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

"Particularly pungent smells 

may come from the beach when a common type of seaweed 

known as sea lettuce decays 

in an environment with low dissolved oxygen."

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

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

Dead Clams in Burley Lagoon

Clean net placed too late?

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

Maybe the nets just need 

a "good industrial scraping".

(Samish Bay, WA)

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

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

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

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

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

This is not "enhancing" the public interest

and is exactly what the Shoreline Management Act

was designed to prevent from happening

to Puget Sound tidelands.

(Read RCW 98.58.020 to see

intended preferences of the SMA)

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

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

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

Yes - Washington needs to change its laws.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Taylor  Shellfish/Foss Family Prevail:

GMHB Tells DOE and Pierce County 

it must

"plan for, foster and give preference 

to aquaculture as a preferred use"

[Read decision here]

Presidential Candidate Governor Inslee

and Taylor Shellfish's Bill Dewey

China's elite pay a lot of money.

Taylor Shellfish makes a lot of money.

A few waterfront tideland owners 

make a lot of money.

Is that bad for the marine ecosystem Governor?

Aquaculture as a fosster child.

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

China doesn't care about Puget Sound habitat.

They care about geoduck grown in PVC pipes.

48,000 per acre

A concern then, a bigger concern now.

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

Before

 After

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

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

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

Taxes? $3,957

Does the Foss family really need to have

geoduck aquaculture fosstered to help pay these taxes?

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

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

Get involved

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

The Extinction of a Species: What happens when people sit back and industry stays focused on regulations.*

What Extinction Looks Like

Get involved.*

Talequah (J35) and her dead calf.

And now, another.

Following the recent death of a newborn calf carried over 1,000 miles for 17 days, another of the endangered Southern Resident Killer Whales has died. The Washington Post writes on the looming extinction of an iconic Northwest species. Despite attempts to save "Scarlet" (J50) the 3 year old female has been declared dead, leaving 74 of the endangered species remaining.

Get involved. PCC markets has written on the problems and steps you can take as individuals while government agencies hold collaborative meetings, largely driven by the interests of corporations who see Puget Sound and the waters and tidelands of the northwest as a palate to generate profits from. At the expense of the very foundation on which the food chain is based.

(Coalition to Protect Puget Sound Habitat)

The Center for Whale Research put it this way: “The message brought by J50, and by J35 and her dead calf a few weeks ago, is that the [southern resident killer whales] are running out of reproductive capacity and extinction of this population is looming, while the humans convene task forces and conference calls that result in nothing, or worse than nothing, diverting attention and resources from solving the underlying ecological problems that will ultimately make this once-productive region unlivable for all.”

*In addition to steps in the PCC article, Pierce County will hold a meeting on its updated Shoreline Master Program on Monday, September 17th.. The Department of Ecology has told the County there are a number of regulations which must be dropped or added, many at the demands from attorneys from the shellfish industry. When people sit back, they will get what an industry and agencies feel is best for them. Get involved. Industry is.

Pierce County SMP Update: County Complains to DOE

Shoreline Master Plans: Local Discretion

or 

Department of Ecology Mandate?

September 17 - Before the Community Development Committee

October 2 - Before the County Council

Email: Dave Risvold - dave.risvold@piercecountywa.gov

County Council Contacts: https://www.piercecountywa.gov/4460/Contact-the-Council

Pierce County is in the process of reviewing and ratifying its Shoreline Master Plan update. Part of the update process has included responding to the Department of Ecology's required changes. In a letter dated June 27, Pierce County wrote of the "...apparent inability to exercise local discretion in certain areas of shoreline management."

Specifically, Pierce County writes:

"Pierce County would prefer to prohibit the dumping of dredged material within the State's designated Nisqually Reach Aquatic Reserve due to various factors including the existence of alternative dredged material disposal sites within the County."

Further:

"Pierce County would also prefer to prohibit certain aquaculture activities in proximity to estuaries and within select bays and inlets that are developed with high density residential densities."

