Fishtrap Loop Geoduck Farms Being Considered by Taylor Shellfish

Update 9/1: China’s crackdown on corruption ... has forced a decline in lavish banquets.- In another indication of the risks tideland owners take on when leasing tidelands to geoduck farmers PhysOrg has reported today that China's crackdown on corruption continues to decrease lavish banquets. While the focus of the article is on shark fins sold in China, geoduck are included in that category. It is only the elite in China who are able to afford the geoduck. That price is not sustainable, especially as the younger and more educated population come to realize the size of a geocuck neck has nothing to do with male virility ("There's a virility claim, need I say more?" Wall Street Journal). (See also March 28, 2013 post on how China's new leader, Xi Jinping is impacting the lavish life styles corruption has brought to the Chinese population.)

 

This isn't going to help you.

 

 

Want to help? Consider donating to Case Inlet Shoreline Association who, in partnership with the Coalition to Protect Puget Sound Habitat has appealed four Thurston County geoduck permits before the Shorelines Hearings Board. Donations may be made here:

http://www.caseinlet.org/Join_Us.php

 

Neighbors Report Taylor Shellfish Interest

in Fishtrap Delta Area For Future Geoduck Farms 

(Note: The above only represents an example

of what 2 tideland parcels planted with geoduck

would look like in the delta area.)

 



It has been reported that Taylor Shellfish has approached tideland owners north of Fishtrap Loop NE in Olympia about leasing their tidelands for geoduck farms. Ironically, at the same time Taylor Shellfish has begun encouraging neighbors to sign long term leases, they and Arcadia Point Seafoods argued before the Shorelines Hearings Board that their proposed geoduck farms on the Lockhart and Thiesen parcels to the east are small, isolated farms which should not trigger the need for a cumulative impacts analysis.

Note: Taylor Shellfish has apparently offered "tours" of a local geoduck farm to show how minimal the impact is. It is unclear how, with the daylight minus tides of the year now past they intend to do that, unless they have acquired a glass bottom boat. 

Taylor's Lockhart and Arcadia's Thiesen

Proposed Geoduck Farms (on the right)

Currently Before the Shorelines Hearings Board

"What's the big deal? It's only 2 small farms."

Agencies should not be blinded by industry projections
Not considering this future and significant expansion in current permitting is exactly what the Coalition to Protect Puget Sound Habitat and Case Inlet Shorelines Association have been pointing to in their presentations on permits before county planning commissions and in their appeals before the Shorelines Hearings Board: shellfish operators have plans for significant expansion. Agencies cannot put blinders on when examples such as this exist. Cumulative impacts from multiple farms operating on multiple schedules create on ongoing impact to Puget Sound's nearshore environment. It is a permanent and ongoing conversion. It is not, as industry likes to describe, a "once every 5 year" event. It is a development of tidelands of a type Puget Sound has never seen before. The area within what we will call "Fishtrap Cove" alone is approximately 10 acres in size.

Welcome to the neighborhood.
"I'm here to stay."
We are too. And so are our children.

"Is this where we're supposed to be planting?"

Tideland owners should not be blinded by promises unfulfilled
"Fishtrap Cove" tidelands are made up of 24 separate parcels. Some owners may find Taylor Shellfish's golden promise of "riches beyond imagination" compelling. But they should first realize it is Taylor Shellfish, not them who is becoming wealthy off their tidelands. Taylor Shellfish no longer has any tidelands to develop. Past rates of only 10% grossly undervalue tideland values. Taylor Shellfish cares little for the transformation they and others in the industry are causing. There is, however, a large number who feel the value of Puget Sound's tidelands is not found in the number of PVC pipes you can place in them.

Secondly, for those who find the promise of wealth alluring, they should understand the risk they take on when signing long term contracts for speculative commodities, which geoducks are. When the geoduck market collapses, and it will as production in Alaska, Canada, and elsewhere comes on line, they will not receive those checks to "put your children through college with" or "build your dream home with." They will be stuck with trying to figure out who is responsible for removing the netting and tubes which are abandoned as industry players find they have taken on too much debt. In the mean time, those who chose to convert their tidelands to geoduck production also become responsible for their increased property taxes, something clearly written into the current leases, not the geoduck operators.

Finally, geoduck are not all created equal. Many are not accepted as "Grade 1" geoduck but are instead of far less value. Darker shells, smaller necks, and smaller size all decrease the value received. This was spelled out in a letter years ago from Seattle Shellfish to those it leased tidelands from who wondered why their checks were so small.* Poaching of geoduck, a real and increasing threat no matter what the location, creates additional risk for a smaller check. There are no guarantees the transformation of a tideland will pay for a college education, let alone the increase in property taxes.

*From a letter to those Seattle Shellfish leased tidelands from: "too much seaweed  piled up and decaying on the beach can even kill a 3-4 year old juvenile geoduck. There are also significant fresh water inflows, particularly in the winter, ...which can cause significant mortalities for young geoduck . This has resulted in widely varying success from...beach-to-beach" "In general we're seeing darker animals...and a correspondingly smaller prices for harvested geoduck because of the color."

 

The conversion of Puget Sound's tidelands.

Are state tidelands being removed from the public's use before requiring replanting of subtidal areas stripped of wild geoduck a sign of management or political pressure?
Currently, geoduck farmers are seeking out the few remaining state owned tidelands there are for further growth. Beyond the risk this adds of increased "inventory" driving down prices, it also removes from the public's use those few remaining tidelands available to the public at low tide, whether accessible by boat or uplands. Further, should DNR really consider leasing intertidal tidelands when they are currently stripping geoduck from large subtidal tracts of tidelands and not requiring replanting as they do their forest lands? If a diver is able to harvest geoduck in subtidal waters they surely are able to replant. They do in Canada and Alaska. That would be considered managing state assets for the public, not removing the few public tidelands still available for the public's enjoyment, to benefit a politically astute industry.

Get involved
You can help by donating time and/or financial resources to those who care about Puget Sound's tidelands. Currently the Case Inlet Shoreline Association is helping ensure the permitting of geoduck farms considers more than what well paid attorneys and contract scientists present to the counties. Donations may be made on their site:
http://www.caseinlet.org/Join_Us.php
Additional information may be found on the Coalition to Protect Puget Sound Habitat here:
http://coalitiontoprotectpugetsoundhabitat.org/



Drakes Bay Oyster Company: NPS Rejects Pacific Coast Shellfish Grower's Association Data Quality Complaint

"...your May 30, 2013, letter is without merit..."

3 strikes and you are out -
The National Park Service (NPS) has written to the Pacific Coast Shellfish Growers' Association and informed them its 2013 Information Quality (IQ) complaint is without merit. PCSGA's 2007 IQ complaint was also rejected by the NPS. As was Cause of Action's 2012 complaint (submitted on behalf of Corey Goodman and Kevin Lunny) and their appeal. In baseball, after 3 strikes you are out.

