Norovirus in Shellfish from Puget Sound and British Columbia - A Wintertime Problem for Shellfish

It's no longer summer time oysters 

industry and consumers 

need to worry about.

A business model is becoming ill.
The recent outbreak of illnesses traced to Norovirus contracted from the consumption of raw oysters harvested from Puget Sound and British Columbia is presenting new and major problems for the northwest shellfish industry. It has created a year-round safety question about oysters and shellfish safety harvested from the northwest, put in question the export market, seen how the east coast shellfish growers are stepping in with safe native shellfish, and created increased risk to a business model.

Summertime Vibriosis from Puget Sound oysters
In the past, the naturally occurring bacterium Vibrio parahaemolyticus increased dramatically during the warm summer months and resulted in the contraction of vibriosis from raw oysters harvested from Puget Sound. Over the past decade, immense effort has gone into attempts to control the outbreaks. While somewhat successful, vibriosis is still being contracted from Puget Sound oysters harvested in the summer months. To make matters more of a challenge, warming temperatures increase the probability of the more virulent bacterium Vibrio vulnificus, currently found in Gulf Coast grown oysters, becoming established in Puget Sound (DOH reported it 2013 Vv having been found in Washington grown shellfish - click here for paper).

Wintertime Norovirus in Puget Sound and British Columbia oysters, and nobody knows why

A March 31 press release from King County has said the outbreak of illnesses contracted by hundreds from eating raw oysters has nothing to do with their failed treatment plant. They point out the oysters contaminated with norovirus have come from growing areas as far south as Olympia, WA, to British Columbia in the north and that illnesses began far before, stating in the press release:

"The implicated oysters [for illnesses contracted in King County] come from all over the Puget Sound – from down near Olympia to all the way up in Bellingham/Samish Bay." 

A March 22 article in The Globe and Mail quotes the BC Shellfish Growers Association as saying, "...the longer the outbreak continues the more devastating it is for the industry." The article goes on further to note BCSGA executive director Darlene Winterburn:

She said the cause of the norovirus has yet to be determined and government officials and scientists are examining a range of possibilities, including a sewage leak or perhaps an unusually cold winter that also meant less sunlight, which affected the oysters’ ability to filter toxins.

More than oysters at risk - geoduck from Hammersley Inlet 
It is not only contaminated oysters shellfish growers are concerned about. China consumes almost 90 percent of the geoduck clams harvested in these same waters. Like oysters, they too filter the water and retain whatever may happen to be in that water. In south Puget Sound, Hammersley Inlet contains one of Taylor Shellfish's largest geoduck operations. Beginning in mid-March, shellfish growing areas of Hammersley Inlet began to be closed by the Department of Health, who expanded those areas closed in the first week of April, moving west towards Taylor's geoduck operation. Of concern to growers is China and Hong Kong do not hesitate banning imports of tainted shellfish, as noted in August of 2015 when this occurred:

Hong Kong has decided to ban the import and sale of all raw oysters from British Columbia, Canada, after the province announced that a batch had been contaminated with bacteria.

Opportunities seen by East Coast Shellfish Growers: Restaurants in Vancouver "...carrying east coast oysters not subject to the same contamination scare." (Vancouver Sun, March 22)
Unlike the tainted shellfish found in the northwest waters, the East Coast shellfish growers believe their product to be a safe alternative with restaurants in Vancouver already describing their east coast oysters as being "..not subject to the same contamination scare." CBCNews noted on April 5, as a result of the norovirus illnesses from British Columbia (and presumably Puget Sound), the northeast shellfish operators in the Maritimes (Canada's eastern provinces) were  "...struggling to keep up with demand." An interview with one of the northeast growers speaks about the BC growers problem and the difference between the native oysters they provide versus the non-native Pacific Oysters grown in BC.

Expansion at risk of becoming ill?
Unable to determine the source of the Norovirus which has tainted oysters from the northwest has put in question the expansion so desired by this industry. Financing is at risk when over 300 people become ill from oysters over a large geographic area and nobody knows what the source is. Should China ban shellfish from the northwest because of bacteria or virus, as they have done before, a revenue stream will come to a halt. That increased risk is an illness the industry should be concerned about.

Vibrio: Minus Tides and Warm Temperatures Increase Risks of Contracting Vibriosis from Washington Oysters

 

Department of Health Issues Notice to Growers

Warning of the Vibrio Season

Minus Tides and Unseasonably Warm Temperatures

Increase the Risk

 

Relative increase of Vibriosis (top line)

Center for Disease Control

 

DOH reminds shellfish growers of consumers contracting vibriosis from shellfish

In response to the continuing increase in vibriosis contracted from consumption of raw oysters harvested from Puget Sound, Washington's Department of Health (DOH) has reminded shellfish growers about the Vibrio parahaemolyticus (Vp) control plan taking effect May 1. Puget Sound growers are required to follow strict guidelines on time allowed to cool shellfish to 50 degrees after harvest. Times range from 12 hours in May to 4 hours in July and August. Despite similar plans existing in all states vibriosis from oysters harvested in the United States continues to increase.

 

Growing areas in south Puget Sound

closed in 2013 from vibriosis

 

 

Virulent Pacific Northwest strain now found on the East Coast

The sharpest rise of vibriosis occurred on the East Coast where what is described as the "Pacific Northwest" strain of Vibrio parahaemolyticus (Vp) is felt to have become endemic, as it is in Puget Sound. Vibriosis from this strain of Vp was not found in shellfish outside of the northwest where Vp occurs naturally. Then, in 2012, outbreaks traced to shellfish from large areas of the East Coast occurred. Vibriosis from this virulent northwest strain of Vp traced to shellfish from the East Coast continues to climb, as it has been from shellfish harvested in Puget Sound  (see the Center for Disease Control article here).

