A coho salmon tries to leap into a culvert against the rushing water in a stream above Wildcat Lake Kitsap Sun photo by Meegan M. Reid

It is easy to come up with an answer when we’ve had hardly any rain. The streams are running low; salmon are ready to swim upstream; and fish in the stream are obviously struggling through shallow water. We’ve seen this kind of condition in early fall during many recent years.

When can we say we’ve had enough rain? Well, certainly when a wide variety of streams and rivers are flooding over their banks. But because of the complexity of natural systems, there may never be a “just right” level for salmon.

I was up above Wildcat Lake in Central Kitsap yesterday, discussing the conditions with Jon Oleyar, a biologist for the Suquamish Tribe. Thanks to recent rains, coho salmon are well distributed throughout the Chico Creek watershed, which includes Wildcat Lake.

Jon was excited to find coho far up in streams where he has rarely if ever seen them. The bad news was, for the stream we were watching, the fish seemed to be blocked by a perched culvert where water was gushing out — a culvert that kept the fish from reaching a beautiful stream with overhanging vegetation and plenty of spawning gravel.

Apparently, few fish have made it upstream of this culvert, Oleyar said, because he has never seen a dead salmon on the other side of the road. And while it was exciting to see large salmon get this far upstream, it was disappointing to find their path blocked.

“I had a smile on my face until I realized they couldn’t get through,” Jon told me, and I quoted him in a story I wrote for today’s Kitsap Sun.

For these coho, heavy rains of the past few days have brought them to new habitat. Yet the flows through the pipe have kept them from going any farther. I will watch as the flows drop over time to see if there is a level that allows them to swim through — although they will need to leap up into the culvert to do so.

Meanwhile, the main channel of Chico Creek, five miles downstream, was flowing high and fast, although it wasn’t flooding. I’m not sure if this is good or bad.

Rocks and log weirs, which can be obstacles at low flow, were now submerged, presenting no obstacle at all. On the other hand, resting pools were gone, and salmon were fighting the current and probably using up their energy. Was the flow high enough to wash salmon eggs out of the gravel? I don’t have a clue.

It is easy to see why biologists talk about the value of “structure” in the streams. Fallen trees normally don’t block the entire stream. Even when they do, it is just a short time before the force of the water creates openings for salmon to swim through. Beneficiallly, extensive “structure” creates pools for salmon to rest and hide, no matter how high the flows may be.

The answer to the question of “too much or too little rain?” seems to vary from stream to stream and even upstream and downstream in the same watershed. It is interesting to observe a stream over time to see how streamflows respond to various rates of rainfall and how salmon respond to various rates of flow.

For Kitsap County residents, we have produced an interactive map on the Kitsap Sun Web site that shows where one may look for salmon. Not all the locations have salmon at the same time, but it may be worth a look.

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post 

These two words have been spinning around in my brain since I attended a conference on water resources a couple of days ago. Check out my story in today’s Kitsap Sun.

Western Washington may not experience an overall water shortage as a result of climate change the way some regions will, according to climatologists. But our rains, on average, are likely to come in heavier downpours. To me, that means we will have our hands full trying to reduce the frequency of flooding, which affects natural systems as well as man-made ones.

In areas of the country that become drier, water could become scarce and the price of water is likely to go up. We’ve seen an ongoing drought in the Southwest. While it could be a just temporary trend, the situation calls for better water management and makes people nervous about the future. Click here to see an animation of changing conditions over the past 12 weeks.

A speaker at the conference, Michael Read of the Water Environment Federation, predicted that the Northwest will attract population from the Southwest as climate change continues. Winners and losers?

It may not be a question of whether we want the extra people. It may be more about whether we can manage the population growth with the least disruption to our ecosystem. Will we find ways to work with the coming changes in climate — or not? Will we be winners or losers?

If water gives our region a competitive edge, maybe we could attract industry looking to move away from more arid regions. That could help stabilize our economy, which seems to be a perpetual goal of many people. Winners and losers?

If climatologists are right, many species in the Northwest will struggle to adapt to the changing conditions. Some will survive and some will go extinct. Winners and losers.

I am not discounting efforts to reduce greenhouse gases and possibly avert some of the more dire consequences of climate change. But a growing effort is looking into how humans and animals may adapt to whatever changes will come.

While experts study adaptation, I don’t believe the concept has entered our general consciousness, let alone our actions. Perhaps waiting to see what happens is the prudent thing to do. After all, how do we plan for something uncertain?

On the other hand, maybe it would be wiser to begin considering the range of futures we could face within a few short decades. How do we become winners instead of losers?

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post 

It seems a lot of experts are surprised that we have reached this level of low oxygen, considering that we were seeing near-record high oxygen levels earlier this year. See a story I wrote in August.

Although we have had low-oxygen problems in Hood Canal for years, monitoring buoys installed a few years ago now allow us to see what is happening at the moment and to describe the conditions in some detail.

