Pierce County has released the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) on a proposed 25 acre geoduck farm in Burley Lagoon. There will be no public comments accepted. A 14 day period for an official appeal is currently in place.
The FEIS, supporting documents and timelines are available on-line, here:
https://www.piercecountywa.gov/burleylagoon

(From Protect the Peninsula)

What You Should Know About

Insudstrial Raised Shellfish

Join Protect the Peninsula’s Future for its 49th Year Celebration (Virtual)

Thursday, November 17, 7:00 PM      

 RSVP to PPF@olympus.net to receive the Zoom connection*

Our featured speaker this year is Kristina Sinclair,

Associate Attorney at the Center for Food Safety

 

*Space is limited to 100.

Kristian Sinclair, Associate Attorney

Center for Food Safety

Kristina Sinclair is an Associate Attorney at the Center for Food Safety (CFS), where she focuses on environmental cases challenging industrial agriculture, including commercial shellfish.

Kristina earned her J.D. from the University of California, Berkeley, School of Law. While in law school, Kristina was an Articles Editor for the California Law Review. She also participated in the Environmental Law Clinic, served on the steering committee for Students for Economic and Environmental Justice, and worked as a teaching assistant for Appellate Advocacy. Upon graduation, she received recognition for her pro bono work and a Certificate of Specialization in Environmental Law.

Since joining CFS, Kristina has been working on a lawsuit challenging highly disruptive industrial shellfish operations in Washington. In this case, CFS and Coalition to Protect Puget Sound allege that the U.S. Army Corps (USACE) failed to properly consider the potential risks before reissuing the nationwide permit for commercial shellfish activities in January 2021, in violation of the Clean Water Act, National Environmental Policy Act, and Endangered Species Act. In addition, USACE has authorized over 400 commercial shellfish operations without any public notice or environment review. Consequently, these operations have significant adverse, effects on Washington's local environment and wildlife. 

 

 In this webinar, Kristina will provide an overview of USACE's shellfish permitting requirements, as well as the ongoing litigation challenging USACE's unlawful shellfish permitting actions. She will also share some insights from this legal work and potential opportunities for future advocacy. 

Background on USACE's Permitting Requirements
History of USACE's Unlawful Permitting Actions in Washington
Previous Case
Current Case

Future Opportunities

 October 20, 1PM PCT/4PM ECT the Center for Food Safety will present a webinar on protecting the public's marine ecosystem from industrial scale aquaculture. While focused on Washington State, the significant and adverse impacts are a current and growing worldwide problem. Make a difference in life today which continues  into the future.

To register, click on this link: 

https://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/join/6168/webinar-the-fight-to-save-our-oceans-the-faces-behind-the-cases

Cumulative Impacts Not Considered: District Court Issues Ruling on Vacating Shellfish Farms

Coalition to Protect Puget Sound Habitat and the Center for Food Safety

succeed in proving the Army Corps did not consider 

cumulative impacts when issuing permits.

The Court found that it [the Army Corps] violated 

the CWA [Clean Water Act] and NEPA 

(National Environmental Policy Act)

by failing to take a hard look 

at the anticipated environmental 

impacts of NWP 48*

(US District Court, June 11, 2020)

Geoduck market collapses in China.

Court finds permits void.

Who will clean up the mess when growers

just walk away from their plastics?

*NWP 48 is a permit issued every 5 years to authorize common shellfish activities in the waters of the US. In Washington, it allowed permits to be issued on tidelands not used for aquaculture up to 100 years ago. Acreage numbers as high as 72,300 acres were presented. The Court stated: "its data regarding past uses of the permit was incorrect and its estimates of future uses are suspect"

Cumulative Impacts Matter

In the Court's October 2017 Order, the District Court ruled the Corps of Engineers had not considered cumulative impacts in approving their Nationwide Permit 48 in 2017 thereby voiding all permits issued. In its June 11, 2020 decision on whether to void all current permits, the Court found the logic presented by the Corps and shellfish growers lacking in evidence.

"...there is insufficient evidence in the administrative record to support the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ conclusion that the 2017 reissuance of Nationwide Permit (“NWP”) 48 would have minimal individual and cumulative impacts on the aquatic environment for purposes of the Clean Water Act (“CWA”) and (b) that the Corps’ environmental assessment related to NWP 48 did not satisfy the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”)."

