4/24: Bloomberg News on DOE's Approval to Spray Imidacloprid - "What could go wrong?"

"A pesticide from the group of chemicals linked

to colony collapse disorder will now

be sprayed in US waters.

What could go wrong?"

Bloomberg News, April 24

“We’re not going near the aquatic use

of pesticides because of the liability issues.”

Bayer CropScience

Bayer refuses to approve marine application

April 24th, Bloomberg News writes on the Department of Ecology's approval to spray the pesticide imidacloprid on 1,500 acres of shellfish beds in Willapa Bay and 500 acres in Grays Harbor. The article notes Bayer CropScience's refusing to approve the application of imidacloprid for aquatic use, writing:

Fischer of Bayer CropScience notes that his company had reason to worry: “On all our imidacloprid labels, it says, ‘Do not apply directly to water.’ You don’t want to hit nontarget organisms like crabs.”

Go down under to get around things - and find a lobbyist
Dick Sheldon with Northern Oyster was fortunate, in his eyes. As explained in the article, imidacloprid had come off patent in 2005. A generic form began being manufactured by NuFarm in Australia. However, they refused to approach the Environmental Protection Agency. Undeterred, the growers enlisted the help of Washington lobbyist Alan Schreiber and ex-employee of the EPA. Mr. Schreiber convinced the growers to approach the EPA directly who said it would leave the final decision to the Department of Ecology. With DOE's approval, NuFarm is now happy to provide imidacloprid for application on Washington's shellfish beds and the growers are happy to apply it.

What could go wrong? There are no honey bees on the tidelands.

Brady Engval, one of the last pure old time oyster growers in Washington, joked at a hearing there are not many honey bees on the tidelands. Lost on Mr. Engval was Bayer CropScience refusing to approve the application over concerns of "nontarget organisms like crabs." With DOE's approval, NuFarm from Australia has no such concerns, so will gladly sell whatever amount of imidacloprid the growers want.

The "merroir" of a Willapa Bay oyster

Marketing plans and talking points behind those plans are always fascinating to hear. In the case of Willapa Bay oysters, it is the "merroir" (the taste given an oyster based on the marine environment it is grown in) which helps to sell those oysters. The next time someone speaks of the "merroir" of a Willapa Bay oyster you can tell them you know why it tastes as it does. And why you don't eat them.

In the end...

From the article: As Charles Benbrook, a WSU toxicologist, sees it, “Imidacloprid is malware. It doesn’t blow up any buildings, but it inserts itself ruinously into the neurological code of a species.” Taking a stance that many of his colleagues would consider extreme, he argues, “Imidacloprid is more dangerous than old-school chemicals like carbaryl—definitely. It’s insidious.” In the article, Dick Sheldon's son notes his father wants to be buried in his boat. If he eats enough oysters from Willapa Bay, that may happen sooner than later.

Imidacloprid: DOE Quietly Approves Spraying of 1,500 Acres in Willapa Bay

EPA: “There are a number of uncertainties

related to the proposed use of Imidacloprid

on oyster beds in Willapa Bay and Grays Harbor"



With little fanfare the Department of Ecology has issued a permit which will allow the application of imidacloprid, beginning May 16. Banned in the European Union the DOE announced:

The Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology) has issued a new individual permit to regulate the use of imidacloprid for management of burrowing shrimp on commercial oyster and clam beds in Willapa bay and Grays Harbor, a surface water of Washington State. Permit development was requested by the Willapa/Grays Harbor Oyster Growers Association (WGHOGA) to control burrowing shrimp on commercial oyster and clam beds in Willapa Bay and Grays Harbor to aid in the cultivation and harvest of oysters and clams. Additionally, the applicant has applied for a Sediment Impact Zone (SIZ) as the proposed discharge will likely impact sediment quality on sediments where the pesticide is applied.

