Washington departments of Ecology and Agriculture are reissuing a warning that first came out in March of 2008 regarding metal canisters washing up on ocean beaches.

Canisters found on ocean beaches may contain dangerous aluminum phosphide.
Department of Ecology photo

The canisters are the type that often contain aluminum phosphide, a chemical that turns into poisonous phospine gas when exposed to moisture. This gas is commonly used to kill insects and other pests on cargo ships.

The problem comes about if someone finds one of these canisters with the lid still on. If the person then opens the canister, he or she may breathe the residual phosphine gas.

I’m not sure anyone can predict potential exposures, because it would depend on the amount of aluminum phosphide or phosphine in the canister. But I found the following info in medical management guidelines issued by the federal Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry:

“Phosphine is a respiratory tract irritant that attacks primarily the cardiovascular and respiratory systems causing peripheral vascular collapse, cardiac arrest and failure, and pulmonary edema.”

In other words, this stuff is nothing to mess around with. Lots of folks walk the ocean beaches in winter. If you find a canister like this, keep the lid on and alert authorities.

“We asked the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to develop a model that would give us a better idea where these canisters might be coming from,” said Dale Jensen, Ecology’s spills program manager in a news release. “The results strongly indicate the likely source is the cargo ships exporting bulk grain to Pacific Rim nations. These ships are loading grain at terminals on the Columbia River as well as Grays Harbor, Puget Sound and British Columbia.”

Cliff Weed, manager of pesticide compliance for the Washington State Department of Agriculture, added, “Our goal is to raise awareness that these canisters must be properly handled and disposed of – whether the vessel is outbound from a Washington port or a foreign ship inbound with cargo. This will help ensure the canisters stay out of our waters, off our beaches and protect the public.

For information, check Ecology’s Web page on the aluminum phosphide.

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post 

After 74 days, salvage crews finally stopped the flow of crude from a leaking oil well about 150 miles off the coast of Australia.

The spill, which hasn’t gotten much attention in our part of the world, appears to be roughly the size of the Exxon Valdez spill, according to estimates. The good thing is that the oil has not hit land, and Australian officials are doing their best to make sure that it doesn’t. Crews are using chemical dispersants and oil-collection equipment.

A fire that started on the oil rig Sunday also was extinguished.

Even though the oil has not hit shore, environmental officials are concerned about the number of marine mammals and sea birds affected by the oil.

“We still have a toxic cocktail created by the thousands of barrels of oil and condensate that have been pouring into the sea, along with the thousands of litres of dispersant,” said Gilly Llewellyn, conservation director for World Wildlife Fund – Australia. “All of this in one of the world’s most intact tropical marine ecosystems.”

Mike Bossley, the managing director for the Australasian office of the Whale and Dolphin Conservation Society expressed concern for the longterm and chronic effects on marine life in the area of the spill, where four species of whales and dolphins and 28 species of birds were spotted in recent days.

To read more, check out these stories:

The Australian: Timor Sea oil leak stopped at last
ABC News (with video): Oil Impact May Last Seven Years
Asia Sentinal: Timor Oil Well Fire Snuffed Out
WA Today: ‘We know what caused oil spill’
Antara News: Australia Limits Montara oil spill`s effects

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post 

“Salish Sea” is now the official name for our inland waterway that stretches across more than 1,400 square miles of Western Washington and British Columbia. See my story in today’s Kitsap Sun.

Salish Sea watershed
EPA graphic

The question now is whether the name will catch on and be used more frequently.

One application that comes to mind is the description of the three pods of killer whales known as Southern Residents. I’ve often referred to these animals as the orcas that frequent Puget Sound. That’s because “Southern Residents” have little meaning to the average reader, who wishes to know why they are “southern” and what I mean by “residents.”

It so happens that the Salish Sea just about defines the range of these whales for a large percentage of the year.

Now I may refer to them as the killer whales that frequent or mainly reside in the Salish Sea — including much of the summer in the San Juan Islands, with winter and fall stints into Puget Sound.

I’m not sure how else I will use this term, but I no longer feel constrained by the idea that the Salish Sea is not a real name and has never been defined by any authority.

Here are some facts about the Salish Sea provided by the SeaDoc Society. (I’ve converted meters to feet and kilometers to miles.)

