PROJECT NUMBER: NWS

Transcription

1 June Ms. Pamela Sanguinetti U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Regulatory Branch P.O. Box 3755 Seattle, WA SEA Program, Federal Permit Coordinator WA Department of Ecology SEA Program P.O. Box Olympia, WA Subject: PROJECT NUMBER: NWS Clallam County, Icicle Acquisition - Comments regarding the Joint Public Notice for an Application for a Department of the Army Permit and a Washington Department of Ecology Water Quality Certification and/or Coastal Zone Management Consistency Concurrence Dear Ms. Pamela Sanguinetti & Federal Permit Coordinator, Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on the Icicle Acquisition application. As conservation and recreation organizations with members who live, work and play in the region, we have a strong interest in current and future management activities as it relates to Atlantic salmon net pens and their impacts on the overall health of Puget Sound and the Strait of Juan de Fuca. After reading through the joint public notice, we offer the following comments: Introduction The Application is made by Icicle Sea Foods for an expansion of Atlantic salmon net pen aquaculture in the Strait of Juan de Fuca near Port Angeles, Washington. According to the Joint Public Notice ( Notice ), a new larger net pen rearing facility would be constructed and located about 1.5 miles offshore in the Strait of Juan de Fuca. A smaller facility currently located at Ediz Hook would be removed. The proposed facility would consist of 14 circular net pens, each 126 feet in diameter. The facility would occupy 9.7 acres within the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) 52-acre lease area. The purpose of the new facility is to [i]ncrease production

2 2 of Atlantic salmon by 20% within the vicinity of Port Angeles. The map in Figure 1 shows the location of the current net pen facility in Port Angeles. On the face of it, the proposed project reasonably poses several potential environmental threats that must be formally addressed in an objective environmental risk assessment in order to assure the public that approval of the project is warranted. That is to say, a full Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) compliant with the requirements of the National Environmental Protection and State Environmental Protection Acts (NEPA and SEPA, respectively) is required. The project as described in the Notice lacks sufficient details relevant to assessing the potential environmental impacts the project may pose to the public and the public s natural resources. The lack of detail makes it impossible to properly assess the full magnitude of potential adverse impacts of the project, and hence, to provide appropriately detailed public comments. Such shortcomings can only be rectified by the development of a full EIS. Among the basic shortcomings are the following: No data is provided regarding the exact boundaries of the DNR 52-acre lease area, and insufficient data is provided regarding the location of the 9.7 acres within the lease area that would be occupied by the proposed new facility; No information is provided regarding the species and habitat composition currently occupying the habitat underlying the 52-acre lease area and no corresponding information is provided concerning where the anchors of the net pens will be located, the type of habitats to which the anchors would be secured, and how much of the 52-acre lease area the anchor points will encompass; No data (detailed or summary) are provided regarding the number of Atlantic salmon that each circular net pen can hold, the ages and sizes of salmon that will be reared in each of the 14 pens, and what the total annual number reared is expected to be.

3 3 Absent these details, it is impossible for the public to properly judge the magnitude of the project and to estimate the several adverse environmental impacts that could occur as a result of the project. No data or information is provided in the Notice regarding which agencies have what regulatory jurisdiction over the operation of the net pen. No information is provided regarding the monitoring of environmental impacts (such as disease, parasitic outbreaks, or fish escapes) as required by current state and federal law or how frequently such monitoring may be carried out; nor is any information provided regarding which entity or entities are responsible for conducting any required monitoring and reporting the results of such monitoring. No information is provided regarding the public s financial obligations. How many agency FTEs with appropriate technical skills will be required to oversee and monitor the net pens? Who will pay for the additional agency oversight and monitoring?

4 4 Figure 1. Map showing the locations of five existing net pens in the Strait of Juan de Fuca (red dots) and salmon bearing streams within 5 km (orange) and 10 km (yellow) buffers in the Strait of Juan de Fuca. See Figure 2 for map legend. It is particularly critical for the public to know how the conduct of net pen operations is to be monitored with respect to the potential adverse environmental effects that have been known to occur with such facilities (described in part below), and by whom any such monitoring and reporting will be accomplished. Current evidence indicates that there is little if any authority for state agencies such as DOE and Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife ( WDFW ) to provide independent monitoring and evaluation of net pen operations most importantly concerning disease, parasitic outbreaks, and prophylactic treatment intended either to prevent or to treat disease outbreaks. Issues of concern regarding open net pen Atlantic salmon aquaculture

