A coho salmon tries to leap into a culvert against the rushing water in a stream above Wildcat Lake Kitsap Sun photo by Meegan M. Reid

It is easy to come up with an answer when we’ve had hardly any rain. The streams are running low; salmon are ready to swim upstream; and fish in the stream are obviously struggling through shallow water. We’ve seen this kind of condition in early fall during many recent years.

When can we say we’ve had enough rain? Well, certainly when a wide variety of streams and rivers are flooding over their banks. But because of the complexity of natural systems, there may never be a “just right” level for salmon.

I was up above Wildcat Lake in Central Kitsap yesterday, discussing the conditions with Jon Oleyar, a biologist for the Suquamish Tribe. Thanks to recent rains, coho salmon are well distributed throughout the Chico Creek watershed, which includes Wildcat Lake.

Jon was excited to find coho far up in streams where he has rarely if ever seen them. The bad news was, for the stream we were watching, the fish seemed to be blocked by a perched culvert where water was gushing out — a culvert that kept the fish from reaching a beautiful stream with overhanging vegetation and plenty of spawning gravel.

Apparently, few fish have made it upstream of this culvert, Oleyar said, because he has never seen a dead salmon on the other side of the road. And while it was exciting to see large salmon get this far upstream, it was disappointing to find their path blocked.

“I had a smile on my face until I realized they couldn’t get through,” Jon told me, and I quoted him in a story I wrote for today’s Kitsap Sun.

For these coho, heavy rains of the past few days have brought them to new habitat. Yet the flows through the pipe have kept them from going any farther. I will watch as the flows drop over time to see if there is a level that allows them to swim through — although they will need to leap up into the culvert to do so.

Meanwhile, the main channel of Chico Creek, five miles downstream, was flowing high and fast, although it wasn’t flooding. I’m not sure if this is good or bad.

Rocks and log weirs, which can be obstacles at low flow, were now submerged, presenting no obstacle at all. On the other hand, resting pools were gone, and salmon were fighting the current and probably using up their energy. Was the flow high enough to wash salmon eggs out of the gravel? I don’t have a clue.

It is easy to see why biologists talk about the value of “structure” in the streams. Fallen trees normally don’t block the entire stream. Even when they do, it is just a short time before the force of the water creates openings for salmon to swim through. Beneficiallly, extensive “structure” creates pools for salmon to rest and hide, no matter how high the flows may be.

The answer to the question of “too much or too little rain?” seems to vary from stream to stream and even upstream and downstream in the same watershed. It is interesting to observe a stream over time to see how streamflows respond to various rates of rainfall and how salmon respond to various rates of flow.

For Kitsap County residents, we have produced an interactive map on the Kitsap Sun Web site that shows where one may look for salmon. Not all the locations have salmon at the same time, but it may be worth a look.

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post 

In any case, a bout with some kind of respiratory bug has knocked me back about five days. I would call it the flu, except that I didn’t have much of a fever.

So now I find myself with a backlog of news stories that I had planned to discuss with you all. Since time doesn’t stop, there will be more stories tomorrow and the day after that.

So I’ll mention some of the interesting stories from the past week and offer you a chance to comment on any of these things. If something provokes your interest or concern, I’ll be happy to moderate or join the conversation.

Fuel spill at PSNS (Thursday)

Last Thursday, 500 gallons of jet fuel spilled from the USS Abraham Lincoln. Fortunately, the ship had been preboomed, so the spill was contained and did not spread out across the harbor.

I covered the first news story on this spill, and I still have some questions, but I haven’t been back to work long enough to get them answered. For example, I have always been told that you shouldn’t preboom highly volatile liquids, such as gasoline and kerosene, for fear they could catch fire. Has something changed about this idea? (I know one boom was already in place, which is now a standard Navy precaution. But they added another.)

Salmon migration (Sunday)

Sunday’s Kitsap Sun featured my annual story encouraging people to go out and watch chum salmon migrating upstream. As usual, the package included a map of local streams (interactive map for online viewers) and tips for watching the fish without disturbing them.

Wherever you live, you may be interested to know how the runs are shaping up, which I covered in a general way. Chum are doing quite well, but not like the records of the recent past. Pinks were amazing. Coho are coming in large, but their abundance varies by location.

Ueland gravel operation (Monday)

Reporter Derek Sheppard filled in well for me on a story I have been following for a couple of years. I’m talking about the public hearing to decide whether a gravel mine, rock quarry and possible concrete batch plant should be built west of Kitsap Lake. There are a lot of issues involved, including traffic on Northlake Way and water quality and quantity going into Chico Creek. The hearing was continued to Dec. 10, so there will be more discussion.