"Obligating the County to accept uses in inappropriate areas that will result in unavoidable impacts and user conflicts is unfortunate." 

Not allowed by Ecology:
18. Aquaculture is prohibited in Estuaries within 300 feet of the mouth of freshwater streams (as measured at extreme low tide).
19. Aquaculture is prohibited adjacent to residential neighborhoods in Horsehead Bay, Wollochet Bay, Lay Inlet and adjacent to Raft Island due to water quality and visual impacts.
d. Disposal of dredged material within the Nisqually Reach Aquatic Reserve
17. With the exception of Olympia Oyster propagation which is a conditional use, new commercial shellfish aquaculture operations are prohibited within the Nisqually Reach Aquatic Reserve.

For complete document showing what was struck by DOE, added by DOE, and why, see this link:
https://www.piercecountywa.gov/DocumentCenter/View/71099/Required-Changes-Document

For DOE's "recommended changes" see this document:
https://www.piercecountywa.gov/DocumentCenter/View/71096/Recommended-Changes-Document

Ecology Releases Pierce County SMP Update with Required and Suggested Changes

DOE has released its approved SMP update for Pierce County to adopt. It includes both required changes (e.g., Pierce County cannot ban dredge material from being discharged in the Nisqually Reach Aquatic Reserve nor ban aquaculture within 300' of the mouth of a stream in estuaries, saying the latter is too vague) and suggested changes (e.g., clarifies what a "stream channel" is).
[Note: It isn't clear why a "stream channel" is able to be defined but not the mouth of a stream.]

The the county may choose to submit an alternative to all or part of the changes required by Ecology. It is not known when the Council will meet to discuss DOE's response, but DOE has told PC they have 30 days from May 31 to respond. Links to DOE's PC SMP update site are:

Link to DOE letter to PC:
https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/ezshare/SEA/SMP/PierceCo/ConAppLtr.pdf
Link to PC SMP update page:
https://ecology.wa.gov/Water-Shorelines/Shoreline-coastal-management/Shoreline-coastal-planning/Status-of-local-Shoreline-Master-Programs-SMP/Pierce-County
Link to required changes:
https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/ezshare/SEA/SMP/PierceCo/AttBReqChg.pdf
Link to suggested changes:
https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/ezshare/SEA/SMP/PierceCo/AttCRecChg.pdf

County Council Contact information:
http://www.piercecountywa.org/99/County-Council

DOE Contact information:
Kim Van Zwalenburg
Senior Shoreline Planner
kim.vanzwalenburg@ecy.wa.gov
360-407-6520

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.

March 30, 5PM: Pierce County Shoreline Master Program Meeting

The Department of Ecology will hold a public hearing on Pierce County's Shoreline Master Program update. DOE has told Friends of Burley Lagoon testimony and comments will be accepted, and questions may be asked during the public hearing, but those questions will not be answered. Comments will be accepted through April 29 at 5PM. (See DOE's Pierce County SMP update page by clicking here.)

Open house and public hearing

Attend Ecology’s open house and public hearing to learn more about Pierce County’s shoreline program and provide written comments. You may also provide verbal testimony during the public hearing.

Date:	Wednesday, March 30, 2016
Time	Open House starts at 5:00 p.m. Public Hearing starts at 6:30 p.m.
Location	Pacific Lutheran University Chris Knutzen Hall 12180 Park Avenue South Tacoma, Washington 98447

Directions
Pacific Lutheran University is located seven miles south of downtown Tacoma Washington, at the intersection of Garfield Street S. and Park Avenue S.
From Interstate 5
• Take exit 127 off Interstate 5 and head east on Highway 512
• Continue on 512 for approximately two miles to Pacific Avenue S. (Parkland-Spanaway exit)
• Turn right (south) on Pacific Avenue S.
• Turn right on 121st
http://www.mapquest.com/directions/to/us/washington/colleges-universities-tacoma/pacific-lutheran-university-355816322

Mason County and Pierce County Shoreline Master Program Comment Periods

Two county Shoreline Master Program updates, in different stages, have agencies involved asking for public comments. Mason County is asking for comments on the SEPA determination, and the Department of Ecology is asking for comments in Pierce County's update they are reviewing.

