Notice is hereby given that sealed proposals will be received by Whatcom County Purchasing at its Office in the Administrative Services Finance Department located on the fifth floor of the Whatcom County Courthouse, 311 Grand Avenue, Suite 503, Bellingham WA 98225 for the following:
CONSULTING ENGINEERING SERVICES FOR: CHAREL TERRACE STORMWATER OUTFALL
UNTIL: 2:30 PM, Tuesday, March 24, 2020
At this time and place, proposals will be publicly opened and the names of the submitters identified. All respondents and any other interested persons are invited to be present. Late submittals will not be considered. Whatcom County reserves the right to reject any or all proposals and to waive any irregularities. Whatcom County encourages disadvantaged, minority, and women-owned consultant firms to respond.
Whatcom County Public Works is seeking proposals from qualified consultants for the Charel Terrace Stormwater Outfall Project. Further information is contained in the RFQ document, which can be downloaded at no charge from the Whatcom County Purchasing website at http://www.co.whatcom.wa.us/Bids.aspx, see “Related Documents” at the bottom of the RFQ posting page. If you are unable to download the pdf documents from this website, contact Purchasing at [email protected] (preferred), or phone (360) 778-5330.
Whatcom County will act in accordance with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 78 Stat. 252, 42 U.S.C. 2000d-4 and Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations, Department of Transportation, Subtitle A, Office of the Secretary, Part 21, Nondiscrimination in Federally-assisted programs of the Department of Transportation issued pursuant to such Act, hereby notifies all bidders that it will affirmatively ensure that in any contract entered into pursuant to this advertisement, disadvantaged business enterprises as defined at 49 CFR Part 26 will be afforded full opportunity to submit bids in response to this invitation and will not be discriminated against on the grounds of race, color, national origin, or sex in consideration for award. No otherwise qualified handicapped individual, by reason of their handicap will be excluded from participation, denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance. Persons with disabilities may request this information be prepared and supplied in alternate forms by contacting Purchasing at (360) 778-5330.
As required by law, the E-Verify System may be required. Publication Dates: March 11 and 18, 2020.
Whatcom County Public Works-Stormwater is seeking qualified consultants to provide design services and construction support for repairs to the Charel Terrace Stormwater Outfall. Whatcom County will review the RFQs and select the top rated firm. Whatcom County will award one (1) agreement. It is anticipated that the contract will be awarded to the successful consultant in April 2020. This project is currently funded with Whatcom County stormwater local funds and FEMA grant funds (see page 2 for State and Federal Laws to be Observed). The design is anticipated to be completed in 2020/21, with construction planned for summer 2022.
Project Background
In late 2018, significant bank erosion occurred at the bluff and adjacent existing County stormwater outfall located off of Oertel Drive. A description of the project and subsequent damage is provided in attached Exhibit A, the report from Coastal Geologic Services. The storm pipe that extends to the stormwater outfall is located on a County easement that passes between 8767 and 8781 Oertel Drive.
General Scope of Work
The Consultant’s scope of work will include an alternatives analysis to provide a preliminary evaluation of the appropriate repair option at this site. At the County’s discretion, they may later supplement the preliminary evaluation contract to include the full design of the repair and construction support with the selected consultant. The consultant must be able to provide the following:
1. Pre-design work including field investigations/research
2. Civil stormwater outfall design in a marine/bluff environment 3. Geotechnical evaluation and design
4. Coastal Engineering evaluation and design for littoral sediment transport system beaches 5. Preparation of plans, specifications, and estimates (PS&E) in a bid-ready format
6. Permitting coordination assistance and utility coordination 7. Construction support services
Request for Qualifications Submittal Requirements
Consultants that submit proposals in response to this RFQ must have the capability of providing the products and services described in the Scope of Work section above. Joint ventures or sub-consultants may be used. Please specify what tasks or services they would perform. Responses to this RFQ should be no more than ten (10) pages in length double sided, not including cover letter or resumes attached as an appendix. There should be no mention of the cost required to perform the work in the submittals, as the selection will be based on qualifications.
Submit one (1) unbound original and three (3)copies of the proposal in a sealed package, marked on the outside as follows:
• Name of Submitter
• RFQ #20-13, Charel Terrace Stormwater Outfall Send or deliver the proposal to:
Attn: Sara Winger, Purchasing Coordinator Whatcom County AS-Finance/Purchasing 311 Grand Ave., Suite #503
Bellingham, WA 98225
The proposal must be received no later than 2:30 PM, Tuesday, March 24, 2020. Late submittals will not be considered. Responses transmitted directly to Whatcom County electronically or by fax will not be considered. It is the submitter's responsibility to deliver the document to the proper address by the assigned time. Whatcom County accepts no responsibility for lost or misdirected submittals.
