Reminder: Public Hearing for Seattle Shellfish Hatchery on Harstine Island the 28th

Public Notice for Shoreline Permit for Seattle Shellfish's shellfish hatchery.

Permit #: SHR2013-00013 (reference when communicating)
When: January 28 at 1PM
Where: Commissioners Chambers Bldg 1, 411 North 5th St
Written comments may be sent to: Grace Miller at gbm@co.mason.wa.us, before the hearing. Questions may be answered at 360-427-9670 X360.

Get involved - Seattle Shellfish is, at many levels.
A public hearing will be held January 28, 2014 at 1PM in Shelton, WA to consider a shoreline permit to develop a shellfish nursery on the shoreline of Spencer Cove, located on the northeast end of Harstine Island. Seattle Shellfish and Mason County already have a close relationship, in part through ex-Commissioner Bloomfield, part owner of Seattle Shellfish.

Questions Mason County needs to address include:
1. How will the bridge hold up to the increased industrial traffic? According to Commissioner Sheldon the bridge is "failing." Who will pay for the repairs?
2. Should a permit be issued for a project which requires the use of tidelands whose ownership is in question? (see below)
3. This project is tied directly to Seattle Shellfish's geoduck farming. Included are proposals for geoduck farms directly east from Harstine Island. Should this project be considered in isolation or should the cumulative impacts which will result from the expanded production of shellfish impacting Puget Sound's tidelands also be required?
4. Within Spencer Cove to the north are large areas of subtidal tidelands which are privately held, most leased by Seattle Shellfish. Neither the Corps nor Ecology ever considered the expansion of subtidal planting in their biological opinions or evaluations. Should this project be required to perform a cumulative impact analysis which will result from subtidal planting/harvesting? As an example, in a recent monitoring report on Seattle Shellfish's geoduck nursery rafts they noted "increased turbidity". They note it may have been plankton blooms or runoff from heavy rains. It may also have been from dive harvesting creating sediment plumes. (see below for picture of dive harvesting)

"Overall, attenuation coefficients (see Table 1) were twice as high as those recorded in May. This can be attributed to greater turbidity in the water from recent plankton blooms, which occur more often in summer in Puget Sound. Recent heavy rains may have also contributed to increased turbidity."

5. As noted in the monitoring report, plankton blooms may have been the cause of the lower light. They have also resulted in lower dissolved oxygen in parts of south Puget Sound. Part of the hatchery process includes large tanks of algae used for feeding the "seed" being grown. Where will that excess algae go? It is discharged into Spencer Cove. Given the concerns from lower dissolved oxygen in south Puget Sound from plankton die-offs, shouldn't this cumulative impact on waters of Puget Sound be considered?
6. Should the recent collapse of the geoduck market be considered as a factor in whether this permit is approved or not, and if so, whether it is conditioned to deal with a business failure?
7. Access to the proposed hatchery is along Yates Road, the same as that used to access the state park. How will the increased traffic be dealt with and who will pay for the required improvements?

Jobs are important. So is protecting Puget Sound's tidelands and its waters.

 

Northeast Harstine Island's lagoon

at the south end of Spencer Cove.

Proposed hatchery within the circle.

(click to enlarge)

 

Tideland ownership within lagoon in question

Located at the south end of Spencer Cove, the proposed facility is adjacent to a lagoon whose tidelands do not appear to have been sold by Washington. In a 2011 letter from DNR to Seattle Shellfish they noted the state had "never sold the tidleands" (see below). This issue is still unresolved as deeds from the state do not reference any tidelands having been sold.

 

From DNR to Seattle Shellfish

dated April 15, 2011.

Current use of tidelands

Seattle Shellfish has continued to use the tidelands still apparently owned by Washington and managed by DNR. Information submitted to Mason County by Confluence Environmental Company in August of this year notes it is being used for growing manila clams, oyster culture, and accessing company vessels.

 

From Confluence Environmental Company

report dated August 30, 2013. 

(Note: Confluence incorrectly refers to the tidal

lagoon as being Spencer Cove. Spencer Cove

is the larger body of water to the north, which

the smaller lagoon is part of, on the south.)

 

An expanding convenience - and value - for Seattle Shellfish, at the expense of tax payers? 

For Seattle Shellfish, the convenience of being able to use these tidelands to support its geoduck operations cannot be understated. Upland bags of PVC pipe are staged then loaded onto barges within the lagoon where they are then transported to nearby areas of Spencer Cove. There they are inserted into the tidelands, planted with geoduck, and covered with nets (see picture below). With the proposed upland hatchery supplying seed for Seattle Shellfish's geoduck nursery adjacent to the lagoon its convenience - and value - will only increase with time. At the expense of tax payers who appear to still own the lagoon's tidelands.

