Contaminated iron-oxide stained water (left) flows from the stream reaches where threatened fish and other aquatic species were killed, providing a sharp contrast with water flowing from an uncontaminated section of Acorn Fork (right).

Any guesses as to what a violation of the Clean Water Act and Endangered Species Act goes for these days?  Well, according to a recent fine levied against Nami Resources Company, LLC (Nami) it is $25,000 for each violation.  And immediately I began wondering if a $50,000 fine was sufficient for discharging pollutants into a stream in Knox County, Kentucky that killed fish (Blackside dace) on the threatened species list as wells as “virtually all aquatic wildlife in a significant portion of the fork, including fish and invertebrates (USFWS Office of Law Enforcement).”

Nami, an oil and natural gas exploration and production company, pleaded guilty to dumping and failing to properly dispose of drilling and “fracing” fluids that were used during the establishment of the wells.

“Fracing fluids used at the Nami wells were unlawfully discharged into the upper reaches of Acorn Fork, contaminating narrow streamflows with hydrochloric acid and other chemicals.”

I don’t necessarily want to dwell on this particular case, but as I alluded to in the opening paragraph I am always skeptical on the monetary fines that companies routinely receive for violating environmental laws.  And if you see the writing on the wall, I am about to embark upon a rant that I may or may not have expressed via this forum previously.  However,  I’ll try and refrain from spouting environmental law and policy mumbo jumbo, as much as possible, to keep things rather brief and on point.

Since the early 1970s, the EPA has modified its environmental enforcement strategies on multiple occasions.  Skip ahead 20 years and the EPA began to explore new methods that were designed to “prevent pollution, to punish violations after they occurred, to harness market forces proactively, and to seek more partnerships with U.S. business that would advance designated environmental priorities.” (Environmental Law and Policy)

The evolution of environmental enforcement strategies is still under debate, still evolving and constantly striving to induce compliance and achieve their goals.  To reach these ambitions, the EPA utilizes administrative orders; civil actions for injunctions; penalties and other relief; criminal prosecutions; suspension; and debarment and listing. 

But again I question a penalty that is in the thousands of dollars when corporate violators are routinely raking in millions.  It’s all about business and if it makes financial sense to comply with current environmental laws then compliance is exactly the road that will be taken.  But, when paying a fine for polluting is cheaper than properly disposing of hazardous materials it should be no surprise that we have violations of our environmental policies.  Because it is a classic case of cost benefit analysis, the ability to leverage fines must provide incentives for corporate compliance and as such the monetary value of these penalties must serve as deterrents to businesses contemplating illegal hazardous actions.  It just makes sense to me!

So is a $50,000 fine adequate?  You make the call.

* Fracing involves injecting a fluid into subsurface rock at pressures high enough to fracture the rock and facilitate gas recovery. In some cases, acid-based fluids are used for fracing; they not only fracture the rock but dissolve more rock within the newly formed fractures, increasing potential gas flow from the well.

“California Coastal Cleanup Day is the premier volunteer event focused on the marine environment in the country.  In 2008, more than 70,000 volunteers worked together to collect more than 1,600,000 pounds of trash and recyclables from our beaches, lakes, and waterways. California Coastal Cleanup Day has been hailed by the Guinness Book of World Records as “the largest garbage collection” (1993).  Since the program started in 1985, over 800,000 Californians have removed more than 13 million pounds of debris from our state’s shorelines and coast. When combined with the International Coastal Cleanup, organized by The Ocean Conservancy and taking place on the same day, California Coastal Cleanup Day becomes part of one of the largest volunteer events of the year.”  California Coastal Commission

So what are you waiting for…go get that trash! (Plus more information and a video at ThrivingOceans.org)

California Coastal Cleanup Day

Ocean Conservancy’s International Coastal Cleanup

We were packed in the tin like sardines and I’ll admit I was a bit bitter that I did not secure the comfort of an exit row (did I mention I’m 6 feet 7 inches tall), but the moment soon passed as my eyes caught the front page of the USA Today.  Just under the headline was a bold statement that begged me to get up and snag the paper from the other passenger: “All fish caught in U.S.-tested streams have mercury.”

In what is a sad ode to the current state of the environment, my first reaction was not of surprise but was, for lack of a better phrase, No Kidding!  So I scanned the web the first chance I had and came up with the following from the USGS…

Scientists detected mercury contamination in every fish sampled in 291 streams across the country, according to a U.S. Geological Survey study released today.

