling itself must be based upon enough data to comprehensively characterize the watershed! For such a model to be fully effective, proper non-structural elements, such as zoning & land use parameters, buffers for critical areas, stormwater performance standards and the like, need to be put firmly in place.
Where will this additional data come from?
Who will define it, develop it, pay for it, use it?
How long will it take to put an effective watershed plan into practice?
These are the questions our community is expecting to have answered. Please tell us what it will take to get these questions answered! If the expertise to obtain comprehensive answers to these important technical questions is not available locally or in Seattle, then let's search for professional help elswhere.
The Lake Whatcom Management Team needs to recognize this as a top public health priority and give it the attention and funding it deserves! In the mean time, time is passing....
=======================================
Entranco Report - Additional Comments
I have now studied this report and watched the video of the 11/17/99 public meeting. Here are additional comments to complete my initial feedback to this report. Although the report does pull together diverse information of interest, particularly on applicable regulations, its overall added value to the LWM Program remains problematic and marginal in my view. The results of the Peer Review Committee [PRC} review process will be of major interest.
1. My expectation (and apparently that of others, per Chris Spens' comments at the meeting) was that ALL prior data, covering decades, would be reviewed, not just the last 10 years as stated by Dale Anderson. Who decided only one decade would be considered instead of several?
2. I believe it is necessary to scrupulously separate fact from opinion, and carefully define what is meant by "notable" trends. Something that might not show a definite trend over 10 years, might well show a "notable" trend over several decades (like HODR calculations-see below).
3. Regarding the statement regarding "disagreeing scientists" and whether "debate" over HODR levels/trends is important. I believe this is critically important for the same reasons cited on page 23 of the report:
a) It is the basis for DOE's 303(d) listing of the lake, demonstrating a clear trend toward accelerating eutrophication, an early indication of water degradation in Basin 1, violating of DOE's "Antidegradation Policy".
b) If degradation is established, then:
• "beneficial use" may be considered impaired;
(note Entranco interprets this as NOT directly prohibiting pollution discharges and NOT meaning observed changes in concentrations of particular parameters indicative of water quality, but that 'impairment' must actually be proven to occur! Should the burden of proof of actual impairment be on water drinkers, swimmers and fish? I don't think so! This is why a comprehensive EIS approach is needed to wisely guide future activities in this uniquely valuable watershed. If DOE has reason to conclude that impairment is happening (as indicated by the HODR trend) then we need to listen to them! This type of trend would not likely be apparent to anyone but experts who have long term experience in testing Lake Whatcom, and we should be glad to have an early warning of accelerating eutrophication in Basin 1, whether this can be proven as indicative of the entire lake's condition or not! )
• evaluation and implementation of all reasonable options are required to prevent deterioration of water quality;
• activities causing pollution in the watershed can be regulated and prohibited if not found to be in the public interest.
This appears to be a very high stakes game! Perhaps we should change the game and raise the ante by getting another impartial opinion from an acknowledged expert from outside the Northwest with this expertise, if one can be found.
4. It is readily apparent that much effort has been devoted to discrediting or discounting the DOE 303(d) listing based on HODR trends in Basin 1, to the point that I am reminded of the Shakespearean phrase "methinks she doth protest too much". I plotted the data shown in Appendix B myself. Here are my findings:
a) Based on conventional arithmetic graphing, followed by averaging of DOE & Envirovision calculation results and visually plotting a trend line, a definite UP trend is indicated, approximating 5.8 HODR units per year.
b) I plotted both sets of data on semi-log graph paper. Slight trends could be noted visually in both cases, using data taken over the last 10 years, however, because of the small scale used and data scatter, accurate visual trend determination was difficult.
I re-plotted the data, using data reciprocals (1/x) and was able to see more clearly slight trends in each of the data sets, which appeared to agree fairly closely with each other. This encouraged further examination.
c) I then tried a computerized graphical technique in use for years for evaluating and forecasting stock trend data like sales and earnings per share over time. This technique uses 10-year historical data to forecast future values based on extrapolation of least-squares trend lines on semi-log paper. (abscissa = year; ordinate = values)
Both DOE data and Envirovision data were plotted side by side for comparison. The resulting plots further confirmed the prior visual observations, and also assigned per cent "growth" values to each of the trend lines based on their respective slopes.
The DOE data showed +2% per year historic "growth" over the years 1988-1997. Using the "Rule of 72", it would take 72/2 = 36 years for the 1997 HODR calculation to double in value (415 to 830), assuming this "growth" trend continues that long.
The Envirovision data showed +2.5% per year historic "growth" over the same period. At this continued rate of "growth", about 28.8 years would be required to double the 1997 HODR value (347 to 694). Compounding 2.5% "growth" for another 7 years (total of 35.8) on 694, results in a total of 825, very close to the 36-year total projected for the DOE data.
This indicates that both sets of data agree closely in their respective 36-year projections. I would welcome verification of both the technique used, results obtained and their interpretation by those more knowledgeable in these areas.
5. The HODR question won't just go away despite any debate. Does HODR show a measurable change from natural conditions or not? (per page 24) If meaningful trends can be determined by this method, or another, as an early warning, so much the better. We know that even pristine lakes undergo natural degradation, but this process may require a thousand years or more. We also know that this process is accelerated greatly by development. The point is, let's find out as soon as possible, the rate of degradation happening in Lake Whatcom, basin by basin, so that we have a better chance of arresting this slow degradation and sustaining beneficial uses. Future loss of the Nooksack Diversion would only exacerbate the situation by reducing turnover substantially.
Additionally, Lake Whatcom may be a truly unique, "atypical" water body, given its rare combination of hydrology and beneficial uses which include drinking water supply. What other lakes have been identified that truly compare in all these aspects? Who has actual experience in protecting these? What methods are most effective, both in terms of water quality and costs? How could a program be instituted here to insure a safe and sustainable water source for our chidren and beyond?
6. Assignment of specific "Issues & Problems" to each of the three "Beneficial Uses" (pages v, vi, vii/viii) needs additional explanation. In reality, I suspect these may be interrelated in varying degrees. For example, Eutrophication and HODR issues are assigned to the beneficial use of Recreation. Is this specifically correct or somewhat arbitrary to simplify presentation of data? In a multi-use lake, where all uses are considered important and interrelated, substantial overlap of "Issues & Problems" seems likely. In this respect I can visualize using three circles, labelled A (Drinking Water Supply), B (Recreation) and C (Fisheries & Other Aquatic Life). Each circle, containing its own quality criteria, overlaps the other two to some extent. Where all three circles commonly overlap should define the area of main interest and criticality, like a syllogism in logic. If such a holistic approach makes better sense, then let's use it to guide our future efforts.
7. Now that reasonable funding has been made available for two years and assignments like this water quality assessment are finally getting done, efficiency seems important and it is, providing we're doing the important things correctly and in proper sequence.
However, accountability is even more important since this is necessary in assuring the very credibility of the work done to the public. To date, I feel there has been a lack of accountability to either the public or those of us in elected office in disclosing the overall efficacy of the program we are pursuing.
While the tasks and objectives shown in the annual work plan generally follow the goals of the Joint Resolution, it is not clear that a long term course of action is in place that clearly prioritizes prevention/protection over structural remedies and institutionalizes the path toward preserving our most valuable water resource.
If the program visualized is believed to be truly comprehensive and likely to be effective, why the continued reluctance to open the decision-making sessions to the public? Many in the community who would like to be more a part of this are being systematically excluded from the process and find this increasingly troubling. In a situation this important, sensitive and politically charged, it would seem prudent to let this process be done in daylight. That also happens to be State Law.
8. Water Supply System (pages 5-21)
Thanks for including this section. It's nice to see this summarized in one place.
A few questions & comments:
• It would be particularly valuable to see what changes in conditions occurred before 1968, when building the City's water treatment plant was justified at major public expense.
• Same comment regarding Water District #10 water treatment plant.
• The JMM 1986 Study made comparisons of Lake Whatcom raw water with several other UNTREATED water supplies on the West Coast. This is a meaningful comparison basis and should be done in every case.
• It is troubling to read on page 8, 1st paragraph, that "Impacts are not based on the changes of concentrations of contaminants within Lake Whatcom (source water), but rather on whether a particular beneficial use is impaired." and, "It is understood that the goal of the water purveyors and their customers is to prevent any degradation of the drinking water or to have water that imparts no or minimum risk." This means that its the PURVEYOR's problem if raw water is degraded! Is that correct? Where's the teeth in PREVENTION!
Even worse, "...water quality for the purveyors is compared to existing regulations, rather than anticipated future regulations." This seems to mean purveyors can't do anything but react to changing conditions, after they have occurred, and at their cost! Incredible!
• The discussion of MCL's and their enforceability is both interesting and frustrating.
For example, on page 9 last paragraph, reads: "We apply the MCL to samples collected in Lake Whatcom, for comparison purposes only, because the level of a contaminant in the source water does not relate to the concentration in the treated water." This seems to confirm that any escalation in source water contaminant level must be duly noted by the purveyor, who then must adjust its treatment technology accordingly. Again, where's the teeth in prevention of pollution? It seems the DOH is only there to monitor and advise the purveyor when its in trouble.
• Page 12 notes that the WWU monitoring program focusses on parameters that are not regulated by primary or secondary drinking water standards, and that none which have associated MCL's showed exceedences. Is this why the HODR "debate" is not considered important?
• The section on Pathogens is not comforting. What it says is that we are at risk for anything chlorination can't kill. No more sewage overflows!
• Regarding who pays for degradation effects, the principle should be "he who pollutes, pays". No subsidies by taxpayers or ratepayers for polluters! LID-type permit & latecomers fees.
• Example from California per 12/9/99 San Francisco Chronicle article:
New Los Vaqueros Reservoir, north of Livermore- (restricted use/no development)
20,000 acres vs 31,500 acres in Lake Whatcom watershed (63.5%)
100,000 acre-feet vs 774,000 acre-feet in Lake Whatcom (13.5%)
400,000 ratepayers vs 65,000 in Lake Whatcom (615%)
320 gpd average daily use vs 236 gpd in Lake Whatcom area (136%)
$42/month average water bill vs $18.50 in Lake Whatcom area (227%)
$10-$12/month = portion of water bill attributed to reservoir cost (23.8% to 28.6%)
$450 million = cost of 1988 bond issue (12 years to construct dam + pipeline & pumps from Central Valley + environmental mitigation + management of 20,000 acre watershed (ongoing)
9. Recreation (pages 21-41)
• It is interesting that this particular beneficial use was given this much space, and that this is where coverage of DOE's antidegradation policy, State Water Quality Standards & HODR is given. Is this because recreation uses cannot depend on a treatment plant for purification?
• The arguments given on page 29-41 seem to do more than report standards; they appear to be arguments to strongly support a position. Is this true? Why?
• Why is it preferable to base calculations on "...mean epilimnetic values ...rather than the ranges or individual samples of extreme concentrations or samples collected throughout the water column."? Is this for convenience or custom in characterizing a large water body? Is it meaningful to average values, even though the lake's known morphometry clearly shows distinct divisions, like Geneva & Strawberry Sills separating the basins?
• Comparisons now seem to shift to other lakes that are not water supply reservoirs. Is this true? Why? Are we mixing and matching data fairly?
• The conclusion at the bottom of page 33 states: "...there is no indication of a trend in trophic parameters." Does this include HODR trends or only Chlorophyll a, Total Phosphorus & Secchi Depths? See paragraph 4, above.
• Figures 10, 11 & 12 show "Temporal Trends in Trophic Parameters". Can we also focus on data records by month over time to check for seasonal temporal trends in a chronological format?
• Page 35, last paragraph: has Entranco checked for HODR trends in Basin #1? (see P4. above)
Figure 16 on page 36 is a straight arithmetic graph, using data from 11 of last 15 years.
Why is it so important to prove Robin Matthews views toward HODR & its trends wrong?
• page 37: Explain why increasing detention time (hydraulic residence time) would not be a problem. The statement regarding fecal coliform destruction due to exposure to sunlight may be correct. However, it seems dilution in mid lake would largely mask this contamination.
• page 38: 2nd paragraph, re estimates of detention time, this reasoning needs to carefully explained in context, much better than the over simplified version stated quickly. Updates of morphometry will HELP explain water distribution and movement, but I fail to see how this will resolve anything, in and of itself.
• Regarding fecal coliform sampling: it seems too few samples are being taken at too infrequent intervals to provide reliable background data. Plus, when testing is being done, samples are being taken at the wrong places! What good does an average result do when it represents occasional mid-lake conditions? While water skiers and some others are in the water at mid-lake, a far greater number of people (and most children) usually swim at beaches or nearer shore. Are continuous (or semi-continuous) sampling devices or techniques available for use at public outfalls like Park Place Drain and Silver Creek and the public beach at Bloedel-Donovan Park? In examining King County's program in north Lake Washington, one has to be on one's toes to capture fecal coliform data during periodic "spikes". What is anticipated from discussions with the Bellingham School District? Funding? How frequently does the County Health Dept. look at this problem or post warnings? Would more citizen complaints help?
10. Fisheries (pages 41-46)
• Inclusion of data and associated interpretations from recent DOE Report seemed perfunctory and not completely integrated into this report. Statements like the last paragraph of page 45 seem to have been made without much thought, almost discounting the potential importance of this new data. The summary of toxic-related water quality problems based on the DOE report were exceedingly terse, failing to point out that this was the first time excessive levels of mercury were ever found in Lake Whatcom fish! One composite fish tissue sample IS important, precisely because it is an average of a toxic, bio-accumulative substance ingested by aquatic life that represents life in many parts of Lake Whatcom over years!
• 2nd bullet at bottom of page 41 estimates 2000 to 10,000 moralities (mortalities?)
• Loss of natural fish habitat due to practices causing silting, loss of cover, blockage and addition of toxics is a no-brainer. WDFW has been telling us that for years. HODR could also be an indicator of fish mortality or change in habitat. After all, bubbling air through aquariums is standard practice for those who want their fish to live for a while.
• Protection of fish species, in general, would be an ideal practice to prevent degradation of water quality. (Witness current ESA for salmon, etc) G-P and other industrial plants with effluent discharges routinely use "fish tests" to check for residual toxicity before releasing waste water into the environment. (canary in the mine)
• In some respects it seems the presence and use of fish hatcheries to reproduce fish serves the same purpose as a water treatment plant. That is, to give society a short-term reason not to abide by good rules to protect natural sustainability of resources.
11. Causes of Water Quality Problems (pages 47-55)
This short section adds little to what is already been said and, predictably, relies on future studies. There is no question that future study is needed, but I am more convinced than ever that a much more comprehensive program is needed in the interest of future generations.
http://www.ntcd.org/documents/DIMS_2007.pdf
It will be interesting to see what happens, how soon, and how the County decides to pay for it.
With that introduction, here's a little history on the subject of Stormwater and Lake Whatcom:
-----------------------------------------------------
On May 1 2002, I answered a Herald 'Hot-Seat' question from Gary Reid, then President of the BIA, with the following:
"That development is a primary cause of water quality degradation is generally true for any watershed, not just Lake Whatcom. This conclusion is rooted in widely accepted knowledge, based upon the extensive research of qualified experts. Our Lake Whatcom is special not only because it is the public water supply reservoir for over 85,000 people, but because it is a rarity in nature – a large lake of exceptional purity.
What a blessing it is for any community to have such a pure source of water! Many other cities, like Seattle, Tacoma, Everett and Portland, have chosen long ago to protect their essential water supplies against the risks of contamination and future unnecessary clean-up costs, by severely restricting uses in their reservoir watersheds.
The City of Bellingham and Whatcom County are only now becoming fully engaged in facing the serious problem of ensuring the sustainability of the Lake Whatcom Reservoir for future generations. It is the duty of these governments to tackle this task and to develop a sensible, effective approach that fairly takes into account the concerns of all potentially affected interests, most importantly citizens.
The so-called “Entranco Report” is one of the tasks identified in Phase I of the Lake Whatcom Comprehensive Stormwater Plan, and currently remains a work in progress, although an early draft was circulated for comment on November 22, 1999. Both City and County are working to improve stormwater runoff issues in this watershed, without waiting for this particular report to be finished before taking action."
==========================
ENTRANCO, a Bellevue based consultant with good credentials for stormwater work - but with minimal experience in working with public water supplies, like Lake Whatcom - was the firm selected for this work. So, predictably, the initial draft issued lacked adequate consideration of that essential point, and even seemed biased toward denial that the primary use of Lake Whatcom was as our source of drinking water!
The entire report is lengthy, now outdated, and was redone -after a 3-year delay- after peer review. Since that time, little has changed regarding actual progress on a County Comprehensive Stormwater Plan for Lake Whatcom.
Anyway, in late 1999, I did take strong exception to ENTRANCO's draft report, and my initial comments, submitted on 12/4/1999, are listed below. Later, I reviewed this report in much greater depth to see what might have been the motivation for the short-cuts that were being touted, and that was most revealing! Those comments are also posted below.
