Illegal Clam Harvest in Pierce County

A truck full of bad clams.

KIRO 7 reports that an illegal clam harvest was discovered with 1,400 pounds of clams being confiscated and destroyed. Based on closure maps from DOH, the parcel(s) involved were near Penrose Sate Park, in the area of Lakebay Marina. Who the owner and operator (reportedly from Shelton) were was not reported. Nor was whether prior harvesting had been going on and whether illegally harvested clams may have entered the distribution channel.

(From Pierce County's Public GIS  

and the Department of Health's 

"Penrose Point Annual Report")

Washington Court of Appeals Agrees to Publish Decision Supporting Permit Denial of Geoduck Operation

The Coalition to Protect Puget Sound Habitat has released a statement about the Washington Court of Appeals agreeing to publish their decision which affirmed a Shorelines Hearings Board permit denial for a geoduck operation in Pierce County. Despite immense sums of money having been spent by the shellfish industry for attorneys, expert witnesses, and even political donations in support of a Pierce County attorney running for mayor of Gig Harbor, and a final attempt by the industry to claim the decision had little in the way of public interest, the panel of judges agreed to publish their ruling.
Read decision in support of denying permit here:
https://app.box.com/s/rgjvffsgdrklchytus6uwy7chmtljv56
Read decision agreeing to publish here:
https://app.box.com/s/ww0vd3g2r648hjugljqg3v8xk7mgsc50

Dear Interested Parties,

The Coalition to Protect Puget Sound Habitat is pleased to announce that the Washington State Court of Appeals has granted our motion to publish the Detienne Shoreline Hearings Board win that will serve to protect our marine critical habitat, eelgrass, forage fish, the public's right for safe recreation/windsurfing and the need for cumulative impacts analysis..

The Washington State Court of Appeals, Division 1 decision affirmed the Shorelines Hearings Board (SHB) decision to deny the 5 acre geoduck aquaculture permit in Henderson Bay/Pierce County.  The Court of Appeals stated: 

1.  "We conclude the SHB did not err in concluding the Coalition met its burden of proving the permit buffers did not adequately protect eelgrass from adverse impacts in violation of the SMA (Shoreline Management Act) and Pierce County SMP (Shoreline Master Program).".. The Coalition relied on the FSEIS buffer to argue the buffers approved by the Hearing Examiner were inadequate. The FSEIS identifies the need for a "2-foot vertical buffer or a minimum of 180-foot horizontal buffer" between eelgrass and geoduck harvest areas to protect eelgrass."

"The SHB found that while Meaders (industry expert) "is knowledgeable of the geoduck industry and science underlying aspects of industry practices," she was not "a credible expert in all aspects of study related to the nearshore environment to which she claimed expertise."

2. "Evidence presented at the hearing showed there are potential adverse impacts to critical habitat."

3.  "Because the consideration of a cumulative impact analysis prior to approval of the permit is consistent with the purpose of the SMA and clearly furthers the goal of the SMA to prevent "uncoordinated and piecemeal development,"the SHB did not err in concluding consideration should be given to preparing a cumulative impacts analysis."

4.  "De Tienne contends the SHB decision is not timely..... Because de Tienne stipulated to consolidation of the petition he filed on June 28, 2013 and there is no dispute the SHB extended the time period for good cause for an additional 30 days, the SHB complied with the time limits of the statute."

If you have any questions, please feel free to contact us.

Sincerely,

Laura Hendricks

Director, Coalition To Protect Puget Sound/Habitat

(253) 509-4987

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.

Key Penninsula Advisory Commission Votes Against Taylor Shellfish Proposal of 3 New Geoduck Farms

May 18, the Key Peninsula Advisory Commission (KPAC) voted against recommending approval of 3 new geoduck farms proposed by Taylor Shellfish on south Puget Sound's Case Inlet. Taylor Shellfish found strong opposition from citizens opposed to the continued expansion of this form of aquaculuture, along with pointed questions from KPAC members asking at what point too many is too much. In the end, KPAC voted not to recommend approval.

This is not how Puget Sound

should be viewed.

Lots of little problems add up to big ones.
Puget Sound is not made up of discrete fish bowls. Yet, that is exactly how the shellfish industry wants regulatory agencies to view it. Studies looking at individual farms are brought out over and over to support expansion, one farm at a time, ignoring the dynamic and cohesive ecosystem of south Puget Sound. Calls for cumulative impacts are met by shellfish attorneys claiming agencies may only look at each farm individually. It ignores the contiguous and continuous ongoing impacts, cycle after cycle, this growing industry is creating, fracturing the cohesiveness which exists within the intertidal area of south Puget Sound. A cohesiveness the Shoreline Management Act was intended to protect.

This fish bowl is already cracked. Should we be forced to buy another?

Existing farms where these 3 new farms are proposed already have problems. Sediment deposition has buried nets and "flow through mesh tubes" which create an entire set of impacts not considered. As seen in the first picture below, removing nets buried in sediments is not as simple as pulling them out. "Flow through" mesh tubes, intended to replace PVC tubes, are buried and disappearing from sight. When they have to be removed, what will be their impact on the area? Contiguous upland parcels have apparent permit violations. Should new permits be granted while possible violations are being investigated? Some at Pierce County believe they are separate, so don't matter. They do matter.

Digging for geoduck? No, nets

which shifting sediments have buried.

How many tidal cycles to fill this hole?

 Flow through mesh tubes

buried in the sands of time.

