Permit Hearing: 1 p.m. August 9 at 411 N. 5th Street in Shelton

Floating Oyster Farm Hearing in Mason County's Oakland Bay, WA

50 acres of navigable water and tidelands is needed for a 9 acre floating oyster farm.

[Article on citizen concerns here: https://www.masoncounty.com/.../oakland-bay.../2967.html

August 9 a permit hearing on a proposal by Taylor Shellfish to create a 9 acre floating oyster farm requiring a 50 acre lease in south Puget Sound's Oakland Bay will occur. While presented as "only" 9 acres, Taylor Shellfish has said due to drifting of the structure, lines and anchors, a 50 acre area of public subtidal tidelands and navigable waters is required.

To date, 49 comments have been received with 43 of those being opposed. Impacts to native marine life, the public's use of navigable waters, and plastic pollution are only a few of the concerns expressed.

On Mason County's web site, Taylor's response to those comments has been a litany of past studies used to support a variety of industrial shellfish farms, dismissal of others as not being important (e.g., Friends of Burley Lagoon don't know anything about Oakland Bay, so their concerns are not relevant), and the belief that giving access to 16 acres tidelands in other parts of Oakland Bay, only exposed during a small portion of the day, is sufficient mitigation to offset the loss of the 50 acres of navigable waters Taylor needs.

[See Mason County's web site and permit documents here: https://masoncountywa.gov/hear.../Taylor-Shellfish/index.php ]

In addition to attending in person, the hearing will also be available on Mason WebTV.

[Find Mason WebTV here: https://masonwebtv.com/ ]

Through a series of delays, Taylor Shellfish has had ample opportunity to review concerns submitted and develop what they feel are sufficient responses to them. Coupled with time spent developing shoreline regulations which are favorable to industrial shellfish farm development, citizens who are concerned have an uphill climb.

Burley Lagoon Geoduck Farm: Gig Harbor Advisory Commission (PAC) votes to DENY Taylor Shellfish permit for a geoduck farm in Burley Lagoon.

(Summary of meeting follows)

Burley Lagoon in Pierce County

Example of what a geoduck farm looks like.

.

Taylor Shellfish has proposed up to 25 acres be converted.

May 24: At a meeting held May 24, after hearing testimony from Pierce County and Taylor Shellfish representatives, Gig Harbor votes against Taylor Shellfish's proposal for conversion of tidelands to a  geoduck farm. While only advisory, the decision reflects strong local opposition to the proposal. 

(A recording of the meeting may be found here - scroll to "Agendas and Documents", then click on "5 24 23 PAC Recording - Audio": https://www.piercecountywa.gov/5934/Gig-Harbor-Peninsula-Advisory-Commission)

Highlights:

Question - Was all 300 acres farmed? Taylor Shellfish claims all 300 acres have historically been farmed. Some question whether that is the case, or if the acreage actually farmed is less. Taylor claims the geoduck farm would represent "only" 8% of the Lagoon. If fewer than 300 acres was actually used, the percentage of tidelands impacted would grow dramatically.

Question - How long will harvesting take place? Taylor Shellfish noted harvesting would occur during low tides in the summer and dive harvesting would occur during winter.

Sediment disturbed during dive harvesting.

Question: How will this farm uphold the values reflected in the community plan? (focus on how the farm would uphold these values) The County responded there are subjective opinions but felt the EIS addressed these concerns, pointing out the EIS is being appealed.

Question: If, after 5 years, it was found that goals were not being met, what recourse is there? The County stated the Hearing Examiner might require the county to monitor complaints. While revocation of a permit is possible, it is a "heavy lift" and staff does not have a boat to run out on. Not liking how it looked sounded unrealistic to address.

Question: If the 25 acres is approved, what is the process should Taylor wish to expand to 50 acres? The County said Taylor has told them 25 acres is all they want. But, a permit revision for expansion is available, or possibly a new permit would be required. (It was noted past regulations are not what future regulations may be. There was no clear answer.)

