Taylor Shellfish Appeals Mussel Farm Permit Denial to Thurston County Commissioners

Taylor Shellfish has appealed the permit denial it asked for. The appeal will be heard by Thurston County Commissioners November 14 at 4 PM.
[read appeal here - 12mb file]

Taylor's attorney incorrectly claims the examiner places too much emphasis on "Regional Criteria B" of Thurston County's Shoreline Master Program, which reads:

Protection of water quality and aquatic habitat is recognized as a primary goal. All applications for development of shorelines and use of public waters shall be closely analyzed for their effect on the aquatic environment. Of particular concern will be the preservation of the larger ecological system when a change is proposed to a lesser part of the system, like a marshland or tideland.

[Shoreline Master Program is here]

Taylor's attorney also misinterprets the intent of the Shoreline Management Act whose opening paragraph reads:
The legislature finds that the shorelines of the state are among the most valuable and fragile of its natural resources and that there is great concern throughout the state relating to their utilization, protection, restoration, and preservation. In addition it finds that ever increasing pressures of additional uses are being placed on the shorelines necessitating increased coordination in the management and development of the shorelines of the state. The legislature further finds that much of the shorelines of the state and the uplands adjacent thereto are in private ownership; that unrestricted construction on the privately owned or publicly owned shorelines of the state is not in the best public interest; and therefore, coordinated planning is necessary in order to protect the public interest associated with the shorelines of the state while, at the same time, recognizing and protecting private property rights consistent with the public interest. There is, therefor, a clear and urgent demand for a planned, rational, and concerted effort, jointly performed by federal, state, and local governments, to prevent the inherent harm in an uncoordinated and piecemeal development of the state's shorelines.
[read RCW 90.58.020 here]

Taylor's attorney believing the examiner disregarded the information supplied is unfounded. In fact, that information was reviewed in detail and was found to be lacking. When offered the opportunity to provide additional information Taylor's attorney instead advised Taylor Shellfish to tell the examiner to deny the permit, which they did. The examiner complied with their request.