Scientists zero in on culprits behind Puget Sound water problems
New studies of where pollutants originate give scientists a clearer idea of where problems lie. Who knew that so much trouble comes from forest lands?
National Marine Sanctuary
Puget Sound’s krill and microscopic plants are contaminated with pollutants from car exhaust and wood stoves. Baby seals are tainted with industrial flame retardants and mercury, which could be shrinking their levels of vitamin A, a safeguard against disease. From plants to mammals, everywhere scientists look in Washington’s inland sea, they discover toxic chemicals. But where does all of this junk come from?
New research from the state Department of Ecology shows that stormwater runoff is sweeping pollutants off the region’s rooftops, roadways, farmlands, and forests and dumping them into streams and rivers that feed the Sound. As much as 800,000 pounds of petroleum pollution and 525 pounds of mercury are sluiced into the sea each year. The toxics settle into mud or are gobbled up by sea life and can move up the food chain to people and orcas.
This summer, Ecology’s data will be pooled with research on plankton, fish and seals that was released in March from the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife and other agencies. The goal is to create a more complete picture of where the pollution is coming from, what affect it has, and, ultimately, how to clean up the mess.
“This is one of the big challenges of our time, as far as the health of Washington state goes, and the health of Puget Sound,” said Mo McBroom, policy director for Washington Environmental Council, which has lobbied for new funding sources for stormwater cleanup.
The Ecology study marks the first time that researchers have taken direct measurements of pollutants in local waterways to try to calculate the volume of toxic chemicals that is flowing into the Sound via stormwater. Earlier studies largely relied on pollution estimates from other regions.
In the study titled “Toxics in Surface Runoff to Puget Sound: Phase 3 Data and Load Estimates,” the scientists measured the chemicals at 16 sites within the Snohomish and Puyallup river watersheds. The samples were grabbed before and during storm events in order to figure out how much pollution was present under normal or “baseline” conditions compared to the levels when stormwater runoff was added to the mix. The streams were selected to represent four types of land use: forests, agriculture, residential, and commercial/industrial.
For most of the chemicals, the new results show lower amounts of pollution than previous studies — even 100 or 1,000 times lower in some cases. That has prompted some organizations that track the restoration of the Sound to call for a re-evaluation of earlier policy decisions.
“Now we can pinpoint where are the specific areas in Puget Sound that have the biggest problems,” said Brandon Houskeeper, policy analyst with Washington Policy Center, a conservative-leaning think tank. “We should have new policy directives that are very specific.”
Those involved with the new study emphasize that despite the revised numbers, stormwater remains a major challenge to recovering the Sound.
When it comes to pollution sullying Puget Sound, said Rob Duff, manager of Ecology's Environmental Assessment Program, “runoff continues to be the main pathway.”
The water streaming off the Northwest’s towering evergreen forests is pure and clean, right? Wrong. Ecology’s study shows that PCBs, mercury, and other pollutants are flushed with runoff from Washington’s forests. In fact, because forests make up 83 percent of the land surrounding the Sound, most of the pollution reaching the sea comes from that category of land use.
Still, it’s hard to imagine how these chemicals are tainting the woods in the first place. It turns out that industrial air pollution from near and far settles on trees and is washed to the ground. And many of the area’s forests are far from pristine, crisscrossed with logging roads that shed dirt and debris into streams.
Some of the largest volumes of pollutants coming from forestland include the dirt that clouds rivers and can smother fish eggs. Forests are also responsible for roughly 10,000 tons of “oil and grease,” which includes naturally occurring compounds from decaying plants and other sources.
While forests are a sizeable source of pollution, the stormwater runoff that comes from housing tracts, strip malls, and industrial zones is far fouler, and often with much higher concentrations of more poisonous chemicals. Forests shed approximately 10 times the volume of PCBs and flame retardants compared to commercial and industrial sites, but forests cover greater than 100 times more land than business zones do.
Given how much more pollution would be getting into the Puget Sound if more of the land were developed, “it’s a darn good thing that 83 percent of our watershed is forested,” said Mindy Roberts, project manager for the Ecology study.
Uncontrolled sprawl threatens to change that. “As you move urbanization out into these forestlands, you’re going to expect to find that those lands will start to have higher rates of toxics,” Duff said.
