2012-02-10 "EPA bans ships from dumping waste off state coast" by Peter Fimrite from "San Francisco Chronicle"
[http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2012/02/09/BA2J1N5AAP.DTL]
A
federal rule banning ships from flushing their sewage into the sea
within 3 miles of the California coast was approved Thursday by the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency.
The prohibition, which will go
into effect next month, means cruise and cargo ships will no longer be
able to discharge treated or untreated effluent or gray water anywhere
along the coast, a practice that regulators blame for spreading bacteria
and disease in marine mammals, fish and people.
The new rule
will create the largest coastal no-sewage zone in the nation, covering
the entire 1,624 mile coast from Mexico to Oregon 3 miles out into the
ocean. It is expected to prevent the dumping of 22.5 million gallons
annually of ship waste, a good portion of which has historically oozed
into San Francisco Bay.
"This is a problem that has been going on
from the time boats first started coming" to California, said Jared
Blumenfeld, the EPA's regional administrator, after signing the rule.
"What we are really doing is creating a coastal zone that recognizes the
importance of our beaches, surfing, swimming and the reason people come
to our iconic coastline."
Millions of visitors -
More
than 150,000 cruise ship passengers visit San Francisco each year in
about 50 mostly luxury vessels, often with their toilet tanks full to
the brim. Another 2,000 container ships steam through the Golden Gate.
Statewide, nearly 2 million ship passengers annually visit California's shores.
The
rule would make it illegal for ships or other oceangoing vessels larger
than 300 tons to disperse treated or untreated sewage within 3 miles of
the coast and inland waterways, including San Francisco Bay, the
Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta, San Pedro Bay, San Diego Bay, Santa
Cruz Harbor and Humboldt Bay.
The U.S. Coast Guard will be
responsible for enforcement, but state regulators will also have
authority to enforce the rules. The EPA can impose stiff fines and
penalties on offenders.
The fact that ships are still allowed to
dump sewage along the California coast may come as a surprise to some
folks, particularly after repeated beach closures and polluted-water
warnings over the years.
The law has, in fact, been in the works
for a long time. Ten no-discharge zones were established in small
pristine areas, including San Diego Bay and Richardson Bay, in Marin
County, between 1976 and 1987.
Four national marine sanctuaries,
including the Farallones National Marine Sanctuary, a national monument,
portions of six national parks and recreation areas, and more than 200
other marine reserves and protected areas have banned sewage dumping in
their jurisdictions.
California enacted measures barring large,
oceangoing ships from discharging bilge water or "gray water" from sinks
and dishwashers within 3 miles of the coastline beginning in 2003.
Then, in 2005, a bill authored by State Sen. Joe Simitian, D-Palo Alto,
became law, prohibiting the dumping of sewage sludge and hazardous
wastes in state waters.
EPA jurisdiction -
The
problem was that the state didn't have the authority to enforce the law
without approval from the EPA, which enforces the federal Clean Water
Act. That meant the no-sludge zones were virtually unenforceable. The
new EPA rule enforces the state law.
Cruise and merchant vessel
owners insist they have complied with the 3-mile "no-discharge zone" for
the better part of a decade, and some claim they expel wastewater only
when they are 12 miles out. Still, the regulatory ambiguity made it
possible for ship captains to expel the waste at their whim.
The
final rule received widespread support from the shipping industry after
it was simplified. The EPA estimates up to 40 percent of large passenger
vessels would need to spend $200,000 each to retrofit their holding
tanks.
Regulators said they hope other states follow
California's lead and implement ship-sewage bans. Regulations are
already in the works in Hawaii, Puget Sound and in the Great Lakes, said
Marcie Keever, the oceans and vessels project director for Friends of
the Earth.
"What California has done is unprecedented and we
really hope this will push other places to consider it," Keever said. It
means "cruise lines and the shipping industry can no longer use
California's valuable coastal and bay waters as their toilet."
Friday, February 10, 2012
Thursday, February 9, 2012
2012-02-09 "Feds Approve California Sewage Ban and Create Largest Coastal No-Discharge Zone in the Nation; Federal action is unprecedented in geographical scope, will prohibit the discharge of more than 22 million gallons of treated vessel sewage to shorelines and shallow waters in Calif. each year"
[http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/0/6035B8468136FC558525799F00465111]
SAN FRANCISCO – U.S. EPA’s Pacific Southwest Regional Administrator Jared Blumenfeld will today sign a rule that will finalize EPA’s decision and approve a state proposal to ban all sewage discharges from large cruise ships and most other large ocean-going ships to state marine waters along California’s 1,624 mile coast from Mexico to Oregon and surrounding major islands. Today’s action establishes a new federal regulation banning even treated sewage from being discharged in California’s marine waters.
"This is an important step to protect California's coastline. I want to commend the shipping industry, environmental groups and U.S. EPA for working with California to craft a common sense approach to keeping our coastal waters clean." said Gov. Jerry Brown.
"By approving California's 'No Discharge Zone,' EPA will prohibit more than 20 million gallons of vessel sewage from entering the state's coastal waters," said Jared Blumenfeld. "Not only will this rule help protect important marine species, it also benefits the fishing industry, marine habitats and the millions of residents and tourists who visit California beaches each year."
This action strengthens protection of California’s coastal waters from the adverse effects of sewage discharges from a growing number of large vessels. Several dozen cruise ships make multiple California port calls each year while nearly 2,000 cargo ships made over 9,000 California port calls in 2010 alone. EPA estimates that the rule will prohibit the discharge of over 22 million of the 25 million gallons of treated vessel sewage generated by large vessels in California marine waters each year, which could greatly reduce the contribution of pollutants still found in treated vessel sewage.
