UPDATE, Oct, 25
Former Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife director Jeff Koenings testified in the federal culvert trial on Friday. See AP reporter Tim Klass’s story in the Kitsap Sun. Koenings told the court that diverting state dollars for culvert repair and replacement could harm salmon if it means less money for higher-priority salmon-restoration projects.
—————

I was beginning to wonder if I was the only environmental reporter who recognized the significance of a lawsuit involving Indian treaty rights and state culverts. I wrote about the case for the Kitsap Sun in March, after it appeared negotiations had broken down.

The outcome of the case could well determine how much power the courts hold over state budgets when it comes to the enforcement of Indian treaty rights.

After all, from the tribes’ perspective, the state has been dragging its feet in restoring salmon habitat — including the replacement of culverts that block the passage of salmon. On the other hand, the courts could force the state to spend money that it doesn’t have, or else shift dollars from education, social programs, law enforcement, even other environmental initiatives. That is why I think this is such an important precedent-setting case.

The issue is now in trial, having started in U.S. District Court last week. Reporter Craig Welch does a nice job of putting the issue into historical perspective in today’s Seattle Times.

I was on vacation when the trial started, so we referred the story to the Associated Press. AP reporter Tim Klass has done a good job of following the trial. See his first story in the Oct 13 Kitsap Sun and a follow-up in today’s paper.

If I hear the tribal attorneys correctly, they are looking to fix the major blocking culverts under state jurisdiction within 20 years, rather than the 50-60 years under the state’s current schedule.

If this case succeeds, the next logical step would be to go after counties — which may have hundreds of culverts that need attention. Other habitat issues also would be on the table. Anybody want the courts to set stream and shoreline buffers?

I suppose we’ll have plenty of time to talk about the implications once the decision is handed down. And there will be appeals, of course. No matter the final outcome, this case will have repercussions for decades to come.

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 

A “strengthened plan” to restore salmon runs on the Columbia River opens the door, for the first time, to the idea of breaching dams on the Snake River.

But neither side in the contentious debate believes the administration has taken the correct approach.

The Adaptive Management Implementation Plan would call for dam-breaching only if “more aggressive” measures fail to reverse declines in salmon populations, according to a news release issued this morning by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

The plan responds to a letter from federal District Judge James A. Redden, who said a biological opinion issued by the federal government would not restore Columbia River salmon runs, as required by the Endangered Species Act.

“The time has come to move out of the courtroom and get to work recovering salmon and preserving the region’s unique way-of-life,” said Commerce Secretary Gary Locke. “This biological opinion, backed by sound science and tremendous state and tribal support, will help preserve the vibrancy and vitality of the Columbia and Snake River basins for generations to come.”

Supporters of dam removal blasted the plan, saying it continues a flawed policy. See the news release from a coalition of groups.

Here’s what Zeke Grader, executive director of Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen’s Associations, had to say:

“This was a test for Commerce Secretary Gary Locke — on both economics and science — and this plan failed on both accounts. This decision will no doubt leave salmon in the perilous decline they have been in for years and communities up and down the coast and inland to Idaho will continue to suffer. For an administration so set on protecting and restoring jobs, this decision is a huge mistake and a clear signal to fishermen that their jobs don’t count.”

From Bill Arthur, deputy national field director for the Sierra Club:

“Although the Bush administration is gone, unfortunately it looks like its policies will live on for Columbia-Snake salmon. It’s a bit like the Night of the Living Dead; we keep fighting these failed and illegal salmon plans, but they continue to spring back to life… It’s now time for the Judge to bury this plan for good, and provide a fresh opportunity to get it right for the people, communities and magnificent salmon and steelhead of the Northwest.”

In a news release, U.S. Rep. Doc Hastings, R-Pasco, attacked the Obama administration for opening the door to dam removal, even a crack:

“The Obama Administration has put dam removal back on the table and delivered just what dam removal extremists have been demanding. No one should be fooled by talk of dam removal as a last resort when the Obama Administration is immediately launching studies and plans for such action.

“The extremists who brought this lawsuit may be critical about this plan because dam removal wasn’t delivered on a silver platter with promises of wrecking balls arriving next week, but they got what they wanted from the Obama Administration and they’ll try and convince Judge Redden to give them even more…

“I warned the Obama Administration that opening the door to dam removal even just a crack would incite dam removal extremists to keep fighting and divert time, attention and resources away from real solutions to recover salmon.”

Terry Flores, executive director of a user coalition called Northwest RiverPartners:

“This plan – while expensive – holds the most promise for the region to move forward collectively to do things that actually benefit fish… We support restoring wild salmon runs, and experience shows that dams and fish are co-existing, but this is an unprecedented cost people are being asked to bear in extremely tough economic times”

To view documents filed with the court today, visit the Federal Caucus Web site.

