State health officials have reduced shellfish-closure areas
around 20 marinas in Puget Sound, allowing more commercial
shellfish harvesting while inching toward a goal of upgrading
10,800 acres of shellfish beds by 2020.
In all, 661 acres of shellfish beds were removed from a
long-standing “prohibited” classification that has been applied
around marinas, based on assumptions about the dumping of sewage
from boats confined to small areas.
Poulsbo Marina // Photo:
Nick Hoke via Wikimedia
“We have seen pretty significant changes in boat-waste
management,” said Scott Berbells, shellfish growing area manager
for the Washington Department of Health, explaining how the
upgrades came about.
New calculations of discharges from boats in marinas and the
resulting risks of eating nearby shellfish have allowed health
authorities to reduce, but not eliminate, the closure zones around
the marinas.
If you are planning to gather some shellfish to eat over Labor
Day weekend — or anytime for that matter — state health officials
urge you to follow the “three Cs” of shellfish — check, chill and
cook.
The state’s Shellfish Safety
Map shows areas open and closed to harvesting.
Map: Washington State Dept. of Health
At least 10 cases of an intestinal illness called vibriosis have
been reported this year to the Washington State Department of
Health, all resulting from people picking oysters themselves and
eating them raw or undercooked. The disease is caused by a
bacteria, Vibrio parahaemolyticus, an organism that occurs
naturally and thrives in warm temperatures.
“The shellfish industry follows special control measures during
the summer months to keep people who choose to eat raw oysters from
getting sick,” said Rick Porso, director of the Office of
Environmental Health and Safety, in a
news release. “For those who enjoy collecting and consuming
their own shellfish, it’s important that they follow a few simple
measures to stay healthy.”
The combination of warm weather, lack of rain and low tides all
contribute to the growth of bacteria in oysters growing on the
beach.
The state Department of Health uses the “three Cs” as a reminder
for recreational shellfish harvesters as well as people who gather
shellfish from their own beaches:
CHECK: Before heading to the beach, make sure
that shellfish in the area are safe to eat. The Shellfish
Safety Map, updated daily, will tell you where it is safe to
gather shellfish. At the moment, many areas are closed because of
paralytic shellfish poison produced by a type of plankton. Unlike
Vibrio, PSP cannot be destroyed by cooking.
CHILL: Gather shellfish as the tide goes out,
so they are not allowed to sit for long in the sun. Put them on ice
immediately or get them into a refrigerator.
COOK: Cooking at 145 degrees F. for at least
15 seconds should destroy Vibrio bacteria, health officials say. It
is not enough to cook them until their shells open.
Symptoms of vibriosis include diarrhea, abdominal cramps,
nausea, vomiting, headache, fever and chills. The illness usually
runs its course in two to three days. For information see
“Vibriosis” on the Department of Health’s website.
Symptoms of paralytic shellfish poisoning usually begin with
tingling of the lips and tongue, progressing to numbness in fingers
and toes followed by loss of control over arms and legs and
difficulty breathing. Nausea and vomiting may occur. PSP can be a
life-threatening condition, so victims should seek medical help
immediately. For information, see
“Paralytic shellfish poison” on the Department of Health’s
website.
Besides health advisories, the Shellfish
Safety Map mentioned above also includes the water-quality
classification, a link to shellfish seasons to determine whether a
beach is legally open along with other information,
Officials in Washington state’s Shellfish Program have
identified a clear pathway to meet a state goal of restoring 10,800
net acres of shellfish beds to a harvestable condition by 2020.
The 10,800-acre target, established by the Puget Sound
Partnership, was considered overly ambitious by many people when
the goal was approved in 2011. Many still believe that the
shellfish restoration effort will go down in flames, along with
other goals, such as increasing chinook salmon and killer whale
populations by 2020.
In reporting on the Shellfish Implementation Strategy, a
document still under development, I’ve learned that the goal is
within reach if enough of the ongoing recovery efforts around Puget
Sound continue to make progress. Please check out my latest stories
“Bringing
the shellfish back” and “Closing
in on the magic number in Samish Bay,” both published in the
Encyclopedia of Puget Sound.
Our native Olympia oyster may seem small and meek, but its
slow-growing nature may serve it well under future conditions of
ocean acidification, according to a new study.
