Environmental Protection Authority,
PO Box 131,
Wellington 6140.
Re: Appplication
APP201365 - Metsulfuron-methyl, Haloxyfop-R-methyl, Imazapyr
isopropylamine, Triclopyr triethylamine Reassessment
Information for hearing
1.
Introduction:
1.1 My name is William Patrick Chisholm. I am an Environmental Consultant
residing near Omarama. I have run my own environmental consultancy business Chisholm Associates, since April 1991, specialising in biosecurity and aquatic
ecology. I am also owner/manager of Aqautic Weed Control Ltd, a company which
retails Endothall (Trade name “Aquathol K”) and a Guar Gum adjuvant (trade name
“Aquagel”) which are both used for the management and control of submerged
aquatic weeds.
1.2 I hold a Masters degree with Honours in Zoology from Victoria University of
Wellington. I am a member of the New Zealand Ecological Society and the New
Zealand Freshwater Sciences Society. I am currently registered as a Certified
Environmental Practitioner (CENVP). The CENVP programme is run by the
Environment Institute of Australian and New Zealand (EIANZ) and requires its
members to act in a professional manner at all times.
1.3 Over the past 5 years, I have worked as an environmental advisor and consultant
to the South Island Eel Industry Association (SIEIA). This involves a wide variety of
freshwater environmental projects and the preparation of the South Island Eel
Industry Plan. I also act as the SIEIA representative on the Ministry of Fisheries
research panel for eels.
2. Submission by commercial eel fishermen
2.1 This submission was from the North island eel Enhancement Company
(representing all commercial eel fishermen in the North Island), and the South Island
eel Industry Association (representing all commercial eel fishermen in the South
Island). In some parts, the Staff Evaluation and Review Report (ERR) appears to
mistakenly report that the submission was only from South Island commercial eel
fishermen.
2.2 New Zealand’s eel fisheries are sustainably managed under quota by the Ministry
for Primary Industry (MPI). Quota is set for three broad eel fishing activities:
Customary, Recreational and Commercial. The customary and recreational catch is
consumed within New Zealand. Over 95% of the commercial catch is exported,
mainly to European Union countries. Table 1 provides a brief summary of the
tonnages caught under the Quota Management System (QMS):
Table 1: QMS annual allowances (tonnes) for North and South Island freshwater
eels.
Allowance
North Island
South Island
Total
Customary
107.25
107.73
214.98
Recreational
10.70
10.79
21.49
Commercial
429.00
420.10
849.10
Total Allowable Catch 546.95
538.62
1085.57
2.3 New Zealand’s eel fisheries provide a sustainable food source for many people,
and a commercial resource which provides export revenue. The commercial resource
has an annual export value of approximately 5 million dollars, and the commercial eel
quota has a total capital value of approximately 25.5 million dollars (this does not
include fish processing facilities or associated industries). The commercial eel fishery
sustains approximately 150 full-time equivalent jobs.
2.4 I have read the staff Evaluation Review Report (ERR) and other documents
related to this application. As a result of this additional information, the decisions
requested by the commercial eel fishing sector have not substantially changed.
3. Comments of the ERR and supporting documents
3.1 The ERR considers that additional controls are necessary to manage the risks
associated with the application. We supported the imposition of additional controls,
but believe that they do not go far enough to ensure that the risks are appropriately
