Since we don’t really have Pacific smelt on the Kitsap Peninsula, where I do my local reporting, I decided against writing any more about it.

But today I’m getting the feeling that more than a few people in the Puget Sound region are confused about the potential impacts of this listing. They want to know whether they can still catch some smelt in Hood Canal, along Port Orchard’s Ross Point and in other favorite spawning areas for our local surf smelt — not the listed Pacific smelt.

Let me direct you back to a Water Ways entry I posted one year ago today, after NOAA proposed the listing. In that blog entry, I admitted my own initial confusion between the two kinds of “smelt.”

If you would like a little more information about yesterday’s announcement, I direct you to Associated Press reporter Jeff Barnard’s story.

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post 

Surface waters of Kitsap.

I’ve covered water resources for years, and one of the big questions in the context of growth and development has always been: “Will the area have enough water to support growth.”

It’s a question I’ve asked local water managers since I arrived here in 1977. Their answer is generally something like this: “We should have enough water far into the future if we manage it carefully.” My latest story, published in the Kitsap Sun Oct. 3, described a relatively low-water year ending in October.

Most of Kitsap County’s water comes from wells. Consequently, managing water carefully means conserving what we’ve got, allowing our rains to soak into the ground and, in some contexts, being able to move water from areas of lesser supply to areas of greater supply. The map of surface waters at right can be found on the Kitsap County Web site.

Water is one of the big environmental issues of our time, and it will grow more important as long as the population continues to grow. Most people in the water business would like to know more about underground water supplies, so a study of the peninsula’s water resources would be valuable. Experts also realize that studies of this kind are only as good as the data that go in. That involves using measurements from hundreds of wells and well logs (soil layers) across the peninsula. You may want to check out similar studies conducted by USGS.

This topic also appears to be interesting to Kitsap Sun readers, because the story I wrote last week was rated the most popular on the Web site for two days running.

As with many environmental stories, the first comments to be posted seemed skeptical of the whole idea that caused me to write the story:

Crownvic (the first comment): “This is another one of these greeny try-to-scare-the-hell-out-of-you articles. First of all, almost all water wells pump from an aquifer 100 feet plus deep and have absolutely no effect on surface waters due to the impervious layers top and bottom…”

nategrey#290609: “And do you think the magical water fairies replenish the supply when it starts running low? Long and short of it is people shouldn’t waste water. Good luck changing the habits of people who leave the tap running when they brush their teeth or take 30 minute+ showers every day.”

wwinc#211511: “This is all BULLS__IT….you can not even do the math do come up with what they are suggesting….. why is the government and Kitsap Sun perpetuating a scare into the community?”

NavalAviator: “… The only way that you can truly check the water situation in the wells is to pull off the lid and seal at the top of the casing and check the height of the water in the casing compared to what it was sometime earlier. Forget this voodoo math that must be the product of some government grant.”

dahl#245857: “Ha ha ha. Don’t you know there is gold to be made in them thar scares?”

Within a few hours, the mood shifted, and those making comments were more favorable to the idea of a study:

Retired151: “… Crownvic you’re quick to say that it’s bogus. Why is it bogus? What’s your evidence? What models do you have to show we have plenty of water for future needs? Water is an issue. If we don’t address how we’re going to conserve it now, later may be too late.”

nategrey#290609 “… Ever hear of this little thing called “drought”? Just because we have plentiful rain/snow now doesn’t mean this will always be the case. Just ask FL and GA. Was it not just a few years ago they were actually discussing water rationing in most of WA because of a lack of rainfall and lower than average snowfall? To not prepare for something simply because it doesn’t appear to be a problem now is the height of stupidity.”

devildogANDhisDISH: “When I went to the National Park near Tucson, AZ, there was a graph of how deep a person had to dig for water when the first settlers arrived. In 1850’s the depth was 50 feet, it is now over 350. If you think the world is not drying up, stick around 20 years. With the population growth and dumping of hazardous waste your water will soon be reclaimed waste…”

indyexpat: “Another one of those things I don’t understand. What in the world are you people talking about? This is a study to find information about something that is not known. Nobody is trying to ’scare’ anyone. The study is to try to find out how the groundwater is replenished, if it is, etc. For god’s sake people, get a grip.”

elwha#286815: “As someone who has worked in water resources in very similar geology for the last 12 years, I can attest to the fact that much of the information being presented here as comments is simply incorrect. For those who think that groundwater is not connected to surface water because the well is deep (100+ feet), I would direct you to a geologic map of the Kitsap Peninsula…”

And so it went. I would say that later comments generally were in favor of the study — as reflected in a poll we ran alongside the story. As of now, 20 percent of respondents don’t believe the study would be worthwhile. The rest are interested in knowing how long local water supplies will last along with other concerns.

