Salmon habitat and water quality: Every Oregonian has a stake in stream protection

8/5/11

The Oregonian's editorial "Timber country and you" (July 24) places the interest of the timber industry above the public's interest in clean water, wild salmon and healthy watersheds. The editorial ignored what science tells us about the impact of logging roads on the survival of wild salmon.

Those roads and stream crossings discharge large amounts of sediment pollution into salmon streams, degrading habitat and creating an impediment to the recovery of salmon across the West. A 2008 study prepared for the EPA confirmed that poorly maintained logging roads increase mortality of adult and juvenile salmon by increasing the amount of fine sediment in streams.

The recent decision by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, NEDC v. Brown, is a major step forward in addressing this long-standing problem. That decision will require the timber industry to get permits where they are discharging polluted stormwater from active logging roads directly to a river through a ditch or culvert. The permit program will apply to a small subset of logging roads that have the worst impacts on salmon habitat.

The court's decision in no way threatens the 25,100 jobs directly related to the timber industry (numbers from the Oregon Employment Department that conflict with the number of 125,000 claimed in the editorial). In response to the court's decision, a state-led permitting program would let local agencies such as Oregon's Department of Environmental Quality design permits for logging roads that take into account local conditions and proximity to salmon streams. The permitting process could recognize that the public has an interest in this issue and build in adequate accountability and transparency. Similar permit programs have been implemented all over the country for numerous industries, none of which have suffered dramatic job losses as a result.

Every Oregonian has a personal stake in clean water and salmon. We are investing billions of dollars in salmon recovery while at the same time we are being told to ignore one of the impediments to that goal. But it is more than just salmon recovery that is at stake; salmon-dependent communities and economies are also at risk.

The decision by the 9th Circuit Court will bring a long overdue measure of balance between two resource-extracting industries: timber harvesting and salmon fisheries. But there are those who oppose a balance and want to tilt the advantage back to the timber industry and let the salmon fisheries continue to bear the cost. Sen. Ron Wyden's proposed Clean Water Act exemption for the timber industry is clearly an attempt to circumvent the 9th Circuit's ruling and prevent any semblance of balance. It is an attempt to maintain the status quo, which has a century-long history of salmon impoverishment. It's the wrong policy and unfair to salmon-dependent communities and unfair to Oregon citizens who are spending so much of their time and money to recover local runs of native salmon.

Through its long history, The Oregonian's editorials have generally supported salmon, their wise management and their recovery. But in this case, it appears politics trumped science to the detriment of healthy rivers and salmon, both of which are important to the citizens of Oregon.

Chris Winter is an environmental attorney with the Crag Law Center who worked on the NEDC v. Brown case before the 9th Circuit. Bill Bakke is the executive director of the Native Fish Society. Jim Lichatowich is a fisheries biologist and author of the book "Salmon Without Rivers -- A History of the Pacific Salmon Crisis."

Read Original Article

The Plastic Bag Wars

7/25/11

The world consumes 1 million plastic shopping bags every minute - and the industry is fighting hard to keep it that way

American shoppers use an estimated 102 billion plastic shopping bags each year — more than 500 per consumer. Named by Guinness World Records as "the most ubiquitous consumer item in the world," the ultrathin bags have become a leading source of pollution worldwide. They litter the world's beaches, clog city sewers, contribute to floods in developing countries and fuel a massive flow of plastic waste that is killing wildlife from sea turtles to camels. "The plastic bag has come to represent the collective sins of the age of plastic," says Susan Freinkel, author of Plastic: A Toxic Love Story.

Many countries have instituted tough new rules to curb the use of plastic bags. Some, like China, have issued outright bans. Others, including many European nations, have imposed stiff fees to pay for the mess created by all the plastic trash. "There is simply zero justification for manufacturing them anymore, anywhere," the United Nations Environment Programme recently declared. But in the United States, the plastics industry has launched a concerted campaign to derail and defeat anti-bag measures nationwide. The effort includes well-placed political donations, intensive lobbying at both the state and national levels, and a pervasive PR campaign designed to shift the focus away from plastic bags to the supposed threat of canvas and paper bags — including misleading claims that reusable bags "could" contain bacteria and unsafe levels of lead.

"It's just like Big Tobacco," says Amy Westervelt, founding editor of Plastic Free Times, a website sponsored by the nonprofit Plastic Pollution Coalition. "They're using the same underhanded tactics — and even using the same lobbying firm that Philip Morris started and bankrolled in the Nineties. Their sole aim is to maintain the status quo and protect their profits. They will stop at nothing to suppress or discredit science that clearly links chemicals in plastic to negative impacts on human, animal and environmental health."

Made from high-density polyethylene — a byproduct of oil and natural gas — the single-use shopping bag was invented by a Swedish company in the mid-Sixties and brought to the U.S. by ExxonMobil. Introduced to grocery-store checkout lines in 1976, the "T-shirt bag," as it is known in the industry, can now be found literally everywhere on the planet, from the bottom of the ocean to the peaks of Mount Everest. The bags are durable, waterproof, cheaper to produce than paper bags and able to carry 1,000 times their own weight. They are also a nightmare to recycle: The flimsy bags, many thinner than a strand of human hair, gum up the sorting equipment used by most recycling facilities. "Plastic bags and other thin-film plastic is the number-one enemy of the equipment we use," says Jeff Murray, vice president of Far West Fibers, the largest recycler in Oregon. "More than 300,000 plastic bags are removed from our machines every day — and since most of the removal has to be done by hand, that means more than 25 percent of our labor costs involves plastic-bag removal."

The initial resistance to plastic bags came from manufacturers of paper bags, who saw them as a major threat. Environmentalists took up the cause of eliminating single-use bags in the 1990s, but they made little headway until a sailor and researcher named Charles Moore passed through the North Pacific Gyre in 1997 and drew international attention to the vast flood of plastic trash polluting the world's oceans.

