Let Your Voices Be Heard- Comment Period Ending On NOAA Proposed Vessel Impact Regulations

PART 2 OF A 2 PART SERIES OVERVIEW

In an earlier blog, I tried to cover the basic history and background of the proposed vessel impact regulations currently open to public comment period. It is important to understand the history and impacts when expressing our concerns and/or providing comments to NOAA. To review the Recovery Plan and a synopsis of the proposal in the prior blog, please visit:

Postcards From Friday Harbor: Proposed Vessel Impact Regulations: Let Your Voice Be Heard

"We need to wake people up to how we have mismanaged our natural heritage, how we have denied the relationship between ourselves and the natural world ...and believe(d) our job is to exploit, manipulate, simplify or manufacture nature to satisfy our short term goals." Howard Garrett

**********************************

AND NOW FOR THE REST OF THE STORY

The first time I ever encountered an orca whale was at The Vancouver Aquarium back in 1991. I did not know about the groundbreaking studies by John Ford nor did I know about the hydrophones which would soon be placed in Robson Bight (1998) and off the shores of San Juan Island, WA (2000) to capture the whales songs for the very first time. It was simply love at first sight as I dragged myself home to the East Coast.

I was not here to learn about the decline of the Southern Resident orcas - I did not follow their story. Living on the east coast, I did not read the Seattle PI's August 21, 2000 article wherein David Bain and Rich Osborne would stress concern about their decline, suspecting links to fewer salmon, toxic water and boat noise potentially interfering with the whales' communication and feeding habits. I did not know that there was a growing concern being expressed that the number of boats on the water could have long term impacts on the whales.

It is now 2009, and I live on the west side of San Juan Island, far removed from Maryland and in the heart of the whales summer playground. In the timeframe since 1991, they have been listed as an endangered species and scientists continue studies on the relationship to their decline with the same impacts suggested back in 2000. I have embraced this beloved icon along with all of the others who have traveled to this region --- the scientists who come to provide insight into sustainability, outdoor enthusiasts and visitors----and admit to my personal footprint being in a cumulative way, part of the problem as well.

Once the orcas made the "A" list as an endangered species, NOAA was tasked with developing protocols to address the critical elements impacting their survival. CLICK here for an overview. One element (of three- see the overview link for more details) is vessel noise, which has already been established as a potential contributing factor to their survival. I am not a scientist nor am I an expert on orca whales. I do know that the proposed vessel regulations have merit and are backed by the best available science- the obligation afforded by the ESA listing. I've followed the Public Hearings on the Proposed Vessel Regulations, attending the last in Friday Harbor on October 5th---and walked away disheartened by the special interests and monetary interests exhibited by the majority of the attendees.

As a resident on the west side of the island I get to see first hand how education and enforcement are not adequate- my observations correlate with the data being kept by Soundwatch- data that suggests that in 2006 ALONE there were 1,281 documented incidents during working hours wherein boats were not adhering to guidelines. I have watched the vessels (referred to by the Whale Watch operators themselves as a "flotilla") literally swarm the whales for hours a day - private boats, whale watching industry vessels, and fishing boats- all hoping to either catch a glimpse of the orcas or benefit from their presence. There have been times where we have counted 24 whales and 97 boats at the height of the summer- some following guidelines, others in the path, many inshore of the whales, some leapfrogging, others motoring along side the whales in an attempt to "get a good photo." The voices from the microphones echo up the hillside- telling visitors about the whales and pointing out behaviors as they occur- a spyhop, a tail lob, oh look, a breach! And all the while, Soundwatch and Straitwatch attempt to keep the whales out of harms way- zigzagging north and south warning boats and educating on the Be Whale Wise Guidelines. Engines roar above water, fishing boats speed through the whales following tide fishery and chasing the salmon themselves. As the day wears on and "enforcement" and "education" boats head home, the remaining vessels crowd in closely to the whales well through the sunset hours, each taking their moment to be free of laws and rationale- closing the day with brilliantly close interactions which we watch helplessly from shore every single night that the whales are here. I had to stop focusing on the violators- it was causing me too much stress in my environment- I became hoarse from yelling at the boats to at least cut their engines and the like. I now try to watch with a different perspective, waiting for the day the regulations are ENFORCED and reporting the most egregious violations directly to NOAA. And it is not only me...click here or here for more stories just like mine.

On the other hand, I have nothing against whale watching or private boaters- I realize that not everyone can or wants to watch from shore. I have even recommended one tour operator to prospective clients, having personally seen the efforts they make towards true regional stewardship. However, I truly believe this proposed rule is a critical piece in the puzzle to protect the whales, with action being long overdue...even if that means sacrifices need to happen- it is time for the rubber to hit the road.

Bottom line, it is worth trying to understand why NOAA has proposed the regulations and what the regulations actually are.

200 YARD APPROACH REGULATION

Existing Be Whale Wise Guidelines and San Juan County Watercraft Regulations require boats to maintain a 100 yard distance while viewing whales. Current collaborative research CLEARLY has documented changes in behavior, feeding (decreased foraging) and communication patterns when boats are present, with the behaviors increasing commensurately with the number of boats. Concerns are that 1) the whales will spend less time foraging & 2) they will use more energy- between energetics, less foraging and louder talking, the stressed whales may actually wind up burning more stored energy than is necessary. Studies have also shown that both behavior and voice changes are dramatically reduced ay 200 yards.

Opponents to the increase in yards suggest that "people will not be interested in watching whales from that distance." To the contrary, one could say that additional respect for the tenuous fragility of the species will be instilled in viewers and their experience will be enhanced when the whales are not surrounded by boats. I think we have lived off the species long enough- and we have done this at their expense. The whale watchers unilaterally opposed this portion in a statement issued but did not complain when the whales were listed as endangered- bringing more customers to the islands. I will absolutely agree, though, that the 200 yards will have no less impact without better education, funding and ENFORCEMENT. This is up to our federal government to decide- and hopefully the public outcry will make them aware of how much our community cares.

