[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]


                           National Estuarine Inventory


             The Quality of Shellfish Growing Waters on
                    the West Coast of the United States







                                                    Washingidn










                                                  Oregon



















                                                    Caffornia























                                                                                     AMM
                                                June 1990                           AM
         SH                         U.S. Department of Commerce
         365
         T3
         L46                  National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
         1990
         C.2












                                                -NOAA's National Estuarine Inventory


               The National Estuarine Inventory (NEI) is a series of inter-related activities of the Strategic Assessment Branch
               ofthe Office of Oceanography and Marine Assessment (OMA), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
               (NOAA), to develop a national estuarine database and assessment capability. The NEI was initiated in June 1983
               as part of NOAA's program of strategic assessments of the Nation's coastal and oceanic resources.

               The NEI Data Atlas identifies 127 of the most important estuaries and subestuaries of the contiguous USA;
               presents information through maps and tables on physical and hydrologic characteristics of each estuary; and
               specifies a commonly derived spatial unit for all estuaries, the estuarine drainage area (EDA), for which data are
               compiled. These estuaries represent over 90 percent of the estuarine water surface area of the coastal United
               States. Subsequent volumes of the NEI present area estimates for 31 categories of land use, 1970 and 1980
               population estimates by estuary, public recreation facilities in coastal areas, and coastal wetlands in the New
               England and Gulf of Mexico regions. These publications and others, produced by the Strategic Assessment
               Branch, are listed inside the back cover of this report.


                                                       T
                                                         he Shellfish Program



               Developing information on the health of shellfishing waters is an important part of the NEI. Work on classified
               shellfish growing waters began with the 1985 National Shellfish Registerof Classified Estuarine Waters (FDA and
               NOAA, 1985), a compilation of classification of shellfish growing waters by state. Data were later reorganized by
               -estuary, 4or all NEI estuaries (Broutman and-Leonafd, 49N); -AddRiona44niormationon@the-administration,of staie
               shellfish programs, status of growing waters, trends in classification, and pollution sources were added to improve
               theulilfty oflhedata fanassessing estuarine water quality. AnassessmerilDfsheBfishwatosin.ft Gulf of Mexico
               was completed in January 1988 (Broutman and Leonard, 1988), followed by an assessment of East Coast waters
               in March 1989 (Leonard, Broutman and Harkness, 1989).


                                               Preparing for the 1990 Register



               The Register is a compilation of the classified shellfish growing waters of 22 states produced by Federal agencies
               since1966. The 1990 version will be expanded to include information collected forthe Quality of Shellfish Growing
               waters projects: identification of classifications as of January 1, 1990; changes from the 1985 classifications and
               reasons for the changes, particularly those related to water quality; and the source of pollution affecting the
               limitation of harvest. TheI990 Register will be expanded to include Hawaii and Alaska. For the first time, classified
               areas, as delineated on NOS charts, will be digitized using NOAA's Geographic Information System(GEOCOAST).
               This system will store spatial data, calculate areas, print data onto nautical charts and calculate changes in
               classification between 1985 and 1990. The 1990 National Shellfish Register of Classified Estuarine Waters will
               be published in early 1991.







             The Quality of Shellfish Growing Waters on
                     the West Coast of the United States




                                          Dorothy L. Leonard and Eric A. Slaughter









                                                                     A.














                                                     Crassostrea gigas





                                                         June 1990


                                                Strategic Assessment Branch
                                                Ocean Assessments Division
                                      Office of Oceanography and Marine Assessment
                                      National Oceanic and Atmosheric Administration
                                              6001 Executive Blvd., NIOMA31
                                                Rockville, Maryland 20852







                                                        Acknowledgements




              The authors of the Quality of Shellfish Growing Waters on the West Coast of the United States extend their
              appreciation tothe many stateofficials; and members of the industry and academia who provided information and
              advice. Kristen Harkness and Robert Phillips of the Strategic Assessment Branch of NOAA provided assistance
              in the management of information and statistics. Special appreciation is extended to the reviewers: Dr. Fred
              Conte, Kenneth Hansgen, Dr. Douglas Price, Karen Taberski, Pat Wells, Deborah Canon, John Faudskar, Jack
              Lifia and Tim Smith. Kevin McMahon edited the report, providing numerous constructive comments.











































                                                                                                                            iv









          Findings                                                  vii      Section 111. Sources of Pollution                 23

          Introduction                                              1               Concept of Contributing Source             23

          Section 1. Background                                     2               Upstream Sources                           23

                   Public Health                                    2               Point Sources of Pollution                 23
                           Pathogen Related Illness                 2                      Sewage Treatment Plants             23
                            Marine Biotoxins                        2                      Industry                            24

                   The National Shellfish Sanitation    Program     3               Nonpoint Sources of Pollution              25
                                                                                           Septic Systems                      25
                   Regional Characteristics                         4                      Urban Runoff                        26
                            San Francisco Bay                       5                      Agricultural Runoff                 26
                            PugetSound                              5                      Wildlife                            26
                            Willapa Bay                             6                      Boating Activity                    26

                   Molluscan Shellfish Aquaculture/LandingS         7        Section IV. Discussion                            28
                            Oysters                                 7
                            Clams                                   9                 Results of Water Quality                 28
                            Mussels                                 10                Degradation
                            Scallops                                11                        Humboll Bay                      28
                                                                                              Morro Bay                        28
                   Administration of Shellfish Programs             12                        Tillamook Bay                    29
                            California                              12
                            Oregon                                  12                State Efforts to Improve Water           29
                            Washington                              13                Quality
                            Hawaii                                  14
                            Alaska                                  15                Industry Efforts                         30
                            British Columbia                        1.5                       Santa Barbera Channel            30
                            State Budgets and Sampling              16                        Willapa Bay                      30

          Section 11. Classified Shellfish Growing Waters           18                Public Health Debate on Pollution        31

                   1985 Classifications                             18       Concluding Comments                               31
                            Prohibited Waters                       18
                            Restricted Water                        18       References                                        32
                            Conditionally Approved Waters           18
                                                                             Appendices                                        38
                   State Classifications                            19                A. Personal Communications               39
                            California                              19                B. Waters Reclassified as a              41
                            Oregon                                  19                   Result of Water Quality
                            Washington                              19                B.I. Trends in Classified Waters         42
                                                                                      C. Sources of Pollution                  45
                   Trends in Classifications, 1971-1985             19                D. Puget Sound Watershed Plans           -48

                                                                             Glossary                                          so

                                                                             Relevant Publications by NOAA               Back Cover


                                                                                                                                     v







               Table of Contents continued



               List of Figures
                        I . Map of Estuaries                     4
                        2.  Representative Harvested Bivalves    6
                        3.  US Landings of Clams/Oysters         7
                        4.  Clam Landings Per Acre               8
                        5.  Oyster Landings Per Acre             8
                        6.  California Oyster Landings           9
                        7.  Oregon Oyster Landings               10
                        S.  Washington Oyster Landings           11
                        9.  Oregon Clam Landings                 12
                        10. Washington Clam Landings             13
                        11. Number of Sampling Stations          14
                        12. Acres Per Station                    15
                        13. Total State Expenditures             16
                        14. State Expenditures Per Acre          17
                        15. Classification by Region             19
                        16. Classification by Estuary            21
                        17. Nonproductive Waters                 21
                        18. Trends in Classification             22
                        19. Pollution Sources by Estuary         25
































                                                                                                                                 vi










               Estuarine waters are classified for the commercial harvest of oysters, clams and mussels based on the presence
               of actual or potential pollution sources and fecal coliform bacteria levels in surface waters. To protect the public
               health of shellfish consumers, harvest limitations are placed on waters that may be contaminated with bacterial
               or viral pathogens. State shellfish control agencies conduct sanitary surveys to identify these potential sources,
               sample ambient water quality, and conduct hydrologic studies. All west coast states also conduct monitoring to
               protect the consumer from paralytic shellfish poisoning (PSP.)

               Molluscan Shellfish Landings

               ï¿½   In 1985, Willapa Bay and Puget Sound led oyster production at 2.5 million lbs. each. These major producers,
                   along with Samish Bay at 298,000 lbs. and Grays Harbor at 662,000 lbs., gave Washington the lead in west
                   coast oyster production at almost 6 million lbs. California was second with landings of 1.2 million lbs., mostly
                   from Drakes and Humboldt Bays. Oregon produced 327,000 lbs., 82 percent of which were harvested from
                   Tillamook Bay.

               ï¿½   In 1985, the most productive estuaries in clam landings were: Puget Sound, at almost 8 million lbs.; Willapa
                   Bay, 136,000 lbs.; Nehalem Bay, 40,000 lbs.; Tillamook Bay, 34,000lbs.; and Coos Bay, 23,000 lbs.

               Classified Shellfish Growing Waters

               ï¿½   On the West Coast of the United States, nearly 2.6 million acres of estuarine waters are considered shellfish
                   growing waters underthe National Shellfish Register inventory conducted in 1985. Over 75 percent of these
                   waters are in Washington, 21 percent in California, and only 3 percent in Oregon.

               ï¿½   NOAA has aggregated west coast shellfish growing waters into 24 estuaries and 2 subestuaries based upon
                   the National Estuarine Inventory (NEI). Over 2 million acres (81 percent) are considered nonproductive for
                   shellfish and 163,000 acres (6 percent) unclassified, leaving only 326,000 acres, or 13 percent, both
                   productive and classified.

               ï¿½  Of the NEI classified and productive estuarine waters, 31 percent are approved, 48 percent are prohibited,
                   20 percent conditionally approved, and less than one percent restricted.

               ï¿½   Washington has the highest percentage of approved waters (48 percent), followed by Oregon (33 percent),
                   and California (2 percent).

                   California hasthe highest percentage of prohibited waters (85 percent), followed by Oregon (33 percent), and
                   Washington (27 percent).

                   Oregon has the most conditionally-approved waters at 33 percent, followed by Washington (25 percent), and
                   California (< one percent).


               Trends in Classifications, 1971-1985

               Trends in classifications were examined to determine if improving or declining water quality conditions were
               reflected in reclassification data.


                   Califomia reclassified 2 thousand acres, 93 percent of which were downgrades and 7 percent upgrades. All

                                                                                                                                 Vil







                    downgrades were due to increased monitoring efforts, whilethe upgrades were improvements in waterquality.

                ï¿½   Oregon reclassified 19 thousand acres, 33 percent of which were downgrades as a result of increased
                    monitoring, and 67 percent were upgrades, of which 25 percent were attributed to improvements in water
                    quality.

                ï¿½   Washington showed a decline in waterquality in over62,000 acres. Almost all of the 20,000 acres upgraded
                    in classification were surveyed in response to applications for shellfish leases. Until areas are surveyed, states
                    are required by the NSSP guidelines to classify them prohibited.

                Pollution Effects


                    Industry is the major source of pollution in west coast estuaries, affecting 43 percent of estuarine waters and
                    22 percent of upstream waters. Industry also affects the largest estuaries: San Francisco Bay, Coos Bay,
                    Puget Sound, and Skagit Bay.

                    Sewage treatment plants, a major factor in the Northeast (80 percent), affect only 25 percent of West Coast
                    estuarine waters and 50 percent of upstream waters.

                    Nonpoint sources affect west coast estuaries, particularly urban runoff (33 percent), agricultural runoff (15
                    percent), boating activity (11 percent), and wildlife (11 percent.)








































                                                                                                                                         viii








                                                    -M M TTT M; 11*11


           The Quality of Shellfish Growing Waters on the West             Section III identifies the sources of pollution affecting
           Coast of the United States is the third in a series of          classified waters in California, Oregon and Washington.
           water quality reports produced by the Strategic As-             Overall, pollutants dischargedfrom industries have been
           sessment Branch of NOAA to address the health of our            identified as the most significant factor in restricting
           Nation's shellfish waters. These reports serve as a re-         shellfish harvests in developed estuaries, while non-
           source for federal and state agencies, researchers, the         point runoff, agricultural runoff, and wildlife are the
           shellfish industry, and private interests in the evaiu-         causative factors in less developed estuaries.
           ation of their policies and programs.
                                                                           In the Discussion, three case studies show the correla-
           Approximately 326,000 acres of estuarine waters on              tion between the degradation of water quality, as exhib-
           the West Coast of the United States are classified for          ited by downgrades in classification, and a decline in
           the commercial harvest of oysters, clams, and mus-              shellfish landings. A description of successful attempts
           sels, based on public health concerns. These mollus-            to protect and restore the quality of shellfish growing
           can shellfish are fi.fter feeders, capable of pumping           waters by public agencies and the shellfish industry is
           large volumes of water through their systems and ac-            discussed. The report ends with a review of planned and
           cumulating particles or pollutants present in water.            ongoing research to resolve the public health debate.
           Bacterial or viral pathogens may accumulate in shell-
           fish tissue arld digestive systems and may be passed
           to humans who consume partially cooked or raw shell-
           fish. To protect public health, harvest for human con-
           sumption is not allowed in waters that are near potential        'Threats to the continued viability of molluscan
           pollution sources or contain high levels of coliform             shellfish resources are a matter of mounting
           bacteria. While all coliform bacteria are not harmful,           concern among the public, various Federal, state
           they are measured in water to indicate possible pres-            and local agencies, and the shellfish industry."
           ence of pathogenic bacteria and viruses of sewage                (David R. Zoellner, NMFS, 1977.)
           origin.

           This report presents recently compiled information on            'The oyster industry in the lower Chesapeake Bay,
           the quality of shellfish growing waters in west coast            like many areas of the country, is dead." (Dr.
           estuaries. Section I provides background information             William Hargis before the Interstate Seafood
           on the National Shellfish Sanitation Program, patho-             Seminar, 1989.)
           gen-related illnesses, and marine biotoxins. Regional
           descriptions focus on three large and potentially pro-
           ductive estuaries: San Francisco Bay, Puget Sound,
           and Willapa Bay. Historic landings of clams and
           oysters are traced by estuary and the practice of
           shellfish culture is discussed. State shellfish programs
           are compared in terms of budget and sampling sta-
           tions.


           Section 11 examines the status of classified shellfish
           growing waters. It ieveals that of the productive estu-
           arine waters, 31 percent are approved, 48 percent are
           prohibited and 20 percent are conditionally approved.
           Changes in classification are noted and trends estab-
           lished where possible. In most cases, changes are
           related to administrative actions such as increased                                  Ostrea Judda
           monitoring, rather than changes in water quality.





                                                       Section 1.     Background


                                                                            A recent report by the U.S. Government Accounting
           Public Health                                                    Off ice (1988) concluded that illnesses associated with
                                                                            the consumption of shellfish or finfish accounted for
                                                                            only five percent of all food-bome illnesses. Even so,
          By the early twentieth century, illnesses associated              shellfish, mostly of East Coast origin, have been impli-
          with the consumption of raw oysters, clams, and mus-              cated in more than 900 cases of hepatitis and over
          sels were a major concern to public health officials. In          2,000 cases of gastroenteritis since 1961 (Richards,
          1924, following an outbreak of typhoid fever traced to            1986).
          oysters contaminated by sewage, public health au-
          thorities requested action by the Surgeon General of              Marine Biotoxins. Inadditiontosewage-relateddis-
          the U.S. Public Health Service (PHS). A conference of             eases, West Coast waters are affected by planktonic
          public health officials, meeting in February 1925, for-           blooms that produce marine biotoxins. The neurotoxic
          mulated a program of public health controls including             substance produced, saxitoxin, is accumulated in the
          the issuance of "certificates" (permits to operate) to            shellfish and passed on to warm blooded animals, in-
          shellfish shippers. This program, the National Shellfish          cluding humans, causing paralytic shellfish poisoning
          Sanitation Program (NSSP), was developed and is still             (PSP). PSP was first documented by Captain George
          administered as a cooperative effort between states,              Vancouver during exploration of the British Columbia
          industry, and the Federal government through the                  coast in 1793. The dinoflagellate associated with PSP
          Interstate Shellfish Sanitation Conference. Underthe              incidents occurring from California to Alaska is Go-
          NSSP, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) of the               nyaulaux cantenella. The toxin affects the nervous
          PHS appraises each state's shellfish program to deter-            system, ranging from a slight numbness in the area of
          mine it their procedures are consistent with the current          the mouth to muscular paralysis and possible death
          Manual of Operations (Interstate Shellfish Sanitation             within 3 to 12 hours after consuming the shellfish.
          Conference, 1989).
                                                                            The impact of PSP on the Pacific states'oyster indus-
          The NSSP is based on the assumption that a relation-              try has been dramatic. For example, in 1980 the oyster
          ship exists between sewage pollution of shellfish grow-           industry in California was affected by a PSP outbreak
          ing areas and human disease. Pathogens are transmit-              centered in Tomales Bay and Drakes Estero, with 61
          ted through a fecal-oral route and may enterthewaters             cases attributed to commercially-harvested oysters.
          through direct discharges of untreated orpoorlytreated            The most severe impact was the disruption of the
          hu man wastes or through nonpoint ru noff f rom streets,          market. The cost of confiscated destroyed product and
          lawns, or disturbed soils. Bivalve molluscs, such as              loss of harvest time was added to market losses to give
          oysters, clams and mussels are f ifterfeeders, straining          a total estimated loss of $630,456 to west coast grow-
          food and particulate matter that is carried to their              ers during one toxic bloom. (Conte 1984).
          location by currents. This water transport brings with it
          plankton, decomposed particulate matter, and other                All West Coast states have developed management
          microorganisms. Because they filter large volumes of              plans to control the monitoring and closure of growing
          water relative to their size, molluscan shellfish may             waters during toxic blooms. These management plans
          concentrate pollutants and pathogens.                             are separate from those developed to control harvest of
                                                                            sewage-contaminated shellfish. Underthe NSSP, state
          Pathogen-Related Illness. Currently, the clinically               shellfish control agencies regularly collect and assay
          significant enteric diseases associated with consump-             samples of shellfish, from growing areas where the
          tion of shellfish from sewage-contaminated waters are             "blooms", sometimes referred to as "red tides", are
          hepatitis A, Norwalk virus, and nonspecific gastroen-             likely to occur. These toxicity management programs
          teritis. Nationwide, reported incidence of these viral            focus on the ability to detect toxic blooms in a body of
          diseases have increased in recent years, while bacte-             water. All west coast states now deploy mussels at
          rial illnesses have declined (Richards, 1986). Since              critical sites (mussel monitoring stations), which are
          1954, there have been no reported outbreaks of ty-                sampled on a schedule based upon historic blooms. If
          phoid fever, a bacterial illness and the predominant              the paralytic shellfish poison content reaches 80 micro-
          shellfish-borne disease of the early twentieth century.           grams per 100 grams of the edible portions of raw


                                                                                                                                 2







                shellfish meat, the area is closed to harvest and the
                public advised against harvest and consumption of                     T.he National Shellfish Sanitation Program
                shellfish from those areas.
                                                                                    The NSSP is conducted by the Interstate Shellfish Sani-
                PSP management plans include the testing and recall                 tation Conference (ISSC) to ensure the safety of
                of commercial product affected by Gonyalaux can-                    shellfish for human consumption bypreventing harvest
                tanella. In 1988, the Washington Department of Health               from waters that may contain pathogenic organisms or
                and Human Services was faced with a major recall of                 other contaminants. Under NSSP guidelines, waters
                product from eight states due to high toxin levels ex-              are classified for harvest based on the presence of
                tending from south of the Tacoma Narrows Bridge to                  actual or potential pollution sources and levels of coll-
                Dopplerneyer and Hartstene Points, the first time that              form bacteria levels in surface waters. Waters are clas-
                a bloom had occurred in south Puget Sound. The ban                  sified by states into one of four categories: approved;
                affected sport and commercial fishermen and included                conditionally-approved; restricted; or prohibited.
                all clams, mussels, oysters, and scallops. (Sunday
                Oregonian, October 9, 1988).                                        Table 1. Definition of classifications.

                The majority reported PSP cases have been from rec-                   Classification             Description
                reational harvest of clams and mussels. In response,
                California, with more than 509 cases and 32 deaths                    Approved                 Waters may be harvested
                through 1980, imposes an annual quarantine on sports                                           for the direct marketing of
                harvest from May to October 31. Although there is no                                           shellfish at all times.
                annual quarantine, Oregon samples at 17 sites from
                April through December. Washington began testing for                  Conditionally            Waters do not meet the cri-
                saxitoxin in the 1930's and, since 1942, has imposed                  Approved                 teria for approved waters at
                a quarantine on the sports harvesting of clams and                                             all times, but may be har-
                mussels on all marine beaches.                                                                 vested when criteria are met.

                British Columbia (BC) has had a long        history of Go-            Restricted               Shellfish may be harvested
                nyalauxcantanella;l 13 illnesses from 1793 to 1987(10                                          from restricted waters if
                from commercial harvest of clams) and 6 deaths. The                                            subjected to a suitable puri-
                BC Department of Fisheries and Oceans runs an aver-                                            fication process.
                age of 1600 samples per year. The toxin levels vary
                greatly in intensity and geographic area.                             Prohibited               Harvest for human consump-
                Alaska has experienced the most PSP-related deaths                                             tion cannot occur at any time.
                from the recreational harvest of clams, 160 cases with                For this report, the term "harvest-limited" refers to
                103 deaths through 1980. Asa result, the state initiated              conditionally approved, restricted or prohibited
                a year-round sports-harvest quarantine. This manage-                  waters. A closure area is an area in which some
                ment program, initiated in 1974, involves the biweekly                restriction on harvest has been placed, e.g. harvest
                bioassay of razor clam samples at 25 stations. Com-                   limited area.
                mercial shellfish are not affected byannual quarantines.
                However, each batch harvested must be tested to
                ensure that levels are below 80 micrograms. This
                causes major delays in the shipment and marketing of                Waters are classified by each state based upon sani-
                commercially-harvested shellfish. The expansion of the              tary surveys that: (1) identify actual orpotential pollution
                                                                                    sources that may affect shellfish growing waters -- a
                Alaska shellfish industry is restricted by the widespread           Ushoreline survey"; (2) evaluate hydrologic and mete-
                incidence of PSP and the diff iculty of monitoring remote           orological conditions affecting pollutant transport; and
                areas.                                                              (3) sample waters for bacteriological quality.

