Another day, another rebuttal to less-than-illuminating comments regarding the recent Leader article about the NPS ruling protecting Kah Tai.
To the authoritative-sounding comments from the park 'historian': The Kah Tai Alliance is an entity of varying composition that has coalesced and dissolved several times in the last 30+ years. It arose in the 1970s from efforts to save what remained of Kah Tai Lagoon from development. Kah Tai became PT's first Adopt-A-Park in late 2001 and the adoption was by the Kah Tai Alliance. The iteration of the KTA in 2001 included Admiralty Audubon, Jefferson Land Trust, Friends of Kah Tai, People for a Livable Community and Port Townsend High School Environmental Club.
Note that Friends of Kah Tai and Audubon are both named explicitly in the 1981 LWCF park grant narrative and Admiralty Audubon and Kah Tai Alliance are named explicitly in the US Fish and Wildlife publication: Important Fish and Wildlife Habitats of Washington (http://hdl.handle.net/2027/umn.31951002875369y) (Important fish and wildlife habitat of Washington: an inventory (1978). US Fish and Wildlife Service 85 pp.). The Alliance may be silent at the moment, but the organizations that fostered the most recent iteration are mostly alive and quite well, thank you.
If the Port had cancelled the lease early as suggested by the same commenter, they would have lost control over the City ROWs in the boat haven early as well, an issue yet to be resolved. If the Port had cancelled the lease early, the LWCF rules would still be in place and they would have to manage the land as a park. However, there are RCWs which suggest that ports cannot as a rule legally manage parks - more on that soon.
The City offered to plant approx. 450 tree seedlings (Douglas Fir, Shore Pine, Willow spp., Cottonwood and Western Red Cedar, not a single exotic on the list) in 2001-2002 but the Port threatened legal action against them to stop the effort. So while the Port insists that the City maintain the park it refuses to let them do so. The Port administration claims that they knew nothing about any plans to develop the park and that permission is required for any effort, even though back in 1982, members of the Parks Board gave the Port Commission a detailed briefing on the plans for park development and the Commissioners passed the plan as presented, unanimously (more on this soon as well). This information is available in the Port minutes.
And then there's the comment from a former port commissioner who was in office in 2003 when the Port prepared its 20-year Comprehensive Scheme (http://www.portofpt.com/comp_scheme.htm) that chose Alternative 2 for Kah Tai - No Development, with an EIS that declared that any development would be harmful (http://kahtai.blogspot.com/2010/08/whats-wrong-with-this-scheme.html). There doesn't seem to be any evidence in the Scheme that any commissioner produced a minority opinion against that finding. Why now does he suggest we fill in the lagoon?
The estuarine lagoon and brackish wetlands of Kah Tai (qatáy) are the remains of an extensive estuary to Port Townsend Bay. What survives today, though diminished, is a remarkably tranquil oasis, not wilderness but still wild. The original intent of its creation should be respected, so that this gem in the heart of our community is preserved in perpetuity.
Sunday, October 16, 2011
Wednesday, October 12, 2011
Red Herrings and Overlooked Facts
The Port Townsend Leader published an article about the NPS ruling today (link) that contains some interesting quotes and comments in need of a little clarification.
The Port Administration's claim of missing documents is a red herring. RCO Director Cottingham's recommendation (see September 8 post, below) to NPS referenced 21 state and federal documents for verification of her recommendation.
The Port Administration's claim that none of the LWCF money bought Port land is a red herring. LWCF funds cannot be used to buy public lands except in very rare circumstances which do not apply to Kah Tai. Also, along with her recommendation Ms. Cottingham attaches a document from the Department of the Interior which states that the "entire area identified in the project agreement" is subject to the 6(f)(3) provisions, not just the parts purchased with LWCF funds. And the "entire area" is identified as between 78 and 80 acres in 13 individual documents.
The Port Attorney's contention that she could find no legal basis that port property was subject to continuing obligations is curious. Ms. Lake had access to precisely the same documents that RCO and NPS used. In fact, citizens received via a public records request full copies of the RCO and NPS records requested by Ms. Lake and those records contain every document RCO and NPS used for their determinations. Ms. Lake apparently overlooked the existence of a signed contract and assurances of compliance that bind the Port to the obligations.
The claim that an aquatic center can be appropriate for the Park is belied by the rules for compliance and conversion of 6(f)(3) lands. 'Compliant use' is 'compliant' with the language in a particular project. Nowhere to be found in the 1980/81 EIA; project narrative; application correspondence between local, state and federal offices; or state or federal briefing documents are references made to a swimming pool of any kind, much less an aquatic center. What is mentioned repeatedly is restoration of wildlife habitat. At RCO on 31 March 2011, staffers referred openly to the Make Waves effort as their first "swimming pool conversion". Any attempt to put an aquatic center in the park would therefore likely require a conversion, which is not simple or easy. An early demonstration of the need for a conversion is that a proposed project CANNOT go anywhere else. Good luck with that.
