Over the past few months, I’ve called 911 to report dead animals
on the roadway, a downed road sign that warns drivers of a curve,
and an old car that had been abandoned.
I’m not sure I should be calling an emergency line for
non-emergency issues, but the dispatchers never complain. They take
the needed information and tell me they will report the problem.
Most of the time they ask if I would like to receive a phone call
when the problem gets fixed. That would be nice, I say, but I can’t
remember ever getting a call back.
Recently, Kitsap County launched a new mobile phone app called
“SeeClickFix,” which allows GPS to report the location, and you can
take a picture of the problem and include whatever information you
think is needed. The information is sent rapidly to Kitsap1, the
county’s customer-service system, which then forwards it to the
right people.
In the app, you click a box to identify the problems, which can
include potholes, flooding and drainage issues, graffiti,
overgrowth onto roadways or view issues, illegal dumping, noxious
weeds, burned-out street lights and illegal burning, among many
others.
The app with its backend operating system is used by dozens of
cities and counties around the country, including SeaTac in
Washington state. You can download the app from the App Store and
other sites. A browser
version for a laptop or desktop computer is also available.
“This really helps residents process requests,” said Jamie
Linville, supervisor for Kitsap1. “They get real time updates on
the app, engage in their community and can report problems anywhere
in the County.
“This helps ensure we get accurate data in the initial request,
which helps us get the request routed to the correct agency,” she
said, adding that people can create a “watch area” to receive
notice of all issues reported in their area.
The app tells the status of the problem, including when it was
reported and when it gets fixed.
Having the app does not mean you shouldn’t call Kitsap1,
360.337.5777, or email the center, help@kitsap1.com, which is open
from 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, but the
SeeClickFix app might be easier at times, and it never closes. Of
course, you should call 911 if an issue needs immediate
attention.
I asked Doug Bear, the county’s communications manager, if the
app is designed to take environmental problems. His answer is that
some problems are listed as options and others are not — and that
is the key.
“We continually evaluate which options to present and can change
them as demand increases,” Doug told me in an email. “The app is
better suited to concerns that have a clear consistent path to who
responds.”
When you click an option, you get a list of questions specific
to that type of problem.
“We did consider an option for ‘other’ that could capture what
isn’t specifically listed, but that didn’t work out well,” he
added. “It’s hard to collect the proper information for processing
if we don’t know what the problem is.”
Using the app or another approach can take some strategic
thought. The app has an option for “illegal dumping,” “spill or
illicit discharge” and “stormwater maintenance.” But if you see an
oil spill that could get into a waterway, I wouldn’t hesitate to
call 911 along with the state oil-spill hotline, (800)
OILS-911.
Bisphenol A has been creating a dilemma for me since I first
heard that it could disrupt normal hormone function in people and
animals.
BPA chemical
structure
BPA, as the chemical is known, is produced in large quantities,
sold around the world, and used in many products — including food
cans, plastic bottles, toys and even sales receipts you might be
handed at a retail store. Exposure is widespread, with detectable
levels of BPA found in at least 93 percent of Americans who are 6
years old or older.
As part of my daily routine, I check out research reports on a
variety of environmental and water-related subjects. It seems like
there is a never-ending stream of reports, numbering in the
thousands, that continue to find problems with even low exposures
to BPA.
And there’s the root of my dilemma. The federal Food and Drug
Administration, which is responsible for protecting us from tainted
food and drink, keeps telling us that BPA is safe at current levels
of exposure. Check out the
statement from the FDA’s Deputy Commissioner Stephen
Ostroff.
In 2008, I informed readers (Water
Ways, April 11, 2008) that I was searching for and throwing out
my drinking-water bottles likely to contain BPA. My actions were
based on alarms raised by researchers, including those at the
National
Institute of Environmental Health Sciences. For years, I’ve
wanted to provide firm, up-to-date advice about BPA, but I guess
I’ve been unduly stymied by my faith in the FDA.
With those thoughts in mind, I called Patricia Hunt, a
researcher at Washington State University’s Center for Reproductive
Biology. Pat has studied the science of BPA for many years. One of
the problems leading to the FDA’s position, she told me, is that
government officials don’t want to give up the long-held
toxicological approach to regulating chemicals.
Under the old-fashioned system, the more exposure one receives
to a harmful chemical, the worse the health problems are likely to
be. So the FDA determines a safe level and expects everyone to
comply. But that system does not always work for hormones or for
chemicals that act like hormones — such as BPA.