My apologies -again- for the reference to a lengthy document that is not immediately accessible. Despite that, these comments do reflect some very specific concerns that may not require reading of the Draft Report to understand.
-----------------------------------------------------
Initial Comments:
1. No new "solutions", data or conclusions have been offered. This seems merely a $35,000 summarization of existing reports for someone's convenience of review. Is this what was intended?
Additionally, summary comments like these two, found on page iii of the Introduction, seem particulary inane, misleading and out of place in view of the non-comprehensive scope of this work:
"Based on our work, there have not been any notable trends in water quality over the last ten years."
"Although scientists have agreed to disagree on the dissolved oxygen trends in Basin 1 of Lake Whatcom, we do not think it would be productive for the scientific community or the public to continue the dissolved oxygen debate."
Frankly, I'm disappointed that no real expertise or advice over what has already been heard is being offered by the consultants. This may be due to a combination of factors, including
(1) initial limitation of scope and budget (who wrote it? & who decided the budget?),
(2) a measure of timidity in the face of a politically charged atmosphere surrounding the Reservoir,
(3) a failure to identify persons with the right training & experience (relating to drinking water source protection) to
(a) analyze the problem in depth,
(b) write the scope/approach required,
(c) estimate the costs,
(d) get all the necessary funding,
(e) select & supervise the consultants and
(f) interpret the results correctly.
2. The Bellingham community wants and deserves a much more comprehensive study approach, oriented toward preserving our resource, not just continuing to test the water and eventually having to recommend expensive actions to fix problems that we know are occurring now and will continue to occur at an accelerated pace with more development.
This study limits itself to a business as usual approach in primarily addressing only structural remedies, which are always more costly and less reliable than non-stuctural methods. It seems the essential cost/benefit analysis of alternatives will have to be done without the possibility of comparing the least expensive and more effective choices! This approach makes no sense at all and deserves to be called stupid and shortsighted.
Why is the Lake Whatcom Management Team continuing to take this easy, short-term approach despite the growing concern of the 66,000 citizens dependent on the lake for their drinking water, who are demanding a more effective program to be conceived, funded and carried out?
3. Like the recently issued DOE report, which used the words "Drinking Water" in its title, this report makes the same mistake of comparing Lake Whatcom's watershed to other "Urban Watersheds" and not other Drinking Water Reservoirs!
Why does this mindset persist, despite repeated requests for this specific comparison? DOE water standards have little to do with drinking water standards, except as a first line of defense in the potable water supply.
Drinking water standards are administered by the Dept of Health, and their importance is never mentioned in this report.
A big part of the problem might be that between the DOE & DOH standards lies a big, expensive "gray area" called a water treatment plant, which the City had to build in 1968 and subsequently upgraded at a cost exceeding $50 million, paid for by taxpayers and water drinkers.
Many who live in the watershed or own property there, do not participate in this expense, and therefore may not see it as their problem, preferring to "externalize" it to the City. Accountability for the water quality entering this plant is therefore lacking.
Without appreciating the necessity for the water to be anything other than "treatable", we have created a problem that will continue to escalate. Indeed, we could design a plant to produce drinking water from sewage, but costs would be astronomical (as in NASA). The Navy & Saudi Arabia both produce their drinking water from seawater, also quite expensive. Other exotic treatment methods also exist, all proven but expensive.
But, with a wonderful natural freshwater source like Lake Whatcom, who in their right mind would willfully (or even unwittingly after knowing the "lake" is actually a "reservoir") pollute it, risking health & ecology in the process and ultimately condemning the citizens to paying for expensive, and largely avoidable, treatment?
DOE is not enforcing its mandate of keeping the lake "fishable & swimmable", which in itself would go a long way toward meeting drinking water reservoir standards. At the high fecal coliform levels now in the lake, children and immune-deficient people are already in particular danger. Also, according to DFW, the two native trout species are near extinction due to lack of the habitat necessary for species to reproduce naturally. Run-off from dumps, development, recreation activities & impervious surfaces is adding nutrients, metals & other toxics to the lake every day, further accelerating degradation of the waterbody. And yet, this report is able to conclude:
"Based on our work, there have not been any notable trends in water quality over the last ten years."!
I wonder just what "work" this is based on, other than a review and regurgitation of previous, inadequate reports?
Its very difficult to see any real value to the community added by this exercise, especially since it blatantly ignores
(a) the fecal coliform 303(d) listings,
(b) recent mercury findings in fish tissues,
(c) imminent listing of fish species specific to Lake Whatcom,
(d) the revelation that between 600 and 7500 new homes are apparently expected to be built in the watershed during the next several years,
(e) near passage of Proposition 1, which would have raised $4 million/year for 20 years to purchase land in the watershed as natural buffer, eliminating development,
(f) Dr. Robin Matthews' recent study showing an unusual jump in oxygen depletion levels in Basins 1 & 2,
(g) the real possibility of losing or lessening the Middle Nooksack Diversion flow for ESA purposes,
just to name a few "notable" events happening recently.
Is it possible these are indicative of a "trend"?
Is it possible that Lake Whatcom is not getting the attention it deserves because Bellingham is not yet a city of over 100,000 and does not have sufficient jurisdictional control over protection of this resource? That seems to be EPA's guideline.
But, to complicate things further, EPA then delegates its Clean Water Act responsibilities to DOE and its Clean Drinking Water Act responsibilities to DOH. Where do these different responsibilities recombine?
What is the County Health Department's role?
Perhaps our Lake Whatcom Reservoir is such a unique watershed, already complicated by "multiple uses", that our Federal/State agencies are confused over who does what & what to do? As tempting as it is to blame these remote government agencies, the real responsibility for demanding proper attention is with us, the local community, both citizenry and County & City governments, to first recognize the true nature of the Lake Whatcom Reservoir problem and then to comprehensively initiate the necessary studies and require the necessary actions be taken, preferably before really bad things do happen. This takes political will, leadership and informed action, despite vested interests who might prefer not to hear about potential problems or participate in their solution for the benefit of future public health.
The Olympic Pipe Line Disaster should have already demonstrated to us what can happen if ignorance, complacency and lack of adequate regulations & enforcement persist too long! It also demonstrates what power the local community has to effect change, when it is clearly needed.
4. Future study work should undoubtedly include modelling, which can be an effective tool for predicting future water quality effects resulting from increasing use of the watershed for human activity. But this modelling itself must be based upon enough data to comprehensively characterize the watershed! For such a model to be fully effective, proper non-structural elements, such as zoning & land use parameters, buffers for critical areas, stormwater performance standards and the like, need to be put firmly in place.
Where will this additional data come from?
Who will define it, develop it, pay for it, use it?
How long will it take to put an effective watershed plan into practice?
These are the questions our community is expecting to have answered. Please tell us what it will take to get these questions answered! If the expertise to obtain comprehensive answers to these important technical questions is not available locally or in Seattle, then let's search for professional help elswhere.
The Lake Whatcom Management Team needs to recognize this as a top public health priority and give it the attention and funding it deserves! In the mean time, time is passing....
=======================================
Entranco Report - Additional Comments
I have now studied this report and watched the video of the 11/17/99 public meeting. Here are additional comments to complete my initial feedback to this report. Although the report does pull together diverse information of interest, particularly on applicable regulations, its overall added value to the LWM Program remains problematic and marginal in my view. The results of the Peer Review Committee [PRC} review process will be of major interest.
1. My expectation (and apparently that of others, per Chris Spens' comments at the meeting) was that ALL prior data, covering decades, would be reviewed, not just the last 10 years as stated by Dale Anderson. Who decided only one decade would be considered instead of several?
2. I believe it is necessary to scrupulously separate fact from opinion, and carefully define what is meant by "notable" trends. Something that might not show a definite trend over 10 years, might well show a "notable" trend over several decades (like HODR calculations-see below).
3. Regarding the statement regarding "disagreeing scientists" and whether "debate" over HODR levels/trends is important. I believe this is critically important for the same reasons cited on page 23 of the report:
a) It is the basis for DOE's 303(d) listing of the lake, demonstrating a clear trend toward accelerating eutrophication, an early indication of water degradation in Basin 1, violating of DOE's "Antidegradation Policy".
b) If degradation is established, then:
• "beneficial use" may be considered impaired;
(note Entranco interprets this as NOT directly prohibiting pollution discharges and NOT meaning observed changes in concentrations of particular parameters indicative of water quality, but that 'impairment' must actually be proven to occur! Should the burden of proof of actual impairment be on water drinkers, swimmers and fish? I don't think so! This is why a comprehensive EIS approach is needed to wisely guide future activities in this uniquely valuable watershed. If DOE has reason to conclude that impairment is happening (as indicated by the HODR trend) then we need to listen to them! This type of trend would not likely be apparent to anyone but experts who have long term experience in testing Lake Whatcom, and we should be glad to have an early warning of accelerating eutrophication in Basin 1, whether this can be proven as indicative of the entire lake's condition or not! )
• evaluation and implementation of all reasonable options are required to prevent deterioration of water quality;
• activities causing pollution in the watershed can be regulated and prohibited if not found to be in the public interest.
This appears to be a very high stakes game! Perhaps we should change the game and raise the ante by getting another impartial opinion from an acknowledged expert from outside the Northwest with this expertise, if one can be found.
4. It is readily apparent that much effort has been devoted to discrediting or discounting the DOE 303(d) listing based on HODR trends in Basin 1, to the point that I am reminded of the Shakespearean phrase "methinks she doth protest too much". I plotted the data shown in Appendix B myself. Here are my findings:
a) Based on conventional arithmetic graphing, followed by averaging of DOE & Envirovision calculation results and visually plotting a trend line, a definite UP trend is indicated, approximating 5.8 HODR units per year.
b) I plotted both sets of data on semi-log graph paper. Slight trends could be noted visually in both cases, using data taken over the last 10 years, however, because of the small scale used and data scatter, accurate visual trend determination was difficult.
I re-plotted the data, using data reciprocals (1/x) and was able to see more clearly slight trends in each of the data sets, which appeared to agree fairly closely with each other. This encouraged further examination.
c) I then tried a computerized graphical technique in use for years for evaluating and forecasting stock trend data like sales and earnings per share over time. This technique uses 10-year historical data to forecast future values based on extrapolation of least-squares trend lines on semi-log paper. (abscissa = year; ordinate = values)
Both DOE data and Envirovision data were plotted side by side for comparison. The resulting plots further confirmed the prior visual observations, and also assigned per cent "growth" values to each of the trend lines based on their respective slopes.
The DOE data showed +2% per year historic "growth" over the years 1988-1997. Using the "Rule of 72", it would take 72/2 = 36 years for the 1997 HODR calculation to double in value (415 to 830), assuming this "growth" trend continues that long.
The Envirovision data showed +2.5% per year historic "growth" over the same period. At this continued rate of "growth", about 28.8 years would be required to double the 1997 HODR value (347 to 694). Compounding 2.5% "growth" for another 7 years (total of 35.8) on 694, results in a total of 825, very close to the 36-year total projected for the DOE data.
This indicates that both sets of data agree closely in their respective 36-year projections. I would welcome verification of both the technique used, results obtained and their interpretation by those more knowledgeable in these areas.
5. The HODR question won't just go away despite any debate. Does HODR show a measurable change from natural conditions or not? (per page 24) If meaningful trends can be determined by this method, or another, as an early warning, so much the better. We know that even pristine lakes undergo natural degradation, but this process may require a thousand years or more. We also know that this process is accelerated greatly by development. The point is, let's find out as soon as possible, the rate of degradation happening in Lake Whatcom, basin by basin, so that we have a better chance of arresting this slow degradation and sustaining beneficial uses. Future loss of the Nooksack Diversion would only exacerbate the situation by reducing turnover substantially.
Additionally, Lake Whatcom may be a truly unique, "atypical" water body, given its rare combination of hydrology and beneficial uses which include drinking water supply. What other lakes have been identified that truly compare in all these aspects? Who has actual experience in protecting these? What methods are most effective, both in terms of water quality and costs? How could a program be instituted here to insure a safe and sustainable water source for our chidren and beyond?
6. Assignment of specific "Issues & Problems" to each of the three "Beneficial Uses" (pages v, vi, vii/viii) needs additional explanation. In reality, I suspect these may be interrelated in varying degrees. For example, Eutrophication and HODR issues are assigned to the beneficial use of Recreation. Is this specifically correct or somewhat arbitrary to simplify presentation of data? In a multi-use lake, where all uses are considered important and interrelated, substantial overlap of "Issues & Problems" seems likely. In this respect I can visualize using three circles, labelled A (Drinking Water Supply), B (Recreation) and C (Fisheries & Other Aquatic Life). Each circle, containing its own quality criteria, overlaps the other two to some extent. Where all three circles commonly overlap should define the area of main interest and criticality, like a syllogism in logic. If such a holistic approach makes better sense, then let's use it to guide our future efforts.
7. Now that reasonable funding has been made available for two years and assignments like this water quality assessment are finally getting done, efficiency seems important and it is, providing we're doing the important things correctly and in proper sequence.
However, accountability is even more important since this is necessary in assuring the very credibility of the work done to the public. To date, I feel there has been a lack of accountability to either the public or those of us in elected office in disclosing the overall efficacy of the program we are pursuing.
While the tasks and objectives shown in the annual work plan generally follow the goals of the Joint Resolution, it is not clear that a long term course of action is in place that clearly prioritizes prevention/protection over structural remedies and institutionalizes the path toward preserving our most valuable water resource.
If the program visualized is believed to be truly comprehensive and likely to be effective, why the continued reluctance to open the decision-making sessions to the public? Many in the community who would like to be more a part of this are being systematically excluded from the process and find this increasingly troubling. In a situation this important, sensitive and politically charged, it would seem prudent to let this process be done in daylight. That also happens to be State Law.
8. Water Supply System (pages 5-21)
Thanks for including this section. It's nice to see this summarized in one place.
A few questions & comments:
• It would be particularly valuable to see what changes in conditions occurred before 1968, when building the City's water treatment plant was justified at major public expense.
• Same comment regarding Water District #10 water treatment plant.
• The JMM 1986 Study made comparisons of Lake Whatcom raw water with several other UNTREATED water supplies on the West Coast. This is a meaningful comparison basis and should be done in every case.
• It is troubling to read on page 8, 1st paragraph, that "Impacts are not based on the changes of concentrations of contaminants within Lake Whatcom (source water), but rather on whether a particular beneficial use is impaired." and, "It is understood that the goal of the water purveyors and their customers is to prevent any degradation of the drinking water or to have water that imparts no or minimum risk." This means that its the PURVEYOR's problem if raw water is degraded! Is that correct? Where's the teeth in PREVENTION!
Even worse, "...water quality for the purveyors is compared to existing regulations, rather than anticipated future regulations." This seems to mean purveyors can't do anything but react to changing conditions, after they have occurred, and at their cost! Incredible!
• The discussion of MCL's and their enforceability is both interesting and frustrating.
For example, on page 9 last paragraph, reads: "We apply the MCL to samples collected in Lake Whatcom, for comparison purposes only, because the level of a contaminant in the source water does not relate to the concentration in the treated water." This seems to confirm that any escalation in source water contaminant level must be duly noted by the purveyor, who then must adjust its treatment technology accordingly. Again, where's the teeth in prevention of pollution? It seems the DOH is only there to monitor and advise the purveyor when its in trouble.
• Page 12 notes that the WWU monitoring program focusses on parameters that are not regulated by primary or secondary drinking water standards, and that none which have associated MCL's showed exceedences. Is this why the HODR "debate" is not considered important?
• The section on Pathogens is not comforting. What it says is that we are at risk for anything chlorination can't kill. No more sewage overflows!
• Regarding who pays for degradation effects, the principle should be "he who pollutes, pays". No subsidies by taxpayers or ratepayers for polluters! LID-type permit & latecomers fees.
• Example from California per 12/9/99 San Francisco Chronicle article:
New Los Vaqueros Reservoir, north of Livermore- (restricted use/no development)
20,000 acres vs 31,500 acres in Lake Whatcom watershed (63.5%)
100,000 acre-feet vs 774,000 acre-feet in Lake Whatcom (13.5%)
400,000 ratepayers vs 65,000 in Lake Whatcom (615%)
320 gpd average daily use vs 236 gpd in Lake Whatcom area (136%)
$42/month average water bill vs $18.50 in Lake Whatcom area (227%)
$10-$12/month = portion of water bill attributed to reservoir cost (23.8% to 28.6%)
$450 million = cost of 1988 bond issue (12 years to construct dam + pipeline & pumps from Central Valley + environmental mitigation + management of 20,000 acre watershed (ongoing)
9. Recreation (pages 21-41)
• It is interesting that this particular beneficial use was given this much space, and that this is where coverage of DOE's antidegradation policy, State Water Quality Standards & HODR is given. Is this because recreation uses cannot depend on a treatment plant for purification?