Mason County: Comments accepted through March 31
email: rebeccah@co.mason.wa.us or
Mason County Community Services Department ATTN: Rebecca Hersha
615 W Alder St.
Shelton, WA 98584

The Planning Commission has completed their draft which will be submitted to the Commissioners in the near future. The county is asking for comments through March 31 has issued a SEPA Determination on "Non-Significance" (DNS) for the update which includes the SEPA environmental checklist. Supporting documents, including the final draft (with changes noted) and cumulative impacts analysis, are found on the county's SMP update page. After comments have been received and changes made the SMP update will move to the Commissioners for further comments and possible changes, then to the Department of Ecology for their review. Examples of comments may be found in the "comment matrix", with those focused on aquaculture beginning on page 55.

Pierce County: Department of Ecology Review
Comments accepted March 15, 2016 to April 29, 2016
email: Kim.VanZwalenburg@ecy.wa.gov (reference Pierce County SMP update)
or,
Washington Department of Ecology
Shorelands and Environmental Assistance Program
Southwest Regional Office
PO Box 47775
Olympia, Washington 98504-7775
Attn: Kim Van Zwalenburg
or,
Public meeting at 5:00 p.m. on March 30, 2016 at Pacific Lutheran University
Chris Knutzen Hall
12180 Park Avenue South
Tacoma, Washington 98447
Pierce County's SMP update has moved past the commissioners and is now in the Department of Ecology's hands. DOE's responsibility is to ensure the update submitted meets with the intended goals of the Shoreline Management Act, administered by DOE. All related documents are available on DOE's Pierce County SMP update site. Included is the proposed update which includes the proposed regulations and appendices, including requirement for aquaculture permitting (Appendix C on page 92) and how tideland boundaries are determined (Appendix I, page 108).

Aquatic Reserves are Not Reserved for Taylor Shellfish - Get Out, Then Get Involved

Tell Pierce County and Elected Officials

Aquatic Reserves Were Not Reserved

To Be Commercialized by the Shellfish Industry

 

Washington's Aquatic Reserves

Dabob Bay: Withdrawn. Guess why.

 

The door to your tidelands is to the left

Taylor Shellfish owns 11,000 acres of tidelands. Yet, when Pierce County proposed to limit new permits for aquaculture in the Nisqually Reach Aquatic Reserve to the restoration of native Olympia oysters, what did they do? They told Daniel Hull, Executive Director of the Nisqually Reach Nature Center, to tell Pierce County that he would not support the amendment. In a follow-up email he said Taylor Shellfish would withdraw from the aquatic reserves program if the amendment was included in their Shoreline Master Program update. The proposal to create a reserve in Dabob Bay was withdrawn due in large part to pressure from the shellfish industry. Get out, get involved, and tell your elected officials Puget Sound is not for the profits of the few.

 

Pierce County Contacts (click here, or...)

Tell them you support their amendment to limit aquaculture to the restoration of native Olympia oysters in the Nisqually Reach Aquatic Reserve.

dyoung2@co.pierce.wa.us (Derek Young)

mkruger@co.pierce.wa.us (Mike Krueger)

 

Find your Washington elected official

Tell them Aquatic Reserves were not reserved to be commercialized by the shellfish industry.

http://app.leg.wa.gov/DistrictFinder/

 

See what the shellfish industry wants for itself
The daylight minus tides of Puget Sound continue with April's beginning to expose the lower intertidal tidelands, unique to Puget Sound. Within this habitat area a diversity of species unique to this environment exist, able to withstand exposure to air and submersion in water. Get out and see what the Shoreline Management Act was intended to protect and in part why aquatic reserves were created. Then get involved in helping to ensure this critical marine habitat is not converted for the profits of the few.

 

Updated 4/8 to clarify sequence of events.

Tacoma's News Tribune on Pierce County's SMP Update Meeting: Citizens want shellfish harvesting restricted.

