WSU Jefferson County - Water Resources Blog

Water Law Video Presentations

2012-01-12T11:34:00.000-08:00

Water Law Videos

Listen to local and state experts in the field

Scroll down to see video segments

Water Law Workshop, January 2007, Port Townsend, WA

Goals for the Day:

- Increase Understanding of recent water cases and legislation and current trends.

- Learn how to find out about water rights, what information is used to “prove” a water right and reduce risks of abandonment or relinquishment for non-use.

- Improve ability to work effectively with federal, state and local water planning.

- Understand which agencies and processes are going to occur locally and how top participate more effectively.

Katherine Baril, Director of WSU Jefferson County Extension:

Introduction to Water Law Workshop

Joe Stohr, Special Assistant to the Director for Water Policy, Washington State Department of Ecology:

Excerpts from Overview of Water Issues.

Steve North, JD, Washington State Assistant Attorney General:

Overview of Current State Water Law.

Fred Rajala, Washington Water Resources Program:

Primary Documents and Historical Perspectives.

Ken Slattery – Supervisor of the Water Rights Adjudication and Compliance

Section - Regulatory Updates- Instream flows– Water rights-

Bill Clark, JD, The Mentor Group – WAR Counsel

- private sector strategies and opportunities

Shirley Nixon, JD. Staff Attorney, Center for Environmental Law and Policy

- Reclaimed Water Advisory committee- public interest strategies and opportunities

Brinnon

2012-01-11T16:05:00.003-08:00

Does the Brinnon School maintain its water rights if it doesn't use them?

Cape George

2012-01-11T16:05:00.001-08:00

Where does the water come from for Cape George?

Chimacum

2012-01-11T16:04:00.005-08:00

What problems does Chimacum Valley face?

According to the Technical Assessment completed in 2000, in the lower reaches of the Chimacum sub-basin, surface water quality is degraded, and use of both surface and groundwater is relatively high. Surface water quality is most degraded in the middle reaches of the creek. Hydraulic continuity is rated high to moderate high for much of the basin, and habitat along both forks of Chimacum Creek has been degraded. By 2016, more than 1,500 new residents are expected to live in the sub-basin, a 30% increase.

Can you establish new water rights in Chimacum Valley?

Port Ludlow

2012-01-11T16:04:00.003-08:00

Are there any problems in the Port Ludlow area?

According to the Technical Assessment completed in 2000, in the Ludlow sub-basin, habitat in Shine Creek has been degraded, while the area adjacent to Ludlow Creek is the focus of relatively high groundwater use and surface water rights near Port Ludlow. Coupled with Ludlow Creek’s high potential for hydraulic continuity, this water use could affect stream flows. By 2016, population in this sub-basin will likely more than double.

How many more new building lots have been approved in Port Ludlow?

Port Townsend

2012-01-11T16:04:00.001-08:00

Is Port Townsend water safe to drink?

The City of Port Townsend's extensive testing and monitoring program ensures the safety and quality of the drinking water meets and most cases exceeds all the state and federal drinking water regulations. Specific water quality questions related to drinking water should be forwarded to Bob LaCroix at 379-5001. The drinking water Consumer Confidence Report is available on the City’s website (City of Port Townsend Public Works Website www.cityofpt.us/Publicworks).

Is there fluoride in our drinking water?

The City of Port Townsend does not add any fluoride to our water and the natural levels are at or below 0.02 parts per million (City of Port Townsend Public Works Website www.cityofpt.us/Publicworks).

Does our water contain lead?

The City’s water naturally contains approximately 0.0004 parts per million lead and 0.077 parts per million of copper. Lead and copper levels vary at homes with lead-based solder and copper pipes, however, the City’s testing at a sampling of these homes shows the lead and copper levels to be well below the standard established by the Environmental Protection Agency (City of Port Townsend Public Works Website www.cityofpt.us/Publicworks).

Where does the City of Port Townsend water come from?

Water for the City of Port Townsend is surface water that comes from the Big and Little Quilcene Rivers in the northeast corner of the Olympic National Forest. This water is stored in
Lords Lake and City Lake Reservoirs (2006 City of Port Townsend Annual Drinking Water Report available at http://www.cityofpt.us/Publicworks/WaterQuality.asp).

Why does PT water not taste as good as it did 20 years ago?

Can the city capture the mill water for the city's use?

Quilcene

2012-01-11T16:03:00.003-08:00

What problems does the Quilcene area face?

According to the Technical Assessment completed in 2000, the lower reaches of the Big Quilcene River have experienced greater habitat degradation than the upper reaches. Hydraulic continuity – that is, connections between surface water and groundwater –means that pumping groundwater from wells can reduce stream flows. Accordingly, water use in the lower watershed may exacerbate these habitat issues.

In the Dabob-Thorndyke sub-basin, Tarboo Creek faces surface water quality and habitat issues, along with high hydraulic continuity. Existing land uses in the sub-basin have degraded stream health. The Little Quilcene River has problems with habitat, water quality, water quantity, and hydraulic continuity along much of its length. Near Lake Leland, surface water use from Leland Creek is relatively high. Future growth in this sub-basin is expected to be relatively low.

When will Quilcene have its water hooked up in the business district?

Water lines and meters are in and the PUD is currently providing service to customers in the Quilcene business district. The PUD began billing customers in the Quilcene business district in February 2007. The number of connections however is limited by water rights. The rights purchased from the US Forest Service were in part diminished by the Department of Ecology due to lack of use in recent history. The PUD is hoping there will be opportunities in the development of the instream flow rule to add additional connections for citizens looking to hook into public water in Quilcene.

-Bill Graham, PUD #1

Tri-Area

2012-01-11T16:03:00.001-08:00

Where does the Tri-Area get its water?

The Tri-Area is served by PUD #1 whose office is located in Port Hadlock. The Tri-Area gets its water from the same place Marrowstone Island will get its water - from wells in the Chimacum Valley. Some people and businesses with the Tri-Area are served by private wells. Ultimately all water within the Tri-Area originates from precipitation that falls locally and primarily in the winter.

-Bill Graham, PUD #1

What problems does Tri-Area face?

According to the WRIA 17 Technical Assessment completed in 2000, in the lower reaches of the Chimacum sub-basin, surface water quality is degraded, and use of both surface and groundwater is relatively high. Surface water quality is most degraded in the middle reaches of the creek. Hydraulic continuity is rated high to moderate high for much of the basin, and habitat along both forks of Chimacum Creek has been degraded. By 2016, more than 1,500 new residents are expected to live in the sub-basin, a 30% increase.

2) Will there be enough water for these other areas like the Tri-Area if Marrowstone gets its water?

Yes. Assuming new connections are added at the rate of anticipated growth within the PUD’s Quimper water system service area (which includes Marrowstone Island, the Tri-Area, Adelma Beach, Beckett Point and Woodland Hills). The PUD's term concern now is capacity which the PUD is currently expanding to meet the needs of the additional connections on Marrowstone Island as well as the rest of the service area. The PUD has planned for 250 connections on Marrowstone over the next 6 years. The PUD will likely need to find additional water sources 10-15 years from now to serve growing demand. Options for additional sources are many but limited in feasibility and cost including more aggressive water conservation, the purchase of wholesale water from City of Port Townsend, paying for the processing of additional water rights, purchasing existing municipal water rights and reverse osmosis.

-Bill Graham, PUD #1

Do we have enough water for the Tri-Area community?

This question is very similar to the question above. It is important to remember that enough rights and enough actual water are very different things. Perhaps the question should be, “Is there water available for growth in the Tri-Area?” Records show that Chimacum valley ground water levels have fluctuated with winter rainfall totals suggesting that our water supplies are highly dependent upon winter precipitation trends. Recent droughts in 2001 and 2005 caused water levels in local wells to drop, but PUD wells have since recovered during the last two relatively normal wet seasons. If climate change forecasts are correct for the Pacific Northwest, winter storm events may result in more extreme weather, flooding and rain-on-snow events. Luckily, ground water based water supplies such as the PUD’s should have an advantage over systems such as that of the City of Port Townsend that are highly dependant upon snowpack for storage. So even according to dire climate change forecasts, there should be enough water for the Tri-Area in the future.

-Bill Graham, PUD #1

Marrowstone Island

2012-01-11T16:02:00.001-08:00

What does Marrowstone water have to do with setting instream flows?

Not much, if anything. The setting of instream flows will not impact the ability of the PUD to serve water on Marrowstone Island. Nor will the serving of water to Marrowstone Island by the PUD influence the setting of instream flows. According to the state water code, the PUD’s water rights – including the rights at the Sparling well the PUD has yet to put to beneficial use- are senior to the water rights being set aside for instream flows. There are some concerns that moving water out of basin to serve Marrowstone Island may have some negative impact upon Chimacum Creek. Work is being undertaken by the Department of Ecology, the County, PUD and US Geological Survey to model and understand this potential impact. This will be a consideration when the local planning unit implements its strategies to help protect local stream flows and Chimacum Creek will be a high priority for protection.

-Bill Graham, PUD #1

Where will the water piped to Marrowstone come from?

Marrowstone Island is now a part of the Quimper water system. Water to Marrowstone will come from Quimper water system sources, principally the Sparling well on Kennedy Road in Port Hadlock and the New Kivley well behind Mountain Propane in Port Hadlock. Both the Sparling and New Kivley wells draw from ground water in the Chimacum Basin.

-Bill Graham, PUD #1

Will there be enough water for these other areas if Marrowstone gets its water?

Yes. Assuming new connections are added at the rate of anticipated growth within the PUD’s Quimper water system service area (which includes Marrowstone Island, the Tri-Area, Adelma Beach, Beckett Point and Woodland Hills). Our short term concern now is capacity which the PUD is currently expanding to meet the needs of the additional connections on Marrowstone Island as well as the rest of the service area. The PUD has planned for 250 connections on Marrowstone over the next 6 years. The PUD will likely need to find additional water sources 10-15 years from now to serve growing demand. Options for additional sources are many but limited in feasibility and cost including more aggressive water conservation, the purchase of wholesale water from City of Port Townsend, paying for the processing of additional water rights, purchasing existing municipal water rights and reverse osmosis.

-Bill Graham, PUD #1

Will this instream flow rule threaten my water rights or private property rights?

2012-01-11T15:22:00.002-08:00

An instream flow rule establishes a water right for instream resources. The water right has a seniority date established at the time the rule is finally issued. So an instream flow rule would be a junior water right to all water currently being put to beneficial use via a permit, certificate, claim or permit-exempt well. Those senior water rights will not be affected by the junior right established in the instream flow rule.

However, instream flow rules also deal with water availability. If water is determined to be unavailable in some parts of a watershed, the instream flow rule may contain regulatory limits on the use of new water, including the issuance of new water rights or the use of permit-exempt wells. When necessary, the limits placed on new water use by instream flow rules have been developed based on local needs to protect fish while providing support for people and their communities.

Will completion of the instream flow rule make it more difficult to get a water right in the future?

2012-01-11T15:22:00.001-08:00

New water rights have been issued on a limited basis in the Quilcene-Snow Watershed for a number of decades. The instream flow rule will probably not significantly increase or decrease the number of new permits issued but may serve to establish clearer expectations about where and when and how new water rights might be available. For example, the rule will include determinations as to water availability in various parts of the watershed. The rule may describe details as to how water rights might be conditioned related to availability or how the water might be managed. It is important for the public to work closely with Ecology as the rule is developed so that it is the result of our "best thinking."

Am I going to be required to meter my water?

2012-01-11T15:21:00.002-08:00

State water laws allow Ecology to require metering of water use. Metering is currently required for all new water rights and all new changes to water rights. Ecology was recently sued by a number of environmental and fisheries protection groups for not aggressively using metering to measure water use. A judge agreed to this assertion and as a result, Ecology committed to set up a metering program which measures 80% of water use in 16 watersheds where fish were threatened and water was sometimes scarce. The Quilcene-Snow Watershed was one of the 16. Ecology is currently working with a number of water users in the area to install these meters.

Additional metering of water, above what is described above for the Quilcene-Snow Watershed is not immediately anticipated. Water management discussions to date related to the instream flow rule and/or watershed planning have begun to explore the possibility of additional metering, either as a voluntary approach or a regulatory requirement. No new decisions have been made...

Why isn’t Ecology promoting more conservation as a way to meet our area’s future water needs?

2012-01-11T15:21:00.001-08:00

Ecology actively supports water conservation through a variety of venues and funding programs. These include conservation investments, irrigation efficiency programs, water conveyance improvements, instream flow rules, water conservation rulemaking and watershed planning. If you are interested in learning more about these efforts, please contact Ecology.

Who are the people and agencies involved?

2012-01-11T15:20:00.002-08:00

Who are the people and agencies involved?

Below is a non-exhaustive list of people and agencies/organizations involved in the instream flow process. For a comprehensive list of Planning Unit members, visit http://wria17.co.jefferson.wa.us/contactsf.htm.

Agencies/Organizations

Washington State Department of Ecology is required by State law to draft and adopt an instream flow rule that will allow Ecology to determine how much water is available for out-of-stream uses. Ecology has tasked the Planning Unit for WRIA 17 (the Quilcene-Snow Watershed) with watershed planning.

Quilcene-Snow Watershed (or WRIA 17) Planning Unit is composed of relevant counties, municipalities, utilities, tribal governments and a wide range of water resource interested and representatives from the state. The Planning Unit completed their comprehensive watershed plan for WRIA 17 in 2003. They were then tasked to recommend instream flow regulations to Ecology, but this became too controversial and the Planning Unit lacked sufficient information and time to make the recommendations.

Jefferson County, as the local resource managers for most of WRIA 17, is the lead agency on the WRIA 17 Planning Unit. The Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners approved the Quilcene-Snow Watershed Planning Unit’s comprehensive plan in 2005.

HydroLogic Services Company has been hired by Ecology as a consultant to facilitate the process.

Public Utility District #1 provides water to many residents in WRIA 17 and sits on the Planning Unit.

People

Joe Stohr is the Special Assistant to the Director of the Department of Ecology the Water Resources Program Manager. Joe is in charge of overseeing the development of WRIA 17’s instream flow rule. He can be reached at 360-407-6652.

Phil Wiatrak is the Watershed Lead for WRIA 17 and an employee of the Department of Ecology. He can be reached at 360-407-6652.

Tom Anderson is an Engineer with HydroLogic Services Co. and author of the series of four articles about the instream flow process that appeared in the Port Townsend and Jefferson County Leader this spring.

Bill Graham is a Resource Manager with Public Utility District #1 and an alternate on the Planning Unit. Bill can be reached at 385-5800 x 302 or email bgraham@jeffpud.org

Where do I get a water meter?

2012-01-11T15:20:00.001-08:00

Water meters are available from commercial vendors. Ecology may be able to provide technical assistance and/or funding support upon request.

What laws govern this process?

2012-01-11T15:19:00.004-08:00

What laws govern the Instream Flow Rule making process?

The authority for setting flows is derived from state statutes. The primary statutes relating to flows and flow setting are:

- Water Code, Chapter 90.03 RCW, in section 247 describes Ecology’s exclusive authority for setting flows and describes conditioning permits to established flows.

- The Minimum Water Flows and Levels Act of 1967 Chapter 90.22 RCW set forth a process for protecting instream flows through adoption of rules. Among other provisions, it says Ecology must consult with the Department of Fish and Wildlife and conduct public hearings.

- The Water Resources Act of 1971 Chapter 90.54 RCW, particularly section 020, includes language that says base flows are to be retained in streams except where there are “overriding considerations of the public interest”. Further, waters of the state are to be protected and utilized for the greatest benefit to the people and that allocation of water will be generally based on the securing of “maximum net benefits” to the people of the state. This Act also authorizes Ecology to reserve waters for future beneficial uses.

- Construction Projects in State Waters Chapter 77.55 RCW (formally Chapter 75.20 RCW), section 050 requires Ecology to consult with the Department of Fish and Wildlife prior to Ecology making a decision on any water right application that may affect flows for food and game fish. Fish and Wildlife may recommend denial or conditioning of a water right permit.

- The Watershed Planning Act Chapter 90.82 RCW, in section 080 specifies that local watershed planning groups can recommend instream flows to Ecology for rule-making.

Rule making for flows is done through Ecology’s rule-making authority in the Administrative Procedure Act Chapter 34.05 RCW.

For more information and links, visit the Dept. of Ecology’s website www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wr/instream-flows.

Why do streams need a water right?

Current Washington water law uses the Prior Appropriation Doctrine, which allocates water rights on a "first in time, first in right" basis. This doctrine was a turn-of-the-century response to humans taking water from streams for "out-of-stream" uses such as mining, livestock watering and irrigation. The approach was designed to protect "senior" water-right holders from newer, or "junior," users. It was not designed to keep water in the stream. In fact, in the early days of Washington water law, if human demand for water equaled or exceeded streamflow, all of the stream's water could eventually be allocated to out-of-stream uses.

This approach to water management was devised during a time when there were fewer people and plenty of fish. People did not know much or worry much about fish habitat. That is not the case today, as we have recently learned a lot about what fish need to survive and prosper, and why streams need a water right.

Salmon species have different water needs at various stages of their life and consequently at different times of the year. One critical need is to have adequate streamflow for returning adult fish ready to spawn. High flows can also help keep a stream healthy by moving gravel and sediment, and by reforming the channel on a regular basis.

Knowing that, for example, coho need high winter flows and chum need adequate summer flows, we see that it's not quite as easy as proposing to store water from the winter rains for humans to use during the summer drought, or to use groundwater instead of surface water, since the two are interconnected. We see that careful consideration must be given to how much water is in the stream-and in the ground-year round (excerpt from "Why do streams need a water right?" By Tom Anderson, HydroLogic Services Co. Published by the Port Townsend and Jefferson County Leader on April 5, 2007.)

How can I find out about current water law?

Visit the WSU website at www.jefferson.wsu.edu and click “Water” and then click “Water Law” for a series of videos and relevant documents.

What is an exempt well?

An exempt well is a well drilled to provide water that does not require application for a water right. A property owner may use water from such wells for industrial or domestic uses up to 5,000 gallons per day. A permit-exempt well may also be used to provide water needed for irrigating up to ½ acre of domestic lawn or garden, and for stock watering.

What is the legislature doing to clarify water rights statewide?

Changes to water management policy is usually an active and controversial part of each legislative session. Over the past ten years, new water policy ideas have been included in as many as 50 or 60 statute proposals each year. A lot of recent attention has been on ideas to improve stream flows, bringing certainty to municipal water suppliers, improvements to water relinquishment provisions and support for watershed planning. Clarifying water right status through improved adjudication processes has also received increased attention.

A major policy bill intended to improve water management along the Columbia River passed during the 2006 session and another significant bill related to improving the quality of the waters entering Puget Sound passed during the 2007 session. Both of these bills are actively being implemented.

-Joe Stohr, Water Resources Program Manager, Washington State Department of Ecology

From my private well, do I always have rights to 5,000 gallons per day?

