A talk with Kaylee Kuehn

Posted on September 4, 2026 by Al Bergstein
Photo provided by the campaign.

I sat down over coffee in Port Townsend with the Democratic candidate for the 24th District Position 2, Kaylee Kuehn. We had a candid talk on a wide range of issues. The following interview was edited for brevity.

Kaylee Kuehn (pronounced Keen) is running for the open seat vacated by long time Olympia powerhouse Steve Tharinger. Kuehn was raised in Sequim, attended Evergreen college, and has a Masters in Education from Grand Canyon University. She is a mother and her husband is a former prosecuting attorney and now serves as an Assistant Attorney General for Clallam and Jefferson counties. She beat out two other Democrats and one Democratic Socialist of America for her place in the fall elections.

The defining factor in her running is her youth. At 28, she does not bring huge range of experience to the position, but does bring a youthful energy and has worked in education as a high school teacher and as a volunteer for a regional union, the Association of Western Pulp & Paper Workers in partnership with Pacific Northwest Regional Strategies. She is the first to admit that she does not have a lot of background on the issues facing the Peninsula.

KK: When I decided to run for this seat I wasn’t spending years of my life planning and prepping for doing this. I’m not trying to sell myself as more knowledgeable or experienced than I am. I can ask questions gather all the information and hopefully make the right decisions. That’s what I’m hoping to bring to this seat. I understand that a lot of people want a politician to come in and make all these sweeping changes and solve everything, and I just don’t view politics that way. I think that is very rare. I think there is a lot of value in pragmatism and balance to decision making about really important things that affect all of us.

Q: Steve Tharinger has been there for a long, long time. Where do you see your differences from Steve? Do you feel like you just take over where he left off, or do you see some, you see some differences between what you bring versus what Steve brings?

K.K: I’ve had the pleasure of meeting Steve several times, talking with him, and getting to know him a little bit more, and now that I’ve made it through the primary, he’s now gotten involved in the race. I see that we’ll be similar in a lot of ways, how we treat people.

I think where we differ is just our perspectives. I think the biggest difference will be that I am a young working mom. I’ve been riffed from a union job before. I know what that feels like. I know what it’s like to move every single year because of the rising costs of rent. But I would also like to bring my voice to this because I think that in the 24th, we’ve had nobody liked me before. With so many more working families living throughout the district, I think it’s good to have someone who actually has experience with the challenges that we face.

Q: What committees are you wanting to be assigned to if you win?

KK: I don’t have specific committees I am targeting. I think what’s important as a legislator is understanding how the process works. I would like to be on a fiscal committee, maybe on a policy committee. I was thinking about education, coming from that world. Adam (Bernbaum, the other Representative in the 24th) is going to be on healthcare and transportation, they don’t put freshmen on appropriations, so the capital budget makes sense for me. And perhaps housing. I think that would be a really impactful way that I could make a difference for our district, because it does come up so much.

Q: What do you think that you can actually address in housing?

KK: I do think we get very focused on process over outcome. So with housing in particular, I talked to so many people who said, I want to be able to make my property livable for somebody. I want to be able to rent it out. But the financial and timeline barriers are too much for virtually every person I talked to. And I think at the state level, we can ease those requirements. There’s probably something in between that just gets people housed and gets people into a situation where they can work towards.

Q: That sort of circles to the Growth Management Act (GMA).What do you think that needs to be fixed or changed in it?

KK: It’s pretty important. I’m not a planner. I don’t have those answers right now. I would like to understand it. There are definitely areas where I am not there yet about knowing the specifics of what I would like to propose or change, but I will learn it, and do what’s right for folks.

OPEN: What are your priorities?

KK: Number one, I would like to talk to the cost of living, affordability. I know that it’s a very big area. I am supporting the millionaire’s tax. I do think that it’s horrific that we have the second most regressive tax system in the United States. I don’t want to push business out. I feel like I want to be a friend to business and to understand the issues and want to keep them here. I also think that there have to be decisions that ultimately level the playing field. We need to be a lot more open to embracing just everyone having an equitable share so the burden isn’t more on working folks.

Q: The Climate Commitment Act (CCA) has been very controversial. We’re using the money (from the CCA) to build new electric ferries. That great. But I thought that the goal was to reduce carbon? And it’s causing the state to add more taxes to gas for blue collar people. So what do you say to those people?

KK: I was one of the only ones in the primary other than Marcia to be critical of the CCA. With the CCA, this is something that people have very strong feelings about. I just think that we have to look at, like, practical outcomes. It would benefit us politically, to not keep raising regressive taxes. We say there are benefits, but actually, a lot of people, especially out here, don’t see them. They feel they get hurt by them.

Q: So where do you cut the budget?

KK: I’ll bring up a kind of controversial thing, you know? One of the best things that we’ve done in Washington, I think, is implement paid family medical. It’s also a massive part of our budget. People say, why did the budget get so, so much higher? It’s because of things like this that are really good. I got a benefit from that (law), to stay home with my daughter for a long time and my husband did also.

But that’s a giant part of our budget. I think we shouldn’t be cutting from anything that has to do with children. Cutting the budget, it’s not just numbers to me, it’s real outcomes.

Q: So where do you cut? I mean, you have a pie that’s just so big. Right? We just don’t have the revenue stream to be able to do everything that we used to do or want to do, and so where do you see yourself supporting cuts? Former Governors Gregoire and Locke along with Ferguson say you have to cut. Would you support an across the board 5% of everything? Or only a specific cuts?

KK: I think I think it would come down to what makes the least direct impact? So unfortunately, if there’s some type of subsidy or something, or a decision like taking away spots that kids would have had to transition into kindergarten. I would not want to cut there. I am obviously not against kids getting school lunches. In an ideal world, we just would have all kids get free lunches all the time. But we probably need means testing. I work and I can afford to give my child lunch and pack their lunch for school. I think most people, that are lower middle class can do that. And I’m gonna piss some people off, saying that, but why not?

