When it comes to environmental protections for shorelines, local critical areas ordinances continue to be a source of controversy.

The latest development involves a letter from state Rep. Jan Angel asking the state departments of Ecology and Commerce to quit giving legal guidance to local agencies. See my story in today’s Kitsap Sun.

It seems clear from court decisions and legislative actions that the Shoreline Management Act will provide long-term regulations for properties within 200 feet of the shoreline. This law — unlike the Growth Management Act that spawned critical areas ordinances — requires local shoreline plans to be approved by the Washington Department of Ecology.

But the immediate conflict involves what regulations should apply until local shoreline master programs are updated, a process under way for most Puget Sound cities and counties.

The practical aspects are that critical areas ordinances, updated within the past few years, generally include more restrictive regulations, such as larger buffers, in comparison to shoreline plans, most of which were drafted in the 1970s with updates that vary by jurisdiction.

Legally, the issues become complicated. Angel’s position appears to be that court rulings direct local governments to fall back to rules listed in the shoreline master programs until new shoreline plans are approved. Read her letter to Interim Ecology Director Polly Zehm (PDF 172 kb).

Ecology’s position seems to be that local governments should not throw out rules developed in their critical areas ordinances until the shoreline plans are updated.

I should point out that Brian Hodges, an attorney with Pacific Legal Foundation, maintains that Kitsap County would be putting itself at legal risk if county officials continue to process shoreline applications under the Kitsap County Critical Areas Ordinance. Hodges was the prevailing attorney in a lawsuit brought by Kitsap Alliance of Property Owners. County officials say they will appeal the ruling to the Washington State Supreme Court.

As for Ecology’s updated “guidance,” the reasoning goes as follows. See Ecology’s Web site for the complete analysis.
(more…)

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post 

Winners. Losers.

These two words have been spinning around in my brain since I attended a conference on water resources a couple of days ago. Check out my story in today’s Kitsap Sun.

Western Washington may not experience an overall water shortage as a result of climate change the way some regions will, according to climatologists. But our rains, on average, are likely to come in heavier downpours. To me, that means we will have our hands full trying to reduce the frequency of flooding, which affects natural systems as well as man-made ones.

In areas of the country that become drier, water could become scarce and the price of water is likely to go up. We’ve seen an ongoing drought in the Southwest. While it could be a just temporary trend, the situation calls for better water management and makes people nervous about the future. Click here to see an animation of changing conditions over the past 12 weeks.

A speaker at the conference, Michael Read of the Water Environment Federation, predicted that the Northwest will attract population from the Southwest as climate change continues. Winners and losers?

It may not be a question of whether we want the extra people. It may be more about whether we can manage the population growth with the least disruption to our ecosystem. Will we find ways to work with the coming changes in climate — or not? Will we be winners or losers?

If water gives our region a competitive edge, maybe we could attract industry looking to move away from more arid regions. That could help stabilize our economy, which seems to be a perpetual goal of many people. Winners and losers?

If climatologists are right, many species in the Northwest will struggle to adapt to the changing conditions. Some will survive and some will go extinct. Winners and losers.

I am not discounting efforts to reduce greenhouse gases and possibly avert some of the more dire consequences of climate change. But a growing effort is looking into how humans and animals may adapt to whatever changes will come.

While experts study adaptation, I don’t believe the concept has entered our general consciousness, let alone our actions. Perhaps waiting to see what happens is the prudent thing to do. After all, how do we plan for something uncertain?

On the other hand, maybe it would be wiser to begin considering the range of futures we could face within a few short decades. How do we become winners instead of losers?

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post 

Kitsap Alliance of Property Owners has jumped out in front of what promises to be a lively debate over shoreline science.

Don Flora, a retired forest researcher, conducted a statistical analysis of data compiled in separate shoreline assessments of East Kitsap and Bainbridge Island. Flora concluded that the reports show no apparent relationship between man-made stressors and ecosystem functions. Please take a look at my story in today’s Kitsap Sun.