About a quarter of these fish were found to contain mercury at levels exceeding the criterion for the protection of people who consume average amounts of fish, established by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. More than two-thirds of the fish exceeded the U.S. EPA level of concern for fish-eating mammals.

“This study shows just how widespread mercury pollution has become in our air, watersheds, and many of our fish in freshwater streams,” said Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar. “This science sends a clear message that our country must continue to confront pollution, restore our nation’s waterways, and protect the public from potential health dangers.”  

Some of the highest levels of mercury in fish were found in the tea-colored or “blackwater” streams in North and South Carolina, Georgia, Florida and Louisiana — areas associated with relatively undeveloped forested watersheds containing abundant wetlands compared to the rest of the country. High levels of mercury in fish also were found in relatively undeveloped watersheds in the Northeast and the Upper Midwest. Elevated levels are noted in areas of the Western United States affected by mining. Complete findings of the USGS report, as well as additional detailed studies in selected streams, are available online.

For a national listing of fish advisories from the Environmental Protection Agency, click here.

Mercury, a neurotoxin, is one of the most serious contaminants threatening our nation’s waters. The main source of mercury to natural waters is mercury that is emitted to the atmosphere and deposited onto watersheds by precipitation. However, atmospheric mercury alone does not explain contamination in fish in our nation’s streams. Naturally occurring watershed features, like wetlands and forests, can enhance the conversion of mercury to the toxic form, methylmercury. Methylmercury is readily taken up by aquatic organisms, resulting in contamination in fish.

 “This study improves our understanding of where mercury ends up in fish in freshwater streams,” said USGS scientist Barbara Scudder. “The findings are critical for decision-makers to effectively manage mercury sources and to better anticipate concentrations of mercury and methylmercury in unstudied streams in comparable environmental settings.”

The USGS studied mercury contamination in fish, bed sediment and water from 291 streams across the nation, sampled from 1998 to 2005. Atmospheric mercury is the main source to most of these streams — coal-fired power plants are the largest source of mercury emissions in the United States — but 59 of the streams also were potentially affected by gold and mercury mining. Since USGS studies targeted specific sites and fish species, the findings may not be representative of mercury levels in all types of freshwater environments across the United States.

All 50 states have mercury monitoring programs, and 48 states issued fish-consumption advisories for mercury in 2006, the most recent year of national-scale reporting to the EPA. The EPA regulates mercury emissions to air, land and water. In February 2009, the EPA announced that it intends to control air emissions of mercury from coal-fired power plants by issuing a rule under the Clean Air Act.

What’s a Monterey excursion without a trip to the aquarium?  It had been about 4 years since I last made the 2 hour trek and I was definitely looking forward to wandering through the Secret Lives of Seahorses.  And a mere 7 hours later I emerged without a disappointed bone in the body. Plus, I scored a romp in a world of freshwater otters, which I was not expecting.

A bay full of life is an understatement as the wildlife outside the confines of the aquarium was just as bountiful.  Sea lions, harbor seals, cormorants, gulls, murres, starfish, and approximately 9 sea otters that had entwined themselves in the swaying kelp were readily available for the crowds.

I had not formally planned to post about my trip to the Monterey Bay Aquarium, but a few days prior to my visit I came upon a video that just so happens to combine the aquarium, seabirds, coastal pollution, and plastics…all rather topical points that were worthy of sharing.

“In an attempt to make the world aware of the devastation caused by plastics and non-biodegradable material on California’s coastal areas, Greenopolis Investigator Melissa Mcginnis has put together an interview with a member of the Monterey Bay Aquarium. The impact on the Albatross is a perfect example of how far-reaching this problem is. The Albatross, native to the Northern and Southern Pacific Shores has been in constant threat of extinction for years, however, most data until recently has shown that the coastal bird was threatened mainly by excessive overfishing in the Pacific region, leading to a shortage of food supply. This, along with introduced animals such as rats and feral cats eating the eggs and chicks, have lead to the declining bird population. ”

“We now know that along with these issues, plastics and waste are a growing threat to the species as well.  As stated in the video, over 40% of the young chicks have been affected by coastal pollution.”  Dustin Hodges

The widespread use of thousands of pesticides, which broadly includes insecticides, herbicides and fungicides, that were once considered safe for wildlife have recently become the subject of many studies. Results from these studies conclude that there is strong evidence linking the application of pesticides and amphibian population declines. The most commonly used pesticide, atrazine, has been shown in both laboratory and field observations to cause hermaphroditism, developmental and behavioral malformations, and the disruption of normal endocrine system functions (Hayes 2002; Storrs 2004). Atrazine levels as low as 0.1 ppb are enough to affect amphibian development and are in contrast to previously held beliefs that high concentrations were required to induce abnormal growth (Hayes 2002).

