water pollution

Tag: water pollution

Washington’s Water Quality Assessment offers insights into status of pollution

More than 2,000 segments of streams, lakes and marine waters have been added to the state’s massive list of water-quality data, allowing more Washington residents to take stock of pollution levels near their homes.
The latest Water Quality Assessment for Washington waters, released for public review this week, covers 9,279 miles of streams, 434 lakes and 619 square miles of marine waters. One can use the statewide Draft Water Quality Atlas to zoom in on places of interest and review available information on a given water body.
This vast database, which contains 65 million data entries, is managed by the Washington Department of Ecology. It is used to list polluted water bodies as “impaired” — designated Category 5 — if they fail to meet state water quality standards. If they are not so bad or data is insufficient, they may be listed in categories from 1 to 4.

Washington’s Water Quality Assessment, required under the federal Clean Water Act, is one of the most extensive assessments produced by any state in the nation, according to Ecology officials. The data can be a guiding light for pollution-reduction and habitat-improvement projects. It also reveals gaps in knowledge about problems that may be causing a decline in fish, wildlife or aquatic vegetation.
While the database contains a mind-boggling amount of information, the data cover only 13 percent of identified stream miles, 21 percent of the total marine area, and 10 percent of the lakes in the state, according to figures provided by Jeremy Reiman, water quality assessment scientist for Ecology. As such, they are not a good indicator of trends, especially when considering that water-quality standards themselves change over time, he said.
The data are more like a snapshot of conditions at a given point in time, but the good news is that more than 100 listings of polluted waters have been upgraded to clean after meeting water-quality standards. Much of the improvement can be attributed to water cleanup efforts involving state, local and tribal officials working with local residents and business owners.
The most common water-quality problems are elevated water temperatures, which have direct impacts on salmon, and high bacterial levels, which can threaten human health and force closure of shellfish beds. Combined, those two problems make up more than half of all the impaired listings. Other problems include low dissolved oxygen levels and excessive contamination from a list of more than 100 toxic chemicals.
Data are collected by Ecology staffers; federal, state and local agencies; tribes; and anyone who receives state grants to work on water-quality issues. Others can submit data, provided it meets specific quality controls.
Ecology will be taking comments on the water quality assessment until June 4. For information, go to the Water Quality Assessment webpage. Those who would like more information on the document and the overall process can sign up for an April 20 webinar from that page.

Ecology’s Water Quality Atlas allows a search for water bodies using many search criteria.

If you would like to jump right in, a good starting point with the Water Quality Atlas is to click on “add/remove map data” at the top of the page, select the first box “assessed water/sediment” and hit “go.” Then go to “Zoom” at the top of the page, type in an address in the left column and hit “go.” From there, one can use “+/-“ to zoom out until you see water bodies. Click on those elements to reveal available information.
Instead of using an address, you can name a stream, lake or marine region under the heading “map area” in the left column and type in a name, selecting from the drop-down menu. That section also includes options for cities, counties, highways and more. The map and its data have grown more sophisticated over time, and there are plenty of things to review.
One of the new features is demographic information from the U.S. Census, connecting a water body with information such as income, education and language proficiency of people in the area. Ecology and others can use the information to make sure they are focused on environmental justice issues while setting priorities.
Since the last Water Quality Assessment in 2016, 11 cleanup plans have been approved by Ecology for one or more water-quality problems. These plans are nicknamed TMDLs, because they include limitations on pollution from different sources, spelled out as “total maximum daily loads.” New TMDLs for Puget Sound include the Pilchuck River in Snohomish County, the South Fork of the Nooksack River in Whatcom County, and Padilla Bay in Skagit County.
For a variety of streams in Kitsap County, Ecology has proposed an alternative process called “straight to implementation” instead of state-managed investigations and cleanup plans. This proposal is the result of Kitsap’s 30-year history of monitoring for bacterial problems, tracking down sources of pollution and correcting the problems. See Water Quality Assessment Submittal to EPA (1.4 mb), which includes streams in other areas as well.
Kitsap’s Pollution Identification and Correction (PIC) Program, managed by the Kitsap Public Health District, has been tried successfully in other counties, some with the help of federal funding. So far, only Kitsap and a few other counties have an aggressive, ongoing, fully funded program in place. Check out Kitsap’s numerous water-quality reports.
“Kitsap has a very disciplined and focused effort,” noted Melissa Gildersleeve, watershed management supervisor for Ecology, adding that the health district enforces locally adopted ordinances to ensure cleanup in those rare cases when voluntary actions are not successful.
Ecology has designated 20 watersheds all over the state for high-priority cleanup, including eight in the Puget Sound region: Greater Key Peninsula, Lower Skagit Tributaries, South Skagit Bay, Snohomish Basin, Lower Nooksack River, Drayton Harbor, Samish River and Samish Bay and Whatcom Creek.
The number of water-quality listings by category in the latest assessment. Toxics numbers are high because many chemicals can be tested from a single sample. Category 1: meets standard; Category 2: waters of concern; Category 3: insufficient data; Category 4: has a plan; Category 5: “impaired” and on 303(d) list. Table: Washington Department of Ecology

