The Eccentric Sand Dollar – Dendraster excentricus

Before moving to South Puget Sound, I had never seen a living sand dollar. Sure, I saw the bleached-white sand dollar with the “star” on its shell lying on the beach, but it never occurred to me that the animal lived somewhere.

It turns out that on some of the sandy beaches in South Puget Sound, there are areas of living sand dollars packed in very high densities. They generally embed a part of their shell in the sand (to keep them from being swept away by waves and action of the currents ).

Sand dollars feed on diatoms (phytoplankton) and detritus (organic debris). They can live to be 13 years old. They are also part of the food web and may become the meal of the starry flounder or the pink short-spined sea star.

As part of the marine habitat, these beds of sand dollars provide effective shelter for other creatures. For example, small juvenile Dungeness crabs find protection from predators by hiding between and under sand dollars.

So why are we talking about sand dollars? Remember that they are found on sandy beaches in the lower part of the inter-tidal zone. This is the same area where geoduck aquaculture takes place and shellfish people do not like sand dollars. Why? Well, they get in the way of all those PVC tubes that are stomped into the ground.

The shellfish industry has classified the sand dollar as a “pest”. Here is what industry has to say:

Sand dollars encroach upon geoduck growing ground such that the ground becomes nearly impenetrable … Sand dollars can prohibit insertion of geoduck protection devices, such as tubes. In addition, if planted areas become covered with sand dollars, it can be difficult for geoduck siphons to reach the surface of the sand (to feed), and it can also impact geoduck harvest activities.

Note that the shellfish farmer, being a superior species, characterizes the sand dollar as the encroacher. The sand dollar has been around for centuries while geoduck aquaculture has been around for maybe 15 years. Such arrogance is so sad.

How does geoduck aquaculture deal with the sand dollar “pest”? Well, they “relocate” them. Recently a resident living on the shoreline experienced this process first-hand. This person observed shellfish workers with shovels and wheelbarrows, digging up sand dollars and dumping them high on the beach (generally above the high-tide mark).

The resident was concerned by this activity and asked several state and county agencies if it was legal. After much bureaucratic runaround, and the all-too typical excuse that “it’s not our problem”, it was finally decided that shellfish farmers could do whatever they pleased, that “they police themselves.”

Questions were sent to UW scientists about the efficacy of “relocating” sand dollars. The scientists responded that to their knowledge no research has ever been published that addressed the issue. They went further and stated that is was unlikely that relocation would work, especially when the animals were placed high on the shoreline on gravel, not sand.

The Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife, the agency that is tasked with enforcing “take limits” on fish, shellfish, and other creatures from State waters and shorelines did react however. They changed the rule so that the “take limit” for sand dollars would be changed to zero (see WAC 220-56-130). That’s right; no one is allowed to remove a single living sand dollar from any beach in the State of Washington. When asked if that applied to the shellfish farmer too, their response was they had no jurisdiction regarding the aquaculture industry (see RCW 77.12.047(3))and therefore the limit did not apply to them.

So neither you nor I can remove a single living sand dollar (a good thing by the way) while the shellfish industry can remove all they want without limits – such a sad state of affairs.

In those limited instances when authorized …

In the early 1970’s, the citizens of Washington State passed an initiative to protect the shorelines of the State that became the “Shoreline Management Act of 1971”. In RCW 90.58.020, it states that

The legislature declares that the interest of all of the people shall be paramount in the management of shorelines of statewide significance. The department [of Ecology], in adopting guidelines for shorelines of statewide significance, and local government, in developing master programs for shorelines of statewide significance, shall give preference to uses in the following order of preference which:

1) Recognize and protect the statewide interest over local interest;

2) Preserve the natural character of the shoreline;

3) Result in long term over short term benefit;

4) Protect the resources and ecology of the shoreline;

5) Increase public access to publicly owned areas of the shorelines;

6) Increase recreational opportunities for the public in the shoreline;

7) Provide for any other element as defined in RCW 90.58.100 deemed appropriate or necessary.

Note that aquaculture is not explicitly identified in the preferences and in most instances, aquaculture is contrary to the second highest preference (preserving the natural character of the shoreline.)

