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 

New orca calf born in J Pod.
Photo by Jeanne Hyde

A newborn killer whale calf has been reported in J Pod, one of the three pods that frequent the Salish Sea, which includes Puget Sound.

This birth brings the population of J Pod to 27 and the total for all three pods to 87.
—–
This appears to be J-28’s first baby. See Center for Whale Research.

For some first-hand accounts of the exciting discovery, check blogs by Jeanne Hyde and Monika Wieland.

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post 

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 

These two words have been spinning around in my brain since I attended a conference on water resources a couple of days ago. Check out my story in today’s Kitsap Sun.

Western Washington may not experience an overall water shortage as a result of climate change the way some regions will, according to climatologists. But our rains, on average, are likely to come in heavier downpours. To me, that means we will have our hands full trying to reduce the frequency of flooding, which affects natural systems as well as man-made ones.

In areas of the country that become drier, water could become scarce and the price of water is likely to go up. We’ve seen an ongoing drought in the Southwest. While it could be a just temporary trend, the situation calls for better water management and makes people nervous about the future. Click here to see an animation of changing conditions over the past 12 weeks.

A speaker at the conference, Michael Read of the Water Environment Federation, predicted that the Northwest will attract population from the Southwest as climate change continues. Winners and losers?

It may not be a question of whether we want the extra people. It may be more about whether we can manage the population growth with the least disruption to our ecosystem. Will we find ways to work with the coming changes in climate — or not? Will we be winners or losers?

If water gives our region a competitive edge, maybe we could attract industry looking to move away from more arid regions. That could help stabilize our economy, which seems to be a perpetual goal of many people. Winners and losers?

If climatologists are right, many species in the Northwest will struggle to adapt to the changing conditions. Some will survive and some will go extinct. Winners and losers.

I am not discounting efforts to reduce greenhouse gases and possibly avert some of the more dire consequences of climate change. But a growing effort is looking into how humans and animals may adapt to whatever changes will come.

While experts study adaptation, I don’t believe the concept has entered our general consciousness, let alone our actions. Perhaps waiting to see what happens is the prudent thing to do. After all, how do we plan for something uncertain?

On the other hand, maybe it would be wiser to begin considering the range of futures we could face within a few short decades. How do we become winners instead of losers?

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post 

Don Flora, a retired forest researcher, conducted a statistical analysis of data compiled in separate shoreline assessments of East Kitsap and Bainbridge Island. Flora concluded that the reports show no apparent relationship between man-made stressors and ecosystem functions. Please take a look at my story in today’s Kitsap Sun.

Not finding a correlation between these two factors does not mean that man-made structures are harmless or without effect on the ecosystem. But these findings do raise questions, as Flora points out. Download his report here (PDF 188 kb).

So far, I have been unable to find a qualified scientist who has read Flora’s report and wishes to respond on the record. I’ve heard from a few who have questions about the analysis and may prepare a response in the future.

Among the complaints about Flora’s report are these: It does not follow standard protocol for a scientific report; it is not obvious how he conducted his analysis; and it was not peer reviewed by third-party experts.

Flora told me that his intent was to create a paper that could be read by average people, and he did ask a couple of people to edit it for readability. He did not intend for it to be considered a scientific paper nor for it to be peer-reviewed in the scientific sense.

I have heard complaints that Flora did not show his work, and I found myself asking him to point me to the data tables that he used to plug numbers into the standard regression analysis — a statistical tool used to show relationships between two independent variables. I suggested to Flora that he include an appendix that would show the raw data and help people replicate his work. He thought this might be a good idea.

If you want to take a closer look, review the findings related to Bainbridge Island shoreline planning and Kitsap County shoreline planning, including the county shoreline assessments.

Some scientists find it offensive that Flora lifted data from these two reports and manipulated them to his own ends without consulting the scientists involved. Others are suspicious that Flora used these data to reach his own conclusions — a suspicion heightened because Flora is a member of KAPO. And KAPO’s press release (PDF 64 kb) about Flora’s report makes a leap that stirs the pot of controversy:

“These reviews bring into question the justification for any nearshore restorations or the need to impose any shoreline buffer zones in the upcoming Shoreline Master Program updates.”

Dealing with numerous scientific studies will be an important part of the effort to update the county’s shorelines plan. Kitsap County planners say they aren’t sure how they will deal with Flora’s report, but they intend to lean heavily on expertise from the Washington Department of Ecology to point them to reliable scientific studies.

