Squaxin Island Tribe's Natural Resources

Squaxin Island Tribe's Natural Resource Department Weblog

Squaxin Island Tribe's Natural Resources header image 1

Tribe takes a close look at mushrooms and water quality

January 14th, 2011 by eoconnell Comments Off

Squaxin Island natural resources staff, along with the Mason Conservation District, are exploring whether mushrooms can help fight water pollution in Puget Sound:

Mushrooms might help treat one of the most widespread causes of water pollution — fecal bacteria from human and livestock waste in stormwater runoff. And if it works, the system can be used to protect the rich shellfish heritage of Puget Sound.

The Squaxin Island Tribe is teaming up with Mason Conservation District and Fungi Perfecti to test how well the vegetative growth (mycelia) of fungi filters fecal coliform bacteria out of running water.

“Several field studies have demonstrated that mushroom mycelia can capture and remove bacteria in running water,” said John Konovsky, environmental program manager for the Squaxin Island Tribe. “The Jamestown S’Klallam Tribe worked with Battelle Labratories on a large treatment system and found that fungi mycelia can reduce bacteria concentrations. We’re trying to figure out just how well it works on a smaller scale.”

Here is a King 5 report on the project:

Comments OffTags: Water Quality

Full story on Shelton Harbor

December 6th, 2010 by jkonovsky Comments Off

For the full story on Shelton Harbor biological restoration, go here.

Comments OffTags: Water Quality

Shelton T-sheet

December 5th, 2010 by jkonovsky Comments Off

A drawing of the Shelton Harbor shoreline in the late 1800′s or early 1900′s….

Comments OffTags: Water Quality

Shelton Harbor in 1992

December 4th, 2010 by jkonovsky Comments Off

Comments OffTags: Water Quality

Shelton Harbor in 1977

December 3rd, 2010 by jkonovsky Comments Off

Comments OffTags: Water Quality

Presentations now online

November 15th, 2010 by eoconnell Comments Off

Powerpoint presentations from the speakers at the South Sound Science Symposium are now available online. Recorded audio will be added soon.

Comments OffTags: South Sound Science 10

The Final Panel of Speakers at S4

November 12th, 2010 by jkonovsky Comments Off

Comments OffTags: South Sound Science 10

Curtis Tanner speaking to South Sound Science Symposium

November 12th, 2010 by jkonovsky Comments Off

Comments OffTags: South Sound Science 10

South Sound Science: Curtis Tanner and question time

October 27th, 2010 by kanderson Comments Off

Curtis Tanner of Puget Sound Nearshore Ecosystem Restoration Project provided closing comments.  “My job is to summarize everything and rally the troops.”  Curtis provided a summary of today’s speakers, telling of lessons that he will take away, uplifting solutions, and many questions to consider. 

Sampling of questions:

This was in a panel format, and for the most part I was unable to tell who was speaking, so responses have been consolidated.  I also was unable to include all the questions and responses.

How should or could ports be involved in crafting solutions for South Sound restoration? 

There is the potential; Port of Seattle rephrased its objectives to include environmental priorities.  Shipping is related to the port’s activities, so they need to have a role, eg. oil spills.  Ports/shipping uses a lot of energy, so they are ripe for activity on this front. 

Ports are a peculiar agency under state law.  They need to reflect the public interest, but also they are an economic development agency and grow jobs.  There is constant tension between these two roles. 

Pete Swensson:  It is difficult to determine how much of our economy is due to the port.  The Port of Olympia is fairly small in the Pacific Northwest economy (especially compared to Port of Tacoma).

What’s the best way to balance monitoring  and research?

We often get asked what is the most important: monitoring, research, outreach, or restoration?  The answer: “Yes!” 

Betsy Peabody:  The question of ocean acifidication cannot be answered in a couple of years.  This is an area where we need to act even in the face of uncertainty.  We’re facing upwellings of water containing CO2 from 50 years ago.

To deal with climate change and sustainability issues, we need to make long-term predictions and modeling.  Monitoring can provoke process.  We monitor all the time without thinking about it, eg. census and land use.

Where do you see the role of education?

Citizen involved and engagement is a very important driver to getting stuff done.

On the individual level, we have the freedom to act quickly without restraints.  For example, water conservation.

Linda Hofstad:  Community engagement was essential to our project.  One-by-one we got people to do something.

Regulation vs. market-based system of change (incentives):

Linda Hofstad:  Having the Henderson Inlet program regulatory is eessential.  people are more willing to do the work if the rules apply to everyone  To level the playing field you need some regulation there, and then use incentives to make it easy and painless for residents.

to consider: If you have $2 million a year fo rthe next 10 years, how would you spend it in the South Puget Sound?

What should we advocate for?

  • good science
  • science education
  • energy and water conservation
  • linking actions to consequences
  • active accounting
  • teach people is it easy to act; our resources are finite
  • less sprawl, more compact development
  • more collaboration
  • talking with people who don’t already know science and these problems

Comments OffTags: South Sound Science 10

South Sound Science: Linda Hofstad

October 27th, 2010 by kanderson Comments Off

Linda Hofstad, Thurston County, on “Improvement in Henderson Inlet water quality/shellfish harvest status”:

All was going well until State Department of Health started looking at water quality data, and closures and downgrades resulted.

2001 Shellfish Protection District formed, and in 2003 grant dollars became available to develop septic program.

Keys: 1) process;

2) risk-based approach (low risk systems inspected every 3 years, high risk: inspections plus dye test every 6 years);

3) incentives and asssitance (riser rebates, low interest loans, homeowner workshops, and grants)

Many people with septic systems repaired theirs before the inspection/tests.  The #1 neglected maintenance issue was pumping septic tanks.

Stormwater is also a key priority.

What made it happen?  willd, hardwork, cooperation

Who made it happen?  watershed residents, homeowners, farmers, cities, county staff, state agencies

Comments OffTags: South Sound Science 10