Will you chip in to support our nonprofit newsroom with a donation today? Yes, I want to support My Edmonds News!
Vienna Sebasstian and Nathan Filosi, both Edmonds-Woodway High School seniors, interviewed Port of Edmonds Commissioner Mary Lou Block and Port Director Bob McChesney Oct. 10 to learn more about the Port of Edmonds’ view on restoration of the Edmonds Marsh. Both Sebasstian and Filosi are members of “Students Saving Salmon,” a student-run organization at Edmonds-Woodway High School that strives to aid in the revival of salmon populations in Edmonds. At one point in time, salmon were able to thrive in our local waterways and through their natural life cycle they enriched the environment. Restoring the marsh and other local water bodies is viewed as a critical component in ensuring that salmon can once again flourish.
Vienna Sebasstian: How have you been involved with the Edmonds Marsh while working and serving in Edmonds? Could you briefly describe the evolution of Edmonds Marsh over the years?
Mary Lou Block: The Army Corps of Engineers was in control of the filling of the marsh and they would work on abutments, as well as take action deemed necessary to solve problems for flooding and so forth. In 1953 the marsh expanded out into Main Street. However as the city grew and developed for commerce with railroad and port access, the value of the marsh as a resource was not well recognized. Edmonds wanted more development and more raw land to do it on so they could fulfill the vision of community leaders at the time. People didn’t pay too much attention to the marsh’s health. It was considered to be in the way. Therefore it was filled, trampled upon and used as a dumping ground.
Sebasstian: In the Port of Edmonds mission statement, it is stated that you strive to be “fiscally sound” in an “environmentally responsible manner…” as well as that the “Port’s primary purpose” is “to promote economic development.” What does that exactly entail? Is there an emphasis on one of these — either the economy or the environment — over the other?
Bob McChesney: The Port of Edmonds mission statement reflects our purpose to promote local economic development as written in state law. Several ports don’t even exist on the waterways and they are actually inland with the sole purpose of economic development. The Port of Edmonds does have a waterfront and we have developed assets within the shoreline, including public access. At this time the preservation of the shoreline environment is seen as more important than in earlier days. Financial stewardship and environmental stewardship are not mutually exclusive. We need to work together with the community to find harmony between the two.
Sebasstian: How in the past has the mission statement been reflected in yours and the Port’s involvement with the marsh?
Block: More recently we’ve included environmental aspects and try to make it a very important part of our mission to stress enhancement of the environment. A current example of this is the development of Jacobson Marine. As a condition of the building permit, we were required to invest 11K to improve the Marsh buffer. This is a clear illustration of how economic development and environmental stewardship work together to support the mission statement under the state’s law for ports. But really it’s just the cost of doing business and a part of our mission statement, so that’s how we do it.
Sebasstian: What are your concerns about the currently proposed buffers and setbacks?
McChesney: Basically the way the Port sees the answer to the dilemma is that redevelopment at Harbor Square and the marsh restoration are fully compatible community goals. We’re all biased by our own experiences. Some want to assert a higher level of restoration and its immediacy, and there are other people who think the opposite. The issues are complex. Currently, Port leadership and City (of Edmonds) leadership differ on the pathway to a solution. We hope to get there someday. However, as to the proposed marsh setbacks and buffers debate, the City’s own professional planning staff and the Department of Ecology has consistently said on the record, that the existing 25-foot buffer meets the “no net loss” criteria as stipulated in the regulations. Further, expanding the buffer to create a 150-foot setback is not justified by any available science and if the City Council approves those expanded setbacks it will surely negate any opportunity for future redevelopment at Harbor Square. In our view, redevelopment at Harbor Square would not be economically feasible. We think that becomes a regulatory taking, and it certainly eliminates a potential source of new revenue that could be used to restore both the marsh and Harbor Square. Even expanding the setbacks to 150 feet as proposed on an “interim” basis is objectionable to the Port because that term has no specific meaning. Nothing will be resolved, and we can expect with the passage of time, the interim designation melts into permanence. It’s a slow taking. In the final analysis, the Port is very much in favor of restoring ecological value of the marsh but we have to find a path that will lead to new financial resources to make it all happen. In summary, the Port objects to expanding the existing buffer to 150 feet and will appeal directly. So instead of moving forward to resolve the issues, it just makes it even more complicated than it already is.