Q: On the environment, there is this whole issue of forest cutting. Out in Port Angeles right now there’s many environmentalists I know fighting for saving these small older growth parcels. $40,000, I think, is what Port Angeles would have gotten or will get, whatever, from that cut. So that’s something that they needed to budget for, and now that’s $40,000 out of their budgets for schools and police and all the rest. That’s mainly handled by the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) but I would assume that the legislature has some impact in being able to talk to DNR about budgeting issues.

KK: I think that one thing that’s kind of misunderstood is that a lot of this land, when it’s being sold, was already designated as needing to be sold. I’m kind of unsympathetic, because I understand that people want to protect these old growth trees. I would also like to, but to what extent, to what end? And what are we missing by doing that?

Q: Have you talked to those folks that are opposing the cut out there?

KK: You mean has every side has been talking to me? Yes. I had lunch this past weekend with Dave UptheGrove (the director of DNR). It was a great chance to sit down, ’cause I’m getting pressured on both sides. I agreed not to take timber money, and now I’m getting timber folks saying, can we send you campaign money? You know, for me, the funding thing. I’ll take all the campaign contributions I can get because now I’m not bought and I don’t care what anybody thinks. My vote is not bought by anybody. Someone wants to help me pay for my childcare (by donating to my campaign). They can. They get a meeting just as much as any other constituent would get a meeting and small business owner. Nothing comes above my constituency, if I’m elected.

Q: So have you made a decision yet on this issue?

KK: I just haven’t made up my mind yet. This is probably the biggest area out of any other policy area where I feel like I cannot, in good conscience, make a firm decision right now about what type of policy I’m gonna make, because I want to look it. I with talked with our mills and the industry and union were very aligned. because they’re concerned we’ve had so many mill closures.

Q: What are your thoughts about the Protection Island / Dungeness Spit Land transfer. Have you come down, one way or another, on what’s going on with this possible land transfer, that U.S. Representative Emily Randall is promoting?

KK: I know. I heard her talk about it at the little recent meeting. Yeah very contentious right now. I understand that.

I haven’t got the tribal perspective from it. I was hoping to sit down with Ron Allen but we haven’t managed to get together yet. The biggest concern is that it’s their sovereign status. Once they get the land they get to make their own decision and we don’t have any way to have input. Emily Randall said that there’s going to be a lot of conversations before this happens. It is not going to pass for several years if it even does, and we’re really going to work on it and get a lot of public comment. And at the end of the day, it is just the fact that it’s transferring it over and we’ll have no say. The US government would have no say in it.

I’m interested to hear different perspectives. I’m not saying I don’t have an opinion on it. One issue that I really do understand, and I take it very highly right now. is that I don’t I don’t trust the Trump administration.

Q: No, I don’t either.

KK: I don’t trust them (the Trump Administration) to manage it properly. What is great is that, like you said, it’s a co-management right now.

OPEN: What are your thoughts about your opponent, Marcia Kelbon?

KK: I really respect her independence. But to do this job, to be effective, to be able to secure funding for, is it a department or a district, to be able get in the majority caucus room and have be a voice for our district. You have to play the system. You have to. You have to understand it.

Last night (at the Marrowstone debate) she was very optimistic. That whole thing (about having a voice in Olympia) came up, and she said, “Well, I think that I can build a relationship with people.” I don’t doubt that. But Olympia is a machine. It’s serious. I mean no disrespect to my opponent. But no one cares about one person’s agenda. They really don’t. They have stuff to get done. Everyone’s got their own little game. And it’s sad, I think, but that that’s how it works.”

Filed under: Government, Olympic Peninsula, Politics, Washington State | Tagged: , | Leave a comment »

How a WA lab tests shellfish for dangerous toxins

Posted on August 25, 2026 by Al Bergstein

The Seattle Times covers an incredibly important but little known lab that checks local shellfish for toxins. Given the recent closing of virtually all shellfish harvesting in the Hood Canal and nearby, this is worth reading. One of the scientists in the lab is quoted as saying that the recent closure was the worse outbreak he’s seen in 25 years. Another small example of the issues we face with global warming from our never ending use of fossil fuels.

The story is behind the Seattle Times paywall, but I recommend supporting the work of the Times.

Here at the Washington State Department of Health’s humble (read: small) public health lab, scientists process hundreds of samples of shellfish each week to help keep people safe from illness. If you like to shuck ‘em, enjoy a chowder or geoduck ceviche, these are some of the people you can thank. And their work is becoming more important as Washington warms due to climate change.

https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/climate-lab/how-a-wa-lab-that-tests-shellfish-for-dangerous-toxins

Filed under: Climate Change, Environmental Science, Global Warming, Jefferson County, Olympic Peninsula, Shellfish, Washington State | Tagged: , , | 1 Comment »

Jefferson County Commissioners Debate & Kill Draft of Wildlife Land Swap Letter

Posted on August 3, 2026 by Al Bergstein

The Jefferson County Commissioners today published a draft of a new version of the letter about their level of support for the proposal to transfer the two National Wildlife Refuges into the sovereign nation of the Jamestown S’Kallam tribe. The final letter would have been sent to U.S. Representative Emily Randall, the politician who has bought into this proposal on behalf of the Tribe, and who has done zero public engagement on this issue. The Commissioners debated the issue and ultimately, after debate, the Commissioners decided not to send the letter and simply pass along the written comments to Representative Randall. This is a positive step, allowing Randall to go get the public input she should have done all along. Randall’s junior status as a Representative has been on display during this entire process, and we are hoping she has learned something from this.

The draft letter significantly tempered their support, clarifying a few key points. For sake of the public understanding the debate, here’s points from the draft letter:

Public Input:

“One central piece of input we’ ve gotten from residents of Jefferson County is a desire for more public engagement about this proposal.” – That is perhaps an understatement.

