A group of property owners on Hood Head in northern Hood Canal say they have joined forces to lease a nearby beach from the Washington Department of Natural Resources — mainly because they didn’t want to see what a typical commercial geoduck farm might do to the beach near their part-time homes.

The DNR never went through with the lease, instead imposing a moratorium on geoduck farms on state land until more research could be done regarding the environmental effects. For information, including a report to the Legislature on geoduck farming, see the Department of Ecology’s page about the Shellfish Aquaculture Regulatory Committee.

But the Hood Head owners, having spent money on various kinds of beach surveys, are still pursuing a permit from the Army Corps of Engineers (PDF 5.8 mb) in case the lease goes forward in the future.

I outlined their ideas in a story published in today’s Kitsap Sun. Bruce Olsen, whose name is on the application, said he is convinced that using plastic mesh tubes to protect the geoducks will be less environmentally damaging than plastic pipes used on other geoduck farms.

I did not include in my story any comments from those who are opposing geoduck farms in other areas — mainly because the folks I talked to were unaware of the tubes that I described. Still, I can tell you that some people are skeptical of any operation in which one species would dominate a beach.

Would that be the result if geoducks were grown a foot apart on Hood Head? And would the disruption of the beach during harvest activities be an acceptable price to pay for economic returns on the giant clams, which fetch a considerable amount of money on the international market?

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post 

We’re getting reports from all over Hood Canal as well as other waterways about plankton blooms that are coloring the water red, reddish orange and other dramatic colors. See the story in today’s Kitsap Sun.

Plankton bloom near Seabeck on Hood Canal yesterday (Click to enlarge)
Photo by Don Paulson, Seabeck

Health authorities and researchers are checking to make sure the plankton are not the kind that create toxins that can poison people, pets or sea creatures. So far, reports indicate that most of the plankton belong to the genus Noctiluca, which don’t appear to cause a safety problem.

I’ve heard some great descriptions regarding “ribbons” of color lining the shore in various places. Folks often have trouble capturing the visual drama in a photograph. A rare exception is a picture we received today from Don Paulson of Don Paulson Photography. Paulson says he captured this picture yesterday at his home near Seabeck.

If anyone else has been able to get a good image, please send it along to me by e-mail, and I’ll post the best.

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post 

UPDATE, June 5, 2009:
A Victoria Times-Colonist editorial raises several key questions about the sewer plans and says the government should not rush into the project.

———————

The Bainbridge Island sewage spill, estimated at 140,000 gallons, was blamed on a break in a 32-year-old pipe buried in the beach and subject to saltwater corrosion.

Before final repairs, a temporary band slowed the flow of sewage
Kitsap Sun photo by Tristan Baurick

While Bainbridge Island cleaned up its sewage today, the city of Victoria — which has been dumping raw sewage into the Strait of Juan de Fuca for decades — took steps to clean up its mess as well. Regional officials took action on a plan to build a series of four sewage-treatment plants at a cost of $1.2 billion. Progress, yes, but work is still years away. More about that in a moment.

Damage to the environment in and around Bainbridge Island’s Eagle Harbor is expected to be temporary, according to Larry Altose, spokesman for the Washington Department of Ecology, who was quoted in a Kitsap Sun story by Tristan Baurick.

“As awful as a sewer release sounds, the impact of this size of spill is short-term,” Altose said, noting that sunlight and other organisms will quickly kill or eat most of the sewage contaminants within days.

Ecology could fine the city up to $10,000 a day for the spill. The city’s response and track record with maintenance can be considered.

“We can fine, but that’s not the point,” Altose said. “The point is to have lessons learned and have the proper steps for prevention.”

One lesson that everyone has been learning over the past few years is that sewer lines buried in the beach are trouble. We all know why they were installed there in the first place — because it is cheaper to build in the beach than to clear a route through trees and across ravines in the uplands.

