Watching Our Water Ways

Environmental reporter Christopher Dunagan discusses the challenges of protecting Puget Sound and all things water-related.
Subscribe to RSS
Back to Watching Our Water Ways

Archive for the ‘Fishing interests’ Category

International court rules against Japanese whaling

Monday, March 31st, 2014

Japanese whalers who hunt whales in the Antarctic can no longer justify their actions as “scientific research” and must stop their annual whale roundup, according to a ruling by the International Court of Justice.

The court ruled today that Japan’s so-called “research” does not meet ordinary scientific standards. The court ordered Japan to stop killing whales under the guise of its research program, called JARPA II. As stated in a 73-page finding (PDF 649 kb) supported by 12 of the 16 judges:

“Taken as a whole, the Court considers that JARPA II involves activities that can broadly be characterized as scientific research, but that the evidence does not establish that the programme’s design and implementation are reasonable in relation to achieving its stated objectives.

“The Court concludes that the special permits granted by Japan for the killing, taking and treating of whales in connection with JARPA II are not ‘for purposes of scientific research’ pursuant to Article VIII, paragraph 1, of the Convention (the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling).”

In the legal action brought before the United Nations court by Australia, the judges carefully scrutinized the JARPA II methods and procedures. They found that the sampling procedure and lethal take of minke, fin and humpback whales falls short of legitimate scientific study in many regards:

“The fact that the actual take of fin and humpback whales is largely, if not entirely, a function of political and logistical considerations, further weakens the purported relationship between JARPA II’s research objectives and the specific sample size targets for each species — in particular, the decision to engage in the lethal sampling of minke whales on a relatively large scale.”

A news release (PDF 174 kb) issued by the court does a fair job of summarizing the findings:

“Examining Japan’s decisions regarding the use of lethal methods, the court finds no evidence of any studies of the feasibility of or the practicability of non-lethal methods, either in setting the JARPA II sample sizes or in later years in which the programme has maintained the same sample size targets. The court also finds no evidence that Japan examined whether it would be feasible to combine a smaller lethal take and an increase in non-lethal sampling as a means to achieve JARPA II’s research objectives.”

After the ruling, Koji Tsuruoka, Japan’s representative at the court, addressed reporters at the Peace Palace in The Hague. According to a report by Australian Associated Press, Tsuruoka stated:

“Japan regrets and is deeply disappointed that JARPA II … has been ruled by the court as not falling within the provisions of Article 8. However, as a state that respects the rule of law, the order of international law and as a responsible member of the global community, Japan will abide by the decision of the court.”

He said Japanese officials would need to digest the judgment before considering a future course of action. He refused to discuss whether a new research program could be crafted to allow whaling to resume.

Australian officials were careful not to gloat over the victory as they emphasized the need to maintain favorable relations with Japan. Bill Campbell, Australia’s general counsel in the case, was quoted by the AAP:

“The decision of the court today, important as it is, has given us the opportunity to draw a line under the legal dispute and move on.”

The ruling was welcomed by environmental groups, including Sea Shepherd Conservation Society, which has sent ships to the Antarctic to directly confront the whaling ships and interfere with their whaling activities, as seen on the television show “Whale Wars.” Capt. Alex Cornelissen of Sea Shepherd Global had this to say in a news release:

“With today’s ruling, the ICJ has taken a fair and just stance on the right side of history by protecting the whales of the Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary and the vital marine ecosystem of Antarctica, a decision that impacts the international community and future generations. Though Japan’s unrelenting harpoons have continued to drive many species of whales toward extinction, Sea Shepherd is hopeful that in the wake of the ICJ’s ruling, it is whaling that will be driven into the pages of the history books.”


NOAA opens its catalog of nautical charts

Friday, February 28th, 2014

Chart

More than 1,000 U.S. Coast Guard nautical charts have been released for public use at no charge.

What started out as a three-month pilot program by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration has become a permanent service. The free charts, which are offered in PDF format, are especially valued by recreational boaters.

