Search results

Result Limit

Sort

Display

(1 - 1 of 1)

Title: Man, Government, and the Sea: Northern Puget Sound and the Straight of Georgia
Date: 1975
Digital Collection: Center for Pacific Northwest Studies Occasional Papers
Type of resource: text
Object custodian: Center for Pacific Northwest Studies
Local Identifier: cpnws_ops_005
Text preview (might not show all results): MAN, GOVERNMENT & THE SEA: NORTHERN PUGET SOUND AND THE STRAIT OF GEORGIA edited by James W. Scott Manfred C. Vernon Occasional Paper #5 Center for Pacific Northwest Studies Western Washington Sta
Show moreMAN, GOVERNMENT & THE SEA: NORTHERN PUGET SOUND AND THE STRAIT OF GEORGIA edited by James W. Scott Manfred C. Vernon Occasional Paper #5 Center for Pacific Northwest Studies Western Washington State College 1976 MAN, GOVERNMENT AND THE SEA: NORTHERN PUGET SOUND AND THE STRAIT OF GEORGIA Proceedings of a conference held at Western Washington State College, September 15 - September 19, 1975 edited by James W. Scott & Manfred C. Vernon Occasional Paper #5 Center for Pacific Northwest Studies Western Washington State College 1976 © Copyright Center for Pacific Northwest Studies Printed at Western Washington State College, Bellingham, WA January 1976 225 Map of Northern Puget Sound and Strait of Georgia ···-···-···-··· Washington British Columbia SKAGIT ;, MT. VERNON u 0 ·--,_,_ Hoerauf - WI/SC 20 mi. 30 km. · -·-·-·-·-·- TABLE OF CONTENTS Preface - James W. Scott, Manfred C. Vernon vii The Conference Outlined - Manfred C. Vernon . . . . . . . . . 1 Problems and Possibilities of the Northern Puget Sound - The Honorable Lloyd Meeds. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Discovery, Exploration and Early Development of the Region Murray Morgan. . . . . . . . 10 The Natural Resources of Northern Puget Sound - Robert Monahan. . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 Whatcom County's Changing Shoreline - Thomas A. Terich 33 Marine Life in the Sound - William Summers 43 Port Development in the Region - Tom Glenn so The Origins of the Port of Bellingham - James H. Hitchman 55 Canada's Presence in the Northern Puget Sound Region: Problems and Prospects - Donald Alper ....... . 59 Oil in Puget Sound and the Strait of Georgia - Representative Mary K. Becker . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63 Oil in Puget Sound and Strait of Georgia - Virgil McNabb. 70 Regional Transportation in Northern Puget Sound - James W. Scott . . . . . . . . . . . 74 Supertankers and Puget Sound - A. Preston Taylor 86 The Indian Presence in Puget Sound and the Strait of Georgia Erna Gunther . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89 The Fisheries Today: Assessing the Problems - Donald Moos 98 The Plight of a Troubled Industry--Arnerican Fisheries Milo Moore ............ . 105 Aquaculture-- What it Means to the Puget Sound Region - Earl F. Prentice ........... . 107 The State of Washington Looks at the Puget Sound Region James Dolliver . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114 Table of Contents (continued) Man, Government, and the Sea: Perspectives on Democracy - James O'Brien . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121 The Indian Fisheries: A Report on the Panel Discussion - Keith A. Murray . . . . . . . . . . . • . . 123 Government and the Sound: A Legislative Report - Senator H. A. "Barney" Goltz . . . . . . . . . . . 126 Panel Discussion "Can We Have the Sound and Eat it Too? Al Swift . . . . . . . . . . . . 140 The Conference Assessed - Murray Morgan 142 Summary of Conference - Phyllis Bultmann 146 Appendix - Conference Program 148 PREFACE What twelve months ago was little more than a few embryonic ideas is today regarded by a good many in the northern Puget Sound region as a notable benchmark in the ongoing debate on the problems of the Sound and its adjacent waters on both sides of the international border. The conference entitled MAN, GOVERNMENT & THE SEA: NORTHERN PUGET SOUND AND THE STRAIT OF GEORGIA was held barely four months ago, yet it is already past history. It is fortunate, therefore, that, as part of the original conference proposal, we are enabled to perpetuate its deliberations in these edited papers, some of which are printed in their entirety, others in brief or as part of a report prepared by the panel chairman or other participant. In their original plans, the organizers of the conference prepared a list of probable topics and a "hope" list of possible speakers. Remarkably, the final program was but little changed from the initial proposal. We are grateful indeed to those many officials, academics and professional specialists who agreed to participate in the conference, and to the few, including Dr. James Crutchfield of the University of Washington, President Norman Clark of Everett Community College, Mr. Steven Chase, a former Trustee of Western, and Attorney Lewis Morriset of Seattle, who were keen to accept our invitation, but were prevented for one reason or another from doing so. The overall success of the conference, however, was due to more than speakers and organizers, although to list all the persons who contributed in some way or other to its success will be difficult--some inevitably may be overlooked, and for this we make our apologies. We wish to express our gratitude to President Paul J. Olscamp of Western, philosopher and humanist, who, although but recently arrived on campus to assume the presidency, graciously accepted our invitation to officially open the conference by welcoming its participants to the campus; to the many speakers, discussion leaders and commentators, whose names are listed in the program reproduced at the end of this volume; to our fellow organizers--Jane Clark, Director, and Bill Clement, both of the Bureau for Faculty Research, Don Alper of the Political Science Department, Al Swift, Public Affairs Director, KVOS television station, Bill Honeysett, Publisher, the Bellingham Herald, Tom Glenn, Manager, Port of Bellingham, and Mrs. Susan Barrow, Director, Whatcom Museum of History and Art; to those persons who acted as chairmen of sessions, including Dean James W. Davis, College of Arts & Sciences, W.W.S.C., Whatcom County Commissioner C. J. (Corky) Johnson, the Honorable Robert Wenman, Member of Parliament, Fraser Valley West, Bill Honeysett, Keith Murray, Department of History, W.W.S.C., and Mayor Robert Anderson of Everett; to Mrs. Susan Barrow and the Docents of the Whatcom Museum who did so much to make the special evening session at the museum an outstanding event; to members of the news media in Washington and British Columbia, including Haynes Fay of KGMI, Bill Honeysett, and Al Swift who generously provided coverage of events and who made arrangements for other matters concerning the conference; and to a large number of W.W.S.C. personnel, including Nona Hengen, Director of Educational Media, Robert Cross, vii Associate Director of the Wilson Library, Dan Turbeville, Map Curator, Ray Heller, Public Information, and various members of his staff, and Anita Johnson, Department of Geography and Regional Planning. Most of all are we indebted to Jane Clark and her highly efficient staff of the Bureau for Faculty Research, wthout whom the conference would have been markedly inferior, if not absolutely impossible to stage in the way it was. Many of the contributions are taken from remarks of the authors on the occasion of the conference. This pertains to contributions of the following: Dr. Erna Gunther, Murray Morgan, Virgil McNabb, Bill Summers, Mary K. Becker and James Dolliver. James W. Scott Manfred C•. Vernon January, 1976 viii THE CONFERENCE OUTLINED Manfred C. Vernon The conference on "Man, Government and the Sea: The Upper Puget Sound and the Georgia Strait" has been called at a time, when an array of problems face our region. No doubt, the northern parts of the Puget Sound, or perhaps better, the waters north of the Sound proper and the neighboring Strait of Georgia have become a matter of increasing concern to the people around here. While living here, we should never forget the exquisite beauty in which we find ourselves; indeed it should be a continuous thought for all of us never to do damage to such a setting. It is obvious that our style of life is shaped by it; to change it would probably mean to tamper with such quality or perhaps even to destroy it. This meeting has been sponsored by the Bureau for Faculty Research and the Center for Pacific Northwest Studies of Western Washington State College. It has been made possible by a grant from the Washington Commission for the Humanities. Its concerns are directed towards a participating public to whom speakers and resource persons will submit statements and observations on a variety of matters such as the transportation and refining of oil, the many crisis conditions for the fisheries but also the appearance of large tonnage tankers, or the claim of the Indian tribes to a different share of the total fish harvest. We certainly must also include within the range of our general concern for the well-being of our region an awareness of the reality of the border between two countries, described as "the two children of a connnon mother" but not necessarily living within the always harmonic confines of a happy family setting. There are other essential problems that also must be brought to out attention and kept in mind. After all, our waters are heavily used for general transportation as well as for recreational purposes like boating or sport fisheries. In addition, all of us tend to overlook the heavy use, if not abuse, of the shores around us. Certainly, we ought to have much more background information on the basic economic, political and social concerns of this region, without which we might not easily understand why we are being confronted by the problems that face us today. There is quite some nostalgic disposition in us, when we talk about all these matters and their impact on our very existence. Many of us take certain things for granted and consider them as part and parcel of our lives, since modern man appeared at these shores. Others profess a deep longing for the good old days when any development that would endanger our presence here seemingly was just not possible. In fact, one might easily wonder whether or not there ever have been such "good old days" for the then relatively few people living here who were imbued with certainly much more modest aspirations for their lives than would by typical for our own day and age. No doubt, today we deal with many more people than in those times gone by. And it also must be considered as a realistic assessment that there will continue to be significant increase in our numbers in the period ahead of us. Another factor to be kept in mind should be that the many more that will come and live here--as we ourselves 1 are already doing right now--will demand more and mor-e earthly goodH, greater comfort and a higher standard of living. It appears to be obvious that for most of us that what we call the good life seems to be one of having unlimited access to the material things considered as absolutely necessary for our present life style. These demands for the better life--the so-called higher standard of living--are continuously challenged by other individual claims that arise within the ranks of our society and which are often-times very antagonistic to each other. All of us seem to be in haste to ask for more. A number want a different key for the distribution of these worldly goods. All of us want a bigger pie for all to share, but we also ask for different ways of cutting it and larger individual portions. In the meantime, we support these claims while "virtuously" observing that actually we are too modest and in need of a more favorable way of distribution. The many run-in situations, in which the individual becomes involved, often lead to arguments, confrontation and moments of real danger for the common-weal. In fact, we have become increasingly distrustful of each other. We therefore ask, whether we like it or not, for help in order to improve our individual condition. Man, at times against his own wishes, expects to be helped by his government, since he professes anyway to be a part of it. Yet, at the same time, he also considers government as the other side, the real enemy. The total organization of government, designed to act as society's servant, is faced with the everlasting problem of human adversity and confrontation. Governmental reaction to the many individual wishes, which is often pronounced in laws and executive actions, professes to act according to these wishes; its action, certainly within the confines of political democracy, are described by those "in government" as the result of the many individual inputs. Our political leaders prefer to see such manifestations as the expression of consensus, or at least as a workable compromise of the many shades of thoughts of a total constituency. Hopefully, their action might even approximate the "general will" according to the philosopher's prescription. Certainly the professional participants in the governmental processes, the politician and the public servant, make it their business to continuously express their desire to be guided by an interested and informed public. Yet quite often it appears difficult to fathom the depth of human wishes of the social and political kind. It certainly has been the fervent wish of the persons who organized this meeting to have the statements of social scientist, humanist, and other resource experts stimulate the necessary dialogue between individual and government. The main actors of a conference like this really should be those attending who listen and react and thus provide both a sensitive and a demanding audience. Their reaction has been invited in order to have City Hall, County Courthouse, and all levels of State and Federal government become aware of such public feelings and thoughts on the topics to be considered. It is the intention of this conference to listen, to have those attending see for themselves, to ask the questions and to challenge the experts. This will be done in many ways, as through making available films dealing with problems such as oil transportation, or the contrasting fisheries interests. Field trips have been arranged to see specific functions in action: the Lummi Aquaculture program and the many activities of a port authority such as that of the Port of Bellingham. Challenge 2 will come from the the totaling of the from a human-oriented viewpoint, And to have ex~ change between humanists and members of the audience-participants is a The impact of such encounters should for greater ins on the part of a ivated audience; it should even more so be a challenging encounter to the official represeritati>:,,res of all tic.a.l pe-.r.su.asio,n.s EU.1.d levels of go~J.2rr:nuentn What then will be the ultimate 'Vie will of a 1;,;eek in and information on a that have e:o-exisced for s of tim_e~, 211.d it w·ill as 1{JJe11 asiz if tlrere t~as beer1 any or even Justification for about oil f recr,e.ation trar~sportatior1:; as t.1ell as resources~ the shorelir1e,, or rn.arine-~ conditions and within the confines of such a lirn.i ted of of the co-existence of interests, with The ideas bet~~·eeI1 1-rtnnanist ~ expert and t1-1e ger1eral ]' tNill clear the need for some master for better coordination of use and E:uch a.s: Car1 Indeed, our future concern must face controL we afford the co-existence of interests? Can we afford to use the available facilities ,=1.nd resources ~lithout a plan? Can tife count or! tl-ie ever~ of our resources~ fcrr t·h·e con.tin.uar1ce of our pr>esent lasting there, after all, and for better or worse--a need to sense of If the latter is dee·med n.ecessa..ry then. ts that have become cherwe be forced up s.orne of the ished institutions for sorne oi t1s? In others 1,1.1ords Sound and eat it too? P)_t tl-1is timej it is not: possible to an;r ansr.i-1ers; rte-,l2rt.heless ~ it is t to, at least make the best of the chance we have to face eacli_ other a!ld to let it be k.no\.vn ~iJhat is on each of ou1c rnin.ds,, ion that there is need for furmight should,, lead to the ideas on some of the that ic ther The reason for all this appears obvious: of t11is to articulate better our ts, hopes and possible solutions for prethis beautiful spot in which we are privileged to live whic n1ost of t1s desire to pass 011 to a u.erJJ generaticg1 in t1-te fer~v.ent recc~rmnendatior1 tl-1.a,t those V\rho follo\q u.s \vill pass that follow them, attitude to the 3 PROBLEMS AND POSSIBILITIES OF THE NORTHERN PUGET SOUND Congressman Lloyd Meeds I appreciate this opportunity to address the Man, Government and the Sea Conference. The importance of the Northwest marine environment is illustrated almost daily by news events of sweeping magnitude. Oil discoveries in Alaska, population growth and pollution are examples of marine issues that have demanded our attention in the last two years. Perhaps the better part of valor would be to select some topic on which there is little disagreement, expound at length, and then retire to the relative insulation of Washington, D.C., 3,000 miles away. But there are some issues which cannot be ignored, even though they may be complex, emotional or difficult to discuss safely. The decision of U.S. District Court Judge George Boldt, handed down on February 12, 1974, presented us with both problems and possibilities. If you don't think there are problems, ask the fisherman who can't make the payments on his equipment or provide groceries for his family. The possibilities are much more difficult to perceive. It's rather like trying to drain the swamp when you are up to your Adam's apple in alligators. But at the risk of being misunderstood let me suggest the Boldt decision has provided us the greatest opportunity we have had in years to really do something about the precarious state of our fishery resource. I think I can say without fear of contradiction by the experts that even without the Boldt decision our anadromous fishery resource in the Puget Sound would be past the point of no return within the next ten years. With the Boldt decision it may occur even sooner. Our challenge is to use the limelight cast by the decision to attack the host of problems which confront that fishery and really do something to prevent disaster. I do not intend to minimize the impact of the Boldt decision. But it must be placed in some rational perspective vis a vis the totality of problems confronting the anadromous fishery. I think it is necessary to understand that there are a number of such problems among which Boldt is only one. It takes no analytical genius pouringover the catch reports for the past 50 years to realize that our anadromous fish resource is being depleted. I know there are bumper years occasionally which buck the trend, but the trend line is steadily down. Not suprisingly, that downward trend corresponds inversely to the upward rush of civilization. Dams and pollution, which are the inevitable result of more people, more jobs and more money are also immutable causes of fewer and fewer fish. The Washington State Department of Fisheries, in its booklet The Salmon Crisis, states, "[T]he main causes of salmon depletion can be traced directly to the environmental changes that have taken place since the advent of civilization in the Pacific Northwest." Dr. James Crutchfield of the University of Washington School of Fisheries states in his book, The Pacific Salmon Fisheries, "The most serious effect, according to competent biologists, has been the relentless destruction of small spawning creeks by urban construction and the rising tide of municipal and industrial pollution." If a more precise illustration is needed, let me use information 4 furnished me by the Idaho Department of Game in my present effort to prevent the building of more dams on the Middle Snake River in Idaho. That Department indicates that the anadromous fish runs on the Snake and its tributaries have declined by approximately 15% with each of the last four dams built on the lower Snake. That's a total of sixty percent depletion with the four dams built since 1969. And they have the statistics to prove it. Another major problem is the Canadian interception fishery. The director of the Washington State Department of Fisheries, Don Moos, in a dedication speech at the Skagit Salmon Hatchery last month said, "Interception fisheries of the Canadians take 50% of Washington reared salmon." Increased efficiency of the Canadian troll fleet and other factors have led to an increasing take of anadromous fish hatched, reared and trying to return to our Washington streams. To illustrate the effect of this, let's just assume that there was no Canadian interception fishery and that Washington State fishermen caught that increase in 1974. That means Washington State fishermen would have taken approximately 11,700,000 fish rather than the approximately 5,850,000 they did take. Of that figure, Indians took 850,000. Or put another way in 1974 Canadians took 5 million more Washington bound salmon than the Indians. That's 600%. Now I don't mean to use this illustration as an opening shot in an undelcared war against our friends in Canada. Nor do I mean to oversimplify and say that all we have to do to restore our fishery is to sink the Canadian fishing fleet. Clearly we could not and would not do so. Rather I use this illustration to put in perspective the Indian fishery as a total of all fishery problems. Another major problem is too much gear chasing too few fish. Despite the fact that we are catching fewer fish than we were in 1950, we are told that there is approximately 11 times as much gear in the water now as there was then. Just in the past four years there has been an increase of 51% in the number of licenses issued for purse seiners, gill netters, reef netters and trollers. The number of gill netters jumped from 1039 in 1970 to 1989 in 1974, a 91% increase. And these figures say nothing about the quantum leap in the number of sports fishermen during that same period. There are other problems: The high seas fisheries of other nations, disease, imprecise season setting, etc., etc. These are diverse problems with many causes and little commmonality except the increased pressure of more people. These problems are all insidious--that is to say they have crept upon us gradually. Not all of the dams were built in one year, the Canadians didn't suddenly start taking one-half of the Washington bound salmon, we didn't increase our amount of gear by 11 times in one year, and thousands of miles of rearing streams were not diverted or polluted in one year. These problems have grown slowly, like a small cloud gathering into a storm. But the total effect of any one of them, and particularly the combined effect, is just as devastating as if they all happened at once. Perhaps we would have been better off had they all happened at once--at least that would have had a greater shock value. We might have been shocked enough to take more steps to correct them. As it is, we have given less than adequate attention to realistic solutions. On top of this burst the Boldt decision. If you'll pardon the expression it burst upon us like a Boldt out of the blue. There it was-or rather there he was--saying that the Indians were entitled to 50% of 5 the fish. And if you don't believe that got our attention, you haven't been reading the newspapers--or my mail. Let's examine the Boldt decision, what has been done to alleviate it and other possible alternatives. Common to most Indian treaties in the Puget Sound area was the following language: "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 . . . " The court interpreted this language, when stripped to its essential principles to mean (1) sovereign Indian tribes--their members are essentially beyond the regulatory powers of the state in the exercise of their treaty rights except for state regulations essential for conservation purposes. Secondly, treaty language was not a grant from the U.S. but a reservation of a right by the Indians. Thirdly, the words "in common with" meant sharing equally with--or a 50-50 split of the harvestable catch. We could argue for hours, days, or months as to whether that is a proper interpretation of the treaty. But the fact is that is the interpretation Judge Boldt placed upon the language--whether we agree or disagree. We have, under our Constitution, established courts of law to interpret treaties, among other things, and unless we are prepared to change that Constitution, we must adapt to that interpretation unless it is changed by a higher court. (I might add parenthetically that Judge Boldt was upheld 120% by the Circuit Court of Appeals.) The machinery is now in motion to take this decision to the highest court in the land. Predictably, upon the announcement of this decision, anger, fear, consternation, indignation and outrage best described the feelings of many citizens and some public agencies. The Washington State Department of Fisheries and the Department of Game at that time simply refused to believe that such a decision could have been handed down and joined the angry chorus of voices denouncing Judge Boldt. Simply stated, they shed more heat than they diffused light. They simply threw up their hands, perhaps understandably, and refused to enforce the law, even as defined by Judge Boldt, against the Indians. Thus we were treated to the spectacle of non-treaty Indians fishing whereever and whenever they wished and treaty Indians fishing contrary to the court decision in places other than "usual and accustomed" grounds and stations. Chaos reigned and incident after incident fanned the fires of resentment. Shortened seasons were imposed on non-Indian fishermen based on inadequate information. Many spawning fish piled up at hatchery gates where they were of no substantial value to Indians or non-Indians. Stories spread of wholesale decimation of both salmon and steelhead runs by Indians. The facts, as gathered by the Washington State Department of Fisheries and verified by the General Accounting Office, are that in 1974 (the first year of the Boldt decision) Indians took 13.9% of the salmon and 45% of the steelhead. I should point out that there are instances where Indians took far more steelhead than they should have from certain streams and instances where they took less than they were entitled to under the court decision. Many problems still exist, particularly with regard to the 6 Fraser River Sockeye run, but the attitude of both state departments, particularly the Department of Fisheries, has changed from problem cursing to problem solving. Since this is a Federal Court decision and since the Federal government has virtually sole jurisdiction of Indian Affairs, it was natural that perplexed public officials and angered fishermen should turn to the federal government for solutions. In several meetings, members of the Washington delegation attempted to ascertain the problems and provide some solutions. In ~he first year we added $3.3 million dollars to Interior Appropriations to improve fisheries management and expand the salmon and steelhead runs. $1,050,000 of this went into added capacity for hatcheries. Also from Fiscal '75 funds we obtained $3.5 million from an obscure section of the Economic Development Act which is being used in a gear buyback program. The purpose of this program is to purchase from commercial fishermen gear which they wish to sell. The ultimate effect will be to decrease the amount of the gear in the water and respond not only to the Boldt decision dilemma but also to the overall problem of too much gear chasing too few fish. Additionally, and I think most importantly, it is a recognition by us that the tax dollars of all citizens should be used to alleviate the plight of a small segment of our society which has been forced to bear the brunt of the Boldt decision. The Congressional delegation was also responsible for the formation of a task force of Federal and State agencies which pooled their resources and expertise in providing a compendium of all forms of economic aid through the Small Business Administration and other agencies. This year we have added $4.3 million which is to be used by the Washington State Department of Fisheries, the Department of Game, the Indian Fish Commission, and tribes for the purposes of research, monitoring and enforcement. Correct utilization of these funds should prevent poorly timed fishing season closures. Also with these funds correct procedures and mechanisms can be established to prevent instances such as occurred on the Nisqually and the Skagit Rivers, where Indians took 81% and 68% respectively, of the steelhead. While much has been done by the Congressional delegation and while much more remains to be done, the solutions we propose for the Boldt decision and other problems in the fishery resource seem inadequate and costly to those who demand that we simply "change the treaties." In examining this as an alternative I think it necessary to understand the nature of treaties. Treaties are essentially contracts between nations. As with contracts between individuals, they cannot be simply disregarded when one party feels disadvantaged. No doubt the Indians would be delighted to change the treaties and take back all that they gave in exchange for the consideration by the United States. I don't mean to oversimplify but the essential ingredient of our integrity as a people is that we keep our word--abide by our commitments. But let us assume for the sake of argument the treaties could be changed in such a way as to take from the Indians all or part of the fishery resource the court says they are entitled to. (And this is really all that will satisfy many who are demanding that the treaties be changed). Wtihout question this would be taking of property prohibited by the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution. Again, as with individuals when a contract is breached, the aggrieved party is entitled to damages in the amount he or she would have realized 7 if the contract had been kept. Thus if we change the treaty to take from the Indians what the court says is their right we will be required to pay for that right. I doubt most people understand how expensive that could be. I asked the Library of Congress to make an estimate for me and they did so based on the value of the 1974 anadromous fish take in the Boldt decision area. They valued the total take at $42 million. One-half of that is $21,000,000. That is just for one year. When you realize the treaties run in perpetuity you must understand we are talking about a very large sum of money. In the final analysis it seems to me that "changing the treaties" is not a very viable solution from either a moral or a financial standpoint. But that is not to say the Federal government is incapable of doing anything. In addition to the steps which I have already discussed it seems to me that we can help to bring some order out of what is now a chaotic situation. Under the Boldt decision, sovereign tribes under certain conditions have the right to regulate their own fishery. There are now 27 tribes in the Puget Sound region who are either active parties or intervenors in that case. And there are three more tribes added by an Oregon federal judge who applied the Boldt formula to the Columbia River. That's a total of 30 tribes. Add them to the States of Washington and Oregon, and the Federal government (in certain instances) as regulators and enforcers and you have a hopelessly large number of groups trying to regulate a resource which needs above all things unified management. But the federal government, unlike the state, is in a legal position to deal with the Indian tribes and other interested parties in applying coordinated, rational fisheries management. I am not suggesting total federal takeover. What I am suggesting is the concept of limited federal action to consolidate management in areas that the state cannot now handle and to coordinate activities with the state and with the Indians. Another problem is the inherent conflict of interest in self-regulation. Many of the tribes and individual members who are called upon to regulate themselves stand to profit or lose from their own decisions. If they decide to keep the fishery open one more day they catch more fish--if they decide to close it they don't. I'm not accusing Indians of dishonesty. I'm simply saying that the regulators should not be placed in a position where they directly stand to profit or lose based on those decisions. We attempt to avoid this in our society. I see no reason why it should prevail here. Congress has already taken important actions to deal with both the immediate impact and long-term problems of the Boldt decision and other problems. But until the basic management confusion is cleared up, both non-Indian and Indian fishermen will continue to suffer from economic hardship and emotional debate. I said at the beginning the Boldt decision presents us with some problems and some possibilities. Problems which, when added to others already plaguing our fishery resource could spell a more rapid demise of that resource. But possibilities which if seized could revive a resource which is doomed even in the absence of the Boldt decision. The important thing is that we recognize it for precisely what it is--just one of the problems. If we misjudge its importance and allow it to detract us from a major attack on all the problems we will have gained nothing and lost much. I 8 have always been impressed with what Eleanor Roosevelt said of Adlai Stevenson upon his death. She said, "he would rather light a candle than curse the darkness." If we throw up our hands or wallow in emotional futility over the Boldt decision and do nothing constructive about it or other long-range problems, we will only guarantee the total collapse of the Northwest fishing industry. And we will have gained nothing and lost much if we allow overconcentration on the Boldt decision to blind us to inexorable population and environmental pressures. That seems to me to sum up the current situation. We can continue to burn Judge Boldt in effigy, to picket and posture; to curse the courts, the Indians and the darkness. Or we can seize this opportunity to take the hard steps necessary to save our ailing fishery resource--and thereby light a candle. I hope we choose to light a candle. 9 DISCOVERY, EXPLORATION AND EARLY DEVELOPMENT OF THE REGION Murray Morgan Men, Government and the Sea have been inter-twined since the first European explorers visited this area late in the Eighteenth Century. Indeed, from long before. North West America--the vast stretch of coastline reaching from Northern California to the tip of the Alaska Peninsula--was the last major reach of habitable waterfront in the world to be explored and charted, and the reason for the tardiness can be found in the policies of the maritime nations. Europeans could have been here earlier. After all, the Spanish were on the Pacific Coast of the Isthmus of Panama by 1513, the adventurer Balboa claiming the shoreline and the ocean for(the empire of Castile. The Spanish were in what is now part of the United States--San Diego Bay and the Channel Islands off Los Angeles--by 1541. Yet two centuries were to pass before there was a European landing anywhere on the North West Coast. And that a long way to the north--in the armpit of Alaska--by the Russians, in 1741. Another quarter century went by while the Russians worked out the geography of 'the Aleutian peninsula. Then came an extraordinary eighteen year burst of discovery. Juan Perez reached the islands of Southeastern Alaska in 1774, though he was unable to land anywhere north of California. The next year, 1775, Bruno Hezeta and the admirable Juan Francisco de la Bodega y Quadra went ashore on the Olympic Peninsula at MOCLIPS and POINT GRANVILLE, and Bodega, in his open-decked, 34-foot boat got well into Alaska waters. Captain Cook with the 'Resolution' and the 'Discovery', spent four weeks at Nootka Sound in 1778, went on along the coast into the Arctic Ocean and tried to reach England across the top of America--but he encountered the same problems with the ice that the tug and barge fleet is now having. Cook's voyage, however, revealed the possibilities of the trade in sea otter skins and brought the first non-governmental voyages to North West America. Charles William Barclay and his wife, Frances, the first white woman to visit our part of the world, sighted the entrance to the Strait of Juan de Fuca in 1787. The first Americans were on the coast in 1788--John Kendrick, a floating "con-man" of considerable charm and inconsiderable integrity; and Robert Gray, as tough a Yankee adventurer as ever shot up an Indian village in a preemptory strike. In 1790 the Spaniards Francisco Eliza and Manuel Quimper charted the Strait of Juan de Fuca and blessed the San Juans with their present lovely names; and in 1792 George Vancouver and Peter Puget charted Admiralty Inlet, Puget Sound, the Strait of Juan de Fuca, and Georgia Strait; while Robert Gray--on his second visit to this coast--discovered Grays Harbor 10 and entered the Columbia River. The outline of the coast of North West America was now clear. But why had it taken the Europeans more than 200 years to get here from California? Why that hiatus or two centuries when exploration was, in part, fiction, when Europe;~ns 1wnpled this <:ire;1 wLth monsters and sprinkled its coasts with pearls and gold, when such maps as were published showed non-existant straits and hypothetical rivers and drew from the matter-of-fact Captain Cook the fitting description of "Mapped imagination." As an aside it might be noted that: Jonathan Swift in 1726 drew a map for the first edition of Gulliver's Travels which showed the land of the Brobdingnagians, people as tall as a church steeple, who lived in the most outlandish place in the world, to be just west of here. To find the reason for the delay we must look to the governments and the policies of the maritime nations. We must remember why governments began sending out expensive expeditions during the Age of Reconnaissance. They were looking for a sea route to the Orient, for a new way to bring back to Europe the spices of the Indies, the silks and artifacts of Cathay. That search grew out of the threat of Islam to the overland route and new developments in marine technology in Europe, principally by the Portugese. In the middle of the Fifteenth Century the Portugese ruler, Prince Henry the Navigator, set up an academy to systematize information about the sea. The Portugese were pushing south along the west coast of Africa, and during these voyages they solved some of the problems of open sea navigation. They learned to use the fixed stars to tell their latitude-their position north and south; the height of the North Star above the horizon approximated their latitude. But on a spinning world they could not use the starts to tell their longitude, their position east and west. This they could estimate only by dead deckoning; by trying to judge their speed through the water--a difficult task at best, and almost impossible with the time-keeping instruments available to them: sand-clocks, usually set to measure a half hour. There was also the problem of men at sea. Late watches can be boring, and the men found they could shorten their watches by turning the sand-clock over before all the sand ran out. So the captains worked out a system under which the officers rang a bell whenever they turned the clock: one bell the first time, two the second and so on through eight bell rings on a four-hour watch. And so we got the system of ships bells to tell time. Even so the measurements were pretty crude. One French ship gained two days sand clock time on a trans-Atlantic voyage. Nor did the mariners have any answer to another great problem of long sea voyages--scurvy. We know now that scurvy is caused by deficiencies in the diet, by the absence of fresh fruits and vegetables on ships long at sea, and consequently an absence of Vitamin C. There was no refrigeration, little storage space, and nobody fared well. Gamelli Careri, describing a voyage he made in the 1600s, wrote: 11 The ship swarms with little vermin 1i1rhich the Spanish call GOR-GO-hoes,, which bred in the biscuit so swift that in a short time they not only run over cabin beds and the very dishes the men eat on, but fasten upon the body. There are several other sorts of vermin of sundry colors that suck the blood. Abundance of flies fall into the dishes of broth in which there also swim worms of several sorts. The king's allowance was laid on the table and in every mouthful there went down abundance of maggots and GOR-GOhoes chewed and bruised. On fish days the conll-non diet was rank old fish boiled in fair water and salt; at noon we had mangos, which are like kidney beans, in which there were so many maggots that they swam at the top of the broth, and the quantity was so great that, besides the loathing they caused, I doubted whether the dinner was fish or flesh,, Living on such a diet rhe men at sea began to show signs of the sailor 1 s disease. A French doctor describes an outbreak: Bereft of the most effective remedies, confined in a narrow ship, the plaything of the winds and of the sea, far from any place suitable for us to put into, the sick were multiplying every day. Swellings covered by black scabs appeared on various parts of their bodies, the skin revealed small wine-coloured stains at the root of the hairs; their joints stiffened, their flexor muscles seemed to shorten and held their limbs half~bent. But nothing was more hideous than the appearance of their faces: to the leaden complexion of the victims of scurvy was added the prominence of the gums jutting out of the mouth, which itself showed ulcerated spots The sick gave out a fetid smell, which, when you breai::hed it, seemed to attack the very root of life< I hav•2 often felt all my strength ebb away when I approached them" Their state of weakness did not revent them from retaining the use of all their intellectual faculties, which made them feel all the more cruelly the pangs of despair. On a long voyage a captain knew he would lose at least one third of his mer1 to scur'v'Y" Mos:t ships carried extra men ·when started--which compounded the problems of food and over-crowding .. In spite of the problems of navigation and health, the Portugese made their way around the of Good , across the Indian Ocean and reached the Orient sailing eastw3:rd That pronwted the Spanish to let Columbus try the ·\1oyage \·Jestv..Tard "'j.Jhich led t:o t:he disco\rery of America~ Colurnbus ~Jas a mariner of many virtues--t;ut the most import;::mt thing going for him on this enterprise was that could prove he was wrong, dead wrong, about the size of the world" Co1umD'-lS vroderestimated "the circmaferenee of the globe by one-third and over-e_sriiTts:ted the eastward extent of Asia in the same 12 degree. So it was that he thought he had reached the East Indies when he sighted the West Indies. He died still insisting he had found his way to the Orient. By 1500 it was clear that the Spanish had found not a new way to Asia but a "new world." The initial reaction was disappointment. The. inconvenient bulk of the American continents lay athwart their proposed path to the Spice Islands. Maybe there was a way through. It was the hunt for a shortcut to the Pacific that prompted most of the early exploration of the Atlantic Coast. The Spanish pushed southward along the South American coast, which armchair geographers decided must reach through the Antarctic. However, in 1520 Magellan found a "Southwest Passage" to the Pacific. Magellan's was a national expedition--sent out for the glory and aggrandizement of Spain--but it was remarkably international in composition. Magellan himself was a Portugese nobleman. The 269 officers and men who sailed on the five ships of the expedition in 1519 included Spaniards, Portugese, Basques, Genoese, Sicilians, Frenchmen, Flemings, Germans, Greeks, Neapolitans, Corfitos, four blacks, two Irishmen and one lone Englishmen, Master Andrew of Bristol--who never got back home. Few of them did. Of five ships that started, only one, the little Victoria, less than a hundred tons, burden, finished the voyage around the world. Magellan was killed in a needless battle in the Philippines, and of the 269 meµ who sailed, only eighteen survived the three-year voyage. But they were the first to circumnavigate the world. During this same period Hernando Cortez conquered Mexico and took control of the vast gold supply of the Aztec Empire. The Conquest of Mexico changed Spanish thinking about America: the continent was no longer a nuisance, rather a treasure to be protected. For his part Cortez reacted with the normal greed of the lucky. He had taken from the Indians the greatest amount of loot in the history of the world. He decided there must be more around for the grabbing. He reached the Pacific and sent ships west to look for islands of gold; all but one disappeared. Somehow that one crossed the Pacific to the Carolines and got back but without an ounce of gold. So Cortez looked northward. In 1539 Francisco de Ulloa reached the mouth of the Colorado River at the head of the Sea of Cortez (today's Gulf of California). The next year Francisco Vasques de Coronado went north by land looking for gold and wound up in Kansas, mighty disappointed. And in December 1541 Juan Rodriguez Cabrillo landed in ~an Diego Bay, had a skirmish with the Indians there, went on north to the Channel Islands, landing probably on Catalina, then crossed to the mainland and named a bay near Los Angeles Bayo des Fumes (Bay of the Smokes), which was far-sighted. Cabrillo sailed farther north along the coast but died at sea. His men wintered over, then returned with bad reports about the California climate: During this month we found the weather beyond 34 degrees north latitude to be like that in Spain, very cold in the mornings and afternoons and with great storms of rain, darkness and heavy air ...• The sea was so high it was frightful .... There are mountains which seem to reach the heavens. and the sea beats on them; sailing along close to land it appears as though they would fall on the ships. 13 Most important, they found no gold, nor other precious metal; in fact, nothing worth taking from the Indians. So for a time they sent no more expeditions. Spain had to ration its resources, There were about five million Spaniards, of whom nearly 900,000 were in religious orders, outside the general economy. With the rest they had to govern the country, produce goods for use and export, build and man a fleet to supply and defend the Americas, occupy much of two continents, and keep away rivals. They decided to concentrate on their existing empires in the Americas and the Philippines, and began sending ships between Acapulco and Manila--the first trans-Pacific trade. The Manila galleons soon were carrying cargos worth up to a million dollars as they rode the westerly winds and Japanese Current across the Pacific, well north of the Hawaiian Islands, to a landfall on the southern California coast, then skirted the continent southwards to reach Acapulco. Meanwhile the northern European powers--especially the English, the French and the Dutch--explored the north Atlantic shore of America without finding a passage to the Pacific to match the Strait of Magellan. Nor did they find much of immediate value: no Aztec treasure to pillage. The important quest for these northern powers remained the waterway they felt must run through the continent, the route by which ships could shortcut to the Pacific. They called this dream THE NORTHWEST PASSAGE. Because they wanted so much for the passage to exist they would not believe the evidence that accumulated indicating it did not exist. Rivers might fade away in the mountains, the continent might stretch on and on beyond rumor, voyages to the northward might bring them into a maze of islands and icebergs above Hudson's Bay where summer was measured in days rather than months, but this only meant the passage would be more valuable when discovered. If nature had concealed the Atlantic entrance so well, perhaps the Pacific entrance would be obvious. Mariners began to talk of visiting North West America, finding the Passage on this side, and sailing through it was to east, back to the Atlantic, or Hudson's Bay, or wherever the concealed entrance might lie. Spain would not cooperate in the search. The Spanish empire was a closed system: their American colonies traded only with Spain. The Spanish closed their ports in America to all foreign ships. That meant that European explorers would have to run the risk of being seized if they landed in Spanish America, or try to make the longest open-water voyage possible in the world before they even began hunting for the Northwest Passage. And there still was no cure for scurvy and no way to tell longitude in the open sea. Sir Francis Drake was the first to make the attempt. He left Plymouth in November, 1577, with five ships, obstensibly bound for Egypt to load currants. His real assignment included "annoying the King of Spaine in his Indies," searching the South Pacific for a rumored southern continent, raiding Spanish shipping and ports in the Pacific, finding the Northwest Passage from the west, and if possible returning to England through it. Only two of Drake's vessels got through the Strait of Magellan and one of those, the little 'Marigold', foundered in a storm her first day in the Pacific and went down with all hands. Drake's 'Golden Hind' was blown far to the south, to the very tip of Tierra del Fuego, where he went ashore, worked his way to the extremity of the cliff, and lay down with his feet over the Atlantic his head over the Pacific, and returned to say "I have been farther south than any man." The winds, however, prevented any 14 serious search for the Southern Continent. Drake therefore turned north, raided Spanish ports and shipping along the Pacific Coast, captured one galleon, forcing the captain to accept "a little linnen and the like" in exchange for the pick of his cargo of "fruite, conserves, sugars, meade and other victuals and (that which was the especiallest cause of her heilV\' and slow sayling, a certaine quantitie of jewels and precious stones, 13 chests of ryals of plate; 80 pound weight in gold; 26 tunne of uncoyned silver, valued in all at about 360,000 pezoes." The Spanish captain reported that Drake "gave me food from his own plate, telling me not to grieve, that my life and property were safe ... " and that "Drake was served on silver dishes with gold borders and gilded garlands, in which are his arms. He carries all possible dainties and perfume waters. He said that many of these had been given him by the Queen. He dines and sups to the music of viols." Thus amid luxury Drake and his little ship sailed north, alone against the Spanish Empire. They went up the coast looking for the Northwest Passage. The log of the 'Golden Hinde' disappeared after Drake presented it to Queen Elizabeth on his return to England, but an account by his nephew, who was chaplain, claimed they reached 48 degrees, which would be the Olympic Peninsula: The land in that part of America, bearing farther out into the West than we before imagined, we were near on it than wee were aware; and yet the neerer still wee came unto it, the more extremitie of cold did seate upon us. The 5 day of June, wee were forced by contrary windes to run in with the shore, which we then first descried; and to cast anchor in a bad bay, the best roade we could for the present meete with: where wee were not without some danger, by reasn of the many extreme gusts and flawes that beate upon us; which is they ceased and were still at any time, immediately upon their intermission, there followed most vile, thicke and stinking fogges; against which there prevailed nothing, till the gusts of wind againe removed them, which brought with them such extremity and violence when they came that there was no dealing or resisting against them. In this place was no abiding for us ... So they went south. Though Fletcher claimed they had been at 48 degrees it is now generally agreed they had not gone farther north than the Rogue River. Little in what was reported of their visit encouraged anyone to come north. But the gold that Drake brought back lured other raiders to the Pacific. The Spaniards eventually came to believe some of the British ships might be slipping into their waters by way of a Northwest Passage. At the turn of the 17th Century they sent expeditions north again to try to find a passage. The most energetic was headed by Sebastain Vicaino. When it found nothing the Spanish adopted the deliberate policy of leaving the North West Coast unknown. They did not need it; what they did not know about it could not be learned by others. Going into the 1600s, therefore, this coast was considered by Spain as a buffer zone, by other European powers as holding the secret of the western portal of the Northwest Passage, that is, as a passageway to someplace else. The explorations of the next two centuries were voyages of the imagination. Map 15 makers filled in the Northwest Coast with dotted lines that became firmed as new editions were printed, but which were founded entirely on conjecture. They put in rivers and straits leading east. They illustrated old seamen's tales and gave the authority of geography to myths. The mos·c effective romancer of voyages to this coast was a Englishman named Michael Lok. He was a lawyer, businessman, traveller and shipyard ow11er. He financed one unsuccessful expedition to look for tne Northwest Passage on the Atlantic side, then spent the rest of his life trying to e the British government to send out ships of the Navy or else put up a huge reward for the discovery of the passage W'henever he travelled he sent back reports of what other nations, especially the , were aoing to find the Passage, He created a Northwest Passage bet',Jeen England and Spain. His most famous story concerned meet an old Greek seaman in Venice who said he had been aboard the Great Saint Anne, a ish ship captured by the raider Cavendish, and had been abandoned in Califronia. He took service as a pilot with anish, and was sent as captain of a small boat on a two-vessel to find the passage. The captain of the larger ship, he said, was a homosexual with such peculiar notions about the men's duties that they mutinied and turried back. The captain was burned at the stake for sodomy, and the Greek---c,rho said he was called by the Spanish Juan de Fuca~-led the next expedition, According co Lok Hee signified unto me in a great Jvlappe and Carde ot my ovme which I laide before him, until hee came to the Latitude of 47 degree'3 and that there, finding the land to trend N and NE with a broad Inlett betweene 47 and 48, hee being entred thereinto, s therein more than twenty dayes, and found the land trending still sometimes NW and sometimes NE and also SEward, a farre broader Sea than at the said entrance; and that hee passed by divers Ilands in that entrance. And that ac th2 entrance of this said Streight, there is, on the North-west coast thereof, a great HeadLand or Iland, with an exceed high Pinnacle or spired Rocke, like a piller, there-upon, Also, hee said that hee, being entred thus farre into the said Streight, and being come into the North-Sea and finding the Sea wide enough every where, and to bee about 30 or 40 leagues wyde in the Streight where hee entred, hee thought he had now well discharged his office & done the thing 1,.:rhich he was sent to doe: and that he, not being armed to resist the force of the Savuage people that might en to assult him, therefore hee set where he arrives co, Anno 1592, to he well rewarded of the For his voyage so performed Lok went on co say that the Greek was to guide the British through the passage if the British 'Nould gi·ve hirn back the 60, 000 ducats Cavendish had taken. There wa'.'