Thurston County is Targeted By Geoduck Farmers

Better Duck if you live in Thurston County 
The latest county to be targeted for expansion by geoduck farmers is Thurston County. Located in south Puget Sound, Thurston County has seen a number of proposed or actual applications for geoduck farms in the south Puget Sound area. The most recent is an expansion of operations by Greg Reub, currently employed by Eco Analysts, Inc. Previous employment history of Mr. Reub included Environ (now part of Ramboll), a firm who performed numerous studies on geoduck aquaculture, intended to show impacts were not significant. Studies still quoted today and studies which Mr. Reub benefits from directly. [A public hearing on Mr. Reub's proposal will be held September 26. To be put onto the notification list, contact Leah Davis at davisle@co.thurston.wa.us]

(In addition to Mr. Reub, Dr. Fisher and Marlene Meaders were also past employees of Environ, the latter two co-authoring numerous papers on geoduck farming and the application of the herbicide imazamox in Willapa Bay. Dr. Fisher, as with Mr. Reub, benefits directly from positive outcomes of papers he authored on geoduck farming as he too operates a geoduck farm, close to that currently operated by Mr. Reub and close to where Mr. Reub proposes to expand his operations. Dr. Fisher, after leaving Environ, worked for the National Marine Fisheries Services - NMFS - who provided Biological Opinions to the Army Corps on their proposed Nationwide Permits covering aquaculture.)

An existing navigational hazard,

with another proposed.

Showing some mussel
In addition to Mr. Reub's proposed expansion, Chelsea Sea Farms is also proposing a 10 acre operation in Gallagher Cove near where Taylor Shellfish is planning on placing 58 rafts in Totten Inlet. At appeals and hearings for the Taylor Shellfish proposal there was no mention of any geoduck operation so close and what the cumulative impacts may be from the two operations may be, not to mention Mr. Reub's proposed expansion just north. The common refrain from attorneys at the hearings and appeals was that any expansion of aquaculture was simply "conjecture" and should not be considered. Therefor, Thurston County did not consider any of it and simply relied on an overwhelmed staff and papers, including those authored by Dr. Fisher and Mr. Reub.

One word - plastics
The Graduate could not have had a more applicable scene when Dustin Hoffman was told by Mr. McQuire what to do with his life after graduation: "I just want to say one word to you. Just one word....Plastics. There's a great future in plastics." Who would have thought plastics covering Puget Sound's intertidal tidelands would have been the future that unfolded.

Get involved. You will make a difference for the future generations.
The shellfish industry has been for years. Lobbying, free shellfish fests, donations to non-profits, and authors of papers who have clear conflicts of interest have all resulted in an impending expansion throughout Puget Sound and Willapa Bay. You can help by donating to the following:

Consumers for Food Safety [click here]
Tell your elected officials enough is enough.
Governor Inslee: https://fortress.wa.gov/es/governor/
Legislative and Congressional contacts:
http://app.leg.wa.gov/DistrictFinder/
Thurston County Commissioners
http://www.co.thurston.wa.us/cm/email/email.asp?mod=1

Aquaculture's Impacts: Center for Food Safety Sues Army Corps Over Lack of Regulatory Oversight

What could go wrong? The more the better.

Good for the profits of a few,

bad for all who care about 

Washington's marine habitat.

The Center for Food Safety filed a lawsuit August 10 against the Corps of Engineers' decision to issue 2017 Nationwide Permit 48 covering aquaculture activities, asking the courts to:

 (1) declare the Corps’ decision to adopt 2017 NWP 48 in Washington State is unlawful under the CWA, NEPA, and arbitrary and capricious, in violation of the APA; (2) set aside or vacate the Corps’ March 17, 2017 decision to adopt 2017 NWP 48 in Washington (effective March 19, 2017); (3) declare that the Corps, prior to adopting any new NWP for commercial shellfish aquaculture, must comply with NEPA, including the preparation of an EIS, and the CWA, including the requirement that any general permit not cause more than minimal adverse individual or cumulative impacts to Washington’s aquatic environment. 

Read US News article here:
https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/washington/articles/2017-08-11/lawsuit-targets-federal-oversight-of-shellfish-farming
Read article in The Olympian here:
http://www.theolympian.com/news/business/article166729272.html

Good old boys, slapping the backs

of politicians, paying a dollar here and there,

with a free oyster or two. It goes a long way.

(2016 lobbying visit by shellfish growers in DC)

In the papers filed, the Center pointed out one of the most glaring assumption swallowed by the Corps at the behest of the shellfish industry, defining a "new" operation:

The revised definition of “new” makes all operations “existing” so long as any commercial shellfish aquaculture took place in the area in the last 100 years. This would allow an operation in 2018 to be considered “existing” and thus avoid restrictions on “new” operations if, for example, oyster culture was conducted in 1919, with nothing in between.

Individual discrete parcels are becoming

one large area with multiple harvesting

cycles impacting the marine habitat

on an ongoing basis. 

Cumulative impacts matter.

