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.

DNR Retains SEPA Decision for Taylor Shellfish Harvesting of Geoduck on State Tidelands Trespassed On

In this SEPA decision we see what we want to see (or in the case of salmon during dive harvesting, not much).

What does dive harvesting look like?

[click here for short version of intertidal dive harvesting]

or click on arrow below for the full 25 minutes

(also note the discarded geoduck tubes)

Selective science? In the case of DNR's Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) on deeper subtidal harvesting, as it applies to intertidal dive harvesting, we read what we want to read.[click here for complete SEIS]

Part of this study looked at a "liberal" 10,000 geoduck-per-acre tract being harvested versus the typical 60,000+ geoduck per acre in a commercial farm. Hardly the same.

Yet, the SEIS clearly states sediment plumes do not "settle out quickly" as DNR and NMFS authors state in the SEPA documents. In fact, dive harvesting of geoduck clearly shows a far greater impact to the water column and sediments than was considered by DNR and NMFS.

After 20 minutes at 1.0 m/sec current speed, the [sediment] clouds with up to 10 mg/l of TSS were 170 m [>500'] down current from the diver. (page 33, SEIS) (Note: A 10 mg/l increase in TSS increased turbidity 6 NTU units. WAC 173-201A-210(1)(e) does not allow an increase of over 5 NTU.) There is no indication any consideration was given to the unique location of this farm and currents.

The shoreward boundary [of -18 feet] protects shallow water geoducks, minimizes impacts on nearby shoreline residents, and helps protect eelgrass beds and other sensitive nearshore habitats. (page 10, SEIS) Nothing indicates consideration was given to the species within the sediments between where the geoduck were planted and the -18 foot depth. Further, if DNR is concerned about impacts to shoreline residents, why not restrict dive harvesting to daylight hours only? 

Most of this material -- the coarser sediments -- settles immediately to the bottom and forms a berm round the harvest hole, while the fine material (particle size less than 63 microns) settles much more slowly and remains in the water for longer periods. (page 31, SEIS) Statements that sediments "settle out quickly" are simply not scientifically based.

Look a little deeper.

The Department of Natural Resources has retained its SEPA mitigated determination of non-significance (MDNS) decision which will allow Taylor Shellfish to dive harvest up to 70% of the geoduck planted on state owned tidelands. One commenter noted DNR's Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) on subtidal dive harvesting limited harvest activity to no shallower than 18 feet below mean low lower water (MLLW). DNR responded the EIS and SEIS were not intended to be used for intertidal (shallow) dive harvesting, despite the papers clearly noting impacts to the water column and shallow area from dive harvesting. DNR went on to respond the 18' depth limit was primarily to address shoreline resident concerns about "noise and commotion from harvest activities" and to avoid "eelgrass and herring spawning areas". It responded further by referencing National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) letters. Neither reference any studies looking at dive harvesting of an intertidal commercial farm which has over 60,000 geoduck per acre, because none exist. Instead they rely on inferences from observations of harvesting activities performed out of water at small farms, in some cases at midnight, and low density wild harvesting to reach the conclusion there is no impact. NMFS states sediment disturbance is no different than naturally occurring wave action, seeming to overlook the fact that 3' of sediments are liquefied and geoduck planted in densities of up to 3 per square foot are being extracted. Waves and currents both have an immediate and ongoing effect on sediments which are carried far further than those disturbed by "dry" harvesting. The stratified sediment composition which had formed over millennium from waves and current is turned upside down in harvesting.

   

Southern Resident Orca, August 2011

(At the mouth of Hammersley Inlet

which passed directly by Taylor's farm

in Pickering Passage.)

In response to concerns of Southern Resident Orca which frequent the area, NMFS states the vessels used are "slow moving" and pose no risk. In fact, the vessels used by the shellfish industry are some of the largest and fastest vessels on Puget Sound. The fact that geoduck need to be moved directly from harvesting to the airport for delivery in China the next day has to make one wonder what era of shellfish harvesting NMFS was thinking about. It's not grandfather Taylor's oyster farm anymore.    

This is slow moving?

Commissioner Goldmark and the Aquatic Division of DNR have tried to do their best in protecting the intertidal shoreline habitat for future generations. They have tried to rely on science to base decisions on. But pressures are building to convert what few remaining public tidelands there are into industrial shellfish farms for the benefit of a few corporate owners who will become very rich while Washington State's citizens loose access to the few public tidelands which remain. Taylor Shellfish should never have been allowed to plant where they did. Taylor Shellfish trespassed and as part of the settlement agreement they are allowed to harvest their geoduck, at great profit (~$2 million). What should not be allowed now is for this SEPA decision to be used as the basis for future decisions.

