Category Archives: Planning

A trick question: Can you locate Anderson Creek?

Let’s talk about Anderson Creek in Kitsap County. Where exactly is that stream?

If you were to say that Anderson Creek is a stream that spills into Hood Canal near Holly, you would be right.

Artist rendering of future bridge on Seabeck-Holly Road. // Photo: Kitsap County

If you are thinking of another Hood Canal stream — the one that you cross north of Seabeck while traveling on Anderson Hill Road — that would be right, too.

And nobody could complain if you believe that Anderson Creek is the name of the stream that flows into Sinclair Inlet near Gorst.

Officially, they are all Anderson Creek, according to the Geographic Names Information System, the official database of true names. GNIS is maintained by the U.S. Geological Survey.

I discovered the existence of three Anderson Creeks in Kitsap County as I sat down to blog about a new bridge project being planned on Seabeck-Holly Road north of Holly — over a stream I have always called Big Anderson Creek.

These are the opening lines of the county’s announcement about the bridge work: “Kitsap County Public Works begins construction of a new bridge on Seabeck-Holly Road at the Anderson Creek crossing beginning July 18, 2017.”

I immediately thought that someone in Public Works must have accidentally shortened the name from Big Anderson Creek to Anderson Creek, but I guess I was wrong. I mean, doesn’t everyone call it Big Anderson Creek?

I conducted an online search for “Big Anderson Creek” in Kitsap. Many reliable sources have been calling it Big Anderson Creek in dozens of documents for at least several decades. To name a few of the agencies using the “wrong” name:

  • Hood Canal Coordinating Council in its “Summer Chum Salmon Recovery Plan,”
  • Kitsap Public Health District in its annual “Water Quality Monitoring Report,”
  • Kitsap Public Utility District in its water supply assessment,
  • Kitsap County Department of Emergency Management in its multi-hazard-mitigation plan,
  • Washington Department of Ecology in its inventory of stream-monitoring programs,
  • Point No Point Treaty Council in its nearshore habitat assessment for Hood Canal,
  • Hood Canal Salmon Enhancement Group in its annual report of restoration projects,
  • The Trust for Public Land in its “Assessment for Freshwater Habitat for Puget Sound Salmon,”
  • And, last but not least, Big Anderson Creek is the name used by Kitsap County Public Works in its stream-monitoring program.

Little Anderson Creek, the one farther north, is in the same boat as Big Anderson Creek. A lot of people use the descriptive “Big” and “Little” when talking about the two streams, but officially they are wrong, according to my assessment.

Ed Smith, Public Works project manager for the bridge construction, told me that he will keep calling it “Anderson Creek.” That’s the official name on the maps that he uses. It is also the name listed on the “hydraulic project approval” issued by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife to authorize construction.

Through the years, I’ve written quite a lot about confusing and conflicting names, but I never had a clue about the discrepancy involving Big and Little Anderson creeks. If someone reading this has the time and dedication to officially change the names of these two streams, I don’t think anyone would object. The process begins with an application to the Washington State Committee on Geographic Names. The committee’s coordinator, Caleb Maki, can help people work their way through the process. Please let me know if you tackle this project.

Meanwhile, I will continue using the popular nomenclature of Big and Little Anderson creeks.

As for the new bridge over Big Anderson Creek, a 50-foot concrete structure will replace the aging 29-foot timber bridge built in 1950. The opening for the stream will increase from about 28 feet to about 45 feet, Smith said. That will give the stream slightly more room to shift around during heavy flows.

Work will begin July 18 and wrap up around December, according to the schedule. Seabeck-Holly Road, the main route to and from Holly, will be reduced to one lane during the construction.

The $1.67-million construction project will be carried out by Pacific Pile and Marine of Seattle. An artist’s rendering of the completed structure and other information can be seen on the Kitsap County website titled “Seabeck-Holly Road Bridge #20 at Anderson Creek.”

Polls show support for state action on climate change — near and far

If the U.S. government fails to take action on climate change, a majority of Americans would like their states to pick up the ball and run with it.

Some 66 percent of those participating in a national survey agreed with the statement: “If the federal government fails to address the issue of global warming, it is my state’s responsibility to address the problem.”

Question: “Please identify your level of agreement with the following statement … If the federal government fails to address the issue of global warming, it is my state’s responsibility to address the problem.” (Click to enlarge)
Graphic: University of Michigan/Muhlenberg College

Residents of Washington state appear to feel even stronger about the need for state action, according to a survey by The Nature Conservancy, which is preparing for a statewide initiative to be placed on the 2018 general election ballot.