PARKING IN THE PATH PROHIBITION

This is the most common infraction on the books and also carries the greatest risk to the whales. Parking in the path of whales is already part of the voluntary guidelines- this addition would now allow enforcement under law (if passed). Hopefully it increases compliance with increased enforcement efforts and presence.

NO GO ZONE

The west side of San Juan Island between Eagle Cove and Mitchell Bay has been proposed as a one-half mile seaward buffer against the effects of vessels, creating a seasonal sanctuary (much like Robson Bight) for the whales and an enforceable regulation if passed. In the past, there has been a VOLUNTARY 1/4 mile no go zone in the exact same area on the west side of the island. The distinction of the zone makes a clear, readily avoidable area which can be easily enforced if violated. Studies have also clearly shown this is a known foraging area for the orcas and has already been earmarked as a critical habitat for salmon and eelgrass restoration. This is also the area where I have personally seen the most heinous violations.

Following the original Proposed Recovery Plan comment period, I find it interesting that many local associations commended the plan and suggested even stronger efforts. Some specifically suggested a no go zone on the west side of SJI, better reflecting the existing critical habitats and shoreline recovery strategies, citing this addition as a great adjunct to Salmon Recovery efforts.

That being said, every special interest group has completely balked at this portion of the regulations, questioning the science behind it. In doing so, people who are not scientists have chosen to question the validity of studies by internationally respected people...names like David Bain, Robin Baird, John Ford, Graham Ellis, Rob Williams, Richard Osborne, Katherine Ayres, Dawn Noren Adams and so many more. Some chose to ridicule NOAA and Lynne Barre's proposal as if this was not one of the most comprehensive and well written documents ever issued by the agency. The lack of respect shown by some was uncharacteristic of the people in this area--these are the very scientists who have no vested interests in the scientific outcome and are only striving to determine the best means by which to ensure the survival of a struggling population.

FINAL THOUGHTS (FINALLY!)- THE SUGGESTIONS

I am in favor of the proposed regulations with a request that NOAA consider the following:

1) In retrospect, perhaps NOAA should have worked with fishermen and local officials to ensure universal understanding while shaping a system of reserves amenable to all...just like the Southern California MLPA process. How can this now be managed to bring the community together?

2) I cannot comment on the commercial fishing issues raised at the public hearings- the suggestion that "all of the fish" are in that 1/2 mile proposed NO GO Zone---but this will wind up being a source of contention if not litigation if not adequately addressed prior to implementation.

3) I believe it is unfair to include kayaking in the no go zone- forcing the kayakers offshore by 1/2 mile poses threats to their safety.

4) I do not agree that a SLOW ZONE should replace the proposed NO GO ZONE. I have watched many sailboats and private anglers traveling less than the 7 knots suggested.... traveling over the top and inshore of the whales. I think diluting this NO GO zone will also make enforcement more difficult.

5) I am in favor of suggestions for a permitting system (for both commercial fisheries and whale watch operators) including hefty fines for violators and permit removal with violations. Let violators pay for the enforcement.

6) Some consideration needs to be given to enforceability with Canada and San Juan County so that litigation can be avoided to the best possible extent.

In the interim, NOAA continues to seek public input regarding the proposed regulations on vessel impacts through October 27th at 5:00pm PST. Everyone has a voice and I ask you to have yours be heard. The hearings have unilaterally been attended by SPECIAL INTEREST GROUPS who have monetary interests in muddying the proposal to the point of extinction. NOAA needs to hear everyone's thoughts- even those who support the proposed regulations to obtain a clear indication of what the public believes to be warranted to protect the southern resident community of killer whales. You can submit your comments to NOAA in the following ways:

VIA EMAIL AT : orca.plan@noaa.gov or via the federal e-rulemaking portal

VIA MAIL to : Assistant Regional Administrator, Protected Services Division

Northwest Regional Office

National Marine FIsheries Service

7600 Sand Point Way NE

Seattle, WA 98115

NOAA is seeking comments including alternatives that have been analyzed in the assessment, impacts, your personal experience with the effects of vessels on the whales, economic impacts and other relevant information you think the agency should consider. Please let your voice be heard, even if it is shaky. The whales need your thoughts and the best possible protection in their watery world throughout the Puget Sound and Salish Sea.

Subscribe in a reader

WATCH A PHOTO MONTAGE VIDEO OF THE SOUTHERN RESIDENTS

Update on the Navy Sonar In The San Juan Islands

UPDATE TO MY LAST POST

Throughout the night of April 7th, anyone listening to the hydrophones at Lime Kiln State Park heard 8 uninterrupted hours of underwater voices followed by echoing pings of military sonar every ten minutes.  You can listen to a clip of the recorded exercises by clicking this link, but be sure to TURN DOWN YOUR VOLUME.

According to Dr. Val Veirs, president of The Whale Museum board and professor emeritus of physics at Colorado College, decibel levels of sonar pings recorded off the west side of San Juan Island April 7-8 may have been the same level as sonar pings implicated in the deaths of several beaked whales in the Bahamas in October 2003. “The received levels of the signals at Lime Kiln Lighthouse were about the most intense sounds that the hydrophones there have recorded in the past several years of continuous operation,” he said. "The highest received levels came from sonar pings and were approximately 140 dB re 1 microPascal." This is approximately the same as the most intense sonar signals recorded in May 2003 when the (USS) Shoup transited the waters of Haro Strait. Biologists on the water at the time reported that killer whales seemed to be fleeing from the sound. Since then, Navy ships are required to receive permission from fleet commanders before operating sonar in Puget Sound. That was in 2003.