Settlement agreement tackles water pollution caused by farming practices

As part of a legal settlement, state officials have agreed to develop “best management practices” for agricultural operations, while encouraging Washington farmers to take actions to improve water quality in streams and bays.
The agreement, which includes provisions for stream buffers, was approved by the Washington Department of Ecology and the federal Environmental Protection Agency. Signed by a judge, the agreement effectively ends a four-year lawsuit brought by Northwest Environmental Advocates, which accused the agencies of violating the federal Clean Water Act and Endangered Species Act.
The lawsuit alleged that the EPA improperly approved the Department of Ecology’s 2015 plan for reducing nonpoint pollution (PDF 4mb) from ubiquitous sources. Because nonpoint pollution does not flow through regulated discharge pipes, cleanup actions involve reducing contaminants that wash off forests, farms and developed areas. Nonpoint pollution is one of the great challenges for Puget Sound recovery, according to experts.
Under the agreement, Ecology must develop a new plan by the end of next year that describes actions for reducing nonpoint pollution not included in the 2015 plan. The new plan, which was already in the works, will include “best management practices” (BMPs) for agriculture, providing assurance that a farm will generally meet state water-quality standards if specific voluntary actions are taken.
Among the ideas are methods of managing livestock wastes, along with maintaining or increasing vegetative buffers along streams that pass through forests and farms.
“The order in this case includes a combination of commitments by federal and state agencies to ensure that Washington identifies how wide and how tall streamside buffers must be to protect salmon from extinction,” said Nina Bell, executive director for NWEA.
The agreement requires Ecology to complete the first five chapters of a guidance document called “Voluntary Clean Water Guidance for Agriculture,” including a section on buffers, in the 2022 plan. The remaining eight chapters must be finished by the end of 2025.
Ben Rau, supervisor for watershed planning at Ecology, said the BMP guidance is being developed with help from an advisory group that has completed the first chapter on tillage and related crop issues. Go to the guidance website for details.
The section on buffers will be based on scientific studies that show how certain buffer widths and specific vegetation types can reduce sediment going into nearby streams and otherwise maintain healthy water conditions, Rau said. Buffers are just one measure among a “suite” of actions that together will help protect salmon and other aquatic species from harmful activities involving agriculture.
The BMPs will be promoted as a good way for farmers to protect water quality, Rau said. Eventually, the new buffers will become a minimal requirement for farm owners seeking government grants to improve water quality and make their property more salmon-friendly. Current buffer requirements for grants are based on an analysis outlined in a 2012 matrix and a 2013 letter from the National Marine Fisheries Service.
Agricultural BMPs may also come into play as part of an enforcement action by state or local water-quality inspectors. For example, based on stream surveys or citizen complaints, authorities might identify an area of a stream with high levels of bacteria. As part of the cleanup effort, it could be presumed that a farm owner would not need to take further corrective actions if the farm complied with approved BMPs, according to Rau.
The legal agreement also calls for agricultural BMPs to be incorporated into formal watershed-cleanup plans where a watershed includes farming areas. Such plans identify sources of pollution as well as specific measures designed to bring a waterbody into compliance with state water-quality standards. Such plans are often called TMDLs because they establish pollution limits known as “total maximum daily loads.”
The pace of cleanup for Washington’s waterways using TMDLs has been an issue of contention for more than 30 years. A legal action related to watershed cleanups was launched by NWEA in 1991 and renewed in 2019. The lawsuit (PDF 312 kb), which involves Ecology and the EPA, demands that polluted waters in Washington be formally identified and that Ecology increase its efforts to clean up polluted waters through TMDL planning. Beyond planning, there is a recognized need to find ways to get parties identified in the plan to carry out the actions needed to improve water quality.