The Port Administration's claim of missing documents is a red herring. RCO Director Cottingham's recommendation (see September 8 post, below) to NPS referenced 21 state and federal documents for verification of her recommendation.
The Port Administration's claim that none of the LWCF money bought Port land is a red herring. LWCF funds cannot be used to buy public lands except in very rare circumstances which do not apply to Kah Tai. Also, along with her recommendation Ms. Cottingham attaches a document from the Department of the Interior which states that the "entire area identified in the project agreement" is subject to the 6(f)(3) provisions, not just the parts purchased with LWCF funds. And the "entire area" is identified as between 78 and 80 acres in 13 individual documents.
The Port Attorney's contention that she could find no legal basis that port property was subject to continuing obligations is curious. Ms. Lake had access to precisely the same documents that RCO and NPS used. In fact, citizens received via a public records request full copies of the RCO and NPS records requested by Ms. Lake and those records contain every document RCO and NPS used for their determinations. Ms. Lake apparently overlooked the existence of a signed contract and assurances of compliance that bind the Port to the obligations.
The claim that an aquatic center can be appropriate for the Park is belied by the rules for compliance and conversion of 6(f)(3) lands. 'Compliant use' is 'compliant' with the language in a particular project. Nowhere to be found in the 1980/81 EIA; project narrative; application correspondence between local, state and federal offices; or state or federal briefing documents are references made to a swimming pool of any kind, much less an aquatic center. What is mentioned repeatedly is restoration of wildlife habitat. At RCO on 31 March 2011, staffers referred openly to the Make Waves effort as their first "swimming pool conversion". Any attempt to put an aquatic center in the park would therefore likely require a conversion, which is not simple or easy. An early demonstration of the need for a conversion is that a proposed project CANNOT go anywhere else. Good luck with that.
Saturday, October 8, 2011
Birding at Kah Tai
The birders were out in force this foggy morning at Kah Tai. Our group of fourteen humans ranged in age from 70s+ to a charming boy of perhaps 7 with his grandmother. The Admiralty Audubon trip leader carried one of several spotting scopes in the group. The calm waters of the lagoon were dotted with flotillas of individual species and groups of species, sailing about their business. An adult mallard was trailed by several non-mallard juveniles. "Teenagers," was all the trip leader said in explanation.
Marsh Wren. Greater Yellowlegs. Killdeer. Virginia Rail. Great Blue Heron. Scaups. Buffleheads and Ruddy Ducks. Did somebody say Wood Ducks? (Nope, no Wood Ducks.) Wigeons. Shovelers. Mergansers. Glaucous-winged Gulls. Long V's of Canada Geese honked in and splash-landed while others lined up for takeoff after feeding and resting. Flocks of migrating Yellow-rumped Warblers. Ruby-crowned Kinglets. A Spotted Towhee. Juncos. Crows. Rock Pigeons. An Anna's Hummingbird.
One birder, quiet and thoughtful, was in line at one scope or another for most of the announced sightings. Finally, he said, "I always thought this was just all blackberries and Scot's Broom here. I had no idea...".
That is the whole point of Kah Tai Lagoon Nature Park. Nearly 80 acres of water, marsh and uplands rehabilitated from dredge spoil, threatened repeatedly by development from people who see nothing but blackberries and Scot's Broom. But in the middle of our small town, accessible to all, it remains a serene oasis. It is now officially federally protected by National Park Service regulations.
Go see the blackberries and Scot's Broom if that's what you expect. But don't be surprised if the Park sneaks up and changes you.
Marsh Wren. Greater Yellowlegs. Killdeer. Virginia Rail. Great Blue Heron. Scaups. Buffleheads and Ruddy Ducks. Did somebody say Wood Ducks? (Nope, no Wood Ducks.) Wigeons. Shovelers. Mergansers. Glaucous-winged Gulls. Long V's of Canada Geese honked in and splash-landed while others lined up for takeoff after feeding and resting. Flocks of migrating Yellow-rumped Warblers. Ruby-crowned Kinglets. A Spotted Towhee. Juncos. Crows. Rock Pigeons. An Anna's Hummingbird.
One birder, quiet and thoughtful, was in line at one scope or another for most of the announced sightings. Finally, he said, "I always thought this was just all blackberries and Scot's Broom here. I had no idea...".