.O in this yarn that impressed officials took no accion Tne Lok story was published Samuel Pur~ chas in Pilgrim~ after Lok' s deatl-1 without attracting much attention, but 16 when a researcher found the account in the 18th Century. it was taken s~r iously and the Straits of Juan de Fuca were drawn on many maps, their position a matter of fancy. Towards the end of the seventeen century the Russians began to turn their attention eastwards across Siberia to the Pacific coast. A number of spectacular expeditions accomplished the crossing of the Eurasian continent from west to east, and began the exploration of the Sea of Okhotsk, the Kamchutka peninsula, the Bering Strait, the Aleutian Islands and eventually Alaska. Among these were the expeditions of Vitus Bering and Alexei Chirikov. Their joint Kamchutka expedition of 1733-42 has been called "unquestionably one of the most ambitious ventures yet undertaken in the history of exploration." Two thousand men were employed on the crossing of the continent, and it soon became clear that this was no ordinary assignment. Particularly in that it involved carrying all the materials needed for making ships from St. Petersburg across European Russia and the whole width of Siberia to the Sea of Okhotsk. Once there, with settlements established, the explorers began their shipbuilding. Then and for some years to come an average of one ship in three was lost in the stormy waters of the Sea of Okhotsk and the adjacent reaches of the North Pacific Ocean. Bering and Chirikov led most of the early sorties in the discovery and exploration of coastal Alaska. Bering himself did not return from his second and greatest expedition. His vessel was shipwrecked on Bering Island between the tip of the Aleutians and the Kamchutka peninsula, where he and his crew were forced to spend a bleak extended winter and an ensuing spring and summer. Bering himself died some months after the shipwreck, but others of the party survived and eventually returned to Okhotsk where they were welcomed with some embarrassment. Having been presumed dead, their goods had already been divided and distributed to those living at the settlement. Now they had to be restored. There was nontheless enthusiasm for their return; all had come back wearing robes made of sea otter pelts they had killed on Bering Island. Immediately the sea otter became the cause of the official Russian enthusiasm for the discoveries made in the northern Pacific. The sea otter in its original extent extended all the way from China around the rim of the Pacific to the tip of Baja California. The Chinese had already effectively depleted their sea otter populations and they were buying them from the Siberian tribes to the north although the Siberians had begun to decimate their own sea otter populations. The sea otter lives in a very restricted habitat, close to shore, where there is a rocky bottom of deep water--the sort of natural environment that supports bowl kelp. That essentially is what the sea otter needs. Consequently, they were easy to locate and with the Chinese willing to pay fantastic prices for them, the sea otter tended to get wiped our quickly in each locality. It took the Russians about twenty years only, until 1763, to work the length of the Aleutian Peninsula and to reach Kodiak Island. As an aside it might be noted that the year 1763 is a very significant year in northwest history. Catherine had just assumed power in Russia and France had just given up her American colonies north of the 49th parallel and north of the Great Lakes to Great Britain and lands to the south to Spain. The Spaniards had some inkling of the voyages being made in the north Pacific by the Russians but they had little idea of where they were going. 17 Finally in 1774 they decided to send an expedition north to investigate. Thus came the first voyage of Juan Perez sailing out of San Blas in Mexico, and stopping en route at Monterey. Sailing north from Monterey he was supposed to land, show evidence of Spanish possession, build monuments and so on. Perez was a durable sailor but not a bold one and so he never risked a landing, the whole voyage. He spent five months at sea and over half his people came down with scurvy for most of the voyage; about a third of his men were lost to scurvy. He sailed as far north as the northern Queen Charlotte Islands and came back without landing. He was censured for it, demoted and a new expedition was organized and sent out the following year under Bruno de Hezeta and Juan Francisco de la Bodego y Quadra. Bodega was the great sailor in this group. He volunteered for the voyage although it meant serving under a man of equal rank, which was almost unheard of in the Spanish navy--then, as now--very rank conscious. He also was serving under a man of the middle class although of the Spanish gentry while he himself was a nobleman. He took command of his vessel the 'Sonora' on the way north. It was a tiny little vessel, 34 feet long, with 14 men aboard it, an open deck, and room for only one man to be under cover at a time in the cabin. Bodega and his men brought this tiny little vessel up the coast to land at Point Grenville. There they had a skirmish with the Indians, losing seven men and killing seven Indians. Further exploration turned up nothing very exciting, and three years were to pass before another voyage was sent north again. In the meantime, Captain Cook had come and gone. James Cook completed his voyage in large part because of two great breakthroughs in maritime technology. A government doctor in Scotland, James Lind, discovered a way to prevent scurvy through the use of citrus fruits. Cook himself made less use of the citrus treatment than is popularly believed; he preferred sauerkraut and other greens. At last a way had been found to prevent scurvy, and in his three great voyages only one man died because of scurvy. The other great invention was a way to determine longitude. A prize of El0,000 sterling was offered to the man who could produce a means of accurate measurement, with the possibility of still greater awards of £15,000 and even E20,000 for methods that were even more accurate. A board of Longitude was established to test the devices. The early devices suggested were just marvelous; my favorite was a system of sun dials, it is not difficult to imagine how accurate sun dials might be at sea! Another involved squaring the circle geometrically and using the result for final estimations, which proved to be pretty difficult. The man who finally came up with the solution was Benjamin Harrison, an English clockmaker and carpenter--a self-taught clockmaker in fact. He had been trained as a cabinet maker by his father and had to repair the cabinets on big old grandfather clocks. In doing so he had learned how to repair, then how to manufacture such clocks. He spent eight years on his next clock. After three attempts and in total more than 25 years of experiment Harrison produced a chronometer that would work at sea, but to determine longitude two of these were required, one being left at Greenwhich time, the other set daily at local time. By determining the time differential, it became possible to determine longitude east or west of Greenwhich. With Harrison's chronometers Cook was able not only to get there and get back, but to say accurately where he'd been. On the last of his three voyages he visited the Pacific Northwest coast. The Spaniards had received orders to arrest him 18 if he landed in Spanish territory; he landed north of Spanish holdings, however. Cook spent a month at Nootka where his men picked up many sea otter skins in trade with the Indians, not because they realized their intrinsic value--the Russians had not let out word that the Chinese put a high value on these skins--rather because they were warm and they were going north into the Arctic to try to discover the Northwest Passage. On their way back to England, having been turned back by the ice, Cook was killed in Hawaii. When they stopped off at the mouth of the Pearl River, they learned from the Chinese that the skins they had collected were extraordinarily valuable. One skin brought $300 to a young Cornishman named Trevanon, and $300 was more than Captain Cook's pay for a year on the voyage and for the enlisted man it was something like five or six times the total pay for the four-year voyage. There was almost a mutiny; everybody wanted to get back to the northwest coast. Having arrived in China wanting nothing more than to get back to England just as fast as they could, now they wanted to return posthaste so that all could make his fortune. Eventually, the ship got back to England. On the way back all journals were collected, the voyage having been a military one, and the war being on with the American Colonies, not to mention Spain and France, the crew was told not to say anything of what was learned about the voyage until the official accounts were published. The secret of the sea otter skins lasted about the time it took the first guy to get ashore and hit the first bar! Within a month the Austrian ambassador sent a very detailed report to the Court in Vienna about the otter skins found on the northwest coast. Strangely, nobody came out for a few years; then came the voyage of the British chartered company, King George's Sound Company or the Nootka Sound Company, organized by Richard Cadman Etches. The ships engaged in the sea otter trade like those of the Nootka Sound Company were not part of official government expeditions, rather they were private vessels engaged in what might best be considered a poaching activity. Among the first was one under the command of James Hanna. Hanna sailed out of Canton in 1785, took the great circle route in his tiny vessel, called the 'Hanna'. The log of that voyage exists and so you can follow him north along the coast of China, the coast of Japan, past the Kurile Islands-where a volcano erupted and lava fell on their ship--and hence to Nootka Sound. The Indians came paddling out calling "mamook, mamook," [that is, trade, trade] and at that point the log ends. The rest of the pages are missing. Presumably they passed into the hands of John Meares, a British trader who came out here later. The sea otter trading period which began effectively in 1785, the date of Hanna's visit, lasted until about the 1820s, by which time the sea otter had been decimated. The beaver trade then in its infancy in the Pacific Northwest replaced it as the leading money making resource. The result of the opening of the sea otter trade was confrontation between the Spaniards, who still wanted to retain the area unoccupied, and the British, who wanted it for its promising yields of otter skins and for the whale fisheries just developing. Some British ships were seized but Spain was finally forced to back down, George Vancouver who had been .eommissioned to come out to the Northwest and complete the charts of these waters, was assigned to supervise the transfer of property to its British owners by the Spaniards. During that voyage, Vancouver discovered 19 the entrance to Admiralty Inlet, sailed through it in 1792 and made a complete chart of Puget Sound as well as the first accurate account of what the region possessed in the way of resources. The Vancouver expedition looked at this area that we're considering today, with the eyes of pre-industrial men, it should be noted. The key patents taken out by James .Watt and his partners were taken out just at the time Cook was off this coast in 1778. The world had not changed a great deal up to then; it was still a pre-industrial age. All the men on the expedition were asked to assess what value they thought Puget Sound might have, and in their various accounts they spoke of the marvelous stands of trees, specifically "that there was spars for all the navies in the world along here." Other uses for the trees they didn't think of. They thought of the Puget Sound region as a farming area essentially, although there are a couple of rather interesting switches on that. Menzies, the botanist on the expedition, was the most enthusiastic of the voyagers, and he had the prose of the superheated commercial writer. A traveler wandering over these unfrequented plains as revealed with a solubrious and vivifying air. Impregnated with the basalmic fragrance of the surrounding pinery, while his mind is early occupied every moment on new objects and his senses riveted on the enchanting variety of the surrounding scenery, where the softer beauties of landscape are harmoniously blended in majestic grandeur with the wild and romantic to form an interesting and picturesque prospect on every side. Third Lieutenant Joseph Baker was somewhat less sanguine. He conceded that this large branch of the sea had excellent harbors, secure anchorages and masts for all the navies of the world, but was of op1n1on that the remote situation from the sea coast rendered it improbable that these would ever be of much use to the navigator. Mr. Whidby, the master of the 'Discovery', who with Peter Puget had taken the closest look, wrote to a friend in England to suggest that this remote area would make a suitable half-way house for graduates of the new prison colony in Australia. Instead of returning to England to become a fresh prey upon the public, the transportees could, after serving their time, be sent to this country to settle at the head of Fuca Straits "where there is country equal to any in the world." As for Peter Puget, he wrote a very detailed report on leaving. He said that this land and the southern inlets of the strait was: most grateful to the eye. It is low toward the sea rising in small hillocks and mounts till the more inland parts. It is overlooked by lofty snow mountains and indeed nature if she studied the convenience of man has so disposed of the trees as to form on the rising grounds the most beautiful lawns on which I have seen grass man-high. Little would be the labor in its cultivation, yet the natives, wither through ignorance or indolence, prefer the stony beach to the more healthful and delightful plain, which distinguish this favored land from the rest of the coast of America. For little to the northward of the great southeastern branch, the shores are rocky, the land 20 of a very different aspect. An island, distinguished in the general chart by the name of Whidbey's Island, is absolutely as fine a tract of land as I ever saw. And he goes into a long description of the Indian tribes of the area remarking that they had been quite friendly. In the one brush mentioned that they had with the Indians in Henderson Inlet, down south in Tacoma, they wound up firing over the Indian's heads with their guns after the Indians had shown great hostility. Why no hostility anyplace else? It transpires that when the Indians came up to them the British sailors were dragging a seine in the river and taking salmon from it. The first brush between the Europeans and the Indians in Puget Sound indeed was over a white invasion of what the Indians considered a traditional fishing ground. Close to two hundred years later the matter of traditional fishing ground is still not settled. 21 THE NATURAL RESOURCES OF NORTHERN PUGET SOUND Robert L. Monahan Professor of Geography, W.W.S.C. The paper makes no attempt to provide an encyclopedic or statistical description of the resources of the region. A selection is made from the many resources present, some salient characteristics are noted, important problems identified and a few possible solutions are indicated. A short list of the more important resources includes the forests, soils and agriculture, the fishing resources, the water, mineral resources, and the location of the region in relation to the rest of the world. The Forests The familiar forests have been a basic economic support of the area for well over a hundred years. The size and the quality of the trees has attracted attention, admiration, envy and purchases from much of the world. The large dimensions of the trees made it necessary to develop special equipment for harvesting and some of the firms manufacturing this machinery are still active in the area. The uniformity of the stands in age and size encourages clear cutting, a highly efficient although sometimes controversial form of harvest. The abuses of clear cutting, particularly before World War II, the unsightly residue following harvest, the increasing outdoor orientation of the public, and the greater concern with environmental esthetics have fed the controversy. Improved management practices spurred by increasing stumpage costs, higher land values, expanded market demand and shrinking land areas producing timber have brought dramatic changes in the forests. Today the emphasis is on intensive forestry which makes the management of the forests a highly complex activity and requires the technical expertise of many different persons from a variety of fields. In renewing the forest the tree geneticist selects and breeds superior members of the corrnnercial species for replanting. Intensive management requires irrnnediate reestablishment of the stand and it is economically undesirable to wait for natural seeding or to sow the forest. Most land is replanted with four-year-old trees from nurseries. The size of the new trees improves survival rates because they have a good root system and their height allows them to better compete with brush and other vegetation. The tree crop is fertilized to increase wood production and shorten the number of years required for harvest. Applications are usually made at fifteen or twenty years and then at five to twenty year intervals until harvest. Control of disease and insects is important and difficult in this region. Effective insecticides and disease controls often have adverse effects on animal populations and water supplies. Important progress has been made in biological controls of some of the threats to the trees and also less damaging chemicals have been found reasonably effective in 22 in certain instances. However, progress is slow in both areas and it tends to be costly as well. Thinning is an important part of management. Stands are overplanted relative to the number of stems required at maturity to assure adequate stocking, brush control and full use of the soil resource. The region has developed some markets for the small stock which is thinned and this has aided the implementation of intensive management defraying of the costs. The computer has become an important management tool because of its ability to handle and assess the impact of a large number of variables, Harvest locations and volumes are set after weighing many factors includ~ ing log prices, product prices, transporation costs, growth rates, stand volume and costs of alternative supplies of wood. What is the future role of forests in the region? Because of the climate and soil conditions of much of the area trees represent the opti~ m.a.l "crop." How we use the tree growing potential is the major question. The strength, versatility, ease of cutting and the natural beauty of wood make it a desired commodity for construction; furniture and building orna~ mentation. The desirable pulping properties of our conifers encourage their use in paper, fabrics film and many other essential products of our culture. The use of forests for recreation, the scenic beauty, and the production of wildlife are well established and valuable, Protection of watersheds for fish habitats, and more even runoff is also a desirable function. Conflicts often occur among these various uses and legitimate questions arise over their resolution. Let us examine some contributions which could increase the utility of our forests. To increase wood production we have indicated intensified management as one positive approach, A.nother is expanding the area pro~ ducing trees instead of constantly reducing it as we add houses, streets, expand highways, airports, power line right of ways, and other non-forest activities. If we utilized the parking along the streets for the production of timber, shade, bird roosts and natural play structures for the youth of the land, we would be moving in the right direction. The city of Bellingham has 200 miles of streets. If we urilized one half of the parking strips along the streets for tree production we would have a double row of trees one hundred miles long. By using staggered plantings trees could eventually be harvested on a continuing basis without eliminating shade, beauty and the other things trees do for us. Employment would be provided and the sale of the wood f ibe:r might well defray the cost of maintaining this esthetic addition to the cities and towns of the region. The conservative figure of one half of the street mileage is used because of the of devoting some parking strip area to noncommercial species, the elimination of production in the central business district and the absence of production in some areas due to the propensity for digging and disturbing areas which seems chronic in most urban scenes. The hundred mile figure should be at least tripled if all the tmms and cities of the five be included. Production is also possible in of recreational homesites. Forest esthetics is also a basic problem. If we can transfer some of our adoration of youth from the human sector to the forests and our 23 awe of old age from trees to people, this major issue could be solved. Old, decrepit and dying trees are much admired in our society and people in the same condition are put away and their backlog of knowledge and experience is rarely tapped. Reversing the situation would be most beneficial to society and would contribute to a healthier economy. The planting opportunity described earlier may also have applications for freeway and other right-of-ways within the region and could defray part of our highway maintenance costs while providing jobs and products for use by the public. Agriculture Agriculture is an important economic factor closely related to the natural environment of the region. Approximately 250,000 acres are devoted to agriculture in the five county region and the 1974 value to farmers was nearly $125 million. (See Table 1.) For the total economic effect on the area the latter figure should be multiplied by at least 3 to get the full impact. A continuation of the intensification of agriculture is the major hope for expanding production. Expansion of the area receiving supplemental water is likely to be the most important factor, assuming the availability of ground water for this purpose. Diversion of surface water is unlikely because of the sizable capital requirements, conflicts with the fishery resource and the adverse environmental impacts of irrigation on surface water supplies. Increased use of fertilizer, pesticides and herbicides is another possibility, but also faces environmental problems. A basic difficulty for agriculture is the continuing encroachment of non-agricultural uses of the land. Subdivisions and submarginal land units, the five- and ten-acre blocks for rural residence, are major threats to agricultural productivity. Are there solutions to the agricultural problems? Yes, in the case of the applications of chemicals more skillful use of the minimum amounts required for control of insects, disease and weeds reduces the environmental threat and may increase production. The same is true with fertilizers and farmers must recognize that if some is good more is not necessarily better. More soil analysis to determine additions for specific crops will increase production and minimize adverse environmental impacts. Continued work on biological controls of insects and disease through the use of predator species and plant breeding for resistant strains is a fruitful avenue of endeavor. More reliance on various organic fertilizers, animal manure, cover crops and the like will be advantageous. To keep land from being subdivided, our local and state governments can supply incentives to cluster suburban settlement on non-agricultural land or on poorer croplands. Concentrations of suburban settlement in high-rise structures and town houses which are surrounded by forests and crop land provide a beauty not found in American suburbs today. Great cost advantages in supplying mass transit, sewer service, mail, telephone and electrical services as well as recreation and retail facilities are also possible with clustered settlement. Prime examples of this kind of settlement abound in Scandinavia, the ancestral home of many of the inhabitants of the region. Controls in the form of zoning, building permits, 24 TABLE 1 Value of Agricultural Production Agricultural Cropland Whatcom County 1974 Cropland 19,500 acres Dairy farms l:5, 000 acres $14. million farms) $22. million 64,500 acres million Cropland 52 000 acres $36. million Dairy farms 42,000 acres $16. million 94,000 acres $52. million Cropland 55,200 acres . million Dairy farms 15 - 20~000 70 75,000 acres Total Skagit County 1974 Total Snohomish County 1974 Total (est.) Island ~ acres (Est.) 1970 Cropland (1970 value) $ 4. million 7,000 acres data available) San Juan Acreage and production are quite small and may be ignored. Total Ag, land approximately 245,000 acres $12L.c. million value to farmers 3 or 4 ti1nes to judge th.e economic. The majority of receipts are spent for feed, seed, fuel, and various supplies. rrt1 . t.11on m11st be m11ltiplied impact on the adjacent area. labor, fertilizer, Source: Data obtained in. inter",,rievJs Agricultural Extension Agents, August 1975. 25 ~Jit.h the respective the location of sewer services, new road and street location may also be used to curb the consumption of prime agricultural land for non-agricultural use. A major goal here is the creation of a stewardly attitude towards the land by those who own and till it. This involves the idea of continual improvement and upgrading of the fields with a commitment to pass it on to the next generation for agricultural use and in better condition than ·when the land was acquired the present mmers. We can preserve our agricultural land and increase the flow of food from it but it will require considerable effort and the cooperation of The above have farmers and the other segments of our obvious advantages for suburban dwellers as well as the general public in terms of improved esthetics and less services. The Fisheries The fishery resources of the region are valuable and varied. Of outstanding importance is the salmon resource which currently is in an unsettled state as far as management is concerned, The Boldt decision has placed the harvest of the resource in an uproar and the effect of this decision is still not clear. Some, most the non-Indian fishermen, regard it as an unmitigated disaster. Others, especially the Ind:ian fisherwen, see it as a long-delayed arrival of justice and an equalization of opportunity~ It is not for me to i::ake sides in this which will be discussed later in the conference, but rather to see if there is another position which may favor the bulk of the citizenry, the consuming public. Is it possible to reduce the harvesc coses and increase the of salmon, both of which will be beneficial to the consuming public I belie'i2 it is possible, although it will considerably more cooperation among the fishing groups and within the various factions than heretofore seen. It also involves solving some extremely complex and sometimes emotional 3-Spects of salmon harvest and management, First: let u.s e2carn.ir1e sorne of t}1e ch.aracteristics of t~b.e saln1on.. Re= cause they are an anadromus fish th~y spend the first part of their life: cycle in fresh water, ma~ure in salt water and return to fresh water to spawn, thus completing the circle, The return to the stream of makes them very easy to capture and also simplifie2 some aspects of manage~ ment, Much of our management philosophy b.as been based on making fishermen less efficient to acineve the biological ective of ad.equate escapewent for spawning, The first fishery restrictions instituted ir1 State in 1890, the year after statehood , were based on this premise and still follow the or:iginal The first regulations prohibited the extension of a-, pound net or more than halfway across a stream channel or i Later restrictions were placed on the spacing of ne~s and and finally in 1897 fixed and nets were eliminated from rivers and areas ·within three miles of the rn.outh~, 2 F. .estricti°'1e If~easures ha1_re coritinued to the. presen.t lirnitations on the length, and mesh size of nets. restrictions keeping fisherareas, time restraints, which minimize t:he use of , and actual elimination ;< of tb.e use of the 1u.ore effecti. .ve rn.etliods of har·vest ~ 3 succeeded in maintaining the earlier le.vel3 of 26 If th.is t1ad in the salmon industry, our only concern would be with the excessive cost of the product, but it is obvious this was not the case. Fish are a common property resource, belonging to the public rather than to any one individual. So too is much of our Washington forest area and the trees which publiclyowned land supports. If we were to follow the same pattern in forest management, we would open the forests to harvest every fifth day, outlaw chain saws and restrict cutting to dull saws under three feet in length and to Boy Scout hatchets. Few would recommend implementation of the aforestated rules or some equivalent for the forests, although it might prevent the harvest of all the trees! A problem exists in terms of harvest efficiency for our fish which belong to the public and which we permit individuals to catch under licenses with a number of restrictions. Management of the resource to obtain maximum productivity is also plagued by a number of problems. Salmon are best managed by races, that is the fish which are associated with an individual stream. The fish return to the stream of origin and the carrying capacity of the stream can be determined with reasonable accuracy. The key to successful management is making sure the optimal number of spawners ascend the stream to reproduce their kind. The difficulty comes in making sure this happens. When salmon enter Puget Sound via the Straits of Juan de Fuca the races co-mingle and while they can be identified it generally requires considerable skill and close inspection of the fish in the laboratory after th~y are dead. If, for example, the Skagit River requires 100,000 fish for optimal stocking and there are 500,000 fish returning to the Skagit, it is reasonable to harvest 400,000 or 80% of the run. With current knowledge it is possible to set the time and the area of fishing to achieve this percentage of capture. The presence of other races in the capture area complicates the problem. If, for example, Stillaguamish fish are coming through at the same time, 80% of them will also be harvested. Assuming 20,000 fish represent optimal escapement for the Stillaguamish River and there are just 20,000 returning, no harvest should be permitted of this race.4 With these fish intermixed with Skagit fish, 80% will be harvested and hence the river will be grossly understocked. To remedy the problem, each race should be harvested where it can be clearly identified and this is at the river mouth. Hundreds of years ago the Indians of the region devised highly efficient means of capture, fish weirs and other traps which operated on a single race of fish. Their gear was enlarged in scale, modified slightly in design, and was used in the early days of the commercial salmon harvest of the region. In terms of effective management, it would be useful to employ traps for obtaining the best escapement and the maximum yield of salmon for your table and mine from each stream. The trap has two additional advantages worthy of mention. Fish may be held live in traps and this allows the postponement of killing the fish until the last possible moment before processing, providing a better quality product for the market. It is not a major factor, but would give us a slightly better quality of fresh or canned fish. Most important in live holding is the potential for selective breeding. The biggest and the best fish could be released from the trap to ascend the stream and reproduce their kind. The runts and fish of inferior quality could be eliminated from the runs. 27 Today 9 much of our regulation of the salmon fishery is directly counter to this and certainly the sports fishery emphasizes the capture of the biggest and best individuals. We offer thousands of dollars in prizes for the dead capture of the biggest salmon, the very ones which should be repro~ ducing. The results of selective breeding are clearly shown in beef cattle 9 dairy cows, poultry and other areas of agriculture where yield per animal has steadily climbed over the years. The work of Professor Loren Donaldson at the University of Washington with trout and salmon is indicative of the potential for increased yields in the fisheries by using careful selection of the breeding stock. To manage salmon races requires a drastic change in capture methods, The time has never been better to improve management for the benefit of the consumer, The non~Indian fishermen have too much gear in the water and the Indian fishermen have too little. A strong stand by the fish~eating public for improved management methods coupled a willingness of the consumers to forego major price reductions while buying up the gear and reimbursing the fishermen for their losses could bring significant increases in available salmon and eventual price reductions. A sense of justice dictates a buying out of the capital investment of the fisherman and some sort of payment during the transition to other forms of gainful economic activity, Change is rarely popular and is unlikely to be so in this instance because of the fierce independence of the fishermen. The objectives of the above plan are very simple and the benefits quite clear. The basic technology is simple and well known. The imple~ mentation and the details which attend the negotiation of such a scheme are very complex. Within the fishermen groups of the several diverse types, within the agencies of our state government, and among the members of the fish~consuming public are persons of considerable intelligence who, if motivated, have the ability to work out the solutions. Let me c.ite one additional example of the potential of the marine resource in Puget Sound, The oyster, long heralded as a major support of virility and aid to geriatric cases, has enormous capacity for expansion of production in Puget Sound. A study done by Ron Westley of the Washington State Department of Fisheries some eight years ago indicated the opportunities for food yield from this one marine animal, Utilizing the half of the waters of Puget Sound between three and twenty fathoms we would have an oyster-producing area of 221 square nautical miles or over 180 1 000 acres. The one-half figure of the 3 - 20 fathom area of the sound is used to allow plenty of area for shipping lanes, recreation uses and other fishery activity. Productivity levels per acre established in other areas, less desirable than Puget Sound, indicate a yield per acre per year of from 16,000 to 64,000 If we take the median figure of 32,000 pounds, we find the ion of Sound for oysters is six billion pounds, This figure comes close to the total production of all the fisheries of the United States. Production in the 3 - 20 fathom water would be carried on well~known string production by the and employed in some parts of our oyster favorable aspect of this fishery is the in sheltered national waters which would not expose the oysters to foreign. fishermen any place in the life It would be exclusively under the 28 control of the United States. Obviously, there are problems, not the least of which is the market. Persuading every person in the United States to consume thirty pounds of oysters or developing alternate export markets will take time. However, it does indicate the resource potential of our Puget Sound region and could conceivably absorb a number of displaced salmon fishermen and utilize their substantial marine skills. The Water Resources The water resources of the northern Puget Sound region are varied and attractive. Recreational Uses: The recreational value is well recognized and the sea and shore aspects of this importartt water resource use will be addressed in the symposium which follows. The use of fresh water for recreation is well developed and includes the enjoyment of scenery provided by the lakes and streams, swimming, although the temperature of the water is at times a deterrent, boating in freshwater lakes and on the streams, fishing, water-skiing, and scuba diving, to give a partial listing. There is considerable potential for expansion of recreational use without even approaching Coney Island levels of human crowding. An important aspect of water recreation is planning to minimize conflicts among recreation users and with other use, and provision of access. Industrial Uses: Industrial use of the water for cooling and waste transport is also important and with the controls now in force could be increased substantially without significant adverse impact on the resources. Cooling water, if ponded away from our salmon, steelhead and trout streams might be used to diversify the sports fishery by introducing warm water exotics. Had the Samish Island site proposed for a nuclear reactor been utilized the cooling water so produced might have been used to raise the temperature of Padilla Bay to levels which would lead to natural production of oysters. Old timers may recall the abnormally warm water in Puget Sound in 1958 when oyster populations were widely established and substantially increased throughout the region. The four major streams of the region, the Snohomish, Stillaguamish, Skagit and Nooksack rivers still have substantial supplies of industrial water available, assuming the conservation of levels of protection now guaranteed by state and federal laws. Hydroelectricity production: The hydroelectric potential of the streams of the region is pretty well developed at this time. Approximately 825 megawatts of installed capacity is now producing energy in Snohomish, Skagit and Whatcom counties and there is q potential for possibly another 200 megawatts.5 A major bone of contention at present is the doubling of the peaking capacity of Ross Dam by extending the height by 122.5 feet and backing water into Canada.6 The existing and proposed hydroelectric capacity of the northern Puget Sound region will be exceeded by the nuclear plant near Sedro Woolley (1290 megawatts) if and when it is constructed.7 29 Mineral Resources The mineral resources of the region are not abundant nor are they rich deposits. The importance of the deposits will increase as the richer ones are exhausted elsewhere. The well-developed tendency of Third World nations to increase prices for raw materials will increase the interest in local minerals and will eventually lead to more production within the northern Puget Sound area. Some of the complex copper ores of the Cascades should be utilized in the next ten to twenty years. Coal measures may also be used once again within the same period of time. The delay in exploitation will generally mean less adverse effect on other resources as our technology of managing mining waste and our concern for minimizing damage to renewable resources improves and grows. The adamant opposition to any development by some environmentalists and the ruthless exploitation for maximum profit by some resource developers are deplorable, although these may provide the mechanism for compromise within our present society. If the greatest good for the greatest number guided our development or lack of it instead of the greatest benefit for the individual, we would have less conflict and more equitable use of our limited resources. Currently our mineral resources yield raw material for cement production, sand and gravel for many different uses, olivene for use in the metal industry and minor amounts of minerals for varied services to the consuming public. Geographic Location The location of our region may also be regarded as a resource which can be used for the benefit of the residents and society. The northwest corner location with proximity to Alaska, Japan and areas of eastern Asia has been partially exploited. The favorable endowment of good rail and highway transportation plus the excellent deep and sheltered port locations near the open ocean are substantial assets. Port facilities at Anacortes, Everett and Bellingham and elsewhere in the five-county region indicate recognition of the locational advantages. Superport development has been discussed for some time for the Puget Sound region. The Nisqually delta was once a prime candidate for this type of port but this has been abandoned in favor of wildlife production. If a superport is needed there is a prime location within our region which could be developed and which could provide benefits in addition to the actual physical facilities for cargo handling. This is Point Roberts, the advantages of which are numerous: First, the need for superport facilities has already been recognized and developed by our Canadian neighbors in the north in their port operation at Roberts Bank. The physical problems of extending the development of the port south into U.S. territory are relatively simple. An area amenable to fill and to the development of suitable port land ties below Boundary Bluff on the west side of Point Roberts. If completed this would make it a port facility similar to that at Roberts Bank. Deep water, of some thirty fathoms, lies on the west, which would allow the entry of the largest existing (or presently contemplated) ships. The establishment of a free trade zone crossing the international boundary and encompassing parts of both countries would benefit both nations. It would allow cargoes for Canada and the United States to be dropped at one location saving time, fuel and money. When 30 goods were shipped from the free trade zone, duties would be assessed according to the country of destination. Unnecessary delays, docking fees and capital costs would be avoided. Full duplication of the expensive investments in piers, unloading equipment, cranes, rail sidings and the like would be avoided if the two countries shared costs and made more efficient use of the specialized facilities needed for port operation. To minimize costs for the United States, a duty free passage through Canadian territory for rail cars and trucks would be essential. If such a thing could not be negotiated, a causeway built from Blaine to Point Roberts would be necessary. A project of this sort would contribute to the alleviation of unemployment, a desirable social goal, and could have additional benefits. The bay behind the causeway would provide boating opportunities in sheltered waters, ideal moorage for small craft and an expansion of recreational opportunities. With Canadian agreement, the causeway might be built so one could drive to Point Roberts on the Canadian side of the boundary and return on the U.S. side, a truly international highway! With or without this permission, it would be possible to include scenic turnouts and picnic sites to add recreational value to a transportation asset. The passage of large ships through the more restricted waters of Puget Sound would be eliminated as would the potential conflict with pleasure craft and oyster production, important when we near our potential six billion pound annual production. Thus a region of cooperation instead of conflict between the two nations would be created, the cost of goods in the two nations reduced and the recreational assets of both countries enlarged. Conclusion This brief overview of the resource base of the region indicates that there are substantial opportunities for expansion of their use for the benefit of all residents of the region. The problems are challenging but the potential benefits are enormous. The discussions that follow will assess some of these benefits, analyze the problems and propose potential solutions that could give us a better region and a richer, fuller life. 31 REFERENCES 1washington State Department of Fisheries files, Olympia, Washington. 3The passage of Initiative 77b, the Washington State voters in 1935 outlawed the use of traps and other fixed appliances in Washington waters and restricted the period of purse seining on Puget Sound. 4 The figures used are hypothetical and for illustration only. 5Electric Power Plants in the Pacific Northwest (map) Bonneville Power Administration. December 31, 1973. 6 Wm. M. Ross and M. E. Marts, "The High Ross Dam Project: Environmental Decisions and Changing Environmental Attitudes," Canadian Geographer, Vol. 19, No. 3, 1975, p. 221. 7Review of Power Planning in the Pacific Northwest 1973. Northwest River Basins Commission, May 1974, p. 69. 32 Pacific WHATCOM COUNTY'S CHANGlNG SHORELINE: THE EFFECTS OF MAN AND NATURE Thomas A. Terich Department of Geography & Regional Planning, w.w.s.c. Waves, currents, and shoreline geology have molded Whatcom County's shoreline into very interesting shapes. Most shoreline landforms can be explained at least partially by persons knowledgeable in the physical processes that operate at the sea/land interface. Change is constant at this interface. There are few other places where the forces operating can sculpt the land so rapidly. Yet it is also along shorelines where many of man's residential, connnercial, and industrial activities concentrate. Knowledge of physical processes operating along shorelines is necessary if man's activities are to coexist with nature. This paper presents a short reconnaisance of Whatcom County's shoreline with Georgia Strait pointing out some of the major features and the processes that have lead to their formation and recent impacts of man's developmental activities. Semiahmoo Spit At the far northern end of Whatcom County's shoreline is found Semiahmoo Spit. (See Figure 1.) This three thousand meter long narrow feature separates Drayton Harbor from Semiahmoo Bay. Semiahmoo Spit was formed by the slow, yet steady deposition of beach sediments northward from Birch Point headland nearly closing the narrow channel between Drayton Harbor and Semiahmoo Bay. An examination of sediments within the basal part of the spit indicate that Semiahmoo Spit has been growing northward over the last 3000 to 5000 years (Grabert & Schwartz, 1973). Semiahmoo Spit is only 30 to 40 meters wide near its southern connection with Birch Point. High storm waves frequently overtop this area and limit vehicular accessibility to the spit. Northward, the spit gently widens to nearly 300 meters at the north end. The spit's low, undulating, and sandy surface is covered with beach grasses and a few isolated trees. Fine sand is not to be found along the west shore where winds and waves continually remove the fine sediments and leave behind a cobble and pebble beach. Study of U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey charts of the spit for 1947 and 1966, as well as aerial photos for 1947 and 1972, show little noticeable physical change of the spit. However, its southern connection with Birch Point is very narrow and subject to erosion and perhaps breaching. Rip rap and a wooden sea wall have been placed in this zone to provide additional stability from wind and storm wave attack. Many studies of spits on shorelines around the world have shown that they require an uninterrupted flow and replenishment of beach sediments if they are to remain fairly stable and Semiahmoo Spit is no different. It is important that beach sediments derived from Birch Point to the south continue to flow northward along Semiahmoo Spit's west shore if erosion is to be prevented. 