Olympia Washington lies at the southern end of Puget Sound. Over the past 100 years the waterfront has been extensively modified to accommodate growth and industry. Efforts at restoration have met with strong political opposition.
Background Introduction
Budd Inlet, the bay which the city adjoins, is fed by several fresh water sources. To the east lies Ellis Creek. Heading south is Moxlie Creek. To the west is the mouth of the Deschutes River and north up the west side is Schneider Creek. The estuaries of all these watersheds are run through culverts except the river estuary which is blocked by a dam. In total, 160 miles of surface water in Olympia is run through culverts.
Much of what was tide flats has been dredged for navigation and filled. The existing shoreline is predominantly armored with rock riprap.
Budd Inlet is divided into East Bay and West Bay which are separated by the Port Peninsula. For about 40 years a company treated wood pilings at a location on the northern end of the peninsula with creosote. The soils at Cascade Pole and some of the surrounding area are as a result contaminated with dioxin. Some of this material has been placed in a large confined disposal site at the northern tip of the peninsula.
The ongoing details surrounding this effort are a story of political subterfuge and bureaucratic malfeasance. The water quality of Budd Inlet, and in particular East Bay is degraded under Federal Standards for virtually every parameter. Efforts to improve the situation have met stiff resistance leaving legal challenges as the only option.
The story of Cascade Pole dates back to when people didn’t fully understand the ramifications of their actions. The damage was not deliberate. Today we do understand the ramifications of actions and inaction, making both less forgivable.
Swantown Marina – Federal law bows to development
The final lap for Budd Inlet began in 1980 when the Port of Olympia decided to build a marina in East Bay. Several options were considered around Budd Inlet that would have required minimal environmental modifications. The East Bay choice involved extensive dredging and filling of nearshore areas.
The Environmental Impact Statement for the plan contains stark criticisms by Federal Agencies. The United States Fish and Wildlife Agency (USFWS) states in two letters from 1979 that “the wetland fills reduce estuarine productivity through loss of habitat, algal species, benthic invertebrates” and “some reduction in populations of birds, fish, shellfish, and other faunal species may be expected to occur”.
In a letter dated Feb 26, 1980, the USFWS wrote: “In summary, the East Bay tideflats and aquatic areas provide important habitats for high numbers of waterfowl and other waterbirds and to a lesser degree for marine fishes. Construction of the proposed project with cargo storage area would cause an excessive loss of these habitats and resources”. In a letter dated September 7, 1978 USFWS states “the Service can not support any plan which worsens present water conditions… It is our contention that the proposed project is not in compliance with Executive Order 11990 since all practicable measures to minimize wetland losses would not be taken… information recently received from the Washington Department of Fisheries indicates that significant numbers of chinook salmon released from the Percival Cove salmon rearing facility, and possibly large schools of herring and smelt, will be attracted into the marina with the likelihood of increased fish kills due to anticipated dissolved oxygen sags. This presumably would occur under any marina design which entails dredging of East Bay proper. In view of this, we recommend the permit for the project, as proposed, be denied”.
Concerning water quality, in a letter dated Feb 28, 1980 the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) wrote: The project “may not be environmentally acceptable due to the potential adverse consequences for water quality and aquatic resources. Our evaluation of the modeling studies for the proposed marina indicates that any marina development within East Bay proper will reduce the water exchange in the Bay. The consequent increase in flushing times for the East Bay basin would probably result in extremely poor water quality conditions.
On August 29th, 1980 the EPA wrote: “As stated in previous correspondence, our primary concern with this project has been the high potential for a reduction in water quality, particularly dissolved oxygen concentration in the marina basin”. The EPA was ultimately convinced however that the project “would be acceptable to EPA if it includes a properly designed and maintained aeration system which will maintain Class B water quality standards within the marina. This is the first time we have approved of an aeration system to mitigate reduction in water quality and our approval is specific to the unique circumstances of the East Bay project. As a matter of policy EPA does not generally support the use of an aeration system as a solution to probable water quality problems in marinas, particularly when design modifications or alternative site locations with improved natural tidal exchange would eliminate the need for long-term energy requiring mitigation systems” Plate 13 in the EIS shows the design of the aeration system.
As of September of 2021, despite months of drought and extremely poor water quality, aerators are nowhere to be found. According to locals, they were permanently removed some time between 2000 and 2010.
The Predictable Outcome – Loss of Life
Over the past 40 years, the Budd Inlet ecosystem has crashed.
On December 22, 1979, a census taken by Black Hills Audubon members of the port area (East and West Bay) totaled 3670 individuals of 35 species of waterbirds in Budd Inlet.
East Bay was still full of life. The Swantown EIS states: “Waterbirds are represented by a diversity of species and are numerous throughout the winter months. The productive areas of Olympia Harbor are principally tidelands. East Bay and West Bay tidelands are frequented by bottom feeding birds. East Bay serves as a refuge for waterbirds during winter storms”. Other concerns are wintering, feeding, and sheltered resting habitat.
Species of benthic organisms and fish in East Bay included: Ghost shrimp (Callianassa californiensis), mud shrimp (Upogebia pugettensis), and the tube-building amphipod (Corophium sp.) were abundant and widely distributed. The mud shrimp, in particular, was found only in East Bay. In Budd Inlet, perch, flounder, mussels, clams, shore crabs, amphipodes, worms and barnacles were all abundant.