During the trial period, nearly 2.3 million charts were downloaded, according to Rear Admiral Gerd Giang, director of NOAA’s Office of Coast Survey.

“To us, that represents more than two million opportunities to avoid an accident at sea,” Giang said. “Up-to-date charts help boaters avoid groundings and other dangers to navigation, so our aim is to get charts into the hands of as many boaters as we can.”

If you know the name of the waterway you wish to explore, the fastest way to get a chart is to search the list of available PDFs.

To help users zero in on the charts they need, NOAA has created a website called the Interactive Chart Locator. From there, one can view an image of the chart; download a PDF version of the entire map; or choose a blown-up version with numerous maps of the same area, known as a “booklet.”

NOAA also has begun offering its Raster Navigational Charts, a composite of all the charts formatted for zooming in on a specific location. That is especially useful for viewing on a computer screen or mobile device. Free software and viewers from third-party sources also are listed on the RNC webpage.

NOAA’s Office of Coast Survey is the nation’s nautical chartmaker, according to information provided by the agency. Created by President Thomas Jefferson in 1807, the office updates charts, surveys the coastal seafloor, responds to maritime emergencies and searches for underwater obstructions that pose a danger to navigation.

The Coast Survey’s Twitter handle is @NOAAcharts. A blog — noaacoastsurvey.wordpress.com — provides information about the agency’s ongoing activities.


Mystery of L-112′s death may never be solved

Tuesday, February 25th, 2014

It appears we’ll never know what killed L-112, known as Victoria or Sooke, found dead at 3 years old, after she washed up on an ocean beach in Southwest Washington.

L-112 in happier times. The 3-year-old orca died in February 2012, and the cause of her death remains a mystery.
Photo by Jeanne Hyde, Whale of a Porpoise
(Click on image to see Jeanne's tribute page)

If you recall from two years ago, much speculation swirled around the notion that the female orca was killed by military operations, such as sonar or an explosion. The Royal Canadian Navy confirmed the use of sonar and small underwater detonations west of Vancouver Island. But that was far from Long Beach, where the orca washed up, and ocean currents suggest she was killed even farther south. For a quick history, see Water Ways from Feb. 18, 2012, followed by an entry on May 16, 2012.

The latest report concludes, as early ones did, that L-112 died from “blunt force trauma.” But the cause of the trauma could not be determined. No sonar activity or explosions were identified in the area where her death probably occurred, although a physical examination was not able to totally rule out those causes.

A new bit of information emerges from the long-term acoustic recorders that listen for sounds off the coast. Calls identified as coming from L pod were reported near Point Reyes in California on Jan. 30, off Westport in Washington on Feb. 5, and near Newport in Oregon on Feb. 20. L-112 was found dead on Feb. 11 after floating for several days. It appears likely that the young whale was with her pod at the time of her death.

As the report states:

“This multi-disciplinary investigation could not determine the source of the blunt trauma despite gathering and evaluating all available information on the whales, the environment, and human activities. We evaluated the sighting history of the whales to provide insight into the circumstances of the stranding.

“Autonomous passive acoustic recorders off the coasts of Washington, Oregon, and California indicated that the main group of L Pod, possibly including L-112, was off California in late January, heading north, and possibly off Westport, Washington in the first week of February and detected near Newport, Oregon after the stranding…

“A major source of trauma from sonar, explosives, or a seismic event would likely have affected multiple individuals traveling together as killer whales are known to do. All other members of L-112’s family group were sighted following L-112’s stranding. No other members of the L4 sub-group were reported missing, injured, or stranded between the time of the L-112 stranding and the summer of 2012.

“This observation leads us to believe that the trauma suffered by L-112 was likely borne individually and was not an event that covered a large area or that directly impacted the young whale’s most likely traveling companions in the L4 sub-group. For these reasons, we do not believe that L-112 succumbed to blast injuries or exposure to other high intensity sound.”

