NOYO NEWS

Photograph of DNA helix “ladders”

“Genetically modified  ”FrankenFI$H”  no good,  master…“

By David Gurney

A week ago, in a deal struck last May that was purposely hushed-up by the Obama administration until after the election, and released during the holiday season, the FDA announced approval of controversial plans for genetically modified salmon to enter American stores and restaurants, to be sold and eaten without labeling.

The public has 60 days after Dec. 21 to offer comment to the Food and Drug Administration before final approval.

According to the Organic Consumers Association, if the proposal is granted final approval, GMO salmon will be the first animal to enter the U.S. food supply.

Aquaculture has been around for quite a while, with farmed salmon now accounting for over half the world’s demand for the fish, in a multi-billion dollar world-wide industry.

But AquaBounty, a biotech firm with offices in Boston and Prince Edward Island, is not just into fish-farming. They’re into ‘Frankenfish’ farming.  Frankenfish grow up in tanks at twice the rate of regular farmed salmon.

There are fears that if these aggressive superfish with modified genes escape into the wild, natural salmon DNA, entire populations of smaller fish, and possibly the food chain itself, could collapse.

The company claims the salmon are sterile and that their inland fish pens offer absolutely no chance of escape.  In their proposal, the gene mutated eggs will be produced in Canada, then shipped to Panama to be reared in land-locked tanks.

But around 5 percent of genetically modified female salmon remain fertile, and the possibility exists that the mutated genes could enter the natural world either by negligence or misconduct.  Regular “farmed” salmon are raised in sheltered, open ocean “sea pens.”  At these operations, escaped fish are common, sometimes numbering in the thousands.

Sea-pens off B.C., Canada.  Courtesy of the BC Salmon Farmers Association

‘Frankenfish’  for human consumption are also said to carry allergies, hormonal imbalances leading to cancer, and a host of other health and envirnmental risks.

But it’s a sure way to make buck, and twice as fast.

Now there’s a good line for a Mark Graham song.

“I’m just a poor,  Frankenfish farmer…”

Please also see:  LINK, and LINK and LINK.

And sign the Petition, to stop the FDA’s approval of Frankenfish.

from the OCA website:

Tell the FDA:  NO Frankenfish

What is frankenfish?

“AquaBounty Technologies, a Massachusetts-based biotech company, created the “AquAdvantage” salmon by injecting a fragment of DNA from an ocean pout fish, which is a type of eel, along with a growth hormone gene from the Chinook Pacific salmon, into a fertilised Atlantic salmon egg. The result? A salmon that produces growth hormone year round, instead of only during warm weather. This allows the fish to reach market weight in just 18 months, instead of the usual three years.

Only 95% of the AquAdvantage salmon may be sterile, the rest fertile. Plus, the fish at the egg production facility in Prince Edward Island, Canada, will not be sterile. The FDA says the likelihood of the GE salmon escaping into the wild is “extremely remote” but gave little reassuring evidence to support that assumption. According to studies, the frankenfish eat five times more food than wild salmon, and have less fear of predators. All it would take is for some of these frankenfish to escape, and the world’s wild salmon population would be at risk.

The first genetically engineered salmon – dubbed “frankenfish” – could be in grocery stores and restaurants as early as 2014. The FDA is expected to approve AquaBounty Technologies’ GE salmon after a 60-day public comment period. If approved, it will be the first approved food from a transgenic animal application to enter the U.S. food supply.

Consumer and environmental activists oppose genetically engineered “frankenfish” for many reasons, including the potential danger it poses to human health, to the environment and to the U.S. fishing economy. Michael Hansen, PhD, senior scientist with the Consumers Union, the advocacy and policy arm of Consumer Reports, called the FDA’s Environmental Assessment (EA) of GE salmon “flawed and inadequate.”

Potential harm to human health. The FDA has allowed this fish to move forward based on tests of allergenicity of only six GE fish. Even with such limited testing, the results showed an increase in allergy-causing potential, according to Hansen. AquAdvantage also contains elevated levels of the growth hormone, IGF-1, which is linked to prostate, breast and colon cancers.”

read more: HERE

* * *

Stewarts Point (Danaka) in Sonoma County, located within the proposed boundaries of the expanded Gulf of the Farallones National Marine Sanctuary. This area is sacred to the Kashia Pomo Tribe. Fortunately, the Tribe, after conducting a blessing ceremony here on April 30, 2010, successfully pressured the Fish and Game Commission to reopen this area to tribal gathering and recreational fishing after it was closed.    Photo by Dan Backer

by Dan Bacher

In a move welcomed by environmentalists, fishermen and Tribal members, the federal government announced on December 20 it will begin a public process to review the expansion of the boundaries for the Gulf of the Farallones and Cordell Bank national marine sanctuaries off northern California.

