Center for Biological Diversity Files Petition with EPA for Regulation of PVC

Where do all those PVC tubes go

after 2 years in Puget Sound?

What leaches off of the  ~40,000/acre

used for geoduck farms?

 

Center for Biological Diversification Files Petition with EPA

The Center for Biological Diversification has filed a petition with the EPA asking for increased regulatory oversight of PVC products such as the 8" pipes used in geoduck farming. CBD provides a wealth of studies and information which document the risks to the marine environment from PVC degradation. [see petition here]

 

"Choking the Oceans with Plastic"

NY Times, August 25, 2013

Case Inlet, Puget Sound

Escaped PVC pipes from geoduck farm.

 

Aquaculture is part of a bigger problem, but it is poised to become a much bigger part of the problem

Escaped PVC, netting and rope from aquaculture in Puget Sound is only part of a larger problem of escaped plastics in the ocean. But it is a growing problem and poised to expand immensely. As Charles Moore notes in his editorial entitled "Chocking the Oceans with Plastic", printed in the New York Times on August 25:

The problem is compounded by the aquaculture industry, which uses enormous amounts of plastic in its floats, nets, lines and tubes.

Help put the brakes on plastic pollution in Puget Sound
You can help stop the risk to Puget Sound and the upland areas where the PVC pipes are disposed of when no longer useable. Contact your County Commissioners and tell them as creators of the Shoreline Master Programs which implement the intended goal of the Shoreline Management Act to protect Puget Sound's tidelands you demand PVC pipes be tightly controlled, from cradle to grave, in not entirely banned.

Click here for Thurston County contact information
Click here for Mason County contact information
Click here for Pierce County contact information

 

 

 



Burley Lagoon: Taylor Shellfish Acknowledges a Problem with Sedimentation

Is it dragging or dredging? Either way, it stirs up the mud.
Recently, Taylor Shellfish was asked why they were dragging what appeared to be an anchor in areas of Burley Lagoon. An employee from Taylor Shellfish responded that it was a set of chains which was being used in an attempt to uncover oysters which had been covered with silt, which "makes the oysters sink in the mud." He noted it was "a common farm practice." By dragging the chains it "brings the sunken oysters to the surface so we can get them." The employee continued:

It is actually pretty amazing how much fresh mud and silt can move around the lagoon depending on the weather and the tides. Sometimes our oyster patches will get totally covered after a rain storm and/or a big minus tide that creates strong currents.

He may have added "dragging chains along the bottom" as a cause of those "amazing" quantities of "fresh mud and silt" being moved around within the enclosed lagoon.

Pierce County may want to consider it when they begin questioning at what point shellfish activities in Burley Lagoon are no longer a "preferred use" of what the Shoreline Management Act considers the most valuable and fragile resource of the state.

Drakes Bay Oyster Company: 4 Weeks Later, 'West Marin Citizen' Publisher Still Baffled By Ranchers' Resignation Letter

West Marin Citizen still baffled after all these weeks.

How long should it take?
August 28, over one month following a July 25 letter announcing almost 1/2 of the ranchers belonging to the Point Reyes National Seashore Rancher's Association had resigned, and 3 weeks after the 'West Marin Citizen' posted it on their own Facebook page (August 7), they today can only describe the letter as "baffling" and that information is "hard to get." It seems quite apparent that Drakes Bay Oyster Company and Mr. Lunny decided "Association" meant being a memeber did not require including other ranchers in his actions taken in the name of the the Association.

Good reporting sells papers. Good reporting takes more than "welcoming comments and information." 
Investigative reporting is difficult and takes effort, and when done well sells papers. However, in a small community such as that served by this paper, what is more "baffling" is the inability of the local press to come to grips with what objective reporting is supposed to be. Clicking on the rancher's letter found on WMC's Facebook site reveals a clear reason why those ranchers chose to resign from the Association.

Why the resignations by half the membership of Point Reyes Seashore Ranchers Association? Because the owners of Drakes Bay Oyster Company have twice misrepresented the ranchers association.

On June 5th "The [Point Reyes] Light" reported that the "Point Reyes Seashore Ranchers Association delivered a dense 32-page public comment letter" - in response to the park's Ranch Comprehensive Management Plan (which "The Light"'s latest editorial fails to mention although the editorial scolds the park for inaction and lack of leadership.)

But that public comment letter, after having been circulated for signature by ranchers, was amended by the owners of Drakes Bay Oyster Company, and their lawyers, and then submitted to the park without review by the ranchers who had already signed the document.

On July 31st "The Light" reported, "The Point Reyes Seashore Ranchers Association is asking the National Park Service to delay any demolition of the buildings soon to be vacated by Drakes Bay Oyster Company..."

But that letter, dated July 23rd on ranchers association letterhead, was composed and submitted by the owners of Drakes Bay Oyster Company without input or review by other association members.

"Reckless" is the adjective "The Light"'s latest editorial uses to describe environmental groups working to protect from commercial development what has always been intended as wilderness. But reckless is how Drakes Bay Oyster Company has behaved, disregarding the ranchers with whom they share our publicly owned Point Reyes Peninsula.

Good reporters don't just "tweet" for information. They go out and find it.
Good reporting relies more than just "tweeting" or putting out a request on their web site for somebody to help give them information (see end of column below). It takes energy to get on the phone, to get out, to find out what's really going on behind the curtain. It's why some reporters get Pulitzer Prizes and others fade away with their publications.

Posted on August 28, 2014 by West Marin Citizen

Baffling letter appears on social media, information hard to get.