Out of site out of mind?

The "Shellfish Initiative" is not the Shoreline Management Act, passed by the legislature and approved by the people. It is nothing more than a strategic marketing plan.

A strategic marketing plan is not a mandate to be forced onto agencies in support of expansion. Yet that is exactly what the shellfish industry presents it as. Unlike the Shoreline Management Act which was passed by the legislature and approved overwhelmingly by Washington's citizens, the "initiative" was dreamed up by the industry and its attorneys as a means to promote its expansion (see Shellfish Politics, Shellfish Initiatives, and the Shoreline Management Act  from 2013 for a history of the National and State initiatives). To believe it should force agencies to approve new projects shows a lack of insight by regulatory agencies.

Get involved. Industry is and they are not giving agencies the entire picture of what they want.

These three farms proposed were known of in 2013 when leases with the property owners were signed. Yet throughout recent permit hearings they were not disclosed. What else is not being told by the industry? Get involved. 

Taylor Shellfish Proposes to More than Double Stratford/Meyer Geoduck Farm, Known Since 2013

Shorelines Hearings Board Needs to Ask the Right Questions

or

Who's Testimony is Really Reliable?

(One of 3 leases executed in April of 2013)

Background - Not Disclosed

In April of 2013, Taylor Shellfish executed 3 separate leases with private tideland owners in Pierce County which would more than double in size their Stratford-Meyer geoduck farm. The farm is located to the south of the recently approved "Haley/Seattle Shellfish/Taylor Shellfish" geoduck farm and north of Herron Island along the shoreline of Case Inlet. (The original farm has operated since the mid-2000's.)

Background - An appeal of Haley/Seattle Shellfish/Taylor Shellfish decisions and belief a cumulative impacts analysis should be required.

One year later, in May of 2014, the Coalition to Protect Puget Sound Habitat appealed a permit approved by Pierce County and an associated mitigated determination of non-significance (MDNS) decision. In the initial hearing before the Hearing Examiner, affidavits were submitted to Pierce County by representatives of Taylor Shellfish and Seattle Shellfish stating no additional farms "abutting the Haley Farm" were proposed. Pierce County's staff noted "no applications for nearby farms were pending before the County." No mention of plans for the Stratford-Meyer farm to more than double in size was made, a plan known in April of 2013 if not sooner. In October of 2014 the Hearing Examiner denied the appeal of the MDNS and approved the permit. The appeal to the Shorelines Hearings Board was denied and the permit, with conditions, was approved in May of 2015.

Why an analysis was not required.

The SHB noted "Pierce County has no pending aquaculture applications between the county line to the north and Herron island to the south." Taylor Shellfish's Diane Cooper submitted an email from the Corps stating it only had "...2 pending applications in all of Pierce County for geoduck farms." (They were not for the 3 leases signed in 2013). Disclosure of the 3 executed leases for tidelands north of Herron Island, south of the "Haley" farm, was not made.

Was Pierce County's testimony really that reliable?

In its decision, the SHB found Pierce County's "testimony" to be the "most reliable" which lead it to believe there was no need for a Cumulative Impacts Analysis and the Coalition had "...failed to prove that there will be adverse impacts from the Haley farm, along with other existing aquaculture and reasonably foreseeable aquaculture in the vicinity of the Haley Farm." (p. 32 SHB decision) 

Current permit application (at least what's known) March 23, Pierce County announced Taylor Shellfish intended to more than double in size its Haley/Stratford geoduck farm, using leases it had executed in 2013. It will accept comments through April 19, by 5PM (See permit application announcement here)

True, but not the complete story. What else is there?

 "Additionally, the Applicant provided affidavits by Cooper and Gibbons, speaking on behalf of Taylor and Seattle Shellfish, respectively, indicating “No plans to operate any additional shellfish aquaculture farms abutting the Haley Farm.” Further, the MDNS and staff report considered aquaculture activities adjacent to or abutting the proposed site, noting that no aquaculture activity occurs within 4,300 feet of the Haley site and no applications for nearby farms were pending before the County."

Size is a relative term - and like geoducks, it just keeps getting larger and larger, overwhelming south Puget Sound.

In the October 2014 decision, the Hearing Examiner noted the Haley/Seattle Shellfish/Taylor Shellfish geoduck farm was "in proportion" to the area proposed. Currently, Taylor Shellfish is also proposing an additional 25 acre geoduck operation in nearby Burley Lagoon, also in Pierce County. More importantly, the University of Washington recently released a study stating a mere increase of ~3 acres to ~7 acres of geoduck farming in the Central Basin of Puget Sound would cause significant adverse impacts. The UW wrote, "Gear...Impacts Ecosystem If Farming Increases." If only 7 acres in the Central Basin causes impacts, what will the current proposals in south Puget Sound do?

"The scale of aquaculture operations shall be in proportion with the surface area and configuration of the affected water body. The proposed site is not within a constricted waterway, but along the shore of Case Inlet. Case Inlet is long and wide and the proposed farm, even at 11 acres, is within an appropriate scale for such a water body, even considering other aquacultural activity in Case Inlet." (p. 28, Hearings Examiner Decision, October 2014)

Get involved. Pierce County is accepting comments now.

Burley Lagoon: Demand Letters Sent to Pierce County and Washington State Attorney General From Coalition Attorney

If you ignore them they will not go away,

they will only become more focused.
 

