Surface waters of Kitsap.

I’ve covered water resources for years, and one of the big questions in the context of growth and development has always been: “Will the area have enough water to support growth.”

It’s a question I’ve asked local water managers since I arrived here in 1977. Their answer is generally something like this: “We should have enough water far into the future if we manage it carefully.” My latest story, published in the Kitsap Sun Oct. 3, described a relatively low-water year ending in October.

Most of Kitsap County’s water comes from wells. Consequently, managing water carefully means conserving what we’ve got, allowing our rains to soak into the ground and, in some contexts, being able to move water from areas of lesser supply to areas of greater supply. The map of surface waters at right can be found on the Kitsap County Web site.

Water is one of the big environmental issues of our time, and it will grow more important as long as the population continues to grow. Most people in the water business would like to know more about underground water supplies, so a study of the peninsula’s water resources would be valuable. Experts also realize that studies of this kind are only as good as the data that go in. That involves using measurements from hundreds of wells and well logs (soil layers) across the peninsula. You may want to check out similar studies conducted by USGS.

This topic also appears to be interesting to Kitsap Sun readers, because the story I wrote last week was rated the most popular on the Web site for two days running.

As with many environmental stories, the first comments to be posted seemed skeptical of the whole idea that caused me to write the story:

Crownvic (the first comment): “This is another one of these greeny try-to-scare-the-hell-out-of-you articles. First of all, almost all water wells pump from an aquifer 100 feet plus deep and have absolutely no effect on surface waters due to the impervious layers top and bottom…”

nategrey#290609: “And do you think the magical water fairies replenish the supply when it starts running low? Long and short of it is people shouldn’t waste water. Good luck changing the habits of people who leave the tap running when they brush their teeth or take 30 minute+ showers every day.”

wwinc#211511: “This is all BULLS__IT….you can not even do the math do come up with what they are suggesting….. why is the government and Kitsap Sun perpetuating a scare into the community?”

NavalAviator: “… The only way that you can truly check the water situation in the wells is to pull off the lid and seal at the top of the casing and check the height of the water in the casing compared to what it was sometime earlier. Forget this voodoo math that must be the product of some government grant.”

dahl#245857: “Ha ha ha. Don’t you know there is gold to be made in them thar scares?”

Within a few hours, the mood shifted, and those making comments were more favorable to the idea of a study:

Retired151: “… Crownvic you’re quick to say that it’s bogus. Why is it bogus? What’s your evidence? What models do you have to show we have plenty of water for future needs? Water is an issue. If we don’t address how we’re going to conserve it now, later may be too late.”

nategrey#290609 “… Ever hear of this little thing called “drought”? Just because we have plentiful rain/snow now doesn’t mean this will always be the case. Just ask FL and GA. Was it not just a few years ago they were actually discussing water rationing in most of WA because of a lack of rainfall and lower than average snowfall? To not prepare for something simply because it doesn’t appear to be a problem now is the height of stupidity.”

devildogANDhisDISH: “When I went to the National Park near Tucson, AZ, there was a graph of how deep a person had to dig for water when the first settlers arrived. In 1850’s the depth was 50 feet, it is now over 350. If you think the world is not drying up, stick around 20 years. With the population growth and dumping of hazardous waste your water will soon be reclaimed waste…”

indyexpat: “Another one of those things I don’t understand. What in the world are you people talking about? This is a study to find information about something that is not known. Nobody is trying to ’scare’ anyone. The study is to try to find out how the groundwater is replenished, if it is, etc. For god’s sake people, get a grip.”

elwha#286815: “As someone who has worked in water resources in very similar geology for the last 12 years, I can attest to the fact that much of the information being presented here as comments is simply incorrect. For those who think that groundwater is not connected to surface water because the well is deep (100+ feet), I would direct you to a geologic map of the Kitsap Peninsula…”

And so it went. I would say that later comments generally were in favor of the study — as reflected in a poll we ran alongside the story. As of now, 20 percent of respondents don’t believe the study would be worthwhile. The rest are interested in knowing how long local water supplies will last along with other concerns.

Monty Mahan (WestBayGuy) came in at the end (at least for now) with this comment:

“I’m late in the discussion and maybe no one is really reading anymore, however…

“In Pierce County we’re working with USGS and Mark Savoca on a similar project, to model groundwater supply in the Chambers-Clover Creek Watershed. In addition, a similar project may soon start in the Puyallup Watershed.

