South Island Eel Industry Association Inc - Environmental Protection ...

SUBMISSION102595P O Box 1673, Invercargill.South Island Eel Industry Association telephone 03 230 4608fax 03 230 4475Email: waituna@xtra.co.nzEnvironmental Protection Authority,PO Box 131,Wellington 6140.9 th August 2012Submission from South Island Eel Industry Association Inc, and North Island eelEnhancement Company Ltd.Application code: APP201365Application Type: ReassessmentApplicant: Agrichemical Reassessment Group (ARG)Application State: Open for SubmissionsApplication Purpose: To seek the modification of controls on a number ofsubstances containing haloxyfop-R-methyl, imazapyr isopropylamine, metsulfuronmethylor triclopyr triethylamine as the active ingredient, to allow their use overwater to control aquatic pest plants.The submitters would like to be heard on behalf of this submission.The address for service is: Attn Bill Chisholm, Chisholm Associates, PO Box 2,Omarama 9448, email bill@chisholm.co.nz Ph (027) 22147391. IntroductionThe submitters are the North Island Eel Enhancement Company Ltd, and the SouthIsland Eel Industry Association Inc (the commercial eel industry). The commercialeel industry represents the commercial eel fishermen who utilise the eel resource inNew Zealand under the eel Quota Management System, administered via the FisheriesAct 1996. Our mandate, simply stated, is the protection, maintenance andenhancement of the important commercial eel fishery, which includes eel fisheries onpublic conservation lands, and waterways which may cross private land. Thesubmitter is represented by commercial eel harvesters from throughout New Zealand,with our members comprising the majority of eel permit holders, and taking themajority of the shortfin and longfin eel catch in New Zealand.This submission is a result of a careful reading of the application document andappendices.2. South Island Eel Industry Association (SIEIA) Policy

SUBMISSION102595SIEIA has prepared a comprehensive Eel Industry Plan, which is updated annually.The Plan contains all SIEIA policies relating to eel fishery protection, managementand enhancement. SIEIA has specific policies which relate to the use of herbicides inwater. These are as follows:8.3 Agrichemicals and fertilisersPesticides, herbicides and animal remedies are used throughout New Zealand toimprove agricultural productivity. Some of these compounds are highly toxic and canbioaccumulate through the food chain. Eels are a high-end predator in the food chain,so are more likely to bioaccumulate toxic compounds than other instream species.Anthelminthic drenches and pour-on formulations for stock parasites are one of themost insidious groups of chemicals which can find their way into waterways. Animalsexcrete these chemicals in their urine, and through soil runoff they can remain toxic toaquatic invertebrates. For example, “Southland Plains Syndrome” was coined todescribe the complete absence of aquatic insects in some waterways on the SouthlandPlans, in the 1970’s. This was later found to be largely caused by sheep dips and otheranimal remedies being discharged into these waterways.Thus, habitat loss for eels can occur with little evidence to show how it is happening,apart from the presence of stock nearby. It is important that these insidious agents ofhabitat loss are halted and reversed to ensure the eel fishery remains sustainable.The presence of pollutants in the flesh of eels can exclude them from export markets.This can also affect New Zealand’s “clean, green image”, which would have knock-oneffects for other export foodstuffs. It is important that waterways are not contaminatedwith agrichemicals which may bioaccumulate and persist in the flesh of eels.SIEIA policy is that it shall:1. Advocate that:a) The use of agrichemicals near streams and waterways should cease, ifthere is any possibility that they may enter that waterway through direct ordiffuse discharge.b) If agrichemical use is necessary (e.g. for aquatic weed control), thenonly those chemicals which are non-toxic to vertebrates, and do not persist norbioaccumulate in the food chain, are used.2. Advocate for the application of suitable Codes of Practice for the applicationof agrichemicals near waterways, through the provision of advice and support toindividual farmers, industry representatives and territorial authorities throughthe planning process.Accordingly, this submission will focus on the mode of action, environmentalpersistence and toxicity of the herbicides applied for, rather than the general use ofherbicides for aquatic weed control.

SUBMISSION1025953. Application is too generalThe application requests the substances applied for be made available for a number ofexisting, and potentially future, aquatic pest plant species. The application does not,however, define which substance should be used to control which species. Thisshould be provided in Table 1 of the application, where the pest plant and its responserating is provided, but not the response method. Table 1 needs an additional righthandcolumn which outlines the particular herbicide which can be used tocontrol/eradicate each pest plant species.Decision requested: Approval should only be given for the use of specificherbicides in water to control specific aquatic pest plant species. Approvalshould not be given for general or widespread use of the substances applied for.4. Existing herbicides are available to control aquatic plantsIt is known that Aquathol K (already registered for use in water, and subject to S 95Apermission controls) can control and eradicate most of those species listed in Table 1,with the possible exception of Phragmites and Manchurian wild rice. The applicationfails to explain why the additional substances are needed to control all species listedin Table 1.Further, Diquat is registered for use in water, and is often used for general suppressionof aquatic weeds for management purposes.These two substances (Aquathol K and diquat) have been extensively tested for longtermtoxicity in NZ waterways, and have been proven to be effective against aquaticweeds, with no bioaccumulation problems or long-term toxicity issues to fish,invertebrates or aquatic habitats in general.Decision requested: The substances applied for should not be allowed forgeneral use against aquatic weeds. They should only be allowed to be used onspecific pest plant species, in circumstances where diquat or Aquathol K cannotcontrol or eradicate these pest plant species.5. Two of the substances applied for are inappropriate for use in waterPrevious lab tests of haloxyfop-R-methyl demonstrate a high toxicity to fish andelvers. The application explains that this substance is chemically different to whatwas lab tested, and field tests demonstrate much lower toxicity to elvers. Dilutionwould also be a factor in its lower toxicity.Commercial eel fishers reject these assumptions, principally because there have beenno long-term field tests of haloxyfop-R-methyl, including its long-term toxicity andpersistence in eels. While this might be an arduous task, the applicant is remindedthat New Zealand’s commercial eel industry annually contributes over 6 milliondollars of export revenue, and employs over 200 full-time equivalent workers. Anytoxic residues found in the flesh of export eels would most certainly shut down this