APHETI Provides an Update on Taylor Shellfish's 58 Raft Mussel Farm Proposal

Background (update follows): For almost 20 years APHETI has been opposed to a proposal by Taylor Shellfish to expand their mussel growing operations in south Puget Sound's Totten Inlet. Able to get Taylor Shellfish to reduce their original proposal by almost half the number of rafts, down to 58, APHETI was also able to force the permit to include monitoring of Totten Inlet's waters and sediments, to be managed by the Department of Natural Resources (Thurston County did not feel it had the expertise to design and implement a monitoring plan). Totten Inlet's waters are categorized as "extraordinary" by the Department of Ecology, leaving little room for man made impacts to its dissolved oxygen levels, one of the most critical parameters to measure. The mussel shell falloff onto the sediments below the rafts, especially during "harvest" when lines of mussels are pulled up will also be measured, of special concern as there are recovering subtidal geoduck tracts nearby. Finally, the non-native invasive tunicate, didemnum vexillum, which uses the surface area of the mussels and "predator netting" to grow on, which then becomes dislodged during harvest events, spreading throughout the water column of south Puget Sound, is of concern. It is assumed DNR will create and oversee a robust monitoring plan, and not allow the revenues received from leasing this area to Taylor Shellfish to diminish the oversight required. Too much is at stake.

Update from APHETI:

Greetings, APHETI members-  

Our last communication to you was almost one year ago. Since then APHETI has continued to address the concerns of Taylor's proposed expansion of mussel raft aquaculture in Totten Inlet. The attached APHETI newsletter will detail APHETI's efforts and next steps. As always, Thank you for your support. Please feel welcome to contact us with any questions you may have. 

APHETI Board of Directors

Association for the Protection of Hammersley, Eld, & Totten Inlets

-APHETI-

PO Box 11523, Olympia WA 98508-1523

(360) 866-8245                                                         www.apheti.com

 

March 25, 2015

 

Re:  Update / Pending expansion of Taylor mussel raft aquaculture in Totten Inlet

 

Greetings APHETI Members and Supporters - 

 

Our last letter reported that Taylor had appealed the environmental monitoring requirements required by the State Shoreline Hearings Board (SHB) and that the Judge sent the monitoring issue back to the SHB for Thurston Co. and Taylor to argue in support of or in opposition to the monitoring conditions – or Taylor and Thurston Co./APHETI could choose to negotiate a mutually agreed upon outcome to the monitoring issue.

 

All parties agreed to negotiate, Thurston Co./APHETI arguing for strong environmental monitoring and Taylor arguing for something much weaker.  The following outcome has only now been agreed to by all parties: 

 

Taylor's Thurston Co. permit, when issued, will include all environmental monitoring elements as required by Thurston Co. Hearing Examiner Tomas R. Bjorjen; all Thurston Co. Resource Stewardship Department recommended conditions; all mitigation measures from the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS); and a formal environmental monitoring plan approved by the Washington State Dept. of Natural Resources (DNR) including all conservation measures as required by the DNR Aquatic Lands Habitat Conservation Plan as mandated by the US Dept of Ecology.

 

Next Steps: 

With your generous support over the last 19 years, APHETI has produced hundreds of hours of scientific study and litigation in opposition to Taylor's proposed expansion of mussel raft aquaculture in Totten Inlet.  All possible scientific and legal challenges to Taylor's proposal have now been exercised with the Court’s final decision in place requiring Thurston Co. to issue Taylor a permit to proceed if all permit requirements are met. 

 

APHETI 's efforts will now be directed (1) toward assuring all public rules for granting a mussel raft permit to Taylor are complied with and (2) providing input to the elements of a strong environmental monitoring plan as a part of that permit.  To start, Thurston Co. will not issue a permit until Taylor has a lease from the Washington State Dept of Natural Resources (DNR). 

 

DNR lease discussions will not begin until Taylor has a permit from the US Army Corps of Engineers requiring independent study by the Corps, US Dept of Ecology, US Fish & Wildlife, and National Marine Fisheries Service.  A Corps permit will likely take considerable time, require public input and include its own monitoring requirements.  Presently, DNR has not received any indication that Taylor has yet applied for a Corps permit.

 

DNR has committed to keep APHETI informed of all aspects of DNR lease negotiations with Taylor including an invitation to review and provide input to the environmental monitoring plan for Taylor's operations.  Follow us at www.apheti.com for links to DNR  and Thurston Co. publications regarding the permitting process.

