Watching Our Water Ways

I used to feel happy for teenagers who got together on a weekend to wash cars and raise money for a good cause. I would often take time to drive in, get my car washed and praise the teens for their efforts. And I would give them a nice tip.

Now, when I see a charity carwash, I just want to know where the water is going. If the water is washing into a storm drain that spills into a stream, I can’t help but wonder if these kids care about fish and wildlife, or if they might not have gotten the message about the harm caused by dirty, soapy water.

You may wish to read the story I wrote on this topic in last Saturday’s Kitsap Sun.

Sometimes, being an environmental reporter causes one to think a little too much about the environment. Sure, carwashes probably are not going to kill everything in sight. But they are just another insult from a human society that has not yet learned how to protect the living Earth.

The federal Clean Water Act of 1972 declared that it was illegal to discharge polluted water into any natural stream or waterway. At the time, industrial discharges were so severe that soap and heavy metals from carwashes were insignificant. But now, after 40 years, those industrial point sources are greatly diminished, and researchers are learning that the greatest threat to water quality today comes from thousands of small sources.

Gov. Jay Inslee has declared this month “Puget Sound Starts Here Month,” according to a press release issued by the Puget Sound Partnership. The idea is for each of us to pay attention to how we affect Puget Sound.

Here’s the message from Marc Daily, the partnership’s interim executive director:

“It’s not just about the pipe coming out of the factory anymore. Today, stormwater runoff is the single largest contributor to our water quality problems. That pollution comes from our cars and how we wash them, from the chemicals we put on our lawns, and from not picking up after our pets. When it rains, bacteria and toxic chemicals from these and other sources end up in our local waterways. That’s a problem.”

From King County Water and Land Resources

One way to keep charity car washes alive is to capture the wash water and direct it into a toilet or sink that connects to a municipal sewer system, not a septic system. King County provides instructions for making and using a carwash kit to handle the water.

People can also sell tickets to commercial carwashes, which is the method being pushed by most water-quality programs across the nation. It’s not just here that carwashes are getting increasing attention.

How much harm do they cause? It varies from place to place, but some students from Central Kitsap High School calculated the amount of various chemicals produced by capturing the water from washing cars and conducting lab tests on some of the pollutants. See “Characterization of Runoff from Charity Carwashes in the Dyes Inlet Watershed” (PDF 475 kb).

Like many people, I feel a tinge of sadness that carwashes will probably die out. Like many harmful traditions, such as burning garbage and smoking, it might be time to give this one up.

Still, if you want to operate a weekend car wash, get yourself a carwash kit to deal with the wash water. Then stand on the corner and wave signs promoting the fact that this is a clean and safe carwash that protects the environment. If I see you, I’ll even stop and donate to the cause.

Share on Facebook

It’s not often that we get to talk about a new environmental group in the Puget Sound region. We have a lot of existing groups, to be sure, but I can’t recall when the last one came into existence.

Whether Sound Action is actually a new group can be debated, since its core leaders come from Preserve Our Islands, the organization that battled the gravel mining operation on Maury Island. But I consider it a new group, because Sound Action has a new, clearly defined mission, not focused on a single development but on protecting shoreline habitats throughout Puget Sound.

The group will begin by keeping its eye on hydraulic project approvals issued by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. The group’s audit of 290 past HPAs (PDF 3.3 mb) purports to show that adequate restrictions were not imposed in many cases where shoreline habitats and species needed to be protected.

Randi Thurston of WDFW disputes the report’s methods and conclusions, as I mention in my story published in today’s Kitsap Sun.

Those overall findings and statistics may make little difference in the long run, however. More interesting will be the deficiencies the group discovers as it goes about reviewing every permit issued by WDFW — the express goal of Amy Carey, the group’s executive director.

“Our intent here isn’t to be adversarial,” she told me yesterday. “We want to be supportive of DFW and help them fix the problem. … Reasonably good laws have been on the books for decades, but we have agencies that just don’t say no.”

When it comes to specific permits, it will be easier to discuss what conditions exist at a specific site, what data are available about the particular shoreline, what permit conditions are mandatory and what conditions would be advisable to add some measure of protection.

I can’t see how another set of eyes or even a differing opinion can hurt if the goal is to protect the environment, and maybe this effort will make a big difference in restoring Puget Sound to health. Of course, if the goal is to approve shoreline developments as quickly as possible, then regulations and oversight just get in the way.