The first nationwide ban was enacted a decade ago in Bangladesh, after plastic bags clogged storm drains and caused massive floods. China issued a top-down order banning plastic bags in June 2008 — just two months before it hosted the Olympics — in an effort to reduce the amount of "white pollution." Even though the ban is openly flouted by street vendors, it has still made a tremendous impact: In the first year alone, China decreased its use of plastic bags by two-thirds, eliminating some 40 billion bags — a move that saved the energy equivalent of 11.7 million barrels of oil.

The Indian city of Delhi boasts some of the world's most aggressive legislation on plastic bags, not only fining individual users and businesses that hand out the bags but also threatening jail time for offenders and plastic-bag manufacturers. This year, Italy became the first European country to issue a nationwide ban on plastic bags, while Ireland places a 15-cent fee on every bag — a move that reduced usage by 90 percent in the first three months. All told, 25 percent of the world's population now lives in areas with bans or fees on plastic bags.

While other nations have effectively cracked down on plastic bags, the U.S. government has left local communities to fend for themselves. In 2007, San Francisco became the first American city to ban plastic bags, and Washington, D.C., has imposed a five-cent fee per bag, cutting monthly use from 22.5 million bags to barely 3 million. Unlike attacks on plastic products such as Styrofoam, which were orchestrated by well-known environmental groups, the fight against plastic bags has been led for the most part by community organizers and concerned citizens who put pressure on their local businesses and governments. In recent years, a growing number of U.S. communities — from 30 townships in Alaska to the Outer Banks of North Carolina — have introduced some 200 anti-bag measures.

The widespread mobilization against plastic bags has sparked a counterattack by the plastics industry, which was slow to react to the rising tide of negative sentiment among consumers. Leading the charge to protect the plastic bag is the American Chemistry Council, an industry group whose members include petro-chemical giants like ExxonMobil and Dow Chemical. With 125 employees and more than $120 million in annual revenues, the ACC and its members are using their deep pockets and extensive political connections to overturn bans on plastic bags, cast doubt on legitimate scientific studies and even file lawsuits against anti-bag activists. The council, which spent $8 million on lobbying alone last year, has also put together a front group called the Progressive Bag Affiliates, made up of top bag manufacturers like Hilex Poly, Superbag and Unistar Plastics.

Huffington Post

8/4/11

That title -- as a statement -- should be a no-brainer. Water makes up 60% of our body, 70% of our brain, and 80% of our blood; clean water certainly DOES matter. And who can argue against everyone's right to clean water for swimming, drinking, and fishing?

It turns out that some members of Congress DO take exception to that statement. In fact, Congress lately has been hell bent on eviscerating a hallmark piece of American environmental legislation -- the Clean Water Act. This law, which serves as a model for environmental legislation world wide, has been responsible for revitalizing streams, creeks, rivers, lakes, and bays across the nation, including iconic waterways like the Hudson River, which -- due to catastrophic pollution -- was a national laughingstock in the 1960s. The Clean Water Act is the most effective tool we have to protect our right to clean water. And now the Act is under assault.

You may know that this July, the House of Representatives passed H.R. 2018, which would strip EPA's powers to set national clean water standards and set up a race to the bottom for polluter friendly states to court irresponsible industry. H.R. 2018 is the most audacious attempt by Congress to gut the Clean Water Act and attack our right to clean water. Communities across the country are rallying to ensure the Senate isn't as short-sighted as our representatives. And fortunately, President Obama has threatened to veto the legislation.

Yet, the attacks don't stop there. The polluters' lackeys in Congress are serious about dismantling environmental protection, and are attacking our clean water protections from multiple angles. For example, The U.S. Senate Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry Committee approved H.R. 872, a bill euphemistically entitled "the Reducing Regulatory Burdens Act of 2011", that will allow polluters to spray pesticides in our waters without offering the protection of the Clean Water Act, despite a court ruling indicating that the such activities would require a Clean Water Act permit from the EPA. Additionally, the bipartisan H.R. 2541 -- "The Silviculture Regulatory Consistency Act" -- would exempt from the Clean Water Act water pollution from logging activities -- again contravening a court ruling that a Clean Water Act permit is required.

Despite the successes of the Clean Water Act, many of our waterways remain in decline. Critics -- and by critics, I mean those in the employ of polluting industries -- point to these declines as demonstrated failures of the Clean Water Act. It's an interesting point of view, as the decline in water quality in these examples is due, most commonly, to industry efforts to avoid compliance with the law, and a failure of local authorities to enforce environmental laws, including the Clean Water Act. If anything, these declines prove that the time is now to strengthen the Act and step up enforcement, rather than eviscerate the law ensuring that our waters stay safe. Everyone has the right to clean water for swimming, fishing, and drinking.

On October 18, 2012, the Clean Water Act turns 40-years-old. We have just over one year as a nation to decide if we truly believe in everyone's basic and fundamental right to clean water. To show that clean water matters, you'll need to call your Congressperson, and urge them to protect your rights, not the rights of corporate polluters. It's important that you do this, and that you motivate the people you know to do the same.

The health of the environment, the health of the people and the health of our economies are tightly interwoven. If the people win this battle, we will reject the false choice between economic development and environmental protection that some members of Congress are pushing. If the people win this battle, we ensure our own health and our nation's economic growth. But, if polluters and their political cronies win this battle, we allow the industries that pollute the most to take control of our destiny. We not only say goodbye to 40 years of progress, we say goodbye to our future.

Read Original Article

Brown extends ban on suction dredging for gold

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

County warns of blue-green algae poisoning

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.

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.