Lake Whatcom: A Lilliputian Response to a Gulliver Proposal

On 11/6/2001, just short of 2 months after 9/11, and with remarkable 'irrational exuberance', I presented the following very ambitious proposal to our County Executive. I shouldn't have bothered, because his immediate reaction was to look at me with the same kind of suspicion that befit facing a terrorist! 'Who else have you shown this to?'' were his first words that I recall.

So much for thinking a big possible solution could kill even one bird with that stone, much less three. My ideas went over about like a lead cloud! Plus, it must have reinforced his opinion that I could be a real troublemaker, and not to be trusted.

As the years have passed since then, my early impression of that moment has certainly been proven accurate. He didn't want to go there at all, because these ideas were sure to cause him trouble. Subsequently, I have observed his preference is just to keep the wheels on the Lake Whatcom wagon as long as possible, by talking the right words from to time to make people think he might actually 'WALK that talk'.

At the time, in my naivete, I was -cautiously- optimistic that at least some of these ideas might germinate and enjoy modest success. Coming off of the amazing things that Bellingham accomplished after the Olympic Pipe Line Disaster; after the Silver Beach Ordinance was passed in response to the DOE 303 (d) listing, and then vetted by a Citizen Task Force; after the Watershed Acquisition & Preservation Ordinance was adopted; after the City had beefed up its controversial Surface & Stormwater Utilility, I thought we were on a roll! And in the right direction, too. Silly me!

Speaking of a roll, Dr. Bruce Roll looked like he was about to achieve some really good things for county wide water planning with the WRIA -1 program, and with helping preserve Lake Whatcom, as the new head of the County's new Water Resources Division - which is now essentially defunct. Didn't happen. Not even close, and now Dr. Roll has rolled on.

But, you know these 'Integrated Ideas' were worth a try then. And, even now, many of the concepts still remain valid. But, with far more development around the Lake Whatcom now, than existed in 2001, our problem has gotten much worse.

Here's my e-mail memo to Pete, sent 11/5/2001:
==================================================================
To: Kremen_Pete
From: John Watts
Subject: Integrated Ideas - A Bold Stroke

Pete,

Here is a document I have prepared for your review before our meeting tomorrow at 2 PM.
It may be possible to accomplish meaningful change without a moratorium, however a moratorium would be a sure method to get all the parties to the table and a deadline set for instituting changes. Care must be taken in how we use this information; however planting the seeds of how multiple objectives might be accomplished should also demonstrate a clear grasp of how the following three major elements are inter-related:

1. Reservoir watershed protection
2. Joint county/city regional planning
3. Comprehensive TDR program [Transfer of Development Rights]

Since all three of these elements are widely considered as highly desirable, a way can probably be found to make them happen together for the obvious synergies involved. One comprehensive "win-win-win" solution would seem preferable to three separate, ongoing battles, each of which is likely to not be as effective as an integrated plan.

Anyway, this is stuff to think about and talk about in seeking to find a way that such a plan might be promoted to enhance its chances of success - to everyone's mutual benefit, including future generations. The time now seems propitious for such a bold, integrated stroke, because, in the end it will save money and be much more effective. However, such a bold plan will likely be stillborn without broad public support. To encourage this to happen, perhaps something along the lines of the scenario outlined, following, might be considered.

Although the primary objective is to protect the Reservoir 'once and for all', the other two objectives are also very desirable on their own.

This year the Comprehensive Plans for County & City will be updated, including the Land Use Elements, always of major interest. What better time to institute true joint planning?

The County's TDR program has also languished, largely due to the City's inability to adequately address its responsibility for providing receiving areas for TDRs from the watershed.

This is an unprecedented opportunity to rectify all three situations, because they are already so inherently inter-related.
Granted, such a bold plan will be tough to implement, but wouldn't the public prefer we work hard on something like this together than continue to be ineffective in disjointed efforts?

Every challenge can also be viewed as an opportunity, and this is surely a golden one!
I am excited about seeing major progress happen around these issues, and will pledge my strong, ongoing support to any such efforts.

Thanks for taking the time to read these thoughts in preparation for our meeting tomorrow.

Regards,
John
***********************************************************
Growing concerns about Lake Whatcom, which, even now, are not being adequately addressed, result from years of incremental misuse, ignorance of the cumulative effects of these misuses, and the inertia of short-term thinking in the surrounding watershed. To arrest our habit of careless practices and to institutionalize a long-term preservation program for this resource will require building and maintaining broad public awareness of the factual situation, and a commitment to change our collective habits and practices in a common sense, but comprehensive way.

