Environment Archives - Page 78 of 106

Being Frank: Boeing, Let’s Talk

By Billy Frank, Jr., Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission

OLYMPIA – It was the mid-1980s, and Roy dairy farmer Jim Wilcox was worried.

As an owner of Wilcox Family Farms, one of the largest dairy producers in western Washington at the time, he was concerned how his business would be affected by the activities of a new group called the Nisqually River Task Force. I was part of that task force of tribal, state, federal and local governments, businesses and others charged with developing a management plan for the Nisqually River watershed. The aim of the plan was balanced stewardship of the watershed’s economic, natural and cultural resources.

Fearing that possible environmental regulations in such a plan could put his family farm on the Nisqually River out of business, Wilcox quickly joined the task force to protect his interests. But before that, he teamed up with other large landowners in the watershed – including Weyerhaeuser – to try and shoot down any plan that might be developed.

But those fears melted one day when the task force was touring the watershed and our bus broke down. Waiting for help, Jim and I started talking. I told him that we wanted him to stay in business, but that we needed to protect salmon as well, and that if we worked together, we could come up with a solution.

He agreed to try. Today, Wilcox Family Farms is still in business and the Nisqually River watershed is one of the healthiest in the state. It’s a model of how a watershed can be managed for the benefit of everyone.

About that same time, a war was raging in the woods of Washington. Timber companies, environmental groups, tribes, state and federal agencies, and others were battling each other in court over the effects of timber harvests on fish and wildlife. I asked Stu Bledsoe, executive director of the Washington Forest Protection Association, a forest products industry trade group, to see if his members would be willing to join a cooperative effort to develop a solution for everyone involved.

He agreed to try. After many months of negotiations by all of the parties involved, the result was the Timber/Fish/Wildlife Agreement – now called the Forests and Fish Law – which put an end to the war in the woods with a cooperative science-based management approach that ensures a healthy timber industry while also protecting fish and wildlife.

We find ourselves in a similar situation today with the state’s extremely low fish consumption rate that is used to regulate pollution in our waters. The lower the rate, the higher the level of pollutants allowed.

Washington has one of the highest populations of seafood consumers, but uses one of the lowest fish consumption rates in the country to control water pollution. State government is quick to admit that the current rate of 6.5 grams of seafood per day – about one 8-ounce serving a month – does not protect most Washington citizens from toxins in our waters that can cause illness or death.

That fact is especially true for Asian-Americans and Pacific Islanders, as well as recreational fishermen and others who eat more seafood than most. For us tribes, fish and shellfish have always been basis of our cultures. Our treaty-reserved harvest rights depend on those resources being safe to eat.

Oregon recently increased its fish consumption rate to 175 grams per day, the most protective rate in the U.S. We think everyone in Washington deserves at least that level of protection.

Sadly, the effort to adopt a more accurate fish consumption rate has become one of the biggest public policy battles in the country, pitting human health against the economy. Some industry leaders such as Boeing are digging in their heels to delay or kill rule-making on a more accurate rate because they say it will increase their cost of doing business.

To find a solution, Gov. Jay Inslee has put together an informal advisory group of tribes, local governments, businesses, environmental organizations and others to help resolve the issue. That group met for the first time recently, and although Boeing was invited, the company chose not to participate.

That’s too bad, because I would have told them that we don’t want Boeing to leave the state or go out of business. We want them to keep making planes here in western Washington, but at the same time we have to protect the health of everyone who lives here by adopting a more realistic fish consumption rate. I also would have told them about Jim Wilcox and Stu Bledsoe and the many great things that can be accomplished when we sit down together to solve a shared problem.

Stream restoration in the Port Susan watershed

Before the culvert was restored. — After the culvert was restored. Photo by Brett Shattuck

Natural Resources department seeks out important streams that are in need of restoration.

By Monica Brown, Tulalip News Writer

TULALIP, Wa. -In an effort to boost salmon populations and abide by treaty rights, the state of Washington has been court ordered to fix problem culverts, which prevent salmon from accessing integral streams. Tulalip’s Natural Resources department has been helping the State’s effort by repairing one culvert per year for the last few years. Greenwood creek in the Warm Beach community, the most recent culvert repaired by Natural Resources, was found to be an important stream for juvenile salmon and acts as a nursery prior to entering the ocean.

“We try to repair one a year or every other year. It’s something we do when we have time on the side,” said Brett Shattuck of Tulalip’s Natural Resources. Brett works as a forest and fish biologist, a position that doesn’t center on stream restoration. Together as a department though, they research and find vital streams that require repair yet fall out of state jurisdiction which would require the state to repair according to the court order. While the state owns and is responsible for 1,521 culvert barriers, they have been court ordered to only repair just fewer than 1,000 of those within the next 17 years, a feat which the state implies that they do not have enough funds for in order to complete on time.

Brett includes that, “because most streams on the reservation are either naturally non-salmon bearing, or are utilized for hatchery operations and do not have wild salmon access for that reason,” they look beyond the reservation boundaries to find nearby, integral streams in need of repair that would otherwise be ignored. “These streams are really important to fish and a lot of them have degraded,” explained Brett. There are streams that contain salmon on the reservation including Quilceda Creek, Sturgeon Creek and Coho Creek, but these streams already have, or are in the planning stages, of being repaired by Natural Resources.

