|
|
|||
|
Navigation User login Who's online There are currently 4 users and 23 guests online.
Online users
Support OlyBlog OlyBlog is run by volunteers who care about Olympia. If you like what we're doing, make a donation: OlyBlog is powered by:
Who's new
 |
Submitted by Robert Whitlock on Tue, 07/29/2008 - 11:04am.
I noticed a great milfoil bloom on Capitol Lake. What does this portend for the future of the great reflecting lake? Is there a dredger in the future? A weed harvester? Or perhaps a return to the native estuarine habitat? What if we just let it be and see how thick the weeds can get. Do you think the entire surface of the lake could become overwhelmed by them? What if they became so thick that they jammed up the dam and caused a flood. It seems that the "FLOD" (Fetid Lake of Doom) maybe having the final say on this human altered landscape experiment.
» Unfortunately the milfoil doesn't show up very well in the following image, but if you go there, it's plain to see.
|
OlyBlog.net OlyBlog is devoted to citizen journalism, including hyperlocal news and discussion specifically about Olympia, Washington. If you care about this community and are tired of corporate media, then this is the place for you. If you'd like to contribute, please register for an account. Here is a list of local news beats that need to be covered. You can post your news as a personal blog entry, and it will be reviewed (and possibly edited) for promotion to the front page. Once you've established a record of responsible blogging, you can become an autonomous user. You can also send news via email. All members of OlyBlog agree to abide by our comment and fair use policies. If you are frustrated about something said in a comment thread, go here. Now playing at: 
Latest Classified Ads Upcoming events 
|
|
|
More Flickr photos tagged with "olympia" and "washington" OlyBlog is a site for news and discussion about Olympia, Washington. |
|||
embarrassing
Submitted by chad360 on Tue, 07/29/2008 - 11:17am.The FLOD is very embarrassing, especially to an ecologically aware community like Olympia.
Would love to have a tidal channel instead of the "lake"...
actually not milfoil
Submitted by emmettoconnell on Tue, 07/29/2008 - 11:48am.But, rather just regular freshwater algae. Both, though, are a basic issue with shallow freshwater environments. Though, milfoil is an invansive (Eurasian in origin) while algae is just that.
Also, I don't have it right in front of me right now, but the lake/estuary alternative laid out by GA and CLAMP's consultants says that a saltwater reflecting pool is much preferable to a freshwater one, just for this reason. A tidepool, for lack of a better term.
Right you are
Submitted by Robert Whitlock on Tue, 07/29/2008 - 12:03pm.Dredging
Submitted by Thad Curtz on Tue, 07/29/2008 - 12:14pm.What to do about the sediment coming down the Deschutes and building up behind the dam is a big economic issue. My dim memeory of the dredging costs last time is $26 million, but I wouldn't swear to it. (Last time, they dumped the mud into the south end of the middle basin by the freeway to drain, and then created that walkway, pond area with the dirt.
Economically, the State's responsible for dredging Capitol Lake. But if the dam's removed, the river will carry a lot of the sediment (no one knows how much) out into the bay and deposit it along the Port's docks, and along the City's West Bay Marina docks. The City and the Port's taxpayers will be responsible for dredging it then.
How much mud? They're doing a second big study to try to guess, but I was at a meeting of one of the Capitol advisory committees - a friend who wanted to talk about the Woodard Bay bat colony using the lake to feed took me along - and they discussed the previous estimate - a lot of cubic yards. I eventually asked for some way to think about how big that number was, and somebody said a friend who's got a boat at the West Bay marina had asked him that, and the answer was "Well, John... your boat will be sitting on the lawn."
Best,
Thad
Ports and dredgin'
Submitted by emmettoconnell on Tue, 07/29/2008 - 12:17pm.In Puget Sound, how many ports located at the end or rivers (estuaries) don't have major (aside from maintenance) dredging costs? I'm pretty sure Tacoma and Seattle do because no one bothered to dam up the Puyallup or Green rivers for them.