State Senator Joe Simitian (D-Palo Alto) authored Senate Bill 771, the Clean Coast Act which prohibits all commercial ships from dumping hazardous waste, sewage sludge, oily bilge water, “gray water” from sinks and showers, and sewage in state waters. Simitian’s SB 771 also required California to petition the federal government for a ‘No Discharge Zone’ to enforce the bill’s anti-dumping provisions.
"This is a great day for the California coast, which is far too precious a resource to be used as a dumping ground," said Simitian. "This ‘No Discharge Zone’ – the largest in the nation – protects our coastal economy, our environment and our public health."
"California's coastal waters will no longer serve as a sewage pond for big ships," said Cal/EPA Secretary Matthew Rodriquez. "For too long, pollution from these vessels has endangered our marine environment, jeopardized public health and threatened the coastal communities that rely on recreation and tourism dollars. I commend U.S. EPA for helping us ensure that our coastline remains pristine."
California’s coastal waters are home to a wide variety of unique, nationally important marine environments that support rich biological communities and a wide range of recreational and commercial activities. Four national marine sanctuaries, a national monument, portions of six national parks and recreation areas, and more than 200 other marine reserves and protected areas have been established to protect California’s unique marine resources. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration has already implemented similar vessel sewage discharge bans in the four California marine sanctuaries that it oversees. Recreational and commercial uses of California’s coastal waters are equally important. Seventy-seven percent of the State’s population lives on or near the coast and annually, over 150 million visitor-days are spent at California beaches. California ranks first in the nation as a travel destination and its beaches are the leading destination for tourists. California’s commercial fishing industry also relies upon clean water to help preserve and restore coastal fisheries.
Under the Clean Water Act, states may request EPA to establish vessel sewage no-discharge zones if necessary to protect and restore water quality. In 2006, following passage of three state statutes designed to reduce the effects of vessel discharges to its waters, the State of California asked EPA to establish the sewage discharge ban. After releasing the proposed rule in 2010, EPA considered some 2,000 comment letters from members of the public, environmental groups, and the shipping industry before finalizing the regulation.
"California's economic health is tied to the health of our oceans and beaches," said Charles Hoppin, Chair of the State Water Resources Control Board. "Pollution from cargo and cruise ships directly threatens public health, marine life and our economy. This led to our request to declare the whole coastline a no discharge zone so that we could provide equal water pollution protection along our precious coastline."
Today’s prohibition is unprecedented in geographical scope. In contrast to prior no-discharge zones under the Clean Water Act, which apply in very small areas, the new ban applies to all coastal waters out to 3 miles from the coastline and all bays and estuaries subject to tidal influence. Other California no discharge zones for ten bays and marinas remain in effect for all vessels.
"Big ships make for big pollution but unfortunately, responsible disposal of sewage from ships hasn’t always been a given in California," said Marcie Keever, oceans and vessels project director at Friends of the Earth. "The actions taken today by the U.S. EPA, the State of California, and the thousands of Californians who supported the Clean Coast Act mean that cruise lines and the shipping industry can no longer use California’s valuable coastal and bay waters as their toilet."
Consistent with the State’s request, today’s prohibition applies to all passenger ships larger than 300 tons and to all other oceangoing vessels larger than 300 tons with sewage holding tank capacity.
"The Pacific Merchant Shipping Association shares the concern for protection of California’s marine environment. Our member companies are dedicated to the facilitation of trade while also minimizing any associated environmental impacts," said John Berge, Vice President of the Pacific Merchant Shipping Association.
In addition to today’s discharge prohibition, other vessel sewage discharges will continue to be regulated under existing Clean Water Act requirements, which generally require sewage to be treated by approved marine sanitation devices prior to discharge. The State is also continuing to implement and strengthen other efforts to address sewage discharges from smaller vessels, including recreational boats, to state waters.
EPA’s action complements our ongoing ocean protection efforts including strengthening the existing Vessel General Permit, development of a Vessel General Permit for smaller vessels, and our efforts to reduce marine debris such as plastics and other human-generated debris. The California No Discharge Zone will be submitted today to the Federal Register and be published within 3-5 business days.
To view the electronic media kit for this announcement including photos and a copy of the final rule please visit: http://www.epa.gov/region9/mediacenter/nodischarge
For more information on this and other no-discharge zones in California, and Clean Water Act programs to address vessel discharges and marine debris, please visit EPA’s website at:
http://www.epa.gov/region9/water/no-discharge
http://www.epa.gov/owow/oceans/regulatory/vesseldisch.html
http://www.epa.gov/region9/marine-debris
[http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/0/6035B8468136FC558525799F00465111]
SAN FRANCISCO – U.S. EPA’s Pacific Southwest Regional Administrator Jared Blumenfeld will today sign a rule that will finalize EPA’s decision and approve a state proposal to ban all sewage discharges from large cruise ships and most other large ocean-going ships to state marine waters along California’s 1,624 mile coast from Mexico to Oregon and surrounding major islands. Today’s action establishes a new federal regulation banning even treated sewage from being discharged in California’s marine waters.
"This is an important step to protect California's coastline. I want to commend the shipping industry, environmental groups and U.S. EPA for working with California to craft a common sense approach to keeping our coastal waters clean." said Gov. Jerry Brown.
"By approving California's 'No Discharge Zone,' EPA will prohibit more than 20 million gallons of vessel sewage from entering the state's coastal waters," said Jared Blumenfeld. "Not only will this rule help protect important marine species, it also benefits the fishing industry, marine habitats and the millions of residents and tourists who visit California beaches each year."
This action strengthens protection of California’s coastal waters from the adverse effects of sewage discharges from a growing number of large vessels. Several dozen cruise ships make multiple California port calls each year while nearly 2,000 cargo ships made over 9,000 California port calls in 2010 alone. EPA estimates that the rule will prohibit the discharge of over 22 million of the 25 million gallons of treated vessel sewage generated by large vessels in California marine waters each year, which could greatly reduce the contribution of pollutants still found in treated vessel sewage.
