Willapa Bay Herbicides: Ecology Extends Comment Period for Application of Imazamox by Shellfish Growers

Get involved. If you don't the shellfish industry's "alternative facts" generated by their paid contract scientists will continue to guide agency decision making on the expansion, and impacts from, aquaculture in Washington's marine waters. Tell the Department of Ecology to stop allowing herbicides and pesticides to be applied in Willapa Bay.

[Note: See Coalition to Protect Puget Sound Habitat comments here.]

Comment period extended to: March 7, 5PM
Comment form: http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wq/pesticides/eelgrass.html
or, Mail to: Nathan Lubliner, DOE
PO Box 47696
Olympia, WA 98504-7696

We don't like your study's conclusion, so we'll find our own. They appreciate our money.
"If a reduction in shoots translates to death of the affected plants [native eelgrass], it may be premature to conclude little if any impact on native eelgrass outside of the 10m buffer." Impacts of Imazamox on Native Eelgrass, Grue and Conquest, with the University of Washington (Conclusion, p. 12)

Comments already submitted by the Coalition to Protect Puget Sound Habitat have stated the initial study performed by University of Washington scientists Christian Grue and Loveday Conquest on application of Imazamox to beds owned by Taylor Shellfish showed native eel grass outside of the buffers was being negatively impacted by Imazamox . They suggested in the conclusion of their study to monitor the same site in the future and would do so as part of their contract (Contract Number 14-1358). However, in the Coalition's comments, it is stated Taylor Shellfish prevented the University of Washington scientists from returning to their tidelands for follow-up studies. (Grue and Conquest "were barred from re-entry into the test site in 2015 by the grower,Taylor Shellfish, to do their follow up results." Coalition comments, page 3.) 

You'll like her conclusions much better.

Instead of allowing Grue and Conquest back, the Coalition's comments state that Confluence Environmental was chosen as the firm who Taylor would allow back for follow-up studies. Confluence is considered the "go to" biological firm for hire used by the shellfish industry when they need support at hearings for permits or legislative support. They are paid well to support what the industry wants. The independent scientists from the University of Washington were apparently told they had fulfilled the terms of the contract and that despite their offer to follow-up for no charge, Confluence would be paid to do that. 

[Note: Not mentioned was that it was Confluence who provided what was considered inappropriate data, by someone considered not to be knowledgeable on eel grass, at the Detienne geoduck operation permit hearing. The Court of Appeals Washington State decision agreed that permit should be denied, despite what Confluence tried to get people to believe. Attempts by shellfish attorneys to block that decision from being published were denied.]

Should conflicts of interest matter? Disclosure of conflicts should be out front if your study - or opinion - is used to support something you may profit from.

In addition to Confluence, DOE has provided another follow-up study provided by Kim Patten with Washington State University. Mr. Patten has, over the years, provided numerous opinions, some called studies, which support whatever it is the shellfish industry wishes to have supported, including the ongoing application of herbicides and pesticides in Willapa Bay. According to the Coalition's comments, Mr. Patten has neglected to mention his ownership of tidelands in Willapa Bay, stating further, he also has a clam farm on those tidelands. [Note: It could not be confirmed there was an active clam farm operation on Mr. Patten's tidelands.]

Contrary to what DOE says, agencies did not agree the study showed no harm from Imazamox, let alone that it was adequately designed.

Further discussed in the Coalition's comments was that initially, DOE claimed that agencies had supported the buffer, stating so both in the December 7, 2016 announcement, as well as at the first public meeting held January 24, 2017. When challenged, that comment was withdrawn. In fact, the Department of Natural Resources wrote in June of 2016 that WDNR "...remains concerned about impacts to native vegetation when lmazamox is sprayed to manage Z. japonica." 

Ecology Calls for Comments on Herbicide Application in Washington Waters

I just think this timing table leaves too much wiggle room

 from someone in WDFW to mess with the permit.

Kim Patten, WSU Extension Office, Pacific County

Commenting in 2011 on herbicide application.

(supporter of neurotoxins on shellfish beds)

 

What's in your shellfish?

Concerned about CO2 and ocean acidification? Not in Willapa Bay.
The Department of Ecology has called for comments on a General Permit covering the application of herbicides in Washington's waters. Included is imazamox, currently being sprayed in Willapa Bay on shellfish beds to kill Japanese eelgrass by shellfish farmers. The same type of aquatic vegetation which was recently found to be "...among the Earth's most efficient and long-term carbon sinks, but coastal development [especially shellfish farming] threatens this capacity." (see "Losses and recovery of organic carbon from a seagrass ecosystem following disturbance" October 21, 2015, in Proceedings of the Royal Society)

See the Draft Permit here
See WDFW timing restrictions here
(Pacific County - Large mouth bass only. Migratory birds? Apparently not important.)
See DOE General Permit site here
See 2011 DOE Response to Comments here (including Mr. Patten's concerns)

Get involved. Unless you don't care about what's in that oyster you're eating.

Taylor Shellfish and Chemicals on their Willapa Bay Shellfish Beds - It's not just imidacloprid.

Imidacloprid is only one in a long string

of pesticides and herbicides having been

applied to Willapa Bay shellfish beds
with Taylor Shellfish's consent and support. 

"We were able to control the japonica this year [2014],” 
[Bill] Taylor said. “We were able to get a permit
to use a chemical called Imazamox, 

and we were able to control it on a larger scale 

than had been controlled before. It was very successful."

(The Daily Astorian, January 8, 2015)

Taylor Shellfish and other Willapa Bay growers
now want more - spray 3,000+ Acres
and let it rot in place.

Meanwhile, the Puget Sound Restoration Fund

raises $1.5 million to grow and harvest seaweed, 

and on May 5th ask for more.

Board members Bill Taylor, and their attorney

Billy Plauche, instead want to grow and harvest.

What's really inside that Shigoku box?