                                                                                    The NSSP standard for approved waters is either a
                                                                                    median or geometric mean total coliform bacteria con-


                                                                                                                                             3





                                                                              the incidence of shellfish-borne disease, the research
 4                                                                            on more effective indicators has not yet been con-
           Puget Sound--
                                                                              ducted.

           ..'3rays Harbor
           willapa Bay
                                                                              Regional Characteristics
           Tillamook Bay
                                                                              In this report, the West Coast comprises 26 estuaries
           Yaquina Ba                                                         f rom San Diego Bay in southern Californiato Skagit Bay
                                                                              in northern Washington. San Francisco Bay, Puget
           Coos Bay
                                                                              Sound, and Willapa Bay are highlighted in this section
                                              Oregv
                                                                              since they are the largest and/or most productive West
                                                                              Coast estuaries. In addition, a brief discussion is
                                                                              presented on shellfish activities in Hawaii and Alaska.

           Humboldt Bay                                                       Although there are extremely productive shellfish grow-
                                                                              ing areas in some West Coast estuaries, the coast
                                                                              overall has f ewerestuaries than eitherthe East Coast or
                                                                              the Gulf of Mexico. The West Coast is characterized by
                                           3.                                 uniformly uplifted, resistant rock except for parts of the
           Tomales Bay-                                                       Washington coast that have become coastal flats and
           Drakes Ba
 4         San Franc sco                                                      islands due to erosion of sedimentary rock. Pacific
                                                                              shoreline mountain formations have restricted the area
           Aonterey Bay                                                       of low-lying coastal plain and rivers that. flow toward the
                                                                              sea.
           Aorro Bay
                                                                              The large estuaries of San Francisco Bay and Puget
                                                            .16               Soundwereformed when sectionsof thecontinent con-
                                                                              taining former river valleys sank below sea level be-
                                                                              cause of active mountain building. In the case of Puget
                                                                              Sound, additional deepening and elongation occurred
           figure 1. Productive West Coast estuaries.                         due to glacial activity, resulting in a narrow, deep fjord
                                                                              with several internal sills. Both estuaries tend to be
                                                                              dominated by tides rather than freshwater inflows. The
                                                                              mean tidal range varies from almost 11 feet in Washing-
           concentration of less than 70 MPN (most probable                   ton to 3.7 feet in southern California. The influence of
           number) per 100 ml, with no morethan 10 percent of the             tides upon the estuarine circulation varies. For ex-
           samples exceeding 230 MPN per 100 ml, or a fecal                   ample, some large estuaries, such as Puget Sound and
           coliform standard of 14 MPN per 100ml, with no more                San Francisco Bay, have tide-dominated circulation,
           than 10 percent of the sample exceeding 43 M PN per                while the circulation patterns in the smaller estuaries
           1 00ml (Interstate Shellfish Sanitation Conference, 1989).         are a function of river discharge. These smaller estuar-
                                                                              ies, such as Eel River, Columbia River, and Humboldt
           These coliform standards are used routinely to ascer-              Bay, are heavily inf luenced by river discharge. The f irst
           tain the possible presence of enteric pathogens.                   two are not suitable for shellfish production. Humboldt
           However, evidence suggeststhat these standards may                 Bay has 12,000 acres of prohibited waters and only
           not be reliable as indicators of viral pathogens because           5,000 conditionally-approved productive acres. River-
           enteric viruses are more resistant than coliforms to               ine discharges bring nutrients into shellfish beds, but
           temperature and chlorination, and may accumulate and               also carry fecal coliforms discharged from upstream
           depurate at different rates. Although state health de-             point sources and nonpoint runoff.
           partments concurthat guidelines restricting the levels of
           enteric virus contamination in shellfish would reduce              Sediment loads into estuaries vary within the region.


                                                                                                                                     4





                Loads tend to be high around the San Diego Bay area,               creasing labor costs of harvesting clams and the pollu-
                moderate throughout central California, and generally              tion or filling of clam beds. (Nichols, 1988). In 1932, the
                lowfrom northern California through Washington, where              California State Board of Health established a perma-
                extensive forest lands reduce sediment runoff. Inareas             nent quarantine on clams in San Francisco Bay "by
                of clear-cutting, the sediment loading is high until forest        reason of sewage pollution ... and consequential dan-
                is re-established. Long-term precipitation is highly               ger of typhoid fever and gastroenteritis". The general
                variable within the region, ranging'frorn 128 inches in            quarantine was rescinded in 1953. The Japanese
                coastal northern Washington to about 8 inches in south-            littleneck, Tapes philippinarum, was accidentally intro-
                ern California. Runoff and freshwater inflow vary by               duced in the 1930's and has thrived to become the
                season and location. Southern California experiences               focus of sport shellfish harvesting. Although there is a
                a dry season from May through October, whenthe flow                possibility of contamination from wastes, particularly
                of some coastal streams disappears. Further north,                 from urban runoff, and despite no authorization, the
                freshwater inflow becomes more dependable, with the                sport harvesting of shellfish continues in San Francisco
                highest occurring from December through April. The                 Bay.
                runoff during the rainy season closes some of the most
                productive areas in the Northwest. For example, the                Puget Sound. South Puget Sound extends from Ta-
                average freshwater flow to Tillamook Bay in December               coma Narrows south to the Nisqually Delta and is char-
                is almost 9,000 cubic feet per second (cfs).                       acterized by large tidal fluctuations which, in combina-
                                                                                   tion with shallow inlets, result in extensive tidelands and
                San Francisco Bay is the second largest estuary in the             mudflats.    Although these shorelands are not well
                United States, extending over 7,000 square miles. The              suited forcommercial development, theyprovide supe-
                watershed is a broad, semi-enclosed basin, supporting              rior habitats for clams and oysters. Hood Canal is also
                extensive tidal marshes, mudflats and a population of              an excellent area for the production of clams and
                over five million. The freshwater inflow from the Sacra-           oysters because waters arewarmer than those of the
                mento and San Joaquin Rivers, the large ocean con-                 rest of the Sound. The main channel of northern Puget
                nection, and a myriad of discharges provide a unique               Sound extends northwest to the Strait of Juan de Fuca.
                physical environment. The system supports a large                  To the east of Whidbey Island lie several large bays
                assortment of organisms, tolerant of fluctuating salini-           where the water is shallow and productive for shellfish
                ties, temperature, and turbidity. The estuary is often             and other marine life. Outside of Puget Sound proper
                referred to as the River-Delta-Estuary-Sea system.                 lietheSanJuan Islandswhich have a few fairly shallow
                The two rivers drain over 40 percent of the State. The             bays used for the production of oysters and mussels.
                annual inflow fluctuates in response to frequent and
                heavy winter storms followed by dry summers.                       River systems in the northern half of the Puget lowland
                                                                                   contribute 70 percent of the fresh water discharge and
                Shellfish were harvested on a large scale during the               more than 69 percent of the sediment. Annual runoff
                post-Gold Rush years until earlier in this century when            varies from very low in the early fall, following the dry
                the shellfish beds were fouled by human and industrial             summer, to very high in the early winter months when
                wastes. The eastern oyster, Crassostrea virginica, was             there are frequent storms. Above average precipitation
                introduced in 1870's and became the most important                 continues in the early spring and augments high river
                fishery in California by the 1890's. The oysters began             flows from metting mountrain snow. Theannualrange'
                to deteriorate in the early 1 900's as a result of untreated       of precipitation within the Puget Sound basin is 16 to 96
                human and industrial wastes discharged into the bay                inches, producing an average annual inflow of 45.,000
                (Nichols, 1988). San Francisco Bay is a classic ex-                cubic feet per second (cfs). These discharges provide
                ample of how the deterioration of a productive bay is              the nutrients needed for shellfish production and carry
                heralded by the decline of the oyster, industry (Fred              contaminants from the land to the waters of the Sound.
                Conte, personal communication).                                    (Puget Sound Water Quality Authority, 1987.) During
                                                                                   the rainy season, soils around the Sound can. become
                The annual harvest of the eastern soft-shell clam, Mya             saturated with water and their capacity to process
                arenaria, peaked in the late 1800s at 1-3 million lbs.,            wastes from septic systems and manure applications is
                declining to 300,00 lbs. between 1913 and 1935, and                reduced.
                then dropping off rapidly. The decline is attributed to in-



                                                                                                                                             5






           The Shellfish Protection Strategy, produced by Wash-                Most of Willapa Bay is extensive tidal flats. More than
           ington Department of Ecology in 1983, concludes that                50 percentof thetotal hightide surfacearea is exposed
           the most significant current problernforthe Puget Sound             at low tide and much of the remainder is I to 6 feet
           shellfish industry is nonpoint contamination in rural               below mean low tide. The bay is a complex estuary, fed
           areas. Until recent years, the major impact was devel-              by rivers which drain approximately 461,000 acres.
           opment andthe resultant discharges from sewagetreat-                Annual precipitation ranges from 65 to 100 inches,
           mentplants. Historicallythe best shellfish culture grounds          while mean annual runoff ranges from 31,000 cfs to
           have coincided with the least developed areas of the                190,000 cfs. Willapa Bay has a mean tidal range of 6
           sound. For example, the rich tideflats of Southern Puget            to8feet. Approximately 45 percent of the bay water
           Sound, as well as Willapa Bay, have been the heart of               empties into the Pacific on each tidal cycle.
           the oyster business sincethe 1880's. The leading areas
           of clam production have been South Puget Sound and                  Oysters were Willapa Bay's first industry, beginning
           the Port  . Townse  .nd/Discovery Bay area. However,                during the Gold Rush days with the extensive harvest
           recent shellfish closures have occurred near Olympia                of the native oyster, Ostrea lurida. The native oyster
           and Tacoma, in suburban areas adjacent to Minter Bay,               was soon overharvested. Current stocks in state
           Burley Lagoon, Henderson, and Eld Inlets. The closures              oyster reserves are very small and there are no plans
                                                                               for commercial production. (Dennis Tufts, personal
           are attributed to: nonpoint pollution, originating from an
 V
           increase in the use of onshe waste disposal, often in               communication, August, 1989). The eastern oyster,
           poor soils; development near shorelines and creeks;                 Crassostrea virginica, was transplanted toWillapa Bay
           and an increasing population of household pets. Com-                in 1894 but failed to, spawn. In 1928, the Japanese or
           mercial agriculture is also a significant nonpointconcern           Pacific oyster, Crassostrea gigas, was introduced and
           affecting areas such as Port Susan and Samish Bay .                 has continued as the major species produced in Wil-
                                                                               lapa Bay. Seed oysters were transported from Japan
           Willapa Bay, formerly Shoalwater Bay, is located in                 until local hatcheries were developed. These hatcher-
           southwest Washington and is separated from the sea by               ies have been extremely successful, producing enough
           an 18-mile long spit, the Long Beach Peninsula. It has              seed for Willapa growers, and allowing them to sell the
           been described as the most productive bay on the                    excess outside the state.        Landings in 1986 were
           Pacific coast (Hedgpeth 1981). At present, approxi-                 429,000 *gallons of shucked product.
           mately 15,000 acres of bay are used for oyster produc-
           tion out of a potential 42,500 acres. According to The              *Note: Landings of molluscan shellfish are reported differ-
           Fisheries Statistical Report, by the Washington Depart-             ently from state to state. Most of this report compares
                                                                               landings inpounds as derivedfrom bushels of shellproducts
           ment of Fisheries, Willapa Bay leads Puget Sound and
                                                                               or gallons of shucked product.
           Grays Harbor in the production of Pacific oysters. It
           produced over two thirds of state landings in 1953 and
                                                                               The Japanese littleneck clam, Tapesjaponica, grows
           approximately half in 1985. Washington State is respon-             naturally in Willapa Bay, and is harvested commercially
           sible for 10 to 80 percent of the West Coast oyster
                                                                               by 3 farmers with annual landings of approximately
           harvest. (Figure 5

            Figure 2. Representative harvested bivalves.






                   Sea Mussel                            Gooduck                            Amork= Oystor             Olympia Oyste




                 Softshell Clam                       ftzor Clam                                    Ckle       Weathervans Scallop




                                                                                                                                       6






              100,000 lbs.(Figure 4). There are some areas of the
              bay with excellent potential for expansion of production,          During the period from 1888 to 1908, eastern oysters
              Oysterville Flats, for example, but cultivation will re-           accounted for 85 percent of the oysters produced in
              quire the investment by growers in gravel to provide               California.
              suitable habitat (Dennis Tufts, personal communica-
              tion. August 1989).                                                Beginning in 1890, the State of Washington encour-
                                                                                 aged private citizens to raise, or farm, shellfish by
                Molluscan Shellfish Aquaculture and Landings                     allowing the purchase of intertidal lands. The enabling
                                                                                 legislation, referred to as the *Callow Act", restricted
              During the Gold Rush years of the mid-nineteenth cen-              those purchases to tidelands supporting natural oyster
              tury, there was a high market demand and extensive                 beds 'About 60 percent of thetidelands were purchased
              harvesting of shellfish, particularly the oyster. In the           by private individuals before the legislature prohibited
              1850's, sailing schooners dredged Puget Sound and                  private sale of tidelands. Oregon and California also
              Yaquina Bay for oysters marketed in San Francisco.                 permitt ed purchase of interlidal lands, although neverto
              However, about 90 percent of the oysters delivered to              the extent permitted in Washington. Currently, tide-
              San Francisco in the late 1800s were harvested from                lands, subtidal bottom, water surface, and columns are
              Shoalwater Bay, referred to now as Willapa (Barrett,               leased for the culture of shellfish in California, Oregon,
              1963).. California's oystermen began the culture of                Washington, and Alaska.
              oysters around 1850 when juvenile oysters weretrans-
              planted from beds in Oregon to San Francisco Bay. In               Oysters. The first oyster to be farmed along the Pacif ic
              about 1869, the eastern seed oysters became the pre-               coast is the Ostrea lurida, referred to as the Olympia
              dominant specie, shipped by fast freight mainlyfrom the            oyster. Most of the natural beds were exploited by the
              New York and New Jersey estuaries and averaging                    early 1900's. At the turn of the century, when many
              about 100 carloads annually. These shipments ended                 oyster harvesters switched to oysterfarming, theystarled
              in 1910 and the eastern oysters, remaining in San                  with the Olympia. The natural beds are usually located
              Francisco Bay, were transplanted to Humboldt Bay.                  below low water level because the Olympia is easily


                 Figure 3    US Landings of clams and oysters.






                                                                            el
                                     ..... .           ...... ..
                                           .......               ................
                     0                               .. . . . . .                                            . . .... . . . .
                                                                                                         . . . . . .         . . . .
                                                       . . . .             . . . . . .

                                                                                ....           ......              ......
                                                                     ....            ......              ......
                     E                                                                         . . . . . .             . . . .


                    S


                    _J








                                  65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84

                                                                             Year



                        Northeast               Mid-Atlantic               Southeast             Gun of Mexic                  West Coast

                                                                                                                                           7






                                                                                                                                        
affected by temperature extremes. To raise this spe-            gigas, from Japan and, by 1912, they were experienc-
cies, oystermen built parks, mostly in the intertidalzone       ing some initial success in natural spawning and grow-
in Totten inlet (southern Puget Sound), where the               out. Oystermen also imported seed oysters from 
oysters are always covered with water. The ground is            Japan beginning in 1919 they first produced Pacifics in
levelled in terraces and surrounded by low dikes made           Samish Bay, and by 1930 in Willapa Bay and Tillamook
of concrete or creosoted wood. Cultch (gravel and               Bay, Oregon. In recent years hatcheries have been
shell) is used to promote the settling of natural spat. The     started in Washington, Oregon and California, produc-
oysters are moved to sites where growth or fattening is         ing both seed oysters and eyed larvae. The seed 
encouraged. These culture methods are very expen-               oysters are either attached (cultched) or not attached
sive and the Olympia is very small, usually less than 2         (cultchless) to mother shell. The cultchless is only used
inches in length. The oyster is shucked for cocktail use        to grow single oysters for the half shell trade. The 
and is sold for $120-150 per gallon. In 1985, 2,000 lbs.        production by hatcheries of eyed larvae has benefitted
were landed in Washington with an estimated value of            the industry, because the larvae can be shipped inex-
$53,000.(WA Dept. Fisheries. 1986). Some Olympias               persively. The eyed larvae have a fairly high success
also survive in Netarts and Yaquina bays in Oregon,             rate for seed settlement on cultch in controlled 
contributing a few thousand gallons of shucked meats            temperatures and salinity-controlled tanks (Chew, 1983).
per year (Breese and Wick, 1974).           
                                                                Near the turn of the century the eastern oyster, Cras-          Pacific oyster culture expanded rapidly, reaching a 
sostrea virginica, was shipped from the East Coast as           peak in 1946 of 13 million lbs. in Washington alone, 
natural reproduction was poor in West Coast estuaries.          where production declined to 6 million lbs. in 1985.
Initially, the introduction of the eastern oyster created an    Washington produces about 80 percent of all West
important industry, particularly in San Francisco Bay,          Coast oysters. Currently four types of Pacific oysters
but high mortality rates and poor reproduction ended            are commercially cultivated on the West Coast:Miyagi,
commercial production in 1939.                                  commonly known as the Pacific oyster: Kumamoto:a
                                                                hybird, Miyagi-Kumamoto, referred to as Gigamoto:
In 1905, Japanese oystermen from Samish Bay, Wash-              and a neutered Miyagi oyster. Methods of grow-out
ington, imported mature Pacific oysters, Crassostrea            include on-bottom and off-bottom culture. Historically,
                                                                growers spread the seed oysters on firm, first class,
                                                                tidelands and allowed them to grow out there. Most first
                                                                class tidelands are no longer available so growers can

only lease second or third class tidelands with soft or muddy bottom.  On the less desirable tidelands and
intertidal plots, off-bottom methods are employed: longline, rack, raft, stake, rack and bag culture, and
suspended culter.  In longline culture, the mother shell with spat attached, is strung on rope or wire
suspended above the bottoms.  These lines are then anchored on hard bottoms, hung on racks or sus-
pended on stakes.  Stake culture involves attaching mother shell to stakes driven into the bottom.  Rack and bag 
culture is used to grow out single oysters for the half shell trade.  Oysters are grown in mesh bags clipped to
rebar racks.  In floating culture, grow-out trays or cages are stacked on the floor of a sink float or suspended
in the water columns.  Japanese lantern nets, suspended from the dock or float with a rope bridle, are employed
on San Juan Island.  In recent years, oyster farming has become subjected to increased regulation, shoreline
development permits, health certification, site lease agreements, and navigable water permits.  The off-bottom and
floating culture methods have received criticism as a threat to navigation and aesthetic values.  Although it is is
considered a water-dependent use, objections from shoreline developers and residents may restrict future development
of acquaculture.

CLAMS.  Many species of clams grow in West Caost estuaries, nine of which are harvested commercially.  Although
the Pacific coast clam fishery represents only one percent of the total U.S. catch, it is an important part of
the heritage of coastal communities and a factor in the economy of rural communities (Schink, McGraw, Chew, 1983).  
The 1985 Washington landings were 6 million lbs. of hardshell clams, 71,000 lbs. of razor clams, and 3 million lbs.
of geoducks.  Intertidal areas in Oregon and California produce small quantities of clams for commerical use.  IN
Oregon, horseclams are harvested in Coos and Yaquina bays, and native little-necks and butter clams in Tillamook
Bay.  In California, there have been very small numbers of butter and jack-knife (Tagelus californianus) clams landed.

Clam farming on the Pacific coast is either intertidal or subtidal.  Native littleneck and butter clams are also
harvested from subtidal beds by hydraulic escalator har-

 
      
              
              

                Figure 6.     California oyster landings.

                                             
                                                Morro Bay
                                                Tomales Bay                 
                                                Humboldt Bay  
                                                Drakes Bay                                                                                                            9


                                                                                  9





           vestors. Geoducks and horse, or snow clams, are                    the U.S. is just beginning to emerge in response to in-
           harvested from subtidal beds by scuba divers using                 creased market demands. Landings of the blue mussel,
           suction devices.                                                   Mytilus edulis, from five commercial growers in Wash-
                                                                              ington, went from zero in 1971 to 297,000 lbs. in 1985.
           Clam culture has developed less rapidly than oyster                (WA Dept. Fisheries. 1986).
           culture because of the large wild population, the diffi-
           culty of collecting clam seed from natural reproduction,           California mussel landings were approximately 104,000
           the lack of commercial hatcheries, and extensive larval            lbs. in 1985. Oregon's landings, mostly the California
           losses from predation. ( Glude. 1989). The market                  mussel, Mytilus cafifornianus , were 61,000 lbs. in
           exists for an expansion of clam culture on the West                1980. The resurgence of the East Coast mussel
           Coast. The clam species with the most potential for                industry, the research and application of improved
           culture is the Manila. Recently, seed has been pro-                culture methods and economic success of somegrow-
           duced with ease in a number of hatcheries. Seedclams               ers in Washington and California, have stimulated the
           are planted under a protective plastic net cover, result-          expansion of mussel aquaculture on the West Coast.
           ing in exclusion of predators, stabilization of beach              One of the most successful operations occurs on oil
           substrate, and possible enhancement of natural settle-             platfoIrms in the Santa Barbara Channel. The plat-
           ment. Seed can also be produced successfully for                   forms attract mussels, but their accumulated weight is
           Pacific geoduck and razor clams.                                   a haz'gr^d. The nuisance mussels are now harvested
                                                                              from the platforms and marketed, currently averaging
           Mussels. Mussel culture began in the 13th century in               twenty tons a month for ten months of the year. These
           Europe and has been successfully practiced in Spain,               cultivated mussels have been given a clean bill of
           France, England and the Netherlands. The industry in               health from California Health Services and the new


              Figure 7 . Oregon oyster landings.

