British Columbia: Massive Chinese shellfish hatchery near completion on Sunshine Coast

Guess they're just not into you that much anymore.

Licensed to grow seed for geoduck, 

Pacific oyster, scallop and urchin.

Risk to investors and banks is a relative thing.

Apparently becoming aware that being beholden to a few shellfish operators in the United States was not an economically sustainable model, the Chinese are nearing completion of Phase 1 of what ultimately will be among the largest (if not the largest) shellfish hatchery and farming operations in North America. It will compete directly with current shellfish operators such as Taylor Shellfish and Coast Seafoods, who to date have had little real competition to disrupt pricing and distribution models which have existed for decades. How investors and those financing expansion will react to what appears to be a disruptive event is not known, but risk to returns is certainly elevated.

Comparison of Taylor Shellfish to Hummingbird Cove

Investors rule of thumb: Invest in an industry where anyone can make money. 

Yesterday, the Times Colonist wrote that Phase 1 of a Chinese owned shellfish hatchery facility in British Columbia is nearing completion and will cover over 34,000 square meters (365,000 square feet). By comparison, the Nisbet (Goose Point) hatchery facility moved from Willapa Bay to Hawaii is 20,000 square feet. Another perspective is seen in the image above, showing Taylor Shellfish's Quilcene Dabob Bay hatchery facility. Overlying the Taylor Shellfish facility in red is the estimated size of Phase 1. The Vancouver Sun has reported that Phase 2 is expected to result in a facility able to grow and export mature shellfish by the year 2020. Last year, Hatchery International reported that Hummingbird facility was approved to expand within a 27 hectare (~66 acre) area, outlined in blue and orange, an area dwarfing current facilities.

This Christmas, be careful what you ask for. You may just get it.

The shellfish industry for years has been lobbying at the federal, state and local levels to minimize regulatory oversight. Their success has been seen in many areas, ranging from minimizing eelgrass protection to convincing Mason County that tidelands sold under the "Bush Act" should be considered as existing shellfish farms. All aimed at allowing for an increased expansion of operations, then supply, and hoped for profits. That the Chinese business leaders were not born yesterday and can see a market controlled by only a few, for the benefit of those few, has resulted in a multi-million dollar investment by one company in Canada. Others will follow. Those shellfish grown will not be for Canada, but exported. When combined with expansion efforts in the US, a deflating commodity balloon may be what comes for Christmas.

Public Meeting and Shellfish Politics: Coast Seafoods' Operations Manager, also District Commissioner, Sees no Problem Expanding into Eelgrass Beds

Update 11:05: Read what the California Audubon has to say about this project and help ensure this critical eelgrass habitat will not be destroyed through application of faulty science to support the expansion of aquaculture. (Note: Comments will now be accepted through December 31.) Other public comments on this ill-advised expansion may be found by clicking here, some in support, but most against, including 61 pages of names who signed a petition against the proposal. You can add your name and help save Pacific Flyway birds in Humboldt Bay by clicking here.

Coast Seafoods Southwest Operations Manager Greg Dale

— who is also the harbor district’s
2nd Division commissioner —

said that he does not believe the company’s
current aquacultural practices have any significant
ecological impacts on the bay, and said the expansion was
designed in a way that “literally has no impact.”

Eureka Times-Standard, December 5

What a surprise. Apparently Coast Seafood workers
are able to levitate above eelgrass instead of
crushing it as these workers do.

Coast Seafoods' oysters are also able to
stop filtering when dioxin laced sediments
are stirred up from workers and boats.
Really?

The best science that money can buy.
Coast Seafood says spacing lines 5' apart lets in more light, ignoring the impact of foot traffic from workers. Coast Seafood believes oysters will stop filtering as dioxins in the sediments are stirred up by foot traffic and boat activity. This is science?

Get involved. The shellfish industry is and they see nothing but profits from impacting native eelgrass beds and selling you oysters filtering water with dioxin laced sediments.

Public hearing on whether Coast Seafoods should be allowed to expand operations in Humboldt Bay and native eelgrass beds.

