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:

Friday, October 11, 2019

US District Court Rules Against US Army Corps' Shellfish Permits: Impact analysis and environmental assessment were inadequate.

Decision will have impact 

on current proposals.

US District Court rules that Nationwide 48 permits for aquaculture issued by the US Army Corps were based on an inadequate "...impact analysis and environmental assessment".
Read complete decision here: https://app.box.com/s/dwftuu3wnam6bxfv32qlq5e03wo5t0hr
(Read original case filed by Coalition here:
(Read Center for Food Safety filing here:
(Read Swinomish Tribe complaint, also considered, here:

Clalllam County permitting decision just lost
a significant leg: US District Court rules
the Corps' analysis was inadequate.
This does not belong in the
Dungeness National Wildlife Refuge.
(Comments due by Nov 21)

"The Corps’ issuance of a nationwide permit, at least with respect to activities in the waters of the State of Washington, was arbitrary and capricious and not in accordance with NEPA or the CWA. Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 706(2), the Court holds unlawful and sets aside NWP 48 insofar as it authorizes activities in Washington."

One small farm lead to another, and another,
and another, and another....
Which all added together make a difference.
And the Corps didn't consider that.

Never give up
For over a decade the Coalition to Protect Puget Sound Habitat, driven by Laura Hendricks, has been saying there was never an adequate cumulative impacts analysis done in order to determine whether small discrete projects, taken as a whole, had a significant and adverse impact on Puget Sound's critical marine habitat. Today the US District Court agreed.

PVC tubes and netting are transforming
Puget Sound's critical marine habitat.
Zangle Cove is only one area
where expansion is occurring.

Native aquatic vegetation is displaced by shellfish farms.

Shellfish farming impacts eelgrass, a critical habitat.
Agreeing with the Coalition and Center For Food Safety, as well as considering a case brought the Swinomish Indian Tribal Community over concerns about impacts to eelgrass, the decision still to be made will be whether to vacate all of the Nationwide 48 permits issued, or to consider what the Swinomish may suggest. The tribe has until November 15 to file papers. Also being allowed to file papers on alternatives to cancelling all Nationwide 48 permits issued will be the intervenors, Taylor Shellfish and the Pacific Coast Shellfish Growers Association, and defendant, the Corps of Engineers.

Net pen fish farming is only one
of the many forms aquaculture takes.
Its impacts are additive to the 
marine ecosystem.
Tell WDFW their analysis of Cooke Aquaculture's proposal
to grow steelhead in Puget Sound was inadequate
and an Environmental Impact Statement 
analyzing ALL alternatives, including upland/contained systems
needs to be performed.
Email here: SEPAdesk2@dfw.wa.gov
Comments due by Oct 22

Get involved. Marine ecosystems are being impacted by many shapes and in many ways.
Get involved and make a difference in helping to protect the critical marine habitat as The Coalition to Protect Puget Sound Habitat, Center for Food Safety, and the Swinomish Tribe did.
See Coalition web site here:
See Center for Food Safety site here:
See Swinomish site here:

Wednesday, October 9, 2019

1.8 Million Farmed Salmon Die from Warming Waters - Puget Sound Does not Need Steelhead Farming by Cooke Aquaculture

Tell WDFW an EIS is required.
Comments: SEPAdesk2@dfw.wa.gov (By Oct 22)

WDFW did not consider the alternative of 
an upland and contained operation
on property Cooke Aquaculture owns
nor impacts from climate change.
Riverence grows "steelhead"* in fresh water.
Cooke Aquaculture can as well.
They don't need Puget Sound to discharge 
untreated plumes of waste into. 
Read about Riverence steelhead here:
"We feed them a steelhead diet that is rich in Astaxanthin, 
which is the micronutrient that gives ocean-run steelhead their rich red flesh color, 
without requiring the ocean."

Cooke Aquaculture's Scatter Creek Hatchery
5 miles from Cooke's 300+ acres.
Upland and contained, where the first phase
of  genetically altered "steelhead" grow-out occurs.