State Senator Joe Simitian (D-Palo Alto) authored Senate Bill 771, the Clean Coast Act which prohibits all commercial ships from dumping hazardous waste, sewage sludge, oily bilge water, “gray water” from sinks and showers, and sewage in state waters. Simitian’s SB 771 also required California to petition the federal government for a ‘No Discharge Zone’ to enforce the bill’s anti-dumping provisions.
"This is a great day for the California coast, which is far too precious a resource to be used as a dumping ground," said Simitian. "This ‘No Discharge Zone’ – the largest in the nation – protects our coastal economy, our environment and our public health."
"California's coastal waters will no longer serve as a sewage pond for big ships," said Cal/EPA Secretary Matthew Rodriquez. "For too long, pollution from these vessels has endangered our marine environment, jeopardized public health and threatened the coastal communities that rely on recreation and tourism dollars. I commend U.S. EPA for helping us ensure that our coastline remains pristine."
California’s coastal waters are home to a wide variety of unique, nationally important marine environments that support rich biological communities and a wide range of recreational and commercial activities. Four national marine sanctuaries, a national monument, portions of six national parks and recreation areas, and more than 200 other marine reserves and protected areas have been established to protect California’s unique marine resources. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration has already implemented similar vessel sewage discharge bans in the four California marine sanctuaries that it oversees. Recreational and commercial uses of California’s coastal waters are equally important. Seventy-seven percent of the State’s population lives on or near the coast and annually, over 150 million visitor-days are spent at California beaches. California ranks first in the nation as a travel destination and its beaches are the leading destination for tourists. California’s commercial fishing industry also relies upon clean water to help preserve and restore coastal fisheries.
Under the Clean Water Act, states may request EPA to establish vessel sewage no-discharge zones if necessary to protect and restore water quality. In 2006, following passage of three state statutes designed to reduce the effects of vessel discharges to its waters, the State of California asked EPA to establish the sewage discharge ban. After releasing the proposed rule in 2010, EPA considered some 2,000 comment letters from members of the public, environmental groups, and the shipping industry before finalizing the regulation.
"California's economic health is tied to the health of our oceans and beaches," said Charles Hoppin, Chair of the State Water Resources Control Board. "Pollution from cargo and cruise ships directly threatens public health, marine life and our economy. This led to our request to declare the whole coastline a no discharge zone so that we could provide equal water pollution protection along our precious coastline."
Today’s prohibition is unprecedented in geographical scope. In contrast to prior no-discharge zones under the Clean Water Act, which apply in very small areas, the new ban applies to all coastal waters out to 3 miles from the coastline and all bays and estuaries subject to tidal influence. Other California no discharge zones for ten bays and marinas remain in effect for all vessels.
"Big ships make for big pollution but unfortunately, responsible disposal of sewage from ships hasn’t always been a given in California," said Marcie Keever, oceans and vessels project director at Friends of the Earth. "The actions taken today by the U.S. EPA, the State of California, and the thousands of Californians who supported the Clean Coast Act mean that cruise lines and the shipping industry can no longer use California’s valuable coastal and bay waters as their toilet."
Consistent with the State’s request, today’s prohibition applies to all passenger ships larger than 300 tons and to all other oceangoing vessels larger than 300 tons with sewage holding tank capacity.
"The Pacific Merchant Shipping Association shares the concern for protection of California’s marine environment. Our member companies are dedicated to the facilitation of trade while also minimizing any associated environmental impacts," said John Berge, Vice President of the Pacific Merchant Shipping Association.
In addition to today’s discharge prohibition, other vessel sewage discharges will continue to be regulated under existing Clean Water Act requirements, which generally require sewage to be treated by approved marine sanitation devices prior to discharge. The State is also continuing to implement and strengthen other efforts to address sewage discharges from smaller vessels, including recreational boats, to state waters.
EPA’s action complements our ongoing ocean protection efforts including strengthening the existing Vessel General Permit, development of a Vessel General Permit for smaller vessels, and our efforts to reduce marine debris such as plastics and other human-generated debris. The California No Discharge Zone will be submitted today to the Federal Register and be published within 3-5 business days.
To view the electronic media kit for this announcement including photos and a copy of the final rule please visit: http://www.epa.gov/region9/mediacenter/nodischarge
For more information on this and other no-discharge zones in California, and Clean Water Act programs to address vessel discharges and marine debris, please visit EPA’s website at:
http://www.epa.gov/region9/water/no-discharge
http://www.epa.gov/owow/oceans/regulatory/vesseldisch.html
http://www.epa.gov/region9/marine-debris
Sunday, February 5, 2012
2012-02-05 "California's water myths and facts" by Doug Obegi from "San Francisco Chronicle"
[http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2012/02/05/INFM1N16KJ.DTL]
Doug Obegi is a staff attorney with the Natural Resources Defense Council.
---
Over the past decade, fishermen, farmers, politicians and conservation groups have struggled over trying to balance how much water can be diverted from the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta estuary with how best to protect California's native fish. This year, California faces momentous decisions on plans to manage and restore the delta, and on whether to build a peripheral canal to divert water around the delta for cities and farms. Californians must make sure those decisions are based on facts.
Yet, pervasive myths about California water make it difficult for the public to make informed decisions. Here are three facts and three myths about the delta:
Can you tell truth from fiction?
1. Northern Californians don't get their water from the delta, so we shouldn't care what happens.
2. Even with stronger restrictions on pumping to protect salmon and other native fish, the state and federal water projects divert as much water from the delta as they did from 1980 to 2000.
3. As many jobs were lost from closing California's salmon fishery in 2009 as were lost in farming communities from restricting pumping to protect fish.
4. Despite increasing flows to protect fish over the past two decades, delta fish populations continue to decline.
5. Most of the water pumped from the delta goes to Southern California lawns and swimming pools.
6. California can divert less water from the delta and still meet its water needs by investing in water efficiency, water recycling and improved groundwater and storm water management.