Sebasstian: What is your opinion regarding the new plan for the marsh, in terms of daylighting Willow Creek and then crossing over Marina Beach Park into Puget Sound? Do you agree that it would not only benefit the overall health of the Edmonds Marsh and community, but reintroduce a healthy environment for salmon to once again thrive in our city?
McChesney: The Port 100 percent agrees with the daylighting of Willow Creek, but how do we get there? It’s going to take money and it has to come from somewhere. We have said consistently that redevelopment of Harbor Square is perfectly compatible with the daylighting of Willow Creek, enhancing the buffer, and so on. However, unless we have a path forward to redevelop, we do not have a way to provide financial contribution to do what’s needed.
Nathan Fiolosi: Are you saying that only redevelopment will enable restoration of the marsh?
McChesney: No not exactly. It is possible the marsh could be restored someday without any participation by the Port, but we think it could be done more effectively if there was more cooperation between the City and the Port and if redevelopment at Harbor Square could be part of the equation. The Port is not representing that redevelopment at Harbor Square will create enough additional revenue to pay for all of the marsh restoration, but it could make a meaningful contribution that would likely accelerate the process. We’ve already mentioned what happens if the existing vegetated 25-foot buffer is expanded to become 150-foot setbacks even though the established buffer meets the established required buffer for the marsh. We call it a regulatory taking; taking property rights of one entity to serve the purpose of another. If that happens it will seriously limit an important potential source of new revenue.
Fiolosi: So we need economic growth to support the cause?
McChesney: Other people will say there’s federal and state money and so on, and maybe there is, but we don’t see it.
Block: There may be deep money pockets out there that want to save the marsh.
Sebasstian: What is the quality of the buildings on the Harbor Square property in your judgment?
McChesney: We invest in them, so we think they’re in pretty good shape. They are structurally sound and in pretty good condition. Being they were built in the 1980s, they’re not exactly what you’d design today. They just don’t reflect or illustrate the highest and best use for the environment that they’re in.
Sebasstian: Do you think remodeling could be a possibility for some structures?
McChesney: Not if setbacks go to 150 feet. Buildings would be non-conforming and we wouldn’t be able to modify the structures in that zone. What remains outside of 150 feet is no longer feasible for serious redevelopment. I would argue that Harbor Square becomes frozen in place in perpetuity.
Sebasstian: What are your overall concerns for the Port properties including the marsh?
Block: We are concerned about future redevelopment; being able to work with our partners and agencies, as well as having to meet agency requirements.
Sebasstian: On the south side of the marsh the removal of the Unocal tankers allowed for a clean-up of the contamination that has built up over the years. How has this clean-up under the asphalt and buildings of Harbor Square been handled?
McChesney: There was a cleanup after a portion of it was filled. It was an asphalt plant and a place to wash rail cars and there was leftover residue from those activities. When Harbor Square was redeveloped, it wasn’t known what the magnitude of that residue was and that the buildings were built over the contaminated land. After Harbor Square was built, it was discovered that buildings were built on the residue. I don’t know all the facts of the contamination, but the Port put in at least $2 million into the exposed areas not covered by buildings. It was a lot of work, workers literally had to peel back pavement and dig it out. Though it’s just what you have to do when there’s been industrial activity on it. In the past people didn’t really pay attention to that stuff.
Sebasstian: In your view, how is marsh restoration going to be paid for. Through multiple sources? Such as?
McChesney: That’s what we think; definitely multiple sources and in multiple phases. The Port could have a role to play in that process and we’d surely like to be part of the solution. However, for us the critical path runs directly through Harbor Square redevelopment. If that is closed because of expanded setbacks then it’s not likely the Port will have the resources to make any meaningful contributions to the goals.
“The Great Blue Heron is protected by federal legislation under the Migratory Bird Convention Act in Canada and the United States. It is also protected in British Columbia by the British Columbia Wildlife Act and in Washington, herons are protected under the Washington Administrative Code; classified as a protected species, they or their nests cannot be harmed.”
“they or their nests cannot be harmed” It is against Federal Law.
