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:

Tuesday, November 29, 2016

Aquaculture Stewardship Council (ACS) Extends Comment Period on Taylor Shellfish Sustainability

November 30th: Comments may be emailed to Juan Aguirre at JAguirre@scsglobalservices.com

Should this be certified as "sustainable"?
PVC tubes used to grow geoduck
in Puget Sound for Chinese consumption.

Comments accepted through November 30
The Aquaculture Stewardship Council (ASC) has extended until November 30 its public comment period on the Draft Audit reports for Taylor Shellfish. ASC has audited three separate areas in which Taylor Shellfish has shellfish operations, names changing slightly as the process as moved forward. Included are Key Peninsula (includes Burley Lagoon), Samish Bay, and Hood Canal.
[Note: In addition to physical operations, personnel policies and corporate culture are also considered. The Draft Audit Reports found discrimination and harassment to be "major non-conformities" at Taylor . Problems called out included sexism, nepotism, and hours worked (see "Non-conformity" sections of all audits). Related, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission filed a lawsuit against Taylor Shellfish on September 28 for a related personnel problem (see EEOC lawsuit papers filed here). Whether ASC will accept changes proposed by Taylor while the government suit remains unresolved is unknown.]

Key Peninsula Operations, South Puget Sound
(Red arrows = current geoduck operations)
click on image to enlarge
[CLICK HERE for audit report]

Hood Canal Operations
click on image to enlarge
[CLICK HERE for audit report]

Samish Bay Operations
Skagit County
(click on image to enlarge)
[CLICK HERE for audit report]

Friday, November 18, 2016

Kitsap Sun writes on Detienne Denial; Proposals Continue; Tideland Taxes are Nothing; Taylor Shelfish Discovers Lobbying

Things to Consider Over the Weekend 

The Kitsap Sun has published an article penned by Tristan Baurick on the recent Court of Appeals decision which affirmed the Shorelines Hearings Board denial of a permit for a geoduck operation adjacent to Burley Lagoon (circled in red below).

Not here.  At least not now anyway.

One loss won't stop the machine.
While the Court of Appeals brought pause to one operation, the industry continues to press forward, flush with cash from its current operations, prepared to spend what it takes to expand. Another permit application for a 25 acre geoduck operation in Burley Lagoon (body of water in the upper right of the picture above) was submitted by Taylor shellfish to Pierce County who issued a "determination of significance", triggering a required Environmental Impact Statement. Taylor chose to go ahead and create an EIS, initially suggesting 3 alternatives: the 25 acre operation; a 17 acre operation; or continuation of what some contend is an unpermitted expansion of aquaculture operations within Burley Lagoon. The cessation of the current operations and restoration of the area was not an alternative Taylor Shellfish offered.

An intensification doesn't mean
you have to pay more in property taxes.
Nor that you need a permit.
Taxes are up: to $257 (+$12) for the parcels above.

It's only an "intensification" so it's okay - no permit required and your taxes won't go up.
Comments on the EIS scoping noted complaints to Pierce County about noise, beaches being cleared of native habitat and structure, and navigational hazards which Pierce County simply said were an "intensification" of operations, and as such, required no permits. Nor an increase in assessed value. Taylor, only leasing, need not worry about any increase in value as they don't pay the property tax. The owners who reside in Kirkland apparently need not worry much either; the 177 acres above are required to pay $257, $12 more than when Taylor's "intensification" began. Some refer to the agency responses (or lack of them) as "representation without taxation."

Is $230,000 a lot of money?
Glover Park Group ("Own the Conversation") 
is more than happy to take it.

Meanwhile, in Washington DC, lobbyists have discovered Taylor Shellfish has money.
Recent reports have revealed there is more to do with profits from geoduck operations than hire contract scientists and attorneys, who are currently on full display in Thurston County where a hearing is being held November 28 [click here for agenda] on another operation being proposed by Taylor Shellfish, in Zangle Cove. The lobbying firm Glover Park Group has received $230,000 from the shellfish industry in order to help "Own the Conversation" as the press regulators to lessen oversight of their operations.

It's supposed to look that way.

Who did you buy those glasses from and who was whispering in your ear?
Perhaps taking a lesson from Glover Park Group, when a shoreline owner complained to the Department of Ecology about the ongoing mess a geoduck operation was creating, DOE replied, in essence, that it's supposed to look that way. Presumably they asked the industry about it and were told these tubes had been pulled as part of an ongoing operation and were retrieved quickly. Apparently lost on the recipient was the fact that these tubes are buried in sediment (i.e., they were not retrieved quickly) and have little to no marine growth on them, indicating they more likely were recently inserted tubes dislodged after a storm event. It appears paying $230,000 to learn how to "control the conversation" has its returns.

Get involved.
You can control the conversation. Tell Governor Inlsee it is he should step up and stop this invasive activity taking over Puget Sound's intertidal area which is not for the benefit of the state, but for a few corporations and the Chinese.

