Perspectives in Washington Environmental Policy

Erin HanlonZach MaskinMatt RitterLucy GelderloosJason CornellTim Benedict

The Boldt DecisionPerceptions through the Decades

Erin Hanlon

1854 Treaty of Medicine Creek

Treaty of Medicine Creek, Article 3

“The right of taking fish, at all usual and accustomed grounds and stations, is further secured to said Indians in common with all citizens of the Territory, and of erecting temporary houses for the purpose of curing, together with the privilege of hunting, gathering roots and berries, and pasturing their horses on open and unclaimed lands: Provided, however, That they shall not take shellfish from any beds staked or cultivated by citizens, and that they shall alter all stallions not intended for breeding-horses, and shall keep up and confine the latter.”

Isaac I. Stevens, Governor and Superintendent of Indian Affairs in the Territory of Washington, on behalf of the US Government

Chiefs and delegates from the Nisqually, Puyallup, Steilacoom, Squawskin, S'Homamish, Stehchass, T'Peeksin, Squi-aitl, and Sa-heh-wamish tribes

“Indian Tribes Win Fishing Rights Case” Seattle Times headline February 12, 1974

• Boldt ruled treaty fishing of Northwest tribes a right, not a privilege

• Using dictionaries from the 1800s, interpreted “in common with” to mean the tribes were eligible to 50% of the harvestable run, after ceremonial and subsistence needs were met

• Tribes were made co-managers of the fishery

Current Perceptions • The Boldt decision made the salmon

economically viable for us as well, and is the foundation on which my mom’s generation was able to provide better opportunities for us kids, and ultimately led to a higher education level on the reservation. This in turn has helped to fuel the economic renaissance or the tribes. -Squaxin tribal member

• If the case (Boldt decision) wouldn’t have been won there would not be any fish now.” – Gary Peterson, Evergreen Faculty & Skokomish tribal member

• The Seattle Times reports that Tom Nelson, 61, a leader in the sport-fishing community, attempting to push an initiative to “Ban all Nets” on the November 1999 ballot tells reporters, “Boldt made a bad decision”. Nelson adds, "Most people in the state - and I go around speaking to a lot of groups - think Boldt made a bad decision.”

• At the end of the day I think Judge Boldt got it mostly right. I realize I’m in the minority in the sport fishing community on this issue and the majority still resent Boldt and the tribes. –Craig C. on Hooked Up PNW, August 2010

Creating a Comprehensive Policy: The Washington State Environmental Policy ActLucy GelderloosgCORE Final PresentationDecember 7, 2010

SEPA• Passed in 1971 in response to growing environmental

awareness• Requires local, state, and federal agencies to take

environmental impacts into account when planning projects• How does it work?• How has it evolved?• Concerns around broad language

References• Luce, C. (1993). An Evaluation of Washington State Environmental Policy Act Implementation (SEPA).

Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 13(5), 311-318.• Petersen, K. C. (1995). River of Life, Channel of Death: Fish and Dams on the Lower Snake. Corvallis: Oregon State

University Press.• Settle, R. L. (1986). Environmental Assessment: The Washington State Environmental Policy Act. The Northwest

Environmental Journal, 2(2), 35-62.• Washington State Department of Ecology. (2002, May). Washington State Environmental Policy Act Focus Sheet.

Retrieved December 5, 2010, from http://www.ecy.wa.gov/pubs/0206013.pdf• Washington State Department of Ecology. (2003). State Environmental Policy Act Handbook. Retrieved December

5, 2010, from State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA): http://www.ecy.wa.gov/pubs/98114.pdf• Washington State Department of Ecology. (2010a, August). New SEPA Checklist Guidance for Impacts to

Agricultural Lands. Retrieved December 5, 2010, from State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA): http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/sea/sepa/enviro_checklist_guidance.html

