Problem is that they are basing their conclusions for the closure on bad science. Although for some, the objection is not totally based on emotions, but science as well.

First, there econcomic impact study is totally flawed. Dated and not a representative unbiased study of the econcomic impacts of local individuals. Should be redone so people truely know what the financial impact of this proposal will be.

Their science shows no clear indication that recreational fisherman are a direct link to orca declines. What are the db's assigned to a recreational fishing vessel? How does this db and 3 mph trolling effect a resident orca whale? If you claim adverse effects on orcas by boats, why do orcas approach recreational fishing vessles?

They are attempting to put a bandaid on a much larger problem they can't fully explain or are indirectly trying to fix: food source, toxins, etc.

Until they can prove scientifically, with direct research that recreational fisherman can and do cause a decline in orca populations, this is a bad Regulation.

Killer whales (Orcinus orca) are large predators that occupy the top trophic position in the world's oceans and as such may have important roles in marine ecosystem dynamics. Although the possible top-down effects of killer whale predation on populations of their prey have received much recent attention, little is known of how the abundance of these predators may be limited by bottom-up processes. Here we show, using 25 years of demographic data from two populations of fish-eating killer whales in the northeastern Pacific Ocean, that population trends are driven largely by changes in survival, and that survival rates are strongly correlated with the availability of their principal prey species, Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha). Our results suggest that, although these killer whales may consume a variety of fish species, they are highly specialized and dependent on this single salmonid species to an extent that it is a limiting factor in their population dynamics. Other ecologically specialized killer whale populations may be similarly constrained to a narrow range of prey species by culturally inherited foraging strategies, and thus are limited in their ability to adapt rapidly to changing prey availability

John K. B. Ford1,*, Graeme M. Ellis1, Peter F. Olesiuk1 and Kenneth C. Balcomb2

http://rsbl.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/early/2009/09/14/rsbl.2009.0468.abstract

I'm having a hard time understanding some of the logic in the proposed plan. If one of the main reasons for banning boat traffic in the no go zone is essentially noise pollution, then why are kayaks prohibited? Furthermore, who's to say that naval operations, tribal fisheries, research vessels, and enforcement boats won't continue to prevent the hunting success of the orcas.

Exactly! It completely fails on its intent by allowing exceptions.

I think these are the most important arguments to make. Rest assured that there are others saying, right now, that these vessel restrictions are unnecessary and that all that is needed is to ban all salmon fishing. I don't believe that, having looked at the orca population dynamics and the salmon numbers, but it is definitely easier to ban fishing than to mandate lifestyle changes that will affect everyone, which is what will be needed to seriously reduce pollution. Remember the orcas are endangered, not threatened. That means that NOAA is very vulnerable to lawsuits if they don't act decisively soon.

Thanks for the very thoughtful comments WN1A.

I truely don't think acoustical effects on the Orca's is the sole reason for their decline and as many have said there are other highly possible contributions to their decline: toxin levels, chinook salmon run declines, yes accoustics/boat traffic.

It is however, unrealistic for NOAA to propose an MPA with "exceptions" and yet can't come to a realistic proposal in the Puget Sound Chinook Harvest Management Plan.

To not take in to account the econcomic impacts the 'no-go zone" will have on locals, the flaw in their science and not looking at all the parts, equally, to recover orca's or any ESA listed specicies, I personally think is irresponsible.

This whole Orca issue has to b looked at over the very (especially for a politician) long term. They live 50-100 years. Over that time, eating a part per billion PCB, or trillion, per day will eventually add up. That is a lot of pollutants that need to not only be not put into the Sound but must be taken out.

Assuming that they reproduce somewhat like humans without birth control (we'll ignore what's being flushed into the Sound now) a cow can probably produce between 5 and 10 calves over her life. If it is 5, only 2 need to reach adulthood for the population to be stable. We could easily have a decade of no successful calf production and that might not be "bad".

Too much of what we do is based on short-term views; we need to take a much longer view. Not only for the resources but for ourselves. If the Sound is getting uninhabitable for its long-term residents what does that say to us?

