Latest

2/21/13

The Alaska House of Representatives has come out against genetically engineered salmon, or as critics call it, “Frankenfish.”

Representatives unanimously approved House Joint Resolution 5 on Wednesday. It urges the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to reconsider a preliminary finding that genetically modified fish would not significantly impact the environment. The resolution also urges the agency to require labeling for GM salmon, if the product is ultimately approved.

The legislation was sponsored by Anchorage Democrat Geran Tarr. She says genetically engineered fish has not been proven safe.

“The resolution opposes this move for three reasons,” Tarr said on the House floor. “Threats to wild salmon stocks; threats to human health and consumer confidence in wild Alaska salmon; and potential negative economic impact on our wild seafood industry.”

The House joins the Parnell administration, the state’s Congressional delegation, and thousands of Alaskans represented by seafood industry groups in opposing genetically modified fish.

The resolution now goes to the state Senate.

Massachusetts-based biotech company AquaBounty petitioned the FDA to approve the genetically engineered fish — an Atlantic salmon with genes from a Chinook salmon and an eel-like fish to make it grow faster. The company has spent nearly $70 million dollars since forming in 1991.
The FDA recently extended the public comment period on AquaBounty’s petition through April 26th.

Listen to the full story

2/23/13

As global warming escalates, San Francisco Bay's existing flood protection system will be no match for rising sea levels. But according to a new report by a Bay Area environmental group, fortifying the bay's shoreline with levees fronted by restored tidal marshes will be a cheaper, more aesthetic and ecologically sensitive alternative to traditional levees.

The Bay Institute's report proposes restoring tidal marshes with sediment from local flood control channels and irrigating the marshes with treated wastewater. The plan also calls for "horizontal levees" that are a hybrid of traditional earthen levees and restored marshes.

Tidal marsh restoration in the bay has been a priority for environmental groups since the 1970s. More than 5,000 acres have been restored in the past two decades, with another 30,000 acres purchased and slated for restoration.

"Marshes act as the lungs of the bay," said John Bourgeois, manager of the South Bay Salt Pond Restoration Project. "They can clean and filter the water that comes down our tributaries before it hits the bay."

The tall, dense vegetation of tidal marshes can also absorb a significant amount of the energy of surging ocean waves during storms. "The concept is a good one. The physics of it are accurate," said Lisamarie Windham-Myers, a wetland ecologist at the U.S. Geological Survey. "It's been proven over and over that wetlands help reduce storm surges." Therefore, she said, levees don't have to be as tall.

The Bay Institute estimates that shorter levees fronted by tidal marshes would bring down the cost from more than $12 million to less than $7 million per mile, while providing the same level of flood protection. With 275 miles of bay shoreline to protect, total savings could eventually exceed more than a billion dollars.

"We knew the cost would be reduced, but we were shocked at the actual savings," said Marc Holmes, the Bay Institute's marsh restoration program director.

Funds to build and maintain levees have come over the years in piecemeal chunks from the federal government and local floodplain control agencies. The result has been a patchwork quilt of aging earthen levees, designed to protect against present-day sea levels.

Though rising sea levels are a concern, winter storms riding in on higher tides can cause the most havoc. "In the next century, we're going to get more storms, fiercer storms," Holmes said. "Locations that were once outside of the danger zone are now inside, simply because storms are arriving on higher sea levels."

The goal of the Bay Institute study was to find a way to build a cost-effective network of levees that could lessen the flood threat caused by storm surges, while also providing benefits to the environment. The South Bay Salt Pond Restoration Project is considering a similar "horizontal levee" for its Alviso flood protection plan, which will be released later this year.

Read More

2/2/13

Humboldt promoters of major railroad or port development mean well. But independent, unbiased analyses agree the cost is incredibly high. Getting even a tiny fraction of the required funding is extremely unlikely, especially in this economy. I and many others believe railroad/port promotion should be shifted to promoting smaller, quicker-to-happen, and much easier to fund economic development. We ask government agencies to support this change in strategy, for these reasons:

Enormous global and U.S. economic crises exploded in 2008 and continue to damage small and large economies around the world. Humboldt County's economic prospects were also damaged. So it makes no sense for the supervisors to use an outdated 1997 study to justify paying $250,000 (or even $1!) for yet another study of port or railroad options. Past studies showed the enormous cost of major rail and port projects couldn't be funded even during boom times. An experienced Caltrans Division of Rail manager, experienced investment bankers, the 2006/2007 Humboldt County grand jury, and the North Coast Railway Authority's own 2002 $126,000 study showed railroad/port expansion couldn't justify the tens of millions of dollars it would cost. Even a supposedly “much cheaper” East-West rail line would still require tens (maybe hundreds!) of millions of dollars. We don't have that money, and state and federal money is locked up by huge deficits, federal political deadlock, and continued economic instability. If we spend money to study economic development options, let's study different, realistic, “right now” options -- there ARE such options!

