Lake Whatcom: A Convergence of 3 Issues

Those good folks who have long hoped for actions that might lead to a long-term solution toward preserving our drinking water source now have reason for renewed hope!
That said, while initiatives now under consideration have promise, they are coming forward only after considerable delay during which water degradation has continued at an accelerating pace.
But, often that is the way significant changes come about; after things get discernibly worse and new representatives are elected that reflect widespread community concern.

Three developments now under active consideration have as their focus the protection of our Reservoir.
[To those still in denial, get used to the idea that Lake Whatcom represents the water supply source for half of Whatcom County, and that the name 'Reservoir' fits it by definition]

As someone who has focused on, studied and participated in policies and programs concerned with Lake Whatcom, I strongly welcome each of the three issues which form the subject of this posting, which are:

• The issuance of the Department of Ecology's [DOE] TMDL Study [Total Maximum Daily Load]

• The proposed consolidation of Water & Sewer services between the City of Bellingham [COB] and the Lake Whatcom Water & Sewer District [LWW&SD]

• The proposed Reconveyance of Department of Natural Resources [DNR] forest lands [over 8,000 acres] to Whatcom County for use in a Public Park Plan.

While none of these issues & proposals represent any sort of 'Silver Bullet', all can -or could- become aids to important steps in the direction of long-term, effective Watershed protection.

-------------------------------------------
Yesterday, I was asked to comment on each of these three issues by an involved citizen, which I did over the phone.
I greatly appreciated that call because it tangibly demonstrated a new wave of interested support for preserving Lake Whatcom using every credible means available.
It is so essential to have more and more citizens aware and involved, as well as to have them interested in the history of recent efforts.
Knowing what works and what doesn't work so well means that 'wheels' don't need to be reinvented so often, and that's working smart.

So, here's a synopsis of my views on each of these 3 subjects - in their overall order of importance:

-------------------------------------------
• DOE TMDL - Believe it! It has taken 10 years for this report to issue, but it does provide a solid scientific backing for taking the essential local actions that will be required. Despite The legal and political cover the TMDL provides, the hard part lies ahead, as it always has. The DOE had up to 15 years to issue the TMDL, so thank goodness it only took them 10! Unfortunately, the explosive new growth during those 10 years in the Lake Whatcom Watershed has greatly exacerbated the situation we must now face. We know that from the monitoring done before and during that period. No one should have the illusion that reducing the Phosphorus load going into Lake Whatcom daily will be easy. It will take time and resources to even slow down and stop even accelerating the rate of pollutants entering the Reservoir via each sub-watershed and stream. After that, there will be more hard work to do in actually reversing the pollutant load. I don't envy those in office this task! That is why concerned citizens are so important. Do not let inertia or delaying tactics make this problem worse! Time is not on our side.

-------------------------------------------
• Consolidation of Water & Sewer Services - I believe this can be a strong step in the right direction. Any analysis of Pros & Cons objectively taken will likely demonstrate substantial economic, environmental and social advantages that benefit the community as a whole. It has taken a long time to arrive at serious consideration of this consolidation, but it seems to be an idea who's time has come. Thanks to the last City elections, we now have a Mayor and Council who are willing to undertake bold new actions that can help protect as well as stabilize service rates fairly. Most Watershed Protection Manuals I've read advocate a single responsibility in charge of these services, especially around a critically valuable and sensitive watershed.
Should this happen, it should not be viewed as a universal panacea, but as a way to gain more reliable services and consistency in offering services, as well as more equity among rate-payers.

-------------------------------------------
• Reconveyance of DNR Forests to Whatcom County for Parks - I still must be convinced that this will be a better idea than what we have now. It sounds good -almost too good to be true! My instincts tell me to be very careful about approving this proposal, despite the vocal proponents - many of whom are quite credible. But, without more clearly communicated factual information to assess, I must remain a skeptic. It seems to me that this proposal may promise more than it can reasonably deliver, and that -at best- threats to Lake Whatcom water quality are no worse than they are now under State DNR control.
The DOE TMDL seems to imply the same conclusion, but maybe I'm wrong about that. This issue has a long history, some of which has been clouded in secrecy -intentionally or unintentionally. That worries me and makes me suspicious of motives.

I have written several blogs on this subject, since first airing it last September as a potential October 'Surprise' tactic during local elections. That tactic undoubtedly initiated my skepticism, and I tended to view the idea as someone's multiplex agenda masquerading as a benefit to Lake Whatcom. Since then, I have obtained more information, but certainly not enough to completely assuage my skepticism.

These constitute the root of my concerns:
1. Costs and their fuzziness, including the substantial loss of DNR revenues from logging
2. Suitability of new uses to be promoted or allowed within the watershed
3. Sustainability issues with County oversight instead of State predictability
4. Unintentional -or hidden- consequences involving land use that may exacerbate the Reservoir's problems
5. Trustworthiness of the County Administration, which continues stonewalling tactics, including stacking an appointed advisory committee with advocates.
6. DNR's real motives, like eliminating the 'Lake Whatcom Landscape Plan'

In short, there are a raft of unanswered questions, which ought to be answered before any version of this proposal is approved.
-------------------------------------------

To sum up:

- The DOE TMDL is critically important as it represents a scientific basis for local governments -and citizens- to make decisions on how to implement changes to development standards and practices, as well as life-style changes necessary to preserve the water quality in our Municipal Water Supply Reservoir.

- The consolidation of water & sewer services within the Lake Whatcom Reservoir represents a very good idea, with multiple potential benefits to citizens and rate-payers alike, that will accrue far into the future.

- The DNR Reconveyance Scheme carries the promise of more watershed protection, but not the certainty of it. Considerably more up-front due diligence is required before this Parks Plan is ripe for approval.
From this observer's present standpoint, the BEST watershed protection we can expect from this proposal is roughly equivalent to what we have now!
What this says to me is that there must be other powerful motivations for this to happen besides protecting Lake Whatcom.
Sorry, but Missouri Mule attitudes can be valuable at times.

Just 'show me'!
-------------------------------------------

Lake Whatcom: Reconveyance & Park Plan -A Few Unanswered Questions

---------------------------------
Now that I've figured out how to post a comment on NW Citizen and have the time, I've done so.
These were the comments [#9] I made earlier today on the May 2 article about 'Pete's Park Plan':

John Watts // Fri, May 09, 2008, 11:26 am
Debates on this subject are always good, but before locking into any position a few questions still need to be answered.
So far, I haven’t heard credible answers to most of the example questions listed below:

1. Conceding that Parks are certainly fun, won’t a large Lake Whatcom Park attract people from all around?
Would the impacts of more visitors, their vehicles, boats, horses and dogs be positive for the health of the Reservoir?
Just look at what happens with boat trailers every year at Bloedel-Donovan and tell me how that is beneficial.
Also, wouldn’t some clearing, logging and creation of impervious surfaces be directly associated with development of Park facilities?
How about more restroom facilities, garbage receptacles and re-fueling stations?
Development by any name is still development, isn’t it?

2. Is the fact that the DNR continues to chafe at and resist the more stringent ‘harvesting’ of timber requirements of the Landscape Plan that was so painstakenly worked out over several years -at the UNANIMOUS direction of our State Legislature- sufficient reason for eliminating it?
Is this a matter to be simply administratively dismissed and forgotten?
Does the secrecy and surprise introduction of the so-called ‘Reconveyance’ Plan suggest complicity with local officials?
Wouldn’t private forestry owners and managers also be glad to see the DNR Landscape Plan gone?

3. Can the significant revenues from DNR ‘harvesting’ [logging] be permanently lost, without the income streams for Schools and other State trusts coming from some other source?
Is the County willing and able to make up these funds -in perpetuity? If so, what method is intended, and in what amount?

4. In addition to replacing the anticipated LOST revenue from DNR ‘harvests’, won’t the creation, development, operation and maintenance of a large new Park require ADDITIONAL public funding?
How much will be needed and for what purpose?
From where will the County obtain such funding?
Will this funding be stable and long-term in nature?
To what priority would these new funds be assigned?
Would new Park funds subtract from the funding needed or available for other purposes, like Lake Whatcom water quality protection?
Can future County Administrations and Councils be expected to continue supporting the Park Plan far into the future?

5. What other ‘unintended consequences’ might occur as a result of the Park Plan moving ahead?
Which properties would be traded and who might gain or lose from such trades?
What about adjacent properties?
If the Park Plan were to fail for any reason, what would be the fate of the lands involved?
Would they revert to DNR, and if so, would the Landscape Plan again apply?
Would they become private forest lands, which are restricted by the Landscape Plan?
----------------
Of course, the answers to all of these questions -and there are likely more to ask- cannot now be known with quantitative certainty.
But many of them are known qualitatively!
Before embarking on a costly, poorly planned and thought out scheme like this, wouldn’t it be prudent to consider getting the best answers possible to these questions?
Like old Ben Franklin said, ‘a stitch in time saves nine’.

The Good, the Bad and the Ugly

Our remaining three Presidential candidates seem to be playing out another 'mexican standoff', just like the Spaghetti Western of 1966 fame. That film depicted a violent chaos as three tough hombres fought it out in seeking a fortune in Confederate gold. The 'il buono' was Blondie, played by Clint Eastwood. 'Il brutto' was played by Lee Van Cleef, as Angel Eyes. Eli Wallach played Tuco, the 'il cattivo' character. Today, those roles are being filled by Obama, Clinton and McCain, respectively.

But, this particular Presidential Campaign has persisted way longer than any Spaghetti Western! It's almost as if it has a life of its own -more like a long running series, like 'Gunsmoke'! In many respects, that’s not all bad. Issues have been discussed, voters have been inspired and candidates have revealed their personalities, styles and staying power. Those things are inherently good in nature for a democracy, warts and all.