Answers:
1. False. While San Francisco does not receive water from the delta, the city's water does come from the Tuolumne River, part of the delta watershed. In addition, parts of Contra Costa, Alameda, Santa Clara and San Mateo counties depend on delta water. Northern California's $250 million per year salmon fishery (including the fishing boats tied up at San Francisco's Fisherman's Wharf and the tourists that visit them), depend on the health of the delta.
2. True. As much water is diverted from the delta on average today as before the historically high pumping levels of the 2000s devastated the delta ecosystem, according to the state Department of Water Resources and the Public Policy Institute of California.
3. True. Despite wildly inflated myths, studies by economists from the state, UC Davis and University of the Pacific show that California's fishing industry lost about as many jobs as did the farming industry when pumping was restricted during the 2009 drought to protect fish.
4. False. Since pumping has been reduced, populations of delta smelt have rebounded dramatically, and salmon populations have also increased.
5. False. Nearly half of the water exported from the delta is for agribusiness. Thanks to improved efficiency, Los Angeles uses as much water today as it did 25 years ago, despite adding 1 million residents, and Orange County has one of the largest water recycling plants in the nation. Even so, improved water-use efficiency could create trillions of gallons of new water each year for cities and agriculture.
6. True. Modeling by the state Department of Water Resources shows that the new water sources available by investing in water efficiency and recycling is more water than California has ever exported from the delta. Urban water managers know this; the City of Los Angeles plans to meet its water needs by investing in these tools, while simultaneously cutting its use of delta water in half.
[http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2012/02/05/INFM1N16KJ.DTL]
Doug Obegi is a staff attorney with the Natural Resources Defense Council.
---
Over the past decade, fishermen, farmers, politicians and conservation groups have struggled over trying to balance how much water can be diverted from the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta estuary with how best to protect California's native fish. This year, California faces momentous decisions on plans to manage and restore the delta, and on whether to build a peripheral canal to divert water around the delta for cities and farms. Californians must make sure those decisions are based on facts.
Yet, pervasive myths about California water make it difficult for the public to make informed decisions. Here are three facts and three myths about the delta:
Can you tell truth from fiction?
1. Northern Californians don't get their water from the delta, so we shouldn't care what happens.
2. Even with stronger restrictions on pumping to protect salmon and other native fish, the state and federal water projects divert as much water from the delta as they did from 1980 to 2000.
3. As many jobs were lost from closing California's salmon fishery in 2009 as were lost in farming communities from restricting pumping to protect fish.
4. Despite increasing flows to protect fish over the past two decades, delta fish populations continue to decline.
5. Most of the water pumped from the delta goes to Southern California lawns and swimming pools.
6. California can divert less water from the delta and still meet its water needs by investing in water efficiency, water recycling and improved groundwater and storm water management.
Answers:
1. False. While San Francisco does not receive water from the delta, the city's water does come from the Tuolumne River, part of the delta watershed. In addition, parts of Contra Costa, Alameda, Santa Clara and San Mateo counties depend on delta water. Northern California's $250 million per year salmon fishery (including the fishing boats tied up at San Francisco's Fisherman's Wharf and the tourists that visit them), depend on the health of the delta.
2. True. As much water is diverted from the delta on average today as before the historically high pumping levels of the 2000s devastated the delta ecosystem, according to the state Department of Water Resources and the Public Policy Institute of California.
3. True. Despite wildly inflated myths, studies by economists from the state, UC Davis and University of the Pacific show that California's fishing industry lost about as many jobs as did the farming industry when pumping was restricted during the 2009 drought to protect fish.
4. False. Since pumping has been reduced, populations of delta smelt have rebounded dramatically, and salmon populations have also increased.
5. False. Nearly half of the water exported from the delta is for agribusiness. Thanks to improved efficiency, Los Angeles uses as much water today as it did 25 years ago, despite adding 1 million residents, and Orange County has one of the largest water recycling plants in the nation. Even so, improved water-use efficiency could create trillions of gallons of new water each year for cities and agriculture.
6. True. Modeling by the state Department of Water Resources shows that the new water sources available by investing in water efficiency and recycling is more water than California has ever exported from the delta. Urban water managers know this; the City of Los Angeles plans to meet its water needs by investing in these tools, while simultaneously cutting its use of delta water in half.
Saturday, February 4, 2012
2012-02-04 "Court: Sierra logging plan left out impact on fish" by Bob Egelko from "San Francisco Chronicle"
[http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2012/02/03/BAMJ1N307K.DTL]
The Bush administration's decision in 2004 to dramatically expand logging in Sierra forests throughout California, as a means of fire protection, failed to analyze the potential impact on numerous species of fish, a federal appeals court ruled Friday.
The U.S. Forest Service violated environmental laws by omitting from its public report any reference to the effect of increased logging and road-building on fish in the mountain streams, including nine species listed as threatened or endangered, said the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco.
The 2-1 ruling does not require an immediate halt to any tree-cutting or other work authorized by the so-called 2004 Framework for 11.5 million acres in 11 national forests.
But it means the Obama administration, which is in the process of revising individual forest plans, will have to take a closer look at the impact of current and future Sierra projects on fish and watersheds, said the Pacific Rivers Council, which sued in 2005 to challenge the adequacy of the government's environmental report.
"The Forest Service shirked its duty to tell the public up front specifically how its large-scale plans will affect sensitive aquatic species," the council's lawyer, Brian Gaffney, said in a statement.
"The court's ruling means fish won't get short shrift on the next go-round," said Mary Scurlock, a consultant for the council.
The Forest Service declined to comment. Timber industry lawyers who supported the 2004 plan were unavailable for comment.
