Watching Our Water Ways

Work is progressing rapidly around the edges of the Kitsap Forest & Bay Project — an effort to protect a 7,000-acre mosaic of lowland forest, shorelines and wetlands in North Kitsap.

Pope Resources lands for sale Click to enlarge

The ecological values of the undeveloped landscape is becoming known among government officials and the public. So far, nobody has jumped in with millions of dollars to buy the land for conservation. But, as the year comes to a close, there are plenty of reasons for optimism among supporters.

When I consider what it will take to make this project happen, I keep thinking of a jigsaw puzzle. I realize the puzzle metaphor is overworked, but let’s stay with it. A good way to begin picture puzzles is by first lining up all the edges and later filling in the middle. To me, that is what is happening with the Kitsap Forest & Bay Project.

First, Forterra — formerly Cascade Land Conservancy — has embraced the project, bringing to the table extensive experience in acquiring lands for conservation purposes. When an option to buy the land from Pope Resources was announced, Forterra president Gene Duvernoy stated, “This is probably the most important project we can accomplish to save Puget Sound.” See Kitsap Sun, Oct. 17.

Another major step came recently when the Puget Sound Partnership released a draft of its Puget Sound Action Agenda. The Action Agenda is designed to recognize the most important preservation and restoration actions that can be taken in the next two years. Although the actions have not yet been lined up in priority, the Kitsap Forest & Bay Project was called out as a high-priority action. Read the story with links in Kitsap Sun, Dec. 21.

Something similar happened in the first Action Agenda in 2008, when the Partnership called for the acquisition and restoration of lands in the Nisqually River delta. The value was so highly considered that some action areas agreed to delay their own projects to move Nisqually to fruition. Perhaps something like that will happen for the North Kitsap lands. Check out the video “The Nisqually Estuary Returns.”

KUOW reporter Ashley Ahearn visited the North Kitsap property and produced a radio piece that outlines the value of the 7,000 acres and discusses the potential acquisition. She did a nice job, as you can see on Earthfix.

Michelle Connor, executive vice president of Forterra, said Ashley’s story will help spread the word about the project throughout the state and beyond.

“This is something that the Kitsap community has known for a long time,” Michelle told me. “Now other people are catching up with us. There is nothing comparable in the Puget Sound region.”

Further bolstering the project is an upcoming study that will examine the ecological values of the 7,000 acres, including nearly two miles of undeveloped shoreline.

A grant of $270,000 will be used to characterize ecosystem values across the landscape and determine which areas are best suited for preservation, forestry and possibly development. A portion of the grant will be used to decide whether revenues can be generated from timber harvest without upsetting the ecological integrity of the region.

The $270,000 study was part of some $6.3 million provided by the EPA’s National Estuary Program for 23 grants earmarked for protecting and restoring Puget Sound watersheds. See Kitsap Sun, Dec. 23.

Acquisition funding for the Kitsap Forest & Bay Project will depend on a variety of public grants and private donations, each with their own requirements. At the same time, the 7,000 acres under discussion contains a variety of small ecosystems that could qualify for one or more restoration and preservation grants.

The 7,000-acre jigsaw puzzle is rather formidable and almost overwhelming, but Michelle Connor is undaunted. Her optimism is infectious. Few people know as much about public conservation grants and philanthropic efforts, and Michelle has an army of people behind her.

The clear strategy moving forward is to assemble this massive puzzle — with all its shapes and colors — one piece at a time.

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

UPDATE: Nov. 29

Morgan was loaded into a plane today and flown to her new home in Loro Parque, an amusement park on the Spanish island of Tenerife. The transport, which involved trucks on both ends of the trip, was uneventful.

Toby Sterling covered the story for the Associated Press.
—–
UPDATE: Nov. 21

A Dutch court ruled this morning that Morgan may be sent to live at Loro Parque aquarium, ruling against advocates who had hoped to reunite the young orca with her family in Norway.

In a written finding, Judge M. de Rooij said chances of the female whale surviving in the wild were “too unsure,” according to a report by Toby Sterling of the Associated Press.

“Morgan can be transferred to Loro Parque for study and education to benefit the protection or maintenance of the species,” she was quoted as saying.

Reactions among supporters for her release are being compiled on the Free Morgan website.