• Washington State Department of Ecology. (2010b, October 19). Greenhouse Gas Emissions and SEPA: Working Paper. Retrieved December 5, 2010, from Greenhouse Gas Emissions and SEPA: http://www.ecy.wa.gov/climatechange/docs/sepa/10192010_sepaghg_workingpaper.pdf

• Washington State Department of Ecology. (n.d. a). Q & A: SEPA and Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Retrieved December 5, 2010, from Greenhouse Gas Emissions and SEPA: http://www.ecy.wa.gov/climatechange/docs/sepa/faq.pdf

• Washington State Department of Ecology. (n.d. b). Frequently Asked Questions About SEPA. Retrieved December 5, 2010, from State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA): http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/sea/sepa/faq.htm

Wetland Policy in Washington State

Climate Change Policy Affecting Endangered SpeciesWashington Wolves as a Case Study Matt RitterDecember 7, 2010

Wolf History• 1974 listed• Hunted to near

extinction for 60 years

Climate Change• Temperature

continues to rise• All parts of the wolf’s

range vanishing rapidly

Maintaining Protection Through the ESA Section 7 of the ESA

• Human-caused alterations to habitat

Section 9 of the ESA • Green house gas contributions

Conclusion• WA wolf populations can survive warming temperatures

• If delisted the wolf may obtain protection through the ESA due to climate change

• Proving human contributions remains challenging

• The future of the wolf depends on humans

Impacts of Northern Spotted Owl Related Policies on WA Forestry

Whooo Me?

-Zach Maskin

Thesis

• The Northern Spotted Owl has been the most influential driver in Washington State’s movement towards sustainable forestry.

• The policies enacted to protect Spotted Owl habitat has had profound impact on Washington socially, economically and environmentally.

Forestry Before 1990

• Sustained Yield Model: Harvesting of a constant flow of forest products.

• Little attention paid to forest ecosystem augmentation: clear cuts, little or no riparian buffers, snags or down woody debris.

1990 Protection Under Endanger Species Act

• Report from the Interagency Scientific Committee (ISC) found:– Decline in Northern Spotted Owl population

> 1% annually– Spotted Owls specifically select forest with old

growth characteristics as nesting sites– Suitable habitat continues to decline due to

timbering practices.

Studies Supporting Northern Spotted Owl Protection

• 1990 ISC “Thomas Committee”

• 1991Alternatives for Late-Successional Forests of the Pacific Northwest

• 1993 Viability Assessments and Management Considerations for the Species Associated with LS/OG Forests in the PNW:

Dwyer Decision• May 29, 1991: Halted

logging in seventeen National Forests, (24 million acres) of critical owl habitat

• Logging practices were “a remarkable series of violations of environmental laws” –Judge Dwyer

• 1994 Logging ban lifted, but only allows 1/5 annual timbering of the 1980s

Judge William Dwyer

Northwest Forest Plan

State and Private Land• 1996 WA State DNR Habitat Conservation

Plan:– Modeled after the NWFP, enacted by WA

Forest Practices Board– Spotted Owl habitat protection for state and

private land must follow 1996 Permanent Rules for the Northern Spotted Owl.

Policy Impacts

• Environmental:– Shift towards sustainable forestry– Ecosystem management over single species

protection– Preservation of old-growth forests– Nearly 90% reduction in timbering on federal

lands– Slowing of owl decline

Impacts Continued• Social

– Reduction in school construction funding– Owls versus jobs debate– Job loss 6,200 – 9,300 WA and OR combined

• Economic– Weakening of Timber Industry– Damage to communities reliant on timbering federal

lands– Logging has fallen nearly 50% on private, state and

federal lands since 1991– Economic damage not as bad as originally projected

Conclusion• “No species in the United States has had a

greater impact on land use planning at the landscape level”-Barry Noon: Conservation of NS Owl and the NWFP, (2006)

• Northern Spotted Owl related policies saved old growth forests

• Protective measures shifted forest practices towards sustainable forestry

• Ecosystem management over single species protection

References:“Judge William Dwyer ‘52” Extras: William J Dwyer (Columns: The

University of Washington Alumni Magazine) June, 2002 http://www.washington.edu/alumni/columns/june02/extras_dwyer.html

Noon, Barry R. & Jennifer A Balesley. Conservation of the Northern Spotted Owl under the Northwest Forest Plan.

