Category Archives: Restoration efforts

Hood Canal property will compensate for Navy construction at Bangor

Hood Canal Coordinating Council has finally found some shoreline property to compensate for environmental damage from the Navy’s $448-million Explosives Handling Wharf at Bangor.

The shoreline of a 6.7-acre property to be used for mitigation of the Navy’s Explosives Handling Wharf at Bangor. // Photo: Hood Canal Coordinating Council

The 6.7 acres of waterfront property — located near Kitsap County’s Anderson Landing Preserve on Hood Canal — becomes the first saltwater mitigation site in Washington state under an in-lieu-fee mitigation program. The $275,000 purchase was approved Wednesday by the coordinating council, which manages the in-lieu-fee program.

The Navy itself is not a party to the transaction, having paid the coordinating council $6.9 million to handle all the freshwater and saltwater mitigation required for the wharf project — including managing the mitigation properties in perpetuity.

The coordinating council’s in-lieu-fee program, which is overseen by state and federal agencies, allows developers to pay a flat fee for their environmental damage instead of undertaking mitigation work themselves.

The five-year-old mitigation program has been working well so far, said Scott Brewer, executive director of the Hood Canal Coordinating Council, noting that the Navy’s Explosives Handling Wharf is the first — and by far the largest — of four developments involved in the Hood Canal program.

“When the Navy first proposed this, the potential benefits really struck me,” Scott said. “At the time I didn’t know of all the complexity.”

Of course, it would be better for the environment if development never took place, Scott told me, but environmental damage cannot be avoided for some construction projects. The in-lieu-fee program ensures that any restoration work is done correctly with the property permanently protected. When developers are in charge of mitigation, nobody may be motivated enough to protect the site into the future.

“The difficulty we have experienced,” Scott said, “is that we have to play the property market game. That is not a straightforward thing, but we are learning as we go and breaking new ground.”

The Hood Canal program is the first in-lieu-fee program to cover saltwater shorelines as well as freshwater habitats. Programs run by King County, Pierce County and the Tulalip Tribe are focused on freshwater, such as wetlands and streams. It has taken the Hood Canal Coordinating Council five years to find a suitable saltwater site for mitigation.

Part of the problem is finding unoccupied land or else houses that can be demolished or else removed at a reasonable price to allow for a large-scale mitigation.

The original concept was to restore public land for mitigation, said Patty Michak, mitigation program manager for the Hood Canal Coordinating Council. But mitigation programs generally require limited public access and other restrictions that are often at odds with the goals of public use.

A view of Hood Canal from the mitigation property near Anderson Landing Preserve.
Photo: Hood Canal Coordinating Council

Patty said she is still looking for sites with several acres of undeveloped waterfront that can be purchased or placed into a conservation easement. Because the coordinating council is not chartered to own land, some properties — including the latest purchase — are placed under the ownership of the Great Peninsula Conservancy, a regional land trust.

Hood Canal Coordinating Council is recognized by the state as a key environmental manager of the Hood Canal ecosystem. The council is made up of the county commissioners in Kitsap, Mason and Jefferson counties as well as leaders of the Port Gamble S’Klallam and Skokomish tribes.

The new waterfront mitigation site is just southwest of Anderson Landing Preserve northeast of Seabeck. The property, which includes 3.1 acres of tidelands and 391 feet of shoreline, has been named Little Anderson Bluff after Little Anderson Creek, which flows nearby.

The property is being purchased from the University of Washington. It includes a so-called “feeder bluff” rated “exceptional” for its ability to produce high-quality sands and gravels. Sand lance, a forage fish that help to feed salmon, are known to spawn on the property’s beach. The property is in good condition and will need little or no restoration.

Impacts of the Explosives Handling Wharf include 0.25 acres of subtidal vegetated habitat, 0.45 acres of intertidal non-vegetated habitat and 0.65 acres of shoreline vegetation.

When it comes to mitigation under the in-lieu-fee program, the acreage is only one factor. In addition, the quality of habitat and the extent of damage go into creating a numerical score, which is listed as a deficit on a mitigation ledger. When a property is purchased and any restoration work is done, the ledger shows a credit of mitigation points.

It’s a little complicated, but after one or more mitigation projects is completed, the deficit created by the original development is canceled out by the mitigation credits. In the end, the ecosystem gets some permanent protection. In a Kitsap Sun story back in 2012, I outlined the deficits for the Navy project.

Because restoration is not a major aspect of the Little Anderson Bluff project, the credits are somewhat limited. The project will generate about 75 percent of the credits needed to mitigate for intertidal impacts from the Navy project. It will also cover about 82 percent of credits needed for impacts to the shoreline.

Another major project using the in-lieu-fee program is the Highway 3 widening project and stormwater controls in Belfair. The project damaged 0.08 acres of wetlands, for which credits were purchased by the Washington Department of Transportation.

