The Washington Department of Ecology is working on an instream flow rule to protect water levels in 13 streams in the northeast corner of the Olympic Peninsula.

Map of Quilcene Snow Watershed. (Click to enlarge.)

Folks in that area have been putting a tremendous amount of time, effort and money into restoring their local streams. I’m sure it’s discouraging — and not so good for the salmon — when water disappears from some of these streams during critical times of the year.

A story I wrote for today’s Kitsap Sun explains some of the restrictions under consideration for future water users. The proposed rule would not affect current owners of water rights. You can also see a list of streams proposed for the rule on the Web page for the story.

Streams on the Kitsap Peninsula, as well as much of the Puget Sound basin, were closed years ago to water withdrawals to protect existing stream flows. See Washington state map (PDF 220 kb). This issue has caused consternation among local water managers, because it increases the difficulty to get water rights for deep community wells but does nothing about individual exempt wells, which are usually shallower and more likely to affect stream flows.

In the Quilcene Snow Watershed, Ecology is planning to tackle the problem by limiting water rights for future individual wells in some areas and sometimes requiring that water be used only in-home use where that’s justified. Ecology also would free up residents to capture rain water for irrigation.

Water rights and water allocations have become a huge issue in managing population growth in Western Washington, following years of water battles in some areas of Eastern Washington. Some regular readers of Watching Our Water Ways are far more versed on this subject than I am, and I would welcome further comments.

I’m still trying to understand the various implications of a study by David Bain and Pete Schroeder, who found that Puget Sound’s killer whales are harboring antibiotic-resistant bacteria as well as some strains of bugs that can be deadly to immune-compromised mammals.

Puget Sound killer whales // NOAA photo

It seems likely that killer whales are picking up bacteria from humans, since the resistance is most likely caused when people or livestock take antibiotics but don’t take them long enough or in great enough concentration to kill all the bacteria. The result is that some bacteria get a taste of the antibiotics but escape and become resistant.

How the bacteria get into marine waters is somewhat uncertain, but likely sources are discharges in stormwater, in sewage effluent and from boats.

The fact that the researchers found some bad bugs is not a good thing, since the orcas’ immune systems may be weakened by toxic chemicals and a shortage of food.

Federal biologists studying the risks of extinction for Puget Sound orcas worry that a catastrophic event — such as an oil spill or disease — could kill one-third or more of the animals, leaving a nonviable population. It’s distressing to think that humans are loading these animals up with toxic chemicals, which reduce their resistance to disease, then dumping potentially deadly bacteria into the waters around them.

Read more about these findings, including interviews with the researchers, in a story I wrote for today’s Kitsap Sun.

Puget Sound Partnership has posted on its Web site a recording of yesterday’s interdisciplinary meeting in Friday Harbor focusing on the plight of Puget Sound’s killer whales. The link is on PSP’s Home Page.

I did not attend the meeting, but afterwards I interviewed folks who did attend. As I described in a story in today’s Kitsap Sun, participants included marine mammal and fisheries biologists with a smattering of other experts.

One of the key messages coming out of the meeting is that the orcas do not do well when they don’t get enough chinook salmon to eat. That might seem like a no-brainer, but the conclusion is complicated, because we don’t fully understand the nutritional needs of the orcas or how to measure how much food they are getting.

I’m working on a story that should shed a little more light on this issue.

Meanwhile, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration has released its biological opinion about the effects of three pesticides on salmon. The biop includes recommendations directed at the Environmental Protection Agency, which is in charge of pesticide registration. The EPA is called on to change the registration and label to prevent pesticide use within 500 feet of a salmon stream, among other things.

Read the story in today’s Kitsap Sun or download a copy of the biological opinion (PDF 11 mb) from NOAA’s Web site.

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration released conclusions this morning showing that October probably was the second-warmest month since records began in 1880. That finding results from a combined average of land and sea temperatures across the globe.

Here’s a copy of the news release sent out this morning. Further discussion of the findings are available at NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center.

