History

Category: History

Environmental justice on the move: a few personal observations about change

I recently completed a much-involved writing project focused on environmental justice. It has been one of the most challenging, yet for me enlightening, efforts in my 45 years of covering the environment.
My initial idea was to report on a plan by the Washington Department of Ecology to rewrite the regulations for the Model Toxics Control Act, the law that prescribes the cleanup of all kinds of contaminated sites. One of Ecology’s goals in rewriting the rules has been to pay more attention to the demographic makeup of populations around polluted sites, making sure that families of color, low-income and other highly impacted groups are given the attention they deserve.

Composite map representing comparative health disparity data (rankings from 1 to 10) for all census tracts in Washington state // Map: Washington Department of Ecology

I naively approached this story as I would any story regarding potential changes to public policy. Regulations often revolve around agency activities with input from community activists, guided by science and influenced by political leaders. I am fairly comfortable dealing with political leaders and scientific discoveries in the fields of biology, chemistry, oceanography and such. But I had never been trained in sociology, which is at the heart of environmental justice. I found myself questioning basic ideas, searching for reliable studies, wondering about methodologies, and relishing personal revelations about race, class, political power and history.
I started by digging for answers: Is it really true that toxic sites are more often found in disadvantaged communities? How did this come about? Why are toxic-cleanup efforts more often focused on affluent areas? What are the social forces that led to today’s circumstances? What are the forces for change versus those for maintaining the status quo?
I can’t say that I found all the answers, and I’m still learning. I plan to write more about environmental justice in the future, as more people realize that our efforts to treat the environment with greater respect also means treating all people with greater respect. For now, I’ve written three stories, all published this week in the Encyclopedia of Puget Sound:

When it comes to political struggles, there is increasing awareness about the need to address environmental justice. Lots of things are happening at the state and federal levels. Washington’s Legislature is moving ahead with a bill that would require state agencies to establish new EJ practices when dealing with health and environmental issues. Senate Bill 5141 has passed both houses in somewhat different forms and is now going through reconciliation before final passage.
At the national level, President Joe Biden has launched a new White House Environmental Justice Advisory Council to bring greater visibility to EJ issues and to make sure that federal agencies remain committed to more equitable outcomes for a variety of environmental and climate issues.
When it comes to Washington state, it is clear that more studies are needed to assess the geographic and demographic distribution of toxic sites. Statewide studies seem to be either out of date or limited in other ways. Few, if any, have been peer-reviewed for credibility. Still, some localized studies point to an inequitable distribution of toxic sites, thus supporting the findings of well-researched studies in other parts of the country. It is time to understand that low-income communities and communities of color are not only affected disproportionately by the location of toxic sites but also that their homes, healthcare services and working conditions may put their health at greater-than-average risk.
One useful demographic tool that anyone can use is the Washington Environmental Health Disparities Map, which compares conditions across the state, grouped by census tract. The map looks at 19 indicators — including proximity to Superfund sites, exposure to diesel emissions, and toxic releases from industrial facilities. It also includes comparative data on poverty, race, housing costs and English proficiency, among other things. You can type in your address and learn how your area compares to other areas across the state.
Displaying all this information by census tract creates some limitations, because census tracts vary greatly in size across the state. Nevertheless, it is a nice high-level snapshot of these conditions, and the “Information By Location” tool provides a good starting point to see how your “community” compares to others in the state. An explanatory video offers information about using the map, which was developed by the University of Washington’s Department of Environmental and Health Sciences in collaboration with Front and Centered, a nonprofit group, the Washington departments of Health and Ecology, and the Puget Sound Clean Air Agency. The project is more fully explained in a report (PDF 10.9 mb) from the Washington Environmental Justice Mapping Work Group.

Duwamish Waterway // Photo: brewbooks via Wikimedia Commons

As I continued my exploration of EJ issues, I felt compelled to seek out answers about why certain “vulnerable” populations were getting more than their fair share of environmental hazards. On the one hand, I told myself that regardless of the history we must deal with things as they are today. On the other hand, the conditions of today are derived from the conditions of yesterday, as explained by Millie Piazza, environmental justice senior adviser for the Washington Department of Ecology.
“We have to realize that history is important in order to deal with the problems of today,” Millie told me. “If we keep supporting systems that led to these problems (of racial and economic injustice), then we will keep getting the same results.”
My story “Why is so much pollution found in disadvantaged communities?” provides a general answer to my initial question, although the history of industrialization and the resulting pollution is different for each community across the state and nation.
For a more thorough explanation of the history of racial and income disparity as they relate to environmental justice, I can recommend two excellent books: “Toxic Communities: Environmental Racism, Industrial Pollution, and Residential Mobility” by Dorceta Taylor; and “The Color of Law: A Forgotten History of How Our Government Segregated America” by Richard Rothstein.
To see how environmental justice played out in one community, I examined the history of the Duwamish Valley in South Seattle, where a pristine river was converted to an industrial waterway. Check out my story “Diverse populations benefit from targeted efforts to improve environmental justice.” I’m grateful for help from BJ Cummings, author of “The River That Made Seattle: A Human and Natural History of the Duwamish.”
I’m currently looking into a few other communities where the injustice of pollution seems to maintain a stranglehold on area residents, who find themselves stymied in their efforts to reduce unhealthful conditions.
I have learned by diving into this issue of environmental justice that we are all affected in widely differing ways by our environment, and we all have the power to make changes to our environment, for better or worse. The essence of environmental justice is to include everyone and forget no one in our choices for change.
While I can never understand what it means to be a person of color or to live in poverty, I am learning a good deal from people who have other life experiences. As a result of new efforts at the local, state and federal levels, I see hope for a better future.

A tufted puffin gets a running start near Smith Island in the Strait of Juan de Fuca, Washington. Photo: Mick Thompson https://flic.kr/p/WSmZnE (CC BY-NC 2.0)

Will Puget Sound lose the tufted puffin?

Occasionally, this space includes reports and essays from guest writers on the subject of Puget Sound ecosystem recovery. Biologist and author Eric Wagner has this look at the federal government’s recent decision to decline special protection for the tufted puffin under the Endangered Species Act. While the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service says that the puffin has “robust populations across the majority of its range,” the bird’s numbers in Washington, including Puget Sound, have dropped severely in recent years. Wagner recalls what it was like when things were different and the colorful bird known as the “sea clown” could be spotted more easily.
By Eric Wagner
In the December 3, 2020 issue of the Federal Register, tucked between a correction from the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration and a NOAA decision on Pacific cod fishing permits, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service published a notice saying the agency was declining to list eleven species as endangered or threatened under the Endangered Species Act. Many of the species I had never heard of: three types of pyrgs (snails), the relict dace (a fish), the Clear Lake hitch (another fish). But one I knew well: the tufted puffin.
I grew up near the northern Oregon coast watching tufted puffins nearby at Cannon Beach, where a few dozen pairs nested on Haystack Rock. They were closest thing the town had to a local celebrity. Come April, all sorts of people—not just birders—would go down to the rock to start the annual puffin vigil. Before long the birds would oblige. First one, then two, then more and more would appear, their stubby shapes flying circuits around the 235-foot-tall coastal monolith among the clouds of gulls. Eventually they would land on the rock’s grass-covered summit and disappear into their burrows to breed.

Throughout most of the year, the plumage of nonbreeding tufted puffins is all black. Photo: Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (CC BY-SA 2.0)
Throughout most of the year, the plumage of nonbreeding tufted puffins is all black. Photo: Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (CC BY-SA 2.0)

Tufted puffins are striking birds in the auk family. With their two congeners, the horned and Atlantic puffin, they are sometimes called sea parrots, or the clowns of the sea. Adults can grow up to sixteen inches long and weigh more than two pounds. They wear a sleek cloak of black feathers throughout the year, but when breeding their face turns so white it looks painted. Their large bills, too, become a brilliant orange, and they grow long thick creamy tufts above their eyes. Standing outside their burrows and gazing into the middle distance, the wind ruffling both the grass around them and the tufts on their heads, they could cut comically serious figures. Or maybe it was seriously comic. Whatever the case, everyone loved the puffins.
The sea clowns, alas, have become increasingly rare of late, not just in Oregon, but all up and down the West Coast. In Washington, tufted puffins were once common in the Strait of Juan de Fuca and along the outer coast, with 25,000 birds spread among 44 known breeding colonies in the early 1900s. Those numbers stayed stable for the next several decades; surveys in the 1970s and 1980s estimated more than 23,000 birds bred at 35 known colonies. Then the bottom started to fall out. By 2009 biologists estimated that fewer than 3,000 puffins bred in Washington, and the number of known colonies had fallen to just 19. Counts since then have only gotten worse. In the Salish Sea, colonies at Protection Island and Smith Island have shrunk almost to nothing.
A suite of factors has driven the puffin’s decline. In June 1991, for instance, the Tenyo Maru, a Japanese fishing vessel, sank about 25 miles northwest of Cape Flattery, spilling over 400,000 gallons of fuel oil. Thousands of seabirds were killed, including an estimated 9% of the state’s puffins. But even as the risk of oil spills from rising vessel traffic remains a concern, changing oceanic conditions and large-scale declines in marine productivity are the greater existential threat. These changes have made it harder for puffins to find their preferred forage fish prey, harder for them to raise their chicks (called, naturally, pufflings). It was for this reason that in 2014 the Natural Resources Defense Council petitioned the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to list the puffins of the contiguous states as a distinct population segment—the same approach used to protect the southern resident killer whales and some individual salmon runs.
A tufted puffin catches fish near Destruction Island on the Washington coast. Photo: Scott Pearson/WDFW
A tufted puffin catches fish near Destruction Island on the Washington coast. Photo: Scott Pearson/WDFW

