Nearly two years of serious negotiations have brought the Skokomish Tribe and city of Tacoma close to an agreement over what to do with the Cushman dams on the North Fork of the Skokomish River.

I was able to report on some broad provisions of the agreement in today’s Kitsap Sun, following the lead of Jason Hagey, a News Tribune reporter who covered a Tacoma City Council meeting where the city agreed to include land as part of a settlement with the tribe.

City Councilman Jake Fey noted that Tacoma had benefited from low electricity rates for decades while ignoring the damage caused to the tribe. Fey said the settlement would help remove a “black mark” regarding Tacoma’s regard for the environment and the tribe, according to Hagey’s report.

I have been following this issue for most of my 31 years as a reporter for the Kitsap Sun. For much of that time, both the tribe and the city believed they held the upper hand in the legal arguments. As a result, both sides looked to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and the courts for answers.

After one court threw out a $5.8 billion damage claim made by the tribe against Tacoma and another court said the relicensing process should include both damage mitigation and environmental restoration, suddenly both sides had potentially more to gain — and more to lose — by leaving the judgment to FERC and the courts.

Both the city and the tribe should be given credit for working together, given their 80 years of history in which each side believed it was right.

As for the terms of the settlement, I see where many people are already passing judgment in comments after reading my account in the Sun. And that troubles me. I urge everyone to wait until they see the final settlement, which will deal with a number of environmental issues not yet made public.

I’ll have more to say on this subject in the future, but sometimes a situation is too complex to be boiled down to winners and losers.

For more than a decade, the city of Bainbridge Island has aggressively proclaimed the public’s right to use “road ends,” which are public rights of way that run down to the beach.

Many city and county governments have been shy about promoting public use of such narrows strips of land where adjoining residents often maintain expensive homes. Some people worry about vandalism and excessive tramping of sensitive habitats. But couldn’t these quiet little access points also help people appreciate nature?

Many road ends across the island and throughout Puget Sound seem to be the result of haphazard platting rather than carefully designed access. Still, the Legislature has recognized the importance of maintaining what little public access remains for average Washington residents. See RCW 35.79.035.

Public access to shorelines is a growing issue in Washington state, where most tidal areas were sold off in the early 1900s to promote commerce related to the shellfish industry. Bainbridge Island decided years ago that road ends offer a public-access opportunity worth millions of dollars.

“This is an island, but we have little access to the water to enjoy the peace, the birds and a quiet walk,” Marci Burkel, a member of the city’s Road Ends Committee, said in a Kitsap Sun story by reporter Tristan Baurick.

The island has been publishing maps of its road ends for years, but many of these sites are overgrown and difficult to use for shoreline access. Now, the Road End Committee is recruiting volunteers to monitor conditions at the road ends. More ambitious folks are encouraged to maintain the access points.

For additional information, check the Web page for the city’s Road Ends Committee, which includes annual reports for 2004 (PDF 660 kb), 2005 (PDF 496 kb) and 2006 (PDF 588kb). The island’s Shoreline Access Guidebook contains maps of the access points and general rules and guidelines to avoid potential problems.

I’m aware of several prime locations in Kitsap County that could provide access routes for people to reach to the water. Should other cities and counties in the Puget Sound region follow Bainbridge Island’s lead, first by publishing the locations of these road ends and then recruiting volunteers to clear these areas for public use?

Those who attended Puget Sound Partnership’s “celebration” on Monday were treated to a video featuring experts, policy folks and other concerned people describing the values of Puget Sound and its various threats. It included some impressive footage of the waterway and its environs.

This afternoon, the video was posted on the Puget Sound Partnership’s Web site.

Featured are folks including Kari Koski of The Whale Museum, Mike Racine of Washington Scuba Alliance, Mary Ruckelshaus of NOAA Fisheries, Dave Herrera of the Skokomish Tribe, Bill Dewey of Taylor Shellfish Farms, Steve Bauer, a Kitsap County commissioner, and Steve Sakuma, a Skagit Valley farmer.

