What would you rather have: This?
...or THIS?
(These two photos are an estimate - not claimed to be accurate, but more to give a scale and a visual idea of what will be lost, based on the latest 80% Grading Plan provided by Public Works. This will be corrected if the final plan shows something different, and as more accurate information comes in.) That's Eastsound Swale and the hill West of Lovers Lane behind the Swale trees.
The short version and upshot of this is that Public Works puts this project out for bid on May 31 - less than 5 days from now, with excavation beginning in September. We will be seeing and feeling the impact of that for long months before, and many years after, planting begins. We have little time to get the word out. If you use social networking, please link to this blog. Thanks so much.
We know and accept that storm water treatment is badly needed in order to protect Fishing Bay, and that it's mandated by the Growth Management Act for Urban Growth Areas. Where we take issue is in the engineering and heavy-handedness of approach. Our concerns are grave. These changes will affect us long term.
The (very) long version follows. Some of what's in it will be repeated in shorter bits in the future. I tried to address the whole big picture. I hope you take the time to read it. It contains concerns and details some of the alternatives presented to Public Works by a handful of dedicated citizens who, at least, effected some small changes in the design plan. Thanks to them, a few more trees will (hopefully) stand. Thinking of what will happen to the rest... no words can come close to saying how this hurts my heart.
The short version and upshot of this is that Public Works puts this project out for bid on May 31 - less than 5 days from now, with excavation beginning in September. We will be seeing and feeling the impact of that for long months before, and many years after, planting begins. We have little time to get the word out. If you use social networking, please link to this blog. Thanks so much.
We know and accept that storm water treatment is badly needed in order to protect Fishing Bay, and that it's mandated by the Growth Management Act for Urban Growth Areas. Where we take issue is in the engineering and heavy-handedness of approach. Our concerns are grave. These changes will affect us long term.
The (very) long version follows. Some of what's in it will be repeated in shorter bits in the future. I tried to address the whole big picture. I hope you take the time to read it. It contains concerns and details some of the alternatives presented to Public Works by a handful of dedicated citizens who, at least, effected some small changes in the design plan. Thanks to them, a few more trees will (hopefully) stand. Thinking of what will happen to the rest... no words can come close to saying how this hurts my heart.
Our Stage on the Green, in the heart of Eastsound Village, built with love and sweat and enjoyed by locals and tourists alike, has a bio-diverse treed wetland as a backdrop. Some of the trees filtering this wetland backdrop are:
- Native crabapple
- Alder
- Apple
- Pear and other not-yet-identified fruiting trees
- Pines
- Douglas firs
- Scoulers willow and possibly other types (to be identified)
- English hawthorn (invasive, but still filtering and buffering and feeding pollinators)
First, some words about my experience with being on this land. All my senses were engaged. Many of the trees were in full bloom. The apple blossoms were fully open with a lingering pink blush; with abundant bees attending to pollenation. There was plenty of birdsong and activity. I felt that I was in an oasis in the middle of a desert of lawn and development. There was shade and shelter, coolness and calm. There was a great variety of spring greens in the deciduous trees. The horsetail looked like green seafoam, so beautiful and soft on the eyes as it moved in the breeze. Except for a few wetter spots, the soil was already much dryer and it was much easier to walk without soiling your shoes than it was last month; a sign that the water table is dropping and the wetland is heading toward the dryer summer months. Some flowering trees smelled deliciously like honey.
I'm sure this would be a lovely place for bats and frogs and maybe even salamanders. The trees provide plenty of flowers to attract pollinators and contribute organic matter to the soil to feed beneficial microbes. Many of the existing trees are well over 40' tall. There was a sense of quiet and stately grace among these trees, even though immature, and even in the middle of bustling Eastsound. There were thorns and stickers to deter too much foot traffic. That's good. I had to pay attention and be present to my surroundings or else get scratched by thorns of blackberry and hawthorn.
I'm sure this would be a lovely place for bats and frogs and maybe even salamanders. The trees provide plenty of flowers to attract pollinators and contribute organic matter to the soil to feed beneficial microbes. Many of the existing trees are well over 40' tall. There was a sense of quiet and stately grace among these trees, even though immature, and even in the middle of bustling Eastsound. There were thorns and stickers to deter too much foot traffic. That's good. I had to pay attention and be present to my surroundings or else get scratched by thorns of blackberry and hawthorn.
What will replace all this beauty, life, and serenity? Basically, the 80% plan shows a clear-cut and brush-out excavation and regrading, and removal of natural wetland topsoil and vegetation. A few small groupings of trees are slated to be kept - if they withstand the shock of excavators and having their surrounding bio-support destroyed. The category 3 wetland shown on the site plan differs a lot from what Polaris mapping system's LIDAR shows. Polaris shows the wetland to be much more extensive than claimed; about half of the property instead of a small corner of it. It's obvious that this was once part of Eastsound Swale and the last remaining bit in this area.