Operators to go on vacation?
Following the decision, the Court was then faced with whether to force growers to vacate areas now found to be operating under an invalid permit, considering "(1) the seriousness of an agency’s errors and (2) the “disruptive consequences of an interim change that may itself be changed.” It was up to the Corps and growers (Taylor Shellfish and Nisbet Oyster) to provide the logic and evidence showing why they should be allowed to continue operating.

"...courts may decline to vacate agency decisions when vacatur would cause serious and irremediable harms that significantly outweigh the magnitude of the agency’s error. . . . Courts have considered remand without vacatur to be appropriate where serious irreparable environmental injury would result from vacatur. . . . In addition to environmental harm, it is appropriate to consider other practical concerns when weighing the consequences of vacatur"

Court to growers and the Corps: You made a serious error.
The Corps and growers argued the mistake was neither serious nor consequential because both the District and State were involved in oversight, minimizing the environmental impact. The Court did not agree, stating:

"The Corps/Intervenors have not shown that the District level verification process or state, local, and/or Tribal oversight of commercial shellfish aquaculture activities in Washington overcome the seriousness of the agency’s errors in this case."

Disruptive Consequences - Economics don't trump the environment. 
"environmental impacts of these activities are more than minimal, both individually and cumulatively"
In considering the disruptive consequences of finding all shellfish farms "unauthorized and in violation of federal law" the Court considered a number of things. Included was the Corps being "overwhelmed" by new permit applications; tribes may be unable to provide food for tribal members; growers would face devastating impacts on the continuing viability of their farms, their employees, their communities, the state and local economies of which they are a part, and the ability of Washington shellfish farmers to compete on a national or international basis; shellfish are "filter feeders" and their removal would harm the marine ecosystem; and, shellfish growers "retard" upland development activities. Growers argued they should just be allowed to continue on, harvesting and seeding. Even on tidelands which had no activities for 100 years.

"The problem is not that the Intervenors have failed to establish that the loss of their authorization to install shellfishing equipment and to discharge materials into the waters of the United States would have devastating impacts on their businesses, but rather that they have not shown that those impacts outweigh the environmental consequences of continuing their activities as currently permitted."

The Court's solution 
Because neither the growers nor the Corps could not support not vacating the permits, the Court stated:

"In the absence of meaningful assistance from the Corps and the Intervenors in helping to shape a compromise remedy, the Court will adopt a remedy based on the suggestions of plaintiffs, amici, and Swinomish."

That remedy crafted by the Court vacates all current permits but allows a pause of 60 days for an appeal; would allow currently planted shellfish to be harvested; seeding and planting within 6 months in areas without eel grass could occur; and, tribal rights would be respected. If growers intend ongoing activities (e.g., harvesting) they must, within 6 months, apply for a new permit. Planting new areas would not be allowed without a new permit. The Corps must process new individual permits but not without following CWA and NEPA steps outlined in the October 10, 2019 Order which concluded:

"The Corps’ issuance of a nationwide permit, at least with respect to activities in the waters of the State of Washington, was arbitrary and capricious and not in accordance with NEPA or the CWA. Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 706(2), the Court holds unlawful and sets aside NWP 48 insofar as it authorizes activities in Washington."

Get involved.
Make a difference in life and help protect Puget Sound's critical marine habitat. Whether from open net pens discharging plumes of untreated waste or plastics used in shellfish aquaculture, this habitat is under extreme pressure.

Cooke Aquaculture and Football Shaped Rainbow Trout: Are they really "native steelhead"?

Comments due by November 22

Our Sound Our Salmon provides a how and why to submit comments here

Fool me once, shame on you.

Fool me twice, shame on me.

Above - 2017

Below - 2019

Genetically altered sterile rainbow trout are not native.

Our Sound Our Salmon is encouraging citizens to take advantage of the extended comment period on whether Cooke Aquaculture should be allowed to grow genetically altered rainbow trout in Puget Sound. Cooke intends to brand these rainbow trout raised in Puget Sound as "steelhead".*

*Steelhead are rainbow trout which have out-migrated from fresh water into salt water, then returned to their native streams to spawn. In the case of Cooke's fish, they are genetically modified to become sterile, will be fed pellets enriched with Omega 3, obtained from harvested forage fish, and fed supplements such as astaxanthin to turn the flesh pink. Whether raising a rainbow trout this way qualifies it as a "steelhead" is questionable, at best.

