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 

The state of Colorado, where water is scarce, has begun to allow certain homeowners to collect rainwater that falls onto their roofs. A new law, which goes into effect today, removes the legal stigma from people who collect water in rain barrels — provided they meet some strict criteria.

In Washington state, where water is more plentiful (at least in Western Washington), rainwater collection remains stuck in a legal quagmire.

Folks here are growing more aware of the problems that can be created by excess stormwater, which may cause erosion and can transport pollution into the nearest waterway. We are seeing a big push for “low impact development,” which focuses on getting rainwater to soak into the ground as quickly as possible.

But putting rainwater to actual use is another issue. If you intend to use the runoff for watering plants or really any purpose, you are supposed to obtain a water right from the Washington Department of Ecology. In practice, Ecology officials say they allow de minimis use of runoff, such as filling a rain barrel for your garden. But if your goal is to fill a large tank, you could run into problems.

At first, it seems rather ridiculous that a person could be prevented from using the water that falls on his or her property. But when you consider the legal implications, you are forced to confront the extremes. If lots of people were allowed to store all the rainwater they wanted, some streams might dry up in the summer.

For years, Washington legislators have tried to define how much water can be taken without the need for a water right, but the legislation has never gone anywhere. A bill in the 2009 Legislature would have directed Ecology to establish how many gallons can be collected and to describe areas where such collection would and would not be allowed.

A year ago, Department of Ecology officials decided they needed to develop some general rules in the absence of a state law. They offered this rationale:

An acceptable level of rainwater harvesting without requiring a water right has never been defined in law or rule. This lack of clarity has’ created a public perception that even tiny amounts of rainwater harvesting and use is subject to the water code and/or permit process.

Starting in 2003 and every year thereafter the legislature has attempted to c1arify this legal ambiguity. All such efforts have failed. Stormwater management is a major problem, particularly in urban settings. The legal ambiguity concerning rainwater harvesting is hindering efforts to utilize rainwater harvesting as a stormwater management tool. If Ecology does not move forward with the rule, the crippling uncertainty will remain.

The rule was never formally proposed and probably won’t go anywhere for the foreseeable future, according to Judy Beitel of Ecology’s Water Resources Program. Her program has undergone such severe staff cutbacks that special projects like this will be greatly diminished. For further discussion, see Ecology’s page on Rainwater Collection.

Colorado legislators understand that the collection of rainwater could potentially impair uses by people downstream who hold legal rights to the available water. The new law imposes some strict criteria, as outlined in a discussion paper (PDF 44 kb).

Specifically, one’s home must have a legal well or be entitled to have a well designated for domestic uses. Water must not be available from a city or water district. Rainwater can be collected only from the roof, and the use must be consistent with permitted uses of the private well. One must file an application with the state.

A second law will allow limited pilot projects involving large-scale rainwater collection for developments.

These measures seem like a good start to break through the legal quagmire, but Colorado’s law does not begin to address the stormwater problems in urban areas that we see in Western Washington.

New York Times reporter Kirk Johnson explores the implications with some Colorado residents who want to collect rainwater, but his story does not touch on the finer points of the new law.

For Washington state, reporter Jennifer Langston wrote a fairly comprehensive piece for the Seattle P-I about a year ago. In it, she pointed out that Seattle officials had taken steps to solve the water rights problem for many city residents by obtaining a permit for roof collection is areas where streamflow was not a concern.

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post 

Among all the gloomy stories about declining salmon runs, I am pleased to tell the positive story about the restoration of Hood Canal summer chum. See Sunday’s story in the Kitsap Sun.

For this population of salmon, biologists and political leaders have followed through on a carefully crafted recovery program. Since the late 1980s, researchers have studied these fish to an unusual degree — from the genetic makeup of the summer chum to their migratory patterns. As a result, they have been able to judge when things were going well or not so well.

Temporary hatcheries have been used to rebuild the summer chum runs in numerous Hood Canal streams. After boosting the numbers, most hatcheries have been discontinued. Now, the future of these fish will be determined by the quality of the habitat and changes in the natural system.

If you click over to the Sunday story, you will have access to a more in-depth series I wrote in 2003, before many of the recent successes could be reported.

I’m not working today, because I’ve been hit by some kind of bug that’s sapped my energy, so I won’t write more right now. I just wanted to make sure everyone was aware of my Sunday piece about the summer chum.