Ingrid Visser, who helped lay the scientific groundwork for Morgan’s release, was quoted as saying the only hope for Morgan now now lie with the Spanish courts or the Norwegian government.

“Personally, I am devastated that after all these months of fighting the good fight, to find that reason and science lost over money and ulterior motives,” Visser wrote on the Free Morgan page. “Our long-term goal of establishing laws to ever prevent an animal in need being turned into an animal used for profit and personal gain will not stop with Morgan’s incarceration.”
—–

Separate legal actions continue to swirl around two famous killer whales, Morgan and Lolita.

The fate of Morgan, the orphan killer whale, lies with an Amsterdam judge who is scheduled to decide tomorrow if the orca should be moved permanently to an aquarium in Spain or be taken to a coastal location where she might be reunited with her family.
said

Steve Hearn, head trainer at Dolfinarium Harderwijk, plays with Morgan at feeding time two weeks ago.
Associated Press photo by Peter Dejong

Morgan, estimated to be 3 to 5 years old, was rescued in poor condition last year in the Wadden Sea and was nursed back to health in a marine park called Harderwijk Dolfinarium. Advocates for her release say Morgan is being commercially exploited in violation of international law regarding marine mammals.

As for Lolita, animal-rights groups in the United States filed a lawsuit last week regarding the killer whale captured in Puget Sound in 1970 and kept in the Miami Seaquarium almost her entire life.

The new lawsuit contends that Lolita should have not have been excluded as part of the “endangered” population when the federal government listed the Southern Residents under the Endangered Species Act in 2005. The Animal Legal Defense Fund and People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals say if Lolita is included among the endangered orcas, it will lead to better treatment and possibly a reunion with her relatives.

Morgan’s story

Advocates for Morgan’s release say her caretakers at the marine park did a good job nursing her back to health, but the law requires that every effort be made to release marine mammals after rehabilitation is complete.

The dolphinarium filed a report saying that it is unlikely that Morgan would be able to survive in the wild and that finding her family was unlikely. Some experts who supported that initial report have since changed their minds, however.

Dutch Agriculture Minister Henk Bleker sided with dolphinarium officials, saying moving Morgan to a large tank at Loro Parque is best under the circumstances. That decision was unchanged after the judge ruled that the ministry must conduct its own evaluation, independent of the dolphinarium.

As time goes on, experts associated with the Free Morgan Foundation say they are getting close to identifying Morgan’s family group, based on recordings of vocalizations. In the latest report, researchers Heike Vester and Filipa I. P. Samarra said, “We do consider it likely that Morgan is either from group P or a group closely related to group P,” which are among the orcas that live in Norway. Check out the report, “Comparison of Morgan’s discrete stereotyped call repertoire with a recent catalogue of Norwegian killer whale calls” (PDF 5.9 mb).

Here are the Water Ways entries I’ve posted so far about Morgan:

Aug. 3, 2011: Supporters of Morgan’s release celebrate a victory

Feb. 2, 2011: Morgan, the orphan orca, gets her own lawyer

Jan. 14, 2011: Orphan orca gains attention of whale advocates

Lolita’s new lawsuit

The Animal Legal Defense Fund and People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals are asking that Lolita be included in the population listed as endangered under the Endangered Species Act.

It isn’t clear what this would accomplish, but the groups make the point that the Endangered Species Act makes some exceptions for listing animals kept in captivity, but the focus is on using those animals for recovery of the listed population and does not apply to animals kept for commercial use, the groups argue. Quoting from the lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court in Seattle (PDF 92 kb):

“In its final listing decision (in 2005), NMFS provided no explanation for its decision to exclude all of the captive members of the Southern Resident killer whale population from the listing of that population as endangered.

“Because of its final listing decision, NMFS has excluded Lolita from the protections of the ESA, thereby allowing her to be kept in conditions that harm and harass her, and that would otherwise be prohibited under the “take” prohibition of the ESA, 16 U.S.C. § 1538(a), including, but not limited to, being kept in an inadequate tank, without companions of her own species or adequate protection from the sun.”

The group asks the court to set aside the portion of the listing decision that excluded Lolita from the endangered population, because it was “arbitrary and capricious, an abuse of discretion, and not in accordance with law.”

