All posts by Christopher Dunagan

Are we at a crossroads in the green crab invasion on Dungeness Spit?

State biologists are holding out hope that the European green crab invasion at Dungeness Spit can be contained. We may now be going through a critical period, which could result in a permanent infestation or possibly the final throws of the invasion.

Green crabs, an invasive species known to displace native species and cause economic devastation to shellfish growers, were first discovered on April 12 in a marshy area on Graveyard Spit, which juts off from the larger Dungeness Spit in the Strait of Juan de Fuca.

The total number of green crabs caught in an ongoing intensive trapping program has reached 76. The weekly numbers have been declining, as shown in a chart on this page. That could be a good sign, but biologists are quite reserved in their predictions.

“The numbers are tapering off,” said Allen Pleus, coordinator of the state’s Aquatic Invasive Species Program, “but in my view the numbers are still too high. Eradication would take several weeks of zero. At this point, our main objective is to bring down the population to a point where spawning would not be successful.”

So far, all of the crabs caught are young and small — about 1 to 2.5 inches across their backs. This means that they have not been in the area for long, probably arriving on last year’s currents in the Strait of Juan de Fuca.

Another good sign is that no other crabs have been caught elsewhere along the Strait, although officials acknowledge that they would like to deploy more traps to capture any early invaders. Also, I am happy to report that no new crabs have been captured this year in Padilla Bay or on San Juan Island, where the state’s first confirmed green crab invasion took place last year. See Water Ways, Sept. 24, 2016.

The decline in captures at Dungeness Spit may be a sign that some of the crabs have entered their reproductive phase, a period when they don’t eat and so are not attracted to the baited traps. Males and females get together to mate after molting, a phase of development in which they shed their exoskeletons. The trapping effort has reduced the crab numbers and made it more difficult for reproductive males and females to find each other, but each female can produce hundreds of thousands of eggs — so even one successful mating could expand the invasion.

This small male crab is one of the 76 European green crabs caught in traps at Dungeness Spit. // Photo: Allen Pleus

Because the baited traps may not work at this time, officials are experimenting with substrate traps, which are pieces of plastic pipe ranging in size from a half-inch to 2 inches, Allen told me. Young crabs may seek shelter in the tubes. So far, no crabs have been captured that way.

Another idea yet to be tried is baiting traps with pheromones, which are sexual attractants that lure crabs looking for a mate. Allen said he also would like to experiment with electrical stimulation, in which an electrical current is discharged in the muddy substrate to drive crabs out of their burrows. With proper control, no permanent harm comes to them or other creatures in the vicinity, Allen said.

When it comes to controlling future crab invasions in Puget Sound, experts would like to know where the crab larvae are coming from. The leading suspect is a population of green crabs that appear to have settled into Sooke Inlet, just west of Victoria on Vancouver Island in Canada. It is also possible that the larvae drifted in from coastal waters in British Columbia, Washington or even Oregon or California. Experts hope that genetic tests of green crabs from the various locations can be used to identify where the crabs on Dungeness Spit originated.

Emily Grason of Washington Sea Grant coordinates a group of volunteers who monitor traps placed throughout Puget Sound with a goal of stopping the next invasion.

“The presence of green crab in Dungeness Bay, though unfortunate, offers a unique opportunity to test how effective the EDRR (Early Detection-Rapid Response) model is for intervening in a potential green crab invasion,” Emily wrote yesterday in a blog post on the Crab Team website.

“Generally speaking, invasive species are rarely noticed in a new spot until they have already become too abundant to eradicate,” she said. “Though 76 crabs at Dungeness Spit is more than we would ever like to see, the population hasn’t yet reached the numbers that are seen in areas of greatest infestation. And they are, as far as we know, still confined to a relatively small location….

“Preventing and managing biological invasions is similar to planning for a wild fire season: The best thing to do is prevent either invasions or wildfires from taking hold in the first place, but we know that some will occur despite our best efforts. It’s difficult to forecast exactly where, when or how severe they will be when they do pop up, and yet it’s imperative to respond quickly and aggressively as soon as they are detected.”

Emily added that we are fortunate in this area to have the tremendous support of volunteers, partners and beachgoers, all involved in the effort to prevent a permanent invasion of green crabs. Staff and volunteers at the Dungeness National Wildlife Refuge have been instrumental in placing and tending the traps placed in that area.

A trick question: Can you locate Anderson Creek?

Let’s talk about Anderson Creek in Kitsap County. Where exactly is that stream?

If you were to say that Anderson Creek is a stream that spills into Hood Canal near Holly, you would be right.

Artist rendering of future bridge on Seabeck-Holly Road. // Photo: Kitsap County

If you are thinking of another Hood Canal stream — the one that you cross north of Seabeck while traveling on Anderson Hill Road — that would be right, too.

