January 12, 2012 Shelton Mason County Journal | ![]() |
©
Shelton Mason County Journal. All rights reserved. Upgrade to access Premium Tools
PAGE 4 (4 of 20 available) PREVIOUS NEXT Jumbo Image Save To Scrapbook Set Notifiers PDF JPG
January 12, 2012 |
|
Website © 2025. All content copyrighted. Copyright Information Terms Of Use | Privacy Policy | Request Content Removal | About / FAQ | Get Acrobat Reader ![]() |
JOURNALEDITORIAL
Public officials still don t understand Pubh ecords
Elected officials and governCity, county and state officials reign in the Public Records Act. they want and are perfectly enti~ office to serve the best interests of
ment staffers got together last bemoaned the Public Records Act They argue that allowing the pub- tled to see. Nine times out of ten
week to touch base on the most and all of the supposedly cum- lic to examine public records isn't local governments end up payinl
pressing issues of the day. bersome requirements it entails, as easy as it sounds, hefty fines and turning over th
The meeting was supposed to be Apparently, allowing citizens the Time and again we've wit- documents.
a chance for city, county, state and opportunity to examine public re- nessed citizens being denied ac- We've heard elected official
federal officials to talk about ongo- cords is time-consuming and ex- cess to documents and information proclaim it's time for an "opeJ
ing projects, challenges and con- pensive. Mason County Sheriff that they have every right to see. and transparent" government o
cerns. Ironically, the most talked Casey Salisbury, City of Shelton Sometimes, after all sorts of riga- agency.
about subject of the meeting had Administrator Dave O'Leary and marole, those citizens pursue legal We agree.
to do with public access, others talked about the need to action to get the information that It's time those we've elected
LETTERSTOTHEEDITOR
of Ecology (DOE) asked the
industry to resubmit the ap-
plications, this time with ac-
curate information, a process:
that had to be completed be-
fore any consideration could :
be given to new operations.
This problem was created by
the shellfish industry, stretch-
ing the process of determining
what farms actually qualified
well into 2010.
At the same time, in April
2007, Gregoire signed into
law House Bill 2220, which
was focused on structures and
impacts from geoduck farm-
ing in Puget Sound. This bill
was also the direct outcome
of industry lobbying and pub-
lic input, helping to create
a regulatory framework to
guide the tideland develop-
ment this activity involves.
DOE was tasked with craft-
ing guidelines to be used by
counties in development of
their Shoreline Management
Programs. The University of
Washington's Sea Grant was
tasked with initiating long-
term studies on what impacts
geoduck farming may have,
because no studies existed at
that time. Through open and
transparent meetings the
public, tribes and industry
were all involved in the cre-
ation of these guidelines. This
has helped to ensure that the
industry% tideland develop-
ments taking place in the
Puget Sound tidelands are
for the benefit of everyone, as
mandated by the Shoreline
Management Act of 1971, and
not just for the profit of a few.
Taylor Shellfish and others
in the industry have caused
additional permitting delays
through appeals and law-
suits after being told permits
would be required for their
tideland developments. In
2009, Thurston County told
Taylor Shellfish and Arcadia
Point Seafood that shoreline
permits would be required for
new geoduck farms. Rather
than submitting permits, they
chose instead to argue that
permits should not be re-
quired. When the hearing ex-
aminer agreed with the coun-
ty, the companies appealed!
the decision to the county i
commissioners, where they!
were subsequently told the :
same thing. The companiesl
not occurred for more than
five years is misleading. In
Mason County, Seattle Shell-
fish proposed a large geoduck
nursery operation in Spencer
Cove. While appealed by Case
Inlet Shoreline Association an
agreement was reached and
permits were issued for place-
ment of geoduck nursery rafts
nearly the length of a football
field• Taylor Shellfish applied
for and was granted permits
for a new, albeit smaller, gee-
duck nursery in Totten Inlet.
These operations involved an
open and transparent permit-
ting system, which included
input from the public, tribes
and agencies.