Importance of the lands in question:

“These sites are not only central to the Tribe’ s heritage but are also integral to the ecological health and quality of life for our entire region.”

Is title transfer necessary?

“…there is concern about losing protections provided with oversight by the USFWS.” Finally the Commissioners are recognizing the very real concerns that moving these lands into sovereign nation status would possibly create.

Hope instead of concrete assurances from the Tribe:

“It is our sense (emphasis mine) that if the island were transferred into trust, the Tribe would continue to manage it to a standard that would meet or exceed federal requirements.” There is absolutely no guarantee that is being given nor could one be enforced if promised once the lands are transferred. It is all based on faith that nothing would ever change. The very fact that this transfer is being considered now is proof enough that some future tribal council would decide on a very different use of Protection Island and Dungeness Spit.

Admission of commercial concerns:

“However, we’ve also heard concerns from several constituents that the Tribe may take a more business- forward approach in managing Protection Island and, in neighboring Clallam County, Dungeness Spit Refuge lands.” Never heard the use of “Business-forward” to describe actual conversion of tide lands into an aquaculture farm before. Also they heard from constituents as if this is a secret project of the Tribe. The Tribe has been very open about this and it has been known publicly for many years. Are the Commissioners that out of touch? Or are they wanting to blame the opposition to the transfer for somehow bringing the Commissioners new information? The answer is “yes” they are trying to blame opponents of the transfer. They did so in the next paragraph:

The Opposition:

“…we have observed a recurring argument among some opponents who use the phrase “public land in public hands” to justify federal retention. Within the context of our region’ s history, there is a certain irony and arrogance in this framing. It overlooks the historical reality of colonization and the systemic dispossession of Indigenous peoples from their ancestral lands. To claim these areas are only ” public” when under federal control ignores the thousands of years of stewardship practiced by Tribes prior to European arrival.”

The opposition doesn’t claim that the lands are “public lands”, they are public by definition. The legal national definition of “public lands” which the Commissioners themselves should be aware of is this Statutory definition: Under 43 U.S.C. § 1702, “any land and interest in land owned by the United States within the several States and administered by the Secretary of the Interior through the Bureau of Land Management… except... Outer Continental Shelf; and lands held for the benefit of Indians, Aleuts, and Eskimos.”, as stated in the U.S. Code. General federal usage: Commonly refers to all real property owned collectively by the American people and managed by various federal stewardship branches.

The opposition doesn’t appear to be ignoring the historical reality, and anyway, what does that have to do with the proposed transfer of these lands to the Tribe? Does the historical reality dictate that we give back the Wildlife Refuges we fought so hard to create by keeping them from “business forward” real estate development? If there is any irony to be found at all in this it is that the Tribe, who claims to have the protection of these wildlife refuges as their reason for doing it, are already engaged in putting a commercial oyster farm of up to 80000 bags of oysters against the very shores of the Dungeness Spit, burying the bottom where many of the birds we are protecting feed.

Who are these two refuges supposed to be for? They were established to recognize that before the Europeans arrived, and actually before the tribes arrived, this island and Spit were “owned” by the wildlife on them. The birds. The American public are currently protecting the habitat of these animals for all of humanity, not just for a “business-forward” entity, no matter who they are or however many generations they have been here.

Given the definition of the Commissioners in this ill worded paragraph, then *all* lands in the U.S. are not public or somehow deserve to be given back to all tribes because we took them all.

The Commissioners should strike that paragraph. It serves no purpose other than add fuel to the idea that somehow anyone opposing this is anti-tribe or racist. The opposition simply wants this co-management to continue.

Finally

“For these reasons, Jefferson County urges the delegation to carefully consider these complexities before advancing the Act.” As usual, when confronted with public opposition, the politicians decided to simply ask for more information and public input by Representative Randall.

To the public and Commissioners, let me simply state that I know the opposition people quite well. Virtually all of them have worked for and possibly even donated to your campaigns. Most of them own homes and businesses in Jefferson County. They pay taxes to this county. They appreciate that you listen to them as well as you listen to the Tribe, a sovereign nation demanding something that no one but them has asked to be given away.

Here is the DRAFT letter

Filed under: Around the Salish Sea, Environmental Law, Environmental Protection, Government, Jefferson County, legislation, Protection Island, Straits of Juan de Fuca, Washington State | Tagged: , | 1 Comment »

Washington’s heat wave has marine scientists keeping a close eye on Puget Sound – FOX NEWS

Posted on July 24, 2026 by Al Bergstein

Twice a week this summer, divers from the Point Defiance Zoo & Aquarium have been surveying bull kelp forests off Owen Beach in Tacoma, documenting the underwater ecosystem and tracking changes from year to year as part of a broader statewide effort to restore 10,000 acres of underwater forest by 2040. Lauren Donovan reports. (Fox 13)

During the FOX 13 dive, Schare recorded a water temperature of 55 degrees Fahrenheit at a depth of 39 feet.

“During the winter that’s even considered pretty high,” he said. “To see that tens of feet underwater in the summer is quite alarming.”

He said rising surface temperatures are putting additional stress on bull kelp, which thrives in cooler water, generally in the upper 40s to low 50s Fahrenheit.

Good short story reporting by FOX news in Tacoma.

https://www.fox13seattle.com/news/warm-weather-puget-sound-ecosystems

Filed under: Around the Sound, Climate Change, Environmental Science, Global Warming, Washington State | Comments Off on Washington’s heat wave has marine scientists keeping a close eye on Puget Sound – FOX NEWS

Tribes seek ownership of National Wildlife Refuges in the Salish Sea

Posted on June 23, 2026 by Al Bergstein

Exclusive to the Olympic Peninsula Environmental News

Protection Island National Wildlife Refuge

In a surprising statement Monday in a meeting of the Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners, Jamestown S’Klallam Chairman and CEO Ron Allen stated that a number of tribes in the Salish Sea and coastal waters seek to transfer ownership of National Wildlife Refuges (NWR) and incorporate them into their tribal reservations.