"The garbled voices we heard today were communications between the submarine and a surface tender," Veirs said. "We estimate that the distance between our hydrophone at Lime Kiln Lighthouse and the submarine was in the neighborhood of 10 nautical miles and for our hydrophones to pick up the strong signals that they did, the submarine was emitting sound with source level in the range 175 dB to 225 dB re 1 microPasca1.”

Veirs said the sounds were heard for many miles in a variety of underwater locations — from the east at Whidbey Island to the north of San Juan Island and out toward the ocean in the Strait of Juan de Fuca. And of significant concern was the fact the sonar was taking place where there were reports of Transients, a minke, & 2 gray whales only hours before the episode began.

By 8:00pm on the 8th, Navy spokeswoman Sheila Murray confirmed that the fast-attack submarine USS San Francisco, accompanied by a surface ship, was operating its sonar last night as it passed through the Strait of Juan de Fuca. The sub was conducting “required training dives” and did not enter Haro Strait, she said. The Navy undertakes precautions to protect marine mammals, she noted.  The full story has been covered locally and throughout the Pacific Northwest- you can click HERE for more details.

This past December, The Navy and several plaintiffs, including the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), the International Fund for Animal Welfare, the Cetacean Society International, the League for Coastal Protection, the Ocean Futures Society, and Jean-Michel Cousteau, entered into a settlement agreement to resolve a worldwide challenge to the Navy's testing and training with mid-frequency active sonar. The settlement essentially adopts the long range program for environmental analysis and research , forcing the Navy to continue to implement a variety of protective measures in cooperation with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. That agreement does not require any additional mitigation measures. General Counsel for the Navy, Frank Jiminez commented after the settlement, "The Navy welcomes an approach that relies more upon scientific research than litigation."

Just this week, researchers issued a study indicating sonar causes temporary hearing loss in dolphins. Findings show that when the dolphins were exposed to progressively louder pings of mid-frequency sonar up to 203 dBs, neurological data showed the mammal had become deaf, for its brain no longer responded to sound.

While concerns are heightened right now, it is important to stress that the Navy has been proposing a substantial increase in these types of exercises throughout the Pacific Northwest. Plans to expand operations such as adding dummy minefields, scheduling hundreds more training flights and warfare simulations over land and sea, and increasing the use of sonar are scheduled, adding potential threats to endangered and threatened whales and other marine mammals throughout the region.

The Navy says that the pending increases in warfare activities are necessary and their draft environmental impact statement, released Dec. 29, concludes (with no surprise) that expanded training won't harm marine life or the public. But environmental groups, fishermen and some politicians are wary, stating that the military sprang the 1,000-page environmental review of its increased training plan with little notice and has provided only minimal assessment periods or input from residents.

At risk are the southern resident orcas and nine marine mammal species listed as threatened or endangered, including seven whales. And thanks to George Bush and more recently, The Supreme Court, it certainly appears as though the Navy's plans may go completely unchallenged despite the incongruity of the situation at hand. There is hope, however. The comment period, once limited to a couple of weeks between January 27 and mid-February, has now been extended to April 13, 2009, to allow for additional public input. Should you be so inclined, please take a look at the Draft Impact Statement (as ugly as it is) and send your comments to the Government. You can also send an email or fill out a comment form online. 

Subscribe in a reader

Sonar Heard For Six Hours in The Salish Seas

Following a magnificent day in the Pacific Northwest- temps in the 70's and hours spent watching a shiny ball of heat in the sky which we rarely see but is apparently known to others as "the sun," (smiles) I snapped this photo just as the sun fell fell behind the profile of Vancouver Island at 7:02pm. All was right with the world- spring temperatures had welcomed back a myriad of frogs and it was to their chorus I that I fell asleep.

This morning, however, I was forced to see the other side of what had been my reality only hours beforehand; underwater, the night had not been so peaceful. Logging on to Facebook (feel free to add me as a friend if you'd like!) I was astounded by what I was seeing and hearing. As you already know, if you have read this blog before, we have been actively advocating public response to proposed increases in military training exercises planned in and around the area as well as trying to focus efforts on public awareness- explaining impacts on this tenuous marine environment called the Salish Sea.

Last night proved the efforts must continue. Listeners tuning in to the Lime Kiln Hydrophones  anytime after 6:55 pm were afforded the chance to acoustically engage in active military training for six +hours. While listening, one could have enjoyed listening to repeated sonar pings and underwater voices emanating from Navy vessels training exercises in the area, exercises which later confirmed by the military as having taken place in these waters. Jeanne Hyde provided an overview of the events as they occurred on her blog, staying up through the morning hours to follow it. Scott Viers, lead instructor and acoustics expert at Beam Reach, a Marine Science and Sustainability School, also tracked this event and provides a significant story HERE. So, if you're curious about what it sounds like, LISTEN HERE but beware, there are loud pings of sonar on the soundclip- TURN DOWN YOUR VOLUME.

Which brings up back to the ocean inhabitants that are being further stressed in their already deteriorating environment. Just yesterday, transient killer whales were seen throughout the afternoon right in the same area where the exercises were being conducted- within hours of one another.  