The state groundwater laws allow for certain uses of water from a private well without obtaining a permit or certificate. These wells are commonly called "exempt wells". These uses include domestic or industrial (agriculture) at up to 5,000 gallons per day, up to 1/2 acre in area for a lawn or non-commercial garden, and an unlimited amount for stock watering purposes.

However, it is important to understand that there is not an absolute right to always use a 5,000 gpd domestic exemption. Under a number of circumstances, uses of water under the exemption may be curtailed or not allowed. The 2005 Attorney General Opinion on stock watering specifically addresses the question whether Ecology may use other legal authorities to limit or restrict use of exemption. The following material is quoted directly from the opinion:

Although Ecology lacks authority to categorically limit the amount of water that may be withdrawn for stock-watering purposes without a permit, other statutes that authorize Ecology to regulate the use of water may affect withdrawals for stock-watering, just as they may affect other exempt withdrawals and withdrawals requiring a permit. For example, in Postema v. Pollution Control Hearings Bd., 142 Wn.2d 68, 94-95, 11 P.3d 726 (2000), the Supreme Court held that where Ecology has closed water bodies and ground water in hydraulic continuity with such bodies to new withdrawals, it may prohibit new withdrawals that “will have any effect on the flow or level of the surface water.” Such a new withdrawal might be a new withdrawal for stock-watering or it might be a new withdrawal for some other purpose. As a second example, consistent with principles of prior appropriation, Ecology has authority under RCW 90.44.130 “to limit withdrawals by appropriators of ground water so as to enforce the maintenance of a safe sustaining yield from the ground water body.” See also RCW 18.104.040(4)(g), authorizing Ecology to limit well construction in areas “requiring intensive control of withdrawals in the interests of sound management of the ground water resource.” Depending on the specific facts and circumstances, then, these statutes could affect withdrawals for stock-watering purposes, just as they could affect withdrawals for other purposes (AG0 2005, No. 17, pp. 7-8).

In the case of the proposed Walla Walla instream flow rule and other instream flow rules that have been established, Ecology has limited or closed uses of the exemption under these authorities to protect existing water rights and instream flow rights.

Further, an exempt use is a water right with a priority date like other water rights. If use an exempt right would impair any senior water right (which includes instream flow rights), such use would be subject to regulation. The actual water right associated with the well is determined by the amount of water put to a beneficial use. So in the future if a judicial review of all water rights (an adjudication) were to occur, and water availability was limited, the private well user would probably have a right to the amount beneficially used and a seniority date tied to the first use of the water. A similar analysis might take place by a judge if a neighbor claimed to have a senior water right which was being impaired by the private well.

-Joe Stohr, Water Resources Program Manager, Washington State Department of Ecology

Will this instream flow rule threaten my water rights or private property rights?

An instream flow rule establishes a water right for instream resources. The water right has a seniority date established at the time the rule is finally issued. So an instream flow rule would be a junior water right to all water currently being put to beneficial use via a permit, certificate, claim or permit-exempt well. Those senior water rights will not be affected by the junior right established in the instream flow rule.

However, instream flow rules also deal with water availability. If water is determined to be unavailable in some parts of a watershed, the instream flow rule may contain regulatory limits on the use of new water, including the issuance of new water rights or the use of permit-exempt wells. When necessary, the limits placed on new water use by instream flow rules have been developed based on local needs to protect fish while providing support for people and their communities.

-Joe Stohr, Water Resources Program Manager, Washington State Department of Ecology

Can Ecology take my land for its water right?

No, Ecology cannot take private lands as a result of instream flow rules or water management.

-Joe Stohr, Water Resources Program Manager, Washington State Department of Ecology

Can the government seize my water right or otherwise turn it off?

Ecology is responsible for managing the state's waters. An individual is granted the right to use those waters if:

- the water is put to a beneficial use and that use is not discontinued (except for some exceptions) for 5 years or longer;
- the water is available;
- there is no impairment of a senior water right holder; and
- the use is deemed to be in the public interest.

As long as a water right holder meets those four tests, he/she can continue to use the waters of the state. If a water user should stop using some/all of their water right (for reasons other than the exceptions provided by law) for more than five years, the state may relinquish that water right so the next water user waiting in line can put the water to use.

-Joe Stohr, Water Resources Program Manager, Washington State Department of Ecology

Is rainwater use restricted? Do I need a permit to use rainwater?

Please see Ecology's new rain catchment fact sheet at: http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wr/nwro/sjc_rwc.html.

What is the legislature doing to clarify water rights statewide?

2012-01-11T15:19:00.003-08:00

Changes to water management policy is usually an active and controversial part of each legislative session. Over the past ten years, new water policy ideas have been included in as many as 50 or 60 statute proposals each year. A lot of recent attention has been on ideas to improve stream flows, bringing certainty to municipal water suppliers, improvements to water relinquishment provisions and support for watershed planning. Clarifying water right status through improved adjudication processes has also received increased attention.

A major policy bill intended to improve water management along the Columbia River passed during the 2006 session and another significant bill related to improving the quality of the waters entering Puget Sound passed during the 2007 session. Both of these bills are actively being implemented.

What are our options?

2012-01-11T15:19:00.001-08:00

What are our options for meeting our community water needs?

We have many options, actually. the first problem, as always, involves getting agreement on what our needs are.

For example, one of our options may well turn out to be ASR - taking our surplus surface water (during the winter we really do have surplus water) and injecting it into the ground and storing it in gravel deposits or other suitable geological structures for retrieval during the dry months.

In the early days, Port Townsend drew its water from wells and cisterns. Dozens of windmills pumped water uphill. Port Townsend's original steel-banded wood pipeline was installed to bring water from Snow Creek in 1905. It was built by H.L. Tibbals, and the cost of labor amounted to over $6000. This system, franchised as the Spring Valley Water Co. apparently provided less than 1 mgd, but was reputedly planned to support the needs a City of 20,000 souls in the days before dishwashers and garbage disposals. Taps were eventually condemned by the military to provide up to 50,000 gpd of water to each of the Forts: Townsend, Worden and Flagler, and these taps provide the historical basis for the current layout of the system.

How do we manage water for future growth and the needs of fish?

The following is a list of potential options for managing future water supply that appeared in an article by Tom Anderson in the Port Townsend and Jefferson County Leader on April 11, 2007 entitled “How do we manage water for future growth?”

Whatever actions we take to meet our future water needs while not jeopardizing the integrity of the ecosystem upon which we all depend, the process will take participation from all users and all managers. Below are some possible actions that warrant discussion among all user groups as to their feasibility and appropriateness for the Quilcene-Snow (WRIA 17) watershed.

-- Surface Storage - Building additional reservoir capacity to store winter high streamflows for use later in the year.

-- Aquifer Storage and Recovery - Storing water in the ground for use later. The water could come from winter high streamflows or from treated wastewater.

-- Reusing/Recycling Water - Treating and redistributing water that has previously been used, such as the effluent from sewage treatment plants or the paper mill.

-- Desalination of Salt Water - Converting salt water into drinking water.

-- Conservation and Efficiency - Looking at ways to use less water and
how to make the most of what we do use.

-- Sharing or Pooling of Water Rights - Reallocating existing water rights in order to leave more water in the stream.

-- Trust Water Program - Purchasing or leasing valid water rights.

-- Water Right Exchange - Selling and purchasing water rights in a
market-based system.

-- Closure or Restrictions on Access to Groundwater - Not permitting
future withdrawals, or limiting the amount of withdrawals by placing a
cap on future allocations.

What am I risking by withdrawing water illegally?

2012-01-11T15:18:00.001-08:00

Like breaking any law, the risks could include a range of responses by regulatory agencies from the issuance of formal orders to stop illegal use, up to, and including monetary penalties. Ecology is directed to escalate the response to illegal use, starting with investigations, then moving to warnings, then to "cease use" orders and finally the use of penalties if all other warnings fail. When Ecology is considering a report of illegal water use, the agency response is built around a consideration of various factors including:

- the extent that there is legal authorization lacking to use the water (does the

person have a permit, certificate or claim?, is a permit exempt well in use?)

- how much water is being used?;

- is there impairment to a senior water user or instream flow?

- is water availability limited?

A resulting regulatory response by the agency will be based on the answers to these and other questions.

How do I prove that I’m using my water?

2012-01-11T15:17:00.002-08:00

The beneficial use of water can be established by keeping metering records, diversion records and/or electricity use by a pump, etc. There are also less direct but effective ways to prove water use such as aerial photography, statements from neighbors, records of crop types grown, etc.

I want to farm, how do I get a water right?

2012-01-11T15:17:00.001-08:00

The traditional answer to this question would have been to submit an application for a new water right. For the past 20 years or so, that response has become less and less viable. Water availability across the state continues to become more limited. New water rights are usually not readily available.

More and more emphasis is being placed on developing new approaches to water availability. Some examples include:

- building market based process or "water banks" for willing buyers and sellers of

water rights;

- developing storage to provide water during the summer and fall;

- conserving water so more uses or users can be accommodated;

- creating local entities who share water.

Check with your local Ecology office to explore opportunities for new water rights or the status of other availability approaches.

How might it effect future growth?

2012-01-11T15:16:00.002-08:00

How might this rule effect future growth in the region?

When stream flows are set in rule, the effective date (also called a "priority date") is thirty days after the date of rule adoption. An instream flow is, in essence, a water right for fish and other instream resources. While an instream flow does not affect existing water rights, water rights issued after the rule adoption are junior to the instream flow, and can only be exercised when the instream flow is being met (Dept. of Ecology website www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wr/instream-flows).

How do we manage water for future growth and the needs of fish?

The following is a list of potential options for managing future water supply that appeared in an article by Tom Anderson in the Port Townsend and Jefferson County Leader on April 11, 2007 entitled “How do we manage water for future growth?”

Whatever actions we take to meet our future water needs while not jeopardizing the integrity of the ecosystem upon which we all depend, the process will take participation from all users and all managers. Below are some possible actions that warrant discussion among all user groups as to their feasibility and appropriateness for the Quilcene-Snow (WRIA 17) watershed.

-- Surface Storage - Building additional reservoir capacity to store winter high streamflows for use later in the year.

-- Aquifer Storage and Recovery - Storing water in the ground for use later. The water could come from winter high streamflows or from treated wastewater.

-- Reusing/Recycling Water - Treating and redistributing water that has previously been used, such as the effluent from sewage treatment plants or the paper mill.

-- Desalination of Salt Water - Converting salt water into drinking water.

-- Conservation and Efficiency - Looking at ways to use less water and
how to make the most of what we do use.

-- Sharing or Pooling of Water Rights - Reallocating existing water rights in order to leave more water in the stream.

-- Trust Water Program - Purchasing or leasing valid water rights.

-- Water Right Exchange - Selling and purchasing water rights in a
market-based system.

-- Closure or Restrictions on Access to Groundwater - Not permitting
future withdrawals, or limiting the amount of withdrawals by placing a
cap on future allocations.

I want to farm, how do I get a water right?

The traditional answer to this question would have been to submit an application for a new water right. For the past 20 years or so, that response has become less and less viable. Water availability across the state continues to become more limited. New water rights are usually not readily available.

More and more emphasis is being placed on developing new approaches to water availability. Some examples include:

- building market based process or "water banks" for willing buyers and sellers of water rights;
- developing storage to provide water during the summer and fall;
- conserving water so more uses or users can be accommodated;
- creating local entities who share water.

Check with your local Ecology office to explore opportunities for new water rights or the status of other availability approaches.

-Joe Stohr, Water Resources Program Manager, Washington State Department of Ecology

How do I acquire a water right?

New water rights are issued on a limited basis across the state often due to the increased lack of water availability. Check with your regional Ecology Office for details.

There are several options for acquiring a water right. Water rights can be purchased or leased from other water right holders. Use of those new rights would have to meet legal requirements and be approved by Ecology.

There are also ways to involve a private contractor to process traditional water right applications. Again, check with the regional Ecology Office for details.

-Joe Stohr, Water Resources Program Manager, Washington State Department of Ecology

Will completion of the instream flow rule make it more difficult to get a water right in the future?

New water rights have been issued on a limited basis in the Quilcene-Snow Watershed for a number of decades. The instream flow rule will probably not significantly increase or decrease the number of new permits issued but may serve to establish clearer expectations about where and when and how new water rights might be available. For example, the rule will include determinations as to water availability in various parts of the watershed. The rule may describe details as to how water rights might be conditioned related to availability or how the water might be managed. It is important for the public to work closely with Ecology as the rule is developed so that it is the result of our "best thinking."

-Joe Stohr, Water Resources Program Manager, Washington State Department of Ecology

Is rainwater use restricted? Do I need a permit to use rainwater?

Please see Ecology's new rain catchment fact sheet at: http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wr/nwro/sjc_rwc.html.

Why isn’t Ecology promoting more conservation as a way to meet our area’s future water needs?

Ecology actively supports water conservation through a variety of venues and funding programs. These include conservation investments, irrigation efficiency programs, water conveyance improvements, instream flow rules, water conservation rulemaking and watershed planning. If you are interested in learning more about these efforts, please contact Ecology.

-Joe Stohr, Water Resources Program Manager, Washington State Department of Ecology

What is the legislature doing to clarify water rights statewide?

Changes to water management policy is usually an active and controversial part of each legislative session. Over the past ten years, new water policy ideas have been included in as many as 50 or 60 statute proposals each year. A lot of recent attention has been on ideas to improve stream flows, bringing certainty to municipal water suppliers, improvements to water relinquishment provisions and support for watershed planning. Clarifying water right status through improved adjudication processes has also received increased attention.

A major policy bill intended to improve water management along the Columbia River passed during the 2006 session and another significant bill related to improving the quality of the waters entering Puget Sound passed during the 2007 session. Both of these bills are actively being implemented.

-Joe Stohr, Water Resources Program Manager, Washington State Department of Ecology

How is water managed now?

2012-01-11T15:16:00.001-08:00

Is there a water shortage in the Quilcene-Snow watershed?

It depends who you ask. WRIA 17 boasts one of the fastest growing populations in the state. The current population of approximately 27,000 is expected to grow to between 29,935-38,197 residents by the year 2015. Much of WRIA 17 is located within the rain shadow of the Olympic Mountains and 70% of our annual precipitation falls during the wet winter months from November to May (Watershed Management Plan for the Quilcene-Snow Water Resource inventory Area 17. October 2003).

The dry summer and early fall months are when humans require the most water for crops and lawn maintenance and also when federally-protected salmon require sufficient water levels in rivers so they can return to spawn.

The amount of annual precipitation varies dramatically throughout WRIA 17. For example, Quilcene receives 56 inches of precipitation annually while Port Townsend receives only 19 inches-just a few more inches than Los Angeles receives. Because most of the residents of WRIA 17 live in the drier parts, we’ve constructed a system of pipes and water storage reservoirs to move water from places and times of plenty to places and times of need.
Although this re-plumbing works for humans, it doesn’t work as well for fish.

Storing “excess” water flow during winter months and release it during dry summer months has some negative consequences we’re beginning to understand. For example, some salmon species depend on higher flows to reach smaller tributaries for spawning and rearing. High winter flows also serve a natural maintenance purpose, moving gravel and debris to keep the stream healthy.

So, do we have a water shortage? The answer is no if you consider only average annual precipitation for the entire region, but if you consider specific places and times during the year, there indeed may not always be enough water to meet current or future demand (“Is there a water shortage in the Quilcene-Snow watershed?” By Tom Anderson, HydroLogic Services Co. Published by the Port Townsend and Jefferson County Leader on April 5, 2007.)

How does the instream flow rule effect me?

2012-01-11T15:15:00.001-08:00

If I already have a water right, will a rule affect me?

Once adopted, an instream flow rule only affects water right decisions made after the adoption date. The rule will not affect:

- existing or "senior" water rights
- existing permit-exempt withdrawls (wells)
- people currently supplied by municipal or community water systems.

(Water for People, Farms and Fish. A Community Forum: Managing Water in Your Watershed. Washington State Department of Ecology, May 15 and 16, 2007)

From my private well, do I always have rights to 5,000 gallons per day?

The state groundwater laws allow for certain uses of water from a private well without obtaining a permit or certificate. These wells are commonly called "exempt wells". These uses include domestic or industrial (agriculture) at up to 5,000 gallons per day, up to 1/2 acre in area for a lawn or non-commercial garden, and an unlimited amount for stock watering purposes.

However, it is important to understand that there is not an absolute right to always use a 5,000 gpd domestic exemption. Under a number of circumstances, uses of water under the exemption may be curtailed or not allowed. The 2005 Attorney General Opinion on stock watering specifically addresses the question whether Ecology may use other legal authorities to limit or restrict use of exemption. The following material is quoted directly from the opinion:

Although Ecology lacks authority to categorically limit the amount of water that may be withdrawn for stock-watering purposes without a permit, other statutes that authorize Ecology to regulate the use of water may affect withdrawals for stock-watering, just as they may affect other exempt withdrawals and withdrawals requiring a permit. For example, in Postema v. Pollution Control Hearings Bd., 142 Wn.2d 68, 94-95, 11 P.3d 726 (2000), the Supreme Court held that where Ecology has closed water bodies and ground water in hydraulic continuity with such bodies to new withdrawals, it may prohibit new withdrawals that “will have any effect on the flow or level of the surface water.” Such a new withdrawal might be a new withdrawal for stock-watering or it might be a new withdrawal for some other purpose. As a second example, consistent with principles of prior appropriation, Ecology has authority under RCW 90.44.130 “to limit withdrawals by appropriators of ground water so as to enforce the maintenance of a safe sustaining yield from the ground water body.” See also RCW 18.104.040(4)(g), authorizing Ecology to limit well construction in areas “requiring intensive control of withdrawals in the interests of sound management of the ground water resource.” Depending on the specific facts and circumstances, then, these statutes could affect withdrawals for stock-watering purposes, just as they could affect withdrawals for other purposes (AG0 2005, No. 17, pp. 7-8).

In the case of the proposed Walla Walla instream flow rule and other instream flow rules that have been established, Ecology has limited or closed uses of the exemption under these authorities to protect existing water rights and instream flow rights.

Further, an exempt use is a water right with a priority date like other water rights. If use an exempt right would impair any senior water right (which includes instream flow rights), such use would be subject to regulation. The actual water right associated with the well is determined by the amount of water put to a beneficial use. So in the future if a judicial review of all water rights (an adjudication) were to occur, and water availability was limited, the private well user would probably have a right to the amount beneficially used and a seniority date tied to the first use of the water. A similar analysis might take place by a judge if a neighbor claimed to have a senior water right which was being impaired by the private well.

-Joe Stohr, Water Resources Program Manager, Washington State Department of Ecology

Am I going to be required to meter my water?

State water laws allow Ecology to require metering of water use. Metering is currently required for all new water rights and all new changes to water rights. Ecology was recently sued by a number of environmental and fisheries protection groups for not aggressively using metering to measure water use. A judge agreed to this assertion and as a result, Ecology committed to set up a metering program which measures 80% of water use in 16 watersheds where fish were threatened and water was sometimes scarce. The Quilcene-Snow Watershed was one of the 16. Ecology is currently working with a number of water users in the area to install these meters.