 

APHETI's financial resources are presently sufficient to support our near term custodial activities.  However, your sustaining contributions are always welcomed and put to good use.  If a major need may arise, we will let you know what it is and what may be needed to support that action.   Please send your e-mail address to apheti@gmail.com for future updates via e-mail or contact APHETI, PO Box 11523 Olympia WA 98508-1523, or telephone (360) 866-8245 for any questions.  

 

Best Regards! /            APHETI Board of Directors    

Vibriosis Contracted from South Puget Sound Oysters Becoming a Well Established Pattern

Update 8/10

Forecast:

Sunday, -2.5 tide, temperatures climbing to 90 degrees.

Monday, -2.1 tide, temperatures climbing to 98 degrees.

Two weeks away, increase in reported cases of vibriosis followed by additional after the fact closures.

_______________________________________________________________
The Department of Health needs to become

proactive in dealing with Vibrio.

 

A reactive strategy is not helping.

Annual closures in south Puget Sound

due to reported cases of vibriosis

traced to oysters harvested from the area.

 

Waiting for people to become ill is a failure in oversight

Despite numerous attempts at trying to control disease spread from the consumption of raw or undercooked oysters from south Puget Sound, reported cases of vibriosis continue to result in after-the-fact closures of south Puget Sound growing areas. Attempts to educate the public, implement tighter controls over cooling, and testing the waters for the bacterium Vibrio parahaemolyticus (Vp) have all apparently failed in preventing reported cases of vibriosis traced to oysters from this area of Puget Sound from occurring.

 

We're back!

Like an unwelcome relative

returning for a summer visit.

 

Why is disease from Vp still occurring?

Unlike fecal coliform from human impacts, Vp is a naturally occurring bacterium which each summer blooms in the warming waters of south Puget Sound. Oyster's filtering the waters capture this bacterium internally. During the oysters' exposure to warm temperatures out of water, it multiplies internally. When raw or undercooked oysters are consumed, the population of bacteria enters the digestive system and vibriosis begins with varying degrees of intensity. It is this bacterium which DOH seems unable to prevent from entering the food chain with reported illnesses from Washington oysters predictably occurring each summer. While opening areas with lower fecal coliform levels is great, closing larger areas each summer due to vibrio is not.

 

What does testing the waters show?

If Vp levels are high, you've most likely

missed the opportunity to prevent illness.

 

Totten Inlet - Close it, open it, close it again

Unlike fecal coliform testing, testing for Vp is apparently not a successful means of preventing Vp from entering the food stream. Instead it only appears that testing predicts the inevitable - cases of vibriosis will be traced back to that growing area. As an example, Totten Inlet was tested in mid-July and found to have levels of Vp over the threshold level of 10,000 mpn/gram. Commercial harvesting at that point was halted. After two weekly subsequent samples tested below the threshold level it was re-opened July 31, only to have reported illnesses close the area again on August 7. It will remain closed through September 30.

 

Or does testing show anything?

On the other side of testing the water for Vp, it may be that it is simply not much help at all. Oakland Bay had waters tested for Vp with levels falling below the threshold number. Yet Oakland Bay is now closed due to vibrios from oysters harvested there. What is predicable is that vibriosis will be contracted from Puget Sound's shellfish every summer.

 

The summer visitor

nobody wants in Puget Sound.

 

 

Vp's cousin Vibrio vulnificus - why being proactive instead of reactive is important

Warming air and water temperatures, from whatever cause, will inevitably lead to Vp's more virulent cousin Vibrio vulnificus being found in Puget Sound waters. Vv, also a natural bacterium, is prevalent in the Gulf Coast waters and is also now found in Chesapeake Bay. It is expected to continue to be found in waters further north as they warm. Vv is far more virulent than Vp, causing death in 50% of those who contract it, primarily through raw oysters. It is why the Department of Health needs to become proactive instead of reactive to this naturally occurring bacteria found in Puget Sound.

 

The world is not a safe place

Consuming any food has a risk. Consuming raw oysters harvested in the summer is only one of many things to be aware of.

 

 



Vibrio Parahaemolyticus Closes Areas of Puget Sound to Commercial Harvest of Oysters

Vibriosis, a disease caused by the naturally occurring bacteria Vibrio Parahaemolyticus (Vp) and typically contracted from the consumption of raw oysters, has closed Totten Inlet to the commercial harvesting of oysters. Testing for Vp has closed the Dabob Bay and Hammersley Inlet growing areas to the commercial harvest of oysters.

