Save the Burley Lagoon

Discussion in 'Saltwater' started by Sonny, Feb 7, 2009.

?

What is the best solution for Burley Lagoon/ 302?

Build North of the lagoon by building a road off Hwy16 15 vote(s) 34.9%
302 is fine the way it is don't do anything. 4 vote(s) 9.3%
Just destroy the lagoon and build a bridge through the middle of it 24 vote(s) 55.8%
  1. Ed Call Mumbling Moderator

    Posts: 17,357
    Kitsap Peninsula
    Ratings: +1,324 / 9
    I eat oysters from my neighborhood's beach. We have a boat launch and can see the HC Bridge. No new bridge activity there will create a negative long term problem. I recommend that down in Purdy they leave it alone or do a proper environmental impact study to determine what is best for the environment. As for Bainbridge, a second bridge on the south end to Port Orchard or Bremerton would be nice for many reasons. Most of those reasons likely would not be well received by those living in the rural south end of Bainbridge...but sure would bring some more vehicles and their shoppers to Winslow. I agree with Larry that this could make the Bremerton to Seattle ferry run through Rich Passage at "no wave" speed and its hour crossing obsolete.
  2. Go Fish Language, its a virus

    Posts: 1,277
    Rheomode, Wa.
    Ratings: +87 / 0
    I driive that bridge every day to and from work.
    It sucks and is dangerous. It should be replaced as should
    this lame excuse of a poll.....

    Would you rather

    1) Pave over Burley Lagoon destroying the habitat?
    2) Have a sharp stick in the eye?
    3) Be infested with butt mites?
  3. bcrist New Member

    Posts: 19
    Gig Harbor, WA
    Ratings: +0 / 0
    Provocative thread on all counts. I make mutliple trips weekly across the spit and at all hours (Residence in Grapeview). I think we can all agree that at best, the traffic situation (in Purdy, across the bridge, and for the first five miles or so after the bridge) is inefficient, and at worst, unsafe. Improvements would be wonderful.

    In e-mail exchanges with the State Senator for the jurisdiction regarding the issue, it is evident that the State DOT and other departments are collaborating on feasibility studies right now, which will consider, among other things, the broad-scale environmental impact, including the fishery.

    Previous posts have suggested the unavoidable conflicts of interest when those who conduct the Studies at public expense, either are, or represent those who will be awarded construction public construction dollars....a little like having the inmates design the prison....As such, when and if study result comes back next year confirming an inconsequential impact on the anadromous fish in the lagoon (for option 10...see the website) you can bet I'll be skeptical, based on my own, albeit laypersons' observations.

    Lastly, everyone knows that this is a great shoreline for SRC. Additionally two-three small creeks thatthe lagoon north of the Purdy Bridge. There are currently no hatchery programs north of Minter. Those waiting period salmon that collect north of the bridge are wild (and trout too) and for such a "small run" as an earlier poster described, I was casting routinely over large groups of Coho this fall. Those fish caught and released were all wild fish. There is a small Chum run too BTW.

    Obviously this is a fisherman's forum and those that post here typically have significant sympathies to preservation and conservation. For me, no amount of traffic time saved is worth it if there is a threat to a native salmon run, irrespective of the size of the run. Driver and Pedestrian safey is another matter, but I believe that there are proposed alternatives that will cause a smaller disturbance to the marine and estuary environment.

    As such, I will not be personally supporting any bridge structure (through lobby efforts, financial contributions, or otherwise) that comes anywhere near the northern part of this estuary. I will actively suppport efforts that either postone this project until objective evidence can be gathered from multiple sources (my preference) or push the project further to North (both of which would extend a considerable inconvenience to me and my family).

    My two cents...
  4. floatinghat Member

    Posts: 294
    near enough to Seattle
    Ratings: +3 / 0
    I would think something like this could actually be the answer for the region. While some may not want the increased population on the "West Side".

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Submerged_floating_tunnel

    We would need the Navys input for the subs. Charge a reasonable toll, one exit in Winslow, Widen 305 and the Agate Pass bridge. I would thing it would create and immediate opportunity for some large employers to move facilities west? While not every result would be positive it could eliminate the busiest of the ferry runs.

