Here are a bunch of questions written to PW on February 15, 2011 and handed in at a Stormwater Aesthetics meeting to their representative engineer, Shannon Wilbur.
How many of these questions were addressed by Public Works? It would be good to compile follow-through documentation on this.
“Thousand Questions” re: Mount Property Stormwater Treatment Facility
1) If, according to BAS, wetlands shouldn’t be used for stormwater treatment facilities if there’s any chance of negatively impacting groundwater in sensitive aquifers, how does this plan prevent groundwater or potable water pollution?
2) If this wetland, as-is, can handle normal seasonal runoff (and we’ve had one of the wettest winters on record), isn’t there a way to divert stormwater runoff someplace near the wetlland (ie into a culvert or a pond off-site) that could be slowly absorbed back into the ground rather than into Fishing Bay, and leave the wetland as-is except for canary grass removal and a little gentle grading and splitting of flow? (Michael B’s idea from what he observed while walking the wetland several times.)
3) Regarding future piping from Fern Street and any other piping to this facility being planned: everything I’ve read so far says that stormwater should be diverted away from wetlands, not into them. Would you please point me to science that shares the opposite view?
4) When planning this stormwater treatment facility, how much was future buildout considered? If this connects to future projects, have those been mapped out? What are the piping and other treatment facilities that will tie into this? How can we see those in connection and relation to this first step?
5) How will this facility affect abutting wetlands? What will happen to them as they get filled and more impervious surfaces put into them, more alluvial soils displaced, and more chopping up of the Eastsound Swale into smaller and smaller separated pieces?
6) Is anything at all being done to protect the rest of Eastsound Swale from having to take stormwater and thus we’d lose more tree habitat? (Most of the willows were unfortunately already cut down along lovers land and Enchanted Forest Road.)
7) Since science seems to point to natural functioning wetlands being always preferable over engineered wetlands, I’m wondering how we got to this plan. Is it just that we had no other choice, based on science and geography?
8) Mindy seemed to think that Amanda drew up an alternate plan that was less radical than this one and more natural than engineered. Is that plan available for public perusal?
9) Wetlands, even drained and filled, can be restored if the alluvial soils are left intact. (EPA). What will happen to the alluvial soil? If removed, why, and why not returned to the site? There are some grants for restoration. Should we explore that angle for the rest of the impacted parts of the Swale?
10) Many of the BAS documents on stormwater and wetlands that I read said that detention and retention ponds are being over-used and that the latest BAS studies show that they are doing more harm to wetlands than good, and that ponds can ruin a wetland's function within 20 years due to various factors. Was this considered in the engineering? If there is science disproving this, please point me to those documents, because I’m not finding them.
11) Not one engineered wetland I’ve seen (in the many docs I studied) showed an engineered wetland planted with trees. They all seem to be grassland and marshland. Why is it that these are chosen over tree filtration systems. Can’t trees be planted that would thrive in wet conditions and grow, like the island willows we once had everywhere and have all been destroyed for development? If trees keep wetland life warmer in winter and cooler in summer due to shading and protection, this destroys the ecological balance of that area.
12) I read in the scientific documents that if a potential site’s climate is dry in summer for more than two months, (as the San Juans are), a pond system wetland is not a good pick because the ponds should not be allowed to dry out and the chance of pollutant spread was greater if heavy rains followed a dry summer. Was this considered? How will that be handled? What will be done to provide shade and organic refuse for the ponds, since tree cover will no longer shade the water?
13) making new “edges” (from cutting down trees and excavation) encourages noxious weed proliferation near and into the wetlands (i.e. hawthorn trees replace more desirable willows, blackberries replace nootka rose). Herbaceous perennials and annuals are taken over by invasive plants such as canary reed grass. How will the existing reed canary grass problem be addressed? Blackberry? Edge buffers for the new edges created? Have you considered the rabbit problem in Eastsound?
14) My readings of wetland science suggest that sun, although it can be good for “cleaning” ponds (although I doubt it gets hot enough here), changes the temperature, and that many fish and amphibians are negatively impacted (fatally) by temperature changes of even a few degrees. We lost most of our salamander and frog population due to Enchanted Forest Road being put on top of the swale right over their breeding grounds. What is being done by the County and Public Works to protect the rest of what’s left, and are you working with the Army Corps of Engineers, state DOE, fish and wildlife, and the EPA to protect these critical areas aquifers?
15) Who will maintain the wetland facility after major soil disturbance? Who will regularly maintain and weed-out the inevitable thistle, teasel, and other noxious weeds that follow? Based on the county’s maintenance of other projects due to personnel shortages, I do not feel hopeful that this facility will be properly maintained and monitored.