                     Soo -
                                                           F-I     Tillamook Bay

                                                                    Yaquina Bay

                     400                                            Coos Bay




              C)

                     300

              U)



              0
              CL



                     200









                     100








                      0 4@
                            66     70      74     75     76      77     78      79     so      81     82      83     84     85

                                                                           Year


                                                                                                                                   10






               business has been expanded to include oysters, scal-                scallop should be managed under the NSSP.
               lops and clams, cultivated on the platforms (Robert
               Meek, personal communication).                                      The potential for scallop culture has been investigated
                                                                                   on the West Coast using the weathervane and rock
                                                                                   scallop. Although the larvae of the Atlantic sea scallop
                                                                                   have been reared in the laboratory, there is little interest
               Scallops. There are four species of scallops found in               in rearing this species due to abundant East Coast
               Puget Sound; the weathervane or giant Pacific. scallop              stocks and lower market prices. A species with excellent
               (Patinopecten caurinus), the spiny and pink scallops                potential for culture on the West Coast is the Japanese
               (Chlamys hastata heficia and C. rubida) and the purple-             scallop, Patinopectenyessoensis. (Mike Kaill, personal
               hinged rock scallop, Crassodoma giganteous (Hinnites)               communication). The Japanese have been raising this
               Except for the rock scallop, which is attached to the               species successfully, using onion bag or nets, sus-
               bottom, these species are bottom dwelling but capable               pended off bottom. The pelagic larvae attach to the
               of free swimming. Harvest is by divers using hand tools.            strands of the bag or net and, after some initial growth,
               Washington harvest of scallops totalled 51,000 lbs. in              are then transplanted to suspended trays or cages for
               1985, with an increase to 307,000 in 1988. The scallop              growout.
               has not been a majorconcern of shellf ish sanitarians be-
               cause most harvest has been in deeper oceanic waters                Mussels and scallops, like oysters and clams, can be-
               and onlythe adductor muscle has been consu med, usu-                come highly toxic after ingesting large quantities of
               ally cooked.. R ecently there has been an increase in the           Gonyalaux. Recent outbreaks of "red tide" in Puget
               ,consumption of the whole scallop, served with roe at-              Sound have stopped the harvest of mussels and scal-
               tached in its shell, raising the issue of whether the               lops for extended periods of time, and associated bad

                Figure 8 . Washington oyster landings.                                                    Willapa Bay
                         8000 -                                                                  El
                                                                                                  F-I     Grays Harbor

                                                                                                          Samish Bay

                                                                                                          Puget Sound


                         6WOOO







                   Q




                                 ........... ..
                         4000
                   0              ........
                                 ...... ...       .... .

                                                                                                          . ....... .
                                      @O
                                                               11 ....                            ........
                                                               ........ .
                                                                          00
                                                               .........                                  ........
                                                                                                  ........... ..... .

                                                       ...     .........
                                                      ......   ........                            . ....
                                                                                                  ... ... . . . .
                                                                                                          ...........



                         2000











                             0
                                  71     72     73     74      75     76     -n     78     79     so      81     82     83     84     as
                                                                                     Year






           publicity has dampened the market. If some of the                their shellfish programs. California has added 4 addi-
           impediments to mussel and scallop culture can be re-             tional staff members with expertise in sanitary engi-
           moved there is considerable potential for the industry.          neering, biological and environmental sciences, and
            Administration of State Shellfish Programs                      microbiology. Memoranda of Understanding have been
                                                                            developed with California Fish and Game and water
                                                                            resources control boards and new state shellfish regu-
           Callibmia. State regulatory agencies on the West                 lations have been adopted. Sanitary surveys have
           Coast act in response to industry's applications to cul-         been completed for Morro Bay, Aqua Hedionda, and
           lure or grow molluscan shellfish. In California, a grower        Humboldt Bay and a new and expanded Paralytic
           must apply to the California Department of Fish and              Shellfish Poisoning monitoring program has been de-
           Game for an aquaculture registration or a Tidal Inverte-         veloped and implemented.
           brate Permit. If shellfish are to be cultivated on state
           tidal or submerged lands, an aquaculture lease must be
           obtained from the Fish and Game Commission. If shell-            In Oregon, the commercial cultivation of oysters is
           fish are to be cultured on tidelands granted to harboror         under the jurisdiction of the State Department of
           port districts, the leases must be obtained directly from        Agriculture. However, the Oregon Fish and Wildlife
           the agency holding the grant. The prospective grower             Commission has jurisdiction over the native oysters.
           must also obtain a Growing-Area Certificate from the             Oyster growers may apply for a plat and if the area is
           California Department of Health Services. The state              available and approved as suitable for oyster cultivation,
           will then conduct a sanitary survey and classify the             the grower must then apply for a certificate of shellfish
           shellfish growing waters.                                        sanitation from the Health Division of the Department of
                                                                            Human Resources. As in California, the State then
           Between the 1985 Register and this publication, the              classifies the growing area based on a sanitary survey.
           West Coast states have made substantial changes in               These certificates must be issued for each area of


            Figure 9. Oregon clam landings.
                  300-                                                                     Tillamook Bay

                                                                                           Yaquina Bay

                                                                                           CoosBay





                   200-









             0





                   100-













                                                       LAM
                     0.
                        1970 1971 1972     1973   1974 1975    1976 1977 1978 1979        1980 1981 1982 1983 1994 1985
                                                                        Year

                                                                                                                                 12



                                                                                                                                                 __Z7



               operation and renewed with requisite fees annually,                shellfish growing waters, monitors the shellfish beds
                                                                                  and processing plants, and samples for PSP.
               Since 1985, the Oregon Health Department has in-,
               creased its staff and is contracting with six county               Washington has expanded their shellfish program within
               health departments to augment sampling andshoreline                both the Health Department(DOH) and Department of
               survey work. Bacteriological and PSP sampling has                  Fisheries (DOF), with additional assistance from pro-
               been increased and shellfish management plans have                 gramsdeveloped underthe Puget Sound Water Quality
               been developed for Netarts, Tillamook, Yaquina and                 Management Plan. The Washington Department of
               Coos bays, Joe Ney, and South Sloughs. Oregon has                  Ecology (DOE) has provided funding for twelve "early
               increased its monthly ambient water sampling to 8 bays             action" watersheds, six of which are addressed in Sec-
               with intensive wet weather sampling in conditionally               tion III of this report on pollution (T. Determan, personal
               managed areas, and accelerated oyster meat samples                 communication). DOE also operates a marine ambient
               and plant inspections. Oregon Health works closely                 monitoring system coordinated with the Puget Sound
               with the Department of Environmental Quality to in-.               Ambient Monitoring Program. Citizen monitoring pro-
               crease sampling coverage and correct septic failures               grams have been organized for bd and Henderson
               and other water quality problems.                                  Inlets and Hood Canal. Special projects on water
                                                                                  quality impacts from marinas have been conducted by
               In Washington, lands are held and managed as a                     DOH, culminating in a marina management plan for
               public trust by the Division of Land Management of the             Washington.
               Department of Natural Resources. Tidelands and
               shorelands are designated as first class or second                 In recent years, the tribal governments in Washington
               class and are leased with preference to water-depend-              have begun to exercise local governmental power in
               ent uses, including aquacufture. Waste discharges into             such activities as resource use enhancement, taxing,
               state waters are regulated by the Department of Ecol-              and their unique powers to undertake profit-making
               ogy and the Department of Health. The latter classifies

                Figure10. Washington Clam Landings
                       1200
                                                                                                   Willapa Bay

                                                                                                   Samish Bay

                       1000
                                                                                                   Puget Sound





                 0


                 r_     Goo
                 3



                       4W







                      200-







                          0
                               74       76       76       77       78       79       W       81       82       83       84       as
                                                                               Year


                                                                                                                                        13






            businesses. The question of ownership and control                 Zieman, personal communication, January 1989). Ap-
            of the shellfish resource has not been resolved and               proval of a recent application for certification by the
            may, like many other tribal issues, be de   icided in the         Hawaii Department of Health would allow production
            courts. Meanwhile, Washington DOH and DOF are                     of hardshell clams, Mercenaria mercenaria, in the 19
            working closely with the Pacific Northwest Indians                acre Nomilu Fish Pond on the Island of Kauai.
            Commission to develop written agreementson health
            and certification issues related to the harvest of shefl-         Many new innovations in shellfish culture are taking
            fish. DOH is looking for alternative certification proc-          place on Oahu and the Island of Hawaii. In 1978, the
            esses to resolve problems such as the harvesting of               state aquaculture plan projected a $35-45 million in-
            shellfish from prohibited areas for subsistence or                dustry within 10 years. Although it has not reached the
            ceremonial purposes but which are then sold in mar-               projected goal, the industry grosses $5.4 million
            kets.                                                             annually and markets more than 20 species, among
                                                                              them clams, oysters, abalone and sea urchins.
            Hawaii. Although Hawaii is considered a producing
            state, there were no harvesting areas classified as ap-           Located at Keahole Point, near Kona on the big island
            proved in 1985. A clam resource exists in Pearl                   of Hawaii, Hawaii Ocean Science and Technology
            Harbor, but the area is classified prohibited because             Park (HOST) offers long-term leases for aquaculture
            of high fecal levels, toxics, organic compounds, and              development. Nutrient-rich, deep ocean water is
            heavy metals. In Kaneohe Bay, clams were har-                     pumped ashore at 45 degrees F in a temperate climate
            vested until sewage and urban runoff closed the bay               with plenty of sunshine. These are excellent condi-
            to all shellfish harvest. Construction of an ocean                tions in which to raise numerous species of ocean
            outf all forthi disposal of regional sewage effluent has          plants and animals. One of the success stories at
            cleaned up the bay. However, by the 1970's the clam               Keahole Point is the Ocean Farms operation which is
            resource had declined, and current nutrient levels are            moving rapidly ahead in the production of kelp, salmon,
            too low to support cornmercial clam production. (David            abalone and sea urchins. Oysters are raised in the

            Figure 11      Number of sampling stations.
                   5000








                   4000








                   30DO

             U)






                   2000








                   1000-








                        0
                          WA CA OR ME NH MA R1 CT NY NJ DE VA NO SC GA FL AL MS LA TX
                                                                            States

                                                                                                                                   14






              large ponds, with kelp and salmon; an example of                    Alaska is producing razor clams, littlenecks, geoducks,
              polyculture.                                                        oysters, and mussels. Commercial harvest in Alaska is
                                                                                  still inhibited by paralytic shellfish poisoning, high labor
              Alaska. In the early 1900's, Alaska was a major pro-                costs, small local markets, and high transportation costs
              ducerof razorclams, reaching a production peak of ap-               for out-of-state markets. The Alaska Department of En-
              proximately 6 millions lbs. in 1916 and declining to a              vironmental Conservation (1989) projects an increase in
              minimal bait clam industry in -1961. The decline in                 molluscan shellfish landingsfrom 175,000lbs. in.1989to
              production was due to stock depletion, heavy winter                 1.2 million lbs. in 1992, an increase in value from
              storms and unfavorable market conditions. Canned                    $327,000 to over $2 million. This expansion of the
              Alaska razorclams, produced at relatively high harvest              shellfish industry will require a commitment from the
              costs, could not compete with the East Coast industry.              state in terms of resources to survey, sample, and man-
                                                                                  agethe shellfish sanitation aspects, asWell as an expan-
              Alaska has had a particularly difficult time maintaining            sion of shellfish research and resource management.
              the approved status under the NSSP because of the                   The 199ONationalShellfishR&gisterwilI includeAlaska,
              lack of resources needed to carry out program require-              mapping and measuring all shel     'Ifish growing areas and
              ments and the extensive geographic areas which must                 assessing potential pollution impacts.
              be surveyed.      FDA withdrew their approval of the
              Alaska program in 1954. The intrastate market was                  In British Columbia (BC), two ministries are concerned
              limited, and all product shipped out of state was re-              with shellfish culture: the Ministry of Forests & Lands,
              stricted for use as crab bait. In 1975, Alaska received            which allocates aquatic Crown land for aquaculture; and
              its NSSP program approval and the industry began to                the lead agency, the Ministry of Agriculture & Fisheries,
              rebuild. . As of October, 1988, 30 areas had been                  which has overall control of the shellfish industry, provid-
              surveyed, covering 110 harvestors and approximately                ing financial and marketing services, controlling licens-
              A 50,000 acres.                                                    ing and inspection of fish buyers and processors, and
                                                                                 establishing fish production and quality standards. The

                Figure 1@      Acres per sampling station.


                                         23000









                               4000-




                          CU
                          C0








                              2000













                                     WA CA OR.       ME NH MA RI CT NY              NJ   DE   VA   NC    SC GA      FL AL MS LA TX
                                                                              States


                                                                                                                                           15






                                                               is-nnforces'.     shellfish control agency has a major impact on the clas-
              Federal Department of Fisheries and Ocear,
              regulations of both the Fisheries Act and th'a-Fisheries,          sification of shellfish growing waters. A questionnaire
              Inspection Act and exercises paralytic shellt@hp'oison',.          was used to collect information on the administration of
              control. Shellfish production is profitahle; la6di@gs in,'
                                                                            I    state programs, including staffing and budgets. Over a
              1985 were 3420 tons, at a value of $2     .5million (Ctinaw        million dollars were spent by West Coast states in 1985
              dian).                                                             to survey and classify waters (Figure 13.). Oregon spent
                                                                                 more-4an . 84 cents per acre, and Washington and
              Pollution is the most serious of current problems facing           California spent 42 and 19 cents per acre, respectively.
              the Canadian shellfish industry toqay- (Quayle 1989) 1@
              Intrie Canadian Maritime provinces of Nova Scotia,                 Sampling requirements vary f rom state to state, depend-
              New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island,there arel                  ing upon physical characteristics of the estuaries (eg.
              about 150 shellfish-growing areas which are unproduc-i'            miles of shoreline), and how waters are classified; condi-
              tive because of pollution. In British Columbia, sewage             tionally approved waters generally require the most budget
              pollution'has close  'd or limited a significant proportion',.     and staff resources. Water samples.are taken near the
              of oyster pr66ucing grounds. Industrial pollution is',             surface and often include other parameters such as
              also a problem in shellfish growing areas, primarily               salinity and temperature. Weather conditions are noted
              waste liquor from pulp mills and log booming opera-                since samples should reflect water quality during major
              tions. In 1985, 135,000 acres were closed to harvest               pollution events such as heavy rainfall or high riverstage.
              in southern BC because of domestic and industrial                  The ability of the states to predict environmental thresh-
              0611u: ion. All w
                   t             aters in northern BC are closed to              olds is related to the comprehensiveness and timeliness
              harvest because of PSP (Canada Department of Fish-                 of their data collection efforts.
            -'eries and Oceans, .1.985).- -
                                                                                 West Coast waters are monitored for fecal coliforms at
              S
                  te Budgets and Sampling Programs.             The leve',       over 2500 sampling stations located near potential
                tal
              oUinancial-and personnel resources allocated to th,'p              sourcesof pollution and productive harvesting shes (Figure

        ___Figure13 -Total expenditures in 1985.
                      I C.C.C. -








                        K








                       600 -


                  6



                   0  '00-






                     _200






           !t

                            WA CA OR ME NH MA R1 CT NJ                            oe VA NC SC GA FL AL MS LA TX
                                                                               Siates
                                                                                 will
                                                                                  f                                                        16







              11). In 1985, California sampled at 23 stations (23000     gest that a minimum of  five water samples be taken
            acres per station), Oregon at 91 (901 acres per station),   annually. In most cases, the states far exceed this
            and Washington at approximately 2000 (948 acres per           requirment with monthly sampling the norm.
            station) (Figures 11 and 12). The NSSP guidelines sug-      
                                                                        


              Figure14    Expenditures per acre in 1985.


                       2-
















       Dollars    1














                           WA CA OR ME NH MA Ri CT NJ DE VA NC SC GA FL AL LA  TX


                                                                    States











                                                                                                                           --A














                                                                                                                           17





                                    -Section 11. t1assifi              tio .'% of Sh ellfish Growing Waters
                                                                  ca n



            This section examines the status of classified shellfish-            Prohibited Waters. West Coast waters that were not
            ing waters as of 1985 and trends in classification                   approved were primarily prohibited, comprising 47 per-
            between 1971 and 1985. Classification data were                      cent of total classified areas. Some of these prohibited
            derived from charts of the 1985 and 1971 versions of                 waters are in highly productive estuaries, for example:
            the National Shellfish Register of Classified Estuarine              Morro Bay, 58 percent; Humboldt Bay, 55 percent;
            Waters. Data were clarified through interviews with                  Yaquina Bay, 44 percent; and Tillamook Bay, 36
            state agency personnel and reference to written mate-                percent. According to the NSSP, waters which do not
            rials.                                                               have current sanitary surveys must be classified prohib-
                                                                                 ited. This is the case for much of the West Coast
            1985 Classifications                                                 prohibited acreage.

            The majorityof shellfishwaters classified by California,             Restricted Waters. Only 1,587 acres, or less than one
            Oregon, and Washington are owned or leased for                       percent of West Coast waters, were classified as re-
            bottom or suspended culture of molluscan shellfish,                  stricted in 1985 and were located in Monterey Bay,
            particularly oysters. Some clarn harvest and limited                 Tomales Say and Elkhorn Slough. These areas are
            mussel and scallop harvest takes place in public wa-                 designated for harvest of shellfish for depuration, also
            ters. Over 102,000 acres (31 percent) of West Coast                  known as controlled purification. Depuration allows
            classified shellfishing waters were approved for har-                shellfish harvested from waterswith a limiteddegreeof
            vest in 1985 (Table 2 ). Much of this approved area is               pollution to be marketed after suff icient processing in a
            found in Willapa Bay (27,000 acres), Puget Sound
                                                                                 series of tanks supplied with bacteria-free water.
            (34,000 acres), and the Puget Sound subestuaries of
            Skagit Bay (17,000 acres) and Hood Canal (8,000
            acres).    Fifteen estuaries in the region had no ap-                 Figure 15. Classification by region.
            proved waters. Most of these are nonproductive estu-
            aries such as the Eel, Klamath, and Rogue rivers which
            are small river systems with little potential for shellfish
            culture. Of the three states, Washington had the most                           120
            approved Waters, 85 percent of the total West Coast
            classified waters.
                                                                                            100
            A comparison of the West Coast to other regions of the                      0
            country is shown in Figure 15. In 1985,42 percent of
            the classified waters were approved in the Gulf of                              8D
            Mexico, while 82 percent of East Coast waters were                          0
                                                                                        2                          ............ ....
            approved (Leonard et al,1988 and Broutman et al,
                                                                                            60
            1987). The large disparity shown between West Coast
            and East Coast percentages can be explained by the
            inclusion of large areas of nonproductive waters in the
            East Coast totals. Large areas of open water in Long                        0   40
            Island Sound, Chesapeake Bay and Pamlico Sounds                             CD
            account for nearly 50 percent of the approved waters
            ontheEastCoast. Although these highly saline waters                             20
            meet the standards for approved waters, they are not
            productive because many molluscan shellfish prefer
            moderate salinities. Large open water systems are not                                  East Cog       Oil Cow        Westcow
            found along the Gulf coast and, on the West Coast,
            nonproductive open waters (mostly in Puget Sound)                                                     Region
            are not classified. This makes meaningful comparison                 E Approved                                   ed
            between the regions difficult.                                                      M Conditional         Prohibit        Restricted

                                                                                                                                              18






                 Conditionally Approved Waters. . More than 21 per-                State Classifications
                 cent of West Coast Waters were conditionally approved
                 in comparison to 27 percent of Gulf waters and two
                 percent of East Coast waters. Heavy rainfall events               California. California classifications were altered for
                 have an immediate effect as the runoff from urban areas    '      this report to 'reflect mdre accurately 1985 classifica-
                 agricultural lands, woodlands, and marshes flows into             tions. In Humboldt Bay, 5,000 acres, designated for
                 estuarine waters. Elevated fecal coliform levels are              recreational harvest by the California Fish and Game
                 associated with freshwater inflows, regardless of the             Department, were listed as unclassified.
                 land use of the surrounding area.
                                                                                   The California Department of Health Services also re-
                 Use of the conditionally approved classification requires         quested that NOAA reevaluate classifications in San
                 the development of a management plan that clearly                 Francisco Bay. In 1985, the National Shellfish Register
                 defines the conditions under which the waters will be             listed 250,000 acres prohibited based upon the lack of
                 opened and closed. States limit the use of the condition-         sanitary surveys. During the 1989 field work, NOAA
                 ally approved classification to areas with significant            worked closely with California Department of Health
                 shellfish resources because they are able to justify              Services to delineate areas that should be prohibited
                 additional efforts required to develop a management               because of nonpoint runoff, industry and boats, (80,000
                 plan and increase monitoring. Often the most produc-              acres). Although water quality in San Francisco Bay
                 tive estuaries are those classified conditionally-approved        has improved because of improvements in industrial
                 as the runoff and freshwater inflow bring with them the           and domestic waste treatment facilities (Luo.ma and
                 nutrients necessary for shellfish production.                     Cloern, 1980), accordingto several sourcesthere is still
                                                                                   a substantial problem from increased urban runoff and
                 Figurel 6. Classification of productive estuaries.                sewage overflows (Nichols, 1988), and increased BOD,
                                                                                   nutrients and heavy metals related to a decrease in
                                                                                   freshwater input (Russell et al, 1980). Almost 51,000
                    W1* Lly
                                                                                   acres areconsidered nonproductive. Forthe remainder
                                                                                   of the Bay, 156,000 acres, will remain"unclassified"until
                     OraLkes Bay                                                   lease applications are received and/or sanitary surveys
                                                                                   performed. Additional resources will be required to,
                   Pqt S04                                                         complete a comprehensive sanitary survey of the total
                                                                                   San Francisco Bay-Delta- Estuary system.
                   You &Y
                                                                                   Only 108,000 acres (21 percent) of California waters are
                     rA as Lay                                                     classified. Approximately 2,000 acres are classified
                 0                                                                 approved, all located in Drake's Bay. California's 161,000
                                                                                   acres of unclassified waters represent 48 percent of all
                 a Gr* KJbr
                                                                                   West Coast waters. The majority of classified waters,
                 LU        ....                                                    85 percent, were prohibited. San Francisco Bay had
                  Timok Bay                                                        80,000 of these acres or, 85.percent of the total prohib-
                                                                                   ited, followed by Humboldt Bay with 12,000 acres. In
                   Nabok Bay,
                                                                                   1985, conditional areas in California totalled 12,000
                                                                                   acres, located in productive Humboldt, Tornales, Drakes
                    TcmdesBayl                                                     and Morro bays.