33 Birch Bay C 0 U iJ T ~~HA.TCOM S fl 0 R E L I 1l ES Pt Whitel1orn wave estimate 1oca t ions Cherry Pt 0 0 - - · k l- - " " ' · '_ ._1 3 _.I r:1 i 1es Bellingham Bay -· FIGURE 1 ,_,_- ~ l "i i ;n,...,h~m I 11"._-jlli...•I'! Birch Point Serniah.rr100 south, of Birch Point, a the north ro the is The ·venee"i'" of sand its £tnd E .c~nd on che northeast. and Georgia Strait~ The Fro111 tf!e lands~ to th.e 25~-m.et:er silt of the sea cliffs t.e.rbrool(, 197 3 ~ This to the rru:rnerou.s'. the sea cliffs~ :Most of t:he ~1res resem.ble theater-like notches tI1e upper riTrl of tl--1e 2liff ~ There is little evidence of surficial f water over the cliffs sugthat most of the erosion results from 1 that wave action also contributes to the ins of the sea cliffs. Birch Poir:i.t headlarid ~has rela. open_ \-Jatcr Georgia Strait to the south, sou.th1,rest,. and west. speeds up to .30 k·not.s, 1/\rhicl--1 are c.orrartor.i. 111 the lower, ex~pos11res V1:rithin or waves up to 2 meters to the gen_~ ·west:= ; 1~1o'Sc1e""..,7 er:: \/Jct\les -a_1p Birch Point's west shore. to l ~ 5 rG.ete:cs The net flo\AT of ht-:ach .sedirrren_ts 5, referred to .as is 11ortl-1v_.vard for th.at part of t1·112 s.horelin.e 1J.ortI--i of Eiret1 ]?"oin.t . s,ernialTmoo Spit has IlOrtl-rvJard. froin tt1e l~.et D.ortl-l''i;AJard flo~AT ·C f beach. sed,~ imen.ts £ro1n Birct1 F'oint" ·~va\Jes fftCO(iraurH energy 1 che winter refract around Birch Point generat sediment South of Birch Point, the shoreline has a northwester orientation_ v.ihich result:3 in a s ed in1err t motion. Here, d the 19} l) ·nas be r1ortl-n-i7ccrd or eas t\.e7.ar-d. shovm that Birch 011 th.e. riortb_ side of Birch is built upon a series of small coalesced developed from the transport of beach sedinren.ts irito Birch frorn the sou.th shore of Bircl1 :Poi11 -h.:::adland north of Birch Point. 8 to 10 meters wide. the beach fron the scructures is tion from waves na,7e bee11 forc:ed to co11.struct con_crete sea".rJall.s small concrete front their too close to che shoreline fore sion defense structures. Furthermore, che to the beach restricc the t. _Birch_ Ba)T Birct1 t is 3.Il arid the an suspec~ed mencs around Birch s th the coastal geos forffier stands of sea level and ear ()f tle. f occupation at several terrace sites at elevations of 3, 7, 12 and 30 meters above present sea level. His work not only signifies interesting working relationships among the sciences, it also provides some important information about past conditions at Birch Bay. Birch Bay has a curvilinear shape closely approximating a log spiral. Larsen (1971) suggests that wave refraction around Point Whitehorn into Birch Bay is largely responsible for the evolution of the curvilinear shape. There is strong evidence that the refracted wave motion into Birch Bay does occur and that its flow is counterclockwise around the west shore of the bay. Outstanding evidence is given by Terrell Creek which approaches within 100 meters of flowing into the south end of the bay but is off set nearly 3 km. to the north along the west shore of the bay before emptying into its open waters. Moreover, many property owners along the west shore have constructed small groins transverse to the beach in an effort to in~ terrupt the counterclockwise motion of longshore beach sediment transport which is driven by the refracting waves. In all cases, sediment build-up is on the south side of the groins, indicating a south to north (counterclockwise) direction of wave-energy transmission and resultant longshoresediment transport. At the north side of the bay, the northward drift of sediments converge with eastward-flowing beach sediments driven into the bay by wave refraction along Birch Point headland. Thus, the north side of the bay appears to be a convergence zone of beach sediments. At this site have developed a series of coalesced spits whose surfaces are being severely altered for home construction. Birch Bay has become over the years a major recreational site in Whatcom County, with thousands of visitors enjoying the bay during summer holidays. This has led in turn to the construction of many bayfront homes over the last twenty-five years. Such bayfront property and homes, which line much of the bay's southwestern shore, sell for premium prices. Many of the homes are constructed close to the shoreline; as a result the amount of beach "buff er" each home has from high waves and seasonal beach changes is very limited. This has forced most of the residents to build bulkheads and groins as protection from potential wave damage and erosion. The proliferation of erosion-defense structures has aggravated the erosion problem as well as blighted the esthetic appearance of the shoreline. Each property owner has built a bulkhead or seawall to help rebuff wave attack and some have placed concrete groins beyond the bulkheads and seawalls to capture and retain beach sediment. The groins interrupt the counterclockwise transport of beach sediment depriving beach downdrift (northward) of beach sediment. The beaches deprived of sediment erode very rapidly, forcing property owners to take whatever measures are necessary to prevent serious erosion and structural damage to their homes. Thus, the beachfront property owners around Birch Bay's western shore are in competition with one another for beach sediment. The fight against beach erosion at Birch Bay would probably be more successful if the property owners acted collectively. Some actions can be taken to reduce continued erosion and halt the competition among the residents for beach sediment. One of the first actions should be the removal of all groins, for their overall impact is more harmful than helpful. The beach can then be "nourished" with additional sediment of similar 36 size characteristics from some other source. This would replenish the beach sediment and restore it as a natural buffer to wave action. Another action would be to place rubblemound rip-rap along the backshore in high erosion areas. Such rip-rap would help to dissipate wave action in these areas while not interfering with the longshore motions of the sediment. Lastly, and perhaps most importantly, new home construction should have a greater setback from the shoreline. Cherry Point Shoreline The Cherry Point shoreline is predominantly composed of sea cliffs paralleling the entire shore for nearly 10 km. from Point Whitehorn south to Neptune Beach. Although this shoreline appears relatively uniform, a close inspection reveals some differences, especially in shoreline process. To facilitate a clear presentation of the differences, the shoreline will be divided into two sections; Point Whitehorn to Cherry Point and Cherry Point to Neptune Beach. The shoreline from Point Whitehorn to Cherry Point is fairly linear with a northwesterly orientation. Bluffs 30 to 40 meters high rise steeply from the beach. They are largely composed of glacial materials including sands, gravels, and fine sediments, such as the Cherry Point silts (Easterbrook 1973). Numerous debris flows and slump failures are found along the shore cliffs. Although there is some evidence of wave-cutting causing the bluff instability it does not appear to be the chief cause of the erosion. The instability appears to result primarily from groundwater action much the same as found along the Birch Point cliffs. The eroded sea cliff sediments fall upon the beach as slump debris or small alluvial fans. Wave action sorts and deposits the sediments into distinct zones seen on the beach. The backshore sediments are composed predominantly of gravel and pebbles thrown highest on the beach by high waves. Downslope, approximately at the mid tide level of the foreshore, frequent wave action removes the smaller-sized sediments leaving behind cobbles. On the low tide level of the foreshore, patterns of cobbles are interspersed with sand and gravel. Southerly winds and waves prevail here; however, the waves seldom achieve heights above 1.5 meters as Lummi Island and Orcas Island, approximately 15 km. to the south, restrict a large open-water wave build-up. Northwest from Cherry Point there is an open-water distance of over 100 km. into Georgia Strait. Wave hindcasts show that a northwest wind of 20 knots with duration greater than two hours can generate waves up to 2 meters high. Such winds and waves infrequently occur. Although the highest waves can come from the northwest, the prevailing south and southwesterly waves are most responsible for creating a south to north longshore transport of beach sediments from Cherry Point to Point Whitehorn. Sediments eroded from the sea cliffs are transported northward around Point Whitehorn into Birch Bay. On occasion, particularly during the sunnner, northwesterly winds and waves reverse the direction of the prevailing sediment transport; however, the net effect of this reversal is less important from Point Whitehorn to Cherry Point than for the shoreline south of Cherry Point. South from Cherry Point, the prevailing southerly waves become progressively limited in size and energy and less effective movers of beach sediment as the open-water distance for wave generation is reduced 37 with closer proximity to Lummi and Orcas Islands. As a result, northwesterly waves, although less frequent, become the prime movers of beach sediment creating a net south longshore sediment transport. Over the long term, this net southerly sediment transport from Cherry Point has led to the formation of a spit south of Neptune Bay extending into Lummi Bay known as Sandy Point. The shoreline from Cherry Point south to Neptune Beach displays some differences in characteristics when compared to the shoreline north of Cherry Point. First and foremost, the net longshore sediment transport is to the south. Secondly, the beaches south of Cherry Point tend to be composed of relatively finer-grained sediments (pebbles and gravels); whereas the beaches to the north of Cherry Point are composed chiefly of cobbles. Finally, the heavily vegetated sea cliffs south of Cherry Point appear to be more stable, although a few slumps and gullies are present. It seems an anachronism that this shoreline appears more stable than the shoreline north of Cherry Point. For the shoreline to the south has been most modified by man's activities, which are usually detrimental. Two large oil refineries (ARCO and Mobil) and an aluminum-smelting corporation (INTALCO) have cut deeply onto the sea cliffs in three separate locations in order to construct large piers capable of accommodating oceangoing vessels. The piers, and the fill on the beach appear to have had minor impacts on the beach. Overall, the shoreline south from Cherry Point appears to be more stable than the shoreline to the north of the point. Although not fully understood, the differences between the two shorelines appear to result from the exposure and frequency of waves as well as some differences in geology not discussed here. Sandy Point Sandy Point is a south-trending spit approximately 2500 meters long. Like Semiahmoo Spit and the coalesced spits within Birch Bay, it too is probably of recent geological origin. Sandy Point has developed seemingly opposite the prevailing southerly wave approach and longshore sediment transport. However, closer inspection of wave conditions show that southerly wave build up is restricted by the Lummi Peninsula and Lummi Island approximately 3 km. to the south. Therefore, although southerly storm waves frequent Sandy Point's shore, their size and erosive effects are reduced. But Sandy Point is exposed to 130 lan. of open water to the northwest into Georgia Strait. Waves from this direction occur on occasion during the winter and more frequently during the summer. Although northwesterly waves do not predominate, they have relatively higher energy and are responsible for a net southerly longshore sediment transport from Cherry Point south to Sandy Point. The sediment drifts down the west shore of the spit and around its southern end driven by wave refraction. There it is deposited adding to the southerly growth of the spit. Sandy Point is about three to four meters above mean sea level. Its low undulating sandy surface has been significantly modified by channel dredging and home construction. A 1947 aerial photograph of Sandy Point shows that prior to development it was devoid of trees and used for limited agriculture and grazing. Over the last twenty years, Sandy Point has become a popular recreational housing development. Many homes have been 38 constructed its western shm::elinL been built on th_e spit~ s interior acer: , additional hmnes have t() tl1e ehan11els that ha11,e beer~ to provide additional waterfront properties. j ·v~rard res11l drif the cl1a-n.n.el dr sedirner1t i2rosion ar1<l The chax:mel entra.nee b·reaches the sedirnent is dri'.rer1 :Lnto tb_e chanxu2l wave and cictal action has 'Of::t:n built on the south c.o-n.crete b11lklaeads ctnd been forced co coilstruct buff T.;Ja·-;7e atta.ck. crGd preser·v.s th.e r(:~tr Secorrd the ,sediraen·cs into -che within the mouth. of t}:ie charrnel Inouth if it lS Periodic remsiin open to The sl1oreli:n.e rrorn. Cl-1e~rry Foirlt to :Meach is tb.e source area of sediments Pointis beaches. Homeowners should be alert to any that area shoreline Po inc of sedin1en.ts southward sedin1ent tra·t1sport could. lead to se\rer.e. erosio·n ar.td ret!:eat of Point s west snore. Bay, o·verall f the channel mouch could be used to restore Shoreline imately 20 km. north di\1id on the beach. As 3,:;:en at Birch detrimental tJ-;an in~ the sediro.ent frorn beach at the south th=f apprcrx~ The Nooksack River enters the froia t·.b,,=. The shoreline to the east of the delta has been s 1nodif ied o\rer l.ar1dfills the oriented ir1d·ustria.l and conIDercial establistrruer1ts a:.ssocia.J,:ed the Furthermore, the shoreline southweste::: C}re.ck.an.u.t Forn1at:ior1, a lnassiv·e sar1clstor1e i·n.terfa..c:.2 bet~-"n:::eil lan.d 211.d w·ate.!:' u11lilc that f the eou.r1t.:_;.r ~ s shorelin.ie" The s11ore.lir1e t(; the 1rJest of the l\fool::sac:J{. delLa bc1s n.arro\<r bea.c11€~S of strata. .~ rimmed ·with low bluffs off che southern of is also found on the sout~ face of ~s Point Francis. the Ltcm.1~i ~Per1ninsul.a Its tidelaPds, as well as the tide.lands a:nd beac:~1es of the I_,u.Im.ni p,:2r111insula~ ar.£ G.ti.der th,e juiis~ diction of t·he Luin1ni f-r-orn the por TtJ"l.i.ic~."h creates 1::; Ir.i the s·u1rur:u..er) are ·t>Yeaker" effeots are very small but their Point Francis Island south-facing shoreline of the island [O be e~od 3 2 Se foun.d t}Ls The sediment eroded from the south facing bluffs is transported northward around the eastern and western flanks of the island where it is deposited into the form of two "horn-like" features, Brant Point on the east and The Portage on the west. The Portage provides an overland connection between the island and the Lummi Penninsula during low tide periods. The shore bluffs of the Lummi Penninsula are also exposed to southerly wave attack and rapid erosion is clearly visible in many places. The erosion is a product not only of wave action but the nature of the geology as well. Easterbrook (1973) shows the bluffs to be composed of glaciomarine drift which are prone to failure when saturated. Furthermore, the bluffs are high in clay content, particularly montmorillohite clays. These clays expand during groundwater saturation and contract with summer dessication causing surf icial cracking and spilling of the bluff face on to the beach. Wave action removes the fallen debris and oversteepens the bluffs leading to greater instability and slope failures. The Lummi Indian Tribe is concerned about the bluff erosion and the threat it poses to Lummi Shore Drive, one of the main roads on the peninsula that closely parallels the edge of the bluffs. They have placed riprap in a few rapid-erosion areas. Additional rip-rap may be required as erosion continues. Action to reduce groundwater input from nearby homes and drainfields should be taken to thereby reduce soil moisture and saturation of the bluffs. The beach at the base of the shore bluffs is 8 to 10 meters wide and composed chiefly of sand and gravel. The backshore is littered with logs and other debris from the Nooksack River and the Port of Bellingham across the bay. Wave-cut notches are visible at the base of the bluffs where waves have cut into the bluffs. The eroded sediment is carried northwesterly by longshore transport towards the Nooksack delta where it is deposited among the fine deltaic sediments. The Nooksack has flowed alternately between Lummi Bay, north of the Lummi Peninsula, and Bellingham Bay in the recent geologic past (Easterbrook 1973). Approximately in 1860, the course of the river was changed by a log jam which redirected the main flow of the river into Bellingham Bay where it remains today. Sternberg (1967) estimated the river to deposit 6.9 x 10~ m3/yr. of sediment into Bellingham Bay. Prevailing southerly waves have restrained the forward growth of the delta into the bay forcing the sediment to be deposited laterally along the eastern and northwestern margins of the bay. The lateral movement of the sediment is causing much shoaling and the development of large tidal flats near the delta. The shoaling on the east side of the bay poses a problem for port expansion and shipping. The shoreline to the east of the delta has become sheltered from wave attack by the expansion of the tidal flats. Bluffs up to 30 meters high border the beach, lowering toward the delta. A nearly level beach if found at the base of the bluffs varing in width from 15 to 30 meters. The beach near the delta is composed primarily of fine-grained sediments derived from the Nooksack delta. However, the beaches farther to the east are composed chiefly of pebbles and cobbles. There are two reasons for the change in beach sediment size. First, the beaches farther away from the delta receive less fine-grained river sediments. Second, the net longshore sediment transport is westerly, towards the delta. Thus, wave action and 40 longshore currents sweep fine-grain sediment towards the delta leaving coarser beach sediment behind. South from the Port of Bellingham, Whatcom County's shoreline is composed almost exclusively of the Chuckanut Formation. This formation consists of a series of Late Cretaceous and Paleocene arkoses, conglomerates and siltstones floded into a series of north-trending anticlines (structural arches) and synclines (structural troughs) (Mustoe, 1971). The Chuckanut Formation creats a visually pleasing shoreline; however, it is nearly devoid of sandy beaches save in a few isolated pockets. Most of the shoreline consists of massive sandstone cliffs, huge fallen boulders and small islets projecting from the water just offshore. Of particular interest to artists and researchers are unusual weathering forms displayed upon the rocks within the shore zone. Mustoe (1971) studied the shoreline weathering characteristics of the Chuckanut Formation along the shore in order to explain some of the curious weathering patterns. According to Mustoe (1971), four weathering zones can be seen on the shoreline exposures of the formation. First and highest, usually three meters above mean tide level, is found a weathered surface that appears harder and more resistant than the exposed interior. The hardened surface is often seen hanging like draperies over the buff colored interior of the rock. Below the uppermost zone of hardening is a second zone that Mustoe (1971) calls "alveolar weathering" as the weathering forms resemble "alveoli" or "air sacks" found in lung tissue. This zone is found commonly along the shoreline exposures of the Chuckanut Formation 1.5 to 3 meters above mean tide level. The alveoli cavities have an average opening of 5 to 10 en. and a.depth of 2 to 8 cm. In most cases, the lower boundary of the alveoli weathering zone is defined by the zone of active wave erosion. The formation of the alveoli cavities is not fully understood. Frost action and salt weathering have been among the processes suggested. Mustoe (1971) suggests that biological activity may play an active role in their formation. Microorganisms secrete acides in a halo around a colony, attack and weaken the surface layer of the rock exposing the small area to additional weathering and erosion. Wave-cut notching of the Chuckanut Formation is visable in many places. However, few appear so deeply cut as to cause extensive collapsing of the upper rock. Immediately below the notch is usually found a narrow flat step or platform several centimeters to a few meters wide. These features are the result of wave erosion of the formation. Many homes have been constructed on the cliffs and promontories of the Chuckanut Formation. The spectacular views afforded many of the residents place a premium upon their value. The formation extends south of the Whatcom County line for an additional 3 km. into Skagit County where it becomes covered by the sediments of the Skagit River delta. 41 REFERENCES Easterbrook, Donald (1973) "Environmental Geology of Western Whatcom County, Washington." U.S. Geological Survey Research Report. 78 pp. Larsen, C. E. (1972) "An Investigation into the Relationship of Change in Relative Sea Level to Social Change in the Prehistory of Birch Bay, Washington." Unpublished M.S. thesis, Department of Anthropology, Western Washington State College. Mustoe, George (1971) "Biochemical Origin of Coastal Weathering Features in the Chuckanut Formation of Northwest Washington." Unpublished M.S. thesis, Department of Geology, Western Washington State College. 67 pp. Schwartz, M. L. and G. Grabert (1973) "Coastal Processes and Pre-History Maritime Cultures," in Coastal Geomorphology, Donald Coates, ed. Sternberg, R. (1967) "Recent Sediments in Bellingham Bay." Science. Vol. 44, No. 2. Northwest Von Reeder, E. R. (1972) "Origin and Development of Coastal Landforms at Point Francis, Washington." Unpublished M.S. thesis, Department of Geology, Western Washington State College. 145 pp. 42 MARINE LIFE IN THE SOUND William Sunnners Director, Shannon Point Marine Center Huxley College I think it is appropriate to connnent that the flow of this conference tends to pick up something which was coming forward in my mind, namely man's approach to the sound and things that live in it, but from the shore side. We are basically land critters and we come to the shore. I'm sure the first man must have come to the shore and first observed marine life from that vantage point. We haven't gotten completely beyond that vantage point and some of us called marine biologists are also referred to as 'hip boot' oceanographers or by even less complimentary terms. However, I would like to assure you that marine biology, the study and the subject matter, extends far beyond the shore and one must, as is somewhat possible on a rainy morning like this, attempt to view life within the sound from the confines of the water itself. I am referring of course to our more standard fall weather which seems to have arrived here. Let me put some further bounds on what I wish to consider. Marine life, of course, implies animal and plant life and I will not attempt to give you a listing of species. That might have been a rather hollow exercise, both for me and, in recitation, for you also. I will talk about marine life as it occurs in all of the marine or estuarine areas within the Puget Sound basin, which area includes Puget Sound proper, Hood Canal, the Straits of Juan de Fuca, Northern Puget Sound, or as some biologists call it, San Juan Archipelago, Georgia Strait and Johnstone Strait. I will not emphasize the fish. Some connnents at the beginning of this conference, dealt with fish. Suffice it to say that there are five species of salmon which frequent the sound waters; there are six species of salmon in the northern Pacific area, so only one of them does not come here. There are a number of species of herring-like fishes and altogether there are perhaps two hundred different species of fish that have been recorded in Puget Sound waters. Nor will I emphasize the marine mannnals; these tend to be large and fairly obvious, and they are also high up in the food chain. That is to say, they eat things which in turn eat other things, on down the line to the ultimate sources of energy. There are perhaps sixteen species of marine mammals which have been reported for the Puget Sound Basin. And as I have no particular expertise in the area of birds, I will speak very little of them. I am told that there are one hundred thirty-four species of marine-associated birds which frequent this basin. They too are fairly colorful and visible, relatively large and, I suppose, well described. It is estimated that perhaps four million birds participate in the fall migration, many of them stopping for feeding purposes within Puget Sound. What I wish to emphasize is the ecological importance of the sound, which brings to mind a question. What is biologically distinctive about Puget Sound? Unfortunately, I cannot say that there is anything particularly distinctive about the region's animal and plant life, but let me 43 qualify this. I am proposing that if one were to be familiar with the qualitative aspects of marine life along the West coast, say at least from Central California to the southern extremities of Alaska, the kinds of animals and plants found in Puget Sound would not be exceedingly different from what one might find irt other parts of that range. However, we are well aware that there are some quantitative differences. That is, certain species occur more frequently here and in certain related areas along that range of coast line. And we know that their occurrence relates to habitat. Much of this habitat selection relates to shorelines, and so the discussion of shorelines is very appropriate to describing shore forms and shorelines, and very appropriate to describing or estimating the kinds of organisms which live within the sound. Another observation needs to be made here. The continental shelf, that shallow region which lies along side of all continental land mases, is particularly narrow along our West coast--perhaps twenty miles in extent on average. This means that the open ocean encroaches very closely on the land and we are down wind from, and basically down stream from, the largest stretch of open ocean in the whole world. This leads to an equitable kind of climate along the shoreline and it of course affects the shallow waters over both the continental shelf and in those contiguous bodies of water such as in Puget Sound. Puget Sound, so far as water is concerned, is the largest feature along this West coast stretch of land that I have been discussing from, sayCalifornia to Southeast Alaska. It is larger, I believe, than San Francisco Bay and San Pablo Bay, and it represents a protected, inter-connected water mass greater in extent than anything else along this coastline, and within it, it has a tremendous range and diversity of habitats. We have areas which are very nearly open ocean and we have these extending all the way to still marsh land areas and estuaries. There are flats, bays, beaches, rocky headlands, reefs, sills, fjords, coastal channels and off shore bars adjacent to the shore. One is hard-pressed to give physical characteristics which are uniformly descriptive of this area. It might be somewhat indicative to suggest that the water temperatures in the sound remain very near fifty degrees fahrenheit throughout the year, or about ten degrees Centigrade. By comparison, an oceanic average of water temperatures--and this I must add is an average including shallow and deep water--would be between about three and four degrees Celsius. So, our shallower Puget Sound area is somewhat warmer than the oceanic average. It is perhaps about thirty parts per thousand salt, whereas an oceanic average might be closer to about thirtyfive parts per thousand salt. And, rather interestingly, from a biological point of view, the place where this difference occurs is at the surface, because the fresh water is lighter than salt water. However, there is some good mixing in the channels as a result of tidal action so that that does not always hold true. Furthermore, this is a seasonal event. In the late spring, when the run-off is high resulting from a melt of the snow pack in the mountains, the salinity tends to drop at the surface of the water. Also in the winter, when there is more rainfall, the salinity tends to drop. By my reading, there are on the U.S. side about 2,500 square miles of water in Puget Sound, and some 2,350 miles of shoreline. There are about 250 islands, most of which are in the San Juan group, about 170 of them 44 in fact. The depth is about 150 fathoms and the drainage basin is about six times the surface area of the water. Not surprisingly, two-thirds of the population of the state live around this water and most of the industry in Washington is located around the water. By comparison, the Canadian part of the Puget Sound Basin has more water in it. Greater depths to about three hundred fathoms are found. Larger open stretches of water, as in Georgia Strait, lead to some of the longer and more energetic wave patterns noted in Dr. Terich's paper. To complete this marine inventory, I am told that there are 300,000,000 acrefeet of fresh water entering the Puget Sound Basin annually and as this exceeds the amount of evaporation, the net flow of water through the Straits of Juan de Fuca is outward. Most of the exchange of water with the ocean is through the Straits of Juan de Fuca and relatively little is exchanged at the northern end through Johnstone Strait. The above statistics help provide background for discussion of the marine life of the sound. The original source of energy for support of life in any aquatic and certainly in any marine system is sunlight. And the sunlight, of course, is used by plants to create organic materials which in turn are eaten by organisms in chain sequence. Characteristically, marine ecological systems are rather lengthy; that is to say, the food chains include a number of different steps, and furthermore, in open ocean systems, the primary producers--those plant organisms, which first use sunlight from the dark side of water to make organic material--are microscopic. They are the phytoplankton, the sub-millimeter size organisms, which live dispersed through the water but are most active very close to the surface. In estuaries we have a somewhat different system. A functional estuary, and I use the word functional because there are estuaries and there are functional estuaries, the difference being the way that energy is brought into those systems and the way in which it is used. In a functional estuary, a fair amount of the organic energy is imported, both from the adjacent land and from the fresh water systems. Also, in a true or functioning estuary, a fair amount of energy might be derived by sizeable plants which have roots or are fixed in the bottom of the water mass. Likewise, you can assume that a functional estuary might have to be fairly shallow to support these plants. So, if Puget Sound is to be considered an estuary, as some oceanographers consider it, we would have to demonstrate that there is either a net import of organic energy from the land side or that there is a great dependence on sizeable plants, many of which are fixed in sites. Unfortunately, I fall short of defining the whole sound basin as being an estuary on that basis. Certain parts of it certainly are. There are definable estuaries within Puget Sound and there are areas where this simply cannot hold. Man's use of organisms in the sea, by the way, is also fairly far up on this food chain. So far as fish are concerned, we typically use fish at the third or fourth level. Herring, for instance, are at the third level. They feed on organisms like copra pods which might feed on the phyto-plankton, particularly diatoms. There are these two removes before man uses a herring and in each step a fair amount of energy is expended. Perhaps ninety percent of this goes to the activity of the organisms at that level and in the conversion from one level to the next. The remainder 45 of the fish used by man are at the next level. Salmon are a fairly good example of that, though not quite as clear cut since, as I understand it, salmon might eat herring, and at least survive at four removes from the original production of energy. We are at a bit of a loss to define where crabs fall in this scheme; crabs are the original recyclers and they exist only as there is loss from the various stages along the way, but not too low down in the energy scheme. Shell fish function very well at about one remove from the initial production of energy. They can utilize the phytoplankton as well as some of the secondary production. So, man's use of the organisms from the sea and the potential for developing large quantities of these depends on how far removed they are from the original source of energy. This would imply, as Dr. Monahan points out in his paper, that we might have quantitatively many more oysters produced here than we could, for instance, salmon. Now we have some things which modify our potential use of these various levels and various kinds of organisms. If you read Diet for 3!_ Small Planet or similar books, you might get the idea that to get more from the earth, you should eat lower on the food chain; that is, eat plants. Unfortunately, most of us land vertebrates could eat large quantities of marine plants and derive no benefit from them whatsoever. We haven't the capacity to digest them. And so, if someone offers you a plankton sandwich, help yourself but don't count on feeling robust afterwards. Something at the end of Post Point might get benefit of this but you will not. There are a few groups of the larger algae, fixed algae, which can be digested by vertebrates. Some of these are harvested and some others are harvested simply as fillers. The kelp pickles, which are a phenomena which I observed when I first came here, I would submit to have benefit in terms of the vinegar and sugar put into them, but you might as well make them otttof sponge rubber, as far as the material is concerned. In fact, one of the samples of them I was given tasted something like that. Going back to the food chain, if we are to maximize man's use of the organisms within the Puget Sound Basin, we need to account for a couple of phenomena which may be to our benefit or distract somewhat from our harvest. One is schooling and migration, particularly among the larger organisms, and we are thinking of fish here, some of which school while others migrate, and this means that they are potentially harvesters or importers of food energy. Think now of the salmon which leave here as a large number of small fish and do their feeding and growing somewhere out there in the oceans, and then come back again, fat and not quite so numerous, but net importers of energy. They are feeding on the open pasture, the unfenced range which we don't own and which we really do not control. If the salmon came back hungry and did not have production of more salmon in mind, we could have the opposite effect. Likewise, we could have schooling or migrating organisms coming in here, like the locust on the desert, harvesting everything and departing, taking this energy away with them. To a certain extent that occurs, and I believe that creatures like the marine mammals and some of the birds are good examples. They come through, harvest to a certain extent, and depart, and we get no particular benefit from them while they are here, or as a result of their having been here. Further, we have another problem if there's a matter of availability. Those organisms which school often are more available to us than those which are dispersed. 46 Phytoplankton, the microscopic plant organisms in the ocean, as mentioned earlier, are the ultimate source of energy and at the bottom of this food chain. They are quantitatively numerous and quantitatively significant in terms of weight and volume, however you want to measure this. But, they are dispersed and to harvest them calls for a great deal of effort. This is true, of course, of several steps up the food chain. Very often those things which naturally make a good living by eating phytoplankton, are themselves relatively small and in some cases relatively inedible to us. So, let me give some suggestions as to how we might maximize human use of marine systems and particularly in Puget Sound. One, of course, would be to suggest the restriction or prohibition of anything which is biologically deleterious. Any human activity which is biologically deleterious can be, in some way or another, measured. Certainly log rafting, our use of the sound for transportation, dumping, modification of beach processes, run-off of the rivers, the use of anti-fouling bottom paints, and so on. Modifications or changes in the water flow, digging channels or blocking up water flow in certain areas, almost anything you would wish to list here as a human activity, could in some way be construed to be biologically deleterious. And what is necessary is for us to reach first, a state of knowledge and then an understanding as to what sort of balance we can tolerate, and where. It could well be that there are certain areas which we should simply leave alone. And, it could well be, also, that there are certain things which could be very simply done--for instance, the loss of mercury, as from a plant here in Bellingham Bay or anywhere else. Rather simply, that loss can be minimized dramatically and economically, because mercury is an expensive material. We know that it is very damaging in certain circumstances when left in the open water. So possibly our work is cut out two-fold. We, as biologists, need to be quite active and by identifying and quantifying these effects, to make recommendations to those of you who will assist in making the decisions on regulations. Number two, we could seek out what are called by the National Marine Fisheries Service under-utilized species, or to put it another way, unexploited species of organisms and develop markets for these. I list some of my best friends among these, such as squid and octopus, but I trust we will not exploit them too rapidly. I have some reasons to suspect we will not; there are not many squid, and not many species of these occur in the Puget Sound area. There are octopus here and some very large ones. However, the squids act as fishes; they school and they migrate~ they are available to our fishing technology and could be caught in numbers if they existed in this region. The octopuses, however, are anything but sociable, and they tend to distribute themselves across the bottom. They are secretive, they are not readily caught by the kinds of fishing gear normally used and, hence, it is not very likely that we could develop a large fishery with them. The above comments pre-suppose that there would be an increased market for them as well. There are various species of crabs which we might well use also. I would suggest that we might have to change our taste somewhat and instead of going to the store and asking for filet of sole or halibut steak, we might find ourselves marching in asking simply for fish which one day may be one kind and the next day another. It might even be a 47 ground-up fish product of some sort. Fish meal has been experimented with to quite a great extent yet some problems remain with the processing of it. However, I believe the day is not far off when we will have a sort of hamburger from the sea, the origins of which we do not precisely know or perhaps wish to know, but if the Food and Drug Administration would look into this for us perhaps we could take comfort in using it. A third way we might increase our utilization of the oceans, would be to live lower down on the food chain as I have already suggested. I am unaware of any present activity within the Puget Sound area to cultivate the larger forms of algae, although at certain points along the California coast such algae are harvested, and to some degree there is management of the kelp and other kinds of algae there. In the Maritime Provinces of Canada and in New England the hand-gathering of certain kinds of sea moss is fairly well developed, although the industry is small-scale. There may be some prospect for this in the local region. Aquaculture--or more appropriately as it relates to the oceans, mariculture--opens a number of prospects to us. We should be looking for a species that are quick-growing. Lobster, for instance, which take five or seven years to grow to a. marketable size would be of limited use. We need species which are tolerant, that is, can withstand the variability that is likely to occur in whatever pens or confines man provides for them. It would pay us to deal with species that are non-migratory and certainly if we can find such species which do not have a planktonic life stage. There are various ways to deal with migratory mannnals and other sea creatures. The range could be fenced and some form of responsibility and ownership established. I suspect the individuals operating such schemes would prefer leasing or renting of grounds. However, by so doing we would have to throw to the wind the concept of common property resource. We might, as a correlary to this, attempt to find herdable combinations of utilizable fishes, using that term in a generic sense, and perhaps some organism which would control these, along the lines of sheep and sheep dogs. Why not tuna and porpoises, or tuna and submarines? Maybe even electronic devices could be implanted in the brains of the fishes which could be utilized in the control and management of them. And so instead of just scales in the can we might find the odd transistors that had not been picked out earlier in the processing. Far-fetched perhaps, but not entirely impractical. One final point to be considered is the breeding of super-organisms, super fish, and it is this approach which Dr. Donaldson of the University of Washington has attempted with salmon and trout. It is, of course, the equivalent of what is being done by lumber companies in the breeding of super trees. The emphasis in all this is on the perfection of a fastgrowing organism or one that has straight grain or one that has some characteristic that is particularly sought for its utilization. I submit that there is the ecological problem in that you may be breeding a "monster." There is no more energy coming into the system at the origin; it is simply being turned over faster by this organism, this "monster." We have the potential to develop the same kinds of problems we have already with agriculture, namely, strains which lack the diversity to be resistant to a particular disease or certain fluctuation in natural conditions with the possible result that we might lose all of our "monsters" when a very common disease organism or an unusually cold year came around. 48 In the foregoing pages, I have spoken rather generally about man's use of life in and on the edges of Puget Sound rather than specifically about what things there are there. Fortunately there are a number of good references for the latter. 49 PORT DEVELOPMENT IN THE REGION Tom Glenn :Port of remarks will fit into the t·hat Dr" Hitch..rnar1 11as mad,2 for us in his paper. purpose is therefore to describe what a port district is in the State of , and how it and is of So1u11d and t1ft.e applied in '!tJhate:om Strait of 1-Iitchm.an has out, port districts districts~ The Port of ham is ; not all d.isctricts have this scope, some ar,2 wide. For example, the Port of Skagit and the Port of Anacortes are two separate diE;~ tricts within In don't even cover all of However, the set up the port district I think in Port districts do not districts, being to the to any ci council, t:o the county com:missioners a.re independent. are mayor or an:y other elected like, I suppose, a school district. They have certain authority and powers and functions law and within that framework. Our authority for district goes beyond and and is controlled la\Jl.. Tb.ese la\ivs concerning districts have been built up since 191L Howeve:r, elemen ts have been added tI1a t have modified, extended or tt1e powers of port districts. districts There are four basic functions that in this Docks, piers, walls navi~ state. The first one is harbor gation channels, aids, fill on the waterfront, break-waters, bulkheads land ~·~,,-···~··t on the waterfront, in the harbor, are some of the concerns of terminals where to a:notl1er., An ocears. terrninal facil-one mode of a eJ{amp le " An. i where it sometimes comes as a surprise In parenthesis, it t to to learn that come 'i'7ithin port dis~trict functions. Tl-ie third fur:,.ction is ir1dustrial In years past indus, that it is trial evil often_ activities that are criticized for in 1920 and 19:21 a few moments you 1 l l see where that wisdom comes from, be It for or 0th.er social ame11.ttie.s., this is the one that is recr~3atic~~1 mo Hot.Ye'\rer, tl-1e £our th poiver is recreatior.i. and th.is ce:: for a of pace. In the 1963 session of the State port districts were to 50 Bu_t* it shou~J.d such a task. fc:)r pro=~ and operate recreational facilities, but only "in conjunction with the operation of their other activities." In other words, an airport, a boat harbor, an ocean terminal, which are operated by port districts, may in parts be utilized for parks, for green areas, and recreation. When the legislature added this power to port district functions, they added no extra tax or revenue source; it added one further item for existing port district revenues and resources. So far, I think you will find that port districts have not taken up this power too enthusiastically. When told you should build a park here or there it is necessary to ask whether there is not a park district, or a county park board that can do this? Certainly, we can do it with our own funds and on our own property. The power to carry out the four functions involve two general areas of concern. One is property; we can buy, sell, own, develop, lease propperty just like a private owner can. Our rights to use, develop, and so on, property are just like any individual's or any corporation's. There is a further power relating to property and that is the power of eminent .domain. We can condemn property for the various functions I have described, but, of course, a clear public purpose must be involved. The power of eminent domain is a sweeping power. It is often a mean thing, but there are controls in its use that make it practical, useable and necessary. The Port of Bellingham has used this power twice, I think, in the eighteen years I have been at the port, and it certainly is not invoked until every other possible means of obtaining the property has been exhausted. The next general area of power is in financing. We can assess taxes, and today the Port of Bellingham assesses two taxes which are fairly typical. One is completely typical, and that is a three-tenths of one mill tax for general port operations. This tax is levied on all property in the port district, which, as pointed out earlier, is all of Whatcom County. The other tax levied is for the retirement of general obligation bonded indebtedness. We are permitted to indebt ourselves to a certain percentage of the assessed valuation, and I think that is still a true term. The valuation today is fifty percent of the true value, and this we might call the set value. We are permitted to indebt ourself to go out and borrow money and use it for these purposes, up to a certain percentage of the value of the property in the district. We are able to raise that level three times by a special vote of the people. In the early sixties, we went before the people of Whatcom county with a $2,000,000 bond proposal to develop the North Terminal site. It had grown old and antiquated and we could see a number of things on the horizon. We needed $2,000,000 beyond what we were capable of raising without a vote, so we presented the proposal to the people of Whatcom county. It was a good program and we went out and sold it. The favorable vote was 72.8 percent. People in the Sumas, Everson, Nooksack areas voted 80.0 percent for that bond issue. I think the most attractive things about port districts to me is their completely local nature. Port districts are not imposed on the region by the Federal government nor by the state government. The electorate in the local district must go out and actually form its own port district. There are procedures to follow, of course. You have to go to the county commissioners and petition for an election and then 51 present the to the It must be ~lated by at least a si:Kty_,, percent maj is a ta,~ consideration involved, and. occa~ sionally such proposals are voted down. The in the area have voted dovm, I believe, such a two occasions. So it is not an automatic winner. involved Port of is that if someone is dissatisfizd or Bellingham o:r any other port district is to go dmm to the port office and. take issue ·with the iss~Je be dealt with responsive to the local need~ which is a and are represented at the head in ~fha.tcom are elected. as com..m.issioners of the Port of They serve six years, each Until the 1975 islature, there was no forty dollars a three elected officials trict to remuneration, as a result of an act Three people two years. to ensure session of the State Corm11issioners now can get in that session. The districts within the tlis·- districts that are vEry close in their bound.sries to those of the What corn people. is local an.d it n1t1st districts tend to be district the money, As manager of the and h:i.re ~:taff , I make rec.orm11er1dations to the cor;nrdssion regarding all the business activities that we:. carry on and make the final decision, meet and their are open to the public, ~'hat an individual district does with the po'i.vers a-nd fu.n.ctior1s I have described is up to that district, Some districts are a very aggres-~ I need no farther than to the Port of Seattle sive districL imaginative management and with risks, the Port of Seattle e:laims to have becom.e the number one container on the Pacific coast of North America. Not ius the United States, but North l\.J.