But the ruling dismayed a lawyer for the Quincy Library Group, a coalition of businesses, loggers and local environmentalists that is authorized by federal law to work on management plans for the Lassen and Plumas national forests and some Lake Tahoe-area woodlands.
"This ruling will probably delay the ability to thin the forests" and will increase the fire danger, said the attorney, Michael B. Jackson, who backed the 2004 Framework in court proceedings.
The framework more than tripled the amount of logging authorized by a plan adopted in the final weeks of the Clinton administration. It also allowed the cutting of larger trees and of more trees near streams, and greatly increased the previous plan's authorization for building and reconstruction of logging roads.
Federal law requires agencies to analyze, in public reports, the likely effect of projects they approve on wildlife and the environment.
In contrast to the Clinton administration, which provided 64 pages on the potential impacts of its plan on 34 fish species, the Forest Service "entirely failed to consider environmental consequences of the 2004 Framework on individual species of fish," Judge William Fletcher said in Friday's ruling.
[http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2012/02/03/BAMJ1N307K.DTL]
The Bush administration's decision in 2004 to dramatically expand logging in Sierra forests throughout California, as a means of fire protection, failed to analyze the potential impact on numerous species of fish, a federal appeals court ruled Friday.
The U.S. Forest Service violated environmental laws by omitting from its public report any reference to the effect of increased logging and road-building on fish in the mountain streams, including nine species listed as threatened or endangered, said the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco.
The 2-1 ruling does not require an immediate halt to any tree-cutting or other work authorized by the so-called 2004 Framework for 11.5 million acres in 11 national forests.
But it means the Obama administration, which is in the process of revising individual forest plans, will have to take a closer look at the impact of current and future Sierra projects on fish and watersheds, said the Pacific Rivers Council, which sued in 2005 to challenge the adequacy of the government's environmental report.
"The Forest Service shirked its duty to tell the public up front specifically how its large-scale plans will affect sensitive aquatic species," the council's lawyer, Brian Gaffney, said in a statement.
"The court's ruling means fish won't get short shrift on the next go-round," said Mary Scurlock, a consultant for the council.
The Forest Service declined to comment. Timber industry lawyers who supported the 2004 plan were unavailable for comment.
But the ruling dismayed a lawyer for the Quincy Library Group, a coalition of businesses, loggers and local environmentalists that is authorized by federal law to work on management plans for the Lassen and Plumas national forests and some Lake Tahoe-area woodlands.
"This ruling will probably delay the ability to thin the forests" and will increase the fire danger, said the attorney, Michael B. Jackson, who backed the 2004 Framework in court proceedings.
The framework more than tripled the amount of logging authorized by a plan adopted in the final weeks of the Clinton administration. It also allowed the cutting of larger trees and of more trees near streams, and greatly increased the previous plan's authorization for building and reconstruction of logging roads.
Federal law requires agencies to analyze, in public reports, the likely effect of projects they approve on wildlife and the environment.
In contrast to the Clinton administration, which provided 64 pages on the potential impacts of its plan on 34 fish species, the Forest Service "entirely failed to consider environmental consequences of the 2004 Framework on individual species of fish," Judge William Fletcher said in Friday's ruling.
Friday, February 3, 2012
2012-02-03 "Celebrated Marin County salmon make their return" by Peter Fimrite from "San Francisco Chronicle"
[http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2012/02/03/MNLT1N1KQ4.DTL]
The storied silver salmon of West Marin - long considered a bellwether of salmon health in California - are laying eggs and carrying on in Lagunitas Creek this week almost as if they weren't teetering on the edge of doom.
There are, of course, plenty of obstacles to the species' long-term survival, but last month's long-awaited rain - paltry as it was - prompted the endangered fish to begin their annual rush into the creeks and tributaries of the lush San Geronimo Valley to make babies.
The late blitz of coho brought renewed hope to fisheries experts, watershed managers and the creekside communities where the celebrated fish lay their eggs and then die.
"It shows that these fish can survive for months without spawning, while waiting for the rains to come," said Eric Ettlinger, the aquatic ecologist for the Marin Municipal Water District, which conducts annual fish surveys with help from volunteers and nonprofit groups. "Three years ago people were discussing how coho were about to become extinct in Central California, and it seems like they are beginning to bounce back."
Strong turnout -
Biologists have observed 377 coho salmon in the Lagunitas watershed this winter and 103 redds, the word used by brainy types in smocks to refer to the clusters of pink eggs that salmon lay in the gravel.
It is a remarkable showing, Ettlinger said, considering the lack of rain this season. The salmon, he said, have been waiting since November for creek flows to be strong enough for them to swim up to their favored nesting spots. The carnal surge began Jan. 19, when the region was doused by 10 inches of rain.
Coho, also known as silver salmon, are born in cold freshwater rivers and streams where they live for a year before swimming to the ocean. They typically return at age 3 to where they were born to lay eggs and fertilize them.
This year's fish are the children of the 2008-09 generation, which holds the record for the least fertile since the district began the surveys 17 years ago. Only 43 coho and 26 egg nests were seen in the watershed that year.
"The fish that are spawning now are the offspring of those few fish," Ettlinger said. "We are very pleasantly surprised at how many of those offspring have returned."
Last winter, 152 coho and 80 redds were counted in the watershed, which includes Lagunitas and San Geronimo creeks. That was disappointing, Ettlinger said, because the fish were the grandchildren of the coho that spawned in 2004-05, the most potent generation on record. The 1,342 coho seen in the watershed that year made 496 redds.
Fearing for the fish -
In fact, the past three years were the least profligate spawning years on record, raising fears among biologists that the species was in the midst of a death spiral.
"Last year marked two generations of steep declines," Ettlinger said. "Those years were all lower than their parent generations were. Now, for the first time in seven years, we are seeing more offspring than the parent's generation."
The Lagunitas coho swim 33 miles through the redwood- and oak-studded valley on the northwest side of Mount Tamalpais. It is the largest wild run of coho salmon along the area that biologists and regulators categorize as the Central Coast and is a model for fisheries restoration in the state.