Olympia oysters //
Photo: Wikimedia commons
In fact, the tiny Olympia oysters appear to reproduce
successfully in waters that can kill the offspring of Pacific
oysters — a species that grows much larger and provides the bulk of
the commercial oyster trade in Washington state.
Unlike Pacific oysters, Olympias don’t begin forming their
shells until two or three days after fertilization, and the
formation progresses slowly, helping to counteract the effects of
corrosive water, according to the author of the new study, George
Waldbusser of Oregon State University.
Betsy Peabody of Puget Sound Restoration Fund said people who
work with Olympia oysters have long suspected that they may have
some advantages over Pacific oysters. Olympia oysters keep their
fertilized eggs in a brood chamber inside the shell until the
larvae are released into the water about two weeks later.
In contrast, the eggs of Pacific oysters are fertilized in the
open water and the resulting larvae must fend for themselves right
away.
While the brood chamber may protect the larvae from predators,
the new study showed that the brood chamber does not protect
against ocean acidification. Corrosive water still circulates
through the mother’s shell, exposing the larvae.
To test how Olympia oysters would do in open waters, the
researchers grew baby oysters outside the brood chamber where they
were exposed to acidified water, noted Matthew Gray, a former
doctoral student in OSU’s Department of Fisheries and Wildlife. He
is now conducting research at the University of Maine.
“Brooding was thought to provide several advantages to
developing young, but we found it does not provide any
physiological advantage to the larvae,” Gray said in an
OSU news release. “They did just as well outside the brood
chamber as inside.”
It appears that a major difference in the development of Pacific
and Olympia oysters lies in their reproductive strategies,
including differences in managing their energetics.
“Pacific oysters churn out tens of millions of eggs, and those
eggs are much smaller than those of native oysters, even though
they eventually become much larger as adults,” Waldbusser said.
“Pacific oysters have less energy invested in each offspring.
Olympia oysters have more of an initial energy investment from Mom
and can spend more time developing their shells and dealing with
acidified water.”
The research team found that energy stores in young Pacific
oysters declined by 38.6 percent per hour, compared to 0.9 percent
in Olympia oysters. Pacific oysters put their energy into building
their shells seven times faster than Olympia oysters. The exposure
to acidified water affects shell development. While the larval
oysters may get through the shell-building stage, they often don’t
have enough energy left to survive, Waldbusser said.
Puget Sound
Restoration Fund has been working for nearly 20 years to
restore Olympia oysters at 19 priority locations throughout Puget
Sound. The new study lends credence to the effort and support for a
recommendation by the 2012 Blue
Ribbon Panel on Ocean Acidification. The panel called for
restoring the native oyster to Puget Sound to build resilience into
the ecosystem, according to Betsy Peabody.
“It was a recommendation that came out before we had the
critical science to support it,” Betsy told me. “He (Waldbusser)
has just given us the underlying research that supports that
recommendation. Our grandchildren may be cultivating Olympia
oysters rather than Pacific oysters.”
The panel, appointed by former Gov. Chris Gregoire, called for
maintaining the genetic diversity of native shellfish to provide
the species a fighting chance against ecological changes brought on
by climate change.
Benefits of the Olympia oyster, including so-called ecosystem
services, are described in an article by Eric Wagner in the
Encyclopedia
of Puget Sound. Healthy oyster reefs offer benefits such as
cleaning up the water, protecting shorelines from erosion and
increasing habitat complexity, which can expand the diversity of
sea life.
So far, Puget Sound Restoration Fund has restored 50 acres of
shellfish to Puget Sound, working toward a goal of restoring 100
acres by 2020.
Oyster hatcheries in Washington state underwent a temporary
crisis a few years ago when Pacific oyster larvae were dying from
acidified seawater pumped into the hatcheries. The water still
becomes hazardous at times, but careful monitoring of pH levels has
allowed hatchery operators to overcome the problem. When the water
in an oyster hatchery moves beyond an acceptable pH level,
operators add calcium carbonate to alter the pH and support the
oyster larvae with shell-building material.
Bill Dewey of Taylor Shellfish Farms said older oysters might be
affected in the future as ocean acidification progresses. “We know
things are going to get worse,” he told me.
