June 4, 2011

- CRD ESC SLUDGE-BIOSOLIDS MINUTES, 25 MAY
CRD SAYS NO TO BIOSOLIDS, FOR NOW
- LETTER: HUMANS NOT THE WORST (sewage)
- LETTER: KEEP CURRENT MARINE SYSTEM
- LETTER: COMPENSATE ESQUIMALT FOR HOSTING SEWAGE PLANT
VANCOUVER: GREEN LIGHT FOR METRO SEWAGE PLAN BUT COSTS UNCLEAR
- VANCOUVER: SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANTS TO GET $1.4 BILLION UPGRADE
PUGET SOUND PARTNERSHIP WILL SET RECOVERY TARGETS BASED ON SCIENCE

--------------------------------------------------------

CRD ESC SLUDGE-BIOSOLIDS MINUTES, 25 MAY:

-------------------------------------------------------

CRD SAYS NO TO BIOSOLIDS, FOR NOW

Monday Magazine
1 June 2011

Big news this week: Islanders don’t want to eat from a toilet, and even the Capital Regional District agrees — for now.

CRD directors, UVic law students, farmers and community members spoke at length during last week’s special CRD meeting to pass a motion that would see the CRD halt the production, distribution and storage of Class-A biosolid waste — commonly refered to as sludge — and prevent the pilot project that would have seen the substance used for large-scale land application.

The two motions, put forward by CRD director and Victoria City councillor Philippe Lucas, asked first for the project to be rejected, and second for the CRD to take an official stance against future large-scale land application. The motions were passed by the CRD’s Environmental Sustainability Committee and Core Area Liquid Waste Management Committee, but now must be sent on for approval at the CRD board level via the July 16 meeting.

“I was extremely pleased and gratified that CRD directors showed care and concern for local farms and food sustainability,” says Lucas. “I really do believe that public pressure is what turned this around and, fingers crossed ... we’ve sent a message that we’re not supportive of using these biosolids.”

Currently, no materials grown with biosolids can be certified as organic and most grocery stores in the country will reject biosolid-grown products. While the substance can return phosphorous and nitrogen to the soil, studies have also shown that even Class-A biosolids can still contain toxic chemicals, carcinogens, heavy metals, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons and pharmaceutical agents. The pilot project was originally put forward by the Saanich Penninsula Waste Water Commission in an effort to adhere to the “beneficial reuse strategy,” which demands that 10 per cent of processed waste be reused.

“If we’ve decided that this material is unsafe to put in our water, how is putting it on our farmland any safer?” says Ruby Commandeur, a member of the Saanich Penninsula Waste Water Commission and an organic blueberry farmer in Saanich. “We’re told these things are fine and regulated, then 20 years later we find out how wrong we all were.”

Geoff Orr, chair of the commission, says that the answer isn’t so clear.

“The waste still has to be dealt with, and when you incinerate, for example, there are issues around that. How do you decide which is the worst evil?” Orr says. “It comes down to your level of risk tolerance. Yes, there are risks involved, but what are the odds of those actually happening and, if we aren’t going to do that, what are we going to do?”

http://mondaymag.com/articles/entry/the-week-june-1/

--------------------------------------------------------

LETTER: HUMANS NOT THE WORST (sewage)

Letters
Monday Magazine
2 June 2011

Re: letter, “More reason to eat local,” May 26-June 1

In commenting on the dumb notion of using sewage as fertilizer, April Reeves unfortunately illustrates the ideology of environmentalists on other issues. She says “Humans are the most toxic substance still walking on the planet!”, ignoring a variety of wild animals.

Of course in saying “walking” she excludes billions of swimming creatures who defecate in water, crawling creatures like poisonous snakes, and the many toxic plants. Why would someone say such a silly thing?

Reeves’ approach to the fertilizer issue will only serve to discredit those raising questions about the actual issue of using sewage as fertilizer.

Keith Sketchley,
Saanich

http://mondaymag.com/articles/entry/letter-humans-not-the-worst/
---------------------------------------

LETTER: KEEP CURRENT MARINE SYSTEM

Since the sludge created by land-based sewage treatment is a challenge because (it can contain) a concentrate of very small amounts of heavy metals and other chemicals, it’s far better to avoid the whole problem by keeping our current marine-based sewage treatment system. 

The effluent is very sustainably dispersed and then degraded into stable compounds in the Strait's active marine environment.