The first wetlands-mitigation site purchased under the Hood Canal in-lieu-fee program was a 17-acre property with a pond located near Belfair. The property, known as Irene Pond, includes wetlands rated the highest value under state wetlands standards. Unfortunately, the wetlands were degraded by human alterations, including an abandoned house, garbage and debris. When completed, the mitigation project is expected to generate more than three times the number of credits needed to compensate for the Belfair highway project.

Another wetlands-mitigation site is 22.4 acres near Poulsbo where a branch of Gamble Creek flows through. Mapped as a high-quality aquifer-recharge area, the property had been used to graze cattle. A mitigation plan is under development, and the project is expected to fully compensate for wetlands damage from Navy’s Explosives Handling Wharf — with credits to spare.

The in-lieu-fee program is available to anyone in the Hood Canal region. Two different waterfront property owners purchased credits for mitigation required for their bulkhead projects — beyond any on-site mitigation that could be done. The coordinating council has not yet identified waterfront property to offset those deficits on the mitigation ledger.

The Navy may return to the Hood Canal Coordinating Council to offset environmental impacts from a proposed 540-foot extension to the Service Pier at Naval Base Kitsap — Bangor. Another likely project is an upgrade to the “land-water interface” at Bangor — a fancy name for a high-tech security fence that connects the land to the water, including special observation platforms.

Protecting the Puget Sound ecosystem involves urban planning

I often write about Puget Sound restoration, sometimes forgetting to include the word “protection.” It really should be “Puget Sound protection and restoration” — with protection getting the first billing and the highest priority in our thinking.

Puget Sound from space // Image: NASA

Protection isn’t very exciting — not like restoring hundreds of acres of degraded estuaries, floodplains and wetlands. Of course, restoration is absolutely necessary to gain back lost habitat, but the immediate result is never as good as habitat that avoided damage in the first place. Even restored habitat generally needs to be protected for a long time before it functions as well as an undisturbed site.

These are issues I have been pondering as I wrote the latest story in a series about Implementation Strategies — a focused effort to make a measurable improvement in the Puget Sound ecosystem. For details, check out the Encyclopedia of Puget Sound.

If we could freeze everything in place, then habitat restoration would help rebuild the fish and wildlife populations that require special conditions. But we cannot stop time, and we are told that 1.5 million more people will soon be living in the Puget Sound region.

Where can all these future people find homes without further degrading the environment? Will they choose to live in places that minimize the ecological damage or will it even matter to them? Needless to say, this remains an open-ended question — a question that is both public and very personal, touching on issues of freedom and property rights.

I hope that we, as Puget Sound residents, can work together on this problem with open eyes and clear thinking. The state’s Growth Management Act has helped protect natural habitat by encouraging higher housing densities in urban areas. But the GMA has not been able to cope with economic and lifestyle pressures that cause people to live in remote areas where their mere presence disturbs the functioning food web.

It’s not an easy problem to solve, but researchers and policy experts familiar with the issue have put their thoughts together to formulate a draft “Land Development and Land Cover Implementation Strategy.” I outlined the draft in a story titled “Urban lifestyles help to protect the Puget Sound ecosystem,” published this week in the Encyclopedia of Puget Sound. More work is planned before the strategy is finalized.

Ecologically important lands identified in the Puget Sound region. (Click to enlarge) // Map: WDFW

“I think the central battle will be in the urban areas,” Doug Peters told me, reflecting his understanding that higher-density communities are needed to protect intact habitat elsewhere. Doug, a watershed planner with the Washington State Department of Commerce, said development innovations and economic incentives could be needed to address the problem.

As I said at the outset, Puget Sound restoration seems to get the most attention. Meanwhile, the notion of protection may call to mind buying up ecologically sensitive lands or else purchasing conservation easements or development rights. But it is equally important to make plans for where we want people to live and to make sure these places are inviting enough to attract future residents.

In a region with wide-open spaces, this kind of planning does not have much appeal, and it is not the way we normally do things in this country. But, as Benjamin Franklin might say, “By failing to plan, you are planning to fail.”

New game lets you travel with wacky steelhead as they try to survive

In a new game open to everyone, 48 colorful cartoon fish will soon follow the wandering paths of real-life steelhead that have been tracked during their migration through Puget Sound.

Just like their counterparts in the real world, some of the young steelhead in the game will survive the trip from South Puget Sound or southern Hood Canal — but many will not. The game’s basic tenet is to choose a fish that you feel will be lucky or cunning enough to make it through a gauntlet of hazards from predators to disease. You then watch and learn about the needs and threats to salmon and steelhead as the game progresses over 12 days, beginning May 8.

