Tag Archives: aquaculture

Collapsed fish pens could shift the debate over Atlantic salmon farms

UPDATE: Aug. 30

Democratic members of Washington state’s congressional delegation are calling on federal agencies to take immediate steps to minimize damage from the net pen collapse and release of Atlantic salmon near Cypress Island. Read the news release.

“Pacific salmon are central to our economy, our culture, and our environment in the Pacific Northwest and are a critical part of marine and estuarine ecosystems in Washington state,” the letter states. “Most concerning is the threat farmed Atlantic salmon pose to the wild Pacific salmon populations stocks in Puget Sound. Farmed salmon tend to be larger and could outcompete wild salmon for critical resources, such as prey and preferred habitat, which is important for spawning. Tribes, fishermen, and state agencies are working to respond to the escapement, but the scale of the release calls for immediate and direct federal response….”

Meanwhile, a public hearing about the expansion of the Port Angeles net pen operation has been cancelled at the request of the owner, Cooke Aquaculture. Read the letter from Steve Gray (PDF 155 kb), Clallam County’s deputy planning director.
—–

The recent collapse of salmon pens near the San Juan Islands could become a turning point in the war against salmon farming that is being waged by environmental groups in Puget Sound.

Yesterday, Gov. Jay Inslee and Commissioner of Public Lands Hillary Franz announced a moratorium on new state leases or permits for any fish farms using Atlantic salmon. The moratorium will remain in place until state officials can fully review the escape of more than 300,000 Atlantic salmon from net pens near Cypress Island, according to a joint announcement (PDF 107 kb).

The video, by Glenn Farley and Travis Pittman of KING 5 News, was posted Friday.

The owner of the pens, Cooke Aquaculture, has applications pending to move and expand its net pen operation near Port Angeles to an area 1.8 miles offshore in the Strait of Juan de Fuca.

Cooke, a family-owned company, acquired all of the salmon farms in Puget Sound from Icycle Seafoods last year. The deal was touted as a way to infuse capital and modernize operations on the West Coast.

“The deal will enhance the family’s investments in both the wild fishery and the aquaculture sectors, making them leaders in the U.S. salmon farming sector and a major player in the Alaskan salmon fishery,” said a news release about the acquisition. See the story by Cliff White in “SeafoodSource.”

Perhaps the company did not have time to upgrade its facilities to reduce the risk of the net pens collapsing at Cypress Island and other farming operations. In a news release (PDF 251 kb), Cooke said it had applied for permits to update its Cypress Island site. Still, this latest incident cannot instill confidence in the company nor the salmon farming industry as a whole.

In fact, one could argue that that the company’s extensive “Fish Escape Prevention Plan” (PDF 1.4 mb) and Operations Plan (2.4 mb) should have raised red flags for the company. Cooke cited unusual tides and currents as contributing factors in the pens’ collapse, despite the fact that these tide levels are seen several times each year and stronger currents can be anticipated at times.

Cooke proudly proclaims its commitment to the environment on the company’s home page. But shooting itself in the foot on Cypress Island will leave a bad feeling for many Puget Sound residents. For environmental groups, this event will provide ammunition in their effort to stop the expansion of net pens in Puget Sound and phase out their use entirely.

It is often pointed out that Washington is the only state on the West Coast that allows salmon farming. (See “Our Sound, Our Salmon.” Meanwhile, a serious debate over the pros and cons of industrial-scale aquaculture goes on and on in British Columbia, where more than 100 salmon farms are well established. Take a look at reporter Gordon Hoekstra’s story in the Vancouver Sun.

The war on salmon farms has been waging for years on both sides of the border. While battles ought to be won or lost based on credible information, I’ve seen facts distorted to fit political goals on both sides of the argument.

Now the Cypress Island incident will raise the profile of the debate in Washington state. Let’s hope that the investigation called for by Gov. Inslee and Commissioner Franz will lead to findings that go beyond the question of why the net pens collapsed and look at the overall risks and benefits of keeping these salmon farms around.

Kurt Beardslee, executive director of Wild Fish Conservancy, told me in an email that he is working today to sample 50,000 pounds of Atlantic salmon that escaped from the Cypress Island net pens. Experts will be looking for viruses, parasites and stomach contents.

