DNR Tideland Leases: Who is managing who?

Arcadia Point Seafood: 2006 - Our offer is equal to 20%.
Arcadia Point Seafood: 2013 -We'll offer you 15% for a
far more convenient parcel, near home and existing farms.

DNR: 2015 - How about 10.25%?
Okay.

~1 acre of state owned tidelands

planted with geoduck and no lease.

Settlement in 2010: $192,000

Harvest value in 2014: ~$1,300,000

(click to enlarge)

I never promised you a shellfish garden, but thanks for the roses.
A recent document request has provided Arcadia Point Seafood's lease proposal from DNR for tidelands in Mason County it and Seattle Shellfish were found to have been trespassing on in 2009. According to statements in applications, it may have been going on since 1988 but because of how statutes in Washington are written, all the state could collect on was activity which had occurred in the prior three years. Growers kept revenues from perhaps as many 3 harvest cycles. For encroachment on 1.2 acres, Arcadia Point Seafood and Seattle Shellfish settled with the state for $192,000 (be patient - DNR's servers are slow). They were allowed to retain possession of their geoduck planted on a bit more than 1 acre, which with geoduck at or above $14/pound, resulted in an estimated $1,300,000 at harvest (see below for how APS estimates their harvest amounts from tidelands). A complete survey of the area having been trespassed on may be found here.

Tidelands Arcadia Point Seafood

was responsive to. 

Will you respond to my offer?

In 2006, prior to the discovery of trespassing on state tidelands, Arcadia Point Seafood participated in "requests for offers to lease" tidelands for growing geoduck from DNR. Responses to those requests included Taylor Shellfish with Kent Kingman, Discovery Bay Shellfish, Seattle Shellfish, and Arcadia Point Seafood, among others. In 2007 a second request was made by DNR. (The 2006 maps may be found here and the 2007 maps here.) Arcadia Point Seafood was the successful "responder" to the proposal on Dickenson Point. 

Thurston County: You almost made it. Mason County: Don't worry about it.

In 2008 APS began seeking out other leases in the Dickenson Point area, being successful with the Thiesens and McClures, the former being adjacent to the north line of the state tidelands. It was a long process with many objecting to the industrial operations, some believing they did not fit in with the residential character of the area. But APS and Taylor Shellfish had money, motivation, and knew how to spend it in the right places. Those permits, while granted, resulted in the Shorelines Hearings Board noting "...it was a very close call.." on requiring a cumulative impacts analysis and Thurston County's  commissioners noting: "The Board shares many of the Coalition's concerns...about the impacts of geoduck aquaculture on the shorelines of Thurston County". It is far different than in Mason County where geoduck farming needs no permit at all. In fact, they have recently leased almost 20 acres of tidelands to Seattle Shellfish, being told they will receive an estimated $3 million from the lease. Maybe.

DNR - "You've won."

Arcadia - "Never mind. I have a better idea."
(and guess which county it's in)

Remind me of what I said in 2006 again?

In the successful response of APS they were seemingly more than generous, and made a point to show how much so. In their "Cost Proposal" they estimated the state would be receiving an estimated 20% of the "gross wholesale revenue" (see above image for their calculations). APS estimated from 40,000 square feet they would be harvesting 90,000 pounds (1.5 geoduck per square foot *40,000 * 1.5 pounds each). (The full response from APS may be found here.)

Seasons change and so did I, you need not wonder why. 
In 2013, seven  years later, after their harvest under the lucrative settlement with the state was complete, APS was contacted by DNR. Along with the other successful "responders" they were asked how they felt about executing on their proposal. APS, realizing the opportunity presented by locking up the contiguous state tidelands with those they already had under lease from private tideland owners, less than 300' from the owner's home, in Mason County where no permit would be needed, had a different response than the others. From notes taken by DNR their change in heart is explained, as well as their offer:

Arcadia Seafood requests the Dickenson Point site be put on hold due to local controversy, and ongoing work of the County Shoreline Hearings Board.  Arcadia point does want to lease this site "in a year or so," but feel "now is not the time."   They would consider to lease an alternate site at Arcadia Point.  The Arcadia site is part of an ownership dispute between Arcadia Point Seafood and DNR that was resolved by settlement agreement.  The site is located at Arcadia Point and fronts the proponents upland property.  Arcadia has indicated, if DNR decides it will only lease one site or the other Arcadia Point Seafood would prefer to farm the Dickenson Point site.  Regarding the lease term, Arcadia is concerned the 10 year lease will only supports a single crop cycle.  For the Dickenson Point site, the proponent proposes rent be amended from 12% of gross and $1,200 per/ac/yr. base rent to 10% and $1,000/ac/yr.  For their private leases, Arcadia pays 15% for multi cycle leases and 10% for single cycle leases; cost of managing single cycle leases is more and there for the royalty to the landowner is less.  Also, in Thurston County, cost and scope of permitting is more difficult than Mason County.  Arcadia proposes a 15% rate at the Arcadia Point site.  Also, Arcadia Point Seafood wishes to review DNR's current BMP's before agreeing to a lease.

DNR: We know you offered 15% but will you take 10.25%?

APS: You drive a hard bargain, and my wife won't be happy, but okay.

In 2015, DNR has suggested a different rate. A lower rate. On May 15 they sent their proposal to APS which included the new, lower rate. (The complete proposal sent to APS may be found here.)

SECTION 4 RENT

4.1 Annual Minimum Base Rent. Tenant shall pay to State the annual minimum base rent in the amount of One Thousand Two Hundred and Twenty Three Dollars ($1,223.00). The annual minimum base rent shall be due and payable in full on or before the Commencement Date and on or before the same date of each year thereafter. In addition to the annual minimum base rent, Tenant shall also pay a production based rent as detailed in Section 4.2, below.

4.2 Geoduck Rent Adjustment.(a) Production Based Rent. When the Tenant commences harvest of cultured geoduck, Tenant shall pay to State, in addition to the annual minimum base rent, a quarterly Production Based Rent. The Production Based Rent shall be computed as follows: the total quarterly volume of geoduck harvested in pounds multiplied by the current average wholesale price per pound, multiplied by the royalty rate of Ten point twenty five percent (10.25%) percent.(b) Quarterly Reports and payment of Production Based Rent. At the same time Tenant submits its quarterly aquaculture production report to the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife, Tenant shall submit a copy of the same report to State along with the Production Based Rent as calculated in Section 4.2(a). The quarterly aquaculture production report must include the poundage or other unit of measure and price received for geoduck harvested and sold. If Tenant makes no sales in any quarter, Tenant shall so report.

Commissioner Goldmark did not promise the shellfish industry a shellfish garden. 

Peter Goldmark was elected as the Commissioner of Public Lands in 2008 due, in part, to perceived pressures from the shellfish industry to turn over the few remaining public tidelands there are for them to grow geoduck on. In 2015, as election time ramps up, once again the shellfish industry is pressing the Commissioner directly, and indirectly through politicians, to do what people did not want in 2008 - turn those tidelands into geoduck farms, locking the public out. Commissioner Goldmark never promised the shellfish industry a shellfish garden. Especially one the state only receives 10.25% from.

Shorelines Hearings Board Affirms Shoreline Permits for Taylor/Arcadia/Xia Geoduck Farms

"On balance, it is a very close call whether a

cumulative impacts analysis is warranted prior to approval

of these four SSDP's" Shorelines Hearings Board

 

Almost

After consideration of testimony and evidence the Shorelines Hearings Board (SHB) felt there was not quite enough evidence to require four geoduck farms in Thurston County to perform a cumulative impacts analysis before approval. The SHB felt the County had also reached the same conclusion through a condition which required review of the permits prior to replanting to consider whether a cumulative impacts analysis should, at that point, be required.

Note: The four geoduck farms are 2 proposed by Arcadia Point Seafoods, 1 proposed by Taylor Shellfish, and 1 proposed by the Xia family. All are in Thurston County, all are in areas which have existing farms adjacent to them or near by.

New Project Proposals Adding Pressure

Presumably, when the next permits considered by the Shorelines Hearings Board come up, new information on the plans for geoduck farm expansion will be given additional weight. Since these permit applications the Port Gamble S'Klallam tribe is now exploring expansion of subtidal planting on over 1,000 acres of subtidal tidelands. Seattle Shellfish is in the process of permitting a shellfish hatchery which would greatly expand the amount of seed for planting. Permit approvals for grow-out facilities at marinas also add capacity, with Chelsea Farms noting in their application: "if a hatchery could produce 70 million 6mm oysters a season, by outsourcing the nursery phase to growers that same hatchery could produce 700 million 2mm oysters." * Taylor Shellfish's proposal for 58 rafts growing up to 1 million pounds of mussels at the mouth of Totten Inlet only adds further to the impacts.

