Watching Our Water Ways

It seems like $4.6 million is a lot of money for removing abandoned fishing nets from the waters of Puget Sound. But I bet most people would agree that it would be great to get rid of 90 percent of the nets still submerged and killing marine life.

Twila Dawn Captain Steve Sigo (right) and First Mate Aaron Leschi (left) help diver Jake Johnston suit up for his dive at Apple Tree Cove near Kingston on Thursday, when the crew brought up an abandoned fishing net.
Kitsap Sun photo by Meegan M. Reid

Kitsap Sun reporter Tara Garcia Mathewson was on a boat Thursday, watching divers bring up a net in Apple Tree Cove near Kingston. See the story she wrote for today’s Kitsap Sun as well as a video.

Ray Frederick of Kitsap Poggie Club first informed me about “ghost nets” more than a decade ago. At the time, officials were just becoming aware about how much damage the nets can do. But, when it came to money, it wasn’t a high priority. State officials were reluctant to allow volunteers to do much, in part because they worried about people’s safety, or so they said. There also seemed to be a concern about using robotic equipment to yank up the nets, because it could harm sea life and undersea habitat where the nets were wrapped around rocks.

Now, with federal stimulus dollars, professional divers are on the job with a goal of removing 3,000 nets before the end of next year. If I’ve done the math correctly, we’re talking about a little more than $1,500 for each net.

For perspective on the history, see stories I wrote for the Kitsap Sun in May of 2000 and in June of 2002.

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post 

The “common cold” is not what it used to be — or maybe I’m not what I used to be. Does anybody think our viruses today are more hostile?

In any case, a bout with some kind of respiratory bug has knocked me back about five days. I would call it the flu, except that I didn’t have much of a fever.

So now I find myself with a backlog of news stories that I had planned to discuss with you all. Since time doesn’t stop, there will be more stories tomorrow and the day after that.

So I’ll mention some of the interesting stories from the past week and offer you a chance to comment on any of these things. If something provokes your interest or concern, I’ll be happy to moderate or join the conversation.

Fuel spill at PSNS (Thursday)

Last Thursday, 500 gallons of jet fuel spilled from the USS Abraham Lincoln. Fortunately, the ship had been preboomed, so the spill was contained and did not spread out across the harbor.

I covered the first news story on this spill, and I still have some questions, but I haven’t been back to work long enough to get them answered. For example, I have always been told that you shouldn’t preboom highly volatile liquids, such as gasoline and kerosene, for fear they could catch fire. Has something changed about this idea? (I know one boom was already in place, which is now a standard Navy precaution. But they added another.)

Salmon migration (Sunday)

Sunday’s Kitsap Sun featured my annual story encouraging people to go out and watch chum salmon migrating upstream. As usual, the package included a map of local streams (interactive map for online viewers) and tips for watching the fish without disturbing them.

Wherever you live, you may be interested to know how the runs are shaping up, which I covered in a general way. Chum are doing quite well, but not like the records of the recent past. Pinks were amazing. Coho are coming in large, but their abundance varies by location.

Ueland gravel operation (Monday)

Reporter Derek Sheppard filled in well for me on a story I have been following for a couple of years. I’m talking about the public hearing to decide whether a gravel mine, rock quarry and possible concrete batch plant should be built west of Kitsap Lake. There are a lot of issues involved, including traffic on Northlake Way and water quality and quantity going into Chico Creek. The hearing was continued to Dec. 10, so there will be more discussion.

Gravel zoning in Jefferson County (Tuesday)

The Washington State Court of Appeals agreed that the Jefferson County commissioners acted properly in zoning 690 acres in East Jefferson as a “mineral resources land overlay.” Here’s a question: I had understood that the zoning was a prerequisite to the proposed pit-to-pier project, whether or not the zoning stood by itself. But the appeals court ruling states, “(the) future project is not dependent on the proposed action.” If someone would clarify for me, that would be great.

Brown pelican removed from endangered list (today)

I’m not sure how many people check the “Water, Water Everywhere” list at the top of this blog for stories, research and government actions, but I link to a lot of stuff there that I don’t have time to address in detail. Such was the case today with the nationwide de-listing of the brown pelican. Go to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service news release as well as an L.A. Times story.

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post 

Jay Manning’s last official act as director of the Washington Department of Ecology was to announce that a water right will not be required to collect rainwater from the roof of a building.

It has been a bone of contention among some folks that state water law appears to require a water rights permit for the diversion of “water resources,” which is defined as “all waters above, upon, or beneath the surface of the earth, located within the state and over which the state has sole or concurrent jurisdiction.”