Some Water Ways entries related to Lolita:

Aug. 8, 2010: Thinking of Lolita, the captive killer whale

July 15, 2010: Lolita’s fate could become linked to Gulf disaster

Jan. 23, 2008: Lolita, the orca, makes news again

Jan. 12, 2008: Celebrities and a ‘beautiful whale’

Share on Facebook

U.S. Rep. Norm Dicks and U.S. Sen. Patty Murray have announced their support for a plan that would add 130,000 acres of land to wilderness areas in Olympic National Forest, designate 23 rivers as “wild and scenic” and open the door to adding 20,000 acres to Olympic National Park.

This map shows areas proposed for public wilderness, park and river designations. / Click on image for full map (PDF 10.6 mb).

As I describe in a story in today’s Kitsap Sun, the proposal is based on a plan put forth by a coalition of 10 conservation groups called Wild Olympics.

Connie Gallant, chairwoman of Wild Olympics, told me that the group has been working with stakeholder and community groups to consolidate support on the Olympic Peninsula. Quoting Gallant’s statement on the website:

“Over the past two years, Wild Olympics has been reaching out to Peninsula communities to build support from diverse local voices, listen to concerns and get feedback on our draft proposal. More than 4,500 Peninsula residents have signed our petition, and nearly 200 Peninsula businesses, farms, faith leaders, hunting and fishing groups, elected officials, conservation and civic groups support Wild Olympics.”

It is not obvious that wilderness is a true water issue — the focus of this blog — but Bill Taylor, vice president of Taylor Shellfish Farms, is fairly convincing:

“The two largest shellfish hatcheries that supply seed to the West Coast industry are located on Hood Canal. Well over 150 jobs are provided in Hood Canal alone by the industry, not including the indirect jobs such as processing, sales and shipping. By protecting Olympic Peninsula forest and river watersheds, we ensure clean and safe water so that shellfish companies can continue to grow and further benefit the economy and ecology of Washington state.”

The above is one testimonial on the Wild Olympics website, which also includes statements by Bremerton’s Mike Hank of Veterans Conservation Corps, Mayor Michelle Sandoval of Port Townsend, Sequim author Tim McNulty of Olympic Park Associates, Hoodsport’s Ron Gold of RG Forestry Consultants, Aberdeen’s Roy Nott of Paneltech and Gardiner’s Dave Bailey of Greywolf Fly Fishing Club and Trout Unlimited.

Wild Olympics was started by Olympic Park Associates, Olympic Forest Coalition, Olympic Peninsula Audubon Society and North Olympic Group – Sierra Club. Added later were Washington Wilderness Coalition, The Mountaineers, Pew Environment Group, Sierra Club, American Rivers and American Whitewater.

To counteract the work of the Wild Olympics Campaign, Dan Boeholt of Aberdeen founded Working Wild Olympics, because he does not believe wilderness designations will be helpful.

“We’re arguing that if you put these lands into wilderness, it will restrict public access,” Boeholt told me. “There are miles and miles of roads that would be affected.”

Dicks and Murray say they will propose specific legislation after listening to the public. These meetings have been scheduled:

Port Townsend: Dec. 1, 5 to 7 p.m., Chapel Building, Fort Worden State Park Conference Center.

Shelton: Dec. 2, 5 to 7 p.m., Shelton Civic Center, 525 W. Cota Street.

Port Angeles: Dec. 3, 3 to 5 p.m., Museum at the Carnegie, 207 S. Lincoln St.

Hoquiam: Dec. 4, 3 to 5 p.m., Central Elementary School Library, 310 Simpson Ave.

Share on Facebook

When folks from out of state visit my family, we often make a trip to Seattle’s Pike Place Market, where we inevitably stop by the Pike Place Fish Market.

“There’s a really ugly fish over there,” I’ll say to my friends or relatives. “It’s known for its aggressive nature and ability to escape. This is a rare chance to see one, so get down there and take a close look at its teeth.”

As they lean down, one of the fish vendors will pull a string and the dead monkfish will jump at them. Needless to say, just about everyone recoils in alarm, becoming the latest victim of the great monkfish attack.

Check out this amusing video on YouTube, in which the camera operator herself becomes the victim.

I always believed monkfish were an ugly scrap fish that you might catch but would never eat, something like ratfish. I guess that’s the way it used to be, but now they’re actually considered a “delicious eating experience” by many cooks. Check out Squidoo.com for some basic information on monkfish.

