Watching Our Water Ways

John Poppe of West Sound Utility District tells me that his phone has been ringing off the hook over biosolids — processed sewage sludge — that will soon be offered to anyone free of charge.

I announced in Monday’s Kitsap Sun that the utility district had received a Class A certification for its “pasteurized” biosolids. The certification allows the material to be used even on vegetable gardens, because the certified treatment process is designed to destroy all measurable pathogens.

Biosolids have been proven to be a rich soil amendment, but their use remains controversial. I consider the controversy to be in the realm of debates where the question is, “How safe is safe?”

Some people worry about active compounds, such as pharmaceuticals found in sewage. The question is where these compounds go when released into the environment in biosolids. Most research shows that such compounds are generally bound up with soil particles, but research continues into the rate that various chemicals are taken up by various plants. We’re talking about very low levels.

It is an entirely different story if we’re talking about pharmaceuticals and personal care products being released with sewage effluent into rivers and streams or even saltwater, where organisms have direct access to the compounds.

I covered these safety issues last year when West Sound Utility District was considering an application of Class B biosolids to forestland near Port Gamble. Please check out the Kitsap Sun, March 26, 2011.

Whether you choose to use some of West Sound’s biosolids on your lawn or garden is a matter of personal choice. Here are some references that cover various sides of the issue.

Cornell University Waste Management Institute

King County Frequently Asked Questions on Biosolids

Sierra Club policy against most uses of biosolids

Mother Jones magazine: “Sludge Happens”

University of Washington soil scientist Sally Brown in an interview at Kansas State University (video below)

Share on Facebook

The Union River near Belfair — the last estuary you come to when venturing into Hood Canal — slaps us in the face with an enigma.

The Union River flows into the very end of Hood Canal near Belfair. The red outline is part of the Pacific Northwest Salmon Center.

For the moment, I can’t do much more than pose some perplexing questions. But I get the feeling that if we could get the answers, we would understand more about salmon recovery in Lower Hood Canal and possibly other places as well.

The Union River also highlights the customary finger-pointing as to why certain stocks of salmon declined in the first place and what it will take to bring them back. Of the four H’s — harvest, habitat, hatcheries and hydro — the greatest finger-pointing goes on between harvest and habitat.

Let’s take Hood Canal summer chum and focus on the Union River, which was the subject of a story I wrote for Monday’s Kitsap Sun.

First, why did summer chum go extinct in the Dewatto and Tahuya rivers — the closest rivers to the Union — while maintaining a viable population in the Union?

Talking about habitat, the Dewatto and Tahuya are far more intact ecologically than the Union, which is dammed up in the Bremerton watershed and has many houses crowding its banks from Kitsap County down to Belfair.

Researchers believe that one of the main reasons for the summer chum decline was excessive fishing years ago during the early part of the coho salmon run, when summer chum were making their way toward their natal streams.

But if that’s the case, how did the summer chum bound for the Union get past the nets near the Dewatto and Tahuya? Were the nets set clear across those rivers, thus taking nearly every fish going upstream while letting fish bound for the Union to move on by?

Were poachers prowling the more remote Dewatto and Tahuya rivers killing summer chum for the “sport” of it when river flows were at their lowest?

I base these questions on comments I have heard through the years, comments that are almost conspiratorial in nature but deserve an answer. If true, perhaps the summer chum in the Union River survived only because of the larger number of people watching what was going on in and around the waterway.

And what kind of poaching goes on even now? Not so long ago, I received reports each year about small fishing boats coming into the Dewatto. Have those activities been stopped? What about current activities in the river? Has the culture changed enough to really protect the spawners?

As for habitat, it is true that the Dewatto and Tahuya have not faced the same level of development. But, through the years, I’ve heard stories of landowners and even trespassers doing things that damage the rivers, generally out of sight of anyone in authority. I’ve been told about makeshift dikes, dredging during salmon-egg incubation, changing the course of the rivers, and allowing manure and excess pesticides to get into the water. And then there are landslides, some the result of normal geological processes and some caused by landscape alterations.