In a July 25, letter addressed to Ted McIsaac, President, Point Reyes Seashore Ranchers Association twelve ranchers representing six or seven ranches on the Seashore wrote:
“Dear Ted,
Thank you for listening to our concerns about the Point Reyes Seashore Ranchers Association. We, the undersigned, hereby resign from The Association effective immediately.
It has become increasingly evident that our styles of communication in matters pertinent to the Point Reyes National Seashore are very different. This was most recently evidenced by the letter dated July 21, 2014, which was sent on behalf of The Association to Superintendent Muldoon and various elected officials. We felt that we had inadequate time to review and respond and consider the implications of such a letter being sent.
We realize it is difficult to maintain cohesiveness in a group as diverse as the Association. We appreciate all of the efforts of those creating and maintaining the Association over the past several years. However, we feel it is in the best interest of all the ranchers if we left the group.” This letter was signed by Robert McClure, Tim Kehoe, Thomas Kehoe, Mike Kehoe, Daniel and Dolores Evans, Julie Rossotti, David Evans, Betty Nunes, Joe Mendoza (now retired from running L&B ranches), and Robert Giacomini and Elmer Martinelli (who both have small pasture grazing leases on Seashore land).”

This letter began circulating on social media two weeks ago. [Note: This letter was posted on West Marin Citizen's Facebook August 7.]

The Citizen has attempted to learn what motivated this surprising move, coming so soon after a recent show of unity and consensus in the Ranchers Association’s scoping comments on the new General Management Plan for the Seashore.

The Citizen spoke with McIsaac who expressed disappointment in the resignations but assured us that the majority of ranches remained committed to the Association. He did not offer any specific reasons for the decision but did mention the concern many ranchers feel over the future of ranching in the Seashore and the importance of maintaining a good relationship with local Park personnel.

McIsaac also spoke of problems that several ranches are having with free-ranging elk, and the frustration that no immediate solutions are being offered by the Park Service. McIsaac and Kevin Lunny, who also spoke with the Citizen, indicated possible “political” motives and differences in priorities of the signees compared to other members of the Association., such as the resigning ranchers not having the problems with elk other ranchers are coping with.

Both expressed disappointment over the split, coming from life-long friends and fellow-ranchers. “We think we’re stronger if we can be unified, and we were,” said Lunny. McIsaac echoed similar thoughts. “We still think it’s a very useful organization. It’s a tool to meet and keep each other up on what’s happening…All the people who’ve been active for a decade are still active. Our commitment to help everyone in the seashore is still here.”

Mr. Lunny said the ranchers who resigned didn’t give the association an opportunity to discuss the issue before they gave the letter to Mr. McIsaac.

The Citizen welcomes comments and information from other ranchers and the public on this matter.
Linda Petersen-Publisher

Update: Vibriosis from Washington Oysters Closes Totten Inlet to Commercial Harvesting (again)

[Update 9/5: Eld Inlet has been closed due to reported cases of vibriosis.]

[Update 8/29: Hammersley Inlet has been re-opened for commercial harvesting of oysters after water testing showed levels below the action number. However, illnesses reportedly traced to oysters harvested from Hammerley Inlet have resulted in cooling restrictions being added.]

Totten Inlet Closed, Eld and Skookum Inlets 

effected by reported cases of vibriosis.

Totten Inlet has been closed to the commercial harvest of oysters again due to reported cases of vibriosis traced to commercial oysters harvested from this growing area. Additional illnesses traced to oysters harvested from Eld and Skookum Inlets have resulted in cooling restrictions being added.

Did Minterbrook Oyster know areas were closed?

When vibriosis is traced to oysters harvested from a commercial growing area the Department of Health notifies the growers effected. Steps to be taken immediately include closure and/or a shortened time between harvest and cooling. 

Third time's a charm - at least that's what China hopes.

Recently, Minterbrook Oyster was notified by the Department of Health that oysters it had reported on export forms, required for oysters exported to Asia, were from Henderson Bay. This was an area which had been closed due to Biotoxins in early August (and recently re-opened). DOH requested the product be removed and forms modified. When the modified export forms were returned to DOH, they once again notified Minterbrook Oyster the new area they had entered, Oakland Bay, was also closed. It had been closed a week before Henderson Bay was closed for reasons related to Vibrio. Presumably the third time all was correct. China has reacted once to shellfish from Washington being tainted.

Too late - that oyster's been swallowed.

The current process in place, through which DOH responds to vibrio and the disease it causes (vibriosis), is one in which the state either reacts to illnesses reported within the past 30 days or to elevated levels being found through testing. Both are reactive to what has now been clearly established as a pattern in which the warmer summer temperatures cause increased levels of the naturally occurring bacterium vibrio parahaemolyticus to occur which in turn are filtered out of the water by oysters. 

Post Harvest Processing is resisted by industry - is .05 cents per oyster too expensive?

Current methods of post harvest processing which do not effect taste are available to the industry. However, they claim the added expense (estimated at .05 cents/oyster)  would make oysters unaffordable and have to date resisted strongly any suggestion of being required to do so. An alternative to consider may be to pay the medical expenses for those who become ill eating an oyster.

KING TV To Air Piece on Geoducks in Burley Lagoon [updated 8/31]

[Updated 8/31: Janet Kim's story will air on Monday's 6:30PM news broadcast.]
KING TV in Seattle will have a segment on geoduck farming in Burley Lagoon.
[Update 8/27 - The story has become more involved so KING has chosen to delay airing it until complete. Will update when notified.]