What: Coast Seafoods Company’s expansion town hall meeting
When: 6 to 8 p.m., Wednesday
Where: Sequoia Conference Center, Room Sequoia A, 901 Myrtle Ave., Eureka

Public Meeting and Shellfish Politics: Coast Seafoods' Operations Manager, also District Commissioner, Sees no Problem Expanding into Eelgrass Beds

Coast Seafoods Southwest Operations Manager Greg Dale

— who is also the harbor district’s
2nd Division commissioner —

said that he does not believe the company’s
current aquacultural practices have any significant
ecological impacts on the bay, and said the expansion was
designed in a way that “literally has no impact.”

Eureka Times-Standard, December 5

What a surprise. Apparently Coast Seafood workers
are able to levitate above eelgrass instead of
crushing it as these workers do.

Coast Seafoods' oysters are also able to
stop filtering when dioxin laced sediments
are stirred up from workers and boats.
Really?

 

The best science that money can buy.

Coast Seafood says spacing lines 5' apart lets in more light, ignoring the impact of foot traffic from workers. Coast Seafood believes oysters will stop filtering as dioxins in the sediments are stirred up by foot traffic and boat activity. This is science?

 

Get involved. The shellfish industry is and they see nothing but profits from impacting native eelgrass beds and selling you oysters filtering water with dioxin laced sediments.

 

Public hearing on whether Coast Seafoods should be allowed to expand operations in Humboldt Bay and native eelgrass beds.

 

What: Coast Seafoods Company’s expansion town hall meeting
When: 6 to 8 p.m., Wednesday
Where: Sequoia Conference Center, Room Sequoia A, 901 Myrtle Ave., Eureka

 

Taylor Shellfish and Chemicals on their Willapa Bay Shellfish Beds - It's not just imidacloprid.

Imidacloprid is only one in a long string

of pesticides and herbicides having been

applied to Willapa Bay shellfish beds
with Taylor Shellfish's consent and support. 

"We were able to control the japonica this year [2014],” 
[Bill] Taylor said. “We were able to get a permit
to use a chemical called Imazamox, 

and we were able to control it on a larger scale 

than had been controlled before. It was very successful."

(The Daily Astorian, January 8, 2015)

Taylor Shellfish and other Willapa Bay growers
now want more - spray 3,000+ Acres
and let it rot in place.

Meanwhile, the Puget Sound Restoration Fund

raises $1.5 million to grow and harvest seaweed, 

and on May 5th ask for more.

Board members Bill Taylor, and their attorney

Billy Plauche, instead want to grow and harvest.

What's really inside that Shigoku box?

The recent withdrawal of a permit to spray the neurotoxin imidacloprid onto the shellfish beds in Willapa Bay has brought to light two very different sides of the shellfish industry. On the outside is a finely crafted image based on decades of effort partnering with others to help ensure Washington's marine waters are healthy, something we all want. On the inside is the ongoing support of many growers to apply chemicals to those same marine waters and tidelands most are trying to keep chemicals out of and off of. Like a Shigoku oyster, it may look nice on the outside, but on the inside it's a non-native Pacific oyster, grown in a "chemical soup" (see below). You can't be both for clean waters and then turn around and spray those very same waters.

What a nice box.

Are the contents from Willapa Bay?

DOE does not stand for the Department of Economics.

Behind all spraying of herbicides and pesticides into Washington's marine waters is the Department of Ecology who requires permits before application may occur. As any agency required to issue permits, there is a balancing act required. In this case, on the one hand is consideration of the ecology and the on the other economics. A political entity will always be subject to political pressures and those political pressures are always strongest when an industry is flush with cash and motivated to acquire more. It is why the risk of DOE tipping the scales of environmental protection towards an industry's needs always exists. This is political reality and, coupled with the press for clean waters, is why the shellfish industry was able to obtain permits for application of imidacloprid and now imazamox. It was political and economic reality, with seeing what the industry defines clean water as, which caused both DOE and Taylor Shellfish, with the other growers, to withdraw the permit to apply imidacloprid.

"Quite honestly, it's blind faith that we're going on this," 

said Bill Dewey, a manager at Taylor Shellfish Co. 

and lead negotiator for the growers.

(The Daily News, April 30, 2003 on phasing out Carbaryl)

Blind faith is believing "Willapa Bay, is the cleanest bay in the USA."

For decades DOE has approved the application of chemicals to Willapa Bay shellfish beds. After 50 years Carbaryl, the active ingredient in Bayers' Sevin, was finally brought to a stop after a settlement agreement between the shellfish growers and environmental groups in 2003. As Blind Faith sings in their song, come down of your thrown. Washington's Office of the Attorney General, in a summary judgement filing, called Willapa Bay a "chemical soup."