The recent withdrawal of a permit to spray the neurotoxin imidacloprid onto the shellfish beds in Willapa Bay has brought to light two very different sides of the shellfish industry. On the outside is a finely crafted image based on decades of effort partnering with others to help ensure Washington's marine waters are healthy, something we all want. On the inside is the ongoing support of many growers to apply chemicals to those same marine waters and tidelands most are trying to keep chemicals out of and off of. Like a Shigoku oyster, it may look nice on the outside, but on the inside it's a non-native Pacific oyster, grown in a "chemical soup" (see below). You can't be both for clean waters and then turn around and spray those very same waters.

What a nice box.

Are the contents from Willapa Bay?

DOE does not stand for the Department of Economics.

Behind all spraying of herbicides and pesticides into Washington's marine waters is the Department of Ecology who requires permits before application may occur. As any agency required to issue permits, there is a balancing act required. In this case, on the one hand is consideration of the ecology and the on the other economics. A political entity will always be subject to political pressures and those political pressures are always strongest when an industry is flush with cash and motivated to acquire more. It is why the risk of DOE tipping the scales of environmental protection towards an industry's needs always exists. This is political reality and, coupled with the press for clean waters, is why the shellfish industry was able to obtain permits for application of imidacloprid and now imazamox. It was political and economic reality, with seeing what the industry defines clean water as, which caused both DOE and Taylor Shellfish, with the other growers, to withdraw the permit to apply imidacloprid.

"Quite honestly, it's blind faith that we're going on this," 

said Bill Dewey, a manager at Taylor Shellfish Co. 

and lead negotiator for the growers.

(The Daily News, April 30, 2003 on phasing out Carbaryl)

Blind faith is believing "Willapa Bay, is the cleanest bay in the USA."

For decades DOE has approved the application of chemicals to Willapa Bay shellfish beds. After 50 years Carbaryl, the active ingredient in Bayers' Sevin, was finally brought to a stop after a settlement agreement between the shellfish growers and environmental groups in 2003. As Blind Faith sings in their song, come down of your thrown. Washington's Office of the Attorney General, in a summary judgement filing, called Willapa Bay a "chemical soup."

Two sides of the same bay

a "chemical soup"

(from Motion for Summary Judgement, December 2012, p. 32)

Willapa Bay, is the cleanest bay in the USA.

(willapa-oysters.com)

Market demands will overcome political realities - pesticides first, herbicides next

Consumers who were surprised at finding out that there was a proposal to spray pesticides on Willapa Bay shellfish beds brought pesticide application to a stop. After over 50 years of a pesticide being used which Bayer says "contains ingredients that are considered to be probable or suspected human carcinogens." It will be consumers who will bring the application of all chemicals on Willapa Bay shellfish beds to a stop. It's black and white. It is not chemophobic. It's doing what you say you believe in - keeping Washington's waters clean.

Chinook Observer to Willapa Bay Oyster Growers: New Cultivation Methods Become Essential

It's time to wake up.

Who's in charge now?
Like Rip Van Winkle awakening to find King George III replaced by George Washington, so too have the oyster growers in Willapa Bay awakened to find out market dynamics have created a new leader: consumers who want shellfish grown in waters not treated by pesticides and herbicides. As The Chinook Observer writes on May 6 notes:

"...it’s time to step up and help with a generational shift in Pacific Northwest oystering."

Don't tell me what I want.
The days of Willapa Bay's oyster industry telling consumers they want their oysters grown as they were is over. It is no different than any other industry's crisis, whether it be the American auto industry or IBM's personal computers: consumers are who drive a market and it is business's role to determine what they want. Consumers do not want shellfish grown in waters treated with herbicides and pesticides, no matter how profitable it is to those selling them, and no matter how safe their paid scientists think it is. Don't tell me I'm only part pregnant.

There are alternatives to pesticides and herbicides.
Contrary to what Taylor Shellfish and others would have consumers believe there are alternative ways to grow oysters. They are being used now and people are making a reasonable amount of money doing so. The images below show only a few of the alternative methods to grow shellfish off-bottom, eliminating the perceived problem native burrowing shrimp create. Are they appropriate for all places? It's why we have permitting - to balance the competing demands for Washington's most "valuable and fragile" natural resources.

Hamma Hamma in Hood Canal

Taylor Shellfish

Brady's Oysters in Grays Harbor

Good stewards? Show it, don't just use it as a talking point.

The shellfish industry has been framed as being good stewards of the marine habitat, fighting for clean water. It's time to show they care about more than just clean water so they can grow shellfish. Washington's marine habitat areas include water and sediments, both on the surface of those sediments and below those sediments. Consumers want the shellfish industry to show they care equally about native species, the native habitat, and the product they sell and we consume. It's not a dream.

Shellfish Growers Withdraw Request to Spray Imidacloprid - How about the rest now?

The Department of Ecology has announced that due to economic pressures the shellfish growers in Willapa Bay and Grays Harbor have withdrawn their request to spray the pesticide imidacloprid.

 “We believe we have no choice but to withdraw our permit and address these issues to the satisfaction of our customer base, and the public,” said Don Gillies, president of the WGHOGA, in the letter requesting withdrawal of the permit.

As a result, the permit has been canceled. The question now remains - what about the permit to spray Carbaryl and the permit to spray imazamox? Are you a little bit pregnant?

Get involved and stay involved. Help protect Washington's critical marine habitat by supporting The Coalition to Protect Puget Sound Habitat who has been taking a stand to ensure it will be enjoyed by our future generations.

Willapa Bay: Oyster growers ask to spray over 3,000 acres of oyster beds with imazamox.

Environmentally Sensitive Oyster Growers

Brant Geese: No time left for you,

on your way to a better place. Right?