When would a higher dose of a chemical produce a lesser effect?
Hormones often work in partnership with a receptor — like a key in
a lock — to produce a biological response. A chemical that mimics a
hormone may produce an inappropriate and even harmful biological
response. Starting at extremely low doses, things may get worse as
the dose is increased. But at some level the hormone receptors may
become saturated, causing the biological effect to diminish as
doses continue to increase.
This is just an example, but hormones and related synthetic
chemicals may not react in the same way. Their dose-response curve
may even be different for different organs of the body.
That is one problem with the toxicological system under which
the government operates, according to Pat Hunt and two other
researchers who wrote an opinion piece in the journal “Nature
Reviews: Endocrinology.” In the article, she and the other
authors praise an extensive — and expensive — research project
launched by the federal government to identify the harmful effects
of BPA. The project goes by the hopeful name CLARITY, which stands
for Consortium Linking Academic and Regulatory Insights on Toxicity
of Bisphenol A.
The project was insightful, they argue, but only if FDA
officials are willing to look at the limitations of the study’s
design and avoid rejecting findings from academic researchers that
might not fit an expected pattern.
“Although, ideally, a consensus between the approaches should be
possible,” their article states, “differences in research culture
made the CLARITY effort akin to expecting a group of folk and punk
rock musicians to pick up their instruments and play together in
harmony.”
Low-dose effects were found in the data of many studies and
should have set off alarm bells, they say. Exposure for animals in
the developmental stages are particularly concerning, and the
effects may not show up until the animal becomes a sexually mature
adult.
“Taken together, these data suggest that low-dose BPA exposure
induces subtle developmental changes that act to impair the
endocrine, reproductive, neurobiological and immune system of adult
rats,” states the article, which goes into far more detail than I
can cover here.
BPA has gotten a lot of public attention, which has encouraged
manufacturers to replace BPA with other chemicals and advertise
their products as “BPA free.” The problem is that the substitutes
may be just as bad or worse, according to researchers. In fact,
some of the substitutes have been banned in Washington state, so
companies are off to the next replacement chemicals.
The problem is that the modern world is filled with chemicals
that have not been adequately tested for safety, Pat told me.
Ideally, the chemicals would have been tested before they went on
the market, but that’s not how things were done in the past. Now
the government is challenged to identify chemicals on the market
that cause health problems even while people are being continually
exposed.
The current Trump administration seems to have little interest
in this topic, even though a new federal law signed in 2016 by
former President Barack Obama was designed to address the problem.
I wrote about this for the Encyclopedia of
Puget Sound in 2016, along with a story about “rogue
chemicals” in the environment.
“A lot of us feel that, to come up with a safe level of
exposure, some of these chemicals should not even be in the
products they are in,” Pat said.
In explaining this difficult problem to the parents of young
children, she sometimes holds up a package of birth-control pills
and asks, “How much of this should I be allowed to give your
child?” Parents don’t want their child to have any, she said, yet
we live in a world in which children are ingesting such chemicals,
like it or not.
I had thought that the FDA had at least banned BPA in baby
bottles, sippy cups and other products that could increase exposure
to children at a critical time of their development. But that was
not the case. The agency had simply “abandoned” its approval of
such uses, because companies had changed their products
voluntarily.
“An amendment of the food additive regulations based on
abandonment is not based on safety but is based on the fact that
the regulatory authorization is no longer necessary,” the FDA
emphasized in a
fact sheet.
In other words, the FDA has never changed its stance on BPA.
Meanwhile, a number of states have taken steps to protect children.
Some — like Washington — have gone further to protect more of the
population. But others have done nothing.
So what can people do about BPA and other chemical concerns?
“You can ask for what you want,” Pat said. “I always tell
consumers that they can vote with their pocketbooks.”
Personally, I have cut back on canned foods, because BPA is used
to reduce metal corrosion, although it can leach into foods —
especially acidic foods. I no longer heat food or drinks in plastic
containers, and I’m slowly converting to glass for storing food on
the shelf and in my refrigerator.
For more information and tips about what you can do, check out
these sources:
A massive amount of oyster shell — some 1,500 cubic yards — will
be dumped into Sinclair Inlet near Gorst next week to lay the
groundwork for a healthy population of native Olympia oysters.
