The spill, which hasn’t gotten much attention in our part of the world, appears to be roughly the size of the Exxon Valdez spill, according to estimates. The good thing is that the oil has not hit land, and Australian officials are doing their best to make sure that it doesn’t. Crews are using chemical dispersants and oil-collection equipment.

A fire that started on the oil rig Sunday also was extinguished.

Even though the oil has not hit shore, environmental officials are concerned about the number of marine mammals and sea birds affected by the oil.

“We still have a toxic cocktail created by the thousands of barrels of oil and condensate that have been pouring into the sea, along with the thousands of litres of dispersant,” said Gilly Llewellyn, conservation director for World Wildlife Fund – Australia. “All of this in one of the world’s most intact tropical marine ecosystems.”

Mike Bossley, the managing director for the Australasian office of the Whale and Dolphin Conservation Society expressed concern for the longterm and chronic effects on marine life in the area of the spill, where four species of whales and dolphins and 28 species of birds were spotted in recent days.

To read more, check out these stories:

The Australian: Timor Sea oil leak stopped at last
ABC News (with video): Oil Impact May Last Seven Years
Asia Sentinal: Timor Oil Well Fire Snuffed Out
WA Today: ‘We know what caused oil spill’
Antara News: Australia Limits Montara oil spill`s effects

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post 

The latest development involves a letter from state Rep. Jan Angel asking the state departments of Ecology and Commerce to quit giving legal guidance to local agencies. See my story in today’s Kitsap Sun.

It seems clear from court decisions and legislative actions that the Shoreline Management Act will provide long-term regulations for properties within 200 feet of the shoreline. This law — unlike the Growth Management Act that spawned critical areas ordinances — requires local shoreline plans to be approved by the Washington Department of Ecology.

But the immediate conflict involves what regulations should apply until local shoreline master programs are updated, a process under way for most Puget Sound cities and counties.

The practical aspects are that critical areas ordinances, updated within the past few years, generally include more restrictive regulations, such as larger buffers, in comparison to shoreline plans, most of which were drafted in the 1970s with updates that vary by jurisdiction.

Legally, the issues become complicated. Angel’s position appears to be that court rulings direct local governments to fall back to rules listed in the shoreline master programs until new shoreline plans are approved. Read her letter to Interim Ecology Director Polly Zehm (PDF 172 kb).

Ecology’s position seems to be that local governments should not throw out rules developed in their critical areas ordinances until the shoreline plans are updated.

I should point out that Brian Hodges, an attorney with Pacific Legal Foundation, maintains that Kitsap County would be putting itself at legal risk if county officials continue to process shoreline applications under the Kitsap County Critical Areas Ordinance. Hodges was the prevailing attorney in a lawsuit brought by Kitsap Alliance of Property Owners. County officials say they will appeal the ruling to the Washington State Supreme Court.

As for Ecology’s updated “guidance,” the reasoning goes as follows. See Ecology’s Web site for the complete analysis.

“On June 10, 2009 the Washington State Supreme Court issued its final ruling in Futurewise et al v. Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board et al., 164 Wash.2d 242, 189 P.3d 161. This case addressed protection of critical areas that are within the jurisdiction of the Shoreline Management Act. Specifically, the Supreme Court was asked to interpret Engrossed Substitute House Bill (ESHB) 1933, which passed the legislature in 2003. The case is commonly referred to as the “Anacortes case” because that city’s critical areas ordinance (CAO) is the topic of the decision….

“In the Anacortes case, the Supreme Court issued a 4-1-4 decision. The Court issued two opinions — a “lead” opinion and a dissenting opinion, each supported by four justices. The ninth (and deciding) justice concurred with the lead opinion with the stipulation that her signature supported “result only.” This deciding vote was unaccompanied by an opinion.

“Due to the nature of this split decision it was not clear whether the Board decision applies beyond the City of Anacortes. It takes a majority of justices (in this case, five votes) for a Court opinion to establish a legal precedent that is binding on subsequent cases. Here, there is no majority Court opinion beyond reinstatement of the 2005 Board decision, and neither of the Court opinions endorsed the Board’s reasoning in the Anacortes decision. In addition, other recent Supreme Court decisions have stated that Growth Boards decisions resolve disputes related to specific local government actions under the Growth Management Act, but do not establish policy.

