HomeMy WebLinkAboutRI06 l.Response Staff ReportPacific Northwest Office
1218 3rd Ave, Suite 2000
Seattle, WA 98101
206.588.4188
Gulf Coast Office
1110 River Rd S, Suite 200
Baton Rouge, LA 70802
225.256.4026
August 18, 2025
Via Email: carolyn@co.jefferson.wa.us
Gary N. McLean
Hearing Examiner for Jefferson County
1820 Jefferson Street
Port Townsend, WA 98368
Re: File No. SDP2024-00006
Rock Island Shellfish’s Response to Staff Report
Dear Examiner McLean:
This letter is being submitted on behalf of Rock Island Shellfish in response to the staff report prepared
and submitted by the Jefferson County Department of Community Development for file number SDP2-
24-00006 (“Staff Report”). The Staff Report recommends approval with conditions of the substantial
development permit (“SDP”) for Rock Island Shellfish’s proposal to cultivate Kumamoto oysters within
private tidelands in Hood Canal using a rack and basket system (“Project”).
Rock Island Shellfish agrees with the Staff Report’s recommendation that the Project’s SDP should be
issued, and it is comfortable with most recommended conditions of approval. Rock Island Shellfish is
submitting this response to discuss additional laws and policies that support the Project and to request
revisions to four recommended conditions of approval.
A. The Project Advances Numerous Federal and State Laws and Policies that Encourage
Shellfish Aquaculture.
As discussed in the Staff Report, the Jefferson County Shoreline Master Program (“SMP”) identifies
aquaculture as a “preferred, water-dependent use of regional and statewide interest that is important to
the long-term economic viability, cultural heritage and environmental health of Jefferson County.” Staff
Report p. 5. The SMP’s recognition of aquaculture as a preferred use that provides important
environmental and economic benefits is supported by the Shoreline Management Act (“SMA”), which
identifies water-dependent uses such as shellfish aquaculture as preferred. RCW 90.58.020. Further, the
Washington State Department of Ecology’s SMA guidelines recognize that aquaculture is of statewide
interest and, properly managed, “can result in long-term over short-term benefit and can protect the
resources and ecology of the shoreline.” WAC 173-26-241(3)(b)((i)(A). Various uses enjoy a preferred
status under the SMA, but no other type of use is specifically recognized in the SMP Guidelines as being
in the statewide interest and capable of producing long-term benefits and protecting the resources and
ecology of the shoreline. Shellfish beds – including commercial, subsistence, and recreational – are also
CA received 08/18/25
EXHIBIT RI06
Jefferson County Hearing Examiner 2
unique in that they are specifically identified as constituting critical saltwater habitat, a recognition that
no other type of human use or activity receives. WAC 173-26-221(2)(c)(iii)(A).
The SMA’s classification of aquaculture as a preferred, water-dependent use aligns with numerous
additional federal and state laws and policies that promote the preservation and expansion of shellfish
aquaculture.
1. Federal Laws and Policies
Congress passed the National Aquaculture Act of 1980 in response to findings that the nation has
potential for significant aquaculture growth, but that this growth is inhibited by many scientific,
economic, legal, and production factors. 16 U.S.C. § 2801(a). Congress also made a concerning finding
that, despite the nation’s significant aquaculture potential, the United States imports more than 50
percent of its fish and shellfish to satisfy the domestic market demand for seafood, and this dependence
on imports adversely affects the national balance of payments and contributes to the uncertainty of
supplies. Id. The National Aquaculture Act encourages aquaculture activities and programs that will
result in increased aquaculture production.
Congress declares that aquaculture has the potential for reducing the United States trade
deficit in fisheries products, for augmenting existing commercial and recreational fisheries
and for producing other renewable resources, thereby assisting the United States in meeting
its future food needs and contributing to the solution of world resource problems. It is,
therefore, in the national interest, and it is the national policy, to encourage the
development of aquaculture in the United States.
16 U.S.C. § 2801(c).
The National Aquaculture Act identifies several strategies for implementing this policy, including a
national aquaculture development plan, an interagency aquaculture coordinating group, and
appropriations for implementing these strategies. 16 U.S.C. §§2803-2809.
Despite these efforts, our nation’s overreliance on foreign seafood has worsened significantly over the
last 30-plus years. While the National Aquaculture Act reported the nation’s reliance on imported
seafood at over 50 percent in 1980, more recently it stood at approximately 80 percent with our country
suffering from an over $20 billion seafood trade deficit.1
Our nation’s worsening overreliance on imported seafood prompted the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (“NOAA”) to adopt two new policies in 2011 to stimulate the growth of
domestic aquaculture production—the Marine Aquaculture Policy and the National Shellfish Initiative.
Appendices A and B, respectively. The Marine Aquaculture Policy purpose statement provides:
This policy reaffirms that aquaculture is an important component of NOAA’s efforts to
maintain healthy and productive marine and coastal ecosystems, protect special marine
areas, rebuild overfished wild stocks, restore populations of endangered species, restore
1 https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/charts-of-note/chart-detail?chartId=108472.
CA received 08/18/25
EXHIBIT RI06
Jefferson County Hearing Examiner 3
and conserve marine and coastal habitat, balance competing uses of the marine
environment, create employment and business opportunities in coastal communities, and
enable the production of safe and sustainable seafood.
Appendix A, p. 1.
The National Shellfish Initiative’s goal “is to increase shellfish aquaculture for commercial and
restoration purposes, thereby stimulating coastal economies and improving ecosystem health.” Appendix
B, p. 1. This initiative recognizes shellfish aquaculture provides a “broad suite of benefits” by improving
water quality, conserving habitat, stabilizing coastlines, restoring depleted species, and creating jobs. Id.
Key strategies of the National Shellfish Initiative include enhancing shellfish restoration and farming,
and streamlining permitting. Id.
2. State Laws and Policies
The SMA and implementing guidelines’ recognition that aquaculture is an activity of statewide interest
is bolstered by numerous state laws and policies. Washington State’s long history of supporting and
recognizing the importance of local aquaculture production dates back to the time of statehood, and
continues through to recent Governor-led initiatives.
The Legislature passed the Bush and Callow Acts in 1895 to stimulate shellfish farming in Washington
State by authorizing the sale of tidelands to private interests for shellfish cultivation. The Bush and
Callow Acts were re-codified in 2002, RCW 79.135.010, and the legislative findings for the
recodification reinforce that shellfish farming continues to be of the utmost importance to the State.
The legislature declares that shellfish farming provides a consistent source of quality food,
offers opportunities of new jobs, increases farm income stability, and improves balance of
trade. The legislature also finds that many areas of the state of Washington are scientifically
and biologically suitable for shellfish farming, and therefore the legislature has encouraged
and promoted shellfish farming activities, programs, and development with the same status
as other agricultural activities, programs, and development within the state. It being the
policy of this state to encourage the development and expansion of shellfish farming within
the state and to promote the development of a diverse shellfish farming industry, the
legislature finds that the uncertainty surrounding reversionary clauses contained in Bush
act and Callow act deeds is interfering with this policy. The legislature finds that
uncertainty of the grant of rights for the claim and other shellfish culture as contained in
chapter 166, Laws of 1919 must be fully and finally resolved. It is not the intent of this act
to impair any vested rights in shellfish cultivation or current shellfish aquaculture activities
to which holders of Bush act and Callow act lands are entitled.
ESHB 2819 (2002 c 123 § 1).
The Legislature has further emphasized the importance of aquaculture to Washington State through the
Aquaculture Marketing Act, RCW Chapter 15.85. The Legislative declaration supporting this act states
as follows:
CA received 08/18/25
EXHIBIT RI06
Jefferson County Hearing Examiner 4
The legislature declares that aquatic farming provides a consistent source of quality food,
offers opportunities of new jobs, increased farm income stability, and improves balance of
trade.
The legislature finds that many areas of the state of Washington are scientifically and
biologically suitable for aquaculture development, and therefore the legislature encourages
promotion of aquacultural activities, programs, and development with the same status as
other agricultural activities, programs, and development within the state.
The legislature finds that aquaculture should be considered a branch of the agricultural
industry of the state for purposes of any laws that apply to or provide for the advancement,
benefit, or protection of the agriculture industry within the state.
The legislature further finds that in order to ensure the maximum yield and quality of
cultured aquatic products, the department of fish and wildlife should provide diagnostic
services that are workable and proven remedies to aquaculture disease problems.
It is therefore the policy of this state to encourage the development and expansion of
aquaculture within the state . . .
RCW 15.85.010.
Consistent with these legislative and policy directives, former Governor Christine Gregoire launched the
Washington Shellfish Initiative in 2011 to encourage shellfish farming in the state. The Washington
Shellfish Initiative recognizes shellfish aquaculture is critically important to the state’s ecology,
economy, and culture. Appendix C, p. 1. Shellfish help filter and improve the quality of marine waters
and are an important part of the solution to restore and preserve the health of endangered waters. Id.
Following up on these initial efforts, former Governor Jay Inslee launched Phase II of the Washington
Shellfish Initiative in 2016 “to promote critical clean-water commerce, elevate the role that shellfish
play in keeping our marine waters healthy and create family wage jobs.” Appendix D, p. 1. Washington
State leads the country in the production of farmed clams, oysters, and mussels. Id. Washington shellfish
growers employ thousands of workers in the state and are among the largest private employers in some
counties. Id. A key goal of Phase II is to improve permitting processes to maintain and increase
sustainable aquaculture. Appendix E, pp. 10-11.
Streamlining permitting requirements is critical to increasing shellfish production in Washington State,
as shellfish farmers are subject to numerous federal, state, and local permitting requirements that can be
extremely costly and difficult to navigate. In fact, a Shellfish Interagency Permitting team was convened
pursuant to the Washington Shellfish Initiative “to formalize clear and efficient coordination for
permitting and licensing. The team was tasked with developing and implementing a model permitting
program that would improve timeliness of permit decisions while ensuring regulatory compliance.”2
2 Additional information regarding the SIP team, including products developed by the team to assist shellfish growers in
navigating the complex permitting requirements for shellfish farming in Washington State, is available at:
CA received 08/18/25
EXHIBIT RI06
Jefferson County Hearing Examiner 5
These and numerous other3 federal and state laws and policies are consistent with the SMA and
implementing guidelines. They all identify aquaculture as a preferred use that should be encouraged by
local, state, and federal governments. Rock Island Shellfish’s Project will advance these laws and
policies, advancing broader national and statewide interests while helping to stimulate the local
economy and protect and improve water quality and habitat.
B. The Project’s SDP Should Be Approved Subject to Revised Recommended Conditions.
The Staff Report analyses the Project’s compliance with SDP issuance criteria. Staff Report pp. 4-12.
The Project’s permit application materials also include a detailed Code Consistency Analysis
demonstrating the Project complies with SDP issuance criteria. County Ex. 2 pp. 129-141. As discussed
in the Staff Report, Habitat Management Plan, and Code Consistency Analysis, the Project is utilizing
appropriate methods to avoid and minimize potential adverse effects, including complying with the
terms, conditions, and conservation measures of a programmatic Endangered Species Act and Essential
Fish Habitat consultation recently completed between the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, National
Marine Fisheries Service, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (“Programmatic Consultation”). Staff
Report pp. 4-12; County Ex. 2 pp. 35-37, 58-78, 124-141. The Project will also provide beneficial
environmental impacts in the form of water quality improvements, increased prey resources, and
structured habitat. Staff Report p. 11; County Ex. 2 pp. 62, 65, 69. And, as discussed above, the Project
advances, local, state, and national laws and policies that recognize properly-managed shellfish farms
such as the Project provide numerous environmental, economic, and cultural benefits and hence are in
the broader public interest. Accordingly, the Project complies with SDP issuance criteria, and the permit
should be approved.
Rock Island Shellfish has reviewed and is comfortable with the vast majority of the 37 recommended
conditions of approval in the Staff Report. It would, however, respectfully request revisions to
recommended conditions 8, 20, 27, and 37, as set forth below. 4
Revision to Recommended Condition 8
Recommended condition 8 should be modified as follows:
https://ecology.wa.gov/water-shorelines/shoreline-coastal-management/aquaculture/shellfish-interagency-permitting-
team#:~:text=The%20Shellfish%20Interagency%20Permitting%20%28SIP%29%20team%20was%20part,timeliness%20of
%20permit%20decisions%20while%20ensuring%20regulatory%20compliance.
3 The laws and policies discussed above are among the most specific with respect to shellfish aquaculture. However, they are
not exhaustive. Numerous additional policies, strategies, and orders support the development of shellfish aquaculture given
the numerous environmental, economic, and cultural benefits this use provides. Examples include the Puget Sound
Partnership’s 2022-2026 Action Agenda (goal of achieving an annual net improvement of at least 400 classified commercial
shellfish acres in Puget Sound), the National Ocean Council’s National Ocean Policy Implementation Plan (stressing the need
for streamlined permitting and coordinated research efforts to support sustainable aquaculture), NOAA’s Aquaculture
Strategic Plan (2023-2028) (the first goal of which is to improve regulatory processes for sustainable coastal and marine
aquaculture), and the National Science and Technology Council’s Subcommittee on Aquaculture’s 2024 National
Aquaculture Development Plan (identifying numerous environmental and socio-economic benefits of aquaculture and aiming
to support a globally competitive aquaculture sector that meets increasing demands for aquatic products that are affordable
and meet high standards for safety, quality, nutrition, human health, and environmental stewardship while providing new
opportunities for economic growth).
