That doesn’t mean an end to aquaculture in Pierce County, but it is likely to add significantly to documentation required before new permits are issued for growing the giant clams.

Highlights of the decision were included in an e-mail sent Wednesday to Pierce County Councilman Terry Lee, who had inquired about the status of a pending geoduck permit application. The News Tribune found the correspondence Thursday during a review of geoduck permit records.

In an interview afterward, Kathleen Larrabee, the county Planning and Land Services Department supervisor who drafted the decision, said county officials sent notices this week to two permit applicants, including Taylor Shellfish Farms, the West Coast’s largest grower. Taylor is fighting efforts to shut down the harvest at its geoduck farm on Case Inlet, northwest of Joemma Beach State Park.

Similar letters probably will be sent in response to six other permit applications later. “If that applies to one geoduck farm, it has to apply to each geoduck farm,” she said.

Following notification, if growers decide to proceed, they may have to modify their plans, show how they would address specific concerns through a full-fledged environmental report, or provide scientific evidence that disproves the county’s assessment.

News of the decision was welcomed by Gig Harbor-area resident Laura Hendricks, spokeswoman for the Coalition to Protect Puget Sound Habitat.

For more than a year, the group and its member organizations have demanded that Pierce County require full environmental reviews before authorizing new geoduck farms. Coalition members contend that intensive shellfish farming harms shorelines, fish and wildlife.

“This shows a lot of wisdom on Pierce County’s part despite the legal challenge the industry has promised,” Hendricks said.

The long-awaited decision didn’t faze folks at Taylor Shellfish. “We are pleased to see the process moving forward and the issues getting more defined,” said spokesman Bill Dewey.

He said the notice should give his company an opportunity to provide additional scientific research to satisfy the county’s concerns.

“There’s actually been a fair amount of work done,” he said. “We’ll just have to wait and see how it comes out.”

Most geoduck (pronounced GOOEY-duck) farming operations cover beaches with thousands of plastic tubes, plus yards and yards of netting. The gear is designed to protect baby clams from predators. Some neighbors have complained that the plantations are unsightly.

Specifically, county officials point to three potential problems associated with geoduck cultivation:

 • Possible contamination of the wild geoduck gene pool.

 • Possible release of buried toxins during geoduck harvest.

 • The threat of damage to organisms sharing the beaches with shellfish farms.

Before making the decision, Larrabee and others reviewed piles of scientific papers and online reports about the effects of geoduck farming. Scientific evidence generally showed no adverse impact of geoduck farming except for the three issues identified, she said.

Specifically, regarding the effects on other organisms, Larrabee said, scientific results appeared to be inconsistent. “There are arguments both ways,” she said. “We want to, if anything, err on the side of caution.”

County planning department biologist Dave Risvold, among others, helped Larrabee prepare the decision.

“It is indisputable that shellfish harvesting creates changes in the sediment community,” he said.

But there’s little consensus on its significance, he said. “Most reports summarize with statements like ‘further study is needed,’” he said.

On the gene-pool issue, the worry is that the natural genetic diversity of wild stocks could suffer if growing areas are dominated by millions of hatchery-bred clams with a limited genetic heritage, he said. A narrowing of the gene pool could undermine the survival of geoducks in the wild.

As for the possible release of buried toxins, the concern is the spread of naturally occurring algal blooms, called red tides, which can cause paralytic shellfish poisoning in humans.

What happens now will depend on how Taylor and other growers respond, Larrabee said.

“They may provide us with science that proves those aren’t impacts,” she said.

In the meantime, the dispute over the fate of Taylor’s geoduck farm on Case Inlet continues Monday in Thurston County Superior Court. Hendricks’ group has asked a judge to overturn a Pierce County decision that has allowed Taylor to harvest clams despite the expiration of the company’s permit.

Susan Gordon: 253-597-8756

Terms of Service | Privacy Policy | About Our Ads | Advertising Partners | Contact Us | About Us | Site Map | Jobs | RSS
1950 South State Street, Tacoma, Washington 98405 253-597-8742
© Copyright 2009 Tacoma News, Inc. A subsidiary of The McClatchy Company