I believe the information about stomach contents will be particularly valuable, because of concerns that the escaped fish could be consuming wild salmonids — including young chinook and steelhead, both of which are listed as threatened species. Obviously, we don’t have enough out-migrating chinook and steelhead as it is. (You may wish to review my recent story about salmon recovery in the Encyclopedia of Puget Sound.)

Meanwhile, Wild Fish Conservancy, a staunch opponent of salmon farming, has filed notice that it intends to sue Cooke Aquaculture for violations of the Clean Water Act.

“The Conservancy is deeply disheartened by Cooke Aquaculture’s glaring negligence, negligence which has led to an environmental disaster of epic proportion,” states a news release (PDF 115 kb) from the organization. “The needless escape of up to 305,000 Atlantic salmon into Puget Sound represents a dire threat to already imperiled wild fish populations, beloved marine mammal species, and the fragile Puget Sound ecosystem at large, and Wild Fish Conservancy fears impacts to these critical aspects of our region will be felt for years to come.”

The 60-day “letter of intent” (PDF 1.9 mb) from Wild Fish Conservancy outlines a number of alleged violations of federal law resulting from the release of Atlantic salmon and the management of debris. The group says it will seek monetary penalties of up to $52,000 a day, as provided by law, and “injunctive relief to prevent further violations.”

When I asked Kurt what he thought the lawsuit could accomplish, he wrote, “Simply speaking, I believe It’s in the best interest of our sound, our salmon and future generations to pursue all legal avenues to quickly remove Atlantic salmon net pens from Washington’s waters.”

The group — which is part of Our Sound, Our Salmon — is planning an on-the-water protest off the south end of Bainbridge Island on Sept. 16. See “Flotilla: saying no to Atlantic salmon net pens.”

In response to the Cypress Island incident, an “incident command” structure has been set up by the Washington state departments of Natural Resources, Fish and Wildlife, and Ecology, along with the Office of the Governor and Emergency Management Division. The idea is to share information and make joint decisions about the cleanup operation.

“The release of net pen-raised Atlantic salmon into Washington’s waters has created an emergency situation that has state agencies working together to protect the health of our salmon…,” Gov. Inslee said in a statement. “Tribes and others who fish Washington waters deserve a comprehensive response to this incident, including answers to what happened and assurances that it won’t happen again.

“I believe the company must do everything it can to stop any additional escapes and to recover as many fish as possible, including adequate compensation for those working to remove Atlantic salmon from our waters,” he added.

A new website called “Cypress Island Atlantic Salmon Pen Break” will be the distribution point for public information — including “situation updates” from Cook Aquaculture, “Next steps” from DNR, minutes from agency conferences, news releases and other documents.

The Clallam County Hearing Examiner will hold a hearing on Sept. 7 regarding the proposed relocation and expansion of the Port Angeles net pens. Many documents related to that application and Cooke Aquaculture operations can be found on the website titled Clallam County Online Permit System. Click on the permit number for American Gold Seafoods.

Post to Twitter Tweet This Post

Let’s keep an eye on the shellfish initiative

It is interesting to contemplate how the new National Shellfish Initiative, announced in June, and the Washington Shellfish Initiative, announced last week, could change things in Puget Sound.

Newton Morgan of the Kitsap County Health District collects a dye packet from Lofall Creek in December of 2010. This kind of legwork may be the key to tracking down pollution in Puget Sound.
Kitsap Sun photo by Meegan Reid

As I described in a story I wrote for last Saturday’s Kitsap Sun, the principal goals are these:

  • Rebuild native Olympia oyster and pinto abalone populations.
  • Increase access to public tidelands for recreational shellfish harvesting.
  • Research ways to increase commercial shellfish production without harming the environment.
  • Improve permitting at county, state and federal levels.
  • Evaluate how well filter-feeding clams and oysters can reduce nitrogen pollution, with possible incentives for private shellfish cultivation.

