H2ONCoast

As readers of H2ONC know, stormwater is a persistent interest of mine as well as OSU which collaborated on the document discussed below. I hope that the report is part of an opening salvo for more engagement on stormwater. Despite our largely rural nature, stormwater is an important issue for the North Coast so check out the report!

The Oregon Environmental Council today released a first-of-its-kind report examining how Oregon’s built environment currently turns rain into a problem — and how this can be corrected. Stormwater Solutions: Turning Oregon’s Rain Back into a Resource looks at water pollution and other side effects of mismanaged stormwater, providing more than 60 recommendations and policy suggestions that can protect human health, natural resources, and public infrastructure from the impacts of urban runoff.

In urban areas, the hard, impervious surfaces created by buildings and pavement cause rainwater and snowmelt to flow quickly over the landscape, rather than soaking naturally into the soil or being absorbed by plants. This changes stream flows, increases flooding, endangers private and public infrastructure, erodes stream banks and channels, and destroys fish habitat. Runoff also carries pollutants such as oil, heavy metals, bacteria, sediment, pesticides, and fertilizers into streams and groundwater.

The way most urban areas currently manage stormwater increases the risk of downstream flooding, damages urban streams, and causes water pollution. While new, cost-effective technologies are available to address these problems, they are uncommon outside of Oregon’s largest cities.

“You can find some excellent examples of improved stormwater management all around the state, but institutional barriers, old habits, and a lack of resources can prevent them from becoming common practice,” said Teresa Huntsinger, program director at the Oregon Environmental Council. “Many Oregon cities lack information on best practices, have development codes that impede innovation, and need greater support from the state, including funding.”

To solve this problem, the Oregon Environmental Council and a team of 18 experts from around the state – dubbed the “Stormwater Solutions Team” – worked for over a year to develop a broad range of creative strategies for developers, builders, designers, state and local governments, and others to overcome existing barriers to successful stormwater management. The Stormwater Solutions Team identified two major approaches to reducing impacts of stormwater runoff:

• Improving the way stormwater is managed by promoting green infrastructure and other best management practices
• Reducing the sources of pollutants commonly found in stormwater

Modern approaches to stormwater management can capture runoff near its source, filter out pollutants, and allow the cleansed water to infiltrate into the soil and recharge groundwater supplies, maintaining the natural water cycle. These stormwater systems are known as “green infrastructure” or “Low Impact Development.” While these techniques are usually most cost-effective to install during new development, they can also be successfully implemented as retrofits.

To seek broad input on potential solutions, the team conducted a non-scientific survey of over 150 stormwater professionals from across Oregon. Those surveyed included developers, government employees, private firms, non-profits, and more. They helped identify the pollution sources most in need of additional attention, including oil and fluid leaks from vehicles, erosion from construction, dumping waste into stormdrains, and urban use of fertilizers and pesticides.

The report is now available online at www.oeconline.org/rivers.

This is just a quick update now that I can ford the flood waters and debris to get to the office, and have steady Internet connectivity. More news will come as we dig out and have more time to devote to these luxuries.

It’s been a wild ride here on the North Coast as those of you who have access to news can follow. Suprisingly, my family, neighbors, local coworkers, and I have been in what could be described as a news blackout due to the power outages, cable failures and just the fact that we’ve had more to do than keep up with the news. Rather than find out what’s going on in the region or even up the road, my neighbors and I been trying to secure sections of a roof, a barn, or fences, clear off the downed trees everywhere, and keep our families warm, dry and safe. As day 3 of no power, we hope that we’re through the worst of it. But progress will be extremely slow.

Highlights at this point (Wednesday, 12/5/07, 12:00 PM) (from South to North):

• Nestucca River has dropped from a high of 20.5 feet on Tuesday (1.5 feet higher than 1996 flood of record);
• the Trask River crested on Tuesday at 20.75 feet (4.25 feet above flood stage and 2.75 feet above 1996);
• the Wilson River crested on Monday at 20.45 feet (above flood stage of 12.00 feet and 1 foot above 1996) and is currently at about 15 feet;
• flooding on the Nehalem River has isolated the North end of Tillamook County and seriously flooded Vernonia in Clatsop County;
• Foss Creek flooded at 24 feet (twice its bankful stage);
• the Necanicum River at Sea Side was moderately flooded as of Monday but no new information is available;
• Clatsop County is still largely without power and sections without water or sewer;
• Tillamook County is still largely without power and significant sections are without water or sewer service, but schools and public life have restarted.

