Cliff Mass Writes on Orca, Salmon and Impacts from the Shellfish Industry

Cliff Mass questions why, given the declining Orca and Salmon population we are witnessing, Washington is allowing the growth of an industry who sees nothing wrong with spraying pesticides and herbicides in public and tribal waters in order to improve their profits.
See here: https://cliffmass.blogspot.com/2019/03/with-declining-orcas-and-salmon-why-do.html

An industry out of control.
Extending this question, one has to ask why Washington is allowing the massive placement of plastics within Puget Sound, needed by the shellfish industry to grow shellfish. Similar to the Orca last year who carried her dead calf throughout the waters of Puget Sound for 17 days, the recent death of a whale found to have 88 pounds of plastic in its stomach should also serve as a wake-up call to the overuse of plastics in the marine environment, especially Puget Sound.
See here: https://www.npr.org/2019/03/18/704471596/stomach-of-dead-whale-contained-nothing-but-plastic

This is an industry which has been used to getting its way prior to and after statehood. They brought to near extinction the native Olympia oyster through over harvesting and forced the newly formed state to sell off over 70% of tidelands normally held for the public's benefit.

This is an industry who, after stripping tidelands of native Olympia oysters imported oysters from the East Coast, packed in Spartina grass. The oysters died. The Spartina, however, took hold, stabilizing nearshore sediments and capturing the upland runoff of sediments created from clear cutting and development, helping to explaining why, on the East Coast "...it is considered a valuable plant making important contributions to the coastal ecology".

But this industry saw it differently, spending over $20 million on its eradication through, spraying with herbicides to remove it. And, in the process, also removing the stabilization of the nearshore sediments it provided, releasing them into the bay and removing any ability to capture and retain upland sediments, and habitat functions it provided.

This is an industry who next decided to import oysters from Japan, packed in Japanese eelgrass. Both were able to grow with the Japanese eelgrass moving into the upper tideland area where it became naturalized and a food source for migratory water fowl and stabilized the upper intertidal sediments. The Pacific oyster, on the other hand, displaced habitat once used by the native Olympia oyster. In fact, Bill Dewey with Taylor Shellfish said of it, “The Pacific oyster is kind of the weed oyster of the world”.

Being annoyed by the naturalized Japanese eelgrass, viewing it as making sediments too firm to grow  nonnative Manila clams in and difficult for the "weed" oyster to grow in, the industry decided to have it declared a "noxious weed" and thereby began spraying it with an herbicide named imazamox. By killing off the eelgrass, not only was a food source for migratory waterfowl lost, but once again as with Spartina, its stabilizing of the sediments was also lost.

Finally, this industry has decided that most likely as a result of its past actions which released sediments by killing off Spartina and Japanese eelgrass, creating a better habitat for native burrowing shrimp, those native shrimp need to go. By spraying them with the pesticide imidaclorid, a neurotoxic pesticide which on every label - except their product - states to not apply it to water or to the intertidal area.

This is an industry used to getting its way. It will continue until the veil of "ecosystem services" is pulled back to reveal what it really is: Simply another extraction industry bent on using Washington's critical marine habitat to generate profits from. At any cost.

Public Hearings February 19, 1:30 and 3:30 - Pesticides in Washington Oysters: See it live or on TV

Washington Legislature to the 

Department of Ecology:

"You will authorize the use 

of pesticides on oyster beds

in Washington State."

At 1:30 and 3:30 the Washington State legislature will hold 2 hearings on Senate and House bills which will force the Department of Ecology to authorize the use of the neurotoxic pesticide Imidacloprid on Washington oyster beds. 

After DOE denied a permit application. 

After the European Union banned the use of Imidacloprid. 

After France banned the entire class of pesticides Imidacloprid is one of (neonicotinoids). 

After the East Coast Shellfish Growers pointedly said they "...use no feeds, fertilizers, pesticides or antibiotics."

All of Washington's oysters which will be perceived as poisoned.

Washington's oyster industry is about to be tainted in its entirety because a few growers in Willapa Bay are unwilling to change their growing methods. And because a few large growers won't tell them and their lobbyists to drop the idea. Washington's oyster industry and the legislature needs to wake up.