Drakes Bay Oyster Company: Amicus Brief by West Marin Environmental Action Committee Filed

[Update 8/27: The Department of the Interior has filed their response to Tomales Bay Oyster Company et al. Maybe it's time for TBOC to begin working on straightening out their permit ammendments to their current use permit with Marin County.]

West Marin EAC Files Amicus Brief in

Tomales Bay Oyster Company v. Dept. of Interior

(from Coastodian.org)

Abandoned plastic tubes in Drakes Estero

from Drakes Bay Oyster Company

Suddenly a desire to sue - "How were we to know?"

Tomales Bay Oyster Company and various restaurants have had a lesson in business and will soon receive a lesson in law: you cannot wait for the last minute to sue and expect any judge to give the case any credence. Claiming to now have suddenly become aware that the closing of Drakes Bay Oyster Company may have a temporary impact on supply, the parties to the suit are claiming they will be harmed economically. Welcome to business and planning. Poor planning is not something the courts support.

Tod Friend, owner of

Tomales Bay Oyster clearing pipes

from unused acreage.

(picture from The Coastodian.org)

"we could grow all the oysters we need"

Now's your chance.

"What are we to do? Where will the oysters come from now?" 

Waving arms in a panic over a disruption in supply will not make poor business planning look any better to the court. Especially when claimed economic disruption is not supported by any facts. Implying that restaurants will now have to close because the only reason people eat there is because of DBOC oysters is baseless. Tomales Bay Oyster Company claiming a supply of 6,000 oysters per week is no longer available is countered by Puget Sound's Taylor Shellfish exporting 10,000 pounds of oysters per month  (Olympian, December 17, 2031).  At ~30 shucked oysters/pound this is equivalent to 300,000 oysters, or 90,000 per week. Taylor is only one grower exporting to Asia, Minterbrook being another. More importantly, Tod Friend, the current owner of Tomales Bay Oyster has himself acknowledged that he has acreage to grow all the oysters he wants. With seed previously purchased by DBOC now freed up he is free to do so. From the Point Reyes Light last month, Mr. Friend stated:

"Theoretically, we could grow all the oysters we need to supply our customers, but it’s a seed problem." (7/24/14, Point Reyes Light)

Do pan fried oysters taste different

if grown in Tomales Bay or Puget Sound?

Are the capers in the tartar sauce local?

Do Drakes Bay Oysters really matter to restaraunts? Do menus and reviews reveal anything?

Following is the list of restaurants noted in the law suit who claim they will be harmed if Drakes Bay Oyster Company closes. (Information below is as of 8/26.)

Saltwater Oyster Depot has no Drakes Bay Oysters listed on their menu.

Hayes Street Grill notes their raw oysters on the dinner menu as being "Cliffside" oysters which come from Discovery Bay, Washington. While the pan fried oysters with tartar sauce are noted as being Drakes Bay's, does pan fried anything with tartar sauce really have a distinctive taste?

Café reyes serves great pizza. But in reviewing TripAvisor's reviews of the restaurant over the past year, of the 20 reviews, 3 mentioned oysters, one being that they had eaten at Hog Island. Maybe oysters aren't such an important part of their business, whether local or otherwise.

Osteria Stellina does call out Drakes Bay Oysters on their menu, including on a pizza. But of the first 30 reviews on TripAdvisor, one mentions Hog Island oysters, another says the oyster they had are "not like the quality oyster you expect", and a third liked them.

Sir and Star does call out Drakes Bay oysters on their menu. However, partner Margaret Grade only complains in the suit that her "menu will have to change forever." 

 "The dirty secret of the food movement

 is that the much-celebrated small-scale farmer 

isn’t making a living." NY Times, 8/9/2014

Don't start a restaurant and don't let your children grow up to be farmers.

Running a company is hard, some more so than others. Restaurants are considered by some to be the worst business to start. Farming isn't any better, especially in the small farm to table business described in the NY Times article.





Drakes Bay Oyster Company: KCET from LA Asks Who Cleans Up Drakes Estero?

Driven by underwater images from the Coastodian.org KCET has published a piece which asks who is going to clean up the mess left from Drakes Bay Oyster Company's operation? The Coastodian's Richard James asked this question to the California Coastal Commission, the California Department of Fish and Wildlife and the National Park Service, but has received no reply.

The Coastodian's underwater video of Drakes Estero.

Palau proposes the first National Marine Sanctuary - You Can Help

Palau - A National Marine Sanctuary



Palau is poised to make history by establishing the world’s first Nation-wide Marine Sanctuary – designating its entire ocean territory as a regenerative zone for sharks, whales, tuna, and countless other precious species. (from Palau Oceans)

http://vimeo.com/101195169

 

You can help to support the creation of the first National Marine Sanctuary by donating on indiegogo's web site through the "Stand With Palau" campaign. Included in those supporting the creation of a protected marine environment is Peter Prows, Drakes Bay Oyster Company's attorney. Take a stand and help preserve one of the world's great bodies of water.

Vibrio Closure/Re-opening in South Puget Sound

Closures/re-openings of south Puget Sound growing areas

to commercial harvesting of oysters continues.

Closures to commercial harvesting of oysters

due to Vibrio parahaemolytius, as of 8/16. 

As a result of sampling for the naturally occurring bacterium Vibrio parahaemolytius the Department of Health has closed Hammersley Inlet. This is now the second time Hammersley Inlet has been closed due to elevated levels of Vp, the first being in mid-July when levels of the naturally occurring bacterium caused both Totten Inlet and Hammersley Inlet to be closed. It had been re-opened for a short time.