Here are three resources that have more information than I do (ironic given that my county clocked the highest winds), largely because we are so cut off due to communications and power failures:

• Tillamook County Update courtesy of Oregonian site Oregon Live.
• Clatsop County Update (same source)
• Mapping the Storm (Oregon Live).

I will update this blog as I can in the coming days. Hopefully with better and more news. Expect pictures soon.

Wave energy has made a lot of national press lately. The media attention the technology has grabbed is not without merit, as some say it promises a real alternative to standard (problematic) sources such as coal, natural gas, hydroelectric and petroleum. However, like most of the alternative energy technologies (wind, solar, and geothermal), there are potential hiccups.

The attention that companies have spent on acquiring rights to explore the Oregon coast for wave energy parks has generated at least one particularly thorny question–what to do about access for fishing communities. Thus far, only two experimental deployments of wave energy technology have taken place (both in the Newport area). What happens when the actual wave parks are established? Crabbers and others are concerned with the potential conflicts over sandy-bottomed zones where wave energy is high and fisheries are productive.

One North Coast newspaper, the Daily Astorian, has begun to explore these questions. You can read the full article by clicking here.

Hydrologists and others working with water pay careful attention to climate and climate change. Patterns that bring us increased or decreased precipitation should be high on the minds of anyone dependent on surface and groundwater resources. As I posted earlier, patterns generated by the El Niño and La Niña have wide-ranging impacts on how wet and cold our winters can be. Cooler, wetter weather means more precipitation that infiltrates into our aquifers and recharges our streams during the dry summer and fall months. Dryer, warmer weather obviously means the opposite.

Climate models have predicted that winters in the PNW may grow wetter, but ultimately warmer. For Oregonians dependent on the snowmelt providing stream flow in the dry season, this is bad news. For those of us on the coast where snow provides very little of our annual precipitation and contributes almost nothing to aquifer or stream recharge, this may not be an immediate problem. Our concern may lie with increasingly intense storms that generate more flooding and greater storm surge on the beaches and bays. Climate also has significant impacts on sea life and fisheries as witnessed by coastal hypoxia and potential salmon declines due to warmer water.

It’s time to start talking about climate change on the North Coast. That discussion might center around a couple of important themes:

1.) What are the potential scenarios and what are the impacts of these futures on coastal communities? This means gathering the existing data on climate change and extrapolating into the near, medium and long-term future. It means discussing risk and realistic ideas of the degree of risk for a given community or economic sector. It also means looking at opportunities that may result–recognizing that there will be some silver lining in any scenario.

2.) How do we plan for these scenarios, either in order to attempt to minimize direct impacts or to avoid them altogether? This is a dialogue for the communities that would be most impacted by the various scenarios and the sectors that are most at risk.

To begin this discussion, I will offer some information and sometimes provocative opinion on aspects of climate change here on H2ONC. As we move into the new year, OSU will try to offer some more concrete efforts.

One start is to ask the question of why, despite a very high profile in the news, climate change gets so little attention by Americans (and others) on a daily basis. An old friend and colleague of mine from Whitman College in Washington just published an intriguing discussion of that topic on the BBC on-line. You can find the full article by clicking here.

Though you will generally not see me mention my family much in H2ONC, I have to note that my wife hails from the Southeast of the U.S. (South Carolina, in fact). Her extended and immediate family are spread throughout the region. So I tend to pay careful attention to water-related issues from the area, after all, I too have a stake in it. Which brings me to an important point: water is a unifying necessity. The availability of it in one region does not mean it is always present for the rest of us. And the demands for water in drier parts will eventually have repercussions for those of us more blessed with favorable hydrology–just look at 20th century speculation about piping the Great Lakes or the Columbia to the desert Southwest.

The New York Times has published a lot on the growing implications of drought in the Atlanta area and the watershed that extends from the city’s primary reservoir into Alabama and the Florida panhandle. Check out the original article by clicking here. The short of the article is that poor (i.e. to little to late) water planning has combined with surging demand, fueled by surging growth of the Sunbelt city, and some extreme climate variability to build a dire situation for Atlanta. The city and State of Georgia are now requesting that the agency in charge of water rights allocations across state boundaries–the Army of Corps of Engineers–should allow the upper end of the basin (i.e. Atlanta) to release less water to the lower end (Alabama and Florida). The Feds have yet to make a decision. Water attorneys, environmental groups, businesses, government agencies, and others are lining up to stake a claim in the fight.

Lastly, it is sobering to note that if the forecasts of prominent climate modelers summarized Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 2007 report are correct, then the Southeast will continue to dry out. If that is the case, expect to see much deeper conflicts and more serious economic repercussions. People have done some amazing engineering feats to bring water to them, or in the case of the 1930s Dust Bowl, gone to where there was water. This is a good time, therefore, for Oregonians to refrain from being smug while other regions of the country grow drier.

