Pierce County has released the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) on a proposed 25 acre geoduck farm in Burley Lagoon. There will be no public comments accepted. A 14 day period for an official appeal is currently in place.
The FEIS, supporting documents and timelines are available on-line, here:
https://www.piercecountywa.gov/burleylagoon

Al Bergstein writes on the recent presentation by the Center for Food Safety's attorney Kristina Sinclair. Ms Sinclair discusses the ongoing lawsuit against the Army Corps' permitting of shellfish farms in Puget Sound. 

Mr Bergstein's piece:  https://olyopen.com/2022/11/18/what-you-should-know-about-industrial-raised-shellfish-aquaculture-an-overview/

Ms Sinclair's slide presentation: https://olyopen.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/2022-11-17-Industrial-Shellfish-Slides.pdf

Contact Center for Food Safety here:

Pacific Northwest Office
2009 NE Alberta St, Suite 207
Portland, OR 97211
phone (971) 271-7372

Cumulative Impacts Not Considered: District Court Issues Ruling on Vacating Shellfish Farms

Coalition to Protect Puget Sound Habitat and the Center for Food Safety

succeed in proving the Army Corps did not consider 

cumulative impacts when issuing permits.

The Court found that it [the Army Corps] violated 

the CWA [Clean Water Act] and NEPA 

(National Environmental Policy Act)

by failing to take a hard look 

at the anticipated environmental 

impacts of NWP 48*

(US District Court, June 11, 2020)

Geoduck market collapses in China.

Court finds permits void.

Who will clean up the mess when growers

just walk away from their plastics?

*NWP 48 is a permit issued every 5 years to authorize common shellfish activities in the waters of the US. In Washington, it allowed permits to be issued on tidelands not used for aquaculture up to 100 years ago. Acreage numbers as high as 72,300 acres were presented. The Court stated: "its data regarding past uses of the permit was incorrect and its estimates of future uses are suspect"

Cumulative Impacts Matter

In the Court's October 2017 Order, the District Court ruled the Corps of Engineers had not considered cumulative impacts in approving their Nationwide Permit 48 in 2017 thereby voiding all permits issued. In its June 11, 2020 decision on whether to void all current permits, the Court found the logic presented by the Corps and shellfish growers lacking in evidence.

"...there is insufficient evidence in the administrative record to support the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ conclusion that the 2017 reissuance of Nationwide Permit (“NWP”) 48 would have minimal individual and cumulative impacts on the aquatic environment for purposes of the Clean Water Act (“CWA”) and (b) that the Corps’ environmental assessment related to NWP 48 did not satisfy the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”)."

Operators to go on vacation?
Following the decision, the Court was then faced with whether to force growers to vacate areas now found to be operating under an invalid permit, considering "(1) the seriousness of an agency’s errors and (2) the “disruptive consequences of an interim change that may itself be changed.” It was up to the Corps and growers (Taylor Shellfish and Nisbet Oyster) to provide the logic and evidence showing why they should be allowed to continue operating.

"...courts may decline to vacate agency decisions when vacatur would cause serious and irremediable harms that significantly outweigh the magnitude of the agency’s error. . . . Courts have considered remand without vacatur to be appropriate where serious irreparable environmental injury would result from vacatur. . . . In addition to environmental harm, it is appropriate to consider other practical concerns when weighing the consequences of vacatur"

Court to growers and the Corps: You made a serious error.
The Corps and growers argued the mistake was neither serious nor consequential because both the District and State were involved in oversight, minimizing the environmental impact. The Court did not agree, stating:

"The Corps/Intervenors have not shown that the District level verification process or state, local, and/or Tribal oversight of commercial shellfish aquaculture activities in Washington overcome the seriousness of the agency’s errors in this case."