Evaluation and Selection
The selection of a consultant for this project will be made from the most qualified consultants responding to this RFQ. The top evaluated firm will be selected as the most qualified firm.
All firms responding will be evaluated, scored and ranked based on the following criteria: 1) Qualifications of proposed project manager and key personnel (25 Points)
2) Experience of the project team involving civil, geotechnical, and coastal design similar projects in the Birch Bay watershed and Washington State (25 points)
3) Approach to project (20 points) 4) Proposed schedule (10 Points) 5) Quality of proposal (10 Points)
6) References/past performance (10 Points) Total number of points possible = 100
The County assumes no obligation of any kind for expenses incurred by any respondent to this solicitation. If the RFQ does not include these items, is not submitted on time, or exceeds the specified page length limit, it will be deemed non-responsive and will not be eligible for further consideration. All submittals become the property of Whatcom County and will not be returned.
Questions
All questions regarding this matter should be directed in writing via email to Kevin Thompson, Project Engineer at
[email protected] and cc: Kraig Olason, Program Manager at [email protected].
State and Federal Laws to be Observed
The applicant must comply with all state and federal laws in performing all tasks undertaken with respect to the Public Assistance Program. The following sections are included for informational purposes and are not professed to include all relevant laws. It is the applicant’s responsibility to comply with all federal, state, and local laws.
1. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY – All contracts shall contain a provision requiring compliance with E.O. 11246, “Equal Employment Opportunity,” as amended by E.O. 11375, “Amending Executive Order 11246 Relating to Equal Employment Opportunity,” and as supplemented by regulations at 41 CFR part 60, “Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs, Equal Employment Opportunity, Department of Labor.”
2. COPELAND “ANTI-KICKBACK” ACT (18 U.S.C. 874 AND 40 U.S.C. 276c) – All contracts and subgrants in excess of $2,000 for construction or repair awarded by recipients and subrecipients shall include a provision for compliance with the Copeland “Anti-Kickback” Act (18 U.S.C. 874), as supplemented by Department of Labor regulations (29 CFR part 3, “Contractors and Subcontractors on Public Building or Public Work Financed in Whole or in Part by Loans or Grants from the United States”). The Act provides that each contractor or subrecipient shall be prohibited from inducing, by any means, any person employed in the construction, completion, or repair of public work, to give up any part of the compensation to which he is otherwise entitled. The recipient shall report all suspected or reported violations to the Federal awarding agency.
3. CONTRACT WORK HOURS AND SAFETY STANDARDS ACT (40 U.S.C 327-333) – Where applicable, all contracts awarded by recipients in excess of $2,000 for construction contracts and in excess of $2,500 for other contracts that involve the employment of mechanics or laborers shall include a provision for compliance with Sections 102 and 107 of the Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards Act (40 U.S.C. 327-333), as supplemented by Department of Labor regulations (29 CFR part 5). Under Section 102 of the Act, each contractor shall be required to compute the wages of every mechanic and laborer on the basis of a standard work week of 40 hours. Work in excess of the standard work week is permissible provided that the worker is compensated at a rate of not less than 1 ½ times the basic rate of pay for all hours worked in excess of 40
hours in the work week. Section 107 of the Act is applicable to construction work and provides that no laborer or mechanic shall be required to work in surroundings or under working conditions which are unsanitary, hazardous or dangerous. These requirements do not apply to the purchases of supplies or materials or articles ordinarily available on the open market, or contracts for transportation or transmission of intelligence. 4. RIGHTS TO INVENTIONS MADE UNDER A CONTRACT OR AGREEMENT – Contracts or agreements for the
performance of experimental, developmental, or research work shall provide for the rights of the Federal Government and the recipient in any resulting invention in accordance with 37 CFR part 401, “Rights to Inventions Made by Nonprofit Organizations and Small Business Firms Under Government Grants, Contracts and Cooperative Agreements,” and any implementing regulations issued by the awarding agency.
5. CLEAN AIR ACT (42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.) AND THE FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT(33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), as amended – Contractors and subgrants of amounts in excess of $100,000 shall contain a provision that requires the recipient to agree to comply with all applicable standards, orders or regulations issued pursuant to the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.) and the Federal Water Pollution Control Act as amended (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) Violations shall be reported to the Federal awarding agency and the Regional Office of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
6. BYRD ANTI-LOBBYING AMENDMENT (31 U.S.C. 1352) – Contractors who apply or bid for an award of $100,000 or more shall file the required certification. Each tier certifies to the tier above that it will not and has not used Federal appropriated funds to pay any person or organization for influencing or attempting to influence an officer or employee of any agency, a member of Congress, officer or employee of Congress, or an employee of a member of Congress in connection with obtaining any Federal contract, grant or any other award covered by 31 U.S.C. 1352. Each tier shall also disclose any lobbying in non-Federal funds that takes place in connection with obtaining any Federal award. Such disclosures are forwarded from tier to tier up to the recipient.