Question: Isn't this just farmland? If so, aren't they also under the same sort of restrictions as upland farms (e.g., wetland setbacks)? The County said tidelands are different as the public use of waters is also involved, bringing up why it's so difficult to install a dock, touching on issues of the "Public Trust".

Question: Aren't tidelands taxed far less than upland parcels are? The County "did not know" (For readers unaware, tidelands are taxed at a fraction of upland parcels.)

Opinion: Farming is good, all farming creates monocultures, in short, a farm is a farm is a farm. Except this is taking place in a marine environment. The County responded that if an existing upland farm wanted to expand they too may be subject to new regulations.

Question: Has the County acted on citizen complaints about debris and operational hours? The County said Taylor has been responsive to complaints about noise and debris. No attempt at setting up mediation has occurred, but it may be worth considering. The County expects complaints to continue.

Statement: The County said limit hours of operation has been attempted in the past but shellfish companies do not like those restrictions. It's possible the Examiner may put something in place.

Question: Logging and forestry are restricted, isn't aquaculture? The County said not really because this area is an existing farm and much of it was established when there was no noise requirement. While there is a noise pollution ordinance, it is enforced by the Health Department and they do not have the staff. Theoretically, it's possible, but, there is a question of whether only the new 25 acres would be impacted.

Question to Taylor: How long has Taylor actively farmed the area? Taylor responded they begun leasing tidelands in 2012 and actively farmed since 2014.

Question to Taylor: Why change to geoduck now? The owner asked Taylor to change. Taylor's attorney's "recollection" is markets change and product demand changes, creating a need for "diversification" of the "portfolio", including the risk of disease. (Taylor's attorney again pointed out 25 acres is "only" 8% of the area.)

Question to Taylor: Aren't there other areas Taylor can use? Taylor's attorney responded yes, although the attempt to do so was simply a scattering of seed in the water, both within and outside of the Lagoon.

Question to Taylor: If scattering is successful, why the need for PVC tubes and netting? Predation is too high and survival too low without PVC tubes and netting.

Question: Have all of Taylor's permit applications been approved? The County responded yes, pointing out his is the possibly the largest of all applications. (One in a subtidal area, the "Detienne" farm, was ultimately denied.

Comment: The County noted other agencies are involved in permitting.

Question: Is this site typical in proximity to residential surroundings? The County responded that most are on exposed tidelands, but not similar to a lagoon such as Burley Lagoon. "This one is different." In part it was why an Environmental Impact Statement was required.

Question: Are aware if any areas where upland owners are compensated?  The County noted again that Burley Lagoon is different in that there is a high density of development and use, again pointing out his was why an EIS was required.

Question: Did past applications have existing farms? The County responded that most did not.

Question: What is the County's take on the reduction in property values as farming increases? The County has said no reduction in property values has occurred, that they know of. The County could not say clearly what they would need in order to be convinced property values do become lower, although independent appraisers might be helpful. Taylor's attorney had recollections of the Haley farm testimony being experts having differing opinions and the examiner not acting on it.

Question: How would the County address a "taking" if property values decreased? It was no known, but the EIS did attempt to address probable significant adverse issues, and property values was not one of the issues. The questioner responded that many of the community members, who she spoke for, does have concerns.

Question: What was the County's involvement in the creation of an EIS? The County provided issues, responses were made, more issues were brought up, more information was provided, in short, that the County was involved from the beginning.

Question: Because of the involvement, does the County agree there is no net loss from whatever base line is established? The County agreed, pointing out, no net loss is not the same as no impact, and why mitigation may be required.

Question: Did the County have any input into who the consultant creating the EIS was? The County discussed the amount of time Dave and Ty have spent on previous permitting questions. Many of those past actions have presented consultants who were involved in the EIS's creation, but the County did not chose them. The County pointed out the applicants do chose the consultants and every EIS has had complaints about bias.

