A group of property owners on Hood Head in northern Hood Canal say they have joined forces to lease a nearby beach from the Washington Department of Natural Resources — mainly because they didn’t want to see what a typical commercial geoduck farm might do to the beach near their part-time homes.

The DNR never went through with the lease, instead imposing a moratorium on geoduck farms on state land until more research could be done regarding the environmental effects. For information, including a report to the Legislature on geoduck farming, see the Department of Ecology’s page about the Shellfish Aquaculture Regulatory Committee.

But the Hood Head owners, having spent money on various kinds of beach surveys, are still pursuing a permit from the Army Corps of Engineers (PDF 5.8 mb) in case the lease goes forward in the future.

I outlined their ideas in a story published in today’s Kitsap Sun. Bruce Olsen, whose name is on the application, said he is convinced that using plastic mesh tubes to protect the geoducks will be less environmentally damaging than plastic pipes used on other geoduck farms.

I did not include in my story any comments from those who are opposing geoduck farms in other areas — mainly because the folks I talked to were unaware of the tubes that I described. Still, I can tell you that some people are skeptical of any operation in which one species would dominate a beach.

Would that be the result if geoducks were grown a foot apart on Hood Head? And would the disruption of the beach during harvest activities be an acceptable price to pay for economic returns on the giant clams, which fetch a considerable amount of money on the international market?

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post 

Is all whaling the same? I don’t think so, but I am beginning to see why anti-whaling groups wish to draw a line in the sand and stop all whale killing.

I admit I am fascinated by the program “Whale Wars” on the Animal Planet network. The weekly show gives us an inside look at how the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society confronts Japanese whalers in the Antarctic.

I also admit to believing that Japanese whalers are probably not taking enough minke whales to harm the regional population in the Antarctic. And surely the so-called “scientific research” is at least keeping track of the populations, the number of whales killed and their genetic makeup.

But new research coming out of Oregon State University has profoundly shifted my attitude about Japanese whaling and the dire need for increased international attention.

DNA analysis of whale meat sold to the public has revealed that perhaps as many whales are killed in coastal areas near Japan and South Korea — where whaling is outlawed under international agreement — as are taken in the Antarctic.

How can this be?

The dead minke whales from coastal waters, apparently not always counted, are attributed to incidental “bycatch” in net fisheries, according to Scott Baker, associate director of the Marine Mammal Institute at OSU.

Japan and South Korea are the only countries that allow this kind of bycatch to be sold, he says.

Baker and his colleague, Vimoksalehi Lukoscheck of the University of California-Irvine, presented their findings at the recent meeting of the International Whaling Commission. It was there that Japan was seeking approval to allow whaling off its coast.

Baker says the Japanese proposal demands careful scrutiny, given his findings and the need to identify and sustain distinct stocks of minke whales.

.“The sale of bycatch alone supports a lucrative trade in whale meat at markets in some Korean coastal cities, where the wholesale price of an adult minke whale can reach as high as $100,000,” Baker said in an OSU news release. “Given these financial incentives, you have to wonder how many of these whales are, in fact, killed intentionally.”

Baker said the bycatch of whales provides a cover for illegal whaling, which is difficult to detect. Last year, Korean police began to look into organized illegal whaling in the port town of Ulsan, where they seized 50 tons minke whale meat.

Baker’s genetic studies have identified other whale meat on the market as well — including some from humpback whales, fin whales, Bryde’s whales and the critically endangered western Pacific gray whales, which may be on the verge of extinction.

I believe hunting has its place in wildlife management, but the Asian marketing in dead whales appears to be out of control and troubling on many levels.

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post 

Anti-whaling groups are turning to economics as a key reason why all countries should discontinue commercial whaling.

A report commissioned by the International Fund for Animal Welfare concludes that the whale-watching industry has more than doubled over the past decade. In 2008, more than 13 million people in 119 countries and territories participated in whale watching, generating a total $2.1 billion in direct expenditures, the report says.

The report, by Economists at Large & Associates of Melbourne, Australia, was released at this week’s International Whaling Commission’s Meeting in Madeira, Portugal.

From the report:

Across the globe, the whale watching industry has grown at an average rate of 3.7% per year, comparing well against global tourism growth of 4.2% per year over the same period.