Given this, how can the shellfish industry claim that aquaculture is a “preferred” use of the shoreline? Well, it comes from some very clever “misreading” the actual Act. Again, RCW 90.58.020 states that

In the implementation of this policy the public's opportunity to enjoy the physical and aesthetic qualities of natural shorelines of the state shall be preserved to the greatest extent feasible consistent with the overall best interest of the state and the people generally.

This statement is very clear – natural shorelines and the public’s opportunity to enjoy them is very important. The Act continues by saying

To this end uses shall be preferred which are consistent with control of pollution and prevention of damage to the natural environment, or are unique to or dependent upon use of the state's shoreline.

The sentence above starts out with the phrase “To this end”. It is very important to stop and ask “what end” are they talking about?” It seems clear that they are talking about the sentence that preceded this one, that is, “the public's opportunity to enjoy the physical and aesthetic qualities of natural shorelines”.

Finally, we examine the next sentence in RCW 90.58.020. It states that

Alterations of the natural condition of the shorelines of the state, in those limited instances when authorized, shall be given priority for single family residences and their appurtenant structures, ports, shoreline recreational uses including but not limited to parks, marinas, piers, and other improvements facilitating public access to shorelines of the state, industrial and commercial developments which are particularly dependent on their location on or use of the shorelines of the state and other development that will provide an opportunity for substantial numbers of the people to enjoy the shorelines of the state.

Here we finally see wording that could result in the use of the shoreline for aquaculture (industrial and commercial development). However, note that all these uses are qualified with the words “in those limited instances when authorized.”

Instead of shellfish industry saying that “aquaculture is a preferred use”, a more accurate statement would be “aquaculture is allowed but on a limited basis.”

Totten Inlet in South Puget Sound has approximately 35 miles of shoreline. Of these 35 miles, it is estimated that 31 miles are being used for aquaculture. Is this “a limited basis?” The shellfish industry counters by saying that there are many hundred miles of shoreline in Puget Sound. However, this argument is deceptive at best. The real questions deal with the significance of the beaches under stress by aquaculture.

For example, a valid question would be to ask how many miles of beaches are there in Puget Sound that support the spawning activities of the critical forage fishes and what percent are being threatened by aquaculture?

Pressure needs to be placed on the Governor, the Director of the Department of Ecology, and state legislators to bring about the proper interpretation of the Shoreline Management Act. Otherwise it will be left up to the courts to do so.

Filter Feeders: Cleaning up the Water

In a video regarding shellfish farming, the now infamous “they clean the water” claim is made. Two 1-gallon glass containers are shown side by side. They each contain seawater and “300,000 cells of algae/mL.” One container holds just the seawater and the other includes 60 manila clams suspended in a net. After 28 minutes, the water in the container with the manila clams is obviously clearer.

The Water’s Clearer – But Is it Cleaner?
 
Actually the water was never “dirty” and the clams are not cleaning anything – they are eating. Like all filter feeders, they eat phytoplankton (minute plants). They also ingest other suspended matter including minute animals (zooplankton), fish larvae and other larvae, and anything else small enough to pass through their siphons.

To rephrase an old saying… “What goes in must come out.” That’s right, they poop! Scientists don’t call it poop – they call it biodeposits (the process is called biodeposition). The biodeposits contain feces (waste from digested plant matter) and pseudofeces (dead zooplankton and other non-digestible matter).

What is not shown on the video is the bottom of the tank where biodeposits would have accumulated. What happens to these biodeposits? It really depends on the amount of accumulated biodeposits. At low density they are decomposed via an anaerobic bacterial process (one that does not use oxygen). This process also converts dissolved nitrogen into nitrogen gas that bubbles up and into the air (called denitrification). This is a positive process since one of the issues in our saltwater areas is an excess of dissolved nitrogen.

However, if the density of biodeposits gets too high, the “good bacteria” are overwhelmed and the decomposition changes to an aerobic process (uses up dissolved oxygen in the water column). Instead of denitrification, oxygen is depleted and nasty stuff like Beggiatoa is formed. Scientifically speaking, “Beggiatoa can grow chemoorgano-heterotrophically by oxidizing organic compounds to carbon dioxide in the presence of oxygen.”