While we generally believe that the Dewatto and Tahuya rivers are relatively natural, maybe they were heavily altered in a few key places by a few careless people, while those living along the Union limited their impacts, knowing that their actions could affect flooding or water quality for their nearby neighbors. That’s not to say I don’t hear horror stories about the Union River as well.

These ramblings of mine are not facts. They are in the realm of conjecture, but I have heard such stories and would like to get some answers. Perhaps the proposed study on the Union River could lead to a greater discussion about what went wrong for the Dewatto and the Tahuya. It might help to avoid the same problems somewhere else.

Share on Facebook

I can’t believe it’s been nearly four years since we’ve held a discussion on Water Ways about how commodities markets may affect the price of gasoline at the pump.

I guess I’ve been watching and waiting for something to happen. Well, a couple weeks ago, Washington Sen. Maria Cantwell began stirring the pot again.

Here’s what she said during a March 29 hearing of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee:

“I definitely believe that we should get these asset class investors out of this market. Saying that we are going to allow a bunch of investors to treat the commodities market like they want to treat the rest of Wall Street from a securities and investment perspective I think is the wrong idea for commodities, something particularly as vital as gasoline.”

In a press release, Cantwell noted that in February various commodities index funds held positions in NYMEX crude oil contracts equivalent to 233.9 million barrels of oil. If each million barrels of speculation adds 10 cents to the price of crude, as suggested by a Goldman Sachs analysis, then recent speculation could be driving up the price of oil by $23 a barrel. That translates to about 56 cents per gallon more at the pump, according to the release.

In the latest development today, President Obama released a “fact sheet” and a five-point program for dealing with oil speculation. Here’s what he proposes:

1. Request Immediate Funding to Put More “Cops on the Beat” Overseeing Oil Markets: The President is calling on Congress to pass an immediate increase in funding to support at least a six-fold increase in the surveillance and enforcement staff for oil futures market trading at the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC).
2. Fund Critical Technology Upgrades in the Oversight and Surveillance of Energy Market Activity: The President is also requesting that Congress provide the CFTC funding for critical IT upgrades to strengthen monitoring of energy market activity.
3. Substantially Increase Civil and Criminal Penalties for Manipulation in Key Energy Markets: The President’s proposal includes a ten-fold increase in maximum civil and criminal penalties for manipulative activity in oil futures markets. These heightened penalties will make sure that penalties reflect the seriousness of misconduct.
4. Empower the CFTC to Raise Margin Requirements in Oil Futures Markets: The President is also calling on Congress to act immediately to give the CFTC authority to direct exchanges to raise margin requirements to address increased price volatility or prevent excessive speculation or manipulation. This authority will help limit disruptions and reduce volatility in oil markets.
5. Take Immediate Steps to Expand Access to CFTC Data to Better Understand Trading Trends in Oil Markets: These executive actions will allow additional analysis of CFTC’s data to look for patterns and better understand trading activity in energy markets.

The “fact sheet” also includes a description of steps already taken to oversee energy markets, including the Wall Street Reform Bill and administrative actions.

Frankly, the reason I’m so interested in this issue is that the price of oil can drive hasty decisions about development of oil reserves and changes in the method of transport, as we have seen the past two years. These effects inevitably spill over into impacts on the environment, including potential damage to our waterways.

To be fair, various experts have weighed in on both sides of the question about how much the price of oil is related to speculation on oil futures. Some argue that the government cannot manage speculation because it is fundamentally tied to price and demand. They say that when government puts its heavy hand into the marketplace, the consequences are never good.

Here are some past Water Ways posts that have looked at this issue.

Learning the ins and outs of oil speculation, July 16, 2088

Researcher finds manipulation in oil markets, Aug. 6, 2008

Energy issues are heating up in Congress, Sept. 9, 2008

What’s all this talk about oil speculation? Sept. 16, 2008

Financial meltdowns, oil speculation and politics, Sept. 20th, 2008

The following video is from a March 29 hearing of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee. In it, you’ll see Sen. Cantwell questioning Daniel Yergin, chairman of the consulting firm IHS Cambridge Energy Research Associates. But don’t look for many answers from Yergin. It appears that Cantwell’s office posted this video because it gives Cantwell a chance to outline her position.

