Olympia's Faltering Shoreline Master Plan Efforts: Time to Retool?By Harry Branch
The Commission recommended a plan to the City Council in June that proposed 100 to 150 foot setbacks along the East Side of the Port Peninsula and much of the length of West Bay and a classification of Urban Conservancy for much of the shoreline. Developers and Port staff had a very different picture in mind, something more like the ever-prevalent rock, pavement and lawn and a designation of Urban Intensity. On September 11th, representatives of the Washington State Department of Ecology visited the City Council to inform them that they were "simply going in the wrong direction". The concern by Ecology was inconsistency, designating an industrial area like East Bay the same Urban Conservancy classification as the relatively pristine Grass Lakes and designating uses that are not consistent with current conditions. There is no consideration of history or recognition of the potential for restoration in the State Guidelines governing the development of shoreline master plans. An Urban Conservancy designation would pertain to "undevelopable" land. Urban Intensity would include areas that are currently "developed, developable or re-developable". The State Shoreline Mater Program Guidelines were created in 1972 in the hope of slowing development along the shoreline, which, at that time was proceeding at breakneck speed. The basic goal of no net loss was laudable and in many ways a great achievement at the time. But today, development along shorelines has slowed to a crawl, largely because the importance of nearshore habitats is recognized in other laws. And because no net loss is assessed statewide, improvement in one geographic area can provide the rationale for development elsewhere. The result is a guarantee of no net gain. Where ideas meet reality, other pitfalls have appeared. In the 1980s the tide flats of East Bay were filled to enlarge the area of the Port Peninsula by about one quarter. As mitigation, the area behind the railroad tracks on West Bay was set into a wildlife easement. One might wonder: How is promising not to destroy one place in exchange for the right to destroy another place not a net loss? The State SMP guidelines specifically mention no net loss of ecological function. According to the latest Puget Sound Partnership State of the Sound Report, the only two indicators not declining are acreage in shellfish aquaculture and some major river restorations, neither of which is really an ecological indicator. The former is a measure of use and the latter a measure of restoration effort. Where apex predators, keystone species and other true indicators are concerned, Puget Sound continues to spiral downward. We are losing ecological function. If the State is truly interested in ecological function, the idea should be incorporated into the process. Rather than basing classifications on existing conditions, base them on the ecological baseline and how physical parameters pertain to chemical and biological parameters. Changes are currently not allowed, even when the land is vacant. Nearshore ecosystems are the most productive habitats on earth. They provide spawning, forage and protective habitat for many species some of which are threatened and endangered. Salt marsh represents 6 percent of the earth's surface and accounts for 16% of the earth's carbon sequestration. Combined with the carbon tucked away by plankton that proliferate in estuaries, the atmospheric benefits of estuaries are undeniable. Estuaries are the all important nexus between land and sea, the place where fresh water and nutrients enter the marine environment. The structure of estuaries determines how effectively nutrients sustain primary and secondary production and the web of life. The structure underlying almost all natural temperate estuaries is shallow tide flats bordered by salt marsh. Restorations in river systems are wonderful but the area of watersheds in Puget Sound supporting streams that feed directly into Puget Sound is about equal to the area represented by watersheds that support rivers. These stream estuaries, being more numerous and spread out over a greater length of shoreline, could conceivably have a greater impact on the Puget Sound ecosystem than river estuaries. And yet, streams that average less than twenty gallons per second are afforded no value. Of the six streams that currently flow into Budd Inlet, none are considered to have any ecological significance. The stream estuary at Tolmie State Park is what much of South Sound once looked like. There are substantial buildings near the water at Tolmie that don't interfere with ecological function and natural beauty. Setting the buildings back from the water improves the view. Photos of a bay are often framed by trees in the foreground. We feel compelled to geographically separate development from restoration, one in one place the other in another place, when actually we can have both in the same place. We can have a hotel in an area that looks like Tolmie State Park. We as a community would benefit financially by incorporating natural beauty into local developments. To one degree or another, all of Puget Sound's shoreline is important. The sensible time to make improvement is when land is vacant and slated for development. Although the role of estuaries is felt globally, fixing damaged estuaries is intrinsically going to be a local effort. The process of shoreline planning established by the state places limitations on what local jurisdictions can do regarding the most basic issues of nearshore land management. And yet Ecology didn't make these limitations clear going into the process. On October 23rd, Olympia Mayor Steven Buxbaum announced that the City Council would not support the Planning Commission's recommendations. The City will ask for setbacks of only fifty to thirty feet in sensitive areas. There will be no Urban Conservancy or other changes in designation. Our community Planning Commission members who worked tirelessly for so long on the process must be left wondering what it was all for. Unfortunately, this situation is anything but unique. We give only meaningless lip service to ecological function. We systematically exclude the impacts of physical parameters (structure) on chemical parameters (water quality) and biological parameters (species richness and abundance) from any discussion. We ignore the real baseline, the ways things were and naturally want to be. Harry Branch, is a retired USCG Licensed Captain in Olympia. He has a Masters Degree in Environmental Studies with a focus on marine reserves as a tool in fishery management. He is a frequent contributor to the South Sound Green Pages.
Back to Home page. |
For the past two years, the Olympia Planning Commission has been working to create a revised Shoreline Master Program, as required by state statute and administered by the Department of Ecology. The members of the Planning Commission, which was first created by the City in 1935 to help with long range planning, were appointed by the City Council. They volunteer their time, meeting twice each month in addition to special meetings and public hearings. They have had a heavy workload with significant advance reading and meeting preparation.