What altered genetics gets you:

Fish "shaped like footballs, with smaller heads"

(Seattle Times article)

"They're steelhead"

Maybe, but that's not native.

By altering the genetics of rainbow, most of the female fish will be sterile (Cooke cannot guarantee all will be), unable to develop gonads. Because of this, energy continues to be focused on growth as the fish age and continue to be fed. Documents submitted by Cooke, as reported in the Seattle Times,  describe the fish as "..often shaped like footballs, with smaller heads and stout bodies" (see image above, provided by WDFW). Economically, these genetically altered fish create more "meat on the bone." But they are not native.

These cows on the Serengeti 

can spread into native habitat.

Old science, new science, the reality is

farmed fish spread when they escape.

(WDFW estimated in a worse case scenario 

up to 1,000,000 genetically altered rainbow

may escape from Cooke Aquaculture's pens)

But "science" said they wouldn't travel far if they escaped.

One of the most significant lessons learned from Cooke Aquaculture's alleged negligence in 2017 which allowed over 250,000 farmed salmon to escape was they do not simply sit by the pen. As seen in the map above, created by WDFW from reported catches of Cooke's escaped salmon, they spread not only throughout the Salsish Sea, they also migrated up rivers use by native and endangered salmon for spawning. Despite documents submitted which try to show escapes would not travel far, not know where to go or what to do, the facts provided by WDFW clearly showed they do spread and do know how to find rivers with spawning habitat. There is no reason to believe these "steelhead" would not follow the same behavior as their closely related Atlantic salmon did. A fact based on reality, not a model created from behavior of fish somewhere else in the world. 

Cooke Aquaculture needs to move

into the future and stop polluting

public and tribal waters.

You can grow smolt here, 

you can grow steelhead here. 

And you have an additional 300 acres

less than 5 miles away to the west.

There is a better way to do things, creating jobs and infusing capital. You have the money and the land.

Of most significance to anyone concerned about the risks these genetically altered rainbow trout pose to Puget Sound, whether it be nutrients discharged from the pens or habitat and spawning grounds, is that Washington's Department of Fish and Wildlife did not consider the alternative of upland/contained operations. These facilities are being built throughout the world. Atlantic Sapphire has a facility in Florida which when complete will grow an estimated 50% of the USA demand for farmed salmon. Nordic Aquafarms has 2 projects, one in Maine and another in California. Whole Oceans has a project in Maine. And around the world facilities are being built, close to population centers. Water is filtered and treated. Risks from disease and sea lice are eliminated. Cooke could be a shining example of the future if they wanted to be. Or were forced to be. Or they could return to Canada.

Get involved. Cooke is. 

Canadian owned Cooke Aquaculture and operators before them have dominated the political process in Washington State. Cooke's alleged negligence in 2017 which led to the collapse of the Cypress Island net pen and subsequent release of over 250,000 nonnative Atlantic salmon motivated the public and legislators to ban these operations in Puget Sound. Cook's current attempt to claim these genetically altered rainbow are "native steelhead" is not what the public intended when legislation was passed in 2018. Cooke and their lobbyists are now heavily involved in convincing regulators and legislators that in fact, this is what the public intended.

Educate yourself on Our Sound Our Salmon's website, then submit meaningful comments. If you don't you'll end up with what somebody else wants.

Geoduck Market Experiences a Collapse: Washington considers it a junk clam for a reason.

The Junk Bond of Clams

They taste like they look. Unless you're Chinese.

Like the collapse of the junk bond market

so too is the market for geoduck collapsing.

(Picture from the Seattle Times)

Most Washington citizens have considered the geoduck clam to be little more than a junk clam. Beyond its size, there was little it had to offer. It was difficult to dig, difficult to cook, and difficult to chew. It had no intrinsic economic value beyond its odd shape.

The junk clam becomes a phallic symbol

with marketers in WA convincing Chinese men...

