I announced in Monday’s Kitsap Sun that the utility district had received a Class A certification for its “pasteurized” biosolids. The certification allows the material to be used even on vegetable gardens, because the certified treatment process is designed to destroy all measurable pathogens.

Biosolids have been proven to be a rich soil amendment, but their use remains controversial. I consider the controversy to be in the realm of debates where the question is, “How safe is safe?”

Some people worry about active compounds, such as pharmaceuticals found in sewage. The question is where these compounds go when released into the environment in biosolids. Most research shows that such compounds are generally bound up with soil particles, but research continues into the rate that various chemicals are taken up by various plants. We’re talking about very low levels.

It is an entirely different story if we’re talking about pharmaceuticals and personal care products being released with sewage effluent into rivers and streams or even saltwater, where organisms have direct access to the compounds.

I covered these safety issues last year when West Sound Utility District was considering an application of Class B biosolids to forestland near Port Gamble. Please check out the Kitsap Sun, March 26, 2011.

Whether you choose to use some of West Sound’s biosolids on your lawn or garden is a matter of personal choice. Here are some references that cover various sides of the issue.

Cornell University Waste Management Institute

King County Frequently Asked Questions on Biosolids

Sierra Club policy against most uses of biosolids

Mother Jones magazine: “Sludge Happens”

University of Washington soil scientist Sally Brown in an interview at Kansas State University (video below)

Share on Facebook

Jacquelynn Gehring, a second-grade student in Sheri Stambaugh’s class at Crownhill Elementary School, was named the top winner in a recent coloring contest sponsored by the city of Bremerton.

Jacquelynn Gehring's winning picture in Bremerton's coloring contest for National Drinking Water Week
Drawing courtesy of City of Bremerton

The contest was promoted as part of National Drinking Water Week. This year’s theme was “Water is Important to Me Every Day.”

Bremerton Mayor Patty Lent presented awards to the winning students at a City Council meeting on May 16.

The other winners are Alaura Mercereau, second-place, and Emalee Wheaton, third place, both from Crownhill. An honorable mention was awarded to Destiny Hoaeae from Naval Avenue Elementary School.

Their pictures will be entered into a national Drinking Water Week contest sponsored by the American Water Works Association.

Kathleen Cahall, Bremerton’s water resources manager, has done a good job promoting National Drinking Water Week, a time to recognize actions at the local, state and national levels that ensure that we have the cleanest water in the world.

Kathleen offered this comment in a news release:

“Drinking Water Week is an opportunity to focus on the importance of water, which is too easily overlooked. A safe, reliable water supply is essential to the success of any community. In addition to keeping us healthy, safe water also supports the economy, provides fire protection and provides us with the high quality of life we enjoy.”

Here are the remaining winners:

Second-place winner Alaura Mercereau

Third-place winner Emalee Wheaton

Honorable mention recipient Destiny Hoaeae

Share on Facebook

The EIS predicted that 200 deaths and 1,600 instances of hearing loss would be suffered by marine mammals in the Navy’s testing and training ranges in Hawaii and California, reported AP writer Audrey McAvoy.

The old Navy analysis, she said, listed injuries or deaths to about 100 marine mammals.

So what caused these increased estimates of injury and death, and what are the implications for the Northwest Training and Testing Range Complex in Washington state?

It turns out that the causes are multiple and the implications many, as I reported in a story in Sunday’s Kitsap Sun.

In both California-Hawaii and the Northwest, the greatest effects come from the use of sonar and explosives, which the Navy considers essential to proper training and testing. By far, the greatest number of injuries and deaths are to dolphins. But the higher numbers do not mean that the Navy will be changing its operations to a great degree. If one doesn’t read this carefully, the higher numbers are easy to get confused.

To better understand the increased numbers, I asked for help from Sheila Murray, public information officer for Navy Region Northwest. She arranged a conference call with Navy officials Alex Stone, project manager; John Van Name, senior environmental planner; and Roy Sokolowski, an acoustic modeling expert.

“I would like to point out,” Alex told me at the outset, “that there is quite a bit of difference between this study and the previous studies.”

We had a good discussion, but here’s the bottom line: Without running more computer simulations, it is hard to identify the precise source of the increased injuries predicted in the new EIS for California-Hawaii. They can, however, be divided into three categories:

1. New activities that the Navy wishes to conduct or an increased tempo of existing activities,
2. Ongoing activities not included in previous analyses, or
3. New studies that adjust the model, such as greater effects on marine mammals than understood before (threshold changes) or a greater number of marine mammals in areas where activities are taking place (density changes).

