Last night Jim Nolan of the Puget Sound Clean Air Agency came to the Greater Maple Valley Area Council that represents the interests of the unincorporated residents of the Tahoma School District. It was a good meeting overall.
Lots of people showed up to express their dislike for the proposed burn ban and to express their dislike for governmental regulations in general. Jim Nolan took quite a bit of time to listen to people express their opinions.
Jim had a number of good points that he wanted to make, and I thought they're worth sharing here:
- He recognizes the importance of outdoor burning in King County and now sees that there aren't alternatives for many property owners. He said he doesn't ever anticipate a time in the future that all properties in King County will have reasonable alternatives.
- He approves and appreciates people using wood to heat their homes. He recognizes firewood is a renewable resource that is in abundant supply here in King County.
- He is scaling back the recommendation to only ban burning on the most dense portions of the rural areas. He is asking rural residents to define what they consider to be rural. People volunteered that rural communities don't have street lights or sidewalks, they often have animals, and rural communities don't have lots that are under 10,000 square feet in size.
Jim Nolan will come back to the meeting in August and present the new recommendation to the PSCAA at that time and get any additional feedback prior to making the recommendation to King County.
Tuesday, May 6, 2008
Thursday, May 1, 2008
Senator Pam Roach Supports Outdoor Burning
Those of us who live in South King County are fortunate enough to have some great people representing our causes. I received an e-mail from Senator Pam Roach a couple days ago about the outdoor burning ban. She clearly supports allowing continued outdoor burning.
Senator Pam Roach wrote in her e-mail. "I support the ability of homeowners to burn under proper conditions."
Your senators and representatives are the right channel to go through if you wish to keep outdoor burning around. Please write to the state congress and insist they continue to allow our traditional practices.
Senator Pam Roach wrote in her e-mail. "I support the ability of homeowners to burn under proper conditions."
Your senators and representatives are the right channel to go through if you wish to keep outdoor burning around. Please write to the state congress and insist they continue to allow our traditional practices.
Online petition for Continued Outdoor Burning.
I will be attending the Greater Maple Valley Area Council meeting on Monday and encourage everyone else to as well to show support for continued outdoor burning.
I am starting an online petition for everyone to sign to show your support for the burn ban. Please add a comment to this posting showing you are in favor of continued outdoor burning. If enough people sign on, I'll start a real petition and start to get signatures and submit to the legislature.
See you Monday!
I am starting an online petition for everyone to sign to show your support for the burn ban. Please add a comment to this posting showing you are in favor of continued outdoor burning. If enough people sign on, I'll start a real petition and start to get signatures and submit to the legislature.
See you Monday!
Monday, April 28, 2008
Focus group meetings
The Puget Sound Clean Air Agency is holding focus group meetings with the various area councils in King County. They are trying to refine their outdoor burning ban policy and try to figure out how they can revise the scope of the burn ban in a way that will be more palatable for King County residents.
Two focus groups have been scheduled:
Maple Valley Greater Area Council: Monday, May 5th. Located at 22300 SE 231st, Maple Valley.
Four Creeks Unincorporated Area Council: Wednesday, May 21st. Located at 16431 SE Renton-Issaquah Rd.
Additional meetings will North Highline, Upper Bear Creek, West Hill, and the Vashon-Maury Island councils will be scheduled in the future.
Two focus groups have been scheduled:
Maple Valley Greater Area Council: Monday, May 5th. Located at 22300 SE 231st, Maple Valley.
Four Creeks Unincorporated Area Council: Wednesday, May 21st. Located at 16431 SE Renton-Issaquah Rd.
Additional meetings will North Highline, Upper Bear Creek, West Hill, and the Vashon-Maury Island councils will be scheduled in the future.
Saturday, March 1, 2008
PSCAA action
Agency bans all land-clearing burning in King, Pierce, Snohomish counties effective July 1, will reconsider residential outdoor burn bans in the fall
A permanent ban on land-clearing burning in King, Pierce and Snohomish counties was adopted yesterday by the Puget Sound Clean Air Agency’s Board of Directors. The ban is effective July 1, 2008. The Board deferred a decision to prohibit residential yard waste burning in non-urban areas of these same counties until October of this year, pending further analysis of available alternatives.