Greenwood Creek is located in the Port Susan watershed, and as a tidal stream, it is similar to an estuary where salt water tides flow in and mix with the out flowing fresh water. During salmon monitoring of one small portion of Greenwood Creek, it has been recorded to support over 700 salmon in various species. Brett explains, “most of the fish come from the Stillaguamish River and they come in here to avoid predators, to have refuge and to find food.” The stream, mainly utilized for salmon rearing also provides an extra half mile of stream for Silver and Coho spawning.

Many streams located within development areas have degraded environmentally and structurally. Stream area diminishes due to roads, invasive plants change habitat and inaccessible culverts prevent salmon from traveling further upstream. When a stream is developed, a culvert is placed in the stream to modify it so that it can be crossed over. As per Washington Department of Transportation’s data, many streams statewide are important to salmon spawning and rearing but overtime have become inhospitable; 1,960 out the 3,200 culverts statewide have been identified as fish barriers.

The Natural Resources department has restored this and previous streams through grant funding. The $50,000 in grant funding was obtained from Pacific Coastal Salmon Recovery Fund (PCSRF) to replace the preexisting culvert with one that is more functional and to excavate in order to restore 250ft of the stream. While Snohomish County did not provide funds they did provide in-kind services and materials to the project which match the grant fund in cost from PCSRF.

BeforeBelowCulvertHoriz — Before the culvert was restored. Photo by Brett Shattuck

Inslee: Ellensburg Area Stream Restoration Good for Salmon

Credit Anna KingGovernor Jay Inslee signs his name to some of the pipe that will put water back in Manastash Creek near Ellensburg, Wash. — Credit Anna King
Governor Jay Inslee signs his name to some of the pipe that will put water back in Manastash Creek near Ellensburg, Wash.

By Anna King, KPLU news

A dried-out 3-mile-stretch of creek in central Washington will soon swell again with water. It’s part of a project near Ellensburg to pipe irrigation water from the Yakima River to keep water in the creek for salmon and steelhead.

In June, Gov. Jay Inslee signed a bill passed by the Legislature that sets aside $132 million to improve water usage and sensitive habitat in the Yakima Basin. Inslee traveled to Manastash Creek to celebrate the start of one part of that work—construction of a 13-mile pipeline that will replace an unlined canal system. With more water back in the creek, it will once again free salmon and steelhead to spawn on 25 miles of habitat upstream. Inslee says this project stems from lawsuits, bitter fights and earlier failures.

“You know sometimes water projects have not been shall we say perfect in the West, because they’ve ignored one aspect of our culture or our values,” Inslee said. This combines all of them, it’s jobs, it’s farms, it’s fish, it’s forest.”

The Manastash Creek restoration project is expected to be finished next spring.

Tribal Nations Early Climate Adaptation Planners

Terri Hansen, Intercontinental Cry

Much has been made of the need to develop climate-change-adaptation plans, especially in light of increasingly alarming findings about how swiftly the environment that sustains life as we know it is deteriorating, and how the changes compound one another to quicken the pace overall. Studies, and numerous climate models, and the re-analysis of said studies and climate models, all point to humankind as the main driver of these changes. In all these dire pronouncements and warnings there is one bright spot: It may not be too late to turn the tide and pull Mother Earth back from the brink.

None of this is new to the Indigenous Peoples of Turtle Island. Besides already understanding much about environmental issues via millennia of historical perspective, Natives are at the forefront of these changes and have been forced to adapt. Combining their preexisting knowledge with their still-keen ability to read environmental signs, these tribes are way ahead of the curve, with climate-change plans either in the making or already in effect.

Swinomish Tribe: From Proclamation to Action

On the southeastern peninsula of Fidalgo Island in Washington State, the Swinomish were the first tribal nation to pass a Climate Change proclamation, which they did in 2007. Since then they have implemented a concrete action plan.

The catalyst came in 2006, when a strong storm surge pushed tides several feet above normal, flooding and damaging reservation property. Heightening awareness of climate change in general, it became the tribe’s impetus for determining appropriate responses. The tribe began a two-year project in 2008, issued an impact report in 2009 and an action plan in 2010, said project coordinator and senior planner Ed Knight. The plan identified a number of proposed “next step” implementation projects, several of them now under way: coastal protection measures, code changes, community health assessment and wildfire protection, among others.

The tribe won funding through the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services and the Administration for Native Americans to support the $400,000 Swinomish Climate Change Initiative, of which the tribe funded 20 percent. When work began in 2008, most estimates for sea level rise by the end of the century were in the range of one to one-and-a-half feet, with temperature changes ranging from three to five degrees Fahrenheit, said Knight. But those estimates did not take into account major melting in the Arctic, Antarctica and Greenland, he said.

“Now, the latest reports reflect accelerated rates” of sea level rise and temperature increases, Knight said. Those are three to four feet or more, and six to nine degrees Fahrenheit, respectively, by 2100. “We are currently passing 400 ppm of CO2, on track for Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change worst-case scenarios.”

Since the Swinomish started work on climate issues, many tribes across the country have become active on these issues as they also realize the potential impacts to their communities and resources. The Institute for Tribal Environmental Professionals (ITEP) has been funded over the last few years to conduct climate adaptation training, Knight said, “and probably more than 100 tribes have now received training on this.”

