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 

Dissolved oxygen in southern Hood Canal has dropped to dangerously low levels, and the table appears to be set for a fish kill if we get strong winds out of the south. See my story in today’s Kitsap Sun.

It seems a lot of experts are surprised that we have reached this level of low oxygen, considering that we were seeing near-record high oxygen levels earlier this year. See a story I wrote in August.

Although we have had low-oxygen problems in Hood Canal for years, monitoring buoys installed a few years ago now allow us to see what is happening at the moment and to describe the conditions in some detail.

In 2006, for the first time, scientists were able to show the factors leading up to a fish kill. Until then, it was only reasoned speculation. What may be equally troubling, however, is the level of stress that sea creatures are coming under before and after a fish kill — or if none occurs at all.

I didn’t mention it in my story, but oxygen levels at Twanoh and probably up toward Belfair are even lower than at Hoodsport. Lower Hood Canal is an area where the oxygen is so chronically depleted that fluffy mats of bacteria can be seen growing on the bottom at times when no other life can survive.

I feel that I need to express my disappointment with some of the comments posted to my story. To write this piece, I took note of the monitoring buoys; I pulled together observations of divers and others; and I even informed a few officials about the conditions that were developing.

I told this story straight, basing it on facts and observations that I gathered. Yet some people apparently chose to believe that my writing had something to do with taxation, government control, funding for Puget Sound Partnership, another costly study or hysterical tactics by environmental wackos.

I suppose I should be used to cynical comments by now, and I am glad that one person took the time to say he was pleased that I was “telling it like it is.” I just thought people would like to know of the dire conditions facing sealife in southern Hood Canal and what might occur if a south wind blows.

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post 

The Samish Tribe recently held a formal ceremony to name J-45, a killer whale first spotted in March. See the Kitsap Sun, March 5. The young orca is the son of J-14, named Samish.

It is becoming a tradition for the Samish Tribe to name the offspring of the whale we call Samish, now a 35-year-old female. Samish is the granddaughter of J-2, or Granny as she is called. Granny is possibly the oldest living orca among the Puget Sound whales.

Officials with The Whale Museum in Friday Harbor participated in the naming ceremony Saturday. They provided the account below, which I think you will enjoy reading.

By the way, some of our local orcas have shown up in Central Puget Sound, where they were sighted this morning between Fauntleroy and Southworth. I have not yet heard if these animals have been identified. (Note: I updated this with a story late this afternoon.)

The Samish Indian Nation Names New Calf J-45

Friday Harbor — On Saturday, October 17, 2009, the Samish Indian Nation held a traditional potlatch naming ceremony for J-45, the newest J Pod calf in the Southern Resident Community of orcas.

The Whale Museum participated in the ceremony by providing ceremonial gifts for the attendees as well as a greeting by Executive Director Jenny Atkinson. The museum was asked to appoint a witness to the ceremony. Because of her role as the Orca Adoption Program Coordinator and the storykeeper of the whales, Jeanne Hyde was named.

“It was an honor to be asked to witness, ” Jeanne noted.
(more…)

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post 

UPDATE, Oct, 25
Former Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife director Jeff Koenings testified in the federal culvert trial on Friday. See AP reporter Tim Klass’s story in the Kitsap Sun. Koenings told the court that diverting state dollars for culvert repair and replacement could harm salmon if it means less money for higher-priority salmon-restoration projects.
—————

I was beginning to wonder if I was the only environmental reporter who recognized the significance of a lawsuit involving Indian treaty rights and state culverts. I wrote about the case for the Kitsap Sun in March, after it appeared negotiations had broken down.

The outcome of the case could well determine how much power the courts hold over state budgets when it comes to the enforcement of Indian treaty rights.

After all, from the tribes’ perspective, the state has been dragging its feet in restoring salmon habitat — including the replacement of culverts that block the passage of salmon. On the other hand, the courts could force the state to spend money that it doesn’t have, or else shift dollars from education, social programs, law enforcement, even other environmental initiatives. That is why I think this is such an important precedent-setting case.

The issue is now in trial, having started in U.S. District Court last week. Reporter Craig Welch does a nice job of putting the issue into historical perspective in today’s Seattle Times.

I was on vacation when the trial started, so we referred the story to the Associated Press. AP reporter Tim Klass has done a good job of following the trial. See his first story in the Oct 13 Kitsap Sun and a follow-up in today’s paper.

If I hear the tribal attorneys correctly, they are looking to fix the major blocking culverts under state jurisdiction within 20 years, rather than the 50-60 years under the state’s current schedule.

If this case succeeds, the next logical step would be to go after counties — which may have hundreds of culverts that need attention. Other habitat issues also would be on the table. Anybody want the courts to set stream and shoreline buffers?