“In September 2009, the Court of Appeals Division II issued a decision in Kitsap Alliance of Property Owners et al v. Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings Board et al No. 38017-0-II. This decision involved Kitsap County’s update of Critical Area provisions in the Shoreline area. The decision relies on the June 2009 Supreme Court decision discussed above. Specifically, Division Two concluded that, when the Supreme Court cannot garner a majority view for resolving an issue, the position of the court is the position of a majority of justices concurring on the narrowest possible grounds. Here, reinstatement of the Anacortes Growth Board decision was the narrowest possible grounds for five justices’ concurrence. Thus, Division Two applied the Growth Board decision to the Kitsap County CAO.

“As a result, the court remanded the matter to Kitsap County to do its planning for shoreline critical areas under the SMA rather than the GMA. The court did not address the issue of whether the County’s prior CAO continues to apply until the SMA planning effort is complete. However, the Growth Board decision in the Anacortes case held that prior CAOs remain in effect until the SMA planning is complete. Since Division Two found that reinstatement of the Growth Board decision was the “decision” of the Supreme Court, it is our position that prior CAOs do remain in effect until a local jurisdiction completes its planning under the SMA….

“First, it is our position that neither decision affects critical areas ordinances that were adopted prior to the effective date of ESHB 1933 (2003). Those ordinances remain in effect.

“Second, it is our position that CAOs that were adopted after the effective date of ESHB 1933 and are not currently subject to a challenge are valid and remain in effect. This is based on the GMA’s requirement that CAOs are presumptively valid and must be challenged within 60 days of their enactment for a GMHB to determine that the CAO is invalid. If the CAO was not challenged within 60 days or if the appeals have been completed, then local governments are not required to revisit the critical areas protections contained in those ordinances.

“Third, it is our position that, moving forward, local governments that are currently updating their protections of shoreline critical areas should do so under the SMA rather than the GMA. This can be done either as part of a comprehensive SMP update or as a stand-alone amendment that complies with the guidance that Ecology has issued for stand alone amendments. However, cities and counties should be careful that the adopting ordinance for any CAO updates clearly ensures the existing CAO remains in place for critical areas within Shorelines until superseded by an Ecology-approved SMP update.

“Fourth, local governments have the authority and the obligation under the SMA and their existing SMPs to review and condition project proposals in the shoreline area to achieve consistency with the SMA’s policy objectives, including protection of shoreline resources. The legislature directed in ESHB 1933 that local shoreline master programs provide protection of critical areas in shorelines at least equal to the protection provided by their CAO (RCW 36.70A.480(4))….”

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post 

These two words have been spinning around in my brain since I attended a conference on water resources a couple of days ago. Check out my story in today’s Kitsap Sun.

Western Washington may not experience an overall water shortage as a result of climate change the way some regions will, according to climatologists. But our rains, on average, are likely to come in heavier downpours. To me, that means we will have our hands full trying to reduce the frequency of flooding, which affects natural systems as well as man-made ones.

In areas of the country that become drier, water could become scarce and the price of water is likely to go up. We’ve seen an ongoing drought in the Southwest. While it could be a just temporary trend, the situation calls for better water management and makes people nervous about the future. Click here to see an animation of changing conditions over the past 12 weeks.

A speaker at the conference, Michael Read of the Water Environment Federation, predicted that the Northwest will attract population from the Southwest as climate change continues. Winners and losers?

It may not be a question of whether we want the extra people. It may be more about whether we can manage the population growth with the least disruption to our ecosystem. Will we find ways to work with the coming changes in climate — or not? Will we be winners or losers?

If water gives our region a competitive edge, maybe we could attract industry looking to move away from more arid regions. That could help stabilize our economy, which seems to be a perpetual goal of many people. Winners and losers?

If climatologists are right, many species in the Northwest will struggle to adapt to the changing conditions. Some will survive and some will go extinct. Winners and losers.

I am not discounting efforts to reduce greenhouse gases and possibly avert some of the more dire consequences of climate change. But a growing effort is looking into how humans and animals may adapt to whatever changes will come.

While experts study adaptation, I don’t believe the concept has entered our general consciousness, let alone our actions. Perhaps waiting to see what happens is the prudent thing to do. After all, how do we plan for something uncertain?

On the other hand, maybe it would be wiser to begin considering the range of futures we could face within a few short decades. How do we become winners instead of losers?