 

Extra precaution: Average temperatures and average tides don't always fit the formula

Not mentioned by DOH is the first few days of May, 2014, bring with it minus mid-day tides and unseasonably warm weather, peaking at 85 degrees on May 1. As seen in the table below, normal temperatures for the first week in May average in the mid-sixties. The upcoming forecast notes day time temperatures climbing into the mid-80's on Thursday, May 1, when at 2PM the tide in south Puget Sound will reach its low of -1.6 (see "May 2014 Tide Table" below). This will leave oysters exposed to the unseasonably warm temperature for over four hours.

 

Average Temperatures: ~65 degrees

 

Forecast Highs for Shelton:

April 30, 81 degrees; May 1, 85 degrees

 

May 2014 Tide Table

(Olympia)

 

Time for post harvest processing?

The shellfish industry has for years been trying to control the outbreaks of vibriosis traced to shellfish harvested during the warm summer months. A few years ago the FDA proposed shellfish be processed immediately after harvesting (e.g., cold shock, hydrostatic high-pressure, irradiation). An intense lobbying effort by the shellfish industry pushed back the effort leaving it up to the industry to handle, as they have been for years. During that time vibriosis from the consumption of raw oysters has continued to climb. (read article on PHP here)

 

Source of Norovirus in Puget Sound: Shellfish Grower Says "Too Much Poop" in Puget Sound Making Shellfish Unsafe

Whose poop is to blame?

South Sound Mariculture Oyster

Declared unsafe.*

Time to consider oysters grown on the East Coast for now?

Tacoma's The News Tribune writes about a Puget Sound shellfish grower saying there is too much "poop" in Puget Sound causing oysters grown there to be unsafe to eat. John Hansen, owner of South Sound Mariculture, has spoken before both the City of Shelton's City Commission and Mason County Commissioners. There, he expressed his belief that the source of norovirus which caused his and other shellfish farms in south Puget Sound's Hammersley Inlet to be closed, is the City's waste water treatment plant. That plant discharges directly into Oakland Bay and Hammersley Inlet. The City of Shelton strongly disagrees with Mr. Hansen's claim.

Humans aren't the only mammals

increasing in population around Puget Sound.

Whose poop is it that the oysters are filtering and in turn making humans sick?

Through the shellfish growers, focus is being placed on septic systems and, in the case of Mr. Hansen, the City of Shelton's waste water treatment plant as being the source of norovirus his and other's oysters are contaminated with. However, norovirus is not limited to humans, and humans are not the only mammal increasing in population in or around Puget Sound, a point noted by Tristan Baurick in 2016, who wrote, "...the harbor porpoise is making a startling comeback after a nearly complete disappearance from local waters more than 40 years ago." More to the point, a January 2017 paper published by the Center for Disease Control notes:

"...the fact that noroviruses infecting marine mammals closely related to human noroviruses have been found infecting harbor porpoises and contaminating oysters raises the question of whether HPNV could infect humans through contamination of oysters or other shellfish."

He did it! No, it was her! Not me, it was him! 

Porpoise are not the only mammals

making their presence known.

Norovirus in northwest shellfish was not limited to Hammersley Inlet, but covered a wide geographic area.

This year, the number of illnesses contracted through the consumption of northwest oysters was not limited to Hammersley Inlet and numbered in the multiple hundreds. This was considered to be a widespread outbreak, ranging from Willapa Bay in the south to the waters of British Columbia*. After months of trying, the source, despite Mr. Hansen's belief, is still not known. In fact, given the wide geographic area and multiple shellfish operations implicated, it seems more likely the disease is being spread through means other than the City of Shelton's waste water treatment plant or on site septic systems. Whether the wide ranging pods of porpoises, sea lions, or even Orca are the source is not known, but cannot be discounted.

*The article in The Globe and Mail on oyster illnesses from British Columbia also notes in a short clip at the end the Humpback Whale population increasing from 6,000 to 21,000 since 1993. Shown is a drone capturing "whale snot" being exhaled to test for pathogens.

Send in the Orca to clean up the mess.

But don't they "poop" too? 

Half baked ideas are as bad as half cooked oysters contaminated with norovirus.

Before agencies chase ghosts attempting to make waters clean enough for shellfish growers to make (quoting Mr. Hansen) "$10,000 per month" from his small tideland parcel, they should first confirm just exactly what the source of the problem is. If they are wrong, and illnesses continue, the east coast shellfish growers will be able to take market share which will be very difficult to re-acquire. 

Is a drainfield this close to 

a shellfish farm a good idea

if you're worried about norovirus?

Does that green grass

in August

indicate anything?

Edited May 10: The Department of Health has declared portions of Hammersley Inlet open to commercial harvesting again. (see below - red/brown closed)

City of Shelton 

Portions of Oakland Bay and Hammersley Inlet

Edited May 11: The Department of Health has declared the area at the end of SE Mell Road open to commercial harvesting. Portions of the north shore and west end where the waste water treatment plant discharges into Oakland Bay and Hammersley Inlet remain closed.

Ocean Acidification: It's Complicated

As added material to consider in what is becoming a deeply controversial topic, the University of Washington's Cliff Mass questions some of the fundamental conclusions reached in the recent Seattle Times articles on Ocean Acidification.  His "Ocean Acidification and Northwest Shellfish: Did the Seattle Times Get the Story Right?" gives another perspective. From his piece, he states:

My conclusion is that this series has some serious problems and draws several unwarranted conclusions. Particularly that recent shellfish problems are the result of past or current CO2 levels in the atmosphere.

More than Commercial Shellfish Matter to Puget Sound, Whatever the Cause of Calcium Carbonate Depletion
If one accepts the fact that CO2 is changing the oceans water chemistry and preventing the formation of Calcium Carbonate, then every marine species dependent on that molecule is impacted. Pushing forward with the significant expansion promoted by the shellfish industry in its "Washington Shellfish Initiative" and "National Shellfish Initiative" will do more harm than good through the "sponge effect" of massive shellfish farms currently being promoted soaking up the diminished supply of Calcium Carbonate. While good for the corporations promoting 58 raft mussel farms, it's bad for the native marine species who are also vying for the same Calcium Carbonate for their calcifying.

