Alternative Analysis—10.

0 Public Recreation

1 10.0 Public Recreation

2 This section addresses the effects of the four Capitol Lake management alternatives on public
3 recreation. There are three basic groups of activities described for each alternative: water-based
4 recreational activities, trail and park system use, and community and social gatherings.

5 This summary is based primarily on three reports. The Deschutes Estuary Feasibility Study—
6 Engineering and Cost Estimates (Moffatt and Nichol 2007) discusses how existing trails, parks,
7 and canoe launches could be affected by the alternatives. The Deschutes Estuary Feasibility
8 Study: Net Social and Economic Benefit Analysis (Cascade Economics et al. 2007) includes
9 information on the affected public use of Capitol Campus. The Capitol Lake Alternatives
10 Analysis Low-Lying Infrastructure (Moffatt and Nichol 2008) focuses on sea level rise and
11 potential flooding in the area.

12 10.1 Overview of Public Recreation

13 Capitol Lake was created in 1951 as a reflecting pool for the State Capitol building. Over the
14 years, it has become a landmark for the City of Olympia and is a critical part of the City’s
15 amenities. The lake is surrounded by established recreational sites, including Marathon Park, the
16 Deschutes Parkway trail system, Capitol Lake Interpretive Center, and Tumwater Historical
17 Park. Percival Landing and the marinas at the lower end of Budd Inlet basically function as an
18 extension of the lake in terms of the overall recreational attributes of the project area. In fact, the
19 Thurston Regional Trails Plan indicates that Capitol Lake area serves as a critical node for the
20 intersection of existing and planned trails and bike paths to serve the long term needs of the
21 planning area.i
22
23 Water-based recreational activities primarily include non-motorized boating (such and canoe and
24 kayaking) and fishing. (Due to water quality concerns, swimming is not currently a supported
25 beneficial use of the lake.) The alternatives could also affect accessibility to open water from
26 existing docks, although it has been assumed in this review that these docks would be modified
27 to allow access.

28 Use of the trail and park system focuses on the above-mentioned parks and associated trail
29 systems. The trails are used extensively for walking, jogging, bicycling and wildlife viewing.
30 The primary concerns in terms of park and trail use are related to the potential changes in
31 flooding frequency for low-lying trails and park areas.

32 Community and social gatherings center around the green space and park areas. Many
33 community-supported events are centered in the Capitol Lake area. Major community events
34 that occur near the project area include the Procession of Species, the Dragon Boat Festival, and
35 Lake Fair (including the hydroplane races). Social gatherings, such as picnics, weddings, and
36 family reunions also routinely occur in the project area. For these recreational groups, the
37 difference between the alternatives is related to loss of open water and the potential for increased
38 flood frequencies and higher water levels that impact the green space and park areas. It is

b /ca 08-04078-000 section 10 public recreation_1_29_editsjpm (2)

January 29, 2009 1 Herrera Environmental Consultants

 Alternative Analysis—10.0 Public Recreation

1 important to note that flooding and high-water events are seasonal and do not generally coincide
2 with the period when community events and social gatherings occur.

3 There are near-term impacts on public recreation that would be associated with project actions
4 such as dredging ((including routine dredging), dam removal, road construction, and park and
5 trail system reconstruction. However, the intent of this report is to address the differences in
6 long-term effects on public recreation area associated with the different management
7 alternatives. Therefore, impacts during the construction period are not described. For the Status
8 Quo Alternative, it may be many decades before the lake transitions into the large wetland and
9 river system that defines the long-term condition for this alternative. Because the transition
10 period is predicted to be beyond the planning horizon for this project, both near-term (that is,
11 over the next 50 years) and long-term conditions for the Status Quo Alternative are addressed in
12 this summary.

13 10.2 Status Quo Alternative

14 The Status Quo Alternative would require little to no construction or immediate changes to the
15 current area. In the near term, the lake basins would reflect conditions that currently exist;
16 although water quality would continue to deteriorate, and aquatic plant beds would expand.
17 Over the long term, the lake basins would fill in, and the area would essentially be occupied by a
18 stream channel flowing through a large, freshwater wetland system. The area of open water
19 would be greatly reduced, water quality may improve, and submerged aquatic plant beds would
20 be replaced by emergent vegetation and other wetland vegetation types.