4 Requested deletions are shown in strikethrough and additions are shown in underline.
CA received 08/18/25
EXHIBIT RI06
Jefferson County Hearing Examiner 6
Rebar racks and SEAPA baskets shall be installed at least 16.5 feet from any native eelgrass bed
or patch. Eelgrass patches may migrate over time and it is the responsibility of the Permittee to
ensure that no aquaculture operations occur within 16.5 feet of native eelgrass.
Recommended condition #8 is based on Conservation Measure #6 from the Programmatic Consultation,
which Rock Island Shellfish has committed to following. County Ex. 2 pp. 72, 124. Conservation
Measure #6 requires the eelgrass buffer to be established based on an eelgrass delineation to occur
during a specific time of the year (June 1-Sep. 30, during times of peak above-ground biomass). Id. p.
124. A copy of this survey, overlaid with the shellfish activity locations and dimensions, must be
provided to the Corps documenting where the project is to be installed so as to maintain the 16-foot
buffer. Id.
Eelgrass beds naturally expand and contract over time. However, Conservation Measure 6 does not
require shellfish farmers to continually monitor for changes in eelgrass beds and move their cultivation
footprint accordingly. There are multiple reasons for this. First, it takes multiple months to years to
cultivate shellfish crops,5 and it would be impractical or, in some cases impossible, to move crops mid-
cultivation to account for changing eelgrass distribution. Second, it is not necessary to alter the location
of the cultivation footprint in order to protect eelgrass as it naturally expands or contracts. The Corps
and Services did not develop the 16-foot buffer because they determined that covered shellfish activities
adversely impact eelgrass 16 feet away from shellfish production. Rather, impacts to eelgrass are limited
to “the footprint” of the shellfish cultivation, and the 16-foot buffer is designed to “accommodate natural
expansion and contraction of eelgrass.” Exhibit RI02 p. 72. In other words, the 16-foot buffer itself
accommodates natural changes in eelgrass movement, and therefore it is not necessary to adjust the
footprint of cultivation activities in response to changes in eelgrass distribution to avoid adverse effects
to eelgrass.
The Staff Report does not identify any information indicating that it would be necessary to adjust the
Project’s cultivation footprint over time to avoid adverse impacts to eelgrass as it expands or contracts.
Rather, the second sentence of recommended condition 8 appears to be based on a misunderstanding as
to how Conservation Measure 6 operates. For these reasons, Rock Island Shellfish respectfully requests
that the second sentence of recommended condition 8 be stricken, as shown above.
Revision to Recommended Condition 20
Recommended condition 20 should be modified as follows:
Vessels shall be used in deeper water to minimize the potential for propellor scour.
Rock Island Shellfish agrees that all vessels should be operated to minimize the potential for propellor
scour, and it plans to operate its vessels to achieve this outcome. Given vessels will be used to install
and manage gear during low tide, however, a requirement to only use vessels “in deeper water” would
be infeasible.
5 The cultivation period for shellfish varies greatly depending on the species being cultivated, cultivation techniques,
environmental conditions, and market demands.
CA received 08/18/25
EXHIBIT RI06
Jefferson County Hearing Examiner 7
Further, it is not necessary to only use vessels in deeper water to minimize propellor scour. Rock Island
Shellfish plans to use small vessels with small, outboard props for farm operations, and it will carefully
operate vessels so that the props minimize the potential for scour (e.g., operate vessels at low speeds and
lift props prior to coming into close contact with the substrate). The above revision to recommended
condition 20 continues to protect the underlying, substantive interest behind the condition while
ensuring farm operations are not rendered infeasible, and it should be incorporated.
Revision to Recommended Condition 27
Recommended condition 27 should be modified as follows:
Use of Killapie Beach Road shall not be used in support of shellfish operations shall be at the
Permittee’s own risk. The Permittee shall obtain permits or approvals generally required by
Public Works for use of Killapie Beach Road.
As noted in County Exhibit 21, Killapie Beach Road was temporarily closed several years ago.
However, it provides the only access to Rock Island Shellfish’s property, along with multiple other
properties nearby. They would be landlocked if prohibited from using Killapie Beach Road. Further,
recommended condition 19 prohibits use of vessels during the night. Given some of the Project’s oyster
farming activities must occur during low tides, which only occur during the night during winter months,
access to the Project from the uplands is critical for successful operations.
The County’s Public Works Department is responsible for Killapie Beach Road and does not prohibit
these property owners or others from using the road. Public Works does not expressly recommend
prohibiting Rock Island Shellfish from using Killapie Beach Road, and any such prohibition unique to
Rock Island Shellfish would violate constitutional and other legal protections. Rather, Public Works
states “[n]othing can be built, stored, staged, etc. in the right-of-way.” County Ex. 21. Rock Island
Shellfish will comply with this condition.
Public Works also expressed concern over use of the road and indicated interest in having users sign an
indemnification and hold harmless agreement. Rock Island Shellfish is comfortable with signing such an
agreement, but such an agreement would be pursuant to Public Works’ authority and outside of the
County’s SMP. Any such agreement should also be required for any other individuals to use the road
and not uniquely imposed on Rock Island Shellfish. Accordingly, recommended condition 27 should be
modified as shown above.
Revision to Recommended Condition 37
Recommended condition 37 should be modified as follows:
The Permittee shall implement the Voluntary Compliance Agreement, which addresses the
unpermitted submit a schedule for obtaining required “after-the-fact” permit(s) for development
on three upland parcels associated with this shoreline application, which schedule shall not
exceed two years. The schedule shall be submitted to the Department of Community
Development 21 days prior to farm installation. The Permittee shall comply with such schedule,
and failure to do so may constitute grounds for suspension or revocation of the permit.
CA received 08/18/25
EXHIBIT RI06
Jefferson County Hearing Examiner 8
As discussed in the Project file, DCD and the Permittee have discussed development on the uplands of
the Project’s three parcels. The uplands contained buildings from the prior shellfish operator, Sea
Garden, and Rock Island Shellfish understood that similar or smaller replacements could be installed
without additional approvals.
The Project, as originally submitted, was limited to substantial development below the ordinary high
water mark (“OHWM”). During the permit process, the Permittee and DCD discussed including upland
development within the permit. However, this proved infeasible, and hence Rock Island Shellfish
decided to keep the permit limited to substantial development below OHWM. County Ex. 30 p. 1.
Near completion of the Staff Report, DCD and Rock Island Shellfish discussed additional approvals for
upland development. Rock Island Shellfish agreed to submit and comply with a schedule for obtaining
all required approvals for upland development within two years. Some actions can be completed very
soon, and Rock Island Shellfish is dedicated to performing those. Other actions will require more time
and resources. Rock Island Shellfish is a very small operation and requires additional funds and
resources, which it anticipates obtaining from operation of the Project, to complete the entire process for
addressing upland development.
Rock Island Shellfish is committed to developing and following a schedule for addressing upland
development consistent with its conversations with DCD. Given the unique context of this matter –
where the upland areas contained significant structures from the prior operator, and Rock Island
Shellfish is cleaning up and removing intertidal gear remaining from Sea Garden’s operations – a
Voluntary Compliance Agreement (which is reserved for normal cases where a property owner is not
undertaking significant restoration activities) is not the best mechanism. The alternative approach set
forth above will achieve the same substantive result as envisioned in a Voluntary Compliance
Agreement and includes protections to ensure Rock Island Shellfish will follow through with its
commitments. Accordingly, Rock Island Shellfish respectfully requests that recommended condition 37
be revised as set forth above.
Thank you for your time and consideration of Rock Island Shellfish’s SDP application for the Project.
Sincerely,
Jesse DeNike
Enclosures
CA received 08/18/25
EXHIBIT RI06
Appendix A
CA received 08/18/25
EXHIBIT RI06
June 2011
1
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
MARINE AQUACULTURE POLICY1
Purpose
The purpose of this policy is to enable the development of sustainable marine aquaculture within
the context of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) multiple
stewardship missions and broader social and economic goals. Meeting this objective will require
NOAA to integrate environmental, social, and economic considerations in management decisions
concerning aquaculture. This policy reaffirms that aquaculture is an important component of
NOAA’s efforts to maintain healthy and productive marine and coastal ecosystems, protect
special marine areas, rebuild overfished wild stocks, restore populations of endangered species,
restore and conserve marine and coastal habitat, balance competing uses of the marine
environment, create employment and business opportunities in coastal communities, and enable
the production of safe and sustainable seafood.
Statement of Policy
For purposes of this policy, aquaculture is defined as the propagation and rearing of aquatic
organisms for any commercial, recreational, or public purpose. This definition covers all
production of finfish, shellfish, plants, algae, and other marine organisms2 for 1) food and other
commercial products; 2) wild stock replenishment for commercial and recreational fisheries; 3)
rebuilding populations of threatened or endangered species under species recovery and
conservation plans; and 4) restoration and conservation of marine and Great Lakes habitat.
It is the policy of NOAA, within the context of its marine stewardship missions and its strategic
goals with respect to healthy oceans and resilient coastal communities and economies, to:
1. Encourage and foster sustainable aquaculture development that provides domestic jobs,
products, and services and that is in harmony with healthy, productive, and resilient
marine ecosystems, compatible with other uses of the marine environment, and consistent
1 The term “marine aquaculture” is used because the majority of NOAA’s aquaculture authorities and activities
relate to marine species. However, this policy applies to all of NOAA’s aquaculture authorities and activities,
including those related to marine, freshwater, and anadromous species and includes the Great Lakes.
2 This definition does not include marine mammals or birds.
CA received 08/18/25
EXHIBIT RI06
June 2011
2
with the National Policy for the Stewardship of the Ocean, our Coasts, and the Great
Lakes (National Ocean Policy).3
2. Ensure agency aquaculture decisions protect wild species and healthy, productive, and
resilient coastal and ocean ecosystems, including the protecting of sensitive marine areas.
3. Advance scientific knowledge concerning sustainable aquaculture in cooperation with
academic and federal partners.
4. Make timely and unbiased aquaculture management decisions based upon the best
scientific information available.
5. Support aquaculture innovation and investments that benefit the Nation’s coastal
ecosystems, communities, seafood consumers, industry, and economy.
6. Advance public understanding of sustainable aquaculture practices; the associated
environmental, social, and economic challenges and benefits; and the services NOAA has
to offer in support of sustainable aquaculture.
7. Work with our federal partners, through the Joint Subcommittee on Aquaculture4 and
other avenues, to provide the depth of resources and expertise needed to address the
challenges facing expansion of aquaculture in the United States.
8. Work internationally to learn from aquaculture best practices around the world and
encourage the adoption of science-based sustainable practices and systems.
9. Integrate federal, regional, state, local, and tribal priorities along with commercial
priorities into marine aquaculture siting and management and ensure aquaculture
development is considered within other existing and potential marine uses to reduce
potential conflicts.
Basis for the Policy
NOAA has a long history of conducting regulatory, research, outreach, and international
activities on marine aquaculture issues within the context of its missions of service, science, and
environmental stewardship. The National Aquaculture Act of 1980, which applies to all federal
agencies, states that it is “in the national interest, and it is the national policy, to encourage the
development of aquaculture in the United States.” The statutory basis for NOAA’s aquaculture
activities includes the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, the
Marine Mammal Protection Act, the Endangered Species Act, the Coastal Zone Management
3 EO 13547, which adopts the final recommendations of the Interagency Ocean Policy Task Force (July 19, 2010) is
available online at http://www.whitehouse.gov/oceans.
4 The Joint Subcommittee on Aquaculture of the Federal Coordinating Council on Science, Engineering, and
Technology was created in the National Aquaculture Act of 1980. The purpose of the coordinating group is to
increase the overall effectiveness and productivity of federal aquaculture research, transfer, and assistance programs.
CA received 08/18/25
EXHIBIT RI06
June 2011
3
Act, the National Marine Sanctuaries Act, and the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act. Under
these laws, in addition to the National Environmental Policy Act, NOAA is responsible for
considering and preventing and/or mitigating the potential adverse environmental impacts of
planned and existing marine aquaculture facilities through the development of fishery
management plans, sanctuary management plans, permit actions, proper siting, and consultations
with other regulatory agencies at the federal, state, and local levels. Other statutes, including the
National Sea Grant College Program Act, the Saltonstall-Kennedy Act, the Anadromous Fish
Conservation Act, the Interjurisdictional Fisheries Act, the Merchant Marine Act, and the
Agricultural Marketing Act, authorize NOAA to enable and provide assistance for both public
and private sector aquaculture. In addition, the Oceans and Human Health Act calls for research
related to aquaculture.
