Tag Archives: restoration

Volunteers wanted for advice on restoration, recreation spending

Individuals with an interest in recreation and protecting the environment are needed to help determine how millions of dollars in state and federal grants are spent on projects related to habitat restoration, farmland preservation, parks and outdoor activities.

Stavis Natural Resources Conservation Area on Hood Canal. DNR photo
Stavis Natural Resources Conservation Area on Hood Canal in Kitsap County. // DNR photo

It is easy to overlook these various advisory committees that evaluate projects proposed for grants each year. I often report on the outcome of the grant decisions without describing the process of evaluation, recommendation and listing by the Recreation and Conservation Funding Board.

Volunteers play a vital role in understanding the proposals, ranking them and making them better. They can also take part in determining overall board policies used in the approval — such as a current proposal to change policies related to farmland, trails and changes to property-acquisition projects. See “Policies and Rulemaking” on the website of the Recreation and Conservation Office. For this round, comments are due by tomorrow.

Volunteers with special knowledge and abilities are always needed, but average citizens also have a role to play in these decisions. Information about duties and becoming a volunteer can be found on RCO’s “Advisory Committees” webpage. These volunteer positions are unpaid except for travel expenses when money is available.

The RCO is looking to fill positions on nine advisory committees, which will begin working on the next round of grants in the spring and summer of next year. Applications are due by Oct. 30 for the following positions, which are four-year appointments.

The first group addresses grants in the Washington Wildlife and Recreation Program:

Local Parks: One local government official and two citizen volunteers are needed to focus on grants related to acquiring, developing and renovating local parks.

Habitat Restoration: One citizen volunteer is needed to focus on grants relating to buying and restoring shorelines and state-owned land. The volunteer should be familiar with the subject.

Trails: A volunteer is needed to address grants to buy, develop and renovate non-motorized trails. An interest in regional trails is important.

Water Access: One citizen and two local government volunteers are needed to discuss grants related to improving access for nonmotorized, water-related recreation.

Farmland Preservation: Two citizen volunteers are needed to consider grants related to maintaining working farms. Volunteers should be farmers who actively manage farms or rangeland.

State Parks: One local government volunteer is needed to help prioritize grants for buying and developing state parks. A statewide perspective on parks and recreation is important.

State Land Development and Renovation: One citizen volunteer and three local government volunteers are needed to address grants for developing or renovating outdoor recreation facilities on state land. A statewide perspective on parks and recreation is important.

Other grant programs:

Aquatic Lands Enhancement Account: One citizen and two local government volunteers are needed to deal with grants to buy and improve shorelines for public use. The citizen volunteer should be familiar with aquatic lands restoration or protection, while the local government volunteers should be familiar with recreation and public access interests.

Land and Water Conservation Fund: Two citizen and three local government volunteers are needed to work with this federal funding program, which provides grants to preserve and develop parks, trails and wildlife lands. Congress failed to reinstate this popular program before it expired under federal law, but there is considerable political pressure to keep it going. The committee will evaluate proposals in case Congress acts. The money comes from oil and gas leases on federal lands.

If you have questions not answered on the website, you can contact Lorinda Anderson by phone at (360) 902-3009 or 
TTY (360) 902-1996 or by email.

Shoreline projects gradually restore Puget Sound

We’ve been writing a lot lately about shoreline restoration projects. As with road construction, it seems that the heaviest lifting on restoration projects gets going as summer draws to a close.

About 1,500 feet of bulkhead on Port Madison is being removed by the Powel family with help from Puget Sound Partnership and Bainbridge Island Land Trust. / Photo by Tad Sooter

Notable projects on the Kitsap Peninsula:

Judging from the comments on the stories, some people don’t believe the government should be spending money on environmental restoration when the state and nation are in an economic slump.

Two years ago, Gov. Chris Gregoire made it clear that she believed that the economic troubles did not outweigh the ongoing risks to Puget Sound. I quoted her in the Kitsap Sun Oct. 15, 2010:

Removing an aging bulkhead on Dyes Inlet is expected to improve nearshore habitat at Anna Smith Children’s Park.
Photo by Christina Kereki, Kitsap County

“We are in the hardest economic problem since the deep depression, but we cannot take a recess; we cannot take time out (from the Puget Sound cleanup).”