The educational game, called Survive the Sound, was developed by Long Live the Kings. Each fish you enter will cost $25, with proceeds going to the organization. Long Live the Kings has long been known for its work in rebuilding wild salmon and steelhead populations and researching the needs and threats to these amazing migratory fish.

“I’ve seen some of these migration paths of steelhead,” said Lucas Hall of Long Live the Kings. “Some take some wacky paths, and some even turn around and go the wrong direction for a while.”

As I said, the cartoon fish are based on a select group of real-life fish. Each fish has a home base, either the Nisqually or the Skokomish river, and the size of the real fish is listed. Where the game departs from real life is that the fish are given funny names, and each fish is quoted with a phrase that it might say.

A fish called Itchy Roe is dressed as a baseball player and says, “Swimming this gauntlet is still better than playing in Cleveland.”

Another fish is named Call Me Fishtail, and he says, “Uncharted truth: it is not down in any map; true places never are” — a line from the novel Moby Dick.

The there is Sci-Fi: “This migration is one small step for fish, one giant leap for fish-kind.”

The original tracking effort is conducted by implanting tiny acoustic transmitters into young fish. Receivers placed along the migratory route pick up transmissions that identify the specific fish. If a little steelhead gets eaten by a seal or a bird, researchers may find themselves tracking the predator until the transmitter is excreted.

The idea for the game came up during a board meeting of Long Live the Kings, Lucas told me. Someone mentioned that it would be intriguing to have a Fantasy Football game for fish with winners and losers, as in the real world of salmon and steelhead. The game is now six months into development.

“We’re trying to tell a story in a way that people can understand,” Lucas said.

People may purchase any number of fish for themselves or gift them to others. Prizes will be awarded in several categories. For details, go to the FAQ page on the game’s website. If your fish dies, you will still get updates on the migration along with other ongoing information.

The game is linked to the Salish Sea Marine Survival Project, an international effort involving more than 60 groups in the U.S. and Canada that are attempting to explain why so few salmon and steelhead grow up to spawn as adults. Among the project’s supporters is the Paul G. Allen Family Foundation. Vulcan Inc., founded by Allen, helped with the design and user interface for the game.

KUOW reporter Ellis O’Neill visited Big Beef Creek on the Kitsap Peninsula to see how the steelhead are implanted with acoustic tags. She also spoke with Seattle attorney Ryan McFarland and his 8-year-old son Dylan, who will be playing the game. Hear her report below, followed by a video story told by reporter Allison Morrow of KING-5 television.

Listen to “2017-04-26-steelhead” on Spreaker.

Hood Canal nominated as Sentinel Landscape with ties to military

Hood Canal and its surrounding watershed have been nominated as a Sentinel Landscape, an exclusive designation that recognizes both the natural resource values and the national defense mission of special areas across the country.

USS Henry M. Jackson, a Trident submarine, moves through Hood Canal in February on a return trip to Naval Base Kitsap – Bangor.
U.S. Navy photo by Lt. Cmdr. Michael Smith

If the designation is approved, it will bolster applications for federal funding to protect and restore important habitats and to maintain working forests in and around Hood Canal. Given the uncertain budget for environmental programs under the Trump administration, it wouldn’t hurt to have the Department of Defense supporting the protection of Hood Canal.

The Sentinel Landscapes Partnership involves the U.S. departments of Agriculture, Defense and Interior. The idea is to coordinate the efforts of all three agencies in locations where their priorities overlap, according to the 2016 Report on Sentinel Landscapes (PDF 5.6 mb).

Continue reading

After environmental restoration, quiet has returned to Port Gamble

Twenty-five years ago, I stood and watched as a screaming buzz saw tossed clouds of sawdust into the air while slicing through thick logs of Douglas fir at the Pope & Talbot sawmill in Port Gamble.

Last week, I walked across the vacant site of the old mill, which was torn down years ago. Along the edge of Port Gamble Bay, I could hear nothing but the sound of the wind and an occasional call of a seagull.

Linda Berry-Maraist, restoration manager for Pope Resources, describes the renewed shoreline along Port Gamble Bay. // Photo: Dunagan

I came back to the old mill site to see how things looked following completion of the $20-million-plus cleanup of Port Gamble Bay. Some 111,000 cubic yards of dredge material is now piled up in the middle of the site, an amount roughly equivalent to 10,000 dumptruck loads.

In addition, nearly 8,600 wooden pilings — most imbedded with creosote — were removed and shipped off for disposal, making it one of the largest piling-removal projects in state history. The final number of pilings removed far exceeded original estimates, largely because buried ones kept turning up during the removal work.

“It’s a huge relief to get this done,” said Jon Rose, vice president of Pope Resources who has overseen a decade of planning and cleanup. “It has been very hard on our staff, hard on the town, hard on our financial statements.