Because of their small size and high cost of production, Olympia
oysters will never overtake the Pacific oyster in terms of market
share, Bill said, but they are in high demand among people who
appreciate the history of our only native oyster and its unique
taste.
The new research by Waldbusser raises the question of whether
the highly commercial Pacific oysters could be bred so that their
larvae grow slower and perhaps overcome the effects of ocean
acidification.
Joth Davis, senior scientist for Puget Sound Restoration Fund
and senior researcher for Taylor Shellfish, said the market is
strong for a smaller Pacific oyster, so most growers would not
object to one that grows more slowly with greater survival.
Meanwhile, efforts are underway to maintain the genetic
diversity of Olympia oysters and other native species, as growers
begin to think about cultivating more natives. Transplanting
species from one area to another and boosting their populations
with hatcheries creates a potential to override local populations
and weaken overall genetic diversity, Joth said.
Geoduck clams, which can be started in hatcheries and grown on a
large scale, don’t appear to be genetically distinct from one place
to another in Puget Sound, Joth said.
Researchers have found some evidence that Olympia oysters may be
genetically distinct when comparing one area of Puget Sound to
another. But finding genetic differences does not always mean the
population is uniquely adapted to that area, Joth said. Variations
might relate to a random population that settles in a specific
location. Sometimes it takes careful study to make sense of the
differences.
Rich Childers, Puget Sound shellfish manager for the Washington
Department of Fish and Wildlife, said the state currently has no
firm rules for transferring native species from one place to
another. With growing interest in cultivating Olympia oysters, sea
cucumbers and other native species, the agency is opening
discussions about what kind of controls might be needed.
“We’ve learned lessons from salmon that you can’t spread
everything from hell and gone,” Rich said. “Should we be looking at
some management or hatchery guidelines that would help maintain
genetic diversity? Should we have laws or policies? These are the
questions that are just starting to surface.”
A highly informative map, just released by state shellfish
officials, can show you at a glance where it is safe to harvest
shellfish in Western Washington.
Besides pointing out the locations of public beaches where
recreational harvesters may safely gather clams and oysters, the
new
map provides links to information about the approved
seasons and limits, with photographs of each beach. One can choose
“map” or “satellite” views, as well as enhanced images to simplify
the search.
If you wish, you can track down locations by searching for the
name of a beach, nearby landmarks or the address. You can obtain
the latest information about entire shorelines as well as specific
beaches.
The map was created by the Office of Shellfish and Water
Protection, a division within the Washington State Department of
Health.
Jim Zimny, recreational shellfish specialist at Kitsap Public
Health District, said he expects the map to be updated immediately
when new health advisories are issued.
“It’s a great resource, very easy to use,” Jim said.
Jim works with state shellfish officials to collect shellfish
samples and report results, including findings of paralytic
shellfish poison, a biotoxin. Closures are announced when high
levels of PSP or dangerous bacteria are found. Hood Canal, for
example, is covered with the letter “V,” meaning one should cook
shellfish thoroughly to kill Vibrio bacteria, which can lead to
intestinal illness.
Since I generally write the geographic descriptions of shellfish
closure areas, I can assure you that looking at a map will be a
better way to see what is going on.
A news release about the new map points out that
the risk of eating shellfish increases in summer. That’s why it
especially important in summer to follow the three C’s of shellfish
safety: “check, chill and cook.”
Those three C’s refer to checking the map for health closures
and looking on the beach for warning signs; chilling the shellfish
to avoid a buildup of bacteria; and cooking to 145 degrees to kill
pathogens. (Cooking does not destroy PSP and other biotoxins, so
it’s important to avoid closed areas.)
Washington state now has an official state oyster, thanks to the
lobbying efforts of 14-year-old Claire Thompson, who raised the
prominence of the Olympia oyster as part as a school project.
That’s assuming, of course, that the governor signs the bill.
I talked about Claire’s effort, along with Olympia oyster
restoration projects, in a previous
Water Ways post on Feb. 14.
The bill designating Ostrea lurida as the state oyster first
passed the Senate Feb. 13 on a 47-1 vote. It was approved March 5
in the House, 94-4, after an amendment expanded the language of the
bill to this:
“This native oyster species plays an important role in the
history and culture that surrounds shellfish in Washington state
and along the west coast of the United States. Some of the common
and historic names used for this species are Native, Western,
Shoalwater, and Olympia.”