Here are the goals, as described by Sound Action:

• In our new work, Sound Action will be reviewing each Puget Sound-based HPA as it comes under the consideration of WDFW to ensure that all applicable environmental regulations are applied.
• In the event that science-based information is missing or overlooked by WDFW, we will present detailed documentation on species and habitats present as well as impacts of the proposal.
• If a permit is approved which does not contain appropriate provisions or is approved in violation of state law, Sound Action will pursue appeal and legal action.
• Sound Action will expand its watchdog role to other regulatory areas in Puget Sound, but its first task is to focus on the state HPA program to make sure each permit does what the law requires and that the program is functioning and providing habitat protection. Not only is this required by law, it also supports the state mandate to restore Puget Sound by 2020.

Share on Facebook

I would like to share some comments from a story along with an editorial cartoon, but first I want to talk about rain runoff from streets, driveways, parking lots, yards and roofs — also known as stormwater.

Stormwater is considered the greatest pollution threat to Puget Sound, according to studies by the Washington Department of Ecology. Of course, it is not the rain itself that causes the problem. It is what gets picked up along the way: chemicals, pesticides, fertilizers, bacteria … The list goes on.

Cameron Coleman finishes up an oil change on a car at Hockett & Olsen Automotive on Bainbridge Island, where car owners can obtain a free oil-leak inspection.
Kitsap Sun photo by Meegan Reid

Among the toxic chemicals, one of the biggest problems appears to be motor oil from vehicles. Oil leaks out of cars as they are moving down the road or while they are parked, then the rains wash the pollution into the nearest ditch and eventually into Puget Sound. By some estimates, that amounts to 7 million quarts of oil each year.

Fortunately, not all the oil goes into the water. In Kitsap County, for example, city and county street sweepers are driving around, picking up some of the oil and other chemicals along with soil particles on the roads. It is a proven effort to reduce pollution.

It would be better still if the oil didn’t get on the roads or parking lots in the first place. But how do you get people to fix the oil leaks in their cars?

An organization of local governments throughout the Puget Sound region is hoping that awareness will provide one answer. More than 80 service shops in the region have agreed to check for oil leaks at no cost or obligation to anyone. See my story in last Tuesday’s Kitsap Sun.

It’s a pilot program with the clever title “Don’t Drip and Drive.” It will run through April. The cost to the government is the cost of advertising on the radio. A federal stormwater permit issued to local governments throughout the region already requires that they try to educate the public. Maybe this campaign will work; maybe it won’t. I’ll report on the results after the program is over.

It seems like a simple approach to the problem. Even if people know their cars are leaking, this program encourages them to think about solutions. Why not get a free estimate to see what it would cost to fix the leak? Maybe it won’t cost much. Maybe a few people will find a way to address the problem sooner rather than later. Maybe it will reduce wear on their vehicles.

If people become informed and are offered a free, no-obligations solution, will it make a difference? I hope it does, because it avoids the more heavy-handed ideas, such as requiring vehicle inspections to obtain a car license.

If you read some of the comments at the end of the story, however, you might think this pilot program is intruding into people’s personal lives, not just asking them to check for oil leaks. I realize that the comments section can be a dark place, occupied by people who see a full glass as empty. But it is amusing to see what bothers some people.

Here are the first few comments:

“I would guess that 99% of drivers park their vehicle in the same spot in their driveway or garage every night. Do we need a government program so they won’t have to look at that spot to see if oil has dropped there?”

“I agree! Government is way outside of what they are supposed to be. This is ridiculous and out of control.”

“Yep so they find a leak and what’s next??? Big time repair bill and just in time to keep your wallet empty! Nice program! Big goverment (sic) get out of my life will you???”

Sometimes a picture is worth a thousand words, so I’d like to share with you an editorial cartoon by Milt Priggee published in Sunday’s Kitsap Sun.

Share on Facebook

A research project that involved tracking the travels of K pod for more than three months in the Pacific Ocean apparently has ended, as the transmitter seems to have run out of battery power, according to research biologist Brad Hanson.

“This has been a phenomenal deployment,” Brad told me yesterday after it appeared he had logged the final transmission from K-25. “It has been a quantum leap forward for us in terms of understanding what is going on.”

K-25 is a 22-year-old male orca who was implanted with a satellite tag on Dec. 29. The battery was expected to last for 32,000 transmissions, and it actually reached about 35,000, said Hanson of NOAA’s Northwest Fisheries Science Center. No data arrived yesterday during the normal transmission period.