The closures only effect commercial harvesting. Information on recreational beach closures is found on the Department of Health's website. Steps to prevent contracting this food born illness from shellfish are found on the Department of Health's illness prevention page.

Vibriosis Traced to Washington Oysters from Totten Inlet, Oakland Bay, and Willapa Bay

Vibriosis traced to oysters harvested from Totten Inlet, Oakland Bay and Willapa Bay in Washington state within the last 30 days has initiated a decrease in the harvest-to-temperature times. This step is part of the Washington Vibrio Control Plan designed to prevent outbreaks caused by the naturally occurring bacteria Vibrio parahaemolyticus (Vp). If additional cases are reported closure of commercial harvesting may result. Additional consumer information is located on the DOH website.

Vibriosis traced to oysters harvested in July and August by Drakes Bay Oyster Company last year resulted in a recall of oysters from that operation. California currently regulates oysters from the Gulf Coast states harvested during the warmer summer months due to concerns over the more deadly species of Vibrio, Vibrio vulnificus. That ban has all but eliminated the disease, deadly to 50% of those who contract it.

Consumption of any food carries risks. In the case of oysters, that risk is increased greatly if they are consumed raw during the summer months. Minus tides and increasing temperatures over the coming week will most likely increase that risk.

Shoreline Hearings Board to Hear Appeal of Taylor Mussel Farm Permit Denial

The Shoreline Hearings Board will hold a hearing on Thurston County's denial of Taylor Shellfish's permit for their proposed 58 raft mussel farm, located at the mouth of Totten Inlet. The public is invited to attend.

One of Taylor's current mussel farms

located in Totten Inlet.

(click lower right corner to enlarge)

Taylor Shellfish has proposed placing 58 rafts near the mouth of Totten Inlet to expand production of their non-native Mediterranean mussels sold. Thurston County required an environmental impact statement to be performed which the Hearing Examiner decided was lacking in its analysis of cumulative impacts. The Examiner gave Taylor the opportunity to provide additional information which they chose not to do, and instead asked that the permit be denied. [click here to read Taylor's request for denial] The Examiner complied. Over one year later, additional information the Examiner asked for is now being provided to the Shoreline Hearings Board.

After the permit was denied (as requested) Taylor then appealed that decision to the Thurston County Board of Commissioners. The Commissioners in turn agreed that the information provided was lacking in its analysis of cumulative impacts, supported the Examiner's permit denial, and denied the appeal.

After the Commissioners decision, Taylor then appealed the decision to the Shoreline Hearings Board where it will be heard, with additional information now being provided. Thurston County's Prosecuting Attorney's Office and APHETI's attorney David Mann (Gendler and Mann) will defend the decision to have denied the permit. [click here for APHETI site]

Taylor Shellfish could have easily provided the Hearing Examiner the additional information they are now providing to the Shoreline Hearings Board. Not having done so has resulted in a significant expense to Thurston County taxpayers.

Taylor Shellfish Appeals Denial of Mussel Farm Permit

Taylor Shellfish has appealed the denial of their Shoreline Substantial Development Permit (SSDP) application for a 58 raft mussel farm, near the entry of Totten Inlet, to the Shoreline Hearings Board. APHETI (Association for the Protection of Hammersley, Eld and Totten Inlets) has intervened in support of the denial, siding with the Thurston County Commissioners who denied Taylor's first appeal. [click here for APHETI web site]

In part, Taylor claims, the time and money spent on the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) surely justifies approval. The logic is similar to the used car salesman basing the price of his used car on how much money has been "put into it."
[click here for Petition to the Shoreline Hearings Board]
[click here for SHB Prehearing Order]

"I'm selling it for $15,000

because that's what was put into it,

and that doesn't even include
my time spent detailing it!"

Time and money spent on something does not mean that's what it's worth, nor that it's right.
In the pleadings presented, Taylor Shellfish repeats that the amount of money spent, and the amount of time it has taken, to craft the final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) must mean it's right. Both the Hearing Examiner and the County Commissioners found that argument was only one of the many holes in their case. In fact, what both felt is the current analysis of cumulative impacts resulting from intensive commercial shellfish farming in Totten Inlet were not adequately considered. Despite the cost and the volumes of paper provided.

Pouring more money

into a leaking bucket

won't plug the holes.