In 2006, for the first time, scientists were able to show the factors leading up to a fish kill. Until then, it was only reasoned speculation. What may be equally troubling, however, is the level of stress that sea creatures are coming under before and after a fish kill — or if none occurs at all.

I didn’t mention it in my story, but oxygen levels at Twanoh and probably up toward Belfair are even lower than at Hoodsport. Lower Hood Canal is an area where the oxygen is so chronically depleted that fluffy mats of bacteria can be seen growing on the bottom at times when no other life can survive.

I feel that I need to express my disappointment with some of the comments posted to my story. To write this piece, I took note of the monitoring buoys; I pulled together observations of divers and others; and I even informed a few officials about the conditions that were developing.

I told this story straight, basing it on facts and observations that I gathered. Yet some people apparently chose to believe that my writing had something to do with taxation, government control, funding for Puget Sound Partnership, another costly study or hysterical tactics by environmental wackos.

I suppose I should be used to cynical comments by now, and I am glad that one person took the time to say he was pleased that I was “telling it like it is.” I just thought people would like to know of the dire conditions facing sealife in southern Hood Canal and what might occur if a south wind blows.

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post 

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 

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 

That’s the message I received during my reporting for a story in today’s Kitsap Sun.

For the “water year” ending Sept. 30, Kitsap Public Utility District is reporting record-low or near-record-low rainfalls throughout Kitsap County. Aquifer levels are approaching 20- to 30-year lows.

We’ve been in this position before — probably many times throughout history, though we have never had the tools to measure it until recent years. After a bit of a scare in the early 1990s, local water officials implemented a monitoring program that allows us to be more aware of our water conditions. Water utilities and local governments have become more nimble in responding to potential problems. Conservation has reduced per-capita water consumption — though not as much as could be achieved in a crisis.

As I write this, a rainfall map we produced for the newspaper has not been posted online. I’ll try to get that attached to the online version of the story and will post it here as well.

My personal conclusion is that we should be a little nervous about our water supplies, but we should understand that we have the ability to respond. However one feels about development, it appears we have room for growth in most areas of the county — provided we manage our water carefully as circumstances develop.

In the end, it is all about the rainfall.

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post 

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 

The film, produced last year by the WPSU-TV, is scheduled to be shown on BKAT, Kitsap County’s community access channel. It is currently scheduled to be shown on four different days beginning Sept. 30.

Kitsap County has set up a special page to comment on the film and local water infrastructure.

Here’s what Charlotte says about the film in a written statement:

“We’re very pleased to be able to present this award-winning documentary on local cable television in Kitsap County. It tells the story of essential infrastructure systems: drinking water, wastewater, and stormwater and provides a catalyst for ongoing discussions about local water infrastructure and other important civic issues. I hope you’ll watch and then help develop solutions that protect our water resources.”

She also said this in a statement:

“We are facing some very difficult decisions on how to protect and maintain infrastructure in Kitsap County. We’re interested in hearing thoughts and ideas from local residents as we continue the long-range planning to ensure viable water resources in the future.”

A four-minute trailer for the film can be viewed above at right. If you’d like to share a comment about water issues with county officials, click here, and feel free to share your thoughts on this blog as well.

To read more about the film, visit the “Liquid Assets” Web site set up by Pennsylvania State University, the home of WPSU.

The film was shown last fall on Seattle’s public television station KCTS, so some of you may have seen it then. Here the schedule for BKAT (Channel 12 on Comcast and Channel 3 on Wave Cable).

• Wednesday, Sept. 30, 10 a.m.
• Saturday, Oct. 3, 11 a.m.
• Friday, Oct. 9, 3:30 p.m.
• Monday, Oct. 12, 10 p.m.

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post 

Given the complex issues we often discuss on this blog, the message seems too simple, almost childlike, conveying not much more than a slogan with a few pictures.

But maybe that’s exactly what we need to reach the broadest public.

Paul Bergman, communications director for Puget Sound Partnership, acknowledged that the message was carefully honed to fit a 15- or 30-second television spot. If the commercials raise people’s curiosity, they may visit the new Web site, “Puget Sound Starts Here.”

I briefly describe the new campaign in a story in today’s Kitsap Sun.

If you have a minute, take a look at the commercials I’ve embedded on this page and tell me if you believe they might encourage your friends and neighbors to change their behaviors — or at least think about them.

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post 

The proposal continues through the permitting process in Jefferson County, where an environmental impact statement is being drafted for the project.

Athabasca Minerals, Inc., will put up $3 million and gain a 25 percent interest in Thorndyke Resource, which was created by the Fred Hill family to own and operate the pit-to-pier project. See the story we posted on the Kitsap Sun’s Web site this morning.

Completion of the partnership between Thorndyke Resource and Athabasca is subject to regulatory approval in Canada, approval by Athabasca’s board of directors, verification of the gravel resource and other conditions.

To read more, check out the news release from Athabasca, a company traded on the Toronto Stock Exchange, and the one released by officials associated with Fred Hill Materials (PDF 44 kb).

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post