Get Involved
Public Hearings Tuesday, February 19, 1:30 and 3:30
SB5626: "By May 15, 2019, the department [of ecology] shall authorize the use of imidacloprid" in Willapa Bay.
Senate Agriculture, Water, Natural Resources & Parks, 1:30
Live on TVW here: https://www.tvw.org/watch/?eventID=2019021318
Comment here: https://app.leg.wa.gov/pbc/bill//5626

HB1611: "Directs the Department of Ecology (Ecology), by May 15, 2019, to authorize the use of imidacloprid" in Willapa Bay.
Environment and Energy Committee, 3:30
Live TV here: https://www.tvw.org/watch/?eventID=2019021324
Comment here: https://app.leg.wa.gov/pbc/bill//1611

Politics and Pesticides in Willapa Bay: Public Hearings on Bills to be held February 19

Didn't you hear the Department of Ecology

and consumers of Washington's oysters say "No"

to spraying pesticides on oyster beds?

Someone go start a Gofundme 

for a hearing aid for 

the WA oyster industry.

Get involved
House Bill 1611 and its companion bill in the Senate, Senate Bill 5626 will have public hearings on February 19. Both would allow spraying the neonicotinoid Imidacloprid onto Willapa Bay oyster beds and the public/tribal waters flowing over them.

Public testimony on House Bill 1611 is currently scheduled to be heard by the  House Committee on Environment & Energy at 3:30 PM. Public testimony on Senate Bill 5326 is scheduled to be heard by the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Water, Natural Resources & Parks at 1:30 PM.

The public is encouraged to submit comments at the hearings at the hearings or to comment on the bills here:
HB1611: https://app.leg.wa.gov/pbc/bill//1611
SB5326: https://app.leg.wa.gov/pbc/bill//5626

See politics in action.

Bring the political process into focus
The public hearings may also be seen live on TVW (HB1611 here and SB5626 here). See who shows up to testify in favor of poisoning Washington's oyster beds. See politics at its worst. Video of the hearings will also be recorded for viewing at a later time.

What could go wrong?

Lots.

What is "not subject to change": Pollution is pollution
The schedules are "subject to change". What is not subject to change is the adamant opposition to this ill thought idea of spraying the neurotoxic pesticide Imidacloprid onto Washington's oyster beds and marine waters. The oyster industry has, for years, abused the political and scientific system in order to convince people consuming oysters from Willapa Bay they are from "pristine waters" when, in fact, these waters have been polluted by that very industry with a variety of pesticides and herbicides, all the while complaining about upland sources of pollution impacting these very same waters.

Oyster Industry, Politics and Pesticides

Read it and weep.

This is not a good idea.

(Purchase "Toxic Pearl" at Orca Books)

Who needs science when you can spend the money on politicians instead?
The Seattle Times writes on the current push by politicians who feel the oyster industry should be free to spray pesticides on oyster beds and the marine waters of WA so they won't have to spend money on improved growing techniques. Or on science which shows this ill thought idea is somehow in the statewide interest.
Read the article here: https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/environment/politics-has-science-on-the-run-and-not-just-in-the-other-washington/

Like a bad oyster,

this just makes you sick.

Ad nauseam: It makes you feel worse than a bad oyster because it just keeps coming and coming.  
Unlike what the recent lawsuits filed against Pierce County by Taylor Shellfish and the Foss family claim, ad nauseam, the Shoreline Management Act is not in place to "plan for, foster, and give preference to aquaculture." It is in place to protect the critical marine ecosystems from industries who have become blinded by profits and feel their developments and actions within this ecosystem should be allowed to grow, unfettered, free from oversight.
Read Taylor lawsuit against Pierce County's Shoreline Master Program here:
 https://app.box.com/s/mjxvavgay49rqcs3fwvvw09utjjegu28
Read the Foss family's companion lawsuit here:
https://app.box.com/s/aaiclnj3ovyq9h5n5ix4mhi90wcdpgsa

"Shazam! I've created something from nothing!"

It doesn't matter how many times you say it. It's not there.
Nowhere in the Shoreline Management Act does it say aquaculture is supposed to be fostered and given preference over everything else as these suits, and the Department of Ecology seems to believe. The priority of the SMA is to protect this unique and fragile ecosystem from fragmentation.