But the growth rate of whale watching at a global level tells only part of the story. At a regional level, average annual growth has occurred well above growth in tourism rates in five of the seven regions in this report: Asia (17% per year), Central America and the Caribbean (13% per year), South America (10% per year), Oceania and the Pacific Islands (10% per year) and Europe (7%), evidence of strongly emerging industries…

The picture that emerges is of an industry that provides a new model for use of natural resources — an industry that relies on whales in a non‐extractive way. That, when well managed, can be truly sustainable and provide a sharp contrast to the days when whales were seen solely as a resource to be hunted and consumed.

It should be noted, however, that whaling watching itself is not without its impacts. The IWC has focused considerable attention on this issue as well. See this year’s report from the Scientific Subcommittee on Whale Watching (PDF 220 kb).

Meanwhile, a report commissioned by the World Wildlife Fund International concludes that whaling activities in Japan and Norway are not profitable by themselves and probably would not exist without subsidies. The June 18 issue of Science News reviews that study.

Iceland and Japan argue that whaling is an important cultural tradition and should be maintained even as the whale-watching industry grows.

“Allegations that whaling affects whale watching have proven not to be true,” said Tomas Heidar, Iceland’s commissioner to the IWC, in a report by Richard Black of the BBC. “On the contrary, whale watching has been growing steadily in the last few years after our resumption of commercial whaling [in 2006].”

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post 

While some Southern Resident killer whales are still out of the area, J pod has returned to our inland waterway (Point Roberts at the moment). We also have the L-12s and a few Ks, according to Ken Balcomb of the Center for Whale Research.

We’ll wait and see if any of these whales show up for Orca Sing tomorrow night. See my previous Water Ways entry.

There’s another interesting orca event going on next week, which is worth some attention. It’s called “Southern Resident Orcas, Then and Now: What Have We Learned?” It’s sponsored by Orca Network, the Seattle Aquarium and Puget Sound Partnership.

I’m anticipating that the highlight of this social event will be recently unearthed film footage of the 1971 killer whale capture in Penn Cove on Whidbey Island. The late Don McGaffin, a reporter for KING 5 TV, became thoroughly involved in the story, asking the right questions.

Ralph Munro, former secretary of state for Washington and a longtime advocate for orcas, helped bring this dramatic footage to light and make it available for Tuesday’s event. I’ve previewed the film, which takes us back to what seems like another world.

You will see in the film orcas thrashing about in a tiny pen, as people with ropes looped around the animals try to move them around.

At one point, McGaffin sits down on a dock with the water behind him and looks into the camera.

“Whale catchers and oceanarians keep pounding the public relations drum, taking the position that one of the reasons the killer whale is taken is for scientific reasons,” McGaffin notes. “Yet some marine biologists don’t know whether to laugh or cry at that suggestion.”

McGaffin then points out that one may study the physical structure of a captive killer whale — but what about their social structure, their feeding choices, their travel patterns?

“What they really don’t know is if the whales taken by (Ted) Griffin and (Don) Goldsberry these past seven years are from the same family or the same pod, yet the captures go on.”

At the time, researchers knew little about Puget Sound orcas. Of course, McGaffin could not know that these whales would become one of the most studied marine mammal populations in the world. Today, thanks to Ken Balcomb and a convenient family structure among the whales, we can draw all the family trees going back 35 years.

The recently unearthed film also includes interviews with biologists and politicians who talk about the captures from their points of view.

“The struggle to protect the Puget Sound killer whales has many heroes,” Ralph Munro says. “Perhaps first and foremost is the late Don McGaffin of KING 5 television and publisher Wallie Funk of the Whidbey News Times newspaper. Both Don and Wallie risked their lives to get detailed pictures of the captures and the sorting of whales during the 1970s.”

Ralph will provide commentary to the film. Others expected to make comments are Bill Ruckelshaus of Puget Sound Partnership, Howard Garrett of Orca Network and Gary Chittim of KING 5 TV, who will provide more recent footage of killer whales.

Tickets are $50 per person to cover expenses. Any proceeds will go to special projects by Orca Network.

For information or to purchase tickets, go to Orca Network or call (360) 678-3451.

Ralph sent the following letter to promote Tuesday’s event:

(more…)

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post 

President Obama is being praised for his decision to pull together all the ocean-related challenges this nation faces and for plotting a unified course of action.

