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.