You can "just say no" to geoduck farming.

 

 

Tacoma's The News Tribune writes about Pierce County's Shoreline Master Program update meeting held at Peninsula High School on February 2. The article's title clearly states how people feel about geoduck farming in Puget Sound's tidelands: Restrict commercial shellfish harvesting.

 

NAMBI - Not against my business or industry

The article contains the not so veiled threat from Taylor Shellfish's Diane Cooper who stated Pierce County will have to prove that any shellfish harvesting prohibition is based on the “best available science.” This follows their attorney's 156 page missive explaining why Taylor Shellfish is "troubled" over being regulated.

 

Put geoduck farming where

you don't destroy the habitat?

How about the Tacoma tideflats.

 

You can "just say no"

The article quotes newly elected Pierce County Councilman Derek Young as saying, "You can't say no to geoducks" and they would just have to "...locate (geoduck farms) in areas that don’t destroy the habitat.” Perhaps better put is to put them in areas where it doesn't matter if the habitat is destroyed, such as the Tacoma tide flats. You can just say no and you can regulate the shellfish industry. Selling geoduck to China is not that important.

 



Read more here: http://www.thenewstribune.com/2015/02/02/3620223/restrict-commercial-shellfish.html#storylink=cpy

 

 

Pierce County SMP Update: Final Council Hearing Delayed Until Early 2015, Geoduck Expansion Continues

Taylor Shellfish is "troubled." Kitsap County experiences

the geoduck industry's dislike of permits.

Pierce County SMP Update Council Hearing Put Off Until Early 2015
Pierce County has announced its final Council hearing on its updated Shoreline Master Program (SMP) will not occur until early 2015. Comments will continue to be accepted, as will public testimony at the final hearing (click here to comment). To see amendments proposed click here. To see the draft SMP, click here. To see Taylor Shellfish's 156 page document written by their attorney describing why they are "troubled" by the amendments, click here (10mb file).

Marine habitat or PVC?

Seattle Shellfish/Taylor Shellfish/Haley

Geoduck proposal

Older SMP Suits Industry Just Fine - Better than Almond Roca for Christmas 
In the interim the geoduck industry has continued to press for expansion in Pierce County under the old SMP. Most recently, a permit allowing 11 acres of intertidal habitat has been approved for Seattle Shellfish and Taylor Shellfish, the two largest geoduck operators in Washington. The joint project on tidelands owned by both, and by the Haley (Almond Roca) family, is a clear indication of the cooperation between the companies to ensure expansion occurs under the older, more lenient SMP, under terms they find acceptable. A delay of the more "troubling" updated SMP may be a Christmas gift the industry wants.

Kent Kingman's Unpermitted Shellfish Operation

(Mr. Kingman owns Minterbrook Oyster)

To be operated by Taylor Shellfish

 

So Good You Can't Have Just One - Taylor Shellfish, Picking up Pieces of the King
Among a myriad of other proposals in Pierce County, Taylor Shellfish has also proposed a 25 acre geoduck farm in Burley Lagoon, a small embayment located west of Gig Harbor. Taylor Shellfish has also been chosen to be the operator of Kent Kingman's unpermitted shellfish operation on tidelands he owns (Mr. Kingman is also the new owner of Minterbrook Oyster). The resolution of Mr. Kingman's various violations is currently being worked through by both Taylor Shellfish and Mr. Kingman  (click here to read Pierce County's June 3, 2014 letter to Taylor Shellfish requesting additional information and describing some of Mr. Kingman's violations). (See earlier post for additional details on Mr. Kingman's various shoreline violations.) Located ~2 miles south of the Haley operation, this too would fit well with Seattle Shellfish's hatchery and nursery facilities, ~2 miles to the west in Spencer Cove on Harstine Island.

Geoduck tubes and oyster tumblers.

Oops, did I need a permit?