Disruptive Consequences - Economics don't trump the environment. 
"environmental impacts of these activities are more than minimal, both individually and cumulatively"
In considering the disruptive consequences of finding all shellfish farms "unauthorized and in violation of federal law" the Court considered a number of things. Included was the Corps being "overwhelmed" by new permit applications; tribes may be unable to provide food for tribal members; growers would face devastating impacts on the continuing viability of their farms, their employees, their communities, the state and local economies of which they are a part, and the ability of Washington shellfish farmers to compete on a national or international basis; shellfish are "filter feeders" and their removal would harm the marine ecosystem; and, shellfish growers "retard" upland development activities. Growers argued they should just be allowed to continue on, harvesting and seeding. Even on tidelands which had no activities for 100 years.

"The problem is not that the Intervenors have failed to establish that the loss of their authorization to install shellfishing equipment and to discharge materials into the waters of the United States would have devastating impacts on their businesses, but rather that they have not shown that those impacts outweigh the environmental consequences of continuing their activities as currently permitted."

The Court's solution 
Because neither the growers nor the Corps could not support not vacating the permits, the Court stated:

"In the absence of meaningful assistance from the Corps and the Intervenors in helping to shape a compromise remedy, the Court will adopt a remedy based on the suggestions of plaintiffs, amici, and Swinomish."

That remedy crafted by the Court vacates all current permits but allows a pause of 60 days for an appeal; would allow currently planted shellfish to be harvested; seeding and planting within 6 months in areas without eel grass could occur; and, tribal rights would be respected. If growers intend ongoing activities (e.g., harvesting) they must, within 6 months, apply for a new permit. Planting new areas would not be allowed without a new permit. The Corps must process new individual permits but not without following CWA and NEPA steps outlined in the October 10, 2019 Order which concluded:

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

Get involved.
Make a difference in life and help protect Puget Sound's critical marine habitat. Whether from open net pens discharging plumes of untreated waste or plastics used in shellfish aquaculture, this habitat is under extreme pressure.

Geoduck Market Experiences a Collapse: Washington considers it a junk clam for a reason.

The Junk Bond of Clams

They taste like they look. Unless you're Chinese.

Like the collapse of the junk bond market

so too is the market for geoduck collapsing.

(Picture from the Seattle Times)

Most Washington citizens have considered the geoduck clam to be little more than a junk clam. Beyond its size, there was little it had to offer. It was difficult to dig, difficult to cook, and difficult to chew. It had no intrinsic economic value beyond its odd shape.

The junk clam becomes a phallic symbol

with marketers in WA convincing Chinese men...

(From BBC)

I've got the cure for what ails you.
Then somebody discovered a weak point in the Chinese culture, men specifically, convincing  them a  Puget Sound clam was the cure. The junk clam became the item in China which would solve whatever it was Chinese men felt they were lacking. With a wink and a nod, and disbelief to  Washington State citizens, a market exploded in China and the junk clam experienced a demand never dreamed of. Like shark fins, Manta Ray gills, Black Bear gall bladders, a superstition was born. An extraction business in Washington's tidelands exploded. Geoduck over 130 years old (believed to be the longest living species) began to be clear cut from subtidal lands and commercial farms with PVC tubing appeared  in the intertidal areas. 

You too can become rich. 

We'll keep 85% of the revenue

and farm whenever we think it's best,

however much we think we should.

Your tidelands? No, you can't use them now.

That's fair, isn't it?

A fungus spreads in Washington's tidelands.

With the demand for geoduck came the demand for tidelands which never naturally supported the densities planted, let alone the plastic tubes and netting required for this mono-culture to take hold. Like the carpet baggers of the south, growers knocked on doors, left fliers and called tideland owners who were unaware of the value they had in those tidelands. Worse was the control they were giving away. Not known was when their lease was signed, the percentage of revenues paid was nothing more than an amount agreed on among a few growers as "fair"  (as low as 10%, predominantly 15%, maybe higher if someone signed a decades long lease). It is an oligopoly in the classic meaning of the word. Their properties became encumbered for decades, with the commercial operations in some cases reducing the value of their neighbors' property.   

"Don't I have some say

in when you harvest these clams?"

Didn't read the fine print in the lease.

If you don't know the value of what you have...