Getting a species listed can clearly take a long time and is frequently subject to litigation, so federal officials usually go to some length to explain how they arrived at their conclusions. Where other species in the December 3 notice had several paragraphs devoted to the rationale behind the decision, the tufted puffin received only three: the species is widely distributed across the North Pacific Ocean, with 82% of the population being in North America, and most of that in Alaska (first paragraph); although the species faces a range of threats, from climate change to oil spills to fisheries bycatch to human disturbance, “the best available information for tufted puffins indicates adequate redundancy and representation across the species’ range, including robust populations across the majority of its range” (second); on account of this robustness, listing was not warranted (last).
Conservation biology is considered an applied science, which implies a sort of practicality. But conservation as an act is at heart aspirational, even idealistic. Some organism is at risk of going extinct if things continue unchanged. Only by stopping or curtailing certain human behaviors, be it logging or fishing or hunting or draining an aquifer or building a subdivision or filling a waterbody with toxins or pumping greenhouse gases into the atmosphere for two hundred years—the list is very, very long—do the odds of that organism’s survival increase even a little.
Ecological dynamics, on the other hand, can hardly be called idealistic. They tend instead to be binary: dead or alive, growing or shrinking, here or not here. But ecology can have its aspirational moments if you will. Not to imply intent, but a species is an ambitious entity. It seeks to occupy as much space as it can, given its physiological needs and the resources available. You see this with the tufted puffin. It needs a place to nest and fish to eat. California, Oregon, and Washington represent the southern tip of the species’ range. In this they are, in a way, aspirational. Yes, most of North America’s tufted puffins are in Alaska, but for some period of time a good number were able to venture south and make a home on the rugged sea stacks, sandstone cliffs, and windswept islands along the coastline abutting the California Current.
Visitors hoping to see puffins at Haystack Rock, Cannon Beach, Oregon. Photo: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (CC BY-NC 2.0)
Visitors hoping to see puffins at Haystack Rock, Cannon Beach, Oregon. Photo: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (CC BY-NC 2.0)

No longer. Here, the practical leanings of conservation, at least as the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service conceives it, become clearer. It is true that across much of its range the tufted puffin is abundant. Some colonies in the Aleutian Islands may host more than 100,000 birds. In ecological terms the species appears to be going through a range contraction, abandoning marginal habitat while staying robust in its core habitat. While range contractions can herald larger problems to come, they are not uncommon. That Washington, Oregon, and California will lose the tufted puffin is unfortunate but not unendurable so long as plenty remain in Alaska. That said, with the puffin, it is unclear how much longer their core habitat will be so suitable; the number of seabird mass mortality events in the North Pacific is on a worrisome rise. Soon we may have to have a conversation about puffin conservation in which the declines are widespread and undeniable no matter the prism through which one chooses to view them.
But that will be a matter for another day. For those of us on the West Coast, there is not much to do other than head out in spring, wait for the puffins to return, see how many are left, and learn a little about their lives so that, should the need arise, more assertive steps can be taken. How much longer they will cling to these territories with their little toe claws is uncertain. If they continue to decline at the current rate, they have perhaps forty years left in Washington. I for one will be sorry to see them go. But it was nice to have them while they were here.
 
Eric Wagner writes about science and the environment from his home in Seattle, where he lives with his wife and daughter. His writing has appeared in Smithsonian, Orion, The Atlantic and High Country News, among other places. He is the author of “Penguins in the Desert” and co-author of “Once and Future River: Reclaiming the Duwamish.” His most recent book is “After the Blast: The Ecological recovery of Mount St. Helens,” published in 2020 by University of Washington Press. He holds a PhD in Biology from the University of Washington.

A tufted puffin gets a running start near Smith Island in the Strait of Juan de Fuca, Washington. Photo: Mick Thompson https://flic.kr/p/WSmZnE (CC BY-NC 2.0)

Will Puget Sound lose the tufted puffin?

Occasionally, this space includes reports and essays from guest writers on the subject of Puget Sound ecosystem recovery. Biologist and author Eric Wagner has this look at the federal government’s recent decision to decline special protection for the tufted puffin under the Endangered Species Act. While the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service says that the puffin has “robust populations across the majority of its range,” the bird’s numbers in Washington, including Puget Sound, have dropped severely in recent years. Wagner recalls what it was like when things were different and the colorful bird known as the “sea clown” could be spotted more easily.
By Eric Wagner
In the December 3, 2020 issue of the Federal Register, tucked between a correction from the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration and a NOAA decision on Pacific cod fishing permits, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service published a notice saying the agency was declining to list eleven species as endangered or threatened under the Endangered Species Act. Many of the species I had never heard of: three types of pyrgs (snails), the relict dace (a fish), the Clear Lake hitch (another fish). But one I knew well: the tufted puffin.
I grew up near the northern Oregon coast watching tufted puffins nearby at Cannon Beach, where a few dozen pairs nested on Haystack Rock. They were closest thing the town had to a local celebrity. Come April, all sorts of people—not just birders—would go down to the rock to start the annual puffin vigil. Before long the birds would oblige. First one, then two, then more and more would appear, their stubby shapes flying circuits around the 235-foot-tall coastal monolith among the clouds of gulls. Eventually they would land on the rock’s grass-covered summit and disappear into their burrows to breed.

Throughout most of the year, the plumage of nonbreeding tufted puffins is all black. Photo: Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (CC BY-SA 2.0)
Throughout most of the year, the plumage of nonbreeding tufted puffins is all black. Photo: Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (CC BY-SA 2.0)

Tufted puffins are striking birds in the auk family. With their two congeners, the horned and Atlantic puffin, they are sometimes called sea parrots, or the clowns of the sea. Adults can grow up to sixteen inches long and weigh more than two pounds. They wear a sleek cloak of black feathers throughout the year, but when breeding their face turns so white it looks painted. Their large bills, too, become a brilliant orange, and they grow long thick creamy tufts above their eyes. Standing outside their burrows and gazing into the middle distance, the wind ruffling both the grass around them and the tufts on their heads, they could cut comically serious figures. Or maybe it was seriously comic. Whatever the case, everyone loved the puffins.
The sea clowns, alas, have become increasingly rare of late, not just in Oregon, but all up and down the West Coast. In Washington, tufted puffins were once common in the Strait of Juan de Fuca and along the outer coast, with 25,000 birds spread among 44 known breeding colonies in the early 1900s. Those numbers stayed stable for the next several decades; surveys in the 1970s and 1980s estimated more than 23,000 birds bred at 35 known colonies. Then the bottom started to fall out. By 2009 biologists estimated that fewer than 3,000 puffins bred in Washington, and the number of known colonies had fallen to just 19. Counts since then have only gotten worse. In the Salish Sea, colonies at Protection Island and Smith Island have shrunk almost to nothing.
A suite of factors has driven the puffin’s decline. In June 1991, for instance, the Tenyo Maru, a Japanese fishing vessel, sank about 25 miles northwest of Cape Flattery, spilling over 400,000 gallons of fuel oil. Thousands of seabirds were killed, including an estimated 9% of the state’s puffins. But even as the risk of oil spills from rising vessel traffic remains a concern, changing oceanic conditions and large-scale declines in marine productivity are the greater existential threat. These changes have made it harder for puffins to find their preferred forage fish prey, harder for them to raise their chicks (called, naturally, pufflings). It was for this reason that in 2014 the Natural Resources Defense Council petitioned the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to list the puffins of the contiguous states as a distinct population segment—the same approach used to protect the southern resident killer whales and some individual salmon runs.
A tufted puffin catches fish near Destruction Island on the Washington coast. Photo: Scott Pearson/WDFW
A tufted puffin catches fish near Destruction Island on the Washington coast. Photo: Scott Pearson/WDFW

