Permit Hearing: 1 p.m. August 9 at 411 N. 5th Street in Shelton

Floating Oyster Farm Hearing in Mason County's Oakland Bay, WA

50 acres of navigable water and tidelands is needed for a 9 acre floating oyster farm.

[Article on citizen concerns here: https://www.masoncounty.com/.../oakland-bay.../2967.html

August 9 a permit hearing on a proposal by Taylor Shellfish to create a 9 acre floating oyster farm requiring a 50 acre lease in south Puget Sound's Oakland Bay will occur. While presented as "only" 9 acres, Taylor Shellfish has said due to drifting of the structure, lines and anchors, a 50 acre area of public subtidal tidelands and navigable waters is required.

To date, 49 comments have been received with 43 of those being opposed. Impacts to native marine life, the public's use of navigable waters, and plastic pollution are only a few of the concerns expressed.

On Mason County's web site, Taylor's response to those comments has been a litany of past studies used to support a variety of industrial shellfish farms, dismissal of others as not being important (e.g., Friends of Burley Lagoon don't know anything about Oakland Bay, so their concerns are not relevant), and the belief that giving access to 16 acres tidelands in other parts of Oakland Bay, only exposed during a small portion of the day, is sufficient mitigation to offset the loss of the 50 acres of navigable waters Taylor needs.

[See Mason County's web site and permit documents here: https://masoncountywa.gov/hear.../Taylor-Shellfish/index.php ]

In addition to attending in person, the hearing will also be available on Mason WebTV.

[Find Mason WebTV here: https://masonwebtv.com/ ]

Through a series of delays, Taylor Shellfish has had ample opportunity to review concerns submitted and develop what they feel are sufficient responses to them. Coupled with time spent developing shoreline regulations which are favorable to industrial shellfish farm development, citizens who are concerned have an uphill climb.

Another Day, Another Bill: Imidacloprid on Oyster Beds and Marine Waters of Willapa Bay and Grays Harbor

Pesticides in Washington's Marine Waters:

Washington's Oyster Industry 

Tries Again

"Imidacloprid for All"

"Twisted logic"

Oyster industry logic reflected in House Bill 1611: The oyster industry tells cattle farms, dairy farms, hobby farms, agriculture, industry and residents they cannot allow runoff onto their oyster beds and into the public and tribal marine waters. But they say spraying pesticides - in this case Imidacloprid - onto those same beds and into those same public and tribal waters is just fine. 

(Read what the Audubon says about Imidacloprid here.)

"There's no harm here, just move along"

Contrary to "studies" created by a scientist from Washington State University, who also happens to own tidelands leased to grow shellfish in Willapa Bay, and whose associates would benefit financially from approval to apply Imidacloprid, pesticides in Washington's waters do cause significant harm to a wide variety of aquatic species (read Audubon comment letter here).  It is a non-discriminant pollutant which kills all invertebrates and impacts the entire food chain. And Washington's oyster industry wants to apply it directly to oyster beds and in public and tribal marine waters.

Mom: "No Johnny, you can't have the car tonight."

Dad: "Go ask your mother Johnny."

Mom: " How many times do I have to say no?"

Child: I'll be back.

Despite having had a permit to apply Imidacloprid withdrawn and another denied, and having already introduced a Bill which would allow Imidacloprid's widespread use on oyster beds (HB1037), Washington's oyster industry thought they may as well try another Bill, this time declaring there is "state of emergency" because a native species is growing where the industry would like to grow non-native oysters. How many times does this industry need to be told "No"?

Tell your representatives to "Just Say No" - again.

Find your District and representative:  https://app.leg.wa.gov/districtfinder

Comment on the Bills: 

1611 - https://app.leg.wa.gov/pbc/bill//1611

1037 - https://app.leg.wa.gov/pbc/bill//1037

Get involved: This is an industry who won't adapt their growing techniques and instead feels pesticides in public and tribal waters is their only answer. It is not. 

Neurotoxins in WA Waters: The Shellfish Industry Tries Again - Imidacloprid in Marine Waters

[Update 1/16/2019: Application of Imidacloprid in Washington's waters flows along in the political process. HB1037 is introduced.]

House Bill 1037:

Pollution happens

so we should be allowed

to pollute too. 

Sounds good to me - write it up in a Bill!

How to promote a book 

about marine pollution by an industry:

Propose a Bill to allow pesticide application

in Washington's marine waters.

Toxic Pearl, by M. Perle

(available at Orca Books)

Imidacloprid: It's back.

