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: https://fortress.wa.gov/es/governor/
Legislative and Congressional contacts:
http://app.leg.wa.gov/DistrictFinder/

Additional information
Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/protectourshore
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/ProtectOurShoreline



Wednesday, June 11, 2014

Drakes Bay Oyster Company: Supreme Court to Review Petition June 26th


The Secretary emphasized in particular that
"his decision was 'based on the incompatibility of
commercial activities in wilderness.'"
 


The Supreme Court has announced it will review Drakes Bay Oyster Company's petition on June 26th.  It is expected an announcement will be issued the following Monday, June 30th, on their decision. It may be rejected, re-listed for further consideration the following week, or accepted for review.

The Department of the Interior's clear logic on why DBOC's petition should be rejected is detailed in their brief [click here]. It shows the reader in clarity why DOI's decision to allow Drakes Estero to become the wilderness Congress intended, for all citizens of the United States to enjoy, is well grounded in law. DBOC's perceived belief of being entitled to generate profits from their commercial operation within the Philip Burton Wilderness Area does not trump the Wilderness Act.

Additional information may be found here:
13-1244
Drakes Bay Oyster Company v. Jewell

(1) Whether federal courts lack jurisdiction under the Administrative Procedure Act to review an agency action that is arbitrary and capricious or an abuse of discretion when the statute authorizing the action does not impose specific requirements governing the exercise of discretion; (2) whether federal agencies can evade review of their actions under the National Environmental Policy Act by designating their actions as “conservation efforts,” when the record shows that the action will cause significant adverse environmental effects; and (3) whether an agency commits prejudicial error when it makes materially false statements in an environmental impact statement, and then asserts that it would have made the same decision even if the false statements had been corrected.

No comments:

Post a Comment