Sewer lines in the beach are a problem that many cities must face, and they should be inspecting buried pipes on a regular schedule. We’ll see what Ecology’s investigation turns up with respect to Bainbridge Island’s maintenance.

Meanwhile, Bremerton and Poulsbo also face issues with worn-out pipes, and we don’t yet know what the solution will be. Bremerton, if you recall, has proposed a boardwalk that can support a vacuum truck to maintain the pipe after it is replaced in the beach (Water Ways, Sept. 22, 2008). That design is under scrutiny by the Army Corps of Engineers and other state and federal agencies.

As for Victoria, city officials maintained for years that they should be allowed to discharge raw sewage into the Strait of Juan de Fuca, because the swift waters dilute the pollution. Three years ago, the Minister of Environment for British Columbia said that was no longer acceptable and that treatment systems would be required for the municipalities of Colwood, Esquimalt, Langford, Oak Bay, Saanich, Victoria and View Royal, all under the Capital Regional District.
(more…)

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post 

Hood Canal and the Olympic Mountains from a home on Kitsap County's shoreline.
Photo courtesy of Dr. Dale Ireland

Planning the future of Puget Sound’s shorelines is under way or soon will be under way among most local governments in Puget Sound.

Some counties have completed the work because of early funding by the Legislature (King and Pierce) and some because they pushed ahead on their own (Whatcom). Some counties started early but have faced delays (Snohomish and Jefferson).

Kitsap County planners started early but focused their efforts on an “inventory” of existing conditions along the entire shoreline. That inventory, which includes prospects for habitat restoration, could be a major tool in the update of Kitsap’s Shoreline Master Program.

Do I need to remind anyone how contentious this issue is likely to become in counties with substantial shorelines?

In Kitsap County, both property rights advocates and environmental groups have already announced that they are getting ready for a fight.

Kitsap Alliance of Property Owners came out recently with guns ablazing: “Kitsap County is getting ready to update its shorelines master program,” KAPO President Tim Matthes says in a postcard to shoreline owners. “You will find very little in the news informing property owners of changes.”

That’s an interesting comment, considering that I have already written two stories before the process even starts. I can tell you now that there will be plenty to write about when this issue begins to boil.

The card also states, “County staff wants to treat every inch of shoreline as ‘critical area.’ They want to prohibit bulkheads, ban docks, force you to replace your gardens with ‘native’ plantings and control what kind of trees you plant, trim or remove.”

I’ll let others respond to those specifics if they wish, but clearly this message is designed to lead the charge into battle.

KAPO is not the only side getting ready for a fight, however. Beth Wilson of Kitsap Conservation Voters recently informed the county commissioners rather forcefully during a recent “Meet the Commissioners” forum that shoreline planning could be the most important issue of the year among the local environmental community.

While Kitsap County planners prepare for two years of work on the Shoreline Master Program, cities in Kitsap County are getting ready for updates as well. There was talk at one time of strong collaboration between the county and the cities, but it appears that jurisdictions are starting to drift apart. It remains unclear whether any kind of coordination will take place.

Kitsap County Planning Commission was briefed on the upcoming planning effort a couple of weeks ago (see Kitsap Sun story, May 20). The county commissioners discussed the same information today.

Some of the key ideas include:
(more…)

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post 

Geoduck harvesting remains controversial. Some people are convinced that it creates long-lasting damage to the seabed and to the creatures that dwell on the bottom. Others are equally convinced that damage is minimal and does not last very long.

I have never determined for myself if one side or the other is absolutely right, or if it depends largely on bottom conditions at a specific site. As a reporter, I continue to listen to both sides and try to give them each fair treatment.

One thing is for sure, however: The money that goes into state coffers from the sale of geoducks is quite remarkable. In a story published in today’s Kitsap Sun, I quote state officials who say the market has remained strong, despite the downturn in the economy.

In a single area north of Blake Island in Kitsap County, the state will receive $1.4 million for geoducks harvested this year alone. Similar amounts can be expected from that area for the next few years.