Wintertime climate here on the North Coast swings between wet and slightly less wet. Temperatures are relatively mild, with freezing weather less common than for our neighbors east of the Coast Range. If the oracles at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) Climate Prediction Center are accurate, this winter could be considerably cooler and wetter than normal because of a climate phenomenon called La Niña.

By now most of folks have heard the terms El Niño and La Niña. These Spanish terms classify two ranges of climate conditions that relate to sea surface temperatures (SSTs) and the movement of winds (and therefore storms) across the Pacific Ocean. You can see an example of what NOAA experts look at in the SSTs in the graphic below. The colors in this graphic (courtesy of the NOAA Climate Prediction Center) represent differences between water temperature, not actual temperatures, and reflect the period from September 30-October 7, when compared with an average of temperatures taken from 1971-2000. Blue is cooler than normal while yellow, orange and red represent warmer temperatures. Notice that the cooler water extends far across the equatorial Pacific. If this strengthens throughout the fall, then the impact of La Niña on our weather will likely be stronger, as I will explain below.

While the planet is a seemingly big place, two great energy transferring mechanisms—water and air—bring distant portions of our world closer together through climate teleconnections—or connections that act over considerable distances. As temperatures in waters of the equatorial Pacific warm, the trade winds which blow storms across the ocean from western to eastern ends (where the coasts of Asia and North America sit respectively), tend to drive storms to the southeastern direction–and into Southern California and Mexico. This is a product of El Niño climate status. Locally, a persistent low pressure system called the Aleutian Low migrates to the south and west, driving storms away from our coast. We will thus tend to be warmer and drier during El Niño winters. That means stream flow will tend to be lower. This not a hard and fast rule, however! Some El Niño periods have produced record flooding (for example the winter of 1982-83). Most, however, tend to be drier than normal.

It’s opposite, or La Niña is caused when those same equatorial waters cool from normal (usually one to two degrees, which for the area involved is considerable). The result is that trade winds are driven in a north eastern direction. At the same time, the Aleutian Low tends to weaken and move farther to the north. The result–again a trend only–tends to be wetter and cooler than normal winters.

These two periods swing back and forth during a 2-5 year cycle in which one follows the other. Like a pendulum swinging, the energy of the Pacific Ocean and the atmosphere must balance out in the end. We can usually expect El Niño-driven conditions first followed by La Niña-produced conditions in our neck of the planet. To make matters more complicated, this see-saw is influenced by conditions in the overall Pacific and Atlantic oceans with regular climate shifts that may take decades to become apparent.

Back to the North Coast, besides a wetter than normal winter, what does this mean for you? If you are concerned with floods and storm surge, then be prepared for the La Niña years. If you are interested in fishing our streams and estuaries, higher than normal flows can be good for migrating salmon and steelhead–or at least better than years of low flow. Historically, however, salmon harvest off the Oregon coast declined dramatically during the El Niño events of 1958 and 1983. We do not fully understand how changes associated with the climate affect salmon. It is likely that changes in ocean conditions associated with El Niño and other events interact, and, in effect, serve to decrease a young salmon’s chance of survival.

So, while we might not be stormier than normal, it would be a good idea to keep your hats on and your hatches battened down this winter!

I apologize to any of you who read H2ONC on a regular basis. It seems that I can post to the blog about once a week, but lately, I’ve been pushing that schedule out a bit. The reason is usually travel and this last week was no exception. In a departure from the norm, however, my travel is worthy of a post this week. I was in Cloquet, Minnesota at the Alliance of Natural Resources Outreach and Service Programs (ANROSP) meeting.

ANROSP promotes citizen stewardship of natural resources through science-based conservation, education, and service programs. This 501(c)3 supports and enhances member programs, and facilitates development of new programs. Many different types of programs fulfill the organization’s mission, including Master Naturalist, Certified Citizen Naturalist Volunteer, Master Watershed Steward, Coverts, Master Conservationist, Wildlife Stewards, and many more nationwide. I serve on the board of directors and was one of the early adherents of the organization. When my involvement began, it was as the statewide coordinator of the Arizona Master Watershed Steward Program.