5 5 The following is a description of the basic adverse environmental impacts that the proposed project is likely to cause and that should be addressed in specific detail in the Application and in evaluations by the Corps, DOE, and National Marine Fisheries Service ( NMFS ) pursuant to NEPA, SEPA, and the Endangered Species Act (ESA). Net pen facilities are well-characterized as animal feedlots. Although they are located in open public waters belonging to the citizens of the State rather than on land, net pen aquaculture is simply a variety of confined animal feeding operations ( CAFOs ) that rear animals in restricted quarters at high densities. High rearing densities in individual net pens and close proximity of pens to one another at a facility can increase the likelihood of rapid parasitic or pathogenic amplification resulting in Infectious Hematopoietic Necrosis Virus ( IHNV ), Infectious Salmon Anemia Virus ( ISAV ), Piscene Othoreouvirus ( PRV ), and Heart and Skeletal Muscle Inflammation ( HSMI ) (the latter recently discovered in samples of farmed Atlantic salmon in British Columbia. See In turn, this leads to the rapid spread and release of large numbers of viral and bacterial pathogenic particles into the adjacent aquatic environment, placing wild juvenile salmonids at considerable risk of infection (regardless of whether the source of the infection in the feedlots originated from infected fish in the net pens themselves or was transmitted to net pen fish from local salmon or steelhead rearing or migrating in the vicinity of the pens). 1 In addition to the very high risk of disease pathogen amplification within an individual net pen facility and the contamination of adjacent waters, there is considerable risk of disease transmission to nearby net pen facilities and/or wild salmonid populations. Therefore, the distance of a net pen from other net pen facilities or wild salmon and steelhead populations is critically important for containing, if not preventing, rapid disease transmission from a facility experiencing an outbreak. Nevertheless, current state and federal regulations fail to: 1 Of great concern is the fact that where pathogen outbreaks in net pen facilities involve fish pathogens such as IHNV that are native to wild Pacific salmon in the Pacific Northwest, net pen facilities may be held blameless because they may not be the ultimate source of the pathogen, regardless of the fact that the outbreak occurs entirely as a result of the amplification of the pathogen within the net pen facility.

6 6 Specify minimum distances between net pens to reduce the likelihood of parasitic or pathogenic amplification and transmission. Account for tidal flow to help determine where fecal waste is deposited. Account for the proximity of pens to salmon bearing streams or important migratory pathways. At present, the international standard recommended by the World Animal Health Organization is a distance of 5 km between net pen facilities. Mardones et al. (2011) questioned the validity of this standard and recommended a minimum distance between pens of 10 km to limit the spread of infectious outbreaks from feedlots solely as a means of protecting salmon aquaculture investments. A similar if not greater minimum distance from a net pen facility to any nearby wild salmonidstream or migratory pathway would seem even more advisable, however, current Washington State regulations do not address this issue. Among the apparent inadequacies of current state and federal regulations is their failure to provide for or assure independent monitoring of pens (even after a pathogen outbreak has been reported). Reporting of pathogen outbreaks in net pen facilities appears to be at the volition of the net pen operators; it does not appear to be required by current state or federal law. Considering the inherent tendency of private firms to ignore marginal costs to society in the context of a public good, only mandatory reporting coupled to the authority of independent state or federal regulatory agencies (such as Washington Department of fish and Wildlife (WDFW) or National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS)) to investigate and monitor outbreaks can adequately assure the public that environmental risks posed by such outbreaks will be appropriately dealt with. Presently, many outbreaks go unreported. Even when outbreaks are reported to state agencies such as DOE or WDFW, the relevant agency for evaluating the impacts of outbreaks on aquatic organisms including ESA-listed salmon and steelhead (WDFW) apparently lacks the authority to conduct on-site inspection or to determine/conduct on-site monitoring to evaluate the severity of the outbreak and assess its impact on aquatic organisms (including ESA-listed species outside of the pens). Any pathogen outbreak, however small, must be required to be reported to a

7 7 responsible state and/or federal agency vested with the authority to further evaluate the outbreak and to assess the threat it may pose to the environment. It is important to appreciate the magnitude of the pathogen particles that can be released into the open water environment during the course of a pathogen outbreak in a net pen facility. Garver et al. (PlosOne 2013) estimated the IHNV shedding capacity of Atlantic salmon net pens. They estimated an individual fish with an acute level of infection sheds 32,000,000 (32 million) plaque forming units (PFU) (viral particles) per hour. In 2012 a severe IHNV outbreak occurred in the American Gold net pens in South Puget Sound (Fort Ward, Clam Bay, and Orchard Rock (Figure 2) that resulted in American Gold reportedly planning to remove 1,000,000 pounds of infected Atlantic salmon. This figure (total pounds removed or planned for removal) is an example of the vagueness and lack of detail in reporting requirements. The total numbers and sizes of fish removed should be reported in addition to the total weight. A conservative estimate of the number of viral particles that are likely to have been shed by an outbreak of this magnitude was calculated as follows. At an estimated average weight of 7 pounds per fish, 1,000,000 pounds would have been equivalent to 142,857 fish. These fish were removed over the course of the outbreak that lasted at least 60 days (April 1 through May). We assume that only 1% of the infected fish, or 14,286, were severely infected each day during the 60-day period. Over this period of time, 14,286 severely infected fish each shedding 32,000,000 particles per hour over the total of 1440 hours in the 60-day period would have shed a total of at least 65,848,320,000,000 (or nearly 66 trillion) particles into the surrounding public environment of Puget Sound! This amounted to approximately 3,026,338,624 or over 3 billion viral particles per hour per cubic kilometer of water in South Puget Sound.