The “new” i.e. “bought” plantings will be very small specimens of young trees, shrubs, and "wetland emergent" plants – many of which are not reliably deer or rabbit resistant. The model of relying on emergent plants for constructed wetlands is proving more and more unworkable and problematic in the long term. If the original wetland soil is kept aside and replaced, that would help, but the new young trees and shrubs would still need fencing to keep out deer, rabbits, and voles and the ensuing gobbling of vegetation, digging and destroying roots, and girdling young trees and shrubs. Watering the new constructed wetland would need to happen at least weekly for at least the first year, along with regular weeding. I'm doubting Public Works has enough employees to stay on top of this.
There are other concerns. "Sun" invasive plants such as scotch broom, reed canary grass, and non-native blackberry would take over when the tree canopy (which kept out most of these invasives) is gone. The “bought” trees and shrubs would be struggling to survive against the abovementioned pests, harsh elements including high winds, lack of bio-support and shelter. Pollinators such as bats, bees, and birds would lose even more arboreal habitat in Eastsound; our loss, since it's proven that cattails and other such plants in stagnant ponds attract mosquitoes. Tree frogs and salamanders wouldn't stand a chance in the new environment. Bullfrogs might become the dominant species of amphibian; that's a reality we don't want because they would eat up the remaining tree frogs and spread throughout Eastsound Swale. It is rumored that there are already bullfrogs in the Swale, which means death to the tree frog population and any salamanders that might be there, if true.)
One obvious long-term negative visual impact this project will have is exposing views of the latest construction zones, new commercial buildings and existing ones such as Orcas Athletic Club. I don' think the public realizes how much more of that we'll see. We'll be privy (no pun unintended! :) ) to seeing more gravel trails and the ensuing parking lots and colorless, lifeless dusty impervious surfaces cropping up like noxious weeds. There are other considerations more far-reaching and devastating than aesthetics to consider.
There are other concerns. "Sun" invasive plants such as scotch broom, reed canary grass, and non-native blackberry would take over when the tree canopy (which kept out most of these invasives) is gone. The “bought” trees and shrubs would be struggling to survive against the abovementioned pests, harsh elements including high winds, lack of bio-support and shelter. Pollinators such as bats, bees, and birds would lose even more arboreal habitat in Eastsound; our loss, since it's proven that cattails and other such plants in stagnant ponds attract mosquitoes. Tree frogs and salamanders wouldn't stand a chance in the new environment. Bullfrogs might become the dominant species of amphibian; that's a reality we don't want because they would eat up the remaining tree frogs and spread throughout Eastsound Swale. It is rumored that there are already bullfrogs in the Swale, which means death to the tree frog population and any salamanders that might be there, if true.)
One obvious long-term negative visual impact this project will have is exposing views of the latest construction zones, new commercial buildings and existing ones such as Orcas Athletic Club. I don' think the public realizes how much more of that we'll see. We'll be privy (no pun unintended! :) ) to seeing more gravel trails and the ensuing parking lots and colorless, lifeless dusty impervious surfaces cropping up like noxious weeds. There are other considerations more far-reaching and devastating than aesthetics to consider.
Some obvious questions come to mind: Who will weed? Water? Keep out pedestrians and dogs that Public Works seems to think won't use the constructed wetland as a short-cut? Mount property is full of existing trails, which proves people will find the shortest way across. Who will carefully and consistently monitor the water quality, clean the sediment out of the algaeal ponds, if they don't dry up into dustbowls of toxic sediment? Would you want your kids to play in those ponds, dry or wet? How will we keep the facility from becoming a toxic playground? Just look at the disgusting pond at Craftsman Corner if you want to see how this pond will probably look.
Who will pay for all this upkeep and monitoring, even if the grant money covers this excessive and destructive "construction?" Most important; how can what we have now ever be replaced, aesthetically or functionally, once it's gone? Wouldn't it be better to preserve what we can and build around what IS? The "experts" say it can't be done. We say it can.
Regarding grading: Excavating, scraping, and brushing this tiny lot will be devastating to the life on it and the residents forced to watch what in my mind is nothing short of carnage. There are lower impact ways to have clean water.
A much lmore sustainable approach would be to leave the existing mature and maturing trees, thin only if necessary. Those invading hawthorns still do filter. In the interior, the hawthorns could be cut to the ground annually and their roots would still filter. Their thorns make them great edge buffer protector plants and pest deterrents. Gentle grading and building of "buns" (very low berms) could be accomplished with shovels or at most, a small backhoe, or even placing some logs that would rot and contribute organic matter. These "buns" would gently divert the runoff into much softer infiltering and meandering flows. I didn't think of most of these alternatives; experienced, boots-on-the ground people who know the land and how wetlands work in actuality, did.
