Our mission is to protect the habitat of Puget Sound tidelands from the underregulated expansion of new and intensive shellfish aquaculture methods. These methods were never anticipated when the Shoreline Management Act was passed. They are transforming the natural tideland ecosystems in Puget Sound and are resulting in a fractured shoreline habitat. In South Puget Sound much of this has been done with few if any meaningful shoreline permits and with limited public input. It is exactly what the Shoreline Management Act was intended to prevent.

Get involved and contact your elected officials to let them you do not support aquaculture's industrial transformation of Puget Sound's tidelands.

Governor Inslee:

Monday, May 13, 2013

May 14: Drakes Bay Oyster Company's Day in Court, Again

Update 5/15:
The East Bay Express reports that from questions asked by the three-judge panel it appears they will rule against Drakes Bay Oyster Company.
Earth Island Journal has an article by Amy Trainer on why it is time for Drakes Estero to be allowed to become the wilderness Congress intended it to become in 1972.

Drakes Estero (from Earth Island Journal)

Sunday, May 12, 2013

10 Shellfish Nurseries in Oakland Bay Marina Proposed by City of Shelton Ammendment to Draft Shoreline Master Program

The Mason County Journal reported that at a public hearing held May 6 the City of Shelton announced it was considering amending its draft of the updated Shoreline Master Program in order to allow up to 10 of Oakland Bay Marina's boathouses to be converted to shellfish nurseries. (see page 2/3 here for amendment) In the comments about the amendment it is noted there have already been 2 permits for conversion from public use to private commercial use, with 3 more being considered. The first reading of the proposed amendment and updated SMP will be held at the commission's May 28 meeting.
 
Oakland Bay Marina and Existing Nursery
(click to enlarge)
 
While City Planner Jason Dose felt the conversion was "a fairly benign use" he did acknowledge  they were "pushing the envelope" by suggesting 10 boathouses be converted. It wasn't clear whether there are any "liveaboards" currently using any of the boathouses and how they feel about the commercial operations.
 
Members of the public present expressed a variety of concerns, one being the conversion of that portion of the marina to private commercial use, preventing public access. Impacts on tourism was another area focused on as was the need to upgrade the infrastructure, with water pressure being described as providing "a teaspoon per hour." Commissioner Mike Olsen also pointed out that the Oakland Bay Marina is the only public marina in Shelton.
 
One alternative suggested was to add an additional float. Another suggestion may be to simply expand the nursery facility already in operation further away from the marina, near the Manke gravel barge loading area, already converted to private commercial use.
 
 
 
Shellfish companies covet the area as it has power, a necessity for "upwellers" used in nurseries, and it is adjacent to a public boat launch which they use for loading and off-loading equipment.
 
At the May 28 hearing, the City will explain how the amendment meets the first two goals from Chapter 3, "Shoreline Master Program Goals and Policies".
 
3.1 General Shoreline Goals
 
SMP1.1. Adequately protect and preserve shoreline areas from incompatible types and intensities of development. Reserve shoreline areas for water-related uses. [is growing shellfish in a marina a "compatible" development?]

SMP 1.2. Increase public access to shoreline areas by increasing the opportunities for the public to reach, touch and enjoy the water’s edge, travel on the waters of the state and view the water and shoreline from adjacent locations. [does removing 15% of the boathouses from public access increase opportunities?]

Friday, May 10, 2013

May's Deep Minus Tides are Coming, Native Habitat is Going

 
(Olympia Times)
 
Get out and explore the tidelands during these deep low tides. You'll discover a world which appears few times during the daylight hours. And if you happen to be in Burley Lagoon you might check to see what it is Taylor Shellfish is clearing off of the tidelands and what they've left behind.
 
"Taylor's Bins"
full of rocks, barnacles and shells
cleared from the tidelands.
For what?
Hauled off to who knows where?
 
Get out and enjoy the unique native habitat exposed during these minus tides. While it's still there.



Thursday, May 9, 2013

Drakes Estero: Former Mayor Speaks out in Support of Point Reyes Wilderness

Lynn Hamilton, former Mayor for the City of Sebastopol, writes in the Healdburg Tribune in support of allowing Drakes Estero to finally become the wilderness area Congress intended. She notes that Drakes Bay Oyster Company's signs being spread throughout Marin and Sanoma Counties should say "Save Point Reyes Wilderness" which DBOC is preventing from occurring.
She writes: This is not an issue of “farmer” vs big government. The real issue here is that private development and industry interests have been working for years to overturn environmental laws and allow natural resource extraction and commercial development in the wilderness areas, national parks, oceans, estuaries and other publicly owned and protected lands.
The Lunny family knew that their rights to using the uplands, tidelands and waters in Drakes Estero would end in 2012. Instead of being grateful for the use of public lands for almost 7 years, from which they have profited handsomely, they have instead chosen to allow themselves to be allied with industries whose view on wilderness areas is that they are a hindrance to their expansion and profitability. The oil, mining, timber and other industries would love nothing more than to see DBOC be allowed to continue their commercial operation covering over 1,000 acres in this wilderness.