Marin County has always been a stronghold for coho, which were so numerous that grizzly bears fed on them before Europeans arrived in California. Legend has it that homesteaders speared them from docks over the water. The runs kept up even after 1873, when the first of seven dams were built in the watershed, blocking 50 percent of the historic spawning habitat.
Then, suddenly, the fish stopped showing up. Central California coho were listed as endangered in 2005 under the U.S. Endangered Species Act.
The Lagunitas run is unique not only because all the fish are wild - a large proportion of the coho in other places are raised in hatcheries - but because their primary spawning grounds are in the middle of developed communities. Some 40 percent of the coho in the watershed are hatched in tributaries surrounded by homes, golf courses, roads and horse corrals in the 9-square-mile San Geronimo Valley.
The jacks come home -
Ettlinger said there are signs that things are improving. Biologists have spotted a lot of jacks, the small male salmon that return to their natal streams one year earlier than their siblings.
The number of jacks in any given stream is a good indicator of how many fish will return the next year.
"Just last week more than half of the salmon we saw were jacks," he said. "This suggests that there are many, many more of their siblings out in the ocean that will, hopefully, return next year."
Ettlinger said the virility of the salmon this winter despite the difficult circumstances "speaks to the resilience of the species that they can withstand fairly adverse conditions."
He said their survival is also a testament to the dedication of local citizens, schools and community leaders.
"This watershed has a really active volunteer community that does restoration work and creek hikes," he said. "There is a lot of support for the salmon within the watershed."
Coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) -
(Sources: Marin Municipal Water District, National Marine Fisheries Service, ESRI, GDT and Alaska Department of Fish and Game)
* Range: Coho are found on both sides of the North Pacific Ocean from Hokkaido, Japan, and eastern Russia, around the Bering Sea to mainland Alaska, and south all the way to Monterey Bay.
* Description: Adults typically weigh 8 to 12 pounds and are 18 to 30 inches long, though individuals weighing 31 pounds have been caught.
* Life cycle: Anadromous, meaning adults re-enter natal freshwater streams to spawn after spending half of their three-year life cycle in the salty Pacific. Adults die within two weeks of spawning. Fry grow to 4 to 5 inches long before heading to the Pacific.
Seeing salmon -
The best coho viewing areas in the Lagunitas Creek watershed:
* Leo T. Cronin salmon viewing area: Just off Sir Francis Drake Boulevard where the Shafter Bridge goes over Lagunitas Creek near Samuel P. Taylor State Park. Fish can also be seen from the Shafter Bridge at the Inkwells, a series of small waterfalls along San Geronimo Creek.
* Roy's Pools: Salmon demonstrate their jumping skills in three pools below the former dam site, on San Geronimo Valley Drive, 5 miles west of Fairfax.
* Samuel P. Taylor State Park campground: Coho like to lay their eggs behind the park headquarters building, just off Sir Francis Drake Boulevard.
Eric Ettlinger (right), an aquatic ecologist with the Marin Municipal Water District, and Ben Schleifer wade in Lagunitas Creek to do the yearly coho salmon count. Photo: Sarah Rice / Special to The Chronicle
A male coho salmon swims in Lagunitas Creek. Photo: Sarah Rice / Special to The Chronicle
[http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2012/02/03/MNLT1N1KQ4.DTL]
The storied silver salmon of West Marin - long considered a bellwether of salmon health in California - are laying eggs and carrying on in Lagunitas Creek this week almost as if they weren't teetering on the edge of doom.
There are, of course, plenty of obstacles to the species' long-term survival, but last month's long-awaited rain - paltry as it was - prompted the endangered fish to begin their annual rush into the creeks and tributaries of the lush San Geronimo Valley to make babies.
The late blitz of coho brought renewed hope to fisheries experts, watershed managers and the creekside communities where the celebrated fish lay their eggs and then die.
"It shows that these fish can survive for months without spawning, while waiting for the rains to come," said Eric Ettlinger, the aquatic ecologist for the Marin Municipal Water District, which conducts annual fish surveys with help from volunteers and nonprofit groups. "Three years ago people were discussing how coho were about to become extinct in Central California, and it seems like they are beginning to bounce back."
Strong turnout -
Biologists have observed 377 coho salmon in the Lagunitas watershed this winter and 103 redds, the word used by brainy types in smocks to refer to the clusters of pink eggs that salmon lay in the gravel.
It is a remarkable showing, Ettlinger said, considering the lack of rain this season. The salmon, he said, have been waiting since November for creek flows to be strong enough for them to swim up to their favored nesting spots. The carnal surge began Jan. 19, when the region was doused by 10 inches of rain.
Coho, also known as silver salmon, are born in cold freshwater rivers and streams where they live for a year before swimming to the ocean. They typically return at age 3 to where they were born to lay eggs and fertilize them.
This year's fish are the children of the 2008-09 generation, which holds the record for the least fertile since the district began the surveys 17 years ago. Only 43 coho and 26 egg nests were seen in the watershed that year.
"The fish that are spawning now are the offspring of those few fish," Ettlinger said. "We are very pleasantly surprised at how many of those offspring have returned."
Last winter, 152 coho and 80 redds were counted in the watershed, which includes Lagunitas and San Geronimo creeks. That was disappointing, Ettlinger said, because the fish were the grandchildren of the coho that spawned in 2004-05, the most potent generation on record. The 1,342 coho seen in the watershed that year made 496 redds.
Fearing for the fish -
In fact, the past three years were the least profligate spawning years on record, raising fears among biologists that the species was in the midst of a death spiral.
"Last year marked two generations of steep declines," Ettlinger said. "Those years were all lower than their parent generations were. Now, for the first time in seven years, we are seeing more offspring than the parent's generation."