I suppose we’ll have plenty of time to talk about the implications once the decision is handed down. And there will be appeals, of course. No matter the final outcome, this case will have repercussions for decades to come.

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post 

UPDATE, Monday, Oct. 19, 9:44 p.m.
I received this note tonight from Capt. Jim Maya of Maya’s Westside Charters:

We got the word that perhaps some Residents had come in last night from the west, but only two Ts had been spotted. So, at 1:00 PM, we headed west to hopefully find those Ts. For crying out loud, it had been 10 days since we had seen Orcas. Humpbacks, Minkes, Dall’s Porpoise, but no Orcas. So after stopping for a great Dall’s Porpoise show, we headed west in hopes of seeing some Transients. We got to them just east of Race Rocks, about 25 miles west of San Juan Is. And then we heard that there were Residents at Hannah Heights. We raced back to find K Pod heading south from Hannah Heights.
————–

I was pleased this week to report about the birth of a new baby orca in L Pod. See Friday’s Kitsap Sun.

The latest orca in L Pod is a newborn calf numbered L-113.
Photo by Jami Nagel, Island Adventures

This was the fourth birth recorded for the Southern Residents this year, according to the Center for Whale Research as reported in a list maintained by Orca Network.

Looking at those stats, it is nice to know that there have been no deaths reported so far this year.

Some of us are still reeling from last year, when eight whales were reported dead — including L-57, or Faith, the most prominent whale among the 19 orcas that visited Dyes Inlet in 1997. I did not know about Faith until early this year, because researchers were holding out hope that he would show up. See Feb. 16’s Kitsap Sun.

Amid all those deaths, apparently only one whale was born last year — one of the lowest birth years in history.

That’s why this year’s four births seem so promising to an optimist like me. We can only hope births will greatly outnumber deaths for years to come.

In my story published Friday, I also talked about how the orcas appeared to be testing the waters for salmon in Central and South Puget Sound. At least some got as far south as Fox Island. Where they are now is unknown, but some research are guessing that they are off the west coast of Vancouver Island.

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post 

The comment period for proposed federal regulations to restrict the operation of boats around killer whales has been extended to Jan. 15, pushing back the implementation date.

It looks like the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration is throwing open the door for “cooperative efforts” that might even include some new on-the-water research this coming year.

“We recognize that by extending the public comment period, we won’t have enough time to issue a final rule before the 2010 summer boating season,” states an e-mail sent out this morning by NOAA.

The statement adds:

“We continue to believe that it’s important to address the adverse effects of vessel traffic on killer whales in the near future. In light of the requests we’ve received for an extension of the comment period, however, we believe additional public outreach will enhance both NOAA Fisheries’ understanding of public concerns and the public’s understanding of the basis for our proposal. This will also allow time for cooperative efforts to refine the proposal. We’ll work toward adoption of a final rule before the 2011 summer boating season.”

The proposed rules would create an enforceable 200-yard protective zone around the whales. That’s twice as far as existing federal guidelines call for. See my July 28 story in the Kitsap Sun.

During three recent hearings, many people raised questions, concerns and objections to the proposed rule. Some even offered suggestions.

Donna Darm of NOAA told me that the extra time would allow biologists to explore and discuss some of the ideas, including issues related to recreational fishing and kayaking within a “no-go zone” off the west side of San Juan Island.

Research is ongoing, she said, and another year of data would not hurt. New on-the-water studies may or may not be proposed. When I raised the idea of an experiment using the entire whale-watch fleet to test various scenarios, she seemed intrigued by the notion.

“We have lots of comments to think about related to this alternative or that alternative,” she said.

NOAA officials were surprised by the number of people who showed up at the three public hearings: 180 or so each in Anacortes and Seattle, followed by about 260 in Friday Harbor, according to NOAA spokeswoman Janet Sears. That compares to between 40 and 60 people at planning meetings before the regulations were announced.

Shane Aggergaard, president of the Pacific Whale Watch Association, said he is pleased to see the willingness of NOAA officials to discuss the issue further. At first, NOAA officials did not seem to be listening, he told me.

“In the first part if it, it seemed like, ‘this is the proposal and this is the way it’s going to be,’” he said. “The fact that they’re looking at our recommendations or anything outside their original proposal is a positive step.”

The outpouring of opposition, including comments collected from passengers of whale-watch boats, has been huge, he said. “I would be surprised if there are not 20,000 comments that they will have to deal with.”

To comply with a strict 200-yard limit, whale-watch boats would need to stay close to 300 yards away most of the time, he said, and that is something that could kill much of the whale-watching business, he said.