Jamestown S’Klallam: Rising Sea Levels and Ocean Acidification

Jamestown S’Klallam tribal citizens live in an ecosystem that has sustained them for thousands of years, on the Olympic Peninsula of Washington State. Over the past two centuries they have successfully navigated societal changes, all while maintaining a connection to the resource-rich ecosystem of the region. Though they have also adapted to past climate variations, the magnitude and rapid rate of current and projected climate change prompted them to step it up. That became apparent when tribal members noticed ocean acidification in the failure of oyster and shellfish larvae.

The Jamestown S’Klallam work on rising sea levels and ocean acidification. (Photo: ClimateAdaptation.org)

“Everyone who was part of the advisory group all had their personal testimony as to the changes they’d seen,” said Hansi Hals, the tribe’s environmental planning program manager, describing a meeting of a sideline group. “Everybody had something to say.”

Tribal members brought their concerns to the attention of the Natural Resources committee and tribal council three years ago, Hals said. This past summer they released their climate vulnerability assessment and adaptation plan, which identified key tribal resources, outlined the expected impacts from climate change and created adaptation strategies for each resource. It included sea-level-rise maps are for three time frames, near (low), mid-century (medium) and end of century (high).

Mescalero Apache: Bolstering Tribal Resilience

Tribal lands of the Mescalero Apache in southwestern New Mexico flank the Sacramento Mountains and border Lincoln National Forest, where increased frequency and intensity of wildfires is due to drought-compromised woodlands. Mike Montoya, director of the Mescalero Apache Tribe’s Fisheries Department, executive director of the Southwest Tribal Fisheries Commission and project leader for the Sovereign Nations Service Corps, a Mescalero-based AmeriCorps program, has observed climate-driven changes to the landscape in his years in natural resource management.

Mescalero Apache Tribe’s holding pond can contain 500,000 gallons of water and nourishes the community garden. (Photo courtesy Mescalero Apache Tribe)

The tribe has undertaken innovative environmental initiatives to help bolster tribal resilience to climate change impacts, Montoya said. One example is a pond constructed for alternative water supply to the fish hatchery in the event of a catastrophic flood event. It holds 500,000 gallons of water from a river 3,600 feet away.

“It’s all gravity fed,” Montoya said. “Now, with the aid of solar powered water pumps, we are able to supply water to our community garden.”

Karuk Tribe: Integrating Traditional Knowledge into Climate Science

With lands within and around the Klamath River and Six Rivers National Forests in northern California, the Klamath Tribe is implementing parts of its Eco-Cultural Resources Management Draft Plan released in 2010. The plan synthesizes the best available science, locally relevant observations and Traditional Ecological Knowledge to help the Karuk create an integrated approach to addressing natural resource management and confront the potential impacts of climate change.

Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes: Strategic Planning

Fire management planning on Salish and Kootenai tribal lands in Montana. (Photo: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service)

These tribes, who live in what is today known as Montana, issued a climate change proclamation in November 2012 and adopted a Climate Change Strategic Plan in 2013. The Tribal Science Council identified climate change and traditional ecological knowledge as the top two priorities for tribes across the nation in June 2011, according to Michael Durglo, the tribe’s division of environmental protection manager and climate change planning coordinator, as well as the National Tribal Science Council’s Region 8 representative.

So did the Inter-Tribal Timber Council, which his brother, Jim Durglo, is involved with. In fall 2012 the confederated tribes received financial support through groups affiliated with the Kresge foundation and from the Great Northern Landscape Conservation Cooperative to develop plans, Michael Durglo said. A year later, in September 2013, the tribes’ Climate Change Strategic Plan was completed and approved by the Tribal Council. Next the tribes will establish a Climate Change Oversight Committee.

“This committee will monitor progress, coordinate funding requests, continue research of [Traditional Ecological Knowledge], incorporate the strategic planning results into other guiding documents such as the Flathead Reservation Comprehensive Resource Management Plan and others, and update the plan on a regular basis based on updated science,” said Michael Durglo.

Nez Perce: Preservation Via Carbon Sequestration

More than a decade ago the Nez Perce Tribe, of the Columbia River Plateau in northern Idaho, recognized carbon sequestration on forested lands as a means of preserving natural resources and generating jobs and income, while reducing the amount of greenhouse gases emitted into the atmosphere. [With the over arching goal of restoration,] in the mid to late 1990s the Nez Perce Forestry & Fire Management Division developed a carbon offset strategy to market carbon sequestration credits. The purpose of the afforestation project, about 400 acres in size, was to establish marketable carbon offsets, develop an understanding of potential carbon markets and cover the costs of project implementation and administration.

Nez Perce project before and after. (Photo: NAU ITEP)

As carbon markets soften and actual project development slows, the tribe cites the increased awareness and education of other tribes of the carbon sales process and opportunities for more carbon sequestration projects in Indian country as its biggest accomplishment of the last two years.

Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Indians: Attacking Greenhouse Gas Emissions

This tribe in southern California has taken numerous steps to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and address the impacts of climate change on tribal peoples, land and resources. In 1998 the tribe formed the Santa Ynez Chumash Environmental Office.