So the question of positive impact versus negative impact depends on the density of the biodeposits. The density of biodeposits is related to the density of animals and the speed of the current. Shellfish planted in low-densites, and in high current almost never cause problems. However, aquaculture often places animals in densities 10 to 100 times greater than found in nature. In addition, shellfish are often grown in protected coves and inlets that have very slow currents. Thus the likelihood of high-density related biodeposition problems associated with aquaculture is significant.

Sharing the Wealth
 
As the video points out, filter feeders eat a lot phytoplankton (an adult oyster can filter 65 gallons/day). Unfortunately, filter feeders are not the only consumers of phytoplankton. The truth is EVERYTHING in the sound is dependent, either directly or indirectly on phytoplankton to survive. This ranges from microscopic zooplankton, up to and including the Orca.

It is common to hear shellfish people (and some state agency people) say that there is an abundance of phytoplankton in Puget Sound. They point to algae blooms as evidence of this. The truth however is there is no science that we know of that substantiates this claim. Yes, there are algae blooms in some parts of the sound during some times of the year, but this really isn’t the issue. The issue is what happens in small, protected coves and inlets where currents are low, when the shellfish farmer places 10 to 100 time more animals than found in nature on the shoreline? What happens to the food web in these areas? What if these areas also support the spawning activities of forage fish (including their larvae).

Summary
 
“Cleaning the Water” is a misleading public relations term that the shellfish industry has used for decades to justify its expansion. It is time for regulators to sit up and take into account the density and placement of shellfish operations to insure that the shoreline ecosystem is not harmed.

Shoreline Science

For many, understanding the environmental issues of South Puget Sound’s important shorelines is a bit difficult. Harry Branch, who has a master’s degree in Environmental Studies, has written an excellent letter to the Thurston County Commissioners describing the issues. He has done an great job of describing the situation in a language that is easier for the non-scientist to understand.

We present Harry’s letter below:

Letter from Harry Branch to Thurston County – Aquaculture/Shoreline Development

The County is correct that geoduck farming on area beaches is Shoreline Development. Any alteration of structure that impacts ecological function is development.

Taylor Shellfish has put forth a number of studies claiming that water quality, the marine food chain, water circulation and native species will not be effected by expanded shellfish cultivation. Studies also claim that increased shellfish production will remove a large percentage of the nitrogen introduced into the environment by humans. Nitrogen is suggested to be a major water quality problem by over-fertilizing algal blooms that die off and create anoxic conditions.

Nitrogen and sunlight are also the essential building blocks of life. Nitrogen is utilized by phytoplankton (primary production) which is then consumed by  zooplankton and so on up the food web.  This happens best in shallow water with persistent patterns of circulation, the basic estuary. In South Puget Sound we've altered three out of four estuaries (don't forget the streams). Often the entire estuary is fed through a long pipe and dissolved oxygen and other basic parameters take a dive. The problem as often as not is changes in structure to tide flats, salt marsh and the upper beach rather than the introduction of too many nutrients. (See the spring edition of Green Pages for a more in-depth look at this question).

Shellfish don't eat nitrogen, they eat phytoplankton that has consumed nitrogen. Because phytoplankton reproduce rapidly, there is only a temporary lag in abundance. Taylor's studies thoroughly evaluate the potential effects on phytoplankton abundance spatially, seasonally and diurnally. The limiting factor in a typical system is primary production. The rationale is that by assessing the impact on primary production we can predict impacts on the entire food web.

Well, that's poppycock. Mussels don't just eat phytoplankton, they eat zooplankton, from tiny protozoa that mimic phytoplankton to larger fish larvae, tiny insect-like babies that will become larger fish, crabs, barnacles and so on. Nearly all fish consume zooplankton during their larval phase and some fish continue to do so their entire lives. A single herring may consume thousands of copepods in a single day. Larger zooplankton are important food for forage fish and growing fish larvae. They link primary producers with larger, higher tropic level animals. Because zooplankton reproduction tends to lag phytoplankton reproduction, the reduction in nitrogen contained in phytoplankton is probably more than offset by a reduction in herbivores such as copepods. Copepods, probably the most plentiful creatures on earth, are the natural control for phytoplankton; they maintain balance in the system. The only benefit of large scale shellfish cultivation, if one can consider it a benefit, is that phytoplankton, herbivores and secondary consumers, i.e. everything, is reduced.