That is the whole point of Kah Tai Lagoon Nature Park. Nearly 80 acres of water, marsh and uplands rehabilitated from dredge spoil, threatened repeatedly by development from people who see nothing but blackberries and Scot's Broom. But in the middle of our small town, accessible to all, it remains a serene oasis. It is now officially federally protected by National Park Service regulations.
Go see the blackberries and Scot's Broom if that's what you expect. But don't be surprised if the Park sneaks up and changes you.
Friday, October 7, 2011
Kah Tai Rising
![]() |
stained glass by Phyllis Hopek/Hopeck(?) |
Protest songs were composed and recorded. Poems were written and performed. Benefit concerts were held. Quilters, sculptors, painters, actors, everyone who had something to offer came forward, gift in hand to help the cause. Balloons and corn on the cob were sold at street fairs to raise funds and help pay for the legal actions made necessary by developers.
Ultimately, concerned citizens ran for office and were elected to change the political landscape of the town in order to save the lagoon. A wildlife park of nearly 80 acres exists today because good people cared enough to make it happen. It's taken more than 30 years to get close to finishing the job they started, but Kah Tai is safer tonight than it has been in a long time.
Thursday, October 6, 2011
It's Official!
Today, those who support the preservation of Kah Tai Lagoon Nature Park received more good news from the Washington Recreation and Conservation Office (RCO) when RCO staff forwarded an important letter from the National Park Service (NPS). On September 27, 2011, Michael Linde, NPS Pacific West Region Leader, Community Assistance Programs, sent the letter to Kaleen Cottingham, Director, WA RCO, to concur with the RCO's 6(f)(3) boundary determination for Kah Tai Lagoon Nature Park. NPS corrected a small discrepancy so that the Park's northern boundary terminates at the southern edge of 19th Street/Blaine Street. Our Park is intact! Although future development is not impossible, it has been rendered very, very difficult and really expensive. NPS does not spend public funds to create temporary parks and their bar to demonstrate need for conversion is exceedingly high.
Thursday, September 8, 2011
RCO Recommends Full Park Boundary!!
All supporters of Kah Tai Lagoon Nature Park got some great news today. The Recreation and Conservation Office (RCO) in Olympia has recommended that all 78.5 original acres of Kah Tai Lagoon Nature Park should be included in the National Park Service's 6(f)(3) protected boundary. Now we just have to wait for NPS to rule (they decide, RCO only recommends). This is very good news. If you want the full RCO response, the link is here). It's a big pdf file (11+MB).
Thursday, August 18, 2011
How much is enough?
For those who think Kah Tai Lagoon Nature Park can afford to have more pieces whittled away by ill-conceived development, the two maps to the left might be instructional.
The upper map is an excerpt showing the topography of Kah Tai from a US Coast Survey map prepared in 1856. Port Townsend was still Port Townshend but well on her way to losing the 'H'. In fact, the full 1856 map has a hand-written notation pointing at the 'H' in the legend and indicating that it would be removed as an official directive. Although the map has suffered the wear and tear of a century and a half, it is clear that in 1856, Kah Tai was a fully tidal estuarine marsh open to Port Towns(h)end Bay.
The lower map is 1.5 centuries newer, and is a section from Washington Division of Geology and Earth Resources Geologic Map GM-57 (Schasse and Slaughter, 2005), available online. All that light brown area labeled Qml? That is defined as "modified land - soil, sediment, or other geologic material locally reworked by excavation and (or) redistribution to modify topography". In the case of Kah Tai, the 'local reworking' was 231,000 cubic yards of dredge spoil dumped in 1964 to create the Boat Haven.
Hasn't the Port of Port Townsend benefited quite enough from the 'reworking' of Kah Tai?
The upper map is an excerpt showing the topography of Kah Tai from a US Coast Survey map prepared in 1856. Port Townsend was still Port Townshend but well on her way to losing the 'H'. In fact, the full 1856 map has a hand-written notation pointing at the 'H' in the legend and indicating that it would be removed as an official directive. Although the map has suffered the wear and tear of a century and a half, it is clear that in 1856, Kah Tai was a fully tidal estuarine marsh open to Port Towns(h)end Bay.
The lower map is 1.5 centuries newer, and is a section from Washington Division of Geology and Earth Resources Geologic Map GM-57 (Schasse and Slaughter, 2005), available online. All that light brown area labeled Qml? That is defined as "modified land - soil, sediment, or other geologic material locally reworked by excavation and (or) redistribution to modify topography". In the case of Kah Tai, the 'local reworking' was 231,000 cubic yards of dredge spoil dumped in 1964 to create the Boat Haven.
Hasn't the Port of Port Townsend benefited quite enough from the 'reworking' of Kah Tai?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)