Question: With the change in tideland use, is there any mitigation in place to offset the changes which will occur? The County said there were things required, but visual issues were important, but they were unclear about what requirements there may be to minimize the visual impact, pointing out the subjectivity of it. 

Opinion: Many people don't find PVC pipes in the tidelands very appealing.

Question: What is the grandfathered use of tidelands in the past? The County was not clear, but that there were many letters describing exactly what was taking place, disagreeing with the statements of past use. The question of expansion/intensification was addressed years ago, but there was no clear answer beyond having to go re read the letters again.

Question: If shellfish were being grown in the past, where is the line between one shellfish species and another? The County responded the means and methods used to grow geoduck are very different than how clams/oysters are grown and harvested.

Opinion: Silt and sediment and water create a large disturbance within Burley Lagoon. The County determined only a "moderate" impact would occur, and why in part, an appeal of the EIS has occurred.

Dive harvesting disturbs large volumes of sediment.

Final comments: It's a farm; it does not fit within the community plan; nets are a navigational hazard; it's unique but geoduck are grown differently and property rights of upland property owners are as important as tideland owners; there won't be less geoduck for sale at Safeway if this does not go in; hours of operation should be put in place; it's an estuary with two important creeks; selling farm products to China make money; residential and aquaculture have competing interests; we're not taking aquaculture away from Taylor as they may continue to grow oysters and clams as they have; products sold overseas may benefit a few economically, but not the general population; environmental protection and sustainable practices are important to the advisory commission; changing the nature of the Lagoon and what the Lagoon has become is an important aspect; is selling natural resources overseas what the US really wants

Motion to DENY approval the permit as requested: Motion carried (i.e., DENIAL of approval).  

 

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

Decision will have impact 

on current proposals.

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

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

Clalllam County permitting decision just lost

a significant leg: US District Court rules

the Corps' analysis was inadequate.

This does not belong in the

Dungeness National Wildlife Refuge.

(Click here for proposal and to comment)

(Comments due by Nov 21)

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

One small farm lead to another, and another,

and another, and another....

Which all added together make a difference.

And the Corps didn't consider that.

Never give up

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

PVC tubes and netting are transforming

Puget Sound's critical marine habitat.

Zangle Cove is only one area

where expansion is occurring.

Native aquatic vegetation is displaced by shellfish farms.

Shellfish farming impacts eelgrass, a critical habitat.

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

Net pen fish farming is only one

of the many forms aquaculture takes.

Its impacts are additive to the 

marine ecosystem.

Tell WDFW their analysis of Cooke Aquaculture's proposal

to grow steelhead in Puget Sound was inadequate

and an Environmental Impact Statement 

analyzing ALL alternatives, including upland/contained systems

needs to be performed.

(Click here for proposal)

Email here: SEPAdesk2@dfw.wa.gov

Comments due by Oct 22

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

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

Burley Lagoon Residents Complain of Putrid Smell, Clams Die Off: A "Preferred Use" of the tidelands?

"Particularly pungent smells 

may come from the beach when a common type of seaweed 

known as sea lettuce decays 

in an environment with low dissolved oxygen."

(Department of Ecology, "Focus on Saltwater Beach Odors")

Promoting and enhancing the public interest or industrial scale aquaculture?
After weeks of residents along the shoreline of Burley Lagoon complaining about a putrid smell so strong it has prevented many from enjoying the air outside of their homes, it appears there has been a clam die off to go along with it. To hear Taylor Shellfish discuss their "rights" under the Shoreline Management Act, the state and counties are to do nothing but promote and enhance aquaculture, prioritizing it over all other water dependent uses, believing it is in the statewide interest to do so. Even if it means what Burley Lagoon is experiencing.

Dead Clams in Burley Lagoon

Clean net placed too late?

