Groups Seek Ban Of Older Oil Train Tankers

By: Associated Press

SEATTLE (AP) — Two environmental groups are asking the U.S. Department of Transportation to immediately ban shipments of volatile crude oil in older railroad tank cars, citing recent explosive oil train wrecks and the department’s own findings that those accidents pose an “imminent hazard.”

The petition filed Tuesday by the Sierra Club and ForestEthics seeks an emergency order within 30 days to prohibit crude from the Northern Plains’ Bakken region and elsewhere from being carried in the older tank cars, known as DOT-111s.

Accident investigators have reported the cars rupture or puncture even in wrecks at slow speeds.

The Obama administration has said it will propose a new rule this month governing tank cars, which could include retrofits of older models cars and tougher standards for new ones.

But that “will take too long to address the imminent hazard posed by use of dangerous DOT-111 tank cars to ship crude oil,” according to the petition, which the law firm Earthjustice filed on behalf of the two groups.

It could take a year before a rule is finalized. In the meantime, the shipments are putting small towns and major cities along the rail lines at risk, the petition said.

Transportation Department spokesman Ryan Daniels said the agency cannot comment on whether an outright ban is under consideration, because a formal rule-making process for the older tank cars already is underway.

Since 2008, derailments of oil trains in the U.S. and Canada have seen the 70,000-gallon tank cars break open and ignite on multiple occasions, resulting in huge fireballs. A train carrying North Dakota crude in DOT-111s crashed into a Quebec town last summer, killing 47 people.

“We need to get them off the tracks as soon as possible. I’d like to see a moratorium,” said Ben Stuckart, city council president in Spokane, Washington, where as many as 17 mile-long oil trains pass through the county in a typical week.

In New York, Albany County Executive Dan McCoy said he wants to see those older tank cars replaced with safer models. “They really should ban them across the board, and go with the newer models,” he said.

Problems with the older tank cars have been cited by safety advocates since the mid-1990s. In April, outgoing National Transportation Safety Board Chairman Deborah Hersman urged quicker action on pending tank car rules. She warned that a “higher body count” could result from further delay.

Transportation Secretary Anthony Foxx in May advised companies to avoid using the older cars to carry the volatile oil from the Bakken region of North Dakota, Montana and parts of Canada. But the step was voluntary, and the older tank cars continue to be used.

Shippers in North America use about 65,000 so-called “legacy” tank cars to carry flammable liquids, including more than 25,000 for crude, according to industry representatives.

The vast majority of those cars deliver their shipments safely, said Tom Simpson, president of the Railway Supply Institute, which represents the companies that make, own and use the tank cars.

“They are not rolling time bombs. They are not Pintos on rails,” said Simpson said, referring to the older model Ford cars known to catch fire in accidents.

Since 2011, more than 10,000 tank cars with more protective shells and other improved safety features have been put into service under a voluntary industry standard. Simpson said further upgrades could be made over the next decade, and older cars found to be unfit for service eventually will be retired by their owners.

Regulators in Canada have moved more aggressively on the issue than their U.S. counterparts. In April, Transport Canada ordered railroads to phase out older cars within three years.

Can we have our sustainable seafood and eat it too?

By Amelia Urry, Grist

You know the feeling: You’re standing in front of the seafood counter, running down the list of evils you might be supporting when you buy one of those gleaming filets. There’s overfishing, but also pollution from fish farming, not to mention bycatch, marine habitat destruction, illegal fishing … and that’s before getting to the problem of seafood fraud, and the fact that 1 in 3 seafood samples in a massive study by Oceana was served under pseudonym.

Programs like Monterey Bay’s Seafood Watch and the Safina Center’s Seafood Guide are helpful when it comes to sorting seafood’s angels from its demons, but only if you can be sure the red snapper you’re looking at is actually red snapper (hint: It probably isn’t).

Meanwhile, third-party certification outfits — the ones that slap their seal of approval on seafood that’s harvested responsibly — are not without their flaws. In fact, the current demand for certified “sustainable” seafood is so high that it’s driving, you guessed it, overfishing. Someone get Poseidon in here because that, my friends, is what the Greeks called a “tragic flaw.”

Still, these third-party groups may offer the best hope for ocean-loving fish eaters like myself, so it’s worth paying attention to how they operate. And while these certification programs are very much a work in progress, they’re getting better.