Investing in cleanup efforts to repair past problems is one thing, the governor said, but the solution is not just costly restoration projects:

“It comes down to individuals like us. We are all part of the problem and we can all be part of the solution.”

She was talking about reducing stormwater pollution by being careful with household and lawn chemicals, car washing, oil and oil leaks, pet waste and other things.

When it comes to restoration projects, it turns out that the recession was actually a good time to begin many of these costly projects. As I reported in “Water Ways” on Oct. 21, 2010, the economic stimulus package approved by Congress helped pay for more than 600 projects directed to Puget Sound problems. The projects carried a price tag of about $460 million and created nearly 16,000 jobs.

The economic downturn also turned out to be good timing in another way. Construction companies hungry for work offered much lower bids than they would have during economic boom times. In many cases, including the Union River estuary project, bids are still coming in at the low end of cost projections.

Property owners who wish to restore their streams and shorelines are getting help from the government and nonprofit groups. In most cases, these projects would not get done by the property owners alone.

The $460,000 Powel bulkhead removal, for example, became a partnership between the Powel family, the Bainbridge Island Land Trust and the Puget Sound Partnership. The partnership’s new executive director, Anthony Wright, stated in a news release:

“It’s exciting to see everyone coming together to do some good for Puget Sound. Puget Sound is going to be healthy again because of people like the Powel family, the land trust and regulatory entities all working together.”

Some people doubt that the restoration projects are doing much good. Some say they simply are not worth the cost. But experts who have studied nearshore ecosystems argue that the ecological connections along the shoreline have been so severely disrupted that restoration is the best hope of saving the Puget Sound ecosystem.

I’ve heard people say that science does not support these kinds of restoration efforts. That’s an opinion not held by most experts, but if you are willing to do some reading, you can come to your own conclusions.

Some of the leading experts in our region have been taking part in the Puget Sound Nearshore Ecosystem Restoration Project, which includes a website of technical reports and plans. If you’re a fan of science, like me, you may feel like a kid in a candy shop as you peruse the many reports.

I would recommend the following as a beginning:

The pair of explanatory drawings below is taken from a chapter of the “State of the Science” report mentioned above. See Fish and Invertebrate Response to Shoreline Armoring and Restoration in Puget Sound (PDF 440 KB) by Jason D. Toft, Jeffery R. Cordell, Sarah M. Heerhartz, Elizabeth A. Armbrust, and Charles A. Simenstad.

A roundup of local water stories plus odds and ends

If you haven’t heard, our blog server crashed on Monday and was on and off all day Tuesday. Hopefully, it’s back to normal, but the situation has thrown me off my game.

I’m taking the next two days off, so I may not post much, if anything, more until Monday. But feel free to comment on any of the items below or any other postings. There shouldn’t be much, if any, delay for your comments to appear.

So let’s catch up on a few local water-related stories in the news:

Haven Lake weed treatment: Lake resident Monica Harle turned up the heat on plans to treat the lake a second time when her attorney sent letters to area property owners. She has taken the legal position that the homeowners association, which ordered the treatment, cannot speak for all the property owners. As a result, killing the weeds could violate the property rights of those who don’t want the treatment. Read more in today’s story.

Seabeck Marina: Washington Department of Ecology has not squashed this project. In fact, agency officials seem to be saying that they’re looking for a way to approve it. Meanwhile, the Suquamish Tribe has indicated that it won’t stand in the way. Read Brynn Grimley’s story.

Shellfish settlement: Some commercial shellfish growers are wondering if the tribes will reject their claims for an exemption from 50-50 sharing. In comments on the story, some people are reacting by attacking the tribes. Please don’t overlook the most significant point: Attorneys for the growers helped negotiate a $33 million deal with the tribes that required certain documents as proof of commercial ownership. Since all the parties approved the deal, the tribes cannot be blamed if these documents are difficult to come by. It’s actually a pretty complicated issue, and I’ve tried to explain the basics in a story.

Chico Creek: The long-awaited Chico Creek restoration at Kitsap Golf and Country Club is under way, as I mentioned in a story Tuesday. It is unfortunate that the project had to be broken into two parts — three if you count the culvert replacement — but this should be a great improvement for salmon migration. By the way, planners are trying to decide where to install a salmon-viewing platform that I’m sure would get a lot of use.