Category Archives: Planning

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.

The five-year-old mitigation program has been working well so far, said Scott Brewer, executive director of the Hood Canal Coordinating Council, noting that the Navy’s Explosives Handling Wharf is the first — and by far the largest — of four developments involved in the Hood Canal program.

“When the Navy first proposed this, the potential benefits really struck me,” Scott said. “At the time I didn’t know of all the complexity.”

Of course, it would be better for the environment if development never took place, Scott told me, but environmental damage cannot be avoided for some construction projects. The in-lieu-fee program ensures that any restoration work is done correctly with the property permanently protected. When developers are in charge of mitigation, nobody may be motivated enough to protect the site into the future.

“The difficulty we have experienced,” Scott said, “is that we have to play the property market game. That is not a straightforward thing, but we are learning as we go and breaking new ground.”

The Hood Canal program is the first in-lieu-fee program to cover saltwater shorelines as well as freshwater habitats. Programs run by King County, Pierce County and the Tulalip Tribe are focused on freshwater, such as wetlands and streams. It has taken the Hood Canal Coordinating Council five years to find a suitable saltwater site for mitigation.

Part of the problem is finding unoccupied land or else houses that can be demolished or else removed at a reasonable price to allow for a large-scale mitigation.

The original concept was to restore public land for mitigation, said Patty Michak, mitigation program manager for the Hood Canal Coordinating Council. But mitigation programs generally require limited public access and other restrictions that are often at odds with the goals of public use.

A view of Hood Canal from the mitigation property near Anderson Landing Preserve.
Photo: Hood Canal Coordinating Council

Patty said she is still looking for sites with several acres of undeveloped waterfront that can be purchased or placed into a conservation easement. Because the coordinating council is not chartered to own land, some properties — including the latest purchase — are placed under the ownership of the Great Peninsula Conservancy, a regional land trust.

Hood Canal Coordinating Council is recognized by the state as a key environmental manager of the Hood Canal ecosystem. The council is made up of the county commissioners in Kitsap, Mason and Jefferson counties as well as leaders of the Port Gamble S’Klallam and Skokomish tribes.

The new waterfront mitigation site is just southwest of Anderson Landing Preserve northeast of Seabeck. The property, which includes 3.1 acres of tidelands and 391 feet of shoreline, has been named Little Anderson Bluff after Little Anderson Creek, which flows nearby.

The property is being purchased from the University of Washington. It includes a so-called “feeder bluff” rated “exceptional” for its ability to produce high-quality sands and gravels. Sand lance, a forage fish that help to feed salmon, are known to spawn on the property’s beach. The property is in good condition and will need little or no restoration.

Impacts of the Explosives Handling Wharf include 0.25 acres of subtidal vegetated habitat, 0.45 acres of intertidal non-vegetated habitat and 0.65 acres of shoreline vegetation.

When it comes to mitigation under the in-lieu-fee program, the acreage is only one factor. In addition, the quality of habitat and the extent of damage go into creating a numerical score, which is listed as a deficit on a mitigation ledger. When a property is purchased and any restoration work is done, the ledger shows a credit of mitigation points.

It’s a little complicated, but after one or more mitigation projects is completed, the deficit created by the original development is canceled out by the mitigation credits. In the end, the ecosystem gets some permanent protection. In a Kitsap Sun story back in 2012, I outlined the deficits for the Navy project.

Because restoration is not a major aspect of the Little Anderson Bluff project, the credits are somewhat limited. The project will generate about 75 percent of the credits needed to mitigate for intertidal impacts from the Navy project. It will also cover about 82 percent of credits needed for impacts to the shoreline.

Another major project using the in-lieu-fee program is the Highway 3 widening project and stormwater controls in Belfair. The project damaged 0.08 acres of wetlands, for which credits were purchased by the Washington Department of Transportation.

The first wetlands-mitigation site purchased under the Hood Canal in-lieu-fee program was a 17-acre property with a pond located near Belfair. The property, known as Irene Pond, includes wetlands rated the highest value under state wetlands standards. Unfortunately, the wetlands were degraded by human alterations, including an abandoned house, garbage and debris. When completed, the mitigation project is expected to generate more than three times the number of credits needed to compensate for the Belfair highway project.

Another wetlands-mitigation site is 22.4 acres near Poulsbo where a branch of Gamble Creek flows through. Mapped as a high-quality aquifer-recharge area, the property had been used to graze cattle. A mitigation plan is under development, and the project is expected to fully compensate for wetlands damage from Navy’s Explosives Handling Wharf — with credits to spare.