• The arguments given on page 29-41 seem to do more than report standards; they appear to be arguments to strongly support a position. Is this true? Why?
• Why is it preferable to base calculations on "...mean epilimnetic values ...rather than the ranges or individual samples of extreme concentrations or samples collected throughout the water column."? Is this for convenience or custom in characterizing a large water body? Is it meaningful to average values, even though the lake's known morphometry clearly shows distinct divisions, like Geneva & Strawberry Sills separating the basins?
• Comparisons now seem to shift to other lakes that are not water supply reservoirs. Is this true? Why? Are we mixing and matching data fairly?
• The conclusion at the bottom of page 33 states: "...there is no indication of a trend in trophic parameters." Does this include HODR trends or only Chlorophyll a, Total Phosphorus & Secchi Depths? See paragraph 4, above.
• Figures 10, 11 & 12 show "Temporal Trends in Trophic Parameters". Can we also focus on data records by month over time to check for seasonal temporal trends in a chronological format?
• Page 35, last paragraph: has Entranco checked for HODR trends in Basin #1? (see P4. above)
Figure 16 on page 36 is a straight arithmetic graph, using data from 11 of last 15 years.
Why is it so important to prove Robin Matthews views toward HODR & its trends wrong?
• page 37: Explain why increasing detention time (hydraulic residence time) would not be a problem. The statement regarding fecal coliform destruction due to exposure to sunlight may be correct. However, it seems dilution in mid lake would largely mask this contamination.
• page 38: 2nd paragraph, re estimates of detention time, this reasoning needs to carefully explained in context, much better than the over simplified version stated quickly. Updates of morphometry will HELP explain water distribution and movement, but I fail to see how this will resolve anything, in and of itself.
• Regarding fecal coliform sampling: it seems too few samples are being taken at too infrequent intervals to provide reliable background data. Plus, when testing is being done, samples are being taken at the wrong places! What good does an average result do when it represents occasional mid-lake conditions? While water skiers and some others are in the water at mid-lake, a far greater number of people (and most children) usually swim at beaches or nearer shore. Are continuous (or semi-continuous) sampling devices or techniques available for use at public outfalls like Park Place Drain and Silver Creek and the public beach at Bloedel-Donovan Park? In examining King County's program in north Lake Washington, one has to be on one's toes to capture fecal coliform data during periodic "spikes". What is anticipated from discussions with the Bellingham School District? Funding? How frequently does the County Health Dept. look at this problem or post warnings? Would more citizen complaints help?
10. Fisheries (pages 41-46)
• Inclusion of data and associated interpretations from recent DOE Report seemed perfunctory and not completely integrated into this report. Statements like the last paragraph of page 45 seem to have been made without much thought, almost discounting the potential importance of this new data. The summary of toxic-related water quality problems based on the DOE report were exceedingly terse, failing to point out that this was the first time excessive levels of mercury were ever found in Lake Whatcom fish! One composite fish tissue sample IS important, precisely because it is an average of a toxic, bio-accumulative substance ingested by aquatic life that represents life in many parts of Lake Whatcom over years!
• 2nd bullet at bottom of page 41 estimates 2000 to 10,000 moralities (mortalities?)
• Loss of natural fish habitat due to practices causing silting, loss of cover, blockage and addition of toxics is a no-brainer. WDFW has been telling us that for years. HODR could also be an indicator of fish mortality or change in habitat. After all, bubbling air through aquariums is standard practice for those who want their fish to live for a while.
• Protection of fish species, in general, would be an ideal practice to prevent degradation of water quality. (Witness current ESA for salmon, etc) G-P and other industrial plants with effluent discharges routinely use "fish tests" to check for residual toxicity before releasing waste water into the environment. (canary in the mine)
• In some respects it seems the presence and use of fish hatcheries to reproduce fish serves the same purpose as a water treatment plant. That is, to give society a short-term reason not to abide by good rules to protect natural sustainability of resources.
11. Causes of Water Quality Problems (pages 47-55)
This short section adds little to what is already been said and, predictably, relies on future studies. There is no question that future study is needed, but I am more convinced than ever that a much more comprehensive program is needed in the interest of future generations.
Thursday, August 23, 2007
Lake Whatcom: BLOG Feedback & Lake Tahoe Ideas
I do get feedback on my blog from time to time, and want to acknowledge some of the opinions and ideas expressed.
My early postings were targeted at contemporary actions regarding growth discussions, plus some political intrigue that got me into hot water for a while - which is OK because it comes with the territory I've ventured into.
Since then, I've mostly focused on background information related to long-term issues. These have tended to be longer pieces that require some fortitude to wade through - or at least that's the comment I've mostly heard. Longer, more technical articles just aren't as readable, understandable or as stimulating and current as many blog readers would prefer. I can dig that, because I feel the same way.
So, I will now try to jazz things up a little, to be fairer to those who don't prefer to be policy or issue wonks, but would like a little more bite-sized contemporary commentary instead. But, before I do that let me explain that all of these long historical pieces are eventually intended to provide background for future blogs of a much more contemporary nature.
OK, that said, here goes:
Item 1: Now that the Primary Election has chosen the two finalists in the race for Mayor of Bellingham, I have decided to support Dan Pike in the General Election. I have several reasons for making this choice which will be saved for later discussion in a future posting.
Item 2: Myron Wlaznak's opinion piece in today's WIndy skewered all incumbents for claiming credit for all sorts of things which have either not been done, or attempted, or for which they deserve little credit. As one of those 'incumbents' myself, I agree with Myron! He has to be happy that I have become the 'lamest of ducks' by imposing a voluntary term limit on myself and not running for re-election.
But let me also say that being a Council Member -either City or County- only gives one a ticket to the dance. Once there, one has to pick their partners, learn the steps and keep time to the music. All that's got to be done before anything gets initiated by any member, with half a chance of passing. It's a team sport, not a solo ballet!
Legislative authority consists of two parts - setting policy & law, and approving the budget. But, in Weak Council/Strong Mayor or Executive forms of government, Councils must speak with one voice to get the attention of the Mayor/Executive! The Mayor/Executive manages the entire professional staff and names each of the Department Heads -who serve at the Executive's sole discretion. So, be careful with who gets to be the Executive!
One really frustrating recent example -from my perspective - is the 'non-direction' that the City Council gave the Mayor & Staff regarding raising additional funding for preservation of the Lake Whatcom Watershed. Despite the unanimous recommendations of the Watershed Advisory Board to secure additional funding as soon as possible, we were only able to get THREE votes to direct staff to even bring us a proposal! Mind you, that is not the same thing as approving a water rate change - it was to get staff to bring us a proposal!
FOUR members didn't want to do that, so it didn't happen. Members who favored having such a proposal brought forward were Barbara Ryan, Terry Bornemann and yours truly. That, despite Lake Whatcom being touted as one of our top priorities! Do your own math to see who didn't want to do anything. Then, get back to me - or better yet the voters - about what to do about it.
-----------------
Hey, Myron, you know all this stuff is written right there in the Council minutes, plus you can even get in your LAZ-E-BOY and watch it happen on BTV10 in the comfort of your own home, with beer, popcorn, your trusty dog by your side and the bathroom nearby!
PS- I do hope Sasha is doing better after her operation
-----------------
Item 3: For those up to a little more 'background', here's some stuff on how Lake Tahoe is trying to manage its growth to minimize long-term damage to its chief asset -its water!
===========================================================================
Over 25 years ago, the Tahoe Regional Planning Authority [TRPA] was created by Presidential Decree [That would be the President of the US!].
It's purpose was to protect Lake Tahoe from continued rapid deterioration of its water quality from excessive development in its watershed. This level of authority was appropriate because about 27 different jurisdictions were involved, including 2 states, 5 counties and numerous cities and other entities. Does this REMIND you of anything local?
Needless to say, the creation of TRPA was controversial, as it remains to this day. But, it seems to have achieved a large part of its purpose - that of advising all concerned that Lake Tahoe is a special place that requires special behavior, stictly enforced by special regulations!
Readers interested in more detail may appreciate the information contained at the following URL:
http://www.ceres.ca.gov/trpa/suitumbr.html
----------------------------------------------
Of particular interest are excerpts from ~ pages 6-8 - ORDINANCES AND CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISION INVOLVED
With regard to future residential development, in particular, the plan seeks to accomplish three major objectives:
(1) to place a ceiling on the total amount of residential development that may occur in the Basin;
(2) to control the pace of development by limiting the number of building permits that may be issued each year; and
(3) to limit the amount of impervious coverage resulting from permitted development. A major tool for achieving the water quality goal is prohibiting further development in SEZs ["stream environment zone"]
Eligibility of a particular parcel for future residential development turns on an assessment of the physical suitability of the parcel for such development. To build a single family home or other residential unit, a property owner must have three rights: a "residential development right," a "residential allocation," and "land coverage."
A "residential development right" represents the right to have a residential unit on an eligible parcel of land.
A "residential allocation" is necessary to construct a residence in a specific calendar year.
"Land coverage" is the maximum percentage of impervious coverage of the surface allowed.
These three property interests correspond to the 1987 Plan's objectives of limiting long term residential development, the annual pace of that development, and the amount of impervious coverage.
Although each private owner of a vacant residential parcel automatically receives one "residential development right" (TRPA Code ß 21.6.A), entitlement to a "residential allocation" and to "land coverage" turns primarily on an individual assessment of the parcel's suitability for development.
Each parcel receives a numeric score -- Individual Parcel Evaluation System (IPES) -- that reflects the predictable effect of the parcel's development on the water quality of the Lake. TRPA Code Chap. 37.
The IPES score determines the "land coverage" assigned to that parcel. TRPA Code ßß 20.3.A(4), 37.11.
The IPES score is also relevant to the parcel's eligibility for receiving a "residential allocation" in a specific calendar year. Id. ß 37.8.
There are a total of 300 residential allocations available each year in order to control the pace of development. TRPA Code ß 33.2.A(3).
Only parcels with a certain minimum score are eligible for development in a given year. Id. ß 37.8.E
The minimum score may decrease over time if certain conditions are met. Id. ß 37.8.C.
A "stream environment zone" (SEZ), however, receives a score of zero and is ineligible for residential development at any time. Id. ß 20.4.B.
The 1987 TRPA Plan combines development restrictions with significant property rights enhancements designed both to achieve a more equitable sharing of the burdens and benefits resulting from the restrictions and to steer residential development to the most physically suitable locations.
Every property owner is allowed to sell certain transferable development rights (TDRs) to owners of other eligible properties.
There are three potentially transferable development rights:
residential development rights;
residential allocations; and
land coverage.
A property owner may sell his "residential development right." A likely purchaser of such a right would be an individual who wants to have more than one residential unit on his property. Id. ßß 21.6.C, 34.2.
A property owner may also be eligible to sell or otherwise transfer his "residential allocation." Id. ß 34.3.[6]
Finally, the owner may sell whatever "land coverage" to which the owner is entitled to another eligible landowner. The purchaser of that land coverage would, based on that purchase, have the right to undertake a development project requiring more land coverage than he was initially assigned under the plan. TRPA Code ß 20.3.C. The seller of such development rights must record deed restrictions on his land notifying all that such rights no longer pertain to his parcel. Id. ßß 20.3.C(7), 34.2.B, 34.3.G, 34.5.
A property owner whose parcel of land is determined to be entirely SEZ property receives an IPES score of zero. TRPA Code ß 37.4.A(3). That land is not eligible for residential development.
With a few exceptions, SEZ property cannot be used for the construction of permanent structures because of the adverse impact of such development on the water quality of Lake Tahoe. Id. ß 20.4.B.
Just like other private owners of vacant residential lots in the Basin, however, the owner of SEZ property may sell the TDRs that arise out of his ownership of his parcel, including land coverage, residential development right, and residential allocation, to another. TRPA Code ßß 20.3.C, 34.2, 34.3.
In addition to the one residential development right to which each private owner of vacant residential property is entitled, the owner of an SEZ property may earn up to three additional residential bonus units. The owner earns and is assigned those units upon TRPA approval of the sale or transfer of his initial residential development right. Id. ßß 35.2.C, 35.2.D(4).[7] The bonus units provide mitigation for the stringent development restrictions applicable to the land itself. Many owners of SEZ property have successfully obtained and sold bonus units. See J.A. 148.
The owner of SEZ property also receives land coverage rights equal to one percent of his land. TRPA Code ß 37.11.B(1).
The relatively low land coverage percentage reflects the environmentally sensitive character of the land upon which the percentage is based. Id. ß 37.11.A.
Finally, the SEZ owner may apply for a residential allocation in any particular year and, if awarded an allocation, sell it for application to an eligible property in the Basin. Id. ß 33.2.B.[8]...."
SEE ALSO:
~page 20: CHAPTER 20 - LAND COVERAGE STANDARDS
~page 24: CHAPTER 21- DENSITY
~page 26: CHAPTER 25- BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICE REQUIREMENTS & CHAPTER 33- ALLOCATION OF DEVELOPMENT
~page 29: CHAPTER 34- TRANSFER OF DEVELOPMENT
~page 32: CHAPTER 35- BONUS UNIT INCENTIVE PROGRAM
~page 33: CHAPTER 37- Individual Parcel Evaluation System (of particular interest)
37.11 Allowable Base Land Coverage: The allowable base land coverage for residential parcels evaluated under IPES shall be a function of the parcel's combined score under the IPES criteria for relative erosion hazard and runoff potential as correlated with the coverage coefficients and land capability districts of the Bailey Report.
The allowable base land coverage under IPES shall be established in accordance with the following procedures and shall be considered for adoption by TRPA no later than January 1, 1989.
37.11.A Procedure For Establishing Allowable Base Land Coverage: Once eligible parcels have received a score under IPES, and TRPA has taken action on requests for reevaluation pursuant to Subsection 37.10.C, the percentage of allowable base land coverage shall be established by TRPA in accordance with the following procedures:
(a) Based on the soil series and average slope determined by the IPES evaluation teams, all parcels receiving a score under IPES shall be identified as to which of the seven capability classes established in the Bailey Report each parcel would have been classified. Parcels determined by the IPES evaluation teams to be located in a soil series not identified in the report entitled "Soil Survey, Tahoe Basin Area, California and Nevada," prepared by the Soil Conservation Service and Forest Service and dated March 1974, shall be excluded from this procedure.
(b) The combined scores for Relative Erosion Hazard and Runoff Potential representing the central tendency within each capability class shall be determined. The central tendency shall be described by determining the mode value, or by alternative statistical methods, including mean or median values, whichever is appropriate.
(c) The central tendency scores established in (b), above, shall be plotted, in graph form, against percentages of allowable base land coverage ranging from one percent to thirty percent. The central tendency score for Land Capability Districts 1a, 1c, and 2, shall be plotted at one percent; for Land Capability District 3 at five percent; for Land Capability District 4 at 20 percent; for Land Capability District 5 at 25 percent; and for Land Capability Districts 6 and 7 at 30 percent. If the central tendency scores of any of the capability classes set forth in (c), above, are determined to be statistically indistinguishable, such classes shall be combined for purposes of establishing a central tendency score. If capability classes are combined, the central tendency score shall be plotted at the percentage that is the average of the percentages established for those classes in Subsection 20.3.A of the TRPA Code.
(d) TRPA shall develop a formula for a line passing through the points of central tendency plotted in accordance with (c), above. No parcel shall be allowed more than 30 percent, or less than one percent base land coverage.
(e) Allowable base land coverage for parcels receiving a score under IPES shall be established in accordance with the formula developed in (d), above.
37.11.B Application Of Allowable Base Land Coverage Percentages: The percentages of allowable base land coverage established in accordance with Section 37.11 shall be applied as follows to determine the total allowable base land coverage:
(1) Parcels Of 1/3 Acre Or Less In Size: The percentage of allowable base land coverage shall be applied to the entire parcel area, except in cases where the parcel contains areas classified as SEZ or backshore. In such cases, the percentage of allowable base land coverage shall be applied to only that area outside the SEZ and backshore. The allowable base land coverage of one percent in the SEZ and backshore may be combined with the allowable base land coverage for the remainder of the parcel to establish a total allowable base land coverage for the parcel. A portion of the total allowable base land coverage for the parcel may be used to allow construction of access only through the SEZ, provided TRPA makes the findings required in Subparagraph 20.4.B(1), and through the backshore, provided TRPA makes the findings required in Section 55.4.
(2) Parcels Greater Than 1/3 Acre But Less Than 5 Acres In Size: The percentage of allowable base land coverage shall be applied to the 1/3 acre evaluated by the evaluation team. If the owner of the parcel is able to identify a larger and contiguous area that has the same characteristics as the 1/3 acre originally evaluated and TRPA concurs, the percentage of allowable base land coverage shall be applied to the larger area. Allowable base land coverage on parcels that contain a SEZ shall be calculated in accordance with Subparagraph (1) above.