                                                          ..........
                                                                                   Oregon. Nonproductive waters comprised 53 percent
                                                        ... ......... ...
                                                                                   Of Oregon's waters, with 3 percent unclassified and the
                                                                                   remainder, 78,000 acres (44 percent), classified. Of
                    Morm Lay            .. ........
                                                                                   these classified waters, 33 percent were approved,
                           0      20      40      60      80      100              mainly Netarts Bay (100 percent), Nehalam Bay (88
                                       Permnt d Classft Waters                     percent) and Winchester and Yaquina bays, each a1:56
                                                                                   percent approved.
                 NApproved M Prohibited [:]Conditional EZ Restricted
                           "M








                                                                                                                                          19





          Table 2. Classification by estuary (acres)*


                 Estuary               Approved        Prohibited      Conditional        Restricted          NS/NP           Unclassified

          San Diego Bay                         0              0                   0                0         11573                    0
          San Pedro Bay                         0              0                   0                0         15484                    0
          Santa Monica Bay                      0              0                   0                0            247                   0
          Morro Bay                             0          1273                905                  0              0                   0
          Monterey Bay                          0            109                   0             703          133914                   0
          San Francisco Bay                     0         79688                593                  0         50558               155875
          Drakes Bay                      2017                 0               611                  0         29205                    0
          Tomales Bay                           0              0              5259               884            9197                   0
          Eel River                             0              0                   0                0           2998                   0
          Humboldt Bay                          0         11814               4669                  0              0                5102
          Klamath River                         0              0                   0                0            804                   0
          Rogue River                           0              0                   0                0            536                   0
          Coos Bay                        3049             2144               5935                  0              .0                  0
          Winchester Bay                  3229             2574                    0                0              0                   0
          Siuslaw River                         0          1501                    0                0              0                   0
          Alsea Bay                             0              0                   0                0              0                2345
          Yaquina Bay                     2113             1629                    0                0              0                   0
          Siletz Bay                         821             383                   0                0              0                   0
          Netarts Bay                     2406                 0                   0                0              0                   0
          Tillamook Bay'                        0          3209               5666                  0              0                   0
          Nehalem Bay                     1654               236                   0                0              0                   0
          Columbia River                        0              0                   0                0         74189                    0
          Willapa Bay                     27402            2552                    0                0              0                   0.
          Grays Harbor                          0         16761              43085                  0              0                   0
          Puget Sound                     34283           22835               1143                  0       1528868                    0
          Hood Canal                      8399               204                   0                0         100250                   0
          Skagit Bay                      16978            6568                439                  0         132218                   0

          TOTAL                          102351           153478             68307             1587
          Percent of Total Classified         31               47                21                 0
            Values represent classif led waters. Classified waters represent 13% (325,723 acres) of all West Coast waters. Non-shellfish/
          nonproductive waters represent 81% (209,004 acres) of all West Coast waters. Unclassified waters represent 6% (163,323 acres)
          of all West Coast waters.

           Figure 17      Nonproductive -waters.                    Conditional (3%)

                                                                                          Approved (4%)


                                                                                                    Prohibited (6%)


                                                                                                              Unclassified (6%)






                                                Nonproductive (81 %)








                                                                                                                                        20






                Over 33 percent of Oregon's s   hellfish waters were clas-         Conditions in Oregon were similar to California from
                sified prohibited in 1985. Unfortunately, this classifica-         1971 to 1985. All downgrades and 75 percent of the
                tion applied to potentially productive oyster areas in             upgrades in classification were a result of additional
                Yaquina, Coos and Tillamook Bays. The classifica-                  areas surveyed or improved monitoring. Onlyonearea,
                tions in Oregon were split evenly in 1985, with condi-             3,000 acres in the Umpqua River section of Winchester
                tional areas also equivalent to 33 percent.            Only        Bay, was upgraded from prohibited to approved be-
                Tillamook and Coos bays had areas classified as con-               cause of improvements in sewage treatment.
                ditionally approved.
                                                                                   Washington's trends can be assessed by using infor-
                Washington. Large acreages in Puget Sound are                      mation from the Shellfish Protection Stratea, which
                considered nonproductive due to the depths, currents               traces classifications as far back as the 1950s (Wash-
                and unsuitable substrate. Nonproductive waters total-              ington Department of Ecology, 1984). The publication
                led almost 2 million acres or9l percent of Washington's            also attributed changes to specific sources of pollution.
                waters. The remaining 180,000 acres, was 48 percent                Results indicated that 99 percent of the upgrades in
                approved, mainly in the extremely productive estuary of            Washington were administrative; areas that were sur-
                Willapa Bay (91 percent). Prohibited areas totalled 27             veyed and classified approved. However, over 62,000
                percent, mainly in Grays Harbor, Port Susan, and some              acres were downgraded because of pollution, totalling
                developing areas of south Puget Sound. Grays Harbor                92 percent of all downgrades. Although, historically the
                contributed 43,000 acres (96 percent) to the state                 most significant impact on shellfish growing waters has
                conditional total of 45,000 acres.                                 been urban growth and resultant discharges from sew-
                                                                                   agetreatment plants, the DOE report suggested a major
                Trends in Classification, 1971-1985                                threat to the traditional shellfish culture areas is non-
                                                                                   point contamination in rural areas. Appendix B has a
                Evaluating trends in water quality based upon changes              listing of the water quality changes on the West Coast
                in shellfish classification is difficult because classifica-       and the pollution sources affecting the downgraded
                tions are changed for reasons otherthan water quality.             areas.
                New applications for aquaculture leasesopen up areas
                for classification and management by the atate. Waters
                that were not previously surveyed dre opened after
                completion of a sanitary survey, or waters monitored
                under favorable conditions, are closed after sampling
                under worst case conditions.


                Trends were evaluated by examining differences be-
                tween 1971 and 1985 charts from the NationalShellfish
                Registerseries. State shellfish managers were asked
                to provide reasons for changes in classificaton and to             "Although, historically the most significant impact
                distinguish changes that resulted from alterations in              on shellfish growing waters has been urbangrowth...
                water quality from those that were primarily administra-           a major threat to the traditional shellfish culture
                tive. A summary of upgrades and downgrades are
                                                                                   areas is nonpoint contamination      ......
                shown by state in Figure 18, with those related to water
                quality compared to administrative changes.

                All California upgrades were water quality related. In
                Elkhorn Slough, 139 acres were reclassified from pro-
                hibited to restricted because of improvements in sew-
                age treatment and the sewering of Moss Landing.
                This upgrade in classification has allowed two growers
                to raise oysters and mussels in Elkhorn Slough. All
                downgrades in California were administrative, a result
                of increased monitoring activities.



                                                                                                                                          21







              Figure 18. Trends in classification.


                      400-
                                                              Water Quality Upgrades

                                                              Administrative Upgrades

                                                                                                            

                      200-                                                 
                                                                           






                      0-     1.4                       32.3    97.25                  1.43   204.18

                                         -19.1                          -62.7                            -41.55                      
                                                                                                                     
                                                                                     




                      200-








                      400-


                                                              Water Quality Downgrades

                                                              Administrative Downgrades 
                                                                                                                       
                      600-                                                                   -622.56








                      800-
                                       California                        Oregon                         Washington
          Note: Classification upgrades include waters that were.
          reclassified between 1971 and 1985: 1) from prohibited
          to approved, conditionally approved, or restricted; or 2)
          irom unclassified to approved. Classification down-
          grades include waters reclassified: 1) from approved to
          conditionally approved, restricted, or prohibited; or 2)
          from conditionally approved or restricted to prohibited;
          or 3) from approved to unclassified.













                                                                                                                                 22
 






                                                       Section Ill. Sources of Pollution

			The water quality of the nation's estuaries is a growing concern, and is a major theme in the NEI. Shellfish can be useful indicators to water quality changes.
			This section summarizes information collected on pollution sources affectin shellfishing waters.  Pollution sources that contribute to the permanent or temporary closure of West Coast waters were identified for each harvest-limited area classified as prohibited, conditionally approved or restricted
									
									  Concept of Contributing Source

			Only those sources that are significant factors in classifying the area were identified.  The effect of a pollution source on shellfish growing waters depends on several factors: the numbers of coliform bacteria discharged by the source to reciving waters, the volume of water into which the discharge occurs, and flushing ability related to tides and circulation. The effect of a source will depend on the size of the growing area and the presence of other sources.  A marina, significant in a small remote area, might not be idnetified as a contributing source if located in a major urban area.  In other situations, a pollution source may be identified in a shoreline survey although the acutal contribution of fecal coliform bacteria is small.  In case of a sewage treatment plant(STP) buffer zone, the shell fish growing area may be closed as a safety zone because of the potential effect of plant fialure, rather than the actual contribution of fecal coliform bacteria to the system.
			To assess the overall effect of a pollution source, each source that is identified as a contributing factor for a classified area is weighted by the acreage of the area.  Acreages identified for each source are then summed by estuary to determine total acreage affected by the source.  The percent of estuary affected by each source is the ratio of the total affected acreage to the total harvest-limitied area of the estuary.
			Humbolt Bay provides an example of the concept of contributing source.  One larged prohibited shellfish growing area, adjacent to Arcata Marsh, accounted for 42 percent of the total harvest-limited area of Humboldt Bay.  The Arcata Marsh area was affected by sewage treatment plants(STPs), agricultural runoff and wildlife; each affected the entire acreage area of 9026 acres.	
			Septic systems were cited as a pollution source only in Central Arcata Bay, a total of 4,644 acres; a contributing factor in 22 percent of the harvest-limited area fo Humboldt Bay.  Agricultural runoff and wildlife contributed to fecal pollution in all 5 areas, making them a contributing factor in 100 percent of shellfishing growing areas.
			Sources of pollution affecting harvest-limited waters are described by category(Table 3).  Pollution sources that discharge directly to estuarine waters are distinguished from upstream sources that affect waters indirectly through tributaries.  The area in which a pollution source is identified as a contributing cause is summarized by estuary in Figure 19 and Appendix C.

									 Upstream Sources of Pollution

			Pollution sources that affect shellfish growing water through river systems are identified in a separate upstream sources category.  The upstream sources, identified in this study, have been derived from studies or inferred from land use.  Rivers have a profound effect on classified waters.  As a river enters a bay system, it transports fresh water an nutrients as well as pollutants from upstream sources.  Thus, higher fecal coliform levels are often associated with riverine freshwater inputs.  Early studies suggest that coliform die-off rates are higher in tightly saline estuarine waters located offshore and at a distance from the confluence with river systems.  However, more recent studies suggest that the organisms may actuall go into a dormant stage during periods of high salinity(Office of Technology Assessment,1987).  As the rive stage increases, the effects of the river extend further into the estuary.  STPs (50 percent), industry (22 percent) and urban runoff (19 percent) were the major upstream contributors in West Coast estuaries..


									 Point Sources of Pollution

			Sewage Treatment Plants.  Sewage treatment plant failure is a common problem in the heavily populated Northeast and in the rapidly developing Southeast and Gulf areas.  However, on the West Coast, sewage treatment facilities were a contributing factor in only 25 percent of West Coast shellfish growing areas and 50 percent of upstream waters.  STPs had a major effect

									  			



										

			
            

                                                                                                                                        23







                Table 3. Description of Pollution Sources

                Pollution Source                              Description

                Sewage Treatment Plants (STPs)                Discharges of inadequately treated eff luent from olderplants, malfunc-
                                                              tioning disinfection systems, ortrom bypassing of raw sewagethrough
                                                              an outfall pipe during overload periods. Buffer zones are established
                                                              around outfalls to protect public health in case of emergencies.

                Combined Sewer Overflows (CSOs)               During periods of heavy rainfall sanitary wastes are combined with
                                                              stormwater runoff and discharged to the waterbody.

                Industry                                      Fecal coliform from seafood processors, pulp and paper mills, dairies
                                                              and cheese factories, shipyards or from human sewage discharged
                                                              with industrial wastes. There may also be potential hazards from toxics
                                                              or heavy metals.

                Septic Systems                                Nonpoint pollution from unsewered areas or from the leaching of faulty
                                                              septic systems.

                Urban/Rural Runoff                            Storm sewers, drainage ditches, or overland runoff from urban areas
                                                              containing fecal material from pets, birds, and rodents.

                Agricultural Runoff                           Runoff from agricultural fields, including feedlots.



              in Winchester Bay (95 percent), Puget Sound (78 per-              limited waters and 22 percent of upstream waters. This
              cent), Skagit Bay (43 percent), and in the only prohib-           figure can be misleading because industry sources
              ited area in Willapa Bay (2552 acres).                            affected the largest estuaries; San Francisco Bay (72,000
                                                                                acres), Coos Bay (7,000 acres), Puget Sound (12,000
              In the majority of West Coast estuaries, shellfish beds           acres), and Skagit Bay, a subestuary of Puget Sound
              are located in relatively undeveloped areas or where              (3,000 acres).
              sewage discharges have been diverted to the ocean.
              When functioning properly, sewage treatment plants                Industrial discharges are of concern to public health
              do not contaminate shellfish growing waters. -However,            officials because of the potential presence of high fecal
              in order to protect public health, state shellfish control        coliform levels and effects from toxics and heavy met-
              agencies classify the areas adjacent to the outfalls of           al s. Seafood processing plants located in coastal areas
              treatment plants as "closed safety zones" or "buffer              may have an impact on the level of fecal coliform
              zones", to protect shellfish beds in the event of a system        bacteria in adjacent waters by discharging processing
              failure. The safety zones surrounding outfalls are sized          and sanitary wastes into sewage treatment facilities, or
              according to loadings, hydrographic conditions, and               in some cases, directly into receiving waters.          Dis-
              emergency installations and procedures. In some in-               charges from pulp and paper processing facilties contain
              stances, STPs release raw sewage during heavy rain-               Klebsiella, a fecal colfform bacteria iound in cellulose
              fall events (bypasses). According to state health de-             wastes and infrequently in human wastes. Runoff from
              partment off icials, bypasses occurred in Humboldt and            shipbuilding facilities and repair yards contain signifi-
              Yaquina bays in 1985.                                             cant levels of lead, tributyl tin and petroleum products
                                                                                affecting shellfish growing waters such asthose in lower
              Industry. Using the concept of the"contributing source"           Coos Bay. Dairy and cheese factory wastes are ex-
              as described above, the major source of shellfish clo-            tremely difficult to treat and contribute to elevated fecal
              sures in West Coast estuaries was industry, affecting             coliform levels. The latter affected shellfish growing
              more than 98,000 acres or 43 percent of harvest-                  areas in Tillamook Bay.

                                                                                                                                         24





          Figure1g. Contributing pollution sources.
                                                                  Estuaries


                       Puget    Grays Wilapa Tillamook Yaquina       Coos Humboldt Tomales Drakes SanFran Monterey Morro


                 STP



               Industry



               Septics



            Urban Rnff


         NO Agrieltrl Rnff

         75


               Wildlife



               Boating


             Upsiream


                                                                C    CD       CD       0        C)           0 0      0     0 0
                                                                0    0)                V)       V)                In        In
                             0                          0                           0        0        0        0         0
                                                          Percent Waters Affected



         In San Francisco Bay, industrial and domestic waste             were not affected byindustry. However, approximately
         discharges can be characterized by a high background            270 industrial dischargers have NPDES permits to
         level of continuously discharged pollutants, a signifi-         release treated effluents directly to Puget Sound or its
         cantly seasonally variable input of pollutants, and a           tributaries. Some of the industrial discharges contain
         series of unpredictable discharges, most of which result        complex mixtures of heavy metals, toxic chemicals or
         in localized releases of pollutants. Over 200 permits for       other harmful compounds. (Puget Sound Water Quality
         industrial discharges have been issued for San Fran-            Management Plan, 1988). Primary industries in the
         cisco Bay. For every toxic metal, there are several             Puget Sound area included chemicals and related
         locations in the bay where concentrations approach or           products (2 companies), lumber and wood products (9
         exceed the highest concentrations reported for similar          pulp and paper mills), petroleum refining (8 refineries),
         species in world-wide surveys of contamination (Luoma           primary metals manufacturing (2 aluminum and steel
         and Cloern, 1982). Trends in concentrations of toxic            processing plants), meat and seafood processing, and
         trace organic compounds, for example polychlorinated            marine cargo and transportation facilities, such as
         -biphenyls, appear similar to those for trace metals.           aeronautics or shipbuilding.
         Concentrations of petroleum hydrocarbons in mussels               Nonpoint Sources of Pollution
         are 20 times higher than those on the North California
         coast and near the concentrations found in San Diego            Septic systems. Septic systems that mal          .function
         and Los Angeles harbors (Luoma and Cloern, 1982).
                                                                         were identified as contributing sourcestoonly 5 percent
         In Puget Sound, the most productive growing areas               of harvest-limhed shellfish growing waters. Septics are
                                       @"Svc'


                                                                                                                               25






               a major factor in smaller estuarine systems where the            In Washington, noncommercial "hobby farms" are a
               population is rural andcommunities are unsewered, for            major threat to water quality (Wallace, 1987) (Saunders,
               example, Winchester Bay, Siuslaw River, Nehalem                  1984).
               Bay,. and Hood Canal. The impact of faulty septic
               systems was less significant in Tomales, Yaquina and             Wildlife . Wildlife has been identified as a probable
               Skagit bays. Siting becomes an important issue in                source of fecal coliform bacteria in areas with minimal
               areas of bedrock and poor soil permeability where,               human populations. On the West Coast, I I percent of
               subsurface leaching problems are difficult to identify           harvest limited shellfish growing waters are affected by
               and correct.                                                     wildlife, with an additional 2 percent in upstream sources.
                                                                                In Humboldt and Siletz bays and Hood Canal, all harvest-
               Urban runoff . Urban runoff from adjacent coastal                limited waters are affected by wildlife sources. In addi-
               areas was identified as the contributing cause in 33             tion, Morro Bay (67 percent and 42 percent upstream),
               percent ofWest Coast shellfish growing area closures.            Drakes Bay (72 percent), Winchester Bay (95 percent
               An additional 19 percent was identified as upstream              upstream) and Puget Sound (11 percent) suffer shellfish-
               inputs. In 13 of the 18 estuaries for which sources of           ing restrictions because of wildlife populations.
               pollution were identified, there are medium to high
               density developments in which runoff from impervious             In addition to the wildlife sources identified in coastal
               areas, such as streets and parking lots, storm sewers,           areas such as migratory birds, muskrats, deer and elk,
               ditches and lawns, carry pollutants to the estuarine             many West Coast estuaries are affected by populations
               system. A 1983 EPA report attributes high bacteria               of harbor seals. Under the Marine Mammal Protection
               levels in urban runoff to heavy loads of animal wastes,          Act of 1972, harbor seals are protected and limitations
               particularly pets and rod   'ents. The study found that          imposed on state control of seal populations. Shellfish
               during heavy rainfall, runoff exceeded recommended               beds located near haulouts or nesting areas often exhibit
               bacterial counts at virtually every one of 28 urban study        high fecal coliform counts.
               sites. Fecal coliform counts in urban runoff are typically
               tens to hundreds of thousands per 100 ml during wet              A recent study (Calambokidis et al, 1989) in northern
               weather conditions, with the median for all sites being          Hood Canal identified increasing populations of harbor
               around 21,000/100 ml. The study also indicated that              seals as the primary source of fecal coliform pollution in
               use of coliforms as an indicator of human health risk,           the productive shellfish growing areas. From 1,200 to
               when the sole source of contamination is urban runoff,           1,400 harborseals were counted during aerialsurveysof
               warrants further investigation (EPA, 1983).                      Hood Canal in September 1988 as oomparedto lessthan
                                                                                1,000 in 1984. There was a clear correlation between
               Agricultural Runoff. Runoff from cropland fertilized             seal populations and high fecal coliform levels at Dose-
               with manure or land used by grazing animals contrib-             wallips River Delta and Still Harbor. The report dis-
               utes fecal coliform bacteria to surface waters. Studies          cussed potential health risk from harbor seals, and listed
               show that the fecal coliform count is five to 10 times           pathogenic bacteria as reported from marine mammals.
               higher from grazed land than from ungrazed areas and             The report recommends that more research be done to
               that there is significant bacterial contamination where          provide information on the health risk of transmission of
               high-density livestock activities are allowed adjacent to        disease from animals to humans.
               a stream (M ilneJ 976). Faust and Goff (1978) estimate
               that the fecal coliform contribution of one livestock unit       Boating activity. Boating activity (including marinas
               is equal to the contribution of 60-70 persons .                  and adjacent buffer zones) affected 10 percent of West
                                                                                Coast harvest-limited shellfishing waters, with substan-
               Although agricultural runoff limits harvest in    only 15        tial impacts in Nehalem Bay (1100 percent), Yaquina Bay
               percent of West Coast shellfish growing areas, plus an           (60 percent), Tillamook Bay (73 percent), and more than
               additional 2 percent from upstream impacts, it does              30 percent in Monterey and Morro bays. In the two
               affect all harvest-limited areas in Drakes, Tomales, and         largest estuaries, San Francisco Bay and Puget Sound,
               Humboldt bays -the most productive bays in Califor-              boating is a contributing source at 13 percent and 11 per-
               nia, and 91 percent in Tillamook Bay, the most produc-           cent of harvest-limited waters, respectively. The signifi-
               tive system in Oregon. Tillamook Bay has developed a             cance of sewage discharge from boats has been contro-
               program using Best Management Practices (BMPs) as                versial nationwide. Boaters. generally argue that their
               the tool to improve water quality.                               discharges are insignificant while Federal and State


                                                                                                                                      26






           regulators demand stronger controls. An environmental
           health survey by Washington Department of Health
           found that 34 percent of shoreline property owners ac-
           knowledged having sewage on their beaches which
           they attributed to boats, and 59 percent complained
           about lifter and garbage floating ashore ( DOH, 1989).
           Studies in the 1950s and 1960s showed that sampling
           stations in areas of heavy boat use had higher levels of
           fecal coliform than stations outside anchorage areas.
           However, where tidal exchanges were large, no detect-
           ,able increases in pollution levels attributable to boats
           were apparent.