This proposed transfer of numerous public lands to private entities like the tribes, is unusual and raises questions about the process of transfer of public lands out of public hands.

Chairman Allen came to the meeting to discuss the proposed “Land Transfer of Dungeness Spit and Protection Island”, and was commenting on this transfer to the three County Commissioners (and public in attendance) when he mentioned that this land transfer is only part of a larger effort by all the tribes to take back public lands that are National Wildlife Refuges. He said that the Makah tribe was seeking land transfers of three properties off the coast, the Nisqually were looking to transfer one adjacent to theirs, and the Lummi Nation or Swinomish (he wasn’t sure which) were looking to transfer the San Juan Islands Wildlife Refuge.

“…Because we know (the) Makah’s going to go after the three (refuges) on the coast. And we’re pretty certain that (the) Lummi or “Swin” (Swinomish) will go after the San Juan (reserve)… We know that that once we get this done they’re gonna go after the other three or four.” Allen said.

He went on about the Nisqually Tribe: “…There’s other tribes doing exactly the same thing just like this…. They’re (The Nisqually Tribe) are always pursuing the refuge in their area in Nisqually Valley area.” It is likely that what Chairman Allen was referring to was the current Nisqually Clear Creek Land Transfer Act of 2026 which is sponsored by Representative Marilyn Strickland and Senators Cantwell and Murray. The tribe is in the process of having U.S. Fish and Wildlife transfer buildings at the hatchery which sits on tribal land to the tribe. It is not seeking to transfer the Billie Frank National Wildlife Refuge to them at this point, but Allen’s comments raise questions about the future of the refuge.

There are six maritime National Wildlife Refuges in Washington State managed by the US Fish and Wildlife Service. They are considered the Washington Maritime National Wildlife Refuge Complex:

They include:

The Jamestown S’Klallam currently have been in a co-management agreement with Fish and Wildlife, being paid approximately $800,000 for their work on Protection Island and Dungeness Spit. It is unclear if the Trump administration would be in favor of granting these annual funds if the properties were no longer owned by the Federal Government. It is agreed by all parties that they have been doing exemplary work for the government, and their ability is not being questioned. There have been no calls from the Trump Administration, the Federal government nor the State government to transfer these two particular lands. The request has come only from the Tribe and not from the public. Many public comments ask that nothing change in the relationship.

Washington U.S. Representative Emily Randall (D) has been in talks with the tribe for months if not years, and has openly acknowledged her support of the goal of a land transfer of Dungeness Spit and Protection Island to the Tribe. At a recent public meeting Representative Randall seemed taken aback at the level of public concern over the transfer. The public has only been aware of this land transfer since April. The Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners, City of Sequim and Clallam County Commissioners meetings have been the only local way for the public to comment in person despite this being a federal issue. The Clallam County County Commissioners meetings have been very contentious. The lack of federal sponsored meetings from Randall on the subject is unusual, given the outpouring of negative comments at both counties meetings.

The Trump Administration has been giving up public lands like these refuges as part of their announced Project 2025, which calls for government to get out of the vaguely worded business of “conservation”. In Texas, the administration is in the process of giving away part of the Lower Rio Grande Valley National Wildlife Refuge in south Texas to SpaceX in exchange for other properties by SpaceX. A lawsuit has been filed on June 10th to stop this transfer.

Chairman Allen said that they took a big ad in the Peninsula Daily News and Port Townsend Leader because they wanted to be as transparent as they possibly could be …but he added, “Congresswoman Randall asked us to kind of back off on it and we said, okay, that’s fine.” (emphasis mine) This raises the question of whether Congresswoman Randall asked the Tribe to not advertise their intentions to the public.

Washington Senator Maria Cantwell has also been in discussion with the Tribe but has not yet fully committed to the transfer and would like to see more public input, according to a person who discussed it with her staff. However she has not held any public meetings on this. There has been no mention of the Governor being involved in the discussions at this time, but it could be deduced that this kind of large scale planning would have been mentioned at some point to him.

This reporter has seen the draft bill that has been written by tribal lawyers that is assumed to be entered into the U.S. Congress at some near future date. The draft bill does not contain any legally binding language that would protect the island, spit, nor the nearshore waters that are owned by DNR from the tribe using it for commercial aquaculture. The concern by the environmental community is that the rare protected species on the island feed off the marine flora and fauna of the waters and beaches around the island. Creating a monoculture “farm” could impact the amount of food available for the birds. The current tribal council and Chairman Allen claim they have no plans. But it is easy to petition the Washington State Department of Natural Resources to open privately held shoreline to commercial use. DNR have a long history of supporting aquaculture and the State of Washington legally views aquaculture as a desired commercial priority. Once it becomes part of tribal lands, it would also be exempt from state or federal oversight as negotiations would be nation to nation based on treaty law.

The Protection Island National Wildlife Reserve was created in 1982 after almost 20 years of work by bird lovers Zella Schultz, Eleanor Stopps and the coordination with Seattle Audubon. It is the breeding ground of most of Puget Sound’s glaucous wing gulls as well as rare Tufted Puffins and Rhinoceros auklets. It’s creation was supported by virtually all the Washington State federal and state senators and representatives, including Senators Warren Magnuson, Henry Jackson and Slade Gorton along with Republican governor John Spellman.

The tribe has admitted that they look forward to writing their own rules for use of the island. In an interview in the local Port Townsend Leader Tribal Vice Chair Loni Greninger stated, “If we’re able to have that fuller ownership instead of co-management, then I don’t have to rely on any other government and their rules and regulations. I can take my deeper regulations from an ancestral standpoint and be able to infuse that and implement it.”

Our stories may be republished online or in print under Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. We ask that you edit only for style or to shorten, provide proper attribution and link to our website.

