Currently, the rezone has been approved by the Klickitat County Planning Department and it is now awaiting approval by the County Board of Commissioners.  If the County Commissioners approve it, local citizens and conservation groups may appeal the matter to Washington Superior Court.

In October of 2011, the County planning department issued a Mitigated Determination of Non-Significance (“MDNS”) and found as a threshold matter that the proposed rezone determination was not likely to have a significant effect on the water quality, water quantity, wildlife and other natural resources enjoyed by the public and private landowners under the State Environmental Policy Act.

The affected lands and waters found in the White Salmon River valley are remarkable.  The water is enjoyed by tens of thousands of people annually and relied upon by local residents for their drinking water.  The area boasts the Wild & Scenic White Salmon River and its “outstandingly remarkable values” include wild fish, world class white water boating, a rich heritage of Native American cultural sites and unique hydrogeology of cold water springs that feed the river.  The planning area contains prime and unique farmlands that are of statewide significance and numerous Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (“WDFW”) designated “priority habitats.”

This map shows in red the lands along the river which are proposed to be rezoned to 2-acre density, which is 10 times the density of what current zoning allows on this rural resource land.

According to a top expert in the field, Mark Yinger, the water in the White Salmon River, in its tributaries, and in the leaky, inter-connected aquifers are vulnerable to increased levels of uncoordinated new development which will rely heavily on new groundwater wells spread out across the landscape.  Download Mark Yinger Technical Memorandum to Department of Ecology

For some time now the Klickitat County planning department has tried to amend the Sub-Area Plan and zoning code to allow a significant increase in the nature and location of development which responsible agencies and individual property owners have opposed because of the significant impact on the natural resources and livability of the lands in the White Salmon River valley.

Back in 2007, the Klickitat County Planning Department issued a Determination of Non-significance for a significant rezone of over one thousand acres of land to 2-acre lots through the Husum/BZ Corner Sub-Area Plan Update (County File No. SEP2007-12, the “2007 Update”).  The Planning Commission approved the proposed update and rezone.  The County received numerous comments from multiple agencies, the public, and conservation groups.  Subsequently the County issued a DNS for a proposal by SDS Lumber Co. to rezone over 100 acres of the same Sub-Area from Resource Land to 1-acre minimum lot sizes.

The County received substantial comments from the public and state agencies and the decision of the Planning Commission was appealed by the Friends of the White Salmon River and the Yakama Nation.

The County’s 2010 MDNS relies heavily on a report produced by Aspect Consulting (the “Aspect report”) which presents an analysis of possible water quality and water quantity impacts of the Sub-Area Plan and mitigation.  The Aspect report contrasts forecasts of a hypothetical full build-out under existing zoning and under the proposed zoning. Based on its hypothetical projections, the Aspect report attempts an analysis of the impact on water quality and quantity and suggests it will be about the same because the total number of residential dwellings under the existing zoning and the proposed zoning.

The County received substantial comments from agencies, the public, and conservation groups which pointed out problems with the County’s MDNS.  For example, the County’s MDNS did not address the impacts of the rezoning on wildlife, as required by the County Commissioners, or the specific criticisms or recommendations submitted by the WDFW or the United States Forest Service in extensive comments dating back several years.

The County never obtained a peer review of the Aspect report or addressed the significant criticisms of the report identified by the Forest Service.  While the County identified the future removal of Condit Dam as being foreseeable, it did address the significant change in the existing condition caused by the removal of Condit Dam and Northwestern Lake.  The removal of Condit Dam is significant for a number of reasons. First, the lower section of the river is now full of sediments and the long process of recovery is just beginning. Second, numerous threatened and endangered fish species now have access to the White Salmon River and its tributaries within the planning area.  Third, the removal of Northwestern Lake has dramatically changed the water table and is having a significant effect on groundwater on adjacent lands.

Mark Yinger’s report underscores what the County has not disclosed, considered or analyzed in terms of the direct, indirect and cumulatively significant changes that will result in terms of new wells, new septic drainfields on the tributaries, seeps and springs along the White Salmon River.

Judge Rasmussen will issue a written ruling.

For more information, check out KLCC Public Radio’s coverage of the case and the January 24 Eugene Register-Guard’s article.