Land clearing burning applies to fires to clear land for development, such as building a new structure or subdivision. Residential yard waste burning means outdoor burning by a property owner of leaves, clippings and yard debris from his or her own property.
Prior to this action, land clearing and residential yard waste fires were prohibited only in the urban areas of King, Kitsap, Pierce and Snohomish Counties. In December 2007, the Clean Air Agency proposed the three-county ban on both land clearing and residential yard waste burning. The proposed effective date for banning land clearing burning was July 1, 2008 and July 1, 2010 for yard waste burning. Kitsap County was not included in the proposal because reasonable alternatives are not yet available.
The Board’s decision was preceded by a public hearing, during which several people testified in favor of a total burn ban, but many owners of large properties pointed out that alternatives to burning such as curbside pick-up, chipping on-site or hauling yard debris to drop-off sites were not reasonably and economically viable. Agency staff heard this same message at a series of rural area workshops in January.
“We learned a lot from these large property owners,” the agency’s Compliance Director, Jim Nolan, told the Board. “They told us our alternatives to burning don’t address their needs. We have more work to do.”
Although the agency’s Board of Directors deferred action on residential yard waste burning, they clearly stated their unanimous intent that residential yard waste burning should ultimately be banned in denser sections of rural areas.
They directed staff to come back to the October Board meeting with revised recommendations regarding restrictions on land clearing burning in Kitsap County and residential yard debris burning in all four counties which could be implemented no later than July 1, 2010. They also directed agency staff to work with county solid waste and fire officials on expanded burn ban boundary lines, development of additional alternatives to burning and enforcement mechanisms for rural areas of the agency’s jurisdiction.
“This is about balancing property rights and public health,” said Board Chair Paul Roberts. “This is about life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness – and life comes first. It’s time to move forward on this issue.”
By taking this action yesterday, the Puget Sound Clean Air Agency’s Board of Directors closed the public comment period on its current proposal. Public comment will be sought if another rule is proposed.
A permanent ban on land-clearing burning in King, Pierce and Snohomish counties was adopted yesterday by the Puget Sound Clean Air Agency’s Board of Directors. The ban is effective July 1, 2008. The Board deferred a decision to prohibit residential yard waste burning in non-urban areas of these same counties until October of this year, pending further analysis of available alternatives.
Land clearing burning applies to fires to clear land for development, such as building a new structure or subdivision. Residential yard waste burning means outdoor burning by a property owner of leaves, clippings and yard debris from his or her own property.
Prior to this action, land clearing and residential yard waste fires were prohibited only in the urban areas of King, Kitsap, Pierce and Snohomish Counties. In December 2007, the Clean Air Agency proposed the three-county ban on both land clearing and residential yard waste burning. The proposed effective date for banning land clearing burning was July 1, 2008 and July 1, 2010 for yard waste burning. Kitsap County was not included in the proposal because reasonable alternatives are not yet available.
The Board’s decision was preceded by a public hearing, during which several people testified in favor of a total burn ban, but many owners of large properties pointed out that alternatives to burning such as curbside pick-up, chipping on-site or hauling yard debris to drop-off sites were not reasonably and economically viable. Agency staff heard this same message at a series of rural area workshops in January.
“We learned a lot from these large property owners,” the agency’s Compliance Director, Jim Nolan, told the Board. “They told us our alternatives to burning don’t address their needs. We have more work to do.”
Although the agency’s Board of Directors deferred action on residential yard waste burning, they clearly stated their unanimous intent that residential yard waste burning should ultimately be banned in denser sections of rural areas.
They directed staff to come back to the October Board meeting with revised recommendations regarding restrictions on land clearing burning in Kitsap County and residential yard debris burning in all four counties which could be implemented no later than July 1, 2010. They also directed agency staff to work with county solid waste and fire officials on expanded burn ban boundary lines, development of additional alternatives to burning and enforcement mechanisms for rural areas of the agency’s jurisdiction.