To read more about the initiatives, check out:

One of the most encouraging things is an attempt to expand Kitsap County’s Pollution Identification and Correction (PIC) Program to other counties, with increased funding for cleaning up the waters. Check out the story I wrote for last Friday’s Kitsap Sun, in which I describe the search-and-destroy mission against bacterial pollution.

As most Water Ways readers know, I’ve been following the ongoing monitoring and cleanup effort by the Kitsap County Health District for years with the help of Keith Grellner, Stuart Whitford, Shawn Ultican and many others in the district’s water quality program. In fact, just two weeks ago, I discussed what could be a turnaround for a chronic pollution problem in Lofall Creek, a problem that has taken much perseverance to resolve. (See Kitsap Sun, Dec. 2.) Unfortunately, the story is far from over.

I’ve talked about the importance of old-fashioned legwork in tracking down pollution, and I’ve suggested that other local governments use some of their stormwater fees or implement such fees for monitoring of their local waters. See Water Ways, June 30, for example.

Water free of fecal pollution has benefits for humans and other aquatic creatures. Thankfully, Washington State Department of Health’s shellfish program is careful about checking areas for signs of sewage before certifying them as safe for shellfish harvesting. Maybe the new shellfish initiative will allow the state to open beds that have been closed for years. That’s what happened in Yukon Harbor, where more than 900 acres of shellfish beds were reopened in 2008. (See Kitsap Sun, Sept. 25, 2008).

Certifying areas as safe for shellfish harvesting means that waterfront property owners are safe to enjoy the bounty of their own beaches. It also offers an opportunity for commercial growers to make money and contribute to the state’s economy.

Of course, this does not mean that intensive shellfish-growing operations ought to be expanded to every clean corner of Puget Sound, any more than large-scale crop farming or timber harvesting should be allowed to take over the entire landscape.

Some environmentalists have expressed concern that the Washington Shellfish Initiative could become a boondoggle for commercial shellfish growers. Laura Hendricks of the Sierra Club’s Marine Ecosystem Campaign sent me an e-mail noting these concerns about the expansion of aquaculture:

“Washington State has more native species listed as endangered than any other state in the USA. We see no mention of the adverse impacts in this initiative on nearshore habitat, birds and juvenile salmon.

“Governor Gregoire and the various speakers failed to mention that ALL of the pending shoreline aquaculture applications they want to ‘streamline’ are for industrial geoduck aquaculture, not oysters. Red tape is not what is delaying these applications…

“Shellfish industry lobbyists who pushed for this expansion are silent on the following three serious threats to our fisheries resources, forage fish, birds and salmon:

“1. Shellfish consume fisheries resources (zooplankton — fish/crab eggs and larvae) according to peer reviewed studies. A DNR study documented that forage fish eggs did not just stay buried high on the beach, but were found in the nearshore water column. Continuing to allow expansion of unnatural high densities of filtering shellfish in the intertidal “nursery,” puts our fisheries resources at risk.

“2. The shellfish growers place tons of plastics into Puget Sound in order to expand aquaculture where it does not naturally grow…

3. Mussel rafts are documented to reduce dissolved oxygen essential for fish and are known in Totten Inlet to be covered in invasive tunicates with beggiatoa bacteria found underneath…”

Ashley Ahearn of KUOW interviewed Laura Hendricks, and you can hear her report on EarthFix.

In her e-mail, Laura recommended the video at right. She also pointed to a blog entry by Alf Hanna of Olympic Peninsula Environmental News. Hanna suggests that environmental advocates who go along with commercial aquaculture may become the oysters that get eaten in Lewis Carroll’s poem “The Walrus and the Carpenter.”

Have intensive shellfish farms in Puget Sound gone too far in their efforts to exploit the natural resources of our beaches? Can shellfish farmers make money without undue damage to the environment? Which practices are acceptable, which ones should be banned, and which areas are appropriate for different types of aquaculture?

It would have been nice if these answers were known long ago, and in some cases they are. But at least this new shellfish initiative recognizes that more research is needed to answer many remaining questions. Research is under way in Washington state on geoduck farming, which involves planting oyster seed in plastic tubes embedded into the beach. Review “Effects of Geoduck Aquaculture on the Environment: A Synthesis of Current Knowledge” (PDF 712 kb) or visit Washington Sea Grant.