How many of you that are so insightful are going to the meeting at the Seattle Aquarium and/or have already been to the meeting in Anacortes?

Been and don't forget there is a meeting in Friday Harbor on October 5th.

I was present at the Anacortes meeting, I can't make it to the Seattle meeting and I am planning on attending the Friday Harbor meeting. It seems to me that the problem here is that NOAA must do something to show that they are making an effort to save the whales, and they must do it in a relativley short period of time. Even if they were to realize that their science is flawed, they don't have an alternative plan. Does anyone have any ideas for alternative whale recovery plans? I think comments to NOAA that present feasible alternatives to the no go zone would be very valuable commentary to make at these meetings.

I'm glad to hear so many plan to attend. We need as many sportfishers there as possible. I was at the Anacortes meeting and intend to stay active through it all. This time I'll be helping take notes of as many comments as possible. I had written comments I intended to read but got there and learned we'd only have 2 minutes behind a curtain in front of a video camera. I had more to say then 2 minutes worth. I've read the environmental assessment and found a priority list of benefits/threats. Next go around they could accurately describe the economic impact but it's a lower priority than protecting the Orca's The charters and others are still put out of business. I made sure my testimony and email comments talked of how sportsfishers and fishing charters provide the benefit of education. We volunteer and complete habitat enhancement projects and our charter clients (mine are mostly non-boat owners or city dwellers) see first hand things like sealyons, seals and Orca's.) NOAA staff actually made a note and said, 'Good point, education'. That's because education is a high priority. It's a lot harder to justify destroying what their goals say they are trying to create. A couple people at the last meeting told of poor or harrassing behavior by Soundwatch. Anyone with such observations, please put it in your written comments. Soundwatch is being privately promoted to have police like enforcement capability and they can write you up for a $10,000 fine. This proposal will fine you if an Orca changes directions to come check you out. You didn't plan to be in it's path. Imagine paddling a kayak fast enough to stay 200 yds away...Ka-ching $10K. The Orca's don't stay in the no-go zone. There's an association in the San Juan Islands, very well funded, who have sponsored this no-go zone. They also want a no wake zone through out the islands that didn't become part of this proposal. They promote their assoc. and Soundwatch to both have full police type authority. They are also excluded from provisions of this proposal. NOAA has also not answered the question of how they determined treaty tribes to be exempt from Federal regulations. How did they make that determination? Are they using a court precedent?
Hope to see you at the Seattle meeting.
Deb Stevens/Fishcatcher Charters

Here's a link to one groups view of boats and orcas

http://www.sanjuanislander.com/groups/whales/orca-relief.shtml

and a link to the only study I can find on the impact of boat engine noise

http://www.orcarelief.org/docs/erbe_boatnoise.pdf

Looks like most of the data concerns large engines 150 hp or higher. One has to wonder how trolling motors or large motors idling at trolling speed fit into the equation.

I'm also reminded about the video that is on youtube showing the Orca coming up alongside a sport fisher and taking half the salmon that was hooked. Doesn't look to me like the orca has much concern over someone moving at trolling speed. There are a lot of other sport fishers visible in the video, too.

I am fairly sick of this topic, as most of us are.

I was on the Victoria Clipper on Saturday having a casual conversation with a family that was vacationing. They were telling me about their Whale Watching trip from a couple days previous. The lady began telling me about how they had spotted the whales from roughly 500-600 yards way and were disappointed that they were so far away and slowly getting further away from their boat. While the captain of their boat was telling them about the orcas and their travel patterns, they noticed that the whales began to change their route a bit and started heading towards the Whale Watching boat. The family was telling me how amazed they were at how fast the whale pods were within 50 yards of their boat.

They said, "one second they were off in the distance then all of a sudden they were right at our boat. They were amazingly curious."