I’m told that the greatest increase in numbers comes from additional studies and more accurate modeling. The Navy has spent millions of dollars studying the effects of its operations on the environment, with particular emphasis on marine mammals.

Navy officials emphasize that they are striving to protect the environment. They say that can be accomplished while adequately training and testing Navy personnel to protect the United States from enemy threats. But it’s a balancing act.

I’m hoping that the Navy can produce a fact sheet clarifying the numbers for readers of the California-Hawaii EIS, even if it takes more analysis. It could be a chart showing the number of “takes” for each species under the old and new analysis, with a breakdown describing how much of the increase fits into each of the above categories.

I’m told that similar increases are likely to be seen when the Navy unveils its EIS for the Northwest Training and Testing Range Complex, scheduled for release toward the end of next year. To avoid confusion, it would help if a fact sheet explaining the numbers would be released at the same time.

In my story on Sunday, I talked a little about what environmental groups may do with the new analysis being used in California and Hawaii. Some organizations last year filed a lawsuit over testing and training in the Northwest. More will be coming out in the future.

As for other parts of the country, Navy training and testing continue to make the news. A report last week by David Fleshler of the Sun Sentinel in Fort Lauderdale, Fla., revealed:

“The South Florida Ocean Measurement Facility, located off Port Everglades, will see an increase in ship traffic, mine countermeasure training and the testing of unmanned underwater vehicles, according to the environmental review (released by the Navy).

“The facility encompasses a network of undersea cables and detection devices used to determine the acoustical and electromagnetic characteristics of different ships.

“Under the new testing plan, ‘you will definitely be seeing new classes of ships,’ said Roxie Merritt, spokeswoman for Naval Surface Warfare Center, Carderock Division, which includes South Florida.”

While the story did not include estimates of harm to marine mammals, it did include a quote from Michael Jasny of the Natural Resources Defense Council:

“When the Navy intrudes such intense disruption into the environment, it tears at the very fabric of their surroundings. Sonar can have a range of effects causing animals to break off foraging, abandon habitat or die on the beach.”

Share on Facebook

Yes, I’ve seen starlings, but I’ve never seen anything like the huge mass of swirling birds captured in this video by two young women on the River Shannon in Ireland.

The two, Sophie Windsor Clive and Liberty Smith, have established an independent film company they call Islands & Rivers. According to their website, the women “find inspiration from bike rides, being by water, making things and meeting people.”

A flock of starlings is called a murmuration, which is the title to the accompanying music by Nomad Soul.

What makes these birds fly in such a coordinator manner? The question is the subject of some scientific study — not just for an understanding of natural behavior but also for improving the efficiency of human activities.

An article by Peter Miller in National Geographic discusses “swam theory,” covering why animals act as they do and how people are learning from such behavior. Check out the photo gallery that shows other kinds of swarming behavior.

Miller describes a computer graphics expert, Craig Reynolds, who wanted to realistically simulate a flock of birds for movies and video games. He created a program in 1986 that consisted of birdlike objects he called boids. The program required them to follow three simple rules: 1) avoid crowding nearby boids, 2) fly in the average direction of nearby boids, and 3) stay close to nearby boids.

“The result, when set in motion on a computer screen, was a convincing simulation of flocking, including lifelike and unpredictable movements,” Miller wrote.

For the history of this mathematical discovery, see the online article called “Boids,” written Reynolds himself, who describes the program’s first commercial use in the 1992 film “Batman Returns.”

Thanks to Chuck Hower of South Kitsap for sending me the starling video.

I don’t know if this next video has anything to do with flocking or swarm theory, but it’s an impressive display of duck behavior.

Share on Facebook

The Union River flows into the very end of Hood Canal near Belfair. The red outline is part of the Pacific Northwest Salmon Center.

For the moment, I can’t do much more than pose some perplexing questions. But I get the feeling that if we could get the answers, we would understand more about salmon recovery in Lower Hood Canal and possibly other places as well.

The Union River also highlights the customary finger-pointing as to why certain stocks of salmon declined in the first place and what it will take to bring them back. Of the four H’s — harvest, habitat, hatcheries and hydro — the greatest finger-pointing goes on between harvest and habitat.

Let’s take Hood Canal summer chum and focus on the Union River, which was the subject of a story I wrote for Monday’s Kitsap Sun.

First, why did summer chum go extinct in the Dewatto and Tahuya rivers — the closest rivers to the Union — while maintaining a viable population in the Union?