The national survey, by two University of Michigan researchers, demonstrates growing support among Americans for action on climate change, despite very little action by Congress. The last time the question was asked, in 2013, 48 percent of respondents wanted their states to take action. The latest results show an 18-percent increase in the number of people who support state action.

This and several other polls reveal growing concerns among Americans about the negative effects of climate change on human civilization as well as the environment.

Interestingly, the national survey was taken between April 17 and May 16 — before President Trump announced that he would withdraw U.S. support for the Paris climate agreement, which includes clear targets for greenhouse gas reductions. Respondents may have been aware of Trump’s executive order in March to dismantle former President Obama’s Clean Power Plan, which aims to reduce carbon dioxide emissions from power plants.

Americans are still somewhat divided along party lines, with Democrats more supportive of state action than Republicans. But the latest national survey reveals that more Republicans may support state action than not, at least within the survey’s margin of error. The survey shows that 51 percent of Republicans believe that states should step up to climate change, compared to 34 percent four years ago.

Support among Democrats for state action went from 57 percent in 2013 to 77 percent this year.

Another survey taken after Trump was elected showed that nearly two-thirds (62 percent) of the people who voted for him support taxing or regulating greenhouse gas emissions, and nearly half (47 percent) agreed that the U.S. should support the Paris climate agreement. See “Trump Voters and Global Warming.”

I will return to the national perspective in a moment, but first some almost-breaking news from Washington state, where The Nature Conservancy on Monday filed three petitions for possible ballot measures with the Secretary of State’s Office.

All three petitions deal with possible state actions on climate change, but none of them are intended to be used for signature gathering, according to Mo McBroom, government relations director for TNC. The idea, Mo told me, is to see how the Attorney General’s Office writes the ballot titles for the three measures, which is what a voter would read on the ballot.

Polling of Washington state voters after the defeat of a carbon-tax measure in last fall’s election showed that most voters knew little about the content of Initiative 732 when they cast their ballots. Also contributing to the confusion was the ballot title itself, which mentioned taxes but failed to explain that increased taxes on fossil fuels would be offset by reduced sales and business taxes plus a tax rebate for low-income residents.

I should point out that a fair number of environmental groups voiced opposition to the measure, in part because it failed to provide money for clean-energy initiatives. And some worried that the measure would add to state budget problems. More than anything, the mixed messages probably killed the measure.

Now, all the environmental groups as well as business and government supporters are hoping to come together around a single initiative with a high likelihood of success, Mo told me. The specifics of the real initiative are still under review, she said, and one should glean nothing from the three different proposals submitted this week. Once the details are worked out, a final petition will be submitted next January.

“The most important thing is that we are looking to build the broadest base of support for solutions to climate change.,” Mo told me. “Whether it is a carbon tax or fee or a regulatory structure, it is about how we, as a society, make the investments that the public wants.” For further discussion, read Mo’s blog entry posted yesterday in Washington Nature Field Notes.

Personally, I will be watching for the transportation aspects of the coming initiative, since more than half of the greenhouse gas emissions in Washington state involve the transportation sector — and Mo acknowledged that incentives to encourage cleaner fuels will be essential.

“We want to create an approach that is technology neutral,” she said. “we’re not picking winners and losers. We are creating innovate solutions.”

The Legislature has been struggling for months with Gov. Jay Inslee’s carbon tax proposal (PDF 801 kb). If something good comes out of that process, Mo said, the initiative may not be needed. Reporter Phuong Le reported on this issue for the Associated Press.

According to polling last fall (PDF 596 kb), 81 percent of Washington voters believe climate change is happening; 62 percent believe it is caused by human activities; and 69 percent support state action to reduce carbon pollution. Support may be even higher today. The survey was conducted by FM3 Research and Moore Information for The Nature Conservancy and Vulcan.

The national survey by University of Michigan researchers this spring showed that 70 percent of Americans across the country believe that global warming is happening. Barry Rabe, one of the researchers, told me that public opinion has ebbed and flowed somewhat on this issue since these surveys were started in 2008. See the graphic below, or check out the details on the Brookings blog.

Question: From what you’ve read and heard, is there solid evidence that the average temperature on earth has been getting warmer over the past four decades?
Graphic: University of Michigan/Muhlenberg College

During the early years of former President Obama’s administration beginning around 2009, “there was a very aggressive effort by opposition groups that argued that climate change is a hoax,” Rabe said. “That probably had an impact (on people’s opinions).”

Now people seem to be returning to a stronger belief in climate change and tending to support the understanding that humans are responsible. Democrats and Republicans alike seem to feeling more urgency to take action.

