Notice: Undefined index: HTTP_REFERER in /home/stparch/public_html/headmid_temp_main.php on line 4394
Newspaper Archive of
Shelton Mason County Journal
Shelton, Washington
January 12, 2012     Shelton Mason County Journal
PAGE 4     (4 of 20 available)        PREVIOUS     NEXT      Jumbo Image    Save To Scrapbook    Set Notifiers    PDF    JPG
 
PAGE 4     (4 of 20 available)        PREVIOUS     NEXT      Jumbo Image    Save To Scrapbook    Set Notifiers    PDF    JPG
January 12, 2012
 
Newspaper Archive of Shelton Mason County Journal produced by SmallTownPapers, Inc.
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