by Emily Greenberg

Journal Reporter

In the wake of the death of J32, a pregnant female of the southern resident orca whale community, a call to action has resurfaced for a whale protection “no-go zone” off the west side of San Juan Island.

Orca Relief Citizens Alliance is urging the National Marine Fisheries Service to adopt its outline and begin the formal public process of establishing a no-go zone.

“This is only an immediate solution to a dire situation,” said Orca Relief Executive Director Bruce Stedman. “When salmon levels are so low, the whales are very stressed when searching for food. Pursuit from whale-watching boats causes more stress.”

Declared endangered in 2005, the southern resident’s population is at a 30-year low, with only 77 remaining whales.

Orca Relief’s proposed no-go zone comes on the heels of four orca deaths in 2014, including the death of the first new calf born to the southern residents in nearly two years, L-120.

The boundaries of the suggested zone would extend south to either Eagle or Cattle Point from the northern tip of Mitchell Point, and stretch three quarters of a mile offshore. It would be in effect April through October.

Boats that need to transit through the area would be expected to adhere to no-wake rules, for example those coming in to and out of Snug Harbor.

The main purpose of the protection zone would be to minimize noise and disturbance from vessels while whales are hunting for their main food source, chinook salmon, which has become increasingly scarce. The particular noise being singled out by Orca Relief is that of commercial whale-watch boats.

At a Dec. 16 public meeting on the whale protection zone at the Grange Hall in Friday Harbor, organized by Orca Relief, the organization’s Mark Anderson said that while the protected area could impact whale-watch businesses negatively, if it could help with orca recovery it would be well worth the effort.

“If we turn this around you’ll be in business forever,” Anderson said in response to criticism from whale-watch boat advocates.

Stedman and Anderson also pointed out that the proposed zone on the west side is but a tiny fraction of the orcas’ entire critical habitat, .5 percent of it to be exact. The entire critical habitat, as determined by the Fisheries Service when the southern residents became listed as endangered, is approximately 2,650 square miles in inland Washington waters.

“What this looks like is a whale protection zone for J pod in July,” Pacific Whale Watch Association President Brian Goodremont said at the meeting. “I would hate to see our community divided over this again.”

According to Goodremont, in 2013 the whales were only seen on the westside 23 days of the year.

NMFS proposed a similar no-go zone in 2009, extending half a mile offshore. Met by substantial opposition from whale-watch companies, kayakers and others, the Fisheries Service abandoned the effort in 2011 in favor of speed-limits, increased buffers and public education efforts.

In 2012, the topic surfaced again on NMFS’s accord and was once again met with opposition.

“We didn’t fully evaluate the economic impacts,” said Lynne Barre, Fisheries Service’s branch chief.

If a no-go zone is adopted under Orca Relief’s guidelines, commercial fishing boats would be allowed to operate in the protection zone, and continue to fish the area, under the presumption that those types of vessels have less affect on orca recovery.

According to Stedman, special provisions on how to operate in the zone would be worked out in the public process for those vessels deemed to have “less of an impact.”

“Whale-watch boats follow all day long. Whales just swim by fishing boats,” he said.

Ken Balcomb, founder of the Center for Whale Research, begs to differ.

“The no-go zone is an absurd waste of concern and a futile effort legally,” Balcomb said. “The whales will go where the chinook salmon are in abundance, and it is these fish that should receive our concern.”

According to Balcomb, a paradigm shift needs to occur in order for the orcas to survive – and that shift begins by leaving salmon in the water until the population can recover. He suggests taking down dams and limiting fishing permits as logical first steps, instead of limiting whale-watch boats off the west side.

As far as noise is concerned, even commercial container ships and tankers don’t pose much of a threat to orca livelihood according to Balcomb. Container ships and tankers operate at a noise level of about 195 decibels; the average whale watching boat operates at about 165 decibels.

This 30 decibel difference means that whale-watch boats emit “one one-thousandth” of the noise that commercial ships do, Balcomb said.

“I have routinely seen southern resident killer whales within ten yards of big ships, and they pay these ships no attention,” he said.

However, in his many years as a whale scientist, there have been instances where Balcomb has seen orcas retreat from areas impacted by noise.

Evidence of noise ramifications can also be seen in the tactics used to capture orcas up until the 1970s. Explosives charges were dropped into the waters of the Puget Sound to herd the whales in a particular direction towards a bay.

NMFS has identified the threats to southern resident orcas as lack of food, exposure to toxic pollutants, and vessel noise and presence.

Barre said NMFS has received Orca Relief’s conceptual proposal, but would not be addressing it until after the new year.