After the mid-July closure, Totten Inlet was re-opened July 31 but then closed again on August 7 due to illnesses reported from oysters harvested in that area.  As a result of closer analysis, the number of illnesses reported was apparently incorrect so it has been re-opened, with stricter cooling times in place.

It remains to be seen whether the minus tides and warmer than normal temperatures last week will result in additional closures.  The combination creates an environment which results in an increase of naturally occurring bacteria, something felt to be an increasing probability. DOH suggested to shellfish growers they "make good decisions" if they were planning on harvesting. DOH suggests consumers not eat raw oysters during the summer months [for recreational harvesting click here for DOH web site].

Pierce County Planning: If you ignore them they will go away.



"There is no record of what they [Taylor Shellfish] are authorized to do.  It is apparent to the several hundred residents living along the shoreline of the Lagoon that what is happening now is far in excess of what used to be happening under the previous operations." Burley Lagoon to Pierce County Planning

 

"Taylor believes they are authorized to be in the Lagoon."

Pierce County to Burley Lagoon resident 

 

Copied below is a letter sent to Pierce County council members challenging them on what seems to be an inability to answer a very simple question: What exactly is Taylor Shellfish authorized to do on Burley Lagoon? Based on the lack of response, Pierce County appears to believe that if you "ignore those complaining and they will go away." Pierce County is mistaken.

From:
Ned Quistorff
P.O. Box 624
Fox Island, WA 98333
253-466-1143
nedquistorff@hotmail.com

12 August 2014
To:

Pierce County Executive Ms. Pat McCarthy

County-City Building

Room 737

930 Tacoma Ave. S.

Tacoma, WA 98402-2100

Dear County Executive McCarthy:

The ecological health of Burley Lagoon is being systematically ruined, with no regard for future environmental consequences. We have watched this process go on for over a year, and for over a year we have made repeated attempts to get a Pierce County official, any official, to tell us what it is that Taylor Shellfish is authorized to do in the Lagoon. We do not believe that what they are doing is in compliance with State and County law. Therefore, as we have been unable to get any kind of response from any official, we, in desperation, look to you for an answer.

Over a year ago, Burley Lagoon residents living along the shoreline became aware of an increasing volume of activity around the old oyster floats at the south end of the Lagoon by employees of Taylor Shellfish, which had leased the whole Lagoon from Western Oyster Company. There was also an increase in the size and number of crews that were working on the Lagoon bottom, scraping away shells, sand dollars and other materials, loading them into large wire mesh crates and moving them away to an undetermined location. In some cases, the crates were left on the Lagoon bottom awaiting then next tide, but in being there were potential navigation hazards during the tidal flow. Significant portions of the Lagoon bottom were also being covered with nets. None of this was similar to what Western Oyster had been doing.  

One resident wrote to the Pierce County Director of Planning and Land Services requesting a clarification of what was happening, and on 29 May 2013 received a response which contained a copy of a letter and a site plan, issued in 1988 by Pierce County to Eiichi Yamashita of Western Oyster. The 1988 letter advised Mr. Yamashita that his "floating oyster culture" was eligible for "grandfathered" status, but that any additional activity would require him "to obtain all required permits and approvals." 

The PALS Director went on to state to the Lagoon resident that the 1988 letter and site plan showed the extent of the "granted non-conforming rights." However, in reading the 1988 letter, it only grants "grandfathered" status to the "floating oyster culture," and not to any activity on the rest of the Lagoon. The 1988 letter is very specific that any additional activity in the Lagoon beyond the "floating oyster culture" would require shoreline permits and approvals.  

We were advised that the only way to get a determination from the County of what exactly Taylor Shellfish was authorized to do was to file a complaint with Pierce County Responds (PCR). We did so beginning on 16 September 2013, and it was officially received by Pierce County Public Works on 25 September 2013. The description we provided in the complaint described Taylor's increased activity and materials removal, and contained the following statements:

"There is no record of what they are authorized to do. It is apparent to the several hundred residents living along the shoreline of the Lagoon that what is happening now is far in excess of what used to be happening under the previous operations."

A meeting was held with the PCR investigator on 1 October 2013, at which time we delivered to him all materials we had managed to locate which pertained to the Burley Lagoon situation. We had not located anything which indicated that any permit had been granted to any party for aquaculture. Two geoduck raising applications were filed on 26 April 2011, but they were withdrawn on 11 September 2012, and no new application for any sort of activity has been filed with PALS until 29 May 2014. On that date, Taylor Shellfish submitted an application to establish a 25 acre geoduck operation in the Lagoon.

 

It should be noted that, in early March 2012, Taylor Shellfish signed a 20-year lease with Western Oyster for the use of the whole Lagoon. They also announced publically their intention of using the Lagoon to grow geoduck clams. It is therefore possible to conclude that the dramatic increase in activity since Taylor Shellfish took on the lease was directed at preparations for installing their geoduck facility. However, Pierce County Code Title 18.140.030 specifically forbids engaging in any regulated activity before receiving an approved permit. Taylor Shellfish has been engaging in a regulated activity without a permit for more than one year.

 

Between October 2013 and June 2014, we maintained contact with the Pierce County Responds investigator with regular requests for the status of the investigation. In virtually every one of our dozens of communications, we repeated the phrase "What exactly is Taylor Shellfish authorized to do on Burley Lagoon?" We have never received an answer, or even an acknowledgement of the question, from any of the several Pierce County officials with whom we have raised this issue. The closest we have heard to an explanation for what they are doing there is "Taylor believes they are authorized to be in the Lagoon." It is not clear how whatever a private company believes could be a substitute for a specific legal County government authorization, but that is exactly what appears to have happened.