NEWS STORIES
Rocky Barker, Idaho Statesman
William McCall, Associated Press
William Yardley, New York Times
Editorial Board, The Oregonian
Matthew Preusch, The Oregonian
Kim Murphy, Los Angeles Times
Editorial Board, Yakima Herald-Republic
Kevin Richert, Idaho Statesman
Erik Robinson, The Columbian, Vancouver
Matthew Preusch, The Oregonian
Tom Banse, NPR, KUOW
Steve Scher, KUOW

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 

UPDATE #2, Oct. 20
Kitsap County commissioners have decided to appeal the latest court ruling to the Washington State Supreme Court. See the story I wrote for the Oct. 20 Kitsap Sun.

UPDATE, Sept. 25
Kitsap County commissioners have decided to ask the court to reconsider its ruling that would invalidate the county’s Critical Areas Ordinance when it comes to shorelines. See the story I wrote for today’s Kitsap Sun. I will have more details as they become available.
——-

While Kitsap County officials gear up to rewrite the county’s Shoreline Management Master Program, they have been handed a hot potato they cannot ignore.

As I describe in a story in today’s Kitsap Sun, the Washington State Court of Appeals has thrown out the county’s shoreline buffers written into law when the county commissioners updated the Critical Areas Ordinance.

Property-rights advocates feel vindicated, and rightfully so. They have spent their own money — more than $100,000 — to fight a county they feel should be standing up for their rights. (See Karl Duff’s column from Feb. 25.) Meanwhile, the county uses public money to fight them back. Victory is sweet for the winners, but it comes at a price.

I hate to say it, but that’s the way things go. When environmental advocates win, they also wonder why they have wasted money battling the government. And if you are a government official, you try not to lose to either side — which is not easy in a case like this, because both sides were suing them at the same time.

Supporters of property rights have many grievances, and they have a right to speak up. But this week’s court decision must be kept in perspective.

Did the county commissioners violate private property rights when they increased shoreline buffers? Did they rely on the wrong scientific studies? Did they mistakenly apply uniform buffers when they should have considered the ecological value of each shoreline segment?

Maybe, maybe not. But the court never got to those questions. Let me recount the history.

Four years ago, when the county was updating its Critical Areas Ordinance (see Title 19), the commissioners essentially decided to leave 35-foot shoreline buffers in place until they updated the Shoreline Management Master Program (see Title 22). At that time, they thought the update would be just a year or two away.

The Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings Board ruled that the commissioners could not follow that course of action, because such buffers would not adequately protect habitat for salmon, some of which are listed under the Endangered Species Act.

So the commissioners went back to the drawing board and approved new shoreline buffers of 50 feet for urban areas and 100 feet for rural and semi-rural areas. They said the buffers would get closer scrutiny and might even be reduced during the shorelines plan update.

Those buffers were challenged on multiple grounds by the Kitsap Alliance of Property Owners. KAPO’s arguments were rejected by the hearings board (which was not allowed to address constitutional issues) and by Superior Court Judge Craddock D. Verser, who ruled that the county had followed “a reasoned process to address the necessity of protecting the identified functions and values” of critical areas. See my story of July 2, 2008.

That was before the State Supreme Court handed down a decision that interpreted the intertwined Growth Management Act and Shorelines Management Act as saying shorelines rules can be changed only by amending the county’s shorelines plan. See my story from Aug. 1, 2008.

And that was the controlling factor in this week’s decision. The county commissioners — and KAPO — were right the first time when they tried to delay any significant action on shoreline buffers. The appeals court acknowledged the confusion created for cities and counties by the Legislature and the State Supreme Court. You can review the comments in my story today or read the Appeals Court opinion for yourself.

Why does it matter whether the buffers are approved under one law or another? Besides the legal process, it is important to understand that the laws are distinct in their philosophies and procedures.

(more…)

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post 

UPDATE, Thursday, Sept. 10: Kitsap County has sent out a press release about the shoreline planning effort.

Kitsap County’s shoreline planning effort will move into full swing during the second half of this month. That’s when county officials will hold a series of meetings to share information with representatives from more than 100 organizations.

The importance of this process is not being overlooked by county planners, who realize that the outcome must protect the environment and property rights at the same time.

A letter is scheduled to go out next week to various groups, including civic clubs, community and neighborhood groups, chambers of commerce, environmental organizations, property rights groups, land conservancies, news media, yacht clubs, environmental restoration and recreational organizations, economic associations, and environmental and science educators.

Also included are various cities, tribes, county agencies, water districts, port districts, school districts and colleges.

Those who attend any of the five meetings will learn about state requirements as well as county plans for updating the Kitsap County Shoreline Management Master Program. Those who wish to participate in detailed work on the plan may be asked to join an advisory group, which will provide opinions on various proposals for the next two to three years.

The county commissioners recently approved a 25-page contract with the Washington Department of Ecology. Download the contract from the Kitsap County commissioners agenda (PDF 72 kb). The $650,000 contract outlines in detail what the county will be required to do over the next three years.

The work is organized into five phases
Phase 1: Preliminary assessment of shoreline jurisdiction and public participation plan.
Phase 2: Shoreline inventory, analysis and characterization.
Phase 3: Draft of shoreline management plan and cumulative impacts analysis.
Phase 4: Restoration planning and revisiting Phase 3 as needed.
Phase 5: Adoption process.

