The Port’s 2050 Plan

Lots of people were queried in the 2050 Plan. Some had vested interests. Some knew nothing about the subject.

A lot of people would consider restoration their first choice. Restoration was not included among the choices in the 2050 plan. We hear plenty about environmental stewardship, compliance and sustainability. We rarely see the term restoration and only out of context. The 2050 plan feeds into this process coming and going.

The most important feature in any watershed, for those that have one, is its estuary. East Bay is the estuary of Moxlie Creek, one of the largest watersheds in the city of Olympia. At its lower end the stream runs through a long culvert into a body of water that’s been dredged, filled and armored with rock.

The Port of Olympia is launching a development plan for the shore of East Bay on the east side of the Port Peninsula. To the southeast will be administrative offices. Moving north will come mixed use, parking, restaurants and retail space. Buildings can be as close as 30 feet from the water’s edge.

The above graphic from the Port’s website represents an early rendition of the Marine Center design which was later enlarged to three stories and later to three buildings. To the south development is already underway.

In 2012 The Hands On Children’s Museum (HOCM) moved to its current East Bay location on historic fill. A building in this location should have never been allowed. What’s done is done. Land around the current structure could still be cleaned up, restored and enhanced.

In a big surprise, the Port sold the land (fill) on which the HOCM is located to the City. Current plans are to expand the building to twice its current size. The City is on track to issue bonds totaling $25,000,000.

Questions of contamination remain, water quality will be effected and the restoration option becomes greatly limited. This being a terrible location for such a huge structure comes as no surprise. The 1991 Budd Inlet Urban Bay Action Program is a comprehensive document. Following are excerpts of communications from federal agencies (USACE and the EPA):

“Planning for the future development of the urban waterfront should include enhancement of water quality and aquatic habitat as key elements. Future plans for the overall development of the waterfront should provide for protection and enhancement of water quality and aquatic habitat.”

“A related concern is that of Clean Water Act Section 404 fills in East Bay. Accordingly, fill material on the southeast portion of the Port peninsula (location of the HOCM) was only to be developed for water dependent uses.”

“Regarding your question on the use of Water Resources Development Act (WRDA) funding, the Service in 1990 recommended to the Corps that funding be provided to mitigate for fish and wildlife impacts caused by the construction of East Bay Marina Project. One of the options that was discussed involved measures to improve in-water habitat within the East Bay of Budd Inlet.” (not to be)

“Your inquiry about the appropriateness of using former intertidal areas that were filled for non-water dependent purposes raises some interesting questions. Such proposals are inconsistent with the Corps’ policy (EP 1165-2-1). Since impacts to fish and wildlife resources resulting from the project have already occurred, the Service is now primarily concerned with preventing further losses… Such areas should be reserved for bona fide Port purposes, instead of being used for non-water dependent facilities (e.g., Olympic Academy, restaurants, etc.).”

The sampling in East Bay indicates that there’s an area of dioxin and PCB contamination adjoining the HOCM (red dot on above aerials). The next step in the process is going to be to determine the nature and extent of the contamination. There’s a good chance the adjoining land in question is the source. In situations like this anyone who has ever owned, rented or done business on a contaminated parcel becomes a partly or potentially liable or responsible party (PLP or PRP). Teams of lawyers sit around a big table figuring out who owes what. Buying the land gives the City a seat at the table.

The museum is embarking on a $35 million fundraising campaign, $25 million of which will be secured by Public Facility District (PFD) funds wherein sales tax revenue is retained within a jurisdiction and used to promote tourism.

East Bay has the poorest water quality in Budd Inlet. The best and perhaps only way to restore chemical parameters like dissolved oxygen is going to be to restore some physical parameters, especially salt marsh and tide flats. Yet somehow whenever the subject of East Bay comes up, restoration is NEVER mentioned. It’s all about what we can get away with.

Under section 1191 the Action Plan Goal is to work cooperatively with all involved parties. “Voluntary commitment to perform the actions set forth in the action plan is the most efficient and cost-effective approach to addressing point and non-point contaminant sources in Budd Inlet. Successful implementation of the action plan will require the cooperation of all parties within the Budd Inlet watershed. City and county agencies responsible for source control and remedial activities include the City and Port of Olympia. The Budd Inlet ecosystem is being stressed and uses in the inlet are restricted because of low oxygen levels and bacterial and chemical contamination.”

Given funding shortfalls federal and state agencies are largely relying on local jurisdictions to see that laws are followed. Local jurisdictions seem to rarely understand or appreciate this. Federal agencies may as well be talking to the wind.

Chemical impairment

East Bay was placed on the 1998 303(d) impaired water list for PCBs based on samples of mussel tissue. Dioxin levels in sediments are high throughout the bay, in some locations exceeding thresholds by three orders of magnitude. These are some of the most biologically damaging chemicals known, being linked to cancer, birth defects and diabetes. Inner Budd Inlet has 95 chemical listings on Washington’s 303(d) list. (2)

An extensive sediment characterization was completed in 2008. The next step in the process was to identify the sources of contamination in Budd Inlet and control these sources, particularly those of persistent bio-accumulative forever chemicals including PCBs and dioxin. In the fifteen years since there has been no effort at source identification or control. Every priority is development driven.