 *Note: Using Chelsea Farms' numbers, put another way, at 250 oysters per grow-out bag, the number of grow-out bags used would increase from 280,000 to 2.8 million.

"For the third time in the last two years the Coalition to Protect Puget Sound Habitat ("Coalition") has appealed a county approval of a geoduck project to the Shoreline[s] Hearings Baord ("Board")."
So begins the shellfish industry's pre-hearing brief for Chelsea Farms proposed subtidal farm on the Detienne tideland parcel.* Their frustration is palatable and understandable. At risk are future revenues worth millions of dollars. Also at risk is the expansion of an industry whose methods transform tideland habitats, those very same habitats which the Shoreline Management Act was to protect and prevent the fragmentation of. At some point the industry will be called on to perform an analysis which considers whether, on a cumulative level, their activities should no longer be considered a "preferred use."

*Note: The SHB hearing for the Detienne permit will be held November 12 - 15.

Drakes Estero - The Next Puget Sound?
Those concerned about what is happening in Drakes Estero should take note. In 2006 the Pacific Shellfish Growers Association engaged their Washington D.C. lobbyist David Weiman to help fight the conversion of Drakes Estero to the Wilderness Area as Congress had intended. Since that time they have been heavily involved in the campaign to support Drakes Bay Oyster Company, legally and politically. Most recently they file an amicus brief in support of an en banc hearing request before the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.

Save our Shellfish - Expand Production in Drakes Estero
"State law requires holders of leases for shellfish cultivation to increase production annually." So states Save Our Shellfish, an ardent supporter of Drakes Bay Oyster Company. If industry succeeds in preventing the creation of the wilderness area congress intended the next step is clearly stated on the "Save our Shellfish" web site: expand production.

Fishtrap Loop Geoduck Farms Being Considered by Taylor Shellfish

Update 9/1: China’s crackdown on corruption ... has forced a decline in lavish banquets.- In another indication of the risks tideland owners take on when leasing tidelands to geoduck farmers PhysOrg has reported today that China's crackdown on corruption continues to decrease lavish banquets. While the focus of the article is on shark fins sold in China, geoduck are included in that category. It is only the elite in China who are able to afford the geoduck. That price is not sustainable, especially as the younger and more educated population come to realize the size of a geocuck neck has nothing to do with male virility ("There's a virility claim, need I say more?" Wall Street Journal). (See also March 28, 2013 post on how China's new leader, Xi Jinping is impacting the lavish life styles corruption has brought to the Chinese population.)

 

This isn't going to help you.

 

 

Want to help? Consider donating to Case Inlet Shoreline Association who, in partnership with the Coalition to Protect Puget Sound Habitat has appealed four Thurston County geoduck permits before the Shorelines Hearings Board. Donations may be made here:

http://www.caseinlet.org/Join_Us.php

 

Neighbors Report Taylor Shellfish Interest

in Fishtrap Delta Area For Future Geoduck Farms 

(Note: The above only represents an example

of what 2 tideland parcels planted with geoduck

would look like in the delta area.)

 



It has been reported that Taylor Shellfish has approached tideland owners north of Fishtrap Loop NE in Olympia about leasing their tidelands for geoduck farms. Ironically, at the same time Taylor Shellfish has begun encouraging neighbors to sign long term leases, they and Arcadia Point Seafoods argued before the Shorelines Hearings Board that their proposed geoduck farms on the Lockhart and Thiesen parcels to the east are small, isolated farms which should not trigger the need for a cumulative impacts analysis.

Note: Taylor Shellfish has apparently offered "tours" of a local geoduck farm to show how minimal the impact is. It is unclear how, with the daylight minus tides of the year now past they intend to do that, unless they have acquired a glass bottom boat. 

Taylor's Lockhart and Arcadia's Thiesen

Proposed Geoduck Farms (on the right)

Currently Before the Shorelines Hearings Board

"What's the big deal? It's only 2 small farms."