16) What will major tree removal do to songbird, bat, and amphibian insect catchers in terms of foraging, mating, and breeding sites, which we’re already losing fast or have lost within the UGA? Can we afford to lose any more of their habitat?
17) Since all that I have read says that tree roots have great filtering capabilities, especially conifers, are there any examples of “treed” natural wetlands used as stormwater treatment facilities? If so, would you direct me to links or documents?
18) What can possibly replace trees, aesthetically, for the kind of height and natural backdrop that we’re used to seeing behind the band shell? The band shell was built to be part of an environment which included trees for backdrop. Loss of trees will destroy the scale and scope of the design. Can we plant pines or some other type of small or narrow conifers along the Eastern edge of the wetland to shield our view and help keep late afternoon sun out of our eyes when viewing concerts? (the trees did this for us late afternoon and early evening)
19) What will be done to keep people from walking all over the wetland area if the wetland dries up in summer, which seems probable?
20) What will keep the ponds from becoming mosquito breeding grounds and who will maintain weeds around them? Will the ponds contain aquatic plants?
21) If soil is being excavated out two feet deep or more, aren’t we infiltrating the groundwater and aquifer supply?
22) What is the life (in years) of this kind of facility before it needs to be “re-engineered?”
23) Is a 60 foot long, ten foot wide concrete ramp really necessary to clean the north pond? Can the pond be moved East to mitigate that, or can some temporary metal mesh type material be used to roll out and put down atop a much more minimal concrete structure (perhaps even mostly underwater) when the excavator or backhoe needs to clean the pond, and then rolled back up?
24) How often will the pond need to be cleaned?
25) Has anyone heard of an exciting new thing in possible pollutant cleaning of wetlands – mycology? There has been good success with mycology in forest restoration. Results have been promising in studying mushrooms’ ability to absorb and “eat” pollutants and when tested, the mushrooms are shown to be “clean.” Can we explore this as a potential treatment for pollutants? See Paul Stamets How Mushrooms Can Save the World. Mr. Stamets is a highly sought expert on this subject and how mycology is helping stormwater pollutant absorption.
26) What will be done about the potential litter problem that, so far, is kept to a minimum by tree and shrub buffers and mostly impenetrable wetlands, but is a problem in existing trails? Who will regularly clean up the litter?
27) Is it possible that rather than put the east-west trail right next to the pond, it can go more on the perimeter of the wetland and thus have less foot traffic disturbance of the wetland?
28) How do rain gardens tie in with this facility plan and stormwater in general? How will you give the public incentive to utilize them?
29) What is being planned in terms of culverts and aprons in Eastsound?
30) I would hope that any tree removal/upheaval NOT be done in nesting season and until fledglings have flown.
31) Why was this project chosen here, when the bulk of pollutants are running down Main Street in the ditches and directly polluting Fishing Bay through stormwater outflow pipes?
32) What is being done to consider futurity, 20 years out? 50 years out? How does this project help with that? How many more functioning wetlands will be destroyed to make engineered stormwater treatment facilities, which are not suggested for existing functioning wetlands, according to state and federal laws and the Clean Water Act?
Kim’s Input- Went to the constructed wetland plan workshop today
I would like to know more re:>
~ toxics testing and sediment dredge schedule
~out flow pipe monitoring plan- scouring
~buffering the existing true adjacent wetland and
~risks involved in damage to this preexisting adjacent healthy wetland by altering upstream w/ constructed wetlands
~and when i look closely i question if this small tx site is able to handle the volume present, much less the increase load that comes w/ future development, plus increased impervious surface = what mechanisms are in place to handle overflow?
~I would like public to be aware of the presence of the creatures in the bay where this water is being pumped out.
~ Please go to the beach watchers website and republish photos and information from our data on surfactants
Some documents I requested may be able to answer the drainage and runoff questions interspersed throughout.
Thanks for considering these questions, thoughts, ideas, and concerns. Please understand that Eastsound is home to many of us, and we love and want to protect it. I remember the Swale when it was far more diverse in functionality, vegetation and wildlife, and don’t want to keep losing it piecemeal until it’s so destroyed it can be reclassified to “unregulated” and finished off by rampant and poorly planned development.
