There’s a lot on the line in Pierce County with the recent Taylor Shellfish Hearing Examiner’s decision: money and jobs vs. water quality and habitat for fish and wildlife.
Unfortunately, as in many other issues, this false dichotomy both divides communities and distracts from a bigger problem.
The truth is, we need a healthy environment to have a healthy economy. Shellfish growers know this. Environmentalists know this.
From the deepest marine waters to the shorelines up the rivers and into the forests, Puget Sound is negatively impacted by many factors, including population growth, land conversion, urban sprawl, leaky septic tanks, stormwater runoff, nonpoint source pollution, invasive aquatic species, oil spills, wetland filling, pesticides, herbicides and so on. All of these things contribute to a bigger problem: the ill health of Puget Sound.
Aquaculture is but one activity that impacts water quality and habitat for birds, fish and other wildlife. However, aquaculture isn’t purely beneficial, as the industry claims. There are environmental issues associated with aquaculture practices such as netting, PVC tubes and rubber band debris that break free, mortality or injuries to birds and other fish and wildlife that get entangled in debris and impacts to critical habitats like eelgrass beds and forage fish spawning grounds, just to name a few.
In his Viewpoint (TNT, 4-1), Bill Taylor, president of Taylor Shellfish, wrote: “Considerable research has shown that the environmental issues raised by these opponents are unfounded and that geoduck farming does not harm the environment.”
Perhaps this was an April fool’s joke. Perhaps not. Either way, his statement is incorrect.
One of the themes found in Washington Sea Grant’s draft literature review on geoduck aquaculture is that in an overwhelming number of instances, there is either little or no (or conflicting) peer-reviewed research on multiple facets of the geoduck aquaculture issue – including whether geoduck aquaculture helps or harms the environment. This ranges from diseases to genetics to birds to water quality.
This is what we found in our research last year. And that is why we supported state Rep. Pat Lantz, D-Gig Harbor, in passing HB 2220. Thanks to the 2007 bill, scientific research will be done in the coming years that examine the impacts of harvest methods. We hope that the results will lead to better regulations that protect Puget Sound and its intertidal habitats.
The bill also convened a stakeholder committee to make recommendations to the state Department of Ecology on shellfish aquaculture regulations and geoduck aquaculture siting and practices. The work of the state shellfish committee will lead to recommendations that, when combined with the science, will help protect the interests of the shellfish industry, shoreline property owners, recreational beach users and the fish and wildlife that depend on Puget Sound’s nearshore and intertidal habitats for survival.
As we aim to clean up the Puget Sound, we need to have a scientific understanding of all of the issues, and – where science is lacking – it makes sense to proceed cautiously. The Pierce County Council unanimously passed interim regulations last fall, based on concerns of citizens and environmental groups about new practices associated with geoduck farming. Now we wait for the DOE to review the interim regulations and for the shellfish committee’s recommendations.
With little guidance from the DOE, it appears that Pierce County Planning and Land Services is cautiously moving forward. With many more permit applications on file than actual farms in the county, it makes sense to wait for clear guidance before opening the floodgates to acres and acres of intertidal geoduck farming in Pierce County.
We cannot afford to make the same mistakes that have plagued natural resource extraction industries ever since white settlers arrived in the Pacific Northwest. Whether it’s forestry, mining, fisheries or aquaculture, we need science-based management tools that protect the environment, because without them these industries will not be sustainable.
The Puget Sound can provide a valuable food resource and good jobs, but only if we start taking care of it now. Otherwise, the future of shellfish farming in the Puget Sound will suffer a similar fate to the salmon fisheries, logging industry and too many endangered species.
The health of Puget Sound is of utmost importance to our regional environment and economy. Even as the nation watches, let us seize this opportunity to lead the way in creating a sustainable environment and economy.
Krystal Kyer is the conservation coordinator for Tahoma Audubon Society.
JOIN THE DISCUSSION | Register here
We welcome comments. Please keep them civil, short and to the point. ALL CAPS, spam, obscene, profane, abusive and off topic comments will be deleted. Repeat offenders will be blocked. Thanks for taking part — and abiding by these simple rules. A thorough explanation of rules of conduct can be found in our Terms of Service. If you have any questions, including why your comment may not be showing immediately after you submit it, be sure to visit the commenting FAQ.