Another chemical added to the "chemical soup" of Willapa Bay
Public Notice has been given that oyster growers ("good stewards" as they like to describe themselves) wish to spray over 3,000 acres of oyster beds with the herbicide imazamox. Their goal is to eliminate Japanese eelgrass, a naturalized species of eelgrass which has long been used a  food source for the great migrating flocks of marine birds which stop over in Willapa Bay, and by young salmon as habitat and protection on their great migration out to the ocean.

Restore habitat for native oysters

so non-native invasive Pacific oysters

can take it over?

(click here to read the complete paper)

Shellfish logic: Spray the naturalized non-native so we can grow the invasive non-native Pacific oyster

Ironic in all of the press to shape Willapa Bay into something the shellfish growers are happy with is it is for the purpose of growing non-native Pacific oysters and non-native Manila clams. In fact, Sea Grant has recently noted their concerns about restored habitat for native oysters being lost to the invasive and non-native Pacific oysters. In the article they note: 

The traits that make it so suited to culture could also make it a formidable invader..."Our worry is that native oyster restoration efforts may backfire and we will end up creating habitat for the invasive oyster,” said Danielle Zacherl, a professor at Cal State Fullerton, who has been documenting the Pacific oyster’s spread in San Diego and Orange counties and is involved in native oyster bed restoration in Southern California.

Dredging for oysters - and native eelgrass.

Collateral damage.

(click here to watch dredging in Willapa Bay)

And while we're at it, we may has well pull up the native eelgrass as well, without a permit

Equally ironic is that while the shellfish growers are spraying Japanese eelgrass, they are also dredging the bedlands for oyster and in the process removing the native eelgrass. Far more easily as they don't need a permit so are able to avoid regulatory oversight.

Sign the petition and add Willapa Bay 

in the comment section.

Get inolved - Washington's marine habitat is not for the shellfish industry alone

The shellfish industry views Washington's marine habitat as theirs alone. They have the money to spend on contract scientists, politicians, and attorneys and are relentless in their push to expand. And in this case, propose spraying over 3,000 acres with the herbicide called imazamox. One small step you can take is to sign the petition to Governor Inslee, adding that Willapa Bay is equally important to Puget Sound in the comment section.

Willapa Bay: Taylor Shellfish to increase oyster production, happy with chemical applications



Ocean acidification not so bad after all?

The Coast River Business Journal writes that Taylor Shellfish will be increasing its oyster production in Willapa Bay by 40%, equal to roughly 4 million oysters. Apparently ocean acidification isn't too large of a problem now.

Why worry about burrowing shrimp

and Japanese eelgrass

if you can grow oysters this way?



Floats and oyster bags "create" an

oyster "unique" to Willapa Bay.

 

A Pacific oyster is a Pacific oyster, cupped or not

In the article it is noted that Taylor Shellfish will be expanding their oyster lines from 1,000 to 1,400. Each oyster line has 39 grow out bags with a float attached, each containing roughly 250 oysters at harvest. Through the lifting and falling, the edges of the shells of the non-native Pacific oysters' are broken off, resulting in a thicker shell with a more cup-like shape. This alteration has allowed Taylor to take the liberty of branding it as a "Shigoku" and selling it for $1.25 versus .85 for the Pacific oyster in its "normal" shell.

The old oyster in a new shell 

needs a new box.

Marketing 101: Differentiation

 

A new shell in a pretty box and a hint of Jerusalem artichoke
The end result of Taylor's marketing department is a Pacific oyster in a smaller shell in a new box. While still the same non-native Pacific oyster from Japan, the ability of the tumbler process to disfigure the shell has created a different enough looking oyster that it is described by Rowan Jacobsen (oyster marketing expert) as, "A small, dense, cornucopia of an oyster. A light, clean taste of cucumber and salt, with a finish of water chestnut and Jerusalem artichoke." It may be something else Mr. Jacobsen is tasting.

"It's the water."

Unfortunately, it's not from artesian wells

but from a "chemical soup."

 

Spraying chemicals into Willapa Bay creates a "chemical soup"

Taking a cue from the now defunct Olympia Brewery, the marketing department of Taylor Shellfish has attempted to create an oyster with a unique taste based on its "merroir" (location where it is grown, with the waters and oyster creating something unique, like a wine). Unfortunately, in the case of Willapa Bay, Washington state's Office of the Attorney General has described Willapa Bay as a "chemical soup", primarily the result of the application of a variety of chemicals by the shellfish industry. These chemicals have been used to control the native burrowing shrimp and the Japanese eelgrass, both considered by wildlife experts to be important food sources for both migrating birds and Green Sturgeon.

 

Would spraying chemicals into Willapa Bay

be needed if long line tumbling is used by all?

 

The short irony of the long line tumbler

What is ironic about the article quoting Bill Taylor and the use of longlines and tumblers is that this method of growing oysters would end up being a means to avoid the application of chemicals to Willapa Bay. The Japanese eelgrass and burrowing shrimp are described by the industry as being a problem when oysters are grown on the bottom. As Mr. Taylor notes, they sink and become smothered. If that's the case, why not simply do what he is doing and grow them above the sediments? Perhaps the unique taste of Taylor's Willapa Bay oysters would be even better, being grown in something closer to the artesian springs of Olympia Beer. Or maybe that "taste of cucumber and salt, with a finish of water chestnut and Jerusalem artichoke" is from something being added to the water.

 

Willapa Bay Imazamox Spraying: Coalition Submits Comments on Spray Permit Applications

Is an oyster from Willapa Bay really safe to eat?



 

The Coalition to Protect Puget Sound Habitat has submitted comments on eight separate applications to spray Imazamox on shellfish beds in Willapa Bay. Some of the companies who have asked to be allowed to spray the herbicide on their shellfish beds include: Herrod Fish and Oyster, Long Island Oyster, Northern Oyster, Station House Oyster, Taylor Shellfish, Wiegardt and Sons, and Willapa Bay Oyster.