So, a family that has no idea about an of this orca BS, shares a story with me about the orcas curiousity and how fast they can close in on a boat, but we are supposed to be able to keep a 400 yard distance or get a $10,000 fine, and believe that they are stressed and not curious about our vessels?

It's all horse$hit and I am fairly burned out on it.

Good luck at the meeting tomorrow. I think I will work on my emo skin carvings instead.

We really need to flood this Wednesday's meeting at the Seattle Aquarium from 7:00 to 9:00 in support of killing this west San Juan Island ½ mile wide closure. This could be the start of many more closures. You know that they are only going to try and close the good salmon fishing areas. Your favorite area is probably next. This is step one. Once they get their foot in the door, they have easier access to more and more closures. (See what is happening in California) Could you imagine if they closed Possession Bar, Point No Point, Hat Island, and or Elger Bay, or all of the above? Don't think it’s not possible! It is! This is NOAA trying to close this and not WDFW. I am working with several others to try and put together a game plan. This closure has absolutely no science basis. It will close the West Side of San Juan Island to sportfishing, whalewatching, and kayakers, while tribal commercial fishing will remain. This meeting might be heavily attended by the proliberals that would back this closure and a good possiblilty that the news media might be there. Make sure and write a letter and sign it. If you want to speak, please sign in for comments. I am guessing there will be a 2-3 minute period for general public comments. If you do not want to read your letter, make sure and hand it in.

NOAA is saying we (Sportsfishers) are disturbing the orcas in this area and they are not eating like they should and part of the reason for their decline. This is preposterous. How many times have you been out there and had an orca come up to your boat while you were fishing, chasing a salmon or even chasing your salmon? I think this is selling orcas short. If they want to eat, nothing will stop them. I have had them around me many times over the years hunting. The salmon bite sure goes off quick doesn't it? I think it is hard to believe that an orca would choose starvation over eating something other than a Chinook salmon like the info they provide says. A species that is smart enough to draw baby seals from the beach by acting playful, then eating them, is surely smart enough to eat lingcod, rockfish, or even seals when Chinook Salmon are not present. The Southern Resident Killer Whale population is supposed to be entirely fed by Chinook Salmon. By our boats being there, they are saying that we are bothering them to the extent that they are not feeding, contributing to their decline.
Meanwhile we have PCBs and other pollutants causing them to be some of the most polluted whales in the world, not to mention cargo ships blasting through Haro Strait at 30 MPH. You better not get in their way. We dearly value our orcas as they provide part of the culture and livelihood of living where we do. To say we are doing damage to these magnificent creatures is outrageous. This is not science based and seems more personal agenda driven.

Please be at the meeting at the Seattle Aquarium at 7:00 September 30 and wear your PSA and/or CCA or other sportfishing attire attire to show them we care.
Thanks
Ron Garner
PSA Sno-King President
PSA State Board VP

Please write your objection on paper, sign it, and leave it for them. This is so important for tonight.

Sorry for the lengthy post below, but this is the letter sent to NOAA by The Friends of the San Juans in support of the Orca closure.