The Shoreline Management Act is not subservient to NOAA policies created to do nothing more than promote aquaculture, many times based on dubious - at best - "science".

The Departement of Ecology's "handbook" on aquaculture painfully tries to outline the "legal" framework for why aquaculture should be placed on a pedestal, tripping over NOAA and national policies. The reality is the Shoreline Management Act was passed before NOAA's Coastal Zone Management Act. It was passed before the National Shellfish Initiative was created. It was passed before Washington's shellfish initiative was created. The SMA was voted on, and approved, by the citizens of WA.  Most importantly, both the National and State initiatives are nothing more than marketing documents created by lobbyists for the industry and politicians beholden to those lobbyists. They were not voted on - and overwhelmingly approved - by citizens.

Get involved. There are 3 bills politicians are trying to pass which would allow the application of Imidacloprid, a non-discriminate neurotoxic pesciticide (it doesn't care if you're a shrimp or a crab or any other crustacean) on oyster beds and Washington's marine waters. Tell your representative(s) and Governor Inslee the Shoreline Management Act is not meant to allow a wave of the wand to allow pesticides in Washington's marine waters. 

House Bills 1611 and 1037
https://app.leg.wa.gov/pbc/bill//1611
https://app.leg.wa.gov/pbc/bill//1037

Senate Bill 5626
https://app.leg.wa.gov/pbc/bill//5626

Governor Inslee:
https://www.governor.wa.gov/contact/contact/send-gov-inslee-e-message

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. 

House Bill 1037/Imidacloprid - Pesticides/Politics/Oyster Lobbyists in Washington State

An Exercise in the Political Process In WA:

Polluting Washington's Marine Waters.

House Bill 1037

If at first you don't succeed: How to get approval to apply pesticides directly onto oyster beds and marine waters in Puget Sound, Grays Harbor and Willapa Bay: 

1. Give a Bill a sweet sounding name: "The Aquaculture Fairness Act" (House Bill 1037)

2. Claim that because others are polluting Washington's marine waters then you should be allowed to as well. Section 2(2) of HB1037: 

"...runoff from the yards pours into storm drains in urban areas and is carried out to the sea"

3. Never give up: After being told by the Department of Ecology they would not approve a permit to apply Imidacloprid to oyster beds and marine waters in Willapa Bay and Grays Harbor, the oyster industry did not give up. They appealed the denial.
4. Continue to be involved in the Department of Ecology's Clean Water Committee:  When the process fails, continue pressing within the political process and stay involved in Committees. Try to mend fences with other industries you've upset and turn a blind eye to what's being proposed by others within your industry.

From DOE on the shellfish industry being involved in a Clean Water Committee: Polluted runoff from our streets, forested lands and farms can carry nutrients, bacteria and other pollution into our lakes, streams and rivers. Preventing this type of pollution is our greatest challenge to restoring the health of Washington’s waters – a public resource.

5. Approve the draft of a Bill which supports your position that because runoff from the land is polluting Washington's marine waters then it should be okay for you to apply a pesticide directly onto Washington's oyster beds and in its marine waters (HB1037).

[Special Note: In the proposed Bill and any language used to promote the new narrative, be sure that you don't mention other industries as the source of runoff you're concerned with. It's only "...runoff from the yards...". Not dairy, cattle, agriculture or forestry the shellfish industry has so loudly complained about in the past.]

To read more on the history of the shellfish industry's involvement in transforming the tidelands and marine habitat, read M. Pearle's "Toxic Pearl" (read a review of the book here).

Available for purchase: at Amazon or Orca Books. 

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

2019 Brings Publication of a Book on Pesticides and the Shellfish Industry

In Toxic Pearl, the author reveals the secrets and politics that enabled the destruction of our Washington State native aquatic life, and inspires others to stand up and speak out against this continuing industrial conversion of our marine ecosystem.

- Laura Hendricks, Coalition to Protect Puget Sound

Toxic Pearl, Pacific NW Shellfish Companies' Addiction to Pesticides, by M. Perle, is “The toxic legacy of the WA Shellfish industry", writes Amy van Saun, Staff Attorney for Center for Food Safety.  People should want to know where their oysters come from and “the destructive relationship we can have with the environment that sustains us, and our own health."