Governor Inslee: https://fortress.wa.gov/es/governor/
Legislative and Congressional contacts:

Monday, November 14, 2016

Court of Appeals Upholds Denial of Permit for Chelsea/Detienne Geoduck Farm

"Permitted shoreline uses must be 
designed and conducted in a manner 
that minimizes 
damage to the ecology, 
damage to the environment, 
and interference with the public's use of Washington's water"
Court of Appeals Decision Affirming Shorelines Hearings Board
Decision to Deny a Permit for a Geoduck Operation

Date: November 14, 2016

Contact: Coalition To Protect Puget Sound Habitat
Laura Hendricks, Director
(253) 509-4987
Thane Tienson, Attorney for Superior Court and Court of Appeals
(503) 810-8303

The Washington State Court of Appeals, Division 1 attached decision affirmed both the Superior Court and Shorelines Hearings Board (SHB) decisions to deny the 5 acre geoduck aquaculture permit in Henderson Bay/Pierce County.  The Court of Appeals stated: 

1.  "We conclude the SHB did not err in concluding the Coalition met its burden of proving the permit buffers did not adequately protect eelgrass from adverse impacts in violation of the SMA (Shoreline Management Act) and Pierce County SMP (Shoreline Master Program).".. The Coalition relied on the FSEIS buffer to argue the buffers approved by the Hearing Examiner were inadequate. The FSEIS identifies the need for a "2-foot vertical buffer or a minimum of 180-foot horizontal buffer" between eelgrass and subtidal geoduck harvest areas to protect eelgrass."

"The SHB found that while Meaders (industry expert) "is knowledgeable of the geoduck industry and science underlying aspects of industry practices," she was not "a credible expert in all aspects of study related to the nearshore environment to which she claimed expertise."

2. "Evidence presented at the hearing showed there are potential adverse impacts to critical habitat."

3.  "Because the consideration of a cumulative impact analysis prior to approval of the permit is consistent with the purpose of the SMA and clearly furthers the goal of the SMA to prevent "uncoordinated and piecemeal development,"the SHB did not err in concluding consideration should be given to preparing a cumulative impacts analysis."

4.  "De Tienne contends the SHB decision is not timely..... Because de Tienne stipulated to consolidation of the petition he filed on June 28, 2013 and there is no dispute the SHB extended the time period for good cause for an additional 30 days, the SHB complied with the time limits of the statute."

Our Coalition members, who have been fighting to protect our Washington aquatic life, are relieved that the Court of Appeals recognized the record of harm of industrial aquaculture and the need to protect eelgrass, herring and critical habitat said Hendricks. We are thankful to Dan Penttila, Wayne Daley and Dr. Gary Ritchie, the scientists who testified and have spoken out about the adverse effects of shellfish aquaculture. Tahoma Audubon and Center for Food Safety have pointed out the harm as well. We are also grateful to Brad and Sandy Newell who were responsible for over $20,000 of legal bills for this appeal. The Court of Appeals did award legal fees to the Coalition.

For more information on the Coalition To Protect Puget Sound Habitat, please see our website:

Sunday, November 13, 2016

The Legal and Enviromental Implications of the Washington Shellfish Initiative: Is it Sustainable?

A piece written by Lindsey Ward and published in May of 2014, in the Seattle Journal of Environmental Law, looks at what was then, the first unilateral launch by the executive branch of Washington of the Shellfish Initiative. Almost two years later, in January of 2016, Governor Inslee launched his version, Phase 2 of the Washington Shellfish Initiative. Lost on the now re-elected Governor is:
"...its directives fall far from the Initiative’s claim of enhancing and protecting this valuable resource in a sustainable manner."
The law article notes further:
"Primarily, the environmental consequences of implementing the Initiative pose massive and irreparable consequences for the environment. Specifically, by streamlining the permitting process for commercial shellfish aquaculture, encouraging noncompliant updates of local shoreline regulations, allowing further introduction and cultivation of nonnative species, increasing shellfish density, and failing to adequately address pollution, the Initiative may ultimately cause a loss of many of its native plant and animal species as well as the unique functions they serve."
Developed in the article is the background of the industry, how the Shellfish Initiative came to be, risks inherent to promoting the expansion of an industrial activity within the critical marine ecosystem which the intertidal area makes up, and the interplay between the Shoreline Management Act and Shoreline Master Programs various government entities are required to create through its guidelines.

While written over two years ago, the risks it details are still there and, perhaps most important, on the verge of becoming a reality. "Streamlined permitting" at the local level and minimizing, if not eliminating, national oversight with the new administration are on the verge of opening the door to a massive expansion of industrial shellfish operations throughout Puget Sound, whether in the intertidal areas or massive floating raft structures to grow mussels beneath.

Some will argue with the nuances of legal interpretations presented. Some will argue the article is over two years old and things have changed. What cannot be argued is there is a significant cumulative impact overtaking Puget Sound's intertidal ecosystem which, if not held in check, will forever transform this rare treasure available to all citizens. Questionable "certifications of sustainability" do not make it so.