Alternatively, if there is a question about the cause of the diminishing supply of Calcium Carbonate, then more research is needed before the massive expansion being promoted is allowed. As an example of the size of what is envisioned, Jim Gibbons with Seattle Shellfish spoke before Washington representatives about how Spain, in an area the size of south Puget Sound (south of the Tacoma Narrows) is producing 600 million pounds of mussels each year. Currently, there are less than 2 million pounds of mussels being produced.

Strategic Marketing Matters, But You'd Better be Correct

Following the strategic marketing plan developed by Governor Gregoire's Blue Ribbon Panel on Ocean Acidification, Mr Manning and Mr Taylor build further on the Seattle Times three part series on Ocean Acidification in their "Guest" piece entitled "What we can do about ocean acidification and climate change". From the Blue Ribbon Panel's "Ocean Acidification: From Knowledge to Action" (4Mb): 

Educating elected officials, resource managers, business and industry leaders, and the general public (including youth) is a key prerequisite to action.

To improve understanding of ocean acidification and engage stakeholders in solutions, information needs to emphasize four key points. First, information must communicate
that ocean acidification is affecting jobs and resources here in Washington State. Second, materials must emphasize the importance of the ocean to our health, coastal economies, and well-being. Third, the information must explain the rapid change in ocean chemistry, the consequences of this change for marine life in Washington, and what it means for individuals and Washingtonians collectively. Finally, the information needs to show the value of early action and highlight the role that Washingtonians can play in developing and implementing solutions. (page 79)

Strategic marketing happens all the time in business and in politics. But if it is fundamentally flawed then there is a problem. In the case of Ocean Acidification, it needs to be examined closely. One small example of why that may be a wise course is to look south to Willapa Bay where not only native Olympia oysters are beginning to re-establish themselves, but so too are the Pacific oysters.

Cliff Mass is a professor at the University of Washington with a PhD in Atomospheric Sciences. He has taught at the University of Washington since 1981 and has authored "The Weather of the Pacific Northwest."

Jay Manning was Director of the Department of Ecology before being shifted to Governor Gregoire's Chief of Staff from which he resigned in 2011, saying he felt "worn out." In October of 2011 Mr Manning became partner at the Cascadia Law Group and returned to the Washington Environmental Council where he is currently President.

Bill Taylor is with the Taylor Shellfish Company.

Burley Lagoon: Demand Letters Sent to Pierce County and Washington State Attorney General From Coalition Attorney

If you ignore them they will not go away,

they will only become more focused.
 

 In the beginning:

"The purpose of this letter is to request that the Pierce County government [and Washington Attorney General] take action to strictly enforce current Pierce County regulations which prohibit any aquaculture activities on the shorelines of the State without a valid permit, and to impose the appropriate penalties that both State laws and Pierce County -regulations require, including prosecution of responsible Taylor Shellfish Company and/or its employees for a criminal misdemeanor pursuant to RCW 90.58.212." November 18, 2014 letter to Pierce County and Washington's Attorney General from Mr. Tienson

Demands for action will not go away

The Coalition to Protect Puget Sound Habitat, Friends of Burley Lagoon, and concerned individuals have had their attorney send letters to the Washington Attorney General Bob Ferguson, Pierce County Prosecuting Attorney Mark Lindquist, and Pierce County Executive Pat McCarthy  demanding action be taken against Taylor Shellfish's unauthorized and unpermitted activities which have been occurring in Burley Lagoon since April of 2012. The letters were written by attorney Thane Tienson, with the law firm of Landeye Bennett Blumstein in Portland, Oregon, and detail how Pierce County has turned a blind eye to citizens' complaints about Taylor Shellfish greatly expanding operations within Burley Lagoon. (attachments referenced in the letters above are found here; individual letters are found by clicking on links above)
 

You wouldn't question grandfather would you?

When Pierce County was asked to produce permits which allowed Taylor Shellfish to expand activities within Burley Lagoon, Pierce County responded: "There are no formal permits to produce as this has been a use that has been grandfathered." For reasons detailed in the demand letters, Mr. Tienson states: "Only the first portion of this statement from PALS is supported by the facts..." (no permits). All Pierce County has on record of something being "grandfathered" is a 1988 letter written to tideland owner Mr. Yamashita (Western Oyster Company) which described "floating oyster culture." However, the letter also states: "should Western Oyster wish to expand the operation in Burley Lagoon, Pierce County will require the obtaining of all shoreline permits and approvals."

 

Just because your car had a current license when you parked it in a garage 5 years ago doesn't mean it's current now.

In December of 2007 Western Oyster stopped reporting any shellfish harvests to Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, something it had done on a regular monthly basis between 1986 and December of 2007, after which nothing harvested from Burley Lagoon was reported until 2012, then by Taylor Shellfish. Washington law is clear in requiring shellfish growers to report their harvests, including registered farm numbers, names of shellfish harvested, and the amounts harvested. Mr. Tienson also notes Washington and County regulations are clear in stating if a "nonconforming use activity ceases for more than one year, any restarting of that activity requires issuance of a new permit under any new rules that thereafter were adopted (WAC 173-27-080; PCC 20.72.060)." Western Oyster ceased reporting any harvests after 2007. Taylor Shellfish cannot, 5 years later, start up a nonconforming activity without permits.

 

He waved his arm and said this is what you are buying. Oops, he didn't own it to sell.

When Taylor Shellfish was found to be growing geoduck on state tidelands in Totten Inlet which it didn't own, they claimed the seller of the tidelands told them it was theirs to sell. This excuse was dismissed by the Attorney General. Likewise, Taylor Shellfish cannot now claim they were an "innocent purchaser" under PCC 18.140.023(D) when they began leasing tidelands in Burley Lagoon.

 

We're just making it disappear or look different, so we don't need a permit.

Part of Taylor Shellfish's unpermitted operations in Burley Lagoon included dismantling many of the >45,000 square feet of floats in Burley Lagoon and replacing a minor amount. Taylor Shellfish did not have the luxury of simply telling Pierce County it was "still within the footprint and use of the historical exemptions." As Mr. Tienson's letter shows with clarity, any exemption which may have existed ended long ago. Pierce County chose not to act, despite citizen complaints of unpermitted activities.