Taylor's action (or inaction) and resulting permit denial.
Instead of choosing to plug the holes in their case by providing the additional information requested, Taylor instead chose to simply pour more water, in the form of legal fees, into the leaking bucket.

The Hearing Examiner, in his decision dated July 19, 2012, stated: "...the Applicant is given two options for proceeding. First, it may inform the Hearing Examiner that it wishes to challenge the determination that the present analysis of cumulative impacts is deficient and the requirement to perform an additional cumulative analysis. In that case, I will issue a supplemental decision denying the application on that basis, and the Applicant may appeal. Alternatively, the Applicant may inform the Examiner that it wishes to carry out the analysis of cumulative effects required by this decision. In that case, the Examiner and the parties will confer about the timing and nature of that analysis." [click here for initial decision] 
Taylor chose the former, responding on August 16, 2012, to "...request a final decision at the Hearing Examiner's earliest convenience...even if that decision must be a project denial."

September 14, 2012, the Hearing Examiner obligingly denied the permit which Taylor then appealed to the County Commissioners (who agreed with the Examiner) and is now appealing to the Shoreline Hearings Board. [click here for Hearing Examiner's supplemental decision]

What's one flat tire? There are 3 others aren't there?

Is a dissolved oxygen problem from one mussel farm really that important? Yes.
In the evidence presented at the initial hearing it was clearly shown the existing mussel operations in Totten Inlet resulted in lowering dissolved oxygen levels, approaching hypoxic levels, dropping well below the 7 mg/L level found throughout Totten Inlet (an "extraordinary" body of water). What was not discussed at the hearing was whether the intense densities of other shellfish farms in Totten Inlet also creates lower dissolved oxygen levels. All shellfish respire (consume oxygen) and concentrate feces/pseudo feces on which bacteria feed, also consuming oxygen. Washington's law is clear: When a water body's D[issoveld].O[ygen]. is lower than the criteria in Table 210 (1)(d) (or within 0.2 mg/L of the criteria) and that condition is due to natural conditions, then human actions considered cumulatively may not cause the D.O. of that water body to decrease more than 0.2 mg/L.

Water Quality Problem in Totten Inlet

Low Dissolved Oxygen Problem

Category 5 (worst)

(north of current mussel farm, south of proposed farm)

[click here for report]

Added further to the significance intensive shellfish farming lowering dissolved oxygen levels was the recently EPA approved water quality report submitted by the Department Ecology. In that report, just north of the current mussel farm and south of the proposed farm, a significant area of low dissolved oxygen was found, with levels so low it is listed as "Category 5" (Polluted waters that require a TMDL). It was not attributable to natural conditions, leaving an unknown man made source as the probable cause. Little Skookum Inlet is one of the most intensively farmed areas in Totten Inlet, putting in question just what benefits shellfish filtering provide.

Also pointed out by one of the experts used:  The vertical stratification of Puget Sound, the seasonal input of low oxygen waters from the Pacific Ocean during the upwelling season, and the turbulence over sills that brings deep low oxygen waters to the surface make Totten Inlet and Puget Sound a unique area in which to assess if these activities will result in oxygen depression. What does current industrial/intensive shellfish farming add to an already known risk of low oxygen levels from upwelling?

"I can see you're a good negotiator.

For you, I'll throw in some fuzzy dice."

 

Nitrogen is removed. Isn't that a plus? Or, "Fuzzy math gives fuzzy conclusions."
Towards the end of the hearing, Dr. Rensel was asked to perform a calculation of how much nitrogen was removed from Totten Inlet when mussels were harvested, then to opine on whether that was "significant." An optimistic assumption that all 58 rafts would be in production, and a negative assumption that current efforts to lessen nitrogen inputs would fail, were made in his formula. Actual numbers from Dissolved Oxygen studies of nitrogen inputs into Totten Inlet from Ecology were used which cannot be found in those reports and the nitrogen inputs from air into Totten Inlet were incorrect. Perhaps of most significance is that Dr. Rensel's formula to determine whether nitrogen removal was "significant" did not consider the marine upwellings into Totten Inlet, mentioned above, at all. As he noted in his testimony, without consideration of the marine water input the numbers would "..not be as useful." Logic would dictate that much of his formula's assumptions would make it useless, especially in trying to back up the statement that mussel farming in Totten Inlet is now suddenly "significantly beneficial to South Puget Sound" as Taylor claims in their Petition for Review (page 6).