Not finding a correlation between these two factors does not mean that man-made structures are harmless or without effect on the ecosystem. But these findings do raise questions, as Flora points out. Download his report here (PDF 188 kb).

So far, I have been unable to find a qualified scientist who has read Flora’s report and wishes to respond on the record. I’ve heard from a few who have questions about the analysis and may prepare a response in the future.

Among the complaints about Flora’s report are these: It does not follow standard protocol for a scientific report; it is not obvious how he conducted his analysis; and it was not peer reviewed by third-party experts.

Flora told me that his intent was to create a paper that could be read by average people, and he did ask a couple of people to edit it for readability. He did not intend for it to be considered a scientific paper nor for it to be peer-reviewed in the scientific sense.

I have heard complaints that Flora did not show his work, and I found myself asking him to point me to the data tables that he used to plug numbers into the standard regression analysis — a statistical tool used to show relationships between two independent variables. I suggested to Flora that he include an appendix that would show the raw data and help people replicate his work. He thought this might be a good idea.

If you want to take a closer look, review the findings related to Bainbridge Island shoreline planning and Kitsap County shoreline planning, including the county shoreline assessments.

Some scientists find it offensive that Flora lifted data from these two reports and manipulated them to his own ends without consulting the scientists involved. Others are suspicious that Flora used these data to reach his own conclusions — a suspicion heightened because Flora is a member of KAPO. And KAPO’s press release (PDF 64 kb) about Flora’s report makes a leap that stirs the pot of controversy:

“These reviews bring into question the justification for any nearshore restorations or the need to impose any shoreline buffer zones in the upcoming Shoreline Master Program updates.”

Dealing with numerous scientific studies will be an important part of the effort to update the county’s shorelines plan. Kitsap County planners say they aren’t sure how they will deal with Flora’s report, but they intend to lean heavily on expertise from the Washington Department of Ecology to point them to reliable scientific studies.

The planners say they want to make sure that any studies upon which they rely for planning are vetted before they move into policy discussions. During the update of the county’s Critical Areas Ordinance, such studies were never fully vetted — at least not to the satisfaction of property rights advocates. KAPO members ended up arguing about science all the way to the Washington State Supreme Court — though the court did not address science issues at all when it overturned the county’s shoreline buffers. See the Sept. 9 Kitsap Sun and the Water Ways entry the next day.

I’ve always expected that experts would engage in a healthy discussion about what it will take to protect the ecological functions of the county’s shorelines. Now it appears the discussion may take on the tone of a debate. In comments posted at the bottom of today’s story, some people are showing their distrust of government while others are showing their distrust of KAPO.

I hope everyone can somehow relax enough to embark on a real search for truth knowledge as it relates to shoreline ecosystems. After all, isn’t that what science is really about?

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post 

Hood Canal Coordinating Council is developing an “Integrated Watershed Action Plan” to dovetail with related work being done by the Puget Sound Partnership.

An outline of the action plan, titled “A Vision for Hood Canal,” was discussed at today’s meeting of the coordinating council, which is made up of county commissioners and tribal officials in Kitsap, Mason and Jefferson counties.

Scott Brewer, director of the council, told me that actions to address low-oxygen problems in Hood Canal will be rolled into this watershed plan — but specific projects will move forward on their own time tables.

A new sewage-treatment plant in Belfair is expected to reduce nitrogen flowing into Lower Hood Canal. Nitrogen has been determined to be a key factor in creating low-oxygen conditions in this region of the canal, which gets very little flushing.

Other sewage-treatment plants are being considered in Hoodsport, Potlatch and the Skokomish Reservation, all in Mason County, along with a single system for Dosewallips State Park and possibly Brinnon in Jefferson County.

Immediate actions include:

• Making sure people understand the basics of septic system maintenance,
• Continued funding for a low-interest loan program for septic upgrades (See Shorebank),
• Support for the Working Forest Initiative to maintain forestlands in the Hood Canal region,
• A request for research into the effectiveness of nitrogen-removal septic systems,
• And a request for research into the extent that alder trees can increase the flow of nitrogen into Hood Canal and whether to pursue changes in forest management.

