Dabob Bay conservation area expands by nearly 4,000 acres

Posted on October 6, 2024 by Al Bergstein

Peter Bahls and his organization the NW Watershed Institute, have pulled off another successful land transfer that they’ve been working on for years in the waning days of public lands commissioner Hilary Franz’ administration. But the agreement may also find itself strapped for funds if the Climate Commitment Act (CCA) is reversed in the next election or a Republican takes office to replace Franz. Your vote is important to passing this . Our website is supporting King County Commissioner and former State Representative Dave Upthegrove as the next land commissioner because of issues such as this.

QUILCENE — The Dabob Bay Natural Resources Conservation Area has been expanded by 3,943 acres to include more than 11,000 acres around the bay.

Hillary Franz, the state Commissioner of Public Lands, signed an order on Sept. 23.

“Dabob Bay is a unique and special landscape, and I am incredibly happy to protect and preserve public lands there so that future generations get to enjoy its beauty and ecological importance,” Franz said. “This further expansion is a testament to years of hard work from stakeholders and staff to find a solution that protects these rare ecosystems while still supporting local services in east Jefferson County.”

To read the whole story, go to:

https://www.peninsuladailynews.com/news/dabob-bay-conservation-area-expands-by-nearly-4000-acres/

support local journalism subscribe to the Peninsula Daily News.

Filed under: Climate Change, Endangered Species, Environmental Activism, Environmental Law, Environmental Protection, Forestry, Government, Jefferson County, Olympic Peninsula | Tagged: , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Dabob Bay conservation area expands by nearly 4,000 acres

Tribe poised to co-manage Dungeness National Wildlife Refuge

Posted on August 10, 2024 by Al Bergstein

In a move that comes as environmentalists sue the Department of Fish & Wildlife Service (FWS) for not doing a “compatibility determination” on potential impacts to allowing an industrial aquaculture farm (run for profit by the Jamestown S’Klallam Tribe), FWS appears ready to ink an agreement to co-manage the Wildlife Refuge with the tribe.

Does it make sense for an entity that seeks to financially profit from the use of a federal resource, to be given co-management powers of that resource?

While this blog recognizes the importance of the work that the Jamestown have done for environmental restoration projects on the north Olympic Peninsula, there has been sustained concern from environmental watchdogs about the idea of turning the waters of the refuge into an industrial site, with subsequent conversion of the benthic layer and the waters above it into essentially a shellfish farm. Once this is done, there is no returning it to the way it is, as the profit motive will make it virtually impossible to end the work, as we have seen across the south Sound as shellfish aquaculture has turned numerous virgin bays into net covered shores with diesel engines dredging the geoduck farms at all hours of the night (low tides usually are late at night in the winter when harvesting would be easiest).

It is worth noting that the Refuge was established with the following goals, delineated on the front page of its web site:

Recognizing the importance of the fertile habitats, President Woodrow Wilson established the Dungeness National Wildlife Refuge on January 20, 1915, as a refuge, preserve, and breeding ground for native birds. Many of these birds feed by diving into the shallows for fish. Today the graceful arc of Dungeness Spit continues to protect nutrient-rich tide flats for migrating shorebirds in spring and fall; a quiet bay with calm waters for wintering waterfowl; an isolated beach for harbor seals and their pups; and abundant eelgrass beds for young salmon and steelhead nurseries.

Dungeness National Wildlife Refuge | Visit Us – Activities | U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (fws.gov)

It is hard to understand how commercial shellfish aquaculture could coexist into preserving native birds who dive into these same waters to feed. Currently the FWS bans even frisbees or kites on the spit as it apparently is not good for the birds. There is a long list of banned behavior that seems innocuous elsewhere.

In 2018, this blog reported on the concerns that were being raised by the staff of the refuge itself, in it, we reported that the applicants have asked for permission to place approx. 150,000 of “on bottom” oyster bags on the central west side of the bay, in approximately 34 acres of the tide flats 1141 acres of the inner spit. While I understand that current numbers of this amount are not at these levels, the long-term goal of this number likely has not changed. This is not the small scale subsistence aquaculture that currently exists in Sequim Bay by tribal members. This will require machinery, boats and staff to harvest these amounts. This could be viewed as the proverbial “camel nose in the tent” which likely will be expanded over time with very little discussion. The applicants propose to raise non-native oysters. To be clear, a significant number of cultivated oysters in the Salish Sea are non-native, so this was not a surprise, nor is it an issue of great concern.

Also noted in that earlier blog entry, as stated by the Department of Interior letter, “The shores and tidelands in this area provide some of the most important wildlife habitat and supports the highest density of waterfowl and shorebirds within the refuge….These shorelines also support one of the largest Brandt haul out sites in the state of Washington….Shorebird densities are highest within the action area and the adjacent lagoon on Graveyard Spit.”

“Human-caused wildlife disturbance and habitat loss are two of the most pervasive threats to shorebird and waterfowl use of the Salish Sea…. very little information is available on entrapment resulting from aquaculture structures.”

The letter also referenced that, “In 2016, a die-off of approximately 1000 Rhinoceros Auklets on Protection Island coincided with a significant reduction in the abundance of sand lance in the Strait of Juan de Fuca.” 

Herring also spawn at the west end of Dungeness Harbor and the Department of Interior raised questions about protecting Strait of Juan de Fuca herring, which have been designated “critical” (as in critically low).  Sand Lance and Surf Smelt spawning grounds are also found in the area of the application. These species have been identified as “Washington Species of Greatest Conservation Need within the State Wildlife Action Plan (WDFW 2015).” A worry related to this is that these spawning fish will be competing with the oysters for plankton. A failure to find enough food could lead to a significant reduction in the survival rates. There is no known mitigation for this, other than limiting the size and scope of the project.

Additionally, Interior pointed out that a 1996 scientific study found that some shorebirds significantly avoided areas used for aquaculture in a California bay.

This shoreline has also been designated “Natural” in the Critical Areas Ordinance, as far back as 1976. That designation limits activities to those that preserve the national features unchanged. One would assume that the tidelands are also part of that designation. But of course, the waters of the Wildlife Reserve are apparently not part of the county shoreline ordinance.

It is important to note that the applicants themselves have noted in a 2003 report that “wild birds are the second most important source of FC on a year-round basis. It is especially important in winter, when their load approaches 1/2 of the measured marine water input.” It would seem to the average person that putting aquaculture into a bird reserve is by its very nature going to create a tension between the animals that are present and creating the problem and the desire to harvest shellfish for profit.

It is certainly reasonable for the applicants to want to return to aquaculture in the Bay, however the scale is being significantly increased. And now the applicants themselves are being given co-management of the very location that they intend to make a commercial farm. If it wasn’t the Tribe but some standard for-profit company, I’m sure that every environmental organization in the country would be joining in to stop this, but since it is the Tribe, only a couple of environmental organizations have been bold enough to challenge the FWS in court. And they appear to be winning. Years ago, I had a drink with the head of the Western Region of NOAA. I asked him why they kept doing things that required environmental groups to sue them, and why they just didn’t do the right thing to begin with. He laughed and told me that NOAA was a big government organization and had many different perspectives inside it. He welcomed lawsuits that forced them to do the right thing as he couldn’t possibly hope that all his employees were in line with its goals.

