New Search
MAR2O.DOC <br /> Page 10 <br /> II. PLAN IMPLEMENTATION (CONTINUED) <br /> A. WEWP Amendment Process -- Utility Corridors and EWEB Substation Site <br /> The Wetheads reconvened in the Pacific Conference Room in The Atrium Building at 11:30 a.m. on Tuesday, <br /> April 1. Mr. Bjorklund, Mr. Gordon, Ms. Evans, Mr. Long, and Ms. Sheldon were present. The Wetheads <br /> examined a map showing utilities in the plan area. Mr. Bjorklund said that the issue before the Wetheads was how <br /> to address existing service lines in protected wetlands that may need emergency repairs and scheduled maintenance. <br /> He suggested that there might be different criteria for emergency repairs, which could be needed at any time of the <br /> year, and regular maintenance activities. Mr. Bjorklund said that another issue was new, planned utilities: how <br /> could the partnership deal with utilities that have not been built yet and whose intended location was unknown. He <br /> suggested that utility lines not already identified would require a plan amendment to be built. <br /> Continuing, Mr. Bjorklund said that EWEB indicated support for the creation of a map showing known and planned <br /> utilities, and for a mechanism for evaluating if and how future utilities could be run through a protected wetland. <br /> He suggested that the Wetheads focus on establishing policy direction for the topic. <br /> Mr. Gordon advocated for mapping and designating the known planned utility corridors and requiring utility <br /> providers to seek plan amendments for new lines. He said that providers should be encouraged to coordinate <br /> emergency repairs when possible, and the partnership should negotiate guidelines with the providers about the type <br /> of equipment to be used in the wetlands to minimize impact, access to the area of concern, the location of <br /> equipment storage areas, and restoration of the wetlands following emergency repairs if needed. Mr. Long said <br /> that routine maintenance could be targeted for a specific time of year to minimize impacts on the wetlands. <br /> Mr. Bjorklund likened Mr. Gordon's proposal to the planned transportation corridors already in the plan and said <br /> that it should be included in the amendments package, accompanied by a recommended action calling for <br /> development of standardized guidelines or, in the case of EWEB, the establishment of an intergovernmental <br /> agreement. <br /> Mr. Bjorklund asked what precisely would be mapped and how wide the proposed corridor should be. Mr. Gordon <br /> suggested that he examine the size of existing easements in the plan area to determine a typical width. Mr. Long <br /> said that water mains were generally the same size, but sanitary sewer lines varied in size and that could affect the <br /> type of equipment needed. He believed that 20 feet would be adequate for a 48 -inch line. Mr. Bjorklund asked <br /> about the size of storm sewer lines. Mr. Long responded that such lines were generally self - cleaning and there was <br /> less concern about leakage. Responding to a question from Mr. Bjorklund, Mr. Long nonetheless expressed <br /> support for identifying those lines and including them in utility corridors. He recommended that Mr. Bjorklund <br /> contact Russ Royer for information about easements. Mr. Bjorklund pointed out that the easements were not <br /> designed with the concept of minimizing wetland impacts in mind. Mr. Gordon agreed, but suggested that the <br /> Wetheads find out how large they were. Mr. Long observed that, in the case of private property, property owners <br /> want the smallest possible easement. He did not think that the corridors should be larger than the easement. Mr. <br /> Gordon agreed. He said that if the easements were 15 feet, the corridor should be 15 feet. <br /> Mr. Bjorklund summarized the discussion regarding existing lines and indicated he would develop policy language <br /> related to the topic and e-mail it to the Wetheads for their review and comment. <br /> The Wetheads discussed how to address the issue of new utility lines in protected wetlands. Mr. Bjorklund noted <br /> the new sewer line proposed to run through the Vincy property. Mr. Gordon suggested that the Wetheads review <br /> the City's sanitary sewer master plan to determine the location of proposed lines and see if the designation of lands <br /> along Greenhill Road for protection and restoration warranted their elimination. Mr. Long observed that sewer <br /> lines were not easily rerouted because they were gravity -fed lines. He said that the lines might be reduced in size, <br />