This newborn calf could become a poster child in the effort to save the Southern Residents from extinction.

Ken’s naming announcement came as a surprise to me, because he rarely uses names for our local orcas. Like most killer whale researchers, Ken and other staffers at the Center for Whale Research generally call the whales by the alpha-numeric system set up by researchers many years ago.

Ken Balcomb is widely acknowledged as the keeper of the census for Southern Resident orcas, and we generally wait for him to acknowledge the birth of a new calf and to give it a number.

Ken told me he hopes to raise awareness about the connection between the survival of the orcas and the abundance of salmon, particularly chinook.

“I was trying to tie this into the fish,” he said. “This (calf) is the star of the show now, and its survival is dependent on the fish.”

Ken’s move kind of bucks the tradition of having The Whale Museum in Friday Harbor name the Southern Residents. (The Vancouver Aquarium in British Columbia names the Northern Residents.) Generally, the whales don’t get a name for several months or a year, because a fairly large percentage of calves die before their first birthday.

Balcomb was one of the founders of The Whale Museum and its “Orca Adoption Program.” He has told me on several occasions that donors to the adoption program often believe that their contributions go to research by the Center. That’s not the case, although The Whale Museum runs educational programs, including an on-the-water effort called SoundWatch. (After my initial post, Whale Museum Director Jenny Atkinson e-mailed me to say that the organization does do some research in connection with its educational programs.)

“I’ve been thinking about this fish thing quite awhile,” Ken told me. “The general public has to be more informed and realize what is at stake here. I wanted to get a name in there and make this (orca) the ‘star’ of the program.”

Ken and his staff have prepared a written explanation about the new name on the Center for Whale Research Web site, which includes baby pictures of the new calf. Here’s a portion of that text:

“We could not ask for a more charismatic indicator, a baby whale, to measure the success of our renewed efforts for restoration. J Pod is the most-watched family of whales in the Pacific Northwest, or perhaps the world; and this is the first year in recent decades that they have produced three babies in one year. We will all be watching, here and worldwide, carefully and respectfully, to see if they beat the odds and all survive. This is the reality show that really means something.”

For their part, folks at The Whale Museum are taking the Center’s naming of the new whale in stride. Jeanne Hyde, who runs the Orca Adoption Program, said her organization will continue its normal naming process next year, when there could be four calves to be named.

“Star” might be a fitting name for the new whale, considering that its mom is named Polaris — also the formal name for the North Star.

“The name ‘Star’ will be one that an awful lot of people will submit,” Hyde said. “We have a process, and we will follow that process.”

That process includes a public vote from a roster of finalists for each whale to be named.

Jeanne told me the naming of killer whales goes back to the early 1980s, when the federal government was considering permits for the capture of killer whales. Opponents of the capture began to name the orcas to change human perceptions and to help people realize that orcas are individuals, each with its own characteristics.

“One of the ways we can help the whales is to connect people to them,” Hyde said. “Names are important. People can connect with the name “Granny” more than to “J-2.”

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post 

A coho salmon tries to leap into a culvert against the rushing water in a stream above Wildcat Lake Kitsap Sun photo by Meegan M. Reid

It is easy to come up with an answer when we’ve had hardly any rain. The streams are running low; salmon are ready to swim upstream; and fish in the stream are obviously struggling through shallow water. We’ve seen this kind of condition in early fall during many recent years.

When can we say we’ve had enough rain? Well, certainly when a wide variety of streams and rivers are flooding over their banks. But because of the complexity of natural systems, there may never be a “just right” level for salmon.

I was up above Wildcat Lake in Central Kitsap yesterday, discussing the conditions with Jon Oleyar, a biologist for the Suquamish Tribe. Thanks to recent rains, coho salmon are well distributed throughout the Chico Creek watershed, which includes Wildcat Lake.