Some of these people are directly involved in the Partnership process. For example, Sakuma is a member of the Leadership Council; Bauer is a member of the Ecosystem Coordination Board; and Ruckelshaus is a member of the Science Panel.

Monday’s celebration called attention to the release of the Puget Sound Action Agenda, a blueprint for restoring Puget Sound to health.

Washington Department of Natural Resources has approved a 30-year lease to allow a dock in the Maury Island Aquatic Reserve. It was the last approval needed for construction of a gravel mine that has been the subject of intense opposition by environmental groups.

Robert McClure, environmental reporter for the Seattle PI, calls the approval the most controversial of Land Commissioner Doug Sutherland’s eight years in office. Sutherland has taken this action in his final weeks as head of the DNR, having lost in the November election to Peter Goldmark.

Goldmark issued a statement saying he was “deeply disappointed” by the decision.

“The timing of this decision, only one day after the Puget Sound Partnership brought forward their plan to clean up Puget Sound, is very troubling,” Goldmark was quoted as saying in the Seattle Times. “While I understand there is only one lands commissioner at a time, this decision does come after the voters of Washington sent a very clear message.”

Amy Carey, president of Preserve Our Islands, was not pleased with Sutherland’s decision. She told the Times, “It’s disappointing he felt he had to stick to Glacier’s needs and agenda. There’s absolutely no reason that this decision had to come out now other than that Glacier wanted it now. It’s a really pitiful legacy as his tenure ends.”

In a news release, Sutherland said, “This has been an extremely rigorous process, and our aquatics staff have examined every document submitted to us and to the permitting agencies to be sure that we have addressed the issues. I directed staff to add requirements to protect this aquatic ecosystem in the long-term—which they have. This lease agreement accomplishes the goal of environmental protection while allowing existing commercial activities.”

Kathy Fletcher, executive director of People for Puget Sound, had this to say in her blog:

One of the black clouds hanging over the Puget Sound Partnership’s celebration the other day was the bleak budgetary outlook. Optimism about the new plan is tempered by the knowledge that money will be hard to come by. Not to sound too naïve, but since it’s expensive to undo the harm that we’ve done to our Sound over the years, why would we proceed to do more? Saying “no” to a bad idea like the Maury Island gravel dock doesn’t restore the Sound to health, but at least it’s a pretty cost-effective way to avoid making things worse.

Maybe I’m also naïve to think that in a year when we lost seven more of our endangered orcas, most likely to starvation, responsible decision-makers would say no to a project that puts one of the whales’ favorite winter fishing grounds at risk. Perhaps the whales had heard what was up in Sutherland’s office on Tuesday, when they decided to spend that very day hanging out in the Vashon area—their first visit of the season.

Conditions of the lease include the following, according to the DNR:
(more…)

Maybe it’s just my nature to dislike clouds of uncertainty. I’m always hoping that people will do what they can to blow the clouds away.

Taylor Shellfish Farms faces a $1.3 million assessment for growing shellfish on about 16 acres of state tidelands. This has gone on for years, and it would still be going on if not for a group of folks opposed to a new method of geoduck harvesting used by Taylor. See my story in today’s Kitsap Sun.

I’ve talked about this before in Watching Our Water Ways. Whether it was an innocent mistake by Taylor may be an important question, but I’m just as interested in whether Taylor and other growers may be encroaching onto state tidelands in other areas.

Fran McNair, aquatic lands steward for the Department of Natural Resources, said it is up to shellfish growers and other tideland users to know their boundaries. She said this fine against Taylor could serve as a warning to everyone.

I asked her whether recovering $440,000 for a three-year period — $1.3 million with treble damages — would cause the state to look for other places where private operators are encroaching on state land.

Her response was that the Legislature maintains tight control on the budget for aquatic lands management and she does not have the staff to go out looking for other encroachments. Of course, if anyone knows of any, she would be glad to check them out.

McNair said she can’t even use any portion of the “extra” money recovered from Taylor to go looking for other encroachments — even if money recovered by the effort would fully pay the cost. To take any action would require a legislative appropriation, she said.