Kao Torgeson Roosa - Pierce County, Public Hearing September 27, 9AM (Confirm with Ty Booth at ty.booth@co.pierce.wa.us or 253-798-3727)
Cumulative impacts matter and isolated events do not represent impacts adjacent operations create or vastly increasing operations creates. Throughout Puget Sound alone, what had been individual parcels are now becoming one large contiguous operation. These operations operate on multiple cycles creating an ongoing impact to the marine habitat on a scale not studied. One example is in Pierce County where two previously separate parcels operated. Now before the County is a permit request which would result in one large contiguous parcel. In Burley Lagoon, Taylor Shellfish is proposing a 25 acre operation. Thurston County has a 10 acre operation proposed by Chelsea Sea Farms and numerous smaller parcels. As noted in the papers filed, cumulative effects is defined as:

the changes in an aquatic ecosystem that are attributable to the collective effect of a number of individual discharges of dredged or fill material. Although the impact of a particular discharge may constitute a minor change in itself, the cumulative effect of numerous such piecemeal changes can result in a major impairment of the water resources and interfere with the productivity and water quality of existing aquatic ecosystems. 

Get involved and help support Center for Food Safety's efforts.
The papers filed go in to great detail about the current and future adverse impacts which will result directly from the Corps's issuing the 2017 Nationwide Permit 48 covering aquaculture. While lobbying over the past 3 years was effective in minimizing regulatory oversight of the shellfish industry by the Corps, that does not mean it should be accepted. You can help ensure the future of Washington's marine habitat will be protected by helping.
Read the Center's release here: 
http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/press-releases/5039/center-for-food-safety-sues-trump-administration-to-protect-washingtons-coastal-waters#
Donate to the Center for Food Safety here:
https://secure.actblue.com/contribute/page/supportcfs
Read the suit filed here:
http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/files/2017-8-10-complaint_final_95352.pdf

Memorial Day Weekend Brings Good Weather and Lowest Tides in Years

Get out and see what's happening at low tide.

This coming Memorial Day Weekend's weather is forecast to be sunny and warm. Along with the weather will come the lowest daytime tides Puget Sound has seen in years. In the table below is the anticipated weather and the low tides for the day (tides and time are at Olympia).

For other locations in Puget Sound, visit NOAA's web site. Below is an example for McMicken Island for the dates of May 26, 27, 28 and 29. 

Thurston County Commissioners Hear Appeal of Geoduck Operation Permit Approval

[Edited: Regarding the point made that Thurston County is not considering the larger picture - In addition to the 10 acre Chelsea operation noted below, Geoducks Unlimited has been issued a SEPA determination by Thurston County for another geoduck farm. Comments on the Mitigated Determination of Non-significance decision were due May 5. Appeal deadline is May 12. Geoducks Unlimited is operated by Gregory Reub, a scientist with Environ and previously Entrix, which created much of the foundation on which the perception that geoduck operations have minimal impacts is based on. During his involvement with Environ he operated another geoduck operation nearby. The current project description may be found by clicking here.]

On May 3, Thurston County Commissioners heard an appeal of the approval of a shoreline permit for a geoduck operation in Zangle Cove. Historically, this cove has never been used for industrial aquaculture, with tidelands sold by the state as being unsuitable for aquaculture. Recently, a property owner and Taylor Shellfish proposed an industrial geoduck operation within these tidelands, which Thurston County approved a permit for. One of the Commissioners recused himself due to prior contact with parties involved. Should the other two be unable to agree on a decision he will step in to break the tie.

Appellants presented to the Commissioners testimony on eel grass restoration efforts taking place by the Department of Natural Resources and impacts to safety and aesthetics by those opposed to the operation. It was stressed by appellants that the Shoreline Management Act does not give aquaculture priority or overriding preference to use of the shorelines, but is only one of may uses. It was also pointed out there are minimal benefits to growing geoduck, whether it be in the form of tax revenues or long term jobs, whereas recreational benefits are significant through such things as property taxes paid and taxes received on revenue from the rental of water craft for recreational use. Appellants summarized by saying that while aquaculture has a place in Washington, that place is not in Zangle Cove.

Of unique significance, a question by one of the Commissioners asked about the county's awareness - or lack thereof - of current and proposed geoduck operations in Thurston County. The appellant suggested that at a minimum, without permitting of all geoduck operations by the county, there is no way to know what sort of an overall impacts Thurston County's tidelands and waters are experiencing.

[Note: It was recently announced that Chelsea Sea Farms is proposing a 10 acre geoduck operation in Gallagher Cove. This farm's application was submitted to county staff on November 10 of last year, two months before the final hearing but was never mentioned by county staff. Information on that application is found on the Department of Ecology's SEPA website by clicking here.]

In response, applicants stressed the perceived importance of aquaculture over all other uses of waters and tidelands. They pointed out these were private tidelands, the eel grass present is a great distance from the proposed farm, a great deal of science has been created showing there is minimal impact to the environment, and that as proposed, industry's "best management practises" will mitigate other concerns. Finally, they stressed the SMA does not require a cumulative impacts analysis. [It should be noted a recent decision did affirm that in some cases a cumulative impacts analysis should be considered.] They concluded by noting the overwhelming number of comments are in opposition to the project and approval of the permit, but that is not a reason to deny the permit.

Testimony before the commissioners may be heard here:
http://www.co.thurston.wa.us/permitting/hearing/2014108800/bocc-appeal/170503_001.MP3

Letters and comments in opposition, as well as other exhibits, may be found on Thurston County's website, here:
http://www.co.thurston.wa.us/permitting/hearing/2014108800/townsend-jensen-appeal.html

Changing the Nature of Puget Sound: the impacts from industrial aquaculture

When: May 21, 12:30 pm to 5:30 pm
Where: 4450 Blakely Ave NE, Bainbridge Island, WA 98110
Registration: [click here] (Note: Space is limited so registration is required).