“The project concept is truly worthwhile, scientifically defensible, and potentially very useful in determining where usage for human purposes might be expanded, and where supplies are likely to crash and new water rights should therefore not be approved….

“It’s a great partnership between environmental and development interests, and truly understanding how much water we have for our future use is vital, in my view. Get it going guys; this South Kitsap well-owner is in favor.”

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post 

The Legislature this week voted to phase out cooper in brake pads, provided there are reasonable alternatives and that research continues to suggest that brake pads are contributing significant amounts of toxic copper. The bill is Senate Bill 6557.

This last point about research — about the need to know more about the alternate states of copper in the environment — was raised by Silverdale resident Bob Benze. I covered his questions and success in adding an amendment to the bill in the March 1 edition of the Kitsap Sun.

Even at low levels, an ionic form of copper has been shown to affect the sense of smell in salmon, which can lead to confusion and reproductive failure. It has become a major concern, especially in urban areas. Here’s a fact sheet from the Washington Department of Ecology.

Ivy Sager-Rosenthal of the Washington Toxics Coalition supports the Puget Sound Partnership’s call for a full assessment of toxic chemicals flowing into Puget Sound and an increased focus on eliminating sources of such pollution.

Last week, Ted Sturdevant, director of Ecology, testified before Congress about actions taken by state governments, generally because the federal government has been slow to act. He and 12 other state environmental officials are calling for reform of the federal Toxic Substances Control Act.

Washington was the first state to draft a formal policy phasing out persistent bioaccumulative toxics, or PBTs. This led to state laws phasing out mercury and toxic flame retardants. The latest legislation, finalized this week, will ban bisphenol-A in baby bottles and sports bottles.

Sturdevant spelled out three guiding principles for addressing persistent toxic chemicals:

“First: before you allow a substance to be put into widespread use and commerce, it makes sense to take all reasonable measures to first make sure it is safe.

“Second: if science tells us that there are toxic chemicals that pose an urgent and unacceptable threat, government should be able to protect the public and ban those chemicals.

“Third: if we know with reasonable certainty that a particular substance is dangerous to people or the food chain and doesn’t break down; and if we know that allowing continued use of that substance will spread it far and wide; and if there is an alternative substance that could perform the same task much more safely; then the right policy is simple: stop using the dangerous substance, and use the safer alternative.”

These chemicals are called “persistent” for a reason, and polychlorinated biphenyls, or PCBs, are a shameful example of what can happen. The production of PCBs began in the 1920s. Despite their usefulness in a variety of applications, studies in the 1930s showed that this class of chemicals could be harmful to humans. Production increased, as did the problems, with few people paying attention to the long-term effects. In 1979, PCBs were finally banned, but even today they are still being found in animals, including humans.

PCBs are suspected of causing cancer and have been associated with developmental, reproductive and immune problems.

Sturdevant again:

“This is a critical point; when we put persistent toxics out into the world, they persist. And if they turn out to be a problem, then the problem becomes enormous, and largely unsolvable. Once out, we cannot ever truly put the PBT genie back in the bottle. This has been an expensive lesson that we all should learn from — when we uncork that bottle, let’s be as sure as we can that it makes sense to do so.”

Principles proposed by the 13 state environmental officials calling for reforms in the Toxic Substances Control Act:

Require Chemical Data Reporting. Chemical and product manufacturers should be required to develop and provide chemical health and safety information, as well as exposure and use data, including the presence of toxic chemicals in products and the associated chemical hazards and risks, to regulators, businesses, and the public.

Demonstrate Chemicals and Products are Safe. Manufacturers should provide the necessary information to regulators to conclude that new and existing chemicals and products in commerce are safe and do not endanger the public or the environment. The public has a right to expect that the products they use are safe.

Prioritize Chemicals of Concern. Government should identify and prioritize chemicals of concern in order to regulate the most problematic chemicals in commerce, and have the authority to take timely action to protect people and the environment. Sufficient resources should be made available to support these actions.

Protect the Most Vulnerable. Chemical regulation should be designed to protect the most vulnerable, including pregnant women and children.

Promote Safer Chemicals and Products. Based on green chemistry principles, manufacturers should be required to assess and identify safer alternatives to problematic chemicals of concern. Government should establish protocols for evaluating potential alternatives to chemicals of concern.

Address Emerging Contaminants. Emerging chemicals of concern, including nanoscale materials, need to be assessed for public and environmental safety before they go into widespread commerce and use.

Strengthen Federal Law & Preserve States’ Rights. States acknowledge the need for a strong federal chemical regulation system, while expressly preserving the authority of state and localities to implement measures to manage chemicals of concern.