 

Regrettably, throughout the nine-month investigation, the primary critical question was ignored. The investigator refused the participation of Lagoon residents in his initial meeting with Taylor representatives, residents who could have told him how much different the activity has become. Every attempt was made to turn the investigation into seeking an answer to "is what is happening now the same as what was happening when Western Oyster was in operation?" The fact that there is no existing County authorization for any of the sea bottom modification activities was never addressed. Consequently, Taylor Shellfish continues to operate in the Lagoon without any apparent permit or known authorization from the County government, other than what they believe.

 

Pierce County Responds issued their report on 10 June 2014, in which the investigator concluded that there had been no violation of Pierce County Code in any of the activities they had examined. In no place did the report attempt to determine if Taylor Shellfish had ever been authorized to be there in the first place. The only action taken on reports of navigation hazards or netting placed on the sea bottom was to indicate that the information had been forwarded to other agencies. The report also concluded that there was no evidence that Taylor Shellfish intended to plant geoduck clams in the Lagoon, and then immediately acknowledged that Taylor had submitted an application to do just that.

 

As you may have noted in our earlier e-mail (Record of Meeting: 28 July 2014, forwarded to your office on 12 August 2014) we have already raised the issue with the Pierce County Council, in order to make them aware of this situation. We had also earlier raised the issue with Planning and Land Services, but were advised that PALS only dealt with reviewing and issuing permits, and that Pierce County Responds was the appropriate office for addressing our question. Since the answer we have been given by the PCR investigation report is inadequate, we are left with no alternative than to appeal to you for assistance in answering the question:

 

What has the Pierce County Government authorized Taylor Shellfish to do in Burley Lagoon?

 

Over the past year, we have participated in several aspects of the shoreline permit review process, including public hearings and appeals. We have always been impressed with the rigor and expert attention to critical details that has been exhibited by the various staff members involved in reviewing and approving the shoreline permit applications. Thus, we do not understand why, after a year of trying, we have still not been able to get a response to the question of what Taylor Shellfish is authorized to do on Burley Lagoon, from the very organization responsible for issuing shoreline development permits.

 

Thank you for your help.

 

Sincerely,

 

Ned Quistorff

 

cc:

Councilmember Dan Roach

Councilmember Rick Talbert

Councilmember Joyce McDonald

Councilmember Jim McCune

Councilmember Stan Flemming

Councilmember Douglas Richardson

Councilmember Connie Ladenburg

 

Drakes Bay Oyster Company: Rancher Association Splits over DBOC Actions

 [Update 8/18: In another example of how much the West Marin Citizen has missed Drakes Bay Oyster Company's ties to right wing groups, the Koch Brothers funded Americans for Prosperity has published a video starring Kevin Lunny. The video's focus is not on the fact that Mr. Lunny made a bad business decision when he purchased a business knowing its lease would end in 2012. Instead, AFP claims "government bureaucrats" "thousands of miles away" are shutting down a "small family run company" who has incurred "massive legal bills" (apparently AFP is unaware of all the pro bono legal work done to date, sparing Mr. Lunny any legal bills). WMC's continued belief that there are not outside right wing groups involved in trying to prevent the completion of the Phillip Burton Wilderness area simply speaks to how far the paper has drifted from true reporting to one beholden to its advertisers.]

Does anyone support Drakes Bay Oyster Company's

continued operations anymore?

Who speaks for who?
The Point Reyes Seashore Ranchers Association has had half its members resign over actions taken in support of Drakes Bay Oyster Company in the name of the Association without consulting the Association members. Concerns generating the  July 25 resignation letter included an Association document having had comments written by DBOC attorneys which were added to the already approved document without consultation. In addition, a sub-committee of the Association, headed by DBOC owner Kevin Lunny, mailed a letter on Association letterhead which had not been seen by most of the members. In the July 25 resignation letter the long time ranchers' concerns over actions taken without consultation include this statement:

"This was most recently evidenced by the letter dated July 21, 2014 [from Mr. Lunny's sub-committee] which was sent on behalf of the Association to Superintendent Muldoon and various elected officials. We felt that we had inadequate time to review and respond and consider the implications of such a letter being sent."

Local press asleep at the wheel.

The Marin County press - asleep at the wheel of the car owned by ?*

Both the Point Reyes Light and West Marin Citizen missed the fracture which was detailed in the July 25 letter.

Instead, in an opinion piece published August 7, almost 2 weeks after the resignation, the Point Reyes Light wrote instead:

The ranchers association, galvanized by the Lunnys’ fight, now has a persuasive and unified vision. (Point Reyes Light, "Our choice: A living seashore or a silent landscape" August 7, 2014)

The West Marin Citizen was reporting on August 6 that it was "pink spray paint" on signs which was demonstrating "...the strong feelings evoked by the Drakes Bay Oyster Company controversy." August 7 their Facebook site printed a copy of the letter found on The West Marin Feed's Facebook site.

August 7, KWMR's Robin Carpenter response was to deflect the focus to "...someone leaking a confidential letter."

*Point Reyes Light is owned by Marin Media Institute, co-founded by Corey Goodman. Point Reyes Light is also an underwriter of KWMR.

Just because you say it does not make it so, even if you own the press
By now it should be obvious that repeating something over and over does not make it so. In the case of support for the commercial operation continuing in the Phillip Burton Wilderness area, the support is not what is being reported by the local press. It is time for true reporters to begin writing.