NOAA may engage in regulatory actions in the Exclusive Economic Zone under the authority of
the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act)
through Fishery Management Plans for species in need of conservation and management.
NOAA may also engage in regulatory action under National Marine Sanctuaries Act (NMSA)
authority with respect to aquaculture activities within or potentially affecting Sanctuaries.
NOAA has a direct regulatory role for aquaculture within the sanctuaries, in both state and
federal waters, except in state waters when limited by formal written agreement with the
Governor of that state. NOAA also engages in consultations with other federal permitting
agencies under the authority of the Endangered Species Act, Marine Mammal Protection Act, the
Essential Fish Habitat provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and
Management Act, the National Environmental Policy Act, and other statutes. Through the
Coastal Zone Management Act, NOAA also reviews and approves state coastal management
programs, which identify permissible uses in the coastal zone, and oversees federal consistency
with these programs.5
In developing this policy, NOAA evaluated the application of past NOAA and Department of
Commerce aquaculture policies and planning documents and considered the specific challenges
and opportunities of today and tomorrow, drawing on the agency’s institutional knowledge of the
state of science on aquaculture and its potential impacts. In addition, NOAA considered public
input provided via an initial public comment period and a series of seven public listening
sessions during April and May 2010, and a 60-day public comment period on a public draft of
this policy released in February 2011.6 The policy also aligns with several objectives in
NOAA’s Next Generation Strategic Plan and is a primary component of NOAA’s strategic
objective for safe and sustainable seafood.7
This policy was also informed by the National Ocean Policy and the framework for effective
coastal and marine spatial planning (CMSP).8 Many of the themes found in the National Ocean
Policy – such as protecting, maintaining, and restoring healthy and diverse ecosystems;
5 Some federal permit actions are subject to state review under the consistency certification provisions of the Coastal
Zone Management Act.
6 Summaries of the listening sessions and all comments submitted as public input to the development of the NOAA
aquaculture policy are posted online at http://aquaculture.noaa.gov
7 Available at http://www.ppi.noaa.gov/strategic_planning.html
8 Final Recommendations of the Interagency Ocean Policy Task Force. Available online at
http://www.whitehouse.gov/administration/eop/ceq/oceans
CA received 08/18/25
EXHIBIT RI06
June 2011
4
supporting sustainable uses of the ocean; and increasing scientific understanding and applying
that knowledge to make better decisions – are echoed in this document. This policy also mirrors
the National Goals for CMSP, setting the stage for aquaculture to be properly considered within
the CMSP process. NOAA, as the primary bureau within the Department of Commerce with
programmatic aquaculture responsibilities, developed this policy as a complement to the broader
Department of Commerce aquaculture policy.
Background
Approximately 84 percent of the seafood consumed in the United States is imported,9 about half
of which is sourced from aquaculture. In 2009, aquaculture crossed the threshold of providing
more than half of all seafood consumed worldwide.10 However, domestic aquaculture provides
only about 5 percent of the seafood consumed in the United States.11 Growing U.S. and
worldwide demand for seafood is likely to continue as a result of increases in population and
consumer awareness of seafood’s health benefits. The most recent federal Dietary Guidelines
for Americans (2010) recommend Americans more than double their current seafood
consumption.12 Because wild stocks are not projected to meet increased demand even with
rebuilding efforts, future increases in supply are likely to come either from foreign aquaculture
or increased domestic aquaculture production, or some combination of both.
The existing domestic marine aquaculture community is mainly comprised of shellfish growing,
but also includes finfish and algae production in coastal waters and hatchery production of fish
and shellfish to replenish stocks of important commercial, recreational, and endangered species
and to restore marine habitat (e.g., oyster reefs). Emerging technologies for marine aquaculture
include land-based closed-recirculating systems, marine algae production technologies for
biofuels and non-food products, systems that integrate different types of aquaculture or combine
aquaculture with other uses, and systems in exposed open-ocean waters.
Federal support, engagement, and authorities related to aquaculture development span a number
of agencies, in particular the Food and Drug Administration, Environmental Protection Agency,
Army Corps of Engineers, Fish and Wildlife Service, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
These agencies collaborate with each other, industry, states, and academia to address issues
related to aquaculture facilities13 and to promote the development of new technologies that
9 Source: U.S Department of Commerce, Fisheries of the United States 2009.
10 United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization. (2009). FISHSTAT Plus: Universal Software for Fishery
Statistical Time Series (Food and Agriculture Organization, Rome). Version 2.32. This figure includes both
freshwater and marine production.
11 This figure includes both freshwater and marine production. Not included in this figure is the amount of salmon
produced in Alaska by regional aquaculture associations and others in Alaska’s salmon stock enhancement program.
In 2009, Alaska’s salmon aquaculture stock enhancement programs produced over 45 million salmon, mostly pink
and chum salmon.
12 See www.mypyramid.gov
13 A recent example is the National Aquatic Animal Health Plan, which was developed in response to the growing
need for a coordinated government effort to ensure aquatic animal health. See
http://aquaculture.noaa.gov/news/naahp.html
CA received 08/18/25
EXHIBIT RI06
June 2011
5
improve the sustainability of the industry. This policy sets the stage for NOAA’s continued
involvement in these coordinated efforts.
Benefits and Challenges
As interest in commercial aquaculture production and wild species restoration in the marine
environment has increased, so too has debate about the potential economic, environmental, and
social effects of aquaculture – and the need for better public understanding with respect to these
issues. Benefits of sustainable aquaculture may include species and habitat restoration and
conservation; nutrient removal; provision of safe, local seafood that contributes to food security
and human health and nutrition; increased production of low trophic-level seafood; and synergies
with fishing (e.g., using fish processing trimmings in aquaculture feeds). Sustainable
aquaculture can also contribute economic and social benefits by creating jobs in local
communities and helping to maintain the cultural identity of working waterfronts.
Environmental challenges posed by aquaculture, depending upon the type, scope, and location of
aquaculture activity, may include nutrient and chemical wastes, water use demands, aquatic
animal diseases and invasive species, potential competitive and genetic effects on wild species,
effects on endangered or protected species, effects on protected and sensitive marine areas,
effects on habitat for other species, and the use of forage fish for aquaculture feeds. Economic
and social challenges may include market competition affecting the viability of domestic
aquaculture and/or the prices U.S. fishermen receive for their wild seafood products; competition
with other uses of the marine environment; degraded habitats and ecosystem services; and
impacts to diverse cultural traditions and values.
Growing consumer demand for safe, local, and sustainably produced seafood, increasing energy
costs, increasing seafood demand in countries that currently export seafood to the United States,
and growing interest in maintaining working waterfronts are emerging drivers that support
sustainable domestic aquaculture production. U.S. aquaculture production – both small-scale
and large-scale – has evolved and improved over time through regulations at the federal and state
levels, scientific advancements, consumer demand, technological innovation, industry best
management practices, and protocols for responsible stock replenishment and hatchery practices.
This policy will allow NOAA to further advance these developments through the actions
described below.
NOAA Aquaculture Priorities
To implement the Statement of Policy, NOAA has identified the following priorities:
Science and Research
• Expand NOAA’s research portfolio to (1) provide the necessary ecological,
technological, economic, and social data and analysis to effectively and sustainably
develop, support, manage, and regulate private and public sector marine aquaculture and
species restoration, including technologies deemed necessary under recovery and
CA received 08/18/25
EXHIBIT RI06
June 2011
6
conservation plans for depleted, threatened, and endangered species and habitat; (2)
monitor, assess, and address the environmental and socioeconomic effects of marine
aquaculture, including cumulative impacts; and (3) complement the scientific work of our
federal, state, and academic partners.
• Evaluate alternative protein and lipid sources to be used in lieu of wild fish and fish oil in
aquaculture feeds and develop cost-effective alternative feeds that maintain the human
health benefits of seafood and reduce reliance on the use of wild forage fish in the diets
of farmed fish.
• Develop and evaluate the cost-effectiveness of methodologies to prevent, minimize, and
mitigate potential adverse ecosystem and socioeconomic impacts of aquaculture.
• Monitor and assess the effects of ocean acidification and climate change on marine
aquaculture and develop adaptation strategies.
Regulation
• Actively engage federal agencies, Fishery Management Councils, federal advisory
councils or committees, coastal states, tribes, other stakeholders, and Congress to clarify
NOAA’s regulatory authority related to aquaculture in federal waters in the context of
other federal, state, and tribal authorities and to establish a coordinated, comprehensive,
science-based, transparent, and efficient regulatory program, taking into account relevant
international standards, as appropriate, for aquaculture in federal waters consistent with
the President’s Executive Order on Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review.
• Work with federal, state, local, tribal, and regional agencies and organizations to clarify
regulatory requirements and to establish coordinated, comprehensive, science-based,
transparent, and efficient processes for permit reviews, permit consultations, and other
regulatory and management actions for marine aquaculture in state waters – taking into
account existing authorities, international standards, and regional, state, and local goals,
policies, and objectives.
• Engage in coastal and marine spatial planning with other agencies and jurisdictions,
including the Regional Planning Bodies being created under the National Ocean Council,
to ensure siting of marine aquaculture that reduces conflicts among competing uses,
minimize adverse impacts on the environment, and identify activities for potential co-
location with aquaculture operations.
Innovation, Partnerships, and Outreach
• Collaborate with federal partners, coastal communities, states, tribes, the aquaculture
industry, non-governmental organizations, and other stakeholders to transition innovative
aquaculture technologies from laboratory studies to commercial and restoration projects
and document and assess their environmental, ecosystem, and socioeconomic impacts.
Focus on projects that will create jobs in coastal communities, produce healthful local
CA received 08/18/25
EXHIBIT RI06
June 2011
7
seafood, revitalize working waterfronts, support traditional fishing communities, avoid
impacts to protected areas, and restore depleted species and habitat.
• Work with extension and outreach services to interpret technical and scientific data and
provide informational products to transfer that knowledge to other stakeholders and the
public.
• Support restoration and commercial shellfish aquaculture initiatives to restore shellfish
populations that provide locally produced food and jobs, help improve water quality, and
restore and conserve coastal habitat.
• Develop synergies among NOAA’s fisheries management, enforcement, financial
assistance, aquaculture, seafood inspection, Coastal Zone Management, National Marine
Sanctuaries, and National Sea Grant programs to rebuild wild fish stocks and support
alternative or supplemental economic options for fishermen.
• Engage within the Joint Subcommittee on Aquaculture and National Ocean Council to
promote coordination among federal agencies on marine aquaculture regulatory and
science issues and pursue opportunities for collaboration, such as integrating aquaculture
with other ocean uses and using aquaculture facilities as a platform for more
comprehensive environmental monitoring.
International Cooperation
• Work with other federal agencies to establish a coordinated, consistent, and
comprehensive international strategy on sustainable marine aquaculture that supports and
is consistent with U.S. policies and priorities regarding food security, international trade,
healthy oceans, and economic well-being.
• Work with other nations, as appropriate, to adopt sustainable aquaculture and seafood
safety approaches using the best practices.
• Exchange scientific insights with other nations and promote joint participation in
cooperative research that is of potential multinational value, including addressing impacts
of aquaculture that breach international boundaries.
Implementation and Periodic Review
NOAA will begin to implement this policy immediately upon release. This policy will
henceforth guide all NOAA activities with respect to marine aquaculture, until such time as it is
amended or rescinded by the NOAA Administrator.
CA received 08/18/25
EXHIBIT RI06
June 2011
8
Appendices
NOAA will take a tiered approach with respect to this policy and may publish more detailed
policies related to specific authority to regulate aquaculture activities. These tiered documents
will be included as appendices to the overarching policy.
Appendix 1. NOAA Guidance for Aquaculture in Federal Waters
Appendix 1 establishes goals for NOAA’s regulatory actions with respect to aquaculture
production in federal waters of the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone, and provides a list of
principles and approaches that NOAA will take to achieve each goal. In the future, NOAA will
be identifying specific actions to be taken to implement each goal.
CA received 08/18/25
EXHIBIT RI06
June 2011
9
APPENDIX 1
NOAA GUIDANCE FOR AQUACULTURE IN FEDERAL WATERS
The purpose of this appendix is to establish a set of goals to guide NOAA’s regulatory and
programmatic actions with respect to aquaculture production in federal waters of the U.S.
Exclusive Economic Zone and to provide a list of implementing actions that NOAA will take to
achieve each goal. NOAA will take these actions to the extent of the agency’s discretion and
funding availability under relevant authorities and in coordination with our federal partners.
These goals and implementing actions are an extension of the NOAA Aquaculture Policy, which
applies broadly to all marine aquaculture-related activities at NOAA.
Goal 1. Ecosystem compatibility – Aquaculture development in federal waters is
compatible with the functioning of healthy, productive, and resilient marine ecosystems.