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post 

It looks like the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration is throwing open the door for “cooperative efforts” that might even include some new on-the-water research this coming year.

“We recognize that by extending the public comment period, we won’t have enough time to issue a final rule before the 2010 summer boating season,” states an e-mail sent out this morning by NOAA.

The statement adds:

“We continue to believe that it’s important to address the adverse effects of vessel traffic on killer whales in the near future. In light of the requests we’ve received for an extension of the comment period, however, we believe additional public outreach will enhance both NOAA Fisheries’ understanding of public concerns and the public’s understanding of the basis for our proposal. This will also allow time for cooperative efforts to refine the proposal. We’ll work toward adoption of a final rule before the 2011 summer boating season.”

The proposed rules would create an enforceable 200-yard protective zone around the whales. That’s twice as far as existing federal guidelines call for. See my July 28 story in the Kitsap Sun.

During three recent hearings, many people raised questions, concerns and objections to the proposed rule. Some even offered suggestions.

Donna Darm of NOAA told me that the extra time would allow biologists to explore and discuss some of the ideas, including issues related to recreational fishing and kayaking within a “no-go zone” off the west side of San Juan Island.

Research is ongoing, she said, and another year of data would not hurt. New on-the-water studies may or may not be proposed. When I raised the idea of an experiment using the entire whale-watch fleet to test various scenarios, she seemed intrigued by the notion.

“We have lots of comments to think about related to this alternative or that alternative,” she said.

NOAA officials were surprised by the number of people who showed up at the three public hearings: 180 or so each in Anacortes and Seattle, followed by about 260 in Friday Harbor, according to NOAA spokeswoman Janet Sears. That compares to between 40 and 60 people at planning meetings before the regulations were announced.

Shane Aggergaard, president of the Pacific Whale Watch Association, said he is pleased to see the willingness of NOAA officials to discuss the issue further. At first, NOAA officials did not seem to be listening, he told me.

“In the first part if it, it seemed like, ‘this is the proposal and this is the way it’s going to be,’” he said. “The fact that they’re looking at our recommendations or anything outside their original proposal is a positive step.”

The outpouring of opposition, including comments collected from passengers of whale-watch boats, has been huge, he said. “I would be surprised if there are not 20,000 comments that they will have to deal with.”

To comply with a strict 200-yard limit, whale-watch boats would need to stay close to 300 yards away most of the time, he said, and that is something that could kill much of the whale-watching business, he said.

The Pacific Whale Watch Association has proposed a combination of two ideas advanced by NOAA. The PWWA option would prohibit vessels within 100 yards under most conditions, though it would allow fishing boats to hold their position and kayakers to let orcas swim by. Other vessels would need to stay out of the path of the Southern Residents and observe a 7-knot speed along San Juan Island from Eagle Point to Mitchell Point out one-half mile.

Some folks have let me know that they are alarmed that strict regulations will not be approved in time to better protect the whales this year. (Washington state law includes a 100-yard restriction.)

Peter Hamilton of the whale-protection group Lifeforce sent this message:

It’s really unfortunate that the orcas will not get more protection in 2010 under improved vessel regulations. But of course enforcement would still be an issue. In order to provide more protection, Lifeforce hopes that NOAA and WDFW (Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife) will get more funds to step up enforcement in 2010.

Whale watch companies do not comply with WA legislation when they are not being monitored by government agencies. This has been proven in our report, “Contact: In Pursuit of Orcas.” Lifeforce photos have led to fines against a company.

Lifeforce urges all to email US Commerce Gary Locke to increase orca protection by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (Email TheSec@doc.gov).

During public comment meetings the whale watch companies and their commercial/sport fishing buddies were somewhat rude and had a bias letter writing campaign. At least one company owner was a commercial fisher and others have connections with commercial fishing activities. The form letter targeted their whale watch tourists who were misled into thinking that the whale watch companies would go out of business if the vessel regulations are implemented.

It is clear that these industries are making their financial profits a priority over orca protection… Whale Watching operations must be changed. Companies have been able to do basically want they want over the years. This must be stopped by changing their operation methods and more enforcement. Lifeforce will be submitting additional comments by the new deadline.

Lifeforce recommendation will include:

1. A 400 yards safety zone around orcas to reduce noise levels, stress and collisions. Companies had agreed to 400 yards when orcas are nursing.
2. No Go Zone on the west side of San Juan Island and southwest side of Point Roberts. These are vital critical habits.
3. Designated Go Zones to stop the relentless, day long pursuit of orcas.
4. A 30 minute time limit to view orcas (presently boats can stay for hours).