Please don't include your
Submitted by wilson on Tue, 07/29/2008 - 3:30pm.Yes and no
Submitted by Thad Curtz on Tue, 07/29/2008 - 4:52pm."In 1955, the Commission hired Tibbetts-Abbett-McCarthy-Stratton (TAMS), a major international engineering firm, to do a study and prepare a development plan. The TAMS study was founded on recognition that the Port of Tacoma possessed a key competitive advantage: There were few locations in Puget Sound where industry had direct access to deep water, but Tacoma had significant acreage available for industrial development on the deep waters of Commencement Bay." (From History Link - Online Encyclopedia of Puget Sound)
But they've done significant dredging to increase that advantage even further, and some for environmental cleanup.
"Port of Tacoma Deepens Sitcum Waterway
Thursday, September 19, 2002
"Keeping an eye to its future, the Port of Tacoma has started a new waterway-deepening project that will assure that the Pacific Northwest's largest container port will continue to attract the world's largest container ships. 'We already serve Maersk Sealand's S-Type container vessels -- the world's largest,' said Jack Fabulich, President of the Port of Tacoma Commission, adding that these Maersk container ships, at 380 yards (347-meters) long, are expected to be eclipsed by even larger ships in the near future.
'We feel it is critical that the Port of Tacoma remain a step ahead of our competitors and be able to accommodate these large vessels -- fully loaded -- at both high and low tides.' The Port of Tacoma has a naturally deep harbor that does not require maintenance dredging. At low tides, however, some of these very large ships cannot be fully laden; so Seattle-based Manson Construction is deepening the Sitcum Waterway, already at 46-48 ft., to a depth of 51 ft." (From Marine-Link.com - World Maritime News.)
It sounds as if the Olympia port's competitive disadvantages are growing as ships get steadily bigger...
The Green River has the Howard A. Hanson dam.
Submitted by Guglielmo on Wed, 07/30/2008 - 5:30pm.And the Puyallup has the cleverly named Electron Dam. But both obstructions are far up stream. Neither Tacoma or Seattle have an estuary comparable to the one being proposed in Olympia. The water courses in Seattle and Tacoma are highly developed and controlled (long briney Capitol Lakes). Yes, their ports dredge.
If we allow Capital Lake to revert to an estuary, the dredging costs will not go away, they will simply shift. From a social cost perspective, reduced dredging costs in Capitol Lake do not represent a net benefit. It's just a transfer. Now, if we can show that dredging costs in the port would be significanlty lower than dredging cots in the Lake...
If we turn the lake into an estuary
Submitted by Guglielmo on Tue, 07/29/2008 - 3:46pm.the bats
Submitted by Robert Whitlock on Tue, 07/29/2008 - 4:12pm.it ain't food
Submitted by CIAGuy on Tue, 07/29/2008 - 4:17pm.it's the water.
The first place those bats head after leaving the underside of the pier at Woodard Bay is the FLOD for a drink of fresh water. True once that's done they stick around and graze but there is no equivalent source of fresh water for this large number of flying mammals
the water
Submitted by Robert Whitlock on Tue, 07/29/2008 - 4:25pm.nt
Submitted by Guglielmo on Tue, 07/29/2008 - 7:08pm.nt
Submitted by Guglielmo on Tue, 07/29/2008 - 7:08pm.A briney estuary will not provide the insects the bats feed on
Submitted by Guglielmo on Tue, 07/29/2008 - 7:07pm.Okay...
Submitted by The Original Yoda on Tue, 07/29/2008 - 7:08pm.Holy Smokes!!!
Submitted by Guglielmo on Tue, 07/29/2008 - 7:10pm.I thought you were just getting old and...
Submitted by The Original Yoda on Tue, 07/29/2008 - 7:12pm.chinook
Submitted by emmettoconnell on Tue, 07/29/2008 - 7:36pm.We aren't just talking Deschutes chinook here, we're also talking deep South Sound coho, cutties, chinook from other systems, Puget Sound steelhead (which are in deep crap). Most species of salmon (minus chum and pinks) use estuaries.