(From BBC)

I've got the cure for what ails you.
Then somebody discovered a weak point in the Chinese culture, men specifically, convincing  them a  Puget Sound clam was the cure. The junk clam became the item in China which would solve whatever it was Chinese men felt they were lacking. With a wink and a nod, and disbelief to  Washington State citizens, a market exploded in China and the junk clam experienced a demand never dreamed of. Like shark fins, Manta Ray gills, Black Bear gall bladders, a superstition was born. An extraction business in Washington's tidelands exploded. Geoduck over 130 years old (believed to be the longest living species) began to be clear cut from subtidal lands and commercial farms with PVC tubing appeared  in the intertidal areas. 

You too can become rich. 

We'll keep 85% of the revenue

and farm whenever we think it's best,

however much we think we should.

Your tidelands? No, you can't use them now.

That's fair, isn't it?

A fungus spreads in Washington's tidelands.

With the demand for geoduck came the demand for tidelands which never naturally supported the densities planted, let alone the plastic tubes and netting required for this mono-culture to take hold. Like the carpet baggers of the south, growers knocked on doors, left fliers and called tideland owners who were unaware of the value they had in those tidelands. Worse was the control they were giving away. Not known was when their lease was signed, the percentage of revenues paid was nothing more than an amount agreed on among a few growers as "fair"  (as low as 10%, predominantly 15%, maybe higher if someone signed a decades long lease). It is an oligopoly in the classic meaning of the word. Their properties became encumbered for decades, with the commercial operations in some cases reducing the value of their neighbors' property.   

"Don't I have some say

in when you harvest these clams?"

Didn't read the fine print in the lease.

If you don't know the value of what you have...

Of significance today, given up by tideland owners in their leases to these few growers was control over when their tidelands would be harvested, as well as use of them. Today, as written about in the Seattle Times, as a result of a tariff war between China and the USA, and changing "tastes", the geoduck market has collapsed. The "wild" geoduck are now fetching $6/pound versus $16/pound in the first quarter of 2016, a drop of over 60%. Cultured prices, depending on who you listen to at what point in time, have dropped from 25% to 45% from their peak.

Like a bank, geoduck growers are insulated

when a market collapses.

 "Why were geoduck on my tidelands harvested

at the low point of the market?" Good question, 

but a little late to ask.

A tariff war is never good, especially when product is available from other countries. 

In any business there is risk which, in theory, is taken on by the producers, or in this case, those leasing tidelands to grow geoduck or those bidding on wild geoduck. In the case of wild geoduck, Washington's Department of Natural Resources provided "financial relief" to the bidders when tariffs initially caused prices to drop. Those leasing tidelands weren't so fortunate. Instead, they found growers who had leased their tidelands were harvesting at the lowest price in recent history, and they had no say in whether they should wait for higher prices to arrive. That control they gave away, along with encumbering the title of their property for decades. Meanwhile, Canada, Mexico and New Zealand benefited from the battle between China and the USA, selling their geoduck, tariff free.

Think politics doesn't matter?

It will when it comes to tariffs.

He who put tariffs on

can take tariffs off and claim

a "great deal" has been made,

whether real or not.

Your geoduck are gone, but mine are just waiting for prices to rise.

Anyone who believes the current tariffs between the United States and China will remain in place as the election approaches is naive. Too much is at stake during election cycles, and this is no different. Between now and election time, there will be a "great deal" made between the US and China, and with it the removal of tariffs. And when those tariffs are gone, geoduck prices will once again rise to levels significantly higher than today. But those who leased their tidelands will have nothing to sell, having had them harvested by growers who, because prices were low, paid even less to those whose tidelands were leased (lower revenue times X% means less paid out to the lessor). On the other hand, geoduck growing on tidelands owned by the growers, tidelands purchased with the immense profits generated in years past, simply waited for higher prices to return, and can now begin harvesting.* A "great deal".

*Seattle Shellfish, Arcadia Point Seafood and Taylor Shellfish, directly or indirectly,  separately or together, have purchased large tracts of tidelands over the past decade in South Puget Sound, on which they have planted large tracts of geoduck. Examples include tideland parcels purchased in Spencer Cove on Harstine Island; Totten Inlet's Totten Shores; and Fudge Point on Harstine Island. Even well paid "scientists", involved in creating studies, purchased tidelands along the shoreline of Totten Inlet. All tidelands growing geoduck which don't have to be harvested at low prices because all have leased tidelands which have geoduck which can be harvested, and from which a lower rent will be paid. 

