Latest Hood Canal Fish Kill Called ‘Extensive,’ but Not ‘Massive’ – Kitsap Sun

9/21 Kitsap Sun

By Christopher Dunagan
HOODSPORT — The massive fish kill that many researchers warned about Monday <http://http://www.kitsapsun.com/news/2010/sep/20/fish-kill-reported-in-southern-hood-canal/>&#160; has not fully materialized, but many hundreds of dead fish and thousands of shrimp washed up on Hood Canal beaches Tuesday, officials said.
“We have hypoxic (low oxygen) conditions all the way to the surface,” Jan Newton, an oceanographer who heads the Hood Canal Dissolved Oxygen Program <http://http://www.hoodcanal.washington.edu/>&#160; said shortly before noon Tuesday. “There is less than 1 milligram per liter (oxygen) at Hoodsport, and lots of residents are reporting dead fish on the beaches.”
Those levels are highly stressful for most marine creatures and lethal for some.
More at
http://www.kitsapsun.com/news/2010/sep/21/hundreds-of-fish-thousands-of-shrimp-dead-in/

Oxygen in Hood Canal reaches dangerous levels – Kitsap Sun

Chris Dunagan reports on the new findings of low oxygen levels in Hood Canal. These are now reaching the lowest levels since record keeping began in the 1950s. Read the whole story at : http://pugetsoundblogs.com/waterways/2010/09/17/oxygen-in-hood-canal-reaches-dangerous-levels/

I hate to be the voice of doom, but low-oxygen conditions in Hood Canal have never been worse — if you can believe the data gathered since the 1950s, alongside more intense monitoring the past several years.

State Health Department Closes Oyster Harvest on Hood Canal

9/10 Kitsap Sun
By Kitsap Sun staff

BREMERTON —
The Washington state Department of Health has issued an oyster harvest closure for Hood Canal in Kitsap County after illnesses were reported in connection with commercially harvested oysters from the canal. The closure extends from the Hood Canal bridge to the Kitsap-Mason county line.

The illness, vibriosis, is caused by eating raw oysters contaminated with a natural bacterium called Vibrio parahaemolyticus. Symptoms of vibriosis include diarrhea, abdominal cramps, nausea, vomiting, headache, fever and chills. They usually appear about 12 hours after eating infected shellfish but can manifest as quickly as two hours or as slowly as two days after consumption.

More at
http://www.kitsapsun.com/news/2010/sep/10/state-health-department-closes-oyster-harvest-on/

Evidence continues to point to Navy in Hood Canal Oyster Washup

Chris Dunagan continues to follow up on this bizarre situation. What’s new to me is that the Navy was apparently out there training for hours. This wasn’t just a ‘drive by’ incident, but apparently they were washing up huge wakes for a long time that day. Now it begins to make sense.

——————————————————

Evidence continues to point toward the USS Port Royal as the cause of massive numbers of oysters washing up on beaches near Seabeck as well as along Dabob Bay on the opposite side of Hood Canal.

A Navy investigator visited affected residents on Misery Point yesterday, though it remains unclear when a report may be issued. According to folks along the beach, the investigator was able to smell the stench of rotting oysters still drifting about in that area.

I’m afraid there was some initial confusion about the timing, because some people discovered the washed-up oysters on Friday, Aug. 13, and I believe they assumed the event had occurred on Thursday, Aug. 12. Witnesses on both sides of Hood Canal have now confirmed that the Port Royal was speeding up and down Dabob Bay on Wednesday, Aug. 11.

Read more: http://pugetsoundblogs.com/waterways/2010/08/27/hood-canal-residents-still-troubled-by-oyster-washup/#ixzz0xxzQcb8q

Navy ship washes large amounts of oysters ashore (?)

This odd article comes from Chris Dunagan. For the life of me I can’t figure out how a Navy ship could possibly wash oysters ashore. Has anyone ever seen anything like this happen before? Did it somehow drop a depth charge or something?  If in fact it did do something that they are not admitting that caused this massive wave, then it would be another question mark in supporting further Navy expansion in the Canal and Admiralty Inlet (which has been proposed). The secrecy that the Navy naturally seems to work under is very difficult to support in a sensitive area like this, where we are trying to protect dwindling stock of endangered fish and mammals. But I would like to see this report corroborated. I’m not yet willing to buy this story as reported.