           Boating and marinas were contributing factors in 11
                               -limited waters, from an estimated
           percent of harvest
           160,000 registered boats in Puget Sound. Washington
           DOH produced a report in 1989 on five boating areas in
           Puget sound, reporting a close correlation between
           boating activity and fecal coliform levels. The study
           revealed that shellfish tissue was the most noticeable
           indicator of fecal pollution in waters subjected to po;lu-
           tion from boating activity. DOH concurred with other
           studies which consider the public health threat from
           f resh fecal matter discharged f rom boats to be a poten
           tially greater public health threat than that of fecal
           matter discharged in municipal wastewater treatment
           effluent. The municipal sewage most likely has been
           comminuted, settled, skimmed, aerated, diluted, and
           disinfected priorto discharge as opposed to fresh feces
           discharged from boats,

           To protect public health from the effect of boat wastes,
           the (nterstate Shellfish Sanitation Conference (1985)
           developed a marina policy that requires states to estab-
           lish buffer zones around marinas and canals. The area
           within the marina proper must be classified as prohib-
           ited or restricted. An additional closed area beyond the
           marina also may be required. Many shellfish producing
           states are developing techniques for closing areas
           based on dilution, dispersion, die-off or residence time,
           and hydrodynamics, as well as marina design, quality,
           and usage.



           "Faust and Goff(1978) estimate that the fecal coliform
           contribution of one livestock unit is equal to the con-
           tribution of 60 to 70 persons."







                                                                                                                                  27






                                                      -Section IV.       Discussion




           Results of Water Quality Degradation
                                                                             deposited on eel grass during the winter months. When
                                                                             the tides cover the eel grass the gulls move to the local
          The West Coast shellfish industry is particularly vulner-          solid waste landfill to feed on waste materials and to the
          able to alterations in water quality. The majority of              Arcata STP where they were observed feeding on raw
          shellfish production is from aquaculture which takes               sewage entering the plant at primary clarifiers. The gulls
          place on leased bottom or in leased water columns.                 then return to the bay flats at low tide, depositing fecal
          Once a grower has obtained a lease and received a                  coliforms on the eel grass and oyster beds. The City of
          permit to operate, he/she is tied to the leased area.              Arcata will exclude seagulls from the clarifiers and the
          Suitable bottom is limited and there is considerable               landfill is being covered by soil. However, still to be
          competition for leases. If a growing area is affected by           managed are agricultural wastes which affect the shell-
          a pollution incident or a general degradation of water             fish beds during rainfall events.
          quality, there is no exchange of bottom or water column
          to accommodate anticipated shellfish production. The               Morro Bay. Morro Bay, the leading producer of Pacific
          following case studies show a direct correlation be-               oysters in California inthe early forties, has had difficulty
          tween the decline in water quality, as demonstrated by             supporting shellfish production because of consistently
          the reclassification,of shellfish growing waters, and the          high fecal coliform levels from variable sources. Pro-
          decline in shellfish production.                                   duction decreased from 149,000 lbs. in 1979 to 17,500
                                                                             lbs. in 1984, to a bare minimum of 2,000 lbs. in 1985.
          Humboldt Bay. For many years the highest oyster                    The bay, located on the California coast, halfway be-
          production in California came from Humboldt Bay.                   tween San Francisco and Los Angeles, is a shallow es-
          Landings peaked at 1.5 million lbs. in 1962 and declined           tuary, approximately 1,220 acres in size, affected by a
          to 456,000 in 1988 (personal communication, L. La-                 75 square mile watershed. Principal tributaries are Los
          Branche). A draft report from California Department of             Osos Creek and Chorro Creek, the latter of which is a
          Health Services relates decreased shellfish production             source of pollution to bay shellfish beds. In 1985, the
          to stricter enforcement of water quality standards, in-            population in the immediate communities was 25,060.
          cluding growing-area closures during and following                 One of the major sources of pollution was the City of
          periods of rainfall and emergency closures because of              Morro Bay wastewatertreatment plant, which discharges
          failures in wastewater treatment and collection sys-               effluentthrough a 170-foot long diffuserat 50feetwater
          tems. (California Department of Health Services, 1988).            depth, located 4,400 feet offshoreof the Morro Bay
                                                                             entrance. The effluent is mixed primary and secondary
          In 19B4, improvements were completed tothe Elk River               effluent and was not chlorinated in 1985. The bay
          STP. Effluents were redirected to the ship channel near            sampling program showed high fecal coliform levels at
          the entrance to Humboldt Bay and discharged only on                the station located just outside the breakwater to the
          the outgoing tide. A new $5.5 million treatment plant              channel possibly indicating that pollution was entering
          was completed for the City of Arcata in 1986. The                  the bay from the ocean (California Dept. Health Serv-
          Arcata STP uses an innovative series of tertiary treat-            ices, 1985). Tributary stream sampling showed ele-
          ment ponds through which disinfected secondary eff lu-             vated levels in the station located just below cattle feed
          ent flows priorto final discharge to North Humboldt Bay.           lots and below a marshland inhabited by large bird popu-
          Although the wastewater improvements virtually elimi-              lations. Recreational boats totalled over 300 in 1985.
          nated a wet-weather problem associated with the dis-               Although pump-out facilities are provided and live-
          charge of raw or partially treated sewage, Humboldt                aboards prohibited, sampling indicated a probability of
          Bay still receives pollutants from other sources in the            boats as a source of fecal coliform. Currently, correc-
          watershed. For example, increased seagull activity                 tions to pollution problems and new ownership of 760
          during the annual herring run elevates fecal coliform              acres of shellfish leases should restore Morro Bay to its
          levels. A 1987 FDA study uncovered an additional                   former production levels (personal communication P.
          source of human sewage contamination to Humboldt                   Wells, CA Health Services).
          Bay. Thousands of sea gulls congregate on the bay
          flats at low tide to feed on herring eggs which are


                                                                                                                                      28






               Tillamook Bay. The largest producer of oysters in                 Division once again closed Tillamook Bay to oyster har-
               Oregon, Tillamook Bay, has experienced a dramatic                 vest because of increased levels of fecal coliform. The
               decline in landings from 588,000 lbs. in 1968 to less             DEO cited The Tillamook County Creamery Associa-
               than 185,000 in 1985. Potential production of the bay is          tion (TCCA) for continued violations of its waste dis-
               2 million lbs. of oysters. (S. Hayes in Tillamook Head-           charge permit requirements. (Oregonian 9/15/89). The
               light Herald 9/20/89). Water quality in the bay and               creamery association handles one million lbs. of milk
               tributaries has declined as well, with major increases in         per day producing 34 million lbs. of Tillamook cheese
               fecallcoliform levels occurring during major rainfalls.           annually. The cheese factory attracts 800,000 tourists
                                                                                 each year, producing more sewage than the municipal
               The Tillamook Bay drainage basin is located on the                wastewater treatment plant. The DEQ fined the TCCA
               northern Oregoncoast, approximately48 miles south of              14,400 dollars for repeatedly violating its wastewater
               the Columbia River. The watershed is 550 square miles             discharge permit between February and September of
               with five major river subbasins draining 97 percent of            1989. The violations included high levels of fecal
               forested land into Tillamook Bay. The lower portions of           coliform and the exceeding of standards for total sus-
               the subbasins are agricultural lands, a total of 23,540           pended solids and biochemical oxygen demand. The
               acres, over half of which are used for dairy operations.          dairy was also cited because it did not reduce produc-
               Over 23,000 cows contribute 322,500 tons of manure                tion while the treatment plant failed to meet standards.
               annually. Conclusions in a Tillamook Bay bacterial                Instead, the creamery has increased production and
               study (OR Department of Environmental Quality, 1982)              the number of tourists visiting its facility . Although the
               attribute most of the fecal coliform bacteria in the bay to       Health Division openedthe bay again on September 18,
               the Tillamook, Trask and Wilson subbasins. Dairy op-              1989, future oyster production may still be in jeopardy
               erations, primarily manure storage and disposal in                because 700,000 dollars in creamery improvements
               barnyards and on pastureland, were contaminating the              are behind schedule and still do not addressthe needto
               surface waters of the drainage basin. Sewage treat-               separate treatment for milk residues and restroom
               ment plants had the potential of elevating fecal coliform         sewage (Oregonian, 10/6/89).
               levels when malfunctions occur and some septic sys-
               tems were identified as inadequate. Tillamook Soil and
               Water Conservation District, Oregon Departments of                 State Efforts to Improve Water Quality
               Environmental Quality (DEQ), and Health and Human
               Resources/Health Division, in cooperation with US                 West Coast state officials are concerned about water
               Department of Agriculture, US Environmental Protec-               quality and are particularly responsive to the impact on
               tion Agency and the US, Food and Drug Administration,             the shellfish industry. Although state agencies are
               ,the dairy and oyster industries and local citizens devel-        restricted in theirefforts because of limited budgets and
               oped an extensive nonpoint source pollution abatement             personnel resources, they have developed cooperative
               plan with a goal of 70 percent reduction in fecal coliform        programs to solve water quality problems and upgrade
               bacteria entering the watercourses. The USDA estab-               classifications whenever possible. For example, Ore-
               lisheda RuralClean Water Program inTillamook County               gon Health Division receives assistance from the De-,
               in 1981. with projected expenditures in excess of 7               partment of Environmental Quality in sampling estuar-
               million dollars (Federal share of 5 million, and individual       ine waters. Washington Department of Health receives
               farmers, over 2 million). The project involves 109 dairy          funding and assistance from the Washington Depart-
               farms which are installing best management practices              ment of Ecology (DOE).
               (BMPs),including animal waste management (liquid
               and dry storage, roofing, buried manure lines, curbing,           Concerned with the possible degradation of water
               diversions, and subsurface drainage ditches), grazin     "g       quality within Puget Sound's urban embayments, the
               land protective systems, stream protection, fertilizer            Washington State Legislature appointed the Puget
               management and sediment retention, erosion or con-                Sound Water Quality Authority in 1985 and issued a
               trol. Results indicate 40-50 percent reduction in mean            mandate to prepare and adopt a water quality plan for
               fecal coliform concentration, (North Carolina State Uni-          the sound. These activities are supported in part by an
               versity Agricultural Extension Service, 1989).                    annual income of approximately $45 million from the
                                                                                 state cigarette tax. The Puget Sound Water Quality
               The situation has not eased for the oyster industry in            Management Plan, adopted in 1986, established broad
               TillamookBay. On September 6,1989, the State Health               goals regarding shellfish: (1) to protect shellfish con-

                                                                                                                                        29






           sumersfrompathogens and other contaminants, includ-                 unable to sell his mature oysters to local restaurants
           ing toxicants; (2) to maintain and enhance shellfish                because meats did not meet the bacteriological market
           abundance; (3) reopen closed/correctable commercial                 standard. The levels were erratic and did not agree with
           shellfish beds; and (4) to control sources of pollution to          ambient water quality standards which usually met the
           prevent additional closures of commercial and recrea-               fecal coliform standard. Young suspected contamina-
           tionalbeds. DOE, in cooperation with the Department of              tion from the Goleta outfall located 4.5 miles up the
           Health and other state and local agencies will jointly              coast. Goleta Sanitary District was preparing to apply to
           develop a program to protect over 140 recreational                  US Environmental Protection Agency. (EPA) to extend
           shellfish beaches from pollution.                                   the federal waiver that allows reduced levels of treat-
                                                                               ment for California coastal outfall plants. The 6.8 million
           In order to achieve these goals the DOE has provided                gallons of sewage per day received primary treatment
           grants to local governments for commercial shellfish                and no chlorination. In 1986, EPA ordered the Goleta
           protection as part of the nonpoint program. Twelve                  District to chlorinate and, in 1988, solid waste removal
           watersheds weredesignated "early-action,"six of which               was increased from 65 to 84 percent. At the same time,
           manage shellfish as an impacted beneficial use. A more              the Regional Water Quality Control Board ordered Santa
           detailed description of the six watershed management                Barbara to chlorinate their city's effluent, a cost of
           plans are contained in Appendix D.                                  $265,000 for the improved facility. Bacteria levels went
                                                                               down as soon as Goleta began chlorination, (Santa
           Although Puget Sound Water Quality Authority, state                 Barbara Press, February 13, 1989). There are currently
           and local governments, and the shellfish community are              seven harvestors in the Santa Barbara channel, all
           working very hard to correct pollution problems and                 looking forward to clean water and a healthy growth in
           sustain water quality in shellfish growing areas, there             the industry. Young has filed for damages from the
           are nonpoint problems that are extremely difficult to               Goleta Sanitary District and has begun work on a law
           identify and even more difficult to correct. In March,              degree which will allow him to work with others to clean
           1987, a major nonpoint source pollution conference was              up the marine environment (P. Wells, personal commu-
           held at the University of Washington to address the                 nication).
           water quality problems of Puget Sound. Speakers
           stressed the need to control urban and agricultural                 Willapa Bay. At a recent meeting in Bay City, oyster
           nonpoint sources of nutrients and toxics. The question              growers and county residents discussed with NOAA
           to be addressed now is whetherthe education, monitor-               their concerns regarding the future of Willapa Bay.
           ing, BMPs and other corrective measure are effective.               Described asthe most productive estuary on the Pacific
           NOAA will have another opportunity to assess the qual-              coast, With annual oyster landings of almost 500,000
           ity of shellfish growing waters to determine whether                gallons, the bay has stayed relatively clean for many
           improvements have occurred in recent years. The 1990                years. Slow growth, coupled with the bay's excellent
           National Shellfish Register of Classified Estuarine Wa-             capacityto cleanse itself on eachtide, has protectedthe
           ters will assess the changes in the classifications of              waters until now. By the year 2000, over 75 percent of
           shellfish growing waters between 1985 and 1990 and                  the US population will live within 50 miles of the coast.
           identify the sources of pollution or improvements re-               With a spectacular wide beach, excellent clamming,
           sponsible for the changes.                                          crabbing and fishing, and a superb climate from May to
                                                                               September, the watershed of Willapa Bay has great
            Industry Efforts to Improve Water Quality                          development potental. Add to the growth in residential
                                                                               and commercial development, an explosion in boating
           Santa Barbara Channel. The shellfish industry has                   and other water recreation, and the estuary will expe-
           also made a substantial investment intime and finances              rience a decline, first in water quality, then in species di-
           to stopthe degradation of shellfish waterquality. Forex-            versity and abundance.
           ample, Jeff Young, ownerof Pacific Seafood Industries
           in California, had to delay production on his oyster                The local officials and residents are exploring options to
           leases while bringing pressure to bear on the California            protect Willapa Bay, including nomination to the na-
           communiti6s of Santa Barbara and Goleta to meet                     tional system of estuarine reserves. The goals are to
           effluent standards and chlorinate effluent discharged               promote the long-term viability of the resources, pro-
           through ocean outfalls. In 1985, with almost 500,000                mote and coordinate research on the bay ecosystems,
           dollars invested in his mariculture operation, Young was            manage natural resources and educate policy makers


                                                                                                                                      30






                and local residents in the value and fragile nature of the
                bay resources. Another approach being evaluated is                               .1 pconcluding Comments
                the formal development of a water quality protection
                district with designation of Willapa Bay as a "shellfish            Recently,    marine resources throughout the West Coast
                protection district." Enabling legislation was passed by            begun to experience effects associated with develop-
                the Washington Legislature in 1985.                                 ment that have affected East Coast resources for almost
                                                                                    a century. Rapid development of West Coast metropoli-
                 Public Health Debate on Pollution Sources                          tan areas and intense agriculture have placed increased
                                                                                    environmental stress on many of the region's marine
                West Coast shellfish regulators and industry debate the             resources. Shellfish are one of the most sensitive indica-
                public health impact from animal-transmitted patho-                 tors of such changing conditions. Healthy shellfish beds
                gens on the West Coast as well as other areas of the                in West Coast stateshave now been compromised by
                US. Industry, regulators and scientists concurthat con-             pollution and the trend seems likely to continue. For
                lamination of waters with human sewage is a major                   example, at the turn of the century, San Francisco Bay
                cause of shellfish-borne diseases. However, the public              was producing 2.7 million pounds of oysters and 1.3
                health significance of nonhuman sources of fecal pollu-             million pounds of clams annually, while today the Bay
                tion, for example, in agricultural runoff orfrom wildlife, is       shellfishery is negligible. . As a consequence of these
                lesscertain. Enteric viruses, the major disease-causi ng            drastic declines in production, a concerted effort is now
                agent when shellfish are harvested from sewage con-                 underway along the West Coast to assess and improve
                taminated waters, are human specific and are not be-                the condition of it's shellfish resources.
                lieved to be passed from animals to humans. In West
                Coast estuaries, over64,000 harvest-limited acres were              On the West Coast and throughout the country, consum-
                affected by animal-related closures, over 36,000 from               ers are losing confidence in the quality of shellfish prod-
                agricultural runoff, and over27,000 from wildlife. Atotal           ucts. A mandatory seafood inspection program now
                of 24,883 acresof shellfish growing areaswere harvest-              being considered by Congress is an indication of this
                limited in areas where no human sources have been                   concern. Several bills in both Houses emerged from a
                identified.                                                         consumer advocate initiative. The common feature of all
                                                                                    the bills is required inspection of all domestic and im-
                Scientists and regulators are pursuing research to pro-             ported seafood at source, processing and market levels.
                vide answers regarding the public health significance of            However, the program does not address directly the
                the coliform bacteria indicator. FDA, in cooperation with           maintenance and improvement of estuarine water quality,
                the Texas Department of Health, is measuring patho-                 withoutwhich nationwide declines in the shellfish produc-
                gens in growing areas in Texas affected by wildlife. A              tion are likely to continue. Overall, it does not seem that
                NOAAIEPA study (Dufour and White, 1985) is using                    a high enough priority has not been placed on preserving
                epidemiological studies to examine relationships be-                the water quality of our productive shellfish estuaries.
                tween indicators and disease at sites affected by poten-            Once waters are closed to shellfish harvest, they soon
                tial point sources (STPs) of human pathogens.                       become unavailable for recreation. and the support of
                                                                                    other recreational and commercial species.
                In addition, the National Collaborative Shellfish Pollu-
                tion Indicator Study is addressing the relationships                The 1990 National Shellfish Register now underway by
                between indicators and incidence of shellfish-borne                 NOAA will quantify the changes in classification by acre-
                disease. Field studies will evaluate proposed alternate             age since 1985. It will also present information on the
                indicators of fecal pollution and the health risks associ-          reasons for the changes and the pollution sources which
                ated with consumption of shellfish from sites affected by           may have contributed to these changes, and will help to
                human and animal sources. Validation of indicators in               determine the rate at which the shellfishery decline is
                theenvironment and verification of thepublic health risk            occurring.
                through epidemiological studies will provide a scientific
                basis to develop meaningful numerical standards for
                classifying shellfish growing waters.





