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:

Sunday, June 30, 2013

Fudge Point State Park Becomes a Reality

UPDATE, July 1
Special thanks: As the dust settles there are some special thanks to specific legislators for the funding of Washington Wildlife and Recreation Fund (WWRP) which allowed for the acquisition of Fudge Point, among numerous other programs. Take time to let them know you appreciate their effort. They include:

Capital budget writers
Representative Hans Dunshee - (360) 786-7804
Representative Judy Warnick -(360) 786-7932
Senator Jim Honeyford (360) 786-7684
Senator Sharon Nelson (360) 786-7667

Others who played critical roles:
Washington Wildlife Recreation Coalition Board members:

Speaker Frank Chopp - (360) 786-7920
Representative Hans Zeiger (R-Puyallup) - (360) 786-7968
Representative Steve Tharinger (D-Dequim) - (360) 786-7904
Senator Christine Rolfes (D-Bainbridge) - (360) 786-7644
Senator Andy Hill (R-Redmond) - (360) 786-7672

and lobbyists Majken Ryherd and Jim Richards.

Take the time to call or write and tell them "thanks."
>>

Funding for the acquisition and creation of Fudge Point State on Harstsine Island has been approved and signed into law. For everyone who made the effort to create what will be seen in the future as one of the state's great parks, thank you. Tell you state legislators and Governor Inslee "thank you" for having the foresight to make this a reality for future generations to enjoy. And to the Scott Family, thank you.

Fudge Point State Park
Harstine Island, Washington

Uplands and 3,200 linear feet of tidelands
to mean low tide have become a park.
 
Contact information to express thanks, and to encourage making this the state's premier park:
Governor Inslee - https://fortress.wa.gov/es/governor/
Find your Legislators - http://app.leg.wa.gov/DistrictFinder/
Others who played a role:
Senator/Commissioner Tim Sheldon - http://www.co.mason.wa.us/commissioners/
Senator Karen Fraser - Karen.Fraser@leg.wa.gov
Members on the Capital Budget Committee - http://www.leg.wa.gov/House/Committees/CB/Pages/MembersStaff.aspx

Friday, June 28, 2013

Drakes Bay: Integrity in Information Quality Complaints

Saying something happened
does not mean that it happened.
No matter how many times you say it.
 
[Note: In November of 2012, then Secretary Salazar used his agency discretion granted to him and determined Drakes Estero should be allowed to revert to the wilderness congress intended. Drakes Bay Oyster Company's Special Use Permit expired, bringing to an end the right for the only commercial operation in that wilderness area to continue. Since that time, numerous parties have attempted to deflect the attention away from a contractual issue to one of differing opinions on whether data shows a commercial shellfish farm has impacts on the environment. Part of the latter is the focus of this piece.]

Industry Complaints about Information Quality
When complaints about information quality are made by an industry under the "Information Quality Act" it is a good idea for that industry doing the complaining to be sure the information provided is not lacking in foundation.
A house of cards will fall.


Recently, the Pacific Coast Shellfish Grower's Association (PCSGA) filed an "information quality complaint" about information used and conclusions reached on the adverse impacts from a commercial shellfish farm operating in Drakes Estero (see below for more information on the Information Quality Act - IQA). In explaining why the complaint is not "moot" as those previously filed by Cause of Action/Corey Goodman and another in 2007 by PCSGA were found to be, they state these conclusions "may still have significant adverse impacts for the shellfish industry and PCSGA members."

Drakes Estero

"...another red flag in a debate where civility and truth have been casualties to strong opinions." Congressman Huffman (D-CA) 6/19/13 MarinIJ
Where does the truth lie?
In their IQA complaint PCSGA states that "PCSGA members will be harmed" because "there have been at least two cases where the issues raised in the DEIS were used to deny oyster lease applications in Alabama and South Carolina." It is one reason, if not the primary reason PCSGA claims it and the entire shellfish industry is "affected" and why NPS should not consider the complaint moot.