The area where Taylor Shellfish

planted geoduck without a lease agreement.

DNR Requests Comments on $2.6 million Geoduck Harvest by Taylor Shellfish to Resolve Trespass

Comments due August 13
Email: sepacenter@dnr.wa.gov
Include file number 12-073001

The Department of Natural Resources (DNR) has issued a request for comments on a SEPA mitigated determination of non-significance (MDNS) for a proposal by Taylor Shellfish to harvest geoduck planted on state owned tidelands without a lease. Over 50% will be "dive harvested" in shallow waters. (SEPA Documents here)

Presumed Taylor Shellfish Trespass Area
On State Tidelands below Mean Low Tide

(south of Allyn on Pickering Passage)

(click to enlarge)

2006, DOE Coastal Atlas

In 2010 a DNR investigation into trespass on state tidelands found that Taylor Shellfish had been growing geoduck without a lease agreement on a state owned tideland parcel below mean low tide. The 2010 settlement terms for this trespass included allowing Taylor Shellfish to harvest the now ~175,000 pounds of geoduck on 1.8 acres. At a conservative $15/pound, the gross revenues from these geoducks alone approaches $2.6 million. Estimated net profit to Taylor Shellfish will be near $2 million. The state's Attorney General settled three cases in 2010, one against Taylor for $225,000 plus the right to harvest the planted shellfish (click here for the Kitsap Sun article).

Minus Tides June 2 to the 8th Expose the Shellfish Industry's Other Side

Just Because You Can't See It Doesn't Mean It's Not There

The lowest tides of the year will be this Saturday through Friday, June 2 to the 8th with Monday's -4.1 being the lowest (see here for Olympia tides).  Near lunch time on all those days, all geoduck farms will be exposed for people to see.  The forests of PVC tubes, nets, and hydraulic harvesting which are transforming the lower intertidal tidelands and making a very few people very rich will be exposed. 

Washington State is paid virtually nothing in property taxes or sales taxes. Tideland owners leasing their tidelands are paid little because they are unaware of the value they possess.  Job "formation" is part time and are jobs the unemployed in Mason, Pierce and Thurston Counties don't want, leaving them to be filled by hard working migrant workers whose concern - rightfully so - is for their families in other countries.  It's what the shellfish industry doesn't want you to see or know.

See How Industrial Shellfish Farms

Transform Puget Sound's Tidelands

Recent temporary help wanted job descriptions from Craigslist:

Shellfish farm needs labor help June 2-4.

Must be dependable, have own transportation, and be able to pass a background check.

Must have previous labor experience (prefer ag or fishery/forestry exp.) , and be over 18 y.o.

5 hour shifts, daily, for 3 consecutive days.

Needed are a few folks who can "bring it" during the few hours we have each day to get a job done.

Our base rate is $12 per hour.

Puget Sound's tidelands are more than a shellfish farm for a few shellfish company owners to become wealthy growing geoduck in. It is a national treasure at risk.  After looking at what's happening to Puget Sound's tidelands, consider who benefits from the industrial expansion and tideland developments industry wants so badly and the Governor is pushing so hard for.  Get involved in the process. The geoduck industry is and it's not for your benefit.

Arcadia Point Seafood Submits New Application for Geoduck Farms in Thurston County

Public comments are due by 4PM, May 15 on two Thurston County geoduck farms.  Email comments to Mike Kain at kainm@co.thurston.wa.us  Mr. Kain's phone number is 360-786-5471.  The Shoreline Substantial Development Permit case numbers to reference are 2010100420 (Thiesen, parcel 11905230400 at 8940 Libby Road NE) and 2010100421 (McClure, parcel 11905230200 at 8702 Libby Road NE).

After almost two years of appeals, Arcadia Point Seafood has resubmitted applications to Thurston County for two geoduck farms on the Thiesen and McClure tideland parcels near the mouth of  Henderson Inlet.  Brought up in late 2009, they were told a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit was required. Arcadia joined Taylor Shellfish in appealing that decision.  In October 2011 the Superior Court agreed structures were being placed in the tidelands which required a permit. (click here to read the court's decision)

The Thiesen site is adjacent to rural shorelines zoned for one dwelling unit per acre and the McClure site is adjacent to a conservancy shoreline environment zoned for one dwelling per five acres.  Both sites are in developed areas with heavy use by hunters; fishermen; recreational boating; and there is a large, publicly owned tideland parcel adjacent to the Thiesen parcel (the upper tidelands are privately held).