And nobody could complain if you believe that Anderson Creek is the name of the stream that flows into Sinclair Inlet near Gorst.

Officially, they are all Anderson Creek, according to the Geographic Names Information System, the official database of true names. GNIS is maintained by the U.S. Geological Survey.

I discovered the existence of three Anderson Creeks in Kitsap County as I sat down to blog about a new bridge project being planned on Seabeck-Holly Road north of Holly — over a stream I have always called Big Anderson Creek.

These are the opening lines of the county’s announcement about the bridge work: “Kitsap County Public Works begins construction of a new bridge on Seabeck-Holly Road at the Anderson Creek crossing beginning July 18, 2017.”

I immediately thought that someone in Public Works must have accidentally shortened the name from Big Anderson Creek to Anderson Creek, but I guess I was wrong. I mean, doesn’t everyone call it Big Anderson Creek?

I conducted an online search for “Big Anderson Creek” in Kitsap. Many reliable sources have been calling it Big Anderson Creek in dozens of documents for at least several decades. To name a few of the agencies using the “wrong” name:

  • Hood Canal Coordinating Council in its “Summer Chum Salmon Recovery Plan,”
  • Kitsap Public Health District in its annual “Water Quality Monitoring Report,”
  • Kitsap Public Utility District in its water supply assessment,
  • Kitsap County Department of Emergency Management in its multi-hazard-mitigation plan,
  • Washington Department of Ecology in its inventory of stream-monitoring programs,
  • Point No Point Treaty Council in its nearshore habitat assessment for Hood Canal,
  • Hood Canal Salmon Enhancement Group in its annual report of restoration projects,
  • The Trust for Public Land in its “Assessment for Freshwater Habitat for Puget Sound Salmon,”
  • And, last but not least, Big Anderson Creek is the name used by Kitsap County Public Works in its stream-monitoring program.

Little Anderson Creek, the one farther north, is in the same boat as Big Anderson Creek. A lot of people use the descriptive “Big” and “Little” when talking about the two streams, but officially they are wrong, according to my assessment.

Ed Smith, Public Works project manager for the bridge construction, told me that he will keep calling it “Anderson Creek.” That’s the official name on the maps that he uses. It is also the name listed on the “hydraulic project approval” issued by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife to authorize construction.

Through the years, I’ve written quite a lot about confusing and conflicting names, but I never had a clue about the discrepancy involving Big and Little Anderson creeks. If someone reading this has the time and dedication to officially change the names of these two streams, I don’t think anyone would object. The process begins with an application to the Washington State Committee on Geographic Names. The committee’s coordinator, Caleb Maki, can help people work their way through the process. Please let me know if you tackle this project.

Meanwhile, I will continue using the popular nomenclature of Big and Little Anderson creeks.

As for the new bridge over Big Anderson Creek, a 50-foot concrete structure will replace the aging 29-foot timber bridge built in 1950. The opening for the stream will increase from about 28 feet to about 45 feet, Smith said. That will give the stream slightly more room to shift around during heavy flows.

Work will begin July 18 and wrap up around December, according to the schedule. Seabeck-Holly Road, the main route to and from Holly, will be reduced to one lane during the construction.

The $1.67-million construction project will be carried out by Pacific Pile and Marine of Seattle. An artist’s rendering of the completed structure and other information can be seen on the Kitsap County website titled “Seabeck-Holly Road Bridge #20 at Anderson Creek.”

Amusing Monday: Underwater mysteries of the national parks

Mysterious underwater areas can be found in numerous national parks and national monuments throughout the United States. The National Park Service operates a special division, the Submerged Resources Center, to explore some of the mysteries.

To share its underwater exploration and preservation efforts, the Park Service has created seven films in partnership with CuriosityStream, a documentary production and distribution company. Though longer than most videos featured in “Amusing Monday,” I believe the science and history revealed in these fascinating films are well worth the time.

The Submerged Resources Center, which has been in existence more than 30 years, has been recognized as a leader in documenting, interpreting and preserving underwater resources. As you will see in the films, the research teams use some of the most advanced underwater technologies. Their mission is to support the National Park Service’s preservation mandate and to enhance public appreciation, access and protection of these resources. Areas of focus include archeology, marine survey, underwater imaging and diving.

I have embedded three videos on this page, but I’m providing the full list here, with links, also accessible on the National Park Service’s website called “Underwater Wonders of the National Parks.”

Devil’s Hole: This unique underwater cave can be found in Death Valley National Park on the border between California and Nevada northwest of Las Vegas. The film features a unique species of fish called the pupfish, which are among the most endangered species in the world. Assessing and protecting these fish is a major responsibility of the Park Service. Another good story with photos and video was featured in The Desert Sun newspaper of Palm Springs, Calif.