“This is about balancing property rights and public health,” said Board Chair Paul Roberts. “This is about life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness – and life comes first. It’s time to move forward on this issue.”
By taking this action yesterday, the Puget Sound Clean Air Agency’s Board of Directors closed the public comment period on its current proposal. Public comment will be sought if another rule is proposed.
Thursday, February 28, 2008
Public Hearing Today
As a reminder, the public hearing for the proposed ban on outdoor burning will be today. I'll post the outcome of the meeting as soon as I learn of the board's actions.
The Puget Sound Clean Air Agency is recommending the Board of Directors to approve the ban on landclearing burning and temporarily hold the ban on residential burning based on the comments received. The agency staff feels that that the comments receive do not clearly indicate that reasonable alternatives exist for residential burning.
The Staff will request that the Board of Directors request they continue working with appropriate officials and conduct additional research to develop the case that reasonable alternatives exist for outdoor burning in King County.
I'll let you know the results of the public hearing today.
The Puget Sound Clean Air Agency is recommending the Board of Directors to approve the ban on landclearing burning and temporarily hold the ban on residential burning based on the comments received. The agency staff feels that that the comments receive do not clearly indicate that reasonable alternatives exist for residential burning.
The Staff will request that the Board of Directors request they continue working with appropriate officials and conduct additional research to develop the case that reasonable alternatives exist for outdoor burning in King County.
I'll let you know the results of the public hearing today.
Wednesday, February 27, 2008
State Law requires clean forests
The Revised Code of Washington requires landowners in Washington to reduce the fuel load in the forests to prevent the spread of wildfire. The law was enacted in 1986 and is generally used to create a special property tax that funds the DNR specifically for forest fire fighting.
In my opinion, reducing the fuel load of a forest is one of the many tools a landowner has to provide protection against the spread of fire.
RCW 76.04.600
Owners to protect forests.
Every owner of forest land in the state of Washington shall furnish or provide, during the season of the year when there is danger of forest fires, adequate protection against the spread of fire thereon or therefrom which shall meet with the approval of the department.
In my opinion, reducing the fuel load of a forest is one of the many tools a landowner has to provide protection against the spread of fire.
RCW 76.04.600
Owners to protect forests.
Every owner of forest land in the state of Washington shall furnish or provide, during the season of the year when there is danger of forest fires, adequate protection against the spread of fire thereon or therefrom which shall meet with the approval of the department.
Monday, February 25, 2008
Contact your state legislative representative....
I read over the recommendations given to the PSCAA Board of Directors by the staff employees regarding the burn ban. Thankfully, they are deferring the residential burn ban for now but are intending to revisit the issue in the October 2008 meeting.
In the memo, the staff members raised a very interesting point: They accurately say that the purpose of the agency is not to create policy but to enact and enforce the policy set by the legislature. In fact, the staff members cite Revised Code of Washington as the underlying policy they are required to follow:
"Burning shall be prohibited in an area when an alternate technology or method of disposing of the organic refuse is available, reasonably economical, and less harmful to the environment. It is the policy of this state to foster and encourage development of alternate methods or technology for disposing of or reducing the amount of organic refuse."
In other words, the staff is only permitted to evalute whether alternate technologies or methods of disposing are available. They placed the responsibility for burn ban on the state legislature when they enacted the ban in 1991.
I will be contacting my state congressmen and -women regarding the burn ban and would encourage you to do the same as well. Together we can let them know the value outdoor burning provides to the enviroment by continuing to keep fuel levels low in our forests (preventing uncontrolled wildfires in the future) and by allowing homeowners to care for the forests rather than subdivide them and turn our forests into new subdivisions!
