Category Archives: Stormwater

Puget Sound Action Agenda makes a shift in restoration strategy

Puget Sound Partnership has honed its high-level game plan for restoring the Puget Sound ecosystem, including a sharp focus on 10 “vital signs” of ecological health.

The newly released draft of the Puget Sound Action Agenda has endorsed more than 600 specific “near-term actions” designed to benefit the ecosystem in various ways. Comments on the plan will be accepted until Oct. 15. Visit the Partnership’s webpage to view the Draft Action Agenda and access the comments page.

The latest Action Agenda for 2018-2022 includes a revised format with a “comprehensive plan” separate from an “implementation plan.” The comprehensive plan outlines the ecological problems, overall goals and administrative framework. The implementation plan describes how priorities are established and spells out what could be accomplished through each proposed action.

Nearly 300 near-term actions are listed at Tier 4, the highest level of priority, giving them a leg up when it comes to state and federal support, according to Heather Saunders Benson, Action Agenda manager. Funding organizations use the Action Agenda to help them determine where to spend their money.

The greatest change in the latest Action Agenda may be its focus on projects that specifically carry out “Implementation Strategies,” which I’ve been writing about on and off for nearly two years. Check out “Implementation Strategies will target Puget Sound ‘Vital Signs’” in the Encyclopedia of Puget Sound.

Jeff Rice, managing editor at Puget Sound Institute, suggested that we compare Puget Sound to a sick patient. It is not enough for a physician to diagnose a patient’s illness; the doctor must prescribe a treatment and make sure that the patient gets better. Like a prescription, Implementation Strategies are designed to improve Puget Sound’s Vital Signs through coordinated actions directed at what is causing the problems.

Regional and local actions include restoration, protection, research, education and community engagement. Vital signs that will get the most attention over the next four years are:

  • Estuaries
  • Shorelines with armoring
  • Floodplains
  • Land development and cover
  • Freshwater quality
  • Marine water quality
  • Toxics in fish
  • Chinook salmon
  • Shellfish beds
  • Summer streamflows

Many of the proposed actions benefit multiple vital signs. For example, improving floodplains, estuaries and freshwater quality can all benefit Chinook salmon populations in a given location.

Puget Sound’s killer whales have has been receiving a lot of attention lately, since a newborn calf died and was carried by its mother for 17 days. Meanwhile, another young whale struggles with malnutrition as experts intervene with antibiotics. Today, people seem more aware than ever that these Southern Resident orcas are at a high risk of extinction. Two Implementation Strategies — increasing the Chinook salmon population and reducing toxic chemicals in fish (under development) — are expected to benefit the orcas and many other creatures.

Southern Resident orcas // Photo: Jim Maya

Sheida Sahandy, executive director of the Puget Sound Partnership, writes about the orcas in her introduction to the draft Action Agenda.

“This document explains the plight of our orca in greater detail,” Sheida says. “It is important to remember that even the great orca is but one indicator of the broader health of Puget Sound. The orcas are a top predator and, like humans, their survival depends on our ability to maintain a functioning ecosystem.

“Those graced with the experience of seeing a breaching orca know that it is a glimpse into eternity, producing a sense of awe and wonder that at times is in short supply in our modern lives,” she continues. “Whether you are 6, 16, or 60, if you share a moment with an orca, you will be reminded in the depths of your soul that we are all playing but a small role in a much larger picture.”

Everyone should insist on a future with clean water, fishing, recreation, edible shellfish and sustainable commerce on the water, Sheida says. But it will take a major investment to heal the ecosystem and make sure that population growth does not overwhelm the natural systems.

“Will we realize — before it is too late — that in saving the orca and the salmon and Puget Sound, we are really saving ourselves?” she asks.

When the Legislature created the Puget Sound Partnership, it set a goal of restoring Puget Sound to a healthy condition by the year 2020. It was an aspirational goal but not very realistic. Some people have regretted setting a time frame for success. Still, the date cannot be easily erased.

Key steps in adaptive management to advance Puget Sound recovery actions
Graphic: Puget Sound Partnership

As 2020 approaches, the Leadership Council, which oversees the partnership, has approved a vision statement for moving beyond 2020, including a call to act with urgency.

Over the next four years, a Vital Signs Revision Team will review the existing Vital Signs indicators to see if there are better ways to measure ecological conditions, said Scott Redman, director of science and evaluation for the partnership. New targets and dates for reaching the targets may be proposed, he said, and 2020 will come and go before the next Action Agenda comes up for review.