A letter to the White House dated November 24, 2014 and signed by 108 individuals states:

The 108 signers of this letter therefore urge you to take immediate action to protect bees and other pollinators, particularly from pesticides known to be harmful.

 

Whole Foods has issued a Quality Standards document for shellfish sold in their outlets which does not permit the use of synthetic pesticides.

 

The European Union has banned the use of imidacloprid. US Fish and Wildlife will no longer allow its use on its wildlife refuges. The City of Portland has issued an immediate ban on its use. Lowe's will phase out the sale of imidacloprid.

Read "Are your oysters sprayed with pesticides?" in which writes of a happenstance meeting in the Tabard Inn in Washington DC with a Willapa Bay resident.

Politics pays and the shellfish industry pays a lot. The shellfish industry's law firm Plauche and Carr sponsored a "risk assessment" by Compliance Services International to promote the use of this pesticide in Willapa Bay.

 

Get involved. Willapa Bay oyster and clam growers are transforming a marine habitat with pesticides and herbicides for their economic benefit. Tell your seafood outlet you will not buy oysters grown in Willapa Bay.

Superior Court Upholds SHB Denial of Geoduck Farm Permit - Press Release

Geoduck Farm Permit Denial Upheld by Superior Court: The Coalition to Protect Puget Sound Habitat has issued a press release on the recent Superior Court decision which upheld the Shorelines Hearings Board's denial of a permit issued for a geoduck farm in south Puget Sound. In upholding the denial the Superior Court acknowledged the need for deeper studies on the cumulative impacts these industrial operations are having on Puget Sound's critical marine habitats. To those who gave their valuable time and financial support needed to stand up to this well financed and motivated industry, thank you. Get involved - it does make a difference.

MEDIA ADVISORY
Date:  April 21, 2015
Contact: Laura Hendricks  (253) 509-4987
Thurston County Superior Court Decision in Darrell de Tienne and Chelsea Farms, LLC v. Shoreline Hearings Board, Coalition to Protect Puget Sound Habitat and Paul and Betty Garrison, Pierce County

On April 3, 2015, Thurston County Superior Court Judge Carol Ann Murphy announced her decision regarding the appeal of the Shorelines Hearings Board (SHB) denial of the Shoreline Substantial Development permit for a five plus acre commercial geoduck farm in Henderson Bay on a site that included extensive eelgrass beds that had been earlier devastated by the illegal harvest of geoduck by the applicant, Darrell de Tienne, and his former harvest partner, Washington Shellfish.  

Judge Murphy concluded that the SHB decision in January 2014 correctly interpreted and applied the relevant law and that its Findings of Fact were supported by substantial evidence.  Judge Murphy’s decision means that, absent a further appeal to the Court of Appeals, the permit to operate the farm issued by Pierce County was revoked. The case and the Shoreline Hearings Board decision were noteworthy in several respects.  The geoduck farm, had it been permitted, would have been the first subtidal farm in Pierce County.  There has been a rapid expansion of commercial nearshore geoduck farms in recent years as the demand for the geoduck has exploded in Asian markets, particularly China, where the long necked clam is perceived by many as an “aphrodisiac.” 

Laura Hendricks, Citizen Representative for the Coalition to Protect Puget Sound Habitat (Coalition), said her organization was especially pleased by Judge Murphy’s decision because it meant, for the first time, there would be a scientific examination and analysis of potential adverse environmental impacts associated with the proliferation of geoduck farms in south Puget Sound.  “We’ve been advocating for a  cumulative impacts analysis to be completed for some time now,” said Hendricks.  “This is a major win." "The commercial shellfish industry has been resisting calls for greater environmental scrutiny of their  operations for years.  Now, for the first time, the people who care about the environmental health of Puget Sound and the impacts of the tremendous expansion of the commercial shellfish industry in the  Sound will have their concerns addressed.” 

