Taxpayer Dollars Funding Research on Toxic Chemicals to Remove Native Burrowing Shrimp in Willapa Bay Remain

[Update 4/26: EHB 1109, the 2019-2021 operating budget, is waiting for a House/Senate conference meeting to work through disagreements between the two houses. Still remaining in the bill is $534,000 of taxpayer dollars allocated to assess "...the toxicity of candidate chemicals..." to poison native burrowing shrimp (see below for current wording).]

$534,000 to Study Toxicity of Chemicals

Applied to Oyster Beds and Marine Waters

of Willapa Bay and Grays Harbor Remains

in Final Budget Bill

Changes have been made to the final budget bill, removing mention of Imidacloprid, but retaining the belief that the only way to deal with this native species is by eliminating it, "...assessing the toxicity of candidate chemicals..". As of yet, funding to assist growers in moving to alternative growing methods used by the oyster growers around the world, and within Willapa Bay, has yet to be accepted as a better alternative. According to the office of Governor Inslee, this funding will cease June 1, 2019. (See final bill, page 625, by clicking here)

(9) $534,000 of the state toxics control account—state  appropriation is provided ((solely for a monitoring program to study the impacts of the use of imidacloprid as a means to control 16 burrowing shrimp and related costs)) to support research related to burrowing shrimp infestations in Willapa bay and Grays harbor. Department costs include, but are not limited to, oversight and  participation on a technical advisory committee, technical assistance, planning, and reporting activities. The department may also use the funding provided in this subsection, as needed, for payments to Washington State University, the United States department of agriculture, and outside consultants ((for their participation in the monitoring program and technical advisory committee)). Research funded pursuant to this appropriation includes but is not limited to dye dispersal studies to understand the oceanographic dynamics of Willapa bay, Grays harbor, or both, laboratory studies to assess toxicity of candidate chemicals to control burrowing shrimp, and support of researchers in publishing original research related to control of burrowing shrimp, including research assessing potential impacts to nontarget organisms in Willapa bay and Grays harbor. The department must report to the appropriate committees of the legislature by June 1, 2019, on the progress of ((the monitoring program)) expenditures under this subsection.

It's time to stop looking to the past

for a solution for tomorrow.

At some point in time legislators and growers will come to realize that taxpayer dollars for funding of ideas from oyster growers who drive by looking in the rear view mirror for solutions to a perceived problem will not work nor be accepted by consumers of Washington oysters and Washington taxpayers. Instead, it will be legislators and companies who drive while looking forward through an evolving marine ecosystem, which does not need to have toxic chemicals applied to it, will be who survives.

Shellfish Politics: Corporate Welfare/Marine Pork - $534,000 in taxpayer dollars to study the use of Imidacloprid to kill native burrowing shrimp.

[Update: Governor Inslee's Senior Policy Advisor has noted the following changes made:

"The revised proviso [on funds for the study Imidacloprid] removes reference to imidacloprid and allows the use of the funds for research related to burrowing shrimp infestations in Willipa Bay and Grays Harbor.  Specifically the funding would be used for

1.       dye dispersal studies in Willipa Bay or Grays Harbor

2.       lab studies to assess toxicity of candidate chemicals to control burrowing shrimp

3.       support of researchers in publishing original research related to control of burrowing shrimp and potential impacts to non-target organisms.

"To date, none of the original proviso money has been spent. The revision of the proviso by the House, if passed, would only be valid through June 30, 2019, which means that the Department  of Agriculture would have only two months to spend the money and complete work. There is currently no extension of this funding in any legislative budget for the 2019-21 biennium."

See the final Bill passed here: http://lawfilesext.leg.wa.gov/biennium/2019-20/Pdf/Bills/House%20Bills/1109-S.E.pdf ]

$534,000 in Marine Pork

Pesticides do not belong in Washington's

marine environment. Especially on its oyster beds.

Lipstick won't stick on this pig. 