• Coastline length, including islands: 4,642 miles
• Total number of islands: 419
• Total land area of islands: 1,413 square miles
• Sea surface area: 9,942 square miles
• Maximum depth: 886 feet
• Number of different marine animals species estimated: 20 species of mammals, 128 species of birds, 219 species of fish, and over 3000 species of invertebrates
• Number of species listed as threatened, endangered or are candidates for listing: 64
• Total watershed area, not counting the upper Fraser River area (See Stefan Freelan): 42,000 square miles

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post 

What do we really know about the Humboldt squid?

I’ve seen a variety of news stories marveling about the sudden appearance of these jumbo squid off the Washington Coast and Strait of Juan de Fuca. But what surprised me, as I talked to researchers and gathered information, was the lack of solid data about these mysterious creatures. Please check out my story in today’s Kitsap Sun.

We’ll probably see a growing level of research commensurate with the growing numbers of squid. I think any biologist, or most layman for that matter, feel a natural curiosity for this highly energetic animal that is so different from the marine species we are used to seeing in Washington waters.

If nothing else, you’ve got to wonder how a species closely related to shellfish can grow to 100 pounds within two or three years. And you’ve got to question whether these squid might do serious damage to the local ecosystem before their prey runs out.

An interesting radio program, recorded three years ago, features two of the leading West Coast researchers in squid science, William Gilly of Hopkins Marine Station at Stanford University and Ken Baltz of NOAA Fisheries. Jennifer Stock, education coordinator for Cordell Bank National Marine Sanctuary, conducted the interview for KWMR community radio in Point Reyes Station, Calif.

The Humboldt squid has been in Washington waters before. Some showed up last year, though greater numbers were seen in 2004. Since they only live two or three years, we are bound to see a good number of them washing up on shore when thousands have been swimming offshore.

I almost forgot to mention that Kitsap Sun reporter Chris Henry and her husband Mike had a personal encounter with a squid in the Strait of Juan de Fuca. Check out the story on her blog Speaking of South Kitsap.

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post 

I’d like to offer my personal congratulations to Phil Anderson, who was appointed yesterday as the permanent director of the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife.

Phil Anderson

Phil has been acting as interim director since Jeff Koenings left the job in December.

I’ve known Phil since about 1992, when I began covering the annual meetings of the Pacific Fishery Management Council, which establishes fishing seasons for the Pacific Northwest.

Phil had been running a commercial charterboat business out of Westport and was very knowledgeable about harvest levels and the need to protect salmon. I believe he was chairman of the PFMC when I first met him.

In 1994, he took a job with WDFW and led the annual negotiations that establish allocations between tribal and nontribal fishers, as well as among various non-Indian fishing groups.

I recall numerous times when he stood in front of tough fishing groups and skeptical tribal representatives and explained calmly how answers would come if people followed the science and kept working together.

Phil has always been willing to explain complex management issues to me, and I’m grateful for that.

Even when he finds himself under fire — as he did recently in dealing with the proposed Lake Tahuyeh boat launch and human waste on the Skokomish River — Anderson does not shy away from tough questions and takes responsibility for departmental actions. It’s a pleasure to interview leaders like that.

So I wish him well in his new job, which seems to be one of the hottest seats in state government. Pleasing all the fish and wildlife interests and the Legislature is impossible, almost by definition, but Phil has a rare quality of juggling many concerns at once and trying to come up with fair solutions.

For more details about his background, comments from the Fish and Wildlife Commission and job issues, check out the commission’s news release. See also a story today by Jeffrey P. Mayor in The News Tribune.

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post 

If you haven’t heard, the famous Fraser River sockeye run in southern British Columbia is turning out to be a disaster this year.

The low run has implications for all kinds of fishermen on both sides of the border.

I asked Tim Tynan of the National Marine Fisheries Service about this. It truly is bad, said Tim, who works with the Pacific Salmon Commission as the U.S. representative on the Fraser Panel. That international panel manages the U.S. and Canadian fisheries for sockeye and pink salmon.

Conditions were looking good early in the year, when the PSC staff forecast 10.5 million sockeye for the entire Fraser River run. Of that, about 8.7 million was expected to come from the “summer run.”

Based on current conditions, the estimate last week was reduced to only 600,000 for the summer run, which has put fisheries on hold.