According to the exhaustive R. W. Morse West Bay Habitat Assessment, as of 2002 there would have still been daily observations of hundreds of waterbirds on the western side of the Port Peninsula, some species seasonally and some year-round. The majority of species of waterbirds had experienced “a dramatic decline in their numbers. These species include: Red-necked, Horned, and Western Grebes, Pelagic Cormorant, Surf Scoter, Barrow’s Goldeneye, Hooded, Common, and Red-breasted Mergansers, Ruddy Duck, Bonaparte’s and Mew and Ring-billed Gulls. Some waterbirds were even not recorded during the survey period although they were prevalent 15 years ago: White-winged and Black Scoters, American Wigeon, Canvasback, Rhinoceros Auklet, and American Coot”. “When an examination is made of comparable dates in December in 2001 versus 1986: in 1986, 812 waterbirds were counted (21 species) versus only 168 birds (16 species) in 2001”. “Thirty to eighty waterbirds were often seen between the Fourth and Fifth Avenue Bridges 15 years ago. Now, only occasionally do we see any birds in this area”.
Today, another twenty years later, we would likely see no waterbirds anywhere in the bay. If one could find a living fish one would be poorly advised to eat it. Forty years of simmering in the current regulatory caldron has reduced species richness to jellyfish.
Capitol Lake and the Deschutes Estuary
In August of 2021, the state released The Capitol Lake Deschutes Estuary Long Term Management Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement. The purpose of the document is to help inform the decision whether to remove the Capitol Lake dam and return the lake to an intertidal area. It’s an impressive looking 700 plus pages with lots of graphs and data. Unfortunately, a previous step was omitted. The study leans heavily toward engineering. Engineering is not science. Science tells us what we need to do. Engineering tells us how to do it.
As a result, the EIS is flawed in its scoping. The study area is defined as including what is now Capitol Lake and West Bay out to the end of the Port Peninsula because this is the area directly impacted by work. It’s what’s defined as the estuary. In estuaries, fresh water flows out on the surface of heavier salt water creating persistent mixing patterns. This “salt wedge” can frequently be observed well north of the Port Peninsula. The waters of East and West Bay are part of the same estuarine system.
River estuaries in Puget Sound often have a companion stream that shapes and expands the area – Hylebos for the Puyallup, Medicine Creek for the Nisqually, and Moxie Creek for the Deschutes. Moxlie Creek flows into East Bay which is a significant part of the structure of the Deschutes River estuary. Not including East Bay is a significant omission
The Legacy of Contamination Goes On
Dioxin contamination in surface sediments is an indication of uncontrolled sources. Chemical analysis informs us that this contamination is in the form of Cascade Pole creosote. Cascade Pole operated on the tip of the Port Peninsula for a number of years, leaving a legacy of contamination. If we don’t identify and control sources of contamination prior to removing the dam, clean soil will enter the bay from the upper watershed to be contaminated by these sources and we’ll have a larger volume of dioxin laced mud.
The EIS states: “The Port of Olympia has been working on cleaning up the Cascade Pole site from creosote contamination for many years”. Actually nothing has been cleaned up. Material has been capped in place in a temporary containment cell and used as fill along the East Bay shoreline. The report continues “The most recent sediment monitoring in 2012 and 2013 showed decreasing dioxin/furan concentrations.” What location does this refer to? In front of the containment cell? Where did the toxins go? Did they degrade or disperse? A critical statement like this needs clarification. If East Bay is included, the numbers don’t show decreasing concentrations.
The State has accumulated enough samples from the bay to have a good picture of the distribution of contamination. Several hotspots in particular have been identified. At this point we should be working to identify the nature and extent of contamination and pinpoint sources which can then be removed or controlled. The Model has instead been flipped. We address sites in the order in which they are developed. Assuming that the assessments are adequate and done according to established protocols, an unwarranted assumption, this leaves neighboring sites unaddressed allowing for recontamination.
If we had followed methods of scientific inquiry, this EIS would read much differently. We would have a clearer idea of what scope and parameters should be included and what advantages and disadvantages are represented in each option. We can’t propose to do half the job. Cleanup must precede restoration.
Harry Branch is a retired vessel captain who writes about urban estuaries at garden bay blog.
I believe in overall bird populations have diminished significantly nationwide due primarily to habitat destruction, cat predation and also we are beginning to see impact from climate change.
The direct impacts to Budd Inlet/Northpoint are more difficult to quantify. Reliable contacts at BHAS suggest Ebird reports from the Merlin app can give us some indications of bird species and numbers of birds from EBird reports for Northpoint. Looking at 1979 as compared to more recent years there are many more numbers of birds reported as well as species. I consider that this fact is more likely due to more frequent use of EBird over the years. I have found no formal BHAS census for 1979. I could not find a link to the Morse report mentioned in the above article.
I personally have identified many of the birds reported in decline over the last six years sometimes in significant numbers.
I do believe that the restoration of the estuary by the state , removal of the dam and the concurrent clean up of Budd Inlet by the Port of Olympia will significantly improve water quality including dissolved oxygen content in the Inlet improving the Budd Inlet habitat.
If we stay the course with the current project underway we will, in my opinion, see substantial improvements in water quality which will lead to better salmon numbers and better overall habitat for seals, salmon and birds.