Fund State Programs. Effective state-federal governance should enhance the role of states in TSCA implementation, promote data and information sharing, and provide sustained funding for state programs. The states are in a unique position to provide innovative, cost-effective solutions for chemicals of concern prioritization, interstate data sharing, and safer chemical alternatives assessments.

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post 

Beyond beauty, shoreline environments contain vital ecosystems. (Click to enlarge)
Kitsap Sun photo

Oh, yes, lakes and a few streams are part of the picture.

Kitsap County commissioners last night appointed a 20-member citizen task force to take a central role in the planning effort. For the first time in county history, regulations will be based on ecosystem values. See the story I wrote for today’s Kitsap Sun listing the members.

Similar planning efforts are under way in Kitsap’s cities as well as various communities throughout the Puget Sound region. I wrote a story for the Kitsap Sun Feb. 27 regarding the effort for our cities.

In the past, shoreline regulations were based on existing land uses. Buffers — including the current 100-foot buffer for rural areas — were uniform throughout the entire county. Previous rules never took into consideration the particular types of shoreline or their ecological values. For example, an estuary with a highly productive marsh and a stream running through it was treated exactly the same as a rocky outcropping pounded by waves.

The task force will have the interesting task of figuring out ecosystem functions for various segments of Kitsap County’s shoreline. We know that sloping beaches can be important to migrating salmon, that certain kinds of sand and gravel support forage fish and that a multitude of creatures may reside in nearby upland areas.

But here’s the big question: Why does development need to stay back from the shoreline, and how far back is far enough. I think we’ll see during this planning process that it all depends on what one is trying to protect. That, in turn, depends on the flora and fauna supported by the specific shoreline type.

Kitsap County now has a basic “inventory” of man-made and natural features found along the shoreline. This inventory was created by a team of biologists who walked the entire waterfront — both on the east side of the county fronting onto Puget Sound, and on the west side fronting onto Hood Canal. Coupled with additional information being compiled, this inventory will form the basis of discussions in the coming months.

One of the new task force participants is Tom Nevins, a member of the Kitsap County Planning Commission who lived through battles over the county’s Critical Areas Ordinance. When done, the county was immediately sued by both property-rights advocates and by environmentalists. Under orders from the Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings Board, the county commissioners established 100-foot buffers for rural shorelines.

But the battle was not over and eventually got tied up in the confusion over whether the Critical Areas Ordinance or the Shorelines Master Program should apply to shoreline properties. A bill passed by the Legislature this session attempts to resolve the problem for the second time. I wrote about the bill in Saturday’s Kitsap Sun.

Nevins told me that he hopes for a more orderly process this time around. I believe things will go more smoothly if those involved will look for common ground using common sense. Property rights are in play, but so are public interests in shoreline ecosystems.

The final piece of the puzzle is the appointment of a professional facilitator to lead the task force on its quest. That appointment is likely to come in two weeks, with the first meeting in early April.

Kitsap County Department of Community Development has now ramped up its new Web page for the Shoreline Master Program Update, which is designed as conduit for information.

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post 

Manufacturers of various kinds of containers were ready to accept a ban on baby bottles. In fact, major producers — including Gerber and Playtex — are no longer using BPA in infant products sold in the United States.

But the amendment (added by the House and approved today by the Senate) shows that industry representatives were unsuccessful at drawing a line for BPA in adult products. The argument is that young children are more vulnerable to endocrine-disrupting chemicals, because their immune and reproductive systems are still forming.

Jan Teague, president of the Washington Retail Association, was quoted in the Puget Sound Business Journal as saying manufacturers are “ready” for the state to ban BPA in baby bottles, sippy cups, and other containers used by children, but adult products are another thing.

“The bill is about children’s safety—not adult sports bottles,” Teague told reporter Kaitlin Strohschein. “I think we’re going to be fine on the baby bottles and stuff but not on the sports bottles.”

It is not hard to find sport bottles that are without BPA, if you can believe the labels. Go into any store where the bottles are sold and you’ll see “BPA free” as a key selling point.

Industry officials still seem worried about any further bans, saying so far there are no good alternatives for five-gallon water bottles, given their strength and light weight. They also remain opposed to banning the use of BPA as a liner for steel cans, given that the plastic can greatly extend the life of food products.

In a story in the Washington Post, reporter Lyndsey Layton recently described how manufacturers are spending millions of dollars to find alternatives to BPA, but none has been successful so far.