-aerica. Actually 0 I believe Seattle is rmmber i.:wo be~ hind Oakland. Other districts a.re more or less inactive. Some of them have little or no pressure and make little use of their powers. Some do not ev2:n hold meetings 9 as are law to do" There is in.fact a wide range in port districts. I think the Port of Bell~ ingham is in the middle. It is not inactive nor is it I think we lean toward side because of corn:missione:c3. One is an school a11d tl1e otf1er is a coirfillercial fi,sherma~n arid 1:PJ.sinessman au.d are all alert and awake. Sound tu.re fer a n1ou:1ent ~ ir1 r1ortf"1,ern at the wider tl1ere ars so1ne ten. or "CVlel,,re districts.;, the Strait of of Everett, Anaeortes ones are the Others irtcl,ude Harbor • Orcas, The latter cover and are for very small districts. $ of for a tax r·e~~.ren.ue that them the abili As mentioned earlier, dis-cricts facilities and ser;lices and for suc}t seri.rices and facilities'i· If you 1:noor 52 your boat at the Squalicum harbor on the bay you will pay us a moorage fee. Property in the harbor is rented and used for numberous purposes. Bellingham International airport has about 900 acres of rapidly-growing general aviation activities just northwest of town, again used for various purposes. Finally, there is Blaine harbor, with some four hundred boats moored close to the Canadian border. Hence, in addition to tax revenues, the port of Bellingham has operating revenues that are five times as great as these. The tax revenues, in fact, are very modest; if we had to depend on them alone there would not be much of a port operation in the county. However, I am often asked, "Could the port operate without tax revenues?" The answer is, "When shipping is good, yes; when shipping is not so good, when shipping is slow, it would be difficult." What we would have to do to offset this is raise moorage rates and raise rentals. At the present time there are some one hundred industrial leases in operation. We lease property to individuals and to companies. Hence the Port of Bellingham is one port disctrict in the northern Puget Sound and Strait of Georgia region that performs every function permitted by law. Not all port districts do. Not all port districts have an airport, not all ports have ar.. ocean terminal, and so on. Bellingham has an ocean terminal, a number of boat harbors, an airport and various industrial leases. A few other points might be noted briefly. The State of Alaska is presently weighing the feasibility of locating an Alaska ferry terminal in Bellingham. I was in Alaska two weeks ago and we have been dealing with the state since March and I need say no more than that this is a very real possibility. It is not a mere political maneuver to get a better lease somewhere. Alaska genuinely wants to know what it would cost to do business in Bellingham and what kind of facilities we could provide for them. The Cherry Point property situation is another interesting item. The Port of Bellingham owns no property there although it has, through the functions I have described, the legal capability of carrying on a number of the terminal activities that may well be needed in the future, whether a transfer terminal for crude oil or minerals out-bound from the north Cascades to other markets in the world. So, although we have no property, we have the legal capability, and we are open to the investigation of any projects that would look good to the Whatcom county connnunity. Finally, what about the idea of regional port districts? I expressed my enthusiasm for the local nature of port districts and so I have a hard time becoming enthusiastic about a regional port district, let's say a Puget Sound port district in which all the several dozen districts now existing in the Puget Sound were combined into one, with legal and administrative offices in Seattle. If this were to happen, we would have to go down there on our knees for budgets, for permission to undertake new projects and so on. Nonetheless, there are some good aspects to a regional port district concept. It would help minimize any adverse affects of tough competition between adjacent ports. Building unnecessary facilities and other duplications would be avoided. Planning for future trade would be made easier. All these are things that need to be done. However, I believe they can be done without destroying the present local port district set-up. Port districts, as they are set up in the State of Washington 53 todayt i t seems to me, have the flexibility and the capability of dealing with the changing requirements of water-front development of the future, 54 THE ORIGINS OF THE PORT OF BELLINGHAM James H. Hitchman, Professor of History w.w.s.c. We are surrounded by ports in Puget Sound, yet scholars have neglected them as topics for research. This is unfortunate because ports have been and continue to be vital to the Puget Sound economy. Central to port history in the twentieth century is the concept of the port authority, or commission, as a public corporation. The purpose of this paper is to describe the origins of the Bellingham Port Commission. White men first settled on Bellingham Bay in 1853, building a sawmill on Whatcom Creek. A large amount of shipping evolved on Bellingham Bay between the 1850's and World War I which was devoted mainly to timber, fishing, supplies for shops and passenger service. In 1920, the voters of Whatcom County created a port commission with jurisdiction covering the county. The port commission obtained property in Blaine Harbor and Bellingham Bay, where large private interests also carried on water-based business, some in conjunction with the port, some separate. The origins of the port authority concept cannot be traced with any great certitude. Ports have existed since ancient times, but the American port authority concept is traceable to the Port of London Authority established in 1909 and the Mersey Docks and Harbours Board of Liverpool in 1858. A working definition of a port might be: "A place which regularly provides accommodations for the transfer of passengers and/or goods to and from water carriers." Ports have been conceived of as geographical entities, public highways, community utilities and business enterprises. There are various types of port administration in the United States: municipal, state, and district, but as yet no national body has come into being. Functionally, ports are usually navigation agencies, trade promoters, waterfront developers and transportation authorities. The Port of New York authority, established in 1921 by a compact between the New York and New Jersey legislatures, is often considered to be the prototype of American port commissions. This authority was established to bring order out of chaos as World War I traffic revealed the failure of competing private interests. However, earlier, partial port agencies had existed: San Franciso, 1862; New York, 1871; New Orleans, 1896; Philadelphia, 1885. It might be noted also that the Canadians established their National Harbours Board in 1911, a contrast to the local and regional types that were to be established in the United States. The public authority is a significant development in twentieth century government. There are several types,' including public utilities and transit authorities. A public authority may be defined as: a public corporation, responsible for its services to the people through their elected representatives, but freed from political pressures and routine bureaucratic restrictions in order that it may bring the best techniques of management to the operation of self-supporting or revenueproducing public projects. 55 Although a child of government, the port authority is "essentially a business enterprise. It engages in business promotion, supported by the prestige and power of the government .... " The need for planning to compete in world trade, utilize limited waterfront areas, resolve the problems of "massive capital requirements" and the lag time to realize investment return, led to the adoption of the port authority. The Seattle Port Commission began in 1911, following the passage of state legislation allowing port districts to be formed along county lines. As with many other ports, Seattle citizens were worried about railroads controlling the waterfront along with railroad and warehouse rates. The timber industry, the Alaska "Gold Rush" of 1897, growing trade with Japan, the various rail and sea connections made by Great Northern and Northern Pacific railroads, the need for more waterfront space and connections to Lake Union, the forthcoming opening of the Panama Canal, all stimulated Seattle to begin a port agency. The Port of Bellingham came into existence to attract business. It was the last Puget Sound port of consequence at that time to form under the 1911 law. After a campaign by the Chamber of Commerce and other groups, the county's voters passed the measure by 77 percent. The Bellingham Herald editorialized that this was "The most stupendous victory for any project ever launched in Whatcom County." The major question concerning the port was whether it would pay for itself. The Chamber of Commerce assured citizens that it would not be a burden on the county. Alas for the best laid plans of men! The port did not pay for itself very often and in many years it existed on tax revenues. The port began with indebtedness. It was started because the law allowed the use of taxation for enterprise, based on the assessed valuation of the county. In 1921, the port commission prepared a comprehensive plan of harbor development and in 1922, it secured voter approval for acquiring two areas on Bellingham Bay and one at Blaine. The first bond issue and property acquisition occurred in 1924, with purchase of the Municipal Dock, which had been built by the city in 1918. In 1926, the port adopted, and the voters approved, a plan to purchase land, build wharfs and dredge the Squalicum Creek area. The Bellingham Terminals Syndicate and Bellingham Bay Improvement Company dredged part of the waterway and started a fill. They then urged the port to take control. Again the voters approved and by 1934, taking advantage of the New Deal's work projects, a breakwater was built and a harbor created for fishing boats. Squalicum Harbor continued to expand over the years, in moorage for both fishing and pleasure boats, and industrial leases for enterprises such as Bellingham Cold Storage. In 1947, the Port acquired the old Bloedel-Donovan mill site at the foot of Cornwall Avenue. Then in 1957 the port assumed control of the Bellingham airport from the county. In the early 1960's, the port secured voter approval for a major development of facilities at the Whatcom Creek waterway, now known as the North Terminal, and in 1966 the Pacific American Fisheries' assets on the south side at Fairhaven were purchased. By 1970, the port owned about 2,000 acres of property, comprising two-thirds of the waterfront from Post Point to Columbia Cement Company. Turning briefly to the broader picture it will be seen that as Puget Sound's existence encouraged waterborne commerce and the rise of ports 56 from Olympia to Bellingham and Port Angeles, so the waters of the Straits of Georgia and Juan de Fuca fostered the growth of ports in British Columbia. Victoria served as the main port of entry from 1843 until superseded by Vancouver just prior to World War I. Nanaimo is a very old coal port, Kildonan in Barkely Sound flourished in the 1920's as a fishing point, Powell River and Chemainus loom prominently in the forest products industry. Vancouver has become the largest port on the entire Pacific Coast in volume of trade. Figures available at the Provincial Archives in Victoria and the Federal Records Center at Seattle indicate that waterborne commerce between Washington and British Columbia from 1850 to 1950 amounted to well over half of the traffic, while coastal traffic ran about one-third and foreign about seventeen percent. If initial calculations made are correct, then local traffic within B.C. or Washington would be even larger than the B.C.Washington trade. From 1850 to the depressed 1930's, American carriers dominated the B.C.-Washington trade and each region ranked second in their respective nations in the amount of local vessel traffic generated. Thus, water lanes in Puget Sound and British Columbia have been important to the regional economy. Ports such as Bellingham have provided vital handling and connecting services. The Port of Bellingham has been valuable to the people of Whatcom County as indicated by the estimate that, in 1970, port-related industry generated nearly 40 percent of the gross sales, over 15 percent of the jobs and over 20 percent of the payroll in the county. Georgia-Pacific, Bellingham Cold Storage, Mobil Refinery and Intalco Aluminum paid over 25 percent of Whatcom County property taxes in 1970. Inclusion of other water-based businesses would increase the total. Within the state, Bellingham has usually ranked from fourth to eighth in volume and value of tonnage. In 1970, the port handled 500,000 tons of cargo, part of the Bay total of 1.8 million tons. However, inclusion of the tonnage exported from the Cherry Point refineries and Intalco would triple the waterborne commerce figures recorded for the county. Furthermore, the port generates dollars within the economy by handling logs, aluminum, milk, equipment, etc., and receiving payment for such service. Finally, water-oriented industry also ships products by truck and rail, e.g., fruits and vegetables from Bellingham Cold Storage, Uniflite pleasure boats and salmon packed at the South Terminal. Port operations budgets increased from $60,000 in 1920 to over $2,000,000 in 1970. Capital assets were $11.5 million in 1970. Future problems are ominous but not insuperable: polution control, containerization, labor strikes, low market prices for pulp and aluminum, possible taxpayer objections to further port support. Yet following the high point of 1970 and the ensuing lull of 1971-73, port activity in shipping has increased once again as inflation has made it necessary to resort to ships once again. So the tide of port affairs ebbs and surges. This paper has suggested that, instead of originating as regulatory agencies similar to the Federal Trade Commission and Interstate Commerce Commission, ports began and operated as promoters of industry and shipping, revealing the cooperation of government and enterprise. The evidence has indicated that in good times and bad, the Bellingham port commission served as a pump primer in the Whatcom County economy. Whether the reader is concerned about the mixture of the public credit and private enterprise, 57 the economic power of ports compared to corporate capital, or the secondary emphasis given to ecology, the fact remains that voters have strongly supported the Port of Bellingham throughout its history. Sources for this paper were newspapers materials on Port of Bellingham Commission, minutes, resolutions, annual reports. J. H. Hitchman, The Port of Bellingham, 1920-1970, Bellingham: Center for Pacific Northwest Studies, Occasional Paper #1, 1972, Revised edition 1974. 58 CANADA'S PRESENCE IN THE NORTHERN PUGET SOUND REGION: PROBLEMS AND PROSPECTS Donald Alper, Assistant Professor Department of Political Science w.w.s.c. The interdependence of Canada and the United States is not viewed as a source of problems by most Americans. The relationship has traditionally been so harmonious that Americans generally take for granted the "unity and cooperativeness" between the two nations. This interdependence, however, which has helped maintain a history of harmonious relations, has also increasingly become a source of stress between the peoples of both countries. The concerns of Canadians that interdependence has meant for Canada a diminished sense of independence is well known. Not so well known are the problems south of the 49th Parallel which stem directly from Canada. The presence of Canada in the northern Puget Sound region has provided increasing problems for Northwest Washington in recent years. They include the increased buying of Washington recreational land by British Columbians, inflation of real estate prices because of Canadian demand, and the massive use of Washington parks and recreation facilities by British Columbians. While such problems are inevitable in areas experiencing pressures of urbanization, animosity is increased when the "intruders" are not only neighbors, but neighbors across an international boundary. This background set the context for the panel discussion "The Role of Canada in the Puget Sound." Six panelists were invited to contribute brief statements about various aspects of the presence of Canada in, and its effect on, the northern Puget Sound region. The panel members were: Robert L. Wenman, member of the Canadian Parliament from Fraser Valley West and a resident of Surrey, B.C.; Walter Hardwick, professor of Urban Geography, University of British Columbia and former Vancouver city alderman; E. H. Vernon, Deputy Minister of Recreation and Conservation for the Government of British Columbia; Bill Honeysett, publisher of the Bellingham Herald; Duane Berentson, Washington State Representative for the 40th District; and Donald Alper, assistant professor of Political Science and Canadian studies, Western Washington State College. The theme which emerged from the panel discussion is that the major factor responsible for the problems between Washington and British Columbia in the northern Puget Sound region is population growth and the concomitant demand on the resources of the area. Extremely rapid population growth is occurring on the British Columbia side of the 49th Parallel and the result is the pressures of the demand by Canadians for more urban and recreational land have increasingly turned south. Canadian panelist Walter Hardwick summed up the situation by noting that Washingtonians are being inundated (by Canadians) because there exists a major metropolitan area only 50 miles away from the center of Whatcom County, and this metropolitan area happens to be Canada's third largest city and one of the fastest-growing cities in North America. 59 The presence of increasing numbers of Canadians in Northwest Washington counties is rapidly souring the attitudes of many Washingtonians toward their neighbor to the north. Bellingham Herald publisher Bill Honeysett read sample letters in which the write.rs suggested a of protectionist measures ranging from of Mount Baker t~he ski tickets for Canadians to banning Canadians altogether from parks, One reader suggested that just as well anrr .::ox eastern Whatcom County since o1J<m most of it In the in~ creased anti~Canadian sentiment exis Northwest reminded Northwest drive to work in a car fueled their homes from electrici generated by streams that headwater in Canada, and writie i:heir anti-Canadian to the on. ne\vsprint th.at v1as gro~~rn ir1 "people should not forget that the same source of strains across the border adds subs B.,C.~ t"he are.a, u h_e said . forests" r1c~reo'.rer~ pressure which is the to the economy of Though there was general agree.ment that pressure was at the center of most of the the two countries in the area, there were differing views on whether th-2 stresses and strains generated increased pressure were not of a ~~ nationalism, larger Can.a.di-an Wenrnan. stressed the assertiveness of with the UEited States as one factor leading to strains in border areas like the Sound region -where contacts -between Canadians and Americans are we flex our muscles, he satd I the strain w-ill increase rather than decrease in the future~ Wernnan ted ou.t the situation in Whatcom Count~l is a reverse of the norrnal Caria·d.iar1-Af11erieax1 situation irli which. a rnassi·,.re extern_al co1001uI1i beca11se it li'v'es n.e:Kt door~ O"Ver_, 1 whelms the home its sheer presence, A1ue:rican panelist Donald .Alper addressed th.e same therae n_o that the increased stress in t·h-e region is closely related to the in Canadian~Ame:rican foreign :relations in generaL It: is not a coincidence, stated that friction. betv.reen Washir1gtoniar.us arid Britis-h Coltffn.biaxu:; :has in.creased at a. time when friction between Canada and che United States has increased. Acknowledging that many of the of the Sound region are specific to that area, there is that Canadians Whatcom County parks, buying re'creat:ional land in Sudden Valley, or contributing to traffic jams in Bellingham on afternoons are to be resented more Washingtonians when at the same time British Columbia of exported gas co State and the Canadian federal ar1nounces r1e7,iJ r·2strictions. on !unet~icaD. l1ews ruagaz.irLes and border television stations broadcas in Canada. Others disagreed thac nationalism in boch countries is a or source of 1-'Iard'{,Jiclc said British Columbia are facing urbanization, not cions,, The problems cor1fliets are in the world 1nJhere t~b.ere is (the tor a resource like land!' he said . 49th Parallel. Sound is just a microcosm of any metropolitan area , or li11hether it be i11 the Ur1it2d States 5 Car1ada, T1Jestcrn To highlight the problem, Hardwick pointed out facts and figures about growth in the Lower Mainland. The growth rate in Greater Vancouver is slightly under 3 per cent per annum, which means accommodations ("living space") must be found for approximately 40,000 new people each year. The obvious question is where to put them in view of limits placed upon urban growth in the area by physical geography and a government land freeze on the development of agricultural land. Rather than having a full circle of land to use for urbanization around the core city (which would supply an area of approximately 3,000 square miles within easy commuting distance), or even a half circle of commuting distance (like Seattle), Vancouver is surrounded on three sides by either ocean or mountains. When this is coupled with the fact that the only "open" area in the Lower Mainland is mostly "frozen" agricultural land south of the city, it is little wonder that British Columbians are looking toward Whatcom County and the surrounding area in Washington State. Hardwick further stated that just as the amount of urban land in and around Vancouver is limited, there is also a shortage of easily accessible recreational land. Except for the Gulf Islands and the narrow mountain valleys in the Whistler Mountain area, Lower Mainland residents must travel a considerable distance to find recreational land. Thus, it is natural, Hardwick said, that Vancouverites are looking toward Northwest Washington for a place to engage in their recreational activities. That this occurs is inevitable when you have an area of large population adjacent to an area which is not completely filled up. Hardwick mentioned economics as another reason why British Columbians increasingly are-.coming to~Northwest Washing-ton:for recreation:al.putposer;;. As land becomes scarcer in the Lower Mainland, the cost of available existing land escalates rapidly. It was pointed out that Canadians can build recreational cabins in Whatcom County for one-half to one-third as much as would be required for developing similar recreation property at home. Canadian participant E. H. Vernon explained that the limited land resource in Southwest British Columbia is not the only problem which stems from the concentration of people in the region. The expanding population poses a tremendous demand on the salt water resource as well. Today, Vernon said, the waterfowl, seagoing trout, and salmon of the Fraser River estuary are seriously threatened from encroachment by people and industry. The Fraser River delta area is vulnerable from both the municipal and industrial activity on the Canadian side and pollution from oil tanker activity at Cherry Point on the American side. Other problems stemming from the concentration of people in the area are jurisdictional disputes between Canadian and American fishermen (sport and commercial), vessel congestion in the narrow waterways of the Sound, and lack of sufficient harborage facilities for private boats. Vernon pointed to the need for increased efforts to cope with the sea-related problems. One ongoing effort in this area he noted is the close liaison between the British Columbia Department of Recreation and Conservat~on and its counterpart in Olympia. The theme of cooperation was taken up by American panelist Duane Berentson. He commented on the nature of official cooperation between the B.C. legislature and the Washington State legislature. Although 61 mostly informal--for example, the exchange of legislators in 1974 between B.C. and Washington--there is increasing interest is such meetings. Washington has established a Joint Committee on Washington-B.C. Cooperation, composed of both representatives and senators'. In the Washington House of Representatives, a select Energy Committee has been formed for the purpose of meeting with British Columbia energy officials. The Washington State Oceanographic Commission, currently considering the question of how to deal with the tanker issue (traffic, ports, weight, etc.), has legislative membership and is receiving input from British Columbia officials. The point was raised that Canadian provinces and Atneriqm states are cons.titutionally prohibited from engaging in formal relations involving binding agreements. The panelists on both sides pointed out the great number of contacts on the professional and administrative level. Examples are the Northwest Pollution Control Association, liaison between ecology organizations (both governmental and private), and joint Canadian-American research underway on the problems of the Puget Sound and the Strait of Georgia. There was general agreement that the problems between the two countries in the region are better handled at the regional and local level. Wenman felt there should be federal efforts as well, since the problems were international in scope and the state and province are powerless in solving them. Alper stated that although the federal governments and their agencies (for example, the International Pacific Salmon Commission and the International Joint Commission) have jurisdiction, the machinery at the federal level is too broad, not attuned to the unique and local problems existing in the region. Moreover, federal officials on both sides do not pay sufficient attention, and are not closely in touch to deal effectively with unique and local problems such as the overcrowdedness of Whatcom County parks or the impact of Canadian property buyers on the value of county land. The panel agreed that such problems should be worked out between Washington and British Columbia, and that ideally some sort of state-province joint legislative committee, meeting on a regular basis, should be established as the "political arena" in which problems are given a hearing and solutions are discussed. If any conclusion was reached, it was probably that animosity between Washingtonians and British Columbians is likely to get worse, not better, because the problems giving rise to this animosity are likely to get worse. Rapid growth in the Lower Mainland of British Columbia will continue to push Candians into Whatcom County, and because they are "foreigners" they and the problems they bring with them will be resented all the more. Although perhaps self-serving, Hardwick's statement that Washingtonians should recognize that growth is coming and therefore they should try to plan for and manage it, is probably a realistic assessment of what lies ahead. 62 OIL IN THE PUGET SOUND AND THE STRAIT OF GEORGIA Mary K. Becker Representative for the 4th District, Washington State Legislature I conference the warily because it has this paper to think of the oil issue as I have knmm about become back over the one into the habit involved in it. The legislative session tends to of thinking along the lines on how one is going to this bill this committee on this day; hence it is good every once in a while to sit back and take a longer look and try to see what is likely to be happening in the future. To give some perspective on the oil issue on Puget Sound I would like to go over some background material on this issueo The three refineries that have been opera in Puget Sound for quite some time, since the fifti<~s and sixties, are Mobil, and Texaco. By themselves they do not seem to generate a great deal of public concern about the safety of the waters. The oil issue began to heat up, you say, in the late sixties. In 1967 the .::lassie oil , which has become the for fears of environmentalists about large oil , took place near the Scilly Isles, off the southwest coast of England" That was the Torrey a 100,000 ton supertanker which lost all its cargo in a terrible accident. In January, 1969, an off-shore oil well off the coast of California, at Santa Barbara, blew out creating what for this country is i:he worst memory of a.n oil spill disaster. In Puget Sound the issue vms forraulated first of all in relation to off-shore In 1970 a the State Corrrrn_issioner of Public Lands to allow exploratory Sound '¥Ja ters" So that it was much public opposition was generated to this quashed, This was the same year, I believe, that t11e debate o~.,r-e:r tb.e Alaska pipeline began coming to a head; that is, as to whether or not ic should be built as it is now built, or whecher other alternative rom::es, such as the Mackenzie Valley route, should be follm.ied. This debate had special relevance to people in this area because it was clear that should the Alaska pipeline be built as it would have great consequences for oil traffic in Puget Sound because an obvious part Of the Yi/aS th.at the Oil ;i OTICe it arri-~Jed at tb.e V'&ld<2Z te:flTI.inal ;;i 7 would he carried tankers to west coast ports and masc many believed, to ports, Nineteen hundred and became active in the oil One of the first \;Jrote about 1~1as the A:nacoTtes oil Which occurred in, I believe, late of l97L Two hundred ten th.ousand barrels of diesel oil were spilled in Anacortes, the that has taken place in Sound in n:ocent memory. reports of the P,.nacor·ces were of a done r ·Ji 0.) scientists at VJoods Role~ I-'la.ssachu..setts,, J.!\s I reiaember 5' tl-k.e article thai:: I wrote dealt with the variance between. the reportage of the and the reportage of what was issued ·(he scientists at Woods Hole. The petent and of the Woods Hole report was that group of researchers in oil that oil, rather than or rather than ical evidence of of it least en1bodied ir1 the sea floor in example researc.h.ed ir1 f1assac:l1_usetts=--caI1 s2diments. _, and result in great devastation after the visible effects of an oil spill b.ave been removedo The oil studied was of the same size as tf:1.e one tl1at too-k in. Au.acortes "; se2u1s to a~ea, raise concern about the oil at least to and Later in 1971, I believe it was in June, thousand gathered in Bellingham, "'rhich Corps of Engineers held to determine the Arco refinery should be wastes into the Strait of Georgia, I believe that it was a that Arco had to before Arco could go had been su.bstarlt But it was not until that conce:rri al)oc. t of the that became W<~ll enough focused to generate very opposition~ In fact, it was only due and inter"tJ~~n.tion fro1n sorne of t~he to a flood of letters from the was scheduled. Otherticians of the tirae that that 'heara.c r;~ri tl1out on.e., wise it seems certain that the ft_,,_s I recall 1n2rny were concerned about the refinery j not so rrrucl1 in terms of \.11-tat . it ir1 its·=lf :1 an.d n.ot sc~ rnu.cl1 th.e actual ect of the , iv'l-1ich. 'V-.?as. v.1ha t tl-1e ref VJas ect that was very difficult discharge into che Sound, u.p i·n a cor1te:x:t of tt'1at ions of 1101:s to get to chat and away fact~ bee).'! focused I believe that the oil cor:troversy or< on the issue of , how many there will be and be the from a Whether it is difficult to say, bee.a.us'.:' many scientists who have studied. at ;1ariot1s ports arotrnd tl-.1.e ~rJorld ~ a.nd rnar(Y otl'Iers too v.1ill say tts.e to ;:he r,.1ar1n,-= environment come to at least as much, if net more, from the incidental and steady -cion than from a t.~_or1 beir1g tcsl.lced about to d·eli~-7er oil fr0Tf1 th.e ncrtl~a 1;1::1s of great con.cerr1 to n1any· because a vessel of ... "" t arre..L.s Dr tons can carry 0,000 million spilled i11 one incidenc on Arco 120,000 0 consequences for all other users of che Sound. an.cl when early l~ineteen of tli..a t .. It ht1r-:dred a. r:d s I called 'Save Our Sound. rJ"Jas 1 of local fishermen and other I ~was a raernl1er themselves to present evidence at the Arco hearing an.d other such meetings, Canadians began attending hearings in great numbers. In feet, throughout its relatively brief history there has been a marked admixture of Canadian and .American interest in the issue. At the end of 1971 I believe it was, the Arco refinery did go on line, and in the following year there was a small spill at Arco of 300 to 500 barrels. In 1972 also we saw the initiation of the first of the Coast Guard vessel traffic system which has been the major effort, until this year, of the to impose some coi.1trols on the movement of oil on Puget Sound. The vessel traffic system is a lane system and when ic is it ·will ha·,v·e tY.JO lan.es corning into the Strr::tits of Juart de F\1ca and including inner Sound and radar monitoring of vessel tnovemenr:s within that area. Nineteen hundred and , I think., can be called th'e year of the superport, That was the year the Army Corps of Engineers did a study on the of on the west coast of the United States. It was the year when Dr. James Crutchfield and his associates at the University of Washington did a long cross~benef it analysis of the risks of oil of superports and oil expansion and what that would mean to other industries here. Also in 1973 there was a move on the part of the Legislature to irnpose a barrel tax on the oil corr1panies to help offset sorae of the costs of cleanup and monitoring, This did not pass. In 1974 another legislative move was a Refinery Siting Bill which would have allowed one state agency to decide where to put refineries in the state of Washington. There was great concern at that time that there and there was much resistance to that would be a great deal of effort in this area because it seemed that the bill was designed to locate all the refineries and refinery capacity north of the Snohomish border. was the year that Pat Coburn ar;i,a' Ti Nineteen scenario to show what a wrote Superspill and spill might be like. The year that it was published mo",,rements \Vere s in Middle Eastern oil. Further, of the various alternatives there was continued and weighing of t:he various uses of Puget Sound against each other. VJhich brings 1-1S to 1975~ This. year I \>'Jould sa:l or:i.e of the lnost cant events in the oil issu.e has been the decision on the part of Standard Oil of Ohio (SOHIO) not to locate its terminal here. This is a that had been talked about for some time, and which had generated a great deal of concern on the of citizen groups. er1viron.n1e11.tal mo\reirten.t in general, tf1at there Vl&..S to be a major of oil activity in the Northwest and that a million barrels a to this ected SOHIO, however, has announced that it will build this terminal in California. This year also t11ere l'ta"ve beer1 lTGinerou.s to COTi= front the situation on which the Canadian situation has bear The basic fact to be noted is that up refineries have been with Alberta crude deliveries sxe eventually going to be shut off. 65 'l'he most recent word l have is that the oil will continue flowing that until the early 1980 s, probably 3. But in terms of whether or not the United States, whether or not the refineries here will be able to have oil delivered to them pipeline is largely up to the Federal Energy Administration which determines allocations of oil within the United States. A great deal of pressure is put on them now Midwestern refin~ eries to have the oil the United States might get from Alberta go co the Midwest rather than here which means that very soon-~in all within the next two or three years-~we 1 ll be at a situation where, by one hundred. percent,, or close to it, of our crude oil needs are to tanker. of tt'1e Puget Soun.cl refi·neries is in tt1e hood of 350,000 I understand that fifty percent of that capacity is by tanker which i:ne.am; chat we will be looking at a doubling of the present amount. That then is our irmnediate problem. How can we continue to oil to the existing while still protecting Puget Sound to the maximum extent? Throughout this period of concentrated concern about the oil issue) many interest groups have played a part in formulating the issue and in defining it These include environmental groups, oil industry itself, fisheries of various kinds, biologists, the oil workers, agencies, people concerned with recreation, the ports, the Puget Sound , Chambers of Comraerce in the area, various academic institutions and politicians. Citizens' groups such as the Energy forward statements. The issue has become a or ba.ttle just about everyone wlw lives around Puget Sound and many other parts of the state too. I remember seeing it several years ago as a policy battle that would take about ten years to resolve and I think in a way, you can look at it as a short~term issue, I know that when you have a of supplying oil, it is you never quite solve But it seems to me that in the next two or three or four years we are to see some fairly decisive action one way or the other that will determine So·urad for sotne t J.111e to come., the future of oil in The event:s that have it to this One is the in.crease in the size of be:ing used worldwide tG o:Ll~-remeniber that the general size of the tanker at th.e e·nd of 't--Jorld ~1Jar II was about 17,000 dead tons and now we are tankers of 120,000 dead tons and the oil industry ones than those, up to 180,000 or 250,000 dead weight tons on An.ot~her major factor at this poi11.t is Sou·nd ~ s \.·.Jater facil= ities, which rank among the best deep water fac:ilities suitable for large vessel traffic in tl1e ·ur1ited States,. Alaska now under construction. For a \r-ii-'1ile the isst1e_ rNas., or oil visioned for some time eo1nin.g frc.rrc~ i\.lask..a an.d all shall cer.:.ter? P."' Sound th.ird factor is the and becorue a I re-rnernber that wl1at \rlas million oY cwo million barrels a en"""' being built as uell as structed to tl-1e Sound that the 11id~Atest would I believe the issue has been 66 somewhat redefined because we are looking, as I mentioned earlier, to oil coming in by tanker to existing refineries only. However, there is substantial risk just in maintaining the status quo, let alone considering expansion. I think the issue once again is how to get oil to the existing refineries while still protecting Puget Sound. So, speaking from the point of view of a policy maker, I think that the main decision we face right now is this: shall we build a common use terminal for the delivery of crude oil to existing refineries on Puget Sound in order to keep all of the oil traffic concentrated around one point and to keep it out of Puget Sound as much as possible, or shall we not do this because the costs are too great and the benefits minimal? There are many points of contention involved in this issue. One of the major ones concerns the matter of past spill records versus the potential. It is true that we have not had a catastrophic spill on Puget Sound. The record of oil transport has been remarkably good here compared to what it has been in some other parts of the world. On the other hand, the record of oil spills in the rest of the world does not seem to be getting a whole lot better. You can look around. You can look through the newspapers of the last several years and just see increasingly alarming stories of spills. You can look at studies such as Shell Oil did once when it found that when all is said and done the major contributing factors in oil spills are silly mistakes made by people. You can look at the hazards that exist within Puget Sound itself. How safe are the tankers and how well can they maneuver in the very narrow parts of the inner waters of Puget Sound? The Legislature in one of the bills passed last session made the attempt to improve matters by enacting that tankers which are not equipped with certain safety features must come into the Sound under tug escort, that is, tankers between 40,000 and 125,000 dead weight must be accompanied by tug escort unless they have double screws, double bottoms, and other safety features. Cleanup capability is another point of contention. The oil industry generally says that there is now the capability to clean up any size spill imaginable on Puget Sound. I would contest this. The issue of big tankers versus little tankers is another one. The oil companies tend to argue that if we would only let them bring in tankers of between 185,000 and 250,000 dead weight tons that would decrease the traffic to such an extent that there would be less congestion and less risk of a major oil spill because of that. I would also contest that point. The cost is yet another thing we have to look at. There is great difficulty in determining this one, the difficulty of evaluating our resources other than the profits and losses of oil industry. How much is a healthy marine environment worth? How much are the fish worth that are imperilled by an oil spill? Likewise, there is lack of agreement on other costs, of what a common use terminal might involve. This is one matter we debated at length in last year's legislative session, and we will probably take up again. I think we need to have a really major professional job done to estimate exactly the costs; for example, a terminal built west of Port Angeles or other alternative sites should be determined. There are logistical problems too that have to be solved. The oil companies have raised a number of questions about the practicality of shipping oil from a common terminal, say in Port Angeles, the additional 60 or 70 miles to 67 presently existing refineries. Those questions must be answered. However, having raised those questions, I would like to conclude my remarks by addressing myself to what I feel is a basic question of policy. Because it really is not just a matter of practicality when we are talking about oil. It is a matter of value and, you know, when you talk about the oil issue anybody who talks about it, whether it is the oil industry, the environmentalists, the people who work in the refineries, the people who fish in the Sound, all tend to say the same thing. All of us love the Sound and we do not want to see it damaged. We do not want to see a major oil spill, to see the Sound become a dead sea. Everyone agrees upon that. But how much do we value the Sound? How much do we really think of it and what do we really see it being used for? Certainly the Sound would recover in time from the damages of a major oil spill. I don't think that's the point. I might recover too if I walked out into the street and was hit by a car, but I think I would lose something in the process. What I have seen as a result of being in the Legislature is that so many issues can really be framed in terms of the basic issue. That has been the case with this country ever since it was established, and I would like to throw this out for your consideration, because I think it is a useful way to look at the issue of oil on Puget Sound. There is a polarity that exists between "states' rights" and federalism. One of the basic arguments that you hear in favor of accepting the oil industry's contentions, that is of accepting the risks of developing major oil ports on Puget Sound or even in just taking whatever risks are involved in allowing continuous tanker traffic, is that we have an obligation to the rest of the country to supply the country with its petroleum needs. This is the portcullis argument; in other words, that we here in Puget Sound cannot isolate ourselves as a little island apart frow the rest of the country and only concentrate on what we may consider to be our local needs. And that is a powerful argument because it relates to that age-old issue of federalism versus states' rights. The Civil War was fought basically about that issue of federalism, and it was the idea of whether or not the union should be saved, whether or not the whole country was operating on principles that could prevent one little faction from extending a whim of sorts, a doctrine, that it felt it had the right to maintain. I think in a way we are in an analagous situation here, except that it seems to me the reverse is taking place. The institution that we are really talking about here is the energyintensive and energy-wasting life-style that our society in the United States has engendered over the past twenty, forty, fifty years. And this energy-squandering life-style is also an institution that is so widespread that anybody involved in it finds it difficult to resist. It is something that continues to expand in order not to lose ground. People's jobs and life-styles depend on it. I think we are all very conscious today of the problems of wasting energy, and the problems of the limitations on energy that we are eventually going to run into. In the case of Puget Sound, what I feel, what I am trying to do at any rate, is to focus on the values of the resources that have been here for some time. The resources of Puget Sound, like the fisheries, depend on a healthy and clean environment. And I believe that the people living on Puget Sound will need to appeal their rights to uphold these natural benefits against the 68 national custom of wasting energy, of continuing to consume the oil at a greater rate than we are producing it. I feel very little obligation to continue to supply oil to the rest of the country when we have really made very few strides towards conserving energy. Having put this in a very strong light, I do not mean to imply that I think that has got to be an either/or question; that we are going to have no oil here on Puget Sound or that we are going to have a lot, because I really do believe that the situation can be worked out to the point where we supply oil to the existing refineries and continue to keep Puget Sound clean. I think that it is going to require a lot of effort and a lot of study over the next three or four years, but I believe it is possible to achieve this. I merely make this point to emphasize that I feel we are here dealing with questions of value and questions of priority. What is unique about Puget Sound to me is the fact that it is a relatively unpolluted estuary. That it is something that must be sustained. To me that has a higher priority than the fact that Puget Sound provides one of the best deep water harbors in the country, ideal for supertanker traffic. It is my hope and belief that some kind of co-existence is possible. 69 OIL IN THE PUGET SOUND AND STRAIT OF GEORGIA Virgil McNabb Western Oil & Gas Association Mary Kay Becker and I were on the Today show some weeks ago. While it was a mutually frustrating experience because of the little time given and the nature of the questions asked, at least one thing I could point out then was on the issue of tankers on the Puget Sound. It is to be seen like a three-legged stool of energy, economics and the environment and you cannot just pull off one leg and say this is the whole issue. How does all this apply to the conditions in our region? The Governor of the State of Washington, upon the recommendation from his Energy Policy Council, asked in his message of early 1975 for the location of a common-use tanker facility at Port Angeles or to its west. But, on the other side of the coin, there are in the upper Puget Sound region four individual oil companies who made a public announcement in 1974 that they would like to receive their crude oil independently at their refineries and in larger tankers. That decision, however, was not a combined oil industry decision, rather it was the decision of four separate oil companies. This came into being upon the recognition of certain facts and needs. One is that of the uniqueness of the Sound as to its safety. It is unique for its natural beauty but also for the depth of its waters. There are just no waters like it anywhere else in the country. The channels are wide. In regard to other ports in this country and even in the world, we usually talk of channel width in feet or yards or meters. For example, New York has an entrance to its harbor of 600 feet and has probably six tankers going through those waters every day. The width of the Philadelphia and Chesapeake Bay area channel is 800 to 1,000 feet with probably a daily traffic of three or more tankers while the entrance at Houston, Texas, is one of 600 feet. In the Puget Sound region, we talk not in terms of feet but of miles and even in the narrowest portion of the northern Sound through which tankers must ply, the Rosario Strait, the width is nine-tenths of one mile. Furthermore, there the tanker traffic is one way only, since it is not allowed to have tankers pass each other by virtue of Coast Guard controls. It should also be noted that during a fifty year history of tankers in Puget Sound there has been no major collision or grounding. Another feature which, I think, is a recent and certainly a very positive development since 1972, is the vessel traffic management system. It is the "lane concept" which keeps the vessels moving in separated lanes like on a divided highway. Ours is the first area in the nation that introduced this operation. It works hand and glove with a similar operation in Canada under the control of the Ministry of Transport. These were essentially the positive values which were used as a basis of operation by the four oil refineries in order to announce their "druthers." Since that announcement was made, the State Legislature also initiated in its last session the tug escort law to which Mary Kay Becker has 70 alluded. It went into effect September 8, 1975. It bars tankers over 125,000 dead weight tons and requires tug escort for tankers in the range of 40,000 to 125,000 dead-weight tons. Thislaw is now the subject of a suit challenging its constitutionality which was initiated by Atlantic Richfield. Yet again, this is not an industry decision but one of one oil company only. Nevertheless, it is, I think, a very proper approach to clear the air since already when the bill was introduced and discussed in the legislative arena there were questions as to its constitutionality. One of the issues is whether the state has the right to preempt existing federal regulations. I am in agreement with Mary Kay Becker's analysis of the basic problem of getting crude oil to the refineries in a feasible manner and to do it safely with a minimum risk. This, of course, is the point of opposing views. It is indeed the feeling of the refineries that by bringing tankers directly to their own facilities with all of the prescribed safety features and with a tug escort, that delivery can be accommodated with an absolute minimum risk. There is still some question of technical feasibility in regard to the common-use terminal. For example, if a terminal were located at Port Angeles or to the west of it, there would have to be a pipe line to deliver that oil from the terminal to the four major refineries in the northern Puget Sound area. There is a question as to whether it is technically feasible, for example, to construct an underwater pipeline across Admiralty Inlet. Therefore, a study has been authorized by the State of Washington to study such technical feasibility of building an underwater pipeline, say, from the area of Port Townsend to Whidbey Island. That could involve a channel width from two to six miles and water depth from 200 to 600 feet. But it should also be mentioned that even submarine pipelines are not without environmental risks. That is still an issue that has to be resolved. All this might sound somewhat petulant, but if it does, so be it! Indeed, it seems to me that the way this total question has been discussed in the Legislature and other places, there has been a tendency to be preoccupied with questions of technical feasibility. Granted, it is very obvious that if it isn't technically possible, it can't be constructed. But, even from the very early stages of this discussion, for example, when the Governor's Energy Policy Council made its initial proposals, it recommended such a common-use facility if it were just technically feasible. While that was being debated in the Council, somebody moved to add the phrase "technically" and also "economically" feasible. Yet this died for lack of a second. But the whole matter should not be an exlusively environmental issue. Of course, it is an essential part of the issue before us, but so is economics. Thus it has been pointed out by spokesmen of the oil industry that such a common use facility would cost 250 million dollars and to operate it anywhere from 28 million up to the range of 78 million. While it seems that government certainly has a role to protect the public health, safety and the general welfare of its people and of the area, it should concentrate on the presentation of guidelines. Then let the industry operate within that framework of those guidelines and regulations that are to take care of national energy needs and environmental concerns. 