Happy New Year!

You may have noticed that I haven’t been posting many entries lately. I’ve been on vacation since the beginning of the snow — officially since the beginning of last week. I will return to full speed on Monday.

Meanwhile, I’ve been watching developments on the environmental front and will try to catch up on some of the bigger issues when I get back. I’d like to discuss, for example, some of President-elect Obama’s staff positions related to water and the environment.

For now, I’d like to call your attention to a disturbing Washington Post story about Chesapeake Bay, then I’d like to talk about implications for the restoration of Puget Sound.

The Post piece begins:

Government administrators in charge of an almost $6 billion cleanup of the Chesapeake Bay tried to conceal for years that their effort was failing — even issuing reports overstating their progress — to preserve the flow of federal and state money to the project, former officials say.

The cleanup, which had its 25th anniversary this month, seems doomed to miss its second official deadline for achieving major reductions in pollution by 2010.

The story, by David A. Fahrenthold, goes on to say that the Chesapeake Bay Program failed to achieve the political will to reduce pollution. So how did officials in the Environmental Protection Agency and other organizations respond? They fudged the data to show greater progress than what was actually taking place.

Officials did not have good monitoring data to measure progress. So they used computer models to show what should be taking place. Richard Batiuk, the EPAs’ current associate director for science for Chesapeake Bay, said exaggeration was never intentional. Officials simply did not use the models correctly.

When scientists finally caught up with the truth across the sprawling Chesapeake Bay watershed, which covers parts of five states, the price tag for cleanup was $28 billion. Officials realized they had no real plan to meet such a financial and public relations challenge. At the same time, it became clear that the goal of cleaning up the bay by 2010 could not be met — but nobody wanted to be the one to say so.

Ann Pesiri Swanson, executive director for the Chesapeake Bay Commission, said she suspected as early as 1997 that public statements were too optimistic. The situation became more clear as time went on.

“I think that, by 2005, 2006, you know, we should have made more . . . perhaps [we] could have recognized it more publicly,” she was quoted as saying.

In 2004, the U.S. Government Accountability Office reported that computer modeling and a lack of real-world data “downplays the deteriorated condition of the bay” and paints too-rosy of a picture.

That’s when I began paying closer attention to Chesapeake Bay and comparing it to efforts taking place in Puget Sound. See my stories from Sept. 17 and Sept. 18, 2006. We’ve all learned a great deal more over the past two years.

So what are the lessons to be learned from Chesapeake Bay?

I believe there are many. Above all, the people of Puget Sound must understand where things stand and what is at stake. We must rely on scientific conclusions based on real-world monitoring. Politics must not get ahead of the science — which is to say that most, if not all, actions should be analyzed for their costs and benefits to the ecosystem.

Bob Benze of Silverdale recently wrote a piece for the Seattle Times bemoaning the lack of science brought to bear on the recently adopted Puget Sound Action Agenda. He points out that legislative deadlines forced remedies to be proposed before scientific teams could validate those efforts.

Much of what Bob says is very legitimate, but one could argue that scientists have a general idea about what needs to be done. So taking actions before completing a full scientific evaluation may not be a waste of money. It may be a way to keep Puget Sound from slipping further behind while scientists catch up. Above all else, scientists need data to work with. Much monitoring has been done, but more is needed.

I think Bill Ruckelshaus, chairman of the Leadership Council of the Puget Sound Partnership, has a good grasp of the situation. He has talked about the vital need to measure and report progress. This is one of the big lessons from Chesapeake.

Here are some other lessons I’ve learned: Let the scientists do their jobs; be willing to pay for monitoring; be thoughtful about how progress is measured; be honest with all appraisals; and let the public know the truth, no matter what the repercussions may be.

Glacier Northwest has begun work on the controversial pier that will eventually support its gravel-mining operation on Maury Island. See updated story by Leslie Brown in the Vashon Beachcomber.

Meanwhile, a protest demonstration got underway this morning near the construction site. Kathy Fletcher of People for Puget Sound reported about 50 protesters as well as some 10 dinghies and kayaks at 8:30 a.m. this morning.

Yesterday, a contingent of 20 to 30 killer whales — apparently including members from all three Puget Sound pods — visited the South Sound area, not far from the Glacier site. I thought maybe they had come south to join the protest, but during the night they turned north and came up through Puget Sound.

If you recall, the orcas were cited among reasons to deny the construction activity in an aquatic reserve frequented by the whales in winter.

As of 11:30 a.m. today, the orcas were in Admiralty Inlet north of the Kitsap Peninsula, according to Howard Garrett of Orca Network, who was among the widely scattered whales when I talked to him by phone.

See Orca Network for reports of whale travels. In case you’re not aware of it, anyone can sign up for e-mail reports of whale sightings, typically compiled at the end of each day.

By the way, People for Puget Sound has scheduled a “Bremerton Moonlight Beachwalk” Thursday in Bremerton and a “Starlight Beachwalk and Bonfire” Friday in Burien. Reservations are recommended for both events.

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?

