6/26/12
 
NEWPORT -- Nadine Fuller brushed sand away from the beak of the turtle and saw its eye blink.

But it was so still, so lifeless, she figured it had to be dead. "I thought ... maybe that was just a reflex," she said.

Fuller took some photos, then went back up to Moolack Shores Motel where she was a guest, to report her find. 

Motel manager Frank Brooks called the Oregon Marine Mammal Stranding Network. Then someone saw the turtle lift its head, someone else thought they saw it move a flipper, and so the race was on to save the 135-pound green sea turtle.

Now more than a week later, caregivers at the Oregon Coast Aquarium are cautiously optimistic that this turtle far from its native warm waters may make a full recovery.

"He's doing pretty well," said Jim Burke, director of animal husbandry at the aquarium. "We still need to get him stabilized. But he's behaving OK. He's right on track as far as the rehabilitation plan is concerned."

When Jim Rice, coordinator of the stranding network, got the call, he knew there was a good chance the turtle wasn't dead, but rather "cold stunned," or hypothermic. While this is the first live sea turtle he's rescued off the Oregon coast in the seven years he's been here, he's seen plenty during his time at the New England Aquarium in Boston, where the staff rehabilitated sea turtles that washed up on Cape Cod.

"These animals will often appear dead when there is still some life left inside of them," he said.

Green sea turtles normally are found in waters 75 to 80 degrees and are the same turtles you could expect to see snorkeling in Hawaii, Rice said. This turtle was most likely from the tropical or subtropical Pacific Ocean.

No one knows why the turtle wound up in the 50-ish-degree water off Oregon's coast, but Burke speculated that it may have been in warm water that became surrounded by cold water, which mixes in and causes the previously warm water to chill. When that happens, the turtle goes into what is essentially a state of hibernation.

"They slow down, they get weak, they get dehydrated," Burke said. "They don't have the energy to retreat from these cold waters and get to the warm waters they left. They don't have the strength to reverse what time and temperatures have done. They become victims of the seas, wind, waves."

Of the dozen or so sea turtles that washed up on the Oregon coast in the past 15 years, only about half were alive, Burke said. Two sea turtles, a green and an Olive Ridley, washed up in 2010. Both were rescued and later sent to San Diego. They were released into the wild last summer.

By the time Rice got this green sea turtle to the aquarium -- about two hours after it was first discovered -- it was barely alive, with little sign of respiration, some muscle reflex and a core temperature in the 50s. Its eyes were swollen, one likely pecked at by a bird.

It's being treated with antibiotics and getting fluids via IC-- that is, through the intracoelomic or inner body cavity. It isn't eating on its own yet, but Burke is hopeful that will come soon enough.

"We are working with the permitting agencies," Burke said. "What will happen is they will identify a rehabilitation center in a warmer area. Most likely this animal will go to that area for feeding and observation. The goal would be to release it back to the wild, ideally later this summer."

And that's the news Fuller's waiting to hear.

"This is the best place in the world he could have come ashore with the aquarium people right there and the motel people knowing Jim Rice," Fuller said. "It just all fell together. When they were carrying him up the steps, he raised his head up and I knew he had a good fighting chance and I was just thrilled. It was a wonderful moment for me."

Read Original Article

7/1/12

The big Independence Day celebration is Wednesday, but this is sort of the unofficial holiday weekend, so it’s time to pack up the family and head to the beach.

According to the Natural Resources Defense Council, that might not be the most sanitary place to spend some quality time.

The council has released its latest beach water-quality report, and it’s not good — at least for Californians. While beach closures and advisories nationwide dropped 3 percent last year, the number of closures and advisories increased in California in 2011. And even the report on the nationwide situation came with a caveat — though daily episodes decreased from the prior year, 2011 had the third-highest number of closures in the past two decades.

Nearly half the beach closures are the result of runoff swept into the ocean by rainfall. For folks living along the upper rim of the Gulf of Mexico, the BP oil spill — which occurred more than two years ago — remains among the main reasons beaches are shut down.

As pristine as we believe our own Central Coast beaches to be, they suffer from runoff and high bacteria counts, too. In Santa Barbara County, the most dangerous spot in 2011 was East Beach at the mouth of Mission Creek in Santa Barbara, which was the site of 88 closures and/or advisories last year.

Even away from the population glut on the South Coast, North County beaches had problems. Jalama was in closure/advisory conditions 48 times last year. Guadalupe Dunes had only six bad days, but Gaviota State Beach was in shutdown/advisory 47 days, El Capitan 21, and Refugio 35.