    Terrorist target, no more than the GG, Bay, 90, 520, Eisenhower....
    $$$$$ fed funds are going to become available.

    Just a thought.
  5. Jan New Member

    Posts: 5
    Gig Harbor,WA
    Ratings: +0 / 0
    Hey Jerry,

    Thanks for giving me a new title! Never been a Guru before. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guru)

    So, the issue with this particular saltwater marshland is that it does not flush and is very, very shallow so all runoff (some noted that the failing septic drainfields were a problem) builds up in the sediment layers, which feed small microorganisms, which continue up the chain, including oysters, and then to humans. The impact of direct highway runoff with all the various pollutants that collect on the road surface is that it will embed in those same sediments and add to the food chain as have the fecal coliform bateria from farmlands and septic systems around the lagoon. But humans are not the only creatures impacted by this. I have watched seaguls pick up those oysters at low tide, fly high and then drop them to the beach to break the shells to eat them. The local fishery also feeds on this same contaminated food chain, and those salmon we were thinking about are food for humans as well as Orcas. While I have personally seen 4 Orcas and 2 Gray whales in the lagoon over the past 10 years, I wonder how many of those fish find their way as food outside the lagoon? Local marine biologists are declaring that the Southern Orca (Puget Sound pods) are dying due to their diet of contaminated salmon...

    It is a big environmental chain. My view is that we should not do something that costs more than 100 million dollars to save 3 minutes that would cause further harm to such a sensitive system. I think we can and should hold those WSDOT engineers accountable to remediate our safety problems, address our congestion issues and stay out of the lagoon. These are all doable, but the key conflict is convenience to get to my driveway, something I cannot support. I see the solutions here being aggregation of a number of smaller components, not slapping a bridge up to create a straight line.
  6. Jan New Member

    Posts: 5
    Gig Harbor,WA
    Ratings: +0 / 0
    Mike,

    That existing bridge will be retired on 2035 for vehicular traffic whether they do anything or not. So at some point it will cease to exist, they might as well plan for that now. This needs to be a part of the citizen message to WSDOT while the public comment period is open (closing this Friday, 2/13).
  7. Jerry Daschofsky Moderator

    Posts: 7,681
    Graham, WA, USA.
    Ratings: +665 / 5
    LOL, let me tell you this much. Spent almost 15 years delivering out there every day. I know the area, and how it works and how it flushes. The amount of unregulated septics (and some that were directly just dumping without a septic tank at all) probably has as big, if not bigger effect then what you're proposing. I have no studies on this, but have spent enough time there at low tide during a hot day to tell you the smells coming are of septic origin.

    You don't have to quote wikipedia. I'll keep this thread open for now, but will discuss it with the other mod and admin about it's true worth to the site.

    But here's why I called you a guru. Why bring up the oysters? If you know so much about it there (which I know I do) there is very little public oyster beds there. Most are privately owned. Now, if you want to say "Well those oysters are the ones you are buying from the stores". Well, for years these oysters at the Purdy spit have been trucked to cleaner water to siphon themselves out before being sold. That's the reason why Minterbrook has their operation so far down around the corner away from the spit.

    Onto the salmon. There is resident salmon, and most of the fish that mill around the spit usually are heading back to Minter Creek to spawn. I do know about any creek will have a few run up them. It's the nature of the beast. But the starter of this thread (I think it was them) saying fish they caught had an adipose so it's wild shows that this person knows NOTHING about fishing. Do you know how many wild fish I've caught over the years with full adipose? Guess what? I've had many (as in hundreds) get scanned and snouts wacked off by fish checkers because they were hatchery fish. Fin clipping isn't an accurate science.

    I'm all for fixing the problem. I've spent many a days crossing that stinking bridge. You guys think it's bad with your personal vehicles, try doing it with a commercial vehicle. I've actually had mirrors torn off when two of us driving commercial vehicles passed at same time. That bridge needs to be changed. But I'm afraid to tell you unless it's totally closed down, it'll still get all of it's pressure. Why would someone head up the road when they could easily turn where they are at.