This may be good for a few corporations

and the very well off consumers in China,

but not for Puget Sound. Find out why.

The Association of Bainbridge Communities' annual Environmental Conference will cover the impacts to Puget Sound from industrial aquaculture. From the announcement:

"Speakers for this regional conference will cover ecosystem impacts, science and policy of aquaculture, legal aspects of the industry, food safety and health issues, problems with Atlantic salmon netpens, and experiences of neighbors living with this industry on their shorelines."

Agenda:

12:30 pm - Registration/Exhibits at IslandWood Welcome Center
1:00 pm - Introduction to Conference
1:10 pm - Overview of Impacts of Industrial Aquaculture
1:30 pm - Dispelling the Myths of Aquaculture
2:05 pm - Legal Aspects including Shellfish Initiative
2:35 pm - Regulatory Gaps in Permitting
3:00 pm - BREAK to visit exhibits
3:20 pm - Specific Aquaculture Topics: Atlantic Salmon Feedlots and Spraying and Health Issues
4:20 pm - Panel of Puget Sound Homeowners impacted by Industrial Aquaculture
5:20 pm - Next Steps: getting involved
5:30 pm - Adjournment

Monterey Bay Aquarium Drops Commercially Farmed Geoduck from Green "Best Choice" Category

Commercial Geoduck 

from Washington

Loses Certification

Commercially Farmed Geoduck From Washington Lose Monterey Bay Aquarium's Seafood Watch "Best Choice" Certification
Monterey Bay Aquarium's Seafood Watch has dropped commercially farmed geoduck from their green "Best Choice" category due to a "...heavy reliance on plastic tubing to protect growing geoduck clams, and a better understanding of the ecosystem impacts of this practice is needed." It was a move long in coming and a welcomed recognition that this form of aquaculture is, in fact, transformative to the tidelands of Puget Sound in which it is taking place. (Note: Taylor still notes geoduck as being a "Best Choice" on their website.)

Is "Farmed Responsibly" the same?

From one to the next.

Without Monterey Bay Aquarium's certification showing that commercially farmed geoduck grown in Washington's Puget Sound is a sustainable "Best Choice", Taylor Shellfish has now sought, and achieved, a certification of "farmed responsibly" from another body, the Aquaculture Stewardship Council (ASC). As with all standards bodies and their associated certifications, differences exist, and the two certifications are not equivalent.

Benchmarking ASC versus Monterey Bay Aquarium's Seafood Watch
In a 2012 evaluation of other certification bodies, ASC Bivalve (clam) standards did not meet the green, "Best Choice" level of Monterey Bay Aquarium's Seafood Choice. Below is the result from Monterey Bay's "Eco-certification Benchmarking Project" (page 7) which compared other certification bodies to Monterey Bay's Seafood Watch.

[Note: The ASC 'Bivalve Standard' used for certification was 'Version 1, dated January of 2012'. This was a certification standard which Bill Dewey, with Taylor Shellfish, played a direct role in developing.]

ASC versus Monetery Bay Aquarium's Seafood Watch (click to enlarge)

In addition to ASC, the other certification body which Taylor Shellfish also used, the Food Alliance, while higher than ASC, was still not able to achieve the "Best Choice" level of certification.

Food Alliance versus Monterey Bay Aquarium's Seafood Watch

Does it really matter? It should.

When testimony is given to Hearing Examiners about certifications to support permit applications, it should matter. At Tuesday's hearing for a geoduck farm permit in Puget Sound's Zangle Cove, Diane Cooper with Taylor Shellfish testified that all of their farms had been certified as being "sustainable" by ASC. Initially, Ms. Cooper was confused about what ASC stood for, telling the examiner it stood for "Aquaculture Sustainability Certification". She later corrected the description of what ASC actually stood for (Aquaculture Stewardship Council), but not that ASC only certified farms as being "responsible", not sustainable (from ASC's website: "ASC aims to be the world's leading certification and labelling programme [sic] for responsibly farmed seafood.")
(Hear Ms. Cooper discuss what she thought ASC stood for, here, at 20:28)

Moving aquaculture towards truly sustainable practices is a goal which all should support. Why a company moves from one certification body to another is something which should be looked at closely, whether you are a consumer or an agency listening to testimony. In this case, that Monterey Bay Aquarium's Seafood Watch has dropped commercially farmed geoduck from Washington from their green, "Best Choice" certification category, should not be masked by achieving certification from another body.

Reminder: January 17 - Hearing on Zangle Cove Geoduck Operation in Zangle Cove

Zangle Cove Hearing Continued to Tuesday, January 17, 2017 at 10 a.m.

Thurston County Courthouse 

Building One, Room 152

Click here for Agenda and map

Who is that "recreating" over my geoduck farm

and why are they "recreating" there?

Diane Cooper of Taylor Shellfish:

Clear evidence you can "recreate" over a geoduck farm.

(Exhibit submitted by shellfish attorneys in hearing.)

Better bring lunch and dinner to eat. 

The appeal of Thurston County's "Mitigated Determinatin of Non-significance" (MDNS) for a geoduck operation in the ecologically sensitive Zangle Cove, whose tidelands were not sold as being suitable for aquaculture, and the associated Shoreline Substantial Development Permit, continues January 17. Based on an email from the Hearing Examiner, it may be a marathon, stretching into the night, noting parties should "... arrange to be available into the evening as late as necessary." Bring food for the body.

