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 

In an e-mail to participants and supporters of the project, Castle again declared that Kitsap County is the “low-impact development capital of Washington,” as he did last April. See my Kitsap Sun story from April 7, 2009.

The following is a final assessment of the project, as listed in the summary, along with a map of low-impact development projects throughout Kitsap County. (Click on the pins for descriptions.)

“This project has met and/or exceeded all its goals. Every jurisdiction in Kitsap County has adopted the same LID Standards, The Kitsap County Low Impact Development Guidance Manual is well thought of for both how comprehensive it is and how current the information on low impact development — it’s modeling and use — is.

“The challenges that remain are transitional. While much progress has been made in Kitsap County with the engineering community, there are still some in both the public and private sector who have yet to acquire the technical knowledge to become comfortable in designing and/or reviewing projects that include low impact development.

“The PSP/WSU Technical Training Workshops are the most comprehensive and contain the most current technical information in the country. However, the quantity and quality of technical training opportunities needs to be expanded and supported for some time.

“The Kitsap Spreadsheet Modeling Tool (LID Calculator) will provide an “ease of use” element to meeting the sizing and use of LID features in new and retrofit projects… In our ‘Kitsap County Low Impact Development Guidance Manual’ workshops and Webinar, it should be noted that all the presenters are from Kitsap County…. These private and public sector individuals were selected to recognize the low impact development knowledge that Kitsap pubic officials and industry professionals have achieved and to show that Kitsap County has the knowledge, leadership, and technical expertise to successfully implement low impact development.

“As more and more new development, and commercial and homeowner retrofit projects are completed the increased aquifer recharge and the water quality benefit of natural treatment will result in significantly less pollutants in runoff reaching streams and water bodies. In addition, low impact development practices will result in less peak runoff caused erosion in stream channels.”

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 

This is a summary judgment hearing, meaning that the judge can rule if there are no substantial disagreements on critical facts in the case.

The key players in the case are Dennis Reynolds, representing the Tahuyeh Lake Community Club (TLCC); Matt Kernutt, representing the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife; and Superior Court Judge Jeanette Dalton

I outlined most of the major issues in a story in Monday’s Kitsap Sun.

This live-blog software, called Cover It Live, allows for questions and comments. I will approve the comments and answer the question as time allows during the hearing if there are pauses in the action.

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post 

I outlined the major legal issues in a story in today’s Kitsap Sun.

You may wish to return to this blog tomorrow, when I will give “live blogging” a try for the first time. At that time, you will be able to watch as I write from the courtroom, providing blow-by-blow arguments as they unfold before the judge.

Here’s the key question: If you buy a piece of property on a lake, do you have the right to open it up for public access?

When this issue first came up, I thought the outcome could set a precedent for other lakes where anglers would like to build a boat launch. But there are many aspects of this issue that are relatively unique. Here are a few:

— The question of whether Lake Tahuyeh was a natural lake or a bog.
— The point that Lake Tahuyeh was not a navigable waterway, which means the state does not own the lake bottom.
— The idea that the lake was changed substantially when it was dammed up.
— The fact that the state has never contributed to the cost of maintaining the dam or other operations on the lake.

Of course, attorneys for the state will argue that the public gained access to the lake in 1939 before most homes were built and that public rights to use the lake cannot be extinguished by any of these issues.

It will be interesting to see how these various points are argued in court.

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post 

Twanoh State Park on Hood Canal near Belfair. Photo by John Stokes.

Another opportunity to photograph high tides begins today, according to Ecology officials. For information about submitting photos to Ecology, go to the agency’s EcoNet blog.

By the way, Kitsap Sun reporter Rachel Pritchett reported about the high tides as well as those mentioned in Ecology’s blog.

The following, along with numerous photos, is posted on Ecology’s Web site:

“More extreme high tide events are expected to occur on a more regular basis in the future as a result of rising sea levels. In the Olympia region, for example, these high tide events could occur ten times per year by 2050 instead of just once or twice per year, based on a medium projection of 6 inches of seal level rise in 2050 for the Puget Sound region.

“This is expected to intensify flooding of coastal areas, especially during major storm events. Rising sea levels also shift coastal beaches inland and increase erosion of coastal bluffs, endangering houses and other structures built near the shore or near the bluff edges. Saltwater intrusion into coastal freshwater aquifers is also expected as sea levels rise.

Why it matters

“Understanding the future impacts from sea level rise and creating tools and information to assist local governments and the citizens of the state is a priority for Governor Gregoire and the Department of Ecology. A recent executive order signed by the Governor in May 2009 directed the agency to ‘evaluate the potential impacts of sea level rise on the state’s shoreline areas.’”

High tide at the mouth of Gorst Creek comes close to reaching Toys Topless in Gorst.
Photo by Meegan M. Reid, Kitsap Sun

“Governor Gregoire also signed legislation in the spring of 2009 (E2SSB 5560) that included provisions for the formation of an ‘integrated climate change response strategy’ for the state. Ecology and other state agencies are currently working with stakeholders to develop the strategy, which will better enable state and local agencies, public and private businesses, nongovernmental organizations, and individuals to prepare for, address, and adapt to the impacts of climate change.”

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post 

It is the best of streams. It is the worst of streams.

There’s been talk lately about Big Beef Creek in Central Kitsap, where a much-traveled bridge has been closed to heavy traffic because of a washed-out bridge abutment. It appears the bridge will be closed for a couple of weeks, beginning next week. See my story in today’s Kitsap Sun.

There’s reason to believe we’ll be hearing a lot more about this stream in the future.