 In the beginning:

"The purpose of this letter is to request that the Pierce County government [and Washington Attorney General] take action to strictly enforce current Pierce County regulations which prohibit any aquaculture activities on the shorelines of the State without a valid permit, and to impose the appropriate penalties that both State laws and Pierce County -regulations require, including prosecution of responsible Taylor Shellfish Company and/or its employees for a criminal misdemeanor pursuant to RCW 90.58.212." November 18, 2014 letter to Pierce County and Washington's Attorney General from Mr. Tienson

Demands for action will not go away

The Coalition to Protect Puget Sound Habitat, Friends of Burley Lagoon, and concerned individuals have had their attorney send letters to the Washington Attorney General Bob Ferguson, Pierce County Prosecuting Attorney Mark Lindquist, and Pierce County Executive Pat McCarthy  demanding action be taken against Taylor Shellfish's unauthorized and unpermitted activities which have been occurring in Burley Lagoon since April of 2012. The letters were written by attorney Thane Tienson, with the law firm of Landeye Bennett Blumstein in Portland, Oregon, and detail how Pierce County has turned a blind eye to citizens' complaints about Taylor Shellfish greatly expanding operations within Burley Lagoon. (attachments referenced in the letters above are found here; individual letters are found by clicking on links above)
 

You wouldn't question grandfather would you?

When Pierce County was asked to produce permits which allowed Taylor Shellfish to expand activities within Burley Lagoon, Pierce County responded: "There are no formal permits to produce as this has been a use that has been grandfathered." For reasons detailed in the demand letters, Mr. Tienson states: "Only the first portion of this statement from PALS is supported by the facts..." (no permits). All Pierce County has on record of something being "grandfathered" is a 1988 letter written to tideland owner Mr. Yamashita (Western Oyster Company) which described "floating oyster culture." However, the letter also states: "should Western Oyster wish to expand the operation in Burley Lagoon, Pierce County will require the obtaining of all shoreline permits and approvals."

 

Just because your car had a current license when you parked it in a garage 5 years ago doesn't mean it's current now.

In December of 2007 Western Oyster stopped reporting any shellfish harvests to Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, something it had done on a regular monthly basis between 1986 and December of 2007, after which nothing harvested from Burley Lagoon was reported until 2012, then by Taylor Shellfish. Washington law is clear in requiring shellfish growers to report their harvests, including registered farm numbers, names of shellfish harvested, and the amounts harvested. Mr. Tienson also notes Washington and County regulations are clear in stating if a "nonconforming use activity ceases for more than one year, any restarting of that activity requires issuance of a new permit under any new rules that thereafter were adopted (WAC 173-27-080; PCC 20.72.060)." Western Oyster ceased reporting any harvests after 2007. Taylor Shellfish cannot, 5 years later, start up a nonconforming activity without permits.

 

He waved his arm and said this is what you are buying. Oops, he didn't own it to sell.

When Taylor Shellfish was found to be growing geoduck on state tidelands in Totten Inlet which it didn't own, they claimed the seller of the tidelands told them it was theirs to sell. This excuse was dismissed by the Attorney General. Likewise, Taylor Shellfish cannot now claim they were an "innocent purchaser" under PCC 18.140.023(D) when they began leasing tidelands in Burley Lagoon.

 

We're just making it disappear or look different, so we don't need a permit.

Part of Taylor Shellfish's unpermitted operations in Burley Lagoon included dismantling many of the >45,000 square feet of floats in Burley Lagoon and replacing a minor amount. Taylor Shellfish did not have the luxury of simply telling Pierce County it was "still within the footprint and use of the historical exemptions." As Mr. Tienson's letter shows with clarity, any exemption which may have existed ended long ago. Pierce County chose not to act, despite citizen complaints of unpermitted activities.

 

Pierce County's gumshoe investigation, without shoes (or gum?).

In June of 2014, Pierce County concluded its investigation of complaints from citizens about Taylor Shellfish's unpermitted activities in Burley Lagoon. At its foundation lay the belief that Taylor Shellfish was already authorized to be in the Lagoon. Had the investigator put on his shoes and taken a walk he would have discovered, for reasons detailed in Mr. Tienson's letter, that Taylor Shellfish had no authorization, permits, nor use rights of any nature to be operating as they were and still are.

 

In the end
In summation, Mr. Tienson ends with this closure:
"In sum, Taylor Shellfish has no authorization or valid permits of any sort which would authorize it to be in Burley Lagoon for any reason, let alone for a large industrial-scale commercial geoduck farm. Pierce County Code and Washington State laws demand that its unlawful operations and activities be halted immediately, that it be required to remove its equipment and materials and floats from the Lagoon, and allow the Lagoon to begin the slow process of recovering to its original condition. Costs for the Lagoon's recovery should be borne by Taylor Shellfish, as required by PCC 18.140.050(G).

 

"Finally, since Taylor Shellfish is in violation of several provisions of State and County law. We also request that any evaluation activity by PALS personnel on Taylor Shellfish's geoduck permit application that is currently under review be halted immediately."

 

It is called Puget Sound, not Taylor Shellfish Sound for a reason

Puget Sound is a treasure providing habitat for a diversity of species, some found only in the northwest. It was not meant to be a habitat for a few large companies to transform, used to create a treasure chest for themselves.






 

Pierce County Planning: If you ignore them they will go away.



"There is no record of what they [Taylor Shellfish] are authorized to do.  It is apparent to the several hundred residents living along the shoreline of the Lagoon that what is happening now is far in excess of what used to be happening under the previous operations." Burley Lagoon to Pierce County Planning

 

"Taylor believes they are authorized to be in the Lagoon."