Sincerely, Sadie Bailey – Eastsound resident
Thursday, August 25, 2011
Mount Property Stormwater Treatment Facility - and some thoughts after the final Public Works "Open House"
First of all, my deepest apologies to all of the non-human the inhabitants of the mixed-forest Ecosystem dwelling on the Mount Property; tree beings, plant beings, birds, frogs, salamanders, bats, bees, and other creatures - for not following through and insisting that public Works give us a much better publicized open house after Mid- July. I dropped the ball. Secondly, equally heartfelt apologies to the Citizens who don't yet know what will hit them, especially the citizens of the UGA and the people who worked hard at the Stormwater Facility Aesthetics meetings. No excuses will cut it, but burnout and exhaustion and a broken heart all contributed to the ball drop. This was NOT the time to drop the ball! I feel I let you all down. I let myself down, and the few people who wanted to stop this project or stall it until sanity prevailed. I wish I could have done more for you all instead of retreating. I had to walk away. I wish I didn't have to, could have managed it. This is a set of questions I drafted in June, and apparently never sent to the Aesthetics Committee for feedback and brainstorming. I want it here for posterity.
***********************
email from June 17, 2011
Hello.
I want to thank everyone on the Aesthetics Committee and concerned citizens for their input on the Mount Property Stormwater Facility. I apologize for not contacting Shannon about another open house. I left the ball in her court with the last email I sent her, which was unwise. Frankly, I dropped the ball. If that open house was going to happen, I should have kept at her to do it. I didn't. Had to walk away. I'm sorry, and feel that I let us all down. Still having a very hard time with this project's immanence, and still feel upset that they're going through with this plan. But if not for you people, it would have been worse - so thank you for your time, efforts, and energy. It was a pleasure to watch you all work together and brainstorm your good ideas and intelligent questions and concerns and make the best of a less than ideal situation.
For what it's worth, I'd still like to hear your input on the process if you feel like taking the time; especially any questions you have that are still unresolved, any new questions or concerns. Below is the original draft of concerns to present to your perusal, the public, and PW before the open house that never followed. Thanks again.
Sadie
***********************
Written June 17
Public Works has made some concessions, thanks to good input from Michael and Fred. But from what Shannon said yesterday, I have questions and maybe some of you do too. I would like to compile a list of questions we already asked, questions still to ask, and any answers you got and how satisfied or concerned you are with the answers you got.
The biggies that stand out for me are maintenance and monitoring,. PW consistently seems to run out of money when a big project is done, and they don't seem to factor-in operational, maintenance, suppliy, or monitoring costs. A look at their projects would point to the fact that there might be little to no maintenance and a bigger load on the workers, and this is a concern.
What will happen to the standing trees without tree support in an extreme wind tunnel, and the visual shock of no taller greenery in places where people are used to seeing it? Is the public at all prepared for what they're going to see, including all the old and new commercial construction which will now be visible?
How are affected neighbors feeling, and what suggestions do they have to minimize any negative visual impacts? How will these be satisfied? What has been promised?
Shannon addressed the question of hawthorn seedlings; she said that PW would pull them at the "annual maintenance." Does this mean that they actually think they can weed only once per year? Yikes; terrifying thought.What about the reed canary grass, holly, blackberry, and other weed seedlings that birds and wind will bring in? did anyone find out how often PW plans to weed? Water?
Did anyone talk with mindy? Do you think she is going to bid on the planting job or was she present to write another article for Bullwings? Has anyone contacted Ted T about bidding on the plantings or his thoughts on this project or alternatives he would propose? (Moot questions, since Robin K got the bid; but I'd still like to know Ted's take on things.)
What kind of job do you think Orcas Ex will do on the bulldoze/grade/etc? Sensitive? Not?
Monitoring.... Did anyone hear (and get in writing) what they were planning to do for testing and monitoring? This is hugely important, since this is the whole reason the facility is being engineered. What are the actual plans for monitoring? How will they be implemented? By whom? How often? For what will they test? How much will it cost, now and in the long term? Are there written plans and figures for the public to see?
Why do they have to move the berm further south and thus sacrifice the native crabapples and young scoulers willows on the SW corner? Shannon said it was because they had to make the basin bigger to make up for the shallower settling ponds. Can't that be done instead with gentle meandering grading and mounding? Thoughts?
People who attended the open house; would you please weigh in on what questions you asked and what responses you got? I still think this is important to get documented for including in the public records on this project.
Does anyone know if a representative from the Tribes will be present to be sure that no middens are disturbed? Who would contact Tribal officials - PW? Can we follow through to see if this was done?
Although i am pleased that Michael's and Fred's input at least had some better effect, i still feel that more can be done to minimize the impact without compromising the function of the constructed wetland; and far more cheaply, leaving more money for monitoring and operations. Is this reasoning off base? Anyone else feeling this way too? Ideas?