8 8 Figure 2. Figure 1.Map of central- and south Puget Sound showing three net pens locations that experienced a major IHNV outbreak in April and May 2012 and locations of salmon bearing streams within 5 and 10 km of one or more net pens. IHNV viral particles remain viable for up to 5 days in seawater. A dose of 10 PFU may initiate active infection of exposed juvenile Atlantic salmon (Dr. Todd Sandell, personal communication May 2016). Even if juvenile Atlantic salmon in feedlots were more resistant to infection than native Chinook, coho, chum, pink salmon and steelhead, these data clearly indicate the potential for IHNV outbreaks in Atlantic salmon feedlots to transmit significant numbers of infective pathogenic particles to native salmon in adjacent waters during the course of a feedlot outbreak. It is also important to note that the facilities in the South Sound at which the 2012 IHNV outbreak occurred appear to have a smaller total production capacity than the proposed project. So the risk of a pathogen outbreak at the proposed facility is likely to be greater, but how much greater is, again, impossible to estimate given the lack of details regarding the proposed project.

9 9 Will the activities of this new proposed net pen be transparent to the public and state and federal agencies, or will it be the same as previous net pen management? The massive 2012 IHNV outbreak showed a total lack of transparency to both the public and the appropriate agencies. It is well documented that the net pen operators denied WDFW's senior disease specialist access to monitor the deadly IHNV outbreak within the net pen facilities. It is also well documented that the net pen operators did not inform WDFW disease specialist of the true duration of the outbreak. The outbreak did not just last the two months in the spring as earlier described, but persisted into September.Net pen management failed to inform WDFW of this discrepancy, and instead, the department was informed third hand. To this date, it is impossible for the public to find any trace of what happened in I have been unable to find any reports or documentation from any public agency that describes what occurred during this outbreak, or even any mention that an outbreak occurred. The net pen operator s annual reports to agencies also fail to mention any outbreak. This issue alone demands the need for an EIS. Recent outbreaks of IHNV in Puget Sound net pens appear to have involved the U clade of the virus one of three clades of the virus present in various regions of the Pacific Northwest. Of the three clades, the U clade is most pathogenic for sockeye and kokanee, but is also known to infect Chinook salmon and rainbow/steelhead trout. The proposed location of the expansion project is a concern in light of its close proximity to the Dungeness and Elwha rivers and several other small lowland salmon- and steelhead-bearing streams. All of these rivers and streams have depressed populations of ESA-listed Puget Sound Chinook salmon, steelhead, and bull trout. The location is also within or near major migration routes of other ESA-listed juvenile salmonids migrating from Puget Sound and Hood Canal to the Pacific Ocean. Since Atlantic salmon feedlots have been shown to attract concentrations of native juvenile salmon and other fish species due to food availability and shelter from currents (Fernandex-Jover et al. 2008; Demster et al. 2009), native juveniles are likely to experience increased exposure to pathogens amplified in and shed from aquatic feedlots. Risks of disease transmission and wild salmonid competition and displacement are also posed from the potential escapement of salmon from net pen facilities. Farmed Atlantic salmon have

10 10 escaped from facilities in British Columbia and Puget Sound, and have been documented spawning naturally and producing viable offspring in several rivers on Vancouver Island in British Columbia (Volpe et al. 2000, Fisher et al. 2014). A recent Scandinavian study demonstrated that escaped farmed Atlantic salmon infected with two different viruses (salmon alphavirus and piscine reovirus) were captured in a nearby river, showing that escaped farmraised fish are capable of transmitting pathogens directly to the spawning grounds of wild fish. In addition to salmon, the Southern Distinct Population Segment (DPS) of Pacific eulachon (commonly known as candlefish ) is listed as threatened under the ESA and the Southern Resident Killer Whale DPS is listed as endangered. The lower Elwha River has been designated as critical habitat for eulachon, as has adjacent nearshore and offshore marine foraging habitat. The potential adverse impacts of the proposed facility to eulachon and its critical habitat may be significant and must be thoroughly evaluated. Southern Resident Killer Whales (SRKW) use the Strait in the vicinity of the location of the proposed facility for both migration and foraging. SRKW are obligate salmon specialists, highly dependent on Chinook salmon as well as coho and chum salmon. The proposed location of the feedlot approximately1.5 miles offshore is well within the normal feeding and migration territory of SRKW. Further, the presence of a large salmon feedlot rearing fish to seven pounds and larger may also present a new attraction for SRKW, seals, and sea lions. Acknowledging this issue, the proposed facility will include individual predator nets surrounding each of the 14,126-foot diameter circular pens to prevent marine mammal predation on cultured fish. However, the effectiveness of such nets in preventing pinnipeds from predating on salmon in the pens is not described in the Notice and may be unknown. The potential would seem to exist for lethal entanglement of pinnipeds and juvenile SRKW in predator nets of the aquaculture facility. Furthermore, the Notice did not describe how marine mammal activity would be monitored or if any marine mammal deterrence would be used. These issues require a thorough examination by the Corps, DOE, WDFW, and NMFS. A final concern with the project is the impact that its location offshore in the Strait may pose to navigation. No information is provided in the Notice regarding the relationship of the proposed