But state water law also gives the director of Ecology broad discretion to write regulations in the public interest.

Ecology specifically recognizes that rainwater harvesting can be a tool to manage stormwater. See Ecology’s paper on this subject.

In a one-page statement (PDF 124 kb), Manning declared:

“The on-site storage and/or beneficial use of rooftop or guzzler collected rainwater is not subject to the permit process of RCW 90.03.”

The statement leaves an avenue for the state if officials encounter a situation in which rainwater harvesting could affect stream flows or someone’s existing rights:

“If and when the department determines that rooftop or guzzler rainwater harvesting systems are likely to negatively affect instream values or existing water rights, local restrictions may be set in place to govern subsequent new systems.”

What conditions will apply to prevent possible abuse?

“To qualify as rooftop collected rainwater, the roof collecting the rainwater must be part of a fixed structure above the ground with a primary purpose other than the collection of rainwater for beneficial use. A guzzler is a device used to catch and store rainwater to provide drinking water for wildlife, livestock or birds.”

The statement includes this note:

“This policy supersedes any previous policy/interpretive statement, focus sheet or other stated Ecology viewpoint with which it may conflict.”

Josh Baldi, special assistant to the director of Ecology, said his agency conducted an analysis to measure the potential effects of the new policy. Because of cost, rainwater is not likely to be collected where it would create a problem, he said at a meeting of the Puget Sound Partnership’s Ecosystem Coordination Board.

“Most of the areas where rainwater collection makes economic sense are places where it also makes environmental sense,” he explained.

See also “Rainwater Collection to Augment Water Supply” and “Rainwater Collection as a Sound Investment.”

The agency is working with state plumbing experts to establish a registration program for large rainwater-harvesting systems. Registration would not be required for rain barrels or other small systems. See “Focus on Rainwater Interpretive Policy” (PDF, 152 kb).

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post 

It is exciting to hear that the millions of dollars spent in cleaning up the waters going into Seattle’s Elliott Bay has made a measurable difference in the health of fish as well as in the sediments themselves. For overall findings, check out the news release from the Washington Department of Ecology.

It is also reassuring to know that money spent on gathering sediments and collecting fish samples has paid off with important results. The report calls for some new monitoring efforts and ways of interpreting data being collected. I believe careful monitoring will continue to collect dividends as researchers figure out what measures work best to clean up our bays.

I don’t want to get carried away here. Elliott Bay is far from clean. A third of the bay still fails to meet state sediment standards, and pollution-tolerant organisms are far more abundant than pollution-sensitive species. We have a long way to go.

Improvements were seen in the concentrations of four metals (lead, mercury, silver and tin), in most polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (petroleum products), in PCBs, in overall toxicity and in the health of benthic communities (organisms that live in the sediments).

Almost no changes were seen in the concentrations of five metals (arsenic, cadmium, chromium, copper and nickel) nor in a few polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons.

Worsening conditions were observed for one metal (zinc), for two polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (acenaphthylene and retene) and for a common plasticizer chemical (Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate4).

The report concludes: “Faced with a growing human population in the Puget Sound area, work is increasingly important to stop pollution at its source, clean up contaminated areas, and monitor the results to make sure our efforts are working.”

I would add that we need to stay on top of emerging pollutants, including flame retardants and new chemicals, to measure their toxicity in the lab and track their presence in the environment.

For those who would like to delve more deeply into this subject, I would recommend a “four-page summary for scientists,” (PDF 1.2 mb) as described by Ecology’s news release.

You may also review:
A two-page “focus sheet for the general public” (PDF 888 kb)
The full report: “Urban Waters Initiative, 2007: Sediment Quality in Elliott Bay” (PDF 5.2 mb)

The various news stories I read did not go much beyond Ecology’s original release.

The next reports from the Urban Waters Initiative will focus on Tacoma’s Commencement Bay, followed by Bremerton’s Sinclair and Dyes inlets. I believe all areas are showing improvement, though it will be interesting to see if anyone can tease out — or even discuss — differences related to dredging and capping versus reduction in pollutant discharges and effects of natural sedimentation.

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post 

What do we really know about the Humboldt squid?

I’ve seen a variety of news stories marveling about the sudden appearance of these jumbo squid off the Washington Coast and Strait of Juan de Fuca. But what surprised me, as I talked to researchers and gathered information, was the lack of solid data about these mysterious creatures. Please check out my story in today’s Kitsap Sun.