Filed under: Clallam County, Government, Jefferson County, Olympic Peninsula, Straits of Juan de Fuca, Washington State | Tagged: , , | 12 Comments »

Meeting held to discuss Protection Island

Posted on June 16, 2026 by Al Bergstein

A large crowd of people gathered at Cape George on Sunday to hear Lorna and Darrell Smith discuss both the history of Protection Island and why they are concerned about the proposed Jamestown S’Klallam Land Transfer that the tribe recently has made public.

In the 1970s and early 1980s Lorna Smith was a key person in the work done to make Protection Island a national wildlife refuge. She acted as the liaison between the Seattle Audubon Society and the two women from Jefferson County that led the battle to get the island designated as a refuge, Zella Schultz and Eleanor Stopps, The thousands of letters of support from both native and non native Americans convinced even normally reticent politicians such as Senator Slade Gorton to help push the legislation through Congress and convince President Ronald Reagan to sign it. It was supported by all members of the Washington delegation and the Republican governor, John Spellman.

Also in attendance on Sunday were two granddaughters of Eleanor Stopps who share Lorna’s concerns. This reporter, who also worked with Audubon photographing the spit in the late 70s, also was in attendance.

The Smiths spent the first hour discussing the rich bird heritage of the island and the Spit, before pivoting to the proposed land transfer and the many questions that need to be answered about this proposal.

The Tribe currently is paid approximately $800,000 a year by the federal government to co-manage the Spit and the island. A month ago the Federal Government authorized over $76 million to support the refuges of the country. Money is there. There is no imminent threat of the government cutting off funds. That would have to be authorized by Congress.

The tribe has already begun requesting the ability to lay 80,000 bags of oysters on the bottom of Dungeness Spit’s inner bay, much to the dismay of bird supporters, who worry that this may cause continued loss of fish and other animals the birds feed upon. Currently, there is a lawsuit moving through the courts to stop this from happening.

In March, tribal Vice Chair Loni Greninger testified in Congress that the co-management has been very successful from both the point of view of the Tribe and the government. So if the working arrangement for co-management is successful, why should the Tribe give up $800k and why should Americans give up one of their 570 national wildlife refuges to the Tribe to become owned by them? How much is the Spit and the island worth to the Tribe and why? The answer might be found in the tribe’s lucrative aquaculture industry, wholly owned by them. While the tribe in their proposal denies having any plans for anything other than the vague term, “conservation” the actual answer to this question might have come from Vice Chair Greninger’s comment to the Port Townsend Leader on April 22nd edition. In it she stated:

“If we’re able to have that fuller ownership instead of co-management, then I don’t have to rely on any other government and their rules and regulations,” she said.

This is exactly what is feared by those who fought so hard to protect this island and Spit. With the tribe in full ownership, we will have no say as to what happens to it, nor if future tribal leaders decide to utilize these environmental treasures for economic gain. While it is understandable that the Tribe once used to forage for seafood there, the differences between subsistence shellfish harvest and modern mechanized aquaculture, with the ability to liquify the bottom with air compressors to get to geoduck, or spread thousands of bags of oysters across hundreds of acres at a time is a far cry from how it once was done.

There is every reason to continue to have the tribe manage the refuges. There is little incentive for Americans to simply hand them over to satisfy a demand. Why is Representative Emily Randall and Senator Maria Cantwell so hellbent on getting this done?

The birds are currently protected, as is the unique ecosystem they rely upon. Why should Americans relinquish this to a tribe that is engaged in the business of oyster, geoduck, crabbing, fish farming and fishing when they themselves are admitting that they want to set their own rules for the use of Protection Island? If the Tribe does get it, will we be on the outside looking in and have no input into protecting birds that live there? Many of us are waiting for more answers.

Filed under: Aquaculture, Around the Salish Sea, Around the Sound, Clallam County, Endangered Species, Environmental Activism, Environmental Law, Environmental Protection, First Nations, Jefferson County, legislation, Washington State | Tagged: , , , , | 3 Comments »

Future of Protection Island deserves more public scrutiny before transfer – Port Townsend Leader

Posted on May 15, 2026 by Al Bergstein

This week I wrote an Op-Ed piece that was published in the Port Townsend Leader. In case you don’t have access to the Leader I have included what I wrote below with minor updates. Unfortunately, the Leader only allowed a 700 word limit on the editorial. Obviously, there are many more words to be said about this proposed transfer. A few of them would be: if you agree that more needs to be clarified, and that the process ought to be slowed down, please contact our city, county, state and federal representatives and make your point of view known.

Your comments might be to oppose or simply slow the process to make sure that the island is never to be used for any commercial activity. That is currently not a part of this discussion between the Tribe and the State and Federal Government.

I want to clarify that I do not support efforts I’m hearing about in Clallam County from a group who oppose this and appear to be anti-Tribal in nature. I am not anti-Tribe.

You might ask: Why should I have any credibility to discuss this issue at all?

I have worked for the Tribe, creating two films over 5 years. I worked closely with the late Tribal Elder, Marlin Holden, a close friend, for “Treaty Resources: Legacy of Our Ancestors” that is viewable at the Tribe’s library. I have interviewed the late Kurt Grinnell and Ron Allen. I have presented in front of the Tribal Council a number of times. I was trusted by the Tribe to video tape tribal meetings, something I was told had never been allowed by anyone outside the Tribe. As a member and chair of the Jefferson County Marine Resources Committee I supported efforts led by the Tribe and other aquaculture companies to reestablish Olympia Oysters in Discovery Bay. The Tribe has done an outstanding job under Ron Allen and Kurt Grinnell’s leadership to forge new economic engines for the Tribe and Clallam County’s benefit, including an active aquaculture industry that sells geoduck to China along with oysters and clams regionally.