The three months of satellite tracking data will be combined with fecal and prey samples from a 10-day research cruise to serve up a wealth of information about where the Southern Resident killer whales go and what they eat during the early part of the year, Brad said. Until now, this has been a major blank spot in the understanding of these whales, he noted.

The information gathered over the past three months should prove valuable in management efforts to protect and restore these orcas, which are familiar to human residents of the Puget Sound region. After the data are analyzed, federal officials should be able to say whether they have enough information to expand “critical habitat” into coastal areas for the endangered killer whales. If not, we should know what additional information may be required.

Brad says he feels a high level of anticipation from his fellow killer whale experts who are eager to learn of the research findings, especially the results of what the whales are eating.

“We have a tremendous amount of data, and we’re trying to push it through as quickly as we can,” he said.

Brad says he won’t release the findings until the analysis is further along. But he did dangle this intriguing tidbit in front of me: The whales are NOT eating chinook salmon exclusively.

The tracking project has another benefit, Hanson said. It will bring new meaning to more than three years of acoustic data (recorded sounds) picked up by hydrophones dispersed along the Washington Coast. Until now, it was not possible to determine the locations of the whales from their sounds alone, because the sounds could be picked up from many miles away. Now, thanks to tracking data, the intensities of their calls and echolocation clicks can be correlated with distance to a greater extent. Researchers are developing a computer model to identify possible locations from as much as seven years of hydrophone data in some places.

The tracking project began on Dec. 29, when K-25, named Scoter, was darted with a satellite tag near Southworth in Kitsap County. K-25 and presumably the rest of K pod then moved out into the ocean. Check out the tracks on NOAA’s satellite tagging website.

“We were extremely lucky to get that tag at the end of the season,” Hanson said.

It was K pod’s last trip into Puget Sound for several months, he noted, and it is a real challenge to get close enough to dart a killer whale, especially when only certain ones are candidates for the tag.

By Jan. 13, the whales had reached Northern California, where they continued south, then turned around at Point Reyes north of San Francisco Bay. They continued to wander up and down the West Coast, including Northern California, into early March. After that, they began to stay mainly off the Washington Coast with trips into northern Oregon. They seemed to focus much of their attention near the Columbia River, where early runs of salmon may be mingling.

The research cruise, originally scheduled for three weeks, ran from March 1 to March 10, cut short by the federal budget sequestration. By following the whales, researchers were able to collect 24 samples of prey (scales and/or tissues of fish) plus 21 fecal samples from the whales themselves. Shortly before the cruise, K pod met up with L pod, probably off the Washington Coast.

The ability to track the whales and the fortune of decent weather were major factors in the success of the research cruise, Brad said. In contrast, several previous cruises had netted only two prey samples and no fecal samples.

“We are ecstatic about the amount of data we collected in such a short period of time,” Brad told me. “If we would have had 21 days instead of 10, just think what we could have done.”

Tagging the whales with a dart, which penetrates the skin, has been controversial among whale observers. Some contend that we already know that the whales spend time in the Pacific Ocean, and maybe that’s enough.

But Brad says many detailed findings from the past three months were never known before — such as how much time the whales spend off the continental shelf and how much time they spend in and around canyons at the edge of the shelf.

The sampling of fish scales and fish tissues should reveal not only the species of fish, but also specific stocks of salmon as well as their age, Brad said.

“Are they actually targeting the larger and older fish?” he wondered. “Some fish are resident on the continental shelf. Are they targeting those? Are they going after the ones they can easily detect, which means not going after the smaller fish?”

The cruise also collected all kinds of information about the ecosystem, ranging from ocean depths to zooplankton to the kinds of birds seen in the area. All that information will feed into a description of the essential habitat the whales need during their winter travels.

During the cruise, another whale, L-88, a 20-year-old male named Wave Walker, was tagged as an “insurance policy” to allow the whales to be tracked if K-25′s transmitter failed. A shorter dart was used on L-88, and the tag apparently fell off about a week later.

The ocean environment is very different from Puget Sound, where the habits of the whales are well known, Brad explained. In the San Juan Islands, groups of whales are rarely far apart compared to the scale of the ocean, he noted.

In the ocean, the orcas were generally grouped up during resting periods. Sometimes Ks and Ls were together; other times they were apart. When they were foraging, however, the individual animals might be spread out for miles.