The action plan contains a “watershed assessment,” which will describe a “desired future condition” for Hood Canal along with factors that need to be addressed to reach measurable goals. As the outlines states:

In a general sense, the hypothesis to be tested through the watershed assessment is whether ecosystem function throughout the Hood Canal watershed can be protected and restored, and water pollution reduced, while at the same time accommodating expected future population growth. More specifically, the desired future condition will describe healthy habitat and life histories of target populations and other habitat and socioeconomic conditions.

The plan’s description of desired future conditions will be used as a template against which to compare current conditions, for purposes of identifying limiting factors and strategies to correct them. The plan’s description of desired future conditions will be based on a reconstruction of historic conditions, taking into account changes that are irreversible.

For further details, check out materials provided for today’s meeting on the home page of the Hood Canal Coordinating Council.

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post 

UPDATE, Oct, 25
Former Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife director Jeff Koenings testified in the federal culvert trial on Friday. See AP reporter Tim Klass’s story in the Kitsap Sun. Koenings told the court that diverting state dollars for culvert repair and replacement could harm salmon if it means less money for higher-priority salmon-restoration projects.
—————

I was beginning to wonder if I was the only environmental reporter who recognized the significance of a lawsuit involving Indian treaty rights and state culverts. I wrote about the case for the Kitsap Sun in March, after it appeared negotiations had broken down.

The outcome of the case could well determine how much power the courts hold over state budgets when it comes to the enforcement of Indian treaty rights.

After all, from the tribes’ perspective, the state has been dragging its feet in restoring salmon habitat — including the replacement of culverts that block the passage of salmon. On the other hand, the courts could force the state to spend money that it doesn’t have, or else shift dollars from education, social programs, law enforcement, even other environmental initiatives. That is why I think this is such an important precedent-setting case.

The issue is now in trial, having started in U.S. District Court last week. Reporter Craig Welch does a nice job of putting the issue into historical perspective in today’s Seattle Times.

I was on vacation when the trial started, so we referred the story to the Associated Press. AP reporter Tim Klass has done a good job of following the trial. See his first story in the Oct 13 Kitsap Sun and a follow-up in today’s paper.

If I hear the tribal attorneys correctly, they are looking to fix the major blocking culverts under state jurisdiction within 20 years, rather than the 50-60 years under the state’s current schedule.

If this case succeeds, the next logical step would be to go after counties — which may have hundreds of culverts that need attention. Other habitat issues also would be on the table. Anybody want the courts to set stream and shoreline buffers?

I suppose we’ll have plenty of time to talk about the implications once the decision is handed down. And there will be appeals, of course. No matter the final outcome, this case will have repercussions for decades to come.

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post 

Jay Manning’s last official act as director of the Washington Department of Ecology was to announce that a water right will not be required to collect rainwater from the roof of a building.

It has been a bone of contention among some folks that state water law appears to require a water rights permit for the diversion of “water resources,” which is defined as “all waters above, upon, or beneath the surface of the earth, located within the state and over which the state has sole or concurrent jurisdiction.”

But state water law also gives the director of Ecology broad discretion to write regulations in the public interest.

Ecology specifically recognizes that rainwater harvesting can be a tool to manage stormwater. See Ecology’s paper on this subject.

In a one-page statement (PDF 124 kb), Manning declared:

“The on-site storage and/or beneficial use of rooftop or guzzler collected rainwater is not subject to the permit process of RCW 90.03.”

The statement leaves an avenue for the state if officials encounter a situation in which rainwater harvesting could affect stream flows or someone’s existing rights:

“If and when the department determines that rooftop or guzzler rainwater harvesting systems are likely to negatively affect instream values or existing water rights, local restrictions may be set in place to govern subsequent new systems.”

What conditions will apply to prevent possible abuse?