“We are also looking into opening a public compressed natural gas (CNG) fueling station, replacing our fleet with CNG vehicles, are installing EV charging stations, implementing an innovative home, and building upgrade training program through an EPA Climate Showcase Communities grant,” said Santa Ynez environmental director Joshua Simmons.

SYCEO’s projects are numerous and have had impressive results, including major reductions of greenhouse gas emissions. An example is the Chumash Casino’s implementation of a shuttle bus program that eliminated 800,000 car trips in 2009, replacing them with 66,000 bus trips. The casino is reducing its energy consumption, chemical waste and use of one-use materials. It also has an extensive rainwater and gray water collection and treatment system. Many of these initiatives have economic benefits and provide a model and economic incentive for tribal and non-tribal businesses to implement similar changes.

Newtok Village: Ultimate Adaptation Plan—Evacuation

This Native village on the western coast of Alaska is home to some of the U.S.’s first climate refugees. They leapfrogged over mere adaptation-mitigation as sea and river cut through and then eroded the permafrost beneath their village and a 1983 assessment found that the community would be endangered within 25 to 30 years. In 1994 Newtok began work on what then seemed the ultimate adaptation plan: relocation.

The Native Alaskan village of Newtok had to relocate as its shoreline was washed away because of melting permafrost. (Photo: Newtok Planning Group)

They selected Mertarvik nine miles to the south as the relocation site in 1996. Their efforts intensified when a study by the Army Corps of Engineers found that the highest point in the village would be below sea level by 2017. The Newtok community, government agencies and nongovernmental organizations formed the Newtok Planning Group in 2006, but as Newtok’s administrator Stanley Tom searched for funding he struck little pay dirt. Mostly, he hit walls. Now Tom is calling for evacuation, exposing it as the true ultimate in adaptation.

“It’s really happening right now,” He told the Guardian last May. “The village is sinking and flooding and eroding.”

Tom told the British newspaper that he was moving his own belongings to the new, still very sparse village site over the summer–and advised fellow villagers to start doing the same.

Navajo Energy Policy Legislation Passed and Signed by President

Source: Native News Network

WINDOW ROCK, ARIZONA – On Thursday Navajo Nation President Ben Shelly signed legislation enacting the Navajo Energy Policy of 2013 during a signing ceremony in his office. The policy will allow for the Navajo Nation to have direction and guidance for energy development and other initiatives.

For three years, President Shelly has been advocating to update the Navajo Energy Policy, which was created in 1980.

“I want to thank the Navajo Nation Council for the cooperation and the spirit of working together to pass the energy policy. It’s been a long journey. Much work from both branches of government went into today’s ceremony. Now we can move ahead with our future of renewable and non-renewable energy,”

Navajo Nation President Shelly said before he signed the legislation.

President Shelly also signed legislation allocating about $4.1 million to Navajo Transitional Energy Company (NTEC) and a third legislation that changed the operating policies of NTEC.

“This is a great day for the Navajo Nation,”

President Shelly said after he signed the documents.

For three years, President Shelly has been advocating to update the Navajo Energy Policy, which was created in 1980. The Energy Advisory Committee that was chaired by Fred White, Natural Resources division director, created the updated Energy Policy and submitted the policy to the Navajo Council to initiate the legislative process.

“I am happy the Council passed the Energy Policy,”

White said shortly after the legislation passed earlier this week.

Navajo Council Speaker Johnny Naize, who sponsored the bill, called the Energy Policy.

“a basic framework for which our Nation can work with other entities to effectively use our resources for energy development.”

In addition, President Shelly has stated the Energy Policy puts the Navajo Nation in a better position to advocate for funding from federal sources for energy studies, projects and other programs.

The legislation pertaining to NTEC allocated $4.1 million to the company for costs relating to start up and expenses acquired during the due diligence investigation related to the acquisition of the Navajo mine.

The other legislation amends the operating policies for NTEC.

Shellfish made poisonous by toxic algae may bloom into bigger problem

Click image to watch video or listen to interview.

Oct. 23, 2013

PBS NEWSHOUR

The Pacific Northwest is known for its seafood, but when algae blooms in coastal waters, it can release toxins that poison shellfish and the people who eat them. Katie Campbell of KCTS in Seattle reports on the growing prevalence and toxicity of that algae, and how scientists are studying a possible link to climate change.

Transcript

HARI SREENIVASAN: Next to the West Coast, where algae has been poisoning shellfish and subsequently people.In recent years, toxic algal blooms have been more potent and lasted longer.That has scientists trying to understand whether climate change could be contributing to the problem.

Our report comes from special correspondent Katie Campbell of KCTS Seattle.She works for the environmental public media project EarthFix.

KATIE CAMPBELL, KCTS:Every family has its legends.

For Jacki and John Williford and their children, it’s the story of a miserable camping trip on the Olympic Peninsula in the summer of 2011.It all started when the Willifords did what Northwest families do on coastal camping trips.They harvested some shellfish and cooked them up with garlic and oregano.

JOHN WILLIFORD, father:Oh, they were amazing.I was like, wow, these are pretty much the best mussels I have ever eaten.And I think I said in a text to Jacki.

JAYCEE WILLIFORD, daughter:They were the best mussels in the whole wide world.