I missed the bid walk-through at the end of June. Did anyone tag along and see where the trees had been marked more clearly regarding what stays and goes? I asked that they mark the trees and delineation of the existing wetland still staying.
What do you think of PW's answer about the discrepancy between the Polaris map and what the wetland expert said is the existing wetland? I attribute that discrepancy to more degradation of the Swale, thus making it appear to be a less sensitive or important wetland. But all this and more was all once a part of Eastsound Swale. Where does degradation factor in? What will happen to the alluvial soil being removed from this site? It is supposed to be put back, and if tarped, probably could. It's important to save the alluvial soil so the wetland can recover if this plan doesn't work out, and I am skeptical that it will work out, from all the science I have read on emergent wetland stormwater treatment facilities.
Anyone want to document a "maturity count" of trees bigger than 12" diameter at chest height? That would be good to do, unless PW already did that and it's obtainable. If so, would someone please direct me to that link or whom to ask for the documents on that?
If Shannon agrees to another open house, late July, this would be helpful. We can then present accurately to the public what's been answered and what still has holes. That date is fast approaching. (MOOT - too bad. The public should have been more involved in this process)
Who got to see the final planting list? Any red flags there? Has anyone seen copies of this on PW website or in the library, as promised?
all the best,
Sadie
***********************
email from June 17, 2011
Hello.
I want to thank everyone on the Aesthetics Committee and concerned citizens for their input on the Mount Property Stormwater Facility. I apologize for not contacting Shannon about another open house. I left the ball in her court with the last email I sent her, which was unwise. Frankly, I dropped the ball. If that open house was going to happen, I should have kept at her to do it. I didn't. Had to walk away. I'm sorry, and feel that I let us all down. Still having a very hard time with this project's immanence, and still feel upset that they're going through with this plan. But if not for you people, it would have been worse - so thank you for your time, efforts, and energy. It was a pleasure to watch you all work together and brainstorm your good ideas and intelligent questions and concerns and make the best of a less than ideal situation.
For what it's worth, I'd still like to hear your input on the process if you feel like taking the time; especially any questions you have that are still unresolved, any new questions or concerns. Below is the original draft of concerns to present to your perusal, the public, and PW before the open house that never followed. Thanks again.
Sadie
***********************
Written June 17
Public Works has made some concessions, thanks to good input from Michael and Fred. But from what Shannon said yesterday, I have questions and maybe some of you do too. I would like to compile a list of questions we already asked, questions still to ask, and any answers you got and how satisfied or concerned you are with the answers you got.
The biggies that stand out for me are maintenance and monitoring,. PW consistently seems to run out of money when a big project is done, and they don't seem to factor-in operational, maintenance, suppliy, or monitoring costs. A look at their projects would point to the fact that there might be little to no maintenance and a bigger load on the workers, and this is a concern.
What will happen to the standing trees without tree support in an extreme wind tunnel, and the visual shock of no taller greenery in places where people are used to seeing it? Is the public at all prepared for what they're going to see, including all the old and new commercial construction which will now be visible?
How are affected neighbors feeling, and what suggestions do they have to minimize any negative visual impacts? How will these be satisfied? What has been promised?
Shannon addressed the question of hawthorn seedlings; she said that PW would pull them at the "annual maintenance." Does this mean that they actually think they can weed only once per year? Yikes; terrifying thought.What about the reed canary grass, holly, blackberry, and other weed seedlings that birds and wind will bring in? did anyone find out how often PW plans to weed? Water?
Did anyone talk with mindy? Do you think she is going to bid on the planting job or was she present to write another article for Bullwings? Has anyone contacted Ted T about bidding on the plantings or his thoughts on this project or alternatives he would propose? (Moot questions, since Robin K got the bid; but I'd still like to know Ted's take on things.)
What kind of job do you think Orcas Ex will do on the bulldoze/grade/etc? Sensitive? Not?
Monitoring.... Did anyone hear (and get in writing) what they were planning to do for testing and monitoring? This is hugely important, since this is the whole reason the facility is being engineered. What are the actual plans for monitoring? How will they be implemented? By whom? How often? For what will they test? How much will it cost, now and in the long term? Are there written plans and figures for the public to see?
Why do they have to move the berm further south and thus sacrifice the native crabapples and young scoulers willows on the SW corner? Shannon said it was because they had to make the basin bigger to make up for the shallower settling ponds. Can't that be done instead with gentle meandering grading and mounding? Thoughts?