Two years ago, as we walked our waterfront, we watched every day in awe as two families of herons built their two nests right at the Edmonds Marina entrance at the rocks/metal, one at each end. Every day we watched these wonderful birds protecting their eggs and nests. One parent would sit on the nest while the other kept watch. It was wonderful to see the natural world so intimately. The two nests were not in areas that would have disturbed anybody or anything. That was very obvious and they were right in front of the Port building.
We were so shocked when we arrived one day to watch the birds and their nest, and the nests were totally gone. All that was left were grieving parents!….and this went on for a number of days. This was incredibly hard to fathom and see. This day and age (protections had been put in place on many wildlife entities starting in the 1970s, and EDUCATION also) one would have to ask the question how something like this was allowed! It is against Federal Law to do this. We have photographs of before and after and there were plenty of people that walk the waterfront that saw this unfold.
Over half of the marsh was paved over not all that long ago (we were around in the 1970s for the beginnings of the environmental movement) so, this area was “developed” for “economic development” then for a few businesses and the environment taking a low priority in this area then, and we know that it will be the same now. It is bad enough that over half of this important marsh has already gone away, so let us not trust that anything will be any different, considering it wasn’t that long ago that Federal Law was actually broken to remove the two heron nests
There are many people that care about this issue regarding the further destruction of this fragile marsh. So, if our wildlife is not protected in the bounds of the PRESENT setback, what are the chances that they would be protected at a measly 25 feet?……….Right now how it is, cars are parked practically on top of the edge of this marsh. Even that is wrong. This is a fragile environment and setback should be 150 feet, and no less. At the very least, we should be not doing more destruction of top what has already occurred in the past.
Because of the history and these conditions, I am hoping our Town Council and the citizens of Edmonds will support the 150 foot setback and not less as it is so apparent how this area had already been ruined for a few “economic” $$$ and short term interests. . Let us move forward now, and if the Port does not want to support this, I believe we can come up with the money needed to save this and save the salmon and the migratory birds who use this area. This is our future, not business as usual from the past, as we know so much more about our fragile environment now.
Hi Tere,
You can double check my story here by contacting the Port and/or WA Dept of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW). My understanding about what you’ve seen regarding the herons was that when the chicks would hatch from the nests built on the breakwater, they would often fall into the water and drown. The Port requested permission and got a ‘permit’ from WDFW (who regulates the protected status on herons in our State) to dismantle the heron nests prior to eggs being laid. Once eggs are laid, I do not think the permit allows that activity unless WDFW is again contacted and allows it.
It is unfortunate that the herons build on the breakwater- it is not their natural nesting habitat. Herons nest in native deciduous trees- alders and big leaf maples mostly. There used to be an active heron nesting colony in the SE vegetated area of the marsh (right below the condos- you can still see the nests in the trees in the wintertime). This colony was disturbed- it is thought due to the clearcutting of the hillside that occurred without a permit when the Point Edwards condo development was being constructed. Herons are very sensitive to human activities when they are nesting.
Now that the condo construction is done (for now) and the hillside was replanted and is re-establishing, we thought the herons might return. We’ve had volunteers monitoring the nests since they abandoned them and for a few years we saw males staging (an activity the males do to establish preferred nests sites), but never observed females and males courting in the colony area and never observed any nesting activity. This now may be due to the two resident Woodway eagles that visit the marsh regularly. It appears the eagles have made the marsh part of their territory. Eagles frequently attack heron nests and eat the babies. This is part of the reason herons nest in large colonies- protection in numbers. Without the large numbers of herons returning to reestablish the marsh colony, the few males that show up and stage likely isn’t enough for that ‘protection in numbers’ and they end up moving on and likely nesting elsewhere, such as the very large colony in Kenmore.
These herons building nests on the breakwater may be individuals from the original marsh colony trying to continue to nest in the area. But again, it is not ideal for them for several reasons. Although it is a very unique opportunity for us humans to observe the nesting parents, the herons would be much better off again finding an appropriate place to nest- they and their offspring will have a greater chance at survival.
I can probably track down the contact info at WDFW, if you’re interested.
Why are the saltwater tide gates closed in the winter? Isn’t this contrary to the overall marsh health?