Brad said he expects to put the new information into some kind of agency report, probably followed by a peer-reviewed journal article.

“We have put a lot of time and effort to get to this point,” he said, adding that the researchers feel a sense of accomplishment now that the effort has paid off.

Share on Facebook

I just completed the second part of a yearlong series I’m writing about the Puget Sound ecosystem and the 21 “vital signs” indicators chosen by the Puget Sound Partnership to measure the health of the sound.

This second part, published in Sunday’s Kitsap Sun, consists of stories about the food web, including plankton and eelgrass; forage fish, including herring; and bulkheads, which are generally considered a threat to the nearshore ecosystem.

I was trying to cover the lower half of the food web, to build a foundation for the other parts to come.

I talked to a lot of experts on these issues and ended up writing one of the largest story packages I’ve ever written. Still, I barely touched the surface of these topics. I guess I’ll have to return later to dig a little deeper.

Scientists often say, the more they know, the more they realize what little they know, or something like that. I’ve always tried to help people understand the complexities of environmental science, but there are no simple answers.

That’s why the Puget Sound Partnership is an important bridge between policymakers and scientists. We have enough tools to know what should be done to save Puget Sound, but how do we know what projects should come before others? What can we afford to do? And how do we measure success or failure? Those are the questions challenging the partnership at the moment.

I would like to thank all the researchers willing to give their time to this project as well as Kitsap Sun staffers who helped crunch the numbers and produce the graphics for the story package, as well as the editors who offered ideas along the way.

The overall series is called “Taking the Pulse of Puget Sound.”
The second part is pulled together on a webpage called “Food web’s base”
Stories in the second part are:
Environment’s health starts at the bottom
The foundation of all life in Puget Sound
Herring, other forage fish, at risk
Eelgrass is both food and shelter
Shoreline armoring threatens base of the food web

Sinclair Inlet last August was awash in colorful plankton. This photo was taken over Port Orchard, looking toward Gorst.
Photo by Christopher Krembs, Eyes Over Puget Sound

Share on Facebook

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service yesterday announced that $20 million in grants will go to 24 coastal wetland projects throughout the United States.

Fully one-third of those grants will go to Washington state, and seven of the eight will be used for projects in the Puget Sound region.

“This just goes to show that Puget Sound is recognized as one of the most important estuaries in the country,” Michelle Connor, chief program officer for Fortera, told me for a story in today’s Kitsap Sun.

The Port Gamble project would involve the purchase of 1.8 miles of shoreline on the west side of Port Gamble Bay. / Kitsap Sun map

I believe this focus on Puget Sound also could say something about state and local priorities in a time of economic hardship.

Former Gov. Chris Gregoire often said the effort to preserve and protect Puget Sound must not let up, regardless of the economy, or we could lose the precious ecosystem under the pressure of ongoing development. Here’s what she told me in an interview before she left office (Water Ways, Dec. 12, 2012).

“I think we have held our own and made some improvement, but not the improvement we should have. We have to kick it up. The population continues to grow. We’re going to have to kick it up or we are going to lose ground. I’m not proud of the fact that we are kind of treading water right now.”

Gov. Jay Inslee has his hands full trying to fully fund education. As far as I know, he has made no specific funding commitments for Puget Sound. Meanwhile, priorities for both the Legislature and Congress are evolving.

As for these new coastal grants, the total local and state match for all these projects nationwide is $21.3 million — more than the total of the federal grants. Fortunately, the local share for most of the projects in Washington state are considerably smaller than the federal share.

I’m not sure how many grant proposals were submitted, but it is clear that only those states and communities willing put out their own dollars in these tough economic times would even apply for the money.

My story in today’s Kitsap Sun deals mostly with a project that would buy 1.8 miles of undeveloped shoreline along Port Gamble Bay, but some of the other projects in Puget Sound are equally valuable. For a brief description of those projects, read the news release (PDF 147 kb) I received from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The nationwide list (PDF 66 kb) contains only funding information.

Share on Facebook

If you enjoy environmental photography, the Environmental Protection Agency is an unusual source of photographs from sea to shining sea. They include contributions from amateurs, professionals and EPA staffers, along with one series of photographs connecting history to the modern world.