Climate change is real and Puget Sound's waters are warming
Puget Sound's waters are warming and Canadian owned Cooke Aquaculture wants to extend use of its open net pens by converting to genetically altered sterile female rainbow trout they want to call "steelhead". Cooke Aquaculture owns 360+ acres in rural Rochester they could convert to upland/contained facilities. Puget Sound does not need the risk seen below, and upland/contained facilities was not an alternative considered by WDFW.
See WDFW public notice here: https://wdfw.wa.gov/news/wdfw-seeks-sepa-public-comment-cooke-aquaculture-farming-rainbow-troutsteelhead
See article on tribal involvement here: https://www.peninsuladailynews.com/news/tribe-in-partnership-with-cooke-aquaculture-eyeing-steelhead-fish-farm-in-port-angeles-harbor/
See article on state leases here: https://crosscut.com/2019/08/still-recovering-escaped-atlantic-salmon-cooke-aquaculture-now-wants-farm-steelhead

"It's natural"
Really? No - it's not.
Vessels pump up, then out, salmon remnants 
from the salmon die-off. Workers scoop
the visible pieces up. 

Open net pens are additive point sources of pollution
In Canada there is an environmental disaster unfolding with up to 1.8 million farmed salmon having died due to warm waters in late August and early September. Open net pens operated by Mowi experienced waters warm enough and oxygen levels low enough that salmon contained within the nets perished. The cleanup has begun with whatever may have been left alive being transported to a processing plant, with the smell being described as being so bad "you could taste it". The operator simply said "it's natural" and nature will clean it all up.
(Read about the cleanup here: https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/article-newfoundlanders-raise-a-stink-after-18-million-dead-farmed-salmon-are/)

"Salmon Butter" coats the shorelines

Cat food or salmon butter?
Others disagree with the simplistic perception that this is simply "natural" and should be ignored. In an interview with Biologist Dr Ian Jones, he compared it to the equivalence of an oil spill. Beyond the smell, he describes the impacts from the pink affluent and fish oil as being similar to a crude oil spill. Workers who are attempting to clean up the dead salmon describe the discharge of rotting salmon as "salmon butter". Whatever may be alive, or useable, is transported to a processing plant in Burgeo, NL where the Mayor has described the stench as "This stuff smelled so bad you could almost taste it." (See article here: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/newfoundland-labrador/mark-lane-burgeo-mayor-aquaculture-1.5313010)
"Under their breath, the cleanup crews call it salmon butter: the pink, coagulated sludge that has taken over a remote stretch of Newfoundland’s south shore." (From https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/article-newfoundlanders-raise-a-stink-after-18-million-dead-farmed-salmon-are/)
You can't regulate from behind a desk.
Get out.

Regulatory oversight - or lack thereof
Agency oversight has been called into question as the person in charge has yet to visit the area. This despite the event having been reported to the public in September, and its having begun in late August and early September.
"Nope, it doesn't look very pretty at all, I can tell you that," says Gerry Byrne, who has not visited the site himself. From: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/newfoundland-labrador/gerry-byrne-salmon-dieoff-reaction-1.5314433
Cooke's collapsed net pen in Puget Sound
Does Cooke really need another nightmare?
Does Puget Sound?

Cooke Aquaculture has already had one public relations disaster. Do they need another? Does Puget Sound?
Canadian owned Cooke Aquaculture does not need Puget Sound to grow "steelhead", whether genetically altered or not. As noted above, Riverence has been very successful in marketing "steelhead" grown in fresh water, fed a diet which rainbow trout might eat in the ocean. Consumers seem happy to accept that as "good enough". Cooke owns over 300 acres in a rural area where incentives to create a new and modern "steelhead" farm could motivate Cooke to reconsider this plan. And avoid a second public relations disaster.

Get involved - If you're not you'll be stuck with what you get.
Washington State does not need this. The impacts from it are additive, and only increase the stressors experienced. Cooke has the property, the technology exists, and the public accepts that "steelhead" do not need to be grown in salt water.

*Steelhead and Rainbow trout are genetically identical (unless altered to become sterile females, as Cooke proposes) with the only difference being Steelhead are Rainbow which migrate to the ocean and return to fresh water to spawn.

Wednesday, September 18, 2019

Burley Lagoon clam die-off: Just move along. We have this all under control. Really?

There are lots more bad clams out there 
in Burley Lagoon, so have it.

It's foggy out there.
After residents along the shoreline of Burley Lagoon and nearby areas pointed out to Taylor Shellfish, Pierce County, the Department of Health, the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife and Sea Grant, directly or indirectly, that there had been a large clam die off on the tidelands of the enclosed estuary, there is no more clarity on the cause than before.