21 In the near term, we can assume the Status Quo Alternative would:

22 10.2.1 Continue to provide water-based recreational opportunities:

23  Existing docks and floats would still provide access to open water.

24  Canoeing, kayaking and fishing would continue, although the

25 aquatic plant beds and shallow nature of much of the lake would
26 continue to limit some boating activity.

27  Marinas and boating use of lower Budd Inlet would continue to be

28 supported at the current level without dredging beyond what is
29 currently required.

30 10.2.2 Continue to support the existing trail and park system:

31  Low-lying portions of the trail and park system would continue to

32 flood during winter wet weather periodsii.

b /ca 08-04078-000 section 10 public recreation_1_29_editsjpm (2)

Herrera Environmental Consultants 2 January 29, 2009

 Alternative Analysis—10.0 Public Recreation

1  Poor pedestrian and bicycle passage over the Fifth Avenue bridge
2 would continue.

3  Wildlife viewing opportunities would continue.

4 10.2.3 Retain existing green space and amenities for community and social events:

5  Events that require open water would still be supported.

6  Seasonal flooding of park and green space areas would still occur.

7 In the long term, the Status Quo Alternative would:

8 10.2.4 Result in the eventual reduction or elimination of water-based activities:

9  Existing docks and floats would become obsolete.

10  Opportunity for canoeing, kayaking and fishing would decline as
11 the aquatic plant beds expanded and the basins became shallower
12 and open water area was reduced. Fishing opportunities would still
13 exist; however, the catch would primarily be salmon, rather than
14 the current mix of salmon and freshwater fish. Fishing would also
15 be reduced due to reduced surface area and access points.

16  Motorboat and waterskiing would continue to not be allowed on

17 the water

18 10.2.5 Continue to support the existing trail and park system:

19  Direct access to the water’s edge would be reduced.

20  Wildlife viewing opportunities would continue; the wetland might
21 attract different wildlife species.
22  There would continue to be poor pedestrian and bicycle passage
23 over the Fifth Avenue Bridge.

24 10.2.6 Retain existing green space and amenities for community and social
25 events:

26  Events that require open water such as the Dragon Boat Festival
27 and the Lake Fair hydroplane races would be discontinued.

28  Seasonal flooding of park and green space areas would still occur.

29

b /ca 08-04078-000 section 10 public recreation_1_29_editsjpm (2)

January 29, 2009 3 Herrera Environmental Consultants

 Alternative Analysis—10.0 Public Recreation

2 10.2.7 Result in the elimination of the reflecting pool for the Capitol buildings.

3 10.3 Managed Lake Alternative

4 Under the Managed Lake Alternative, recreational opportunities would be similar to those that
5 currently exist. Although lake dredging and other management activities would improve water
6 quality and reduce the extent of aquatic plant beds, they would also periodically disrupt and limit
7 recreation.

8 The Managed Lake Alternative would:

9 10.3.1 Continue to support water-based activities such as canoeing, kayaking and

10 fishing:

11  Access to existing docks and floats would be available.

12  Less extensive aquatic plant beds would benefit non-motorized
13 boating and fishing, although there would be disruptions during
14 dredging events.

15  Marinas and boating use of lower Budd Inlet would continue to be

16 supported at the current level without dredging beyond what is
17 currently required.

18  Motorboats and waterskiing could potentially be supported.iii

19 10.3.2 Continue to support the existing trail and park system:

20  All existing trail and park systems would be fully utilized and
21 direct access to the water’s edge would continue to be available at
22 its current level.

23  Poor pedestrian and bicycle passage over the Fifth Avenue bridge
24 would continue.

25  Wildlife viewing opportunities would continue and be similar to

26 what currently exists.