Monty Mahan (WestBayGuy) came in at the end (at least for now) with this comment:

“I’m late in the discussion and maybe no one is really reading anymore, however…

“In Pierce County we’re working with USGS and Mark Savoca on a similar project, to model groundwater supply in the Chambers-Clover Creek Watershed. In addition, a similar project may soon start in the Puyallup Watershed.

“The project concept is truly worthwhile, scientifically defensible, and potentially very useful in determining where usage for human purposes might be expanded, and where supplies are likely to crash and new water rights should therefore not be approved….

“It’s a great partnership between environmental and development interests, and truly understanding how much water we have for our future use is vital, in my view. Get it going guys; this South Kitsap well-owner is in favor.”

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post 

DJ ChloroPhil

One night while burning some mysterious “eco-friendly” incense, Phil unwittingly summons the spirit of a polar bear who becomes his no-nonsense guide to a better way.

The series, called “Green Shaman,” was launched a month ago on Planet Green. Each 90-second clip offers a personal tip about the environment, starting with a video questioning whether Phil’s purchase of bottled water is an environmentally sound practice.

If that’s not enough, check out Phil’s blog, in which he offers his thoughts related to his experiences.

The creator of the series, Troy Hitch, is best known for his work on the humorous series “You Suck at Photoshop,” which shows fictional character Donnie Hoyle offering offbeat tutorials in the field of photo alteration.

Spirit polar bear

Following are the Green Shaman videos. (I haven’t figured out how to bypass the commercials.)

“Again from the Tap”

“Greeno Vino”

“Power Nap”

“Pedal of Honor”

“Smells like Green Spirit”

“Shirt’s So Good”

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post 

BY STEVEN GARDNER

Journalists received what might be deserved suspicion of being haters of George W. Bush. If it’s true, I don’t think it’s for the reason most people surmise, that we’re all socialists at heart intent on killing every American Amendment that isn’t the first one.

If we disliked Bush the younger, it had more to do with his reported statement to Joe Biden that he doesn’t “do nuance.”

Reporters dance in nuance. We eat it. For the purposes of this blog, let’s say we swim in it. When we retire, the hardest thing to unload is all the “other hands” we’ve considered. Dunagan has a file cabinet full of them. When Bush said he didn’t do nuance, it was like he was insulting all our mothers.

Dabbling in nuance gives us room to partake in things we might not otherwise do were we among those who take stands. In late 2007 I took my family to SeaWorld in San Diego. In my heart I’m really troubled by the idea of watching animals that can travel entire oceans confined to pools a little bigger than the one I had in my backyard as a kid. But it was when I was a kid that my affection for orcas began, because of a splashing I got from Shamu.

Growing up in Southern California, it was the only way I was going to see orcas in person. As the years went on, I managed to see probably a dozen dolphin shows. I don’t think I grew to have any angst about it until I was working construction during a summer off from college and was sent to a house in an exclusive neighborhood in Laguna Beach. There, on a cliff overlooking the Pacific Ocean, I could see a school of dolphins (Maybe they were porpoises. I couldn’t swear under oath that they weren’t two-liter soda bottles with fins.) swimming by beyond the waves.

It sounds cliche, but something can happen to a guy like me who suddenly sees something in a different context, particularly a natural context. Not only did it make me feel good about them, it made me feel good about myself, that I live in a world where animals can be in a place they’ve been for thousands or millions of years, that we haven’t institutionalized all of them. It’s not a thought that comes naturally when you spend most of your days winding your way through asphalt and concrete.

That elation came again when I moved here and the Orcas visited Silverdale. Then on Christmas Day in 2004 I was on a ferry to Seattle and saw an orca off in the distance. That chance sighting was better than the sure thing you get in San Diego.

