Best Management Practices for California aquaculture – still waiting for them…

Below you will find an update on my ongoing efforts to protect Tomales Bay from the historically poor practices of shellfish growers, and a long history of virtually no oversight by the California Department of Fish & Wildlife (CDFW) and the California Fish & Game Commission (CFGC). The CFGC leases state water bottoms in California to shellfish growers. Given the shortage of suitable coastline with clean water, you’d think the CFGC would be charging a premium rent (supply and demand). You would be wrong. More on that in a future post.

If you care for Tomales Bay and want to protect it, please write the following people and tell them to implement and enforce strong Best Management Practices over shellfish growers. Tell them to fix the woefully inadequate escrow cleanup bond system. And kindly ask them to make a better effort at enforcing existing litter laws and to regularly monitor aquaculture statewide. Our state bays and estuaries are priceless treasures for ALL to enjoy.

Valerie Termini – Executive Director of California Fish & Game Commission (CFGC) – Sacramento, CA fgc@fgc.ca.gov

Susan Ashcraft – Marine Advisor to the California Fish & Game Commission (CFGC) – Sacramento, CA Susan.Ashcraft@fgc.ca.gov

.

Responsibly practiced shellfish aquaculture, properly sited, adds value to life in the form of delicious shellfish, jobs and the continuation of a long tradition. Authentic stewardship is paramount to assuring this practice does no harm to the precious bays and estuaries of the ever changing (and rising) sea.

Three things I have been requesting since I set out to right numerous wrongs are:

1) Growers need to stop losing so much plastic, wood and other gear. They also need to regularly pick up the debris that they do lose. All of the legacy debris left by growers from days gone by needs to be removed from the bay.

2)      A. Best Management Practices (BMP) need to be developed and become an   enforceable part of being allowed to profit from public trust tidelands.

2)      B. The cleanup fund escrow system to address abandoned infrastructure and other damages done to a lease needs to be redone so that it is actually applied, AND is not based on cost estimates made by the growers themselves.

3) CFGC and CDFW need to actually DO their job: regular monitoring of leases, enforce existing laws, ensure growers are not diverting creeks with un-permitted structures or altering the bay-floor by dumping large quantity of oyster shells or other materials into the bay.

.

Let’s look at each of these in more detail.

.

1) Growers need to stop losing so much plastic, wood and other gear. They also need to regularly pick up the debris that they do lose. All of the legacy debris left by growers from days gone by needs to be removed from the bay.

This is taking place. The growers are losing less gear and making a noticeable effort to pick up that gear still getting loose.

There is still room for improvement, as bags and other culturing devices are still getting loose. But overall, a vast improvement!

Thank you growers!

Unfortunately, much of the legacy debris continues to blight the beauty of Tomales Bay. You can see what I am talking about here.

2-A Best Management Practices (BMP) need to be developed and become an   enforceable part of being allowed to profit from public trust tidelands.

On April 8, 2015 (1087 days ago and counting), a proposed list of BMP that I drafted were delivered to the CFGC at their commission meeting in Santa Rosa. The growers and numerous agencies have mulled over and massaged this list since then.

The latest revision put forth by the CFGC is very close to what I originally proposed, except it does not include that growers must mark all their gear with their name & phone number. Marking all gear is important in order to ensure growers practice authentic stewardship.

My most recent iteration of what I think are good common sense BMP are below.

 

These BMPs shall be an integral part of each lease. The practices shall be mandatory practices meant to ensure Tomales Bay and the ocean in general is kept free of lost plastic and other debris from aquaculture operations.

To have the intended effect of reducing litter in Tomales Bay attributed to aquaculture, it is imperative that these practices be adequately and regularly enforced.

Harming the environment is a criminal matter, not an administrative matter.

 

  1. Growers shall uniquely and clearly identify all of their gear with company name and phone number. Possible means of uniquely marking gear include: unique colors of bags, wires, tags, PVC pipes, rope, and “branding info into gear.”

 

  1. Growers shall train all employees in concepts of Leave No Trace, see http://LNT.org, or similar training about environmental stewardship.

 

  1. Growers shall continually improve gear and methods in a quest to lose less gear.

 

  1. Growers shall replace single use items (i.e. zip-ties, copper wires) with more durable items such as stainless halibut clips.

 

  1. Growers shall NOT use floats that are easily degraded by sunlight or pecked by birds in search of food.

 

  1. Growers shall securely tie large groups of non-floating bags together when deploying bags for future securing to anchor lines to ensure they do not drift.