This time, I am pleased to report that I was at the conference on behalf of a new program–Oregon Master Naturalist. The program is just in the formative stages, with a statewide steering committee meeting on a semi-regular basis to design, fund-raise for and eventually build the program. At this point, you are probably asking what are Master Naturalists? Master Naturalists are people from all walks of life with an interest in life-long learning, who train at least 40 hours in a variety of fields related to natural history and who then volunteer some of their time as “payback” to their communities. That volunteer service comes in the form of citizen science, environmental interpretation, or stewardship activities such as restoration plantings, fencing, beach cleanups, etc. The goal of Master Naturalist programs across the country is straightforward: to build a cadre of well-informed volunteers to serve as catalysts for local environmental improvement. Added up collectively, these volunteers can crank out an impressive amount of hours towards this goal. Programs exist in Missouri, Texas, Minnesota, Florida, Virginia, California, Delaware, to name a few. Other programs with similar goals exist in the rest of the 50 states. I am proud to say that Oregon will soon join them. I am also proud to say that OSU, with the special leadership of the College of Forestry and Sea Grant is the primary catalyst for the new program. If other state’s experiences are any guide, expect this one to be a popular program.

It is highly likely that by next fall or winter, the coast will be the site of the first pilot training in the Oregon Master Naturalist program. So if you are interested, keep your eyes open. I will use H2ONC as one way of letting folks know about this opportunity.

NOAA/Lower Columbia River Estuary Partnership Habitat Restoration Grants - NOAA funding is available through the Lower Columbia River Estuary Partnership to support estuary restoration activities. Projects must be located in the National Estuary Program boundaries of the Lower Columbia River Estuary Partnership or the Tillamook Estuaries Partnership. Preferred projects will be located within the historic floodplain of the mainstem and in the tidally-influenced portions of the tributaries. Funding requests may range from $25,000 to $150,000, with a 1:1 non-federal match (cash or in-kind) strongly encouraged. Estuary restoration activities that will be considered for funding include restoration of estuarine, tidal and diked slough habitats, dendritic drainage networks, and diked and tidal wetland habitats. Applications are due November 1, 2007.

Information can be found at:

http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/habitat/restoration/projects_programs/crp/partners/lcrep.html

For folks in the salmonid recovery efforts (i.e., those focused on salmon and trout), hatcheries are a very hot topic. A press release by Oregon State University explains the latest blow to the experiment that began over a century ago with the development of hatchery-based fish-rearing. The controversy thus far has centered around the counting of hatchery-reared fish along with returning wild stocks. As you will see below, the research by biologist Michael Blouin and others adds some real complexity to this controversy. Note you can go the source by clicking here.

CORVALLIS, Ore. – The rearing of steelhead trout in hatcheries causes a dramatic and unexpectedly fast drop in their ability to reproduce in the wild, a new Oregon State University study shows, and raises serious questions about the wisdom of historic hatchery practices.

The research, to be published Friday in the journal Science, demonstrates for the first time that the reproductive success of steelhead trout, an important salmonid species, can drop by close to 40 percent per captive-reared generation. The study reflects data from experiments in Oregon’s Hood River.

“For fish to so quickly lose their ability to reproduce is stunning, it’s just remarkable,” said Michael Blouin, an OSU associate professor of zoology. “We were not surprised at the type of effect but at the speed. We thought it would be more gradual. If it weren’t our own data I would have difficulty believing the results.”

Fish reared in a hatchery for two generations had around half the reproductive fitness of fish reared for a single generation. The effects appear to be genetic, scientists said, and probably result from evolutionary pressures that quickly select for characteristics that are favored in the safe, placid world of the hatchery, but not in the comparatively hostile natural environment.

“Among other things, this study proves with no doubt that wild fish and hatchery fish are not the same, despite their appearances,” said Michael Blouin, an OSU associate professor of zoology. “Some have suggested that hatchery and wild fish are equivalent, but these data really put the final nail in the coffin of that argument.”

Even a few generations of domestication may have significant negative effects, and repeated use of captive-reared parents to supplement wild populations “should be carefully reconsidered,” the scientists said in their report.

Traditionally, salmon and steelhead hatcheries obtained their brood stock and eggs from fish that were repeatedly bred in hatcheries – they tended to be more docile, adapted well to surface feeding, and they thrived and survived at an 85-95 percent level in the safe hatchery environment.

More recently, some “supplementation” hatchery operations have moved to the use of wild fish for their brood stock, on the theory that their offspring would retain more ability to survive and reproduce in the wild, and perhaps help rebuild threatened populations.

“What happens to wild populations when they interbreed with hatchery fish still remains an open question,” Blouin said. “But there is good reason to be worried.”

Earlier work by researchers from OSU and the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife had suggested that first-generation hatchery fish from wild brood stock probably were not a concern, and indeed could provide a short-term boost to a wild population. But the newest findings call even that conclusion into question, he said.