Shellfish cultivation on area beaches without doubt impedes a host of important ecological processes including forage fish spawning. Virtually all native species, from ghost shrimp to macro-algae to diving ducks, are considered pests. This modus operandi runs antithetical to Ecosystem Based Management, the direction we are and must be heading.

Taylor suggests that water quality in Totten Inlet has been impacted by, among other things, humans over-harvesting shellfish. Since we haven't been assessing dissolved oxygen for very long, this theory is entirely conjecture. Concerning the most basic, physical parameters, Totten Inlet like much of Puget Sound and Hood Canal is a fjord. It's perfectly natural for the water column to be stratified and anoxic below a certain depth.

Taylor could make a better case that by over-harvesting resources and altering the structure of Puget Sound through dredging, filling and destroying almost all our estuaries, we damaged the ecosystem and shellfish growers are only filling an empty niche. But this would be a very disjointed weak argument as well. The sustainability of an ecosystem comprised of three kinds of bivalves is doubtful at best. Compacting and biological sameness create an environment where diseases can easily spread. Outside influences such as acidification pose additional risks. And if any species crashes there may be nothing to replace it except bacteria and perhaps jellyfish.

We don't know the economic potential of all the fisheries that could be developed through restoration and enhancement of Puget Sound's natural ecosystems. It seems likely that rockfish, flatfish, salmon, herring, smelt and shellfish in combination would be marvelously productive. Sadly, estuarine and nearshore structure continues to suffer the woes of development. But this is no reason to allow shellfish cultivation to completely ruin what's left. "Geoduck farm" sounds so benevolent. But this isn't anything like farming. If anything we're talking about feed lots.

My family owned the oldest vineyard in the State on Stretch island. They're house and my aunt's house next door overlooked Puget Sound. Not that long ago we could net herring and smelt with a rake, filling a small boat in short time. My father caught a 46 pound lingcod virtually off his front porch. Not these days. The beach was beautiful and enjoyed by all. I don't know if it is now covered with PVC and netting. If I find out that it is, my heart will sink. It must be very sad for people who live on the waterfront to have to witness this assault. If this isn't shoreline development, I don't know what is.

Thank you Thurston County for standing your ground on this important question. If I can be of any assistance, please let me know.

Harry Branch

Harry's Background

Harry Branch has a Masters Degree in Environmental Studies with a focus on marine reserves as a tool in fishery management. He has also served as a captain operating research vessels for agencies like NOAA. He's worked on sea otter catch and release efforts, bioassays, bird counts and other live science.

Aquaculture “Pests”

The video I Am The Puget Sound speaks to what the aquaculture industry refers to as pests:

I understand they've made a list of what they think are pests

But these are all my children so by nature I'll protest

The actual document that refers to the “pests” is titled Pest Management Strategic Plan for Bivalve in Oregon and Washington.

The question we have is: Who gave this industry the right to declare native and migratory animals in Puget Sound as “pests”?

As an interesting point of irony, several of the invasive species the aquaculture industry wants to control were introduced by the same aquaculture industry in the past.

Government Contact Information

If you would like to voice your concern about what is happening in the South Puget Sound, here are some contact points:

State Officials

• Governor Chris Gregoire
• Commissioner of Public Lands – Peter Goldmark
• Director, Washington Department of Ecology – Ted Sturdevan
• Find Your Legislator
• Senate Member E-mail List
• House of Representatives Member E-mail List

Thurston County

• Thurston County Commissioners

Pierce County

• Pat McCarthy, Pierce County Commissioner

Mason County

• Mason County Commissioners

Welcome ...

In this blog, you will learn about what is happening to the shorelines in South Puget Sound. We will share pictures, both beautiful and disturbing, present science on the Nearshore, and provide those who do not live near the shoreline an opportunity to see what is happening to Puget Sound.

Please check out the Shoreline Information Sites to start getting a sense for the issues.