(3) Parcels Of Five Acres Or Greater In Size: The percentage of allowable base land coverage shall be applied to all that portion of the parcel that the evaluation team identifies as having the same characteristics as and being contiguous to the area evaluated.
-------------------------------
My early postings were targeted at contemporary actions regarding growth discussions, plus some political intrigue that got me into hot water for a while - which is OK because it comes with the territory I've ventured into.
Since then, I've mostly focused on background information related to long-term issues. These have tended to be longer pieces that require some fortitude to wade through - or at least that's the comment I've mostly heard. Longer, more technical articles just aren't as readable, understandable or as stimulating and current as many blog readers would prefer. I can dig that, because I feel the same way.
So, I will now try to jazz things up a little, to be fairer to those who don't prefer to be policy or issue wonks, but would like a little more bite-sized contemporary commentary instead. But, before I do that let me explain that all of these long historical pieces are eventually intended to provide background for future blogs of a much more contemporary nature.
OK, that said, here goes:
Item 1: Now that the Primary Election has chosen the two finalists in the race for Mayor of Bellingham, I have decided to support Dan Pike in the General Election. I have several reasons for making this choice which will be saved for later discussion in a future posting.
Item 2: Myron Wlaznak's opinion piece in today's WIndy skewered all incumbents for claiming credit for all sorts of things which have either not been done, or attempted, or for which they deserve little credit. As one of those 'incumbents' myself, I agree with Myron! He has to be happy that I have become the 'lamest of ducks' by imposing a voluntary term limit on myself and not running for re-election.
But let me also say that being a Council Member -either City or County- only gives one a ticket to the dance. Once there, one has to pick their partners, learn the steps and keep time to the music. All that's got to be done before anything gets initiated by any member, with half a chance of passing. It's a team sport, not a solo ballet!
Legislative authority consists of two parts - setting policy & law, and approving the budget. But, in Weak Council/Strong Mayor or Executive forms of government, Councils must speak with one voice to get the attention of the Mayor/Executive! The Mayor/Executive manages the entire professional staff and names each of the Department Heads -who serve at the Executive's sole discretion. So, be careful with who gets to be the Executive!
One really frustrating recent example -from my perspective - is the 'non-direction' that the City Council gave the Mayor & Staff regarding raising additional funding for preservation of the Lake Whatcom Watershed. Despite the unanimous recommendations of the Watershed Advisory Board to secure additional funding as soon as possible, we were only able to get THREE votes to direct staff to even bring us a proposal! Mind you, that is not the same thing as approving a water rate change - it was to get staff to bring us a proposal!
FOUR members didn't want to do that, so it didn't happen. Members who favored having such a proposal brought forward were Barbara Ryan, Terry Bornemann and yours truly. That, despite Lake Whatcom being touted as one of our top priorities! Do your own math to see who didn't want to do anything. Then, get back to me - or better yet the voters - about what to do about it.
-----------------
Hey, Myron, you know all this stuff is written right there in the Council minutes, plus you can even get in your LAZ-E-BOY and watch it happen on BTV10 in the comfort of your own home, with beer, popcorn, your trusty dog by your side and the bathroom nearby!
PS- I do hope Sasha is doing better after her operation
-----------------
Item 3: For those up to a little more 'background', here's some stuff on how Lake Tahoe is trying to manage its growth to minimize long-term damage to its chief asset -its water!
===========================================================================
Over 25 years ago, the Tahoe Regional Planning Authority [TRPA] was created by Presidential Decree [That would be the President of the US!].
It's purpose was to protect Lake Tahoe from continued rapid deterioration of its water quality from excessive development in its watershed. This level of authority was appropriate because about 27 different jurisdictions were involved, including 2 states, 5 counties and numerous cities and other entities. Does this REMIND you of anything local?
Needless to say, the creation of TRPA was controversial, as it remains to this day. But, it seems to have achieved a large part of its purpose - that of advising all concerned that Lake Tahoe is a special place that requires special behavior, stictly enforced by special regulations!
Readers interested in more detail may appreciate the information contained at the following URL:
http://www.ceres.ca.gov/trpa/suitumbr.html
----------------------------------------------
Of particular interest are excerpts from ~ pages 6-8 - ORDINANCES AND CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISION INVOLVED
With regard to future residential development, in particular, the plan seeks to accomplish three major objectives:
(1) to place a ceiling on the total amount of residential development that may occur in the Basin;
(2) to control the pace of development by limiting the number of building permits that may be issued each year; and
(3) to limit the amount of impervious coverage resulting from permitted development. A major tool for achieving the water quality goal is prohibiting further development in SEZs ["stream environment zone"]
Eligibility of a particular parcel for future residential development turns on an assessment of the physical suitability of the parcel for such development. To build a single family home or other residential unit, a property owner must have three rights: a "residential development right," a "residential allocation," and "land coverage."
A "residential development right" represents the right to have a residential unit on an eligible parcel of land.
A "residential allocation" is necessary to construct a residence in a specific calendar year.
"Land coverage" is the maximum percentage of impervious coverage of the surface allowed.
These three property interests correspond to the 1987 Plan's objectives of limiting long term residential development, the annual pace of that development, and the amount of impervious coverage.
Although each private owner of a vacant residential parcel automatically receives one "residential development right" (TRPA Code ß 21.6.A), entitlement to a "residential allocation" and to "land coverage" turns primarily on an individual assessment of the parcel's suitability for development.
Each parcel receives a numeric score -- Individual Parcel Evaluation System (IPES) -- that reflects the predictable effect of the parcel's development on the water quality of the Lake. TRPA Code Chap. 37.
The IPES score determines the "land coverage" assigned to that parcel. TRPA Code ßß 20.3.A(4), 37.11.
The IPES score is also relevant to the parcel's eligibility for receiving a "residential allocation" in a specific calendar year. Id. ß 37.8.
There are a total of 300 residential allocations available each year in order to control the pace of development. TRPA Code ß 33.2.A(3).
Only parcels with a certain minimum score are eligible for development in a given year. Id. ß 37.8.E
The minimum score may decrease over time if certain conditions are met. Id. ß 37.8.C.
A "stream environment zone" (SEZ), however, receives a score of zero and is ineligible for residential development at any time. Id. ß 20.4.B.
The 1987 TRPA Plan combines development restrictions with significant property rights enhancements designed both to achieve a more equitable sharing of the burdens and benefits resulting from the restrictions and to steer residential development to the most physically suitable locations.
Every property owner is allowed to sell certain transferable development rights (TDRs) to owners of other eligible properties.
There are three potentially transferable development rights:
residential development rights;
residential allocations; and
land coverage.
A property owner may sell his "residential development right." A likely purchaser of such a right would be an individual who wants to have more than one residential unit on his property. Id. ßß 21.6.C, 34.2.
A property owner may also be eligible to sell or otherwise transfer his "residential allocation." Id. ß 34.3.[6]
Finally, the owner may sell whatever "land coverage" to which the owner is entitled to another eligible landowner. The purchaser of that land coverage would, based on that purchase, have the right to undertake a development project requiring more land coverage than he was initially assigned under the plan. TRPA Code ß 20.3.C. The seller of such development rights must record deed restrictions on his land notifying all that such rights no longer pertain to his parcel. Id. ßß 20.3.C(7), 34.2.B, 34.3.G, 34.5.
A property owner whose parcel of land is determined to be entirely SEZ property receives an IPES score of zero. TRPA Code ß 37.4.A(3). That land is not eligible for residential development.
With a few exceptions, SEZ property cannot be used for the construction of permanent structures because of the adverse impact of such development on the water quality of Lake Tahoe. Id. ß 20.4.B.
Just like other private owners of vacant residential lots in the Basin, however, the owner of SEZ property may sell the TDRs that arise out of his ownership of his parcel, including land coverage, residential development right, and residential allocation, to another. TRPA Code ßß 20.3.C, 34.2, 34.3.
In addition to the one residential development right to which each private owner of vacant residential property is entitled, the owner of an SEZ property may earn up to three additional residential bonus units. The owner earns and is assigned those units upon TRPA approval of the sale or transfer of his initial residential development right. Id. ßß 35.2.C, 35.2.D(4).[7] The bonus units provide mitigation for the stringent development restrictions applicable to the land itself. Many owners of SEZ property have successfully obtained and sold bonus units. See J.A. 148.
The owner of SEZ property also receives land coverage rights equal to one percent of his land. TRPA Code ß 37.11.B(1).
The relatively low land coverage percentage reflects the environmentally sensitive character of the land upon which the percentage is based. Id. ß 37.11.A.
Finally, the SEZ owner may apply for a residential allocation in any particular year and, if awarded an allocation, sell it for application to an eligible property in the Basin. Id. ß 33.2.B.[8]...."
SEE ALSO:
~page 20: CHAPTER 20 - LAND COVERAGE STANDARDS
~page 24: CHAPTER 21- DENSITY
~page 26: CHAPTER 25- BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICE REQUIREMENTS & CHAPTER 33- ALLOCATION OF DEVELOPMENT
~page 29: CHAPTER 34- TRANSFER OF DEVELOPMENT
~page 32: CHAPTER 35- BONUS UNIT INCENTIVE PROGRAM
~page 33: CHAPTER 37- Individual Parcel Evaluation System (of particular interest)
37.11 Allowable Base Land Coverage: The allowable base land coverage for residential parcels evaluated under IPES shall be a function of the parcel's combined score under the IPES criteria for relative erosion hazard and runoff potential as correlated with the coverage coefficients and land capability districts of the Bailey Report.
The allowable base land coverage under IPES shall be established in accordance with the following procedures and shall be considered for adoption by TRPA no later than January 1, 1989.
37.11.A Procedure For Establishing Allowable Base Land Coverage: Once eligible parcels have received a score under IPES, and TRPA has taken action on requests for reevaluation pursuant to Subsection 37.10.C, the percentage of allowable base land coverage shall be established by TRPA in accordance with the following procedures:
(a) Based on the soil series and average slope determined by the IPES evaluation teams, all parcels receiving a score under IPES shall be identified as to which of the seven capability classes established in the Bailey Report each parcel would have been classified. Parcels determined by the IPES evaluation teams to be located in a soil series not identified in the report entitled "Soil Survey, Tahoe Basin Area, California and Nevada," prepared by the Soil Conservation Service and Forest Service and dated March 1974, shall be excluded from this procedure.
(b) The combined scores for Relative Erosion Hazard and Runoff Potential representing the central tendency within each capability class shall be determined. The central tendency shall be described by determining the mode value, or by alternative statistical methods, including mean or median values, whichever is appropriate.
(c) The central tendency scores established in (b), above, shall be plotted, in graph form, against percentages of allowable base land coverage ranging from one percent to thirty percent. The central tendency score for Land Capability Districts 1a, 1c, and 2, shall be plotted at one percent; for Land Capability District 3 at five percent; for Land Capability District 4 at 20 percent; for Land Capability District 5 at 25 percent; and for Land Capability Districts 6 and 7 at 30 percent. If the central tendency scores of any of the capability classes set forth in (c), above, are determined to be statistically indistinguishable, such classes shall be combined for purposes of establishing a central tendency score. If capability classes are combined, the central tendency score shall be plotted at the percentage that is the average of the percentages established for those classes in Subsection 20.3.A of the TRPA Code.
(d) TRPA shall develop a formula for a line passing through the points of central tendency plotted in accordance with (c), above. No parcel shall be allowed more than 30 percent, or less than one percent base land coverage.
(e) Allowable base land coverage for parcels receiving a score under IPES shall be established in accordance with the formula developed in (d), above.
37.11.B Application Of Allowable Base Land Coverage Percentages: The percentages of allowable base land coverage established in accordance with Section 37.11 shall be applied as follows to determine the total allowable base land coverage:
(1) Parcels Of 1/3 Acre Or Less In Size: The percentage of allowable base land coverage shall be applied to the entire parcel area, except in cases where the parcel contains areas classified as SEZ or backshore. In such cases, the percentage of allowable base land coverage shall be applied to only that area outside the SEZ and backshore. The allowable base land coverage of one percent in the SEZ and backshore may be combined with the allowable base land coverage for the remainder of the parcel to establish a total allowable base land coverage for the parcel. A portion of the total allowable base land coverage for the parcel may be used to allow construction of access only through the SEZ, provided TRPA makes the findings required in Subparagraph 20.4.B(1), and through the backshore, provided TRPA makes the findings required in Section 55.4.
(2) Parcels Greater Than 1/3 Acre But Less Than 5 Acres In Size: The percentage of allowable base land coverage shall be applied to the 1/3 acre evaluated by the evaluation team. If the owner of the parcel is able to identify a larger and contiguous area that has the same characteristics as the 1/3 acre originally evaluated and TRPA concurs, the percentage of allowable base land coverage shall be applied to the larger area. Allowable base land coverage on parcels that contain a SEZ shall be calculated in accordance with Subparagraph (1) above.
(3) Parcels Of Five Acres Or Greater In Size: The percentage of allowable base land coverage shall be applied to all that portion of the parcel that the evaluation team identifies as having the same characteristics as and being contiguous to the area evaluated.
-------------------------------
Wednesday, August 22, 2007
Growth Management: Ahwahnee Principles for Resource-Efficient and Livable Communities
About two years ago, I found a website while surfing the Internet that summarized some good principles that certainly fit benefit Bellingham and Whatcom County. Here is that unadorned information in summary form:
• Ahwahnee Principles for Resource-Efficient Communities
• Ahwahnee Principles for Economic Development
• Ahwahnee Water Principles for Resource Efficient Land Use [Adopted in 2005]
Ahwahnee Awards
The Ahwahnee Awards is a program that recognizes policies, projects and programs from the Western U.S. that help create a better quality of life for residents and for the region as a whole. The Ahwahnee Awards are named after the "Ahwahnee Principles for More Livable Communities." For more information on the awards program please visit our Center for Livable Communities section. (Note: The Ahwahnee Awards have been put on hold due to funding constraints.)
Preamble:
Existing patterns of urban and suburban development seriously impair our quality of life. The symptoms are: more congestion and air pollution resulting from our increased dependence on automobiles, the loss of precious open space, the need for costly improvements to roads and public services, the inequitable distribution of economic resources, and the loss of a sense of community. By drawing upon the best from the past and the present, we can plan communities that will more successfully serve the needs of those who live and work within them. Such planning should adhere to certain fundamental principles.
------------------
Community Principles
1. All planning should be in the form of complete and integrated communities containing housing, shops, work places, schools, parks and civic facilities essential to the daily life of the residents.
2. Community size should be designed so that housing, jobs, daily needs and other activities are within easy walking distance of each other.
3. As many activities as possible should be located within easy walking distance of transit stops.
4. A community should contain a diversity of housing types to enable citizens from a wide range of economic levels and age groups to live within its boundaries.
5. Businesses within the community should provide a range of job types for the community's residents.
6. The location and character of the community should be consistent with a larger transit network.
7. The community should have a center focus that combines commercial, civic, cultural and recreational uses.
8. The community should contain an ample supply of specialized open space in the form of squares, greens and parks whose frequent use is encouraged through placement and design.
9. Public spaces should be designed to encourage the attention and presence of people at all hours of the day and night.
10. Each community or cluster of communities should have a well-defined edge, such as agricultural greenbelts or wildlife corridors, permanently protected from development.
11. Streets, pedestrian paths and bike paths should contribute to a system of fully-connected and interesting routes to all destinations. Their design should encourage pedestrian and bicycle use by being small and spatially defined by buildings, trees and lighting; and by discouraging high speed traffic.
12. Wherever possible, the natural terrain, drainage and vegetation of the community should be preserved with superior examples contained within parks or greenbelts.
13. The community design should help conserve resources and minimize waste.
14. Communities should provide for the efficient use of water through the use of natural drainage, drought tolerant landscaping and recycling.
15. The street orientation, the placement of buildings and the use of shading should contribute to the energy efficiency of the community.
-----------------
Regional Principles
1. The regional land-use planning structure should be integrated within a larger transportation network built around transit rather than freeways.
2. Regions should be bounded by and provide a continuous system of greenbelt/wildlife corridors to be determined by natural conditions.
3. Regional institutions and services (government, stadiums, museums, etc.) should be located in the urban core.
4. Materials and methods of construction should be specific to the region, exhibiting a continuity of history and culture and compatibility with the climate to encourage the development of local character and community identity.
----------------------
Implementation Principles
1. The general plan should be updated to incorporate the above principles.
2. Rather than allowing developer-initiated, piecemeal development, local governments should take charge of the planning process. General plans should designate where new growth, infill or redevelopment will be allowed to occur.
3. Prior to any development, a specific plan should be prepared based on these planning principles.
4. Plans should be developed through an open process and participants in the process should be provided visual models of all planning proposals.