7. DEBARMENT AND SUSPENSION (E.O.s 12549 and 12689) – No contract shall be made to parties listed on the General Services Administration’s List of Parties Excluded from Federal Procurement or Nonprocurement Programs in accordance with E.O.s 12549 and 12689, “Debarment and Suspension.” This list contains the names of parties debarred, suspended, or otherwise excluded by agencies, and contractors declared ineligible under statutory or regulatory authority other than E.O. 12549. Contractors with awards that exceed the small purchase threshold shall provide the required certification regarding its exclusion status and that of its principal employees.
8. PUBLIC LAW 88-352, TITLE VI OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1964(42 U.S.C. 2000d et seq.) (24 CFR Part 1). The APPLICANT must comply with the provisions of "Public Law 88-352," which refers to Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000d et seq.). The law provides that no person in the United States shall, on the grounds of race, color or national origin, be denied the benefits of, be excluded from participation in, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving federal financial assistance.
9. SECTION 504 OF THE REHABILITATION ACT, 1973, AS AMENDED (29 U.S.C. 794). The APPLICANT must comply with Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, which provides that no otherwise qualified individual shall, solely by reason of his or her disability, be excluded from participation (including employment), denied program benefits or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving federal assistance funds.
10. The APPLICANT shall comply with the provisions of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. 12101, et. seq. That Act provides a comprehensive national mandate to eliminate discrimination against individuals with disabilities. The Act may impose requirements on the APPLICANT in four principle ways: 1) with respect to employment; 2) with respect to the provision of public services; 3) with respect to transportation; 4) with respect to existing facilities and new construction.
11. THE NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT OF 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C Section 4321 et seq., and 24 CFR Part 58). The APPLICANT shall comply with the provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. The purpose of this Act is to attain the widest use of the environment without degradation, risk to health or safety, or other undesirable and unintended consequences. Environmental review procedures, including determining and publishing a Finding of Significance or of No Significance for a proposal, are a necessary part of this process. Pursuant to these provisions, the APPLICANT must also submit environmental certifications to the DEPARTMENT when requesting that funds be released for the project. The APPLICANT must certify that the proposed project will not significantly impact the environment and that the APPLICANT has complied with environmental regulations and fulfilled its obligations to give public notice of the funding request, environmental findings and compliance performance.
12. EXECUTIVE ORDER 11990, MAY 24, 1977: PROTECTION OF WETLANDS (42 F.R. 26961 et seq.). The APPLICANT shall comply with Executive Order 11990. The intent of this Executive Order is (1) to avoid, to the extent possible, adverse impacts associated with the destruction or modification of wetland, and (2) to avoid direct or indirect support of new construction in wetlands wherever there is a practical alternative. The APPLICANT, to the extent permitted by law, must avoid undertaking or providing assistance for new construction located in wetlands unless (1) there is no practical alternative to such construction, and (2) the proposed action includes all practical measures to minimize harm to wetlands which may result from such use. In making this determination, the APPLICANT may take into account economic, environmental and other pertinent factors.
13. EXECUTIVE ORDER 11988, MAY 24, 1977: FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT (42 F.R. 26951 et seq.). The APPLICANT shall comply with the provisions of Executive Order 11988. The intent of this Executive Order is to (1) avoid, to the extent possible, adverse impacts associated with the occupancy and modification of floodplains, and (2) avoid direct or indirect support of floodplain development wherever there is a practical alternative. If the APPLICANT proposes to conduct, support or allow an action to be located in a floodplain, the APPLICANT must consider alternatives to avoid adverse effects and incompatible involvement in the floodplain. If siting in a floodplain is the only practical alternative, the APPLICANT must, prior to taking any action (1) design or modify its actions in order to minimize any potential harm to the floodplain, and (2) prepare and circulate a notice containing an explanation of why the action is proposed to be located in a floodplain.
14. THE WILD AND SCENIC RIVERS ACT OF 1968, AS AMENDED (16 U.S.C. 1271 et seq.). The APPLICANT shall comply with the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. The purpose of this Act is to preserve selected rivers or sections of rivers in their free-flowing condition, to protect the water quality of such rivers and to fulfill other vital national conservation goals. Federal assistance by loan, grant, license, or other mechanism cannot be provided to water resources construction projects that would have a direct and adverse effect on any river included or designated for study or inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic River System.
15. COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT ACT OF 1972, AS AMENDED (16 U.S.C. 1451 et seq.). The APPLICANT shall comply with the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, as amended. The intent of this Act is to preserve, protect, develop, and where possible, restore or enhance the resources of the nation's coastal zone. Federal agencies cannot approve assistance for proposed projects that are inconsistent with the state's Coastal Zone Management program except upon a finding by the U.S. Secretary of Commerce that such a project is consistent with the purpose of this chapter or necessary in the interests of national security.
16. THE ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT OF 1973, AS AMENDED (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). The APPLICANT shall comply with the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. The intent of this Act is to ensure that all federally assisted projects seek to preserve endangered or threatened species. Federally authorized and funded projects must not jeopardize the continued existence of endangered and threatened species or result in the destruction of or modification of habitat of such species which is determined by the U.S. Department of the Interior, after consultation with the state, to be critical.
17. THE RESERVOIR SALVAGE ACT OF 1960, AS AMENDED BY THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND HISTORIC PRESERVATION ACT OF 1974 (16 U.S.C. 469 et seq.). Under the Reservoir Salvage Act, the APPLICANT must comply with provisions for the preservation of historical and archaeological data (including relics and specimens) that might otherwise be irreparably lost or destroyed as a result of any alteration of the terrain caused as a result of any federal construction project or federally licensed activity or program. Whenever the APPLICANT finds, or is notified in writing by an appropriate historical or archaeological authority, that its activities in connection with any federal funded construction project or federally licensed project, activity or program may cause irreparable loss or destruction of significant scientific, prehistoric, historical or archaeological data, the APPLICANT must stop work immediately and must notify the U.S. Secretary of Interior and the Department in writing and provide appropriate information concerning the project or program activity.
18. THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND HISTORICAL DATA PRESERVATION ACT OF 1974 (16 U.S.C. 469 a-1 et seq.). The APPLICANT shall comply with the Archaeological and Historical Data Preservation Act, which provides for the preservation of historic and archaeological information that would be lost due to development and construction activities as a result of federally funded activities.
19. THE SAFE DRINKING WATER ACT OF 1974, AS AMENDED (42 U.S.C. Section 201, 300(f) et seq., and U.S.C. Section 349). The APPLICANT must comply with the Safe Drinking Water Act, as amended, which is intended to protect underground sources of water. No commitment for federal financial assistance, according to this Act, shall be entered into for any project, which the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency determines, may contaminate an aquifer that is the sole or principal drinking water source for an area.
20. THE FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT OF 1972, AS AMENDED, INCLUDING THE CLEAR WATER ACT OF 1977, PUBLIC LAW 92-212 (33 U.S.C. SECTION 1251 et seq.). The APPLICANT must assure compliance with the Water Pollution Control Act, as amended, which provides for the restoration of chemical, physical and biological integrity of the nation's water.
21. THE SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL ACT, AS AMENDED BY THE RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND RECOVERY ACT OF 1976 (42 U.S.C. SECTION 6901 et seq.). The APPLICANT must assure compliance with the Solid Waste Disposal Act, as amended. The purpose of this Act is to promote the protection of health and the environment and to conserve valuable material and energy resources.
22. THE FISH AND WILDLIFE COORDINATION ACT OF 1958, AS AMENDED (16 U.S.C. SECTION 661 et seq.). The APPLICANT must assure compliance with the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, as amended. The Act assures that wildlife conservation receives equal consideration and is coordinated with other features of water resources development programs.
23. RELOCATION ASSISTANCE AND REAL PROPERTY ACQUISITION POLICY, CHAPTER 8.26 RCW. The APPLICANT shall comply with the provisions of Chapter 8.26 RCW and Chapter 365-24 WAC when its activities involve any acquisition of real property assisted under this Grant Agreement or the displacement of any family, individual, business, nonprofit organization or farm that results from such acquisition.
24. STATE ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT (SEPA), CHAPTER 43.21 (C) RCW. The APPLICANT shall comply with the provisions of Chapter 43.21(C) RCW and Chapter 197-11 WAC, the guidelines by which local agencies will (1) require environmental checklists from private and public entities considering an action potentially subject to the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) requirement of SEPA, (2) make "threshold determinations" that such an action will not have a significant environmental impact, (3) provide for the preparation of a draft and final EIS if the action has significant impact, and (4) circulate the EIS to other agencies and interested parties. 25. NOISE CONTROL, CHAPTER 70.107 RCW. The APPLICANT shall assure compliance with the state Noise Control Act. Objectives of the Act are to assist local governments in implementing local noise ordinances and to control and reduce excessive noise in Washington.