Gravel zoning in Jefferson County (Tuesday)

The Washington State Court of Appeals agreed that the Jefferson County commissioners acted properly in zoning 690 acres in East Jefferson as a “mineral resources land overlay.” Here’s a question: I had understood that the zoning was a prerequisite to the proposed pit-to-pier project, whether or not the zoning stood by itself. But the appeals court ruling states, “(the) future project is not dependent on the proposed action.” If someone would clarify for me, that would be great.

Brown pelican removed from endangered list (today)

I’m not sure how many people check the “Water, Water Everywhere” list at the top of this blog for stories, research and government actions, but I link to a lot of stuff there that I don’t have time to address in detail. Such was the case today with the nationwide de-listing of the brown pelican. Go to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service news release as well as an L.A. Times story.

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post 

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.

“On June 10, 2009 the Washington State Supreme Court issued its final ruling in Futurewise et al v. Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board et al., 164 Wash.2d 242, 189 P.3d 161. This case addressed protection of critical areas that are within the jurisdiction of the Shoreline Management Act. Specifically, the Supreme Court was asked to interpret Engrossed Substitute House Bill (ESHB) 1933, which passed the legislature in 2003. The case is commonly referred to as the “Anacortes case” because that city’s critical areas ordinance (CAO) is the topic of the decision….

“In the Anacortes case, the Supreme Court issued a 4-1-4 decision. The Court issued two opinions — a “lead” opinion and a dissenting opinion, each supported by four justices. The ninth (and deciding) justice concurred with the lead opinion with the stipulation that her signature supported “result only.” This deciding vote was unaccompanied by an opinion.

“Due to the nature of this split decision it was not clear whether the Board decision applies beyond the City of Anacortes. It takes a majority of justices (in this case, five votes) for a Court opinion to establish a legal precedent that is binding on subsequent cases. Here, there is no majority Court opinion beyond reinstatement of the 2005 Board decision, and neither of the Court opinions endorsed the Board’s reasoning in the Anacortes decision. In addition, other recent Supreme Court decisions have stated that Growth Boards decisions resolve disputes related to specific local government actions under the Growth Management Act, but do not establish policy.

“In September 2009, the Court of Appeals Division II issued a decision in Kitsap Alliance of Property Owners et al v. Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings Board et al No. 38017-0-II. This decision involved Kitsap County’s update of Critical Area provisions in the Shoreline area. The decision relies on the June 2009 Supreme Court decision discussed above. Specifically, Division Two concluded that, when the Supreme Court cannot garner a majority view for resolving an issue, the position of the court is the position of a majority of justices concurring on the narrowest possible grounds. Here, reinstatement of the Anacortes Growth Board decision was the narrowest possible grounds for five justices’ concurrence. Thus, Division Two applied the Growth Board decision to the Kitsap County CAO.

“As a result, the court remanded the matter to Kitsap County to do its planning for shoreline critical areas under the SMA rather than the GMA. The court did not address the issue of whether the County’s prior CAO continues to apply until the SMA planning effort is complete. However, the Growth Board decision in the Anacortes case held that prior CAOs remain in effect until the SMA planning is complete. Since Division Two found that reinstatement of the Growth Board decision was the “decision” of the Supreme Court, it is our position that prior CAOs do remain in effect until a local jurisdiction completes its planning under the SMA….

“First, it is our position that neither decision affects critical areas ordinances that were adopted prior to the effective date of ESHB 1933 (2003). Those ordinances remain in effect.

“Second, it is our position that CAOs that were adopted after the effective date of ESHB 1933 and are not currently subject to a challenge are valid and remain in effect. This is based on the GMA’s requirement that CAOs are presumptively valid and must be challenged within 60 days of their enactment for a GMHB to determine that the CAO is invalid. If the CAO was not challenged within 60 days or if the appeals have been completed, then local governments are not required to revisit the critical areas protections contained in those ordinances.

“Third, it is our position that, moving forward, local governments that are currently updating their protections of shoreline critical areas should do so under the SMA rather than the GMA. This can be done either as part of a comprehensive SMP update or as a stand-alone amendment that complies with the guidance that Ecology has issued for stand alone amendments. However, cities and counties should be careful that the adopting ordinance for any CAO updates clearly ensures the existing CAO remains in place for critical areas within Shorelines until superseded by an Ecology-approved SMP update.

“Fourth, local governments have the authority and the obligation under the SMA and their existing SMPs to review and condition project proposals in the shoreline area to achieve consistency with the SMA’s policy objectives, including protection of shoreline resources. The legislature directed in ESHB 1933 that local shoreline master programs provide protection of critical areas in shorelines at least equal to the protection provided by their CAO (RCW 36.70A.480(4))….”

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post 

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 

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 

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 

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 

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 

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 

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