The in-lieu-fee program is available to anyone in the Hood Canal region. Two different waterfront property owners purchased credits for mitigation required for their bulkhead projects — beyond any on-site mitigation that could be done. The coordinating council has not yet identified waterfront property to offset those deficits on the mitigation ledger.

The Navy may return to the Hood Canal Coordinating Council to offset environmental impacts from a proposed 540-foot extension to the Service Pier at Naval Base Kitsap — Bangor. Another likely project is an upgrade to the “land-water interface” at Bangor — a fancy name for a high-tech security fence that connects the land to the water, including special observation platforms.

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.”

For example, rather than profile the economic upheaval expected in commercial agriculture, the first video on this page talks about the effects on the pizza delivered to your door.

Ontario, like the state of Washington, has a Climate Change Action Plan. For Washington’s integrated climate strategy, visit the Department of Ecology’s website. In Ontario’s plan, Murray issues a message to his fellow citizens.

“Climate change is a fact in our daily lives — raising the cost of our food, causing extreme weather that damages property and infrastructure, threatening outdoor activities we love, and melting winter roads that provide critical seasonal access to remote northern Indigenous communities,” Murray writes. “It affects every aspect of our lives, so it is our collective responsibility to fight climate change together to ensure our children benefit from a cleaner planet.”

He describes how some actions can reduce the ultimate effects of climate change and how others can maintain existing jobs and create new ones.

In a 3-minute interview with Climate TV, Murray quickly spells out what he thinks should be done to move Canada and the world to a low-carbon future. His comments were made in the final days of COP21 — the Conference of the Parties 21 — in which representative s from countries throughout the world went to Paris in 2015 to agree to actions that can begin to address climate change.

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.

I hope that we, as Puget Sound residents, can work together on this problem with open eyes and clear thinking. The state’s Growth Management Act has helped protect natural habitat by encouraging higher housing densities in urban areas. But the GMA has not been able to cope with economic and lifestyle pressures that cause people to live in remote areas where their mere presence disturbs the functioning food web.

It’s not an easy problem to solve, but researchers and policy experts familiar with the issue have put their thoughts together to formulate a draft “Land Development and Land Cover Implementation Strategy.” I outlined the draft in a story titled “Urban lifestyles help to protect the Puget Sound ecosystem,” published this week in the Encyclopedia of Puget Sound. More work is planned before the strategy is finalized.

Ecologically important lands identified in the Puget Sound region. (Click to enlarge) // Map: WDFW

“I think the central battle will be in the urban areas,” Doug Peters told me, reflecting his understanding that higher-density communities are needed to protect intact habitat elsewhere. Doug, a watershed planner with the Washington State Department of Commerce, said development innovations and economic incentives could be needed to address the problem.

As I said at the outset, Puget Sound restoration seems to get the most attention. Meanwhile, the notion of protection may call to mind buying up ecologically sensitive lands or else purchasing conservation easements or development rights. But it is equally important to make plans for where we want people to live and to make sure these places are inviting enough to attract future residents.

In a region with wide-open spaces, this kind of planning does not have much appeal, and it is not the way we normally do things in this country. But, as Benjamin Franklin might say, “By failing to plan, you are planning to fail.”

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

Hood Canal nominated as Sentinel Landscape with ties to military

Hood Canal and its surrounding watershed have been nominated as a Sentinel Landscape, an exclusive designation that recognizes both the natural resource values and the national defense mission of special areas across the country.

USS Henry M. Jackson, a Trident submarine, moves through Hood Canal in February on a return trip to Naval Base Kitsap – Bangor.
U.S. Navy photo by Lt. Cmdr. Michael Smith

If the designation is approved, it will bolster applications for federal funding to protect and restore important habitats and to maintain working forests in and around Hood Canal. Given the uncertain budget for environmental programs under the Trump administration, it wouldn’t hurt to have the Department of Defense supporting the protection of Hood Canal.

The Sentinel Landscapes Partnership involves the U.S. departments of Agriculture, Defense and Interior. The idea is to coordinate the efforts of all three agencies in locations where their priorities overlap, according to the 2016 Report on Sentinel Landscapes (PDF 5.6 mb).

Continue reading

New videos talk about protecting the ecosystem with tribal treaty rights

Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission this week released two new videos, including one that shows how tribes are using their treaty rights to protect the environment on behalf of all Northwest residents.