71 Right now, as far as the oil industry is concerned, it sees itself in a total atmosphere of uncertainty. It should be pointed out that two of the refiners announced a year ago that they would like to increase the ability of their independent refineries to receive larger tankers. Obviously they are not going to make any major investment in anticipation that it is to come about until we know whether the State Legislature might just pull the rug out from under the whole idea. Let me just touch on a few of the things that Mary Kay Becker mentioned and probably on questions that are of primary concern to the general public. Both of us obviously are in complete disagreement on the clean-up capability of the oil industry and its organization called 'Clean Sound', which is made up of 14 companies. It is to operate like a fire department. We can clean it up. If there is an oil spill, it is the industry's responsibility or else it is the one to suffer the consequence; thus one thing that the oil industry has in common with the most ardent environmentalist is an abhorrence of oil spills or anything that can cause them. As to the clean-up aspect of the organization, its listed capability is that it will clean up four and one-half million gallons a day. Since it is not possible to go out and dump such an amount of oil anywhere in order to see how the equipment will function, the industry has to rely on this estimated capability as one of the bases for what can be done in the event of an oil spill. The Coast Guard is now charged with the responsibility for coordinating such matters. Equipment would come here from wherever it has to come from, including from Canada. Yet, should there be an oil spill, I'd say it is really felt that the industry could bring it under control. Ms. Becker touched also on the question of damage to the marine biota. As to the very dire predictions of earlier years on hydrocarbons being deposited in the food chain, these are being disproved with further research; thus one simply does not hear marine biologists tossing out predictions as was the case in the early seventies. No doubt it must be realized that we really became conscious of this thing from the time of the Torey Canyon and the Santa Barbara oil spill and that it is like a whole new industry has been spawned by an aroused public concerned about this problem. Another point to be made is that it was not so long ago that individual boaters would drain their crankcase oil and dump it down the drain; but if you do it now, you are fined, and substantially, too. Thus, it is obvious that we are operating within a totally new environmental context and all this applies not only to things like oil spill clean-up equipment, but also to things like research into the damage caused to marine biota. It might be noteworthy to realize that the first birds that were victims of an oil spill were ultimately treated at a cost of over $1,000 per surviving bird. Today, research groups now working just on that phase as to how to clean a bird that has been harmed in an oil spill, have been able to reduce the price to around twelve to fifteen dollars per bird. Finally, there should really be a separate debate on parochial concerns versus national ones, since I honestly lean to the national one. Environment, air and water, do not respect art~ficial barriers. Thus, I think environment is a national issue and damage to it has been the result of a national assault. If there would be, for example, a recession, one state cannot handle it by itself; that certainly will also hold true for 72 energy. We are in a very peculiar position in this area because we have no oil production of our own. We have to import all the crude oil that we want. I do not share the concern nor will I even accept the information that there necessarily has to be a condition of being overrun with tanker traffic. In the first six months of 1975 only fifty tankers delivered crude oil. That is about two a week. Even if Canada had reached the point where all of Canadian crude by pipeline were shut off, yet also then given the ability to receive larger tankers, one does not have to go all the way up to 250,000 dead weight tons. Indeed, were one to use 120,000 dead weight ton tankers to supply all the needs of the refiners, it would be probably 2 more tankers a week and thus the region would not have to face the problem of being overrun by oil tanker traffic. 73 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION IN NORTHERN PUGET SOUND James W. Scotc of the United States,"' we are told the British historian, Guedalla, is the history of transportatimL" He goes on to note tl-1at in 1nany instances, nthe n_aff1es of rail~coad presid2nt.s are more significant chan those of presidents of the United States," A;1d Robert T1J" :r the neconornetricn historiar1 not~1itb.s v~rho would 7 deny that the irupact of a Jarnes J., Hill or .an Edward J ~ 1-larrirrran has been infinitely more icant and longer-las than that of a Chester Arthur or a Rutherford B. Hayes? My task, however, is to examine regional transportation in northern Puget Sound--in some of its aspects, at any rate--and it is as well at the start to emphasize the obvious. Lord Lugard 1 s of remark that "the material development of Africa may be surr,_med up in one word transport," like Hilaire Belloc's that the road moves and controls all history," is a gross over-simplification. Yet it senres to :remind us tl1at reso·urces-~animal ·vegetable) min.er al arid esthetic~~can do li·ttle for people unless are made accessible, and marketable; for to be without transport is to be without trade; to be without trade is to be without money and without money it is idle to talk of 'lfiaterial development, or for that matter of the development of mind and L which for increasing numbers of North Jliaericans is no small part of the function of transportation. The role of transportation in our present society is a vast and varied one, which impinges on all our social and economic activities. Consequently, there can be no single focus of , nor are the reacting and interacting influences always readily observable. Le1,ris Mumford, one of the most eminent of our social critics, has written: j Diffusion and concentration are the two poles of transporta ion; the first demands a closely articulated network of roads, ranging from a footpath to a six-lane expressway, and a transco-ntin.ental railroad systern~ T"he secoru:l de1nar1ds a Civilization and transportation are so closely interwoven that to explain the first without considering the second, and in the history of the United States no theme has been more dominant than that of transportation. of harmony, and in recent years it may well have seemed--as railroaGs languish and into tcy, transit systems struggle to make a 11 gon of it, and as tb.e ar1d express·-~vays divide our cities~~tl'tat the discordant notes have been the ones more clearly heard. But let us look first at the condition of transportation ne £he achievements and their cost, 0efore O'.Cl tc consider the shortcomings of the system and what _ be the feasible alternatives and possibilities. The Achievement My geographical training tells me that l should concentrate on the overall spatial arrangements, of the "wheres" and "whys" of roads, railroads and other forms of transportation. l will resist that temptation, however, and attempt to view the achievement in a number of other ways, statistical, commercial, and cultural. Roads are the basic units of our modern system, so it is with them that l begin. During the past century and a half, since the fur traders of the Hudson's Bay Company moved into and through the region, the lowlands surrounding Puget Sound have been provided with that "closely articulated network of roads" Lewis Mumford has talked about, and in the process all parts of the region have become increasingly accessible to those who wish to travel to them. Thousands of square miles of lowland and some intervening or abutting uplands have been criss-crossed by roads ranging from six- (and more) lane superhighways to barely-graded gravel roads. The physical environment has provided constraints--nothing can change the corridor-like arrangement of settlements, routes and other features of the cultural landscape of Puget Sound--yet, in the evolution of the highway system, forests have been razed, rivers tamed, swamps negotiated, and various other obstacles overcome to a greater or lesser degree. We should not forget of course that there remain landslide dangers, perhaps exacerbated by poor choice of routeway--as with 1-5 north of Lake Samish--or by the extensive cutting of forest on steep slopes--as with Chuckanut Drive south of Bellingham. Whereas in the United States as a whole there is an average of approximately one mile of road to each square mile of territory, and in the American West considerably less than one half mile, the State of Washington boasts rather more than 1.3 miles of road to each square mile, and Puget Sound some four or five times the state average. About 1,400 miles of the approximately 7,000 miles of state highways are located in the mainly lowland parts of those counties surrounding the Sound. A roughly similar proportion of the almost 40,000 miles of county roads are located in the region, plus a very much higher share of the more than 9,000 miles of the city streets of the state. This is, of course, as you will readily agree, a function largely of population distribution and density. The coastal location of Puget Sound, its narrow corridor of lowland, its many resources derived from adjacent forest, farm and fishery, and accessible coal and other mineral resources, resulted in this region becoming its main center of manufacturing industry, and hence the principal focus of service industries of every sort, as well as a good deal of intensive dairy and truck farming. The urban/suburban network of throughways, highways and other roads is densest in the vicinity of Seattle and Tacoma. During the past twenty years, however, the inclusion of Everett in the sphere of influence of Seattle has become ever more apparent, as the interstitial net has become more and more finely worked. North of the border a similarly dense network of roads has evolved. Hence today, between the two metropolitan giants of SeattleEverett and Vancouver, B.C., the northern Puget Sound lowland is crossed by one major and much-used interstate route, 1-5, and a number of more or less parallel--although in not all instances continuous--routes. 75 Various east-west routes provide for an open network of effective "principal" and "major" highways, to use the terminology employed by the State Department of Highways. Only in the smaller valleys of the Cascades and the Olympics to the east and west respectively of the well-developed corridor of settled country, and on the smaller islands of Puget Sound and the Strait of Georgia, are the roads' nets less effectively developed, if indeed they may be called nets at all. The Railroads: Much less need be said about the railroads. No longer are they the regional power they once were, despite their still considerable freight-carrying function. Many small lines have been abandoned even for freight purposes, while passenger traffic in the Puget Sound region is restricted absolutely to a single Amtrak train daily each way between Vancouver, B.C. to the north and Seattle and Tacoma to the south. Street railroads and interurban lines, which once flourished in Puget Sound within and, to some degree, between the cities of Tacoma, Seattle, Everett, Mount Vernon and Bellingham, are but dimly-remembered features of a past generation, although rights-of-way and occasionally even the tracks themselves can be seen in many places around the Sound. Of the present railroads, Burlington-Northern is far and away the most important in the state, and particularly is this so in the Puget Sound region. Burlington-Northern controls 1,146.7 miles of main line and 1,542.5 miles of branch line, out of a total length of track in the state of 4,809 miles. In addition, it has the use of a further 647.8 miles of operative right-of-way. The Pacific Division of BurlingtonNorthern comprises that part of its operations between Vancouver, B.C., and Centralia, with extension eastward to Wenatchee and Yakima. Two hundred fifty stations remain in the division, which is comprised of fourteen smaller operating lines or subdivisions. As might be expected, Seattle, Tacoma and Everett are the major hubs of the rail net. Lumber, pulp and paper, mineral products and chemicals, manufactured goods such as machinery and automobiles, and a variety of bulk agricultural products constitute the principal business of the railroads, as they connect mine, forest and field with production centers and ports throughout the region. Water Transportation: Water transportation is usually of major significance in regions of deeply-indented coastlines and numerous offshore islands: Puget Sound is no exception. Since the first settlement of the region, water travel has been of primary concern to its residents, and so it remains today. On Puget Sound the fifteen regular ferries, four super-ferries and two jumbo ferries of the state fleet, which ply the waters between the islands and the eastern and western shores, have a total carrying capacity of 2,077 automobiles and 23,188 passengers. For the residents of the many islands and peninsulas in the Puget Sound region, and for large numbers of tourists who use the ferries especially during the summer months, the ferries provide an essential service, the threat to which in recent years, blamed on rising costs and allegedly uneconomic routes, has resulted in highly vociferous reactions on the part of many residents of the state and not a few legislators. In addition to the ferry traffic, which is essentially for passenger use, there is a wide range of other waterborne traffic, both within the Puget Sound region and from without. 76 Air_Transportation: This remains, despite the efforts of a number of dedicated groups, more of a supplementary service within the region rather than a viable alternative to the other forms of transportation considered Local passenger services, the carrying of small freight, and he activities of a small number of e aviators, account for most of the traffic> The more than five million passengers handled SeaTac International include a very small percentage of int travellers, while an even smaller percentage of che more than 100. 000 toc<S of freight and 50, tons of mail handled traffic. Lacking detailed breakdown of statistics for airccaft in the Puget Sound region, the state figures--in this case for 1972--are sufficiently indicative.. In -chat year more tha-n 3, 000 aircraft were registered in the state, ·while nearly 10,000 persons held pilot licenses. Compare these figures with the stats totals of 2,700,000 vehicles and more than 2,000,000 automobile licenses. Other Forms of Transoortation: Of the other forms of transportation in use at the present time in various regions~~inc monorail artd hydrofoil services,--only the pipeline is of significance in the Puget Sound region, and it is used here exclusively for the of natural gas and petroleum, crude or refined. The Cost of the Achievement all would agree, I believe,, that the transportation system we have today in the Pug1~t Sound region is an achieve1nent in more ways than one--technological, economic, social and so OIL But the achievement has not been won without serious losses and considerable financial investment and recurring costs. Lengthy lists of statistics on the financial costs and investments in the various modes of transportation are unnecessary here. Rather, it is best to consider the perhaps more debatable costs which have resulted from the , and at times devastat ~ irnp8.C t of transportation. The impact of transportation on such matters as land use, urban sprawl and air and noise pollution needs especially to be considered. In his essay, Highway and the City," ·written more than a decade ago,, Lewis Mumford provided a blistering attack on the then inauglirated Interstate Highway System and the automobile it was designed to appease. He wrote: When the American people, through their Congress, voted a little while ago (1957) for a twenty-six~billion~dollar highway progrcu1 the most charitable thing to assume about this action is ttat hadn't the faintest notion of what next fifteen years will doubtless find out; but that time it will be too late to correct all the to our cities and org2,.nlzation_ f , that this ill-conceived and prewill have wrou and a little further on he adds: Perhaps the only thing that could bring Americans to their senses would be a clear demonstration of the fact that their highway program will, eventually, wipe out the very area of freedom that the private motorcar promised to retain for them. It is fair to say that a great many of us here today have by now come to the conclusion that all has not gone well with the continuous expansion of our road system, much of it at the expense of--whether directly or indirectly--those other forms of transportation that still serve a useful purpose. If, as Mumford points out, "the purpose of transportation is to bring people or goods to places where they are needed, and to concentrate the greatest variety of goods and people within a limited area in order to obtain the possibility of choice without makirig it necessary to travel ... " then our recent efforts have been less than successful. The sprawl of population away from the city centers, and the establishment of shopping malls in suburb and exurb--notable features of the whole Puget Sound region-have done much to destroy the effectiveness of the systems we have worked so zealously, and at such financial cost, to put together over the years. Put another way, travel at supersonic speeds at one extreme has been matched at the other by virtual cessation of all vehicular traffic in massive traffic jams and snarls, which yearly increase in number across the country. In its 1990 Transportation System Plan for the Central Puget Sound Region, issued in three volumes in September 1974, the Puget Sound Governmental Conference found that the transportation facilities of the region are relatively free from congestion in most corridors at the present time and further that "the capacity is adequate to handle the demand at most screenlines with the exception of a few isolated cases." Even now there is some hedging on whether the system is adequate; how long it will remain as good, relatively speaking, as it is now is anyone's guess. One should not be overly sanguine, however, for as one Canadian leader noted some years ago, "We may well have reached the point when the benevolence of the automobile is being nullified by its malevolence." I dare say there are some here who would change the "is being" to "has been." Looking a little more closely at some of the more deleterious effects of transportation, let us first consider their impact on land use. No one any longer appears to dispute the fact that there has been massive takeover of land for transportation purposes and for highways in particular, although there are many willing and even eager to defend this. Much of the appropriated land was previously classified as prime urban land or first-class agricultural land. Not all of it, to be sure, has had to be acquired by compulsory purchases: much of it was made available by wise early enactments that established the principle of the rights-of-way now being utilized. This, or course, was done most easily in the areas that were being settled during the nineteenth century, such as Puget Sound, when the first purveys were carried out often before any settlement had taken place. However, the rights-of-way then fixed at 66 feet are today less than adequate for four- and six-lane highways, and in most regions much additional land has had to be acquired. Whereas some six acres of land were formerly required for one mile of road and right-of-way, some twenty-four acres are needed on an average for each mile of freeway. The 78 41,000 miles of projected Interstate Highways will, when completed, require a total of 2,300 square miles of land--an area larger than the state of Delaware. The use of land for streets and highways in urban areas is of an altogether different order, and from an average of about 1.25% of the total area used for the road system of the country, the average for urban roads leaps to a staggering 28% of the total area of urban land in the big cities. Proportions vary considerably from city to city, of course. They range from a low of 16.6% in Philadelphia to a high of 31.5% in Detroit. And this does not complete the picture. Additional land must be utilized for other transport-related services--parking and. drive-in facilities particularly. An horrific scenario has been put together by Mitchell Gordon, who had this to say about the situation in the late sixties in Los Angeles: Two-thirds of Los Angeles' downtown area is already given over to the automobile--approximately 33 percent of it to parking lots and garages, and the rest to roads and highways. Each one of the city's interchanges, linking one freeway to another, consumes approximately 80 acres of real estate; every mile of freeway 24. By 1980 the city is expected to have 34 square miles of land devoted to its freeway system--(an area) about the size of the entire city of Miami. The acquisition of such massive acreages is a major urban problem, for not only is it immensely costly, especially so in heavily built-up cities, but the economic and social results of this urban butchery can be as devastating as they are difficult to measure with real precision. In some cities the cost of hacking through expensive real estate ran a few years ago as high as $30 million or more per mile, according to Mitchell Gordon. With recent inflation, the figure may now be nearer $40 million. And with the takeover of such enormous acreages in every part of the country, despoliation of the countryside has inevitably followed. It is unnecessary to remind the majority of the citizens of Washington that in the Puget Sound region we have one of the most spectacular, most appalling examples of highway and suburban butchery in the nation--the Kent valley south of Seattle. Is this a harbinger of things to come in the northern Puget Sound? I hope not, but I am afraid that it is all too possible unless we find the means to control it, for as Lewis Mumford notes so vividly: Perhaps our age will be known to future historians as the age of the bulldozer and the exterminator: . . . in many parts of the country the building of a highway aas about the same result on vegetation and human structure as the passing of a tornado or the blast of an atom bomb. The study recently completed for the Washington Legislative Transportation Committee by the firm of Jones & Jones of Seattle, entitled Scenic and Recreational Highway Study, contains a number of admirable recommendations which, if implemented, will ensure that the despoliation that has occurred elsewhere will be avoided here, but as most of us know a great many excellent reports, perhaps the majority of them, are allowed 79 to gather dust on the shelves of legislators' offices, unread, unsung, unheeded and eventually forgotten. Only constant vigilance on the part of the general public and with the extra pressure that can be exerted by environmental and other citizens' groups, like the League of Women Voters, will ensure that northern Puget Sound does not become a billboard jungle from end to end. One final point on the cost of the achievement--pollution. In the wake of urban sprawl, highway expansion and scenic despoliation, atmospheric and noise pollution have become increasing concerns to all, and their potential danger to human comfort and good health, if not to actual life and the continued existence of our species, have been steadily and unequivocally established. There are many things to blame, some within and others seemingly beyond our control. However, one matter is absolutely confirmed that is within our personal control--the automobile is responsible for a very high percentage of the total air pollution of our cities, and regions far away from the cities are today being threatened by increasing levels of air pollution. Much of the noise pollution is also due to the automobile. Control of the automobile in a variety of ways, and more selfdiscipline in the use of it, would undoubtedly result in great improvements. However, to get all citizens to recognize this fact is a problem of monumental magnitude. With pollution in the region at generally lower levels than elsewhere in the country, and where industry--as in Bellingham and Everett for instance--tends to be blamed for much of the pollution, it is all too easy to dismiss the personal contribution that can add up to tremendous proportions and lead to all-around improvements. Presently there are close to a million registered vehicles in the Puget Sound region, but only a relatively small proportion of these are in the northern Puget Sound, so the temptation is generally great here to dismiss pollution as something that only Southern California or industrial New England, for example, have to deal with. However, the focus of this paper is transportation, not pollution, but if it is far too complex a topic to try to cover briefly, it must be noted as a large part of the cost of our transportation achievement and one that cannot and should not be ignored. In brief, then, we have to ask ourselves repeatedly and honestly whether the cost of this achievement--economic, social and esthetic--has been too high, and if too high, are there any things we can do about it. Can we live with the system and adapt it better to our total use, or do we have to change in a radical way what we have created and found ourselves incapable, so far, of controlling? Major Shortcomings of the Region's Transportation System and Some Suggestions My final remarks deal with what appear to me to be some of the major shortcomings of the system, and with a few suggestions as to how these may be dealt with. In the first place, let us recognize that there are some massive shortcomings in our system--it is no use insisting any longer that the American transportation system is the most advanced in the world, the fastest perhaps, and the most impressive. It may be or it may not be, depending on the criteria used, but whether it is or is not, it undoubtedly is not perfect. Perhaps the most obvious shortcoming in our whole transportation 80 system--in Puget Sound and the Pacific Northwest generally, as much as in the rest of the United States--is our incredible over-reliance on the automobile as our principal means of transportation" lfuy we have come to this pass has been investigated by numerous social historians and other commentators. According to Mumford: As long as motorcars were few in number, he who had one was a king: he could go where he pleased and halt where he pleased; and this machine itself appeared as a compensatory device for enlarging an ego which had been shrunken our very success in mechanization_., That sen_se of freedorn and po\~rer remair1s a fact today only in low-density areas, in the open country; the popularity of this method of escape has ruined the promise it once held forth. In using the car to flee from the metropolis the motorist finds that he has merely cransferred congestion to the highway and thereby doubled it. W'nen he reaches his des ti~ nation in a distant suburb, he finds that the countryside he sought has disappeared: beyond him, thanks to the motorway, lies only another suburb, just as dull as his own. To have a minimum amount of cormuunication and sociability in this spread~ out life, his wife becomes taxi-driver daily occupation, and the sum of money it costs to keep this whole system running leaves him with shamefully overtaxed schools,, inadequate police, poorly staffed hospitals, overcrowded recreation areas, and illsupported librarieso In short, the Alnerican has sacrificed his life as a whole to the motorcar, like someone who, demented with passion, wrecks his home in order to lavish his income on a capricious mistress who promises del he can only occasionally enjoy. But, you might say what has this to do with northern Puget Sound? Surely Mumford is writing of the urban east and northeast; this has little of direct relevance to us in the Pacific Northwesto Hasn't it though? Dor:'t we all see some aspects of our present transportation dilemma here in the Puget Sound region in Mumford's critique, extreme though it may be? A second shortcoming, not entirely separate from the first, and in part responsible for it, is the relative weakness, if not total absence of any overall system of transportation planning. We have, it is true, a Secretary of Transportation at the federal level, but his ties are less than clearly spelled out, and his in the field of total transportation plan.rting restricted, to say- tl--1e least~ In the state of Washington we lnve as yet no single authority; rather" a series of t agencies far from agreed as to the purposes and the goals of transportation. fu.1d more intent, it seems, on gaining recognition for their particular interests and monetary support f~om state and federal government for their agencies, than ir, the tion of cheir individual of the system into a cohesive one for the betterment of all. The need for such a system is recognized and ideas for its achievement advanced, in the Sound Governmental 81 Conference's 1990 Transportation System Plan, to which reference has al been made" However, the irn__minent collapse of the Puget Sound Governmental Conference, following the recent withdrawal of two of its four counties and the almost certain withdrawal of a third ment of any overall planning all that more to be reached and implemented, In the northern Puget Sound region, the cooperation f t counties and cities therein is a tenuous matter to say the least, and aoy overall planning for future transportation needs of the whole virtually non-existent. To some may be regarded as an excellent thing, a triumph for free competition and private enterprise-~but at what cost to the }' the corrilllonw2a 1 as a -~ih.ole? appears to be its A third and final of We seem co have set in motion systems which nature. cos c.all for ffi.ore and n1ore massi'tle in~.restmer1ts and a11.1i.ual rnairttenance_ support And so we frav·e to ask oursel-ves 1rJhether vJe can_ c:ontinu. 2 to year year. support the systems we have created at steadily increasing, even exponentially rising levels of ture. Are there ways which we can. without increasing the hazards of transportation or decreasing the ef f ec' reduce the relative costs? This is a field I am totally any analytical way; in fact, in any like to suggest that the vast but most increases in the costs of the public sector of it, at any ency rate--may be in large part the result of general ignorance of, about, the decisions made local, state and federal agencies the t administer. general )i 1 , upgraded, tends to Fortunat recent hikes in gasoline and other things have given rise to a great deal of general consternation, and there appears to be the possibility that action groups may be successful sooner of the road or later in calling for a halt to further As to the solutions to these shortcomings, these are easier to talk about than they are to implement and so, rather than talk about solution, it be better to put forward one or two suggestions that could lead to considerable alleviation of the problems of regional Let us consider these lar i11 terms of th.e ~~11tified atJCPJe; that is 5 hoJ:1J do we ·r,educe 011 t11e autornbile? Tnere are numerous ways of moving towards this goal which, take to be an absolutely essential prerequisite of any balanced Controls, incentives and alternatives of various sorts are a\;ailabl2--or in t1-1e ~,~rin.gs ~ n_ot all of tl1em palatableo Let us look at a few of these. Tf1e autorr1obile could in extrern_is, be out of do~Jr1to~~rn area 2 entirely the of barriers of some sort that would open to specific sorts of essential vehicles, or else hiked to such levels that it would be for rnost to pay these." Such controls, however, are anathema to most of the o:rity 1"1Jould agree tl-1at it "iiJJould be pleasa.-at to ha\1e traffic=, free areas and streets in the do1..vr1tO'vn] areas of our cities ·\r1here coy1gestion is now the general rule most of the Limited controls of £his with the decisions. y 82 sort, of course, already exist. But what if, instead of applying CONTROLS, we provide more effective INCENTIVES, such as lower parking rates for cars with passengers in addition to the driver, or even free parking in the lesscongested areas with efficient free shuttle services to and from the downtown areas? These are viable possibilities that are now being considered or even tested in a number of cities across the country. Linked to the matter of private automobile transport is the matter of public transportation. The transit systems in our towns in the Puget Sound region are manifestly in need of generous aid. Some are getting this to a degree, but none in sufficient amount. More aid could eventually result in better services and, hopefully, greater public use of buses, trains and other forms of mass transit. Examination of the availability and use of the public transit systems in a number of cities in the state persuades me that herein lies a large part of the answer. Congestion can be reduced by the provision of effective transit systems, and so can pollution levels-even though some of our buses are far from pollution-free vehicles~ Two other points will be touched upon briefly. First the bicycle. A recent letter in the Seattle Times from a correspondent on Orcas Island pointed out that "Orcas Island roads are winding, narrow, have no shoulders, have blind curves and heavy traffic, and that Orcas Island motorists resent placing their lives in jeopardy because of bicyclists." Surely this is a matter that can be tackled everywhere in some way? Why not provide bicycle paths, which could parallel highways, and not only in the rural areas where they are perhaps most likely to be used, but also in the cities? In many countries a large volume of cycle traffic is so taken care of. The Scenic and Recreational Highways Act of 1967 provides for planning and design standards for, among other things, bicycle and bridle paths. And the Stanford Research Institute's Guidelines for Joint Development on State Highway Transportation Ways, issued in April 1972, includes a section on exclusive bicycle lanes and parking facilities. As stated there in suitably official jargon, the concept is to: Provide for an exclusive use, trip-oriented, bicycle mode of transportation within the highway corridor to reduce the number of daily trips by motor vehicles that would otherwise occur on the highways and its local street connections. An admirable proposal, but to date what has really happened? Very little, it must be stated. Essentially, most roads, especially urban arterials and our major highways, are unsuitable for any large flow of bicycle traffic. Here then is a great opportunity for our country commissioners and city councils. Set the planners to work to devise the means by which this improvement of the road transportation could be effected. Perhaps as essential as bicycle paths is the provision of safe sidewalks not only in the downtown areas but everywhere else in the city, suburb and rural areas. Many of the newer urban arterials are provided with sidewalks, at least on one side of the right-of-way, but what about the rural areas which have none? Accidents are frequent on these, as we all know. Provision of sidewalks could lead to drastic reduction in their incidence, and also in a great increase in pedestrian traffic by making it safer and more pleasant. 83 One other matter that has received some attention but as yet not nearly enough is the congestion caused by the railroad crossing, not to mention their potential hazard to motorist and pedestrian. Overpasses or underpasses are costly but they have been provided in some places. Why not in all? Although some 300 railroad crossings had been eliminated or marked by signals in Washington State by 1973, many times that number remain, a high proportion of these in rural areas and still unmarked. One final point. The need for overall regional planning of transportation, with the integration of some forms of transportation--public urban transit systems and state ferries, for example--and the provision of incentives to maintain railroads, ferries and other forms of relatively cheap transportation, cheap that is, if fully and efficiently used, is a matter that will require greater cooperation on the part of various bodies, public and private, than has hitherto been demonstrated, but it can be done. A northern Puget Sound Governmental Conference, which would deal with the problems of a multi-county region, with cities as well as counties involved, is required. How this can be brought into being is a question of considerable complexity; how well it will work, if created, an even greater question mark. There are good economic, social and other reasons for working towards this, for although, by and large, the transportation system of the northern Puget Sound region is today reasonably efficient and comprehensive, if not too well coordinated in all its parts, further unplanned growth and the rapidly mounting demands for answers to our transportation problems are matters that require the urgent attention of not merely the individual cities but all parts of the region acting in concert. 84 Sources FOGEL, Robert William. Railroads and American Economic Growth: in Econometric History. Baltimore, 1964. Essays GELDER, Roy. "The Hub Concept of Railroad Freight Car Distribution." Unpublished paper, Department of Geography & Regional Planning, w.w.s.c. GORDON, Mitchell. Sick Cities. GUEDALLA, Phillip. The Hundred Years. HURST, Michael E. Eliot. New York, 1974. MUMFORD, Lewis. New York, 1963. London, 1940. Transportation Geography: The Highway and the City. Connnents and Readings. New York, 1963. SCOTT, James W. "Paths of Progress." Unpublished working paper prepared for the Twentieth Century Fund's United States Geography Project (George H. T. Kimble, Director), 1967. SCOTT, James W. "Regional Transportation" in Environment and Man in British Columbia and Washington, Charles N. Forward, editor. Bellingham, 1974. SCOTT, James W. "Urban Transportation" in ibid. STANFORD RESEARCH INSTITUTE. Guidelines for Joint Development on State Transportation Ways. Olympia, Washington State Highways Connnission, 1972. STATE OF WASHINGTON. Pocket Data Book. Olympia, 1973. STATE OF WASHINGTON, Legislative Transportation Connnission. Scenic and Recreational Highway Study. Prepared by Jones & Jones, Inc., Seattle, 1974. TURBEVILLE, Daniel, E. "The Electric Railway Era in Northwest Washington, 1891-1930." M.A. Thesis, Department of Geography and Regional Planning, 1976. 85 SUPERTANKERS AND PUGET SOUND A. Preston Taylor Editor, Marine Digest There have been numerous studies on the supertanker problem as it relates to Puget Sound. (A supertanker by definition is a tanker of 250,000 deadweight tons or more; several are longer than three football fields.) Questions raised in these studies include: If there were supertankers transiting Puget Sound, how should their movements be restricted? Where should they be allowed to dock? What types of facilities would need to be constructed to accommodate them? One other question needs to be raised-should they be allowed in Puget Sound? Among the ideas that have been proposed are: (1) Construction of a deep sea oil terminal off the entrance of Grays Harbor. (2) Construction of a docking facility at Port Angeles. From Port Angeles the crude could either be transferred to smaller tankers, or a pipeline could be built. The pipeline would run west from Port Angeles to somewhere around Port Townsend, then underwater to Whidbey Island, and on to the refineries at Anacortes and Cherry Point. (3) That tankers of 50,000 dwt. or more have tug escorts, say through Rosario Straits to docking facilities at Anacortes and Cherry Point; and that certain vessels above a specified dwt. be equipped with double bottoms. (4) That supertankers be allowed to unload crude oil into storage tanks at Cherry Point for transshipment via pipeline to a point in the Midwest. A new pipeline would have to be constructed for this purpose. Let us examine each of the proposals: The first proposal makes no sense. Experts will testify to the fact that the waters off Grays Harbor are too rough to accommodate such a docking station. Also facilities to handle such an operation do not exist at the present time. Transporting the crude oil from these to existing refineries could be very expensive. A docking facility at Port Angeles has some merit. The oil could be transferred from supertankers to smaller tankers for transport to Anacortes and Cherry Point. But there is little reason why these tankers should not go to existing docking facilities at Anacortes or Cherry Point. As for constructing a pipeline from Port Angeles, this does not exactly make sense. There is just too much unnecessary expense tied to a project of this size. However, Port Angeles should not be ruled out altogether. There is some talk now of building a pipeline from Port Angeles to the Tri-Cities area in Washington. There could be some merit in this plan. It is my understanding that the pipeline would be constructed to the Tri-Cities in Eastern Washington along the Milwaukee Road's right-of-way. As for the final proposal, tug escorts and double bottoms are now required by law in the state of Washington for tankers above a certain 86 deadweight. But, in my opinion, most of the law governing this matter makes little or no sense. There is some question as to who has jurisdiction in this matter--state or federal authorities. Further, it might be noted that double bottoms, as has been pointed out by naval architects and other authorities, may do something to increase the possibility of an oil spill. For example, if a supertanker were to go aground, water would quickly fill the cavity of the double bottom if the hull is punctured. And the more water in the vessel, the less likely that it can be pulled free. Unfortunately legislators in Olympia completely ignored the suggestions on such matters made by the U.S. Coast Guard, shipyard heads, naval architects, sea captains, Puget Sound pilots and others. Finally, as to the construction of a pipeline to some point in the Midwest from the Pacific Northwest, it is highly unlikely that such a pipeline would ever be built. In addition to the proposals regarding the Pacific Northwest, there are proposals for unloading the crude oil at California ports, where it could travel to the Midwest through existing pipeline. Another proposal is to carry the crude from Alaska via tankers through the Panama Canal to U.S. Gulf ports, where there are already pipelines which could carry crude to various refineries. Other pipelines could be constructed to accommodate needs in the Midwest. And there is the possibility of transferring the crude oil say at New Orleans into barges for shipment to inland points. The most popular opinion these days for Alaska oil is that which concerns itself with supplying the states of Oregon, Washington, Idaho, in addition to British Columbia. A new refinery is being constructed in Portland and it is my guess that tankers that can enter the Columbia River will go straight to that refinery. Whether the refinery will have the capacity to supply the total needs of Oregon is not known. Finally, I think it is important to remember that when one talks about supertankers using the waters of Puget Sound, the possibility is extremely remote. To realize the economies of scale, these huge vessels must move over vast distances, say from the Near East to Puget Sound, or from the Near East to Japan, where most of them are in operation anyway. Japan must have a continual flow of these tankers to sustain her vast industrial machine. The tankers that will operate between Alaska and Puget Sound will likely be quite small vessels. I have attempted in this statement to cover some of the proposals which have cropped up from time to time. I think it is important that the state of Washington protect its interests. For example, there is little use in building a pipeline across the Cascades to some point in the Midwest when an already existing facility is in use. What bothers me the most is that most citizens of this state are unaware of the problems involved, and unfortunately the news media do an extremely poor job of informing the general public on this issue. By the time the press gives its views on the issue, all the public knows is they want none of it. Yet, if one tells a citizen that the price of gasoline or other petroleum products will go up due to increased construction costs to overcome some connected problem, the average citizen is outraged. Far too few citizens in this state know about the Traffic Vessel System, which monitors all vessel movements in and out of Puget Sound. This is an 87 extremely sophisticated network which controls vessel movements. It reduces potential or real hazards by at least 95 per cent. Then far too few citizens know about the technology that is available to clean up oil spills, or that there are organisms that will eat up oil. Also, far too few citizens are aware that today's ships are equipped with the best technology available, including computers which monitor much of the vessel's activity. Far too few citizens realize that safety standards required for ships built in the United States are extremely rigid. Perhaps legislatures when they are drawing up laws should look at the vessel's technology, the personnel, and safety standards, and enforce these for foreign-flag ships which lack the same standards. Finally, far too few citizens realize that some of the cargoes carried aboard ships and barges are extremely dangerous, not only to the environment if something should go wrong, but to human life as well. The coexistence of industry and protection of the environment can be achieved. Without industry there will be few jobs and without jobs it will be difficult to provide the necessary products and services required by the society in which we live. 88 THE INDIAN PRESENCE IN PUGET SOUND AND THE STRAIT OF GEORGIA* Erna Gunther, former Professor Depa:Li:rnent of University of Washington My purpose in this talk is to some information about the Indians of this area in the it will lead to a better understandof the Indians and their in this world we have created for them in the last one hundred years., The region I want to talk about is the northwest coasL To the an~ thropologist the northwest coast begins at the Columbia River and reaches to Yakutat Bay in Alaska" That is a long stretch of coasL It is further than the distance across the contirient and there is even more coastline than one would have in that mileage because of the tremendous number of harbors and inlets and various other diversions of the st:raight line. We have generally divided the northwest coast into three subareas, the most southerly of which, from the mouth of the Columbia River to the Strait of Juan de Fuca, is occupied people who speak the Salish languages. Salish is a language thac is spoken on both sides of the Cascades--coast Salish here and interior Salish in the area across the mountain_s ~ The people have been called tribes, their leaders have been called chiefs. Both of these terms are wrong. These people were not organized in tribes. They had viliages and these were not assembled in any polit~ ical organization. There was a great deal of movement among them because, in the first place, the people in these , pref to marry the girls in other villages, formed a great net of relationships among the Salish people., And they were very conscious also of how far their family was known. This resembles our finding our genealogy; getting our ancestry together, finding a crest that we t use. This search is more frequent in Europe than in the United S "Cates. But I had an interes in.ciden.t one day when I told one of my informants, a Clallam who lives near Port Angeles, that I was going over to Vancouver , " he saidj go to so and so and you call my name," and I a very interesting expression because it was just , you 1 re going to Let me gi·\re you it \.7as the sarne k~ind of Lon.don°' ho'w far ay,Ja)l they were krcown, feeling. These people were very r an_d tl-1rough these int:ervillage this or course very far and \.?as very well recognized. I want to corne bacJ~ later to this group because. this l~3 on.e l arn go~ ing to discuss this e-ven.ir1g but I xti1ould lil~~e to say tha ~ t·:YE: l1ave ar10 ther gro·up in. the central part of the l\forth.~vest Coast) the JYiaka-hy '~vh.o li-:Ie at j *Dre. Gunther's statemen.t is cranscribed from tape. of a speech to an a11dience ar.id does not represer1t a 89 It is the t Neah Bayo They belong to the Nootka of the west coast of Vancouver Island and they speak a language that is related to the language of the Nootka. Many of their cultural traits are Nootkan in their origin. The Nootka the Kwakiutl~-the people who live at the nori:h end of Vancouver Island and the mainland opposite-~the Bellacoola who live around China Hat and lvfil ~ bank Sound--those people are the central group and chere is a much organization of their social li•.ring, They all, however~ have the basic way of life exactly the same as all the other people on the northwest coast~ We come f to the three northern tribes: the ; tl-1e Haida and the Tsimshian, The Tsimshian live on the Skeena and the Nas.s Rivers and they are s more than almost any of the other people on the northwest cos.sL The Haida live on the Charlotte Islands and the Tlingit licJe in Southeastern Alaska, They are the north-· ernmost of the northwest coast Generally when the northwest coast is thought of, especially by people who are interested in art they think of these three northern people. And certainly they have a very art that is being recognized. more widely each year. The art is most interesting. Northwest Coast Indian art, has long been in museums of natural history along with all the other artifacts, articles that people made, but until they were not singled out for atte11tion . We had the oppor in 1939 at San Francisco at the fair there to disNorthwest Coast Indian art for the first time side side with other arL And we had an exhibit which was called Rim of the Pacific" and the native that were represented were our North,,1est Coast Indians, the Indians of Peru the Polynesians of the South Pacific and the Japanese of the Pacific also, And this was the first time that Northwest Coast Indian art was shown in this relationship. Within about two years a Northwest Coast Indian art show· was at Colorado , Colo~ rado, And from that time on there has not been a schedule, say of two years, of exhibitions in a museum that has not had some Northwest Coast art in its schedule, It is really amazing how we have f this art to the attention of in general and also to the attention of the that art, because whose ancestors had had felt for time that their art was \rJe 11ave artists noi.1 ~iho are in Northwest Coast art from Seattle northward to Alasl:cao This great art has been saved and the tra-· ditions of this art are still going orL There are many innovations but the basic part of the art is really now recognized and is shm·m in connec~ tion with the great arts of the world. I 1.vould like to tailz about t:l1e In.dia:r1s. ir1 th.i.s pa.rt::icul.e~.r because I think:. t-his sl:-1ould ·oe rnost inte.res to yo11.. tJ,fe ·h.a~~\;T>:= in t-his regiou. se,veral groups or tribes as ha-·ve beer1 called. by the government~ The Indians never had a word for tri[,e and, had chiefs of sorts, also ne•ver I-1ad a had a man v.rho was a lez~der? -~1110 be a leader i-r1 one culturc.l fea be a leade~r for else better would li that Tl1es 1~ peopie con.t~tolled t-he group" I 'WO~a. j t say tll.e tritn2 because usually a group of villagers t11at used the same dial,2ct were interested in each other and tr1ere was among the Indians a deal of D 90 of fighting but there were some groups that never did with each other. The living of all of these people from the mouth of the Columbia to southeastern Alaska is basically the same. None of them had any agriculture, for a very good reason, Where would they ? They did not have the implements and tools necessary to clear great pieces of land" Prob~ ably the principal reason that had no agriculture was thai: they did not need it" Nature provided their food; they lived on the berries, the roots, on a.LL of cert.air1 Today one of the very ini:eres features of life is tli.at a great man;r of ·us are interesi:ed in ts, tasting them and enj things to have. I gave a course in Alaska a few sununers ago where I had a group of women who were very much interested in Indian and that sort of thing. The last day of class we had a big spread of all the which the.y had gone out and picked and which had cooked in our modern receptacles, but in the manner in which would have been served and cooked in olden times, It was amazing. The equisetum, the little horse tail, when it first comes out in the spring, looks a little bit like asparagus and tastes a little like iL Instead of putting butter on them, if you are inclined, a little fish oil on them will make them very tasty, I prefer the butter. But the is that the Indians did not need agriculture and for that reason, probably. every attempted it, The Indians were hunte::..