Banks don't lose and tideland owners likely aren't too happy. But business is tough.
The two markets - wild and cultivated - have experienced a significant loss in revenue and with it planning. Bank loans made based on prices now driven down by the current tariffs are in question. The Seattle Times article mentions salmon restoration projects being impacted because DNR's revenues are expected to be lower, leading to less in the Aquatic Lands Enhancement Account (ALEA).* (The Times notes $28 million from geoduck auction, of which the LEAP legislative document shows $6.6 million being allocated to ALEA.) And tideland owners wonder whether that lease they signed and encumbered their property with for, in some cases decades, was such a good deal after all. But that's business.

*A portion of revenues received by DNR from aquatic leases and wild geoduck harvest are allocated to the Aquatic Lands Enhancement Account (ALEA) which was intended to enhance public access to aquatic lands and for "restoring shorelines for salmon habitat." The LEAP document for 2019 shows projects in the ALEA account totaling $6.6 million. The Seattle Times notes revenues from geoduck auctions for wild geoduck totaling $28 million. It's not known where the $21.2 million difference was allocated to.

Business is tough. Products whose price is artificially inflated are laden with risk. Risk which has now come home to roost in the geoduck market.

US District Court Rules Against US Army Corps' Shellfish Permits: Impact analysis and environmental assessment were inadequate.

Decision will have impact 

on current proposals.

US District Court rules that Nationwide 48 permits for aquaculture issued by the US Army Corps were based on an inadequate "...impact analysis and environmental assessment".
Read complete decision here: https://app.box.com/s/dwftuu3wnam6bxfv32qlq5e03wo5t0hr

(Read original case filed by Coalition here:
http://coalitiontoprotectpugetsoundhabitat.org/…/complaint-…
(Read Center for Food Safety filing here:
http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/…/2017-8-10-complaint_fi…)
(Read Swinomish Tribe complaint, also considered, here:
https://olyopen.files.wordpress.com/…/swinomish-lawsuit-aga…)

Clalllam County permitting decision just lost

a significant leg: US District Court rules

the Corps' analysis was inadequate.

This does not belong in the

Dungeness National Wildlife Refuge.

(Click here for proposal and to comment)

(Comments due by Nov 21)

"The Corps’ issuance of a nationwide permit, at least with respect to activities in the waters of the State of Washington, was arbitrary and capricious and not in accordance with NEPA or the CWA. Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 706(2), the Court holds unlawful and sets aside NWP 48 insofar as it authorizes activities in Washington."

One small farm lead to another, and another,

and another, and another....

Which all added together make a difference.

And the Corps didn't consider that.

Never give up

For over a decade the Coalition to Protect Puget Sound Habitat, driven by Laura Hendricks, has been saying there was never an adequate cumulative impacts analysis done in order to determine whether small discrete projects, taken as a whole, had a significant and adverse impact on Puget Sound's critical marine habitat. Today the US District Court agreed.

PVC tubes and netting are transforming

Puget Sound's critical marine habitat.

Zangle Cove is only one area

where expansion is occurring.

Native aquatic vegetation is displaced by shellfish farms.

Shellfish farming impacts eelgrass, a critical habitat.

Agreeing with the Coalition and Center For Food Safety, as well as considering a case brought the Swinomish Indian Tribal Community over concerns about impacts to eelgrass, the decision still to be made will be whether to vacate all of the Nationwide 48 permits issued, or to consider what the Swinomish may suggest. The tribe has until November 15 to file papers. Also being allowed to file papers on alternatives to cancelling all Nationwide 48 permits issued will be the intervenors, Taylor Shellfish and the Pacific Coast Shellfish Growers Association, and defendant, the Corps of Engineers.

Net pen fish farming is only one

of the many forms aquaculture takes.

Its impacts are additive to the 

marine ecosystem.

Tell WDFW their analysis of Cooke Aquaculture's proposal

to grow steelhead in Puget Sound was inadequate

and an Environmental Impact Statement 

analyzing ALL alternatives, including upland/contained systems

needs to be performed.

