In the news

Category: In the news

Can biologists estimate the massive loss of shellfish caused by low tides, high temps?

The putrid smell of rotting shellfish on some beaches in Puget Sound and elsewhere along the West Coast were a clear sign that large numbers of clams, mussels, oysters and other intertidal creatures were killed from exposure to extreme low tides, record-breaking temperatures and a blazing hot sun.
The total losses of shellfish that perished late last month may be difficult to estimate, but experts are beginning to piece together evidence from shoreline residents, state and tribal biologists, and commercial shellfish growers. Their goal is to describe what took place during the record-breaking temperatures of June 25-29 during some of the lowest tides of the past century.

The recent heatwave killed large numbers of shellfish throughout Puget Sound, including these butter clams in Quartermaster Harbor, Vashon Island. // Photo: Ron Carr

Understanding what happened during that June event might help avoid future shellfish disasters as the climate continues to change with no end in sight, officials say.
“We’ve been getting reports from Puget Sound to Canada, including the outer coast,” said Teri King, a shellfish biologist with Washington Sea Grant. “The effects of the heatwave were not uniform. Some areas got hammered and some seemed to escape (the problems).”
Tori Dulemba, who lives on the North Shore of Hood Canal near Tahuya, owns a south-facing beach with a gradual slope. Those conditions led to a long period of exposure to the hot sun when afternoon tides were the lowest since 2008 and when temperatures soared well above 100 degrees.
“You could easily smell the rotting shellfish,” Tori told me. “We knew immediately what it was. The oysters were cooked. The mussels were still attached, but the shells were empty. It was heart-breaking.”
The odor, she said, was much like the smell of dead salmon in areas where large numbers of fish still return to spawn and die in the streams. After a few days, the smell of dead shellfish dissipated, and it was gone after a week or so, but empty shells remained.
Teri King, who coordinates the Bivalves for Clean Water citizen education and monitoring program, said the first reports she received included descriptions of stressed clams digging themselves out of the ground and opening up on the surface of various beaches.
Based on reports, it seems that sand dollars were the first to succumb, followed by cockles, varnish clams, mussels, littleneck clams and butter clams, she said. There were also reports of dead Olympia oysters and Pacific oysters. Even barnacles turned up dead, while some sea stars and anemones also were killed.
A large number of the big moon snails common to Puget Sound got so hot that they literally uncurled themselves and came out of their shells, lying like balls on the beach, Teri said.
During the recent heatwave, tide levels were among the lowest in the past century. At Union on Hood Canal, shown here, the level was estimated to be at -4.37 feet at noon on June 25. Click to visit NOAA’s website for more specific data. // NOAA Tide Predictions

It seems that some areas were more sheltered from the sun or less affected by low tides because of the slopes of the beaches or the direction they faced. In general, problems were worse in South Puget Sound than in the north, Teri said, probably because the tides are more pronounced the farther south you go, leaving shellfish exposed for longer periods of time.
Teri and other officials are still taking observations and photographs from shoreline observers who were able to note the effects on shellfish caused by the extreme and extended heat. The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife has provided an online form for observers to fill out, or they can send their information by Email.
Camille Speck, intertidal shellfish manager for WDFW, confirms the hit-and-miss nature of the massive shellfish die-off. While some public beaches were affected, others seem to have gotten by with minimal effects.
“What we saw at Dosewallips was very heartening,” Camille told me. “One-year-old or two-year-old oysters seemed to be doing just fine.”
She was speaking of Dosewallips State Park, a popular beach open to the public for shellfish harvesting. The beach lies on the western shoreline of Hood Canal, which may be better sheltered from the heatwave than the eastern shore or the northern shore around the “bend”.
Camille has yet to survey a number of public beaches, so she can’t say whether recreational shellfish seasons might need to be shortened to ensure future production. In some cases, quotas may be adjusted next year to compensate for losses, depending on the number of recreational harvesters and the amount of shellfish taken the rest of this year.
Photo: Ron Carr, Quartermaster Harbor

It was like a “perfect storm,” having such extreme low tides occurring coincidentally during the record-breaking heat, Camille said. Only two tidal periods in the last 100 years — one in 2008 and the other in 1916 — were lower, she said, and the temperatures climbed to levels never seen before in many places.
In Seattle, for example, the city had experienced 100-degree temperatures only three times in the past 126 years before they reached that level three days in a row, breaking the all-time record with 104 degrees on June 27 and again the next day with 108 degrees.
Meanwhile, some commercial shellfish growers have been gathering information to record their losses and possibly receive disaster relief from the federal government. Recent revisions to a federal program called Emergency Assistance for Livestock, Honey Bees and Farm-raised Fish (ELAP) may provide compensation for growers who can document their losses to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, officials say. For information, contact your county office of the Farm Service Agency.
A major hurdle in coming up with an estimate of actual losses — for commercial or noncommercial shellfish beds — is knowing what shellfish were present before the heatwave killed a portion of the shellfish.
Margaret Pilaro, executive director of Pacific Coast Shellfish Growers Association, said it is her understanding that growers must notify the USDA of potential losses within 30 days of the event. She has been trying to notify all of Washington’s certified shellfish growers of the possibility for financial aid to make sure that they don’t miss the deadline.
Tribal biologists also are out surveying the shellfish die-off, especially in areas where tribes have plans to harvest shellfish, as allowed by treaty. For state and private lands not cultivated for shellfish, the tribes are entitled to half the harvestable amount.
Biologists hope that a rough estimate of the total damage caused by the heat and low tides can be achievable, although such an estimate will be complicated by the patchy nature of the losses as well as the uncertainty about what was present in some areas before the event. For now, the main focus is to gather information from as many beaches as possible throughout Puget Sound.

