If you are hosting out-of-town visitors this Thanksgiving
weekend, it might be a good time to take them salmon-watching — or
go by yourself if you get the urge to see one of nature’s marvelous
phenomena.
Rainfall in Hansville. Blue
line shows current trend.
Graph: Kitsap Public Utility District
Kitsap County’s Salmon Park on Chico Way near Golf Club Road
tops my list of places to watch salmon. Expect to see plenty of
dead fish as well as live ones, as we have apparently passed the
peak of the run.
Dogfish Creek near Poulsbo also has a fair number of chum at
this time, with a good viewing spot at the north end of Fish Park.
Gorst Creek and other streams in Sinclair Inlet are known for their
late runs of chum salmon, which are likely to be spotted right up
until Christmas at Otto Jarstad Park.
OK, I’ll admit that I used this line once in a story many years
ago when I first observed the Skokomish River overflowing its
banks. I was amazed at the number of chum salmon swimming through
farm fields and across pavement in the Skokomish Valley as they
tried to get back to their spawning grounds.
Despite extensive work in the Skokomish River estuary, the
waters still back up and fish still swim across roads during heavy
rains and floods.
I was not the first to bend the old joke to ask, “Why did the
salmon cross the road?” And I was definitely not the last, as two
new videos went viral the past few days, resulting in news reports
across the country. Hundreds of thousands of people must have been
surprised to see Puget Sound salmon skittering across the pavement
in a most unnatural way.
Recent rains are bringing chum salmon into numerous streams on
the Kitsap Peninsula, according to Jon Oleyar, biologist for the
Suquamish Tribe. But more rains are needed to help the salmon reach
the upper tributaries and fully seed the system, he added.
Chum salmon swim up Chico Creek
on Thursday (11-1). // Photo: Emma
Jeffries
“The fall fish are right on schedule,” Jon told me, “but I wish
they had more water, especially for the tributaries.”
Folks attending the Kitsap Salmon Tours this Saturday should be
able to see fish in most locations on this year’s list. Read on for
details.
The fall chum themselves seem larger than average this year, Jon
said, which means the streams need a little more water than usual
for the fish to easily swim upstream.
Salmon can move quickly upstream and become stranded in
too-shallow water after a downpour followed by a dry period, he
said. In a worst-case scenario, fish may die before spawning. Once
the rains have saturated the soil, the risk of low flows is
reduced, but as of today we’re not at that point yet. Heavy rains
last Saturday brought many fish into the streams, he added, but
streams levels have dropped somewhat since then.
Washington Department of Ecology has agreed to take steps to
protect wild salmon eggs incubating in gravel by developing
entirely new water-quality standards to control fine sediment going
into streams.
The new standards, yet to be developed, could ultimately limit
silty runoff coming from logging operations, housing construction
and other operations that can affect water quality. The idea is
maintain adequate oxygen to salmon eggs, thus increasing the rate
of survival as well as the health of the young fish.
The legal agreement with Ecology grew out of a lawsuit brought
by Northwest Environmental Advocates against the federal
Environmental Protection Agency. NWEA claimed that the EPA had
failed to consult with natural resource agencies while reviewing
changes in state water-quality standards, as required by the
Endangered Species Act.
We’ve just gone through one of the driest five-month periods on
record in Kitsap County, yet the total precipitation for entire
water year was fairly close to average.
Water year 2018, which ended Sunday, offers a superb example of
the extreme differences in precipitation from one part of the
Kitsap Peninsula to another:
In Hansville — at the north end of the peninsula — the total
rainfall for the year reached 35.2 inches, about 3.5 inches above
average.
In Silverdale — about midway from north to south — the total
rainfall was recorded as 43.1 inches, about 5 inches below
average.
In Holly — near the south end — the total rainfall came in at
82 inches, about 3.3 inches above average.
The graphs of precipitation for the three areas show how this
year’s rainfall tracked with the average rainfall through the
entire year. The orange line depicts accumulated rainfall for water
year 2018, while the pink line represents the average. Click on the
images to enlarge and get a better view.
Today marks the 50th anniversary of the Wild and Scenic Rivers
Act, and I was pleased to see that producer/director Shane
Anderson and Pacific
Rivers are allowing the documentary “Run Wild Run Free” to be
shown online for three days before the film goes back into limited
showings.
Given the heat wave of the past few days, I realize that I
should have been floating down a river. I’m envisioning cool water
splashing people on a boat as the sun beats down from above. I
recall feelings of calm while traveling across flat water, followed
by the invigoration of roiling rapids.
To get you started,
Seattle Magazine offers a few suggestions, and there are
numerous rafting companies advertising online to help you tackle
more challenging waters.
This year happens to be the 50th anniversary of the Wild and
Scenic Rivers Act, and I’ve been watching some videos that I would
like to share. The law was designed to preserve the free-flowing
nature of rivers that contain outstanding natural, cultural and
recreational values.
Salmon have a tough life. Not only must they escape predators
and find enough food to eat — as do all wild animals — but they
must also make the physiologically taxing transition from
freshwater to saltwater and then back again to start a new
generation.
In a four-part series being published in the Encyclopedia of
Puget Sound, I explain some of the latest research findings about
how chinook, coho and steelhead are struggling to survive in the
waters of Puget Sound.
The first part is called “Opening the black box:
What’s killing Puget Sound’s salmon and steelhead?” It
describes the Salish Sea Marine Survival Project, a major research
effort involving more than 200 scientists in the U.S. and Canada.
The effort is coordinated by Long Live the Kings in the U.S. and by
the Pacific Salmon Foundation in Canada.
The second part, titled “Size means survival for
salmon,” takes a look at salmon and steelhead’s place in the
food web from the “bottom up,” as they say. Specifically, what are
the fish eating and what is limiting their access to a healthy food
supply?
Still to come are discussions about predation (“top down”) in
Part 3, and other factors that affect survival, such as disease and
chemical exposure, in Part 4.
Our goal for this project has been to describe the important
research findings in careful detail without getting lost in complex
scientific analysis. I also describe, at the end of Part 1, some
new findings regarding potential competition among salmon for food
in the Pacific Ocean.
Contractors are putting the final touches on two new bridges in
Kitsap County, both of which are expected to improve the local
environment.
A new bridge over the Carpenter
Creek Estuary near Kingston helps to restore the upper salt
marsh.
Photo; Stillwaters Environmental Center
One is a 150-foot bridge that crosses the Carpenter Creek
Estuary on West Kingston Road near Kingston. The other is a 50-foot
bridge that crosses Big Anderson Creek on Seabeck-Holly Road near
Holly.
Among local residents, the Carpenter Creek bridge may best be
known as the bridge that blocked traffic and forced a detour near
Kingston for more than a year — much longer than originally
planned. (Recall reporter Nathan Pilling’s story in the
Kitsap Sun.) While contract issues remain in dispute, the
environmental benefits are clear, according to Joleen Palmer of the
nearby Stillwaters Environmental Center.
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.”