 

Pierce County's gumshoe investigation, without shoes (or gum?).

In June of 2014, Pierce County concluded its investigation of complaints from citizens about Taylor Shellfish's unpermitted activities in Burley Lagoon. At its foundation lay the belief that Taylor Shellfish was already authorized to be in the Lagoon. Had the investigator put on his shoes and taken a walk he would have discovered, for reasons detailed in Mr. Tienson's letter, that Taylor Shellfish had no authorization, permits, nor use rights of any nature to be operating as they were and still are.

 

In the end
In summation, Mr. Tienson ends with this closure:
"In sum, Taylor Shellfish has no authorization or valid permits of any sort which would authorize it to be in Burley Lagoon for any reason, let alone for a large industrial-scale commercial geoduck farm. Pierce County Code and Washington State laws demand that its unlawful operations and activities be halted immediately, that it be required to remove its equipment and materials and floats from the Lagoon, and allow the Lagoon to begin the slow process of recovering to its original condition. Costs for the Lagoon's recovery should be borne by Taylor Shellfish, as required by PCC 18.140.050(G).

 

"Finally, since Taylor Shellfish is in violation of several provisions of State and County law. We also request that any evaluation activity by PALS personnel on Taylor Shellfish's geoduck permit application that is currently under review be halted immediately."

 

It is called Puget Sound, not Taylor Shellfish Sound for a reason

Puget Sound is a treasure providing habitat for a diversity of species, some found only in the northwest. It was not meant to be a habitat for a few large companies to transform, used to create a treasure chest for themselves.






 

SEPA Decision on New Geoduck Farm in Eld Inlet - Were Adjacent Farms Considered?

Were impacts adequately considered?

Comments Due By: 4PM, May 30, 2013

CONTACT: Scott McCormick, Associate Planner

(360) 754-3355 x6372 or mccorms@co.thurston.wa.us

Northwest Shellfish Co. has applied for permits for a new geoduck farm in Eld Inlet on a tideland parcel owned by William and Marie Staley. Thurston County has issued a tentative "Mitigated Determination of Non-significance" (MDNS) SEPA determination. Comments on this decision are due by May 30. Decision documents are available by request from the county. A general overview is available here, but it does not appear adjacent operations were considered.

Was accurate information provided by the applicant?

Were existing farms considered in the determination? Aerial photos from 2006 to 2012 from Thurston County's GIS site show clearly that aquaculture was occurring on the adjacent tideland parcels south of the proposed farm. Surveys done for Taylor Shellfish show geoducks apparently encroaching on the Staley property. It does not appear the application or determination considered the adjacent farms.  Could the county have made a meaningful determination?

 

Aerial view of proposed farm.

(see below for higher resolution)

Existing shellfish farms
The proposed site is adjacent to where existing shellfish farms were located, one apparently in front of a parcel owned by the Hittmeier family and another seemingly in front of a parcel owned by Thurston  County (Frye Cove County Park). It is unclear who owns the tidelands in front of the Thurston County parcel and who the shellfish operation there belongs to.

2006 Aerial photo of farm adjacent
to Thurston County parcel.

 

Taylor Shellfish Survey

The only indication of operators is found in a survey done for Taylor Shellfish of the tidelands in front of the Hittmeier family. That survey shows geoducks planted on the tidelands adjacent to the Hittmeier's upland parcel had encroached onto the Staley parcel by 2'. The survey does not indicate ownership or location of the farm appearing to be adjacent to Thurston County's parcel.

  

2009 Survey for Taylor Shellfish

of tideland parcel adjacent

to Hittmeier parcel, between

Staley and Thurston County.

 

 

Expansion of farming in front of the Hittmeier's parcel.

Comparing the 2006 aerial photos above to the 2009 aerial photos shows aquaculture activity on the parcels, one having expanded. The tideland parcel appearing to be in front of Frye Cove County Park also shows activity having occurred, possibly harvesting.

 

2009 aerial photo showing the farm

in front of the Hittmeier parcel

had expanded.

 

Expansion of activity in front of Hittmeier parcel.

From the 2012 aerial photo below it is unclear whether farming on either of the tideland parcels continued. What is clear is there is a continued need for surveying before any permits should be approved, both to ensure private property is protected and to help show how the incremental approval of shellfish farms creates further the need for cumulative impacts to be considered in permitting. What is also clear is the SEPA determination does not indicate consideration of any past or present farming in the area was considered. Would it matter if all farms were harvesting at the same time, some when the tide is out and some when the tide is in, or on a schedule of perpetual cycles? Would it matter if the density of shellfish planted in Eld Inlet reached a scale where native species no longer had the resources necessary to survive? It would matter if the Shoreline Management Act and Thurston County's Shoreline Master Program were to be considered as they should be.

 

2012 Aerial photo

A larger picture of existing farms.

(click to enlarge)

 

Get involved.

 

 



Comment on Corps of Engineers Permitting Update

RGP or NWP - Both regulatory frames around the shellfish industry which they will try to break
On April 25 the Coastal Watershed Institute released an opinion on the Corps of Engineers' April 20 meeting at which the COE discussed their regulatory oversight of aquaculture (see below). Those regulations developed occur within either the framework of the Regional General Permit (RGP) or the Nationwide Permit process. RGP is more focused on regional issues and able to change more quickly (becoming more or less restrictive as impacts are discovered) whereas the NWP is more nationally focused, with regional conditions, but also set in place for 5 year periods. The former fits into Governor Inslee's misguided Shellfish Initiative.

[Note: The Nationwide Permit update process will be starting soon, as the current 2012 NWP's will be replaced in 2017.]