In the topsy turvy world of climate change, Western Canada to the north experienced a similar but even more punishing heatwave, according to Tom Di Liberto, a meteorologist with CollabraLink Technologies. He says Lytton, British Columbia, reached 116 degrees on June 27, breaking the all-time record for all of Canada. But the oppressive weather was not over, as the temperature rose to 118 degrees the next day and then to 121 degrees on June 29. That is hotter than the desert town of Las Vegas, Nev., has experienced since records were first kept, according to Tom.
Likewise, the shellfish in British Columbia were reported to be cooking on the beach, perhaps even worse than in Puget Sound, as reported by Canadian news outlets.
Chris Harley, a marine biologist at the University of British Columbia, threw out an estimate of a billion shoreline creatures perishing in the Salish Sea as a result of the heat. That number, reported by Alex Migdal of CBC News, was crudely calculated by expanding the findings from a small area. The number subsequently raised a lot of eyebrows among experts on both sides of the border — but who could dispute it?
Commenting on the estimate, Chris Neufeld of Bamfield Marine Sciences Centre on Vancouver Island, said he was not surprised, adding, “It was very disheartening to realize we’re actually in this moment that we’ve been predicting for a long time.”

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.

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”
Stormwater picks up contaminants from vehicles. Photo: Daniel Parks (CC BY-NC 2.0) https://www.flickr.com/photos/parksdh/7014755513

Could tire discovery go beyond impacts on coho?

Scientists have suspected for several years that chemicals from tire wear particles are to blame for the deaths of thousands of coho salmon that have returned to spawn in Puget Sound’s urban streams. Sometimes referred to as “pre-spawn mortality” or “urban runoff mortality syndrome,” these deaths typically occur in streams near roads, and scientists have been analyzing a wide variety of automobile-derived chemicals to see if they produced similar toxic effects.
Now, thanks to some painstaking detective work by our partners at the University of Washington Center for Urban Waters (our groups are affiliated and share lab space) and many other collaborators, researchers can point to 6-PPD-quinone, a derivative from a preservative in tires called 6-PPD. The finding is as unexpected as it is fraught with implications. The chemical comes about only when the tire preservative is exposed to naturally occurring ground-level ozone in the environment creating a “transformation product” not previously identified. A paper outlining the discovery is published today (Dec. 3) in the journal Science and you can read more details from Christopher Dunagan in our magazine Salish Sea Currents.

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 Lower Duwamish spotted by Puget Soundkeeper volunteers in October 2017. Photo: Kathy Peter

In some ways the research on 6-PPD-quinone is just beginning. What started out as a local mystery could now catalyze studies around the world. Scientists wonder if the newly identified chemical is harming more than just coho.
“This is the first thing I’ve worked on in my career where I have no idea where the story ends,” says the paper’s co-senior author Ed Kolodziej. “It’s kind of what keeps you up at night. You’re wondering, ‘How wide is it?'”
Tires and similar rubber products are found everywhere in the world, he points out, and while 6-PPD-quinone has not been shown to kill some other species of salmon (it doesn’t appear to harm chum, for example) there is speculation that the impacts could be more widespread.
“We just have no idea,” he says. “All these questions are just totally wide open because there’s just no information out there.”
Given the potential ramifications, scientists may now begin to search for similar impacts among often vulnerable species such as stream invertebrates and amphibians, but it is also clear that humans are sometimes exposed to similar 6-PPD compounds. “We know the 6-PPD parent compound [has been documented] in house dust,” Kolodziej offers as an example. It also occurs in recycled tires that are used for crumb rubber playing fields and gym mats. “We’re generating a billion tires a year globally that need to be disposed of,” says Kolodziej. “All these things and all those recycled products likely contain some level of 6-PPD and the 6-PPD quinone as well. So, humans, I think, have a variety of exposure pathways.”
Could that endanger human health? “Again, we just have no idea,” Kolodziej says. 
What is known, however, are the implications for coho salmon. In the short term, Kolodziej hopes that the revelations in the Science paper will at least lead to more “salmon safe” tires.
“Tires need these preservative chemicals to make them last,” Kolodziej told UW News. “It’s just a question of which chemicals are a good fit for that and then carefully evaluating their safety for humans, aquatic organisms,” and other species, he says. “We’re not sure what alternative chemical we would recommend, but we do know that chemists are really smart and have many tools in their toolboxes to figure out a safer chemical alternative.”

View a video about the discovery below.

Orca census: One death in January, but no births were reported until September

UPDATE, Oct. 6
The newest calf among the Southern Resident killer whales was officially designated J58 after being seen alive and healthy on Sunday. The calf is the offspring of J49, a 15-year-old female named Eclipse who has one surviving calf, J51 or Nova.
Ken Balcomb of the Center for Whale Research had been withholding the official designation until CWR staffers could be sure the newborn had survived and was healthy.
In Sunday’s encounter off San Juan Island, CWR staffers Dave Ellifrit and and Katie Jones reported, “Both J41 and J51 were chasing the fish and J58 was right there in the middle of the action. After the chase, the threesome pointed down island and then inshore.”
—–
This year’s official census for the endangered killer whales that frequent Puget Sound will record one new orca death but no births from mid-2019 to mid-2020.
Because the census accounts for the southern resident orca population as of July 1 each year, this year’s report will not include the much-welcomed birth of J57, born on or around Sept. 4 to Tahlequah, or J35, according to Ken Balcomb, director of the Center for Whale Research who compiles the annual census documents.

The head of the new calf, J57, can be seen alongside its mother, Tahlequah, or J35.
Photo: Katie Jones, Center for Whale Research