The Lagunitas coho swim 33 miles through the redwood- and oak-studded valley on the northwest side of Mount Tamalpais. It is the largest wild run of coho salmon along the area that biologists and regulators categorize as the Central Coast and is a model for fisheries restoration in the state.
Marin County has always been a stronghold for coho, which were so numerous that grizzly bears fed on them before Europeans arrived in California. Legend has it that homesteaders speared them from docks over the water. The runs kept up even after 1873, when the first of seven dams were built in the watershed, blocking 50 percent of the historic spawning habitat.
Then, suddenly, the fish stopped showing up. Central California coho were listed as endangered in 2005 under the U.S. Endangered Species Act.
The Lagunitas run is unique not only because all the fish are wild - a large proportion of the coho in other places are raised in hatcheries - but because their primary spawning grounds are in the middle of developed communities. Some 40 percent of the coho in the watershed are hatched in tributaries surrounded by homes, golf courses, roads and horse corrals in the 9-square-mile San Geronimo Valley.
The jacks come home -
Ettlinger said there are signs that things are improving. Biologists have spotted a lot of jacks, the small male salmon that return to their natal streams one year earlier than their siblings.
The number of jacks in any given stream is a good indicator of how many fish will return the next year.
"Just last week more than half of the salmon we saw were jacks," he said. "This suggests that there are many, many more of their siblings out in the ocean that will, hopefully, return next year."
Ettlinger said the virility of the salmon this winter despite the difficult circumstances "speaks to the resilience of the species that they can withstand fairly adverse conditions."
He said their survival is also a testament to the dedication of local citizens, schools and community leaders.
"This watershed has a really active volunteer community that does restoration work and creek hikes," he said. "There is a lot of support for the salmon within the watershed."
Coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) -
(Sources: Marin Municipal Water District, National Marine Fisheries Service, ESRI, GDT and Alaska Department of Fish and Game)
* Range: Coho are found on both sides of the North Pacific Ocean from Hokkaido, Japan, and eastern Russia, around the Bering Sea to mainland Alaska, and south all the way to Monterey Bay.
* Description: Adults typically weigh 8 to 12 pounds and are 18 to 30 inches long, though individuals weighing 31 pounds have been caught.
* Life cycle: Anadromous, meaning adults re-enter natal freshwater streams to spawn after spending half of their three-year life cycle in the salty Pacific. Adults die within two weeks of spawning. Fry grow to 4 to 5 inches long before heading to the Pacific.
Seeing salmon -
The best coho viewing areas in the Lagunitas Creek watershed:
* Leo T. Cronin salmon viewing area: Just off Sir Francis Drake Boulevard where the Shafter Bridge goes over Lagunitas Creek near Samuel P. Taylor State Park. Fish can also be seen from the Shafter Bridge at the Inkwells, a series of small waterfalls along San Geronimo Creek.
* Roy's Pools: Salmon demonstrate their jumping skills in three pools below the former dam site, on San Geronimo Valley Drive, 5 miles west of Fairfax.
* Samuel P. Taylor State Park campground: Coho like to lay their eggs behind the park headquarters building, just off Sir Francis Drake Boulevard.
Eric Ettlinger (right), an aquatic ecologist with the Marin Municipal Water District, and Ben Schleifer wade in Lagunitas Creek to do the yearly coho salmon count. Photo: Sarah Rice / Special to The Chronicle
A male coho salmon swims in Lagunitas Creek. Photo: Sarah Rice / Special to The Chronicle
This is another example about why oil companies cannot be trusted and must be regulated...
The bureaucrats of the oil companies DO NOT CARE about the health and safety of USA Citizens, they only care about making money by any means necessary. 2012-02-03 "Secret Oil Spill Has Been Poisoning The Gulf For 7 Years" by Beth Buczynski
[http://www.care2.com/causes/secret-oil-spill-has-been-poisoning-the-gulf-for-7-years.html]
The BP oil spill happened suddenly, and its devastation was palpable: quickly spreading sheens of toxic oil that poisoned birds, fish and marine mammals, and trashed Gulf Coast beaches.
But the BP spill wasn’t the first major oil spill to poison the warm waters of the Gulf of Mexico. In fact, a slower but no less deadly spill started years earlier and is still flowing today, according to an ongoing investigation by Waterkeeper Alliance.
Aided by satellite imagery and research conducted by SkyTruth [http://www.skytruth.org/] and aerial observation by SouthWings [http://www.southwings.org/home.php], the Waterkeeper Alliance and its local Waterkeeper organizations learned that an offshore platform and 28 wells belonging to Taylor Energy Company LLC have been quietly leaking oil into the Gulf for years.
Waterkeeper Alliance and several Gulf Coast Waterkeeper organizations filed suit against Taylor Energy under the citizen suit provisions of the Clean Water Act and Resource Conservation Recovery Act in Federal Court on Thursday [http://waterkeeper.org/ht/a/GetDocumentAction/i/24743].
“The plaintiffs filed suit to stop the spill and lift the veil of secrecy surrounding Taylor Oil’s seven-year long response and recovery operation,” explained Marc Yaggi, Executive Director of Waterkeeper Alliance. “Neither the government nor Taylor will answer basic questions related to the spill response, citing privacy concerns.”
The spill, located approximately 11 miles off the coast of Louisiana, started after an undersea landslide during the aftermath of Hurricane Ivan in 2004. Waterkeeper estimates that hundreds of gallons of oil have leaked from the site each day for the last seven years.
“The Taylor Oil spill is emblematic of a broken system, where oil production is prioritized over concerns for human health and the environment,” said Justin Bloom, Eastern Regional Director of Waterkeeper Alliance. “Nearly two years after the BP Deepwater Horizon Spill, none of the comprehensive reforms recommended by the National Oil Spill Commission have been enacted and Congress has yet to pass a single law to better protect workers, the environment or coastal communities.”