I began my first tentative reporting on this issue in Water Ways in April 2008 and have followed developments ever since. In January, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration did an about-face on the issue and voiced “some concern” about its effects on infants and young children. Advocacy groups had been arguing that the FDA’s position against a ban was based on poorly designed studies conducted by industry sponsors.

If our governor signs the bill as expected, Washington will be the second state — behind Connecticut — to ban BPA in sports bottles. Others have approved or are proposing bans on baby bottles and sippy cups. Last week, reporter Meg Kissinger of the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reported that Wisconsin Gov. Jim Doyle has signed a bill into law dealing with baby bottles, while Maryland lawmakers have approved a similar bill. Legislation is pending in Massachusetts, Missouri, New Jersey, New Mexico, Pennsylvania, Vermont and Washington, D.C.

In February, a similar measure fell one vote short of approval in the Oregon Senate, as described by Rob Manning of Oregon Public Broadcasting.

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post 

A newborn calf, L-114, is seen swimming with its mother, L-77, named Matia. The photo was taken Sunday in Cordova Bay on the eastern side of Vancouver Island near Nanaimo, B.C. (Click to enlarge)
Photo courtesy of Dave Ellifrit of the Center for Whale Research

He’s a story I prepared this morning for the Kitsap Sun Web site:

A new calf has been born into L Pod, one of the three groups of orcas that frequent Puget Sound and the Salish Sea.

The young whale was spotted Sunday in Cordova Bay on the east coast of Vancouver Island, Canada, by Ken Balcomb and Dave Ellifrit of the Center for Whale Research. The center maintains an ongoing census of the Southern Resident killer whale population.

The two researchers later confirmed that the newborn, designated L-114, is the offspring of L-77, a 22-year-old named Matia. This is her first known calf, though it is possible she has had one or more offspring that did not survive.

The mother and calf were traveling with another mother-calf pair, L-94, Calypso, and her calf, L-113, born last fall. Calypso is Matia’s sister. The four whales are part of a portion of L pod that often travels together. They have become known as the L-12 subpod.

Balcomb and Ellifrit reported that they observed the newborn calf Sunday afternoon while the whales were headed south in Cordova Bay. At about 5 p.m., they reached the southern shore and headed east toward open water. They appeared to be hunting for fish, with “lots of taillobs, cartwheels and pec slaps,” according to a report on the center’s Web page.

This is the seventh orca calf born to the three Southern Resident pods in the past year. There have been no deaths during that time. This latest birth brings L Pod’s population to 42 animals and the overall population to 89.

“This continues the streak,” said Howard Garrett of Orca Network. “I am at a loss for an explanation. I am just celebrating.”

“It’s great news for the population,” Balcomb said. “So far all of them are doing well.”

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post 

I just finished reading a 12-part series about Climategate published in The Guardian, a British publication. The series includes annotated comments written by those close to the issue.

If you care about climate change, you probably should pay attention to politics surrounding this issue. That means you probably should know about the controversy surrounding the stolen e-mails of a few key climate scientists.

This series, by reporter Fred Pearce, offers context that one cannot get by reading the e-mails alone. I was impressed by the balance that Pearce brings to the issue, neither defending nor attacking the scientists for their apparent failings. But he does comment on the personalities of the scientists as well as the skeptics who constantly stirred the pot.

The so-called scandal incident does not discount the accumulated evidence about climate change on many fronts, but these researchers did refuse requests for data from climate-change skeptics and they may have interfered with the normal peer-review process. It is also possible that we may never see another “consensus” report on climate change like those written in the past, Pearce says.

In a note introducing the 12 articles, The Guardian editors call this series a “unique experiment,” and an “attempt at a collaborative route to getting at the truth.” In addition to the normal comment section from readers, the series includes sections of text highlighted in yellow. These annotations link to comments provided by people judged to be close to the situation. As I understand it, the record remains open for knowledgeable people to make comments.

As the editors state, “We hope to approach that complete account by harnessing the expertise of people with a special knowledge of, or information about, the emails. We would like the protagonists on all sides of the debate to be involved, as well as people with expertise about the events and the science being described or more generally about the ethics of science.”

Fred Pearce paces his story for dramatic effect, which makes the series an enjoyable read. Here are his opening paragraphs:

“This story is dark; there are no heroes. Environmentalists will be distressed at what happens in the labs; many may think we should not publish for fear of wrecking the already battered cause of fighting climate change. But some of it, according to the British government’s Information Commissioner, may have been illegal.