Consumers of shellfish harvested from Willapa Bay would do well to question whether those shellfish are truly something they wish to consume.

 

 

Coalition Appeals Approval of Applyng the Herbicide Imazamox to Willapa Bay Clam Beds

 

Will Imazamox make shellfish

from Willapa Bay safe to eat?

 

 

PRESS RELEASE-Olympia, Washington

For more information, contact:

Thane Tienson, Attorney for Coalition To Protect Puget Sound Habitat (503) 224-4100

Laura Hendricks (253) 509-4987

 

Yesterday, the Coalition [to Protect Puget Sound Habitat] filed administrative appeals with the Washington Pollution Control Hearings Board challenging the Department of Ecology's approval of a NPDES General Spray Permit for Willapa Bay. This General Spray Permit violates or is inconsistent with the laws, policies, and guidelines of virtually every state and federal law applicable to Willapa Bay, including the CWA, ESA, MSA, GMA, SMA, SEPA and MBTA.. The proposed use is also contrary to the FIFRA product label and is a violation of the Washington Pesticide Control Act, RCW 15.58.150(2)(c).

 

The issuance of this challenged NPDES General Permit was the product of a very successful lobbying campaign on the part of the shellfish industry. In 2011, the WDFW took Zostera japonica off the priority habitat list, a step that allowed the State Weed Board, at the urging of the industry, to then list Zostera japonica as a noxious weed, and to then lobby for the issuance of a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (“NPDES”) Permit to spray Imazamox throughout shellfish beds in the State of Washington, all in order to expand greatly the production of commercial shellfish. The Willapa-Grays Harbor Oysters Growers Association asked Ecology to authorize the use of the herbicide Imazamox to control Zostera japonica on commercial shellfish beds throughout Washington, but because of concerns expressed by citizens, scientists, and agencies alike, Ecology concluded that it should narrow its focus to only commercial clam beds (excluding geoduck beds) in Willapa Bay. Shellfish growers continue to request a General Spray Permit for Puget Sound.

 

Ecology is obligated by a host of laws, including the SMA, to provide protection to the most sensitive uses - that is, aquatic and aquatic-dependent species such as migratory waterfowl and fish, including anadromous salmonids, especially when they qualify as threatened or endangered species - over the desire of the shellfish industry to acquire more habitat to engage in commercial planting of yet another exotic species -non-native manila clams.

 

This General Permit has no prohibition at all on the spraying of native eelgrass (Zostera marina), despite the fact it constitutes critical saltwater habitat for a variety of species, including threatened and depressed salmonid and green sturgeon populations, in regulated areas.

 

The actions proposed to be taken pursuant to the subject General Permit are contrary to Washington State goals on reducing ocean acidification and will only exacerbate ocean acidification effects. In addition, the removal of Zostera japonica, a rooted aquatic plant, by the proposed discharge would result in the release of significant nutrients back into the waters of Willapa Bay, along with a loss of a process by which the nutrients are removed from the water.

 

For the foregoing reasons, the Appellants have asked that the Pollution Control Hearings Board set aside Ecology’s decision to issue a General Permit for Zostera Japonica Management on Commercial Clam Beds in Willapa Bay. 

 

Appeal link:

http://coalitiontoprotectpugetsoundhabitat.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/zostera-japonica-appeal.pdf

 

Detailed Information can be found on the Coalition's Petition to Governor Inslee at:
http://coalitiontoprotectpugetsoundhabitat.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/eelgrass-petition.pdf

Imazamox Permit Issued: Washington Department of Ecology Approves General Permit

One more ingredient

approved for Willapa Bay's 

chemical soup.

(spraying Spartina in Willapa Bay)

Washington's Department of Ecology has issued a General Permit which will allow for the application of the herbicide imazamox on clam beds in Willapa Bay, including those which do not currently exist. As stated in Appendix B, Responsiveness Summary:

This would include existing operations as well as new aquaculture areas so long as they fit the definition of commercial clam bed (page 15, Appendix A, final EIS)

How many acres would be sprayed? That depends on what number you want to pick. It could be 1,100 (the number currently in production and impacted). Or it could be 4,100 if you added the 3,000 additional acres estimated to be out of production. Or, it could be 6,000 acres, the total number of acres estimated to be suitable for Manila clam production. 

Whatever the number, shellfish from Willapa Bay will have one more chemical to filter from their aquatic environment.

Application of Imazamox on Willapa Bay Shellfish Beds Cleared by Ecology

 

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
general permit process will allow for imazamox

application on shellfish beds in Willapa Bay

[one more ingredient to the "chemical soup" of Willapa Bay]

 

Will his clams get bigger or just taste different?

 

"Preferred" alternative: The preferred alternative is to use an integrated pest management (IPM) approach for the management of Z. japonica on commercial clam beds. This approach would combine crop rotation timing,8 harvest activities, and selected existing control practices (described above under the No Action Alternative) with chemical applications of the herbicide imazamox. The efficacy of imazamox combined with shellfish cultural activities and general integrated pest management practices should reduce the interval at which imazamox applications will be necessary; i.e., it is expected that it will not be necessary for commercial clam farmers to apply imazamox to the same bed every year under this alternative. The IPM approach relies on the use of imazamox in order for the other control methods to be commercially viable (personal communication with WGHOGA members, August 2013).

 

 

Department of Ecology Announcement:

 

The Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology) has issued a Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for Management of Zostera japonica (Z. japonica) on Commercial Clam Beds in Willapa Bay, Washington.

 

Final Environmental Impact Statement

A Draft EIS (DEIS) was available for public comment from January 2 through February 15, 2014, and a public workshop and hearing was held in South Bend, Washington on February 1, 2014. A draft national pollutant discharge elimination system (NPDES) permit for the discharge of imazamox for the control of Z. japonica on Commercial Clam Beds in Willapa Bay was also out for public review during this same period.  Ecology developed a response to public comments received on the DEIS.  The response to public comments is available as a Responsiveness Summary in Appendix B of the FEIS.