Montezuma Well: Swirling sands at the bottom of this lake create spooky conditions for divers who cannot find the bottom and often find themselves sucked into a kind of quicksand. The “well” can be found within Montezuma Castle National Monument south of Flagstaff, Ariz. Few creatures can survive in the waters rich in carbon dioxide and arsenic and fed by pressurized water vents. But divers are monitoring the populations and interactions among four species found there: diatoms, amphipods, snails, non-blood-sucking leaches and water scorpions.

USS Arizona, Part 1: The USS Arizona, which sank during the attack on Pearl Harbor, is a national memorial to the 1,177 sailors who went down with the ship. The National Park Service is responsible for monitoring conditions — including sea life — in and around the Arizona.

USS Arizona, Part 2: The second video on the Arizona Memorial features more about the history of the ship and artifacts still being discovered. Divers are serious about their solemn roles. For example, World War II survivors of the attack may choose to be reunited with their shipmates, so urns with their remains are moved into a special place aboard the sunken battleship.

Yellowstone Lake: Thermal vents and impressive geothermal spires are unique to the freshwater habitat of Yellowstone Lake, which lies in the center of Yellowstone National Park in Wyoming. A major concern is the survival of the lake’s native cutthroat trout, which are being consumed by the voracious lake trout, an invasive species. Mapping the lake’s bottom to locate the lake trout’s spawning grounds is one idea to help contain the problem.

Lake Mead: The first national recreation area in the United States, Lake Mead, which is east of Las Vegas, was formed by the construction of Hoover Dam in an area known for its military secrets, including Area 51. In 1948, a B-29 bomber crashed and sank in the lake while conducting research into a new navigational concept, which eventually became incorporated into guidance missile systems. The aluminum aircraft is well preserved on the bottom of the lake, although it is now encrusted with invasive quagga mussels, which spread too fast for divers to keep track of them.

Buck Island: An amazingly productive ecosystem can be found within Buck Island Reef National Monument in the U.S. Virgin Islands of the Caribbean. Experts monitoring the reef’s conditions must experience mixed emotions, as they document the amazing sea life as well as “bleaching” of the coral reef, portions of which are dying from disease. Divers have been able to save some of the corals by chiseling away the infected areas. The National Park Service also documents the history of the slave trade as it explores for artifacts from more than 100 slave ships that sank in the Virgin Islands — including at least two near Buck Island.

Curiosity and openness distinguish new video on captive killer whales

British broadcaster Jonny Meah assumes an attitude of natural curiosity as he takes a close look at the question of whether killer whales should be kept in tanks for public display.

In a video he produced and edited, Meah visits Marineland of Antibes in the French Riviera, where he lays out the best case possible for each side of the argument. “Inside the Tanks” is Meah’s first-ever documentary production, and he is not afraid to put himself in the middle of the debate, expressing his own feelings as he weighs each side.

“I was inspired to make this documentary and tackle this debate, despite it’s enormity, because I believe one way or another something needs to be done,” Meah told the Bellingham-based Lemonade magazine. “I truly believe that, in many cases, the issue has become less about animals and more about personal hatred, whether that’s towards an organization or a particular person; that goes for both sides, too…

“I think previous pieces on the topic have been really, really interesting, but I personally felt that there was a gap, and a need in one of these pieces for a view from someone in support of captivity as well. So that is where ‘Inside The Tanks’ comes in.”

In an opinion piece written for HuffPost, Matthew Spiegl, an advocate for whales and dolphins, admires Meah’s approach at revealing his personal transformation as he goes about discovering some common ground between “activist” and “keeper.”

Spiegl also credits Jon Kershaw, zoological director at Marineland Antibes. for his openness when commenting about the realities of running a marine park.

“When Meah asks Mr. Kershaw a question about an unusual crease in the dolphins’ necks (as pointed out by biologist Ingred Visser), he acknowledges he had never thought about it being due to the dolphins always looking up at the trainers and agrees that it is the dolphin’s posture which likely causes the crease and that such a posture is not something that would be seen in the wild.”

In March 2016, SeaWorld announced that it would no longer perform captive breeding of killer whales, following an agreement with the Humane Society of the U.S. (See Water Ways, March 17, 2016). Six months later, California outlawed the captive breeding of orcas. Last month, shortly after “Inside the Tanks” was completed, the French government followed suit by banning captive breeding. (The documentary makes a footnote at the end, including a further comment from Kershaw.)

Meah says he looks forward to his first encounter with killer whales in the wild, though he is not sure when that will happen, and he hopes to continue his journalistic endeavors on the subject.