The FWS has a problematic role with regards to the Refuge. According to a 2022 article written by Kevin Washburn and N. William Hines, Dean and Professor of Law at the University of Iowa College of Law:

“The congressional direction in the Fish and Wildlife Act is to ensure “the fish, shellfish, and wildlife
resources of the Nation make a material contribution to our national economy and food supply . . . [and] the health, recreation, and well-being of our citizens.”

Congress recognized “that such resources are a living, renewable form of national wealth that is capable of being maintained and greatly increased with proper management, but equally capable of destruction if neglected or unwisely exploited.” (emphasis mine)

As a practical matter, however, one of the most significant challenges for FWS is meeting the
significant demands of the Endangered Species Act.”

The co-management of the reserve can only legally include the following:

“…Endangered Species Programs, Education Programs, Environmental Contaminants Programs, Wetland and Habitat Conservation Restoration, Fish Hatchery Operations, and National Wildlife Refuge Operation and Maintenance. See List of Programs Eligible for Inclusion in Funding Agreements Negotiated with Self-governance Tribes by Interior Bureaus Other than the Bureau of Indian Affairs and Fiscal
Year 2016. Microsoft Word – [14] Washburn – Camera-Ready (case.edu)

The rather ill defined “Northwest Wildlife refuge operations…” in the above paragraph is a concern. The document referenced above goes into considerable detail on the issues raised in co-management of FWS and other agencies. It is beyond the scope of this blog to identify all of them.

Science has learned a lot about the environment since the time when the State originally allowed the use in this location. In many other locations we have decided that the tradeoff of commercial activity is outweighed by a newer appreciation of the value of the natural landscape for a variety of species.  It is up to all of us to question our elected officials and bureaucrats, not the applicants, as to why they believe that this is in all our best interests, when we so clearly have set this aside this location for wildlife protection and enhancement. The applicants have every right to apply. It is up to our elected and bureaucratic staffs to make the call for the lands and species we all enjoy and want to protect.

This blog has long supported the work of the JamesTown S’Kallam as they have led environmental protection on the Olympic Peninsula for many decades. We have supported their right to industrial geoduck operations, small scale oyster farming, their rights to their share of the salmon of the state. In this one instance we are questioning whether putting this farm inside a tiny refuge that has decades of protection, as we all struggle to save our seabirds, is the right call. It is not about their rights, it is about the location. Can the State not find and trade suitable other locations for the Tribe to establish, especially since the tribe itself has raised concerns about the viability of the location for aquaculture on the scale they are planning? Then the issue of co-management is a non issue. Then they would be imminently qualified to co-manage the refuge.

Filed under: Aquaculture, Clallam County, Environmental Activism, Environmental Law, Olympic Peninsula, Straits of Juan de Fuca | Tagged: , , , , | 10 Comments »

Dungeness Spit Aquaculture: Court rules in favor of environmentalists

Posted on August 9, 2024 by Al Bergstein

The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington State concludes that the Federal Refuge Act requires the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS/Service) to complete a compatibility determination, that the Court has jurisdiction and that plaintiffs’ case has merit and should be heard. 

In a major ruling for environmentalists fighting to stop the conversion of the Dungeness Spit wildlife refuge into an industrial aquaculture farm, a federal judge has ruled that the USFWS must complete a “compatibility determination” on potential impacts to these federal lands.  A 50-acre industrial shellfish operation has been allowed to operate abutting the Dungeness National Wildlife Refuge in Sequim WA without the agency having written a compatibility determination or permitted the shellfish operation. This Refuge hosts 240 species of birds, 29 species of mammals, 8 species of reptiles and amphibians, and 26 species of fish.  

Protect the Peninsula’s Future (PPF), a WA State non-profit was joined by another WA State non-profit, Coalition To Protect Puget Sound Habitat and the national non-profit, Beyond Pesticides challenging the USFWS in US Western District Court, pleading that the USFWS must write a compatibility determination stating the shellfish operation’s harm to this refuge.  The USFWS/Department of Interior asked the court to dismiss our case, denying their own authority. On July 17, 2024, the federal district court denied dismissal of the case.

The NGOs also pled that should the operation be allowed, it needed a permit. The federal judge left open the opportunity to strengthen this argument.

In his review of the USFWS attempt to dismiss the plaintiffs’ case, Judge Benjamin H. Settle underscored that the Refuge Act mandates that the Service “shall not initiate or permit a new use of a refuge or expand, renew, or extend an existing use of a refuge, unless the [Service] has determined that the use is a compatible use and that the use is not inconsistent with public safety.”  The federal judge continued, “To conclude otherwise would lead to absurd results. It would require the Court to ignore the clear instructions in the Refuge Act and its regulations that deputize the Service to regulate activity within the Refuge. Indulging the Service’s position would also require ignoring the points in the Refuge Act that carefully instruct the Service on how to navigate conflicting or concurrent authority within a refuge.”

“It bears repeating that the Service already acknowledged that it ‘cannot allow the proposed activity unless the entirety of the commercial oyster farming operation within the Refuge boundary is found Compatible with the Refuge purposes.’”

This blog has repeatedly reported on the move to create an industrial aquaculture operation inside Dungeness Spit. In previous articles, we saw key members of the wildlife reserve send reports saying that the proposal was bad for birds and other creatures in the waters inside the Spit. Regardless of the concerns DNR head Hilary Franz signed an approval of leasing the tidelands to the company. Yesterday, Franz lost her bid to move to the U.S. Congress, and she might be replaced by one of two Republicans, but the votes are still being tallied, and Democrat and environmental champion Dave UptheGrove is still in second place as of this writing.

You can help this legal case by sending donations to: PPF   PO Box 421   Sequim WA  98382

or make online through PayPal:  https://www.protectpeninsulasfuture.org/donate/

Filed under: Clallam County, Environmental Law, Environmental Protection, Olympic Peninsula, Straits of Juan de Fuca | 3 Comments »

NOAA agrees hearing on Endangered Alaskan Chinook

Posted on May 25, 2024 by Al Bergstein

In January, The Wild Fish Conservancy petitioned NOAA for a listing urging protection for Alaskan Chinook under the Endangered Species Act. 

Last week, NOAA announced a positive 90-day finding on that petition, agreeing the information included was substantial and warrants further review. This decision triggers an in depth scientific review that will determine if a threatened or endangered listing is warranted.

The decision will likely come as a surprise to many, as Alaska is perceived as having widely abundant salmon runs and all Alaskan salmon fisheries were just recertified by Marine Stewardship Council (though that decision is being challenged). This week, the Copper River run has come in to Seattle markets, trading at around $100 a pound. However, the data shows Alaskan Chinook populations are facing a similar crisis as rivers coastwide, and in some cases are in even worse condition.

