Aquaculture in Puget Sound

People For Puget Sound supports environmentally sustainable aquaculture in Puget Sound.  This goal has two parts:  1) Water quality is clean so that fish and shellfish can be eaten safely and 2) aquaculture operations are planned, sited and carried out in a manner that does not harm the ecosystem:

Net pens

• We have significant concerns about the pollutant load from salmon net pens in Puget Sound.  There are 8 permitted commercial net pens with loads of pollutants.
• We strongly oppose the use of sediment impact zones for net pens.
• Further, all fish pens should be under permit.  We understand that Tribal pens are currently not permitted due to a jurisdiction confusion between Ecology and EPA.

Shellfish

• Although shellfish act as filter feeders and therefore have a water cleansing effect, we have concerns about the harvest methods for geoduck commercial beds and are disappointed that studies have not been completed, even now, several years after these requests have been made
• DNR should hold off on any more leasing until scientific answers are in. Geoduck farms on private tidelands should be required to obtain permits under the shoreline management act, with mitigation and environmental protections included.
• Although shellfish have been commercially grown and harvested for over a hundred years in Puget Sound, some modern growing and harvesting practices are much more intensive and may tend to impact or crowd out native species and preclude other uses of the tidelands. These practices deserve more study and evaluation for cumulative effects.
• Shellfish areas that have been impacted by toxic chemicals should be identified and then cleaned up

Upland fin-fish hatching and rearing facilities

• For the 80 facilities regulated by the Dept of Ecology, the nutrient load to waterbodies is not well quantified.  In addition, chemicals used to prevent disease is are not monitored.  Only minimal sampling of solids is required.  Pharmaceuticals and other chemicals such as vaccines, fungicides, disinfectants, etc. are not monitored at all.  Clearly, more information about the potential impacts of these facilities is needed.

Contact | Heather Trim | 206-456-3809

See also:
April 28, 2010 decision by the United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Seattle

WILD FISH CONSERVANCY, Plaintiff,
v.
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, et al., Defendants, and ICICLE ACQUISITION SUBSIDIARY LLC, d.b.a. AMERICAN GOLD SEAFOODS, Intervenor.