Agencies should not be blinded by industry projections
Not considering this future and significant expansion in current permitting is exactly what the Coalition to Protect Puget Sound Habitat and Case Inlet Shorelines Association have been pointing to in their presentations on permits before county planning commissions and in their appeals before the Shorelines Hearings Board: shellfish operators have plans for significant expansion. Agencies cannot put blinders on when examples such as this exist. Cumulative impacts from multiple farms operating on multiple schedules create on ongoing impact to Puget Sound's nearshore environment. It is a permanent and ongoing conversion. It is not, as industry likes to describe, a "once every 5 year" event. It is a development of tidelands of a type Puget Sound has never seen before. The area within what we will call "Fishtrap Cove" alone is approximately 10 acres in size.

Welcome to the neighborhood.
"I'm here to stay."
We are too. And so are our children.

"Is this where we're supposed to be planting?"

Tideland owners should not be blinded by promises unfulfilled
"Fishtrap Cove" tidelands are made up of 24 separate parcels. Some owners may find Taylor Shellfish's golden promise of "riches beyond imagination" compelling. But they should first realize it is Taylor Shellfish, not them who is becoming wealthy off their tidelands. Taylor Shellfish no longer has any tidelands to develop. Past rates of only 10% grossly undervalue tideland values. Taylor Shellfish cares little for the transformation they and others in the industry are causing. There is, however, a large number who feel the value of Puget Sound's tidelands is not found in the number of PVC pipes you can place in them.

Secondly, for those who find the promise of wealth alluring, they should understand the risk they take on when signing long term contracts for speculative commodities, which geoducks are. When the geoduck market collapses, and it will as production in Alaska, Canada, and elsewhere comes on line, they will not receive those checks to "put your children through college with" or "build your dream home with." They will be stuck with trying to figure out who is responsible for removing the netting and tubes which are abandoned as industry players find they have taken on too much debt. In the mean time, those who chose to convert their tidelands to geoduck production also become responsible for their increased property taxes, something clearly written into the current leases, not the geoduck operators.

Finally, geoduck are not all created equal. Many are not accepted as "Grade 1" geoduck but are instead of far less value. Darker shells, smaller necks, and smaller size all decrease the value received. This was spelled out in a letter years ago from Seattle Shellfish to those it leased tidelands from who wondered why their checks were so small.* Poaching of geoduck, a real and increasing threat no matter what the location, creates additional risk for a smaller check. There are no guarantees the transformation of a tideland will pay for a college education, let alone the increase in property taxes.

*From a letter to those Seattle Shellfish leased tidelands from: "too much seaweed  piled up and decaying on the beach can even kill a 3-4 year old juvenile geoduck. There are also significant fresh water inflows, particularly in the winter, ...which can cause significant mortalities for young geoduck . This has resulted in widely varying success from...beach-to-beach" "In general we're seeing darker animals...and a correspondingly smaller prices for harvested geoduck because of the color."

 

The conversion of Puget Sound's tidelands.

Are state tidelands being removed from the public's use before requiring replanting of subtidal areas stripped of wild geoduck a sign of management or political pressure?
Currently, geoduck farmers are seeking out the few remaining state owned tidelands there are for further growth. Beyond the risk this adds of increased "inventory" driving down prices, it also removes from the public's use those few remaining tidelands available to the public at low tide, whether accessible by boat or uplands. Further, should DNR really consider leasing intertidal tidelands when they are currently stripping geoduck from large subtidal tracts of tidelands and not requiring replanting as they do their forest lands? If a diver is able to harvest geoduck in subtidal waters they surely are able to replant. They do in Canada and Alaska. That would be considered managing state assets for the public, not removing the few public tidelands still available for the public's enjoyment, to benefit a politically astute industry.

Get involved
You can help by donating time and/or financial resources to those who care about Puget Sound's tidelands. Currently the Case Inlet Shoreline Association is helping ensure the permitting of geoduck farms considers more than what well paid attorneys and contract scientists present to the counties. Donations may be made on their site:
http://www.caseinlet.org/Join_Us.php
Additional information may be found on the Coalition to Protect Puget Sound Habitat here:
http://coalitiontoprotectpugetsoundhabitat.org/



Seattle Shellfish - Going to the Bank

 

Revenues from geoduck

planted on trespassed state lands

slated to begin coming in.