Jon was excited to find coho far up in streams where he has rarely if ever seen them. The bad news was, for the stream we were watching, the fish seemed to be blocked by a perched culvert where water was gushing out — a culvert that kept the fish from reaching a beautiful stream with overhanging vegetation and plenty of spawning gravel.

Apparently, few fish have made it upstream of this culvert, Oleyar said, because he has never seen a dead salmon on the other side of the road. And while it was exciting to see large salmon get this far upstream, it was disappointing to find their path blocked.

“I had a smile on my face until I realized they couldn’t get through,” Jon told me, and I quoted him in a story I wrote for today’s Kitsap Sun.

For these coho, heavy rains of the past few days have brought them to new habitat. Yet the flows through the pipe have kept them from going any farther. I will watch as the flows drop over time to see if there is a level that allows them to swim through — although they will need to leap up into the culvert to do so.

Meanwhile, the main channel of Chico Creek, five miles downstream, was flowing high and fast, although it wasn’t flooding. I’m not sure if this is good or bad.

Rocks and log weirs, which can be obstacles at low flow, were now submerged, presenting no obstacle at all. On the other hand, resting pools were gone, and salmon were fighting the current and probably using up their energy. Was the flow high enough to wash salmon eggs out of the gravel? I don’t have a clue.

It is easy to see why biologists talk about the value of “structure” in the streams. Fallen trees normally don’t block the entire stream. Even when they do, it is just a short time before the force of the water creates openings for salmon to swim through. Beneficiallly, extensive “structure” creates pools for salmon to rest and hide, no matter how high the flows may be.

The answer to the question of “too much or too little rain?” seems to vary from stream to stream and even upstream and downstream in the same watershed. It is interesting to observe a stream over time to see how streamflows respond to various rates of rainfall and how salmon respond to various rates of flow.

For Kitsap County residents, we have produced an interactive map on the Kitsap Sun Web site that shows where one may look for salmon. Not all the locations have salmon at the same time, but it may be worth a look.

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post 

Twila Dawn Captain Steve Sigo (right) and First Mate Aaron Leschi (left) help diver Jake Johnston suit up for his dive at Apple Tree Cove near Kingston on Thursday, when the crew brought up an abandoned fishing net.
Kitsap Sun photo by Meegan M. Reid

Kitsap Sun reporter Tara Garcia Mathewson was on a boat Thursday, watching divers bring up a net in Apple Tree Cove near Kingston. See the story she wrote for today’s Kitsap Sun as well as a video.

Ray Frederick of Kitsap Poggie Club first informed me about “ghost nets” more than a decade ago. At the time, officials were just becoming aware about how much damage the nets can do. But, when it came to money, it wasn’t a high priority. State officials were reluctant to allow volunteers to do much, in part because they worried about people’s safety, or so they said. There also seemed to be a concern about using robotic equipment to yank up the nets, because it could harm sea life and undersea habitat where the nets were wrapped around rocks.

Now, with federal stimulus dollars, professional divers are on the job with a goal of removing 3,000 nets before the end of next year. If I’ve done the math correctly, we’re talking about a little more than $1,500 for each net.

For perspective on the history, see stories I wrote for the Kitsap Sun in May of 2000 and in June of 2002.

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post 

In any case, a bout with some kind of respiratory bug has knocked me back about five days. I would call it the flu, except that I didn’t have much of a fever.

So now I find myself with a backlog of news stories that I had planned to discuss with you all. Since time doesn’t stop, there will be more stories tomorrow and the day after that.

So I’ll mention some of the interesting stories from the past week and offer you a chance to comment on any of these things. If something provokes your interest or concern, I’ll be happy to moderate or join the conversation.

Fuel spill at PSNS (Thursday)

Last Thursday, 500 gallons of jet fuel spilled from the USS Abraham Lincoln. Fortunately, the ship had been preboomed, so the spill was contained and did not spread out across the harbor.