The smell of politics.
Pierce County responded sources of the smell could be "Ulva" (aka Sea Lettuce, a native vegetative seaweed) so thick it smells of rotten eggs as it decays. Another source mentioned could be leaking septic fields. Not mentioned is that it could also be the carrying capacity of Burley Lagoon has been exceeded by Taylor Shellfish's intensive and industrial level of planting of clams and oysters, resulting in shellfish rotting as they die off, unable to survive due to the density of planting. Or it could be a combination of these or other things. Whatever it is, the stench is overwhelming and impacts enjoyment and use of the shoreline, whether a resident or a member of the public trying to enjoy the aquatic environment in Pierce County.

Maybe the nets just need 

a "good industrial scraping".

(Samish Bay, WA)

Do structures in the tidelands need bigger machines on the tidelands?

Long time residents of Burley Lagoon have stated they do not recall a stench so intense in all of their years living there, some for decades. What they also do not recall are the number of "predator nets"  which Taylor Shellfish uses to keep native species from feeding off of the sediments, or the expansive area covered. Nor do they recall the intensity of planting which is occurring, whether it be clams or nonnative Pacific oysters. As seen in the Samish Bay photo above, in order to deal with the heavy growth on their predator nets, Taylor partnered with New Holland and implemented the use of a tractor and a "street sweeper" to clear the nets there of Sea Lettuce so thick it prevents clams below from surviving. Algae which apparently exists in higher densities due to this artificial structure which has been placed over the tidelands of Burley Lagoon and on oysters planted in high densities.

It's not rocket science. It's "Ecosystem Services".

Oysters poop, seaweed grows, clams die. Ecosystem services at work.

As noted in an August 2017 "Ecosystem Services" winning picture, one source of the problem is directly related to oyster feces, their pseudo feces, associated ammonia, and shell surface area provided by high density planting of oysters. Oysters poop and provide "fertilizer". On the surface of those shells macro algae attaches and thrives on the "nutrients" expelled by the nonnative Pacific oysters. That growth is so intense oyster growth slows and clams rise to the surface. Summertime low tides and summertime heat promote decay and death. Smells emanate. Because of aquaculture. It's not rocket science. Calling it "ecosystem services" deflects attention from dealing with the problem created.

This is not "enhancing" the public interest

and is exactly what the Shoreline Management Act

was designed to prevent from happening

to Puget Sound tidelands.

(Read RCW 98.58.020 to see

intended preferences of the SMA)

"promote and enhance the public interest" - not industrial aquaculture

The Shoreline Management Act was created in response to industrial levels of activities impacting the shorelines of Puget Sound. It was not created to promote the industrial level of activities the shellfish industry has since evolved into. Activities and impacts which lower the statewide ability to enjoy the shorelines of Washington State. The Pierce County Council, in reluctantly passing their updated Shoreline Master Program, listened to Taylor Shellfish complain, even after additional changes were made to accommodate their industry, that more needs to be done in order for their industry to profit from tidelands and public waters. 

(Read August 28 letter from attorneys for Taylor Shellfish and the Foss family's North Bay Partners here: https://app.box.com/s/na0wpgwm4mjp7b41toj1iaf533iecij2)

Yes - Washington needs to change its laws.

"Maddening": Banning plastic straws and promoting PVC tubes in Puget Sound.

Most of what is noted in the Taylor/North Bay letter was addressed by Pierce County, yet still, Diane Cooper rose to state before the public and the council, not enough had been done for them. In response, most council members agreed, the state needs to change the law if, in fact, that is what Taylor Shellfish and others are relying on to promote their industry over other water dependent uses. [Read what the legislators who passed the SMA intended, here:

 https://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=90.58.020, where it states counties, in developing their Shoreline Master Programs:

"shall give preference to uses in the following order of preference which:
(1) Recognize and protect the statewide interest over local interest;
(2) Preserve the natural character of the shoreline;
(3) Result in long term over short term benefit;
(4) Protect the resources and ecology of the shoreline;
(5) Increase public access to publicly owned areas of the shorelines;
(6) Increase recreational opportunities for the public in the shoreline;
(7) Provide for any other element as defined in RCW 90.58.100 deemed appropriate or necessary."]

