Turning the ship: a new direction for managing wood waste in the Salish Sea of Washington State

Wood waste has been a major driver in numerous large scale, nearshore cleanups in Washington State Its presence has contributed substantially to both the extent and volume of sediment requiring cleanup which is costly and time consuming. Success in dealing with wood waste must start with controlling sources and a reassessment of how timber-related uses of our waters are conducted. Recognizing its ecological impacts and the financial burden of cleanup prompts the change from practices that release wood waste to state waters. While it is tough to change from traditional use of waters for transport and storage of logs or chips, the minor investment in source control measures is necessary to avoid impacts. Activities that generate wood waste have received less attention than the regulation of typical industrial process discharges and solid waste streams. Also, the nature of wood waste is highly variable which makes its toxic effects difficult to predict. Unlike many traditional contaminants, there is not a simple metric like chemical concentration that accurately characterizes the effects of wood waste in the aquatic environment. The Washington State Sediment Management Standards address both of these challenges, 1) implementing practical source control measures under state and federal (Clean Water Act) laws, and 2) use of biological criteria (bioassays) for final assessment of wood waste impacted sediments. These are detailed in Ecology’s technical guidance document, Wood Waste Cleanup, Identifying, assessing, and remediating wood waste in marine and freshwater environments

The PULSAR Specialist Care protocol: a stepped-wedge cluster randomized control trial a training intervention for community mental health teams in recovery-oriented practice

Background: Recovery features strongly in Australian mental health policy; however, evidence is limited for the efficacy of recovery-oriented practice at the service level. This paper describes the Principles Unite Local Services Assisting Recovery (PULSAR) Specialist Care trial protocol for a recovery-oriented practice training intervention delivered to specialist mental health services staff. The primary aim is to evaluate whether adult consumers accessing services where staff have received the intervention report superior recovery outcomes compared to adult consumers accessing services where staff have not yet received the intervention. A qualitative sub-study aims to examine staff and consumer views on implementing recovery-oriented practice. A process evaluation sub-study aims to articulate important explanatory variables affecting the interventions rollout and outcomes. Methods: The mixed methods design incorporates a two-step stepped-wedge cluster randomized controlled trial (cRCT) examining cross-sectional data from three phases, and nested qualitative and process evaluation sub-studies. Participating specialist mental health care services in Melbourne, Victoria are divided into 14 clusters with half randomly allocated to receive the staff training in year one and half in year two. Research participants are consumers aged 18-75 years who attended the cluster within a previous three-month period either at baseline, 12 (step 1) or 24 months (step 2). In the two nested sub-studies, participation extends to cluster staff. The primary outcome is the Questionnaire about the Process of Recovery collected from 756 consumers (252 each at baseline, step 1, step 2). Secondary and other outcomes measuring well-being, service satisfaction and health economic impact are collected from a subset of 252 consumers (63 at baseline; 126 at step 1; 63 at step 2) via interviews. Interview based longitudinal data are also collected 12 months apart from 88 consumers with a psychotic disorder diagnosis (44 at baseline, step 1; 44 at step 1, step 2). cRCT data will be analyzed using multilevel mixed-effects modelling to account for clustering and some repeated measures, supplemented by thematic analysis of qualitative interview data. The process evaluation will draw on qualitative, quantitative and documentary data. Discussion: Findings will provide an evidence-base for the continued transformation of Australian mental health service frameworks toward recovery

Wood waste remediation at sediment cleanup sites in Washington State: lessons learned after 20 years of cleanup

The timber industry in Washington State has played an important role in the state’s economic and industrial development, with mills producing pulp, paper, plywood and other timber products. The state’s waterways provided the most economical means to transport and store timber, resulting in the accumulation of harmful wood waste in or near productive littoral zones. The Washington State Department of Ecology has completed cleanup at a number of sites with significant recorded accumulations of wood waste. These include the Hylebos Waterway in Tacoma, Port Gamble Bay on the Kitsap Peninsula and the Scott Paper Mill in Fidalgo Bay, Anacortes. Throughout this process Ecology has developed methodologies for evaluating wood waste impacts to the benthic community as well as compliance with the State’s Sediment Management Standards (SMS) rule. A successful evaluation of wood waste impacts is complex but key objectives that satisfy the SMS requirements include 1) identifying past and continuing sources of wood waste 2) describing the overall nature and extent (lateral and vertical extent, percent cover) 3) characterizing chemical and biological conditions of site sediments and 4) informing and selecting among the potential range of remedial alternatives. Through the cleanup of multiple sites Ecology has refined its technical understanding of remediating wood waste such as 1) the volume and types of wood waste that is harmful to the benthic environment 2) the tools and methods that best define nature and extent and environmental impacts depending on the age and origin of the wood waste 3) how to correlate conventional chemistry results with bioassay results and 4) how to best optimize the selection of cleanup alternatives

Foreword

Since the beginning days of ODR, low-value e-commerce disputes were seen as one of the most suited domains for the resolution of online disputes. First, because the dispute has an online origin, so it seems logical to resolve conflicts online after an online transaction. Second, because courts, in particular in an international context, are not fit for resolving these kind disputes and are also too expensive. The European Union is a big proponent of this argument. They adduced it 20 years ago, 10 years ago, and still today. Their argument is that consumers would trust cross-border e-commerce disputes better if they knew their conflicts would be adequately resolved. The European Union also believes that the amount of cross-border EU transactions is still low because of the lack of trust. However, for many years EU citizens buy from service providers in countries outside the EU. For 20 years they purchase from US websites, and over the last years from Chinese sites, notably Alibaba. Plus, consumers are not interested in resolving via ODR. Rather, they contact the seller directly or post a negative review. That is also what students at the London School of Economics said when I gave a guest lecture on ODR a couple of years ago. Last March, however, quite a few LSE students in the same course believed that if ODR is convenient and inexpensive, consumers might be even interested in resolving low-value disputes by ODR. Clearly, the last word has not been spoken on this topic