                                                                                                                                              31





           References                                                        California Department of Health Services Environmental
                                                                             Planning and Local Health Services Branch, Environ-
                                                                             mental Health Division. 1988. Report to the 1988
                                                                             Califor, iia Legislature on the Water Quality Monitoring
                                              iggs of the Cali               Program and 1986 Sanitary Survey of Humboldt Bay
          Anthony, R., P. Jagger and R. Bri                     fornia       Pursuant to Section 25612, Health and Safety Code.
          Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Coast                 Sacramento, CA.,
          Region. 1987. Morro Bay Bacterial Study 1986-1987,
          a Cleanup and Abatement Study, funded by the State                 California Department of Health Services Sanitary En-
          Water Resources Control Board. Santa Barbara, CA.                  gineering Section. 1979. Shellfish and Water Quality
                                                                             Study Morro Bay, February, 1979. Sacramento, CA.
          Aplin, J.A. 1967. Biblogicalsurveyof San FranciscoBay
          1963-66. Calif. Dep. Fish Game, Mar. Resour. Oper.
          Lab. Rep. 67-4. 131 pp.                                            California Department of Health Services Sanitary En-
                                                                             gineering Branch Santa Barbara District. 1985. Sani-
                                                                             tary Investigation of Shellfish and Water Quality Morro
          BayConservation and Development Commission. 1983.                  Bay, September, 1984 andJanuary, 1985. Santa Bar-
          San Francisco Bay Plan. San Francisco.41 pp..                      bara, CA.
          Bish, R.L. Governing Puget Sound. 1981 Washington
          Sea Grant Publication. Seattle; WA. 136 pp.                        California State Water Resources Control Board. 1986.
                                                                             California State Mussel Watch 1985-86. Water Re-
          Blogoslawski, W.J. and M.E. Stewart. Marine applica-               sources Control Board Water Quality Monitoring Re-
          tions of ozone water treatment. in California Depart-              port No. 87-2 WC). Sacramento, Calif. 150 pp.
          ment of Health Services. 1982. proceedings f rom Para-             Ca .lifornia State Water Resources Control Board. 1988.
          lytic Shellfish Poison Management Workshop: Septem-                Water Quality Control Plan for Salinity San Francisco
          ber 21-23, 1982. . Berkley, CA.                                    BaylSacramento-San Joaquin Delta Estuary. Sacra-
          Brastad, A., S. Waldrip and B. White. Clallam County               mento, Calif. 500 pp.
          Department of Community Development, Division of
          Environmental Health. 1987. Sequim Bay Water Qual-                 California State Water Resources Control Board. 1988.
          ity Project and Basin Planning Study. Olympia, WA. 87              Pollutant Policy Document Francisco BaylSacramento-
          PP.                                                                San Joaquin Delta Estuary. Sacramento, Calif. 220 pp,
                                                                             California State Water Resources Control Board. I W.
          Breese, W.P. and W.O. Wick, 1974. Oyster Farming:                  Calambokidis, J., B.D. McLaughlin and GG.H. Steiger,
          Culturing, Harvesting and Processing, a Product of the             Cascadia Research Collective. 1989. Bacterial Con-
          Pacific Coast Area. Oregon State University Extension              tamination Related to Harbor Seats in Puget Sound,
          Marine Advisory Program. Corvallis, OR. 8 pp.                      Washington. Olympia, WA. 74 pp,
          Broutman, M.A. and D.L. Leonard. 1988. The Quality                 Campbell, T. 1989. Tide goes out on Washington's
          of Shellfish Growing Waters in the Gulf of Mexico., US             geoduck "clamscam" National Fisherman. August
          Department of Commerce, NOAA, Rockville, MD. 44                    1989. pp 2-4.
          PP.
          Brown and Caldwell. 1988. Quarterly Report Monitor-                Canada Depariment of Fisheries and Oceans. 1985.
          ing and Reporting Program 85-83 NPDES Permit No.                   1985186 British Columbia Tidal Waters Sport Fishing
          CA0047861 for City of Morro Bay/Cayucos Sanitary                   Guide. Vancouver, British Columbia.
          District. Irvine, CA.                                              Canada Department of Fisheries and Oceans. 1989.
          Brown and Caldwell. 1989.       Oakland Bay Watershed              1988 Summary of Paralytic Shellfish Toxicity Records
          Management Plan Draft, Technical Appendices. 112                   in the Pacific Region. Burnaby, B.C. 445 pp.
          pp-                                                                Cheney, D.P. andT.F. Mumford,Jr. 1986. Shellfishand


                                                                                                                                  32






               Seaweed Harvests of Puget Sound. Washington Sea
               Grant Program. Seattle, WA. 164 pp.                            a retrospective overview. pp. 17-37 in W.J. Kockelman,
                                                                              T.J. Conomos, and A.E. Leviton, eds. San Francisco
               Chew, K.K. 1983. Recent Changes in Molluscan Cul-              Bay, use and protection. American Association for the
               ture Fishery for the Pacific Northwest of the United           Advancement of Science, Pacific'Div., San Francisco.
               States. Proceedings 2nd. North Pacific Aquaculture
               Symposium. Tokyo, Japan. pp 354-373.                           Determan, T.A., B.M. Carey, W.H. Chamberlain and
                                                                              D.E. Norton. 1985. Sources Affecting the Sanitary
               Chew, K.K. 1983. Manila clam biology and fishery de-           Conditions of Water and Shellfish in Minter Bay and
               velopment in western North America in Clam maricul-            Burley Lagoon. Olympia, WA. 186 pp.
               ture in North America. eds. J.J. Manzi and M. Cas-
               tagna. the Netherlands. pp243-261.                             Downing, J. The coast of Puget Sound. its Processes
                                                                              and Development 1983. Washington Sea Grant
               Chew, K.K. 1984. Recent advances in the cultivation of         Publication. Seattle, WA. 126 pp.
               molluscs in the Pacific United States and Canada. in
               Aquacultu re, publ. Elsevier. the Netherlands. pp 69-81.       Driggers, J. and B. Senn. 1989. Working out with mus-
                                                                       -      sels, in Santa Barbara magazineMarch/April 1989. pp
               Chew, K.K. 1987. Littleneck clam aquacufture in the            7
               PacificNorthwest Fourth Alaska Aquacultu-re Confer-
               ence. Sitka,AK. pp.99-102.                                     Ecomar. City of Santa Barbara NPDES Ocean Sam-
                                                                              pling Program: Section 1 B Plume Transport Sampling.
               Chew, K.K. 1987. Oyster aquaculture in the Pacific             Goleta, California. 250 pp.
               Northwest Fourth Alaska Aquaculture Conference.
               Sitka, AK pp. 67-76.                                           Environmental Protection Agency, Water Planning Di-
                                                                              vision. 1983. Results of the Nationwide Urban Runoff
               Chiang, R.M.T. 1988. Paralytic shellfish management            Program. Executive Summary. Washington, DC. 21
               program in British Columbia in Journal of shellfish re-        PP.
               search. Burnaby, B.C. Canada pp. 637-642.
                                                                              Faust, M.A. and N.M. Goff. 1978. Sources of bacterial
               Cook, K., Washington Department of Social and Health           pollution in an estuary in CoastalZone'78. Proceedings
               Services, Office of Environmental Health Programs              of the Symposium on Technical, Environmental, Socio-
               Shellfish Divsion. Sanitary Surveyof Quilcene BayJef-          economic, and Regulatory Aspects of Coastal Zone
               ferson County, Washington November 1984-Decem-                 Management. Washington, DC. pp. 819-839.
               ber 1985. 1985. Olympia, WA. 14 pp.
                                                                              Federal Water Pollution Control Administration. 1967.
               Coombs, B. 1987. The federal role in the management            Effects of the San Joaquin Master Drain on Water
               of San Francisco Bay. NOAA Estuary-of-the-month                Quality of the San Francisco Bay and Delta. Central
               Seminar Series No.6. Washington, D.C., U.S. Depart-            Pacific Basins Comprehensive Water Pollution Control
               ment of Commerce, NOAA Estuarine Programs Office.              Project, San Francisco. 101 pp.
               pp 149-154.
                                                                              Fong, CC., K.L. Daniels, and W.W.N. Lee. 1982. A
               Conte, F.S. 1984. Economic impact of paralytic shell-          method for assessing the potential impacts of dis-
               fish poison on the oyster industry in the Pacific United       charges of dredged material into San Francisco Bay.
               States. ed. Elsevier Science Publishers. Amsterdam.            Pages 259-269 in W.J. Kockelman, T.J. Conomos, and
               the Netherlands. pp. 331-343.                                  A. E. Leviton, eds. San Francisco Bay, use and protec-
                                                                              tion. American Association for the Advancement of
               Conte, F.S''and J.L. Dupuy. 1982. Pacific coast region:        Science, Pacific Div., San Francisco.
               the California oyster industry. National Oyster Work-
               shop. Seattle, WA. pp. 43-63.                                  Glude, J.B. and K.K. Chew. 1982. Shellfish Aquacul-
                                                                              ture in the Pacific Northwest. Alaska Sea Grant Report
               Davis, C. 0. 1982. The San Francisco Bay ecosystem             82-2. Anchorage, AK pp 291-304.


                                                                                                                                  33





          Glude, J.B. 1989. Aquaculture for the Pacific North-             Josselyn, M.N. 1983. The ecology of San Francisco
          west, a historical perspective. in The Northwest envi-           Bay Tidal Marshes.-a Community Profile. U.S. Fish and
          ronmental journal. Vol.5 No. 1. Seattle, WA. pp.7-21.            Wildlife Service, U.S. Departmentof Interior Rep. FWS/
                                                                           OBS-83/23.
          Harrison, B.W. and L. Hofstad. Thurston County Heafth
          Department, Environmental Health Division. 1988.                 Josselyn, M.N.and P. F. Romberg. 1985. Introduction
          Henderson, Eld and Totten Inlets 1986-1987 Water                 to the San Francisco Bay Estuary. NOAAEstuary-of-
          Quality Investigation. Olympia,WA. 72pp.                         the-month Seminar Series No.6 Washington           '- D.C.,
                                                                           U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA Estuarine Pro-
          Hedgpeth, J.W., S. Obrebski. 1981. Willapa Baya His-             grams Office. pp., 9-19.
          tofical Perspective and a Rationale for Research. Fish           Kockelman, W.T., T.J. Connors, and A.E. Leviton, eds.
          and Wildlife Service, U.S. Department of Interior. Wash-
          ington, DC. 50 pp.                                               1982. San Francisco Bay. Use and Protection. Pacific
                                                                           Div. American Association for the Advancement of Sci-
          Herrgesell, P.L. Agencycoopetation andfisheries stud-            ence, San Francisco.
          ies in San Francisco Bay. NOAA Estuary-of-the-month
          Seminar Series No.6 Washington, D.C., U.S. Depart-               Korringa, P. 1976. Farming the flat oysters of thegenus
          ment of Commerce, NOAA Estuarine Programs Off ice.               Ostrea. in Developments in Aquaculture and Fisheries
          pp. 69-76..                                                      Science. Vol. 3. Publ. Elsevier. The Netherlands. pp
                                                                           205-224.
          Herz, M.J. and M. Rozengurt. 1987. Scientific informa-
          tion and management policy for the Delta-San Fran-               Korringa, P. 1976. Farming the flatoysters of thegenus
          cisco Bay ecosystem. NOAA Estuary-of-the-month                   Crassostrea. in Developments in Aquaculture and Fish-
          Seminar Series No.6 Washington, D.C., U.S. Depart-               eries Science. Vol. 2 Publ. Elsevier. The Netherlands.
          ment of Commerce, NOAA Estuarine Programs Off ice.               pp 183-219.
          pp 125-135.
                                                                           Leonard, D.L, M.A. Broutman and K. E. Harkness.
          Hanowell, R. Tacoma-Pierce County Health Depart-                 1989. , Oua;fifyof Shellfish Growing Waters on the East
          ment Burley/Minter Shellfish Protection Grant Results            Coast of the United States. US Department of Com-
          of the May 16, 1989 Dry Weather Ambient Sampling                 merce, NOAA,. Rockcille, MD. 55 pp.
          Event Tacoma, WA. 15 pp.                                         Luoma, S.N., and J.E. Cloern. 1982. The impact of
          Jackson, J.E. 1987. Animal wastes - the Tillamook                waste-water discharge on biological communities in
          experience. in Proceedings from Northwest Nonpoint               San Francisco Bay. pp. 137-160. in W.J. Kockelman,
          .Source Pollution Conference. Spokane, WA. pp. 218-              T.J. Conomos, and A.E. Leviton, eds. San Francisco
          2236.                                                            Bay, use and protection. American Association for the
                                                                           Advancement of Science, Pacific Div., San Francisco.
          Jackson, J.E. and E.A. Glendening, Oregon Depart-
          ment of Environmental Quality. 1982. Tillamook Bay               Lutz, R.A. 1980. Mussel culture and harvest. a North
          Bacterial Study Fecal Source Summafy Report. Port-               Americariperspective. in Developments in Aquaculture
          land, OR. 116 pp.                                                and Fisheries Science. Vol. 3. Publ. Elsevier. The
                                                                           Netherlands. pp 143-165.
          Jackson, J.E. and E.A. Glendening, Oregon Depart-
          ment of Environmental Quality. 1983. Coos Bay Shell-             Mandenwald, D. 1982. Shellfish roulette: the red-tide
          fish Water Quality Study. Portland, OR. 58 pp.                   game. in California Department of Health Services.
                                                                           1982. proceedingsfrom Paralytic Shellfish Poison Man-
          James, R.B. 1987. California Regional Water Quality              agement Workshop: September 21-23,1982. Berkley,
          Control Board San Francisco Bay Region. NOAA Estu-               CA. pp. 23-25.
          ary-of-the-month Seminar Series No.6 Washington,
          D.C., U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA Estuarine                Mason County. 1989. TotterilLittle Skookum Water-
          Programs Office. pp 155-159.                                     shed Program for Washington Department of Ecology
                                                                           Shrelands Program. Olympia, WA. 11 pp.


                                                                                                                                34






              McNicholas, R.P.Mason County Department of Gen-               Oregon State University Water Resources Research
              eral Services. 1987. Water Quality Report on Lower            Institute. 1973. Descriptions and Information Sources
              Hood. Canal.25 pp.                                            for Oregon's Estuan  .es. Corvallis, OR. 188 pp.

              Michaud, J.P. Washington State Department of Ecol-            Oregonian. September 15,1989. Statetodecideon
              ogy Water Ouality Investigations Division. 1987. 29           shellfishing in bay.
              pp. Sources Affecting Bacteria Quality in Oakland Bay
              Final Report. Olympia, WA.                                    Oregonian. October6,1989. State slaps $14,400 finr
                                                                            on Tillamook creamery for waste-water violations.
              Milne,C.M. 1976. Effectof a wildstock wintering opera-
              tion on a western mountain stream Trans. American             Puget Sound Water Quality Authority. 1987. 1987
              Society of Agricultural Engineering. Vol. 19. pp. 749-        Puget Sound Water Quality Management Plan. Se-
              752.                                                          attle, WA. 128pp.

              National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Stra-        Quayle, D.B. 1988. Pacific Oyster Culture in British
              tegic Assessment Branch. 1985a. National Estuarine            Columbia. Ottawa, Canada. 240 pp.
              Data Atlas. Volume 1: Physicaland Hydrologic Charac-
              teristics. Rockville, MD. 103pp.                              Rosengurt, M.A., M. Herz and M. Josselyn. 1987. The
                                                                            impact of water diversions on the fiver-delta-estuaiy-
              National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Stra-        sea systems of San Francisco Bay and the Sea ofAzov.
              tegic Assessment Branch. 1985b. National Estuarine            NOAA Estuary-of-the-month Seminar Series No.6
              Data Atlas. 'Volume 2: Land use characteristics.              Washington, D.C., U.S. Department of Commerce,
              Rockville, MD. 40 pp.                                         NOAA Estuarine Programs Office. pp 35-62.

              National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Stra-        Rubida, P. Jefferson County Planning and Building De-
              tegic Assessment Branch. 1988. National Estuarine In-         partment. 1989. Final Report Jefferson County Ambi-
              ventory. Supplement 1: Physical and Hydrologic Char-          ent Water Quality Report. Port Townsend, WA. 80 pp.
              acterisfics the Oregon estuaries. Rockville, MD. 24 pp.
                                                                            Russell, P.P.,T.A. Bursztynsky, L.A. Jackson, and E.V.
              Nichols, F.H. 1987. Benthic ecology and heavy metal           Leong. 1982. Water and waste inputs to San Francisco
              accumulation. In San Francisco Bay: issues, resources,        Estuafy-an historical perspective. Pages. 126-136 in
              status, andmanagement. NOAA Estuary-of-the-month              T.J. Conomos, ed. San Francisco Bay: the urbanized
              Seminar Series No.6 Washington, D.C., U.S. Depart-            estuary. Pacific Division, American Association for the
              ment of Commerce, NOAA Estuarine Programs Office.             Advancement of Science, San Francisco.
              pp. 65-67
                                                                            Saunders, S.,T. Sample and R. Matsuda. 1982. Califor-
              Nichols, F.H. and M.M. Parnatmat. 1988. The Ecology           nia Department of Health Services. 1982. Proceedings
              of the Soft-Bottom Benthos of San Francisco Say: a            from ParaVic Shellfish Poison Management Work-
              Community Profile. U.S. DepartmentoflnteriorBiologi-          shop:September 21-23,1982.. Berkley, CA. pp. 47-97.
              cal Report 85(7.19) Washington, DC 73 pp.
                                                                            Saunders, R.S. Shellfish Protection Strategy. 1984.
              Nosho, T. 1989. Small Scale Oyster Farming for                Washington Department of Ecology, Olympia, WA.
              Pleasure and Profit. Washington Sea Grant Advisory
              Services. Seattle, WA. 11 pp.                                 Schink, T.D., K.A. McGraw and K.K. Chew. 1983.
                                                                            Pacific Coast Clam Fisheries. Washington Sea Grant
              Office of Water, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.        Technical Report. WSG 83-1. Seattle, WA. 72 pp.
              1986. Tillamook Bay, OR. in Water Quality Progress
              Report. Washington, D.C., 2 pp.                               Seabloom, R. W., G. Plews and F. Cox. 1989. Puget
                                                                            Sound Marina and Boater Study. Washington Depart-
              Oregon Department of Environmental Quality. 1989. In          ment of Ecology, Olympia, WA. 60 pp.
              draft: Tillamook Bay WatershedBactefialAnalysis Water
              Years 1979-1987. Portland, OR.


                                                                                                                              35





          Shellfish Section, Washington State Department of                 nual Report.. Tillamook County, OR. 65 pp.
          Health and Human Services. 1989. Mitigation Meas-
          ures to Control Water Pollution from Liveaboard Ves-              Tillamook Headlight Herald. September 20,1989. Til-
          sels in Marinas. Olympia, WA. 29 pp.                              lamook Bay Reopened Monday; state continues close
                                                                            monitoring.
          Shellfish Section, Washington State Department of
          Health and Human Services. 1989. Model Ordinance                  U.S. Food and Drug Administration. 1986. National
          Establishing Rules & Regulations for Sewage Disposal              Shellfish Sanitation Program Manual of Operations,
          from Vessels with Liveaboards at Marinas. Olympia,                Part 1, Sanitation of Shellfish Growing Areas. Washing-
          WA. 3 pp.                                                         ton, D.C., 135 pp.

          Steele, E.N. 1964. The Immigrant Oyster. Washington               Wallace, R.K. 1987. Agricultural runoff. animal wastes
          Department of Ecology, Olympia, WA. 180 pp.                       in Proceedings from.Northwest Nonpoint Source Pollu-
                                                                            tion Conference. Spokane, WA. pp. 211-218.
          Strickland, R.M. The Fertile Fjord. Plankton in Puget
          Sound. Washington Sea Grant ppublication. -Seattle,               Walters, R.A. 1987. Estuarine circulation and mixing.
          WA. 145 pp.                                                       NOAA Estuary-of-the-month Seminar Series No.6
                                                                            Washington, D.C., U.S. Department of Commerce,
          Struck, P., Bremerton-Kitsap County Health Depart-                NOAA Estuarine Programs Office. pp 21-31.
          me nt. 1988. Burley Lagoon-Minter Bay Project. 6 pp.
                                                                            Waterstrat, P., K. Chew, K. Johnson and J.H. Beanie.
          Tacoma-Pierce County Health Department Water Re-                  1980. Mussel culture: a West Coast perspective. in
          sources Section. 1989. Ambient Sampling Report for                Mussel Culture and Harvest: a North American Per-
          the BurleylMinter Watersheds January 1, 1989 to May               spective. ed. Richard Lutz. New York pp. 143-165..
          31, 1989. Tacoma, WA. 21 pp.
                                                                            Washington Department of Health and Human Serv-
          Taylor, M.M. for Thurston County Human Services                   ices. 1987. Northwest Nonpoint Source Pollution
          Dept., Environmental Health Division. 1984. Final                 Conference proceedings. Olympia, WA. 557 pp.
          Document.,TheHendefsorVEldInlet WaterQuality Study.
          Olympia, WA.                                                      Washington Department of Health and Human Serv-
                                                                            ices. 1989. Second Annual Inventory of Commercial
          Taylor, M.M. for Thurston County Human Services                   and Recreational Shellfish Areas in Puget Sound.
          Dept., Environmental Health Division. 1986. Totten                Olympia, WA. 17 pp.
          Inlet and Watershed-a Bacteriological Water Quality
          Investigation. Olympia, WA. 159 pp.                               Welch, J.L. and B. Banks, Jefferson County Planning
                                                                            and Building department. 1987. Final Report the
          Thurston County Health Department, 1988.          Eld Inlet       OuilcenelDabob Bays Water Quality Project. Olympia,
          Watershed StudyArea, Fifth Quarterly Report forShore-             WA. 47 pp.
          land Program: Washington Department of Ecology.
          Olympia, WA. 23pp.                                                Wells, P.E. and D.W Price, California Department of
                                                                            Health Services Environmental Planning and Local
          Thurston County Health Department. 1988. Hender-                  He -alth Services Branch, Environmental Health Divi-
          son Watershed Study Area, Fifth Quarterly Report for              sion. 1989. Aqua Hedionda Lagoon San Diego County
          Shoreland Program: Washington Department of Ecol-                 Sanitary Survey September 1989. Sacramento, CA.
          ogy. Olympia, WA. 32pp.                                           Westley, R.E. 1980. Oyster Growing and Culture in
                                                                            Washington State. Olympia, WA. 14 pp.
          Thurston County Health Department. 1988. Totten
          Watershed StudyArea, Fifth Quarterly Report forShore-
          land Program: Washington Department of Ecology.
          Olympia, WA. 29 pp.