SEABECK —

Residents living near Seabeck’s Misery Point reported that the wake from a Navy ship washed massive numbers of oysters above the high tide line on the beach Thursday night.

The ship was later identified as the USS Port Royal, a 567-foot guided-missile cruiser, which had appeared at Seattle’s Seafair before undergoing testing at the Navy’s Dabob Range on Hood Canal near Quilcene.

Emilie Jungschaffer, who lives near Scenic Beach State Park, said the ship must have made a sharp turn or similar maneuver, because her neighbor reported a loud sound of waves washing ashore, and on Friday most of the oysters were found far up on the beach.

Puget Sound Chemistry Transformed by Climate Change and Runoff – Scientific American

Puget Sound is becoming more acidic thanks to a combination of agricultural runoff and rising carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere

A combination of carbon dioxide emitted by human activities and nutrient runoff is transforming the chemistry of Washington state’s Puget Sound, according to a new study.

Read the whole story at Scientific American:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=puget-sound-chemistry-transformed-by-climate-change-abd-runoff

-This threatens our entire shellfish industry, as well as other possible life forms. Runoff is one of the major causes, a reason that we value better shoreline management to slow or stop shoreline runoff. Also, stormwater runoff is another cause, which comes from roads with improperly created storm sewers.  Getting funding at the state level to correct these as quickly as possible is key.

While I have your attention: It may be a good time to review the map, commissioned by People For Puget Sound, done by the UW GIS group. It shows the exact locations of every one of the 4500 manmade storm sewers that empty to the Sound, along with 2123 natural drainages, and 297 DOT created drainages, including bridges.

http://pugetsound.org/pressroom/press-releases/042309stormdrains/?searchterm=storm%20water%20map

Kitsap Sun puts “Splendor At Risk” online

Twenty years ago today, the Kitsap Sun published the first story in a yearlong series of articles about the Hood Canal ecosystem. The following year, 1991, they compiled the series into a book, “Hood Canal: Splendor at Risk.”

With the hope that “Splendor at Risk” still has relevance today and to offer it free to more people, we are making the original publication available to read online (Scribd) or to download one chapter at a time (PDF).

Read more about Chris Dunagan’s thoughts on the republishing of this ebook at : http://pugetsoundblogs.com/waterways/2010/07/09/splendor-at-risk-still-the-refrain-for-hood-canal/#ixzz0tJ5dvg57

Researchers Ponder Missing Water Layer in Hood Canal

6/29 Kitsap Sun

By Christopher Dunagan
HOODSPORT —
Oxygen levels in Hood Canal are dropping into the danger zone, as researchers observe a condition they have never seen before.
Hood Canal never bounced back from the low-oxygen levels of last winter, and now a huge mass of oxygen-depleted water is building up at the bottom of the canal, according to oceanographer Jan Newton, who heads the Hood Canal Dissolved Oxygen Program <http://http://www.hoodcanal.washington.edu/&gt; .
Normally, by this time of year, a band of dense water containing greater amounts of dissolved oxygen has pushed in from the ocean and lies at the bottom of the waterway. But that band, which scientists call an intrusion, is missing this year, leaving the canal with a greater oxygen deficit than ever seen before, based on data going back to the 1950s
More at
http://www.kitsapsun.com/news/2010/jun/29/researchers-ponder-missing-water-layer-in-hood/

Dungeness Crab Mortality Due to Derelict Pots

From the NW Straits June Newsletter

People at the Crab Mortality PresentationJeff June, Natural Resources Consultants, is the derelict fishing gear removal field manager for the Northwest Straits Foundation. Jeff presented results from the recent study of Dungeness crab mortality from derelict pots supported by the Stillaguamish Tribe and Northwest Straits Foundation.

Jeff reported that the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife estimates that 12,193 crab pots are lost each year in Puget Sound. Each lost crab pot without escape cord kills approximately 30 crabs each year until deterioration. Jeff provided several ways to prevent crab pot loss:

· Don’t fish in marine transit zones

· Weight your pots so they don’t move in high currents

· Make sure line is long enough for the depth you are fishing

· Use multiple floats in high current areas

· Don’t set pots too close together

· Always use escape cord – 120 thread count is regulation but a better rule of thumb is to use 1/8 inch diameter cord.