It will take time to achieve the education and effect the changes necessary to ensure long-term protection of this valuable reservoir. To allow this time, and concurrently, relieve continuing development pressures in this sensitive watershed, many have become convinced that an unusual and dramatic step must be taken now. This will require the support of both the populace and the elected officials in the City of Bellingham and the rest of Whatcom County.

The step that might be necessary now, is an immediate moratorium on all new development within the Lake Whatcom RESERVOIR Watershed. One might call this "Operation R", with the slogan "C-ME-ROAR! [Citizens’ Massive Effort to Reclaim Our Ailing Reservoir] It will need to be a truly massive effort, one not lightly undertaken without regard to the obstacles to be overcome in a fair, yet responsible manner.

Broadly outlined, Operation R will likely need to include several key elements if it is to succeed, as it must:

1. A Resolution adopted by the Whatcom County Council, which clearly states the objectives and their legal rationale. (What, Who, Where, When, Why & How)

2. A similar Resolution adopted by the Bellingham City Council, preferably as a jointly agreed-to statement of policy.

3. A massive and persistent demonstration of public support for these measures, to enable their passage by elected officials. Drafting a public initiative that gives citizens the broad choice of either increasing dramatically might best facilitate this or more modestly, the level of effort government should be putting into protecting the Reservoir.

4. An Emergency Order or Joint Ordinance adopted by City & County, which triggers a watershed wide temporary moratorium on development.

5. A conditioning period to allow input from stakeholders to provide reasonable flexibility and fairness, while preserving and strengthening the moratorium’s intent and its chances of succeeding, by allowing necessary data to be gathered and analyzed, and necessary changes made in the interest of permanent overall watershed protection. Perhaps voting on the public initiative could culminate this phase.

6. Adoption of a final Emergency Order or Joint Ordinance by City & County

7. Pursuit of the steps deemed necessary and essential to rectify current regulations and responsibilities so as to ensure permanent changes are made for the public’s long-term benefit. County & City government, using the results of the public vote as a broad guide, would work out these steps jointly.

8. Consideration of extending, or lifting the moratorium once specific goals are met and agreed to programs instituted.

Expert legal advice must be obtained early and incorporated into these plans before proceeding further. It is absolutely imperative that this action is handled carefully, and by the book if it is to withstand anticipated legal challenges. Failure at this task could cost the program's success, or worse, set back or severely discourage future such efforts.
The primary legal obstacles will likely be "due process" and, property rights, or "takings" law. Both can attract big money interests, and are not to be trifled with.

However, the primary overall obstacle is attaining the requisite level of knowledge and understanding by elected officials to enable them to use their individual and collective political will to make the necessary difficult decisions in the long-term best interests of the public. It will take courage to decide to make meaningful change, and perseverance to determine what changes must be made, and to implement them effectively.

One should not under-estimate the massive effort that will be required to affect the type of meaningful change necessary to protect this Reservoir. Thus, a period of at least 3 years, extendable to 5 years might be needed. This period of time must be used to diligently pursue several accomplishments, possibly including any or all of (but not limited to) the following:

o Complete the DOE "TMDL" Study.

o Perform preliminary modeling of the watershed.

o Implementation of a permanent, special Lake Whatcom Reservoir Watershed Management District (LWRWMD), with authority to enforce rules and levy fees to support itself.

o Incorporation of Water District 10 responsibilities into the City of Bellingham Public Works Department.

o Comprehensive Plan amendments (both City & County) to enable a comprehensive Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) program to permanently remove development from the watershed and lower its potential density. Consider extending these transfers to UGAs in City and other UGAs in other towns in the county.

o Establishing adequate funding mechanisms to enable preservation of buffers and compensate property owners for TDRs. Government should consider kick-starting this program by acting as banker/broker to facilitate it, and demonstrating its features. By re-selling TDRs, government can direct where the TDR receiving areas need to be and recover its costs, plus opt to reinvest proceeds like a revolving fund.

o Consideration of imposing a special, watershed-wide, 1% Real Estate Transfer Fee on both buyers and sellers to at least partially fund the LWRWMD, and to ensure that owners are aware of their special responsibility to protect the Reservoir.

o Consider assigning the Reservoir water supply an initial "intrinsic value" to instill awareness of it’s worth. A rate of $.025 per CCF was previously applied to G-P Industrial water to pay for a portion of the costs of water supply protection. If such a surcharge were extended to other customers this could raise about $400 per day or $140,000 per year, at current usage rates.

o Consider mandating that DNR and private forestry interests implement more stringent harvesting practices, commensurate with Reservoir protection. Some compensation will likely be required, perhaps from revenue sources such as RETFs, water surcharges, watershed acquisition funds and other sources, including exchanges of value, such as CO2 sequestration mitigation, user fees and the like.

o Consider rescinding the Urban Growth Area status currently in effect for Geneva and being considered for Sudden Valley. Move these UGAs entirely out of he watershed.