Lost Ecological Function

Dredging, armoring and filling of East Bay has dramatically impacted species composition from plankton on up. The Port’s Destination Waterfront Vision plan suggests four improvements for East Bay which add up to the planting of 8000 linear feet of “functional riparian zone.” Allowed building setbacks are 30 feet from the high water mark. In marine nearshore environments where beaches are fringed with riparian vegetation, the upper intertidal wrack zone accumulates organic debris from algae. Seagrass and terrestrial plants provide food and shelter for many organisms. Armored beaches have substantially less organic matter and ecological connectivity.  A narrow riparian planting will do little, especially if placed on top of a pile of rock.

Not a Random Sample

The task force includes the Port of Olympia Citizens Advisory Committee, South Thurston Economic Development Initiative (STEDI), Thurston Economic Development Council, Olympia Downtown Alliance, TRPC (elected officials from various jurisdictions) and the Thurston Chamber of Commerce. There are also representatives of schools, cities, tribes, and the public at large. Those with vested financial interests are going to be more likely to respond to and distribute questionnaires.

The Consultant Team for the Destination Waterfront Vision project contains six names. Two are from Thomas Architects, one is a Seattle architect specializing in nearshore developments, two are engineers and one is a contractor.

Conclusion

Even if data collected in the 2050 plan was a random sample, plans pertaining to this area should not be a popularity contest, they should be a science based course of action for reversing the damage we’ve done to a critical environment. Water quality in Budd Inlet could hardly get any worse and the worst water quality in Budd Inlet is in East Bay, along the eastern side of the Port Peninsula.

Federal law requires that when we have such poor conditions, restoration should at least be a component of any planning. State law, under WAC I73-26-201(2)(a) states that local governments should be prepared to identify three things: the scientific information and management recommendations on which the Master Program provisions are based; assumptions made concerning and data gaps in the scientific information; and risks to ecological functions associated with Master Program provisions through the process identified in WAC 113-26-201(3Xd)]….”when determining allowable uses and resolving use conflicts on shorelines”, local governments must apply the following preferences and priorities in the order listed below: Number one (i) Protect and restore ecological functions…”

Local restoration efforts can only be initiated at a local level. State and Federal agencies will not take the first step. Sadly, local jurisdictions governing Budd Inlet have no interest in restoration, which is unfortunate because restoration opportunities abound. The scale of this development along the shoreline will impede ecological function, reduce opportunities for cleanup of legacy contamination and eliminate restoration potential.

Footnotes…

(1) Environmental concerns are addressed in the 2050 plan in several sections. When asked their first thoughts on the Port 59 people responded environmental concerns. These were divided into two categories: Pollution, Environmental Concerns, Dirty Water and Sea Level Rise (40) and Environment, Stewardship, remediation and Capitol Lake (19). When asked where the Port should focus investment, 256 responded the environment. These included environmental stewardship (171), clean water/waterway health, sustainable salmon and water habitat (62), climate change and sea level rise (13) and the preservation of natural lands (10). When asked what we would like to see in the Port’s future the responses were environment, sustainability (247), stewardship, sustainability and green practices (153), clean water (62), removal of the Capitol Lake dam (20) and sea level rise (12) 

(2) Parameters listed as impaired for inner Budd Inlet are dissolved oxygen,bacteria, 2,3,7,8-TCDD (dioxin), anthracene, arsenic, benzo(a)anthracene, benzo(a)pyrene, benzo(b)fluoranthene, benzo(k)fluoranthene, chrysene, dibenzo(a,h)anthracene, indeno(l,2,3-c,d)pyrene, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate, cadmium, chromium, copper, fluoranthene, fluorene, lead, mercury, high molecular weight Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (HPAH), pyrene, silver, zinc, low molecular Weight Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (LPAH), 2-methylnaphthalene, 4-methylphenol, acenaphthene, acenaphthylene, benzo(g,h,i)perylene, benzoic Acid, dibenzofuran, naphthalene, phenanthrene, 1,2-dichlorobenzene,di-n-butyl phthalate, pentachlorophenol, phenol, benzofluoranthenes, total (b+k+j), butyl benzyl phthalate, di-n-octyl phthalate, and sediment bioassay. Parameters listed for outer Budd Inlet are dissolved oxygen, bacteria, benzo(a)anthracene, benzo(a)pyrene, benzo(b)fluoranthene, benzo(k)fluoranthene,chrysene, polychlorinatedbiphenyls (PCBs), 2,3,7,8-TCDD (dioxin), and benzoic acid. Parameters listed for inner Budd Inlet Category 4B segments are 2,4-dimethylphenol, 2- methylphenol, 4-methylphenol, pentachlorophenol, cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, phenol, zinc, sediment bioassay, anthracene, benzo(a)pyrene, chrysene, fluoranthene, fluorene, high molecular weight Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (HPAH), pyrene, benzo(a)anthracene, low molecular Weight Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (LPAH), 2-methylnaphthalene, acenaphthene, acenaphthylene, dibenzofuran, naphthalene, and phenanthrene.