· Report lost pots

A recent change in regulations allows enforcement agents to ticket crabbers for transporting illegal pots on marine waters, instead of only ticketing for actively fishing illegal pots. Jeff explained that there are some areas of concentrated accumulation of crab pots that will be targeted for this enforcement.

Click here for a pdf copy of the presentation.

Brinnon Group Meeting in Quilcene – 6/23 4 to 6 PM

The Brinnon Group will be meeting at the Timberhouse in Quilcene from 4 to 6 on June 23.  Ben Gruel from the Sierra Club plans to attend and to talk with us about our "challenges and opportunities."  Other topics will include the EB 5 funding program the developer wants to use, MOUs being developed, water-related issues, and communication strategies.  Let me know if you have any questions or any suggestions for the agenda.  Thanks.  Barbara

Jefferson Land Trust Awarded Grants

Jefferson Land Trust has been awarded a federal grant for acquisitions and restoration on Donovan Creek in Quilcene Bay. The grant for $701,250 has been matched by a Salmon Recovery Funding Board Grant to the Hood Canal Salmon Enhancement Group for $318,750. Additionally, JLT’s Salmon Recovery Funding Board grant application was funded in December for up to $359,231 in funds for acquisition of a fee or easement on property along Salmon Creek.

Congratulations to JLT! For more information see their web site at http://www.saveland.org or call them at 360.379.9501

Fred Hill Materials Inc., files for Chapter 11 reorganization

2/5 Peninsula Daily News–Fred Hill Materials Inc., files for Chapter 11 reorganization
Peninsula Daily News

Fred Hill Materials Inc., has filed for protection under Chapter 11 of U.S. bankruptcy laws.

Alex Hill, president and CEO of the Poulsbo family-based company, announced the move Friday, saying it follows the May closure of Westsound Bank.

The company will continue to deliver concrete products from its operations in Port Townsend, Sequim, Poulsbo, and Bremerton, Hill said in a statement.

“Chapter 11 is reorganization, not bankruptcy,” Hill said. “We are not closing, nor going anywhere.

More at
http://www.peninsuladailynews.com/article/20100205/NEWS/100209994

Special Showing of “Poisoned Waters” Puget Sound version on PBS tonight

A special airing this Sunday, December 20th. at 9PM on KCTS.

A special version of the PBS show “Frontline: Puget Sound’s Poisoned Waters” program will air this Sunday, 12/20, at 6:30 pm on KCTS, channel
9 in Seattle. This re-edited version features new material specific to Puget Sound.

The airing will include a special 15 minute segment on the battle by native American tribes for salmon habitat restoration that was not
included in the national Frontline broadcast as well as a studio dialogue with Bill Ruckelshaus and Hedrick Smith with Enrique Cerna, the KCTS
anchor.

Fighting to save the Rockfish – Your input needed!

Want to take action to help save our dwindling population of rockfish? Send in your comments on the EIS to the Dept. of Fish and Wildlife. They have extended the comment period to January 17th, 2010. My thanks to Norm Baker for forwarding this along. People For Puget Sound, Sierra Club, and many others will be taking a stand on this issue. Here’s the facts…

Puget Sound Rockfish Conservation Plan (PSRCP).

Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Fish Program.

Natural Resources Building, 6th floor, 1111 Washington St. SE. Olympia, WA98501-1091

 

Date Issued. The DEIS is available for review and download beginning October 19, 2009 at http://www.wdfw.wa.gov/hab/sepa/sepa.htm.

Mail comments. Theresa A. Eturaspe; SEPA/NEPA Coordinator, 600 capital way north, Olympia WA 98501-1091. E-mail comments to SEPA desk2@dfw.wa.gov or through the WDFW SEPA website comment link at http://www.wdfw.wa.gov/hab/sepa/sepa.htm or fax to (360)902-2946. Make sure the title to your comments includes “Puget Sound Rockfish Conservation Plan DEIS”.  The comment period has been extended from Nov. 19th through to Jan 4th, 2010.

Date of Final Action Plan. The final environmental impact statement will be released in 2010.