Ken and his associates were able to complete the census and confirm the birth of the new orca calf after all three southern resident pods gathered together in widely dispersed groups on Sept. 5. After reviewing photos from that day, Ken has informed federal officials that this year’s census count will be 72 southern resident orcas. A formal report with photos and data about each whale is expected to be submitted by Oct. 1, as required by a federal contract for the census work.
In years past, all the whales were generally seen in and around the San Juan Islands by mid-June, so the census could be completed right after July 1. But in recent years, the whales have been coming back late and staying around for shorter visits — probably because of declines in Chinook salmon, their primary food source.
For the census, we have 22 orcas in J pod, 17 in K pod and 33 in L pod, for a total of 72. That does not count the new calf, born after this year’s census period, nor Lolita (Tokitae), the only southern resident whale still alive in captivity. For a list, see births and deaths by Orca Network or “Meet the Whales” by The Whale Museum. Last year’s census report listed four deaths and two births for the year (Water Ways, Aug. 6, 2019).
It is disappointing not to have any births to report for the annual census. The one death on the list is a male orca named Mega, or L41, said to be the prolific father of at least 20 offspring. Check out Water Ways, Jan. 30, or read the note of reflection that Ken wrote when confirming the death. Also of interest is an article from NOAA researchers discussing the breeding patterns of killer whales and what it means to lose a whale like Mega.
Even though the newest calf was not born soon enough to be counted with this year’s census, the news of the birth was happily received and widely reported. (See news release from CWR.) It was a great story, especially considering that Tahlequah is the same mom that mourned the loss of her previous calf in the summer of 2018, when she carried her dead offspring on her head for 17 days. During that time, Tahlequah, then 20 years old, traveled an estimated 1,000 miles throughout the Salish Sea in what was called the “Tour of Grief” by staffers at the Center for Whale Research.
The new calf is energetic and appears to be healthy, unlike some of the calves born in recent years, Ken told me. As many as 40 percent of young orcas in this group fail to survive their first year of life, and many more are believed to die in the womb.
[iframe align=”right” width=”560″ height=”315″ src=”https://www.youtube.com/embed/oxf9k2P2po8″%5D
Two other females appear to be pregnant at this time, based on recent aerial photos taken from a drone. Those whales are J41, a 15-year-old female named Eclipse who has one surviving calf, and L72, a 34-year-old female named Racer, who also has one surviving offspring.
Sept. 5, the day the new calf was confirmed by orca researchers, was notable not just for the introduction of a young animal into the population but also for the fact that all three pods were essentially together for the first time this year.
Lodie Gilbert Budwill, community relations coordinator for CWR, posted a blog entry this morning about her personal experience on the water with Ken and the whales. She also posted a video, which I’ve shared on this page.
“Upon our arrival,” Lodie wrote, “the whales were spread across the border in social groups: some on the U.S. side, some still in Canadian waters. Ken spotted J35 and her calf from a distance and took photos with his telephoto lens. He commented while photographing, ‘Looks like a healthy and precocious baby.’ The calf was swimming next to J35’s side. It was a beautiful sight, mother and baby, both swimming…
“The female whale in the lead started vocalizing above water,” Lodie continued in her blog. “This made Ken giggle, and I couldn’t hold back an ‘Awwww!’ They stayed next to the boat positioned at the surface like this for several minutes. Ken photographed while I took video. I felt like I was witnessing a greeting ceremony between the whales and Ken!!!”
When it was time to go, the whales decided to follow Ken’s boat, according to Lodie’s vivid description. The whales were even porpoising through the water as they tried to keep up with the speeding boat.
“After several miles of breathtaking travel with escorts off both sides, Ken stopped the boat,” she said. “The whales stopped too. They moved in front of Chimo, just a short distance off the bow, and then engaged in a roly-poly, cuddle puddle.
“At this point, I was taking video with my jaw dropped to the floor! There are no words to fully describe this experience. It was like a love-fest of tactile behaviors at the surface of the water. We witnessed whales spy-hopping in unison, three and four at a time while cheek to cheek, rolling and twirling, pec-slapping, tail-lobbing. I felt like I was dreaming!”
Lodie ends her lively blog post with a very nice tribute to Ken, who is indeed a living legend.
A few final notes:
Smoke and killer whales: If the smoke from wildfires is not good for humans, then it’s not good for killer whales either. While one could hope that the whales would swim to an area with fresh air, the truth is that they are likely to stay in an area if they are finding fish to eat, Ken told me. In Alaska, a group of whales stayed in Prince William Sound after the 1989 Exxon Valdez oil spill, he said, despite the ongoing presence of irritating — and toxic — fumes coming off the oil.
Wildfire smoke can affect the human respiratory and cardiovascular systems in various ways, according to the Environmental Protection Agency, and it is likely to do the same for air-breathing marine mammals, including killer whales.
Graphic: Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife

Traveling whales: The southern residents should be venturing farther south into Puget Sound anytime now, as chum salmon begin to head back to their spawning streams. That’s the typical pattern of the orcas when the earlier Chinook runs decline. How long the whales remain in Central and South Puget Sound often depends on the size of the chum run.
Based on preseason forecasts by state and tribal biologists, we can expect to see one of the lowest chum runs in years. (See graph on this page.) Whether it will be enough to sustain the orcas for a while is yet to be seen.
Listen to orcas: Even when people can’t see the whales for the smoke, they can hear their calls with the help of underwater hydrophones in various places in Puget Sound. Such was the case last week, when dozens of scientists and other interested folks tuned in to Orcasound, according to a blog post by Scott Veirs, who coordinates the network. Thanks to Scott, here is a 30-second sample of what was heard near the San Juan Islands last week.

–

Orca census: One death in January, but no births were reported until September

UPDATE, Oct. 6
The newest calf among the Southern Resident killer whales was officially designated J58 after being seen alive and healthy on Sunday. The calf is the offspring of J49, a 15-year-old female named Eclipse who has one surviving calf, J51 or Nova.
Ken Balcomb of the Center for Whale Research had been withholding the official designation until CWR staffers could be sure the newborn had survived and was healthy.
In Sunday’s encounter off San Juan Island, CWR staffers Dave Ellifrit and and Katie Jones reported, “Both J41 and J51 were chasing the fish and J58 was right there in the middle of the action. After the chase, the threesome pointed down island and then inshore.”
—–
This year’s official census for the endangered killer whales that frequent Puget Sound will record one new orca death but no births from mid-2019 to mid-2020.
Because the census accounts for the southern resident orca population as of July 1 each year, this year’s report will not include the much-welcomed birth of J57, born on or around Sept. 4 to Tahlequah, or J35, according to Ken Balcomb, director of the Center for Whale Research who compiles the annual census documents.