Pierce County to Burley Lagoon resident 

 

Copied below is a letter sent to Pierce County council members challenging them on what seems to be an inability to answer a very simple question: What exactly is Taylor Shellfish authorized to do on Burley Lagoon? Based on the lack of response, Pierce County appears to believe that if you "ignore those complaining and they will go away." Pierce County is mistaken.

From:
Ned Quistorff
P.O. Box 624
Fox Island, WA 98333
253-466-1143
nedquistorff@hotmail.com

12 August 2014
To:

Pierce County Executive Ms. Pat McCarthy

County-City Building

Room 737

930 Tacoma Ave. S.

Tacoma, WA 98402-2100

Dear County Executive McCarthy:

The ecological health of Burley Lagoon is being systematically ruined, with no regard for future environmental consequences. We have watched this process go on for over a year, and for over a year we have made repeated attempts to get a Pierce County official, any official, to tell us what it is that Taylor Shellfish is authorized to do in the Lagoon. We do not believe that what they are doing is in compliance with State and County law. Therefore, as we have been unable to get any kind of response from any official, we, in desperation, look to you for an answer.

Over a year ago, Burley Lagoon residents living along the shoreline became aware of an increasing volume of activity around the old oyster floats at the south end of the Lagoon by employees of Taylor Shellfish, which had leased the whole Lagoon from Western Oyster Company. There was also an increase in the size and number of crews that were working on the Lagoon bottom, scraping away shells, sand dollars and other materials, loading them into large wire mesh crates and moving them away to an undetermined location. In some cases, the crates were left on the Lagoon bottom awaiting then next tide, but in being there were potential navigation hazards during the tidal flow. Significant portions of the Lagoon bottom were also being covered with nets. None of this was similar to what Western Oyster had been doing.  

One resident wrote to the Pierce County Director of Planning and Land Services requesting a clarification of what was happening, and on 29 May 2013 received a response which contained a copy of a letter and a site plan, issued in 1988 by Pierce County to Eiichi Yamashita of Western Oyster. The 1988 letter advised Mr. Yamashita that his "floating oyster culture" was eligible for "grandfathered" status, but that any additional activity would require him "to obtain all required permits and approvals." 

The PALS Director went on to state to the Lagoon resident that the 1988 letter and site plan showed the extent of the "granted non-conforming rights." However, in reading the 1988 letter, it only grants "grandfathered" status to the "floating oyster culture," and not to any activity on the rest of the Lagoon. The 1988 letter is very specific that any additional activity in the Lagoon beyond the "floating oyster culture" would require shoreline permits and approvals.  

We were advised that the only way to get a determination from the County of what exactly Taylor Shellfish was authorized to do was to file a complaint with Pierce County Responds (PCR). We did so beginning on 16 September 2013, and it was officially received by Pierce County Public Works on 25 September 2013. The description we provided in the complaint described Taylor's increased activity and materials removal, and contained the following statements:

"There is no record of what they are authorized to do. It is apparent to the several hundred residents living along the shoreline of the Lagoon that what is happening now is far in excess of what used to be happening under the previous operations."

A meeting was held with the PCR investigator on 1 October 2013, at which time we delivered to him all materials we had managed to locate which pertained to the Burley Lagoon situation. We had not located anything which indicated that any permit had been granted to any party for aquaculture. Two geoduck raising applications were filed on 26 April 2011, but they were withdrawn on 11 September 2012, and no new application for any sort of activity has been filed with PALS until 29 May 2014. On that date, Taylor Shellfish submitted an application to establish a 25 acre geoduck operation in the Lagoon.

 

It should be noted that, in early March 2012, Taylor Shellfish signed a 20-year lease with Western Oyster for the use of the whole Lagoon. They also announced publically their intention of using the Lagoon to grow geoduck clams. It is therefore possible to conclude that the dramatic increase in activity since Taylor Shellfish took on the lease was directed at preparations for installing their geoduck facility. However, Pierce County Code Title 18.140.030 specifically forbids engaging in any regulated activity before receiving an approved permit. Taylor Shellfish has been engaging in a regulated activity without a permit for more than one year.

 

Between October 2013 and June 2014, we maintained contact with the Pierce County Responds investigator with regular requests for the status of the investigation. In virtually every one of our dozens of communications, we repeated the phrase "What exactly is Taylor Shellfish authorized to do on Burley Lagoon?" We have never received an answer, or even an acknowledgement of the question, from any of the several Pierce County officials with whom we have raised this issue. The closest we have heard to an explanation for what they are doing there is "Taylor believes they are authorized to be in the Lagoon." It is not clear how whatever a private company believes could be a substitute for a specific legal County government authorization, but that is exactly what appears to have happened.

 

Regrettably, throughout the nine-month investigation, the primary critical question was ignored. The investigator refused the participation of Lagoon residents in his initial meeting with Taylor representatives, residents who could have told him how much different the activity has become. Every attempt was made to turn the investigation into seeking an answer to "is what is happening now the same as what was happening when Western Oyster was in operation?" The fact that there is no existing County authorization for any of the sea bottom modification activities was never addressed. Consequently, Taylor Shellfish continues to operate in the Lagoon without any apparent permit or known authorization from the County government, other than what they believe.