“The problem is in the second and subsequent generations,” Blouin said. “There is now no question that using fish of hatchery ancestry to produce more hatchery fish quickly results in stocks that perform poorly in nature.”

Evolution can rapidly select for fish of certain types, experts say, because of the huge numbers of eggs and smolts produced and the relatively few fish that survive to adulthood. About 10,000 eggs can eventually turn into fewer than 100 adults, Blouin said, and these are genetically selected for whatever characteristics favored their survival. Offspring that inherit traits favored in hatchery fish can be at a serious disadvantage in the wild where they face risks such as an uncertain food supply and many predators.

Because of the intense pressures of natural selection, Blouin said, salmon and steelhead populations would probably quickly revert to their natural state once hatchery fish were removed.

However, just removing hatchery fish may not ensure the survival of wild populations. Studies such as this consider only the genetic background of fish and the effects of hatchery selection on those genetics, and not other issues that may also affect salmon or steelhead fisheries, such as pollution, stream degradation or climate change.

Blouin cautioned that these data should not be used as an indictment of all hatchery programs.

“Hatcheries can have a place in fisheries management,” he said. “The key issue is how to minimize their impacts on wild populations.”

This research was conducted through use of 15 years of DNA tracking technology of fish breeding in Hood River, a mountain stream that flows northward off Mount Hood into the Columbia River. DNA analysis with scales was done with about 15,000 fish since 1991.

This research has been supported by the Bonneville Power Administration and the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife.

Low Impact Development (LID) is a term used to designate a suite of development practices that reduce stormwater runoff through conservation and use of existing natural site features integrated with distributed, small-scale stormwater technologies that mimic natural hydrologic processes. One example is found in my posting on the Hoquarton Bioswales below. Bioswales, like riparian areas and natural or constructed wetlands act as “green infrastructure” and help slow, capture, filter, and re-release stormwater that runs off of hard–or impervious surfaces. The greater the impervious surfaces, the greater the stormwater runoff. Stormwater acts as a ’superhighway’ for transporting pollutants into receiving waters. The more unmanaged stormwater runoff spills into our waterways, the more pollution we see building up in those waters. Hence, even 35 years after the passage of the Clean Water Act some U.S. waters continue to be polluted. The Clean Water Act in effect regulated and reduced the “point” sources of pollution in the United States (such as factories, sewage treatment plants, some farms, etc.), while stormwater-driven “non-point” pollution continues to be a big problem.

The concept of LID and the development of “green infrastructure” ideas (like bioswales) began as a response to worsening water quality in coastal areas such as the Chesapeake Bay area. I just returned from a workshop on the lovely shores of that bay and found it to be an overwhelmingly complex watershed (from a management point of view). According to the EPA, over 64,000 square miles of land drain to the Chesapeake Bay. Population in the watershed exceeds 16 million and is projected to surpass 19 million before 2030. Excessive loads of nutrients and sediment have been identified as primary causes of Bay degradation. From 1985 to 2005, EPA estimated loads from developed land sources increased up to 16 percent, while loads from wastewater disposal and agriculture decreased.

Unfortunately, it looks like even the innovative push to implement LID hasn’t been enough for the beleaguered Chesapeake. In a report to Congress, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Office of Inspector General (OIG) says new development around the Chesapeake Bay is increasing the runoff of excess nutrients and sediment at rates faster than restoration efforts are reducing them. As a result, the EPA and its Chesapeake Bay watershed partners will not meet nutrient and sediment load reduction goals for developed lands by 2010 as established in the Chesapeake 2000 Agreement, according to the OIG. This review, released Monday, is one of several conducted by the OIG in response to a congressional request. In the report, the OIG recommends that the EPA “prepare and implement a strategy that demonstrates leadership” in reversing the trend of increasing nutrient and sediment loads from developed and developing lands and should establish a stormwater permitting approach that achieves greater nutrient and sediment reductions. The EPA concurred with the recommendations in this report.

The 35-page report describing the scope of the mighty Chesapeake Bay’s problems can be found at: http://www.epa.gov/oig/reports/2007/20070910-2007-P-00031.pdf.

This doesn’t mean that the quest for LID and its hoped for reduction in stormwater-transported pollution is over–but perhaps at the scale of the Chesapeake, the technologies just aren’t enough to keep up with the accumulated impacts of 16 million people and their land uses. Here on the North Coast of Oregon–and even inland along the Lower Columbia and Willamette rivers, we have a chance to do things right–perhaps by implementing LID into almost everything we develop before we get to the point of no return. Let’s not give up the quest for clean water yet.