This statement on permit denial is based on a "report" written by the conservative group Cause of Action which notes, on page 30, a letter by Bob Rheault, Executive Director of the East Coast Shellfish Growers Association (ECSGA), written to Kevin and Nancy Lunny, dated January 7, 2013. [Note: Kevin Lunny, owner of DBOC, is also the cousin of Tom Kehoe, ECSGA Vice President.] In that letter, Cause of Action notes Bob Rheault writing, "the issues raised in the DEIS [were] used to quash oyster lease applications-one in Alabama and one in South Carolina."  [That letter is within this body of Exhibits, a 45Mb pdf file]

Life of Its Own?
In response to a question from South Carolina, asking where this rumor may have started, Bob Rheault responded on June 24: "No one ever suggested the permits were denied - simply that new concerns were raised - unique concerns that as far as I recall had never been raised in previous applications. ...it has taken a life of its own."

Fabricated statements - intentional or not - that permits have been denied puts the entire complaint in question. On that alone NPS should reject the complaint.

The Information Quality Act:
Passed as a rider.


The Information Quality Act (IQA)? (aka the "Data Quality Act" or "Section 515")
The IQA is described in an article written in the Naval Law Review (beginning on page 91) which notes it "was most likely enacted at the behest of industry in an attempt to hinder environmental rulemaking."

Passed as a rider in 2000, the IQA was introduced by Congresswoman Jo Ann Emerson and made part of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act of 2001. [Note: Ironically, it was also a rider created by Senator Feinstein which gave the Secretary of the Interior the discretion to decide whether a commercial shellfish operation should continue in a wilderness area based on contractual terms, not on whether science is perfect.] The end result was its requiring agencies to develop policies based on guidelines issued by the Office of Management and Budget to deal with questions about information quality. As with all riders, very little public input was given and little attention was paid to the 227 words which made up Section 515 by those who allowed it to be included.

Section 515 - the IQA - may be found on page 100 and 101 here.
The National Park Service's implementation of Section 515 may be found here.

Politics at its best, law not at its best.
Section 515 (aka the IQA) was the result of Lobbyist James Tozzi and was described in the Washington Post as the "Nemesis of Regulation."

James Tozzi - mastermind of
the Information Quality Act
 
In the Washington Post article it is noted: "By demanding that government use only data that have achieved a rare level of certainty, these critics maintain, the act dismisses scientific information that in the past would have triggered tighter regulation."
 
In an earlier post it was noted that "perfect science" does not exist. Unless you are a professor teaching a class within a university's walls, where the world's realities are filtered out, you do the best with what you have. It will never be "perfect". As a result, with enough money and time anyone may question any scientific conclusion, even in a field in which you have no education.
 
As noted in the Naval Law Review: "Many commentators believe the true purpose of the Act is to impede rule making by providing industry with a venue to attack the science on which environmental regulations are based." Especially if that industry doesn't like the conclusions and feels its economic interests may be threatened, whether based in fact or not.
 
"Is Affected" is not the same as "May be affected"
In order for an IQA to be accepted and acted on at the National Park Service, one of the requirements is to include, "A description of how the person submitting the complaint is affected by the informational error." It does not say "may be affected".
 
In this case, PCSGA misses the mark. They have provided no proof that PCSGA "is affected". They state only that they "may" be. PCSGA has not been affected by anything, no matter how many times it is said they are. The complaint is moot.
 
Job Creation for the Wealthy
As for the role of the Information Quality Act, in this case Robert Gellman put it best in 2001 in a piece titled "What? You haven't heard about Section 515?"
"Rumor has it that a lobbyist dreamed up the original idea and sold it to a paying client and a gullible member of Congress. The chief beneficiaries of the new rule will be lobbyists. They will now have a new device for sucking money from clients who don't like the latest bit of data from an agency and who are stupid enough to think that filing a complaint will accomplish something other than enriching the lobbyist."
Insert "attorneys" or "public relations firms" for "lobbyists" and his statement is as true today as it was prescient then.
 