People who attended the open house; would you please weigh in on what questions you asked and what responses you got? I still think this is important to get documented for including in the public records on this project.
Does anyone know if a representative from the Tribes will be present to be sure that no middens are disturbed? Who would contact Tribal officials - PW? Can we follow through to see if this was done?
Although i am pleased that Michael's and Fred's input at least had some better effect, i still feel that more can be done to minimize the impact without compromising the function of the constructed wetland; and far more cheaply, leaving more money for monitoring and operations. Is this reasoning off base? Anyone else feeling this way too? Ideas?
I missed the bid walk-through at the end of June. Did anyone tag along and see where the trees had been marked more clearly regarding what stays and goes? I asked that they mark the trees and delineation of the existing wetland still staying.
What do you think of PW's answer about the discrepancy between the Polaris map and what the wetland expert said is the existing wetland? I attribute that discrepancy to more degradation of the Swale, thus making it appear to be a less sensitive or important wetland. But all this and more was all once a part of Eastsound Swale. Where does degradation factor in? What will happen to the alluvial soil being removed from this site? It is supposed to be put back, and if tarped, probably could. It's important to save the alluvial soil so the wetland can recover if this plan doesn't work out, and I am skeptical that it will work out, from all the science I have read on emergent wetland stormwater treatment facilities.
Anyone want to document a "maturity count" of trees bigger than 12" diameter at chest height? That would be good to do, unless PW already did that and it's obtainable. If so, would someone please direct me to that link or whom to ask for the documents on that?
If Shannon agrees to another open house, late July, this would be helpful. We can then present accurately to the public what's been answered and what still has holes. That date is fast approaching. (MOOT - too bad. The public should have been more involved in this process)
Who got to see the final planting list? Any red flags there? Has anyone seen copies of this on PW website or in the library, as promised?
all the best,
Sadie
RE: the Sounder's August 24 article on the Critical Areas Ordinance
Well done. Interesting article and thanks for the sensitive coverage.
Huh. As one of the 50% of us who must live in the UGA for economic reasons, seeing working homeowners and first time buyers with modest incomes forced to hook up to sewer at exhorbitant rates for our all-too-low incomes; as I see more and more UGA homes get foreclosed, and as I watch our trees die due to water diversion, poor planning and siting, overbuilding for a population that may or may not occupy the businesses being built; and as I watch certain commercial developers' unscrupulosity and the county repeatedly "missing" important environmental regulations put in place to protect places like Eastsound Swale - I take offense to Richard Fralick's insulting misbelief that we need little or no buffers protecting our critical areas in the UGA and elsewhere. I also rankle every time Mr. Fralick mentions that the "county can do whatever it wants" and his idea that "big dumb buffers" must go. I think the EPA and the State would also find alarming the idea that the County Council feels it can relax most or all environmental protections on one of our largest - if not the largest - category 2 wetland on the island. And, as the article points out, Eastsound has two of the largest category 2 wetlands out of 5. (Lopez Village UGA faces similar environmental issues.)
It insults our intelligence and care and stewardship of a part of the Island (Eastsound Basin) that affects all other parts due to its geological vulnerability, infrastructure, and shoreline habitat. Fishing Bay is one of the few herring spawning places on the Island. The waters do not flush out, thus everything we dump into it stays there.
Some of us are tired of seeing rampant commercial development going through in the UGA, with no EIS, no ramifications, and much of the time, repeat violators obtaining no legal permits - while homeowners get the brunt of the enforcement and heavy-handedness from CD&P, so I agree to a certain extent with property rights viewpoints and their concerns - provided that we all remember that our first mandate is to protect Critical Areas, while balancing the rest of the14 points in our County Charter.
I don't mind "giving a little" and compromise. I understand that all of us must give a little in order to have a situation that is fair. But it seems to me that the low and middle income people forced to live in the UGAs are giving up a lot - almost everything; and they have neither the time nor the money to fight the real deep pockets - those bent on profit first, even if it means destroying the Critical Areas there. Then when any of us tries to stop the destruction, we are seen as dragging the county down. The fact is, the County dragged itself down, and dragged its feet on the CAO for YEARS; thus we have lost a lot of grant opportunities and monies that would have helped to protect our Critical Areas and given the County a financial hand in doing it, and now the larger government will be ineffective to help us, due to attacks on the EPA and DOE.