The Northwest region of the Environmental Protection Agency announced today that its enforcement program has been responsible for increased inspections and doubling the amount of pollution reduced and treated this year, compared to last.

In a news release, Elin Miller, EPA’s regional administrator in Seattle, had this to say:

“Our enforcement results speak for themselves. We’ve increased our inspections, more than doubled the pounds of pollution reduced or treated, and required more than $57 million in process improvements to ensure future compliance. This translates directly into better health protection for both the environment and local communities.”

I always like to give credit where it’s due, especially when the truth runs counter to perceptions about the Bush administration (or anyone else). I don’t doubt the findings, but the information does not tell us whether the EPA has done a great job this year or a poor job last year. In fact, some of the results show that 2006 was better than 2008. And how do these results compare to EPA records under previous administrations?

I was not able to find comparable statistics, but I did find footnotes saying the methods of calculating some stats have changed, so I quit looking. If anyone would care to add some perspective, I would welcome it.

For specific numbers, review the EPA’s Web page called 2008 Region 10 Compliance and Enforcement Annual Results.

The regional office lists these “federal case highlights.” More information can be found in news releases linked from this EPA Web page.
(more…)

We don’t know if salmon actually enjoy the smell of Christmas cookies that wash into Puget Sound with sewage effluent, but they can probably sense the holiday smell, according to Rick Keil, associate professor of oceanography at the University of Washington.

Keil and his students have been taking samples of water from Puget Sound and measuring the levels of chemicals associated with specific tastes. Chemicals associated with thyme are found after Thanksgiving. Methyl-vanilla, an ingredient in waffle cones and kettle corn, is found only in summer. Natural vanilla and cinnamon peak at holidays such as Christmas, Valentines Day and so on.

Keil started this project as a way to help people see the connections between the human and natural environments. He has pretty much stayed out of controversy by avoiding discussions about pharmaceuticals that can be found in Puget Sound. Some researchers believe that drugs flushed into local waters after passing through the human body may cause physiological changes in fish, including effects on the immune and reproductive systems.

Keil says all of the cinnamic acid, associated with cinnamon, that gets into Puget Sound has passed through the body of a mammal. Since it’s not likely that dogs and bears are eating a lot of cinnamon, he assumes that almost all is coming from human sewage.

“Control” stations off Vancouver Island in Canada show almost none of these compounds.

Ethyl-vanilla, a petroleum-derived product that creates a stronger vanilla taste than even natural vanilla, is more abundant in Puget Sound than the substance it mimics.

How these spices are affecting fish and wildlife remains uncertain. Are salmon ignoring these smells? Are they using them to home in on their natal streams? Are they confused by the smell of the holidays, experiencing more difficulty in finding their way through Puget Sound?

“You are what you eat,” Keil says, “and so is Puget Sound. If you eat it, Puget Sound eats it.”

Keil has been reporting on these results and adding to them for a couple of years. Read the latest UW news release or look up a story he wrote for the summer edition of “Watershed Review” (PDF 1.5 mb).

The latest twist on this research is getting more people involved in testing the waters in various areas of Western Washington. The Sound Citizen program includes UW students and scientists as well as anyone willing to follow scientific procedures in their sampling. Sampling kits are available. If you are interested, go to the Sound Citizen Web site.

I heard a couple of radio reports on this subject yesterday. But if you have 22 minutes, I highly recommend a recorded lecture of Keil’s. You can link to the audio and download the related slide show (PDF 1.5 mb). The discussion is quite informative and allows this researcher with a human touch to display his sense of humor before a live audience.

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…)

My story about a toxic site called the Old Bremerton Gasworks has been picked up by several area newspapers and radio stations. The story talks about cancer-causing chemicals found on property between Pennsylvania and Thompson avenues in Bremerton.

What the story doesn’t say — although you can read between the lines — is that experts have nearly as many questions today as they did before the first study was complete. We know portions of the site are heavily contaminated. Now we must wait for the results from a new round of tests to understand a little better about the extent of pollution, including whether toxic chemicals are leaking into Port Washington Narrows.

Those results should be available in a few weeks. See the story in Saturday’s Kitsap Sun.

The site first came to my attention in the mid-1990s, when former Sun reporter Lloyd Pritchett and I were working on an investigation called “Toxic Kitsap.” See the map of Kitsap’s toxic sites (at that time) and a mention of the gasworks property in a related story.

More than two years ago, Bremerton city officials began looking at this site for redevelopment under the Environmental Protection Agency’s brownfields program. Since it is a waterfront site, a marina and public park were considered possibilities. See the story in the May 23, 2006, edition of the Kitsap Sun. The property still could be developed following cleanup, but the investigation and restoration is likely to enter a new phase.

I’m told by officials with the Washington Department of Ecology that the Old Bremerton Gasworks site, which lies on the waterfront, may get special attention because of the renewed effort to restore Puget Sound.

Like I say, many questions remain regarding where the pollution has been going. How much, if any, has been getting into Puget Sound is an important question. I guess we’ll just wait for the upcoming test results and see what happens next. New information will be reported as it becomes available.