(Adopted in 1991) If you would like more background information on the Ahwahnee Principles (including where the name came from), please read the article reprinted from Western Cities Magazine.
Intro | Ahwahnee Principles | Economic Principles | Water Principles
==========================================
Ahwahnee Principles for Economic Development
Smart Growth: Economic Development for the 21st Century
A Set of Principles for Building Prosperous and Livable Communities
Preamble
Prosperity in the 21st Century will be based on creating and maintaining a sustainable standard of living and a high quality of life for all. To meet this challenge, a comprehensive new model is emerging which recognizes the economic value of natural and human capital. Embracing economic, social, and environmental responsibility, this approach focuses on the most critical building blocks for success, the community and the region. It emphasizes community-wide and regional collaboration for building prosperous and livable places. While each community and region has unique challenges and opportunities, the following common principles should guide an integrated approach by all sectors to promoting economic vitality within their communities, and in partnership with their neighbors in the larger region.
1. Integrated Approach
Government, business, education, and the community should work together to create a vibrant local economy, through a long-term investment strategy that:
• encourages local enterprise
• serves the needs of local residents, workers, and businesses
• promotes stable employment and revenues by building on local competitive advantages
• protects the natural environment
• increases social equity
• is capable of succeeding in the global marketplace.
2. Vision and Inclusion
Communities and regions need a vision and strategy for economic development according to these principles. Visioning, planning and implementation efforts should continually involve all sectors, including the voluntary civic sector and those traditionally left out of the public planning process.
3. Poverty Reduction
Both local and regional economic development efforts should be targeted to reducing poverty, by promoting jobs that match the skills of existing residents, improving the skills of low-income individuals, addressing the needs of families moving off welfare, and insuring the availability in all communities of quality affordable child care, transportation, and housing.
4. Local Focus
Because each community's most valuable assets are the ones they already have, and existing businesses are already contributing to their home communities, economic development efforts should give first priority to supporting existing enterprises as the best source of business expansion and local job growth. Luring businesses away from neighboring communities is a zero-sum game that doesn't create new wealth in the regional economy. Community economic development should focus instead on promoting local entrepreneurship to build locally based industries and businesses that can succeed among national and international competitors.
5. Industry Clusters
Communities and regions should identify specific gaps and niches their economies can fill, and promote a diversified range of specialized industry clusters drawing on local advantages to serve local and international markets.
6. Wired Communities
Communities should use and invest in technology that supports the ability of local enterprises to succeed, improves civic life, and provides open access to information and resources.
7. Long-Term Investment
Publicly supported economic development programs, investments, and subsidies should be evaluated on their long-term benefits and impacts on the whole community, not on short-term job or revenue increases. Public investments and subsidies should be equitable and targeted, support environmental and social goals, and prioritize infrastructure and supportive services that promote the vitality of all local enterprises, instead of individual firms.
8. Human Investment
Because human resources are so valuable in the information age, communities should provide life-long skills and learning opportunities by investing in excellent schools, post-secondary institutions, and opportunities for continuous education and training available to all.
9. Environmental Responsibility
Communities should support and pursue economic development that maintains or improves, not harms, the environmental and public health.
10. Corporate Responsibility
Enterprises should work as civic partners, contributing to the communities and regions where they operate, protecting the natural environment, and providing workers with good pay, benefits, opportunities for upward mobility, and a healthful work environment.
11. Compact Development
To minimize economic, social, and environmental costs and efficiently use resources and infrastructure, new development should take place in existing urban, suburban, and rural areas before using more agricultural land or open space. Local and regional plans and policies should contain these physical and economic development planning principles to focus development activities in desired existing areas.
12. Livable Communities
To protect the natural environment and increase quality of life, neighborhoods, communities and regions should have compact, multi-dimensional land use patterns that ensure a mix of uses, minimize the impact of cars, and promote walking, bicycling, and transit access to employment, education, recreation, entertainment, shopping, and services. Economic development and transportation investments should reinforce these land use patterns, and the ability to move people and goods by non-automobile alternatives wherever possible.
13. Center Focus
Communities should have an appropriately scaled and economically healthy center focus. At the community level, a wide range of commercial, residential, cultural, civic, and recreational uses should be located in the town center or downtown. At the neighborhood level, neighborhood centers should contain local businesses that serve the daily needs of nearby residents. At the regional level, regional facilities should be located in urban centers that are accessible by transit throughout the metropolitan area.
14. Distinctive Communities
Having a distinctive identity will help communities create a quality of life that is attractive for business retention and future residents and private investment. Community economic development efforts should help to create and preserve each community's sense of uniqueness, attractiveness, history, and cultural and social diversity, and include public gathering places and a strong local sense of place.
15. Regional Collaboration
Since industries, transportation, land uses, natural resources, and other key elements of a healthy economy are regional in scope, communities and the private sector should cooperate to create regional structures that promote a coherent metropolitan whole that respects local character and identity.
(Adopted in 1997) More information and case studies of each principle are available in our guidebook "The Ahwahnee Principles for Smart Economic Development: An Implementation Guidebook".
===============================================
The Ahwahnee Water Principles for Resource Efficient Land Use
Cities, counties and organizations that have adopted the Ahwahnee Water Principles:
Recently Adopted: Port Hueneme, CA; Richmond, CA; Santa Paula, CA; Santa Rosa, CA Marin County, CA; Marin Municipal Water District, CA; Menlo Park, CA; Morgan Hill, CA; Palo Alto, CA; Petaluma, CA; Rohnert Park, CA; San Luis Obispo, CA.
Organizations that have endorsed the Ahwahnee Principles:
Bay Area Water Forum and Association of Bay Area Governments (CalFed Task Force); League of California Cities; Southern California Association of Governments Water Policy Task Force.
=============================
Ahwahnee Water Principles: [A model water resolution is available]
Preamble
Cities and counties are facing major challenges with water contamination, storm water runoff, flood damage liability, and concerns about whether there will be enough reliable water for current residents as well as for new development. These issues impact city and county budgets and taxpayers. Fortunately there are a number of stewardship actions that cities and counties can take that reduce costs and improve the reliability and quality of our water resources.
The Water Principles below complement the Ahwahnee Principles for Resource-Efficient Communities that were developed in 1991. Many cities and counties are already using them to improve the vitality and prosperity of their communities.
Community Principles
1. Community design should be compact, mixed use, walkable and transit-oriented so that automobile-generated urban runoff pollutants are minimized and the open lands that absorb water are preserved to the maximum extent possible. (See the Ahwahnee Principles for Resource-Efficient Communities)
2. Natural resources such as wetlands, flood plains, recharge zones, riparian areas, open space, and native habitats should be identified, preserved and restored as valued assets for flood protection, water quality improvement, groundwater recharge, habitat, and overall long-term water resource sustainability.
3. Water holding areas such as creek beds, recessed athletic fields, ponds, cisterns, and other features that serve to recharge groundwater, reduce runoff, improve water quality and decrease flooding should be incorporated into the urban landscape.
4. All aspects of landscaping from the selection of plants to soil preparation and the installation of irrigation systems should be designed to reduce water demand, retain runoff, decrease flooding, and recharge groundwater.
5. Permeable surfaces should be used for hardscape. Impervious surfaces such as driveways, streets, and parking lots should be minimized so that land is available to absorb storm water, reduce polluted urban runoff, recharge groundwater and reduce flooding.
6. Dual plumbing that allows graywater from showers, sinks and washers to be reused for landscape irrigation should be included in the infrastructure of new development.
7. Community design should maximize the use of recycled water for appropriate applications including outdoor irrigation, toilet flushing, and commercial and industrial processes. Purple pipe should be installed in all new construction and remodeled buildings in anticipation of the future availability of recycled water.
8. Urban water conservation technologies such as low-flow toilets, efficient clothes washers, and more efficient water-using industrial equipment should be incorporated in all new construction and retrofitted in remodeled buildings.
9. Ground water treatment and brackish water desalination should be pursued when necessary to maximize locally available, drought-proof water supplies.
Implementation Principles
1. Water supply agencies should be consulted early in the land use decision-making process regarding technology, demographics and growth projections.
2. City and county officials, the watershed council, LAFCO, special districts and other stakeholders sharing watersheds should collaborate to take advantage of the benefits and synergies of water resource planning at a watershed level.
3. The best, multi-benefit and integrated strategies and projects should be identified and implemented before less integrated proposals, unless urgency demands otherwise.
4. From start to finish, projects and programs should involve the public, build relationships, and increase the sharing of and access to information.
5. Plans, programs, projects and policies should be monitored and evaluated to determine if the expected results are achieved and to improve future practices.
• Ahwahnee Principles for Resource-Efficient Communities
• Ahwahnee Principles for Economic Development
• Ahwahnee Water Principles for Resource Efficient Land Use [Adopted in 2005]
Ahwahnee Awards
The Ahwahnee Awards is a program that recognizes policies, projects and programs from the Western U.S. that help create a better quality of life for residents and for the region as a whole. The Ahwahnee Awards are named after the "Ahwahnee Principles for More Livable Communities." For more information on the awards program please visit our Center for Livable Communities section. (Note: The Ahwahnee Awards have been put on hold due to funding constraints.)
Preamble:
Existing patterns of urban and suburban development seriously impair our quality of life. The symptoms are: more congestion and air pollution resulting from our increased dependence on automobiles, the loss of precious open space, the need for costly improvements to roads and public services, the inequitable distribution of economic resources, and the loss of a sense of community. By drawing upon the best from the past and the present, we can plan communities that will more successfully serve the needs of those who live and work within them. Such planning should adhere to certain fundamental principles.
------------------
Community Principles
1. All planning should be in the form of complete and integrated communities containing housing, shops, work places, schools, parks and civic facilities essential to the daily life of the residents.
2. Community size should be designed so that housing, jobs, daily needs and other activities are within easy walking distance of each other.
3. As many activities as possible should be located within easy walking distance of transit stops.
4. A community should contain a diversity of housing types to enable citizens from a wide range of economic levels and age groups to live within its boundaries.
5. Businesses within the community should provide a range of job types for the community's residents.
6. The location and character of the community should be consistent with a larger transit network.
7. The community should have a center focus that combines commercial, civic, cultural and recreational uses.
8. The community should contain an ample supply of specialized open space in the form of squares, greens and parks whose frequent use is encouraged through placement and design.
9. Public spaces should be designed to encourage the attention and presence of people at all hours of the day and night.
10. Each community or cluster of communities should have a well-defined edge, such as agricultural greenbelts or wildlife corridors, permanently protected from development.
11. Streets, pedestrian paths and bike paths should contribute to a system of fully-connected and interesting routes to all destinations. Their design should encourage pedestrian and bicycle use by being small and spatially defined by buildings, trees and lighting; and by discouraging high speed traffic.
12. Wherever possible, the natural terrain, drainage and vegetation of the community should be preserved with superior examples contained within parks or greenbelts.
13. The community design should help conserve resources and minimize waste.
14. Communities should provide for the efficient use of water through the use of natural drainage, drought tolerant landscaping and recycling.
15. The street orientation, the placement of buildings and the use of shading should contribute to the energy efficiency of the community.
-----------------
Regional Principles
1. The regional land-use planning structure should be integrated within a larger transportation network built around transit rather than freeways.
2. Regions should be bounded by and provide a continuous system of greenbelt/wildlife corridors to be determined by natural conditions.
3. Regional institutions and services (government, stadiums, museums, etc.) should be located in the urban core.
4. Materials and methods of construction should be specific to the region, exhibiting a continuity of history and culture and compatibility with the climate to encourage the development of local character and community identity.
----------------------
Implementation Principles
1. The general plan should be updated to incorporate the above principles.
2. Rather than allowing developer-initiated, piecemeal development, local governments should take charge of the planning process. General plans should designate where new growth, infill or redevelopment will be allowed to occur.
3. Prior to any development, a specific plan should be prepared based on these planning principles.
4. Plans should be developed through an open process and participants in the process should be provided visual models of all planning proposals.
(Adopted in 1991) If you would like more background information on the Ahwahnee Principles (including where the name came from), please read the article reprinted from Western Cities Magazine.
Intro | Ahwahnee Principles | Economic Principles | Water Principles
==========================================
Ahwahnee Principles for Economic Development
Smart Growth: Economic Development for the 21st Century
A Set of Principles for Building Prosperous and Livable Communities
Preamble
Prosperity in the 21st Century will be based on creating and maintaining a sustainable standard of living and a high quality of life for all. To meet this challenge, a comprehensive new model is emerging which recognizes the economic value of natural and human capital. Embracing economic, social, and environmental responsibility, this approach focuses on the most critical building blocks for success, the community and the region. It emphasizes community-wide and regional collaboration for building prosperous and livable places. While each community and region has unique challenges and opportunities, the following common principles should guide an integrated approach by all sectors to promoting economic vitality within their communities, and in partnership with their neighbors in the larger region.
1. Integrated Approach
Government, business, education, and the community should work together to create a vibrant local economy, through a long-term investment strategy that:
• encourages local enterprise
• serves the needs of local residents, workers, and businesses
• promotes stable employment and revenues by building on local competitive advantages
• protects the natural environment
• increases social equity
• is capable of succeeding in the global marketplace.
2. Vision and Inclusion
Communities and regions need a vision and strategy for economic development according to these principles. Visioning, planning and implementation efforts should continually involve all sectors, including the voluntary civic sector and those traditionally left out of the public planning process.
3. Poverty Reduction
Both local and regional economic development efforts should be targeted to reducing poverty, by promoting jobs that match the skills of existing residents, improving the skills of low-income individuals, addressing the needs of families moving off welfare, and insuring the availability in all communities of quality affordable child care, transportation, and housing.
4. Local Focus
Because each community's most valuable assets are the ones they already have, and existing businesses are already contributing to their home communities, economic development efforts should give first priority to supporting existing enterprises as the best source of business expansion and local job growth. Luring businesses away from neighboring communities is a zero-sum game that doesn't create new wealth in the regional economy. Community economic development should focus instead on promoting local entrepreneurship to build locally based industries and businesses that can succeed among national and international competitors.
5. Industry Clusters
Communities and regions should identify specific gaps and niches their economies can fill, and promote a diversified range of specialized industry clusters drawing on local advantages to serve local and international markets.
6. Wired Communities
Communities should use and invest in technology that supports the ability of local enterprises to succeed, improves civic life, and provides open access to information and resources.
7. Long-Term Investment
Publicly supported economic development programs, investments, and subsidies should be evaluated on their long-term benefits and impacts on the whole community, not on short-term job or revenue increases. Public investments and subsidies should be equitable and targeted, support environmental and social goals, and prioritize infrastructure and supportive services that promote the vitality of all local enterprises, instead of individual firms.
8. Human Investment
Because human resources are so valuable in the information age, communities should provide life-long skills and learning opportunities by investing in excellent schools, post-secondary institutions, and opportunities for continuous education and training available to all.
9. Environmental Responsibility
Communities should support and pursue economic development that maintains or improves, not harms, the environmental and public health.
10. Corporate Responsibility
Enterprises should work as civic partners, contributing to the communities and regions where they operate, protecting the natural environment, and providing workers with good pay, benefits, opportunities for upward mobility, and a healthful work environment.
11. Compact Development
To minimize economic, social, and environmental costs and efficiently use resources and infrastructure, new development should take place in existing urban, suburban, and rural areas before using more agricultural land or open space. Local and regional plans and policies should contain these physical and economic development planning principles to focus development activities in desired existing areas.
12. Livable Communities
To protect the natural environment and increase quality of life, neighborhoods, communities and regions should have compact, multi-dimensional land use patterns that ensure a mix of uses, minimize the impact of cars, and promote walking, bicycling, and transit access to employment, education, recreation, entertainment, shopping, and services. Economic development and transportation investments should reinforce these land use patterns, and the ability to move people and goods by non-automobile alternatives wherever possible.
13. Center Focus
Communities should have an appropriately scaled and economically healthy center focus. At the community level, a wide range of commercial, residential, cultural, civic, and recreational uses should be located in the town center or downtown. At the neighborhood level, neighborhood centers should contain local businesses that serve the daily needs of nearby residents. At the regional level, regional facilities should be located in urban centers that are accessible by transit throughout the metropolitan area.
14. Distinctive Communities
Having a distinctive identity will help communities create a quality of life that is attractive for business retention and future residents and private investment. Community economic development efforts should help to create and preserve each community's sense of uniqueness, attractiveness, history, and cultural and social diversity, and include public gathering places and a strong local sense of place.
15. Regional Collaboration
Since industries, transportation, land uses, natural resources, and other key elements of a healthy economy are regional in scope, communities and the private sector should cooperate to create regional structures that promote a coherent metropolitan whole that respects local character and identity.
(Adopted in 1997) More information and case studies of each principle are available in our guidebook "The Ahwahnee Principles for Smart Economic Development: An Implementation Guidebook".
