Category: Environment

Will Sonobuoys In The Pacific Help The Navy But Harm Whales?

 

 

By Ashley Ahearn, KUOW

The Navy conducts training and testing in a stretch of the Pacific  roughly the size of Montana.

It wants to continue and expand its activities in these waters off the West Coast from Washington to Northern California. But first, the Navy must renew its permit under the Marine Mammal Protection Act.

The plan calls for detonating explosives, moving vessels, and deploying 700 more sonobuoys per year. And that’s drawing criticism from environmentalists who say the increased use of sonar poses increased risk for whales and other marine mammals.

Sonobouys are three-feet-long cylindrical floats are dropped from aircraft into the water. They use active sonar for the audible clues that can help them locate enemy submarines.

“It’s a critical mission for the Navy to be able to identify and locate submarines and utilizing these types of equipment is how we do that job,” said John Mosher, the environment program manager for the Navy in the Northwest.

The Navy says it keeps a lookout for marine life before conducting tests. It estimates that the added buoys will lead to more than 100,000 potential sonar exposures for marine life.

Mosher acknowledge that “exposure numbers” for marine mammals will increase if the Navy gets its way.

“But I’d like to stress that those exposures are at the low level of behavioral disturbance,” he added. “The animals may hear the device but it’s that simple. No injury, no long-lasting impact whatsoever.”

EarthJustice lawyer Steve Mashuda said increased use of active sonar will disrupt marine mammals’ feeding, breeding and calving.

“It’s behavioral disruption, which doesn’t sound bad until you realize this is happening over and over and over again,” he said.

Mashuda said the Navy is increasing the potential risk to marine mammals without increasing the precautions it’s taking to avoid harming them during testing.

Environmentalists takes particular issue with the Navy’s proposal to conduct tests within the Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary. It’s an area known to be frequented by blue whales, humpback whales, gray whales and endangered orcas.

“We have been saying for a long time that we’re not attempting to stop the Navy from training,” Mashuda said. “But what we are saying is there are areas on the coast, particularly the Washington coast, where we know that there are higher concentrations of marine mammals.

The Navy did not respond to requests to comment about its need to conduct testing exercises in the Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary.

The Navy recently has been criticized by residents of the Olympic Peninsula for proposing to conduct electromagnetic warfare testing in the Olympic National Forest.

Residents of the island communities in Puget Sound report recent increases in loud fighter jets, or “growlers” overhead.

The Navy is expected to release a final environmental review of its proposed marine training and testing activities this summer. The public will have a final chance to comment then.

In preparing that final review, the Navy is holding open house meetingsand taking submitted comments until Feb. 2.

Upcoming public meetings:

Tuesday:

Grays Harbor College HUB

1620 Edward P. Smith Drive

Aberdeen, WA 98520

Wednesday:

Isaac Newton Magnet School Gym

825 NE 7th St

Newport, OR

Friday:

Eureka Public Marina, Wharfinger Building, Great Room

1 Marina Way

Eureka, CA 95501

One More Try: A Renewed Push To Pass Klamath Agreements

PacifiCorp's Copco 1 dam on the lower Klamath River is one of four hydro dams that would be removed to facilitate fish passage under the pending Klamath water deal.Amelia Templeton
PacifiCorp’s Copco 1 dam on the lower Klamath River is one of four hydro dams that would be removed to facilitate fish passage under the pending Klamath water deal.
Amelia Templeton

 

By: Jefferson Public Radio; Source: OPB

 

Supporters of a trio of agreements meant to settle the rancorous water disputes in the Klamath Basin are gearing up to take another run at getting Congressional approval for the deal. A Klamath bill by Oregon’s Democratic senators was not included in a massive funding measure passed in the frantic final hours of the last Congress.

Now – amid signs that support for the agreements is growing, the spotlight is turning toward the region’s Republican congressman.

The failure of the Senate bill that would have implemented the Klamath water agreements left a big question mark: what would happen now?

Among stakeholders in the region, the answer was largely that, somehow or another, the deal would move forward.

“Of course we’re going forward,” said Glen Spain with the Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen’s Associations, a commercial fishing group.

“There is no alternative on the table other than going back to the kind of chaos we saw a decade ago,” he said.