NOAA will achieve this goal by:
- developing, implementing, and enforcing ecosystem-based conservation and
management measures for aquaculture that fulfill the agency’s marine stewardship
responsibilities to protect and restore healthy coastal and ocean ecosystems and to
conserve living marine resources, their habitats, and other protected areas
- developing, implementing, and enforcing conservation and management measures for
aquaculture designed to maintain the health, genetics, habitats, and populations of wild
species; maintain water quality; prevent escapes and accidental discharges into the
environment; and avoid harmful interactions with wild fish stock, marine mammals,
birds, and protected species
- pursuing efforts to restore wild stocks
- supporting the use of only native or naturalized species in federal waters unless best
available science demonstrates use of non-native or other species in federal waters would
not cause undue harm to wild species, habitats, or ecosystems in the event of an escape
- employing science-based adaptive management
- taking into account the cumulative impacts of aquaculture throughout all trophic levels
of the marine environment and in combination with the impacts of other activities
- encouraging the use of aquaculture feeds that either use fish from sustainably managed
fisheries or alternative protein and lipid sources
- considering interactions with marine resources managed by other agencies and
jurisdictions
- conducting programmatic or site-specific reviews of impacts related to proposed
facilities in federal waters in compliance with National Environmental Policy Act
requirements
Goal 2. Compatibility with other uses – Aquaculture facilities in federal waters are sited
and operated in a manner that is compatible with other authorized uses of the marine
environment.
CA received 08/18/25
EXHIBIT RI06
June 2011
10
NOAA will achieve this goal by:
- coordinating with other agencies to develop tools to properly site aquaculture in federal
waters, including tools to reduce conflicts among competing uses and identify activities
for potential co-location with aquaculture operations, in the context of regional and
national coastal and marine spatial planning (CMSP) activities and ecosystem
compatibility goals
- incorporating the preferences of states in decisions about aquaculture development in
federal waters
- facilitating discussions among interested aquaculture developers, concerned state
agencies, Fishery Management Councils, tribes, other federal agencies, federal advisory
committees, and the public as early as possible in project planning and development
- promoting the safety of human life at sea and providing situational awareness for those
working on offshore aquaculture operations, including coastal and marine forecasts and
marine navigation weather
Goal 3. Best available science and information – Management decisions for aquaculture in
Federal waters are based upon the best available science and information.
NOAA will achieve this goal by:
- basing management decisions on best available scientific information – including
biological, technological, ecological, economic, and social data – in management
decisions
- synthesizing and delivering information on the current state of scientific understanding
about the observed and potential impacts and benefits of open ocean aquaculture
- identifying gaps and uncertainties associated with the current body of knowledge and
taking these uncertainties into account in agency decisions
- conducting and supporting scientific studies to inform agency decision-makers on open
ocean aquaculture technologies, practices, benefits, costs, and risks and to develop new
and improve existing sustainable practices and products
- monitoring, evaluating, and maintaining databases on the impacts of aquaculture,
including cumulative impacts, on biodiversity, predator-prey relationships, and other
important characteristics of healthy and productive ecosystems
- working with state and federal agencies, academia, tribes, and other entities to improve
scientific understanding of the effects of open ocean aquaculture and to develop cost-
effective open ocean aquaculture technologies and practices that prevent, minimize, or
mitigate negative environmental or societal effects
- updating and adapting conservation and management measures to reflect the best
available scientific information
- incorporating the insights gained by other countries that actively participate in open
ocean aquaculture activities
Goal 4. Social and economic benefits – Investments in sustainable aquaculture in federal
waters provide a net benefit to the Nation’s economy, coastal communities, and seafood
consumers while considering regional and state goals and objectives.
CA received 08/18/25
EXHIBIT RI06
June 2011
11
NOAA will achieve this goal by:
- creating opportunities for new aquaculture jobs and economic growth for U.S.
communities that complement commercial and recreational fishing, maintain and
revitalize working waterfronts, provide upstream and downstream economic
opportunities throughout the U.S. economy and provide additional domestic seafood
choices for U.S. consumers
- assessing the food safety and human health effects of consumption of aquaculture
products (foreign and domestic) in coordination with other federal agencies
- making the agency’s fee-for-service seafood inspection services available to aquaculture
producers operating in federal waters
- assessing the likely positive and negative social, economic, and cultural impacts of
management decisions, individually and cumulatively, over both the short and long term,
on permit applicants, individual communities, the group of all affected communities
identified, and the U.S. economy, including impacts on employment and the economic
viability of working waterfronts
- identifying, developing, and supporting mitigation measures to address social, economic,
and cultural impacts
Goal 5. Industry Accountability – To secure long-term access to operate aquaculture
facilities in federal waters, operators are held accountable for protecting the
environment, wild species, and human safety and for conducting and reporting ongoing
monitoring.
NOAA will achieve this goal by working with federal agencies and other partners to develop
an appropriate framework through which operators of aquaculture facilities will:
- conduct a baseline environmental analysis of the proposed site prior to permit review
- prepare and implement a broodstock management plan, an aquatic animal health plan,
and a contingency plan for responding to emergencies
- prepare, obtain federal approval for, and comply with an operating plan that uses
recognized best management practices to ensure good husbandry, biosecurity, predator
control, and maintenance practices that minimize the number and frequency of escapes,
disease outbreaks, noise impacts, and entanglements
- prepare, obtain federal approval for, and comply with a monitoring plan to meet all
monitoring and reporting requirements, including reports of escapes, disease outbreaks,
drug or chemical applications, nutrient discharges, and other environmental monitoring as
required by NOAA or other federal agencies
- incorporate environmentally efficient and responsible management practices that limit
inputs and waste discharges into the environment from drugs, chemicals, feeds, etc.
- allow regular inspection of facilities by authorized officers
- provide, upon request, evidence of compliance with applicable laws, including those
governing use of drugs and feeds and other operational details that are under the
jurisdiction of other agencies
- provide evidence of an assurance bond to address facility removal and site remediation
- safely remove facilities and organisms once operations end and, to the extent necessary
and practicable, restore environmental conditions of the site
- ensure the safety of human life at sea
CA received 08/18/25
EXHIBIT RI06
June 2011
12
Goal 6. Approval process – Management decisions for aquaculture operations in federal
waters are made in an efficient and transparent manner that produces timely, unbiased,
and scientifically based decisions.
NOAA will achieve this goal by:
- implementing efficient, coordinated, transparent, and timely processes for science-based
permit review and issuance and making easily understood information about the
permitting process and requirements available on the agency’s website
- reducing regulatory uncertainty and minimizing unnecessary regulatory burden on
individuals, private or public organizations, or federal, state, tribal, or local governments
- coordinating permit review, approval, and enforcement, both internally and with other
federal agencies, to ensure compliance with existing regulatory requirements and to foster
an efficient and timely regulatory process
- providing public notice and opportunities for Fishery Management Council, state, tribal,
local government and stakeholder input on agency management decisions
- providing leadership in conducting periodic reviews of federal statutory and regulatory
requirements to identify gaps or overlaps in federal authority, clarify federal agency roles
and responsibilities, and develop streamlined processes for authorizing aquaculture and
enforcing regulatory requirements in federal waters, in consultation with Congress, other
federal agencies, Fishery Management Councils, and states
Goal 7. Public information – The public has an accurate understanding of sustainable
aquaculture development in federal waters and the associated environmental, social, and
economic challenges and benefits; monitoring information is readily available to the public.
NOAA will achieve this goal by:
- developing, widely disseminating, and effectively communicating regional and national
informational materials on the merits, trade-offs, technologies, species, and practices used
to conduct aquaculture in federal waters
- making publicly available – in a timely manner and in accordance with applicable
standards for transparency and confidentiality – monitoring data, results, and information
submitted by aquaculture facilities operating in federal waters, analyses of the data
reported by aquaculture operators in federal waters, and the results of research conducted
by NOAA and others
- communicating to the public, through extension or other outreach services, new research
findings, particularly those from local research and demonstration projects
CA received 08/18/25
EXHIBIT RI06
Appendix B
CA received 08/18/25
EXHIBIT RI06
December 2011 http://aquaculture.noaa.gov
NOAA’s National Shellfish Initiative
The goal of the National Shellfish Initiative is to increase shellfish aquaculture for commercial
and restoration purposes, thereby stimulating coastal economies and improving ecosystem
health. The focus is on bivalves or mollusks, not on crustaceans. This initiative will help meet
the growing demand for seafood while creating jobs, restoring depleted species, conserving
habitat for important commercial, recreational, and endangered fish species, improving water
quality, and stabilizing and protecting coastlines.
Overview of the National Shellfish Initiative
Put simply, this initiative recognizes the broad suite of benefits provided by shellfish
aquaculture and aims to increase shellfish production and wild shellfish populations in U.S.
coastal and marine waters. To that end, NOAA – in collaboration with public and private
partners – will focus on a limited number of actions under each of the following five topics:
1. Enhanced shellfish restoration and farming – Support the authorization of shellfish
sanctuaries/restoration sites and additional aquaculture permits/leases that are aligned
with the twofold goal of providing environmental and economic benefits; build hatchery
capacity to supply seed for commercial shellfish production and public/private
restoration projects; and develop innovative culture and post‐harvest processing
methods.
2. Research on environmental effects – Conduct research on the interactions between
shellfish and the environment in terms of climate change, ocean acidification, naturally
occurring pathogens and parasites, and other factors; gather data needed to assess and
refine restoration strategies and priorities; examine synergies with the shellfish industry.
3. Streamlined permitting – Improve coordination among federal agencies to facilitate
timely permitting of shellfish farms and restoration projects; develop model permit
processes; participate in reissuance of Army Corps of Engineers’ Nationwide Permit 48
for commercial shellfish aquaculture.
CA received 08/18/25
EXHIBIT RI06
December 2011 http://aquaculture.noaa.gov
Overview of NOAA’sNational Shellfish Initiative, cont’d
4. Spatial planning – Engage in local and regional planning efforts to site commercial
shellfish production and shellfish restoration projects. This will include engaging with
the Regional Planning Bodies that carry out coastal and marine spatial planning under
the National Ocean Policy.
5. Innovative financing – Develop indicators that “monetize” ecosystem services provided
by shellfish aquaculture, such as nutrient reduction and carbon sequestration.
(Payments for ecosystem services, were they available, may spur participation in both
commercial and restoration aquaculture.)
NOAA is seeking to leverage its existing staff, science knowledge and capabilities, regulatory
authorities, and grant programs in partnership with others to implement the Initiative. An
internal staff work group led by the NMFS Office of Aquaculture (with participation from
several NMFS headquarters and regional offices, NOAA science centers, and the National Sea
Grant Program office) is coordinating NOAA’s efforts. To identify priorities and specific
opportunities, this staff group is
reaching out to industry participants, restoration groups, states, and others;
reviewing recommendations provided by the National Shellfisheries Association and the
East Coast Shellfish Growers Association based on recent surveys of their membership;
reviewing research priorities and restoration strategies identified by industry
associations, restoration NGOs, and others;
reviewing topics and priorities for upcoming NOAA grant competitions (budget
permitting); and
reaching out to other DOC (e.g., Economic Development Administration) and federal
agencies (e.g., USDA and NSF) to identify and coordinate grant opportunities to support
the Initiative.
For more information:
National
Dr. Michael Rubino, Director, NOAA’s Office of Aquaculture, (301) 427‐8325
Chris Botnick, Outreach Coordinator, NOAA’s Office of Aquaculture, (301) 427‐8325
Northwest
Dr. Laura Hoberecht, NOAA’s Northwest Regional Aquaculture Coordinator, (206) 526‐4453
Southeast
Dr. Jess Beck, NOAA’s Southeast Regional Aquaculture Coordinator, (727) 551‐5755
Northeast
David Alves, NOAA’s Northeast Regional Aquaculture Coordinator, (978) 281‐9210
Southwest
Diane Windham, NOAA’s Southwest Regional Aquaculture Coordinator, (916) 930‐3619
CA received 08/18/25
EXHIBIT RI06
Appendix C
CA received 08/18/25
EXHIBIT RI06
WASHINGTON SHELLFISH INITIATIVE
The Washington State Shellfish Initiative is a convergence of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration’s (NOAA) National Shellfish Initiative and the State’s interest in promoting a critical
clean water industry. While the initiative supports Governor Gregoire’s goal of a “dig-able” Puget
Sound by 2020, it also encompasses the extraordinary value of shellfish resources on the coast. As
envisioned, the initiative will protect and enhance a resource that is important for jobs, industry,
citizens and tribes.
Overview
Washington State is taking additional action to protect and enhance shellfish resources. This effort
supports the long-term goal of abundant shellfish resources for Washington’s residents and Native
American tribes, as well as a thriving and healthy shellfish aquaculture industry. As an outcome of
the 2007 treaty rights settlement, many Puget Sound tribes are undertaking shellfish aquaculture as a
means of enhancing shellfish resources for cultural and economic gain.
We recognize and respect that shellfish aquaculture and commercial and tribal harvest of wild
shellfish resources are water-dependent uses that rely on excellent water quality. Shellfish also can
help filter and improve the quality of our marine waters thereby being part of the solution to restore
and preserve the health of endangered waters. We can have healthy marine waters and productive
shellfish beds for a growing industry, Native American tribes and for all the citizens of Washington.