Mental food for thought from a recently published court decision the shellfish industry attempted to prevent being published.
Appeals Court of Washington:
The SHB [Shorelines Hearings Board] concluded the permit did not appropriately balance statewide interests and was inconsistent with RCW 90.58.020

The SMA [Shoreline Management Act] is liberally construed "to give full effect to the objectives and purposes for which it was enacted." RCW 90.58.900. The essential purpose of the SMA is to protect the shorelines of the state because they are "among the most valuable and fragile of its natural resources." RCW90.58.020. Permitted shoreline uses must be designed and conducted in a manner that minimizes damage to the ecology, damage to the environment, and interference with the public's use of Washington's water. RCW 90.58.020.

Shorelines Hearings Board: There is more to the Shoreline Management Act than aquaculture.
" particular consideration must be given to balancing the interests of aquaculture as one statewide interest, with other statewide interests like the shoreline's ecological values and the public's recreational use"

25+ Acre Geoduck Farm: Comments on EIS scoping due November 8; Restoration of Burley Lagoon should begin.

EIS Scoping Comments Due Nov. 8

(click announcement below to enlarge)

This estuary is far

more than a receptacle 

for PVC pipe, plastic mesh and nets.

Comments Due November 8

Friends of Burley Lagoon have sent a reminder notice that comments on the required Environmental Impact Statement addressing the significant and adverse environmental impacts from a proposed 25 acre geoduck operation - and alternatives - in Burley Lagoon are due by November 8. The operation is proposed by Taylor Shellfish believing it is little more than a "conversion" and "intensification" of growing shellfish in Burley Lagoon.

Joan Thomas

1931-2011

“When the SMA was written in 1971, aquaculture meant oysters and clams and one salmon raising operation. This activity was recognized and protected as water-dependent. I do not read the original intent or the original guidelines to promote the industry as we know it today." Joan Thomas, 1991 (one of the original drafters of the Shoreline Management Act)

A small part of a far greater problem.

This proposed geoduck farm is a small part of a far greater transformation of an ecosystem into little more than an industrial operation which the shellfish industry continues to believe is a "preferred use" of Washington's critical marine habitat. In 1991, one of the original drafters of the Shoreline Management Act clearly stated that aquaculture then was not what it was in 1971, and should no longer be supported by the Shoreline Management Act. Fifteen years later the industrial impacts are far worse and far more pervasive. And the industry has far more money to promote their actions as being "in the state wide interest". They are not in the state-wide interest.

"Perhaps you'd like a smaller cup of bitters?" "It's still bitter." "But it's smaller."

Alternatives proposed by Taylor Shellfish include a 25 acre operation, a 17 acre operation, or continued use of netting over an ever expanding area in this ecologically sensitive body of water. No longer able to access a food source, migratory and resident water fowl have already diminished in numbers. Native mussels and barnacle encrusted rocks creating an ecosystem for native species have been cleared off and hauled away, with "predator nets" taking their place in order to grow non-native shellfish. The quiet and peace of night is now fractured by flood lights from large vessels dropping off and picking up large metal cages, driving wildlife away. 

Get involved.  The habitat alteration which occurs from geoduck operations should stop this from happening at all, at any size. In fact, the habitat destruction/alteration which occurs from current operations in this enclosed estuary should require an Environmental Impact Statement to be created. Nets now covering beaches which were cleared of any native structure should be restored. Any activity at night should cease. It's not grandpa's oyster farm anymore.

Governor Inslee: https://fortress.wa.gov/es/governor/
Legislative and Congressional contacts:
http://app.leg.wa.gov/DistrictFinder/

Mason County: Being involved makes a difference - SMP update changes are likely.

Next meeting: December 6, 9:30AM

Board Of County Commissioners chambers

411 N 5th St., Shelton

Send comments to: Rebecca Hersha at RebeccaH@co.mason.wa.us

See SMP Update information here: http://www.co.mason.wa.us/community_dev/shoreline_master_program/index.php

Lake Cushman Residents Paid Attention

Other Shoreline Owners? Maybe dormant.

At Mason County's first SMP update hearing before the Mason County Commissioners, shoreline owners along Lake Cushman showed up and made clear their displeasure of how seemingly similar shorelines were categorized so differently. As a result of their presence, verbal comments, and written comments, Mason County's planning department was told by the Commissioners to get staff to reconsider the proposal. An email sent by the head of planning noted:

The Board of County Commissioners has asked Staff to provide information regarding the Shoreline Environmental Designations at Lake Cushman, and to propose options for re-designating some of those areas. They have asked that this be ready for presentation and Commissioner deliberation at the December 6, 2016 public hearing.

Surprise! These tidelands were only "dormant".

No permit needed.

It shows why being involved in the political process matters. Rather than reading about it in the newspaper after the fact or being informed their neighbor's property would now allow an industrial activity to occur without a permit, they showed up and became involved to help shape the regulations.

Like Lake Cushman's shoreline, Mason County's tidelands are on the cusp of being reshaped and developed, with large areas being defined as having "existing aquaculture" even if none had occurred for over 100 years, thereby avoiding any permit requirements. Overnight, tidelands in a residential area may become little more than an industrial area with heavy machinery operating at any hour of the night and any structure - if related to growing shellfish - allowed.