The Senate then agreed to the amendment and passed the bill into
law today, again on a 47-1 vote. Michael Baumgartner, a Republican
from Spokane, was the only dissenting voice in the Senate.
Opponents in the House were Reps. Richard DeBolt, Chehalis; Brad
Klippert, Kennewick; Jason Overstreet, Lynden; and Rep. Elizabeth
Scott, Monroe. All are Republicans.
When Claire testified on the Senate bill in the House Government
Operations and Elections Committee, she looked toward the future.
When she testified on the earlier House version, she was looking to
the past. You can hear her testimony in the viewer on this page, or
at
56:40 on TVW.
Here’s what she said, in part, to the House committee:
“The last time I came to testify I talked about the history of
this oyster. This time I would like to talk to you about what I
hope is the future of this oyster…
“I am only 14 and most of my life still lies ahead. To make my
future and the futures of all the kids who live around Puget Sound
better, I would like you to not only pass this bill but get as many
of these and other bivalves seeded and into the Puget Sound as
quickly as possible. This is because these oysters filter the water
and can help regulate harmful algal blooms, including the red tide.
By keeping algae down, they increase the overall oxygen content for
fish and crustaceans and all the other animals.
“In the large numbers that Puget Sound needs, these oysters can
link together to build coral-reef-like structures that provide an
ecosystem habitat of room and hiding for young sea animals and all
the kelps and sea plants that we are losing… Oyster beds this thick
keep sediments anchored and the entire Puget Sound in balance.”
Now it is up to Chinese officials to decide upon shellfish
imports to their country, as uncomfortable as that may be for U.S
exporters. I’ve begun to learn about international trade policies
to better understand the confusing actions of Chinese health
authorities.
As you’ve probably heard by now, officials with the Washington
State Department of Health have concluded from a new round of
testing that arsenic in geoducks from Poverty Bay presents no
legitimate health concern. That seems to contradict findings from
Chinese health authorities, who cited high levels of arsenic in
Poverty Bay geoducks when they suspended shellfish imports from the
U.S. West Coast.
Unfortunately, the Chinese have failed to reveal how they came
to their findings, and they discarded all the geoducks used in
their tests. Divers from the Washington Department of Natural
Resources collected new geoducks from Poverty Bay, and state health
experts conducted new tests. The findings were released Tuesday,
and I covered that in some detail in a story published in
yesterday’s Kitsap Sun (subscription). Also, check out
Water Ways, Dec. 24, to understand the different types of
arsenic.
Results from the Washington state health lab showed that arsenic
levels in all parts of the geoduck came in under the Chinese limit
of 0.5 parts per million, except for the skin. Dave McBride, a
toxicologist for the state health department, told me that cooks in
both China and the U.S. blanch the geoduck to remove the inedible
skin, so that’s not a factor.
But even if one consumes the whole geoduck, tests on the “whole
body” found only one composite sample out of 12 that exceeded the
Chinese standard. Of course, it would have been more convincing if
none of the whole-body samples came in above 0.5 ppm.
A private lab also tested geoducks from Poverty Bay, and those
results came in even lower. The differing findings probably
resulted from the different methods used, Dave McBride told me. It
might be wise to try to reconcile the differences and report the
scientific uncertainty (possible range) represented by the two
techniques.
Meanwhile, I’ve begun talking to experts on Chinese trade, who
say it is not unusual for governments around the world to use
alleged health concerns to gain a trade advantage.
As I reported in yesterday’s story, the U.S. Trade
Representative, a presidential cabinet post,
reported to Congress at the end of last year about what
appeared to be unjustified health concerns blocking a variety of
agricultural imports into China:
“In 2013, serious problems have remained for U.S. exporters, who
are faced with nontransparent application of sanitary and
phytosanitary measures, many of which have appeared to lack
scientific bases and have impeded market access for many U.S.
agricultural products.
“China’s seemingly unnecessary and arbitrary inspection-related
import requirements also continued to impose burdens and regulatory
uncertainty on U.S. agricultural producers exporting to China in
2013 … Products most affected in 2013 included poultry, pork and
beef.”