All put in question whether Taylor Shellfish spokeswoman Diane Cooper's statement regarding aquacluture activities not being compatible in some areas applies to this location. Diane Cooper:  "... there are areas where shellfish farming and high density or high use areas and high use transient population areas probably aren't compatible uses."

Public comments are due by 4PM on May 15.

National Marine Fisheries Service: Cumulative Impacts Not Considered by Nationwide Permits

Cumulative impacts: The impact on the environment which results from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency (Federal or non-federal) or person undertakes such other actions. (40 CFR 1508.7).

(click here to read the Bilogical Opinion)

A Biological Opinion written by National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) has told the Army Corps their 2012 Nationwide Permits are not able to determine whether cumulative impacts  are adversely impacting the environment.  NMFS has told the Army Corps they will now need to take specific steps with NFMS's Regional or Branch Office to ensure cumulative impacts are in fact considered (beginning on page 225).

NMFS's Northwest Regional Office, including the Southwest Washington Habitat Branch covering Mason, Thurston, Pacific, Pierce and Grays Harbor Counties, are now responsible for overseeing the Army Corps' implementation of Nationwide Permit 48 which covers existing shellfish farms as well as proposed new farms or expansion of existing farms.  They will be responsible for determining whether, in fact, cumulative impacts from shellfish farming can be determined and whether they are occurring.

Will the "Shellfish Initiative" and "streamlined permitting" being promoted by NOAA, the department overseeing NMFS, allow for objective oversight?  As it relates to Puget Sound and aquaculture, it borders on the fox guarding the hen house.  Especially in light of the recent lobbying by the shellfish industry to minimize the Army Corps' oversight of their activities.

(Shellfish industry lobbying paper on

minimizing Army Corps' oversight)

(Click to enlarge)

Taylor Shellfish on Fudge Point State Park

     Not in My Back Yard

Help suport the creation of Fudge Point State Park
 by sending an email to
Steve.Hahn@parks.wa.gov


Fudge Point:  State Park or Geoduck Farm?
(click to enlarge)


Taylor Shellfish is clear in its opposition to the creation of

Fudge Point State Park

Diane Cooper:  Aquaculture is Incompatible

How a proposed 6 acre shellfish farm may prevent the creation of a 255 acre waterfront state park. 

Diane Cooper with Taylor Shellfish:  "I don't know how much use that park would get. But it's true that there are areas where shellfish farming and high density or high use areas and high use transient population areas probably aren't compatible uses. The shellfish farm activity and proposal has been in the works long before the acquisition of Fudge State Park was ever discussed. I would submit that there's a vested interest by us certainly in that property to continue to move forward with shellfish farming and if that doesn't happen there's certainly opportunity and options to talk."  How generous.

Forgotten by Ms. Cooper is the fact that Taylor Shellfish has not received permits for their proposed geoduck farm. Even if a permit is issued there is no guarantee it won't be appealed, putting off any farm potentially for years.  In the mean time, a window of opportunity to create one of the state's great parks is closing.

Also forgotten by Ms. Cooper is the fact that residential development of Fudge Point and its upland areas have been proposed for a far longer period of time than Taylor Shellfish's geoduck farm.  Ralph Scott, in 1991 had Fudge Point surveyed into lots and a road system, including a pedestrian easement from the high tideline to the extreme low tideline.  Its development has been discussed for years.  It is Taylor Shellfish who is the newcomer.

Taylor Shellfish acquired these tidelands knowing full well development in one form or another would happen.  Any investor - whether the state trying to create a state park for future generations or someone trying to create a housing development - has been put on notice by Taylor Shellfish and their 6 acre geoduck farm:  "Not in my back yard."

Taylor Shellfish has now stated in no uncertain terms what has been obvious for years and what they have dismissed as "NIMBYism":  Industrial aquaculture has become incompatible with other shoreline uses. Will they now withdraw their proposal for a 58 raft mussel farm in Totten Inlet where residents have lived for generations? Will they cancel their geoduck farm leases on tidelands in front of shoreline owners who were there far longer than Taylor Shellfish was?  Unlikely.

When will Taylor Shellfish accept the fact that this body of water is named "Puget Sound" - not "Taylor Shellfish Sound"?