Talking about habitat, the Dewatto and Tahuya are far more intact ecologically than the Union, which is dammed up in the Bremerton watershed and has many houses crowding its banks from Kitsap County down to Belfair.

Researchers believe that one of the main reasons for the summer chum decline was excessive fishing years ago during the early part of the coho salmon run, when summer chum were making their way toward their natal streams.

But if that’s the case, how did the summer chum bound for the Union get past the nets near the Dewatto and Tahuya? Were the nets set clear across those rivers, thus taking nearly every fish going upstream while letting fish bound for the Union to move on by?

Were poachers prowling the more remote Dewatto and Tahuya rivers killing summer chum for the “sport” of it when river flows were at their lowest?

I base these questions on comments I have heard through the years, comments that are almost conspiratorial in nature but deserve an answer. If true, perhaps the summer chum in the Union River survived only because of the larger number of people watching what was going on in and around the waterway.

And what kind of poaching goes on even now? Not so long ago, I received reports each year about small fishing boats coming into the Dewatto. Have those activities been stopped? What about current activities in the river? Has the culture changed enough to really protect the spawners?

As for habitat, it is true that the Dewatto and Tahuya have not faced the same level of development. But, through the years, I’ve heard stories of landowners and even trespassers doing things that damage the rivers, generally out of sight of anyone in authority. I’ve been told about makeshift dikes, dredging during salmon-egg incubation, changing the course of the rivers, and allowing manure and excess pesticides to get into the water. And then there are landslides, some the result of normal geological processes and some caused by landscape alterations.

While we generally believe that the Dewatto and Tahuya rivers are relatively natural, maybe they were heavily altered in a few key places by a few careless people, while those living along the Union limited their impacts, knowing that their actions could affect flooding or water quality for their nearby neighbors. That’s not to say I don’t hear horror stories about the Union River as well.

These ramblings of mine are not facts. They are in the realm of conjecture, but I have heard such stories and would like to get some answers. Perhaps the proposed study on the Union River could lead to a greater discussion about what went wrong for the Dewatto and the Tahuya. It might help to avoid the same problems somewhere else.

Share on Facebook

L-112 in happier times. The 3-year-old orca died in February, and her death is the subject of an intense investigation.
Photo by Jeanne Hyde, Whale of a Porpoise
(Click on image to see Jeanne's tribute page)

For the first time, all the key members on a committee studying the death of L-112 got together last week. Their latest conclusions were updated in a report released yesterday.

More tests on tissues taken from the injury site are planned, even as the investigation continues into what human activities may have been occurring in or near the Columbia River at the time of L-112’s death.

The female orca was found dead at Long Beach on Feb. 11. For information, check out my previous reports in Water Ways:

Feb. 18: So far, sonar has not been linked to orca death

March 15: Balcomb wants to know if young orca was bombed

March 22: Mystery of orca’s death only deepens with new info

April 4: Orca’s death enters the realm of law enforcement

Veterinarian Joe Gaydos of the SeaDoc Society told me yesterday that the investigators have been unable to pinpoint what caused the extensive bruising and swelling on both sides of the head, especially on the right side.

The trauma was spread out fairly evenly across the head, consistent with force from an explosion or other high-pressure impact, Joe said, but a similar injury could result from a glancing blow from a boat or even a strong impact with the tail of another whale. It was not a straight-on blow, however.

“The bones in the area where the hemorrhage occurred are not tough bones,” Joe said. “It would not be hard to break that bone.”

Yet the bones in that part of the head were not broken, which shows that the “pressure was diffusely spread out,” he explained.

I haven’t had a chance to talk with Steve Raverty, a pathologist at the Animal Health Center in British Columbia, who is studying the tissue damage. But Joe tells me that some additional tests are planned to see whether signs of blast trauma can be distinguished from impact trauma.

One question is whether the injury burst blood vessels and caused blood to leak into the surrounding muscle and other tissue. That could help tip the weight of evidence. The problem is that tissue breakdown had taken place to the extent that discrete blood cells were no longer visible. With special staining techniques, it may be possible to determine whether blood had escaped into the surrounding tissue.

Another test will look for fat in the blood vessels and organs, Joe said. Some previous studies suggest that explosions can dislodge blubber, leaving fat deposits that can be found later.

One of the ongoing difficulties for the investigators is that the tissues were not fresh enough for them to make the finer judgments needed to rule out one source of trauma over another, although it seems apparent now that the animal did not die of disease.