Endangered Species Process

We’ll look forward to tracking this process as it progresses.

Filed under: Endangered Species, Environmental Law, Environmental Protection, fisheries | 2 Comments »

Department of Justice Asked to Investigate Big Oil Misconduct

Posted on May 23, 2024 by Al Bergstein

Yesterday — taking a necessary and historic step — Rep. Jamie Raskin (Maryland) and Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (Rhode Island) formally recommended that the United States Department of Justice open an investigation into Big Oil’s deceptive actions.

Here’s what David Arkush, director of Public Citizen’s Climate Program, told the national media:

“It is essential that the Department of Justice investigate the fossil fuel industry’s misconduct. Strong evidence already in the public domain suggests that Big Oil has likely violated a number of federal laws. And … there is ample reason to think the industry is hiding even worse wrongdoing.”

Holding Big Oil accountable for decades of misconduct that have brought the world to the brink of climate catastrophe is a goal of a number of environmental organizations and politicians.

Whitehouse: “What we found is that the well-known campaign of the Big Oil companies to deny climate change, to treat it as a hoax, to question the science, all of that nonsense has morphed into a new campaign in which they pretend they care about climate”

https://www.budget.senate.gov/chairman/newsroom/press/new-joint-bicameral-staff-report-reveals-big-oils-campaign-of-climate-denial-disinformation-and-doublespeak

Filed under: Climate Change, Environmental Activism, Environmental Law, Global Warming | Comments Off on Department of Justice Asked to Investigate Big Oil Misconduct

Cooke Aquaculture gets $2B lawsuit alleging violated U.S. Fishing Laws

Posted on May 22, 2024 by Al Bergstein

The company that ran the net pen aquaculture in this state for years has now been sued for allegedly violating U.S. fishing laws. The $2B lawsuit “False Claims Acts” alleges that Cooke violated U.S. rules for U.S. ownership of fishing fleets by creating taking over an American fishing company and creating a shell company to hide its ownership. These actions occurred on the Atlantic coast, not here.

The article is behind a paywall for National Fisherman magazine unfortunately but likely other sources will soon emerge. I’ll update this article as I get new information.

Filed under: Environmental Activism, Environmental Law, fisheries | 1 Comment »

Culvert Replacement projects: Good Seattle Times overview

Posted on March 10, 2024 by Al Bergstein

The Seattle Times today has a good article on the ongoing work of culvert replacement. Titled “Removing WA salmon barriers surges to $1M a day, but results are murky” it investigates the results of the hundreds of millions being spent. (Be aware it’s behind a paywall). You likely have been impacted by the work to replace these culverts to save the remaining salmon stocks as you drive 101 from here to Port Angeles.

The Times article focuses on whether the enormous expenditure of almost $7.8 billion over a decade is going to actually help the salmon returning to spawn and save our greatest natural resource. As someone who has watched and studied this project since before the Tribes were successful in federal court, getting the mandate to force the state to spend the money, I have to say that I too, find myself concerned about the efficacy of this project overall.

As the Times points out, many streams are only going to recovered at the point where the streams cross state and federal highways. The projects often don’t seem to make sense, recovering a stream at one point but not upstream of the blockage, essentially simply moving the point that the salmon are blocked.

We have seen successful recovery efforts over streams such as Jimmy Come Lately creek on the land owned by the Jamestown S’Kallam. I have seen many fish there, as a fish ladder is used by the Tribe to count the fish going upstream. It appears to be a very successful recovery effort and the bridge over the creek is a small thing but wide enough to provide the necessary water and slope to help the fish on the journey.

The Times reports “A Seattle Times analysis of available project design reports found that for every barrier WSDOT fixes, nine others upstream and two downstream partially or fully block fish migration. The state or other owners may fix some of them, but most are not scheduled for removal.” This is not a recipe for success.

It’s clear that to the Tribes, this is all part of the “seven generations” approach that has been so successful in reversing many environmental issues on the Peninsula, including recovery of the Dungeness River flood plain, Jimmy Come Lately Creek, Sequim Bay shellfish, and many other projects that the Tribe has provided grant management, project management and leadership to complete. Unfortunately, Washington tax payers do not think in terms of seven generations. They often think about today’s paycheck. It is clear that with our underfunding of schools, hospitals, mental health, child care, foster care and other critical services, there are many who would just rather fund those immediate needs and let the chips fall where they may for salmon. The unfortunate situation we find ourselves in is that for the majority of Washington residents, they no longer have a memory of the enormous salmon runs that our predecessors took for granted. We once had an almost unimaginable source of high quality free food in the salmon runs, all for the cost of a fishing rod, a fishing license and maybe a small boat. It sustained many people on the verge of starvation as late as the 1950s in this state. I’ve interviewed them in my video, “Voices of the Strait” in 2010. Now, almost everyone who eats salmon pays a high price and it comes primarily from Alaska, where they have done a better job of managing the stocks, and their rivers and habitats have been less destroyed. As the article states, the WSDOT knew as early as 1949 that the culverts were a problem, and yet did nothing to change the practices.

Another frustrating truth that the article points out is “The state doesn’t really know if fish are even getting through its new stream crossings, nor is it required to by the court order. It could try, by studying salmon returning to those streams, but it rarely even counts them.”

Governor Inslee recognizes the problem of the federal government forcing this on the State: “There is a federal judicial decision … which has ordered the state ..to do this work on a designated number of culverts,” Inslee said in an interview. “If you want to criticize the prioritization of these investments, you need to focus your criticism on the federal judicial system — not the state.”

The article also points out that the remaining need for $4 Billion dollars would be the equivalent of buying an entirely new electric ferry fleet. As a citizen of a peninsula needing ferries for our basic commerce, and having seen the cancelations that impact that commerce, this seems like an incredibly problematic decision and one that would likely not be approved if put to a vote of the people.

Reading this incredibly detailed article by the Times investigative team, it is clear that huge errors in judgement and project choice have been made with virtually no payback in terms of salmon recovery in any rational timeframe. It seems that seeking a lawsuit to force the judge and Tribes to extend the period of culvert replacement and focus on projects that have the highest possibility of successful salmon recovery and creating a lower priority for those that won’t, would help actually recover salmon, and show some solid results to the taxpayers funding this.

We all want to see salmon recovery, but we want it done in a way that does not waste it on low chances of success.

Filed under: Around the Salish Sea, Around the Sound, Environmental Law, Environmental Protection, Environmental Science, Olympic Peninsula | Tagged: , | 8 Comments »

They started building a bulkhead for a new home on Hood Canal. Then the feds found out  – Seattle Times

Posted on February 12, 2024 by Al Bergstein

The takeaway here is that a homeowner appears to have ignored multiple cease and desist orders, and knowingly went ahead with construction of a bulkhead when the state and federal laws were clear that he needed permission first. The continued creation and rebuilding of bulkheads on the waters edge (see photo in the article), is an ongoing destruction of shoreline habitat that used to be used by the variety of species using the shore, many of whom are on the brink of extinction. Hard choices *have* to be made to stop this destruction and that sometimes means saying no to people.