Friday, June 21, 2013

Full Moon on June 23rd Brings Low tides of the Year

Full moon will rise on June 23, 9:21PM 

Lowest and highest tides of the year don't happen by mistake. A combination of the full moon rising at the same time the sun is setting results in a gravitational pull experienced only a few times of the year. Living in Washington makes it all the more enjoyable.

Thursday, June 20, 2013

2 Faces of Burley Lagoon: Industrial Shellfish Farming at Night and Gray Whales During the Day

"We work with the tides and it's simply too bad you sleep at night." 
 
June 20, between 1AM and 3AM, Burley Lagoon was once again treated to a midnight symphony of engines and high pressure hoses from the shellfish industry. Apparently unaware that there are high tides during the day they could use they have decided to allocate their resources to disturbing the dead of night, for wildlife and residents who live in or near Burley Lagoon. Are there really no other options?

Burley Lagoon is different -
we get to work at midnight.
 
The previous day, June 29, people near Burley Lagoon were treated to the other side of a dynamic ecosystem which has supported a diverse body of wildlife for generations. In this case, a Gray whale found itself the center of attention. During a large part of the day the Gray whale seemingly found itself pondering the changes going on in Burley Lagoon.
 
Gray Whale at the mouth of Burley Lagoon.
 
A passive shellfish operation operated for decades by the Yamashita family is now being transformed into an industrial operation by Taylor Shellfish. At all hours of the night tidelands are being "cleaned" and "prepped" along with barges entering and leaving, loading and unloading their gear. Burley Lagoon is changing, and most reasonable people would agree it is not for the better. Unless you are the Taylor family.

Politics makes a difference, locally and nationally. 
Attorneys, lobbyists, and public relations firms are all well funded by the current profits generated from geoduck farming, helped also by government funding to promote the industry. This allocation of financial resources is putting at risk the Shoreline Management Act's overarching policy:
“the public’s opportunity to enjoy the physical and aesthetic qualities of natural shorelines of the state shall be preserved to the greatest extent feasible consistent with the overall best interest of the state and the people generally." (RCW 90.58.020)
Political donations from shellfish associates help ensure the process moves to benefit the industry. March 28, the day after the Pierce County Detienne geoduck farm hearing, shellfish law firm Plauche and Carr donated $500 to Gig Harbor mayoral candidate Jill Guernsey. Taylor Shellfish employee Bill Dewey has personally donated over $12,000 to various candidates over the past few years. Not to mention the free shellfish provided at numerous political gatherings and well placed non-profit conservancy donations.
 
Gallatin Public Affairs
 Bruce Gryniewski
“I don’t believe in this eco-McCarthyism view
that if you work for coal,
you can’t do anything good in the world.”
 
What is evolving in Puget Sound and seen in California is only a part of a larger corporate movement to dismantle the environmental protections which have been in place for decades. Marketing sound bites of "job creation" and "helping the economy" resonate throughout press releases created by public relations firms. Recent articles have described Gallatin Public Affairs new love affair with coal. Criticism of the risk it puts Puget Sound at is labeled as "eco-McCarthyism", the outfall of a well paid strategic plan developed in somebody's downtown 11th floor office.

Yesterday it was reported by the Earth Law Center that "California Congressmen Tom McClintock, a conservative Republican, and Jim Costa, a moderate Democrat, are co-sponsoring a bill [HR 934] in the House of Representatives that would remove the federal wild and scenic designation on a section of the Merced River west of Yosemite National Park, thereby stripping it of federal protections." It is only one of the rivers being considered for "de-listing" by Congress, following in the footsteps of Diane Feinstein's failed attempt to force renewal of the Drakes Bay Oyster Company's lease in the only shoreline wilderness on the west coast, through a rider introduced in Congress.

These seemingly separate and distinct activities - Drakes Bay Oyster Company, coal export terminals, and Merced's Wild and Scenic designation - are indicators of the corporate forces at play who wish to redefine what a natural environment is. If allowed to move forward, it will take another generation to rein in what was undone, if it can be done at all.