Share on Facebook

UPDATE, May 4

The “Mayor’s Challenge” is over, and Bremerton Mayor Patty Lent says she is pleased that Bremerton placed first in Washington state and third out of more than 100 medium-sized cities in the West.

Read the news release issued by the mayor.
—–

UPDATE, April 27

Kitsap Sun reporter Steve Gardner wrote about the “Mayor’s Challenge” for yesterday’s print edition, helping to move Bremerton from the fourth spot to the third, where the city stands today. See “Bremerton faring well in conservation pledge contest.”

Bremerton Mayor Patty Lent, who has encouraged people to take the pledge at nearly every opportunity, was quoted as saying:

“We have a little hill to climb yet if we’re No. 4. I just want that pride within our city for us to take and beat out someone just to say we can do it.”

Since pledges are recorded by Zip Code, residents are not required to live inside the city limits to support their surrounding community, incorporated or not.
—–

UPDATE, April 12, 2012

Bremerton didn’t last long in the top spot of the “Mayor’s Challenge.” As of this morning, the city had been pushed down to number 2 in its category, replaced by Aliso Viejo, Calif.

Maybe it’s not so easy to stay on top. I’m sure Kathleen Cahall is already looking for ways to rally the populace in and around Bremerton. Maybe if everyone sent the link to friends in Bremerton? http://www.mywaterpledge.com

To help people understand the contest, feel free to use the buttons at the bottom of the main blog section to Tweet the entry, post it on Facebook or send the link by e-mail with a personal message attached. (E-mail is right before the “response” section.) Good luck again to those in Bremerton; please pardon the hometown bias.
—–

UPDATE, April 11, 2012

Bremerton, Wash., has taken over the top spot in the “National Mayor’s Challenge for Water Conservation,” among western communities with populations from 30,000 to 100,000 in population.

Sometime between yesterday morning — when I posted this blog entry — and this morning, Bremerton moved from second to first place. I suppose the challenge now is to hold onto that position. Everyone is eligible to join this challenge, which includes prizes for individuals.
—–

In what is being called the “National Mayor’s Challenge for Water Conservation,” Bremerton currently ranks second behind Newport Beach, Calif., in gathering water pledges among western communities with populations from 30,000 to 100,000 in population.

“It would be wonderful for Bremerton to capture the #1 spot,” Kathleen Cahall, Bremerton’s water resources manager, wrote to me yesterday in an e-mail.

Kathleen has done her best to stir up interest in the event, which also includes potential prizes for participants. Displays have been set up at various city locations; the contest has been mentioned on BKAT community access TV; e-mails have been sent to those on the city’s mailing list; a link has been placed on the city’s website; the event has been mentioned at a city council meeting; and the mayor and city employees have been handing out info cards at events.

To take the pledge, go to www.mywaterpledge.com before April 30.

I told Kathleen I would pass on the word about this contest, sponsored by the Wyland Foundation. If you take the pledge, you may gain some attention for your community and also become personally eligible for prizes, including a Toyota Prius.

While it’s called the “Mayor’s Challenge” and appears to be focused on cities, the contest actually is judged by postal Zip Code, according to Patti Romo of the Wyland Foundation. The goal is to obtain the greatest percentage of pledges among the population represented by a city’s Zip Code.

So if your Zip Code is 98310, 98311, 98312, 98314 or 98337, you are eligible to support Bremerton’s quest to make it to the top, even if you don’t live within the city. Bremerton city officials are strong supporters of water conservation and would love to get that kind of recognition. See the city’s website about conservation.

If you live somewhere else, you’ll get credit for supporting the “city” associated with the Zip Code where you reside — including Silverdale, Seabeck, Hansville, Tahuya and many more unincorporated communities listed by the Postal Service.

In signing the pledge, you’ll be asked if you are willing to take certain actions, such as wash only full loads of laundry. You don’t need to answer “yes” to all the questions to successfully meet the challenge.

It is kind of fun and seems like a good way to get all of us thinking about the choices we make. Again, the website for the challenge is www.mywaterpledge.com.