___________________________________________________

[Update 8/15: Today West Marin Citizen feigns "shock" that a letter writing campaign in support of wilderness was started by the West Marin Environmental Action Committee. Included in their column is "...accusing our West Marin community of extreme right-wing interests."

WMC should get back to investigative reporting instead of being worried about offending their advertisers. So doing may uncover a few of the extreme right-wing interests who have mushroomed in Marin County as a result of the DBOC issue.

Consider that their own "guest columnist" and DBOC supporter Sarah Rolph, from Carlisle, MA, is a well known right wing Tea Party supporter. Consider Jane Gyorgy, creator of the oysterzone, in an August 2 radio interview accused Amy Trainer, Neil Desai, and other wilderness supporters of being "...pawns in a global effort to rid the planet of people." (at 27 minutes). Consider that Jane Gyorgy put up on the Oysterzone site (then removed it) a post inviting people to a "Constitutional Common Law Jury Trial", an extreme right wing tactic used when they disagree with the US legal system (click here to see her now removed page - the original page is copied at the end of this post.). Consider Robin Carpenter inviting two members of an extreme right wing property rights group in Washington State (Common Sense Alliance) down to Marin County for an "interview" to do nothing more than attack Amy Trainer.

West Marin Citizen may have at one time had Pulitzer Prize potential. It has drifted.]

______________________________________________

Jane Gyorgy's oysterzone Common Law Jury page.

Constitutional Common Law Jury Trial set MONDAY, July 28, 2014, 7 PM, Point Reyes Station

What: Constitutional Common Law Jury Trial

When: July 28, 2014, 7 PM

Where: Fire Station Mtg Rm, Point Reyes Station

• Is it possible that US District Court did not have Jurisdiction in DBOC vs Jewell & Jarvis?
• Is it possible that a right to be heard by a jury has been denied DBOC by the courts?
• Would you like to serve on the people’s jury?
• Would you like to attend the hearing of an actual Court of Common Law?

Counsels or representatives for the DBOC and US Department of Interior have been duly notified and “requested politely to present evidence before a West Marin jury of twelve that will be chosen by a [lottery] at the Far West Fest at Love Field in Point Reyes Station on Saturday, July 26. A certified court reporter shall be present, with instructions to record the decision at the Marin Recorder’s Office in San Rafael, California, on July 29, 2014. (Bailiffs will be present.)

NB: This is to be an actual case of constitutional common law, not admiralty martial law.

(This may be your chance, at last, to take part in the process, to have a say in your city/county/state/country’s decisions.)

Kevin Lunny and Nancy Lunny will be there to give evidence.

I look forward to seeing you Monday night!

Drakes Bay Oyster Company Claims of "Stewardship" Challenged by Underwater Video

It's time for the California Coastal Commission

to tell Drakes Bay Oyster Company to clean up the mess
they created on the submerged bottom lands of Drakes Estero
so the Phillip Burton Wilderness area may be completed.

 

From the Coastodian
[click here to view the video] 

DBOC plastic tubes litter Drakes Estero.

The reality underwater is seen differently than what's seen in an office from San Francisco
Drakes Bay Oyster Company attorneys and public relation firms continuing to claim DBOC has been a "good steward" of Drakes Estero needs to stop. This viewpoint, created from the legal and PR offices in San Francisco, is directly challenged in a recently released underwater video. The shortened version of the original is found on The Coastodian, a site devoted to plastic pollution in  northern California waters [click here].

The Phillip Burton Wilderness area,

created by Congress in 1976.

Vibriosis Contracted from South Puget Sound Oysters Becoming a Well Established Pattern

Update 8/10

Forecast:

Sunday, -2.5 tide, temperatures climbing to 90 degrees.

Monday, -2.1 tide, temperatures climbing to 98 degrees.

Two weeks away, increase in reported cases of vibriosis followed by additional after the fact closures.

_______________________________________________________________
The Department of Health needs to become

proactive in dealing with Vibrio.

 

A reactive strategy is not helping.

Annual closures in south Puget Sound

due to reported cases of vibriosis

traced to oysters harvested from the area.

 

Waiting for people to become ill is a failure in oversight

Despite numerous attempts at trying to control disease spread from the consumption of raw or undercooked oysters from south Puget Sound, reported cases of vibriosis continue to result in after-the-fact closures of south Puget Sound growing areas. Attempts to educate the public, implement tighter controls over cooling, and testing the waters for the bacterium Vibrio parahaemolyticus (Vp) have all apparently failed in preventing reported cases of vibriosis traced to oysters from this area of Puget Sound from occurring.

 

We're back!

Like an unwelcome relative

returning for a summer visit.

 

Why is disease from Vp still occurring?

Unlike fecal coliform from human impacts, Vp is a naturally occurring bacterium which each summer blooms in the warming waters of south Puget Sound. Oyster's filtering the waters capture this bacterium internally. During the oysters' exposure to warm temperatures out of water, it multiplies internally. When raw or undercooked oysters are consumed, the population of bacteria enters the digestive system and vibriosis begins with varying degrees of intensity. It is this bacterium which DOH seems unable to prevent from entering the food chain with reported illnesses from Washington oysters predictably occurring each summer. While opening areas with lower fecal coliform levels is great, closing larger areas each summer due to vibrio is not.

 

What does testing the waters show?

If Vp levels are high, you've most likely

missed the opportunity to prevent illness.