Promotional poster for Legacy of Our Ancestors

I produced a second film, paid for by the Tribe about the Dungeness River Management team on the restoration of the Dungeness River, called “Working for the River”.

Promotional poster for “Working for the River”

But I also was there at the efforts to create a wildlife refuge at Protection Island. In late 1970s, I was a professional photographer who volunteered for Seattle Audubon, the organization leading national efforts organized by Jefferson County locals Zella Schultz and Eleanor Stopps over a 20 year period. I traveled to John Wayne Marina where Fish and Wildlife staff took me to the island to photograph. The island had been under threat of having 800 lots developed, with no protection for the rare bird habitat that did and does exist there. Through all the efforts by Zella, Eleanor, Lorna Smith, Hazel Wolf and thousands of others, Congress finally established the Refuge, especially with the help of Republican Slade Gordon and Governor John Spellman, Democratic Senators Scoop Jackson and Warren Magnuson & Governor Dixie Lee Ray, along with the entire Washington State delegation who convinced the Reagan administration to sign the bill, the only such refuge established during his eight year presidency.

I have read a lot of what the Tribe wants to do with Protection Island. On the surface, with little detail, it seems benign. I have read a draft of a possible Congressional Bill that would establish the handover. But I am very troubled by the possible use of this island refuge for commercial aquaculture. Destroying the nearshore for commercial purposes would impact the habitat that these birds need to feed and survive. My concern is that we are rushing into an irreversible action with very little forethought and this legal business decision is not clearly defined at the moment. Now is the time to do the right thing and ensure that Protection Island is protected for *all time and all people* of the United States. That is what currently exists.

To hear more on this issue, I will be on KPTZ (91.9 locally on the Olympic Peninsula and kptz.org online) at 9PM Sunday May 17th on Phil Andrus’ “Cats in our Laps” show for one hour to discuss this in even more detail and answer questions from Phil. The show will be podcast later.

With that background, here is the 700 words that were published today in the Port Townsend Leader. I have expanded on this original letter today slightly to include a few issues that I was forced to edit out due to space constraints.

If I told you that a prized National Wildlife Refuge was going to be handed over to an aquaculture company, what would be your reaction? If I told you it was going to be handed over to The Jamestown S’Kallam Tribe, would your reaction be different? Would it be different if you knew that the Tribe runs an expanding aquaculture company?

What if I told you that in a few years, you will not have any say in what the aquaculture company does with the Refuge? That is exactly what is happening.

Protection Island National Wildlife Refuge is being considered for transfer to the Jamestown S’Klallam Tribe to add to their reservation. Protection Island is currently owned by all of the citizens of the United States. Why does the Tribe want it for their exclusive use? And what is the importance of Protection Island?

The U.S. Department of the Fish and Wildlife has this to say about Protection Island:

Protection Island National Wildlife Refuge provides some of the last remaining undeveloped habitat for many burrow-nesting seabirds in the Salish Sea, but is of particular importance to the rhinoceros auklet. Scarred by over a hundred years of farming and grazing, and carved up for a summer home subdivision in the late 1960’s, it was finally recognized in 1982 with a National Wildlife Refuge designation before irreversible damage occurred. 

It supports thriving wildlife populations, including what is thought to be the third largest rhinoceros auklet colony in North America, one of the last two breeding sites for tufted puffins in the Salish Sea, and the largest glaucous-winged gull colony in Washington state.

Over the last year, the Jamestown S’Klallam Tribe have been working in conjunction with the U.S. Department of Fish and Wildlife and U.S. Representative Emily Randall to transfer the title of the island, with its nesting habitat, to the Tribe. At this time, the proposal does not specify the aquatic lands, which remain with the State, but mentions a path to the state relinquishing them to the Tribe in the future.

There is a draft bill that will soon be introduced to make the transfer happen. This work has been done by the Tribal attorneys without any public input. It oddly goes along with the Trump administrations goals of getting the United States of out management of Federal Lands. Project 2025, specifically the “Mandate for Leadership” document, proposes restructuring federal land management by prioritizing energy production, expanding logging, and increasing state or private control over public lands. (highlight is mine). Key proposals include Chapter 13 (Interior Department) for dismantling conservation agendas…

We have already transferred the Dungeness Spit Wildlife Refuge to the Tribe with an understanding that the Tribes aquaculture business was going to drop 80,000 bags of oyster spat on the bottom of the bay. This transfer was opposed by the wildlife biologist that worked at the Spit at the time that the transfer was proposed.  There is currently a lawsuit in progress to challenge the process that was used to do this transfer.

Question: “Is the proposed transfer of Protection Island really the best thing for us to do?” 

Protection Island refuge was established after a national campaign led by two local women, Eleanor Stopps & Zella Schultz, and the work of the Seattle Audubon Society led by Helen Engle and  Hazel Wolf  one of the legendary environmental leaders in our state. It was a work that took tens of thousands of volunteer hours with help from National Audubon Society and The Nature Conservancy. (You can listen to an interview I conducted with Eleanor Stopps in 2010 for my film “Voices of the Strait” at the following link.)

https://on.soundcloud.com/uV2PCxSpOmPDvmMeVX

Transferring the Island to the Tribe means that it becomes part of it’s reservation and sovereign territory of the Tribe, no longer forced to follow the rules and regulations of the US Wildlife Refuge Acts of 1966 and 1997 There is no provision made for any public input into future tribal decisions on the use of the island, or it’s shores. There are vague references to the tribe continuing “conservation efforts” without specifying what they are. It will be up to the Tribe in concert with the State Department of Natural Resources to decide if they want to use the island’s shoreline for commercial aquaculture. DNR has been promiscuous in its granting of aquaculture permits. Can we trust that this commercially driven Tribe will make the right decisions on behalf of our Refuge when we will have no voice in decisions moving forward?

