Commission misses opportunity to protect and maintain Des Moines Creek Trail
Our comments on Item 8j ( Memo , Presentation ) where the Port Commission voted to renew the Des Moines Creek Basin Plan V5. The original 1997 plan came out of two practical concerns: hydrology and environmental. The airport plateau is the source of most of the region’s fresh water. Without management the immense flows, created chronic flooding challenges for Des Moines and SeaTac. But runoff from airport operations was also the source of the worst water pollution imaginable, which also made its way through each city and into Puget Sound. That pollution was the main argument in the decade long lawsuits over building the Third Runway.
The original participants included WSDOT and King County. However, as is common practice in environmental law, once the construction was over, the commitment was over. This left the Port, SeaTac and Des Moines to manage the work.
As the diagram clearly shows, the original scope of work covered the entire Des Moines Creek Trail, going as far south and east as the Des Moines Creek Beach Park. That plan called for ongoing restoration and maintenance. It is now in that maintenance phase. But ‘maintenance’ is now defined only as the storm water piece. There is nowhere near enough funding even to maintain the forest, let alone continue with habitat restoration for plants, wildlife and salmon.
The Port of Seattle argues vigorously every year that it is severely limited in providing environmental funding outside of small matching grants such as SKCF and ACE. However, the Basin Plan is unconstrained and in fact offers a laundry list of possible improvements along the Des Moines Creek Trail. These improvements could be accomplished by the Cities through the Basin Plan, if there were more money. The Port of Seattle has the money. This should be a vehicle to maintain and enhance the entire ecosystem south of the airport property.
What makes this even more disappointing is the fact that water quality was such a significant issue in the last airport expansion (the Third Runway). And yet, this topic is barely discussed in the SAMP. This is a unique opportunity for the Port to address the environment according to the principles of their own Land Stewardship Plan, but without the conflict of the SAMP mitigation process.
Commissioners,
I’m speaking today about the Des Moines Creek Basin Plan. The memo refers to is as a restoration plan. It was. It is now accurately described as as a biological storm water processor. True. But it was meant to be a lot more.
This project’s importance to the ecosystem of both cities cannot be overstated. The airport plateau is the source of almost all fresh water in the area. The 1997 plan was instrumental in restoring the entire Des Moines Creek Trail area and wetlands.
It emerged as part of a massive program to correct 50 years of industrial pollution from aviation operations and Third Runway lawsuits. The results included the airport’s first storm water system and this plan, which enabled the Des Moines Creek Trail and salmon restoration.
Despite SR-509, WSDOT and King County have exited the program, leaving only the port, SeaTac and Des Moines, with a much smaller budget that only covers storm water system maintenance. It stopped being a ‘restoration’ plan many years ago.
The port expends energy on small ACE and SKCF grants, while water professionals in both cities maintain a long list of aspirational ecosystem improvements. In contrast, this plan stands out as one of few agreements unconstrained by gift of public funds issues – a direct link between environmental stewardship and counteracting SeaTac Airport’s negative impacts.
Though the Port’s cost share percentage seems generous, but the absolute dollars don’t cover anything necessary to maintain, let alone enhance the ecosystem as originally envision–ed. In essence, the current plan re-writes that vision to match only the storm water engineer’s budget. Without your help, there will never be enough money to maintain the forest or make long-sought improvements.
I urge you to revisit this budget as a path to fulfilling the Port’s goals as environmental stewards and good neighbors
–JC Harris
…on behalf of STNI