Farmers and ranchers in the Klamath have waged a long and bitter battle with fishermen and Indian tribes over the region’s scarce water, with periodic irrigation water shut-offs and fish die-offs raising the stakes.

Over the course of years, the three water agreements were hammered out as the various stakeholders eventually negotiated compromises most felt they could live with. One federal official said what finally brought everyone to the table was the realization that “part of something is better than all of nothing.”
,
Now – with three interlocking agreements awaiting Congressional approval – stakeholders say it’s crucial to wrap it up.

“This is how we’re going to have stability in resource management in the Klamath Basin as we move forward,” said Greg Addington, who heads the Klamath Water Users Association. It represents farmers and ranchers on the federal Klamath Irrigation Project. Addington says, at this point, making major changes in the deal isn’t feasible.

“As you look at the complexity of these issues and the work that went into crafting these agreements over the last eight or nine years – we’ve been at this for a while – it just makes you more confident that you’ve really crossed all the t’s and dotted all the i’s and looked at all the potential solutions,” he said.

In recent months, a growing number of previously-skeptical groups have come to back the water deal, including the Klamath Falls City Council, the Klamath County Chamber of Commerce and the Klamath Cattlemen’s Association.

One key player who hasn’t yet signed on is Republican congressman Greg Walden. The Klamath is in Walden’s district and so far he’s had reservations about the agreements, in particular the part that would remove the four hydropower dams on the Klamath River. The dams have blocked fish passage for more than fifty years.

As more Klamath agriculture groups have swung their support to the deal, they’ve urged Walden to get behind it. But if Walden hopes to substantially change the dam removal part of the deal, Don Gentry, who chairs the Klamath Tribal Council, would beg to differ.

“It’s pretty clear that the parties are all on board that that’s a part of the package and without that dam removal component, the agreements will unravel,” he said.

Gentry says removing the dams is crucial to restoring the endangered fish populations the tribes have a treaty right to.

Just as the new session of the US Senate convened this month, Oregon Democrats Ron Wyden and Jeff Merkley re-introduced their Klamath water bill that died last session. Merkley says with the probability of another dry summer approaching, time is running out.

“This has to happen in legislation, to lock in the components as a group,” he said. “And so we could have a major water war or water catastrophe, however you want to put it, for the ranching-farming community if we don’t get this done.”

While there are still parties opposing the agreements – the Klamath County   Commission and the Hoopa Indian tribe among them — the success of this effort would seem to hinge on Greg Walden’s support. Walden’s office declined to comment except to say he’s been meeting with stakeholders and “shares a common goal of finding a viable path forward.”

Tribes join effort to keep Yellowstone grizzlies protected

By Matthew Brown, Associated Press

BILLINGS, Mont. (AP) – Leaders of American Indian tribes in the Rocky Mountains and Great Plains have joined an effort to retain federal protections for grizzly bears in and around Yellowstone National Park.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is expected to decide this year whether it will move to lift protections for the roughly 1,000 grizzlies that scientists say live in the Yellowstone region of Montana, Idaho and Wyoming.

The campaign to enlist tribal backing for continued protections is being coordinated in large part by wildlife advocates. Organizers say more than two dozen tribes have signed on with resolutions and other declarations of support.

Tribal leaders cited their ancestral connection to the Yellowstone area and the cultural importance of grizzly bears to their people.

“Any move to delist the sacred grizzly bear on this ancestral landscape must involve consultation with the affected Tribal Nations,” wrote Ivan Posey, a member of the Eastern Shoshone and chairman of the Montana Wyoming Tribal Leaders Council, in a letter last month.

Lifting protections and allowing state-sponsored hunting “not only represents a threat to tribal sovereignty, but also contravenes the American Indian Religious Freedom Act,” Posey said.

The council includes representatives from 11 tribes.

Tribal leaders from Idaho, South Dakota, North Dakota and Oklahoma have submitted similar letters through an advocacy group known as Guardians of Our Ancestors’ Legacy, or GOAL.

Federal grizzly recovery coordinator Chris Servheen said letters seeking comment were sent in April to four tribes in Wyoming and Idaho but none responded. The four tribes that received the Fish and Wildlife Service letters were identified by the agency’s tribal liaisons as having a direct interest in grizzlies in the Yellowstone region, Servheen said.

“We would welcome their input and ideas, and we asked for the input and ideas,” he said.