Getting a species listed can clearly take a long time and is frequently subject to litigation, so federal officials usually go to some length to explain how they arrived at their conclusions. Where other species in the December 3 notice had several paragraphs devoted to the rationale behind the decision, the tufted puffin received only three: the species is widely distributed across the North Pacific Ocean, with 82% of the population being in North America, and most of that in Alaska (first paragraph); although the species faces a range of threats, from climate change to oil spills to fisheries bycatch to human disturbance, “the best available information for tufted puffins indicates adequate redundancy and representation across the species’ range, including robust populations across the majority of its range” (second); on account of this robustness, listing was not warranted (last).
Conservation biology is considered an applied science, which implies a sort of practicality. But conservation as an act is at heart aspirational, even idealistic. Some organism is at risk of going extinct if things continue unchanged. Only by stopping or curtailing certain human behaviors, be it logging or fishing or hunting or draining an aquifer or building a subdivision or filling a waterbody with toxins or pumping greenhouse gases into the atmosphere for two hundred years—the list is very, very long—do the odds of that organism’s survival increase even a little.
Ecological dynamics, on the other hand, can hardly be called idealistic. They tend instead to be binary: dead or alive, growing or shrinking, here or not here. But ecology can have its aspirational moments if you will. Not to imply intent, but a species is an ambitious entity. It seeks to occupy as much space as it can, given its physiological needs and the resources available. You see this with the tufted puffin. It needs a place to nest and fish to eat. California, Oregon, and Washington represent the southern tip of the species’ range. In this they are, in a way, aspirational. Yes, most of North America’s tufted puffins are in Alaska, but for some period of time a good number were able to venture south and make a home on the rugged sea stacks, sandstone cliffs, and windswept islands along the coastline abutting the California Current.
Visitors hoping to see puffins at Haystack Rock, Cannon Beach, Oregon. Photo: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (CC BY-NC 2.0)
Visitors hoping to see puffins at Haystack Rock, Cannon Beach, Oregon. Photo: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (CC BY-NC 2.0)

No longer. Here, the practical leanings of conservation, at least as the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service conceives it, become clearer. It is true that across much of its range the tufted puffin is abundant. Some colonies in the Aleutian Islands may host more than 100,000 birds. In ecological terms the species appears to be going through a range contraction, abandoning marginal habitat while staying robust in its core habitat. While range contractions can herald larger problems to come, they are not uncommon. That Washington, Oregon, and California will lose the tufted puffin is unfortunate but not unendurable so long as plenty remain in Alaska. That said, with the puffin, it is unclear how much longer their core habitat will be so suitable; the number of seabird mass mortality events in the North Pacific is on a worrisome rise. Soon we may have to have a conversation about puffin conservation in which the declines are widespread and undeniable no matter the prism through which one chooses to view them.
But that will be a matter for another day. For those of us on the West Coast, there is not much to do other than head out in spring, wait for the puffins to return, see how many are left, and learn a little about their lives so that, should the need arise, more assertive steps can be taken. How much longer they will cling to these territories with their little toe claws is uncertain. If they continue to decline at the current rate, they have perhaps forty years left in Washington. I for one will be sorry to see them go. But it was nice to have them while they were here.
 
Eric Wagner writes about science and the environment from his home in Seattle, where he lives with his wife and daughter. His writing has appeared in Smithsonian, Orion, The Atlantic and High Country News, among other places. He is the author of “Penguins in the Desert” and co-author of “Once and Future River: Reclaiming the Duwamish.” His most recent book is “After the Blast: The Ecological recovery of Mount St. Helens,” published in 2020 by University of Washington Press. He holds a PhD in Biology from the University of Washington.

Discovery of toxic chemical in tires spurs scientific and regulatory interest

The discovery of a mysterious chemical that kills coho salmon in urban streams is expected to spawn new research throughout the world while possibly inspiring new demands for protective regulations.
The deadly chemical, associated with automobile tires, was identified by researchers at the University of Washington’s Center for Urban Waters, which is affiliated with the Puget Sound Institute. The findings were published yesterday in the journal “Science.” I wrote about this discovery and more than 20 years of related scientific investigations in PSI’s online magazine “Salish Sea Currents.”
“This is an important finding,” said Erik Neatherlin, executive coordinator of the Governor’s Salmon Recovery Office. “We have known that stormwater is an issue. Now we can talk about the specific culprit (affecting coho).”

A dying female coho salmon in the Lower Duwamish spotted by Puget Soundkeeper volunteers in October 2017. Photo: Kathy Peter
A dying female coho salmon in the Duwamish River, 2017 // Photo: Kathy Peter

A chemical known as 6-PPD is often added to tires to extend their useful life. The additive works by reacting with ground-level ozone before the ozone can damage the tire’s rubber. The chemical reaction produces 6-PPD-quinone, a compound apparently never studied until now. The newly discovered compound is estimated to be more than 100 times as toxic as the parent compound, 6-PPD.
Neatherlin said the logical course toward solving the problem for coho involves strategies to reduce stormwater pollution and finding safer alternatives to 6-PPD. State and federal agencies, Indian tribes, salmon-recovery groups and industry should work together on this, he said.
“I see this as an opportunity to work directly with industry and to find alternatives to this preservative,” Neatherlin said. “We will need to do follow-up scientific studies. I don’t think we need to pit folks against each other right now.”
The findings reported in the new scientific paper are being reviewed by chemists working for tire manufacturers, according to Sarah Amick of the U.S. Tire Manufacturers Association. The tire scientists are already working with the UW researchers and regulatory agencies, she said.
“We welcome the continued opportunity to work with them,” said Amick, who is vice president of environment, health, safety and sustainability for the association. Findings from the latest study must be validated before moving forward, she said, adding that it is “premature” to discuss alternative chemicals that could protect tires from ozone.
The association, which represents 13 major tire companies, is committed to not only the safety of tires but also the protection of human health and the environment, Amick said. An industry-funded research effort, known as the Tire Industry Project, has been studying the environmental effects of tires, including tire-wear particles.
“It is our obligation to understand our products’ impacts on the environment,” she said.
[iframe align=”right” width=”560″ height=”315″ src=”https://www.youtube.com/embed/vxmojuC_dJE”%5D
Ed Kolodziej, a UW associate professor and a senior author of the new paper, said he expects the findings to inspire other researchers to launch investigations into numerous issues raised by the research. They range from basic questions about how long 6-PPD-quinone persists under various environmental conditions to how the chemical affects lesser-known species.
Nat Scholz, a marine zoologist with NOAA’s Northwest Fisheries Science Center, said tires are used in automobiles throughout the world, and stormwater is a problem everywhere. It is important to learn what other species might be affected by tire chemicals, he said. Another big question is whether toxic compounds can accumulate in animal tissues and whether greater concentrations are found in species higher on the food web, a process called bioaccumulation.
Tire chemistry, which has been of interest in several European countries, also plays a role in human health. Artificial turf and crumb rubber used on playfields typically are made with ground-up tires, and researchers say they expect ongoing studies into the health effects of such uses on athletic fields.
Coincidentally, while the new study on tire chemicals was undergoing formal review, artificial turf containing ground-up tires was washing downstream in the Puyallup River from the Electron Dam in Pierce County. The artificial turf had been installed as part of a temporary water-diversion structure during reconstruction of the dam. During late July and August, high flows damaged a plastic liner, allowing pieces of artificial turf and tire particles to wash downstream. That unpermitted use of artificial turf has come under heavy criticism. Long-term effects of that incident remain under investigation, and the latest study reported in “Science” could raise new implications about the extent of the damage.
While 6-PPD-quinone produces dramatic and deadly effects for coho salmon, as reported yesterday, stormwater exposure seems to have little effect on chum or sockeye, based on previous studies. Steelhead and Chinook may be affected but to a lesser degree than coho.
Studies into how the toxic chemical affects the physiology of salmon are underway, and experts expect that other studies will be proposed to better understand the toxic effects of 6-PPD-quinone exposure on a variety of species, including humans.
In portions of California and Oregon, coho salmon are listed as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act. The new findings on this toxic chemical in tires could bring more funding to answer questions about the threats to salmon. A need to better understand subtle effects of tire chemicals on steelhead and Chinook as well as other species could lead to increased research attention, as federal and state authorities develop recovery plans for threatened and endangered salmon along the West Coast.
Michelle Chow, who worked on the coho mortality studies as a UW graduate student, now serves as stormwater and toxics policy manager for Washington Environmental Council.
The recent identification of the deadly chemical related to tires is “a huge step forward,” Chow said, but it is essential not to lose track of the big picture.
“We know that stormwater has this effect,” she said, “but we don’t know what the other effects might be on the food web — from insects up to southern resident orcas. It is important to remember that we have found one chemical for this particular issue, but there are so many other chemicals in stormwater.”
Studies have shown that filtering stormwater through natural soils and vegetation can significantly reduce the overall toxicity. While it would be impossible to install such “green infrastructure” everywhere, things can be done in strategic locations, Chow said. Meanwhile, minimizing impervious roads and driveways throughout the region can reduce the amount of stormwater going into salmon streams.
Now that researchers have identified the chemical responsible for killing coho, Chow would like to see the Washington Department of Ecology gather all available information about tire chemistry from the tire manufacturers. The state agency can demand such information under a 2019 law that created the Safer Products for Washington program.
“We have to start thinking about the different possibilities,” she said. “We need to find out if a safer alternative exists. We are hoping that (industry officials) are thinking about how they can work quickly to start solving this problem.”
Safer Products for Washington involves designating chemicals of highest concern, determining if alternative chemicals are available and deciding if regulations are needed to protect people and the environment. Five classes of chemicals are currently in the second year of a four-year review. A new round of review for new priority chemicals will begin in 2022, and anyone can offer suggestions about what chemicals should be considered for study, said Lauren Tamboer, spokeswoman for the program.
Officials can be expected to debate whether the tire chemical 6-PPD should be considered a priority chemical under the Safer Products program. Another approach, if alternative chemicals are available, is for the Legislature to simply ban 6-PPD from tires at a future date.
That was the approach used to eliminate copper in automobile brake pads, after it was found that copper affects the sense of smell in coho salmon, potentially disrupting their ability to avoid predators and find their way home. The Washington Legislature approved the ban in 2010. California quickly followed, paving the way for new national standards. That was nine years before the Safer Products law was approved. Although it took time to implement, the ban on copper has proven successful, and several alternative brake materials are now on the market. Check out Water Ways, Nov. 6.
The 20-year effort to figure out what was killing the coho makes for a compelling story, one that has already captured the attention of news reporters across the U.S. and in Europe. Here are some of the stories published so far:

  • New York Times: “How Scientists Tracked Down a Mass Killer (of Salmon)”
  • Los Angeles Times: “Scientists solve mystery of mass coho salmon deaths. The killer? A chemical from car tires”
  • Seattle Times: “Tire dust killing coho salmon returning to Puget Sound, new research shows”
  • Marin Independent Journal: “Study finds California salmon face deadly threat from car tires”
  • CNN: “Salmon have been dying mysteriously on the West Coast for years. Scientists think a chemical in tires may be responsible”
  • UPI: “Toxic tire additive blamed for massive coho salmon die-offs”
  • The Guardian: “Pollution from car tires is killing off salmon on US west coast, study finds”
  • Science magazine: “Common tire chemical implicated in mysterious deaths of at-risk salmon”
  • The Daily Mail: “Toxic chemicals used to stop car tyres wearing out too fast are leaching into rivers and killing off salmon, researchers warn”
  • Chemistry World: “Tyre chemical drives mystery salmon deaths”

Discovery of toxic chemical in tires spurs scientific and regulatory interest

The discovery of a mysterious chemical that kills coho salmon in urban streams is expected to spawn new research throughout the world while possibly inspiring new demands for protective regulations.
The deadly chemical, associated with automobile tires, was identified by researchers at the University of Washington’s Center for Urban Waters, which is affiliated with the Puget Sound Institute. The findings were published yesterday in the journal “Science.” I wrote about this discovery and more than 20 years of related scientific investigations in PSI’s online magazine “Salish Sea Currents.”
“This is an important finding,” said Erik Neatherlin, executive coordinator of the Governor’s Salmon Recovery Office. “We have known that stormwater is an issue. Now we can talk about the specific culprit (affecting coho).”

A dying female coho salmon in the Lower Duwamish spotted by Puget Soundkeeper volunteers in October 2017. Photo: Kathy Peter
A dying female coho salmon in the Duwamish River, 2017 // Photo: Kathy Peter

A chemical known as 6-PPD is often added to tires to extend their useful life. The additive works by reacting with ground-level ozone before the ozone can damage the tire’s rubber. The chemical reaction produces 6-PPD-quinone, a compound apparently never studied until now. The newly discovered compound is estimated to be more than 100 times as toxic as the parent compound, 6-PPD.
Neatherlin said the logical course toward solving the problem for coho involves strategies to reduce stormwater pollution and finding safer alternatives to 6-PPD. State and federal agencies, Indian tribes, salmon-recovery groups and industry should work together on this, he said.
“I see this as an opportunity to work directly with industry and to find alternatives to this preservative,” Neatherlin said. “We will need to do follow-up scientific studies. I don’t think we need to pit folks against each other right now.”
The findings reported in the new scientific paper are being reviewed by chemists working for tire manufacturers, according to Sarah Amick of the U.S. Tire Manufacturers Association. The tire scientists are already working with the UW researchers and regulatory agencies, she said.
“We welcome the continued opportunity to work with them,” said Amick, who is vice president of environment, health, safety and sustainability for the association. Findings from the latest study must be validated before moving forward, she said, adding that it is “premature” to discuss alternative chemicals that could protect tires from ozone.
The association, which represents 13 major tire companies, is committed to not only the safety of tires but also the protection of human health and the environment, Amick said. An industry-funded research effort, known as the Tire Industry Project, has been studying the environmental effects of tires, including tire-wear particles.
“It is our obligation to understand our products’ impacts on the environment,” she said.
[iframe align=”right” width=”560″ height=”315″ src=”https://www.youtube.com/embed/vxmojuC_dJE”%5D
Ed Kolodziej, a UW associate professor and a senior author of the new paper, said he expects the findings to inspire other researchers to launch investigations into numerous issues raised by the research. They range from basic questions about how long 6-PPD-quinone persists under various environmental conditions to how the chemical affects lesser-known species.
Nat Scholz, a marine zoologist with NOAA’s Northwest Fisheries Science Center, said tires are used in automobiles throughout the world, and stormwater is a problem everywhere. It is important to learn what other species might be affected by tire chemicals, he said. Another big question is whether toxic compounds can accumulate in animal tissues and whether greater concentrations are found in species higher on the food web, a process called bioaccumulation.
Tire chemistry, which has been of interest in several European countries, also plays a role in human health. Artificial turf and crumb rubber used on playfields typically are made with ground-up tires, and researchers say they expect ongoing studies into the health effects of such uses on athletic fields.
Coincidentally, while the new study on tire chemicals was undergoing formal review, artificial turf containing ground-up tires was washing downstream in the Puyallup River from the Electron Dam in Pierce County. The artificial turf had been installed as part of a temporary water-diversion structure during reconstruction of the dam. During late July and August, high flows damaged a plastic liner, allowing pieces of artificial turf and tire particles to wash downstream. That unpermitted use of artificial turf has come under heavy criticism. Long-term effects of that incident remain under investigation, and the latest study reported in “Science” could raise new implications about the extent of the damage.
While 6-PPD-quinone produces dramatic and deadly effects for coho salmon, as reported yesterday, stormwater exposure seems to have little effect on chum or sockeye, based on previous studies. Steelhead and Chinook may be affected but to a lesser degree than coho.
Studies into how the toxic chemical affects the physiology of salmon are underway, and experts expect that other studies will be proposed to better understand the toxic effects of 6-PPD-quinone exposure on a variety of species, including humans.
In portions of California and Oregon, coho salmon are listed as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act. The new findings on this toxic chemical in tires could bring more funding to answer questions about the threats to salmon. A need to better understand subtle effects of tire chemicals on steelhead and Chinook as well as other species could lead to increased research attention, as federal and state authorities develop recovery plans for threatened and endangered salmon along the West Coast.
Michelle Chow, who worked on the coho mortality studies as a UW graduate student, now serves as stormwater and toxics policy manager for Washington Environmental Council.
The recent identification of the deadly chemical related to tires is “a huge step forward,” Chow said, but it is essential not to lose track of the big picture.
“We know that stormwater has this effect,” she said, “but we don’t know what the other effects might be on the food web — from insects up to southern resident orcas. It is important to remember that we have found one chemical for this particular issue, but there are so many other chemicals in stormwater.”
Studies have shown that filtering stormwater through natural soils and vegetation can significantly reduce the overall toxicity. While it would be impossible to install such “green infrastructure” everywhere, things can be done in strategic locations, Chow said. Meanwhile, minimizing impervious roads and driveways throughout the region can reduce the amount of stormwater going into salmon streams.
Now that researchers have identified the chemical responsible for killing coho, Chow would like to see the Washington Department of Ecology gather all available information about tire chemistry from the tire manufacturers. The state agency can demand such information under a 2019 law that created the Safer Products for Washington program.
“We have to start thinking about the different possibilities,” she said. “We need to find out if a safer alternative exists. We are hoping that (industry officials) are thinking about how they can work quickly to start solving this problem.”
Safer Products for Washington involves designating chemicals of highest concern, determining if alternative chemicals are available and deciding if regulations are needed to protect people and the environment. Five classes of chemicals are currently in the second year of a four-year review. A new round of review for new priority chemicals will begin in 2022, and anyone can offer suggestions about what chemicals should be considered for study, said Lauren Tamboer, spokeswoman for the program.
Officials can be expected to debate whether the tire chemical 6-PPD should be considered a priority chemical under the Safer Products program. Another approach, if alternative chemicals are available, is for the Legislature to simply ban 6-PPD from tires at a future date.
That was the approach used to eliminate copper in automobile brake pads, after it was found that copper affects the sense of smell in coho salmon, potentially disrupting their ability to avoid predators and find their way home. The Washington Legislature approved the ban in 2010. California quickly followed, paving the way for new national standards. That was nine years before the Safer Products law was approved. Although it took time to implement, the ban on copper has proven successful, and several alternative brake materials are now on the market. Check out Water Ways, Nov. 6.
The 20-year effort to figure out what was killing the coho makes for a compelling story, one that has already captured the attention of news reporters across the U.S. and in Europe. Here are some of the stories published so far:

  • New York Times: “How Scientists Tracked Down a Mass Killer (of Salmon)”
  • Los Angeles Times: “Scientists solve mystery of mass coho salmon deaths. The killer? A chemical from car tires”
  • Seattle Times: “Tire dust killing coho salmon returning to Puget Sound, new research shows”
  • Marin Independent Journal: “Study finds California salmon face deadly threat from car tires”
  • CNN: “Salmon have been dying mysteriously on the West Coast for years. Scientists think a chemical in tires may be responsible”
  • UPI: “Toxic tire additive blamed for massive coho salmon die-offs”
  • The Guardian: “Pollution from car tires is killing off salmon on US west coast, study finds”
  • Science magazine: “Common tire chemical implicated in mysterious deaths of at-risk salmon”
  • The Daily Mail: “Toxic chemicals used to stop car tyres wearing out too fast are leaching into rivers and killing off salmon, researchers warn”
  • Chemistry World: “Tyre chemical drives mystery salmon deaths”

Puget Sound Restoration Fund meets 10-year, 100-acre goal for restoring native oyster beds

A heartfelt congratulations goes out to Betsy Peabody, her staff at Puget Sound Restoration Fund, and the dozens of partner organizations working to restore our native Olympia oyster to Puget Sound.
PSRF recently fulfilled its ambitious 10-year goal of enhancing habitat for the petite, succulent oysters across 100 acres of Puget Sound tidelands, establishing a foothold for future regeneration of even greater populations.
I first met Betsy as the Olympia oyster project was getting off the ground in 1999. Her enthusiasm and vision for the future caused me to fall in love with these little oysters. Check out my first story package on the native bivalve titled “The World is Our Oyster”:

Betsy herself is a petite but powerful sparkplug whose enthusiasm for the natural world inspires people to push through obstacles that get in the way. She can tell a story as well as anyone, which has led me to learn about many wonderful environmental issues through the years.

Pacific oyster shell, shown here on a barge, will help to create habitat for Olympia oysters. Photo: Puget Sound Restoration Fund

I should also mention that one of Betsy’s greatest character traits is to surround herself with the best experts she can find. She does not hesitate to refer reporters to scientists with intimate knowledge of the topics at hand.
For the first 10 years, Puget Sound Restoration Fund went about learning about the needs of Olympia oysters. Experimental plots were seeded with oysters in numerous locations. Some projects succeeded; others failed. By 2010, many practices and techniques had been worked out to successfully grow the finicky little oyster.
Betsy and her staff came to realize that the key to re-establishing a dense bed of Olympia oysters was to create a substrate upon which oyster larvae could attach themselves. The empty shells of Pacific oysters, which were acquired from oyster growers, became the material of choice, thanks to a pivotal observation by Brady Blake of the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. See “Plan for Rebuilding Olympia Oyster Populations in Puget Sound with a Historical and Contemporary Overview” (PDF 480 kb).
In 2010, the idea of restoring 100 acres of Olympia oysters seemed like a monumental task. At the time, only 150 acres of dense aggregations of native oysters were known to exist in Puget Sound, according to experts with the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. (Since then, a few other areas have been found.) Before white settlement in the 1800s, between 10,000 and 20,000 acres of native oysters may have been around.
“The year 2010 was a big turning point for us,” Betsy told me. “With funding from the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, we began setting our sights for that larger goal. We put together some large workshops with growers and tribes and others.”
Puget Sound Restoration Fund was coming off a successful shellfish-recovery effort in Drayton Harbor, where the three-year goal was challenging and very specific. (Check out the story in the Encyclopedia of Puget Sound.)
“We said, ‘Hey, let’s go big. Let’s see if we can reach 100 acres by 2020,’” Betsy recalled. “It was always intended to be a collective goal, and it has been a collective effort.
“There have been many moments along the way when I have wondered privately if we were going to make it. How are we going to do it? We always found a way forward.” said Betsy, adding that partners always stepped in to help restore this oyster.
“Olympia oysters are much beloved,” she said. “Plus, they’re a foundational piece of the Puget Sound estuary. Who could say No to that?”
The final project to meet the goal was completed last month in Liberty Bay near Poulsbo. Check out the engaging story map on the PSRF’s website.
Partnering with public and private expertise has been a mainstay of the organization, and Betsy declares that “private thinking” has helped to keep her eyes on the prize and avoid aimless and ongoing efforts.
“You’ve got to set the goal, invest yourself and make it happen by hook or crook,” she said. “Hopefully, you can engage your partners in trying to achieve the goal.”
Betsy and her cohorts have never stopped learning about Olympia oysters. They are getting better at establishing new populations, with success building upon success. The key, she says, is to find suitable habitat for the native oysters or else rebuild it within the “nooks and crannies” of various bays and inlets throughout Puget Sound.
“We are really developing our scientific assessments with pre-survey work … then going back and documenting what happened to adaptively manage (the sites),” she said.
PSRF is now working on a “habitat-suitability index” — a tool that can help predict whether a particular location will work well for Olympia oysters.
Anyone can get involved in the project, starting by searching out what is growing in nearby bays and inlets. The “Olympia Oyster Field Guide” provides the tools for an enjoyable “Olympia oyster treasure hunt,” Betsy said. There is still much to be discovered.
As the Olympia oyster project has moved forward, PSRF has expanded its restoration efforts to:

So now that the 10-year, 100-acre goal has been met, what’s in store for Puget Sound Restoration Fund? I guess there will be no slowing down.
“We have set ourselves toward the next five-year goal of 50 acres,” Betsy declared.
While I would love to go on about all the stories written through the years about Olympia oysters, I will stop here and list the projects that allowed PSRF to meet the 100-acre goal, along with links to related information:
Dogfish Bay, Kitsap County, 10 acres, 2000-11
Kitsap Sun
PSRC
Fidalgo Bay, Skagit County, 4.5 acres, 2002-18
Encyclopedia of Puget Sound
Skagit Valley Herald
Skagit County Marine Resources Committee
Scandia, Kitsap County, 10 acres, 2005-11
Kitsap Sun
Oyster Bay, Kitsap County, 0.5 acres, 2011
Palela Bay, Squaxin Island Reservation (Mason County), 2 acres, 2011
Associated Press
Sequim Bay, Clallam County, 2 acres, 2012-2019
Seattle Times
Kiket Lagoon and Lone Tree Lagoon, Skagit County, 2 acres, 2012-2017
Drayton Harbor, Whatcom County, 6 acres, 2014-19
Port Gamble Bay, Kitsap County, 10 acres, 2014-2016
Kitsap Sun
Quilcene Bay, Jefferson County, 2 acres, 2016
The Leader, Port Townsend
Smith Cove, King County, , 0.5 acres, 2018
Queen Anne and Magnolia News
Chico Bay, Kitsap County, 5 acres, 2018
Sinclair Inlet, Kitsap County, 15 acres, 2019
Watching Our Water Ways – Kitsap Sun
Annas Bay, Mason County, 2 acres, 2020
Liberty Bay, Kitsap County, 15 acres, 2020
Kitsap Sun
Early scattered plots, 14 acres, 1999-2009

Puget Sound Restoration Fund meets 10-year, 100-acre goal for restoring native oyster beds

A heartfelt congratulations goes out to Betsy Peabody, her staff at Puget Sound Restoration Fund, and the dozens of partner organizations working to restore our native Olympia oyster to Puget Sound.
PSRF recently fulfilled its ambitious 10-year goal of enhancing habitat for the petite, succulent oysters across 100 acres of Puget Sound tidelands, establishing a foothold for future regeneration of even greater populations.
I first met Betsy as the Olympia oyster project was getting off the ground in 1999. Her enthusiasm and vision for the future caused me to fall in love with these little oysters. Check out my first story package on the native bivalve titled “The World is Our Oyster”:

Betsy herself is a petite but powerful sparkplug whose enthusiasm for the natural world inspires people to push through obstacles that get in the way. She can tell a story as well as anyone, which has led me to learn about many wonderful environmental issues through the years.