In the world of the shellfish industry, "no pesticides in Washington's marine waters" is not understood. Once again, they are attempting through political means to have the neurotoxic pesticide Imidacloprid be permitted for use in Washington's marine waters, not only in Willapa Bay, but as House Bill 1037 is written, in any marine waters along "the Pacific coast of Washington."

Twisted logic: Indirect pesticide pollution happens

so why not allow direct application of pesticides?

Politics.

The "Bizarro World" of Politicians, Lobbyists and the Shellfish Industry

In a world which only a politician, lobbyists and the profit driven shellfish industry lives, the following logic is being used in HB1037 to allow the direct application of Imidacloprid to Washington's marine waters: 

 Section 2(1) of HB1037: Imidacloprid is found in lawn care products that the people of Washington may purchase without permit and frequently apply to yards. The runoff from the yards pours into storm drains in urban areas and is carried out to the sea with unknown quantities of imidacloprid.

Out damned spot!

Spraying herbides on the shore.

Extinction of Native Species Before our Eyes

Impacts from pollution and rising temperatures on Washington's marine habitat are having an devastating effect on native species. Whether the Southern Resident Orca or Sea Stars, species are nearing extinction before our eyes, within a period of years, not decades. Polluted stormwater runoff entering Puget Sound should in no way justify the direct application of pesticides in Washington's marine waters.  It wasn't a good idea when first proposed and it's still not a good idea. Contact your legislator and tell them to put on their thinking cap and throw this Bill - and its supporters - out. 

Get involved:

Find your District and legislator here:

https://app.leg.wa.gov/DistrictFinder/

Comment directly on HB1037 here:

https://app.leg.wa.gov/pbc/bill//1037

Willapa Bay and Imidacloprid: EPA Risk Assessment Released December 22, After DOE Closes Public Comments

Willapa Bay is Too Important

Don't allow another problem like the escape 

of Atlantic salmon to occur. It can be stopped now.

This is a public body of water 

for all of the public to enjoy.

You can't have a food chain without a foundation.
After public comments closed on November 1, of  2017, the EPA released its preliminary risk assessment on imidacloprid on December 22. Shellfish growers in Willapa Bay wish to apply imidacloprid directly to the waters and shellfish beds of Willapa Bay. In the EPA's assessment, a clear risk to aquatic organisms was shown, due to imidacloprid's persistence and how it spread throughout the aquatic ecosystem once it entered. Those aquatic organisms make up the very base of the food chain which species build on, causing a cascading effect on the aquatic food web. [Click here to see EPA's risk assessment, dated December 22.]

Critical points made in the report released December 22, after DOE closed the comment period on November 1.

1. "...aquatic invertebrates in particular are highly sensitive to imidacloprid exposure." (p. 7)

2. "...the potential exists for indirect risks to fish and aquatic-phase amphibians through reduction in their invertebrate prey base." (p. 8)

3. "Chronic risks were also identified for saltwater invertebrates from all foliar spray and combination application method scenarios modeled." (p. 8) [Note: The assessment did not look at the direct application of imidacloprid to the aquatic ecosystem proposed by the shellfish industry.]

4. "The vast majority of use scenarios modeled with soil applications also indicated chronic risk concerns with freshwater and saltwater invertebrates" (p. 8) [Note: Same as above - direct application to the marine environment was not looked at.]

5. "...concentrations of imidacloprid detected in streams, rivers, lakes and drainage canals routinely exceed acute and chronic toxicity endpoints derived for freshwater invertebrates...' (p. 9) [Note: There has been no testing on widespread application to aquatic environments such as that proposed by shellfish growers, only small sample areas.]

6. "the risk findings summarized in this assessment are in general agreement with recent findings published by Canada’s Pest Management Regulatory Agency and the European Food Safety Authority." (p. 10) [Note: Preceding this comment in the report was mortality of crayfish due to a "run off event". Again, this was not a direct application to the aquatic ecosystem as proposed by the shellfish growers in Willapa Bay.] 

7. "...environmental fate properties of imidacloprid suggest high mobility and solubility" (p. 11)

8. "Aquatic invertebrates, specifically aquatic insects, have been shown to be among the most sensitive taxa to acute and chronic exposures of imidacloprid" (p.11)

9. "...new aquatic toxicity data has been generated for imidacloprid since the Agency conducted its most recent ecological risk assessments..." (p. 12) [Some from Willapa Bay, some generated from a scientists found in violation of state ethics laws for not disclosing, in part, his ownership of shellfish beds and a contractual relationship with one of the largest shellfish growers who would benefit if  studies of herbicide application showed positive results. Click here to read agreed to stipulation.] 

