Latest Activity

• Scheduled Meeting in late August 2018 between LS HOA Board Members and City of Camas Administrators regarding maintenance of water treatment bubblers and spreaders. Also to discuss possible ground clearing and foliage maintenance.
• Email sent on 8/8/2018 regarding Meadowlands Park ​from the Assistant Attorney General State of Washington. PDF LINK​​

---

Documents relating to the Meadowlands Park  

• 1988 LS HOA Shoreline Permit
• 1988 Agreed Order of Remand
• An article in the Water Environment & Technology Magazine published in 1993
  Specifically describes  the Meadowlands Park system’s design and 3-year test plan
  ​Wetlands for Stormwater Treatment  
• CC&Rs Section 2.7 (addresses the creation and maintenance of the area)
• Deed of Dedication (paragraph 1) 
• 2015 City of Camas Shoreline Master Program
• 2017 Wetland Delineation Report by J McConnaughey at ETC Consultants
  • Appendix A
• ​2017 Meadowlands Park FAQ handout at the Annual Members Meeting
• 2018 Letter from City of Camas Attorney regarding status of Meadowlands Park
• 2018 Email from Washington State AG regarding status of Meadowlands Park

---

Final Report from the Common Area Land Use Committee
​ (Committee Disbanded in July 2018)

---

Other Related Documents

 

1. ​“Managing Stormwater: an introduction to maintaining stormwater facilities – for private property owner and HOAs”, manual by Stormwater Partners of SW Washington (including Clark County and City of Camas).  Outlines the steps for maintenance of stormwater treatment systems by element. The Meadowlands systems has the following listed elements with their own required maintenances steps: inlets, outlets, filtering vegetation, and sediment ponds.  Appendix G3 of the ETC Report.
2. Clark County Stormwater Manual 2015, Book 4 “Stormwater Facility Operation and Maintenance,” by Clark County.  States that: "i.  Key maintenance considerations for “filter strips” include to “Control trees, brush and noxious weeds in the filter using either mechanical means or approved IPM practices.” p.57.  ii.  Bioretention facilities need maintenance when “Less than 75% of planted vegetation is healthy with a generally good appearance” P. 94.  Also notes that “Any conditions found that were deleterious to plant health” should be corrected where possible.
3. 2013 Update on Wetland Buffers by the Dept. of Ecology.  States that:  i.“Buffers may lose their effectiveness to disperse surface flows over time as flows create rills and channels, causing erosion within the buffer.”, p. 28.  ii. Also notes that “The use of buffers to protect and maintain water quality in wetlands (removing sediments, nutrients, and toxicants) is best accomplished by ensuring sheet flow across a well-vegetated buffer with a flat slope (less than 5%).” p. 15.  The two factors indicated were updated to be two of 6 or more key factors, including “soil infiltration, surface roughness (partially caused by vegetation), slope length, and adjacent land use practices”, “soil type, subsurface water regime (e.g. soil saturation, groundwater flow paths) and subsurface biogeochemistry”, and “interactions between groundwater and surface water” and water pathways. 
4. “Wetlands for Stormwater Treatment”, July 1993 article by Mark F. Bautista and N. Stan Geiger, Water Environment & Technology magazine.  Specifically describes our system’s design and 3-year test plan with the results. Appendix G5 to the ETC Report.
5. The CMC 16.53.010 C2b states that – Property is exempt from the City’s critical area reporting requirements if they are: “Artificial. Wetlands created from nonwetland sites including, but not limited to, irrigation and drainage ditches, grass-lined swales, canals, detention facilities, wastewater treatment facilities, stormwater facilities, farm ponds, and landscape amenities; provided, that wetlands created as mitigation shall not be exempted;” [emphasis mine].
6. The CMC 16.53.010 B3b states that – Property is exempt from the City’s critical areas reporting if all reasonable economic use of the property is denied: “The standards of this chapter shall not be used to deny all reasonable economic use of private property."
7. Shoreline Hearing Board Case No. SHB 88-33 Agreed Order – Mandated the agreement between the City of Camas and the Lacamas Shores Developer to dedicate “a portion of the property now reserved for wetland use to be developed immediately as part of the man-made wetlands created as part of the biofilter storm drainage system on the project.”