 "Not to worry. You won't see it if you don't look."

 

Shell deposition below the rafts? What's the worry?
Discussed at the hearing was shell deposition from mussel die-off and feces/pseudo feces accumulating below the rafts. Analysis of impacts on the benthic life below and near the mussel rafts was considered inadequate, let alone when considered in whole with the rest of Totten Inlet's shellfish farms, the most intensive found in Puget Sound. 

"How about we just

cover it up and call it good?"

This car is a lemon and should be left on the lot.
Taylor's claim of money spent and time invested will not make up for deficiencies found which caused the Thurston County's Hearing Examiner to deny their permit and the County Commissioner to deny Taylor's first appeal. Taylor wanting to spend money on legal fees instead of analyzing the cumulative impacts from industrial shellfish farming is understandable, if you don't want something to be found. But lurking under those mussel rafts; under those predator nets; and, inside of those grow-out bags being spread through south Puget Sound's inlets and beyond is a very real problem they do not want found: shellfish farming's cumulative impacts are significant and adverse, threatening the health of Puget Sound.

Look a little deeper.

Just because you can't see it

doesn't mean it's not there.

Lack of science...
As stated by the Federal Judge in the Drakes Bay Oyster Farm decision: "...lack of evidence of major adverse effects is not the same as proof of no adverse effects nor is it a guarantee that such effects will not manifest in the future."

Modified, and applicable here: "...lack of studies on multiple farms operating simultaneously within an enclosed estuary is not proof of no adverse effects nor is it a guarantee that such effects will not manifest in the future." The latter was clearly acknowledged in the most recent geoduck farm permits approved which require a new hearing after the first planting is harvested. Coalition to Protect Puget Sound Habitat does not agree and is appealing those permit decisions, saying it is time now for a cumulative impacts analysis, not after the damage has been done.

Contact information on how to help ensure the Shoreline Management Act is implemented as it was intended to be when passed by voters in 1972:
apheti@gmail.com
or
Laura Hendricks (253) 509-4987
Curt Puddicombe (206) 730-0288


 

Taylor Shellfish Mussel Farm Appeal, Nov 14

November 14, at 4PM
Thurston County Courthouse
Building One, Room 280
Before Thurston County Commissioners

Taylor Shellfish will appeal the mussel farm permit denial before the Thurston County Commissioners Wednesday, November 14. When Taylor Shellfish was asked to provide additional information to the Hearing Examiner, Mr. Thomas Bjorgen, to address cumulative impacts, Taylor instead asked Mr. Bjorgen to deny the permit, which he did. [click here for mussel farm documents]

Now, Taylor has appealed the denial they requested to the County Commissioners. It will be a public hearing, but no new evidence nor public testimony will be allowed. At the hearing the County Commissioners will be asked to consider the legal arguments supporting Taylor's position, the Hearing Examiner, and APHETI (Association for the Protection of Hammersely, Eld and Totten Inlets). APHETI's attorney will testify in support of the decision to deny the permit.

Taylor's primary concern, and why they asked the Examiner to deny the permit, is their fear of what an analysis of cumulative impacts from expanding commercial shellfish operations will show. They should be concerned.

Taylor Mussel Farm: Are Future Projects Contemplated?

Taylor Shellfish has submitted its response to the Thurston County Commissioners on why the Hearing Examiner's denial of a shoreline permit for their 58 raft mussel farm should be reversed. [read appeal papers here] (Note: It was Taylor Shellfish themselves who asked for this denial.) Their defence rests within a cloud of supposition, believing there are no future projects being contemplated. With the help of Governor Gregoire, they have shot themselves in the foot.

Symptomatic of "Romnesia" they have forgotten a key piece of evidence they submitted and fought to keep as part of the record at the hearing in support of this permit being granted: the Washington Shellfish Initiative. Its importance was reiterated in their initial appeal where they also pointed to the Shoreline Hearings Board's accepting it as fact and of significance.

That initiative is clear in its contemplation of future projects. As Taylor's appeal states, the initiative calls for "Expanding, promoting and improving shellfish aquaculture in Washington." They go further to note the Shoreline Hearings Board accepting it as evidence and belief in its importance, quoting them as saying aquaculture's importance is "emphasized by the Washington Shellfish Initiative..."

Taylor's Current Mussel Farm

Yield: ~800,000 pounds per year.