NOAA: Second Warmest October for Global Temperatures

The combined global land and ocean surface average temperature for October 2008 was the second warmest since records began in 1880, according to a preliminary analysis by NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center in Asheville, N.C.

Temperature Highlights

The combined global land and ocean surface temperature for October was 58.23 degrees F, which is 1.13 degrees F above the 20th century mean of 57.1 degrees F.

Separately, the global land surface temperature was 50.72 degrees F, which is 2.02 degrees F above the 20th century mean of 48.7 degrees F, ranking as the warmest October on record. Much of the unusual warmth occurred over Asia, Australia, and Eastern Europe.

The global ocean surface temperature of 61.41 degrees F tied October 2005 as sixth warmest on record and was 0.81 degree F above the 20th century mean of 60.6 degrees F.

The combined global land and ocean surface temperature for January-October was 58.25 degrees F, which is 0.85 degree above the 20th century mean of 57.4 degrees F and ranking as the 9th warmest January-October on record.

Global Highlights for October

Arctic sea ice coverage during October was at its third lowest extent since satellite records began in 1979, according to the National Snow and Ice Data Center. Average ice extent during October was 3.24 million square miles, which is 9.5 percent below the 1979-2000 average. The record lowest extent for October, set in 2007, was 2.55 million square miles. Arctic sea ice extent has been declining by an average of 5.4 percent per decade over the past 30 years.

Northern Hemisphere snow cover extent during October 2008 was 6.48 million square miles, which is below the 1967-2008 average and ranks as the ninth lowest October extent.

In early October, Hurricane Norbert became the most powerful 2008 hurricane in the eastern Pacific when it reached Category 4 strength. The storm weakened when it struck Mexico’s southern Baja California on October 11, but still brought heavy rain, strong winds, and widespread flooding to the islands of Santa Margarita and Magdelena. Norbert tracked across the Gulf of California and made a second landfall on October 12 on the Mexican mainland Sonora Coast.

Hurricane Omar developed in the Caribbean Sea on October 13. Omar reached Category 3 strength and was the first hurricane to strike the Leeward Islands from the west since Hurricane Lenny in 1999.

In the western Pacific, slow-moving Tropical Storm 22W brought torrential rains to parts of Southeast Asia. On October 11-14, the South China island province of Hainan suffered flash floods in low-lying areas, which forced thousands of people to flee more than 150 villages. The storm’s rains affected northern Vietnam during October 15-20, triggering flash floods that damaged more than 11,000 hectares of crops. Daily rainfall amounts of 12 to18 inches were reported from the storm.

According to the Australian Bureau of Meteorology, October 2008 was an exceptionally dry month in central and southeastern Australia, ranking as the driest October on record for South Australia, second driest for Tasmania, and third driest for Victoria. This was the second successive very dry month in these areas. Parts of Australia have been experiencing drought conditions for over a decade.

A couple of weeks ago, we talked about how the Bush administration appeared to be making an effort to cement certain regulations in place before he leaves office. See Watching Our Water Ways, Nov. 5. Since I posted that item, a new twist is being widely discussed in political circles.

First the background: White House Chief of Staff Josh Bolten sent out a memo last May calling for all new regulations to be completed by Nov. 1, presumably so the rules could go into effect before Bush leaves office. Generally, they are effective 60 days after publication, though that can vary. It may have been assumed that having things done in early November would prevent the next president from blocking the rules in January.

If you recall, George W. Bush halted some of President Bill Clinton’s rules being pushed through at the midnight hour.

This time, Democrats in Congress may have an ace yet to be played. It’s called the Congressional Review Act of 1996.

The law contains a provision which says any regulation finalized within 60 days before the adjournment of Congress goes into limbo until the 15th day after the new session begins. At that point, the rule is considered final and Congress has 60 days to overturn it with a joint resolution, which is immune to a Senate filibuster.

“In other words,” states a lengthy explanation in Politico, “any regulation finalized in the last half-year of the Bush administration could be wiped out with a simple party-line vote in the Democrat-controlled Congress.”