The Lunny family needs to consider what they wish to leave as their legacy to future generations.

Monday, May 6, 2013

Drakes Estero: Phyllis Faber Lawsuit Against Coastal Commission Called Frivolous

In a guest op-ed piece published in the May 2, Marin Independent Journal, Dr. Martin Griffin describes the lawsuit filed by Ms. Phyllis Faber against the California Coastal Commission (CCC) as a misguided effort which he forcefully states is frivolous. Ms. Faber challenged the CCC's orders against Drakes Bay Oyster Company (DBOC) for their numerous Coastal Act violations they have chosen to ignore.

Dr. Martin Griffin


In the piece he reminds readers about the fact that DBOC chose to ignore previous cease and desist orders filed against them. He correctly describes a company who simply chose to ignore numerous requests, becoming demands, that they correct deficiencies in their operation which were in violation of the Coastal Act. It clearly states that DBOC is alone in their ignoring regulations every other shellfish operator in California finds no problems complying with. Touched on but not developed fully is the false belief by Ms. Faber and others that cessation of the commercial shellfish farm's operations will have adverse ecological impacts worse than those currently occurring, a claim not based on fact but supposition put forth by DBOC's attorney.

Seemingly, the friendship between Ms. Faber and the Lunny family will alter a legacy of environmental activism she has established over her lifetime. If she prevails, the Coastal Act will be greatly diminished and the ability of the California Coastal Commission to enforce the regulations it was created to oversee will be greatly weakened. Something many industries will not doubt be enthused about.

Thursday, May 2, 2013

Drakes Estero and Puget Sound: Shellfish Standards of Science

Drakes Estero in California and Puget Sound in Washington have created a lens to look through when one wants to see how an industry uses selective science to achieve use of a resource which has multiple uses, some in conflict with what that industry wants. While focus has been on the oil industry's use of Drakes Bay Oyster Company (DBOC) as a pawn to open up other wilderness areas for drilling, an equally if not more important issue is hidden behind the fog- the shellfish industry's duplicity in determining what it defines as "science."

In the case of Drakes Estero the National Parks Service (NPS) initiated a number of studies to help understand whether DBOC's commercial use of Drakes Estero's waters and tidelands could exist within a designated wilderness area, the first shoreline wilderness area on the west coast. Those studies looked at the structures in the marine waters/tidelands, the non-native species of shellfish being grown, eelgrass beds, and noise. In part they helped to confirm that commercial operations, of any sort, within a designated wilderness area were simply not compatible. But to the shellfish industry what those studies revealed was alarming, setting off a cascade of legal actions and studies to prevent what the Executive Director of the East Coast Shellfish Growers Associate, Bob Rheault, defined as information which "will be used against our industry for decades to come".
It should be noted that Kevin Lunny, the owner of DBOC is also a cousin of ECSGA's past president, Tom Kehoe, and was also an active member in the Pacific Coast Shellfish Grower's Association (PCSGA). Both are industry's lobbying groups.
Brought into the picture was attorney Billy Plauche from Seattle and Environ International, an environmental consulting firm. Both are used by PCSGA to press agencies for the expansion of the shellfish industry in Washington. Challenges on the "quality of science" and counter-studies challenging the use of "proxies" (something similar to an action to determine whether the actual action is having an impact) were presented in an effort to prevent the information found from spreading to Washington where it may be used as a deterrent to expansion.

In November of 2012, Secretary Salazar made a decision. DBOC's commercial operation prevented the formation of the Congressionally designated wilderness area and the lease would not be renewed. It was a simple contractual decision based on the reality that were DBOC allowed to continue its operations, covering over 1,000 acres of the shoreline wilderness area, there would be nothing to stop other industries - oil, mining, timber - from saying their commercial operations should also be allowed into designated wilderness areas owned by the Federal Government - US taxpayers.