****

The largest of the third-party labeling groups is the Marine Stewardship Council (MSC). Born of a partnership between the World Wildlife Fund and Unilever, the MSC was designed to bring market-based solutions to the kinds of environmental problems capitalism usually takes the blame for. It motivates fishermen, grocery chains, and restaurants to care about sustainability — because they can charge more for their product if it has MSC’s approval stamped on it.

MSC’s certification standards are based on the health of the fish population in question, the wider environmental impacts of fishing for it (such as habitat destruction and bycatch), and the quality of the fishery’s management. If fishermen want their fishery to be certified, they must pay hefty fees to independent assessors, who gather testimony from scientists and stakeholders, then submit a draft report which is peer-reviewed by other scientists, followed by public comments, more revisions (I assume you’ve tuned out by now), and so on — all adding up to an intimidating tangle of checks and balances. (If you like to geek out on this stuff, you can read all the reports of all the committees at every step of the process yourself.)

Once a fishery is certified, it receives yearly audits for five years, at which point the certification lapses and the whole process starts over again. Somehow, hoops and all, the MSC has managed to certify over 220 fisheries since 1996. According to MSC, its certified fisheries, along with about a hundred currently under review, make up over 10 percent of the global seafood catch, worth around $3 billion. Meanwhile, many companies are getting generous returns on their investment in sustainability: The wholesale value of MSC-labeled products rose 21 percent in 2013 alone.

But as MSC has grown, it has broken bread with larger and larger partners, whose appetites may outstrip the ability of certified fisheries to sate them. Critics claim MSC has slackened some if its rules to keep up with the demand from retail chains such as Walmart. Al Jazeera reported on the company’s struggle to keep buying Alaskan salmon after the fishery’s MSC approval lapsed:

Jennifer Jacquet, an environmental studies professor at New York University … said Walmart’s allegiance to MSC put a lot of pressure on the nonprofit to certify more fish.

“You have two options,” Jacquet said of MSC’s situation. “You can make seafood sustainable or you can redefine the word ‘sustainable’ to match existing resources.”

Likewise, when McDonald’s pledged to sell only MSC-labeled Alaskan pollock in the U.S., it strained the ability of the fishery — with only a mediocre sustainability score from Seafood Watch — to keep all 14,000 restaurants in Filet-o-Fish sandwiches.

Furthermore, NPR’s excellent in-depth series on MSC’s sustainability (or not) focused on a few fisheries the group had certified despite less-than-cheery evidence on the ground, er, sea. These included a swordfishery in Canada, where sharks are snagged more often than actual swordfish, over- and illegally fished Chilean sea bass, and volatile sockeye salmon populations in Alaska:

“Originally I thought [MSC] was a good idea,” says Jim Barnes, director of the Antarctic and Southern Ocean Coalition, a network of dozens of environmental groups around the world. … [But] the controversy over Canadian swordfish illustrates why the booming demand for sustainable seafood actually threatens to hurt the movement more than help it. “The bottom line is that there are not enough truly sustainable fisheries on the earth to sustain the demand.”

One result of that skyrocketing demand is that new, less stringent certification programs are popping up. After allowing its MSC’s certification to lapse, a powerful salmon fishery in Alaska persuaded Walmart to make room for a new certification, Responsible Fisheries Management, which puts less emphasis on sustainability and comes with no logo-licensing fees. Walmart still carries some MSC certified goods, but the company reneged on its all-MSC-all-the-time pledge.

You can imagine how this could quickly become a race to the bottom: If Alaskan pollock stocks continue to decline, the fishery may no longer meet MSC’s standards of sustainability. And if that happens? MSC could drop the pollock fishery and risk losing the McDonald’s account, too. Or it could lower the bar, in hopes of improving fishery practices down the road.

MSC has insisted that it never loosened its standards, and that those standards and the oversight that comes with them are high enough to guarantee sustainability — although it does offer a provisional certification for fisheries that are working toward sustainability, but aren’t quite there yet.

When I talked to MSC’s CEO, Rupert Howes, a few months ago, he told me that MSC has taken the global seafood scene a long way: “When MSC started, it really was innovative. There wasn’t really a sustainable seafood movement,” he said. “When you get leadership within the industry and within the market saying, we want sustainable seafood, we care where it comes from, we want to be part of the solution — it really is a huge, powerful force.

“I hasten to say: MSC is part of the solution,” Howes added. “Overfishing is a huge challenge — you need public policy reform, you need the work of advocacy groups to raise awareness of the issues, and then you need a program like the MSC that’s actually going to empower consumers, you and I, to use our purchasing decisions to make the best environmental choice.”