To learn more about the youth who are taking action and speaking out about climate change, check out the Trust Films series produced by Our Children’s Trust, the iMatter Campaign and WITNESS.

Whether it is a proposal for drilling in the Arctic, fracking, or building yet another pipeline, a favorite argument of the oil and gas industry is that the project must move forward to ensure the U.S.’s energy independence.  2012 is the time to dispel this farce.

Recent events in the State of Oregon show why.  Amid the hubbub of the winter holidays you may have missed the news that the proponents of the Pacific-Connector pipeline and Jordan Cove LNG terminal (slated to cross Oregon and myriad streams, rivers, and unique and sensitive ecosystems and create a massive facility in Coos Bay) applied for and obtained an export permit.  That’s right, the idea is to export natural gas out of Oregon.

For many of you this probably comes as no surprise. The executive director of Crag’s client Columbia River Keeper Brett VandenHeuvel has long maintained that export is the end game for the proposed LNG terminals in Oregon. It turns out he was right.

But why export?  Because the U.S. is already producing an abundance of natural gas and gas prices are low.  As a member of the Oregon Attorney General’s office explained:  “Exporting liquefied natural gas will actually lead to increased prices for natural gas for industrial as well as residential users.”

That means more profits for the industry but it does not bode well for the U.S. public or our economy.  Moreover, if you read in between the lines you realize that the reason the industry wants to export natural gas is because of its wide spread availability.  And there you have it – the reason the industry wants more natural gas is to make more money from foreign markets, not to increase the U.S.’s energy independence.  Drilling in the Arctic, fracking, building pipelines and LNG terminals will actually not increase our energy independence.  Instead, the oil and gas industry is playing off the fears of the U.S. public to try to change their minds and, perhaps more importantly, their votes so the industry can make more money.

If you don’t believe that, check out the America Petroleum Industry’s Energy Citizen’s latest ad campaign.  In the ad, supposedly every day people tell you to vote for energy.  But when an environmentalist auditioned for the ad, he was shown the door after decrying the industry’s lies to the public.   Not to worry, the activist told Greenpeace about the ad campaign, and Greenpeace launched a spoof on the industry’s ad.

The Greenpeace ad is worth watching and a good reminder to us to think for ourselves and not accept all the tales we are told, even those that have been told for a long time.  Especially in an election year, when the ads get glossier and the truth is harder to find it is critical that we think for ourselves.  Happy 2012 may you find the truth this year wherever it is buried.

2011 topped the records for the number of extreme weather events costing more than 1 billion dollars – we had 12 such events in 2011 totaling almost $200 billion. NASA’s two latest climate reports contain mind boggling conclusions.  The first report uses conservative temperature data from the IPCC, and predicts that by 2100 around 40 percent of our major ecological communities – places like forests, tundra, and grasslands – will be dominated by a different ecological community.  In other words, if you live near a forest, it could become a desert by 2100, or if you live near tundra, it could be transformed into a grassland by 2100.  The second report, relying on paleoclimate data analyzed by top climate scientist Dr. Jim Hansen, paints a harsh reality of what even a two-degree average increase in temperature will mean for our planet. Closer to home and more specific to Oregon, a senior Department of Interior official warned a Congressional subcommittee about the impacts from climate change on the water supplies of western states that rely upon snowpack to provide fresh water.

So, that’s enough about the darkness – where’s the light?  It seems to be stemming from the next generation.  Youth leaders are stepping up all around our country, and the world, to express their concerns over climate change.  A young U.S. woman interrupted the latest climate change negotiations out of fear for her future putting the U.S. Congress and Administration on the spot for not moving the negotiations forward.  Youth in Canada danced in protest of their government’s decision to withdraw from the Kyoto Protocol.

Of course, youth here in Oregon and around the U.S. and the world took the courts last May to demand that the government protect their future from the harmful impacts of climate change. Led by Alec Loorz of Kids versus Global warming and Our Children’s Trust, these members of the next generation are also an amazing inspiration.

Nelson Kanuk on the Kuskokwim River, Kipnuk, Alaska. Photo by Christi Cooper-Kuhn and Kelly Matheson, courtesy of iMatter.org

Our Children’s Trust, the iMatter Campaign, and Witness just released the most recent video of one such climate leader who is involved in a legal case launched last May.  Trust Alaska documents the life and struggles of Nelson Kanuk and native subsistence people along Alaska’s rapidly eroding coastline.  Nelson’s dedication to his family, their traditional way of life, and to sustaining the planet and his home is a true inspiration. Please share it with your friends and family, and may it help light the seasons to come.