In fact, working on the Taylor problem has diverted staff from their normal jobs, she said, and now they are behind on what they should have been doing.

When I ask these questions, everyone tells me that conducting formal surveys of tidelands is very expensive. I guess it is because of the difficulty of getting survey equipment into areas covered by water. My suggestion is to use GPS and other modern equipment to follow the legal boundaries of state property in a boat and see where people might be using state lands without authorization. Folks/ could be off by a few feet in many places, but that’s not where you’d focus further efforts.

Apparently, the state can’t look back more than three years when trying to collect lost revenues. But I suspect that this statutory limit could easily be changed by the Legislature. It also appears that the DNR can’t afford to touch this idea without a legislative appropriation.

State Sen. Phil Rockefeller, D-Bainbridge Island, was key to developing a program to remove derelict boats from state waters. Although it’s a costly effort, the DNR is getting the worst of the eyesores and environmental hazards out of the water. And now boat owners are beginning to take care of their own boats, knowing that the state is serious about the problem.

I have no idea how many tideland owners are encroaching onto state lands, but finding the answers to this question has the potential of actually making some money for the state.

Members of the Poulsbo Parks and Recreation Commission have called out Johnson Creek as a special wildlife habitat that needs more protection. In doing so, they have pushed a hot button in the city of Poulsbo.

See my story in today’s Kitsap Sun along with a video I shot in July with Jon Oleyar, a fish biologist who probably knows the streams of East Kitsap better than anyone.

Oleyar and others tell me that Johnson Creek is an important salmon stream. Because the stream corridor is largely undeveloped, it also serves as wildlife habitat. Is it one of the most important salmon streams or wildlife habitats in Kitsap County? I’ve asked the question and received mixed answers.

What the parks commission has pointed out, however, is that it may be the only significant wildlife habitat left in the city of Poulsbo. It’s clear the parks commissioners would like to get someone to pay attention to this area.

What worries property owners is that they won’t be compensated fairly, if at all, should the city seek to preserve the habitat. Planning Director Barry Berezowsky says the parks commission is getting “a little far afield” in discussing the city’s Critical Areas Ordinance.

It seems to me the parks commissioners have knowingly created tension within city hall as an act of conscience, knowing that it will be up to others to carry the ball forward.

As for the property owners, somebody deserves credit for leaving so much of the area undeveloped all these years. The Puget Sound Partnership has made it a top priority to protect the “last best places.” Maybe the state should come up with the money to take a closer look at the entire corridor. If it turns out to be prime habitat, then the state should be prepared to pay for acquisition of land or development rights.

A “habitat assessment” map (PDF 2.5 mb) by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife is available on the Kitsap County Web site, but be aware that it’s a big file.

I realize that property values soared when portions of Johnson Creek were moved into an urban growth area. This isn’t a simple issue. But some people, for a price, may be willing to sign a conservation easement on a portion of their property. The result could be a wonderful piece of open space for Poulsbo residents to enjoy along with those who eventually buy a house near Johnson Creek.

I can’t say whether the parks commissioners went beyond their authority. But, after listening to them discuss the issue, I find it courageous of them to battle the pressure and craft thoughtful proposals as well as explaining the rationale for their actions.

I will try to share more information about this when the planning documents become available.

Local government officials have been getting letters from the Federal Emergency Management Agency about saving salmon. The letters say the National Flood Insurance Program violates the Endangered Species Act and describe how to fix the problem.

I mentioned this situation in a story in Oct. 19 in the Kitsap Sun. This morning, I received the text of the letter (PDF 40 kb) in an e-mail from FEMA.

As the result of a federal lawsuit and consultation with the National Marine Fisheries Service, FEMA needs to change its flood-management program. It remains unclear, however, how much local governments will need to change their land-use rules to qualify for flood insurance under the new program.

Measures that must be taken to comply with the law are spelled out as “reasonable and prudent alternatives,” which begin on page 151 of the “biological opinion,” which can be downloaded from NOAA’s Web site.

