DNR proposed new Aquatic Lands Habitat Conservation Plan

[Grateful Diver]

I received this notice earlier today via the Marker Buoys website. Reposting it here for everyone to be aware of. Public comments are only going to be taken until December 04.

If this proposal is adopted, it will mean the eventual removal of some of the best dive sites in Puget Sound, including Keystone Jetty and the Point Hudson Jetty.

The following is a reposting of what I received ...

**************************************************************************************************************************************************

In case folks are not aware, the Washington State Department of Natural Resources (DNR) is proposing a new Aquatic Lands Habitat Conservation Plan to help protect certain species under the Endangered Species Act. As divers, we would normally welcome any action to help protect the sensitive life we all love seeing while we are diving. But unfortunately this new proposed plan might be throwing the "baby out with with bathwater.” This is because one of the proposed actions would be to gradually remove all rock breakwaters in Puget Sound. But we all know rock breakwaters such as Point Hudson, Keystone Jetty as well as the breakwater in front of many marinas (e.g. Elliott Bay Marina, Edmonds Marina, Shilshole Marina) are not only great dive sites – these rocky areas are home to dozens of species including some of the very species the EPA is hoping to protect. For example, there is a great Canary Rockfish (one of the EPA species) nursery just below the end of the Point Hudson Jetty not to mention all the other rockfish species that live and breed in the rocks that make up the jetty. Under this new plan, this jetty would be removed.

Maybe others have heard about this plan, but I just learned about it and unfortunately the public comment period ends on December 4th.

The plan is massive – over 1000 pages. The site with information can be found here:

http://www.dnr.wa.gov/ResearchScience/T ... s_hcp.aspx

The section on breakwaters can be found on page 22 on:

http://www.dnr.wa.gov/Publications/aqr_ ... pter_5.pdf

I won’t pretend I have read all 1000 pages but based on some initial reading and information from other organizations, there are a lot of issues with this plan. For example, a number of new rules would impact every marina in Puget Sound given the cost and amount of retrofitting required at each marina when they renew their lease with the DNR (new depth requirements, new walkway requirements, new covered area requirements, etc.). This would impact those of us who have our own boats or do boat dives on other boats.

I plan to comment on this plan. If you are also interested in commenting you can send email to:

WFWOComments@fws.gov. In the subject line of the email, please include the identifier: WDNR Aquatic Lands HCP DEIS.

All comments must be received no later than December 4, 2014.

[Jan K]

There seems to be no end to the effort to eliminate diving around here

[Jeff Pack]

Dnr has rarely(if at all) been friendly for any hobby I can think of

[CaptnJack]

For over 20 years we've known that the use of rock breakwaters alters the movement of sediment along the shoreline (for instance) and is detrimental to a wide variety of physical processes and habitats. Since marina leases run for decades, it absolutely makes sense for the best available science to be incorporated into their replacement/renovation in the future. From what I could tell, functioning breakwaters are allowed to remain, but if they were to collapse or fail the repairs/restoration could not just "do what they've always done" and dump more rock there. They would actually need to demonstrate that no less destructive structure is viable. Makes sense to me.

[renoun]

A family member was involved in drafting the first terrestrial habitat conservation plan in Washington about fifteen years ago. This is a very new and infrequently used environmental planning strategy that, unless things have changed, may yet to be applied to an aquatic environment. It's probably been written over the last 2-5 years by either DNR staff or a contracted environmental consulting firm.

Overall it's possible that it is a good document but I can't say one way or the other. I'm unaware of a HCP being adopted for public lands so that could also be a first. I won't have time to read much of this in the near future but careful analysis rather than uninformed reactions would better reflect our positions about artificial structures in the sound. It is also possible that a request to extend the public comment period would be granted, somebody more familiar than I with the State Environmental Policy Act will have to weigh in.