26. SHORELINE MANAGEMENT ACT OF 1971, CHAPTER 90.58 RCW. The APPLICANT shall comply with the provisions of Chapter 90.58 RCW. This Act defines a planning program and a permit system, which are initiated at the local government level under state guidance. Its purpose is to protect and enhance the state's shoreline and it includes a comprehensive shoreline inventory process and a master program for regulation of shoreline uses. A permit application at the local level must be in compliance with those plans and consistent with the state Coastal Zone Management program if substantial developments and shoreline modifications occur, and a record of the application and decision must be submitted to the state.
27. STATE BUILDING CODE, CHAPTER 19.27 RCW; ENERGY RELATED BUILDING STANDARDS, CHAPTER 19.27A RCW; AND PROVISIONS IN BUILDINGS FOR AGED AND HANDICAPPED PERSONS, CHAPTER 70.92 RCW. The APPLICANT shall comply with the provisions of Chapter 19.27 RCW, Chapter 19.27A RCW, Chapter 70.92 RCW and the regulations for building construction and for barrier free facilities adopted by the Washington State Building Code Council pursuant to these statutes. The State Building Code Act provides for a uniform state building code and mandates counties, cities and towns to administer and enforce its provisions. Local governments are authorized to modify the state building code to fit local conditions as long as such modifications do not result in a code that is less than the minimum performance standards and objectives contained in the state code.
28. OPEN PUBLIC MEETINGS ACT, CHAPTER 42.30 RCW. The APPLICANT shall comply with provisions of Chapter 42.30 RCW which require that all meetings of the governing body which pertain to this Grant Agreement shall be open to the public except those where specific provision is made for executive sessions pursuant to RCW 42.30.110.
29. LAW AGAINST DISCRIMINATION, CHAPTER 49.60 RCW. The APPLICANT shall comply with the provisions of Chapter 49.60 RCW in all activities relating to this Grant Agreement.
30. GOVERNOR'S EXECUTIVE ORDER 89-10, DECEMBER 11, 1989: PROTECTION OF WETLANDS, AND GOVERNOR'S EXECUTIVE ORDER 90-04, APRIL 21, 1990: PROTECTION OF WETLANDS. The APPLICANT shall ensure that it avoids any activities that would adversely affect wetlands and adequately mitigates unavoidable impacts. For the purposes of this requirement, except where a contrary definition is provided by statute, mitigation means: (1) avoiding the impact altogether by not taking certain action or part of an action; (2) minimizing impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and its implementation, by using appropriate technology, or by taking affirmative steps to avoid or reduce impacts; (3) rectifying the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the affected 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, enhancing, or providing substitute resources or environments; and (6) monitoring the impact and taking appropriate corrective measures.
Mitigation for individual actions may include a combination of the above measures. Mitigation may not include any of the above measures to the extent that they may be contrary to statute as applied under the particular circumstances. Emergency work that is essential to save lives and protect property and public health is exempt from these provisions.
31. PREVAILING WAGES ON PUBLIC WORKS, CHAPTER 39.12 RCW. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Chapter 39.12, Prevailing Wages on Public Works. This statute mandates that the prevailing rate of wage, as determined by the State Department of Labor and Industries, be paid to workers performing under public works contracts.
32. CONTRACTING WITH SMALL MINORITY FIRMS, WOMEN’S BUSINESS ENTERPRISE AND LABOR SURPLUS AREA FIRMS. In accordance 44 CFR 13.36(e), Contracting with Small and Minority Firms, if employing contractors or suppliers the Contractor will take affirmative steps to assure that minority firms, women’s business enterprises, and labor surplus area firms are used when possible. (1) The grantee and subgrantee will take all necessary affirmative steps to assure that minority firms, women’s enterprises and labor surplus
area firms are used when possible. (2) Affirmative steps shall include: (i) Placing qualified small and minority businesses, and women’s business enterprises on solicitation lists; (ii) Assuring that small and minority enterprises are solicited whenever they are potential sources; (iii) Dividing total requirements, when economically feasible, into smaller tasks or quantities to permit maximum participation by small and minority business, and women’s business enterprises; (iv) Establishing delivery schedules, where the requirement permits, which encourage participation by small and minority business, and women’s business enterprises; (v) Using the services and assistance of the Small Business Administration, and the Minority Business Development Agency of the Department of Commerce; and (vi) Requiring the prime contractor, if subcontracts are to be let, to take the affirmative steps listed in paragraphs (e)(2)(i) through (v) of this section.