JOHN WILLIFORD: Is that what you said?Yes.

KATIE CAMPBELL: Two-year-old Jessica and 5-year-old Jaycee were the first to get sick.Next, John got sick.

JACKI WILLIFORD, mother:They just were so violently ill, and I just knew it had to be the mussels.And that next week, I called the health department and said, I think we got shellfish poisoning or something from the shellfish.And that’s when all the calls started to come in.

(LAUGHTER)

KATIE CAMPBELL: It turned out that Willifords were the first confirmed case in the United States of people getting diarrhetic shellfish poisoning.DSP comes from eating shellfish contaminated by a toxin produced by a type of algae called Dinophysis.

It’s been present in Northwest waters for decades, but not at levels considered toxic.

NEIL HARRINGTON, Jamestown S’Klallam Tribe:It’s unfortunate to discover you have a new toxin present by people getting ill.

KATIE CAMPBELL: Neil Harrington is an environmental biologist for the Jamestown S’Klallam Tribe in Sequim, Washington.Every week, he collects water and shellfish samples from the same bay where the Willifords harvested mussels two summers ago.He tests for Dinophysis and other naturally occurring toxins in shellfish.

NEIL HARRINGTON: Shellfish are filter feeders, so they are filtering liters and liters and liters of water every day.If they are filtering phytoplankton that is a little bit toxic, when we eat the shellfish, we’re eating essentially that — that toxin that’s been concentrated over time.

KATIE CAMPBELL: A number of factors can increase the size and severity of harmful algal blooms.As more land is developed, more fertilizers and nutrients get washed into waterways.It’s a problem that has also hit Florida and the Gulf of Mexico as well.

NEIL HARRINGTON: The more nutrients you add to a water body, the more algae there is, and the more algae you get, the more chance that some of those algae may be harmful.

KATIE CAMPBELL: But on top the local problem of nutrient runoff is the larger issue of global warming.Scientists believe the increase in prevalence and toxicity of Dinophysis is linked to changing ocean chemistry and warming waters.

STEPHANIE MOORE, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration:There’s a whole lot of changes that are occurring in Puget Sound, and not — and they’re not occurring in isolation.And that’s the challenge for scientists.

KATIE CAMPBELL: Stephanie Moore is a biological oceanographer for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.She studies Puget Sound’s harmful algae.Most algal blooms here occur during warmer weather.

Because climate change is expected to raise temperatures in the coming decades, Moore says that could directly affect when and where harmful algal blooms occur.

STEPHANIE MOORE: We’re going to have to look for these blooms in places and during times of the year when, traditionally, we haven’t had to worry about them.Their impacts could then span a much larger time of the year, and that could cost a lot more money in terms of the effort that needs to go into monitoring and protecting the public from the toxins that they produce.

KATIE CAMPBELL: Washington has one of the most advanced algae and shellfish testing systems in the country.It’s in part because of the state’s 800 miles of shore and its multimillion-dollar shellfish industry.

Today, Moore is testing a new piece of equipment that has the potential to raise the bar even higher.The environmental sample processor, or ESP, automatically collects water from a nearby shellfish bed, analyzes the samples, and sends Moore a photograph of the results.

STEPHANIE MOORE: This is a huge advancement in our ability just to keep tabs on what’s going on, and in near real time.It’s amazing.

KATIE CAMPBELL: Moore says she hopes that, next year, the ESP will be equipped to monitor for Dinophysis, the toxin that caused the Williford family to get sick.

In the meantime, Jacki Williford says she will continue to be extremely wary of eating shellfish.

JACKI WILLIFORD: I think it’s scary because you just — you just don’t know what you’re getting anymore in food.

KATIE CAMPBELL: As for the rest of the family, well, not everyone has sworn off mussels.

JOHN WILLIFORD: It doesn’t change a thing for me.

(LAUGHTER)

JACKI WILLIFORD: For him.

(LAUGHTER)

HARI SREENIVASAN: Jaycee might keep eating mussels, but the high levels of toxins have forced the Washington State Department of Health to shutdown shellfish beds in six counties around the Puget Sound.

Video: Tar Sands Protesters Commandeer Public Meeting, Energy Officials Run for the Door

By Dylan Ruiz and Joseph Smooke, 22 October 2013 , Source: The Real News Network

First Nations and environmental activists interrupt Enbridge’s pipeline plans.

TRANSCRIPT:

DYAN RUIZ, REPORTER: Hundreds gathered in the cold Toronto rain to oppose the proposal for the oil pipeline called Line 9B operated by energy company Enbridge. Canada’s National Energy Board (NEB) has been asked to approve Enbridge’s project that would enable them to bring oil from Alberta’s tar sands to 600 kilometers of pipeline running through Ontario and Quebec.

The protest was supposed to coincide with the final day of the board’s hearings in Toronto, which heard public testimony about the Line 9 proposal. But Enbridge decided not to go forward with their final arguments the day of the protest, citing security concerns.

After the public testimony the day before given by Amanda Lickers of the grassroots collective Rising Tide Toronto and Six Nations of the Grand River First Nations, the spectators erupted in a chant, rose to their feet, and began round-dancing. NEB representatives promptly left the room, bringing cheers from the crowd.