Grizzlies received federal protections in the Lower 48 in 1975 after getting wiped out across much of their range. The Yellowstone region is home to one of the largest remaining populations.

The region’s bears temporarily lost protections in 2007 before they were restored by a federal judge. No tribes raised concerns during that time, Servheen said.

Lifting protections would transfer jurisdiction over grizzlies to states that have said they would likely allow some trophy hunting of the animals. Wildlife managers have said hunt quotas would be kept small because of the size of the population and the bears’ low rate of reproduction.

Record amount of water put in trust for fish

Water purveyor for King County cities donates water rights for White River

 

Joint News Release: Department of Ecology, Cascade Water Alliance, Muckleshooot Indian Tribe

 

LAKE TAPPS – It’s the largest trust water donation in Washington state history. Enough water to fill a football field 130 miles deep will stay in the White River for perpetuity.

The Washington Department of Ecology has signed an agreement with a consortium of five cities and two water and sewer districts in King County for permanent and temporary trust water donations that will protect flows for fish in the river through 2034 and beyond.

“Big things happen when the state, local governments and tribes come together to form strategic partnerships,” said Ecology Director Maia Bellon. “This historic donation protects water levels for fish, guarantees water supplies for people, and preserves Lake Tapps as a vital community asset for decades to come.”

On Jan. 17, 2015, Cascade Water Alliance will make its permanent donation of 684,571 acre feet of water to the state’s Trust Water Rights Program. The donation will preserve instream flows and protect fish habitat in a stretch of the White River that flows through the Muckleshoot Tribal Reservation. Cascade is the water purveyor for eight King County cities and two water and sewer districts.

This month’s transaction completes the agreement Cascade made with Ecology in 2010 to donate a portion of the water rights it acquired in the purchase of Lake Tapps in Pierce County to the trust water program. In addition, Cascade will donate another 154,751 acre feet of water to the Temporary Trust water rights program until 2034.

The trust water donation keeps water in the river for the benefit of fish, wildlife, recreation and the natural environment. Ecology has agreed not to approve or issue new water right permits for 20.7 miles of the White River in what is known as the Reservation Reach between Buckley and Sumner. Several salmon species use this stretch of the river for migration, spawning, rearing and flood refuge.

“For more than 90 years diversions from the White River at Buckley have largely de-watered the stretch of river that flows through our Reservation,” said Muckleshoot Tribal Council Chair Virginia Cross. “The water donations restore and will permanently preserve river flows through the Reservation that allow recovery of healthy fish runs. We are pleased to have had the opportunity to work with the Cascade Water Alliance to achieve this historic goal.”

The trust water donation is the culmination of a water rights package that has converted Lake Tapps in Pierce County into a future municipal water supply for 50 years or longer for Bellevue, Redmond, Kirkland, Issaquah, Tukwila and the water and sewer districts serving the Sammamish Plateau and Skyway.

Ecology approved the transfer of water rights from Puget Sound Energy (PSE) to Cascade and issued new municipal water rights to Cascade in 2010. PSE sold Lake Tapps to Cascade in 2009 after PSE no longer needed the lake as a reservoir for hydroelectric power operations.

In its purchase of Lake Tapps as a future drinking water supply for nearly 400,000 residents and 22,000 businesses in eastern King County, Cascade agreed to preserve the lake for the benefit of surrounding homeowners, boaters, swimmers and anglers.

“We are honored to make this donation a reality,” said Cascade Board Chair John Marchione, mayor of Redmond. “It’s the culmination of our regional collaboration with our partners around Lake Tapps – the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe, the Puyallup Tribe of Indians, the Lake Tapps homeowners and the four cities surrounding the lake – Auburn, Bonney Lake, Buckley and Sumner. Our work together helped make possible municipal water for the future, instream flows and a summer recreational lake.”

Endangered newborn baby orca is a girl, experts say

In this Tuesday, Dec. 30, 2014 photo provided by the Center for Whale Research, a new baby orca whale swims near its mother near Vancouver Island in the Canadian Gulf Islands of British Columbia. (AP Photo/Center for Whale Research, Ken Balcomb)
In this Tuesday, Dec. 30, 2014 photo provided by the Center for Whale Research, a new baby orca whale swims near its mother near Vancouver Island in the Canadian Gulf Islands of British Columbia. (AP Photo/Center for Whale Research, Ken Balcomb)

 

By Associated Press and KOMO News Staff

 

The Center for Whale Research in Washington state says the baby, part of the J pod of the southern resident orca population, has stayed healthy since it was first spotted Dec. 30 off the Canadian Gulf Islands of British Columbia.