Buried in the budget before the Washington legislature, to be sent to Governor Inslee, is what can only be described as "marine pork." Despite the Department of Ecology denying the permit; despite the public saying they will not support spraying Imidacloprid on Washington oyster beds; despite virtually all labels saying it is a neurotoxic pesticide lethal to ALL marine invertebrates and should not be applied below the high tide line; and, despite 2 bills not making it to the floor of the Senate or the House which would have overridden DOE's permit denial, shellfish lobbyists convinced legislators to insert a paragraph which allocates $534,000 of taxpayer dollars to study Imidacloprid. To kill native burrowing shrimp so a few shellfish growers, unwilling to accept reality, may grow nonnative Pacific oysters.

From page 610 of ESHB 1109:
(9) $534,000 of the state toxics control account—state 12 appropriation is provided solely for a monitoring program to study the impacts of the use of imidacloprid as a means to control burrowing shrimp and related costs. Department costs include, but are not limited to, oversight and participation on a technical advisory committee, technical assistance, planning, and reporting activities. The department may also use the funding provided in this subsection, as needed, for payments to Washington State University, the United States department of agriculture, and outside consultants for their participation in the monitoring program and technical advisory committee. The department must report to the appropriate committees of the legislature by June 1, 2019, on the progress of the monitoring program.
(See complete budget proposal here: http://lawfilesext.leg.wa.gov/biennium/2019-20/Pdf/Amendments/Senate/1109-S.E%20AMS%20ENGR%20S3636.E.pdf)

Get involved.
Find your Washington legislator and tell he/she this "marine pork" should be removed from ESHB 1109. IF the legislators want to react to shellfish growers, then allocate monies to help them develop alternative growing methods.
Find your legislator here: https://app.leg.wa.gov/districtfinder/

Tell Governor Inslee to veto this if it should get to his desk, as this is not going to help his image of someone governing a "green state". It will be picked up by others to show he is simply wearing under a green cloak with nothing on underneath.
Contact Governor Inslee here: https://www.governor.wa.gov/contact/contact/send-gov-inslee-e-message
Contact his "Inslee for America" election web site here and tell them to tell him to veto this:
https://www.jayinslee.com/contact

Canada Further Restricts Use of Imidacloprid/Neonicotinoids: Willapa Bay Shellfish Growers Continue Appeal to Use in Marine Waters and On Washington Oyster Beds

My grandfather did it this way

and my father did it this way.

It doesn't make it right.

Should Canada drive policy decisions? They helped ground the 737 MAX when the FAA wouldn't. They should also help drive the decision to reject the appeal by the Willapa Grays Harbor Shellfish Growers Association who continue to walk into a cement wall of resistance to applying pesticides to oyster beds, not understanding the wall isn't going to move.

(See article on increased restrictions of Imidacloprid here: https://ipolitics.ca/2019/04/11/health-canada-restricts-certain-pesticide-uses-because-of-bee-health-concerns/)

Despite being told by the public, in no uncertain terms, they do not want oysters raised on beds sprayed with pesticides, Washington shellfish growers either support or are silent on the pursuit of a permit to do so. (Read on decision to appeal here: https://www.kiro7.com/news/local/oyster-growers-appeal-state-decision-to-deny-pesticide-use-1/863242698)

Despite being told by agencies the application of Imidacloprid on Washington oyster beds should not be permitted, Washington shellfish growers either support or are silent on the appeal of that decision by WGHOGA. (See denial letter from DOE to WGHOGA here:  https://ecology.wa.gov/DOE/files/9f/9f907372-0c3d-4d5c-aea2-116a38516e10.pdf)

"Our Imidacloprid is different."

How much did it cost to convince 

a lobbyist to believe that?

Despite being printed on virtually every label of a product containing Imidacloprid that it is toxic to marine invertebrates and should not be applied in the intertidal area, shellfish lobbyists convinced the EPA that in the case of Willapa Bay and Grays Harbor, their proposed use of Imidacloprid was different. Their profits should override the concerns every other manufacturer of products containing Imidaicloprid had and they should be allowed use it to eliminate native burrowing shrimp - and any other marine invertebrate which happens to be in the area - so they are able to grow nonnative Pacific oysters. All the while complaining about urban runoff, dairy/cattle farms, and septic systems  impacting marine waters and their ability to grow oysters.