Future phase: Agency actions are anticipated as detailed regulations are developed for specific water basins. The plan applies to the entire Salish Sea (i.e. Puget Sound, Straits of Juan De Fuca, San Juan Islands and Hood Canal) north to the US-Canadian border and west to the mouth of the Sekiu River. Due to oceanographic, biological, bathymetric and geographical differences, the area of the plan is broadly divided into North Puget Sound and the South Puget Sound.

Plan Support. Environmental groups need to show strong support for the Puget Sound Rockfish Conservation Plan and the creation of a network of marine reserves. No actual marine reserves are proposed in the PSRCP plan. The Coastal Conservation Association, representing recreational fishermen, is aware of the benefits of marine reserves but is taking a cautious but positive proactive approach. Due to the enormity of the problem, many environmental organizations are starting to partner as PACs for legislative reform of our fisheries management. Implementing marine reserves, amongst other issues, is believed by fisheries scientists to be absolutely essential to fisheries management reform and ecosystem restoration.

Purpose of the PSRCP. Restore and protect Puget Sound Rockfish populations, ecosystem and provide opportunities for sustainable fishing. Four alternatives are being considered. Alternative 1 will provide the greatest in-depth benefits to all rockfish species. However, the WDFW PSRCP prefers a mix of the four alternatives based on the professional judgment of the fisheries biologists. Of the 15 elements reviewed for potential impact on the environment, the most significant is that recreational fishing opportunities could be reduced or severely modified apparently on a case by case implementation of each marine reserve. There is no mention of any impact or curtailment of commercial or tribal fishing and this is a significant and serious criticism. Thirty two endangered or threatened species endemic to Puget Sound are listed with known food web interactions with rockfish species. Sixteen of the endangered or threatened species are Rockfish species (Sebastes spp.). Currently, 47 species are listed as endangered or threatened for the Salish Sea. Currently, Washington has 62 endangered or threatened species state-wide.

 

Governing Environment. Implementing this plan will be difficult because of the number of governing agencies – ten in all. Each marine reserve proposed in the future will be accomplished on a case by case basis asking for public input and support.

 

Rockfish Biology. In Puget Sound, there are 28 species with very diverse biology’s, habitat requirements, depth requirements and life spans – as short as 5 years but commonly 50 years and up to 200 years.  Some are not sexually mature until they are 20 years old. All rockfish species have live-birth of young and exhibit low reproductive potential and erratic infrequent successful yearly reproduction. Rockfish have swim bladders and suffer extremely high mortality when released after being caught by fishermen. Most are associated with rocky habitats which are relatively few and easily disturbed. These factors make effective management and protection difficult and complex. Artificial reefs made from deconstruction materials have proven very useful for reestablishing rockfish.

 

Management. Traditional fisheries management tools have not helped restore rockfish. Commercial overharvest between 1970 the early 1990’s led to declines in rockfish populations, which have been further impacted by recreational fishing since the early 1990’s. Several forms of commercial fishing are no longer allowed. Currently, ghost nets and derelict gear are killing numbers estimated to be almost twice the recreational harvest. Incidental recreational catch while fishing for other species (salmon, halibut and lingcod) is also a problem. Juvenile rockfish in particular are significantly affected by disruption of aquatic vegetation and armoring shorelines. Due to the large number of rockfish species, the current conservation plan utilizes a “Key Species” concept to simplify management and restoration. Seven representative “key” species are identified in the plan.

Management decisions that impact recreational fishing could be negative and substantial. Season and area closures and gear limits are anticipated. In particular, marine reserves will be a particularly contentious point. Marine reserves are generally defined by the scientific community has “no take” areas of suitable habitat. A common attitude amongst commercial fishermen, recreational fisherman and the tribes is that fish stocks are already depressed and that marine reserves means that they will be losing extremely desirable fishing spots. Consequently, they oppose all marine reserves since livelihoods can be affected. This will be a very difficult problem to circumvent and will quickly become the most polarizing issue that modern fisheries management must face.

