State health officials have reduced shellfish-closure areas
around 20 marinas in Puget Sound, allowing more commercial
shellfish harvesting while inching toward a goal of upgrading
10,800 acres of shellfish beds by 2020.
In all, 661 acres of shellfish beds were removed from a
long-standing “prohibited” classification that has been applied
around marinas, based on assumptions about the dumping of sewage
from boats confined to small areas.
Poulsbo Marina // Photo:
Nick Hoke via Wikimedia
“We have seen pretty significant changes in boat-waste
management,” said Scott Berbells, shellfish growing area manager
for the Washington Department of Health, explaining how the
upgrades came about.
New calculations of discharges from boats in marinas and the
resulting risks of eating nearby shellfish have allowed health
authorities to reduce, but not eliminate, the closure zones around
the marinas.
If you are planning to gather some shellfish to eat over Labor
Day weekend — or anytime for that matter — state health officials
urge you to follow the “three Cs” of shellfish — check, chill and
cook.
The state’s Shellfish Safety
Map shows areas open and closed to harvesting.
Map: Washington State Dept. of Health
At least 10 cases of an intestinal illness called vibriosis have
been reported this year to the Washington State Department of
Health, all resulting from people picking oysters themselves and
eating them raw or undercooked. The disease is caused by a
bacteria, Vibrio parahaemolyticus, an organism that occurs
naturally and thrives in warm temperatures.
“The shellfish industry follows special control measures during
the summer months to keep people who choose to eat raw oysters from
getting sick,” said Rick Porso, director of the Office of
Environmental Health and Safety, in a
news release. “For those who enjoy collecting and consuming
their own shellfish, it’s important that they follow a few simple
measures to stay healthy.”
The combination of warm weather, lack of rain and low tides all
contribute to the growth of bacteria in oysters growing on the
beach.
The state Department of Health uses the “three Cs” as a reminder
for recreational shellfish harvesters as well as people who gather
shellfish from their own beaches:
CHECK: Before heading to the beach, make sure
that shellfish in the area are safe to eat. The Shellfish
Safety Map, updated daily, will tell you where it is safe to
gather shellfish. At the moment, many areas are closed because of
paralytic shellfish poison produced by a type of plankton. Unlike
Vibrio, PSP cannot be destroyed by cooking.
CHILL: Gather shellfish as the tide goes out,
so they are not allowed to sit for long in the sun. Put them on ice
immediately or get them into a refrigerator.
COOK: Cooking at 145 degrees F. for at least
15 seconds should destroy Vibrio bacteria, health officials say. It
is not enough to cook them until their shells open.
Symptoms of vibriosis include diarrhea, abdominal cramps,
nausea, vomiting, headache, fever and chills. The illness usually
runs its course in two to three days. For information see
“Vibriosis” on the Department of Health’s website.
Symptoms of paralytic shellfish poisoning usually begin with
tingling of the lips and tongue, progressing to numbness in fingers
and toes followed by loss of control over arms and legs and
difficulty breathing. Nausea and vomiting may occur. PSP can be a
life-threatening condition, so victims should seek medical help
immediately. For information, see
“Paralytic shellfish poison” on the Department of Health’s
website.
Besides health advisories, the Shellfish
Safety Map mentioned above also includes the water-quality
classification, a link to shellfish seasons to determine whether a
beach is legally open along with other information,
After 43 years and some legal prodding, the United States is
preparing to use its economic and political power to protect
whales, dolphins and other marine mammals around the world.
On Monday, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
is scheduled to
publish regulations that will set up a system to ban imports of
seafood from any country that fails to control the killing of
marine mammals in its fishing industry.
Photo: Daniel Schwen,
Wikimedia Commons
To avoid a ban, foreign controls must be as effective as
standards adopted by the United States to reduce the incidental
death and injury to marine mammals in the U.S. fishing industry.
Harvesting nations that wish to continue selling fish and fish
products to U.S. markets will have five years to implement their
marine mammal protection programs, if they have not already done
so.
When it was first approved by Congress in 1972, the Marine
Mammal Protection Act included provisions that would ban imports of
fish caught in commercial fisheries where the “bycatch” of marine
mammals exceeded U.S. standards. But the law was largely ignored
until environmental groups filed a lawsuit against NOAA two years
ago. The lawsuit was eventually settled, with NOAA agreeing to
approve new rules by August of this year.
NOAA estimates that 650,000 marine mammals are killed each year
in fishing operations. Meanwhile, U.S. consumers obtain 94 percent
of their seafood from a growing import market valued at $33 billion
in 2013.
“The new regulations will force countries to meet U.S.
conservation standards if they want access to the U.S. market,
saving thousands of whales and dolphins from dying on hooks and in
fishing nets around the world,” said Sarah Uhlemann, international
program director for the Center for Biological Diversity. “The U.S.
government has finally recognized that all seafood consumed in the
United States must be ‘dolphin-safe.’”
