For the Hearing Examiner to Consider

The decision on Taylor Shellfish's proposed mussel farm will determine how The Shoreline Management Act's guiding principals are applied in the future.  To date these principals have prevented the shorelines and waters of Puget Sound from becoming the West Coast equivalent of Chesapeake Bay - overdeveloped shorelines and waters unable to support anything.  Profits for the few should not become the guiding principal for how the Shoreline Management Act is applied.

Sunrise or Sunset of the Shoreline Management Act?



(1) Recognize and protect the statewide interest over local interest;
Should the profits of Taylor Shellfish gained through placement of 58 rafts growing non-native mussels in Puget Sound be considered a proposal which protects the statewide interest found in Puget Sound?
(2) Preserve the natural character of the shoreline;
Do 58 rafts, each 30'X34', growing mussels on structures extending 16' below them, with attendant machinery and noise, preserve the natural character of the shoreline?
(3) Result in long term over short term benefit;
Is spreading non-native mussels throughout Totten Inlet and into Puget Sound so Taylor Shellfish's short term need to "meet demand" in the long term interest of protecting Puget Sound? (Long term consequences?  Bill Dewey described to the Senate Environment Committee having to remove predator nets over PVC geoduck tubes in order to clean off mussels which were "suffocating the geoduck.")
(4) Protect the resources and ecology of the shoreline;
Do 58 rafts and their underwater structures protect anything?  The only obvious "protection" are the nets hanging in the water to keep the native wildlife out of the mussel farm.
(5) Increase public access to publicly owned areas of the shorelines;
Does placement of 58 rafts in front of one of the few remaining publicly owned state tidelands increase access?  Not when workers are telling boaters to "keep away from the rafts" and to "slow down."
(6) Increase recreational opportunities for the public in the shoreline;
Does placement of 58 30'X34' rafts improve recreational opportunities for boaters in Totten Inlet? (see above)
(7) Provide for any other element as defined in RCW 90.58.100 deemed appropriate or necessary.
All of the information available must be considered - even if supplied by citizens concerned about the future of Puget Sound.