There is no question
that there are important
components of the Shellfish
Initiative. These include res-
toration of native Olympia
oysters, both over-harvested
and killed offdue to pollution;
financial assistance to shore-
line owners and dairy/cattle
farmers to help bring fecal
coliform levels down; and im-
proving access to the few pub-
lic beaches which remain for
shellfish digging and enjoy-
ment by the public. But these
are minor when compared to
the long-term objective the
shellfish industry has of mini-
mizing permit requirements
and consideration of alterna-
tive uses for Puget Sound's
tidelands and waters.
Puget Sound is a resource
of national importance that
extends far beyond its ability
to grow shellfish commer-
cially. Regulations and per-
mitring through the Shoreline
Management Act and the
Clean Water Act have created
a well-structured regulatory
framework controlling devel-
opment along its shores, on
its tidelands and in its waters.
They have prevented profits
alone from driving decisions.
Closed meetings guided by
NOAA, the governor and the
shellfish industry should not
be allowed to undo this regu-
latory framework.
Jules Michel
Shelton
Don't
then sued in Superior Court
and lost, being told the use 0f
PVC pipes, netting and rebar regulations
is in fact a tideland structure
and that these developments
that protect
require a shoreline develop-
ment permit.
The judge's November our Sound
2011 decision went further. It
stated an Attorney General
Opinion in 2007, which is
often cited by industry as the
reason no permits at all were
needed, and which was incOr-
rectly made part of DOE's
guidelines, is legally flawed
and should not be used. Had
the companies simply applied
for a permit, they may have
found themselves today with
approved permits. Instead
they have no permit and
DOE's guidelines are now in
question. This is a problem
they created, i
Taylor's statement that the
permitting of new farms has
Editor, the Journal
A recent guest columnist
appearing in the Shelton-
Mason County Journal de-
scribed perceived benefits to
be derived from the recently
announced Washington State
Shellfish Initiative, more
jobs, increased income to the
state's economy and a cleaner
Puget Sound. However, in
order to achieve these benefts
it is necessary to eliminate
many of the rules and regula-
tions that currently exist in
the permit process. In other
words, he wants the freedom
to expand his business by by-
passing existing regulations
that are in place to protect
not only the sound but the
citizens who enjoy the beauty
and activities the sound of-
fers.
The expansion of the
shellfish industry on private
property is one thing, how-
ever, it is not the private
property that the industry is
interested in but state owned
tideland that are suitable for
the growth of geoducks. While
lamenting the decline of na-
tive oysters is a good public
relations ploy, it is the desire
to increase geoducks produc-
tion, which is the main goal
of promoting this change. A
two and a half pound geoduck
sells for fifty dollars in the
local market and brings more
than twice that amount in the
overseas market. The old say-
ing, "follow the dollar" is al-
ways a good idea when being
advised by politicians or oth-
ers before allowing any major
change to existing rules and/
or regulations. Changes may
be necessary but only those
based upon a common good,
not those designed to benefit
a selected few.
Let's consider a few facts
related to the true subject and
purpose of the proposed initia-
tive. While the article always
referred to shellfish, in truth
the objective is geoducks and
the more the better. Cur-
rently, seventy percent of the
state's shoreline is owned pri-
vately, however, the majority
of the remaining beaches suit-
able for geodncks are those
sandy ocean type beaches
owned by the state and it is
those beaches the industry
is attempting to acquire. Not
only would they remove such
beaches from public access,
but also, state leases on these
beaches can last for 30 years.
it is worthwhile noting that
income from geoducks is so
lucrative that at times some
members of the industry have
accidentally been using state
tidelands for years. Once
their activates were discov-
ered they have willingly paid
fines for their transgressions.
The accidental usage of state
beaches is a bit surprising
since the industry publicly
state they use GPS in order
to avoid such conflicts. The
claim that shellfish help clean
the waters of the sound is
likely to be partially true.
True until one looks at the
impact over planning can
do on land as well as in the
water. And, if in fact shellfish
provide such cleansing action
it may be worthwhile to look
at the state's own records
indicating there are an esti-
mated 46 million pounds of
Geoduck biomass between
Everett and Tacoma unfit for
human consumption due to
pollution. Perhaps the indus-
try should be more specific
when speaking of the type of
pollution shellfish can impact.