A reader should take a broader view while reading this history and consider the link between the Columbia River salmon struggles through their migration to the Pacific Coast, then through their coastal feeding grounds in the toxic shellfish sites described in this book, then onward to the Strait of Juan de Fuca to feed the dwindling population of the Southern Resident ORCAs. It seems all related.

Again, the reader may want to take a more wholistic view of the loss of feeding grounds for migrating birds, such as the eelgrass-dependent Brant. A reader may consider the connection between the USFWS Dungeness National Wildlife Refuge eelgrass resting-feeding grounds for Brants, which could be facing habitat loss there from a proposed shellfish farm, to their stopover at Willapa Bay on the Pacific Coast. It, now, is more like a “grab-and-go” feeding site of whatever may be left by shellfish farmers, hopefully sustaining the birds until their next stopover site. Point being, what is left for these birds?  Where can they find resting sites and where can they find food without pesticides?  

Laura Hendricks of the Coalition to Protect Puget Sound writes, this book should “inspire others to stand up and speak out against this continuing industrial conversion of our marine ecosystems.”  As van Saun says, this doesn’t need to be the future.  

Website: www.toxicpearl.com provides additional information.

Available for sale here: https://www.orcabooks.com/book/9780578401621

Zangle Cove and Army Corps Lawsuits: Like a geoduck's growth, the process of law moves slowly.

Why do lawsuits have to be filed to prevent this

from happening to Puget Sound's tidelands?

Zangle Cove: Like a fungus, PVC and netting

begin to spread over the tidelands of Zangle Cove,

adding to that spread throughout Puget Sound.

"Plastic free July" is over. Back to planting 

PVC tubing in Puget Sound's tidelands.

 

Puget Sound's entire food web

is being impacted by this.

1: Zangle Cove/Wild Fish Conservancy/Coalition to Protect Puget Sound Habitat vs Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife and Pacific Northwest Aquaculture 

Geoduck are grown for nothing more than satisfying a Chinese superstition with what Washingtonians consider a "junk clam". This tideland owner claims he "wants to feed the world". In fact, the "world" he refers to is little more than the elite in China who are able to afford a $100/pound clam and a few curious tourists. After clearing the tidelands of what is believed to be the oldest living species, up to 168 years old, the operator returned and populated the tidelands with PVC piping and netting, transforming these tidelands forever.

Zangle Cove Lawsuit Papers - Why Hydraulic Permits should be required.

Opening Brief

Protect Zangle Cove, The Coalition to Protect Puget Sound Habitat and the Wild Fish Conservancy have filed a suit against Washington's Department of Fish and Wildlife demanding hydraulic permits be required for these activities. Unlike a dock or bulkhead, these structures being placed within Puget Sound's waters and tidelands avoid any oversight by WDFW, the result of nothing more than a flawed interpretation of a flawed Attorney General opinion. 

As detailed in the petitioners opening brief, filed by Lane Powell's Claire Loebs and Richard Lintermans, WDFW not requiring HPA's for impacts to aquatic habitat from aquaculture's actions was not a legislative action but a misreading of an AG opinion. In that opinion, they accurately state:

"..no mention is made of aquaculture’s other potential harmful effects to wild fish that the Hydraulic Code might prevent, such as the destruction of habitat, removal of food sources, and release of pollutants." (p.12)

Response to Motion for Judgement - "a distraction and a waste of judicial resources"
In addition to the owner's waste of Puget Sound's natural resources in the quest for extracting revenue from Washington's most valuable marine ecosystem - the intertidal area over which waters ebb and flow daily - papers filed by the operator and owner were described this way:

"PNA’s [Pacific Northwest Aquaculture] Motion for Judgment is untimely, will waste the resources of the Court, and in the end, would have little impact on the practical resolution of any matter before the Court. The Court should decline to consider the Motion for Judgment separate from the hearing on the merits"

2: Coalition to Protect Puget Sound Habitat/Center for Food Safety vs US Army Corps - Cumulative impacts matter and they are real. 

The things you discover in discovery.