o Consider revising downward the maximum capacities currently allowed in the City’s agreement with WD 10 to supply water and sewer services.

o Consider mandatory requirements prohibiting new wells & septic systems in the watershed, and phasing out existing facilities deemed operationally or environmentally unsatisfactory.

o Implementation of watershed wide storm-water abatement, preferably using non-structural Best Management Practice (BMPs), like naturally vegetated buffers, conservation easements and other land. Use Flood Tax, or other suitable funding sources to be determined.

o Consider a total ban on pesticides. This is common practice in water supply reservoirs elsewhere.

o Consider a total ban on 2-stroke engines & aircraft. This is common practice in water supply reservoirs elsewhere.

o Consider additional protection of City & WD10 water intakes and essential related facilities from terrorist attacks, inadvertent spills or physical damage. This is common practice in water supply reservoirs elsewhere. Consider using impact fees to set up and maintain this funding.

o Perform water balance modeling to determine impacts of lower diversion water and lower usage resulting from G-P’s closure. A number of such scenarios need to be considered in advance of need, to enable responsible officials to act appropriately when necessary, including issuing PSAs, warning residents and users of important changes.

o Determine preliminary costs and feasibility of relocating City water intake to Basin 3 and possibly consolidating with WD10 water intake. Consider using impact fees to set up and maintain this funding.

o Determine potential future water customers and use from this Reservoir, including Lynden, the Lummi Nation and future growth or extensions of service. Factor this information into future capital needs and water management decisions.

o Determine future water demands and minimum raw water purity levels that would necessitate additional treatment and related facilities, and estimate these costs. Consider imposing impact fees to fully fund this future expense incrementally over time, rather than a single large bond issue.

o Determine DOE-required water quality levels (by sub-basin) necessary to ensure Lake Whatcom Reservoir remains fishable & swim-able in all three basins.

o Determine DFW-required water quality level and habitat restoration required (by stream) enabling sustainable, natural reproduction of native fish species.

o Develop & use education programs to help the public understand why these steps are necessary and/or desirable.

o Discourage further real estate advertising campaigns that promote new development in this watershed, particularly since this area has become a widely accepted, good place to live and is being actively promoted as desired "trophy home" area.

o Discourage AIA members from identifying their designer homes as being "at Lake Whatcom".

o Change Chamber of Commerce, Convention & Visitors Bureau and other tourism brochures, flyers and promotions as necessary to reflect that Lake Whatcom is actually a public water supply reservoir.

o Impose stricter limits on allowing boaters from outside the City or County to use launching facilities. Increase user fees to recover costs, discourage over-use and pay for cost of boater kits and other instructional material and enforcement.

o Beef up on-water patrols by Sheriff’s Dept to enforce boating rules. Consider augmenting by volunteer lake stewards.

o Prohibit or severely limit new piers, docks and floats. Specify what materials can be used.

o Update the City’s aerial photography of the watershed to monitor development and impervious area growth. Use this in enforcement activities. Extend this practice into County areas.

o Consider turning over from County to City, those services needed in this watershed, which might benefit from this consolidation, consistent with managing a special water supply district. For example, Permitting, planning, public works roads and utilities, fire, police and EMS services. Consider relaxing existing road standards to assist environmental protection of the reservoir.

o Consider this program as a unique & ideal launching platform to create better regional planning & cooperation, thereby assisting the attraction of progressive new employers and facilitating "smart growth" practices.

o Apply for special assistance (legal, technical & monetary) from Federal and State agencies in implementing this plan and its elements.

o Use the leverage of County & City owned TDRs to encourage desirable development per regional planning guidelines.

o Assume the challenge and responsibility of becoming a model community, daring to make hard decisions in the interest of future prosperity & human and environmental health.

o Invite an international regional planning & urban design competition to take full advantage of modern expert advice and proven, cost-effective concepts.

o Replace the negative perceptions of Whatcom County as being relatively poor and lagging in economic vitality with a daring vision which will enable this to meaningfully change for the better over time.

o Capitalize on the energy, intelligence and potential already present in this community to effect as many of these changes as possible.

o Establish a joint agency with the single-source responsibility to facilitate and oversee this program to its logical conclusion. Encourage and facilitate joint city/county planning & financing to develop and implement regional plans.

o Broadly advertise our intentions and their potential, long-term beneficial impacts, and keep the public involved with updates of progress and obstacles, to enable buy-in and support to allow the program to succeed. Solicit and use volunteer efforts to the extent possible

o Understand that whatever we collectively decide do is motivated primarily by the fact that we recognize a clean, sustainable water supply is absolutely essential to our future growth & wellbeing.

o Consider selling bottled "Whatcom Reservoir Water" to help advertise and finance these efforts.