All of this bodes well for us not getting another bush-league President, which if it happened, might well signal the great American experiment has peaked and is accelerating on a very slippery slope downward.
The idea of dynastic succession ought to be outlawed in a country that owes its existence to a loathing of tyranny imposed by those more interested in their own power trips than what is good for all citizens over the long term. But freedom is funny that way! We can choose to fall back into the very rut we were lucky to escape.

The pundits who fret and jawbone over the prolonged uncertainty of who will represent the Democrats need to get a life. Instead, they need to examine and heed what the increasingly sleepy, sheep-like public is now expressing; it's need for a real change! The American public -and maybe the World- needs hope that some things that desperately need change actually have a chance of changing. Like the mess Washington, DC has become. Like maybe valuing the truth in all things governmental, despite the Supreme Court’s decision that its OK to lie and stretch credibility if one is just acting as a political animal?

The ‘media’ -necessary as it is- has also become a big part of the problem. How tiresome to see competing ideologies and propaganda touted by fat-cat owned stations using the public’s airways!
How deceiving to read, see or hear supposed knowledgeable accounts from writers, talking heads and announcers who are being controlled like puppets by unseen people and forces we don’t know. I’m sick and tired of it, and I think many folks feel the same way.

As a country, we have continually let this stuff happen to us, until remedies seem almost impossible to expect. I say ‘almost’ because there is still some hope; but this depends on the public getting behind a leader who inspires them, is credible and willing to work hard despite the difficulties certain to come with the territory. Of the three Presidential candidates now left standing, Barack Obama is the one that clearly stands out as a potentially very effective agent of the type of change we need as a society.

I haven’t always felt that way, and neither have a boatload of people I know. Obama was just another candidate among many, a real dark horse in many –maybe most- people’s assessment. But he kept on plugging, evoking a growing support through his thoughtful and reasonable responses to the battery of questions thrown at him. He had to be considered an underdog in this race because of his relative newness on the national stage, his race, his lack of strong political base, and particularly his tendency toward a calm coolness whether under fire or trying to make a point. Every one knows that passion is valuable in any candidate, and that emotions are usually triggered by passions way before rational thought is reached. That’s the amazing thing about Obama, he keeps to the dialogue thing, you know, what the Dalai Lama talks about. He’s not without passion, but he seems to be able to translate it into a consistent conduct that people come to respect and value. He’s not flashy, but he is charismatic, and that is a trait most folks consistently like.

The North Carolina and Indiana Democratic Primary results from yesterday again favored Obama, but did not put him over the top. That will require a continuation of campaigning and the attraction of sufficient 'super-delegates' to get him nominated. That will likely happen despite all of the Clinton camp's tactics, which carry the real danger of 'poisoning the well' for the Demos in the November Elections. I certainly don't blame Billary for campaigning hard, but I do mind the negative, nasty and 'do or say anything it takes to win' conduct. She and Bill wanted this so bad that they nominated themselves for the 'il butto' role! And spent $6.4 million of their own money in the process? Easy come, easy go.

Bill Clinton used to say 'we can do better'. He was right, he can! I voted for him twice, but do not want to see him back in the White House in any role. The last time he chose to lead his 'parallel life' there he got himself impeached for lying about it. Sorry Hillary, but Bill's already served his time and doesn't deserve to occupy the White House again.

It is ironic that this election has brought forth both our first female and our first black candidates for President!
Which one is acting more Presidential?
Which one understands the true tenets of leadership the best?
Which one balances realism and optimism better?
Which is more consistently credible?
Which one offers the more thoughtful and honest questions and answers?
Which one tends to prefer passionate emotions over rational thought?

Our country is a far more complex place than it was over 200 years ago, and so is the world.
Yet, we the people still get to decide whom will become our top elected leader, indeed the world's!
There is no scripted set of qualifications other than what is clearly spelled out in our Constitution. Maybe there ought to be, but that's something that Congress and the American people must decide. For those who think the Constitution is carved in stone, think again! Only the basic premises are inviolate. That's why Amendments have been added -and subtracted. That's why we adopted a Bill of Rights. Things change over time and modifications are not only in order, but necessary.
-------------------------------------
It's time for Angel Eyes to exit, stage left.

Soon, it will be just cool Blondie against hot-tempered Tuco.

In that match, I'm picking Blondie, just like in the Spaghetti Western!

=======================================
Never tell people how to do things. Tell them what to do and they will surprise you with their ingenuity.
- George Patton

A good leader takes a little more than his share of the blame, a little less than his share of the credit.
- Arnold H. Glasgow

Men make history, and not the other way around. In periods where there is no leadership, society stands still. Progress occurs when courageous, skilful leaders seize the opportunity to change things for the better.
- Harry S. Truman

Leadership is generally defined as the capacity to make things happen that would otherwise not happen.
- Thomas E. Cronin

There are many elements to a campaign. Leadership is number one. Everything else is number two.
- Bertolt Brecht

Our world is very dishonest, and our leaders encourage dishonesty by setting bad examples- by lying, being corrupt, and using political sleight of hand to sustain power.
- Stuart Wilde

A leader, once convinced that a particular course of action is the right one, must be undaunted when the going gets tough.
- Ronald Reagan

People ask the difference between a leader and a boss. The leader leads, and the boss drives.
- Theodore Roosevelt

Leadership and learning are indispensable to each other.
- John Fitzgerald Kennedy

The supreme quality for leadership is unquestionably integrity. Without it, no real success is possible, no matter whether it is on a section gang, a football field, in an army, or in an office.
- Dwight David Eisenhower

Leadership is based on inspiration, not domination; on cooperation, not intimidation.
- William Arthur Ward

Management is doing things right; leadership is doing the right things.
- Peter F. Drucker

No institution can possibly survive if it needs geniuses or supermen to manage it. It must be organized in such a way as to be able to get along under a leadership composed of average human beings.
- Peter F. Drucker

Nothing so conclusively proves a man s ability to lead others as what he does from day to day to lead himself.
- Thomas Watson

All of the great leaders have had one characteristic in common: it was the willingness to confront unequivocally the major anxiety of their people in their time. This, and not much else, is the essence of leadership.
- John Kenneth Galbraith

Leaders aren’t born they are made. And they are made just like anything else, through hard work. And that’s the price we’ll have to pay to achieve that goal, or any goal.
- Vince Lombardi

Cost Effective Watershed Protection

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Note: The entire article clumsily reproduced below, can be viewed at this website:http://www.cwp.org/Downloads/ELC_PWP30.pdf

Also, free downloads of 5 CWP Manuals are available at this URL: http://www.cwp.org/PublicationStore/USRM.htm

Both websites will be upgraded and changed during the next few weeks, which will make them more useful to viewers.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

With the current debate on how to best protect the Lake Whatcom Reservoir from premature degradation and the added costs of mitigation, it would seem prudent to learn from the advice of experts on the subject.
One recognized expert is Tom Schueler of the Center for Watershed Protection.
Whatcom County selected Tom Schueler as one of three experts selected to peer review the Entranco Report, which was intended to form the basis for a Comprehensive Stormwater Management Program for Lake Whatcom.
Based upon this peer review, the Entranco Report was significantly strengthened and now better stands as a basis for a more comprehensive Stormwater Management Program.

Tom Schueler's expertise is as valuable now as it was then, particularly with the possibility of a merger between the City of Bellingham and the Lake Whatcom Water & Sewer District to provide integrated services within this critical watershed.
The questions which citizens and rate-payers must ask themselves are two-fold:

- Will the merger result in better management of water & sewer services within the watershed?

- Will the merger result in least costs to water district & city rate-payers?

I believe the answers to both questions is a resounding YES!

But individuals must come to their own decisions on this question.
Perhaps, the article that is reprinted will be helpful in coming to an informed decision on this important issue.

============================================
The following article is reproduced below with the permission of the Center for Watershed Protection :
============================================
The Economics of Watershed Protection

Schueler, T. 2000. "The Economics of Watershed Protection." The Practice
of Watershed Protection. eds. T. Schueler and H. Holland. Center for
Watershed Protection. Ellicott City, MD.

Article 30 -Feature article from Watershed Protection Techniques. 2(4): 469-481

Website: www.cwp.org
----------------------------------------------------------------------
[Figure 1: Eight Tools for Watershed Protection - Not Shown]

1. Land Use Planning
2. Land Conservation
3. Aquatic Buffers
4. Better Site Design
5. Erosion & Sediment Control
6. Stormwater Best Management Practices
7. Non-Stormwater Benchmarks
8. Watershed Stewardship Programs
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Watershed protection may be a fine idea, but how much does it cost?
How does it change the bottom line for the region, the development community, landowners and residents alike?
This question is increasingly being posed to those advocating better watershed protection.
In this article, we review economic research on the costs and benefits of employing watershed management tools and tally the score for the region, the municipality, the developer and the property owner.

Economic Benefits of Watershed Protection Tools

Watershed development does not have to be synonymous with the degradation of aquatic resources.
When new growth is managed in a watershed context, homes and businesses can be located and designed to have the smallest possible impact on streams, lakes, wetlands and estuaries.
In the watershed protection approach outlined here, communities can apply eight basic tools that guide where and how new development occurs (see Figure 1).

The watershed protection tools highlighted in this article are designed to protect water quality while increasing the value of existing and developable land.
If used correctly, these tools can protect the rights of individual property owners as well as those of the entire community.

Many players in the local economy perceive that watershed protection can be costly, burdensome and potentially a threat to economic vitality.
Others counter that watershed protection is inextricably linked to a healthy economy.
Below we review some of the actual research on the economic costs and benefits associated with each of the eight watershed protection tools.
While economic research on many of the tools is rather sparse, much of the evidence indicates that these tools can have a positive or at least neutral economic effect, when applied properly.