 

February 13 the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) issued a Mitigated Determination of Non-significance (MDNS) SEPA decision on a proposal by Seattle Shellfish to harvest geoduck from state lands they were found to be trespassing on in 2009. The determination will allow Seattle Shellfish to harvest a claimed 17,000 pounds (~11,000 geoduck) from a planted area which would normally be expected to produce >33,000 pounds, or >22,000 geoduck (>1 per square foot).*

Estimated gross: $238,000.

 

Comments are due by February 27.

[click here for determination]

[click here for related documents]

(* For a comparison of acreage yields, in 2008 and 2009 Arcadia Point Seafood reported 68,000 pounds having been harvested from the Myer "farm" of 25,000 square feet. See survey below for areas.)

 

Arcadia Point, Totten Inlet

Seattle Shellfish and Arcadia Point Seafood Trespass

(click to enlarge)

(Note probable sediment plume from harvesting

of Myer parcel to the south of the trespass area.)

Background
In 1998 Seattle Shellfish leased tidelands owned by the Lachine family with the intention of planting and cultivating shellfish, including geoduck. The Broehl's and Myers tidelands, to the south, were leased by Arcadia Point Seafood's Steve and Vicki Wilson. After the first harvest of geoducks the Broehl and Lachine tidelands were replanted, followed later by the Myers. After complaints of probable trespass were made to DNR, a survey in 2009 showed that in fact most of the tidelands used for planting geoduck on were owned by the state.

 

2009 Survey showing trespass at Agate Point

Negotiations
After the state had determined there had been cultivation and harvesting of geoduck on state owned tidelands the Attorney General and Seattle Shellfish entered into negotiations. Those negotiations resulted in a settlement which allowed Seattle Shellfish to retain ownership of the geoduck planted on state lands and a financial payment to the state. Separate trespass settlements with Arcadia Point Seafood and Taylor Shellfish (to the north, in Pickering Passage) resulted in a similar agreement.

Settlement Agreements
Seattle Shellfish agreed to pay $75,000 upon harvest, Arcadia Point's Steve and Vicki Wilson agreed to pay $117,000, and Taylor Shellfish agreed to pay $225,000. None would be permitted to use the tidelands after harvest was completed. (Note: These are separate from Taylor Shellfish's trespass settlement on the Thurston County side of Totten Inlet.)
[click here for Seattle Times article]

Financial Benefit
Assuming Seattle Shellfish's number of 17,000 pounds is accurate, and their geoducks are of #1 grade, at $14/pound they will gross $238,000, less the $75,000 fee to the state, leaving them a net of $163,000, less relatively minor labor and material expenses. Assuming the previous "crop" was the same amount, Seattle Shellfish will have ended up netting over $300,000 for the use of state tidelands.

Comment: Lawyers Are Not Inexpensive
With current legal bills from Seattle Shellfish's law suit against the Army Corps being incurred these funds will no doubt be appreciated by its owners. [click here for papers filed against the Corps] Most likely Arcadia and Taylor will also find their geoduck revenues generated off of state lands helpful as their legal expenses rise with their permit appeals and the fairness of Shoreline Master Program updates coming into question.

Citizens do not have the luxury of geoducks to finance their efforts in protecting Puget Sound's tideland habitat, only passion and time. Numerous groups are currently involved in trying to contain the expansion of the shellfish industry. APHETI (APHETI@gmail.com) , Case Inlet Shoreline Association and Coalition to Protect Puget Sound Habitat (the latter 2 at info@caseinlet.org) are all heavily involved.  Friends of Burley Lagoon is now becoming organized, aligning itself with the previous two. You can make a difference, like those who helped create the Shoreline Management Act in 1971 did.

Taylor Shellfish Appeals Condition for Forage Fish Protection, Coalition Appeals Permit Approval for Taylor/Arcadia Farms

Taylor Shellfish Appeals Conditions to Protect Forage Fish in Geoduck Permit
Taylor Shellfish has appealed a condition in their recent geoduck farm permit approval which  requires forage fish protection through performing a survey of the upper intertidal area for spawn prior to harvesting (Sand Lance and Surf Smelt). To add injury to insult, they are also appealing the condition which would not permit discharge of sediments from the site into Puget Sound, increasing the risk of sediment plumes from their harvesting activities to be created and settle anywhere, including the forage fish spawning areas they now refuse to monitor. [click here for Taylor Shellfish appeal]

As support for their appeal Taylor's attorney provides the same information used by Pierce County and the Shoreline Hearings Board in the Longbranch geoduck farm permit decision and appeal. In that appeal, the Shoreline Hearing Boad decided these same forage fish spawning areas needed to be protected. The Shoreline Hearings Board added a specific condition to protect Sand Lance and Surf Smelt spawning areas.