And like a good overseer, MSC is turning its eye on itself this year, in a thoroughly documented (naturally) self-review of its “chain of custody” program, which assures that MSC’s fish can be traced through the supply chain, from the water all the way to the seafood counter at the grocery store.

****

It’s worth pointing out that none of this controversy is unique to seafood. Other food labels, from USDA’s widely applied “organic” to “fair-trade” to the virtually useless “all-natural” have at some point come under fire for being less idealistic in practice than they are in theory. The same is true of green building standards. Things get messy as any system gets bigger.

Of course, with billions of people eating from the sea, any movement toward oversight and accountability is almost certainly better than nothing. At the very least, by making sustainability visible, and desirable, to consumers, MSC has raised the stakes for the supply chains that serve them.

But what to do if the MSC’s logo isn’t enough for you? Here are a few tips for getting sustainable seafood, certifications be damned: 1) Eat as local as possible and many other concerns become moot; 2) eat low on the food chain, as in, more oysters and, seriously, no more Bluefin tuna; and 3) stick to restaurants or markets whose mission you trust instead of trying to decode the signage at your city’s everything emporium.

Did I miss anything? Uh, yeah, definitely. This whole labeling thing is a sticky issue, but it only works if producers know what the people want. So, by all means, weigh in.

Video: National Climate Assessment Focuses on Natives Bearing the Brunt

NOAA/VimeoNational Climate Change Assessment Focuses partially on Indigenous Peoples and the challenges they face.

Indian Country Today 7/14/14

As the effects of climate change become more and more pronounced and better understood, the concerns of Indigenous Peoples are coming more and more to the fore. Conventional science is beginning to understand not only that they suffer inordinately from the phenomenon, but also that their traditional knowledge could hold some keys for adaptation, if not mitigation.

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Climate Change Assessment in May highlighted the effects on Indigenous Peoples, including those from the Pacific Islands and the Caribbean. In concert with that the authors made a video that lays out some of these challenges and how they are interconnected. Below, an interview with T.M. Bull Bennett, a convening lead author on the National Climate Assessment’s Indigenous Peoples chapter.

“We’re starting to see a change in how we interpret the environment around us,” Bennett says below. Indigenous populations, he adds, are “on the short end of the stick.”

What’s Killing Clams? Solve This Low Tide Mystery

By Joshua McNichols, KUOW

One of the lowest tides of the year this weekend revealed a “crime scene” at the beach at Golden Gardens Park in Seattle.

The victims: thousands of clams that died in the prime of their lives. Each bivalve victim has a tiny hole drilled near its hinge.

Also strewn on the beach were gray rubbery things that looked like toilet plunger heads. The Beach Naturalists from the Seattle Aquarium say concerned citizens have collected them in buckets, upset that someone would have dumped so much litter on the beaches.

But it turns out that the holes and the toilet plunger heads are all the products of a little-known predator: the moon snail.

The culprit: Not a toilet plunger head, but the predatory moon snail. Credit KUOW Photo/Joshua McNichols

A Gruesome Murder

When it comes to the moon snail, Seattle Aquarium Beach Naturalist Will Downs is unwavering when he describes how the moon snail treats its victims: The snail “doesn’t see his prey. He feels them. He tastes them. And if you’re a clam, he sneaks up on you and engulfs you.”

Low tide at Seattle’sGolden Gardens Park.
Credit: Joshua McNichols/KUOW

It gets worse. If the snail can’t smother the clam then and there, it drills through the clam shell with its bony, barbed tongue. That specialized tongue slowly files away at the clam, “day after day sometimes, until it can reach the interior, where the clam thought it was safe. Then it extrudes in there acids, enzymes, anything that’ll digest the clam.”

Downs grins as he delivers his punch line: “…and then it slurps up its own clam chowder.”

And those rubbery things that look like toilet plunger heads? Downs says they’re moon snail egg collars. The snail squeezes out the leathery substance by fusing together eggs, sand and its own mucus. As the egg collar emerges, it wraps around the moon snail’s shell, taking on the shell’s shape.

Case Closed

Before we condemn the moon snail, Seattle Aquarium naturalist Darcie Larson said the moon snail may be vicious predators of clams, but they’re an important part of the beach ecosystem of Puget Sound.

“If we had no predators, we might have too many shellfish. And then the shellfish population would get out of balance,” she said. “And they would eat up all the food, all the plankton in the ecosystem. We refer to predators like that as keystone species, and they hold the whole system together.”