Taking an RPG to the time it takes 
A great number of concerns expressed by growers focused on the industry's dislike of how much time permitting of shellfish farms takes. Similar frustrations were expressed at an April 18 meeting of state agencies, where Governor Inslee pressed his Washington Shellfish Initiative and wanting to "streamline" the permitting process so expansion of the industry could occur on their schedule (for a summary of what was proposed to benefit the shellfish industry, see here). Some spoke of the "burden" it placed on small growers. Others spoke of multiple agencies (WDFW, NFMS) which had to be consulted and the time it added to the process. One speaker, a past employee of Seattle Shellfish, expressed concerns about time and a program he was involved with which would enable disabled veterans to become shellfish farmers.

[Note: The Pacific Coast Shellfish Growers Association had previously announced this program, but asked for members to provide sites already "permitted for shellfish farming." Whether any permitted sites were provided by PCSGA members is not known. Whether disabled veterans would prefer access to a natural shoreline over one populated with PVC pipes and netting is also unknown.]

Slippery regulations on eel grass
Also at the COE meeting there was concern expressed by an industry representative over comments about the regulation of activities in or near eelgrass. As noted in an earlier post, the shellfish industry successfully lobbied representatives in D.C. to get the Corps to drop protections of eelgrass in "fallow" shellfish beds. Reaction by tribal members, individuals and NGO's was sharp in opposing this action (see Coalition to Protect Puget Sound Habitat letter here). Concerns expressed at the meeting by the industry may be related to the developing science on the importance of eel grass in sequestering CO2, in addition to the well established science of the critical habitat it provides. Concerns which all should have is the slippery slope which the industry has put everyone on, where the economic benefit of a few override the long term benefits of the many by dropping protection of the critical habitat created by eel grass.

"iron fisted, misdirected support of the aquaculture industry"
As seen below, the Coastal Watershed Institute is clear about how it feels on the shellfish industry's growing regulatory influence. Speaking directly to Governor Inslee's "Shellfish Initiative", CWI notes the risk to the "wild and intact nearshore ecosystems" which "streamlined permitting" for industrial aquaculture brings with it. Also noted in their email is the success which political lobbying in Washington DC brought - the removal of eel grass protections. This is an industry well financed by geoduck grown and sold to China (netting over $1 million/acre to growers, with tideland owners simply being taken advantage of through lease terms benefiting no one but the growers). It is highly motivated. And, it does not like being regulated. Get involved.

Subject: CWI position on CoE Shellfish Aquaculture Permitting following
Informational Meeting April 20 (UNCLASSIFIED)

We attended the  20 April 2016 CoE informational meeting on  future federal
permitting of shellfish aquaculture in Washington state. The agenda is
attached, and the link to meeting presentation materials is below. We'll
have more to say when the draft biological opinions are published. Until
then, a few thoughts to consider as we wait...

One of the main decision points before the CoE is to decide the type of
permit they will develop for the future. They may pursue another national
permit, or alternatively, develop a regional aquaculture permit for
Washington state. The later would dovetail with seamlessly  Governor's state
'Shellfish Initiative', which  in our firm and clear opinion has been iron
fisted, misdirected support of the aquaculture industry, and that we feel is
in direct opposition to, and  displacement of, our wild and intact nearshore
ecosystems.

The Washington state Department of Agriculture may well  be proposed as the
regional lead for the state in this regional construct. Remember that the
Department of Agriculture recently listed eelgrass, Zostera japonica, as a
nuisance species, opening the way to eelgrass irradiation by the shellfish
industry. WDFW should be a leader in this dialog-but WDFW (inexplicably)
has no permit authority over shellfish practices.

We just celebrated Earth Day. Many citizens spent the day participating in
beach clean ups around the state. They are the most recent witness to the
fact  that the majority of marine plastic debris of not only global, but
also our local shorelines, is from aquaculture. Bottom line:  exclusion
nets, tubes, spraying, and extensive monotypic cultures of non-native
species, and  mechanical disruption of shorelines for large scale and
industrial aquaculture are contra indicated with nearshore systems so
important for our northwest systems.

We were relieved to see military veterans were a profile at the meeting.
Our staff can speak from very personal experience-our wild, natural
nearshore ecosystems provide invaluable refuge/respite for healing veterans
and their families.  They must be protected.

Another point made at the meeting was that Washington state is one of the
largest shellfish industry producers in the nation-as reflected by the
number of permits along our shoreline.

The truth is that the  shellfish industry is extremely lucrative  in
Washington state (geoduck farms are reported to net over $1,000,000 an
acre), and politically extremely powerful. One recent and clear
illustration:  the startling letters from state and federal *elected*
politicians to the CoE Seattle branch chief that were specifically directed
to CoE protection of eelgrass. These letters , overnight, resulted in the
removal of  permit provisions that would have protected over 10,000 acres of
existing eelgrass in Puget Sound.

Based on what we observed at the 20 April  meeting- and in recent management
and political actions by state and federal agencies (and elected
officials)-,it's clear that our nearshore resources management actions are
being decided  as never before by industrial aquaculture, and the economic
heart that is at their core. The federal resource agencies and the CoE have
before them the opportunity and responsibility to preserve the intact
shorelines and ecosystems of our region. But to do so will require these
agencies to challenge the political forces that are becoming ever more
dominant in our ecosystem resource management. We strongly encourage them to
buck up,  chose  the right side of the ecosystem (as challenging as doing so
may be), and  be leaders for the resources (they are specifically charged
with protecting) and that we know they have the capacity to be.

Here Come the Chinese: Lust for Big Clams Brings Largest Shellfish Facility on the West Coast

Hummingbird Cove Shellfish Hatchery

Small bird, big hatchery, big numbers, big impact.

365,000 square feet:  A lot of space costs a lot to produce big clams in big numbers.

The Powell River Peak writes about a Chinese aquaculture firm, Pacific Aquaculture, which has followed the path set by Chinese energy firms who have invested in the west and elsewhere to ensure a steady supply of carbon based fuels far into the future. Pacific Aquaculture has currently invested $10 million in a shellfish hatchery which opened on the 19th. They plan to invest an additional $40 million over the next five years to create a shellfish facility which, at 365,000 square feet, will dwarf anything on the west coast, or most likely in the world. The project, in conjunction with Hummingbird Cove Lifestyles, was first described in Hatchery International in October of last year but was then far smaller.

