Washington Department of Natural Resources has approved a 30-year lease to allow a dock in the Maury Island Aquatic Reserve. It was the last approval needed for construction of a gravel mine that has been the subject of intense opposition by environmental groups.
Robert McClure, environmental reporter for the Seattle PI, calls the approval the most controversial of Land Commissioner Doug Sutherland’s eight years in office. Sutherland has taken this action in his final weeks as head of the DNR, having lost in the November election to Peter Goldmark.
Goldmark issued a statement saying he was “deeply disappointed” by the decision.
“The timing of this decision, only one day after the Puget Sound Partnership brought forward their plan to clean up Puget Sound, is very troubling,” Goldmark was quoted as saying in the Seattle Times. “While I understand there is only one lands commissioner at a time, this decision does come after the voters of Washington sent a very clear message.”
Amy Carey, president of Preserve Our Islands, was not pleased with Sutherland’s decision. She told the Times, “It’s disappointing he felt he had to stick to Glacier’s needs and agenda. There’s absolutely no reason that this decision had to come out now other than that Glacier wanted it now. It’s a really pitiful legacy as his tenure ends.”
In a news release, Sutherland said, “This has been an extremely rigorous process, and our aquatics staff have examined every document submitted to us and to the permitting agencies to be sure that we have addressed the issues. I directed staff to add requirements to protect this aquatic ecosystem in the long-term—which they have. This lease agreement accomplishes the goal of environmental protection while allowing existing commercial activities.”
Kathy Fletcher, executive director of People for Puget Sound, had this to say in her blog:
One of the black clouds hanging over the Puget Sound Partnership’s celebration the other day was the bleak budgetary outlook. Optimism about the new plan is tempered by the knowledge that money will be hard to come by. Not to sound too naïve, but since it’s expensive to undo the harm that we’ve done to our Sound over the years, why would we proceed to do more? Saying “no” to a bad idea like the Maury Island gravel dock doesn’t restore the Sound to health, but at least it’s a pretty cost-effective way to avoid making things worse.
Maybe I’m also naïve to think that in a year when we lost seven more of our endangered orcas, most likely to starvation, responsible decision-makers would say no to a project that puts one of the whales’ favorite winter fishing grounds at risk. Perhaps the whales had heard what was up in Sutherland’s office on Tuesday, when they decided to spend that very day hanging out in the Vashon area—their first visit of the season.
Conditions of the lease include the following, according to the
DNR:
DNR’s lease requires that Northwest Aggregates place the adjacent tidelands and ‘feeder bluff’ that they own into a permanent conservation easement under which no future development will be permitted. The feeder bluff will provide a major sediment source for sand and materials to support the shoreline ecosystem, and forage fish spawning beds. These tideland and riparian buffers will be protected and intact in perpetuity, supporting the aquatic reserve ecosystem.
Tug boat propeller turbulence will be minimized and monitored to ensure protection of eelgrass and other submerged vegetation. In order to decrease the amount of disturbance, a tug cannot be used to reposition the barge after moorage. A hauling system will move the barge back and forth along the pier to assist its loading evenly. A tug is not to be substituted (even temporarily) for the hauling system, even if the hauling system fails. Inspection reports on the system are to be given to DNR.
Light also is addressed in the company’s operations, and particularly on the dock. Glare from lighting at the loading facility may cause herring to change their nocturnal surface feeding and spawning behavior. To minimize these impacts to herring spawning, other than lighting required for navigational purposes, there will be no exterior lighting between one hour after sunset and one hour before sunrise from January 15 through April 14 of any year.
There is to be no discharge of any stormwater onto state-owned aquatic lands. Northwest Aggregates will disburse stormwater into the upland to be filtered as it seeps into the ground.
My understanding is that the project met its considerable regulatory requirements. Are we to be a nation of laws or philosophies? If a applicant meets their permit requirements in September, should their project be held up pending November’s election?
Of course not.
Trouble is if new information comes forth, should it be ignored and the project approved, no matter what the outcome?
To Sharon –
Of course not – IF it is substantial and significant. So, what new information was revealed that was substantial enough to warrant amendment to one or more of the permits? And why weren’t the permits amended?The SEPA and NEPA would also have to be revised to reflect the new, substantial and signficant, information.
Once they were amended, given the new regulatory information, DNR would have considered the new information when making their decision.
“Robert McClure, environmental reporter for the Seattle PI, calls the approval the most controversial of Land Commissioner Doug Sutherland’s eight years in office. Sutherland has taken this action in his final weeks as head of the DNR, having lost in the November election to Peter Goldmark.”
Thank you for responding, anon.
It is interesting to note the determination and speed by Sutherland to push it through before he left office.
Will this act turn out to become as notorious as the Bolt decision or ruinous to our waterways?
The health of our waterways count, nothing else should at this time.
“Saying “no” ….t’s a pretty cost-effective way to avoid making things worse.
… naïve to think that …responsible decision-makers would say no to a project that puts one of the whales’ favorite winter fishing grounds at risk.”
Sharon O’Hara
Sharon –
My question remains unanswered.
And DNR is not responsible for decisions concerning orcas or other marine mammals. That jurisdiction belongs solely to the federal government – under the Marine Mammal Protection Act. NOAA Fisheries (NMFS) has responsibility for saying “Yea” or “Nay” to projects that may interfere with marine mammals in any way.
So, given what you have stated, I must ask, what new information came to light to show that the whale winter feeding grounds were put at risk, and why did the proper authorities not review it? In this case, the proper authorities would not be DNR – it would be the federal government.