(Click here for proposal)

Email here: SEPAdesk2@dfw.wa.gov

Comments due by Oct 22

Get involved. Marine ecosystems are being impacted by many shapes and in many ways.

Get involved and make a difference in helping to protect the critical marine habitat as The Coalition to Protect Puget Sound Habitat, Center for Food Safety, and the Swinomish Tribe did.
See Coalition web site here:
http://coalitiontoprotectpugetsoundhabitat.org/?p=841
See Center for Food Safety site here:
https://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/…/center-for-food-safet…
See Swinomish site here:
http://www.swinomish-nsn.gov/

Taylor Shellfish Says Clam Die-off in Burley Lagoon from Toxic Algae

"Based on recent water samples, 

there is a toxic algae bloom in Burley Lagoon."

Taylor Shellfish, September 15

Testing and reporting to...?

After weeks of complaints over a putrid smell in Burley Lagoon and large areas of dead clams rising found on the surface of sediments, an email was sent to Taylor Shellfish asking if perhaps the cause may be that Burley Lagoon's carrying capacity has been exceeded. In response, Taylor Shellfish stated water samples had shown there was a toxic algae bloom occurring in Burley Lagoon. It did not appear from the email any residents had been notified of the toxic algae.

"The stench of dead clams 

nearly knocked him over," he said.

In July.

Burley Lagoon? No, Rocky Bay. 

The stench of dead clams.

Toxic algae blooms have impacted high density clam plantings by Taylor Shellfish elsewhere in Puget Sound this year. In July, residents near Rocky Bay also complained of a similar "stench". In the case of Rocky Bay, it was found large areas with clams planted in high densities by Taylor Shellfish had also risen to the surface and died. The Key Peninsula News wrote about the event August 1. 

(Read article here: https://keypennews.com/rocky-bay-algae-bloom-suspected-in-clam-die-off

This looks and smells very familiar.

This canary flew around for a long time.

In the September 15 email, Taylor noted the toxic algae is a "canary" of some sort, indicating something. That sampling shows the algae is still present months later, and shellfish planted in high densities in the tidelands of Puget Sound are still dying, should motivate health officials to do something more than they are. Before shellfish with toxins make their way from tidelands to the public. 

End of July, Beginning of August Bring Minus Tides and Warm Weather

Get out and experience Puget Sound

(Tide chart from here: http://www.dairiki.org/tides/monthly.php/oly)

The low minus tides of late July and early August bring one of the last opportunities to experience Puget Sound's low intertidal habitat. It is an area unique to Puget Sound which supports diverse species unique to Puget Sound which is worth protecting and preserving.

Vibriosis Infections From South Puget Sound's Hammersley Inlet, Now Closed to Harvesting

Vibriosis Closes Hammersley Inlet 

Shellfish Growing Area

Washington's Department of Health has notified shellfish growers the Hammersley Inlet growing area is closed due to multiple cases of vibriosis traced to oysters harvested from that area. Warming temperatures and minus tides contributed to the cause of the increase. Being able to trace illnesses to specific areas, in this case, pointed to Hammersley Inlet.

Over the past years, illnesses from oysters harvested from Hammersley Inlet have caused a variety of closures, some related to vibriosis, some related to noro-virus. Vibrio parahaemolyticus bacterium, the cause of vibriosis, occurs naturally in Puget Sound. As water temperatures rise it becomes more abundant. Because oysters are filter feeders, they retain this bacteria within their systems. If left in warm temperatures, the oyster becomes a petri dish which causes this species of bacterium to grow rapidly.

Food safety is important. The Department of Health does not recommend consuming raw oysters from south Puget Sound during the summer and instead suggests boiling, baking or broiling in order to kill any bacteria.

Growth Management Hearings Board Rejects DOE and Pierce County Restrictions on Aquaculture

Taylor  Shellfish/Foss Family Prevail:

GMHB Tells DOE and Pierce County 

it must

"plan for, foster and give preference 

to aquaculture as a preferred use"

[Read decision here]

Presidential Candidate Governor Inslee

and Taylor Shellfish's Bill Dewey

China's elite pay a lot of money.

Taylor Shellfish makes a lot of money.

A few waterfront tideland owners 

make a lot of money.