“This may be a case where political figures are at variance with their base,” Rabe said, noting that most Republicans in Congress are showing no inclination to address the issue. But even in some conservative states, such as Texas and Kansas, state lawmakers are doing more than ever to address climate change, in part because of parallel economic interests involving renewable energy.

“Energy politics breaks down very differently depending on the state you are in,” Rabe said.

From a national perspective, all eyes will be on Washington state over the next year or two, as people throughout the country watch to see how people here address climate change, Rabe said. A lot of folks wondered about the rejection of the climate-change initiative in what many view as a pro-environment state, he added. People nationwide did not grasp the nuances of last fall’s vote, but they are interested in what comes next.

Gov. Jay Inslee joined with the governors of California and New York in signing onto a new U.S. Climate Alliance to help meet the goals of the Paris agreement in light of Trump’s efforts to withdraw from the pact. See Timothy Cama’s piece in The Hill.

California and New York have already passed climate-change-emissions legislation, Rave said, so people across the country are wondering how Washington plans to meet its commitment.

Mo McBroom of The Nature Conservancy said officials involved in the climate-change issue in Washington state embrace the leadership role that this state can play.

Facing challenges that could save chinook salmon from extinction

Nineteen years ago this month, then-Governor Gary Locke made a bold declaration about salmon that would echo through time: “Extinction is not an option.”

Juvenile chinook salmon depend on high-quality habitat for their survival.
Photo: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

It was a call to action that would lead to major protection and restoration efforts throughout Puget Sound. Still, today, chinook salmon have not experienced a population rebound, as many people had hoped. The failure to thrive has been a disappointment to many, yet we are often reminded that it took 150 years to push salmon to the brink of extinction and it will not be easy to ensure their future.

Last week, concerns about the survival of chinook salmon prompted a coalition of Puget Sound tribes to propose a series of “bold actions,” as I reported in the Encyclopedia of Puget Sound, later reprinted in the Kitsap Sun.

“The way we are managing lands is not working,” stated salmon expert Dave Herrera, speaking for the tribes. “It may be working for people, but it is not working for fish.”

The bold actions, spelled out in a three-page proposal (PDF 380 kb), include greater controls on the use of land and water, among other things. I won’t describe the details, which you can read in the memo. The ideas were prompted by a new Chinook Salmon Implementation Strategy, designed to accelerate an increase in the Puget Sound chinook population.

The tribes complained that the proposed strategy, as drafted, mostly mimicked the 10-year-old Puget Sound Salmon Recovery Plan. That plan has made limited progress in restoring wild salmon runs, despite millions of dollars spent to protect and restore habitat while limiting fishing and controlling hatchery production.

In his speech of June 1998, Gov. Locke worried about the risk of extinction for these migratory fish, which are an economic asset as well as a celebrated symbol of the Northwest.

Former Gov. Gary Locke

“In several Puget Sound watersheds, our wild salmon have less than a decade to live, unless we act now,” Locke said in 1998. “And in many more rivers and streams, if the status quo continues, our wild salmon will be gone before my daughter Emily graduates from high school. So we just don’t have any time to waste. For better or for worse, we are about to make history.”

Locke’s speech was indeed historic, as he launched an unprecedented endeavor to rebuild salmon runs at great financial cost. The governor seemed to understand the challenge, as I noted at the time in my coverage of the speech before more than 100 county officials in Tacoma:

“Locke appears to be glancing over his shoulder, ready to duck for cover, as he talks about the financial and political commitments required to keep salmon from disappearing in various parts of the state,” I wrote.

“We need to wake up every morning ready to challenge the status quo,” Locke said, adding that basic changes are needed in the way businesses and average citizens use their land and water resources.

“There is a risk,” Locke said, “in just delivering that message, let alone acting on it.”

The following year, the Washington Legislature created the Salmon Recovery Funding Board to prioritize state and federal funding for salmon recovery. And the next governor, Chris Gregoire, ushered in an even greater ecosystem-recovery effort under guidance of the Puget Sound Partnership.

Wetlands are critical habitat for salmon.
Photo: Eric Grossman, U.S. Geological Survey

Today, I can’t help but wonder what would have happened without these salmon- and ecosystem-recovery efforts. Would the salmon be gone, as Locke predicted? It’s hard to say, but researchers have learned a great deal about what salmon need to survive, and the money is being better targeted toward those needs. As a result, it is understandable why some people are both disappointed with the past and hopeful for the future.

One of the great challenges facing public officials today is to find ways for local governments to truly live up to the standard of “no net loss” of ecological function — a standard required by the state’s Growth Management Act. When new developments affect “critical areas” — such as fish and wildlife habitat — they must include vegetated buffers and stormwater controls to minimize the damage. Then they must enhance degraded habitat — either on-site or off-site — to make up for losses that cannot be avoided.