If there is any doubt of what the impact may be like, one only need look to the east at Burley Lagoon to see what has occurred (click here for article on Burley Lagoon proposal). Metal crates creating navigational hazards are randomly placed throughout the area. Barges operate at all ours of the night drop off and retrieving the crates, delivering others from outside the area, all banging on the aluminum hulls. Floodlights shine into residential areas, and all form of wildlife is chased off. It being simply termed "intensification" and not expansion. In the case of Mason County, it would simply be called a "dormant" shellfish farm.

Oct. 25: Double Header - Pierce County (25 acre geoduck operation) and Mason County (Shoreline Master Program update)

Tuesay, October 25th, presents two significant shoreline regulation events for the public. Both occur at the same time and in different counties, one in Pierce County, the other in Mason County. Both will play large roles in determining what Puget Sound's tideland habitat supports in future generations: commercial operations or native species.

Burley Lagoon

When should "intensification" stop

and be put back in its box?

Location 1 (Pierce County/Taylor Shellfish 25 acre geoduck operation)
6PM
Peninnsula High School
14105 Purdy Drive NW
Gig Harbor, WA

In the first, Pierce County and Taylor Shellfish will present what they have been meeting about since 2014: The County's requirement* for Taylor Shellfish to develop an Environmental Impact Statement to address the significant and adverse impacts from a proposed 25 acre geoduck operation in Burley Lagoon. The public meeting will consist of an open house between 6 and 6:45, followed by a public meeting during which Taylor Shellfish and Pierce County will explain what they developed (over almost two years of meeting about the project) followed by the public being allowed to comment. [Note: Pierce County told citizens who wished to have a table for presenting information from their perspective they would not allow it.]

*The County's SEPA process found the environmental impacts significant, and concluded it should have a "Determination of Significance" requiring an EIS. Taylor says they offered to create the EIS. When asked by the press, the County said it was a mutual decision. Either way, the County has said they will be the lead agency responsible for its creation. How much Taylor directs the lead agency is unknown.

Overall, there are three alternatives which will be considered: a 25.5 acre operation; a 17 acre operation; or, continuation of manila, oyster and "scatter planted" geoduck. All 3 will consider the impacts on Burley Lagoon, currently experiencing what has been termed an "intensification" of aquaculture, beginning when Taylor Shellfish leased the tidelands from private owners. While there have been numerous disputes over whether aquaculture ever took place in the areas Taylor has expanded into, the County has allowed all to occur, except the proposed geoduck operation, with no permitting.

Mason County

How important is aquaculture?

Location 2 (Mason County's Shoreline Master Program Update)
6PM
Mason County's Building I 
Commission Chambers
411 North Fifth Street 
Shelton WA

In the second, Mason County's Shoreline Master Program Update will be presented to the County Commissioners with a recommendation they accept the update (click here for SMP information). The meeting begins at 6 with the Public Hearing portion beginning at 6:30. As with the Burley Lagoon project above, the shellfish industry has been intimately involved. In this case, development of the SMP update has had representatives from Taylor Shellfish and Arcadia Point Seafood on the Planning Advisory Commission since April of 2013.

As noted in earlier comments, Mason County's SMP update includes the following: Existing aquaculture activities include areas that are actively cultivated and/or dormant. Dormant areas include property that was acquired under the Bush or Callow acts of 1895... While Mason County has supported shellfish aquaculture in the past, this definition will open the door to aquaculture on the vast majority of tidelands sold in Mason County with apparently no county oversight or consideration to the fact that many tidelands sold for aquaculture were consequently abandoned and used instead to enhance the value of residential developments, becoming parts of upland parcels. Bulkheads, docks, accessory dwelling units, boat launches, or stairs are not afforded the same luxury.

October 17 - Hearing of an appeal of an environmental decision on a geoduck operation proposed by Taylor Shellfish

Update 10/14: Comments on the SEPA approval should be emailed to protectzanglecove@gmail.com for submission at Monday's hearing. Get involved.

Thurston County: Zangle Cove

October 17 a hearing on an appeal of an environmental decision approving a geoduck operation in Puget Sound's environmentally sensitive Zangle Cove will be held. The hearing begins at 10AM with legal presentations taking place between 10 and 2, and public comments scheduled for 3 [Note: Meetings sometimes run longer, sometimes shorter.] The examiner will hear from attorneys representing those who feel the decision did not fully consider all of the environmental impacts this operation will have and attorneys who feel there is no problem with the continued expansion of PVC tubes in Puget Sound.

Location: Heritage Hall, Expo Center - 3054 Carpenter Rd SE, Lacey

(Agenda and map of hearing's location may be found here: 

http://www.co.thurston.wa.us/permitting/hearing/2014108800/10.17.16.Hex.agenda.pdf)

Full information on the permit and documents submitted may be found here:

http://www.co.thurston.wa.us/permitting/hearing/2014108800/townsend-jensen-appeal.html

Comments may be mailed to: peterscs@co.thurston.wa.us 

or to Thurston County Commissioners: http://www.co.thurston.wa.us/bocc/

For additional information and how you can help, see:

https://www.facebook.com/protectzanglecove/

or
http://protectzanglecove.org/

Burley Lagoon: Pierce County Issues Decision on Taylor Shellfish 25 acre Geoduck Farm

Burley Lagoon's marine habitat 

should not be converted to

an industrial operation.