 

The proposed action analyzed in this FEIS is the discharge of imazamox onto commercial clam beds in Willapa Bay for the purpose of controlling Z. japonica.  The FEIS analyzes the potential impacts of the proposed action and alternative management methods for controlling Z. japonica on commercial clam beds in Willapa Bay.

 

Ecology will be making a decision on whether to issue the NPDES permit for the control of
Z. japonica on Commercial Clam Beds in Willapa Bay by April 2, 2014.

 

Copies of the FEIS

You may download copies of the FEIS from the following website: http://www.ecy.wa.gov/
programs/wq/pesticides/eelgrass.html. 

 

If you would like to obtain hard copies of the FEIS, or if you have questions, please contact Nathan Lubliner at nathan.lubliner@ecy.wa.gov, or (360) 407-6563.

Governor's Office Fails to Respond to Japanese Eelgrass Appeal

Tell them to go somewhere else

for their next meal.

Brant geese foraging

in Willapa Bay

 

You're late
The Coalition to Protect Puget Sound Habitat has released an email sent to the Governor's office in which it notes the Governor's responsibility to have responded within 45 days to the Coalition's appeal to the denial by the Noxious Weed Board to the Coalition's request to de-list Japanese Eelgrass as a Class C Noxious Weed.

Who needs buffers?

One thing leads to another - a chemical soup
The Noxious Weed Board, pressured by the shellfish industry, declared naturalized Japanese Eelgrass a noxious weed. This has, in turn, allowed for the shellfish industry to press for the application of imazamox on Japanese Eelgrass in Willapa bay on commercial shellfish beds. The Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) on that proposal is now being worked on at the Department of Ecology. It is one more "ingredient" being added to what the Attorney General described Willapa Bay as being: a "chemical soup".

Just another "pest" the "stewards" 

of the shellfish industry want to eliminate.

These "environmental stewards" want to eliminate buffers and native shrimp
In a letter sent from the law firm representing the shellfish industry they claim to be "environmental stewards." This industry is the same one who is attempting to eradicate the native burrowing shrimp, most recently through the proposal to apply carbaryl to the tidelands. Regarding the application of the non-discriminate herbicide imazamox, they are opposed to suggestions of buffers which are meant to limit the threat of collateral damage to vegetation on adjacent properties which the application of imazamox poses ("requests that the property line buffer be eliminated").

 

"It's a preferred use."

Not when the Shoreline Management Act

was created and not now.

Preferred use doesn't mean you can do what you want, where you want, no matter which initiative you hide behind
In their legal letter the shellfish industry goes on to claim that because the Shoreline Management Act considered aquaculture a preferred use when it was written in the early 1970's, the state is now mandated to support anything which improves shellfish yields from the tidelands. If naturalized species and native species dependent on that habitat happen to be in the way, too bad. Lost to the industry is that being a "preferred use" does not allow for a free-for-all in the tidelands, any more than it allows for condominium complexes to be built out over the water because residential use is a "preferred use." Using the shellfish initiatives, created and pushed through by shellfish lobbyists, to hide behind only shows how little the industry cares for anything except increasing production from Washington's tidelands. For their financial benefit.

Aquaculture: A persistent threat to Washington's shorelines
The industry's legal firm ends their letter with looking forward to helping Ecology address what they consider a "persistent threat to shellfish aquaculture". What Ecology needs to understand is that it is the shellfish industry which has evolved to become the "persistent threat" to Washington's shoreline area and the critical habitat it provides for all species, many of which other industries are dependent on, and many species which have existed for millennia - not just 4 generations.

Shellfish Industry to Ecology: Your "duty" is to advance shellfish aquaculture
Industry's legal comment ends by saying Ecology has "a duty" to advance shellfish aquaculture. Ecology does not have a duty to advance shellfish aquaculture. Ecology does have a duty to ensure that Washington's shorelines are not fragmented into piecemeal parcels of unnaturally high density shellfish lots growing non-native species in plastic grow-out bags and PVC pipes at the expense of all other species.

Another viewpoint on Ecology's responsibility 
In comparison to the industry's legal letter the Northwest Environmental Defense Center also provided comments on Ecology's role, best summarized by this sentence:

"Ecology has not provided sufficient information to demonstrate that it has evaluated all probable environmental impacts, or sufficiently analyzed alternatives and mitigation measures."

Email to the Governor's office:
 Dear Mr. Brown,

On January 28, 2014, The Coalition To Protect Puget Sound Habitat and Robert Kavanaugh hand delivered to the Governor's Office an "Appeal of the Washington State Noxious Weed Control Board Denial of Rule-Making To Amend Petition" and exhibits. The office of the governor date stamp shows we filed this within 30 days of the Weed Board denial as required by RCW 34.05.330. As of today, March 21, 2014, we have received no response from the Governor's office. 

 

According to RCW 34.05.330, " The governor shall immediately file notice of the appeal with the code reviser for publication in the Washington state register. Within forty-five days after receiving the appeal, the governor shall either (a) deny the petition in writing, stating (i) his or her reasons for the denial, specifically addressing the concerns raised by the petitioner, and, (ii) where appropriate, the alternative means by which he or she will address the concerns raised by the petitioner; (b) for agencies listed in RCW 43.17.010, direct the agency to initiate rule-making proceedings in accordance with this chapter; or (c) for agencies not listed in RCW 43.17.010, recommend that the agency initiate rule-making proceedings in accordance with this chapter. The governor's response to the appeal shall be published in the Washington state register and copies shall be submitted to the chief clerk of the house of representatives and the secretary of the senate."

 

We take the issue of unlimited destruction by the shellfish industry of Washington State eelgrass that is a critical component of our ecosystem seriously. I discussed the lack of response to our petition with Susan Beatty in your office earlier this week and have not heard back from her. We are preparing to file legal action in Superior Court and would appreciate a response from your office.