Is that bad for the marine ecosystem Governor?

Aquaculture as a fosster child.

Washington's Growth Management Hearings Board has told the Department of Ecology and Pierce County the purpose of the Shoreline Management Act is to "plan for, foster and give preference to aquaculture as a preferred use". It is not to prevent the fragmentation of the intertidal area which the SMA describes as part of "the most valuable and fragile of its natural resources." As such it has returned Pierce County's updated Shoreline Master Program to them telling them to remove many  regulations the county and its citizens put in place to control aquaculture.

China doesn't care about Puget Sound habitat.

They care about geoduck grown in PVC pipes.

48,000 per acre

A concern then, a bigger concern now.

Citizens who overwhelmingly passed the SMA because there was concern "throughout the state relating to their utilization, protection, restoration and preservation" now find those concerns are apparently secondary to profits of corporations such as Taylor Shellfish and wealthy shoreline tideland/upland owners such as the Foss family's North Bay Partners who lease their tidelands to them. Taylor Shellfish and the Foss family's North Bay Partners appealed Pierce County's SMP approved by DOE and won.

Before

 After

There are some things which do not need to be fosstered.

What you see above may be good for the geoduck industry, China, a few corporations and a few tideland owners. But who else really believes this is good for Puget Sound's intertidal area? Do properties held by the Foss family really need to be fosstered?

~130 acres, ~5,000' of waterfront.

Taxes? $3,957

Does the Foss family really need to have

geoduck aquaculture fosstered to help pay these taxes?

Washington's intertidal areas are being transformed by a few large corporations who believe the money made and jobs created mitigates the damage done. It is an oligopoly - an industry controlled by a few dominant players. These corporations control the price paid to tideland owners, they control the price paid for shellfish, and through well paid lobbyists and attorneys control agencies responsible for protecting, preserving and restoring Washington's "most valuable and fragile of its natural resources" and instead have convinced them their role is to foster aquaculture. 

The industrial level of activities created by these few corporations are what the SMA was meant to hold back. Not foster.

Get involved

Get involved. If you are not, when your grandchildren ask how Puget Sound's tidelands came to be transformed into forests of PVC, you will only be able to say, "Because I didn't care enough to do anything."

Geoduck Aquaculture: Too Controversial for Jefferson County Marine Resources Committee? What are you "protecting"?

June 28, 1-5PM

Shellfish Aquaculture Educational Forum

Northwest Maritime Center

431 Water St
Port Townsend, WA

Registration required (click here for registration)

JCMRC: We only want to educate you 

on aquaculture which isn't controversial.

(from Coalition to Protect Puget Sound Habitat)

What habitat is it JCMRC "protecting and restoring"?

The "habitat" 40,000 PVC tubes/acre create?

(from Jefferson County Marine Resources Committee site)

Really? What "resources" are you protecting by not putting geoduck aquaculture on the agenda? 

In a move which shines a light on the role which the Jefferson County Marine Resources Committee is apparently now filling - promoting shellfish aquaculture which the industry wants you to hear about - they have decided not to include geoduck aquaculture in an upcoming "educational forum" on aquaculture. Based on a recent post by Al Bergstein, the past Environmental representative on the Committee, the upcoming June 28 meeting will only discuss the warmer topics of aquaculture, not the ongoing hot button of geoduck aquaculture. Ongoing for over a decade now. 

Integrity still matters to some.

(Al Bergstein has resigned from JCMRC)

(Read Al Bergstein's post from his

Olympic Peninsula Environmental News) 

Geoduck aquaculture is too hot for JCMRC to touch. 

As a result of geoduck aquaculture being considered too controversial to be included on the agenda,  Al Bergstein has resigned from his long held position as the Environmental representative. Instead of addressing what is the most controversial form of aquaculture taking place in Puget Sound - the growing of geoduck in intertidal areas for the elite in China - the Jefferson County Marine Resource Committee has instead punted and left it off of the agenda. It's too controversial (still). As a result, Mr Bergstein has resigned from his position. 

The Chinese could care less about Puget Sound's

intertidal area and the habitat provided to native species.

Geoduck growers like the money.

So do nonprofits receiving donations.

Geoduck is hard to swallow. 