NOAA’s Office of National Marine Sanctuaries is soliciting public comments on this boundary review through March 1, 2013. The announcement took place the day after a new network of so-called “marine protected areas” created under the Marine Life Protection Act (MLPA) Initiative went into effect on the Northern California coast from the California-Oregon state line in Del Norte County to Point Arena in Mendocino County

The federal sanctuaries, established by Congress in the 1980s, together protect nearly 2,000 square miles of ocean near the coast of San Francisco. For the map of the proposed expansion, go to: http://farallones.noaa.gov/manage/pdf/expansion/northernexpansion121217.pdf

“The proposed expansion area is north of the existing sanctuaries and extends from Bodega Bay in Sonoma County to Alder Creek in Mendocino County,” according to a news release from NOAA. “This area encompasses Point Arena – North America’s most intense ‘upwelling’ site – which is home to diverse species and a productive ecosystem.”

“The waters off the northern California coast are incredibly nutrient-rich and drive the entire natural system and, for almost a decade, local communities have been petitioning their elected officials to expand sanctuary protection to these areas,” said Daniel J. Basta, director of the NOAA’s Office of National Marine Sanctuaries.

However, while supporting the sanctuary expansion, many grassroots environmentalists are concerned that the waters north of the Point Arena area are not included. This is where the San Andreas fault lies, the Mendocino Fracture Zone, that holds crude oil and gas in the cracks and fractures that form the endless sequence of powerful earthquakes that convulse the region.

According to an alert from the Ocean Protection Coalition of Mendocino County, “The latest seismic data contain enough information to determine the genesis and orientation of the offshore fault system and associated folds. Basin modeling indicates hydrocarbon generation has occurred in the Miocene source beds. The model estimates the Point Arena basin contains multibillion barrel potential trapped in large antiforms associated with the through-going San Andreas system. (http://0-http://www.osti.gov.iii-server.ualr.edu/energycitations/product.biblio.jsp?osti_id=6729782)

There has been pressure for years from other states and the oil industry to open oil drilling operations off the Mendocino County coast. Alleged “marine protected areas” that went into effect north of Port Arena on December 19 fail to protect the ocean from oil drilling, fracking, pollution, wind and wave energy projects and all other human impacts other than fishing and gathering.

The California Fish and Game Commission adopted the controversial regulations in June, amidst protests by Yurok Tribe representatives that the new closed zones, based on incomplete and terminally flawed “science” created under the MLPA Initiative, would violate traditional tribal harvesting rights. (http://blogs.alternet.org/danbacher/2012/06/08/yurok-tribe-challenges-mlpa-initiatives-terminally-flawed-science)

Ironically, Catherine Reheis-Boyd, the President of the Western States Petroleum Association, served on the Marine Life Protection Act Blue Ribbon Task Force for the North Coast to create these so-called “undersea parks,” marine protected areas that do nothing to protect the ocean from ocean industrialization. Reheis-Boyd also chaired the MLPA Blue Ribbon Task Force that developed the “marine protected areas” for the South Coast.

The public is urged to comment on the expansion of the marine sanctuaries.

“NOAA will review these comments to determine if an expansion is beneficial, and if so, will prepare a draft environmental impact statement (EIS) to assess expansion alternatives. Any draft EIS will be subsequently prepared through a public process under the National Environmental Policy Act,” according to NOAA.

Once a draft EIS is completed, it will be opened for public comment again before final action is taken. This process will not revisit or amend the regulations for the current sanctuaries.

“In 2008, during a review of the two sanctuaries’ management plans, NOAA was urged to facilitate a public process in the next five years to ensure that sanctuary boundaries were inclusive of the surrounding area’s natural resources and ecological qualities,” NOAA said. “Senator Barbara Boxer and Representative Lynn Woolsey have also introduced legislation in every Congress since 2003 to expand the sanctuaries’ boundaries.”

Three scoping meetings are planned for the public to learn more about the proposal and submit comments. Public meetings will be held on the following dates, locations, and times:

Bodega Bay Grange Hall, Bodega Bay, Calif., Jan. 24, 6:00 p.m.

Point Arena High School, Point Arena, Calif., Feb. 12, 6:00 p.m.

Gualala Community Center, Gualala, Calif., Feb. 13, 6:00 p.m.