Measure 37 was passed in 2004 to provide landowners “just compensation” for land use regulations enacted after they acquired their property that allegedly diminished the value of the land.  Claimants did not need to prove an actual reduction in value in order to receive a waiver of those land use regulations that would allow development of the land according to the laws, if any, in place at the time the landowner acquired the property.  Measure 37 was very controversial because it allowed large-scale development on previously protected lands.  As a result, in 2007 the voters passed Measure 49, which provided alternative compensation for landowners and allowed completion of already-begun projects pursuant to Measure 37 waivers only where the landowner could demonstrate a “vested right” to complete and continue the project.  The closer to completion a project is, the more likely the landowner has a vested right to finish the development.

Most landowners chose the alternative compensation offered by Measure 49, but some pushed ahead seeking to develop the full extent of the use proposed under their Measure 37 waivers.  In doing so, many landowners attempted to cheat the system by changing the picture of their project to create the illusion that the development was closer to completion than it actually was.

I’ve been working to safeguard Oregon’s land use protections since I started at Crag three years ago, and Ralph has been fighting this battle since 2004.  Crag’s clients and many other Oregonians recognize that land use safeguards exist to protect everyone’s property values and rights.  The large Measure 37 developments threatened farm, forests and water supplies across Oregon.  The Supreme Court’s ruling safeguards the interests of all property owners and will help prevent further conversion of our irreplaceable farmland into subdivisions, strip malls, and gravel pits.  We congratulate those individuals across Oregon who were willing to stand up for their communities and who never gave up the fight for Oregon’s land use protections.

Alec Loorz on set filming with Witness. Photo by Ben Pearce.

On May 5, youth in Oregon sued Governor Kitzhaber for failing to adequately protect our atmosphere from climate change.  At the same time, members of the next generation also sued the federal government, several other states, and launched lawsuits in other countries in an effort to halt our current climate crisis.

How climate change will alter life as we know it is almost incomprehensible.  But to hear a young person explain why they worry about climate change and why they are willing to fight to stop it is not only comprehensible but virtually impossible to ignore.  Listening to a tween tell you that she wants to go to college, have a dog, buy a house, and grow a garden and that if we stay on our current climate trajectory she may not be able to do those things is heart breaking.  (Especially for those of us in the ruling generation who have been lucky enough to accomplish some of these goals.)

Of course, lawsuits are not always the best vehicles for capturing these sentiments.  Luckily, the iMatter campaign partnered with Witness – a kick-butt NGO that creates amazing documentaries – to tell the stories of some of the youth who decided to hold the ruling generation accountable for our on-going climate disaster.  As a result of this partnership, several short documentaries will be released throughout the next year providing a snap shot of the youth behind the climate change lawsuits.

The first film was just released and tells the story of Alec Loorz who at the age of 12 watched An Inconvenient Truth with his mother and radically altered his life to become a climate change activist.  Alec’s story is an amazing inspiration and you absolutely should watch it!  And when you’re done, check out Alec’s recommendations for how you can make a difference for our climate.

Since the Ninth Circuit issued its final unanimous decision this past May, a number of developments have taken place.  First, both the timber industry and the State of Oregon announced that they will ask the Supreme Court to overturn the Ninth Circuit decision.  As a first step, they must file a “petition for certiorari” requesting that the Supreme Court accept the case for review.  We expect those petitions to be filed in September, and Crag will then be working with our partners on a response defending the decision.  The Supreme Court only accepts a limited number of cases for review, and the timber industry and the State will have to convince the Court that this should be one of those limited cases.

Second, Senator Wyden (D – Or) has co-sponsored a bill that would exempt the timber industry from the permitting requirements of the Clean Water Act.  Industry has tried to convince anyone and everyone that the sky is falling in the form of a CWA permit program that has already been applied to most other industries in the country.  In response, we have been working with a coalition of organizations to clarify the contours and operation of the Clean Water Act program, which has proven to be an efficient, transparent and reliable way to protect our natural resources for more than 30 years.

