For the past few weeks, a group of fellow Environmental Studies majors and I dove into the situation unfolding at Willapa Bay, a unique bay with an intertidal zone comprising roughly half of the area of the bay itself. The oyster industry here is experiencing a shift in land-use policies to solve a problem of high densities of burrowing shrimp. The main point of concern is the use of the pesticide imidicloprid to control shrimp populations. To get a surface understanding of this area, it may be useful to observe the below map, which I created using ArcGIS in a previous post.
At the crux of the situation in Willapa Bay (WB) is oyster aquaculture and the future of pesticide use in the bay. During our recent weekend field excursion to WB, we met with several key players, both strongly for and agaiidinst the use of imcloprid pesticide as a controlling agent for burrowing shrimp; the shrimp’s life history indirectly causes the death of bottom-growing oysters, leading to substantial losses for the local oyster aquaculture industry. I came into this debate having read a collection of literature regarding the topic, and my predisposition was against the use of imidicloprid in the bay.
I’ve found that people become very attached to places, especially unique and aesthetically-pleasing places. When I first got off the van and stepped onto the Andrews family land bordering the southwest corner of the bay, I noticed the landscape’s beauty. It wasn’t long after I walked to the shore that I heard a bald eagle overhead. I could tell that this was the kind of place that locals would hold near and dear to their hearts and fight for, much like Point Reyes. Sarah Andrews told us that the land bordering Willapa Bay now known as Sherwood Forest used to host a summer camp to empower girls during an era that would have much preferred otherwise. Indeed, the roots ran deep here, which is something that contributes to a community of passionately involved residents. While this is generally a good thing, it can complicate the establishment of new policies aimed at changing the bay, for better or for worse.
We began our official field studies with Kim Patten, the pro-imidicloprid Washington Dep. of Agriculture employee tasked with running scientific studies on the effects of the pesticide. As he took us around the bay and showed us live samples of burrowing shrimp and other species of interest, he talked with a science heavy tone and vocabulary. Although it is very possible that he mistook us as biology students, I could see this science jargon creating obstacles in communication among involved parties; this relates directly to several readings (Stankey et. al) we did in class regarding the unnecessary over-complication of words used in the science world and how this creates a barrier between scientists and community members and subsequently, between science and progress.
Often how this plays out is that government or 3rd-party scientists (in this case, Kim and the Washington Dep. of Ecology) publish key research on a topic but are unable to effectively convey their findings to a lay audience (in this case, the anti-imidicloprid group including Fritzi), but what makes this situation unique and eligible for an adaptive management approach is that there are scientists on both sides. Ross Barkhurst is an engineer by trade and is experienced in the scientific process and literature; he is able to interpret and critique the research and translate its findings to non-scientist actors like activist Fritzi.
Interestingly and quite unlike the other characters we met on the trip, not once did I sense Kim’s passion for the topic at hand; instead, it seemed as though the imidicloprid permit was just another few lines he could add to his CV at the end of the day. Check the box, move on. While this is definitely a subjective observation, I couldn’t help but notice the last thing he said to us as our professor Jessica was apologizing for going later than expected: “well, I’m on overtime now.”
While Kim was giving us the scientific and policy background to the oyster situation, Kelly Rupp was quick to interject with his comments, almost always beginning with “and if you look at this through a X perspective, then…” In my conversations with him, he self-described himself as a “semi-retired concerned citizen,” going on by expanding upon his role in mediating discussions for those involved in the oyster situation. One of the factors contributing to the “wickedness” of the oyster situation was that the two opposing sides were not willing to come together in good heart to work towards a common goal, but Kelly was working to remedy that. He seemed to be a true believer in bringing the collaborative decision making process to Willapa Bay, and I think his role is a critical one.
Several days after our field excursion to the bay, we Skyped with Derek Rocket and Nathan Uloner, two WA Dept. of Ecology (referred to as Ecology) employees. As Derek had been tasked with overseeing the permit drafts, much of the hour-long conversation revolved around the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). We had previously studied the lengthy document as a class and agreed that the writers seemed quick to dismiss any questions or comments that were not supportive of the permit. Derek gave us some immediate feedback regarding our observations and justified his actions by saying that the comments themselves were often unproductive or passion-driven; instead, he preferred to get thoughtful questions regarding specific areas of the EIS that needed more critique.
I asked them both what they would have done differently if they were to rewrite the entire EIS again, and in true adaptive management spirit, Derek said that he would incorporate and highlight Integrated Pest Management (IPM), which works to use pesticides as little and efficiently as possible or find an alternative. Specifically, IPM would experiment with timing and modes of application, among other variables; in essence, it seemed an adaptive management approach of trial-and-error. Nathan replied to my question by commenting that he would dedicate more time to outreach and education on pesticides and imidicloprid because of the widespread misunderstanding that had occurred. This community misunderstanding no doubt contributed heavily to the eventual withdrawal of the permit issued by Ecology. This directly relates back to the need for better communication between scientists and the public.
Lastly, I would like to mention Roberto Quintana at Ekone Oyster Company. His tour of Ekone’s aquaculture facilities was wonderful, but his perspective on the WB oyster situation was extremely valuable for me and how I would eventually view the topic. I had switched views and became pro-imidicloprid by the time we met with Roberto, but I quickly realized that this whole permit process was being done seemingly without substantial input from the very people who could be most directly working with the pesticide itself. Although much more moderate than Fritzi or Ross, Roberto was also against the use of pesticide, but his justification came from personal experiences with pesticide use and its consequences. It was a very “gut-heavy” approach but one that I connected with.
To finalize my studies of Willapa Bay, I’d like to talk more with the “middle-ground” actors and those involved in the oyster industry but not directly contributing to the permit process. Among both the collaborative decision making and adaptive management approaches we studied, a common thread was the need for an all-hands-in process, and while the WB situation may have both pro and anti parties represented, it seems to be in dire need of more representation from the middle-ground, those who are already underrepresented. The workers, not just the educated government scientists or the passionate environmentalists.
Stankey, G.H., B.T. Bormann, C. Ryan, B. Shindler, V. Sturtevant, R.N. Clark, and C. Philpot. 2003. “Adaptive Management and the Northwest Forest Plan: Rhetoric and Reality.” Journal of Forestry 101 (1): 40–46.
Tarun Bishop says
It is certainly true that people become attached to their land, particularly areas with rich wilderness. People at Lewis and Clark are used to conservationists and preservationists, but in reality, many people value the land for its instrumental use, because they want to use it. Your analysis of Kim’s word choice is quite interesting; these were things that I didn’t notice. It is certainly possible that Kim is primarily invested in the imidicloprid primarily for his job or CV. I certainly agree with Kim, though, that it’s unfair for oyster farmers to be regulated while dairy farmers are unregulated (or less regulated), but I think both should be restricted, not neither.
cre data says
I want to say thank you for this amazing article. As a person dealing with commercial real estate loans data I find it very interesting.