In the memo, the staff members raised a very interesting point: They accurately say that the purpose of the agency is not to create policy but to enact and enforce the policy set by the legislature. In fact, the staff members cite Revised Code of Washington as the underlying policy they are required to follow:
"Burning shall be prohibited in an area when an alternate technology or method of disposing of the organic refuse is available, reasonably economical, and less harmful to the environment. It is the policy of this state to foster and encourage development of alternate methods or technology for disposing of or reducing the amount of organic refuse."
In other words, the staff is only permitted to evalute whether alternate technologies or methods of disposing are available. They placed the responsibility for burn ban on the state legislature when they enacted the ban in 1991.
I will be contacting my state congressmen and -women regarding the burn ban and would encourage you to do the same as well. Together we can let them know the value outdoor burning provides to the enviroment by continuing to keep fuel levels low in our forests (preventing uncontrolled wildfires in the future) and by allowing homeowners to care for the forests rather than subdivide them and turn our forests into new subdivisions!
EPA: Decomposing plants do not release carbon dioxide
We all know that trees and plants use carbon dioxide and release oxygen while they are alive as we were taught in elementary school science class. It's a great arguments for planting and maintaining trees and forests here in King County. The trees and forests will release oxygen and help clean our air.
But what happens when the trees die off and the organic matter begins to decompose? Microbes and various fungi cause most of the wood decay around this neck of the woods. Well, both microbes and fungi use oxygen and give off carbon dioxide - the exact opposite of what plants do! Where does the carbon in carbon dioxide come from? The microorganisms are converting it from the tree or plant and returning it to our atmosphere.
A little portion of the plant or tree turns into soil. I don't have the data to cite a specific percentage but I believe that amount is relatively small as compared to the amount of plant matter that is converted back into carbon dixodie.
However, the EPA disagrees with the above explanation on political grounds. The EPA only recognizes carbon emissions due to direct human activity. A person lighting a burn pile is directly causing a release of carbon dioxide and this carbon release is considered when reviewing environmental impacts. However, a brush pile that is left sitting in the woods would decay naturally without human intervention. This carbon dioxide release is due to natural events and therefore is not considered when comparing carbon releases.
The State of Washington Ecology and Puget Sound Clean Air Authority both rely on EPA estimates when comparing alternatives. Under the PSCAA analysis of carbon releases, burning would release approximately 31,000 pounds of carbon dioxide (for 10 tons of brush burned) but would release no carbon dioxide if left to decay naturally without human intervention.
I'm not convinced this is an apples-to-apples comparison. It seems like carbon emissions should be considered carbon emissions whether caused by human activity or not. Does only human-caused carbon dioxide heat the planet or does all human-caused carbon dioxide heat the planet? I'd like to get your thoughts on this.
But what happens when the trees die off and the organic matter begins to decompose? Microbes and various fungi cause most of the wood decay around this neck of the woods. Well, both microbes and fungi use oxygen and give off carbon dioxide - the exact opposite of what plants do! Where does the carbon in carbon dioxide come from? The microorganisms are converting it from the tree or plant and returning it to our atmosphere.
A little portion of the plant or tree turns into soil. I don't have the data to cite a specific percentage but I believe that amount is relatively small as compared to the amount of plant matter that is converted back into carbon dixodie.
However, the EPA disagrees with the above explanation on political grounds. The EPA only recognizes carbon emissions due to direct human activity. A person lighting a burn pile is directly causing a release of carbon dioxide and this carbon release is considered when reviewing environmental impacts. However, a brush pile that is left sitting in the woods would decay naturally without human intervention. This carbon dioxide release is due to natural events and therefore is not considered when comparing carbon releases.
The State of Washington Ecology and Puget Sound Clean Air Authority both rely on EPA estimates when comparing alternatives. Under the PSCAA analysis of carbon releases, burning would release approximately 31,000 pounds of carbon dioxide (for 10 tons of brush burned) but would release no carbon dioxide if left to decay naturally without human intervention.
I'm not convinced this is an apples-to-apples comparison. It seems like carbon emissions should be considered carbon emissions whether caused by human activity or not. Does only human-caused carbon dioxide heat the planet or does all human-caused carbon dioxide heat the planet? I'd like to get your thoughts on this.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