So was L-112 struck by a ship? Did she encounter another aggressive whale or large shark? Or was she hit by another unknown force or object? We’ll probably never know, as the mystery goes on and on and people continue to ask, “Who killed L-112?”

To review a copy of the report, go to the website “Wild Animal Mortality Investigation: Southern Resident Killer Whale L112 Final Report.”

Reporter Phuong Le covered the story today for The Associated Press.


China maintains ban on shellfish imports

Tuesday, February 4th, 2014

Business and government officials involved in the lucrative geoduck export market got some bad news on Friday, when federal authorities released a letter they had received from the Chinese government.

Kitsap Sun photo

Kitsap Sun photo

The letter raises many questions — at least from a Chinese perspective — about how the U.S. regulatory system protects public health. The message from Chinese health authorities dashes the hopes of industry officials for a quick lifting of the Chinese ban on shellfish imports from the U.S. West Coast.

I wrote about this issue for Saturday’s Kitsap Sun (subscription). My story was picked up by the Associated Press and distributed widely. (If you don’t subscribe to the Sun, see The Columbian, Vancouver, for the AP version.)

Washington state has a proud reputation for protecting public health when it comes to shellfish, and the letter from China does little to dispel suspicions among those who think that China may have ulterior motives. After all, Chinese authorities have done nothing to limit the geographic scope of the import ban or even limit the ban to geoducks only.

A statement (PDF 114 kb) from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration concludes that the letter contains about 20 separate requests for information about testing and safety.

You may wish to read the the letter from China’s General Administration of Quality Supervision, Inspection and Quarantine (PDF 150 kb). As translated, the letter includes this statement:

“We don’t not have a full understanding of the US regulatory system including the definition of sea region and management, the official monitoring on PSP and heavy metals and the responsibility among the relevant government agencies, and we have not conducted an on-site evaluation neither.”

The letter says the suspension of imports may be reduced to a specific area after certain questions are answered. It calls on the U.S. to develop an action plan for evaluation and outlines a review process, including a visit by an “expert team” from China to evaluate the geoduck inspection programs.

Officials at all levels in the U.S. say they are evaluating the questions posed in the letter and preparing a coordinated response.

Previous entries in Water Ways:

Jan. 9, 2014: Geoducks test OK, but what’s behind Chinese ban?

Dec. 24, 2013: Health officials to quickly test geoducks for arsenic


New video describes quest to restore Skokomish

Wednesday, January 29th, 2014

In an impressive new video, members of the Skokomish Watershed Action Team tell the story of the Skokomish River, its history and its people, and the ongoing effort to restore the watershed to a more natural condition.

The video describes restoration projects — from the estuary, where tide channels were reformed, to the Olympic Mountains, where old logging roads were decommissioned to reduce sediment loading that clogs the river channel.

“I thought it was really well done,” SWAT Chairman Mike Anderson told me. “Some people have remarked about how well edited it is in terms of having different voices come together to tell the story in a single story line.”

The 14-minute video was produced with a $20,000 grant from the Laird Norton Family Foundation, which helped get the SWAT off the ground a decade ago, when a facilitator was hired to pull the group together.

The foundation’s Watershed Stewardship Program invests in community-based restoration, said Katie Briggs, the foundation’s managing director. In addition to the Hood Canal region, the foundation is supporting projects in the Upper Deschutes and Rogue rivers in Oregon.

As Katie explained in an email:

“LNFF has been interested in the collaborative work in the Skokomish for a number of years, and we have been consistently impressed with the way an admittedly strange group of bedfellows has pulled together, set priorities, and moved a restoration agenda forward in the watershed.

“We think their story is compelling, and by being able to share that story in a concise, visual way, they could not only attract more attention to the work they are doing in the Skokomish, but also potentially influence and share with other communities grappling with similar kinds of challenges.

“By helping SWAT tell their story, we’ve also gained a tool through which we are better able to share what it is we care about with the larger Laird Norton family and others interested in the foundation’s approach to watershed stewardship.”