AMANDA LICKERS, RISING TIDE TORONTO AND SIX NATIONS OF THE GRAND RIVER: I think that Enbridge is just trying to buy time because they were really intimidated by my presentation. You know. I mean, they need to formulate their arguments. And I think it’s completely ludicrous that they can just violate the terms of the entire process and just ask for time due to security concerns. I mean you’ve seen this rally. It’s being led by indigenous people, drummers, by traditional people, by women. There’s children here. You know, it’s not a confrontational rally. It’s a celebratory time to come together, and show, and have our voices heard.

RUIZ: One of the speakers of the protest was Canadian singer Sarah Harmer, who has been an outspoken activist against Line 9, which runs through her family’s farm.

SARAH HARMER, SINGER-SONGWRITER, AFFECTED LANDHOLDER:Thank you to everyone who’s come from across the province today, who got onto buses in Kingston and Hamilton and Waterloo, wherever you came from.

RUIZ: The 40-year-old pipeline runs from Sarnia, at Ontario’s border with Michigan, through the heavily populated Toronto area, to Montreal, where the oil will be refined. Approval of the proposal would allow Enbridge to use this pipeline to carry more than the light crude it currently transports. Line 9 would be transporting the controversial diluted bitumen, or “dilbit”, a heavy crude coming from the Alberta tar sands.

Another part of the proposal includes increasing the amount Enbridge would be licensed to transport by almost 30 percent to 300,000 barrels per day.

People at the rally who spoke out against the Line 9 proposal have said it poses huge environmental risks, especially from the transportation of dilbit from the tar sands.

AMARA POSSIAN, RISING TIDE TORONTO: The pipeline isn’t built for tar sands oil, and it’s a really old piece of infrastructure, so the risk is higher for spills. It’s basically like sandy peanut butter going through the pipeline, corroding the inside. And when it does inevitably spill, it’s very difficult to clean up.

RUIZ: A similar Enbridge pipeline, Line 6B, failed near Kalamazoo, Michigan, in 2010, spilling diluted Alberta tar-sands bitumen. It was the largest surface spill in U.S. history and spewed 3.3 million litres of oil into the Kalamazoo River. The spill came close to contaminating Lake Michigan, the drinking water for over 12 million people. Three years later, the widespread environmental damage has not been fully assessed and Enbridge is still cleaning it up.

Enbridge spokesperson Graham White said to The Toronto Star, “Enbridge’s goal is zero incidents, and no spill is acceptable to us … Line 9 has been a safe and well-performing line for the past 38 years, and we are taking all necessary measures to ensure that remains the case for the people of Ontario and Toronto.”

Protesters are concerned that a spill like the one that happened in Michigan could happen along areas of Line 9 that crosses rivers such as the Credit, Humber, and Rouge that flow directly into Lake Ontario.

Contamination of the rivers that flow into Lake Ontario would be disastrous. Four-point-five million people in the Greater Toronto area rely on Lake Ontario for their drinking water. This is a concern not only of the protesters, but of the city of Toronto as well in the hearings this week. The city attorney also outlined concerns about the lack of specific plans for sites directly above Line 9. This includes schools, parks, apartment buildings, and a retirement home and subway station.

When it was built nearly 40 years ago, the pipeline tracked through remote areas, but now directly threatens heavily populated neighborhoods in and around Canada’s largest city. At Toronto’s Finch Subway Station that sees over 100,000 riders riders on a typical weekday, the pipeline runs less than two metres below the sidewalk and 60 centimetres above the subway structure.

The Finch corridor is a neglected part of Toronto. This resident of the northern Toronto neighborhood Jane and Finch was at the protest. He said the risks associated with Line 9 are an unwelcome addition to what the neighborhood already has to deal with, such as poor government investment in essential services like education and transit.

OSMAN ANWER, RESIDENT OF JANE AND FINCH: Jane and Finch is an example of bad mid-century public policy planning. They overbuilt a lot of public housing units and basically left them to rot. So Line 9 is just more–another topping on the shit sandwich we already have.

RUIZ: Marginalized communities and indigenous people carry some of the worst repercussions of resource extraction, transport, and processing.

Many First Nations and other indigenous people from the Idle No More movement were present at this protest. They say the NEB hearings do not fulfill the legal requirement for the federal government to consult with First Nations on the pipeline project. Only the federal government can consult with the First Nations on the proposal, not Enbridge or the NEB. They say the adequate consultations were not done when the pipeline was built and is not happening now.

HEATHER MILTON LIGHTENING, INDIGENOUS TAR SANDS CAMPAIGN: When it comes to each community, each one of them is a sovereign nation. And under the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People it talks about “free, prior and informed consent”, and that means the right to say no, the right to have consultation in our own languages in a way that makes sense for our own people, and to be informed of both the negative and the positive.

RUIZ: To Heather, like many First Nations, the answer to Line 9 is no because the dangers are too high. The protestors at this rally emphasized that action against the Line 9 pipeline is a growing movement that doesn’t end with this protest or this week’s hearings.

SYED HUSSAN, COMMUNITY ORGANIZER: They can try and flip that switch, they can try and push that dilbit, but we will swamp them at every turn.

RUIZ: One of the lead organizers of the protest outlined what’s coming up.