Get involved

Willapa Bay is a public body of water within which a diverse set of aquatic species exist. The Department of Ecology's denial or approval of this permit is dependent on having a clear picture of what the short term and long term impacts of this proposal will be. As noted in the EPA assessment, aquatic invertebrates are "highly sensitive" to imidacloprid. These make up the very base of the food chain upon which a larger population depends on.  The assessment showed there was "high mobility and solubility" in the marine environment, meaning it very likely when applied this pesticide would spread and kill an unknown number of non-target species. 

Shellfish Growers Have Alternatives to Pesticides in Public Waters

Washington's marine ecosystems are too important to simply brush aside the very real adverse and significant impacts which come along with aquaculture, which in this case is the proposal to apply a pesticide to Willapa Bay's public waters. There are funding opportunities to develop alternative growing methods (already used by some growers) which the National Marine Fisheries Services pointed out in their November 1 public comment letter, which opposed approval of this permit. Those funding sources include NMFS' Saltonstal-Kennedy Grant Program; NOAA Sea Grant's Marine Aquaculture Grant Program; NOAA Small Business innovation Research Program; and, NMFS' Finance Program. 

Tell your elected officials you are opposed to the application of pesticides in Willapa Bay. The shellfish industry has both alternative methods and funding to develop those methods available.

Elected representatives:
http://app.leg.wa.gov/DistrictFinder/

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.

Restoration of the Seattle Shoreline's Seawall Begins - Oyster Shell to Remain Permanently

Permanent habitat restoration taking place

along Seattle's shoreline.

These shells won't be removed in 2 years.

Using discarded oyster shell, the City of Seattle will create a 150' long underwater "bench" which will remain in place, creating permanent habitat for species in Puget Sound. It is one of a growing number of long term actions being taken to restore habitat in Puget Sound which will, over decades, benefit numerous species native to Puget Sound. Other projects being undertaken include bulkhead removal and soft armoring in order to restore the function feeder bluffs provide, through adding sediments to the tidelands of Puget Sound.

These cumulative impacts help.

Projects such as these, as small as they are, will cumulatively begin to help restore what developments and intertidal operations have altered over the last 100 years of activity. They are important and should be supported by all.

WDFW Investigation Reveals Contaminants Filtered and Retained by Shellfish in Puget Sound

What is filtered and retained by

Puget Sound's filter feeders?

"long-banned pesticides, flame retardants, toxic metals

 and other human-caused contaminants

are creeping into all parts of Puget Sound."

Kitsap Sun, Feb 15, 2016

 

"one oyster, one mussel, one bite of fish at a time"
Washington's Department of Fish and Wildlife's (WDFW) continues to expand awareness of pollutants in Puget Sound's waters in an expanded program with results first published in the 2011/2012 Mussel Watch Phase 1". As it was noted in the 2012 Quality Assurance Plan:

"... expanded spatial distribution and additional mussel monitoring sites are needed to address regional questions regarding the fate, transport, and effects of chemical contaminants in the Puget Sound’s nearshore urbanized waters." 

(sample locations from 

2/19/2013 progress report)

Did I want to know that?
Building on the 2010/2011 Mussel Watch program, the implementation of the expanded program was designed to create a "...more regionally-focused, nearshore contaminant status and trends monitoring program in Puget Sound." While current results will not be known until 2017, program implementation results from 2012 were reported by WDFW in 2013. In that "Field Summary and Progress Report", four highly carcinogenic compounds (PAHs, PCBs, PBDEs, and DDTs) were found in mussels tested. As would be expected, the highest levels were found in the most urbanized areas (Elliott Bay, Salmon Bay, Commencement Bay, and Sinclair Inlet near Bremerton). However, as the Puget Soundkeeper noted in November:

"All four carcinogens were found in every mussel sample, regardless of location."

 ""I don't eat shellfish anymore," [Maradel Gale said.

"Not since I've been doing this."

There's more carried by the tides throughout the Puget Sound basin than algae and bacteria.

While current agency programs attempt to limit illnesses contracted from naturally occurring bacteria (e.g., various strains of vibrio) and naturally occurring toxic algae (e.g., diatoms producing domoic acid), there has not been a long term program tracking industrial pollutants in the nearshore environment where shellfish are harvested from and eaten. Chemicals entering Puget Sound's waters, through urban runoff and industrial activities, both current or past, exist throughout the basin being filtered and retained by shellfish. And as was noted in the Kitsap Sun article:

[Agencies] don't routinely test for metals, petroleum hydrocarbons and other substances that cause problems slowly, accumulating in the body in low dosages. 