February 25, 2007
Ms. Lynne M. Barre and Mr. J. Brent Norberg
National Marine Fishers Service, Northwest Regional Office
Protected Resources Division
7600 Sand Point Way NE
Seattle WA 98115
Re: Comments to Proposed Recovery Plan for Southern Resident Killer Whales
Dear Ms. Barre and Mr. Norberg:
On behalf of Friends of the San Juans (“Friends”), please accept the following comments to the
Proposed Recovery Plan for Southern Resident Killer Whales (the “Proposed Plan”). As you
may be aware, Friends was a co-petitioner to list the Southern Resident Killer Whales (the
“Orcas”) on the Endangered Species List. Orcas spend at least half of each year feeding and
frolicking in the San Juan Island waters, including the most critical portion of their annual
lifecycle. Maintaining the health and biodiversity of the Islands’ marine ecosystem is crucial to
Orcas’ short and long-term survival. Friends believes that the Proposed Plan should rely on the
precautionary principle to enact regulations to protect Orcas, and accordingly offers its
comments on the Proposed Plan to ensure Orcas’ full and speedy recovery.
General Comments
As you are aware, in developing a recovery plan under §4(f) of the Endangered Species Act, the
Secretary of Commerce, here through the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), must, to
the maximum extent practicable, develop a conservation and survival plan that gives priority to
those endangered species “that are, or may be, in conflict with construction or other development
projects or other forms of economic activity.” Additionally, NMFS is required to describe sitespecific
management actions and objectives, measurable criteria and time estimates to achieve
such actions and objectives.
The Proposed Plan provides a thoughtful analysis of the current scientific data, known conditions
and scientific literature about the Orcas, and did so in a timely manner. We believe the Proposed
Plan correctly identifies the most significant threats to Orcas survival and actions needed to
recover them from endangerment. However, the Proposed Plan lacks adequate safeguards and
criteria to assess the effectiveness of the numerous on-going projects and programs on which the
Proposed Plan relies for the Orcas’ recovery. The Proposed Plan does not, however provide
adequate regulatory or enforcement mechanisms to achieve true recovery in a timely manner.
Friends of the San Juans
Orca Recovery Proposed Plan Comments
2
We believe that the Proposed Plan’s funding scheme wrongly prioritizes recovery efforts. The
Proposed Plan budgets an insufficient amount of funding - only $2,285,000 - for enforcement
and prevention activities for the next five years. This funding amount is distributed among
projects known to be crucial to Orcas’ survival. It is unclear why this amount of funding is not
greater.
Compounding this inexplicable lack of funding for enforcement and prevention is that the
Proposed Plan budgets roughly six times that funding amount for research, or $12,755,000.
Friends agrees that scientific research is necessary, as is on-going monitoring of Orca
populations. Yet, the Proposed Plan does not address how it would utilize this research for
adaptive management or utilize it for creating new recovery actions or strengthening existing
recovery actions.
In sum, NMFS must manage recovery efforts that are directly under its jurisdiction - such as
directly increasing Orca prey in critical habitat and providing meaningful regulation for, and
enforcement of, all vessels during peak summer months. The Proposed Plan acknowledges there
is ample, credible research that indicates these issues are at the foundation of Orca recovery.
Thus, these issues must be funded and implemented now to see how the populations respond.
Friends offers the following specific comments which we hope you will find constructive in
finalizing the Proposed Plan to fully achieve the goal of de-listing the Orcas as an endangered or
threatened species.
1. Nearshore Habitat Protection
Concern: Action Matrix item 1.1 appropriately addresses the need to support salmon restoration
efforts of the salmon populations critical to the Orcas’ diet. However, the Proposed Plan defers
all tasks related to salmon restoration within the critical habitat area to the broader salmon
restoration efforts already in progress, such as the Puget Sound Salmon Recovery Plan that was
officially adopted by NOAA on January 19, 2007. The Proposed Plan makes a major
assumption: that salmon recovery efforts will be successful in general, as well as successful in a
timely enough manner to foster Orca recovery. The Proposed Plan only considers Puget Sound
salmon recovery, and wholly ignores salmon stocks near Vancouver Island, the Washington
Coast, Oregon and California.
The Proposed Plan does not provide coordination between salmon and Orca recovery efforts, nor
