Sea Grant Funding Threatened by Trump Administration: A bad thing?

[March 17 - Clarification and correction:

Clarification
Direct reference to studies created by Jeff Fisher, operator of a geoduck farm under the name of "Fisherport", continued as recently as January 6, 2017, in a letter penned by Pacific Coast Shellfish Growers Association attorneys to the Corps of Engineers. That letter was in response to the Seattle District's proposed General Conditions to the 2017 Nationwide Permit and an attempt to lessen regulatory oversight by the Corps. Reference to Dr. Fisher was made in order to support PCSGA's position that aquaculture in Puget Sound had "...minimal adverse to beneficial impacts..."

In addition to Dr. Fisher's studies, the PCSGA attorney's letter from January, 2017, also referenced the involvement of National Marine Fisheries Services in the programmatic consultation between NMFS and the Corps of Engineers in which NFMS issued a Programmatic Biological Opinion (PBO) on the Corps' oversight, dated September 2, 2016. As noted in the NFMS letter, that consultation between NMFS and the Corps began in 2007, noting that consultation process resulted in:

"...a final Biological Opinion in November 2014. That opinion required NWP-specific consultations before the COE could issue an individual NWP. The Services are addressing [in their September letter] that requirement for the 2012 NWP 48 with this [September 2, 2016] PBO." (p. 2 of September 2, 2016 opinion)

Correction
After extensive NMFS involvement providing consultation to the Corps' Seattle District, Jeff Fisher has left NMFS and in 2016 began work at the Marine Institute.]

Is the threat of de-funding Sea Grant and its associated research used to support the expansion of shellfish aquaculture in Puget Sound necessarily a bad thing? Consider just a few of the authors and research reports funded in whole or in part by taxpayer dollars to support expansion of the industry:

1. Jeff Fisher and Gregory Reub - Current or past principals with Environ, both significant providers of research funded in part or whole by Sea Grant to look at the impacts from geoduck operations in Puget Sound. Papers created and authored by each found little in the way of adverse impacts. These papers continue to be referenced directly or indirectly in permit hearings as proof of minimal impacts from expanding geoduck operations in Puget Sound.

Not disclosed: Both Mr. Fisher and Mr Reub, at the time of their involvement, each operated geoduck farms whose profitability would be directly impacted by favorable reports. Mr. Fisher is now with the National Marine Fisheries Services (NMFS) which provides opinions on the impacts of current and future shellfish operations to the Army Corps, and continues to operate his geoduck operation on Totten Inlet and has purchased tidelands adjacent to those his operation is on. Mr. Reub continues work for Environ and continues his geoduck operation. He has purchased the tidelands originally leased, put them into and out of a self-directed IRA, and has proposed to expand onto nearby tideland parcels.

2. The University of Washington, through funding contracts with Sea Grant, created a study using a model to determine how much commercial geoduck operations could expand in the Central Basin of Puget Sound before adverse impacts would begin to be felt by native species. Despite knowledge the kilograms harvested was likely not accurate, and choosing to ignore far higher harvesting levels from other years, they chose to publish the paper.

At issue with the paper is the generally accepted fact that harvest records reported to the Department of Fish and Wildlife are under reported (i.e., lower than reality), despite a law requiring accuracy of production from the growers. More significant, the paper stated there were 10,546 kg (23,250 pounds) harvested in 2012. WDFW records show nothing harvested in 2012, but instead that amount was harvested in 2011. More important than an incorrect year is that in addition, WDFW records show in 2008 there were 47,343 kg (104,374 pounds); in 2009 there were 19,050 kg (42,000 pounds); and in 2014 there were 5,436 kg (11,985 pounds). [2008 - 104, 374 pounds; 2009 - 42,000 pounds; 2011 - 23,250 pounds; and 2014 - 11,985 pounds] Further, when the paper was referenced in a recent permit hearing as evidence for impacts to consider, a memo was created by an industry environmental firm framing the paper as being little more than a model and something not to be relied on by agencies.

If this is the type of research taxpayers' dollars pay for through Sea Grant should citizens be upset it is being de-funded? Puget Sound is a critical resource and funding for its protection is important. It may be time another source be found. Perhaps taxing those who profit from its protection - in this case the shellfish industry and those leasing their tidelands to those corporations - should be considered.

* After leaving his position at Environ, Mr. Fisher moved to NOAA's NMFS where he was branch manager for the Lower Columbia River and Washington Coast, an area encompassing Puget Sound

Washington Department of Natural Resources to Consider Leasing Public Inetertidal Tidelands to Geoduck Growers

The Washington Department of Natural Resources has announced it is considering leasing some of the few remaining public tidelands to a select group of geoduck growers. Included from the 2006 lease proposals are Seattle Shellfish (Taylor Bay), Arcadia Point Seafood (Dikenson Point), Taylor Shellfish (as subcontractor to Case Cove for Herron Lake bid), Allen Shellfish (Wilson Point, Hartstine Island), and Discovery Bay Shellfish (North Navy). Leasing of these tidelands was first proposed in 2006 by then Commissioner of Public Lands Sutherland. The project has been on hold until now.

Strip mining or managing tidelands?
What people should ask the Department is why are they leasing the few remaining intertidal public tidelands instead of replanting the subtidal tracts being clearcut by dive harvesters. Instead of replanting subtidal areas, a process already taking place in Alaska and Canada, they simply wait for natural seeding to take place, a process estimated to take up to 40 years. In Alaska and Canada, subtidal planting matures in 7 to 8 years. A current proposal for a private subtidal farm estimates 5 to 7 years for maturity.

Why are geoduck different than timber?
Is this managing state tidelands or simply bending to the political pressures put forth by the geoduck growers who have found leasing of private tidelands played out? The Department has a far different management philosophy when managing its timberlands. After clear cutting, timberland is required to be replanted so a new stand of timber is ready for harvesting in 40 years instead of waiting for natural seeding to take place, a process which can take up to 100 years and results in stands that are far more difficult to manage.

Is "science" really science?
In 2007 Sea Grant began studies of geoduck harvesting. Part of that process was to include peer review of studies to determine impacts. To date there has been no peer review of the significant "studies" relied on. In fact, at a recent Shorelines Hearings Board hearing a scientist pointed out how weak the sample sets from which conclusions were being drawn were. So weak that were it a Master's Thesis it would have likely been rejected.

You should first replant what you've harvested. It's resource management.
The public shorelines of Puget Sound are a treasure which was recognized when the Shoreline Management Act was passed. Bending to the political  pressures of lobbyists and public relations firms is why it was created in the first place. It should not be allowed to be bent to those same pressure now. If the Department wants to consider leasing tidelands for geoducks they should first be replanting those subtidal tracts they are clear cutting.