The newborn whale is being called J-50. Researchers say they are now working with Canada’s Department of Fisheries and Oceans to gather more information about the baby’s mother.

Experts originally identified a whale in her early 40s known as J-16 seen swimming alongside the calf as its mother, but now say she might have actually been looking after the newborn for her daughter – a 16-year-old orca called J-36.

If J-16 is the mother, she will be the oldest southern resident orca to give birth in more than four decades of field studies.

Southern resident killer whales are considered an endangered species, with just 78 in the waters of British Columbia and Washington state, including the new arrival. But the arrival of the newborn orca is considered an encouraging sign following the death earlier this month of a pregnant killer whale from the same group.

Now, everyone is hoping J-50 survives. An estimated 35 percent to 45 percent of orcas die in their first year, said Howard Garrett of the Whidbey Island-based Orca Network.

Lummi Nation asks Army Corps to reject Cherry Point coal terminal

Then-Lummi Nation Chairman Clifford Cultee, left, and Hereditary Chief Bill James speak at a 2012 protest against a proposed coal export terminal at Cherry Point. The tribe sent a letter on Monday, Jan. 5, 2015 to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, asking the agency to reject a permit application for the coal terminal because it would interfere with tribal fishing grounds. PHILIP A. DWYER — THE BELLINGHAM HERALD
Then-Lummi Nation Chairman Clifford Cultee, left, and Hereditary Chief Bill James speak at a 2012 protest against a proposed coal export terminal at Cherry Point. The tribe sent a letter on Monday, Jan. 5, 2015 to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, asking the agency to reject a permit application for the coal terminal because it would interfere with tribal fishing grounds. PHILIP A. DWYER — THE BELLINGHAM HERALD

 

BY RALPH SCHWARTZ, The Bellingham Herald

 

Lummi Nation sent  a letter on Monday, Jan. 5, to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, asking the agency to immediately reject a permit application for a coal terminal at Cherry Point because it would interfere with tribal fishing grounds.

An environmental group in Bellingham called the action “historic.”

Lummi Nation cited its rights under a treaty with the United States to fish in its “usual and accustomed” areas, which include the waters around Cherry Point. A court decision in 2000 clarified the Lummi fishing territory, first established in 1855, to include northern Puget Sound from the Fraser River to Seattle, with the exception of the Strait of Juan de Fuca and Hood Canal.

“The Lummi have harvested at this location since time immemorial and plan to continue into the future,” said the Lummi letter, signed by Chairman Tim Ballew. “The proposed project will impact this significant treaty harvesting location and will significantly limit the ability of tribal members to exercise their treaty rights.”

The letter was authorized by the Lummi Indian Business Council on Wednesday, Dec. 31.

A manager at RE Sources for Sustainable Communities in Bellingham said in a message to members that the Lummis had made “an historic announcement.”

“This is a critical development in the fight to block the Cherry Point coal terminal,” wrote Matt Petryni, clean energy program manager at RE Sources.

Past case law suggests Gateway Pacific Terminal could be in trouble. The corps rejected a permit in 1992 for a salmon farm in Rosario Strait on the grounds that the farm, though no larger on the surface than 1.41 acres, would interfere with Lummi fishing. The decision withstood a challenge in U.S. District Court.

“There’s a precedent for a threshold of impact on treaty rights,” Ballew said. “I trust that the Corps will uphold its constitutional responsibility.”

Officials for Gateway Pacific Terminal said they could not comment before the deadline for this story.

The coal terminal, if approved by federal and state agencies, and Whatcom County, would ship up to 48 million metric tons of coal annually to Asian ports, starting as early as 2019.

While environmentalists who have actively opposed the coal terminal for years celebrated, they didn’t declare victory.

“One of the things I’m sure of is that the Corps will respond to the gravity of this statement,” said Crina Hoyer, RE Sources’ executive director. “What the ultimate end result will be, it may be decided in the court.”