 

Pierce County Responds issued their report on 10 June 2014, in which the investigator concluded that there had been no violation of Pierce County Code in any of the activities they had examined. In no place did the report attempt to determine if Taylor Shellfish had ever been authorized to be there in the first place. The only action taken on reports of navigation hazards or netting placed on the sea bottom was to indicate that the information had been forwarded to other agencies. The report also concluded that there was no evidence that Taylor Shellfish intended to plant geoduck clams in the Lagoon, and then immediately acknowledged that Taylor had submitted an application to do just that.

 

As you may have noted in our earlier e-mail (Record of Meeting: 28 July 2014, forwarded to your office on 12 August 2014) we have already raised the issue with the Pierce County Council, in order to make them aware of this situation. We had also earlier raised the issue with Planning and Land Services, but were advised that PALS only dealt with reviewing and issuing permits, and that Pierce County Responds was the appropriate office for addressing our question. Since the answer we have been given by the PCR investigation report is inadequate, we are left with no alternative than to appeal to you for assistance in answering the question:

 

What has the Pierce County Government authorized Taylor Shellfish to do in Burley Lagoon?

 

Over the past year, we have participated in several aspects of the shoreline permit review process, including public hearings and appeals. We have always been impressed with the rigor and expert attention to critical details that has been exhibited by the various staff members involved in reviewing and approving the shoreline permit applications. Thus, we do not understand why, after a year of trying, we have still not been able to get a response to the question of what Taylor Shellfish is authorized to do on Burley Lagoon, from the very organization responsible for issuing shoreline development permits.

 

Thank you for your help.

 

Sincerely,

 

Ned Quistorff

 

cc:

Councilmember Dan Roach

Councilmember Rick Talbert

Councilmember Joyce McDonald

Councilmember Jim McCune

Councilmember Stan Flemming

Councilmember Douglas Richardson

Councilmember Connie Ladenburg

 

Pierce County Announces Hearing Schedules for Joint Seattle Shellfish/Taylor Shellfish "Haley" Geoduck Farm

The geoduck money machine just keeps rolling along.

 

Haley (Almond Roca) Family and

Seattle Shellfish/Taylor Shellfish Family

Geoduck Farm Hearings Scheduled

"Haley Farm" Proposal Continues Relentless

Expansion of Geoduck Farming into

Pristine South Puget Sound Tidelands

 



Shoreline Substantial Development Permit and MDNS Appeal

Contact: Pierce County Planner - Ty Booth

tbooth@co.pierce.wa.us

"Haley" Geoduck Farm Permit Hearings Scheduled

August 19, 2014 at 6:30PM (Shoreline Permit only)

Pre-hearing with the Key Peninsula Advisory Commission

17010 S Vaughn Road KPN

Vaughn, WA (near Gig Harbor)

 

September 17, 2014 at 9AM (Shoreline Permit and MDNS Appeal)

Permit Hearing w/Pierce County Hearing Examiner

Planning Meeting Room

2401 South 35th Street

Tacoma, WA

(Public Services Building annex, south entrance)

 

Parcels proposed for planting

11 acres

 

"Haley" Geoduck Farm Hearing

The Substantial Shoreline Development Permit hearing for a geoduck farm on tidelands owned by Seattle Shellfish and the Taylor Shellfish family, with adjacent tidelands owned by the Haley family has been scheduled before the Hearing Examiner on September 17, where the appeal to the SEPA MDNS determination will also be heard.  KPAC will have a separate hearing on August 19. The 11 acre site will be one of the largest new farms proposed with portions planted over a period of years. As Pierce County's Biologist noted in a letter last year:

About half the farm (5 acres) will be netted the first year, with the second half netted the second year. By the end of year two, eleven acres of netting will be present. All eleven acres will remain netted through the end of year three (likely longer if nets remain within the first area after the tubes are removed). So, potentially, for twelve to 18 months, eleven acres of shoreline will be under netting.

New geoduck farm proposals and leases

throughout south Puget Sound

under old Shoreline Master Programs

in three separate counties.

(see bottom of post for closer views)

 

Continued push to expand into south Puget Sound under the old shoreline master programs 

This geoduck farm proposal continues the push by geoduck farmers into the pristine tideland areas of south Puget Sound. Included as reasons for the press to expand operations before new and updated shoreline plans come into effect are that the new updated Shoreline Master Programs will require Conditional Use Permits, under which cumulative impact analysis will be required. At this point in time, there has been little to no consideration of the scale of tideland transformation which is occurring. In addition, new leases are being sought out as the current owners of geoduck companies do not have any more tidelands to develop. Only state, county and private party tidelands are now available to expand into.

[Note: On a separate matter, Washington's Department of Fish and Wildlife is involved in updating its Hydraulic Code for the nearshore environment. It is accepting comments until August 15. For more information, see Sound Action's web site for details on what is proposed and how to comment.]

 

Ignore this picture. Tubes create habitat,

at least for a year. The rest of the time,

not so much.

Chelsea Farms Geoduck Harvest

 

SEPA MDNS Appealed by Coalition to Protect Puget Sound Habitat - appeal to be heard at September 17 hearing.

Pierce County has issued a mitigated determination of non-significance SEPA determination on the Haley Farm. This MDNS determination has been appealed by the Coalition to Protect Puget Sound Habitat. That appeal and associated documents may be found by clicking here. The appeal

is based in part on the lack of any meaningful cumulative impacts analysis which considers the transformation of tidelands which is occurring on a scale never considered.

Geoduck farm's PVC pipes,

44,000 per acre.