It seems clear that it is ridiculous to say, as their attorney stated, that the bulkhead was not, “in the water” as the photo clearly shows water line markings from a high tide at some point in time, likely recently. Is the bulkhead submerged when at high tide?

The article also includes a good graphic showing the ways bulkheads destroy the beach environment.

A judge ruled the structure was built in Hood Canal without a proper permit, and now the homeowner faces a $250,000 fine. Lynda Mapes reports. (Seattle Times)

Filed under: Environmental Law, Environmental Protection, Mason County | Tagged: , , , , | 1 Comment »

Open Letter to the Jefferson County Commissioners regarding Shoreline Master Program

Posted on January 19, 2024 by Al Bergstein

Commissioners:
Having spent eight years in the Jefferson County Marine Resources Committee including a number of years as it’s chairman, along with volunteering hundreds of hours in helping write the existing SMP, I am urging you to require standard conditional use permits for future geoduck applications.

There is currently no real permitting nor oversight on geoduck operations in the county, with the county relying on the State and Federal Government to do whatever it feels necessary to manage and control these operations. We have no idea how much shoreline is being handed over to commercial operations, what damage is being done, nor do we as tax payers of this county have the opportunity to speak in favor or not of new operations that will lock up our shorelines for generations to come. It’s really an outrageous situation.

I join the residents of Squamish Harbor and Discovery Bay in calling for a fair process for evaluating future geoduck proposals. We urge the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) to require, in its update of Jefferson County’s SMP, a standard Conditional Use Permit (CUP) process for all future applications for geoduck cultivation, whether for “new,” “expanded,” or “converted” tideland.

I personally, along with others in this county have seen many consequences of geoduck operations, including: illegal harvesting (documented and admitted); unauthorized expansions; hundreds of loose tubes strewn in shallow water and on beaches; hazards to recreation; underwater loose tubes of unknowable quantity; marine life trapped in nets; harvest operations in native eelgrass; vanishing eelgrass and sand dollar populations; beaching a boat in and trampling a fish stream; and many more practices of environmental concern.

The late Michael Adams, who chaired the MRC for years and was a small time commercial oyster farmer, documented numerous illegal intrusions onto his beaches. Often these were done at night and he told me he had been threatened by the people engaged in it.

Previous legal cases have gone against the industry time and time again.

For over two decades, citizens have been ignored by Washington State Agencies and most Counties as shellfish aquaculture lobbying paved the way for the unlimited proliferation of this industrial conversion of our shorelines. Citizens have had to go to court to get their voices heard. Many of the cases against Taylor, for example were won by the plaintiffs.

A case in 2019 brought against the Army Corp of Engineers was very instructive on this issue. The Corps lost the case. Federal Judge Lasnik stated in his findings that the Army Corps of Engineers in our Corp district, “The Court finds that the Corps has failed to adequately consider the impacts of commercial shellfish aquaculture activities authorized by NWP 48, that its conclusory findings of minimal individual and cumulative impacts are not supported by substantial evidence in the record, and that its EA does not satisfy the requirements of NEPA and the governing regulations.”

While citizens have been pointing out the limited scientific findings that the Corps and the shellfish industry have used to gain permitting, the Judge noted: “There is no discussion of the impacts on other types of aquatic vegetation, on the benthic community, on fish, on birds, on water quality/chemistry/structures, or on substrate characteristics. There is no discussion of the subtidal zone. There is no discussion regarding the impacts of plastic use in shellfish aquaculture and only a passing reference to a possible side effect of pesticide use.”

So a Federal Judge has found that the ’science’ being presented to you the county representatives, is apparently a fraud. Internal records surfaced during this court case actually showed that the Corps had purposely removed key findings supporting the plaintiff’s case from their documents before sending them to the court in discovery.

This is a map of existing shellfish farms in other counties to the south of us. The number, I understand, is over 700. Is this what we want Jefferson County to look like?

Why A Standard CUP is Important

The three most important features of a standard CUP are: 

• The decision is made by a neutral hearing examiner;

• The decision is made only after a public hearing before the hearing examiner; and

• The decision is made based only on the record, both written and testimonial.


These features ensure that all parties are treated fairly and that all parties can see and contest the information presented. A standard CUP avoids the suspicion that decisions are influenced by private conversations and unsupported assertions.


For more than two years, the requirement for a standard CUP for all future geoduck applications was in the Planning Commission’s draft, which was preliminarily approved by the state Department of Ecology (ECY). The same CUP requirement is in Kitsap and Clallam county SMPs, as approved in final form by ECY. Jefferson lies in close shoreline-proximity to these counties, sharing Hood Canal, Discovery Bay, and other waters of the Salish Sea. Notably, all of Hood Canal, including its tidelands and shoreline, and most of Puget Sound and the Strait of Juan de Fuca are Shorelines of Statewide Significance, under the state Shoreline Management Act. By adopting the standard CUP process, Jefferson County will harmonize with Kitsap and Clallam counties in how they review commercial geoduck operations in our common waters.

Why the Planning Commission Recommendation is Misguided

In late October 2023, a new recommendation was proposed, which, after an initial stalemate, was adopted by the Planning Commission in November (by a 5-4 vote). It requires a standard CUP only for “new” geoduck operations. It prescribes a “discretionary” CUP for “expansions” and “conversions” of existing shellfish tidelands. A discretionary CUP allows county staff to make the decision, after public comment but with no public hearing. Alternatively, staff, in its sole discretion, may (but need not, for any reason) refer the case to the hearing-examiner process.


This scheme is arbitrary and discriminatory. It favors existing shellfish farmers over newcomers and over the citizenry, even though the environmental effects are identical. It is subject to evasion, for example by first farming oysters on a new plot and then converting to geoducks. Also, of great concern: all (or possibly nearly all) existing shellfish farmers in Jefferson County are operating with no county shoreline permit whatsoever, so there is no baseline. The County simply doesn’t know how many acres might be converted or expanded under a discretionary CUP.


Advocates for the Planning Commission recommendation like to argue that the industry is already subject to federal, state, and local oversight, so the need for county regulation is lessened. I and others have first-hand experience with federal oversight, and it is entirely lacking. A citizen can’t even get basic information about a shellfish farm without filing a FOIA request, which can take a year for a response. It took more than two years to find out what happened to very well documented harvesting violations. (Answer: the violations were admitted but there was no consequence.) Other state and other local regulations relate to different subjects.

As County Commissioners, you need not decide whether commercial geoduck farms are “good” or “bad.” Rather, it’s the job of the BOCC to adopt a fair process for making such a decision on a particular application for a particular site. That process is the standard CUP process, and we urge you to require it for all future applications for geoduck cultivation.