 

  1. Growers shall remove all tools and materials each day after working on lease areas, including: fencepost drivers, gloves, water bottles, PVC pipes, wires, and ropes. Work barges shall be secured to ensure items are not blown into the bay.

 

  1. Growers shall NOT dump shells, lumber, bags or other debris on the bay floor to walk upon or for any reason.

 

  1. Growers shall promptly (within 90 days) remove culture structures and other items comprising a method that did not work as desired or is no longer used.

 

  1. Growers shall patrol lease areas and the shores of Tomales Bay on a monthly basis, twice monthly during windy or heavy surf times. Patrols must occur at both high and low tides to ensure gear buried in the mud is promptly collected.

 

  1. Growers shall uniquely and clearly identify all of their boats and barges. Boats should be clearly identifiable with binoculars from a distance of 1 mile. Unique color, large letter and/or number or combinations of these may work.

 

To support item 11 above, the below images show some of the boats used by various growers. Notice how many of the boats look identical. Also shown is one suggested ID method to allow distant observers to know which grower a particular boat belongs to. Also, how many of these boats are properly licensed?

.

.

.

The reason for my concern centers on the damage done to the eel grass beds on or near the leases. Below are three images recorded from overhead, showing deep and permanent damage done to the eel grass by the propellers of boats accessing the lease areas.

Click on the image to enlarge it.

Click on the image to enlarge it.

.

On numerous occasions I have witnessed oyster boats operating at low tides, attempting to access areas of the bay not deep enough to access without driving the prop of the boat into the bottom of the bay, destroying everything that the prop meets, like a blender, loudly throwing a tall, brown rooster-tail into the air, easily visible/audible from a mile+ away.

If boats were clearly labeled, interested stakeholders would be able to give the Commission/Department accurate information with which to hopefully take action.

.

The below images show the reasoning behind item 8.

Growers shall NOT dump shells, lumber, bags or other debris on the bay floor to walk upon or for any reason.

.

.

.

.

.

2-B The cleanup fund escrow system to address abandoned infrastructure needs to be redone so that it is actually applied, AND is not based on cost estimates made by the growers themselves.

The figure below (from K. Ramey files acquired via Public Records Access [PRA]) shows how much has been contributed (allegedly) by each grower. Total on account (allegedly) is $106,255.

.
Click on the image to enlarge it.

.

Below is an image showing part of the main contract paid by the NPS for the cleanup of aquaculture debris left by DBOC in Drakes Estero. This is not the entire sum. Beyond the $3,460,750 shown below were other substantial fees associated with the removal of oysters and clams left by DBOC.

Important to note is the self-assessed cleanup cost given to the Fish & Game Commission by DBOC for two years running: $10,000

.
Click on the image to enlarge it.

.
Below are images of some current leases, showing rough dimensions as well as the amount paid into the escrow fund.

These values are self-assessed cost estimates provided by the growers.

Have you ever been asked by a landlord how much of a cleaning deposit you think you ought to pay?

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

3) CFGC and CDFW need to actually DO their job: regular monitoring of leases, enforce existing laws, ensure growers are not diverting creeks with un-permitted structures or altering the bay-floor by dumping large quantity of oyster shells or other materials into the bay.

.

This request needs no further support.

.

The slide seen below was created by the State Aquaculture Coordinator.
The yellow text I have highlighted reads: “Emphasize CA’s strict environmental standards as advantage”

How can one have an advantage based on strict standards if the laws those standards are based on are not enforced?

Please enforce current laws!

Click image to enlarge it.

If you care for Tomales Bay and want to protect it, please write the following people and tell them to implement and enforce strong Best Management Practices over shellfish growers. Tell them to fix the woefully inadequate escrow cleanup bond system. And kindly ask them to make a better effort at enforcing existing litter laws and to regularly monitor aquaculture statewide. Our state bays and estuaries are priceless treasures for ALL to enjoy.

Valerie Termini – Executive Director of California Fish & Game Commission (CFGC) – Sacramento, CA fgc@fgc.ca.gov

Susan Ashcraft – Marine Advisor to the California Fish & Game Commission (CFGC) – Sacramento, CA Susan.Ashcraft@fgc.ca.gov

.

Speak up to protect Humboldt Bay from harmful expansion by Coast Seafood

Click on the words above “Speak up to protect Humboldt Bay…” to see this entire post.