The Puget Sound Partnership has targeted a net increase from 2007 to 2020 of 10,800 harvestable
shellfish acres, which includes 7,000 acres where harvest is currently prohibited in Puget Sound.
However, the recent shellfish downgrade in Samish Bay is a reminder of the constant vigilance
needed by landowners, businesses and local, state, federal and tribal governments to protect and
restore shellfish beds. Such efforts also are required on the coast where there is considerable
opportunity to enhance shellfish resources.
To restore and expand shellfish resources, Washington must renew its protection, restoration and
enhancement efforts. These efforts will pay off in increased recreation, additional clean water jobs,
and a healthier Puget Sound and coastal marine waters.
Shellfish: Jobs and Economic Opportunity
Shellfish are critical to the health of Washington’s marine waters and the state’s economy.
Washington leads the country in production of farmed clams, oysters and mussels with an annual
value of over $107 million. Washington shellfish growers directly and indirectly employ over 3,200
people and provide an estimated total economic contribution of $270 million. Surveys from the early
2000’s indicate shellfish growers are the largest private employer in Pacific County and the second
largest in Mason County. In just those two counties, they generate over $27 million annually in
payroll. In addition, there is ceremonial and subsistence harvest in Puget Sound and coastal waters
that tribes consider invaluable and unquantifiable.
Bivalves coming from Washington’s cool clean waters are prized as some of the best in the world.
This reputation has ensured that domestic and international demand for them has long exceeded
CA received 08/18/25
EXHIBIT RI06
supply. This strong demand has fostered continued growth of shellfish production and hiring even
during the current economic downturn. Implementation of the NOAA’s National Shellfish Initiative
in Washington will enable shellfish aquaculture in the state to expand to meet the demand for quality
shellfish providing critical new jobs in rural Western Washington.
Annually, tourists and residents purchase over 300,000 licenses to harvest clams and oysters from
Washington waters, providing more than $3.3 million in state revenues. WDFW conservatively
estimates that the 125,000 shellfish harvesting trips made each year to Puget Sound beaches provide
a net economic value of $5.4 million to the region. On Washington’s coast, an average of 244,000
digger trips are made each season to harvest razor clams contributing an estimated $22 million value
to the coastal economies.
Shellfish Initiative
1. Create a Public/Private Partnership for Shellfish Aquaculture
Federal, state and local model permitting program. Provide unified state leadership from
state natural resource agencies by identifying a shellfish aquaculture coordinating lead for the
state and a lead in each agency. Use the Governor’s Office of Regulatory Assistance (ORA) to
facilitate the state team. Formalize clear and efficient coordination among state and federal
agencies, tribes and local governments for permitting and licensing. Develop and implement a
Model Permitting Program that ensures early and continued coordination from all parties, with
an operational agreement that commits all parties to see each project through from beginning to
end. The goal of the program is to develop a consistent process for improved timeliness of
permit decisions while ensuring regulatory compliance. The process will address tribal
notification and consultation protocols. The process also will address opportunities for early and
ongoing dialogue with permittees and others. The Model Permitting Program will be based on
existing, successful programs like the MAP Team (Multi-Agency Permitting) which has a proven
record of promoting coordinated decision making. The permitting team has initiated work on a
draft operational agreement.
Continue vital shellfish aquaculture research. Sustain research on key issues related to
aquaculture management and planning. Seek opportunities to partner with NOAA, Washington
Sea Grant, USGS and others to build on existing programs and to build our understanding of
shellfish and aquaculture in the Pacific Northwest. Priority should be given to research on
geoduck aquaculture, the role of shellfish in nutrient cycling and other aspects of ecosystem
services provided by shellfish. New research projects include:
The Jamestown S’Klallam Tribe recently received their state 401 Water Quality Certification
for a new geoduck farm which includes a significant monitoring component for evaluating
potential impacts to adjacent eelgrass beds. The data from this monitoring will help improve
understanding of the relationship between farms and eelgrass.
Washington Sea Grant will provide $79,198 over two years to support development of a
model that will serve as an innovative tool to assess the risk of toxic blooms in Puget Sound.
WSG-funded research will study the cyst stage of the toxic algae Alexandrium catenella,
responsible for paralytic shellfish poisoning, and evaluate the effectiveness of using cyst
mapping as a tool for early warning of bloom events in Puget Sound.
Washington Sea Grant will host a public symposium to share latest scientific research findings
on shellfish production effects on the environment. The meeting will explore the scientific
CA received 08/18/25
EXHIBIT RI06
basis for management decisions to balance competing land use interests, environmental
protection and coastal development needs
Implement pilots. Implement pilot projects and use the Model Permitting Program to
determine permitting efficiency, practicality and regulatory compliance (e.g., habitat protection).
Potential pilots include a Washington Department of Natural Resources (DNR) lease site and
North Sound restoration projects in bays like Sequim, Similk and Fidalgo.
Improve guidance for local shoreline master programs. Increase local government and
public understanding and application of the new shellfish provisions in State Shoreline
Guidelines (Chapter 173-26 WAC). The Department of Ecology (Ecology) will publish an
aquaculture Shoreline Master Program Handbook section with special emphasis on geoduck
aquaculture and net pen operations, update its aquaculture web resources to make them more
comprehensive, and provide direct technical assistance and training to local governments. The
guidance will address regulatory and technical assistance to protect against habitat impacts and
planning to minimize conflicts with adjoining shoreline owners and other marine water users.
Review of shellfish ecosystem services. U.S. Geological Survey will conduct a review of
available filter feeding models to quantitatively evaluate the capacity of cultivated shellfish to
mitigate nitrogen pollution in Puget Sound. This work will be informed by NOAA research. If
appropriate and feasible, Ecology will explore the possibility of implementing a nitrogen credit
system using shellfish for pollution reduction. The credit system could stimulate new shellfish
culture and jobs as well as identifying the role of shellfish in reducing nitrogen discharges.
2. Promote Native Shellfish Restoration and Recreational Shellfish Harvest
Restore native shellfish. Native shellfish restoration efforts will focus on two species: native
Olympia oysters and pinto abalone.
Olympia oysters:
Restore 19 historic, large, Puget Sound natural oyster beds and associated local ecosystems
by 2022.
Direct a $200,000 NOAA grant to the Northwest Straits Commission for Olympia oyster
restoration in the North Sound.
Revise and update Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife’s (WDFW) 1998 Native
Oyster Rebuilding Plan by December 31, 2011. Share the revised plan with NOAA for
inclusion in the national Oyster Restoration Plan. WDFW’s standardized metrics will be
used to determine success.
Increase collaboration with NOAA for assistance in funding and facilitating Olympia oyster
research and restoration efforts conducted by WDFW, Puget Sound Restoration Fund
(PSRF), tribal co-managers, shellfish growers and other partners.
NOAA is planning to host a hatchery breeding program for native oysters to increase seed
production that meets established genetic conservation guidelines.
Pinto abalone:
Use a $560,000 federal grant awarded by NOAA to WDFW in September to bolster the
number of pinto abalone. The program aims to re-establish a self-sustaining population of
pinto abalone without ESA protections. The NOAA-funded research, coupled with
CA received 08/18/25
EXHIBIT RI06
continued state funding, will advance abalone restoration efforts by developing hatchery and
nursery programs for captive propagation and rearing. Priority abalone actions will be
conducted by WDFW, Puget Sound Restoration Fund, University of Washington and non-
profit organizations.
Enhance recreational shellfish harvest. Improve and increase public access to shellfish on
public tidelands for tribal and recreational harvest through signage, maps, acquisition and other
efforts.
Create public support for shellfish initiative. Leverage Washington State Parks to engage the
public in the initiative.
Washington Sea Grant will lead the state agencies and partners through a simple planning
process to develop shellfish-related messages, publicize events, and otherwise develop
materials to make connections between clean water, our region’s shellfish resources and jobs.
State Parks will conduct shellfish interpretive programs and events to help forge personal
connections between clean, productive Puget Sound waters, the shellfish we eat, and the
iconic role shellfish occupy in Washington’s cultural and culinary identity. State Parks will
collaborate with other public/tribal/private interests and help promote support of public
lands and the Discover Pass program.
3. Ensure Clean Water to Protect and Enhance Shellfish Beds
Direct $4.5 million in Environmental Protection Agency funding to protect and improve
water quality to meet state standards in commercial, recreational and tribal shellfish
growing areas. Funds will be used to help reach the Puget Sound Partnership’s shellfish
indicator target of upgrading 10,800 acres of harvestable shellfish beds by 2020. The
Department of Health (DOH) and Ecology are managing this new funding, which includes the
following:
More than $2 million to help local governments create sustainable pollution identification and
correction (PIC) programs. These programs will be designed to identify and address pathogen
and nutrient pollution from a variety of nonpoint sources, including on-site sewage systems,
farm animals, pets, sewage from boats and stormwater runoff. Counties being offered funding
pending negotiations are San Juan, Thurston, Pierce, Skagit and Kitsap, as well as the Hood
Canal Coordinating Council, the consortium of counties and tribes that encompass the Hood
Canal.
More than $1 million to help local health jurisdictions carry out onsite sewage system
management plans that inventory, inspect, and fix failing on-site sewage systems in Marine
Recovery Areas and other areas sensitive to pathogen pollution.
$1.5 million to reduce pathogen and nutrient loading by improving manure management in
those areas with PIC programs. The fund will pay for eligible agricultural best management
practices, including livestock exclusion fencing, off-stream watering, and livestock feeding.
Interested land owners must work through a conservation district local government, tribe or
other governmental entity. Some of this work can be implemented by putting the newly
created Sound Corps to work.
Increase local government understanding and application of practices for controlling
pathogens, consistent with Chapter 173-201 WAC. Ecology will provide guidance on nonpoint
source BMPs consistent with state water quality standards as well as training to local
governments to ensure that PIC programs and federal funding implement these standards.
CA received 08/18/25
EXHIBIT RI06
Develop economically viable strategies to address impacts from stormwater and wastewater
treatment outfalls, which are a significant factor for shellfish bed prohibitions.
Improve shellfish growing area protection and restoration efforts. Additional efforts are
needed at all levels of government to improve water quality protections for shellfish growing
areas. Two immediate steps are to:
Form an EPA and state (i.e., Ecology, DOH, Washington State Department of Agriculture)
“pollution action team” to respond quickly when water quality problems are identified that
threaten to shellfish areas. The team will focus in priority areas and support PIC programs
where established. The team will work with technical staff from affected tribes with treaty
reserved rights. Services provided by the team include pollution identification, inspections,
enforcement, flyovers and technical assistance, consistent with guidance provided for use of
federal funds. The team will focus initially in Drayton Harbor and Portage Bay. There has been
a long struggle to protect the community shellfish beds in Drayton Harbor, and there are
growing concerns over tribal resources in Portage Bay. The Whatcom Conservation District
will be a key local partner in working with the state and federal pollution action team.
Take steps to address ocean acidification. Conduct research and develop recommendations to
understand, monitor, mitigate and adapt to acidification in Puget Sound and Washington waters.
Convene a Blue Ribbon Panel on Ocean Acidification including scientific experts, the relevant
agencies and stakeholders to develop clear, actionable recommendations on understanding,
monitoring, adapting and mitigating ocean acidification in Puget Sound and Washington
waters.
A new Washington Sea Grant research project will investigate the effects on Pacific oysters of
exposure to natural water seawater that contains a high level of carbon dioxide. It will also
explore new breeding programs for enhancing the tolerance of farmed Pacific oysters to higher
CO2 seawater. Washington Sea Grant will provide $112,693 over two years (2012−14) for the
project, building on 2010−13 funding of $478,082 and a total four-year investment of $590,785
to address ocean acidification impacts on shellfish resources.
Work with boaters to address potential pollution impacts.
Strategically administer the Clean Vessel Program. The State Parks and Recreation
Commission will target Clean Vessel Act grants toward marinas where significant recreational,
commercial and tribal shellfish resources are harvested. These grants will fund the
construction, renovation, operations and maintenance of boat pump-out stations and waste
reception facilities for recreational boaters. State Parks will partner with the Washington Sea
Grant, DNR and other entities on educational outreach to marinas and boaters that will
publicize these pump-out locations and the need for their use.
Complete No Discharge Zone Assessment. Ecology will complete an assessment needed to
establish a No Discharge Zone, which would ban sewage disposal from commercial and
recreational vessels for all or parts of Puget Sound.
CA received 08/18/25
EXHIBIT RI06
Appendix D
CA received 08/18/25
EXHIBIT RI06
Washingtonians make hundreds of thousands of trips each year to the coast to harvest razor clams. Tribes have
harvested shellfish for generations upon generations, feeding their communities with healthy protein from
Puget Sound and coastal shores. The shellfish industry is a foundation of Western Washington’s rural economy
and an integral part of our state’s heritage.
Indeed, Washington leads the nation in farmed shellfish production, with approximately 10,500 metric tons of
oysters, clams and mussels harvested in 2013. In recent years, this yield contributed $184 million in economic
benefits. Washington shellfish growers employed more than 1,900 employees and created 810 indirect and
induced jobs across the state.