Pierce County has issued a Public Notice on its decision regarding a proposal by Taylor Shellfish to populate 25.5 acres in Burley Lagoon with over 1,000,000 PVC or mesh tubes, possibly covered with predator nets, needed in order to grow geoduck for the Chinese market. A "determination of significance" was issued due to the probable adverse impacts from an operation of such magnitude in an enclosed body of water. As a result an Environmental Impact Statement will be required. Pierce County is asking for comments on the scope of coverage by November 8 (click here for Public Notice and instructions on how to submit comments).

A 25 acre transformation of critical

marine habitat - for China.

Good for China. Bad for Puget Sound.

September 13, 1PM: Army Corps' Update on Regulatory Oversight

Update September 13: In January, Bill Dewey with Taylor Shellfish and Vicki Wilson inserted an absurd definition of what an "existing" aquaculture activity is into the proposed SMP update for Mason County. They defined an existing activity as being any tidelands sold in Washington under the 1895 Bush and Callow Act. Even if nothing was planted over 120 years ago. Politics pays and profits flow.

Paving a Fallow Brick Road 

With PVC and Plastic

Contact, by Monday afternoon, for Web and/or audio participation on September 13

Patricia Graesser, Public Affairs Chief

phone: (206) 764-3760
e-mail: patricia.c.graesser@usace.army.mil

Where are we and how did we get down this road?

September 13 the Army Corps of Engineers will hold a meeting to discuss their current situation as it relates to regulating the shellfish industry in Washington. A similar meeting was held on April 20 (click here for a pdf overview of that meeting).

The preliminary agenda is as follows:

1:00 p.m. Welcome By Col. John Buck, District Commander, Seattle District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
1:05 p.m. Brief overview of the Corps aquaculture regulatory program
1:15 p.m. Update on ongoing activities:
Status of the programmatic Endangered Species Act consultation for shellfish activities in Washington
Permit tools for 2017
Upcoming milestones and opportunities for involvement

• 1:45 p.m. Questions & Answers
• 2:45 p.m. Closing Remarks

Politics pays - and when you have lots of money it helps move the process in your direction

Related to the ongoing Army Corps' oversight of this industry which wishes to greatly expand its footprint in Puget Sound and elsewhere are Biological Opinions released by the US Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). In 2015 the Corps asked each to provide their opinions on information provided to them by the Corps, in turn largely provided by the shellfish industry, on whether acres of aquaculture proposed and anticipated would have an impact on Puget Sound's habitat and species of concern.

Zangle Cove: Fallow or never planted?

Not "historically used for aquaculture" as claimed

in a permit application for a new geoduck farm.

Fallow me down the golden brick road

A summary document explaining the past history, which in part exemplifies the challenges with gathering information from the shellfish industry, may be found by clicking here. One of the primary issues relates back to 2007 permits which included ‘areas that are periodically allowed to lie fallow as part of normal operations’ in the public notice. This gaping door left open, by not defining what "fallow" means, was taken full advantage of by the industry, claiming huge numbers of acres not planted currently were simply lying fallow, implying they had been used at some undefined time in the past. Current proposals for the Nationwide permits call for defining "fallow" as tidelands not having been planted for as long as 100 years. As seen below, this has led the Corps to believe over 14,000 acres not planted were not done so simply because they were "fallow".

Put on the BiOp focals to review the opinions

Currently, "fallow" areas are included in the information presented to FWS and NMFS, asking them to rely on that information and to issue opinions on what the Corps should do. Those Biological Opinions are located here:

Click here for NMFS Biological Opinion

Click here for FWS Bilogical Opinion

You're going to need these to get through those opinions.

Read along with me and get involved

Currently the Corps is in the process of reviewing the opinions submitted by FWS and NMFS. As it is unknown at this time whether any changes or refusals to accept what each say it is best not to comment. But what is clear is the Corps and services have been put under immense political pressure to help promote this industry. Good intentions can get lost when politics get involved. Hoping for the best when industry is driving a process will not result in the best interests of the public. Get involved. The shellfish industry is and what they want is not good for Puget Sound and species dependent on the integrity of its habitat.

Reminder: Comments on Nationwide Permits on Aquaculture Due August 1

[Update: The Coalition to Protect Puget Sound Habitat and Friends of Burley Lagoon have submitted comments which may be viewed here:

Coalition comments - https://app.box.com/s/b0hcwigv1ksuomjqgajtrwwt6b3sub4h

Burley comments - : https://app.box.com/s/ilx2d4esaxjztucxksz1rmmj3cyn2d81]

Lobbying Pays

Reminder: Comments on proposed Nationwide Permits for 2017 are due today. Changes to Nationwide Permit 48 which permits aquaculture activities (or not) are briefly discussed below. It is apparent the lobbyists have been active.

email: NWP2017@usace.army.mil
Include " COE–2015–0017" in the subject line.
Complete agency notice and reasoning is here:
http://www.usace.army.mil/…/nwp2017_proposed_fedreg_01june2…

[Note 1: Nationwide Permit 48 regulating aquaculture and proposed changes and reasoning is found on page 35202. A summary follows the end of this post.]

[Note 2: The Seattle District will add additional conditions in the near future, providing an additional opportunity to provide comments.]

"Hey now, just because this baby hasn't been 

driven in 20 years and it's over 30 years old

doesn't mean it's not as good as new. Right?"

The new new (or, what lobbying can buy you)

Proposed: "We are proposing to define a 'new commercial shellfish aquaculture operation’ as an operation in a project area where commercial shellfish aquaculture activities have not been conducted during the past 100 years."