Other research in our region is needed as well, although it is clear that environmental trade-offs will be part of the deal whenever commercial interests cross paths with natural systems. For a discussion about this issue, check out the executive summary of the NOAA-funded publication Shellfish Aquaculture and the Environment (PDF 4.2 mb), edited by Sandra E. Shumway.

Needless to say, we’ll be keeping an eye on this process for years to come.

Post to Twitter Tweet This Post

Port Orchard couple grows trout with aquaponics

One might be tempted to say that a Port Orchard couple, Rene and Linda LaMarche, are breaking new ground by growing trout instead of tilapia in their backyard aquaponic system. But the truth is they’re not using the ground or any type of soil at all.

Rene LaMarche shows off the root system of plants growing in his aquaponic garden at his Port Orchard home.
Kitsap Sun photo by Meegan M. Reid

Aquaponics is a combination of aquaculture (in this case growing fish) and hydroponics (growing crops in water). The system is set up so that leafy green vegetables thrive from the waste excreted by fish, which are cultured for optimal growth. So you end up with a full-meal deal.

Reporter Chris Henry wrote about the LaMarche enterprise in a story in Friday’s Kitsap Sun. The whole thing sounds impressive, and I think the buying public will be more interested in trout than tilapia — not to mention the fact that trout are native to the Northwest and fit in better with our climate. As with any enterprise, the key will be to balance the costs, so that you can sell your produce for a profit.

Chris Henry likens Rene LaMarche to the “Johnny Appleseed” of aquaponic gardening. LaMarche envisions lots and lots of people getting involved in growing their own.

“We have aspirations of getting Kitsap County back on the map as an agricultural center,” Rene told Chris. “We’ve got a lot of expectations, not only for growing vegetables for a living, but also teaching people so they can eat healthier and live healthier.”
Continue reading →

Post to Twitter Tweet This Post

DNR holds online forum about geoduck farming

The Washington Department of Natural Resources is hosting an interesting conversation this week about the potential of leasing state-owned tidelands for geoduck aquaculture.

A typical geoduck farm involves seeding tiny clams on the beach and protecting them from predators for about two years. Normally, a section of PVC pipe is inserted into the beach, one surrounding each clam. The DNR is providing a variety of background information in support of this week’s discussion.

Each day this week, a new question about geoduck aquaculture is being raised. The participants in this forum are the very people involved in the debate at the local and state levels, so one can learn a great deal about this debate by skimming through the comments.

On Monday, the question was: Are there effects of geoduck aquaculture on public access and aesthetics, and if so, how can they be mitigated?

Most of the commenters were opposed to geoduck farming on state lands, saying that the tubes were ugly, intrustive and restricted public access in various ways. Geoduck farmers also weighed in, saying the problems are minimal when the farms are managed responsibly.

Tuesday’s question was: When seeking to balance the public benefits from state-owned aquatic lands, how much of a priority should DNR give to job creation and revenue generation when developing a geoduck aquaculture program on state tidelands?

This lively discussion involved a range of interests discussing the balance between jobs/economic benefits versus protection of the ecosystem. Some people made the point that money raised by leasing state land can be used for environmental restoration.

On Wednesday, the question turned to: What does science tell us about the impacts of geoduck aquaculture on Puget Sound?

I found this discussion more confusing, in part because references to scientific studies were mixed in with personal observations. Many of the comments were interesting, but the discussion was too scattered to really address the scientific questions, for which some studies are still under way.

Today’s forum is called “unknowns”: If DNR moved forward on a program leasing state-owned tidelands for geoduck aquaculture, are there significant unknowns that we need to be aware of, and if so, what are they?

As of the time of this posting, only a couple people had weighed in today, but you may want to comment on this item or on any of the topics in previous days. One can navigate through these various topics from the main page of DNR Forum.

I would like to know what you think of this forum by DNR and if we might want to encourage discussions like this on other important issues of the day.

Post to Twitter Tweet This Post

Federal aquaculture policy talks are tonight

Washington state, Puget Sound and the Kitsap Peninsula are known for their aquaculture. Commercial oyster beds in Hood Canal, geoduck growing areas in Case Inlet and salmon farms off Bainbridge Island are among the many aquaculture facilities that we have.