1711 Ellis St. Suite 103, Bellingham, WA 98225 (360) 647-1845 www.coastalgeo.com
memorandum
Date: February 6, 2019
To: Whatcom County Public Works, Attn: Holly Faulstich ROW adjacent to 8767 Oertel Drive
Blaine, WA
Cc: Lisa Kaufman, Northwest Straits Foundation
From: Andrea MacLennan, Coastal Geomorphologist, MS
Re: 8767 Oertel Drive, Blaine – Coastal Geologic Services Recommendations for unarmored coastal bluff
Introduction and Purpose
The purpose of this brief memorandum report is to outline the existing site conditions and proposed management recommendations specific to your coastal property.
This is for a project sponsored by the Northwest Straits Foundation and the Whatcom County Marine Resources Committee with funding from the Washington Departments of Fish and Wildlife through the Habitat Strategic Initiative and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The goal of this project is to promote alternative strategies for shoreline residential properties that provide both the use and enjoyment of the property while promoting and maintaining the ecological properties of coastal ecosystems. This project aims to provide knowledge and guidance on coastal processes and
management directly to shoreline property owners in Whatcom County via free workshops and site assessments.
I met with Holly Faulstich at the site on January 17, 2019. You expressed the following concerns: ♦ Bank erosion landward of stormwater outfall was exacerbated by a recent high water event.
Site Conditions Overview
The subject property consisted of a Whatcom County-owned right-of-way that runs perpendicular to the shoreline from Oertel Drive toward the shoreline. The subject site extended roughly 200 FT alongshore and measured 60 FT from the top of the bank landward, at its widest. The parcel abuts the Chapman property to the northeast (8768 Oertel Drive). Mr. Chapman has expressed concerns about the erosion of the bank waterward of his property. Both adjacent homes were very large and located at least 100 FT from the bluff crest.
A large stormwater outfall was present in the right-of-way. The outfall was recently installed in 2011 as part of several stormwater management improvements of Charel Terrace. This catchment drained a considerable area that continues to develop. Eighteen-inch high density polyethylene (HDPE) pipe directed stormwater from Oertel Drive, down the bank in the right-of way, and into a catch basin at the toe of the bank. A 20-inch HDPE pipe extended waterward from the catchment and terminated at a large T-shaped diffuser/energy dissipater. A splash pad laid beneath the diffuser, that consisted of 8-inch HDPE pipes cabled together overlying a bed of 4-5 inch rock. The T-shaped diffuser pipe was 20 inches in diameter and had considerable, continuous flow on to the beach at the time of the site
bank than the northeast side.
Bluff and Geology
The geology of the bank was mapped as Everson glaciomarine drift, deposited during the most recent ice advance, which was approximately 11,000 years before present in the Everson Interstade. The unit consists of poorly sorted, weakly stratified to massive deposit of pebbly silt and clay.
Observations of the bank sediment did not correspond with the description of this unit (noted above). Observations of the bank geology included soil with shell deposits in variable abundance. The lowest elevations of the bluff had abundant shell material, which decreased moving higher up the bluff. The bank sediment was high in organic material.
The bluff or bank measured approximately 12 FT in height. Toe erosion extended across much of the base of the bank. Two to three small landslides were also observed within the subject property, which extended up to the crest of the bank.
The property is classified as a transport zone, which is a generally stable to minimally eroding bank that is typically neither substantially eroding nor accreting (MacLennan et al. 2013). Broad sand flats extend waterward offshore. The bluff at the property was also mapped as “stable” in the Coastal Zone Atlas of Washington (WDOE 1979). The bluff slope was very steep in this 200 FT section of marine shore and the uplands further landward sloped toward the bank.
In the uplands, the right of way narrows (measuring approximately 6 FT in width) and extends up toward Oertel Drive perpendicular to the bank. The upland vegetation in the right of way and adjacent lots, consisted of (approximately 95%) lawn and ornamental vegetation, with few native species. There were very few trees and a narrow fringe of shrubs growing along the crest of the bank. Overhanging riparian vegetation was intermittent and cumulatively covered roughly 30% of the parcel’s shore. Species included snowberry (Symphoricarpos albus), Oregon grape (Mahonia aquifolium) and native dunegrass (Leymus mollis).
Beach and Backshore Area
The beach at the property is part of a long term littoral sediment transport system known as a net shore-drift cell. A net shore-drift cell represents an idealized system with sediment input from feeder bluffs (and other sources) to a beach, transport alongshore with intermittent additional sediment input, and deposition in one or a number of accretion areas in the down-drift end of the drift cell where wave energy diminishes (Johannessen and MacLennan, 2007). The site is within net shore-drift cell WHMA005 (Coastal Geologic Services, 2017; MacLennan et al., 2013). This shore-drift cell originates near Birch Point in an area of drift divergence and extends northeastward until it terminates at the distal end of Semiahmoo Spit near the marina.