Should an area in which some undefined form of "commercial aquaculture " occurred over the past 100 years be automatically approved? The shellfish industry has been lobbying intensely in Washington DC to lessen Army Corps oversight and to "..to further streamline the authorization process." Included is anything giving an operator a "...legally-binding agreement which establishes an enforceable property interest for an operator." [What does that mean? Does a 1901 tideland deed from the state of Washington create an enforceable property interest which can be passed on to an operator by a new owner?]

As noted, one of the results is to change the definition of what a "new commercial operation" is, pushing the "bar of activity" back 100 years. Is it realistic to say that because great-grandpa threw some shells on tidelands in 1930, but then stopped in 1950 when he died, that a geoduck farm proposed today by a new owner who holds a deed to the tidelands is not a "new commercial operation"?

As an added bonus, is this: " The presence of submerged aquatic vegetation should not prevent the use of NWP 48 to authorize commercial shellfish aquaculture..." Eelgrass? Not so important now. IF there is any questions on impact, PCN's "...should be EXPEDITIOUSLY reviewed by the district engineer." (Put another way, "Hurry up and approve it because I want to start dredging in eelgrass for oysters.")

As noted, the Washington shellfish industry has been busy lobbying in Washington DC and the results are apparent. Below is a brief summary of proposed changes. Details are at the link above.

Get involved. The shellfish industry is.

Summary of proposed changes to Nationwide Permit 48 (aquaculture):
Project areas include lands where
other legally binding agreements
establish enforceable property
interests. Define “new commercial
shellfish aquaculture operation”
as operating in an area where
such activities have not occurred
during the past 100 years.
Remove the PCN threshold for
dredge harvesting, tilling, or
harrowing in areas inhabited by
submerged aquatic vegetation.
Does not authorize activities that
directly affect more than 1/2-acre
of submerged aquatic vegetation
beds in an area that has not been
used for commercial shellfish
aquaculture during the past 100
years. PCN must include all
species that are planned to be
cultivated during the period the
NWP is in effect. PCN must
specify whether suspended
cultivation techniques will be used
and indicate the general water
depths in the project area.

It's Summer: Barges of PVC for Puget Sound's Tidelands to Grow Geoduck for China

The movie left an impression

on the young Governor.

(Pictures of PVC below from June 2016)

Barges of "totes" filled with PVC -

-destined for Puget Sound's tidelands.

Followed by bundles of PVC for the same.

Thank you Governor Inslee and Taylor Shellfish.

You've left a lasting impression

for your grandchildren.

June 20: Pierce County's Community Development Committee to Hear Dave Risvold's Update on Shoreline Master Program

Date:	June 20, 2016
Time:	1:30 PM
Location:	930 Tacoma Avenue South, Room 1045 Tacoma, WA 98402

On June 20th, Dave Risvold , Pierce County's Shoreline Planning Supervisor (email address drisvold@co.pierce.wa.us), will present information to the Community Development Committee (chaired by Derek Young, email: dyoung2@co.pierce.wa.us) related to the Shoreline Master Program (SMP) Update. The agenda and meeting material, when prepared, may be found on Pierce County's Community Development web page. (Note: At the time of this posting that information was not yet available.) The presentation will be archived and available later on PierceCountyTV.org. (Note: It is possible the presentation may be live.)

Day or night - the more the better.

Or is it?

See how and why people became involved.

The Department of Ecology has summarized comments on Pierce County's proposed SMP Update, received between March 15 and April 29, returning them to Pierce County for their response. Browsing the document, it is clear the shellfish industry continues its political press against regulatory oversight. It is also clear there is a large concern from citizens over this industry's lack in understanding they profit from a healthy Puget Sound, but that does not mean they should profit any way they wish to, just because Puget Sound is healthy.

What's the problem? Isn't advocating

for clean waters enough?

(June, 2016)

No, it's not.

Shellfish politics at its best - we don't like being regulated.

Contained within the summary of comments are concerns from Taylor Shellfish, their attorney Plauche and Carr, and Steve and Vicki Wilson (owners of Arcadia Point Seafood) that the proposed update does not promote development of aquaculture ("foster") as they would like.

(Note: Scan the summary for comments from number 12 to see law firm Plauche and Carr's concerns, and numbers 13, 21, 23, 110, 115 116, 121 and 122 for those submitted by Taylor Shellfish or in the name of Taylor Shellfish.)

Additional comments from the shellfish industry promote their belief that being "advocates for clean water" should allow placement of structures and conversion of tidelands to monolithic populations of shellfish, minimizing the reality of the point source of plastic pollution these operations have developed into. Turning their back to their promotion of pesticide and herbicide application into those same "clean" waters.

Industry also comments that regulatory oversight intended to protect the marine ecosystem they are transforming, which the Shoreline Management Act is meant to protect, is a "burden" to their plans for developments in the tidelands. Included are suggestions to minimize buffer widths intended to protect  native eelgrass, if an activity is related to aquaculture, but feeling larger buffers required for "all other activities" is fine. All the while believing their placement then removal at harvest of structures is somehow as beneficial as eelgrass.

The politics of Puget Sound and the Shoreline Management Act.
The Shoreline Management Act was passed by the legislature and approved by voters not to promote shellfish farming but to protect the shorelines of Puget Sound for everyone. Its intertidal area was never intended to become an area into which plastic structures could be placed anywhere at anytime. Yet this is how shellfish politics promotes it. Politics created the Shoreline Management Act. It will be politics which protects it or dismantles it. Get involved like those who commented have and make a difference.