(Conservation Biology: Vol 20, No,2. 2006) “NWFP Land Allocation Maps” http://www.reo.gov/gis/data/gisdata/index.htm “WA DNR Logo” http://www.odf.state.or.us/gis/gtag/state.html

*All other images found on google clip art

Protecting Biodiversity through Landowner Conservation Efforts

Tim Benedict – Fall 2010 gCORE Final PresentationTim Benedict – 2010 MES gCORE Final Project

Simulated Reserve & Corridor System

Land Ownership in the United States

US Land Development by Aerial Lights

National Land Trusts • Access Fund • American Farmland Trust • American Land Conservancy • The Conservation Fund • The Great Outdoors Conservancy • The Humane Society of the United States Wil

dlife Land Trust

• National Park Trust • The Nature Conservancy • Trust for Public Land • Wilderness Land Trust - An Accredited Land

Trust

Land Trusts Operating in Washington

• Methow Conservancy    Winthrop, WA• Palouse Land Trust    Moscow, ID• Chehalis River Basin Land Trust   Centralia, WA• Tapteal Greenway    Richland, WA• Lummi Island Heritage Trust   Lummi Island, WA• Chelan-Douglas Land Trust   Wenatchee, WA• Sportsmen's National Land Trust, Inc.   Agawam, • Blue Mountain Land Trust    Walla Walla, WA• PCC Farmland Trust    Seattle, WA• Save Habitat and Diversity of Wetlands Organizatio

n  Okanogan Valley Land Council    Tonasket, WA

• Dishman Hills Natural Area Association    Spokane, WA

• Columbia Land Trust    Vancouver, WA• Inland Northwest Land Trust    Spokane, WA• Yakima Greenway Foundation    Yakima, WA• North Olympic Land Trust    Port Angeles, WA• Kittitas Conservation Trust    Roslyn, WA• Cowiche Canyon Conservancy    Yakima, WA

• Whatcom Land Trust    Bellingham, WA• American Friends of Canadian Land Trusts   

Seattle, WA• Capitol Land Trust    Olympia, WA• Vashon-Maury Island Land Trust   Vashon, WA• Jefferson Land Trust Port Townsend, WA• Nisqually Land Trust    Lacey, WA• Great Peninsula Conservancy   Bremerton, WA• Bainbridge Island Land Trust    Bainbridge Island,

WA• San Juan Preservation Trust    Lopez Island, WA• Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation   Missoula, MT • Center for Natural Lands Management - An

Accredited Land Trust    Fallbrook, CA• Whidbey Camano Land Trust    Greenbank, WA• Skagit Land Trust   Mount Vernon, WA• Cascade Land Conservancy  Seattle, WA

Landowner Conservation & Policy

2010 public policy priorities:• Making the enhanced easement incentive

permanent• Creating estate tax incentives for

conservation• Improving IRS administration of conservation

donation rules • Protecting conserved lands from energy

transmission facilities• Promoting land trust ideas in the America’s

Great Outdoors Initiative

Emerging Policy Issues: Energy Development Threats to Conservation In an alarming trend over the last few years, large swaths of

farms, forests and wildlands permanently protected for the benefit of the public have been targeted for the siting of energy infrastructure projects. As climate and energy bills move through Congress, the push for rapid development of low carbon energy and new transmission lines should not, as an unintended consequence, undo years of work and public and private investment in conservation.

Responding to Climate Change Global climate change is both a challenge and an opportunity

for the land conservation community. Since natural landscapes sequester carbon dioxide, land trusts can be part of the solution. Meanwhile, new funding sources generated by climate legislation may help land trusts adapt to the challenge of a changing landscape.