Judge Murphy’s ruling also upheld the Shoreline Hearings Board’s rejection of the 10 feet and 25 feet seaward eelgrass protection buffers contained in the Pierce County Permit for the farm.  Eelgrass  enhancement is one of the top three recovery goals established for Puget Sound, and protection and restoration of eelgrass in Puget Sound has been a longtime goal of the Puget Sound Partnership. The Coalition fought for seaward buffers for eelgrass protection of at least 100 feet and just recently found that the Canadian science paper that the shellfish industry presented to the SHB to try to justify smaller eelgrass buffers was rejected for publication by the Journal of Shellfish Research after the hearing. 

The substantially reduced protection for eelgrass, which occurred after the formal Pierce County hearing concerning the farm’s permit had commenced, was deeply troubling to opponents of the farm, Brad and Sandra Newell, Coalition members and Henderson Bay residents. Said Brad, “That was a last minute backroom political deal, so we’re delighted the SHB decision rejecting the minimal buffer will remain in place.  There was no scientific basis for such a reduction.”  “It also is completely contrary to the suggested 180 foot waterward buffer for subtidal farms to protect submerged aquatic vegetation just adopted by the Pierce County Commission in its updated Shoreline Master Program last month,” added Thane Tienson, attorney for the Coalition. 

The Coalition also opposed the planned farm, as it has many others, as they continue to point to scientific studies documenting harm from plastic pollution like the widespread aquaculture gear plastic pollution in Puget Sound waters. Shellfish farms use hundreds of thousands of plastic PVC tubes, HDPE netting, plastic bands and HDPE bags for their operations as scientists say the resulting plastic debris and plastic particles harm aquatic life. According to Charles Moore, the world renowned marine plastic debris expert who has testified for the Coalition, "at the present time, it does not appear possible to introduce any conventional plastic into the marine environment without harmful consequences."

Judge Murphy's final signed decision should be available in the coming weeks. For more information:                                         www.coalitiontoprotectpugetsoundhabitat.org

Burley Lagoon: Taylor Shellfish Agrees - Not All Farms are Equal, will Perform an EIS

"every farm is different" Taylor Shellfish, April 13, 2015

What took you so long?

 

Trust us, one PVC tube is the same as the next, and the next, and the next ...

For years Taylor Shellfish and others have tried to place all geoduck farms into the same frame, using past separate permit approvals, Shorelines Hearings Board decisions and court decisions to support their applications, implying they are all the same. In permit hearings and court cases they have claimed studies which have looked at discrete farm operations clearly show all farms, no matter the size, no matter the location, have no impact. This despite one of their most widely used studies stating the following qualification after peer review and publication this year:

"...it is cautioned that projection of the current study results to larger temporal or spatial scales may be inappropriate in the absence of additional studies. The sites for the current study were relatively isolated from other geoduck aquaculture plots, and were being used for aquaculture of geoducks for the first time. The data may not provide a sufficient basis for unequivocal extrapolation to cases when a given plot is exposed to a long series of successive geoduck aquaculture cycles. Likewise, it may not be appropriate to extend the findings of the current study to cases when a number of separate plots are adjacent to one another and encompass significantly larger surface areas than any single plot. Resolution of the questions of larger spatial and temporal scales will be a major challenge for geoduck farmers as they continue production on existing plots and expand into new areas, and will be an important research goal in the interests of informed management policies by natural resource agencies." (ECOLOGICAL EFFECTS OF THE HARVEST PHASE OF GEODUCK (PANOPEA GENEROSA GOULD, 1850) AQUACULTURE ON INFAUNAL COMMUNITIES IN SOUTHERN PUGET SOUND, WASHINGTON, Glen Van Blaricom et al, Journal of Shellfish Research, March 2015)

 

 

After quoting the above study untold times, without noting the qualifications, Taylor Shellfish has finally conceded that, in fact, geoduck farms are not all equal. In an April 13, 2015 letter to Pierce County, their attorney Billy Plauche with Plauche and Carr has said Taylor Shellfish will perform an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for its proposed 25 acre geoduck farm in Burley Lagoon. It is not the only one which should be required to have an EIS.