Points to be Made Supporting this Plan:

  • Over all, this draft of the EIS for the restoration of rockfish and the Salish Sea is quite sound and is clearly based in solid science. It continues the Washington Department of Fish and wildlife’s tradition of excellence in fisheries management and the implementation of marine reserves. In fact, Sobel and Dahlquist (1) compliment the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife on a particularly incisive application of marine reserve science.
  • The EIS is also a significant positive science based step toward resolving a difficult and complicated problem of multi-species fish management in an effort to reestablish sustainable population levels for all species.
  • A review and consensus policy statement by the American Fisheries Society found several species of Salish Sea Rockfish (Sebastes spp.) to be particularly vulnerable.
  • Over harvest, especially commercial over harvest, is the principal cause for decline of rockfish. Current recreational harvest and incidental by-catch of commercial operations has kept populations suppressed.
  • Puget Sound has the distinction of being the second most threatened complement of fish stocks in North America. Only Chesapeake Bay is worse.
  • Current academic treatises on marine reserves (1) and marine conservation biology (2) recommend scientifically designed marine reserves and advocate 20% of the management area be established and regulated as “no take” fishing zones. Washington State currently has 0.02% of its fisheries management area designated as marine and aquatic reserves and those reserves only qualify as small research projects.
  • Total marine reserves on the West Coast currently contain less than 1.5% of ocean waters in protected habitat. Also, only 0.04% of the west coast Exclusive Economic Zone is protected. In contrast, 13% of global land areas are protected as parks, reserves and refugia.
  • Recreational, commercial and tribal fishermen are currently harvesting all fish species and populations endemic to the Salish Sea at less than 1% of historic levels. Hatchery production alleviates that production problem. Marine reserves will restore and help make our fisheries sustainable. Unfortunately, fisheries scientists have also shown that hatcheries contribute to genetic drift and harm wild fish populations. They have also shown that net pen farming harms wild fish populations by acting as centers for parasite dispersal to smolts.
    • Around the world 23 nations have established marine reserves to protect biodiversity, ecosystems, manage important fisheries and restore depleted populations of marine plants and animals. Restoration results are generally outstanding if the reserves are large enough and old enough. In a global review of marine reserves, biomass increased 413%, density increased 200%, fish size increased 82% and species diversity increased 71%. Additionally, the global average increase in fish biomass for many different reserves showed a range of 20% to 800% (1,2).
    • Of all the states with significant marine fisheries, Washington has the smallest and least effective system of marine reserves. Coincidentally, it also has the most severely degraded fish stocks and one of the largest lists of endangered and threatened species.
    • Marine reserves have been shown to be the best, most cost effective, fisheries management technique to combat genetic drift due to overfishing and combat ecosystem degradation.
    • Marine reserves, if well designed, large enough and given sufficient time, nearly always reestablish the natural biodiversity and functioning ecosystems within five to eight years.
    • Many environmental organizations, (for example – Sierra Club, Greenpeace, Wild Fish Conservancy, Coastal Conservation Association, Natural Resources Defense Council, People For Puget Sound, American Fisheries Society, Marine Conservation Biology Institute, International Union for the Conservation of Nature, National Research Council and many others) all have policy and position statements dedicated to marine fisheries reform and the establishment of marine reserves.  Additionally, President Obama established the Interim Report of the Interagency Ocean Policy Task Force “…in order to meet our nation’s stewardship responsibilities…..”
    • The Ocean Conservancy has published A Scientific Consensus Statement Supporting Marine Reserves where 1900 leading marine scientists and experts advocate more marine reserves and more research.
    • Marine reserves have been shown to be the key to establishing protected areas that allow large old fish to produce more offspring and higher-quality offspring than exist in fishing zones. Those larvae and juveniles have been shown to be the principal source of fish outside the marine reserves.  For example, a 50-pound female halibut can produce about 500,000 eggs, while a female over 250 pounds can produce four million eggs – an increase of 800%. Halibut can grow to nine feet long and weigh from 500 to 700 pounds and the oldest on record was 55 years old. World record is 459 pounds. Clearly, marine reserves create successful trophy fisheries for recreational fishermen.
    • Acceptance of the Marine Reserve concept and the restrictions on recreational, commercial and tribal fishing will require a truly exceptional education and outreach program. The one outlined in the Rockfish Conservation Plan is wholly inadequate. We suggest the Department of Fish and Wildlife, especially the Fish Program, develop a special contact form on their website to secure in-house WDFW speakers for fishing clubs, environmental organizations, and sport shows. Every major sport show should have a speaker discussing marine reserves. That seminar should be preceded by considerable advertising and marketing to marinas, boat dealers, fishing tackle manufacturers, marine trade shows, etc. The speaker should come armed with an amazing amount of information and many successful examples of marine reserves and the benefits to all forms of fishing and fisheries management. This is the only way to effectively inform the public at large about the benefits of marine reserves as a necessary step toward sustainable fisheries.
    • The plan makes no mention of curtailing commercial or tribal harvest of any fish species that incidentally takes rockfish. To gain acceptance of this plan amongst the fishing community and have a positive impact on Puget Sound rockfish, curtailment of commercial and the tribal catch must be discussed in the revised plan. We suggest that strong provisions be added to the conservation plan that discuss selective harvest measures for tribal and commercial fishermen. Selective harvest should be aimed at hatchery fish while catch and release is applied to wild fish. Recreational fishermen would be far more receptive to the idea of marine reserves if they knew closures and restrictions impacted all fishermen more or less equally.
    • Marine reserves have a revolutionary potential that is becoming a mainstream fisheries management tool. Sustainable fishing cannot be accomplished without the ecosystem based management that marine reserves offer. Consequently, the goals of fisheries management and environmental conservation have become one and the same.