A Philosophy Spreading into Kitsap County - "New Day Fisheries" (owned by Scott and Joni Kimmel)
Recently Kitsap County began to experience the philosophy of its being "easier to ask forgiveness than ask for permission" some industry members practice. Rather than apply for a permit, New Day Fisheries operators chose instead to simply install PVC tubes last summer into tidelands owned by the Baldwin family, and plant them with geoduck. When reported to the county, instead of being required to pull the unpermitted tubes, New Day Fisheries apparently said they were sorry, and that in addition to the 3,000 unpermitted PVC tubes they were also going to populate another 35,000 square feet with PVC tubes, and "oyster tumblers" on another 27,000 square feet of tidelands (see image above). Kitsap County told the Kimmels and the Baldwin family, the latter being the tideland owners, they do in fact need permits. That permit process has begun with an initial comment period on a SEPA decision of a mitigated determination of non-significance ending November 6, and a public hearing scheduled for January 8. The permit information may be found by clicking here. Unclear is how the lateral boundaries of the tideland parcel were determined. What is clear is the plasticizing of Puget Sound's tidelands is spreading north. Contact/permit information may be found here:

The application file may be examined at the Department of Community Development, 614 Division Street, Port Orchard, Washington, between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. Monday through Thursday and Fridays 9:00 a.m. through 1:00 p.m., except holidays. The staff person assigned to this project is Lisa Lewis and may be contacted at (360) 337-5777. Lisa's email is: llewis@co.kitsap.wa.us

This is not in the "statewide interest"

and should be stopped.

"Statewide interest" or just in the interest of a few geoduck operators plasticizing Puget Sound's intertidal area?
Geoduck growers transforming Puget Sound's intertidal areas claim geoduck sold to China in order to satisfy their emotional belief of its bestowing virility, like shark fin soup or Black rhinoceros horns, is in the "statewide interest."  They claim their industry is a "preferred use" and as such should be allowed to use any methods with minimal regulatory oversight. Through well crafted public relations efforts and well paid attorneys they have to date succeeded in convincing agencies this is somehow good for Puget Sound. It is not.

Governor Inslee and Taylor Shellfish's Bill Dewey



Politics is messy, but it need not be gooey.
Governor Inslee has turned his eyes towards fundraising and sees a large pool of money available to support his campaign and those of others with help from the shellfish industry. Politics is messy, but it need not be gooey. Tell the governor geoduck farming is not in the statewide interest and populating Puget Sound's intertidal areas with PVC pipes is not a "preferred use" allowed under the Shoreline Management Act. Click here to contact the governor.

Pierce County: Friends of Burley Lagoon Newsletter Notes Upcoming Meetings and Map

Taylor Shellfish is "troubled."

The Friends of Burley Lagoon has released its most recent newsletter of upcoming meetings of interest. Included is the October 6, County Council Committee on Community Development at which continued discussion of proposed amendments to the Draft Pierce County Shoreline Master Plan will occur. As noted in an earlier post, Taylor Shellfish had its attorney submit a 156 page document expressing why they were "troubled" about the proposed amendments covering aquaculture.

From the newsletter (which can be found by clicking here):

Monday, October 6, 2014, 1:30, County-City Bldg. Tacoma, 10th Floor Council room: County
Council Committee on Community Development - continued discussion of proposed amendments to
the Draft Pierce County Shoreline Master Plan. Plauche' and Carr, attorneys for Taylor Shellfish,
submitted a rebuttal to ALL amendments thus far that would put some controls over what happens on
Puget Sound shorelines. Audubon, Sierra Club, and FOBL members have responded. Paid parking up behind County City bldg. or free street parking

 

Pierce County SMP Update: Shellfish Politics At Its Best - Taylor Shellfish is "Troubled"

It is Washington citizens who should be "troubled"

at how Taylor Shellfish views its "rights" to

the intertidal areas of Puget Sound.

Get involved - the shellfish industry is and has the money and motivation.