Recommendations for revised indicators have been made by:

Finding ways to improve long-term “resilience” of critical habitats could help more species survive through adverse conditions brought about by climate change and other human influences, Scott said. It could be a challenge to come up with general prescriptions for resiliency, because conditions vary from place to place. Still much has been learned about habitat restoration through the years, with successes from completed projects incorporated into the designs for upcoming projects.

Meanwhile, the Leadership Council’s “Vision and Commitment for a Resilient Puget Sound” renews a commitment to unite people in a singular cause:

“For decades, many partners have worked to rescue this estuary of national significance. We have made progress, but our efforts have not been at a scale or pace sufficient to restore Puget Sound to health by 2020. We face a pivotal point in time. We know that saving Puget Sound will never be as achievable or affordable as it is today. With each passing day, the road to recovery becomes harder. We have the power to prevent Puget’s Sound decline. This is our moment to define what our future can look like, and to fight to make it a reality.”

Less boater pollution allows more shellfish harvesting near marinas

State health officials have reduced shellfish-closure areas around 20 marinas in Puget Sound, allowing more commercial shellfish harvesting while inching toward a goal of upgrading 10,800 acres of shellfish beds by 2020.

In all, 661 acres of shellfish beds were removed from a long-standing “prohibited” classification that has been applied around marinas, based on assumptions about the dumping of sewage from boats confined to small areas.

Poulsbo Marina // Photo: Nick Hoke via Wikimedia

“We have seen pretty significant changes in boat-waste management,” said Scott Berbells, shellfish growing area manager for the Washington Department of Health, explaining how the upgrades came about.

New calculations of discharges from boats in marinas and the resulting risks of eating nearby shellfish have allowed health authorities to reduce, but not eliminate, the closure zones around the marinas.

Continue reading

Focus on chinook salmon creates troubles for Southern Resident orcas

I’ve often wondered how well Puget Sound’s endangered orcas would be doing today if these whales had not grown up within a culture of eating chinook salmon.

Photo: NOAA Fisheries

In Iceland, some killer whales apparently feed on both fish and seals, depending on the time of year, according to researcher Sara Tavares of the University of St. Andrews in Scotland. The same animals have been seen among large groups of orcas as they pursue schools of herring in the North Atlantic, she writes in her blog, Icelandic Orcas.

The Icelandic whales have a different social structure than the fish-eating Southern Resident killer whales that frequent the Salish Sea. Both groups are also quite different from the marine-mammal-eating transient killer whales that have been visiting Puget Sound more frequently in recent years.

It is now widely accepted that groups of killer whales each have their own culture, passed down from mothers to offspring, with older relatives playing an integral role in the lessons. Culture is simply learned behavior, and the message delivered from the elders to the young is: “This is the way we do it.”

Continue reading

Manchester plant continues to excel in sewage treatment

The Manchester Wastewater Treatment Plant has done it again, earning a perfect performance award for compliance with its state water-quality permit.

The Manchester plant, operated by Kitsap County, remains ahead of the pack, being the only sewage-treatment plant in Washington state with a perfect score since the Department of Ecology launched its Outstanding Performance Awards program in 1995. That’s 23 years.

Port Townsend Wastewater Treatment Plant has maintained perfect performance for 20 years, and six plants have reached that level for 10 consecutive years. For this year alone, 111 treatment plants achieved perfect scores — about a third of all the plants in the state.

Continue reading

Amusing Monday: Value of water featured in art contest for students

More than 1,300 students entered this year’s Water Resources Art and Poetry Contest, sponsored by New York City’s water utility, known as the Department of Environmental Protection. Some 60 winners were named as “Water Champions” by a panel of judges.

Art by Lily H., grades 6–7.
Photo: New York City DEQ Art and Poetry Contest

“For more than three decades, DEP’s annual Art and Poetry Contest has given young New Yorkers a wonderful opportunity to use their artistic abilities to learn about and express the importance of protecting our environment and water resources,” DEP Commissioner Vincent Sapienza said in a press release announcing the contest winners. “Nearly half the State of New York relies on the city’s water supply system, so this is a terrific way for students in both New York City and beyond to celebrate our shared natural resources.”