Aside from L-112 herself, NOAA Fisheries is trying to identify human activities, such as blasting or bombing, that may have caused the fatal injury. U.S. and Canadian navies say they were not operating in the area at the time, although the Canadians set off two underwater charges in the Salish Sea far to the north on Feb. 6. Ocean currents would not have carried a dead whale from there to Long Beach, however.

Investigators are still waiting to hear whether the U.S. Coast Guard or Army Corps or Engineers were conducting any operations in the area at the time.

Fishing vessels were not likely to be off Long Beach or the Columbia River in February, according to reports.

There is some hope that acoustic-recording buoys in the area may have picked up the sound of an explosion or the sound of killer whales moving through the area to pinpoint the time of death.

Brad Hanson of the NOAA’s Northwest Fisheries Science Center tells me that NOAA operates four buoys in the general area of consideration. The buoys stay in place and sample sounds in the water for 30 seconds out of every 10 minutes. That’s one-twentieth of the time, an interval chosen to conserve hard-drive space while capturing enough information to determine if killer whales are passing by and to identify the pods if other noises do not interfere.

For most of the buoys, the data won’t be available until the end of summer, when the buoys are pulled from the water and the data processed. Another coastal buoy broke loose from Cape Flattery at the northwest corner of the state during the winter and was later recovered. Brad said that data is being processed now. While it isn’t certain yet whether the buoy was still in place in February, there’s a good chance it was, since it was recovered in April.

Brad said he will look specifically for sounds recorded before Feb. 11 to see if he can help solve the mystery of L-112’s death. Other recorders closer to the Columbia River may be more revealing when their data are processed later.

The full report of the investigation team can be downloaded: Southern Resident Killer Whale L112 Stranding Progress Report, May 15, 2012 (PDF 72 kb).

Share on Facebook

Frogs seem to be a common theme for bird baths, but it is interesting that cats — of course enemies of birds — are sometimes willing to help them take a bath or even to feed them (bird feeder).

If you would like to take a closer look or get purchase information about these bird baths, click on any of the photos.

At the very bottom, you’ll find an animation, based on a true story of a sneaky cat trying to share a bird bath for his own advantage. That’s followed by a video of a parrot who has plenty to say while taking a spray bath on his perch.

Share on Facebook

Jeff Gales of U.S. Lighthouse Society can be seen in the fresnel lens at Point No Point Lighthouse near Hansville.
Kitsap Sun photo by Meegan Reid

The $100,000 came from a grant program called Partners in Preservation. Under the program, millions of dollars have been handed out in recent years for historical restoration work by American Express in coordination with the National Trust for Historical Preservation.

The Point No Point Lighthouse received the cash in 2010, when numerous other projects in the Puget Sound region also received money. See Partners in Preservation – Puget Sound for a description of all the projects.

Grants in other years were awarded in areas in and around these cities: San Francisco, 2006; Chicago, 2007; New Orleans, 2008; Boston, 2009; Minneapolis-St. Paul, 2011; and upcoming New York City, 2012.

In a June 15, 2010, story in the Kitsap Sun, reporter Brynn Grimley described how the Point No Point Lighthouse was able to come out among the top three winners in the Partners in Preservation contest. The money has made a real difference for the historical lighthouse.

The most costly part of the newly completed project was a major electrical upgrade, according to Jeff Gales of the U.S. Lighthouse Society as reported in a story by Kipp Robertson in Kingston Community News. Other major work included painting, lighting, a climate-control system, new doors and protective lantern glass for the Fresnel lens.

“Before” and “after” photos, along with historical information, are posted on a website of the U.S. Lighthouse Society that features the Point No Point Lighthouse restoration.

In a story in today’s Kitsap Sun, reporter Amy Phan describes the completion of the project. In a comment at the end of the story, reader jnpears described today’s celebration at the lighthouse:

“I was out there this morning for the re-dedication, and it was an awesome thing. The sun was out; the wind was light; and the view out over the Puget Sound was out of this world. The dedication was great, and there were about 50 people there for it. After the dedication, we all toured the lighthouse and got to see all the old equipment that is still there and has been rehabbed.

“As we were leaving, I saw that there must have been about 20 fishing poles set up on the beach and a lot of young families arriving with their children and picnic baskets. It’s really great to see the place being so well used.”

For some additional history of Point No Point Lighthouse, visit LighthouseFriends.com. To obtain information about other lighthouses in Washington, click on the map, which is courtesy of the Lighthouse Friends organization.

Point No Point Lighthouse recently received a fresh coat of paint and other work.

Share on Facebook

The video at right shows some interesting pictures of water systems in Kitsap County. It takes a bit of reading to get through it, but the video reminds us that the area — and most areas — started out with many surface-water systems and now relies mostly on groundwater.