How many times does Washington's shellfish industry need to walk into this wall of resistance to their idea - or silence on it - before they realize it is their product which will be tainted and, along with it, whatever profits they hoped to gain.

The European Union will never accept oysters from Washington when they find out what growers in Governor Inslee's "green state" have done and want to continue to do. That's a wall you don't want to walk into.

Get involved. Tell Washington oyster growers - whether they support the appeal or are currently silent on it - to stop the process. There are alternative ways to grow oysters which will effect their profits far less than a market refusing to buy oysters from Washington where pesticides are applied to oyster beds.

Reminder: Comments on Green Sturgeon Habitat Due Sept. 6

Retain all of Willapa Bay and Grays Harbor

as critical habitat for the threatened Green Sturgeon

Comment here by September 6: 

http://www.regulations.gov/comment?D=NOAA-NMFS-2016-0099-0001 

(or click here)

Read Pubic Notice here: 

http://www.regulations.gov/document?D=NOAA-NMFS-2016-0099-0001

(or click here)

Become engaged in the public process. Tell NMFS and NOAA you support Willapa Bay and Grays Harbor being retained, with no exclusions, as critical habitat for the Green Sturgeon. Shellfish growers do have alternative methods of growing oysters and do not need to spray pesticides onto shellfish beds to kill a native primary food source (burrowing shrimp) for this endangered species.

Willapa Bay - Critical Habitat for Endangered Green Sturgeon: Study supports longline oyster growing method and retaining all of Willapa Bay as critical habitat

Willapa Bay: Critical Habitat for Green Sturgeon
Burrowing Shrimp: Critical food source

Kim Patten, WSU with longlines

Get involved. The Department of Commerce through NOAA/NMFS are performing a "regulatory review" of listings, one of which includes listing Willapa Bay and Grays Harbor as critical habitat for the endangered southern Green Sturgeon. Comments must be submitted by September 6 and must be done in writing or through the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal. 

Comment here by September 6: 

http://www.regulations.gov/comment?D=NOAA-NMFS-2016-0099-0001
(or CLICK HERE)

Read Pubic Notice here: 

http://www.regulations.gov/document?D=NOAA-NMFS-2016-0099-0001
(or CLICK HERE)

Tell NMFS and NOAA you support Willapa Bay and Grays Harbor being retained, with no exclusions, as critical habitat for the Green Sturgeon. Shellfish growers do have alternative methods of growing oysters and do not need to spray pesticides onto shellfish beds to kill a primary food source for this endangered species.

Willapa Bay: Critical Habitat for Green Sturgeon, a

threatened/endangered species under the 

United States Endangered Species Act.

Change is hard - stop living in your father's shadow and make a difference.
A study by Kim Patten with Washington State University has shown strong support for the use of the longline ("off bottom") method to grow oysters in beds which have burrowing shrimp in Willapa Bay. Willapa Bay was listed in 2009 as critical habitat for the endangered southern distinct population (SDP) of the Green Sturgeon, once far more abundant. Unlike salmon who pass through this important estuary on their way to the open ocean, the Green Sturgeon relies "...heavily on estuarine habitats over their lifespans." (from 2009 listing) Included is reliance on burrowing shrimp as a food source.

Damien Schiff

Tried to get the southern resident Orca

de-listed as an endangered species.

(see here for 2013 post)

PLF - a danger to the 

endangered species act

2009 Habitat Listing Challenged by Pacific Legal Foundation
Earlier this year the Pacific Legal Foundation (PLF) asked the Supreme Court to review whether regulators had the discretion to determine whether to not exclude areas from being considered critical habitat. The court ruled those decisions are not subject to judicial review. It is unlikely the Supreme Court will consider Mr. Damien's case during the Long Conference, scheduled for September 26. (see here for PLF's response brief)

Not to Exclude is still discretionary.
While not involved in the lawsuit, in comments to NMFS on the then proposed 2009 decision, shellfish growers in Willapa Bay did ask for shellfish beds to be excluded from being considered critical habitat during the comment period. In response to that request, the National Marine Fisheries Services responded:

"Telemetry data show that tagged green sturgeon disperse widely throughout these estuaries, most likely for foraging. In addition, anecdotal accounts have noted observations of sturgeon in intertidal aquaculture beds in the past, likely when populations of sturgeon were more abundant in these estuaries."