“To qualify as rooftop collected rainwater, the roof collecting the rainwater must be part of a fixed structure above the ground with a primary purpose other than the collection of rainwater for beneficial use. A guzzler is a device used to catch and store rainwater to provide drinking water for wildlife, livestock or birds.”

The statement includes this note:

“This policy supersedes any previous policy/interpretive statement, focus sheet or other stated Ecology viewpoint with which it may conflict.”

Josh Baldi, special assistant to the director of Ecology, said his agency conducted an analysis to measure the potential effects of the new policy. Because of cost, rainwater is not likely to be collected where it would create a problem, he said at a meeting of the Puget Sound Partnership’s Ecosystem Coordination Board.

“Most of the areas where rainwater collection makes economic sense are places where it also makes environmental sense,” he explained.

See also “Rainwater Collection to Augment Water Supply” and “Rainwater Collection as a Sound Investment.”

The agency is working with state plumbing experts to establish a registration program for large rainwater-harvesting systems. Registration would not be required for rain barrels or other small systems. See “Focus on Rainwater Interpretive Policy” (PDF, 152 kb).

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post 

Jay Manning, who has headed the Washington Department of Ecology the past four-plus years, is moving into somewhat uncharted territory as the governor’s chief of staff.

Manning, a native of Manchester in Kitsap County, has always been associated with environmental issues and occasional environmental battles. Now, he will use his organizational and negotiation skills to work alongside Gov. Chris Gregoire.

“Jay Manning brings incredible leadership skills and knowledge of our state to this new position,” Gregoire said in a news release. “He works effectively with citizens all across our state. He has an extraordinary ability to bring people together to forge solutions to difficult problems and seize opportunities for Washington state.”

I reached Jay Manning this afternoon to congratulate him and ask him what the heck he was thinking.

He told me that both the Ecology director post and his new chief of staff position include an “incredible array of issues,” but the new job comes with a broader range of responsibilities. It will require him to become more of a generalist, which is a new challenge for him.

“I have focused on environmental issues my whole career, and that is where my heart will always be,” he told me. “But I look forward to a full immersion in all the areas of state government.”

It will be a learning experience as he gets up to speed on all state agencies, learns about budgets and economic stimulus programs, and gets entangled in state politics like he’s never seen before.

Of course, I am interested in Manning’s successor. Hiring the new Ecology director will be one of the first priorities of his new position, he said.

“I think the agency is highly functional as it is, but my job will be to get good candidates before her (Gregoire) for selection,” he said, adding that he has placed a proposed selection process on her desk but hasn’t heard back yet.

I would guess that candidates are likely to come from within Ecology or at least be someone who Manning and the governor know fairly well.

“I will want to move quickly on this,” Jay said, “and I think she does, too.”

Manning has taken on some tough issues as Ecology director, including battles over Hanford and climate change. Not everyone agrees with the agency’s decisions, but Manning has never hesitated to lay out the rationale behind them.

Through it all, it seems that Jay has remained well respected among those who have dealt with him. Of course, I wish him well in his new position and look forward to working with his replacement.

If you’d like to read a profile on Manning and hear him discuss the issues in his own words, go to the Feb. 16, 2008, story in the Kitsap Sun.

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post 

To know whether the Kitsap Peninsula will have enough water for now and the future, one needs to know how much rain will fall on the peninsula — and rainfall is impossible to predict.

That’s the message I received during my reporting for a story in today’s Kitsap Sun.

For the “water year” ending Sept. 30, Kitsap Public Utility District is reporting record-low or near-record-low rainfalls throughout Kitsap County. Aquifer levels are approaching 20- to 30-year lows.

We’ve been in this position before — probably many times throughout history, though we have never had the tools to measure it until recent years. After a bit of a scare in the early 1990s, local water officials implemented a monitoring program that allows us to be more aware of our water conditions. Water utilities and local governments have become more nimble in responding to potential problems. Conservation has reduced per-capita water consumption — though not as much as could be achieved in a crisis.

As I write this, a rainfall map we produced for the newspaper has not been posted online. I’ll try to get that attached to the online version of the story and will post it here as well.