LAND USE PLANNING

The first and most important tool is local land use planning, a process for identifying key watershed uses, and then directing the appropriate level of new growth to those subwatersheds that can best afford and accommodate it (Schueler, 1995).
Land use planning involves assessing stream conditions and developing strategies to maintain or restore their condition. It directs proposed development to the least sensitive area and attempts to control the amount and location of impervious cover in a watershed.
Some subwatersheds are designated as growth areas, while others are partly or fully protected from future development.
Many communities wonder about the effect of such broad-based land use planning on property values and the local tax base.
Recent studies, however, suggest that the effect of watershed planning is largely positive:

• Beaton (1988) examined land values before and after the Maryland Critical Area and New Jersey Pinelands land use regulations were imposed.
He found that the regulations had no impact on the volume of construction activity, and had slightly improved the local tax base.
This was because the value of developed land within the regulated area had climbed from five to 17%, and the value of vacant land had increased by five to 25%.
As Beaton notes, “Residents in both regions benefited from the knowledge that public actions were taken to protect the environmental amenity in which they had already invested.”
Since both developed and undeveloped land had grown in value, owners received a significant premium when they sold their property.

• Land use plans that retain open space, rural landscapes, and recreational opportunities contribute to the quality of a community or region.
A survey of chief executive officers has ranked quality of life as the third most important factor in locating a new business (National Park Service, 1992).
As regional economies become ever more competitive, a high quality-of-life ranking can provide a critical edge in attracting new business.

• Citizens also rank protection of their water resources quite highly.
A North Carolina survey showed a strong preference for spending more public funds on environmental protection than for highway construction, welfare, or economic development.
Only crime and education ranked as higher spending priorities among citizens (Hoban and Clifford, 1992).

• However, watershed planning is not without costs.
Effective watershed planning requires a careful local investment in technical studies, monitoring, coordination and outreach.
As Brown (1996) notes, a community can expend several hundred thousand dollars on a watershed study to obtain the scientific data to justify land use decisions.
Further, the long-term cost to fully implement a watershed plan can be significant for many local governments.

LAND CONSERVATION

Communities have repeatedly found that property adjacent to protected wetlands, floodplains, shorelines, and forests constitutes an excellent location for development. (U.S. EPA, 1995).
A sense of place is instilled by the presence of water, forest and natural areas and this preference is expressed in a greater
willingness to pay to live near these habitats.
Examples include the following:

• Two regional economic surveys document that conserving forests on residential and commercial sites can enhance property values by an average of six to 15% and increases the rate at which units are sold or leased (Morales, 1980; Weyerhauser, 1989).
An Atlanta study also showed that the presence of trees and natural areas measurably increased the residential property tax base (Anderson and Cordell, 1982).
In addition, urban forests boost property values by reducing irritating noise levels and screening adjacent land uses. The absence of trees increases dust levels by four to 100 times (Nelson, 1985).

• Conserving trees also saves money on energy bills and treatment of runoff. Studies by the American Forest Association have shown that homes and businesses that retain trees save 20 to 25% in their energy bills for heating and cooling, compared to homes where trees are cleared.
The urban forest canopy also helps to reduce the volume of stormwater runoff. A modeling study by Henson and Rowntree (1988) reported that stormwater decreased by 17% due to forest cover in a Utah development during a typical one-inch rainstorm.

• Coastal wetland areas contribute to the local economy through recreation, fishing and flood protection. Various economists have calculated that each acre of coastal wetland contributes from $800 to $9,000 to the local economy (Kirby, 1993).

AQUATIC BUFFERS

A shoreline or creek buffer can create many market and non-market benefits for a community, particularly if they are managed as a greenway:

• An increase in the value of adjacent property.
For example, housing prices were found to be 32% higher if they were located next to a greenbelt buffer in Colorado (Correlet al., 1978).
Nationally, buffers were thought to have a positive or neutral impact on adjacent property values in 32 out of 39 communities surveyed (Schueler, 1995).

• Forested shoreline and stream buffers situated on the flat soils of the coastal plain have been found to be effective in removing sediment, nutrients and bacteria from stormwater runoff and septic system effluent in a wide variety of rural and agricultural settings along the East Coast (Desbonnet et al., 1994).

• Buffers provide a critical “right of way” for streams during large floods and storms.
When buffers contain the entire 100-year floodplain, they are an extremely cost-effective form of flood damage avoidance for both communities and individual property owners.
As an example, a national study of 10 programs that diverted development away from flood-prone areas found that land next to protected floodplains had increased in value by an average of $10,427 per acre (Burby, 1988).

• Homes situated near seven California stream restoration projects had a three to 13% higher property value than similar homes located on unrestored streams (Streiner and Loomis, 1996).
Most of the perceived value of the restored stream was due to the enhanced buffer, habitat, and recreation afforded by the restoration.

• In addition, buffers can sharply reduce the number of drainage complaints received by local public works departments and they are often an effective means to mitigate or even prevent shoreline erosion.

• A shoreline or creek buffer can help protect valuable wildlife habitat.
For example, each mile of buffer protects 12 acres of habitat along shorelines and 25 acres along creeks (Schueler, 1995).
A continuous buffer provides a wildlife corridor which is of particular value in protecting amphibian and waterfowl populations, as well as coastal fish spawning and nursery areas.
Such protection has an economic payoff as well.
For example, Adams (1994) reports that nearly 60% of suburban residents actively engage in wildlife watching near their homes, and a majority are willing to pay a premium for homes located in a setting that attracts wildlife.

• Corporate land owners can save between $270 to $640 per acre in annual mowing and maintenance costs when open lands are managed as a natural buffer area rather than turf (Wildlife Habitat Enhancement Council, 1992).

• When managed as a “greenway,” stream buffers can expand recreational opportunities and increase the value of adjacent parcels (Flink and Searns, 1993).
Several studies have shown that greenway parks increase the value of homes adjacent to them.
Pennypack Park in Philadelphia is credited with a 33% increase to the value of nearby property.
A net increase of more than $3.3 million in real estate value is attributed to the park (Chesapeake Bay Foundation, 1996a).
A greenway in Boulder, Colorado, was found to have increased aggregate property values by $5.4 million, resulting in $500,000 of additional tax revenue per year (Chesapeake Bay Foundation, 1996a).

• Effective shoreline buffers can increase the value of urban lake property.
For example, a recent study of Maine lakes found that water clarity was directly related to property values. Specifically, a three-foot improvement in water clarity resulted in $11 to $200 more per foot of shoreline property, potentially generating millions of dollars in increased value per lake (Michael et al., 1996).

BETTER SITE DESIGN

Better site design involves approaching new development with the goals of reducing impervious cover and increasing the conservation of natural areas.
One way to accomplish this is through cluster development, which minimizes lot sizes within a compact developed portion of a property while leaving the remaining portion prominently open.
Housing can still consist of detached single family homes as well as multi-family housing or a mix of both.
Cluster development creates protected open space that provides many market and non-market benefits.
For example, some communities have found that cluster development:

• Can reduce the capital cost of subdivision development by 10 to 33%, primarily by reducing the length of the infrastructure needed to serve the development (NAHB, 1986; Maryland Office of Planning, 1989; Schueler, 1995).

• Typically keeps from 40 to 80% of total site area in permanent community open space.
Much of the open space is managed as natural area, which often increases the future value of residential property in comparison to low-density subdivisions.
This premium has ranged from five to 32% in communities in the Northeastern United States.
In Massachusetts, cluster developments were found to appreciate 12% faster than conventional subdivisions over a 20-year period (Lacey and Arendt, 1990).
In Howard County, Maryland, a cluster development with an average lot size of one acre had the same market value as a conventional subdivision with one to five acre lots (Legg Mason, 1990).

• Can reduce the need to clear and grade 35 to 60% of total site area.
Since the total cost to clear, grade and install erosion control practices can range up to $5,000 per acre, reduced clearing can be a significant cost savings to builders (Schueler, 1995).

• Can reserve up to 15% of the site for active or passive recreation.
When carefully designed, the recreation space can promote better pedestrian movement, a stronger sense of community space and a park-like setting.
Numerous studies have confirmed that developments situated near trails or parks sell for a higher price than more distant homes.

• Provides a developer some “compensation” for lots that would otherwise have been lost due to wetland, floodplain or other requirements.
This, in turn, reduces the pressure to encroach on stream buffers and natural areas.

• Can reduce site impervious cover from 10 to 50% (depending on the original lot size and layout), thereby lowering the cost for both stormwater conveyance and treatment.
This cost savings can be considerable, as the cost to treat the quality and quantity of stormwater from a single impervious acre can range from $2,000 to $50,000 (see article 68).
In addition, the ample open spaces within a cluster development provide a greater range of locations for more cost-effective stormwater runoff practices.

Some indication of the potential savings associated with “open space” or cluster development are shown in the Remlik Hall Farm example produced by Land Ethics, Inc. for the Chesapeake Bay Foundation (1996b).
Cost estimates were derived for two development scenarios that result in equivalent yield to the developer (see Table 1).
In the conventional scenario, the farm is subdivided into 84 large-lot units, whereas in the open-space scenario 52 higher-end units are located on smaller lots in three clusters.
Over 85% of the site is retained in open space, as farmland, forest or wetland as illustrated in Figure 2.

The authors compute net development savings of over $600,000 for this 490-acre cluster development (or about 50% lower costs than the conventional scenario).
These large savings in development infrastructure including engineering, sewage and water, and road construction costs certainly contribute to a better bottom line.
In addition, Arendt (1994) maintains that open space units sell both more rapidly and at a premium, thus increasing cash flow which is always a prime concern to the developer.