The video project was overseen by Tiffany Royal of the Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission and a subcommittee of SWAT members. North 40 Productions was chosen to pull together the story, shoot new video and compile historical footage.

“It captures a lot of the collaboration and restoration,” Anderson said, “but it doesn’t cover everything. It leaves out most of the General Investigation and the Cushman settlement.”

The General Investigation is how the Army Corps of Engineers refers to the studies I wrote about Sunday in the Kitsap Sun (subscription) and in Water Ways. The Cushman settlement involves an environmental mitigation project on the North Fork of the Skokomish funded by the city of Tacoma and related to relicensing of the Cushman Dam power project.

Alex Gouley of the Skokomish Tribe said he hopes that the video will help tell the story of the Skokomish watershed, as with other tribal efforts such as watershed tours, educational workshops and classroom field trips.

Alex said he and other tribal members appreciate all the work done by each member of the SWAT, from Forest Service employees to the county commissioners, from Green Diamond Resource Company (formerly Simpson Timber) to small property owners in the valley.

“By coming together, everyone is able to make more informed decisions about the projects they are working on,” he said.


Chinese TV discusses shellfish import ban

Thursday, January 23rd, 2014

U.S. officials say they have not heard a word from Chinese health authorities since the Washington State Department of Health sent test results showing that geoducks from Puget Sound are safe to eat.

A ban on shellfish imports from the Northwest continues. By all accounts, it appears that U.S. shellfish exporters will miss a chance to provide geoducks, oysters and other shellfish to China during lucrative Chinese New Year celebrations next week.

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration has sent the health department’s test results to China, NOAA spokeswoman Connie Barclay told me yesterday. “We will continue to work with folks to see if we can resolve this issue,” she said.

Meanwhile, Chinese Central Television (CCTV), a government-sponsored TV network in China, has produced a video describing the issue, including the economic effects on shellfish growers. It’s a pretty straightforward piece, but offers no hint about what further steps may be taken by the Chinese government.

For background, see my last entry in Water Ways on Jan. 9. which includes links to other sources. The same goes for an entry on Dec. 24 and the first one on Dec. 17.

The bottom line is that nothing has happened for weeks. Shellfish growers are waiting patiently, hoping this does issue does not grow into an extended trade dispute.


Geoducks test OK, but what’s behind Chinese ban?

Thursday, January 9th, 2014

Now it is up to Chinese officials to decide upon shellfish imports to their country, as uncomfortable as that may be for U.S exporters. I’ve begun to learn about international trade policies to better understand the confusing actions of Chinese health authorities.

As you’ve probably heard by now, officials with the Washington State Department of Health have concluded from a new round of testing that arsenic in geoducks from Poverty Bay presents no legitimate health concern. That seems to contradict findings from Chinese health authorities, who cited high levels of arsenic in Poverty Bay geoducks when they suspended shellfish imports from the U.S. West Coast.

Unfortunately, the Chinese have failed to reveal how they came to their findings, and they discarded all the geoducks used in their tests. Divers from the Washington Department of Natural Resources collected new geoducks from Poverty Bay, and state health experts conducted new tests. The findings were released Tuesday, and I covered that in some detail in a story published in yesterday’s Kitsap Sun (subscription). Also, check out Water Ways, Dec. 24, to understand the different types of arsenic.

USTR report

Results from the Washington state health lab showed that arsenic levels in all parts of the geoduck came in under the Chinese limit of 0.5 parts per million, except for the skin. Dave McBride, a toxicologist for the state health department, told me that cooks in both China and the U.S. blanch the geoduck to remove the inedible skin, so that’s not a factor.

But even if one consumes the whole geoduck, tests on the “whole body” found only one composite sample out of 12 that exceeded the Chinese standard. Of course, it would have been more convincing if none of the whole-body samples came in above 0.5 ppm.