Complaint is mooted - commercial activities are not compatible in a wilderness area
As with PCSGA's 2007 complaint the most recent complaint from PCSGA was mooted. In this most recent case it was when the Secretary of the Interior allowed Drakes Bay Oyster Company's "authorizations to expire by their own terms." NPS notes that the decision was "based on the incompatibility of commercial activities in wilderness and not on the data that was asserted to be flawed." Despite Jeff Creque's attempt to redefine "wilderness" in his recent Op-ed piece, wilderness is not a "sort of" concept.

Phantom allegations, repeated comments, not an affected person
PCSGA's allegations of harm was rejected as being "an unsubstantiated quotation of an aquaculture advocate in a report written by DBOC's former counsel [Cause of Action]."  They note further that their letter is nothing more than a repetition of comments raised in a December 9, 2011, comment letter. NPS notes it responded then to all substantive comments received. It notes: "The Information Quality Act is not to be used as a means of circumventing the NEPA public comment process." NPS notes PCSGA had the opportunity to comment, it did comment, and "...NPS responded to those comments in the FEIS. Your IQA Complaint essentially resubmits comments, and does not present any significant new information." Finally, NPS questions whether PCSGA is even an affected person, noting they argue "members might be harmed at some point in the future by some hypothetical arguments that could be raised by unnamed opponents" and "alleged harm offered in your Complaint concerns decisions made in states where your client has no members, and that example is based on an unsubstantiated quotation in a report by DBOC's former counsel."

Without merit
"In conclusion, we find that your May 30, 2013, letter is without merit..."

What now? Redefining the public trust doctrine
Already seen have been attempts to create a "corporate wilderness definition" using the glasses of "agroecologist" Jeff Creque. His false vision of Drakes Estero producing "unlimited biomass" created by "unlimited carbon and nutrients" solving the world's food problem will continue. On the horizon will be attempts to redefine what the "public trust" retained by California was when it transferred ownership to the Federal government. In that attempt to redefine the public trust retained by California, a claim will be made that the corporate profits generated by DBOC should somehow trump the contractual agreement to create a wilderness area to be shared by everyone. It should be rejected, as was the IQ complaint by PCSGA.

The Public Trust Doctrine: "By the law of nature these things are common to mankind – the air, running water, the sea, and consequently the shores of the sea….. All rivers and ports are public: hence the right of fishing in a port, or in rivers, is common to all men." --- Institutes of Emperer Justinian, Book 2, Div. 1 (535 A.C.E)

The public trust doctrine does not include the inalienable right of one shellfish farmer's profits to prevent the creation of a wilderness area for everyone. 

Drakes Bay Oyster Company: Jeff Creque's Op-ed on Point Reyes National Seashore Misses the Point

A corporate paradigm of wilderness is explained by

"agroecologist" Jeff Creque in the Marin Independent Journal.

Would Aldo Lepold and the Wilderness Society agree? Hardly.

 

Try my prescription glasses, you'll see much better.



 

In a Guest Op-ed column, "agroecologist" Jeff Creque attempts to put into words his corporate paradigm through which he views Drakes Estero, and with which he justifies a continued commercial operation within the Point Reyes National Seashore wilderness area. Through his glasses Jeff Creque sees what he calls "unlimited biomass" potential.  He sees an open system in which there is "...an unlimited capacity for self-organized complexity, including enormous biomass production and biodiversity potential..." He suggests using his prescription glasses will help you see wilderness in the new, corporate way. 

 

There's always more, maybe over the rainbow

This perspective is the same as those in the shellfish industry of the mid-1800's who first stripped all the shellfish from California's great reefs and then moved north into Washington's Willapa Bay and Puget Sound. In their wake the native Olympia oyster populations were brought to near extinction. "There will always be more" the great industrialists of that time cried. Until they discovered there were no more. It was the same philosophy of Jeff Creque's which left ecosystems up and down the coast destroyed. There is not an unlimited amount of nutrients and carbon entering into Drakes Estero as he would have us believe. That is simply false. Even over the rainbow.

 

Aquaculture is not restoration nor is it wilderness, but it does change things

Attempts to recreate what nature had taken thousands of years to build were dismal failures and it is only through artificial and now industrial scale hatcheries that oysters grow today. But to claim this somehow fits into the congressionally designated wilderness of Drakes Estero is as short sighted as were the early shellfish farmer's belief of unlimited shellfish. More importantly, aquaculture is not restoration. Aquaculture is the artificial creation of an ecosystem which is destroyed each time shellfish are harvested. It is this twisted frame into which Jeff Creque attempts to force his "agroecologist" based justification for why Drakes Bay Oyster Company should be allowed to remain. It is corporate environmentalism at its worst, fracturing the reality of what a wilderness area is meant to be. Aldo Leopold is turning in his grave.

 

Corporate environmentalism through "enlightened management" must be good, right?

Jeff Creque attempts to explain how, through what he calls "enlightened management" that a new corporate view of environmentalism should exist in the Drakes Estero shoreline wilderness area. Lost in that "enlightened management" is what the Point Reyes National Seashore wilderness is supposed to be: a body of water which does not have a commercial shellfish operation operating in leased tidelands covering almost half of the available tidelands. Jeff Creque's attempt to portray Drakes Estero as the only body of water in which commercial oysters are able to grow is as simplistic as is the belief that the nutrient and carbon inputs into Drakes Bay are unlimited, which is his stated belief.  Wearing someone else's prescription glasses will not help your vision.

 

An oyster farm will not stop rising sea levels, neither will corporate profits

Jeff Creque's piece ends drifting in the doldrums when he writes:

Titular designation as "wilderness" will not "protect" it from rising sea levels, acidifying ocean waters, climate destabilization or the broader global catastrophe unfolding around us.

Drakes Estero's designation as a wilderness area is not intended to protect the marine environment from global man made events taking place any more than resisting the export of coal to China will stop carbon emissions. It will, however, make a statement that there are actions which are far more important than corporate profitability for future generations to look back on as inspiration. Especially when an area is designated wilderness, as defined by the Wilderness Act.

 

Self-organizing systems do not change what wilderness is. Man does.

The "complex, self-organizing dynamics of this living, open system" known as Drakes Estero exists with a commercial operation in it which is extracting nutrients and carbon, and which is changing the natural ecosystem through artificial structures and non-native species. It is the antithesis of what the Wilderness Act is supposed to preserve for future generations. Jeff Creque's "agroecologist" paradigm may be fine for other areas of California's west coast, such as Humboldt Bay or other parts of Tomales Bay, and a farm. But it most certainly is not what should be allowed to define a wilderness area.