The video was released under the commission’s new communications banner, “Northwest Treaty Tribes: Protecting Natural Resources for Everyone.”

The video describes the Lummi Nation’s success in getting the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to reject the Gateway Pacific Terminal at Cherry Point near Bellingham. If approved, the shipping terminal could have been the transfer point for up to 59 million tons of Montana coal each year. The coal would be transported by train to Cherry Point and onto ships bound for China and other Pacific Rim countries.

The Corps of Engineers halted the permitting process last May, saying the project was too big to be considered de minimis, and it would violate the tribe’s treaty rights to take fish in the usual and accustomed area. See news release.

The video does a nice job of explaining the tribe’s position and the ecological value of fish, including a Cherry Point herring population that has declined so severely that it can no longer support the food web as it once did. Also described well are the cultural values of the Cherry Point site and longtime fishing practices.

Continue reading

Puget Sound and other estuaries are facing the federal chopping block

Federal funding to restore Puget Sound and other large U.S. estuaries would be slashed by more than 90 percent under a preliminary budget proposal coming from President Trump’s administration.

Funding for Puget Sound restoration would be cut by 93 percent, from the current budget of $28 million to just $2 million, according to figures cited by the Portland Oregonian and apparently circulated by the National Association of Clean Air Agencies. Here’s the list.

The Great Lakes, which received a big boost in spending to $300 million in the current biennium, would be hammered down to $10 million. Chesapeake Bay, currently at $73 million, would be reduced to $5 million.

Much of this money goes for habitat protection and restoration, the kind of effort that seems to be kicked to the bottom of the priority list, at least in these early budget figures. The new EPA administrator, Scott Pruitt, appears to be focusing on upgrading water infrastructure, cleaning up toxic sites and reducing air and water pollution, although everything is cut deeply and details remain murky.

Continue reading

More coho salmon are expected, but fishing will remain limited this year

Total returns of coho salmon to Puget Sound this year are expected to be significantly higher than last year, and that should help smooth negotiations between state and tribal salmon managers working to establish this year’s fishing seasons.

But critically low runs of coho to the Skagit and Stillaguamish rivers in Northern Puget Sound could limit fishing opportunities in other areas, as managers try to reduce fishing pressure on coho making their way back to those rivers.

In any case, both state and tribal managers say they are confident that they can avoid the kind of deadlock over coho they found themselves in last year, when a failure to reach agreement delayed sport fishing seasons and threatened to cancel them altogether. See reporter Tristan Baurick’s stories in the Kitsap Sun, May 4 and May 28.

“We’re in a much better situation than we were last year,” Ryan Lothrop, a salmon manager with Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, told a large gathering of sport and commercial fishermen yesterday in Olympia.

Continue reading

Petition seeks to revoke Department of Ecology’s clean-water authority

Citing pollution problems in Puget Sound, an environmental group is asking the Environmental Protection Agency to revoke Washington state’s authority to enforce the federal Clean Water Act.

Northwest Environmental Advocates, based in Portland, says a review of 103 discharge permits issued by the Washington Department of Ecology shows a failure to control nitrogen pollution. Excess nitrogen reduces oxygen levels in the water and triggers algae blooms, resulting in serious problems in Puget Sound, according to a petition submitted to the EPA.

“Ecology determined that over 80 percent of the human sources of nitrogen in Puget Sound comes from cities and towns, but it continues to issue discharge permits as if it were completely ignorant of these facts,” Nina Bell, the group’s executive director, said in a news release.

“It’s just flat out illegal to issue permits that contribute to harmful pollution levels,” she added. “These permits are the walking dead, existing merely to create the impression that the state is doing its job to control water pollution when it is not.”

Continue reading

Federal Action Plan for Puget Sound released as Trump enters office

Two days before Donald Trump became president, the Puget Sound Federal Task Force released a draft of the federal action plan for the recovery of Puget Sound.

Puget Sound from space // Image: NASA

The Trump transition raises uncertainty about the future of this plan, but at least the incoming administration has a document to work with, as described by Steve Kopecky of the White House Council on Environmental Quality. (See Water Ways, Dec. 22.)

Speaking last month before the Puget Sound Partnership’s Leadership Council, Kopecky acknowledged that the plan would go through many changes over time, with or without a new president.

“That being said, the first one is probably the most powerful,” he said. “It is the model that new folks are going to use, so we’re trying to make sure that we have a good solid foundation model before we all collectively go out the door.”

Continue reading