Death of a clam is "not an anomalous event." What about the death of thousands?
What is clear is this was a significant event. As in Rocky Bay, Burley Lagoon too was a commercially planted tideland with high densities of nonnative Manila clams planted. In both cases "crops" of clams died, surfaced and began to rot. Pierce County noted that "die offs are not anomalous events" and they will happen again. If they will happen again, and the result is a "stench so bad it almost knocked me over" (Rocky Bay resident), shouldn't there be some sort of urgency to determine exactly what caused these massive die offs in south Puget Sound, Discovery Bay, and now Burley Lagoon? Spread over a period of months?

Toxic Bloom: We have samples, but we need more testing, so we'll just keep harvesting oysters.
When contacted, Taylor Shellfish claimed there was a "toxic algae bloom." There was a vagueness to what that toxic bloom was, with words to the effect that more testing needed to be done. The Department of Health was unaware of any such bloom and was unsure of the exact cause. Temperatures weren't abnormally high and Taylor had apparently said nothing to them. Or any of the other agencies.

Their experts are on it.
Tacoma-Pierce County Health Department responded that WDFW and the DOH had their experts looking at it, and based on conversations with them, there was no problem. Except that a large area of commercially planted nonnative clams had surfaced, died, and begun to rot. For unknown reasons. With waters of Burley Lagoon spreading that rot and oysters filtering that rot.

Crabs and birds will get through the predator nets and "clean it up". On their schedule.
WDFW said the crabs and birds would clean up the mess, even with predator nets in place. Predator nets in place to keep crabs and birds off of the tidelands. There was little concern over whether those species would be impacted by whatever toxins may have killed the clams. Rotting on the tidelands, dead from an unknown cause. In an estuary with low flushing.

DOH: Oysters filtering waters with rotting clams and unknown toxin is not a problem.
The DOH, like the others, was unsure of the cause but felt it may have been related to the large die off in Rocky Bay and an area near Vaughn. This was a die off which had occurred in June, almost 3 months ago, and was apparently now repeating itself. With thousands of clams rotting in Burley Lagoon and oysters doing what they do best - filtering that water. And being harvested for consumption.

Sea Grant: We need more grant money. 
Sea Grant and their marine scientists who have helped support the expansion of aquaculture in south Puget Sound are still unsure of what the cause of the Rocky Bay event was, and are now requesting additional funds for further studies. While waiting for an answer from these experts, another massive die off has occurred in Burley Lagoon. Another die off which has resulted in a similar "stench which almost knocked me over" (a Rocky Bay resident). Another die off whose cause is unknown and which will not be cleaned up by anyone.

NAMBI: Not against my business or industry.
Shoreline residents whose properties  are the most heavily regulated in the state through the Shoreline Management Act and now Pierce County's updated Shoreline Master Program expect to see similar attention on developments in the tidelands. And actions when those industrial level developments create industrial level impacts. Instead, what they hear is Taylor Shellfish testifying before the Pierce County Council during the SMP update hearing that not enough was being done for them. A hearing at which numerous amendments to address their prior concerns were adopted. After they appealed the original proposal to the Growth Management Hearings Board, which found in their favor. Still, they want more.

It's aquaculture. Our commercial activities are more important than you.
Now, residents who own shoreline property, property which is heavily regulated and restricted, look at the tidelands which once grew shellfish in reasonable numbers. Without a past in which die offs were not a regular event and which did not impact the public's use of waters and shoreline. Without predator nets and without PVC tubes. Without a "stench which almost knocked me over."

Get involved. If Pierce County believes the state law needs to change in order to de-prioritize aquaculture, they will do it. You should to. Because the stench will only get worse.

Monday, September 16, 2019

Taylor Shellfish Says Clam Die-off in Burley Lagoon from Toxic Algae

"Based on recent water samples, 
there is a toxic algae bloom in Burley Lagoon."
Taylor Shellfish, September 15

Testing and reporting to...?
After weeks of complaints over a putrid smell in Burley Lagoon and large areas of dead clams rising found on the surface of sediments, an email was sent to Taylor Shellfish asking if perhaps the cause may be that Burley Lagoon's carrying capacity has been exceeded. In response, Taylor Shellfish stated water samples had shown there was a toxic algae bloom occurring in Burley Lagoon. It did not appear from the email any residents had been notified of the toxic algae.