Friday, November 4, 2016

25+ Acre Geoduck Farm: Comments on EIS scoping due November 8; Restoration of Burley Lagoon should begin.

EIS Scoping Comments Due Nov. 8
(click announcement below to enlarge)
This estuary is far
more than a receptacle 
for PVC pipe, plastic mesh and nets.

Comments Due November 8
Friends of Burley Lagoon have sent a reminder notice that comments on the required Environmental Impact Statement addressing the significant and adverse environmental impacts from a proposed 25 acre geoduck operation - and alternatives - in Burley Lagoon are due by November 8. The operation is proposed by Taylor Shellfish believing it is little more than a "conversion" and "intensification" of growing shellfish in Burley Lagoon.
Joan Thomas

“When the SMA was written in 1971, aquaculture meant oysters and clams and one salmon raising operation. This activity was recognized and protected as water-dependent. I do not read the original intent or the original guidelines to promote the industry as we know it today." Joan Thomas, 1991 (one of the original drafters of the Shoreline Management Act)

A small part of a far greater problem.
This proposed geoduck farm is a small part of a far greater transformation of an ecosystem into little more than an industrial operation which the shellfish industry continues to believe is a "preferred use" of Washington's critical marine habitat. In 1991, one of the original drafters of the Shoreline Management Act clearly stated that aquaculture then was not what it was in 1971, and should no longer be supported by the Shoreline Management Act. Fifteen years later the industrial impacts are far worse and far more pervasive. And the industry has far more money to promote their actions as being "in the state wide interest". They are not in the state-wide interest.

"Perhaps you'd like a smaller cup of bitters?" "It's still bitter." "But it's smaller."
Alternatives proposed by Taylor Shellfish include a 25 acre operation, a 17 acre operation, or continued use of netting over an ever expanding area in this ecologically sensitive body of water. No longer able to access a food source, migratory and resident water fowl have already diminished in numbers. Native mussels and barnacle encrusted rocks creating an ecosystem for native species have been cleared off and hauled away, with "predator nets" taking their place in order to grow non-native shellfish. The quiet and peace of night is now fractured by flood lights from large vessels dropping off and picking up large metal cages, driving wildlife away. 

Get involved.  The habitat alteration which occurs from geoduck operations should stop this from happening at all, at any size. In fact, the habitat destruction/alteration which occurs from current operations in this enclosed estuary should require an Environmental Impact Statement to be created. Nets now covering beaches which were cleared of any native structure should be restored. Any activity at night should cease. It's not grandpa's oyster farm anymore.

Governor Inslee: https://fortress.wa.gov/es/governor/
Legislative and Congressional contacts:

Wednesday, November 2, 2016

Mason County: Being involved makes a difference - SMP update changes are likely.

Next meeting: December 6, 9:30AM
Board Of County Commissioners chambers
411 N 5th St., Shelton
Send comments to: Rebecca Hersha at RebeccaH@co.mason.wa.us
See SMP Update information here: http://www.co.mason.wa.us/community_dev/shoreline_master_program/index.php

Lake Cushman Residents Paid Attention
Other Shoreline Owners? Maybe dormant.

At Mason County's first SMP update hearing before the Mason County Commissioners, shoreline owners along Lake Cushman showed up and made clear their displeasure of how seemingly similar shorelines were categorized so differently. As a result of their presence, verbal comments, and written comments, Mason County's planning department was told by the Commissioners to get staff to reconsider the proposal. An email sent by the head of planning noted:
The Board of County Commissioners has asked Staff to provide information regarding the Shoreline Environmental Designations at Lake Cushman, and to propose options for re-designating some of those areas. They have asked that this be ready for presentation and Commissioner deliberation at the December 6, 2016 public hearing.
Surprise! These tidelands were only "dormant".
No permit needed.

It shows why being involved in the political process matters. Rather than reading about it in the newspaper after the fact or being informed their neighbor's property would now allow an industrial activity to occur without a permit, they showed up and became involved to help shape the regulations.

Like Lake Cushman's shoreline, Mason County's tidelands are on the cusp of being reshaped and developed, with large areas being defined as having "existing aquaculture" even if none had occurred for over 100 years, thereby avoiding any permit requirements. Overnight, tidelands in a residential area may become little more than an industrial area with heavy machinery operating at any hour of the night and any structure - if related to growing shellfish - allowed.

If there is any doubt of what the impact may be like, one only need look to the east at Burley Lagoon to see what has occurred (click here for article on Burley Lagoon proposal). Metal crates creating navigational hazards are randomly placed throughout the area. Barges operate at all ours of the night drop off and retrieving the crates, delivering others from outside the area, all banging on the aluminum hulls. Floodlights shine into residential areas, and all form of wildlife is chased off. It being simply termed "intensification" and not expansion. In the case of Mason County, it would simply be called a "dormant" shellfish farm.