Ecology and Economics of Geoducks

The Kitsap Sun's July 23, 2011 article "Economic benefits, ecological questions stall geoduck industry growth" by John Stang discusses the ecological concerns and economic benefits of geoduck farming. 

Some comments include:

1.  Taylor Shellfish spokesman Mr. Dewey believes the ecological concerns are driven by shoreline owners seeing tubes and workers on the tidelands. Shoreline owners did question what impact placing 38,000 tubes per acre was having on Puget Sound's intertidal ecosystem.  For that reason House Bill 2220 was passed.  In part it resulted in the University of Washington's Sea Grant finding no peer reviewed scientific studies existed (see Geoduck Literature Review).  As a direct result of concerns expressed by those first made aware of this new form of aquaculture the industry found itself being brought under regulatory scrutiny, resulting in a "Not Against My Business or Industry" backlash and unproductive statements such as Mr. Dewey's.

2.  In the article it noted the opinion of the University of Washington's Dr. VanBlaricom that the greatest densities of wild geoduck are occasionally the same as those found in commercial geoduck farms.  Comparing subtidal densities to intertidal densities is questionable at best.  Commercial densities forced into the ecosystem of the intertidal zone exposed each day by outgoing tides and covered again by incoming tides simply do not exist naturally, nor do the 38,000 plastic tubes per acre. 

3.  The article notes one factor limiting growth is hatchery seed survival rates falling and "the industry has not yet figured the cause of the drop."  Unnatural population densities of a genetic strain unable to survive puts the wild population of that species at risk.  The July 27, 2011 NY Times article entitled  "Norwegians Concede a Role in Chilean Salmon Virus" notes how Chile's wild salmon population has been decimated through the introduction of a virus through eggs shipped from Norway.  There is a risk found in aquaculture and regulations which minimize this risk are well founded, even if they stall growth.

4.  Commodities carry an economic risk with over production and geoduck are little different than tulips.  The article notes there are 360 acres currently in production.  If two geoduck per tube survive to 1.5 pounds, each acre produces 114,000 pounds  (38,000tubes*2*1.5#).  This means 41 million pounds are in various stages of growth.  If 2008, 2009 and 2010 produced 4.2 million pounds, this would leave 36.8 million pounds coming to market over the next four years.   What will happen to state and tribal geoduck revenues if overproduction causes the market to collapse?

5.  The Shoreline Management Act was created to prevent the fragmentation of the ecosystem found in Puget Sound's shoreline and to balance the various demands placed on the shoreline. Regulations controlling what goes on in the intertidal zone are needed to balance the ecological concerns with the economic benefits of geoduck aquaculture.

Whose Tidelands Are They?

Why does the question of "whose tidelands are they" matter?

Whether the public using them for recreational use; waterfront homeowners wishing to keep people off of their property; or, others interested in commercializing them, the answer to "whose tidelands are they" is important and not always clear.  How they were sold by Washington State and others through time has created challenges, some minor, some more significant. 

This picture of Harstine Island helps to show what some of the challenges are.

Harstine Island

(click to enlarge)

Tidelands in the lower portion of the picture, roughly below the line drawn in, include the area from the high tide line down to the extreme low tide line, close to what is exposed in the picture.  Tidelands in the upper area of the picture, above the line, are within a specific surveyed area (an "oyster tract") which, in this case, extends into the subtidal area but in many, if not all areas, not to the high tide line.

One of the challenges in how these tidelands were sold is there is a strip of tidelands which is still owned by the public between the high tide line and out perhaps 20' wide.  In essence, a "sidewalk" is available to anyone for walking on in the area above the line.  

A second challenge is the lagoon's tidelands (on the left side of the picture) are also owned by the public, whether for walking or digging for clams.  However, due to an assumption they are privately owned, shellfish have been grown commercially for years and, it has been used for loading and unloading barges.

The increasing value of tidelands, whether from recreational use by the public; for privacy; or, for their ability to commercially grow shellfish makes the question of "whose tidelands are they" important.  The answer is not as clear as it appears.

What are Fudge Point's Tidelands Worth?

$47,500/acre or $250/acre?

(click to enlarge)

County assessors are currently updating property values on Harstine Island.  Using 2010 transactions for similar parcels they determine what the assessed value will be for the next four years, beginning in 2012. From that value tax revenues are generated to support the various services provided in Mason County.  Some of those services help ensure the waters within Mason County remain clean, benefiting everyone who enjoys their use, from shellfish farmers to swimmers. 