The problems are mostly caused by stuff we consider part of our everyday lives — oil and grease on our streets and roads, pesticides on our lawns, litter, etc. It just sits there until the winter rains come, then much of that junk washes down to the coast.

Making the problem worse in and around urban centers is that so much of the ground is covered by pavement, sidewalks and anything that prevents storm runoff from soaking into the ground before it reaches the ocean. It’s called “impervious cover,” and that cover increases along with the general increase in the population. And because more than half the U.S. population lives in coastal counties, it’s not hard to see the magnitude of the problem.

Making this situation potentially far worse is climate change. Most models predict Earth’s warming will increase the amount and frequency of heavy rainfall, which has a direct, adverse effect on water quality at our beaches.

Solutions to the beach water-quality problem are complicated and could be painful. It could start with something as simple as not putting pesticides or certain types of fertilizers on your lawn, things individuals can do.

But the real solutions will have to be collaborative. It won’t do a lot of good for you to stop adding to the pollution runoff if your neighbors don’t join in the effort. Adding to the problem is that a lot of people simply aren’t aware that their everyday actions contribute to diminished water quality at a beach that may be miles away.

The solution to this problem starts locally, spreads to the community, then the region and finally nationwide. With half of all Americans living so close to a beach, it’s vitally important that we work together to take the steps necessary to ensure that our beaches — part of our franchise here on the Central Coast — are protected.

The threats to that franchise are real. We need to take them seriously.

Read Original Article

Talk of railbanking draws 50 people



6/27/12

All it takes to get 50 people at a Humboldt County Board of Super­visors meeting is sending a letter to the North Coast Railroad Authority about rail and trail issues.



At least that’s all it took to pack the supervisors chamber at the Hum­boldt County Courthouse on Tues­day. A total of 43 people addressed the board about a proposal to ask the North Coast Railroad Authority — a group formed by the state Legisla­ture in 1989 to protect rail infra­structure — to form a committee to examine the possibility of creating a trail around Humboldt Bay to replace some of the railroad tracks.



County Public Works Director Tom Mattson said the railroad is an under-performing asset in the coun­ty, and that an NCRA-formed com­mittee could vet the multiple rail­road proposals that are in the works. “With nothing happening, it’s melting away,” Mattson said about the rail line.



Second District Supervisor Clif Clendenen, who serves as a director on the North Coast Railroad Authority, brought the committee idea before the board on behalf of a citizen group interested in the proj­ect. The group — called the Bay T(rail) Plan advocates — is suggest­ing the NCRA form a committee to look at “railbanking” the railroad around northern Humboldt Bay.



Congress created the term “rail­banking” in 1983 and it allows for unused rails to be converted into trails — at least until the time when the railroad is needed again. Sup­porters have said the act of railbank­ing preserves the railroad’s right-of­way, allowing the trail to be convert­ed back to a railroad if needed.



The citizen group ultimately wants the rail — which is owned by NCRA — to be converted into a paved, multi-modal path. The group is also advocating the rail line from Arcata to Samoa/Fairhaven be restored to support a tourist train.



A majority of the people who spoke during public comment were in favor of the Bay T(rail) Plan or the idea of at least forming a committee to look at railbanking.

Cutten resident Larry Strattner said it’s past time to form a committee to look at creating a trail around Humboldt Bay.

“I could’ve built a railroad to Mars in the amount of time this has been discussed,” Strattner said.

Cheryl Willis, Caltrans deputy district director of planning and local assistance, said Caltrans is interested in all modes of transportation and that it’s supportive of the supervisors asking NCRA to create a special committee.

Numerous people voiced concerns about railbanking. Speakers raised concerns about who would even be able to pay for the trail if the idea was accepted. Concerns about easements and poten­tial lawsuits were also raised by the public.

Eureka attorney Bill Bar­num said the whole idea of railbanking is meant to kill railroads in the county.

“This is a target shot at rail around Humboldt Bay,” Bar­num said. “It’s 100 percent political.” The supervisors ultimately voted 4-0, with 1st District Supervisor Jimmy Smith absent, to send a letter to NCRA requesting it form a committee to look into rail­banking. However, that was after the supervisors altered the proposed letter to state that supporting the commit­tee’s creation doesn’t preclude the board from supporting other railway projects.

Fifth District Supervisor Ryan Sundberg and 4th Dis­trict Supervisor Virginia Bass voiced concerns about sup­porting the formation of a committee before hearing presentations from other groups, such as the group interested in seeing an East-West Railroad built.