The history of Bremerton’s water system, which still includes a highly protected surface-water supply on the Union River, is described briefly on the city’s website.

Drinking Water Week is a chance to review the water quality of our own drinking water, at least for those of us on public water systems. The EPA requires most systems to provide information to their customers once a year. Accessing this information at other times is not always easy, although most of the larger systems post the required water-quality data on their websites.

I keep hearing that the Washington Department of Health plans to create a simple way to link to the data for any system in the state, but I don’t think it has happened yet.

The state’s Office of Drinking Water maintains a database with Water System Data, but it is not easy to use the search function.

The Environmental Protection Agency has set up a nationwide system that includes entries where water system managers can place links to their annual water quality reports. It’s called “Where You Live:
Your Drinking Water Quality Reports Online.” But out of hundreds of water systems in Washington state only seven have set up the links — and some of those links don’t work. None of the systems in Kitsap County is using that web page.

Meanwhile, you can find the information on the websites of many water systems if you look around a bit. Here are links to water-quality reports for some of the largest systems in Kitsap County:

Bremerton Public Works and Utilities

Silverdale Water District

West Sound Utility District (PDF)

North Perry Water District (PDF)

Manchester Water District

Kitsap Public Utility District

Share on Facebook

1. Puget Sound chinook salmon are listed as a “threatened” species.
2. Southern Resident killer whales, which frequent Puget Sound, are listed as “endangered.”
3. Southern Resident killer whales eat primarily chinook salmon.

Therefore … isn’t it obvious that the shortage of Puget Sound chinook has had a major impact on the whales?

Once you begin to challenge the assumptions — as a seven-member scientific panel has done — a more complex picture emerges. It is not easy to sort out predator-prey interactions, especially considering that the prey may include hundreds of individual salmon stocks, some of which are doing quite well.

The independent panel (PDF 144 kb), made up of U.S. and Canadian scientists, tackled the question of whether cutbacks or elimination of salmon fishing could help rebuild the killer whale population at a faster rate. The panel’s preliminary conclusion is that reducing fisheries could have a slight benefit, but only if certain assumptions hold true.

I tried to cover all the bases in a story published in yesterday’s Kitsap Sun. But if you are really interested in this complex subject, you need to read the preliminary findings (PDF 1.5 mb) for yourself, keeping in mind that the report is likely to be revised one more time before it is completed.

As for the “obvious” relationship between Puget Sound chinook and our local killer whales, here’s what Pat Pattillo of the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife told me:

“A lot of people originally concluded that orcas are in bad shape because Puget Sound chinook are in bad shape. We have discovered that maybe the orcas are not doing so badly (with an annual growth rate of 1 percent) and that they are not even eating Puget Sound chinook.”

In the summer, the whales eat primarily chinook headed back to the Fraser River in Canada, and most Fraser River stocks are doing fairly well, Pat explained.

In the fall, starting about September, the killer whales come south into Central Puget Sound, where they dine on relatively healthy stocks of fall chum salmon.

In winter, the whales generally head out to the Pacific Ocean, where it isn’t so clear what they’re eating. It’s an expensive research project to collect fecal samples from whales in the open ocean, but that’s one way to learn if the whales have a preference for a particular stock of salmon or if they’re eating other kinds of fish.

If experienced scientists have trouble sorting out the assumptions, what does that mean for the rest of us? I think it suggests that we should keep an open mind, review the findings and be prepared to change our thinking if new evidence becomes available.

I’m reminded of an email last year from a Bremerton resident who responded to reports of killer whales swimming through our local waters. Unlike most people, this man seemed dismayed that orcas were around.

“The evidence is staring you in the face why the salmon population is in peril,” he said, blaming marine mammals for the decline of salmon. “The hype and harassment by government continues to blame everybody but the natural appetites of salmon predators.”

It was odd to hear his rant, especially since these particular orcas had been identified as transient killer whales, which eat marine mammals. When I suggested that they were probably eating seals and sea lions and thus saving some salmon from being eaten, it meant nothing to him.

“Give me a break!” he wrote back. “Orcas save salmon? That’s like saying nets across the streams are good for salmon runs, because they catch the dumb salmon and the smart ones get by… Believe what you want, but reality is reality.”

What could I say to that? I guess people who are unable to change their minds simply invent their own reality.

To review the information collected by the independent panel, go to the web page: Effects of Salmon Fisheries on Southern Resident Killer Whales.

Share on Facebook