Comments were made in a
joint news release from the Center for Biological Diversity,
the Natural Resources Defense Council and the Turtle Island
Restoration Network — the three groups that brought the
lawsuit.
Graphic:
NOAA
The new regulatory program on imports calls on NOAA Fisheries to
issue a “comparability finding” after harvesting nations
demonstrate that they have a regulatory program that meets U.S.
standards for protecting marine mammals. Each program must prohibit
the incidental killing or serious injury to marine mammals in all
fisheries, estimate numbers of marine mammals on their fishing
grounds and find ways to reduce harm if established limits are
exceeded.
Over the next year, the regulations call for NOAA Fisheries to
request information on marine mammal bycatch from countries that
export to the U.S. On a list of foreign fisheries, each fishery
will be classified either as “export” or “exempt.” Exempt fisheries
are determined to have a remote chance of killing marine mammals,
so they are not required to have a regulatory protection program.
Those fisheries likely to impact marine mammals and those lacking
information about impacts are placed in the export category. All
fisheries must prohibit intentional killing of marine mammals to
receive certification.
At the end of the five-year period, NOAA Fisheries will publish
a list of fisheries that will not receive a comparability finding
along with a list of fish banned from import. Those countries will
receive information about why they were denied certification and
are eligible to reapply at any time. Other details are outlined in
a
fact sheet from NOAA Fisheries.
The U.S. Marine Mammal Commission, a group appointed by the
president to advise the government on the Marine Mammal Protection
Act, welcomed the long-overdue regulations to protect marine
mammals throughout the world, but said the five-year implementation
period is too long. See
comments, Nov. 9, 2015. (PDF 1.4 mb):
“Inasmuch as this is an ongoing, long-standing statutory
requirement, the Commission does not see a legal basis for
deferring implementation. To the extent that any delay can be
countenanced, it should be kept to the absolute minimum necessary
to secure the required information from exporting countries.
“The Commission is concerned that the proposed delay would
result in at least another six years during which seafood could
continue to be imported into and sold in the United States, despite
unacceptably high levels of marine mammal bycatch, unbeknownst to
U.S. consumers, and during which U.S. fleets would face unfair
competition from foreign fleets with little or no accountability to
follow comparable marine mammal conservation measures.”
In 1988, while the U.S. was developing new fishing standards to
protect marine mammals, U.S. fishermen were required to report the
type of gear they were using and any incidental catch of marine
mammals, the Marine Mammal Commission noted. Fishermen also were
required to allow observers on their boats while the agency
developed stock assessments and new rules to protect various
species of marine mammals. Those kinds of interim measures should
be required of foreign fleets as well, the commission said.
Among its many comments when the rule was first proposed last
year, the commission criticized the plan for placing too much
burden on NOAA Fisheries to gather the information, rather than
requiring the importing countries to document their protections for
marine mammals.
“The Commission further recommends that the final rule clearly
specify that nations be issued a CF only if they meet the U.S.
standards, rather than be issued a CF unless it is shown that they
do not meet the applicable requirements.”
As far as I can tell, the final rule failed to incorporate most
of the commission’s suggestions. Still, using the economic and
political power of the U.S. to protect marine mammals around the
world is a considerable leap.
While the new regulations are expected to level the playing
field for U.S. fishermen who must comply with marine mammal
protections, we have yet to see the full response from other
countries. At some point, a ban on U.S. imports is likely to
trigger a challenge based on existing international trade
agreements. I haven’t seen much written about the legal
implications of the new marine-mammal-protection rules, but we have
seen what can happen. Review the article by Mark J. Robertson about
“dolphin-safe” tuna rules in a report for the
International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development.
A highly informative map, just released by state shellfish
officials, can show you at a glance where it is safe to harvest
shellfish in Western Washington.
Besides pointing out the locations of public beaches where
recreational harvesters may safely gather clams and oysters, the
new
map provides links to information about the approved
seasons and limits, with photographs of each beach. One can choose
“map” or “satellite” views, as well as enhanced images to simplify
the search.
If you wish, you can track down locations by searching for the
name of a beach, nearby landmarks or the address. You can obtain
the latest information about entire shorelines as well as specific
beaches.
The map was created by the Office of Shellfish and Water
Protection, a division within the Washington State Department of
Health.
Jim Zimny, recreational shellfish specialist at Kitsap Public
Health District, said he expects the map to be updated immediately
when new health advisories are issued.
“It’s a great resource, very easy to use,” Jim said.