 

Totten Inlet - Close it, open it, close it again

Unlike fecal coliform testing, testing for Vp is apparently not a successful means of preventing Vp from entering the food stream. Instead it only appears that testing predicts the inevitable - cases of vibriosis will be traced back to that growing area. As an example, Totten Inlet was tested in mid-July and found to have levels of Vp over the threshold level of 10,000 mpn/gram. Commercial harvesting at that point was halted. After two weekly subsequent samples tested below the threshold level it was re-opened July 31, only to have reported illnesses close the area again on August 7. It will remain closed through September 30.

 

Or does testing show anything?

On the other side of testing the water for Vp, it may be that it is simply not much help at all. Oakland Bay had waters tested for Vp with levels falling below the threshold number. Yet Oakland Bay is now closed due to vibrios from oysters harvested there. What is predicable is that vibriosis will be contracted from Puget Sound's shellfish every summer.

 

The summer visitor

nobody wants in Puget Sound.

 

 

Vp's cousin Vibrio vulnificus - why being proactive instead of reactive is important

Warming air and water temperatures, from whatever cause, will inevitably lead to Vp's more virulent cousin Vibrio vulnificus being found in Puget Sound waters. Vv, also a natural bacterium, is prevalent in the Gulf Coast waters and is also now found in Chesapeake Bay. It is expected to continue to be found in waters further north as they warm. Vv is far more virulent than Vp, causing death in 50% of those who contract it, primarily through raw oysters. It is why the Department of Health needs to become proactive instead of reactive to this naturally occurring bacteria found in Puget Sound.

 

The world is not a safe place

Consuming any food has a risk. Consuming raw oysters harvested in the summer is only one of many things to be aware of.

 

 



Pierce County Announces Hearing Schedules for Joint Seattle Shellfish/Taylor Shellfish "Haley" Geoduck Farm

The geoduck money machine just keeps rolling along.

 

Haley (Almond Roca) Family and

Seattle Shellfish/Taylor Shellfish Family

Geoduck Farm Hearings Scheduled

"Haley Farm" Proposal Continues Relentless

Expansion of Geoduck Farming into

Pristine South Puget Sound Tidelands

 



Shoreline Substantial Development Permit and MDNS Appeal

Contact: Pierce County Planner - Ty Booth

tbooth@co.pierce.wa.us

"Haley" Geoduck Farm Permit Hearings Scheduled

August 19, 2014 at 6:30PM (Shoreline Permit only)

Pre-hearing with the Key Peninsula Advisory Commission

17010 S Vaughn Road KPN

Vaughn, WA (near Gig Harbor)

 

September 17, 2014 at 9AM (Shoreline Permit and MDNS Appeal)

Permit Hearing w/Pierce County Hearing Examiner

Planning Meeting Room

2401 South 35th Street

Tacoma, WA

(Public Services Building annex, south entrance)

 

Parcels proposed for planting

11 acres

 

"Haley" Geoduck Farm Hearing

The Substantial Shoreline Development Permit hearing for a geoduck farm on tidelands owned by Seattle Shellfish and the Taylor Shellfish family, with adjacent tidelands owned by the Haley family has been scheduled before the Hearing Examiner on September 17, where the appeal to the SEPA MDNS determination will also be heard.  KPAC will have a separate hearing on August 19. The 11 acre site will be one of the largest new farms proposed with portions planted over a period of years. As Pierce County's Biologist noted in a letter last year:

About half the farm (5 acres) will be netted the first year, with the second half netted the second year. By the end of year two, eleven acres of netting will be present. All eleven acres will remain netted through the end of year three (likely longer if nets remain within the first area after the tubes are removed). So, potentially, for twelve to 18 months, eleven acres of shoreline will be under netting.

New geoduck farm proposals and leases

throughout south Puget Sound

under old Shoreline Master Programs

in three separate counties.

(see bottom of post for closer views)

 

Continued push to expand into south Puget Sound under the old shoreline master programs 

This geoduck farm proposal continues the push by geoduck farmers into the pristine tideland areas of south Puget Sound. Included as reasons for the press to expand operations before new and updated shoreline plans come into effect are that the new updated Shoreline Master Programs will require Conditional Use Permits, under which cumulative impact analysis will be required. At this point in time, there has been little to no consideration of the scale of tideland transformation which is occurring. In addition, new leases are being sought out as the current owners of geoduck companies do not have any more tidelands to develop. Only state, county and private party tidelands are now available to expand into.

[Note: On a separate matter, Washington's Department of Fish and Wildlife is involved in updating its Hydraulic Code for the nearshore environment. It is accepting comments until August 15. For more information, see Sound Action's web site for details on what is proposed and how to comment.]

 

Ignore this picture. Tubes create habitat,

at least for a year. The rest of the time,

not so much.

Chelsea Farms Geoduck Harvest

 

SEPA MDNS Appealed by Coalition to Protect Puget Sound Habitat - appeal to be heard at September 17 hearing.

Pierce County has issued a mitigated determination of non-significance SEPA determination on the Haley Farm. This MDNS determination has been appealed by the Coalition to Protect Puget Sound Habitat. That appeal and associated documents may be found by clicking here. The appeal

is based in part on the lack of any meaningful cumulative impacts analysis which considers the transformation of tidelands which is occurring on a scale never considered.

Geoduck farm's PVC pipes,

44,000 per acre.

 

It's not grandpa Taylor's shellfish farm anymore
Geoduck farming is not what aquaculture was when the Shoreline Management Act was passed in 1972. While aquaculture then may have reasonably been considered a "preferred use" of Puget Sound's tidelands, the methods and scale of operations today was never anticipated. The shellfish industry continuing to cloak their operations under reports generated by industry paid "scientists" presented by well paid attorneys has been, to date, very successful. It will continue to be so unless people become involved.

