Authorities urging fresh water recreational users to avoid contact

7/19/11

Officials with the Humboldt County Department of Health and Human Services are warning recreational users of the South Fork of the Eel River, the Van Duzen River, Big Lagoon, Freshwater Lagoon, and all other fresh water bodies to avoid contact with algae this summer.

”Usually it does not affect animals or people. However, warm water and abundant nutrients can cause blue-green algae to grow more rapidly than usual,” the release said.

The department recently posted signs at the Freshwater Lagoon near Orick to tell people to avoid algae blooms since water samples were found to contain two types of potentially toxic blue-green algae. Staff plans to post similar signs at other coastal lagoons, the South Fork of the Eel River and the Van Duzen River, according to a press release.

The department has been aware of 11 dog deaths possibly caused by blue-green algae poisoning since 2001. The dogs died shortly after swimming in Big Lagoon, the South Fork of the Eel River and the Van Duzen River. A nerve toxin associated with blue-green algae was found in the stomachs of some of the dogs and some water samples.

The onset of symptoms can be rapid -- dogs have died within 30 minutes to one hour after leaving the water.

Additionally, blue-green algae blooms that produce a liver toxin have been documented in Klamath River reservoirs and the Klamath River.

The algae looks like green, blue-green, white or brown scum, foam or mats floating on the water.

Dogs and children are most likely to be affected because of their smaller body size and tendency to stay in the water. Dogs are more vulnerable because they may swallow the toxin when they lick their fur.

Potential symptoms in dogs following exposure to blue-green algae toxins can include lethargy, difficulty breathing, salivation, vomiting, urination, diarrhea or convulsions. People can experience eye irritation, skin rash, mouth ulcers, vomiting, diarrhea and cold or flu-like symptoms.

To prevent algae blooms, the department advises people to be conservative with the use of water, fertilizers and pesticides on lawns, gardens or agricultural operations; to plant or maintain native plants around banks to help filter water; to pump and maintain septic systems every three to four years; to prevent surface water runoff from agricultural and livestock areas; and to prevent erosion around construction and logging operations.

For more information, call 445-6215 or 800-963-9241.

AT A GLANCE:

Guidelines for recreational users of all freshwater areas:

* Avoid wading and swimming in water containing algae blooms. Try not to swallow or inhale water spray in an algae bloom area.

* Keep children, pets and livestock from swimming in or drinking water containing algae scum or mats.

* Fish should be consumed only after removing the guts and liver and rinsing fillets in tap water.

* Never drink, cook with or wash dishes with water from rivers, streams or lakes.

* Get medical attention immediately if you think that you, your pet, or livestock might have been poisoned by blue-green algae toxins. Be sure to tell the doctor about possible contact with blue-green algae.

Read More

According to the Humboldt County Department of Health and Human Services,

Human activities can have a big effect on nutrient and water flows in rivers, streams or lakes. Phosphorous and nitrogen found in fertilizers, animal waste, and human waste can stimulate blooms. Excessive water diversions can increase water temperatures and reduce flows. People can take the following measures to prevent algal blooms in our waters:

• Be very conservative with the use of water, fertilizers and pesticides on your lawn, garden or agricultural operation.
• Recycle any “spent” soil that has been used for intensive growing by tilling it back into gardens. Or protect it from rainfall to avoid nutrient runoff.
• Plant or maintain native plants around banks. These plants help filter water and don’t require fertilizers.
• Pump and maintain your septic system every three to four years.
• Prevent surface water runoff from agricultural and livestock areas.
• Prevent erosion around construction and logging operations.

Please contact the Humboldt County DHHS Division of Environmental Health, at
(707) 445-6215 or 1-800-963-9241 for further information. The California Department of Public Health website also has more details.

7/13/11

The Environmental Protection Agency’s powers to set clean-water standards would be limited under legislation passed by the Republican-led U.S. House over threats of a veto by the Obama administration.

The bill blocks the EPA from tightening water pollutant limits without a state’s consent if the agency previously approved the state standard. The measure, which passed 239-184 yesterday, is part of an effort to rein in what Republicans say is an agency’s regulatory overreach threatening the economy. Sixteen Democrats joined Republicans to support the measure.

Supporters said limits on the EPA would give farmers, coal companies and other businesses that discharge pollutants into waterways greater certainty that standards won’t be changed.

The EPA is engaged in an “unprecedented regulatory grab” during a “difficult time in our economy,” Representative John Mica, a Florida Republican and chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, said during debate.

The bill is the “single-worst assault on clean-water protections in a generation,” Steve Fleischli, a senior attorney at the New York-based Natural Resources Defense Council, said in a statement.

Democrats said the EPA should retain its authority to supersede state rules because pollution crosses political boundaries.

Advisers to President Barack Obama will recommend a veto if the legislation passes Congress, according to an administration statement issued yesterday. The measure must also pass the Senate before being sent to the president.

Health, Economy

The bill “would significantly undermine the Clean Water Act and could adversely affect public health, the economy, and the environment,” the administration said.

Supporters of the bill cited the EPA’s decision in January to revoke a federal permit granted in 2007 to the Spruce No. 1 mountaintop mine in Logan County, West Virginia, operated by St. Louis-based Arch Coal Inc. (ACI) The EPA said the mine operations were “destructive and unsustainable.” The legislation would prohibit such actions without state concurrence.

House Republicans are pursuing other measures to restrict the EPA. The House Appropriations Committee approved a bill on July 12 to cut the EPA budget to $7.1 billion, or 20 percent less than Obama requested.

The spending bill also would delay rules limiting greenhouse-gas emissions from industrial polluters such as power plants and oil refineries.

The House Energy and Commerce Committee approved a bill on July 12 that postpones a clean-air rule targeting pollution that leads to smog and soot.