          Tillamook Bay Rural Clean Water Project. 1988.         An-


                                                                                                                                 36











                                          Appendices





            A. Personnal Communications


            B. Waters Classified As A Result Of Water Quality Changes

            C. Sources of Pollution In West Coast Shellfishing Waters

            D. Puget Sound Watershed Management Plan































                                                                                     38





                                         .-Appendix A. Personnall Communications



          Afton, David, Food and Drug Adm., San Francisco, CA             vation, Juneau, Ak

          Arnold, Bruce, Dept. of Environmental Quality, Portland,        LaBranche, Leonard, Coast Oyster Co., Eureka, CA
          OR
                                                                          LaRiviere, John, Tillamook Bay Shellfish Sanitation
          Balestrieri, Sal, Fisherman's Wharf Seafoods, Inc., San         Technical Advisory Committee, Tillamook, OR
          Francisco, CA
                                                                          LiIja, Jack, Coordinator, Dept. of Social and Health
          Canon, Debbie, Office of Environment and Health Sys-            Services,Olympia, WA
          tems, Portland, OR
                                                                          Lu, Edward, Environmental Protection Agency, San
          Collins, Harvey, California Dept. of Health Services,           Francisco, CA
          Sacramento, CA
                                                                          Marinelli, William, Marinelli Shellfish, West Los Ange-
          Collins, Rob, California Dept. of Fish and Game, Sacra-         les, CA
          mento, CA
                                                                          Marr, Suzanne, Environmental Protection Agency, San
          Conte, Fred, University of California, Davis, CA                Francisco, CA

          Cooper, Ken-, Coast Oyster Company, Quilcene, WA                Matches, Jack, University of Washington, Seattle, WA

          Faudskar, John, Tillamook County OSU Extension Of-              McGurk, Jack, California Dept. of Health Services,
          fice, Tillamook, OR                                             Sacramento, CA

          Finger, John, Hog Island Shellfish Farms, Marshall, CA          Meek, Robert, P., Ecomar, Inc., Goleta, CA

          Fraidenburg, Michael, E., Washington Dept. of Fisheries,        Moore, Thomas, 0., California Dept. of Fish and Ga me,
          Seattle, WA                                                     Sebastopol, CA

          Freeman, Judith, Washington Dept. of Fisheries, Seattle,        Nauman, Hal, Oregon Dept. of Human Resources,
          WA                                                              Portland, OR

          Gaumer, Tom, Oregon Dept. of Fish and Wildlife, New-            Ostasz, Micheal, Department of Environmental Con-
          port, OR                                                        servation, Anchorage, AK

          Graybill, Michael, South Slough National Estaurine Re-          Pendell, Herschel, Oregon Dept. of Agricufture,Porland,
          serve, Charleston, OR                                           OR

          Hansgen, Ken, California Dept. of Health Services, Sac-         Phelps,'Dave, Oregon Dept. of Human ResourcPort-
          ramento, CA                                                     land, OR

          Hashimoto, Janet, Environmental Protection Agency, San          Phillips, Ron, Newport Pacific Corp., Newport, 0
          Francisco, CA
                                                                          Plews, Gary, Dept. of Social and Health Services,
          Hayes, Sam, Hayes Oyster Company, Bay City, OR                  Olympia, WA

          Johnson, Charlie, Johnson Oyster Co., Inverness, CA
                                                                          Price, Douglas, W., California Dept. of Health Services,
                                                                          Santa Rosa, CA
          Johnson, Tom, Johnson Oyster Co., Inverness, CA
                                                                          Qualman, Larry, Qualman Oyster Farms, Inc., Coos
                                                                          Bay, OR
          Kaill, Mike, Alaska Department of Environmental Conser-


                                                                                                                              39






               Richards, John, California Sea Grant, Goleta, CA               Wilson, James, Sebastopol, CA

               Robertson, Dave, Taylor UnRed Inc., Shefton, WA                Young, Jeff, Pacific Seafood Industries, Santa Barbara,
                                                                              CA

               Ross, James, State Accident Insurance Fund, Salem,
               OR

               Smith, Tim, Pacific Oyster Growers Association, Se-
               attle, WA

               Stott, Robert, Food & Drug Administration, Seattle Wa


               Studded, Robert, Johnson Oyster Co., San Rafael, CA

               Taberski, Karen, California Dept. Health Services,
               Berkley, CA

               Taylor, Marilou, SW Public Health Center,.Seattle WA

               Tufts, Dennis, F., Washington Dept. of Fisheries, Ocean
               Park, WA

               Tuttle, Merritt, National Marine Fisheries Service
                NW. Region, Portland, OR

               Waring, Arnold, Hilton Seafood Company, Inc., Seatttle
               WA

               Warner, Ronald, W., California Dept. of Fish and Game,
               Eureka, CA

               Watchorn, Michael, Hog Island Shellfish Farms,
               Marshall,CA

               Webb, Doree, Wescott Farms, Friday Harbor, WA

               Weigardt Lee, Weigardt Brothers Inc., Ocean Park,
               WA

               Weigardt, John, Newport Pacific Corp., Newport, OR

               Wells, Pat, California Dept. of Health Services, Lom-
               poc, CA

               Williams, William, T., Williams Shellfish Company, Morro
               Bay, CA

               Wilson, Barbara, California Dept. of Health Services,
               Berkley, CA







                                                                                                                                  40





                          -Appendix B. -Waters Reclassified as a Result of Water Quality


           State             Estuary             Area Name '71         '85       Losses        Gain            Reason

         California       Monterey Bay         Elkhorn Slough p        r                        139      Upgrade Moss Lndg STP

         Oregon           Winchester Bay         Umpqua R.       p     a                        3229     Upgraded STP

         Washington       Willapa Bay            Willapa B.            p           2552                  STP, Raymond, S. Bend
                          Grays Harbor           Grays Hbr.      a     p           2665                  STPs, lumber mills
                                                 North Bay       a     C           43085                 Nonpoint runoff
                          Puget Sound            Washington H    a     p           337                   STP, urban runoff
                                                 Burley Lgn.           p           480                   Nonpoint rnff, wildlife
                                                 Minter Crk.     u     p           93                    Nonpoint runoff
                                                 Dougall Pt.     u     p           194                   STP
                                                 Oakland Bay           c           1224                  Shelton STP, lumber mll
                                                 Dyes Inlet            p           836                   Bremerton STP
                                                 Sinclair Inlet        p           3233                  Bremerton STP
                                                 Budd Inlet            p           1081                  STP, Deschutes River
                                                 Liberty Bay           p           2417                  Poulsbo, STP, marina
                                                 Henderson       a     p           163                   Urb Rnff,septics,widife
                                                 Eld Inlet.      a     C           459                   Nonpoint Runoff
                                                 Quilcene        a     p           50                    Nonpoint Runoff
                                                 Livingston B.   u     p           2550                  Dairy rnff (river), STP
                                                 Penn Cove       u     C           439                   STP



           Decertified culture areas from Washington State Department of Ecology, 4/1984 Shellfish Protection Strategy.




















 A











                                                                                                                               41





                          Appendix 13.1. Trends on the West Coast



               State           Estuary               Area Name                             Class'n     Acres Changed                        Reason for Change
               California                                                                1971    1985    losses          gains
                               Monterey Bay          Elkhorn Slough                        p        r                     139 upgraded STP, Moss Landing sewered
                               Tomales Bay           Tomales                               a    ns/np                          476 acres administrative
                                                     Tornales (conditional)                a        c        13                Administrative
                                                     Tomales (restricted)                  a        r      987                 Administrative
                               Morro Bay             Morro Bay South                       a        c      905                 Administrative- better data
                                                     Agua Hediondo                         a    ns1np                          289 acres approved for lease in 2/85

                               California Totals     Total acres reclassified            2644              1905            139
                                                     percent of changes                                    93%              7b/6
                                                     Water Quality related Changes                             0           139
                                                     Percent WO Changes                                      M/6         100%
                                                     Administrative or other Reasons                       1905               0
                                                     Percent Administrative Changes                        100%             (7/6


               Oregon          Coos Bay              Slough Entrance                       p        a                    1628 surveyed
                                                     Coos Bay                              ID       C                    5935 surveyed
                               Winchester Bay        Umpqua R                              p        a                    3229 upgraded    Stp
                               Siletz Bay            Siletz Bay                          ns/np      a                          821
                               Tillamook             Kilchis R to Tillamook R              a        p       13,                Administrative
                                                     Tillamook Bay                         a        6      5666                increased monitoring
                               Coquille River        Coquille R                            p        a      355                 surveyed
                               Nehalern Bay          Wheeler                               a        13     236                 increased monitoring
                               Yaquina Bay           Lower Yaquina,   R-Inset              p        a                      172 Administrative
                                                     Yaquina, Bay                          p        a                    1990 Administrative
                               Oregon Totals         total acres affected                19224             6270          12954
                                                     percent of changes                                  0.3262   0.673845194
                                                     Water Quality related Changes                             0         3229
                                                     Percent WQ Changes                                        0  0.249266636
                                                     Administrative or other Reasons                       6270          9725
                                                     Percent Administrative Changes                            1  0.750733364









               State          Estuary.                                             Class'n           Acres Changed                        Reason for Change
                                                            Area Name            1971 1985           losses       gains
               Washington
                              Willapa Bay             Willapa Bay                         p           2552              Raymond, South Bond STPs
                              Gray's Harbor           Grays Hbr                    a      p           2665              STPs, mills.
                                                      North Bay                    a      c           43085             nonpoint runoff
                              Puget Sound             Olele Point                  a      u               50            surveyed
                                                      Brownsville     Bay          u      a                          30
                                                      Drayton Hbr                  u      c             319
                                                      Westcott Bay                 u      a                        255 surveyed
                                                      East Sound                   u      a                        140 surveyed
                                                      Henry Island                 u      a                        149 surveyed
                                                      Shoal Bay                    u      a                        276 surveyed
                                                      Lummi Bay                    u      a                       2487 surveyed
                                                      Washington      Hbr          a      p             337             STP, urban runoff
                                                      Burley Lagoon                       p             480             nonpoint runoff/wildlife
                                                      Henderson Inlet                     p             163             urb runoff/septics/animals
                                                      Minter Creek                 u      p               93            nonpoint
                                                      Fox Island                   a      u               51            surveyed
                                                      Filucy Bay                   u      a                          60 surveyed
                                                      Nisquilly Reach              u      a                        122 surveyed
                                                      Lay Inlet                    a      u             184
                                                      Allen Bank                   u      a                        153 surveyed
                                                      Dolphin Point                u      a                        306 surveyed
                                                      Glen Acres                   u      a                        143 surveyed
                                                      Lynch Cove                   a      u           1673
                                                      N. of Reach     Isl          a      u             102
                                                      Grapeview                    a      u             153
                                                      Dougall Pt                   U      p             194             STP
                                                      McMichen                     u      a                          40
                                                      Wilson Pt                    u      a                        316
                                                      Quartermaster    Hbr         a      u             235
                                                      Oakland Bay                         c           1224              Shelton STP,     mill
                                                      Dyes Inlet                          p             836             Bremerton STP
                                                      Sinclair Inlet                      p           3233              Bremerton STP
                                                      Budd Inlet                          P           1081              STP, Deschutes R
                                                      Liberty Bay                         p           2417              Poulsbo. STP, marina*
                                                      McLane                       p      a                          20 surveyed
                                                      Henderson                    a      p             163             nonpoint
                                                      Lower Eld       Inlet        a      c             459             nonpoint
                                                                                   u      c             143
                                                      Eld Inlet                    p      c                        143










               State           Estuary                                             Class'n          Acres Changed                       Reason for Change
                                                             Area Name          1971 1985           losses      gains
                                                     Olele Pt                      a     u              50
                               Hood Canal            Lone Rock                     u     a                        255 surveyed
                                                     Misery Pt                     u     a                         40 surveyed
                                                     Brownsville Bay               u     a                          30
                                                     Duckabush                     u     a                        214 surveyed
                                                     Sylopash     Pt               u     a                        612 surveyed
                                                     Big Beef Hbr                  u     a                        408
                                                     .Quilcene                     a     p              50            nonpoint
                                                     Mats Mats Bay                 a     u              15            surveyed
                                                     Colvos                        a     u             204            surveyed
                                                     Hood Canal                    a     u           1673
                               Skagit Bay            North Port   Susan            u     a                        6120
                                                     Livingston   Bay              u     p           2550             dairy runoff in Stillaguamish R, S.
                                                     Skagit Bay                    u     a                        8242
                                                     Penn Cove                     u     c             439            STP
                                                     San de Fuca                   u     p           1020
                               Washington TotalsTotal acres       changed                            67893      20561 88454
                                                     percent of change                                 77%        230/6
                                                     Water Quality Related               01/0             0       143 r/6
                                                     Administrative or other             (NO         4155      20418 W16


                                Decertified Culture Areas from Washington          State Dept. of Ecology, 4/1984. Shellfish Protection Strategy





                                                                                                                                           J@

                                                                                                                                                                                                                     GrowIng Waters
                                                 AppendIx C.                      Sourcesof 9-11MJ'




                                                                                                                                             Pollution    Sources (acres)
                                                                                                                                                  STpfl
                                                                                                  ciao fication         (acres)    I       /                                                    -7
                         State         Estuary             Chart               Area                rohlblto d Condit Ion at lost Irl cled                   CSOr      Dir'eEt       Ind      Septics                 n    A g      Wildlife    Boating) @TP Industry Ur                        A g      Wildlife
                                                                                                                                                     f               DIschat                               Xrba,,,,    R noff                                                    Runoff,    Runoff
                        CA Morro Say                       1876     'North Morro Bay                                                                                                                                 709                               709
                                                                    Central Morro Bay                                     905                                                                                                               905                                                  905          905
                                                                    South Morro Say,                        564                                                                                                                             564
                                Total Morro Bay                                                                           905              0         709                                                             709                    1469       709                                        905          905
                                Percent of total                                                                                                          33                                                         33                     67         33                                          42           42

                                Monterey Bay               ISM      Santa Cruz Hrb                          40                                            40                                                         40                                40
                                                                    Santat Cruz                                  4j                                       4                                                          4                                     4
                                                                    Elkhorn Slough                                                     508                                            t                                         508
                                                                    MoP/Co)o Slough                                                      34                                                                                                            34
                                                                    Moss Landing Harbor                                                161                                                                                                             161
                                                                    Monterey Hrb                            65                                                                                                       65                                65
                                Total Monterey Bay                                                          !09                        703                44                                                         i0s;       sw                     3D4
                                Percent of total                                          i   I        I
                                                                                                                                                          5
                                San Francisco     138Y     1        Rlchardsonvillb      Bay                306@                                                                                                                                       3068
                                                                    EmaryVills B@y                          670                                      007                                                             P70                               670
                                                                    San llew4ro Say                         831                                      831                                                             831
                                                                                                                                                                                                                     '627
                                                                    Oakland Outer Harbor'                   627                                                                       627                                                              6v
                                                                    Oakland Inner Haftr                     3161,                                    3161                                                                                              311611
                                                                    Richmond Inner      Haibor              im@                                      &39                              IIK"                                                  1          1839
                                                                    San Pablo Bay                                                                                                                                                                               4331
                                                                                                            4331'.                                                                    4331
                                                                    San Rafael Bay                          j14                                                                                                      314                               314       314
                                                                                     Harbor
                                                           1915511  Cwjols Pnht                                           593                        593                                                             bwj                               ,593
                                                           186U     Sar Pablo Bay                      64847                                                                         64847
                                Total San Fraq@r;-@-j;ay                                               79688              593                        7031                            71644                           61 96                  log        102@    69492
                                pe                                                                                                                        9                              89                          a                         2                   87

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                441         441
                                        Bay                         Schooner Bay                                          441
                                                                    Home Bay                                              170                                                                                                   170

                                                Bay                                                                       611                                                                                                   611         441
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                100         72

                                Tomalm Ray                          Tomales Bay                                         5259                                                                                                    5259
                                                                    South Tornales Say                                                                                                              884              8"         884

                                Total Tornales Bay                                                                      5259           884                                                          N4               884        6143
                                Percent of total                                                                                                                                                     14              14         100

                                Humboldt Say               ISM      Mad A Slough                                          26                                                                                                    26          25
                                                                    Humbolt Bay                             2788                                                                                                                2788        2789
                                                                    Arcata Marsh                            9026                                                                                                                9026        9D20
                                                                    Central Arcata Bay                                  4644                                                                                                    4644        4644

                                Total Humboldt Bay                                                     11814            4669                              0                                             0                       16482       ISM
                                Porcent of total                                                                                                          a                                             0                       100         100

                       OR Coos Bay                         18%7 N Slough & Haynes In%                       682                                                                                     682
                                                                    Isthmus Slough                          381                                                                                                      3811
                                                                    Coos, Bay Channel                       1081                                     1081                             1081                           1081
                                                                    Coos say                                            5935                                                          5935                           5M











                                                                                         Classification jacres)                  Pollution Sources        (acres)                                                                        Upstream
                     State       Estuary               Chart           Area             -IrohlbiledConditionallestricted              STP       CSOs     Direct        Ind     Seplics      Urban         Ag      Wildlife Boating STIP Industry                Ur        All      Wildlife
                                                                                                                                                        DischSl           -                 Runoff      Runoff                                               Runoff Runoff

                             Total Coos Bay                                                             2144  5M                            1081                       7016              682       7397
                             Percent of Total                                                                                               13                            87             8         92

                             Winchester Bay            IM4 Winchester Bay                               120                                                                                                                         120
                                                                Lipper Uff"ua R                         2451                                2451                                         2451      2451                                                                     2451       2451
                             Total Winchester Bay                                                       2571                                2451                                         2571      2451                             `12D                                    2451        2451
                             Percent of total                                                                                               95                                           100       95                                    5                                    95          95

                             Sluslaw R                 19583 Sluslaw R                                  1501                                                                             1501      1501
                             Percent of total                                                                                                                                            IDO       10Q

                             Yaqulna Hey               ill9l    Woo Yaquirwit Bay                       971                                                                                        971                              971
                                                                Uppet YaquIna R-Inset                   we                                  508                                          506
                                                                Yaquina                                 162                                                                              152                             152

                             Total Yaquins Ray                                                          1829                                5w                                           658       971        506        152        971
                             Percent of total                                                                                               31                                           40        60          31            9        so

                                                                                                                                                                                                              110        110
                             _Vletz Say                IBM      Sllolz River                            ito
                                                                Schooner Creek                          273                                                                                                              273
                             Total SlIeli                                                               383                                                                                                   110        383
                             Percent of total                                                                                                                                                                  29        100
                             -Tillamook Bay            low      Mlark oZove                             T79                                 779              T79                                   T79                              77V
                                                                Kffchis R to "Namook                    24W                                 24M
                                                                Tillamook Bay                                 5666                          5666                                                   51"        56N                   SM'                 5666
                             Total Tillamook 113ay                                                      320 91                                                779                                  "45        WN                    6"i                 5666
                             Percent of total                                                                                                                   9                                  7j          91                     73                   64
                             Nehalem gay                        Wheeler                                 236                                 236                                          236                  236                   238
                             Percent of total                                                                                               100                                          100                  -100                  100
                             WIllapo Bay               'Jew     Maps say pni.,                          2652                                2552                                                   2552
                                                                                                                                            100                                                    too
                             Percent of total
                      WA Grays Harbor                  IM       Grays Harbor                            16761                               16761                                                  16761
                                                                North I gay                                   43085                                                                                                                        43085       43085    43085

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       43085    43M
                             Total Grays Harbor                                                         16761 43085                         16761                                                  16761                                   43085
                             Percent of Totai                                                                                               28                                                     29                                          72          72       72
                             Puget Sound               le"I     Elliot Bay                              1907                                1907                          1907                     1907
                                                                Liberty Bay                             2417                                2417                                                                         2417
                                                                Scandla                                 I-       V4'                        224                                                                          224
                                                       19400    Bellingham Bay                          117.23                              1723                                                   1723                   -
                                                                Dralon Hrb                                       319                                                                               319
                                                                Lumml Indian Reswrval                   6`1                                 51
                                                       18465    Washington Hrb                          337                                 ;)37                                                   337
                                                                Port Angelo$                            2@75                                Z275                                                   2275                             2275
                                                                                                                                            I                                                                            M
                                                       19448    Burley Lagoon                           480                                                                                        .480
                                                                                                                                                                                         93        93                      93
                                                                Miller Creek                            93                                  3233                          3233                     3233
                                                                Sinclair Inlet                          3233
                                                                Ostrich Say                                                                                                                        836
                                                                Elliot Bay                                                                                                                         1196
                                                                Olympia                                 1081                                1081@                         Joel                     1081                             1081