Before you go out and buy monkfish for dinner, I would like to take you in a different direction. Monkfish have been over-exploited, taken in bottom trawls that catch everything and damage habitat, according to Monterey Bay Aquarium Seafood Watch, which rates monkfish as a fish to "avoid."

The latest news, which comes via Gary Chittim of King-5 News, reveals that Pike Place Fish Market is taking extra care to offer only sustainable seafood. In pursuit of that mentality, vendors will no longer use monkfish to frighten people. (See video this page.)

It appears they’ll try to keep the gag going with a fish that is less ugly but more sustainable, according to Gary’s piece. We’ll have to see if a rockfish has as much effect.

By the way, if you want to remember our old friend the monkfish, buying a T-shirt might be the sustainable thing to do. Café Press offers some gems, including, “Give me monkfish or give me death,” “I speak monkfish,” “Raised by monkfish” and “Monkfish in training.”

And if you want to see a real monkfish attack, click on this YouTube video.

Share on Facebook

The gravitational pull of the moon offers an enormous potential to provide electrical power, since ocean tides move massive amounts of water on a regular schedule.

Harnessing ocean energy has the potential of providing a steady, predictable power supply. And, while wind and solar power are still favored on a cost basis, tidal power has the benefit of being always on, undiminished by clouds or lack of wind. That alone is considered a major benefit when it comes to operating the regional power grid.

This week’s conference on ocean energy in Bremerton turned out to be interesting, not only for the types of technology discussed but also for its variety of viewpoints — including fishermen who want to make sure tidal turbines don’t hurt their operations. Check out the story I wrote for Thursday’s Kitsap Sun.

In the Puget Sound region, the Snohomish County Public Utility District is studying the potential environmental effects of placing a tidal turbine in Admiralty Inlet between Port Townsend and Whidbey Island. A small pilot project is all that is planned at this time.

At the Bremerton conference, Jim Thomson of the University of Washington described some of the ongoing studies, from measurements of currents passing through Admiralty Inlet to the possible effects of noise on sealife. So far, concerns appear to be manageable. I reported some of Thomson’s comments in my story.

Another news report on the project itself was written this past summer by Charlie Bermant of the Peninsula Daily News. Charlie reported that the latest schedule calls for installing the turbines in 2013.

The top video on this page depicts a commercial turbine developed by OpenHydro, the company working with the PUD on the Admiralty Inlet site. The second video, though made in 2008, offers a nice perspective of the overall effort by SnoPUD General Manager Steve Klein.

Worldwide, the quest for energy is not bypassing the gravitational power of the moon. John Daly of Oilprice.com reported last week that Rolls Royce, which has become a formidable player in the energy business, has developed a tidal turbine that could make inroads into Great Brittain’s electrical needs — although Daly failed to describe the potential cost obstacles.

Needless to say, this subject is worth following, and sponsors of the Bremerton event — including organizer Cleantech West Sound — are already discussing new issues that could be discussed at a repeat conference next year.

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

Jay Manning, who resigned in June as Gov. Chris Gregoire’s chief of staff, says he is ready to charge back into work as a private lawyer, after spending the summer hiking and mountain biking throughout the Northwest.

Jay Manning

Manning, 53, a native of Manchester in Kitsap County, returned today to his old law firm, an environmental practice that now bears the name Cascadia Law Group. One thing to know about Jay is that environmental issues have always been a central part of his life.

Jay took some time to talk with me today about his reasons for leaving state government and his hopes for the future.

“I had sort of run out of gas,” he confessed. “Although others disagreed, I thought I was not performing as well as I should be, such as my ability to solve problems.”

He said he was beginning to worry about his financial condition, with a son in college and retirement staring him in the face. It was a factor he mentioned in a going-away e-mail to his staff. “There was nothing dire there,” he told me, “but it was a concern.”

Although it may be a cliché, it seems to me that Jay was also thinking a great deal about his family life. His wife, a teacher, had been doing double-duty: keeping the home fires burning while going to work every day. During Jay’s time in state government, his family time was more limited.

“It was time to put myself back as an active member of the family, and it has been so much fun to do that,” he said. “Since July 15, I have really played outside and hung out with family and friends. I have my energy level back.”

