Tell DNR and USFWS It's a Wildlife Refuge

(See some of the many species here)

Get involved and make a difference for today and tomorrow, to help preserve one of the few National Wildlife Refuges supporting the great migrations of sea birds. An industrial shellfish farm does not belong in the Dungeness National Wildlife Refuge. 

Plastic Grow Out Bags Do Not Belong in a Wildlife Refuge

Beyond Pesticides has written a piece on why plastic grow out bags do not belong in a Wildlife Refuge, which includes a link for comments. 

As they note so well: 

The Dungeness Bay Wildlife Refuge was created by Executive Order in 1915 by Woodrow Wilson, directing the area to be set aside as a “refuge, preserve and breeding ground for native birds and prohibits any disturbance of the birds within the reserve.” The Refuge provides habitat, a preserve and breeding grounds for more than 250 species of birds and 41 species of land animals. 

The front page of the Refuge website states: “Pets, bicycles, kite flying, Frisbees, ball-playing, camping, and fires are not permitted on the Refuge as they are a disturbance for the many migrating birds and other wildlife taking solitude on the Refuge.” With this level of concern, it is counterintuitive to allow destructive industrial aquaculture. 

Beyond Pesticides Article

Submit Comments Here

Surfrider Announces Washington Coastal Marine Advisory Council (WCMAC) Meeting this Wednesday (12/9)

“We’re all in this leaky canoe together…”

(Gus Gates, Surfrider's 

Washington Policy Manager.)

When: Wednesday, December 9th, 9:30am–3:30pm
Where: Port of Grays Harbor Commissioners Chambers, 111 S. Wooding St. Aberdeen, WA
View Full Agenda: 12 9 15 WCMAC Agenda Draft

Surfrider has announced the Washington Coastal Marine Advisory Council (WCMAC) will hold their next meeting this Wednesday (12/9) in Aberdeen (see here for past meetings, agendas, and meeting notes). Scheduled to speak at 12:30 will be Kim Patten from Willapa Bay.

Native species are a nuisance to non-native

"crops" of Pacific oysters and Manila clams.

Kill the shrimp, create a habitat for 

Japanese eelgrass, kill the eelgrass.

Really?

Eco-engineering so non-native species can be grown for profit.
Among the speakers noted on the agenda is Willapa Bay's Kim Patten with Washington State University. He will present his perspectives, and the shellfish industry's, of how to deal with what he and shellfish growers perceive as a problem to the industry and their profits: native ghost shrimp. It was Mr. Patten who was one of the primary driving forces behind the proposal to spray the neurotoxin imidacloprid (one of the neonicotinoid pesticides) on shellfish beds and the herbicide imazamox, currently being sprayed on shellfish beds and eelgrass.

Plastic bags are bad, but this is okay?

What you can do when you "advocate" for clean water.

Plastic bags are bad. But is PVC or mesh nets in the tidelands okay?
Gus Gates, Washington Policy Manager, has written a piece on describing the shellfish industry as being some of the "...strongest advocates for clean water protections.." There is no question the shellfish industry wants to have clean water, which they need in order to maintain and/or grow their profits. But how can Surfrider, in one hand, ban plastic bags, styrofoam, micro-plastics, and be opposed to the oil terminal proposed for Grays Harbor (providing "80-85 permanent, family-wage jobs"), and in the other hand, support an industry who "advocates for clean water protections" which results in their growing widespread use of plastic and PVC in those same marine waters which Surfrider is trying to keep them out of (providing jobs of questionable need, with mechanization likely to reduce whatever jobs those may be)?

Mechanical harvester and the jobs it replaces.

"Mining" for geoduck.

From the Coalition to Protect 

Puget Sound Habitat

Is it the canary or the mining we should be concerned about?
Mr. Gates is correct in pointing out we are all together in a leaky canoe trying to improve the health of Washington's waters. But make no mistake on why the shellfish industry is such a strong advocate for clean waters and what the result will be. They advocate for clean water to improve production and profits from Puget Sound's tidelands, and along with them, the spread of plastic and PVC used in production, and the transformation of habitat. Noting the industry's analogy of being the "Canary in the Coal Mine" without noting the impacts from mining ignores the important part of that analogy we should worry about.

Get involved. The shellfish industry, advocating for clean water, has behind it their stated plan of "tripling the size in our business over the next 8 years." (Jeff Pearson, thanking Wells Fargo for their providing financing.) Consider what will come with that.

Ban on Imidacloprid Use Grows - Except at DOE: Apply it on more acres, apply it more often.