Pacific oyster shell, shown here on a barge, will help to create habitat for Olympia oysters. Photo: Puget Sound Restoration Fund

I should also mention that one of Betsy’s greatest character traits is to surround herself with the best experts she can find. She does not hesitate to refer reporters to scientists with intimate knowledge of the topics at hand.
For the first 10 years, Puget Sound Restoration Fund went about learning about the needs of Olympia oysters. Experimental plots were seeded with oysters in numerous locations. Some projects succeeded; others failed. By 2010, many practices and techniques had been worked out to successfully grow the finicky little oyster.
Betsy and her staff came to realize that the key to re-establishing a dense bed of Olympia oysters was to create a substrate upon which oyster larvae could attach themselves. The empty shells of Pacific oysters, which were acquired from oyster growers, became the material of choice, thanks to a pivotal observation by Brady Blake of the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. See “Plan for Rebuilding Olympia Oyster Populations in Puget Sound with a Historical and Contemporary Overview” (PDF 480 kb).
In 2010, the idea of restoring 100 acres of Olympia oysters seemed like a monumental task. At the time, only 150 acres of dense aggregations of native oysters were known to exist in Puget Sound, according to experts with the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. (Since then, a few other areas have been found.) Before white settlement in the 1800s, between 10,000 and 20,000 acres of native oysters may have been around.
“The year 2010 was a big turning point for us,” Betsy told me. “With funding from the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, we began setting our sights for that larger goal. We put together some large workshops with growers and tribes and others.”
Puget Sound Restoration Fund was coming off a successful shellfish-recovery effort in Drayton Harbor, where the three-year goal was challenging and very specific. (Check out the story in the Encyclopedia of Puget Sound.)
“We said, ‘Hey, let’s go big. Let’s see if we can reach 100 acres by 2020,’” Betsy recalled. “It was always intended to be a collective goal, and it has been a collective effort.
“There have been many moments along the way when I have wondered privately if we were going to make it. How are we going to do it? We always found a way forward.” said Betsy, adding that partners always stepped in to help restore this oyster.
“Olympia oysters are much beloved,” she said. “Plus, they’re a foundational piece of the Puget Sound estuary. Who could say No to that?”
The final project to meet the goal was completed last month in Liberty Bay near Poulsbo. Check out the engaging story map on the PSRF’s website.
Partnering with public and private expertise has been a mainstay of the organization, and Betsy declares that “private thinking” has helped to keep her eyes on the prize and avoid aimless and ongoing efforts.
“You’ve got to set the goal, invest yourself and make it happen by hook or crook,” she said. “Hopefully, you can engage your partners in trying to achieve the goal.”
Betsy and her cohorts have never stopped learning about Olympia oysters. They are getting better at establishing new populations, with success building upon success. The key, she says, is to find suitable habitat for the native oysters or else rebuild it within the “nooks and crannies” of various bays and inlets throughout Puget Sound.
“We are really developing our scientific assessments with pre-survey work … then going back and documenting what happened to adaptively manage (the sites),” she said.
PSRF is now working on a “habitat-suitability index” — a tool that can help predict whether a particular location will work well for Olympia oysters.
Anyone can get involved in the project, starting by searching out what is growing in nearby bays and inlets. The “Olympia Oyster Field Guide” provides the tools for an enjoyable “Olympia oyster treasure hunt,” Betsy said. There is still much to be discovered.
As the Olympia oyster project has moved forward, PSRF has expanded its restoration efforts to:

So now that the 10-year, 100-acre goal has been met, what’s in store for Puget Sound Restoration Fund? I guess there will be no slowing down.
“We have set ourselves toward the next five-year goal of 50 acres,” Betsy declared.
While I would love to go on about all the stories written through the years about Olympia oysters, I will stop here and list the projects that allowed PSRF to meet the 100-acre goal, along with links to related information:
Dogfish Bay, Kitsap County, 10 acres, 2000-11
Kitsap Sun
PSRC
Fidalgo Bay, Skagit County, 4.5 acres, 2002-18
Encyclopedia of Puget Sound
Skagit Valley Herald
Skagit County Marine Resources Committee
Scandia, Kitsap County, 10 acres, 2005-11
Kitsap Sun
Oyster Bay, Kitsap County, 0.5 acres, 2011
Palela Bay, Squaxin Island Reservation (Mason County), 2 acres, 2011
Associated Press
Sequim Bay, Clallam County, 2 acres, 2012-2019
Seattle Times
Kiket Lagoon and Lone Tree Lagoon, Skagit County, 2 acres, 2012-2017
Drayton Harbor, Whatcom County, 6 acres, 2014-19
Port Gamble Bay, Kitsap County, 10 acres, 2014-2016
Kitsap Sun
Quilcene Bay, Jefferson County, 2 acres, 2016
The Leader, Port Townsend
Smith Cove, King County, , 0.5 acres, 2018
Queen Anne and Magnolia News
Chico Bay, Kitsap County, 5 acres, 2018
Sinclair Inlet, Kitsap County, 15 acres, 2019
Watching Our Water Ways – Kitsap Sun
Annas Bay, Mason County, 2 acres, 2020
Liberty Bay, Kitsap County, 15 acres, 2020
Kitsap Sun
Early scattered plots, 14 acres, 1999-2009

Does the public have a right to walk across a private beach? The answer is still unresolved

Even before Washington became a state in 1889, Puget Sound beaches had been exploited as log dumps, farmed for shellfish, occupied as homesites and enjoyed for recreation. But today, after 131 years of statehood, residents of this region still don’t know if they have a legal right to walk across a privately owned beach at low tide.
That’s because neither the Washington State Supreme Court nor the Legislature has ever clearly spelled out the limits of the Public Trust Doctrine — an ancient legal principle that provides for common citizens to retain certain rights to themselves, regardless of property ownership. For example, the right of navigation allows anyone to float a boat practically anywhere in Puget Sound, even directly over private property.
But what if someone decides to step out of the boat into shallow water and stand on the bottom? That’s where things become murky. If the underlying property is privately owned tidelands, the legality of that act remains subject to debate among legal scholars. The same reasoning applies to citizens who walk across the wet portions of a beach at low tide.
For the past 40 years, I’ve been intrigued with the nature and application of the Public Trust Doctrine, which has been invoked by a number of states to grant people the right to walk across privately owned tidelands. Josh Farley, a longtime friend and former colleague at the Kitsap Sun, recently reminded me that I haven’t written about this issue for 10 years. He wondered if anything has changed.
Let me refer you to the article I wrote for the Kitsap Sun in 2010 featuring the story of Bruce Barcott, an outdoors writer who hiked the entire shoreline of Bainbridge Island at low tide, knowing full well that some property owners would probably object.
“I only ran into one fellow who gave me a hard time about his property right,” Bruce told me at the time. “A number of homeowners I met actually believed that the shore and tideland was public property.”
The issue of public versus private rights on Puget Sound beaches continues to simmer without resolution, according to Joe Panesko, senior counsel in the Washington State Office of the Attorney General who has done extensive research on the Public Trust Doctrine, including a treatise for the Washington State Bar Association.
“It is a fascinating topic,” Joe told me. “Thousands of law review articles have been written advocating what it should mean.”
As the legal adviser to the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Joe has seen conflicts over whether the public has the right to hunt for ducks on tidelands owned by a duck-hunting club and disputes about whether commercial fishers have the right to use beach seines along the shore.
When Fish and Wildlife enforcement officers are called, he said, they are often in no position to resolve the conflicts. Uncertainty over the Public Trust Doctrine is one thing, but the issues are further complicated by property lines and tidal boundaries in a dynamic environment. The same dilemma faces a sheriff’s deputy called by a property owner to arrest a “trespasser” walking on the beach.
Through the years, I’ve talked to many property owners who don’t mind people walking on their beach as long as the walker shows respect for the environment and any physical improvements above the high-tide line. Problems come into play when beach walkers push beyond any reasonable limits, such as by walking up onto people’s lawns.
WDFW recently closed the parking lot at the future Point No Point boat launch near Hansville on the Kitsap Peninsula. The number of people accessing the local beaches from that area had gotten out of hand, officials said, and some people were walking around above the high tide line. Such folks could be considered trespassers even under a liberal interpretation of the Public Trust Doctrine. Check out the story by Jessie Darland, Kitsap Sun, July 11.
It seems that little has changed since I wrote about this issue 10 years ago. The story received more than 75 comments from people fired up on both sides of the issue. As a result, I followed the story with a blog post discussing related issues.
Much of the conflict in Puget Sound grew out of the Legislature’s divesting the state of what were once public tidelands. Public lands became private under varying standards, sometimes for the purpose of shellfish farming.
In contrast, most of the tidelands in Oregon remain in public ownership. But even where the tidelands are privately owned, the Oregon Legislature has declared that the Public Trust Doctrine allows people to cross private property, provided they cause no damage. In California, the courts have extended public trust rights to include protection of natural resources.
In Washington state, either the courts or the Legislature could define the limits of the Public Trust Doctrine, Joe Panesko said. Even though the doctrine is a “common-law” principal handed down through the ages, nothing in the Washington State Constitution prohibits the Legislature from clearing up the controversy. Without action from the Legislature, however, the courts could eventually define the limits of public access.
In a 2015 case, Havens v. Cousins (PDF 5.8 mb), an Island County Superior Court Judge tried to untangle the long history of Washington state case law in a dispute about whether a commercial smelt fisherman could walk upon private tidelands — or even uplands — to manage his net in a legally licensed fishery.
“The upshot of all this,” the judge concluded in his oral ruling, “is that the plaintiffs (property owners) have the right to exclude the defendants (fishermen) from entering onto their second-class tidelands at such a time as they are not covered by the waters of the state. But when they are covered by water, the defendants may enter onto such water even though the water is located above the tidelands.
“However, the defendants may not touch the actual tidelands, that is to say the land itself, even though the land may be covered by water. Thus, for example, the defendants may not drag nets over the tidelands, nor can they drop anchor onto the plaintiffs’ tidelands. All the defendants may do is fish in navigable waters. They may not touch the actual tidelands themselves.”
The judge’s reasoning is spelled out clearly. It would seem this case might establish clear limits to the Public Trust Doctrine in favor of private property owners. But — and this is the key — the lawsuit was not appealed to a higher court, so it provides no legal application for anyone but the parties to the case.
So, when it comes to resolving any presumed public right to walk on the beach, I can’t say that we’ve gotten a whole lot closer over the past 131 years.