Two sides of the same bay

a "chemical soup"

(from Motion for Summary Judgement, December 2012, p. 32)

Willapa Bay, is the cleanest bay in the USA.

(willapa-oysters.com)

Market demands will overcome political realities - pesticides first, herbicides next

Consumers who were surprised at finding out that there was a proposal to spray pesticides on Willapa Bay shellfish beds brought pesticide application to a stop. After over 50 years of a pesticide being used which Bayer says "contains ingredients that are considered to be probable or suspected human carcinogens." It will be consumers who will bring the application of all chemicals on Willapa Bay shellfish beds to a stop. It's black and white. It is not chemophobic. It's doing what you say you believe in - keeping Washington's waters clean.

First Subtidal Geoduck Farm Approved by Pierce County Hearing Examiner

Why doesn't DNR require replanting geoduck

after wild populations are "clear cut" from

state owned subtidal tidelands?
[click here for wild harvest numbers]



A permit for the first shallow subtidal geoduck farm has been approved by the Pierce County hearing examiner. It opens an area of Puget Sound to commercial geoduck "farming" which the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) had excluded from activity for decades to help protect a nearshore area where beds of native eelgrass are found (the nearshore area between extreme low and -18 feet). It also puts in question why DNR is not requiring the areas they do allow harvesting in (-18 to -70 feet) to be replanted. Annually, over 4 million pounds of wild geoduck are harvested from these subtidal areas. Why aren't they replanted like the state's forest lands are after they are harvested?

Regarding this specific permit approval, an environmental impact statement (EIS) which the state has been operating under for over 10 years has been nullified. Protections for this nearshore area have been minimized if not eliminated. As noted in DNR's Habitat Conservation Plan:

"Eelgrass is light limited and in Puget Sound rarely occurs deeper than –18 feet MLLW." The importance in protecting eelgrass is "...because of the role of eelgrass as the basic energy source for a variety of food web interactions, and because of the other functions it provides, the covered species use, or benefit in some manner from eelgrass." It notes further, "The shoreward boundary [of -18 feet] acts to protect geoducks closer to shore, eelgrass beds, and other nearshore habitats and their inhabitants (e.g., juvenile fish)."  

The Habitat Conservation plan also notes: "Nearshore buffers – DNR will protect nearshore habitats from geoduck harvest activities by locating the closest shoreward harvest boundary at or deeper than the –18 foot MLLW water depth contour. This protects nearshore habitats where younger juvenile salmonids and forage species are generally found and where forage fish species spawn. It also prevents disturbance of migrating adult salmonids.

"Eelgrass buffers – DNR will avoid and protect eelgrass by establishing a 2-foot vertical or 180-foot horizontal (on very gradual slopes) buffer between geoduck tracts adjacent to eelgrass beds and the deepest occurrence of eelgrass.
"This will protect habitat used by the covered fish species for refuge, and will protect habitat used for spawning and refuge by forage fish species important as prey to the covered species."

At the hearing the attorney representing the applicant simply stated this concern was "overly broad" and "a relic of a DNR EIS", the only environmental impact statement ever done regarding geoduck farming's impacts. In the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) it notes:

"The shoreward boundary [of -18 feet] protects shallow water geoducks,

minimizes impacts on nearby shoreline residents, and helps protect eelgrass beds

and other sensitive nearshore habitats."

In that FEIS, Dr. Charles Simenstad with the University of Washington School of Aquatic Fisheries and Sciences, when asked about the impact on salmon from harvesting stated "The exclusionary principle of not allowing leasing/harvesting in water shallower than -18 ft. MLLW or 200 ft (sic yds) distance from shore (MHW); 2 ft. vertically from elevation of lower eelgrass margin, and within any regions of documented herring or forage fish spawning should under most conditions remove the influences of harvest-induced sediment plumes from migrating salmon. As the available information indicates that sediment plumes do not enter the nearshore zone, impacts to juvenile salmon habitat and prey resource should also be protected from impact by these policies if effectively regulated."

When John Lentz (owner of Chelsea Sea Farms) was questioned by the applicant's attorney whether he was aware of this restriction in the EIS, his off-the-cuff response was "they did it in the office." It seems the importance of an EIS is based on whether it supports your viewpoint or not.

