Ocean Acidification: It's Complicated

As added material to consider in what is becoming a deeply controversial topic, the University of Washington's Cliff Mass questions some of the fundamental conclusions reached in the recent Seattle Times articles on Ocean Acidification.  His "Ocean Acidification and Northwest Shellfish: Did the Seattle Times Get the Story Right?" gives another perspective. From his piece, he states:

My conclusion is that this series has some serious problems and draws several unwarranted conclusions. Particularly that recent shellfish problems are the result of past or current CO2 levels in the atmosphere.

More than Commercial Shellfish Matter to Puget Sound, Whatever the Cause of Calcium Carbonate Depletion
If one accepts the fact that CO2 is changing the oceans water chemistry and preventing the formation of Calcium Carbonate, then every marine species dependent on that molecule is impacted. Pushing forward with the significant expansion promoted by the shellfish industry in its "Washington Shellfish Initiative" and "National Shellfish Initiative" will do more harm than good through the "sponge effect" of massive shellfish farms currently being promoted soaking up the diminished supply of Calcium Carbonate. While good for the corporations promoting 58 raft mussel farms, it's bad for the native marine species who are also vying for the same Calcium Carbonate for their calcifying.

Alternatively, if there is a question about the cause of the diminishing supply of Calcium Carbonate, then more research is needed before the massive expansion being promoted is allowed. As an example of the size of what is envisioned, Jim Gibbons with Seattle Shellfish spoke before Washington representatives about how Spain, in an area the size of south Puget Sound (south of the Tacoma Narrows) is producing 600 million pounds of mussels each year. Currently, there are less than 2 million pounds of mussels being produced.

Strategic Marketing Matters, But You'd Better be Correct

Following the strategic marketing plan developed by Governor Gregoire's Blue Ribbon Panel on Ocean Acidification, Mr Manning and Mr Taylor build further on the Seattle Times three part series on Ocean Acidification in their "Guest" piece entitled "What we can do about ocean acidification and climate change". From the Blue Ribbon Panel's "Ocean Acidification: From Knowledge to Action" (4Mb): 

Educating elected officials, resource managers, business and industry leaders, and the general public (including youth) is a key prerequisite to action.

To improve understanding of ocean acidification and engage stakeholders in solutions, information needs to emphasize four key points. First, information must communicate
that ocean acidification is affecting jobs and resources here in Washington State. Second, materials must emphasize the importance of the ocean to our health, coastal economies, and well-being. Third, the information must explain the rapid change in ocean chemistry, the consequences of this change for marine life in Washington, and what it means for individuals and Washingtonians collectively. Finally, the information needs to show the value of early action and highlight the role that Washingtonians can play in developing and implementing solutions. (page 79)

Strategic marketing happens all the time in business and in politics. But if it is fundamentally flawed then there is a problem. In the case of Ocean Acidification, it needs to be examined closely. One small example of why that may be a wise course is to look south to Willapa Bay where not only native Olympia oysters are beginning to re-establish themselves, but so too are the Pacific oysters.

Cliff Mass is a professor at the University of Washington with a PhD in Atomospheric Sciences. He has taught at the University of Washington since 1981 and has authored "The Weather of the Pacific Northwest."

Jay Manning was Director of the Department of Ecology before being shifted to Governor Gregoire's Chief of Staff from which he resigned in 2011, saying he felt "worn out." In October of 2011 Mr Manning became partner at the Cascadia Law Group and returned to the Washington Environmental Council where he is currently President.

Bill Taylor is with the Taylor Shellfish Company.

Another Viewpoint on the Shellfish Initiative

The recent guest columns in The Olympian and the Shelton Mason County Journal, written by Bill Taylor of Taylor Shellfish, promotes the recently announced Shellfish Initiative as a means to address what Taylor Shellfish and the Governor have described as a "quagmire" of permitting regulations preventing expansion of the shellfish industry. What Mr. Taylor fails to point out is that for six years the shellfish industry was directly involved in the public process that created these permitting requirements. Industry lobbying along with public, tribal and agency input helped create a federal, state and local permitting system that regulates their developments within the tidelands and waters of Puget Sound. Now that this regulatory framework has begun to take hold, the shellfish industry has apparently decided it does not like what it helped to create and through closed meetings with a federal agency, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), and Governor Gregoire, it is attempting to minimize the process in order to expand operations without public input.