I covered the first news story on this spill, and I still have some questions, but I haven’t been back to work long enough to get them answered. For example, I have always been told that you shouldn’t preboom highly volatile liquids, such as gasoline and kerosene, for fear they could catch fire. Has something changed about this idea? (I know one boom was already in place, which is now a standard Navy precaution. But they added another.)

Salmon migration (Sunday)

Sunday’s Kitsap Sun featured my annual story encouraging people to go out and watch chum salmon migrating upstream. As usual, the package included a map of local streams (interactive map for online viewers) and tips for watching the fish without disturbing them.

Wherever you live, you may be interested to know how the runs are shaping up, which I covered in a general way. Chum are doing quite well, but not like the records of the recent past. Pinks were amazing. Coho are coming in large, but their abundance varies by location.

Ueland gravel operation (Monday)

Reporter Derek Sheppard filled in well for me on a story I have been following for a couple of years. I’m talking about the public hearing to decide whether a gravel mine, rock quarry and possible concrete batch plant should be built west of Kitsap Lake. There are a lot of issues involved, including traffic on Northlake Way and water quality and quantity going into Chico Creek. The hearing was continued to Dec. 10, so there will be more discussion.

Gravel zoning in Jefferson County (Tuesday)

The Washington State Court of Appeals agreed that the Jefferson County commissioners acted properly in zoning 690 acres in East Jefferson as a “mineral resources land overlay.” Here’s a question: I had understood that the zoning was a prerequisite to the proposed pit-to-pier project, whether or not the zoning stood by itself. But the appeals court ruling states, “(the) future project is not dependent on the proposed action.” If someone would clarify for me, that would be great.

Brown pelican removed from endangered list (today)

I’m not sure how many people check the “Water, Water Everywhere” list at the top of this blog for stories, research and government actions, but I link to a lot of stuff there that I don’t have time to address in detail. Such was the case today with the nationwide de-listing of the brown pelican. Go to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service news release as well as an L.A. Times story.

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post 

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 

Pond turtle: Recent work by Tony Angell

Mike Sato of People for Puget Sound asked Angell to answer some questions about his new book and to describe his observations about changes he has seen over the past 50 years.

I thought Angell’s comments about how an individual can make a difference are worth repeating:

It’s one thing to expect to pull a trout or salmon out of one of our rivers and it’s something else to roll up your sleeves and clean up the banks and spawning beds of that river or stream system so it becomes hospitable to these fish.
You can check off a white winged scoter from your life list of birds to see, but it requires something else to take time to understand what species like this need to remain on our waters as wintering birds.
We might wish to dedicate acres of intertidal habitat to the birds’ welfare, along with other invertebrates, that might even include leaving some clams for the ducks. The possibilities, I think, are endless and the long-term benefits immeasurable.

Here’s the schedule for folks who would like to meet Angell and hear him read from his new book. Appearances begin at 7 p.m., except for the Seattle Public Library at 2 p.m.

Tuesday, Sept. 22: Traditions Café, 300 Fifth Ave. SW, Olympia
Thursday, Sept. 24: Islandwood, 4450 Blakely Ave. NE, Bainbridge Island
Tuesday, Sept. 29: Bellingham Library, 210 Central Ave., Bellingham
Sunday, Oct. 18: Seattle Public Library, 1000 Fourth Ave., Seattle
Thursday, Oct. 22: Port Townsend Marine Science Center, 200 Battery Way, Port Townsend

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post 

That’s not a very appetizing analogy when it comes to Quilcene Bay, which is famous for its oysters. But we’re not talking about pollution here; we’re talking about the need to flush sediments that have been clogging the Biq Quilcene and Little Quilcene rivers for decades.

When biologist Randy Johnson offered this toilet analogy, it just seemed to click for me. So I used it in a story I wrote for yesterday’s Kitsap Sun about the extensive work taking place in the Little Quilcene estuary. I tried to explain how the removal of the “delta cone” at the mouth of the Little Quilcene is one step in the restoration of critical salmon habitat throughout Quilcene Bay.