On Friday, the president issued a memorandum calling for a task force to develop a national ocean policy along with a “framework” for action and a set of objectives. See the Memorandum for the Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies, along with a news story by reporter Doug Palmer of Reuters.

I was tempted to state cynically that actions speak louder than words, so we should curb our enthusiasm about what can be done to save the oceans. But then I talked to Bill Ruckelshaus, who co-chairs the Joint Ocean Commission, a national group dedicated to this topic.

Ruckelshaus seems to be thrilled with this latest development, following years of failed promises from the Bush administration.

“This is quite a significant event, really,” Bill told me. “It moves the oceans up on the presidential agenda, which means they will get more attention from Congress and from agencies in the administration. Presidencies are all about setting agendas, and this means more attention will be paid to the recommendations we made.”

I’ll tell you a little more about what my conversation with Mr. Ruckelshaus, but first I’ll review the history.

Five years ago, similar praise was accorded to President Bush after the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy — a presidentially appointed body — released it’s comprehensive examination of the major problems facing the oceans. The report included a list of potential solutions.

Adm. James D. Watkins, a retired Navy officer who chaired the commission, expressed enthusiasm for the reception he felt the report was getting from the Bush administration.

“President Bush’s response to the Commission’s Report and his signing of Executive Order establishing a Secretarial-level Committee on Ocean Policy … sets into motion the important process of developing and implementing a new national ocean policy,” Watkins declared.

Despite the positive reaction, I don’t believe a whole lot came about. (Review the last three “report cards.”) A separate report written by the Pew Oceans Commission received even less attention.

After the two commissions dissolved, some members — including Ruckelshaus — moved into a new organization called the Joint Ocean Commission Initiative, a nongovernmental group that maintained pressure for action through annual “report cards” relating the progress, or lack thereof, on ocean issues.

In April of this year, the joint commission issued an urgent new report called “Changing Oceans, Changing World: Ocean Priorities for the Obama Administration and Congress” (PDF 280 kb). I outlined that report in a Water Ways entry on April 7.

And so now we come to today, five months into the new administration, which seems to be trying to do everything at once. Can there really be much energy left for a discussion about the oceans?

Bill Ruckelshaus is undaunted. “I think holding back and doing things one at a time just doesn’t work,” he said. “You have to act while the energy is there.”

Ruckelshaus, the first administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency under President Nixon, now chairs the Leadership Council of the Puget Sound Partnership, where he is heading the effort to reverse the degradation of our inland waterways.

President Bush created the U.S. Commission on Oceans, which probably seemed like a good idea at the time. But pulling all the environmental agencies together and getting Congress to focus on budgets, regulations and international treaties just never came to pass.

Why is Obama’s action different?

(more…)

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post 

When it comes to the food we eat, the buy-local movement is slowly catching on across the country.

Sharon Howard keeps her 15 pigs cool by filling a hole with water. Kitsap Sun photo

Among the various benefits of locally grown food is reducing the transportation of produce — resulting in less oil consumption, lower emissions of pollution and greenhouse gases, and even large-scale economic benefits, such as the balance of trade.

As demand for local food increases, local farmers are trying to put fallow lands back into production. So what is standing in their way? For many eager farmers, the answer is WATER RIGHTS.

Kitsap Sun reporter Chris Henry explores the experience of one local family in today’s Kitsap Sun. Sharon and Jay Howard own 14 acres at their Possum Run Farm that they want to put into production. But they need water during the dry periods, whether they grow produce or raise livestock.

Unless you have enough money to pay for complicated hydrologic studies — and we’re talking up to $100,000 — it is virtually impossible to get the Department of Ecology to approve the use of a new well for commercial use anywhere on the Kitsap Peninsula.

And things just got worse, thanks to the poor economy. To balance the state budget, the Washington Legislature recently hacked 25 percent out of the Department of Ecology’s Water Resources Program. (Review my May 27 story in the Kitsap Sun.) If the economy improves, officials hope to restore the program in two years.

But let’s be clear about the problem. There’s almost no hope that management of limited water supplies will improve without a great deal of government attention. You could double the size of the program, but without new policies, procedures, laws, or ultimately court battles, serious progress won’t happen in many areas of our state.