Puget Sound's tidelands are a mosaic of private and state owned parcels. Overseeing their development is the Shoreline Management Act, passed in 1971 when an attempt to convert the last large river delta area into a deep sea port was made. It acknowledges the multiple uses of the "most valuable and fragile of its natural resources" and that it should be managed to "minimize, insofar as practical, any resultant damage to the ecology and environment of the shoreline area and any interference with the public's use of the water." Through the SMA regulations have evolved which have prevented Puget Sound from becoming Chesapeake Bay.

As regulations have evolved, so has the shellfish industry. In the mid to late 1900's the industry could be relied on for ensuring the marine waters of Washington remained healthy. From the elimination of pulp mill effluent discharges in Shelton to forcing septic plants in Aberdeen to be upgraded so discharges into Grays Harbor were minimized, they were on the forefront. But in the 1990's what had been an industry made up of small family owned operations transitioned. Consolidation began to occur and control of the market began to fall into the hands of a few large companies. And the geoduck industry began to evolve.

What had been a subtidal operation run by the state and tribes, moved into the intertidal area, a strip of tidelands exposed and covered each day. An area where species unique to the world evolved and were able to survive both in and out of the marine waters. An area where geoducks were never able to establish themselves due to the natural ecosystem preventing their establishment. An area where placement of PVC pipes and netting created an artificial environment which allowed geoduck to be planted and harvested, creating a cycle of impacts which forever converted that area.

Alarmed by the ever increasing forests of PVC pipes appearing, in 2007 citizens demanded that the state act to ensure the Shoreline Management Act's goals were achieved. A bill was passed forcing review of science which showed none existed. The shellfish industry's famous response was "there is no science showing harm, therefor, there is no harm." Ignored was the fact that none existed, but because of citizen action, studies were initiated.

Included in the law was: RCW 28B.20.475 (3) All research commissioned under this section must be subjected to a rigorous peer review process prior to being accepted and reported by the sea grant program. Since that time studies have taken place looking at discrete moments in time of a larger cycle.

What has not taken place is the peer review of those studies. Instead, during various permit applications a Masters Thesis is presented as "science" and the lead investigator's updates and presentations to PCSGA are used as "science." Environ's Biological Evaluations, authored by principals who themselves own geoduck companies, are presented as objective evaluations of whether there is an impact from geoduck farming. In short, the very "quality of science" problem the industry is so "alarmed" over in Drakes Estero is taking place in Puget Sound. The difference? Their "science" is somehow different.

The more noise made preventing Drakes Estero from becoming the wilderness Congress intended it to become, the more clear the duplicity found in the shellfish industry's use of selective science will become.



Monday, April 29, 2013

May 2: Detienne Geoduck Farm Hearing #2

May 2, 10AM to 4PM
Pierce County Permit SD35-05
Detienne Subtidal Geoduck Farm
Contact: Ty Booth email: tbooth@co.pierce.wa.us
Pierce County Council Members: pccouncil@co.pierce.wa.us
Location: Pierce County Public Services Building, South Entrance, Public Meeting Room
2401 South 35th Street, Tacoma
After the proponents for the Detienne subtidal geoduck farm dropped off over 80 additional exhibits at the March 27 Hearing, the Pierce County Hearing Examiner was asked for and granted a second Hearing. In addition, the Examiner also granted the public time to review the additional information and submit comments, as well as have the proponent's attorney and consultant respond to those comments.

In addition, the proponent's attorney supplied an additional letter to the County in which they asked for reductions and elimination of various conditions. Those negotiations were not distributed to the public but some of what occurred is found in letters available on the county's website. They include an April 9 memo from the attorney and an internal April 24 memo to Pierce County Planning.

In those memos are found the continued resistance from the shellfish industry to conditions which limit their operations. Included are discussions of buffer distances from existing eelgrass beds and wanting some types of protected eelgrass to be considered a "weed."

Is this really science?
Not found in the memos but in the response to comments by the proponent's attorney is the mistaken belief that this commercial subtidal geoduck farm, planted in densities of over 40,000 geoduck per acre, is somehow similar to wild geoduck densities. In the response to the County, the hired consultant (Environ) mistakenly tries to put forth the argument that because there are a few isolated pockets of wild geoduck in higher densities than what studies used, it must mean studies which looked at subtidal geoduck farming may be used to show there is no harm.

In fact, virtually all subtidal studies did not consider isolated dense pockets of geoduck (if they exist). They instead assumed densities were far less and modeled studies based on that lower density. As an example, the Department of Natural Resources sediment plume study, a supplement to its EIS, harvested 24 geoduck from a 30M X 30M site (900 square meters, or ~1/4 of an acre) and then based sediment plume generation from that.