Of significance today, given up by tideland owners in their leases to these few growers was control over when their tidelands would be harvested, as well as use of them. Today, as written about in the Seattle Times, as a result of a tariff war between China and the USA, and changing "tastes", the geoduck market has collapsed. The "wild" geoduck are now fetching $6/pound versus $16/pound in the first quarter of 2016, a drop of over 60%. Cultured prices, depending on who you listen to at what point in time, have dropped from 25% to 45% from their peak.

Like a bank, geoduck growers are insulated

when a market collapses.

 "Why were geoduck on my tidelands harvested

at the low point of the market?" Good question, 

but a little late to ask.

A tariff war is never good, especially when product is available from other countries. 

In any business there is risk which, in theory, is taken on by the producers, or in this case, those leasing tidelands to grow geoduck or those bidding on wild geoduck. In the case of wild geoduck, Washington's Department of Natural Resources provided "financial relief" to the bidders when tariffs initially caused prices to drop. Those leasing tidelands weren't so fortunate. Instead, they found growers who had leased their tidelands were harvesting at the lowest price in recent history, and they had no say in whether they should wait for higher prices to arrive. That control they gave away, along with encumbering the title of their property for decades. Meanwhile, Canada, Mexico and New Zealand benefited from the battle between China and the USA, selling their geoduck, tariff free.

Think politics doesn't matter?

It will when it comes to tariffs.

He who put tariffs on

can take tariffs off and claim

a "great deal" has been made,

whether real or not.

Your geoduck are gone, but mine are just waiting for prices to rise.

Anyone who believes the current tariffs between the United States and China will remain in place as the election approaches is naive. Too much is at stake during election cycles, and this is no different. Between now and election time, there will be a "great deal" made between the US and China, and with it the removal of tariffs. And when those tariffs are gone, geoduck prices will once again rise to levels significantly higher than today. But those who leased their tidelands will have nothing to sell, having had them harvested by growers who, because prices were low, paid even less to those whose tidelands were leased (lower revenue times X% means less paid out to the lessor). On the other hand, geoduck growing on tidelands owned by the growers, tidelands purchased with the immense profits generated in years past, simply waited for higher prices to return, and can now begin harvesting.* A "great deal".

*Seattle Shellfish, Arcadia Point Seafood and Taylor Shellfish, directly or indirectly,  separately or together, have purchased large tracts of tidelands over the past decade in South Puget Sound, on which they have planted large tracts of geoduck. Examples include tideland parcels purchased in Spencer Cove on Harstine Island; Totten Inlet's Totten Shores; and Fudge Point on Harstine Island. Even well paid "scientists", involved in creating studies, purchased tidelands along the shoreline of Totten Inlet. All tidelands growing geoduck which don't have to be harvested at low prices because all have leased tidelands which have geoduck which can be harvested, and from which a lower rent will be paid. 

Banks don't lose and tideland owners likely aren't too happy. But business is tough.
The two markets - wild and cultivated - have experienced a significant loss in revenue and with it planning. Bank loans made based on prices now driven down by the current tariffs are in question. The Seattle Times article mentions salmon restoration projects being impacted because DNR's revenues are expected to be lower, leading to less in the Aquatic Lands Enhancement Account (ALEA).* (The Times notes $28 million from geoduck auction, of which the LEAP legislative document shows $6.6 million being allocated to ALEA.) And tideland owners wonder whether that lease they signed and encumbered their property with for, in some cases decades, was such a good deal after all. But that's business.

*A portion of revenues received by DNR from aquatic leases and wild geoduck harvest are allocated to the Aquatic Lands Enhancement Account (ALEA) which was intended to enhance public access to aquatic lands and for "restoring shorelines for salmon habitat." The LEAP document for 2019 shows projects in the ALEA account totaling $6.6 million. The Seattle Times notes revenues from geoduck auctions for wild geoduck totaling $28 million. It's not known where the $21.2 million difference was allocated to.

Business is tough. Products whose price is artificially inflated are laden with risk. Risk which has now come home to roost in the geoduck market.

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

Decision will have impact 

on current proposals.