For years, some of us have said repeatedly that Eastsound was a lousy place for a UGA - it's geographically, geologically, a hazard!. It contains sensitive areas everywhere. It is a narrow land bridge between two steep hills, at sea level. Nobody listened and nobody is listening now. The Growth Management Act doesn't only say that 50% of us must live in a UGA. It also says that we are mandated to protect our critical areas (even in a UGA). The UGA puts the burden on those who can least afford the time or the money to fight rampant commercial development in an area that is supposed to be slated for housing 50% of us, which none of us chose! It seems a little "sprawl" could happen in villages and hamlets and on the other 99% of the islands, thus unburdening us of a bit of our fate. If a tsunami hits Eastsound (likely) this discussion will all be moot because 50% of us and our housing will be washed away.
The decisions being made this year and next will affect all of us, long term. Can we all agree to some compromise, or will 50% of us be the sacrificial lambs for the wants of the rest?
If anyone else in the UGA is interested in more visionary planning and saving our Critical Areas from destruction (outsiders welcome!), then we need some intelligent dialogue, long-term visionary planning and actions to address our conflicting issues in a balanced way. Perhaps it's time for a UGA Citizens' Watchdog Group if the County won't do its job to protect our critical areas. Interested parties, please contact me. I'm in the phone book; or stop and talk with me at Island Market.
Huh. As one of the 50% of us who must live in the UGA for economic reasons, seeing working homeowners and first time buyers with modest incomes forced to hook up to sewer at exhorbitant rates for our all-too-low incomes; as I see more and more UGA homes get foreclosed, and as I watch our trees die due to water diversion, poor planning and siting, overbuilding for a population that may or may not occupy the businesses being built; and as I watch certain commercial developers' unscrupulosity and the county repeatedly "missing" important environmental regulations put in place to protect places like Eastsound Swale - I take offense to Richard Fralick's insulting misbelief that we need little or no buffers protecting our critical areas in the UGA and elsewhere. I also rankle every time Mr. Fralick mentions that the "county can do whatever it wants" and his idea that "big dumb buffers" must go. I think the EPA and the State would also find alarming the idea that the County Council feels it can relax most or all environmental protections on one of our largest - if not the largest - category 2 wetland on the island. And, as the article points out, Eastsound has two of the largest category 2 wetlands out of 5. (Lopez Village UGA faces similar environmental issues.)
It insults our intelligence and care and stewardship of a part of the Island (Eastsound Basin) that affects all other parts due to its geological vulnerability, infrastructure, and shoreline habitat. Fishing Bay is one of the few herring spawning places on the Island. The waters do not flush out, thus everything we dump into it stays there.
Some of us are tired of seeing rampant commercial development going through in the UGA, with no EIS, no ramifications, and much of the time, repeat violators obtaining no legal permits - while homeowners get the brunt of the enforcement and heavy-handedness from CD&P, so I agree to a certain extent with property rights viewpoints and their concerns - provided that we all remember that our first mandate is to protect Critical Areas, while balancing the rest of the14 points in our County Charter.
I don't mind "giving a little" and compromise. I understand that all of us must give a little in order to have a situation that is fair. But it seems to me that the low and middle income people forced to live in the UGAs are giving up a lot - almost everything; and they have neither the time nor the money to fight the real deep pockets - those bent on profit first, even if it means destroying the Critical Areas there. Then when any of us tries to stop the destruction, we are seen as dragging the county down. The fact is, the County dragged itself down, and dragged its feet on the CAO for YEARS; thus we have lost a lot of grant opportunities and monies that would have helped to protect our Critical Areas and given the County a financial hand in doing it, and now the larger government will be ineffective to help us, due to attacks on the EPA and DOE.
For years, some of us have said repeatedly that Eastsound was a lousy place for a UGA - it's geographically, geologically, a hazard!. It contains sensitive areas everywhere. It is a narrow land bridge between two steep hills, at sea level. Nobody listened and nobody is listening now. The Growth Management Act doesn't only say that 50% of us must live in a UGA. It also says that we are mandated to protect our critical areas (even in a UGA). The UGA puts the burden on those who can least afford the time or the money to fight rampant commercial development in an area that is supposed to be slated for housing 50% of us, which none of us chose! It seems a little "sprawl" could happen in villages and hamlets and on the other 99% of the islands, thus unburdening us of a bit of our fate. If a tsunami hits Eastsound (likely) this discussion will all be moot because 50% of us and our housing will be washed away.
The decisions being made this year and next will affect all of us, long term. Can we all agree to some compromise, or will 50% of us be the sacrificial lambs for the wants of the rest?