Comments on the proposed boundary expansion may also be submitted by March 1, 2013 via:

Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Submit electronic comments via the Federal eRulemaking Portal with Docket Number NOAA-NOS-2012-0228Mail: Maria Brown, Sanctuary Superintendent, Gulf of the Farallones National Marine Sanctuary, 991 Marine Drive, The Presidio San Francisco, CA 94129

Gulf of the Farallones National Marine Sanctuary, designated in 1981, and Cordell Bank National Marine Sanctuary, designated in 1989, both contribute greatly to ocean and coastal management by engaging in public outreach and education to promote stewardship, conducting scientific and applied research initiatives, and developing and supporting programs that strengthen resource protection for the long-term health of the region.

Gulf of the Farallones National Marine Sanctuary encompasses nearly 1,300 square miles of ocean and coastal waters beyond California’s Golden Gate Bridge. The sanctuary supports an abundance of species including the largest breeding seabird rookery in the contiguous United States, and other species such as whales and white sharks. Visit http://www.farallones.noaa.gov.

Cordell Bank National Marine Sanctuary, located 42 miles north of San Francisco, is a destination feeding area for local and migratory marine life. The sanctuary’s productive waters and unique undersea topography provide the foundation for a rich and diverse marine community. Visit http://www.cordellbank.noaa.gov.

* * *

by Dan Bacher

On December 21, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) released a draft environmental assessment (EA) finding, in spite of much evidence to the contrary, that genetically engineered (GE) AquaAdvantage salmon pose no risk to the environment.

The document claimed that the fish “will not have any significant impacts on the quality of the human environment of the United States.” It also claimed that the GE salmon, the first ever intended for human consumption in the United States, is unlikely to harm populations of wild salmon.

The FDA made the finding in spite of a petition from conservation groups requesting that it complete a comprehensive environmental impact statement on the risks GE fish could present to the natural marine environment.

The finding occurs as the Obama administration is continuing and expanding some of the worst environmental policies of the Bush administration, including exporting record amounts of water out of the Delta, killing record numbers of fish at the Delta pumping facilities and promoting the privatization of the fisheries through the “catch shares” program.

Earthjustice filed that petition in May 2011 on behalf of the Ocean Conservancy, Food & Water Watch, Friends of the Earth, Center for Food Safety, the Center for International Environmental Law and Greenpeace.

“FDA’s narrow analysis fails to seriously consider the risks these genetically engineered fish could pose to our natural environment,” said Earthjustice attorney Khushi Desai. “If these fish mix with wild salmon, the ecological harm could be devastating. This genetically engineered fish puts the entire US salmon industry at risk, and most importantly it could threaten the very survival of our native salmon populations.”

After more than a decade of behind-the-scenes work with the GE fish sponsor, AquaBounty Technologies, the FDA announced last fall that it intended to approve AquaBounty’s application. In response, the public sent over 400,000 comments to the FDA opposing the “Frankenfish” and demanding mandatory labeling of any GE fish approved for sale to US consumers, according to a statement from Earthjustice.

“Materials submitted to the FDA by the owner of the GE salmon, AquaBounty, raise serious, unanswered concerns regarding potential destruction of wild salmon populations,” according to Earthjustice. “These concerns are significant enough to warrant a more thorough environmental impact statement, as required under the National Environmental Policy Act.”

In the draft EA released Friday, the FDA accepts AquaBounty’s representation that no fish will escape, survive, or reproduce in the wild—even though that type of security cannot be guaranteed.

Conservationists, fishermen and consumer advocates take the company at its word that this is just their first step in a broader plan to produce these GE fish and others like them around the world.

Vast majority of consumers oppose “Franken-salmon” 

Wenonah Hauter, Executive Director of Food & Water Watch, slammed the FDA decision to tentatively approve Frankensalmon.

“Despite insufficient testing and widespread opposition, AquaBounty’s genetically engineered (GE) salmon took the final step towards becoming the first FDA-approved genetically engineered (GE) food animal,” Hauter said in a statement. “The Food and Drug Administration released its draft Environmental Assessment, clearing the way for this transgenic organism to be approved by the agency under its new animal drug approval process.

“Food & Water Watch is far from alone in condemning this historic decision – one that disregards numerous polls revealing that the vast majority of consumers oppose GE salmon. Over 40 members of Congress and scientists at other federal agencies, including the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, have also voiced strong opposition to GE salmon, citing the lack of scientific rigor and expertise at the FDA,” she noted.

“To add insult to injury, this product may be hitting the market without labeling, meaning that concerned consumers who have demanded labeling will be unable to identify GE from non-GE salmon. Not only does this ignore our fundamental right to know what we are putting on our plates, it is simply bad for business, as many will avoid purchasing any salmon for fear it is genetically engineered,” she stated.