Reducing the amount of impervious cover created by subdivisions and parking lots at developments can lead to savings for municipalities and developers.
Impervious cover can be minimized by modifying local subdivision codes to allow narrower or shorter roads, smaller parking lots, shorter driveways and smaller turnarounds.
These tools make both economic and environmental sense.
Infrastructure—roads, sidewalks, storm sewers, utilities, street trees—normally constitute over half the total cost of subdivision development. (CH2M-Hill, 1993).

Much of the infrastructure creates impervious surfaces.
Thus, builders can realize significant cost savings by minimizing impervious cover (Table 2).
Some of the typical savings include the following:

• $1,100 for each parking space that is eliminated in a commercial parking lot, with a lifetime savings in the range of $5,000-$7,000 per space when future parking lot maintenance is considered

• $150 for each linear foot of road that is shortened (pavement, curb and gutter, and storm sewer)

• $25 to $50 for each linear foot of roadway that is narrowed

• $10 for each linear foot of sidewalk that is eliminated

In addition to these direct costs savings, developers will realize indirect savings.
For example, costs for stormwater treatment and conveyance are a direct function of the amount of impervious cover (see article 68).
Thus, for each unit of impervious cover that is reduced, a developer can expect a proportionately smaller cost for stormwater treatment.

======================================
Table 1: Remlik Hall Farm Example: Costs, Land Cover, and Pollution Associated With Two Plans (Land Ethics, Inc.)

Development Costs

Scenario A Conventional Plan
Scenario B Cluster Plan

1. Engineering Costs,(boundary survey, topo, road design, plans, monumentation)

A - $79,600
B- $39,800

2. Road Construction Costs

A - 20,250 linear ft. $1,012,500
B - 9,750 linear ft. $487,500

3. Sewage and Water (permit fees and (permit fees and design only)

A - Individual septic and wells $25,200
B - $13,200

4. Contingencies

A - $111,730
B - $54,050

GRAND TOTAL

A - $1,229,030
B - $594,550

Land Cover and Stormwater Pollutant Estimates [Total Site Area = 490.15 acres]
Scenario A Conventional
Scenario B Plan Cluster Plan

Total Developed Land

A 287.41 acres (58.6%)
B 69.41 acres (14.2%)

Roads & Driveway

A19.72 acres
B 11.75 acres

Turf

A 261.09 acres
B 54.04 acres

Buildings

A 6.60 acres
B 3.92 acres

Total Undeveloped Land

A 202.74 acres (41.4%)
B 420.64 acres (85.8%)

Forest
A 117.55 acres
B 133.01 acres

Wetlands

A 11.46 acres
B 11.46 acres

Total Impervious Cover

A 5.4%
B 3.7%

Total Nitrogen (lbs. per year)

A 2,534 lbs./yr
B 1482 lbs./yr

Phosphorous (lbs. per year)

A 329 lbs./yr
B 192 lbs./yr

===================================

EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL

Current state and local requirements for erosion and sediment control (ESC) often do increase the cost of development.
On a typical site, the cost to install and maintain erosion and sediment control can average $800 to $1,500 per cleared acre per year, depending on the duration of construction and the site conditions (SMBIA, 1990; Paterson et al., 1993).

Application of other watershed protection tools, however, can help reduce the total cost for ESC control at a construction site. Forest conservation, buffers and clustering all can sharply reduce the amount of clearing needed at a site, thereby reducing area that must be controlled by ESC practices.

ESC controls also provide direct and indirect benefits to both the builder and the adjacent property owner.
By keeping soil on the site, a contractor needs to spend less time and labor re-grading the site to meet final plan elevations, and less effort stabilizing eroded slopes.
Careful phasing of construction within subdivisions also often leads to economies over the entire construction process (see article 54).

STORMWATER BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES

Stormwater management practices, which include stormwater ponds, wetlands, filtering, infiltration, and swale systems, are among the most expensive watershed protection tools.
Stormwater practices are designed to promote recharge, remove pollutants, prevent streambank erosion, and control downstream flooding.
Despite their high construction and maintenance costs, stormwater practices can confer several tangible economic benefits, as the following studies show:

• The cost of designing and constructing stormwater practices can be very substantial.
The most recent cost study indicates the cost of treating the quality and quantity of stormwater runoff ranges from $2,000 to $50,000 per impervious acre (see article 68).
The construction costs do not include cost of land used for stormwater.
Stormwater practice costs are greatest for small development sites (less than 5 acres), but drop rapidly at larger sites.
In general, about a third of every dollar spent on stormwater practice construction is used for quality control, with the rest devoted for flood control.

• Stormwater management can also be beneficial for developers, since stormwater ponds and wetlands create a waterfront effect.
For example, U.S. EPA (1995) recently analyzed twenty real estate studies across the U.S. and found that developers could charge a per lot premium of up to $10,000 for homes situated next to well-designed stormwater ponds and wetlands.
In addition, EPA found that office parks and apartments next to well-designed stormwater practices could be leased or rented at a considerable premium (and often at a much faster rate).

• In a comparison of home prices in Minnesota, sale prices were nearly one-third higher for homes that had a view of a stormwater wetland compared to homes without any “waterfront” influence.
Indeed, the homes near the stormwater wetland sold for prices that were nearly identical to those homes bordering a high quality urban lake (Clean Water Partnership, 1997).

• Not all stormwater practices provide a premium.
For example, Dinovo (1995) surveyed the preferences of Illinois residents about living or locating next to dry ponds, and found most residents would not pay a premium to live next to a dry pond, and in some cases expected to pay less for such a lot.
The study confirmed that wet ponds command a considerable premium and they even scored higher than natural areas, golf courses, and parks in some location decisions (see article 84).

• In addition, some stormwater practices, such as grassed swales and bioretention areas, actually are less expensive to construct than enclosed storm drain systems, and provide better environmental results.
Liptan and Kinsella-Brown (1996) documented residential and commercial case studies where the use of bioretention and swales reduced the size and cost of conventional storm drains needed to meet local drainage and storm-
water management requirements.
The more natural drainage system eliminated the need for costly manholes, pipes, trenches and catchbasins, while removing pollutants at the same time. Total reported savings for the three projects ranged from $10,000 to $200,000.

• Stormwater practices must be maintained, and that cost burden falls on landowners or local government.
Over a 20 to 25 year period, the full cost to maintain a stormwater practice is roughly equal to its initial construction costs (Wiegand et al., 1986).
Few property owners and homeowner associations are fully aware of the magnitude of stormwater maintenance costs, and most fail to regularly perform routine and non-routine maintenance tasks.
It is likely that performance and longevity of many stormwater practices will decline without adequate maintenance.
Therefore, local governments need to evaluate how the future maintenance bill will be paid and who will pay it.

===================================
Table 2: The Unit Cost of Subdivision Development
(Source: SMBIA 1987 and others, as published in Schueler 1995)

Subdivision Improvement- Unit Costs

Roads, Grading- $22.00 per linear foot

Roads, Paving (26 feet width)- $71.50 per linear foot

Roads, Curb and Gutter- $12.50 per linear foot

Sidewalks (4 feet wide)- $10.00 per linear foot

Storm Sewer (24 inch)- $23.50 per linear foot

Clearing (forest)- $4,000 per acre

Driveway Aprons- $500 per apron

Sediment Control- $800 per acre

Stormwater Management- $300 per acre (variable)

Water/Sewer- $5,000 per lot (variable)

Well/Septic- $5,000 per lot (variable)

Street Lights- $2.00 per linear foot

Street Trees- $2.50 per linear foot
===================================

NON-STORMWATER BENCHMARKS

In many rural watersheds, new development occurs outside of water and sewer service areas, which means that wastewater must be treated on the site, usually by a septic system.
To treat wastewater, septic systems must have appropriate drainage area and soil to function properly.
Costs associated with installing septic systems—and correcting system failures—are as follows:

• The average cost of constructing a conventional septic system at a single family home situated on a large lot is around $4,500 (U.S. EPA, 1993)— approximately equal to the unit cost of municipal wastewater (Table 2).
The cost of more innovative septic systems (that have a higher nutrient removal rate, lower failure rates, or that can perform
on poor soils) are 25 to 75% greater than conventional systems, with somewhat higher maintenance costs as well (see article 123).

• The cost to maintain a properly functioning septic system on an individual lot is not inconsequential.
For example, the cost to inspect a septic system ranges from $50 to $150 per visit, and each pumpout costs about $150 to $250.
The recommended pumpout frequency ranges from two to five years for a standard household tank.
Over a decade, the total costs of maintaining a septic system can run from $1,000 to $3,000 (Ohrel, 1995).

• There are also major costs to landowners when septic systems fail.
A failed or failing septic system can decrease property values, delay the issuance of building permits, or hold up the purchase settlement (NSFC, 1995).
In the event a septic system fails, homeowners can expect to pay from $3,000 to $10,000 for replacement.

WATERSHED STEWARDSHIP PROGRAMS

After development occurs, communities still need to invest in watershed management programs.
This tool is used to educate residents and businesses about the daily role they play in protecting the quality of their watershed. Thus, many communities now invest in programs of watershed education, public participation, watershed management, monitoring, inspection of treatment systems, low input lawn care, household hazardous waste collection, or industrial and commercial pollution prevention programs.
The common theme running through each program is education.

The responsibility for ongoing watershed management programs is borne by local government, although many are now employing stormwater utilities to partially finance these programs (for a review of trends in storm-water utilities, see article 69).
Nationally, the average residential stormwater utility fee is about 30 dollars per year, of which less than 75 cents is spent on watershed education.