Accentuating the Positive: Qualities to Reflect in Library Design

Today's Herald reported that contract negotiations are underway with an architectural firm from Portland, OR to help determine our library needs for the next 50 years or more.

Thomas Hacker Architects, in partnership with Bellingham’s RMC Architects, was selected for this important consulting assignment, which is to combine their technical expertise with input from our community, to better define our future needs in library facilities.

Bellingham Public Library is one of the most loved -and used- facilities around.
The BPL's Director, Staff and Board of Trustees should all be commended for achieving and sustaining such extraordinary efficiency in the use of an aging and undersized building! We must be close to maxing it out, if we're not there already .

And, these folks should also be also thanked for their dedication to 'getting it right the first time' in their lengthy, careful deliberations toward developing the best plan possible for the future.

This assignment takes the next logical step toward describing what functions are needed, and most desired by citizens, so these ideas can be incorporated into a set of plans that can more accurately describe our Library of the future.
Exciting!

As this work proceeds, here are a few ideas that came to mind:
========================================
Many cities consider themselves special, but in the case of Bellingham, people from other places do as well. That is why upwards of 15 national magazines have rated Bellingham in various 'Top 10 Best Places' lists.

The following is a list of 'unusual' qualities I think Bellingham seems to exemplify. Maybe there are others that folks can suggest as well?

When the time comes for us to conceive of the qualities we want in our new Public Library, these might also serve as some of those to be reflected in both its purpose and design.

1. Unusual degree of public interest in civic affairs. [citizen input expected, meeting spaces important, people gathering places valued]

2. Unusual level of Public Library usage. [Nationally, we rank in the top 3 cities of similar size for items in circulation]

3. Unusual commitment to 'Green' practices. [Rated #1 in US in % green power usage, adopted Green Building LEEDS policy for all public buildings, local emphasis on sustainable practices, recycling, buying local, preserving habitat and open space, desire to set standards for quality]

4. Unusual focus on children & healthy family activities. [schools, sports, culture, healthy habits, community events, civic organizations]

5. Unusual emphasis on value & efficiency of municipal facilities, and maximizing their usage. [Civic Sports Complex, Parks & Trail network, Alternate transportation, City Hall, City Web Site, BTV10]

6. Unusual need for state-of-the-art Audio/Visual Systems to facilitate good information exchange, provide easy public access to issues, and local government.

7. Unusual capacity for discerning inherent qualities of general utility, simplicity, harmony with natural surroundings & beauty. [Architecture that resonates, Emphasis on green landscape]

8. Unusual concentration of Civic buildings, Cultural facilities, Network of transit & trails near our Bellingham Public Library's central facility.

9. Unusual tolerance for a range of weather conditions, indoor/outdoor events, diversity of interests. [designing indoor space to reflect nature with lighting, ventilation, use of texture & color]

10. Unusual capacity to support beneficial, forward-thinking public projects, venues & facilities that are valued as important to public well-being, events & celebrations and the solution of problems. [Olympic Pipe Line disaster lessons, Waterfront Futures Group, Redevelopment & Revitalization of Downtown, Water Supply Preservation, Sustainable Growth Management, Center City Master Plan, Greenways, Pedestrian Friendly Transportation, Countywide EMS, Public Facilities District, Waterfront Redevelopment, Sportsplex]

Bellingham has repeatedly demonstrated a real 'can-do' attitude for good causes; but this must be earned and consistently rewarded!

Our goal must be to inspire people to say -in the end- that our new Central Library is just great! And, that it fits both our needs and our expectations, so that it can serve us well as the strong trunk from which healthy branches can grow and be supported.

A satisfied public is always our primary measure of success!
-------------------------------------------------------

This old song just popped into my mind, so I googled it and found it written by Johnny Mercer and Harold Arlen. It was sung most famously by Bing Crosby. [Just the first verse]

AC-CENT-TCHU-ATE THE POSITIVE (Mister In-Between)

You've got to accentuate the positive
Eliminate the negative
Latch on to the affirmative
Don't mess with Mister In-Between

Waterfront Redevelopment: Clean & Green or In-Between?

Everyone around here seems to think cleaning up the former G-P Waterfront and its surroundings is a good idea. Of course, some really mean it more than others, but those are the ones who are willing to work hard toward actually achieving as much of the vision expressed by the Waterfront Futures Group [WFG] as possible.