Our shellfish — a well-deserved source of pride for local growers — are sought by consumers around the world.
Shellfish are also a key part of our marine ecosystems, providing habitat and helping filter and cleanse water. For
all these reasons, shellfish are an extraordinary state resource.
The Washington Shellfish Initiative
Thousands of acres of shellfish beds that are closed due to
pollution need to be cleaned up, and at least two native
shellfish species that are either significantly diminished
(Olympia oysters) or imperiled (pinto abalone) need to be
restored.
To accomplish these actions, Washington must renew its
protection, restoration and enhancement work as well as
expand public education on the importance of our shellfish
resources. These efforts will pay off in more recreation
opportunities, additional clean water jobs, and healthier
coastal marine waters and Puget Sound.
The Washington Shellfish Initiative is an innovative
partnership among state government, federal government,
tribes, the shellfish industry and nonprofit organizations
to promote clean water commerce, create family-wage
jobs and elevate the role that shellfish play in keeping our
marine waters healthy.
Launched originally in 2011 following the National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration’s National Shellfish
Initiative, Governor Jay Inslee is launching the second phase
of the initiative in January 2016.
January 2016
WASHINGTON SHELLFISH INITIATIVE
Jay Inslee
Governor
CA received 08/18/25
EXHIBIT RI06
A history of accomplishments
Through solving water pollution problems, 2,429 acres
of commercial shellfish beds have been opened in
Oakland Bay (Mason County), Quartermaster Harbor
(King County), Belfair (Mason County), Kingston (Kitsap
County) and Dungeness Bay (Clallam County) in just the
past four years.
In May 2014, NOAA and the Puget Sound Restoration
Fund opened a native shellfish restoration hatchery
to grow baby Olympia oysters and pinto abalone. This
hatchery sets the stage for larger-scale restoration of
native species.
The Washington State Blue Ribbon Panel on Ocean
Acidification created a comprehensive strategy for
addressing ocean acidification in Washington’s marine
waters.
Governor Inslee and the Legislature created the Marine
Resource Advisory Council and the Washington Ocean
Acidification Center to advance this strategy. Washington
is leading the nation — and garnering international
attention — in addressing ocean acidification.
The Shellfish Interagency Permitting team developed
instructions for permit applications and mapped out
the permitting steps to assist applicants and permit
reviewers in navigating the permitting process.
The Clean Vessel Program paid for the replacement
and installation of sewage pumpouts for boaters at 31
locations around Puget Sound and on the coast, which
prevents sewage from polluting our waters.
Washington State Parks, along with a number of
community partners, hosted six ShellFest events, which
connected communities with the unique shellfish
resources on their shorelines.
Phase II goals
The Washington Shellfish Initiative advances our goals of healthy, abundant shellfish resources for a thriving shellfish
aquaculture industry, tribal ceremonial and subsistence harvest, and recreational harvest. By cleaning our waters,
improving permitting processes and restoring native shellfish, we strengthen local economies and create more
resilient, healthier coastal communities. Among the initiative’s goals are:
»Ensuring clean water.
»Embracing strategies to address ocean acidification’s effects on shellfish.
»Advancing shellfish research topics.
»Improving the permitting process to maintain and grow sustainable aquaculture.
»Restoring native shellfish.
»Enhancing recreational shellfish harvest.
»Educating the next generation about shellfish.
Working together through this initiative, we can grow nutritious food, clean up Puget Sound and promote this
irreplaceable resource to local communities and world markets.
For more information visit, http://bit.ly/WAshellfishinitiative.
CA received 08/18/25
EXHIBIT RI06
Appendix E
CA received 08/18/25
EXHIBIT RI06
Washingtonians make hundreds of thousands of trips each year to harvest razor clams on the coast. Tribal
governments and their people have harvested shellfish for generations upon generations, feeding their communities
with healthy protein from Puget Sound and coastal shores. The shellfish industry is a foundation of Western
Washington’s rural economy and an important part of our state’s heritage. Washington leads the nation in farmed
shellfish production with approximately 10,500 metric tons of oysters, clams and mussels in 2013, which generated
approximately $184 million in total economic contribution, of which almost $92 million was direct revenue from the
industry. Washington shellfish growers also directly employed more than 1,900 employees and created more than
810 indirect and induced jobs across the state. Our shellfish are sought by consumers around the world and are a
well-deserved source of pride for local growers. Shellfish are also a key part of our marine ecosystems, providing
habitat and helping filter and cleanse water. For all of these reasons, shellfish are an extraordinary resource to
Washington state.
The Washington Shellfish Initiative began in late 2011. The first state initiative in the nation, it was launched on the
heels of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s National Shellfish Initiative. This effort supports the
long-term goal of enhancing shellfish resources in coastal waters. Much has been accomplished through the
Washington Shellfish Initiative, including water quality improvements to support recreational, tribal ceremonial,
subsistence, commercial and nontribal commercial harvest, a new native shellfish restoration hatchery, cutting-edge
science to monitor ocean acidification and an assessment of the state aquaculture permitting process.
The goals laid out in the Washington Shellfish Initiative from 2011 are ambitious and vital to the long-term and
sustained health of shellfish resources and the marine ecosystem. While important steps have been taken in the past
four years, we need to continue advancing these goals to ensure clean water; address ocean acidification; establish
predictable, timely and protective permitting processes; restore native shellfish to the nearshore habitat; and educate
and engage communities about shellfish resources and protecting water quality.
The following work plan describes the next steps in advancing toward these Washington Shellfish Initiative goals. It
outlines plans, partners and timelines to map our future.
GOAL 1: ENSURE CLEAN WATER TO PROTECT AND RESTORE SHELLFISH GROWING AREAS IN
PUGET SOUND AND ON THE COAST 1.
1.1 Support sustainable local nonpoint source pollution control programs and strategies. (DOH,
ECY, WSCC, WSDA)
Protect shellfish beds in counties with significant shellfish resources. Recognize the extensive
economic and tribal cultural importance of the state’s shellfish harvest and that it is more cost
effective to protect healthy resources than to restore them once they are polluted.
Restore shellfish beds where there is a significant number of shellfish acres that have been
downgraded due to pollution originating in contributing watersheds and that need to be
recovered for commercial, ceremonial, subsistence and recreational purposes. (DOH National
Estuary Program Pathogen Grant Implementation Strategy provides a framework for protecting
and restoring shellfish growing areas. See Page 38 for a table of restoration efforts by growing
area. Note that growing areas downgraded after 2012, such as Portage Bay, are not listed.)
Advance the goals of protecting and restoring shellfish growing areas through the Results
Washington 2 goals and processes, in addition to a broad range of local, state, federal, tribal,
nonprofit and citizen-based efforts.
1 Throughout this document, the term “coast,” in the context of locations, refers to Willapa Bay, Grays Harbor and the
outer coast –Washington’s Pacific shoreline.
Washington Shellfish Initiative – Phase II Work Plan
CA received 08/18/25
EXHIBIT RI06
a) Support comprehensive, sustainable pollution identification and correction (PIC) programs in
the 14 counties3 that have shellfish growing areas. Evaluate PIC programs by identifying what
it takes for effective coordination, identifying best practices for source identification,
correcting the pollution problems identified as necessary to meet water quality standards,
including National Shellfish Sanitation Program (NSSP)4 standards over shellfish growing
areas, identifying sources of sustainable and supplemental grant funding, and addressing
barriers that reduce the effectiveness of local and multi-agency efforts. (DOH)
b) Develop and implement effective total maximum daily load water cleanup plans (TMDLs) or
a straight to implementation (STI) plans for fecal coliform bacteria in watersheds with
shellfish growing areas. (ECY)
Identify and implement strategies to address outer coast beach bacterial sources along
North Beach in Grays Harbor County, including: 1) outreach and education to improve
understanding of water quality problems; 2) increase capacity of local jurisdiction to
address wastewater infrastructure improvements; and 3) implement appropriate best
management practices.
Revisit TMDLs in the watersheds such as the Lower Nooksack River and Samish and
update implementation plans based on new information and data.
c) Support the development of strong sustainable, on-site sewage management programs in
Puget Sound and on the coast by implementing the Puget Sound Septic Financing Advisory
Committee’s recommendations to:
Pursue agency request legislation to provide a sustainable funding source for local on-site
sewage management programs, which may include PIC work for the Puget Sound.
(DOH)
DOH, Ecology and local health jurisdictions will work together to create a regional, low-
interest loan program to help system owners repair and replace failing systems for the
Puget Sound and the coast through Ecology’s water quality combined funding program.
(DOH, ECY)
Pursue other recommendations of the advisory committee when alternative approaches
are needed.
d) Implement agricultural land use pollution reduction strategies to maximize implementation
and maintenance of best management practices (BMPs) to meet water quality standards,
including National Shellfish Sanitation Program (NSSP) standards at shellfish growing areas.
(WSCC, WSDA, ECY, DOH) Use the Results Washington process to open shellfish acreage
by conducting analyses of current efforts and addressing barriers to develop strategic,
effective approaches that result in meeting water quality standards, including the achievement
of NSSP standards in shellfish growing areas.
2 Results Washington is Governor Inslee’s data-driven continuous improvement system for state government. Using
Lean tools, Results Washington works to make government more efficient, effective and transparent. The Shellfish
Coordination Group was formed as part of the Sustainable Energy & Clean Environment goal. This group focuses on
the Governor’s goal of restoring and protecting approved shellfish growing areas by 1) assessing what’s truly going on;
2) identifying barriers towards progress; and 3) bringing state agencies together to address those barriers.
3 Counties with shellfish growing areas are Clallam, Grays Harbor, Island, Jefferson, King, Kitsap, Mason, Pacific,
Pierce, San Juan Skagit, Snohomish, Thurston and Whatcom.
4 The National Shellfish Sanitation Program (NSSP) is the federal/state cooperative program recognized by the U. S.
Food and Drug Administration and the Interstate Shellfish Sanitation Conference for the sanitary control of shellfish
produced and sold for human consumption. The NSSP water quality standard for approved shellfish growing waters is a
fecal coliform geometric mean not greater than 14 organisms/100 mL with an estimated 90th percentile not greater than
43 organisms/100 mL.
CA received 08/18/25
EXHIBIT RI06
Each agency providing funding to implement agriculture BMPs to protect water quality
affecting shellfish beds will, consistent with Results Washington process outcomes, a)
report on the BMPs implemented and funds spent in Puget Sound and coastal
communities, and b) collaborate to maximize landowner participation in programs to
gain broad compliance with water quality standards including NSSP standards in
shellfish growing areas.
Seek funding for additional technical assistance and implementation costs.
Evaluate current and past pollution reduction strategies and funding programs to
determine what is effective, what is not effective and why. Coordinate across federal,
tribal, state and local partners. Use results to inform future strategies.
› Efforts will focus initially on the Samish and Nooksack watersheds as long-term water
quality efforts have not resulted in sufficient and sustained water quality
improvements.
Identify an agreed-upon approach to develop PIC guidance on nonpoint source BMPs
that prevent pollution, achieve water quality standards and maximize landowner
participation. Washington needs agreed-upon agricultural BMPs that are designed and
implemented to achieve compliance with the state water quality standards. Since 2009,
state agencies and stakeholders have worked to reach agreement on a set of BMPS that
will meet state water quality standards and ensure that NSSP standards are achieved in
shellfish growing areas. It is important for those dependent on shellfish resources in this
state that the state’s natural resource agencies, in coordination with stakeholders, resolve
this issue.
Ecology is starting a process to develop guidance that identifies BMPs and combinations
of BMPs that, if implemented by an agricultural producer and operated and maintained
correctly, can provide certainty that it is protecting water quality and meeting the state’s
water quality standards. (ECY)
Conduct a detailed survey on the coast to identify where agricultural activities are
occurring, evaluate resource impacts, assess where nonpoint source pollution programs
are working effectively and where not, and then develop and implement outreach.
(WSCC)
Implement the Voluntary Stewardship Program (VSP) in the opt-in counties of Grays
Harbor, Mason, Pacific, San Juan, Skagit and Thurston and encourage counties to
address nonpoint sources of pollution while addressing critical areas under VSP to assist
with shellfish/water quality protection. (WSCC)
Seek input from Ecology’s Agriculture Water Quality Committee on strategies developed
under this section.