It's not PVC, it's "structure" for seaweed,

barnacles and crabs (shellfish industry

spokeswoman). At least for a year.

After a year, where does that PVC "habitat"

go when it's removed from the tidelands?

 

Mason County, Thurston County and Pierce County are all updating their Shoreline Master Programs - shellfish attorneys are helping to rewrite those regulations.
Pierce County  - Pierce County could help the process by updating when their public meetings will be going on. The current site did not note the most recent meeting nor the upcoming meeting. Current amendments which have been acted on may be found by clicking here.
Thurston County has begun the formal process but is not as far along as the others. However, the shellfish industry is most certainly working behind the scenes. The county's SMP update information may be found by clicking here. Until then, individual permits will be required. Neighbors should contact each other and their representatives to form a united front.
Mason County has been working on their update for some time now, with direct involvement from Arcadia Point Seafood and Taylor Shellfish for over 2 years now. The SMP update has not yet been approved. It may be found by clicking here. County Commissioners will be asked to vote on the proposed plan at some point, after which Ecology will consider their plan.

A transformation of Puget Sound's tidelands is occurring and it is occurring on a scale not seen before. Below are closeup photos of areas where new geoduck farms are currently being proposed. More on just around the corner.

 

30 acres - Taylor Shellfish

in Burley Lagoon

Pierce County

(Just another shellfish farm.)

 

~17 acres surveyed in Fishtrap loop cove

by Taylor Shellfish, geoduck leases

signed by some, opposed by others.

Thurston County

(Where do survey lines go?)

 

Sohn Realty on Zangle Cove has signed

a lease for a geoduck farm with

Arcadia Point Seafood. Acreage is unknown

as a survey is in progress.

Thurston County

(Will that help sell real estate?)

 

20+ acres - Seattle Shellfish lease

from Mason County, adjacent

to McMicken Island State Park

Mason County

(Will that help the state park?)

 

11 acres - Seattle Shellfish/Taylor Shellfish/Haley

"Haley" geoduck farm proposed

Pierce County

 

 

 

 

Drakes Bay Oyster Company: Don't like the legal system? Create your own.

West Marin County - Slip Sliding Away

Who shook the nut tree?

 

If only life were so simple

Not happy with the Supreme Court deciding Drakes Bay Oyster Company's case had no merit, DBOC, along with twenty others, recently decided to work within a legal system newly created by Barbara Scott, a "Deputy Justice of the Peace." It is one outside of what they have spent the past nineteen months inside of. Included was Sarah Rolph, a tea party supporter from Carlisle, Massachusetts. Representatives from The Department of the Interior and National Park Service, while "invited", were unable, or perhaps unwilling, to attend.

 

What would Judge Judy say?

If it's late it's late.

 

Amicus Curiae filed late, but who cares? It's Barbara Scott's legal system.

Barbara Scott states the justification for the creation of the "court" and "jury" was based on an Amicus Curiae filed late with the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. To say it was lacking is kind. As described by the court system:

Received original and 0 copies of Amicus Curiae - Pending Barbara Scott brief of 9 pages. Excerpts of record in 0 volumes. Served on: 01/14/2014. Major deficiencies: case closed, untimely. Other deficiencies: No motion to become amicus was filed with brief. [8941285] (MT)  

What would Judge Judy say?

California is what?

 

If the State of California is a corporation, is it also a person? Does it sell stock?

After receiving "evidence," hearing "testimony" from witnesses, and listening to the rector of a local Episcopal church, the "Deputy Justice of the Peace" Barbara Scott asked if there were "any more witnesses." There being none, Ms. Scott excused those who were not jurors in order that a "decision" could be made. As explained to the "jurors," the decision would define the State of California as a "corporation" and the United State Government as a "military corporation with the IMF or whatever you want to call it," and then that leases be transferred to the "California Republic Department of Fish and Game." Confusion was apparent in the questions asked by a juror, but...

 

What would Judge Judy say?

(and what do those fringes on the flag mean?)

This is not how a court is supposed to work!

 

Hold on, a new witness has arrived late, but who cares? It's Barbara Scott's legal system.

Fortunately for those present, a witness arrived so Ms. Scott did not have to explain just what was happening. He was allowed to discuss his opinions of people and how the "fecundity" of Drakes Estero was being diminished by the Johnson Oyster Company. When an "unidentified female voice" said "we thought you were deliberating" she was told "we were" but, well, it's Barbara's court.

 

What would Judge Judy say?

- censored -

 

Jurors revolt and render their own decision.

After the late witness finished the jury got back to its deliberating. Apparently impressed with the evidence and the witnesses, it only took 25 minutes for the jury to reach a unanimous verdict. Unfortunately it was not quite what Ms. Scott had asked them to vote on, leaving out references to what Ms. Scott defined as the "corporate" State of California and the IMF owned US Government, instead choosing to only reference the California Department of Fish and Wildlife. The Department of the Interior has 30 days to appeal. Or maybe 20. Or 5. Ms. Scott was unavailable to clarify.

 

Close enough for Barbara.

 

Close enough for Justice of the Peace Barbara Scott's legal system

Pleased with how well she had orchestrated everything, Ms. Scott thanked everyone for their 90 minutes of time spent in her legal system and adjourned the meeting. A good time was had by all and all agreed this year's crop was bountiful.

Update 8/6: To read an "official" transcript of the "trial" you may click here.