    I think my biggest problem is someone trying to bring their fight here. I can understand if it's a long standing (or even a fairly new member) doing it, as long as they've participated on the site. But this is pure trolling for support over a bridge that is going to displace the original poster (I do believe he said he'd have to move). So I see some bias there. Especially over how he worded the poll above. No class at all IMHO.

    I'm all for the WSDOT making a fix. Just funny how if it impacts someone in a way they don't like, it's automatically thrown out and they bring up as much as they can to discredit it. Funny how you guys have signed up here and made your case. But I've yet to see you go into incorporated Gig Harbor and solicit the shopping districts to post signs up about this. It's all good when you can sit on a computer and do it, but yet to see it in the busy traffic zones of Gig Harbor. And trust me, you haven't. I'd know, since now I spend all day in the busiest part of Gig Harbor.
  8. Jerry Daschofsky Moderator

    Posts: 7,681
    Graham, WA, USA.
    Ratings: +665 / 5
    Oh, and onto the planning. I can see why they've put it where they have. Makes the easiest cuts, a nice straight away, would follow right up 144th street and make a direct connection to SR302 right near Lake Kathryn with minimal turns. I'm not sure who did the design work on your site, but would have to say they really didn't think things through. Why even have the traffic spur up 66th near Cenex up to the spur road? Why not just have the state make an offramp directly leading off? Makes no sense to try and run all that traffic along the lagoon. Talk about adding more crap and runoff from cars near the headwaters. You'll have cars running right along side of it. Which means having to widen the road along the lagoon and adding more construction along the body of water. At least this way you'd have one point for the major construction by the lagoon on the northernmost outlet to the lagoon. But I can see your route, and would affect alot more people. The building up on 118th would hit alot of people's properties. Way more then the two/three scenerios shown. Have you driven this route alot? I know I have. Major culverts would have to be put in, plus you'd have construction being done on Minter Creek at that point. Minter snakes around 118th Ave for quite a bit. So now you're adding more waste coming off the roads into a creek that actually has a salmon hatchery on it. Did you think about that? Also there is Minterbrooks oyster operation at the mouth of Minter Creek as well. Has impact studies been done for that as well?

    I'm not a political guy. But I've spent most of my work career in Gig Harbor. I consider alot of my customers family, and have a great respect for the area. But I hate people who do stuff like this. I can understand wanting to stop this, but from what I see it's a "Save me first, care about the rest later" aspect.
  9. Jerry Daschofsky Moderator

    Posts: 7,681
    Graham, WA, USA.
    Ratings: +665 / 5
    Oh, and have to add an apology to Sonny. At least he didn't sign up on the board to post this. His first post was a few months back about chums showing up in Minter. But still, was dead on board for post #2 until this one.
  10. Jan New Member

    Posts: 5
    Gig Harbor,WA
    Ratings: +0 / 0
    One more post Jerry and you get to 3,000 even. Is there a prize? Please talk with your moderators, close the thread, delete it, whatever you think is proper. One thing for sure is that you are not a welcoming individual to a newbie here. But then, this is your place since you have been here longest.

    Cheers.
  11. Jerry Daschofsky Moderator

    Posts: 7,681
    Graham, WA, USA.
    Ratings: +665 / 5
    Sorry Jan, those lines don't work. I'm more then welcoming here. But you aren't here for fishing, you are here for your Burley Lagoon. You didn't even comment on what I posted, just your smartass response. I could care less for my count. Funny that's your only defense, and only defeats your claims. My big problem is, you've done 5 posts, none really fishing besides adding a picture of a boat to your profile. I'd gladly welcome you if you came to the main fishing forum and posted a "Hi, I'm new here" post like alot of people do.

    But will tell you, coming on here and being a smartass to a moderator and or an administrator isn't a way to make your case.
  12. Sonny New Member

    Posts: 13
    Gig Harbor
    Ratings: +0 / 0
    Jerry- Sorry I have not posted more. I spend most of my time fishing. As for this forum being about fishing and not airing neighborhood laundry, it is my opinion being someone that fishes 200 days out of the year (on a good year) this was about fishing. Fishing in my backyard, which is the Burley Lagoon. I will post when I feel the need and I love this site. I felt the need over this.