The case has also generated substantial media over the past several weeks.  To learn more, you can read a sample of that coverage:

1)            The Oregonian story on Sen. Wyden’s bill;

2)            An editorial from the Oregonian regarding the bill; and

3)            A response that I co-authored with Bill Bakke, Executive Director of the Native Fish Society and Jim Lichatowich, fisheries biologist and author of Salmon Without Rivers – A History of the Pacific Salmon Crisis.

Finally, we also recently sent out an e-mail blast to our supporters asking for their help as we move the work forward.  We’re a small organization working on a shoestring budget, and we depend on the generous support from individuals that believe in Crag’s mission of protecting our natural resources for future generations.  Please consider making a gift to help with our work, and rest assured that we will continue to defend the public’s interest in clean water and our iconic runs of native salmon and steelhead.

Crag staff & summer associates kayaking on the Clackamas. Photo courtesy of Aaron Kabb.

Spending a day on the river reminded me of all of the different impacts that Northwest river systems face and the work that Crag does to address those impacts.  The Clackamas River Basin consists of 16 different watersheds, all which are affected by multiple impacts to water quality.  With close proximity to Mount Hood National Forest, the recent case of NEDC v.  Brown would increase protections to these watersheds and improve water quality.  Also, the river provides an ecosystem for coho and chinook salmon, and bullhead and steelhead trout.   Due to the work that Crag has done in the past, such as representing Oregon Natural Desert Association (ONDA) to protect habitat for inland native fish and securing the removal of the Hemlock Dam on the Wind River Watershed, these species face better ecosystems across the Northwest.

Fortunately, thoughts regarding water quality and regulation seldom entered our minds while we were actually on the river, as it was near impossible to focus on anything but navigating the rapids.  Concerns about deadlines, appeals and settlements quickly retreated into the back of our minds as we faced the difficult challenge of not flipping the kayaks (and evading the surreptitious interns who had a knack for pushing others out of their kayak).  Needless to say, the trip was refreshing, both physically and mentally, allowing the staff* to have a day of relaxation and enjoyment.

*Certain attorneys were too hard-working to be able to attend, and we thank them for their dedication.

© 2011 John Hyde/AlaskaStock.com Blurred motion view of a wolf in *black phase* running in the Tongass National Forest, Southeast, Alaska during Winter

Crag recently won a key victory in the fight to preserve old-growth forest and wildlife habitat in the Tongass National Forest.  In the case – Greenpeace v. Cole – the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals threw out four old-growth timber sales that would have logged important habitat for the rare Alexander Archipelago wolf.  Crag filed the case on behalf of Greenpeace, Inc. and Cascadia Wildlands.

The Tongass contains some of the most magnificent old-growth forests remaining in the United States, and these forests are laid out across both the mainland as well as a network of coastal islands known as the Alexander Archipelago.  These coastal rainforests provide irreplaceable habitat for the wolf, a unique subspecies of the gray wolf, which can swim from island to island and dens in old-growth forest near salmon streams and fresh water.

The Forest Service was using a computer model to estimate impacts to wolves and deer, but the model suffered from numerous errors that greatly underestimated the damage done to these old-growth dependent species.  In a unanimous decision, the three-judge panel rejected four separate timber sales, which collectively would have logged over 1,700 acres of old-growth forest.  The Court recognized that the Forest Service was ignoring the best available science on how old-growth logging affects wolves and deer, instead relying on inaccurate and outdated data.

Years of intensive old-growth logging and road building have caused significant declines in wolf populations in the Tongass, and the errors identified by the Court have also plagued every other sale approved by the Forest Service in this area from 1996 to 2008.  For years, Greenpeace and others attempted to bring their concerns directly to the federal government, but the Forest Service refused to acknowledge the best available science or admit the errors in its computer models.  After running out of options, Greenpeace contacted Crag and moved forward with court action as a last resort.

Chris Winter, staff attorney and Co-Executive Director, handled the case for Crag and its clients.  Winter said, “The Forest Service ignored the best available science on the impacts of clearcutting old-growth forest in the Tongass.  The court issued a common sense decision requiring more from our federal government.”

For more information, the read the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals opinion and the press release distributed by Greenpeace and Cascadia Wildlands.