In Western Washington, Ecology is forced to focus on solving water resource problems in a few limited areas, such as the Dungeness watershed where supplies are in a critical state and everybody knows it. But nobody has proposed a way through the minefield of water resource issues on the Kitsap Peninsula — not since a local watershed-planning process came to an abrupt end with a veto from Nisqually Tribe.

To make matters worse, the latest state budget eliminates money for planning, except for those areas with an approved watershed-management plan.

And so the Howards and other would-be farmers must look for a way to possibly purchase and transfer water allocations from someone else. I guess we’ll see how that works out.

Meanwhile, for information about the buy-local movement, check out the Web site “Buy Local Food in Kitsap,” sponsored by the Kitsap Community and Agricultural Alliance. Statewide, one place to look is the Washington State Farmers Market Association.

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post 

Federal biologists are really stirring things up in Northern California. They have determined that the irrigation system in the vast Central Valley farm region jeopardizes the future of several species of fish as well as Puget Sound’s killer whales.

The killer whale angle is worth some discussion — but first the larger picture.

“What is at stake here is not just the survival of species but the health of entire ecosystems and the economies that depend on them,” Rod Mcinnis, southwest regional director for NOAA’s Fisheries Service said in a news release. “We are ready to work with our federal and state partners, farmers and residents to find solutions that benefit the economy, environment and Central Valley families.”

Changing the water system to meet the requirements of threatened and endangered species could reduce water supplies by 5 to 7 percent, significantly affecting farm production and drinking water supplies. Several proposed projects — valued at hundreds of millions of dollars — could help balance that out. To see the technical reports, go to NOAA’s Web site on the issue.

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger objected to the findings in a written statement:

“This federal biological opinion puts fish above the needs of millions of Californians and the health and security of the world’s eighth largest economy. The piling on of one federal court decision after another in a species-by-species approach is killing our economy and undermining the integrity of the Endangered Species Act. I will be asking for a meeting with Secretary Salazar and Secretary Locke to discuss our concerns with these biological opinions, and my Administration will be pursuing every possible avenue to reconcile the harmful effects of these decisions.”

Court action is almost certain.

Reporters Kelly Zito of the San Francisco Chronicle and Colin Sullivan of the New York Times’ “Greenwire” do a good job in fleshing out this story from the California perspective.

It’s interesting to see the federal biologists address the plight of the Southern Resident killer whales with respect to water use in California. These orcas frequent Puget Sound, but they are spending a great deal of their time along the West Coast down to Monterey Bay. The bottom line in the biological opinion is that salmon availability along the coast could be a key factor in whether the population is able to avoid extinction.

Environmental groups were quick to argue that if water operations in Northern California can raise the risk of extinction to intolerable levels, then surely the dams on the Columbia River ought to be a concern.

“The recent National Marine Fisheries Service conclusion linking destruction of salmon habitat to harm to killer whales is a breath of fresh air,” said Kathy Fletcher, executive director for People for Puget Sound in a statement. “Our killer whales are at critically low numbers, and NMFS has recognized that what we do to salmon in freshwater impacts our orcas in the ocean. But it doesn’t make sense to protect salmon for whales to eat in California while at the same time ignoring the effect of dams on fish in the whales’ backyard.”

The issue of what to do about the dams remains before a federal judge. The Obama administration is considering whether to continue with the Bush approach to leave the dams in place or revisit the issue.

“The fiction that the dams on the Columbia and Snake Rivers have no effect on the food supply for orcas is one of many failings in the Columbia and Snake River biological opinion,” said Steve Mashuda of Earthjustice, which represents the groups in the case. “Our killer whales shouldn’t have to travel all the way to Monterey Bay to find a decent meal.”

To understand why the federal biologists consider water activities in California critical to the survival of the Southern Resident killer whales, I’ve pulled some comments from the Biological Opinion and Conference Opinion on the Long-Term Operations of the Central Valley Project and State Water Project (PDF 12.7mb):

(more…)

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post 

Five years after oil spilled at the Point Wells terminal north of Seattle and drifted across Puget Sound, the issue is finally being put to bed.