 

Aldo Leopold would not agree Jeff Creque's eyeglasses help see anything more clear

Finally, to pretend that Aldo Leopold would agree with this corporate paradigm being espoused by Jeff Creque to justify the continued operation of Drakes Bay Oyster Company in the designated wilderness area only shows how bad his eye sight is. Saving DBOC is not one of the "pieces" which Aldo Leopold would have wanted saved. He helped found the Wilderness Society, dedicated to expanding and protecting the nation's wilderness areas. November 29, 2012, the Wilderness Society's President Jamie Williams wrote this:

Area in Point Reyes National Seashore is critical refuge for wildlife 

“The Wilderness Society is pleased to see Drakes Estero protected as the only marine wilderness on the West Coast. Preserving this critical marine area is crucial for the long term conservation of the Point Reyes National Seashore,” said Wilderness Society President Jamie Williams. 

“We applaud U.S. Interior Secretary Ken Salazar for the decision to protect this important scenic and ecological natural resource.” 

 

 

.

Washington Department of Natural Resources to Consider Leasing Public Inetertidal Tidelands to Geoduck Growers

The Washington Department of Natural Resources has announced it is considering leasing some of the few remaining public tidelands to a select group of geoduck growers. Included from the 2006 lease proposals are Seattle Shellfish (Taylor Bay), Arcadia Point Seafood (Dikenson Point), Taylor Shellfish (as subcontractor to Case Cove for Herron Lake bid), Allen Shellfish (Wilson Point, Hartstine Island), and Discovery Bay Shellfish (North Navy). Leasing of these tidelands was first proposed in 2006 by then Commissioner of Public Lands Sutherland. The project has been on hold until now.

Strip mining or managing tidelands?
What people should ask the Department is why are they leasing the few remaining intertidal public tidelands instead of replanting the subtidal tracts being clearcut by dive harvesters. Instead of replanting subtidal areas, a process already taking place in Alaska and Canada, they simply wait for natural seeding to take place, a process estimated to take up to 40 years. In Alaska and Canada, subtidal planting matures in 7 to 8 years. A current proposal for a private subtidal farm estimates 5 to 7 years for maturity.

Why are geoduck different than timber?
Is this managing state tidelands or simply bending to the political pressures put forth by the geoduck growers who have found leasing of private tidelands played out? The Department has a far different management philosophy when managing its timberlands. After clear cutting, timberland is required to be replanted so a new stand of timber is ready for harvesting in 40 years instead of waiting for natural seeding to take place, a process which can take up to 100 years and results in stands that are far more difficult to manage.

Is "science" really science?
In 2007 Sea Grant began studies of geoduck harvesting. Part of that process was to include peer review of studies to determine impacts. To date there has been no peer review of the significant "studies" relied on. In fact, at a recent Shorelines Hearings Board hearing a scientist pointed out how weak the sample sets from which conclusions were being drawn were. So weak that were it a Master's Thesis it would have likely been rejected.

You should first replant what you've harvested. It's resource management.
The public shorelines of Puget Sound are a treasure which was recognized when the Shoreline Management Act was passed. Bending to the political  pressures of lobbyists and public relations firms is why it was created in the first place. It should not be allowed to be bent to those same pressure now. If the Department wants to consider leasing tidelands for geoducks they should first be replanting those subtidal tracts they are clear cutting.

Drakes Bay Oyster Company: Their Corporate Vision for Drakes Estero

 

The Drakes Bay Oyster Company has revealed their 

corporate vision for what a seashore wilderness should be.

(from Drakes Bay Oyster Company's Facebook site, 8/22)

As they say, "What's wrong with this picture?" Nothing if you believe commercial operations should be allowed to exist in a seashore wilderness area. In the case of Drakes Estero, grow out bags for as far as the eye can see are apparently what the Drakes Bay Oyster Company envisions the future of Drakes Estero to be. Is this really what Marin County wants to be responsible for?

 

Save our shoreline wilderness area.

 

Help save Drakes Estero from 

corporate profiteering. 

 

DONATE TO ANY OF THE FOLLOWING TO HELP KEEP WILDERNESS FROM BEING REDEFINED BY CORPORATE LOBBYIST AND PR FIRMS

Environmental Action Committee of West Marin
National Parks Conservation Association
Sierra Club
National Wildlife Federation
Center for Biological Diversity
National Resources Defense Council
Defenders of Wildlife

California Coastal Commission may be Given Ability to Fine, as 20 Other State Agencies Are Able To

[Update 8/22: Read Paul Rogers' article on why giving the California Coastal Commission to fine egregious violators is important.]

KQED's Michael Krasny hosts Sarah Christie, Legislative Director with the  the California Coastal Commission;  Jennifer Thompson with the Pacific Legal Foundation; and,  Paul Rogers, managing editor of KQED Science; and environmental reporter for the San Jose Mercury News. Information on AB 976 is available on California's leginfo site where entering 976 will bring up information.



California's Senate will consider a bill which will allow the California Coastal Commission to fine those who ignore regulations in place to protect California's beach habitat. Currently the CCC must engage in costly legal efforts in order to fine those who ignore current regulations. The state Coastal Conservancy would be the recipient of any fines collected and the public would be the beneficiaries through less costly enforcement actions.

The Pacific Legal Foundation is against the proposal because they feel if the CCC looks hard enough anyone will be found to be in violation of something and neighbors turning in neighbors runs a risk of unfounded violations. The counter argument is that there is a huge backlog of current violations not resolved due to a lack of enforcement capabilities with many violators being aware they may simply run out the clock because there is currently no threat of a fine without significant legal actions.

Drakes Bay Oyster Company has been used as an example by some of a company who simply ignores agreed to Cease and Desist orders. If the bill is passed, instead of simply being able to try and run the clock through legal maneuvers, DBOC would be heavily fined for what has been described by CCC as "egregious" behavior (which Marin Supervisor Steve Kinsey agreed with, as part of the unanimous vote to find DBOC in violation of coastal regulations).

Is this what Marin County has fallen to?

One of OLT’s [Orient Land Trust's] main goals and reasons for forming was to help preserve naturism [nudism] at VVHS [Valley View Hot Springs] forever. (from Trojan Herring blog site)

Newly created web site focused on dismantling Marin County's

Environmental Action Committee tars the

credibility of Drakes Bay Oyster supporters

Movie producers seek out scripts written like this. Networks salivate for sitcoms with this much humor. Authors wake from sleep wishing they could remember the dream as inspiring as this. What is it? San Juan County's Ed Kilduff's Trojan Heron blog clone, the Trojan Herring, using an anonymous petition complaining about a land trust's Board straying from nudism to attack the Environmental Action Committee. Is this what Marin County wants?

Note: In an "infomercial" Ed Kilduff was interviewed by Marin County's Robin Carpenter on whether San Juan County and Marin County are similar and "why all the name calling" was going on. An earlier post commented on that interview, questioning the depth of reporting.