 

Sincerely,

Laura Hendricks

Coalition To Protect Puget Sound Habitat

(253) 509-4987

 

 

 

February 15: EIS Scoping Comments on Imidacloprid Application in Willapa Bay Due

Comments due by 5PM, February 15

Email to Derek.rockett@ecy.wa.gov, or,

Mail to: Derek Rockett, Permit Writer

Department of Ecology

Southwest Regional Office,

P.O. Box 47775, Olympia, WA 98504-7775

(must be postmarked no later than 5PM, February 15)

Phone: (360) 407-6697 for additional information

 

Should imidacloprid be added to Willapa Bay,

waters the Attorney General has already 

described as a "chemical soup"*?

  *Summary Judgement, p. 32

EIS scoping comments due February 15, 5PM
The Department of Ecology  (DOE) has reminded people the scoping comments on the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) addressing the application of the pesticide imidacloprid to control native burrowing shrimp in Willapa Bay and Grays Harbor are due February 15. The announcement may be found here. More detailed information on the proposal is found here.

Through the scoping process interested parties help define the issues the EIS will address, identify alternatives, and provide better focus to the EIS. When complete DOE will use the information within the EIS to determine whether a national pollutant discharge elimination system (NPDES) permit should be issued, or not.

EPA: Good for the environment,

Shellfish growers: It's a "pest".

 

EPA: "Burrowing shrimp have important impact on Pacific Northwest estuaries" 
February 3 the Western Ecology Division (WED) of the EPA, in collaboration with Oregon State University, released a preliminary statement on the importance of burrowing shrimp. In their release they note:

Research by a WED scientist in collaboration with Oregon State University colleagues has confirmed the importance of burrowing shrimp to the environment of Pacific Northwest estuaries where intertidal mudflats harbor dense populations of the shrimp. The shrimp construct burrows, which they use for refuge, feeding and mating, that extend as much as a meter below the sediment surface, and they constantly rework the sediments in between.

Preliminary issues
DOE has determined sediment quality, air quality, water quality, plants, animals, and human health are some of the preliminary issues to be addressed. Additional areas of concern will be considered, perhaps the most important being whether a native species (burrowing shrimp) should be given priority over growing non-native shellfish such as Pacific oysters and Manila clams.

Alternatives discussion
A discussion of alternatives could include:
1. No action - which means no permit is issued.
2. Mechanical control of burrowing shrimp only.
3. Alternative chemical control of burrowing shrimp only.
4. Other production methods.
5. An integrated pest management plan which may include both chemical and mechanical control methods.

One thing leads to another.

Spraying carbaryl on Spartina

in Willapa Bay.

Willapa Bay: A new ingredient to the "chemical soup" or a return to its natural state?
At issue with the question of whether imidacloprid should be sprayed onto the tideflats and waters of Willapa Bay is whether it is time to question what the long term impacts of chemicals on Willapa Bay's habitat is having. It is generally accepted that one of the prime reasons Japanese eelgrass has expanded in Willapa Bay is because eliminating the native burrowing shrimp left sediments firmer. It was this firm sediment which Japanese eelgrass found suitable for expansion into.

Something to question is whether allowing the native burrowing shrimp to return may be an effective means of controlling what the shellfish growers also consider a "pest", Japanese eelgrass, or if  further elimination of the burrowing shrimp will lead to further expansion of Japanese eelgrass, leading in turn to calls by the shellfish industry for expanded spraying of imazamox, adding further to the "chemical soup" of Willapa Bay.

 

Citizens File Petition with the Intent To Sue To Stop Washington Seagrass Eradication

"My clams are small."

Reason enough to classify

Japonica as a "noxious weed"

in all of Washington's waters?

For appeal and supporting study documentation, please visit: 

http://coalitiontoprotectpugetsoundhabitat.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/eelgrass-petition.pdf

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE-January 29, 2014

Citizens File Petition with the Intent To Sue To Stop Washington Seagrass Eradication

 

Contact:

Laura Hendricks

(253) 509-4987

The Coalition To Protect Puget Sound Habitat has filed an administrative Rule-Making to Amend Petition with the Governors Office requesting that Jay Inslee take the necessary action to direct the State Weed Board to initiate rule-making to delete Zostera japonica (Japanese Eelgrass) as a Class C Noxious Weed. Despite objections from numerous scientists, citizens, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife and the Department of Natural Resources, the Weed Board's Class C Noxious Weed listing includes all Washington waters including Puget Sound.

Zostera japonica was listed as a noxious weed at the request of large corporate shellfish growers demanding that they be allowed to eradicate Zostera japonica in Washington waters without limits. The State Weed Control Board ignored the significant ecological benefits that outweigh industry's unsupported claims that Z. japonica reduces their revenues and expansion. The shellfish industry is now requesting that Ecology issue NPDES permits to spray the pesticide Imazamox in Washington waters as early as this April with the public comment period ending February 15. Sierra Club has encouraged citizens to voice their opposition to this proposed spraying as well as the shellfish industry proposed spraying of Imidicloprid, a known bee killer .

As outlined in this appeal, the Coalition has stated that the Weed Board should not be allowed to violate existing county, state and federal laws that afford protection for both non-native and native eelgrass. The proposed eradication documents clearly show that adjacent native eelgrass will also be damaged or eliminated. Food sources for hundreds of thousands of migratory waterfowl, cover for salmon smolts, vegetation that supports invertebrates and herring spawn medium will also be collateral damage.

The Governor should require a cumulative analysis on this issue since: A new peer reviewed study outlines the need for a non-political analysis of Zostera japonica, a new peer reviewed study documents shellfish aquaculture increases nutrient production in estuaries and harmful algal blooms, seagrasses/eelgrass may reduce effects of sea change and acidification, a new State SHB Pierce County aquaculture ruling required a cumulative impacts analysis and toxins are already a serious concern with Washington shellfish. One State Agency nor Ecology should be allowed to ignore environmental and human health concerns at the demand of one industry.