Studies show sediments settle quickly and are local - because studies did not go on for weeks.
Another argument put forth is that sediments settle out quickly and are localized. If your study looks at harvesting during one tidal cycle it may very well be true. However, industrial operations are not simply one cycle or even 2 day events. They may last for months.

Eelgrass is a priority habitat and is protected because it is fragile and its habitat functions are critical to a variety of species.
One of the most telling sentences in an exhibit submitted was this explanation of why a bed of eelgrass died off, found in Exhibit 78, a study by David Ward, discussing changes in eelgrass beds: Most eelgrass losses were likely the result of sediment loading and turbidity caused by a single flooding event in winter of 1992–1993. Significant and adverse impacts on eelgrass from sediments and turbidity may happen quickly, within a single event, and be devastating. Harvesting of commercially planted farms go on for months. In this case it is immediately adjacent to one of the few eelgrass beds in south Puget Sound.

If approved, Pierce County will set a precedent based on selective and unrelated studies which will be felt throughout Puget Sound. There is no better example of why it is time for the Examiner to decide whether environmental impacts were adequately considered. No science showing impacts does not mean impacts are not happening. You simply need to look to see it is lacking, then act.

Friday, April 26, 2013

Drakes Bay Oyster Company to California: "Oops, I meant to say ..."

Darned Math

In what appears to be the latest attempt by Drakes Bay Oyster Company to prevent creation of the only Congressionally designated national seashore wilderness on the west coast they have revealed to the California Fish and Game Commission that they made a small mistake. Instead of estimated cleanup costs being the $10,000 they have been reporting for the past 7 years to the Commission, it instead may cost up to $600,000. Apparently they also feel taxpayers should be responsible for it despite their knowing their right to use Drakes Estero would end in 2012.

With new numbers out on the table, perhaps the Commission might consider looking at the past 7 years of payments received over those years of Drakes Estero occupancy allowed before their right to use Drakes Estero tidelands and waters ended. In addition to the sudden increase in estimated cleanup costs, Drakes Bay Oyster Company has also estimated they have over 19 million oysters in Drakes Estero. An audit using those numbers may reveal Drakes Bay Oyster Company has made another miscalculation. Also at the expense of California taxpayers.

Thursday, April 25, 2013

Spreading the Wealth - From the Shellfish Industry to Puget Sound

What else will the minus tides
bring to us over the next few days?
 
Times of upcoming low tides (Olympia)
Thursday April 25, 12:16PM, -1.2
 Friday April 26, 12:57PM, -2.2 Saturday April 27, 1:40PM, -2.8 Sunday April 28, 2:27PM, -2.9 Monday April 29, 3:16PM, -2.6 Tuesday April 30, 4:09PM, -1.8

 
Mussel Disc
(Eld Inlet)
 
Mesh netting
(Eld Inlet)

Wednesday, April 24, 2013

Huffington Post on Drakes Bay Oyster Company's Strange Alliance with Oil

"Oil and water? We know they don't mix. As for oil and oysters, apparently they do." Huffington Post, April 24

Huffington Post's Helen Grieco writes today on Drakes Bay Oyster Company's strange alliance with oil and how the current owners got there. [click here for article]

From the article is a brief background:
As a refresher, here are the key facts: the Point Reyes National Seashore was established in 1962 and ten years later, taxpayers purchased the property that belonged to the Johnson Oyster Company for inclusion and protection in this national park, though a 40-year non-renewable leaseback meant the public would have to wait until 2012 to see the fruits of their investment. In 1976, Congress designated 33,000 acres of wilderness in the Seashore, including the Drakes Bay estuary, giving these prized lands and waters much needed protections. Notably, the estuary was the first marine wilderness on the West Coast. But again, the temporary existence of the oyster company meant the protections wouldn't manifest until the oyster lease expired.

Fast-forward to 2004: The original oyster company sold its lease to new investors, the Drakes Bay Oyster Company, who purchased the business at a significant discount given the looming 2012 lease expiration. But immediately after purchasing, the company commenced a lobbying campaign to stay beyond 2012, a campaign to hijack from taxpayers the land they purchased and planned for the historic conservation achievement of marine wilderness. The new company owners, their lawyers, lobbyists, and political backers fought for an extension, which outgoing U.S. Interior Secretary Ken Salazar denied. He allowed the permit to expire under its own terms and in turn, ensured there would be no precedent set by allowing commercial development of a natural area already deemed by Congress as deserving of the highest protections.