Taylor Shellfish Mussel Farm Decision Extended to June 14

The Thurston County Hearing Examiner has asked that the permit decision date on Taylor Shellfish's proposed mussel farm in Totten Inlet be extended until June 14.  The complexities and volume of information clearly support the request.  All parties have agreed to the extension.  Some of what follows is being considered.  (see here for testimony and evidence presented)

Will the placement, ongoing maintenance, and operation of a 58 raft mussel farm at the mouth of Totten Inlet degrade Totten Inlet's habitat?  Evidence presented at the hearing clearly indicates dissolved oxygen levels are diminished significantly in an area where geoduck tracts are in recovery, salmon migrate, and Herring spawn.  Evidence presented at the hearing clearly indicate shell deposition and feces/pseudo feces transform the subtidal area below the estimated 11 acre area.  Evidence presented at the hearing clearly show ongoing maintenance of rafts and the farm operation on the shoreline creates a disturbance which would increase dramatically, adjacent to 34 acres purchased by the Capitol Land Trust (part of which is a pocket estuary with critical salmon habitat) and heavily developed residential areas.  Evidence presented at the hearing clearly show the risk of spreading non-native invasive tunicates is increased significantly through the operation of this farm.

Evidence presented to counter these and other impacts created by this farm are weak and hardly meet the burden of proof required.  Claims of "habitat creation" ignore the fact that this artificially created habitat is destroyed every time harvesting occurs and that this "habitat" is made up on non-native mussels and artificial structures.  Claims of "significant nitrogen removal" do not include nitrogen from marine sources (i.e., deep sea upwelling) nor amounts from benthic flux in the totals, making the percentage removed appear far greater than it in fact is (as Taylor's scientist testified, the formula is "not as useful" without those numbers).  Claims that shellfish farming is "water dependent" are diluted when considering the fact that mussel farming on an industrial scale of this size was never considered when the Shoreline Management Act was written.  Claims that 58 rafts sitting "only 1 foot high" diminish the visual impact of the placement area may be true if one looks from the level of a seal, but every other view point is significantly impacted.  Claims that NOAA's NMFS Biological Opinion support mussel farming neglected to point out the US Fish and Wildlife Service's Bilogical Opinion was considered "extremely problematic" by the Pacific Coast Shellfish Grower's Association and not mentioned.

Taylor Shellfish provided huge volumes of information to create the impression the proposed mussel farm is benign and should be permitted.  All of this information needs to be considered, along with that presented by those opposed to the permit being issued.  In the end, it will be clear that the best science money can buy does not provide the burden of proof required to issue this permit.