How you can help Puget Sound.
Two groups who are involved in helping to ensure that the Shoreline Management Act is not skewed towards an industrial transformation are Case Inlet Shoreline Association and APHETI. Contact either to ask how you can help. Alternatively, contact your political representatives and tell them it is time to protect the Shoreline Management Act from a "corporate makeover." See also the Coalition to Protect Puget Sound Habitat, currently appealing various permits.
 
How you can help nationally.
Contact your Congressional representatives and demand they stop corporate attempts to dismantle the environmental regulations in place, whether HR 934 or otherwise.

Wednesday, June 19, 2013

Drakes Estero and Congressman Huffman: Finally, a Breath of Honesty

In today's Marin Independent Journal, Congressman Jared Huffman brought a breath of fresh honest air to the debate over Drakes Bay Oyster Company's attempt to continue its commercial operation in Drakes Estero. A better example of what the word "integrity" embodies cannot be found elsewhere and is a clear indicator of why Marin County and others he represents should continue to support him.

Congressman Huffman (D, CA)

After having been mischaracterized and mis-quoted by Dr. Corey Goodman, Congressman Huffman felt it was time to speak out. In the Op-Ed he states clearly and with conviction:
Corey Goodman's misleading partial quote is another red flag in a debate where civility and truth have been casualties to strong opinions.
For too long people have allowed this process to be subverted by lobbyists and attorneys who represent industries whose agenda is not wanting to help the Lunny family continue their operation. Attempts by public relations firms to frame the issue as one of "government overreach" or of its being part of a subversive "Agenda 21" would be laughable were it not for the attempts to damage people's integrity which has come with it, intentional or not.

Attorneys' attempts to parse words and pretend the Point Reyes National Seashore was intended to include a commercial operation in perpetuity, covering over 1,000 acres, is great for billing hours. Creating the image of them being no different than a mother coming to the rescue of her injured child is something only a lobbyist could create. In reality, the amount of money spent in legal fees could have easily provided college educations for all of the employees' children or easily paid for relocation of the facilities and a new beginning.

Wanting to prevent the dismantling of the Wilderness Act which will protect Drakes Estero for the future of everyone, not one industry, requires focus and a strength of conviction few have. Standing in the face of a wind generated by political forces whose goal has little, if anything, to do with helping Drakes Bay Oyster Company's employees is a challenge few are willing or able to do. But a few have and those few will have Congressman Huffman to thank for the calm which integrity brings with it.

It is time for everyone in Marin County to take a deep breath of this fresh air.

How Many Geoducks Are Growing on my Tidelands?

Why you should have remembered your math.
(well, maybe not this one)

A large percentage of intertidal geoduck farms are on tidelands leased by private tideland owners to  a few shellfish companies. These owners are approached by company representatives with promises of a large check at harvest time. The amount ranges from 10% to 15% of the gross revenues, determined by the pounds of geoduck harvested and the current "market" price. With planting densities of three per square foot, a 60' X 100' tideland parcel could result in a check of up to $50,000 every 4 to 5 years. (After expenses the shellfish grower could easily net over $200,000 in profit.)

However, some tideland owners are finding that the check received is far less than what they had expected. There are a number of variables which weren't made quite clear enough at the signing of the contract, in some cases lasting for over 15 years. One of the most important is that you should be aware of what you have.

How many geoduck are there?
 
For example, as in timber harvesting there are a variety of log types and densities, some worth more than others. Not all geoduck harvested are considered "#1" grade which receive the higher prices which have ranged up to $14/pound, sometimes far higher (the Seattle Times reported last year prices up to $24/pound) . A short dark "neck" or a discolored shell will quickly drop the price Chinese are willing to pay. But an important variable is how many pounds of geoduck are harvested.

Not all geoduck are created equally.

