Examiner set to make decision on bag appeal

The Mason County hearing examiner was set to decide on a motion for reconsideration of the approval of Taylor Shellfish’s floating oyster bag farm in Oakland Bay at a meeting Wednesday at the Mason County Commission chambers in Shelton. The meeting occured after the Journal’s holiday deadline.

The seafood company welcomed the approval, but objected to requirements that the black color of the oyster bags be replaced with blue or green and that it pay for a monitoring plan prepared by a third-party expert to check for environmental impacts.

Taylor claims the conditions are not consistent with the Mason County Shoreline Master Program and the Shoreline Management Act and wants them struck from the permit, according to its reply on motion for reconsideration filed Nov. 7.

The original approval decision found that changing the color of the oyster bags from black to green or blue would make an important aesthetic difference, but Taylor wanted that condition removed because green or blue oyster bags are not commercially available and specific production would add over $600,000 to the project, Taylor said in filings.

Members of the public who previously commented on Taylor’s application were allowed to submit a response to the motion for consideration. The Shelton-based company then responded to those comments.

Public responses “inaccurately” claim Taylor’s objections to the colors are based solely on added costs, the company said in its reply motion.

“Taylor’s request is primarily based on the lack of commercial viability of blue or green gear, the failure of blue or green gear to appreciably reduce aesthetic impacts, and the risk of degradation with blue or green gear,” according to the reply.

The examiner should consider all of these reasons in addition to the cost, the company responded said.

David and Ginny Douglas, with Friends of Oakland Bay, urged the examiner to deny reconsideration, writing that the company’s objections to “quality control or durability of the bag is not supported by any credible third party documentation Taylor has presented for review.”

They also noted a statement the company made in its motion for reconsideration that said the bag color will “at most provide a minimal temporary benefit given that all oyster bags would become fouled by aquatic matter within a short period of time and take on a similar appearance,” their response says.

“This statement has been made only after Taylor learned your decision required blue or green bags. This means Taylor is now confirming the operation will create organic waste and odor problems either totally ignored or not adequately addressed in the applicant submissions and testimony. This ‘aquatic matter’ will effectively create a floating cesspool, contributing to unknown environmental problems and objectionable odors wafting across Oakland Bay 24 hours per day 7 days per week, especially in the summer, providing a truly negative impact on the entire bay,” according to the response.

“These responses ignore that Taylor is itself a gear manufacturer and hence can speak with authority on this issue,” the company wrote.

The company also said it provided the examiner with a response from one of its gear manufacturers stating it “cannot guarantee the longevity or color in the environment for oyster grow bags with colors other than black,” according to the reply.

The company also wants to modify the requirement for third-party monitoring and proposed its own monitoring program prepared by its preferred biologist at Confluence Environmental Company.

The company says that “it is normal and most effective to have project monitoring performed by qualified staff members of a permittee,” and that the condition, as currently drafted in the permit, does not necessarily require additional monitoring, according to the reply.

“It simply requires Taylor to pay for a third-party consultant to investigate the need for additional monitoring and to develop a monitoring plan if warranted,” Taylor said.

Melissa Kennedy, a homeowner in Oakland Bay, asked the examiner to keep the original monitoring requirements in place.

“To eliminate oversight and/or allow Taylor oversight of their own project would be a statement that this entire process and recommendations made were merely a game that had already been decided in the backroom. I truly don’t believe that is the case. The time and effort you placed in the project indicated a level of concern for the families impacted,” Kennedy wrote in her response.

“Completely independent transparent and publicly posted monitoring by a qualified third party is an absolute necessity for the safe operation and ecological impact of this massive industrial operation. This should include testing of the oysters farmed at this site for any bioaccumulated toxins that could be dangerous to the consumer,” Shelton resident Mark Herinckx wrote in support of keeping the monitoring requirement.

The bag color and third-part monitoring were the two significant conditions added by the examiner before approving Taylor’s permit in its entirety and filing it on Oct. 9, according to a report by Hearing Examiner Phil Olbrechts.

Taylor filed a motion for reconsideration Oct. 19, prompting the Washington State Department of Ecology to notify Mason County that the previous filing of the permit was invalid because the reconsideration period was still open.

Mason County then withdrew the permit, according to Planner Luke Viscusi.

On Wednesday, the examiner can strike the requirements, modify the decision or deny Taylor’s motion and keep the original requirements.

The proposed oyster farm still needs approval from several state and federal agencies and all of the approvals are in process, according to Public Affairs Director Bill Dewey.