The best model I can think of for "Best Management Practices" would be to work with what IS, and keep what's working as the backbone of any land stewardship project. To do otherwise hurts us, as it hurts the land and the water and the life dependent on those.
Once you remove alluvial soils from wetlands, they can't be restored to what they previously were; in this case, the present wetland is heading toward a mature forested wetland. Nothing needs to be this greatly disturbed or destroyed, including alluvial soils. The abovementioned invasives could be dealt with in a much more cost-effective and gentle manner. With tree canopy, there's no need for pocket wetlands or settling ponds, which are NOT recommended in dry-summer places (dry for more than 30 days) such as the San Juan Islands.
In all my readings about natural and constructed wetlands, I've not encountered any projects which purposely destroy a forested working system, even if its vegetation is 'immature,' in order to build an inferior system with emergent vegetation and pocket ponds. (Think of how much more 'immature' size 1-5 gallon potted nursery plants will be.) I take issue with this quote, in Mindy Kayl's Bullwings article on May 21st, of Ed Hale's response to our concerns:
Hale explained to the group, that “the county is converting the 0.9 acres of marginalized young vegetation to put more clear water in to Eastsound.”
I would hardly call the vegetation on this land "marginalized or "young," as many of the trees have at least a 12" girth at breast-height. Our treed areas in town are "marginalized" because we keep developing and developing, and clearcutting more of Eastsound Swale's trees.
I can't find papers by any serious scientists, wetland specialists, or Regulatory Bodies who condone such a destructive practice as what the County is going to do with this land, including the Army Corps of Engineers or the Wa. State DOE. In fact, the evidence is mounting that this type of wetland fails, and may make it impossible for forested wetlands to regrow again. As they say, once it's gone, it's gone.
The proximity of Eastsound Swale to this impending project concerns me greatly, since really, this whole area is a wetland, even logged, even with lawns. Truth be told, this piece is the only part of Eastsound Swale in this area that hasn't been clearcut and developed within the last 30 years. It worries me that local government can claim each degradaded parcel or what's left of it as too small to be a "regulated" wetland anymore and not view it as part of the whole wetland system, even though degraded and weakened by being separated from the larger wetland body. I can't sit back and let this project happen without giving my all to prevent it, nor can I accept the misnomer of this project as a "Low Impact Development." Low impact is clearcutting a wooded area and destroying all of the habitat for countless creatures? the 2005 Low Impact practices guidebook at our public library doesn't condone these practices. It will be interesting to see if the re-write (being done this year) includes this practice. I hope not!
To clear up the issue of mitigation, here's an excellent excerpt from a paper by the California Coastal Commission entitled "Procedural Guidance for Evaluating Wetland Mitigation Projects in California's Coastal Zone." (For you skeptics and nay-sayers, this same information is also in WSDOE's and the EPA's Army Corps of Engineers and U.S. Fish and Wildlife guidelines, all backed by extensive Best Available Science.) It is ALWAYS recommended to do nothing and avoid action altogether if there is the slightest chance of long term damage. Since this parcel has been slated to be a stormwater treatment facility, what can we do to mitigate if not avoid? I think the solutions above show that citizens can think outside the box and accomplish the same ends in a much gentler manner.
Who will pay for all this upkeep and monitoring, even if the grant money covers this excessive and destructive "construction?" Most important; how can what we have now ever be replaced, aesthetically or functionally, once it's gone? Wouldn't it be better to preserve what we can and build around what IS? The "experts" say it can't be done. We say it can.
Regarding grading: Excavating, scraping, and brushing this tiny lot will be devastating to the life on it and the residents forced to watch what in my mind is nothing short of carnage. There are lower impact ways to have clean water.
A much lmore sustainable approach would be to leave the existing mature and maturing trees, thin only if necessary. Those invading hawthorns still do filter. In the interior, the hawthorns could be cut to the ground annually and their roots would still filter. Their thorns make them great edge buffer protector plants and pest deterrents. Gentle grading and building of "buns" (very low berms) could be accomplished with shovels or at most, a small backhoe, or even placing some logs that would rot and contribute organic matter. These "buns" would gently divert the runoff into much softer infiltering and meandering flows. I didn't think of most of these alternatives; experienced, boots-on-the ground people who know the land and how wetlands work in actuality, did.
The best model I can think of for "Best Management Practices" would be to work with what IS, and keep what's working as the backbone of any land stewardship project. To do otherwise hurts us, as it hurts the land and the water and the life dependent on those.