Tell Governor Inslee Puget Sound's tidelands are not the shellfish industry's playground. The Shoreline Management Act was created in order to protect Puget Sound's habitat from industries like what the shellfish industry has become. He may be contacted by phone at 360-902-4111 or mail at PO Box 40002, Olympia, WA 98504-0002. His shellfish coordinator is Julie Horowitz whose email address is Julie.horowitz@gov.wa.gov

Tell Pierce County they have a responsibility to protect Puget Sound's intertidal habitat for everyone, not just Taylor Shellfish. Pierce County's council member contact information is found here.

"Governor, imagine PVC tubes

as far as the eye can see."

Governor Inslee and Bill Dewey with Taylor Shellfish.

What money can buy: Plauche and Carr - a law firm created by and for the shellfish industry - writes to Pierce County

A 156 page letter dated September 15 (11mb file), sent to Pierce County from shellfish industry law firm Plauche and Carr notes that Taylor Shellfish is "troubled" over the county's Shoreline Master Program update. It "...suggests that the County revise or withdraw several of the proposed Community Development Committee amendments..." which have recently been accepted. Of those amendments, 8, 9, 10 and 23 are addressed as being "troubling" to Taylor Shellfish. What should be "troubling" is the ongoing press by the shellfish industry to claim rights to all tidelands of Puget Sound for their development through the Shoreline Management Act.

“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)

The political process at its best
This "troubling" letter should leave little doubt about the political efforts being put forth by the shellfish industry to twist the Shoreline Management Act into something it was never meant to be when it was created in 1971. Protecting Puget Sound's intertidal area from becoming fragmented through modern aquaculture is why the SMA was created - "to prevent the inherent harm in an uncoordinated and piecemeal development of the state’s shorelines."

Taylor Shellfish lobbyist talking about

"structure" and "habitat" which PVC

tubes create on tideland habitat.

Below, structure and habitat on the move

throughout Puget Sound.

A loose PVC pipe, one of many,

taking the barnacles and limpets

on an unintended vacation.

"The public has no idea how rapidly technology is reshaping aquaculture in the U.S." April 2010 email from paid shellfish consultant Jack Rensel, shellfish industry paid scientist, to NOAA.



What troubles Taylor Shellfish?

Special time category of "non-use" for non-conforming aquaculture use and structures
One of the changes asked for is that aquaculture be granted "multiple years" for a non-conforming aquaculture operation to remain "dormant" and still retain its nonconforming use category (i.e., not be required to be brought up to current code). The industry is fine with all other nonconforming uses only having 2 years. Were the attorney's logic to be accepted by Pierce County, virtually any abandoned nonconforming use could have arbitrary "reasons" applied to extend forever the time period during which an abandoned non-conforming structure could be allowed to exist. (e.g., "I was on vacation and just couldn't get around to it.")

Looks "Natural" to Taylor Shellfish.

Is it "natural" to anyone else?

Prohibition of "aquaculture" from Natural Shoreline Environmental Designation is "overly restrictive"

"Shellfish beds should be protected

from upland development."

(proposed Taylor/Seattle Shellfish

"Haley" geoduck farm location)

So this can happen to them.

The industry claims that Natural SED's ("undisturbed portions of shoreline areas" or "ecologically intact shorelines") are perfectly suited for today's modern aquaculture. Whether it be PVC pipes, nets, or mesh bags, the industry sees no problem with these structures fragmenting the areas designated as "Natural". Why? Again, they claim it is a "preferred" use and can result in "long term benefits and protect the shoreline..."

Long term benefit for who?

Protected from what?

Chelsea Farms geoduck harvest aftermath.

Good for the "Natural" SED?

Freshwater stream outlets aren't really that important are they? Their delta areas do make for great geoduck farms - flat and sandy.
Another restriction Taylor finds "troubling" is Pierce County's proposal to prohibit aquaculture in estuaries within 300 feet of freshwater streams. The importance of these rare and unique habitat areas in Puget Sound seems lost on Taylor's quest for use of all tidelands. The importance of these areas being used by migrating salmon, steelhead, or cut throat, whether it be their smolt leaving or the adults returning, to transition from fresh to salt water or salt to fresh water cannot be understated. Yet Taylor believes these area are better suited for acres of PVC pipes, netting and grow-out bags.