The site faces west-northwest to the Strait of Georgia. The maximum fetch measures from the west and is over 26 miles. Fetch to the northwest measured 12 miles to the northern shores of Boundary Bay in British Columbia. This high fetch environment means that the wave environment at the site is very high energy. As such, wave-driven erosion is more likely to be a factor along this section of shore. Some wave energy is likely dissipated over the broad sandflats waterward of the site.
Substrate that was potentially appropriate for surf smelt spawning was present.
There were several large pieces of driftwood along the beach, two of which were located southwest of the diffuser (at the same elevation) and appeared to be helping to trap larger sediment (cobble). Another large piece of driftwood was found down-drift (northeast of the structure), at a comparable elevation as the diffuser.
The bank was not armored and does not appear to need armor, as there are no structures threatened by the erosion.
Conclusions and Recommendations
The T-shaped diffuser at the terminal end of the outfall is likely causing waves from the southwest to northwest to diffract around the structure and to approach the bank at higher oblique angles, which exacerbates erosion along the adjacent bank to the northeast, particularly during high water events. The diffuser is located several feet (4-5 FT) from the toe of the bank at the southwestern bank and 8-12 FT waterward of the bank along the northeast (down-drift) side of the structure.
The location of the diffuser on the upper beach several feet waterward of the bluff toe is somewhat unusual. Stormwater outfalls in the marine environment are more commonly located directly at the toe of the bluff, or extend with a buried pipe farther waterward and terminate on the lower beach. The latter option is more complex and has substantially greater impacts to littoral processes. It is also more costly due to permitting and the cost of material and construction for the additional length of the structure.
The current location and elevation of the diffuser places it in the surf / swash zone during high water (11.5 to 12.4 FT MLLW), where it is battered by driftwood and causes changes in the wave
propagation resulting in the type of erosion currently observed on the bank. In addition, the splash pad (at elevation 10 FT +MLLW) covers a considerable portion of intertidal beach, in the same intertidal elevations that forage fish (surf smelt and sand lance) are known to spawn.
Shore protection does not appear to be necessary to protect the home or other improvements. Additional assessment should guide the selection of the most suitable erosion control method for site conditions, if deemed necessary.
Additional Assessment
Additional survey and assessments are recommended, including analysis of all available historical and ground photos from recent decades, to determine if the outfall structure should be modified to be less impactful, and if beach nourishment or other techniques are appropriate for this site. It is unlikely that beach nourishment material would have considerable longevity, and would likely require repeated maintenance
The full extent of the appendant cultural resources in the bank should be investigated further in the bank by a local archaeologist and discussions with the local tribes should be conducted to determine if there are constraints on the options available for managing this coastal erosion.
otherwise contribute to erosion of the coastal bluffs, particularly where bluff geology is sensitive to additions of water, which is the case at this location. The marine riparian vegetation at the site is minimal and additional native vegetation plants are recommended, particularly species that are known for providing erosion control functions.
Native backshore plants which are resistant to short-term storm damage and erosion were present in patches at the site, consisting of Nootka rose (Rosa nutkana) and native dunegrass (Leymus mollis). It is recommended to both allow these vegetation patches to spread and to make simple efforts to transplant and propagate these species in the area behind the storm berm to provide more resistance to overwash damage and to enhance songbird and other habitats.
Replace upland lawn cover with native shrubs and trees to the greatest extent possible. A list of resources (see bulleted list in next section) will direct you to various websites that describe recommended vegetation species for coastal properties. Local conservation districts typically have native plant sales in the spring and fall. Species that may perform well at your property include:
♦ Salal (Gaultheria shallon)
♦ Oregon grape (Mahonia aquifolium)
♦ Snowberry (Symphoricarpos albus)
♦ Nootka rose (Rosa nutkana)
♦ Western redcedar (Thuja plicata)
♦ Hemlock (Tsuga heterophylla)
♦ Shore pine (Pinus contorta)
♦ Douglas fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii)
Do not dig in close proximity to the bluff crest, particularly due to the sensitivity of the cultural resources that are present. Shallow holes (less than 0.5 FT in depth) are fine physically within 4-5 FT of the bluff crest. Larger holes for planting trees should be at least 10-15 FT back from the bluff crest. Amend the soil, regularly water and weed, and protect new plantings from voles and deer for better chance of transplant success. To minimize the need for watering, consider planting in the fall.