    Someone prove to me that this won't negatively impact the fishery and the environment and then we can debate aesthetics on the rest.

    I think Floatinghat is on to something. I am pro building a tunnel {not a floating tunnel}(such is what is being reviewed for the Alaska Way Viaduct crew. We have the technology and company right in Washington State and yet we don't use it. This would solve all the concerns on this forum.

    I would suggest to anyone posting to keep it civil. We all want a solution whether we are new members or old.

    As far as the poll goes, that was an after-thought. I did not think anyone would actually vote!
  13. Skeena88 Member

    Posts: 235
    Covington WA
    Ratings: +17 / 0
    Seems like the cart is before the horse here trying to decide which alternative is best without benefit of the appropriate studies. Those studies will not be done by WSDOT, but by independant consultants to produce a draft EIS. The project is in a scoping process for preparation of a draft environmental impact statement that must consider all feasible alternatives. Just make sure WSDOT is aware of all of your concerns so they can be included in the scoping review and evaluated. The draft EIS will be published for public review and comment and at that point the pros and cons of each alternative can be debated in an arena where the science and risks are presented for each alternative. This is the normal SEPA/NEPA process for projects of this type. That is a better forum for discussion than presenting a poll with unscientific options, bias and incomplete information on this site.

    There will almost certainly be independant review by USFWS and NMFS if the project either a) uses federal funds, or b) requires a federal permit. Both of those will likely apply, requiring a Biological Assessment the the Services will review. The USFWS and NMFS must consider direct, indirect, cumulative, inter-dependant and inter-related effects when evaluating the preferred alternative. This includes the effects of future development that would be facilitated by the project. Review by WDFW, WDOE and affected tribes will also occur.

    This is a public process with checks and balances. Let it proceed to develop the information needed to properly evaluate the alternatives before condemning any of them outright. It is a lot easier to make a case ( and a stink if necessary) with project specific data in hand. Just make sure you make your comments to WSDOT.

    Come back after publication of the DEIS and perhaps we can have a more objective discussion.
  14. Sonny New Member

    Posts: 13
    Gig Harbor
    Ratings: +0 / 0
    Skeena88

    Touche, well put and good night. Thanks for the insite.
  15. Ed Call Mumbling Moderator

    Posts: 17,357
    Kitsap Peninsula
    Ratings: +1,324 / 9
    Sonny, I'm not trying to be a dick, nor am I generally one. It seems to me that if it were in my back yard you might not be such a staunch supporter, but because it is in yours it is a very big deal. I would kindly ask that you either give a $hit or you don't. If there was an impact study with projected options and it looked to be moving forward I would support the choice in the best interest of the environment. I could care less about gridlock or growth to be honest, but I'm not sure that I like your silence until you have an issue that personally touches your backyard. So many decisions on our waterways and our resources affect us all even if that being affected is done so tens or hundreds of miles away.
  16. bcrist New Member

    Posts: 19
    Gig Harbor, WA
    Ratings: +0 / 0
    Does it really matter what someone's "motives" are, if one of the end points (and goals) is the preservation of the lagoon and fishery? Does it matter whether it is somoeone's home, business, commute, liesure time or any other personal reason as the primary motivation for the post, rendering the fishery and environment a legitimate but ancillary concern? Does the reliability and value of someone's thoughts increase because they have posted 3000 times on this site? Is a newcomer's perspective worthless? Of course not, on both counts. Give me a break! We all have our "axes to grind" here, as everyone has demonstrated with their passion to the argument, irrespective of opinion.

    Frankly, the only motives I really care about are the ones in the heads of those conducting the studies, determing the "benefit" for the constituency, and ultimately making the decision for all of us, with public money. I am a skeptic of the process.

    Lastly, as this is a fishing forum, it is, in my opinion, a perfect place for this type of argument, as long as it is about the fish and the environment. This site needs to be able to provide for discourse on these topics. Thanks to the moderators for allowing this to continue.