The bill is H.R. 2018.

Read Original Article

7/15/11

California's highest court has upheld a ban on plastic bags in Manhattan Beach in a widely watched case that could spur additional prohibitions on an item increasingly blamed for littering beaches, strangling wildlife and clogging landfills.

In its unanimous decision, the California Supreme Court said Thursday that Manhattan Beach was not required to conduct a costly environmental review in 2008 when it passed an ordinance prohibiting the bags at the city's 200 or so retail stores.

A group of bag makers and retailers had sued the city, arguing that a shift from plastic to paper bags would cause wider environmental damage. Two lower courts sided with the Save the Plastic Bag Coalition.

The state Supreme Court Thursday overturned those decisions, concluding that "substantial evidence and common sense support the city's determination that its ordinance would have no significant environmental effect."

Environmentalists praised the decision.

"We all want less plastic trash in San Francisco Bay and our oceans - now the court has given Bay Area cities a green light to act swiftly to end the era of the plastic bag in our region," said David Lewis, executive director of environmental group Save the Bay.

The decision has little impact on San Francisco, which enacted its ban on non-biodegradable plastic bags at supermarkets and chain drugstores in 2007, well before the Save the Plastic Bag Coalition was established.

But the case could change the course of bans in other Bay Area communities.

The Save the Plastic Bag Coalition has a similar lawsuit pending against Marin County, which in January passed a plastic bag ban in its unincorporated areas without an environmental review. With Thursday's ruling, Marin County Deputy Counsel David Zaltsman said his case only grows stronger.

"It simply doesn't make sense for these small jurisdictions to conduct environmental studies on the number of boat trips that will increase from China for additional paper bags," Zaltsman said.

San Carlos also believes the ruling precludes the need for an environmental study, which could cost the city upwards of $60,000, according to Mayor Andy Klein.

"The major hang-up for us has been the cost," Klein said. "Now we can debate the ordinance on the merits only."

Stephen Joseph, lawyer for the Save the Plastic Bag Coalition, doesn't see it that way. In his view, the court's opinion was applicable only to Manhattan Beach, and certainly not to bigger cities where the environmental impacts could be much larger.

Indeed, the court did note that environmental reviews may be necessary in some cases.

"The analysis would be different for a ban on plastic bags by a larger governmental body, which might precipitate a significant increase in paper bag consumption," the court stated.

7/3/11

If developer Dan Johnson and his team finally earn approval to revitalize a derelict lumber mill's 240-acre company town on the shores of Humboldt County they'll be building homes with first floors 32 feet above ground.

The state's scientific advisers expect rising sea levels will hasten most of the California coastline's eastward push as it combines with storms or tsunamis. They say the few extra feet through 2100 will slowly make beaches of bluffs and marshes of beaches.

From Crescent City to San Diego, state and local planning authorities have started telling developers to factor sea-level rise into project designs.

California's diverse coastal terrain means every spot needs a unique and costly adaptation, frustrating both environmentalists and coastal property owners. 

"There's a major tug between those who want to protect economic investment and those wanting to preserve natural habitat," said Curtis Fossum, the State Lands Commission's executive officer.

Environmentalists loathe the erection of sea walls, which tarnish prized beaches. Developers question overly cautious planning officials for relying on uncertain estimates. Builders only reluctantly agree to leave open low-lying coastal space that would otherwise generate profits.

A decade ago, Johnson began seeking clearance for his $100 million mixed-use town on the half-mile-wide Samoa peninsula just west of Eureka.

State studies show the tiny strip is susceptible to tsunamis. Three major ones have hit the northern coast in the past 60 years. Many scientists also say global climate change will bring more frequent storms of great intensity.

Tack sea level rise onto either tsunami or storm waves, and there's a potential of accelerated erosion and more severe coastal flooding. As a result, a $100,000 peer-reviewed study by Johnson's consultants found that permanent habitable space in the project must be 32 feet above ground to miss the brunt of tsunami waves – with a 3-foot sea rise included.

"It's not about letting people stay in their house, but about having something for them to come back to," Johnson said.

Town by town, as projects such as Johnson's come to the Coastal Commission's attention, the panel has forced local agencies to adopt a rule that all new projects consider sea level rise.

Advocates for protecting the coast say developers and regulators are playing a dangerous game by building so close to the ocean.

Former Sierra Club California coastal programs leader Mark Massara is skeptical that all of Johnson's project will remain usable by 2100.

In March, the state's Ocean Protection Council decided state agencies should prepare for a half-foot increase in sea level by 2030, just above a foot of rise by 2050 and nearly 5 feet of rise by 2100 if humans don't start drastically cutting greenhouse gas emissions.

A study undertaken by the state due at the end of year will reveal which areas of the coast are most at risk. It would cost $100 billion in 2000 dollars to replace existing coastal property in California, according to 2009 study for the state by the Pacific Institute.

Coastal landmarks like roads, golf courses and train tracks eventually may be relocated – lest they become crackers in oceanic soup.

Other property, such as the San Francisco International Airport, will need fortified levees. Groups such as Sierra Club California and the commission warn that levees and sea walls are costly and would destroy sandy beaches because they stop sand from being replenished by natural bluff erosion. Sea walls already line about a tenth of California's 1,100 miles of coast.

Whether it's sea walls, leaving property undeveloped or moving structures back, the precautions mean extra costs and lower returns for project promoters. It's a delicate compromise.

Humboldt County developer Kurt Kramer said as needed as they may be, the added burdens from the short-staffed Coastal Commission discourage construction.

"They win by making the economic model uneconomic," he said.

State officials said putting together plans and rules in place now is essential.

"If you build a roof over your house in July, you call it an expense," said Will Travis of the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission. "Come November, you view it as an investment."