The Wyland Foundation, founded by environmental artist Robert Wyland, supports educational efforts that help people appreciate and support healthy oceans and waterways.

Share on Facebook

Parahawking is a relatively new sport combining falconry with paragliding.

Birds of prey tend to understand updrafts like no human ever could. It’s part of their instinctual nature to conserve energy while flying.

Paraglider pilots have always paid attention to where these birds are soaring. But now some of the rehabilitated birds are being trained as majestic aerial companions, coming and going from the glider to take a bite of food and then lead the way to more adventure.

The stunning two-minute video provides a glimpse of a training session with a Harris’s Hawk. (Be sure to click to full screen.) Lite Touch Films, which produced the piece, plans to introduce the sport to the U.S. I’m attempting to get more particulars about this video, which includes music by Asche & Spencer. Thanks to Chuck Hower of South Kitsap for bringing this video to my attention.

Parahawking reportedly got its start in 2001, when Scott Mason, a British bird trainer and conservationist, traveled to Nepal to go paragliding with a wide variety of raptors in the Himalayan Mountains. He hooked up with a paragliding company to create a commercial enterprise, which donates a portion of its income to bird conservation groups. Check out his story in the newspaper Gulf Times.

The 20-minute video below was produced by Mason to show some of the trips taken in Nepal during the 2010-2011 season of parahawking. For details, check out Parahawking and Himalayan Raptor Rescue.

Share on Facebook

Knowing more than a few sewer operators in my day, I can tell you that their leading pet peeve is all the stuff that people dump down their toilets and drains.

I’ll never forget the courtroom description of a giant “rag ball” — some 30 feet long — found in Bremerton’s sewer. Rag balls are the accumulation of diapers, tampons and baby wipes that get flushed down the toilet and become caught somewhere in the sewer lines.

Bremerton’s famous rag ball became wrapped up in courtroom testimony during a lawsuit against a sewer contractor hired by the city to run the operation. For details, check out my story from April of 1998.

Steve Anderson

What I really wanted to share with you this week is a song called “O Christmas Grease” by Steve Anderson, a water resources analyst at Clean Water Services. This is the agency that manages wastewater and stormwater in a 12-city region west of Portland, Ore.

Steve often writes music and performs in a band when he’s not working at the utility. He told me that he started writing original songs as well as parodies of existing tunes to entertain his fellow water experts at conferences. Last week, for example, he showed up at a conference to help educators decide whether humor is useful in educating people about wastewater issues.

Steve says the public-education folks at Clean Water Services tolerates his songs, but they do not fully embrace his activities. His first song — a parody about the low levels of drugs that make it through the treatment process — got him into a little hot water with some folks in the business. “Dope in the Water” is sung to the tune of the Deep Purple original.

“The Ballad of Betty Poop” was written as a kid’s song for Take-Your-Children-to-Work Day. It’s about the adventures of a plastic GI Joe and other characters. It includes these famous lines: “Give it up, you toilet treasures… You’ll never make it all the way to the river…”

Steve has not released these songs to the public, though he readily shares them with friends and anyone who will listen. I must thank Gayle Leonard, who writes a blog called “Thirsty in Suburbia,” for bringing Steve’s songs out into the light and putting me in touch with this creative force in the sewer world.

Download the lyrics to all five songs (PDF 72 kb)

Share on Facebook

It is interesting to contemplate how the new National Shellfish Initiative, announced in June, and the Washington Shellfish Initiative, announced last week, could change things in Puget Sound.

Newton Morgan of the Kitsap County Health District collects a dye packet from Lofall Creek in December of 2010. This kind of legwork may be the key to tracking down pollution in Puget Sound.
Kitsap Sun photo by Meegan Reid

As I described in a story I wrote for last Saturday’s Kitsap Sun, the principal goals are these:

• Rebuild native Olympia oyster and pinto abalone populations.
• Increase access to public tidelands for recreational shellfish harvesting.
• Research ways to increase commercial shellfish production without harming the environment.
• Improve permitting at county, state and federal levels.
• Evaluate how well filter-feeding clams and oysters can reduce nitrogen pollution, with possible incentives for private shellfish cultivation.