That could further imperil struggling salmon runs and other wildlife, plus threaten human health. Water samples taken from business and industrial zones were contaminated with lead, copper, PCBs, DDT, and cancer-causing chemicals called polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) at levels that exceed safety standards set either for humans or the environment. Runoff from the region’s residential areas was soiled by phthalates — an industrial chemical added to countless consumer goods to make plastics softer and beauty products smell better — at concentrations that violated human health standards.
Those concerned about the toxic chemicals say we need to find a solution.
“We have to figure out a better way to control the flow of these chemicals,” said McBroom. “That points us toward low-impact development.”
Low-impact development is a strategy for controlling stormwater runoff. It calls for the preservation of native plants and trees that can slow the flow of rainwater and clean up pollution. It uses engineering tools such as rain gardens, green roofs, and porous asphalt to help the runoff soak into the ground instead of gushing untreated into streams and lakes.
Low-impact development can be used when building in previously undeveloped areas, or existing homes, businesses, and roadways can be “retrofit” with the technologies to reduce stormwater damage. Considering the higher concentrations of toxics coming from these already-built areas, one of the report’s conclusions is that there could be a significant pay off if some of these areas are targeted for retrofits.
Steps already are being taken to expand the use of low-impact development. Ecology currently is accepting comments on a draft proposal for more stringent requirements for the use of low-impact development in the region, and this spring Washington State University and Stewardship Partners launched an initiative to build 12,000 rain gardens around Puget Sound over the next five years.
When it comes to cleaning up stormwater, McBroom said, “it’s fundamentally an infrastructure problem.”
While low-impact development is seen as an essential tool for fixing the region’s stormwater mess, a complementary strategy is keeping the pollutants out of the environment in the first place. And when it comes to curbing copper pollution, Washington has been a national leader.
Ecology’s study shows that the amount of copper swept into the Puget Sound each year is around 79,000 pounds. That’s the weight of nearly 36 million pennies. While people can safely hold a penny or drink water from a copper pipe, the metal means trouble for fish, say scientists with the Northwest Fisheries Science Center. When salmon and other species are exposed to minute amounts of copper in the water it deadens their sense of smell, which means they have a hard time finding food and their spawning streams and avoiding predators.
Like what you just read? Support high quality local journalism. Become a member of Crosscut today!
Twitter
Facebook
RSS Feeds
Comments:
Posted Mon, Jun 6, 7:54 a.m. Inappropriate
"The goal is to create a more complete picture of where the pollution is coming from, what affect it has, and, ultimately, how to clean up the mess."
Wrong. The goal is to write a story that will scare citizens into paying more taxes and legislators into passing more laws. The previous story - that an Exxon Valdez (and a half!) worth of oil was flowing into the sound via stormwater - was found to be a lie.
Posted Mon, Jun 6, 8:51 a.m. Inappropriate
"For most of the chemicals, the new results show lower amounts of pollution than previous studies — even 100 or 1,000 times lower in some cases. That has prompted some organizations that track the restoration of the Sound to call for a re-evaluation of earlier policy decisions." This prompts me to wonder if we, as community members or perhaps even the press, ought to be checking the math behind these reports on a regular basis.
These guy blew the amount of oil going into the sound by how many times? That image was used for how long? and they said "oopps" very quietly didn't they?
Which group was it who blew the math on the "contamination" at Golden Gardens last year by 100x? or was it greater than that?
Is it *THAT* hard to have the math checked before an official study is released?
I'm not sure that they're organized enough to have any sort of organized plan to get us to tax and legislate ourselves more. I think that attributes to them a level of sophistication they don't have. I do think it shows a disturbing lack of ability in math, in critical analysis of the data, and shows that nobody independently checks the math these guys spew forth.
Posted Mon, Jun 6, 8:56 a.m. Inappropriate
That polluted stormwater runoff is poisoning the Sound is not exactly headline news -- we've known this for more than 20 years. What keeps being updated are the exact dimensions of the problem. And the debate over what to do about it. A mandate system of detailed, strict rules and regulations on discharges and stream buffers cannot succeed if its underlying values are not internalized by the population at large and enforcement mechanisms remain vastly underfunded (vide BlueLight above).