US Shellfish Companies: Now just

big clams in a little tank?

We used to be the big clams here

In comparison to Pacific Aquacutlure's 365,000 square foot facility, Taylor Shellfish - purported to be the largest shellfish producer in the United States - has a hatchery on Dabob Bay estimated to be 30,000 square feet in size. Production facilities in Shelton are estimated at 27,000 square feet, with those at Samish Bay being estimated at 9,000 square feet. As noted, Pacific Aquacutlure's will be 365,000 square feet.

Aloha from Goose Point Oyster in Hawaii.

We'll always have the condo.

20,000 square feet is big?

Is that Aloha a hello or goodbye to profits in the shellfish industry?

Unlike the Taylor hatchery in Dabob Bay being able to adapt to what is currently felt to be problems caused by ocean acidification, the Nisbet family's Goose Point Oyster simply scaled back their "Whiskey Creek" hatchery facility in Willapa Bay and built a new 20,000 square foot facility in Hawaii. As the article in the Seattle Times notes,  only a handful of hatcheries supply West Coast farmers, including Whiskey Creek and Taylor Shellfish. With a facility now in operation, which at 365,000 square feet will dwarf anything on the west coast, flooding the market with shellfish seed, including geoduck, how long can the profits in the shellfish industry be expected to last?

They said I'd make money. Why should I care?

I never promised you a shellfish garden.

Because shellfish companies no longer have tidelands to use, they lease tidelands from private individuals and promise "great" returns in exchange for encumbering their property, in some cases for decades. Any concerns about their role in the creation of these point sources of plastic pollution, loose nets, and fractured tideland ecosystems, along with fractured relationships with neighbors, many nurtured over generations, are diminished by the salve made from promises of monetary cream being rubbed onto these tideland owners' palms. The Chinese, however, through Pacific Aquaculture, will no longer be beholden to shellfish companies in the northwest supplying artificially constrained supplies, and inflated prices, of geoduck. Revenues will drop and the gravy train will stop. As investments in energy failed when supply overtook demand, so too will investments - and promises of riches - in the shellfish industry fail when oversupply drives prices down and the Chinese are able to supply themselves with geoduck. Leaving behind plastic tubes and structures, as Drakes Bay Oyster Company did when they walked away from Drakes Estero, leaving the taxpayers to clean up the remains.

Chinese do not like 

paying artificially inflated prices

for geoduck so will grow their own.

Sorry, I don't think that was part of the permit.

Who will pick up what's left behind when companies are no longer profitable? This bubble is no different than any bubble which has preceeded it. It will pop. Pacific Aquaculture is a big pin with a strong hand pressing on the bubble. And when it pops, Puget Sound will be left with PVC, nets, and plastic to cleanup.

Get involved. 

Demand that bonds be required for all shellfish farms currently permitted to guarantee Puget Sound is not left in the state Drakes Estero was when Drakes Bay Oyster Company decided it was best to just walk away, leaving taxpayers to pick up the mess.

China Bans Importing of Washington Geoduck - A Bubble Popped?

[Update 1/7/2013: Test Results by DOH show the skin of geoduck from Poverty Bay having  inorganic arsenic at levels the Chinese are concerned about. As DOH does not believe skin is normally consumed they have declared geoduck safe to eat.

 

[Update 1/4/2013: Test Results Delayed - The Department of Health has announced the results of testing for arsenic in Puget Sound geoduck will be delayed until next week. They had previously expected testing and analysis would be completed and results released by today (see article here). On January 5th it will have been one month since China first announced it had discovered arsenic in geoduck shipped from Washington's Puget Sound. Why test results had been postponed was not explained.

 

[Update 12/20: DNR suspends harvesting in Poverty Bay's Redondo tract where Arsenic was detected by China. The Puyallup Tribe which had been harvesting in the area also agreed to suspend harvesting until further testing could be done.]

 

[Update 12/15: For post on the geoduck bubble deflating see March 28 post. For additional comments on Puget Sound sediments see June 10 post on Oakland Bay's elevated levels of dioxins.]

 

[Update 12/14: China's ban is not limited to geoduck, but includes all shellfish. In addition to PSP, China has also stated elevated levels of arsenic were found. As reported in many studies, most recently Science in the Total Environment, arsenic from the ASARCO plant is distributed throughout the sediments in both fresh water bodies and in central Puget Sound, in some cases those same sediments from which geoduck are harvested from, both legally and not.]

 

Distribution pattern of arsenic/lead from ASARCO plant

(click to enlarge)

 

[Update 12/13: Chinese concerns about paralytic shellfish poisoning toxin are not limited to Washington's shellfish. The California Department of Health (CDPH) has warned consumers not to consume "sport harvested" shellfish from inner Tomales Bay and Monterey Bay due to paralytic shellfish poisoning toxins having been detected in mussels from these California waters.]

 

Alexandrium and Paralytic Shellfish Poisoning

A growing problem in Puget Sound



Washington state's Department of Health confirmed that China has banned the importing of geoduck from Washington state. Entry inspections of two geoduck shipments found concentrations of paralytic shellfish poisoning (PSP) toxins above standard levels. The toxins are the result of Alexandrium, a plankton now found further south than in years past, including Puget Sound.

Who will clean up this mess

when the geoduck market collapses? 

More than illnesses and geoduck profits are an issue
The loss of income and impacts to individuals and families due to illnesses from shellfish has been an ongoing concern to many. As noted, however, in earlier posts there is more than a health issue at hand. The geoduck industry has been expanding and has plans for many more farms throughout south Puget Sound. To date agencies have done little to nothing to ensure that when the market collapses someone will be responsible for removal of the hundreds of thousands of PVC piping and netting. To date, bonding requirements have been strongly resisted by the industry, let alone any other regulatory oversight.