Instead of very high doses not seen frequently in natural habitats, these studies have shown that ecologically relevant doses observed in watersheds are a concern for amphibians. The overlapping of the amphibian life cycle and agriculture practices has put them at risk to pesticide contamination. Besides possessing thin permeable skin susceptible to chemicals, and spending their lives in and around water, amphibians are in the breeding season when atrazine is typically applied in the spring. This is also a period in which rainfall levels are generally high, runoff is abundant, and amphibians are in the early stages of development. In the United States, the allowable contaminant level of atrazine in drinking water is 3 ppb and short exposures to 200 ppb are not deemed a health risk (Hayes 2002). However, results have indicated that it is not uncommon for atrazine concentrations to be 7x to 75x more than the allowable level in ground and surface waters throughout the U.S. In some Midwestern agricultural regions, contaminating levels have reached as high as 760x this allowable level (Hayes 2002). Thus, the chances of amphibian populations being exposed to at least 0.1 ppb of atrazine, a concentration found to adversely affect amphibian development, are very high.

Independent observations by Storrs and Hayes have both shown that atrazine in lower concentrations can have a greater impact than exposure to higher concentrations. Besides mortality, atrazine has similar properties of endocrine disruptors, which explain the incidents of hermaphroditism, developmental malformations, reproductive abnormalities and growth retardation in both early and late stage amphibians. Depending on the developmental stage, exposure to pesticides and endocrine disruptors are adversely affecting populations and indicate the need to modify current toxicological detection standards to include low level testing procedures.

In addition to modifying traditional thinking and implementing low-level chemical testing to identify possible contamination after the fact, it is essential for continued studies involving the mechanisms by which contaminants are transported after application. Results by Konda (2001) confirmed that the transportation of pesticides by runoff and downward movement through soil layers coincides with precipitation. Stream contamination, pesticide concentration in surface runoff, and presence of pesticides in multiple soil layers increases dramatically the closer rainfall events occur to the time of application. Results from plots with recently applied atrazine and other pesticides had the highest concentrations in runoff when rainfall occurred shortly after this application period, and generally within the first 100 days. Konda explains that the initial leaching of pesticides and runoff concentrations are high, although dependent upon volume and intensity of rainfall, because runoff and erosion are increased by the lack of vegetation that protects the soil later in the crop season. As expected, these high concentrations of pesticides in runoff cause significant stream contamination, and typically produce concentrations higher than U.S standards for atrazine in drinking water.

An understanding of the transportation and retention of pesticides in soil is necessary for the development of protocols to prevent the continued contamination of surface water and groundwater. Although more studies need to be and will be done concerning the mechanisms and movement of pesticides after application, it is clear from these studies that once considered ecologically safe levels of pesticides in both soils and waters are of great concern to the overall health of the environment and testing must be conducted with realistic exposures. Although population declines cannot be solely attributed to the ever increasing presence of pesticides, it is a definite factor that may be working in conjunction with other environmental stressors to affect amphibians world-wide.

Five months before the passage of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act in 1918, an article was published in the NY Times proclaiming that our Nation’s gamebirds were under threat of extinction.  Interestingly enough the article contained a quote by Dr. E.W. Nelson, Chief of the U.S. Bureau of Biological Survey, that has transcended North American borders and become worldly relevant 90 years later.

“If you slaughter hundreds of thousands of these birds in Louisiana in winter for food, why wouldn’t it be just as fair for Canada to put hundreds of thousands of their eggs in cold storage for food in nesting time?  At that rate, how long would it be before every other state in the Union would be without these gamebirds?”

Times and the cause of migratory bird threats and declines may have changed, but the task of their preservation remains an international responsibility. Unlike the commercial trade in birds, feathers, and eggs in the early 1900’s that led to decimated bird populations, current declines are attributed to the increasing loss of habitats and environmental contaminants and pesticides. With Latin America boasting the highest rate of deforestation in the world, losing about 2 million acres of forest per year, and North America facing forests marred by fragmentation, development, clear cutting and roads, and wetlands drained for developers and farmland, it should not be a surprise that migratory birds are disappearing from our skies.  Because migratory birds require multiple areas for wintering, breeding, and stopover points, their decline is not the responsibility of one nation, but a global issue that needs to be addressed.