Some excellent further reading on the issue if you are still on the fence about sending your thoughts to the Navy:

NATIONAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL PUBLIC STATEMENT

GREAT ARTICLE INTERVIEW OF NAVY

ACOUSTIC ECOLOGY OCEAN NOISE OVERVIEW : SCIENCE, POLICY LEGAL DEVELOPMENTS

AEI FACTCHECK

Bottom line: Navy: Clinging to exceedingly hard line as it embraces stewardship

The Navy seems truly mystified at the uproar being made over sonar training, given the very few incidents over the past decades of mid-frequency active sonar deployment. Many seem to feel that judges who imposed additional safety measures did not really understand the modeling of impacts and scientific minutia used by the Navy and NMFS in designing current safetey measures. There really is a sense within the Navy that this is not a huge problem, thought it clearly deserves attention, and that their famous "29 Measures" are sufficient to minimize future risk. Whether the adoption of these formal standards emerged from within after the Bahamas and later incidents, or was triggered by the outside scrutiny spurred by NRDC and others, there appears to be an authentic desire to do what needs to be done to protect whales. We can assume additional mitigation measures suggested by others, and even those adopted by allies, are truly considered to be excessive and of little practical value in protecting whales from harm.

Even if all this is true, there remain a few areas in which the Navy's approach to the issue leaves much to be desired.

First is the focus on being satisfied with avoiding physical injury, which leads inevitably to discounting behavioral disruption as a cause for concern.

Second is the seeming deaf ear the Navy turns to any suggestion that it put some areas off-limits to sonar training. Look again at the map near the beginning of this report; can it really be true that every square mile of all those ranges off the US east coast contains crucially unique training opportunities, and that putting biologically rich or seasonally important areas off-limits would cripple our training abilities? This attitude cannot help but undermine the public's faith in the Navy to make balanced, prudent decisions on its own.

Third is the vagueness contained in the 29 Protective Measures concerning changes in procedure when the Bahamas-like "contributing factors" are encountered. As noted above, the language here does not inspire confidence that the Navy is taking the threat of injury seriously even in the one very specific set of circumstances that it is convinced is the only situation in which sonar can kill whales. The lack of extended aerial surveys prior to powering up sonar is especially troubling, since beaked whales are so difficult to spot at the surface. Most likely, the Navy simply feels that the likelihood that whales will be present is so low that it does not justify exerting the effort to look for them, or it trusts that in nearly all cases, the whales will hear and avoid the sonar without injury. Even if they are correct in these assumptions, this is a key place where going the extra mile would indicate a level of good faith that is sorely needed to build confidence in their commitment to safe practices.

Related to this is the small size of the US Navy's safety zones, compared to those used by other Navies. As noted above, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, in deferring to the lower court's increase of the shut-down zone from 500 yards to 2000 meters, noted that "NATO imposes a 2,000 meter shutdown zone when a marine mammal is detected–the same zone that the district court’s preliminary injunction requires. The Australian Navy goes farther, mandating a shutdown of activities if a marine mammal is detected within 4,000 yards of a sonar-emitting vessel," and further calculated that the 2000 meter zone would only lead to one or two shut-downs per week of training, hardly crippling training preparedness.

Finally, the Navy's reluctance to encourage more investigation—or even acknowledge enduring ambiguity—of stranding events that do not fit the current clear-cut model of sonar-induced stranding is short-sighted, also undermining pubic confidence in its commitment to do its best. While it is difficult to ever really know what caused many—perhaps most—strandings, the Navy seems too eager to brush aside questions about events that don't fit its simple, specific picture. Acknowledging our uncertainty about the ways that animals may react to sonar, and so treating some of the ambiguous events as possibly sonar-induced, would certainly complicate things for the Navy, but it would not tie them to making operational changes based on these uncertain events. It would, however, show that the Navy is authentically considering the full spectrum of possible impacts that its activities may be having, and would allow the Navy to engage more honestly with scientists and environmental advocates as we slowly unravel some of the mysteries and uncertainties that currently limit our understanding.

This last point was starkly highlighted during a June 2008 press event in which the Navy took reporters and several scientists on a sonar training exercise off Virginia. In its briefings, the Navy repeated its well-known mantra: Only five stranding events have been "linked scientifically" with sonar since its inception in 1939....No strandings have been "linked scientifically" to the U.S. Navy since 2000....And, finally, "No scientific evidence exists proving mid-frequency active sonar has ever killed any marine mammals as a direct and sole cause of death." (i.e., they are injured by the changes in their dive patterns, and/or by being tossed about on the beach after stranding, rather than by direct acoustic impact/trauma). Even the scientists that were hand-picked by the Navy to participate in this PR exercise could not abide the stridency of the Navy's message: Nina Young, of the Consortium for Ocean Leadership (a multi-agency coordinating group) said the Navy uses uncertain cause of death rulings to downplay possible links between sonar and mammals. "It's unfortunate that the threshold for the Navy seems so absolute, and the burden of proof so high, that it undermines efforts to engage in a productive discussion," she said, while Andrew Wright, a marine mammal scientist who has worked for the Marine Mammal Commission and NOAA, said definitive proof of sonar's effect on whales didn't exist until recently. "We've only really known about the problem since 2000, 2002. We don't have long-term information, even on humans. There's so much uncertainty around this, and it all depends on where you place the burden of proof."

Remembering the crucial point that routine use of active sonar far exceeds the use of sonar in training situations, the Navy could dramatically advance its own cause by being less adament in all these ways as it conducts its training missions. Of course, that would require a long-term institutional commitment to minimize potential harm; and indeed, there are many within the military with authentic desires to work constructively with scientists, regulators, and other civilians, as well as in balance with Congressional and judicial oversight. So far, however, the decision-making apparatus, appears to remain in the hands of those more commited to maintaining the Pentagon's autonomy in the face of public or judicial opinion.

For more information, see AEI Special Report: Active Sonars - Includes continually updated news items, tracking of range-specific EIS releases, technology descriptions, current deployment, and links to military, agency, and NGO websites. [GO THERE]

You can read the Proposed EIS Plan or go directly to the comment page here.