“Remember two other things. First, this was war. The scientists were under intense and prolonged attack, they believed, from politically and commercially motivated people who wanted to prevent them from doing their science and trash their work. And they had, as their most vocal protagonist Professor Michael Mann puts it in one email, “dirty laundry one doesn’t want to fall into the hands of those who might potentially try to distort things …”

“Meanwhile, their attackers came to believe that the scientists were fraudsters. In many ways, what follows is a Shakespearean tragedy of misunderstood motives.”

Read on in Part 1 of the series.

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post 

A report out today shows that the freezing temperature of water can be controlled by the type of electric charge you put at the surface.

If you take supercooled water, which has no dust particles to begin crystallization, you can get the temperature down to about -12.5 degrees C. on average. If you apply a positive charge to the surface, that same water freezes at about -7 degrees. With a negative charge, it goes down to about -18 before freezing. This is really an amazing range.

Study coauthor Igor Lubomirsky of the Weizmann Institute of Science in Rehovot, Israel was quoted in today’s Science News:

“We are very, very surprised by this result. It means that by controlling surface charge, either positive or negative, you can either suppress ice formation or enhance ice formation.”

This also means that you can freeze water by heating it up — assuming that you change the charge on the water’s surface. Another experiment by the researchers bear this out.

Speculation about how to use these new-found properties are already beginning to pop up. One researcher suggests that it could have an application in the study of cloud formation, which is central to the issue of climate change.

Joe Palca of National Public Radio jumped on the story and does a good job in his piece for the radio.

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post 

I recall that the Partnership’s predecessor group, the Puget Sound Action Team, used to make a big deal out of these ecosystem reports. Frankly, I had expected a major rollout, like that of the Puget Sound Action Agenda — until I read through the document and began to ask questions.

David Dicks, executive director of the Puget Sound Partnership, told me the report was a “hybrid version.” Before the next formal report is due in two years, he hopes to provide more meaningful ecosystem-condition reports through a Web site.

The Partnership’s Science Panel called the report a “transitional” document between descriptions of ecosystem conditions in past “State of the Sound” reports and a new “ecosystem-reporting framework” being developed for the Puget Sound Partnership.

Kathy Fletcher, executive director of People for Puget Sound, said the document is not what the Legislature envisioned when it laid out reporting requirements for the Partnership. Without better indicators, benchmarks and long-term goals, nobody knows if the Partnership is on track to restore Puget Sound to a healthy condition by 2020, she said.

Fletcher has a unique perspective on this process. Besides heading an environmental organization, she serves on the Partnership’s Ecosystem Coordination Board. She also was the first executive director of the original Puget Sound panel — called the Puget Sound Water Quality Authory (1983).

I won’t linger on this new report, as I expect more useful information to be forthcoming in the next few months. Read my story in today’s Kitsap Sun, or download the report from the Puget Sound Partnership.

If you download the report, you may wish to read about the Performance Management System being developed, which is described in some detail, as well as a description of funding issues. Those and a few other details are new additions to the “State of the Sound.”

Because the Partnership is relying heavily on its Science Panel to develop a system to measure changes in the ecosystem, I’ll highlight a few of the problems, which the panel describes in its section of the report:

“… the high priority and focus placed on developing the Action Agenda within one year of creating the Partnership precluded developing a reasoned and focused scientific assessment to identify and rank hazards and threats to the ecosystem, limited the ability to establish a baseline monitoring program to inform adaptive learning from ongoing restoration, and lessened the ability to scientifically prioritize needed actions…

“Since a comprehensive set of ecosystem indicators and the rigorous data needed to support them are still under development, the analysis provided in the 2009 State of the Sound should be considered transitional in nature, providing a link between previous State of the Sound Science Panel Comments on Progress implementing the 2008 Action Agenda summaries and the evolving ecosystem reporting framework being developed for the Partnership…

“Coincident with the development of indicators, the Partnership examined frameworks to evaluate stressors and pressures on the ecosystem, with the goal of understanding and communicating the relative importance of different ‘drivers’ of ecosystem degradation. The Partnership leveraged work done by a national-scale NOAA ‘Integrated Ecosystem Assessment’ program to further develop the framework and models necessary to rationally understand current conditions, stressors, and the meaning of ecosystem health…

“To be clear, what we know about the status and trends of the Puget Sound ecosystem is based largely on observations and analyses done prior to 2008, as there simply has not been sufficient time for Partnership activities, including implementation of the Action Agenda, to be reflected in demonstrable improvements in the Puget Sound…

“Establishing ecosystem indicators, benchmarks, and goals is more difficult than it may first appear, as each step of the way requires technical data and policy decisions informed by science. Such a framework has the apparent advantage of specific numeric targets achieved by certain dates, which is often seen as driving actions. However, there may be a false sense of certainty in the numbers, as the framework implies that the underlying relationships between cause and effect are quantitatively understood.”