Impact of Small and Micro Debris in Washington's Marine Waters

Growing Impacts from Debris

in Washington's Marine Waters

May 16, Sequim

The Clallam County Marine Resources Committee presents two speakers who have worked extensively on marine debris projects from 5-6:30 p.m. Monday, May 16, at the meeting room in the Sequim Library, 630 N. Sequim Ave.

Hillary Burgess, science coordinator at COASST, and Anne Murphy, retired executive director of the Port Townsend Marine Science Center, will present “Citizen Science and the Impact of Small and Micro Debris in Washington.”

The public is invited and encouraged to attend, and then consider whether proposals for geoduck farms and associated PVC and plastics are in the state-wide interest.

Is more of this...

...really good for anyone?

Get involved.

Lummi Tribe Objects to Coal Trains, Causing Corps to Reject Cherry Point Proposal

The Seattle PI writes on the Lummi Tribe forcing the Army Corps to reject the proposed Cherry Point coal terminal. To date the tribe has not objected to the ever expanding PVC and mesh tubes interfering with tribal fishing rights along the shorelines of Puget Sound.

Early Lummi Tribe

Geoduck Seed Hatchery

Look beyond the low tide line for alternatives.
Too bad the Lummi tribe doesn't sell their geoduck seed for replanting subtidal areas harvested by tribal members instead of for intertidal farms which require PVC and mesh tubes. Then, the Lummi may also have asserted their tribal fishing rights - and those of other tribes dependent on those rights - and objected to the current plans for increasing geoduck farm structures in the intertidal areas of Puget Sound which interfere with tribal fishing rights. That may have also caused the Corps to bring permitting of geoduck farms to a halt.

No Tribal Fishing

Allowed on this Beach

No fishing allowed. This beach is for geoducks sold to China, not tribal members to fish from.
PVC pipes and netting interfere with tribal fishing from the shoreline, and as more permits are approved for geoduck farms, less shoreline will be available for all tribes to exercise their tribal fishing rights. Requiring the state to replant subtidal areas stripped of geoduck - and providing an income stream for tribal members - has yet to be implemented.

Small steps.
Small steps taken sometimes get far distances. Were the Lummi and other northwest tribes to see the alternatives available to them they may one day also object to the ever expanding PVC and mesh tubes in the intertidal area which, step by step, are extinguishing their tribal rights to fish from the shores of Puget Sound.

Geoduck Farming: Can anyone do it? Thurston County believes so.

[Update 5/10: Comment information -

Comments on SEPA determination due May 17, 2016

Appeal deadline (must have submitted comment) May 24, 2016

Comments: Send to Tony Kantas

email: kantast@co.thurston.wa.us

Phone: 360-786-5472]

[Updated 5/9: Link to MDNS SEPA decision changed.]

Zangle Cove Geoduck Farm: One Step Closer
(see end of post for who to send comments to)

SEPA MDNS Decision Issued

Despite showing no evidence of shellfish farm management, let alone geoduck farming, Thurston County has issued a mitigated determination of non-significance SEPA decision on a geoduck farm proposal of Chang Mook Sohn's, manager of Pacific Northwest Aquaculture. Based only a description from an environmental firm describing how over 47,000 PVC tubes will be placed in a cove historically used for recreation, Thurston County believes the process to be simple enough anyone can do it, including Mr. Sohn.

Whose tidelands are they?

Thurston County appears not to care.

This "survey plan view" has been

challenged by neighbors whose

licensed surveyor disagrees with it.

Despite a clear dispute among tideland owners over who owns what in Zangle Cove, Thurston County has moved ahead with the SEPA MDNS decision. Without knowing clearly who is putting what where. While Mr. Sohn believes he owns over 1 acre of tidelands (seen above) a professional survey performed for adjacent property owners creates a much different picture, one which changes the assumptions found in the biological report used by Thurston County. More importantly, Thurston County's not requiring clarification of the question of who owns what tidelands creates the impression of accepting a challenged survey. 

State Sales of Tidelands Were Not All for Aquaculture

Wanting agencies to believe all tideland sales were for the purpose of aquaculture has been a falsehood presented by the shellfish industry. In fact, the majority of tideland sales in Puget Sound were not for the purpose of growing shellfish, but to guarantee access to the water at low tide. Even the majority of tidelands which were sold for the purported purpose of growing shellfish were never put in "production" and were, instead, parceled into many small divisions attached to upland parcels of land as subdivisions were created. Not for future shellfish growing but to guarantee access to the water at low tide for upland parcel owners. Currently, the shellfish industry has pressed a belief on agencies that any tidelands sold and not in "production" were merely "lying fallow" and should not require additional permitting. This is the case in Zangle Cove, where tidelands were specifically sold as not being suitable for shellfish cultivation.

Does this mean tidelands are now 

"suitable for cultivation" of shellfish?

And should anyone be allowed to try?

Placing 40,000 PVC tubes/acre to grow geoduck for the elite in China, at the expense of Puget Sound's critical marine habitat, should not be allowed to turn tidelands sold for recreational purposes into the mess it has become. Especially if someone has no demonstrable experience, and even more so, when those with experience cannot prevent PVC and plastics from polluting Puget Sound.

Comments on SEPA determination due May 17, 2016

Appeal deadline (must have submitted comment) May 24, 2016

Comments: Send to Tony Kantas

email: kantast@co.thurston.wa.us

Phone: 360-786-5472