Northwest Navy Training Range Comment Period Extended to APRIL 13

The Northwest Navy Training Range Comment Period HAS BEEN OFFICIALLY EXTENDED TO APRIL 13TH DUE TO PUBLIC INTEREST!!!

For information on the project, and ways to provide public comment, visit http://www.NWTRangeComplexEIS.com/. 

Want more information about the draft and the proposed impact in the Pacific Northwest and the Puget Sound? CLICK HERE.

We're having an impact, folks!!!! Please take some time to send your thoughts to the military by clicking THIS LINK.

Deadline for Comment Period on Increased Naval Presence in the San Juan Islands Coming up Shortly- MARCH 11

Postcards From Friday Harbor: Postcards From Friday Harbor: NAVY Plans to Increase Training Exercises over the San Juan Islands

NAVY Plans to Increase Training Exercises over the San Juan Islands

Imagine a beautiful summer day in the San Juan Islands....calm waters, the echoing blow of killer whales, tiny fins of cavorting porpoises bouncing along the water. Rejuvenating and peaceful, you sit at Lime Kiln State Park embracing the concurrent peace with joy...that is, until the shoreline begins to tremble with the vibrations of afterburners of an E-18 Growler, on a practice mission to simulate jamming enemy radar. Below the flat waters that bring you comfort, missiles fly and sonar resounds, deafening the wildlife that affords you such serenity on shore. Think of the region as a 21rst century combat computer game, only using real planes, ships, munitions and ordinance.

It is no surprise that the Navy has been conducting warfare training exercises in our region for decades, including firing missiles and machine guns, dropping bombs and practicing sonar detection of submarines. But if the Navy has their way in the next month, their training playground and exercises in the Pacific Northwest will be increased with vigor. Plans to expand these operations and others such as adding dummy minefields, scheduling hundreds more training flights and warfare simulations over land and sea, and increasing the use of sonar will add potential threats to endangered and threatened whales and other marine mammals throughout the region. Specifically at risk are the southern resident community of orca whales, whose number have continued to drop to alarming levels. Factoring in to this the Navy's plan to dump depleted uranium in the region, you begin to get the bigger picture.

The Navy says that the pending increases in warfare activities are necessary and their draft environmental impact statement, released Dec. 29, concludes (with no surprise) that expanded training won't harm marine life or the public. But environmental groups, fishermen and some politicians are wary, stating that the military sprang the 1,000-page environmental review of its increased training plan with little notice and has provided only minimal assessment periods or input from residents.

The biggest environmental concern is the Navy's use of midfrequency active sonar, which would significantly increase under the plan. Environmental groups have been engaged in litigation over the sonar use, arguing that it damages whales and other marine mammals that use sound to communicate and navigate. The Navy's plans for increased training would boost potentially harmful mammal sonar exposures from about 110,000 a year to nearly 130,000. But they are quick to predict little damage since they promise to limit sonar use when mammals are spotted near ships and submarines. How do they know when whales are in the area during training exercises? That's right..."trained" spotters on the decks. 

At risk are the southern resident orcas and nine marine mammal species listed as threatened or endangered, including seven whales.  And thanks to George Bush and more recently, The Supreme Court, it certainly appears as though the Navy's plans may go completely unchallenged despite the incongruity of the situation at hand. There is hope, however. The comment period, once limited to a couple of weeks between January 27 and mid-February, has now been extended to March 11, 2009, to allow for additional public input. Should you be so inclined, please take a look at the Draft Impact Statement (as ugly as it is) and send your comments to the Government. You can also send an email or fill out a comment form online. And in the meantime, enjoy your shellfish and salmon while you still have the chance.

First Whales of the Year!

This morning while on Facebook, I was alerted that one of my friends was listening to whales on the Lime Kiln Hydrophone. Sure enough, I tuned in and after a brief moment was able to hear vocalizations loud and clear. Ran upstairs to the scope and began scanning the Haro Straits. After approximately 15 minutes, we were able to spot two large fins three or four miles offshore, headed north at an amazingly fast clip. It certainly looks like the boys have been growing this winter!!!! No photos- but it certainly sounds and looks like J pod is visiting the islands! My first whale sighting of 2009! Woo hoo!

Update on the Southern Resident Whales as of February 17, 2009

Two new orca calves, but one adult whale is missing
By RICHARD WALKER
Journal of the San Juans Editor
Today, 2:29 PM · UPDATED

Researchers have confirmed the birth of two Southern resident orca calves, bringing the population to 85.

However, the news comes as one 31-year-old male orca is believed missing, emphasizing the challenges the endangered whale pods face in their recovery.

The latest newborns were spotted swimming with J and L pods off Victoria on Feb. 6 and off Nanaimo Feb. 8. The parentage is not yet known.

"We like to have several encounters before know if (the calf) was hanging out with an auntie or grandma for a while," said Ken Balcomb, executive director of the Center for Whale Research.

Both whales were photographed by Balcomb off Victoria, B.C., Feb. 6. L112 was photographed off Depoe Bay, Ore., by Morris Grover on Jan. 21 and by Carrie Newell on Jan. 24. J44 was photographed again on Feb. 8 near Nanaimo, B.C. by Dr. John Ford.

"We are analyzing all of the photographs taken in these encounters, and will analyze photographs taken later this spring to confirm the mothers' identifications and the calves' survival," Balcomb said.

Balcomb said it's unusual for the three whale pods to be in inland waters in winter. Balcomb believes their presence here is linked to the depressed runs of Central Valley stock chinook in California, the whales' usual winter hunting area.

"Our typical first sighting is about May," Balcomb said.

The center's records have the current Southern resident orca population at 25 in J pod, 19 in K, and 41 in L — if L57 shows up.