If you recall, the incident raised awareness among Puget Sound residents about how much damage can be caused by even a relatively small amount oil (less than 5,000 gallons). The Legislature held hearings on the incident and a blue-ribbon panel conducted an investigation. See “Lessons Learned Report” (PDF 92 kb).

Cleanup from Point Wells spill, Dec. 30, 2003
photo by CDR Thomas Callahan, NOAA

One outcome was to require vessels to deploy oil-containment booms during oil transfers under most conditions — something the Navy and some oil companies said they had been doing routinely.

Now, we hear that state, federal and tribal officials have agreed on a plan to spend some $338,000 that Foss Maritime Company has agreed to pay as its damage assessment. See story in today’s Kitsap Sun.

Details are outlined in a “Draft Restoration Plan and Environmental Assessment (PDF 680 kb).” Generally, the plan calls for work on five projects:

• Remove creosote logs and marine debris from Doe-Kag-Wats marsh, which was damaged by the oil spill,
• Restore a 3.5-acre pocket estuary at the Indianola Waterfront Preserve by removing earthen fill and planting vegetation,
• Seed clams and oysters in intertidal areas near Indianola and other locations in Port Madison,
• Purchase about 1.5 acres of tidelands to add to existing state tidelands, increasing recreational uses,
• And redesign parking and picnic areas and restore natural features to the berm area of Doe-Kag-Wats estuary, which is used by the public and the Suquamish Tribe.

Comments on the plan are being taken until June 26. See U.S. Fish and Wildlife Web site.

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post 

Geoduck harvesting remains controversial. Some people are convinced that it creates long-lasting damage to the seabed and to the creatures that dwell on the bottom. Others are equally convinced that damage is minimal and does not last very long.

I have never determined for myself if one side or the other is absolutely right, or if it depends largely on bottom conditions at a specific site. As a reporter, I continue to listen to both sides and try to give them each fair treatment.

One thing is for sure, however: The money that goes into state coffers from the sale of geoducks is quite remarkable. In a story published in today’s Kitsap Sun, I quote state officials who say the market has remained strong, despite the downturn in the economy.

In a single area north of Blake Island in Kitsap County, the state will receive $1.4 million for geoducks harvested this year alone. Similar amounts can be expected from that area for the next few years.

I will entertain comments and links to documents from anyone who wants to discuss the damage issue. I must give some weight, however, to the National Marine Fisheries Service, which has approved a Geoduck Habitat Conservation Plan and incidental take permit under the Endangered Species Act. (See the NMFS Web site on geoducks.)

The reports, which are based largely on research by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, give the geoduck fishery a “low-effect” rating when it comes to threatened and endangered species.

“A low effect HCP is one that NOAA’s Fisheries Service and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service determine to have minor or negligible effects on federally listed, proposed, or candidate species and their habitats covered under the HCP,” according to the NMFS Web site.

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post 

I tackled Washington Department of Ecology’s budget in a story published today in the Kitsap Sun.

My original plan was to lead the story with the water resources program and its 25 percent cutback in staffers who process water-rights applications. The cutbacks will put the state further behind in managing our limited water resources.

Because Ecology has taken a precautionary approach, the result will be less water available to serve growing communities and businesses. That becomes especially frustrating for developers and water utilities, but a lack of overall management is not so good for the environment either.

And we still kind of ignore that fact that people are allowed to drill wells for their single-family homes without much regard for the overall amount of water available. That issue will come home to roost one of these days, because these are the wells most likely to affect streams and wetlands. Conflicting demands will inevitably rise to the surface one day.

Anyway, my original plan was to lead this story talking about water resources, but I chose to focus first on litter. Litter is easier for people to understand, and I thought more people could get into the story from that angle. I know my blood boils when I think of all the trash along the highways. I also discovered some interesting details for my story.

Statewide, Ecology’s Youth Corps will be cut by half. That means less litter will be picked up. As some folks pointed out in comments on the story, we still have work crews from the jails, but that effort also takes money for supervision, transportation and disposal — and not all inmates are eligible to work. The state will still support the inmate crews, though I need to check whether the county will continue the program at the same level. (I’ll try to report that here and in a comment on the story.)

Overall, Ecology will be able to make it through the downtown in the economy without major problems. As with many organizations, the biggest problem will be losing experienced, knowledgeable employees and hiring back rookies when money becomes available.

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post