My personal conclusion is that we should be a little nervous about our water supplies, but we should understand that we have the ability to respond. However one feels about development, it appears we have room for growth in most areas of the county — provided we manage our water carefully as circumstances develop.

In the end, it is all about the rainfall.

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post 

The latest episode in the battle for a boat launch at Lake Tahuyeh focuses on four fishing groups who were under the impression that a state boat launch for kayaks and canoes was a done deal — then the plans were canceled.

Lake Tahuyeh property owned by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife

The groups feel betrayed because an official with the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife withdrew the application for a permit after saying that nothing would happen until November, when a lawsuit was scheduled for trial. See my story in Thursday’s Kitsap Sun.

This story has had many twists and turns since 2004. Officials with the Tahuyeh Lake Community Club also have grievances against Fish and Wildlife officials, who they believed had agreed to abandon plans for a boat launch and sell the lakefront property.

Now, it appears a lawsuit filed by the community club may go to court. The issue: whether the state has the legal right to open the lake to the public, by way of owning a parcel of waterfront property.

Comments posted to my latest story generally support the community club’s position of keeping the public off the lake. This seems to be a turn, since supporters of the boat launch were well represented in previous stories.

I’ll keep the informal poll open a few more days to see if anyone wants to add their opinions on this issue. See the right column and vote if you have not already done so.

Here are some of the stories written about this issue:
Oct. 1, 2009: Fishing Groups Question ‘Secret Dealings’ on Lake Tahuyeh
Aug. 20, 2009: Lake Tahuyeh Boat Launch Project Stirs Politics, Passions
July 16, 2009: State Won’t Pursue Boat Launch at Lake Tahuyeh
Dec. 14, 2007: Hearing Examiner Says Lake Tahuyeh Boat Launch Needs a Plan
Oct. 11, 2007: Lake Residents Express Objections to Tahuyeh Boat Launch
Oct. 6, 2007: Tahuyeh Boat Launch Goes Before Hearing Examiner
April 14, 2007: Changes Could Minimize Plan for Tahuyeh Access
April 5, 2007: Sportsmen, Homeowners Take Sides on Lake Access
Nov. 20, 2004: Residents: ‘The lake is ours’

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post 

An award-winning film, “Liquid Assets: The Story of Our Water Infrastructure,” could be a “catalyst for community discussions about local water infrastructure and other important civic issues,” according to Kitsap County Commissioner Charlotte Garrido.

The film, produced last year by the WPSU-TV, is scheduled to be shown on BKAT, Kitsap County’s community access channel. It is currently scheduled to be shown on four different days beginning Sept. 30.

Kitsap County has set up a special page to comment on the film and local water infrastructure.

Here’s what Charlotte says about the film in a written statement:

“We’re very pleased to be able to present this award-winning documentary on local cable television in Kitsap County. It tells the story of essential infrastructure systems: drinking water, wastewater, and stormwater and provides a catalyst for ongoing discussions about local water infrastructure and other important civic issues. I hope you’ll watch and then help develop solutions that protect our water resources.”

She also said this in a statement:

“We are facing some very difficult decisions on how to protect and maintain infrastructure in Kitsap County. We’re interested in hearing thoughts and ideas from local residents as we continue the long-range planning to ensure viable water resources in the future.”

A four-minute trailer for the film can be viewed above at right. If you’d like to share a comment about water issues with county officials, click here, and feel free to share your thoughts on this blog as well.

To read more about the film, visit the “Liquid Assets” Web site set up by Pennsylvania State University, the home of WPSU.

The film was shown last fall on Seattle’s public television station KCTS, so some of you may have seen it then. Here the schedule for BKAT (Channel 12 on Comcast and Channel 3 on Wave Cable).

• Wednesday, Sept. 30, 10 a.m.
• Saturday, Oct. 3, 11 a.m.
• Friday, Oct. 9, 3:30 p.m.
• Monday, Oct. 12, 10 p.m.

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post