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post 

FIRST ISSUE: On Tuesday, EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson announced a regulatory change for dealing with chemical safety. View her remarks made at the Commonwealth Club in San Francisco, where she said:

“A child born in America today will grow up exposed to more chemicals than a child from any other generation in our history… Our kids are getting steady infusions of industrial chemicals before we even give them solid food.

“Now, some chemicals may be risk-free at the levels we are seeing. I repeat: some chemical may be risk-free. But as more and more chemicals are found in our bodies and the environment, the public is understandably anxious and confused. Many are turning to government for assurance that chemicals have been assessed using the best available science, and that unacceptable risks haven’t been ignored.

“Right now, we are failing to get this job done. Our oversight of the 21st century chemical industry is based on the 1976 Toxic Substances Control Act. It was an important step forward at the time… But over the years, not only has TSCA fallen behind the industry it’s supposed to regulate – it’s been proven an inadequate tool for providing the protection against chemical risks that the public rightfully expects.”

Some of the proposed changes will require legislation, others will not. But here’s an outline of the “Essential Principles for Reform of Chemicals Management Legislation”:

• Chemicals should be reviewed against risk-based safety standards based on sound science and protective of human health and the environment.
• Manufacturers should provide EPA with the necessary information to conclude that new and existing chemicals are safe and do not endanger public health or the environment.
• EPA should have clear authority to take risk management actions when chemicals do not meet the safety standard…
• Manufacturers and EPA should assess and act on priority chemicals, both existing and new, in a timely manner.
• Green Chemistry should be encouraged and provisions assuring transparency and public access to Information should be strengthened.
• EPA should be given a sustained source of funding for implementation.

As we have discussed, EPA has never before tried to regulate greenhouse gases.

To read more:

EPA news release: “EPA Administrator Jackson Unveils New Administration Framework for Chemical Management Reform in the United States”
OMB Watch: “Transparency Provisions Wanting in New Chemical Management ‘Principles’”
San Francisco Chronicle: “EPA wants more oversight on chemicals”
Environmental Health News: “EPA unveils plan to review 6 controversial chemicals, reform US toxics policy”

SECOND ISSUE: Yesterday, at the California Governor’s Global Climate Summit, Jackson announced that large industrial facilities emitting more than 25,000 tons of green house gases a year would need permits to ensure that best available control technologies are being used.

Among her comments at the summit was this statement:

“This rule allows us to do what the Clean Air Act does best – reduce emissions for better health, drive technology innovation for a better economy, and protect the environment for a better future – all without placing an undue burden on the businesses that make up the better part of our economy.”

Jackson’s comments came only hours after U.S. Sens. John Kerry, D-Mass., and Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., rolled out a new climate bill. Kerry, quoted in the Los Angeles Times: “We’re geared to move this and hopefully get it to the floor before (the Copenhagen summit.) I think we’re going to make it.”

Reaction:

The New York Times: “EPA Moves to Curtail Greenhouse Gas Emissions”
Dallas Morning News: “EPA moves to limit greenhouse-gas emissions from major polluters”
National Petrochemical & Refiners Association: “NPRA Believes EPA Lacks Legal Authority to Raise GHG Permitting Threshold”

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post 

Scott Veirs, who studies the acoustics of killer whales, blogged about last night’s meeting in Seattle:

“Overall, there were strong objections to the entire suite of alternatives — from the 200 yard viewing distance to the no-go zone. People for Puget Sound went on record saying that a no-go zone was a step too far. And Ken Balcomb (Center for Whale Research) voted for no action.

“I was left with a profound disappointment that so many felt so unfairly burdened by the proposed rules. If the people who most intimately and consistently share the southern resident’s habitat aren’t willing to make a sacrifice to preserve the basis of their livelihoods, how can we expect the public to act selflessly for our regional icons: the orca and the salmon?”

I thought the piece put together by reporter Mark Wright of KCPQ-TV (viewer above right) provided a nicely summarized and balanced perspective on the issue, though it did not examine the scientific issue.

To dig more deeply, take a loot at the extensive list of comments compiled by the National Marine Fisheries Service in 2007 when “potential vessel regulations” were being discussed. Information about the proposed rule — including questions and answers — can be found on the page “Regulations on Vessel Effects.”