To read more about the initiatives, check out:

• Washington Shellfish Initiative,
  
• A White paper on the state’s initiative (PDF 176 kb),
  
• National Marine Aquaculture Initiative
  
• National Aquaculture Policy (PDF 64 kb)
  
• National Shellfish Initiative
  

One of the most encouraging things is an attempt to expand Kitsap County’s Pollution Identification and Correction (PIC) Program to other counties, with increased funding for cleaning up the waters. Check out the story I wrote for last Friday’s Kitsap Sun, in which I describe the search-and-destroy mission against bacterial pollution.

As most Water Ways readers know, I’ve been following the ongoing monitoring and cleanup effort by the Kitsap County Health District for years with the help of Keith Grellner, Stuart Whitford, Shawn Ultican and many others in the district’s water quality program. In fact, just two weeks ago, I discussed what could be a turnaround for a chronic pollution problem in Lofall Creek, a problem that has taken much perseverance to resolve. (See Kitsap Sun, Dec. 2.) Unfortunately, the story is far from over.

I’ve talked about the importance of old-fashioned legwork in tracking down pollution, and I’ve suggested that other local governments use some of their stormwater fees or implement such fees for monitoring of their local waters. See Water Ways, June 30, for example.

Water free of fecal pollution has benefits for humans and other aquatic creatures. Thankfully, Washington State Department of Health’s shellfish program is careful about checking areas for signs of sewage before certifying them as safe for shellfish harvesting. Maybe the new shellfish initiative will allow the state to open beds that have been closed for years. That’s what happened in Yukon Harbor, where more than 900 acres of shellfish beds were reopened in 2008. (See Kitsap Sun, Sept. 25, 2008).

Certifying areas as safe for shellfish harvesting means that waterfront property owners are safe to enjoy the bounty of their own beaches. It also offers an opportunity for commercial growers to make money and contribute to the state’s economy.

Of course, this does not mean that intensive shellfish-growing operations ought to be expanded to every clean corner of Puget Sound, any more than large-scale crop farming or timber harvesting should be allowed to take over the entire landscape.

Some environmentalists have expressed concern that the Washington Shellfish Initiative could become a boondoggle for commercial shellfish growers. Laura Hendricks of the Sierra Club’s Marine Ecosystem Campaign sent me an e-mail noting these concerns about the expansion of aquaculture:

“Washington State has more native species listed as endangered than any other state in the USA. We see no mention of the adverse impacts in this initiative on nearshore habitat, birds and juvenile salmon.

“Governor Gregoire and the various speakers failed to mention that ALL of the pending shoreline aquaculture applications they want to ‘streamline’ are for industrial geoduck aquaculture, not oysters. Red tape is not what is delaying these applications…

“Shellfish industry lobbyists who pushed for this expansion are silent on the following three serious threats to our fisheries resources, forage fish, birds and salmon:

“1. Shellfish consume fisheries resources (zooplankton — fish/crab eggs and larvae) according to peer reviewed studies. A DNR study documented that forage fish eggs did not just stay buried high on the beach, but were found in the nearshore water column. Continuing to allow expansion of unnatural high densities of filtering shellfish in the intertidal “nursery,” puts our fisheries resources at risk.

“2. The shellfish growers place tons of plastics into Puget Sound in order to expand aquaculture where it does not naturally grow…

3. Mussel rafts are documented to reduce dissolved oxygen essential for fish and are known in Totten Inlet to be covered in invasive tunicates with beggiatoa bacteria found underneath…”

Ashley Ahearn of KUOW interviewed Laura Hendricks, and you can hear her report on EarthFix.

In her e-mail, Laura recommended the video at right. She also pointed to a blog entry by Alf Hanna of Olympic Peninsula Environmental News. Hanna suggests that environmental advocates who go along with commercial aquaculture may become the oysters that get eaten in Lewis Carroll’s poem “The Walrus and the Carpenter.”

Have intensive shellfish farms in Puget Sound gone too far in their efforts to exploit the natural resources of our beaches? Can shellfish farmers make money without undue damage to the environment? Which practices are acceptable, which ones should be banned, and which areas are appropriate for different types of aquaculture?

