quality of shellfish growing waters on the west coast of the United States

[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

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.

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

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

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

� 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.

� 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

� 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.

� 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.

� 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.

� 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.

� 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.

� 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

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-

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.

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-

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

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 . . . . . . . . . .

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

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

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

300

0
CL

200

100

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

Year

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

........... ..
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-

100-

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

__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

r_ Goo
3

200-

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

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

2000

1000-

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

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

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. -

600 -

0 '00-

_200

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.

Dollars 1

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

States

--A

-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

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

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 %)

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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'

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

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."

-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

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-

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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-

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

.-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-

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

-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.

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

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

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 a�fricuftural-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

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.

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

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.

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