Corps officials said they will review the 97-page document submitted to them on Monday by the tribe. If the Corps finds that treaty-protected fishing would be disrupted to any significant degree, it will pass the information along to project applicant SSA Marine of Seattle for review.

“We generally ask the applicant to coordinate with the relevant tribes and to resolve the issue,” the Corps said in a statement on Monday.

Lummi Nation consistently has opposed the coal terminal publicly. Tribal members in 2012  burned a symbolic check representing a presumed buy-out from the coal industry. Last year, the tribe toured the western U.S. and Canada with a  totem pole to raise awareness of their opposition to fossil-fuel transport. The tribe also has criticized Gateway Pacific Terminal in written comments to permitting agencies.

“This is the strongest statement that we’ve seen from the Lummi Nation,” Hoyer said.

A  report released last month provided preliminary evidence that the terminal would impede tribal fishing. The vessel traffic study, developed by SSA Marine and Lummi Nation with oversight by the state Department of Ecology, indicated that cargo ships and other traffic for Gateway Pacific Terminal would increase the number of vessels in north Puget Sound by 15 percent. Vessel traffic in the vicinity of Cherry Point would increase 33 percent. The risk of oil spills also would increase.

Those results,  released on Dec. 18, were not taken to be final. Ecology officials emphasized that further study of vessel traffic would be included in a draft of the environmental impact statement on the coal terminal, expected in early 2016.

Even so, the Lummis mentioned the vessel traffic study in their letter to the Corps.

“Review of the impacts associated with this project, including … (the vessel traffic study) lead to the inescapable conclusion that the proposed project will directly result in the substantial impairment of the treaty rights of the Lummi Nation,” the letter said.

Read more here: http://www.bellinghamherald.com/2015/01/05/4061757_lummi-nation-asks-army-corps-to.html?rh=1#storylink=cpy

 

“Being Frank” Attention, Action Needed For Salmon Recovery

 

By Lorraine Loomis, Chair, Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission

 

Why have salmon been pouring back into the Columbia River in record numbers recently while returns to the Washington coast and Puget Sound continue to drop? One big reason is that for the past decade someone in a position of authority has been in charge of protecting and restoring Columbia River salmon.

That person has been U.S. District Court Judge James Redden. Three times during the past 10 years he has rejected plans to operate hydroelectric dams in the Columbia River basin that would have jeopardized salmon listed under the Endangered Species Act. He ordered more water spilled over the dams to aid fish passage, even though that meant less water to generate power. He has also insisted on specific habitat improvements to aid in the recovery of salmon. Redden recently stepped down from the case, but has been replaced by federal court Judge Michael Simon.

That kind of attention and bold, targeted actions are exactly what we need to turn around salmon recovery in western Washington. Salmon recovery is failing because federal and state governments allow salmon habitat to be destroyed faster than it can be restored. This trend shows no sign of improvement despite drastic harvest reductions, careful use of hatcheries and extensive habitat restoration projects.

The ongoing loss of the salmon resource affects entire tribal communities in western Washington. Salmon is one of our most important traditional foods and a foundation of our cultures. Every year we try to set aside salmon to feed our families in the winter and to put fish on the table for ceremonies and funerals, but every year it is becoming more difficult. As the salmon disappear, our treaty-reserved  harvest rights are threatened more every day.

That is why our late chairman, Billy Frank Jr., and other tribal leaders created the Treaty Rights at Risk initiative three and a half years ago and took it to the White House. Our goal is to have the protection of treaty-reserved rights institutionalized in the federal government through the White House Council on Native American Affairs. President Obama created the council nearly two years ago. Addressing tribal natural resources concerns was one of five main foundations of the council, but the Council has yet to address this charge. As President Obama prepares to leave the White House in 2017, our need becomes greater every day.

The failure of salmon recovery in western Washington is the failure of the federal government to meet its trust responsibility to protect salmon and the treaty-reserved rights of tribes. Treaty Rights at Risk calls for the federal government to assume control and responsibility for a more coordinated salmon recovery effort in western Washington. But so far, the federal government’s lack of progress has been disappointing. There has been plenty of discussion, but little action to reverse the negative trend in the condition of salmon habitat in this region. That needs to change.

We shouldn’t need a federal court judge to provide the proper attention, protection and targeted actions to restore salmon. We would prefer to work together with our state and federal co-managers through the White House Council on Native American Affairs. Together, we could take effective action to recover salmon runs.