A private lab also tested geoducks from Poverty Bay, and those results came in even lower. The differing findings probably resulted from the different methods used, Dave McBride told me. It might be wise to try to reconcile the differences and report the scientific uncertainty (possible range) represented by the two techniques.

Meanwhile, I’ve begun talking to experts on Chinese trade, who say it is not unusual for governments around the world to use alleged health concerns to gain a trade advantage.

As I reported in yesterday’s story, the U.S. Trade Representative, a presidential cabinet post, reported to Congress at the end of last year about what appeared to be unjustified health concerns blocking a variety of agricultural imports into China:

“In 2013, serious problems have remained for U.S. exporters, who are faced with nontransparent application of sanitary and phytosanitary measures, many of which have appeared to lack scientific bases and have impeded market access for many U.S. agricultural products.

“China’s seemingly unnecessary and arbitrary inspection-related import requirements also continued to impose burdens and regulatory uncertainty on U.S. agricultural producers exporting to China in 2013 … Products most affected in 2013 included poultry, pork and beef.”

Dongsheng Zang, a University of Washington law professor who specializes in Chinese trade, and Debra Glassman, faculty director of the UW’s Global Business Center, helped me understand the trade situation for yesterday’s story. Here are some of the key points I came away with:

  • Chinese officials don’t always base their decisions on the best evidence,, even though agreements under the World Trade Organization require them to do so. In 2011, China stopped imports of oysters from Washington state following reports of a few people getting sick from eating raw oysters from Hood Canal. Zang says Chinese officials based their actions only on “media reports.”
  • Import bans often come quickly and take a long time to resolve. That happens not just in China but in other countries and the European Union, especially when the dispute must be resolved by the World Trade Organization.
  • International agreements require that any import restrictions must be the “least-trade-restrictive” to protect the public, such as banning shellfish from specific bays where problems are identified, Glassman said.
  • The Chinese ban on U.S shellfish could be designed for a domestic audience inside China. “I can only speculate,” Zang said. “Food safety is a huge issue in China. It’s really hard to say whether this (geoduck ban) is about public health or domestic policy.”

An official in the office of the U.S. Trade Representative in Washington, D.C., told me (on background) that the office is watching this issue closely. If the shellfish ban develops into a full-fledged trade dispute, that office will become involved.

I realize that geoduck harvesters and government officials don’t want to accuse the Chinese of acting inappropriately. They just hope that the ban will be lifted without a drawn-out dispute. Meanwhile, those in the industry are losing millions of dollars by being shut off from their most important market for the giant clams.


Health officials to quickly test geoducks for arsenic

Tuesday, December 24th, 2013

Shellfish and toxicology experts with the Washington State Department of Health are rushing to test new samples of geoducks from Poverty Bay near Federal Way. Poverty Bay is the apparent source of the geoducks that triggered a Chinese ban on the imports of all bivalves from the U.S. West Coast.

Photo: Washington Sea Grant

Photo: Washington Sea Grant

Since I wrote about this issue in Water Ways last Tuesday, state health officials have learned that arsenic — not paralytic shellfish poison — was cited by Chinese health officials as the cause of their concern in the Poverty Bay geoducks.

Past studies by state researchers have concluded that arsenic is not a health concern in shellfish taken from Puget Sound, based on sampling from some of the most polluted bays in the region. A letter (PDF 118 kb) sent last week from the U.S. Seafood Inspection Program to China’s health officials calls for China to lift its unusual ban. The letter cites a 2007 health assessment on arsenic in geoducks from Poverty Bay, where the giant clams were deemed safe to eat.

As a precaution, Washington Department of Natural Resources has closed the 135-acre Redondo Tract in Poverty Bay to shellfish harvesting until the Chinese ban can be resolved, according to a statement issued Friday from Public Lands Commissioner Peter Goldmark.

One of the complicating factors in dealing with arsenic in shellfish is that the organic forms (primarily arsenobetaine) are not toxic, yet they are far more prevalent than the toxic inorganic forms (arsenic III and arsenic V ).