Additional metering of water, above what is described above for the Quilcene-Snow Watershed is not immediately anticipated. Water management discussions to date related to the instream flow rule and/or watershed planning have begun to explore the possibility of additional metering, either as a voluntary approach or a regulatory requirement. No new decisions have been made yet.

-Joe Stohr, Water Resources Program Manager, Washington State Department of Ecology

What am I risking by withdrawing water illegally?

Like breaking any law, the risks could include a range of responses by regulatory agencies from the issuance of formal orders to stop illegal use, up to, and including monetary penalties. Ecology is directed to escalate the response to illegal use, starting with investigations, then moving to warnings, then to "cease use" orders and finally the use of penalties if all other warnings fail. When Ecology is considering a report of illegal water use, the agency response is built around a consideration of various factors including:

- the extent that there is legal authorization lacking to use the water (does the person have a permit, certificate or claim? Is a permit exempt well in use?)
- how much water is being used?;
- is there impairment to a senior water user or instream flow?
- is water availability limited?

A resulting regulatory response by the agency will be based on the answers to these and other questions.

-Joe Stohr, Water Resources Program Manager, Washington State Department of Ecology

Will this instream flow rule threaten my water rights or private property rights?

An instream flow rule establishes a water right for instream resources. The water right has a seniority date established at the time the rule is finally issued. So an instream flow rule would be a junior water right to all water currently being put to beneficial use via a permit, certificate, claim or permit-exempt well. Those senior water rights will not be affected by the junior right established in the instream flow rule.

However, instream flow rules also deal with water availability. If water is determined to be unavailable in some parts of a watershed, the instream flow rule may contain regulatory limits on the use of new water, including the issuance of new water rights or the use of permit-exempt wells. When necessary, the limits placed on new water use by instream flow rules have been developed based on local needs to protect fish while providing support for people and their communities.

-Joe Stohr, Water Resources Program Manager, Washington State Department of Ecology

Can Ecology take my land for its water right?

No, Ecology cannot take private lands as a result of instream flow rules or water management.

-Joe Stohr, Water Resources Program Manager, Washington State Department of Ecology

Can the government seize my water right or otherwise turn it off?

Ecology is responsible for managing the state's waters. An individual is granted the right to use those waters if:

- the water is put to a beneficial use and that use is not discontinued (except for some exceptions) for 5 years or longer;
- the water is available;
- there is no impairment of a senior water right holder; and
- the use is deemed to be in the public interest.

As long as a water right holder meets those four tests, he/she can continue to use the waters of the state. If a water user should stop using some/all of their water right (for reasons other than the exceptions provided by law) for more than five years, the state may relinquish that water right so the next water user waiting in line can put the water to use.

-Joe Stohr, Water Resources Program Manager, Washington State Department of Ecology

I want to farm, how do I get a water right?

The traditional answer to this question would have been to submit an application for a new water right. For the past 20 years or so, that response has become less and less viable. Water availability across the state continues to become more limited. New water rights are usually not readily available.

More and more emphasis is being placed on developing new approaches to water availability. Some examples include:

- building market based process or "water banks" for willing buyers and sellers of water rights;
- developing storage to provide water during the summer and fall;
- conserving water so more uses or users can be accommodated;
- creating local entities who share water.

Check with your local Ecology office to explore opportunities for new water rights or the status of other availability approaches.

-Joe Stohr, Water Resources Program Manager, Washington State Department of Ecology

What if I have an exempt well and I need to use more than 5,000 gallons per day during certain times of the year? What are my options?

A plain reading of the water law associated with exempt well use allows for 5,000 gallons per day for domestic and industrial (agricultural) use. There is no provision in the law that allows for averaging water use over an irrigation season or year, etc. Your options might include approaches to increasing water availability as described in the answer to the question above.

-Joe Stohr, Water Resources Program Manager, Washington State Department of Ecology

How do I acquire a water right?

New water rights are issued on a limited basis across the state often due to the increased lack of water availability. Check with your regional Ecology Office for details.

There are several options for acquiring a water right. Water rights can be purchased or leased from other water right holders. Use of those new rights would have to meet legal requirements and be approved by Ecology.

There are also ways to involve a private contractor to process traditional water right applications. Again, check with the regional Ecology Office for details.

-Joe Stohr, Water Resources Program Manager, Washington State Department of Ecology

How do I prove that I’m using my water?

The beneficial use of water can be established by keeping metering records, diversion records and/or electricity use by a pump, etc. There are also less direct but effective ways to prove water use such as aerial photography, statements from neighbors, records of crop types grown, etc.

-Joe Stohr, Water Resources Program Manager, Washington State Department of Ecology

Where do I get a water meter?

Water meters are available from commercial vendors. Ecology may be able to provide technical assistance and/or funding support upon request.

-Joe Stohr, Water Resources Program Manager, Washington State Department of Ecology

Will completion of the instream flow rule make it more difficult to get a water right in the future?

New water rights have been issued on a limited basis in the Quilcene-Snow Watershed for a number of decades. The instream flow rule will probably not significantly increase or decrease the number of new permits issued but may serve to establish clearer expectations about where and when and how new water rights might be available. For example, the rule will include determinations as to water availability in various parts of the watershed. The rule may describe details as to how water rights might be conditioned related to availability or how the water might be managed. It is important for the public to work closely with Ecology as the rule is developed so that it is the result of our "best thinking."

-Joe Stohr, Water Resources Program Manager, Washington State Department of Ecology

Is rainwater use restricted? Do I need a permit to use rainwater?

Please see Ecology's new rain catchment fact sheet at: http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wr/nwro/sjc_rwc.html.

Do I need a water right to water an orchard?

Generally, yes unless your orchard can be watered with 5,000 gallons per day or less.

-Joe Stohr, Water Resources Program Manager, Washington State Department of Ecology

Why isn’t Ecology promoting more conservation as a way to meet our area’s future water needs?

Ecology actively supports water conservation through a variety of venues and funding programs. These include conservation investments, irrigation efficiency programs, water conveyance improvements, instream flow rules, water conservation rulemaking and watershed planning. If you are interested in learning more about these efforts, please contact Ecology.

-Joe Stohr, Water Resources Program Manager, Washington State Department of Ecology

What is the legislature doing to clarify water rights statewide?

Changes to water management policy is usually an active and controversial part of each legislative session. Over the past ten years, new water policy ideas have been included in as many as 50 or 60 statute proposals each year. A lot of recent attention has been on ideas to improve stream flows, bringing certainty to municipal water suppliers, improvements to water relinquishment provisions and support for watershed planning. Clarifying water right status through improved adjudication processes has also received increased attention.

A major policy bill intended to improve water management along the Columbia River passed during the 2006 session and another significant bill related to improving the quality of the waters entering Puget Sound passed during the 2007 session. Both of these bills are actively being implemented.

-Joe Stohr, Water Resources Program Manager, Washington State Department of Ecology

How do I prove that I’m using my water?

2012-01-11T15:14:00.002-08:00

How do I acquire a water right?

2012-01-11T15:14:00.001-08:00

New water rights are issued on a limited basis across the state often due to the increased lack of water availability. Check with your regional Ecology Office for details.

There are several options for acquiring a water right. Water rights can be purchased or leased from other water right holders. Use of those new rights would have to meet legal requirements and be approved by Ecology.

There are also ways to involve a private contractor to process traditional water right applications. Again, check with the regional Ecology Office for details.

From my private well, do I always have rights to 5,000 gallons per day?

2012-01-11T15:13:00.004-08:00

The state groundwater laws allow for certain uses of water from a private well without obtaining a permit or certificate. These wells are commonly called "exempt wells". These uses include domestic or industrial (agriculture) at up to 5,000 gallons per day, up to 1/2 acre in area for a lawn or non-commercial garden, and an unlimited amount for stock watering purposes.
However, it is important to understand that there is not an absolute right to always use a 5,000 gpd domestic exemption. Under a number of circumstances, uses of water under the exemption may be curtailed or not allowed. The 2005 Attorney General Opinion on stock watering specifically addresses the question whether Ecology may use other legal authorities to limit or restrict use of exemption. The following material is quoted directly from the opinion:

Although Ecology lacks authority to categorically limit the amount of water that may be withdrawn for stock-watering purposes without a permit, other statutes that authorize Ecology to regulate the use of water may affect withdrawals for stock-watering, just as they may affect other exempt withdrawals and withdrawals requiring a permit. For example, in Postema v. Pollution Control Hearings Bd., 142 Wn.2d 68, 94-95, 11 P.3d 726 (2000), the Supreme Court held that where Ecology has closed water bodies and ground water in hydraulic continuity with such bodies to new withdrawals, it may prohibit new withdrawals that “will have any effect on the flow or level of the surface water.” Such a new withdrawal might be a new withdrawal for stock-watering or it might be a new withdrawal for some other purpose. As a second example, consistent with principles of prior appropriation, Ecology has authority under RCW 90.44.130 “to limit withdrawals by appropriators of ground water so as to enforce the maintenance of a safe sustaining yield from the ground water body.” See also RCW 18.104.040(4)(g), authorizing Ecology to limit well construction in areas “requiring intensive control of withdrawals in the interests of sound management of the ground water resource.” Depending on the specific facts and circumstances, then, these statutes could affect withdrawals for stock-watering purposes, just as they could affect withdrawals for other purposes.

AG0 2005, No. 17, pp. 7-8.

In the case of the proposed Walla Walla instream flow rule and other instream flow rules that have been established, Ecology has limited or closed uses of the exemption under these authorities to protect existing water rights and instream flow rights.

Further, an exempt use is a water right with a priority date like other water rights. If use an exempt right would impair any senior water right (which includes instream flow rights), such use would be subject to regulation. The actual water right associated with the well is determined by the amount of water put to a beneficial use. So in the future if a judicial review of all water rights (an adjudication) were to occur, and water availability was limited, the private well user would probably have a right to the amount beneficially used and a seniority date tied to the first use of the water. A similar analysis might take place by a judge if a neighbor claimed to have a senior water right which was being impaired by the private well.

Do I need a water right to water an orchard?

2012-01-11T15:13:00.003-08:00

Generally, yes unless your orchard can be watered with 5,000 gallons per day or less.

Is rainwater use restricted? Do I need a permit to use rainwater?

2012-01-11T15:13:00.001-08:00

Please see Ecology's new rain catchment fact sheet at :

http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wr/nwro/sjc_rwc.html

Can the government seize my water right or otherwise turn it off?

2012-01-11T15:12:00.003-08:00

Ecology is responsible for managing the state's waters. An individual is granted the right to use those waters if:

- the water is put to a beneficial use and that use is not discontinued (except for some exceptions) for 5
years or longer;

- the water is available;

- there is no impairment of a senior water right holder; and

- the use is deemed to be in the public interest.

As long as a water right holder meets those four tests, he/she can continue to use the waters of the state. If a water user should stop using some/all of their water right (for reasons other than the exceptions provided by law) for more than five years, the state may relinquish that water right so the next water user waiting in line can put the water to use.

What if I have an exempt well and I need to use more than 5,000 gallons per day during certain times of the year? What are my options?

2012-01-11T15:12:00.001-08:00

A plain reading of the water law associated with exempt well use allows for 5,000 gallons per day for domestic and industrial (agricultural) use. There is no provision in the law that allows for averaging water use over an irrigation season or year, etc. Your options might include approaches to increasing water availability as described in the answer about how to acquire a water right.

Can Ecology take my land for its water right?

2012-01-11T15:11:00.003-08:00

No, Ecology cannot take private lands as a result of instream flow rules or water management.

An Introduction

2012-01-11T15:11:00.001-08:00

What is WRIA 17?

The Quilcene-Snow watershed – or Water Resource Inventory Area (WRIA) 17 – covers more than 250,000 acres of the northeastern Olympic Peninsula, in Jefferson and Clallam counties. Port Townsend is the main population center, and nearly 27,000 people live in the watershed. WRIA 17 extends from the northeast flank of the Olympic Mountains to Hood Canal and the Strait of Juan de Fuca. The watershed includes direct drainages to Puget Sound from Jimmycomelately Creek in the northwest to the Big Quilcene River in the south. More than 70% of the watershed is privately owned, while federal and state lands cover the remaining area. The Quilcene-Snow watershed contains these 10 sub-basins: Big Quilcene, Chimacum, Dabob-Thorndyke, Indian-Marrowstone, Little Quilcene, Ludlow, Miller, Quimper, Salmon-Snow, and West Sequim Bay.

WRIA 17 and the other 61 water resource inventory areas in Washington state were established by the Washington State Legislature when it passed HB2514, the Watershed Management Act of 1998. The purpose of the Watershed Management Act is to provide a framework for addressing water quality, water quantity, and salmon habitat issues at the local level. The Act provides grant funding to Planning Units, which are councils of governmental and non-governmental entities, to perform two tasks:

• Determine the status of water resources in a watershed; and
• Resolve the often-conflicting demands for that water, including ensuring that enough water is available for salmon.

Each Planning Unit is responsible for a specific geographic area, or Water Resource Inventory Area. The WRIA boundaries are established in the state’s administrative code (Ch. 173-500) (Watershed Management Plan for the Quilcene-Snow Water Resource inventory Area 17. October 2003).

What is a watershed plan?

A watershed plan is an area-specific strategy to address current and future water management issues such as water quality, water quantity, and habitat issues. A watershed plan is built on an understanding of the status of local water resources and provides a framework for resolving conflicting of competing water demands, including insuring that enough water is available for salmon.

According to the WRIA 17 Planning Unit, “the purpose of the watershed plan is to create a decision-making tool for water resource management, including future appropriation of water and land use and development decisions. It is the intent of the plan to recommend actions to ensure clean water in sufficient quantities to provide both adequate habitat for fish and an adequate supply for human uses. Therefore the plan will include provisions for water quality protection and enhancement, water conservation, and habitat protection/restoration.” (Watershed Management Plan for the Quilcene-Snow Water Resource inventory Area 17. October 2003)

What problems do we have in our watershed?

To understand the challenges confronting the watershed, the WRIA 17 Planning Unit commissioned a Technical Assessment, completed in 2000. This analysis summarizes existing scientific information about water quantity, water quality, habitat, and instream flows in the watershed. It provides a scientific foundation for watershed planning and identifies the following issues of concern:

• The lower reaches of the Big Quilcene River have experienced greater habitat degradation than the upper reaches. Hydraulic continuity – that is, connections between surface water and groundwater –means that pumping groundwater from wells can reduce stream flows. Accordingly, water use in the lower watershed may exacerbate these habitat issues.

• In the lower reaches of the Chimacum sub-basin, surface water quality is degraded, and use of both surface and groundwater is relatively high. Surface water quality is most degraded in the middle reaches of the creek. Hydraulic continuity is rated high to moderate high for much of the basin, and habitat along both forks of Chimacum Creek has been degraded. By 2016, more than 1,500 new residents are expected to live in the sub-basin, a 30% increase.

• In the Dabob-Thorndyke sub-basin, Tarboo Creek faces surface water quality and habitat issues, along with high hydraulic continuity. Existing land uses in the sub-basin have degraded stream health. • The Little Quilcene River has problems with habitat, water quality, water quantity, and hydraulic continuity along much of its length. Near Lake Leland, surface water use from Leland Creek is relatively high. Future growth in this sub-basin is expected to be relatively low.

• In the Ludlow sub-basin, habitat in Shine Creek has been degraded, while the area adjacent to Ludlow Creek is the focus of relatively high groundwater use and surface water rights near Port Ludlow. Coupled with Ludlow Creek’s high potential for hydraulic continuity, this water use could affect stream flows. By 2016, population in this sub-basin will likely more than double.

• Habitat in the Salmon-Snow sub-basin has been altered, including creek relocation (now largely restored), and the sub-basin has relatively high potential for hydraulic continuity. In the lower Salmon and Snow Creeks, many surface water rights are allocated, which could affect seasonal low stream flows. By 2016, approximately 400 new residents will likely live in the sub-basin, a 30% increase (Watershed Management Plan for the Quilcene-Snow Water Resource inventory Area 17. October 2003).

What is the "Instream Flow Rule"?

The term "instream flow" is used to identify a specific stream flow (typically measured in cubic feet per second, or cfs) at a specific location for a defined time, and typically following seasonal variations. Instream flows are usually defined as the stream flows needed to protect and preserve instream resources and values, such as fish, wildlife and recreation. Instream flows are most often described and established in a formal legal document, typically an adopted state rule.

The Department of Ecology continues to work with local governments, tribes, business owners, environmental organizations, residents and other entities in Jefferson and eastern Clallam counties to develop a proposed instream flow and water management rule for the Quilcene-Snow Water Resources Inventory Area (WRIA) 17. The rule will guide water use planning and decision-making for future domestic needs while maintaining enough water in streams to protect important fish species and existing water rights. Preparation for the rule development process for WRIA 17 has involved several years of discussion on the following topics:

watershed planning
stream hydrology and fish habitat data
ground water data
stream temperature analysis
stream management options.

Ecology has a legal obligation to provide for reliable supplies of drinking water and to protect instream resources.

For more information, visit Ecology's website: http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wr/instream-flows/quilsnowbasin.html

What is the history of the instream flow rule in WRIA 17?

In 1991, the Washington State Department of Ecology selected the Dungeness-Quilcene watershed as a pilot area to test the feasibility of local watershed planning under the Chelan Agreement. The Dungeness-Quilcene Plan, developed between 1991 and 1994, was the result of this pilot project. The plan, also known as the D-Q Plan, contains recommendations for water conservation, public education, protection of fish stocks and habitat, restoration of instream flows, protection and restoration of water quality, and provision of water for growth. The D-Q Plan, although focused on WRIA 18, covers areas of WRIA 17 and provided the foundation for watershed discussions and planning in WRIA 17 (Watershed Management Plan for the Quilcene-Snow Water Resource inventory Area 17. October 2003).

The locally-led Quilcene-Snow Watershed Planning Unit completed a comprehensive watershed plan for the Quilcene-Snow in October 2003. The committee decided it did not have sufficient information at that time to make instream flow recommendations to Ecology. However, a key commitment in the watershed plan was to continue working with Ecology to try and reach consensus on instream flows. The watershed management plan was approved by Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners on January 10, 2005.

During 2005 Ecology proposed draft rule language and held two open houses to discuss the proposal with the public. However, that work was suspended when Ecology officials learned their public involvement effort was inadequate. Since then, Ecology managers and consultants have met with Jefferson and Clallam county residents to resume the watershed management effort in a more inclusive way. Most recently, Ecology hosted a public forum in May 2007 to solicit comments from the public and educate the public on specific issues relating to the instream flow rule (http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wr/instream-flows).

What are the instream flow study methods used in Washington and how is the minimum instream flow determined?

Instream Flow Incremental Methodology or IFIM is the most commonly used method for determining how much water fish need. IFIM is a series of computer-based models that quantify the amount of fish habitat at different flow levels in a river or stream. By matching those depths and velocities to fish preferences for those factors, the model will tell you how many square feet of habitat will be available at different flow levels. Physical Habitat Simulation (PHABSIM) is the subset of IFIM used extensively in Washington state.