does it provide appropriate attention to forage fish or forage fish habitat protection and
restoration. Because research indicates that Chinook salmon is the Orcas’ main prey in the San
Juan Islands, the Proposed Plan should address Orca predation levels on area salmon stocks. The
Proposed Plan should also provide more immediate protections for forage fish and forage fish
habitat, the main prey of salmon on which Orcas feed. Finally, the Proposed Plan does not
address the manner in which local regulatory processes, such as the Growth Management Act’s
mandated Critical Areas Ordinance update and local shoreline master program updates, could be
further utilized to enhance Orca recover.
Recommendations:
• Coordinate recovery actions with local knowledge, existing regulatory mechanisms, and
provide additional funding for local recovery efforts;
Friends of the San Juans
Orca Recovery Proposed Plan Comments
3
• Include Orca and pinniped predation levels in salmon recovery plans;
• Account for salmon stocks in British Columbia, the Washington Coast, Oregon and
California;
• Place greater emphasis on forage fish habitat protection to support salmon recovery; and
• Place greater emphasis on non-salmon prey populations, such as forage fish.
2. Vessel Effects
Concern: Action Matrix items 1.3.1.1, 1.3.2, 1.3.3, and 1.3.4 concern impacts to Orcas from
excessive numbers, proximity to, and affects of commercial whale watching and recreational
vessels. These tasks are only prioritized as “2” with little funding to accompany them. We
strongly urge you to prioritize these action items as “1.” Soundwatch has well-documented the
threat that Orcas face from whale watching recreational vessels, and the Proposed Plan’s
bibliography is full of citations about the documented effects on Orcas from vessel effects.
Thus, there is no need to further evaluate whether regulations and actions are needed to protect
Orcas from deleterious vessel effects – existing science indicates that the need is clear. If the
Orcas are to recover, they need protection from vessel effects in the summer of 2007, not an
undefined number of years in the future.
The whale watching industry has enacted voluntary guidelines for behavior around Orcas, but
there is no regulatory power to enforce those guidelines. The guidelines, which are a good start,
are full of loopholes, are difficult to interpret and provide no assurances that whale watch vessel
operators actually understand or will comply with them. Additionally, the guidelines do not
impose limitations on the number of commercial vessels that can be in close proximity to Orcas
at any given time, or on the hours in which commercial vessels operate.
In short, the guidelines need to become regulations and need to be simplified so that there is one
simple, clear regulatory distance that vessels must stay from Orcas. Based on the best available
science, we believe that distance is 200 yards on the seaward side of Orcas, at all times, in all
circumstances and for any type of vessel – commercial whale watching, fishing, or recreational.
This distance standard will help ensure avoidance of collisions, interference with Orca
communications, and will by default ensure that Orcas are less subject to the noxious air quality
emissions from multiple diesel exhaust engines.
The new vessel distance guideline needs to be combined with a local no-wake zone off the west
side of San Juan Island which is an acknowledged part of the “core” area of critical habitat.
Additionally, a reporting scheme for whale watching boats and other commercial vessels should
be required to report the numbers of passengers carried on each whale watching trip, the number
of trips per day/week/month/season, and schedule a time when they are in the “zone” of viewing.
This new era of strict regulation must be accompanied by a joint enforcement effort among
NMFS, the Coast Guard, Washington Fish & Wildlife Department and local deputies, including
the San Juan County Sheriff and Soundwatch.
Recommendations:
• Utilize existing data from the Whale Museum and Soundwatch regarding peak boater days
and times to establish vessel behavior regulations [not guidelines], including:
Friends of the San Juans
Orca Recovery Proposed Plan Comments
4
o A ½ mile no-wake zone from Cattle Pass at the south end of San Juan Island to
Turn Point on Stuart Island;
o Restrict vessels from approaching within 200 yards of Orcas at anytime; this
protective barrier would follow them at all times;
o Restrict vessels from approaching Orcas on the shoreward side so that Orcas may
safely swim within ½ mile of shore at all times without minimal boater
disturbance;
o Other no-wake zones and speed limits as necessary to decrease incidents of
collision, noise, and vessel pollution;
• Provide funding for enhanced radio communication between federal/state/local
enforcement, Soundwatch, and Canadian counterparts;