Citizens File Petition to Ammend Shoreline Regulations, not Streamline Them

Case Inlet Shoreline Association and the Coalition to Protect Puget Sound Habitat have petitioned the Department of Ecology to amend WAC 173-26-241(3)(b) Aquaculture Standards.
http://www.caseinlet.org/uploads/Petition_for_Rulemaking.pdf 

This petition has been filed to correct a legally flawed opinion by the Attorney General carried forward into Ecology's recent guidance regulations, specifically focused on geoduck aquaculture.  As noted earlier, a recent court decision determined geoduck aquaculture does in fact use structures and thereby meets the definition of a development, requiring a shoreline permit, just as all developments along the shoreline do, whether a dock; a bulkhead; or a home.
http://www.caseinlet.org/uploads/taylor_10-21-11.pdf (Judge's transcript)

When asked how this fits with the shellfish initiative to "streamline" the permitting process, the simple answer is "it doesn't."  "Streamlining" the permit process for aquaculture is not what the Shoreline Management Act and the Clean Water Act are in place for.  They are in place to protect the very unique and valuable habitat which Puget Sound provides, for everyone and everything, not just the shellfish industry.  As seen in this brief youtube slide show, the shellfish industry is transforming the tideland habitat of Puget Sound in a way which will forever degrade the biodiversity provided from this habitat area:  http://youtu.be/lC1IjM45UbU 

Totten Inlet Non-native Mussel Farm

Slated for Expansion

With Non-native invasive Tunicate Problems

The recently announced initiative does contain important components in the form of restoration of native species; financial assistance for upland owners' failing septic systems; financial assistance for
cattle and dairy farmers; and, increased access to publicly owned shoreline.  But make no mistake:  this effort is primarily an attempt to bypass regulations which have evolved over the past four years which the shellfish industry does not like.

Many citizens have watched the transformation of aquaculture from small mom and pop operations to large corporate entities.  Anyone who cares about Puget Sound should be very concerned about attempts to "streamline" permitting.  If this is allowed to move forward, future generations will only look back on this time and say "What were they thinking?"

You can help by supporting Case Inlet Shoreline Association (http://www.caseinlet.org/) and the Sierra Club (http://washington.sierraclub.org/tatoosh/Aquaculture/index.asp).

Ecology will proceed with Shoreline Management Act rule-making

Totten Inlet geoduck operation, approximately 2007. Oyster bags cover the tidelands on the upland side.

The following email was received today from the Department of Ecology:

On Dec. 8, 2010 Ecology placed the Shoreline Management Act (SMA) rule-making on the agency’s “to be determined” list. Doing so signified that the Director needed more information before deciding whether or not to proceed with the rule-making during 2011. Due to deadlines set by the Administrative Procedure Act (RCW 34.05) Ecology knew it would need to make a decision by early February.

Today, the Director announced that Ecology will proceed with the Shoreline Management Act rule-making, citing OFM exemption criteria 3 (e):

(3)  Rule making proceedings are non-critical unless the rule is:

(e) -Beneficial to or requested or supported by the regulated entities, local governments or small businesses that it affects.

To make this decision, the agency reviewed Governor’s Executive Order 10-06, the criteria for exemptions, the input we’ve received from those interested in this rule-making, and determined that it is critical to complete rule-making now. 

Completing the rule update related to intertidal commercial geoduck aquaculture will provide needed regulatory consistency.  The updated rule provides guidance on addressing this activity as part of Shoreline Master Program (SMP) updates.  The rule also provides a permitting framework for implementing updated policies. 

Several Puget Sound counties will adopt shoreline policies and regulations in the near future that address conflicts associated with commercial geoduck aquaculture. If rule completion were delayed, the next opportunity to integrate commercial geoduck aquaculture policies and regulations may be a decade into the future.  

Another important item in the updated rule clarifies the criteria for approval of less than comprehensive SMP updates.  The current rule language is significantly outdated and does not meet the needs of local government.  Local governments support replacing this outdated rule section.  Other elements of the rule update ensure consistency between the rule and statute.

Ecology has updated our website to reflect the SMA rule-making status change. You can find this change noted in the Feb. 2, 2011 update on our rule-making suspension website: http://www.ecy.wa.gov/laws-rules/rulemaking_suspension.html.

More information on the Shoreline Management Act rule-making:

http://www.ecy.wa.gov/laws-rules/SMA2010/1007.html