I used to believe that this goal was unachievable, and I have questioned many state experts about it. How can any developer construct a commercial or residential development and walk away with no net loss of habitat function? The answer is to include a serious restoration component.

One example is the Hood Canal Coordinating Council’s In-Lieu Fee Program, which I wrote about last month in Water Ways (May 19). This program was started on a large scale to mitigate for construction at the Navy’s submarine base at Bangor, but it also works on a small scale, as I mentioned in that blog post.

When an older site is redeveloped, there may be no ecological loss, since the damage was done in the past. But when a developer builds in a new location, the local government is charged with measuring the loss, coming to terms for mitigation and making sure the mitigation is carried out. The concept of “no net loss” works only if the mitigation is permanent — another major challenge in many areas.

If no net loss can be achieved while major restoration efforts continue, we will see a net increase in salmon habitat in the Puget Sound region, and that will be a cause of celebration. One success has been in the program Floodplains by Design, which improves critical off-channel habitat for salmon while reducing flooding problems for nearby residents. Checkout the story I wrote for the Encyclopedia of Puget Sound and the blog post in Water Ways, April 15.

Washington State Department of Commerce, which oversees the Growth Management Act, is in the process of updating its Critical Areas Assistance Handbook (PDF 6 mb), which serves as guidance for local regulations. New information about how to protect habitat for all life stages of salmon will be a key addition to a revised version, soon to be released for public review. See the CAO page on the Department of Commerce website.

Local governments in every part of the state must become part of the discussion if we expect them to carry out the mandate of protecting habitat for salmon. Money for planning and regulatory enforcement must be worked out. One idea I’ve heard is a regional approach that involves a group of compliance officials working to enforce the rules for multiple counties and cities.

No doubt the salmon-recovery effort must be improved. Challenges remain for issues including fishing, predation by marine mammals and climate change. But if the protection and restoration of salmon habitat can outpace unmitigated damage from development, we may be justified in believing that extinction is not an option.

Federal grant may help bring life to abandoned properties in Bremerton

Up to 14 abandoned buildings or otherwise underused properties in Bremerton will undergo pollution assessments with an eye toward ultimate restoration, thanks to $300,000 in federal “brownfields” funds.

The old K-Mart building in East Bremerton is one of many properties that might benefit from a new brownfields grant awarded to the city of Bremerton.
File photo: Meegan Reid, Kitsap Sun

The pollution assessments are considered a first step in restoring life to properties that have been neglected because of the high cost of investigating and cleaning up hazardous substances on the sites.

The city of Bremerton targeted four neighborhoods in its grant application, which has been given conditional approval by the Environmental Protection Agency. These are the specific areas with descriptions from the city’s application:

Continue reading

Environmental efforts, including Puget Sound, hanging in the balance

I must admit that I have an uneasy curiosity to see how Congress will manage programs that protect human health and the environment now that Republican legislators are in control of both the House and Senate with no concerns about a budget veto.

Photo: Matt H. Wade via Wikimedia

Most environmental laws and programs are the result of hard-fought compromise between Democrats and Republicans who somehow agreed on ideas to make the world a safer place for people and wildlife. Do Republican members of Congress really want to back away from those advances? Do they want to explain to their constituents why clean air, clean water and safe food are not as important as they once were?

I was fascinated to read that Republican senators and representatives in the Great Lakes states could be a key to saving federal funding for Chesapeake Bay — and, by the same token, Puget Sound, the Gulf of Mexico and other major restoration projects.

Continue reading

Puget Sound Partnership improves, but some changes still needed

Puget Sound Partnership, created by the Legislature to coordinate protection and restoration of Puget Sound, has improved its operations over the past four years, according to a state audit report, which also makes recommendations for further improvements.

One area where the Partnership is not meeting its legal mandate is to identify partner organizations — including state agencies and county governments — that are not living up to their responsibilities under the Puget Sound Action Agenda, which guides the overall restoration effort.

Likewise, the Partnership has not been calling out partners that have made outstanding progress in their efforts to protect and restore Puget Sound, according to the audit, which was approved last week by state legislators who make up the Joint Legislative Audit and Review Committee, or JLARC.

The video below shows the portion of the JLARC meeting addressing the audit report on the Puget Sound Partnership.

The one legal deficiency involves the old carrot-and-stick approach, shaming those who are failing to protect Puget Sound while praising those doing a bang-up job. One concern I’ve heard is that shaming may be counter-productive, since the Partnership has no legal authority to force anybody to do anything. Nevertheless, the approach is required by state law.