Get involved.
Use of structures and methods which create an environment from which odors emanate that are so strong as to prevent the public's enjoyment of the tidelands and shorelines is only one example showing how this industry is out of control. Pierce County agrees that laws promoting this need to change and will become active in the state to change this lopsided interpretation of a law intended benefit all in the state, not just a few corporations.

Pierce County Shoreline Master Program Update: Taylor Shellfish Still Not Happy

Pierce County Shoreline Master Program Update:

Council members approve amendment the Growth Management Hearings Board requested (4 yes, 2 no). Taylor Shellfish still complains they are too restrictive. Majority of council members say the state needs to act in order to protect Puget Sound's tidelands and estuaries from impacts aquaculture creates with 2 voting "No" and with others saying they are only voting "Yes" because the state law is forcing them to.

Video link is on the right side of this link:

https://online.co.pierce.wa.us/cfapps/council/iview/councilMeeting.cfm?meeting_dt=Sep%2010%202019%20%203:00PM

Taylor Shellfish's Diane Cooper complains not enough has been done:

(1:33:30 - states the update is still too restrictive, referring to Taylor's August 28 letter outlining what more they want to have changed)

(1:52:20 - believes because impacts have been occurring historically they should be allowed to continue; believes science created for the industry supports 40,000 PVC pipes/acre are just fine)

Council members comment, most saying state laws which promote 40,000+ PVC pipes/acre in Puget Sound need to be changed.

1:36:44 - Derek Young spoke passionately for most about how he is only voting "yes" because state law is forcing him to, believing estuaries and tidelands are being adversely impacted by aquaculture. That the state is speaking of banning plastic bags and straws, while allowing PVC and grow-out bags for aquaculture is "maddening."

1:41:46 - Council Member McCune has seen impacts to estuaries and habitat, and how that impacts fish populations, and agrees with Council Member Young.

1:43:51 - Council Woman Ladenburg agrees with both previous speakers and that geoduck "farming" is not justifiable. Impacts are harmful, shorelines are pristine, and this is harmful, leaving for future generations a problem. She voted "No".

1:46:10 - Councilman Morell expresses concerns about further appeals and lawsuits from the shellfish industry. [Given Taylor's testimony, this appears possible.] He voted "No".

Get involved. The shellfish industry views Puget Sound's tideland areas as little more than a template for profits. Their use of plastics and means of harvesting does impact the intertidal area. And they want more.

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

Taylor  Shellfish/Foss Family Prevail:

GMHB Tells DOE and Pierce County 

it must

"plan for, foster and give preference 

to aquaculture as a preferred use"

[Read decision here]

Presidential Candidate Governor Inslee

and Taylor Shellfish's Bill Dewey

China's elite pay a lot of money.

Taylor Shellfish makes a lot of money.

A few waterfront tideland owners 

make a lot of money.

Is that bad for the marine ecosystem Governor?

Aquaculture as a fosster child.

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

China doesn't care about Puget Sound habitat.

They care about geoduck grown in PVC pipes.

48,000 per acre

A concern then, a bigger concern now.

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

Before

 After

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

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

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

Taxes? $3,957

Does the Foss family really need to have

geoduck aquaculture fosstered to help pay these taxes?

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

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

Get involved

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

Zangle Cove: "People like PVC tubes in straight lines." What people are those?

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

May 19, 2019 - A thing of beauty? 

The populating of Zangle Cove with PVC pipes to grow geoduck for China continues. Conversion of the intertidal area into a monolithic population of geoduck contained within PVC tubes, covered by "predator nets", is found more important to this tideland owner than the native habitat it has provided in the past. 