For more detailed information visit Ecology's website: http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wr/instream-flows/isfsci.html

Where can I find the project documents and meeting minutes for the WRIA 17 instream flow rule?

Visit the WSU Jefferson County Extension website at www.jefferson.wsu.edu and click on "Water" and then on "WRIA 17 Instream Flow" for information relating to this process and relevant WRIA 17 project documents.

The Planning Unit Steering Committee meeting minutes are available at www.wria17.org (click on "Steering Committee" on the left-hand panel). Project documents are also available on this site.

What other areas in Washington are going through this process?

There are a total of 62 Water Resource Inventory Areas in Washington state in various stages of watershed planning. You can read about their activities by visiting www.ecy.wa.gov/apps/watersheds/wriapages/index.html.

What is the timeline for developing the instream flow rule?

The first community forum was held in Chimacum and Quilcene on May 15 and 16, respectively. The purpose of this forum was to talk about issues relating to instream flow and what's important to the community. In July, Ecology will hold another meeting to talk about options and solutions. After this meeting Ecology will spend the fall working with local governments, tribes, and members of the community to develop a rough draft instream flow rule. After a rough draft is developed, Ecology will hold another community forum to discuss the draft, after which Ecology will write a formal draft rule and then hold formal public hearings on the draft rule and receive public comments. Finally the instream flow rule will be adopted.

Who do I contact to give my opinion or get information?

There are several ways to share your opinions, make suggestions, and ask questions. Click on the comments link on the right side of this page to share your views or read other people's comments in a public forum. You can sign your comments or you can post anonymously.

To mail or email your comments or suggestions directly to Department of Ecology send to:
awes461@ecy.wa.gov
or
Attn: Ann Wessel
Department of Ecology Water Resources Program
P.O. Box 47600
Olympia, WA 98504-7600

Glossary of Terms

2012-01-11T15:10:00.001-08:00

The world of water resources has its own language. This list was prepared to help you understand terms that may be unfamiliar.

Basin – A land area that drains to a common waterway.

Beneficial use – Refers to a reasonable quantity of water applied to a non-wasteful use, such as irrigation, domestic water supply, industry and power generation, to name a few.

Exempt wells – see below under "permit-exempt wells".

Ground water – Water located under the ground.

Instream flow – A legal term that means a specific stream flow (typically measured in cubic feet per second, or cfs) at a specific location for a defined time, and typically following seasonal variations. Instream flows are usually defined as the stream flows needed to protect and preserve instream resources and values, such as fish, wildlife and recreation.

Instream flow rule – A formal legal document, adopted in the Washington Administrative Code (WAC), which describes and establishes instream flows, and water management provisions for a watershed. Once adopted, an instream flow rule has a priority date just like any other water right.

Instream resources – In Washington State, the Department of Ecology is mandated under state law to establish state water management rules that protect and preserve water for “instream uses,” that is, how water is used within the stream. Instream resources include use by fish, wildlife, recreation, navigation, aesthetics, water quality and livestock watering.

Permit-exempt wells – A well drilled to provide water that does not require application for a water right. A property owner may use water from such wells for industrial or domestic uses up to 5,000 gallons per day. A permit-exempt well may also be used to provide water needed for irrigating up to ½ acre of domestic lawn or garden, and for stock watering.

Prior appropriation doctrine – A tenet of water law known as "first in time, first in right." Those applying for and receiving water rights first have priority in water use over those applying later.

Priority date – The date an application was filed for a permitted or certificated water right – or the date that water was first put to beneficial use in the case of claims and exempt ground water withdrawals.

Seawater intrusion – The movement of saline ground water into a freshwater aquifer.

Stream flow – Amount of water actually flowing in the stream, typically measured in cubic feet per second (cfs).

Surface Water – Water located above ground, such as a river, stream, spring or lake.

Water right – A legal authorization to use a certain amount of public water for a designated purpose. The water must be put to “beneficial use,” which refers to a reasonable quantity of water applied to a non-wasteful use, such as irrigation, domestic water supply, industry and power generation, to name a few.

Watershed – A land area that drains to a common waterway.

WRIA 17 – Acronym for Water Resource Inventory Area 17, a.k.a. the Quilcene-Snow Basin. Based on hydrologic boundaries that run from the southern watershed of Marple Creek to as far west as the Johnson Creek drainage on Sequim Bay. The major sub-basins are the Big and Little Quilcene, Dabob/Thorndyke, Salmon/Snow, Chimacum, Ludlow, Quimper, West Sequim Bay, Indian/Marrowstone and Miller.

Residents diving into water courses: Local watershed projects flow to Sound, beyond

2012-01-09T12:57:00.000-08:00

CHIMACUM -- Like rain falling in the mountains, collecting in rivulets and flowing into streams that flow into the sea, concerns about water quality and water rights have been coalescing in the pool of public consciousness.

Now they have an outlet: two water courses, designed for small-group study and discussion, that have originated below the slopes of the Olympic Mountains in east Jefferson County.

The first, a course covering regional watersheds, was tested by four pilot groups in the county during the past year and a half and is being rolled out in four states this spring.

Sound focus

The second, focusing on the Puget Sound watershed, is currently being piloted after the regional version drew the attention of Puget Sound Partnership, the state agency established to preserve and protect the Sound.

“They liked it so much, they asked Linda and Pat to ‘Puget Sound-ize' it,” said Darcy McNamara, a Washington State University Extension staff member.

Linda Smith is a special projects consultant for the WSU Extension in Port Hadlock, where she works with Pat Pearson, water quality educator.

Read more

Washington Stormwater Center created!

2011-11-05T11:46:00.000-07:00

WSU to help educate in stormwater management

Tuesday, Nov. 1, 2011

By Kathy Barnard, College of Agricultural, Human and Natural Resource Sciences

PUYALLUP, Wash. – Western Washington businesses will soon have a new resource for help in navigating regulations on stormwater management, thanks
part to Boeing and Washington State University.

The Boeing Global Corporate Citizenship Northwest organization has given an $85,000 grant to the Washington Stormwater Center, which will help WSU develop a Business Resource Program within the center.

Under stormwater regulations developed during the past year, businesses and industries in the Puget Sound region are required to create effective stormwater management programs for their job sites. The Boeing grant will help to fund a variety of training, publications, workshops, webinars and other educational programs developed by John Stark, co-director of the Washington Stormwater Center and Tanyalee Erwin, the center’s manager.

"This generous funding from The Boeing Company will enable the Washington Stormwater Center to meet a major part of its mission to help educate business stormwater permit holders so that they can meet their national pollutant discharge elimination system (NPDES) permit requirements,” Stark said.

There are approximately 2,500 businesses in more than 25 different industries in western Washington required to obtain stormwater permits under the new regulations.

The Washington Legislature established the Washington Stormwater Center in December 2010 to improve stormwater quality through education, information sharing, and research into new technologies and to assist municipal, business and industry stormwater permit applicants and others affected by stormwater management regulations. The center is a joint program developed by WSU Puyallup and the University of Washington-Tacoma Urban Waters Center.

Quilcene Fish Hatchery Celebrates its Centennial!

2011-09-01T09:28:00.000-07:00

At the left you can see a trailer that was constructed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to highlight salmon - it is actually a fish tank that can be hooked up to a truck.

Wouldn't it be great to see this trailer of fish going down the highway sometime? What an incredible display that would be! However, we are told that the fish are taken out of the tank before the truck pulls the trailer down the road.

Thank you to everyone who came out for the Centennial Celebration of the Quilcene Fish Hatchery - it was a beautiful day and a terrific thing to acknowledge 100 years of salmon enhancement and recovery.

All You Need to Know About Stormwater Runoff

2011-06-17T14:14:00.000-07:00

If you read one stormwater story, make it this one.

Lisa Stiffler on April 5, 2011 at 11:20 am

The culprit in each of these stories is the most mundane of villains: the rain. As rainwater streams off roofs and over roadways and landscaped yards, it mixes a massive toxic cocktail. It scoops up oil, grease, antifreeze, and heavy metals from cars; pesticides that poison aquatic insects and fish; fertilizers that stoke algal blooms; and bacteria from pet and farm-animal waste. A heavy rainfall delivers this potent shot of pollutants straight into streams, lakes, and bays—threatening everything from tiny herring to the region’s beloved orcas to our families’ health.

This post is part of the research project: Storwater Solutions: Curbing Toxic Runoff

Editor’s note: This blog is also available as a printer friendly pdf, and a similar version was published this week inTrim Tab, the publication of the Cascadia Green Building Council.

A woman drowns when the basement of her Seattle home suddenly fills with a torrent of filthy water.
An overflow of 15 million gallons of sewage and stormwater fouls the shoreline of picturesque Port Angeles, putting the waterfront off limits to the residents and visitors of the Olympic Peninsula town due to health concerns.
Portlanders are socked with some of the nation’s highest water utility rates in order to pay for the city’s $1.4 billion “Big Pipe” projects.
Northwest scientists document coho salmon dying in urban streams with their bellies full of eggs, perishing before they can spawn.
Stormwater doesn’t match the traditional image of pollution. There are no factory smokestacks belching waste, no pipes with a steady trickle of noxious industrial effluent. Despite appearances, stormwater packs a wallop. Polluted runoff long ago surpassed industry as the number one source for petroleum and other toxic chemicals that wash into the Northwest’s water bodies.
Each year, the Puget Sound is sullied by 14 million pounds of toxic chemicals and oil and grease—and that’s a conservative estimate.The amount of petroleum waste is so vast, it’s as if more than 70,000 cars pulled up to the beach and emptied their tanks straight into the Sound each year.*

Are you enjoying this article? Please consider making a gift to support our work.

The polluted runoff threatens to make water from Lake Whatcom—the sole source of drinking water for the city of Bellingham—undrinkable, and has helped put shellfish harvesting off limits for beachgoers from north of Everett to south of Tacoma. Some residents of BC’s Salt Spring Island had to temporarily switch to bottled water this winter when toxic algae contaminated their water supply. Where did the nasty plants come from? The algal bloom was triggered as “a result of excess phosphorous … from surrounding properties,” according to news reports.

How has the Northwest’s iconic rain been transformed into such a menace? A century of building pipes, gutters, and impervious surfaces is to blame—along with pollution from cars, lawns, farming and more. Our goal has been to shunt water away from buildings and pavement as quickly as possible. So when the rain hits hard surfaces, it grabs dirt and pollutants and flushes them into drains that often lead directly into sensitive waterways without any kind of treatment.

In some cases, the runoff merges with sewer waste, resulting in overflows of raw sewage during heavy storms. And that stuff can make you sick. Over the past three years, sewage-tainted runoff has forced the closure of 32 Washington beaches, some for a couple of days, others for weeks.
Stormwater runoff mixed with sewage can carry salmonella bacteria, parasitic giardia, and Norwalk-like viruses. Ailments caused by exposure to sewage-tinged water include: diarrhea, vomiting, stomach cramps, fever, hepatitis, bronchitis, pneumonia, and swimmers itch.
But there’s a solution for Cascadia’s flood waves of runoff. It’s an affordable fix that curbs the environmental damage while making our neighborhoods and communities more walkable, sustainable, and inviting. It’s called low-impact development, or LID. The approach uses a suite of conservation and engineering tools to make developed areas behave more like natural ecosystems.
Low-impact development is starting to catch on across the Northwest, but before exploring these green-building strategies, let’s dig a little deeper into the challenges posed by polluted runoff.

Rivers of costly runoff
Ten bathtubs full of water. That’s how much rain pours off one average-size house during a good-sized drenching. In a typical year in Portland or Seattle, approximately 26,600 gallons of stormwater rush into the gutters and streams from that single home.And there are more than 2.6 million houses in Oregon and Washington, as well as countless more apartments, condos, warehouses, offices, stores, and other buildings.

When the rain runs off that home’s roof—and its driveway, sidewalk, and lawn—it flows into a labyrinth of stormwater infrastr
ucture. Even relatively arid cities such as Spokane must maintain more than 300 miles of stormwater sewers. Traditional approaches to handling stormwater have been costly to governments as well as to home and business owners. Cities and counties in Washington spend more than a quarter billion dollars a year trying to control and clean contaminated runoff.

For nearly two decades, Portland has been working on its “Big Pipe” projects to stop billions of gallons of raw sewage and stormwater from fouling the Columbia Slough and Willamette River. The $1.4 billion projects should be completed this year. The seaside town of Port Angeles is trying to finalize plans for a project that will cost at least $40 million to control its storm sewer waste. Last year, the city’s combined sewer system spewed nearly 24 million gallons of sewage-contaminated stormwater into Port Angeles Harbor.

Victoria and Vancouver in British Columbia, Spokane, and Coquille near the Oregon Coast are still other Northwest cities and towns facing expensive upgrades to stop overflows of sewage and polluted runoff that are triggered after a downpour.
And there are the untold millions spent repairing stormwater-related damage from flooding, landslides, and sinkholes. Over the course of one particularly wet weekend this past December, Seattle Public Utilities reported more than 700 calls about flooding and sent crews to 332 locations. The city has paid millions of dollars to settle flood claims over the past decade, spending more than $6 million for the damage caused in the December 2006 storm that drowned a woman.

Putting a LID on polluted stormwater
A stroll down a stretch of 2nd Avenue Northwest in Seattle is almost a walk in the park. The slightly meandering residential street is lined with wide strips of native grasses, small shrubs, and trees. Along the shoulder, interspersed among parking spots, are swales—or gentle depressions—that fill with water during a downpour. You won’t find sludgy gutters brimming with muddy water and trash, or deserts of black asphalt that foster shoe-soaking puddles.

The street was one of the Northwest’s first experiments in natural drainage systems, or low-impact development. A decade ago, workers jackhammered up the block and rebuilt it to catch and clean stormwater the way it’s done in nature. In a forest, rainwater falls on branches and leaves and slowly evaporates, or it soaks into the ground and gets sucked up by plants. The soil and organisms living in the soil help clean and filter the polluted stormwater. The Seattle project—called SEA Street—has been wildly successful, nearly eliminating polluted runoff, even during heavy rains. The slightly narrowed street is safer for kids and pedestrians, and creates natural spaces that are inviting to wildlife and people.

“LID systems really do have the ability to filter water naturally and create much nicer, softer, greener stormwater facilities that really engage the public a lot more,” said Tim Bailey, a geotechnical engineer and experienced practitioner of low-impact development with GeoEngineers, Inc., in Seattle.
The philosophy of low-impact development is to try to replicate nature’s way of managing rainfall. It means taking surfaces that normally repel water—roofs and pavement—and making them spongy.
Low-impact development can mean building green roofs covered in water-trapping soil and plants. It can mean hooking downspouts to rain barrels or cisterns to store the water that does run off, or having downspouts flow into “rain gardens” featuring swales. It can mean building driveways from a lattice of pavers that leave some of the soil exposed, or using a permeable concrete that lets water pass through to the soil below. It also means protecting, preserving, and restoring native vegetation.

“There is no reason not to make every single residential-scale property do something (to reduce stormwater),” said Peg Staeheli, a principal with Seattle’s SvR Design Co., a local leader in low-impact development. “There are a lot of tools out there now that can be used.”

Shifting from gray to green
Seattle is far from alone in realizing that there are alternatives to traditional gutter-and-storm-drain systems—also called “gray” infrastructure—that cost too much and don’t work well. In recent years, low-impact development projects have cropped up as smart investments across the region. Here are some noteworthy examples:

BREMERTON: A blue-collar city on the shores of Puget Sound, Bremerton is being permeated with green stormwater infrastructure. A new 1,600-foot-long bridge and an industrial roadway project will both use low-impact development to treat much of its polluted runoff. In each case, state and local partners pushed for conventional stormwater treatment for the projects, but Bremerton officials successfully made the case for using low-impact development because it was cheaper.

f="http://www.portlandonline.com/bes/index.cfm?c=47203">PORTLAND: The City of Roses has so many natural drainages that it has published a walking tour for visitors interested in viewing its attractive rain gardens and swales. Portland has grown its green infrastructure in part through policy incentives. It pays residents to unhook their home downspouts from the city’s storm sewer system and redirect the water into rain gardens, and its green roof program offers rebates to residents and businesses installing ecoroofs. There are at least 350 ecoroofs in Portland, topping condos, the central library, government offices, and a university building, covering about 26 acres in all.

LACEY: One of the first cities in the state to approve regulations back in 1999 to encourage low-impact development, Lacey has continued pursuing green stormwater solutions. The city requires a developer to use low-impact development to soak up all the rain that falls on a site rather than pipe it into a storm sewer system, provided the ground is sufficiently absorbent. Lacey’s Regional Athletic Complex completed in 2009 features pervious concrete to reduce runoff.

Lacey also has strict tree-protection provisions that call on developers to protect or replant trees, and homeowners must get permission to fell even sick and hazardous trees.
VICTORIA: There are a number of high profile green roof projects in British Columbia (Vancouver’s Convention Center and Olympic Village to name two), but the province has surprisingly fewer examples of rain gardens and swales. One exception is Victoria’s Trent Street rain gardens. The 2009 pilot project includes two roadside rain gardens that help soak up street runoff that would otherwise pollute nearby Bowker Creek.

PRINGLE CREEK COMMUNITY: Called “the nation’s first full-scale porous pavement project” by the Asphalt Pavement Association of Oregon, the 32-acre sustainable community near Salem boasts 7,000 feet of porous asphalt roadways and 2,000 feet of porous alleys. Pringle Creek also features swales and narrower roads to create fewer hard surfaces. And it’s a leader in tree conservation: 80 percent of the development’s trees were protected and one-third of the community is green or open space.

SPOKANE: In 2007, Washington State University Spokane County Extension and Spokane County Stormwater Utility planted a dozen swales in front yards around the city in order to test which plants worked best in that climate, to monitor for pollutants, and to raise awareness about rain gardens. A recent study shows that many of the swales are performing better over time.

In these examples and others, low-impact development has been shown to be less expensive and more effective at cleaning stormwater than the traditional gutter-and-storm-drain systems. A study by the US Environmental Protection Agency compared the cost of stormwater projects that were built using green techniques to what they would have cost using conventional strategies. In 11 of 12 cases examined across North America, the low-impact development option was cheaper by anywhere from 15 to 80 percent.

A study by ECONorthwest, an economic consulting firm, also found that low-impact development cost less for both residential and commercial projects in Cascadia and beyond. The researchers concluded that low-impact development would fare even better in comparisons that considered more than just construction costs. In many instances, low-impact development treats larger volumes of water than traditional approaches, is cheaper to maintain, boosts property values, creates wildlife habitat, and reduces air pollution and greenhouse gases by planting and protecting trees and other vegetation.

Death by a thousand rainstorms
Ailing Northwest rivers and lakes face death not so much by a thousand cuts as by a thousand rainstorms, each flushing filthy stormwater into environmentally and economically important waterways.