Where have all the flowers gone?

Shellfish growers don't care.

Maybe they will if you stop

buying oysters from
Willapa Bay.

Bans continue to grow, except in Willapa Bay
The number of agencies and retailers who are implementing a ban on the use of the pesticide imidacloprid continues to grow. Most recently, Lowe's has agreed to stop selling neonicotinoid pesticides, of which imidacloprid is one. April 1, the City of Portland issued an immediate ban on its use. The Oregon Legislature currently has two bills before it which would eliminate its use. The US Fish and Wildlife agency  has banned their use on wildlife refuges across the United States. The European Commission, in 2013, banned the use of imidacloprid. April 8 the NY Times reported a  European Academies Science Advisory Council report stated imidacloprid:

“has severe effects on a range of organisms that provide ecosystem services like pollination and natural pest control, as well as on biodiversity,”

DOE - Spray it on more acres with more intensity
The Department of Ecology's viewpoint? In their recently released Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) they have simply agreed with the shellfish growers in Willapa Bay who want to use it on more acres and in increasing intensity.

there would likely be a larger number of imidacloprid application events each year over a longer authorized application period (p.2-58, FEIS)

Growers have requested larger annual treatment acreage under the imidacloprid permit (2,000 acres) compared to the carbaryl permit (800 acres). It is possible that over the five-year term of the permit, the total acreage to be treated within Willapa Bay could range from 1,500 to 7,500 acres, and in Grays Harbor could range from 500 to 2,500 acres. (p. 1-6, FEIS)

Get involved. The shellfish industry is and agencies are not willing to stand up to them. You can start by not buying oysters harvested from Willapa Bay. You can also sign the petition created by Willapa Bay's Westport Salmon Tales.

Shellfish politics: HB 1715 - Countywide annual fees for all properties with onsite septic systems.

[Update 3/13: As HB 1715 has moved through the political process a number of changes have been made, including removing the word "shall" (requiring a $30 fee be imposed on all land owners with on-site septic systems) and replacing it with "may". Further changes and on-going negotiations indicate it is unlikely this bill will pass. The effectiveness of educating how septic systems should be maintained, including adequate record keeping by the land owner, should be given the opportunity to show they are meaningful and work before counties begin imposing another fee on landowners.]

 

We all want clean water.

Not all want to subsidize

the shellfish industry.

 

Shellfish politics - HB 1715: More taxpayer funding for the shellfish industry. The twelve counties which border Puget Sound "shall" impose a $30 fee on all on-site septic systems in the "Puget Sound basin", a term undefined in the referenced RCW (90.71.010), if HB1715 is passed.  At the committee hearing, it was confirmed this fee could be charged county wide. Bill Dewey with Taylor Shellfish acknowledged the industry's benefiting from the fee being imposed.

Are we going to be taxed if they

find out it's our fecal coliform?

Or just shot?

Whose fecal coliform is it?
Asked by committee members whether DNA testing confirmed septic systems were the source of fecal coliform problems a thud could be heard in the silence of the response. Eventually, one response was DNA testing was too expensive. In studies where DNA testing has been done the vast majority of fecal coliform was found to be wildlife (birds, seals, Orca, deer, elk, etc.), cattle and others. Humans represented only 7% of what was tested in Dungeness Bay. In Samish Bay, 17%. 
Testing results and reports are here:
see here for Dungeness sources p. 5.5:
https://app.box.com/s/y2u1t16d68cwq2npzitz716sf4n8mq21
see here for Samish Bay:
https://app.box.com/s/07xjjx8tlx1jht40hgtyls2kll7yfy3c

My $30 fee shows I need money.

 

Sorry, we don't have any.

But we did consult about it.

Low interest loans - "may consult with" is not the same as "shall".
A positive discussed at the hearing was how low interest loans being "discussed" was a part of the bill. Something, however, being "discussed" does not guarantee funding is available. Funding for loans is not guaranteed. All HB 1715 "discusses" is the counties "...may consult with the department of ecology..."

Clean water should not mean

all of Puget Sound's tidelands

should look like this.

Clean water is critical for a healthy Puget Sound. The shellfish industry is not critical for a healthy Puget Sound.
We all want clean water, none more so than the shellfish industry whose industrialization of the tidelands and navigable waters generates great profits. For what in return? Virtually nothing in property taxes. Geoducks exported to China pay little to nothing in state taxes. Jobs are menial labor, outside, at night during the winter time low tides.