Tidelands may be used for many purposes.  Some choose to use them for pedestrian easements.  Some choose to grow shellfish on them.  Some choose to leave them in their natural state. 

In the case of Fudge Point, a choice has been made to grow geoduck on these tidelands.

December 30, 2010 Tideland Sale

$475,000 for ~10 Acres 

(click to enlarge)

Seen above are tidelands just South of Wilson Point which were sold by Manke Timber to Taylor in December of 2010.  Manke sold only the tidelands, retaining a right for the adjacent upland owners to access the tidelands for recreational use.  Taylor is allowed to continue growing geoduck they planted.  As Taylor appears to own the geoduck, Manke only sold the tidelands, retaining the right for the upland users to use them recreationally.

What are Fudge Point's tidelands worth?  What are the other tidelands growing geoduck throughout Mason County worth?  Property tax revenues are what supports Mason County.  The choice to convert tidelands to a geoduck farm is that of the tideland owner.  So doing dramatically increases the value of those tidelands.  Tax revenues resulting from that increase in value will help support Mason County for the benefit of everyone.

Thurston County appraises tidelands used for shellfish farming at a far higher value than Mason County does, helping to pay for their valuable services.  What will Mason County do?

What is the Value of Fudge Point's Tidelands?

Ralph Scott, born in 1926, was raised on Harstine Island. As an adult he had a vision of Fudge Point's future. Seen in that vision were upland parcels of property coupled to the 3,295 linear feet of tidelands on Fudge Point, with the entire area between mean high and extreme low tides reserved as a pedestrian easement, accessed by a 50' wide road.  This vision became memorialized when he recorded a document with Mason County in 1991 (AF#524414 - see end for tideland reservations).

 Is this the pedestrian easement 

Ralph Scott saw on Fudge Point's tidelands?

(click to enlarge)

Note:  This picture has been altered

to show what the proposed

geoduck farm would look like.

The value of tidelands is seen in many ways.  Some find the highest value in the tidelands' natural state and record it as such with the assumption it will remain so in the future.  Ralph Scott knew this.  Those who helped create the Shoreline Management Act also knew this.  What neither knew was how aquaculture would transform into what it is now. 

Ralph Scott is gone. Will his vision of Fudge Point as he recorded it remain for future generations?

Ralph Scott's Vision for Fudge Point's Tidlands

(click to enlarge)



Should Fudge Point be transformed

into a

12 acre geoduck farm?

Ecology and the Corps Want to Hear What you Think

Fudge Point/Buffington Lagoon

Harstine Island, Mason County

April 2011

(click to enlarge)

The Department of Ecology is accepting comments on this proposal through May 4.  Comments should be sent to:   ecyrefedpermits@ecy.wa.gov and should reference "Fudge Point, Taylor Shellfish; NWS-2011-44."

Information on Taylor's portion (which only covers the area above) is found here:

http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/sea/fed-permit/pdf/201100044_JPN.pdf 

SPECIAL NOTE:  DUE TO A COMPUTER PROBLEM THE CORPS CANNOT VERIFY COMMENTS ALREADY SENT IN ON TAYLOR SHELLFISH APPLICATIONS WERE RECEIVED. 

The Army Corps has extended their comment period for this project, and others, until May 26. 

http://www.nws.usace.army.mil/PublicMenu/documents/REG/Taylor_Shellfish_PN_Revision.pdf 

Comments should be sent to: Pamela.Sanguinetti@usace.army.mil and reference "Fudge Point-Taylor; NWS-2011-44."

In addition to extending the comment period for Taylor's Fudge Point, the Corps has also extended the comment period on Taylor Shellfish's "Sullivan" farm in Totten Inlet (NWS-2010-1237).  Information for that proposal, Fudge Point, and adjacent farms on Fudge Point (NWS-2010-1238 and NSW-2011-131) may be found here:

http://www.nws.usace.army.mil/PublicMenu/Menu.cfm?sitename=REG&pagename=Public_Notices

Almost 300,000 PVC pipes will be placed into the wetland drainage area seen in the picture above.  Harvesting will loosen 3' of sediments which will be caught up by the drainage from the wetland area above, entering into Case Inlet, carried throughout the area by tidal currents.  The intertidal habitat will be disrupted through phases of production, starting with PVC insertion; its removal; and, harvesting.  Is there enough information to determine if this farm, and those which already exist near McMicken Island State Park and Wilson Point to the south will not have an adverse impact on Puget Sound's ecosystem?