So are moon snails threatened? Larson said anecdotally, the moon snails are doing well. Which is good, as other predators, such as sunflower sea stars, are currently suffering from a mysterious wasting disease.

This was first reported for KUOW.

Saving the sea that feeds us

Herald file photoTulalip tribal member Tony Hatch presents the first salmon of the fishing season during a Salmon Ceremony on the Tulalip Reservation in 2004. The traditional ceremony honors the first salmon to be caught with the hope that the fishing season will be plentiful. Following a feast, the bones of the salmon are returned to the water so that the honored fish will speak highly of the tribe. — Herald file photo
Tulalip tribal member Tony Hatch presents the first salmon of the fishing season during a Salmon Ceremony on the Tulalip Reservation in 2004. The traditional ceremony honors the first salmon to be caught with the hope that the fishing season will be plentiful. Following a feast, the bones of the salmon are returned to the water so that the honored fish will speak highly of the tribe.

By Les Parks, Source: The Herald

Puget Sound is one of the iconic wonders of the world and defines who we are, not only as tribes, but all residents of Western Washington.

This great body of water was still being formed by receding glaciers when the tribes arrived, and we have lived off her abundant natural resources ever since. Over thousands of years our beautiful and unique inland sea has become a complex ecosystem, supporting not only an abundance of sea life, but also mixing with freshwater resources at the mouths of our great rivers, providing a consistent and plentiful food source for us humans.

This natural resource wealth has influenced every part of our tribal traditions. Stories of the great salmon runs have been carried down through the generations, and they tell us these waters once rippled with silver, as salmon arrived home after several years out to sea. The clams, crab and mussels were also abundant, and along with berries, roots and the plants we harvested, our traditional diet was, and continues to be, sacred to us.

The old Indians used to say, “When the tide is out, the table is set!”

For more than 200 years the descendants of the settlers, and now peoples from around the globe, have called the Puget Sound home. Like the tribes, they have lived off her rich resources, appreciated her great beauty and passed laws to protect her from exploitation.

Today, however, the health of Puget Sound is failing fast. In recent years it has lost 20 percent, or more, of the plankton that makes up the base of our food web. Everything above plankton in the food chain is also affected and is showing signs of great stress. The loss of plankton is beyond comprehension and is the single greatest barometer of what is happening to the waters we have all largely taken for granted.

It is time the citizens of Washington, and in particular citizens of Puget Sound, act on this information. With plankton gone, it means every animal up the food chain pays the price, including us.

Mark my words: Puget Sound is dying! Finding whales dying from natural causes is expected. Finding whales that are emaciated and starving is alarming and will become a common scenario if we do not address the problem quickly. But what is happening; why are plankton dying? We are only beginning to understand the complex interactions between warming ocean waters, how they affect the state’s inland sea, and how human activities play into this alarming situation.

Toxins in the food chain are devastating from the bottom all the way up. Recent evidence suggests that nutrient pollution, such as nitrogen and phosphorus from wastewater treatment plants, septic systems, residential homes, agriculture and other sources, are significantly disrupting the food web in Puget Sound. We cannot continue to ignore the fact that the sound is the baseline of our livelihoods and that we humans are only as healthy as our environment.

The great waters and rivers of the Salish Sea have existed since the last ice age (13,000 years ago) and with the melting of the ice the Puget Sound was born. Mother Nature has created this beautiful place we call home, and in less than 200 years, and largely within the last 100 years, we have managed to undo what Mother Nature provided us.

How many more years will it take to entirely wipe out sea life in Puget Sound? Can she sustain the barrage of pollutants that are killing the plankton for another 50 years? Do we have another 25 years to act before reaching the tipping point, or have we already arrived? Our window of opportunity to heal her is closing. It is our duty to do all that we can to improve her health and time is not on our side.

The Tulalip Tribes have collaborated with governments, nonprofits, and other entities on a variety of habitat restoration projects, on and off reservation, and we continue to lobby for the protection of Puget Sound. One project that we feel very proud to be a part of is Qualco Energy. Partnering with farmers and environment groups in the Snohomish River basin we have worked together to build an anaerobic digester, which channels cow manure away from streams and fresh groundwater sources by converting it to electricity before it is sold to the electricity grid. It is an example of the type of collaboration it will take to restore the health of our Sound.