 

 

Shine Pit Expansion Upheld by Court

The Pit to Pier project moves on… I’ll update this as I better understand the next battle to stop this.

*11/10 Peninsula Daily News Jefferson County mining expansion OK upheld by appellate court By Jeff Chew SHINE — A Washington State Court of Appeals ruling upholds Fred Hill Materials’ right to expand gravel mining at its site south of state Highway 104. The decision released Monday upheld a visiting Kitsap County Superior Court judge’s ruling. Judge Anna Laurie a year ago affirmed a 2004 Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board finding that a Jefferson County-approved 690-acre mineral resource land overlay for Fred Hill Materials complies with the state Growth Management Act. The overlay is tangential to Fred Hill’s proposed pit-to-pier project — a controversial plan to build a four-mile-long conveyor belt from the company’s Shine gravel pit to a 1,000-foot dock to move gravel to barges in Hood Canal — which Jefferson County is environmentally assessing separately from the land overlay. … Hood Canal Coalition was joined in the state Court of Appeals petition by Olympic Environmental Council, Jefferson County Green Party, People for a Livable Community, Kitsap Audubon Society, Hood Canal Environmental Counsel and People for Puget Sound.

More at http://www.peninsuladailynews.com/article/20091110/news/311109995

Lots of heat on the SMP buffers in the Leader this week!

Boy, you’d think the Leader is trying to compete with this web site given the articles on the SMP, Black Point, Hastings Street Project, and others this week. Out of all the issues raised, the editorial by Fred Obee questioning the 150′ buffers raised in the SMP is an example of an idea that should have been discussed ages ago. Fred’s late entry into this issue requires a bit of comment. As some of you may know, I was one of about 20 or so people on the citizen’s policy advisory group in the early going of the SMP. Additionally, there was an additional 20 people on a technical advisory committee that ran in parallel to us, looking at issues that the scientists and professional policy makers in this project handle. These 40 or so people were primarily volunteers, people from all the different groups, real estate agents, home builders, geoduck farm owners, shoreline owners, a citizen at large, a representative of a shoreline environmental group, and more. Add to that the professional scientists that were paid as part of their jobs to be there and give guidance, and I think you have an good cross section, of the community and people who study the shore. I have the emails that were used by our committees to plan on discussing the buffers issue if anyone would like to see the kind of detail we went into on this issue.

Fred argues that we should have customized buffers for various projects and their needs. If only we had the money to do such a thing! While Fred’s idea is an ideal world, the real world of protecting the shoreline is one that needs to have a broader brush applied if we are not going to drive the costs even higher than they are. During a economic downturn, our county department of community development is already strapped to simply stay open, and laying off workers. During the economic boom, our regressive property tax system assures that values don’t keep in step with the actual property values, so we don’t collect enough taxes to actually staff the group appropriately for that boom time. I’m just now getting a huge increase in my property taxes, at a time when the value of my property, if I choose to sell it, is plunging. So getting appropriate, timely funding of DCD is always a problem.