Remember the WFG? They were the citizens who volunteered to study our ENTIRE Bellingham Bay shoreline in a very visible public process for almost two years, and then incorporate the comments and concerns of all citizens into their own before issuing their recommendations. [See my blog post of 8/20/07, titled Waterfront Redevelopment: Incorporating Waterfront Futures Group Recommendations]

Our entire waterfront extends from Chuckanut Bay, north to about the Cement Plant Pier, a total of six different segments, with the segment in question being the G-P site and much of its immediate surroundings. Perhaps lost in our awareness is that this WFG work was done well BEFORE the Port of Bellingham actually acquired the G-P site. Of course, the Port has long seen the ASB Lagoon as a perfect site for a Marina, and that was a big part of the Port's motivation in eventually acquiring the entire property.

So, if everyone seems to think cleaning up the former G-P Waterfront is such a good idea, why are we hearing so many disgreements and concerns now? That's easy! It's because the City and Port listened to the public and heard it was a good idea! Now that action is being taken toward achieving the very worthwhile goal of 'cleaning & greening' our waterfront, it's normal that such concerns come out and be addressed!

That's the difference between ideas being treated as 'shelf art', or as real goals to be actually sought after! It's good that folks are becoming more engaged in this process because this Waterfront Redevelopment has the potential of redefining our City, so its 'front door' becomes Bellingham Bay - again, the way is was 100 years ago.

What is not particularly helpful is the misinformation -some of which has to be deliberate- that just has the effect of creating more 'pollution' to clean up. But, that stuff does come with the territory, especially in an election year.

Below are some of questions I've heard most often. Perhaps there are others I've missed. Each deserves a concise and credible answer, much of which is already available to interested citizens. Maybe I can help show where some of this information resides, besides in my own memory and research.

How clean is clean? How green is green? What is the cost? Who pays? Why sell public property? What's free? Who's vision 'wins'? How do we finance it? Why now?

Where will the infrastructure go? What if a big earthquake happens? What about global warming? What promises has the City committed to? Who get's to make the 'final' decision?

Is this a suitable place for Mixed Use development? Why do we need another Marina? Who will hold the Port accountable for results? Why did Whatcom County wimp out on LIFT? Is this really an infill site? Why not a working waterfront?

Will the wealthy benefit more than every citizen? Won't this overload City staff? What other priorities will suffer if we pursue this? Why do taxpayers have to pay for G-P's mess?

Why aren't 200-foot Shoreline Management Program buffers mandated? What does 'no net loss of function mean? Why can't G-P's hazardous waste be dumped into the ASB and capped? What can't the entire area become a park?

How can I distinguish gossip from gospel on this issue? Where can I get a really good factual account of salient history, our legal and financial options and how the decisions to be made can be better understood?
---------------------------------------------------------
Let's begin with a little 'snapshot' history to help set the background for the action being considered.

1. The Bellingham Bay Demonstration Pilot Project has been underway for at least 8 years. Its mission is to clean up Bellingham Bay without the long delays and exhorbitant legal costs that have typified most similar undertakings. It is a process where all major stakeholders participate in coming to consensus on the most effective and reasonable clean-up solutions possible.

This project is being watched nationally with the hope and expectation that it can actually demonstrate such an approach can work. The Port of Bellingham has very ably facilitated this work and deserves to be commended for its efforts! Details are available on the Port's website and elsewhere for those interested.

2. The Port has availed itself of so-called 'Portfields' funding from the federal government to help pay for the costs of cleaning up the waterfront.

3. The Port has a committment from the Washington State Dept of Ecology for Model Toxic Act [MTCA] grant money to pay for about half of the estimated G-P clean-up costs.

4. The Port has committed to the concept of a 'Clean Ocean' Marina, meaning great care will be taken in the design, construction and use of the former ASB Lagoon to make it as envronmentally benign as possible.

5. The Port & City have agreed to the concept of making the entire new Waterfront Redevelopment meet the new LEED [Leadership in Environmental & Energy Design] Neighborhood Standard. This will help make our waterfront a living example of what neighborhoods of the future can be, and likely will attract international attention as a demonstration site for these forward thinking concepts.

Note: At a workshop last year, about 75 people from diverse backgrounds were assembled to focus on what might be achieved on our Waterfront Redevelopment project. The consensus was that meeting a LEED 'Platinum' was possible - the highest rating! Imagine what a boon that would be to Bellingham, in terms of education and green business incubators!
More about LEED in another blog.

6. The City has already been recognized as a national leader in advocating 'Green' Power, and has adopted a Green Building Policy for all its municipal facilities.

7. I almost forgot! Negotiations between G-P and DOE were happening BEFORE the Port stepped in and bought the property. G-P's last gasp idea was to dump all their waste into the ASB Lagoon and cap it, right there on the waterfront. That would have saved them millions, but also kept the contaminated wastes next to the Bay. [Weren't there some questions were about earthquakes and global warming?] If that had happened, the G-P site would have also remained Industrial, preventing public use of the sort the WFG visualized. This outcome is still a possibility if some version of Waterfront Redevelopment doesn't go forward as Mixed Use.