 

It's not grandpa Taylor's shellfish farm anymore
Geoduck farming is not what aquaculture was when the Shoreline Management Act was passed in 1972. While aquaculture then may have reasonably been considered a "preferred use" of Puget Sound's tidelands, the methods and scale of operations today was never anticipated. The shellfish industry continuing to cloak their operations under reports generated by industry paid "scientists" presented by well paid attorneys has been, to date, very successful. It will continue to be so unless people become involved.

It's not PVC, it's "structure" for seaweed,

barnacles and crabs (shellfish industry

spokeswoman). At least for a year.

After a year, where does that PVC "habitat"

go when it's removed from the tidelands?

 

Mason County, Thurston County and Pierce County are all updating their Shoreline Master Programs - shellfish attorneys are helping to rewrite those regulations.
Pierce County  - Pierce County could help the process by updating when their public meetings will be going on. The current site did not note the most recent meeting nor the upcoming meeting. Current amendments which have been acted on may be found by clicking here.
Thurston County has begun the formal process but is not as far along as the others. However, the shellfish industry is most certainly working behind the scenes. The county's SMP update information may be found by clicking here. Until then, individual permits will be required. Neighbors should contact each other and their representatives to form a united front.
Mason County has been working on their update for some time now, with direct involvement from Arcadia Point Seafood and Taylor Shellfish for over 2 years now. The SMP update has not yet been approved. It may be found by clicking here. County Commissioners will be asked to vote on the proposed plan at some point, after which Ecology will consider their plan.

A transformation of Puget Sound's tidelands is occurring and it is occurring on a scale not seen before. Below are closeup photos of areas where new geoduck farms are currently being proposed. More on just around the corner.

 

30 acres - Taylor Shellfish

in Burley Lagoon

Pierce County

(Just another shellfish farm.)

 

~17 acres surveyed in Fishtrap loop cove

by Taylor Shellfish, geoduck leases

signed by some, opposed by others.

Thurston County

(Where do survey lines go?)

 

Sohn Realty on Zangle Cove has signed

a lease for a geoduck farm with

Arcadia Point Seafood. Acreage is unknown

as a survey is in progress.

Thurston County

(Will that help sell real estate?)

 

20+ acres - Seattle Shellfish lease

from Mason County, adjacent

to McMicken Island State Park

Mason County

(Will that help the state park?)

 

11 acres - Seattle Shellfish/Taylor Shellfish/Haley

"Haley" geoduck farm proposed

Pierce County

 

 

 

 

Burley Lagoon: Comments on Taylor Shellfish 25+ Acre Geoduck Farm Due July 3

Taylor Shellfish Proposal

Comments on the proposed 25+ acre geoduck farm by Taylor Shellfish are due July 3, by 4:30 (see earlier post here).
Comments Due July 3, 4:30 P.M.

Must include permit number SD/CP15-14 and Applicant, Taylor Shellfish – Western Oyster

Properties LLC aka Burley Lagoon
Attn: Ty Booth, Senior Planner
tbooth@co.pierce.wa.us 253-798-3727

Planting Schedule

(click to enlarge)

 

Add ingredients and stir continuously

As seen in the image from the Environ's "Habitat Review" submitted to Pierce County, Taylor Shellfish intends to plant areas on a 3 year cycle, although Environ notes it would "vary, depending on site and seasonal conditions." Tubes would be placed on 12.2" centers and left for "one to two growing (years). Because there is no clearly fixed time frame there may be over 1 million tubes and 25 acres of netting at times. Tubes would then be pulled and either re-used or somehow "disposed of." Harvesting will occur at undefined schedules, based on market conditions. Both "dry" and underwater harvesting will occur, both stirring the sediments of Burley Lagoon. As it is a low flushing body of water the waters will remain clouded with sediments for an unspecified time.

 

Burley Lagoon Is not Case Inlet

 

Isn't it all the same? Really?

Within Environ's "Habitat Review" an attempt to paint this project as being nothing different is created. Studies of various subtidal and intertidal operations are referenced, all being in open bodies of water where current flow and dynamics are far different than the enclosed body of Burley Lagoon. Environ goes so far as to state this is only a "change in culture practices" and "because it [Burley Lagoon] is currently cultured, the current background conditions already include boat use, sediment disturbance, and maintenance activities" it is really just the same. As the Shoreline Hearings Board has clearly stated, geoduck farming is not the same as oyster cultivation or manila clam cultivation. Nor is one site comparable to the next.

 

Is this greater than 24/square foot?

And just where do I put my foot?

And if more than 24/square foot,

where is my new home going to be?

 

Crunch time for Sand Dollars - how to "interact" at planting, and simply ignore them at harvesting

Also described within the "Habitat Review" is how Taylor Shellfish intends to interact with beds of sand dollars which exist within Burley Lagoon. Initially, the strategy is "planting through" or, if too thick, to "push them aside by hand." Relocation would "only be necessary in densities greater than 24 animals per square foot." They do not say how they will deal with the planter's boots "interacting" with the sand dollar beds. Also not mentioned is what happens at harvest time, after they have moved "back to orientation that allows for feeding" after planting.

"If densities are too thick to plant through, the grower will try to push them aside by hand. Because sand dollars are typically found within the top 4 inches of sediment, the grower only needs to push enough sand dollars aside to get in the PVC tube (or suitable alternative) so that the sand dollars do not restrict juvenile geoducks from burying into the sediment." "After the tubes are in place, sand dollars would be able to move back to an orientation that allows for feeding."