Native Olympia oysters are
smaller and can easily fit inside the more common Pacific oyster
shell. // Photo: Kitsap Sun
Limited numbers of Olympia oysters have been growing in Sinclair
Inlet, hanging on since long ago, said Betsy Peabody, executive
director of Puget Sound Restoration Fund, which is managing the
operation. Existing oysters probably just need the right substrate
for their larvae to attach, grow and ultimately expand the native
oyster population.
The $300,000 project — which will deposit the equivalent of 150
dump-truck loads of Pacific oyster shells — will be the largest
one-time application of shells anywhere in Puget Sound, Betsy told
me. Her organization has undertaken similar projects in other
areas, including Liberty Bay near Poulsbo, Dogfish Bay near
Keyport, Dyes Inlet near Bremerton and Port Gamble Bay on Hood
Canal.
The yellow area marks the
location in Sinclair Inlet where oyster shell will be placed.
Map: Puget Sound Restoration Fund
The shells, which came from commercial oyster farms, will be
washed off a 200-foot barge using a jet of water beginning Tuesday
and taking up to four days, according to the current schedule. The
shell will cover some 15 acres of tidelands toward the middle of
the inlet where Highway 166 branches off Highway 16.
This washing process typically creates a patchwork of shell
covering about 80 percent of the bottom while 20 percent remains
bare, according to plans for the project. The thickness of shell on
the bottom will vary, reaching up to 3 inches in some places. No
eelgrass or other sensitive vegetation was found during surveys of
the tidelands to be covered. The property is owned by Kitsap
County.
Historic locations of major
Olympia oyster beds in Puget Sound. (circa 1850)
Map: Washington Department of Fish and
Wildlife
In the early 1900s, Sinclair Inlet was used as an 122-acre
oyster reserve for protecting seed stock, which could be purchased
by commercial oyster growers. Oyster reserves throughout Puget
Sound were largely forgotten after Pacific oysters — a different
species imported from Japan — began to dominate the oyster
market.
Olympias went extinct in some areas, killed by pollution,
shoreline development or other factors. In a few areas, habitat was
largely undisturbed and the original oyster species persevered. But
many embayments, including Sinclair Inlet, were able to support
only a fraction of their historic populations.
“Olys evolved in this area and managed to maintain a foothold in
the most surprising areas, despite what we’ve thrown at them over
time,” Betsy said. “They are tough little critters. You can even
find them in places where everything else is plastic. Building back
their densities seems like a good thing to do.”
Oysters have a number of good qualities besides being a favorite
food of many people. They can filter out plankton that can trigger
low-oxygen conditions. Plankton also reduce sunlight needed for
critical vegetation, such as eelgrass.
The 19 areas in Puget Sound
declared a high priority for Olympia oyster restoration.
Map: Washington Department of Fish and
Wildlife
In natural oyster beds, young oysters are able to set and grow
on the shells of their ancestors, often forming oyster beds or
reefs that help perpetuate the substrate for future generations.
Sedimentation and damage to the shoreline can interrupt the process
and eliminate the substrate needed for the oyster to survive.
Putting down a lot of shell to create new substrate has proven to
be the best way to boost the population in most areas of Puget
Sound.
If the Olympia oysters do well in Sinclair Inlet, eventually
more shell could be brought in to expand the growing area, Betsy
said. If, however, natural production of oyster larvae is not
enough, PSRF could develop a broodstock program by utilizing its
shellfish hatchery near Manchester, as has been done for other
areas. If that were to happen, adequate numbers of Olympia oysters
from Sinclair Inlet would be used to produce the oyster seed, thus
maintaining the genetic diversity of the inlet.
In 2010, Puget Sound Restoration Fund established a goal of
restoring 100 acres of Olympia oyster habitat with shell placed in
bays where the native oysters are expected to do well. The Sinclair
Inlet project will bring the total to 85 acres, with other areas in
the planning stage to help the group meet its goal by the end of
next year.
About half of the $300,000 being used for the Sinclair Inlet
project came from the federal Natural Resources Conservation
Service, with other funding from the Washington Department of
Ecology, Kitsap County and PSRF. The Suquamish Tribe also
participated in the project.
Nitrogen from sewage-treatment plants, along with other nutrient
sources, are known to trigger plankton blooms that lead to
dangerous low-oxygen conditions in Puget Sound — a phenomenon that
has been studied for years.
Nitrogen sources used to
predict future water-quality in the Salish Sea Model
Map: Washington Department of Ecology
Now state environmental officials are working on a plan that
could eventually limit the amount of nitrogen released in sewage
effluent.