UPDATE (Tuesday, June 23): I’m back in action today and realized that I had not included the Web sites that will give you a ton of information about Hood Canal summer chum:
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife
National Marine Fisheries Service

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post 

President Obama is being praised for his decision to pull together all the ocean-related challenges this nation faces and for plotting a unified course of action.

On Friday, the president issued a memorandum calling for a task force to develop a national ocean policy along with a “framework” for action and a set of objectives. See the Memorandum for the Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies, along with a news story by reporter Doug Palmer of Reuters.

I was tempted to state cynically that actions speak louder than words, so we should curb our enthusiasm about what can be done to save the oceans. But then I talked to Bill Ruckelshaus, who co-chairs the Joint Ocean Commission, a national group dedicated to this topic.

Ruckelshaus seems to be thrilled with this latest development, following years of failed promises from the Bush administration.

“This is quite a significant event, really,” Bill told me. “It moves the oceans up on the presidential agenda, which means they will get more attention from Congress and from agencies in the administration. Presidencies are all about setting agendas, and this means more attention will be paid to the recommendations we made.”

I’ll tell you a little more about what my conversation with Mr. Ruckelshaus, but first I’ll review the history.

Five years ago, similar praise was accorded to President Bush after the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy — a presidentially appointed body — released it’s comprehensive examination of the major problems facing the oceans. The report included a list of potential solutions.

Adm. James D. Watkins, a retired Navy officer who chaired the commission, expressed enthusiasm for the reception he felt the report was getting from the Bush administration.

“President Bush’s response to the Commission’s Report and his signing of Executive Order establishing a Secretarial-level Committee on Ocean Policy … sets into motion the important process of developing and implementing a new national ocean policy,” Watkins declared.

Despite the positive reaction, I don’t believe a whole lot came about. (Review the last three “report cards.”) A separate report written by the Pew Oceans Commission received even less attention.

After the two commissions dissolved, some members — including Ruckelshaus — moved into a new organization called the Joint Ocean Commission Initiative, a nongovernmental group that maintained pressure for action through annual “report cards” relating the progress, or lack thereof, on ocean issues.

In April of this year, the joint commission issued an urgent new report called “Changing Oceans, Changing World: Ocean Priorities for the Obama Administration and Congress” (PDF 280 kb). I outlined that report in a Water Ways entry on April 7.

And so now we come to today, five months into the new administration, which seems to be trying to do everything at once. Can there really be much energy left for a discussion about the oceans?

Bill Ruckelshaus is undaunted. “I think holding back and doing things one at a time just doesn’t work,” he said. “You have to act while the energy is there.”

Ruckelshaus, the first administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency under President Nixon, now chairs the Leadership Council of the Puget Sound Partnership, where he is heading the effort to reverse the degradation of our inland waterways.

President Bush created the U.S. Commission on Oceans, which probably seemed like a good idea at the time. But pulling all the environmental agencies together and getting Congress to focus on budgets, regulations and international treaties just never came to pass.

Why is Obama’s action different?

(more…)

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post 

When it comes to the food we eat, the buy-local movement is slowly catching on across the country.

Sharon Howard keeps her 15 pigs cool by filling a hole with water. Kitsap Sun photo

Among the various benefits of locally grown food is reducing the transportation of produce — resulting in less oil consumption, lower emissions of pollution and greenhouse gases, and even large-scale economic benefits, such as the balance of trade.

As demand for local food increases, local farmers are trying to put fallow lands back into production. So what is standing in their way? For many eager farmers, the answer is WATER RIGHTS.

Kitsap Sun reporter Chris Henry explores the experience of one local family in today’s Kitsap Sun. Sharon and Jay Howard own 14 acres at their Possum Run Farm that they want to put into production. But they need water during the dry periods, whether they grow produce or raise livestock.

Unless you have enough money to pay for complicated hydrologic studies — and we’re talking up to $100,000 — it is virtually impossible to get the Department of Ecology to approve the use of a new well for commercial use anywhere on the Kitsap Peninsula.

And things just got worse, thanks to the poor economy. To balance the state budget, the Washington Legislature recently hacked 25 percent out of the Department of Ecology’s Water Resources Program. (Review my May 27 story in the Kitsap Sun.) If the economy improves, officials hope to restore the program in two years.

But let’s be clear about the problem. There’s almost no hope that management of limited water supplies will improve without a great deal of government attention. You could double the size of the program, but without new policies, procedures, laws, or ultimately court battles, serious progress won’t happen in many areas of our state.