Continue reading

U.S. Supreme Court justices raise questions about culvert damage

As state and tribal attorneys faced off yesterday in the 20-year battle over culverts, justices for the U.S. Supreme Court drilled both sides about numbers.

A coho salmon tries to leap into a culvert on Gorst Creek where water discharges from fish-rearing ponds. // Photo: Meegan M. Reid, Kitsap Sun

The culvert case is not about the 50-50 sharing of the annual salmon harvest. The courts ruled years ago that treaties with Puget Sound tribes guarantee Indians half the total salmon harvest, to be shared equally with non-Indians.

The culvert case is about the environment, specifically the idea that culverts are capable of blocking the passage of salmon, reducing the salmon population to a meaningless number and making the treaty right worthless.

From the transcript of today’s Supreme Court hearing, I’ve tried to pull out the most interesting and legally relevant questions.

Opening the hearing and speaking for the state, Assistant Attorney General Noah Purcell said the lower courts have essentially established a new treaty right with the ruling under appeal. If culverts must be replaced as a result of the treaty, then consider what could happen to dams and virtually any development that has ever had an impact on salmon runs, he said.

In legal briefs, state attorneys have argued that the treaties work both ways, that tribes gave up the right to manage the lands they ceded to the U.S.

Justice Samuel Alito noted that the treaty describes the right of Indians to take fish. “What do you think that means?” he asked Purcell.

Three rights come from that language, Purcell said. They are the right to fish in historical places, the right to a fair share of the available fish and a “right to be free of certain types of state actions that are not justified by substantial public interest.”

The tribes, he added, need to show that state culverts specifically are responsible for a “large decline” on a particular river. There are many other causes of salmon declines as well, and the state is trying to work on all of them, he said.

Alito said he doesn’t understand the meaning of “large decline” or even “substantial decline,” the term used by the federal government, which is a party to the case on behalf of the tribes.

“Well,” Percell said, “it has to be more than a fraction of 1 percent of historic harvests or 5 percent of recent harvest. We think, for example, certainly a decline of half the salmon would certainly easily qualify …”

Asked Justice Elena Kagan, “I mean, do you have a number in your head?”

Justice Neil Gorsuch wanted to know whether a 5-percent reduction in the salmon runs would be adequate to support the tribes’ position. “If they could show that 5 percent is attributable to the culverts, would that suffice to satisfy you?” he asked. “And, if not, I guess I’m where Justice Kagan is. What’s your number.”

Purcell said he thought that half would obviously quality but not 5 percent.

“Suppose,” said Alito, “that there were more than salmon than anybody knew what to do with, and then the state did something that caused a decline. Would that be a violation of the treaty?”

“I don’t think that would be a violation even under the respondents’ (tribes’) theory, Your Honor,” Purcell replied. “… and that recognizes the crucial other piece of language… The treaties ceded control of the off-reservation land to future government to regulate in the public interest. And so the government has to have the ability to make some types of decisions, even if they affect the treaty fishing right when there are substantial interests involved.”

Gorsuch said he is struggling with that concept, the idea that state government could pursue other public interests and balance them against treaty rights.

“The point of a treaty, I would have thought, would have been to freeze in time certain rights and to ensure their existence in perpetuity, regardless of what other social benefits a later municipality might be able to claim,” he said.

Purcell said the treaty must recognize interests other than the fishing rights of the tribes, and that includes actions to protect natural resources and public health.

“But where does this public interest theory come in in the treaty?” asked Kagan. “I thought this was an agreement. I give you my land. You give me the right to take fish. And — let’s make it narrower here — I have the right that you will not put up obstructions on these streams such that I can’t take fish.”

“Well, Your Honor,” said Purcell, “if the rule is narrowly limited like that, it’s much less problematic for the state, but the findings would not support that rule and it would outlaw every dam in the Northwest. So it’s inconsistent with the parties’ long-standing behavior.”

Alito asked federal prosecutors in the case whether federal dams also violate the treaties.

Assistant Solicitor General Allon Kedem of the U.S. Department of Justice said that issue was never part of the case and the legal issues have never been developed. Still, he added, many dams are built with fish ladders. In other cases, the U.S. government has compensated the tribes monetarily.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg returned to the original language of the treaties, which “gives the tribes the right to take fish in common with all citizens.” One could simply interpret that to mean that nobody should discriminate against Indians, she said.