The industry itself cre-
ates unspecified problems.
The destruction of wildlife on
or near beaches, which are
cleared, treated or otherwise
enhanced for commercial
shellfish farming, is well
Taylor
missing key
information
Editor, the Journal
The recent "guest column"
written by Bill Taylor of Tay-
lor Shellfish promotes the
recently announced Shellfish
Initiative as a means to ad-
dress what Taylor Shellfish
and the governor have de-
scribed as a "quagmire" of
permitting regulations pre-
venting expansion of their
industry. What Taylor fails to
point out is that for six years
the shellfish industry was
directly involved in the public
process that created these
permitting requirements.
Industry lobbying along with
public, tribal and agency in-
put helped create a federal,
state and local permitting
system that regulates their
developments within the
tidelands and waters of Puget
Sound. Now that this regula-
tory framework has beg~n
to take hold, the shellfish
industry has apparently de-
cided it does not like what it
helped to create and through
closed meetings with a federal
agency, National Oceardc and
Atmospheric Administra-
tion (NOAA) and Gev. Chris
Gregoire, it is attempting to
minimize the process in order
to expand operations without
public input.
Ironic in this effort is the
shellfish industry's willing-
ness to use regulations and
create Shellfish Districts in
Oakland Bay, along Hen-
derson Inlet's shoreline,
perhaps Samish Bay and the
Nisqually Reach -- all for the
industry's direct benefit, help-
ing open tidelands for produc-
tion. In Oakland Bay alone,
immense resources have been
expended since the Shellfish
District's 2007 creation to
correct problems that can be
traced back to "streamlined"
permitting, no permitting or
a lack of resources to enforce
the regulations that are in
place. As a result, high lev-
els of dioxins and elevated
levels of fecal coliform exist
in Oakland Bay. The entire
Oakland Bay watershed and
every business and citizen are
impacted, as are state and
federal taxpayers whose tax
dollars are being diverted to
support this effort. Yet when
the shellfish industry is asked
to apply for permits for their
developments it is a problem.
Much of the lag time that
Taylor cites is, in fact, due
to the shellfish industry's
inability to follow the permit-
ring process. In 2007, after
the industry spent two years
of lobbying the Army Corps
to approve existing shellfish
farms through the Nation-
wide Permit program, the
Army Corps received hun-
dreds of permit applications
that greatly overstated acre-
age and species cultivated on
existing farms. Months later,
after realizing the significance
of the problem, the Army
Corps and the Department
Karl Sleight, publisher
Jesse Mullen, general mgr.
She~ton-Mason County Journal is a member of
usPs 492-800 Washington Newspaper Publishers' Association.
POSTMASTER: Send address changes to Shelton-Mason SUBSCRIPTION RATES:
County Journal, P.O. Box 430, Shelton, WA 98584. $37 per year for Mason County addresses,
Published weekly by Shelton-Mason County Journal, Inc. $51 per Year in state of Washington but outside
at 227 West cota Street, Shelton, Washington Mason CQunty, $61 per year out of state.
Mailing address: P.O. Box 430, Shelton, WA 98584 I
Telephone (360) 426-4412 • www.masoncounty.com Owned arid published by
Periodicals postage paid at Shelton, Washington She~ton-Mason County Journal, Inc
Page A-4 - Shelton-Mason County Journal - Thursday, January 12, 2012
documented. The imps
those species as well a
impact on native fishe
whose food source beg
the same beaches can
measurable.
There may be answ
the questions geoduck
ing creates. Br~tish Co
has curtailed the insm
new permits for geodu
until additional infor~
is obtained. Under Ho
2220, a study on the k
geoduck farming may
on the Sound is due oK
cember 2013. This pro
has been under way fc
years and was created
direction of the state l~
tare under the title, C~
Aquaculture Researct
our community pay more than lip
service to this over-used mantra.
The Public Records Act is not at
all complicated and ease of com-
munication and transmitting data
is certainly not a problem in this
day and age.