The head of the new calf, J57, can be seen alongside its mother, Tahlequah, or J35.
Photo: Katie Jones, Center for Whale Research

Ken and his associates were able to complete the census and confirm the birth of the new orca calf after all three southern resident pods gathered together in widely dispersed groups on Sept. 5. After reviewing photos from that day, Ken has informed federal officials that this year’s census count will be 72 southern resident orcas. A formal report with photos and data about each whale is expected to be submitted by Oct. 1, as required by a federal contract for the census work.
In years past, all the whales were generally seen in and around the San Juan Islands by mid-June, so the census could be completed right after July 1. But in recent years, the whales have been coming back late and staying around for shorter visits — probably because of declines in Chinook salmon, their primary food source.
For the census, we have 22 orcas in J pod, 17 in K pod and 33 in L pod, for a total of 72. That does not count the new calf, born after this year’s census period, nor Lolita (Tokitae), the only southern resident whale still alive in captivity. For a list, see births and deaths by Orca Network or “Meet the Whales” by The Whale Museum. Last year’s census report listed four deaths and two births for the year (Water Ways, Aug. 6, 2019).
It is disappointing not to have any births to report for the annual census. The one death on the list is a male orca named Mega, or L41, said to be the prolific father of at least 20 offspring. Check out Water Ways, Jan. 30, or read the note of reflection that Ken wrote when confirming the death. Also of interest is an article from NOAA researchers discussing the breeding patterns of killer whales and what it means to lose a whale like Mega.
Even though the newest calf was not born soon enough to be counted with this year’s census, the news of the birth was happily received and widely reported. (See news release from CWR.) It was a great story, especially considering that Tahlequah is the same mom that mourned the loss of her previous calf in the summer of 2018, when she carried her dead offspring on her head for 17 days. During that time, Tahlequah, then 20 years old, traveled an estimated 1,000 miles throughout the Salish Sea in what was called the “Tour of Grief” by staffers at the Center for Whale Research.
The new calf is energetic and appears to be healthy, unlike some of the calves born in recent years, Ken told me. As many as 40 percent of young orcas in this group fail to survive their first year of life, and many more are believed to die in the womb.
[iframe align=”right” width=”560″ height=”315″ src=”https://www.youtube.com/embed/oxf9k2P2po8″%5D
Two other females appear to be pregnant at this time, based on recent aerial photos taken from a drone. Those whales are J41, a 15-year-old female named Eclipse who has one surviving calf, and L72, a 34-year-old female named Racer, who also has one surviving offspring.
Sept. 5, the day the new calf was confirmed by orca researchers, was notable not just for the introduction of a young animal into the population but also for the fact that all three pods were essentially together for the first time this year.
Lodie Gilbert Budwill, community relations coordinator for CWR, posted a blog entry this morning about her personal experience on the water with Ken and the whales. She also posted a video, which I’ve shared on this page.
“Upon our arrival,” Lodie wrote, “the whales were spread across the border in social groups: some on the U.S. side, some still in Canadian waters. Ken spotted J35 and her calf from a distance and took photos with his telephoto lens. He commented while photographing, ‘Looks like a healthy and precocious baby.’ The calf was swimming next to J35’s side. It was a beautiful sight, mother and baby, both swimming…
“The female whale in the lead started vocalizing above water,” Lodie continued in her blog. “This made Ken giggle, and I couldn’t hold back an ‘Awwww!’ They stayed next to the boat positioned at the surface like this for several minutes. Ken photographed while I took video. I felt like I was witnessing a greeting ceremony between the whales and Ken!!!”
When it was time to go, the whales decided to follow Ken’s boat, according to Lodie’s vivid description. The whales were even porpoising through the water as they tried to keep up with the speeding boat.
“After several miles of breathtaking travel with escorts off both sides, Ken stopped the boat,” she said. “The whales stopped too. They moved in front of Chimo, just a short distance off the bow, and then engaged in a roly-poly, cuddle puddle.
“At this point, I was taking video with my jaw dropped to the floor! There are no words to fully describe this experience. It was like a love-fest of tactile behaviors at the surface of the water. We witnessed whales spy-hopping in unison, three and four at a time while cheek to cheek, rolling and twirling, pec-slapping, tail-lobbing. I felt like I was dreaming!”
Lodie ends her lively blog post with a very nice tribute to Ken, who is indeed a living legend.
A few final notes:
Smoke and killer whales: If the smoke from wildfires is not good for humans, then it’s not good for killer whales either. While one could hope that the whales would swim to an area with fresh air, the truth is that they are likely to stay in an area if they are finding fish to eat, Ken told me. In Alaska, a group of whales stayed in Prince William Sound after the 1989 Exxon Valdez oil spill, he said, despite the ongoing presence of irritating — and toxic — fumes coming off the oil.
Wildfire smoke can affect the human respiratory and cardiovascular systems in various ways, according to the Environmental Protection Agency, and it is likely to do the same for air-breathing marine mammals, including killer whales.
Graphic: Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife

Traveling whales: The southern residents should be venturing farther south into Puget Sound anytime now, as chum salmon begin to head back to their spawning streams. That’s the typical pattern of the orcas when the earlier Chinook runs decline. How long the whales remain in Central and South Puget Sound often depends on the size of the chum run.
Based on preseason forecasts by state and tribal biologists, we can expect to see one of the lowest chum runs in years. (See graph on this page.) Whether it will be enough to sustain the orcas for a while is yet to be seen.
Listen to orcas: Even when people can’t see the whales for the smoke, they can hear their calls with the help of underwater hydrophones in various places in Puget Sound. Such was the case last week, when dozens of scientists and other interested folks tuned in to Orcasound, according to a blog post by Scott Veirs, who coordinates the network. Thanks to Scott, here is a 30-second sample of what was heard near the San Juan Islands last week.

–

Sewer operators worry that toilet paper shortage will lead to more nasty clogs

With a multitude of people scrambling to buy toilet paper, and some going without, sewer utility officials across the country are worried about the possible repercussions of the TP shortage — such as clogged sewer lines.
Toilet paper and wipes of all kinds have become the subject of a complex, wide-ranging and controversial debate. The issue was even argued this year in the Washington Legislature. But for hard-working public employees who clean out the sewers, the bottom line is simple: DON’T FLUSH ANYTHING BUT TOILET PAPER (unless it’s human waste, of course).