Kedem said the state had argued that point years ago, but the courts considered representations made by federal officials to the Indians when the treaties were signed. The conclusion, upheld by the Supreme Court, was that the tribes have access to fish in perpetuity.

Justice Kagan returned to the issue of numbers, asking Kedem if he has an idea how much habitat damage constitutes “substantial” degradation — the term used to define a treaty violation.

“So we don’t have a number,” Kedem said, adding that the lower courts used a habitat approach, the idea that loss of habitat would reduce the salmon population.

Later, Justice Alito turned to Attorney William Jay, representing the tribes.

“I hate to keep asking the same question,” he said, but does ‘substantial degradation’ mean a number or “significant degradation’ mean a number?”

“I don’t think it means a hard and fast number,” Jay said. “I think it is something that you would look at in context, in context of the particular species, in context of the strength of the species at a particular time.”

Without giving a number, Jay said, the court found that the state’s culverts are so numerous and reduce access to such a large spawning area that the impact on the fishery is significant.

“I just don’t see how that can mean anything other than a number,” Alito said, “and I still haven’t gotten an answer that seems to give any substance to this.”

Jay said the idea that the local, state or federal government could disregard the intent of the treaty while balancing their own perceived public interests is not consistent with promises made by the president of the United States and ratified by the Senate.

“If the promise made by the United States in exchange for millions of acres of the tribes’ land means anything … it protects against a threat to the fishery like these, a threat that obstructs fish from getting to the usual and accustomed fishing grounds where the tribes have a right to fish.”

For further reading:

Amusing Monday: World Water Day addresses natural purification

World Water Day, coming up this Thursday, is an annual worldwide event designed to focus attention on the importance of water to all living things.

Promoted by the United Nations, the 25-year-old World Water Day has always raised concerns about the 2.1 billion people in the world who don’t have easy access to clean water, creating a major health crisis in some communities.

This year’s theme is “nature for water” — although the discussion remains focused mainly on humans. Human actions have contributed to increasing flooding, drought and water pollution — and humans are able to use natural systems to help reduce the problems.

So-called “nature-based solutions” include protecting and improving water quality by restoring forests and wetlands, reconnecting rivers to their floodplains and creating vegetated buffers along lakes and streams, even in urban areas.

A fact sheet (PDF 2 mb) put out by UNESCO (U.N. Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization) lays out the arguments on behalf of nature-based solutions. A larger 150-page report, titled “Nature Based Solutions for Water” (PDF 42.7 mb) can be downloaded from the UNESCO website.

A series of posters and cards related to this year’s theme can be downloaded from the World Water Day website. For the creative, I’m intrigued by the idea that you can create your own collage, using individual elements taken from the four posters. See “collage kit” on the same resources page.

Considering that this is the 25th World Water Day, I anticipated more events and celebrations. The one event listed for Washington state is a guided tour of Edmonds Marsh, one of the few urban saltwater estuaries still remaining in the Puget Sound region. Details of the walk are provided in a brief article in Edmonds News.

The first video on this page is a promotional piece by UNESCO.

Official poster of World Water Day
Source: UNESCO

I found the second video, filmed in Istanbul, Turkey, to be revealing about people’s attitudes about water. I imagine the reaction might be the same in some U.S. cities — although the specific location probably makes a lot of difference. The video, produced in 2015, was created for Standart Pompa, a manufacturer of water pumps.

The video shows a video screen next to a water faucet with a dying tree depicted on the screen. When passersby turned off the water faucet, the tree suddenly transformed into a healthy green condition. Although the weather was cold during the filming, nearly a third of the people going by took their hands out of their pockets and turned off the water, which was actually recirculating from the drain so that no water was wasted.

The third video is a cartoon designed to drive home a message about the importance of water, beginning with the simple act of brushing your teeth. It was produced by TVNXT KIDZ.

Nitrogen and plankton: Do they hold the missing keys to the food web?

In a way, some of Puget Sound’s most serious ecological problems have been hiding in plain sight. I have been learning a lot lately about plankton, an incredibly diverse collection of microscopic organisms that drift through the water, forming the base of the food web.

Sources of nitrogen in Puget Sound (click to enlarge)
Graphic: Washington Department of Ecology

To put it simply, the right kinds of plankton help to create a healthy population of little fish that feed bigger fish that feed birds and marine mammals, including the endangered Southern Resident killer whales. On the other hand, the wrong kinds of plankton can disrupt the food web, stunt the growth of larger creatures and sometimes poison marine animals.