Al Bergstein
Former Chair of the Jefferson County Marine Resources Committee and former member of the SMP citizens advisory committee for Jefferson County
Port Townsend

Filed under: Aquaculture, Environmental Activism, Environmental Law, Environmental Protection, Government, Jefferson County, Olympic Peninsula, Shellfish | 6 Comments »

Washington Audubon’s 2024 Legislative Agenda

Posted on December 11, 2023 by Al Bergstein

Washington Audubon has announced it’s critical policy priorities aimed at safeguarding our environment and promoting sustainable practices. In the upcoming 60-day session, they are focusing on the three priorities on the Audubon Washington legislative agenda, as well as the three priorities on of our partners at the Environmental Priorities Coalition (EPC).

  1. Climate and Clean Energy: Back the continuation of the Climate Commitment Act, ensuring substantial investments in climate mitigation and adaptation. Support the Fair Access to Community Solar Act, empowering low-income Washingtonians in the clean energy transition.
  2. Coastal Conservation: Increase support for Puget Sound restoration (ESRP) and endorse the WRAP Act to combat plastic pollution. Support legislation establishing a bottle deposit system in Washington State.
  3. Sagelands Stewardship: Provide necessary funding for conservation districts, enabling private landowner voluntary stewardship. Allocate $10M for the creation of a Shrub-steppe Habitat Carbon Storage and Avoided Conversion grant program.

As a member of the EPC, Audubon also advocates for the three EPC environmental priorities this year: Hold Oil Companies Accountable, 100% Clean School Buses, and the WRAP Act.

You can support these issues by writing a letter of support at this link:

Email Your Legislators to Support Audubon’s 2024 Environmental Priorities | Audubon Washington | Audubon Washington

Filed under: Environmental Activism, Environmental Law, legislation, legislature | Tagged: , , , | Comments Off on Washington Audubon’s 2024 Legislative Agenda

EVENT: Meet Lorna Smith Commissioner Dept of Fish & Wildlife Sept 21 online

Posted on September 11, 2023 by Al Bergstein

Well worth an hour to hear from a key State Commissioner. Click anywhere on the photo below to be taken to the signup page. The RSVP link does not work in the image.

Filed under: education, Environmental Activism, environmental education, Environmental Law, Environmental Protection, Events, fisheries, Government, Olympic Peninsula, wolves | Tagged: , , , , | 2 Comments »

ACTION item: Stopping the industrialization of the Dungeness Wildlife Refuge

Posted on September 11, 2023 by Al Bergstein

Time after time, citizens have had to sue the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) for failing to protect the animals and their habitat as required by law, in areas that the nation has recognized as critical to preserve as habitat and for public recreation. Now USFWS is willing to allow, for private profit, the industrialization of refuge lands for shellfish operations. 

 

>>Tell the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and U.S. Secretary of Interior Deb Haaland that the Dungeness National Wildlife Refuge lease for industrial aquaculture must be rescinded.

 

In spite of demonstrated harm to birds, salmon, forage fish, and shellfish, and a recommendation by the National Marine Fisheries Service that “an alternative site be identified in a location that results in less potential impacts to wildlife that is more appropriate for aquaculture and meets the goals of the tribe,” USFWS approved a lease for an industrial oyster farm inside the Dungeness National Wildlife Refuge. This decision, which is in violation of the Clean Water Act and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, must be reversed. 

 

In the words written of an October 2022 USFWS internal memorandum, “Forgoing a compatibility determination in order to facilitate incompatible commercial activities by any entity would be a subversion of the fundamental requirements in the [USFWS] Improvement Act.” 

 

We are targeting the most recent case of the USFWS’s permissiveness in one of the country’s most pristine nature lands, the Dungeness National Wildlife Refuge in the small rural town of Sequim Washington, just below the Olympic National Park. In this case, the shellfish corporation raises shellfish on other sites. They do not need to operate in a national refuge and deny wildlife their feeding and breeding grounds. 

 

The Dungeness National Wildlife Refuge was created by Executive Order in 1915 by Woodrow Wilson, directing the area to be set aside as a “refuge, preserve and breeding ground for native birds and prohibits any disturbance of the birds within the reserve.” The front page of the Refuge website states: “Pets, bicycles, kite flying, Frisbees, ball-playing, camping, and fires are not permitted on the Refuge as they are a disturbance for the many migrating birds and other wildlife taking solitude on the Refuge.” With this level of concern, it is counterintuitive to allow destructive industrial aquaculture.  

 

Industrial shellfish aquaculture is known to reduce or eliminate eelgrass with the use of pesticides. Shellfish aquaculture also involves large-scale use of plastics—PVC tubes and plastic netting—that are hazardous to marine organisms and can trap and entangle wildlife. Commercial shellfish aquaculture is a major industry in Washington state that has significant impacts on the nearshore marine environments, which provide essential habitat for many species, including invertebrates, fish (including herring and salmon), and birds (migratory and shorebirds). 

 

Among the negative impacts of this project are: 50% reduction in bird primary feeding grounds; plastic oyster bags that exclude the probing shorebird flocks from feeding deeply into the substrate, entrap fish and birds, add macro- and micro-plastic bits to the sediment throughout the refuge, and shift the benthic community composition; diminishing of the ecological benefits provided by eelgrass to threatened fish and birds, such as nourishment and cover from predators; and increased algal blooms that will leave a graveyard of dead oysters. These detrimental effects to the Dungeness National Wildlife Refuge are NOT minimal. Decisionmakers should not place financial benefits to the corporation above the long-term and cumulative impacts to the refuge. Half of the world’s 10,000-odd bird species are in decline. One in eight faces the threat of extinction. 2.9 billion breeding adult birds have been lost from the United States and Canada in only 50 years. 

 

Let’s raise our national voice and try and stop this refuge destruction with public persuasion. This is a public space we pay to protect. For more information, check out the Daily News post from last August, “Groups Sue U.S. Interior Department to Protect the Dungeness National Wildlife Refuge from Industrial Aquaculture.” 

 

This action follows a lawsuit filed by three environmental organizations against the U.S. Department of Interior for failing to protect the Dungeness National Wildlife Refuge from industrial aquaculture. The groups, including Protect the Peninsula’s Future, Coalition to Protect Puget Sound Habitat, and Beyond Pesticides, filed their complaint in the U.S. Western District Court of Washington State. The complaint states that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), U.S. Department of Interior, must “take action that is required by the Refuge Improvement Act and conduct a compatibility determination and require a special use permit for a proposed industrial aquaculture use” that will abut and impact the Refuge. The plaintiffs are represented by the Seattle, WA law firm of Bricklin and Newman LLP. 

 

>>Tell the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and U.S. Secretary of Interior Deb Haaland that the Dungeness National Wildlife Refuge lease for industrial aquaculture must be rescinded.

 

We are focusing this Action against the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Secretary of State.  

 

Thank you for your active participation and engagement!