In Western Washington, Ecology is forced to focus on solving water resource problems in a few limited areas, such as the Dungeness watershed where supplies are in a critical state and everybody knows it. But nobody has proposed a way through the minefield of water resource issues on the Kitsap Peninsula — not since a local watershed-planning process came to an abrupt end with a veto from Nisqually Tribe.

To make matters worse, the latest state budget eliminates money for planning, except for those areas with an approved watershed-management plan.

And so the Howards and other would-be farmers must look for a way to possibly purchase and transfer water allocations from someone else. I guess we’ll see how that works out.

Meanwhile, for information about the buy-local movement, check out the Web site “Buy Local Food in Kitsap,” sponsored by the Kitsap Community and Agricultural Alliance. Statewide, one place to look is the Washington State Farmers Market Association.

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post 

Federal biologists are really stirring things up in Northern California. They have determined that the irrigation system in the vast Central Valley farm region jeopardizes the future of several species of fish as well as Puget Sound’s killer whales.

The killer whale angle is worth some discussion — but first the larger picture.

“What is at stake here is not just the survival of species but the health of entire ecosystems and the economies that depend on them,” Rod Mcinnis, southwest regional director for NOAA’s Fisheries Service said in a news release. “We are ready to work with our federal and state partners, farmers and residents to find solutions that benefit the economy, environment and Central Valley families.”

Changing the water system to meet the requirements of threatened and endangered species could reduce water supplies by 5 to 7 percent, significantly affecting farm production and drinking water supplies. Several proposed projects — valued at hundreds of millions of dollars — could help balance that out. To see the technical reports, go to NOAA’s Web site on the issue.

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger objected to the findings in a written statement:

“This federal biological opinion puts fish above the needs of millions of Californians and the health and security of the world’s eighth largest economy. The piling on of one federal court decision after another in a species-by-species approach is killing our economy and undermining the integrity of the Endangered Species Act. I will be asking for a meeting with Secretary Salazar and Secretary Locke to discuss our concerns with these biological opinions, and my Administration will be pursuing every possible avenue to reconcile the harmful effects of these decisions.”

Court action is almost certain.

Reporters Kelly Zito of the San Francisco Chronicle and Colin Sullivan of the New York Times’ “Greenwire” do a good job in fleshing out this story from the California perspective.

It’s interesting to see the federal biologists address the plight of the Southern Resident killer whales with respect to water use in California. These orcas frequent Puget Sound, but they are spending a great deal of their time along the West Coast down to Monterey Bay. The bottom line in the biological opinion is that salmon availability along the coast could be a key factor in whether the population is able to avoid extinction.

Environmental groups were quick to argue that if water operations in Northern California can raise the risk of extinction to intolerable levels, then surely the dams on the Columbia River ought to be a concern.

“The recent National Marine Fisheries Service conclusion linking destruction of salmon habitat to harm to killer whales is a breath of fresh air,” said Kathy Fletcher, executive director for People for Puget Sound in a statement. “Our killer whales are at critically low numbers, and NMFS has recognized that what we do to salmon in freshwater impacts our orcas in the ocean. But it doesn’t make sense to protect salmon for whales to eat in California while at the same time ignoring the effect of dams on fish in the whales’ backyard.”

The issue of what to do about the dams remains before a federal judge. The Obama administration is considering whether to continue with the Bush approach to leave the dams in place or revisit the issue.

“The fiction that the dams on the Columbia and Snake Rivers have no effect on the food supply for orcas is one of many failings in the Columbia and Snake River biological opinion,” said Steve Mashuda of Earthjustice, which represents the groups in the case. “Our killer whales shouldn’t have to travel all the way to Monterey Bay to find a decent meal.”

To understand why the federal biologists consider water activities in California critical to the survival of the Southern Resident killer whales, I’ve pulled some comments from the Biological Opinion and Conference Opinion on the Long-Term Operations of the Central Valley Project and State Water Project (PDF 12.7mb):

(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 

State and local officials are waiting anxiously to learn who will get the federal stimulus money passing through the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. The money will be targeted for habitat improvement.

I can’t find the national numbers, but I recall that NOAA had requests for maybe 10 times the money it had available. That means there are going to be a few disappointed people and groups around the country.

Some people expected to hear an announcement of the results several weeks ago, but the Obama administration appears to be making a list and checking it twice — maybe trying to figure out which groups are naughty and nice.