Bleating like a lost sheep in the field, the Trojan Herring blog site professes to proclaim that an anonymous "petition" with 100 signatures, with the following as one of its main points, is of significance to Marin County:

 The naturist lifestyle, which has been enjoyed for decades at VVHS, is now being altered. Some of the Board’s decisions have resulted in a decrease in naturism at VVHS, to where many of the members no longer feel comfortable practicing naturism. One of OLT’s main goals and reasons for forming was to help preserve naturism at VVHS forever. 

The former members of VVHS were promised before OLT was formed, that the word “naturism” would be placed in the OLT’s mission statement – and that was done. Although partially covered in the deed restriction, the new mission statement omits the word “naturism” entirely and it is no longer one of the mission statement’s goals. 

Clearly, saving nudism at the Hot Springs is not the case today. The new wording to the mission statement and the removal of the word “naturism” is a perfect example of how the original values of VVHS and OLT are being lost.

Maybe in San Juan County Ed Kilduff can motivate people this way. But in Marin County? Apparently it is the Marin County Ed Kilduff and his supporters at Freedom Foundation think it should be. As the Trojan Herring blog site notes:

This website is the sister site to TrojanHeron blogspot — the website for a nearly identical community in the San Juan Islands

Citizens in Marin County need to wake up and see through the fog being created by well paid lobbyists and public relations firms who care little for an oyster farm, but care greatly for commercial operations in designated wilderness areas.

Department of Health Issues Warning on Illness Contracted from Oysters

Reported infections from Vibrio bacteria in oysters are soaring

[Update 8/18: Food World News reported erroneously that Drakes Bay Oyster Company oysters had caused the California Department of Health to close their operation due to vibriosis traced to their oysters. Their mistake has caused a flurry of attorney calls, emails, retractions, and accusations from DBOC owner Kevin Lunny that it was part of a perceived conspiracy to "damage our business". Fervent supporters Jane Gyorgy and Sarah Rolph also responded with dismay. With the warm summer temperatures not yet over it may have been better for all to let a mistake be recognized as such.]

[Update 8/17: The Department of Health has closed Samish Bay, Reach Island, Hammersley Inlet, Totten Inlet, Oakland Bay and Pickering Passage growing areas to the commercial harvest of oysters due to reported illnesses traced to oysters harvested from those growing areas. Recreational information may be found on DOH website.]

 

The Department of Health has issued a warning to consumers telling them to stop eating raw oysters due to the risk of contracting vibriosis from them. August 13, The Seattle Times wrote:

Reported infections from Vibrio bacteria are soaring in King County.

In the warning issued August 13, the Washington Department of Health notes:

State health officials expect the number of illnesses to rise in the next few weeks due to projected warm temperatures and midday low tides.

Every summer the pattern repeats, in greater numbers each year
Vibriosis is caused by Vibrio parahaemolyticus which is a naturally occurring bacteria which increases dramatically every summer. Bacteria within oysters, natural filter feeders, increases further when day time low tides expose them to the sun. Every summer the pattern repeats with people becoming ill, followed by after the fact closures. The difference is each summer more people become ill.

Center for Disease Control

reported a 43% increase in

Vibriosis contracted in 2012

over 2006-2008

(CDC, April 18, 2013)

For each case reported an estimated 142 are unreported
Megan Kay epidemiologist at Public Health — Seattle and King County, estimates that for every reported case there are an additional 142 which go unreported. The Center for Disease Control also estimates the same number are unreported.

Increasing risk
In California, disease from Vibrio vulnificus (a more virulent strain of vibrio) was brought to zero by banning the import of untreated oysters from the Gulf States during the warm summer months. With the increasing use of genetically modified "triploid" oysters they become more palatable during the summer months (they are sterile so do not "spawn" and become milky). This in turn leads to increased numbers of people being put at risk, especially those whose immune systems are suppressed or who simply take antacids (acid helps to break down the bacteria). This on top of warming waters from climate change leads to increasing risk and increasing illness.

Economic hardships
To date the industry has resisted firmly what is the logical step, treating oysters to kill the bacteria before they enter the food stream, as California requires those from the Gulf States to be. While industry complains of economic impacts to their companies, there is also an economic cost to families, the health system, and companies impacted from people who contract vibriosis.

For now ...
Until meaningful actions are taken the best suggestion is found in The Seattle Times article published on August 14:  Don't eat raw oysters.

Drakes Bay Oyster Company: Conservative Tar is Sticky

[Update 8/18: In an article from PRWatch on the Koch Brothers' funded Franklin Center for Government and Public Integrity setting up "news websites" in 40 states, it notes the Franklin Center also donated $994,000 to Cause of Action in 2011. As noted, it was Cause of Action's "agenda" which suddenly made Phyllis Faber aware of there being more than an oyster farm's continued operation in a designated wilderness area driving their legal support of Drakes Bay Oyster  Company's continued operation. Found on the Franklin website are the various "news outlets" in each state, with Washington's being the "Freedom Foundation" where Scott Roberts operates out of. Mr. Roberts has helped Ed Kilduff promote his perceptions on wetlands, not accepted by the Department of Ecology nor San Juan County. Ed Kilduff was recently interviewed by Robin Carpenter in an "infomercial" on whether Marin County is the same as San Juan County in Washington. Tar is sticky.] 

 

Plausible Deniability

(Dilbert)

Recent public relations strategies executed by firms representing Drakes Bay Oyster Company have attempted to distance themselves from what has been termed "right wing conservative" groups who support commercial operations within wilderness areas. Most prominent of those groups supporting legal work for DBOC was Cause of Action whose efforts brought the case currently being considered by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals to this state. The relationship between DBOC and COA was severed in large part when Phyllis Faber realized the agenda of COA and donors to that group were not aligned with her philosophy.

How was I to know?

Phyllis Faber

Since that time press releases, blogs, and radio interviews have all attempted to distance DBOC from any ties to conservative groups, attempting to align themselves with perceived "liberal" entities. Included in this have been alignment with San Francisco restaurant groups whose only stated concern is to continue providing local $3 oysters to their patrons. Another attempt to swing the narrative was public relations "expert" Sam Singer with Singer Associates submitting a statement for conservative radio talk show host "WZ" to read explaining his relationship with DBOC proclaiming that he was "democrat". One other example has been use of the conservative land use group Common Sense Alliance's board member Ed Kilduff's blog, Trojan Herron, to create Trojan Herring, publishing pieces authored by east coast resident, cook book author and fervent DBOC supporter Sarah Rolph (the former was interviewed by Robin Carpenter, lamenting the name calling which was going on but which side stepped Mr. Kilduff's very focused "name calling" of those in Washington who disagree with him).