 Sturgeons like long lines and shrimp beds.

Can oyster growers, an endangered species, and that species' food source co-exist?
According to Mr. Patten's recently published study, yes. His study finds an abundance of "foraging pits" in areas using longlines to grow oysters with burrowing shrimp >10/square meter. In fact, it was only in areas with no shellfish activity the forage pits were in greater density. Further, in a study published in 2007, it noted that "... these large predators [Green Sturgeon] may have performed an important top down control function on shrimp populations in the past when they were more abundant."

Bad conclusion to a good study - there is not a "surplus of foraging habitat". There are lower numbers of Green Sturgeon. It's why they're endangered.
As highlighted in the comments quoted above, sturgeon used to be more abundant. So much so one of the studies believes Green Sturgeon may have both played an important role in controlling shrimp populations and, contrary to Mr. Patten's observations, included shellfish beds in their foraging (something which would seem to support the grower's statement that shellfish beds improve the habitat). One of the stressors which reduced their population has been the past use of the pesticide Carbaryl by shellfish growers. Loss of spawning habitat and over-fishing no doubt also played roles as well. But the important point is the population of Green Sturgeon is not what is was. That is why there appears to be a "surplus of foraging habitat" and, more importantly, why they are considered endangered.

Imidacloprid in Willapa Bay: Public Relations Effort to Spray Pesticides in Willapa Bay Begins

"Abandon ship!"

Did you have that boat inspected

before you bought it?

Easier to give up than change.

The Chinook Observer has published an article on why Goose Point Oyster (owned by the Nisbet family) is in desperate need to spray imidacloprid onto one of its Willapa Bay oyster beds. With a picture of their farm manager seeming to sink into a pool of quicksand, Dave Nisbet tells a story of why they are abandoning a parcel near the mouth of the Cedar River, done in by a 2" shrimp. Tidelands which were part of a $1.9 million transaction in 2015 which, had they been inspected, may have shown them to be incompatible with Goose Point's growing technique. And perhaps why tidelands at the mouth of a river with clear cut logging within its watershed may not have the firmest sediments.

Good shrimp, bad shrimp

Good duck, bad duck

Geoduck farming's "happy side": ecosystem services?

"Psst - I think we're giving a mixed message here."

Ironically, the Pacific Shellfish Grower's Association chose to show a diver harvesting geoduck feeding one of the dreaded shrimp to a Scoter, declaring the picture of what they consider to be two of their "pests" the winner of June's ecosystem system photo contest. The winged "pest" is kept off of shellfish beds - and away from the burrowing shrimp - by nets and hazing. Shellfish growers propose to rid the burrowing shrip - the clawed pest - by spraying the pesticide imidacloprid onto the oyster beds, hoping a permit application from the Willapa Grays Harbor Oyster Growers Association (WGHOGA) will be approved by the Department of Ecology. Editorials claim it doesn't kill the shrimp, it just "only makes them susceptible to suffocation." Kind of like propofol and benzodiazepine made Michael Jackson only go into a really really really deep sleep. (See a copy of what the shellfish industry considers to be "pests" by clicking here.)

Good eelgrass, bad eelgrass

It's a weed. No, it's a support.

Irony becomes steely

In the Chinook article, the irony continues to grow as the article points out that on the eastern side of the parcel eelgrass provides "...a support system of roots under the surface that allows oysters to sit above the mud during high tide." This would be eelgrass which WGHOGA, in some cases, is currently spraying with the herbicide imazamox. To be fair, it is not clear whether the eelgrass referred to is the native or non-native. But it is clear Goose Point's Mr. Nisbet speaks highly of the "economic services" it provides to his ability to grow oysters. Not mentioned were the other species which benefit from its ecosystem services.

"Get out of my way

and let me do what I want,

how I want, when I want."

Trust us, we're oyster growers and Willapa Bay is not what you think. We aren't either.