Still, I thought maybe my kids would appreciate the SeaWorld show. They did.

I, on the other hand, had much the same reaction Steve Lopez from the Los Angeles Times did when he went.. I wouldn’t say I was creeped out, but I was uneasy.

I expected a fun, maybe funny presentation. What you get is a full-on, well-orchestrated production that clearly had been crafted following the pressure that must have come once Free Willy was released in theaters.

And yet months later, when another friend shared pictures of her daughter being one of those who got to go out and touch the whale, I was genuinely happy for her.

Of course the idea that she could have been yanked by her pony tail into the water — something that has apparently never happened in the wild — changes all that.

I’d rather see all those Shamus out in the wild. I would have felt so relieved if SeaWorld officials would have said, “We get it now.” On the other hand, maybe the Tacoma Pocket Gopher wouldn’t have vanished in 1970 if someone had made money by teaching a few of them to jump through hoops. On the other other hand, maybe these animals should matter to me even if I never get to see them.

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post 

Beyond beauty, shoreline environments contain vital ecosystems. (Click to enlarge)
Kitsap Sun photo

Oh, yes, lakes and a few streams are part of the picture.

Kitsap County commissioners last night appointed a 20-member citizen task force to take a central role in the planning effort. For the first time in county history, regulations will be based on ecosystem values. See the story I wrote for today’s Kitsap Sun listing the members.

Similar planning efforts are under way in Kitsap’s cities as well as various communities throughout the Puget Sound region. I wrote a story for the Kitsap Sun Feb. 27 regarding the effort for our cities.

In the past, shoreline regulations were based on existing land uses. Buffers — including the current 100-foot buffer for rural areas — were uniform throughout the entire county. Previous rules never took into consideration the particular types of shoreline or their ecological values. For example, an estuary with a highly productive marsh and a stream running through it was treated exactly the same as a rocky outcropping pounded by waves.

The task force will have the interesting task of figuring out ecosystem functions for various segments of Kitsap County’s shoreline. We know that sloping beaches can be important to migrating salmon, that certain kinds of sand and gravel support forage fish and that a multitude of creatures may reside in nearby upland areas.

But here’s the big question: Why does development need to stay back from the shoreline, and how far back is far enough. I think we’ll see during this planning process that it all depends on what one is trying to protect. That, in turn, depends on the flora and fauna supported by the specific shoreline type.

Kitsap County now has a basic “inventory” of man-made and natural features found along the shoreline. This inventory was created by a team of biologists who walked the entire waterfront — both on the east side of the county fronting onto Puget Sound, and on the west side fronting onto Hood Canal. Coupled with additional information being compiled, this inventory will form the basis of discussions in the coming months.

One of the new task force participants is Tom Nevins, a member of the Kitsap County Planning Commission who lived through battles over the county’s Critical Areas Ordinance. When done, the county was immediately sued by both property-rights advocates and by environmentalists. Under orders from the Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings Board, the county commissioners established 100-foot buffers for rural shorelines.

But the battle was not over and eventually got tied up in the confusion over whether the Critical Areas Ordinance or the Shorelines Master Program should apply to shoreline properties. A bill passed by the Legislature this session attempts to resolve the problem for the second time. I wrote about the bill in Saturday’s Kitsap Sun.

Nevins told me that he hopes for a more orderly process this time around. I believe things will go more smoothly if those involved will look for common ground using common sense. Property rights are in play, but so are public interests in shoreline ecosystems.

The final piece of the puzzle is the appointment of a professional facilitator to lead the task force on its quest. That appointment is likely to come in two weeks, with the first meeting in early April.

Kitsap County Department of Community Development has now ramped up its new Web page for the Shoreline Master Program Update, which is designed as conduit for information.

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post 

Now, after five years, the health district has released a report showing major improvements in water quality in all the major streams. See my story in today’s Kitsap Sun or check out the report (PDF 1.7 mb).

During the project, area residents were assisted in finding and repairing their aging septic systems in various parts of the watershed. Businesses were shown how to maintain nearby storm sewers and were encouraged to flush washwater down the sanitary sewers, not the storm drain. Even old sewer lines were inspected and repaired in some cases.

Here are some specific water-quality data on Dyes Inlet streams:

The first number is the average fecal coliform counts in 2006. The second is the average fc counts in 2009. Also listed is the percentage improvement during that short time.