Steve Landino of the National Marine Fisheries Service said the effects of the biological opinion are likely to vary from place to place.

“It is the most complicated (biological opinion) that we have worked with, at least in our office in Washington,” Landino told me.

The notice mailed last week was required to recommend a temporary moratorium on floodplain development and explain the next steps to come into compliance with the Endangered Species Act.

FEMA must make sure that local governments implement changes “as soon as practicable” but no later than three years from now. Priority must focus on “Tier 1” salmon populations, followed by “Tier 2.” Kitsap County and its cities are located in the second category.

Tier 1 areas involved in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) include all the major rivers in the Puget Sound area, as shown below.
(more…)

Construction of a new boardwalk from downtown Bremerton to Evergreen Park is supported by more than a few people, as evidenced by letters sent to the Army Corps of Engineers. But most of the letter writers don’t tackle the thorny environmental issues involved with the overwater structure and its significant impacts on fish habitat.

On the other hand, state and federal agencies and the environmental group People for Puget Sound have raised many more issues than I could cover in Sunday’s Kitsap Sun story.

I would like anybody interested to be able to read the agency letters I’ve seen, so I’m posting them here for you to download. Some agencies, such as the National Marine Fisheries Service and Washington Department of Ecology, are involved directly in permitting, so they have chosen not to comment at this time.

Suquamish Tribe (PDF 208 kb)
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (PDF 180 kb)
Washington State Department of Natural Resources (PDF 108 kb)
People for-Puget Sound (PDF 973 kb)

I’ve been spending some time in the Skokomish Valley recently, learning why Hood Canal’s largest and most complex river system is on the fritz.

Construction at the new Purdy Creek Bridge. Note the blue “oscillator” at the base of the steel casing in the background. Kitsap Sun photo

Check out my story this week on the Purdy Creek Bridge on Highway 101. I describe why the bridge will not only help to keep the highway open during flooding, but will reduce flood damage to salmon habitat. I also describe a construction technique that allows the bridge to be built with the least environmental damage. I was fascinated by the giant “oscillator” that pushed a steel casing down into a wetland at the edge of the creek.

On other recent trips to the watershed, I wrote about efforts to boost wild chinook (see story in September) and about restoration work in the upper watershed (see story in August).

Among my observations, it is encouraging to see valley residents and others who care about this critical watershed to consciously take a break from blaming one another for the problems and work together.

Flooding, for course, is the key frustration. The Skokomish River floods more frequently than any river in the state. Farmers, tribal members, residential property owners and folks who care about salmon and other critters all want something done.

It seems like dredging the river would help relieve the problem, but I’m told that it would be very expensive and would be only a short-term fix with potentially unexpected consequences.

I understand that patience runs low at times while waiting for a solution, but the Skokomish Watershed Action Team (SWAT) seems to represent all the interests in the valley. The group offers hope that a real solution is at hand. A distant light can be seen clearly now, as the Army Corps of Engineers works to complete a “general investigation” that attempts to put all the pieces together and lay out an action plan for restoration.

Anybody who has seen migrating salmon jumping up against a concrete wall and falling back down again probably shares the frustration with the salmon.

Chico Bay work / Kitsap Sun photo

Except at high tide, chum salmon in Chico Creek have been finding it tough to get through a culvert under Kittyhawk Drive at the edge of Chico Bay. For those who don’t recall, Chico Creek is the most productive salmon stream on the Kitsap Peninsula.

This year, Kitsap County Public Works — at the request of the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife — built a series of rock structures to raise the pool downstream of the culvert. For more detail, check out the story in today’s Kitsap Sun. You may also view a video of the construction work.

The structure should be finished in a day or two, if it wasn’t completed today. I hope to see the fish swimming easily into the culvert, though they tend to be delayed by another culvert under the Highway 3 freeway.

It’s a good place to watch migrating chum. But if you go, please be careful where you park — and keep a close watch on the kids for their safety.