The approach being considered by the Washington Department of
Ecology is a “general permit” that could apply to any treatment
plant meeting specified conditions. The alternative to a general
permit would be to add operational requirements onto existing
“individual permits” issued under the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System, or NPDES.
The general permit would involve about 70 sewage-treatment
plants discharging into Puget Sound. Theoretically, an overall
nitrogen limitation would be developed for a given region of the
sound. Treatment plant owners could work together to meet that
goal, with the owner of one plant paying another to reduce its
share of the nutrient load.
It was a tale of two health advisories that created a bit of
confusion in Kitsap County following a major sewage spill last week
from King County’s West Point treatment plant.
A beach closure in Kitsap County included the eastern shoreline
of Bainbridge Island north of Eagle Harbor plus North Kitsap from
the Agate Pass bridge to Point Jefferson between Kingston and
Indianola.
Brown color designates areas
closed to shellfish harvest because of pollution. Click to see
state map for details on closures.
Map: Washington State Department of
Health
The closure area was determined in part by computer models,
which showed that spills of sewage, oil and other substances are
capable of crossing Puget Sound from Seattle and hitting the shore
of Kitsap County, according to Scott Berbells, section manager for
shellfish growing areas, a division of the Washington State
Department of Health.
Such a scenario occurred in December 2003, when 4,800 gallons of
heavy fuel oil spilled from a barge at the Chevron/Texaco Facility
at Point Wells, south of Edmonds. The oil crossed Puget Sound and
damaged shellfish beaches in North Kitsap. See
Kitsap Sun, Dec. 31, 2003.
The latest spill, about 3 million gallons of raw sewage mixed
with stormwater, occurred at West Point in Seattle’s Magnolia area
— about 20 miles south of Point Wells.
The exact trajectory of a spill depends greatly on winds and
tidal currents, but state and county health officials tend to be
cautious, thus the closure of Kitsap County’s shoreline.
Water-quality testing has not revealed the presence of bacteria
from the West Point sewer spill, but the tests are limited to a few
areas, according to John Kiess, environmental health director for
the Kitsap Public Health District. It is best to be cautious in
these situations, he said.
An ecosystem-restoration project that would replace two bridges
across the Duckabush River and restore a 38-acre estuary on the
west side of Hood Canal has moved into the design phase with
funding from state and federal governments.
Bridge over the Duckabush
River
Photo: Jayedgerton, Wikimedia
Commons
The project, which would improve habitat for five species of
salmon along with a variety of wildlife, is the subject of a design
agreement between the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife
and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
“Projects like this are key to improving the overall health of
Hood Canal and Puget Sound,” WDFW Director Kelly Susewind said in a
news release. “We have a variety of challenges in conserving
our salmon populations, so creating more habitat for juvenile
salmon to eat and grow before they journey into open waters is one
of the most important things we can do.”
State Rep. Debra Lekanoff, D-Bow, grew up in the small town of
Yakutat, Alaska, where her entire family and most of her friends
hunted and fished, following Native American traditions passed down
from their ancestors.
Rep. Lekanoff carries with her that indelible perspective, as
she goes about the business of law-making. Like all of us, her
personal history has shaped the forces that drive her today. Now,
as sponsor of
House Bill 1578, she is pushing hard for a law to help protect
Puget Sound from a catastrophic oil spill.
KTVA, the CBS affiliate in
Anchorage, presented a program Sunday on the 30th anniversary of
the Exxon Valdez oil spill. // Video:
KTVA-TV
In 1989, Debra, a member of the Tlinget Tribe, was about to
graduate from high school when the Exxon Valdez ran aground in
Prince William Sound, some 220 miles northwest of her hometown. The
spill of 11 million gallons of crude oil ultimately killed an
estimated 250,000 seabirds, 2,800 sea otters, 300 harbor seals, 250
bald eagles and up to 22 killer whales, along with untold numbers
of fish and crabs, according to the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (PDF 11.5 mb).
That was 30 years ago this past Sunday.
Members of the governor’s orca task force this week expressed
hope and a bit of surprise as they discussed their recommendations
to help the orcas —recommendations that were shaped into
legislation and now have a fairly good chance of passage.
Over the years, some of their ideas have been proposed and
discussed — and ultimately killed — by lawmakers, but now the
plight of the critically endangered southern resident killer whales
has increased the urgency of these environmental measures —
including bills dealing with habitat, oil-spill prevention and the
orcas themselves.