I will entertain comments and links to documents from anyone who wants to discuss the damage issue. I must give some weight, however, to the National Marine Fisheries Service, which has approved a Geoduck Habitat Conservation Plan and incidental take permit under the Endangered Species Act. (See the NMFS Web site on geoducks.)

The reports, which are based largely on research by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, give the geoduck fishery a “low-effect” rating when it comes to threatened and endangered species.

“A low effect HCP is one that NOAA’s Fisheries Service and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service determine to have minor or negligible effects on federally listed, proposed, or candidate species and their habitats covered under the HCP,” according to the NMFS Web site.

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post 

Don’t be alarmed, but the waters in southern Hood Canal are beginning to look like autumn leaves.

A multicolored plankton bloom has been seen at Twanoh State Park and other areas.
Photo courtesy of Hood Canal Salmon Enhancement Group

The color results from the growth of a species of plankton called Noctiluca, which multiplies rapidly in the presence of nutrients and sunlight. Conditions were ideal over the weekend for the water to turn colors — reported as red, orange or yellow. (The photo contains green hues, doesn’t it?)

The plankton aren’t harmful, experts say, and it is too early to say whether the plankton growth we are seeing will contribute to a decline in oxygen levels this fall. These colors are temporary and disappear as the waters get stirred up.

Hood Canal Dissolved Oxygen Program offers more information on its Web site.

Here is a brief story I prepared for Wednesday’s Kitsap Sun:
(more…)

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post 

John Calambokidis of Cascadia Research informs me that when humpback whales show up in South Puget Sound they often stay around for several days, which seems to be the case this year.

The whale was sighted about a week ago moving south through Puget Sound. There were reports of the whale near Anderson Island on Thursday. On Friday, Cascadia received several reports (including one from a commenter on Water Ways) that indicated the whale had gone down into Eld Inlet Friday afternoon then up along the west side of Hartstene Island.

If you haven’t seen Gary Chittim’s raw video footage of the humpback for King 5 TV, I believe it’s worth a look.

Susan Berta and Howard Garrett of Orca Network remind boaters to give the whale lots of space. Sightings may be reported to (866) ORCANET.

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post 

Washington Department of Natural Resources and Taylor Shellfish quietly resolved their dispute behind closed doors, then announced the $1.5 million settlement yesterday.

It was a dramatic turnabout in tone from the battle waged in legal documents and news releases just a few weeks ago, when Taylor officials were claiming rights to state land. The issue grew out of a finding that Taylor had planted shellfish on state tidelands and was “trespassing” on state property.

See the story in today’s Kitsap Sun for the latest, including these statements:

Peter Goldmark, commissioner of public lands: “This is a fair and equitable agreement for the people of the state of Washington. We will continue working with the shellfish growers in our state to ensure that this sustainable industry creates jobs and generates revenue for restoration projects in Puget Sound.”

Bill Taylor, owner of Taylor Shellfish: “”This agreement is a win-win for both Taylor and the DNR. We are pleased with the outcome. With this issue behind us, we look forward to focusing on our operations, creating jobs and stimulating our local economy with our business activities. Now more than ever, working families need the types of jobs that Taylor provides.”

Among the questions that remain are whether other shellfish growers may be encroaching on state tidelands, what Goldmark intends to do about this overall question and whether Taylor’s legal claims could be used by another grower. Beyond that, are the debates about geoduck aquaculture that will soon begin to play out at the county and state levels.