·s and fishermen'" One of the greatest dies in their his was of treaties under the of Governor Stevens, many of ·vrhich 'Arere r1e·~1er ratifie,.d., T11ey v1ere dri·ven. from their lands when to settle here. They did not have stations hunting areas and berry pick~ ing grounds. In many of these places they had temporary shelters. The newcomers had other ideas and were devoted to places for agriculture" They knew how to cultivate little and what they wanted the Indians to do was to start in like manner. The Indians were not interested in cultivating, however~ They didn 1 t have the right soil for it, nor would know what to do with the food after they had culti_vated it" They didn't eat those things. So putting these people on reser,xatior1s was tb.e n1ost at;1ful , it ruined the whole civiliza- of the Northwest Coast Of course with their f rights, which are being questioned once again more than a century after the treaties, they went on , but~-when they could not fish where had, at places where they knew could get their salmon, life becarne inc.reasin.gly dif f ic.ul t'" Buying a can of tuna fish was not a ti~n subs tit:·ute tl1e India11s a-ad Li-1e Esk.im{J of tb.e ncrt'£1err1 oI l\!crtf1 .A-.mericaj as far south..as ~ there lia,,.Je bee11- tl~ree t ani~" mals for which have (:areful c.erernoniEs, Orte is tl-12 s2.lr101i.,, When the first salmon is ~ the Iridi.an.s do not let it touch the or1 a Inat tvhile it accord ceren10I1y and eat it: 5_r-: li1'ce fas1-1ior.L. all the old people eat i or all the children eat i~. tut f, ically is ass to eat the salmori 91 They have beautiful songs that they sing for the salmon, thanking the salmon for coming once more and telling them to be sure to come back. When they have dressed the first fish they take all the entrails, skin and all other uneaten parts, 11vrap them in a mat, and put them into the stream from which the fish was caught, They say "go back to the country of the salmon and tell them that we treai: you 1,rell," These sound to us like very curious things to do but the Indians' rela with the salmon was a very close one, it was and is a relationship that is very important and very basic to their culture. Another animal that is always treated very ·well is the bear, The bear is supposed to be one of their ancestors and when go into the woods and hear a sound and think it is a bear, the Skagit will say "I hear you. Welcome, cousin," and the others come tooo Most he has this feeling that he is related, The bear ceremony is something that goes all the way from the coast of Siberia to as far as the Great Lakes region of North A..'1l2rica. The whale is the third animal that the Northwest Coast Indians respected tremendously., In the central area that I mentioned, from. the Ma·kah region as far as that of the Kwakiutl, men who are the harpooners in the whaling hunt were the most respected people in the community" They occupied the same position in their society that a great warrior did in the Great Plains. The whale hunt vms something that the men prepared for for months in advance. They had to be pure; they had to he clean. They had to go swimming day after day. Then when the whale had been caught and was cut up they took the saddle of the whale to the house of the hunter where they put it over a and stuck feathers in it, put eagle duvm it and let it for a number of days~ I wouldn't like to be there very long after t:his, but in this way they were saying goodbye to this much respected animal. Now this actit·ude of the Indians toward animals may seem to us a ve-::y strange thing 0 but to them it was a very real and natural thing, There is a rnyth that the first people were people who could also be animals. were both animals aEd humans, and as animals they acted just as humans did, And then they were out,~ and afterwards came the second people, were the Indians who stayed. But this id.ea of the first people and then the second people is very interest:tng be,::ause sometimes, one finds something that you feel indicates that rn:ust 1-iave been there before the people that are now there. What I would like i:o understand is the Indians 1 very interesting attitude toward the animal world ·which was a very anc. icaat thing for thein,, ~ across tl-1e v1hole area fro1n t}1e PJ.in1.1 t:erri of Northern Japan to the Great Lakes, the Indians 1 attitude toward. t"tie bear was particularly noi::ewori::hy. The bear is almost as a huntaD., an.d yQ_1~ lzr1o"t-J tl_!__~_!~ are so rnan_y featl1res abcrut a b:23:_~ tt1at are \Te.r;/ D~1r11an_0 He stands or1 f1is hin.d legs arid he uses his front pBJ>Js: alr.1ost as a h1:EI1an does~ In brief 9 there are marry abc·ut a bear tJ:1at ar.e human if you look ac these from. that point of ;,.riew*,., I rri afraid tl1at our cu.lture is a culture tl-1at doesrr t ~:>eal care f We are j-ust We have been to learn that some animals have to be taken care oL ver~f ~ ·very careless wir:l1 1:hetn( '\rJe ~~ve 92 ·k.ill~:::d tl-1ern off t1i.e True, the Indians lived off these thousands. but on killed as ·m.Erny as ne=:eded ~ a.n_d this is CL very 5 "lery 3.r1 t t., When the Indians saw tl1at in_ .sorne place tt1ere wasr1'1 t rrruch of a sa1n1on run would loolc ov-er tl-1e area and see v1hat it Y,.Ias tb.at. the salmorl didI1 ~ lik_e ~ a-r1d so try to change it. I've had a great deal of with Noocka people and with birds }tlakab_ tnen learnir1g about 'vib_a t !-1alzat1 info·rrnant \ib.o named for ]J1'2 105 birds 5 all e<f the'lL found OLl our l>eac:hes or aL sea, arid r~it1en v1e finis.he('._ I said to f1iIG 5 ~·~N-c1 v.l let o/ s t.a.lze t112 bird,:; Oh, he said} n c The birds that were o~ che shcre tl-te coast " people know abouL f It s a bird that pract book I had told me all this he said he had been on a 60 miles off shore when a noted that these birds f schooner about 1898 and f1urt )\ r:. Jit~h .a brok_.::"n book In. brief, nt)' miles from ehore. sc,rt of I asked abouc every of bird w;.:,s J t a1naz rrruse1.rm an.d ilere all looked alike to me just as he had sorted ada. What I found wo.s same faslE.ion as th_e. ~hem and ~JJere t ~~1ould sor that these people ha•ve sorted out in_ I the narural world I took. ·.rrry in_forEt3TRt out_ i1"':. th.e \.Joo-ds wl1e'.ce Later l pressed the botanist far classification. u;::.es inc the medicinal uses of the particbe very careful because such inf onnation is se".! ular cret ~..:rru:~ tell I ·had a plaL1t and. t.he said about that cr.~e you don wt lcaoi.r it 9 rrroney to a.n. old ~1orr1an. to teach. 1ne l1ow to 1;,se this plant and I c.a.n. t that trL) y·o11 ~ ~·~ I would neve.:::, use it, th.at I would never try to cu.:re: discussion about it, at th,e don 1 £ use it, I will tell you J"u.st This is Lhe kind of cn.e v1ork.s a.·.nd yeE~~rs I an.d. I .::.to., J ir1 fact are in -n.e,sd of an. otl~i.er s·~.J~ll generation behind in uy records. T ior~s ger1}2ra1~ion) rnor2 of thern. ., talking about 'ii-Ja.s eit.hr~L peans, Now when did thL:: That at leasz was with Europeans in li£ 2 i ·ve been. oming of the Euroslov.J-~ T -;- firs~ cor1tact t"t-'{.e J de Fuca. C)tl:~eLs to find British dorte irt on. th.e the re--he celebrated the res sorne of t~is as far as Budd Inlet group of nineteen group of Indians tl1.a t ht::: eled in gro·ups I lik.e:: found the gr-eat st pest: 11e p·1Jt,s. 01.Jt get so 1-1i1nself the T " .shore an.d told blaclz and of items trc.l TJnior~ removal of all sorts diff icDlt to con- Indians were only following their age-old pra.ctice of taking something that appeared to have no particular use, which was just lying around. Un~ til the sea oti:er traders began getcing so greedy thac they would steal too, and they stole as much as the Indians did, the Europeans got along pretty well with the Indians. The Spaniards sectled in Nootka Sound and remained there for almost two years, during v;rhich time they and the Indian chief became very good friends. The Indians in the north v.rere mucl1 better organizsd than those in any other part in the northwest coast. They developed a icent art, ha.d very definite clans ar~d ·very fis1e social tion~ but tl-1ey \J12rc really the plague of the poor I·ndian.s doVJTI l-1ere in t-he sound~ T"hey came do·W11- to raid durir!g t11e eig-t1teer1th. an.d ninete.er1th centurieo) 2n.d it~ s s.-cill happening today" If agricultural workers a.re wanted, such as s or potato diggers or s pickers, the local Indians will not do it, so people come in This is true in Eastern ton too. The Yakima won't but the Blackfee1: come from Montana and picl< tli.e s" A -r~{a-kima Ir1di.:2n told me one t:irrte when. I asked hi1n his people did.n'i: the won't stand out theco in that heat. We let the Blackfeet do that and then on Saturday night we them in their gambling ga:mes,"' I r:hink that '1 s a very good answer. And this still goes on, For instance, the strawberries on Island are not picked any of th=: local people, are picked the Cowichan, the \•1ho come from t.he of D-uncan! Var1COU'ler Islartd., come do·\,Ji'i t":=: Mt. Ve:rnon also the strawberries. All in all it 1 s a very inter~ esting racial situation that we have had with the of strawberries. Before the Second World War. the land belonged to white people They leased the land to Japanese. The Japanese did E good deal of their own cul·civating but got: Filipinos to act as foremen, The Filipinos then wenc out and recruited th2 Indians to do the picking. One especially of Indian life like to stress -~1as -c:; is sorne because I think it is quite understood. group of l/:Jho 11Jere treraendous and relation to the supernatural. They did ·without first The werE: most as with l:he whale hunt of the preparing th.eruselves ically and Olylrrpic Peninsula. The wJ:Mle hunter spent months preparing himself to be Every little boy, in fact:, when he was about five or ready to go whaling. -bis train.in.g to seek a six ye2.rs old If a person did not have a to become .sucspirit he had no oppor A girl would cessful at anything; he wasn't a full person, a real person" not marry a man 1.1ho had not had a So -i,;./hen these youngsters ;:; tl-'iE grar1dfather \Ib.o ·cook~ ~ vYould a :mark.er sontevihere i11~ t.he ~1Joods) r10 t too far f:rway frorn tl:-'12 v·illage~ an.d tell theTn ·co get it and it back.~ ~Thile this were told not to drink any water nor to eat any-rear after ~;,rear tf2e trial stretcP~ed furt11er a:id f-urther ar1d away and were at the ~ u.rttil at ·v,you ld £as t. and where "Chey ~ere sent out to seek a spirit~ clean then1sel-..ves inside and out T-h,e its t lived lakes or in. L.. i.\rers s un.d.er the vlat,er '.i' ar1d 1Nhen v1en.t ir1to a lake to seek a certain th.era to this place th~y· ii: which was ca 'j 95 would very take a rock in thei:r hands and dive dm·m so that the rock would take them dowT1 further than they normally could diveo The spirit lived in a house just like the houses they lived in, and this rock would fall on the roof~ The spirit: 1 s slave would then come out and ask who it was and what he wanted. The young person in turn would ask to see the master, If he was clean enough he would he admitted. There is a story of one young mc.n who had fasted for a time and had cleaned himself very thoroughly but when he got doi;.m to the spirit he found some dirt under do it o·ver one fingernail and he was sent home. HE had to go back 51 and only then did the spirit talk to him and s his song . The L sings the song and the tells him the kind of cosrume b.e sho·uld wear~ He then returns to the surface. He's found in a trance soro.e"111l1ere in the n.eighborh.ood of that lake., ·tttrb.e·n a young m.an. goes out like that, everybody knows about it and if he doesn't come home after a fer,J they begin to search for him and very often he's still in a trance, uncofr~ scious. So they take him back home and he recovers They know he has recovered, when he begins to s the song that he s heard. This is his guardian, his protection for all his life, Very often a man feels him.self getting weak and his spirit, he believes, is \-Jeakening n1ore, he goes out to fast for a while to seek his it He may find anothe~ one but also the same spirit might come again and urge him on to action. This then was a personal religion which ·was very real, parts of 'Whic'ct are still carried on today, Tn.is idea of each 1Jerson his Ciw11 -'- L and having his own relationship with the supernatural is the backbone of the religious activity of the Indians throughout this entire region. belie'.Ye these come near to earth" and as the earth to them is round but flat like a saucer, the its travel around the edge of this saucer and in the period between about the first of December and the end of Feb~ ruary they are right here in the Puget Sound area. They come back each year, and in turn che people perform their dances. If you are familiar , you know that in the winter with Indian activities in this have their dances. One cer life is the renewal that have with the spirits year after year. The it doesn't always come every year, but they go to the dances, I will never forget the German who was visit at the University and~ specifically, the art tTner,t in which she was interested, The people there had used up all their German, and so they called me up and asked if I would take her to lunch and talk with her., Well, I did and when we were almost through with lunch I asked her if there was anything else that she wanted to see. "Yes, she saia, "a red Indian " And I said, , I can show you Indians but they are not red.'" And it just happened to be the day that there was going to be it at La Conner. The old was still there but the the open spaces between the planks, you planks had shrunk so that vvere corr1i-ng the sn1GK2 could see the t of the fire, hole, We went to La Conner that all the way there I v1as It was , hail= in fact vvh.ere the other side. 'j B-ut an.d They carry their Cl°1j\m ~1her1 1-t.Je religion. v1itl1in thenI'" 96 opened tf1e door It is th.eir ~ s and nobody else's. They come together, each with his individual ideas, doing what his spirit leads him to do. Without one of these spirits, I have been told, the Indian believes he is only half a man. Now there aren't very many people in our culture today who are so deeply engrossed in religion that is in large groups, and it hurts to see non~Indians tell them that this is all wrong. The Indians had their own way of religion and for them it worked But between about 1837 to 1840 the first Catholic missionaries came to this particular area. They minisarea that probably came to each village perhaps tered to such a once in two years. Then Father Chirouse came to Tu.lalip, He was a mag~ nificent ma.n, a man who understood the Indians and tried to interpret his religion_ t.o them ir1 a t'7ay tl"1at could understand, He started a school or factor in the Snohom:Lsh way of life" He at li"'.Jed ~Ni th tl-"1ese In.d ians tint il about 1895. While there, he followed a num~ her of other missionaries. He became aware that the Indians were very interested in IIrtisic and so he had instruments sent ont. They were not irLterested ~ 11e disco~Je~ed ~ ir1 strir1g instrurr1~~n.ts but. tb.ey lo\red and every other brass instrument. Like a number of other missionaries, he started a band. The boys in it would any kind of music, and even~ tually Father Chirouse took them all over the United States to raise money The i band became very famous. I have a wonderful had e'i..;-ery con.c.eivable in.str11~ of tf1en1, tak. er1 in the 1870 ~ s 3. and me·nt frorn a tuba dowiJ.> so as it tt1as a -brass i·iJ.. strurnent." Tl-ie In.diar1,s also have very fine voices and good music of their mm. when you just believ.,.ing hear a drum and shouting you may have dif f this. There is cme very lovely record I think may still be on the market ., and the Lia one Willard Rhodes from Columbia brary of On it is music of this region; there is some Clallam They have all kinds of songs and it really and rfakah Lurmni an~d er shows 0.LI their voices very well. It also shows the variety of their s here a culture that had a very not what we would e:all because didn 1 t have ture or d.omesi:icated animals, ted in a were people who didn ~ t ril.ave ar1~l of tlr1ose sen_sible ~ th-eir en_,1ironrnen.t.., could talce ar1 adze, a fet"I tools, and go someplace and hack out a little house. Many of the first visitors felt that these temporary houses were di3graceful structures-~pieces of lumber made Tlaese raats ~1ere rr1ade of cattails with the of a needle made of spirea. There is in our environment that these people didn't have a use ~7,2:re ·not settled in such great n.urn.bers tl-1at tli.ey rnats thrcvm O"\Ier them~ And s ted areas before tI].e tl-re en.,.;;"ironn1ent v:1as nt"'ver x.u.en~aeed., her talk, Dr, Gunther shoTured a number of 'Iariot1s. aspects of Ir1dian. life a11.d 97 art~ 5 THE FISHERIES TODAY: ASSESSING THE PROBLEMS Donald Moos State Director of Fisheries The salmon industry of Washington State has had a generally pessimistic outlook concerning its future for a number of decades. The immediate reasons were declining salmon abundance overall and reduced earnings even when salmon were plentiful. Demands by Canada in the 1970's for a greater share of healthy Fraser runs added to the feeling of gloom for a considerable portion of the Washington-based industry, and the Boldt decision in 1974 was a note that to many non-treaty fishermen seemed to imply final disaster. This document is intended to be a starting point for development of a combined industry-government action plan to reverse this negative trend and to provide short-term relief plus long-term stability and growth. It is a rough draft, at this stage representing only preliminary defined areas in an attempt to stimulate bringing the really important issues to the front. The Problems Obviously it is difficult to solve problems without knowing precisely what they are, so we will begin by trying to define the major issues. 1. Decline in salmon abundance We are not suggesting that there is anything profound in observing that there are fewer salmon now than at various times in the past. Nor will we attempt to present precise statistics at this point: our general observations are that there are fewer salmon of all species than there were in the 1800's. Over the past several decades, the chum and pink salmon originating in Washington State are greatly reduced, the sockeye and pinks of the Fraser River-- exploited by Washington fishermen--have been healthy or increasing, and Washington chinook or coho have remained at a constant level, with wild runs reduced but largely replaced by hatchery enhancement. We will also largely bypass detailed discussion of the major causes for reduced salmon abundance because both the problem and its primary remedies appear well-known. The causes include environmental deterioration, which has been and will continue to be fought with great vigor. With the modern trend toward ecological concern, there is considerable hope. However, as energy problems become more acute there are the counterbalancing negative pressures of more dams and thermalnudear plants. We would like to believe that on the whole we can more than maintain our own in the natural salmon production arena; the central point for this discussion is that we foresee no miracles here that will quickly and greatly increase the supply of wild salmon. A second primary cause of diminished numbers of salmon is mismanagement. Typically, this will be thought of in terms of overfishing, and this is no doubt an important problem stimulated both by fishing on mixtures of naturally and artificially-produced fish which should be properly 98 harvested at different fishing rates, the continual pressure exerted by fishermen demanding catches beyond calculated spavming requirements, simply because they are financially distressed. We will come back to these points to suggest possibilities for a better job. But before we can consider these matters in their proper perspective, we believe we need to review a m.rmber of other matters that are closely tied to these. We would like to note that abundance of salmon :;_s L a second~ instances of industry distress chis ary role. Our has. been that when fishe:n:nen HS typically demand more salmon solution to all difficulties. To clarify the kind of are hoping to develop, it is interesting to consider productior1 of more fist1 was ~nor: tli.e anst1ez-.. The sion of Puget Sound chinook and coho hatche~ies were and impor influenced Puget Sound sportsaen. As sport fishing in Puget Sound grew steadily worse over the 1960s, s;:iortsmeTl advocated i:::wo primary solution.s to their dilerarna: more hatch.~ries and reduced com..m.ercial nett As we hope now understand, the problems lay in hatchery tion of the wrong kinds of fish for their purposes, a:c1d neither more of the sarrie kind of hatch.eries nor red·uction of r1ettir1g,~~e1cc2pt for inci-= to increase their successes. dental catches of resident fish--was saln1on th.a c '!Jer1t dir~?.ctly to t11e ()Cean, a.r1ci The hatcheries were the bulk were taken there by unseen troll and sport fisheries, then numbt~rs of liOn_~biting fis·h return_ed to tl-re Sou.n.d,, Cor1sidtration of pos-sible means to salmon that would be available and bite for sportsmen has led to tan£ successes, the critical point is that endless money could have been scuffed into hatcheries as were run '"'ir little sport improvement and further am:i-net initiatives as the result, 2. Excess capitalization of Jishing fleecs 1-Je:Kt to tl1e salmon s ;; tl1is ~-s the Inost L s e issue related to t1i.e ec.onon1ic ~vell--beir1g of commercial fishe-.rr11e11 i is less important to s and processors except for the obvious connection For between fishermen well-being and overall industry ' this. aspect has begun to be reasonably well understood and accepted and remedies are being sought~ But we would like co momentarily reconsider the problem here, primarily to suggest that there are reasons the present rate of progress may be dangerously slow, As we have observed, the salmon supp is essentially a fixed ity, although it will have long~term trends and year~to-year variation. It can be fully harvested with a given amrn.J.-zi.t of certain kinds of gear From one of view, if there are twice as many fishermen as ec1 half of them are no useful purpose and in effect are on welfare. v·1e~V1i2d frOill 3i10ther ar1gle ~ t'i:lE:: financially distressed because their income unreasonably. We presume that one salrn.on plan -rnust be for fishermen f tion to the limited resource; wirhout this, management will continue to be conducted in a disas·c2r a except in bonanza years, with all le1ns c£ decisions are difficul~ heads, t sl1ol1ld be put tO'\V'ard a gear lirr1itatioI1 sch_edule to ease cri tic&_l pressures when we need relief and that is very soon. There is no doubt that financial ruin will come to some fishermen; it needs to be decided who will stay and who will go. 3. Catch transfer Another factor that we believe has been important in devitalizing the salmon industry has been the uncontrolled transfer of catch from one fishery or fishing group to another. Examples are the increased proportions of chinook and coho captured in the ocean rather than in the near-shore net fisheries, the switch of the West Coast Vancouver Island troll fishery from primarily U.S. boats to primarily Canadian, and so forth. While the salmon stock may remain healthy, still one section of the industry--both fishermen and processors--loses an important means for livelihood and someone else gains. Again, those who lose join the ranks of the distressed, and their frustrated excess productive capacity is added to the waste. By and large, uncontrolled catch transfer has been a passive thing; one fishery gains a political advantage or simply corks another, and gradually the catch shifts. It is, of course, a form of allocation, and from the manager's view has occurred from lack of rules or power to enforce rules about who has a right to catch what. The Boldt decision has had a similar effect, except it is enforced, conscious allocation; the only difference is that the transfer is obvious. 4. Waste from improper fishing techniques We had hoped that we would have reasonable precise estimates of wastage that results from non-sensible fishing procedures to present to you at this time. We can say at this time that the order-of-magnitude wastage of salmon from runs originating in Washington state is one-half to one million fish per year. This relates back to the discussion about reduced salmon abundance and the interrelationship of these problems. One reason why some runs appear more diminished than they really are is that our fishing methods kill many fish needlessly that do not appear in the catch--hooking (shaker) mortality, gill net dropout, and other incidental deaths. It is well known, for example, that trollers kill many thousands of small salmon in sorting through the mixed ages and sizes of feeding ocean salmon. Sport fishermen kill fish similarly, although at a lesser rate. Shaker mortality, as with net dropout and incidental net catch of small, commercially useless fish, is compounded by having far more fishermen than necessary sorting through the fish to find the legal desired catch--so one evil multiplies another. A second, less obvious form of waste involves the sex ratio of spawners. Professor Mathisen of the University of Washington showed many years ago that one male can assure fertilization of the eggs of many females-perhaps as many as 15 females to 1 male. Sockeye, chum, coho, and pinks tend to enter the streams at sex ratios not greatly different from 1:1, but where one sex predominates it is usually the male. The ocean fisheries for chinook are selective for older fish and for females; this plus peculiarities of life history results in male chinook typically outnumbering females in the streams by 2 or 3 to 1 or even more. What we are saying, of course, is that from 1 million spawners, effective fishery systems should salvage at least one-quarter million or more males than that are now wasted and serve no purpose. Progressive development of selective fishing gear to take advantage of such opportunities has been prevented 100 by restrictive regulation, which of course is tied back to too much gear, and so on in a continuous, destructive cycle. 5. Intercel2_tion All of us have been conscious of the fact that interception is a very bad thing 1,1hen the Japanese catch our sockeye and the Canadians catch our chin.oak~ P:o.11d ;:. of course interception is the central theme of the U.S.ion. rnean.s to us sorneone else is Canada ta.lks. of n used by the U. S, catching our fish or vice~versa. and nurtured in streams on land as well as Canada is tf1ose salrrion that we o"1m. we ·no need to r•=:.plcrw this but we suggest that a within state:;; a.s IP!'ell as the obviou.s extern.al interceptior1~ tl1e defir1ition. to rne.an. any dif failure for caretakers of a saln1on strearn to reap the benefits of their ··;,,ih·2ther ir1terna.tior.t.al 9 interstate 9 or ir1terinvestments and county. Oregon has stated its: concern about catching their fish, and Washington and Oregon have complained to California, for example. We wish to make the: general point t'hat a sen.sible saln1on= utilizing system raust prornote protection an.d en.f1a1i.ce-r11ent of the reso-urce and that means those who are in a to promote the investments needed to have sufficient rewaTd to maintain their interest. This will usual mean the people of and concern for one~s rivers and facilities becau3e of rJ~e -natur2l surroun.din.gs; it ViYill also rneai'::. t11ose v01ho fire ~1Jit~hin. -fhe. tical .systen1 that generates the or tion areas. fishermen and processors who Fraser salmon are of O\rTn-e.r~ concerned about rhe cutbacks that this ship seems to imply" Our view is chat there are genuine possibilities to shift U.S. dependence to U.S. salmon without critical harvest cutbacks and We have the tecb.nology to ultimately ~,7fth an increased catch. great quantities. cif sa.lrn.oriy ~vitli.in_ reason 'Wl"'Lere and "'>Jl-~en. TiJC t 1ar1t thern; anr1 this s1:1ould be our \l\Je are ar;Jare. that for sorne ciJ.rious reason.~ tl-1E:: \'Jasf1ington Departrnertt of Fisli.eries l1as ,ne~1er ffiade a rn.ajor effort to enhance our corruuercial fisheries and the particular species they ·upo11; -,we are I10-w proposin.g to do just t1-1is,, \!!le f!a\te g 2flerat,2d a large number of ects, at this chum but that is not necessary. The point of this effort is to indicate the existing potential. The Fisheries feels that a successful enhancement program must be developed by the Department and by industry, both to make the best choices to serve the and to assure understanding and confidence in the final plan. or enhan.ceffien s of species As we all understand, Sou11d without a U.S.-Canadian agreement is folly s'hare '!- reduc our benefit and fut~re positions. This is consistent 1;;ith the CacL1dia~-s. perspective'} sin.Ce ha-ve tl1:us far 0 1 It is s.1ould lile-e to 2;~e the tY--emer:dous trcru.bl·;~s ge-n.era-ced the Boldt deci_sion brought to a sensible conclusion. We contend that the available for this is enhancement~~more fish non~t~rBJJ.rna tic must be to the losers" We believe tl1at art irrnner1se amount of tr" S ~ 101 money for enhancement could become available if a plan agreeable both to treaty Indians and non-treaty fishermen could be brought forth to national and state legislators. We repeat that enhancement potentials in the Boldt case area are severely limited without a reasonable U.S.-Canadian agreement. 6. The peculiar problems of the offshore fisheries We have two primary offshore salmon fisheries: troll and sport. The values derived from each are quite different: one provides income from sale of salmon as food, the other is primarily a service industry involving recreation where the food value of the catch is valuable but incidental-therefore, the applicable seasons, size limits, and so forth are not--or at least should not--be based on the same criteria. There are classical and well-known arguments against high-seas commercial salmon fisheries, some of which also apply to offshore sport fisheries. These arguments involve the waste from catching small fish that would be worth more when mature and much larger, including subtractions for natural deaths over the period, and the difficulty of sensible management of mixed-stock fishing. There is the further question, particularly obvious in an energy shortage, of why anyone would pursue a salmon on the high seas for connnercialpurposes when this strange creature returns to shore where he can be harvested for trivial cost and greater value. We would like to add to this the point that the offshore fisheries--troll and sport--typically involve major interceptions and consequently tend to reduce incentive to those who nurture the young salmon. We previously connnented that off shore fisheries for chinook salmon also have the unfortunate quality of selectively catching females and older, larger fish, thus changing the age-sex composition of the spawners in a presumably negative way. This occurs because males tend to mature at younger ages than females, with resultant smaller change of being caught. Older, thus larger, fish are more susceptible to being caught because they stay in the ocean longer. The Boldt decision has had a curious and somewhat ironic effect on the share of the offshore fishermen with respect to non-Indian inshore fishermen. Commercial fishermen have resisted this decision principally by assuring through the courts that the Washington Department of Fisheries does not have the authority to allocate salmon to treaty Indians. Since the decision talks about 50-50 catch division, court actions have occurred after it has become clear that the Indians can't get their share --that is, late in the season. This in turn means that all the impact falls on the tail-end fisheries, and because the Department can't allocate, it can't spread the effects of this reduction more fairly over all non-treaty fisheries. The offshore fisheries had been taking a ~ontinu ously greater catch share pre-Boldt simply because they got the first crack at the fish; so far, the Boldt decision has compounded this effect. Suggested Solutions We have painted a picture of a salmon fishery that, from our view, can only be expected to produce economic and sociological chaos because the basic operating rules don't make sense. We think these rules and most procedures they relate to need changing, and offer the following suggestions: 102 1. Gear limitation Methods are being developed to rapidly limit and reduce the amount of gear to avoid the continued economic diasaster atmosphere we now operate in that has been accentuated by the Boldt decision. Efforts should be made to obtain corresponding legislation in Oregon, or major problems of both fairness and orderliness will result. 2. Regulation of offshore fisheries There are a number of apparently reasonable methods that could be instituted for regulating the offshore fisheries both to bring a greater share of salmon inshore and to reduce wastage. These include time and area closures, size limit changes, gear improvements, and ultimately fleet catch quotas. In the past, trollers have responded to such suggestions by indicating they will continue to fish as they choose, landing their fish in other states. First, we believe that Oregon should be--and reasonably can be--convinced to join us in instituting such regulations. Next, and ideally, the State should be given powers of catch division; however, there is sufficient legal power and biological evidence to approach this on a conservation basis for now. Finally, control of landings to foreign or domestic buying stations outside of territorial limits will be enhanced with passage of extended jurisdiction. 3. Inshore wastage problems We would like to examine a number of different alternatives, such as mesh restrictions or even special openings, to harvest a greater share of the hundreds of thousands of waste males, and we believe we can do better --particularly with less gear--in avoiding incidental catches, gill net dropouts, and similar problems. 4. Interceptions and U.S.-Canada settlement Without an agreement with Canada to limit interceptions and to allow unmitigated enhancement on both sides of the border, a key link will be missing that is required to begin to break the closed circle of disorder described here. We expect that each country will always catch important numbers of the other country's salmon in order to conduct orderly fisheries on its own resources. We believe that a reasonable course of action is to gradually reduce each country's dependence on the other country's salmon by enhancement of its own resources so that our industry not only does not suffer importantly but ultimately has increased catch and value. As a general rule, we must recognize that a major proportion of salmon must be returned to all areas where they originate for disposition as their owners choose. 5. Resource sharing The Washington State Department of Fisheries does not presently have the right to manage the state's salmon fisheries for the best interests of its citizens. The State of Washington should have the authority to regulate the fisheries so that participation of gear units of all user groups may share fairly and equitably in the resource. We believe that no sense can be made from the salmon management problem generally without vesting the obviously required powers in one management agency. The addition of a multitude of independent management agencies under the Boldt 103 decision has been viewed publicly, and we think rightly, by the State as unworkable. But the powers of the State Fisheries Department are also incomplete and thus partly responsible for the present chaos. The choice appears to be a State authority adequate to deal appropriately with the situation or Federal control--probably less sensitive to local problems but better able to avoid local pressures that produce the kinds of situations discussed here. 104 THE PLIGHT OF A TROUBLED INDUSTRY--AMERICAN FISHERIES Milo Moore Fisheries Consultant Today, there exists no responsible authority for U. S. Fisheries. Practically all phases of United States fisheries in coastal areas is being phased out by mismanagement and neglect under Government control. The U. S. fishermen and industry, with over a billion dollar investment, flounder in a sea of discontent, uncertainty, and has no means for survival under present political envolvement and misguided formulas established for management of food resources. Government policy in employment of non-industry men assigned to manage U. S. fisheries forestalls direction by competent industry-trained men needed to provide sustained production and protection of fisheries from competing elements, both foreign and domestic. During the past 50 years on the Pacific Coast, only one man trained in industry has been selected to important administrative fisheries affairs. Salmon native to a thousand rivers in Alaska, Washington, Oregon and California have been overfished. Salmon hatchery and fish farm production has been stymied by a dominate government sponsored society of fisheries biologists. Under biologist's direction the one-time- productive Pacific Coast PILCHARD stocks were annihiliated, Alaska herring wasted and the live spawn of limited stocks harvested for Japanese caviar. Halibut and many other species of fish are over-fished by administrative neglect. Available live salmon spawn at Washington State salmon hatcheries are also sold for caviar to skim off funds for non-productive research. Academic leaders have the blessing of U. S. National and State administrations and the Congress have sponsored program after program wasting public funds for which little or no benefits have resulted to fisheries resources and industry. U. S. participation in International affairs has consistently sacrificed the welfare and security of our American fisheries since World War II. Leading U. S. fisheries biologists have successfully warded off all contenders offering practical concepts to improve American fisheries, in lieu of established management formula by their society. They stifled merited action of Congress in the passing of the 1956 Fisheries Reorganization Act--a law directing the administration toward positive action to sustain American fisheries at high production levels. The above comprises but a few facts leading to the gradual phase-out of U. S. fisheries. The matter clearly evident by scientific formulas set forth to eliminate common citizen's rights to fish with all fishermen in harvest of food fish resources in the public domain. Now comes the most Un-American act of all time--the turning over of a major portion of food fish resources and U. S. citizens individual rights to Indians of various tribes on the Pacific Coast by U. S. Government Edict, countermanding the findings of ten U. S. Supreme Court dec:Lsions 105 securing State responsibility over fish and game resources for all citizens alike. Fishermen are advised to seek redirection of fisheries management whereby trained, informed and honest men of the fisheries industry are selected to dominate responsibility for United States fisheries. And secure the same for all Americans. 106 AQUACULTURE: WHAT IT MEANS TO THE PUGET SOUND REGION Earl F. Prentice Northwest Fisheries Center National Marine Fisheries Service National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration There is general agreement that world demand for marine food products will continue to increase and that aquaculture will play an important role in supplying these needs. A variety of species of fish, mollusks, and crustacea are now or may be cultured to supply these demands. The sheltered waters of Puget Sound through appropriate development of aquacultural systems can be used for the production of these foods in the same manner as the flood plains of river basins have been used for agricultural production. The objectives of aquaculture are basically three-fold: (1) to provide quality seafood, (2) to augment available natural resources (not displace the traditional collection methods), and (3) to aid in conserving heavily exploited natural stocks. These objectives are expressed in a variety of aquacultural systems, each meeting one or more of the stated objectives. A brief discussion of several systems follows; some are presently in use, others are proppsed. In 1969, the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) carried out the first experiments in Puget Sound on the culture of fish in floating net pens. These initial experiments showed that it was possible to rear coho salmon, Oncorhynchus kisutch, from 15 to 340 g in 6-8 months and to maturity in an additional 10-12 months (Mahnken, et al., 1970). During 197172, in a cooperative experiment by the U. S. Department of Commerce and private industry, more than 60 metric tons of salmon were grown in four floating net pens. From this modest start several business ventures have emerged for growing pan size salmon in Puget Sound utilizing floating net pens, lagoons, or raceways. In the United States the saltwater production of pan salmon in the 1973-74 growing season was 350 metric tons. The bulk of this production came from Puget Soun~ net pens, primarily from one grower-DomSea Farms. From this grower alone production exceeded the total 1973 harvest of Atlantic salmon from Norwegian farms estimated at 270 metric tons (Mahnken 1975). Production in the U.S. during the 1974-75 season was in excess of 740 metric tons, of which 363 metric tons was grown in floating net pens locally. During the current growing season (1975-76), it is estimated that over 600 metric tons of pan-size salmon will be produced from the Puget Sound waters. Although production of pan-size salmon has increased at a modest rate, it has not been without problems. Commercial salmon growers have acknowledged that disease, feed availability, knowledge of fish husbandry, site locations, and institutional problems are or could be limiting factors in making fish farming a viable industry. Product diversification, if properly managed, can be of great economic importance to a business. Businesses engaged in aquaculture are no 107 " I',. " • '':\. .._ I . l~A" -!o· L ·,~ ~.•nl VICTORIA ~~. 15' 45' ~ l ' .. i I. NAUTICAL '° "' ··r+=-, -rl MILES '17" 30' 15' 15' 122"30' 15' 15' Figure 1.--Location of salmon farms and delayed saltwater release sites in Puget Sound, Washington. 108 exception. In recognition of this fact the NMFS in 1972 cotmnenced studying potential companion crops to pen-reared salmon, such as the spot prawn, Pandalus platyceros. The technical and economical feasibility of culturing this prawn is still under investigation at our aquaculture research stafion near Manchester, Washington. Other highly valued species for consideration would include the Dungesness crab, Cancer magister, or other fish--e.g., sturgeon. Besides broadening the economic baseline of salmon farms, another possible benefit would be in providing the technology necessary to establish a hatchery system for the culture of crustacea, mollusks, or fish other than salmonids. The output from such hatcheries could be used to augment natural production similar to the role salmon hatcheries have played in maintaining salmon runs for the recreational and commercial fishery of this area. Another form of aquaculture being investigated is that of algae culture. Algae to most people is considered a nuisance; it gets on your fishing line, bothers you when swimming, and smells when it decays on the beach. There are, however, a number of species which bring great dividends if properly handled. Porphyra (nori), Laminaria (kombu), and Undaria (wakame), for instance, are commonly dried and eaten as food by Orientals. Porphyra can cost up to $56.00 per pound dried. There are 12 local species of Porphyra, several of which are acceptable to the Oriental community (Hunter & Nyegaard, 1975). Other algae such as Iridaea and Gigartina are being investigated as to their culturability by the University of Washington. These algae are important for their extracts, notably carrageenan. Many other algae are used for their medicinal, chemical, and nutritional properties. Algae culture is just coming into its own, and the Puget Sound region-with its unique hydrological, topographical, and meterlogical conditions-could become a major producer of certain algae with great benefits to all. Ocean ranching is another avenue of commercial aquaculture not yet practiced in this state by private enterprise. Legislation for private ocean ranching on a limited basis has been enacted in California (1968), Oregon (1971), and Alaska (1974). A bill is pending before the Washington State legislature this year to legalize private ocean ranching. In essence ocean ranching involves (1) the collection of eggs from anadromous fish in freshwater, (2) egg incubation and hatching, (3) rearing fry by various techniques, (4) release of fry into the marine or freshwater environment which allows the fish to migrate to ocean foraging areas, and (5) the final step is the collection and harvesting of returning adults for marketing. The concept is simple, but the implications and impact can be far reaching. The state and federal hatchery system is, in part, an example of one type of ocean ranching on a public scale. If private enterprise were also allowed to become involved, additional fish would be available in our waters for the common property fishery. Another form of ocean ranching is holding smolted coho or chinook, 0. tshawytscha, salmon in saltwater net pens and releasing them at a time past their normal outmigration. The techniques were developed by the Washington Department of Fisheries (WDF) and the NMFS. It was found that by delaying the release of salmon in salt water the fish remained in Puget Sound 109 and did not migrate out to sea. Furthermore, the mature fish returned to the release site and not to their parent stream. The time of release, varying for species and site location, was found to be a controlling factor in achieving the stated results. These findings will play an increasingly important role in fishery managemer1t as well as having important ramifications for all concerned with the Puget Sound salmon fishery Studies by WDF to date have indicated that fish released from their saltwater sites have contributed to the fishery over comparable freshwater releases; in some instances, a 70% increase has been realized, From such results the WDF, starting in 1970, has established numerous delayed salt~ water release sites in Puget Some are solely operated by the state, others are cooperative with other government agencies, salmon growers, or sportsmen's clubs. Last year, for instance, \ATDF released from Little Cla:m Bay (near Manchester) 430,000 coho; this year they released 131,000 chin~ ook and 130,000 coho from Clam Bay. Others capitalizing on the delayed release technique are the Indian tribes, notably the Squaxins and Lulllit1is. This year the Squaxins released 500,000 coho and the Lummis 400,000 coho and 225,000 chum from their saltwater facilities" The fish that return from their ocean ranching ventures at present, according to WDF, will count towards their salmon quotas as outlined in Judge Boldt's decision. 1 Before making final judgment regarding ocean ranching one should address himself to the many questions that remain unanswered. Some of the questions are: What impact would additional salmon have on the preda~ tor~prey relationship in Puget Sound? Will there be interaction and if so what will be the effect between wild fish and stocks used in ocean ranch~ ing? How will stocks be identifie:d and at what point will they become private property? How will hatchery or stream sites be determined? Wb.at effect will the Boldt decision have? Will traps be allowed? And, finally, how will the market distinguish between the grades of salmon, sea~caught vs. freshwater~caught? Aquaculture, regardless of the form it takes, is only one of many uses of our Puget Sound 1!7aters. Like any use it will compete for space and cause both positive and negative effects. The various aspects of any proposed usage must be compared and carefully considered prior to establishing use priorities and management plans. If developmental plans and management practices are sound, a working coexistence can be established between a variety of user groups, some seemingly in direct opposition to one another. An excellent example of the type of multiple usage to which I am referring exists in central Puget Sound in the vicinity of Manchester, Washington. Manchester is located 9 miles from Seattle and 5 miles from Bremerton. In this area, as shown in Figure 2, exist a of user 1 s groups, Included' are the U, S, Environmental Protection. research facility, National Marine Fisheries Service Research Station. three state parks, a wildlife refuge, two com.merc:ial salmon farms and Pacific Ocean Farms), Washington t of ;;cisheries, and Game Department dcslayed~release sites, both sport and comI11ercial f Then:: is also or tion, of as craft carrier "Enterprise," in addition to the state ferries L1\er b a..1..i corrrra.un1.cati,·,:;,r1 . , of Fisheries, Olympia Rideout, 110 State Seattle~Bremerton, and numerous pleasure craft, Finally, there is the Naval Supply Depot. This fueling depot is the largest along the West Coasc with an average of 12. 6 million gallons of fuel handled per montlL The depot services an average of 20 ships per month, ranging in size from tugs to the 700~foot supply ship, 11 Sacramento," Since 1969 when the NffFS Aquaculture Research Station was established" there have been no detrimental effects from the depot operation or any other user group as related to ou::c research or to the commercial salmon growers in the area" I am certain the other user groups can say the same" 111 l L '~· J' '<.. / / /. \ .