Polls show support for state action on climate change — near and far

If the U.S. government fails to take action on climate change, a majority of Americans would like their states to pick up the ball and run with it.

Some 66 percent of those participating in a national survey agreed with the statement: “If the federal government fails to address the issue of global warming, it is my state’s responsibility to address the problem.”

Question: “Please identify your level of agreement with the following statement … If the federal government fails to address the issue of global warming, it is my state’s responsibility to address the problem.” (Click to enlarge)
Graphic: University of Michigan/Muhlenberg College

Residents of Washington state appear to feel even stronger about the need for state action, according to a survey by The Nature Conservancy, which is preparing for a statewide initiative to be placed on the 2018 general election ballot.

The national survey, by two University of Michigan researchers, demonstrates growing support among Americans for action on climate change, despite very little action by Congress. The last time the question was asked, in 2013, 48 percent of respondents wanted their states to take action. The latest results show an 18-percent increase in the number of people who support state action.

This and several other polls reveal growing concerns among Americans about the negative effects of climate change on human civilization as well as the environment.

Interestingly, the national survey was taken between April 17 and May 16 — before President Trump announced that he would withdraw U.S. support for the Paris climate agreement, which includes clear targets for greenhouse gas reductions. Respondents may have been aware of Trump’s executive order in March to dismantle former President Obama’s Clean Power Plan, which aims to reduce carbon dioxide emissions from power plants.

Americans are still somewhat divided along party lines, with Democrats more supportive of state action than Republicans. But the latest national survey reveals that more Republicans may support state action than not, at least within the survey’s margin of error. The survey shows that 51 percent of Republicans believe that states should step up to climate change, compared to 34 percent four years ago.

Support among Democrats for state action went from 57 percent in 2013 to 77 percent this year.

Another survey taken after Trump was elected showed that nearly two-thirds (62 percent) of the people who voted for him support taxing or regulating greenhouse gas emissions, and nearly half (47 percent) agreed that the U.S. should support the Paris climate agreement. See “Trump Voters and Global Warming.”

I will return to the national perspective in a moment, but first some almost-breaking news from Washington state, where The Nature Conservancy on Monday filed three petitions for possible ballot measures with the Secretary of State’s Office.

All three petitions deal with possible state actions on climate change, but none of them are intended to be used for signature gathering, according to Mo McBroom, government relations director for TNC. The idea, Mo told me, is to see how the Attorney General’s Office writes the ballot titles for the three measures, which is what a voter would read on the ballot.

Polling of Washington state voters after the defeat of a carbon-tax measure in last fall’s election showed that most voters knew little about the content of Initiative 732 when they cast their ballots. Also contributing to the confusion was the ballot title itself, which mentioned taxes but failed to explain that increased taxes on fossil fuels would be offset by reduced sales and business taxes plus a tax rebate for low-income residents.

I should point out that a fair number of environmental groups voiced opposition to the measure, in part because it failed to provide money for clean-energy initiatives. And some worried that the measure would add to state budget problems. More than anything, the mixed messages probably killed the measure.

Now, all the environmental groups as well as business and government supporters are hoping to come together around a single initiative with a high likelihood of success, Mo told me. The specifics of the real initiative are still under review, she said, and one should glean nothing from the three different proposals submitted this week. Once the details are worked out, a final petition will be submitted next January.

“The most important thing is that we are looking to build the broadest base of support for solutions to climate change.,” Mo told me. “Whether it is a carbon tax or fee or a regulatory structure, it is about how we, as a society, make the investments that the public wants.” For further discussion, read Mo’s blog entry posted yesterday in Washington Nature Field Notes.

Personally, I will be watching for the transportation aspects of the coming initiative, since more than half of the greenhouse gas emissions in Washington state involve the transportation sector — and Mo acknowledged that incentives to encourage cleaner fuels will be essential.

“We want to create an approach that is technology neutral,” she said. “we’re not picking winners and losers. We are creating innovate solutions.”

The Legislature has been struggling for months with Gov. Jay Inslee’s carbon tax proposal (PDF 801 kb). If something good comes out of that process, Mo said, the initiative may not be needed. Reporter Phuong Le reported on this issue for the Associated Press.

According to polling last fall (PDF 596 kb), 81 percent of Washington voters believe climate change is happening; 62 percent believe it is caused by human activities; and 69 percent support state action to reduce carbon pollution. Support may be even higher today. The survey was conducted by FM3 Research and Moore Information for The Nature Conservancy and Vulcan.

The national survey by University of Michigan researchers this spring showed that 70 percent of Americans across the country believe that global warming is happening. Barry Rabe, one of the researchers, told me that public opinion has ebbed and flowed somewhat on this issue since these surveys were started in 2008. See the graphic below, or check out the details on the Brookings blog.