Beyond messy politics - tax the beneficiaries
Requiring all county residents with onsite septic systems to pay $30 per year to support the shellfish industry is a bad idea which has lead to bad legislation. Urge your representative to vote "no" on this bill. There are other sources of funding - such as a property tax on the shellfish industry's tidelands used for growing shellfish. Find your legislator here:
http://app.leg.wa.gov/DistrictFinder/ Tell them it's time to stop subsidizing the shellfish industry.

Friends of Burley Lagoon Comments for Pierce County Shoreline Master Program Update



Correction: Email to tfairba@co.pierce.wa.us

 



Shouldn't this structure have required a permit?

What: Pierce County Shoreline Master Program update study session
When: September 18
Action: Email individual comments or support for comments below to the Pierce County Planning Commission, c/o Toni Fairbanks - tfairba@co.pierce.wa.us

*NOTE: EMAIL SHOULD BE SENT BY TUESDAY AFTERNOON, THE 17TH
**BE SURE TO REQUEST AN ACKNOWLEDGEMENT THAT YOUR EMAIL HAS BEEN RECEIVED

Friends of Burley Lagoon Request

Friends of Burley Lagoon's President Heather McFarlane has prepared the following comments on Pierce County's Shoreline Master Program Update. They reflect concerns of many in Pierce County and other Puget Sound counties that the protection of Puget Sound's shorelines should not stop at the high tide line. A passive shellfish industry in 1972 being considered a "preferred use" by the Shoreline Management Act when it was passed should not now give that industry carte blanche to develop the tidelands as it sees fit. (See Coalition to Protect Puget Sound Habitat for general information.)

The Friends of Burley Lagoon have asked people to consider becoming involved in the Pierce County update process by sending in their own comments to the "study session" by September 17, or email the following message to:
Pierce County Planning Commission c/o Clerk, Toni Fairbanks

tfairba@co.Pierce.wa.us

"Ms. McFarlane's comments of 9/16/13 to the Planning Commission re the SMP,  represent my views as well and I wish my name noted in the record. I would also appreciate an email acknowledgment."   

Comments follow:

(click on image to enlarge)

 

 (click to enlarge)

 (click to enlarge)

 

 (click to enlarge)

Daylight Minus Tides Begin: Shellfish Attorneys Continue to Fight Regulatory Oversight

 

Daylight minus tides begin to expose what's been going on in Puget Sound's tidelands, the "most valuable and fragile of its natural resources" (Shoreline Management Act).

April 10, 2013, the first daylight minus tides begin. Geoduck PVC and netting will once again appear as Puget Sound's waters recede, revealing a transformation which could not have been imagined when the Shoreline Management Act was passed in 1971. State and local agencies have allowed themselves to become agents of the shellfish industry's attorneys and contract scientists who fight every attempt to control their developments in the tidelands. [click here for Pierce County's response to the Chelsea Farm/Detienne attorney's demands that conditions be dropped or modified] In the letter is found the pressures county employees are put under by the industry which has evolved and who sees no problem with dropping off over 80 exhibits the day of a hearing, many of questionable relevance beyond creating a burden on those responsible for regulating the industry.

 

April and May Tide Tables (Olympia) - click to enlarge

 

Considered a "preferred use" when the Shoreline Management Act was passed in 1971, the shellfish industry has evolved into the very industrial development which the Shoreline Management Act was intended to protect the shorelines of Puget Sound from for the future generations. Instead of small family farms earning a living through spreading oyster shell and spat along the tidelands, creating a natural ecosystem, they have been replaced by large corporations using forests of PVC pipes, netting and growout bags requiring the displacement of all native species in the way.

 

Harstine Island, south of Wilson Point on Taylor Shellfish tidelands

 



PVC and growout bags are claimed to provide "structure" for other species. Ignored is that native species are removed before placement of the "structure" and that the "structure" is ripped out after one to two years, creating an additional net loss to the ecosystem. "Tidelands return to a natural state in 6 to 9 months." Seemingly forgotten is they are never allowed to return to a natural state, but instead are placed in a perpetual cycle of creation and destruction of artificial ecosystems. Science? A Master's Thesis is used in place of peer reviewed studies. Peer reviewed study used? One in which geoduck are grown for 1 year (not five), removed, followed by a "pretend" harvest. Is that really what decisions should be based on? 

 

PVC tubes for geoduck and growout bags for oysters. Natural?