Conservancy SED designations do not "permit applicants to streamline applications for multiple sites within a growing area"
Taylor touches on the ultimate goal it is seeking - a "streamlined" application process which requires little effort on their part or oversight of actions by the county. They complain that an Administrative Conditional Use Permit should not be required for farms abutting Conservancy SEDs.  Taylor believes their acres of PVC pipes, nets and other structures used to grow non-native species somehow "protect and restore ecological functions" of these most fragile shoreline areas.

Monitoring of modern shellfish practices not needed, nor is concern over cumulative impacts.
Also found "troubling" to Taylor Shellfish is the county's requiring aquaculture operations be monitored. Again lost on Taylor is the reality that thousands of PVC pipes per acre or tidelands covered with grow-out bags do change the habitat they are in. Claims that it would "burden applicants" and "County staff" only hide the concern of what monitoring will show about the impacts of "modern" aquaculture on the shoreline habitat areas the county is supposed to protect. The same may also be said for the "trouble" Taylor finds in cumulative impact considerations being included, that being many small discrete actions taken as a whole do, in fact, have a significant adverse impact on the intertidal habitat area the county - and the Department of Ecology - are supposed to protect.

And so on - to the shellfish initiatives.
Other "troubles" exist within the 156 page letter but what is also focused on as justification to allow for more "streamlined" permitting and allowing for more tideland area to be developed with structures are the shellfish initiatives, both national and state. Copied below is an earlier post, showing these being nothing more than the results of a marketing strategy which began in 2010. As noted, they should not be used for consideration in SMP updates any more than Taylor Shellfish's web site or advertisements should.

[Note - the following is February 13, 2013 post on the role the shellfish initiatives should play in SMP updates. As pointed out, they are little more than marketing efforts created by shellfish lobbyists.]

Shellfish Initiatives do not have a role in the Shoreline Master Program Updates.
Recent comments from attorneys representing the shellfish industry have claimed many times that NOAA's "National Shellfish Initiative" and the "Washington Shellfish Initiative" are clearly an indication of the importance of the shellfish industry. It adds that Washington's Shellfish Initiative clearly indicates shellfish aquaculture should be prioritized in any Shoreline Master Program update, no matter what the method, no matter where the location. In a letter to the Olympia City Council it states "revisions are also necessary to ensure the SMP Update is consistent with" the National and Washington Shellfish Intiatives. This is fundametally wrong and not what Shoreline Master Programs are supposed to consider.

Look a little deeper.

Oops, didn't I mention that?
What the shellfish industry's attorneys neglect to point out is that beginning in 2010 it was those very same attorneys and industry representatives who began lobbying NOAA to promote their industry through a "National Shellfish Initiative." It is nothing more than the successful result of a well planned lobbying effort.

It is most certainly not an affirmation that shellfish aquaculture should be prioritized in order to dilute the intent of the Shoreline Management Act which says, in part, "...the interests of all the people shall be paramount in the management of shorelines of statewide significance." (Shoreline Management Act)

2010: Shellfish politics create a "swimmable, fishable, and diggable" policy, for their benefit.
A May 28, 2010 letter to NOAA from attorneys at Plauche and Stock (now Plauche and Carr), representing the West, East and Gulf Coast shellfish industries states: "We the Pacific Coast Shellfish Growers Association, the East Coast Shellfish Growers Association and the Gulf Oyster Industry Council are writing to encourage NOAA to develop and launch a national shellfish aquaculture and restoration initiative as a component of, and in conjunction with, the new Aquaculture Policy." Further on, it notes: "A national initiative intended to advance shellfish aquaculture and restoration activities could be a model program that would implement this goal by promoting shellfish culture activities..." Towards the end it notes again: "The national shellfish aquaculture and restoration initiative we propose..."

Prior to this time NOAA had no intention of creating a "Shellfish Initiative," prioritizing shellfish in any manner.

How to create something out of nothing

and make it sound important.

