News

Monitoring effort by volunteers with crowdsource funding

3/15/14

Scientists have crowdsourced a network of volunteers taking water samples at beaches along the West Coast in hopes of capturing a detailed look at low levels of radia­tion drifting across the ocean since the 2011 tsunami that devastated a nuclear power plant in Japan.

With the risk to public health extremely low, the effort is more about perfecting computer models that will better predict chemical and radiation spills in the future than bracing for a threat, researchers say.

Federal agencies are not sampling at the beach. Washington also does not test ocean water for radiation, said Washington Department of Health spokesman Donn Moyer. The state of Oregon is sampling, but looking for higher radiation levels closer to federal health stan­dards, said state health physicist Daryl Leon.

The March 2011 tsunami off Japan flooded the Fukushima Dai-Ichi nuclear plant, causing radiation­contaminated water to spill into the Pacific. Airborne radiation was detected in milk and rainwater in the U.S. soon afterward. But things move much more slowly in the ocean.

“We know there’s contaminated water coming out of there, even today,” Ken Buesseler, a senior scien­tist at the Woods Hole Oceano­graphic Institution in Massachu­setts, said in a video appealing for volunteers and contributions.

In fact, it is the biggest pulse of radioactive liquid dropped in the ocean ever, he said.

“What we don’t really know is how fast and how much is being trans­ported across the Pacific,” he added. “Yes, the models tell us it will be safe. Yes, the levels we expect off the coast of the U.S. and Canada are expected to be low. But we need measure­ments, especially now as the plume begins to arrive along the West Coast.”

In an email from Japan, Buesseler said he hopes the sampling will go on every two or three months for the next two to three years.

Two different models have been published in peer-reviewed scientif­ic journals predicting the spread of radioactive isotopes of cesium and iodine from Fukushima. One, known as Rossi et al, shows the lead­ing edge of the plume hitting the West Coast from southeast Alaska to Southern California by April. The other, known as Behrens et al, shows the plume hitting Southeast Alaska, British Columbia and Washington by March 2016.

The isotopes have been detected at very low levels at a Canadian sam­pling point far out to sea earlier than the models predicted, but not yet reported at the beach, said Kathryn A. Higley, head of the Department of Nuclear Engineering and Radia­tion Health Physics at Oregon State University. The Rossi model predicts levels a little higher than the fallout from nuclear weapons testing in the 1960s. The Behrens model predicts lower levels like those seen in the ocean in the 1990s, after the radia­tion had decayed and dissipated.

The models predict levels of Cesium 137 between 30 and 2 Becquerels per cubic meter of seawater by the time the plume reaches the West Coast, Higley said.

The federal drinking water health standard is 7,400 Becquerels per cubic meter, Leon said.

Becquerels are a measure of radioactivity.

The crowdsourcing raised $29,945 from 225 people, enough to establish about 30 sampling sites in Alaska, British Columbia, Washington and California, according to Woods Hole. The website so far has not reported any radiation.

Sara Gamble of Renton, Wash., the mother of a young child, raised $500 because she thinks it is important to know what is really going on. Woods Hole sent her a bucket, a funnel, a clipboard, a UPS shipping label, instructions and a big red plastic container for her sample. She went to Ocean Shores, Wash., a couple of weeks ago, collected her sample and shipped it off. No results have come back yet. To do another sample, she will have to raise another $500.

“I got lots of strange looks at the beach and the UPS Store, because it’s labeled ‘Center for Marine and Environmental Radioactivity,’ and it’s a big red bin,” she said. “But it’s funny; nobody would ask me anything out on the beach. I was like, ‘Aren’t you curious? Don’t you want to ask?”’ Taking the sample has allayed her initial fears, but she still thinks it is important to know “because it affects our ecosystems, kids love to play in the water at the beach, and I want to know what’s there.”

AP writer Phuong Le contributed to this story from Seattle.

Read Original Article

3/10/14
 
After nearly two hours of public testimony — most of it lambasting the recent activities of the Planning Commission — the Humboldt County Board of Supervisors today reached a rare and refreshing consensus on an issue pertaining to the general plan update: Sending part of it back to the Planning Commission was a bad idea.

“If I had to do it over, I wouldn’t have made that decision,” 5th District Supervisor Ryan Sundberg admitted.

On Jan. 13, the board voted 3-2 (with supervisors Mark Lovelace and Estelle Fennell dissenting) to send the entire Conservation and Open Space element back to the Planning Commission for a re-review. (A previous incarnation of the Planning Commission already reviewed that element in 2011 and submitted its recommendations to the board.)