The historical average age for male Southern resident killer whales is 29, with a maximum in the 50s, Balcomb said. The historical average for females is 52; the oldest female, J-2, is in her 90s and may be 100.

The whales' population has seesawed over the past several years. Six orcas disappeared in 2008, dropping the population to 83, the lowest since 2003.

The Center for Whale Research and others are blaming marine pollution, depleted salmon runs, and acoustic impacts from dredging, seismic testing and military sonar for the decline in the population. The Southern resident orcas are listed as endangered in Canada and the U.S.

The orca pods are called "residents" because they spend a majority of the year here, chasing the salmon runs.

One of the whales believed to have died last year, L67, showed signs of malnourishment the last time she was seen; she had "peanut head," a term for a depressed area behind the blowhole that normally stores fat. L67's offspring also have not fared well either: L98, also known as Luna, separated from the pod in Nootka Sound in 2002 and was killed by a boat propeller in 2006. L101, a juvenile male, failed to return with the pod last year.

The resident orcas have long been beleaguered. In the late 1800s and early 1900s, fishermen saw them as competition and shot them. Later, orcas were captured for marine parks.

Their population, believed to have once been in the 120s, plummeted to 71 by 1973. It rebounded to 99 in 1995, then plummeted to 79 six years later.

The population rebounded to 80 in 2002, 83 in 2003, 85 in 2004 and 89 in 2005, then seesawed around 88 since then. The local pods were declared endangered by the U.S. and Canada by 2005 and the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration has been patrolling the area to enforce rules requiring boats to maintain a distance of 100 yards from the whales.

In an earlier interview, Balcomb said the ups and downs of the orca population over the last 30 years parallel the ups and downs of the chinook salmon population. "If the chinook population doesn't do well, the whale population doesn't do well," he said.

Balcomb suggested that a 10-year moratorium on salmon fishing would enable salmon populations to rebound. But even a suggestion of a moratorium by fisheries managers would be politically difficult, he said.

The whales have been designated J44 and L112.

New Baby Whales Confirmed in Both J and L pods!!!

HOT OFF THE PRESSES

Ken Balcomb of the Center for Whale Reserach confirmed "there are two new calves (one in J and one in L), but we are not officially specifying mums yet. We are conferring with Dr. John Ford and our Canadian colleagues before stating possible mothers. We would like to have several encounters with the babies and their mothers before assigning because grandma's may also confuse things."

This is really great news! If the calves survive, it would bring the So. Resident population up to about 85 - still way too low for this fragile, endangered population, but every new birth counts and moves this population in the right direction. It is especially good news after the loss of seven members of the So. Residents last year (which included 2 of the 3 calves born, and several reproductive age females). Let's hope the whales come back into inland waters again soon, so researchers can have more encounters and confirm who the new moms are.
Susan Berta & Howard Garrett, Orca Network

Pacific Salmon Poisoning Killer Whales

Something to think about before eating chinook salmon in the Pacific Northwest.

Click here to read the article.

Subscribe in a reader

Toxic Orcas in the Puget Sound

JUST IN FROM THE SEATTLE PI

Study: Sound orcas eat more toxic salmon

THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

A new study suggests that Puget Sound killer whales appear to be more contaminated than northern orcas because they're eating salmon that is more toxic.

Researchers measuring the presence of toxic chemicals in chinook salmon, a prime food for the whales, found higher levels in salmon from Puget Sound than from British Columbia waters.

Canadian and Washington scientists found that chinook from Puget Sound had lower fat content and were less nutritious than salmon tested farther north.

Researchers think the low fat content could cause Puget Sound orcas to eat 50 percent more salmon, leading to more toxic exposure.

The researchers tested adult salmon and smolts from the Duwamish River in Seattle and the Tumwater Falls Hatchery on the Deschutes River near Olympia.

They also tested salmon from the Johnstone Strait and the mouth of the Fraser River in British Columbia.

Subscribe in a reader

Unique Gifts From Friday Harbor and the San Juan Islands

Looking for unique wildlife photography and gifts from Friday Harbor to commemorate your visit to the San Juan Islands? Now you have a one stop shop for all your Friday Harbor gifts and unique clothing from the San Juan Islands!

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

PRLog (Press Release) – Dec 01, 2008 – Located in the Pacific Northwest, the San Juan Islands offers beautiful views, stunning wildlife encounters and those ever sought after Orca Whale encounters. Now you can commemorate your visit to Friday Harbor and the San Juan Islands with the opening of a custom gift shop online for your convenience! Visit http:///www.zazzle.com/sandybuckley* for gifts featuring the local southern resident community of orca whales, wildlife posters, sports gear and more! 

Every gift from the San Juan Islands is completely customizable and there are many sizes and styles to fit your needs? Looking for a great kayaking shirt? Custom wedding stamps? Orca whale collage posters? You need look no further than http:///www.zazzle.com/sandybuckley*. Great selections of wildlife photography from the San Juan Islands, gear and gifts for one and all! Sales happening all the time this holiday season- so check in now to see what's going on!

A HUGE WIN FOR SALMON RECOVERY EFFORTS

Hot off the presses!!

MEDIA CONTACT
Katy Johansson
360.725.5442
katy.johansson@psp.wa.gov
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
11-24-2008
Puget Sound Partnership, EPA award $700,000 for salmon recovery efforts
OLYMPIA – Vital salmon recovery efforts throughout Puget Sound will receive a $700,000 boost, thanks to grants awarded by the Puget Sound Partnership.

Each of the Sound’s 14 watersheds will receive a $50,000 grant – issued as part of the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) National Estuary Program – to implement salmon recovery. 