Variables impacting density range from the survival of the seed planted to poaching. Whatever the case, a prudent tideland owner should be aware of what is planted and growing on their tideland parcel. This coming weekend presents a prime opportunity for those tideland owners who have leased their tidelands to a grower to inspect their "crop" and set their expectations.

(it's not rocket science)
[total square feet planted]*[average/square foot]*[1.5 pounds]*[$/pound]*[15%]
 
While digging a geoduck for sampling would most likely not be allowed by the grower (they'll claim ownership), sampling the area to determine the density of geoduck currently growing is a wise step all tideland lessors should take and an easy process.

1. Determine the total area in square feet where geoduck have been planted. This area should be easy to find from permit applications submitted by the grower. If you don't have it you may ask the grower for it or simply measure the area. A 60' X 100' area would equal 600 square feet.
2. Using a yard stick, lay out a number of 3' X 3' squares (each being 9 square feet) in different areas for sampling and count the number of "show"(siphons) which are within each square. If survival is high, you may have up to 27 geoduck within that square. If survival is low, or poaching is occurring, it may be much less.
3. When you have determined what the average number of geoduck per square foot is, then it is simply a matter of multiplying that number times the number of square feet the grower has planted on your tidelands.
4. After you had determined the number of geoduck growing, multiply that number times 1.5 or 2.0 (the latter if your harvest time is longer than 5 years) to determine the number of pounds.
5. Call your grower or Taylor Shellfish and ask them what the landed price for geoduck is then multiply that times the number of pounds growing, then that number times your lease %.

Using the 60' X 100' example above:
[60*100=6,000 square feet]
3X3 areas showed an average of 27 geoduck growing in each area, or 3 geoduck per square foot.
[27/9=3]
Total number growing is 18,000.
[6,000*3=18,000 geoduck]
Harvest time at 4th year should result in a 1.5 pound geoduck, or 27,000 pounds.
[1.5*18,000=27,000 pounds]
Landed price is $14, or a gross amount of $378,000, of which the owner gets 15%, or $56,700.
[27,000*14=$378,000*15%=$56,700]

Tuesday, June 18, 2013

Taylor Shellfish Mussel Raft Permit: Shorelines Hearings Board Reverses Thurston County Requirement for Additional Information

The Shorelines Hearings Board reversed Thurston County's decision to require additional information before a permit for their 58 raft mussel farm at the mouth of Totten Inlet would be approved.

Concerns expressed by the Hearing Examiner over dissolved oxygen being lowered to levels at which marine species become stressed were dismissed. Concerns expressed by the Hearing Examiner over non-native species of mussels displacing native blue mussels were dismissed. Concerns over benthic impacts, while not dismissed, were dealt with by allowing Taylor Shellfish to develop and submit a monitoring plan to check on impacts which would be implemented after start of the farm.

There is now a 30 day period for Thurston County and/or APHETI (Association to Protect Hammersley, Eld and Totten Inlets) to file an appeal. Taylor may also appeal the decision's requirement for additional monitoring.

You may contact APHETI at: apheti@gmail.com
You may donate to APHETI at: http://apheti.org/donation.htm

Monday, June 17, 2013

Shellfish Industry: Welcome to the Neighborhood

A recent night in Burley Lagoon was treated to what Case Inlet has been experiencing for years now. June 13th, at 11PM in Burley Lagoon, wildlife and residents were awoken by motors and lights from Taylor Shellfish. In Case Inlet they know too well what Burley Lagoon has to look forward to.
 
Sunday May 5, 2013
Case Inlet 4:07AM
It's not a rooster that woke you up.
 
Over the past year the avian wildlife, shoreline species, and residents in Burley Lagoon have noticed a new neighbor plying the grounds in the dead of night. Where at one time peaceful sleep and calm waters greeted species who have used Burley Lagoon as a resting place, now oyster barge engines, waves, metal racks being loaded and unloaded, and flood lights reflecting off the waters prevent what all species need but none get enough of: sleep.
 
Is there enough light for you?
Good morning Case Inlet.
 