11 11 location to major shipping lanes, commercial fishing operations, or recreational boating. It is likely that the presence of such a large structure offshore could pose a hazard to current marine traffic. In addition, impacts of marine traffic on SRKW would likely be increased if SRKW are attracted to the feedlot. Independent of this concern, if the pens attract a significant number of pinnipeds to the vicinity of the feedlot, the potential for interactions between recreational boaters and pinnipeds would likely increase. Will this facility cause increased commercial boat traffic? If so, how will the increase of commercial boat traffic impact marine mammals? Thus, navigational concerns alone appear to require significant evaluation. All of these issues require that a full Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) be prepared. Thank you for considering these comments. Sincerely, Kurt Beardslee Executive Director Wild Fish Conservancy kurt@wildfishconservancy.org Pete Soverel President The Conservation Angler soverel@msn.com Gary Bergquist President Washington Fly Fishing Club garybergquist@msn.com Rich Simms Honorary Director Wild Steelhead Coalition rks57@yahoo.com Bill Redman Member, IFFF Steelhead Committee wrredman@comcast.net Tom Derry s Executive Director Native Fish Society tom@nativefishsociety.org

12 12 References. Dempster, T, I Uglem, P Sanchez-Jerez, D Fernandez-Jover, J Bayle-Sempere, R Nilsen, and Pa Bjørn Coastal Salmon Farms Attract Large and Persistent Aggregations of Wild Fish: An Ecosystem Effect. Marine Ecology Progress Series 385 (Fao 2008): doi: /meps Fernandez-Jover, Damian, Pablo Sanchez-Jerez, Just Tomás Bayle-Sempere, Carlos Valle, and Tim Dempster Seasonal Patterns and Diets of Wild Fish Assemblages Associated with Mediterranean Coastal Fish Farms. ICES Journal of Marine Science: Journal Du Conseil 65 (7): doi: /icesjms/fsn091. Fisher, Alina C, John P Volpe, and Jason T Fisher Occupancy Dynamics of Escaped Farmed Atlantic Salmon in Canadian Pacific Coastal Salmon Streams: Implications for Sustained Invasions. Biological Invasions 16: Garver, Kyle a, Amelia a M Mahony, Dario Stucchi, Jon Richard, Cecile Van Woensel, and Mike Foreman Estimation of Parameters Influencing Waterborne Transmission of Infectious Hematopoietic Necrosis Virus (IHNV) in Atlantic Salmon (Salmo Salar). PloS One 8 (12): e82296 e doi: /journal.pone Jakob, E, DE Barker, and KA Garver Vector Potential of the Salmon Louse Lepeophtheirus Salmonis in the Transmission of Infectious Haematopoietic Necrosis Virus (IHNV). Diseases of Aquatic Organisms 97 (2): doi: /dao02414.

13 13 Johansson, T, K Einer-Jensen, W Lapatra, Scott E Factors Affecting Pathogenicity of Infectious Hematopoietic Necrosis Virus ( IHNV ) for Salmonid Fish. Journal Of Aquatic Animal Health 10 (January): Madhun, A S, E Karlsbakk, C H Isachsen, L M Omdal, A G Eide Sorvik, Ø. Skaala, Bjørn T. Barlaup, and K A Glover Potential Disease Interaction Reinforced: Double-Virusinfected Escaped Farmed Atlantic Salmon, Salmo Salar L., Recaptured in a Nearby River. Journal of Fish Diseases 38: Mardones, F O, a M Perez, P Valdes-Donoso, and T E Carpenter Farm-Level Reproduction Number during an Epidemic of Infectious Salmon Anemia Virus in Southern Chile in Preventive Veterinary Medicine 102 (3): doi: /j.prevetmed Volpe, J P, Taylor, E B, D W Rimmer, and B W Glickman Evidence of Natural Reproduction of Aquaculture-Escaped Atlantic Salmon in a Coastal British Columbia River. Conservation Biology 14 (3):