SAKURA SAUNDERS, RISING TIDE TORONTO: This process of community organizing–you know, we’re going to use this power that we’ve developed to both push for a provincial environmental assessment, and if that fails also, you know, swamp Enbridge, you know, wherever they are in terms of physically defending the land and stopping this project from happening.

RUIZ: The Board has already approved Enbridge’s proposal for one part of the pipeline last year, Line 9A, which runs from a pumping station near Sarnia to close to city of Hamilton. The National Energy Board plans to make their decision about Line 9B by this January.

This is Dyan Ruiz for The Real News Network.

Southern Leg of Keystone XL Near Completion as Opponents Lose Last Legal Battle in Texas

By Carol Berry, Indian Country Today Media Network

American Indians and others who oppose the southern leg of the Keystone XL pipeline have lost their last legal battle, enabling TransCanada to finish the project by year’s end.

While the northern part of the Keystone XL pipeline has been held up by controversy, the protests against the southern portion, known as the Gulf Coast Pipeline, have been to no avail. On October 9 a split federal appeals court upheld a lower court’s refusal to stop the pipeline’s construction because an injunction to stop construction, which is what the opponents sought, “would cost [TransCanada] at least hundreds of thousands of dollars per day,” the U.S. Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals said in its ruling.

New York Times Journalists Threatened With Arrest While Reporting on Keystone XL Opposition

TransCanada has already spent at least $500 million on the 485-mile pipeline, which is expected to transport 700,000 gallons of crude oil daily from Cushing, in central Oklahoma, to Gulf Coast refineries.

The controversial Keystone XL extends through Sac and Fox territory. Other Oklahoma tribes that have spoken out about the pipeline’s impact on tribal patrimony include the Caddo, Choctaw, Southern Ponca and Pawnee, though none is party to the lawsuit.

The southern XL extension was formerly part of the full TransCanada XL pipeline, traversing some 1,700 miles of western and Midwestern states in its transnational route from Canadian tar sands, but vigorous opposition from Indian people, especially in northern areas, has delayed approval of the full section. The northern part must be approved by the U.S. Department of State, because it crosses an international line between Canada and the United States. The southern leg, purely domestic, was able to go ahead, despite a lack of thorough environmental reviews.

The Sierra Club and other plaintiffs had sought an injunction against the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, which had signed off on numerous permits so that TransCanada could move ahead. TransCanada proceeded even though the Corps had to issue 2,227 permits for water crossings, with minimal environmental review.

“Considering the number of permits issued by the Corps relative to the overall size of the Gulf Coast Pipeline, it is patently ludicrous for appellees to characterize the Corps’ involvement in the subject project as minimal, or to maintain that the Corps’ permitting involves only a ‘link’ in the Gulf Coast Pipeline,” said dissenting District Judge William Martinez in the October 9 Tenth Circuit ruling.

But the other two members of the three-justice panel in the federal appeals court, Circuit Judges Paul Kelly and Jerome Holmes, both said that financial harm can be weighed against environmental harm and in certain circumstances outweigh it.

The Sierra Club had alleged violations of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), Clean Water Act and Administrative Procedures Act and contend that the pipeline constitutes a “major federal act” that requires NEPA analysis leading to a “hard look” at possible impacts.

Oarfish Redux: Another Dead Sea Serpent Washes Ashore, Creeping Out Californians

Source: Indian Country Today Media Network

A second dead oarfish has washed up on the California coast, and marine experts say it is no coincidence coming five days after the first one.

They do not, however, go so far as to give credence to superstitions that such deaths portend a major earthquake, as Japanese legend has it. Neither do they say that the deaths are due to human activity. Rather, the animals were most likely caught up in a rogue current that dragged them into shallower waters than they are used to surviving in. The second one may even have been dashed to death in the swells, researchers said.

Oarfish number two washed up along Oceanside Harbor on Friday October 17 and measured nearly 14 feet long, which is four feet shorter than the 18-footer that was found in the shallows off Catalina Island on October 13. The smaller one was about to give birth, the San Diego Union Tribune reported.

Since oarfish dive below 3,000 feet, they are rarely seen, especially alive. An exception was the oarfish captured by oil rig video cameras in the Gulf of Mexico a couple of years ago.

The latest oarfish incident was witnessed by between 50 and 75 beachgoers, some of whom called police, according to the San Diego Union Tribune. Officer Mark Bussey responded and snapped a photo before a representative from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) came to measure and retrieve it. It was cut into sections and divvied up for study, the newspaper said.

Milton Love, a research biologist at the Marine Science Institute, told the Los Angeles Times that the deaths are most likely linked. A current probably dragged them both from the still, deep waters they are accustomed to navigating into a turbulent area closer to shore, which they were not adapted for, he said.

The bottom line, though, is that scientists have no idea what killed these creatures, said Russ Vetter, director of the fisheries resource division at the Southwest Fisheries Science Center, to the Los Angeles Times. He helped dissect the more recent fish find.

“With a rare event like this, it is a bit troubling, but it’s a total mystery,” he told the newspaper.

The deaths brought Japanese legend to the minds of many. A good 10 of the creatures washed ashore in Japan in 2010, about a year before the March 2011, 8.9-magnitude earthquake that shook the northeastern part of the country and spawned the tidal wave that wiped out thousands of people, the Union Tribune reported.