The recent settlement related to agricultural BMPs raised concerns from the Washington Cattlemen’s Association and the Washington State Farm Bureau Federation, which were allowed to join the case. See their joint comment letter.
The settlement, they argue, could result in requirements for farmers to install nonpoint controls that are “more costly and possibly technically or economically infeasible.” Another problem, they say, has been the failure of the state and federal governments to include the groups in a conversation over BMPs that could affect their very existence.
“At this time, the associations do not intend to formally object to the settlement, if adopted,” their letter states. “However, the associations remain very concerned about implementation of the agreement and whether the water-quality standards to be further developed pursuant to the agreement will be based on sound science and include meaningful consideration to agriculture and the benefits of agriculture to society.”
In one section of its 2015 plan, the Department of Ecology acknowledges its unique statutory limitations when enforcing water-quality laws with respect to certain farming practices that fall under the authority of the Washington Department of Agriculture.
Those limitations plus a perceived reluctance to force farmers to improve water quality in agricultural regions has led to ongoing frustrations by some Native American tribes and environmental groups in Washington state. Check out “Agricultural Pollution in Puget Sound: Inspiration to Change Washington’s Reliance on Voluntary Incentive Programs to Save Salmon” (PDF 3.3 mb) by the Western Environmental Law Center.
While agriculture is a major focus of the recent legal settlement, the updated state plan must address all forms of nonpoint pollution, including that from forests, septic systems and developed areas.
Commercial forestlands, for example, are deemed to meet water-quality standards for the most part, provided that landowners comply with regulations under the state’s Forest Practices Act, Rau said. For years, forestland owners have cooperated in ongoing studies and negotiated with state and federal agencies, tribes and environmental groups to develop rules to protect salmon and water quality.
Through the years, a process of “adaptive management” has identified a need for rule changes, he noted. For example, areas where forest buffers may need to be increased in size are along smaller streams not likely to be used by salmon. With current buffers of minimal width, researchers have found an increase in water temperature due to a lack of shade. Those higher temperatures can affect salmon in downstream waters suitable for spawning.
For a discussion of nonpoint issues in our forests, review Ecology’s page on Forestry runoff, including the 2009 Clean Water Act Assurances Review by Ecology as well as the two-year extension granted in 2019 (PDF 583 KB).
After the next nonpoint plan is completed, the settlement agreement requires the EPA to submit the document to other federal agencies for review to make sure the result is protective of threatened and endangered species. For salmon and marine species, the National Marine Fisheries Service is in charge, while freshwater species are under the authority of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
Ecology planners have been working steadily to complete the next nonpoint plan under self-imposed deadlines, but Rau acknowledges that the settlement agreement provides legally based time limits. Barring unforeseen circumstances, the next plan must be done by the end of 2022, followed by another update in 2025.
———-
Editor’s note: This article was produced with funds provided by a grant from the Environmental Protection Agency.

How air pollution becomes water pollution with long-term effects on Puget Sound

When thinking of air pollution, I used to think only of breathing toxic chemicals into our lungs, with uncertain health effects. That’s bad enough, but air pollution — which is everywhere — is also getting into our waterways and penetrating deep into our food webs.
Rivers, lakes and Puget Sound, no body of water escapes toxic chemicals dropping out of the sky.
Until recently, I never gave much thought to the chemicals riding on air currents, secretly falling to the ground, especially during rainstorms. I began to look at the extent of this atmospheric deposition while searching for new angles to explore in my writing about the health of Puget Sound.