Fred’s idea also doesn’t take into consideration what happens when ownership changes hands. The property owner today may be great on environmental protection, but the person who buys his land and trashes it next won’t be. That isn’t fantasy. There has been a number of streams, like Little Goose Creek, that have had problems with ownership changes that led to destruction of habitat and salmon runs in the county.

Which brings me to another issue, which is the lax enforcement, and even adversity to enforcement, shown by DCD. To assume that DCD will enforce these rules, given past behavior, is very optimistic, from my experience. This county generally works on a go along, get along basis, like lots of rural counties around the country. It is what it is. Heck, I’m a supporter of DCD and still think that this probably has to change to protect the shoreline from people who will manipulate the rules for their own ends.

If we want to do something that would really make things better for the folks of Jefferson county, it would be to rewrite the processes that DCD uses to streamline project approval. In the act, we could redo the web site to make it vastly more easy for citizens to understand what they can or can’t do, or need to appeal for the ability to do, and who they need to interact with. There are numerous excellent software packages that can be customized at relatively low price to accomplish this kind of process improvement. And new web site software that can accomplish this is usually very low priced and easy to use by non technical people. While the DCD SMP web site is comprehensive, it is very frustrating to use, and is a hodgepodge of versions, without a clear understanding of how to find what you are looking for.

Add to that the issue that we don’t particularly want to drive costs even higher for people trying to get a home built (which custom approvals would require), and the reality that shorelines fall into one of a few types of categories (bluffs for example, feed the raw materials that become sand washed up on beaches ‘downstream’), and I agree with the scientists that we don’t need to have an infinite set of beach criteria for making an assessment. Freedom from choices seems to be what most citizens want in their permitting process.

Yes Fred, it would be great if we could have infinitely tunable buffers, based on the best wishes of all, and real enforcement at the time of the infraction for those that don’t. Unfortunately, we have neither the money, nor the inclination in this county to do both. Let’s go with the best available science we have now, which is how we chose the buffers of the past, and get this done.

Action item: Contact lawmakers on Navy Testing Plan

We have covered the proposal by the Navy to create an expanded testing range here in Admiralty Inlet before on olyopen.net. In order for you to be better informed on this, I’ve included this California site which has a good overview of the issues facing us if this goes through.

I think I agree with some who say we Washington residents should be requesting that the government hold a hearing in Washington State.  On the White House web site there is a place to put in comments. 

Read up, and make up your own mind on whether this sounds like a good idea for the waters off our shores here on the east end of Jefferson County. If you agree, you may want to send in, or call in a comment asking for such a hearing to be held locally.

http://www.californiaskywatch.com/white_house_request_comments_on_oceans.htm

Pit-to-pier’s ‘significance’ spurned by Jefferson County commissioners -PDN

Fred Hill continues to struggle to get traction for their long running project to create a new port facility on Hood Canal.  The interesting part of the story is that when F.H. sold part of it’s Shine operation, it resulted in layoffs rather job creation. Their claims of creating thousands of jobs have to be taken into question. My basic math says that if you change from trucks to loading ships with the same raw material, you probably end up eliminating truck driving jobs. The likely outcome of P2P, if it ever happens, is less workers, industrialization of Hood Canal in an area without industry now, and immense noise pollution of a wide residential area around the facility that currently is quiet. We’ll await the EIS to see what else there may be lurking in the eel grass.

9/15 Peninsula Daily News –By Jeff Chew –Peninsula Daily News

PORT TOWNSEND — Jefferson County commissioners on Monday took no action on a Fred Hill Materials’ request to designate the company’s proposed pit-to-pier project as an “industrial project of statewide significance.

County Administrator Philip Morley’s recommended against the designation.

Seeing it as a “risk potentially,” Morley said the county could legally be viewed as a “co-applicant” and an advocate for the project.

More at
http://www.peninsuladailynews.com/article/20090915/news/309159989

Hate 150′ buffers? EPA implements 1000′ buffers for some pesticides

While anti shoreline protection advocates yell about how horrible 150′ buffers would be to those who live near the Sound, this is worth thinking about. The EPA today has instituted much larger buffers for specific chemicals in order to protect salmon. Maybe we should all agree that 150′ doesn’t seem that bad after all!