Gov. Jay Inslee announced his proposal this week to address the issue of fish consumption that has large implications for our health and water quality standards. Gov. Inslee’s proposal begins to address Puget Sound’s health but not to the level that we had hoped. While the proposed rate of fish consumption is significantly higher, his proposal also increases the risk of cancer deaths by some toxins. The governor’s proposal strengthens water quality with one hand, but weakens it with the other. The net effect seems to be a very modest change for some chemicals, and no change at all for others. It also represents yet another delay on committing to the health of the Puget Sound, and to the health of those who depend on its resources.

There are no winners in the governor’s announcement. We want to be able to encourage our people to eat more fish and shellfish, as it sustained them well for many generations, and forms the basis of our shared ways of life. We remain hopeful that the court of public opinion will convince the governor to reconsider his proposal so that when the tide is out it is safe to eat at the table.

Les Parks is the vice chairman of the Tulalip Tribes.

A Debate On The Proposed Killing Of Cormorants To Save Salmon

Three cormorants on East Sand Island | credit: Vince Patton

By Devan Schwartz, Oregon Public Broadcasting

PORTLAND — The public got its first chance to weigh in on the government’s plan to kill nearly 16,000 cormorants nesting on an island near the mouth of the Columbia River.

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has proposed the lethal approach as the best way to reduce the number of birds that congregate at East Sand Island and feast on young salmon and steelhead making their way beyond the Columbia River to the Pacific Ocean.

Supporters and critics spoke out Thursday at the Matt Dishman Community Center in Northeast Portland.

State and federal officials discussed the proposed action with around 40 attendees, many representing bird and wildlife advocacy groups or sportfishermen.

Norman Ritchie is with the Association of Northwest Steelheaders. He said the cormorants are severely harming the fish runs on the Columbia.

“Right now the situation’s pretty bad,” Ritchie said. “We’re talking millions upon millions of smolts being killed by the cormorants each year and we need to deal with that.”

Columbia River tribal representatives have also voiced support for killing cormorants to protect salmon and steelhead, although none spoke out at Thursday’s hearing.

Scientists estimate cormorants on East Sand Island ate 18 million protected salmon and steelhead last year and are regularly consuming 10 to 15 percent of the populations swimming through the Columbia River estuary.

Joyce Casey is with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. She said her agency is following the National Marine Fisheries Service’s call for a reduction in cormorants.

The service’s biological opinion for the Columbia River hydropower system gives until 2018 to reduce 14,900 breeding pairs of cormorants down to less than 5,900 breeding pairs. The goal is protect salmon and steelhead listed under the Endangered Species Act. The fish also die by the thousands as they try to get past dams operated by the corps.

The cormorant-killing strategy would be in place from 2015 to 2018. Shotguns would be used to shoot the cormorants in the air first and, if necessary, on the colony during nesting season.

Kahler Martinson is an Audubon Society volunteer and former regional director with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Martinson argued that the corps is blaming the birds rather than the dams on the Columbia.

“There’s got to be a better way to do it than killing these birds,” Martinson said. “If you manage the river for fish instead of for power and navigation you can certainly handle the problem.”

The corps says the reduction in cormorant population would be localized and would not jeopardize the larger population.

A second public meeting will be held July 24 in Astoria, Oregon.

The final environmental impact statement will be published this fall. The final decision is expected by the end of the year.

Tribes: Fishing Rights Not For Sale

About 70 people gathered in May, 2014 to protest the proposed coal export facility in Boardman, Oregon. Yakama Nation and Lummi Nation tribal members spoke at a ceremony before people fished at treaty-protected fishing sites. | credit: Courtney Flatt

July 10, 2014 | Northwest Public Radio

The Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation have a message for coal shippers: their fishing rights are not for sale.

This blunt response comes after two years of talks between the tribes and Ambre Energy – the company that wants to build a coal export terminal on a part of the river that the tribes consider historic fishing grounds protected by their treaty with the federal government.

For Ambre’s export terminal, 8.8 million tons of coal per year would be transported by rail from Montana and Wyoming to Boardman, in Eastern Oregon. From there, it would be barged down the Columbia River and transferred to ocean-going vessels to be shipped to Asia.

Ambre Energy has offered to pay the tribe up to $800,000 per year (the same amount it’s offered the Morrow and Columbia County school districts). The company is also offering $500, 000 toward salmon and stream enhancements and $100,000 toward culture and history celebrations during the Morrow Pacific Project’s construction.

A tribal spokesman said the tribes have been in discussions with Ambre Energy for two years. Chuck Sams said that’s when the tribe began raising concerns about treaty fishing sites near the company’s proposed dock.