In sending the element back for another look, the board gave planning commissioners 45 days to get through a “short list” of 13 goals and policies it felt needed reconsideration. However, the board also gave the commission leeway to delve into whichever other policies it saw fit.

By the time the 45-day window closed, the commission had only gotten through six of the 13 policies on the “short list,” and the public was riled up about the changes it did make — especially deleting language in support of a countywide trail system and reducing the size of wetland buffer zones.

“I truly thought it was going to be a quicker process, less controversial,” Sundberg continued this afternoon. “I watched some of the tapes of [Planning Commission meetings] and quickly realized that wasn’t going to happen.”

Fourth District Supervisor Virginia Bass chimed in next, saying she agreed with a public commenter who said the board should take responsibility for this phase of the general plan update. “I’m taking responsibility,” she said. “I thought it would work; it didn’t. It was a failed effort.”

With each special meeting costing between $900 and $928, according to staff, that failed effort cost close to $7,500 in scarce county funds.

Fennell, the county’s 2nd District supervisor, reminded folks that she didn’t want to send the element back in the first place, but she also defended the general plan work that the board has done thus far.

“I think we’ve done a very good job, in many instances reaching consensus and teasing things out to achieve the balance we’ve all been talking about,” Fennell said.

Fennell took some heat during the public comment period, with a number of speakers chastising her for appointing her former boss — and co-founder of property rights corporation HumCPR — Lee Ulansey Bob Morris to the Planning Commission. The other HumCPR co-founder, Bob Morris Lee Ulansey, also sits on the current Planning Commission, having been appointed by a majority of the board to an at-large position. Several speakers said both men should be removed.

Fennell wrapped up her comments by saying, “I think it’s important we take this plan back, take responsibility, do the job we were elected to do, and move forward.”

Lovelace chimed in next with a single word: “Agreed.” His brevity sparked appreciative laughter from the public.

“That’s basically what I was going to say,” added 1st District Supervisor Rex Bohn, who admitted that he, too, was wrong in voting to send the element back to the Planning Commission. “If I was 100 percent right I wouldn’t be sitting here; I’d be making sure you guys all got to keep your insurance,” he quipped. “But that’s not the way it works out.”

Before calling a 10-minute recess, Bohn waxed poetic, suggesting that for all the vitriol and controversy over this process, we noble Humboldtians aren’t so different after all. “All of us have little parcels of this earth we call home,” he said. He even went so far as to compliment some of his regular critics on their eloquence.

“The thing is, we agree on a lot of stuff,” Bohn declared. “The main thing [to keep] in mind is compassion for Humboldt and the respect for each other. I think we’re gonna do a lot better. You’ll look back 10 years from now, and we’re gonna be fine.”

And if something similar was said 10 years ago, the room was polite enough not to mention it.

The next Board of Supervisors hearing on the general plan is scheduled for March 24.

Read Original Article

3/8/14

Here on the North Coast of California, salmon and steelhead are an amazing renewable resource that have been integral to the social, spiritual and economic health of our region for thousands of years. Although most populations are currently listed as threatened or endangered species, there are still limited opportunities for tribal, commercial and sport fishers to enjoy the benefits of these fisheries.



Many other businesses that cater to the fishing industry also derive income and livelihoods.



After a century-plus legacy of watershed degradation and overfishing, concerted efforts by a diverse segment of our community have worked together to heal our watersheds in an attempt to restore salmon and steelhead fisheries. Restoration efforts have focused on reducing catch numbers and improving instream habitat.



These ongoing efforts require diligence and a long-term vision. If we are successful in restoring our fisheries, it is hard to exaggerate the ecological and economic benefits that future generations could enjoy.

The Humboldt County General Plan contains admirable goals which recognize the importance and economic value of healthy watersheds with abundant salmon and steelhead runs. A primary goal is to “maintain or restore biological resources for long-term public and economic benefits.” In regards to watershed protection, “riparian corridors will be protected from encroachment with development restrictions” with an “emphasis on the protection and restoration of endangered or threatened species.”



Sounds promising?



Unfortunately, in the past 45 days our Planning Commission moved to weaken the protection of fish-bearing streams in the General Plan Update. Within the plan’s conservation element, Standard BR-S5 defines a Streamside Management Area (SMA), or in lay terms a “streamside riparian buffer.” The SMA definition that the Planning Commission revised had been developed through an extensive review period and was based on current California Board of Forestry rules with the caveats that “the width of a SMA shall be expanded when supported by written evidence from the requesting referral agency” and “where Forest Practice Rules designate wider stream buffer areas, the widths of the SMA shall be expanded to be consistent with those regulations.”