We’ll probably see a growing level of research commensurate with the growing numbers of squid. I think any biologist, or most layman for that matter, feel a natural curiosity for this highly energetic animal that is so different from the marine species we are used to seeing in Washington waters.

If nothing else, you’ve got to wonder how a species closely related to shellfish can grow to 100 pounds within two or three years. And you’ve got to question whether these squid might do serious damage to the local ecosystem before their prey runs out.

An interesting radio program, recorded three years ago, features two of the leading West Coast researchers in squid science, William Gilly of Hopkins Marine Station at Stanford University and Ken Baltz of NOAA Fisheries. Jennifer Stock, education coordinator for Cordell Bank National Marine Sanctuary, conducted the interview for KWMR community radio in Point Reyes Station, Calif.

The Humboldt squid has been in Washington waters before. Some showed up last year, though greater numbers were seen in 2004. Since they only live two or three years, we are bound to see a good number of them washing up on shore when thousands have been swimming offshore.

I almost forgot to mention that Kitsap Sun reporter Chris Henry and her husband Mike had a personal encounter with a squid in the Strait of Juan de Fuca. Check out the story on her blog Speaking of South Kitsap.

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post 

Tony Angell, author, artist and longtime observer of Puget Sound, will make appearances around the region over the next few weeks. The occasion is his new book, titled “Puget Sound Through an Artist’s Eye.”

Pond turtle: Recent work by Tony Angell

Mike Sato of People for Puget Sound asked Angell to answer some questions about his new book and to describe his observations about changes he has seen over the past 50 years.

I thought Angell’s comments about how an individual can make a difference are worth repeating:

It’s one thing to expect to pull a trout or salmon out of one of our rivers and it’s something else to roll up your sleeves and clean up the banks and spawning beds of that river or stream system so it becomes hospitable to these fish.
You can check off a white winged scoter from your life list of birds to see, but it requires something else to take time to understand what species like this need to remain on our waters as wintering birds.
We might wish to dedicate acres of intertidal habitat to the birds’ welfare, along with other invertebrates, that might even include leaving some clams for the ducks. The possibilities, I think, are endless and the long-term benefits immeasurable.

Here’s the schedule for folks who would like to meet Angell and hear him read from his new book. Appearances begin at 7 p.m., except for the Seattle Public Library at 2 p.m.

Tuesday, Sept. 22: Traditions Café, 300 Fifth Ave. SW, Olympia
Thursday, Sept. 24: Islandwood, 4450 Blakely Ave. NE, Bainbridge Island
Tuesday, Sept. 29: Bellingham Library, 210 Central Ave., Bellingham
Sunday, Oct. 18: Seattle Public Library, 1000 Fourth Ave., Seattle
Thursday, Oct. 22: Port Townsend Marine Science Center, 200 Battery Way, Port Townsend

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post 

Tides can help to flush a river the way the tank on your toilet helps to flush the bowl.

That’s not a very appetizing analogy when it comes to Quilcene Bay, which is famous for its oysters. But we’re not talking about pollution here; we’re talking about the need to flush sediments that have been clogging the Biq Quilcene and Little Quilcene rivers for decades.

When biologist Randy Johnson offered this toilet analogy, it just seemed to click for me. So I used it in a story I wrote for yesterday’s Kitsap Sun about the extensive work taking place in the Little Quilcene estuary. I tried to explain how the removal of the “delta cone” at the mouth of the Little Quilcene is one step in the restoration of critical salmon habitat throughout Quilcene Bay.

A list of restoration projects in the bay, compiled by Richard Brocksmith of the Hood Canal Coordinating Council, gives you an idea about how much work has been going on or is being planned.

While several groups are involved in the Quilcene effort, the Hood Canal Salmon Enhancement Group has led the way. This group is unique among the 14 fisheries enhancement groups for the variety of efforts it has undertaken throughout Hood Canal. Check out the left margin of the story for an abbreviated history of the HCSEG.

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post 

I’d like to offer my personal congratulations to Phil Anderson, who was appointed yesterday as the permanent director of the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife.

Phil Anderson

Phil has been acting as interim director since Jeff Koenings left the job in December.

I’ve known Phil since about 1992, when I began covering the annual meetings of the Pacific Fishery Management Council, which establishes fishing seasons for the Pacific Northwest.

Phil had been running a commercial charterboat business out of Westport and was very knowledgeable about harvest levels and the need to protect salmon. I believe he was chairman of the PFMC when I first met him.

In 1994, he took a job with WDFW and led the annual negotiations that establish allocations between tribal and nontribal fishers, as well as among various non-Indian fishing groups.