In addition, railroad/port true believers have made it clear they want only a study showing funding, construction, and profitable operation are easily achieved; that study wouldn't have an unbiased, thorough analysis of costs, uncertainties and risks. For example, a 2002 NCRA/port study costing taxpayers $126,000 showed that spending $46 million and then another $250 million over 20 years would produce a small profit after five years, which would slowly shrink for the next 20 years. The NCRA's response was “you have to believe in something more” (than our costly study) “to justify what we're doing here.” That “something more” is blind faith. Today's economic prospects are much worse and construction much more expensive that the hundreds of millions required in 2002. An East-West rail option is just as unlikely, so funding sources for a study, including the Headwaters Fund, shouldn't be convinced by blind faith to even study a project costing this much and already studied so many times.

Taxpayer dollars are scarce, and desperately needed for “right now” jobs, police and fire protection, education, health, and emergency preparedness. Let's not waste money. Let's not distract elected officials and staff with studying dead ends -- we need their expertise studying ways for economic development to happen much sooner and more reliably than a major rail or rail/port dream.

Jeff Knapp resides in Arcata.

Read Original Artcle

2/3/13


The health of the Eel River and the fisheries it supports has long been a point of interest throughout the North Coast. At one time, this river provided abundant habitat for migratory fish and was California’s second largest producer of steelhead and third largest producer of salmon. A 2010 report out of the UC Davis Center for Watershed Sciences estimat­ed that the Eel River once produced more than one million salmon and steel­head in good years.



These once-abundant fish populations both signaled a healthy watershed system and supported fishing and canning industries in this region. Now they suffer from unpredictable boom and bust cycles.



Even with the occasional year of strong salmon runs like we witnessed in 2012, there is little dispute that the Eel River ecosystem has become degraded for fish and other creatures that live in and around the river. In recent decades, salmon and steelhead populations returning to the river to spawn have declined dra­matically. There is much speculation as to what fac­tors have caused the collapse of these fisheries. Different groups and individuals point to different causes.



Is the loss of high quality nursery habitat in the Eel River estuary in Ferndale the culprit? Are low summer stream flows — from forest re-growth or illegal stream diversions to support the marijuana industry — to blame? Did the legacy of the timber industry swamp the river with sediment? Or should we set our sights on the miles of habitat blocked and diversion of headwaters established by the dams and diversion of the Potter Valley Project?



The reality is that all of these factors have worked together to compromise the health of the Eel River watershed. But the strength of this river and its fisheries can be restored, and a new task force of interested par­ties has just been formed to develop a realistic, sci­ence-based approach to do just that.



The Eel River Task Force is group of volunteers working collaboratively to gain a bet­ter collective understanding of the Eel River. It does not have policy-making power. Rather, the task force is a coalition of public agencies, Indian tribes, conservation partners, and other stake­holders with interest in or responsibility for the envi­ronmental stewardship of the Eel River. Task force members all have a deep commitment to restoring this watershed.



Task force members have many shared interests and are committed to identifying a realistic way forward. In the past, differing perspec­tives have sometimes come between these stakeholders. By coming together as one body, interested parties are signaling a renewed commitment to the daunting task of healing this watershed.



Perhaps the most impor­tant aspect of the Eel River Task Force’s approach is its commitment to science.



The group is committed to establishing a scientifical­ly sound baseline of what is happening with native fish­eries on the river. Rather than assuming that one fac­tor or another is the main source of trouble for the river, the ERTF will identify, evaluate, and prioritize among all of the recovery issues and associated challenges.



The task force is dedicated to leveraging opportunities for increased restoration funding and taking advan­tage of the best and latest methods for monitoring and restoring imperiled salmon and steelhead populations.



Its ultimate goal is to restore abundant fish popu­lations and healthy ecosys­tem conditions for the people who call the Eel River basin home.


The challenges con­fronting the ERTF are complex and it will take commitment and creativity to identify solutions. This group will wrestle with the complex issues of how to fairly distribute public resources, respect the rights of private landowners with­out sacrificing the river’s long-term health, and fulfill our region’s legal responsi­bilities to protect and restore endangered species. It will be no easy matter to find acceptable solutions to these challenges, but the diverse members of the ERTF are committed to working together to find appropriate compromises that respect all members of the North Coast community.



With such an impressive group of diverse and com­mitted stakeholders at the table, the future of the Eel River and its fisheries looks brighter than it has in many years. 



Darren Mierau is North Coast Regional Manager for California Trout, a fish and watershed advocacy organization. California Trout convened the Eel River Task Force to set a new path forward for the sustainable restoration of the Eel River.

Read Original Article