UPDATE, Feb. 12
Northwest Environmental Advocates has taken its case to court in an
effort to obtain a new Washington state sewage-treatment standard
under AKART — “All Known, Available and Reasonable Treatment.” For
information about the case, refer to the
NWEA news release and the
lawsuit filed in Thurston County Superior Court.
—–
An environmental group, Northwest
Environmental Advocates, is calling on the Washington
Department of Ecology and Gov. Jay Inslee to invoke a 1945 law in
hopes of forcing cities and counties to improve their
sewage-treatment plants.
Large ribbons of the plankton
Noctiluca can be seen in this photo taken at Poverty Bay near
Federal Way on June 28 last year. Excess nitrogen can stimulate
plankton growth, leading to low-oxygen conditions.
Photo: Eyes Over Puget Sound, Department of
Ecology
In a petition to Ecology, the group says the state agency should
require cities and counties to upgrade their plants to “tertiary
treatment” before the wastewater gets discharged into Puget Sound.
Such advanced treatment would remove excess nitrogen along with
some toxic chemicals that create problems for sea life, according
to Nina Bell, executive director of NWEA, based in Portland.
Most sewage-treatment plants in the region rely on “secondary
treatment,” which removes most solids but does little to reduce
nitrogen or toxic chemicals. Secondary treatment is an outdated
process according to BOS and innovation
with Ecology needs to lead the way to a more advanced treatment
technology.
“It’s a travesty that cities around Puget Sound continue to use
100-year-old sewage-treatment technology when cities across the
nation have demonstrated that solutions are available and
practical,” Nina said.
By 2021, the 28 countries in the European Union are expected to
ban single-use plastics — including straws, plates, cutlery and
drink stirrers, as well as plastic sticks for cotton swabs,
balloons and candy.
The latest development, announced this past week, involves the
approval of a provisional agreement by the European Parliament and
Council of the European Union. Formal approval is expected next.
The ban carries through on an initiative launched in May that also
seeks to limit the use of plastic drink cups, food containers,
grocery bags and candy wrappers. Review
Water Ways, May 31,2018, or take a look at this
EU brochure.
World production of plastic
materials by region (2013). Click to enlarge // Source:
European Union
Most plastic in Europe is landfilled or incinerated, rather than
being recycled, which is a loss to the economy, according to EU
documents contained in the European
Strategy for Plastics. In the environment, many plastics take
hundreds of years to break down, and the amount of plastic getting
into the ocean has raised alarm bells throughout the world.
“When we have a situation where one year you can bring your fish
home in a plastic bag, and the next year you are bringing that bag
home in a fish, we have to work hard and work fast,” Karmenu Vella,
EU commissioner for environment, maritime affairs and fisheries,
said in a statement
released Wednesday. “So I am happy that with the agreement of
today between Parliament and Council. We have taken a big stride
towards reducing the amount of single-use plastic items in our
economy, our ocean and ultimately our bodies.”
“This agreement truly helps protect our people and our planet,”
said First Vice-President Frans Timmermans, responsible for
sustainable development. “Europeans are conscious that plastic
waste is an enormous problem and the EU as a whole has shown true
courage in addressing it, making us the global leader in tackling
plastic marine litter.”
The measures are expected to reduce litter by more than half for
the top-10 plastic litter items, saving 22 billion Euros (about $25
billion) by 2030 and avoiding 3.4 million metric tons (3.75 million
U.S. tons) of carbon dioxide emissions by 2030, according to a
fact
sheet.
The United Nations has launched
a campaign to reduce plastic pollution.
Source: UN
Peter Harris, a graduate of North Kitsap High School who is
working on an environmental assessment for the United Nations, told
me in June that plastics pollution is one of the three greatest
problems facing the world’s oceans. The others are the bleaching of
coral reefs caused by global warming and overfishing, which is
driving some species to extinction. See
Water Ways, June 6, 2018.
The European Union has carefully examined how plastics affect
the ocean. EU countries should be recognized for their courage in
tackling the problem in Europe, not waiting for a worldwide
agreement before taking action. Non-European countries would be
wise to consider their own plastic impacts on the environment.
So far, actions in the United States have been limited to a
relatively small number of cities and counties, along with a few
states. Because plastics wash downstream in stormwater and into
rivers before reaching the ocean, every American has a role to play
in the problem. Whether we address the challenges internationally,
nationally or locally, everyone should take time to understand this
serious issue, consider practical solutions and support actions
that can save marine life before it’s too late.