Operating an open and trans-
parent government should be just
as straightforward.
gram and assigned to
ington Sea Grant, bas
the University of Was
'°m assess possible effc
geoduck aquaculture q
Puget Sound and Stre
Juan de Fuca." Hoper
report will provide an~
to questions that neec
addressed. It seems u
sonable the major gro
are unwilling to curta
expansion until the re
completed and submil
the state legislature. I
sonable that is unless
is a fear the outcome (
report will have a neg
impact on their activa
For years the majo:
ers have been attemF
expand their operatic
it is d/sappoint'mg tht
were able to include (
Chris Gregoire in the
bypass the intent oft:
islature in their quesl
there may be valid pc
both sides of this dis~
would encourage the
to become involved a*
little research on the
Then take a position
ct on This donation helped to cover
the the cost of the baskets for the
ies needy this year.
ns on
~e im- Gene Strozyk
Shelton
the governor as well ~s the
legislature hear fromlYou.
This issue is more ~mpor-
tant than one may realize.
Unless action is take9 soon
to protect the Sound it may
be too late. Not to be pverly
dramatic one only h~ ~ to
remember the impac
ing too late, consider
lowing, e.g. the Wall
debacle, clear-cuttin~
strip mining, long-ill
and the use of our w~
to dispose ofunwant
cals, all problems res
from taking shortcut
to increase profits. A
your own research, r~
own conclusion.
DoI
Big
donatior
help tho:
in need
Editor, the Journ~
Thanks to Bob's
Toys for Kids plus fc
tion of $8,000 to the
Christmas basket pl
Advertising:
Dave Pierik, advertising i
Harvey Morris, ad repres
Newsroom:
Kevan Moore, managing editor Front office:
Aria Shephard, North Mason, Donna Kinnaird, bookke~
environment, reporter Margot Brand, circulatio,
Natalie Johnson, reporter Cricket Carter, mailroom
Emily Hanson, sports reporter supervisor
Adam Rudnick, copy editor
~rs to
farm-
iumbia Sideshow
ance of
distracts
ation
lse Bill from real
zpact
3ave
:,De- port
178111
' four
ttthe business
gisla-
~oduck Editor, the Journal
Pro- "
Wash- Is Port ofAllyn Commis-
~d at sioner Jean Farmer becoming
~ngton a sideshow distraction from
cts of actual port business?
m the For example, she wants
it of to be paid for showing up
flly, the at community meetings or
~wers events (or funerals for that
to be matter) whether it is port-
lrea- related business or not, with
vers no oversight from the com-
1 their mission as a whole.
port is "I don't think I am asking
ted to tbr a ridiculous act," she said.
7nrea- "I think we need to evolve•"
there Wouldn't a pleasant "evolu-
fthe tion" be to display a little hu-
~tive mility like the other two com-
~es. missioners, who consistently
: grow- demonstrate responsibility
ing to and dedication to the port's
ns and taxpayers rather than their
Lt they own pocketbooks?
'~v. Port Commissioner Randy
effort to Neatherlin summed it up well:
m leg- "The only [meetings] that we
• While should be getting paid for are
ints on ones that are pre-authorized by
ate I the port or ones we have been
:eaders assigned to represent. These
Ld do a other meetings are things
!acts. we should do because we are
md let members of the community..."
And what's with the "coach-
ing" Farmer admits recei~ng
while campaigning for re-
election? Farmer says she was
"careful with her word choice"
and denies saying she would
work to remove the port's ex-
ecutive director. I was at the
; of act- meeting she referred to and it
the fol- was perfectly clear whom she
3treet was talking about.
'forest, Now Farmer is upset that
e fishing the other two commissioners
.terways aren't letting her have her
~d chemi- turn as chair of the commis-
~lting sion. Where is it written that
in order there should be "turns" to
ain, do have the chair?
ach your Port of Allyn meetings are
starting to remind me of Port
of Shelton meetings when
L. Stave "Barney Fife" commissioner
SheltonJack Miles was still on the
commission.
Mary Swoboda
Belfair
e
'avern for
r a dona-
S0 et 8
ogram.
~anager
:ntatwe
Composing room:
William Adams, graphics
Koleen Wood, classifieds/legals
Becky Corr, typing
;per
Pressroom:
Kelly Riordan, production manager
Travis Miller press operator