In the Marin County fog created by public relations firms an attempt to deny past relationships relies heavily on "plausible deniability." Phyllis Faber and Corey Goodman's "how were we to know" letter cutting the ties with Cause of Action on the surface was admirable (an unfavorable News Hour report on public radio resulted in COA demand all interview tapes). Follow-up interviews on conservative radio shows did nothing to distance themselves from those who wish this commercial operation in a designated wilderness area to continue. The Freedom Foundation's use of Ed Kilduff in their videos only served to layer more tar onto the affair.

Citizens in Marin County are fortunate to be able to live in a bucolic landscape, adjacent to one of the most densely populated urban areas in the United States. It is that way because people such as Ms. Faber saw the pressures from development flowing into the county fracturing the landscape. She and other stepped in to implement land use regulations and create groups to acquire farms to prevent development at a local level. Citizens, and Ms. Faber, need to elevate themselves above the fray of Marin County and consider the national impact which the continued operation of this commercial operation in a designated wilderness area is going to result in.

A "cannery" and "local family run business" sound very romantic but they do not hide the reality of this being looked on by those whose agendas are far different than what is being portrayed by the public relations firms enlisted. Plausible deniability has been used in politics for decades. Public relations firms are "gifted" in their ability to create the fog in which this exists. Marin County citizens need to be able to see through this fog.

Shorelines Hearings Board Denies Taylor Shellfish Petition for Reconsideration

SHB tells Thurston County to issue a permit to Taylor Shellfish with a condition of a monitoring plan developed between Thurston County and Taylor Shellfish. In a petition for reconsideration Taylor Shellfish asked for the SHB to accept their contract scientist's monitoring plan. The SHB rejected that petition, but still requires the County to issue the permit. APHETI intends to appeal that decision and ask the Superior Court to deny the permit, as the original examiner and the county commissioners did.

You can help protect Puget Sound by donating to APHETI here: http://www.apheti.org/donation.htm

Taylor's Petition
The Shorelines Hearings Board (SHB) has denied Taylor Shellfish's petition for reconsideration of its decision on its mussel farm in which the creation of a monitoring plan was added as a condition. That plan was to have been developed with the county. In the reconsideration Taylor Shellfish asked the SHB to instead accept a plan developed by its contract scientist. The SHB rejected that idea, telling them it presented new evidence which could have been presented at the hearing and the county was the proper party for developing the monitoring plan, not the SHB.

Impacts Confirmed
Ironic in the petition is that information submitted by their contract scientist clearly acknowledges what the original examiner determined: that cumulative impacts are not adequately dealt with.

One area of concern is the alteration of the sediments below the rafts from the shells and debris which accumulate from the operation. In the petition, it was suggested that instead of "curtains" surrounding only the sides of the individual rafts a bottom net be added and kept in place during the entire grow out period (currently the bottom net is removed a few weeks after mussels are hung). It was felt so doing would prevent shells and debris from falling to the sediments below the rafts. Not mentioned was the debris which these nets themselves accumulate in the form of species which find a convenient surface to begin growing on and in turn fall from.

Note: The contract scientist went so far as to say he believes that below the rafts the currents are so turbulent that the shells, among other things, would be simply carried away or turned into what he calls "shell hash." Perhaps that may be true in the near shore energy of waves rolling onto the shore, but there was nothing to support there being this level of energy below the rafts. Based on this assertion alone Taylor felt simply cleaning the nets would suffice, neglecting to detail how it intended on doing even that.

A further suggestion in the "plan" was related to monitoring periods. Here the scientist believes it would suffice if "...most parameters would be monitored every other year for a total of three of the first five years..." To support this position he compares salmon net pens to mussel farms. While it is true there are nets which enclose each operation, the similarities end there, whether they be the type of species grown or the methods used. It is something  Dr. Corey Goodman would enjoy critiquing in his spare time.

Note: One of the parameters required to be measured is dissolved oxygen, something clearly shown in the original EIS to create an adverse impact especially during the late summer when DO levels in Totten Inlet drop with DO levels dropping below 5mg/L. The contract scientist suggest monitoring every other year "during the summer", believing his "considerable experience" with salmon net farms is all that needs to be said to justify this plan.

One other example of clear impacts is revealed in the contract scientists' comment on Beggiatoa mats which appeared below the existing farms and were a concern to the original examiner. In the case of these mats, he believes they are simply a process due to "...excessive loading of total organic ("TOC") on the sea bottom." Removing it would create turbidity and be a disposal problem. The fact that this excessive "TOC" is a direct result of the mussel debris is seemingly not important or is lost to him.

Spreading Impacts Around Does Not Diminish Them
To drive home the concerns of the hearing examiner who felt that information provided was not adequate to determine if cumulative impacts were dealt with is what to do if "unanticipated impacts" occur. The contract scientist suggests a "reconfiguration of the mussel raft positions", or in other words, to simply spread the impact out over a larger area than that already being impacted.

APHETI To Appeal SHB Decision
The SHB was correct in rejecting Taylor Shellfish's petition. APHETI intends to appeal the reversal of the SHB decision which requires the county to issue a permit, even with the added condition, to Superior Court.

You can help ensure that Puget Sound remains a healthy body of water for future generations by donating to APHETI, at this site:
http://www.apheti.org/donation.htm

Vibrio Parahaemolyticus Closes Areas of Puget Sound to Commercial Harvest of Oysters

Vibriosis, a disease caused by the naturally occurring bacteria Vibrio Parahaemolyticus (Vp) and typically contracted from the consumption of raw oysters, has closed Totten Inlet to the commercial harvesting of oysters. Testing for Vp has closed the Dabob Bay and Hammersley Inlet growing areas to the commercial harvest of oysters.

The closures only effect commercial harvesting. Information on recreational beach closures is found on the Department of Health's website. Steps to prevent contracting this food born illness from shellfish are found on the Department of Health's illness prevention page.

Drakes Bay Oyster Company, Ocean Acidification and Impacts from Reduction of Carbonate Ions

An article today in Huffington Post has reported the coastal waters off of California are becoming more acidic. Along with the waters off of Oregon, Washington and in Puget Sound, the drop in pH levels has been detected in Monterey Bay. The article on the report written by an arm of the California Environmental Protection Agency, notes:

Some of the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is being absorbed by the ocean, altering its chemistry. Scientists have documented changes to waters at Monterey Bay, which have turned more acidic in recent years, raising concerns about impact to marine life.

Carnegie Institution ecologist Chris Field, an acknowledged leader in the field of climate impacts, said the observations in the report "are more or less the gold standard of where we are now today" and provide a peek of the future.