mitigated. In particular, there needs to be further controls on the use of these
substances, such that they should only be allowed to be used in circumstances where
the existing approved substances (diquat and endothall) cannot control aquatic plants,
and/or where a biosecurity emergency has been declared. This latter scenario is
within the ambit of the Biosecurity Act 1993, so I will not comment further on it.
3.2 The proposed benefits associated with this application only relate to benefits
from the control of those aquatic plant species which cannot be “adequately
controlled” by using diquat or endothall. I suggest that one of the unstated “benefits”,
or reasons for this application, is related to herbicide price. i.e. they are cheaper than
diquat or endothall.
3.3 Commercial eel fishermen, and other users of the eel fishery resource (most
notably iwi, who have also submitted in opposition), are expected to bear the risks
related to discharge of these chemicals. For commercial eel fishermen, the risks relate
to the potential complete shutdown of their export markets, if any pesticide residues
are found in the flesh or fat of exported eels.
3.4 Most eels are exported to the European Union (EU). It should be noted that the
default Maximum Residue Levels (MRL) in animal products for these chemicals,
except triclopyr, are one-tenth of those for New Zealand (triclopyr MRL is one half
the NZ levels)*. This indicates that the MRL sensitivity for exports to the EU (such
as eels) is ten times that of New Zealand.
*http://www.mrldatabase.com/results.cfm
3.5 Therefore, we need to be ten times more risk averse to pesticide residues in eels,
in order to maintain their access to the EU markets.
3.6 It is unfair to expect commercial eel fishermen to carry this level of risk, despite
the “safeguards” proposed by the ERR, for virtually no reward. It is even more unfair
to expect them to carry this level of risk in circumstances where the principal
“benefit” is cheaper herbicide for aquatic weed control.
3.7 A more thorough cost benefit analysis carried out under Section 6 (e) of the
HASNO Act 1996 would likely reveal that these compounds can only provide
worthwhile benefits in circumstances where diquat or endothall cannot adequately
control specific aquatic weed species. Accordingly, the substances applied for should
not be approved without controls specifying that they can only be used to control
certain specific aquatic weed species.
3.8 The Applicants Response to Submissions (Appendix C of the ERR, page 80),
discusses Economic Risks. This discussion makes no mention of the risks to
commercial eel export markets, despite these being raised in our original submission.
3.9 I note that The Applicants Response to Submissions (Appendix C of the ERR,
page 86, paragraph 34) concludes that “The pest plants considered in this application
are not adequately controlled using herbicides currently permitted for use in water”.
Paragraph 35 continues “Long established and wide coverage pest plants would not
be targeted for control by these products”. This statement conflicts with the
application as stated, and the proposed controls, which essentially allow for the
widespread use of these chemicals on any aquatic weed species. We believe that
there needs to be a list of exactly which of these compounds may be used on which
aquatic weed species; remembering that this list should not include aquatic weed
species which can already be controlled using diquat or endothall.
3.10 I have confirmation (Appendix 1) from Dr Cody Gray, an aquatic weed expert
working for Uniphos Ltd in the USA, that the following species, mentioned by the
applicant, cannot be adequately controlled using endothall:

Manchurian Wild Rice

Phragmites

Alligator weed

purple loosestrife

sagittaria,

Senegal tea

Spartina
Normally diquat only suppresses aquatic weed growths, as it is not a systemic
herbicide and therefore does not kill the plant down to the roots. Dr Gray advises that
metsulfuron-methyl might not be able to provide effective control of some of the
plants listed above (although his information is limited).
3.11 It is recognised that the species listed in 3.10 can be serious pests requiring
control or eradication in some circumstances. Accordingly, we recommend that
approval of three of the four substances (not metsulfuron-methyl) be granted, but only
for the control and eradication of the plant species listed in 3.10 above. We
recommend that this be a label specification on the 3 herbicides applied for, and not a
condition on S94A permissions.
4. Metsulfuron-methyl
4.1 Our submission requested that metsulfuron-methyl not be approved.
Metsulfuron-methyl is known to remain persistent in the environment in alkaline
waters, even slightly alkaline waters. Most NZ waterways are slightly alkaline.
Therefore, this substance will not break down in NZ waterways, and will remain
highly persistent in the aquatic environment. Commercial eel fishermen oppose the
use of substances with a high environmental persistence, especially where there is an
absence of long-term toxicity and bioaccumulation information.
4.2 Despite research indicating that metsulfuron-methyl does not bioaccumulate, this
research needs to be considered in context. The average age of an eel harvested for
export is 25 years. Many are older than 35 years, with some aged > 50 years.
Notwithstanding the effects on non-target plants, the high environmental persistence
of metsulfuron-methyl suggests that there is a significant risk of this substance
becoming persistent in the flesh of long-lived eels. Short term studies cannot provide
robust information on the long-term effects of persistent metsulfuron-methyl in
waterways, nor can such studies possibly provide information on the passive
migration of pesticide residues into eel flesh. It should be noted that commercial
fishermen are working within the European Union MRL framework of one-tenth the
tolerance of New Zealand.
4.3 The Applicants Response to Submissions (Appendix C of the ERR, page 86,
paragraph 31) states that dilution effects of metsulfuron-methyl rapidly reduced
concentrations below detectable levels. This might be expected in a flowing drain,
but not static waters, or downstream receiving waters. The applicant accepts that
metsulfuron-methyl is stable (i.e. persistent) in alkaline waters, which are typical n
New Zealand. Therefore we can expect metsulfuron-methyl to remain persistent,
indefinitely, in all treated static waters or downstream receiving waters and wetlands.
4.4 It is not clear, from the application documents, why it is necessary to use
metsulfuron-methyl on any of the aquatic pest plants listed. The three other
substances applied for, or existing registered substances such as endothall, are likely
to be able to effectively control those aquatic pest plants listed in Table 1. The only
reason I can think why metsulfuron-methyl would be a desirable substance for aquatic
weed control is because it is cheaper than the other substances. This is not a good
reason for allowing its use in water, and fails to meet the cost-benefit requirements
outlined in the HASNO Act 1996. Hence, there appears to be no need for
metsulfuron-methyl to be used in water, under any circumstances. We reiterate our
opposition to its use, and recommend that metsulfuron-methyl is declined for use in
aquatic environments.
5. S 95A Permissions
5.1 The ERR Report recommends the use of the HASNO Act 1996 Section 95A
permission facility (permissions) to help mitigate various risks related to the use of
the substances applied for. The Applicants Response to Submissions (Appendix C of
the ERR) Page 76, paragraphs 6, 7 & 8 suggests that permissions be allowed for a 20year period, to allow for region and area-specific issues (e.g. bird nesting) to be
managed.
5.2 As stated in our submission, we agree that permissions are required for the use of
the remaining 3 substances (not metsulfuron-methyl, for which approval should be
declined) . However, we believe that confining their use to those species outlined in
paragraph 3.10 above, should be a label requirement, and not a condition of a
permission, for the reasons outlined below:
5.3 Permissions are not a common regulatory tool in herbicide use, although they are
currently a requirement for endothall. In my experience with endothall, there is often
considerable confusion amongst herbicide applicators between label requirements,
permission requirements and resource consent requirements. Regardless of Growsafe
“aquatic strand” training, herbicide users understand label requirements more fully
than the other two. This is because all herbicides have label requirements, so they are
more familiar with them.
5.4 Commercial eel fishermen (and the other submitters) have spent considerable
resources evaluating the application, and involving themselves in this approval
process. Further involvement via the permissions process is essentially another
imposition on eel fishermen (and the other submitters), which they could well do
without. However, the risks to their livelihoods are so great that they will need to be
involved in all future permission applications. Eel fishermen do not want to have to
engage consultants to assess every permission application, which would be necessary
if such issues as the “species to be controlled”, needed comment. It is much better
that this issue is dealt with via the label, so that eel fishermen need only comment on
area-specific issues relating to permission applications.