Here’s a chronology from the stories I have written since this dispute started:

July 22, 2008: Shellfish Company’s Encroachment Raises State Revenue Questions

Oct. 29, 2008: Taylor Shellfish Faces $1.3 Million Fine

Dec. 23, 2008: Lease With State Would Let Taylor Shellfish Recover Its Geoducks

Jan. 13, 2009: DNR, Company Settle Shellfish Farming Dispute (AP)

Jan. 13, 2009: New Lands Commissioner Could Have Final Say on Taylor Shellfish

Feb. 5, 2009: State Agreement With Taylor Shellfish Put on Hold

Feb. 23, 2009: Lawsuit Filed in Taylor Shellfish Dispute

March 4, 2009: Taylor Shellfish Makes it a Federal Case

March 13, 2009: State Lays Out Case Against Taylor Shellfish

May 6, 2009: Lands Chief Settles Dispute With Taylor Shellfish

The following are Water Ways entries I have written:

July 23, 2008: Tideland boundary questions could be Pandora’s Box

Oct. 30, 2008: Should the state look for more encroachments on its tidelands?

Jan. 14, 2009: Taylor offers evidence to justify shellfish trespass

Feb. 24, 2009: Legal writing rarely reaches this level of precision

March 9, 2009: Taylor shellfish case: Pandora’s box has been opened

March 18, 2009: DNR says Taylor Shellfish claims are all wet

May 7, 2009: Taylor Shellfish case ends quietly, but several issues remain

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post 

Fred Hill Materials has sold its gravel-mining operation known as the Shine Pit, yet the company plans to move full speed ahead on the controversial pit-to-pier project. See today’s story in the Kitsap Sun.

I’ve been hearing rumors for well over a year that the company was struggling financially, yet I was never able to confirm anything.

With this sale, the company acknowledges that it has been having financial troubles, at least with respect to the construction downturn in the current economy.

Opponents may hope that this new development will mean the end of the pit-to-pier proposal, which includes a four-mile conveyor belt and a 1,000-foot-long pier designed to move gravel by barge and ship throughout the Puget Sound region and along the West Coast. Environmental groups argue that the project could injure Hood Canal, threaten smooth operations at the Hood Canal bridge and interfere with Navy operations.

Company officials insist that the benefits of the project far outweigh the potential problems. They say the sale of the Shine Pit will mean an infusion of money to continue environmental studies and permitting activities on the pit-to-pier project.

It appears the company is staking a good deal of its future on this major project, despite a well-organized opposition.

Today’s story about the sale of the gravel pit was posted on the Sun’s Web site yesterday afternoon. I expected to see a bunch of comments by now, but there has been only one. The writer, didisaythat, makes an interesting point:

I can’t believe that no one’s commented on this story yet. Poor Fred has got to be rolling in his grave about now. How can they have a pit-to-pier project anymore when they just sold their pit ????? Lets see how long they can keep the concrete end up and running before they sell that too…. This story just doesn’t add up.

For permitting details, see Jefferson County’s project site.
For opposing arguments, see Hood Canal Coalition.

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post 

Washington Department of Natural Resources has fired back at Taylor Shellfish Farms, making the debate over a disputed trespass more interesting than ever.

Taylor says the state property where the company has been growing shellfish should have been conveyed to private property owners in 1905. Everyone has assumed through the years that the property was in private ownership. Consequently, the company should own the property today, according to the company’s position, which is based on many technical legal arguments.

Not so, says the DNR, which shows in its filing how previous surveys and sales of tidelands indicate that past property owners understood the boundary lines. Taylor’s claims are without merit, according to the agency.

I outlined DNR’s arguments in a story in today’s Kitsap Sun. One may also read the document filed in Thurston County Superior Court (PDF 1.6 mb).

Meanwhile, Taylor has filed a damage claim of $4.5 million related to this case.

It could be an interesting court battle, but I suspect that neither side wants to end up in a courtroom, where spelling out all these arguments could be long and intense. On the other hand, each side may be convinced that it is 100 percent right, which could make a settlement more difficult.

If there is a desire on both sides to settle this case, I suggest that they begin by agreeing to a harvest management plan for the shellfish in the disputed beach. Taylor claims that its damages are continuing, in part because some of the geoducks should be harvested right away. Agreeing on how to manage the shellfish, pending a resolution of the case, could set the stage for further discussions.

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post