‘Outdoors Act’ would repair national parks, protect land and address recreation needs

UPDATE: July 23
The Great American Outdoors Act passed the House yesterday on a 310-107 vote. See Associated Press and news release from U.S. Rep. Derek Kilmer, D-Gig Harbor.
—–
It appears that the political stars are lining up for what some people are calling the most significant environmental legislation in decades. Billions of dollars have been laid upon the table for parks, recreation facilities and environmentally sensitive lands across the country.
The U.S. Senate has already passed the Great American Outdoors Act, which pairs two previous spending proposals: the Land and Water Conservation Fund with $900 million to be spent annually for the foreseeable future, and a new National Parks and Public Lands Legacy Fund with $9.5 billion to be spent over the next five years.

Chart: Congressional Research Service

The House is poised to approve the measure when it returns to full session July 20, despite a last-minute effort by one Republican lawmaker to amend the bill. If successful, that could delay action for another year or more.
President Trump, who has consistently pushed for major funding cuts for conservation — including the Land and Water Conservation Fund — suddenly reversed course in March. Now he says he will enthusiastically sign the funding bill.
Trump’s Interior Secretary, David Bernhardt, expressed the administration’s support. “The enactment of the combination of these two proposals,” he said in an opinion piece, “would be the most significant conservation legislation in generations.”
On that point, he hasn’t gotten much argument from conservation groups.
“This is an historic deal reflecting the tremendous bipartisan support for our public lands and would mark the biggest conservation victory in over 100 years,” said Tom Cors of The Nature Conservancy, a spokesman for the Land and Water Conservation Fund Coalition.
Kabir Green, director of federal affairs at the Natural Resources Defense Council also agreed. “At a time when the outdoors is more important to public health than ever, a bipartisan majority is recognizing how badly the country needs to invest in its public lands and waters and ensure access to them.”
Their comments and many others were compiled by the Senate Republican Communications Center.
The Land and Water Conservation Fund has been on the books since 1964, providing nearly $19 billion for conservation projects across the country. The fund was first proposed by a federal commission, supported by President John F. Kennedy and ushered through Congress by Sen. Henry M. Jackson of Washington state, who chaired the Senate Interior Committee at the time.
Chart: Congressional Research Service

Congress first authorized the fund for 25 years, then approved a 25-year extension. In recent years, however, political squabbling allowed the fund to expire twice: once in 2015, when it was revived for three years, and again in 2018, when its annual authorization of $900 million was made permanent.
Even so, perpetual authorization does not mean that Congress must spend the money.
That’s why the new Great American Outdoors Act is so significant, said Amy Lindholm, manager of the LWCF Coalition. In addition to the new funding piece to help eliminate a $12-billion maintenance backlog in national parks, the new legislation actually mandates that at least $900 million be spent each year for land purchases and recreation projects.
That mandate will make a real difference, Amy told me. Even though Congress has authorized spending at the $900-million level since 1978, it has spent less than half that amount. If the fund were a bank account — which it isn’t — it would contain a balance of about $22 billion, compared to withdrawals and spending of $18.9 billion through the years. Once the new law is enacted, it would take an act of Congress to stop the flow of money.
Spending targets: LWCF
The Land and Water Conservation Fund derives its $900 million in annual credits mostly from federal royalties for offshore oil and gas drilling, which have generated a total of about $7 billion a year for the U.S. government in recent times.
Money in the LWCF goes for three major purposes:

  1. Land acquisition and outdoor recreation programs in the Forest Service, National Park Service, Fish and Wildlife Service, and Bureau of Land Management.
  2. Financial assistance to the states for recreational planning, acquisition of recreational lands and waters, and developing outdoor recreational facilities. States receiving funds must provide an equal amount of money.
  3. Other federal resource-related purposes, including the Forest Legacy Program of the Forest Service, which helps states to acquire important lands, and the Cooperative Endangered Species Conservation Fund of the Fish and Wildlife Service, which helps states to protect listed species.

In Washington state, two federal projects are riding high on the list for funding in the next budget: the Willapa National Wildlife Refuge and the Dewatto Headwaters Forest. Many grants to state agencies have been proposed but not yet been prioritized.
Spending targets: National Parks
The National Parks and Public Lands Legacy Fund would direct up to $9.5 billion in revenues from on-shore, off-shore and renewable energy supplies to the following:

  • National Parks, 70 percent
  • U.S. Forest Service, 15 percent
  • U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 5 percent
  • Bureau of Land Management, 5 percent
  • Bureau of Indian Education, 5 percent

Deferred maintenance in the national parks alone is estimated at $12 billion. The National Park Service would use its share of the fund to repair roads, buildings, campgrounds, trails, utility systems and other infrastructure.
National parks in Washington state are facing a backlog of more than $427 million in needed repairs, according to a report by Pew Charitable Trusts (PDF 223 kb). That includes $186 million at Mount Rainier and $126 million at Olympic.
History of LWCF
The Land and Water Conservation Fund was created during the heyday of the environmental movement during the 1960s, when Sen. Henry M. “Scoop” Jackson played an instrumental role as chairman of the Senate Interior Committee. Legislation during his tenure included the Wilderness Act, creation of North Cascades National Park, National Trail System Act, Wild and Scenic Rivers Act and, perhaps most significant, the National Environmental Policy Act.
As the Senate prepared to vote on the LWCF for the first time, Jackson spoke to his fellow senators:
“I would like to remind you that it is mostly to the open areas that 90 percent of all Americans go each year, seeking refreshment of body and spirit,” he said. “These are the places they go to hunt, fish, camp, picnic, swim, for boating or driving for pleasure, or perhaps simply for relaxation or solitude.”
The vote was 92-1.
The original funding came from the sale of federal property ($50 million a year), motor boat fuel tax ($30 million), new entrance and user fees ($65 million) and $60 million over eight years to be paid back to the treasury. The new user fees never raised more than $16 million, so the oil and gas revenues were added in 1968 and soon became the major source of funding.
[iframe align=”right” width=”560″ height=”315″ src=”https://www.youtube.com/embed/kQTBqQ6nAxk”%5D
Authorized spending was increased to $200 million a year in 1968, then to $300 million in 1970, and then to $900 million in 1977 — although spending reached that annual level only twice (see chart).
Jackson’s successors who occupied that same Senate seat — Dan Evans, Slade Gorton and Maria Cantwell — have all been supporters of the LWCF, with Cantwell working especially hard in recent years to strengthen the law.
“Public lands are a great driver of our economy and an essential aspect of American life, and this vote says we’re going to continue to invest in them,” Cantwell said in a news release after the Senate approved the Great American Outdoors Act on a 73-25 vote. “It couldn’t be a more important investment, and it couldn’t give America a bigger return.” (Check out her speech on video, this page.)
Today’s politics
Until this year, President Trump showed little interest in acquiring more federal lands or creating new recreation areas. Congress consistently overruled his proposed budgets to gut the funding for the LWCF.
On March 3, Trump appeared to change his tune with this tweet: “I am calling on Congress to send me a bill that fully and permanently funds the LWCF and restores our national parks. When I sign it into law, it will be HISTORIC for our beautiful public lands. All thanks to @SenCoryGardner and @SteveDaines, two GREAT conservative leaders!”
Some have speculated that Trump’s change of heart is designed to improve the election prospects of the named Republican senators, Cory Gardner of Colorado and Steve Daines of Montana, but Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell insists it was not a political move.
“It’s in proximity to the election, but nobody said you ought to quit doing things just because there’s an election,” McConnell was quoted as saying in “The Hill.”
Given Trump’s sign-on and with supportive Democrats in control of the House, the chances of approving the long-term funding appear good. But that hasn’t stopped Utah Sen. Rob Bishop, a Republican, from raising alarms about a confusing provision in the bill that would remove restrictions about where the money can be spent for land purchases. Reporter Emma Dumain describes the situation in E&E News.
“Eastern states deserve equality in federal land ownership as Congress intended,” Bishop wrote in a letter to 154 House members. “A last-minute ‘conforming amendment’ … eliminated this requirement, siphoning critical LWCF funds away from Eastern states in perpetuity. It’s not right.”
Stepping into the fray, a spokeswoman for Republican Sen. Daines played down the controversy.
“The conforming amendment makes no change to the status quo,” Katie Schoettler was quoted as saying in the E&E News article. “Congress and the agency have consistently approved and funded Western LWCF projects to meet needs and fulfill congressional intent behind the program. Eliminating this arbitrary cap just ensures LWCF is carried out as it always has been.”
If Bishop can dredge up enough votes to pass his amendment, all sorts of trouble could follow, and the bill would need a new vote in the Senate — which might not happen soon. Most House Democrats are expected to stay away from that “Pandora’s box,” as writer Dumain describes it, but in recent years turmoil has never been far from the Land and Water Conservation Fund.
Further reading

‘Outdoors Act’ would repair national parks, protect land and address recreation needs

UPDATE: July 23
The Great American Outdoors Act passed the House yesterday on a 310-107 vote. See Associated Press and news release from U.S. Rep. Derek Kilmer, D-Gig Harbor.
—–
It appears that the political stars are lining up for what some people are calling the most significant environmental legislation in decades. Billions of dollars have been laid upon the table for parks, recreation facilities and environmentally sensitive lands across the country.
The U.S. Senate has already passed the Great American Outdoors Act, which pairs two previous spending proposals: the Land and Water Conservation Fund with $900 million to be spent annually for the foreseeable future, and a new National Parks and Public Lands Legacy Fund with $9.5 billion to be spent over the next five years.