A list of restoration projects in the bay, compiled by Richard Brocksmith of the Hood Canal Coordinating Council, gives you an idea about how much work has been going on or is being planned.

While several groups are involved in the Quilcene effort, the Hood Canal Salmon Enhancement Group has led the way. This group is unique among the 14 fisheries enhancement groups for the variety of efforts it has undertaken throughout Hood Canal. Check out the left margin of the story for an abbreviated history of the HCSEG.

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post 

But neither side in the contentious debate believes the administration has taken the correct approach.

The Adaptive Management Implementation Plan would call for dam-breaching only if “more aggressive” measures fail to reverse declines in salmon populations, according to a news release issued this morning by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

The plan responds to a letter from federal District Judge James A. Redden, who said a biological opinion issued by the federal government would not restore Columbia River salmon runs, as required by the Endangered Species Act.

“The time has come to move out of the courtroom and get to work recovering salmon and preserving the region’s unique way-of-life,” said Commerce Secretary Gary Locke. “This biological opinion, backed by sound science and tremendous state and tribal support, will help preserve the vibrancy and vitality of the Columbia and Snake River basins for generations to come.”

Supporters of dam removal blasted the plan, saying it continues a flawed policy. See the news release from a coalition of groups.

Here’s what Zeke Grader, executive director of Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen’s Associations, had to say:

“This was a test for Commerce Secretary Gary Locke — on both economics and science — and this plan failed on both accounts. This decision will no doubt leave salmon in the perilous decline they have been in for years and communities up and down the coast and inland to Idaho will continue to suffer. For an administration so set on protecting and restoring jobs, this decision is a huge mistake and a clear signal to fishermen that their jobs don’t count.”

From Bill Arthur, deputy national field director for the Sierra Club:

“Although the Bush administration is gone, unfortunately it looks like its policies will live on for Columbia-Snake salmon. It’s a bit like the Night of the Living Dead; we keep fighting these failed and illegal salmon plans, but they continue to spring back to life… It’s now time for the Judge to bury this plan for good, and provide a fresh opportunity to get it right for the people, communities and magnificent salmon and steelhead of the Northwest.”

In a news release, U.S. Rep. Doc Hastings, R-Pasco, attacked the Obama administration for opening the door to dam removal, even a crack:

“The Obama Administration has put dam removal back on the table and delivered just what dam removal extremists have been demanding. No one should be fooled by talk of dam removal as a last resort when the Obama Administration is immediately launching studies and plans for such action.

“The extremists who brought this lawsuit may be critical about this plan because dam removal wasn’t delivered on a silver platter with promises of wrecking balls arriving next week, but they got what they wanted from the Obama Administration and they’ll try and convince Judge Redden to give them even more…

“I warned the Obama Administration that opening the door to dam removal even just a crack would incite dam removal extremists to keep fighting and divert time, attention and resources away from real solutions to recover salmon.”

Terry Flores, executive director of a user coalition called Northwest RiverPartners:

“This plan – while expensive – holds the most promise for the region to move forward collectively to do things that actually benefit fish… We support restoring wild salmon runs, and experience shows that dams and fish are co-existing, but this is an unprecedented cost people are being asked to bear in extremely tough economic times”

To view documents filed with the court today, visit the Federal Caucus Web site.

NEWS STORIES
Rocky Barker, Idaho Statesman
William McCall, Associated Press
William Yardley, New York Times
Editorial Board, The Oregonian
Matthew Preusch, The Oregonian
Kim Murphy, Los Angeles Times
Editorial Board, Yakima Herald-Republic
Kevin Richert, Idaho Statesman
Erik Robinson, The Columbian, Vancouver
Matthew Preusch, The Oregonian
Tom Banse, NPR, KUOW
Steve Scher, KUOW

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post 

Phil Anderson

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post 

UPDATE, Sept. 25
Kitsap County commissioners have decided to ask the court to reconsider its ruling that would invalidate the county’s Critical Areas Ordinance when it comes to shorelines. See the story I wrote for today’s Kitsap Sun. I will have more details as they become available.
——-

While Kitsap County officials gear up to rewrite the county’s Shoreline Management Master Program, they have been handed a hot potato they cannot ignore.