Are cumulative impacts real? 

To the south on Wilson Point you'll find this:

Wilson Point

Harstine Island, Mason County

(April 2011)

 (click to enlarge)

Cumulative impacts from geoduck aquaculture are real and they do matter. 

Your comments will make a difference.





Cumulative Impacts of Geoduck Farming

"What are the cumulative impacts from geoduck farming and do they really matter?" 

This is a question the Army Corps and the Department of Ecology are now asking themselves as they review new permit applications for geoduck farms. Everyone should.  An isolated geoduck farm may be relatively inconsequential.  As a whole they may be transforming vast areas of Puget Sound's intertidal tideland ecosystem. 

With ~350 acres of geoduck farms already existing, permit applications for new farms have begun.  Three of the 9 new applications are for 12 acres on Fudge Point, just south of McMicken Island State Park, on Harstine Island, seen in this photograph taken early April of this year.  These contiguous proposed farms span the area from Buffington's Lagoon around Fudge Point, covering an area roughly equivalent to 4 football fields.  This is in addition to existing geoduck farms to the north.

Fudge Point (April 2011)

Seen below is an area of similar size which already exists at the mouth of Eld Inlet.  Multi-year geoduck plantings create a near contiguous strip within the intertidal zone of -4 to +2 elevations, spanning thousands of feet.  At the mouth of Totten Inlet are similar areas on both sides.  Harvesting occurs over periods of years with peaks during high Chinese market demand.

Eld Inlet (April 2011)

Supporting the existing farms now is a growing infrastructure.  Included are areas where the PVC pipe used in farming (44,000/acre) is piled; bagged; and, then shipped to various locations throughout Puget Sound.  Seen in the photograph below is one of those areas where apparently state owned tidelands on Harstine Island have been converted to a shipping facility.

Spencer Cove Lagoon (April 2011)

Also included in geoduck farming are "nurseries" used to grow geoduck seed to a larger size which increases their survivability overall, but more importantly, in the higher tidal elevations (+1 to +3) thereby increasing the acreage which may be planted. Rafts, trays and wading pools are used.  Seen below are close to 900 such pools, now removed due to tideland impacts.  However, the Army Corps and the Department of Ecology now allow individual farms to use these pools, in essence, creating an impact wherever there is a farm needing a "nursery." 

Nursery Pools (2008?)



Cumulative impacts do matter. 

NEPA regulations define cumulative impact as: "the impact on the environment which results from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency (Federal or non-Federal) or person undertakes such other actions. Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant actions taking place over a period of time." [See 40 CFR 1508.7.]

The Clean Water Act requires the Army Corps and the Department of Ecology to consider impacts to Puget Sound ecosystems on a scale larger than a single farm.  The public process allows citizens to remind those agencies involved about that fact.

Thurston County Board agrees: geoduck farms require SDP

Loose tubes from an unauthorized planting of geoduck tubes on state tideland on Henderson Inlet in Thurston County. Photo taken on 6/1/07. DNR required removal of tubes. This is in the near vicinity of the private tidelands in the case outlined below.

Taylor Shellfish Farms and Arcadia Point Seafood challenged the hearings examiner's January 21, 2011 decision that applications for geoduck farms now require a Substantial Development Permit to go forward. The Memorandum of the Decision of the Board of Thurston County Commmisioners finds agreement with the hearings examiner:

"The Board finds that the hearings examiner's detailed statutory interpretation of the term "development", as it applies to Appellants proposed geoduck operations, is consistent with the plain language of the Shoreline Management Act and Washington Administrative Code. The hearing examiner's interpretation also implements the fundamental policies of the SMA to fully protect our fragile shorelines."

Army Corps Seeks Public Comment

Taylor Shellfish geoduck farm on Totten Inlet, around 2007, found to be illegally planted on state owned tidelands.

The US Army Corps of Engineers seeks public comment on the possible installation of a new 2-acre Taylor Shellfish Farm in Totten Inlet. The ACOE has seen an increase in applications for geoduck farms and an increase in the size of the farms. Read the announcement in the Mason County Journal article. Comments on this farm are due April 14, 2011. Go to this ACOE site for information about how to submit comments and the email address of the project manager.