John Newcomb,
Member ARESST,
Saanich

------------------------------------------------------

LETTER: COMPENSATE ESQUIMALT FOR HOSTING SEWAGE PLANT
 
Letters
Filippo Ferri
Times Colonist
June 04, 2011

Re: "Making rezoning pay for public," May 27.

The editorial used a rezoning application in Esquimalt as an example of how municipalities are responsible for obtaining the best deal for the public in return for value gained from rezoning approvals, seeking amenities and benefits.

In stark contrast, the CRD recently declined to provide benefits or amenities to Esquimalt for the forced rezoning of land at McLoughlin Point towards construction of the new sewage treatment plant. Just to make sure of this, the CRD asked its lawyers for an opinion and was told that it was not within its legal authority to provide amenities and benefits to Esquimalt for hosting this plant.

What about moral and social responsibilities?

The difference here is that, unlike a developer seeking permission, the CRD has unilaterally imposed its will on Esquimalt. As such, why is it not necessary to provide benefits and amenities? The CRD will benefit immensely from this forced development, yet Esquimalt will lose tax revenue and incur serious neighbourhood disruption from plant construction and operation.

Considering the CRD's lack of consultation with Esquimalt, its selection of faulty system architecture and fixation on monetary aspects rather than sustainable long-term solutions, it's likely the facility design and construction will cause serious impacts on Esquimalt and beyond.

Filippo Ferri 
Esquimalt


------------------------------------------------------

VANCOUVER: GREEN LIGHT FOR METRO SEWAGE PLAN BUT COSTS UNCLEAR

Jeff Nagel
BC Local News (Black Press)
June 03, 2011 

The province has approved Metro Vancouver's new liquid waste plan but is giving no assurances it will meet the region's key demand to share in the expense of building advanced new sewage treatment plants.

The plan commits Metro to replace the Lions Gate and Iona sewage treatment plants – the two remaining ones discharging – by 2020 and 2030 respectively.

The two projects are expected to cost $1.4 billion and threaten to dramatically increase sewer system fees for home owners, particularly in Vancouver and the North Shore.

For the Lions Gate plant, North Shore residents face the prospect of fees rising from $250 per year now to $1,400 unless the federal and provincial government step in to share a third of the costs each. Vancouverites could see their sewage costs soar to nearly $1,200 a year.

"We're talking big bucks," said Metro waste committee chair Greg Moore, the mayor of Port Coquitlam. "We have to get their support to build these things."

Moore said he's still optimistic Victoria and Ottawa will look favourably on Metro's requests for support for the plant replacements.

For one thing, he said, Metro has pledged to accelerate the rebuild of Iona, completing it by 2020 if the senior governments pitch in.

"There's no way we can afford that if it's not cost-shared," Moore said.

All other sewage treatment plants in the region are already use more advanced secondary treatment systems.

Iona and Lions Gate have been targeted in the past by environmental groups who have tried to launch private prosecutions against Metro, alleging the effluent discharged to the ocean contravenes the Fisheries Act.

The new Integrated Liquid Waste and Resource Management Plan also commits Metro to treat sewage as more of a resource, from which nutrients, energy and water can be reclaimed.


-------------------------------------------------------

VANCOUVER: SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANTS TO GET $1.4 BILLION UPGRADE
 
DOUG WARD, 
VANCOUVER SUN 
JUNE 4, 2011
  
Metro Vancouver's new liquid waste management plan, which includes upgrades worth $1.4 billion to the region's sewage treatment plants, has been approved by the provincial environment ministry.

The long-term strategy calls for replacing the region's remaining primary treatment plants -Lions Gate in West Vancouver by 2020 and Iona Island in Richmond by 2030 -with state-of-the-art secondary treatment plants.

Richmond Mayor Malcolm Brodie said the region has no choice but to switch from primary to secondary treatment at the two facilities because of federal environmental regulations.

"This is not a discretionary item. This is absolutely mandatory."

Brodie said the costs for the two upgrades will be covered by taxpayers in the municipalities served by Iona and Lions Gate -Vancouver and the North Shore, respectively.

But Brodie is optimistic that other levels of government will contribute to reduce the local tax burden.

"It's unrealistic for senior levels of government to mandate these projects without assisting in their financing."

Without cost-sharing, said Brodie, Vancouver and North Shore residents could see their utility rates for sewage services surge eventually by 500 per cent, going from the current $200-$300 a year to $1,300-$1,500.