Sewer workers in Vancouver, Wash., were forced to clear a clog caused by nonflushable wipes at the city’s Orchard Pump Station. // Photo: City of Vancouver

I’ve noticed discussions on social media about all sorts of items that people may be using as alternatives to toilet paper. That’s fine, as long as nobody flushes these things down the toilet. They need to end up in the garbage, not the sewer, as unappealing as that may sound, according to sewer officials. Several news releases have been flying around recently to press this point, including a message this week from Kitsap County:
“As there is a shortage of toilet paper due to COVID-19, the Kitsap County Sewer Utility wants to remind all residents not to flush items such as wipes, paper towels, napkins, and facial tissues. Toilet paper is the ONLY product that is safe to flush. Wipes, even those marketed as flushable, can cause clogs in your plumbing and in sewer and septic systems.”
Needless to say, clogs caused by massive amounts of paper, thin plastic sheets and other items, all wrapped together in huge wads, are a pain for sewer workers to remove, and it can expose them to dangerous pathogens and needles. Clogs are also an unnecessary expense for utilities across the country and throughout the world. It is already a problem, and recent reports suggest that things are getting worse with the shortage of old-fashioned toilet paper. A story in the Global News describes the concerns in England.
To emphasize the problem, sewer workers across the country were challenged to find a photo of the biggest, ugliest clog, also known as a “ragball.” The contest was held in conjunction with the 2015 Water Environment Federation Technical Exhibition & Conference (WEFTEC). Lake Stevens in King County, Wash., took the $500 prize for this picture on the website of JWC Environmental.
[iframe align=”right” width=”560″ height=”315″ src=”https://www.youtube.com/embed/TStmYPvWWuw”%5D
A cartoon from the Association of the Nonwoven Fabrics Industry emphasizes that baby wipes should not be flushed down the toilet, but it downplays the disagreement over so-called flushable wipes.

In an unrelated story, I once wrote about a ragball that became legal evidence and was discussed openly in courtroom testimony, causing the jury to chuckle. Check out the 1998 article in the Kitsap Sun.
I would like to move on and describe this year’s legislation that addresses the label “Do not flush,” which will soon be required on certain types of products. First, however, I am compelled to ponder the needless run on toilet paper. What are people thinking when they load up their shopping carts with a product that will never be in short supply in the United States — unless it is during uncertain times like these?
Psychologists, including Harvard’s Bella DePaulo, have been tossing out a bunch of ideas about why people might want to hoard toilet paper. You can check out her commentary on PsychCentral. She suggests that it may have something to do with a feeling about hygiene.
“No need to talk about it,” she writes. “Just fill your shopping cart, and maybe you will feel a little cleaner, more comfortable, and more secure. This is about the psychology of stockpiling toilet paper, not the reality of what you actually need and what will in fact protect you.”
[iframe align=”right” width=”560″ height=”315″ src=”https://www.youtube.com/embed/5K9-Lz0SbrA”%5D
Some people blame the late Johnny Carson of “The Tonight Show” for encouraging people to buy toilet paper in times of crisis. In 1973, during a gasoline shortage, Carson picked up a newspaper story that was prompted by a press release from U.S. Rep Harold Froelich, a Republican from Wisconsin. The congressman was worried about a shortage of wood pulp and stated, “We hope we don’t have to ration toilet tissue … ” The day after Carson’s televised monologue, large numbers of people rushed out to stock up on extra rolls. Check out Zachary Crockett’s piece in Priceonomics and see Carson’s joke in the video on this page.
Even without a toilet paper shortage, sewer experts have been struggling to get their message across about not flushing anything but toilet paper. It doesn’t help their cause when an entire industry has been created around the concept of “flushable wipes” and labeling their products as such.
Industry groups — namely the Association of the Nonwoven Fabrics Industry and the European Disposables and Nonwovens Association — claim that products labeled as “flushable” can safely go down the toilet. Meanwhile, organizations representing wastewater operators have largely disputed that claim.
The industry groups have developed testing procedures to show that their “flushable” products will break down on the way to sewage-treatment plants. Meanwhile, an organization of wastewater operators has developed its own tests as part of the International Water Services Flushability Group.

Both sets of tests involve determining whether certain products break apart into fragments after going through a series of pipes and pumps. The biggest difference between the two test procedures is the so-called “slosh box” test, in which the item being tested is agitated in water by rocking the container back and forth, as described to me by Frank Dick, wastewater engineering supervisor for the city of Vancouver, Wash.
The industry’s test uses less water and rocks faster than the test approved by the wastewater operators. As a result, more products break down under the industry’s standard and can be labeled as “flushable” — despite opposition from many city and county utilities. Frank acknowledged that so-called “flushable” products generally break down better than products that don’t meet the standard, which should be labeled “Do not flush.” However, only a few wipes marketed as “flushable” come close to meeting the standard accepted by sewer utilities, he said.
Currently, only toilet paper is approved for disposal in the toilet, according to the International Water Services Flushability Group.
If you think about it, there are good reasons that facial tissues, paper towels, baby wipes, adult wipes and various types of cleaning wipes do not break down on their way to the sewage-treatment plant, said Lisa Edge, education and outreach coordinator for Kitsap County Sewer Utility. Such products are designed to hold up under harsh conditions. Think of the advertisements that claim paper towels can absorb lots of water and still be rung out and used again. Some wipes contain plastic fibers that hold up even better.
People who use disposable diapers find it fairly easy to dispose of baby wipes with the diapers, which they put in the trash, Lisa noted. That’s the right way, and that’s how all wipes on the market today should be handled, she said, even though it may be more inconvenient.
While not related to toilet paper, feminine hygiene products, such as tampons, should never go down the toilet either. If they don’t clog your own pipes, someone else will need to deal with them somewhere down the line. While much of the educational effort involves sewer lines that connect to large treatment plants, the same message applies to keeping private septic systems in good working order, Lisa said.
That brings me to this year’s legislation, which addresses only the problem of wipes recognized as unflushable by the industry itself as well as wastewater operators. House Bill 2565 is designed to require clear “Do-not-flush” labeling of items that don’t break down under either standard, largely because they are made of strong man-made fibers designed for durability.
Originally, many sewer operators wanted legislation that could require the “Do-not-flush” label on more products, particularly those that fail the more stringent breakdown standard. But, in the face of a certain battle that could take years to resolve, both sewer operators and industry groups agreed to support the more limited bill, calling it a “good first step” during recent public hearings.
The bill, sponsored by Rep. Joe Fitzgibbon, D-Burien, passed the House 93-4 and the Senate 36-10. If signed by the governor, wipes that don’t pass the industry’s tests for breakdown must be labeled “Do not flush” in a prominent location and of suitable size on the package (at least 2 percent of the side area). The law would go into effect July 1, 2022, except for wipes regulated by the federal government.
At this juncture, “flushable” labeling remains in dispute, and one should not assume that sewer operators agree that products labeled “flushable” are now OK to go down the toilet. In fact, they will keep objecting until they don’t have to deal with ragballs anymore.