Seattle, WA — Today, the federal Environmental Protection Agency announced plans to place additional limitations on the use of three organophosphate pesticides — chlorpyrifos, diazinon and malathion — to protect endangered and threatened salmon and steelhead in California, Idaho, Oregon and Washington.

The announcement comes in response to a series of lawsuits brought by Earthjustice aimed at removing toxic pesticides from salmon spawning streams throughout the northwest.

In response to Earthjustice litigation, the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) in November of 2008 released a “biological opinion” that set forth a plan for protecting Pacific salmon and steelhead from three toxic organophosphate pesticides. That decision came after almost a decade of legal wrangling between salmon advocates led by Earthjustice and the federal government. The biological opinion prescribed measures necessary to keep these pesticides out of water and to protect salmon populations in Washington, Oregon, California, and Idaho. The announcement from EPA today moves this work forward.

Although the experts at NMFS recommended prohibiting aerial applications of the three pesticides within 1,000 feet of salmon waters and ground applications within 500 feet of salmon waters, EPA has taken a different course. EPA believes it can achieve the same protections for salmon with buffers ranging from 100 to 1,000 feet depending on pesticide application rate and stream size. In their announcement today, EPA says it will require industry to fund and carry out monitoring of salmon streams in order to assure the pesticide restrictions work as intended.

Chlorpyrifos

•  Contaminates rivers throughout the west at levels harmful to fish or their food sources according to the U.S. Geological Survey. The basins where chlorpyrifos was detected at harmful levels include the Willamette, San Joaquin, Tulare, and the Central Columbia Basin.

•  Is “very highly toxic” to fish according to U.S. EPA’s toxicity classification system.

•  Impairs fish reproduction by reducing egg production in fish.

•  Inhibits juvenile coho salmon feeding behavior and swimming speed.

•  Harms the survival and reproduction of salmon food sources.

Diazinon

•  Contaminates rivers throughout the west at levels harmful to fish or their food sources according to the U.S. Geological Survey. The basins where diazinon was detected at harmful levels include the Willamette, San Joaquin, Tulare, the Central Columbia Basin and Puget Sound. It was also detected in King County, Washington streams.

•  Impairs feeding, predator avoidance, spawning, homing and migration capabilities by impeding salmon sense of smell.

•  Leads to weakened swimming activity in juvenile trout.

•  Is acutely toxic to salmon food sources.

Malathion

•  Contaminates rivers throughout the west at levels harmful to fish or their food sources according to the U.S. Geological Survey. The basins where malathion was detected at harmful levels include the Willamette, San Joaquin, Tulare, and the Central Columbia Basin. It was also detected in King County, Washington streams.

•  Leads to weakened swimming activity in juvenile trout.  

http://www.earthjustice.org/news/press/2009/epa-announces-alternative-plan-to-protect-salmon-from-pesticides.html

Apparently this may affect berry growers in our area and probably others. The lawsuit was brought after efforts to get the EPA to be proactive failed.  Malathion is routinely used as fogger in the midwest for mosquito abatement as well as head lice treatment. It was first tested on poor populations in Puerto Rico slums in the 50s to combat malaria. EPA updated the risk assessment for Malathion in 2005.  There appears to be some concern that “research in the 1989 Bulletin of Environmental Contamination Toxicology stated 25% of the malathion is still present in the water after two weeks and 10% is still present after 30 days” http://www.safe2use.com/poisons-pesticides/pesticides/malathion/genetics.htm

A web site that is worth looking at on the subject is http://www.chem-tox.com/malathion/research/index.htm#intestine which details medical concerns around the world with Malathion. Use discretion with that site, it’s validity is unknown to me.  He does seem to refer to legitimate medical research articles in peer reviewed journals.

Pit 2 Pier – Fred Hill sells partial ownership to Canadian company

POULSBO — A Canadian company, Athabasca Minerals Inc., has agreed to purchase a 25 percent stake in the so-called pit-to-pier gravel-mining operation proposed in Jefferson County.

Athabasca, a publicly traded company based in Edmonton, Alberta, will put up $3 million and assume a minority partnership in Thorndyke Resource, the company formed by the Fred Hill family to develop and operate the pit-to-pier project.

More at the Kitsap Sun: http://www.kitsapsun.com/news/2009/sep/11/pit-to-pier-mining-operation-expands-ownership/