 

Get involved. The people concerned about Burley Lagoon did.
 

  

 

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.

Imidicloprid Spraying in Willapa Bay: Department of Ecology Releases Final EIS

[Update 4/10: A petition on Change.org has been created by Westport Salmon Tales which asks DOE to deny any permit applications for the use if imidacloprid in Willapa Bay. Get involved and sign the petition.] 

"[imidacloprid] has severe effects

on a range of organisms

that provide ecosystem services"

(European Academies Science Advisory Council)

 

Preferred alternative for Willapa Bay:

Spray 7,000 acres with imidacloprid.

Final EIS, April 9 (20mb file)

 

Just another native species

the shellfish industry wants eliminated

through chemical application

to Willapa Bay's shellfish beds.



 

The Department of Ecology has released its final Environmental Impact Statement with spraying the pesticided Imidicloprid on up to 7,000 acres over 5 years to control burrowing shrimp as the preferred alternative. The FEIS can be found here (20mb file):

http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wq/pesticides/imidacloprid/docs/ImidaclopridFEIS2015.pdf

 

This follows by one day the article in the New York Times which describes the growing concerns over the use of neonicotinoids, which imidacloprid is one of. In the article, they remind us that Europe has banned the use of this pesticide and discuss the European Academies Science Advisory Council's study, noting:

A growing body of evidence shows that the widespread use of the pesticides “has severe effects on a range of organisms that provide ecosystem services like pollination and natural pest control, as well as on biodiversity,” the report’s authors said.

Get involved. The shellfish industry is and no state agencies are willing to stand up to the industry.

Elected officials: http://app.leg.wa.gov/DistrictFinder/
Tell Costco to stop buying oysters from Willapa Bay (email button on lower left of their Customer Service site)
Don't buy oysters from Willapa Bay.

 

 

 

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.

Superior Court will Decide the Detienne/Chelsea Subtidal Geoduck Farm Permit Tomorrow

[Update 4/3: The Superior Court has ruled in favor of the Shorelines Hearings Board decision to deny the permit. Details will be provided when available.]

What: Superior Court will decide whether the Shorelines Hearings Board decision to deny the permit for the Detienne/Chelsea subtidal geoduck farm will stand or be reversed.
When: 1:30
Where: Thurston County Superior Court  

2000 Lakeridge Drive 

Building 2 

Olympia 98502  

Why it's important: The Shorelines Hearings Board reversed Pierce County's approval of this permit saying its uniqueness should have resulted in Pierce County having denied the permit. It is the first subtidal geoduck farm in Puget Sound, within one of the only remaining eelgrass beds in south Puget Sound. 

SHB Decision: "the Permit is therefore DENIED." You may read the SHB decision here.

 

Permit denied by the SHB,

reversing Pierce County's decision.

 

 

To recap (from Friends of Burley Lagoon):   Pierce County originally  granted a Permit, with conditions,  for the geoduck farm in Wauna.  Citizens there, with the Coalition, appealed the County's decision to the Shoreline Hearings Board.   After a six- day hearing, the SHB denied the permit.   Pierce County (via Deputy Prosector advisor Jill Guernsey) appealed the SHB decision initially on a procedural matter, DeTienne/Chelsea Farms cited other issues.   The issues were heard by a single Judge of Thurston County Superior Court.  The Judge denied Pierce County's procedural portion;  the other issues will be decided at tomorrow's hearing before the same Judge.

(read the SHB denial here)

 

Politics Pays: Jill Guernsey, Deputy Prosecuting Attorney 

gets some money from Plauche and Carr - after she appeals.