The vision developed by the planners includes these goals:

• Comply with legislative mandates including requirements for no net loss of shoreline ecological functions and values.
• Protect private individual property rights consistent with the public interest.
• Create a shoreline stewardship program that fosters reasonable and appropriate shoreline uses while protecting valuable and fragile natural resources.
• Engage a wide variety of stakeholders, citizens and interests in developing goals and policies.
• Integrate and support County development plans, policies, and regulations.
• Ensure predictability, accountability, and efficiency during shoreline development review and decision making.
• Have a strong scientific basis.

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post 

A loss in firefighting capability has been a gain for local stream restoration.

Inmates at Belfair’s Mission Creek Corrections Center for Women have been helping the Hood Canal Salmon Enhancement Group restore local streams, including the Union River. See the story in yesterday’s Kitsap Sun by reporter Josh Farley.

“One day with a crew of eight can do so much,” Julie Easton, volunteer coordinator for the enhancement group, was quoted as saying.

One of their efforts is to eradicate invasive weeds, including knotweed which can clog the streams and create serious problems for fish.

While the women help the environment, they also are learning skills that could aid them when they get out of prison. For one thing, they could qualify for a license that allows them to handle pesticides.

Personally, I wouldn’t be surprised if they were to become involved in planting native vegetation, counting salmon and other hands-on projects in the Hood Canal region.

One inmate crew remains in training to fight wildfires, if needed, although the Washington Department of Natural Resources has cut back its support for the program.

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post 

If you haven’t heard, the famous Fraser River sockeye run in southern British Columbia is turning out to be a disaster this year.

The low run has implications for all kinds of fishermen on both sides of the border.

I asked Tim Tynan of the National Marine Fisheries Service about this. It truly is bad, said Tim, who works with the Pacific Salmon Commission as the U.S. representative on the Fraser Panel. That international panel manages the U.S. and Canadian fisheries for sockeye and pink salmon.

Conditions were looking good early in the year, when the PSC staff forecast 10.5 million sockeye for the entire Fraser River run. Of that, about 8.7 million was expected to come from the “summer run.”

Based on current conditions, the estimate last week was reduced to only 600,000 for the summer run, which has put fisheries on hold.

It is quite a mystery why this has happened. Numbers were looking very good up until the young smolts took off into ocean waters in the spring and summer of 2007. After that, something happened, because the expected number of adults resulting from those smolts has yet to show up. Check out the latest PSC press release.

According to Tim, there remains a slim hope that some of these missing fish will still show up, since a large number of their parents came into the river two to three weeks late during the summer of 2005. But it takes a cockeyed optimist to believe that returns yet to come will turn around the disastrous year we are having.

From recent news reports:

“There’s going to be no fishery unless there’s a miracle, unless they’re real, real late.” — Merle Jefferson, natural resources director for Lummi Nation, in a story by John Stark of the Bellingham Herald.

“You know what, we’ve made Mother Nature sick and that sickness is manifesting itself in these poor returns of salmon. It’s a crisis.” — Grand Chief Doug Kelly, chair of the B.C. First Nations Fisheries Council, in a story by Mark Hume of the Toronto Globe and Mail.

Look for problems affecting juvenile sockeye in the Strait of Georgia, where the young fish spend the early, critical part of their lives. “The place to start looking is close to home.” — Brian Riddell, executive director of the Pacific Salmon Foundation, in a story by Scott Simpson of the Vancouver Sun

“The elders have been telling me for a long time that over-fishing while the sockeye are at sea and are mixed in with other species being caught is gradually extracting the genetically stronger fish among the sockeye from the returning runs, and this has been happening for the past 100 years.” — Sto:lo fisheries adviser Ernie Crey in a column by Brian Lewis in The Province
(more…)

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post 

Environmental organizations were celebrating tonight after a federal judge blocked work on Glacier Northwest’s controversial gravel-mining operation on Maury Island.

U.S. District Judge Ricardo Martinez ruled that no more work can be done on a loading dock until the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers prepares a full-blown environmental impact statement. The Corps also must “consult” with other agencies about harm that the project could cause to threatened and endangered species.

Shortly after Martinez issued his ruling, I received an e-mailed statement from state Public Lands Commissioner Peter Goldmark, who oversees a state lease for the gravel-mining operation.

“Due to the ruling in federal court today, the lease NW Aggregates has with the Washington State Department of Natural Resources is no longer in good standing,” Goldmark said.

“It is imperative that we protect Puget Sound. The judge recognized there are potential impacts from this project on threatened and endangered species, like orca and salmon. The ruling cites many of the same issues that we have raised in recent months.”

The court ruling, combined with Goldmark’s express position, creates a significant hurdle for Glacier Northwest to overcome.

“Obviously, we’re disappointed,” Pete Stoltz, Glacier Northwest’s permit coordinator, told the Associated Press. “We participated in the entire process, provided all the information required.

“We’re hopeful that the process could happen expeditiously,” he said, adding that the company will cooperate fully with federal environmental reviews.

The case was brought by plaintiffs Preserve Our Islands, People for Puget Sound and Washington Environmental Council.

You may wish to read Martinez’s entire order (PDF 96 kb) for yourself, but I’ll try to summarize it here:
(more…)

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post