While low-impact development is gaining popularity, it’s far from being standard practice. Developers, planners, and government agencies often are more comfortable sticking with the conventional systems that they know. In many cases, regulations require traditional infrastructure, whether mandating wider roads to accommodate parking plus emergency vehicles, or prescribing stormwater pipes when a swale would work better and cost less.

But work is underway to change this. In recent years, the Puget Sound Partnership helped 36 Washington municipalities upgrade their codes to encourage the use of low-impact development. Now the Partnership is writing a local-code guidebook for governments that want to incorporate low-impact development requirements into their codes and regulations. It should be done in July.

There are stormwater training programs for landscapers and other contractors as well as city and county planners and permit writers. Local universities, utilities, and nonprofit organizations are teaming up to offer seminars and workshops. Washington State University and the Puget Sound Partnership are offering a series of two-day workshops on low-impact development technologies; Oregon Environmental Council, the Central Oregon Intergovernmental Council, and Oregon State University Extension/Oregon Sea Grant are partnering to hold Stormwater Solutions workshops in Central Oregon.

It’s important to improve the level of expertise of those doing low-impact development. Because while green infrastructure offers a great stormwater fix, trained practitioners are needed— particularly for large projects.

Seattle recently had a painful reminder that green solutions still require careful planning. A rain garden pilot project in the Ballard neighborhood hasn’t worked as expected, resulting in swales that fill with water and don’t drain well. The city has formed a task force to solve the problem.
“LID is something you have to look at with the willingness to be flexible and use the most appropriate systems for a given site,” Bailey said. “It takes a lot more creativity.
“For small scale (projects) you can come up with something that works most of the time, most of the places.”

There are additional opportunities for making low-impact development more widespread. In 2010, Washington legislators pledged $50 million for stormwater improvements.This year, a coalition of Washington’s city and county leaders, labor representatives, and environmental advocates are working with the Legislature to establish a long-term funding source to pay for more low-impact development. The Clean Water Jobs Act would put a 1 percent fee on petroleum products, pesticides, herbicides, and fertilizers.

Oregon lawmakers are considering a ban on copper in vehicle brake pads in an effort to remove one of the prime sources of a pollutant that’s harmful to fish and other aquatic life. Washington approved a similar measure last year, becoming the first state to do so.

There is an urgency to act. The Washington Department of Ecology is working on rules that will require more use of low-impact development, and final regulations should be completed by summer 2012. The US Environmental Protection Agency is strengthening national stormwater regulations that should take effect in less than two years and will encompass more towns and cities than ever before.And the stormwater problem is only likely to worsen if the population of Washington, Oregon, and Idaho swells to an expected 14.5 million residents by 2030, a roughly 20 percent increase from today.

“Time is not on our side,” said Tom Holz, a stormwater and low-impact development expert from Olympia. “We may lose the battle just simply through dallying.”

UPDATE: This blog post was updated on April 8 to correct a reference to the Lacey Regional Athletic Center. The Center features pervious concrete, not porous asphalt, as was originally stated.
*Washington Department of Ecology estimates that at least 7.9 million pounds of petroleum pollution wash into Puget Sound annually with stormwater. Assuming there are 7.3 pounds of petroleum in a gallon of petrol, 1.08 million gallons of gas and diesel are entering the Sound. If the average vehicle has a 15 gallon tank, the equivalent of more than 72,000 vehicles are dumping their tanks.
Storm pipe photo from Flickr user MikeAncient, beach closed photo from Flickr user Leonard John Matthews, rain garden photo from Flickr user SDOT, fish drain photo from Flickr user sparktography, and green roof photo from Flickr user Jacksonoffice2003. All are used under the Creative Commons license.

Please make a donation today and help keep us running.

This Political Earthquake Is Inevitable

2011-05-30T23:33:00.000-07:00

When, as 'Cascadia's Fault' portends, a mega-thrust quake rips BC to California, politicians will fall through cracks.

By Crawford Kilian, 25 May 2011, TheTyee

Cascadia Fault Line

Subduction of the oceanic Juan de Fuca plate beneath the continental crust of North America. Source of diagram: Fisheries and Oceans Canada.

* Cascadia's Fault
* Jerry Thompson
* Harpercollins (2011)

This is most important political book to appear in Canada for many years.

Jerry Thompson, a longtime journalist, doesn't say much if anything about politics in his new book. But the political implications of his book, for Canada and the United States, are inescapable.

Thompson tells the story of the Cascadia Fault in part as a journalist's autobiography: He's been dealing with geology stories since Mount St. Helens erupted three decades ago. And the professional geologists, we learn, aren't that far ahead of him.

Half a century ago, "continental drift" was still considered a crank theory. J. Tuzo Wilson and others demonstrated in the 1960s that plate tectonics really does drive the continents around the planet, but it took a couple of decades for scientists to absorb the implications. Thompson documents that slow process as geologists began to tie events together: the 1960 Chile earthquake, Mount St. Helens, the Sumatran quake and tsunami of 2004.

Plate tectonics predicts frequent and enormous "subduction quakes" as the sea floor gradually pushes under the edges of the continents, forming deep trenches. But no such quakes have occurred in the Pacific Northwest since Europeans arrived, and the Juan de Fuca plate didn't seem to have formed an undersea trench.

So geologists assumed that the long fault offshore was somehow locked from Vancouver Island to Cape Mendocino. This region seemed to be a special case, exempt from disastrous "megathrust" earthquakes.
Evidence of old disasters

But as Thompson shows, evidence began to accumulate. Along the west coast, researchers found beds of sea grass buried under layers of sand so quickly the grass hadn't even rotted. A grove of ancient cedars stood dead, killed by salt water. The trench was there after all, blanketed in mud and sediments. Cores, taken all along the coast, showed that enormous mudslides had swept down undersea canyons almost twenty times -- simultaneously.

The only explanation was a series of mega-thrust quakes caused by Cascadia's fault. Far from being exempt, the Pacific Northwest suffers chronically from 9.0-level quakes. The clincher came from Japanese records of a tsunami without a local quake. The tsunami, we now realize, occurred on the Cascadia fault on the night of Jan. 26, 1700.

So we have begun to understand our situation only in the last 20 years or so. If a Cascadia mega-thrust quake had arrived in 1960, we literally would not have known what hit us.

Thompson's book is a clear, concise history of recent geological findings, complete with interviews with the scientists who have made that history. He doesn't speculate much. He prefers to set out the narrative, explain the concepts, and point out the need for personal preparation.

In effect, he says, the next Big One will paralyze most government services from Haida Gwaii to Cape Mendocino. Most of us will survive, but we will be on our own for days to weeks or even longer. It will be more like Haiti than Japan.

This is where Thompson's book becomes politically seismic. He has the evidence for an inevitable magnitude 9 mega-thrust quake somewhere off our coast. For up to five long minutes, it will shake Victoria, Vancouver, Seattle, Portland, and even Sacramento. Within a few minutes, tsunamis will race out up and down the coast and across the Pacific.

Then what?

Political aftershocks

Nothing in Canadian or U.S. history has prepared us for such an event -- not even the San Francisco quake of 1906. Even the March 11 disaster in Japan is no guideline, because the Japanese are used to quakes and have taken steps to reduce their impact. The whole population is used to quake and tsunami drills. Building codes ensure that high-rises may sway, but they won't fall.

Even so, Japan's government is staggering through the aftermath. Scores of thousands are still sleeping in high school gyms. Thousands more are dealing with post-traumatic stress disorder, unemployment, and a host of other sorrows. The failures of Tepco, the corporation that owns the Fukushima nuclear plant, have undercut the legitimacy of the Japanese social order. The quake has pitched the country into a worsening recession.

Now imagine B.C. after the next 9.0 quake. Old school buildings, not yet retrofitted, have collapsed on thousands of children. Blizzards of broken glass have fallen into the streets of the West End. High-rises and townhouses in Richmond have toppled into the liquefied soil of the Fraser Delta. Vancouver International Airport is a salt marsh. Fires are breaking out everywhere, but water is gone. So is electricity.

Several 10-metre tsunamis have swept into Victoria harbour, carrying yachts and tour buses up Government Street or into the legislature. Port Alberni has been hit, much worse than in 1964. It's no better south of the border, where Seattle and Portland are in ruins.

Almost no one can respond. The army's in Afghanistan, the fire halls and police stations are wrecked, and the paramedics can't get anywhere because the streets are full of rubble and corpses.

We Canadians are not a stoic people. If our kids are buried in rubble and we can't get to the hospital because the bridge is down and the hospital has collapsed anyway, we will make someone pay for our grief. We won't say it's Cascadia's fault; we will blame our politicians.

So it is very much in our politicians' interest to read Jerry Thompson's book as a Dummies' Guide to Disaster Survival. Usually they look no further ahead than the next election, if that. They assume the status quo will last forever. If they think about disasters, they prefer to bet that at worst, Cascadia will happen when the other guys are in power.

Thinking about the unthinkable

Voters don't like to think about future trouble either. Some of us base our retirement plans on winning the lottery, and the whole premise of "progressive" politics is that life should always get better. Tsunamis and earthquakes happen to other people far away.

But some parties, provincial and federal, might actually treat the voters like adults. They could build their platforms around planning for the inevitable catastrophe: tougher building codes, trained citizens, stronger emergency infrastructure, and financial reserves to cover the economic damage. When elected, they would carry out their platforms.

Economist Paul Krugman calls government "an insurance company with an army," chiefly concerned with supporting and protecting people. Politicians who understand that could save untold lives and wealth by consciously planning to minimize catastrophe.

We are preparing to spend hundreds of billions on jet planes that might some day fight the wicked Russians over the ice-free waters of the Arctic Ocean. Why? To protect Canadians from some undefined and unlikely disaster.

Instead of this halfwit science-fiction scenario, we could invest a fraction of those billions into making sure that we who live in Victoria and Vancouver survive a disaster that is demonstrably inevitable, not fiction.

Disaster preparation would be a policy for more than just coastal B.C. All over North America, climate change is triggering forest fires, floods, and droughts. We will live with that prospect for the foreseeable future.

As Jerry Thompson shows, even our scientists recently assumed that we were somehow exempt from such catastrophes. But when the evidence overthrew their assumptions, they changed their minds. We should be able to do the same. [Tyee]

Crawford Kilian is a contributing editor of The Tyee.

Chimacum Basin Aquifer

2011-05-25T23:03:00.000-07:00

Are you curious about the interaction between Chimacum Creek and wells? What does the future of water look like in the Chimacum Basin? The East Jefferson Watershed Council has been working on finding ways to improve water supplies in the Chimacum Basin. One of its major projects, a computer-based mathematical model of how groundwater and surface water work together, is nearly complete. The Council will showcase the model at the May 25th Forum and hopes the community will join them to learn about how water moves in the valley. 360.385.9444 At the Tri-Area Community Center in Chimacum

Stormwater Solutions: Curbing Toxic Runoff

2011-05-22T16:24:00.000-07:00

In 2009, legislation (HB 1614/ SB 5518) would have assessed a fee on petroleum products. In 2010, new rules (HB 3181/SB 6851) sought to increase a tax that is already added to thousands of toxic chemicals, including petroleum, pesticides, and other products. This year, the anti-stormwater coalition backed the "Clean Water Jobs Act" (SB 5604/HB 1735) which would have put a 1 percent fee on petroleum products, pesticides, herbicides, and fertilizers.

Special Series

In a Series

Stormwater Legislative Wrap Up

Posted by Lisa Stiffler

05/20/2011 08:00 AM

Progress is being made in cleaning up toxic runoff.

New rules approved by Washington's lawmakers will cut the amount of salmon-harming copper, toxic coal pollutants, and algae-stoking fertilizers that foul local waterways. Oregon legislators are halfway to approving a ban on copper brake pads -- a ban that Washington approved last year.

It's exciting news for Puget Sound, the Columbia and Willamette rivers, and countless other waterways threatened by the region's fire hose of stormwater filth. But in truth, the stormwater cup is only half full as the Washington legislative session nears its close for the year. City and county organizations, green groups, and labor interests have again lost their fight to create a fee to pay for projects to reduce the stormwater runoff that imperils human health; salmon, orcas, and insects; and our buildings and roadways.
But let's review the stormwater wins in more detail first.

Asphalt sealants
Washington is now the first US state to approve a ban on coal-tar asphalt sealants that leach toxic chemicals into the environment, and eventually our homes. The coal-tar sealants are used to preserve asphalt parking lots and driveways, and it gives them a rich, black hue. But the sealant flakes off and can be tracked into our houses and workplaces, or it gets flushed into rivers and streams with stormwater. Investigate West's Robert McClure, who has led the coverage of this issue, cites the potential harm to humans including:

cancer
asthma, lower IQs, and other health problems in children
sperm damage in men
problems with umbilical cords in pregnant women

In the environment, chemicals found in the sealants "have been shown to kill tadpoles, cause tumors on fish, stunt growth of aquatic creatures and reduce the number of species able to live in a waterway," McClure reports.
HB 1721 makes it illegal to sell coal-tar sealants beginning next year, and it will be illegal to apply coal-tar sealants after July 1, 2013.
Copper boat paint
Speaking of firsts in Washington, last year the state was the first in the nation to approve a near ban of copper from vehicle brake pads. The seemingly innocuous metal actually wreaks havoc on the ability of salmon and other fish to smell. They use their noses to find food, mates, avoid enemies and other essential functions.
This year, lawmakers turned their attention to copper boat paint. The legislation -- SB 5436 -- had an unexpected champion: the Northwest Marine Trade Association -- a group representing marina owners and other boat-related companies. Deborah Bach at Three Sheets Northwest, a marine news site, has done a great job tracking this issue and reports that the trade group was trying to get out in front of an environmental organization that has sued marinas for pollution violations. The rationale: remove the pollutant at the source, and the marinas don't have to try to clean up the copper later.
The copper is added to the paint as an anti-fouling agent that prevents the growth of barnacles, worms, algae, and other watery pests that gnaw on boats.
The ban applies only to the use of copper-containing paint on recreational vessels that are less than 65 feet long; larger vessels and commercial ships are not affected. The law bans the sale of new, recreational vessels with copper-containing paint beginning in 2018. A ban on the sale of copper-containing boat paint starts in 2020.
Phosphorus in fertilizers
Phosphorus that makes lawns green and lush is also happily gobbled up by algae and other weeds that choke Northwest rivers, lakes, and bays. The wrong kind and amount of algae can prove insidiously awful. With help from fertilizers, the little water plants spring to life in big blooms, then die and rot, sucking the oxygen out of the water, potentially creating dead zones so oxygen depleted that they can kill fish. Some algae also creates toxic chemicals, which forced a BC community to temporarily switch water sources after a bloom. Stormwater runoff scoops up the extra fertilizer from lawns, yards, and farmland, dumping it in fragile waterways.
New rules approved in Washington will shrink the use of phosphorus-containing fertilizers by making them more difficult to buy. HB 1489 will ban the sale and application of lawn fertilizer that contains phosphorus except in certain situations when (according to the bill report):

"...the fertilizer is being used to establish or repair grass during a growing season, for adding phosphorus to soils with deficient plant-available phosphorus levels, or for application to pasture lands, houseplants, flower or vegetable gardens, or agricultural or silvicultural lands."

The most important thing here: the ag industry still has unfettered use of the phosphorus fertilizers. Is that a good thing for the environment? I can't say, but the legislation's green proponents aren't complaining at the moment.
“We’ve worked hard over the past few years to craft sensible legislation to reduce phosphorus pollution,” said Rick Eichstaedt, with Spokane Riverkeeper, in a press release.

Copper brake pads
One of the prime sources of copper pollution in local waterways is copper brake pads (California calculated the sources in this study). When drivers tap their brakes, tiny amounts of copper are shaved off, which then migrate from the air to roads and driveways where it's swept away with stormwater runoff that dumps it into salmon-bearing streams, lakes, and bays.
Washington got major kudos for last year becoming the first state to restrict the sale of copper brake pads, and California followed with a similar set of rules. Now Oregon is moving to do the same. State leaders in the Senate have approved new brake pad requirements, and now the measure, SB 945, moves to the House for consideration.

Pollution fee for stormwater
Now to the half empty part of our stormwater story. The third time was definitely not the charm when it came to creating a new funding source to clean up and curb Washington's polluted stormwater.
Each of these measures failed; last year's tax had a fighting chance, but the proposal this year never got a full vote in either the House or Senate. The past efforts have faced intensive lobbying from the petroleum and chemistry industries, and this year ag joined the fight as well thanks to the inclusion of pesticides and fertilizers in the list of items subject to fees.
What's interesting is the biz world agrees that stormwater is a significant threat to the health of Puget Sound and other waterways -- even Grant Nelson from the Association of Washington Business conceded the point at a stormwater forum that Sightline helped host this spring (see coverage in The Olympian here, and my blog here). But the various industries targeted by the fee or tax have argued -- at great expense in lobbyists -- that they're being singled out unfairly to pay for stormwater solutions.
Last year the greens got a late-breaking stormwater win when the Legislature earmarked $50 million out of a state toxic cleanup fund to pay for stormwater projects, but no one yet knows if the region will score extra stormwater dollars this year (see this nice wrap up of the stormwater-fee legislation from Crosscut).

Trashy drain photo from Flickr user Chloe Dietz, dry-dock boat photo from Flickr user reidspice, geese in algae-polluted lake photo from Flickr user Andwar, and rainbow colored oil slick photo from Flickr user [citation needed]. All are used under the Creative Commons license.

Jefferson County WSU Beach Watchers Graduate!

2011-04-12T23:19:00.000-07:00

Nineteen Beach Watchers graduated from the WSU Jefferson County Beach Watcher training held in March, after a fast-paced, intensive 80-hour training. The course provided an overview of water issues and the near-shore environment in Jefferson County and prepared the students for volunteering in the community.

The new Beach Watchers have already accomplished a lot since graduating March 31. They have seeded over 1 million clam seeds and over 800 bags of oyster seeds to ensure healthy shellfish populations and conducted the annual microplastic monitoring at Fort Flager - part of an ongoing study by the Port Townsend Marine Science Center.

Beach Watchers will continue their service to the community, putting in a minimum of 100 hours over the next two years. Look for the Beach Watchers at Earth Day Every Day at Fort Worden on April 16, where they will be demonstrating the new car wash kits purchased by the Jefferson County Marine Resources Committee. The kits, which are available to the community for check out, will reduce the amount of pollutants going into our waterways. Beach Watchers will also be at the Earth Day celebration at Wild Birds Unlimited on April 23 with a "touch tank" of marine critters and their informative display about plastic.

The new Beach Watchers bring the total of Beach Watchers to more than 190 trained by the WSU Jefferson County Extension program. Last year the volunteers provided 2,800 service hours in Jefferson County, valued at more than $52,000. The Beach Watchers provide support to WSU Extension programs and to partner organizations such as the North Olympic Salmon Coalition, the Jefferson County Marine Resources Committee, the Port Townsend Marine Science Center, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Jefferson County and the Jefferson County Conservation District.

The Beach Watcher class has been offered annually by Jefferson County Extension since the late 1980’s. For more information please contact Darcy McNamara, Jefferson County Beach Watcher Program at darcym@jefferson.wsu.edu or call 360/379-5610 x230.