The Pacific Whale Watch Association has proposed a combination of two ideas advanced by NOAA. The PWWA option would prohibit vessels within 100 yards under most conditions, though it would allow fishing boats to hold their position and kayakers to let orcas swim by. Other vessels would need to stay out of the path of the Southern Residents and observe a 7-knot speed along San Juan Island from Eagle Point to Mitchell Point out one-half mile.

Some folks have let me know that they are alarmed that strict regulations will not be approved in time to better protect the whales this year. (Washington state law includes a 100-yard restriction.)

Peter Hamilton of the whale-protection group Lifeforce sent this message:

It’s really unfortunate that the orcas will not get more protection in 2010 under improved vessel regulations. But of course enforcement would still be an issue. In order to provide more protection, Lifeforce hopes that NOAA and WDFW (Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife) will get more funds to step up enforcement in 2010.
(more…)

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post 

Jay Manning’s last official act as director of the Washington Department of Ecology was to announce that a water right will not be required to collect rainwater from the roof of a building.

It has been a bone of contention among some folks that state water law appears to require a water rights permit for the diversion of “water resources,” which is defined as “all waters above, upon, or beneath the surface of the earth, located within the state and over which the state has sole or concurrent jurisdiction.”

But state water law also gives the director of Ecology broad discretion to write regulations in the public interest.

Ecology specifically recognizes that rainwater harvesting can be a tool to manage stormwater. See Ecology’s paper on this subject.

In a one-page statement (PDF 124 kb), Manning declared:

“The on-site storage and/or beneficial use of rooftop or guzzler collected rainwater is not subject to the permit process of RCW 90.03.”

The statement leaves an avenue for the state if officials encounter a situation in which rainwater harvesting could affect stream flows or someone’s existing rights:

“If and when the department determines that rooftop or guzzler rainwater harvesting systems are likely to negatively affect instream values or existing water rights, local restrictions may be set in place to govern subsequent new systems.”

What conditions will apply to prevent possible abuse?

“To qualify as rooftop collected rainwater, the roof collecting the rainwater must be part of a fixed structure above the ground with a primary purpose other than the collection of rainwater for beneficial use. A guzzler is a device used to catch and store rainwater to provide drinking water for wildlife, livestock or birds.”

The statement includes this note:

“This policy supersedes any previous policy/interpretive statement, focus sheet or other stated Ecology viewpoint with which it may conflict.”

Josh Baldi, special assistant to the director of Ecology, said his agency conducted an analysis to measure the potential effects of the new policy. Because of cost, rainwater is not likely to be collected where it would create a problem, he said at a meeting of the Puget Sound Partnership’s Ecosystem Coordination Board.

“Most of the areas where rainwater collection makes economic sense are places where it also makes environmental sense,” he explained.

See also “Rainwater Collection to Augment Water Supply” and “Rainwater Collection as a Sound Investment.”

The agency is working with state plumbing experts to establish a registration program for large rainwater-harvesting systems. Registration would not be required for rain barrels or other small systems. See “Focus on Rainwater Interpretive Policy” (PDF, 152 kb).

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post 

This week, our amusing subject is otters, thanks to a suggestion from Fred Felleman, who spotted a satirical story about an oil spill. It comes from The Onion. (Click here.)

I tracked down the video at right, which appears to shows an otter dancing to the music…

To round out our otter adventures, check out:

— The otters who made themselves at home in a human’s house and

— The otter who became close friends with a badger.

Who would have believed it?

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post 

Two hearings regarding proposed boating regulations to protect Puget Sound orcas from noise and disturbance have brought out a variety of opinions. Folks involved in the whale-watching industry showed up in large numbers, as did sport and commercial fishers.

Scott Veirs, who studies the acoustics of killer whales, blogged about last night’s meeting in Seattle:

“Overall, there were strong objections to the entire suite of alternatives — from the 200 yard viewing distance to the no-go zone. People for Puget Sound went on record saying that a no-go zone was a step too far. And Ken Balcomb (Center for Whale Research) voted for no action.

“I was left with a profound disappointment that so many felt so unfairly burdened by the proposed rules. If the people who most intimately and consistently share the southern resident’s habitat aren’t willing to make a sacrifice to preserve the basis of their livelihoods, how can we expect the public to act selflessly for our regional icons: the orca and the salmon?”

I thought the piece put together by reporter Mark Wright of KCPQ-TV (viewer above right) provided a nicely summarized and balanced perspective on the issue, though it did not examine the scientific issue.

To dig more deeply, take a loot at the extensive list of comments compiled by the National Marine Fisheries Service in 2007 when “potential vessel regulations” were being discussed. Information about the proposed rule — including questions and answers — can be found on the page “Regulations on Vessel Effects.”

A few odds and ends in recent days:
(more…)

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post