Once you remove alluvial soils from wetlands, they can't be restored to what they previously were; in this case, the present wetland is heading toward a mature forested wetland. Nothing needs to be this greatly disturbed or destroyed, including alluvial soils. The abovementioned invasives could be dealt with in a much more cost-effective and gentle manner. With tree canopy, there's no need for pocket wetlands or settling ponds, which are NOT recommended in dry-summer places (dry for more than 30 days) such as the San Juan Islands.
In all my readings about natural and constructed wetlands, I've not encountered any projects which purposely destroy a forested working system, even if its vegetation is 'immature,' in order to build an inferior system with emergent vegetation and pocket ponds. (Think of how much more 'immature' size 1-5 gallon potted nursery plants will be.) I take issue with this quote, in Mindy Kayl's Bullwings article on May 21st, of Ed Hale's response to our concerns:
Hale explained to the group, that “the county is converting the 0.9 acres of marginalized young vegetation to put more clear water in to Eastsound.”
I would hardly call the vegetation on this land "marginalized or "young," as many of the trees have at least a 12" girth at breast-height. Our treed areas in town are "marginalized" because we keep developing and developing, and clearcutting more of Eastsound Swale's trees.
I can't find papers by any serious scientists, wetland specialists, or Regulatory Bodies who condone such a destructive practice as what the County is going to do with this land, including the Army Corps of Engineers or the Wa. State DOE. In fact, the evidence is mounting that this type of wetland fails, and may make it impossible for forested wetlands to regrow again. As they say, once it's gone, it's gone.
The proximity of Eastsound Swale to this impending project concerns me greatly, since really, this whole area is a wetland, even logged, even with lawns. Truth be told, this piece is the only part of Eastsound Swale in this area that hasn't been clearcut and developed within the last 30 years. It worries me that local government can claim each degradaded parcel or what's left of it as too small to be a "regulated" wetland anymore and not view it as part of the whole wetland system, even though degraded and weakened by being separated from the larger wetland body. I can't sit back and let this project happen without giving my all to prevent it, nor can I accept the misnomer of this project as a "Low Impact Development." Low impact is clearcutting a wooded area and destroying all of the habitat for countless creatures? the 2005 Low Impact practices guidebook at our public library doesn't condone these practices. It will be interesting to see if the re-write (being done this year) includes this practice. I hope not!
To clear up the issue of mitigation, here's an excellent excerpt from a paper by the California Coastal Commission entitled "Procedural Guidance for Evaluating Wetland Mitigation Projects in California's Coastal Zone." (For you skeptics and nay-sayers, this same information is also in WSDOE's and the EPA's Army Corps of Engineers and U.S. Fish and Wildlife guidelines, all backed by extensive Best Available Science.) It is ALWAYS recommended to do nothing and avoid action altogether if there is the slightest chance of long term damage. Since this parcel has been slated to be a stormwater treatment facility, what can we do to mitigate if not avoid? I think the solutions above show that citizens can think outside the box and accomplish the same ends in a much gentler manner.
"... mitigation includes all of the following:
1) Avoiding the impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of an action.
2) Minimizing impact by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and its implementation.
3) Rectifying the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the impacted environment.
4) Reducing or eliminating the impact over time by preservation and maintenance operations during the life of the action.
5) Compensating for the impact by replacing or providing substitute resources or environments.
This definition provides several alternative forms of mitigation, which are generally considered in sequence (i.e., avoidance first and compensation last).4"Here's a link to that document:
http://www.coastal.ca.gov/weteval/wetc.html
There will be one more Public Works open house TBA. Since We the Public didn't get our promised field trip to the Mount Property due to the Council meeting running late in March, it would behoove us to insist on another field trip walk-through; preferably on a Saturday when a lot of people are in town for Farmers Market.
Although Public Works has said they won't accept more public comments or change anything more in the plan, that doesn't mean we should give up. If everyone who was ever told they couldn't do something gave up, there would be no inspiring stories, no miracles. We must not give up.
The bulldozing doesn't start until September. We still have time to effect change - in this project and in our long-term vision and low-impact planning for the future of All. Go experience what's on the land for yourself, keeping mind what's surrounding it and keeping in mind the Village Green, heart of our village, then please write from your experience and your heart. Every recorded and documentable email and letter counts. Please write one, or more.
Although Public Works has said they won't accept more public comments or change anything more in the plan, that doesn't mean we should give up. If everyone who was ever told they couldn't do something gave up, there would be no inspiring stories, no miracles. We must not give up.
The bulldozing doesn't start until September. We still have time to effect change - in this project and in our long-term vision and low-impact planning for the future of All. Go experience what's on the land for yourself, keeping mind what's surrounding it and keeping in mind the Village Green, heart of our village, then please write from your experience and your heart. Every recorded and documentable email and letter counts. Please write one, or more.
No comments:
Post a Comment