There are probably other good points I can add, but maybe these will suffice for now.
----------------------------------------------------------
So, now let's talk about 'Clean' and 'Green'.

The debate about 'how Clean is Clean' is an old one that is still germane to the issue at hand. It is a legitimate question that deserves an intelligent answer, not just an opinion or a feel-good wish. The answer, whatever it may be, will either come from the Dept of Ecology, or be vetted by them. And, the answer will largely depend on the land use intended, because different clean-up standards are required for different uses.

Will the entire waterfront be cleaned up to a standard suitable for a child's sand box? Probably not, because the cost would be prohibitive, and other mitigations are available to prevent this use where it is inappropriate. But to qualify for Mixed Use, the Waterfront must be cleaned up to a much higher standard than was G-P's intent or requirement! Please don't forget that point because it is key to this discussion.

The same question -and answer- could be applied to all other property, too! How about our streets, parks, public facilities, industrial sites, malls, businesses, homes? Are these considered clean enough for a child's sand box? I don't think so. But, not to put too fine point on it, the 'mixed use' standard being considered for most of the waterfront is the same as what we have in much of the City now. And, most parents don't let their small children play in unsafe places.

How 'Green is Green'? This may be a much simpler question, despite the fact there are more shades of green than any other color in the visible spectrum. Go ahead, look it up. That's why night vision devices employ greenish images.

The ultimate in Green is unspoiled natural green. We don't have that particular option on our waterfront, because it was spoiled long ago, and part of it is actually built on spoils. But, we can restore much of our shoreline's natural function by creating softer, sloping beaches, replanting eel grass and other habitat that salmon and other aquatic species need to survive. Those things are part of any Waterfront Redevelopment plan that may go forward, to 'green' as well as 'clean', because one is largely inseparable from the other.

Going for a LEED Neighborhood on our Waterfront means walking our 'green' talk in a way that will resound and resonate with every caring citizen, who dares to insist on the best we can do to turn our ailing Waterfront into a model of what it can become for the future. This is really about our future, and our kids, and their kids! Let's get this right, and not be unduly distracted by too much negativity or obscurations that serve mainly to sap our energy and resolve. Let's put positive energy into this and leave no stone unturned in our efforts to go forward. That way, if it should fail to go ahead as a whole, we will at least know we tried our best to make it happen.

It is well-known that most projects require 20% of their effort to achieve 80% of their goal. We may be approaching that level now. Whether the last 20% of this project requires more than the 80% of effort we have left, remains to be seen. But, in Bellingham, 100% percent may equate to 200% somewhere else!

Cost of Growth: Impact Fees & Feelings

One hot topic during our growth debate is the subject of so-called ‘Impact Fees’, and whether they are fair or adequate. That’s a fair question that needs an adequate answer, so here goes my 2-cents worth:

Boring as they are, some definitions may be helpful, so bear with me a minute while these are explained –not by me- by the experts. [If you don't want to wade through this stuff, just scroll toward the end for the Bellingham specific information]

First, here is just the Executive Summary from a full Brookings Institute Report titled “Paying for Prosperity: Impact Fees and Job Growth”, which is available on-line at the following URL:
http://www.brook.edu/metro/publications/nelsonimpactfees.htm
--------------------------------------------------------
by Arthur C. Nelson and Mitch Moody
June 2003

Executive Summary

Growth costs money. And increasingly many municipalities, confronted with tax-averse electorates, have turned to impact fees--one-time charges against new development--to pay the costs of growth. Traditionally, these costs have been financed by property taxes. However, those revenues have proven mostly inadequate to fund the roads, water and sewer infrastructure, and schools required by new residential and commercial development

Impact fees, though, are not universally accepted. Conventional wisdom among some private interests and public officials is that impact fees constrain local economic development, serving as a de facto "tax" on capital, stifling investment, and driving job growth to other fee-free jurisdictions. Supporters argue impact fees act as an investment in the community, spurring economic growth through the timely provision of new infrastructure and the expansion of buildable land. Given that impact fees often pay for public infrastructure projects, understanding the relationship between impact fees and local economic development, defined here as local job growth, is key.

This report addresses the controversy around impact fees by reviewing the academic literature concerning the effect of impact fees on employment and the economy generally. In addition, the report presents a new analysis of the relationship between impact fees and job creation by assessing impact fee and economic data, assembled for the period 1993 to 1999, for the 67 counties of Florida. Overall, the paper finds that:

• Property tax revenues increasingly fail to cover the full costs of the infrastructure needed to serve new development. More and more, political resistance to property taxes compromises the conventional way to pay for infrastructure needs brought on by new development. Consequently, new property values would have to be very high or property tax rates raised across the board to pay for the full array of infrastructure needs For example, one study of a rapidly growing city in Georgia in the 1990s found that the city faced a 50 percent shortfall in funding the new infrastructure demanded by new development and would need to raise $90 million more than it projected in total revenues from all state and federal transfers and property taxes.