Paralytic shellfish poisoning is year round and no longer an "Alaskan" problem
Unlike the Vibrio outbreaks which are occurring in growing numbers during the warm summer months, PSP is now occurring throughout the year. Numerous subtidal tracts in Puget Sound have been closed by DOH when sampling shows levels of the PSP toxins are higher than regulated amounts. While in the past it has been a greater problem in Alaska, it is now a growing problem in Puget Sound.

Vibriosis from shellfish rises from shellfish consumption, CDC concerned
In addition to the growing risk of paralytic shellfish poisoning the shellfish industry has been unable to control the growing number of outbreaks of vibriosis traces to the bacteria named Vibrio parahaemolyticus. In October the New England Journal of Medicine reported that the strain of Vp from the northwest has now spread to the Atlantic states. The spread of sources has resulted in the Center for Disease Control beginning an investigation into why.

Areas closed to commercial shellfish

farming in south Puget Sound due

to outbreaks of vibriosis in 2013

Most geoduck are grown/harvested

in south Puget Sound.

On top of vibriosis, a growing problem for the industry
In September the Huffington Post reported on the outbreak of vibriosis from oysters harvested in the northeast, further north than previously found in the past. A large majority of south Puget Sound was closed to the commercial harvesting of shellfish this last summer. Plans for increased production of genetically modified oysters which are sterile will likely increase consumption. Of more concern to the industry, and to the Center for Disease Control, has been an apparent inability to control the outbreaks which continue to grow. On top of vibriosis now comes PSP.

Agencies need to act with clarity, not respond to the shellfish industry's needs
It is time for agencies to begin acting with clarity. Bending to the will of the shellfish industry, no matter how important it is, should no longer be accepted. Contact your representatives and demand CDC and Food and Drug Administration be allowed to act. You can also help by donating to organizations such as Case Inlet Shoreline Association who are trying to protect Puget Sound's habitat.

Contact information for donations

(CISA is a 501c3 non-profit organization):

Curt Puddicombe

Case Inlet Shoreline Association (CISA)

PO Box 228

Vaughn, WA 98394-0228

Phone: 206-730-0288

Governor's Office Fails to Respond to Japanese Eelgrass Appeal

Tell them to go somewhere else

for their next meal.

Brant geese foraging

in Willapa Bay

 

You're late
The Coalition to Protect Puget Sound Habitat has released an email sent to the Governor's office in which it notes the Governor's responsibility to have responded within 45 days to the Coalition's appeal to the denial by the Noxious Weed Board to the Coalition's request to de-list Japanese Eelgrass as a Class C Noxious Weed.

Who needs buffers?

One thing leads to another - a chemical soup
The Noxious Weed Board, pressured by the shellfish industry, declared naturalized Japanese Eelgrass a noxious weed. This has, in turn, allowed for the shellfish industry to press for the application of imazamox on Japanese Eelgrass in Willapa bay on commercial shellfish beds. The Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) on that proposal is now being worked on at the Department of Ecology. It is one more "ingredient" being added to what the Attorney General described Willapa Bay as being: a "chemical soup".

Just another "pest" the "stewards" 

of the shellfish industry want to eliminate.

These "environmental stewards" want to eliminate buffers and native shrimp
In a letter sent from the law firm representing the shellfish industry they claim to be "environmental stewards." This industry is the same one who is attempting to eradicate the native burrowing shrimp, most recently through the proposal to apply carbaryl to the tidelands. Regarding the application of the non-discriminate herbicide imazamox, they are opposed to suggestions of buffers which are meant to limit the threat of collateral damage to vegetation on adjacent properties which the application of imazamox poses ("requests that the property line buffer be eliminated").

 

"It's a preferred use."

Not when the Shoreline Management Act

was created and not now.

Preferred use doesn't mean you can do what you want, where you want, no matter which initiative you hide behind
In their legal letter the shellfish industry goes on to claim that because the Shoreline Management Act considered aquaculture a preferred use when it was written in the early 1970's, the state is now mandated to support anything which improves shellfish yields from the tidelands. If naturalized species and native species dependent on that habitat happen to be in the way, too bad. Lost to the industry is that being a "preferred use" does not allow for a free-for-all in the tidelands, any more than it allows for condominium complexes to be built out over the water because residential use is a "preferred use." Using the shellfish initiatives, created and pushed through by shellfish lobbyists, to hide behind only shows how little the industry cares for anything except increasing production from Washington's tidelands. For their financial benefit.

Aquaculture: A persistent threat to Washington's shorelines
The industry's legal firm ends their letter with looking forward to helping Ecology address what they consider a "persistent threat to shellfish aquaculture". What Ecology needs to understand is that it is the shellfish industry which has evolved to become the "persistent threat" to Washington's shoreline area and the critical habitat it provides for all species, many of which other industries are dependent on, and many species which have existed for millennia - not just 4 generations.

Shellfish Industry to Ecology: Your "duty" is to advance shellfish aquaculture
Industry's legal comment ends by saying Ecology has "a duty" to advance shellfish aquaculture. Ecology does not have a duty to advance shellfish aquaculture. Ecology does have a duty to ensure that Washington's shorelines are not fragmented into piecemeal parcels of unnaturally high density shellfish lots growing non-native species in plastic grow-out bags and PVC pipes at the expense of all other species.

Another viewpoint on Ecology's responsibility 
In comparison to the industry's legal letter the Northwest Environmental Defense Center also provided comments on Ecology's role, best summarized by this sentence:

"Ecology has not provided sufficient information to demonstrate that it has evaluated all probable environmental impacts, or sufficiently analyzed alternatives and mitigation measures."

Email to the Governor's office:
 Dear Mr. Brown,

On January 28, 2014, The Coalition To Protect Puget Sound Habitat and Robert Kavanaugh hand delivered to the Governor's Office an "Appeal of the Washington State Noxious Weed Control Board Denial of Rule-Making To Amend Petition" and exhibits. The office of the governor date stamp shows we filed this within 30 days of the Weed Board denial as required by RCW 34.05.330. As of today, March 21, 2014, we have received no response from the Governor's office. 