"The stench of dead clams 
nearly knocked him over," he said.
In July.
Burley Lagoon? No, Rocky Bay. 

The stench of dead clams.
Toxic algae blooms have impacted high density clam plantings by Taylor Shellfish elsewhere in Puget Sound this year. In July, residents near Rocky Bay also complained of a similar "stench". In the case of Rocky Bay, it was found large areas with clams planted in high densities by Taylor Shellfish had also risen to the surface and died. The Key Peninsula News wrote about the event August 1. 

This looks and smells very familiar.

This canary flew around for a long time.
In the September 15 email, Taylor noted the toxic algae is a "canary" of some sort, indicating something. That sampling shows the algae is still present months later, and shellfish planted in high densities in the tidelands of Puget Sound are still dying, should motivate health officials to do something more than they are. Before shellfish with toxins make their way from tidelands to the public. 

Sunday, September 15, 2019

Burley Lagoon Residents Complain of Putrid Smell, Clams Die Off: A "Preferred Use" of the tidelands?

"Particularly pungent smells 
may come from the beach when a common type of seaweed 
known as sea lettuce decays 
in an environment with low dissolved oxygen."
(Department of Ecology, "Focus on Saltwater Beach Odors")

Promoting and enhancing the public interest or industrial scale aquaculture?
After weeks of residents along the shoreline of Burley Lagoon complaining about a putrid smell so strong it has prevented many from enjoying the air outside of their homes, it appears there has been a clam die off to go along with it. To hear Taylor Shellfish discuss their "rights" under the Shoreline Management Act, the state and counties are to do nothing but promote and enhance aquaculture, prioritizing it over all other water dependent uses, believing it is in the statewide interest to do so. Even if it means what Burley Lagoon is experiencing.

Dead Clams in Burley Lagoon
Clean net placed too late?

The smell of politics.
Pierce County responded sources of the smell could be "Ulva" (aka Sea Lettuce, a native vegetative seaweed) so thick it smells of rotten eggs as it decays. Another source mentioned could be leaking septic fields. Not mentioned is that it could also be the carrying capacity of Burley Lagoon has been exceeded by Taylor Shellfish's intensive and industrial level of planting of clams and oysters, resulting in shellfish rotting as they die off, unable to survive due to the density of planting. Or it could be a combination of these or other things. Whatever it is, the stench is overwhelming and impacts enjoyment and use of the shoreline, whether a resident or a member of the public trying to enjoy the aquatic environment in Pierce County.

Maybe the nets just need 
a "good industrial scraping".
(Samish Bay, WA)

Do structures in the tidelands need bigger machines on the tidelands?
Long time residents of Burley Lagoon have stated they do not recall a stench so intense in all of their years living there, some for decades. What they also do not recall are the number of "predator nets"  which Taylor Shellfish uses to keep native species from feeding off of the sediments, or the expansive area covered. Nor do they recall the intensity of planting which is occurring, whether it be clams or nonnative Pacific oysters. As seen in the Samish Bay photo above, in order to deal with the heavy growth on their predator nets, Taylor partnered with New Holland and implemented the use of a tractor and a "street sweeper" to clear the nets there of Sea Lettuce so thick it prevents clams below from surviving. Algae which apparently exists in higher densities due to this artificial structure which has been placed over the tidelands of Burley Lagoon and on oysters planted in high densities.

It's not rocket science. It's "Ecosystem Services".

Oysters poop, seaweed grows, clams die. Ecosystem services at work.
As noted in an August 2017 "Ecosystem Services" winning picture, one source of the problem is directly related to oyster feces, their pseudo feces, associated ammonia, and shell surface area provided by high density planting of oysters. Oysters poop and provide "fertilizer". On the surface of those shells macro algae attaches and thrives on the "nutrients" expelled by the nonnative Pacific oysters. That growth is so intense oyster growth slows and clams rise to the surface. Summertime low tides and summertime heat promote decay and death. Smells emanate. Because of aquaculture. It's not rocket science. Calling it "ecosystem services" deflects attention from dealing with the problem created.