“The salmon recovery work happening in the watersheds is the cornerstone of broader Puget Sound recovery efforts,” said David Dicks, executive director of the Puget Sound Partnership, which officially became the region’s lead salmon recovery organization Jan. 1. “The Partnership is looking at the watersheds’ collaboration on salmon recovery as a model for the recovery of the entire Puget Sound ecosystem. Our success depends on this kind of approach. Everyone who has a stake in the Sound must be part of the solution.” 

The money is part of a $20 million federal appropriation for EPA’s research and remedial program, which addresses the overall health of the Puget Sound ecosystem. U.S. Rep. Norm Dicks, D-Wash., was instrumental in obtaining that funding. 

“I am excited that we were able to secure these funds and that they are being used to continue critical local efforts to restore Puget Sound and recover salmon,” said Congressman Dicks.

The $50,000 grants will allow watershed groups the ability to perform the core functions of local salmon recovery implementation, including:

• Selection, review, prioritization and implementation of restoration and protection efforts;

• Education and outreach;

• Tracking and measuring project implementation progress;

• Adaptive management of recovery plans;

• Coordinating local citizen and technical groups; and

• Generating operating, programmatic and capital funds.

“It is encouraging that the Puget Sound Partnership and the EPA realize the strength of the partnerships built to restore Puget Sound,” said Clallam County Commissioner Steve Tharinger, chair of the Salmon Recovery Funding Board and a member of the Partnership’s Ecosystem Coordination Board. “Watershed groups contribute creativity, knowledge and motivation to implement lasting, community-supported solutions for the complex challenges facing salmon and the Sound.”

“In these tough economic times, we need to affirm our commitment to recover salmon in Puget Sound,” said state Sen.-elect and San Juan County Councilmember Kevin Ranker, former co-chair of the Puget Sound Salmon Recovery Council. “These grants are timely and critical for local communities. This support goes a long way toward protecting and restoring Puget Sound by maintaining the dedicated, trained people who work daily to recover our threatened and irreplaceable salmon.”

Only 22 of at least 37 historic Chinook populations remain in Puget Sound. Those that still exist are at only 10 percent of their historic numbers, with some down lower than 1 percent. The decline in salmon is closely associated with the decline in the health of Puget Sound.

Salmon recovery is guided by implementation of the Puget Sound Salmon Recovery Plan, adopted by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association in 2007. That plan, as well as the individual watershed recovery plans within it, can be found on our Web site: http://www.psp.wa.gov/SR_map.php.

08-038

Puget Sound In A Quagmire

Having JUST blogged about this very issue earlier this week, I thought some follow up was appropriate.

Sound cleanup criticized

Scientists say plan headed for failure

By ROBERT McCLURE

P-I REPORTER

The state's emerging plan to rescue Washington's ecologically troubled inland sea seems headed for failure, a group of leading Puget Sound scientists said Friday.

"Our prediction is that the proposed action agenda, if adopted as is, will not halt nor even slow the decline in the health of the Puget Sound ecosystem by 2020," Gov. Chris Gregoire's stated goal, said a letter written by the scientists.

The agency putting the finishing touches on the "action agenda" to save the Sound disagreed, saying it has heard the scientists' previous criticisms and adjusted the plan accordingly.

The letter was the latest criticism by the scientists, who have accused the Puget Sound Partnership and its predecessor of pushing inadequate rescue plans for the Sound.

The Sound is troubled by historical overfishing and toxic waste disposal, as well as ongoing pollution, mostly from water that runs off hard surfaces like streets and parking lots after rains.

The partnership's plan is to be submitted to state officials Dec. 1. Partnership officials are putting the finishing touches on the document, which seeks to reinvigorate Sound-rescue efforts that have failed to halt the decline of the water body since they were launched in the 1980s.

The three-paragraph letter to the partnership was addressed to Executive Director David Dicks, who expressed frustration Friday, saying the scientists' previous advice had been carefully incorporated into the action blueprint.

Dicks cited parts of the plan that respond to previous criticisms, such as where it calls for developing criteria next year to determine the highest-priority locations to stop the polluted stormwater runoff.

"We literally have said in almost the same verbiage they used that, yeah, we got it," Dicks said. "What about 'yes' do (the scientists) not understand?

"We've done I think almost exactly what they said to do, and in some cases gone further. ... We agree with them. I don't know how much more we can agree."

Fourteen scientists, including engineers and biologists, signed the letter. About half have ties to UW.

P-I reporter Robert McClure can be reached at 206-448-8092 or robertmcclure@seattlepi.com. Read his blog on the environment at datelineearth.com.

Subscribe in a reader

Naturalist Gear Down Workshop Fall 2008 Overview

On November 7, I attended the Naturalist Gear Down Workshop at The Grange in Friday Harbor which was sponsored by The Whale Museum. What a great and informative session this was, covering everything from the Status of the Southern Resident Orca Whale population to Salmon Recovery Efforts underway in the San Juan Islands.  Beginning at 9:30am, this one-day workshop was held as a continuing educational training for naturalists already working in the field and graduates of the Marine Naturalist Training Program. So, what did we learn?

Update on the Southern Resident Killer Whale Population
The session was opened by Dave Ellifrit, a biologist from the Center For Whale Research. The current count for the endangered Southern Resident community of orca whales is 83- meaning that there is a loss of seven whales since last fall, with J pod appearing to be the strongest of the three in terms of overall survival these past few years. Of interest, Dave mentioned that this year was the first time scientists actually watched a whale (L106) seemingly fill back out after having been watched for what is called "peanut head." There is usually a thick layer of blubber just behind the skull, which begins to deteriorate, forming what appears to be an indentation- a dip right behind the blow-hole. Scientists believe that the "deterioration" collaborates with starvation- for whatever reason (ie: decline in fish populations, a sickness, etc)- but the whales seen losing that blubber layer are monitored closely for emaciation. This year, L 106 beat the odds and apparently restored the blubber layer! 