You need new glasses 

if you think 

this will "feed the world".

A belief this operation is going to help "feed the world" is a sad and out of focus view of reality. After these PVC tubes are placed, removed, and after harvesting with hydraulic water jets has completely transformed this marine habitat, these geoduck are airfreighted to China where only the elite are able to afford the expense of this luxury food. A Chinese elite who care little for the transformation this product has brought to Puget Sound's tidelands. A transformation which continues to grow.

Where did all those straight lines go?

Replaced by a moonscape at harvest.

Do people think this looks good too?

The only people who think PVC in straight lines in the intertidal area look good are those few corporations who are profiting from this transformation. A transformation which leaves a moonscape at harvest, to be replaced by another set of PVC tubes set in straight lines. It is not a thing of beauty. And China could care less.

What Geoduck Tariffs Mean to Puget Sound: Good Bye Honey, Things have Changed

Packin' Up, Movin' Out

Goodbye Honey Bucket

Will this really be missed?

(and did this mess get to where it was going?)

What could possibly go wrong?

According to recent press releases, geoduck farmers are "freaking out" over the recent 25% tariff imposed on geoduck grown in Puget Sound. The Chinese, in one action, may have done more to preserve and possibly restore Puget Sound's intertidal area than a decade of efforts from people concerned over the transformation brought on by PVC at planting and liquification of sediments at harvesting. While unknown whether it will last, what is becoming clear is some companies seem to be standing on thin legs and are at risk of failure.

Money for Nothin'

Kicks for Free

At the Expense of Puget Sound's 

Intertidal Habitat

(and your leased tidelands)

"You'll get rich. And, if not, well, they're your tidelands, not mine."

A recent opinion piece in the Seattle Time by Jim Gibbons, founder of Seattle Shellfish, stated prices have dropped 40% due to the tariff imposed. Worried about whether his business will be able to survive, he wrote he will be curtailing "growth" and cutting back on planting. Whether the cutting back and curtailments will occur on leased tidelands, whose owners were told of great wealth to come for doing nothing from these leases, or on tidelands privately held by Seattle Shellfish, was not made clear. What was made clear is that the founder of Seattle Shellfish is concerned about a breach in the moat which had surrounded this industry's model.

In the end,

aren't we all brothers?

Panopea japonica, Panopea generosa

"both nuclear genes revealed low genetic divergence 

between P. generosa and P. japonica"

North Korea's new secret weapon threatening the northwest: Panopea japonica?

In the piece penned by Mr Gibbons, he noted Puget Sound is not the only place the Chinese are able to source geoduck. He notes Mexico, Canada and North Korea as alternatives (not mentioned was New Zealand). In a 2015 study on genetic differences between "geoduck" from different geographic areas, the point was made that there was a "low genetic divergence" between geoduck from the northwest and Asia. So why would someone pay exorbitant prices for something grown in the US when close to the same thing, if not the same thing, is able to be grown and harvested in Asian waters? They won't. And for that reason, Mr. Gibbons, Bill Dewey with Taylor Shellfish, and a myriad of small operators,  rightly worry that in fact, a moat has been breached and things have changed.

It's Just Beginning: Mason County Tideland Owner Complains of Higher Valuations - Thank Taylor Shellfish and Mason County's Shoreline Master Program

[Update: The individual complaining of her tideland parcel increasing in value should have said 2,600 percent, not 26,000 percent. The appraised value increase from $1,600 to ~$43,000. In comparison, Taylor Shellfish's parcel in Hammersley Inlet which has been a commercial geoduck operation for over a decade only increased in value from $1,230 to ~$4,000. It is not clear why a parcel with a commercial operation increased so little in comparison to a parcel on which the owner has only expressed interest in starting a farm, and is in an area which the Department of Health closes during heavy rainfall.]

________________________________________________

Be careful what you wish for. 

Because now you've got it

and now you can pay for it.