 

Spencer Cove Geoduck Farm

(click to enlarge)

 

Dive harvesting in Spencer Cove

(image created from satellite photo

of barges/divers in Spencer Cove)

 

 

 

Dive Harvesting of Nearshore Geoduck Farms in Spencer Cove



What has been presented

While one diver working over 2 days harvesting 1,500 geoduck may have some impacts, the industry has moved far beyond that level and agencies have simply accepted small scale studies of small farms and single divers. The Shorelines Hearings Board should consider the reality of what is happening in south Puget Sound. In the pictures below, a farm area of ~500,000 geoduck is seen.

 



Spencer Cove, Harstine Island

 

Tideland habitat populated with PVC

covered with netting on various "cycles"...

(~25% of Spencer Cove below)

Note: Estimated ~10 acres planted

in this photo alone.

(click to enlarge)

 

...followed by ongoing

harvesting by divers...

2 dive barges, 4 divers

(click to enlarge)

 

...which may, if planted on a

"rotation" be ongoing for years...

Dive barge with two divers.

(click to enlarge)

 

...or if multiple diver sets are used, create an

intense pulse lasting for months.

(Note: The above is only representative.)

(click to enlarge)

 

Currently the only observations of sediment plumes submitted by the industry are based on single divers harvesting low density  planting over a one or two day period. There have been no studies on the scale and density of harvesting which is now occurring in areas such as Spencer Cove and elsewhere in Puget Sound. In the first picture above, over 10 acres are populated with ~500,000 geoduck. At the Detienne Shorelines Hearings Board hearing a study was presented which looked at dive harvesting 1,500 geoduck to prove "no impact". Is it really comparable?

 

Is it truly possible to determine the impacts of

what's below by studying the output of a single chimney?

 

 

 



Taylor Shellfish/Haley Geoduck Farm: Pierce County Expresses Concerns Over Size of Operation, Helping Reinforce the Need for an EIS/Cumlative Impacts Analysis

"The Haley project is much larger than the previous two farms and I’m not sure whether the conclusions of the various studies and pieces of literature referenced in the BE can be applied without some additional discussion." Pierce County Memo Dated 5/15/13

"Evidence is increasing that the most devastating environmental effects may result not from the direct effects of a particular action, but from the combination of individually minor effects of multiple actions over time." (Chapter 1, Introduction to Cumulative Effects Analysis, Council on Environmental Quality)

Pierce County Expresses Concerns on Taylor Shellfish/Haley Geoduck Farm
Pierce County has expressed concerns over the size of the Taylor Shellfish/Haley Geoduck farm, questioning whether literature referenced in Environ's* Biological Evaluation is applicable to a farm of this size. They have asked for additional information to be submitted.
(*Environ Principal Greg Reub and past Principal Jeff Fisher, now with NOAA's National Marine Fisheries Service, are registered owners of companies involved in geoduck farming.)

Haley/Seattle Shellfish/Taylor Shellfish

Parcels on Case Inlet



Overview of area

(Spencer Cove is directly below

the arrow, west of the Haley Farm)

 

As noted in comments submitted on many permit applications there should be a focus on the number and size of expanding operations as well as the infrastructure supporting that expansion. While generally focused on geoduck farming, the proposed expansion of other shellfish operations with non-native/genetically modified Pacific oysters, invasive Manila clams and rafts of non-native Gallow mussels adds to the problem. The time for an Environmental Impact Statement where a complete Cumulative Impacts Analysis addresses the growing impacts from aquaculture in Puget Sound is now, not after the fact. The Shoreline Management Act's defining Puget Sound's habitat as "among the most valuable and fragile of its natural resources" clearly supports this position (RCW 90.58.020).

Cumulative Impacts Analysis
The need for a cumulative impacts analysis is found in Consideration of Cumulative Impacts in EPA Review of NEPA Documents. It begins with: "The combined, incremental effects of human activity, referred to as cumulative impacts, pose a serious threat to the environment." The combination of activities which are occurring in size, time, and location which are associated with the "Haley Farm" helps to establish why it is needed.

In the EPA document, it notes:

CEQ's [Council on Environmental Quality] regulations (CEQ, 1987) explicitly state that cumulative impacts must be evaluated along with the direct effects and indirect effects of each alternative. By mandating the consideration of cumulative impacts, the regulations ensure that the range of actions that is considered in NEPA documents includes not only the project proposal but also all actions that could contribute to cumulative impacts.

