In a move that comes as environmentalists sue the Department of Fish & Wildlife Service (FWS) for not doing a “compatibility determination” on potential impacts to allowing an industrial aquaculture farm (run for profit by the Jamestown S’Klallam Tribe), FWS appears ready to ink an agreement to co-manage the Wildlife Refuge with the tribe.
Does it make sense for an entity that seeks to financially profit from the use of a federal resource, to be given co-management powers of that resource?
While this blog recognizes the importance of the work that the Jamestown have done for environmental restoration projects on the north Olympic Peninsula, there has been sustained concern from environmental watchdogs about the idea of turning the waters of the refuge into an industrial site, with subsequent conversion of the benthic layer and the waters above it into essentially a shellfish farm. Once this is done, there is no returning it to the way it is, as the profit motive will make it virtually impossible to end the work, as we have seen across the south Sound as shellfish aquaculture has turned numerous virgin bays into net covered shores with diesel engines dredging the geoduck farms at all hours of the night (low tides usually are late at night in the winter when harvesting would be easiest).
It is worth noting that the Refuge was established with the following goals, delineated on the front page of its web site:
Recognizing the importance of the fertile habitats, President Woodrow Wilson established the Dungeness National Wildlife Refuge on January 20, 1915, as a refuge, preserve, and breeding ground for native birds. Many of these birds feed by diving into the shallows for fish. Today the graceful arc of Dungeness Spit continues to protect nutrient-rich tide flats for migrating shorebirds in spring and fall; a quiet bay with calm waters for wintering waterfowl; an isolated beach for harbor seals and their pups; and abundant eelgrass beds for young salmon and steelhead nurseries.
Dungeness National Wildlife Refuge | Visit Us – Activities | U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (fws.gov)
It is hard to understand how commercial shellfish aquaculture could coexist into preserving native birds who dive into these same waters to feed. Currently the FWS bans even frisbees or kites on the spit as it apparently is not good for the birds. There is a long list of banned behavior that seems innocuous elsewhere.
In 2018, this blog reported on the concerns that were being raised by the staff of the refuge itself, in it, we reported that the applicants have asked for permission to place approx. 150,000 of “on bottom” oyster bags on the central west side of the bay, in approximately 34 acres of the tide flats 1141 acres of the inner spit. While I understand that current numbers of this amount are not at these levels, the long-term goal of this number likely has not changed. This is not the small scale subsistence aquaculture that currently exists in Sequim Bay by tribal members. This will require machinery, boats and staff to harvest these amounts. This could be viewed as the proverbial “camel nose in the tent” which likely will be expanded over time with very little discussion. The applicants propose to raise non-native oysters. To be clear, a significant number of cultivated oysters in the Salish Sea are non-native, so this was not a surprise, nor is it an issue of great concern.
Also noted in that earlier blog entry, as stated by the Department of Interior letter, “The shores and tidelands in this area provide some of the most important wildlife habitat and supports the highest density of waterfowl and shorebirds within the refuge….These shorelines also support one of the largest Brandt haul out sites in the state of Washington….Shorebird densities are highest within the action area and the adjacent lagoon on Graveyard Spit.”
“Human-caused wildlife disturbance and habitat loss are two of the most pervasive threats to shorebird and waterfowl use of the Salish Sea…. very little information is available on entrapment resulting from aquaculture structures.”
The letter also referenced that, “In 2016, a die-off of approximately 1000 Rhinoceros Auklets on Protection Island coincided with a significant reduction in the abundance of sand lance in the Strait of Juan de Fuca.”
Herring also spawn at the west end of Dungeness Harbor and the Department of Interior raised questions about protecting Strait of Juan de Fuca herring, which have been designated “critical” (as in critically low). Sand Lance and Surf Smelt spawning grounds are also found in the area of the application. These species have been identified as “Washington Species of Greatest Conservation Need within the State Wildlife Action Plan (WDFW 2015).” A worry related to this is that these spawning fish will be competing with the oysters for plankton. A failure to find enough food could lead to a significant reduction in the survival rates. There is no known mitigation for this, other than limiting the size and scope of the project.
Additionally, Interior pointed out that a 1996 scientific study found that some shorebirds significantly avoided areas used for aquaculture in a California bay.