When it comes to current threats, we typically find the usual suspects, and for good reason, occupying the environmental headlines.  Loss of open spaces and habitat due to encroaching human population, growth and urbanization is principally responsible for bird declines.  An overabundance of pollution that includes more than 4 million tons of pesticides applied annually in the U.S. expose some 670 million birds to toxins, of which approximately 67 million birds are estimated to die right away. Oil and wastewater pits in the Western states kill up to 2 million birds each year according to the USFWS, and tens to hundreds of thousands of seabirds die as bycatch in U.S. fisheries each year.

But a lesser known pollution culprit is putting a spotlight on the plight of migratory birds too.  Those bright cityscapes might look great on a horizon, but are wreaking havoc on nighttime navigating birds. Sending birds off course or crashing into buildings is not something we intend, but is a consequence of an ever increasing amount of light pollution. In the January 2009 Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, the publication Polarized light pollution: a new kind of ecological photopollution has linked smooth dark surfaces with highly polarized reflected lights, which are believed to be mistaken for bodies of water.  “The alteration of natural cycles of light and dark by artificial light sources has deleterious impacts on animals and ecosystems.”

With more than 900 million birds estimated to die as a result of collisions each year, maybe it is time to dim our lights (at least in part realistically) and leave lighting the night to celestial bodies.

I guess I was not paying that much attention as it was only within the last two weeks that I discovered 2008 had been designated the Year of the Frog.  Well, with a little more than a month to go I thought I would make a contribution to the plight of our amphibian cohabitants.  In the early days of mining, canaries were used as indicators of the presence of poisonous gases.  Acting as an early warning system, miners were alerted to the existence of undetectable noxious gases when the canary died or passed out in its cage.  Upon this observation, the miners would flee the underground cavern to avoid asphyxiation.  Although we have all heard these stories at some point in our lives and through life have been trained to recognize warning signs, our society seems to be overlooking another undetectable danger.

Just like the mine canaries of the past, today’s amphibians are providing an early warning system of the health, or lack of health of their environments.  Frogs, salamanders, toads and other amphibians are quite sensitive to the contamination that is steadily increasing and being released into the environment.  Fertilizers, herbicides, detergents and pesticides, etc. are wreaking havoc on their populations and exponentially increasing the presence of deformities and abnormalities.

Because amphibians breathe, in part, and absorb water through their skin, pollutants are easily entering their bodies.  In addition to the susceptibility of adults to environmental hazards, eggs and larvae are at an even greater risk.  As described by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, “Exposure to contaminants during development can lead to frogs with many different types of malformations, including frogs without eyes, with extra or missing legs and, in some cases, the malformations may be deadly.”

As indictor species, scientists and conservationists are scrambling to determine the cause and effect relationship between the increased number of amphibian malformations and deformities, the health quality of the environment and those species dependent on amphibians for survival; simply stated, the preservation of biodiversity and sustainability of the ecosystem. 

What can you do to protect amphibians?

1. Avoid the use of herbicides and weed killers.  Try mulching and pulling weeds
2. Minimize the use of fertilizers.  Over fertilizing is a common urban problem that results in excesses being carried away by water runoff (as well as pesticides and herbicides) and pollutes critical habitats.  Researchers at Oregon State found low levels of nitrates are enough to kill some species of amphibians (U.S. FWS 2003). 
3. Reduce the use of pesticides.  Homeowners use approximately 10 times more chemical pesticides per acre on their lawns than farmers use on their crops.
4. Plant native species, they are often tolerant to the pests and diseases found in your region.
5. Avoid pesticides that contain DEET (a chemical very harmful to amphibians)
6. Dispose of household products, paints, auto fluids and detergents properly.  Dumping them into sewers and drains often results in contamination of waterways.

Before we completely asphyxiate our wetlands, estuaries, ponds, streams, and environments, let’s take the time to recognize the warning signs currently on display. Promoting responsible actions and working to protect the wildlife and habitats of our communities will ensure survival, rehabilitation and healthier, cleaner environments that benefit all residents who share this planet.