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

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

Clalllam County permitting decision just lost

a significant leg: US District Court rules

the Corps' analysis was inadequate.

This does not belong in the

Dungeness National Wildlife Refuge.

(Click here for proposal and to comment)

(Comments due by Nov 21)

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

One small farm lead to another, and another,

and another, and another....

Which all added together make a difference.

And the Corps didn't consider that.

Never give up

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

PVC tubes and netting are transforming

Puget Sound's critical marine habitat.

Zangle Cove is only one area

where expansion is occurring.

Native aquatic vegetation is displaced by shellfish farms.

Shellfish farming impacts eelgrass, a critical habitat.

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

Net pen fish farming is only one

of the many forms aquaculture takes.

Its impacts are additive to the 

marine ecosystem.

Tell WDFW their analysis of Cooke Aquaculture's proposal

to grow steelhead in Puget Sound was inadequate

and an Environmental Impact Statement 

analyzing ALL alternatives, including upland/contained systems

needs to be performed.

(Click here for proposal)

Email here: SEPAdesk2@dfw.wa.gov

Comments due by Oct 22

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

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

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

"Particularly pungent smells 

may come from the beach when a common type of seaweed 

known as sea lettuce decays 

in an environment with low dissolved oxygen."

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

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

Dead Clams in Burley Lagoon

Clean net placed too late?

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

Maybe the nets just need 

a "good industrial scraping".

(Samish Bay, WA)

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

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

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

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

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

This is not "enhancing" the public interest

and is exactly what the Shoreline Management Act

was designed to prevent from happening

to Puget Sound tidelands.

(Read RCW 98.58.020 to see

intended preferences of the SMA)

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

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

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

Yes - Washington needs to change its laws.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pierce County Shoreline Master Program Update:

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

Video link is on the right side of this link:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pierce County Shoreline Master Program Update: Final Decision by Council

Public testimony regarding Pierce County's SMP Update will be taken at the meeting or online. 

(See here: 

https://online.co.pierce.wa.us/cfapps/council/iview/proposal.cfm?proposal_num=2019-59)

SMP Update vote by Pierce County Council

September 10, 3PM

930 Tacoma Avenue South, Room 1045
Tacoma, WA 98402

(See meeting information here: 

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

After an appeal to the Growth Management Hearings Board by the shellfish industry's Taylor Shellfish, Seattle Shellfish, and, the Foss family's North Bay Partners (who leases tidelands to Taylor Shellfish) a decision by the Growth Management Hearings Board found Pierce County's updated Shoreline Master Program (SMP) to be too restrictive. As a result, a number of sections and amendments were dropped, some changed, others left as is. Generally, oversight of aquaculture has been made far more favorable to the industry. On the other hand, the GMHB did clarify that aquaculture does not have a priority over any other water dependent uses.
(See decision here: http://www.gmhb.wa.gov/Global/RenderPDF?source=casedocument&id=6516)
(See decision on a request for reconsideration here: http://www.gmhb.wa.gov/Global/RenderPDF?source=casedocument&id=6553)

After a public hearing was held August 19 by the Community Development Committee, and testimony heard, they recommended a "Do Pass".

(See information on that meeting here:

https://online.co.pierce.wa.us/cfapps/council/iview/committeeMeeting.cfm?id=3596)

Generally, oversight of aquaculture has been made far more favorable to the industry and state wide interests (however that is defined) were prioritized over the local interest. On the other hand, the GMHB did clarify that aquaculture does not have a priority over any other water dependent uses. 

Many people  devoted a great deal of time and effort in trying to ensure the marine habitat of Pierce County is preserved as best as possible. The aquaculture industry, and tideland owners who benefit financially from developments in their tidelands, devoted a great deal of money to ensuring their needs were met. Tomorrow, the Council will decide if they will accept what the GMHB has told them to.

Other legal efforts continue, some at a state level, others at the national level, with the goal being to preserve and protect the critical marine habitat unique to Puget Sound.