This shoreline has also been designated “Natural” in the Critical Areas Ordinance, as far back as 1976. That designation limits activities to those that preserve the national features unchanged. One would assume that the tidelands are also part of that designation. But of course, the waters of the Wildlife Reserve are apparently not part of the county shoreline ordinance.
It is important to note that the applicants themselves have noted in a 2003 report that “wild birds are the second most important source of FC on a year-round basis. It is especially important in winter, when their load approaches 1/2 of the measured marine water input.” It would seem to the average person that putting aquaculture into a bird reserve is by its very nature going to create a tension between the animals that are present and creating the problem and the desire to harvest shellfish for profit.
It is certainly reasonable for the applicants to want to return to aquaculture in the Bay, however the scale is being significantly increased. And now the applicants themselves are being given co-management of the very location that they intend to make a commercial farm. If it wasn’t the Tribe but some standard for-profit company, I’m sure that every environmental organization in the country would be joining in to stop this, but since it is the Tribe, only a couple of environmental organizations have been bold enough to challenge the FWS in court. And they appear to be winning. Years ago, I had a drink with the head of the Western Region of NOAA. I asked him why they kept doing things that required environmental groups to sue them, and why they just didn’t do the right thing to begin with. He laughed and told me that NOAA was a big government organization and had many different perspectives inside it. He welcomed lawsuits that forced them to do the right thing as he couldn’t possibly hope that all his employees were in line with its goals.
The FWS has a problematic role with regards to the Refuge. According to a 2022 article written by Kevin Washburn and N. William Hines, Dean and Professor of Law at the University of Iowa College of Law:
“The congressional direction in the Fish and Wildlife Act is to ensure “the fish, shellfish, and wildlife
resources of the Nation make a material contribution to our national economy and food supply . . . [and] the health, recreation, and well-being of our citizens.”Congress recognized “that such resources are a living, renewable form of national wealth that is capable of being maintained and greatly increased with proper management, but equally capable of destruction if neglected or unwisely exploited.” (emphasis mine)
As a practical matter, however, one of the most significant challenges for FWS is meeting the
significant demands of the Endangered Species Act.”
The co-management of the reserve can only legally include the following:
“…Endangered Species Programs, Education Programs, Environmental Contaminants Programs, Wetland and Habitat Conservation Restoration, Fish Hatchery Operations, and National Wildlife Refuge Operation and Maintenance. See List of Programs Eligible for Inclusion in Funding Agreements Negotiated with Self-governance Tribes by Interior Bureaus Other than the Bureau of Indian Affairs and Fiscal
Year 2016. Microsoft Word – [14] Washburn – Camera-Ready (case.edu)
The rather ill defined “Northwest Wildlife refuge operations…” in the above paragraph is a concern. The document referenced above goes into considerable detail on the issues raised in co-management of FWS and other agencies. It is beyond the scope of this blog to identify all of them.
Science has learned a lot about the environment since the time when the State originally allowed the use in this location. In many other locations we have decided that the tradeoff of commercial activity is outweighed by a newer appreciation of the value of the natural landscape for a variety of species. It is up to all of us to question our elected officials and bureaucrats, not the applicants, as to why they believe that this is in all our best interests, when we so clearly have set this aside this location for wildlife protection and enhancement. The applicants have every right to apply. It is up to our elected and bureaucratic staffs to make the call for the lands and species we all enjoy and want to protect.
This blog has long supported the work of the JamesTown S’Kallam as they have led environmental protection on the Olympic Peninsula for many decades. We have supported their right to industrial geoduck operations, small scale oyster farming, their rights to their share of the salmon of the state. In this one instance we are questioning whether putting this farm inside a tiny refuge that has decades of protection, as we all struggle to save our seabirds, is the right call. It is not about their rights, it is about the location. Can the State not find and trade suitable other locations for the Tribe to establish, especially since the tribe itself has raised concerns about the viability of the location for aquaculture on the scale they are planning? Then the issue of co-management is a non issue. Then they would be imminently qualified to co-manage the refuge.
Filed under: Aquaculture, Clallam County, Environmental Activism, Environmental Law, Olympic Peninsula, Straits of Juan de Fuca | Tagged: dungeness spit, Fish & Wildlife, FWS, jamestown s'klallam tribe, oysters | 10 Comments »