-L..._ I <O' l , 1'.., /,- ~ ,. i I. I; I- Bainbridge I~. Ion d -~ ·~ / ;'"\ u4 ~_f-"f f". ·~\, . ;(/ /,>' 1.1../' ' SPtoart~e, EPA~ t ..... ~, o-\\ . /. _.,J Research · ~ Com:n2rc1al C]-- Salmon --~ ~ Farming 1 : ~/ Military :Fusi.- 'Depot _ / ~--\v -.~-~ l ~~ ~.... State Pork \ r; .iu cc::. - -'•' ' , ·'·, Multiple use of Puget Sound. 112 ..,· ./ •. -~~ -~/ ~~ SPORT COMMERCIAL FISHING Figure 2. ! FISHING '\ BIBLIOGRAPHY Hunter, C. J. and C. W. Nyegaard. Seaweed Farming in. ;puget Sound. Extension Bulletin 654. Cooperative Extension Service College of Agriculture, Washington State University, 1974. pp.10. Mahnken, Conrad V. W. "Status of CoI!llilercial Pen Farming of Pacific Salmon . in Puget Sound." Sixth Annual Meeting World Mariculture Society, Seattle, Washington. 1975 Mahnken, C. V. W., A. J. Novotny and T. Joyner. Salmon Mariculture Potential Assessed. American Fish Farmer and World Aquaculture News 2 (1) 1970: 12-16, 27. 113 THE STATE OF WASHINGTON LOOKS AT THE PUGET SOUND REGION James Dolliver Administrative Assistant to the Governor In looking at your program, I am struck two things. First of all, it gives one some pause in finding that one is to be immediately succeeded by someone who is designated as a humanist, to his hrn:rranist com.men~ tary" I understand the reasons and the stai::ute for this kind of thing and I certainly do not declare against it, but there's some suggestion, I suppose, that those precede the humanist perhaps hav2 not that perspective, and events may prov.2 your program to be The second observar.ion is that the title for my remarks, "The State of Washington Looks at the Puget Sound Region" if not grandiose, at least appears to be rather broad, and fulsome in its coverage. It gives the impression that someone is to come out of Olympia and suddenly descend upon the campus of Western Washington State College with fully blown plans as to what the state s total views are in regard to the Puget Sou~n.d" :Not only do I noc ha·ve such a -ch_ing"' l ~n1 not certain who the state in reference is, The Governor;s office has some views, the Legislature has others, sometimes concuring, and sometimes not and certainly there are a good many hundreds of thousands of people who live on the Puget Sound littoral who may have some other views. I confess I have some suspicion of schemes that are neatly put r:ogether and wrc.pped up and then presented as to whether they will really solve the problem at hand. One is reminded--some of you may have heard him give this story--of Dr. Daniel Patrick Moynihan expounding on a particular subject. He relates that in 1954 when President Eisenhower was in office, the President in the winter of 195~- gathered at the White House the best minds th.at he could fin.d to address themsel\res to su.ch a proble1n.. The particular qtH::st:iori a-c hand was one how to manage to disperse the population of the United Staces It was to be an attempt to overcome some of the intense urban or c con~ centrations and get people out into the countryside and into the more rural or suburban areas The committee met in the basement of the East Wing of the White House, studied long and hard and, at the end of 1955, just prior to the President 1 s State of the Union message in 1956, came up with their proposal for doing it. It was adopted and without question has had the greatest impact upon population dispersion of any act passed in the United States by the U.S. Congress during probably the last fifty years. Unless you've heard Moynihan tell:the story I would defy any of you to tell me what that particular act waso LO end the suspense, it was the United States Act of 1956 1 which W'aS t(> build road.s National Defense and take people from but whose impact, of course, was to drearrrs of tl-1ose '\iJho may have disperse a ion far been planning in previous years. Thus of where these plans may take us, I think, is not entirely I had driven up this from the southern end of Puget Sound into tl-12 11-0rthern 'il.7aters of the ;_3t.ate of ton.. I h.a-\le flo"Vm~ or ctri·verr up many times, and while one passes certain entry points, such as Butt Inlet or Seattle Harbor out over that, then coming up Mt. 114 Vernon and finally winding up in Bellingham.. Catching glimpses of Puget Sound as you come by car or fly over it and see the whole thing nearly in its entirety, you are immediately struck with one outstanding fact--and I believe a fundamental one for those of us who live in Western Washington-the fact of prime importance in our lives is probably the existence of Puget Sound, It does not matter whether we directly make our livelihood from that body of water or whether we use it for our prime source of recreation, or whether it simply has the impact that it has on most of us, setting our life styles, not only the v.ray we look at the world as people who live on the shore, but perhaps more importantly in the daily moods of that body of water setting. I think that needs to be firmly fixed in our minds even if there may be other resources and other things in Western Washington of importance. The existence of Puget Soi..:md, probably the greatest inland sea to be found in North Am.erica, and perhaps in the world, the existence of this body of water at our door-step, more than perhaps anything else~ guides and determines the kind of lives that we live in this Puget Sound Basin. First of all I want to lay out what I think are some givens of when we discuss Puget Sound from anyone 1 s perspective.. Secondly, I would like to talk about some more specific concerns and some of the things which are of the concern, not only to people in state government, the executive or the legislative branch, but indeed to people of all parts of Sound area 2nd perhaps to the whole of the State of Washington. The three givens that I would mention are first of all that in considering Puget Sound, you must view it as a unit; as a whole. Puget Sound, a vast body of water, a vast shoreline which surrounds it all the way to the Canadian Border, must be glimpsed at as not something that you can sectionalize, either as to geographical location or as to exploiting or recreational or some other kind of use, but simply must be regarded as a ·whole. I say this for several reasons, first of all that is really t1-1e \,,y,_a_y it is.. It is a zl'll1ole body of -~Tater and "\~·hat affects one portion of it, it seems te clearly to me, affects che rest of iL Secondly, only regarding it as a whole, in my judgment, can we begin to make some of the difficult choices which are going to have to be now and in future years as to what use is made of Puget Sound. made we choose to exploit it? And I use that term not in an invidious How do sense, buc simply in a sense that as people live by this of water, some way or another they are going to inter-act with it and that interaction will be exploitation. And unless we look at it as a whole, it seems that the proper and appropriate use of this body of water is impossj_ble. the people of the state, in passing the Shoreline :Management Act several years ago, spoke qui~e clearly in sugges that if a particular use of the Puget Sound is not necessary, then don't do it. If a use which is has no relat to the water or the affa.irs are not neces conducted on the W£H.er, then it simply should not be done. This is a matter of some tude and of some tance. It ~trill determine the kinds of 1J.SES \rJe 2nak.e of Th.e language. Act, in my j indicates i11 the Shore1ine of the Department of Ecology also this as P'-n.d I t-hin.k. tl1e \Tie\ivs or1 the Puget Soun.d clearly follo\A/"S this rnost of tll.e local cornrn.\111ities in determining tl1e which have been taken 115 use to which the shoreline should be put, all live up to this. Don't simply build on Puget Sound for the sake of building unless it is necessary for that particular project to be built there. Thirdly, and this perhaps is more important for this part of the Puget Sound and northern waters than it would be for those of us who reside in the more southerly part, in my judgment the international significance of Puget Sound has simply got to be faced up to. Dr. Vernon and I had spent considerable amounts of time working on the Point Roberts problem. We came to the conclusion, and when I say we, I'm talking about the entire board, both Canadian and American, that the solution of this particular problem was absolutely dependent on international cooperation of the specific sort. Those who are in a position to make the ultimate decisions, obviously did not think so and so it is simply an idea which is now sitting on a shelf. But the fact that the idea was not accepted a couple of years ago when it was broached, does not in any way lessen the fact that when you talk about the problems of the northern waters of Puget Sound, you simply cannot ignore the fact that we have Canadian neighbors to the north and they have an interest in this body of water just as we have an interest in it. Whether it becomes the matter of kind of traffic which is on the Sound, or a matter of fishing, in which we have had at least a moderate amount of international cooperation, or whether it is a matter of recreational or other uses of this body of water, it seems to me that we are foolish here in the United States and in the State of Washington not to at least broach the subject. We should at least begin the conversations, attempt to find out what our common interests and goals are and what trade-offs we could propose to make with each other. Then, if necessary, let us fix our names to those international agreements which can accomplish the job. For the United States, or for Canada for that matter, to simply proceed along on its own way, as if the international border were a high wall that extended indefinitely into the sky, is not only inappropriate, but in the ultimate sense, would be futile. Let me go to some specific concerns that seemingly people have had regarding Puget Sound, and the look they have taken at it. It occurs to me that as we have looked at Puget Sound as to what we want to do at it, we have basically looked at it from the other direction. Not so much saying what we think ought to be done with Puget Sound but whether turning it around the other way, and suggesting a large variety of things which we don't think ought to be done to Puget Sound. Although the following observation refers to a body of water about three thousand miles away', it is a body of water entirely comparable in many ways to Puget Sound, Chesapeake Bay. An article in the Wall Street Journal appeared under the headline "Chesapeake Area Appearin~Ruined Bay, Strives to Balance Ecology and Growth." In the body of the article, it went through a parade of horribles most of which are strange to us but all of which we fear. Baltimore Harbor remains a veritable sink of toxicity as a result of years of accumulated pollution from shipping industry and municipal wastes. A number of important tributaries show increasing signs of putrification, or over-enrichment of a variety of nutrients of notably the water sewage plants, an unchecked process. Undesirable vegetation will gradually suffocate other life in the water. Fishing yields of certain species are well below their twentieth century highs. The 116 report talks about the disappearance of the varieties and the species in the area due to pollution and silting" I think what they are saying there is what we 1 ve said here, It is not that we have so much a master plan to develop for Chesapeake Bay, or in this instance, Puget Soun~ but that there are certain things that we don't want to have done in Puget Sound. Definitive legislation was passed by the people of the state or by the legislature acting in a representative capacity for the people of the state within the last half dozen years" which it seems to me, bears veTy directly upon this.. I w2r1t back and reacl again_ tl1e Shore1in.es l'-1ar1agernent Act:; passed the people of t11e State of to try to refresh 111.y rnemory in. some of the things that it did, and you recall that this was the peoin the state a of a little better than two to one. Some of the things they talked about were to preserve the great estuaries, and the salt ivater marshes T1Jhicl1 are up &r1d do\rJil this , specifically lift~ ing up certain areas in the Nisqually delta which has now been purchased, mostly by the State and the United Scates Gm1ernment as a bird refuge and therefore will not be disturbed. It deals with Birch Bay, Skagit and adjacent areas, Padilla Bay, all that land and that water lying seaward from a mean low tide, The document goes on to talk about the whole problem of selective logging near the Puget Sour1d littoral; it specifically bans any drilling of oil within one thou.sand feet of the shore. Many other document thax should give f.airly things are contained in that clear evidence of things that the people of the state don't want to have done.. T11e battles ~,1hich 1-ia""ve gone on in this state in the last dozen or fifteen years relative to the pollution from mills,, are indicative of the public attitude, I am not saying whether there should or should not be pulp mills on Puget Sound or whether a should or should not exist, but rather that if the developments are there, if the industries are there, th_en there are certain rules and regulations on the have to be obeyed., of this resource which would Without that has arrived, I think by and large, the people of rhis State have done a fairly good job in seeing to it that this body of water has, in a relative sense, had a very low level of degradation over the past fifteen or However there are other problems that exist and dangers that, at least from the perspective of the State exeeutive, exist which are not going to go away unless some kind of positive action is taken, Let me mention several of them. One is an issue, which most of us and myself included, haven '1 t really come to grips with, and that" s the whole problem of Puget Sound as a recreational resource, I have come to the conclusion over the last few years that recreation can be as destructive of an envir~ pulp mill or any other kind of industry you onment as the worst and the damage ~1Jhich comes frorn ur,_cb.ecked choose to have. The of water are things about and unregenerate recreational use of this ou·c Ou.e of the to which vre in the Point Ro~erts fact that the unchecked, c:mtrarnrneled uncontrolled and ;Jnchanneled recrea-tional use of the Sound area, the islands and the shore, tirr1e and in.creased leisure that all of us given I will be frank with you that I don 1 t know how to face this. the resource" I'm not sure what we to do, at least we to recognize that even the Sou~n.d~ as large. artd "varied as it is an_d \~J"itl-t its rnar1y recreation.al 117 opportunities, can just as surely be destroyed by unchecked recreational use as the most beautiful bay in the Puget Sound could be destroyed by constant effluvium coming out from a pulp mill. And we ought to begin to address ourselves, which I don't believe we have done yet, to the whole problem of the recreational use of this area. It's big, but it's not that big and we ought to address ourselves to the question. Secondly, of signal importance to this part of the sound is the whole problem of oil transport. All matter of oil spills, of course, effects the entire sound. This is hardly the time to again make a speech on that subject, other than to say it is still an unresolved issue. While we do have very stringent state oil spill laws, we have neglected to really appropriate the kinds of funds either for research or for control to see to it that these spills don't happen. We also have failed to come to grips with the kind of traffic we are willing to tolerate within the Puget Sound and the northern waters. The legislature has the issue before it during its current life and has chosen, so far at least, not to deal with it in an affirmative manner. It is part, of course, of the whole energy question at which the legislature again is looking; yet really nothing has been passed. But I live in more than a fond and pious hope, that when the legislature returns, that body, the executive and the people of the State will begin to confront the issue and what kind of traffic we are going to allow in the Puget Sound area, and particularly in the northern waters. Until we do that, the dangers which exist currently, from oil spills and from other degradation of the sound by commercial ship traffice, are going to exist. It is still out there and in my judgment we're still talking and haven't begun to act. Thirdly, we ought to think of the whole question of development. Not simply of the land immediately adjacent to Puget Sound, but development within the Puget Sound Basin itself. Legislation has been proposed to somehow attempt to keep every land speculator in the western hemisphere from descending upon this area and making a dollar as fast as he or she could, and then leaving the area and within a few years having a recreational slum or other kind of shoddy and undesirable development. Attempts have been made to apply speculative land taxes and to provide for comprehensive land use, again partially I suspect, because of some lack of real public interest and drive, the legislature has not passed this kind of legislation. The whole question of development is not going to go away. People are going to continue to move into Puget Sound; the land speculators are going to continue to abound. I suggest that the most highly developed land-use program, or zoning program, either within the state or within a local unit of government is not going to mean a thing as long as speculative profits continue to exist in unrestricted land development. One of the things that is happening at the state level: we are currently, in the Governor's office, in the process of reviewing all of the environmental legislation passed in this state, all of the statements which have been made by the State Supreme Court, at least an overview of the federal laws and the United States Supreme Court to find out just exactly where we are and what kind of other legislation is presently on the books. Furthermore, can that legislation be used, in any way to control and to lessen the danger for the kinds of problems I have just mentioned. Finally, the whole question of Puget Sound, it seems to me, comes under the heading of what is going to be the growth policy for the State 118 of Washington. You can talk about land use. You can talk about pollution control. You can talk about oil spills, fisheries, or any other of the discrete aspects of the Puget Sound Basin, but until you begin to talk about growth policy, both within the state and within the Puget Sound area, in my judgment, we simply are failing to face the fur1damental issue" A number of people have, for about a year and a half, been concerned with something called "Alternatives for Washington"" Their first volume has been submitted It is a fascinating document, it down, in consider~ able detail, the kinds of things in which a many citizens over sixty thousand) participated in some aspect of this proces.s, It dow11 the kinds of things that people want in their state and also a fair concrete gro~Jth policy for t'l1e State of Tfhat it doesn. t t do an.d what the next step of this program is, is to say 'alr , here's the wish list, n.oT~ hoiv do you begin to corue to grips- VJith the cont:cadictio1i.s Virhich [:::xist within this list? How do you begin to make the appropriate trade-offs? How do you finally work your way up to the where you can begin suggesting a permanent legislation or administrative action, have the kind of state you want and, in fact, assure the growth or lack of which you desire for your community whether it be Bellingham or Whatcom County, Puget Sound or the State of Washington itself<' I can think of no more appropriate mission for the citizens of this srare to address themselves to. I was cold to talk about "The State Looks at the Puget Sound Area" and I indicated at the beginning that as an official in the state government I had no master plane. I am inclined to think that the days of master plans or quick solutions or even easy solutions or neat put-together packages, emanating either from the Legislature or from a Governor or from a single interest, are about over. I'm inclined to think, particularly in t1-1e Puget Sour~d, which , from a rneetir1g lilce this~, ro-u.ses a high degree of interest among those who live on iL That the people who need to look at Puget Sound is not the state, as a tical abstraction, or a government, but the state as the people who live in ito In a very real sense, what happens to Puget Sound is de~ pendent upon, first, the kind of things that people do at the local level, on a case case, bit bit job, working with the local officials. Secondly, there is need of dealing with the legislature in the best political sense of the word. with it to try to get the kind of legislation that is necessary, There must be a possibility of working with the Governor, his office and other public officials. In effect, all of us must get involved in the political process, All this is an easy thing to say, but my observation is that most of us have not spent very much time doing it. Looking at Puget Sound needs to be done the eyes of a political process. That is the only way that decisions are going to be made t:hrough which the process will be and the decisions them~ selves will become legitimate. To depend on the state, expressed through a governor or the legislators 1 to so1~~1e the f>roblem is s not To en.d on. t h.e unit to resolve the of Puget Sound state as a s to take the interests--either highly parochwill not succeed. , state-wide, conmmnity ~Jide--of every person who ial, or not lives in this Puget Sound Basin to decide what kind of a Puget Sound we want LO have and how to use it. The citizens will have to decide what 119 kind of protections they want to give to it, what sort of development they are interested in, and then once these decisions are made, once this political process has been gone through and these discussions have been held, then we must go through the even more difficult process of getting from the talking and the agreement stage into the political stage. So those who are in the elected position, whether governors or legislators, can then take this view of the people and put it into some kind of statutory form. That's the kind of look that has to be taken of Puget Sound. We should have a little time and in fact I think we have more time than some people realize. I'm not one of those who say that if the thing isn't done tomorrow morning the whole thing is going to float out through the Straits of Juan de Fuca. I think we have a little time. We have a little time if we begin to start now, as residents of the Puget Sound, to decide what we want to do. We haven't got time to wait around for five or ten years and not do anything at all. But we have time right now to begin to involve ourselves in the total political process of deciding for ourselves and those who will follow us, what kind of Puget Sound we want and what the destiny of this area is going to be. 120 Jl'lAN, GOVERNMENT, AND THE SEA: PERSPECTIVES ON DEMOCH.f\_CY J. H. O'Brien, English Dept., The humanist's role, I take it, is no to propose a solution to the problems of fishing land-use or shore management but to a context for discussion. A consideration of three racy seems pertinent, even this consideration seems to make the plight of the fishermer1 look almost solution. The croubles of the fishermen are compounded the We have multigovernments rather than a clear orderly line of A fisherman doesnit know which government body, ~~ a counc:ll, a court, an administrative agency, will next direct his occupation. ungovernable in many ways; consider for of New York City and the financial straits of the schools in this state. A first principle of democracy is that its arms should be made for the people. The the does not refer to the maj of citizens but to the i;11elfare or the common The living and dead and those to come in the future. Policies should be mad•2 in conformity to the traditions, the values, and the term needs of the people, Politicians often ma,intain the rhetoric of the common w.::lfar,3, but in they succumb to the factions, pressure groups, 1u1d special ir1teres ts,. Bec.ause of t11e of raodern issues arid t11e r1eed for i:m.rnediate actions~ as ~.le 1~n.01v :'! ofte11 ha\re undue influence in es a. f a:tth, is that i t can develop feasible solution can reach an But faith in reason has eroded; is :rampant; often money has more of an issue. Yet the of full influence than careful examination is honored in the existenee of this conference and in the for~~ mat of many legislative and administrative and invest ionc', One almost despairs when he considers the amount of work necessary for the writing of any satisf I b,~lieve all here realize that the price of democracy in fundamental brainwork is than anyone eve:r expected. My third principle of that is misunderstood or is This of course is that rights must be much like the aristocratic Aristocracies declined in b.3cauae of th-eir failure to ass1:rme responsibi1iti·es that Vlent -~witl1 their pri\Jileges .~ ilill de·mocracies declir1e and bec8Jme ·weak. because of a v;ide,. ., lac"k: of respons arnortg the and ·? t1uc1"1 has gr0\4TI {)Et of Sir ~Jilliarn Black.sto11.e. , s crclebrated ~:,;,-or1~ on the --· LaY,tJS of in_ the rrriddle Oi..<;; - --- - - ---'"---ceri tury,, Blac ~_(Stone ·held tha r sectn::-i ty of persor1 -,~'!as t1-1e firs right of the individual, that was his second erqr ·was the third absolute in every may more readily be acceptea as an absolute r in .;:,,::.~~::.::.,::.~~::...,._ ~·· ~· 121 than in a rapidly shifting industrial society. In the 19th century many industrialists abused this right in tragic proportions. The public was literally damned in many instances. But this laissez-faire approach to property was answered by the cry of Karl Marx and others that abolishing private property was the first means of relieving the distress of the working class. One absolute statement created its opposire. Perhaps there is something in human nature that leads those with power and privilege to neglect responsibilities, but it seems that the democratic order would use its power to check the pm<1er of the irresponsible. Democratic agencies should and must regulate rivalries. This combination of rights and responsibilities lies at the heart of many current controversies. Will oil companies assume a "collective responsibility" to manage the development and distribution of their product? Will corporations manage not only the natural resources but will they take some responsibility for the injured, the dead, the displaced, the unemployed? The welfare state has assumed many of these responsibilities but changes in industrial or post-industrial society are so large, sweeping, and expensive that the state can take care of only the most obvious damage. In conclusion, I suggest that a constant re-examination and re-applica~ tion of the principles that democracy demands policies made for the benefit of the people, that it requires full debate, that it insists that rights are to be accompanied by responsibilities. This is a framework for ing the problems of fishermen and lumbermen, of factory and office workers. These considerations will not resolve problems, for men are weak and corruptible, greedy and ambitious, and often crueL But without some deep awareness of these principles we will compound human suffering, misery and injustice. 122 THE INDIAN FISHERIES: A REPORT ON THE PANEL DISCUSSION Keith A. Murray Department of History, W.W.S.C. The evening session of the "Man, Government, and the Sea" Conference on Thursday, September 18, was concerned with the subject of "The Indian Fisheries." The participants included Lewis A. Bell of Everett, attorney for the Tulalip Indians for the past twenty-five years; Sam Cagey, VicePresident of the Lummi Tribal Council; Landy James, the spokesman for the Swinomish Indians; Milo Moore of Mount Vernon, formerly Washington state Director of Fisheries and a commercial fisherman himself; and Don Moos, former legislator and the current Director of Fisheries for Washington. Keith A. Murray of Western Washington State College was the moderator of the session. Other participants represented primarily the people most interested in fisheries problems--Indians from the Lummi and Swinomish people, as well as Caucasian fishermen from northern Puget Sound. Some 250 persons made up the audience. The session began with a short statement by the moderator in which he gave the treaty background of today's problem. He quoted from Article Three of the Medicine Creek Treaty of December 27, 1854, in which the Government and the various Indian representatives agreed that, "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, provided, however, that they shall not take shellfish from any beds staked or cultivated by citizens ..• " The agreement was certified with appropriate signatures and consideration of gifts and annuities. The moderator also noted that the term "citizens" in 1854 meant Caucasians. Mr. Bell opened his remarks with a short statement giving something of the background for the litigation of the Indians against the state fisheries department. He predicted that the present controversy over the Boldt Decision of March 1974 would someday be accepted by the white fishermen, and that eventually it would be the best weapon that ecologists and environmentalists would have to reduce pollution at the very "grounds and stations" the Treaty had guaranteed for the harvesting of fish. Much of these grounds and stations have been badly damaged by landholders, industry, and urban development instead of being preserved for the fisheries. Mr. Cagey offered in his presentation the information that when the Indians controlled their own fishing grounds, there were tremendous runs of salmon, halibut, and large numbers of herring in Puget Sound, along with many less valuable species. He asserted that the Indians took only enough fish for their own use, did not waste the resource, and that there were ample supplies of fish for all who lived along the shores of Puget Sound, including the white settlers. It was only in the latter part of 123 the nineteenth century, when commercial fisheries controlled by Caucasian entrepreneurs came into the Sound, that the halibut disappeared, the salmon runs were reduced, and the herring fisheries endangered. He further noted that the Indians had not begun the cutting of the forests of the Nooksack or Skagit flood plains which when undertaken later resulted in tons of silt being deposited in the deltas of the two rivers; it was white business interests that had done this. He noted that Indians had built no factories to pollute or block the spawning streams. He told of his father who had seen barge loads of fish caught in the traps off Lunnni Island or in Bellingham Bay being so overloaded with fish that the canneries could not handle them, and the fish had to be dumped in Rosario Strait from the barges. He concluded by noting that the Indians were actually entitled to more than they were now catching, and that the white fishermen, not realizing the actual source of their problems were blaming the Indians although the native Americans were catching only a minor fraction of the total harvest. The real culprit for the reduced catches by the white fishermen was industry and its accompanying pollution. Mr. James read a short statement that he had written praising Judge Boldt's courage in making an unpopular, but just decision, one which the Indians believed to be only simple justice. He said that the Indians were heartened at long last to receive fair treatment, and he concluded by saying, "God bless Judge Boldt!" Mr. Milo Moore cited his long experience with fisheries both as a commercial fisherman himself, and as a public official under two governors who charged him with the management and preservation of the fisheries of Washington. He noted that the beginnings of restoration of the salmon runs after the overfishing of the early twentieth century came with the hatchery program, encouraged if not instituted under his guidance while Director of Fisheries. He asserted that since the Indians had had little part in the hatchery program, they were therefore not entitled to a fixed percentage of the fish, for the wild fish they were entitled to were only a part of the total salmon caught, and that tax-paying citizens should be allowed to harvest what their taxes had paid for. He charged that the scientists in the University of Washington School of Fisheries and the State Department of Fisheries, whom they advised, were a detriment rather than an aid to the restoration and preservation of the anadromous fisheries of Puget Sound. The final speaker from the panel was Mr. Don Moos, State Director of Fisheries. Mr. Moos told of his own concern over the fisheries problems, and of his difficulties in administering the various programs he was charged to maintain. He defended his decision to establish "terminal fishing" regulations for Puget Sound and the Straits of Juan de Fuca as being the only way to separate wild and hatchery fish. He complained, with illustrations, of the kinds of pressures to which he had been subjected since the Boldt Decision, but seemed to feel that the problems related to the industry could be solved if those involved would show some good will toward one another. A short question-and-answer period then took place between the members of the panel. Most participants reiterated the points they had made in their main presentations. Where some of their statements were challenged, they defended their original positions with some heat. 124 The moderator then opened the session for questions from the audience to be directed at one or more of the panel members. Most of the questions turned out to be statements of personal points of view, though phrased as questions. Some defended the rights of Indians in general, and of their right to fish in particular. Some others attacked the Boldt decision with great fervor. It should be noted, however, that while the audience felt strongly one way or another, supporting some positions with applause, tempers were kept under control, and the meeting took place in an atmosphere of rational discussion, The most productive of the questions involved two ects ., The first raised the question, made Judge Boldt decide that Indians were. entitled to 50% of the fish caught in waters?'' This led immed-· iately to a question directed to the moderator asking what Governor Stevens meant when his negotiating team said that Indians could harvest fish "in common" with other citizens of Washington? The moderator gave as his opinion that Stevens did not mean so much an equal division of the catch as he did that anyone,, Indian or white, could have the right to capture as many fish as possible. He noted that in 1854 there were so many fish of all kinds available that it wouid not have occurred to anyone that there would ever be a shortage of the resource, and a division along some proportional rule would have seemed absurd. Stevens and the United States commissioners wanted land from the Indians, not fish. The second. question dealt with whether the Boldt decision could be challenged in Courts of Appeal as being unconstitutionaL The discussion revolved around the issue of the weighting of treaties, even when by Indian tribesmen rather than sovereign nations, as against the provisions of the United States Constitution. In general, the legal minds in. the audience agreed that treaties were of equal value with the amendments to the Constitution, and tha.t from the Boldt decision based on constitutional grounds were not likely to be successful. 125 GOVERNMENT AND THE SOUND: A LEGISLATIVE REPORT Senator H. A. "Barney" Goltz I. INTRODUCTION Delegates to the Conference: First of all, I would like to express my personal appreciation to Dr. Manfred Vernon and Dr. James Scott for creating and organizing this conference, and to the Bureau for Faculty Research and the Center for Pacific Northwest Studies for sponsoring it under the grant from the Washington Commission for the Humanities. As one member of the Washington State Legislature, whose district borders on Northern Puget Sound and extends to the Strait of Georgia, I can assure you that the conference topic, "Man, Government and the Sea: Northern Puget and the Strait of Georgia," is relevant to many concerns of state legislators. I shall try ih the time allotted to me to identify some of the major areas and to outline some of the ways which the Washington State Legislature is dealing with these matters. I am grateful to the Senate Research staff for their assistance with this report. It is apparent to me that Puget Sound is regarded by the people of this state as a state resource which is of great value to all of us. Legislative actions have been taken for many years to develop this resource and at the same time to protect it. Occasionally these efforts come into sharp conflict and legislators have great difficulty in sorting out the truth, in balancing the trade-offs and preserving the long range values which most of us believe we are charged to do in the public's interest. For this reason this conference is especially appreciated, for it adds to our store of knowledge about Puget Sound, and it focuses public attention on its potential and its problems. These are prerequisites to sound public policy--and I mean sound Puget Sound policy in this instance. It is my belief that the State Legislature wishes to preserve Puget Sound as a multipurpose body of water, and that it will not knowingly allow one purpose to totally displace another. These major purposes are the production of food (primarily fish and shellfish), connnerce (primarily sea lanes for ships, and the development of ports in support of agricultural, wood processing, oil refining and other heavy worldwide industrial enterprises) and recreation (primarily boating, fishing and shoreline activities). In this effort to preserve Puget Sound, the state is much concerned about maintaining the quality of the water and in regulating the activities on the water and along the shorelines, and all of this eventually will mean the preservation of a Northwest life style and quality of life as we know it--or not! Today some of the hottest political issues of the state (exempting abortion and capital punishment) are centered on Puget Sound. Not all of these are strictly state matters either, and for that reason the state has the further legal and practical need to establish correct relationships 126 and understandings with the Federal government and with the Canadian Government and the Province of British Columbia. For it was Federal Judge Boldt who gave the opinion which caused the State Fisheries Department to drastically alter its policies and administrative procedures. Also on the waters there are potential conflicts between the U. S. Coast Guard and the Department of Ecology as to who has responsibility for what, should a major oil spill occur. And, of course, we are especially aware in this northwest corner of the interrelationships of our waters and shorelines with those of British Columbia. While I will not take time to fully discuss the massive state program which coordinates the operation of the state's eighteen vessel Puget Sound ferry system, I should point out that the program is funded through legislative appropriations involving a subsidy as well as from the fees collected. The biennial cost of the system will be almost twelve million dollars, and a new vessel will be added during this period. Many North Puget Sound areas would be almost isolated without the system. This conference has already examined the state's involvement in the whole fisheries industry and this paper shall not attempt to duplicate that comprehensive presentation. But let us now examine some of the other efforts which the state legislature has made to meet its responsibilities and its goals for Puget Sound. II. THE SHORELINE MANAGEMENT ACT OF 1971 The legislature, during the special session of 1971, enacted a Shoreline Management Act. (Chapter 286, Laws of 1971, 1st Extraordinary Session.) This act was important in a number of respects. It was clearly oriented to the protection of the natural resources from the following language of its policy section: 1. That unrestricted construction on the privately or publicly owri.ed shorlines of the state is not in the best public interest. 2. Coordinated planning is necessary in order to protect the public interest associated with the shorelines of the state. 3. Private property rights consistent with the public interest should be recognized. 4. A clear and urgent demand exists for a planned, rational and concerted effort, jointly performed by federal, state and local governments, to prevent the inherent harm in an uncoordinated and piecemeal development of the state's shorelines. 5. It is the policy of the state to provide for the management of the shorelines of the state by planning for and fostering all reasonable and appropriate uses. 6. The policy of the act is designed to insure the development of the shorelines in a manner whereby, while allowing for limited reduction of rights of the public in the navigable waters, will promote and enhance the public interest. 127 7. The policy contemplates public health, the land waters of the state and generally public rights dental thereto. protecting against adverse effects to the and its vegetation and wildlife, and the their aquatic life, while protecting of navigation and corollary rights inci- 8. The public's opportunity to enjoy the physical and esthetic qualities of natural shorelines of the state shall be preserved to the greatest extent feasible with the overall best interest of the state and the people generally. 9. Uses shall be preferred which are consistent with control of pollution and prevention of damage to the natural environment or are unique to or dependent upon use of the state's shoreline. 10. Alterations of the natural conditions of the natural shorelines of the state, in those limited instances when authorized, shall be given priority for single-family residences, ports, shoreline recreational uses including but not limited to parks, marinas, piers and other improvements facilitating public access to shorelines of the state, industrial and connnercial developments which are particularly dependent on their location or on use of the shorelines of the state and other developments that will provide an opportunity for substantial numbers of the people to enjoy the shorelines of the state. 11. Permitted uses in the shorelines of the state shall be designed and conducted in a manner to minimize, insofar as practical, any resultant damage to the ecology and environment of the shoreline area or any interference with the public's use of the water. It recognized the public's right to use the state's waters described in Wilbour y_. Gallagher. And most importantly, it established the governmental mechanism whereby government might allow for the infringement of public rights on a limited basis. III. LEGISLATIVE POLICIES ON HARBOR DEVELOPMENTS Under the provisions of Section 33, Chapter 286, Laws of 1971, First Extraordinary Session, the Department of Ecology, the Attorney General and the Harbor Line Connnission are directed as a matter of high priority to undertake jointly a study of the locations, uses and activities, relating to the shorelines of cities and towns of the state and submit a report which shall include, but not be limited to the following: 1. Events leading to the establishment of the various harbor lines pertaining to cities of the state; 2. the location of all such harbor lines; 3. the authority for establishment and criteria used in location of the same; 128 4. present activities and uses made within harbors and their relationship to harbor lines; S. legal aspects pertaining to any uncertainty and inconsistency; and, 6. the relationship of federal, state and local governments to regulation of uses and activities pertaining to the area of study. The first Harbor Line Commission was established by the legislature with five members to be appointed by the Governor and the Commission was to go out of existence after two years. When the initial Commission expired, the duties of the Harbor Line Commission were assigned to the State Board of Land Commissioners. When that body was abolished in 1957, the Harbor Line Commission functions were transferred to where they presently reside, with the Board of Natural Resources. The Board of Natural Resources is composed of the Governor, the Superintendent of Public Instruction, the Commissioner of Public Lands, the Dean of the College of Forestry at the University of Washington, and the Director of the Institute of Agricultural Sciences of Washington State University. Agreement by at least three members is necessary before action may be taken. The Natural Resources Board normally meets monthly. Staff work for the Commission is done by the Department of Natural Resources. Harbor lines are established in navigable water abutting cities under the terms of Article XV of the State Constitution for the purpose of: 1. Setting aside a reserved area to satisfy the needs of commerce. 2. Reserving unto the State forever, the control of the State harbor areas. 3. Establishing the maximum seaward extent to which improvements which encumber the water column may be authorized. The legislature chose to provide for the leasing of the harbor areas. Under current law the Department of Natural Resources is charged with the management of harbor areas in salt water. Fresh water harbor areas, however, are under the management of local port districts. All lease applications for harbor areas under the management of the Department of Natural Resources are referred to the local port district, if any, for recommendations as to the nature of the improvements to be placed in the area, the time table for their completion, the rental rate, and other terms and conditions of the lease. The harbor area value is determined by the department with an appeal being possible to a valuation board composed of the county commissioners, the county treasurer, and the county assessor of the county in which the harbor area is located. All improvements in the harbor area are subject to the department's approval and must be started within two years and completed within the time set by the department. When a lease term expires the lessee has a statutory preference to re-lease the area, exercisable within 60 days, but on terms set by the department. All improvements become the property of the state at the end of the lease period thereby making conversion of uses possible. 