Also, the great work that the Tribe has done in restoring environmental places like Jimmy Come Lately Creek, the Dungeness River and other locations was done with Federal and State grants or funds. If the Federal Government is attempting to rid itself of Federal lands like this, who is going to pay for the ongoing management the Tribe claims they will do?

There are many who trust Ron Allen. What about future Tribal leaders after him? 

What protection do we have if the Tribe’s plans dramatically shift towards commerce than protection? Can we effectively veto or alter the Tribes’ activities on the island? How? The act of moving this crown jewell of wildlife will place it beyond the jurisdiction of local or state officials forever. In fact, it makes enforcement by the Federal government a nation to nation affair that leaves our voices out of the regulation process.

I suggest we start by stopping. There is no need for speed in this process. If Republicans want to get rid of Wildlfe Sanctuaries and Democrats want to support whatever the Tribes want, none of that will change with another year or two of public input. Pause this transfer while we figure out how all of us and not just one Tribe, will have a voice in the future of Protection Island if we relinquish control over it to the Tribe.

Listen to me Sunday night on KTPZ.ORG at 9PM Pacific

Original Leader article

https://ptleader.com/articles/columns/future-of-protection-island-deserves-more-public-scrutiny-before-transfer/

Filed under: Clallam County, Endangered Species, Environmental Activism, Environmental Law, Environmental Protection, First Nations, Government, Jefferson County, Olympic Peninsula, Straits of Juan de Fuca, Washington State | Tagged: , , , , , | Comments Off on Future of Protection Island deserves more public scrutiny before transfer – Port Townsend Leader

Good news! E-Bike Rebates continue!

Posted on March 25, 2026 by Al Bergstein

Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) are relaunching WE-bike on March 30. This e-bike rebate program makes e-bikes and certain cycling accessories more affordable for people in Washington state.

People living in Washington ages 16 and up can apply for rebates between March 30, 2026, and March 29, 2027. The program will randomly select applicants monthly starting April 13. Applicants only need to submit one application to be considered for the monthly selections.

Rebates alone will likely not fully cover e-bike purchases. Recipients can reduce the overall cost of e-bike purchases at participating bike shops by $300 or $1,200, depending on income eligibility. They can put rebates toward qualifying models of all three classes of e-bike.

To apply for a $300 rebate, you need to live in Washington state, be at least 16 years old, and have a working email address.

To apply for a $1,200 rebate, you also need to have an income at or below 80 percent of the median for your county. In Jefferson County the Median income is $74,048. 80% of that is $59,238. So many younger people likely could apply for this rebate here in the county.

Qualifying e-bike types

The rebate can be used for qualifying e-bikes, e-cargo bikes, and adaptive e-bikes.

E-bikes have batteries, working pedals and a motor. E-cargo bikes are for carrying cargo or multiple people. Adaptive e-bikes provide extra support or stability.

WE-Bike helped nearly 3,000 Washingtonians purchase e-bikes and related safety accessories in our 2025 pilot program.

University of Washington researchers learned rebates motivated people to buy e-bikes they couldn’t or wouldn’t have otherwise, especially people in lower-income households. Nearly half of rebate recipients surveyed said they used e-bikes to travel to new destinations. In all, we offered rebates to 6,861 out of 37,751 applicants from all 39 Washington counties.

Program funding

This grant program is entirely funded through Climate Commitment Act revenues. The CCA supports Washington’s climate action efforts by putting cap-and-invest dollars to work reducing climate pollution, creating jobs and improving public health.

Other ways to try e-bikes

E-bike lending library pilot program

While many people are interested in e-bikes, not everyone will be able to receive a rebate through the WE-Bike program. People also may not be ready or able to purchase e-bikes for various reasons.

Programs like e-bike lending libraries can help more people try out e-bikes.

Eligible organizations and businesses in Washington state may apply for funding to create lending library programs for employees or communities.

Here’s the website:

E-bike rebate program

Filed under: Alternative energy., Alternative Transportation, Bicycles, Clallam County, Jefferson County, legislation, Mason County, Washington State | Tagged: , , , | Comments Off on Good news! E-Bike Rebates continue!

Washington may ban sales of farmed octopus

Posted on January 16, 2026 by Al Bergstein

The Washington State Standard is reporting on a new bill, that will outlaw the sale, possession, transport, and distribution of farmed octopus. The bill was sponsored by our own Representative Adam Bernbaum (D-Port Angeles).

The full story is at the link above, but let me just state my support for this bill. In fact, our family stopped eating octopus and squid years ago, and you should consider not eating it as well.

Octopus have been around on this planet for millions of years longer than us. They appear from many studies to show human like traits and exhibet pain and suffering similar to us. The study, found here from none other than the London School of Economics showed distinct traits of sentience in these creatures along with many other similar creatures, i.e. cuttlefish, crab and squid.

I think that we can easily do without these on our dinner plates. I hope you join me and my wife in supporting House Bill 1608 and the previous bill 1153 that outlawed octopus farming in Washington and the new one that ends the economic market for these creatures.

Filed under: Aquaculture, Environmental Law, Environmental Protection, Washington State | 1 Comment »

New research on wild vs hatchery steelhead

Posted on December 23, 2025 by Al Bergstein

A new study has just come out that helps better understand how to rear hatchery steelhead salmon without impacting genetic diversity, which has been a key concern of wild salmon advocates for years. The findings show that if wild salmon are allowed to spawn naturally, and then the eggs are collected for rearing in a hatchery, that the genetic risks were lessened. This is good news for both sides of the debate, as it shows that hatchery rearing of wild collected eggs may not be a threat to genetic diversity, or at least that’s the way I read it. The authors do state that “…While the longer-term genetic effects were not assessed in this study, other programs have realized reduced genetic diversity during similar timeframes.”