1.2 Advance efforts to ensure manure land-application practices do not negatively impact water
quality. (WSDA, WSCC, ECY, EPA)
a) Develop and advance options to eliminate unplanned and improper application of manure to
agricultural lands. (WSDA, WSCC, ECY)
b) Develop more economic opportunities for dairies and other livestock owners to manage
manure as a commodity. (WSDA)
c) Issue an updated concentrated animal feeding operation permit in 2016 to meet water quality
standards and expedite the permit process. (ECY)
CA received 08/18/25
EXHIBIT RI06
d) Coordinate state agency efforts to enhance the ability of operators and applicators to get real-
time weather information. (WSCC, CDs)
e) Develop a targeted, coordinated education and outreach program for small-acreage livestock
property owners. (WSCC, ECY, WSDA)
f) Develop an education and certification program for all land applicators of manure (operators
and third-party applicators) and provide incentives for operators to become certified and/or
to only use certified applicators. (WSDA)
g) Deploy advance technologies that can continuously detect and measure bacteria in flowing
surface waters in watersheds where shellfish beds are impacted by water quality. (EPA)
h) Collaborate with local watershed partnerships to monitor water quality and identify manure
land application practices that threaten surface water. Follow up with land applicators to
provide education and technical assistance and, when necessary, take appropriate
enforcement actions. (WSDA)
1.3 Develop a proactive approach to limit preventable pollution sources from vessels and
recreational activities. (ECY, Parks)
a) Evaluate the appropriateness and feasibility of establishing a no discharge zone in all parts of
Puget Sound to protect water quality and public health. (ECY)
b) Develop a strategy for commercial vessels and install more commercial pump-out facilities.
(ECY)
c) Develop an implementation/outreach strategy for the no discharge zone designation. (ECY)
d) Continue clean vessel program focused in shellfish growing areas. (Parks)
e) Assess, prioritize, install and maintain toilet facilities in key areas to protect shellfish
resources. (WDFW, Parks, other partners depending on location)
1.4 Support strategies to reduce sewer and stormwater outfalls to waters of the state. (DNR)
DNR, in collaboration with ECY, DOH and PSP, will implement an outfall and effluent
reduction strategy to reduce impacts to state-owned aquatic lands and associated resources from
sewer and stormwater discharges. The strategy will focus on greater participation in the National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System process by DNR; identification and prioritization of
impacts to sediments and natural resources such as aquatic vegetation and shellfish; and
alternatives to discharging wastewater and stormwater to improve water quality.
1.5 Coordinate and convene workshop(s) focused on contaminants in shellfish with agencies,
researchers, tribal governments and stakeholders. (WDFW)
a) Identify available data and information relating to contaminants in shellfish.
b) Identify data gaps and prioritize needed information, including geographic areas where
information is lacking.
c) Identify potential resources, collaborative opportunities and funding sources to support
further information and data gathering.
CA received 08/18/25
EXHIBIT RI06
1.6 Ensure that oil spill planning and preparedness protect Puget Sound and coast shellfish
resources through better coordination and collaboration among agencies, tribal governments
and industry. (ECY, NOAA, PSI, WSG, DOH, WDFW)
a) Improve the identification of shellfish areas in the resources at risk sections of geographic
response plans (GRPs) and in other relevant mapping tools such as ERMA®−
(Environmental Response Management Application) and the state’s coastal atlas by
developing standardized language for shellfish for inclusion in GRPs and links to appropriate
GIS layers for shellfish growing and harvest areas and for culturally significant areas to the
tribal governments. (ECY)
b) Generate and distribute a “how to” guide to increase registration of shellfish growers and
tribal fishers/enforcement personnel in the vessels of opportunity program. (ECY)
c) Encourage participation by shellfish growers and tribal governments in northwest area
contingency planning processes so area plans address shellfish-specific responses. (ECY)
d) Increase the availability of HAZWOPER (Hazardous Waste Operations and Emergency
Response) and incident command system training for shellfish growers and tribal
governments to improve knowledge of spill response fundamentals (funding dependent).
(PSI, WSG, ECY)
e) Include tribal governments and shellfish growers in oil spill response drills as appropriate.
Conduct at least one oil spill response drill within a geographic area including one or more
shellfish beds by 2017. (ECY)
f) Establish a plan for baseline monitoring of shellfish in vicinity of a spill, including early
notification to area shellfish harvesters by agency staff to collect samples before contaminated
by oil. (DOH, WDFW, ECY)
g) Determine training options for local sensory panel experts for post-spill testing hosted by
NOAA’s Office of International Affairs and Seafood Inspection. (NOAA)
h) Clarify the protocol to request support from sensory experts and share sensory panel results
from federal to state agencies in a timely manner. (NOAA)
GOAL 2: EMBRACE STRATEGIES TO ADDRESS OCEAN ACIDIFICATION’S IMPACT ON SHELLFISH.
Strategies to address ocean acidification – Implement key early action recommendations from the
Blue Ribbon Panel (ECY)
In 2012, the Washington State Blue Ribbon Panel on Ocean Acidification recommended 42 actions
that established a comprehensive strategy for addressing ocean acidification in Washington. The
Marine Resources Advisory Council (MRAC) was created to advance these recommended actions,
and works in collaboration with the Washington Ocean Acidification Center at the University of
Washington and others to support ocean acidification research. MRAC will ensure on-the-ground
implementation of the panel’s comprehensive strategy by evaluating, coordinating, advocating and
communicating about actions being done in Washington. MRAC will work with stakeholders,
policymakers and tribal governments, many of whom are already working to address ocean
acidification impacts to their communities and way of life. Over the next few years, MRAC will:
2.1 Monitor and investigate ocean acidification impacts in Washington:
a) Continue monitoring of ocean acidification conditions, helping to inform hatchery conditions
and management of growing areas (related to Blue Ribbon Panel actions 6.2.1; 7.1.1; 7.2.1;
7.3.2; 7.4.1).
CA received 08/18/25
EXHIBIT RI06
b) Conduct biological experiments to understand the effects of ocean acidification on marine
species (related to Blue Ribbon Panel actions 7.1.1; 7.2.1; 7.3.2; 7.4.1).
c) Develop and refine forecast models of ocean acidification (related to Blue Ribbon Panel
actions 7.1.1; 7.2.1; 7.3.2; 7.4.1).
d) Continue support for the Washington Ocean Acidification Center at the University of
Washington to provide leadership on ocean acidification research (related to Blue Ribbon
Panel actions 9.1.1; 9.1.2).
e) Develop a local source attribution model to understand how local sources of nutrients and
carbon impact ocean acidification (related to Blue Ribbon Panel action 7.2.1).
2.2 Understand how local, land-based contributions affect ocean acidification by:
a) Providing support to water quality programs that reduce nutrient and organic carbon loading
(related to Blue Ribbon Panel actions 5.1.1; 5.1.2).
b) When modeling tools are complete, evaluate programs and activities that can minimize
impacts of local contributions to ocean acidification (related to Blue Ribbon Panel actions
5.2.1; 5.2.2).
2.3 Coordinate implementation and evaluation of adaptation and remediation strategies by
supporting efforts to:
a) Implement a test seaweed cultivation and collection program (related to Blue Ribbon Panel
action 6.1.1).
b) Restore native oyster populations that may improve resilience to ocean acidification (related
to Blue Ribbon Panel actions 6.3.3; 6.3.4).
c) Apply multiple remediation strategies in specific locations or test areas to evaluate
effectiveness of strategies in addressing ocean acidification impacts (related to Blue Ribbon
Panel action 6.3.2).
d) Research the capacity for genetic adaptation to ocean acidification in important marine
species (related to Blue Ribbon Panel action 6.3.5).
2.4 Increase the visibility and understanding of ocean acidification across Washington through
outreach and education by supporting efforts to:
a) Incorporate ocean acidification science curriculum into the Next Generation Science
Standards (related to Blue Ribbon Panel actions 8.2.1; 8.2.2).
b) Organize and support events and conferences focused on ocean acidification and its impacts
(related to Blue Ribbon Panel action 8.1.2).
c) Target use of outreach and social marketing to increase understanding of ocean acidification
impacts and strengthen Washington’s capacity for adapting, reducing harm locally and
engaging partners to develop solutions (related to Blue Ribbon Panel actions 8.1.2; 8.1.3;
8.1.4; 8.2.2).
Recommendations from the Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary, which formed a joint
Intergovernmental Policy Council and Sanctuary Advisory Council Ocean Acidification Working
Group in 2013, identified the following key early actions (KEAs) from the Blue Ribbon Panel as
coastal tier 1 priorities: Actions 7.1.1; 7.3.2; 7.3.3; 8.1.2 and 9.1.2. This KEA prioritization is
accompanied in its report by the following recommendations:
Advance ocean acidification monitoring for the outer coast.
Adequate representation of the outer coast on the Washington Ocean Acidification Center
scientific advisory team.
CA received 08/18/25
EXHIBIT RI06
Conduct laboratory and field studies related to ocean acidification impacts on the outer
coast.
For the full report, visit: http://olympiccoast.noaa.gov/involved/sac/sac_actions.html.
GOAL 3: ADVANCE VITAL SHELLFISH RESEARCH.
3.1 Washington Sea Grant shellfish research projects (WSG)
Over the next four years, the National and Washington Sea Grant (WSG) programs have
committed funding for 10 research grants totaling more than $2.4 million to examine critical
issues for shellfish aquaculture such as ocean acidification, warning systems for hypoxia and
harmful algal blooms, and geoduck management. Projects will look at precautionary guidelines
for culture of native rock scallops, an innovative technology to support the recovery of the
Olympia oyster and studies to reduce early mortality.
Target dates:
New projects initiated: January 2015 and 2016
Interim reports: April 2016 and 2017
Final reports: April 2018
3.2 Federal Shellfish Research Program (NOAA)
In collaboration with other federal agencies, NOAA Fisheries will create a federal shellfish
biologist position to develop and oversee a future shellfish research program at the Kenneth K.
Chew Center for Shellfish Research and Restoration in Manchester, Washington.
Target date: October 2017
3.3 Study the effects of Washington shellfish aquaculture operations. (WSG)
WSG was funded by the Legislature to commission research examining possible negative and
positive effects, including cumulative and economic impacts of evolving Washington shellfish
aquaculture practices. The research team is using modeling approaches and available data to
complete pilot studies for Willapa Bay and central Puget Sound composed of several
components: spatial analysis, Puget Sound circulation and ecosystem models, qualitative food
web analyses and an economic synthesis.
Target dates
Interim report to Legislature: December 2014
Final report: December 2015
3.4 Create a prioritized list of shellfish research needs. (Pacific Shellfish Institute [PSI])
Target dates:
Engage the shellfish cultivation and restoration community, including tribal governments, to update the
report West Coast Research and Information Needs and Priorities
› September 2015 and March 2016
Finalize the document: June 2016
CA received 08/18/25
EXHIBIT RI06
3.5 Assess the potential effects of sea level rise on native and farmed shellfish beds in Willapa Bay
and Grays Harbor estuaries. (TNC)
SLR will deepen these estuaries and could impair shellfish farming as well as juvenile fish habitat.
The Nature Conservancy (TNC) will conduct a risk assessment based on SLR inundation
scenarios using the Sea Level Affecting Marshes Model and analyze shoreline characteristics and
uses that would impede or support migration to new spaces. Apply the results to the current
round of shoreline master program (SMP) updates in Pacific and Grays Harbor counties so
adaptation strategies can be considered.
Target dates:
Work with Ecology staff and county planners and consultants to develop the concept and its role in SMPs
for Southwest Washington: December 2014
Draft risk assessments with presentation slides and maps go to technical peers for initial review: March
2015
Review initial results with local shellfish farmers and other industry representatives: April 2015
Final assessments available for local applications: June 2015
3.6 Early warning system for harmful algal blooms (WSG, NOAA)
The Olympic Region Harmful Algal Blooms (ORHAB) Partnership on the coast and
SoundToxins in Puget Sound are important programs that help the Department of Health target
its toxin monitoring and testing to protect public health for those who harvest shellfish in our
marine waters.
SoundToxins is a diverse partnership of businesses, tribal governments and Puget Sound
residents that monitor for harmful algae in Puget Sound, managed by NOAA’s Northwest
Fisheries Science Center and WSG. It provides early warning of harmful algal bloom (HAB)
events, thereby minimizing risks to human health and reducing the economic losses to Puget
Sound fisheries. The program works with partners and scientists to determine the environmental
conditions that promote the onset and flourishing of HABs and unusual bloom events and to
document unusual bloom events and species entering the Salish Sea. SoundToxins continues to
be supported via short-term research grants from NOAA and state agencies; however, a
dedicated source of funding is needed to continue its vital role in Puget Sound.
The ORHAB partnership was founded in 1998 as a scientific collaborative among state, tribal
and federal agencies and the University of Washington, with initial support from the NOAA
Center for Sponsored Coastal Ocean Research. Its mission is to monitor plankton blooms and
the presence of toxins to advance the understanding of these important coastal processes. By
bringing together leading research scientists with state and tribal shellfish managers, ORHAB
provides a constantly improving scientific basis for making decisions about the risks of shellfish
openings. The long-term, coastwide database compiled by the ORHAB partners from sites from
Neah Bay to the Long Beach Peninsula has proved extremely useful for studying broader coastal
dynamics. The work of ORHAB’s state partners has been supported with a surcharge on sales of
state recreational shellfish licenses. Support for ORHAB’s tribal partners has become more
difficult to sustain, and additional funding is needed to continue the very beneficial role they play
in the partnership.