Question: From what you’ve read and heard, is there solid evidence that the average temperature on earth has been getting warmer over the past four decades?
Graphic: University of Michigan/Muhlenberg College

During the early years of former President Obama’s administration beginning around 2009, “there was a very aggressive effort by opposition groups that argued that climate change is a hoax,” Rabe said. “That probably had an impact (on people’s opinions).”

Now people seem to be returning to a stronger belief in climate change and tending to support the understanding that humans are responsible. Democrats and Republicans alike seem to feeling more urgency to take action.

“This may be a case where political figures are at variance with their base,” Rabe said, noting that most Republicans in Congress are showing no inclination to address the issue. But even in some conservative states, such as Texas and Kansas, state lawmakers are doing more than ever to address climate change, in part because of parallel economic interests involving renewable energy.

“Energy politics breaks down very differently depending on the state you are in,” Rabe said.

From a national perspective, all eyes will be on Washington state over the next year or two, as people throughout the country watch to see how people here address climate change, Rabe said. A lot of folks wondered about the rejection of the climate-change initiative in what many view as a pro-environment state, he added. People nationwide did not grasp the nuances of last fall’s vote, but they are interested in what comes next.

Gov. Jay Inslee joined with the governors of California and New York in signing onto a new U.S. Climate Alliance to help meet the goals of the Paris agreement in light of Trump’s efforts to withdraw from the pact. See Timothy Cama’s piece in The Hill.

California and New York have already passed climate-change-emissions legislation, Rave said, so people across the country are wondering how Washington plans to meet its commitment.

Mo McBroom of The Nature Conservancy said officials involved in the climate-change issue in Washington state embrace the leadership role that this state can play.

Amusing Monday: Videos by students try to convince climate skeptics

“How do you convince a climate-change skeptic?” That’s the question posed to high-school film producers in a contest sponsored by the University of Washington’s School of Environmental and Forest Sciences.

I find it interesting that the challenge to create a two-minute video does not include a reason that climate-change skeptics might need convincing. No doubt this was intentional, giving young filmmakers more leeway to be creative. It may result from a recognition that so-called skeptics are not all of one mind when it comes to talking about climate change.

In fact, I’ve observed varying points of view among people who disagree with widely held findings among climate scientists. Consider these types of skeptics:

  • First, there are some people who do not believe that the scientific method could ever produce meaningful answers about climate change.
  • Others accept the methods of science, but they believe the evidence actually shows that the climate is not warming and may even be cooling.
  • Some accept scientific evidence that the climate is warming, but they believe that this is a natural phenomenon and that human-produced greenhouse gases have nothing to do with it.
  • Some accept scientific evidence that climate is warming and that humans are having an effect, but they believe that climatologists have miscalculated the rate of warming.
  • Finally, there are those in the policy realm who admit that they don’t know what is causing climate change, but they believe that the costs of addressing the problem are too great or that government should not be involved.

So I was interested to see how high school filmmakers would address the skeptics of climate change. The winner, Tiamo Minard of Roosevelt High School, simply laid out the facts, as they are best known by climate scientists.

Second place went to a team from Lynwood High School, whose approach was highly personal, showing how people’s everyday actions contribute to climate change. The team included Saron Almaw, Hani Ghebrehiwet, Brittaney Hong, Kristen Nguyen and Jasmine Pel.

Third-place winner, Hazel Camer of Lynnwood High School, simply pounded home the fact that climate change is real and that the consequences for the human race could be severe. One man on the video pooh-poohed the notion that climate change is a liberal conspiracy. Then, surprisingly, the next person on the video is U.S. Rep. Suzan DelBene, a Washington Democrat who is not likely to convince many skeptics.

I found the winning videos entertaining and at times amusing, and I can’t argue with their arguments. But I doubt that they will convince any of the climate-skeptic types that I outlined above. This was truly a difficult challenge, yet one that seems worthwhile. Even professional media experts have trouble addressing this issue, although humor may be helpful. See, for example, the blog post, “Ontario employs humor in climate discussion,” Water Ways, May 15, or “‘Don’t fret,’ says new celebrity video for climate deniers,” Water Ways, Dec. 14, 2015.

Other finalists:

Judging the contest were Laura Jean Cronin, producer/director of award-winning short films currently involved with B47 studios in Seattle; Melanie Harrison Okoro, water quality specialist and the aquatic invasive species coordinator for NOAA Fisheries, West Coast Region; Cody Permenter, social media manager for Grist, an online news magazine; and Ethan Steinman, an Emmy-nominated filmmaker who owns Seattle-based production company Daltonic Films.

A report on last year’s contest can be found on Water Ways, June 27, 2016. It is great to see the work of local filmmakers, and I hope the contest continues.