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post 

Twanoh State Park on Hood Canal near Belfair. Photo by John Stokes.

Another opportunity to photograph high tides begins today, according to Ecology officials. For information about submitting photos to Ecology, go to the agency’s EcoNet blog.

By the way, Kitsap Sun reporter Rachel Pritchett reported about the high tides as well as those mentioned in Ecology’s blog.

The following, along with numerous photos, is posted on Ecology’s Web site:

“More extreme high tide events are expected to occur on a more regular basis in the future as a result of rising sea levels. In the Olympia region, for example, these high tide events could occur ten times per year by 2050 instead of just once or twice per year, based on a medium projection of 6 inches of seal level rise in 2050 for the Puget Sound region.

“This is expected to intensify flooding of coastal areas, especially during major storm events. Rising sea levels also shift coastal beaches inland and increase erosion of coastal bluffs, endangering houses and other structures built near the shore or near the bluff edges. Saltwater intrusion into coastal freshwater aquifers is also expected as sea levels rise.

Why it matters

“Understanding the future impacts from sea level rise and creating tools and information to assist local governments and the citizens of the state is a priority for Governor Gregoire and the Department of Ecology. A recent executive order signed by the Governor in May 2009 directed the agency to ‘evaluate the potential impacts of sea level rise on the state’s shoreline areas.’”

High tide at the mouth of Gorst Creek comes close to reaching Toys Topless in Gorst.
Photo by Meegan M. Reid, Kitsap Sun

“Governor Gregoire also signed legislation in the spring of 2009 (E2SSB 5560) that included provisions for the formation of an ‘integrated climate change response strategy’ for the state. Ecology and other state agencies are currently working with stakeholders to develop the strategy, which will better enable state and local agencies, public and private businesses, nongovernmental organizations, and individuals to prepare for, address, and adapt to the impacts of climate change.”

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post 

Washington Department of Transportation has been improving its stormwater systems for new highways and a few older systems, but the latest federal stormwater permit issued by the Washington Department of Ecology did not go far enough, according to the group Puget Soundkeeper Alliance.

Represented by Earthjustice, Puget Soundkeeper Alliance appealed the permit to the Pollution Control Hearings Board. The settlement was not everything the environmentalists wanted, but it is a solid step in dealing with aging highways.

Bob Beckman, executive director of Puget Soundkeeper Alliance, explained the group’s position in a news release:

“Government agencies, businesses, and citizens are all working together to protect and restore Puget Sound, but the state’s department of transportation wasn’t carrying its share of the weight. There is a lot more work to be done, but we feel that this is a step in the right direction. The state highway system should not be held to a weaker standard than industries, local governments and the public.”

So what was included in the deal?

The stipulation signed by the parties (PDF 476 kb) calls for retrofitting an entire highway in environmentally sensitive areas when substantial new impervious surfaces are added, provided that the retrofits are “feasible” and “cost-effective.”

Retrofitting is deemed “feasible” if there are no physical site limitations such as steep slopes, soil instability or high groundwater tables.

Retrofitting is “cost-effective” if the cost of dealing with stormwater on the old pavement does not exceed 20 percent of the cost of addressing stormwater on the new pavement.

If retrofitting is not feasible or cost-effective, the transportation department must choose to spend 20 percent of the cost of new stormwater controls to deal with the old problems, retrofit on another site for that amount of money, or put the money into a separate fund for retrofitting old highways.

The agreement also includes provisions for increased consultation with federal wildlife agencies to protect endangered species, even when not required by federal law. The pact also contains provisions for limiting particular contaminants as part of an overall pollution-reduction plan by addressing total maximum daily loads, or TMDL.

Gene Johnson, a reporter for the Associated Press, does a nice job of putting the issue into perspective and explaining why it is important to manage highway runoff.

Gary Chittim of KING-5 News also covers the issue well. (See video below.)

For background information, check out the Washington Department of Transportation’s extensive information on stormwater management.

Washington Department of Ecology discusses stormwater permitting issues.

King County’s Science of Stormwater page also is informative.

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post