Chart: Congressional Research Service

The House is poised to approve the measure when it returns to full session July 20, despite a last-minute effort by one Republican lawmaker to amend the bill. If successful, that could delay action for another year or more.
President Trump, who has consistently pushed for major funding cuts for conservation — including the Land and Water Conservation Fund — suddenly reversed course in March. Now he says he will enthusiastically sign the funding bill.
Trump’s Interior Secretary, David Bernhardt, expressed the administration’s support. “The enactment of the combination of these two proposals,” he said in an opinion piece, “would be the most significant conservation legislation in generations.”
On that point, he hasn’t gotten much argument from conservation groups.
“This is an historic deal reflecting the tremendous bipartisan support for our public lands and would mark the biggest conservation victory in over 100 years,” said Tom Cors of The Nature Conservancy, a spokesman for the Land and Water Conservation Fund Coalition.
Kabir Green, director of federal affairs at the Natural Resources Defense Council also agreed. “At a time when the outdoors is more important to public health than ever, a bipartisan majority is recognizing how badly the country needs to invest in its public lands and waters and ensure access to them.”
Their comments and many others were compiled by the Senate Republican Communications Center.
The Land and Water Conservation Fund has been on the books since 1964, providing nearly $19 billion for conservation projects across the country. The fund was first proposed by a federal commission, supported by President John F. Kennedy and ushered through Congress by Sen. Henry M. Jackson of Washington state, who chaired the Senate Interior Committee at the time.
Chart: Congressional Research Service

Congress first authorized the fund for 25 years, then approved a 25-year extension. In recent years, however, political squabbling allowed the fund to expire twice: once in 2015, when it was revived for three years, and again in 2018, when its annual authorization of $900 million was made permanent.
Even so, perpetual authorization does not mean that Congress must spend the money.
That’s why the new Great American Outdoors Act is so significant, said Amy Lindholm, manager of the LWCF Coalition. In addition to the new funding piece to help eliminate a $12-billion maintenance backlog in national parks, the new legislation actually mandates that at least $900 million be spent each year for land purchases and recreation projects.
That mandate will make a real difference, Amy told me. Even though Congress has authorized spending at the $900-million level since 1978, it has spent less than half that amount. If the fund were a bank account — which it isn’t — it would contain a balance of about $22 billion, compared to withdrawals and spending of $18.9 billion through the years. Once the new law is enacted, it would take an act of Congress to stop the flow of money.
Spending targets: LWCF
The Land and Water Conservation Fund derives its $900 million in annual credits mostly from federal royalties for offshore oil and gas drilling, which have generated a total of about $7 billion a year for the U.S. government in recent times.
Money in the LWCF goes for three major purposes:

  1. Land acquisition and outdoor recreation programs in the Forest Service, National Park Service, Fish and Wildlife Service, and Bureau of Land Management.
  2. Financial assistance to the states for recreational planning, acquisition of recreational lands and waters, and developing outdoor recreational facilities. States receiving funds must provide an equal amount of money.
  3. Other federal resource-related purposes, including the Forest Legacy Program of the Forest Service, which helps states to acquire important lands, and the Cooperative Endangered Species Conservation Fund of the Fish and Wildlife Service, which helps states to protect listed species.

In Washington state, two federal projects are riding high on the list for funding in the next budget: the Willapa National Wildlife Refuge and the Dewatto Headwaters Forest. Many grants to state agencies have been proposed but not yet been prioritized.
Spending targets: National Parks
The National Parks and Public Lands Legacy Fund would direct up to $9.5 billion in revenues from on-shore, off-shore and renewable energy supplies to the following:

  • National Parks, 70 percent
  • U.S. Forest Service, 15 percent
  • U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 5 percent
  • Bureau of Land Management, 5 percent
  • Bureau of Indian Education, 5 percent

Deferred maintenance in the national parks alone is estimated at $12 billion. The National Park Service would use its share of the fund to repair roads, buildings, campgrounds, trails, utility systems and other infrastructure.
National parks in Washington state are facing a backlog of more than $427 million in needed repairs, according to a report by Pew Charitable Trusts (PDF 223 kb). That includes $186 million at Mount Rainier and $126 million at Olympic.
History of LWCF
The Land and Water Conservation Fund was created during the heyday of the environmental movement during the 1960s, when Sen. Henry M. “Scoop” Jackson played an instrumental role as chairman of the Senate Interior Committee. Legislation during his tenure included the Wilderness Act, creation of North Cascades National Park, National Trail System Act, Wild and Scenic Rivers Act and, perhaps most significant, the National Environmental Policy Act.
As the Senate prepared to vote on the LWCF for the first time, Jackson spoke to his fellow senators:
“I would like to remind you that it is mostly to the open areas that 90 percent of all Americans go each year, seeking refreshment of body and spirit,” he said. “These are the places they go to hunt, fish, camp, picnic, swim, for boating or driving for pleasure, or perhaps simply for relaxation or solitude.”
The vote was 92-1.
The original funding came from the sale of federal property ($50 million a year), motor boat fuel tax ($30 million), new entrance and user fees ($65 million) and $60 million over eight years to be paid back to the treasury. The new user fees never raised more than $16 million, so the oil and gas revenues were added in 1968 and soon became the major source of funding.
[iframe align=”right” width=”560″ height=”315″ src=”https://www.youtube.com/embed/kQTBqQ6nAxk”%5D
Authorized spending was increased to $200 million a year in 1968, then to $300 million in 1970, and then to $900 million in 1977 — although spending reached that annual level only twice (see chart).
Jackson’s successors who occupied that same Senate seat — Dan Evans, Slade Gorton and Maria Cantwell — have all been supporters of the LWCF, with Cantwell working especially hard in recent years to strengthen the law.
“Public lands are a great driver of our economy and an essential aspect of American life, and this vote says we’re going to continue to invest in them,” Cantwell said in a news release after the Senate approved the Great American Outdoors Act on a 73-25 vote. “It couldn’t be a more important investment, and it couldn’t give America a bigger return.” (Check out her speech on video, this page.)
Today’s politics
Until this year, President Trump showed little interest in acquiring more federal lands or creating new recreation areas. Congress consistently overruled his proposed budgets to gut the funding for the LWCF.
On March 3, Trump appeared to change his tune with this tweet: “I am calling on Congress to send me a bill that fully and permanently funds the LWCF and restores our national parks. When I sign it into law, it will be HISTORIC for our beautiful public lands. All thanks to @SenCoryGardner and @SteveDaines, two GREAT conservative leaders!”
Some have speculated that Trump’s change of heart is designed to improve the election prospects of the named Republican senators, Cory Gardner of Colorado and Steve Daines of Montana, but Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell insists it was not a political move.
“It’s in proximity to the election, but nobody said you ought to quit doing things just because there’s an election,” McConnell was quoted as saying in “The Hill.”
Given Trump’s sign-on and with supportive Democrats in control of the House, the chances of approving the long-term funding appear good. But that hasn’t stopped Utah Sen. Rob Bishop, a Republican, from raising alarms about a confusing provision in the bill that would remove restrictions about where the money can be spent for land purchases. Reporter Emma Dumain describes the situation in E&E News.
“Eastern states deserve equality in federal land ownership as Congress intended,” Bishop wrote in a letter to 154 House members. “A last-minute ‘conforming amendment’ … eliminated this requirement, siphoning critical LWCF funds away from Eastern states in perpetuity. It’s not right.”
Stepping into the fray, a spokeswoman for Republican Sen. Daines played down the controversy.
“The conforming amendment makes no change to the status quo,” Katie Schoettler was quoted as saying in the E&E News article. “Congress and the agency have consistently approved and funded Western LWCF projects to meet needs and fulfill congressional intent behind the program. Eliminating this arbitrary cap just ensures LWCF is carried out as it always has been.”
If Bishop can dredge up enough votes to pass his amendment, all sorts of trouble could follow, and the bill would need a new vote in the Senate — which might not happen soon. Most House Democrats are expected to stay away from that “Pandora’s box,” as writer Dumain describes it, but in recent years turmoil has never been far from the Land and Water Conservation Fund.
Further reading