Source: http://nwifc.org/2011/10/piling-on-puget-sound-part-2-cumulative-impacts-and-what-we-can-do-about-them-but-arent/
Timestamp: 2014-11-26 02:42:09
Document Index: 602995663

Matched Legal Cases: ['art 2', 'art 2', 'art 2', 'art 3', 'art 2', 'art 1']

Piling on Puget Sound (Part 2): Cumulative impacts and what we can do about them, but aren't | Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission
Piling on Puget Sound (Part 2): Cumulative impacts and what we can do about them, but aren’t
Oct 13th, 2011 • Category: NWIFC Blog, Perspectives It’s clear that the cumulative impacts of docks and bulkheads throughout Puget Sound are changing the character of our region, putting salmon and orca in peril and harming treaty-reserved harvest rights.
So why are these impacts allowed to continue?
A small change in how the federal government permits shoreline modifications could help turn the tide.
Shoreline modifications are often regulated by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers under the Clean Water Act and Rivers and Harbors Act. Many of the permits are authorized through a streamlined nationwide permit system.
The Corps issues nationwide permits for several types of shoreline modifications ranging from bank stabilization and dredging and filling, to boat ramp construction and mooring buoy installation. As long as a property owner meets the conditions of these permits, they are automatically authorized with little opportunity for public comment or to assess possible cumulative effects of multiple projects in an area.
Fortunately, the federal Clean Water Act creates a test to prevent fast tracked permits from causing serious harm to the aquatic environment. A key provision of the Clean Water Act says that the Corps cannot authorize these permits if they cause more than minimal individual or cumulative adverse effects to the aquatic ecosystem.
The Corps contends that they were conducting a cumulative impact analysis of shoreline modifications to determine whether their permits pass that test, but the process has not been transparent. It is unclear what the nature and scope of the analysis was, or if a threshold is being determined to indicate how much shoreline armoring is too much.
The Corps has been clear on one issue, though. With the recent publication of their final draft regional conditions, the Corps is proposing to authorize another five years of streamlined shoreline modifications. By doing so, the Corps is effectively declaring that loss of critical shoreline habitat passes the Clean Water Act test, and is not causing more than minimal adverse cumulative impacts.
<< Previous in section | Next post in section >> Tony Meyer Information and Education Manager, NWIFC
Email this author | All posts by Tony Meyer
You are here: Home » NWIFC Blog » Piling on Puget Sound (Part 2): Cumulative impacts and what we can do about them, but aren’t	Related Stories
More from NWIFC Blog Puyallup Tribe finds a huge and late out-going juvenile chinook Walking on: Todd Wilbur of Swinomish The Wild Fish Conservancy ignores habitat when they’re making their case for steelhead Follow the South Sound Science Symposium live at the Squaxin Island Tribe How treaty tribes reacted to a lower than expected chinook run in Puget Sound More from Perspectives Piling on Puget Sound (Part 3): Comments against cumulative impacts Piling on Puget Sound (Part 2): Cumulative impacts and what we can do about them, but aren’t Piling on Puget Sound (Part 1): Cumulative impacts and how they’re hurting natural resources and Treaty Rights Browse by Section