OK, that’s a bit of an oversimplification, but Puget Sound researchers are just beginning to understand the profound importance of a healthy planktonic community to support a large part of the food web. That’s one of the main points that I try to bring out in five stories published today in the Encyclopedia of Puget Sound. I am grateful to the many researchers who have shared their knowledge with me.

Average daily nitrogen coming in from rivers and wastewater treatment plants (1 kg = 2.2 pounds)
Graphic: Washington Department of Ecology

These stories tie together several major issues all related to nutrients — mainly nitrogen — that feed the marine phytoplankton, which use their chlorophyll to take energy from the sun as they grow and multiply. In the spring and summer, too much nitrogen can mean too much plankton growth. In turn, excess plankton can lead to low-oxygen conditions, ocean acidification and other significant problems.

The complex interplay of planktonic species with larger life forms in Puget Sound is still somewhat of a mystery to researchers trying to understand the food web. As part of the effort, the Washington Department of Ecology is working on a computer model to show how excess nitrogen can trigger low-oxygen conditions in the most vulnerable parts of the Salish Sea, such as southern Hood Canal and South Puget Sound.

Areas of Puget Sound listed as “impaired” for dissolved oxygen (click to enlarge)
Graphic: Washington Department of Ecology

Stormwater is often cited as the most serious problem facing Puget Sound, and we generally think of bacteria and toxic chemicals flowing into the waterway and causing all sorts of problems for the ecosystem. But stormwater also brings in nitrogen derived from fertilizers, animal wastes and atmospheric deposits from burning fossil fuels. Stormwater flows also pick up natural sources of nitrogen from plants and animals that end up in streams.

Sewage treatment plants are another major source of human nitrogen. Except for a few exceptions, not much has been done to reduce the release of nutrients from sewage-treatment plants, which provide not only nitrogen but also micronutrients such as vitamins and minerals. Some experts suspect that nutrients other than nitrogen help to determine which types of plankton will dominate at any given time.

I plan to follow and report on new scientific developments coming out of studies focused on the base of the food web. Meanwhile, I hope you will take time to read this package of related stories:

Federal waters rule gets batted around endlessly in the courtrooms

Confusion is nothing new when it comes to figuring out whether federal agencies have jurisdiction over certain wetlands and intermittent streams under the Clean Water Act. And now the Trump administration has guaranteed that confusion will reign a while longer.

Meanwhile, lawsuits — also nothing new to the Clean Water Act — continue to pile up at a rapid pace.

Some argue that the confusion begins with the 1972 Clean Water Act itself, which requires the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to issue permits for any filling or dredging — which covers most development — within the “navigable waters” of the country.

Congress defined “navigable waters” in a way that has generated much confusion and many lawsuits through the years: “The term ‘navigable waters’ means the waters of the United States, including the territorial seas,” the law states.

Even the U.S. Supreme Court couldn’t figure it out and ended up adding to the confusion. In a 4-4-1 split ruling, half the justices focused on “navigable waters” with a narrow definition to include major waterways but avoid federal protection for many wetlands and intermittent streams. The other half of the justices supported a broader definition, which would protect downstream waters by also protecting upstream sources of water.

Writer Steve Zwick of Ecosystem Marketplace does a nice job explaining the legal and historical context for the confusion in a four-part series of articles. Zwick relies on, and gives credit to, the writings of William W. Sapp and William M. Lewis, Jr.

Under the previous administration of Barack Obama, the Army Corps of Engineers and the Environmental Protection Agency worked together to draft a new rule to more clearly define federal jurisdiction over streams and wetlands, as outlined by the broader Supreme Court opinion. It became known as the “Clean Water Rule” or “WOTUS” for Waters of the U.S.

Some potential opponents applauded the certainty of the proposed rule, even if they disagreed with some details. (See Water Ways, March 25, 2014.) But others believed that the states, not the federal government, should be in charge of protecting streams and wetlands. It became a common theme to argue that the new rule would regulate the tiniest ditches and farm ponds — something the Obama administration denied.

One of the opponents of the 2015 rule was Scott Pruitt, Oklahoma’s attorney general who ended up suing the Obama administration on behalf of his state. In all, 31 states joined various lawsuits against the rule, with separate lawsuits brought by farmers and industry.