Sewer operators worry that toilet paper shortage will lead to more nasty clogs

With a multitude of people scrambling to buy toilet paper, and some going without, sewer utility officials across the country are worried about the possible repercussions of the TP shortage — such as clogged sewer lines.
Toilet paper and wipes of all kinds have become the subject of a complex, wide-ranging and controversial debate. The issue was even argued this year in the Washington Legislature. But for hard-working public employees who clean out the sewers, the bottom line is simple: DON’T FLUSH ANYTHING BUT TOILET PAPER (unless it’s human waste, of course).

Sewer workers in Vancouver, Wash., were forced to clear a clog caused by nonflushable wipes at the city’s Orchard Pump Station. // Photo: City of Vancouver

I’ve noticed discussions on social media about all sorts of items that people may be using as alternatives to toilet paper. That’s fine, as long as nobody flushes these things down the toilet. They need to end up in the garbage, not the sewer, as unappealing as that may sound, according to sewer officials. Several news releases have been flying around recently to press this point, including a message this week from Kitsap County:
“As there is a shortage of toilet paper due to COVID-19, the Kitsap County Sewer Utility wants to remind all residents not to flush items such as wipes, paper towels, napkins, and facial tissues. Toilet paper is the ONLY product that is safe to flush. Wipes, even those marketed as flushable, can cause clogs in your plumbing and in sewer and septic systems.”
Needless to say, clogs caused by massive amounts of paper, thin plastic sheets and other items, all wrapped together in huge wads, are a pain for sewer workers to remove, and it can expose them to dangerous pathogens and needles. Clogs are also an unnecessary expense for utilities across the country and throughout the world. It is already a problem, and recent reports suggest that things are getting worse with the shortage of old-fashioned toilet paper. A story in the Global News describes the concerns in England.
To emphasize the problem, sewer workers across the country were challenged to find a photo of the biggest, ugliest clog, also known as a “ragball.” The contest was held in conjunction with the 2015 Water Environment Federation Technical Exhibition & Conference (WEFTEC). Lake Stevens in King County, Wash., took the $500 prize for this picture on the website of JWC Environmental.
[iframe align=”right” width=”560″ height=”315″ src=”https://www.youtube.com/embed/TStmYPvWWuw”%5D
A cartoon from the Association of the Nonwoven Fabrics Industry emphasizes that baby wipes should not be flushed down the toilet, but it downplays the disagreement over so-called flushable wipes.

In an unrelated story, I once wrote about a ragball that became legal evidence and was discussed openly in courtroom testimony, causing the jury to chuckle. Check out the 1998 article in the Kitsap Sun.
I would like to move on and describe this year’s legislation that addresses the label “Do not flush,” which will soon be required on certain types of products. First, however, I am compelled to ponder the needless run on toilet paper. What are people thinking when they load up their shopping carts with a product that will never be in short supply in the United States — unless it is during uncertain times like these?
Psychologists, including Harvard’s Bella DePaulo, have been tossing out a bunch of ideas about why people might want to hoard toilet paper. You can check out her commentary on PsychCentral. She suggests that it may have something to do with a feeling about hygiene.
“No need to talk about it,” she writes. “Just fill your shopping cart, and maybe you will feel a little cleaner, more comfortable, and more secure. This is about the psychology of stockpiling toilet paper, not the reality of what you actually need and what will in fact protect you.”
[iframe align=”right” width=”560″ height=”315″ src=”https://www.youtube.com/embed/5K9-Lz0SbrA”%5D
Some people blame the late Johnny Carson of “The Tonight Show” for encouraging people to buy toilet paper in times of crisis. In 1973, during a gasoline shortage, Carson picked up a newspaper story that was prompted by a press release from U.S. Rep Harold Froelich, a Republican from Wisconsin. The congressman was worried about a shortage of wood pulp and stated, “We hope we don’t have to ration toilet tissue … ” The day after Carson’s televised monologue, large numbers of people rushed out to stock up on extra rolls. Check out Zachary Crockett’s piece in Priceonomics and see Carson’s joke in the video on this page.
Even without a toilet paper shortage, sewer experts have been struggling to get their message across about not flushing anything but toilet paper. It doesn’t help their cause when an entire industry has been created around the concept of “flushable wipes” and labeling their products as such.
Industry groups — namely the Association of the Nonwoven Fabrics Industry and the European Disposables and Nonwovens Association — claim that products labeled as “flushable” can safely go down the toilet. Meanwhile, organizations representing wastewater operators have largely disputed that claim.
The industry groups have developed testing procedures to show that their “flushable” products will break down on the way to sewage-treatment plants. Meanwhile, an organization of wastewater operators has developed its own tests as part of the International Water Services Flushability Group.