A few odds and ends in recent days:

People for Puget Sound:

“People For Puget Sound supports the distance (200 yards) and no intentional parking in the path of traveling whales

“People For Puget Sound agrees in concept with a “no-go zone” akin to the Robson Bight protected area in British Columbia, but has concerns about the scientific basis, actual size, exemptions for some types of operations, access to public parks, unintended consequences, feasibility of enforcement, and other questions.

“People For Puget Sound suggests that NOAA convene a vessel operator stakeholder group that includes commercial fishing operators, container and cruise ship operators, small recreational boat companies, recreational boating and fishing groups, research vessel operators, military, whale watching companies and others to discuss operational issues and ensure that fair treatment is given to all. Tribal fishing operators should also be part of a further consultation process.”

Candace Calloway Whiting, a volunteer with the Center for Whale Research:

“A positive aspect to this is that our whale watching adventures can be enhanced because we will more fully appreciate how the whales behave when not surrounded by our boats. In addition, the creation of a seasonal refuge will impact other species – we may find that marine mammals (such as Harbor porpoises) and seabirds will also use the area more fully, and our whale watching trips will be further enriched.

“On the downside, I feel that the proposed regulations have been painted with too broad a brush and hopefully some adjustments can be made before being adopted. Although I understand the logic behind the decisions to apply the rules equally to power boats and kayaks, for example, I think this penalizes those people who wish to find alternatives, and discourages innovation. The blanket rules provide no incentives for responsible viewing nor do they provide a way to enforce the regulations that I was able to see. And I am perplexed by the fact that the refuge as planned does not include the preferred rest areas of the orcas, as defined by NMFS in their documents.”

Shane Aggergaard, Pacific Whale Watch Association

Our recommendation for the new proposed vessel regulations is a combination of Scenario #1 and Scenario #2 from the Draft Environmental Assessment, and an additional element which is supported by the available vessel/killer whale science that we have seen to date.

The PWWA recommends:

Vessels may not negligently be within 100 meters of Southern Resident Killer Whales in Washington, Oregon, and California, except under special permit issued by NOAA.

Vessels must avoid the established path of Southern Resident Killer Whales.

Vessels must obey a 7 knot speed restriction year round from Eagle Point to Mitchell Point, along San Juan Island, out 1/2 mile, except for official law enforcement vessels or vessels engaged in emergency and rescue situations.

This recommendation is more restrictive than the current state law and is within the spirit of the Marine Mammal Protection Act… The PWWA recommendation takes into account sound and proximity issues, foraging, traveling, socializing and resting behaviors, important habitat protection and further reduces the potential for vessel strikes. It is in accordance with the precautionary principles used to date for the whales’ protection and does not diminish the important educational elements of commercial whale watching. The PWWA recommendation will not negatively contribute to the economy, and is a fair and reasonable law that is less likely to be challenged and overturned in the future.

Mark Anderson, Orca Relief

“We know that the whales are starving, and we know that boat presence accelerates their starvation.

“But we know something else, thanks to the NMFS staff who presented the rule finding guidelines at the federal hearing in Friday Harbor: we know that it is illegal to pursue an endangered species.

“Surely this is a typo, or a mistake; otherwise, how could so many companies be in business doing just that, pursuing whales?

“No, it is not a mistake: it was repeated three times, at our request, in response to the first questions at that hearing, by NMFS biologist, attorneys, and administrators. No mistake, stated three times, verbatim: “it is illegal to pursue the Southern Resident Orca.”

“If we know that boat presence is contributing directly to whale deaths, and if it is illegal to pursue these animals, NMFS has no cause to pursue incremental changes to a set of whale watch operator guidelines taken from 1950s NMFS regulations on watching grey (baleen) whales…

“You want to move the goal posts from 100 yards to 200 yards for boats, as though they will obey this impossible rule any better than the last one. To the toothed whales, trying to hear underwater, the difference is not enough to matter.”

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post 

The study examined one class of chemicals, called phthalates, which are believed to cause reproductive problems — though at higher concentrations than normally found in a house.

But the study also found that the phthalates were making their way onto clothing, into the laundry wash water and ultimately into Puget Sound sediments, where other studies show that these chemicals seem to be increasing over time.