27 10.3.3 Retain existing green space and amenities for community and social events

28  Events that require open water would still be supported.

29  Seasonal flooding of park and green space areas would still occur.

b /ca 08-04078-000 section 10 public recreation_1_29_editsjpm (2)

Herrera Environmental Consultants 4 January 29, 2009

 Alternative Analysis—10.0 Public Recreation

1 10.4 Estuary Alternative

2 Under the Estuary Alternative, opportunities for recreation would be similar to those under
3 existing conditions; however, there may be differences in the general nature of the activities or
4 their extent. Because this alternative would require reconstruction of the Fifth Avenue bridge, it
5 would likely result in the creation of new bicycle and pedestrian lanes at the bridge. Long-term
6 impacts on trail and park use and community or social events in these areas could be adversely
7 affected by higher water levels, as well as more frequent flooding.

8 The Estuary Alternative would:

9 10.4.1 Limit opportunities for water-based activities, such as canoeing, kayaking

10 and fishing, during low tidesiv:

11  Existing docks and floats would need to be removed or modified to

12 adjust to the tides and tide flat buildup.

13  Boat access would be limited during low tides.

14  Fishing opportunities would still exist; however, the catch would

15 change. A mix of salmon, and marine species, such as starry
16 flounder, sand sole, and clams would be available, rather than the
17 current mix of salmon and freshwater fish.v

18  Assuming that sediment deposited in the lower inlet is removed

19 periodically, boat moorage and boating events in Budd Inlet (e.g.,
20 Tugboat races at Harbor Days) would not be adversely affected.

21  Motorboat and waterskiing would not be supported as is currently

22 the case.

23 10.4.2 Support the existing trail and park systemvi,vii:

24  Low-lying portions of trails and park areas would flood at high

25 tides but it is assumed that trails would be moved or replaced with
26 elevated boardwalks.

27  If bicycle and pedestrian lanes are added on each side of the Fifth
28 Avenue Bridge, it would result in safer conditions and additional
29 opportunities for pedestrians and cyclistsviii.

30  Wildlife viewing opportunities would still exist, albeit for different

31 species of wildlife due to the replacement of the existing
32 freshwater wetlands with saltwater wetlands.

b /ca 08-04078-000 section 10 public recreation_1_29_editsjpm (2)

January 29, 2009 5 Herrera Environmental Consultants

 Alternative Analysis—10.0 Public Recreation

1 10.4.3 Retain existing green space and amenities for community and social
2 events.

3  It would not likely support events that require open water such as the
4 Dragon Boat Festival and the Lake Fair hydroplane races.

5  It would continue to support community and social events since flooding

6 would not generally occur during these events.

7 10.5 Dual-Basin Estuary Alternative

8 The Dual-Basin Estuary Alternative would result in conditions similar to those for the Estuary
9 Alternative. This alternative would restore tidal influence, while retaining the reflecting pool for
10 the Capitol building.

11 In addition to the long-term effects of the Estuary Alternative, the Dual-Basin Estuary
12 Alternative would:

13 10.5.1 Retain a reflecting pool for the Capitol building.

14 10.5.2 Provide additional walking area with the newly constructed pedestrian
15 barrier, which would separate the reflecting pool and the estuary area.

16

b /ca 08-04078-000 section 10 public recreation_1_29_editsjpm (2)

Herrera Environmental Consultants 6 January 29, 2009

 Alternative Analysis—10.0 Public Recreation

1 10.6 Comparison of Alternatives

2 The impacts of the alternatives on public recreation compared to existing conditions are
3 qualitatively summarized in Table 10-1. For the Status Quo Alternative, only the long-term
4 condition is included in the summary.

5 Table 10.1. Effects of the management alternatives on public recreation compared to

6 existing conditions.

Managed Dual-Basin
Status Quo Lake Estuary Estuary
Alternative a Alternative Alternative Alternative

Water-Based Activities
Boating access - = - -
Fishing opportunities - = - -
Motorboat and skiing opportunities =- + = =

Trail and Park System

Historical and Interpretive Park wetland trails = = - -
Bike lanes and sidewalk = = + ++
Overall flooding of area parks and trails = = - -
Wildlife viewing opportunities = = = =
Marina and boat moorage b = = = =