The Balance Sheet: Watershed Protection Tools

The various costs and benefits associated with the nine watershed protection tools are summarized in the "balance sheet" shown in Table 3.
Different costs and benefits accrue depending on whether one is a developer, property owner, community or local government.
Taken as a package, most of the players tend to make out pretty well, but there are some key differences.
For example, most watershed protection tools benefit landowners, in terms of appreciation of property values as long as they are in a developable area.
This benefit is offset to some degree by real costs for maintenance of treatment systems as well as fees that may be charged for stormwater utilities.

Some watershed protection tools have the potential to save developers money, through lot premiums, greater marketability, and lower construction costs.
At the same time, a developer has to pay out-of-pocket for stormwater and sediment control, as well as consultant fees to navigate through the watershed protection maze.
As might be expected, the community at large gets the greatest overall benefit associated with watershed protection, and appears to bear the least cost (although they may have to pay more for housing).

The only consistent financial “loser” in the watershed protection balance sheet is local government.
Local government must provide at least some staff and technical resources to guide, review, inspect, monitor, enforce and manage each watershed protection tool.

Even hiring one additional staff person can be a daunting challenge in this era of austere government,
particularly if the person is even dimly linked to the possibility of more review, regulation or red-tape.
Many players in the local economy are justifiably concerned about the economic consequences created by watershed protection.
Thus, despite its long-term benefits, watershed protection is both fiscally and politically challenging for local governments. How, then, do communities craft watershed protection programs that can achieve the broad and deep acceptance needed to
overcome these challenges?
Successful communities have found it important to do the following:

• Invest early in watershed education and outreach

• Designate a single agency to champion watershed protection and play a role in the development process

• Employ a unified and streamlined development review process

• Develop simple and practical performance criteria

• Include all stakeholders in a public process to define the scope of watershed protection tools

• Be responsive to the needs of the development community for fair and timely review and “common-sense” requirements

• Provide incentives and remedies that protect the economic interests of existing landowners

• Continually tout the economic and environmental benefits that are expected from watershed protection •

• Institute a dedicated funding source to support watershed protection such as a stormwater utility

The central role of local government leadership in watershed protection cannot be overstated, nor can the budget implications be discounted.

=================================
Table 3: Balance Sheet for Watershed Protection

(–) negative economic consequence (+) positive economic or environmental impact

A -Watershed ProtectionTools
B -Developer/Builder
C -Adjacent Property Owner
D -Community
E -Local/Govt

A 1. Watershed Planning and Zoning
B (–) cost of land (–) locational constraints
C (+) property value
D (+) business attraction (+) protection from adverse uses
E (–) staff and budget resources (+) reduced “clean up”

A 2. Protect Sensitive Areas
B (+) natural area premium (–) permitting (–) locational constraints
C (+) property value
D (+) habitat (+) fisheries
E (–) staff resources (+) reduced “clean up” costs (+) lower cost of services


A 3. Establish Buffer Network
B (+) buffer premium (–) locational constraints
C (+) property value
D (+) flooding risk (+) wildlife (+) greenway (+) trails
E (–) staff resources (+) fewer drainage complaints

A 4. Cluster and Open Space Development
B (+) construction costs (+) marketability (+) no lost lots
C (+) property value (–) HOA fees
D (+) recreation (+) green space (+) natural area preservation
E (–) staff resources (+) lower cost of services

A 5. Narrow Streets and Smaller Parking Lots
B (+) reduced construction cost
C (+) property value (–) parking
D (+) better sense of place (+) pedestrian friendly
E (–) staff resources

A 6. Erosion and Sediment Control
B (–) higher cost (+) savings in cleaning/ grading
C (+) trees saved increase value (+) no off-site sediment
D (+) water quality (+) tree conservation
E (–) staff resources (+) reduced complaints from downstreamers

A 7. Stormwater Best Management Practices
B (–) higher costs (+) pond/wetland premium
C (–) maintenance (+) waterfront effect (if done right)
D (+) protection of water supply (+) stream protection
E (–) staff resources (+) reduced waterbody programs/problems

A 8. Treat Septic System Effluent
B (–) higher design and engineering costs
C (–) clean out costs
D (+) protection of water supply
E (–) staff resources

A 9. Ongoing Watershed Management
B no impact
C (–) annual fee for utility (+) continued healthy environment
D (–) annual fee (+) involvement in watershed services
E (–) staff resources

A ECONOMIC TREND
B MIXED
C POSITIVE
D POSITIVE
E NEGATIVE

=================================

Summary

The premise that carefully-managed watershed protection tools can have a balanced, positive effect on the local economy is generally supported by the economic research to date.
It must, however, be acknowledged that our understanding of the economics of watershed protection is fragmented, and we know more about the parts than the whole.
More economic research is urgently needed on the market and non-market benefits of an overall watershed protection program.

At first glance, it seems futile to calculate the intrinsic economic value of a quality stream, a productive cove, a clear lake, or a forested floodplain.
Calculating the "true" value of a quality watershed, however it might be defined, seems an even more daunting task.
Most economists would privately agree this can probably never be done.
What is interesting about urban watersheds, however, is that society measures the value it places on these resources every day, in terms of property values, real estate premiums, lease-up rates, storm-water utility fees, construction costs and volunteer hours donated.
While we may never know the true value of a stream, the research reviewed in this article clearly suggests that society does not value them lightly.

The timeless (and tired) real estate adage "location, location, and location" underscores the importance of how people value land.
Research profiled here suggests that many of us prefer to locate next to forests, wetlands, streams and water features.
More importantly, even those members of the community who do not live next to these features, still recognize the important role that they play in the quality of the environment and in their lives.
Harnessing this sense of place is perhaps the most important element of watershed protection programs.

-----------------------
Protecting Property Rights and the Watershed

When a community applies some watershed protection tools, it faces conflict over the rights of the community versus the rights of private property owners. However, a well-crafted watershed protection program protects the rights of all members of the community, as well as the value of their land.

As noted earlier, many watershed protection tools generally have either an economically neutral effect on property value or increase it. For example, open space, forest conservation areas, creek and shoreline buffers and stormwater ponds all maintain the equity value of a parcel since they increase the value of developed properties.

The enhanced effect on land value is meaningless, however, if a property lies entirely within a protection zone and cannot be developed. For example, Holway and Burby (1990) found a sharp drop in the value of wetland and floodplain land when development was restricted. Similarly, Wood (1992) found that conservation easements that essentially prohibit any development or active management retain only 10 to 36% of their prior land value. Beaton (1991) reported that the value of undeveloped land in the most restrictive areas of the New Jersey Pinelands dipped slightly, but there were no wipeouts.

Fortunately, local governments have a number of techniques that can lessen the impact of protection zones on property owners. These include:

• Transferable development rights are a tool that achieve some of the same goals as conservation easements, in that another landowner may purchase the rights to develop a property from the owner. When the land is sold or inherited, it retains the prohibition against development. Several useful guides on how to create a TDR program to protect the rural landscape have been developed by Montgomery County, Pennsylvania (1995) and Montgomery County, Maryland (1990).

• Clustering allows the same number and type of lots as under existing zoning on a given parcel of land (e.g., single family detached homes), so potentially no equity value is lost. Cluster ordinances require that the total number of allowable lots be clustered on one portion of the entire parcel. Sensitive areas, buffers, and stormwater facilities are situated on the remaining undisturbed open space.

• Density compensation grants the landowner a credit for additional density elsewhere on the site, in compensation for developable land that has been lost due to a buffer or natural area requirement. Credits are then granted if more than 5% of developable land is lost, based on a sliding scale (Schueler 1995).

• Voluntary conservation easements protect sensitive areas and buffers with a mutually negotiated perpetual conservation easement that conditions the use and development of the land. The local government then taxes the protected land at a much lower rate, giving the landowner a lower property tax burden. There are also significant federal tax benefits (see Diehl and Barret, 1988).

• Buffer and lot averaging allows buffer and lot lines to be determined on a average rather than a fixed basis. This added flexibility allows designers to work around existing structures, and environmentally sensitive areas. Other techniques to consider to protect property rights include grandfathering, traditional use exemptions, and a fair and timely appeals procedure (see also RMC, 1992). Kelly et al. (1996) have prepared a useful guide for planners to use in response to concerns about takings.

Finally, it is important to clearly frame each watershed protection tool within the compelling public safety, welfare, or environmental benefits that it provides to the community at large, so that the partial regulation of land use can be legally justified. For example, stormwater and erosion control requirements protect downstream properties from flooding and sediment damages (and claims) arising from upstream activity.
-----------------------

References

Adams, L. 1994. Urban Wildlife Habitats--A Landscape Perspective. University of Minneapolis Press. Minneapolis, MN. 175 pp.

Anderson, L.M. and Cordell, H.K., "Residential Property Values Improved by Landscaping with Trees." Southern Journal of Applied Forestrypp. 162-166.

Arendt, R. 1994. Designing Open Space Subdivisions: a Practical Step by Step Approach. Natural Lands Trust. Appendix E. Medic, PA. 150 pp.

Beaton, W. P. 1988. The Cost of Government Regulations. Volume 2. A Baseline Study for the Chesapeake Bay Critical Area. Chesapeake Bay Critical Area Commission. Annapolis, MD. 216 pp.

Beaton, W.P. 1991. "The Impact of Regional Land Use Controls on Property Values: the Case of the New Jersey Pinelands."Land Economics 67 (2): 172-94.

Beaton, W. P. and M. Pollock. 1992. "Economic Impact of Growth Management Policies Surrounding the Chesapeake Bay."Land Economics 68 (4): 434-53.

Brown, W. 1996. "Toward a Balanced Monitoring Budget." Watershed Protection Techniques 2(1): 338-344.