About the Beach Watcher Program

The WSU Beach Watcher program is established in eight counties in Washington and combines the best available science with local experts, field experiences and research. The goal is to provide a foundational education on water and water quality issues, and to support trained volunteers as they volunteer in the areas of education, research and stewardship.

2011 Beach Watcher Graduates

Jefferson County focuses on public outreach, customer service

2011-02-24T01:30:00.000-08:00

Planners Michelle McConnell, left, and Shannon Glass discuss Glass’ plans for the Watershed Stewardship Resource Center, which is scheduled to open this spring. -- Photo by Charlie Bermant/Peninsula Daily News

By Charlie Bermant
Peninsula Daily News

PORT TOWNSEND — The Jefferson County Department of Community Development aims to improve its customer service with the creation of a new resource center and the addition of a grant-funded staffer to help the public navigate myriad regulations.

“Our focus is on public outreach,” said Al Scalf, DCD director.

“We want to use an innovative concept of coaching the public about their particular land-use issues.”

Sometime this spring, the department will open a Watershed Stewardship Resource Center, which will operate out of its office at 621 Sheridan St., Port Townsend.

The project, which will take the place of the “planner of the day” program, is funded by a three-year grant from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

The grant will pay the $40,000 annual salary for planner Shannon Glass, whose job it will be to inform applicants about how a specific land-use project will impact the ecosystem.

“This will be a place where you can come in and someone will work with you who knows all the requirements for an effective stormwater system and can be used as a resource,” Scalf said.

Landscape architecture

Glass, who recently graduated from the University of Washington with a degree in landscape architecture, was one of 19 applicants for the position. She started work earlier this month.

Glass said landscape architecture is rooted in land-use issues and sustainable practices.

“Landscape architecture addresses interpretations of environmental regulations and how to solve problems in creative ways that satisfy users’ needs,” Glass said.

Scalf said that Glass’ background will be useful.

“When you are determining land use, you need to use design techniques to determine how different aspects like water, septic [work] and start laying them out in terms of the constraints brought about by critical areas,” he said.

Scalf hopes Glass will help to change the perception that planning issues are difficult to understand.

“We’re trying to change the face of DCD,” Scalf said.

“We want to develop a friendlier, resource-oriented place where you can come and get information and someone will work with you who knows multiple requirements and coach you.”

Glass is available now to offer some customer assistance. The date of the opening of the resource center will be announced later.

Glass can be reached at sglass@co.jefferson.wa.us or 360-379-4450.

Valuing the Puget Sound Basin

2011-02-22T20:58:00.000-08:00

Report below:

Valuing the Puget Sound Basin

WRIA 17 Informational Booklet

2011-01-10T16:09:00.000-08:00

Click on each page image to open a larger format for reading.

To access the booklet in pdf form, CLICK HERE.

Water Law Resource Links and Documents

2011-01-06T11:38:00.000-08:00

Check out the documents and website links below for more in-depth information related to Water Law in Jefferson County and Washington State

Documents

The Jefferson County Surface Water Management Plan describes the County’s surface water resources, current and future surface water demands, and a plan to manage these resources.

This plan fulfills a key recommendation of the County’s 1998 Comprehensive Plan for natural resource management. For the complete pdf collection, Click Here

Critical Areas Ordinance: Resources
Click on links below for detailed CAO information

Jefferson County, WA: Critical Areas Page

State of Washington, Dept. of Community Trade and Economic Development: Critical Areas and Best Available Science (BAS)

Municipal Research and Services Center of Washington:
Critical Areas

CLICK HERE for the 2007 Hood Canal Summer Chum ESU PDF Report.

CLICK HERE for an in-depth PDF list of Frequently Asked Questions and answers generated by the Jefferson County Department of Community Development.

June 2007, Port Townsend Leader, Property owners organize to promote stewardship over critical areas regulation. CLICK HERE

An Introduction to Washington Water Law Click Here

Primary Statutes and Legal Basis Relating to Instream Flows Click Here

Instream Flow Study Methods Used in Washington Click Here

CAO Community Comments-Quilcene/Snow 2007

Additional Links

Stream Flow Network with gages in WRIA 17 Click Here

Instream Flows in Washington Click Here

Watershed Management Plan - Quilcene-Snow Water Resource Inventory Area (WRIA 17) Click Here

Progress on Watershed Planning and Setting Instream Flows Click Here

Washington Water Laws - A Primer Click Here
Setting Instream Flows in Washington State Click Here

Finding water to restore streams: Introducing Washington's Water Acquisition Program Click Here

Ground Water System in the Chimacum Creek Basin… Click Here

WRIA 17 Project Documents and Meeting Summaries Click Here

Climate Change Resource

This website site explores the impact of climate change on Washington State. The departments of Ecology and Community Trade and Economic Development recently teamed up to launch a Web portal on climate change and its impact on Washington’s economy, environment and communities.

Information on the site includes the full text of a December 2006 report, “Impacts of Climate Change on Washington’s Economy,” commissioned by the two agencies. Also featured – information on what you, as an individual, can do to help slow climate change. For instance, did you know that one tree will absorb more than a ton of carbon dioxide in its lifetime?

Check out the new site at:

www.ecy.wa.gov/climatechange

Below is a link to a fun, kid-friendly cartoon video about the Earth and how it is up to all of us to protect our neighbors, wildlife, water, etc.

2010-09-26T17:48:00.000-07:00

Oysters a sign of trouble from Puget Sound acidity

2010-08-02T18:31:00.000-07:00

By Craig Welch

Seattle Times environment reporter
DABOB BAY, Hood Canal -

Inside the burbling tubs of the Taylor Shellfish hatchery here, oysters are incubating once again. But no one believes things are really back to normal.

Several years after oyster larvae around the Northwest began dying by the billions, hatcheries like this one are again ramping up production.

But that's just because they've learned to avoid pumping in problem seawater.

Few know better than Northwest oyster growers that ecological upheaval is still rattling their industry and that it may be a sign of greater marine-world shifts to come.

Pacific oysters in the wild on Washington's coast haven't reproduced in six seasons. Scientists suspect ocean-chemistry changes linked to the fossil-fuel emissions that cause global warming are helping kill these juvenile shellfish.

The oceans are becoming more acidic, and that corrosive water is finding its way into Puget Sound.

No one knows how it will impact the Sound's sea life. But scientists in laboratories around the globe increasingly find corrosive water can alter marine systems in strange, subtle and sometimes worrisome ways.

Waters with a mildly lower pH can change the metabolism of squid, making them more lethargic. The increase in acidity can dramatically alter the shape of sea-urchin larvae. Corrosive waters have been shown to foul up the way some young fish sniff out prey, convincing them it's safe to move directly toward predators. Some young brittle stars and barnacles start dying early in these waters, while larval tunicates, fist-size bloblike sea creatures, thrive and develop faster.

Acidification also can make marine waters noisier, which may have implications for killer whales and other animals that use sonar.

Push to learn more

Researchers are scrambling to expand lab facilities in the San Juan Islands and at NOAA Fisheries in Montlake. They hope to predict the reactions of Northwest creatures from algae and plankton to fish, clams, crab and bacteria.

"What I'm most worried about is the bottom of the food chain," things such as plankton and other small sea creatures, said John Guinotte, a marine biogeographer with the Marine Conservation Biology Institute in Bellevue. "We've got some of the lowest pH levels found anywhere, but we don't have any idea what the biological impacts are."

The marine environment is complex and resilient. New impacts could appear in a few years or decades. In the meantime, it's hard to re-create a world in constant flux, with its shifting currents and warm- and cold-water cycles and acidity levels that shift with photosynthesis and marine-life respiration.

"You can't really try to mimic evolution," said Victoria Fabry, a professor of biological sciences at California State University, San Marcos. "In a sense, the world is in the middle of that experiment right now."

But the oyster industry's misfortune has given science a leg up.

Oysters' fate up to wind?

In their early stages, young oysters look like mud.

In Dabob Bay, Taylor Shellfish hatchery technician Jason Brush pulled some 10 million microscopic larvae from a tank, strained the black goo and packaged them for sale.

The hatchery is having one of its best years, but people here attribute that to luck.

The facility grows oysters in seawater drawn off Dabob's surface. But this year, south breezes have kept corrosive waters down deep, far below where Taylor slurps up its water.

"We basically think we're being saved by the wind," said chief hatchery scientist Benoit Eudeline.

The pH of the world's oceans typically measures a slightly alkaline 8.1. But scientists long have predicted climate change would make waters more corrosive as carbon dioxide taken up by oceans dissolves.

But only in trying to understand why oyster-growing was falling apart did oceanographers figure out what made the West Coast unique: Waters down deep were acidifying more than anyone thought and were coming closer than anyone expected to shore, where most sea creatures live.

Deep, cold water typically carries more carbon dioxide than surface waters, but northwest winds regularly push those waters up along the coast in "upwelling" events. In some cases, that brings water to shore with a pH as low as 7.7, lower than anything scientists expected to see for decades.

"Nobody had thought about those upwelling events," said NOAA oceanographer Richard Feely. "They didn't predict any impacts along the coast until we observed them."

Scientists have linked oyster die-offs to this cold-water upwelling. They knew acidifying waters would attack creatures with shells. While clams and some other species grow protective coatings, the type of shell in juvenile oysters is exceptionally vulnerable to low pH.

But it's not clear if corrosive water is the sole culprit or an accomplice.

"We don't yet know, exactly, which characteristic of this water is affecting shellfish," said Oregon State University professor Chris Langdon.

Regardless, the discovery along the coast was just the beginning. During the past two years, Feely and other researchers found this corrosive water also was pushing through the Strait of Juan de Fuca and into Hood Canal and Puget Sound. There, natural processes compounded this corrosiveness beyond anything researchers had found in the open ocean.

So does the fact that Northwest waters already experience these fluctuations mean creatures here are more adaptable or more vulnerable? Are we better off or worse?

"That's the hit-it-out-of-the-ballpark question we're all trying to answer," said Oregon State University professor George Waldbusser.

Native oysters surviving

For example, while upwelling has been devastating Pacific oysters, an introduced species native to Japan, the native Olympic oyster seems to have done just fine, he said. But it's not clear whether that's because the Olympic oyster has been here longer, because they rear larvae differently, or because of something else entirely.

"The whole story is just much easier to understand in the open ocean as a whole," he said.

Or consider the findings of Australian scientist Phil Munday, who discovered larval clownfish and some damselfish often get lost in corrosive waters and chase after the smell of rock cod, a fish that likes to eat them. Does that research translate to fish in Puget Sound?

"As yet, we do not know whether similar problems might occur in other systems," Munday said.

Scientists also aren't sure how to separate impacts of acidifying waters from other environmental factors.

"Low pH isn't occurring in isolation," said Fabry. "There's also low oxygen and warmer temperatures. It's just not so simple."

The five most-studied seagrass species tend to thrive in corrosive waters, but they may react differently when water temperatures also rise.

And then there are the cascading impacts across species. Fabry studies pteropods, tiny sea snails that make up more than 60 percent of the diet of Alaska's juvenile pink salmon, and a species vulnerable to corrosive waters. What happens to salmon and salmon-dependent fish and seabirds if pteropods get in trouble?

The chests and spines of urchins are made of calcium carbonate, and when biologist Anne Todgham and a colleague raised purple sea urchins in low-pH water, the larvae grew smaller, with less of a skeleton and in different proportions. Urchin larvae float through the water column, so those changes mean they probably move differently, too.

"Normally they look a bit like a rocket ship," she said. "These were stumpier."

It's too soon to say how these notoriously heavy kelp-grazers might fare in a potentially seagrass-rich environment.

Industry tries to cope

In the meantime, hatcheries in Dabob and Oregon's Netarts Bay have installed pH monitors and now seek out noncorrosive water, with great success. But the industry's travails still can be seen in Dabob Bay.

Workers last week trucked tens of thousands of bags of old oyster shells to the bay, where they planned to dump them in shallow water.

Oyster larvae like to swim around and settle on hard surfaces such as old shells, and normally these would get dumped in Willapa Bay for use by young oysters. But larvae oysters still are dying in the wild in Willapa, so Taylor Shellfish workers will try to grow them here.

And they'll be hoping the south winds don't switch direction.

News Advisory – U.S. Water Shortage Crisis/Climate Change – Report to Show Large Share of U.S. Counties Face Water Shortages, Crop Implications

2010-07-20T00:42:00.001-07:00

… July 20, 2010 News Advisory ...

NEW COUNTY-SPECIFIC ANALYSIS TO SHOW SEVERE RISK OF WATER SHORTAGES ACROSS THE U.S. DUE TO CLIMATE CHANGE, INCLUDING WHERE FARMING MOST IN JEOPARDY

Greatest Risks in 14 States: AZ, AR, CA, CO, FL, ID, KS, MI, MT, NE, NV, NM, OK and TX;
County-by-County Analysis to Detail Where Water Shortage Risks Will Be Worst, Crops at Stake.

WASHINGTON, DC, July 16, 2010///Water shortage risks will hit a very large percentage of all U.S. counties by midcentury, according to a major new TetraTech study to be released at 1:30 p.m. EDT/10:30 a.m. PDT on July 20th by Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC).

The county-by-county analysis looks at how water supplies could be jeopardized in the more than 1,000 counties facing water sustainability problems. The analysis will show a 14-times increase in the number of the most severely threatened U.S counties. The extent of U.S. agriculture at risk will be outlined during the news event.

Fourteen states -- Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Florida, Idaho, Kansas, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Texas – will be identified as facing the greatest overall at water-related risks, including limitations on water availability as demand exceeds supply.

News event speakers will be:

* Sujoy Roy, principal engineer and lead author, TetraTech;

* Pete Altman, campaign director, Climate Center, Natural Resources Defense Council; and

* Additional experts (to be announced Monday).

TO PARTICIPATE: You can join this live, phone-based news conference (with full, two-way Q&A) at 1:30 p.m. EDT/10:30 a.m. PDT on July 20, 2010 by dialing 1 (800) 860-2442. Ask for the “Water Shortage Crisis” news event.

CAN’T PARTICIPATE?: A streaming audio replay of the news event will be available on the Web at http://www.nrdc.org. as of 6 p.m. EDT/3 p.m. PDT on July 20, 2010.

CONTACT: Leslie Anderson, (703) 276-3256 or landerson@hastingsgroup.com.

ABOUT NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL

The Natural Resources Defense Council is a national nonprofit organization with more than 1.3 million members and online activists. Since 1970, our lawyers, scientists, and other environmental specialists have worked to protect the world’s natural resources, public health, and the environment. NRDC has offices in New York City, Washington, D.C., Los Angeles, San Francisco, Chicago, Livingston, MT, and Beijing. Visit NRDC on the Web at http://www.nrdc.org.

ABOUT TETRA TECH

Tetra Tech, Inc. was founded in 1966 to provide engineering services related to waterways, harbors and coastal areas. Over the past 40 years, the Company has substantially increased the size and scope of its business and expanded its service offerings through a series of strategic acquisitions and internal growth. Tetra Tech now provides environmental services, water/wastewater management, infrastructure services, security design, and outsourced technical services. From the beginning, Tetra Tech has attracted the best and brightest minds in science and engineering, and has always focused on bringing innovative solutions to our clients’ most complex needs. Today, Tetra Tech has approximately 10,000 employees located in more than 280 offices worldwide.

Researchers Ponder Missing Water Layer in Hood Canal

2010-06-30T13:23:00.000-07:00

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.

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.

It is too early to predict the likelihood of a major fish kill, such as the one that decimated thousands of fish in the fall of 2006, Newton said, but the lack of oxygen at depth leaves the canal with little breathing room going through summer and into fall.

Our Troubled Sound: Spawning coho are dying early in restored creeks

2009-12-14T13:53:00.000-08:00

Thursday, February 6, 2010

By LISA STIFFLER AND ROBERT McCLURE
SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER REPORTERS

City officials have forked out millions of dollars and volunteers have donated countless hours to lovingly restore Seattle-area creeks. But a groundbreaking study suggests that water in many urban streams runs dirty enough to quickly kill coho salmon -- most before they can spawn.

The culprit appears to be the stormwater gurgling off streets, parking lots and roofs, carrying with it oil, grease, pesticides and other pollutants, say federal scientists who conducted the study.

Learn more at: http://www.seattlepi.com/local/107460_coho06.shtml

Feds order Seattle, King County to improve sewers, reduce overflows

2009-08-27T08:50:00.001-07:00

Wednesday, August 26, 2009

By SCOTT SUNDE
SEATTLEPI.COM

Seattle and King County will have to come up with ways to reduce dumping sewage into lakes, rivers and Puget Sound during heavy rain storms, the Environmental Protection Agency announced Wednesday.

The EPA reached the agreements with the two local governments as part of compliance orders issued Wednesday. The orders address violations of Seattle and King County of their discharge permits.

Every year 1.94 billion gallons of untreated sewage and polluted runoff from Seattle and King County are discharged into the sound and other bodies of water as a result of overflows.

"We know that sewer overflows regularly deliver harmful pollution to Puget Sound," Michelle Pizadeh, the EPA's acting administrator said in a statement. "What we are requiring the city and county is clear: They must take steps to reduce the volume and frequency of overflows. We must make sure our treatment plants are doing their best to reduce the amount of untreated wastewater entering Puget Sound waters."

Both local governments have combined sewers that carry sewage and storm water to treatment plants. A heavy rain can dump more water than the system can handle. The extra water is piped or pumped into area bodies of water. It has little or no treatment.

The city has 92 overflow locations and King County has 38. These sites dump untreated water during heavy rains into Lake Union, Lake Washington, the Duwamish River and Puget Sound.

The EPA says Seattle's system overflowed 247 times in 2007 and King County's 87 times.

The federal agency said the local governments already have added storage to reduce overflows.

In addition, the EPA has ordered Seattle to focus on violations found in March 2008 investigation. The city has to come up with an emergency response plan, a plan to ensure the collection system is cleaned in a more systematic way and a plan to create more storage.

Seattle will also have to find ways to reduce basement backups and dry weather overflows. The city has to be in compliance with the order by March 2012.

King County will have improve the Elliott West plant, which handles combined sewage overflows, to make sure they are properly treated. It must also observe and document outfalls after a rain to make sure debris aren't being discharged.

The county must be in compliance by March 2010.

Google Earth Fills Its Watery Gaps

2009-02-03T10:19:00.000-08:00

The New York Times

February 3, 2009
Google Earth Fills Its Watery Gaps
By ANDREW C. REVKIN

Two and a half years ago, the software engineers behind Google Earth, the searchable online replica of the planet, were poised to fill an enormous data gap, adding the two-thirds of the globe that is covered by water in reality and was blue, and blank, online.

But until then all of the existing features on Google Earth — mountains, valleys, cities, plains, ice sheets — were built through programming from an elevation of zero up.

“We had this arbitrary distinction that if it was below sea level it didn’t count,” recalled John Hanke, the Internet entrepreneur who co-created the progenitor of Google Earth, called Keyhole, and moved to Google when the company bought his company in 2004.