Washington state keeps its cool for the first five months of this year

For the first five months of this year, Washington state has stood out as the only state in the U.S. with a below-average temperature.

While most of the country was experiencing warmer-than-normal temperatures, we here in Washington were going outside to temperatures that averaged nearly 1 degree F. below normal.

In fact, the contiguous 48 states recorded the second-warmest January-through-May period on record, despite cooler conditions in Washington. Average temperatures were 1.4 degrees F. below the record set in 2012 for the same period, according to NOAA’s National Centers for Environmental Information (PDF 4.2 mb). Click on maps to enlarge.

The average temperature in Washington state was 38.6 degrees for the first five months of the year, compared to an average of 39.4 degrees for the 20th century. Out of 124 years on record, it was the 35th coolest for the five-month period, the coolest since 2011. The coolest on record was in 1950.

Forty states were much warmer than average during the same time period, with Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Texas reaching record-warm levels.

Of course, temperatures can vary greatly from year to year, but climate conditions in Washington, as in most of the world, demonstrate an increasing temperature trend since records began in 1895, as shown by the blue line in the graphic.

The country as a whole has also been much wetter than normal so far this year. Average precipitation across the lower-48 has reached 14.85 inches, which is 2.46 inches above average and the fourth wettest January-through-May period on record. It is also the wettest first five months since 1998.

Washington state was 6.78 inches above the 20th century average of 20.03 inches for the five-month time period. This year was the sixth wettest on record.

Washington and five other western states were listed as much above average for snow and rain, while Idaho reached record precipitation for the first five months of the year. Record flooding was reported in the mid-Mississippi Valley. Below average precipitation was seen in the Northern Plains states and Florida.

Meanwhile, about 5 percent of the lower-48 was listed in drought conditions on May 30, up slightly from earlier in the year. Drought improved in the Northeast, Mid-Atlantic and Southeast, but it worsened in the Northern and Southern Plains and in Florida.

Taking your kids on an easy adventure to find and explore nature

June is National Great Outdoors Month, and this Saturday is National Get Outdoors Day. It’s a great time for people — especially parents and children — to make a commitment to spend a portion of the summer learning about nature and enjoying the sights and sounds of the wild areas that still exist.

National Get Outdoors Day is recognized with free admission to Washington state’s parks as well as national forests where day-use fees are charged. A national list of sites can be found on the GO Day website.

In addition, the National Park Service offers a free yearlong pass for fourth graders and their families to visit national parks, monuments and historical sites. See the Every Kid in a Park website.

June is also Orca Awareness Month with a considerable lineup of activities planned, including the Orcas in Our Midst Workshop on Saturday. See Water Ways, May 19, or check out the Orca Awareness Month website for a full list of activities.

The value that children get from exploring the outdoors has been known for many years. But I was intrigued to learn recently that the city of Austin has adopted a Children’s Outdoor Bill of Rights as part of a program of greening up the cities.

“We are excited to announce that on January 26, 2017, Austin City Council voted unanimously to approve the Austin Children’s Outdoor Bill of Rights!” says a statement on the city’s website. “Every child in Austin should be able to connect with the incredible nature that Austin has to offer, and we are excited to have our city leadership’s support! Thank you to Austin’s Cities Connecting Children to Nature Initiative and all of our partners for helping create and pass this resolution.”

So what are the outdoor rights of every child, as seen by the Austin City Council? They are the rights to:

  • Climb a tree
  • Catch a fish
  • Picnic in a park
  • Hike a trail
  • Ride a bike
  • Splash in a creek or river
  • Discover plants and wildlife
  • Play in the sand and mud
  • Gaze at the night sky
  • Chase a firefly
  • Plant a seed and watch it grow
  • Harvest and eat a fruit or vegetable

That sounds like a great list for a child of Austin. Maybe for children in Western Washington we would outline slightly different rights, perhaps a right to quietly observe a salmon spawning. Maybe the right to watch salmon could substitute for chasing fireflies, which is somewhat difficult in our region of the country.

Austin is one of seven cities involved in the Cities Connecting Children to Nature Initiative, a pilot program designed to ensure that all children have the opportunity to play, learn and grow in nature. City officials recognize that it may take extra effort to involve children from low-income neighborhoods.

An article by Austin Mayor Steve Adler and parks director Sara Hensley in “The New Nature Movement” describes the city’s program and provides links to a dozen other stories and websites. Richard Louv, author of “Last Child in the Woods: Saving Our Children from Nature-Deficit Disorder,” founded The New Nature Movement, which he describes as “not going back to nature but forward to a nature-rich civilization.”

If you don’t read Louv’s book, you may find that he reveals quite a bit about his views in an interview with Jill Suttle of “Greater Good,” an online magazine at the University of California at Berkeley.