Burby, R. 1988. Cities Under Water: A Comparative Evaluation of Ten Cities’ Efforts to Manage Floodplain Land Use.Institute of Behavioral Science #6. Boulder, CO. 250 pp.

Chesapeake Bay Foundation. 1996a. A Dollars and Sense Partnership: Economic Development and Environmental Protection. Chesapeake Bay Foundation. Annapolis, MD. 21 pp.

Chesapeake Bay Foundation. 1996b. A Better Way to Grow: for More Livable Communities and a Healthier Chesapeake Bay. Chesapeake Bay Foundation, Lands Program. Annapolis, MD. 32 pp.

CH2M-Hill, 1993.Costs of Providing Government Services to Alternative Residential Patterns. Committee on Population Growth and Development. U.S. EPA Chesapeake Bay Program. Annapolis, MD. 168 pp.

Clean Water Partnership. 1996. Wetlands, Water Quality and Property Values. Chain of Lakes brochure. Correll, Mark R., Jane H. Lillydahl and Larry D. Singell, 1978. "The Effects of Greenbelts on Residential Property Values: Some Findings on the Political Economy of Open Space." Land Economics 54(2).

Desbonnet, A, P. Pogue, V. Lee and N. Wolff. 1994. Vegetated Buffers in the Coastal Zone: A Summary Review and Bibliography.Coastal Resources Center, University of Rhode Island. Providence, Rhode Island. 72 pp.

Diehl, J. and T. Barret. 1988. Conservation Easement Hamper. The Land Trust Alliance. Trust for Public Land. Alexandria, VA.

Dinovo, C. E. 1995. "Stormwater Detention Basins and Residential Locational Decisions." Water Resources Bulletin 31(3): 515-521.

Ebenreck, S. 1988. "Measuring the Value of Trees." American Forest 4(7&8): 31-64.

Flink, C., and R. Searns. 1993. Greenways-- A Guide to Planning, Design and Development. The Conservation Fund. Island Press. Washington, D.C. 338 pp.

Hanson, S., and R. Rowntree. 1988. Influence of Urban Forest Cover on Radiation, Temperature, and Runoff in the Salt Lake Basin, Utah. pp. 412-415.


Hoban T., and W. Clifford. 1992. Public Attitudes Toward Water Quality and Management Alternatives in the Ablemarle-Pamlico Estuary. APES Report. 89-06. Ablemarle-Pamlico Estuary Program. Raleigh, NC.

Holway, J., and R. Burby, 1990. "The Effects of Floodplain Development Controls on Residential Land Values." Land Economics66: 259-271.

Kelly, E.D., A. L. Strong and D. R. Mandelker. 1996. "The Longer View: Property Rights and Takings." Journal of the American Planning Association Winter 1996. In Press.

Kirby, K. 1993. "Wetlands Not Wastelands." Scenic America Technical Information Series 1(5): 1-8

Lacey, J., and R. Arendt. 1990. An Examination of Market Appreciation for Clustered Housing with Permanently Protected Open Space. Center for Rural Massachusetts, Amherst, MA. 14 pp.

Legg Mason, 1990. Real Estate Report on Cluster Development in Howard County, MD. Unpublished report.

Liptan, T. and C. K. Brown. 1996. A Cost Comparison of Conventional and Water Quality-Based Storm-water Designs. City of Portland. Bureau of Environmental Services. Portland, OR. 16 pp.

Maryland Office of Planning. 1989. Environmental and Economic Impacts of Lot Size and Other Development Standards. Baltimore, MD. 18 pp.

Michael, H. J., K .J. Boyle and R. Bouchard. 1996. Water Quality Affects Property Prices: A Case Study of Selected Maine Lakes. University of Maine, Maine Agricultural and Forest Experiment Station. Miscellaneous Report 398. 15 pp.

Montgomery County Planning Board. 1990. Plowing New Ground: Questions and Answers. Agricultural and Rural Open Space Preservation Program. Montgomery County, MD. 19 pp.

Montgomery County Planning Commission. 1995.Guidebook for Creating a Municipal TDR Program. Montgomery County, PA. 62 pp.

Morales, D.J. 1980. "The Contribution of Trees to Residential Property Values." Journal of Arboriculture 6(11):301-302.

National Association of Homebuilders (NAHB). 1986. Cost-Effective Site Planning--Single Family Development. Washington, D.C. 124 pp.

National Park Service, 1992. The Economic Impacts of Protecting Rivers, Trails and Greenway Corridors. National Park Service, Western Regional Office. San Francisco, CA. 100 pp.

National Small Flows Clearinghouse, (NSFC). 1995. "Maintaining Your Septic System--A Guide for Homeowners." Pipeline6(4): 1-B. Septic Systems.

Nelson, W. 1975. "Trees in the Landscape: A Look Beyond the Obvious." Journal of Arboriculture 1:121-128.

Ohrel, R. 1995. "Dealing With Septic System Impacts." Watershed Protection Techniques 2(1) 269- 27.

Paterson, R., M. Luger, R. Burby, E. Kaiser, H. Malcom and A. Beard 1993. "Costs and Benefits of Urban Erosion and Sediment Control--The North Carolina Experience." Environmental Management 17 (2) 167-178.

Resource Management Consultants (RMC). 1992. Incentives and Their Uses in the Chesapeake Bay Critical Area. Chesapeake Bay Critical Area Commission. Annapolis, MD. 94 pp.

Schueler, T. 1995. Site Planning for Urban Stream Protection. Center for Watershed Protection. Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments. Silver Spring, MD. 222 pp.

Streiner, C. and J. Loomis. 1996. Estimating the Benefits of Urban Stream Restoration Using the Hedonic Price Method. Dept. of Agriculture and Resource Economics. Colorado State University. 18 pp.

Suburban Maryland Building Industry Association, (SMBIA). 1990. Unpublished data on the unit cost of residential subdivision development in Suburban, Maryland.

U.S. EPA. 1992. Stormwater Utilities: Innovative Financing for Stormwater Management. Office of Policy, Planning and Evaluation. Washington, D.C. 92 pp.

U.S. EPA. 1993.Guidance for Specifying Management Measures for Sources of Nonpoint Pollution in Coastal Waters. Office of Water. EPA 840-B-92002. Washington, D.C. 740 pp.

U.S. EPA. 1995. Economic Benefits of Runoff Controls. Office of Wetlands, Oceans and Watersheds. Washington, D.C. EPA 841-5-95-002. 19 pp.

Weyerhauser Company, 1989. The Value of Landscaping. Weyerhauser Nursery Products Division. Tacoma, WA.

Wiegand, C., T. Schueler, W. Chittenden, and D. Jellick. 1986. Cost of Urban Runoff Quality Controls. pp. 366-380 In: Urban Runoff Quality. Engineering Foundation Conference. ASCE. Henniker, NH, June 23-27. 1986.

Wildlife Habitat Enhancement Council. 1992.The Economic Benefits of Wildlife Habitat Enhancement on Corporate Lands. Silver Spring, MD. 22 pp.

Wood, T.C. 1992. "Effect of Conservation Easements on Fair Market Values." Maine Coast Heritage Trust. Technical Bulletin 104.
-------------------

A New Bellingham Public Library: A Real Need

---------------------------------
John Servais' most recent attack on the plan for REPLACING and EXPANDING the Bellingham Public Library simply repeats again the singular and uninformed positions that both he and the Whatcom WIndy have espoused for a long time. Neither critic has bothered to open their ears to the deliberate, candid and accurate arguments the Library Board has proffered after at least 7 years of considering the various options available. Both Servais' and the WIndy's position seem remarkably rigid, opinionated and wrong, which -taken together-motivate this response.
==========================

Reprinted below is John Servais' recent missive, pompously entitled 'Library planning versus needs', from his website 'NW Citizen' dated Mon, Jan 28, 2008. I have inserted my comments in BRACKETS [] below:

"Tomorrow the Bellingham Library Board of Trustees meets and will probably produce a plan for a new grand downtown library building and a bond issue of between 20 to 60 million dollars to pay for it. It will be sent to the city council and mayor for placement on the May ballot - and they will start a "grassroots" campaign to pass the issue with former mayor Tim Douglas leading the "grassroots" effort. The project will contain teaser branch library tidbits as a hook to get voters to approve it. It is all pretty bogus.

[Does Mr Servais have a problem with a duly appointed and confirmed LIBRARY BOARD submitting their duly considered recommendations to the Mayor & Council? If so, what alternate method does Mr Servais advocate? Does he doubt that a strong CENTRAL BRANCH is absolutely essential to any DISTRIBUTED branch system?]

Briefly, here is an analysis and alternative direction for our city.

The Library has not seriously considered any options to the one big building.
[Huh? Are you paying ANY attention AT ALL?]
As such, their statements that branch libraries are more expensive and that our city is not big enough are merely that - statements of opinion without any study behind them. They cite some facts of other cities but have not actually researched our Bellingham situation. They have reacted to neighborhood requests for branches by tossing crumbs in the form of pickup points.
[What research have you done, Mr Servais, that suggests otherwise? Branch Libraries are inherently more expensive!]

An underground parking garage for city and county employees is the real reason behind a new big library downtown.
[This surmise is absolutely false! There are BMC requirements which do specify parking requirements]
There are laws that prevent the city from just building this - and they know the voters would never approve a 30 million dollar bond issue for a parking garage. So they have wrapped it in a library.
[Just exactly what are these laws? How do you imagine any additional parking will be financed?]