Scott Pruitt, EPA administrator
Photo: EPA official portrait

“President Obama’s Environmental Protection Agency currently stands poised to strike the greatest blow to private property rights the modern era has seen,” Pruitt declared in an opinion piece co-authored by U.S. Sen. Rand Paul, a Republican from Kentucky. The piece was published in The Hill.

Pruitt, of course, is the man that President Trump later named to head the EPA, the same agency he was suing in multiple lawsuits. Pruitt said early on that he would not allow Obama’s WOTUS rule to go into effect.

Before it took effect, the WOTUS rule was tied up in the courts, including an injunction issued by the Sixth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati. Under the Clean Water Act, appeals courts can take primary action under certain conditions, but the U.S. Supreme Court agreed unanimously (PDF 923 kb) on Jan. 22 that the WOTUS rule is not one of these conditions.

And so the rule, originally scheduled to go into effect in August 2015, was put back into a confusing status, ready to go into effect in 37 states where it was not blocked by an injunction that covers 13 states under an order of the U.S. District Court in North Dakota.

“This is just all-out war. All-out litigation,” Vermont Law School professor Pat Parenteau was quoted as saying in an article by Ariel Wittenberg in E&E News. “This is good news for lawyers, but it is not going to be settled at all.”

Pruitt’s EPA then moved to finalize the Obama WOTUS rule on Jan. 31 but with an “applicability date” set for two years away. The announced intent was to overhaul the rule by pulling back federal jurisdiction over streams and wetlands.

“Today, EPA is taking action to reduce confusion and provide certainty to America’s farmers and ranchers,” Pruitt said in a news release. “The 2015 WOTUS rule developed by the Obama administration will not be applicable for the next two years, while we work through the process of providing long-term regulatory certainty across all 50 states about what waters are subject to federal regulation.”

In the interim, the EPA has announced that it will revert to previous policies and guidelines drafted following the confusing Supreme Court ruling.

You can guess what happened next. On Feb. 6, a total of 10 states, including Washington, plus Washington, D.C., filed a lawsuit in New York, claiming that Pruitt’s delaying tactics were illegal. The state officials, led by New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman, argued that the federal government ignored the federal Administrative Procedures Act by adopting the revised rule without a meaningful comment period and in disregard of the Clean Water Act’s underlying intent of protecting the nation’s waters.

“The agencies have now suspended the Clean Water Rule without consideration of the extensive scientific record that supported it or the environmental and public health consequences of doing so,” the lawsuit (PDF 1.9 mb) says.

On the same day, the implementation delay was challenged in a separate lawsuit (2.6 mb) by two environmental groups, Natural Resources Defense Council and National Wildlife Federation.

“The Agencies’ only proffered rationale for the suspension is that it will promote regulatory clarity and certainty,” the lawsuit says. “In light of the administration’s open antipathy for the rule’s provisions, that rationale rings hollow. But it is also belied by the record. There is no evidence that suspending the rule will promote clarity or certainty, and ample evidence that suspending the Rule will create confusion and uncertainty.”

In Ariel Wittenberg’s story in E&E, Georgetown Law professor William Buzbee talks about how messy things have become.

“If the administration had taken the time to put out proposals that truly and fully engaged with the merits of the Clean Waters Rule and tried to come up with a new read, then it would be ordinary days in the courts,” he was quoted as saying. “But anything they do now, given their proposals, is likely to be legally vulnerable.”

Now the possibility exists that some courts could delay implementation of the original WOTUS rule while others reject the two-year delay. In any case, there is no end in sight to the legal battles, and nobody can be certain about what kind of projects will require federal permits.

Kitsap streams getting generally cleaner, but storms have an effect

Kitsap County’s streams are getting generally cleaner when it comes to bacterial levels, according to an annual water-quality report issued by the Kitsap Public Health District. But streams can have good years and bad years — and 2017 was not so good.

Let’s compare the annual report for 2016 to the newly released report for 2017, both found on the health district’s website. Reporter Tad Sooter offered a nice overview of the new report in a Kitsap Sun story on Friday.

Graph: Kitsap Public Health District

Before getting to the findings, it’s important to understand that there are two bacterial water-quality standards that must be met for a stream to get a clean bill of health. The first part calls for an average of no more than 100 bacteria per 100 milliliters of water (or no more than 50 bacteria if the water body has been designated “extraordinary”). The second part states that, regardless of the average, no more than 10 percent of the samples taken can exceed 200 bacteria per 100 milliliters of water (or 100 bacteria for “extraordinary” water).