- Enetai Creek: 116, 56, 52 percent
- Barker Creek: 89, 53, 40 percent
- Clear Creek: 137, 30, 79 percent
- Strawberry Creek: 52, 29, 45 percent
- Chico Creek: 19, 18, 5 percent
- Mosher Creek: 31, 14, 55 percent
- Ostrich Bay Creek: 212, 88, 59 percent
- Phinney Creek: 992, 364, 63 percent

A second report released by the health district is called the 2010 Priority Area Work List for the PIC Program (PDF 752 kb). It includes a rationale for why certain water bodies were selected for pollution investigations in the current year.

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post 

Grand Prize, Amateur, 2099 National Wildlife Federation Photo Contest. Minke whale by Steffen Binke

The photo at right shows a minke whale descending the Great Barrier Reef off Australia. The picture, by Steffen Binke, won the Grand Prize in the amateur division.

To see a slide show of all 32 winners, visit the Web site of National Wildlife magazine. I hope you can take a few moments to enjoy them.

Other entries were so good that the magazine put together a slide show of 60 honorable mentions that are worth seeing.

If you are a photographer interested in entering the 2010 contest, you will find information on the online magazine’s Web pages.

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post 

A report out today shows that the freezing temperature of water can be controlled by the type of electric charge you put at the surface.

If you take supercooled water, which has no dust particles to begin crystallization, you can get the temperature down to about -12.5 degrees C. on average. If you apply a positive charge to the surface, that same water freezes at about -7 degrees. With a negative charge, it goes down to about -18 before freezing. This is really an amazing range.

Study coauthor Igor Lubomirsky of the Weizmann Institute of Science in Rehovot, Israel was quoted in today’s Science News:

“We are very, very surprised by this result. It means that by controlling surface charge, either positive or negative, you can either suppress ice formation or enhance ice formation.”

This also means that you can freeze water by heating it up — assuming that you change the charge on the water’s surface. Another experiment by the researchers bear this out.

Speculation about how to use these new-found properties are already beginning to pop up. One researcher suggests that it could have an application in the study of cloud formation, which is central to the issue of climate change.

Joe Palca of National Public Radio jumped on the story and does a good job in his piece for the radio.

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post 

Scientists are the first to acknowledge that science is a messy pursuit. Working hypotheses don’t always work out. And even when findings do reveal some new clarity about nature, there can be multiple ways to interpret those findings as well as new questions to be answered. Understanding takes time and effort.

But if science is messy, the application of science to public policy is downright dirty.

That’s what we see in climate change, where the big challenge for scientists is to make predictions about how climate will behave in the future by considering past changes along with the physical forces that are taking place.

The challenge for policy-makers involved in the climate debate is to understand the risks and uncertainties and then to act appropriately, given political forces working in various other directions.

Trying to protect the natural function of shorelines is a similar challenge, but it ought to be much simpler. We have a history of land use along the shorelines and a fairly good understanding of the physical processes involved.

Again, the challenge for policy-makers is to understand the risks and uncertainties about shoreline alterations and to act appropriately. In this case, political forces include people who have no apparent understanding of property rights, people who believe government has no right to regulate land use, and a large number of people trying to seek a reasonable balance that protects ecosystem functions as well as land-use opportunities.

That brings me to a letter I received this week. Written by 14 scientists, the letter is critical of an analysis by Don Flora, a retired forest researcher who has taken a keen interest in shoreline science.

In his analysis, Flora could find no statistical relationship between “stressors” caused by human construction and “ecological function,” measured by natural factors. Flora admits that his focus was narrow. He also admits that his findings do not mean that man-made alterations to the shoreline cause no harm to the ecosystem — but he seems to say that it’s a short leap to that conclusion. See my story from Oct. 26 and my Water Ways entry from Oct. 27.

Many scientists and others familiar with Puget Sound shorelines were greatly disturbed by the suggestion that bulkheads and other structures cause no harm, which is where some property-rights advocates have taken Flora’s findings. Fourteen scientists responded with a letter explaining why Flora’s analysis and conclusions were all wrong. See my story in yesterday’s Kitsap Sun.