129 The Harbor Line Commission and the Department of Natural Resources have adopted a policy of limiting the conversion of additional areas of aquatic land to development of connnerce pending completion of a comprehensive study of statewide harbor area needs including information on the degree to which the nation is dependent on Washington State to provide space for commerce. This policy provides that new sites for deep draft commerce development will not be made available prior to completion of such a plan. Establishment of new harbor areas for normal draft commerce is limited to currently developed areas abutting cities and towns which request harbor areas. The policy also limits use of additional state-owned aquatic land for shoreside industries and requires that such industries seek transportation services from existing harbor areas. This policy has been subjected to public review in all but two counties abutting marine waters during 1971 and 1972. IV. WATER POLLUTION AND CONTROL STANDARDS IN THE NORTH PUGET SOUND REGION The waters of Puget Sound away from centers of population and industrial development are generally of excellent quality. Those areas which are essentially free from major pollution sources include the San Juan Islands, Strait of Juan de Fuca, Discovery and Sequim Bays, Admiralty Inlet, Hood Canal, Central Puget Sound, and most of Southern Puget Sound and the Kitsap Peninsula. The existing water quality standards are generally met in these areas at all times of the year. Nutrient values.are what you would expect for normal marine water. Major water pollution problems exist in the heavily industrialized areas and large population centers of Puget Sound. Those identified in the Northern Puget Sound area include Bellingham Bay, Port Angeles, Everett Harbor, and Port Gardiner. There are also areas in the North Puget Sound region where existing or planned activities may seriously affect water quality. These include increased land development and recreational potential of the San Juan Island areas; urban development and the possible large influx of people to the Bremerton-Kitsap Peninsula associated with the construction and operation of the proposed Trident Nuclear Submarine Base; the thermal effects on aquatic organisms of heated water from proposed nuclear electric power plants through cooling, i.e., Kiket Island, Roosevelt Beach; and the possible danger of major oil spills from shipping of Alaskan oil through Northern Puget Sound to the refineries at Anacortes, Ferndale and Cherry Point. Although the general water quality is good, there are a lot of municipal areas which present problems. Bellingham Bay is probably the worst problem in the Northern Puget Sound area. The Georgia Pacific Corporation pulp mill has its industry there and the Department of Ecology is currently negotiating with the pulp mill to try to get the best practical treatment of its waste discharge by July 1977. The City of Bellingham has constructed a new primary treatment plant for domestic sewage at Post Point with an extended diffuser outfall. This plant will one day collect all domestic wastes from the city of Bellingham and the waterfront areas, which should significantly improve the bacteriological quality of Bellingham Bay. 130 Everett has become the shining light of the Department of Ecology's efforts to improve water quality standards in the North Puget Sound area. Two major industries operating pulp mills are residenced at Everett. One is the Scott Paper Company and the other is the Weyerhaeuser Company. To remedy the poor water quality in the area of Everett, the Department of Ecology, through a request from the Governor's office, contracted with others and decided on what improvements they expected to see from the money spent for pollution control. Over a three year period they expected to see such things as an increase in the salinity of the water, a lower sulfite waste liquor concentration, a higher level of dissolved oxygen in the water, more crab larvae and plankton, and more clams. This was their measure from the start, and they have seen improvement since Weyerhaeuser shut down and Scott began to treat forty percent of its pulp liquor. Weyerhaeuser has changed the nature of its process while Scott has started to burn off some of its pulp liquor. These improvements were negotiated through the Department of Ecology. The Department is still waiting to see what happens when Weyerhaeuser starts up again with its new thermal mechanical ground wood mill. The Port Angeles area has improved over the last few years. Toxicity is still a problem from the mills that are gone or shut down, because residuals are still affecting the water quality standard. Improvement is expected over a period of time. The ITT pulp mill is the only problem left in this area. It has made substantial changes. It has reduced its total solids load by burning some of its wastes, a process similar to the Scott Paper Company's process, and it has diffused more of its wastes into the deep water. There is also concern in the legislature over pollution which comes from pleasure boats and other larger commercial craft discharging raw sewage into Puget Sound waters, pumping bilges and tossing large quantities of debris over the side. The state has put stringent requirements on its own ferries to minimize this pollution source, but it is a vexing problem to police other pollution sources and it would probably be totally unacceptable to demand expensive sewage holding equipment on every boat which would be allowed to ply Puget Sound waters. V. OIL POLLUTION The Department of Ecology has three primary responsibilities with respect to oil spills: (1) to respond to each incident in an effort to identify the source, cause and the responsible party; (2) to insure that clean-up action is initiated and that it is adequate; and (3) to assess environmental and property damages resulting from the spilled oil as required by Washington statute~ It should be noted that the department's program is done in coordination with the federal program of the Coast Guard. The department has an extensive program of investigation and oil spill clean-up with regard to water, land and ground water spills, although that program has not been funded to the extent necessary for fully adequate protection of the state's waters. Washington State is a national leader in oil pollution prevention and control. The 1969, 1970, 1971 and 1972 State Legislatures developed one of the strongest and most comprehensive laws in the nation to deal with oil 131 pollution abatement. The Act imposes unlimited liability on those that spill oil for clean up and for damages, both public and private, resulting from spilled oil. In cases where the spiller is unwilling or unable to remove the spilled oil the Department is authorized to initiate clean-up, billing the violator for clean-up costs. Where negligence or intention is involved in an oil spill punitive damages may be assessed against the the spiller up to $20,000. Oil spills in Washington State have shown a continuous increase with 19 spills reported to the Department of Ecology in 1965, to an estimated 1,200 in 1974, although part of the increase is due to better reporting procedures established by the Department. The threat of a massive oil spill in the waters of Washington State is becoming more apparent every day. During the last year, clean-up of catastrophic spills continuously has been in process somewhere in the world. A catastrophic spill is defined as being a million barrels of crude oil approximately, but sources from the Department of Ecology said that 100,000 barrels would be a sufficient quantity of crude oil to cause a major catastrophe in Washington State. In 1972, 500 barrels of oil were released by accident at Cherry Point. As a result of this spill interim oil pollution prevention and control programs were initiated. The program was implemented August 1, 1972, to protect the waters of the state until the 1973 State Legislature could act upon a more profound and permanent type of program. Primary priorities of the interim program were: (1) to continue the Department's on-going oil spill investigations and clean-up programs; (2) initiate an oil handling facility inspection and inventory program; (3) monitor bulk oil transfers between ship and shore facilities; (4) conduct an inventory of wastes generated in the state and identify the sources, disposal quantities and disposal methods of such materials; (5) determine whether or not such projects could bring about a reduction of oil spills statewide, and, if so, qualify such reductions. The interim program managed to improve the performance by workmen and increase the performance standards of oil handling facilities, help to reduce the number of oil spills occurring in the state and reduce the quantity of oil spills. The Department of Ecology records show that more than three oil spills per day are reported to the regional offices. Each week two oil spills occurred that required localized cleanup, and four spills a year occurred that required extensive clean-up. Also, 1,898 oil spills were reported and recorded in Washington State during the period extending from January 1, 1973 through September 30, 1974. The activity which caused 835 of these 1,898 spills was known, while the cause for the remaining spills was unknown. The major source responsible for the spillages was private business, with the statistic of 75 percent responsibility for the spills. Most of these spills have occurred in the northwest region of Washington State around Snohomish, King, Skagit and Whatcom counties. Only the most serious complaints are answered. Although Washington state has one of the most comprehensive acts involving oil spills there has not been any significant advancement in technology since 1969. Marine Oil Pickup Service (MOPS) is the clean-up group that is primarily responsible for clean-up in Puget Sound. This is one of the most organized and best equipped clean-up operations in the area. It assumes 90 to 95 percent of the jobs and is subsidized by the oil industries. The group's ability to efficiently clean up the oil spills is 132 dependent on the type of oil involved and weather conditions at the time of the spill" The DOE submitted a proposed program in February of 1975, The program 1 s emphasis is on prevention of oil spills and an extensive reporting system after spills occuro The DOE would like to have an inventory of waste oil, where and how it is used, and where it is dumped. Although the North Puget Sound is far advanced in its techniques for cleaning up oil spills, the clean~up capacity of any agency or group for a large or catestrophic oil spill is woefully inadequate. The equipment and technology presently available is only effective under ideal weather conditions or in sheltered areas. In open water, under moderately heavy seas, existing oil spill equipment is totally insufficient. As a result, any large oil spill can be expected to cause serious damage to the adjacent shorelines of Puget Sound. The DOE's oil pollution abatement program has declined to the pre~ interim program level since the 1973 State Legislature failed to pass a barrel tax funding expanded programs. Limitations in money and man power and an increased workload from federal contracts associated with Public Law 92-500 have minimized field activities involving pollution complaints and enforcement investigations. At present one man year each is allocated to the northwest region~ the southwest region, and the central office respectively for all activities relating to oil spills. With this limited man power source, only the nucleus of a program is being maintained, but it is very apparent that oil pollution is a serious threat to both our fishing and recreational functions. The Legislature must do all that it can to prevent this threat from being realized, VI. BASELINE STUDY PROGRA.M--~NORTH PUGET SOUND As a result of Senate Bill 2978 enacted during the 1973 session, the legislature requested that the Department of Ecology establish ''a continuing, comprehensive program of systematic baseline studies for the waters of the state." It was the intent of the legislature to aid in the continuing maintenance of water quality standards, especially in the North Puget Sound areas near Bellingham and the Cherry Point refineries, as well as to aid the Department of Ecology in assessing damages for oil spills and oil contamination in the Puget Sound" The law is broad in that the baseline program could involve studies of any of the state's waters. However, it was the intent of the legislature to look at the marine eco~systems in the North Puget Sound area first, The law was approved by the Governor on September 22, 1973, and became effective on December 15, 1973, The Department of Ecology worked during October and November and established an ad hoc advisory connnittee consisting of representatives from the state Departments of Ecology, Fisheries, and Natural Resources, along with representatives from the University of Washington, Western Washington State College, o::he Seatrle Metropolitan Authority (METRO) the Sea Grant Program, and the Federal National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (l'IO.AA), The program present being conducted by the Department of Ecology involves two major parts, first an in depth assessment of the marine biota in the North Puget Sound, and second the ecological relationship of the food chain in the North Puget Sound. This program, which certainly 133 sounded extremely esoteric to legislators, is really one of the first comprehensive state programs which provides the state with enough information to adequately assess oil pollution damage when that damage affects a major public resource. Part of the problem in assessing damage to water and water life is the fact that little information exists in most areas of the United States concerning the actual contents and value of life in the waters where the oil spills occur. With this program we have been able to establish some values for the Puget Sound area. The total value of the North Puget Sound area as established the Department of Ecology, which includes recreation, bird life, sport and commercial fisheries, and property values ranges between $888 million and $971 million. It has been said by experts in the field of economics that these figures may be low, especially given the increasing use of the North Puget Sound resources for commercial foodstuff, such as clams and other shellfish, along with the cmmnercial fish harvesting programs. In the baseline study the legislature spelled out the emphasis of the program by stating that 1;Those waters in which the greatest risk of damage from oil spills exists; those waters which contain marine and freshwater life that is particularly sensitive to toxins contained in crude oil, oil products and oil waste; and those waters which are used or may be used for the harvest, gathering or production of food or food products." Therefore, the first study area chosen by the department was the North Puget Sound area where there are existing petroleum refineries, crude and refined product transfer points, and tanker routes to the refineries. The North Puget Sound is defined by the department as those marine waters and sub~ merged lands of Skagit Whatcom and San Juan Counties. When the scientific data gathering studies are finished in the North Puget Sound, the department is planning to move into other areas of the Puget Sound, probably the port areas of Seattle and Tacoma first. Of course this will depend on funding by the legislature. While the last session of the legislature did not give full funding to the program, it did give adequate funding to con~ tinue the department's baseline study research in the North Puget Sound area. Shipments of oil by way of Puget Sound to the state of Washington's seven major refineries average over 310,000 barrels a day. When the Alaska pipeline is completed, shipments from Valdez through Puget Sound could average as much as two million barrels a day, although no precise figures have been established by the industry or by the state at this time. It was primarily the considerations of oil transportation in the North Puget Sound to which the legislature responded when the baseline program was authorized. It is important to note that in addition to the Department of Ecology's direct effort, the Department has consulted with the Oceanographic Institute and the University of Washington Department of Economics to aid in for the baseline studieso The specific goals of the current program are to: ,,../.\v Determine tl1e ecor!ornic value of natural resources 9 t1umar1 tures and hu:man activities that would be damaged strt1c~ an oil spill; Identify specific areas of the marine waters of Washington that or oil exhibit a high risk of being damaged by an oil pollution; and 134 C. Suggest criteria for siting of oil facilities and oil transport activities that would minimize risk to the natural resources, human structures and activities within the state. So far the study has produced a valuable review and analysis of available information on scientific and social studies of the Puget Sound titled "Oil Pollution and the Significant Biological Resources of the Puget Sound; a Review and Analysis of Available information." The document was prepared by consultants to the department and is a comprehensive review of all of the literature on possible effects of spilled oils and petroleum chemical products on the total Puget Sound. The department is currently conducting field surveys in the North Puget Sound which have produced a preliminary map of the distribution and the relative abundance of the various general habitat types in the North Puget Sound. A continuing detailed biological survey at twenty-one locations in the North Puget Sound is part of the effort of the department to provide data on seasonal changes and on marine eco-systems. VII. OIL AND OTHER TRANSPORTATION - STATE RESPONSE The 1975 Legislature established a limit on the size of oil tankers to be allowed in Puget Sound. After considerable discussion a 125,000 dead weight ton limit was set and signed into law over strong objection of the Puget Sound refinery operators. They pointed out that already somewhat larger tankers are under construction which are intended to serve the refineries at Anacortes and Cherry Point. They also argued for larger tankers as an economic factor in a highly competitive industry and for larger tankers as a safety factor, on the grounds that oil spills due to collision are more closely related to the number of tankers in an area over time rather than to size. Perhaps more importantly they contended that matters of interstate commerce and shipping on marine waters were outside the jurisdiction of the state of Washington. Perhaps the legally established upper limit is not the most appropriate size for Puget Sound needs and may have to be reconsidered by a future legislature. But it does represent, I believe, a strong desire on the part of the Washington State Legislature to be able to set public policy on Puget Sound waters to protect its quality and to assure the continuation of the multiple use concept. It also represents the conviction of the state legislature that it does have jurisdiction over what happens on Puget Sound as long as that legislation is reasonable and necessary to protect the environment and the established interests of the people of the state. This jurisdiction of the state of Washington has now been challenged in the courts by the Atlantic Richfield Company. The outcome of this case will be extremely important to the role of the Washington State Legislature and, I believe, to the rights of local governmental units and the people of the area as well. Perhaps a few words should be said about state policy regarding oil transport on Puget Sound--at least as it appears to one legislator in the absence of a formal state policy resolution. I believe the state of Washington is committed to having sufficient in-state refinery capacity to 135 meet our regional petroleum-based energy requirements. That region extends beyond Washington into the lower mainland of British Columbia, to northern Idaho and Northern Oregon. While that capacity has been supplied in large part by Canadian crude coming through the Transamerica pipeline from Alberta, it now appears that changing Canadian policy will make Washington refineries largely, and eventually wholly, dependent on other sources. That means that we must be prepared to accept sufficient crude oil by tanker to maintain the long-term petroleum energy requirements of our region. Much of this oil will come from the Alaskan North Slope, and tankers are the only means to bring it here. Such increased tanker traffic raises complex questions as to how this can be accomplished with safety and without threatening the other valuable uses of the Sound--namely fisheries and recreation. The state of Washington, through its Legislature, takes those questions seriously. In addition to limiting tanker size, it has passed legislation requiring a tug escort for certain tankers entering Puget Sound. It has established requirements and standards for pilots to guide ships while in Puget Sound waters. It has placed responsibility and liability on the users of the Sound, and it has established a state agency to monitor oil transport and to assess damage when spills occur. It has financed a study by the Washington State Oceanographic Commission to determine the feasibility of an oil port outside Puget Sound waters with a pipeline connection across the Sound to service the existing refinery complexes. There are some of us in the Legislature who believe that without strong and clear action by the State Legislature to effect the policy outlined above, a different policy will be established by default of the state of Washington, and by the affirmative acts of certain strong economic interests. I speak to the real possibility that Puget Sound could become the major United States receiver of Alaskan oil, and the area could be converted to the major petroleum refining, storing and transshipping center for the Western United States, and even for parts of the Midwest. There is no doubt that our sheltered deep water ports at Anacortes and Cherry Point are among the best in the world. We are close to the southern terminal of the Aleyeska pipeline at Valdez. We have established refinery sites and technical capability. We have an existing and potentially available Transamerica Pipeline capacity which might be reversed to carry refined products from Puget Sound refineries to Midwest markets. We have rather large and inexpensive land areas suitable for huge storage capacity tank forms. We have a potential growth in petrochemicals and related industries which some people see as a solution to our chronic unemployment. While no one from the oil industry has spelled out such a scenario to the Legislature, some of us are suspicious that the larger tankers being built have a capacity much in excess of current and projected regional refinery capability. Only an expanded industry could justify such vessels here. If this is true then the Legislature has a responsibility to determine necessary policies and laws to effect and affect the desired public result. 136 VIII. OCEAN RANCHING PROPOSAL The thrust of House Bill No. 121, which is presently being considered by the House and Senate, is to authorize the private ownerships of releaserecapture salmon rearing facilities such that these fish when released into private waters would contribute in a significant way to the sport and commercial fishery in the state of Washington and also provide returning fish to the private hatchery owner upon their recapture. It is felt that this is consistent with the wise and prudent use of this state's resources since this kind of industry is a nonpolluting one and requires high quality water in order to carry out its operation in raising fish. The Washington State Legislature would direct the Washington State Department of Fisheries to regulate these privately reared salmon so that no curtailing of the harvest of salmon by the sport and commercial fishers of the state occurs. Furthermore, these private fish cultural facilities must operate without adversely affecting other salmon stocks in the state of Washington and permit reasonable segregation of returning privately reared salmon from naturally recurring stocks and hatchery propagated stocks. In the proposal the legislature would recognize that the current State programs of artificial propagation are limited by budgetary constraints and would foresee the possibility of privately reared salmon as operating in an additive way to existing State programs to enhance the general salmon fishery for the state of Washington. The need for such a program is evidenced by the declining stocks of salmon along the Pacific Coast. The Pacific Coast salmon catch has declined from approximately 800 million pounds in 1936 to 410 million pounds in 1970, and specifically in Washington State from 74 million pounds in 1935 to 59 million pounds in 1973. Artificial propagation programs by the Washington State Department of Fisheries have shown that this decline can be turned around due to modern hatchery methods of propagating Pacific Salmon. Other States and Canada also have had similar successes with salmon enhancement. This is clearly the way to restore the salmon runs to their original historical level. Private industry can contribute capital, facilities, and technical expertise to help in this restoration program to the benefit of Washington State citizens. Therefore, we feel that it is in the best interest of the State of Washington that private industry play a role in the program of enhancing the salmon resource. The impact on the total salmon industry would be to provide more income and jobs to a large number of people, ranging from fishermen to processing workers, and finally to warehousing and transport workers who move salmon products to market. Sport fishermen will directly benefit by increasing the opportunity to catch more salmon in the Sound, enhancing this type of recreational experience. Secondary industries, such as charter boats, sporting good stores, etc., will be the indirect beneficiaries of this kind of program. Since ocean-ranching is currently being practiced in the states of California, Oregon, and Alaska, as well as in the countries of Canada, Japan, and Russia, in a very large way, it is felt that the time for the opportunity is now for this kind of program in Washington State. Washington State has always been a leader in the salmon industry in the past, and we see an opportunity to be a leader in the future. 137 IX. WASHINGTON-BRITISH COLUMBIA RELATIONS The Columbia River and the basin which it drains have been subject of conflict and negotiations since the establishment of the International Joint Commision (IJC) under the Boundary Water Treaty of 1909. Seattle City Light operates two dams, Diablo and Ross, which block the powerful Skagit River. Problems have arisen, however, as Seattle City Light has proposed to raise Ross Lake to a mean elevation of 1,725 feet above sea level at the international boundary between B.C. and Washington. By raising the dam itself 122-1/2 feet at its face, the resulting rise in water level will flood some 8,230 acres of prime wilderness, most of it across the border in British Columbia. Some of you might be familiar with the situation at Pt. Roberts where during the summer of 1973 the Point ran short of water and had to have some trucked in. This plus other problems which have been brewing for some time caused the IJC to intervene and make certain recommendations which were not readily accepted by most residents of the area. At this point, the Washington State Legislature came into the picture with the establishment of a select committee to try to respond to some of the recommendations of the IJC relating to certain problems at the Point. It was the select committee's opinion and also that of the IJC that the local governments should attempt working together in solving mutual problems, and if unable to do so, seek additional support from the corresponding state and/or federal governments. In September, 1974 a symposium on Canadian-American relations was held at Western Washington State College. Funds for the symposium were appropriated by the Washington State Legislature in response to Premier Barrett's call for mutual cooperation between the state and province in the search for answers to common problems. The principal participants were members of the two legislative bodies. The legislators were also the prime beneficiaries and the programs were designed to enable them to interact with their counterparts across the border, thus extending the informal workshop relationship at the departmental level of government. Partly as a result of the success of the symposium held in Bellingham, the Washington State Legislature recently passed a concurrent resolution establishing a select committee of Washington state legislators to meet periodically with a similar group of B.C. legislators to discuss mutual problems. The B.C. parliament will not reconvene until October; however, the B.C. government is aware of the resolution and we are hopeful they will be likewise interested in passing such a resolution. We are hoping that this resolution will lead to more coordinated programs between Canada and Washington in the North Puget Sound and the Straits of Georgia. X. LOG AND DEBRIS REMOVAL PROGRAMS For a long time Washington has authorized the removal of merchantable debris and salvageable lumber from its tidal waters. In 1973 the legislature addressed the additional problem of non-merchantable and uneconomically salvageable materials that were causing hazards for commercial vessels and pleasure boats in Puget Sound waters. At the time the measure was passed, merchantable stray logs were recovered and removed from tidal 138 waters by licensed log patrolmen. Part of that revenue derived from the sale of these logs was used to compensate the log patrolmen. No value was realized from unmerchantable logs, and therefore they were left in the waters. Those logs were navigational hazards to the boating public as well as to commercial navigation on the Sound. It has been estimated that the debris in tidal waters caused between $800,000 and $1 million damage per year to pleasure boats in Puget Sound. No estimate had been made of the damage to commercial vessels but there was an indication that the damage was extensive. Floating logs which were not picked up by the log patrol as authorized under RCW 76.40 tended to absorb water and assume a 45 to 90 degree angle in the water. Since they were nearly totally submerged, they were difficult to see. At that time boaters in Washington had participated in a program to flag the logs and the Army Corps of Engineers had agreed to remove flagged logs. The Coast Guard had approved of the private program and agreed to remove flagged logs, but the problem was so extensive that some state assistance was recommended. House Bill No. 134 authorized the Department of Natural Resources to remove debris from tidal waters which were not merchantable or economically salvageable under the Log Patrol Act. The bill created a new chapter to Title 76 of the RCW's and allowed the Department to contract, license, or permit the removal of unmerchantable debris by a licensed log patrolman, by department employees, by other public bodies, or by private contractors. The chapter in no way prohibits any individual from using non-merchantable wood debris for his own personal use and it does not involve any nontidal waters such as rivers, streams and lakes. Together, Chapter 76.40 authorizing log patrols and the new 76.42 authorizing wood debris removal from navigable waters provide a comprehensive program to alleviate the damage from unsecured floating debris and logs, especially in the shipping lanes in the North Puget Sound area. XI. CONCLUSION In closing, I have tried to acquaint you with some of the areas of concern of the Washington State Legislature about Puget Sound and to report on some of the actions taken and projected. As you can see, this covers a wide range of topics about shorelines, harbors, water quality, water transport, fishing and aquaculture, recreation and governmental relations. These are human activities associated with our marine waters. Truly it is a melding of man, government, and the sea. This conference has been extremely helpful in bringing expert attention to the problems and potentials of Puget Sound. I am sure the resulting media publicity and publications will preserve and spread its benefits to many others for years to come. But most important of all, it has brought enlightenment to a public which must ultimately decide on policies for the area. For this the Washington State Legislature owes its appreciation to conference organizers and participants alike. 139 CAN WE HAVE PUGET SOUND AND EAT IT TOO? Al Swift Public Affairs Director KVOS T.V. Participating in this panel discussion were: Barney Goltz, State Senator; Robert McAbee, San Juan County Planner; James Scott; Manfred Vernon; and Al Swift as moderator. The common answer to the topic question was "No, we cannot have Puget Sound and eat it too." The need to define benefits, determine trade-offs and establish priorities if the people of Western Washington are to obtain the maximum benefits from this vast resource was stressed again and again, but there was general pessimism among the panel members as to whether this rational approach would ever be adopted. At the outset, panel members felt the need to establish priorities for the uses of Puget Sound. "How do we determine what uses we can have," Al Swift asked. "How do you determine what each will cost in terms of dollars, other economic implications and in terms of environmental damage. How do you determine the implications of one use for all other potential uses? How should we define the word 'benefit'?" Some of these he suggested were purely technical questions that could be answered relatively easily were research funds available, but the last question was essentially a value judgement. James Scott stressed that Puget Sound has multiple needs and must offer multiple uses. To accomodate them, rational planning was essential. Yet the establishment of goals must really come first, bringing people face to face again with values. The prevailing view of the panel seemed to be that human greed, evidenced in both individuals and groups, was the major hindrance to establishing the needed policies, priorities and restrictions that could facilitate the broadest possible uses of the Sound while preserving its basic nature. "Until this basically materialistic society really inventories what it reels to be the fundamental and elementary factor of life--the things it holds dear--I don't think we're going to make a hell of a lot of progress in protecting this Puget Sound area," was the view of Robert McAbee. Senator Goltz underscored that point by suggesting that a new personal ethic regarding the environment generally, and Puget Sound in particular was necessary. He called for an ethic of conservancy in which people would "limit energy requirements as individuals." He also urged a new ethic concerning growth. The Senator expressed the need for substantially more research and study to develop the information upon which wise decisions about uses of the Sound could be based. But he noted a reluctance of the Legislature to invest in such research. Manfred Vernon, in pointing out that there are limits to the uses of the Sound, noted that so frequently we polarize debate, making the search for priorities and compromises vastly more difficult. He cited the Judge Boldt decision concerning Indian fishing rights and the transportation of 140 oil on Puget Sound. Al Swift, in turn, recalled the furor over the international park proposal of the Point Roberts Joint Commission. In each of these, ~motionalism seemed to take hold and polarization develop almost at once. Hence, little in the way of goal-setting resulted. Angry debate was the main consequence. Such a state of affairs virtually stops progress toward the development of priorities. Dr. Vernon noted that all would have to surrender many of the things they individually wanted for private and selfish reasons, and Senator Goltz summed up by saying that Government must become the major force to bring people together and to reduce the emotionalism that gets in the way of rational action. 141 THE CONFERENCE ASSESSED Murray Morgan The discussions of the past five days leave me impressed not so much by the magnitude of the problems we face as by their multiplicity and com~ plexity and their incestuous interrelationship. As we have reviewed the varying patterns of social organization and activity around this inlet sea, the problems seem to have multiplied not like rabbits but like amoeba, dividing and subdividing into ever more manifestations of conflicting interests. Old problems neither die, nor fade away. They only change their shape a little. But with solutions, we seem to have attained that new ideal: negative population growth. With the exception of Dr. Monahan's stimulating rundown of rational--albeit politically difficult--possibilities and Senator Goltz 1 s interesting suggestion this morning of a fish bank. President Olscamp in his welcoming remarks touched on a theme that has run through all of the discussions: that of the filling up of the areao The increasing density of population has been a factor in every problem--be it shoreline management, recreation, the fisheries, whiteIndian population, industrial growth) transportation, political organization. It was accepted as a given, Nobody proposed doing anything about it --that would be the charge of a different conference (or a different discipline)--but the question of continued growth was always there, exacerbating the conflicts between existing interests, widening the differences between those who hope to keep things as good as they still are and those who feel desperately the need to make changes to forestall possible disaster, Even if we were to achieve zero population growth genetically, there would remain the problem of in-migration to an area which no one disputed remains desirable, A hundred years ago, when the Northern Pacific was being built toward Puget Sound, the population that a transcontinental railroad would bring was looked on as a solution. Today, it is part of the problem. Back in the days of the Joint Occupation of this area by Britain and the United States, Secretary Calhoun suggested an A. n1erican policy of mast~ erly inactivity, saying that American migration would inundate the Oregon Country; a Congressman whose name escapes me put it more colorfully; he pointed out that Americans were bringing their women west, the H.B.Co. was bringing only males, "We will, ' 1 said the Congressman, Oregon in our bedchambers. We will outbreed them." It was a valid threaL The possibility played a part in the British decision to yield Puget Sound. But one of the most fascinating discussions during the last five days was that in which the Canadian representatives pointed out that Vancouver is now growing at the rate of 40,000 a year (equivalent of the population of Bellingham); that the trend seems likely to continue, and that it behooves the people on this side of the line to get their house in order to receive a great many visitors~~and land speculators. 142 ~, \ noJ In an ironic reversal of the Canadian-U.S. relationship it is we, B.C., who in Pierre Trudeau's phrase must learn to sleep with the elephant • ••• The problems of Vancouver's urbanization are exportable. What is in short supply is good will and the machinery for harnessing what good will and coI!llilon sense exists. There is no instrument readily at hand for pooling information on urban problems at regional levels. "If you want to know something, give us a call," said Dr. Hardwick with amiable bluntness. But it clearly would be better to have some kind of on-going discussion, even if diplomatic and constitutional niceties make it almost impossible for regional groups to implement their decisions. Dr. Hardwick, in an aside, mentioned that British Columbia has simply written off their federal government. They are tackling problems on their own. And the presentation of the Canadian delegates did seem to reflect long range planning, a correlation of policy with planning, and a social discipline somewhat more advanced than we manifest. A reporter's instinct reminds me, however, that we were hearing from the governors, not the governed. Judge Boldt's statements on the role of the federal judiciary in the American life might not match those of the gillnetters. The problems intertwine. But naturally most of us were most interested in hearing statements reflecting our own interests and positions. The audience for Director Moos and former Director Moore was very different from that which heard Erna Gunther's eloquent discussion of the culture which was here before ours--and was overwhelmed by a migration of strangers. Dr. Tom Terich's discussion of the changing shoreline was an impressive documentation of th~ way problems grow out of benefits. The growth of population, the building of roads, the increase in leisure, the development of concrete technology, and the assumption a man controls his own property, has led to the dalllliling of the rivers of sand that comprise our beaches. In misguided efforts accretion requires erosion. To enhance a bit of beach they destroy the beach. Dr. Scott's statistics on the extraordinary amount of land dedicated to the. automobile was another example of a major problem--a disaster-which can come from the well-meaning efforts to meet particular problems without adequate concern for the wider picture. The Boldt decision on Indian fisheries grows out of the failure of Governor Stevens to consider the ramifications of the treaties he imposed on the Indians in 1854 and 1855. The problem was to establish U.S. title to the land and to get the Indians out of the way of what Stevens and his constituents, to a man, considered progress. Stevens solved one problem-his decision was ratified by war--but the descendants of white constituents now pay a price. On the other hand, the discussion of the various aspects of the fisheries problems showed how complicated even single aspects, can be. Fish hatcheries seem an obvious good, but one within our technological and economic capacity. But as was demonstrated yesterday the conflict between the political leadership and the staff experts has not been solved. If they can't work out what they need to do among themselves, they may be justified in feeling that they don't need advice from others. If you are your own veto, you don't need a President. 143 Dr. O'Brien, in his perceptive response to yesterday's discussion of fisheries, remarked the seeming paralysis of government, and spoke of the need to rethink old assumptions, to adapt institutions so that while still meeting the demands of tradition they can more effectively promote the common welfare against the special interest. Dr. Purtill, commenting on the second dayvs talks on port development and shoreline regulation~-after doing the philosopher 1 s warp and woof shuttle between possible ways of looking at problems--came to the personal conclusion that we have responsibilities, that we are the Stewards of Puget Sound, its custodians rather than its possessors; and that the unborn have a right not to be harmed by our actions. Dr. Robert Lawyer, responding to the discussion of oil and transportation--discussions in which the representatives of the oil industry and the environmentalists sailed majestically past each other like tankers on their private lines--spoke to our need for broader perspectives--for the development of an instrument to address intelligently our growing agenda of problems, and to determine the common weal. Our common weal. The corru11on wealth, The common good~ These were terms used scarcely at all by those who spoke as representatives of various groups and institutions, They spoke as advocates of special interests, and the assumption seemed to be that government is and should be an adversary proceeding. I would hope that this conference is an early move toward developing an instrument which can put these problems in a broader perspective. It has been obvious throughout the session how much intelligent planning and energy has gone into the preparation of the agenda and the assembly of speakers, I sense everywhere the dynamism and ebulliance of Dr. Vernon, and we are all very much in his debt. From the experience of this session it may be that at future gatherings the humanists could play a more internal role in the discussions--could somehow be put in a position to point out to the representatives of interest groups when they are talking past each other, when their rhetoric is part of the problem--or even the problem itself; when the humanists-~ playing the uncomfortable role of angel's advocate--could confront the speakers directly as representatives of the common good against the special interest. For in our five days of discussion I believe that only one person representing a constituency (and that was Mary K. Becker) acknowledged a need for the constituency to sacrifice anything, especially power, for the common good. The Congressman, representing federal power, proposed augmenting federal control. The Port Commissioner warned against Seattle power in a Puget Sound Port Authority. The Marine Digest editor from Seattle spoke complacently of accepting what industries feel must be done. The past State Fisheries Director wanted to reduce the power of scientific advisors. The present State Fisheries Director was concerned with the dimunition of his capacity to make managerial decisions by reason of judicial decisions and the disparate authorities of the tribes. The Indians were concerned that Congress would simply take away the redress recently granted them for past wrongs. The gillnetters saw only the high price they are being called on to pay for a history they did not write. The oil industry 144 representative said that what it all boils down to is money and the corporations have to pass the costs to the consumers. It isn't that anybody was against sacrifice. Everyone advocated sacrifice--by somebody else! In this context, let us pause to say thanks to our favorite whipping boys (whipping persons?)--the politicians--the power brokers, the tradeoff artists. To the extent the system works, they make it work. And I must say that the state representatives and bureaucrats who have appeared here struck me as a remarkably fine people. They did not fit the current stereotype of a legislator. But legislators are individuals and cherish power and the agency we assign to think of the common weal will cherish power. In the past 200 years the citizens of the United States have won much freedom. In the past 100 years we in the Puget Sound area have made great gains in population. These gains combined have left us with both freedom-and a sense of powerlessness--of things running, or drifting, out of control. How can we get an effective instrument which is not a greater danger? Our week's review concludes with an expanded agenda of problems; with much more information about many of these problems; with what comfort we may find in the knowledge that intelligent people are studying the problems; with a deeper concern for the inability of our political institutions to serve the common interest. And back, face to face, with the old truth that the person we most need to convince of the benefit, the imperative, of sacrifice for the common good is ourself. 145 SUMM_ARY OF CONFERENCE Phyllis Bultmann The Conference entitled, Man, Government !!:_ the Se~: Northern Puget Sound .§:_ the Strait of Georgia occupied five days (September 15-19, 1975) and took place primarily on the campus of Western Washington State College in Bellingham, Washington. Sponsored by the Bureau for Faculty Research and the Center for Pacific Northwest Studies, it r,;ras directed by Dr. Manfred Vernon (Professor Emeritus of Political Science), planned and executed by a wide variety of participants, and supported by a matching grant from the Washington Commission for the Humanities, The Conference dealt in detail with "The Problems and Possibilities of the Northern Puget Sound," the general outlines of which were posed on Monday morning (September 15) by United States Representative Lloyd Meeds. In exploring this field, various types of presentation were employed: panel discussions, symposia, individual addresses, discussion groups. Supplementing these were informal gatherings at coffee breaks and a reception held at Whatcom County Museum. Field trips to the Port of Bellingham and the Lummi Aquaculture Project (available each day) lent a graphic dimension to the points under discussion. Monday and part of Tuesday were used to lay the background of the more pressing problems facing this region. An historical~ geographical and (marine) biological setting being constructed in this way, the Conference proceeded to a consideration of the present and future circumstances of: L the Port of Bellingham (scope, commercial development, the value of its present local administration); 2. Canada (the part played by Canada in Puget Sound and the Strait of Georgia; probable future relationships across the border; 3. the oil issue (national demands for fuel, as opposed by regional ecological anxieties of Washington residents); and 4. regional transportation (by land and sea, particularly sea freight). Wednesday evening an address on the Indian presence in Puget Sound and the Strait of Georgia brought the Conference into for Thursday 1 s day-long consideration of the fisheries issues which are currently heading the list of sea-problems to be solved men and their governmental agencies. The State Director of Fisheries gave a solidly informative address on the fisheries today, which formed a background for two lively panels that discussed first the future of the fisheries in the state, and second the rights of Indian fishermen as interpreted by the courts. Friday's abbreviated session constituted a summing up; highlighted by State Senator H. A. Goltz 1 s legislative report on government and the Sound; it concluded with a panel that asked: "Can We Have the Sound and Eat It Too?" 146 Each day professional humanists presented commentaries on the ideas dealt with by speakers and panelists. At the close of the several days' meetings they led discussion groups that analyzed these ideas in humanistic terms, and evaluated the ethical and humane standards involved in the problem-solving that men are attempting to do in this area of "Man, Government and the Sea." Humanists, governmental representatives (appointive and elective, on all levels), business and recreation spokesmen, Canadian leg~ islators and educators, and commercial fishermen, as well as a substantial number of media representatives, participated in the panels and programs of the conference. An excellent overview of the issues, offered by humanist Murray Morgan, concluded the conference. Publicity before and during the event drew widespread attention to the work of the Conference. The impact of these detailed airings of issues that concern every citizen could be measured not only in the substantial attendance figures but in the subsequent comments and queries that were directed to Professor Vernon and many of the participants. Television interviews both in Canada and in Washington, were based upon Conference addresses and explored the issues further. Letters to the editors of regional papers indicated widespread interest, and reports upon the Conference found their way to related Conferences, not only in Washington State, but up and down the Pacific Coast. Proceedings of the Conference are being sent to all participants and will be sent to other interested persons upon requesto 147 APPENDIX I BUREAU FOR FACULTY RESEARCH & CENTER FOR PACIFIC NORTHWEST STUDIES WESTERN WASHINGTON STATE COLLEGE Bellingham, Washington 98225 Conference MAN, GOVERNMENT & THE SEA: NORTHERN PUGET SOUND & THE STRAIT OF GEORGIA September 15 through September 19, 1975 Arntzen Hall 100 PROGRAM Monday, September 15: 8:30 a.m. 9:00 a.m. 9:30 a.m. 10:30 a.m. 10:45 a.m. 11:45 a.m. 1:30 p.m. 2:15 p.m. 3:30 p.m. Registration Morning Session, Manfred C. Vernon, Chm. "Welcome to Western"-President Paul J. Olscamp "The Conference Outlined"-Manfred C. Vernon "Problems and Possibilities of the Northern Puget Sound"-The Honorable Lloyd Meeds Coffee Break "Discovery, Exploration and Early Development of the Region" Murray Morgan The Humanises Commentary: Keith A. Murray, History, WWSC Afternoon Session, Bill Clement, Chm. "The Region and Its Natural Resources"-Robert Monahan, Geography & Regional Planning, WWSC Symposium: "Recreational Facilities of Sea & Shore"-Bruce Calhoun, Orcas Island; Bill Daniel, Bellingham Herald; James Hitchman, History Discussion Groups Tuesday, September 16: 8:30 a.m. 9:00 a.m. 10:00 a.m. Registration Morning Session, C. J. (Corky) Johnson, Whatcom County Commissioner, Chm. "The Shoreline and Its Problems"-Tom Terich, Geography & Regional Planning, WWSC Roger Almskaar, Asst. County Planner, Whatcom County "Marine Life in the Sound"-William Summers, Huxley College, Director, Shannon Point Marine Center 148 10:45 a.m. 11:00 a.m. 12:00 noon 2:00 p.m. Coffee Break "Port Development in the Region"-James Hitchman, History, WWSC, & Tom Glenn, Manager, Port of Bellingham The Humanist's Commentary: Richard L. Purtill, Philosophy, wwsc Discussion Groups Field Trips: The Port of Bellingham & Lumm.i Aquaculture Project Documentary Films 7:30 p.m. Evening Session: Symposium: "The Role of Canada in Puget Sound and the Strait of Georgia"-Co-chairmen: The Honorable Robert Wenman, M.P. Fraser Valley West & Bill Honeysett, Publisher, The Bellingham Herald Members: E. H. Vernon, Acting Deputy Minister of Recreation & Conservation, Government of British Columbia; Walter Hardwick, Department of Geography, U.B.C.; Representative Duane Berentson; Don Alper, Political Science, WWSC. Wednesday, September 17: 8:30 a.m. 9:00 a.m. 10:30 a.m. 10:45 a.m. 12:00 noon 2:00 p.m. Registration Morning Session, James W. Davis, Dean of the College of Arts & Sciences, WWSC, Chm. "Oil in the Puget Sound and Strait of Georgia"-Representative Mary K. Becker; Virgil McNabb, Western Oil & Gas Association, Seattle Coffee Break "Regional Transportation"-James W. Scott, Geography & Regional Planning, WWSC; Preston A. Taylor, Editor, Marine Digest, Seattle The Humanist's Commentary: Robert Lawyer, Director, Mable Zoe Wilson Library, WWSC Discussion Groups Field Trips: Port of Bellingham & Lummi Aquaculture Project Documentary Films 7:45 p.m. 8:30 p.m. Evening Session: Garland Grabert, Soc/Anth., WWSC, Chm. Reception--Whatcom Museum of History & Art "The Indian Presence in Puget Sound and the Strait of Georgia" Erna Gunther, Professor Emerita, Department of Anthropology, University of Washington Thursday, September 18: 8:30 a.m. 9:00 a.m. Registration Morning Session, Robert Anderson, Mayor of Everett, Chm. 149 9:00 a.m. 9:45 a.rn. 10: 45 a.m, 11:00 a.m. 11:45 a.m. 2:00 p.m. "The Fisheries Today: Assessing the Problems"-Donald Moos, State Director of Fisheries Panel Discussion: "The Future of the Fisheries"-Peter Zuanich, Chairman of the Commissioners, Port of Bellingham; 'Milo Moore, former State Director of Fisheries, Anacortes; Earl Prentice, U. S, National Marine Fisheries Service, Seattle Coffee Break "The State of Washington Looks at the Puget Sound Region"~ James Dolliver, Administrative Assistant to the Governor The Humanist's Commentary: James O'Brien, English, WWSC Discussion Groups Field trips: Port of Bellingham & Lummi Aquaculture Project Documentary Films 7:30 p.m. Evening Session: Symposium: "The Indian Fisheries"~Keith A. Murray, Chm. Members: Lewis A. Bell, Attorney for Tulalip Tribe, Everett; Sam Cagey Lummi Tribe; Tandy Wilbur, Swinomish Tribe; Milo Moore; Don Moos Friday, September 19: 9:00 a.m. 9:30 a.m. 10:30 a.m. 10:45 a.m. 12:00 noon 12:30 p.m. Registration Morning Session, James W. Scott, Chm. ''Government and the Sound: A Legislative Report"-Senator H. A. (Barney) Goltz Coffee Break Panel Discussion: "Can We Have the Sound and Eat it Too?" Al Swift, Public Affairs Director, KVOS, Bellingham, Chm, Members: Senator Goltz; Robert McAbee, County Planner, San Juan County; James W. Scott; Manfred C. Vernon "The Conference Assessed: A Humanist Reflects 11 -Murray Morgan Conference Adjourns 150
Show less

MABEL: Multimedia Archives Based Electronic Library

Search results

Refine

Date

Type of content

Genre/form

Related Collection

Object custodian

Topics

Place Names