Overall, Dave indicated that the actual overall size of this endangered population of orcas do not seem as large as they once were- the dorsal fins are much smaller that years gone by and the overall size appears to be diminishing for reasons unknown.  The Southern Residents here average 24 feet for adult males and about 20 feet for females, a bit smaller than most orca populations around the globe. As well, there were comments about the changes in travel patterns and super pod activity this year as compared to others, wherein this year we had many frequent inter pod grouping traveling together for extended time frames - specifically a group from L Pod traveled with J Pod most of the summer, and twice J Pod has split into two completely separate groups, out of acoustic range from each other. Super pods were less frequently seen and when they were, they were usually spread out and not all whales were present? So what does that mean? Well, it could be an indication of food stress, but more time will be needed to see how this unfolds. Fingers crossed the whales have a good winter.

And next year? Well, we'll see if there are still funds for the continuation of the helicopter monitoring (aerial girth and measurement field study) and they are also looking for funding to tag some of the southern residents. Permitting is in the works, I guess we'll have to see how that pans out...

Salmon Recovery in the San Juan Islands
Next we were treated to an hour of discussion lead by Barbara Rosenkotter, the San Juan County Lead Entity Coordinator for the Salmon Recovery Program.  Because of their location, the San Juan Islands serve as a critical habitat for the young salmon heading from their fresh water birthplaces out to the open sea. It is here that the young fish live and grow strong enough to survive their lifespan at sea and it is in these waters when they will live, forage and be protected from predators. As well, many of our beaches provide critical habitat for spawning forage fishes such as sand lance and Pacific surf smelt. Forage fishes are a major food source for salmon.

At this point in time, we are looking at Chinook having been listed as endangered in 1999, the Southern Resident Orcas in 2007 and steelhead in May of 2007.  Currently, there is only 10% of the historic numbers of Chinook in the waters in and around the Islands. While studies suggest that Dams kill nearly 92% of young salmon headed downstream and 25% of spawning adults headed up, we still need to be mindful of our footprint on the delicate ecosystem in which we coexist. Research has not yet been directed towards an understanding of the most effective ways to protect and restore marine and nearshore habitats for salmon recovery. What is known is that human activities in the watershed - from the uplands to the marine waters - can significantly alter ecosystem processes and habitats needed for salmon in the region. Our local strategy is to focus first on filling gaps in knowledge about nearshore contributions to migratory salmon and other aspects of nearshore habitats and utilize this information to enhance protection measures and identify and prioritize restoration activities.

Acceptable Risk

If you were asked what level of hazardous toxins you would be willing to ingest on a daily basis, what would your answer be? Well, if we asked our southern resident community of orca whales, they'd have to tell you "you are what you eat." Kristen Burgess was our next speaker who advised  that geologists are often called to the scene of a hazardous site with the obligation to meet or exceed EPA requirements for decontamination of PCB's. They are expected to clean the area to an "allowable" threshold of 1 ppm in a single particle of soil. PPM is a term commonly used to express contamination ratios, as in establishing the maximum permissible amount of a contaminant in water, land, or air. In this instance, it means 1 person per million would die when exposed to that level of PCB in that particle of soil. Comforting? Read on...

Orcas face a daunting array of threats to survival, including ship traffic, reduced abundance of prey and environmental contamination- not the least of which are PCB's (polychlorinated biphenyls ). PCBs make whales more vulnerable to infectious disease, impair reproduction, and impede normal growth and development. Our whales don't need voices to tell us about their experience of eating the salmon in these waters and the levels of hazardous waste they hold in their blubber layers. Remember, a geologist must clean up a particle of soil so that it contains less than 1 ppm. Male orcas in our resident whales contain 150 ppm and females, 50ppm- (reduced through maternal transfer when feeding their young- so each new baby whale is fed PCB laden mother's milk.)

According to Kristen Burgess, a geologist charged with consulting with the EPA on major superfund clean ups, the Puget sound basin has 16 superfund sites containing PCBs- most of them huge military fortresses which once served as the naval military hub during between the late 1800's and mid 1900's. While clean up is progress, the PCB's continue to steep into the waters of the Puget Sound, which does not have enough tidal backwash to really ever decontaminate itself. However, the government allows sediment profiling (basically monitoring over the years- just taking down numbers) to serve as a justifiable method of adhering to clean ups- without really ever forcing the clean up to continue. Kristen was pretty clear that the EPA needs to change their model for true reduction in PCB's to take place in the area. And in the meantime, don't eat the shellfish unless you answered the first question here as "I like to glow in the dark."

Orca Acoustics: Breaking News

Scott Viers was our final speaker of the day- and his news was enthralling. It seems as though his students and he have been able to provide real data that our local Southern Residents are indeed being forced to "speak louder" due to noise impacts in the Local waters. Using methodology that is so advanced and complicated I would never try and recount it for fear of becoming lost, Scott can now prove, using multiple sub water hydrophones attached to their vessel, Gato Verde’s (who's electric motors are silent in the waters)- they were able to locate the whales who were "talking" and monitor the dB level with and without ship noise in the area. The questions this brings to mind? What exactly will the cost be to the whales for having to have to raise their voices due to increased boat traffic in the area? And do their calls have anything to do with foraging- if so, will this be impacted? Meaning, are boat noises adding to or creating problems for the whales and their efforts to find available and very limited food sources right now? Can whales lose their hearing?

Stay tuned, I am sure there is more to come. But overall, this was a sobering day- a lot of information to absorb- most of which left me feeling pretty helpless about the whales and our own habitat. I do intend to look onto the Puget Sound Partnership Efforts. Tell the Puget Sound Partnership what you think: Speak up for real actions to restore the Sound to health.