If anyone else in the UGA is interested in more visionary planning and saving our Critical Areas from destruction (outsiders welcome!), then we need some intelligent dialogue, long-term visionary planning and actions to address our conflicting issues in a balanced way. Perhaps it's time for a UGA Citizens' Watchdog Group if the County won't do its job to protect our critical areas. Interested parties, please contact me. I'm in the phone book; or stop and talk with me at Island Market.
Wednesday, August 24, 2011
Say Goodbye: September 7; the day the bulldozers begin deconstructing a functional mixed-forest wetland for an "engineered wetland" stormwater treatment facility
Mark your calendars. September 7, 2011.
The grim and, to my mind, horrible, beginning of a dubious experiment will begin on this day. Amid the sounds of grinding engines, scraping blades, chain saw roars, snapping tree limbs and trunks, roots ripping from the earth, amid the scramble of terrified birds, bats, and amphibians to escape the crushing 'dozers and find themselves homeless and possibly doomed to die, amid confused bees with no place to go or winter over - 'progress' is being made by destroying a functional wetland ecosystem that only needed a little help, in order to build an elaborate "engineered wetland stormwater treatment facility."
After June's 'open house' with 3 days notice for a handful of people, no newspaper notifications, the inevitability of this disastrous error looming, and the refusal of Public Works to entertain a low-impact alternative requiring only simple grading with shovels and some low-key clearing with maybe a backhoe - much, much cheaper - I'll admit I just wanted to curl into a fetal ball and suck my thumb until the carnage was over. Only it doesn't end in September. We will be seeing the visual impact of this and the dearth of diversity for a long time to come. Think on how long it took to grow each and every filtering tree. Think of all the bio-diverse life that each tree and shrub houses, shelters, shades. Think of all the mature and maturing trees - all soon to be lost.
To their misguided credit, Public Works actually thinks they are doing the right thing: No blame. But they're sadly mistaken. Besides the small plant specimens picked to stay within the woefully inadequate plant budget, many of which will need to be caged for a long time against the onslaughts of rabbits and deer, there are other crucial issues as yet unaddressed. This site is a wind tunnel in an extreme wind area. This parcel is the last forested piece in this particular north-south strip of land - on a section of Orcas that is only one mile wide and at sea level; Eastsound Urban Growth Area. This area contains a large category two wetland - Eastsound Swale. The stormwater facility parcel was once part of the Swale, and not that long ago. 20 yrs. max. Another pressing question that has yet to be satisfactorily answered is: will the grant money run out with no money left for maintenance (weeding, watering), monitoring of how well the filtering is working, and operational costs? From the other projects done by PW, I feel pessimistic, and pretty sure there'll be no money for operations. So what's the motive for obtaining large grants to engineer elaborate things with no budget to follow through and monitor and maintain?
Then there's the science. Scientific field evidence (some of which is included in the Best Available Science documents for SJC's Critical Areas Ordinance in the Wetlands and Stormwater sections), seems to point to 4 unavoidable facts about why this project is likely to fail:
1) stormwater should be diverted AWAY from an existing functional wetland, not into it. Why? Because they eventually, within 20 years, dry it up, as do sedimentation ponds.
2) After 20 or so years of observing failed and failing "emergent" engineered stormwater treatment facilities, the conclusion from many wetland field scientists is that mixed-forest is, after all, best. (We already have that now.)
3) When you remove alluvial soil from a wetland (which Public Works plans to do), it can't recover; maybe not ever.
4)Sedimentation ponds such as retention and detention ponds (which will be built on this site) are not advised for dryland summer areas (two or more months of dry weather, which is what the San Juans have.)The pollution issue alone of storms after a dry season is scary, and probably a topic for another blog post.
At the end of this post I put up a few pictures of the "proposed stormwater site" that I took in spring. The trees were blooming, the bees were humming, the place was full of life, horsetail softly waving on the forest floor, and the honey smells of blooming flowers. Birds darted among the trees. Coolness and shade, wind shelter, and so many shades of green graced this land. I will not forget.
Walk this land while you still have time. Get in touch with the pulse of Life there. Appreciate all that is there; life in abundance. Say good bye. And vow to be vigilant to never to let a poorly planned, over-engineered project such as this happen again in our "Urban Growth Area" home. We must do better to protect our critical areas.
-
Surround this land with protection and your highest thoughts. Send your love and good energy to the tree-beings and their inhabitants and dependents, that their spirits remain eternal and intact although their bodies will die. Send your healing thoughts to the soils and waters of the wetland, that they be protected. Send your respect to the Native ancestors who might lie here, perhaps in middens. (I hope at least we can have someone on site to observe if there are bones, and stop work if there are.) Send your scientific evidence to Public Works and the Council and ask that it be put into the records. Ask, in whatever fashion you do, that the Universe helps the new plant beings to be nurtured and grow and thrive to heal the land.