===============================================
The Ahwahnee Water Principles for Resource Efficient Land Use
Cities, counties and organizations that have adopted the Ahwahnee Water Principles:
Recently Adopted: Port Hueneme, CA; Richmond, CA; Santa Paula, CA; Santa Rosa, CA Marin County, CA; Marin Municipal Water District, CA; Menlo Park, CA; Morgan Hill, CA; Palo Alto, CA; Petaluma, CA; Rohnert Park, CA; San Luis Obispo, CA.
Organizations that have endorsed the Ahwahnee Principles:
Bay Area Water Forum and Association of Bay Area Governments (CalFed Task Force); League of California Cities; Southern California Association of Governments Water Policy Task Force.
=============================
Ahwahnee Water Principles: [A model water resolution is available]
Preamble
Cities and counties are facing major challenges with water contamination, storm water runoff, flood damage liability, and concerns about whether there will be enough reliable water for current residents as well as for new development. These issues impact city and county budgets and taxpayers. Fortunately there are a number of stewardship actions that cities and counties can take that reduce costs and improve the reliability and quality of our water resources.
The Water Principles below complement the Ahwahnee Principles for Resource-Efficient Communities that were developed in 1991. Many cities and counties are already using them to improve the vitality and prosperity of their communities.
Community Principles
1. Community design should be compact, mixed use, walkable and transit-oriented so that automobile-generated urban runoff pollutants are minimized and the open lands that absorb water are preserved to the maximum extent possible. (See the Ahwahnee Principles for Resource-Efficient Communities)
2. Natural resources such as wetlands, flood plains, recharge zones, riparian areas, open space, and native habitats should be identified, preserved and restored as valued assets for flood protection, water quality improvement, groundwater recharge, habitat, and overall long-term water resource sustainability.
3. Water holding areas such as creek beds, recessed athletic fields, ponds, cisterns, and other features that serve to recharge groundwater, reduce runoff, improve water quality and decrease flooding should be incorporated into the urban landscape.
4. All aspects of landscaping from the selection of plants to soil preparation and the installation of irrigation systems should be designed to reduce water demand, retain runoff, decrease flooding, and recharge groundwater.
5. Permeable surfaces should be used for hardscape. Impervious surfaces such as driveways, streets, and parking lots should be minimized so that land is available to absorb storm water, reduce polluted urban runoff, recharge groundwater and reduce flooding.
6. Dual plumbing that allows graywater from showers, sinks and washers to be reused for landscape irrigation should be included in the infrastructure of new development.
7. Community design should maximize the use of recycled water for appropriate applications including outdoor irrigation, toilet flushing, and commercial and industrial processes. Purple pipe should be installed in all new construction and remodeled buildings in anticipation of the future availability of recycled water.
8. Urban water conservation technologies such as low-flow toilets, efficient clothes washers, and more efficient water-using industrial equipment should be incorporated in all new construction and retrofitted in remodeled buildings.
9. Ground water treatment and brackish water desalination should be pursued when necessary to maximize locally available, drought-proof water supplies.
Implementation Principles
1. Water supply agencies should be consulted early in the land use decision-making process regarding technology, demographics and growth projections.
2. City and county officials, the watershed council, LAFCO, special districts and other stakeholders sharing watersheds should collaborate to take advantage of the benefits and synergies of water resource planning at a watershed level.
3. The best, multi-benefit and integrated strategies and projects should be identified and implemented before less integrated proposals, unless urgency demands otherwise.
4. From start to finish, projects and programs should involve the public, build relationships, and increase the sharing of and access to information.
5. Plans, programs, projects and policies should be monitored and evaluated to determine if the expected results are achieved and to improve future practices.
Monday, August 20, 2007
Waterfront Redevelopment: Incorporating Waterfront Futures Group Recommendations
Almost 2 years ago, on Tuesday, November 22, 2005 to be exact, I was moved to revisit the excellent recommendations submitted by the Waterfront Futures Group [WFG], who had labored for 18 months in a public learning process and then distilling it into what they thought might provide the best benefit to Bellingham from redeveloping its waterfront. They came up with some really good, ambitious ideas! Ideas that can resonate over time as the right way to go about making a 'silk purse out of a sow's ear' for the G-P property. And they did that before we had any certainty that this entire property would be owned by the Port of Bellingham and become the subject of its major collaboration with the City of Bellingham. I think we owe this group, and its leadership, our lasting gratitude.
But, the WFG also have given us a big challenge to incorporate as many of its recommendations as possible into any redevelopment plans that are adopted. Much like our 14 Growth Mangement Act [GMA] Goals, some of the recommendations appear to conflict with, or at least overlap, others. This means that none of the recommendations can simply ignore the others, but a balance needs to be struck that reasonably reflects what is feasible and can be accomplished.
That said, the primary purpose of the Waterfront Redevelopment undertaking is economic development, and all that entails. This project is about stimulating our local economy, creating jobs and growing businesses that are sustainable. That also is how this venture will ultimately be paid for, not from subsidies, get rich quick schemes or excessive taxes on current residents.
Of course, like all such ambitious undertakings, all parts don't just happen at once, or by wishful thinking. They have to be carefully planned, built in prudent steps and gradually achieved over time. That kind of effort takes ingenuity, fortitude and patience that spans multiple terms of office of elected officials, several iterations of plans and cost estimates, and future generations to fully enjoy the ensuing benefits. It is not a simple thing to do, or to describe in sound bytes. It requires an understanding of what is envisioned, what is possible, what is true, and what is not true. In the end, this is more like a team marathon relay race than a sprint for individuals who want to be heroes - or otherwise.
Amazingly, this undertaking has attracted some serious detractors! But, maybe that's not really amazing, because every other project I've seen has also had its detractors, and detractors can serve a useful purpose in asking questions, expressing concerns, or making alternate suggestions. Actually, we need detractors - but not demolition experts who are intent on laying such mine-fields of fear, cynicism, petty jealousy and misinformation that the public is deceived into not believing the WR should, could or would happen.
[Already, Whatcom County seems to be headed in that direction, which is distressing given it's excellent Comprehensive Plan Chapter 7 on Economics, and the supporting information in Appendix C, regarding vision statements on the 14 GMA goals, including the Economic Development Action Plan]
Some detractors do have legitimate concerns about the environmental and social aspects of WR that do need addressing. From my perspective, those concerns will be fully addressed, but I recognize it will require a leap of faith for some to believe that as I do. At this point, my main concern is with the economics side of the issue; specifically how much the required infrastructure will cost and how this will be phased and financed to support redevelopment. That information is being developed, but it does take time because this planning effort is inherently iterative in nature and based upon discovery of actual conditions. practicalities and possibilities.
That leads to the purpose of this piece, which is to make sure the intent of the Waterfront Futures Group is as fully incorporated into WR as possible.
[Note: I apologize in advance for the length of what follows, much of which is available from the City's Web Site at www.cob.org. It is reproduced here for convenience, and as background for these comments]
Appendices A & B are at the end
---------------------------------------------------------------
Here are some ideas regarding the current discussion of Strategic Principles for the Waterfront Redevelopment as promised last night.
[Tuesday, November 22, 2005]
The 11 "Strategic Guidelines" [SG's] conceived and recently presented by CollinsWoerman seem awkward and do not have the ring of authenticity for those familiar with the excellent WFG effort and final recommendations. They remind of being written 'by folks who are not from around here'! This effort does not seem reflective of the consultant's best work, but does have the appearance that the Port's thumb may have been applied to the scales in an effort to achieve -via after-the-fact executive fiat- what was not accomplished during the 2-year public process.
Whatever happened, these 11 "SG's" don't adequately describe what this community has come to expect from redeveloping its waterfront, and this has been evidenced by the adverse public reaction to the artificially fast-track process that is now being attempted. There are legitimate concerns being expressed that need to be heard and incorporated into the SGs and this will require more time and reflection.
I have given some thought to how the SG's might be rewritten to better capture both the essence and spirit of the WFG recommendations. One thought was to simply accept the 11 SG's presented and rewrite them as abstracts that better reflect local values.
These attempted rewrites are listed in Attachment A [below].
A second approach was to simply review the WFG recommendations, combine this with personal reflection and write another complete set of SG's.
These are summarized in Attachment B [below].
While neither of these 2 rewrite attempts may completely paraphrase the WFG recommendations, they do come closer than CollinsWoerman's version. It is also fair to say that CollinsWoerman did largely capture much of the essence intended by WFG, but missed some emphases entirely and badly described other key points. It is tricky at best to try to paraphrase a larger body of thought, that itself contains very strong inter-linkages, with a few succinct SGs, particularly if only the 4 overarching principles are used as starting points. The goal should be to more elegantly capture the totality of WFG thinking.
The information listed below was taken directly from the WFG recommendations on the COB web-site:
Note the 12 ideas 'that emerged repeatedly' might themselves make good SG's
The four 'overarching principles' are listed below. Each could be expanded with bullet points to flesh out the broader meanings intended. This could be another approach toward developing appropriate SG's. Perhaps this is what the consultant tried to do.
I. Reinforce the Inherent Qualities of Each Place on the Waterfront
II. Restore the Health of Land & Water
III. Improve Waterfront Access
IV. Promote a Healthy & Dynamic Waterfront Economy
The Consultant's two 'Core Ideas' given on page 2 of their report do not seem to serve any useful purpose other than to reiterate what everyone seems to already understand. Why restate these, unless they are targeted at those who are in denial as to the underlying reasons for the Port's initiative and the City's agreement to be a partner in the waterfront redevelopment? Is this intended to inform potential investors? Remind those in opposition? Inform the community? What is the intended audience?
• CBD & Waterfront District are parts of a whole downtown
• Waterfront's potential as a job-source, economic engine and place of enjoyment needs to to be steadily realized
Finally, the GUIDING PRINCIPLES AND RECOMMENDATIONS for the CITY Center are the most appropriate starting point for developing SGs, since this area defines the former G-P site as the single one area -out of the six identified by WFG- with the most potential for redevelopment, and the one for which the Port and City have agreed to a long-term cooperation.
Also note the following 2 points, which many believe to be key in insuring adherence to the WFG vision":
• the Georgia Pacific property should be acquired and held in public ownership as it is planned and developed over time
• development should be phased and coordinated by a public renewal authority or other tools that ensure public accountability while avoiding excess bureaucracy
============================================================================
Waterfront Futures Group Final Recommendations [Page 3]
A dozen ideas emerged repeatedly during the WFG work sessions and served as a foundation for subsequent decisions. They provide a set of underlying assumptions for a successful waterfront in our community:
1. Successful waterfronts are welcoming to all.
2. Bellingham Bay and its physical landscape are part of larger natural systems.
3. Jobs of the future will help shape waterfront redevelopment.
4. Sustainability is a cornerstone for all waterfront work.
5. Education, training and apprenticeships increase our human capital and workforce capacity.
6. Fishing and food from the sea, deep-water access, and shallow draft marine access will continue to be a significant part of our area’s heritage, economy, and culture.
7. Waterfront redevelopment consistent with community goals will require significant public investment and in some cases public ownership as a catalyst for private reinvestment.
8. The “best” of our waterfront must be reserved for the benefit of our entire community.
9. Our waterfront assets are many and diverse, allowing us balanced development over time with a wide variety of purposes.
10. Successful waterfronts create continuous public access along the entire shoreline.
11. As part of Bellingham’s evolving economy, we will need to make provisions for industries moving off the waterfront.
12. Innovative approaches to cleanup of upland and in-water contamination will be needed to restore the health of our waterfront.
============================================================================
FOUNDATION FOR DECISIONS - INTRODUCTION
Waterfront Vision & Framework Plan
I. Reinforce the Inherent Qualities of Each Place on the Waterfront
1. Make the waterfront a regular part of the lives of more people.
2. Respect history, cultures and the arts.
3. Make the waterfront inviting to people on foot.
4. Reinforce a unique “sense of place” at different waterfront locations.
5. Complement adjacent uses.
II. Restore the Health of Land & Water
1. Enhance or reintroduce natural systems.
2. Create and restore habitat wherever possible.
3. Remediate upland and in-water contamination.
4. Protect existing natural shorelines.
5. Seek opportunities to soften existing hardened shorelines.
6. Tailor environmental cleanup strategies and remediation to planned use.
7. Manage stormwater to enhance estuarine habitats.
8. Require sustainable practices in all development.
9. Restore, enhance and expand beaches wherever possible.
10. Connect proposed open space and natural areas to regional open space network and wildlife corridors.
11. Explore mitigation banking and incentives (such as environmental credits) for environmental resource protection and enhancement prior to redevelopment.
III. Improve Waterfront Access
1. Develop strong connections between uplands and water.
2. Provide links to regional trail systems.
3. Provide multiple modes of access to each area of the waterfront.
4. Provide convenient connections between different modes of transportation.
5. Create and connect large and small parks and open spaces with a “braided” system of pedestrian trails.
6. Enhance opportunities for visual access to waterfront areas.
7. Provide the opportunity to walk the waterfront while respecting natural habitat.
8. Help people find their way.
9. Provide way finding for the Coast Millennium Trail as a route that follows existing and proposed trails.
10. Explore the concept of public access “banking” and other financing incentives for improving public access.
11. Protect and enhance environmental resources when designing for shoreline access and upland development.
IV. Promote a Healthy & Dynamic Waterfront Economy
1. Create new mixed-use areas on the waterfront for commercial, industrial, educational, recreational and residential uses.
2. Support water-dependent activities and uses.
3. Create conditions attractive to jobs of the future.
4. Strengthen the tie between local jobs and resources.
5. Provide public amenities and infrastructure to support redevelopment.
6. Improve permitting processes to achieve the goals and principles of the Waterfront Vision.
7. Explore economic spin-off related to Bellingham Bay Pilot cleanup strategies.
8. Provide incentives and credits for “green” buildings.
The Waterfront Vision and Framework Plan provides FOUR overarching principles and THIRTY FIVE detailed principles to guide progress toward achieving a successful waterfront. The Waterfront Futures Group recommends all THIRTY NINE Guiding Principles for adoption as public policy. In some cases, bulleted statements follow the Guiding Principle. These statements provide further detail and should be treated as part of the Guiding Principle for that area.
=======================================================
GUIDING PRINCIPLES AND RECOMMENDATIONS - INTRODUCTION
Waterfront Vision & Framework Plan
CITY CENTER
The vision for the city center waterfront calls for the creation of a mixed-use neighborhood that combines commercial, institutional, educational, retail services and residential uses, and that over time will provide many new job opportunities and a substantial amount of urban housing. It will be a neighborhood that complements the existing central business district.
The neighborhood will provide a place where people can live, work, study and spend their leisure time without relying on vehicular transportation and while offering a healthy and sustainable relationship between the city and the bay.
The existing aeration stabilization basin (asb) will be cleaned and opened up to accommodate either a new marina or new marine habitat combined with stormwater treatment or some combination of those uses.
When the adjacent tissue warehouse closes, the building will be adapted to accommodate a combination of public uses with links to Old Town.
Deep water moorage will be maintained in the Whatcom Waterway and marine-related commerce will continue on both the I & J and Whatcom Waterways. The waterways will retain sufficient depth to support existing and planned shore-side uses.
Public access will be provided throughout the area, with a network of walkways connecting new public spaces and regional trails.
Transient moorage will be provided on both sides of the Whatcom Creek Waterway while avoiding critical habitat areas. Habitat enhancement will be a condition of this new transient moorage provision.
New transit routes will serve the area and public docks will accommodate multiple modes of water transportation.
New facilities for Western Washington University and other educational institutions will be located in the Center City area with new transportation linkages to the main WWU campus.
The Cornwall Avenue landfill site will be improved including open space and pedestrian spaces along the waters edge connected by an over-water trail to Boulevard Park. Mixed-use development on the adjacent uplands could include a terraquarium and a Native American facility.
To realize this vision, the Georgia Pacific property should be acquired and held in public ownership as it is planned and developed over time. Infrastructure and public amenities to support development should be constructed, and development should be phased and coordinated by a public renewal authority or other tools that ensure public accountability while avoiding excess bureaucracy.
Waterfront Futures Group Final Recommendations [Page 19]
=======================================================
[Page 20] Waterfront Vision & Framework Plan
CITY CENTER - GUIDING PRINCIPLES
Reinforce the Inherent Qualities of Each Place on the Waterfront
1. Make the waterfront a regular part of the lives of more people.
· Foster a greater sense of ownership and stewardship for the health of the Bay and its shore lands by providing places for people to live, work, learn and play as a regular part of their daily activities
· Create physical and cultural conditions that are welcoming to visitors and encourage their participation in waterfront places and activities
2. Respect history, cultures and the arts.
· Embrace, include and expand knowledge of our peoples and their cultural heritage
3. Make the waterfront inviting to people on foot.
4. Reinforce a unique “sense of place” at different waterfront locations.
· Support development of a vibrant area that integrates water-dependent uses with new commercial, institutional, educational, and residential uses and public spaces
5. Complement adjacent uses.
· Create an urban mixed-use neighborhood that will complement downtown
Restore the Health of Land & Water
1. Enhance or reintroduce natural systems.
2. Create and restore habitat wherever possible.
3. Remediate upland and in-water contamination.
4. Protect existing natural shorelines.
5. Seek opportunities to soften existing hardened shorelines.
6. Tailor environmental cleanup strategies and remediation to planned use.
7. Manage stormwater to enhance estuarine habitats. · Treated or otherwise, assure the quality of stormwater used to enhance estuarine habitats.