Posted Mon, Jun 6, 10:47 a.m. Inappropriate
Developing better data is a big step in the right direction. And the direction it heads is to concentrate greater attention on the ecological relationships between water and life in the Sound and the conditions of hydrology and contamination in the upland watershed areas. But lest we immediately and over-simplistically tilt after new windmills, there are a couple of critical caveats.
First, even the new pollution numbers need a lot more scrutiny and refinement, especially since some of the new numbers are actually themselves built on “plug” numbers where testing of samples taken from various locations showed that the concentrations of some contaminants were below laboratory method detection levels. My understanding is that the study process then “assigned” a putative concentration level halfway between zero and the detection limit of the testing. That yields a concentration that is half of a very small number, but multiplied across hundreds of thousands of acres where the sampling showed up “non detects,” it multiplies to a lot of pounds of assumed contamination!
The second problem is that pollution is only half the story, if that. The damage from runoff from areas no longer in their undeveloped condition comes from higher surges and lower “regular” flows into streams, wetlands, and groundwater. Flow variation is at least as big a problem as what we traditionally think of as “pollution.” Low impact development helps deal with some of these issues – if it is done correctly and therein lies another set of huge challenges. What we also need is simple habitat and ecosystem conservation in the areas to which downstream Puget Sound is ultimately most sensitive. We know where many of those areas are, but there is little political will to take the hard steps to conserve them. “Low impact development” is not tantamount to that necessary habitat and ecosystem conservation and indeed, it’s worth watching out for the over-use of the low impact development mantra as the latest foil for greenwashing.
Posted Mon, Jun 6, 2 p.m. Inappropriate
Check the caption under the Orca picture. That looks like the ocean coast, not Puget Sound.
Posted Thu, May 3, 12:20 a.m. Inappropriate
You're right DavidHooper. Those large rocks are not found anywhere in Puget Sound. I don't think they are in Washington either.
Posted Mon, Jun 6, 4:04 p.m. Inappropriate
Got news for you, those flame retardants are in humans too.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/health/story/2003/09/17/pollutants030917.html
sucks to be on the top of the food chain.
Posted Mon, Jun 6, 4:10 p.m. Inappropriate
Oh, and lets keep looking for the source of mercury... couldn't be in the coal that we burn and let loose into the air, probably not in the gold mining processes... Nope nothing to see here folks, it's probably those nasty Douglas Fir and Hemlock Trees. You know those killer trees planning to assault us first wind storm that comes along and now shedding their poisonous needles & bark into our water...
Probably need more studies to see how much longer we can avoid looking at burning coal & gold mining.
Posted Mon, Jun 6, 9:03 p.m. Inappropriate
I find this article to be poorly written, and confusing -- perhaps intentionally so.
Early in the article it states this: "As much as 800,000 pounds of petroleum pollution and 525 pounds of mercury are sluiced into the sea each year."
Then, several paragraphs later it says, "Forests are also responsible for roughly 10,000 tons of “oil and grease,” which includes naturally occurring compounds from decaying plants and other sources."
Notice they use pounds for petroleum pollution and tons for "naturally occurring oil and grease".
Using the same measure for both pollutants, you get 400 tons of petroleum pollution vs 10,000 tons of "oil and grease" naturally occurring in forests. So, the "naturally occurring oil and grease" is 25 times as much in weight as the petroleum pollution.
Which is more of a problem: 400 tons of petroleum pollution or 10,000 tons of naturally occurring "oil and grease" from the forests? The authors don't say. They don't even give a hint.
What kind of writing is that?
Posted Thu, May 3, 12:21 a.m. Inappropriate
Misleading.
Posted Mon, Jun 6, 9:16 p.m. Inappropriate
Well, GaryP, didn't Ronald Reagan and James Watt tell us all along how polluting those dirty trees were?
Posted Tue, Jun 7, 4:50 a.m. Inappropriate
Anything article coming from Lisa Stiffler in my opinion is paid for by lobbyists pushing for more gubment bureaucracy to study it to death.
Lisa gives investigative reporting a whole new meaning.