The analysis last Wednesday by Erica Lovely and Ryan Grim says Democrats are indeed considering such a move. The story includes advice from Jerry Brito, a senior research fellow at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University. Brito suggests that Barack Obama “package all of the regulations it wants overturned into one large vehicle to be voted up or down.”

“That would solve the collective-action problem, and it solves the pet-project problem. It would sort of limit special pleading,” he said, noting that each new regulation benefits someone specific who will fight hard to keep it. Lumping them together dissipates that energy.

OMB Watch mentioned the Congressional Review Act in its previous analysis from Nov. 4, which stated that the law has been used successfully only once:

Congress’s only successful use of the act came in the early days of the Bush administration when a Clinton-era rule that would have required better ergonomics in the workplace was rejected.

While the Congressional Review Act is not the easiest law to understand, you’re welcome to link to the text at OMB Watch.

Meanwhile, Kathleen Sutcliffe of Earthjustice, an environmental group, sent out a list of the “most troubling” regulations being pushed through by the Bush administration in recent weeks. For illustrative purposes, I’ll list them here with her descriptions. Of course, administration officials have justifications for each one, which I won’t go into right now.
Read the rest of this entry »

Just a quick reminder: If you wish to submit comments regarding the draft of the Puget Sound Action Agenda, they must be in by Thursday.

The Puget Sound Partnership offers plenty of information — including downloads of the entire Action Agenda and a way to offer comments online — at the Action Agenda Center of the PSP Web site.

If anyone would care to summarize your comments in a few sentences and send them to me by e-mail, I’ll try to find a place for them on Watching Our Water Ways. Or you can just post something as a comment to this entry.

Also of interest on the Web page:
Full Size Draft Action Area Profiles (PDF)
New Report on Puget Sound Toxic Pollution (ECY)
2009-2011 Biennial Science Work Plan (PDF)
DNS (PDF)
Final SEPA checklist (PDF)
Q1 supplemental materials (PDF)
Q2.2 supplemental materials (PDF)

I’m not sure whether Kitsap County’s new hearing examiner will mean a shift in the approach to land-use decisions or future outcomes. But circumstances surrounding two recent projects by the same developer caused me to take a closer look. See my story in Sunday’s Kitsap Sun.

Here are the basics: Reinout van Beynum, a Keyport employee and part-time developer, submitted separate applications for two projects in which he asserted his property rights with “reasonable use” claims. A “reasonable use exception” is used when no reasonable alternatives exist and it isn’t possible to meet environmental standards in the county’s Critical Areas Ordinance. In other words, to deny the application would deprive the owner of the right to use his property in a reasonable way.

They were almost never used until the past year or so, when I’ve seen several come through.

These two van Beynum projects were distinctly different, and nobody can say that a change in hearing examiner made the difference in the decision. Still, a previous hearing examiner, Terrence McCarthy, approved the reasonable use exception for the first property, while the new examiner, Kimberly Allen, denied the reasonable use exception for the second.

You may wish to review the finer points yourself. The rationale of the two hearing examiners is fairly well laid out in their written findings. As I said, the first case (PDF 680 kb) is substantially different from the second one (PDF 1.1 mb).

I’ve always wondered what it means when a hearing examiner agrees with nearly all the recommendations of county planners. Does it mean that the planners are on solid legal ground and that the hearing examiners have little choice but to follow suit? Or does it mean that any bias is the same for planners and hearing examiners, perhaps because they both work for the county commissioners? (I do not mean to impugn anyone on the county staff, because I can honestly say everyone I know there is a true professional. I’m only raising the question, since we are talking about human relationships, which are rarely perfect.)

When I talked to people involved in these recent cases, they saw a clear difference in the new hearing examiner’s approach. Van Beynum tended to think that Allen did not fully understand property rights, while the environmental folks were inclined to see a favorable shift in attitude.

Here’s how Illahee’s Jim Aho saw it: “She questions everything and wants to have a total understanding of the project so she can make an informed decision. She is a bright light. She probes and digs and wants to do the right thing. I haven’t seen that before.”