“There will always be conservationists and environmentalists,” Louv says, “but if we don’t turn this trend around, they’ll increasingly carry nature in their briefcases, not in their hearts. And that’s a very different relationship.”

Last year, Washington Gov. Jay Inslee announced nearly $1 million in grants under the No Child Left Inside movement. The grants focus on outdoor environmental, agricultural and natural-resource education and recreation for 8,000 kids who don’t normally get a chance to interact with nature, according to a news release that lists all 19 projects.

As an aside, I can vouch for the fact that our governor is no slouch when it comes to the outdoors. In 2002, while Jay was a U.S. representative, we went on a hike along the South Fork of the Skokomish River. We talked about the need to protect roadless areas, and I had trouble keeping up and taking notes at the same time, as he maintained a fast pace along the rolling trail. Read the story in the Kitsap Sun, May 19, 2002.

As for exploring the outdoors with your children, these freebies and programs are one thing. But what kinds of things can we, as parents, bring to the experience?

Lauren Knight, who writes about motherhood in her blog Crumb Bums, provides some good advice in a column she wrote for the Washington Post titled “Ten Ways to get your kids out in nature, and why it matters.”

Her first suggestion is to “inspire curiosity by being curious yourself.” She writes: “A parent’s excitement is contagious to her children, and when we show awe in nature, our children follow suit. Take the position of a learner …”

Her fourth suggestion is to “seek out natural, untouched spaces and return often to them.” She writes: “Returning to the same spot throughout the seasons will allow for observations of change and cycles of life.”

Other information:

  • Several books and websites feature advice and locations to take children. Search for “hikes kids Western Washington” as a start.
  • Many visitor centers offer information about hikes and outdoor activities. Search by region on Find Visitor Centers website.
  • Washington Trails Association has a section on “Hiking with Kids.”
  • An organization called Hike It Baby offers advice on easy trails by region. (Registration required)
  • Sometimes the best advice comes from asking friends and coworkers where they like to go with children.

Feel free to offer comments about other good sources of information or even suggest some of the best places to go with kids in Western Washington.

Amusing Monday: Swimming horses and other water creatures

Horses that are accustomed to swimming with riders seem to truly enjoy the cool water on a hot day, according to Katie Dillon, a travel writer who experienced the thrill of swimming horses on Grand Cayman Island in the Caribbean.

Katie’s video, which features her daughter, is the first on this page. A Southern California resident, Katie describes the actions of the horses, which are owned by a company called Pampered Ponies.

“They walked rather slowly into the water until they couldn’t touch the bottom, she wrote in a blog post. “I couldn’t distinguish when the actual swimming started as it felt more or less the same as a slow walk.

“At some point, I looked down to see their legs moving in more of a circular motion. The guide confirmed that, yes, they’re swimming and stuck my GoPro underwater to capture it.

“What cracked me up is that all of the horses grinned from ear to ear,” she added. “They started to hum, too. Hilarious.”

After I watched the video, I did some reading to find out if this kind of swimming is OK for horses. I learned that this activity is much more common than I thought.

“There are few things that equal the exhilaration of taking a horse swimming on a hot summer day. They like it, too!” writes Dr. Rebecca Gimenez, a veterinarian who has dedicated her life to abused and neglected animals.

“The power that you experience as they surge forward, paddling strongly through the water is fun, but it can be dangerous, she writes in a safety guide to the activity.

Some of the perils of riding a horse in water is spelled out by Rebecca in Part 1 of a two-part series called “Don’t Drown Your Horse.” Part 2 involves suggestions and safety tips. The series was published in the online magazine “The Horse.”

The second video, posted by Alison Zook, shows horses swimming with riders in the waters of Costa Rica.

I was able to locate numerous other amusing videos showing animals that swim, although most do not have riders. Here are my favorites so far:

Facing challenges that could save chinook salmon from extinction

Nineteen years ago this month, then-Governor Gary Locke made a bold declaration about salmon that would echo through time: “Extinction is not an option.”

Juvenile chinook salmon depend on high-quality habitat for their survival.
Photo: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

It was a call to action that would lead to major protection and restoration efforts throughout Puget Sound. Still, today, chinook salmon have not experienced a population rebound, as many people had hoped. The failure to thrive has been a disappointment to many, yet we are often reminded that it took 150 years to push salmon to the brink of extinction and it will not be easy to ensure their future.

Last week, concerns about the survival of chinook salmon prompted a coalition of Puget Sound tribes to propose a series of “bold actions,” as I reported in the Encyclopedia of Puget Sound, later reprinted in the Kitsap Sun.

“The way we are managing lands is not working,” stated salmon expert Dave Herrera, speaking for the tribes. “It may be working for people, but it is not working for fish.”