By the way, those frowned upon Deschutes chinook are one of the most important stocks in terms of harvest.
The bats will find a place
Submitted by wilson on Tue, 07/29/2008 - 8:09pm.All anadromous species use their own estuaries
Submitted by Guglielmo on Tue, 07/29/2008 - 8:11pm.hatcheries
Submitted by emmettoconnell on Tue, 07/29/2008 - 8:18pm.You can't always say hatchery fish are bad for wild fish either. There's a pretty decent chapter in the Hatchery Reform recommendations regarding Deschutes chinook, and to my knowledge, the co-manager are implimenting those recommendations.
Which report are you talking about?
Submitted by Guglielmo on Tue, 07/29/2008 - 9:01pm.I only found a power point presentaion on the Deschutes stocking program (or rather a plea to keep it running).
Sure...I cannot always say for a fact that "hatchery fish are bad for wild fish." And I'd be really interested in reading about Deschutes reforms and the science behind them. Help me out, would you?
about the bats
Submitted by Robert Whitlock on Tue, 07/29/2008 - 7:43pm.The Dock's Demise will take Decades
Submitted by Laurian on Wed, 07/30/2008 - 4:47am.Decades until Dock's Demise
Submitted by Robert Whitlock on Wed, 07/30/2008 - 4:41pm.I don't want the bats to die, and I think it's great that they are so effective in culling local insect populations. But I can't say that the presence of the bats is enough to justify the maintenance costs of the man-made Capitol Lake (reservoir).
I am not convinced that the bats won't be able to find other locations to eat and drink if the estuary is restored.
If the dam is demolished and the bats subsequently perish, I will be sad. But the gain from restoring the native estuarine habitat will far outweigh the loss of the bats.
Rob, the bats are just one part of the equation
Submitted by Guglielmo on Wed, 07/30/2008 - 5:03pm.Many factors need to be examined in concert before a decision is made. It's not a matter of it's the bats OR the estuary. As for maintenance costs, they will simply be transfered to the City and the Port when all the sediment accumulates in the port instead of the lake. I agree that there are ecological benefits to reverting to an estuary, but I am not convinced those benfits exceed the costs. The last study said (page ES-4), "no." But admitted there were still too many unknowns. I agree.
cost benefit analysis
Submitted by Robert Whitlock on Wed, 07/30/2008 - 5:16pm.They considered things like that in the report.
Submitted by Guglielmo on Wed, 07/30/2008 - 5:39pm.And where they are able to assign an economic value, they do so. They even considered such things as aesthetic value, but one person's pristine estuary is another persons plain of stinky mud. Because aesthetics differ considerably from one person to the next, assigning value is very difficult.
It was a pretty thorough undertaking. A certain dissapointment to some, but thorough. And they admit they have more work to do.
bats? fish?
Submitted by chad360 on Wed, 07/30/2008 - 9:28am.What about the fact that the "lake" is a cesspool of sewage and run-off?
Can't anyone see otters playing near the falls?
Can't anyone see the seals swimming in at high tide?
...I just wonder what it would be like~
What about the
Submitted by Guglielmo on Wed, 07/30/2008 - 9:35am.isthmus and flood control. How would those assets be influenced by reverting to an estuary? I best go check out the latest studies.
flood control?
Submitted by chad360 on Wed, 07/30/2008 - 10:21am.I have sat-in on lots of meetings and the Puget Partnership stuff, and what I hear is "tidal channel"...
...pls post link(s) to what you do find, as I'd like to read-along as well =)
"They will find another place to feed?"
Submitted by handwing on Mon, 08/11/2008 - 3:39pm.I didn't read this thread until last night, probably a good thing. I've started a blog on the bats, capitol lake, "fact and fiction" etc.
my long-winded piece about my thoughts are here:
bats-capitol-lake
-greg