That oversight had to be fixed before the months and months of new programming and data collection could culminate in the creation of simulated oceans. On Monday, the ocean images will undergo the most significant of several upgrades to Google Earth, with the new version downloadable free at earth.google.com, according to the company.

Another feature, Historical Imagery, provides the ability to scroll back through decades of satellite images and watch the spread of suburbia or erosion of coasts.

Click a function called Touring and you can create narrated, illustrated tours, on land or above and below the sea surface, describing and showing things like a hike or scuba excursion, or even a research cruise on a deep-diving submarine.

The two-year push to fill in the giant blue blanks came through a chance encounter in March 2006. Mr. Hanke was poised to receive an award from the Geographical Society of Spain for his pioneering work building Web-based models of the planet.

But he was preceded at the dais by Sylvia Earle, a former chief scientist at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration who was there to receive her own award for deep-sea exploration and popularizing ocean science.

She turned to him and said she loved the way Google Earth allowed users to see how one thing relates to another on the planet. But Dr. Earle bluntly added: “You’ve done a great job with the dirt. But what about the water?”

Since that time, Dr. Earle and Mr. Hanke have been partners in the long effort, as she explained, “to make sure the mountains don’t end at the beach.”

She assembled an advisory panel including Jane Lubchenco, the Oregon State University marine biologist since chosen by President Obama to head the oceanic and atmospheric agency.

“I’ve been struggling my whole life to figure out how to reach people and get them to understand they’re connected to the ocean,” Dr. Earle said.

“But I go to the supermarket and still see the United Nations of fish for sale,” she said. “Marine sanctuaries are still not really protected. Google Earth gets all this information now and puts it in one place for the littlest kid and the stuffiest grownup to see in a way that hasn’t been possible in all preceding history.”

By choosing among 20 buttons holding archives of information, called “layers” by Google, a visitor can read logs of oceanographic expeditions, see old film clips from the heyday of Jacques-Yves Cousteau and check daily Navy maps of sea temperatures.

The replicated seas have detailed topography reflecting what is known about the abyss and continental shelves — and rougher areas where little is known.

With only 5 percent of the ocean floor mapped in detail, and 1 percent of the oceans protected, Google executives and the marine scientists who helped build the digital oceans said they hoped the result would inspire the public to support more marine exploration and conservation.

During a recent test drive of the new features at Google’s San Francisco office, I swooped in over Hawaii and dived beneath the undulating wave-dappled surface of the Pacific to explore canyons, reefs and other features that are now charted precisely everywhere that government data exist.

I also revisited Greenland, the North Pole and Alaska’s North Slope. And, in less than a minute using the Touring feature, I created a rough narrated travelogue retracing reporting assignments in the Arctic, dropping in YouTube videos for any visitor to view on location.

By hovering over Galveston, Tex., clicking on a pointer and sliding it forward along a bar reflecting years of data, I was able to watch seaside communities expand and then abruptly wash away after Hurricane Ike.

The feature powerfully conveys the increasing interplay of humans and the environment, for better and worse, as populations grow and spread.

The addition of the oceans posed many technical hurdles, not the least being the aligning of disparate data sets so water meets land in precisely the right places, Google engineers said.

Other snags will almost certainly pop up as millions of users scour the new terrain.

But many of the ocean scientists who quietly worked with Google over the last two years to pull together vast data sets are elated at the prospect of the seas’ getting new visibility, and respect.

“It’s a way of raising awareness from thousands to billions overnight,” said Richard W. Spinrad, the N.O.A.A. assistant administrator for research, who served on an advisory panel.

Barbara Block, a Stanford University biologist whose tagging projects have helped clarify the hidden lives of bluefin tuna, great white sharks and other depleted species, said the blue side of Google Earth could also increase public support for marine conservation.

“We cannot as a community conserve what we cannot see,” Dr. Block said. “We’ve worked with the Monterey Bay Aquarium for years to put giant bluefin and white sharks on display, and if we’re lucky two million people a year come and see the animals and discover their color, beauty of motion and form. With the Google oceans feature, we potentially can reach hundreds of millions.” And, said Peter Birch, product manager for Google Earth, the presumption is that wherever lots of eyeballs and mouse clicks land, there is sure to be advertising revenue. In the three years since its public unveiling in 2005, Google Earth has become a mainstay of students, travelers, businesses and researchers seeking a one-stop place for posting or finding information about the world — on topics as diverse as hotels and hiking trails, species’ ranges and climate data.

In that time, the software package has been downloaded on half a billion computers. Visitors spend one million hours a day perusing Google Earth and the related Google Maps.

Some commercial Web sites, including shipwreckcentral.com and wannasurf.com, have already been actively promoting ocean activities and will now enable divers or surfers to add their own narrated, illustrated “tours” of favorite reefs or beaches to Google Earth’s layers.

Organizations seeking to reconnect people directly with nature expressed guarded optimism when the new features of Google Earth were described.

“Electronic images can boost awareness and sometimes even inspire, but there’s no substitute for direct experience in nature,” said Cheryl Charles, the president of Children and Nature Network, which seeks to end what it calls “nature deficit disorder” in modern plugged-in society. “Hopefully those exploring Google’s virtual oceans, especially children, can still find the time to get wet, as well.”

Important Eastern Washington Aquifer Continues To Dwindle

2009-02-03T09:58:00.000-08:00

BY ANNA KING Richland, WA February 2, 2009 4:27 p.m.In Eastern Washington, water is everything. It makes cities, crops and industry grow. But now a new study finds Eastern Washington cities and farmers are running out of water – fast. The report says that large underground aquifers are not being recharged enough to sustain business as usual. Correspondent Anna King reports.

A ground water management agency in Othello, Washington did the study. It determined that farmers and cities in four surrounding counties are currently drawing on water left over from the Ice Age floods some 10,000 years ago.And those waters aren’t being recharged because it’s beneath an impermeable layer of basalt rock. Study-director Paul Stoker says the situation is sobering but not unique in the West.Paul Stoker: “Many of the Basins in the Western United States at the current rates have between five and twenty years of water before they run out – just allowing people to pump until they run out isn’t a solution.”Stoker says there are no magic fixes. One option he can think of is filling dried up lakes and streams. That allows water to drain down into the aquifers. The water agency has requested another state grant to look for more possible solutions.

Original Article Source

‘Our last, best chance’ to save Puget Sound

2008-07-02T15:48:00.001-07:00

Published February 18, 2008
John Dodge
The Olympian

All eyes are on the Puget Sound Partnership, the new state agency viewed by many as the last chance for saving Puget Sound.

• Part 1: Toxic runoff silent killer
Click here to find out more!

Formed by the 2007 Legislature, the partnership grew out of Gov. Chris Gregoire's call in December 2005 for action to cure what ails Puget Sound by 2020.

The challenge is a daunting one. The tasks include:

• Bringing about 40 threatened species — from the mighty orca to the iconic chinook salmon — back from the brink of extinction by restoring water quality and habitat.

• Convincing the public that a healthy Puget Sound is vital to a healthy Puget Sound basin economy.

• Revamping land use patterns and transportation to curb stormwater runoff from the 4 million people already living in the region, and the 1.4 million headed here in the next 15 years.

• Sustaining the cleanup and protection effort with dedicated funding measured in the billions of dollars.

"This is our last, best chance for saving Puget Sound," predicted Kathy Fletcher, executive director of the conservation group People for Puget Sound. "We need to stop destroying habitat and face up to the pollution problems, or it's all just talk."

Fletcher is no stranger to the challenge. She served as the executive director of the Puget Sound Water Quality Authority, the first state agency, formed in 1985, to tackle Puget Sound pollution problems. Several years later, it was gutted by partisan politics and big business and replaced with the Puget Sound Action Team, which offered advice to state agencies and little else.

Now comes the partnership, led by such regional movers and shakers as Bill Ruckelshaus, a prominent Republican and first director of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and Billy Frank Jr., the Nisqually tribal member and revered Native American leader who speaks for the salmon. "This is our best chance to save Puget Sound," Ruckelshaus said. "But we won't be successful unless everybody who lives in the Puget Sound region sees it as their special place."

Ruckelshaus and Frank belong to the seven-member Leadership Council, which oversees the work of the Puget Sound Partnership. Picked by Gregoire as executive director of the Puget Sound Partnership is David Dicks, 36, an environmental attorney and son of U.S. Congressman Norm Dicks, D-Wash.
Click here to find out more!

Dicks and his team of about two dozen state employees have until September 2008 to craft a cleanup action plan that spells out the roles of the federal, state and local governments, tribes, watershed groups, business and everyday citizens in pulling Puget Sound back from the ragged edge of ecological disaster.

At the same time, he and others must build public support for long-term funding for a project that starts with a price tag of about $12 billion.

"I'm hoping David is the right person," said Bill Dewey, a Taylor Shellfish official and one of two business representatives on the partnership's 27-member Ecosystem Coordination Board, which is an advisory group. "He's got a lot on his plate."

How this time is different

So how does the Puget Sound Partnership differ from the past two state agencies that tried, but failed, to help Puget Sound recover?

• The partnership has a larger scope of work, everything from salmon recovery to balancing water supplies for people and wildlife.

• While not a regulatory agency, the partnership does have authority to push the Puget Sound cleanup by assigning tasks, setting goals and holding the public sector accountable through the likes of report cards and recommendations to withhold state grant money, if public agencies don't perform.

Dicks likens the role of the partnership to the U.S. Government Accountability Office, the investigative arm of Congress.

"Not having regulatory authority is a huge blessing for us," Dicks said. "It allows us to stand above it all with a broader mission."

Environmental groups had pushed for a partnership armed with more enforcement clout when it was formed by the Legislature in 2007, but lost that political battle.

• The work of the partnership will be guided by a nine-member science panel, which is supposed to make sure science, not politics, drives what are bound to be tough decisions.

"I see us as sort of the conscience of the action plan to ensure it is credible and held to a high standard," said Tim Quinn, a science panel member and chief scientist in the state Department of Fish and Wildlife habitat program.

Ideas on how best to raise new money for Puget Sound cleanup efforts probably won't be on the table for political and public debate for another year or two, Ruckelshaus said.

"We still need to build public support for Puget Sound before making the case for funding," Ruckelshaus said.

Fletcher, who represents environmental interests on the Ecosystem Coordination Board, said the success or failure by the partnership will depend in large part on its ability to engineer changes in the way the region regulates land use and pollution.

"The biggest risk is that the partnership will fall victim to all the vested interests that benefit from the status quo," she said.

Pesticide Brew Spells Trouble for Salmon

2008-07-02T15:47:00.003-07:00

By Erik Stokstad

ScienceNOW Daily News
16 February 2008

Salmon in the U.S. Pacific Northwest, and elsewhere, have been in a world of hurt for decades. One of their main enemies is agricultural chemicals, such as chlorpyrifos. The pesticide interferes with salmon brains and harms their ability to feed, according to studies by zoologist Nathaniel Scholz of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration in Seattle, Washington. Now Scholz's research is showing that mixtures of pesticides are even worse for salmon and can be surprisingly lethal.

Chlorpyrifos and other so-called organophosphate pesticides kill cells by inhibiting acetylcholinesterase, an enzyme that helps neurons communicate. These pesticides are sprayed on crops and are widespread in streams in the Northwest; half of the waters sampled by the U.S. Geological Survey contain six or more pesticides. In their previous work with salmon, Scholz and his colleagues had only looked at the effects of one pesticide. To get a more realistic idea of exposure, they designed lab experiments to test effects of mixtures of chlorpyrifos and four other pesticides, exposing juvenile salmon to two compounds at a time.

At the highest concentrations, which exceeded natural conditions, all the various combinations of pesticides inhibited the activity of acetylcholinesterase by at least 50%--a level which impacts behavior. The two lower concentrations were more realistic, and at that level, a quarter of the combinations put a crimp on acetylcholinesterase. What's particularly important, Scholz says, is that the total impact was greater than the sum of the two pesticides, demonstrating a synergistic effect.

The biggest surprise was the strength of the synergistic punch from the pesticides diazinon and malathion, which killed all the salmon exposed to them. Even at the lowest concentration, fish were extremely sick, Scholz says. "It was eye-opening," Scholz says. "We're seeing relatively dramatic departures" from what happens with each pesticide by itself.

Scholz says the findings, which are in review for publication, mean that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency may be underestimating the hazard pesticides pose to salmon. Given the hundreds of millions of dollars being spent to help salmon populations recover, it's crucial to have a good handle on the biggest threats, he adds.

"It's quite an advance that they were able to examine this in such detail," says toxicologist Derek Muir of Environment Canada's Aquatic Ecosystem Protection Research Branch in Burlington, Ontario. "It's quite significant work," he says. Because there is a good deal of information about where pesticides are sprayed, Muir continues, it may be possible to estimate the impact on wild populations. But factoring in all the other chemicals in streams will be difficult, he cautions.

Organophosphate toxicity

Toxic runoff — silent killer

2008-07-02T15:47:00.001-07:00

This rainbow of pollution is part of the slow poison that threatens Puget Sound’s future
John Dodge
The Olympian

Every time it rains, pollution pours into Puget Sound.

Once the rain hits the ground, it becomes an instant delivery system for much of the pollution that 4 million people in the Puget Sound basin spread across the landscape — oil and grease on parking lots, driveways and roads, fertilizers and pesticides on lawns, animal waste and even the heavy metals that result from wear and tear on brakes and tires.

The pollution pathway is called stormwater runoff — the No. 1 pollution problem in urban Puget Sound.

"In the face of population growth and development, stormwater may be the biggest challenge we face in the effort to clean up and protect Puget Sound," state Department of Ecology director Jay Manning said.

Here are some of the reasons stormwater is so devastating:

• A recent Ecology estimate of toxic chemical loading confirmed that runoff sends more pollution into Puget Sound than any other pathway. It delivers 22,580 metric tons of oil and petroleum each year — a slow-moving oil spill more than 20 times the volume of direct oil spills entering the Sound.

• About one-third of the state's water bodies that don't meet federal Clean Water Act standards have storm-water to blame.

• The ability of stormwater to flush pet, livestock and wild animal wastes into rivers, streams and Puget Sound is a key reason tidelands approved for commercial shellfish harvests dropped by 20 percent between 1980 and 2004.

• Marine sediments near stormwater discharge pipes in urban bays are among the most polluted in Puget Sound. Look no farther than lower Budd Inlet and the high dioxin levels near the Port of Olympia marine terminal.

• Stormwater, especially after a heavy rain, erodes stream banks, dumps sediment in the water and scours gravel from the streams — all obstacles to the recovery of salmon and the 40 other imperiled species living precariously in Puget Sound.

High intensity storms, such as the one experienced in Western Washington in December, create stormwater runoff that overwhelms regional sewage treatment plants, sending untreated human waste into Puget Sound. Here in South Sound, stormwater rushing through the LOTT Alliance sewage plant pushed 10 million gallons of untreated wastewater into Budd Inlet.

It all spells trouble for the marine web of life, and humans, too. Salmon exposed to heavy metals and toxins have trouble reproducing or fending off predators. The toxins accumulate in their bodies, placing humans at risk when they eat contaminated fish and shellfish. "We need to address stormwater pollution, if we are to have any hope of restoring the Puget Sound ecosystem," said Bruce Wishart, policy director for the conservation group People for Puget Sound.

Messing with Mother Nature

The best tool for preventing stormwater pollution is Mother Nature. Undeveloped land, particularly forested property, soaks up most of the rainfall that lands on it each year in Western Washington. Cut down the trees, scrape away the vegetation, then add rooftops, parking lots and driveways and the stormwater problems mount.

"Once you've cleared the site, you've lost the battle," said Tom Holz, an Olympia-area stormwater engineer. "It's very unlikely we will meet Gov. Chris Gregoire's goal of a clean, healthy Puget Sound without some radical changes in land use."

Most new development in the Puget Sound region is required to capture stormwater on site, then either treat and infiltrate it back into the ground, or release it slowly off-site. But that practice has been in vogue only since the mid-1980s.

Less than 10 percent of urban Thurston County was served by stormwater retention or detention ponds 25 years ago, said Andy Haub, city of Olympia stormwater engineering supervisor.

But collecting stormwater in ponds to settle out pollutants that bind to solids or to allow the water to seep back into the groundwater are stopgap measures, Holz and 13 other engineers and biologists said in an Oct. 26, 2006, letter to the Puget Sound Partnership

Ecology's own 2005 stormwater manual, which prescribes how stormwater should be controlled, states: ... "land development as practiced today is incompatible with the achievement of sustainable ecosystems."

While new stormwater management techniques are debated and litigated, older developments just send the stormwater they generate to the nearest ditch or stream.

"Older developments and neighborhoods are sitting out there like a bleeding sore," Holz said.

No one has estimated what it would cost to retrofit older developments for some semblance of stormwater control. Just replacing a stormwater pipe serving the Tanglewilde development near Lacey — the pipe discharges into Woodland Creek and eventually Henderson Inlet — with grass-lined ditches to soak up the water would cost an estimated $750,000.

The stormwater from Tanglewilde is a major contributor of bacteria and nitrogen to lower Henderson Inlet, a public and environmental health problem that makes shellfish unfit to eat and contributes to oxygen-robbing algal blooms in the marine waters of South Sound. There are hundreds of Tanglewildes from Bellingham to Olympia, waiting to be fixed.

Remedies costly

The state highway system is another major source of stormwater runoff. Only about 12 percent of the state highway mileage in Clark, Pierce, King and Snohomish counties is equipped with some type of stormwater treatment, said Megan White, environmental services director for the state Department of Transportation.

While the cost to remedy stormwater runoff is astronomical, so is the cost of doing nothing, according to a 2006 study by the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering at the University of Washington.

The damage and economic costs of stormwater runoff in the Puget Sound region in the next decade will total at least $1 billion, the report estimated. This includes degraded water quality, landslides, flooding, shellfish harvest closures and habitat losses and repairs.

"We can't keep stripping land bare and then paving it over," Wishart said.

"We need to do land-use planning in a different way that takes into account water quality."

Rey expresses regret: Ag chief says Forest Service ‘dropped ball' on retardant

2008-07-02T15:46:00.001-07:00

By JOHN CRAMER of the Missoulian

Faced with possible jail time, U.S. Agriculture Undersecretary Mark Rey apologized Tuesday to a federal judge in Missoula for the Forest Service's delays in evaluating how wildfire retardant affects the environment.

But Rey, the Bush administration's top forest official, insisted the agency has complied with the National Environmental Policy Act and the Endangered Species Act.

Click here to read the entire article.

Environmental Heroes

2008-07-02T15:45:00.002-07:00

March 19, 2008

WSU Beach Watchers Named "Environmental Heroes"

Salmon recovery efforts in the Whidbey Basin of northwestern Washington are more strategic thanks to a team led by two Washington State University Extension Beach Watchers who have been named “Environmental Heroes” by the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration for their efforts.