Anyway, the Puget Sound Leadership Council moved ahead to award some state funds to make sure critical projects get under way this summer one way or another.

The Nisqually estuary restoration has been named a priority and will receive a good share of the money, but Hood Canal also remains a priority, with projects moving from the drawing board to construction on the water. Two Hood Canal estuary-restoration projects, totaling $2.7 million, are among five Puget Sound projects approved for state funding this week.

The Hood Canal projects are a $1.7 million restoration in the Skokomish River estuary and a $1 million restoration in the Little Quilcene estuary. The other three projects, totaling $1.6 million, are associated with the Nisqually River restoration project.

Check out the press release from the Puget Sound Partnership. Here’s the brief story I prepared for Saturday’s Kitsap Sun:
(more…)

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post 

I tackled Washington Department of Ecology’s budget in a story published today in the Kitsap Sun.

My original plan was to lead the story with the water resources program and its 25 percent cutback in staffers who process water-rights applications. The cutbacks will put the state further behind in managing our limited water resources.

Because Ecology has taken a precautionary approach, the result will be less water available to serve growing communities and businesses. That becomes especially frustrating for developers and water utilities, but a lack of overall management is not so good for the environment either.

And we still kind of ignore that fact that people are allowed to drill wells for their single-family homes without much regard for the overall amount of water available. That issue will come home to roost one of these days, because these are the wells most likely to affect streams and wetlands. Conflicting demands will inevitably rise to the surface one day.

Anyway, my original plan was to lead this story talking about water resources, but I chose to focus first on litter. Litter is easier for people to understand, and I thought more people could get into the story from that angle. I know my blood boils when I think of all the trash along the highways. I also discovered some interesting details for my story.

Statewide, Ecology’s Youth Corps will be cut by half. That means less litter will be picked up. As some folks pointed out in comments on the story, we still have work crews from the jails, but that effort also takes money for supervision, transportation and disposal — and not all inmates are eligible to work. The state will still support the inmate crews, though I need to check whether the county will continue the program at the same level. (I’ll try to report that here and in a comment on the story.)

Overall, Ecology will be able to make it through the downtown in the economy without major problems. As with many organizations, the biggest problem will be losing experienced, knowledgeable employees and hiring back rookies when money becomes available.

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post 

State budget problems have forced the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife to cut more than 10 percent of the positions within the agency.

The result will mean layoffs for 76 employees plus the elimination of another 87 vacant positions, as I describe in a story in today’s Kitsap Sun.

I feel saddened by this outcome, not only because I personally work with so many of these hard-working folks in my news-gathering efforts but also because I know that our natural resources will suffer.

Enforcement, for example, was already cut to the bone before the budget crisis. Deputy Director Joe Stohr told me that agency heads have made this area a priority, and they were able to keep cuts in enforcement to a minimum. Still, four vacant positions will not be filled.

How does an average person judge how important these officers are? As a newspaper, we have covered their activities, but that doesn’t tell the whole story. It’s important to remember that we have only a couple officers for the entire Kitsap Peninsula, and their duties are numerous.

These officers may be in the woods looking for deer poachers, in the streams looking for people snagging salmon, or on the beaches looking for those who believe it’s their personal privilege to take as many shellfish as they want. Sometimes, our officers are working with the marine patrol division watching over salmon fishing. Other times, they are called on to stop crazy property owners from bulldozing streams or filling wetlands. These are also the folks who show up when a bear raids your neighborhood garbage cans. The list goes on.

If you wonder whether we need enforcement officers in the woods, just read the recent Kitsap Sun report by Josh Farley and Ed Friedrich about a man accused of killing numerous deer and leaving them in the woods to rot.

I don’t think I’m giving away any secrets if I tell you that for every criminal who gets caught in a fish or wildlife violation, dozens probably get away. As with any enforcement, the more officers we have in the field, the less likely it is that people will attempt a fish or wildlife crime.

The officers are also there for education. But, with so few officers around, I suspect that some people just do what they want to do and ask questions later. Then they complain if they get a citation.

Other divisions within the Department of Fish and Wildlife go far beyond enforcement, protecting and enhancing all species of fish and wildlife. That includes trying to figure out which populations are declining, which have reached threatened or endangered status and which are doing well. Some people in the agency conduct research and help develop management plans to reach and maintain healthy populations.

This agency also operates recreation sites and conducts educational programs.

If you would like a better idea of what this agency does and what the cuts will mean, take a look at the Budget Information Web page set up by WDFW.

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post