7/28/11

The current moratorium on suction dredging in California's rivers and streams was extended another five years Tuesday, when Gov. Jerry Brown signed a bill that prohibits the controversial gold mining technique through June 2016.

Environmentalists called the bill – AB 120 – a victory for dwindling fisheries populations and taxpayers alike. In a statement released yesterday from the Center for Biological Diversity, Toxics and Endangered Species Campaign Director Jonathan Evans said the practice was harmful to animal life and damaging to historic Native American resources.

“This sensible law protects wildlife and waterways from toxic mercury and safeguards our cultural heritage,” Evans said in the statement. “California can’t afford to subsidize toxic mining that hurts our wildlife and our water.”

In addition to extending the current ban until new environmental regulations are adopted, AB 120 requires the California Department of Fish and Game to implement a new fee structure for dredging permits. Under the existing program, revenue generated by individual permit sales only amounted to $200,000, a fraction of the roughly $2 million needed to enforce the dredging, said Environmental Program Manager Mark Stopher.

Assuming the language in the bill can mesh with current restrictions from the California Environmental Quality Act, Stopher said fees would likely go up significantly before suction dredging took place again. Under the bill, the department cannot issue permits until they “fully mitigate all identified significant environmental impacts.”

“There are several different important areas for us to evaluate, one of them is the language of the bill,” Stopher said, adding that any movement by the department to establish new regulations will likely be hindered by a lack of available resources.

To date, Stopher said the department has spent more than $1.3 million of the $1.5 million allocated by the state to draft an Environmental Impact Report. Additional work on the project is currently on hold until meetings can be held to address the issue next week.

“Since there is no clear guidance on this yet, it's going to be pushed back a bit,” he said. “It's hard to imagine how you can conduct suction dredge mining and have no impacts at all.”

But mining supply shops like the Concord-based Gold Pan California continue to defend the practice, which involves handheld devices similar to vacuums that suck up sediment from the river bottom and deposit the material into sluice boxes above. Supporters, including Sen. Ted Gaines, R-Roseville, say the dredging brings in thousands of dollars to mining towns dependent on tourism dollars to survive, and represents an integral part of the state's history.

Environmental groups, meanwhile, say suction dredging is damaging to fisheries already on the decline. Craig Tucker, a spokesman for the Karuk Indian Tribe in Northern California, said the bill was a “big victory” for both fish populations and communities that rely on them.

“But it's also a victory for taxpayers,” said Tucker, adding that after a budget that included cuts to a variety of services was passed last month, people can take solace in the fact they will no longer have to subsidize dredging.

Read Full Article

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.