The planners say they want to make sure that any studies upon which they rely for planning are vetted before they move into policy discussions. During the update of the county’s Critical Areas Ordinance, such studies were never fully vetted — at least not to the satisfaction of property rights advocates. KAPO members ended up arguing about science all the way to the Washington State Supreme Court — though the court did not address science issues at all when it overturned the county’s shoreline buffers. See the Sept. 9 Kitsap Sun and the Water Ways entry the next day.

I’ve always expected that experts would engage in a healthy discussion about what it will take to protect the ecological functions of the county’s shorelines. Now it appears the discussion may take on the tone of a debate. In comments posted at the bottom of today’s story, some people are showing their distrust of government while others are showing their distrust of KAPO.

I hope everyone can somehow relax enough to embark on a real search for truth knowledge as it relates to shoreline ecosystems. After all, isn’t that what science is really about?

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post 

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 

An outline of the action plan, titled “A Vision for Hood Canal,” was discussed at today’s meeting of the coordinating council, which is made up of county commissioners and tribal officials in Kitsap, Mason and Jefferson counties.

Scott Brewer, director of the council, told me that actions to address low-oxygen problems in Hood Canal will be rolled into this watershed plan — but specific projects will move forward on their own time tables.

A new sewage-treatment plant in Belfair is expected to reduce nitrogen flowing into Lower Hood Canal. Nitrogen has been determined to be a key factor in creating low-oxygen conditions in this region of the canal, which gets very little flushing.

Other sewage-treatment plants are being considered in Hoodsport, Potlatch and the Skokomish Reservation, all in Mason County, along with a single system for Dosewallips State Park and possibly Brinnon in Jefferson County.

Immediate actions include:

• Making sure people understand the basics of septic system maintenance,
• Continued funding for a low-interest loan program for septic upgrades (See Shorebank),
• Support for the Working Forest Initiative to maintain forestlands in the Hood Canal region,
• A request for research into the effectiveness of nitrogen-removal septic systems,
• And a request for research into the extent that alder trees can increase the flow of nitrogen into Hood Canal and whether to pursue changes in forest management.

The action plan contains a “watershed assessment,” which will describe a “desired future condition” for Hood Canal along with factors that need to be addressed to reach measurable goals. As the outlines states:

In a general sense, the hypothesis to be tested through the watershed assessment is whether ecosystem function throughout the Hood Canal watershed can be protected and restored, and water pollution reduced, while at the same time accommodating expected future population growth. More specifically, the desired future condition will describe healthy habitat and life histories of target populations and other habitat and socioeconomic conditions.

The plan’s description of desired future conditions will be used as a template against which to compare current conditions, for purposes of identifying limiting factors and strategies to correct them. The plan’s description of desired future conditions will be based on a reconstruction of historic conditions, taking into account changes that are irreversible.

For further details, check out materials provided for today’s meeting on the home page of the Hood Canal Coordinating Council.

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post 

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.

Whale watch companies do not comply with WA legislation when they are not being monitored by government agencies. This has been proven in our report, “Contact: In Pursuit of Orcas.” Lifeforce photos have led to fines against a company.

Lifeforce urges all to email US Commerce Gary Locke to increase orca protection by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (Email TheSec@doc.gov).

During public comment meetings the whale watch companies and their commercial/sport fishing buddies were somewhat rude and had a bias letter writing campaign. At least one company owner was a commercial fisher and others have connections with commercial fishing activities. The form letter targeted their whale watch tourists who were misled into thinking that the whale watch companies would go out of business if the vessel regulations are implemented.

It is clear that these industries are making their financial profits a priority over orca protection… Whale Watching operations must be changed. Companies have been able to do basically want they want over the years. This must be stopped by changing their operation methods and more enforcement. Lifeforce will be submitting additional comments by the new deadline.

Lifeforce recommendation will include:

1. A 400 yards safety zone around orcas to reduce noise levels, stress and collisions. Companies had agreed to 400 yards when orcas are nursing.
2. No Go Zone on the west side of San Juan Island and southwest side of Point Roberts. These are vital critical habits.
3. Designated Go Zones to stop the relentless, day long pursuit of orcas.
4. A 30 minute time limit to view orcas (presently boats can stay for hours).

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post 

What a “healthy” Puget Sound would actually look like is one of the major tasks of the partnership’s Science Panel. How to measure progress and adjust plans on the way to the ultimate goal is the focus of much effort at the moment.