Meanwhile, down on the farm the Department Of Ecology, EPA moves to impose water quality rules DOE cannot

Tribal rights include “..not only a right to take those fish, but necessarily include an attendant right to not be exposed to unacceptable health risks by consuming those fish.” (from EPA's 9/14/2015 proposed rule, part III. Necessity Determination for Washington)

At the same time as WDFW is reporting carcinogens in mussels tested throughout Puget Sound, the Department of Ecology is in a tug-of-war with the Environmental Protection Agency over what the average amount of seafood consumed is and what should be tested. After years of being unable to determine what the average amount of seafood consumed per day should be and what should be tested, the EPA told the Department of Ecology it had waited long enough and was now developing rules which DOE was unable or unwilling to, publishing in the Federal Register, September 4, 2015, the proposed rules. As far back as 2013 the EPA was telling DOE it was concerned about its lack of progress, writing in a letter dated June 21, 2013:

"The best available science includes evidence of consumption rates well above 6.5 grams per day among high fish consumers and shows that the human health criteria currently currently in effect for Clean Water Act purposes in Washington are not sufficiently protective."

Father knows best. He just can't make up his mind.

In a letter from tribal members to the EPA regarding DOE's lack of motivation, they wrote as recently as December 23, 2015, to encourage the EPA to do what DOE was unable or unwilling to, saying:

"The state of Washington has avoided, deferred, and delayed adoption of revised water quality standards that would safeguard public health for high fish consuming groups including tribes. The state has attempted to trade off a more protective fish consumption rate [175 g/day] for a less protective standard [6.5 g/day]  for cancer risk. EPA has given the state multiple opportunities to develop and adopt revised human health criteria. We have no confidence that the state of Washington will adopt more protective water quality standards in the next 12 months, if at all, and urge you to promulgate the EPA’s proposed rule without further delay."

Trust us - we know better than the EPA what's good for the state. Did Flint, Michigan?
"Ecology is in the best position to develop human health criteria (HHC) for the state of Washington." DOE to EPA, December 2015
It was not until February 3 DOE agreed fish consumption rate assumptions were too low and called for comments on new water quality standards. However, they noted they did not agree with EPA on standards for industrial pollutants or time frames to control discharges, stating on their website calling for comments:

"EPA's draft rule [being imposed on the state due to inaction] contains stringent limits for PCBs and arsenic, and adds a new limit for methyl mercury that will be difficult for Washington dischargers to meet. Our new draft rule would maintain the current standards, as proposed in our initial rule, for PCBs. Criteria for mercury would remain under federal regulation. Arsenic would align with the federal Safe Drinking Water Act standard." [fish consumption rates were raised to 175 g/day]

Do you really want to know?

In the end shellfish are only as safe to eat as the regulations you make controlling what flows into the water and they filter out of it.
Puget Sound's waters are a state-wide treasure. Seafood taken from Puget Sound, whether shellfish or fish, should be safe to eat in both the short and long term, and consumption rates safety is based off of should be realistic. The EPA has told Washington their regulations are weak. Results from the Mussel Watch program confirm mussels - and all other filter feeders - retain what is being discharged into those waters. Those chemicals are not being adequately monitored in seafood consumed and DOE has agreed their assumed consumption levels are far below what it should be, but does not want to implement new regulations any time soon. Until the state finds the political will to act, Ms. Gale's advice on not eating shellfish harvested from Puget Sound is something for everyone to consider.

Vibrio Returns to Puget Sound: Hood Canal Growing Area 6 Impacted

Vibriosis traced to oysters

from Hood Canal

The Department of Health has notified shellfish growers of vibriosis contracted from oysters traced to Hood Canal Growing Area #6. They are now requiring shellfish growers in Area #6 to reduce the "time to temperature" to one hour. DOH is required to act if 2 or more cases of vibriosis are reported which can be traced to a specific growing area.

Combination of Minus Tides

and Higher Temperatures



As noted earlier in the month, the combination of higher than normal temperatures and minus day time tides increases the risk of vibrio in oysters causing illness. April 30th, DOH issued a warning to shellfish growers to be aware of the increased risk to consumers. Warmer than normal temperatures for this weekend, combined with minus day time tides, may again increase the risk of contracting vibriosis from oysters harvested from Puget Sound.