In a separate but related lawsuit the Coalition to Protect Puget Sound Habitat and the Center for Food Safety have filed suit against the US Army Corps claiming they did not adequately consider cumulative impacts in their approving of permits for aquaculture. During the period of discovery, in which information is presented by various parties to be used in their case, a draft of a cumulative impact analysis by the Corps was found. The Coalition found within that draft the following:

“The proposed action is likely to adversely affect designated critical habitat for several species listed under the ESA including Puget Sound Chinook salmon, Hood Canal summer run chum salmon, and Puget Sound steelhead.” p. 101

“Given the magnitude of the impacts in acreage, the importance of eelgrass to the marine ecosystem, and the scale of the aquaculture impacts relative to other stressors, the impacts are considered significant.” p. 103

“The action does threaten a violation of State requirements under the Shoreline Management Act to achieve no net loss of eelgrass and Federal requirements to protect eelgrass imposed under the ESA for aquaculture activities. The proposed action is not consistent with either of these requirements.” p. 101

 “The conclusion therefore is that significant cumulative effects to surf smelt and sand lance spawning habitat would occur due to the proposed action.” p. 112

“The proposed action is inconsistent with State requirements under the SMA to protect forage fish spawning habitat.” p. 111

 Additional comments in papers filed in response to those filed by the Corps and Taylor Shellfish are found in the PLAINTIFF COALTION’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, and PLAINTIFF COALITION’S MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ CROSS MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT. In that filing, attorney Karl G Anuta  notes:

"... the Corps and Taylor (hereafter collectively referred to as “Defendants”) present a range of factual arguments that appear to be little more than an attempt to confuse the issues at hand. Defendants also ask the court to ignore the documents and actual facts present in the Record..."

"... the Corps failed to take all the steps required by NEPA, and the CWA. The Corps ignored the analysis of their own staff about the significant impacts that NWP 48 was having and was likely to have in the future."

 "The arguments presented by Defendants to try to justify what the Corps did are both factually and legally invalid. Defendants neither make compelling arguments that support the agency position, nor successfully challenge the arguments brought by CPPSH. The positions taken by counsel for the Defendants are, for the most part, little more than post hoc rationalization efforts that are not consistent with the Decision Documents in the actual Record."

Get involved. Donations are tax deductible.
Puget Sound's marine ecosystem supports a wide diversity of species which are being impacted by industrial aquaculture. It is not benign and impacts are cumulative. You can help with donations to the Coalition to Protect Puget Sound Habitat; Wild Fish Conservancy; and Center for Food Safety.

Industrial Aquaculture: Hear how the critical marine ecosystem is being put at risk by indusrial aquaculture.

CONTACT:         Darlene Schanfald, Vice-Chair

                           Sierra Club North Olympic Group

                             360-681-7565    darlenes@olympus.net

                            

INDUSTRIAL AQUACULTURE

FOOD or FOLLY?   LOSING THE WILD?

Saturday    13 October 2018     3–5 PM

Historic Dungeness Schoolhouse 

2781 Towne Rd, Just off E. Anderson Road

Sequim, WA

 The Sierra Club’s North Olympic Group and the Sierra Club ChapterWater Salmon Committee invites the public to join them for this important forum about how our oceans are being commercialized for the few and the losses that follow.

We are pleased to have the following speakers present their work from years of experience.

  

Kurt Beardslee, Executive Director, Wild Fish Conservancy (WFC)  

The Success of the Our Sound, Our Salmon Campaign: Phasing Out Atlantic Salmon Aquaculture in Puget Sound. 

Kurt Beardslee is the executive director and co-founder of the Wild Fish Conservancy. For over a decade Kurt and his science staff have investigated the substantial risk open-water Atlantic salmon aquaculture places on the Pacific Northwest’s wild salmon.

In spring of 2017, WFC launched the Our Sound,Our Salmon (OSOS) campaign with the goal of phasing out Atlantic salmon net pens from Puget Sound.  The OSOS campaign was fundamental to the passage of Washington’s recent net pen legislation marking the largest legislative removal of Atlantic salmon net pens in the world.

Following the 2017 Cypress Island collapse of Cooke Aquaculture pens that released 260,000 penned Atlantic salmon into the wild, WFC staff collected tissue samples from the escapees for that revealed 100% positive test results for Piscine Reovirus (PRV), a highly contagious and debilitating salmonid disease. Genetic sequencing revealed the virus to be of Icelandic origin marking the first time this foreign strain of the virus was found in Pacific waters. 