8. Require sustainable practices in all development.
· Avoid “heat island” effect by utilizing high reflective roofing materials and vegetated roof systems
· Make use of on-site renewable energy such as solar and day-lighting, to satisfy the building’s energy needs
· Incorporate Leadership in Energy & Environmental Design (leed) intentions and requirements in design and construction of new structures
9. Restore, enhance and expand beaches wherever possible.
10. Connect proposed open space and natural areas to regional open space network and natural wildlife corridors.
11. Explore mitigation banking and incentives (such as environmental credits) for environmental resource protection and enhancement prior to redevelopment.
Improve Waterfront Access
1. Develop strong connections between uplands and water.
· Utilize existing streets to make pedestrian and vehicle connections to and from adjacent districts and neighborhoods
· Identify areas where pedestrian access is provided when not in use for commercial/industrial purposes
· Provide transient moorage with easy access from water to upland services
2. Provide links to regional trail systems.
3. Provide multiple modes of access to each area of the waterfront.
· Create and establish circulation routes
· Preserve transportation corridor on railroad right-of-way
· Cluster shared parking away from the water
4. Provide convenient connections between different modes of transportation (jitney/bus).
5. Create and connect large and small parks and open spaces with a “braided” system of pedestrian trails.
· Create water-oriented parks and open spaces
· Connect parks and open spaces with walkways and bikeways through the City Center neighborhood
6. Enhance opportunities for visual access to waterfront areas.
· Preserve, improve and create public views to and from the waterfront
7. Provide the opportunity to walk the waterfront while respecting natural habitat.
· Provide viewing that respects industrial activity areas
8. Help people find their way.
9. Provide way finding for the Coast Millennium Trail as a route that follows existing and proposed trails.
10. Explore the concept of public access “banking” and other financing incentives for improving public access.
11. Protect and enhance shoreline environmental resources when designing for shoreline access and upland development.
Promote a Healthy & Dynamic Waterfront Economy
1. Create new mixed-use areas on the waterfront for commercial, industrial, educational, recreational and residential uses.
· Encourage reuse and renovation of existing buildings
· Identify, preserve and locate sites for water-dependent uses
· Complement existing downtown area with waterfront redevelopment
· Support water-dependent activities and uses
· Retain deep water moorage and entitlement
2. Support water-dependent activities and uses.
3. Create conditions attractive to jobs of the future.
· Create a vision for desired businesses and educational facilities
4. Strengthen the tie between local jobs and resources.
· Encourage and promote fisheries and ocean-related research industries and facilities
· Encourage a range of development and businesses that foster apprenticeships and other educational and training opportunities
5. Provide public amenities and infrastructure to support redevelopment.
6. Improve permitting processes to achieve the goals and principles of the Waterfront Vision.
· Promote a “business incubator” model with access to development resources
· Create flexible zoning in the City Center
7. Explore economic spin-off related to Bellingham Bay Pilot cleanup strategies.
8. Provide incentives and credits for “green” buildings.
Waterfront Vision & Framework Plan
CITY CENTER RECOMMENDATIONS
Future Uses
· When the Georgic Pacific tissue plant closes, use the site of the tissue warehouse for a combination of public uses which could include neighborhood gathering places, community facilities, sites for dry stack boat storage and support facilities for a new marina at the asb site.
· Provide sites for water-dependent uses along both the I & J Waterway and the Whatcom Creek Waterway on either side of the asb peninsula.
· Create beach areas with small parking lots on either side of the asb site and at the end of Wharf Street adjacent to the Cornwall Landfill.
· Relocate rail road tracks from the Georgic Pacific siteto the base of the bluff.
· To cluster shared parking away from the water, consider locating public parking to buffer development areas from the railroad and the Co-Gen plant.
Future Development
· Provide a site for Western Washington University expansion at the foot of Pine Street and the water’s edge.
· Provide for a range of education and research facilities.
· Retain sufficient water depth in I & J and Whatcom waterways to support existing and future water-related uses.
· Create a public renewal authority or use other methods to develop a plan for the City Center area and to coordinate its implementation.
· Purchase the Georgia Pacific site and put it in public ownership to assure that the long term community interest is served.
· Create expedited review and permitting procedures for redevelopment that is consistent with an adopted renewal plan.
· Provide a location for a potential terraquarium as well as other potential cultural facilities.
· Provide an enhanced beach at the north end of the site, and locations for a potential terraquarium as well as a potential Native American cultural facility.
· Coordinate with the Economic Development Council to publicize local resources and maximize use of locally based contractors.
· Accommodate mixed-use development on uplands adjacent to Cornwall Avenue landfill site.
· Along Whatcom Waterway water-related commercial/ industrial development may incorporate some residential components.
Natural Systems & Environmental Cleanup
· Clean up contamination outside of the asb on the bay side.
· Remove all contaminated sediment from the ASB and reconnect with Bellingham Bay.
· Examine implications of leaving the Whatcom Waterway sediment in place.
· Remove creosote piles from intertidal and subtidal areas near RG Haley site.
· Protect habitat enhancements at the log pond site and extend habitat and beach enhancement into upland areas.
· Cap the Cornwall Avenue landfill and provide marine habitat enhancement and a new public open space along the water for the length of the site.
· Examine contamination levels to help shape renewal master plan and then tailor remediation to planned use.
· Restore beaches where possible.
· Investigate opportunities for stormwater treatment and creation of marsh habitat using treated stormwater at outfalls and adjacent to open space areas.
Culture & History
· Collaborate with Native American neighbors.
· Preserve the train depot building off Holly Street.
Water Connections
· Provide transient moorage adjacent to Central Avenue on the south side of the Whatcom Waterway and on the west side of Whatcom Waterway while avoiding critical habitat areas. Habitat enhancement will be a condition of this new transient moorage provision.
· Locate transient moorage east of shipping terminal pier.
· Provide water jitney stops at Whatcom Creek Waterway adjacent to Central and Roeder Avenues and on the east side of the shipping terminal pier.
· Provide hand-carry boat landings on either side of the asb peninsula and at the Cornwall Avenue landfill.
· Remove the sewer pipe under Roeder Avenue Bridge which blocks wate-side access to Whatcom Creek estuary.
Vehicular Connections
· Maintain truck access to the shipping terminal.
· Change Chestnut Street to two-way.
· Maintain Cornwall Avenue and Wharf Street and extend Commercial Avenue and Laurel Street as auto access routes to the City Center waterfront.
· Extend Commercial Street over the railroad to an intersection with an extended Laurel Street.
· Extend Laurel Street over the bluff and relocated railroad to intersect with an extended Commercial Street.
· Design the Commercial Street extension to retain a view of Mount Baker Theatre from the Laurel/Commercial Street intersection.
Pedestrian Connections
· Provide a site for Western Washington University expansion at the foot of Pine Street and the water’s edge.
· Add a vertical connection at the south end of the Cornwall Landfill over the railroad and up the hill.
· Establish an over-water pathway from the Cornwall Landfill to Boulevard Park.
· Connect new pedestrian routes through the City Center waterfront to regional trail systems and provide streetscape improvements conducive to year-round pedestrian use.
· Provide pedestrian routes along the extended rights-ofway of F, C, Central, Commercial and Pine streets.
· Develop safe connections over railroad tracks.
· Provide for direct access to Western Washington University including an on the ground or surface hill climb assist/corridor connection up Pine Street.
Parks & Public Space
· Create a system of connected public open spaces between the Whatcom Waterway and the south end of the Cornwall Avenue landfill.
· Develop public open spaces along the waterfront.
· Create a public gathering space adjacent to the shipping terminal while retaining its availability for vessel staging.
· Provide an enhanced beach south of the shipping terminal at the base of Pine Street and Cornwall.
======================================================
Attachment A [A suggested rephrase of CW 11 Strategic Guideline's]
Note: "Waterfront Redevelopment" [WR] substituted for "New Whatcom"
1. Waterfront Redevelopment [WR] requires multiple strategic partnerships to realize its true potential.
2. WR goal should be to become a recognized model for environmental stewardship.
3. WR must carefully integrate with its surroundings and utilize natural access corridors to best advantage.
4. WR must provide extensive water access and connect with Bellingham's maritime history.
5. Bellingham should use WR to expend its viability and attractiveness for residents, employers and visitors.
*6. WR needs to use Transportation Oriented Development {TOD] principles to insure access, walkability and neighborhood friendliness to adjacent areas.
*7. WR needs very careful attention to integrating multi-modal circulation, safety and efficiency.
8. WR must take timely advantage of opportunities as they arise, while retaining fidelity to the long-term goals recommended by WFG.
9. Public interests must be carefully considered during WR.
10. WR deserves extended focus as our area's primary economic development project.
11. WR must preserve and enhance existing systems of public amenities, focused on the Bay and its tributaries.
=====================================================
Attachment B [Another suggested rewrite of Strategic Guideline's from WFG info]
Note: "Waterfront Redevelopment" substituted for "New Whatcom"
1. WR's main goal is to create jobs & concurrently develop stronger, more sustainable revenue streams for Bellingham & the Port.
2. WR should emphasize traditional waterfront-dependent uses as its priority focus.
3. WR needs to preserve & enhance the area's local character and history.
4. WR must provide extensive, diversified public access & open space to the waterfront throughout its area.
5. WR should occur with concurrent accessibility for freight & services, using TOD requirements and provision for safe pedestrian/bicycle travel.
6. WR must exemplify the highest practicable standards in cleaning up pollution from the past.
7. WR should use care in preserving the environment for the future, including the use of sustainable materials and renewable energy sources, as well as regulatory protections for shorelines and stormwater runoff.
8. WR needs to provide for housing commensurate with the diverse income levels anticipated from workers in the area.
9. WR should connect with adjacent neighborhoods in a manner complimentary to each districts distinctive character, taking care to preserve traditional values.
10. WR should encourage environmentally friendly institutions, paying living wages, such as WWU and other non-seasonal tenants, to locate facilities there.
11. WR needs to maintain active public oversight throughout its duration to achieve the WFG vision intended, and recognize that this is helped by retaining public ownership.
But, the WFG also have given us a big challenge to incorporate as many of its recommendations as possible into any redevelopment plans that are adopted. Much like our 14 Growth Mangement Act [GMA] Goals, some of the recommendations appear to conflict with, or at least overlap, others. This means that none of the recommendations can simply ignore the others, but a balance needs to be struck that reasonably reflects what is feasible and can be accomplished.
That said, the primary purpose of the Waterfront Redevelopment undertaking is economic development, and all that entails. This project is about stimulating our local economy, creating jobs and growing businesses that are sustainable. That also is how this venture will ultimately be paid for, not from subsidies, get rich quick schemes or excessive taxes on current residents.
Of course, like all such ambitious undertakings, all parts don't just happen at once, or by wishful thinking. They have to be carefully planned, built in prudent steps and gradually achieved over time. That kind of effort takes ingenuity, fortitude and patience that spans multiple terms of office of elected officials, several iterations of plans and cost estimates, and future generations to fully enjoy the ensuing benefits. It is not a simple thing to do, or to describe in sound bytes. It requires an understanding of what is envisioned, what is possible, what is true, and what is not true. In the end, this is more like a team marathon relay race than a sprint for individuals who want to be heroes - or otherwise.
Amazingly, this undertaking has attracted some serious detractors! But, maybe that's not really amazing, because every other project I've seen has also had its detractors, and detractors can serve a useful purpose in asking questions, expressing concerns, or making alternate suggestions. Actually, we need detractors - but not demolition experts who are intent on laying such mine-fields of fear, cynicism, petty jealousy and misinformation that the public is deceived into not believing the WR should, could or would happen.
[Already, Whatcom County seems to be headed in that direction, which is distressing given it's excellent Comprehensive Plan Chapter 7 on Economics, and the supporting information in Appendix C, regarding vision statements on the 14 GMA goals, including the Economic Development Action Plan]
Some detractors do have legitimate concerns about the environmental and social aspects of WR that do need addressing. From my perspective, those concerns will be fully addressed, but I recognize it will require a leap of faith for some to believe that as I do. At this point, my main concern is with the economics side of the issue; specifically how much the required infrastructure will cost and how this will be phased and financed to support redevelopment. That information is being developed, but it does take time because this planning effort is inherently iterative in nature and based upon discovery of actual conditions. practicalities and possibilities.
That leads to the purpose of this piece, which is to make sure the intent of the Waterfront Futures Group is as fully incorporated into WR as possible.
[Note: I apologize in advance for the length of what follows, much of which is available from the City's Web Site at www.cob.org. It is reproduced here for convenience, and as background for these comments]
Appendices A & B are at the end
---------------------------------------------------------------
Here are some ideas regarding the current discussion of Strategic Principles for the Waterfront Redevelopment as promised last night.
[Tuesday, November 22, 2005]
The 11 "Strategic Guidelines" [SG's] conceived and recently presented by CollinsWoerman seem awkward and do not have the ring of authenticity for those familiar with the excellent WFG effort and final recommendations. They remind of being written 'by folks who are not from around here'! This effort does not seem reflective of the consultant's best work, but does have the appearance that the Port's thumb may have been applied to the scales in an effort to achieve -via after-the-fact executive fiat- what was not accomplished during the 2-year public process.
Whatever happened, these 11 "SG's" don't adequately describe what this community has come to expect from redeveloping its waterfront, and this has been evidenced by the adverse public reaction to the artificially fast-track process that is now being attempted. There are legitimate concerns being expressed that need to be heard and incorporated into the SGs and this will require more time and reflection.
I have given some thought to how the SG's might be rewritten to better capture both the essence and spirit of the WFG recommendations. One thought was to simply accept the 11 SG's presented and rewrite them as abstracts that better reflect local values.
These attempted rewrites are listed in Attachment A [below].
A second approach was to simply review the WFG recommendations, combine this with personal reflection and write another complete set of SG's.
These are summarized in Attachment B [below].
While neither of these 2 rewrite attempts may completely paraphrase the WFG recommendations, they do come closer than CollinsWoerman's version. It is also fair to say that CollinsWoerman did largely capture much of the essence intended by WFG, but missed some emphases entirely and badly described other key points. It is tricky at best to try to paraphrase a larger body of thought, that itself contains very strong inter-linkages, with a few succinct SGs, particularly if only the 4 overarching principles are used as starting points. The goal should be to more elegantly capture the totality of WFG thinking.
The information listed below was taken directly from the WFG recommendations on the COB web-site:
Note the 12 ideas 'that emerged repeatedly' might themselves make good SG's
The four 'overarching principles' are listed below. Each could be expanded with bullet points to flesh out the broader meanings intended. This could be another approach toward developing appropriate SG's. Perhaps this is what the consultant tried to do.
I. Reinforce the Inherent Qualities of Each Place on the Waterfront
II. Restore the Health of Land & Water
III. Improve Waterfront Access
IV. Promote a Healthy & Dynamic Waterfront Economy
The Consultant's two 'Core Ideas' given on page 2 of their report do not seem to serve any useful purpose other than to reiterate what everyone seems to already understand. Why restate these, unless they are targeted at those who are in denial as to the underlying reasons for the Port's initiative and the City's agreement to be a partner in the waterfront redevelopment? Is this intended to inform potential investors? Remind those in opposition? Inform the community? What is the intended audience?
• CBD & Waterfront District are parts of a whole downtown
• Waterfront's potential as a job-source, economic engine and place of enjoyment needs to to be steadily realized
Finally, the GUIDING PRINCIPLES AND RECOMMENDATIONS for the CITY Center are the most appropriate starting point for developing SGs, since this area defines the former G-P site as the single one area -out of the six identified by WFG- with the most potential for redevelopment, and the one for which the Port and City have agreed to a long-term cooperation.
Also note the following 2 points, which many believe to be key in insuring adherence to the WFG vision":
• the Georgia Pacific property should be acquired and held in public ownership as it is planned and developed over time
• development should be phased and coordinated by a public renewal authority or other tools that ensure public accountability while avoiding excess bureaucracy
============================================================================
Waterfront Futures Group Final Recommendations [Page 3]
A dozen ideas emerged repeatedly during the WFG work sessions and served as a foundation for subsequent decisions. They provide a set of underlying assumptions for a successful waterfront in our community:
1. Successful waterfronts are welcoming to all.
2. Bellingham Bay and its physical landscape are part of larger natural systems.
3. Jobs of the future will help shape waterfront redevelopment.
4. Sustainability is a cornerstone for all waterfront work.
5. Education, training and apprenticeships increase our human capital and workforce capacity.
6. Fishing and food from the sea, deep-water access, and shallow draft marine access will continue to be a significant part of our area’s heritage, economy, and culture.