Ecology will proceed with Shoreline Management Act rule-making

Totten Inlet geoduck operation, approximately 2007. Oyster bags cover the tidelands on the upland side.

The following email was received today from the Department of Ecology:

On Dec. 8, 2010 Ecology placed the Shoreline Management Act (SMA) rule-making on the agency’s “to be determined” list. Doing so signified that the Director needed more information before deciding whether or not to proceed with the rule-making during 2011. Due to deadlines set by the Administrative Procedure Act (RCW 34.05) Ecology knew it would need to make a decision by early February.

Today, the Director announced that Ecology will proceed with the Shoreline Management Act rule-making, citing OFM exemption criteria 3 (e):

(3)  Rule making proceedings are non-critical unless the rule is:

(e) -Beneficial to or requested or supported by the regulated entities, local governments or small businesses that it affects.

To make this decision, the agency reviewed Governor’s Executive Order 10-06, the criteria for exemptions, the input we’ve received from those interested in this rule-making, and determined that it is critical to complete rule-making now. 

Completing the rule update related to intertidal commercial geoduck aquaculture will provide needed regulatory consistency.  The updated rule provides guidance on addressing this activity as part of Shoreline Master Program (SMP) updates.  The rule also provides a permitting framework for implementing updated policies. 

Several Puget Sound counties will adopt shoreline policies and regulations in the near future that address conflicts associated with commercial geoduck aquaculture. If rule completion were delayed, the next opportunity to integrate commercial geoduck aquaculture policies and regulations may be a decade into the future.  

Another important item in the updated rule clarifies the criteria for approval of less than comprehensive SMP updates.  The current rule language is significantly outdated and does not meet the needs of local government.  Local governments support replacing this outdated rule section.  Other elements of the rule update ensure consistency between the rule and statute.

Ecology has updated our website to reflect the SMA rule-making status change. You can find this change noted in the Feb. 2, 2011 update on our rule-making suspension website: http://www.ecy.wa.gov/laws-rules/rulemaking_suspension.html.

More information on the Shoreline Management Act rule-making:

http://www.ecy.wa.gov/laws-rules/SMA2010/1007.html

Thurston County geoduck farms require SDP

Henderson Inlet Geoduck Farm, 2007. PVC tubes are covered by huge canopy nets.

The large geoduck farm shown in this photo taken in 2007 was developed before the question of the appropriateness of intensive industrial geoduck farming on fragile Puget Sound tidelands became the concern of so many people as well as the County. This Army Corp of Engineers NWP48 submission documents some of the properties in this area on Libby Road leased for geoduck farming.

This Order on Summary Judgement affirms the Thurston County Hearings Examer decision that applications for geoduck farms now require a Substantial Development Permit to go forward.  It was based on two properties in the same vicinity at the photo above. Taylor Shellfish will likely appeal this conclusion by the Hearings Examiner asking for reconsideration by the County Commissioners, next (or instead) as an appeal to the State Shorelines Hearing Board, and next as an appeal to a higher court.

Summary of Order taken directly from the document:

1. The Department's summary judgment motion that the proposed geoduck operations are a "development" under the SMA because they involve "construction of a structure" is granted. The Appellants' summary judgment motion on the same issue is denied. The first ground of the administrative determinations on appeal, that the placement of tubes and netting on the beach constitutes construction of a structure and consequently a development, is upheld.

2. The summary judgment motions by the parties on whether the proposed operations are a "development" under the SMA because they involve "removal of any sand, gravel, or minerals" are denied due to the presence of genuine issues of material fact.

3. On the third ground of the administrative determinations, whether the tubes and netting serve as an obstruction on the beach, summary judgment is granted in favor of the Appellants on the issue of sediment movement: the proposed operations are not developments due to their effect on the movement of sediment. Summary judgment is not entered at this time on the other issues relating to this third ground, due to the need for further examination of the public trust doctrine and review of whether any Shoreline Hearings Board decisions address whether the "placing of obstructions" includes obstructions to marine life.

4. The effect of the above decisions is that the proposed operations are deemed "developments" under the SMA under the first ground of the administrative determinations, requiring a substantial development permit for the proposals. Thus, unless this determination is reversed, a hearing on a substantial development permit is required for the proposed operations, and the appeals of the other grounds of the administrative determinations are mooted, as well as the motion in limine.

Dated this 21st day of January, 2011.