Port of Olympia, Olympia, Thurston County, Sustainability

1. New Directions: From Extraction Economy to Sustainable Growth
Public Service Strategy Examples
Economic Development
(import new spending)
Tourism Promotion &
Parks/Beautification
1) Restore Deschutes Estuary,
2) Passenger Ferry to Seattle
3) Public transit to recreation areas
4) Help create model sustainable city
Economic Development & Climate
Change Mitigation
(increase Thurston County resident
purchasing power, while reducing
emissions)
Reduce Household Energy Costs 1) Grants/subsidies for household
energy efficiency retrofits and
renewable energy installations
Climate Change Mitigation & Economic
Development
Public Transit 1) Ferry to Seattle
2) Public transit to recreation areas
Climate Change Adaptation Conserve and improve Ecosystem
services
Smart growth, local food, conservation,
forest and wetland protection
* Consider how strategies feed off of one another = Positive Triple Bottom Line Feedback Loops

2. Present Operations
Finances
Fracking Proppant Imports
Logging Exports and Local Effects

3. The Port of Olympia: Assumptions and Analysis
• One of the Smallest Marine Terminals in the State in terms of export and import value
• Practically speaking, logs are the only export; fracking materials are the only import
• Losing Money on $5 million of public funding for 13 out of 14 years (average -90% annual ROI)
• Outdoor recreation contributes more to the county economy than the Port of Olympia
• Logging causes adverse effects on local ecosystems including Deschutes River temperature and
sedimentation of Deschutes River and Capitol Lake; increasing its own sediment liability; fracking
negatively affects other ecosystems
• Mandate is county economic development- local food, outdoor recreation, parks are better
strategies….ferry? Home energy efficiency or renewable energy investments?

4. • Public funding has been the #1 source of revenue for 8 out of 12 years; 2nd for the
other 4 years (I understand many ports loose money-but what is normal?)
• Return on Investment from a fiscal standpoint is abysmal
• To the Port’s credit it has, in recent years, become less dependent on the public
funding, but still around 25%

5. • Relative import value ($) compared to other points shown in red circles  Olympia is miniscule
• Imports down 250% over the past 10 years
• Proppants support fracking

6. • Growing awareness of carbon supply chain and unwillingness to support it
• Fracking markets are volatile given global energy dynamics (e.g. Saudi glut)

7. • Olympia cannot compete with
other Ports
• Only export of logs has grown
600% over the past decade
China
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
2011
Value
2012
Value
2013
Value
2014
Value
Destinations for
Washington State
Exports (mm$)

8. • 10 year forest loss in red (3D rendering lower right); temperature of river from
headwaters to mouth (upper right) seems to coincide with heavily logged area;
unclear how much forestry contributes to sedimentation

9. • 1992-2001 forestry activity in the Deschutes watershed; the graph on the left shows loss (left bar)
and regrowth (right bar)

10. • 2001-2011 forestry activities in the Deschutes watershed; the graph on the left shows loss (left bar) and regrowth (right bar); generously
including intermediary stage “shrub/scrub”; logging intensity has increased in the past ten years!

11. CIVILIAN
AIRCRAFT,
ENGINES,
AND PARTS
53%
Other
21%
SOYBEANS, NESOI
6%
PETROL OIL BITUM MINERAL (NT CRUD) ETC NT
BIO
3%
PASS VEH SPK-IG INT COM RCPR P ENG >1500
NOV
2%
WHEAT AND MESLIN, NESOI
2%
CORN (MAIZE), OTHER THAN SEED CORN
2%
LT OILS, PREPS GT=70%
PETROLEUM/BITUM NT BIOD
1%CONIFEROUS WOOD IN THE ROUGH, NOT
TREATED
1%
AIRPLANE & OT A/C, UNLADEN WEIGHT >
15,000 KG
1%
APPLES, FRESH
1%
ULTRASONIC SCANNING APPARATUS
1%
POTATOES, PREPARED ETC., NO VINEGAR ETC.,
FRO
1%
FLOURS AND MEALS OF SOYBEANS
1%
SILICON CONTAIN BY WT NT < 99.99% OF
SILICON
1%
FORAGE PRODUCTS NESOI (HAY, CLOVER,
VETCHES,
1%
DIAMONDS, NONINDUSTRIAL, WORKED
0%
FERROUS WASTE & SCRAP NESOI
0%
PASS VEH SPK-IG INT COM RCPR P ENG > 3000
CC
0%
ALUMINUM ALLOY RECT PLATES ETC, OVER .2
MM TH
0%
CHERRIES, FRESH, NESOI
0%
MLK &
CRM,CNTD,SWT,POWDR,GRAN/SOLIDS,NOV
1.5%
0%
CONIFEROUS WOOD SAWN, SLICED ETC, OVER
6 MM T
0% SELF-PROPELLED WORKS TRUCKS AND
FORKLIFTS, NE
0%
NONELECTRICAL ARTICLES OF GRAPHITE OR
CARBON
0%
PETROLEUM COKE, CALCINED
0%
Value of Timber as an Export of Washington State
• Logs are more valuable as trees for the ecosystem services: flood risk reduction,
river/estuary restoration, recreation, wildlife recovery
• Losing 2.3 Nisqually NWR worth of area per year out of the Port of Olympia

12. New Directions: From Extraction Economy to Sustainable Growth
Public Service Strategy Examples
Economic Development
(import new spending)
Tourism Promotion &
Parks/Beautification
1) Restore Deschutes Estuary,
2) Passenger Ferry to Seattle
3) Public transit to recreation areas
4) Help create model sustainable city
Economic Development & Climate
Change Mitigation
(increase Thurston County resident
purchasing power, while reducing
emissions)
Reduce Household Energy Costs 1) Grants/subsidies for household
energy efficiency retrofits and
renewable energy installations
Climate Change Mitigation & Economic
Development
Public Transit 1) Ferry to Seattle
2) Public transit to recreation areas
Climate Change Adaptation Conserve and improve Ecosystem
services
Smart growth, local food, conservation,
forest and wetland protection
* Consider how strategies feed off of one another = Positive Triple Bottom Line Feedback Loops