Impacts to marine life go beyond a Pacific oyster larvae's inability to form shell
Of most significance to marine life is the change in the sea chemistry which the absorption of CO2 results in. The end result of the chemical breakdown, recombination and shifting of ions is there are fewer carbonate ions, affecting the saturation state for calcium carbonate, making it harder for shelled organisms to grow and maintain shells. In the Scientific Summary of Ocean Acidification in Washington State Marine Waters (a 9mb report) by scientists (as opposed to politicians, industry representatives and lobbyists) on Washington's "Blue Ribbon Panel on Ocean Acidification", it notes:

Negative effects of OA are not restricted to invertebrate species. In systems outside Washington, marine fish species have exhibited negative responses to OA conditions that

include changes in growth, survivorship, and behavior. Marine phytoplankton have shown varied responses to OA that include changes in growth rate and calcification.

It will get worse before it gets better.
Attempting to control CO2 levels is challenging. Worse, as the Blue Panel's Scientific Summary notes, the acidic waters currently being experienced in the upwellings off of Washington's coast, and presumably now detected in California, are from CO2 absorbed 50 years earlier. It will get worse before it gets better, because:

[CO2 in] water that is upwelling onto the coast of Washington and Oregon...has been out of contact with the atmosphere for approximately 30-50 years. Waters presently moving toward the upwelling centers [in the deep ocean] from the open ocean, which have had more recent contact with the atmosphere, are carrying even higher concentrations of anthropogenic CO2. Therefore, upwelled waters will be increasingly corrosive well into the future, even if emissions of atmospheric carbon were halted today.

 In  other words, the increasingly acidic waters we are currently experiencing are from CO2 emissions 30 to 50 years ago when CO2 levels were substantially below what the are now. Ocean acidification will increase and along with it will come waters with fewer calcifying agents needed for calcification by a many species in the system, not simply oysters, including those in Drakes Estero.

Drakes Estero: A difference of perspective between a professor of marine biology and a neuroscientist/venture capitalist.
In a recent exchange between Joe Mueller, a professor of marine biology in Marin County, and Corey Goodman, a neuroscientist/venture capitalist, 2 very different perspectives were given. The professor of marine biology took the perspective that Drakes Bay Oyster Company's planting of 20 million oysters and extracting of a reported 700,000 pounds of oysters from Drakes Estero "...clearly short-changes the non-human aspects of the system[i.e., native species]." Added to the removal of nutrients by this artificial population are calcifying agents needed by other species. The neuroscientist believes this level of planting and extraction has no impact because the system, as he sees it now (i.e., as it exists in its artificial state, presumably what the UC Davis studies he refers to also looked at) is "thriving", therefor it must be good.

What the neuroscientist misses in his perspective is what would be "thriving" in the designated wilderness of Drakes Estero if the artificial structures used and unnatural densities of non-native shellfish species were not there. Would there be an increase in the native shellfish, crab, and other fish species due to there being an increase in the calcifying agents needed? Would there be an increase in various species of fish which use eelgrass as a habitat due to a species of fish which use the structures which are no longer there? It's not considered because he only looks at what is there, created by man, artificially, not what could be in the natural state of a wilderness.

What has and has not been decided.
This difference in perspectives is similar to that of whether Drakes Bay Oyster Company's use of Federal lands is a contract issue or an environmental issue, something which will be decided in the courts, not in newspaper columns. What has already been decided is that impacts from past CO2 emissions are now affecting California coastal waters and species which live in them. CO2 emissions have resulted in a reduction of carbonate ions, affecting the saturation state for calcium carbonate, making it harder for shelled organisms to grow and maintain shells. The non-native Pacific oysters being grown and extracted from Drakes Estero makes it more difficult, and that is an impact worth considering.













 

 

 

NMFS Proposes 1,700 Square Miles of Puget Sound to be Critical Habitat

Public Notice Published August 6, 2013 in the Federal Register
Public Comments Due November 4, 2013
Log on to: http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=NOAA_FRDOC_0001-2633 and click on "Comment Now" where you will be able to submit comments and/or attachments.

Proposal
The National Marine Fisheries Services (NMFS) has proposed over 1,700 square miles of Puget Sound be declared critical habitat for three species of rockfish listed under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), including the threatened distinct population segment (DPS) of Yelloweye rockfish, the threatened DPS of Canary rockfish, and the endangered DPS of Bocaccio.

Proposed Critical Habitat in Puget Sound

From the Federal Register/Public Notice

The reason
As with the southern resident population of Orca, the populations of these rockfish were also determined to be distinct population segments (DPS) in need of protection under the Endangered Species Act. Puget Sound's habitat supports these protected species, among many others. One (Boccacio) is considered endangered and the other two (Canary and Yelloweye) are threatened. Concerns noted in the Public Notice include escaped nets, something which, with the expansion of geoduck farming in south Puget Sound is a growing concern.

South Puget Sound Critical Habitat

(from NOAA's interactive ERMA web site)

Critical Habitat Proposed in the San Juan Islands

(from NOAA's interactive ERMA web site)



Litigation
Given that the proposed critical habitat areas are intended to support distinct population segments (DPS) of rock fish which are also found elsewhere the conservative Pacific Legal Foundation (PLF) will no doubt challenge the proposal, initially in comments, followed by petitions to delist the species. As PLF attorney Damien Schiff noted a Seattle Times article in response to NMFS rejecting PLF's petition to remove the southern resident Orca from the list of endangered species, "Although we disagree with the service, the finding does tee up various issues that we would like to litigate over," With over $30 million in net assets they are well funded to do so. With the current focus of conservative groups and some industries - large and small - to weaken the current environmental protections in place there are those motivated to weaken, if not prevent, this current proposal.

PLF Attorney Damien Schiff





"would like to litigate"

 

Native Olympia Oysters Cope With Acidification Through "Brooding", Non-native Pacific In Reproductive Collapse

Native Olympia oyster (l)

Pacific oyster (r)

More than oysters need calcifying agents

An article The World reports how native Olympia oysters are able to cope with the increasing acidification of the ocean's waters while the non-native Pacific oysters are in a state of reproductive collapse. This crisis has resulted in taxpayers having to provide millions of dollars to support an industry fixated on an oyster native to Japan, attempting to grow them in the waters of Puget Sound and Drakes Estero where the Olympia oyster is the only native oyster. It has additional costs.

Canary in a coal mine

or a Chihuahua in the Arctic?

Better parenting results in better adjusted children
According to George Waldbusser, PhD in Biological Oceanography and a member of the "Blue Ribbon Panel" on ocean acidification, native Olympia oyster hold their eggs internally for several weeks after fertilization. The non-native Pacific oysters "broadcast" their spawn into the waters currently experiencing a drop in pH levels, where problems with shell formation occur due to a drop in the levels of carbonate ions needed for calcification (read more in this 9mb file on OA).

The result is the successful spawning and setting of native Olympia oysters in the waters of Coos Bay, Willapa Bay and Puget Sound, all waters experiencing a drop in pH levels. In the case of the non-native Pacific oysters, hatcheries have either closed or resorted to extreme monitoring and/or buffering of waters to create an artificial environment in which the "brood" is able to survive. Once "fostered" to a certain age these oysters are then placed into the waters where they grow at a rapid rate, reaching maturity in 1 to 2 years, as opposed to 3 to 4 for the native Olympia oysters.