“We will not abdicate, nor will we trade, any of our treaty rights,” Sams said. “We’ve already proven to them time and time again that the place where they wish to site their facility is a usual and accustomed fishing station.”

Yakama Nation fishers protest Ambre
Energy’s coal export terminal.

Sams said there is no way Ambre could make up for damage that could be done to the fishing site because people fish there now.

Members from the Yakama Nation and the Lummi Nation recently held fishing demonstrations at the site where the coal terminal construction is proposed.

An Ambre Energy spokeswoman says the company chose this site specifically because it did not impact fishing sites.

“It’s important to remember that the proposed dock is on private Port of Morrow property in between two existing docks. And even with that, from the beginning we have sought a partnership with the tribes based on mutual respect, shared benefits, collaboration, and cooperation,” said spokeswoman Liz Fuller.

Sams said no formal reply to the company is in the works because the Umatilla tribes have already expressed concerns to Ambre Energy in face-to-face meetings.

Sams went on, however, to say the Umatillas are open to further discussions.

Referring to offers from Ambre Energy, Sams said, “I think that they read the public wrong – our public, our tribal citizens – and where we stand. The tribal members themselves are pretty strong on environmental issues, especially in protection of their treaty rights. … Putting out a letter that dangled out financial gain for the tribe really does not resonate well within the tribal membership.”

The Australia-based Ambre Energy is still waiting on a permit from the Oregon Department of State Lands to build the dock at its Boardman site. The permit decision has been delayed multiple times. Right now a permitting decision is scheduled for Aug. 18.

According to DSL rules, the permit can be issued if the dock doesn’t “unreasonably interfere” with preservation of water for navigation, fishing and public recreation.

Senate panel takes up plan to settle Bill Williams River water dispute

By Julianne DeFilippis , Cronkite News

Hualapai Chairwoman Sherry Counts told a Senate committee that the northwestern Arizona tribe supports a bill that would formalize two water-rights agreements between it, Freeport Minerals Corp. and the government.Photo by Julianne DeFilippis — Hualapai Chairwoman Sherry Counts told a Senate committee that the northwestern Arizona tribe supports a bill that would formalize two water-rights agreements between it, Freeport Minerals Corp. and the government.
Photo by Julianne DeFilippis

WASHINGTON – Tribal and state lawmakers urged a Senate panel Wednesday to approve a water-rights agreement between the Hualapai tribe and Freeport Minerals Corp., saying time is fast running out on a deal.

Witnesses told the Senate Indian Affairs Committee that the Bill Williams River Water Rights Settlement Act of 2014, which would guarantee the tribe certain levels of water use in the area, has been years in the making. But statutory limits on Freeport’s water rights mean it could all be undone if Congress does not act this year, the bill’s supporters said.

“We need to have this done before that deadline or the whole thing goes away,” Hualapai Chairwoman Sherry Counts said at the hearing.

The bill is sponsored by Arizona Republican Sens. John McCain and Jeff Flake, while a companion measure in the House has been co-sponsored by all nine members of the state’s House delegation.

“It’s rare to find a piece of legislation that can garner bipartisan and bicameral support from the entire state congressional delegation,” said Flake, who called the bill an important piece of legislation for the whole state, not just the tribe.

But not everyone supports the bill.

Flake said officials in Mohave and La Paz counties have raised questions about the deal. And Bureau of Indian Affairs Director Michael Black testified Wednesday that while his agency supports the goals of the bill, it has “significant concerns” about provisions that waive sovereign immunity.

Black said those concerns “must be resolved before the administration can support the bill,” and assured the committee that the bureau is working to find a solution.

But Flake said a waiver of immunity is not unprecedented in such agreements and that parties in the deal “must have the ability to enforce the terms of the agreement.” The waiver “must be expressed and unequivocal,” he said.

Besides having the backing of the entire congressional delegation, Flake introduced letters of support from Gov. Jan Brewer, the Arizona Chamber of Commerce and Industry, Freeport Minerals and the Nature Conservancy.

In addition to guaranteeing water-rights for the tribe, the deal calls on Freeport to give the tribe $1 million toward a water infrastructure study, to transfer land to the state for a conservation program and to stop pumping water near a spring that is sacred to the tribe, among other provisions.

“We’ve been on the Colorado River since time immemorial and we have no water rights,” said Counts, who said securing those rights is a key goal for tribe.

But she also noted that water rights are also critical for any economic development plans the tribe has, for building resort facilities for tourists or housing for tribal members.