It is quite a mystery why this has happened. Numbers were looking very good up until the young smolts took off into ocean waters in the spring and summer of 2007. After that, something happened, because the expected number of adults resulting from those smolts has yet to show up. Check out the latest PSC press release.

According to Tim, there remains a slim hope that some of these missing fish will still show up, since a large number of their parents came into the river two to three weeks late during the summer of 2005. But it takes a cockeyed optimist to believe that returns yet to come will turn around the disastrous year we are having.

From recent news reports:

“There’s going to be no fishery unless there’s a miracle, unless they’re real, real late.” — Merle Jefferson, natural resources director for Lummi Nation, in a story by John Stark of the Bellingham Herald.

“You know what, we’ve made Mother Nature sick and that sickness is manifesting itself in these poor returns of salmon. It’s a crisis.” — Grand Chief Doug Kelly, chair of the B.C. First Nations Fisheries Council, in a story by Mark Hume of the Toronto Globe and Mail.

Look for problems affecting juvenile sockeye in the Strait of Georgia, where the young fish spend the early, critical part of their lives. “The place to start looking is close to home.” — Brian Riddell, executive director of the Pacific Salmon Foundation, in a story by Scott Simpson of the Vancouver Sun

“The elders have been telling me for a long time that over-fishing while the sockeye are at sea and are mixed in with other species being caught is gradually extracting the genetically stronger fish among the sockeye from the returning runs, and this has been happening for the past 100 years.” — Sto:lo fisheries adviser Ernie Crey in a column by Brian Lewis in The Province
(more…)

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post 

A widely publicized story last week about over-fishing focused on how two research advocates worked together on a study that concluded how fisheries could be made ecologically sustainable.

Boris Worm, a Canadian marine ecologist, previously took the position that commercial fisheries were likely to be wiped out in 40 years.

Ray Hilborn, a University of Washington biologist, called such conclusions nonsense, because he knew of fisheries that were doing quite well.

The two ended up debating each other together on National Public Radio and then decided to work together on a paper examining abundance of fish stocks. The paper, published last week in the journal Science, listed 21 authors.

Sandi Doughton of the Seattle Times does a nice job explaining the outcome of the study, as does Cornelia Dean of the New York Times and Richard Harris of NPR’s All Things Considered.

But it seems to me that, despite the collaboration, the result was that Hilborn was generally right when he criticized Worm’s position. Worm now seems to support the sustainable fisheries measures that Hilborn has promoted. (Review a video of a Hilborn lecture from May of 2006.)

The study is important because it calls for a new approach to fisheries management in place of the “maximum sustained yield” formulas that traditionally drove fishing levels. In truth, fisheries managers have been shifting their thinking for years.

To obtain maximum sustained yields, commercial fishers are allowed to increase the exploitation (harvest) rates to levels not generally good for optimum ecological function. In other words, removing large proportions of a target species may disrupt the natural predator-prey balance.

According to Hilborn, one can better protect natural systems and still have a “pretty good” harvest by settling for an exploitation rate lower than demanded by maximum sustained yield.

The next challenge will be to develop methods to calculate the proper balance between ecological function and harvests to feed the world.

The key message coming out of this new study is to actually look at how ecosystems are functioning — not just the success of the fisheries themselves.

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post 

The Navy has decided not to conduct training exercises involving sonar within Puget Sound. That information was revealed in a proposed incidental take permit for the Northwest Training Range Complex, now subject to public review under the Marine Mammal Protection Act. See my story in today’s Kitsap Sun.

While this decision no doubt will be a good thing for area marine mammal populations, I’m still a bit confused about the extent to which sonar may be used in non-training conditions.

Use of sonar in the testing of equipment and new technologies will come under a separate take permit for the Naval Undersea Warfare Center, based at Keyport.

But, according to a statement I received from the Navy, that still leaves open the use of sonar for “safety and navigation,” “testing,” and “maintenance.”

As I understand the process, if the Navy were to harm marine mammals in one of these procedures without obtaining a take permit in advance, the Navy would be in violation of the Marine Mammal Protection Act.

The potential exists for such harm, given the experience earlier this year with the fast-attack submarine USS San Francisco. The submarine was found to be using sonar, which was picked up loudly on hydrophones miles away. The submarine was in the Strait of Juan de Fuca after it left Bremerton after undergoing repairs.