 

Please take this ACTION and circulate it to your family, friends and colleagues.

https://secure.everyaction.com/WMJxQmNjDUqarx4FmLzUrA2

also, to support the lawsuit, you can send checks to:

Send a check to: PPF, POBox 421, Sequim WA 98382 or through PayPal: https://www.protectpeninsulasfuture.org/donate/

        PPF is a federal recognized 501c3 non-profit.

Filed under: Aquaculture, Clallam County, Endangered Species, Environmental Law, Environmental Protection, Environmental Science, Olympic Peninsula, Sea Life, Shellfish, Straits of Juan de Fuca | Tagged: , | Comments Off on ACTION item: Stopping the industrialization of the Dungeness Wildlife Refuge

Groups Sue USFWS for Failure to Protect Dungeness Spit

Posted on August 21, 2023 by Al Bergstein

DUNGENESS NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE UPDATE (DNWR): Groups Sue USFWS For Failure to Protect the Dungeness National Wildlife Refuge 

On August 17, Protect the Peninsula’s Future (PPF) was joined by The Coalition to Protect Puget Sound Habitat and the WA D.C. national organization Beyond Pesticides in a legal action to hold the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) accountable to follow its regulations and protect the Dungeness National Wildlife Refuge. They were represented by the Seattle WA law firm Bricklin and Newman 

Beyond Pesticides Press Release

The August 17 federal complaint, submitted to the United States District Court For The Western District of Washington, states that the USFWS must “take action that is required by the Refuge Improvement Act and conduct a compatibility determination and require a special use permit for a proposed industrial aquaculture use” that will abut and impact the Refuge. 

Plainly, the compatibility determination would decide whether this industrial- shellfish operation is compatible with the mission of the Refuge.The Dungeness National Wildlife Refuge was created in 1915 by President Woodrow Wilson. The Refuge provides habitat, a preserve, and breeding grounds for more than 250 species of birds and 41 species of land animals. The shellfish operation lease is for 50 acres of Washington State bottomlands. 34 acres would be covered with up to 80.000 plastic grow-out bags of non-native shellfish spat, staked into the bottomlands and potentially killing all marine life underneath and snaring wildlife in the netting. These plastic bags will cover the primary feeding grounds for the birds, essentially starving them as they peck through the plastic trying to reach nutrients. This operation would shift the natural year-round-sediment drift, moving the sediment into and covering the eelgrass beds – beds protected for rearing salmon for whales and nourishment for particular migratory ducks. To protect the birds, the area is closed to the public during the migratory bird season.  However the USFWS will allow the shellfish operation in to the area all year long to the detriment of the birds.

Please see this publication for further detail. https://www.ehn.org/dungeness-national-wildlife-refuge-oyster-2660613389.html

Filed under: Clallam County, Endangered Species, Environmental Activism, Environmental Law, Environmental Protection | Comments Off on Groups Sue USFWS for Failure to Protect Dungeness Spit

Court rules to allow commercial troll fishers to continue to over-harvest depleted salmon stock

Posted on June 23, 2023 by Al Bergstein

June 23, 2023— In a shocking ruling against Endangered Species protection, a Ninth Circuit Court approved a request by NOAA Fisheries, the State of Alaska, and the Alaska Trollers Association that will allow commercial troll fishers in Southeast Alaska to continue over-harvesting depleted Chinook salmon, jeopardizing the recovery of both wild chinook and critically endangered Southern Resident killer whales.

The lower Court decision was set to close the fishery beginning on July 1st, in just ten days. Now, despite numerous environmental violations and ongoing harm found by a federal District Court, the stay will allow the fishery to continue operating while the Ninth Circuit considers the case on appeal.

“The economic, ecological, and cultural cost of losing Southern Resident orcas and wild Chinook is unfathomable. It is unfortunate that the Ninth Circuit determined the short-term economic interests of Southeast Alaska commercial harvesters should be prioritized over the long-term interests of all current and future generations of First Nations, Tribal Nations, and communities throughout the Pacific Northwest who depend on these iconic species,” said Emma Helverson, Executive Director of Wild Fish Conservancy. “We are incredibly disheartened by this decision to continue the fishery while California, Oregon, Washington and British Columbia are enacting closures or severe constraints on many of the same populations due to continuing Chinook declines. We strongly advocate for consumers to avoid purchasing Chinook caught in Southeast Alaska.”

In March, a federal District Court issued a final order in a lawsuit brought by Wild Fish Conservancy against NOAA Fisheries requiring the Southeast Alaska commercial troll fishery to remain closed in the summer and winter seasons until the federal government provided a new analysis and conducted environmental review demonstrating that the fishery’s harvest plan would not continue to jeopardize endangered Southern Resident killer whales or threatened Chinook salmon.

In their ruling on remedy, the District Court considered the economic disruption that closure of the fishery would pose to Alaskan commercial fishers, yet determined protecting species threatened or endangered with extinction is the greatest priority under the Endangered Species Act. Referencing existing case law, the Court’s report and recommendation stated: “The ESA . . . did not seek to strike a balance between competing interests but rather singled out the prevention of species [extinction] . . . as an overriding federal policy objective.”

Southern Resident killer whales were listed as Endangered in 2005. Currently, there are only 73 individuals in the population, an alarming decrease from nearly 100 only 25-years ago. Reduced prey availability, specifically large and abundant wild Chinook, has been identified by killer whale experts and NOAA as the primary cause of their decline. Research has shown an alarming 69% of Southern Resident killer whale pregnancies are aborted due to insufficient prey.

“It’s possible to find creative solutions to compensate and protect the economic interests of fishers in the interim while NOAA corrects their violations,” says Helverson. “On the other hand, it’s impossible to replace Southern Resident killer whales or wild Chinook once they are gone, extinction is forever.”

In NOAA’s 2019 biological opinion evaluating the fishery’s impact on threatened and endangered species, NOAA admitted that over the last decade and persisting today, Chinook harvest in Southeast Alaska’s troll fishery is occurring at levels that are unsustainable for the long-term survival and reproductive success of both threatened wild Chinook populations and endangered Southern Resident killer whales. Still, NOAA authorized the harvest to continue at these levels relying on proposed mitigation they claimed would offset this serious harm. In summary judgement in August, the District Court overwhelmingly found the mitigation was insufficient and seriously violated the ESA and that NOAA also evaded legally required environmental review.

While the fishery occurs in Southeast Alaska marine waters, the majority of Chinook harvested in the Alaskan troll fishery are not Alaskan Chinook. Up to 97% of all Chinook harvested in the fishery are born in rivers throughout British Columbia, Washington, and Oregon. Roughly half of the fish harvested originate from the Columbia River, and many come from populations listed as Threatened under the ESA. These Chinook are harvested in their ocean nursery habitats, preventing them from reaching maturity and returning back to their homewaters where the Southern Resident killer whales encounter them. The majority of stocks harvested in the fishery are identified as priority stocks for the malnourished and endangered whale population.