Scientists cautioned against assuming that potential seismic activity undetected by scientific instruments could be picked up on by marine life. But they did not completely dismiss the idea that deep-sea oil drilling or climate change’s effects on ocean currents could contribute to cause of death in otherwise healthy animals.

“The number of oarfish that beach themselves worldwide in a year is typically either one or zero, so this is unusual,” Love told the Union Tribune. “It’s possible any of those theories are true. I think it’s a little early to say anything.”

No scientific consensus on GMO safety – scientists release statement saying public is being misled

Earth Open Source, Monday 21 October 2013
http://www.earthopensource.org/index.php/news/150

There is no scientific consensus that genetically modified foods and crops are safe, according to a statement released today by an international group of over 85 scientists, academics and physicians.[1]

The statement comes in response to recent claims from the GM industry and some scientists and commentators that there is a “scientific consensus” that GM foods and crops are safe for human and animal health and the environment. The statement calls such claims “misleading” and states, “The claimed consensus on GMO safety does not exist.”

Commenting on the statement, one of the signatories, Professor Brian Wynne, associate director and co-principal investigator from 2002-2012 of the UK ESRC Centre for the Economic and Social Aspects of Genomics, Cesagen, Lancaster University, said: “There is no consensus amongst scientific researchers over the health or environmental safety of GM crops and foods, and it is misleading and irresponsible for anyone to claim that there is. Many salient questions remain open, while more are being discovered and reported by independent scientists in the international scientific literature. Indeed some key public interest questions revealed by such research have been left neglected for years by the huge imbalance in research funding, against thorough biosafety research and in favour of the commercial-scientific promotion of this technology.”

Another signatory, Professor C. Vyvyan Howard, a medically qualified toxicopathologist based at the University of Ulster, said: “A substantial number of studies suggest that GM crops and foods can be toxic or allergenic, and that they can have adverse impacts on beneficial and non-target organisms. It is often claimed that millions of Americans eat GM foods with no ill effects. But as the US has no GMO labelling and no epidemiological studies have been carried out, there is no way of knowing whether the rising rates of chronic diseases seen in that country have anything to do with GM food consumption or not. Therefore this claim has no scientific basis.”

A third signatory to the statement, Andy Stirling, professor of science and technology policy at Sussex University and member of the UK government’s GM Science Review Panel, said: “The main reason some multinationals prefer GM technologies over the many alternatives is that GM offers more lucrative ways to control intellectual property and global supply chains. To sideline open discussion of these issues, related interests are now trying to deny the many uncertainties and suppress scientific diversity. This undermines democratic debate – and science itself.”

The scientists’ statement was released by the European Network of Scientists for Social and Environmental Responsibility in the week after the World Food Prize was awarded to employees of the GM seed giants Monsanto and Syngenta and UK environment secretary Owen Paterson branded opponents of GM foods as “wicked”.

Signatories of the statement include prominent and respected scientists, including Dr Hans Herren, a former winner of the World Food Prize and an Alternative Nobel Prize laureate, and Dr Pushpa Bhargava, known as the father of modern biotechnology in India.

Claire Robinson, research director at Earth Open Source commented, “The joint statement and comments of the senior scientists and academics make clear those who claim there is a scientific consensus over GMO safety are really engaged in a partisan bid to shut down debate.

“We have to ask why these people are so desperate to prevent further exploration of an issue that is of immense significance for the future of our food and agriculture. We actually need not less but more public debate on the impacts of this technology, particularly given the proven effective alternatives that are being sidelined in the rush to promote GM.”

Notes
1. http://www.ensser.org/media/
—
Summary of the statement, “No scientific consensus on GMO safety”:

1. There is no scientific consensus that GM crops and foods are safe for human and animal health.

2. A peer-reviewed review of safety studies on GM crops and foods found about an equal number of research groups raising concerns about GMO safety as groups concluding safety. However, most researchers concluding safety were affiliated with biotechnology companies that stood to profit from commercializing the GM crop concerned.

3. A review that is often cited to show GM crops and foods are safe in fact includes studies that raised concerns. Scientists disagree about the interpretation of these findings.

4. No epidemiological studies have been carried out to find out if GM crops are affecting human health, so claims that millions of Americans eat GM foods with no ill effects have no scientific basis.

5. There is no scientific consensus on the safety of GM crops for the environment. Studies have associated GM herbicide-tolerant crops with increased herbicide use and GM insecticidal crops with unexpected toxic impacts on non-target organisms.

6. A survey among scientists showed that those who received funding from biotech companies were more likely to believe GM crops were safe for the environment, whereas independent scientists were more likely to emphasize uncertainties.

7. Although some scientific bodies have made broadly supportive statements about GM over the years, these often contain significant caveats, call for better regulation, and draw attention to the risks as well as the potential benefits of GMOs. A statement by the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) claiming GMO safety was challenged by 21 scientists, including long-standing members of the AAAS.

8. International agreements such as the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety exist because experts worldwide believe that a strongly precautionary attitude is justified in the case of GMOs. Concerns about risks are well-founded, as can be seen by the often complex, contradictory, and inconclusive findings of safety studies on GMOs.