Rapid growth = rapid use of ions and nutrients needed by all native species
A secondary outcome of this artificial support for a non-native species is the stress created on other species who also need those same carbonate ions and nutrients used by the non-native shellfish being grown commercially. As was pointed out in a recent piece by a professor in Marin County, Joe Mueller, Drakes Bay Oyster Company's growing of 20 million non-native Pacific oysters in Drakes Estero, and their harvest, uses and removes those same ions and other nutrients needed by all species native to the waters of Drakes Estero.

When we come along and funnel many of those nutrients into [20 million] oysters for tourists then the system is not able to provide adequately for all the other components of the system (marine invertebrates, fish, birds, marine mammals etc.). This may be somewhat sustainable from a human-use point of view, but it clearly short-changes the non-human aspects of the system.

Suggested reading
Suggested reading includes a paper by Dr. Waldbusser in which he points out how the removal of the shells from the ecosystem also removes their ability to help buffer the waters, returning some of the calcifying agents to the waters they were removed from. In the case of Drakes Estero, it is one of the points made by Professor Mueller and seemingly lost on Dr. Goodman in his response piece. A second paper reinforces the sensitivity of non-native Pacific oysters in the larval stage to the changing water chemistry within which all species will be impacted. 20 million non-native Pacific oysters in Drakes Estero do have an impact in a changing world, and the world is changing.

Non-native Pacific oysters survive only with life support to get the brood through "infancy". Once an "adolescent" and placed into the waters, their rapid growth uses large amounts of the diminishing carbonate ions, critical to huge numbers of native species. Its reproductive collapse may not be a "canary in a coal mine." It may be the equivalent of trying to raise a Chihuahua in the arctic.

Vibrio Levels and Reported Cases of Vibriosis in Puget Sound Continue to Climb

Forecast of warm weather is expected to increase

levels of Vibrio parahaemolyticus in oysters

and the risk of contracting vibriosis.

 

Areas closed to commercial harvesting

of oysters due to Vp levels or illness.

Update: Shellfish contaminated with the naturally occurring Vibrio parahaemolyticus is not just a West Coast problem. The Rhode Island Department of Health reported an outbreak of vibriosis traced to oysters from Connecticut. It has resulted in a recall of oysters harvested from 6 separate harvesters.
Update: Test results for areas 7 and 9 in Hood Canal have allowed for them to be re-opened.

Vibrio related information for commercial harvesting closures

The Department of Health has closed commercial harvesting of oysters in additional growing areas in Puget Sound due to increasing levels of Vibrio parahaemolyticus found in testing as well as reported illnesses of vibriosis traced to Washington oysters. Oakland Bay was recently closed due to reported illnesses as were additional areas of Hood Canal due to increased levels of Vp found in testing.

 

Vibriosis traced to oysters from other areas of Puget Sound have also been reported, but not yet in the number necessary for DOH to close those areas. Increasing levels from testing have resulted in increased temperature controls in Hammersley Inlet, Totten Inlet, and Bay Center (in Willapa Bay).

 

Biotoxin related information for commercial harvesting closures

In addition to Vp related closures, DOH has also closed Kilisut Harbor, Mystery Bay, and various subtidal geoduck tracts due to Paralytic Shellfish Poisoning toxin levels.

 

Recreational beach closures

In addition to commercial restrictions on harvesting DOH has also closed various public beaches due to elevated biotoxin levels. An interactive map on DOH's website shows which beaches are closed. Note that these closures are related to biotoxin levels, not Vibrio. It can be safely assumed that if a commercial area has restrictions recreational harvesters should do so with caution. DOH has a web site with useful safety information. The rule of thumb is to not consume oysters during the months of "no R."

 

Warm temperatures+minus tides+genetically modified triploids =increased risk

Consumption of any food carries risk. The combination of warm temperatures and low tides in July and August always increases the risk of contracting vibriosis from oysters. Historically these are the months when outbreaks of vibriosis traced to the consumption of raw oysters occurs (last year Drakes Bay Oyster Company had a major recall of oysters due to an outbreak of vibriosis traced to their oysters). With the increasing use of genetically modified "triploid" oysters, which are sterile, the "milkyness" and plumpness associated with spawning oysters makes more oysters "palatable".

 

August Tide Table

(Olympia times/levels)

 

 



NOAA Rejects Pacific Legal Foundation Petition to Remove Puget Sound Orcas from Endangered Species List

Southern Resident Orcas

San Juan Islands, WA



(photo from NOAA)

 

In a NOAA press release issued today, it announced it has rejected a petition filed by the Pacific Legal Foundation (PLF) to remove Puget Sound's southern resident Orca population from the list of endangered species.

 

Pacific Legal Foundation's

Attorney Damien Schiff



"would like to litigate"

 

Government, subsidies and litigation

August 2 of 2012, PLF's Principal Attorney Damien Schiff filed a petition with NOAA requesting the southern resident Orcas be removed from the ESA list. In the petition PLF claimed the group was not genetically distinct, only geographically distinct and that "erring on the side of caution" leads to an "end justifies the means" philosophy, resulting in the listing of a subspecies as endangered. This "ends justifies the means" has also been used by Corey Goodman to question the motives of those who believe Drakes Estero should be allowed to become a marine wilderness area, currently prevented by Drakes Bay Oyster Company's continued commercial operation.

 

The petition was filed on behalf of CESAR (Center for Environmental Science, Accuracy and Reliability,a nonprofit organization dedicated to "scientific rigor" in environmental regulations), Empresas Del Bosque Farms (2,200 acres growing cantaloupes, almonds and asparagus which has received $323,006 in government crop subsidies) and the Coburn Ranch (4,000 acres growing almonds, grapes and various row crops which has received over $5 million in government crop subsidies). PLF maintains the "family run farms" are harmed by the government, but neglects to mention this same burdensome government has also provided millions in subsidies to them.

 

PLF attorney Damien's response to the rejection of their petition was "...the finding does tee up various issues that we would like to litigate over." He does not say what the "various issues" are which he and PLF would like to "litigate" over. Farm subsidies will likely not be one of the "issues" teed up.

 

Pacific Legal Foundation - well funded to "litigate" in Washington or California

The Pacific Legal Foundation is one of the oldest conservative groups believing in limited government and protecting businesses from what it perceives as unfair burdens, especially when those "burdens" relate to environmental regulations. At the end of 2012 they had amassed over $33 million in net assets, having  received over $8 million in donations in 2012 alone. Of those amounts, they spent "only" $4 million in "legal activities" in 2012.

 

They have been active in minimizing regulatory oversight of shoreline owners in various Puget Sound counties as well as the California Coastal Commission, with the latter being referred to as a "power-hungry band of regulators". The California Coastal Commission is now embroiled in law suits with Drake's Bay Oyster Company over coastal violations it has failed to act on.