In the case of the "Haley Farm" multiple levels of expanding activities are found. At the farm level, as Pierce County notes, it is larger than any previously proposed, and contrary to statements from the shellfish industry that there are only a few tidelands where geoduck may be planted, there are still vast areas of flat and sandy beaches which have never been developed in south Puget Sound.

Subtidal Nearshore Farm is Permitted

Detienne Farm, the first subtidal farm

to receive a permit for planting and harvesting.

Adding to the growing intertidal developments are the nearshore subtidal regions which have only recently been proposed as areas to plant. Recently the "Detienne Farm" permit was approved by the Pierce County Hearing Examiner which included over 4 acres of subtidal area, with one of the few native eelgrass beds in south Puget Sound splitting the proposed intertidal and subtidal operation (see Detienne Farm post for an overview). On Harstine Island, across from the "Haley Farm" is a vast subtidal area, a large portion owned by Seattle Shellfish, which has not yet been commercially planted. Pierce County's permitting of the Detienne Farm establishes a precedent for others to follow.

Spencer Cove's privately owned

subtidal area, directly west of

the "Haley Farm"



Expanding Shellfish Hatchery and Nursery on Spencer Cove
In addition to the exponential increase in acres which the Detienne Farm's approval has now added to impacting Puget Sound's "most valuable and fragile" area is the infrastructure necessary for this to occur. In the case of the Haley Farm, one of its parcels is jointly owned by the Taylor Shellfish family and Seattle Shellfish, tying the two more tightly together. Seattle Shellfish has a large geoduck and nursery operation in Spencer Cove, directly west of the proposed Haley Farm. Uplands adjacent to the state owned lagoon seen in the picture below are under consideration for an industrial  hatchery. PVC pipe is currently "bagged" and loaded onto barges from the site.

In February Seattle Shellfish met with Mason County to discuss placing an upland shellfish nursery to support its growing operation, a follow-up on a 2010 meeting. Recently installed were "nursery rafts" in which geoduck seed from hatcheries elsewhere are grown out to a larger size which allows for a higher survival rate in the upper intertidal areas, further expanding tidelands impacted. The proposed hatchery facility will provide additional seed, currently a constraint to expansion onto undeveloped tidelands, both intertidal and subtidal. Impacts to county infrastructure include heavy truck use of what has been described by a County Commissioner as a "failing bridge" which is the only access to Harstine Island, as well as its roads. The hatchery facility will add to the impact and county maintenance expense.

Expanding Shellfish Nurseries in Marinas
In addition to the facilities owned by Seattle Shellfish and expanding developments on currently undeveloped tidelands is the recent permit application by Chelsea Farms, operator of the subtidal Detienne farm, for a commercial nursery at the only public marina in Oakland Bay. In their permit application it was noted how allowing for the commercial expansion of nurseries could potentially increase seed availability 10 fold. Following the permit request the City of Shelton submitted an amendment to the already drafted Shoreline Master Program to allow up to 10 of the boathouses to be converted from public use to commercial shellfish nurseries. Other conversions are proposed throughout Puget Sound. The loss of slips to moor boats provides minimal public benefit.

Conversion of a public marina

to commercial shellfish nurseries.

Funding for Expanding Shellfish Operations
With the expansion of shellfish operations also comes expenditures of state revenues, county revenues, and private landowners to help support the industry. In order for shellfish to grow there is a need for clean water. Water quality testing throughout Puget Sound is paid for by the Department of Health. County personnel inspect suspected upland areas where problems may exist. Farms pay for fencing to keep cattle out of streams and private land owners in Thurston County are required to pay an annual fee if they own a septic system. While all help to ensure state waters are kept clean, the financial benefactor is the shellfish industry who pays minimal taxes, property or otherwise, and whose jobs created are filled for the most part by underpaid migrant workers.

Small Studies Cannot be used to determine Large Impacts
Pierce County is correct in having a concern of using isolated studies of small farm activities to determine whether new applications for larger farms should be approved or not. While one cottage on a shoreline may have minimal impact, it does not mean a 5 story condominium will have minimal impact nor that a 100 room hotel will have a minimal impact. Each level brings with it a set of incrementally larger actions with both direct and indirect impacts. That is the stage where the shellfish industry is now, whose incremental impacts have not, as a whole, been considered.

Pacific Seafood Processing 

Facility in Warrenton Burns Down



Coast Seafood was recently acquired

by Pacific Seafood which includes a

50% ownership of Penn Cove Shellfish.

Industrial Level of Activity Requires an EIS
The shellfish industry is no longer a group of small families operating on discrete tideland parcels. The industry is becoming controlled by a few large corporations. As seen in the Coast acquisition, consolidation of operations and ownership is occurring, creating a level of industrial activity which small studies of family owned farms cannot replicate.