“While communities throughout the coast have closed fisheries and made significant economic sacrifices to protect threatened and endangered Chinook populations in their home rivers, these same depleted populations are being harvested far from home in Southeast Alaska where they are marketed and sold as sustainable Alaskan Chinook,” says Helverson. “While this case is about conservation, it’s also about equity and we will continue to advocate for the conservation burden of protecting and restoring these species to be more equally shared by all communities who depend on them.”

“We know yesterday’s decision is concerning to so many who have been following this case and working tirelessly to recover our beloved Southern Resident killer whales and wild Chinook populations. Despite this temporary setback, the appeal process is just beginning and we remain dedicated to advocating for the recovery of these iconic species through every avenue possible,” says Helverson.

Filed under: Endangered Species, Environmental Law, fisheries, Salmon | Tagged: , | Comments Off on Court rules to allow commercial troll fishers to continue to over-harvest depleted salmon stock

Supreme Court shrinks definition of the Clean Water Act

Posted on May 30, 2023 by Al Bergstein

Well I’m sad that this case ended this way. But I really think that there is a silver lining in this. For too long the EPA has decided what could be protected under the Clean Waters Act and frankly I understand though I don’t agree with the Supreme Court decision.

Congress ultimately ought to be the arbiter of putting into the law specific protections rather than having some vague understanding of wetlands somehow being connected to navigable waters of the United States. I’ve never understood exactly what that definition is and thought that it was being quite lenient or overly protective, perhaps Republicans would say overreaching, for the EPA to make those decisions rather than to have them baked into law. I have always thought that navigable waters meant rivers, lakes and ocean areas that would be usable by commercial boats. I don’t know that I would consider Priest Lake, a “navigable water” if it was my decision to make. Apparently, the justices felt the same way, given that there was no dissent, just differences of opinion on the decision. It is hard to imagine on this Supreme Court a 9 to nothing decision but that was what this was. So I don’t know that I would necessarily blame conservative judges though it’s so easy to do so given their recent uncovered flaws.

ALITO, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS, C. J., and THOMAS, GORSUCH, and BARRETT, JJ., joined. THOMAS, J., filed a concurring opinion, in which GORSUCH, J., joined. KAGAN, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, in which SOTOMAYOR and JACKSON, J.J., joined. KAVANAUGH, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, in which SOTOMAYOR, KAGAN, and JACKSON, JJ., joined.

The justices wrote,

The uncertain meaning of “the waters of the United States” has been a persistent problem, sparking decades of agency action and litigation. Resolving the CWA’s applicability to wetlands requires a review of the history surrounding the interpretation of that phrase.

21-454 Sackett v. EPA (05/25/2023) (supremecourt.gov)

There are many other areas where agencies determine what is the proper law for an industry. Thinking specifically about NOAA and the Army Corps of Engineers in their decision making processes that the court has over and over again found flawed. In fact the Army Corps of Engineers was one of the agencies that was specifically called out in this decision by the court.

I’m hoping that out of this fiasco, that allows homeowners to build homes out over wetlands, that we can come to some new type of laws that will actually regulate our waters properly.

Supreme Court shrinks definition of the Clean Water Act — High Country News – Know the West (hcn.org)

Filed under: Environmental Law, Environmental Protection | Comments Off on Supreme Court shrinks definition of the Clean Water Act

Judge rejects Cooke’s claim that Washington state violated agreements with forced closure of netpen operations

Posted on May 19, 2023 by Al Bergstein

“Cooke has lost 330,000 fish from the decision and said it has suffered significant financial harm.” Judge doesn’t buy the arguement that the State violated the contracts with the companies. This is a precident that may be used in other cases to come.

The news is behind a paywall, but you can sign up for free and read the rest at:

Judge rejects Cooke’s claim that Washington state violated agreements with forced closure of netpen operations | IntraFish.com

Filed under: Around the Salish Sea, Around the Sound, Environmental Law | Comments Off on Judge rejects Cooke’s claim that Washington state violated agreements with forced closure of netpen operations

Federal Court Rules on Overharvest of Salmon

Posted on May 10, 2023 by Al Bergstein

From Wild Salmon Conservancy. A major ruling with far reaching impacts.

May 3, 2023— Yesterday, in an international, coastwide environmental victory, Seattle federal Court issued a landmark order halting the overharvest of Chinook salmon in Southeast Alaska that has persisted for decades, jeopardizing the survival of federally-protected Southern Resident killer whales (SRKW) and wild Chinook populations coastwide. This significant decision will immediately allow the starving Southern Resident population far greater access to these Chinook which are the whale’s primary prey, marking a turning point for their recovery.

“This Court decision is the largest victory for Southern Resident killer whale recovery in decades and will be celebrated internationally. After years of inaction by our federal government to address the prey crisis facing the Southern Residents, Judge Jones’ decision will finally provide starving orcas immediate access to their primary prey,” says Emma Helverson, Executive Director of Wild Fish Conservancy. “What’s more, by allowing far more wild Chinook to return home to their spawning grounds, this action is also helping to recover and restore wild Chinook from rivers throughout Oregon, Washington, and British Columbia, essential to rebuilding both populations in the long-term.”

On Tuesday, U.S. District Judge Richard A. Jones issued a final ruling in Wild Fish Conservancy’s lawsuit agreeing that halting the summer and winter seasons of the Southeast Alaska Chinook troll fishery is the most appropriate remedy. The Court subsequently remanded NOAA Fisheries’ inadequate biological opinion in order for the agency to address the serious underlying violations of environmental law previously found by the Court.

In that biological opinion evaluating the fishery’s impact on threatened and endangered species, NOAA admitted that over the last decade and persisting today, Chinook harvest is occurring at levels that are unsustainable for the long-term survival and reproductive success of both threatened wild Chinook populations and endangered Southern Resident killer whales. Still, NOAA authorized the harvest to continue at these levels relying on proposed mitigation they claimed would offset this serious harm. In summary judgement in August, the Court overwhelmingly found the mitigation was insufficient and violated the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and that NOAA failed to conduct legally required environmental review of the mitigation, which would include opportunities for public input and an evaluation of alternatives, such as reductions in harvest.

Southern Resident killer whales were listed as Endangered in 2005. Currently, there are only 73 individuals in the population, an alarming decrease from nearly 100 only 25-years ago. Reduced prey availability, specifically large and abundant wild Chinook, has been identified by killer whale experts and NOAA as the primary cause of their decline. Research has shown an alarming 69% of Southern Resident killer whale pregnancies are aborted due to insufficient Chinook salmon and inbreeding depression has been identified as a growing threat to the population’s survival and recovery.

“This is unbelievable news, yet so long in coming,” said Wild Orca’s Science and Research Director, Dr. Deborah Giles. “The high pregnancy failure rate within the Southern Resident killer whale population is linked to poor nutrition, so having more fish returning to their home waters in British Columbia, Washington, and Oregon, will increase the whales’ prey base and improve their chances of giving birth to healthy calves.”