Coast Seafood has once again applied to expand their shellfish growing operation on Humboldt Bay.

Description of proposed project is here.

Please write the Army Corps of Engineers before 20 April with your request that this expansion be denied.

Be sure to note the Public Notice number of PN-2002-26912N. Highlight the environmental impacts of allowing the expansion rather then simply stating “I am against the expansion.”

These may include: Impact on eel grass, which then impacts brant, salmon, steelhead, coastal cutthroat. If you are a duck hunter, this will certainly impact your ability to navigate on the bay, as well as the number of brant feeding (or not) in the bay. The added plastic that will escape into the ocean is another cause for concern.

Those of us that value the natural diversity supported by an untrampled bay over increased oyster production ask that this expansion be denied.

As in Tomales Bay, shellfish operations in Humboldt Bay harm the eel grass beds that serve an important role for many, many species beyond the non-native oysters, clams and mussels grown for private profit on public lands. Two groups of animals of particular concern are the black brant and a number of salmonids (chinook salmon, coho salmon, steelhead trout and sea-run coastal cutthroat trout. Eel grass provides food for the brant (their main food source) and it provides refugia (cover) for the salmonids when they are young and need a place to hide.

Expanding shellfish operations on another 256 acres would significantly impact a large number of species that rest and feed on Humboldt Bay. Coast already has approximately 300 acres upon which to profit.

Please write L. Kasey Sirkin (l.k.sirkin@usace.army.mil) at the Army Corps of Engineers with your concerns.
The deadline for comments is 20 April, so please do this now.

See what Eureka Resident Susan Penn has to say on this important issue here.

Below are some documents that will educate you on the issues at hand.

Comments on the application from Audubon of California, EarthJustice and Oceana

Download (PDF, 1.45MB)

 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers comments on this project.

Download (PDF, 165KB)

 

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) comments on this project.

Download (PDF, 1.42MB)

Save our Tomales Bay – Part 5

Click the words above “Save our Tomales Bay…” to see this post as it was meant to be seen.

The past several weeks I’ve been picking up the trash left behind by local oyster farming operations on Tomales Bay.

In this post from 29 June, I wondered aloud if those responsible for the mess would pick up after themselves, or would I need to find more help to rid the environment of the trash of private enterprise.

A week later and a few of the larger bales of plastic oyster grow-out bags had been recovered.

This past weekend I went back to have a look at some of the submerged bags, those filled with gravel and embedded in the sand, mud and gravel.

Unfortunately they were still there. as were the many bags I had tossed up high on the shore to keep the tide from carrying them away.

I found that by slicing along one edge of the buried bags, the sand and gravel can be more easily emptied out. But, the freshly sliced plastic is also very sharp. My punctured thumb bled profusely after learning this the hard way.

What follows are images showing the consequences of sustainable, low-impact, no inputs required mariculture of West Marin.

Have a look and ask yourself if this truly is as earth-friendly as it is being portrayed. I imagine with some thought, as well as more labor, oysters could be grown and harvested without leaving such a mess behind.

In a future post, you’ll see evidence of the origin of many of the oysters sold in West Marin to a public that thinks they are buying “local”, as well as sustainable.

All images can be seen larger simply by clicking on them.

IMG_0655


click image for larger version

IMG_0654


IMG_0653


click image for larger version

IMG_0651


IMG_0650


click image for larger version

IMG_0649


IMG_0647


click image for larger version

IMG_0645


IMG_0644


click image for larger version

IMG_0641


IMG_0639


click image for larger version

RJames.MVI_0622


RJames.IMG_0637


click image for larger version

RJames.IMG_0636


RJames.IMG_0635


click image for larger version

RJames.IMG_0634


RJames.IMG_0632


click image for larger version

RJames.IMG_0630


Above or below, which view do you prefer?

RJames.IMG_0629


click image for larger version

RJames.IMG_0628


RJames.IMG_0627


click image for larger version

RJames.IMG_0626


RJames.IMG_0625


click image for larger version

RJames.IMG_0621


RJames.IMG_0619


click image for larger version

RJames.IMG_0617


RJames.IMG_0614


click image for larger version

RJames.IMG_0613


RJames.IMG_0612


click image for larger version

RJames.IMG_0611


RJames.IMG_0610

.

Next related post may be found here.

Previous related post may be found here.

See the first post in this series “Save our Tomales Bay” here.