This is not "enhancing" the public interest
and is exactly what the Shoreline Management Act
was designed to prevent from happening
to Puget Sound tidelands.
(Read RCW 98.58.020 to see
intended preferences of the SMA)

"promote and enhance the public interest" - not industrial aquaculture
The Shoreline Management Act was created in response to industrial levels of activities impacting the shorelines of Puget Sound. It was not created to promote the industrial level of activities the shellfish industry has since evolved into. Activities and impacts which lower the statewide ability to enjoy the shorelines of Washington State. The Pierce County Council, in reluctantly passing their updated Shoreline Master Program, listened to Taylor Shellfish complain, even after additional changes were made to accommodate their industry, that more needs to be done in order for their industry to profit from tidelands and public waters. 
(Read August 28 letter from attorneys for Taylor Shellfish and the Foss family's North Bay Partners here: https://app.box.com/s/na0wpgwm4mjp7b41toj1iaf533iecij2)

Yes - Washington needs to change its laws.

"Maddening": Banning plastic straws and promoting PVC tubes in Puget Sound.
Most of what is noted in the Taylor/North Bay letter was addressed by Pierce County, yet still, Diane Cooper rose to state before the public and the council, not enough had been done for them. In response, most council members agreed, the state needs to change the law if, in fact, that is what Taylor Shellfish and others are relying on to promote their industry over other water dependent uses. [Read what the legislators who passed the SMA intended, here:
 https://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=90.58.020, where it states counties, in developing their Shoreline Master Programs:
"shall give preference to uses in the following order of preference which:
(1) Recognize and protect the statewide interest over local interest;
(2) Preserve the natural character of the shoreline;
(3) Result in long term over short term benefit;
(4) Protect the resources and ecology of the shoreline;
(5) Increase public access to publicly owned areas of the shorelines;
(6) Increase recreational opportunities for the public in the shoreline;
(7) Provide for any other element as defined in RCW 90.58.100 deemed appropriate or necessary."]
Get involved.
Use of structures and methods which create an environment from which odors emanate that are so strong as to prevent the public's enjoyment of the tidelands and shorelines is only one example showing how this industry is out of control. Pierce County agrees that laws promoting this need to change and will become active in the state to change this lopsided interpretation of a law intended benefit all in the state, not just a few corporations.

Wednesday, September 11, 2019

Pierce County Shoreline Master Program Update: Taylor Shellfish Still Not Happy

Pierce County Shoreline Master Program Update:
Council members approve amendment the Growth Management Hearings Board requested (4 yes, 2 no). Taylor Shellfish still complains they are too restrictive. Majority of council members say the state needs to act in order to protect Puget Sound's tidelands and estuaries from impacts aquaculture creates with 2 voting "No" and with others saying they are only voting "Yes" because the state law is forcing them to.

Video link is on the right side of this link:

Taylor Shellfish's Diane Cooper complains not enough has been done:
(1:33:30 - states the update is still too restrictive, referring to Taylor's August 28 letter outlining what more they want to have changed)
(1:52:20 - believes because impacts have been occurring historically they should be allowed to continue; believes science created for the industry supports 40,000 PVC pipes/acre are just fine)

Council members comment, most saying state laws which promote 40,000+ PVC pipes/acre in Puget Sound need to be changed.
1:36:44 - Derek Young spoke passionately for most about how he is only voting "yes" because state law is forcing him to, believing estuaries and tidelands are being adversely impacted by aquaculture. That the state is speaking of banning plastic bags and straws, while allowing PVC and grow-out bags for aquaculture is "maddening."
1:41:46 - Council Member McCune has seen impacts to estuaries and habitat, and how that impacts fish populations, and agrees with Council Member Young.
1:43:51 - Council Woman Ladenburg agrees with both previous speakers and that geoduck "farming" is not justifiable. Impacts are harmful, shorelines are pristine, and this is harmful, leaving for future generations a problem. She voted "No".
1:46:10 - Councilman Morell expresses concerns about further appeals and lawsuits from the shellfish industry. [Given Taylor's testimony, this appears possible.] He voted "No".

Get involved. The shellfish industry views Puget Sound's tideland areas as little more than a template for profits. Their use of plastics and means of harvesting does impact the intertidal area. And they want more.