• Provide more funding for existing Soundwatch and expansion of Soundwatch;
• Provide mandatory endangered species/critical habitat training for whale watch vessel
operators;
• Establish a whale watching vessel registration system;
• Enable NOAA Fisheries Enforcement officers to deputize local law enforcement officers
for purposes of enforcing current and future regulations; and
• Establish a joint enforcement team comprised of NMFS, the Coast Guard, WDFW, San
Juan County and Soundwatch.
3. Pollution and Contaminants
Concern: Action Matrix item 1.2 does not assign a priority ranking to efforts aimed at
mimimizing pollution and chemical contaminants in the critical habitat. Much like salmon
recovery efforts, the contamination clean-up tasks rely on existing and future Puget Sound
funding allocations to provide the necessary clean-up of critical habitat. However, the Proposed
Plan does not address whether ongoing efforts are sufficient, will occur in a timely manner to
support Orca recovery, or will adequately provide for cumulative impacts. The Proposed Plan
and Action Matrix do not provide any performance standards, benchmarks or measurable
objectives for recovery clean-up. The Action Matrix does not address the scientifically known
hazards to Orcas, regulations for preventing such contaminants from reaching critical habitat
area, or any additional funding that will be allocated directly to those actions. Finally, the
Proposed Plan does not address impacts to critical habitat from the host of contaminants
transmitted by stormwater runoff.
Recommendations:
• Prioritize and allocate funding for timely implementation of Puget Sound clean-up efforts
with clear performance standards and a timeline for achievable objectives;
• Immediately ban known contaminants from the greater Orca critical habitat area;
• Investigate and regulate point and non-point sources of contaminants known to be found
in Orca fat tissues;
• Coordinate with local jurisdictions adjacent to critical habitat to regulate and monitor
stormwater runoff and general water quality improvement practices.
4. Enforcement of ESA and MMPA
Concern: The Proposed Plan does not provide sufficient direction to federal, state or local
officials on the ways in which those jurisdictions are not preempted from regulating under the
Friends of the San Juans
Orca Recovery Proposed Plan Comments
5
ESA or MMPA to protect the Orcas. The Proposed Plan recommends that to the “extent
practicable” inter-jurisdictional law enforcement and legal authorities should cooperate to
enforce the applicable laws and regulations. The Proposed Plan also recommends that a
“comprehensive legal review” should be undertaken from which recommendations for
administrative changes and enforcement and prosecution standards should be made.
However, item 5.3 of the Action Matrix lists “inter-jurisdictional enforcement cooperation and
coordination” as a “3” priority and provides virtually no funding, no timeline, no coordination
strategy, and no mandate to achieve the enforcement goals. Further, because most local
regulation is preempted by the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) it is essential that the
Proposed Plan do more than simply recommend additional study. The Proposed Plan must
directly guide state and local governments in the manner that vessel regulations are allowed.
Without enforcement, the Orcas will continue to be harassed by private and commercial boaters
whose numbers are too great, whose distance is too close, and impacts are too detrimental to the
well-being and survival of the Orcas.
Recommendations:
• Actively encourage and promote whale watch viewing from the shoreline to reduce the
probability of an MMPA or ESA violation;
• Immediately establish a coordinated inter-jurisdictional legal review team to advise state
and local officials of the types of vessel restrictions allowed and which are not preempted
by federal law;
• Enlist the Coast Guard as ‘patrols of opportunity’ while transiting through the critical
habitat area;
• Provide funding for increased enforcement in and around the San Juan Islands during the
peak summer season;
• Establish state monetary penalties for failure to comply with local, state and federal
regulations;
• Coordinate new vessel regulations with increased enforcement and education efforts; and
• Enable NOAA Fisheries Enforcement officers to deputize local law enforcement officers
for purposes of enforcing current and future regulations.
5. Oil Spills
Concern: The Action Matrix correctly prioritizes oil spill prevention with a “1” for top-level
priority, but again relies exclusively on a few existing programs the funding for which is not
secure.1 The Proposed Plan does not analyze whether, or to what extent, those oil spill
prevention programs appropriately address Orca recovery. Both the cumulative impacts of small