I recall numerous times when he stood in front of tough fishing groups and skeptical tribal representatives and explained calmly how answers would come if people followed the science and kept working together.

Phil has always been willing to explain complex management issues to me, and I’m grateful for that.

Even when he finds himself under fire — as he did recently in dealing with the proposed Lake Tahuyeh boat launch and human waste on the Skokomish River — Anderson does not shy away from tough questions and takes responsibility for departmental actions. It’s a pleasure to interview leaders like that.

So I wish him well in his new job, which seems to be one of the hottest seats in state government. Pleasing all the fish and wildlife interests and the Legislature is impossible, almost by definition, but Phil has a rare quality of juggling many concerns at once and trying to come up with fair solutions.

For more details about his background, comments from the Fish and Wildlife Commission and job issues, check out the commission’s news release. See also a story today by Jeffrey P. Mayor in The News Tribune.

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post 

Hood Canal’s low-oxygen problems are greatest in Lower Hood Canal between Belfair and Hoodsport — and that’s where experts will focus their primary attention as they consider potential solutions.

As I describe in a story in today’s Kitsap Sun, computer models suggest that removing three-quarters of the human-introduced nitrogen may be required to remove Hood Canal from the state’s list of impaired water bodies.

How to remove that much nitrogen remains one of the toughest problems to answer. The model’s predictive abilities contains a degree of uncertainty even at a large scale. It cannot tell us how much nitrogen is being released from a specific home or group of homes.

It’s safe to say that different houses release different amounts of nitrogen, depending on the occupants and the setup of the septic system. For some waterfront homes, the drainfield is located behind a bulkhead, and a pulse of nitrogen-laden sewage goes out with every high tide. Other homes have drainfields in upland areas away from Hood Canal, where vegetation may take up a portion of the nitrogen.

Will fixing waterfront homes be enough? What about septic systems farther from the water? Does anybody still believe that every new home in the Hood Canal region — from Hansville south — should be equipped with a nitrogen-removing system?

What about other sources of nitrogen? Will some or all residents be asked to quit using lawn fertilizers? Can we do something about people who refuse to clean up their pet waste? Are there innovative ways to get nitrogen or plankton out of the water before problems erupt?

A wide-ranging group of scientists and other experts yesterday just touched the surface of the possibilities, and my story only touched on their discussions. The next step will be a presentation before the Hood Canal Coordinating Council, followed by more detailed considerations among subcommittees of the technical review group.

Three years of studies have answered a lot of questions about Hood Canal’s dissolved oxygen levels, but there remains a great deal of uncertainty about which steps will yield the best results.

I’m anticipating debates about whether we have enough information to act. But people need to realize that getting precise answers about an idea may take more time and cost more money than just doing it.

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post 

Please check out the poll in the right column.

Should a public boat launch for small, nonmotorized boats be built at Lake Tahuyeh? This question has turned into a political tug of war. See my story in today’s Kitsap Sun.

On one side are local fishing organizations and state Sen. Phil Rockefeller, D-Bainbridge Island, who were able to get the Legislature to approve $240,000 for the boat launch.

On the other side are lake residents and state Sen. Tim Sheldon, D-Potlatch, who say it is a private lake and the public should not be allowed to use the lake.

Legal issues about whether the public has a right to use the lake or whether private property owners can block public access may be resolved in court. Leaving aside those legal issues, let me list the pros and cons of public access from a moral and practical perspective. If I’m leaving something out, let me know. Then please express your opinion in the poll at right.

In favor of a public boat launch:

1. The original developer of Lake Tahuyeh wanted to allow public access for fishing and boating. That’s why he deeded property to the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife before the lake was created.

2. The water that flows through the lake and the fish that swim in the lake belong to the state. Residents are allowed to keep people off their private property, but the public should be allowed to float across the water.

3. Property owners on many lakes have blocked off access to lakes where they once allowed the public to go. The state should develop more access points to serve a growing population.

4. The Legislature approved the money to build the boat launch, which should determine state policy on the subject.

Against a public boat launch:

1. Given the limited size of the Lake Tahuyeh access, the state’s money would be better spent on a larger facility at a larger lake.

2. The public will not take care of Lake Tahuyeh the way local residents do. They will not abide by rules established by the residents.

3. The lake cannot support a large number of people, and the seven parking spaces may not really limit the number of visitors to the lake.

4. The public has never paid for maintenance of the lake, including reconstruction of the dam that impounds the water. Residents have paid all the costs through the years.

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post