In an expert declaration evaluating the effect of the troll fishery’s harvest on the Southern Resident population, modeling by Dr. Robert E. Lacy projected closing the fishery would increase prey availability by approximately 6%, which would be enough to stabilize the population and stop their decline toward extinction, though additional actions would be required to begin to grow the population. The Court stated: “Though there is uncertainty as to how much prey would ultimately reach the SRKW, the record before the Court suggests that closure of the fisheries meaningfully improves prey available to the SRKW, as well as SRKW population stability and growth, under any scenario.” As a result of yesterday’s decision, approximately 172,000 Chinook that would have been harvested or indirectly killed in the 2023 summer and winter seasons of the Southeast Alaska troll fishery will now be able to continue their historical migration south to home spawning grounds and into the whale’s key foraging areas.

“Dr. Lacy’s findings suggest that the single action of closing this fishery would increase prey availability enough to stabilize the Southern Resident population. Stopping the precipitous decline of the whales toward extinction is the highest priority toward recovery efforts. These findings clearly demonstrate that Chinook harvest in Southeast Alaska’s troll fishery is contributing to the decline of the whales, validating why the Court’s decision is so critically important to the survival of this population,” says Helverson.

While the fishery occurs in Southeast Alaska marine waters, most people are unaware that up to 97% of all Chinook harvested in the Southeast Alaska troll fishery migrate from rivers throughout British Columbia, Washington, and Oregon. Roughly half of the fish harvested originate from the Columbia River, and many come from populations listed as Threatened under the ESA. Currently, these Chinook are harvested in their ocean rearing habitats preventing them from migrating back into southern waters where the Southern Resident killer whales encounter them. Majority of stocks harvested in the fishery are identified as priority stocks for the Southern Residents.

“Alaskan fishers should not be blamed for NOAA’s chronic mismanagement of this fishery, and we are sincerely sympathetic to the burden this decision will pose to Southeast Alaskan communities,” says Helverson. “However, this decision will finally address decades of harm and lost opportunity this overharvest has caused to fishing communities throughout British Columbia, Oregon, and Washington who depend on these fish, particularly Tribal and First Nations. In addition to the unparalleled benefits to killer whale and Chinook recovery, the Court’s decision is addressing this historic inequity and restoring control to coastal communities of the destiny of salmon recovery in their home watersheds.”

“The underlying harvest issues in this case are not an anomaly, but rather just one example that demonstrates the problems caused when harvest occurs in the ocean where it is impossible to avoid unintentionally harming threatened and endangered populations or intercepting high proportions of salmon from rivers coastwide,” says Kurt Beardslee, Director of Special Projects. “Scientists are increasingly calling for harvest reform measures that shift harvest out of the ocean and into fisheries in or near each river of origin where salmon return, providing fisheries managers and coastal communities the ability to manage recovery with far greater accuracy and success.”

Filed under: Around the Salish Sea, Endangered Species, Environmental Activism, Environmental Law, fisheries, Orcas, Salmon | Comments Off on Federal Court Rules on Overharvest of Salmon

EVENT: Puget Sound Day on the Hill Livestream! May 9th

Posted on May 4, 2023 by Al Bergstein

Dear Puget Sound recovery community, 

Registration is now open for two Puget Sound Day on the Hill livestream events!

 

Puget Sound Federal Leadership Task Force – coordination of resources, policies, and programs to support ecosystem and salmon recovery and the protection of treaty rights

May 9, 2023 | 7:00 a.m. – 8:00 a.m. PDT

REGISTER HERE

The first livestream event, on May 9, will be a panel discussion about Puget Sound recovery with representatives from federal agencies moderated by Peter Murchie, Puget Sound Geographic Program manager at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 

Tentative panelists include:

  • Sara Gonzalez-Rothi, senior director for water, Council on Environmental Quality
  • Zach Penney, senior advisor, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
  • Steve Kopecky, deputy chief, Northwest Division Regional Integration Team, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
  • Zach Schafer, senior advisor, Office of Water, EPA
  • Karnig Ohannessian, deputy assistant secretary of the Navy for environment and mission readiness

 

Puget Sound Day on the Hill event with Congressional delegation and Admiral Hann

May 10, 2023 | 7:00 a.m. – 2:30 p.m. PDT.

REGISTER HERE

The second livestream event, on May 10, will feature members of the Washington Congressional delegation and Admiral Nancy Hann of NOAA’s Commissioned Officer Corps. The livestream will take place from 7:00 a.m. – 2:30 p.m. PDT.

Tentative schedule:

7:30 a.m. – 8:00 a.m.Rep. Gluesenkamp Perez
8:00 a.m. – 8:30 a.m.Rep. Strickland
10:00 a.m. – 10:30 a.m.Rep. Larsen
10:30 a.m. – 11:00 a.m.Admiral Hann
11:00 a.m. – 11:30 a.m.Rep. Schrier
11:30 a.m. – 12:00 p.m.Rep. Jayapal
12:00 p.m. – 12:30 p.m.Rep. Kilmer
12:30 p.m. – 1:00 p.m.Sen. Murray
1:00 p.m. – 1:30 p.m.Sen. Cantwell
  

Rep. DelBene will stop by between Rep. Kilmer and Sen. Murray

Please join us for these livestream events to support Puget Sound and salmon recovery and to encourage the good work done by federal agencies and our Congressional delegation. Both events will be recorded and available to view for registered participants.

We hope you’ll join us on May 9 and 10!

Filed under: Around the Salish Sea, education, Environmental Activism, environmental education, Environmental Law, Events, Government | Comments Off on EVENT: Puget Sound Day on the Hill Livestream! May 9th

Puget Sound Partnership Legislative Update

Posted on April 14, 2023 by Al Bergstein

In case you have not signed up for their weekly updates.

PugetSoundLegislativeUpdate_20230412Download

Filed under: Environmental Law, legislature, Olympic Peninsula | Comments Off on Puget Sound Partnership Legislative Update

Canada Shuts Down 15 Fish Farms in B.C., Citing Risks to Wild Salmon – Maritime Executive

Posted on February 20, 2023 by Al Bergstein

The pressure is building on Canada to end the use of net pens that effect wild salmon runs. A huge win for Alexandra Morton and her supporters, but more importantly, for the wild salmon runs which, as the article points out, are in serious decline.

After years of concerns over the impact of aquaculture on wild sockeye salmon, Canada’s fisheries department has decided not to renew the operating permits of 15 Atlantic salmon farms in an environmentally sensitive area of British Columbia. 

Canada Shuts Down 15 Fish Farms in B.C., Citing Risks to Wild Salmon (maritime-executive.com)

Filed under: Aquaculture, Endangered Species, Environmental Law, Environmental Protection, fisheries, Government | Comments Off on Canada Shuts Down 15 Fish Farms in B.C., Citing Risks to Wild Salmon – Maritime Executive

« Previous Page — Next Page »