 

An industry who had once been seen as one of the few providing a means by which the goals of the Clean Water Act could be achieved has become one which fights to control any shoreline developments through regulations, for its direct financial benefit. Creation of wilderness areas is fine, as long as it does not involve their tideland developments. Yet when they are asked to work within those same standards it is somehow a "regulatory burden" preventing "family wage jobs" from being created. Jobs apparently not wanted by the unemployed, or few others. In early 2012, Taylor Shellfish had to let go of 160 employees as the result of an immigration audit. In Washington DC, lobbying efforts for immigration reform continue as the industry cannot find domestic workers it needs.

 

Taylor Shellfish geoduck farm in Hammersley Inlet.

A benign industry of the past has become one who sees no problem with septic fees being added to shoreline property taxes, already taxed higher than any other property, yet winces when complaints of an acre of tidelands producing over $1 million in revenue is only paying $2 in property taxes, and little else in the way of taxes. Claims of its being a "preferred use" no longer apply to the methods and structures used. It is one which creates "family wage jobs" so disliked by everyone it runs the risk of being shut down due to a lack of documented immigrant workers. And it is one which has no problem demanding state taxpayers pay for water quality monitoring and funding for research to support hatcheries unable to produce non-native species it wants to grow.

 

The waters recede as the months of summer approach, revealing an industry who would prefer they stay hidden. As the waters recede and expose the reality of what the shellfish industry has become the agencies responsible for ensuring the Shoreline Management Act is implemented as it was intended need to evolve as much as the industry has.

 

Drakes Bay Oyster Company and Senator Vitter: Part 2

Senator Vitter (R - La)

"I expect clear and complete answers ..."

Factual questions would help.

Senator Vitter (R - La) continues to help clarify what is behind the energy to force the Department of the Interior's National Park Service to renew the Drakes Bay Oyster Company's lease. It is not a love for raw oysters or their perceived effect.

In a letter dated March 18, sent to Ms. Sally Jewell, Interior Secretary Designate, Senator Vitter (a minority member of the US Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works) lists 19 questions he would like "thorough" and "clear and complete answers" to. [click here for letter] What standard he bases "clear and complete answers" on is unknown.

The first 6 questions are focused directly on how to expand or speed up permitting for oil, natural gas and coal. The next 7 meander around the protection of species by the Federal Government, state's rights and individual property rights impacted by that protection. Two more focus on hydraulic fracturing, another on Carbon tax, another implies "gas prices doubled" due to President Obama, and another asks clarification on her role as a board member with the National Parks Conservation Association.

Mixed in with all is a question about Drakes Bay Oyster Company's lease expiration which nobody could, or should, give a "clear and complete" response to as it ignores the fundamental issue: the lease has expired and the commercial operation must cease. Implied is a "vicious campaign" is underway to shut down a commercial operation. Ignored is the fact that Congress (who Senator Vitter is a member of) passed the Point Reyes Wilderness Act in 1976 with the only commercial operation to cease in 2012 [click here for Public Law 94-544]. Ignored is the current owner (who purchased the farm in 2005) having been told multiple times the lease would not be renewed. Ignored is the current owner having been found by the California Coastal Commission to be operating in violation of a cease and desist order from 2007 [click here for article]. Ignored is Congress (which Senator Vitter is a member of) gave the Secretary Salazar the discretion to let the lease expire in 2012, not the requirement to renew it as Senator Feinstein originally asked for [read analysis here].

While the shellfish industry is clearly concerned about Drakes Estero reverting to wilderness, it is becoming clear through the help of Senator Vitter how much the energy industry is involved. Everyone should be concerned about the precedent which allowing a commercial operation to continue in a designated wilderness area would have. It is a direct attack on the Wilderness Act. Contact your representative and tell them it is time for Drakes Estero to become the wilderness Congress intended in 1976.

Find your Representative here:  [click here]
Find your Senator here: [click here]

February 11, 6PM - Mason County Shoreline Master Program Update Meeting

Mason County's Planning Advisory Commission will hold its 2nd of 3 workshops to discuss the update of their Shoreline Master Program on February 11 at 6PM. The third will be held February 25, also at 6PM.

Date/Time: February 11, 6PM

Location: 411 N. Fifth Street, Shelton in the commission chambers.

February 11 topics: Aquaculture, boating facilities and shoreline stabilization/modification.
Of interest will be how the county addresses their concerns about docks and bulkheads and whether the growing number of structures used by the shellfish industry covering a far greater square foot area (PVC, predator nets, grow-out bags, floating aquaculture facilities) will come under the same level of scrutiny.