As he traveled about the Northwest, Jay said he has come to appreciate the splendor of this region even more. He now lives in Olympia.

Meanwhile, Manning has considered various jobs, including prospects at environmental law firms. He settled on Cascadia Law Group, which he believes takes a rare approach to environmental disputes.

“Unlike most firms, this one does not let themselves get pigeonholed. In one case, they may be representing regulated business. In another case, it can be an Indian tribe, and in another case an environmental group. I like that they represent different viewpoints.”

Manning’s career path has helped him become a skillful negotiator with an ability to see various sides of a problem. Most issues are not black-and-white, he said. People on all sides have viewpoints that deserve respect.

After graduating from the University of Oregon Law School in 1983, Manning joined the Washington State Attorney General’s Office, where he and seven other lawyers represented the Department of Ecology.

When Chris Gregoire became Ecology director in 1987, Manning became chief negotiator during three years of tough talks with the federal government over Hanford cleanup. For a time, he went into private law practice and served on the board of the Washington Environmental Council.

When Gregoire became governor, she quickly named Manning to head up the Department of Ecology, where he served for more than four years before she asked him to become her chief of staff in October 2009.

Manning was grateful. “But for me, it sucked the energy out, in a way the Ecology job didn’t,” he said. “I knew the chief of staff job was hard, but until you’re sitting in that chair, you don’t know how you’ll react to it.”

Manning says his days as a trial lawyer are probably over. He anticipates working on management and public-policy issues, such as controversies over water resources in Eastern Washington. He said he would not be surprised to find himself lobbying for legislation at some point.

He also discusses how he might help environmental groups, either professionally or as a volunteer.

“I’m excited to work on energy efficiency, restoration of Puget Sound and some really exciting water projects on the east side of the state,” he said.

As Ecology chief, Manning headed up the state’s Climate Action Team, and I was surprised that he didn’t mention that specifically as a concern.

“I am concerned,” he told me, “but I don’t talk about it as a climate issue. It’s about making your home and business more efficient. You make a more comfortable place to live and your heating bill goes down. We talk energy efficiency, and climate is smack dab in the middle of it.”

The need to reduce greenhouse gases is clear, he said, but the term “climate change” divides people in ways that “energy efficiency” does not.

I asked him if “energy efficiency” conveys the appropriate sense of urgency about a problem that has our government tied in knots.

“That’s a good point,” he said. “My background would tend to push me toward a strong regulatory response. But I don’t think that is doable now.”

Does he think he’ll ever venture back into politics?

“I would never say ‘never,’ but I am really going to focus on being successful with this firm Cascadia. I saw up close what it takes to be governor. It is hard, and sometimes it is completely unreasonable. There is a big personal sacrifice to be made. Right now my focus is on this new job.”

Cascadia Law Group’s website describes the practice this way:

“Our clients come to us because we solve problems. We set out first to understand each client’s objectives. We then apply our knowledge of the law, persuasive skills, political acumen, and creative thinking to attain those goals. We have successfully helped our clients resolve many of our region’s most difficult environmental issues.”

I’ve talked before about how Jay’s growing up in Kitsap County shaped his concerns for the environment. Check out previous comments on Waterways from Oct. 5, 2009, and Feb. 17, 2008. I wrote a profile about Manning for the Kitsap Sun in February 2008.

Share on Facebook

I was away from home and away from my computer all weekend, but I want to tell you about an amusing new show on Animal Planet. It’s about a couple of New York aquarium builders who moved to Las Vegas to build some of the most spectacular aquariums in the world.

If you haven’t seen this program, which started in August, you are missing a reality show with family tension, practical jokes and some of the most unusual aquarium designs I have ever seen.

These aquariums are installed in casinos, restaurants, offices and homes for a variety of occasions, many of them romantic. I always thought of aquariums as square and ordinary until I saw this show. I could watch just to be surprised by the unusual tanks featured each week, yet this real-life odd-ball family is more fun than most fictional characters you see on TV sitcoms.

If you visit the “Tanked” website, you can catch up on the already-aired programs along with many extra videos, such as Wayde and Brett’s top-five most amazing aquariums, “Tanked” highlights, the most annoying habits of Brett and Wayde and even tips for building your own aquarium.

Please let me know what you think about this show.

Share on Facebook