NOAA annually distributes just 10 “Environmental Hero Awards” throughout the United States. This year, two of those go to Beach Watcher volunteers Bob Buck of Langley and Jim Somers of Oak Harbor. They are part of a team that monitors how juvenile salmon use pocket estuaries in the Whidbey Basin; the data they collect helps county planners develop salmon recovery strategies.

“This national award recognizes something we’ve known all along – WSU Extension Beach Watchers are the environmental heroes of the Puget Sound area,” said Linda Kirk Fox, associate vice president and dean of WSU Extension. “The science-based training these volunteers receive makes them invaluable partners in preserving the health and well-being of the sound and surrounding water systems.”

Don Meehan, director of WSU Extension in Island County and founder of the Beach Watcher program in Washington, agreed. “Bob and Jim represent the high caliber of individuals in the WSU Beach Watcher program. This work their team is doing is fundamental to communities valuing Puget Sound and protecting its natural resources,” he said.

Meehan also credited the Island County Marine Resources Committee, a partner that provided funding for equipment used in the project. “They are key supporters of this work and the Beach Watcher program in general.”

Buck and Somers emphasized that every person of their 12-member team should be considered an environmental hero. “It really is a team award,” Buck said. “Even though we’ve been singled out, it is a team effort. We couldn’t do it on our own.”

Buck and Somers are among more than 688 Beach Watcher volunteers working in all of the northern Puget Sound counties. Professionally trained, these volunteers work to provide marine science, stewardship and education throughout the Puget Sound region.

U.S. halts commercial salmon season

2008-07-02T15:45:00.001-07:00

Regulators are trying to protect slumping chinook population off California and Oregon.

By Eric Bailey, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
April 11, 2008

EUREKA, CALIF. -- -- Instead of preparing to hit the Pacific's wind-tossed waters next month, veteran fisherman Dave Bitts sat at the counter of a dockside restaurant on Humboldt Bay recently, mulling fate and a cloudy future.

For the first time since the birth of the West Coast fishing industry 150 years ago, Bitts and other fishermen face a season without salmon.

Federal regulators, worried about sagging runs up and down the coast, agreed Thursday to cancel this year's commercial and recreational catch of chinook -- the prized king salmon of the fish market -- off California and Oregon.

Click here for entire article.

Chum Tales

2008-07-02T15:44:00.000-07:00

The story of the Wild Olympic Salmon and North Olympic Salmon Coalition volunteers re-introducing summer chum salmon to Chimacum Creek using the nearby Salmon Creek stock, 1992-2004. Located in Jefferson Co. WA, northeast corner of the Olympic Peninsula.

Scientists fear 'tipping point' in Pacific Ocean

2008-07-02T15:43:00.002-07:00

(Click on title above to access original article and video)

Coast has seen deadly drop-off in oxygen levels for sea life

By ROBERT McCLURE
P-I REPORTER

Where scientists previously found a sea bottom abounding with life, two years ago they discovered the rotting carcasses of crabs, starfish and sea worms, swooshing from side to side in the current. Most fish had fled -- and those that didn't or couldn't joined the deathfest on the sea floor.

Extraordinarily low oxygen levels were to blame -- swept up from the deep ocean into normally productive waters just off the Pacific Northwest coast by uncharacteristically strong winds.

On Thursday scientists announced they had documented that low oxygen levels that killed the sea life in 2006 were the lowest in a half-century -- and that for the first time, parts of the ocean off our coast were measured with zero oxygen in the water; 2007 looked only a bit better.

Strong winds and low oxygen levels have persisted for eight summers now, leading scientists to conclude that the ocean may be "poised for significant reorganization"-- their way of saying an ecosystem gone awry.

It looks like the Pacific has reached a "tipping point," a threshold where low-oxygen levels are becoming the rule, researchers said. And while scientists can't prove it's caused by a changing climate, that's consistent with what is predicted by computer projections built to anticipate global warming.

"The real thing in the back of our minds is: Is this the first signs of what global warming might be like?" said Bill Peterson, a federal scientist and co-author of the research published in the journal Science. But because it's not conclusive proof, he said, "We tried not to go there too much."

Whatever the cause, it's worrisome, researchers said, because shallow, productive ocean areas like those off the Northwest coast occupy just 1 percent of the globe's oceans -- yet produce 20 percent of the fish we eat.

"People keep asking us, 'Is this situation really all that different or not?' " said Jane Lubchenco, a co-author and prominent ocean researcher, in a news release about the research.

"Now we have the answer to that question, and it's an unequivocal 'yes.' The low oxygen levels we've measured in the last six years are abnormally low for our system. We haven't seen conditions like this in many, many decades."

Only once during the past seven years did the strong northerly winds of spring and summer go away -- and that time, in spring and early summer of 2005, the pendulum swung wildly the other way, with little wind at all until partway through summer.

That set off a chain of events that scientists concluded were responsible for a startlingly widespread wave of seabird deaths -- from the Farallon Islands off San Francisco to Vancouver Island.

After that, researchers from Oregon State University, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife looked intensely at waters off the Oregon coast for the research announced Thursday. And the same thing is happening off Washington's coast.

Mary Sue Brancato and her colleagues first noticed it on a visit to the coast in 2000 or 2001.

"We were out there for another (research) project and we were like, 'What is it with these thousands of dead crabs?' " said Brancato, a marine biologist who works at the Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary.

Those were Dungeness crabs. Later other species were affected, Brancato said, leading scientists to surmise it was some widespread cause. By 2004 they were taking measurements to document low levels of dissolved oxygen, the kind of oxygen sea creatures can use.

By the time the biggest oxygen drop-off happened in 2006, it lasted for two weeks and researchers noted species of rockfish, eels and crabs normally found in deep water were along the coast instead, she said.

"It could be climate change, but we don't have definitive proof of that," Brancato said

She said the findings mirror a Canadian study that has been going on for 50 years that also detected declining dissolved oxygen levels.

Brancato was not on the team of researchers whose work is being published this week.

Those researchers had realized for years that they were seeing "really low" oxygen levels, said lead author Francis Chan.

"But the key is, what is the norm?" Chan said.

To ascertain that, Chan conducted a painstaking search for recordings of oxygen off the Northwest coast. He was able to find reliable records extending back into the 1950s.

"Now we know exactly what the norm looks like and we see that the kinds of values we've gotten (in 2000-2006) are really unprecedented for our system," Chan said.

Oxygen levels in the spring and summer of 2007 also were depressed, but not as much as 2006.

The way the strong spring and summer winds reduce oxygen levels is complex. When these winds blow from the north as the Earth is turning toward the east, the water in the shallows along the coast is forced farther out to sea.

This allows water from deeper in the ocean -- colder water with little oxygen but lots of nutrients -- to seep up near the coast. It's filled with nutrients because it contains dead plankton, fish excrement and more.

Once in the shallow water, these nutrients feed an explosion of one-celled plants. They die, falling to the bottom -- only to fuel a massive buildup in bacteria that gobble up the oxygen while they eat the dead microscopic plants.

It's possible that such low-oxygen periods occurred before reliable measurements were made starting in the '50s, Chan said. But 50 years is enough time to have covered many oscillations between the El Ni�o and La Ni�a phases of ocean activity.

"If this was because of El Ni�o or La Ni�a cycles, we should have seen it in the past," Chan said.

Researchers would like to find out now how much oxygen levels have varied over the course of tens of thousands of years around here. But already, Chan said, "if we look at the deeper past, it gives us an idea that changes in climate do lead to changes in the intensity of low-oxygen zones.

"Oxygen is such a basic, critical (need) for the ecological processes for marine life that changing that number in a rapid and dramatic way, is likely to have some big ecological consequences," Chan said.

P-I reporter Robert McClure can be reached at 206-448-8092 or robertmcclure@seattlepi.com. Read his blog on the environment at datelineearth.com.

Jadyne Reichner: Native Plants Workshop

2008-07-02T15:43:00.001-07:00

Jadyne Reichner, Water/Beach Watchers coordinator with WSU Jefferson County Extension, welcomes participants to the Native Plants Workshop held on January 30, 2008.

Rebecca Benjamin: Native Plants Workshop

2008-07-02T15:42:00.002-07:00

Rebecca Benjamin of the North Olympic Salmon Coalition, presents at the Native Plants Workshop held on January 30, 2008 at the WSU Jefferson County Extension, WA.

Fred Weinman: Native Plants Workshop

2008-07-02T15:42:00.001-07:00

Fred Weinman from the Washington Native Plant Society presents information related to the identification and benefits of native plants.

Culverts add obstacles to salmon, state, politics

2008-07-02T15:41:00.000-07:00

By Lynda V. Mapes

Seattle Times staff reporter

NEAR KENDALL, Whatcom County — It doesn't seem like much, this no-name pipe, sluicing water into an unnamed stream that ripples its way to Bear Slough in the North Fork of the Nooksack River.

But small things can make big problems for salmon. This culvert was placed too high above the stream bed. It's a target no salmon can hit in its journey home to spawn. This pipe, and thousands like it, is as impermeable a barrier to upstream spawning grounds as the thickest, tallest dam.

More than 1,676 culverts from Neah Bay to Walla Walla block more than 2,377 miles of potential salmon habitat. And those are just the culverts owned by the state Department of Transportation. Pipes owned and maintained by other state and local agencies add to the problem.

It's been a well-known problem for years. But culverts recently became a big, costly liability for the state.

Last summer, U.S. District Court Judge Ricardo S. Martinez agreed with 20 of the state's Indian tribes that the state has a duty to fix problem culverts because they diminish salmon runs, and that violates the tribes' fishing rights guaranteed by treaties signed in the 19th century.

Martinez didn't offer a specific remedy or set a deadline, and now the ruling creates dilemmas for all sides.

The state says it wants to fix the culverts, but it would cost hundreds of millions of dollars. Tribal leaders say while it may seem like it's just a matter now of getting the other side to pay up, the political realities are far more complicated — and delicate. They want to settle the case, but they don't want to create a potential political liability in an election year for Gov. Christine Gregoire, their ally on expanding tribal gambling, social-service programs and other issues.

"Our objective is to just make sure it doesn't become a political factor," said W. Ron Allen, chairman of the Jamestown S'Klallam Tribe and president of the Washington Indian Gaming Association.

"We won the case, and we are not going to do anything to negate the fact. But we are trying to find a politically viable solution. The governor doesn't want this to turn into a campaign issue."

Built for water, not salmon

Out of sight, out of mind, culverts carry stormwater and streams under roads. Usually, they were built with only one thing in mind: getting water down straight pipes, as cheaply as possible. No one was thinking about getting salmon back up them.

It's not just pipes placed too far above the stream beds that create problems for fish. Culverts all over the state block salmon streams in a number of other ways that require expensive reworking, replacing and restorations. For example, many culverts are too small for the volume of water they carry, creating high-pressure hoses salmon can't navigate.

advertising

When their ancestors signed treaties with the U.S. government, ceding millions of acres of land for white settlement, the Indians expected the deals to guarantee not just their right to go fishing, but to actually catch fish — and in their usual and accustomed areas.

After decades of debate, the tribes collectively sued the state in 2001. That led to months of negotiations that failed before Martinez issued his summary judgment for the tribes.

The ruling is not a final order; that won't come until there is a remedy. And that could take a negotiated settlement, approved by the judge. Or, if the two sides can't reach a settlement, they can fight it out in court. The state would have to then decide whether to live with the judge's final order or appeal.

State Transportation Secretary Paula Hammond has estimated that fixing her department's culverts to help rebuild fish runs will cost taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars. The agency has already set aside $69 million for the next 12 years. That's on top of the $26 million the department has spent fixing culverts since 1991.

Other state agencies, including the Department of Fish and Wildlife and the Department of Natural Resources, which owns the pipe above Bear Slough, also have plenty of problem culverts.

Fixing some culverts would deliver more benefits than others. But the judge's ruling provided no guidance to establish priorities, a budget or a repair schedule. The state and tribes have been working since August to come up with a settlement. The judge set no deadline for resolution, but has required the parties to update him every 60 days.

Any solution would also have to be approved by the Legislature. And state officials and tribal leaders agree that's not going to happen this year, with a short legislative session and a firm warning from Gregoire to lawmakers to hold the budget.

Voters also just rejected an expensive transportation ballot measure. So how much appetite will they have to help salmon get home?

"We've been beaching ferries and closing bridges," said Matt Steuerwalt, an executive policy adviser to Gregoire on the case. "There are a lot of hard infrastructure problems out there, and we have to work on them all."

A solution to the culvert case will have to fit into the larger salmon recovery and transportation picture, Steuerwalt said. "Whatever we do has to make sense on the merits. I don't work for the campaign. I don't think about how this fits into the election. That's not my call."

For now, some tribal leaders say they are taking a long view of the culvert problem.

"You are not going to fix them overnight," said Billy Frank Jr., a Nisqually tribal elder and chairman of the Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission. The culvert case is just one chapter in a long history of tribal efforts to defend treaty fishing rights, he notes. Frank, for one, likes to remind people that amid all the grumbling about the costs of fixing culverts and rebuilding salmon runs, non-Indians enjoy uncountable economic prosperity from the lands the tribes gave up in the treaties so long ago.

In fighting to get the culverts fixed, tribes are simply seeking their part of the bargain, Frank said.

"Our salmon have to come home to us, like they always did," Frank said. "We want everyone to fish. We want this place to be healthy again."

Lynda V. Mapes: 206-464-2736

Copyright © 2008 The Seattle Times Company

Chinook Salmon runs low

2008-07-02T15:40:00.000-07:00

Last updated January 29, 2008 8:07 p.m. PT
California return of chinook hits near-record low
'Unprecedented collapse' could harm NW orcas

P-I STAFF AND NEWS SERVICES

SAN FRANCISCO -- The number of chinook salmon returning to the Central Valley of California reached a near-record low last year, pointing to an "unprecedented collapse" that could trigger severe restrictions on salmon fishing this year, according to federal fisheries regulators.

The bad news Tuesday came hard on the heels of the revelation that orcas known to frequent Puget Sound have shown up in California for the sixth consecutive winter -- probably in search of the very chinook salmon whose numbers are plummeting there.

However, it's unlikely to affect salmon-fishing limits in Washington.

The sharp drop in chinook or king, salmon returning last fall from the Pacific Ocean to spawn in the Sacramento River and its tributaries is part of a broader decline in wild salmon runs up and down the West Coast.

Regulators are still trying to understand the reasons for the shrinking number of spawners; some scientists believe it's related to global warming.

The stark decline of the California chinook was laid out in an internal memo to members of the Pacific Fishery Management Council from the agency's executive director, Donald McIsaac, who said he wanted to give council members "an early alert to what at this point appears to be an unprecedented collapse in the abundance of adult California Central Valley ... fall chinook salmon stocks."

Only about 90,000 adult salmon returned to the Central Valley in 2007, the second-lowest number on record, according to the memo, which was obtained by The Associated Press. That's down from about 277,000 in 2006 and a record high of 804,000 just five years ago.

"The magnitude of the low abundance ... is such that the opening of all marine and freshwater fisheries impacting this important salmon stock will be questioned," McIsaac's memo said.

It is only the second time in 35 years that the Central Valley has not met the agency's conservation goal of 122,000 to 180,000 returning fish.

More worrisome is that only about 2,000 2-year-old juvenile chinooks -- which are used to predict returns of adult spawners in the coming season -- returned to the Central Valley last year, by far the lowest number ever counted. On average, about 40,000 juveniles, or "jacks," return each year.

Council meetings in Sacramento in March and in Seattle in April will set 2008 salmon-fishing limits for California.

Will the plummeting number of California salmon harm the orcas known to frequent Puget Sound that showed up this week off California? Maybe. Studies have shown that when chinook numbers drop, orca deaths go up, said John Ford of Canada's Department of Fisheries and Oceans.

"We showed a very strong correlation over a 25-year period related to coastwide (chinook) abundance," Ford said.

However, that doesn't mean the orcas' winter trip to California will be disastrous, said Ford and Brad Hanson, a scientist with the U.S. National Marine Fisheries Service.

Instead, the killer whales may choose to eat something else that is available there, and then move on in search of chinook farther up the coast or in Puget Sound.
P-I reporter Robert McClure contributed to this report by The Associated Press.

WSU Jefferson County - Water Resources Blog

Water Law Video Presentations

Brinnon

Cape George

Chimacum

Port Ludlow

Port Townsend

Quilcene

Tri-Area

Marrowstone Island

Will this instream flow rule threaten my water rights or private property rights?

Will completion of the instream flow rule make it more difficult to get a water right in the future?

Am I going to be required to meter my water?

Why isn’t Ecology promoting more conservation as a way to meet our area’s future water needs?

Who are the people and agencies involved?

Where do I get a water meter?

What laws govern this process?

What is the legislature doing to clarify water rights statewide?

What are our options?

What am I risking by withdrawing water illegally?

How do I prove that I’m using my water?

I want to farm, how do I get a water right?

How might it effect future growth?

How is water managed now?

How does the instream flow rule effect me?

How do I prove that I’m using my water?

How do I acquire a water right?

From my private well, do I always have rights to 5,000 gallons per day?

Do I need a water right to water an orchard?

Is rainwater use restricted? Do I need a permit to use rainwater?

Can the government seize my water right or otherwise turn it off?

What if I have an exempt well and I need to use more than 5,000 gallons per day during certain times of the year? What are my options?

Can Ecology take my land for its water right?

An Introduction

Glossary of Terms

Residents diving into water courses: Local watershed projects flow to Sound, beyond

Washington Stormwater Center created!

Quilcene Fish Hatchery Celebrates its Centennial!

All You Need to Know About Stormwater Runoff

If you read one stormwater story, make it this one.

We can’t do this work without you!

This Political Earthquake Is Inevitable

Chimacum Basin Aquifer

Stormwater Solutions: Curbing Toxic Runoff

Special Series

Stormwater Legislative Wrap Up

Jefferson County WSU Beach Watchers Graduate!

Jefferson County focuses on public outreach, customer service

Valuing the Puget Sound Basin

WRIA 17 Informational Booklet

Water Law Resource Links and Documents

Oysters a sign of trouble from Puget Sound acidity

News Advisory – U.S. Water Shortage Crisis/Climate Change – Report to Show Large Share of U.S. Counties Face Water Shortages, Crop Implications

Researchers Ponder Missing Water Layer in Hood Canal

Our Troubled Sound: Spawning coho are dying early in restored creeks

Feds order Seattle, King County to improve sewers, reduce overflows

Google Earth Fills Its Watery Gaps

Important Eastern Washington Aquifer Continues To Dwindle

‘Our last, best chance’ to save Puget Sound

Pesticide Brew Spells Trouble for Salmon

By Erik Stokstad

Toxic runoff — silent killer

Rey expresses regret: Ag chief says Forest Service ‘dropped ball' on retardant

Environmental Heroes

U.S. halts commercial salmon season

Chum Tales

Scientists fear 'tipping point' in Pacific Ocean

Jadyne Reichner: Native Plants Workshop

Rebecca Benjamin: Native Plants Workshop

Fred Weinman: Native Plants Workshop

Culverts add obstacles to salmon, state, politics

Chinook Salmon runs low