Third District Supervisor Mark Lovelace said just because the board supports the idea of forming a com­mittee, doesn’t mean it’s tak­ing sides on the railbanking issue. He said it’s up to the NCRA to decide if it wants to form the committee and ulti­mately up to the committee to investigate whether rail­banking is a good idea.

“We’re sending a letter to ask someone to form a com­mittee to study something,” Lovelace said. “That’s not killing the rail or building a trail.”

Read Original Article

6/26/12

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit — in a unanimous decision — handed the U.S. EPA a sweeping victory in upholding across the board four separate components of the agency’s rules to regulate greenhouse gas emissions.  The opinion can be found here.

A little background is in order here.  The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Massachusetts v. EPA directed the Environmental Protection Agency to decide whether greenhouse gases are pollutants that must be regulated under the federal Clean Air Act.  The Bush Administration had refused to make such a finding despite petitions from states and environmental groups asking that emissions be regulated.  The rules that are subject to today’s ruling — the case is called Coalition for Responsible Regulation v. EPA — are the direct result of the Supreme Court’s Mass v. EPA decision.

EPA’s first decision was to find — as required under the Clean Air Act as interpreted in Mass v EPA — that greenhouse gases endanger public health and welfare.  The D.C. Circuit  found that the EPA did not act arbitrarily and capriciously when it made its endangerment finding.

EPA’s next decision was to issue what is known as the “tailpipe rule.”  The tailpipe rule establishes greenhouse gas emissions standards for automobiles under Section 202 of the Clean Air Act.  What is somewhat odd about the challenge to the tailpipe rule in the new Coalition for Responsible Regulation case is that the challengers to the rule are not auto companies but are instead largely made up of businesses that operate what are known as “stationary sources,” — factories that emit pollutants.  They argued that the EPA should not have issued the tailpipe rule regulating greenhouse gases from cars because if the agency did so, the next obvious step under separate provisions of the Clean Air Act would be that the agency would have to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from stationary sources.  That’s because once pollutants are regulated under one provision of the act the new regulation triggers other provisions of the act.  Industry argued that the cost implications of regulating greenhouse gas emissions from stationary sources were so large that the EPA should not have regulated tailpipe emissions. The court rejected this argument, holding instead that the EPA lacked any discretion at all in setting tailpipe emissions once it found that that greenhouse gases endanger public health and welfare.  In other words, the Clean Air Act required the EPA to regulate greenhouse gas tailpipe emissions – the agency had no choice.

The third and fourth rules that are at issue in today’s case are called the “timing” and “tailoring” rules.  These rules together work roughly as follows:  regulation of greenhouse gases for automobiles automatically triggers a different section of the Clean Air Act, what is known as the prevention of significant deterioration section (PSD). That section basically requires the EPA to regulate the emissions of any “major” source of a “regulated” pollutant.  ”Major” is defined in the Clean Air Act to regulate any source that emits 100 tons per year of a regulated pollutant.  The problem for the EPA is that the 100 tons per year amount would subject very, very small sources (a single home, perhaps, certainly apartment buildings and small businesses) to the permitting provisions of the Clean Air Act, something that those small sources have never had to comply with and that would be extremely expensive and administratively burdensome.  So in the “tailoring” rule, the EPA only subjected large sources — new sources emitting 100,000 tons per year or more and existing sources making modifications that would increase emissions by 75,000 tons per year or more — to its greenhouse gas rules.  Industry challenged both the application of the Clean Air Act to stationary sources and the tailoring rule as an impermissive interpretation of the Clean Air Act.  In today’s ruling, the court found that the EPA is legally justified — indeed required — to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from stationary sources under the PSD provisions of the act.  But it also found that none of the plaintiffs in the case — which included industry groups and states like Texas that oppose the regulations —  have standing to challenge the rules.  That means that the plaintiffs do not meet constitutional requirements to bring a case in court.  More specifically, the court found, the plaintiffs have not been injured by a rule that exempts small sources from regulation even if the larger businesses themselves will be subject to regulation.  This finding is somewhat ironic because industry for years has challenged the standing of environmental plaintiffs to challenge various government rules and the Supreme Court has tightened standing rules over the years.  Those tighter rules were used today to limit industry’s ability to challenge rules that don’t directly apply to them.

It seems safe to predict that the legal battles over the greenhouse gas rules are far from over.  Expect plaintiffs to petition the U.S. Supreme Court for review.  If the high court agrees to take the case, my bet is that the standing portion of the case is the most vulnerable:  if the Supreme Court finds that industry and states have standing to sue, then the whole question of the legality of the timing and tailoring rules will be back in front of the D.C Circuit to decide on their merits.   But for today, this is a huge victory for the Environmental Protection Agency.

Read Original Article