Posted Tue, Jun 7, 10:22 a.m. Inappropriate
Even though the amounts of certain contaminants were originally overestimated, things like copper are toxic to fish and aquatic invertebrates at low parts per billion (<20). Washington State University Extension has also shown that mixtures can be much more toxic than exposure to individual chemicals. I highly recommend a tour of the WSU research center in Puyallup.
Stacey Gianas
Stewardship Partners
Posted Tue, Jun 7, 10:42 a.m. Inappropriate
Lisa Stiffler, Sightline.
Stacy Giannas, Stewardship Partners.
The non-profits' profit is directly tied to the magnitude of the problem.
Posted Tue, Jun 7, 2:08 p.m. Inappropriate
"Scientists zero in on culprits behind Puget Sound water problems"
Talk about being slow witted. We've known the culprits for decades; me, you, them, us.
Time to think about what we are willing to trade for a cleaner Puget Sound. Ain't no free lunch.
Posted Tue, Jun 7, 2:30 p.m. Inappropriate
"Time to think about what we are willing to trade for a cleaner Puget Sound."
Not votes, apparently.
Researchers at Oregon State University have determined the NUMBER ONE threat to PNW salmon and their habitats is increased immigration into the region; the vast majority of which comes from outside the U.S. and Canada. Because illegal immigrants (and their advocates) are supporters of the Democratic Party, that party has rolled out the sanctuary carpet and policies. Environmental impacts? sssshhhhh..... we want to be the Party of immigrants AND the environment. We want to have our cake and eat it, too.
Posted Tue, Jun 7, 6:14 p.m. Inappropriate
Blue Light, your comment above is a direct cut-and-past from a comment you made in February 2010 in the Post-Globe. When are you going to actually give us the cite instead of your silly claim? I couldn't find anyoriginal statement from those "researchers".
Posted Wed, Jun 8, 8:07 a.m. Inappropriate
Yes, sarah90, I've been making the same statement so long I can rewqrite it verbatim (no cut and paste). It remains valid. What "cite" do you want?
Here is a link to OSU's research: http://oregonstate.edu/dept/fw/lackey/Salmon2100.htm
You can find the census results for yourself.
It - really - is not that difficult to understand, Sarah. Each and every one of us - immigrant or no - has environmental impacts (we all eat, drink, pee, poop, require shelter, consume electricity, own pets, and on and on and on). The more impacting individuals, the greater the whole impact: more persons taking a bite out of a cake, the more that cake is consumed.
Because our local "environmental" institutions politicize, they are subject to The Party's limitations on what they can and cannot speak. Exaggerate oil flows in a push to raise taxes and regulations: OK. Even mention the effects of immigration (and our sanctuary policies encouraging it): not OK. This political affiliation is also why, as I've been told, Washington's Department of Fish and Wildlife is misreporting (fabricating) data on tribal fisheries: The Party simply cannot have such a cherished tool be seen as part of the problem.
I am curious, though... write for us how you believe increased immigration is irrelevant in discussions of Puget Sound's health.
Posted Wed, Jun 8, 10 p.m. Inappropriate
Does anyone know where charts can be obtained showing the actual levels of these toxins and exactly what toxins "others" are? It is public, correct? Thank you.
Posted Thu, Jun 9, 7:53 a.m. Inappropriate
Come on, Sarah90... Tell us how we can have unchecked immigration into the region AND restore our natural environment. Please debunk my "silly claim".
Posted Thu, Jun 9, 4:39 p.m. Inappropriate
We could beat this to death, but the government needs to bleed the taxpayers for more. Government monopoly+ no private sector jobs= recession with benefits.
Just keep voting the same old nimrods into office, no one cares and nothing will change, doo-dah doo-dah
Posted Fri, Jun 10, 8:58 a.m. Inappropriate
Sarah90... the fate of Puget Sound's sealife and our regions' native american cultures are depending on you. You - apparently - have the answer. Please tell us how we can allow unchecked immigration into the region AND save our natural environments.
Posted Tue, Jul 5, 4:10 p.m. Inappropriate
@Blue Light. The cite doesn't say illegal immigration, just immigration. How do plan on restricting non-native Puget Sound-ians from moving into the area? Or are you saying game over?
Login or register to add your voice to the conversation.