Jim Gibbons/Paul Taylor: Spain grows 600 million

pounds in an area the size of south Puget Sound.

Further evidence of "contemplation" focused specifically on mussel farms is found in testimony before the Senate Environment Committee by Jim Gibbons, owner of Seattle Shellfish. In that testimony he brings up a conversation he and Paul Taylor (co-owner of Taylor Shellfish) had while "on a ski lift." In that testimony Mr. Gibbons points out how Spain is growing over 600 million pounds of mussels in an area the size of south Puget Sound where "only" 20 million pounds of shellfish are grown. Taylor's proposal of 58 rafts would yield 1 million pounds. Contemplation of further projects is clearly established.
[click here for Seattle Shellfish testimony before the Senate Environment Committee]

Why is contemplation important? As Taylor's attorney notes, appellate and Shoreline Board cases note "important factors to consider in deciding whether to exercise the discretionary authority to evaluate cumulative impacts for a SDP application include, among other things, whether...similar projects in the area are pending or contemplated and whether such projects would be approved under applicable criteria."

The Washington Shellfish Initiative was created by the Governor to aid in the expansion of the shellfish industry. Part of that initiative is streamlining permits for additional projects. Mason County has already stated its intention to streamline mussel raft permits as part of its updated SMP. Evidence submitted in support of this mussel farm is being used to support current streamlining efforts. To believe projects similar to this are not being "contemplated" is naive. The Hearing Examiner was correct in denying this permit because cumulative impacts were not adequately analyzed, something the Commissioners will agree with.

What can you do if you care? Help support APHETI in their fight to help ensure Puget Sound's development considers cumulative impacts from shellfish aquaculture. [click here for APHETI's web site]

Invasive Tunicate Spreading in Point Reyes Shellfish Farm

Didemnum vexillum ("marine vomit") smothering oysters

in Point Reyes shellfish farm

[click here for the Marin Indepent Journal article]

 

The non-native invasive tunicate, Didemnum vexillum (Dv) is spreading within the commercial oyster farm located in the Point Reyes National Seashore, part of the Drakes Estero area. Dv is considered the most invasive of the tunicate family and is found in Totten Inlet within Taylor Shellfish's existing mussel farm in Gallagher Cove. It spreads when colonies are broken off, in this case during oyster harvesting or, in the case of Totten Inlet, when mussels are harvested.

Invasive Tunicate Dv from

Taylor's Gallagher Cove Mussel Farm



(photo courtesy of Woods Hole Science Center)

[cick here for additional photos from Taylor's Gallagher Cove mussel farm]

 

Dv is a "colonial" tunicate which can spread when portions are dislodged. Those parts float free in the current and are able to re-attach for up to 4 weeks, more than ample time to leave Totten Inlet and enter the waters of south Puget Sound. 

 

A recent peer-reviewed study published in "Bilogical Invasions" has shown that anthropogenic activities, including commercial shellfish farming, can be a threat to increasing the spread of this invasive tunicate, noting: " D. vexillum can inflict ecological and economic damage through biofouling and habitat modification. Natural and anthropogenic processes that fragment colonies of D. vexillum may be accelerating the spread of this invader. Reattachment success and fragment viability were confirmed in the laboratory after four weeks of suspension in experimental aquaria." [click here for abstract]

 

The spread of the invasive Dv tunicate in the Point Reyes National Seashore is most likely tied directly to the operation of the shellfish farm. According to Ted Grosholz, a University of California at Davis marine ecologist who conducted the estero survey, the oyster farm structures provide a base for "fouling species" like D. vexillum. As seen in the picture above, the harvested oysters also provide a suitable substrate.

 

Dislodging colonies during harvesting allows them to drift within the National Seashore area and reattach when suitable substrate is found, including " establishing new colonies on the various structures used in shellfish farming or the planted shellfish.

.

Taylor Shellfish's proposed 58 raft facility will have over 40,000 lines of mussels on which Dv will be able to establish itself, as it did in Gallagher Cove. Each time these mussels are harvested, established colonies will have portions break loose which will be allowed to float free within the waters of Totten Inlet, flowing into south Puget Sound on the outgoing tides.

 

Cumulative impacts are real, in part why the permit for Taylor's proposed mussel farm was denied. Thurston County Commissioners will hear Taylor's appeal to this permit denial November 14.