Condition 3, added by the Shoreline Hearings Board, reads: "...no harvesting may occur during the sand lance or surf smelt spawning seasons until a spawning survey is conducted. If sand lance or surf smelt spawn are present in the growing area to be harvested or adjacent tidelands, then no harvest activities may occur until the eggs are hatched..."  Taylor did not appeal that condition.

PVC Pipes used for Geoduck cultivation

with a grounded barge in the

upper intertidal area, loaded with more.

"No net loss." Really?

Coalition Appeals Permit Approval
Coalition to Protect Puget Sound Habitat members Laura Hendricks and Susan Macomson have appealed the approval of all three geoduck farm permits for Taylor Shellfish (1, on the Lockhart parcel) and Arcadia Point Seafood (2, one on the McClure parcel, one on the Thiesen parcel) and are asking the County Commissioners to reverse the approval. The Coalition has stated the Examiner erred in concluding:
1. There would be no net loss to the ecological function of the shoreline;
2. The applications should be considered separately, despite 2 being adjacent to each other and other multiple farms existing in the area (see below), and therefor did not require a cumulative impacts analysis (piecemeal development); 
3. The effects would be "localized and short-term";
4. The interim and incomplete "science" (including a student's Masters Thesis) favored development of Thurston County's shorelines with commercial geoduck farms;
5. The conditions of approval would ensure the protection and preservation of the ecological functions and values of Thurston County's shorelines as mandated by the Shoreline Management Act [click here for SMA];
6. Combined effects would not result in a net loss of ecological function;
7. Gave legal authority to the state's Executive Branch (Governor Gregoire) mandating the Washington Shellfish Initiative; and,
8. These farms would not interfere with public recreational use of the shorelines.
[click here for appeal]

The Piecemeal Development/Fragmentation

of Henderson Inlet's Intertidal Shoreline



(click to enlarge)

You can help support prevention of the fragmentation of Puget Sound's nearshore environment which this piecemeal development is causing, contrary to the intent of the Shoreline Management Act. Contact Laura Hendricks at laura.l.hendricks@gmail.com; Case Inlet Shoreline Association at info@caseinlet.org; or, APHETI at apheti@gmail.com. Get involved and help ensure future generations will be able to enjoy the diversity of species supported by the near shore habitat found in Puget Sound. The shellfish industry is and they are well financed from excessive profits gained from current permitted geoduck operations which return little to the counties and state.

Thurston County on Diminished Property Values from Geoduck Farms

"Affected property owners may request a change in valuation for property tax purposes."

 [click here for November 26 hearing location and agenda information]
 

Thurston County's Resource Stewardship Council, in recommending approval of three geoduck farm permits in Henderson Inlet, states to property owners impacted by these geoduck farms, that reducing the value in their property is how to achieve the "balance" between geoduck farming and its impact on adjacent property values. For full staff reports on the Arcadia Point Seafood and Taylor Shellfish permits, click here (Note: Files are each ~35mb in size.)

 

To get a sense of what impact this reduction in property values will have on Thurston County's property taxes collected, and budget, see below. At the end is an example of "representation without taxation" where an existing geoduck farm and upland property are valued at $85,000 (taxes = $1,150) and adjacent properties are valued between $581,000 to $893,000 (taxes = $5,620 and $5,440, respectively). Another geoduck farm is proposed on the Wheeler owned property, adjacent to the existing geoduck farm.

There was no analysis of what this recommendation will result in. It presents another clear example of why a cumulative impacts analysis should be required before these permits are issued.

 

Existing Geoduck Farms

in Thurston County

(As reported by shellfish growers in 2006)

 

Nisqually Reach

(existing geoduck farms)

  

Henderson Inlet

(existing and currently proposed geoduck farms)

 

Totten Inlet, Carlyon Beach Area

 

Eld Inlet

(existing geoduck farms, south of proposed "Xia" geoduck farm)

 

Values of existing geoduck farm

and adjacent properties

(Note: Wheeler property/proposed Xia geoduck farm 

is valued at $82,000.  Taxes collected = $446)

 

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.