As I describe in a story in today’s Kitsap Sun, the Washington State Court of Appeals has thrown out the county’s shoreline buffers written into law when the county commissioners updated the Critical Areas Ordinance.

Property-rights advocates feel vindicated, and rightfully so. They have spent their own money — more than $100,000 — to fight a county they feel should be standing up for their rights. (See Karl Duff’s column from Feb. 25.) Meanwhile, the county uses public money to fight them back. Victory is sweet for the winners, but it comes at a price.

I hate to say it, but that’s the way things go. When environmental advocates win, they also wonder why they have wasted money battling the government. And if you are a government official, you try not to lose to either side — which is not easy in a case like this, because both sides were suing them at the same time.

Supporters of property rights have many grievances, and they have a right to speak up. But this week’s court decision must be kept in perspective.

Did the county commissioners violate private property rights when they increased shoreline buffers? Did they rely on the wrong scientific studies? Did they mistakenly apply uniform buffers when they should have considered the ecological value of each shoreline segment?

Maybe, maybe not. But the court never got to those questions. Let me recount the history.

Four years ago, when the county was updating its Critical Areas Ordinance (see Title 19), the commissioners essentially decided to leave 35-foot shoreline buffers in place until they updated the Shoreline Management Master Program (see Title 22). At that time, they thought the update would be just a year or two away.

The Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings Board ruled that the commissioners could not follow that course of action, because such buffers would not adequately protect habitat for salmon, some of which are listed under the Endangered Species Act.

So the commissioners went back to the drawing board and approved new shoreline buffers of 50 feet for urban areas and 100 feet for rural and semi-rural areas. They said the buffers would get closer scrutiny and might even be reduced during the shorelines plan update.

Those buffers were challenged on multiple grounds by the Kitsap Alliance of Property Owners. KAPO’s arguments were rejected by the hearings board (which was not allowed to address constitutional issues) and by Superior Court Judge Craddock D. Verser, who ruled that the county had followed “a reasoned process to address the necessity of protecting the identified functions and values” of critical areas. See my story of July 2, 2008.

That was before the State Supreme Court handed down a decision that interpreted the intertwined Growth Management Act and Shorelines Management Act as saying shorelines rules can be changed only by amending the county’s shorelines plan. See my story from Aug. 1, 2008.

And that was the controlling factor in this week’s decision. The county commissioners — and KAPO — were right the first time when they tried to delay any significant action on shoreline buffers. The appeals court acknowledged the confusion created for cities and counties by the Legislature and the State Supreme Court. You can review the comments in my story today or read the Appeals Court opinion for yourself.

Why does it matter whether the buffers are approved under one law or another? Besides the legal process, it is important to understand that the laws are distinct in their philosophies and procedures.

The Growth Management Act is a newer law, balancing the goals of allowing development and protecting property rights against the goals of protecting the environment and preserving rural areas. The county approves its plans and ordinances — including the Critical Areas Ordinance — subject to review by one of the growth hearings boards appointed by the governor.

The Shorelines Management Act lays out permitted uses along with specific provisions for protecting the shoreline environment. Some say it is more protective of property rights. The county approves its shorelines plan, subject to a veto by the Washington Department of Ecology. In fact, Ecology has the right to deny any shorelines permit approved by the county.

After the Supreme Court ruled that only shorelines plans can set regulations for shorelines, I was told by one or more county officials that Kitsap County might still have some hope of prevailing. Unlike most counties, it turns out that Kitsap’s shorelines plan does not list buffers when it comes to development. Instead, the shorelines plan points people to the Critical Areas Ordinance to find the required buffers — so there really is no conflict between the two.

When it came to the court ruling, I guess that argument never got off the ground, given all the other facts in the case.

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post