An EPA diver maps eelgrass beds in Eagle Harbor to assess the success of the Wyckoff cleanup project. / EPA photo, 2007

One can easily get lost, as I sometimes do, following the photo links from the EPA’s photo blog to its Flickr galleries to its Facebook page, with side trips to photo exhibits in the National Archives.

Let me provide a guided tour, if you will. A good place to start is EPA’s State of the Environment Photo Project — especially if you like to share your pictures of nature with others. This is a blog that features interesting and often amusing pictures from throughout the United States and even from other countries.

You may choose to subscribe to EPA’s photo blog in the right column to receive notice of new posts. (Don’t forget that you can subscribe to this “Water Ways” blog as well.)

For the past two years, EPA has been encouraging people to submit photos that document the environment and way of life in the U.S. The Documerica Photo Project updates a similar project launched in the early years of the EPA in the 1970s. It is scheduled to continue through the end of this year.

David Falconer photo of Spokane River and Spokane Falls, May 1973. (Click to enlarge.)
EPA photo

A specific feature of the overall project is “Documerica Then and Now” (Flickr page), in which photographers try to match the exact locations from the original series and place them alongside recent photographs. I’d like to see more contributions from Northwest photographers. Check out one set of “Then” photographs for Seattle and another set for Olympia and Tacoma, or go to the full list of location challenges.

Here’s a match: John Day Dam on the Columbia River, 1973 and 2012, by David Falconer and Scott Butner, respectively. Notice the wind turbines in the modern photo.

David Falconer (Flickr page) documented the fuel shortage and water pollution in the Northwest during the early 1970s. It would be fun to match his photographs, including one of Spokane Falls and another of the Thunderbird Motel alongside the I-5 Bridge over the Columbia River.

Photographer David Falconer captures visitors swimming in the pool at the Thunderbird Motel alongside the I-5 Bridge on the Columbia River, May 1973. (Click to enlarge.)
EPA photo

It’s a quick jump to the National Archives photostream, where the original Documerica photographs are displayed.

To view recent submittals to the Documerica Project and other EPA galleries, you have the choice of using either EPA’s Facebook photo page or its Flickr page. Both options provide a wide range of EPA photo albums.

Although not connected with the Documerica project, you may wish to wander into the Puget Sound gallery, which features staff photos from our familiar waterway, which EPA calls “a place of rare biological diversity and high economic value.” That’s where I found the picture of the EPA diver assessing conditions at the bottom of Bainbridge Island’s Eagle Harbor.

Share on Facebook

Finding money for Puget Sound restoration is likely to become more difficult next year as legislative power shifts to Republicans in the state Senate and the Legislature wrestles with funding for education.

The power shift follows the defection of two Democratic senators to effectively create a Republican majority in the Senate. See reporter Mike Baker’s story for the Associated Press.

The upcoming budget debate will no doubt revolve around new funding for education. The State Supreme Court has ruled that the Legislature must find more money to fund basic educational needs, as required by the Washington State Constitution. Gov. Chris Gregoire has been talking about proposing a new dedicated tax, but now opponents of tax increases will have a stronger position.

Gov.-elect Jay Inslee ran on a no-new-taxes pledge, so it is likely that all state programs will go back on the chopping block, and nobody can predict what will come out of the turmoil.

Inslee told me a month ago that he could not predict whether Puget Sound programs would get more or less money, but he considered the state’s “paramount duty” to be education. Please review the Kitsap Sun story on Nov. 15.

Meanwhile, Gov. Gregoire told Seattle Times reporter Andrew Garber that her greatest disappointment was not getting more done to restore Puget Sound:

“Because that’s forever. That’s a big forever issue for this state. What I think happened… is we were on our way, and then we just got taken to our knees by the recession. While I kept funding it through other means, it didn’t get the focus I think it needs and deserves because I was so consumed by the recession.”

The governor told me during an interview last month that she still hopes the Legislature can find more money for Puget Sound — including a stable funding source — once the state gets to a stronger financial footing:

“We kept putting money in… I kept pushing for ongoing funding, and we will have to continue to do that for awhile.

“When the recession hit, I have to say that everybody’s attention got drawn away. People wondered, ‘Can I put food on the table? Am I going to lose my job?’ It was so all-consuming that I couldn’t focus on the sound.

“There was a lot of talk about a flush tax. We have never really done the research on it. The last couple of years was no time to be thinking about that. We have demands for education and transportation. But at some point we will have to find the ability to (pay for) more capital projects.