For appeal and supporting study documentation, please visit: 

http://coalitiontoprotectpugetsoundhabitat.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/eelgrass-petition.pdf

 

Willapa Bay - A Proposal to Spice up The Chemical Soup* With Imidacloprid and Imazamox

New Chemicals Proposed

For the Chemical Soup*

Of Willapa Bay

 

(*Washington Attorney General's description of Willapa Bay, November 2012)

 

Public Notice
Washington's Department of Ecology has announced an upcoming public meeting and comment period for a proposal to add some "spice" to Willapa Bay, waters which Washington's Attorney General has described as a "chemical soup" (Public Notice is copied at the end of this post).  Proposed are the addition of the insecticide imidacloprid* to "control" burrowing shrimp and the herbicide imazamox to control Japanese eelgrass on commercial clam beds.

*Imidacloprid is within the class of Neonicotinoid pesticides which are believed to be a cause of honey bee colony collapse disorder. The European Union has voted to heavily restrict its use.

Chemically Treated Oysters

From Willapa Bay - Their "Merroir" Explained



One thing leads to another -

Ocean Acidification - It's not complicated. Or is it?

The University of Washington's Ph.D. professor Cliff Mass has questioned whether modern civilization's increasing production of CO2 is the primary cause of ocean acidification and of shellfish hatchery failures. He questions if instead those failures may be more closely tied to an attempt at raising non-native oysters in waters colder and at times more "acidic" than where the shellfish are from. He has written a second perspective to the Seattle Times articles. In his second piece he writes:

"The ST suggested that mankind’s emission of CO2 was having profound effects today on shellfish in Northwest waters.   I argued that the ST story was exaggerating the current impacts of CO2 increases and neglected a key point: that the short periods of lowered ph (a measure of acid/base ) were predominantly caused by natural variability.  The truth is that mankind's CO2 emission is actually a very minor player in the current problems at local oyster larvae hatcheries."

Billions lost millions still harvested
Within the shellfish industry there is a belief that the cause of shellfish hatchery failures and the loss of "billions of oysters"* is directly related to increasing levels of CO2 being absorbed by the ocean's waters which in turn are causing a shift in the chemical makeup of those waters. It is believed that the increasing CO2 concentration in seawater decreases carbonate ions. This decrease in carbonate ions affects the saturation state for calcium carbonate, which makes it harder for shelled organisms to grow and maintain shells. As noted, Professor Mass believes the anthropogenic source is a small percentage of the cause.

*As a side note, according to production reports from the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, between 2008 and 2012 the pounds of oysters harvested in Washington state have remained relatively steady. From WDFW: 2008-9.7 million pounds; 2009-8.8 million pounds; 2010-9.1 million pounds; 2011-9.3 million pounds; and, 2012-9.4 million pounds. As it takes ~2 years for an oyster to reach maturity, the 2008 numbers include seed produced in 2006.

A complicated web and a chemical soup
It is important to understand that while the shellfish industry may be having problems "hatching" non-native shellfish using Puget Sound's colder waters, where native Olympia oysters and Geoduck appear to have no problems, there may be multiple causes for whatever problems they face, including genetically modifying oysters so they are sterile. The spraying of Willapa Bay tidelands to eliminate species of shrimp considered to be a "pest" by the industry is another example of a self-induced problem. Eliminating these shrimp causes sediments to firm and in turn creates a habitat suitable for Japanese eelgrass to grow in which the shellfish industry now wants to spray with Imazamox. It is little wonder the office of the Attorney General referred to Willapa Bay as a "chemical soup."

Crying wolf is counterproductive
Professor Mass summarizes his position in the following words:

The truth is that anthropogenic increases in CO2 are only having subtle impacts on our regional weather today, the big changes and impacts will occur decades into the future. Both global warming and ocean acidification are very serious issues and by the end of the century their impacts will be substantial.   But exaggerating and hyping the effects today are unacceptable.  Citizens and policy makers deserve the facts, not exaggerations designed to elicit the proper response.  Crying wolf in the end is counterproductive and undermines the credibility of science to promote the proper actions is unacceptable.

Coalition to Protect Puget Sound Habitat Files Petition to Delete Japanese Eelgrass as a Class C Weed

The Coalition to Protect Puget Sound Habitat has filed a petition with the Noxious Weed Control Board to remove Japanese Eelgrass from its Class C weed classification. [click here for petition] Previously classified as a Priority Habitat Species by Fish and Wildlife, through Taylor Shellfish lobbying the Director of Fish and Wildlife removed the species from the PHS list (see emails below). So doing allowed the Noxious Weed Control Board to then have it classified as a Class C noxious weed.

Initially limited to commercial clam beds in Willapa Bay, further lobbying by shellfish growers pressed the NWCB to expand the classification to all of Washington State's marine waters, including Puget Sound. Despite their advisory board recommending the move not be put in place and there being only hearsay of manila clams being "smaller" they approved the expanded classification. This strategic move has in turn allowed the shellfish industry to press the Department of Ecology to allow the spraying of the indiscriminate herbicide Imazamox.

Conflicts are seen at multiple levels, including the County level where Pierce County is now being pressed by shellfish attorneys in permit decisions to exclude Japanese eelgrass from consideration in permitting. [click here for response letter] Pierce County has taken the position that Japanese eelgrass provides important  habitat functions and is important to protect. The shellfish industry does not like being told what to do.

WDFW email on why "industry leader Bill Dewey"

(Taylor Shellfish) would like Rep. Brian Blake

to "refrain from proposing legislation"

as it would involve public hearings.