7. Waterfront redevelopment consistent with community goals will require significant public investment and in some cases public ownership as a catalyst for private reinvestment.
8. The “best” of our waterfront must be reserved for the benefit of our entire community.
9. Our waterfront assets are many and diverse, allowing us balanced development over time with a wide variety of purposes.
10. Successful waterfronts create continuous public access along the entire shoreline.
11. As part of Bellingham’s evolving economy, we will need to make provisions for industries moving off the waterfront.
12. Innovative approaches to cleanup of upland and in-water contamination will be needed to restore the health of our waterfront.
============================================================================
FOUNDATION FOR DECISIONS - INTRODUCTION
Waterfront Vision & Framework Plan
I. Reinforce the Inherent Qualities of Each Place on the Waterfront
1. Make the waterfront a regular part of the lives of more people.
2. Respect history, cultures and the arts.
3. Make the waterfront inviting to people on foot.
4. Reinforce a unique “sense of place” at different waterfront locations.
5. Complement adjacent uses.
II. Restore the Health of Land & Water
1. Enhance or reintroduce natural systems.
2. Create and restore habitat wherever possible.
3. Remediate upland and in-water contamination.
4. Protect existing natural shorelines.
5. Seek opportunities to soften existing hardened shorelines.
6. Tailor environmental cleanup strategies and remediation to planned use.
7. Manage stormwater to enhance estuarine habitats.
8. Require sustainable practices in all development.
9. Restore, enhance and expand beaches wherever possible.
10. Connect proposed open space and natural areas to regional open space network and wildlife corridors.
11. Explore mitigation banking and incentives (such as environmental credits) for environmental resource protection and enhancement prior to redevelopment.
III. Improve Waterfront Access
1. Develop strong connections between uplands and water.
2. Provide links to regional trail systems.
3. Provide multiple modes of access to each area of the waterfront.
4. Provide convenient connections between different modes of transportation.
5. Create and connect large and small parks and open spaces with a “braided” system of pedestrian trails.
6. Enhance opportunities for visual access to waterfront areas.
7. Provide the opportunity to walk the waterfront while respecting natural habitat.
8. Help people find their way.
9. Provide way finding for the Coast Millennium Trail as a route that follows existing and proposed trails.
10. Explore the concept of public access “banking” and other financing incentives for improving public access.
11. Protect and enhance environmental resources when designing for shoreline access and upland development.
IV. Promote a Healthy & Dynamic Waterfront Economy
1. Create new mixed-use areas on the waterfront for commercial, industrial, educational, recreational and residential uses.
2. Support water-dependent activities and uses.
3. Create conditions attractive to jobs of the future.
4. Strengthen the tie between local jobs and resources.
5. Provide public amenities and infrastructure to support redevelopment.
6. Improve permitting processes to achieve the goals and principles of the Waterfront Vision.
7. Explore economic spin-off related to Bellingham Bay Pilot cleanup strategies.
8. Provide incentives and credits for “green” buildings.
The Waterfront Vision and Framework Plan provides FOUR overarching principles and THIRTY FIVE detailed principles to guide progress toward achieving a successful waterfront. The Waterfront Futures Group recommends all THIRTY NINE Guiding Principles for adoption as public policy. In some cases, bulleted statements follow the Guiding Principle. These statements provide further detail and should be treated as part of the Guiding Principle for that area.
=======================================================
GUIDING PRINCIPLES AND RECOMMENDATIONS - INTRODUCTION
Waterfront Vision & Framework Plan
CITY CENTER
The vision for the city center waterfront calls for the creation of a mixed-use neighborhood that combines commercial, institutional, educational, retail services and residential uses, and that over time will provide many new job opportunities and a substantial amount of urban housing. It will be a neighborhood that complements the existing central business district.
The neighborhood will provide a place where people can live, work, study and spend their leisure time without relying on vehicular transportation and while offering a healthy and sustainable relationship between the city and the bay.
The existing aeration stabilization basin (asb) will be cleaned and opened up to accommodate either a new marina or new marine habitat combined with stormwater treatment or some combination of those uses.
When the adjacent tissue warehouse closes, the building will be adapted to accommodate a combination of public uses with links to Old Town.
Deep water moorage will be maintained in the Whatcom Waterway and marine-related commerce will continue on both the I & J and Whatcom Waterways. The waterways will retain sufficient depth to support existing and planned shore-side uses.
Public access will be provided throughout the area, with a network of walkways connecting new public spaces and regional trails.
Transient moorage will be provided on both sides of the Whatcom Creek Waterway while avoiding critical habitat areas. Habitat enhancement will be a condition of this new transient moorage provision.
New transit routes will serve the area and public docks will accommodate multiple modes of water transportation.
New facilities for Western Washington University and other educational institutions will be located in the Center City area with new transportation linkages to the main WWU campus.
The Cornwall Avenue landfill site will be improved including open space and pedestrian spaces along the waters edge connected by an over-water trail to Boulevard Park. Mixed-use development on the adjacent uplands could include a terraquarium and a Native American facility.
To realize this vision, the Georgia Pacific property should be acquired and held in public ownership as it is planned and developed over time. Infrastructure and public amenities to support development should be constructed, and development should be phased and coordinated by a public renewal authority or other tools that ensure public accountability while avoiding excess bureaucracy.
Waterfront Futures Group Final Recommendations [Page 19]
=======================================================
[Page 20] Waterfront Vision & Framework Plan
CITY CENTER - GUIDING PRINCIPLES
Reinforce the Inherent Qualities of Each Place on the Waterfront
1. Make the waterfront a regular part of the lives of more people.
· Foster a greater sense of ownership and stewardship for the health of the Bay and its shore lands by providing places for people to live, work, learn and play as a regular part of their daily activities
· Create physical and cultural conditions that are welcoming to visitors and encourage their participation in waterfront places and activities
2. Respect history, cultures and the arts.
· Embrace, include and expand knowledge of our peoples and their cultural heritage
3. Make the waterfront inviting to people on foot.
4. Reinforce a unique “sense of place” at different waterfront locations.
· Support development of a vibrant area that integrates water-dependent uses with new commercial, institutional, educational, and residential uses and public spaces
5. Complement adjacent uses.
· Create an urban mixed-use neighborhood that will complement downtown
Restore the Health of Land & Water
1. Enhance or reintroduce natural systems.
2. Create and restore habitat wherever possible.
3. Remediate upland and in-water contamination.
4. Protect existing natural shorelines.
5. Seek opportunities to soften existing hardened shorelines.
6. Tailor environmental cleanup strategies and remediation to planned use.
7. Manage stormwater to enhance estuarine habitats. · Treated or otherwise, assure the quality of stormwater used to enhance estuarine habitats.
8. Require sustainable practices in all development.
· Avoid “heat island” effect by utilizing high reflective roofing materials and vegetated roof systems
· Make use of on-site renewable energy such as solar and day-lighting, to satisfy the building’s energy needs
· Incorporate Leadership in Energy & Environmental Design (leed) intentions and requirements in design and construction of new structures
9. Restore, enhance and expand beaches wherever possible.
10. Connect proposed open space and natural areas to regional open space network and natural wildlife corridors.
11. Explore mitigation banking and incentives (such as environmental credits) for environmental resource protection and enhancement prior to redevelopment.
Improve Waterfront Access
1. Develop strong connections between uplands and water.
· Utilize existing streets to make pedestrian and vehicle connections to and from adjacent districts and neighborhoods
· Identify areas where pedestrian access is provided when not in use for commercial/industrial purposes
· Provide transient moorage with easy access from water to upland services
2. Provide links to regional trail systems.
3. Provide multiple modes of access to each area of the waterfront.
· Create and establish circulation routes
· Preserve transportation corridor on railroad right-of-way
· Cluster shared parking away from the water
4. Provide convenient connections between different modes of transportation (jitney/bus).
5. Create and connect large and small parks and open spaces with a “braided” system of pedestrian trails.
· Create water-oriented parks and open spaces
· Connect parks and open spaces with walkways and bikeways through the City Center neighborhood
6. Enhance opportunities for visual access to waterfront areas.
· Preserve, improve and create public views to and from the waterfront
7. Provide the opportunity to walk the waterfront while respecting natural habitat.
· Provide viewing that respects industrial activity areas
8. Help people find their way.
9. Provide way finding for the Coast Millennium Trail as a route that follows existing and proposed trails.
10. Explore the concept of public access “banking” and other financing incentives for improving public access.
11. Protect and enhance shoreline environmental resources when designing for shoreline access and upland development.
Promote a Healthy & Dynamic Waterfront Economy
1. Create new mixed-use areas on the waterfront for commercial, industrial, educational, recreational and residential uses.
· Encourage reuse and renovation of existing buildings
· Identify, preserve and locate sites for water-dependent uses
· Complement existing downtown area with waterfront redevelopment
· Support water-dependent activities and uses
· Retain deep water moorage and entitlement
2. Support water-dependent activities and uses.
3. Create conditions attractive to jobs of the future.
· Create a vision for desired businesses and educational facilities
4. Strengthen the tie between local jobs and resources.
· Encourage and promote fisheries and ocean-related research industries and facilities
· Encourage a range of development and businesses that foster apprenticeships and other educational and training opportunities
5. Provide public amenities and infrastructure to support redevelopment.
6. Improve permitting processes to achieve the goals and principles of the Waterfront Vision.
· Promote a “business incubator” model with access to development resources
· Create flexible zoning in the City Center
7. Explore economic spin-off related to Bellingham Bay Pilot cleanup strategies.
8. Provide incentives and credits for “green” buildings.
Waterfront Vision & Framework Plan
CITY CENTER RECOMMENDATIONS
Future Uses
· When the Georgic Pacific tissue plant closes, use the site of the tissue warehouse for a combination of public uses which could include neighborhood gathering places, community facilities, sites for dry stack boat storage and support facilities for a new marina at the asb site.
· Provide sites for water-dependent uses along both the I & J Waterway and the Whatcom Creek Waterway on either side of the asb peninsula.
· Create beach areas with small parking lots on either side of the asb site and at the end of Wharf Street adjacent to the Cornwall Landfill.
· Relocate rail road tracks from the Georgic Pacific siteto the base of the bluff.
· To cluster shared parking away from the water, consider locating public parking to buffer development areas from the railroad and the Co-Gen plant.
Future Development
· Provide a site for Western Washington University expansion at the foot of Pine Street and the water’s edge.
· Provide for a range of education and research facilities.
· Retain sufficient water depth in I & J and Whatcom waterways to support existing and future water-related uses.
· Create a public renewal authority or use other methods to develop a plan for the City Center area and to coordinate its implementation.
· Purchase the Georgia Pacific site and put it in public ownership to assure that the long term community interest is served.
· Create expedited review and permitting procedures for redevelopment that is consistent with an adopted renewal plan.
· Provide a location for a potential terraquarium as well as other potential cultural facilities.
· Provide an enhanced beach at the north end of the site, and locations for a potential terraquarium as well as a potential Native American cultural facility.
· Coordinate with the Economic Development Council to publicize local resources and maximize use of locally based contractors.
· Accommodate mixed-use development on uplands adjacent to Cornwall Avenue landfill site.
· Along Whatcom Waterway water-related commercial/ industrial development may incorporate some residential components.
Natural Systems & Environmental Cleanup
· Clean up contamination outside of the asb on the bay side.
· Remove all contaminated sediment from the ASB and reconnect with Bellingham Bay.
· Examine implications of leaving the Whatcom Waterway sediment in place.
· Remove creosote piles from intertidal and subtidal areas near RG Haley site.
· Protect habitat enhancements at the log pond site and extend habitat and beach enhancement into upland areas.
· Cap the Cornwall Avenue landfill and provide marine habitat enhancement and a new public open space along the water for the length of the site.
· Examine contamination levels to help shape renewal master plan and then tailor remediation to planned use.
· Restore beaches where possible.
· Investigate opportunities for stormwater treatment and creation of marsh habitat using treated stormwater at outfalls and adjacent to open space areas.
Culture & History
· Collaborate with Native American neighbors.
· Preserve the train depot building off Holly Street.
Water Connections
· Provide transient moorage adjacent to Central Avenue on the south side of the Whatcom Waterway and on the west side of Whatcom Waterway while avoiding critical habitat areas. Habitat enhancement will be a condition of this new transient moorage provision.
· Locate transient moorage east of shipping terminal pier.
· Provide water jitney stops at Whatcom Creek Waterway adjacent to Central and Roeder Avenues and on the east side of the shipping terminal pier.
· Provide hand-carry boat landings on either side of the asb peninsula and at the Cornwall Avenue landfill.
· Remove the sewer pipe under Roeder Avenue Bridge which blocks wate-side access to Whatcom Creek estuary.
Vehicular Connections
· Maintain truck access to the shipping terminal.
· Change Chestnut Street to two-way.
· Maintain Cornwall Avenue and Wharf Street and extend Commercial Avenue and Laurel Street as auto access routes to the City Center waterfront.
· Extend Commercial Street over the railroad to an intersection with an extended Laurel Street.
· Extend Laurel Street over the bluff and relocated railroad to intersect with an extended Commercial Street.
· Design the Commercial Street extension to retain a view of Mount Baker Theatre from the Laurel/Commercial Street intersection.
Pedestrian Connections
· Provide a site for Western Washington University expansion at the foot of Pine Street and the water’s edge.
· Add a vertical connection at the south end of the Cornwall Landfill over the railroad and up the hill.
· Establish an over-water pathway from the Cornwall Landfill to Boulevard Park.
· Connect new pedestrian routes through the City Center waterfront to regional trail systems and provide streetscape improvements conducive to year-round pedestrian use.
· Provide pedestrian routes along the extended rights-ofway of F, C, Central, Commercial and Pine streets.
· Develop safe connections over railroad tracks.
· Provide for direct access to Western Washington University including an on the ground or surface hill climb assist/corridor connection up Pine Street.
Parks & Public Space
· Create a system of connected public open spaces between the Whatcom Waterway and the south end of the Cornwall Avenue landfill.
· Develop public open spaces along the waterfront.
· Create a public gathering space adjacent to the shipping terminal while retaining its availability for vessel staging.
· Provide an enhanced beach south of the shipping terminal at the base of Pine Street and Cornwall.
======================================================
Attachment A [A suggested rephrase of CW 11 Strategic Guideline's]
Note: "Waterfront Redevelopment" [WR] substituted for "New Whatcom"
1. Waterfront Redevelopment [WR] requires multiple strategic partnerships to realize its true potential.
2. WR goal should be to become a recognized model for environmental stewardship.
3. WR must carefully integrate with its surroundings and utilize natural access corridors to best advantage.
4. WR must provide extensive water access and connect with Bellingham's maritime history.
5. Bellingham should use WR to expend its viability and attractiveness for residents, employers and visitors.
*6. WR needs to use Transportation Oriented Development {TOD] principles to insure access, walkability and neighborhood friendliness to adjacent areas.
*7. WR needs very careful attention to integrating multi-modal circulation, safety and efficiency.
8. WR must take timely advantage of opportunities as they arise, while retaining fidelity to the long-term goals recommended by WFG.
9. Public interests must be carefully considered during WR.
10. WR deserves extended focus as our area's primary economic development project.
11. WR must preserve and enhance existing systems of public amenities, focused on the Bay and its tributaries.
=====================================================
Attachment B [Another suggested rewrite of Strategic Guideline's from WFG info]
Note: "Waterfront Redevelopment" substituted for "New Whatcom"
1. WR's main goal is to create jobs & concurrently develop stronger, more sustainable revenue streams for Bellingham & the Port.
2. WR should emphasize traditional waterfront-dependent uses as its priority focus.
3. WR needs to preserve & enhance the area's local character and history.
4. WR must provide extensive, diversified public access & open space to the waterfront throughout its area.
5. WR should occur with concurrent accessibility for freight & services, using TOD requirements and provision for safe pedestrian/bicycle travel.
6. WR must exemplify the highest practicable standards in cleaning up pollution from the past.
7. WR should use care in preserving the environment for the future, including the use of sustainable materials and renewable energy sources, as well as regulatory protections for shorelines and stormwater runoff.
8. WR needs to provide for housing commensurate with the diverse income levels anticipated from workers in the area.
9. WR should connect with adjacent neighborhoods in a manner complimentary to each districts distinctive character, taking care to preserve traditional values.
10. WR should encourage environmentally friendly institutions, paying living wages, such as WWU and other non-seasonal tenants, to locate facilities there.
11. WR needs to maintain active public oversight throughout its duration to achieve the WFG vision intended, and recognize that this is helped by retaining public ownership.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