Permit approval for this farm expands the area of impacts from geoduck farming exponentially. Tube placement will no longer be limited to the intertidal area, that area uncovered when the tide falls. Harvesting will no longer be prevented in depths between extreme low and -18 feet. Now these tubes and harvesting activity have been allowed to expand into an area previous protected by DNR, based on the only environmental impact statement focused on geoduck farming.

Most ironic in this approval is the question of why DNR is not requiring the state owned subtidal areas which are commercially harvested of "wild" geoduck to be replanted after they are "clear cut." Annually over 4 million pounds of wild geoduck are harvested, leaving the state's subtidal tidelands harvested empty. John Lentz, a past harvester of state tidelands, stated clearly that subtidal planting is not a problem. If subtidal planting is not a problem, why isn't DNR doing it?

What to do:
If you want to become involved in helping to ensure the rapid expansion of shellfish farming will not occur without a complete review of impacts to Puget Sound's diversity of life through an Environmental Impact Statement there are organizations who will accept your help and donations. These include:

Case Inlet Shoreline Association, a non-profit 501(c)3 organization
Focused on commercial geoduck operations in south Puget Sound
http://www.caseinlet.org/ - contact info@caseinlet.org

APHETI, a non-profit 501(c)3 organization
Focused on expansion of mussel farming in south Puget Sound
http://www.apheti.com/index.htm - contact apheti@gmail.com

Coalition to Protect Puget Sound Habitat
Representing most organizations concerned about expanding aquaculture
http://coalitiontoprotectpugetsoundhabitat.org/

Tell the state you want DNR to replant state tidelands which are "clear cut".
You may also contact your government officials and tell them it is time for an Environmental Impact Statement to be done to ensure Puget Sound's diversity of life is not put at risk through expansion of commercial shellfish operations.
Contact your state legislative representative
Contact Governor Inslee

Protection of Eelgrass and the Shoreline Management Act

In an evolving story being played out between Mason County, Pierce County and Pacific County is seen a problem in allowing local agencies to create their own Shoreline Master Programs which are intended to protect the near shore environment and prevent the fragmentation of its habitat functions. In this example it is how these 3 counties interpret how eelgrass should be protected. Or not.

Brant Geese Foraging on Eelgrass

 

Grass Fed - ©ingridtaylar

 

Mason County and Activity Within a Native Eelgrass Bed
Mason County has issued a SEPA determination of non-significance and will not require a development permit for a restoration project proposed by the Puget Sound Restoration Fund which will take place within a bed of native eelgrass located in Hood Canal. The proposal is to spread Olympia oysters, individually or as spat on Pacific oyster shell, throughout the bed and then to determine what the impact is on the eelgrass. Past studies have already shown eelgrass is impacted - reduced or eliminated - when oysters are cultivated at certain densities within the bed. (Note: The county will accept comments until May 21. Contact Alan Borden at ahb@co.mason.wa.us.)

 

Herring Spawn on eelgrass

 



Pierce County Requiring Buffers of 25' to 180' away from Japanese Eelgrass and Native Eelgrass Beds
At the same time that Mason County has issued a permit exemption and a SEPA determination of non-significance for activity within a native eelgrass bed, Pierce County is trying to determine how far away from an eelgrass bed aquaculture should be allowed to take place. In the case of Pierce County they are considering buffer distances of 25' to 180', with a possibility of 10' in some places, with no activity occurring within the bed. In addition, they are also telling the applicant that they consider Japanese eelgrass as important a habitat as native eelgrass. Buffers will apply to both species. (The Hearing Examiner is currently considering whether to issue a permit for the proposal.)

Copper Rockfish in Eelgrass Habitat

 

 

Pacific County wants Japanese Eelgrass Eliminated
In the case of Pacific County, they and the shellfish industry were able to convince the State Noxious Weed Board that the habitat functions of Japanese eelgrass are less important than the ability to grow Manila clams. In this case, shellfish growers stated that Japanese eelgrass may be causing Manila clams to be smaller. The Board decided to categorize Japanese eelgrass as a Class C noxious weed, if it was on a cultured shellfish bed. The next year, despite the Board's own advisory committee recommending against it, the county and the shellfish industry were able to expand the Class C classification to include all of Washington's tidelands. Currently the Department of Ecology is considering whether to allow spraying Japanese eelgrass with the herbicide Imazamox to eliminate it with Pacific County being the application area. Despite its clear habitat functions and its ability to remove CO2 from marine waters, Pacific County views it differently. (Note: The Coalition to Protect Puget Sound Habitat is asking that this decision be reversed.)