Mercury deposition during wet weather, 2014. Map: National Atmospheric Deposition Program

I quickly learned that stormwater, which is considered the greatest source of pollution to Puget Sound, is made up of an unknown quantity of airborne contaminants that falls onto the land before being washed into surface water, streams and eventually Puget Sound itself. This was the impetus for my latest story titled “Air contaminants, such as mercury and PCBs, undermine the health of Puget Sound.” I hope you will read it.
I was a bit surprised to find out that scientists have no reliable methods to figure out how much of the toxic chemicals in the water originated as air pollution. This realization shifted my thinking a bit and changed the terminology I use. Stormwater is not a source of pollution but a conveyance or pathway that pollution can follow. “Nonpoint” sources of pollution are not ubiquitous and undefined; they are often a multitude of point sources that are just difficult to trace.
Furthermore, water pollution is not a one-way trip into Puget Sound with some of the contaminants settling down among the sediments. Many chemicals can evaporate and return to the atmosphere, the amount dependent on surface water temperatures, sunlight and chemical volatility. Mercury, in particular, cycles through various phases, not unlike the water cycle, and mercury can be found high in the atmosphere, circling the Earth in a “global mercury pool.”
[iframe align=”right” width=”560″ height=”315″ src=”https://www.youtube.com/embed/MmXAQghav2c”%5D
Some water bodies get their pollution almost entirely from air pollution. If you travel to high-mountain lakes, such as in Olympic National Park, mercury levels in fish can be high enough to trigger health warnings issued to anglers who might have the audacity to eat the fish they catch.
In my story, I described how dragonflies are serving as an indicator for mercury levels in the food web. Volunteer citizen scientists are hiking into national parks throughout the country to capture dragonfly larvae, which may live in lakes and wetlands, accumulating mercury for up to six years. Check out the home page of the Dragonfly Mercury Project.
If you want to understand the dangers of mercury in today’s world, check out “Global Mercury Assessment 2018,” which describes worldwide mercury sources, transport, ecological status and progress in controlling the pollution problem. The report was produced for the United Nations Environment Program.
[iframe align=”right” width=”560″ height=”315″ src=”https://www.youtube.com/embed/-Hc5BYGQrP8″%5D
My story about how air pollution becomes water pollution discusses other contaminants as well, including polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs) and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs).
Climate change is likely to release airborne contaminants from their hiding places across the landscape. Notably, pollutants that settled down in snow and ice in the Arctic could be unleashed back into the atmosphere during melting conditions. Meanwhile, more frequent wildfires in the coming years could send contaminants bound to soils and vegetation back up into the sky.
As I have learned, airborne contaminants don’t remain airborne forever. Eventually, they settle back down where they can work their way into the food web with significant health consequences for all sorts of creatures, including humans.

Bringing the shellfish back: How Drayton Harbor overcame a legacy of pollution

Prime Drayton Harbor oyster. Photo: Steve Seymour
Prime Drayton Harbor oyster. Photo: Steve Seymour

New in Salish Sea Currents: After a long struggle with pollution, Drayton Harbor has reopened to year-round commercial oyster harvesting for the first time in 22 years. Here’s how the community cleaned up its act, potentially showing the way for shellfish recovery throughout Puget Sound.
Read the full article on the Encyclopedia of Puget Sound. 

Bringing the shellfish back: How Drayton Harbor overcame a legacy of pollution

Prime Drayton Harbor oyster. Photo: Steve Seymour
Prime Drayton Harbor oyster. Photo: Steve Seymour

New in Salish Sea Currents: After a long struggle with pollution, Drayton Harbor has reopened to year-round commercial oyster harvesting for the first time in 22 years. Here’s how the community cleaned up its act, potentially showing the way for shellfish recovery throughout Puget Sound.
Read the full article on the Encyclopedia of Puget Sound.