14. Tourism & Travel Spending Rising in the Northwest & Olympia
$100
$120
$140
$160
$180
$200
$220
1998 2003
Tourism Spending in the Olympia Area (millions) Top Rate Tourist Attractions in Olympia
(Planetware.com)
1) Washington State Capitol Building
2) Mount Rainier
3) Olympia Farmers Market
4) Hands on Children's Museum
5) Washington State Capital Museum
6) Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge:
7) Mima Mounds
8) Olympic Flight Museum
9) Bigelow House Museum
10) WET Science Center
Top 10 Things to do in the Olympia area
(TripAdvisor.com)
1) Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge
2) Hands On Children's Museum
3) Washington State Capitol
4) Priest Point Park
5) Farmers Market
6) Percival Landing
7) Lattin's Country Cider Mill & Farm
8) Nisqually Reach Nature Center
9) Millersylvania State Park
10) Nisqually Red Wind Casino

16. Olympia Underperforming:
Northwest Tourism & Travel Spending
$0
$2,000,000,000
$4,000,000,000
$6,000,000,000
$8,000,000,000
Seattle Area Portland Area Vancouver
Area
Victoria Area Pierce County Spokane
County
Bend (Central
Oregon)
Eugene (Lane
County)
Clark County
(Vancouver,
WA)
Olympia Area
Estimated Total Visitor Spending (Gross)
$0
$1,000
$2,000
$3,000
$4,000
$5,000
Seattle Area Portland Area Vancouver
Area
Victoria Area Pierce County Spokane
County
Bend (Central
Oregon)
Eugene (Lane
County)
Clark County
(Vancouver,
WA)
Olympia Area
Estimated Per Capita Visitor (relative to destination population)

17. Thurston County Underperforming
*Thurston County employment and poverty closely track to the state,
but it has a relatively weak tourism economy compared to other areas

18. *The lowest wages in the county are in tourism dependent sectors (accommodation, food services, and retail); those
sectors are top employment sectors for the outdoor recreation economy

19. *Sectors benefiting from outdoor recreation are top elements of our county economy, but not experiencing growth

20. How much do different outdoor recreation activities in Thurston County generate in
spending per year?
Events
18%
Fishing
17%
Motorized Boating &
Sailing
15%
Local Parks
12%
Horseback Riding
7%
Non-Motorized
Paddle Sports
5%
Private Golf (Days of
Golf)
5%
State DNR Lands
5%
Inner tubing or
floating
2%
Swimming
(outdoor pools)
2%
Swimming in natural
waters
2%
State
Parks
2%
Private Timberland
Recreation
2%
Municipal Golf
1%
Scuba
diving
1%
National Wildlife
Refuges
1%
WA F&W
Game Mgmt
Units
1%
WA F&W Wildlife
Mgmt Areas
0%
*Estimated outdoor recreation related expenditures of both residents and visitors equals $755 Billion/year; overnight
visitor spending is estimated at $209.7 million in 2003

21. *Public Waters attract more out of state visitor spending
than all Federal Lands (National Parks, Forests, Wildlife
Refugres Corps of Engineers and BLM lands)! Fishing alone
attracts nearly as much spending as all the national parks

22. Charleston, SC
• Population 120,000
(=Olympia+Tumwater+Lacey)
• Tourism Economy = $3 billion
• (14x Olympia Area)

23. Estuary Restoration Effect on Visitation
• Elwha Visitation increased 300% with 300,000 new visitors
• Average $53.21 per day expenditures would yield roughly
$16.0 million in increased consumer expenditures per year
• Nisqually NWR visitation increased 25% above
• Average $20 per day expenditures would yield
$800,000 increased expenditures per year
*Estuaries attract visitors perhaps because they are rare and provide continual, seasonal,
and tidal visual transformation

24. Values of Olympia Residents Strongly Stated in a Survey re: Capitol Lake
Special Interests holding us back?

25. • Park acquisition strategy can be anthropocentric (left) where we see “park deserts” where dense
populations (red) outside of a sensible walking distance buffer (light green) from public lands (green); or
an ecological priority approach (right) where undeveloped land next to protected ecosystems can be
identified

26. Land Composition of “Local Food” Parcels
(Parcels selected from Thurston County Farm Map addresses,
selected parcels used to “clip” land cover)
18.5%Forest
9.0%Wetland
6.2%Grassland
33.7%
“Natural Landcovers”
(sum of grassland, wetland, forest)
7.0%Cultivated Crops
34.6%Pasture/Hay
• The local food system creates economic activity with high multipliers,
jobs, and farmland ecosystem preservation/conservation
• GIS agriculture data tends to catalog monocrops (in green and yellow,
upper right), whereas many local producers exist on land not zoned as
agriculture that retains ecosystem diversity (wetlands, forests,
grasslands, right); farms that are supported by local food purchases tend
to implement ecologically friendly practices while retaining significant
forest and wetland cover

27. • Port funding from the public is $5million; making up s
1.5% of our local property tax burden; or about $40
or a median household (below)
• Thurston Climate Action Team surveyed the county
showing theoretical willingness to pay for a County
level climate adaptation/mitigation actions
• Could the Port be an effective manager of these
actions?
• Mitigation ideas: subsidize home insulation
improvements, renewable energy
• Adaptation ideas: flood risk reduction by conserving
favorable land covers/restoring the estuary