Both sets of tests involve determining whether certain products break apart into fragments after going through a series of pipes and pumps. The biggest difference between the two test procedures is the so-called “slosh box” test, in which the item being tested is agitated in water by rocking the container back and forth, as described to me by Frank Dick, wastewater engineering supervisor for the city of Vancouver, Wash.
The industry’s test uses less water and rocks faster than the test approved by the wastewater operators. As a result, more products break down under the industry’s standard and can be labeled as “flushable” — despite opposition from many city and county utilities. Frank acknowledged that so-called “flushable” products generally break down better than products that don’t meet the standard, which should be labeled “Do not flush.” However, only a few wipes marketed as “flushable” come close to meeting the standard accepted by sewer utilities, he said.
Currently, only toilet paper is approved for disposal in the toilet, according to the International Water Services Flushability Group.
If you think about it, there are good reasons that facial tissues, paper towels, baby wipes, adult wipes and various types of cleaning wipes do not break down on their way to the sewage-treatment plant, said Lisa Edge, education and outreach coordinator for Kitsap County Sewer Utility. Such products are designed to hold up under harsh conditions. Think of the advertisements that claim paper towels can absorb lots of water and still be rung out and used again. Some wipes contain plastic fibers that hold up even better.
People who use disposable diapers find it fairly easy to dispose of baby wipes with the diapers, which they put in the trash, Lisa noted. That’s the right way, and that’s how all wipes on the market today should be handled, she said, even though it may be more inconvenient.
While not related to toilet paper, feminine hygiene products, such as tampons, should never go down the toilet either. If they don’t clog your own pipes, someone else will need to deal with them somewhere down the line. While much of the educational effort involves sewer lines that connect to large treatment plants, the same message applies to keeping private septic systems in good working order, Lisa said.
That brings me to this year’s legislation, which addresses only the problem of wipes recognized as unflushable by the industry itself as well as wastewater operators. House Bill 2565 is designed to require clear “Do-not-flush” labeling of items that don’t break down under either standard, largely because they are made of strong man-made fibers designed for durability.
Originally, many sewer operators wanted legislation that could require the “Do-not-flush” label on more products, particularly those that fail the more stringent breakdown standard. But, in the face of a certain battle that could take years to resolve, both sewer operators and industry groups agreed to support the more limited bill, calling it a “good first step” during recent public hearings.
The bill, sponsored by Rep. Joe Fitzgibbon, D-Burien, passed the House 93-4 and the Senate 36-10. If signed by the governor, wipes that don’t pass the industry’s tests for breakdown must be labeled “Do not flush” in a prominent location and of suitable size on the package (at least 2 percent of the side area). The law would go into effect July 1, 2022, except for wipes regulated by the federal government.
At this juncture, “flushable” labeling remains in dispute, and one should not assume that sewer operators agree that products labeled “flushable” are now OK to go down the toilet. In fact, they will keep objecting until they don’t have to deal with ragballs anymore.

Shoreline armoring in Puget Sound gets new scrutiny from the Army Corps of Engineers

Shoreline bulkheads, which can damage beaches and destroy fish habitat, could come under more extensive review and permitting as the result of a revised shoreline policy announced last week by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
The revised policy (PDF 163 kb), which resulted from a federal lawsuit, now requires a Corps of Engineers permit for shoreline construction below the high-tide line. The previous line of jurisdiction was lower on the beach, effectively exempting most shoreline armoring from federal permits.

Shoreline Armoring, such as this bulkhead on Maury Island, can reduce forage fish spawning, affecting the Puget Sound food web, experts say. // Photo: Christopher Dunagan

One of the key results of the policy change is to bring shoreline armoring under the purview of the Endangered Species Act, said Amy Carey of Sound Action, one of three environmental groups bringing the lawsuit against the Corps.
“Until this change was made, the Corps was not looking at the impacts to endangered salmon and orcas (from bulkheads),” Amy said, noting that shoreline armoring can reduce spawning habitat for forage fish, such as surf smelt and sand lance. Since salmon depend on forage fish and orcas depend on salmon, shoreline armoring can affect a significant part of the food web.
The effort to get the Corps to change its policy and better protect the shoreline ecosystem has been a five- to six-year battle, Amy told me. The new policy better aligns the federal shoreline jurisdiction (under the Clean Water Act) with state and local jurisdictions (under the Shoreline Management Act and the State Hydraulics Code).
The Endangered Species Act, which requires studies of biological effects before a project is approved, is a powerful “tool” for protecting the environment, Amy said, and it’s not directly available to state agencies.
State agencies, including the Puget Sound Partnership, have made a concerted effort to inform the public about damage from shoreline armoring. State and local regulations have been updated to prevent new bulkheads unless absolutely necessary to protect a structure from shoreline erosion. Shoreline property owners have been encouraged to replace old bulkheads with more natural methods of erosion control, such as large logs and rocks anchored to the beach. This is called soft-shore protection.
The Washington Legislature also has focused on the issue, last year granting the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife increased authority to oversee bulkhead construction for single-family homes. And this year, lawmakers are considering a bill to require property owners to analyze the feasibility of soft-shore protection before replacing an aging bulkhead.
Previously, the Seattle District of the Corps, a federal agency, declined to regulate construction — including shoreline armoring — proposed in areas above a line defined by the average of the highest tide of each day — known as “mean higher high water” since there are two high tides each day. Most bulkheads are built above this line.
A revised policy by the Army Corps of Engineers expands the agency’s jurisdiction up to the high tide line, not shown above but akin to “ordinary high water” — that is from MHHW to OHW, an area where most bulkheads are built. // Graphic: Puget Sound Institute