In a follow-up Chinook Observer editorial titled "Get out of the way and let oyster growers survive", the public relations push evolves further. In the editorial, Governor Inlsee is described as throwing oyster growers "under the bus in order to notch a symbolic win for environmental purity." Those who believe Washington shellfish can be - in fact should be - grown in unpolluted waters are "urban activists" standing in the way of oyster growers wanting to spray herbicides and pesticides into marine waters for their beneifit. How do they see themselves when they complain of urban runoff and sediments from logging operations running into Willapa Bay? Are "rural activists" pursuing clean and healthy waters so they may profit less pure than urban activists?

Dredging for ecosystem services

(screen shots from 

"Oyster Dredging" in Willapa Bay)

Dreading ecosystem services in Willapa Bay

In the final piece of irony, the public relations editorial printed in the Chinook Observer speaks highly of the habitat services provided by oyster beds: "...more crab, more fish, more birds." Unfortunately, not described is the devastation those oyster growers bring to those oyster beds and habitat at harvest time. In the images above it is clear that not only is eelgrass being ripped from the tidelands of Willapa Bay, but that whatever "habitat" those oyster beds provided is destroyed when harvesting takes place. It's the kind of ironic story which happens when people who sit in urban offices direct how a public relations campaign in a rural area should unfold - it folds up on itself.

Get involved - tell the Governor and your elected officials it is time to stop spraying chemicals into Willapa Bay and oyster growers to move into the future.

Governor Inslee: https://fortress.wa.gov/es/governor/
Legislative and Congressional contacts:
http://app.leg.wa.gov/DistrictFinder/

Reminder: Comments on Application of Imidacloprid in Willapa Bay and Grays Harbor Due February 15 by 5PM

Comments on EIS Scoping Due February 15 by 5PM

To Department of Ecology

Email Address:  derek.rocket@ecy.wa.gov

 

Click here for comments sent in by The Xerces Society, also endorsed by the following groups:

American Bird Conservancy
Beyond Pesticides
Beyond Toxics
The Center for Food Safety
The Endocrine Disruption Exchange
Haereticus Environmental Laboratory
The Institute for Fisheries Resources
The Northwest Center for Alternatives to Pesticides
The Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen’s Associations
Pesticide Action Network North America
Robert Michael Pyle (individual)

 

Xerces Press Release:

 

Xerces and partners comment on proposed insecticide use in Willapa Bay and Grays Harbor

The Xerces Society and partners provide comprehensive comments on the proposed use of insecticides to control native burrowing shrimp in Willapa Bay and Grays Harbor

The comments are in response to the Washington State Department of Ecology’s proposal to develop an Environmental Impact Statement for use of the toxic neonicotinoid imidacloprid for the control of two species of native burrowing shrimp, Neotrypaea californiensis and Upogebia pugettensis, on commercial shellfish beds in Willapa Bay and Grays Harbor.
There is substantial information that the application of imidacloprid has great potential to damage the rich marine ecosystems of Willapa Bay and Grays Harbor. The pesticide is water soluble, long-lived, and highly toxic to aquatic invertebrates, such as insects and shrimp and other crustaceans. Imidacloprid can kill large portions of invertebrate populations and consequently harm fish—including salmon and steelhead listed under the Endangered Species Act—birds, and other organisms that rely on them for sustenance. An initial evaluation of this proposed use of imidacloprid found unacceptable risk to Dungeness crabs.
Birds depend heavily on the aquatic systems at the center of the food web. The expected reduction in invertebrate prey as a result of imidacloprid applications could reduce the health and fitness of birds, especially breeding and migrating birds and young hatchlings. There are also issues with compliance with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the Endangered Species Act.
For the full comments click here.
For additional information contact Aimee Code at aimee@xerces.org or 541-232-9767.
To read the Washington State Department of Ecology’s proposal, click here.
These comments are a collaborative effort of the American Bird Conservancy, Beyond Pesticides, Beyond Toxics, the Center for Food Safety, the Endocrine Disruption Exchange, Haereticus Environmental Laboratory, Institute for Fisheries Resources, the Northwest Center for Alternatives to Pesticides, Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen’s Associations, Pesticide Action Network North America, the Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation, and Robert Michael Pyle.