Eelgrass and herring spawning

in Burley Lagoon.

Is eelgrass really all that important? It's just a dot on a map.
One final note of significance made, or not, within the habitat review is on eelgrass. It is noted that a new Herring population exists (the "Purdy" population). It is noted eelgrass exists. It is noted the herring use this eelgrass for spawning. Dots are used to show where it exists. Not discussed is how planting harvesting will effect these dots.

Comments due July 3



Pierce County/Haley Geoduck Farm: Coalition and Neighbors Appeal MDNS Decision

Location of the proposed 11 acre "Haley" geoduck farm

on tidelands jointly owned by Taylor Shellfish family,

Seattle Shellfish, and those of the Haley (Almond Roca) family.

 

The Coalition To Protect Puget Sound Habitat and neighbors of a proposed 11 acre geoduck farm on Case Inlet have appealed the Mitigated Determination of Non-Significance (MDNS) issued by Pierce County. It was felt the lack of analysis by Pierce County which preceded the MDNS decision would set a dangerous precedent for all of Puget Sound. Issues included such things as the large size of the farm; the lack of a clear indication of how the farm would be planted and harvested; and, little to no consideration of the current expansion of geoduck farming which is occurring and will occur in Puget Sound.

The appeal decision - a $2,900 investment in the future of Puget Sound
Unlike the past, it was strongly felt that not appealing the MDNS would set a dangerous precedent for all of Puget Sound. While an appeal fee of $2,900 had to be paid, the alternative of doing nothing would have left the door open for shellfish attorneys to claim, as they have in the past, that because "nobody appealed the MDNS" any environmental concerns should not be considered in the permitting process. It is an investment in the belief that the future of Puget Sound is in balance.

Overview of the Haley farm's location,

just north of Herron Island.

 

Access to tidelands is denied - "trust us"
Part of the decision rested on the fact that the Taylor family, Seattle Shellfish, and the Haley family refused to grant access to the tidelands to help scientists determine what was there. In the past, shellfish attorneys have stated because expert witnesses did not visit the specific site their testimony should be discounted if not ignored. Now, when given the opportunity to show that the contract scientists hired by the shellfish industry were, in fact, correctly analyzing the habitat, the shellfish industry denies access. Instead, they take a "trust us" attitude because their well paid contract scientists have been there.

Department of Natural Resources'

"Herron Lake" lease proposal,

south of the Haley farm. 



Pierce County, and other counties, cannot operate in a vacuum - a current weakness in the Shoreline Management Act
Also at issue is the fact that Pierce County feels it is only obligated to look at what is occurring in Pierce County. In fact, south Puget Sound's habitat spans three separate counties with three separate approaches to how its tidelands are developed. Pierce and Thurston County both require permits, some more stringent than others, both complained about by the shellfish industry. Immediately to the west, Mason County has chosen to virtually ignore any regulatory oversight of geoduck farming, as seen in this permit note to Arcadia Point Seafood, with similar letters sent to others in the industry:

wrote letter to applicants, Steve and Vicki Wilson, cc'd DOE and Corps, approving proposal without need for SDP [shoreline development permit] or letter of exemption.

Minterbrook Oyster owner Kent Kingman's

 unpermitted developments.

Even Pierce County is challenged by shellfish growers - Minterbrook Oyster owner Kent Kingman's unpermitted bulkheads, shellfish operation and old data
Despite Pierce County's permitting requirements, even shellfish growers make regulatory oversight difficult with unpermitted activities. Within the Coalition's Shoreline Master Plan update submittal to Pierce County is a settlement agreement between Kent Kingman, current owner of Minterbrook Oyster, and Pierce County, for unpermitted developments on his shoreline property at the south end of Herron Island. Included is a major unpermitted shellfish operation; bulkheads; decks; and a dam blocking a stream which created a lagoon (see above and page 9 of the document). Currently, Taylor Shellfish has applied to operate the shellfish farm. Part of the application to resolve the violation incudes an 8 year old (2006) review done for both the DNR site and Mr. Kingman's, hoping to address the "Critical Fish and Wildlife Review." The report was done by Bioaquatics, owned by Dan Cheney, also employed by the Pacific Shellfish Institute. It does not appear any of the above was considered in the decision process which determined the outcome of the MDNS which the Coalition is appealing.

"You too can get rich!"

Really?

The tideland rush
Added to the above is a current rush by shellfish growers to lock up as many tidelands as possible for as long as possible. Industry is out of tidelands leaving only private and public tidelands left. Waving promises of great riches before tideland owners who are, for the most part, naïve of the long term consequences of their signing on the dotted line, shellfish growers lock them in to long-term leases with a small percentage paid to them. Not discussed is who will clean up the mess when this "geoduck bubble" crashes. It is not a matter of if, only a matter of when.

Support the Coalition and Case Inlet Shoreline Association
You can help the Coalition in its drive to protect Puget Sound's habitat as it was meant to be with a donation to the Case Inlet Shoreline Association (CISA). CISA is a 501c3 organization so donations are tax deductible. More important is the future Puget Sound which you will help create.

Pierce County Issues Mitigated Determination of Non-Significance for Seattle Shellfish/Taylor Shellfish Geoduck Farm

[Update 4/23: Ms. Meaders no longer works for Environ. She is currently employed by Confluence Environmental Company.]