About one out of four high tides in the Seattle area exceed the mean higher high water mark used by the Corps since 1977, according to legal pleadings by the environmental groups. A more suitable line for regulation would bring about 8,600 acres under Corps’ jurisdiction, the plaintiffs argued.
By moving the line of jurisdiction higher on the beach, the Corps is now expected to review most proposed bulkhead projects, along with other shoreline structures. Docks, floats and other construction close to the water have been subject to federal permitting since the Clean Water Act went into effect in the 1970s.
Amy told me that over the past five years more than 500 permits for shoreline protection were approved by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, but only a few of those came under federal jurisdiction.
The new line of jurisdiction is called simply the “high tide line,” defined by changes in vegetation, deposits of shells and debris, along with other evidence marking the highest tides under normal conditions. That’s similar to state jurisdiction under the Hydraulics Code, which goes up to “ordinary high water.”
While the term “high tide line” has been defined in federal regulations since 1977, the Army Corps of Engineers has used various tidal datum points in different jurisdictions, according to the lawsuit. Seattle and Portland districts have used “mean higher high water;” the Alaska district uses “extreme high tide;” and the Los Angeles district uses an on-site determination of the highest tide of the year.
Several agencies have complained that the Seattle District’s use of mean higher high water neglects potential damage to the shoreline environment.
“The ecological effect is that extensive area of intertidal and estuarine habitat that are important to ESA-listed salmon and multiple other species of shellfish and other marine life are not adequately protected,” stated a 2013 letter from the National Marine Fisheries Service.
Later, the Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission and Gov. Jay Inslee called for a change in jurisdictional policy to better protect listed salmon.
In 2016, a group of experts from the Corps of Engineers, Environmental Protection Agency and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration studied the issue and recommended using the “mean average high tide,” said to be a more predictable standard and “reasonably representative of the intersection of the land and the water’s surface at the maximum height reached by the rising tide.”
In 2018, Major General Scott Spellmon, commander of the Corps’ Northwest Division, rejected that recommendation in a memorandum, noting that other jurisdictional regulations were still under review by federal agencies and the courts as part of the debate over the so-called “waters of the U.S.” Spellmon said it would not be a good use of Corps’ resources to continue the discussion about the tidal jurisdiction boundary.
In 2018, three environmental groups, led by attorneys for Earthjustice, filed a lawsuit in federal court challenging Spellmon’s decision to continue with the status quo in violation of the Clean Water Act’s specific references to the high-tide line.
“Puget Sound is one of the nation’s aquatic crown jewels, a vibrant and diverse ecosystem that sustains one of the nation’s most dynamic economies,” states the legal complaint from Sound Action, Friends of the San Juans and the Washington Environmental Council.
“The deleterious effects of shoreline armoring on the health of the Puget Sound ecosystem are well documented,” the complaint continues. “Among many other impacts, hardening or armoring of natural shorelines alters critical ecological functions such as erosion and sediment movement, causing beaches to lower, narrow, and eventually disappear. There is broad scientific consensus that this replacement of upper beach areas with hard barriers negatively impacts important habitat for plants and animals.”
Federal attorneys moved to dismiss the case, saying a decision on the shoreline jurisdiction was still pending and not subject to legal action. Last February, U.S. District Judge James Robart rejected that argument, saying Spellmon’s memo constituted a federal decision, if only a temporary one. Thus the judge established conditions for a full trial on the matter.
In October, the Seattle District of the Corps informed the judge of its intent to rescind the Spellmon memo and eliminate the policy of using mean higher high water as the jurisdictional boundary. Last Friday, the Corps followed through with a “special public notice” saying that it has removed all references to mean higher high water from its Seattle District website and regulatory documents.
“The District will locate the HTL (high tide line) through case/location-specific consideration of all factors identified in the (legal definition),” the notice states. “The District may consider all available tidal data relevant to the HTL definition when making jurisdictional determinations.”
The revised policy will bring federal jurisdiction and regulations to structures built above the previous boundary line up to the observed line formed by the highest tides. That will affect mostly bulkheads but sometimes stairs to the beach and other structures.
“If an application is pending with the Corps, applicants will be notified if any changes to application materials or additional information is required to continue processing the application,” Patricia Graesser, chief of public affairs for the Seattle District, wrote me in an email. “We encourage permit applicants to work directly with their project manager with any questions or concerns about specific applications.”
An information meeting on the issue is scheduled for March 19 at the Seattle District office.
Avoiding new shoreline armoring and removing existing armoring wherever possible has been a longtime goal of the Puget Sound Partnership, which was created in 2007 to coordinate recovery of Puget Sound. A “Shoreline Armoring Implementation Strategy,” adopted in 2018, spells out a series of programs and actions to reduce shoreline impacts — including incentives, technical support, revised regulations and increased enforcement of existing rules. (See Encyclopedia of Puget Sound.)
The issue of shoreline jurisdiction by the Army Corps of Engineers was discussed by a multi-agency review team that developed the strategy, noted Aimee Kinney, policy analyst for the Puget Sound Institute, who worked on the strategy.
Some team members strongly supported increased Corps oversight, because it would institute a formal review by federal experts involved in endangered species protections, allow tribal engagement in mitigation and increase fines for violations, Aimee told me.
On the other hand, some members were concerned that the federal process could inhibit efforts to remove existing shoreline armor by increasing reporting requirements for soft-shore replacements, she said. Going through a Corps permit will take more time, add complexity and increase cost. Also, unless followed up with a significant increase in enforcement, the extra federal scrutiny might encourage some people to illegally avoid permits altogether, she said.
One question is whether the Seattle District has adequate staff to handle the increased workload for permits, Aimee noted. The Seattle District averaged just 17 permits per year for “bank stabilization” from 2012 to 2017, she said. Meanwhile, in 2015 and 2016, the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife issued an average of 165 permits per year for new, replacement or repair of marine-shoreline armoring, she said, pointing out that this is just a rough approximation of what the Corps may be facing because of differences between the two agencies.
To streamline the process, the Corps could develop a “regional general permit” to cover most conditions in Puget Sound, thus allowing for rapid approval, provided that a project is built to specified standards, including mitigation.
In the end, moving the line of jurisdiction a short way up the beach might not seem like a big change, but it could have profound effects on future shoreline-armoring projects and the survival of certain Puget Sound species.
For information about the effects of shoreline armoring, check out the special section in Encyclopedia of Puget Sound. For information about Puget Sound Implementation Strategies, including the Shoreline Armoring Implementation Strategy, start with this Puget Sound Partnership page.
Composite view, before and after, of a 2013 bulkhead-removal project at Penrose Point State Park. Such projects improve beach habitat and should be encouraged, experts say.
Image: Kris Symer, PSI, from photos by Kristin Williamson, South Puget Sound Salmon Enhancement Group