The bold actions, spelled out in a three-page proposal (PDF 380 kb), include greater controls on the use of land and water, among other things. I won’t describe the details, which you can read in the memo. The ideas were prompted by a new Chinook Salmon Implementation Strategy, designed to accelerate an increase in the Puget Sound chinook population.

The tribes complained that the proposed strategy, as drafted, mostly mimicked the 10-year-old Puget Sound Salmon Recovery Plan. That plan has made limited progress in restoring wild salmon runs, despite millions of dollars spent to protect and restore habitat while limiting fishing and controlling hatchery production.

In his speech of June 1998, Gov. Locke worried about the risk of extinction for these migratory fish, which are an economic asset as well as a celebrated symbol of the Northwest.

Former Gov. Gary Locke

“In several Puget Sound watersheds, our wild salmon have less than a decade to live, unless we act now,” Locke said in 1998. “And in many more rivers and streams, if the status quo continues, our wild salmon will be gone before my daughter Emily graduates from high school. So we just don’t have any time to waste. For better or for worse, we are about to make history.”

Locke’s speech was indeed historic, as he launched an unprecedented endeavor to rebuild salmon runs at great financial cost. The governor seemed to understand the challenge, as I noted at the time in my coverage of the speech before more than 100 county officials in Tacoma:

“Locke appears to be glancing over his shoulder, ready to duck for cover, as he talks about the financial and political commitments required to keep salmon from disappearing in various parts of the state,” I wrote.

“We need to wake up every morning ready to challenge the status quo,” Locke said, adding that basic changes are needed in the way businesses and average citizens use their land and water resources.

“There is a risk,” Locke said, “in just delivering that message, let alone acting on it.”

The following year, the Washington Legislature created the Salmon Recovery Funding Board to prioritize state and federal funding for salmon recovery. And the next governor, Chris Gregoire, ushered in an even greater ecosystem-recovery effort under guidance of the Puget Sound Partnership.

Wetlands are critical habitat for salmon.
Photo: Eric Grossman, U.S. Geological Survey

Today, I can’t help but wonder what would have happened without these salmon- and ecosystem-recovery efforts. Would the salmon be gone, as Locke predicted? It’s hard to say, but researchers have learned a great deal about what salmon need to survive, and the money is being better targeted toward those needs. As a result, it is understandable why some people are both disappointed with the past and hopeful for the future.

One of the great challenges facing public officials today is to find ways for local governments to truly live up to the standard of “no net loss” of ecological function — a standard required by the state’s Growth Management Act. When new developments affect “critical areas” — such as fish and wildlife habitat — they must include vegetated buffers and stormwater controls to minimize the damage. Then they must enhance degraded habitat — either on-site or off-site — to make up for losses that cannot be avoided.

I used to believe that this goal was unachievable, and I have questioned many state experts about it. How can any developer construct a commercial or residential development and walk away with no net loss of habitat function? The answer is to include a serious restoration component.

One example is the Hood Canal Coordinating Council’s In-Lieu Fee Program, which I wrote about last month in Water Ways (May 19). This program was started on a large scale to mitigate for construction at the Navy’s submarine base at Bangor, but it also works on a small scale, as I mentioned in that blog post.

When an older site is redeveloped, there may be no ecological loss, since the damage was done in the past. But when a developer builds in a new location, the local government is charged with measuring the loss, coming to terms for mitigation and making sure the mitigation is carried out. The concept of “no net loss” works only if the mitigation is permanent — another major challenge in many areas.

If no net loss can be achieved while major restoration efforts continue, we will see a net increase in salmon habitat in the Puget Sound region, and that will be a cause of celebration. One success has been in the program Floodplains by Design, which improves critical off-channel habitat for salmon while reducing flooding problems for nearby residents. Checkout the story I wrote for the Encyclopedia of Puget Sound and the blog post in Water Ways, April 15.

Washington State Department of Commerce, which oversees the Growth Management Act, is in the process of updating its Critical Areas Assistance Handbook (PDF 6 mb), which serves as guidance for local regulations. New information about how to protect habitat for all life stages of salmon will be a key addition to a revised version, soon to be released for public review. See the CAO page on the Department of Commerce website.

Local governments in every part of the state must become part of the discussion if we expect them to carry out the mandate of protecting habitat for salmon. Money for planning and regulatory enforcement must be worked out. One idea I’ve heard is a regional approach that involves a group of compliance officials working to enforce the rules for multiple counties and cities.

No doubt the salmon-recovery effort must be improved. Challenges remain for issues including fishing, predation by marine mammals and climate change. But if the protection and restoration of salmon habitat can outpace unmitigated damage from development, we may be justified in believing that extinction is not an option.