 

 

 

 

IMPORTANT PUBLIC NOTICE: TAYLOR SHELLFISH WASTE DISCHARGE PERMIT

Aerial Photograph of Taylor's

Processing Facility and Waste Discharge Areas

(click on photo to enlarge)

Comments are due by August 2, 2012
email to - carey.cholski@ecy.wa.gov, referencing Permit ST 6157
Click here for Fact Sheet
Click here for Draft Permit

Taylor Shellfish has applied for a State Waste Discharge Permit for industrial waste water from their Shelton processing plant. Waste water volumes in 2011as high as 180,492 gallons per day were allowed under the previous permit which expired June 30 of this year. In April 2010, the monthly volume averaged 160,821 gallons per day. In July of 2007 the Department of Ecology stated the average over a seven year period was 150,000 gallons per day.

Despite Taylor Shellfish's claims of increasing demand; a pending permit for a mussel farm adding more than 1 million pounds to production; reports of increasing nitrogen in Puget Sound (shellfish contain ~30% seawater by volume); and the shellfish initiative potentially adding large numbers of acres for production, assumptions in the current Draft Permit and Fact Sheet assume no increase in volume.

Groundwater Flows Into

Little Skookum Inlet

(from page 7 of the July 2007 Fact Sheet)

(click to enlarge)

As described in the fact sheet, the upper layer of groundwater is separated from the deeper aquifer by a layer of clay like material. This results in the upper layer of soil becoming saturated during wet months which flows downgradient and exits into Little Skookum Inlet through adjacent streams and seeps. Downgradient seeps measured by Taylor indicate Nitrate/Nitrite levels which range from 2 mg/L to 5 mg/L, an order of magnitude higher than normal background levels, typically lower than 1mg/L. On page 5 of the fact sheet Taylor reports background aquifer levels of nitrate to be .72 mg/L; Sodium to be 4.09 mg/L; total dissolved solids to be 77 mg/L; and chloride to be 4.1 mg/L. (Note: There appears to be no background levels established for the upper level of groundwater.)

From the chart above, it would appear that as saturation levels rise and downgradient flows increase during the wet winter months so too do the various levels of components within the waste water being discharged (sodium, nitrate, total dissolved solids, and chloride). All downgradient levels are well above the background levels submitted by Taylor (see page 5 of the Fact Sheet). Taylor's report states the increased levels cannot be tied to their waste water discharge. What is the cause?

Why does the increase in nitrate/nitrite levels matter? In the water quality report recently submitted to the EPA the Department of Ecology noted one area in Totten Inlet which is considered to be "polluted" due to low dissolved oxygen levels not attributable to natural conditions: the mouth of Little Skookum Inlet.

Little Skookum Inlet

The Only Low Dissolved Oxygen Area

In Totten Inlet

While there are many causes of low dissolved oxygen, algae blooms feeding off of anthropogenic sources of nitrates and nitrites are felt to be a primary cause. While Taylor's mussel farm to the south may play a role, so too may Taylor's waste water discharge draining into Little Skookum Inlet. Either way, cumulative impacts from shellfish farming do have an impact on the water quality of Puget Sound which agencies need to consider in their permitting decisions.

(Note: The waste water discharge permit for Taylor Shellfish's Samish Bay facility which expired June 28, 2012, has avoided public comment through Ecology's administrative extension of the current permit for another five years. See extension letter here.)

Comments are due by August 2, 2012
Comments should be sent to:
Carey Cholski
Department of Ecology
Southwest Regional Office
P.O. Box 47775
Olympia, WA 98504-7775
E-mail comments should be sent to carey.cholski@ecy.wa.gov

Minus Tides June 2 to the 8th Expose the Shellfish Industry's Other Side

Just Because You Can't See It Doesn't Mean It's Not There

The lowest tides of the year will be this Saturday through Friday, June 2 to the 8th with Monday's -4.1 being the lowest (see here for Olympia tides).  Near lunch time on all those days, all geoduck farms will be exposed for people to see.  The forests of PVC tubes, nets, and hydraulic harvesting which are transforming the lower intertidal tidelands and making a very few people very rich will be exposed. 

Washington State is paid virtually nothing in property taxes or sales taxes. Tideland owners leasing their tidelands are paid little because they are unaware of the value they possess.  Job "formation" is part time and are jobs the unemployed in Mason, Pierce and Thurston Counties don't want, leaving them to be filled by hard working migrant workers whose concern - rightfully so - is for their families in other countries.  It's what the shellfish industry doesn't want you to see or know.