May 5 of this year, at 4AM in the morning, the shoreline of Case Inlet was treated once more with a gift from the shellfish industry: daytime at night, accompanied by the noise of racks and crates being loaded. While "Best Management Practices" of the industry may ask that their workers use low level lights pointed down and away from the shoreline to help minimize the environmental impacts to an area, they seem to have forgotten that flood lights on their barges and "skiffs" may also have an impact. Agencies seem to also not grasp the fact that not all shellfish companies, or their workers, care about "Best Management Practices" nor do they understand that unless made a specific legal requirement there is little anyone can do about it.
 
At the Detienne permit hearing it was clearly noted by industry that geoduck related activities do not need to occur during the low tides. If a subtidal farm can be created underwater, why should any geoduck related activities be allowed to occur at 4AM in the morning?
 
 


Sunday, June 16, 2013

June 23: Lowest Tide of 2013 (-4) Will Occur at Noon (Olympia Time)

June Tide Chart (Olympia Times)
Sunday, June 23, South Puget Sound (that area south of the Tacoma Narrows) will see the lowest tide of 2013, just after noon (12:16, Olympia). At that point the tidal elevation will be at a -4 level, after which the next 7.5 hours will see enough water flow through the Narrows to cause the entire body of water in south Puget Sound to rise 19.5 feet. Monday will see an even greater rise, from -4 (1:03PM) to +16 (8:11PM). Mid-afternoon of the 23rd, currents through the Tacoma Narrows climb to over 7 knots.

Current Direction/Speed at 4:30PM, June 23


These low tides and the extreme flows of water come only a few times of the year. Make a point of getting out to see a world found only in Puget Sound. You may also be able to find out what it is Taylor Shellfish has been doing in Burley Lagoon during the night hours, disturbing many resident's sleep.

Why were all these removed from
Burley Lagoon's tidelands?




Thursday, June 13, 2013

Drakes Estero Wilderness: A Contract is not a Scientific Study

A Contract is Not Made of Straw
The Point Reyes Light newspaper, owned by Marin Media Institute which Dr. Corey Goodman co-founded, has published another Op-Ed piece which he authored. In that piece he attempts, once again, to breath life into his straw man  concerns over "perfect science" and claims Representative Huffman's reasons for not supporting a poorly written resolution passed by the Sonoma City Council are "mistakes." In Dr. Goodman's attempt to bait Representative Huffman into engaging him over something which is a side show he has created and tries to breath life into over and over, he wades further into the swamp where integrity is easily lost.
 
At issue with the Drakes Bay Oyster Company is not whether the science is perfect or not. It is a black and white contract which Drakes Bay Oyster Company entered into. They believed they could overcome the Wilderness Act and continue their commercial operation in Drakes Estero, thereby preventing the completion of the only shoreline wilderness on the West Coast. It was a false belief and a gamble which they lost. It was a contract they signed and need to honor.
 
Dr. Goodman, as Chairman of Labrys Biologics, Second Genome, Oligasis, Ossianix, Limerick BioPharma, Executive Chairman of Solstice Biologics, and Partner in VenBio, along with his past experience knows anyone's "science" can be easily pulled apart. No doubt many of his studies did not stand up to the scrutiny of peer review. You do the best with what you have. 
 
But in his various roles of the companies listed, Dr. Goodman also knows the value of a contract. After it is written and agreed to, signed and dated, it is not something which is as gooey as a conclusion based on imprecise data. It is sacrosanct and is one of the primary foundations for successful businesses, such as those Dr. Goodman has started and which he seeks capital for.
 
Dr. Goodman no doubt believes the conclusions drawn should be questioned. What nobody has justification in believing is that an agreement created 40 years ago is something which should simply be cast aside. It is time for Drakes Bay Oyster Company to realize the steps taken are creating a template for the dismantling of the Wilderness Act. As Dr. Goodman knows from past business failures, sometimes a business needs to close so you can move on to more successful things.