• Impact fees, like user fees, offer a more efficient way to pay for infrastructure than general taxes, and ensure benefits to those who pay them. Academic literature suggests that the aggregate benefits of impact fees improve efficiency in the provision of infrastructure. While impact fees often do not reflect the full price of infrastructure improvements, fees do make the economic linkage between those paying for and those receiving benefits more direct, and so promote economic efficiency. The obvious direct economic benefits include the actual infrastructure investment, such as new roads, new schools, and new water and sewer extensions. Indirect benefits include improved predictability in the marketplace, knowing when and where infrastructure investment will occur, and that all developers are treated equitably.

• Impact fees increase the supply of buildable land. In the absence of impact fees, local governments may not have the revenue necessary to accommodate growth. With impact fees, they gain necessary infrastructure¾ water, sewer, drainage, and road facilities¾ to open new parcels of land development. One study also found that impact fees may reduce uncertainty and risk for developers by giving them a reasonably predictable supply of buildable land.

• Impact fees have complex effects on housing prices. One particularly thorough study of the effect of impact fees on housing prices found that fees reduced land prices by the amount of fees paid but also raised finished house prices by about half again the fee amount. One interpretation is that while impact fees lower raw land prices as predicted by conventional economic theory, the amount of the fee reflecting infrastructure value is recovered in the sales price. Additionally, the increment above the fee represents the value of the infrastructure as a whole and/or the certainty perceived by the market that facilities will be provided at a desired level and quality of service (i.e. no congestion) regardless of growth pressures.

• Impact fees do not slow job growth. In this study, we find, at minimum, that impact fees are not a drag on local economies. At most, impact fees are the grease that helps sustain job growth in the local economy.


While impact fees will continue to draw detractors, this paper shows that impact fees are a practical and valuable tool for financing local infrastructure needs. Without them, growing communities may not be able to sustain growth. In short, impact fees can directly fund vital infrastructure improvements, while increasing the supply of buildable land, improving predictability in the development process, and indirectly promoting local employment at the same time. Faced with the growing demand for investment and the public resistance to tax increases, localities in growing regions that institute impact fees may become more prosperous in the long run than communities in such regions that do not have them.
--------------------------------------------------------
The second source to cite is the Municipal Services Research Center in Seattle, at this URL: http://www.mrsc.org/subjects/planning/impactpg.aspx
which contains this information available:

Impact Fees
Contents
▪ Introduction
▪ Reference Sources
• State Statutes and Administrative Regulations
• Court Decisions
• Growth Management Hearings Board Decisions
• Frequently Asked Questions
• List of Jurisdictions with Impact Fee Provisions
▪ Documents
▪ Information by Topic
• School Impact Fees
• Transportation Impact Fees
▪ Impact Fee Surveys
▪ Library Resources
Introduction

Impact fees are charges assessed by local governments against new development projects that attempt to recover the cost incurred by government in providing the public facilities required to serve the new development. Impact fees are only used to fund facilities, such as roads, schools, and parks, that are directly associated with the new development. They may be used to pay the proportionate share of the cost of public facilities that benefit the new development; however, impact fees cannot be used to correct existing deficiencies in public facilities. In Washington, impact fees are authorized for those jurisdictions planning under the Growth Management Act (RCW 82.02.050 - .100), as part of “voluntary agreements” under RCW 82.02.020, and as mitigation for impacts under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA – Ch. 43.21C RCW). GMA impact fees are only authorized for: public streets and roads; publicly owned parks, open space, and recreation facilities; school facilities; and fire protection facilities in jurisdictions that are not part of a fire district. Setting fee schedules for impact fees is a complex process typically involving rate studies; generally, impact fees do not recover the full cost of a new facility since these fees must be directly and proportionately related to impacts associated with new development.

This impact fees page includes links to materials addressing technical and legal aspects of impact fees, sample ordinances, and fee schedules.

Literally, A ton of stuff for those so inclined!
--------------------------------------------------------
Are you still with me on this? OK, here’s more specific information about Bellingham’s Impact Fees:

The City is authorized by State law –not required- to collect impact fees -by that name- for four specific reasons; Transportation, Schools, Parks, and Fire. We do have fees on the first three, but not on Fire. Every impact fee has built-in restrictions on the use of the funds, and it is a matter of practicality -and political will- to enact them at a high enough level to cover the 'full costs' of growth. Basically, it is impossible to collect 100% for any impact fee, because of both the legal restrictions placed on these funds and the politics.