Ironic in this effort is the shellfish industry's willingness to use regulations and create Shellfish Districts in Oakland Bay, along Henderson Inlet's shoreline, perhaps Samish Bay and the Nisqually Reach--all for the industry’s direct benefit, helping open tidelands for production. In Oakland Bay alone, immense resources have been expended since the Shellfish District's 2007 creation to correct problems that can be traced back to "streamlined" permitting, no permitting or a lack of resources to enforce the regulations that are in place. As a result, high levels of Dioxins and elevated levels of fecal coliform exist in Oakland Bay. The entire Oakland Bay watershed and every business and citizen are impacted, as are state and federal taxpayers whose tax dollars are being diverted to support this effort. Yet when the shellfish industry is asked to apply for permits for their developments it is a problem.

Much of the lag time that Mr. Taylor cites is, in fact, due to the shellfish industry’s inability to follow the permitting process. In 2007, after the industry spent two years of lobbying the Army Corps to approve existing shellfish farms through the Nationwide Permit program, the Army Corps received hundreds of permit applications that greatly overstated acreage and species cultivated on existing farms. Months later, after realizing the significance of the problem, the Army Corps and the Department of Ecology (DOE) asked the industry to resubmit the applications, this time with accurate information, a process that had to be completed before any consideration could be given to new operations. This problem was created by the shellfish industry, stretching the process of determining what farms actually qualified well into 2010.

At the same time, in April 2007, Governor Gregoire signed into law House Bill 2220, which was focused on structures and impacts from geoduck farming in Puget Sound. This bill was also the direct outcome of industry lobbying and public input, helping to create a regulatory framework to guide the tideland development this activity involves. DOE was tasked with crafting guidelines to be used by counties in development of their Shoreline Management Programs. The University of Washington’s Sea Grant was  tasked with initiating long-term studies on what impacts geoduck farming may have, because no studies existed at that time. Through open and transparent meetings the public, tribes and industry were all involved in the creation of these guidelines. This has helped to ensure that the industry’s tideland developments taking place in the Puget Sound tidelands are for the benefit of everyone, as mandated by the Shoreline Management Act of 1971, and not just for the profit of a few.

Taylor Shellfish and others in the industry have caused additional permitting delays through appeals and lawsuits after being told permits would be required for their tideland developments. In 2009, Thurston County told Taylor Shellfish and Arcadia Point Seafood that shoreline permits would be required for new geoduck farms. Rather than submitting permit applications to the County, they chose instead to argue that permits should not be required. When the hearing examiner agreed with the county, the companies appealed the decision to the county commissioners, where they were subsequently told the same thing. The companies then sued in Superior Court and lost, being told the use of PVC pipes, netting, and rebar is in fact a tideland structure and that these developments require a shoreline development permit.

The judge’s November 2011 decision went further. It stated an Attorney General Opinion in 2007, which is often cited by industry as the reason no permits at all were needed, and which was incorrectly made part of DOE's guidelines, is legally flawed and should not be used. Had the companies simply applied for a permit, they may have found themselves today with approved permits. Instead they have no permit and DOE’s guidelines are now in question. This is a problem they created.

Mr. Taylor’s statement that the permitting of new farms has not occurred for over five years is misleading. In Mason County, Seattle Shellfish proposed a large geoduck nursery operation in Spencer Cove. While appealed by Case Inlet Shoreline Association an agreement was reached and permits were issued for placement of geoduck nursery rafts nearly the length of a football field. Taylor Shellfish applied for and was granted permits for a new, albeit smaller, geoduck nursery in Totten Inlet. These operations involved an open and transparent permitting system which included input from the public, tribes and agencies.

There is no question that there are important components of the Shellfish Initiative. These include restoration of native Olympia oysters, both over-harvested and killed off due to pollution; financial assistance to shoreline owners and dairy/cattle farmers to help bring fecal coliform levels down; and improving access to the few public beaches which remain for shellfish digging and enjoyment by the public. But these are minor when compared to the long-term objective the shellfish industry has of minimizing permit requirements and consideration of alternative uses for Puget Sound's tidelands and waters.

Puget Sound is a resource of national importance that extends far beyond its ability to grow shellfish commercially. Regulations and permitting through the Shoreline Management Act and the Clean Water Act have created a well-structured regulatory framework controlling development along its shores, on its tidelands and in its waters. They have prevented profits alone from driving decisions. Closed meetings guided by NOAA, the Governor and the shellfish industry should not be allowed to undo this regulatory framework.

Jules Michel, 3rd generation tideland and shoreline property owner in Mason County