    Good post to Skeena88. I do hope that the studies generate lots of data on this topic. I believe that more salmon return return to this estuary than people realize!
  17. Skeena88 Member

    Posts: 235
    Covington WA
    Ratings: +17 / 0
    The USFWS and NMFS must consider direct, indirect, cumulative, inter-dependant and inter-related effects "on ESA listed and candidate species, Critical Habitat for those species, and Essential Fish Habitat" when evaluating the preferred alternative.

    Oops, should have included the clauses in parenthesis for clarity in my earlier post.
  18. johnnyrockfish Member

    Posts: 320
    Kitsap County, WA
    Ratings: +0 / 0
    Keep up the good work Sonny. People respond to alarming news, as this thread shows. You're generating a public spotlight on an important issue. I certainly hadn't heard about the issue before so thanks for providing a starting point. Sure, the Poll was written in a super exaggerated manner - and it worked like a charm. As Skeena said, the process is just starting. My advice toyou is to be as persistent as possible and don't get burned out early. You are absolutely correct to be suspect of any large public works project by WSDOT (or any agency for that matter).

    This seems to be a fishing & conservation related thread to me. I was surprised to see that someone would consider closing it.

    JR
  19. Jerry Daschofsky Moderator

    Posts: 7,681
    Graham, WA, USA.
    Ratings: +665 / 5
    Well my problem is the way he went about the survey, and the projected options. They put more of an impact on Minter with development, a salmon bearing stream and major oyster beds at the mouth. Much more then Burley lagoon (and yes, Minterbrook is a MUCH bigger operation then Yamashita's). I guess my biggest thing is alot of the fish he's talking about are residents out in the sound who may come up to the lagoon or the fish who are heading to the Minter Hatchery (and yes, hatchery fish can be unmarked). Bcrist, I'm having a suspicion ANY estuary, bay, lagoon, etc that has a creek or river feed it will have a small amount of fish come up it. Does that mean it has a run in it? Or is it fish that have made a wrong turn? Since there have been studies of marked fish coming from one river returning to another, then it would be very hard to say if it's a native fish to that stream, especially have a hatchery down the road. My point to Jan, who couldn't answer my questions, is what surveys have been done with the 118th Ave route they are proposing the most? It has more to bear with salmon, trout, and oysters then the Burley Lagoon.

    And Sonny, you made a SUPER bad point there about why you don't post. I know professional and well known guides who literally fish all day and put 200 plus FULL days fishing a year easily make more post on fishing boards then you. When I delivered out your way, I was fishing more then you then. I fished everyday at work, and then I'd fish on the weekends too. I still was able to put posts up here in the evenings. So please, don't use the "I'm fishing, why I can't post" excuse. I'm sure there are alot of other guys on here that are fishing around that much, but hardcore full days of it (not just after work), and still put up posts. If you have time to come here and look (which is what I got the jist of your postings) I'd say you could put up a small post here or there.

    Lastly, this isn't a publically owned forum. So no, this site doesn't need to allow anything. Politics aren't allowed, so should we have debated who the proper president would've been for salmon restoration? As of right now, we're talking about a roadway that's going to displace the person who started this thread. Sucks, but my family has been through it (my families farm was displaced when I-5 was put in, losing the homesteaded family farm in Fife). It happens when it comes to growth. If it gets nasty, then the thread will get locked down. But if we get an outpouring of locals who don't really fish come on here just to debate their point, then off she goes.
  20. SpeySpaz still an authority on nothing

    Posts: 1,827
    Roy, WA
    Ratings: +13 / 0
    hey guys, I agree with Jerry-- reread post#7.

    Sonny's going to be displaced from his home by the construction of the bridge. This is a NIMBY thread, and his local friends are coming out of the woodwork to support him. Not to detract from the good points johnnyrockfish made...but this whole thing has a lefthanded vibe to it. Looking at the poll results, I'll guess I'm not the only person who feels this way.

    when the same folks come out that hard regarding the Columbia net fishery or collapsing steelhead stocks in Southern Puget Sound, they'll have more cred with me.

    I vote for ignore/let this thread die. No offense Sonny, I'd be pissed too.