The grim and, to my mind, horrible, beginning of a dubious experiment will begin on this day. Amid the sounds of grinding engines, scraping blades, chain saw roars, snapping tree limbs and trunks, roots ripping from the earth, amid the scramble of terrified birds, bats, and amphibians to escape the crushing 'dozers and find themselves homeless and possibly doomed to die, amid confused bees with no place to go or winter over - 'progress' is being made by destroying a functional wetland ecosystem that only needed a little help, in order to build an elaborate "engineered wetland stormwater treatment facility."
After June's 'open house' with 3 days notice for a handful of people, no newspaper notifications, the inevitability of this disastrous error looming, and the refusal of Public Works to entertain a low-impact alternative requiring only simple grading with shovels and some low-key clearing with maybe a backhoe - much, much cheaper - I'll admit I just wanted to curl into a fetal ball and suck my thumb until the carnage was over. Only it doesn't end in September. We will be seeing the visual impact of this and the dearth of diversity for a long time to come. Think on how long it took to grow each and every filtering tree. Think of all the bio-diverse life that each tree and shrub houses, shelters, shades. Think of all the mature and maturing trees - all soon to be lost.
To their misguided credit, Public Works actually thinks they are doing the right thing: No blame. But they're sadly mistaken. Besides the small plant specimens picked to stay within the woefully inadequate plant budget, many of which will need to be caged for a long time against the onslaughts of rabbits and deer, there are other crucial issues as yet unaddressed. This site is a wind tunnel in an extreme wind area. This parcel is the last forested piece in this particular north-south strip of land - on a section of Orcas that is only one mile wide and at sea level; Eastsound Urban Growth Area. This area contains a large category two wetland - Eastsound Swale. The stormwater facility parcel was once part of the Swale, and not that long ago. 20 yrs. max. Another pressing question that has yet to be satisfactorily answered is: will the grant money run out with no money left for maintenance (weeding, watering), monitoring of how well the filtering is working, and operational costs? From the other projects done by PW, I feel pessimistic, and pretty sure there'll be no money for operations. So what's the motive for obtaining large grants to engineer elaborate things with no budget to follow through and monitor and maintain?
Then there's the science. Scientific field evidence (some of which is included in the Best Available Science documents for SJC's Critical Areas Ordinance in the Wetlands and Stormwater sections), seems to point to 4 unavoidable facts about why this project is likely to fail:
1) stormwater should be diverted AWAY from an existing functional wetland, not into it. Why? Because they eventually, within 20 years, dry it up, as do sedimentation ponds.
2) After 20 or so years of observing failed and failing "emergent" engineered stormwater treatment facilities, the conclusion from many wetland field scientists is that mixed-forest is, after all, best. (We already have that now.)
3) When you remove alluvial soil from a wetland (which Public Works plans to do), it can't recover; maybe not ever.
4)Sedimentation ponds such as retention and detention ponds (which will be built on this site) are not advised for dryland summer areas (two or more months of dry weather, which is what the San Juans have.)The pollution issue alone of storms after a dry season is scary, and probably a topic for another blog post.
At the end of this post I put up a few pictures of the "proposed stormwater site" that I took in spring. The trees were blooming, the bees were humming, the place was full of life, horsetail softly waving on the forest floor, and the honey smells of blooming flowers. Birds darted among the trees. Coolness and shade, wind shelter, and so many shades of green graced this land. I will not forget.
Walk this land while you still have time. Get in touch with the pulse of Life there. Appreciate all that is there; life in abundance. Say good bye. And vow to be vigilant to never to let a poorly planned, over-engineered project such as this happen again in our "Urban Growth Area" home. We must do better to protect our critical areas.
-
Surround this land with protection and your highest thoughts. Send your love and good energy to the tree-beings and their inhabitants and dependents, that their spirits remain eternal and intact although their bodies will die. Send your healing thoughts to the soils and waters of the wetland, that they be protected. Send your respect to the Native ancestors who might lie here, perhaps in middens. (I hope at least we can have someone on site to observe if there are bones, and stop work if there are.) Send your scientific evidence to Public Works and the Council and ask that it be put into the records. Ask, in whatever fashion you do, that the Universe helps the new plant beings to be nurtured and grow and thrive to heal the land.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)