Monday, September 9, 2019

Pierce County Shoreline Master Program Update: Final Decision by Council

Public testimony regarding Pierce County's SMP Update will be taken at the meeting or online. 
(See here: 
SMP Update vote by Pierce County Council
September 10, 3PM
930 Tacoma Avenue South, Room 1045
Tacoma, WA 98402
(See meeting information here: 

After an appeal to the Growth Management Hearings Board by the shellfish industry's Taylor Shellfish, Seattle Shellfish, and, the Foss family's North Bay Partners (who leases tidelands to Taylor Shellfish) a decision by the Growth Management Hearings Board found Pierce County's updated Shoreline Master Program (SMP) to be too restrictive. As a result, a number of sections and amendments were dropped, some changed, others left as is. Generally, oversight of aquaculture has been made far more favorable to the industry. On the other hand, the GMHB did clarify that aquaculture does not have a priority over any other water dependent uses.
(See decision here: http://www.gmhb.wa.gov/Global/RenderPDF?source=casedocument&id=6516)
(See decision on a request for reconsideration here: http://www.gmhb.wa.gov/Global/RenderPDF?source=casedocument&id=6553)

After a public hearing was held August 19 by the Community Development Committee, and testimony heard, they recommended a "Do Pass".
(See information on that meeting here:

Generally, oversight of aquaculture has been made far more favorable to the industry and state wide interests (however that is defined) were prioritized over the local interest. On the other hand, the GMHB did clarify that aquaculture does not have a priority over any other water dependent uses. 

Many people  devoted a great deal of time and effort in trying to ensure the marine habitat of Pierce County is preserved as best as possible. The aquaculture industry, and tideland owners who benefit financially from developments in their tidelands, devoted a great deal of money to ensuring their needs were met. Tomorrow, the Council will decide if they will accept what the GMHB has told them to.

Other legal efforts continue, some at a state level, others at the national level, with the goal being to preserve and protect the critical marine habitat unique to Puget Sound.

Tuesday, September 3, 2019

September 17 - Wheels of law turn slowly: Final arguments to be heard on Army Corps' permitting.

Is this the future of Puget Sound's intertidal area?
Final oral arguments will be heard September 17 at 9:00 AM in the Seattle Federal Courthouse, at 700 Stewart Street, on whether the Army Corps' issuance of Nationwide Permit 48's which allowed for expansion of aquaculture in Puget Sound's intertidal area was in violation of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the Clean Water Act (CWA) and/or the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). 

Originally filed in June of 2015, a number of legal steps have been taken, with the case slowly moving through the legal system. Arguments and counter arguments have been heard, volumes of papers and documents have been filed, culminating in the final hearing to be heard September 17.

At the core, the argument is permits approved and the process by which they were approved has resulted in a significant adverse impact to Puget Sound's intertidal habitat area. An area unique to Puget Sound and an area which native species depend on for survival, moving up the food chain to the highest levels.

After the oral arguments are heard, it is expected the Court will take up to 4 months to determine where the priorities of the Army Corps' permitting process should be: on the protection, preservation and restoration of marine habitat, or the economics of aquaculture.  

Friday, July 26, 2019

End of July, Beginning of August Bring Minus Tides and Warm Weather

Get out and experience Puget Sound

The low minus tides of late July and early August bring one of the last opportunities to experience Puget Sound's low intertidal habitat. It is an area unique to Puget Sound which supports diverse species unique to Puget Sound which is worth protecting and preserving.

Friday, July 19, 2019

Vibriosis Infections From South Puget Sound's Hammersley Inlet, Now Closed to Harvesting

Vibriosis Closes Hammersley Inlet 
Shellfish Growing Area

Washington's Department of Health has notified shellfish growers the Hammersley Inlet growing area is closed due to multiple cases of vibriosis traced to oysters harvested from that area. Warming temperatures and minus tides contributed to the cause of the increase. Being able to trace illnesses to specific areas, in this case, pointed to Hammersley Inlet.

Over the past years, illnesses from oysters harvested from Hammersley Inlet have caused a variety of closures, some related to vibriosis, some related to noro-virus. Vibrio parahaemolyticus bacterium, the cause of vibriosis, occurs naturally in Puget Sound. As water temperatures rise it becomes more abundant. Because oysters are filter feeders, they retain this bacteria within their systems. If left in warm temperatures, the oyster becomes a petri dish which causes this species of bacterium to grow rapidly.

Food safety is important. The Department of Health does not recommend consuming raw oysters from south Puget Sound during the summer and instead suggests boiling, baking or broiling in order to kill any bacteria.