Traffic and parking will be worsened with a big central library.
[We already have a 'BIG CENTRAL LIBRARY! We need a somewhat larger one which can also provide the support required for more branches. We also need to be realistic in providing additional parking when we have the opportunity. Additional parking can be provided by Councilmanic Bond, separate from any Bond Issue.]
With branches, people can get full services and school kids can safely go to their branch libraries. In 1992, several of us in the Fairhaven area formed the Friends of the Fairhaven Library when then mayor Tim Douglas and the Library Trustees were preparing to close our Fairhaven Library. We organized south side residents and we stopped city hall.
[Friends of the Library exists nation-wide and function to help Libraries achieve their public purpose! Please do not claim full credit for 'FRIENDS'!].
We wish other neighborhoods could have such a fine facility. Its use has continued to grow each month and year. It serves all five south side neighborhoods and is very efficient on a any number of library measurement criteria.

Enough analysis for this post.
[Analysis and YOUR OPINION!]
There is more analysis that is damming to the city plans.
[What are you talking about, Mr. Servais? More conspiracy theory?]
But here is an alternative plan which I think will provide a much higher level of service to all residents for the same or fewer dollars.
[Where is your factual analysis? This seems based upon nothing more than your own preconceived speculation.]

1. Build a book storage facility in a low cost manner on the north side of town - Bakerview area, for instance. Put the 80% of the books that only get checked out 20% of the time there. Keep the 20% that get checked out 80% of the time at the central and branch libraries. The building needs humidity control but can be inexpensive and efficient for storing and retrieving desired books.
[Who would man this facility, and at what annual cost? Do you have a clue?]

2. Start building full service branch libraries. No bond issue this May. Instead meet with residents in the neighborhoods and plan branch locations and build them one at a time over the years as we continue to grow as a community. The first branches are needed in the Alderwood or Cordata neighborhoods. For years Talbot Company has been offering the city free space at Barkley Village but the library has ignored them till now - when some interest will help pass the bond issue.
[How many branches would be needed, and at what cost? What is the estimated capital cost? What is annual operating cost? Where would additional annual operating costs be funded?]

3. Combine the Bellingham and Whatcom County library systems. Talk about cutting costs and saving tax dollars.
[Are you aware of the restrictions that might prevent that from happening? Are you aware that this possibility has already been investigated?]
Whew.
[That is an appropriate reaction!]
That book storage system with daily van deliveries of books is exactly how the County system works and efficiently runs 9 branches. Combine the two and efficiently run all our libraries. While the two systems cooperate now, we taxpayers are paying double for the administrative services.
[That conclusion is accurate, but legalisms do exist to prevent better collaboration. Please illuminate us to the realities. not the suppositions. DO YOU IMAGINE THAT THE LIBRARY BOARD has not already thoroughly investigated this possibility?]

4. Lets examine just what services and value we want from our library system. The Internet is steadily wiping out reference services. Do you know free libraries were started in the 1800s for - not school kids and not the general public - but to get the blue collar working men out of the bars in the evenings? True. Over the century they have evolved to serve the community. One new service they could efficiently perform is to provide as our public records source for government documents from the city, county, port and other government agencies. This is only one idea of how their services could be expanded to give us more bang for our dollar.
[Directionally, you are correct, but everybody should already know that. The Library Board's desire IS TO GIVE THE BIGGEST "BANG" FOR THE BUCK! How can you imagine anything different would be acceptable?]

5. A final point. Browsing library shelves. Well, when you do, you do not see the most popular books as they are checked out. But new Internet catalog services now allow us to browse a shelf of books at our local library and see all the books. The screen shows the book spines with titles and you can view the title page, forward and even the table of contents. Then you can put a reserve on the book you want and it can be delivered to your branch library for convenient - and environmentally friendly - pickup by you. With today's and tomorrow's Internet, we can browse the actual shelf visually online and see all the books. And that is the service we want and need.
[Of Course! Most younger -and other - folks already appreciate this, but there are still older folks among us who do not depend upon the Internet as much as as some do. Certainty, you would not want to exclude them, would you?]

We citizens need to insist that our city government and library board make a serious effort to compare their big parking garage/library plan with the options of branches, big warehouse storage of materials and combining the city and county systems. That has not been done - but the hype from city hall implies that has been done.
[You are seriously mistaken! All of these considerations are critically important and have been seriously considered by the Library Board. Before you make such accusations, please reasonably apprise yourself of the several years considerations that the Library Board has undertaken.]
We need to insist on real studies. It is worth spending good money on a cost benefit analysis and waiting a year instead of spending tens of millions of dollars on a big library that may be of low value in the future. The parking garage for city and county staff perks is the only high value thing hat we are being asked to fund with the May bond issue. The library is just wrapping for the parking garage.
[Again, you are seriously mistaken! I would hope that you would undertake to attend more than the the 2 or 3 Library Board Meetings than I have seen you attend in the last 6 or 7 years. Please do not undertake to undermine the serious work that at least 7 years of serious and deliberative Library Board considerations!]

[I hope our community will see past the biased and exceptionally uninformed opinions that Mr Servais has posted, and understand that all of these serious considerations have been thoroughly addressed by the Library Board in its deliberations. I can't imagine a group that is better focused on the best interests of our community! While I thoroughly respect contrary opinion, I strongly support the effort put forth by the Library Board in identifying community needs and addressing our community's long term vision.]

A Few Belated Responses on MLK Day:

--------------------
Let's honor the memory and legacy of Martin Luther King! He was an inspiration to us all, but much is still left to do since his death.
--------------------

Since the last posting some stuff has happened.

Nice hike at Point Reyes, Oysters for Dinner, NFL Conference Championship Games, fixing up an old house for retirement, watching the Demo debates in South Carolina, and finally catching up on reading about Bellingham and its 'issues'.

So much information, with so little to add, but some comments anyway from the perspective of someone who has recently served in local office, but is now sufficiently removed from that obligation to comment more candidly and without the caution of 'officially' offending any constituent.

1. Tip Johnson's lament about 'non coverage' of a 'mob' attending a Fairhaven Highlands [Chuckanut Ridge] public hearing is ludicrous!
I've got news for you Tip, it was not a newsworthy event. That is, except for some NIMBY folks who want to manufacture an 'issue'.
This land was zoned for development in 1980 [your watch?], is within City Limits and makes sense for development as long as the EIS conditions are reasonably met. If development cannot occur there, where can it occur?
Didn't this happen on your watch on the City Council?
Before?
Why didn't you take action on it then?
I'm thinking the entertainment value of mischievously taunting local government is more of an incentive to folks like you than any other reason, but what do I know?

I invite advocates of 'saving the 100-acre woods' [actually 85 acres, of which 50 will likely be saved for Critical Areas purposes anyway] to adopt a cause that is more worthy of their effort.
Like maybe protecting the Lake Whatcom Reservoir, truly affordable housing, or meaningful Charter Review for example.

Find another way of having fun, other than at citizen's expense.
I know it is tempting to keep doing what you're doing, and reliving visions of emulating the Chicago 7, but grow up will you?
--------------

2. The brouhaha over GMA Land Supply needs to end as well. The City did its due diligence and came up with a its estimate of future land supply needs, which the County disagrees with for whatever reason. The new Mayor and Council Members are now advocating less land supply, which is their prerogative regardless of whether they participated in the lengthy process of analyzing future needs.

Political reality dictates their pronouncements be honored. Do it! It makes no difference who is right or wrong, because the County has the stroke to make the final decision. But, make sure what the City agrees to conforms to what it can deliver!
To me that means to reduce the percentage of City agreed growth from 51.4% to about 40%. Make sure that happens and I believe the City's liability will be minimal.
-----------

3. Today's Herald story 'Cordata-area residents seek branch library. North-siders say they may oppose bond proposal.
That litany is beginning to sound like the whines of the so-called 'Greenways Legacy' crowd. You know, the ones who were willing to sabotage Greenways 3 if they didn't get their way?

Get serious people! It's hard enough to get folks to vote for the real necessities, much less the wants of every neighborhood in town! Do you have any idea of how expensive any of these projects are likely to be? Public Bond Issues only pay for capital projects. They don't even begin to meet the ongoing operating costs of sustaining a Branch Library, which would likely require 2 or 3 permanent staff at $50k to $75k per year apiece to maintain. That money needs to be provided from the General Fund, and would likely amount to the entire 1% in Property Taxes that the Council is able to approve without a public vote!

The idea of additional branches has been very seriously considered for several years by the Library Board, all of whom are citizen volunteers. If the feasibility is not there, you need to respect that finding. And, without an updated and modernized Central Library, there is no strong Trunk to support the Branches.

People already know where the Central Library is -in everyone's neighborhood- and are using it in numbers that are growing nearly every month, despite Internet use and travel time. The current site was picked largely for that reason, and partly because the City already owns the site. That alone, saves millions on the cost of another site. The 'park' behind the Library will be preserved, but to the south of the proposed new library building, where it can enjoy -above grade- sunshine with closer access to the Childrens' Museum and the Cultural District. And does anyone really doubt there is need for some additional parking?

I hope you good Northside folks aren't really willing to oppose a bond campaign! I -and the entire reading community- certainly hope you will get behind this issue as one that will benefit everyone in our community for many years to come.
--------------------

4. The NFL Conference Championship Games sounded pretty good, although I only saw some of the last parts of the 2nd game between the Jints and the Packers, including the overtime.
My sense was that the Jints deserved to win.
Also, that the Super Bowl may be closer than the 14 point spread in favor of the Patriots.
I really don't care who wins as long as it is a close, competitive, well played game.
You know, kinda like local politics.
-----------------

Out.

On Libraries, Hiking & A Bobcat!

-------------------------------

Joan & I joined the San Francisco Library down at our Glen Park Branch this past week and were each issued a bar-coded card on the spot that is good to use at any of the 30 locations here in town.
The card, along with a personal PIN CODE also allows use of the Library's computers up to 30 minutes at a time.
Because WIFI is available, we could bring our own laptop and use the Internet connection as long as we want.

