In his recent commentary, Todd Myers from the Washington Policy Center (WPC) presents an ill-informed diatribe against the preservation of the Maury Island nearshore and the environmental groups and elected officials working to protect it.

Myers, a public relations professional with no accredited expertise in environmental policy or Puget Sound recovery efforts, calls the conservation of one of the Sound’s most ecologically rich areas an eco-fad project, offering that the property acquisition being mutually pursued by the environmental community and Glacier Northwest is not supported by the Puget Sound Partnership’s priority list or Action Agenda.

Clearly Myers has not read the very document he notes. If he had, he would know that the Action Agenda specifically defines that the acquisition of high value habitats on the Island is a priority for the central Puget Sound. The local Water Resource Inventory Area or WRIA salmon plan also details the high ecological value of the Maury nearshore and calls for the conservation and acquisition of this vital stretch of habitat. Similarly, the federal recovery plan for chinook directs the area be “given the highest level of protection from development.”

Myers’s assertions that scientific assessments do not rank the project proposal as an environmental threat, and that the recent U.S. District Court ruling overturning the Army Corp permit focused on procedural rather than environmental concerns, are equally devoid of factual basis.

Countless scientists, from orca and salmon experts to arsenic transport specialists, have independently reviewed the project and found clear indication of significant environmental and public health impacts.

Although the regulatory system chose to ignore the science before them, a simple reading of the District Court’s ruling clearly shows concern about the environmental consequences of the proposed project, not procedural paperwork as Myers suggests.

In fact, U.S. District Judge Ricardo Martinez recognized both the cumulative impacts to the critical nearshore area of the proposed project property as well as the failure of the federal agencies to protect the endangered species and critical habitat at the site. Thus he overturned permits due to the Army Corps’ violations of the nation’s most fundamental environmental laws.

While Preserve Our Islands appreciates Myers’s newfound interest in the health of Quartermaster Harbor, his portrayal that protection of the Maury nearshore sacrifices cleanup of the bay is misguided at best. It appears that he is unaware that direct actions are currently being both funded and undertaken to identify and address the problems contributing to the declining health of the harbor. All with full community support.

Additionally, while correct that stormwater protection in the state is underfunded, Myers’s discussion of the issue is puzzling given that WPC — the pro-business organization Myers work for — frequently argues against stormwater funding and has gone so far as to suggest that stormwater management regulations should not add any additional restrictions to business interests.

Myers is without question entitled to his opinion on the proposed barging facility; however, the information he presents in support of his position is pure fallacy.

As they always have with this decade-long fight to protect Maury, the facts once again speak for themselves. The Maury nearshore area is recognized as being one of Puget Sound’s last best places — an ecological jewel at the heart of a state environmental reserve. There is widespread consensus that Glacier’s proposed project presents significant environmental and public health risk and that the protection of this area is called for by ESA and Puget Sound recovery planning at the local, state and federal levels. The seed funding for the acquisition came from the state Department of Ecology in recognition not only of these points, but of the risk from the arsenic contamination at the site.

And while Myers seems to suggest the money — which comes from the Asarco settlement — could be used elsewhere, the fact is that funding from this account is restricted to properties with direct contamination from the Asarco smelter.

It is unfortunate that Myers cannot see the acquisition of the Glacier site as the win-win situation that it is. With acquisition, a vital stretch of important habitat relied on by endangered species would be protected, the Puget Sound Partnership’s action agenda is met and the public health risk from the disturbance of highly toxic soils is eliminated. And, equally as important, Glacier — who we commend for their willingness to approach this offered solution in good faith — benefits by receiving a solid return on their investment.

Preserve Our Islands is grateful that clearer heads than Myers are prevailing. And while recognizing that there is much work ahead, we again thank Glacier for its participation in working with the environmental community to craft a solution should favorable terms be met.

— Amy Carey heads Preserve Our Islands, a nonprofit grassroots

organization.