2011: Refining a crafted lobbying effort.
In June, 2011, results of this lobbying effort began further refinement with the shellfish industry sending out "surveys" to growers to help guide NOAA in their creation of the "National Shellfish Initiative." Leading into that survey was:  "In the recently released NOAA Aquaculture Policy you may have noticed reference to a Shellfish Initiative. The Shellfish Initiative was the product of a year-long tri-coastal [East, Gulf and West] effort to get NOAA to recognize that shellfish composes the lion's share of marine aquaculture and we hold great potential for further expansion." In July those results were compiled and forwarded to NOAA who dutifully complied and created a separate "National Shellfish Initiative."

Bill Dewey with Taylor Shellfish
explaining to then Governor Gregoire

why a Washington Shellfish Initiative

would be so helpful to the industry.



2011: Wouldn't a Washington Shellfish Initiative be wonderful? An Executive Order is created.
With continued lobbying, Governor Gregoire was convinced that if NOAA could have a "National Shellfish Initiative" then Washington should have one as well. Fitting with the Governor's attempt to leave a legacy of a "swimmable, fishable, and [now] diggable Puget Sound" she obliged the shellfish lobbyists, and through an executiver order with no legislative oversight, created the Washington Shellfish Initiatve. Funding, direction, policies, and purpose would be left to somebody else to figure out. Lobbyists for the shellfish industry were more than willing to provide that role.

Should initiatives created by lobbying efforts from the shellfish industry be allowed to override the intent of the Shoreline Management Act?
When overwhelmingly passed by Washington's citizens in 1972, the Shoreline Management Act was the culmination of a monumental effort to prevent Puget Sound's shorelines from becoming fragmented through  piecemeal development. At the time, shellfish aquaculture was far different than what we see today. As Jack Rensel said in 2010, ""The public has no idea how rapidly technology is reshaping aquaculture in the U.S." He can add to that, "The public has no idea how rapidly lobbying efforts are reshaping the regulations controlling developments in the tidelands."

Joan Thomas

1931-2011

One of the original drafters of

the Shoreline Management Act.



In 1991, Joan Thomas, one of the original drafters of the Shoreline Management Act stated: “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." Ms. Thomas passed away in 2011. What would she say today?

Pierce County Shoreline Master Program Update Meeting: July 21, 1:30

When - Monday, July 21
Where - County-City Building, Room 1045, 930 Tacoma Ave. S, Tacoma
What - Discussion of additional amendments to Pierce County's Shoreline Master Program update.

Onwards and upwards
Following a series of meetings at which Pierce County was challenged by shoreline owners and the conservative land use group "Freedom Foundation"  who felt a "taking" was occurring through proposed shoreline regulations,  Pierce County cancelled scheduled public meetings about their Shoreline Master Program update. The County felt there were too many pressures to deal with and amendments to address them could not be developed within the proposed schedule.

July 21, 24 amendments - let's try again
 The Community Development Committee has now re-scheduled a meeting for July 21 to discuss newly proposed amendments and presumably those proposed earlier. No voting will occur but comments will be accepted. The County web site currently lists 24 amendments. Previous public meetings which had been scheduled in the evening throughout the county in early evening times, more convenient for citizens to participate in, were canceled. The current meeting is scheduled for Monday, July 21, at 1:30PM.

Aquaculture - better hurry up and get them permitted now
Of the amendments listed there are X specifically noted as being related to aquaculture. Number 23 addresses monitoring. Number 21 would incorporate all aquaculture related amendments that were approved prior to consideration of Ordinance 2013-45s. Number 10, among other things, prohibits the use of pesticides in shellfish cultivation. Number 9 expands on the requirements for cumulative impacts analysis, including when they proposal takes place within an enclosed body of water (e.g. Burley Lagoon). Number 8 extends the non-conforming discontinued use period to three years from two.

Number 22: rights of the people
Included in the amendments is one introduced by Republican Jim McCune which states:

No person shall be deprived of property without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. 

It is unclear whether the perspective that the rights of the people should include the right to expect that the shorelines of Washington will be protected as the Shoreline Management Act provides and for which the counties are responsible.