The hours of operation each week are as follows:

Sunday - Closed
Monday - Closed
Tuesday - 10 AM to 6 PM
Wednesday - 12 Noon to 8 PM
Thursday - 1 PM to 7 PM
Friday - 1 PM to 6 PM
Saturday - 1 PM to 6 PM

3 or 4 librarians were on duty all three times we visited our local Branch.
Most of the patrons were kids, but a variety of ages were present.
-------------------------------

Wednesday, we crossed the Golden Gate Bridge and visited Mount Tamalpais State Park for a hike in the sunshine.
Mt Tam is practically unparalleled in the variety of hiking experiences it offers.
The drainages to the North are actually part of the Marin Water District, which carefully restricts the uses allowed, so that the system of surface reservoirs below Mt Tam are protected.

The hike offered terrific views of San Francisco and most of the northern Bay, plus Mt Diablo to the East.
Good ocean views, too, over Stinson Beach and Bolinas Lagoon, out to the Farallon Islands and Point Reyes National Seashore Park.
There was a little haze, but sometimes you can actually still see the High Sierra from these heights, over 200 miles away!

I tried unsuccessfully to download a couple of the digital images I took of a bobcat we encountered, followed for a while and eventually passed on our our way out.
This guy was a healthy specimen, one of about 30 or so that are known to inhabit the Marin Headlands and its surrounds.

At first, we thought it might be a coyote, but a look through binoculars confirmed this was a really good-sized cat!

He -or she- was hunting for dinner, and the preferred menu seemed to have been gophers or other small burrowing rodents.
This particular Bobcat wasn't very interested in us, but when it eventually became aware of our presence, it moved off the trail and downslope about 30 yards or so where it sat in the tall, dry grass and watched us pass, then continued it's hunt.

As luck would have it, the very next night we watched a presentation by Tony Rowell, the late Galen's son, in which he showed some shots of a Marin Headlands Bobcat hunting and pouncing on its prey!
------------------------

Here's some general info on Bobcats from Wikipedia, plus a couple of digital images much better than than the ones I took:

The Bobcat (Lynx rufus), occasionally known as the Bay Lynx, is a North American mammal of the cat family, Felidae. With twelve recognized subspecies, it ranges from southern Canada to northern Mexico, including most of the continental United States. The Bobcat is an adaptable predator that inhabits wooded areas, as well as semi-desert, urban edge, and swampland environments. It persists in much of its original range and populations are healthy.

With a gray to brown coat, whiskered face, and black-tufted ears, the Bobcat resembles the other species of the mid-sized Lynx genus. It is smaller than the Canadian Lynx, with which it shares parts of its range, but is about twice as large as the domestic cat. It has distinctive black bars on its forelegs and a black-tipped, stubby tail, from which it derives its name.
Though the Bobcat prefers rabbits and hares, it will hunt anything from insects and small rodents to deer and pronghorn antelope. Prey selection depends on location and habitat, season, and abundance. Like most cats, the Bobcat is territorial and largely solitary, although there is some overlap in home ranges. It uses several methods to mark its territorial boundaries, including claw marks and deposits of urine or feces. The Bobcat breeds from winter into spring and has a gestation period of about two months.

Although the Bobcat has been subject to extensive hunting by humans, both for sport and fur, its population has proven resilient. The elusive predator features in Native American mythology and the folklore of European settlers.

---------------------------------

We'll try to spot more wildlife tomorrow, this time at Point Reyes.
------------------------

On Libraries & Football

Does this remind you of goal posts?
-----------------------------------------
I may have found a new method of blogging while watching football.
You know, like multi-tasking.
What a concept, but like most things a little prior research is useful.

Yesterday’s blog got posted before the Seahawks game was over, at least technically over.
They were a disappointment again, which was no big surprise.
The Patriots showed the Jaguars why they are the champs, but the issue was in doubt during the first half.

This morning’s game between the Chargers and Colts was one of the most interesting I’ve seen in recent years. The outcome was in doubt right up to the end, and it was remarkable how the Chargers managed to overcome the injuries to their best players to prevail.
I doubt they will beat the Patriots, but its good to see some different teams advance to the next level.

I’m rooting for the Giants over the Cowboys now, which is probably enough to jinx that outcome too!
So, with less than 14 minutes left in the game the 'Jints' have taken a 21-17 lead.
Will that last?
You'll have research that final score for yourself -after the game is over.
-----------------------------------------


Main SF Library

On the subject of libraries, maybe a few facts about the San Francisco library system would be of interest.
You can research this subject yourself at this URL:

http://sfpl.lib.ca.us

Of course, there are some big differences between San Francisco and Bellingham, which need to be recognized.
Considered the second most dense city in the US [16,000 people per square mile] SF has 10 times the population of Bellingham, has a significantly higher median income and has a long established Library system, including a large Main Library and 29 Branches. Only 14.5% of its population are children. Also, SF has a pretty low poverty rate, at 7.8%.

The current Main Branch was completed in 1996 after a long planning and funding process. It was built near the same site as the old Main, which was constructed in 1917.

SF is also a consolidated City & County jurisdiction [since 1856], where the Mayor also serves as County Executive.
An 11-member Board of Supervisors, elected by District, serves as the co-equal legislative branch of government.
Notice each District has nearly the population of Bellingham?
-----------------------------------------


Glen Park Branch Library

The new, nearby $5.5 million Glen Park Branch Library was opened last October about 3 blocks away, across the street from a BART Station and on 4 Bus Routes. The new 7185 SF space is 6 times larger than the older leased wooden building, which became a bookstore. The new Branch occupies the second floor, above a food market which itself was part of a mixed-use redevelopment that replaced a severely fire damaged older building.

Financing for acquisition and construction of the new branch was funded by a $105.9 million bond measure passed by voters in November 2000 and $500,000 in private funds raised by the Friends of the San Francisco Public Library for furniture, fixtures and equipment.
The Branch Library Improvement Program [BLIP] is the largest capital improvement campaign in the history of the San Francisco Public Library. BLIP calls for 17 branches to be renovated, 4 leased buildings to be replaced with City-owned buildings, 2 branches to be replaced with new buildings, and 1 brand-new branch in Mission Bay.
-----------------------------------------

One point I'd like to make is that while Branches are a great idea, they are expensive to build, maintain and operate, plus they strongly depend upon a Main Branch for support.
But, if citizens want a larger Branch system and will vote to pay for it, it can certainly happen.
In coming to a decision like that, let's be careful about setting up false choices, like the Main versus Branch argument the need for parking and be realistic about the costs and competing priorities.

-----------------------------------------
Additional info:

The Main Library is the resource center for the entire San Francisco Public Library system and the libraries of Northern California. Its large collection and extensive programs and exhibits support the Library’s mission of “access to information, knowledge, independent learning and the joy of reading.”

http://sfpl.lib.ca.us/librarylocations/main/buildmain.htm

Other Facts about the Building

About the Library
· Hours & Phone Numbers
· Main
· Branches
· Meeting Rooms
· Kids
· Teens

Financing:
Construction was financed by a $109.5 million bond measure approved by San Francisco voters in 1988. Construction of the Main Library cost $104.5 million.

The remaining funds were used for branch renovations. Furnishing, interior finishes and equipment were financed through $30 million in private funds raised by the Library Foundation of San Francisco.

Site:
Marshall Square in San Francisco Civic Center. The site is bounded by Larkin, Fulton, Hyde and Grove Streets
Chronology and Schedule:

1974: The Library Commission, the Friends of the San Francisco Public Library, Keep Libraries Alive!, and other citizen groups fight successfully to retain Marshall Square as the site for a new main library.

1985: The Friends of the San Francisco Public Library offers to work with Mayor Dianne Feinstein on the completion of the Civic Center, including use of Marshall Square for a new library.

1986: A task force is created by Mayor Feinstein to complete the design of the Civic Center.

A report by Becker and Hayes/Omni-Group criticizes the Old Main and calls for building a new library in Marshall Square.

The Friends of the San Francisco Public Library inaugurate a private fund-raising campaign for the New Main.

The Library Foundation of San Francisco is established to support a New Main.
(Friends & Foundation of the San Francisco Public Library.)

1987: A second study by Becker and Hayes/Omni-Group underscores the use of Marshall Square for a new library. Another study, by Skidmore Owings Merrill, recommends that the Old Main be used for a museum. (Future of the Old Main.)

The mayor calls for a new main library in Marshall Square as part of a Civic Center master plan.

1988: Library bond for 109.5 million passes for renovation of a few branches and construction of a new 376,000 square foot Main Library.

1989: Pei Cobb Freed & Partners of New York and Simon Martin-Vegue Winkelstein Moris of San Francisco are hired by the Library Commission as architects for the New Main.

1991: The Library Foundation officially announces its campaign for the New Main.

1992: Groundbreaking ceremony is held in Marshall Square.

Special Gifts campaign is launched to seek funds from various local constituencies (affinity groups) for particular collections and capital gains.

1993: On March 15, construction of the New Main begins.

1994: Topping-out ceremony marks the completion of the framing of the new building.

The Library Foundation reaches $30 million fund-raising goal and keeps going.

1995: New Main is completed. By the end of the year, the Library Foundation has raised $35 million.

1996: Opening of the Main is on April 18.

2000: Post Occupancy Evaluation Report (POE): Executive Summary

Seating:

Seating Capacity: 2,043 (5 times that of the Old Main Library)
Public Service Areas: 1,180 (3 times that of the Old Main Library)
Meeting Rooms: 544 seats
Auditorium: 235 seats
Study Rooms: 46 seats (2 in each study room)
Size:

Square Feet: 376,000. Six floors above ground. One floor below ground.
-----------------------------------------------