Prior the Planning Commission’s revision of BR-S5, my main criticism of the SMA definition was the weaker standard placed on intermittent fish-bearing streams, a 50-foot buffer versus 150 feet. Seasonally, intermittent streams provide essential spawning and rearing habitat for coho salmon and steelhead. Given the current stressors of dry winters, a changing climate and un-permitted water extractions, many of our local streams that once flowed year-round are now intermittent. These streams need more protection, not less.



Based on the Planning Commission’s revisions to BR-S5 and a straw vote which approved these edits on Jan. 30, my additional concerns include: lack of compliance with Forest Practice Rules, a reduction of buffer widths on perennial streams, and a weakening of language regarding agency input (“shall” replaced with “may”). These changes rendered the General Plan’s SMA definition non­compliant with state and federal standards. If adopted, this definition of a SMA could jeopardize our fisheries and associated economic benefits.



I was pleasantly surprised when the Planning Commission reversed its straw vote and rejected the watered-down SMA definition at its Feb. 27 meeting. I sincerely would like to thank the three commissioners who voted to reject the revised SMA definition. At the same time, it’s discouraging to note that it took several meetings and diligent presentations by California Department of Fish and Wildlife scientist Gordon Leppig and others to convince several commissioners that reducing streamside protections would be unwise.



So what’s the next step? I suppose the SMA definition gets kicked back to the Board of Supervisors for them to decide its fate: maintain the current version or override the Planning Commission’s 3-3-1 vote and adopt the weakened, non-compliant version. This is where I would encourage you, the public, to voice your opinion. If you fish in the rivers or ocean for salmon and steelhead (as a tribal member, commercial fishermen, professional guide or sport-fisher) or run a business that derives income from the fishing industry, please let the Board of Supervisors know that you want adequate protection to streamside management areas in the General Plan. Let the supervisors know that they should take the necessary steps to foster salmon and steelhead recovery so that future generations of Humboldt County residents may also share in the benefits provided by viable fisheries.



Ross Taylor has worked locally as a fisheries biologist since 1986.

Read Original Article

3/7/14

Speaker after speaker spoke critically of the U.S. Navy's plan to train and test weapons along the North Coast, and expressed concerns over potential environmental impacts during a public meeting at the Red Lion Hotel in Eureka on Thursday.

”We want you to bring the message that we want no project, we want no testing. We want peace,” Northern Humboldt High School Trustee Dana Silvernale said.

During more than an hour of public comment, community members pleaded with the Navy to use simulations instead of active sonar testing, to consider the harm to marine life and to postpone the testing and training activities to explore other options. No one spoke in favor of the plan.

After each person -- including a woman dressed as a dolphin -- spoke, an audience of 120 applauded loudly and hollered cries of support. The Environmental Protection Information Center also circulated a petition.

One man, who served in the Navy for four years, said he fell in love with nature in the Navy when he heard mammals through the hull of a nuclear submarine.

”When we drove through schools of dolphins it sounded just like children playing in a school yard,” he said. “We cannot afford to lose .... dolphins and whales because boys want to play with their toys.”

Arcata resident Dave Meserve suggested the Navy use simulations instead.

”It's quite possible in this world of video games, in this world of advanced electronics, to do simulations,” Meserve said. “Why can't you simulate the active sonar and have them see exactly what would be going on, him or her, without putting the sound out there that's destroying or harassing marine life?”

During the five year-training, which is scheduled to begin in 2015, the Navy will test sonar technology, electromagnetic devices and explosives, and perform training exercises off the coasts of Northern California, Oregon, Washington and Alaska if the federal regulatory permits are renewed. Humboldt County is located at the tip of the training area.

The training is necessary to “protect the United States from its enemies, protect and defend the rights of the United States and its allies to move freely on the oceans, and provide humanitarian assistance and disaster relief to failed states,” according to the introduction of a draft environmental impact statement.

Public comment on the 2,000-page draft, which reviews the potential for environmental factors, including marine life, natural habitats and air quality, is due by March 25. The Humboldt County Board of Supervisors voted to send a letter to the Navy last week asking for the comment period to be extended.

The Navy is also seeking authorization from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration/National Marine Fisheries Service to perform training exercises and tests which may potentially kill, harass or harm marine mammals.

A final environmental impact statement is scheduled to be released to the public in the summer of 2015.

Read Original Article