We have already developed recovery plans and identified barriers to salmon recovery in western Washington’s watersheds. Now we need a commitment from the White House to tackle the most pressing obstacles in each watershed and provide the leadership necessary to put those salmon recovery plans into action.

If salmon are to be in the future of this region we must act now before it is too late.

Stormwater fixes could cost billions

Pollution from stormwater has been called one of the greatest threats to Puget Sound. How much will it cost to hold back the rain? A new EPA-funded study says the price could reach billions per year, a figure that dwarfs current state and federal allocations.

 

Raindrops on a cafe window. Photo: Jim Culp (CC BY-NC-ND 2.0)
Raindrops on a cafe window. Photo: Jim Culp (CC BY-NC-ND 2.0)

 

Source: Encyclopedia of Puget Sound

 

Key takeaways

  • Runoff—or stormwater—from roads, parking lots, and roofs is one of the largest sources of contaminants flowing into Puget Sound.
  • An EPA-funded report projects costs of up to $14 billion dollars per year over 30 years to fully address stormwater pollution in the region.
  • A longer time frame for fixing the problem may be more practical. Costs fall to $650 million dollars per year if work is done over a 100-year period.
  • Stormwater pollution is made worse by urban development that prevents rain and snow from being absorbed by plants and soil.
  • Among the innovations grabbing the attention of scientists and engineers is low impact development, which use a place’s natural hydrology to control stormwater runoff.

The figure is staggering: Close to half a trillion dollars over the next 30 years. That’s what it could cost to completely address Puget Sound’s growing stormwater problem, according to an EPA-funded study presented last spring at the Salish Sea Ecosystem Conference.

The study, prepared by researchers at the King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks, projects the capital and maintenance costs of the stormwater treatment facilities that would be needed to fully comply with the Clean Water Act. A 30-year time frame could mean capital outlays of as much as $14 billion dollars per year. Jim Simmonds, the report’s lead author, acknowledges that, given the huge expense, a 30-year fix appears unlikely. But the report also looks at potential stormwater retrofits over the next 100 years. Costs over that time frame would average about $650 million dollars yearly. “That is far more realistic,” he says, and would help undo a century-old problem.

“It took us 100 years to create the problem, and it’s going to take a long time to fix it.”

—Jim Simmonds, Environmental Programs Managing Supervisor, King County Natural Resources and Parks

The figures far exceed last year’s state allocation of $100 million dollars, but Simmonds says the study is not meant to suggest that the legislature suddenly come up with an additional $14 billion dollars annually to deal with stormwater. Instead, he says, it tells a story of where we are and where we still have to go. Runoff—or stormwater—from roads, parking lots, and roofs is one of the largest sources of contaminants flowing into Puget Sound. “One of the questions that has come up repeatedly is ‘how much will it take to fix this problem?'” he says. “This report puts that in context.”

How we got here

Sandwiched between the Olympic and Cascade mountain ranges, Puget Sound’s urban areas receive up to 40 inches of rain each year. Historically, most of this water soaked into the ground or was taken up by plants. In forested areas in the Pacific Northwest, evergreen trees transport about 40% of rainfall back to the atmosphere through their needles. The remaining water filters through other plants and the soil. The ecosystem is driven by this water cycle, but over the past 100 years, human development has drastically altered this natural pattern.

 

Soggy Crosswalk. Photo: sea turtle (CC BY-NC-ND 2.0) https://www.flickr.com/photos/sea-turtle/8200857497
Soggy Crosswalk. Photo: sea turtle (CC BY-NC-ND 2.0) https://www.flickr.com/photos/sea-turtle/8200857497

 

Urban areas were originally designed to move stormwater quickly and efficiently downstream through a series of drains, pipes, and sewers. Flood prevention was the main reason for getting stormwater out of the city fast, but over the years municipalities have come to realize that speedy water removal is actually detrimental to the health of Puget Sound.

Without the filtering effect of plants and soil, surface runoff increases and stream flows become “flashier”—surges in runoff are more frequent and more intense. This means greater flooding, and more polluted water flowing into Puget Sound.