It is far easier to measure total arsenic than to separate organic from inorganic forms, so researchers often make assumptions. To be extra safe, they have assumed for years that toxic inorganic arsenic is less than 10 percent of total arsenic. Now, they have begun to rely on more recent geoduck studies from Seattle’s Richmond Beach (PDF 327 kb) that showed the inorganic form of arsenic to be less than 1 percent of total arsenic.

Dave McBride, a toxicologist with Washington’s Department of Health, told me the Chinese were reporting levels of arsenic at 1.7 parts per million, but they failed to say whether that was total arsenic or inorganic arsenic. The Chinese health limit was reported as 0.5 parts per million inorganic arsenic.

It also makes a difference whether the whole geoduck was tested or just the edible parts. The skin, which is generally discarded when cooking, appears to concentrate more arsenic than other parts, but the levels still are not high enough to be a concern.

A 2002 study of shellfish from several polluted water bodies in Puget Sound (PDF 1.5 mb) found levels of inorganic arsenic in clams to fall in a range from 0.015 to 0.035 parts per million. A 2007 health assessment of geoducks from Poverty Bay (PDF 874 kb) found total arsenic levels ranging from 2.28 of 4.96 parts per million.

Assuming inorganic arsenic at 1 percent of total arsenic the maximum value is .05 parts per million for shellfish from Poverty Bay. That’s one-tenth the level of concern reported by the Chinese.

Initially, Poverty Bay was an issue because of two sewage outfalls in the area and the proximity to Tacoma’s former ASARCO smelter — even though most airborne pollution landing on the water gets well dispersed. But the formal health assessment allayed concerns about arsenic and other metals as well.

Arsenic always raises initial concerns, because its inorganic form is known to disrupt the metabolism of multi-celled organisms, including humans. Also, it has been known to cause cancer. Because inorganic arsenic levels in shellfish are normally low, no federal or state standards have been established.

In response to the Chinese ban, the Department of Natural Resources went out yesterday and collected new geoduck samples from Poverty Bay. The idea will be to present findings on both total arsenic and inorganic arsenic, thanks to more sophisticated analytical equipment at the Department of Health laboratory.

Three geoducks will be put together to create a composite sample. In all, two composite samples each will be associated with 12 different locations in the bay, according to McBride.

Edible geoduck tissue will be separated from the “gutball,” which may be prepared by some Chinese cooks, I’m told. If enough samples are available, the whole geoduck (minus the shell) may be tested as well, or possibly just the skin.

One long day of processing is planned for Thursday, and the samples will be run through analytical equipment over the weekend, McBride told me. A report on the findings can be expected next week.

For information about the China ban on shellfish, check out a fact sheet from the state’s Office of Shellfish and Water Protection (PDF 282 kb).


Chinese geoduck ban creates industry turmoil

Tuesday, December 17th, 2013

It was shocking to hear that China had banned imports of clams and oysters from most of the U.S. West Coast, This announcement came after Chinese health inspectors reported high levels of paralytic shellfish poison and arsenic in two shipments of geoducks coming into that country. (KUOW had the initial report.)

Photo: Washington Sea Grant

Photo: Washington Sea Grant

It turns out that one shipment of geoducks came from Poverty Bay near Federal Way in Puget Sound, and the other one came from Ketchikan, Alaska.

Washington state government as well as the state’s extensive shellfish industry pride themselves on a monitoring program designed to ensure that PSP levels for harvested geoducks remain well within safe limits. I frequently report PSP (“red tide”) closures when they occur on recreational beaches — and commercial shellfish are checked even more frequently.

The monitoring program for Washington state shellfish is recognized worldwide for its ability to keep unsafe shellfish off the market.

The initial memo (PDF 33 KB) from the Chinese government said inspectors had found levels of PSP at 30.2 mouse units per gram. Mouse units? I had never heard of such a measurement, although I know that live mice are often used in the monitoring tests. I learned that “mouse units” was an older standard of measurement, replaced by micrograms of toxin per 100 grams of shellfish tissue.

