Decision in Oakland Bay oyster bag farm appeal

Taylor Shellfish’s proposed floating oyster bag farm in Oakland Bay is closer to operation after the Shorelines Hearings Board ruled on an appeal that aquaculture development is a preferred use and the company adequately addressed possible environmental impacts.

Friends of Oakland Bay and Taylor Shellfish both appealed Mason County’s decision last year to approve the farm.

Friends claimed the farm is inconsistent with public access policies, doesn’t comply with views and aesthetics policies and said the county examiner failed to impose reasonable conditions on the project and gave too much weight to “the status of aquaculture as preferred use,” according to the petition.

Taylor objected to required third-party monitoring for environmental impacts, requirements that the company conduct patrols whenever gear is found missing and respond to complaints within 48 hours or by 5 p.m. the next business day, have oyster bags spaced 30 feet between the center of the double bags and required annual reports on noise complaints, according to the appeal.

Taylor and the county reached an agreement on the issues before the SHB released its 94-page decision on Dec. 5.

The board heard testimony in Olympia Aug. 26-30.

“The Shorelines Hearings Board (Board) finds and concludes that Friends has not met its burden to establish inconsistency with the Shorelines Management Act (SMA), the SMP, or the State of Washington Department of Ecology’s (Ecology) implementing regulations, that aquaculture development is a preferred use, and that its impacts are lawfully mitigated by Taylor Shellfish’s proposals and the conditions of approval in the shoreline substantial development permit. The Board affirms the County’s approval with conditions and the revisions to the conditions agreed by the County

and Taylor Shellfish,” the decision states.

The board found that larger vessels “will not be hindered in any manner” because the farm will not operate in the deeper northwestern channel of Oakland Bay.

Smaller watercraft will be excluded from traveling through the farm from southeast to northwest but can navigate from southwest to northeast, according to the decision.

“Public access to the lease area or the Project area is not excluded or eliminated. Because most smaller watercraft currently capable of safely navigating in the shallow

northeastern portions of Oakland Bay will not be excluded from traveling around or through the Project area, the public access impact is only to the area of surface water occupied by the floating oyster bags,” the board said.

Several witnesses testified about whether the farm would detract from views and aesthetics of Oakland Bay.

Friends presented testimony that that the farm will exceed 10% of the cone of vision, which is a “high” visual impact, according to Ecology’s 1986 Aquaculture Siting Study.

“Although the project has some visual impact to adjacent landowners, the Board is not persuaded that the adjacent landowners’ cone of vision will be impacted in a significant way,” according to the decision.

The board also discounted witness testimony that the farm will “change Oakland Bay from a scenic natural resource” to a substantial industrial development, noting there are larger aquaculture projects in Oakland Bay.

“The Project will not be the largest aquaculture operation owned and operated in Oakland Bay by Taylor Shellfish, which currently operates a 140-acre oyster and clam farm in Head of the Bay, a 90-acre oyster and clam farm in Chapman Cove, and a 38-acre oyster and clam farm near Bayshore,” according to the decision.

Oakland Bay has supported various commercial activities and has a long history as a working waterfront, the decision stated.

Friends also objected to proposed lighting for the project, with one shoreline resident saying the lights would interfere with his ability to enjoy views of the Bay.

“Based upon the testimony and evidence offered at hearing, the Project will produce light in a new portion of Oakland Bay but will not produce light significantly different or greater than what is currently produced by other aquaculture projects, nearby residences, and vehicular traffic on Highway 3,” according to the decision.

The board also found studies showed the projects motorboats “will not cause any noise impact above the ambient noise levels.”

The board heard testimony about Taylor’s monitoring plan for water quality and fish and wildlife habitat impacts from Patrick Patillo, a retired fishery management scientist with the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, and Chris Cziesla, an environmental consultant who developed the management plan for the project.

Patillo, testifying for Friends, said the plan lacks details on the purpose of the monitoring, does not explain how benchmarks are used and corrective measures are vague.

Cziesla explained how the monitoring plan will work and said state and federal agencies will be involved with regulation of the project and review results.

“In review of the Monitoring Plan and the testimony and evidence supporting it, the Board finds that the Monitoring Plan agreed by Taylor Shellfish and the County includes sufficient regulatory oversight with regular reporting and verification from DNR, Ecology, WDFW, NOAA, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The Board finds Cziesla’s testimony more persuasive and gives greater weight to it than to Patillo’s testimony,” the board wrote.

They also found Cziela’s testimony “holds the greatest weight and is the most compelling as to potential impacts of the Project on the natural resources of the Bay.”

The board approved Taylor’s proposed mitigation of granting additional shoreline access along the southeastern shore of Oakland Bay immediately in front of Sunset Bluff County Park and the private residences between the water and East Sunset Road, near Bayshore in Head of the Bay and investing in the existing public boat launch at the Oakland Bay Marina as compensation for the loss of public access in the project area.

Taylor and the county settled conditions Taylor was appealing Aug. 15.

The county agreed to modify a requirement that Taylor inspect project gear at least once a week, allowing extra time for collecting gear due to inclement weather.

Taylor dropped objections to mailing a written notice to all residents who could see or hear the farm that has a phone number for noise complaints and a phone number to report sightings of orcas adversely affected by project gear.

Taylor is excited about the project, Public Affairs Director Bill Dewey told the Journal in an email.

“Taylor Shellfish is excited about the project and pleased to see the permit process moving along. This farm will increase much needed oyster seed production capacity that will benefit the company as well as all of the farms we provide seed to. We are also excited that it will do so in a manner that is efficient and will improve the work environment for our employees,” Dewey said.

Taylor’s annual payroll for its Shelton facilities departments is around $20 million, according to Dewey. Taylor and other shellfish businesses are important to Mason County’s economy, he said, noting much of Taylor’s gear is manufactured and assembled by employees in the county.

“Taylor Shellfish greatly appreciates the Shorelines Hearings Board’s careful and thorough review of this farm. The Board spent almost an entire week hearing testimony from the parties’ witnesses, and it spent over three months after the hearing concluded carefully considering all of the evidence presented before issuing its decision. The Board appropriately determined that the farm is a preferred use and advances broader County, state, and national interests. The Board also correctly concluded that Taylor is employing all appropriate measures to minimize potential impacts and that the farm’s shoreline permit is consistent with the Shoreline Management Act and Mason County’s Shoreline Master Program,” he said.

Friends of Oakland Bay told the Journal in a statement that the group was disappointed with the appeal decision.

“Friends of Oakland Bay is extremely disappointed the Shoreline Hearings Board was unable to exercise courage in denying Taylor Shellfish the opportunity to fully develop Oakland Bay to their singular benefit. In our estimation, this decision will open up all Puget Sound waterways to commercial takeover and allow Taylor and anyone else to pursue their bottom line at the expense of the citizens of the State of Washington,” according to the statement.

Taylor is still facing legal opposition from Friends of Oakland Bay.

The group filed a land use petition in Thurston County Superior Court in September, disputing the county’s interpretation that Taylor is not subject to certain zoning rules.

Taylor submitted a motion for summary judgment the day after the SHB decision.

The suit, filed in Thurston County Superior Court, says zoning allows only a “hobby farm” that includes “small scale commercial agriculture.”

Judge Christine Schaller is scheduled to rule on the motion Jan. 10.