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

Taylor  Shellfish/Foss Family Prevail:

GMHB Tells DOE and Pierce County 

it must

"plan for, foster and give preference 

to aquaculture as a preferred use"

[Read decision here]

Presidential Candidate Governor Inslee

and Taylor Shellfish's Bill Dewey

China's elite pay a lot of money.

Taylor Shellfish makes a lot of money.

A few waterfront tideland owners 

make a lot of money.

Is that bad for the marine ecosystem Governor?

Aquaculture as a fosster child.

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

China doesn't care about Puget Sound habitat.

They care about geoduck grown in PVC pipes.

48,000 per acre

A concern then, a bigger concern now.

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

Before

 After

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

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

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

Taxes? $3,957

Does the Foss family really need to have

geoduck aquaculture fosstered to help pay these taxes?

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

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

Get involved

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

Geoduck Aquaculture: Too Controversial for Jefferson County Marine Resources Committee? What are you "protecting"?

June 28, 1-5PM

Shellfish Aquaculture Educational Forum

Northwest Maritime Center

431 Water St
Port Townsend, WA

Registration required (click here for registration)

JCMRC: We only want to educate you 

on aquaculture which isn't controversial.

(from Coalition to Protect Puget Sound Habitat)

What habitat is it JCMRC "protecting and restoring"?

The "habitat" 40,000 PVC tubes/acre create?

(from Jefferson County Marine Resources Committee site)

Really? What "resources" are you protecting by not putting geoduck aquaculture on the agenda? 

In a move which shines a light on the role which the Jefferson County Marine Resources Committee is apparently now filling - promoting shellfish aquaculture which the industry wants you to hear about - they have decided not to include geoduck aquaculture in an upcoming "educational forum" on aquaculture. Based on a recent post by Al Bergstein, the past Environmental representative on the Committee, the upcoming June 28 meeting will only discuss the warmer topics of aquaculture, not the ongoing hot button of geoduck aquaculture. Ongoing for over a decade now. 

Integrity still matters to some.

(Al Bergstein has resigned from JCMRC)

(Read Al Bergstein's post from his

Olympic Peninsula Environmental News) 

Geoduck aquaculture is too hot for JCMRC to touch. 

As a result of geoduck aquaculture being considered too controversial to be included on the agenda,  Al Bergstein has resigned from his long held position as the Environmental representative. Instead of addressing what is the most controversial form of aquaculture taking place in Puget Sound - the growing of geoduck in intertidal areas for the elite in China - the Jefferson County Marine Resource Committee has instead punted and left it off of the agenda. It's too controversial (still). As a result, Mr Bergstein has resigned from his position. 

The Chinese could care less about Puget Sound's

intertidal area and the habitat provided to native species.

Geoduck growers like the money.

So do nonprofits receiving donations.

Geoduck is hard to swallow. 

While it is unfortunate the JCMRC has lost such a strong voice supporting the critical marine habitats within Puget Sound - those marine habitat areas which the JCMRC claims it is "protecting and restoring" - no one should have to compromise their strongly held beliefs for a committee apparently too timid to face down this industrial level of aquaculture taking place in Puget Sound and deal with the controversy surrounding it. There is a point in life where you can only swallow so much of what industry spoon feeds you before you have to act on your beliefs.

Being involved pays. Very well.

"Don't ask how it's done."

It will be quite a show.

Geoduck growers have created a magic show making agencies believe great benefits to all has been created. Well paid public relations firms, well paid attorneys, and well paid "scientists" (either directly or through grants controlled through the political process) have created a magic show in which the belief that geoducks grown in Puget Sound's intertidal areas is somehow good. It is not . It is transformative, creating a monoculture, and fracturing the critical marine habitat of Puget Sound. Growers want more and will get more unless you make your voice heard. 

Get involved. Make your voice heard. 

Register and attend JCMRC "Shellfish Aquaculture Educational Forum". It will be quite a show.

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

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

May 19, 2019 - A thing of beauty? 

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

You need new glasses 

if you think 

this will "feed the world".

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

Where did all those straight lines go?

Replaced by a moonscape at harvest.

Do people think this looks good too?

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