 

In addition to PLF's involvement in trying to de-list the southern resident Orcas they are also involved in supporting Drake's Bay Oyster Company. Attempts by public relations firms to distance Drakes Bay Oyster Company from associations with conservative groups have to date failed, primarily because it still continues. Recent appearances on conservative radio talk shows have not helped with the "message". 

 

Tar is sticky
As Steven Maviglio noted in is piece for the California Majority Report, the attempt by Drake's Bay Oyster Company to distance itself from the conservative right-wing groups it has associated with is not something it can simply walk away from and pretend didn't happen. Ongoing relations with the Pacific Legal Foundation who have brought attention to a northwest icon, the endangered southern resident Orcas, makes the road they walk on very sticky.



 

Update 8/3: Getting further bogged down in the tar.
Corey Goodman, neuroscientist and past Stanford professor who supports Drake's Bay Oyster Company "debated" a citizen, Bruce Kranzler, on the nuances of scientific research today with conservative talk show host "MZ" on KSCO. One has to admire Mr. Kranzler for his willingness to listen to Goodman's displeasure about the data not being "perfect" as it was in examples he used when teaching within the walls of Stanford University.

Update 8/6: Bruce Kranzler comments on Drakes Bay Oyster Company's Public Relations press and the "debate" with Kevin Lunny and the great Dr. Corey Goodman on The California Majority Report.

 

 

 

 

 

Drakes Bay Attorneys Files for Reconsideration After Professing Desire to Comply

July 19: "We want to comply."
July 26: "We want to file for reconsideration



Peter Prows, Attorney for

Drakes Bay Oyster Company

July 11 Superior Court Judge Duryee ruled that Drakes Bay Oyster Company must comply with the interim use orders of the Coastal Commission's Cease and Desist Order. The Coastal Commission noted it was looking forward to finally working with Drakes Bay Oyster Company and that it was never its intention to close the farm, only to bring it into compliance. July 18 the Los Angeles Times reported the California Coastal Commission as saying Drakes Bay Oyster Company "has seldom submitted required paperwork on time, despite pledges to do so." However, the Coastal Commission's Lisa Haage went on to say:

"We're hoping that Drakes Bay will now decide to comply," she said, noting the farm's many violations, beginning with its lack of a coastal development permit."Our issue has never been the farm's lease" that allows it to operate in the federal park, she said. "Our issue is to protect coastal resources. They keep saying they want to be cooperative; this is the opportunity to show that."
Haage said the ruling means that the court is compelling the oyster company to comply with the Coastal Commission's edicts.

Professor of Marine Biology Writes on Why Drakes Estero Should Become Wilderness

 

Suggests those who claim benefits from the farm's continued

operation should "review a college-level ecology textbook"

 

Placement of grow-out bags in Drakes Estero

Wilderness?

 

On July 31, the Marin Independent Journal published an editorial by Professor Joe Mueller, a local professor of marine ecology and environmental science, and winner of the prestigious T Award in 2008. In that editorial he writes why it is misguided to believe a commercial shellfish operation growing 20 million* non-native oysters benefits the marine ecosystem of a designated marine wilderness area.

(*Note: The figure of 20 million non-native oysters referred to is Kevin Lunny's estimate of how many non-native oysters, along with 2 million non-native Manila clams, would have to be removed if he were forced to close. It is part of his sworn rebuttal, signed on January 16, 2013. Some ardent supporters, such as east coast writer and corporate story teller Sarah Roph, claim the number of 19 million presented by the Coastal Commission to Superior Court is somehow distorted.)

 Professor Mueller's editorial from MarinIJ.com is copied below.

 

Marin Voice: Doing what's right for the ecology

 

I COMMEND the level of public engagement in the debate over whether to protect Drakes Estero marine wilderness or continue commercial oyster operations in our local national park. While the decision did not rest on scientific matters, fundamental ecological principles have always supported protecting this estuary.

 

As a local professor of marine ecology and environmental science for the past 25 years, I would be remiss if I didn't voice strong disagreement with those that feel growing and extracting 20 million non-native oysters from the Drakes Bay Ecosystem is in any way commendable as an environmentally healthy practice.

 

Proponents of maintaining this substantial cultivation and harvest fail to realize many fundamentals of ecological science. In fact, from what I can gather, advocates believe that maintaining this operation is somehow beneficial to the Drakes Bay ecosystem.

At its foundations, the Drakes Bay tidal estuarine ecosystem functions when both phytoplankton and salt marsh plants package sunlight and materials into carbohydrate. The tides then scour the embayment and surrounding coastal area with nutrients.

When we come along and funnel many of those nutrients into oysters for tourists then the system is not able to provide adequately for all the other components of the system (marine invertebrates, fish, birds, marine mammals etc.). This may be somewhat sustainable from a human-use point of view, but it clearly short-changes the non-human aspects of the system.

Of course this is the same fundamental havoc the human species is causing world wide, with 20 percent of the world population using 80 percent of the resources, the very ecosystems we all depend on are suffering, and we've exceeded our footprint.

This provides a unique conundrum for some people in West Marin. How do they maintain their well-earned reputation of environmental sustainability and still extract 700,000 pounds of oysters per year from an ecosystem slated for wilderness 40 years ago? In fact, the wilderness designation allows humans to be visitors to revel in the natural wonder that ultimately provides the attraction for tourists in the first place.

National park and wilderness advocates are asking to save one (yes, just one) estuary on the entire western coast of the United States. This would honor an agreement that Congress made and fulfill the vision to protect Drakes Estero after the oyster lease expired, as planned and paid for. Protecting this estuary for wilderness would spare wildlife from human disruption by thousands of roaring motorboat trips, water pollution, artificial modification through invasive species and nutrient extraction.

There are a few scientists who claim oysters are needed for the Drakes Bay ecosystem to function, essentially stating that the ecosystem wouldn't or couldn't function in a pristine state without human intervention. I would respectfully recommend that these individuals review a college-level ecology textbook to see the flaws in their claims.

I think most agree that nitrogen has been cycling in tidal estuaries for eons without the help of human intervention.

There are a host of other reasons I believe that the pro-oyster company side of the argument is not compliant with healthy ecosystem science. This includes, but is not limited to, five miles of toxic creosote treated wooden racks that continuously add toxins to the water that are spread throughout the embayment with every tide, thousands of plastic tubes that have littered the embayment and surrounding coastal area, impacts from invasive species on eel grass communities, impacts from invasive Manila clams, marine mammal disturbances, and the regular din of motorboat traffic.
This leads me to believe that some sustainably minded Marin residents mean well, but don't fully understand the science behind the controversy.

Joe Mueller of Fairfax is a professor of marine biology at the College of Marin.