$43,000* [corrected] because Taylor Shellfish

convinced the county to include in its SMP update

that the majority of tidelands owned are presumed

to be for commercial shellfish operations.

This commercial tideland parcel is worth far more than $1,600 and should pay far more than $17/year in taxes. You wanted it, you got it.

The Mason County Assessor's office has received a complaint of tidelands valued at what the owner claims is "an increase of 26,000* percent." [In fact, the increase was 2,600%.]  Another parcel owned by the same person is claimed to have "increased 64,000 percent." Assuming those numbers are correct [the former was not], the former ~4 acres of tidelands (seen in the map above) increased in value to $43,000 [corrected]. Unreasonable? Not if you intend on commercially growing geoduck, a multi-million dollar return every 5 years, or even oysters. Even if you simply own tidelands as "open space" with no intention of ever commercially growing shellfish on them, the county may think otherwise.

Upland property owners get to pay

to support shellfish growers.

Then listen to them complain

when their tideland tax parcels

are assessed at their true value.

Shellfish Protection Districts: Upland taxpayers pay so shellfish growers are able to grow shellfish in public waters on tidelands undervalued by any standard.
Both tideland parcels are owned in McLane Cove, off of Pickering Passage, which was declared a Shellfish Protection District (SPD) by Mason County in July of 2016. Notes from a meeting held in February of 2016 state this property owner noted her family was a "past commercial shellfish grower." Notes from that same meeting note her interest in growing shellfish, with Jim Hayes of Hood Canal Oyster Company doing the growing. There is no question the intent is for these tidelands to be put to commercial use, that they were used in the past for commercial use, but that is exactly what this tideland owner complains about - the Assessor's Office determining their true value if a commercial shellfish operation is taking place, or may take place. And, as noted above, even if she hadn't played her hand in February of 2016, because of Taylor Shellfish's involvement in the SMP update, virtually all tidelands may be considered as "commercial" and assessed/taxed as such.

Which tidelands are commercial? 

Taylor Shellfish has defined that

through their involvement 

in the Shoreline Master Program update.

All Bush Callow tidelands are commercial

as well as all tidelands which are "fallow"

including those in McLane Cove.

The tideland grab in Mason County.

As Mason County's Shoreline Master Program update evolved, it became obvious the primary driver in its development was the shellfish industry's desire to expand as much as possible with as little oversight as possible. Representatives from Arcadia Point Seafood and Taylor Shellfish were instrumental in drafting regulations - or lack thereof - which resulted in virtually all tidelands in Mason County being considered "existing shellfish operations." As such, no permits were needed and unlike upland barbecues, any structure related to aquaculture were allowed.  Those sold as Bush Callow tidelands had to be shown to be "abandoned" in order to fall out of the "existing" category. The remaining tidelands simply needed to be shown as being"fallow", a loose definition which virtually anyone could claim. Including the County Assessor. Coupled with not caring about "structures" used for aquaculture, it was the largest land grab obtained through the twisting of the Shoreline Management Act ever seen. And the Department of Ecology simply sat back, went along for the ride, and approved it.

Get involved. If you're not, what has occurred in Mason County will occur in any SMP update or amended update.

The Department of Ecology accepting the shellfish industry's definition of "existing" operations in Mason County will not stay in Mason County. Any shoreline county can now have tidelands defined as Mason County did, creating something from nothing. Then county residents can listen to tideland owners whose tidelands are re-assessed as a commercial operation complain about it. Taylor Shellfish is involved. It's why their tidelands are assessed so low. Others whose aren't should consider that.

Email the Department of Revenue's Marilyn O'Connell: lyno@dor.wa.gov

Tell her that it's time for tidelands with commercial shellfish operations to taxes based on the true value of their tidelands, not the current undervalued numbers. The Department of Revenue can tell county assessors to do so. 

Politics pays - Taxes on Taylor Shellfish

11 acres growing geoduck? 

$28 in 2017.