“I think we are on the right side of the mountain,” he added. “Look at how incredible the shore looks.”

Continue reading

Hope is alive for restoration of Puget Sound shellfish beds

Officials in Washington state’s Shellfish Program have identified a clear pathway to meet a state goal of restoring 10,800 net acres of shellfish beds to a harvestable condition by 2020.

The 10,800-acre target, established by the Puget Sound Partnership, was considered overly ambitious by many people when the goal was approved in 2011. Many still believe that the shellfish restoration effort will go down in flames, along with other goals, such as increasing chinook salmon and killer whale populations by 2020.

In reporting on the Shellfish Implementation Strategy, a document still under development, I’ve learned that the goal is within reach if enough of the ongoing recovery efforts around Puget Sound continue to make progress. Please check out my latest stories “Bringing the shellfish back” and “Closing in on the magic number in Samish Bay,” both published in the Encyclopedia of Puget Sound.

Continue reading

Puget Sound and other estuaries are facing the federal chopping block

Federal funding to restore Puget Sound and other large U.S. estuaries would be slashed by more than 90 percent under a preliminary budget proposal coming from President Trump’s administration.

Funding for Puget Sound restoration would be cut by 93 percent, from the current budget of $28 million to just $2 million, according to figures cited by the Portland Oregonian and apparently circulated by the National Association of Clean Air Agencies. Here’s the list.

The Great Lakes, which received a big boost in spending to $300 million in the current biennium, would be hammered down to $10 million. Chesapeake Bay, currently at $73 million, would be reduced to $5 million.

Much of this money goes for habitat protection and restoration, the kind of effort that seems to be kicked to the bottom of the priority list, at least in these early budget figures. The new EPA administrator, Scott Pruitt, appears to be focusing on upgrading water infrastructure, cleaning up toxic sites and reducing air and water pollution, although everything is cut deeply and details remain murky.

Continue reading

Petition seeks to revoke Department of Ecology’s clean-water authority

Citing pollution problems in Puget Sound, an environmental group is asking the Environmental Protection Agency to revoke Washington state’s authority to enforce the federal Clean Water Act.

Northwest Environmental Advocates, based in Portland, says a review of 103 discharge permits issued by the Washington Department of Ecology shows a failure to control nitrogen pollution. Excess nitrogen reduces oxygen levels in the water and triggers algae blooms, resulting in serious problems in Puget Sound, according to a petition submitted to the EPA.

“Ecology determined that over 80 percent of the human sources of nitrogen in Puget Sound comes from cities and towns, but it continues to issue discharge permits as if it were completely ignorant of these facts,” Nina Bell, the group’s executive director, said in a news release.

“It’s just flat out illegal to issue permits that contribute to harmful pollution levels,” she added. “These permits are the walking dead, existing merely to create the impression that the state is doing its job to control water pollution when it is not.”

Continue reading

Seals and sea lions may be undercutting chinook and orca populations

Seals and sea lions can no longer be ignored in the effort to recover our threatened Puget Sound chinook salmon or our endangered killer whales.

A new study shows that seals and sea lions are eating about 1.4 million pounds of Puget Sound chinook each year — about nine times more than they were eating in 1970, according to the report. Please read the story I wrote for the Encyclopedia of Puget Sound, also published in an abridged version in the Kitsap Sun.

Harbor seals rest on the breakwater at Poulsbo Marina. // Photo: Meegan Reid, Kitsap Sun

Seals and sea lions in Puget Sound get the first chance to catch the chinook as they leave the streams and head out to the ocean. Since they are eaten at a very young age, these small chinook, called “smolts,” never grow into adults; they never become available for killer whales or humans.

Based on rough estimates, as many as one in five of these young fish are getting eaten on their way out of Puget Sound. If they were to survive the seals and sea lions and one factors in the remaining mortality rate, these fish could translate into an average of 162,000 adult chinook each year. That’s twice the number eaten by killer whales and roughly six times as many as caught in Puget Sound by tribal, commercial and recreational fishers combined, according to the study.

Continue reading

Federal Action Plan for Puget Sound released as Trump enters office

Two days before Donald Trump became president, the Puget Sound Federal Task Force released a draft of the federal action plan for the recovery of Puget Sound.

Puget Sound from space // Image: NASA

The Trump transition raises uncertainty about the future of this plan, but at least the incoming administration has a document to work with, as described by Steve Kopecky of the White House Council on Environmental Quality. (See Water Ways, Dec. 22.)

Speaking last month before the Puget Sound Partnership’s Leadership Council, Kopecky acknowledged that the plan would go through many changes over time, with or without a new president.

“That being said, the first one is probably the most powerful,” he said. “It is the model that new folks are going to use, so we’re trying to make sure that we have a good solid foundation model before we all collectively go out the door.”

Continue reading