Let your political representatives know it is time to ensure the state's "most valuable and fragile" natural resource is protected through requiring an Environmental Impact Statement which has an inclusive Cumulative Impacts Analysis.

Governor Inslee: https://fortress.wa.gov/es/governor/
State Legislator: http://app.leg.wa.gov/DistrictFinder/
Senators: http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm?State=WA
Representatives: http://www.house.gov/representatives/find/#listrep

Read more on Cumulative Impacts Analysis:
EPA's Consideration of Cumulative Impacts in EPA Review of NEPA Documents
Council on Environmental Quality's Considering Cumulative EffectsUnder the National Environmental Policy Act

"Evidence is increasing that the most devastating environmental effects may result not from the direct effects of a particular action, but from the combination of individually minor effects of multiple actions over time." (Chapter 1, Introduction to Cumulative Effects Analysis)

Thurston County Commissioners Affirm Mussel Farm Permit Denial

"...the law requires an adequate analysis of cumulative impacts before a SSDP permit may be issued in this case."

Thurston County Commissioners have affirmed the Hearing Examiner's denial of Taylor Shellfish's Shoreline Substantial Development Permit application for a 58 raft mussel farm in Totten Inlet. They agreed that denial based on an inadequate analysis of cumulative impacts was correct[click here for decision].

It quotes from a recent Shoreline Hearing Board decision:
"...consideration of potential cumulative effects and precedential effects is warranted in any case where there is proof of impacts that risk harm to habitat." Coalition to Protect Puget Sound Habitat v. Pierce Co. and Longbranch Shellfish, LLC, SHB No. 11-019-2012

Cancel or Appeal?
Taylor Shellfish may appeal the decision to the Shoreline Hearing Board or they may simply cancel the permit application and wait for Mason County to update its Shoreline Master Program. Based on current policy in Mason County and industry's heavy involvement in their SMP update process, Taylor's 58 rafts will most likely be allowed on the Mason County side of Totten Inlet, with little to no permitting requirements.

Become Engaged
The public cannot appreciate the amount of money Taylor Shellfish, the Pacific Coast Shellfish Growers Association, and other "benefactors" put into minimizing regulatory oversight. The public cannot appreciate how much taxpayer money is spent to support the industry, whether it be the Department of Health's monthly monitoring of waters or funding for hatcheries.  The dairy, agriculture, and timber industries all incur expenses to help the shellfish industry, and pay a far greater percentage in taxes.

All the while, owners of Taylor Shellfish and Arcadia Point Seafood, among others, generate over $1 million/acre in profits from geoducks. That money in turn pays for attorneys, "scientists", and lobbyists to ensure they are able to continue generating wealth for themselves at the expense of Puget Sound's tidelands and waters, and at the expense of taxpayers.

Modern shellfish aquaculture is transforming Puget Sound's habitat. Once converted, that habitat does not recover. The public needs to become engaged in the current Shoreline Master Program updates.

Taylor Mussel Farm: Are Future Projects Contemplated?

Taylor Shellfish has submitted its response to the Thurston County Commissioners on why the Hearing Examiner's denial of a shoreline permit for their 58 raft mussel farm should be reversed. [read appeal papers here] (Note: It was Taylor Shellfish themselves who asked for this denial.) Their defence rests within a cloud of supposition, believing there are no future projects being contemplated. With the help of Governor Gregoire, they have shot themselves in the foot.

Symptomatic of "Romnesia" they have forgotten a key piece of evidence they submitted and fought to keep as part of the record at the hearing in support of this permit being granted: the Washington Shellfish Initiative. Its importance was reiterated in their initial appeal where they also pointed to the Shoreline Hearings Board's accepting it as fact and of significance.

That initiative is clear in its contemplation of future projects. As Taylor's appeal states, the initiative calls for "Expanding, promoting and improving shellfish aquaculture in Washington." They go further to note the Shoreline Hearings Board accepting it as evidence and belief in its importance, quoting them as saying aquaculture's importance is "emphasized by the Washington Shellfish Initiative..."

Taylor's Current Mussel Farm

Yield: ~800,000 pounds per year.

Jim Gibbons/Paul Taylor: Spain grows 600 million

pounds in an area the size of south Puget Sound.