While it is unfortunate the JCMRC has lost such a strong voice supporting the critical marine habitats within Puget Sound - those marine habitat areas which the JCMRC claims it is "protecting and restoring" - no one should have to compromise their strongly held beliefs for a committee apparently too timid to face down this industrial level of aquaculture taking place in Puget Sound and deal with the controversy surrounding it. There is a point in life where you can only swallow so much of what industry spoon feeds you before you have to act on your beliefs.

Being involved pays. Very well.

"Don't ask how it's done."

It will be quite a show.

Geoduck growers have created a magic show making agencies believe great benefits to all has been created. Well paid public relations firms, well paid attorneys, and well paid "scientists" (either directly or through grants controlled through the political process) have created a magic show in which the belief that geoducks grown in Puget Sound's intertidal areas is somehow good. It is not . It is transformative, creating a monoculture, and fracturing the critical marine habitat of Puget Sound. Growers want more and will get more unless you make your voice heard. 

Get involved. Make your voice heard. 

Register and attend JCMRC "Shellfish Aquaculture Educational Forum". It will be quite a show.

Oyster Industry, Politics and Pesticides

Read it and weep.

This is not a good idea.

(Purchase "Toxic Pearl" at Orca Books)

Who needs science when you can spend the money on politicians instead?
The Seattle Times writes on the current push by politicians who feel the oyster industry should be free to spray pesticides on oyster beds and the marine waters of WA so they won't have to spend money on improved growing techniques. Or on science which shows this ill thought idea is somehow in the statewide interest.
Read the article here: https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/environment/politics-has-science-on-the-run-and-not-just-in-the-other-washington/

Like a bad oyster,

this just makes you sick.

Ad nauseam: It makes you feel worse than a bad oyster because it just keeps coming and coming.  
Unlike what the recent lawsuits filed against Pierce County by Taylor Shellfish and the Foss family claim, ad nauseam, the Shoreline Management Act is not in place to "plan for, foster, and give preference to aquaculture." It is in place to protect the critical marine ecosystems from industries who have become blinded by profits and feel their developments and actions within this ecosystem should be allowed to grow, unfettered, free from oversight.
Read Taylor lawsuit against Pierce County's Shoreline Master Program here:
 https://app.box.com/s/mjxvavgay49rqcs3fwvvw09utjjegu28
Read the Foss family's companion lawsuit here:
https://app.box.com/s/aaiclnj3ovyq9h5n5ix4mhi90wcdpgsa

"Shazam! I've created something from nothing!"

It doesn't matter how many times you say it. It's not there.
Nowhere in the Shoreline Management Act does it say aquaculture is supposed to be fostered and given preference over everything else as these suits, and the Department of Ecology seems to believe. The priority of the SMA is to protect this unique and fragile ecosystem from fragmentation.

The Shoreline Management Act is not subservient to NOAA policies created to do nothing more than promote aquaculture, many times based on dubious - at best - "science".

The Departement of Ecology's "handbook" on aquaculture painfully tries to outline the "legal" framework for why aquaculture should be placed on a pedestal, tripping over NOAA and national policies. The reality is the Shoreline Management Act was passed before NOAA's Coastal Zone Management Act. It was passed before the National Shellfish Initiative was created. It was passed before Washington's shellfish initiative was created. The SMA was voted on, and approved, by the citizens of WA.  Most importantly, both the National and State initiatives are nothing more than marketing documents created by lobbyists for the industry and politicians beholden to those lobbyists. They were not voted on - and overwhelmingly approved - by citizens.

Get involved. There are 3 bills politicians are trying to pass which would allow the application of Imidacloprid, a non-discriminate neurotoxic pesciticide (it doesn't care if you're a shrimp or a crab or any other crustacean) on oyster beds and Washington's marine waters. Tell your representative(s) and Governor Inslee the Shoreline Management Act is not meant to allow a wave of the wand to allow pesticides in Washington's marine waters. 

House Bills 1611 and 1037
https://app.leg.wa.gov/pbc/bill//1611
https://app.leg.wa.gov/pbc/bill//1037

Senate Bill 5626
https://app.leg.wa.gov/pbc/bill//5626

Governor Inslee:
https://www.governor.wa.gov/contact/contact/send-gov-inslee-e-message