Uncovering the ongoing Taylor Energy spill illuminates the danger of President Obama’s recent call for increased offshore drilling on 38 million acres of the Gulf of Mexico as well as the Arctic. The Taylor spill is in relatively shallow and accessible waters compared to the deepwater environments on which Big Oil has set its sights, yet it’s continued unchecked for years.
Waterkeeper and its allies allege that oil exploration and extraction technology has dramatically outpaced the development of safety and recovery technology [http://www.care2.com/causes/bp-faces-new-round-of-citations-for-gulf-oil-spill.html] and it appears that the current regulatory regime is incapable of protecting us from a runaway industry.
2012-02-03 "He Survived 5-Story Drop: Keeping Birds Alive After Window Crashes" by Paula Lopes of Aveiro, Portugal
[http://www.care2.com/causes/he-survived-5-story-drop-keeping-birds-alive-after-window-crash.html]
In today’s story brought to you by The Great Animal Rescue Chase, we’ll share a little something about the survival mechanisms that come into play when birds strike windows. We’re hopeful that by sharing this information, perhaps another life may be saved.
For more great rescue stories from everyday heroes, please visit The Great Animal Rescue Chase [http://animalrescuechase.com/rescue_showcase/rescue_showcase.php].
---
A while ago, I was exercising at the local gym, as I did regularly. A lot of birds live in the surrounding building and I used to enjoy looking out the window as I exercised and enjoying the beautiful dances the birds performed while flying close to the mirrored-glasses.
One day, after watching the birds for a while, I started to do some crunches, when I heard a loud THUD on the window. I was startled and a thought immediately crossed my mind: a bird, confused with the mirrored window. If it had happened, it was certain the poor animal had died, the impact was too strong, it must have broken its neck.
But I couldn’t shake the thought: what if it didn’t? I ran towards the window. We were on the 5th floor — quite a fall for such a little creature. And sure enough, I saw him, lying on the road, between two parked cars. He wouldn’t have survived the fall.
But what if it had? I ran out on my exercise, afraid a car would park where the bird was lying. I approached him, his head was on the ground, his little back in the air. I picked him up, very carefully, certain that there was nothing to be done.
He Turned His Head and Looked at Me -
But then he looked at me. He turned his little head and looked at me. I was in shock that he could have survived such an impact (both the window and the fall) and brought him home with me. He was very still and could barely stay up. I placed him in a little towel, trying to give him some comfort and some balance. I offered him water, but he didn’t want any. I called the vet to ask what I could do for the birdie. She told me that if he didn’t have any internal injuries, I should place him in a dark box with holes, and leave him there for a couple of hours. I did just that and researched more about cases like this online, while the bird rested.
That day I learned that, when the birds don’t break their necks at impact and don’t get internal injuries, what happens is that the blood rushes to their heads and they are unable to move or react for a good while and many times, people think they are dead. But if you place them in a dark place (with holes, always) they stay in a sleep-like mode, allowing the blood to slowly go back to the rest of the body. It’s usually better not to offer water or food.
The happy ending: I live in an apartment building, and when it came time to set him free, I didn’t want to do it from my floor, because if he was not able to fly properly he would fall to his death. So I took him to an open field, with a lot of nice trees and opened the box. And he flew happily into a tree. It was a brief encounter, but I am forever grateful for having been able to help that little bird.
[http://www.care2.com/causes/he-survived-5-story-drop-keeping-birds-alive-after-window-crash.html]
In today’s story brought to you by The Great Animal Rescue Chase, we’ll share a little something about the survival mechanisms that come into play when birds strike windows. We’re hopeful that by sharing this information, perhaps another life may be saved.
For more great rescue stories from everyday heroes, please visit The Great Animal Rescue Chase [http://animalrescuechase.com/rescue_showcase/rescue_showcase.php].
---
A while ago, I was exercising at the local gym, as I did regularly. A lot of birds live in the surrounding building and I used to enjoy looking out the window as I exercised and enjoying the beautiful dances the birds performed while flying close to the mirrored-glasses.
One day, after watching the birds for a while, I started to do some crunches, when I heard a loud THUD on the window. I was startled and a thought immediately crossed my mind: a bird, confused with the mirrored window. If it had happened, it was certain the poor animal had died, the impact was too strong, it must have broken its neck.
But I couldn’t shake the thought: what if it didn’t? I ran towards the window. We were on the 5th floor — quite a fall for such a little creature. And sure enough, I saw him, lying on the road, between two parked cars. He wouldn’t have survived the fall.
But what if it had? I ran out on my exercise, afraid a car would park where the bird was lying. I approached him, his head was on the ground, his little back in the air. I picked him up, very carefully, certain that there was nothing to be done.
He Turned His Head and Looked at Me -
But then he looked at me. He turned his little head and looked at me. I was in shock that he could have survived such an impact (both the window and the fall) and brought him home with me. He was very still and could barely stay up. I placed him in a little towel, trying to give him some comfort and some balance. I offered him water, but he didn’t want any. I called the vet to ask what I could do for the birdie. She told me that if he didn’t have any internal injuries, I should place him in a dark box with holes, and leave him there for a couple of hours. I did just that and researched more about cases like this online, while the bird rested.
That day I learned that, when the birds don’t break their necks at impact and don’t get internal injuries, what happens is that the blood rushes to their heads and they are unable to move or react for a good while and many times, people think they are dead. But if you place them in a dark place (with holes, always) they stay in a sleep-like mode, allowing the blood to slowly go back to the rest of the body. It’s usually better not to offer water or food.
The happy ending: I live in an apartment building, and when it came time to set him free, I didn’t want to do it from my floor, because if he was not able to fly properly he would fall to his death. So I took him to an open field, with a lot of nice trees and opened the box. And he flew happily into a tree. It was a brief encounter, but I am forever grateful for having been able to help that little bird.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)