Our mission is to protect the habitat of Puget Sound tidelands from the underregulated expansion of new and intensive shellfish aquaculture methods. These methods were never anticipated when the Shoreline Management Act was passed. They are transforming the natural tideland ecosystems in Puget Sound and are resulting in a fractured shoreline habitat. In South Puget Sound much of this has been done with few if any meaningful shoreline permits and with limited public input. It is exactly what the Shoreline Management Act was intended to prevent.

Get involved and contact your elected officials to let them you do not support aquaculture's industrial transformation of Puget Sound's tidelands.

Governor Inslee:

Wednesday, September 11, 2013

Taylor Shellfish Files Petition for Review, Objecting to SHB Monitoring Condition

Update 3/16/14: Corrected instructions to grant details
1. Go here for the Grants online search page:
2. Enter award number NA16RG1591 in the "award number box"
Developing this study to benefit Taylor Shellfish and the EIS is found in this letter to Thurston County from Vicki Morris:

Taylor Shellfish Files Petition for Review with Superior Court
Taylor Shellfish has filed a Petition for Review with the Superior Court in Thurston County, objecting to the Shoreline Hearings Board (SHB) decision which reversed Thurston County's denial of its Shoreline Substantial Development Permit (SSDP). In that decision the SHB required Taylor Shellfish to develop and implement, with Thurston County, a monitoring plan to ensure dissolved oxygen in the water column, benthic organisms, and native species of mussel were not adversely impacted from the mussel operation.

Precedent for Monitoring Set by Seattle Shellfish and Mason County
The Shoreline Hearings Board has a precedent to rely on for its action in SHB No. 10-009. When Seattle Shellfish wished to install a 300 yard long geoduck nursery facility, as part of the settlement to an appeal by Case Inlet Shoreline Association, they agreed to allow a 3rd party (not a contract scientist) to develop a monitoring plan. Seattle Shellfish and Mason County became responsible for implementing that plan and providing reports as they became available. The first annual report has been posted on Mason County's site. The Shoreline Hearings Board noted in their letter: "Thank you for your efforts in settling this matter."

Petition to the Shoreline Hearing Board by Taylor Shellfish Requesting their Monitoring Plan Be Accepted
When the SHB reversed Thurston County's permit denial it also required Taylor Shellfish and Thurston County develop a monitoring plant to address areas the Examiner had concerns on. In an attempt to overstep Thurston County's role, Taylor Shellfish requested the SHB accept its monitoring plan which it developed without input from the County. The "plan" consisted of a 12 page Petition; their contract scientist's 12 page Declaration; their contract scientist's 3 page monitoring plan; and, American Gold Seafood's 30 page Waste Discharge Permit for their salmon net pen operation. The SHB denied the Petition.

Taylor Shellfish Rejects their Own Monitoring Plan?
Oddly similar to Taylor Shellfish telling the Thurston County Hearing Examiner to deny their permit, Taylor Shellfish's Petition for Review to the Superior Court has rejected its own monitoring plan. In their Petition they do not suggest the Court accept the monitoring plan developed by their contract scientist. Now they reject the SHB condition which required Taylor Shellfish and the County to develop a monitoring plan claiming this process has cost them "millions*" and the SHB has no authority to require the monitoring, despite the SHB accepting the monitoring resolution to the appeal of Seattle Shellfish's permit by Case Inlet Shoreline Association.
*Last year Taylor claimed to have only spent over a million dollars. It is unclear what has happened between then and now to balloon their perceived expense to multiple millions. Of interest would be whether a $368,000 NOAA grant to study carrying capacity in Totten Inlet is included as an expense. Or perhaps they only refer to lost revenues. Whatever the case, it is not the amount of money spent or pages produced which are important. It is whether studies adequately addressed the environmental impacts of a project. In this case, everyone agrees (excluding Taylor Shellfish) they did not.
Separately, APHETI and Thurston County File Petition for Review Requesting Reversal of SHB Decision
APHETI and Thurston County have joined in filing a separate Petition for Review to Superior Court asking them to reverse entirely the SHB decision and reinstate the decision of Thurston County's Hearing Examiner which denied Taylor Shellfish's permit. That denial was based on a lack of sufficient information. Taylor Shellfish, rather than providing the requested information, asked the permit be denied.





No comments:

Post a Comment