5.5 EPA have little or no compliance capability. Regional Councils have previously
indicated that they are reluctant to oversee compliance on EPA permissions, unless
they directly relate to RMA compliance. The lack of compliance capability, and the
confusing relationship between EPA and territorial authorities, does not give eel
fishermen confidence that permissions will be adequately policed, and thus provide
adequate risk mitigation.
5.6 The transfer of issues (other then specific site-related issues such as bird nesting)
to the permissions process is a policy duck-shoving process which results from poor
decision making. We are mindful that decisions on the use of these chemicals need to
be made here and now. We do not wish to continually re-litigate these issues through
the permissions process.
6. The applicant (ARG)
6.1 We note that the applicant consists of a group of SOE, local government and
central government organisations, known collectively as the Agrichemical
Reassessment Group (ARG).
6.2 The ARG needs to understand that a major effect of the use of these chemicals
will be to exclude commercial, customary and recreational eel fishing from the treated
water body, for a potentially long period of time.
6.3 Commercial eel fishermen are already severely restricted to where they may fish.
Permission is required to fish on private land, and with the exception of Land
Information NZ, the Crown agencies comprising the ARG have been reluctant to
allow eel fishing on waterways they administer. For example, the Department of
Conservation has refused to grant concessions for commercial eeling in all reserves,
and have developed policies recommending that concessions be declined in all DoC –
managed waterways. And yet, the ARG is asking that commercial eel fishing now be
excluded from more waterways so they can more easily treat them for their own
purposes. The direct benefits to commercial eel fishermen of controlling aquatic
weeds are not always significant, so again, eel fishermen must suffer for the benefit of
others.
6.4 Commercial eel fishermen are thus having their usual fishing grounds suffer
“death by a thousand cuts”, as more areas are closed for someone else’s benefit. The
question I have been asked to put is: Where will it stop?
6.5 This issue is one of equity, rather than cost-benefit. i.e. eel fishermen must bear
the cost of further closure of treated waterways. If the ARG wanted to be serious
about mitigating the effects on other users of these waterways, they would offer to
open up equivalent waterways to commercial fishing, to compensate for those lost
through the exercise of their permissions. No such offer has been made, despite the
fact that ARG members have the ability to provide alternative fishing areas to
compensate for the reduced access to these eel fisheries.
7. Conclusion/Summary
7.1 The multi-million dollar export eel fishery is put at risk by this application. Eel
fishermen are being asked to carry the risks, in return for little or no reward.
7.2 We need to be ten times more risk averse to pesticide residues in eels, in order to
maintain access to the European Union markets.
7.3 Access to a cheaper herbicide (such as metsulfuron-methyl) is not a valid reason
for approving their use in waterways.
7.4 Three of the compounds applied for could be approved, but there should be label
restrictions stating that they may only be used for those specific aquatic weed species
named in the application. General broadcast of these compounds for wider aquatic
weed control should not be permitted on the label.
7.5 Metsulfuron methyl should not be approved for use in water, because of its
known persistence in NZ waterways. To my knowledge, it is not approved for aquatic
use in most other developed countries.
W.P Chisholm, 24th October, 2012.
Appendix 1
Bill,
Great to hear from you again.
The species listed below will not be controlled by Aquathol. The one
exception might be the sagittaria, if a high enough rate is used and
a long exposure time is present, while the plant is still submerged.
Chances of this happening are very remote.
Most of the products used here in the U.S. to control the listed
species contain imazapyr or glyphosate. Some triclopyr is used for a
couple of the species but imazapyr is the product of choice, which is
commonly tank mixed with glyphosate.
I can't comment on metsulfuron since it is not used in the U.S.
Knowing what I know about ALS chemistry, is they are highly
selective. They may work on one species with no efficacy on a
similar species within the same plant genus.
Thanks,
Cody
Cody J. Gray, Ph.D.
Field Development Representative
United Phosphorus, Inc.
Office: (719) 886-4708
Cell: (954) 562-0254
Fax: (719) 886-4793
|
|
To:
<gerald.adrian@uniphos.com>,
<Cody.GRAY@uniphos.com>
|
|
cc:
|
|
Subject: Technical question re: Aquathol K
Dear Cody and Gerald
I have an urgent technical question regarding Aquathol K.
Some NZ Government agencies have applied to allow 4 new substances
for general aquatic weed control in NZ waterways. These include
Triclopyr and metsulfuron methyl.
Their reasoning is that Aquathol K doesn't provide "adequate" control
of certain aquatic weed species. These include:
Manchurian Wild Rice
Phragmites
Alligator weed
purple loosestrife
sagittaria, Senegal tea
Spartina
Spartina is an estuarine plant, and so it might not be susceptible to
Aquathol K. Would the other species listed above be able to be
cntrolled using Aquathol K at 5ppm or lower rates?
I need an answer ASAP please. The hearing is next week and I am
supposed to circulate my information some days beforehand.
Regards - Bill
Bill Chisholm*,
Aquatic Weed Control Ltd,
PO Box 2, Omarama.
mobile (027) 221 4739
email bill@chisholm.co.nz
website www.chisholm.co.nz
*Certified Environmental Practitioner