Jim works with state shellfish officials to collect shellfish
samples and report results, including findings of paralytic
shellfish poison, a biotoxin. Closures are announced when high
levels of PSP or dangerous bacteria are found. Hood Canal, for
example, is covered with the letter “V,” meaning one should cook
shellfish thoroughly to kill Vibrio bacteria, which can lead to
intestinal illness.
Since I generally write the geographic descriptions of shellfish
closure areas, I can assure you that looking at a map will be a
better way to see what is going on.
A news release about the new map points out that
the risk of eating shellfish increases in summer. That’s why it
especially important in summer to follow the three C’s of shellfish
safety: “check, chill and cook.”
Those three C’s refer to checking the map for health closures
and looking on the beach for warning signs; chilling the shellfish
to avoid a buildup of bacteria; and cooking to 145 degrees to kill
pathogens. (Cooking does not destroy PSP and other biotoxins, so
it’s important to avoid closed areas.)
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
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.”
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.
I was looking about for some jokes and stories involving
shellfish, mainly about clams and oysters with maybe a few quips
about mussels. All I could find was either too raunchy, too
childish or just plain lame.
What I did discover on YouTube, however, is that clam chowder is
funnier than clams, and oyster stew is funnier than oysters.
First, in the video player at right, is “The Clam Chowder Song”
by Thessaly Lerner, whose comedy is all over the place, including a
series of bits she calls Ukulady, geared mainly for
kids.
A classic seafood battle is Curly’s skirmish with the oyster in
a Three Stooges comedy that I remember from years ago. I was happy
to find it posted on YouTube with context from the story. If you
want to skip directly to the oyster part, you’ll find it at
1:45.
While not about oyster stew, I found a poster I want to share
for the oddity of it all (below). The poster is one of three used
in an ad campaign to raise awareness about the plight of the
homeless. The campaign, launched by the German magazine “Biss,”
shows one person inside the shell of a snail, another inside the
shell of a turtle and a third inside the shell of an oyster a clam. Below each
image are the words, “Nature doesn’t provide everyone with a home.”
See
AdPunch for details.
Although I wasn’t able to locate enough worthy shellfish jokes
to share, you may find some amusement in previous “Amusing Monday”
postings about shellfish:
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.
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.
This will be my last update on this year’s Fraser River sockeye
run, as the run has begun to tail off and increases in the
estimates have been slight the past two weeks.
Latest numbers
from the Fraser River Panel (PDF 28 kb): Early-summer-run
sockeye, 3.8 million; summer-run, 5.2 million; and late-run 25.4
million. The late-run is now more than three times higher than the
preseason prediction, and the total runsize estimate now stands at
34.5 million.
Please read the rest of this blog entry for how this situation
developed.
—–
The entire Fraser River run is now estimated at 34 million, the
highest run size since 1913, when experts estimated the run to
total about 39 million. The late-run Shuswap/Weaver sockeye, which
are in their dominant year, are now three times the preseason
estimate.
—– UPDATE; Friday, Aug. 27
The entire Fraser River run is now estimated at 30 million, the
highest run size since 1913, when experts estimated the run to
total about 39 million.
—–
The total run of Fraser River sockeye is now predicted to be 25
million fish, which compares to 1.9 million total for last year.
This year’s run is the largest since 1913, according to the news
release.
By the way, Seattle Times reporter Hal Bernton does a nice
job reporting on the personal and economic effects of the big
sockeye run.
—–
UPDATE: Friday, Aug. 20
The Fraser River Panel today released new runsize estimates for
sockeye. See news release (PDF 198 kb). The latest numbers
have increased from 2.6 million to 2.9 million for early-summer-run
sockeye; from 3.3 million to 4.0 million for summer-run; and from 8
million to 12.1 million for late-run. We are now seeing predictions
that far exceed preseason estimates.
—–
When it comes to Fraser River sockeye, a single year can make
all the difference in the world.
Lummi tribal fishermen use
a purse seine to catch Fraser River sockeye salmon in the San Juan
Islands.
Photo courtesy of Northwest Indian Fisheries
Commission
Last year at this time, I commented in
Water Ways about the mystery of the missing Fraser River
sockeye and the economic disaster wrought by the abysmally poor
runs. Preseason forecasts of 10 million sockeye washed out with a
return around 1.9 million.
This year, all kinds of fishermen seem overwhelmed with
excitement as large sockeye runs return to the Fraser, the longest
river in British Columbia.
Kelly Sinoski, a reporter for the
Vancouver Sun, described how fishermen were laughing with joy.
She quoted Julius Boudreau, a commercial fisherman in Port
McNeill:
“It’s out of the ordinary. The catches have been way more than
the quota. It’s crazy. We’re seeing thousands and thousands of
fish.”