This new study raises questions that are not trivial and demand further investigation and public education: Is the dust-sewer route for phthalates more predominant than the air-stormwater route? (See 2006-07 discussion.) Could these chemicals be causing unidentified health effects in our homes? What will be their effects on specific marine and freshwater environments as they continue to accumulate faster than they break down? Do the breakdown products themselves create concerns? And what other chemicals in our homes might be taking this dust-sewer route into Puget Sound?

Last week in “Water Ways,” we discussed how Elliott Bay was growing cleaner by many standards, but at least one phthalate compound was building up in the sediments. We’ll be discussing phthalates in Tacoma’s Commencement Bay and Bremerton’s Sinclair and Dyes inlets as new data becomes available.

Folks who released the report today said they hoped it would spur government agencies into action. According to a news release, the state should take these actions:

• Enact legislation to ensure only the safest chemicals are used in products.
• Take action to phase out the use of chemicals posing the greatest threat to Puget Sound’s health.
• Help industry switch to safer alternatives and away from chemicals known to be harmful to Puget Sound.
• Require companies to disclose what chemicals they are using to manufacture products.
• Fully fund Puget Sound Partnership Action Agenda items that prevent toxic chemical pollution.

Erika Schreder, staff scientist for the Washington Toxics Coalition and lead author of the report, offered these comments:

“Most people would never think their shower curtains could pollute Puget Sound, but this study shows that chemicals in the products on our homes can actually make their way to the Sound. The laws in place today allow chemicals that we know are harmful to go into products. As a result, our health suffers and so does the health of Puget Sound.”

Heather Trim, Urban Bays and Toxics Program manager for People For Puget Sound, had this to say:

“The state spends millions of dollars each year cleaning up pollution in Puget Sound, only to have the same sites polluted again. Eliminating chemicals toxic to the Sound at their source, including consumer products, is the only way to get off the toxic treadmill permanently.”

For information about the findings, read the report’s Executive Summary (PDF 1.8 mb) or the full document, “Puget Sound Down the Drain” (PDF 2.8 mb).

One could get lost in studies about the toxicity of phthalates, but a good overview can be found in the 2007 report by the “Sediment Phthalates Work Group” (PDF 5.2 mb), an interagency task force of local, state and federal agencies in Washington state.

Also check out “Spotlight on Phthalates” by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the links listed in the document.

Notable news reports of today’s announcement:

John Stang for SeattlePI.com
Sally Deneen for the Seattle PostGlobe
Gary Chittim for King 5 News

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post 

When I first moved here in the 1970s, we had a Department of Fisheries along with a Department of Wildlife. Enforcement officers were assigned to one agency or the other, but they often rendered assistance to their fellow officers downstream or out in the woods.

At some point in the past, I believe the state operated with a single Department of Fish and Game. Then after trying two agencies for a number of years, they merged into one again: the Department of Fish and Wildlife.

This time, we could see a greater shakeup, as Gov. Chris Gregoire has called for a review of all natural resource agencies. That means we would add into the discussion these departments: Ecology, Natural Resources, and Parks and Recreation.

Does it make sense to consolidate agencies for a greater sharing of limited resources or stay with a greater number of agencies to hone the mission of the organization. Does one way result in fewer managers, or do you just trade top-level directors for middle managers?

Would it be better to have law enforcement officers focused on specific duties, or should they all be cross-trained to do the same thing? Should State Patrol officers learn about trees, deer and fish and help out with poachers in the woods — or is this going too far?

I don’t know the answers, but I really am interested in the outcome. The analysis has begun within documents filed on a new Natural Resources Reform Web page linked from the Governor’s Web site. It’s clear there’s much work yet to be done.

As for the number of scientists who need to stand in a stream (see Water Ways, Sept. 3), I guess some people are promoting the notion that one person could collect stream data for all three. Folks at the Puget Sound Partnership have talked about standardizing water-quality data, for example, but this issue is more complex than that.

One thing that caught my attention is the number of programs related to natural resources outside of Fish and Wildlife, Ecology, Natural Resources, and Parks. These programs may be brought into one of the agencies resulting from the reorganization. Here are some of those programs and where they currently reside:

• Shellfish, drinking water and nuclear waste: Department of Health
• Growth management: Department of Commerce
• Comprehensive land-use plans and ordinances: Growth Management Hearings Boards
• Rates for energy and solid waste collection: Utilities and Transportation Commission
• Fines and land-use permitting: Environmental Hearings Office — including Pollution Control Hearings Board, Shoreline Hearings Board, Hydraulic Appeals Board, Environmental and Land Use Board and Forest Practices Appeals Board

For those who have an inclination to delve into this issue, there are plenty of things to consider.