Metro Vancouver's board adopted the Integrated Liquid Waste and Resource Management Plan in May.

The strategy sets out how the region plans to manage and provide waste water services.

Liquid waste is the waste water that is collected from homes, businesses, industries and institutions, plus rainwater run-off and snowmelt.

Metro Vancouver is also waiting for the provincial environment ministry to approve its solid waste management plan.


-------------------------------------------------------

PUGET SOUND PARTNERSHIP WILL SET RECOVERY TARGETS BASED ON SCIENCE

June 3, 2011 (links on website)
 
Partnership to set recovery targets; you’re invited to comment

The Puget Sound Partnership is creating targets for the recovery of Puget Sound. We invite you to join us in this work.

The ecosystem recovery targets for 2020 will be based in science, and will describe the desired future conditions of human health and well-being, species and food webs, habitats, water quantity, and water quality. Overall, the targets describe what Puget Sound would look like in 2020, reflecting what is achievable in this timeframe, and align with our mission to recover the ecosystem by 2020.

The Partnership intends that agencies will use these targets to identify and design activities to reach these targets, to allocate their funding and other resources to these outcomes, and to evaluate the effects of their investments and actions.

Targets will be set for the following general topics: 

- Land use and land cover (develop and conserve)
- Pollution (wastewater, storm water, toxics in fish and sediment)
- Water availability and quality
- Fish and wildlife abundance (Chinook salmon, Orcas, Pacific herring, birds, recreational fishing)
- Support (funding, public engagement)

Public Comment Opportunities

The Partnership's Leadership Council will adopt ecosystem recovery targets at its meeting June 16-17. Public comments will be heard during the meeting, before the Council’s discussion of each topic.  Between now and June 10, we are taking comments on these targets online through this questionnaire. In addition, if you want to engage with others on the targets and options, you can join the online discussion on MyPugetSound. We encourage your participation. The more these targets are developed regionally, the more meaningful they will be.

Action Agenda Update Underway

Setting targets is a critical part of our update to the Action Agenda. The Action Agenda is a living document, designed to be adapted. By statute, the near-term strategies and actions described in the Action Agenda must be updated every two years. These targets will help us refine and prioritize strategies and actions in the Action Agenda.

The Action Agenda – first developed in 2008 – explains what a healthy Puget Sound is, describes the current state of Puget Sound, prioritizes cleanup and improvement efforts, and highlights opportunities for federal, state, local, tribal, and private resources to coordinate. We currently are working on its first significant revision, and urge your involvement.

In our 2011 update to the Action Agenda and Biennial Science Work Plan, the Partnership has a number of objectives:

- Add recovery targets for many of the ecosystem indicators.
- Provide updated strategies and two-year actions to help guide the 2013-2015 state budget.
- Reflect updated scientific and technical information, including data from the Puget Sound Nearshore Ecosystem Restoration Project and information from the “Puget Sound Science Update.”

Public Comment Opportunities

We hope that you take the opportunity to lend your expertise to this effort, and participate in the update process. Below are some specific opportunities; we will post others regularly on the Action Agenda Update Web site.

In June and July, the partnership will work closely with implementers and other stakeholders to refine draft strategies and actions, with documents available for public review on August 8.

We have established an online tool to provide an easy way for you to engage in the development of the next Action Agenda. What do you think are the most important actions to protect and restore Puget Sound? Suggest them here between now and June 20.

The Leadership Council will hear public comment at its August 25-26 meeting. In the fall, we will work with the Ecosystem Coordination Board, Science Panel and Leadership Council, as well as with stakeholders to refine the draft documents with the goal of getting Leadership Council approval in December.

Revised study of Puget Sound toxic pollution released

The Washington State Department of Ecology recently released a study confirming that surface runoff, including storm water, contributes the highest levels of most toxic chemicals to Puget Sound. The study is part of a multi-phase effort by Ecology to detail what toxic chemicals reach Puget Sound's waters, how the chemicals get there, and where they come from. The study analyzed water samples collected from 16 streams in the Puyallup and Snohomish river watersheds. The highest levels of toxic chemicals were found during storms and in the most developed watersheds. Read more. 

The new study will aid the Puget Sound Partnership as it refines its strategies in the update of the Action Agenda.

Sincerely,
Gerry O’Keefe
Executive Director
 
PUGETSOUNDPARTNERSHIP
326 East D Street | Tacoma, WA  98421-1801


--------------------------------------------------------
END.