CA received 08/18/25
EXHIBIT RI06
Target Dates:
Identify potential funding sources for SoundToxins and ORHAB: March 2016
Secure funding: December 2016
3.7 Review and research shellfish ecosystem services (PSI)
a) Assess the influence of cultivated shellfish on localized water quality and sediment
parameters. Build on review of shellfish ecosystem services conducted by the U.S. Geological
Services during the first phase of the Washington Shellfish Initiative.
b) Provide recommendations for including shellfish cultivation in water quality trading scenarios
when a water body is listed for excess nutrients or low dissolved oxygen under section 303(d)
of the Clean Water Act.
Target dates:
Begin study: spring/summer 2015
Study completed: early 2017
Deliver NEP Reducing Nutrients in a Watershed final project report to Ecology: December 2017
3.8 Assess the economic contribution of shellfish farming and wild harvest in Washington.
a) Convene state agencies and industry to design a system to improve data collection and
sharing of information on the economics of shellfish with respect to harvest and production.
(state agencies, industry, tribal governments)
b) Convene a task group to enhance our understanding of the upstream and downstream
economic value of shellfish to build appreciation of the value-added economic components
(jobs, revenue) (WDFW) including, but not limited to:
retail sales
tourism
trade
tribal commercial
state commercial and recreational harvest
In addition, tribal governments and their citizens rely on ceremonial and subsistence shellfish
harvest. Like tribal commercial harvest, this harvest is protected through treaty rights. The
monetary value of ceremonial and subsistence harvest and associated treaty rights cannot be
quantified, but should be acknowledged by the task group.
3.9 Promote collaborative, ecosystem-based management in Willapa Bay and Grays Harbor.
Willapa Bay and Grays Harbor are complex estuarine ecosystems that support wild stocks of
finfish and Dungeness crab and a historic shellfish aquaculture industry, as well as a rich array of
other species. Management challenges at the system scale, such as SLR, ocean acidification,
nutrient and sediment transport, burrowing shrimp and Japanese eelgrass, are affecting both
natural and anthropogenic processes. Resolving these challenges requires adaptive management
and collaborative actions built on a commonly shared understanding of how the ecosystems
function, how they have changed over time and what future conditions may be like. The steps
below will promote cooperative, system-scale management by compiling and synthesizing
information and addressing important information gaps:
CA received 08/18/25
EXHIBIT RI06
a) Compile, synthesize and maintain historical data, management plans and research findings
relevant to system-scale management challenges in Willapa Bay and Grays Harbor, focusing
on how these ecosystems function, how they have changed over time and projections of
changes that can affect management options. Make the information available via a purpose-
built website. (TNC)
b) Convene resource managers, scientists and stakeholders to verify a common understanding of
the ecosystems and the top-priority management challenges in each of them, and to identify
research needs and information gaps that represent barriers to tackling the management
challenges at a system scale. (WSU Extension Pacific County with assistance from TNC)
c) Help address the needs identified in (b) by matching them with appropriate potential funding
sources, sharing the information with other participants and promoting collaborative project
proposals. (TNC with assistance from WSU Extension Pacific County and other
stakeholders)
GOAL 4: IMPROVE THE PERMITTING PROCESS TO MAINTAIN AND GROW SUSTAINABLE
AQUACULTURE.
4.1 Programmatic biological assessment for federal permitting of shellfish activities (NOAA)
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps), in consultation with the National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS) and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), will develop a programmatic
biological assessment (PBA) for Section 7 ESA consultation for common activities permitted by
the Corps associated with shellfish, planting, harvest and restoration. Use of the PBA will
increase the Section 7 consultation efficiency for applicants who meet the PBA terms and
conditions.
Target dates:
Corps initiation of consultation: fall 2015
NMFS and USFWS completion of consultation: spring 2016
Corps implementation: Immediately upon completion of Section 7 consultation
Report of permits issued with PBA: annually 2016–18
4.2 Shellfish Interagency Permit Team Phase II (NOAA, ECY)
a) Upon completion of federal PBA evaluate federal/state permitting
Target dates:
Investigate potential of programmatic permitting: April 2016
Evaluation of 2017 Nationwide Permit 48: April 2016
b) Report to Governor on Shellfish Interagency Permit Team Phase I activities, including results
and recommendations to increase efficiency of the permit process.
Target dates:
Draft report: February 2016
Final report: March 2016
Develop steps to implement recommendations: August 2016
c) Continue quarterly meetings of full Shellfish Interagency Permit Team to maintain broad
engagement with tribal, local, state and federal agencies.
Develop a communication and outreach plan: July 2016
CA received 08/18/25
EXHIBIT RI06
Evaluation of effectiveness: ongoing
Permit timelines to evaluate current and potential requirements for permit timelines:
December 2016
d) Convene Shellfish Interagency Permit Team working groups to achieve multi-agency review
of new farm permit applications.
Target dates:
Ad-hoc response to requests for new farm permit assistance: ongoing
Develop a work plan for improved implementation: August 2016
4.3 Improve guidance for local shoreline master programs for shellfish aquaculture. (ECY)
Develop Permit Writers Handbook. Guidance for local government and Ecology permit writers
on applicable laws and rules, limits and conditions, BMPs, cumulative impacts, no net loss, and
the latest information and science useful for administering shellfish shoreline permits. SIP would
serve as a technical review panel. Ecology (funding dependent)
Target Dates: by fall 2016
Complete draft outline and timeline
Complete draft RFP and scope of work for handbook development
Secure funding
4.4 Increased involvement of Department of Agriculture in shellfish farming and interagency
coordination. (WSDA)
a) Continue engagement with industry through policy team shellfish lead.
b) Schedule reoccurring meetings with WSDA, industry, tribal governments and partner
agencies to share information, keep lines of communication open and identify opportunities
for coordination.
c) Continue agency and industry discussions on aquaculture coordinator role and ombudsman
role at WSDA.
GOAL 5: RESTORE NATIVE SHELLFISH – OLYMPIA OYSTERS AND PINTO ABALONE.
5.1 Olympia oysters:
a) Continue collaborative work to reestablish sustainable breeding populations in the state’s 19
priority areas located in Puget Sound. Note: Breeding populations have already been restored in two
(Liberty Bay, Fidalgo Bay) of the 19 priority areas. On-the-ground work is underway in many of the
remaining 17 areas. (WDFW, tribal governments, Puget Sound Restoration Fund [PSRF])
b) Collaboratively maintain and operate the Kenneth K. Chew Center for Shellfish Research and
Restoration at the Northwest Fisheries Science Center’s Manchester Lab and assist with
optimization techniques for native Olympia oyster and pinto abalone production in support
of state shellfish restoration goals. (NOAA, PSRF)
Target date: ongoing through September 2016
c) Produce 2,500 bags of Olympia oyster seed (seeded cultch) to accelerate Olympia oyster
recovery at priority sites. Genetically diverse seed will be produced at the Kenneth K. Chew
Shellfish Center using conservation protocols co-developed by PSRF, University of
Washington and Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife. (PSRF)
CA received 08/18/25
EXHIBIT RI06
d) Conduct water quality monitoring associated with shellfish production at the Kenneth K.
Chew Center. Measurements of dissolved oxygen, salinity, temperature, pH and pCO2 in
hatchery water supply will be available daily to researchers at the center and annual seasonal
data summaries available online. (NOAA)
Target dates: annual data summaries: September 2016
e) Complete the Ecology-funded, 10-acre native oyster enhancement project in Port Gamble
Bay. (PSRF)
f) Seek funding to initiate an additional 10 acres of enhancement in two or three of the 19
priority locations to help reestablish breeding populations. (PSRF)
g) Advance partnerships to accelerate and expand native shellfish restoration through funds
from NRCS’ Environmental Quality Incentives Program, which provides payments to
farmers for habitat restoration. Identify opportunities and establish processes to provide
payments to tribal governments and shellfish growers for restoration of Olympia oyster
habitat. (NRCS)
h) Evaluate native oyster restoration opportunities in Willapa Bay and Grays Harbor. (WSU
Extension Pacific County)
Conduct a planning phase to evaluate feasibility of restoration work in coastal estuaries,
based on current available science, to determine whether more research and evaluation are
needed.
Complete survey of subtidal environments to conduct a more accurate assessment of
current population size.
5.2 Pinto abalone (WDFW, PSRF)
a) Optimize hatchery efforts to more efficiently produce juvenile and larval abalone (with
funding from WDFW, DNR and NOAA).
b) Outplant 5,000 juvenile abalone (2,500 in 2015; 2,500 in 2016).
c) Outplant 2 million larval abalone.
d) Complete the DNR-funded project to assess previous larval out plants and refine larval out
plant methodologies.
5.3 Other native shellfish
a) Take conservation actions if other native shellfish stocks are determined to be in decline or
threatened. Actions may include restoration, stock status research and fishery closures.
GOAL 6: ENHANCE RECREATIONAL SHELLFISH HARVEST.
6.1 Enhance recreational shellfish harvest. (WDFW, DOH) Note: This section also interconnects with Goal
1 on improving water quality as a key mechanism for increasing access to recreational shellfish harvest.
a) Maintain levels of seeding on recreational beaches by WDFW. Incremental funding increases
will be needed to maintain a base level of seed planting.
Document increases in harvest trips and state funding resources.
Identify and pursue other avenues for funding.
b) Identify opportunities for enhancement at key coastal recreational beaches. (WDFW)
c) Increase recreational shellfish harvest at two large and strategically placed public tidelands.
(WDFW, DOH)
CA received 08/18/25
EXHIBIT RI06
GOAL 7: EDUCATE THE NEXT GENERATION ABOUT SHELLFISH RESOURCES, ECOSYSTEMS
SERVICES AND WATER QUALITY. ENGAGE THE PUBLIC IN SHELLFISH RESOURCES THROUGH EDUCATION AND OUTREACH.
Preserving and understanding local shellfish resources, the role they play in the ecosystem, what they
contribute to local economies, the history and culture of shellfish in Washington, the human actions that
affect their health, the actions that are needed to protect shellfish resources and, finally, the consequences
for both humans and the ecosystem if shellfish populations decline.
7.1 Formal education goals:
a) Develop high-quality tools, curricula and materials that 1) teach K-12 students about shellfish
resources in both classroom and field settings; 2) help schools meet Common Core and Next
Generation Science Standards (NGSS); and 3) provide district support and train teachers to
enable them to independently use the materials. (Pacific Education Institute [PEI])
b) Integrate shellfish education topics (which include ocean acidification) in multiple subject
areas as they provide a real-world case study. (PEI)
c) Develop professional learning opportunities that help teachers connect shellfish resources to
NGSS. (PEI)
d) Recommend sample shellfish curriculum resources for educators on the OSPI Environmental
and Sustainability Education standards website. (OSPI)
e) Partner with tribal governments, state agencies and nonprofit organizations to provide
internship opportunities for college students. (WSG)
f) Translate shellfish and ocean acidification scientific research findings into fact sheets and
other accessible information to share on a credible website (WSG) for access by K-12
students and educators. (WSG)
7.2 Informal education and outreach goals:
a) Foster broad public understanding of local shellfish resources and the role they play in local
ecosystems and economies. Topics include the history and culture of shellfish throughout
Washington, human activities that impact shellfish resources and the consequences, for both
humans and the ecosystem, if shellfish populations decline. Conduct activities and host events
such as Whatcom Water Days, Kitsap Water Festival, Celebrate Oakland Bay, RainFest on
the outer coast, State Park Shellfests, Oysterfest, Vashon-Maury Island Low Tide Festival and
the Wooden Boat Festival (Olympia). (WSG)
b) Foster citizen engagement and understanding of the role of shellfish in the coastal ecosystem.
Provide opportunities for citizen science monitoring, technical assistance programs,
workshops and activities, including the State of the Oyster Study, technical assistance to
tideland owners, marine biotoxin monitoring, and septic system education classes and
socials.
Provide education and outreach tailored to coastal communities and visitors, including
Willapa Bay Oysters documentary series curricula and outreach activities. (WSG)
Continue Shellfest and other educational/interpretive opportunities about shellfish and
water quality, in Puget Sound, Georgia Straits, Grays Harbor, Willapa Bay and the outer
coast. (WDFW, Parks, WSG)
Develop interpretive signage at public access sites with shellfish resources on the coast and
at Puget Sound locations. (Parks)
CA received 08/18/25
EXHIBIT RI06
Promote shellfish safety through Web communication and posting public beaches that are
closed to shellfish harvest due to marine biotoxins, pathogens and pollution. (DOH)
Host the Washington Shellfish Trail. (WSG)
Develop education materials and outreach to grocery stores, farmers markets and seafood
restaurants about safe shellfish handling. (WSG)
c) Host a gathering of informal shellfish educators to share resources and information. (WSG)
Key of state agency abbreviations:
DNR – Department of Natural Resources
DOH – Department of Health
ECY – Department of Ecology
Parks – State Parks
WSCC – State Conservation Commission
WSDA – Department of Agriculture
WDFW – Department of Fish and Wildlife
Governor’s Legislative and Policy Office
January 2016
CA received 08/18/25
EXHIBIT RI06