(click to enlarge)

 WDFW email with Bill Dewey

(Taylor Shellfish) "for your eyes only"

Spraying Imazamox on Japanese Eelgrass, EIS/Permit Comments Due Nov 2

Comments on the Department of Ecology's proposal to issue a permit to allow spraying imazamox onto Japanese eelgrass in Willapa Bay are due November 2 by 5PM.
[click here for complete information]

Ecology prefers to have comments submitted by email to: EelgrassComments@ecy.wa.gov; or,     
You may submit comments to:    
Kathy Hamel

Washington State Department of Ecology

P.O. Box 47600

Olympia, WA 98504-7600

Email: Kathy.Hamel@ecy.wa.gov

Is this non-native Manila clam more important
than the habitat functions of Japanese eelgrass?

Background

Introduced into Washington's waters by the shellfish industry in the early 1900's, Japanese eelgrass has become an established species supporting a diversity of life. Migratory waterfowl use it as a source of energy as they pass by. Forage fish use it for protection and Herring for spawning. Sediments are stabilized through its root system. CO2 and nitrogen are removed from the waters and sediments, helping to lessen ocean acidification.
[click here for a 12mb file on eelgrass meadows by USFWS]

For years these critical habitat functions were recognized by the Washington Department Fish and Wildlife. It was listed on their Priority Habitat Species list. WDFW Hydraulic Code Rules still do not distinguish different species of eelgrass, noting:  "WAC 220-110-250(3) "The following vegetation is found in many saltwater areas and serves essential functions in the developmental life history of fish or shellfish:
      (a) Eelgrass (Zostera spp [spp is used to denote multiple species, not single species]); " [click here for WAC 220-110-250, Saltwater habitats of special concern]

The Department of Ecology's Shoreline Master Program Updates guidance manual notes: "The SMP Guidelines currently do not distinguish between protection requirements for native (Zostera marina) and non-native (Zostera japonica) eelgrass. Eelgrass is considered a critical saltwater habitat in the SMP Guidelines per WAC 173-26-221(2)(c)(iii) and requires "a higher level of protection due to the important ecological functions they provide." WAC 173-26-241(3)(b)(i)(C) states that aquaculture should not be permitted where it would adversely impact eelgrass." (page 10) [click here for manual]


Shellfish Politics: Minimize Public Involvement

Despite the critical habitat functions being recognized and codified in Washington law, Bill Dewey with Taylor Shellfish was able to convince the Director of Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife that because Japanese eelgrass was "non-native" it should be removed from their Priority Habitat List. So doing opened the door for the Noxious Weed Board to list it as a "Class C" Noxious Weed.

The importance of this to the shellfish industry is found in the Noxious Weed Board minutes from November 2, 2011: "...the growers explained that there will be a lot of scrutiny when they use chemical or mechanical measures to control Japanese eelgrass...they can point to the listing to support the concern that a noxious weed is having ecological/economic impacts." [click here for minutes] (Note: Pacific County recently requested the Noxious Weed Board to expand application to all tidelands, in part to help "shellfish gardens", a term promoted by the shellfish industry for non-commercial shellfish planting.)

In executing the strategy above, the shellfish industry was able to minimize public hearings before the legislature, something required to change the various WAC's which do not distinguish between Japonica and Marina, considering all eelgrass to be important. Below is an internal WDFW email detailing the strategy, noting "much discussion with industry leader Bill Dewey." His concern? "Industry opinion" wanted to avoid a "...public rule making process that would target industry as promoting reduced protection of eelgrass in the state."

The Current Proposal: Imazamox for Everyone (almost)

After the shellfish industry was able to convince WDFW to remove Japonica from its Priority Habitat Species list and the Noxious Weed Board to list it as a Class C weed on commercial shellfish farms, their focus turned onto the Department of Ecology. The shellfish industry provided DOE with stories of "small manila clams." They provided a "white paper," commissioned by the Pacific Shellfish Growers Association, describing an "invasion." With "support" provided by the Noxious Weed Board's action, the shellfish industry was able to convince DOE to issue a permit proposal which would have allowed for the application of the herbicide imazamox onto Japanese eelgrass wherever there was a "commercial shellfish farm", a term as yet undefined,

Agencies and the public all expressed concerns, some questioning whether growing a non-native manila clam was so important it should allow for a non-discriminate* herbicide to be applied. (* Imazamox will kill any aquatic vegetation it comes in contact with.) As a direct result of these comments DOE scaled back its permit to allow for application only on commercial shellfish farms in Willapa Bay and that an Environmental Impact Statement be created.

November 2, comments are due on whether this is something to consider, and if so, what the limitations should be.

Non-native Species and Self Induced Problems

One of the significant questions for agencies to consider is the role the shellfish industry has played in transforming Willapa Bay into what we see today. Their direct actions created self induced problems: over harvesting lead to non-native oysters being introduced and with them Spartina and Japanese eelgrass. With over harvesting, the structured reefs of native Olympia oysters were eliminated. The shells which oysters used to set on disappeared, followed by the expansion of the Ghost shrimp population, causing softer sediments. The shellfish industry initiated spraying of chemicals throughout Willapa Bay to get rid of Spartina and Ghost shrimp. Elimination of Ghost shrimp caused sediments to firm, which also created a habitat for Japanese eelgrass to expand into. Now they wish to spray Japanese eelgrass because they claim the non-native manila clams are not growing as large as they used to. All of this, where for the first time in 8 years a natural set of oysters has occurred. What will the addition of imazamox and hundreds of acres of Japanese eelgrass it has killed do to the water chemistry?

At some point agencies will be asked how much they are going to allow the shellfish industry to transform Washington's marine habitat for their economic benefit. If non-native Japanese eelgrass is going to be eliminated, why not non-native Pacific oysters and Manila clams? Both of those non-native species have taken over the habitat of native Olympia oysters and Little neck clams. Is it unreasonable to consider a permit for the erradication of those non-native species?

Get involved. The shellfish industry is. Comments are due November 2 by 5PM.