The use of mouse units was the first issue that threw everybody off. I received an explanation from Jerry Borchert of the state’s Office of Shellfish and Water Protection, and I offered this explanation in a story I wrote for today’s Kitsap Sun (subscription):

“The Dec. 3 letter imposing the shellfish embargo stated that paralytic shellfish poison was found in concentrations of 30.2 mouse-units per gram. Mouse-units are an older standard, based on the amount of poison it takes to kill a mouse. The more common measurement today is micrograms of toxin per 100 kilograms of shellfish tissue, Borchert said.

“‘We need to know what conversion factors they used,’ he said. ‘Based on the best information we have, which is sketchy, the levels were between 600 and 1,500 micrograms per 100 grams.’

“In contrast, reports on geoducks from the Poverty Bay tract were no greater than 62 micrograms between Sept. 26 and Oct. 24, according to a health investigation completed Friday. The most likely harvest date was found to be Oct. 5.

“Authorities will close an area when the toxin level reaches 80. In fact, the high toxin levels suggested by the Chinese memo might not have been reached in geoducks found anywhere in Puget Sound this year, Borchert said.”

You can read the report, “Investigation and Results Related to the Geoduck Shipment Linked to the Shellfish Import Ban Imposed by China” (PDF 209 KB).

Confusion over the toxin levels found by the Chinese inspectors has created a great deal of anxiety throughout state government and the shellfish industry in Washington state. Nobody wants to say that the Chinese made a mistake, especially when the only data available is a terse finding in a memo (PDF 33 KB) transmitted to U.S. authorities. In fact, everyone I have talked to has been careful not to say anything negative at all until the facts are all in.

The chance that the shellfish exported to China exceeded the international standard of 80 micrograms per 100 grams seems possible, given that samples sent to state officials reached 62. That could invoke a response, even though the action level of 80 is considered within a significant margin of safety. But if the Chinese inspectors are reporting toxin levels higher than 600, that raises other issues.

What about poaching? I think it would be hard to rule out the possibility that somebody illegally sold geoducks from another area where PSP levels were higher and said they were from Poverty Bay. Whether that could happen depends, at least in part, on how well officials are able to track the geoducks through the market.

John Weymer of the Puyallup Tribe told me that officials were able to track the geoducks in question back to a specific boat working in Poverty Bay. Since it was a harvest by the Puyallup Tribe, tribal inspectors were on hand to make sure that the harvested geoducks were accounted for until sold to an independent buyer, he said. There is no doubt, he added, that the geoducks sold from the bay in October met health standards.

Although numerous areas of Puget Sound showed toxin levels above 80 micrograms in some types of shellfish, I’m told that the number of areas that reached 600 to 1,500 in geoducks were rare, if that happened at all. Such a finding would create more doubt about the accuracy of the Chinese testing.

One of the things I wondered about was whether the Chinese could be acting in retaliation for ongoing U.S. actions regarding the safety of foods imported from China. Bans on Chinese chicken were imposed and then lifted, amid Chinese complaints to the World Trade Organization. Questions of food safety have become entangled in issues of fair trade between the two countries.

I’ve raised this question of a trade battle with several people. Most tell me that if this were a trade issue, the Chinese would have used the opportunity to make a political statement. Instead, the Chinese memo was limited in scope, although the financial impact to the Washington shellfish industry could be significant.

Some people are quietly speculating that the Chinese have taken this action to manipulate prices. If geoduck harvesting is shut down in Washington state, the price of wild geoducks from the U.S. will drop and markets will improve for Canadian and Mexican geoducks. I’m told that the Chinese can make more money operating in those countries, although I have been unable to verify that so far.


Is that a light I see shining at the end of restoration?

Friday, November 15th, 2013

When it comes to ecosystem restoration, I love it when we can see the light at the end of the tunnel. It’s rare when we have a chance to say that restoration is nearing completion, since we know that habitat work continues on and on, seemingly without end, in many areas of Puget Sound.