Preserve all trees currently present on the property. Trees should not be cut, as roots enhance bluff integrity and provide moisture control. Some trimming is permissible to maintain view corridors. Even with implementation of vegetation management practices, erosion will continue to occur at the subject property. As part of planning for the future, consider introducing a secondary line of strong-rooted trees, such as conifers (Douglas fir, Western redcedar, shore pine, etc.), approximately 10-15 FT from the bluff crest. As the bluff crest continues to recede, these trees will mature and contribute better root strength and moisture control than younger specimens or shrubs.
Monitor
Identify 2-3 locations from which you will make semi-annual measurements and photos. Measure the distance from a selected, stable location on the property to the bluff crest. Take regular photos of the bluff crest at this location as well. Repeat these measurements and photos to compare them across years. Comparing bluff distance measurements across years will allow you to document and calculate your own erosion rate.
♦ Preserve existing vegetation and/or install additional native vegetation to absorb surface water and shallow groundwater
♦ Preserve or create vegetated buffers of 15–25 feet in width around the bluff crest, consisting of native groundcovers, shrubs and/or trees
♦ Use low-impact development techniques such as swales that route water laterally away from structures, but not onto adjacent properties
♦ Do not build any new structures of value any closer than the existing building setbacks See additional information in:
♦ Marine Shoreline Design Guidelines, chapter on stewardship and other sections
http://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/01583/wdfw01583.pdf
♦ Vegetation Management: A Guide for Puget Sound Bluff Property Owners
https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/publications/documents/9331.pdf
♦ Your Marine Waterfront: A guide to protecting your property while promoting healthy shorelines http://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/01791/wdfw01791.pdf
♦ Feeder Bluff Mapping of Puget Sound
https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/publications/parts/1406016part1.pdf
Limitations of This Report
This report was prepared for the specific conditions present at the subject property to meet the needs of specific individuals. No one other than the landowner and their agents should apply this report for any purposes other than that originally contemplated without first conferring with the geologist that prepared this report. The findings and recommendations presented in this report were reached based on a brief field visit. The report does not reflect detailed examination of sub-surface conditions present at the site, or drainage system designs, which are not known to exist. It is based on examination of surface features, bank exposures, soil characteristics, gross vegetation
characteristics, and beach processes. In addition, conditions may change at the site due to human influences, floods, groundwater regime changes, or other factors. This report may not be all that is required to carry out recommended actions. More detailed design specifications may be needed for proper implementation of a habitat enhancement project.
References
Coastal Geologic Services, 2018. Long-Term Bluff Recession Rates in the Puget Sound Region: Implications for the Prioritization and Design of Restoration Projects (Prepared for the Estuary and Salmon Restoration Program). Bellingham, WA.
Coastal Geologic Services, 2017. Beach Strategies Phase 1 Summary Report: Identifying Target Beaches to Restore and Protect (Prepared for the Estuary and Salmon Restoration Program No. 14–2308). Bellingham, WA.
Johannessen, J.W., 1992. Net shore-drift of San Juan, and parts of Jefferson, Island, and Snohomish Counties, Washington (Prepared for the Shorelands and Coastal Zone Management Program, Washington Department of Ecology). Western Washington University, Olympia, WA.
WA.
MacLennan, A.J., Johannessen, J.W., Williams, S.A., Gerstel, W., Waggoner, J.F., Bailey, A., 2013. Feeder Bluff Mapping of Puget Sound. Prepared by Coastal Geologic Services, for the Washington Department of Ecology and the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. Bellingham, WA. 118p.
Menashe, E., 1993. Vegetation management: A guide for Puget Sound bluff property owners. Shorelands and Coastal Management Program, Washington Department of Ecology. 93–31.
WDFW, 2016. Your Marine Waterfront: A guide to protecting your property while promoting healthy shorelines. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 44p.
WDOE, 1979. Slope Stability Map - Island County. Coastal Zone Atlas of Washington, Volume 4, Island County.
ATTACHMENT:
Photo Page
This project has been funded wholly or in part by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under assistance agreement PC-011J22301 through the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW). The contents of this document do not necessarily reflect the views and policies of the EPA or WDFW, nor does mention of trade names or commercial products constitute endorsement or recommendation for use.
Upland view of right-of-way, approximately 6 FT in width between two residential parcels
Down-drift (east) side of parcel, showing recent toe erosion
Up-drift end of diffuser, with trapped LWD Down-drift end of diffuser, showing moderate flow, trapped
LWD and lost end-cover for diffuser.
Distance from diffuser to bank along down-drift shore Visible organics and rich shell content of the bank geology