Officials at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration recognize the tremendous economic value and potential of aquaculture projects throughout the country — including offshore facilities. The potential for feeding large numbers of people is part of the equation.

On the other hand, the potential for overrunning our natural ecosystems is a serious concern.

Now, NOAA is seeking comments about what people think should go into a national aquaculture policy. The agency will hold a public meeting tonight from 6 to 8:30 at Seattle Aquarium to discuss concerns and potential goals and policies. I’m hoping that the people who turn out on both sides of the issue understand that there is a need for balance. (I won’t be able to attend, since I’ll be covering the first meeting of the task force on Kitsap County’s shorelines plan, but I’ll look for reports of the meeting.)

For extensive information on this effort, check out the website for NOAA’s Aquaculture Program.

In 2007, NOAA released a “10-Year Plan for Marine Aquaculture,” which concludes with four goals:

  1. A comprehensive regulatory program for environmentally sustainable marine aquaculture, which includes new permits for operations in federal waters
  2. Development of commercial marine aquaculture and replenishment of wild stocks, which includes research and investment incentives
  3. Public understanding of marine aquaculture, including an outreach plan
  4. Increased collaboration and cooperation with international partners, including a code of conduct for responsible fisheries

Among the issues identified for discussion and consideration:

  • Contaminants in seafood — such as PCBs, mercury, and pesticides. Some of these come from the food given to the animals
  • Use of artificial coloring to tint animal flesh
  • The spread of parasites and contagious diseases from captive animals to wild ones
  • Excreted waste from the captive animals
  • The environmental costs of using large quantities of wild animals to feed captive animals
  • Escape of genetically modified animals into the wild
  • Impacts on threatened and endangered species
  • The accidental trapping of predators in the nets that form aquaculture enclosures
  • Selection of suitable aquaculture sites
  • Climate change and ocean acidification
  • Jurisdictional overlaps with agencies such as Environmental Protection Agency, Food and Drug Administration and the Army Corps of Engineers
  • Direct and indirect effects on aquaculture products from other countries regarding issues such as quantity, quality, and toxicity, industry practices, costs and economic viability and trade agreements

Post to Twitter Tweet This Post

Seafood supplies may be disrupted by global warming

The world’s fish populations are already being affected by global warming, and the human population faces long-term consequences with respect to seafood supplies and local economies that depend on them, according to a statement from the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization.

These conclusions are coming out of a four-day conference of 200 experts and policymakers focused on the marine fisheries issue. The conference, in Rome, Italy, comes to a close today.

Changes already being seen, as reported in a technical summary (PDF 160 kb) written prior to the conference:

  • Oceans are warming, while currents, such as those affected by El Nino, seem to be changing. This could have implications for the West Coast.
  • Salinity is changing in surface waters, with warming areas of Earth growing more salty from evaporation, while more northern and southern areas grow less salty from increased rain along with ice and snow melt.
  • Global sea level has been rising since 1961 with an accelerated rate since 1993.
  • Fish distribution has been changing, generally with both warm- and cold-water species moving closer to the poles.

Predictions for the future:

  • Changes in fish availability will change at the local and regional levels.
  • Markets for various seafoods could grow unstable, as distribution systems try to respond to shifts in supply at various locations.
  • Prices for various seafoods could fluctuate with uncertain supplies, and those in the industry could see their jobs disrupted.
  • Countries where people eat a lot of seafood may face changes in nutrition with related health implications.

The technical summary also includes this statement:

At both the local and global levels, fisheries and aquaculture play important roles in providing food and generating income. Some 42 million people work directly in the sector, the great majority in developing countries. Adding those who work in associated processing, marketing, distribution and supply industries, the sector supports several hundred million livelihoods.

Aquatic foods have high nutritional quality, contributing 20 percent or more of average per capita animal protein intake for more than 2.8 billion people, again mostly in developing countries.

Fish is also the world’s most widely traded foodstuff and a key source of export earnings for many poorer countries. The sector has particular significance for small island states.

Post to Twitter Tweet This Post