In Seattle, one acre of pavement can generate as much as a million gallons of stormwater each year. Water from downpours picks up all kinds of pollutants—from motor oil to dog waste—as it makes its way down the drains. Carcinogens, heavy metals, and harmful bacteria can all be counted in this mix. One study estimates that rainfall runoff events can transport up to 8 times the amount of copper and 6 times the amount of mercury compared to baseline conditions. That’s bad news for wildlife and humans alike.

 

Dump no waste. Drains to lake. Photo: Steve Mohundro (CC BY-NC-SA 2.0) https://www.flickr.com/photos/smohundro/3836007632
Dump no waste. Drains to lake. Photo: Steve Mohundro (CC BY-NC-SA 2.0) https://www.flickr.com/photos/smohundro/3836007632

 

 

The Clean Water Act

The Clean Water Act of 1972 was one of the first rigorous national laws dealing with water contamination, with the first concentration-based limits for pollution. The original goal was to eliminate the direct discharge of pollutants by 1985. Amendments to deal with stormwater weren’t introduced until 1987, which required permits for all new development projects. In the 1980s and 1990s a slew of new legislation introduced more criteria for stormwater management. Currently all development and redevelopment projects require approved stormwater treatment, and that requires facilities and infrastructure.

So what about those billion dollar figures? Simmonds says the potentially high costs outlined in the King County report highlight the need for creative solutions. The report outlines a worst-case scenario that assumes all retrofit approaches will stay the same. New technologies and other innovations will almost certainly lower costs, he says, but the report does not focus on the how—just the how much. And whether the costs are in the hundreds of millions or the billions, Simmonds argues that we risk more if we ignore the problem. “Yes, this is a huge investment. But I don’t think it has to be dismissed as too expensive,’” he says. “The [state and federal agencies] have all declared that stormwater is the biggest threat to Puget Sound. We have to decide how we’re going to deal with that.” The bottom line, he says: “It took us 100 years to create the problem, and it’s going to take a long time to fix it.”

 

The big impact of low impact development

Among the innovations grabbing the attention of scientists and engineers are low impact development approaches to stormwater treatment, which use a place’s natural hydrology to control stormwater runoff.

At the 2014 Salish Sea Ecosystem Conference, Mindy Fohn, a stormwater manager with Kitsap County, described one low impact development approach where  managers are planting trees in notoriously impervious surfaces like parking lots to trap stormwater. In the past, these trees might have been planted on raised islands. Now planners are putting them in lower areas that draw the water between parking spots. These interventions are small, local, and often quite beautiful.

 

Kids explore a newly installed rain garden. Photo: JBLM PAO (CC BY-NC-SA 2.0) https://www.flickr.com/photos/jblmpao/6215109375
Kids explore a newly installed rain garden. Photo: JBLM PAO (CC BY-NC-SA 2.0) https://www.flickr.com/photos/jblmpao/6215109375

 

 

So far, bioretention from low impact development has shown promising results. A natural filtration system of soils and plants was recently demonstrated by NOAA to effectively eliminate some of the deadly effects of stormwater on coho salmon.

Another area of interest involves citizens themselves, in a more grass roots approach, installing rain gardens on their own properties. Rain gardens are simply landscaped areas that collect, absorb and filter stormwater runoff from rooftops, decks and other hard surfaces. The idea is to prevent stormwater from washing off individual properties which, if done in sufficient numbers, will have a large positive effect on watershed and basins.  The Washington State University and Stewardship Partners are working together towards the goal of ‘12,000 Rain Gardens‘ by the year 2016.

Washington’s Statewide Recycling Rate Dips Below 50%

Washingtonians diverted less trash from landfills in 2013 than in 2012.COURTESY WASH. DEPT OF ECOLOGY
Washingtonians diverted less trash from landfills in 2013 than in 2012.
COURTESY WASH. DEPT OF ECOLOGY

 

By BELLAMY PAILTHORP, KPLU

Washingtonians have lost some bragging rights.

We still recycle at a rate that’s much higher than the national average, but we’re no longer improving on the amount of recyclables we divert from landfills. The statewide rate went down in the most recent data set, to 49 percent in 2013.

The state Department of Ecology was quick to point out that Washington remains a national leader in recycling. Our rate is still well above the nationwide average of 34.5 percent. But we’re backsliding.

“We’ve been above 50 percent for the last two years. And now we’re back down to 49 percent,” said recycling data analyst Dan Weston.