Brian Sheldon, Northern Oyster

Claims his clams are smaller

because of Japanese eelgrass.

Lack of Habitat Protection Cohesiveness
The Department of Ecology's role is to ensure the Shoreline Management Act is implemented consistently throughout the state through each county's Shoreline Master Programs. As seen in this case the buffer distances protecting native eelgrass range from nothing to its possible elimination, and how county's view the importance of habitat functions provided by Japanese eelgrass range from very important to its being sprayed with herbicides to eliminate it. Allowing each county to develop its own SMP is many times heavily influenced by local corporate interests. Without strong leadership from the Department of Ecology it will result in fragmented development occurring, something the Shoreline Management Act was intended to prevent.

Is Japanese Eelgrass now a Noxious Weed in ALL of Willapa Bay?

Why would the Washington State Noxious Weed Control Board (WSNWCB) consider such a proposal? The Environmental Impact Statement addressing the application of Imazamox on commercial farms in Willapa Bay has not even gone through the scoping process  nor has a General Permit for its application been approved. [click here for Imazamox EIS Scoping and Discharge Permit information]

PUBLIC NOTICE: A hearing will be held in Yakima on November 6 from 1 to 3 PM to consider expanding the definition of Japanese eelgrass as a Class C noxious weed beyond commercial shellfish farms in Willapa Bay. Comments will be accepted by email to noxiousweeds@agr.wa.gov by 5PM November 5; mail to WSNWCB, PO Box 42560, Olympia, WA 98504-2560; or, in person.

 

The Pacific County Noxious Weed Board (PCNWB) is not satisfied with a measured and balanced approach on how to deal with Japanese eelgrass. It has told WSNWCB they now want Japanese eelgrass in all of Willapa Bay to be declared a noxious weed. This is another step to the eradication of Japanese eelgrass through the application of the herbicide Imazamox in all of Willapa Bay and elsewhere. The process should be stopped here and the EIS initiated by the Depatment of Ecology completed before any further actions are taken by WSNWCB. [click here for DOE EIS information]

 

"Therefore we do not at this time support development of a NPDES and State Waste Discharge General Permit addressing the application of imazamox on commercial shellfish beds." US Fish and Wildlife letter to the Department of Ecology, March 7, 2012 [click here for copy of letter]

 

"We encourage the DOE to adopt a precautionary approach to aquatic herbicide application to control Japanese eelgrass..." WDFW letter to DOE, March 7, 2012 [click here for copy of letter]

 

"...DNR does not support issuance of a NPDES permit to allow imazamox to be broadly used to control Zostera japonica [Japanese eelgrass] on aquaculture farms at this time." DNR letter to DOE, March 9, 2012  [click here for copy of letter]

 

Look a little deeper and you'll what

they don't want you to see.

"...the seagrass system has not only scientific value, but an enormous economic value as well. This aspect appears not to be well understood by the general public..." The Ecology of Eelgrass Meadows in the Pacific Northwest: A Community Profile, US Fish and Wildlife Service, 1984 ("USFWS Community Profile")

 

Pacific County Noxious Weed Board and the shellfish industry believe the only economic values to consider are shellfish related. Any other species dependent on Japanese eelgrass are of secondary importance. They see no risk from "collateral damage."
 

Willapa Bay Wildlife Refuge

Migratory Birds

(photo by "wildbio")

"...Zostera japonica [Japanese eelgrass], [is] a favorite foodplant of black brant [geese] and other waterfowl" USFWS Community Profile

"Conflicting uses of the eelgrass habitat, such as oyster culture, ...need suitable management." USFWS Community Profile

"There are, at present, no known undesirable effects of eelgrass in the Pacific Northwest region" USFWS Community Profile

 

Importance of eelgrass

(including Japanese eelgrass)

in the food web.

(click to enlarge)

 

Eelgrass' location is in the lower right-hand corner.