Tuesday, July 9, 2019

Growth Management Hearings Board Rejects DOE and Pierce County Restrictions on Aquaculture

Taylor  Shellfish/Foss Family Prevail:
GMHB Tells DOE and Pierce County 
it must
"plan for, foster and give preference 
to aquaculture as a preferred use"

Presidential Candidate Governor Inslee
and Taylor Shellfish's Bill Dewey
China's elite pay a lot of money.
Taylor Shellfish makes a lot of money.
A few waterfront tideland owners 
make a lot of money.
Is that bad for the marine ecosystem Governor?

Aquaculture as a fosster child.
Washington's Growth Management Hearings Board has told the Department of Ecology and Pierce County the purpose of the Shoreline Management Act is to "plan for, foster and give preference to aquaculture as a preferred use". It is not to prevent the fragmentation of the intertidal area which the SMA describes as part of "the most valuable and fragile of its natural resources." As such it has returned Pierce County's updated Shoreline Master Program to them telling them to remove many  regulations the county and its citizens put in place to control aquaculture.

China doesn't care about Puget Sound habitat.
They care about geoduck grown in PVC pipes.
48,000 per acre

A concern then, a bigger concern now.
Citizens who overwhelmingly passed the SMA because there was concern "throughout the state relating to their utilization, protection, restoration and preservation" now find those concerns are apparently secondary to profits of corporations such as Taylor Shellfish and wealthy shoreline tideland/upland owners such as the Foss family's North Bay Partners who lease their tidelands to them. Taylor Shellfish and the Foss family's North Bay Partners appealed Pierce County's SMP approved by DOE and won.


There are some things which do not need to be fosstered.
What you see above may be good for the geoduck industry, China, a few corporations and a few tideland owners. But who else really believes this is good for Puget Sound's intertidal area? Do properties held by the Foss family really need to be fosstered?

~130 acres, ~5,000' of waterfront.
Taxes? $3,957
Does the Foss family really need to have
geoduck aquaculture fosstered to help pay these taxes?

Washington's intertidal areas are being transformed by a few large corporations who believe the money made and jobs created mitigates the damage done. It is an oligopoly - an industry controlled by a few dominant players. These corporations control the price paid to tideland owners, they control the price paid for shellfish, and through well paid lobbyists and attorneys control agencies responsible for protecting, preserving and restoring Washington's "most valuable and fragile of its natural resources" and instead have convinced them their role is to foster aquaculture. 

The industrial level of activities created by these few corporations are what the SMA was meant to hold back. Not foster.

Get involved
Get involved. If you are not, when your grandchildren ask how Puget Sound's tidelands came to be transformed into forests of PVC, you will only be able to say, "Because I didn't care enough to do anything."

Tuesday, June 18, 2019

Imidacloprid in Willapa Bay: Goose Point Oyster/Others Press On - "No other way."

Pristine Waters of Willapa Bay?
It just needs pesticides added directly to it.
Growers complain of urban runoff. 
But direct application of pesticides by them is okay.

Welcome to business. If it were easy, everyone would be doing it. 
In a presentation put forth for OPB, owners of Goose Point oyster claim there is no other way for them to grow oysters than to be allowed to spray their beds with the pesticide Imidacloprid, banned in the European Union. Because there is a lack of willingness to develop and implement alternative growing methods such as those Taylor Shellfish has, Goose Point's owners believe the only way is to spray Willapa Bay with Imidacloprid, one of the neonicotinoids being banned in foreign countries*.
*Some ask why let a foreign country control US policy? Some ask why foreign countries grounded 737 Max jets before the US. Sometimes the US isn't always right.
The threat to Willapa Bay is not native species.
It is pesticide use from oyster growers.
And a lack of imagination and willingness
to accept that sometimes business has expenses.

Welcome to "pristine" waters of Willapa Bay. Where pesticides were applied directly.
Willapa Bay is often described as having "pristine waters" which grow some of the best oysters in the world. While it's true that Willapa Bay grows an enormous number of oysters, claiming the waters to be "pristine" while spraying pesticides on oyster beds for decades stretches integrity. Washington's Attorney General went so far as to describe the waters as a "chemical soup" in 2012 (see p. 32 here). Direct application of Carbaryl/Sevin by growers then only made it worse, as Imidacloprid will today.

Use some Thinking Time.
It's not rocket science.