UPDATE: See added notes below

Gov. Chris Gregoire has run out of patience in dealing with the federal government, which has not lived up to its agreement to clean up nuclear waste at the Hanford Nuclear Reservation. Now, the state will battle the federal government in court.

I received a press release from the Governor’s Office moments ago. It contains this quote from Gregoire:

“In Washington state, we have been patient and reasonable in working with the federal agencies at Hanford,” Gregoire said. “Today, our patience has run out. The federal cleanup has been far too slow.

“In the past three years, the situation has gotten much worse. We now face—not years, not decades—but more than a century of delay. The most recent budget proposed by President Bush puts us on pace to empty one tank per year. At that rate, it will take 140 years to empty the worst of the remaining tanks. That’s not only absurd. It’s unconscionable. The people of Washington cannot stand for that, and will not stand for that.”

In 1989, the state and federal government reached agreement on a cleanup schedule that had a chance of preventing dangerous groundwater contamination in the Hanford region, including the Columbia River. The federal government, pleading poverty, has never lived up to the rate of progress promised in that agreement.

UPDATE: Wednesday, Nov. 26

Considering the increasing concern about nuclear waste at Hanford, there has been surprising little reaction to yesterday’s announcement by Gov. Chris Gregoire that this state will sue the federal government. For the moment, I’ll just add a few notes. Please read on:
(more…)

The Washington Department of Ecology is working on an instream flow rule to protect water levels in 13 streams in the northeast corner of the Olympic Peninsula.

Map of Quilcene Snow Watershed. (Click to enlarge.)

Folks in that area have been putting a tremendous amount of time, effort and money into restoring their local streams. I’m sure it’s discouraging — and not so good for the salmon — when water disappears from some of these streams during critical times of the year.

A story I wrote for today’s Kitsap Sun explains some of the restrictions under consideration for future water users. The proposed rule would not affect current owners of water rights. You can also see a list of streams proposed for the rule on the Web page for the story.

Streams on the Kitsap Peninsula, as well as much of the Puget Sound basin, were closed years ago to water withdrawals to protect existing stream flows. See Washington state map (PDF 220 kb). This issue has caused consternation among local water managers, because it increases the difficulty to get water rights for deep community wells but does nothing about individual exempt wells, which are usually shallower and more likely to affect stream flows.

In the Quilcene Snow Watershed, Ecology is planning to tackle the problem by limiting water rights for future individual wells in some areas and sometimes requiring that water be used only in-home use where that’s justified. Ecology also would free up residents to capture rain water for irrigation.

Water rights and water allocations have become a huge issue in managing population growth in Western Washington, following years of water battles in some areas of Eastern Washington. Some regular readers of Watching Our Water Ways are far more versed on this subject than I am, and I would welcome further comments.

A couple of weeks ago, we talked about how the Bush administration appeared to be making an effort to cement certain regulations in place before he leaves office. See Watching Our Water Ways, Nov. 5. Since I posted that item, a new twist is being widely discussed in political circles.

First the background: White House Chief of Staff Josh Bolten sent out a memo last May calling for all new regulations to be completed by Nov. 1, presumably so the rules could go into effect before Bush leaves office. Generally, they are effective 60 days after publication, though that can vary. It may have been assumed that having things done in early November would prevent the next president from blocking the rules in January.

If you recall, George W. Bush halted some of President Bill Clinton’s rules being pushed through at the midnight hour.

This time, Democrats in Congress may have an ace yet to be played. It’s called the Congressional Review Act of 1996.

The law contains a provision which says any regulation finalized within 60 days before the adjournment of Congress goes into limbo until the 15th day after the new session begins. At that point, the rule is considered final and Congress has 60 days to overturn it with a joint resolution, which is immune to a Senate filibuster.

“In other words,” states a lengthy explanation in Politico, “any regulation finalized in the last half-year of the Bush administration could be wiped out with a simple party-line vote in the Democrat-controlled Congress.”

The analysis last Wednesday by Erica Lovely and Ryan Grim says Democrats are indeed considering such a move. The story includes advice from Jerry Brito, a senior research fellow at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University. Brito suggests that Barack Obama “package all of the regulations it wants overturned into one large vehicle to be voted up or down.”

“That would solve the collective-action problem, and it solves the pet-project problem. It would sort of limit special pleading,” he said, noting that each new regulation benefits someone specific who will fight hard to keep it. Lumping them together dissipates that energy.

OMB Watch mentioned the Congressional Review Act in its previous analysis from Nov. 4, which stated that the law has been used successfully only once:

Congress’s only successful use of the act came in the early days of the Bush administration when a Clinton-era rule that would have required better ergonomics in the workplace was rejected.

While the Congressional Review Act is not the easiest law to understand, you’re welcome to link to the text at OMB Watch.

Meanwhile, Kathleen Sutcliffe of Earthjustice, an environmental group, sent out a list of the “most troubling” regulations being pushed through by the Bush administration in recent weeks. For illustrative purposes, I’ll list them here with her descriptions. Of course, administration officials have justifications for each one, which I won’t go into right now.
(more…)