 

>11 Acre "Haley" Geoduck Farm

SEPA Determination is Issued

(click here for decision)

 

Comments Due April 29th

Staff Contact: Ty Booth - tbooth@co.pierce.wa.us Phone - 253-798-3727

Director: Dennis Hanberg - dhanber@co.pierce.wa.us

(If affirmed or modified: Appeal Date - May 13th)

 

 

Location of proposed farm

 

"Mitigated" Determination of Non-Significance issued (MDNS)



Pierce County's planning department has issued a MDNS for an 11 acre geoduck farm proposed by a partnership between Seattle Shellfish and Taylor Shellfish. This partnership of the two largest intertidal geoduck farmers leaves little doubt of whether the current industry is controlled by a few companies. The minimal conditions contained within the SEPA determination leave little doubt of their influence.

 

>11 Acres of netting and tubes

 

Let industry set the conditions and manage oversight

The first "condition" contained in the SEPA determination allows the industry to determine its own oversight based on whatever they determine is the "most current version" of their own "Environmental Codes of Practice." Nothing in the conditions requires anything currently contained in their ECOP to be a condition of the permit. Should the industry decide they have "practices" which are too restrictive they may simply re-draft their ECOPs. 

 

Predator netting over tubes.

MDNS would allow up to 11 acres.

After tube removal netting is replaced.

 

Predator netting may remain for as long as industry wants, covering as much as industry wants

Condition 5 notes netting may remain in place for as long as geoduck are "vulnerable." Nothing requires netting to be removed at any time nor is there any limit to how many contiguous acres may be covered at any one time. In an October 1, 2013 letter to Ms. Meaders, then with Environ the Pierce County biologist expressed concerns about the fact that 11 acres will be covered by canopy netting. In the letter it is noted:

The Haley project is not proposing individual nets and considerably more than one acre will be netted at any one time. As such, based on the information available to us we can’t agree with the BE that the potential for the impacts discussed are insignificant. Please address this concern in a revised BE or stand-alone letter. [It is unknown what, if anything, was submitted to Pierce County to address this concern. Nothing in the SEPA determination requires limited planting.] 

 

 

Cumulative impacts, local: Proposed DNR leases and subtidal geoduck

The MDNS does not mention DNR has proposed leasing intertidal areas to the south nor does it fully consider the subtidal geoduck tract adjacent to the proposed farm. While only probabilities, activities in all areas create a far larger action area where harvesting may occur simultaneously. [For an idea of what dive harvesting and subtidal harvesting activities result in, see this Youtube video.] Nothing in the conditions limits when harvesting activities may occur, creating the possibility of a large simultaneous harvesting event which has never been considered nor its impacts studied.

Seattle Shellfish proposed hatchery on

Harstine Island, west of proposed farm.

Cumulative impacts, Mason County proposals
Adding to the cumulative impacts and not considered is the recent permit application from Seattle Shellfish in Mason County for their new upland shellfish hatchery and recent 19 acre lease of tidelands from Mason County. The hatchery, located directly west from the proposed farm is intended to increase the amount of seed available to the geoduck industry, and perhaps give Seattle Shellfish the opportunity to become less dependent on other seed suppliers (although partnering with Taylor Shellfish puts this in question). The recent 19 acre parcel between McMicken Island State Park and Harstine Island leased by Seattle Shellfish, is south west only 3 miles. Currently geoduck farming in Mason County is basically unregulated by the County, its being considered "aquaculture."

 



Fishtrap Loop in Thurston County

Taylor Shellfish Leases and Surveys

for future geoduck farms.

Cumulative impacts, Thurston County proposals
To the south in Thurston County, Taylor Shellfish has been active in permit applications for new geoduck farms and in surveying and leasing activities for future permit applications. Fishtrap Loop has seen a number of leases signed and surveys plotting out tidelands to plant. The Lockhart parcel to the east was recently approved, along with the Thiesen parcel (applied for by Arcadia Point Seafoods).
 

  

Sand Dollars - Just another "pest" 

(click  here to read of all the "pests" to the industry)

Freedom to plant wherever needed without worry of native species
Also contained in the October 1 letter to Environ were concerns Pierce County's biologist had about moving native species, some considered little more than "pests" by the industry. [click here for a current industry "pest" document] Specifically mentioned in the letter were tube worms and sand dollars. In spite of the biologist stating his "expectation" would be no planting in areas of native species which could not be moved, there is nothing to prevent it nor anything on how species should be moved and/or replanted.

From our review of the site, and from previous projects, it appears unlikely that there will be any need to move things around, but with that said, if there is some area of sand dollars or tube worms or some other natural feature that can’t be planted around or relocated, the expectation is that you will simply not plant that area.

"Financial guarantees" are only good

if you're still in business.

 

 

Financial guarantees should the market collapse 

A minor plus in the MDNS is the requirement for a "financial guarantee" of $1/tube should the geoduck market collapse and industry participants find it is not financially worth their while to remove the tubes and netting. Unfortunately, a "financial guarantee" will mean little if a company has gone bankrupt.

 

Comments on cumulative impacts are important

As anyone involved in the oversight of the geoduck industry has seen, a favorite tactic of the shellfish attorneys at permit hearings is to state "a SEPA determination was made and was not appealed." It is a critical step in assuring Puget Sound's shorelines are protected as the Shoreline Management Act intended. Waiting to rely on the Shorelines Hearings Board to determine whether additional conditions should be required is a risk which in the past has, for the most part, resulted in decisions in favor of this growing and invasive industry. Commenting on weaknesses in a SEPA determination helps ensure adequate protections are in place.