Welcome to business problem solving. It's not, "We don't know what else to do!"
Oyster growers claiming there is no other way are not taking the time to problem solve. Some claim that pole and rack/line systems would work like those used by Taylor Shellfish, but sediments are so soft poles used fall over. Do they not make longer poles which get driven into firmer sediments?  Just because oyster growers have been used to simply throwing oyster shell onto the bedlands of Willapa Bay, spraying pesticides, and using the public waters as a food source to grow oysters doesn't mean there aren't alternative methods. It only means there is a lack of will because it may cost more to grow oysters. Business is tough sometimes.

All the PR help in a tall building
will not convince consumers
oysters from beds sprayed with 
pesticides are safe/good to eat.

Welcome to bad PR advice. The Hard Reality: You will kill demand for oysters from Willapa Bay and all of Washington.
Public Relations firms will be more than happy to take money and make a point you want them to. It's what they get paid to do in their 25th floor offices. It's not to tell you the hard realities in life. In this case, if oyster growers are successful in their appeal to Washington and are granted a permit, the demand for Willapa Bay and Washington oysters will drop. Efforts to export Washington oysters to the European Union will be for nothing when they discover Imidacloprid - a pesticide the EU has banned - is being sprayed on the oyster beds Washington oysters are grown on. The East Coast Shellfish Growers Association has already said, pointedly, they "...use no feeds, fertilizers, pesticides or antibiotics." That is the hard reality Washington oyster growers will be up against if Willapa Bay growers are successful. That advice is free.

Saturday, June 15, 2019

Geoduck Aquaculture: Too Controversial for Jefferson County Marine Resources Committee? What are you "protecting"?

June 28, 1-5PM
Shellfish Aquaculture Educational Forum
Northwest Maritime Center
431 Water St
Port Townsend, WA
Registration required (click here for registration)

JCMRC: We only want to educate you 
on aquaculture which isn't controversial.

What habitat is it JCMRC "protecting and restoring"?
The "habitat" 40,000 PVC tubes/acre create?

Really? What "resources" are you protecting by not putting geoduck aquaculture on the agenda? 
In a move which shines a light on the role which the Jefferson County Marine Resources Committee is apparently now filling - promoting shellfish aquaculture which the industry wants you to hear about - they have decided not to include geoduck aquaculture in an upcoming "educational forum" on aquaculture. Based on a recent post by Al Bergstein, the past Environmental representative on the Committee, the upcoming June 28 meeting will only discuss the warmer topics of aquaculture, not the ongoing hot button of geoduck aquaculture. Ongoing for over a decade now. 

Integrity still matters to some.
(Al Bergstein has resigned from JCMRC)

Geoduck aquaculture is too hot for JCMRC to touch. 
As a result of geoduck aquaculture being considered too controversial to be included on the agenda,  Al Bergstein has resigned from his long held position as the Environmental representative. Instead of addressing what is the most controversial form of aquaculture taking place in Puget Sound - the growing of geoduck in intertidal areas for the elite in China - the Jefferson County Marine Resource Committee has instead punted and left it off of the agenda. It's too controversial (still). As a result, Mr Bergstein has resigned from his position. 

The Chinese could care less about Puget Sound's
intertidal area and the habitat provided to native species.
Geoduck growers like the money.
So do nonprofits receiving donations.

Geoduck is hard to swallow. 
While it is unfortunate the JCMRC has lost such a strong voice supporting the critical marine habitats within Puget Sound - those marine habitat areas which the JCMRC claims it is "protecting and restoring" - no one should have to compromise their strongly held beliefs for a committee apparently too timid to face down this industrial level of aquaculture taking place in Puget Sound and deal with the controversy surrounding it. There is a point in life where you can only swallow so much of what industry spoon feeds you before you have to act on your beliefs.

Being involved pays. Very well.
"Don't ask how it's done."

It will be quite a show.
Geoduck growers have created a magic show making agencies believe great benefits to all has been created. Well paid public relations firms, well paid attorneys, and well paid "scientists" (either directly or through grants controlled through the political process) have created a magic show in which the belief that geoducks grown in Puget Sound's intertidal areas is somehow good. It is not . It is transformative, creating a monoculture, and fracturing the critical marine habitat of Puget Sound. Growers want more and will get more unless you make your voice heard. 

Get involved. Make your voice heard. 
Register and attend JCMRC "Shellfish Aquaculture Educational Forum". It will be quite a show.