Hi Gary-
The tidegate is closed in the winter months (mid-October through mid-March) as it is currently the only way the City can regulate high water levels inside the marsh. Due to the current configuration of the system, all of the water in the marsh- both fresh coming down the two streams and tide waters- must be able to drain out of a single 40 in diameter, 1400 ft long pipe. There are a few occasions a year when high freshwater runoff from lots of rain can coincide with a extreme high tide event and/or a high tide caused by a storm surge (high wind event). Because of the constricted connection of the pipe system, the water cannot drain out fast enough and begins to back up the storm drains coming into the marsh from Harbor Square. This floods Harbor Square and contributes to flooding at the Dayton/104 intersection.
By closing the tidegate in the winter months, you eliminate one source of flood waters- those coming into the marsh on extreme high winter tides and/or storm surge events.
The solution is two parts- 1. a better connection to Puget Sound that does not require a pipe system and can allow water to drain at a natural pace. This is what we call ‘daylighting’ Willow Creek- eliminating the pipe system by creating a more natural open creek channel connection between the marsh and Puget Sound; and 2. reestablishing the two creek channels in the marsh proper as they have completely silted in over time. Silts naturally come down the creeks, but the pipe outlet system slows the water down so much that the silts then do not naturally flush out of the marsh, but instead just build up over time- this action has also transitioned much of the historic remnant saltmarsh habitat into cattail (freshwater) habitat. The current elevation due to years of siltation in the marsh are no longer at the proper, lower elevation to support saltmarsh vegetation.
I hope this answers your question!
Keeley:
Thank you very much for the two very informative postings.
Why can’t the tide gate be closed during extreme conditions; storm, heavy snow or extreme high tide? I get the impression that no one wants to make that decision. Who does make that decision?
Hi Gary,
As Diane mentioned, the tide gate is not and ideal situation at all in regards to managing and maintaining it. It is not especially easy to access, it is manual (must be hand cranked) and it has been determined for now that since the gate itself has no devices to actually monitor, let alone alert, to water levels, the City staff cannot safely assure that the gate could be closed when needed during high water events. City staff now determine when the gate will be opened and closed, and City staff are very actively engaged in trying to find a solution to this situation through addressing the marsh and larger watershed system as a whole.
I hope this answers your question!
-Keeley
The Department of Ecology Funding Manual, Appendix L specifies at least a 100 foot setback in order to obtain funding. Some of the information is not correct in that the Planning Board did not recommend a 25 foot setback to fulfill the “no net loss” theory. I have a copy of the manual if anyone would like it. Also, while being on the WRIA8 grant funding committee this year, setbacks are looked at as well as, City and community support.
From my understanding of the tide gate, it is quite heavy and cumbersome to open and close it might be difficult to monitor it continually.
Thank you Keely. Yes, we are familiar with the Port of Edmonds and WDFW. We wrote about this two years ago and did not see ANY permits at that time or any response from the Port of Edmonds or WDFW regarding the herons nests at that time and what occured and/or why. I had written about it at that time because there was a huge push then (we received a larger than post card size flyer in our mail of the new mega development planned with the picture of Harbor Square new development right after we had our new Mayor…I believe a week after he was sworn in) as now to redevelop this whole area at Harbor Square.
Again, we received no response from the Port of Edmonds or WDFW at that time in regards to any permits that they had at that time to remove the nests. We are also familiar with the Point Edwards development. We recently went up there and noticed Pt. Edwards people had their own little marsh area, apparently sectioned off.
We have seen some of the large colonies in another close by area and watched them many times. It is quite incredible and beautiful.
Thank you again for all the work you are all doing. We are looking forward to this, and I believe the people in our community will all welcome this and protect it for future generations. I believe we can make this happen and the funding will come for all of it.
Hi Tere,
I will be at the Council meeting tonight and can bring contact information for WDFW to contact- generally contacting the right person directly will lead to better results.
Also, the little marsh area that is fenced off up at the condos is the permitted and required stormwater retention pond for the development. It is a nice example of a what a required stormwater management feature can be- in that it functions as a stormwater settling pond, it looks very natural, and it has some functionality as habitat, as well.
-Keeley
Yes, that area is very natural and appears it works also. Great example of what can be done. We will be at the Council meeting tonight also.
It sounds to me like no one wants the responsibility for the tide gate. I thought the marsh health was the most important issue. The tide gate is a matter of turning a valve.