Last summer, a massive pond was constructed off Waaga Way to capture stormwater from developments that was flowing into Steele Creek. Photo by Larry Steagall

Last summer, a massive pond was constructed off Waaga Way to capture stormwater from Central Kitsap developments flowing straight into Steele Creek. / Photo by Larry Steagall

So let us anticipate a celebration when Kitsap County’s regional stormwater projects are completed, when all the deadly ghost nets have been removed from the shallow waters of Puget Sound, and when there are no more creosote pilings left on state tidelands.

Of course, the light at the end of the tunnel may be a mirage, but let’s not go there quite yet.

Kitsap regional ponds

Kitsap County has been collecting a Surface and Stormwater Management Fee from residents in unincorporated areas and using some of that money to leverage state and federal stormwater grants. The fee is currently $73.50, but it will rise to $78 in 2014, $82 in 2015, $86.50 in 2016, $91 in 2017 and $96 in 2018. See Kitsap Sun, Nov. 27, 2012.

The good news is that the effort to retrofit old, outmoded stormwater systems is nearing completion, with remaining projects either in design or nearing the design phase. Check out the Kitsap County Public Works Capital Facilities Program for a list of completed projects with maps as well as proposed projects with maps. As the documents show, the regional retrofits are on their way to completion.

So what are the sources of future stormwater problems? The answer is roads, and the problem is enormous. Still, the county has begun to address the issue with a pilot project that could become a model for other counties throughout Puget Sound. Please read my September story, “New strategies will address road runoff” (subscription) to see how the county intends to move forward.

Ghost nets and crab pots

Earlier this year, the Legislature provided $3.5 million to complete the removal of derelict fishing gear that keeps on killing in waters less than 105 feet deep. The work is to be done before the end of 2015.

Sites where known nets are still killing fish. Map courtesy of Northwest Straits Commission

Sites where known nets are still killing fish.
Map courtesy of Northwest Straits

Phil Anderson, director of the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, was excited about the prospect. Here’s what he said in a news release.

“Working in conjunction with our partners at Northwest Straits and in the State Legislature, we have made enormous strides toward eliminating the risks posed to fish and wildlife by derelict fishing gear. This is difficult work, and it requires a real commitment from everyone to get it done. We look forward to celebrating the next milestone in 2015.”

The most amazing statistic I found on this topic involved the number of animals trapped by ghost nets. According to one predictive model, if all the nets had been left alone to keep fishing, they could be killing 3.2 million animals each year.

For additional information, read the story I wrote for last Saturday’s Kitsap Sun (subscription) or check out the Northwest Straits webpage.

Creosote pilings and docks

Washington Department of Natural Resources hasn’t slowed down in its effort to remove old creosote pilings and docks. The structures can be toxic to marine life, obstruct navigation and snag fishing gear. By 2015, the total bill for removing such debris is expected to reach $13 million.

Nobody is sure how much it will cost to remove the last of the creosote materials from state lands, but DNR officials have inventoried the various sites and expect to come up with a final priority list over the next six months. Some pilings on privately owned land may be a higher priority for the ecosystem, and officials are trying to decide how to address those sites. Of course, nobody can tackle pilings on private lands without working through the property owners.

Download a spreadsheet of the work completed so far (PDF 53 kb), which involves a focus on 40 sites throughout Puget Sound. Altogether, the projects removed about 11,000 pilings plus about 250,000 square feet of “overwater structures,” such as docks.

I mentioned work underway in Jefferson County in my story last week (subscription), and reporter Tristan Baurick mentioned a specific cleanup project at Nick’s Lagoon (subscription) in Kitsap County. You may also wish to check out the DNR’s page on Creosote Removal.


Available on Kindle

Subscribe2

Follow WaterWatching on Twitter

Food for thought

"In the end, we will conserve only what we love, we will love only what we understand, and we will understand only what we are taught."Baba Dioum, Senegalese conservationist

Archives

Categories