It’s not all bad news, Weston says. We’ve improved our rate of recycling plastics, for example. But rates are falling for commodities that have seen price drops, such as glass and ferrous metals. He thinks dealers may be holding onto them, waiting for prices to rebound. And there’s been less recycling of construction and demolition materials despite a recent increase in new construction.

“We’re not quite recycling those materials at the rate that we had been prior to the recession. And so that’s definitely an area where I think we’ll be seeing a much stronger focus over the next few years,” he said.

Food waste is another area that needs improvement, hence the new ban on compostables in Seattle trash, with fines kicking in this July.

The state has also just started free recycling for fluorescent lightbulbs to keep toxics such as mercury out of the waste stream.

But Weston thinks we’re already capturing most of the low-hanging fruit at this point, so making additional gains will probably require incremental progress in all areas.

“We know how to recycle what we’re currently recycling and we just need to do a little bit more everywhere,” he said. “Making those additional gains is just going to require more work than we’ve been doing in the last few years.”

Old year ends with newborn baby orca in our Salish Sea

Orcas are an endangered species in inland waters of the Salish Sea, encompassing Puget Sound, the San Juan Islands and the Gulf Islands of British Columbia. (VALERY HACHE/AFP/Getty Images)
Orcas are an endangered species in inland waters of the Salish Sea, encompassing Puget Sound, the San Juan Islands and the Gulf Islands of British Columbia. (VALERY HACHE/AFP/Getty Images)

 

By Joel Connelly, Seattle PI

 

The last days of 2014 have brought glad tidings and great joy to those who follow and worry about the southern resident community of orcas (killer whales) that inhabit the Salish Sea, the inland waters of Washington and southern British Columbia.

A newborn orca was discovered Tuesday looking “healthy and energetic” and being snuggled by its mother off South Pender Island, just over the border in B.C.’s Gulf Islands. The discovery was made by Ken Balcomb of the Center for Whale Research.

The baby, christened J50, was born to 42-year-old J16 (Slick), who has produced five offspring, three living, with the oldest 23-year-old J26 (Mike).

“We’re excited!” said Howard Garrett of Orca Network.  “She (J16) sets a new bar, a new record for the oldest to give birth, by a year or two.”

The birth of J50 raises the southern resident community population to 78.

The southern residents were classified in 2005 under the Endangered Species Act at a time when the population of the great marine mammals had fallen to 78.

Orcas are particular about their diet. They feed off chinook salmon, in a region where salmon stocks have declined due to factors ranging from habitat destruction to pollution to bad forest practices to overfishing.

The orcas do not consume any of the millions of sockeye salmon that head for B.C.’s Fraser River each year through the Strait of Juan de Fuca and the Strait of Georgia between Vancouver Island and the B.C. mainland.  “We wish they would,” joked Garrett.

The region’s inland waters have two major populations of orcas.  The northern resident community spends July through September in waters of Johnstone Strait off northern Vancouver Island.  The orcas are renowned for rubbing against pebbles just offshore from the mouth of the Tsitika River near Alert Bay.

The northern residents head north in the winter, presumably to southeast Alaska waters.  The northern resident community totals about 250 orcas.

The diets of the southern resident and northern resident communities “are the same,” Garrett explained, “but their communication and call system are entirely different.  Their is no overlap, no interaction between the two communities.”

The birth of J50, in a month when the southern residents have been seen in both the San Juans and Gulf Islands, puts the spotlight on a major decision pending in Canada.

The giant Houston-based Kinder Morgan pipeline company wants to triple the capacity of the Trans-Mountain Pipeline, which transports oil from Alberta to a refinery in Burnaby, just east of Vancouver.  The completed pipeline would carry more oil than the controversial Keystone XL pipeline designed to link Alberta oilfields to the U.S. Gulf Coast.

The enlarged Trans-Mountain Pipeline would bring oil from Alberta’s vast tar sands project to the coast for export to Asia.

If the Kinder Morgan project goes through, an estimated 30 tankers a month — up from four at the present time — would traverse Haro Strait, a middle point in habitat for the southern resident community and the marine boundary between the U.S. San Juan and Canada’s Gulf Islands.  Both countries have national parks and monuments in the islands.

A major environmental battle over Kinder Morgan is underway north of the border.