There are major plans afoot for Budd Inlet. The Port plans to dredge East Bay to maintain Swantown Marina and build the Marine Center building and other structures along the waterfront. The City is moving ahead with plans to allow the construction of eight five story buildings along West Bay, thirty feet from the high tide mark. Damage to the marine environment will be irreversible. Basic science has been eschewed. Federal rules have been dodged. There’s no calculation of comparative costs and benefits.
In the 1980 EIS for Swantown Marina, then called East Bay Marina, Federal agencies were opposed to dredging and filling of East Bay as it would lead to a loss of species and reduced dissolved oxygen. In a letter dated Feb 26, 1980 the USFWS wrote: “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. Elimination of the cargo fill area is practicable and would reduce losses by 50 percent. Information recently received from tie Washington Department of Fisheries indicates their firm belief 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.” (link below page G48)
In a letter dated Feb 28, 1980 the 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.” (page H-46 to page H-51)
After much pressure from the Port of Olympia and the Washington State Department of Ecology, the feds consented on specific conditions. The EPA wrote on August 29th 1980: “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… Although we continue to support Alternative 4e as a cost effective preferred alternative, selection of Alternative 4a 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” (page G44. Plate 13 shows the design of the aeration system)
The aerators were in place for a while but have been removed. Species have crashed and water quality as predicted is in the tank.The feds supported West Bay as a location for added moorage and clearly and repeatedly stated their opposition to dredging East Bay. The current plan for Budd Inlet is the opposite. Federal agencies are apt to say “we told you so” and deny approval.
In instances pertaining to a Federally degraded water body like Budd Inlet we are supposed to adhere to the “best available science.” Science should be a part of the process from the outset. We might employ chemistry in the analysis of the chemical fingerprints to get a better understanding of sources and pathways of contamination; or ecology in the analysis of plants and animals including plankton; or oceanography to study how physical parameters like structure and circulation effect chemical parameters like dissolved oxygen and biological parameters like species composition. The current plan includes “sediment catch basins,” large holes dug in the center of the Estuary to catch sediments coming downstream, an idea that contradicts the most basic quality of estuaries, the long shallow runout. Calling something “science based” doesn’t automatically make it so. It’s more likely equivocation.
The plan to allow eight huge buildings thirty feet from the high water mark along West Bay ignores basic fundamentals. Questions about structure and function of marine ecosystems are absent. We start with engineering and design and then strive to mitigate the damage. To date the Port Commission has heard presentations by Thomas Architecture Studios and Gemini Environmental Strategies with Dalton, Olmsted & Fuglevand… architects and engineers.
According to Boston University College of Engineering, engineering is not science. “Scientists explore the natural world and show us how and why it is as it is. Discovery is the essence of science. Engineers innovate solutions to real-world challenges in society. While it is true that engineering without science could be haphazard, without engineering scientific discovery would be a merely academic pursuit.”
The costs of bringing Swantown Marina and the shipping terminal up to serviceability are estimated to run $190 million. This will include dredging the navigation channel and depositing the sediments on the peninsula. The marina and all pilings will be removed and replaced. These costs will fall largely on the local public. On the other hand, costs for restoration are unknown because restoration has never been considered. They would be covered largely by grants from federal and state agencies because endangered species are involved. Add money from foundations and philanthropists and costs would surely be covered.
The City and the Port are at a crossroads. In one direction we have citizens saddled with debt and a degraded waterfront. In the other direction there’s zero debt, natural beauty and a waterfront that’s productive, resilient and maintenance free.
East Bay Marina, Olympia Harbor, Budd Inlet: Environmental Impact Statement
Engineering Is Not Science | College of Engineering
To weigh in on the future of Olympia’s waterfront, you can write to the Port Commissioners at commissioners@PortOlympia.com
and Olympia City Council at citycouncil@ci.olympia.wa.us
Ask them to follow the science and the original recommendations of the EPA . Ask them to consider the comparative costs of development versus restoration.
Harry Branch is a retired vessel captain who writes about urban estuaries at garden bay blog.
Be First to Comment