In his talk, Kurt will discuss the numerous risks posed by farming Atlantic salmon in open-water net pens as well as potential land-based closed containment solutions for this industry. He will give a brief overview of WFC’s current litigation to hold Cooke Aquaculture accountable under the Clean Water Act for releasing 260,000 non-native Atlantic salmon into Puget Sound.  He will also discuss WFC’s ongoing Endangered Species Act (ESA) suit against the federal government for its failure to adequately protect ESA-listed species from the harm caused by industrial Atlantic salmon net pens.

Laura Hendricks, Founding Director Coalition To Protect Puget Sound Habitat.    Shellfish and Disappearing Beaches                                     

Over the last 11 years, Laura Hendricks’s Coalition has educated the public and regulators on shellfish aquaculture’s harm to WA State’s marine life. Hendricks represented citizens against the shellfish industry at a hearing before the Washington State Shorelines Hearings Board and won the case to protect eelgrass, a WA State Appeals Court precedent-setting case.

Hendricks will give an update about pending legal action by the Coalition to Protect Puget Sound Habitat, Protect Zangle Cove, and Wild Fish Conservancy filed against the WA Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW).  That suit demands an end to WDFW’s exemption of industrial shellfish aquaculture projects from Hydraulic Project Approvals (HPA).  HPAs are state standards designed and required to protect fish and marine habitats. 

“With threatened Southern Resident killer whales and endangered native salmon at extreme risk, our state agencies have failed to implement the environmental protections that are critical to the broad scale ecological recovery of Puget Sound,” says Patrick Townsend, president of Protect Zangle Cove. “The action we are taking today is one important step toward restoring sanity to the recovery process. We must protect the tidelands from further loss of ecological function or we will see the loss of iconic species so important to the people of Washington State.” 

  

Alfredo Quarto, Co-director and Co-founder of Mangrove Action Project (MAP)

Question Your Shrimp, A consumer Awareness Campaign

For twenty-five years, Alfredo Quarto has worked with indigenous cultures around the world helping them restore their mangrove forests and way of life, prior to corporations having destroyed their ecosystems to industrialize the raising of shrimp. He will have a short video about these villages and mangrove trees.

Quarto is a veteran campaigner with over 40 years of experience in organizing and writing on the environment and human rights issues.  Formerly an aerospace engineer, his experiences range over many countries and several environmental organizations, with a long-term focus on ocean issues, forestry, indigenous cultures, and human rights.  Prior to MAP, he was the executive director of the Ancient Forest Chautauqua, a multimedia traveling forum with events in 30 West Coast cities on behalf of old-growth forests and indigenous dwellers.

Anne Mosness, Go Wild Campaign                                                           Current and Pending Efforts of the Federal Government to Raise Penned Fish

Anne Mosness has been tracking the federal NOAA Department of Commerce in its push to raise penned salmon in offshore waters, beyond jurisdictions and regulations of states.  She will speak on the current pending efforts, and losses, of such government efforts.  The public will hear about the recent Center for Food Safety legal win for fishing and public interest groups that challenged the Department of Commerce's rules permitting industrial aquaculture offshore in U.S. federal waters.

Anne Mosness is a fisherwoman that fished Copper River and Bristol Bay, Alaska for decades, a multi-general family profession.  She secured a position with the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy and founded the Go Wild Campaign. She has worked for several other national environmental and food organizations, received a fellowship from the W.K. Kellogg Foundation, represented US fisheries at UN forums and Slow Food/Slow Fish conferences in Italy, and other global and national events focused on sustainable foods and fishing, seafood labeling, organic certification, marine ecosystem health. Anne has been a long time contributor to the Puget Consumer Coop’s Sound Consumer magazine.  Her latest article in the PCC magazine isentitled,  "Wild salmon, killerwhales and us" published July, 2018. 

  

Cosponsoring the event are Friends of Miller Peninsula State Park, Olympic Environmental Coalition, Olympic Forest Coalition. and Protect Peninsula’s Future.

The October 13 event is free.  Handouts from the sponsoring and presenting organizations will be available.  Coffee and tea will be served.