I placed a call to Tim Tynan of the National Marine Fisheries
Service, who works with the Pacific Salmon Commission as the U.S.
representative on the Fraser Panel. He reminded me that we are
seeing the Adams-dominant cycle this year, a typically strong
return that comes around every four years and is associated with
Adams River and Lake Shuswap, which is located in the middle of the
Fraser River watershed near Kamloops. Continue reading →
Last week, I reported that the Purse Seine Vessel Owners
Association has come forward with $158,000 a year to maintain the
operation of the McKernan Hatchery near Shelton.
The hatchery, which produces 40 percent of the chum salmon in
Hood Canal, was scheduled to close July 1 unless a private entity
stepped up to run it. Three groups offered proposals, and the
arrangement will allow state hatchery workers to keep doing their
regular jobs. See my story in
Friday’s Kitsap Sun for details.
Two questions came up in comments at the bottom of the story:
Why doesn’t the state rear coho, chinook or other more valuable
fish at McKernan? And why does the state continue to allow these
kinds of production hatcheries to continue, considering impacts on
wild salmon? Continue reading →
I’ve been in a mild state of shock since I first heard about the
oil well blowout in the Gulf of Mexico. I can’t begin to imagine
the devastation that will take place once this oil starts washing
ashore tonight in the fragile salt marshes along the Louisiana
Coast.
When I think about the prospect of a ship or oil tanker crashing
in Puget Sound, I consider the oiled birds that die, along with
affected seals and potentially killer whales. I think of the food
web being poisoned. As horrible as that would be, we are talking
about a finite amount of oil — because a ship or tanker can hold
only so much.
On the other hand, the best experts working in the Gulf of
Mexico can’t seem to stop the oil coming out of the seabed, 5,000
feet down. Now officials are saying the spill could be 200,000
gallons a day or more.
How long will the spill continue? That depends on the success of
several options for shut-off, from valves that aren’t working right
now to a domelike device to trap the oil, to a new shaft drilled
down to intercept the old one. It could take months to shut off the
oil.
Yesterday,
Times-Picayune reporter Bob Marshall wrote of the more than 400
species of animals — including dozens of threatened and endangered
species — that could be injured or killed by oil before this event
is over.
The area under threat produces the largest total seafood
landings in the lower 48 states, including 50 percent of the
nation’s wild shrimp crop, 35 percent of its blue claw crabs and 40
percent of its oysters.
Oil Spill Video: Reporters explain status
Marshall quoted Melanie Driscoll of Audubon, bird conservation
director for the Louisiana Coastal Initiative, who was clearly
worried: “This is a really important time for so many species in
this ecosystem, because they’ve just begun spawning and
nesting.”
Marshall along with reporter Chris Kirkham of the New Orleans
newspaper did a great job explaining the latest information on
video. Check out the video player, above right, in which they
interview each other.
As the spill continues and oil gets closer and closer to shore,
a sense of dread is coming over everyone who understands what oil
can do to birds and wildlife. This disaster could eclipse the
devastation of the Exxon Valdez in Prince William Sound,
Alaska.
“It is of grave concern,” David Kennedy of the National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration, told
The Associated Press. “I am frightened. This is a very, very
big thing. And the efforts that are going to be required to do
anything about it, especially if it continues on, are just
mind-boggling.”
Maybe it’s too soon to talk about politics, what with 11 people
dead and an environmental disaster looming, but I can’t escape the
fact that a month ago President Obama called for a renewal of
offshore oil drilling.
“By responsibly expanding conventional energy development and
exploration here at home we can strengthen our energy security,
create jobs, and help rebuild our economy. Our strategy calls for
developing new areas offshore, exploring frontier areas, and
protecting places that are too special to drill. By providing order
and certainty to offshore exploration and development and ensuring
we are drilling in the right ways and the right places, we are
opening a new chapter for balanced and responsible oil and gas
development here at home.”
Today, White House officials are saying the oil spill in the
Gulf could change their energy policy. According to a report from
Patricia Zengerle of Reuters,
this is what spokesman Robert Gibbs said about Obama’s views given
the Gulf disaster.
“Could that possibly change his viewpoint? Well, of course. I
think our focus right now is: one, the area, the spill; and two,
also to ultimately determine the cause of it and see the impact
that that ultimately may or may not have.”
And from Carol Browner, Obama’s policy adviser for energy and
climate:
“Obviously this will become, I think, part of the debate; that
goes without saying. But I don’t think it means that we can’t get
the kind of important energy legislation that we need.”
Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.), urged people to keep the spill in
perspective, according to a story by Greenwire reporter Mike
Soragham in the
New York Times:
“I hope it (the crisis) will not be used inappropriately. We
cannot stop energy production in this country because of this
incident. If we push exploration off our shores … but force other
people to produce it, they will be in regimes and places where
there aren’t these kinds of equipment, technology, laws and
rules.”