“I think we have held our own and made some improvement, but not the improvement we should have. We have to kick it up. The population continues to grow. We’re going to have to kick it up or we are going to lose ground. I’m not proud of the fact that we are kind of treading water right now.”

Gov. Gregoire also acknowledged to me that federal funding for Puget Sound could become more difficult with the retirement of U.S. Rep. Norm Dicks, who has been a powerful advocate for Puget Sound. On the other hand, she has hope that Norm’s effort through the years and the establishment of the Puget Sound Partnership with provide ongoing credibility for the program. She also believes that Norm’s replacement, Democrat Derek Kilmer, will be a strong advocate for Puget Sound, along with the state’s two U.S. senators.

Other comments from my interview with the governor were used in the first story in what will be an ongoing series about the Puget Sound Partnership’s ecosystem indicators. See Kitsap Sun, Nov. 24.

Speaking of money for Puget Sound, the Salmon Recovery Funding Board has approved $19.2 million statewide for salmon projects next year. I focused my story in yesterday’s Kitsap Sun on estuary projects in Hood Canal, but the full list of projects (PDF 279 kb) can be downloaded from the website of the Recreation and Conservation Office.

It might be interesting to review the history of these grants, year by year. The following are the annual allocations with links to more details:

2013: $19.2 million. News release, Dec. 10, 2012

2012: $30 million. News release, Dec. 12, 2011

2011: $19.8 million. News release, Dec. 20, 2010

2010: $42.8 million. News release, Dec. 15, 2009

2009: $19.8 million. News release, Dec. 12, 2008

2008: $60 million. News release (PDF 360 kb), Dec. 19, 2007

2007: $16.6 million. News release (PDF 262 kb), Dec. 8, 2006

2006: $26.6 million. News release (PDF 262 kb), Jan. 11, 2006

2005: $26.7 million. News release (PDF 188 kb), Dec. 9, 2004 (Gov. Gary Locke)

Share on Facebook

The final report on how salmon fisheries may affect Puget Sound’s endangered killer whale population has been released by a seven-member independent panel of U.S. and Canadian experts.

Download “The Effects of Salmon Fisheries on Southern Resident Killer Whales” (PDF 1.8MB)

It appears that the findings of the report are substantially the same as what I reported in a Kitsap Sun story on May 6. If you haven’t read the story, I think you will find all the comments interesting.

The next step will be for NOAA officials to issue recommendations from the report. In light of the findings and the uncertainty about the effects of reduced fishing, it seems likely that more studies will be proposed rather than an immediate adjustment to harvest.

I’ll continue to follow this story through the public review process, which is planned for early next year. Updates and related documents can be found on NOAA’s website.

The management plan for Puget Sound chinook fisheries will remain in effect through next year, after which time it will need to be updated in consultation between state and federal agencies. Chinook are a “threatened” species under the Endangered Species Act. See NOAA’s webpage, “Puget Sound Chinook Resource Management Plan.”

You may be interested in older studies and policy documents by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. Go to “Comprehensive Management Plan for Puget Sound Chinook: Harvest Management Component.”

Share on Facebook

The Southern Resident killer whales have begun their annual travels into Central and South Puget Sound in search of chum salmon.

Southern Resident killer whales passed by Bainbridge Island on Monday.
Photo by Tad Sooter

The shift occurs when chinook salmon have completed their migration and chum are just beginning to come home to their natal streams, as I describe in a story in yesterday’s Kitsap Sun. It is widely assumed that the length of their stay depends on their success in finding the later salmon.

This year was predicted to be a low year for fall chum. But Jay Zischke, marine fisheries manager for the Suquamish Tribe, told me that early commercial and test fisheries suggest that the run is either earlier than usual or larger than the preseason forecast. Even so, it may still be a relatively low year for fall chum.

This is the 15th anniversary of another low chum year, 1997, when 19 members of L pod came all the way into Dyes Inlet to find adequate numbers of chum schooled up in front of Chico and Barker creeks. The whales stayed in the inlet for a month and left just before Thanksgiving. There is still debate about whether they wanted to stay that long.

On the 10th anniversary of the event, I wrote about the story of two young researchers, Kelley Balcomb-Bartok and Jodi Smith, who spent most of that month studying the whales and trying to protect them from a massive number of boaters who wanted a front-boat view of the action. Stories, maps and other information about that event can be found on a website called “The Dyes Inlet Whales — Ten Years Later.”
(more…)

Share on Facebook