McCain said he and Flake are willing to work with anyone who has concerns about the proposal. But a bill needs to be approved to protect water rights for everyone, he said.

“We have to conclude our native water-rights settlements if we are going to have a predictable supply of water for Indians and non-Indians alike,” McCain said.

Senator McCoy receives the E3 award for Diversity in Action

Honored for his work to protect the environment while serving many diverse interests

Senator John McCoy (D) of Tulalip honored with the E# award for Diversity in Action. McCoy was one of three tribal recipients in Washington State honored for his work in employing diversity to reach a more sustainable future.Photo courtesy of E3 — Senator John McCoy (D) of Tulalip honored with the E# award for Diversity in Action. McCoy was one of three tribal recipients in Washington State honored for his work in employing diversity to reach a more sustainable future.
*Photo courtesy of E3*

By Andrew Gobin, Tulalip News

Senator John McCoy received the Diversity in Action-Individual E3 Washington Green Apple Award on June 26 for his work in environmental education. He has in mind education for the environment to be incorporated throughout all levels of learning, including post-secondary education programs. While protecting the environment is mutually beneficial, it is often a sensitive subject with specific community concerns attached. McCoy, a member of the Tulalip Tribes, is diligent in making sure that each diverse community is represented in every issue, working to set attainable goals for sustainability on that everyone can agree on.

Steve Robinson, an Olympia based businessman who nominated McCoy, said, “Senator McCoy has been a tireless leader in many capacities which have served environmental education, multiculturalism and diversity well. His presence on ‘the hill’ in Olympia has provided an immeasurable amount of benefit to both tribal and non-tribal people and governments. He has sponsored phenomenal, far-reaching legislation, ranging from bills to integrate Indian culture and history into the classroom to a bill to establish Indian Heritage Day. Senator McCoy is one of the hardest working legislators in Olympia and he is committed to the protection and restoration of a healthy, vibrant environment for all.”

In addition to advocating for culturally sensitive environmental education, McCoy is tenacious and steadfast in his opposition of bills that would be potentially harmful to the environment, working to block them as much as possible.

“Last year, I successfully blocked legislation that would have allowed for water to be repurposed without regulation. This prevented water allocated for personal or agricultural purposes from being repurposed and used commercially, which would have created a loophole in current regulations,” said McCoy.

The work McCoy does to contribute to education for the environment, in addition to the work to prevent detrimental legislation, represent the magnitude of his career. According to the E3 statement, the Washington Green Apple award for Diversity in Action, “recognizes an individual, organization, tribe or program that demonstrates cultural awareness and encourages a multicultural approach to environmental and sustainability education programs while exemplifying the Lead Green goal.”

McCoy said, “I am honored to receive this award, and thankful for the recognition of the magnitude of work I have been involved with.”

While recognized for his work in environmental education, McCoy’s career has centered on water issues. He is also a strong proponent in Washington of legislation promoting the research and use of alternative energy, working to pass i937 last year, which deals with the state’s Renewable Energy Portfolio and standards on greenhouse gasses.

Andrew Gobin is a staff reporter with the Tulalip News See-Yaht-Sub, a publication of the Tulalip Tribes Communications Department.
Email: agobin@tulalipnews.com
Phone: (360) 716.4188

Tribe Helps Elk Herds Reclaim Their Home After Fire

Indian Country Today

The Cachil Dehe Band of Wintun Indians hopes Tule elk will return home to their reservation land. The tribe received $89,200 in grant funding from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, through the organization’s competitive Tribal Wildlife Grants Program, to restore elk habitat on its 7,000-acre property in Colusa County, California.

Roughly three herds are roaming about three to four miles outside the tribe’s ranch currently, but their range expansion has been limited by chamise, the native evergreen shrub that formerly grew extensively on the ranch before a 2012 fire burned it out. “Now that the fire’s gone through, it may open up the [elk’s] migration patterns,” Casey Stafford, director of land management for the Cortina Ranch, told newsreview.com. “We’re just going to try to get them a new place to call home.”

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service awarded 25 grants nationwide to federally recognized tribes in 15 states, including five in California, to fund a wide range of fish and wildlife conservation projects.

“Tribal nations share our conservation challenges in the United States,” said Service Director Dan Ashe. “The Tribal Wildlife Grants Program creates opportunities for tribes to build conservation capacity and for us to work together in a variety of ways, including species restoration, fish passage, protection of migratory birds and efforts to cope with the long-term effects of a changing climate.”