The City does not set School Impact Fees, it only COLLECTS those that the Bellingham School District asks us to collect for them. And, the BSD has to officially bring the City a recommendation before we can act on it. Since I've been on the Council, we have never failed to approve any fee request brought to us by BSD. If folks believe more fees are justified, they need to direct their attention at their local School Board, since that is the jurisdiction which must actually develop the proposal for increased SIFs and then legally administer it. Whenever the Board brings a request to Council, it has always been approved!

Since School District boundaries don’t necessarily coincide with City Limits, there are many areas that fall in the County. I'm not sure if Whatcom County collects these fees for all for those areas of the BSD that lie outside the City Limits, or not, but they probably would if asked to do it.

SI Fees are always contested by the development community, which hires consultants and lawyers to fight for lower fees. Of course, the School District also has to hire its own consultants and lawyers too. Even those fees that do get collected have severe restrictions on their use and are subject to legal challenge, making this somewhat of an accounting challenge as well. Primarily, the BSD has used these fees to purchase temporary classrooms, since School Bond Issues have enjoyed a good success history. Notwithstanding that, I believe the Bellingham School District does have a relatively low School Impact Fee in comparison to other cities in Washington, at around 10 to 11% of projected growth costs.

The City’s Parks Impact Fee was enacted last year at 35% of the projected cost of growth, which now amounts to over $4000 for every new single-family dwelling. Since the Parks, Recreation & Open Space Plan is now an element in Bellingham’s Comprehensive Plan it is reviewed and updated periodically, with 2008 being the next scheduled time. It is anticipated that our Parks Level of Service may also be reviewed for possible adjusted to enable more sustainability in land supply and future costs. At that time, an increase to the PIF may also be considered.

Transportation Impact Fees are now being collected at just over 50% of the projected incremental cost of growth for arterials used by the entire community. That is on top of all of the costs for internal streets and related sidewalks, lights, curbs and gutters, which are also paid by developers. Nine years ago, TIF’s amounted to only about 8.5% of estimated growth costs, but these had been steadily increased up to about 23%, when last year a higher, but simplified and fairer method was adopted.

The City does not have a Fire Impact Fee because one has not been needed. We rarely build new fire stations, and when we do, special bond issues always seem to pass easily at the ballot. Fire Station #6 was built recently at Deemer Road and Bakerview, our first additional one in 27 years. Future annexations and changes in how fire apparatus may be acquired and disposed of may allow looking at Fire Impact Fees in the future, but currently this is problematic.

Some good news that might not be expected relates to three Public Works Utility Systems, each of which has fees and charges called 'System Development Charges'. These SDC’s function similarly to impact fees, and are designed to capture 100% of their development costs! The Water, Sewer and Surface & Storm Water utilities are all so-called Enterprise Funds that are established to completely pay for themselves through rates, charges and permitting fees. Eben Fodor even gave us an 'attaboy' for that.

So, to wrap this up, the impediments to collecting 100% of impact costs from development are these: legal restrictions, political will, difficulty in ascertaining actual costs associated with any particular development, risk of unduly increasing housing costs by sudden increases and the fact that some development -industrial and commercial- actually does already pay for itself, plus provides jobs, goods and services that directly contribute to our economy. In our system, capitalism and risk-taking are still rewarded, with the caveat that the environment and social equity must be respected. Its not a perfect system, but it is the one we have.
--------------------------------------------------------
One last thought: For those who attended Eben Fodor's talk on Jan. 12th, 2006 that was sponsored by Responsible Development, with these Co-sponsoring organizations: Pro-Whatcom, King Mountain Neighbors, Neighbors for Birch Point, A-1 Builders, Adaptations, A W.I.S.H., Childlife Montessori School, Building Performance Center; Organic Press, Ferndale Citizens for Wise Growth, Whatcom Watch, Sustainable Bellingham and Attraction Retreat.

Look at page 88 of Fodor’s ‘Better Not Bigger’, Figure 5-6. What you will see is a Table titled ‘Cost of Public Infrastructure’ ‘New Single-Family House, Oregon, 1996’

Cost Item Amount Bellingham
School Facilities $11,377 ~11% [School District & State jurisdiction]
Sanitary Sewerage 5,089 100%
Transportation Facilities 4,193 50.1%
Water System Facilities 2,066 100%
Parks & Recreation Facilities 797 35%
Stormwater Drainage 510 100%
Fire Protection/EMS 470 Bond & Levy Funding
Total $24,502

Maybe we’re not doing so badly after all?

Lake Whatcom: Valuable Real Estate for Whom?

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?

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.

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.
-------------------------------