In forwarding the letter to the Puget Sound Partnership, one of the signers, Megan Dethier of Friday Harbor Laboratories, offered this comment about Flora’s report:

“Many regional scientists immediately took issue with this misrepresentation of science, and felt that a response was warranted to help ensure that decision makers, planners, managers, and the public realize that this report was highly misleading, and that it is important to distinguish real science from pseudoscience. After much discussion about the best tone, length, and approach for this response, we have produced the attached brief document (I also attach the original Flora report).

“We (the signers, plus the MANY agency scientists who helped with it and agreed with it but were politically constrained from signing it) are unsure of the best method to get this document “out”, but most agreed that PSP is good at that kind of thing, hence this email to you. Our hope is that this might be a little piece of “ammunition” for municipalities, counties, etc. fighting off the sort of pseudoscience barrages characterized by Dr. Flora’s paper.”

Kitsap County is forming a task force to make recommendations to update the county’s shoreline regulations. Several other counties and many cities are going through this process, as required by state law. I believe smart people assigned to the Kitsap panel and others will be able to review the science and make reasonable recommendations.

A couple of things come to mind. First, not all shorelines are the same. That may be obvious, but we have rocky shores where large waves crash, as well as backwater estuaries where plants and animals are barely affected by currents. The need for buffers, as well as buffer widths, probably varies under these conditions.

Second, it is only common sense that bulkheads and docks have an effect on ecosystems. We should try to understand the effects of not only a single structure in an otherwise natural area but the effect of an entire shoreline dominated by structures. That’s the cumulative effect.

For your consideration, here are Don Flora’s original report, the letter from the 14 scientists and another interesting analysis I received from Richard Nerf, who has experience with statistics.

Don Flora report PDF 185 kb)

Letter from 14 scientists (PDF 46 kb)

Richard Nerf critique of Flora report (PDF 435 kb)

Don Flora’s response to Richard Nerf

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post 

After all, many folks have been using this name for years. In my effort to be formal and proper, I’ve rarely used it. But things have changed since “Salish Sea” became an official, formally approved name at the end of last year.

Now, in the latest development, the American Name Society declared “Salish Sea” the “Name of the Year” last weekend. That should end the discussion for good.

I interviewed the man who conducted the competition and wrote the following for today’s Kitsap Sun:

The name “Salish Sea” has been chosen over “Twitter” as the American Name Society’s “Name of the Year.”

The Salish Sea is defined as the inland waterway in Washington and British Columbia that includes Puget Sound, the Strait of Juan de Fuca and the Strait of Georgia.

“I think it is significant because it is a brand new name,” said Cleveland Evans, who conducted the competition for the American Name Society, an academic organization. “It fits ecological interests, being invented by a biologist. And it has a Native American connection, chosen from a name for a broad ethnic group…”

The Canadian connection didn’t hurt either, Evans said, because his organization has a significant number of Canadian members.

The name “Salish Sea” was conceived a decade ago by Bert Webber, a professor at Western Washington University in Bellingham. Webber, a biologist, wanted to stress the ecological connections between the branching waterway that crosses the international border. He took “Salish” from Coast Salish, an ethnographic designation for many Northwest native people.

“Salish Sea” became an official name in 2009, when it was adopted by the Washington State Board on Geographic Names, the U.S. Board on Geographic Names and the Geographic Names Board of Canada.
—–

Please read the story for information about the names that “Salish Sea” beat out to become the “Name of the Year” and why “Barack Hussein Obama” was chosen as the “Name of the Year” last year.

While the American Name Society gets to choose the “Name of the Year,” its sister organization, the American Dialect Society chooses the “Word of the Year.”

The dialect folks chose the word “tweet,” as the favored “Word of the Year” and “google” as the “Word of the Decade.”

In reading through the ADS announcement about the winners of the word contest (PDF 205 k), I found that the word declared “Most Likely to Succeed” was “twenty-ten,” the chosen pronunciation for the year 2010.

Speaking of 2010, I have noticed something very strange in how people are speaking. It’s not so unusual to choose “twenty-ten” as the pronunciation for this year. After all, we have to call it something. But after nine years of saying “two-thousand-one,” “two-thousand-two,” etc., up to the end of last year, why are a growing number of people suddenly saying “twenty-oh-nine”? Figure that one out.

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post