Further evidence of "contemplation" focused specifically on mussel farms is found in testimony before the Senate Environment Committee by Jim Gibbons, owner of Seattle Shellfish. In that testimony he brings up a conversation he and Paul Taylor (co-owner of Taylor Shellfish) had while "on a ski lift." In that testimony Mr. Gibbons points out how Spain is growing over 600 million pounds of mussels in an area the size of south Puget Sound where "only" 20 million pounds of shellfish are grown. Taylor's proposal of 58 rafts would yield 1 million pounds. Contemplation of further projects is clearly established.
[click here for Seattle Shellfish testimony before the Senate Environment Committee]

Why is contemplation important? As Taylor's attorney notes, appellate and Shoreline Board cases note "important factors to consider in deciding whether to exercise the discretionary authority to evaluate cumulative impacts for a SDP application include, among other things, whether...similar projects in the area are pending or contemplated and whether such projects would be approved under applicable criteria."

The Washington Shellfish Initiative was created by the Governor to aid in the expansion of the shellfish industry. Part of that initiative is streamlining permits for additional projects. Mason County has already stated its intention to streamline mussel raft permits as part of its updated SMP. Evidence submitted in support of this mussel farm is being used to support current streamlining efforts. To believe projects similar to this are not being "contemplated" is naive. The Hearing Examiner was correct in denying this permit because cumulative impacts were not adequately analyzed, something the Commissioners will agree with.

What can you do if you care? Help support APHETI in their fight to help ensure Puget Sound's development considers cumulative impacts from shellfish aquaculture. [click here for APHETI's web site]

Cumulative Impacts from Shellfish Farming Continue to Grow: What Ocean Acidification Means

Concerns over cumulative impacts from corporate shellfish farming continue to grow. Most recently the "Blue Ribbon Panel" on ocean acidification has spent a great deal of time analyzing how CO2 absorption in marine waters lowers pH levels ("acidification"). In turn, the entire food web is impacted, beginning at the fundamental level of phytoplankton upwards. Unlike other species of oyster, the Pacific oyster is apparently hyper-sensitive to these changes, to the point hatcheries are being shut down and natural "sets" are not occurring. But Puget Sound species are far more diverse than the non-native Pacific oyster.

Look a little deeper

than where the shellfish industry

wants you to.



At the core of ocean acidification is a reduction in "carbonate ions for calcifying biota" which 30% of Puget Sound's species are dependent on. This reduction, in turn, results in these species becoming physiologically stressed due to an increase in energy spent as they move through their life stages. Planktotrophic larvae are especially sensitive, becoming "energetically disadvantaged as they attempt metamorphosis, thereby suffering reduced survivorship and fitness." (Miller) [further details are included in Miller's study here and in Shalin Busch's presentation to the "Blue Ribbon Panel"]

From Shallin Busch Presentation - March 30, 2012                    

Why does this matter? The shellfish industry is pressing to greatly increase production in the tidelands and waters of Puget Sound. Densities far beyond those found in the natural environment are proposed. Geoduck are planted up to 3 per square foot in upper intertidal areas where they do not naturally occur. Mussel rafts grow larger, non-native mussels in densities of 25,000 pounds in a 1,020 square foot area which, per Bill Dewey with Taylor Shellfish, would require 1 acre, or 42,000 square feet of tidelands (a permit denied for 58 of these rafts in Totten Inlet is currently being appealed [click here for 12mb appeal]). Jim Gibbons with Seattle Shellfish has pointed out south Puget Sound is "only" harvesting an estimated 20 million pounds of shellfish in an area where Spain is harvesting 600 million pounds of mussels [click here for short video of Spain's mussel farms, preceded by short advertisement]. All these shellfish require diminishing calcifying agents to grow their shells.

If what has been presented to the "Blue Ribbon Panel" on ocean acidification is in fact true - that CO2 is causing a decrease in the ions needed for species to use for calcification - what will happen to those species if densities of shellfish increase to levels corporations want? This critical building block needed at the most fundamental levels of the food chain will not be there at the levels needed, having been instead used up by shellfish. As noted in the study by Miller [click here] there are oysters far less impacted by ocean acidification than the Pacific oyster.

Cumulative impacts from corporate shellfish farming do exist, they are increasing, and Taylor Shellfish with others are more than willing to spend immense sums of money to fight any consideration of cumulative impacts in permitting decisions.

Before agencies rush to satisfy the needs of a few corporate shellfish companies they should consider listening to the voices of what the shellfish industry would like to consider just a few "NIMBY's" (Not In My Back Yard). The continued increase in calls about aquaculture's tideland habitat transformation seen on Eld Inlet, Totten Inlet, Oakland Bay, Pickering Passage, Case Inlet, the Nisqually Reach, Henderson Bay and Burley Lagoon are from more than "just a few NIMBY's". They are eyewitnesses to an unsustainable transformation and can see down the road to what's coming.



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)