 

According to RCW 34.05.330, " The governor shall immediately file notice of the appeal with the code reviser for publication in the Washington state register. Within forty-five days after receiving the appeal, the governor shall either (a) deny the petition in writing, stating (i) his or her reasons for the denial, specifically addressing the concerns raised by the petitioner, and, (ii) where appropriate, the alternative means by which he or she will address the concerns raised by the petitioner; (b) for agencies listed in RCW 43.17.010, direct the agency to initiate rule-making proceedings in accordance with this chapter; or (c) for agencies not listed in RCW 43.17.010, recommend that the agency initiate rule-making proceedings in accordance with this chapter. The governor's response to the appeal shall be published in the Washington state register and copies shall be submitted to the chief clerk of the house of representatives and the secretary of the senate."

 

We take the issue of unlimited destruction by the shellfish industry of Washington State eelgrass that is a critical component of our ecosystem seriously. I discussed the lack of response to our petition with Susan Beatty in your office earlier this week and have not heard back from her. We are preparing to file legal action in Superior Court and would appreciate a response from your office.

 

Sincerely,

Laura Hendricks

Coalition To Protect Puget Sound Habitat

(253) 509-4987

 

 

 

Pesticides in Willapa Bay: It's not about bees. It's about Willapa Bay's aquatic ecosystem and native marine invertebrates, the very foundation of the food chain.

Comments due November 1

Reminder: Comments on the proposal to apply the neurotoxic pesticide Imidacloprid to shellfish beds in Willapa Bay are due by November 1. 

You may submit comments here: http://ws.ecology.commentinput.com/?id=aefUM

(Alternatively, you may say you support the comment letter from the Coastal Watershed Institute found here: https://commentinput.com/attachments/projectID_1001/10063/merged//12829.pdf)

(Or, you may say you support the comment letter from Northwest Center for Alternatives to Pesticides, found on The Coastodian's site, here: https://coastodian.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/comment-letter-oyster-imidacloprid-proposal-SEIS-2017_updated-1.pdf)

Willapa Bay is not a template for shellfish growers to profit from. It's time for them to step back.

Anthropogenic Extinction

of a Native Oyster

(From The History and Decline 

of Ostrea Lurida in Willapa Bay, Washington)

Native oyster, native habitat, gone.

In the mid-1800's one of the great anthropogenic acts of extinction began in Willapa Bay. An estimated 27% of Willapa Bay was originally covered with native Olympia oyster. By 1920 that population, whose beds were estimated to have been as dense as 116 oysters per square meter, were all but gone, a direct result of overharvesting. After the shellfish industry first stripped the more easily harvested intertidal and low subtidal areas, they then convinced politicians in 1899 they should be allowed to dredge the remaining subtidal population. Shortly after that point, the native population of Olympia oyster, likely genetically distinct to Willapa Bay, were all but gone. Thanks to little more than the goal of short sighted profits by the shellfish industry.

Bring in the nonnatives, spray the invasives (as defined by the shellfish industry)

Left with nothing more than empty tidelands the shellfish growers, instead of restoring the native Olympia oyster, attempted to introduce the nonnative Eastern oyster. Shipped by rail and packed in Spartina, it was a failure after mass die-offs. What didn't die-off was Spartina. Considered a beneficial plant on the east coast because of its ability to stabilize soils in the nearshore environment and habitat it provided, shellfish growers considered it an invasive species. Through political lobbying they were able to get approved one of the largest herbicidal spraying operations in a marine environment. While successful in minimizing Spartina, its sediment retention properties were lost, resulting in dispersal of sediments previously held in place throughout Willapa Bay.

If at first you don't succeed - try again. And strip ownership of tidelands from those who made it succeed.

After the failure of the Eastern oyster, Willapa Bay shellfish growers turned to the nonnative Japanese Pacific oyster.  Growers from Japan had been successfully importing and growing the Pacific oyster privately owned tidelands since 1905. Until "passage by a State Legislature of a law (1922) restricting the ownership of lands by aliens, [when] the Japanese Company was forced out of business" (from "The Immigrant Oyster", a history of how the nonnative Pacific oyster came to be introduced and cultured in Washington's waters). At that point, after the failure of the Eastern oyster, the nonnative Pacific oyster was what was grown. 

Bring in the nonnatives, spray the invasives. Part 2.

Along with the nonnative Pacific oyster imported from Japan, also came the nonnative Japanese eelgrass. As with Spartina, in Japan this species of eelgrass is considered beneficial in the habitat and food provided to aquatic and avian species. But, as with Spartina, shellfish growers here considered it to be a "noxious weed." Shellfish growers successfully convinced the Noxious Weed Board to classify Japanese eelgrass as a "noxious weed" which in turn led to approval spraying Imazamox, an herbicide, into Willapa Bay in order to more easily grow nonnative Manila clams and nonnative Pacific oysters.

Kill off the natives with pesticides so nonnatives can grow.

Now, shellfish growers believe it is time to remove a native species, the burrowing shrimp. Growers claim the burrowing shrimp is spreading throughout the bay, making their tidelands too soft to grow nonnative shellfish on. And with the removal of the burrowing shrimp, any other aquatic invertebrate in the area, making up the very base of the food chain in Willapa Bay. The shellfish growers' response? It helps the population to kill them off. (Dick Sheldon, October 10, before the Department of Ecology) 

Willapa Bay needs a new chef. It's not a "chemical soup" and not a profit template.

It's time for shellfish growers to be told to step aside. Their short sighted actions have done little more than transform what had been a bay whose tidelands were populated with native Olympia oysters in densities unimaginable today. Their short sighted actions have introduced multiple nonnative species into a thriving ecosystem which has done nothing more than create what Washington's attorney general described as "the chemical soup that was the bay." A chemical soup created by chefs who call themselves shellfish growers. 

Get involved. Industrial aquaculture is transforming Washington's marine ecosystems. Aquaculture can be done, within reason. But just because it is "aquaculture" should not mean it can do what it wants, where it wants, however it wants.

Comments due November 1.