                                                                                                                              V










                                                                           Classification (acres)           Pollution Sources (acres?                                                              Upstream
                   State     Estuary        Chart            Area           roh lbile d Conditional I ostricted STP      CSOs Direct       Ind     Seplics    Urban       Ag    Wildlife Bottling STP Industry Ur              Ag    Wildlife
                                                                                                                                 nl-h.                        Runoff   Runoff                                       Runoff Runoff
                                                    Commencement Bay             5579                               5579                     5579                    5579
                                                    Glen Cove                       46                                                                   46          46
                                                    Dougall Point                  194                               194
                                                    Henderson                      lG3                                                                 163           163    163
                                                    Lower Eld Intel                            602                                                     602                  602
                                                    Oakland Bay                  1224                               1224    1224             1224                    1224
                        Hood Canal          18"1    Little Oullicene River         204                                                                 204                            204
                        Skagit Bay          18441   Livingston Bay               25W                                                                   2550          2550
                                                    Everett                      2999                               29"                      2999                    2999
                                                    San do Fuca                  1020                                                                  1020          1020
                                                    Penn Cove                                  439                                                     439           439

                        Total Puget Sound                                        2908         1584                24440     1224           17219       5117          27500  765      3418     3356
                        Percent of total                                                                              78       4               55        16          88        2        11       11

                        Total Hood Canal                                         204                                                                   204                           204
                        Percent of total                                                                                                               too                            too

                        Total Skagit Bay                                         9569         439                  2999                    2999        4009          7008
                        Percent of total                                                                             43                        43      57            100

                        Total West Coast                                        153478      68307      1587       55575    1224     779    95879       11413         73476  33222   24185    22177           48751   43085      3356     3356
                        Percent of 1                                                                                  25       1       0       43         5   -- 33           15        11       10             22       19        2        2


































                                                                                                                         PF PF





                               ..;,,A pendix D. Puget Sound Watershed Management
                                   P


         Discovery Bay, Port Townsend, Mats Mats Say,                         spite of all efforts to improve watd-r quality, commercial
         Ludlow Bay and Jackson Cove systems, Jefferson                       oyster beds in Burley Lagoon anti Minter Bay remain
         County. The county wide,water quality monitoring                     @uncertified as fecal coliform levels@ are still unaccept-
         program in Eastern Jefferson County began in January                 able. Stations with highest levels of 6 ritamination cor-
         1988-February 1989 by establishing baseline fecal                                                           cilo
                                                                              respond to areas with highest livestc@.* density. Struck
         coliform data for the five bays and their fresh water                recommends annual sanitary surveys to identify septic
         sources (Rubida, 1989). A total of 493 freshwater and                failures, but suggests that unless small noncommercial
         30i-marinewater samples were analyzed in the county's                farms.are-addressed as a major probl6m, water quality
         laboratory for fecal coliform levels. Elevated levels were           necessdry for oyster production will ript be achieved.
         observed in stream reaches t tpas-seLd through. ag i
                                          4a
        [email protected]_e land owners have agreed to                 Henderson Eld and Totten Inlet, ThOirston County.
         mitigate orcorrect the bacterial pollution problerrithrough          The 1984 Water Quality Study [email protected] three primary
         'the-use of--BMPs.- -in Discovery B-ay-"all-c-re-eks showed          sources of fecal coliform contamin'atior'i to Henderson
         increases in fecal coliform densities during wet weather,            Inlet; urban stormwater runoff, pasture:runoff and in-
         attributed-to aï¿½fricuftural-activity.,, InFort Townsend Bay          ddequate-shoreline on-site sewage syst!'arris in order of
         there are two point dlsch@rges; Port Townsend Paper-                 impact (Taylor, 1984). The report condfuded that the
         Company dischar ing indus4ial and sewage effluent
                             9                                                .bacterial loading contributed by failing on-site sewage
         and the wastewater treatme',',@'@@pl'ant at the Indian Island
                                                                           .@joystems was only 13.9 percent under vitorst possible
         Naval Base. Cattle seem 6 be a major contributor to                  ','conditions. The second most important 'Contributor to
         fecal coliform levels. Local watershed residents have                fecal contamination was "hobby farms," "Which usually
         devised the following strategy for improvement: sedi-                lack proper fencing from streams, adeqyate storage
         ment catch basins, controlled dredging of the creek                  and removal of manure, and stream bank,destruction.
         .Corridor and enhancement projects. Mats Mats Bay                    Poor pasture management was cited, pallicularly the
         meets all standards while Ludlow Bay suffers from                    crowding of large animals which total ovier one thou-
         heavy seasonal boating traffic (Washington DOH has                   sand, depositing over 25,000 pounds of )manure per
         developed a marina management strategy to address                    day. St-ormwater runoff was the major.cointributor of
         the discharge of wastes from boats.). Jackson Cove                   fecal contamination. Table 23 of the repOrt!- presents a
         had excellent water quality, the lowest levels of fecal              comparison of bacterial loadings from variodia? sources
         coliform of all bays-tested.
                                                                              showing that a single urban stormwater outfall, under
                                                                              ambient conditions, contributes a significantlly larger
         Burley Lagoon-Minter Bay system,                Bremerton-           bacterial loading on a daily basis than all failing' septic
         Kitsap County. Since 1980, six commercial oyster                     systems together.
         growing areas in Puget Sound have been closed be-
         cause of bacterial contamination. Two of these are                   A 1986 report onTotten Inietfoundthat thewaterqual'ir,
         Burley Lagoon and Minter Bay. An intensive survey of                 in Totten Inlet was relatively high, but expressed con-
         these areas was performed during'i 983-85 (Determan                  cernabout increasing development and the large number
         et at, 1985). The study recommended more stringent                   of marginally operated or seasonally inadequate sew-
         requirements for septic systems, particularly in marginal            age disposal systems (Taylor, 1986). The report rec-
         areas. At least 40 failing septic systems had been                   ommends the following approaches to future water
         identified in the survey. Erosion and sediment controls              quality management: (1) formal development and
         were recommended to reduce fecal coliform loading                    designation of a "Totten Inlet Basin Water Ouality
         from agricultural activities. A followup study was con-              Protection District,"(2) development of a special zoning
         ducted in 1987 showing an average decrease in the                    ordinance to prevent growth that would exceed Totten
         fecal coliform levels in Burley Lagoon streams of 52                 watershed's carrying capacity, (3) adoption of basin-
         percent (Struck, 1988). The remedial action assess-                  wide BMPs, (4) continued monitoring and (5) the devel-
         ment showed 49 systems corrected out of a total of 49                opment of a public awareness and education program.
         failing. The report identified reasons for failures as               During the 1986 sanitary survey, 78 failing septic sys-
         inadequate siting, overloading andexceeding useful life              tems were. identified, accounting for 22 percent of all
         (totaling 33 percent), construction error (33 percent),              sewage disposal systems in the watershed. A followup
         graywater discharges (20 percent) and poor mainte-                   report covering a twelve month monitoring study of the
         nance practices (14 percent). Several BMPs were                      water quality of Henderson, Eld and Totten Inlets con-
         implemented ranging from fisheries enhancement and                   cludedthat waterquality in Henderson Inletwasdeclin-
         stream bank revegetation to rip-rap erosion control. In              ing, attributed to stormwater, agricultural waste and


                                                                                                                                     48





                  failing on-site sewage s@jstems (Harrison, 1988).     In Eld        because domestic animals, wood wastes -and seals
                  Inlet water quality has,'improved, affected by         minor        contribute to high concentrations of fecal coliforms,, yet
                  stormwater runoff andlailing systems. Totten Inlet is               may not contribute to a correspondingly high health
                  the cleanest system, b,6t this report also recommends a             hazard (Welch and Banks, 1987).
                  protective strategy iq'order to maintain water quality.
                  The watershed plan ning is ongoing for Totten/Little                Lower Hood Canal, Mason County. In 1987, Mason
                  Skookum watershed, including monitoring, correction                 County completed a studiof lower Hood Canal, includ-
                  and education an    ,d conducted by Thurston County                 ing all tributaries and marine waters from Skokornish
                  Health Departmerh in cooperation with local citizens.               River to Lynch Cove., Lynch Cove was found to have
                                      ;                                               the most significant water quality problems, resulting
                  Sequim Say, Cl@llam County. During 1986-87 Clal-                    from homes and farms on Union Riverand malfunction-
                  lam County DepSirtment of Community Dev-e-lopment                   ing sewage systems of several commercial establish-
                  conducted a pr6]f6ct to determine the nonpoint    -pollution        ments. The report recommended-that Lynch Co%i-e-r be
                  impacts of the Watershiadis draining into Sequim Bay             -7-didertified and the public beach at Belfair State Park be
                  (Brastad et al, 1987). Identified as-the major contributor          posted. This report also raised-the issue of theeffec-
                  of bacterial conta'mination were large agricultural activi-         tiveness of sewage systems placed in fill behind bulk-.
                  ties, both beef i and dairy cattle operations. Irrigation           heads:
                  ditches were allso identified with a septic system failure
                  of less than five, percent@-Recommendations included                Irv addition to the watershed, studies funded -by- the
                  the goal.of opp'n status for all shellfish- beds within 5           Puget Sound Water Quality a review was made of'
                                  seasonal closures. Water quality re
                  years with no@                                              -       additional Puget Sound reports addressing the water
                  search and c@bmpanson studies were recommended                      quality of shellfish growing areas.
                  along With mo htitoring, education. This advisory group
                  also recommended monitoring for pesticides and herbi-               Oakland Bay. A 1987 Mason County report prompted
                  cides and ta)k incentive programs including reduced                 the revision of shellfish harvesting classifications due to
                  fees for upgr0ding septic systems.                                  high bacterial concentrations. (Michaud, 1987) Be-,
                                                                                      cause of excessive colif orm levels, commercial shell-
                  OuilcenelDejbob Bays, Jefferson County. In 1984                     fish harvesting was restricted to relaying during the
                  Kirk Cook of Washington DOH conducted a sanitary                    rainyseason, decreasing the levelsof harvesting. There
                  surveyof QuIlilcene Baywhich identified a large perc   'ent-        were six certified commercial shellfish harvestors oper-
                  age of res i.,dences whose drainfields were extremely               ating in Oakland Bay, accounting for 42 percent of the
                  close to tl@lle bay. Seasonal failures due to high water            state's 1986 hardshell clam production. The pollution
                  tables an@d impermeable soil conditions caused bacte-               sources identified were stormwater discharges from
                  riologita!, Contamination, -particularly during flooding,           the City of Shelton, industrial effluent and two creeks.
                  Tributa?ry diking has raised the base level of rivers,              This report also questioned fecal coliform indicator,
                  resuq;ing in the raising the groundwater level. Cook                partially because of the factthethefecal coliform group
                  =
                            nded continued closure of shellfish growing               includes Klebsiella which, although associated with
                            the head of Quilcene Bay.                                 human pathogens, is also found in industrial wastes,
                                                                                      soil, water and vegetation.
                  In response to the identified water quality problems,
                  Jefferson County conducted a 1 3-month intensive analy-             A 1989 report, produced by Brown and Caldwell, con-
                  sis in the watersheds of Quilcene and Dabob bays. The               sulting engineers, summarized sampling efforts to
                  study supported previous investigations, identifying f ail-         date, examined potential sources of bacterial contami-
                  ing septic systems, poor animal keeping practices and,              nation, and evaluated the contribution of various land
                  possibly, a large population of marine mammals as con-              uses to nonpoint source pollution in the watershed.
                  tributors to fecal contamination. Malfunctioning septic             Sampling results identified the most contaminated
                  systems were corrected using no-cost, technical assis-              creeks as Uncle John's, Shelton, Goldsborough and
                  tance for septic system design along with a loan pro-               Campbell. Mentioned as pollution sources to Goldsbor-
                  gram for low to moderate income households. Recom-                  ough and upper Shelton creeks are urban runoff, sur-
                  mendations also included educational programs, moni-                charging sewers, sewer lines in poor condition, com-
                  toring programs and studies on the harbor seal popu la-             bined storm and sanitary lines. Deer and livestock
                  tion. The citizen's advisory committee also suggested               affected Campbell Creek and significant contamination
                  that DOH and FDA begin using an indicator organism                  from horses and cattle affect Uncle John's Creek.
                  that is more closely correlated to the presence of a                Additionally the ITT laboratory discharge and Simpson
                  public health hazard. It was felt that use of the fecal             stormwater discharge have a negative impact on
                  coliform indicator discriminates against rural areas                Oakland Bay water quality.


                                                                                                                                              49







                                                                         bays tested met fecal coliform standards. Important to
          Dosewallips River Delta. Underthe Puget Sound Water            note is the fact that no samples were taken during heavy
          Quality Management Plan, DOH conducted a restoration           rainfall events. During the NOAA field work, we visited
          study of the Dosewallips river delta following a reclassifi-   San Juan Islands to speak with local shellfish operators.
          cation from approved to restricted of the southern section     Our impression is that water quality in both Westcott and
          o.f the area, across from Sylopash Point. Clearly identified   Ship bays is threatened by increasing shoreline develop-
          ,as the source of fecal coliform pollution were a herd of ap-  ment and extensive boating activity.
          proximately 300 harbor seals. A sanitary survey was
          unable to identify other sources and the high fecal levels     On Shoal Bay, a one-half acre longline mussel operation
          were recorded only intributaries which served as haul-out      is located as well as marina activities and residential
          shes by the seal herd. As mentioned in Section III of this     development (60 percent of land area.)
          report harborseals areprotected underthe Marine Mammal
          Protection Act, restricting the kinds of corrective meas-      Ship Bay attracts many shorebirds during the annual
          ures open to the state and county.                             herring run. The beach is used for recreation and com-
                                                                         mercial oyster and clam culture. Two tideland plots,
          To further complicate the problems at Dosewallips,             totalling 13 acres, are seeded, using stake culture and
          members of the Skokomish and Pori Gamble Klallam               hand harvested. Although there are 2 sewer outfalls and
          tribes harvested, forcommercial use, hardshell clams and       a storm water collection system, the only problem men-
          oysters from within the park boundaries. DOHisreluctant        tioned in Arnold's report was pastureland.
          to permit relay of shellfish from this restricted area to an
          approved growing area for purification. UndertheNSSP,          There is a commercial oyster and clam culture operation
          "an area may be classified as restricted when a sanitary       on the southeast side of the Westcott Bay including an
          survey indicates a limited degree of pollution- levels of      onshore hatchery, oyster spawning racks on the beach
          fecal pollution or poisonous ordeleterious substances are      and.a grow-out area of 3 to 8 acres. Oyster are suspended
          low enough that relaying or purifying -will make the           in lantern nets for grow-out while clams are seeded and
          shellfish safe to market." (FDA, NSSP Manual of Opera-         hand-harvested on the beach. A nearby resort is served
          tions, Part 1, Sanitation of Shellfish Growing Areas).         by a private sewer system. Shoreline residents and those
          Section D of the manual provides guidelines for relaying;      on small feeder streams rely on septic systems, some of
          requirements that control the movement and harvesting          which malfunction as soils are seasonally wet and poorly
          of the shellfish and testing of the meats to ensure that the   drained. The existing problems coupled with pressure for
          bacteriological quality is the.same as identical species       additional shoreline development could have a negative
          already in the approved or conditionally-approved areas.       impact on water quality.

          Two additional areas of Puget Sound have had studies           Open Bay is used to store oysters from Westcott Bay
          completed to address the quality of shellfish growing          during warm months of April to September. The cool
          waters.                                                        waters of Open Bay retard oyster spawning allowing top
                                                                         quality production year-round. Lack of land access pre-
          Samish River. A 1987 report by the          Skagit County      vents extensive development although both Open and
          Conservation District concluded that from upstream to          Nelson bays are popular summer anchorage areas for
          downstream sampling stations there is a 24-fold increase       pleasure boats. The report found very low levels of fecal
          in fecal coliform levels. Increases overall closely corre-     coliforms at Open Bay.
          lated with rainfall events. The Samish River watershed
          contains 24 dairy farms, averaging 179 acres and over
          8,000 animals producing over 34 million gallons of ma-
          nure annually. Fifty percent of the dairies had long-term
          storage of manure. The others spread manure during
          winter months leading to field runoff and poor stream
          water quality. Discharge from milking centers also con-
          tributes to the waste problems. Over 20 percent of the
          farms allowed animals direct access to the waterways.
          As in other farming areas of the west coast, farmers are
          cooperating by applying BM Ps to their farm operations

          San Juan County. There are four active shellfish culture
          areas that were included in a recent water quality study:
          Shoal, Westcott, Ship and Open bays (Arnold, 1985). All


                                                                                                                                50





                                                                 Glossary



         Approved Waters                             Waters from which shellfish may be harvested for direct marketing.

         Coliform Bacteria                           A group of bacteria present in sewage that are used to indicate possible
                                                     presence of enteric pathogens of sewage origin. Fecal coliform bacteria are
                                                     a subset of the total coliform bacteria group and more specifically indicate
                                                     presence of fecal material.

         Conditionally Approved Waters               Waters that meet approved classification standards under predictable
                                                     conditions. These waters are opened to harvest when water quality stan-
                                                     dards are met and are closed at all other times.

         Depuration                                  A controlled purification process in which shellfish from restricted areas are
                                                     placed in tanks through which bacteria-free water is circulated, usually for
                                                     48 hours before shellfish are removed for marketing.

         Enteric pathogens                           Human intestinal bacteria or viruses that cause gastroenteritis or hepatitis.

         Harvest-limited Waters                      Waters that are classified as prohibited, conditionally approved, or re-
                                                     stricted.

         National Shellfish Sanitation Program       A cooperative program of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, shellfish-
                                                     producing states, and the shellfish industry to control harvest and distribu-
                                                     tion of molluscan shellfish for human consumption.

         Prohibited Waters                           Waters from which shellfish may not be harvested fordirect marketing. Until
                                                     1986, relaying was allowed in prohibited waters.

         Relay                                       The transfer of shellfish from restricted (or prohibited until 1986) waters to
                                                     approved waters for natural cleansing , usually for a minimum of 14 days
                                                     before shellfish are harvested.

         Restricted Waters                           Waters from which harvest may occur only if shellfish are relayed or
                                                     depurated before direct marketing.

         Sanitary Survey                             The evaluation of all factors determining the classification      of waters,
                                                     including actual and potential pollution sources, hydrographic and metero-
                                                     rologic conitions, and coliform bacteria sampling results.

         Shellfish                                   Edible species of oysters, clams, and mussels.

         Shellfish Culture                           The planting, cultivation and harvest of shellfish.

         Shellfish Growing Waters                    Waters that are classified for the commercial harvest of shellfish.











                                                                                                                                 51






                                                  ARelevant Publications by NOAA



              1 -   Data Atlas Vol. 1 - Physical and Hydrologic             .16.  The National Coastal Pollutant Discharge
                    Characteristics: Nov. 1985.                                   Inventory - Estimates for Columbia River-,
                                                                                  Aug. 1988.
              2.    1985 National Shellfish Register of Classified
                    Estuarine Waters; Dec. 1985.                            17.   The National Coastal Pollutant Distharge
                                                                                  Inventory -Estimates for Puget Sound; Aug.
              3.    An Inventory of Coastal Wetlands of the                       1988.
                    U.S.A.; Jan. 1986.
                                                                            18.   The Distribution and Areal Extent of Coastal
              4.    Coastal Wetlands: Establishing a National                     Wetlands in Estuaries of the Gulf of Mexico;
                    Data Base; Nov. 1986.                                         Nov. 1988.

              5.    The National Coastal Pollutant Discharge                19.   (NEI: Supplement 1) Physical and Hydro-
                    Inventory - Estimates for Long Island Sound;                  logic Characteristics - The Oregon Estuar-
                    Dec. 1986.                                                    ies; Nov. 1988.

              6.    National Estuarine Inventory: Classified                20.   Data Atlas, Vol. 4 - Public Recreation Facili-
                    Shellfish Growing Waters by Estuary, Dec.                     lies in Coastal Areas: Dec. 1988.
                    1986.
                                                                            21.   Data Atlas, Vol. 3 - Coastal Wetlands: New
              7.    Data Atlas, Vol. 2 - Land Use Characteris-                    England Region; Jan. 1989.
                    tics; Jan. 1987.
                                                                            22.   The National Coastal Pollutant Discharge
              8.    Land Use and the Nation's Estuaries: Mar.                     Inventory - Agricultural Pesticide Use in
                    1987.                                                         Estuarine Drainage Areas: A Preliminary
                                                                                  Summary for Selected Pesticides; Jan.
              9.    The Ouality ol Shellfish Growing Waters in                    1989.
                    the Gulf of Mexico; Jan. 1988.
                                                                            23.   (NEI Supplement 2) Characterization of
              10.   Shoreline Modification, Dredged Channels,                     Salinity and Temperature for Mobile Bay;
                    and Dredged Material Disposal Areas in                        Mar. 1989.
                    the Nation's Estuaries: Feb. 1988.
                                                                            24.   (NEI Supplement 3) Physical and Hydro-
              11.   How Representative are the Estuaries Nomi-                    logic Characteristics - The Mississippi Delta
                    natedfor EPA's National Estuary Program?;                     System Estuaries', Mar. 1989.
                    Mar. 1988.
                                                                            25.   The Ouality of Shellfish Growing Waters on
              12.   Estuarine Living Marine Resources Project                     the East Coast of the United States-, Mar.
                    - Washington State Component; May 1988.                       1989.

              13.   The National Coastal Pollutant Discharge
                    Inventory - Estimates for San Francisco
                    Bay, Jun. 1988.

              14.   The National Coastal Pollutant Discharge
                    Inventory - Estimates for Santa Monica
                    Bay, San Pedro Bay, and San Diego Bay;
                    Jul. 1988.

              15.   Strategic Assessment of Near Coastal
                    Waters (Northeast Case Study) -Suscepti-
                    bility and Status of Northeastern Estuaries
                    to Nutrient Discharges; Jul. 1988.







                                                                                         3 6668 14103 0876


































                                                    4?Arcs ol