scale spills and a catastrophic oil spill pose great threats to Orcas, but there is no indication that
current oil transfer practices, tug escort requirements, or general oil shipping practices are
sufficient to prevent a spill.
1 Funding for a year-round state-of-the-art rescue tug at Neah Bay is not presently available; funding for a Neah Bay
tug 200 days of the winter expires in 2008.
Friends of the San Juans
Orca Recovery Proposed Plan Comments
6
The Magnuson Amendment to the MMPA placed a limit on the amount of crude oil that could be
refined east of Port Angeles as of 1977 due to the risks associated with tanker traffic in the Strait
of Juan de Fuca, around the San Juan Islands and through Puget Sound. We know that over 15
billion gallons of crude passes through our public waters each year, and each tanker carries with
it significant risks of a spill. Due to the potential catastrophic consequences of a major spill, a
cumulative assessment of whether current refining capacities at Cherry Point, Ferndale,
Anacortes, and Tacoma exceed this limitation is necessary.
Human error will continue to be a factor in the oil transporting, transferring and refining
processes, so it is essential that contingency plans and geographic response plans adequately
address the presence of Orcas as well as their prey and habitat protection. The Wildlife
Workgroup of the Region 10 Response Team/Northwest Area Committee should be consulted in
the design of a “hazing” plan in the event of an oil spill.
Recommendations:
• Require oil tanker traffic to avoid forage fish [Pacific herring] spawning areas, particularly
near Cherry Point, a key foraging area for Chinooks, during spawning season;
• Require oil tankers to be tethered to tugs when passing through critical habitat areas [Haro
and Rosario Straits] during Orca summer residency in the San Juan Islands;
• Perform an analysis of compliance with the Magnuson Amendment limitations on the
amount of crude oil transiting east of Port Angeles; and
• Provide funding to update contingency plans, geographic response plans, and a hazing
plan to include the presence of Orcas.
6. Transboundary Communication and Coordination
Concern: The federal agencies responsible for Orca protection have no direction or mandate to
communicate and coordinate enforcement or protective measures. The reality is that when the
Orcas swim across the U.S-Canadian border - a invisible line to the Orcas - a procedural and
regulatory quagmire ensues about agency jurisdiction and the authority of volunteer and state
enforcement officials. U.S. law enforcement officials and volunteers must be able to effectively
communicate with their Canadian counterparts.
Recommendations:
• Set up inter-jurisdictional trans-boundary oversight body, together with interested nongovernmental
organizations like Soundwatch and Friends, to keep communication and
coordination efforts on-going and up-to-date.
7. Tribal and Cultural Significance
Concern: The Proposed Plan does not mention the cultural significance of whales to many area
native tribes. The Proposed Plan does not acknowledge NOAA’s requirement to consider tribal
cultural and spiritual values in §7 consultations. NOAA must acknowledge its obligations to the
tribes to consider these values. NOAA must also ensure access to culturally significant
resources, many of which are protected by tribal treaty rights.
Friends of the San Juans
Orca Recovery Proposed Plan Comments
7
Recommendations:
• Establish coordination with interested tribes to appropriately consider tribal cultural and
spiritual values regarding Orcas;
• Amend final Proposed Plan to ensure access to culturally significant tribal resources; and
• Engage interested tribes in public outreach and education campaign.
8. Navy Sonar Useage
Concern: Even though resident military installations were excluded from critical habitat area,
naval activities may still occur in critical habitat. Additionally, Orcas may pass through areas
where naval testing or practices are scheduled or on-going, posing significant threats. An open
dialogue and communication strategy must be initiated as we collectively move toward Orca
recovery.
Recommendations:
• Establish a partnership with the Navy to provide Orca tracking information;
• Enter into an MOU wherein the Navy agrees to abide by best management practices when
coming within one (1) mile of Orcas.
Thank you for your consideration of our comments. Please do not hesitate to contact us for more
information, or with questions or comments.
Respectfully submitted,
Amy Trainer
Staff Attorney

This is pretty Scary stuff! They want to be in charge of writing tickets and enforcemnt? A private entity? NO WAY! This info is very scary. Thanks Bush Bear.

The meeting went well last night. I left at about speaker number 50 of 65. At that point there was only a couple of people in favor of the closure. Almost everyone told them their data was flawed.