The three primary recommendations coming out of the audit:

Continue reading

Hood Canal property will compensate for Navy construction at Bangor

Hood Canal Coordinating Council has finally found some shoreline property to compensate for environmental damage from the Navy’s $448-million Explosives Handling Wharf at Bangor.

The shoreline of a 6.7-acre property to be used for mitigation of the Navy’s Explosives Handling Wharf at Bangor. // Photo: Hood Canal Coordinating Council

The 6.7 acres of waterfront property — located near Kitsap County’s Anderson Landing Preserve on Hood Canal — becomes the first saltwater mitigation site in Washington state under an in-lieu-fee mitigation program. The $275,000 purchase was approved Wednesday by the coordinating council, which manages the in-lieu-fee program.

The Navy itself is not a party to the transaction, having paid the coordinating council $6.9 million to handle all the freshwater and saltwater mitigation required for the wharf project — including managing the mitigation properties in perpetuity.

The coordinating council’s in-lieu-fee program, which is overseen by state and federal agencies, allows developers to pay a flat fee for their environmental damage instead of undertaking mitigation work themselves.

Continue reading

Amusing Monday: Ontario employs humor in climate discussion

Climate change is a serious issue for the government of Ontario, Canada, yet provincial officials have decided that there is some room for humor. Today, I’m sharing four videos designed to help average Canadians understand the profound effects of a warming world.

“We have so little time,” said Glen Murray, Ontario’s minister on the Environment and Climate Change, speaking with Anthony Leiserowitz of
Yale Climate Connections. “You’ve really got to throw everything at it — your wit, your humor and your sober, serious, heavy-duty conversations about the reality of what we’re facing.”

“Climate change affects everything,” comes the overall message for these four videos. “Climate change affects you and the world around you. This fight is personal.”

Continue reading

Protecting the Puget Sound ecosystem involves urban planning

I often write about Puget Sound restoration, sometimes forgetting to include the word “protection.” It really should be “Puget Sound protection and restoration” — with protection getting the first billing and the highest priority in our thinking.

Puget Sound from space // Image: NASA

Protection isn’t very exciting — not like restoring hundreds of acres of degraded estuaries, floodplains and wetlands. Of course, restoration is absolutely necessary to gain back lost habitat, but the immediate result is never as good as habitat that avoided damage in the first place. Even restored habitat generally needs to be protected for a long time before it functions as well as an undisturbed site.

These are issues I have been pondering as I wrote the latest story in a series about Implementation Strategies — a focused effort to make a measurable improvement in the Puget Sound ecosystem. For details, check out the Encyclopedia of Puget Sound.

If we could freeze everything in place, then habitat restoration would help rebuild the fish and wildlife populations that require special conditions. But we cannot stop time, and we are told that 1.5 million more people will soon be living in the Puget Sound region.

Where can all these future people find homes without further degrading the environment? Will they choose to live in places that minimize the ecological damage or will it even matter to them? Needless to say, this remains an open-ended question — a question that is both public and very personal, touching on issues of freedom and property rights.

Continue reading

Floodplains by Design solves problems through careful compromise

Water

The water understands
Civilization well;
It wets my foot, but prettily,
It chills my life, but wittily,
It is not disconcerted,
It is not broken-hearted:
Well used, it decketh joy,
Adorneth, doubleth joy:
Ill used, it will destroy,
In perfect time and measure
With a face of golden pleasure
Elegantly destroy.

— Ralph Waldo Emerson (1803-1882)

Floodplains by Design, a new program that combines salmon restoration with flood control, is a grand compromise between humans and nature.

I got to thinking about this notion while writing a story for the Encyclopedia of Puget Sound regarding the need to protect and restore floodplains in order to improve habitat for salmon and other species. The story is part of a series on Implementation Strategies to recover Puget Sound. Check out “Floodplain projects open doors to fewer floods and more salmon.”

Floodplains by Design is an idea born from the realization that building levees to reduce flooding generally causes rivers to rush faster and flow higher. Under these conditions, the rushing waters often break through or overtop the levees, forcing people to rebuild the structures taller and stronger than before.

Flooding along the Snoqualmie River
Photo: King County

Salmon, which have evolved through untold numbers of prehistoric floods, were somehow forgotten in the effort to protect homes and farmland built close to a river. Absent the levees, floodwaters would naturally spread out across the floodplain in a more relaxed flow that salmon can tolerate. High flows, on the other hand, can scour salmon eggs out of the gravel and flush young fish into treacherous places.

Continue reading