It came as a surprise to me that in water year 2017 a total of 23 streams — or 35 percent of the 66 streams sampled — failed both water-quality standards. That’s worse than in water year 2016, when 25 percent of the 64 streams on the list failed both standards. (A water year goes from Oct. 1 to Sept. 30 of the next year.)

One reason that water quality got worse in 2017 was that rainy weather at times was more conducive to washing bacteria into the streams, according to Shawn Ultican, a water-quality expert with the health district.

“Bacterial levels were higher in general than we have seen them in the past few years,” Shawn said of the 2017 data. “We had more intense rainfall at times. We don’t think that suddenly more pollution sources have become a problem.”

Similar patterns also were seen in 2009 and 2010, he said.

More streams were deemed clean in 2016 than 2017. In 2017, 21 streams — 32 percent — met both of the water-quality standards, compared to 30 streams — 47 percent — the year before.

For discussion, I took a look at reports in 2008, when 38 percent met both standards, and 2013, when 29 percent met both standards. So it really does vary from year to year. And whether a stream is considered clean or polluted depends on recent rainfall and other fleeting factors. Consequently, much depends on when a water sample is taken, which is why health officials choose their sampling dates randomly.

Because weather plays an important factor in the bacterial counts, health officials tend to focus on long-term trends rather than on the results of individual water samples. Trends result from a statistical exercise using data collected each month over many years. For most streams, sampling has been going on for 22 years.

If the bacterial counts stay relatively the same over many years, the health of the stream is listed as “stationary.” If the numbers show a statistical trend, a stream will be listed as “worsening” or “improving.”

In 2017, five streams were listed as worsening: Coulter Creek in South Kitsap; Lofall and Kinman creeks in North Kitsap; and Stavis Creek and the Tahuya River, which drain into Hood Canal. You might consider Stavis Creek and Tahuya River to be statistical anomalies, because they are so clean that it takes only a few additional bacteria to result in an unwelcome trend.

Stavis Creek met both part 1 and 2 of the water quality standards in 2017, while the Tahuya River failed part 2 because of a few high counts. In 2016, both streams met both water-quality standards, so health officials aren’t worried about either stream at this point.

In 2016, 21 streams were listed as improving, compared to 18 streams in 2017. Olalla, Wilson, Barker and Chico creeks are among those that went from improving to stationary. Barker and Chico creeks are pretty clean, meeting both parts of the water-quality standards.

Tad’s story in the Kitsap Sun includes an interactive map that provides the status of each stream in Kitsap County monitored by the health district.

Lofall Creek, which includes drainage from the community of Lofall as well as upstream areas, has been giving health officials fits for years. Bacterial counts are high and getting worse, despite successful efforts to eliminate sources of pollution, such as failing septic systems and pet wastes.

Special tests are planned to see whether pollution in the stream is coming from pets, birds or ruminants, such as cows and deer, according to Ian Rork, an environmental health specialist with the health district who is assigned the cleanup of Lofall Creek and nearby Kinman Creek.

Health officials have long suspected that raccoons may be a source of the pollution, but they have no strong evidence. Raccoons are known to deposit their wastes in communal areas. As new development takes over uplands, these small animals may be pushed into remaining vegetated areas along the streams.

Last year, Ian began a new effort to work closely with residents of the community to see if they could take steps to discourage raccoons and other wildlife from congregating near Lofall. Steps people can take include making sure animals don’t have access to garbage, keeping barbecue grills clean and avoiding the intentional feeding of raccoons.

“The local residents have been so gracious and good to work with,” Ian told me, adding that most people are committed to solving the problem if only there were a clear answer.

For the 2017 report, Lofall Creek remains the most polluted stream in the county, followed by Ostrich Bay Creek in Bremerton; Olalla Creek and Burley Creek, both in South Kitsap; and Kinman Creek and Vinland Creek, both in North Kitsap.

The cleanest streams are Dewatto Creek, followed by Anderson Creek, Stavis Creek, Seabeck Creek, Salmonberry Creek, Big Beef Creek and Wright Creek. All drain into Hood Canal, except Anderson and Wright creeks, which drain into Sinclair Inlet, and South Kitsap’s Salmonberry Creek.

Climate change is expected to bring more intensive rainstorms, but how that will affect long-term trends in water quality is yet to be seen.