ABSTRACT

Declining salmonid populations often prompt the use of captive-reared fish to supplement wild stocks, but such programs risk negative genetic and ecological impacts. We evaluated six steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss) populations in the Hood Canal watershed, Puget Sound, Washington, including three supplemented and three unsupplemented control populations, over the span of 17 years to assess the effects of supplementation on several population genetics metrics. This program uniquely allowed natural spawning to occur before removing eyed eggs from redds for captive rearing, and later release as smolts or adults. Key genetic metrics—expected heterozygosity, allelic richness, and effective population size—remained stable from before to after supplementation in both the supplemented and non-supplemented populations. Parentage analyses confirmed successful reproduction by captively reared adults after they were released into the wild. These findings suggest that natural spawning prior to captive rearing, among other aspects of the program, lessened the genetic risks typically associated with artificial propagation such as loss of genetic diversity, or a reduction in effective population size. Our results highlight the potential for carefully designed supplementation programs to conserve genetic diversity and maintain effective population sizes in threatened steelhead populations.

Introduction

Supplementation programs, where captive-reared fish are introduced into wild populations to enhance natural production and increase abundance, have been widely implemented as a conservation strategy for declining salmonid populations. However, previous studies have highlighted several potential drawbacks of supplementation efforts, including genetic and ecological risks that may outweigh the intended benefits [1–7]. Understanding these risks is critical because the long-term success of supplementation programs depends not only on their ability to increase population sizes but also on their capacity to maintain the genetic health of these populations. Careful genetic monitoring is therefore essential to assess the effectiveness of these efforts and prevent unintended harm.

You can read the whole article here:

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0339458

Filed under: Environmental Science, Puget Sound, Salmon, Washington State | Tagged: , | Comments Off on New research on wild vs hatchery steelhead

Military accepting public comment on environmental impact statement

Posted on December 12, 2025 by Al Bergstein

here we go again…thank you for the Peninsula Daily News for covering this story. The whole story link is found at the bottom of this article.

While I normally in the past would’ve suggested you send in your comments, it’s been my experience that the Navy takes them says thank you very much and then totally ignores them. The only thing that stops them are court orders, but send your comments in nevertheless. It might be useful in court.

SILVERDALE — The U.S. Navy and U.S. Coast Guard are accepting public comment regarding the environmental impact of at-sea military training activities through Jan. 19.

The services are jointly preparing a supplement to the 2015 Northwest Training and Testing (NWTT) final environmental impact statement (EIS) and the 2020 NWTT final supplemental EIS to assess the potential environmental effects associated with continuing at-sea military readiness activities, according to a press release from Navy Region Northwest.

At-sea military readiness activities include training, research, development, testing and evaluation activities, and range modernization and sustainment.

Those activities would occur on and beneath the water surface and in the airspace within the study area.

The study area, which does not include any land or overland airspace, consists of areas offshore of the Washington, Oregon and Northern California coasts, inland waters of Washington and the western Behm Canal in Southeast Alaska.

Comments may be submitted via the project website at www.nepa.navy.mil/nwtteis or by mail to: Naval Facilities Engineering Systems Command Northwest; Attention: NWTT SEIS/OEIS Project Manager; 1101 Tautog Circle, Room 102, Silverdale, WA 98315-1101.

Read the rest of the story in the Peninsula Daily News today at the following link. please subscribe to the Peninsula Daily News to support local journalism like this .

https://www.peninsuladailynews.com/news/military-accepting-public-comment-on-environmental-impact-statement/

Filed under: Around the Salish Sea, Endangered Species, Environmental Law, Environmental Protection, Olympic Peninsula, Salish Sea, Straits of Juan de Fuca, Washington State | Tagged: | 1 Comment »

Washington’s last coal power plant will transition to natural gas – Washington Standard

Posted on December 11, 2025 by Al Bergstein

The Washington Standard is reporting on the conversion from coal to natural gas for the Chehalis power plant. The roots of this go back to the 2000s, when People For Puget Sound (I was a board member and lobbied for our legislative priorities) , The Sierra Club and many other environmental groups started lobbying to shut down the plant.

Finally, almost 20 years after we started the efforts we are just now seeing the conversion discussed as happening soon. There was no mention in the article about *when* the conversion would happen, only that it *is* going to happen. The company (a Canadian firm) waited until the very last month of the very last year before they would have legally been mandated to announce the conversion rather than the shut down of the plant. It has to be asked whether or not the Legislature, in their 2011 agreement couldn’t have simply pushed the deadline to 2012 and we could have seen the coal particulate gone 13 years ago? How many more cases of cancer did we see and have to pay for medical bills between then and now? We’ll never know.

Obviously, this shift to natural gas, another fossil fuel, only minimally reduces our need on those fuels or the harm to the environment. It does reduce the particulates in the smoke that causes cancer, but continues to accelerate our slide towards an unstoppable global warming scenario.

Once again, our politicians acted with no urgency, in the benefit of a foreign corporation who exploited their lack of urgency to the last minute they could. Wonder how much lobbying money went to the swing votes in that legislation? Again, who knows. Those politicians are long gone, maybe even to the company itself. It is no wonder that the voters continue to see little value in the political class who seem undermine every effort to protect the environment and take the lobbying money thrown at them by the very people they are supposed to be protecting us from being harmed by their industries.

“And so it goes.” Kurt Vonnegut, Slaughterhouse Five

Filed under: Alternative energy., Climate Change, Environmental Law, legislation, Politics, Washington State | Tagged: , , | Comments Off on Washington’s last coal power plant will transition to natural gas – Washington Standard

Drought in Yakima Valley Worsens

Posted on November 16, 2025 by Al Bergstein

On the other side of the Cascades the three year drought in the Yakima Valley creates uncertainty and hard decisions

Another good article about the effects of the third worse drought on record. Farming there is going from bad to worse.

https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/climate-lab/yakima-valley-drought-forces-wa-farmers-to-rip-out-apple-trees/

Filed under: Climate Change, Eastern Washington, Global Warming, Washington State | Tagged: , , , | 5 Comments »