 

"There was some discussion at the November 2 [2011] WSNWCB meeting, including over the value of adding a species to the Class C noxious weed list when there were no county weed boards intending to mandate control at that time." Concise Explanatory Statement, Noxious Weed Board December 2, 2011 [Detailing why the decision to lists Japanese eelgrass was made, including comments for and against the proposal.]



Why did the Washington State Noxious Weed Control Board open the door for Imazamox to be applied on such an expansive area of Willapa Bay (all commercial shellfish farms)?

Shellfish corporations/lobbyists are implementing a strategy which consisted of first having Japanese eelgrass removed from Fish and Wildlife's Priority Habitat Species list; then declared a noxious weed by the WSNWCB; followed by getting the Department of Ecology to approve application of the herbicide Imazamox.  In support, they provided a "White Paper" written by Jeff Fisher (formally with Environ, now a Branch Chief with NOAA's National Marine Fisheries covering Mason and Pacific Counties), who is also a shellfish farmer.

Because of citizen involvement the proposal to apply Imazamox was scaled back from all of Washington's marine waters to its application only on commercial shellfish farms in Willapa Bay. Corporate shellfish farmers will continue to press agencies for what they need to increase profits. If you care, get involved.

(email exchanges with WDFW and Bill Dewey, Taylor Shellfish)

 

 

Eelgrass and Ocean Acidification: Actions Based on Science or Corporate Profits?

"...the more man interferes with nature the greater become the problems he creates." (Maurice Yonge, Oysters, 1960 p. 189).

From a September 5, 2012 email from the Depatment of Ecology: "Ecology is in the process of developing a permit to allow treatment of Japanese eelgrass on commercial clam beds in Willapa Bay. The applicants [shellfish companies] have asked to treat [eradicate] the Japanese eelgrass [in Willapa Bay] with the aquatic herbicide imazamox."

For six months the Department of Ecology has been hosting the "Blue Ribbon Panel" on Ocean Acidification. Increased CO2 levels in marine waters has resulted in increased acidity (lower pH). Impacted hardest has been Willapa Bay where oysters have been unable to "set" (grow) naturally and caused a shellfish hatchery to move its facilities to Hawaii [read Seattle Times article here]. High levels of CO2 have been directly linked to the lower pH levels, in turn linked directly to why larvae are unable to survive in Willapa Bay.

On June 20, of the 10 recommendations on adapting to Ocean Acidification, four were specifically related to eelgrass and aquatic vegetation:

Encourage shellfish/seagrass [eelgrass] co-cultivation

Investigate and develop seaweed farming

Restore eelgrass and kelp beds

Promote community-based programs to mitigate nutrient inputs (using shellfish and seaweeds)
[See "Initial Recommendations for Managing and Adapting to the Impacts of OA here]

Notes from that presentation on Ecology's website include: "... conservation of existing eelgrass beds may be more feasible and less expensive than cultivation of new beds." [see page 6 from summary notes here]

July 20 the ability of eelgrass to absorb CO2 was stressed again, noting eelgrass "sucking up all that CO2."

August 8, "Workgroup 3: Adaptation and Remediation" of the committee produced its final four recommendations. Eelgrass or use of aquatic vegetation to lower CO2? It has apparently been absorbed by the shellfish industry, respired as how to "fund my hatcheries and industry."

Action 2.1 Continue water quality monitoring at six existing shellfish hatcheries and rearing areas.

Action 2.2 Investigate efficacy of water treatment strategies and/or hatchery design to protect larvae from corrosive seawater.

Action 2.3 Investigate potential to breed and/or select OA-tolerant strains of shellfish and other vulnerable marine species.

Action 3.1 Prioritize investment in adaptation & remediation actions that provide future shellfish habitat capable of enduring a full suite of anticipated environmental changes.

[see Priority Action Recommendations here] 
Panel members are right to question whether too much money and time is being spent on hatcheries. Concerns noted the process was spending too much time focusing on how to get shellfish to survive in a hatchery so they can survive in the water instead of putting energy into how to get the water clean so they can grow naturally.  

When the preservation and expansion of eelgrass beds are dropped by the Blue Ribbon Panel and the Department of Ecology wants to eradicate beds in Willapa Bay where ocean acidification has had the largest impact, a very real risk of a perception that science has taken a back seat to corporate profits rises. Is that what the scientists and panel members want to be remembered for?