In my mind, Big Beef Creek is a beautiful salmon stream that has been much abused through the years. Despite a large population of people in the watershed, the creek has managed to hold onto its populations of salmon. Somehow, pollution has been mostly avoided.

For a reporting project, I once explored the entire reach of Big Beef Creek, talking to hobby farmers, backcountry residents and lakeside home owners. That story does not seem to be in the Kitsap Sun’s public archives, but I’ll see if I can track it down and post a link here later.

Big Beef Creek begins in an extensive wetland called Morgan Marsh and drains toward Hood Canal near Lone Rock, north of Seabeck. The creek’s origins in the marsh are just a short distance from the beginnings of the Tahuya River, which drains in the opposite direction into Southern Hood Canal outside of Belfair.

Big Beef Creek flows through a developed area, including Lake Symington. Migrating salmon are forced to navigate a fish ladder at the dam that impounds Lake Symington.

Development has been a problem for the stream, which has seen a decline in salmon. But the stream has been a problem for development, particularly for houses built too close to its meandering banks. During heavy storms, the stream has been known to take out private bridges. And in 1994 it wiped out a bridge on Holly Road. At least two homes have been abandoned below the dam, and others are threatened by its rushing waters.

Out of nearly 60 streams monitored by the Kitsap County Health District throughout Kitsap County, Big Beef Creek is the fifth cleanest in terms of bacterial pollution. Its waters sometimes show low oxygen levels — probably because the waters slow down as they pass through Lake Symington.

Near the mouth of the creek, the University of Washington operates the Big Beef Creek Research Station, where studies of salmon are taking place. The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife manages a fish trap that catches adult salmon going upstream and juveniles going downstream. Those counts are used to help gauge the production of salmon for all of Hood Canal.

Big Beef Creek flows into an extensive estuary, where people often stop to watch bald eagles feeding in the spring before the salmon runs begin. The eagles often find midshipmen (bullheads) or else steal fish from the herons that congregate there. Some observers have counted up to 40 eagles at one time.

Seabeck Highway crosses the Big Beef estuary on a narrow strip of fill dumped there years ago when the road was built. The small bridge allows water to move between the upper and lower portions of the estuary. But high tides and rains can create a lot of flow through that tiny opening, which contributes to the risk of bridge failure.

The county’s chief road engineer, Jon Brand, told me that flows during the rains and high tides last week were the primary factors in undercutting the bridge abutment, and a log next to the bridge may have contributed to the problem.

There has been talk about removing some or all of the earthen causeway and building a much longer bridge. Biologists say that would dramatically improve estuarine habitat for juvenile salmon.

For now, a $79,000 study has been approved for the Hood Canal Salmon Enhancement Group to develop a restoration strategy for the lower one mile or so of the stream. Stay tuned for further details and check out the study description on the Hood Canal Coordinating Council’s Web site.

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post 

It was the first idea that came to me when I learned about the goal of providing Kitsap County with 7,000 acres of publicly owned open space in North Kitsap in exchange for allowing Pope Resources to increase development in the Port Gamble area.

“The devil is in the details.”

Pope Resources lands

It has been the most common reaction from people who have talked to me about the plan, which has the potential of being the largest habitat conservation project in the history of Kitsap County.

It appears that everyone involved recognizes that the values acquired by the Kitsap County and by Pope Resources must be carefully balanced. Pope would get increased density, enough to justify public services. Other values might come from conservation grants, which would give Pope cash for some of the land. The county could seek public works grants and loans to help pay for public services.

The values must be carefully balanced, but another unquantifiable factor is in play. Steve Bauer, the county commissioner from Hansville, and Jon Rose, property manager for Pope Resources, acknowledge that their desire is to create an enduring legacy that will serve the people of Kitsap County.

Bauer and Rose have taken the first step, but we must watch closely as the details begin to emerge and the effort starts through a public process that will determine if the project can succeed.

Please read the stories that Brynn Grimley and I have written so far this week. Brynn is working on one today, and I will post that link here later.

New Plan for Port Gamble: Develop 1,000 Acres, but Preserve 7,000 Acres

Kitsap County Commissioners Offer Tentative Support for Port Gamble Plan

Environmentalists Cautiously Optimistic About Port Gamble Partnership

Port Gamble Project Seen as Potential Economic Boon for Kitsap

OPINION: The Development is In the Detals

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 

Officials at the Washington Department of Ecology are looking for ways to remove or lock up the massive amount of creosote contamination that seeped into the ground during the first half of the 20th century.

Seth Preston, communications manager for Ecology’s Toxics Cleanup Program, is live-blogging from the meeting today. Another staffer is tweeting #wyckoff from a special Twitter account.

Seth’s presence at this meeting is valuable for those of us interested in this site on Eagle Harbor — one of the most complex and ecologically important sites in the Puget Sound region.

The EPA was on the verge turning over management of the site — including an ongoing pump-and-treat system — to Ecology. The two agencies agreed to delay the transfer for 18 months while state officials search for a more stable solution.

Ecology had two concerns about taking over the site: First, the ongoing pumping would do little to remove the large quantity of contamination in an environmentally sensitive area. Second, the state would be picking up the bill for a project that would cost millions of dollars over time with no end in sight.

Because of Seth’s good work, I won’t repeat the information he has provided in multiple locations on Ecology Web sites. Instead, I’ll just point you to some of the information available:

Reporter Tristan Baurick’s story in today’s Kitsap Sun

Ecology’s Web site on the “generational remedy” for the Wyckoff site.

Expert presentations from the ongoing workshop in PDF format. Look for “NEW!” under “Expert Panel Workshop.”

Seth Preston’s ongoing blog and Twitter feed

EPA’s Wyckoff Eagle Harbor Web site

Watching Our Water Ways

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post