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post 

But neither side in the contentious debate believes the administration has taken the correct approach.

The Adaptive Management Implementation Plan would call for dam-breaching only if “more aggressive” measures fail to reverse declines in salmon populations, according to a news release issued this morning by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

The plan responds to a letter from federal District Judge James A. Redden, who said a biological opinion issued by the federal government would not restore Columbia River salmon runs, as required by the Endangered Species Act.

“The time has come to move out of the courtroom and get to work recovering salmon and preserving the region’s unique way-of-life,” said Commerce Secretary Gary Locke. “This biological opinion, backed by sound science and tremendous state and tribal support, will help preserve the vibrancy and vitality of the Columbia and Snake River basins for generations to come.”

Supporters of dam removal blasted the plan, saying it continues a flawed policy. See the news release from a coalition of groups.

Here’s what Zeke Grader, executive director of Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen’s Associations, had to say:

“This was a test for Commerce Secretary Gary Locke — on both economics and science — and this plan failed on both accounts. This decision will no doubt leave salmon in the perilous decline they have been in for years and communities up and down the coast and inland to Idaho will continue to suffer. For an administration so set on protecting and restoring jobs, this decision is a huge mistake and a clear signal to fishermen that their jobs don’t count.”

From Bill Arthur, deputy national field director for the Sierra Club:

“Although the Bush administration is gone, unfortunately it looks like its policies will live on for Columbia-Snake salmon. It’s a bit like the Night of the Living Dead; we keep fighting these failed and illegal salmon plans, but they continue to spring back to life… It’s now time for the Judge to bury this plan for good, and provide a fresh opportunity to get it right for the people, communities and magnificent salmon and steelhead of the Northwest.”

In a news release, U.S. Rep. Doc Hastings, R-Pasco, attacked the Obama administration for opening the door to dam removal, even a crack:

“The Obama Administration has put dam removal back on the table and delivered just what dam removal extremists have been demanding. No one should be fooled by talk of dam removal as a last resort when the Obama Administration is immediately launching studies and plans for such action.

“The extremists who brought this lawsuit may be critical about this plan because dam removal wasn’t delivered on a silver platter with promises of wrecking balls arriving next week, but they got what they wanted from the Obama Administration and they’ll try and convince Judge Redden to give them even more…

“I warned the Obama Administration that opening the door to dam removal even just a crack would incite dam removal extremists to keep fighting and divert time, attention and resources away from real solutions to recover salmon.”

Terry Flores, executive director of a user coalition called Northwest RiverPartners:

“This plan – while expensive – holds the most promise for the region to move forward collectively to do things that actually benefit fish… We support restoring wild salmon runs, and experience shows that dams and fish are co-existing, but this is an unprecedented cost people are being asked to bear in extremely tough economic times”

To view documents filed with the court today, visit the Federal Caucus Web site.

NEWS STORIES
Rocky Barker, Idaho Statesman
William McCall, Associated Press
William Yardley, New York Times
Editorial Board, The Oregonian
Matthew Preusch, The Oregonian
Kim Murphy, Los Angeles Times
Editorial Board, Yakima Herald-Republic
Kevin Richert, Idaho Statesman
Erik Robinson, The Columbian, Vancouver
Matthew Preusch, The Oregonian
Tom Banse, NPR, KUOW
Steve Scher, KUOW

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post 

The proposal continues through the permitting process in Jefferson County, where an environmental impact statement is being drafted for the project.

Athabasca Minerals, Inc., will put up $3 million and gain a 25 percent interest in Thorndyke Resource, which was created by the Fred Hill family to own and operate the pit-to-pier project. See the story we posted on the Kitsap Sun’s Web site this morning.

Completion of the partnership between Thorndyke Resource and Athabasca is subject to regulatory approval in Canada, approval by Athabasca’s board of directors, verification of the gravel resource and other conditions.

To read more, check out the news release from Athabasca, a company traded on the Toronto Stock Exchange, and the one released by officials associated with Fred Hill Materials (PDF 44 kb).

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post