Dongsheng Zang, a University of Washington law professor who
specializes in Chinese trade, and Debra Glassman, faculty director
of the UW’s Global Business Center, helped me understand the trade
situation for yesterday’s story. Here are some of the key points I
came away with:
Chinese officials don’t always base their decisions on the best
evidence,, even though agreements under the World Trade
Organization require them to do so. In 2011, China stopped imports
of oysters from Washington state following reports of a few people
getting sick from eating raw oysters from Hood Canal. Zang says
Chinese officials based their actions only on “media reports.”
Import bans often come quickly and take a long time to resolve.
That happens not just in China but in other countries and the
European Union, especially when the dispute must be resolved by the
World Trade Organization.
International agreements require that any import restrictions
must be the “least-trade-restrictive” to protect the public, such
as banning shellfish from specific bays where problems are
identified, Glassman said.
The Chinese ban on U.S shellfish could be designed for a
domestic audience inside China. “I can only speculate,” Zang said.
“Food safety is a huge issue in China. It’s really hard to say
whether this (geoduck ban) is about public health or domestic
policy.”
An official in the office of the U.S. Trade Representative in
Washington, D.C., told the Probe
It Food Sagety Certification representatives that the office is
watching this issue closely. If the shellfish ban develops into a
full-fledged trade dispute, that office will become involved.
I realize that geoduck harvesters and government officials don’t
want to accuse the Chinese of acting inappropriately. They just
hope that the ban will be lifted without a drawn-out dispute.
Meanwhile, those in the industry are losing millions of dollars by
being shut off from their most important market for the giant
clams.
I was looking about for some jokes and stories involving
shellfish, mainly about clams and oysters with maybe a few quips
about mussels. All I could find was either too raunchy, too
childish or just plain lame.
What I did discover on YouTube, however, is that clam chowder is
funnier than clams, and oyster stew is funnier than oysters.
First, in the video player at right, is “The Clam Chowder Song”
by Thessaly Lerner, whose comedy is all over the place, including a
series of bits she calls Ukulady, geared mainly for
kids.
A classic seafood battle is Curly’s skirmish with the oyster in
a Three Stooges comedy that I remember from years ago. I was happy
to find it posted on YouTube with context from the story. If you
want to skip directly to the oyster part, you’ll find it at
1:45.
While not about oyster stew, I found a poster I want to share
for the oddity of it all (below). The poster is one of three used
in an ad campaign to raise awareness about the plight of the
homeless. The campaign, launched by the German magazine “Biss,”
shows one person inside the shell of a snail, another inside the
shell of a turtle and a third inside the shell of an oyster a clam. Below each
image are the words, “Nature doesn’t provide everyone with a home.”
See
AdPunch for details.
Although I wasn’t able to locate enough worthy shellfish jokes
to share, you may find some amusement in previous “Amusing Monday”
postings about shellfish:
Work on the Washington State Shellfish Initiative is shifting
into high gear, as I learned yesterday during a meeting of the
Shellfish Initiative Advisory Group.
The initiative is being directed by a “core group,” made up of
representatives from seven state and federal agencies. Advice is
coming from a much larger advisory group in quarterly meeings like
the first one yesterday. See
“Purpose Statement” (PDF 44 kb) for details.
Manchester Research
Station
NOAA photo
During the meeting, the group reviewed progress on a work plan
that includes more than 30 different tasks, each assigned to a
small working group. I made notes on many of the projects, which
I’ll share with you in future news stories or blog entries.
I did focus on one Kitsap County project with relevance for the
entire Puget Sound region: a new oyster hatchery at Manchester
Research Station to produce baby Olympia oysters. It will be
part of an ongoing effort to restore the native Olympias. See the
story I wrote for
today’s Kitsap Sun.
One anonymous person commented at the bottom of the story: “Hey,
an organization that actually accomplishes something! Keep up the
good work and don’t get bogged down in doing studies and producing
reports that no one will read or respond to.”
I understand why people are sometimes frustrated by the planning
that seems to go on and on. But without planning, I’m not sure who
would grap the limited money. Without planning, the projects would
have no focus and the work would be done haphazardly.
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.
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.