I have gotten to know quite a few marine biologists through the years. I’ve generally admired their dedication and devotion. In the first video below, I found it interesting to compare the attitudes of whale researchers to xxxx, who has studied ant eaters for many years. Here he is featured in a piece from The Onion News Network.

Also, it may be worth noting that I have covered more than a few whale strandings in my carrier. In the second video, it was interesting to see how The Onion captured the drama of a rare beaching of a different creature.

Expert On Anteaters Wasted Entire Life Studying Anteaters

Barbara Bush Runs Aground Off Coast Of Maine

Increasing levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere are turning the oceans more acidic, according to scientists who have been raising alarms for years.

The acidity threatens the marine food web, with the most direct effects on the shells and skeletons of shellfish and corals, since their absorption of calcium carbonate is reduced in a more acidic environment.

Let’s take note of a few new milestones, although nobody has a practical idea for responding to the threat without addressing the entire issue of global warming.

First, and none too soon, the first comprehensive national study of ocean acidity was commissioned last month by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the National Science Foundation. See Oct. 20 news release.

The study followed an international symposium in early October, called the “Second International Symposium on the Ocean in a High CO2 World.” The meeting’s chairman, James Orr of the International Atomic Energy Agency, had this to say in a prepared statement:

“Since the industrial revolution, the acidity of ocean surface waters has increased by 30 percent. This change is greater and happening about 100 times faster than for previous acidification events experienced in many millions of years…

“Published research indicates that by 2030, the Southern Ocean will start to become corrosive to the shells of some marine snails that swim in surface waters. These snails provide a major source of food for Pacific Salmon.

“If they decline or disappear in some regions, such as the North Pacific, what will happen to the salmon – and the salmon fishing industry? And what will happen as ocean acidification increasingly affects coral reefs, which are home to one-quarter of the world’s fish during at least part of their lifetime, and which support a multi-billion dollar tourist industry?”

Finally, the Center for Biological Diversity today issued a notice to the Environmental Protection Agency saying it intends to sue the federal government for failure to respond to the threat of ocean acidification. Last year, the environmental group filed a formal petition asking EPA to impose stricter pH standards for ocean water quality and to publish guidance to help states protect U.S. waters.

A press release from the center includes these comments:

The federal Clean Water Act requires the EPA to update water-quality criteria to reflect the latest scientific knowledge. Since the agency developed the pH standard back in 1976, an extensive body of research has developed on the impacts of carbon dioxide on the oceans.

“Ocean acidification is global warming’s evil twin,” said Miyoko Sakashita, an attorney with the Center for Biological Diversity’s oceans program. “The EPA has a duty under the Clean Water Act to protect our nation’s waters from pollution, and today, carbon dioxide is one of the biggest threats to our ocean waters.”

It appears the Center for Biological Diversity is launching a flank attack on the global warming issue via the Clean Water Act, which allows citizen lawsuits. A similar flank maneuver involved the effort to get the polar bear protected under the Endangered Species Act as a result of melting ice caused by global warming. See CBD press release.

Clearly, environmental groups are not waiting for a new administration to move into the White House or to see how President Barack Obama might address the threat of global warming.

I’m not sure if I did something bad or if the blog software had a brief meltdown. But the outcome is that a bunch of recent blog comments were deleted all at once.

I’ve been able to recover most of them, because I get a notice of the comments in my e-mail. But I could not find all of them. In the future, I will move the comments into an e-mail folder in case this happens again. But it has never happened before, and I hope I don’t have to go through this recovery effort ever again.

Anyway, I truly regret this, because I believe we have a very good discussion taking place, including the ongoing Navy-versus-environment issue. I always look forward to opening Watching Our Water Ways to see what people have to say in response to my postings as well as the new ideas that people have about water and environmental issues.

So if anybody sees a comment that is missing, I encourage you to post a new one — or the old one if you happen to still have it. I can even post-date a comment to place it in the appropriate time frame.

Thanks for hanging in there with me through good times and bad.