In a story I wrote for today’s Kitsap Sun, I attempted to provide some information about the Puget Sound Partnership Performance Management System. I tried to keep the story general, because I was afraid the details would bore and possibly frustrate the average reader. Honestly, I’m not sure I captured the full scope of this complex system.

For those who would like more details, I refer you to the Oct. 1 “Tech Memo” (PDF 88 kb) that covers the concept and major elements of “performance management” — defined as “an ongoing, systematic approach to improving results through evidence-based decision making, continuous organizational learning and a focus on accountability…”

A few of the principles you’ll find in the memo:

• Goals, programs, activities and resources are aligned with mission, priorities and desired results. Accountability that funds allocated are best invested to advance results. (Clear line of sight between outcomes to funding)
• Science information and monitoring data must be provided on a schedule and in a format that meets the needs of the performance management system and can be interpreted and used by non-technical decision makers.
• Performance management transforms the Action Agenda, its management and the policy-making process. It will require a change in the culture of the Puget Sound Partnership and other implementers and the cleanup effort itself.

The process proceeds along these steps, which cycle again and again:

1. Plan
2. Allocate resources
3. Implement and monitor
4. Analyze progress
5. Respond (including revisions to plans)
6. Improve (including adjusting strategies and targets)
7. Communicate results and listen

It’s worth remembering that the mandate of the Puget Sound Partnership is to coordinate all agencies and organizations involved in Puget Sound restoration. The partnership will suggest to the Legislature where money should go. If the process works well, the federal government and other funding sources are likely to follow suit. The idea is to send money to groups that are effective and withhold money from those that aren’t.

Here’s the budgetary process, as spelled out in the law creating the Puget Sound Partnership:

State agencies responsible for implementing elements of the Action Agenda shall:

Provide to the partnership by June 1st of each even-numbered year their estimates of the actions and the budget resources needed for the forthcoming biennium to implement their portion of the action agenda; and

Work with the partnership in the development of biennial budget requests to achieve consistency with the Action Agenda to be submitted to the governor for consideration in the governor’s biennial budget request. The agencies shall seek the concurrence of the partnership in the proposed funding levels and sources included in this proposed budget.

If a state agency submits an amount different from (what is worked out with the partnership), the partnership and state agency shall jointly identify the differences and the reasons for these differences and present this information to the Office of Financial Management by October 1 of each even-numbered year.

The Puget Sound Partnership is on track to meet this June 1 budgetary deadline for input to the biennial budget to be approved by the Legislature in 2011, according to David Dicks, the partnership’s executive director.

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post 

Manning, a native of Manchester in Kitsap County, has always been associated with environmental issues and occasional environmental battles. Now, he will use his organizational and negotiation skills to work alongside Gov. Chris Gregoire.

“Jay Manning brings incredible leadership skills and knowledge of our state to this new position,” Gregoire said in a news release. “He works effectively with citizens all across our state. He has an extraordinary ability to bring people together to forge solutions to difficult problems and seize opportunities for Washington state.”

I reached Jay Manning this afternoon to congratulate him and ask him what the heck he was thinking.

He told me that both the Ecology director post and his new chief of staff position include an “incredible array of issues,” but the new job comes with a broader range of responsibilities. It will require him to become more of a generalist, which is a new challenge for him.

“I have focused on environmental issues my whole career, and that is where my heart will always be,” he told me. “But I look forward to a full immersion in all the areas of state government.”

It will be a learning experience as he gets up to speed on all state agencies, learns about budgets and economic stimulus programs, and gets entangled in state politics like he’s never seen before.

Of course, I am interested in Manning’s successor. Hiring the new Ecology director will be one of the first priorities of his new position, he said.

“I think the agency is highly functional as it is, but my job will be to get good candidates before her (Gregoire) for selection,” he said, adding that he has placed a proposed selection process on her desk but hasn’t heard back yet.

I would guess that candidates are likely to come from within Ecology or at least be someone who Manning and the governor know fairly well.

“I will want to move quickly on this,” Jay said, “and I think she does, too.”

Manning has taken on some tough issues as Ecology director, including battles over Hanford and climate change. Not everyone agrees with the agency’s decisions, but Manning has never hesitated to lay out the rationale behind them.

Through it all, it seems that Jay has remained well respected among those who have dealt with him. Of course, I wish him well in his new position and look forward to working with his replacement.

If you’d like to read a profile on Manning and hear him discuss the issues in his own words, go to the Feb. 16, 2008, story in the Kitsap Sun.

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post