It would have been nice if these answers were known long ago, and in some cases they are. But at least this new shellfish initiative recognizes that more research is needed to answer many remaining questions. Research is under way in Washington state on geoduck farming, which involves planting oyster seed in plastic tubes embedded into the beach. Review “Effects of Geoduck Aquaculture on the Environment: A Synthesis of Current Knowledge” (PDF 712 kb) or visit Washington Sea Grant.

Other research in our region is needed as well, although it is clear that environmental trade-offs will be part of the deal whenever commercial interests cross paths with natural systems. For a discussion about this issue, check out the executive summary of the NOAA-funded publication Shellfish Aquaculture and the Environment (PDF 4.2 mb), edited by Sandra E. Shumway.

Needless to say, we’ll be keeping an eye on this process for years to come.

Share on Facebook

It’s the water, or maybe it’s just the nasty stuff that’s in the water.

A new series of studies by federal researchers is delving into the question of which pollutants in urban streams are killing coho salmon.

David Baldwin of Northwest Fisheries Science Center mixes a chemical soup of pollutants found in urban stormwater. Coho salmon will be kept in the brown bath for 24 hours to measure the effects.
Photo by Tiffany Royal, Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission

As I describe in a story in today’s Kitsap Sun, the new studies involve coho returning to the Suquamish Tribe’s Grovers Creek Hatchery in North Kitsap.

Of course, pollutants in streams are just one factor affecting salmon in the Puget Sound region, where development continues to alter streamflows and reduce vegetation, despite efforts to protect and restore habitat. But pollution may play a role that has gone largely unnoticed in some streams.

The new studies continue an investigation that began more than a decade ago with the involvement of numerous agencies. By now, most of us have heard about the effects of copper on salmon, but the latest round of studies will look at the collection of pollutants found in stormwater to see how they work together. It may be possible to pinpoint the chemical concentrations that result in critical physiological changes in salmon.

The latest work involves a team led by David Baldwin of NOAA Fisheries and Steve Damm of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The Suquamish Tribe is providing the fish, along with facilities and support.

For information on the ongoing effort to understand how toxic chemicals affect salmon, review these pages on the website of the Northwest Fisheries Science Center:

Acute die-offs of adult coho salmon 
returning to spawn in restored urban streams

The impacts of dissolved copper on olfactory 
function in juvenile coho salmon

Mechanosensory impacts of non-point source pollutants in fish

Cardiovascular defects in fish embryos exposed 
to polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons

A page called “Coho Pre-spawn Mortality in Urban Streams” presents a series of videos that show the advance of an apparent neurological disease that first causes disorientation in coho salmon and then death. The video is taken in Seattle’s Longfellow Creek, an urban stream.

Share on Facebook

Five years of studies and analysis have helped refine our understanding about the toxic pollution getting into the streams of Puget Sound and eventually into the open marine waters.

The latest study on toxic chemicals (PDF 3.1 mb) Click on image to download

The final report in the series was released yesterday, prompting a story I wrote for today’s Kitsap Sun.

When accounting for all the pollution, it’s not surprising to learn that the sources of toxic chemicals are so diverse that it is difficult to figure out where everything is coming from. But we do know that if chemicals are picked up in stormwater, they are likely to make their way into freshwater, where they pose short-term or long-term risks to aquatic organisms.

The solutions are common sense, if one can be assured of the sources of harmful chemicals:

1. Remove materials from the environment if they are found to release toxic pollution. This can involve a legal ban on certain products or else educating people to select less toxic alternatives.
2. Reduce the amount of stormwater that flows into streams by infiltrating rainwater into the ground before it leaves the site. This “low-impact development” can include permeable pavement, rain gardens and even natural forests where a thick organic carpet has been retained.
3. Clean sediment out of storm drains and sweep up the dust on city streets and other areas where toxic chemicals are likely to reside in metallic form or be bound to soil particles. Safely dispose of these materials. When the rains arrive, there won’t be much left to wash into streams.

While all this sounds simple enough, the issue gets complicated when trying to decide which products to ban and when to recommend that people voluntarily stop using certain items. Alternative products may cost more, which tends to raise questions among users. Also, manufacturers and retailers are not likely to give up selling profitable products without a fight.