See How Industrial Shellfish Farms

Transform Puget Sound's Tidelands

Recent temporary help wanted job descriptions from Craigslist:

Shellfish farm needs labor help June 2-4.

Must be dependable, have own transportation, and be able to pass a background check.

Must have previous labor experience (prefer ag or fishery/forestry exp.) , and be over 18 y.o.

5 hour shifts, daily, for 3 consecutive days.

Needed are a few folks who can "bring it" during the few hours we have each day to get a job done.

Our base rate is $12 per hour.

Puget Sound's tidelands are more than a shellfish farm for a few shellfish company owners to become wealthy growing geoduck in. It is a national treasure at risk.  After looking at what's happening to Puget Sound's tidelands, consider who benefits from the industrial expansion and tideland developments industry wants so badly and the Governor is pushing so hard for.  Get involved in the process. The geoduck industry is and it's not for your benefit.

Taylor Shellfish Mussel Farm Decision Extended to June 14

The Thurston County Hearing Examiner has asked that the permit decision date on Taylor Shellfish's proposed mussel farm in Totten Inlet be extended until June 14.  The complexities and volume of information clearly support the request.  All parties have agreed to the extension.  Some of what follows is being considered.  (see here for testimony and evidence presented)

Will the placement, ongoing maintenance, and operation of a 58 raft mussel farm at the mouth of Totten Inlet degrade Totten Inlet's habitat?  Evidence presented at the hearing clearly indicates dissolved oxygen levels are diminished significantly in an area where geoduck tracts are in recovery, salmon migrate, and Herring spawn.  Evidence presented at the hearing clearly indicate shell deposition and feces/pseudo feces transform the subtidal area below the estimated 11 acre area.  Evidence presented at the hearing clearly show ongoing maintenance of rafts and the farm operation on the shoreline creates a disturbance which would increase dramatically, adjacent to 34 acres purchased by the Capitol Land Trust (part of which is a pocket estuary with critical salmon habitat) and heavily developed residential areas.  Evidence presented at the hearing clearly show the risk of spreading non-native invasive tunicates is increased significantly through the operation of this farm.

Evidence presented to counter these and other impacts created by this farm are weak and hardly meet the burden of proof required.  Claims of "habitat creation" ignore the fact that this artificially created habitat is destroyed every time harvesting occurs and that this "habitat" is made up on non-native mussels and artificial structures.  Claims of "significant nitrogen removal" do not include nitrogen from marine sources (i.e., deep sea upwelling) nor amounts from benthic flux in the totals, making the percentage removed appear far greater than it in fact is (as Taylor's scientist testified, the formula is "not as useful" without those numbers).  Claims that shellfish farming is "water dependent" are diluted when considering the fact that mussel farming on an industrial scale of this size was never considered when the Shoreline Management Act was written.  Claims that 58 rafts sitting "only 1 foot high" diminish the visual impact of the placement area may be true if one looks from the level of a seal, but every other view point is significantly impacted.  Claims that NOAA's NMFS Biological Opinion support mussel farming neglected to point out the US Fish and Wildlife Service's Bilogical Opinion was considered "extremely problematic" by the Pacific Coast Shellfish Grower's Association and not mentioned.

Taylor Shellfish provided huge volumes of information to create the impression the proposed mussel farm is benign and should be permitted.  All of this information needs to be considered, along with that presented by those opposed to the permit being issued.  In the end, it will be clear that the best science money can buy does not provide the burden of proof required to issue this permit.

Post Hearing Briefs for Taylor Shellfish Mussel Farm in Totten Inlet are Submitted

The post-hearing briefs on Taylor Shellfish's proposed 58 raft mussel farm in Totten Inlet have been submitted to the Thurston County Hearing Examiner.  The permit decision will rest on whether Taylor Shellfish has satisfied its "burden of proof" requirement and proven the most pristine estuary in South Puget Sound, with waters categorized as "extraordinary", will not be degraded with the addition of 58 more rafts growing non-native mussels.  Among other things, their testifying that dissolved oxygen levels within, below and around current mussel farms - and by extension the proposed farm - fall to hypoxic levels is a self-inflicted "burden" they did not overcome.

APHETI Post Hearing Brief:  (click here)
Taylor Shellfish Post Hearing Brief:  (click here)

One of Two Existing Taylor Mussel Farms in Totten Inlet

Which Causes Dissolved Oxygen Levels to Reach Hypoxic Levels 

(click to enlarge)