 

Ms. Guernsey runs for Mayor of Gig Harbor - unopposed - and wins

Entwined within the story is another of shellfish politics. In February of 2013, Pierce County, through their attorney Jill Guernsey, decided to appeal the SHB reversal of their granting the permit (see Ms Guernsey/Pierce County Petition for Review here, which was denied). In March of 2013, a $500 donation to Ms. Gurensey's campaign  from the law firm representing Chelsea and Detienne, Plauche and Carr, was recorded as having been made (see Plauche Carr Petition for Review here). In April of 2013, Ms. Guernsey formally kicked off her Gig Harbor mayoral campaign. She

 

Does a job depend on political donations?

Dennis Hamberg, Director of Pierce County

Planning and Land Services helps out too.

 

 

Reminder: Zangle Cove Geoduck Farm Comments Due April 1

Not all tidelands are equal.

 

See Public Notice of application here:

https://app.box.com/s/25heih8r12muh8actu9sr0dwt5x7ktiq

Send comments to: Tony Kantas at kantast@co.thurston.wa.us

(see Public Notice for additional contact information)

 

Intensive commercial development

should not be permitted in residential areas

on tidelands NOT purchased for aquaculture.

 

Zangle Cove, Thurston County

A residential community with tidelands

shared by everyone for generations.

 

If you order today I'll include shipping and handling.

Mr. and Mrs. Sohn have created a LLC ("Pacific Northwest Aquaculture", formed in December of 2013) through which they have submitted a permit application for a geoduck farm in Zangle Cove. Their consultant, ACERA, who bills themselves as a firm providing services for a "competitive quote"  with a "current special offer" of $200 off their already low price, details in the application what the Sohn's intend to do. Who will be doing it is not explained, something of importance as the Sohn's have no apparent experience in aquaculture, let alone geoduck operations.

 

Whose tidelands are they and where are they located?

 

Are those stakes out there a mistake?

In mid-2014 stakes appeared in the middle of Zangle Cove, the result of a survey. Residents immediately began questioning why the stakes were placed where they were and for what reason. Explanations from the surveyor fell flat and it quickly became apparent the survey being done was not based on accurate information. As seen in the notes on the "Tideland Survey Plan View" above, the plan submitted is based on a "we think it's ours" assumption. Surveys are not supposed to be "it's close enough for government work." Project plans submitted on questionable data should be rejected.

 

 

That BE looks familiar.

ACERA was recently noted for its involvement with an unpermitted geoduck farm near Poulsbo. There, Scott Kimmel with New Day Fisheries "didn't know" he was supposed to get permits He has since withdrawn his attempt to obtain an after-the-fact permit, using ACERA. In south Puget Sound, ACERA was used in the Wheeler geoduck permitting process. The amount of cut-and-paste from the Wheeler Biological Evaluation to the Sohn's Biological Evaluation  should make regulators look closely at what is being provided.

 

"There is currently no commercial aquaculture,

but Zangle Cove was a historic shellfish farming area for oysters."

ACERA, page 9

Application to purchase the Sohn tidelands

from the state says that's not why they were purchased.

(click to enlarge)

 

Not all tidelands are equal - "Not suitable for the cultivation of oysters."

Of particular focus for regulators is just why these tidelands in Zangle Cove were purchased in the first place and what they have been used for since. The shellfish industry would have all believe that the only reason tidelands were purchased in Puget Sound was for aquaculture. This is far from the truth. In fact, it can be safely said that the majority of tidelands were not purchased for aquaculture. Especially the type of aquaculture being proposed by the Sohn's and described by ACERA. There is no commercial "historic shellfish farming" which has occurred in this residential cove of the type being proposed. These tidelands in Zangle Cove were purchased for the benefit of upland owners to ensure access to water at low tide. It clearly states on the application to purchase the tidelands they "are NOT suitable for the cultivation of oysters" which clearly proves they were not purchased for aquaculture then, nor were they ever intended to be.

 

Get involved: The shellfish industry is and they will say anything to obtain access to tidelands for commercial shellfish production.



 



 

 



 



 

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