Community Events and Social Gatherings

Space to hold community events = = = =
Open-water-based events - = - -
7 Notes:
8 The symbol = represents conditions similar to existing conditions.
9 The symbols + and ++ represent an improvement over existing conditions.
10 The symbols - and -- represent a decline from existing conditions.
11 a
This addresses only the long-term Status Quo Alternative .
b
12 This assumes that routine dredging occurs in the lower inlet to maintain water depth
13
14 Both the estuary alternatives and the Status Quo Alternative would result in a more limited open-
15 water area for boating and fishing compared to the Managed Lake Alternative. Under the
16 Estuary Alternatives the limit would occur on a daily basis and be driven by lowering tides. It is
17 assumed that docks, ramps and other access points would be re-configured to allow use in a tidal
18 environmentix. Under the Status Quo Alternative the limit would occur as a result of a permanent
19 loss of open water. The Managed Lake Alternative also could potentially allow opportunities for
20 motorized boating and waterskiing that are not currently allowediii.

b /ca 08-04078-000 section 10 public recreation_1_29_editsjpm (2)

January 29, 2009 7 Herrera Environmental Consultants

 Alternative Analysis—10.0 Public Recreation

1 The estuary alternatives could result in reduced use of the trail and park system due to increased
2 flooding frequency. The low-lying areas of the park and trail system routinely flood during wet
3 weather under existing conditions, under the estuary alternative they would flood at each high
4 tide. However, it has been assumed that a raised boardwalk would be provided to mitigate for
5 this flooding. The estuary alternatives would likely result in some overall improvement to
6 pedestrian and bicycle trails because they would result in reconstruction of the Fifth Avenue
7 bridge, and pedestrian and bicycle passage would likely be part of the new design.

8 The Dual-Basin Estuary Alternative would result in an overall increase in the trail system
9 because the barrier wall separating the basins would include a pedestrian walkway.

10 Most community events and social gatherings would generally be unaffected by the selection of
11 alternatives. There are at least two community events that specifically require open water: the
12 Dragon Boat Festival and the Lake Fair hydroplane races. These would need to be scheduled to
13 occur during high tides or be relocated to Budd Inlet.

14

b /ca 08-04078-000 section 10 public recreation_1_29_editsjpm (2)

Herrera Environmental Consultants 8 January 29, 2009

 Alternative Analysis—10.0 Public Recreation

1 References

2 Cascade Economics, Northern Economics, and Spatial Informatics Group. 2007. Deschutes
3 Estuary Feasibility Study: Net Social and Economic Benefit Analysis. Prepared for Capitol Lake
4 Adaptive Management Plan Steering Committee, Olympia, Washington, by Cascade Economics
5 LLC, Washougal, Washington; Northern Economics, Inc.; and Spatial Informatics Group LLC.
6 June 1, 2007.

7 Jones, Nathaniel. 2009. Personal communication via e-mail communication to Joy Michaud,
8 January 28th, 2009.
9 Moffatt and Nichol. 2007. Deschutes Estuary Feasibility Study—Engineering Design and Cost
10 Estimates. Prepared for Washington State Department of General Administration by Moffatt and
11 Nichol, Seattle, Washington.

12 Moffatt and Nichol. 2008. Capitol Lake Alternatives Analysis: Low-Lying Infrastructure.
13 Prepared for Washington State Department of General Administration by Moffatt and Nichol,
14 Seattle, Washington.

15 Thurston Regional Trails Plan. 2007. Thurston Regional Planning Council.

16
17
18
19

i
Thurston Plan, 2007.
ii
Moffatt & Nichol, 2007 (pg 21)
iii
Personal communication, Nathanial Jones. 2009.
iv
Moffatt & Nichol, 2007(pgs. 20-21)
v
WDFW, 2008 (Table 9, pg 29; Table 10 pg 34 and Table 11, pg. 39 & pgs 40-41)
vi
Cascade Economics, 2007 (pg 35-36)
vii
Moffatt & Nichol, 2007 (pg. 20)
viii
Moffatt & Nichol, 2007 (pg 9)
ix
Moffatt & Nichol,2007 (pg.21)

b /ca 08-04078-000 section 10 public recreation_1_29_editsjpm (2)

January 29, 2009 9 Herrera Environmental Consultants