It appears there were no killer whales in the area. But nobody could be sure about other marine mammals, since it was dark during much of the time the sonar was being used.

To keep things in perspective, the Navy has made progress in its effort to come into compliance with the Marine Mammal Protection Act. While there may always be disagreement about the level of protection necessary, the Navy is explaining its operations more and working cooperatively with other agencies to reduce the harm to wildlife.

It turns out that the proposed incidental take permit for the Northwest Training Range (PDF 1.3 mb) serves as a nice primer to help us understand Navy exercises, sonar technology, types of sonar and their specific uses, potential effects on marine mammals and the history of Navy exercises where marine mammals have been killed.

Similarly, a proposed permit for the Naval Undersea Warfare Center (PDF 1.1 mb) offers extensive information about the use of sonar in testing advanced equipment and related activities.

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post 

The average ocean surface temperature across the globe in June was the highest ever on record for that month, according to preliminary findings by the National Climatic Data Center, an office of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

Combining the global land and sea temperatures, June 2009 recorded the second-highest temperature for the month going back to about 1880. The highest combined temperature on record for June came in 2005.

Terrestrial warmth was most notable in Africa, the agency reports. Considerable warmth also occurred in Siberia and in the lands around the Black and Mediterranean Seas. Cooler-than-average land locations included the U.S. Northern Plains, the Canadian Prairie Provinces, and central Asia.

For the U.S. as a whole, June temperatures and precipitation were near their normal average. Regionally, the South, Southeast and parts of the Northwest recorded above-average temperatures, while the Northeast and areas in the Southwest and North Central regions were below average.

Review the climate data for June, including regional information provided by NOAA’s regional climate centers.

If you have time, check out the many pages of The Climate of 2009. I have spent hours reviewing the data, trying to find patterns to help me understand how climate is changing by the numbers. I’ve not discovered anything new on my own, but it is interesting to see the data laid out in many different ways.

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post 

Ocean acidification off the U.S. Pacific Coast is likely to get increased attention and research dollars with Jane Lubchenco heading the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

Lubchenco, a marine ecologist from Oregon State University, has served as president of the American Association for the Advancement of Science and is well grounded in basic research.

In an interview with Yale Environment 360, Lubchenco discusses some of her priorities, including how NOAA is addressing climate change, along with a report released by her agency in June called “Global Climate Change Impacts in the United States.”

While I was disappointed that the climate report did not include more about the growing concerns related to chemical changes off the coasts of Washington and Oregon, Lubchenco stated clearly in this interview that she believes more research is needed regarding ocean acidification:

“The oceans are indeed becoming more acidic, as a result of absorbing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, and that acidity represents a very real threat to much of the life in oceans, ranging from the smallest microscopic plants, to coral reefs, to things that form shells — mussels, oysters, clams — but even things like lobsters and crabs.

“We’ve only begun to scratch the surface in terms of really understanding the full range of the impacts of ocean acidification, and it also affects physiology, not just the making of shells and skeletons.”

Specifically about the Pacific Northwest:

“NOAA has been in the forefront in the research on ocean acidification, and is working in close collaboration with the leading academics on this issue. And we have identified the urgent need to have more instruments in the water tracking and measuring the changes that are underway, so we can better understand the dynamics. And, as you point out, along the West Coast where there is upwelling, there appears to be an area that is already significantly affected, and we’re seeing much greater changes than I think anyone anticipated.

“They’re seeing very low pH levels and the other chemistry that goes along with that, it’s not simply a matter of pH. There are other chemical changes in the ocean water that affect plants and animals, and the rate at which they can make shells, or the rate at which shells are dissolved.

“I just learned today of some very interesting work being done by NOAA and some academic scientists looking at some deep-sea volcanoes in the western Pacific where there is carbon dioxide that is bubbling up from beneath the ocean, and likely causing lower pH in the immediate vicinity of the areas where the bubbles are emerging. And so there are places where it is possible to investigate the consequences of lower pH on the immediate biota in the area. But setting that aside, I think there is great urgency in significantly ramping up research monitoring and research programs on ocean acidification.”

I believe you may find the entire interview worth reading. As an environmental reporter, I think it will be important to follow how research dollars will be spent in the Northwest to investigate these potential life-and-death changes.

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post