Further complicating the situation is the scientific uncertainty surrounding the alleged harm when someone declares a product not good for the environment. Such uncertainty inevitably sparks scientific, economic and policy debate about whether the proposed action is justified.

For example, the Washington Legislature approved a ban on automobile brake pads containing certain levels of copper. Brake pads are believed to release enough copper to harm salmon in some urban streams. But the metallic form of copper found in brake pads is not toxic until it is converted to an ionic form. How much gets converted in the environment is still a question. For details, see a story I wrote for the Kitsap Sun in March of 2010.

As for the latest study released yesterday, some additional focused research and debate may be needed before further actions can be taken.

For example, questions are raised about the total amount of toxic metals leached from roofing materials, including common asphalt shingles. Copper, cadmium, lead and zinc are listed as contaminants along with diethylhexyl phthalate (DEHP).

As suggested by the report, direct studies of roofs in the Puget Sound region could help determine the potential harm of various roofing materials and suggest whether bans or advisories are appropriate.

The amount of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) coming from creosote-treated wood was something of a surprise in the report. If anything, the findings tend to support the ongoing effort by the Department of Natural Resources, which has been removing creosote pilings from shorelines. Further studies might help to focus removal efforts in areas most sensitive to creosote compounds.

The latest report, which includes discussions about the uncertainties, is called “Assessment of Selected Toxic Chemicals in the Puget Sound Basin, 2007-2011.” You may also wish to review all the toxics work to date on Ecology’s webpage called “Control of Toxic Chemicals in Puget Sound.”

Share on Facebook

New Zealand’s environment minister, Nick Smith, is now calling an oil spill resulting from a grounded cargo ship “New Zealand’s most significant maritime environmental disaster.”

Smith made the comments Monday in Tauranga, where near-pristine beaches are becoming fouled with oil.

“It is my view that the tragic events we are seeing unfolding were absolutely inevitable from the point that the Rena ran onto the reef in the early hours of Wednesday morning,” Smith is quoted as saying in Aljazeera.

Al Fleming of Forest and Bird, New Zealand’s largest independent conservation group, has mobilized volunteers to search for oiled wildlife.

“We are faced with a potential disaster along our coastline, and many bird species are currently breeding,” said Fleming in a news release. “The news that the oil spill is getting much worse is a huge worry.”

The organization estimates that 10,000 grey-faced petrels are breeding on nearby islands, along with thousands of diving petrels, white-faced storm petrels and fluttering shearwaters.

Up to 300 little blue penguins are estimated to be living along the coast in the vicinity of the oil spill. Seven of the penguins were among the birds fouled by oil and brought in for rehabilitation.

Spring tides and storm surges could bring oil-laden water up high on the beaches, where New Zealand dotterels, oystercatchers, white-fronted terns and other shore birds are beginning to nest on sandy beaches just above the high-tide mark, the group says.

Migratory birds such as the godwits and red knots are returning to New Zealand from the Northern Hemisphere and arriving in Tauranga and other estuaries along the Bay of Plenty coast.

Whales and dolphins are known to be in the area, and a blue whale and calf were spotted about a week ago. Fur seals are molting on headlands and beaches throughout the region.

Mussels, crabs, and skinks are plentiful on the beaches.


“Without quick action,” said Fleming, “the oil will blanket our filter feeding marine life which are not only important water filters but also crucial in the diets of many animals. Eventually the oil will accumulate throughout the food web.

In this video by the New Zealand Herald, Greg Gay of Portland, Ore., joins local residents in cleaning up a beach near Tauranga.

The latest news is that containers from the ship have fallen into the sea, broken up and their contents — including freeze-dried foods — are washing up on nearby beaches.

“A crack running around the ship’s hull was steadily widening in heavy seas, and officials believed it was only a matter of time before the vessel split in two,” reports a team of reporters from the New Zealand Herald.

“Three tug boats were waiting either to hold the stern on the reef as authorities try to remove oil from the Rena’s fuel tanks or to tow the stern to shallow water.”

Share on Facebook