Tribes have received more than $64 million through the Tribal Wildlife Grants Program since 2003, providing support for more than 380 conservation projects administered by participating federally recognized tribes. These grants provide technical and financial assistance for development and implementation of projects that benefit fish and wildlife resources, including nongame species and their habitats.

The grants provide tribes opportunities to develop increased management capacity, improve and enhance relationships with partners (including state agencies), address cultural and environmental priorities and heighten tribal students’ interest in fisheries, wildlife and related fields of study. A number of grants have been awarded to support recovery efforts for threatened and endangered species.

The grants are provided exclusively to federally recognized tribal governments and are made possible under the 2002 Related Agencies Appropriations Act through the State and Tribal Wildlife Grants Program. Proposals for the 2015 grant cycle are due Sept. 2, 2014.

For information about projects and the Tribal Wildlife Grants application process, visit http://www.fws.gov/nativeamerican/grants.html.

FY 2014 Tribal Wildlife Grants

ALASKA:
Native Village of Tazlina ($200,000)
Moose Browse Enhancement Project

Native Village of Tyonek (copy97,590)
Tyonek Area Watershed Action Plan

ARIZONA:
Tohono O’odham Nation ($200,000)
Engineering Design and Monitoring of State Route 86 Wildlife Connectivity Measures

CALIFORNIA:
Hoopa Valley Tribe (copy99,992)
Pacific Lamprey Passage Project

Pala Band of Mission Indians (copy89,645)
Tribal Habitat Conservation Plan Completion (Phase I and Phase II)

Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Indians (copy58,352)
Restoring and Enhancing Riparian Habitat on Chumash Tribal Lands

Cachil Dehe Band of Wintun Indians (copy89,200)
Cortina Ranch Tule Elk Restoration

FLORIDA:
Seminole Tribe of Florida ($200,000)
Seminole Tribe of Florida Tribal Wildlife Program

IDAHO:
Nez Perce Tribe ($200,000)
Restoration of Bighorn Sheep Populations and Habitats along the Salmon River, Idaho – Final Phase

MAINE:
Houlton Band of Maliseet Indians ($200,000)
Aquatic Habitat Restoration Program: Phase III – Fish Passage / Habitat Enhancement Project

Passamaquoddy Tribe – Pleasant Point Reservation (copy98,885)
Alewife Migration Behavior and Food Web Interactions in the St. Croix River and Estuary

MICHIGAN:
Nottawaseppi Huron Band of the Potawatomi (copy99,942)
Wildlife Habitat Assessment and Restoration Plan: Expansion and Implementation

MONTANA:
Northern Cheyenne Tribe (copy99,394)
Returning the Black-footed Ferret

Gros Ventre and Assiniboine Tribes of Fort Belknap Indian Community ($200,000)
Black-footed Ferret Reintroduction

NEW MEXICO:
Ohkay Owingeh (copy53,499)
Restoring Wet Meadow Habitats for Listed and Proposed Candidate Species at Ohkay Owingeh

Santa Ana Pueblo (copy99,998)
Monitoring Avian Community Response to Riparian Restoration along the Middle Rio Grande, Pueblo of Santa Ana

OKLAHOMA:
Osage Nation (copy85,511)
American Burying Beetle in the Osage Nation

OREGON:
The Klamath Tribes ($200,000)
Klamath Reservation Forest Habitat Restoration and Ecosystem Resiliency Project.

SOUTH CAROLINA:
Catawba Indian Nation (copy74,501)
Catawba Preserve Wildlife Enhancement

UTAH:
Confederated Tribes of the Goshute Reservation, Nevada and Utah (copy93,384)
Native Bonneville Cutthroat Trout Habitat Restoration Project

WASHINGTON:
Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Nation (copy99,803)
Yakama Nation Shrub-Steppe Species Restoration Project

Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe (copy99,616)
Mammalian and Avian Recolonization Ofde the Watered Reservoirs After Dam Decommissioning and Their Impact on Revegetation Management, Elwha Valley, WA

Swinomish Indian Tribal Community (copy20,000)
Restoring an Endemic Species to Native Tidelands: Olympia Oysters in Swinomish Pocket Estuaries

Tulalip Tribes of Washington ($99,822)
Monitoring Fish and Water Resources on the Tulalip Tribes Indian Reservation, Usual and Accustomed Lands, and Marine Waters of the Pacific Northwest

WISCONSIN:
Stockbridge-Munsee Community ($200,000)
Herptile Management and Habitat Restoration