The Obama administration tentatively approved the Frankensalmon less than 2 months after Proposition 37, the initiative calling for the labeling of genetically engineered (GE) food in California, was narrowly defeated on November 6. Pesticide companies, led by Monsanto and Dupont, and other corporations spent nearly $50 million to defeat the grassroots effort.

Hauter noted that the FDA, tasked with protecting consumer safety, failed to conduct the appropriate studies to determine if it is safe to eat or even if the fish can live up to AquaBounty’s claim of faster growth rates. And, by releasing an environmental assessment instead of a more thorough environmental impact statement, the FDA failed to fully consider the threat this controversial new fish could pose to wild fish populations.

“Congress can still keep FDA from unleashing this dangerous experiment,” Hauter said. “Bipartisan legislation would ban the commercialization of this controversial fish. Food & Water Watch will be examining legal options to force FDA to do a more thorough assessment of this new GE food animal.”

Although Hauter said this latest FDA decision is a blow to consumer confidence, she encourage everyone to contact their members of Congress and demand this reckless decision be overturned. She also said Food & Water Watch and its allies will be collecting comments to deliver to the FDA during their public comment period.

Jaydee Hanson of the Center for Food Safety noted that the environmental assessment says that the comment period is 30 days, but the Federal Register notice says 60 days.

“I have confirmed with the relevant FDA staff that the Federal Register notice is correct. So 60 days for comment are in order,” said Hanson.

Caleen Audrey Sisk, Chief and Spiritual Leader of the Winnemem Wintu Tribe, urges everybody to sign Food & Water Watch’s petition telling Congress to stop the approval of GE salmon: https://secure3.convio.net/fww/site/Advocacy?cmd=display&page=UserAction&id=383&JServSessionIdr004=xzcgm8he07.app337a

“Please sign on to this request to keep GE salmon, the Frankenfish, off the market. These Frankenfish are sure to kill wild Chinook salmon!” said Sisk.

The Obama administration’s abysmal record on salmon, fish and water 

The Obama administration’s tentative approval of GE salmon for human consumption occurs in the context of an administration that has continued and expanded some of the most odious environmental policies of the Bush administration.

The Obama administration is the first-ever federal administration to officially endorse the construction of a peripheral canal or tunnel, a project that will hasten the extinction of Central Valley salmon, Delta and longfin smelt and other fish species by diverting massive quantities of water from the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta to corporate agribusiness and southern California.

The Obama and Brown administrations also presided over record Delta water exports and massive fish kills at the state and federal pumping facilities in 2011. The record water exports resulted in the “salvage” of a record 9 million Sacramento splittail and over 2 million other fish including Central Valley salmon, steelhead, striped bass, largemouth bass, threadfin shad, white catfish and sturgeon. (http://www.counterpunch.org/2012/05/07/carnage-in-the-pumps)

These fish kills couldn’t occur at a worse time. An analysis by the Golden Gate Salmon Association (GGSA) has found that since year 2000 over one hundred million fish (102,856,027) have been sucked into the Delta pumps. This figure includes twenty six million valuable game fish, many of which are endangered.

This is in spite of the fact that the Central Valley Project Improvement Act, signed by President George H.W. Bush in the fall of 1992, set a goal of doubling the Bay-Delta watershed’s Chinook salmon runs from 495,000 to 990,000 wild adult fish by 2002. The legislation also mandated the doubling of other anadromous fish species, including Central Valley steelhead, white sturgeon, green sturgeon, striped bass and American shad, by 2002.

Rather than doubling, the Central Valley Chinook salmon fishery has suffered a dramatic collapse over the past decade, now standing at only 13 percent of the population goal required by federal law. (http://www.counterpunch.org/2012/11/23/salmon-on-the-brink)

As if tentatively approving GE salmon, fast-tracking the construction of the peripheral tunnels, exporting record amounts of water from the Delta, killing millions of fish in the Delta pumps and refusing to enforce the Central Valley Project Improvement Act wasn’t enough, the Obama administration has promoted the privatization of fisheries through the “catch shares” program.

“Under the guise of conservation, a system called ‘catch shares’ is being pushed by the government and larger members of the fishing industry alike to make a public resource, our fish, like private property,” according to Food & Water Watch. “Traditional, small-scale fishermen are being pushed out of the industry as these shares are handed out for free with most going to larger, industrial fishing operations. Worldwide, catch share programs have meant fewer jobs for fishemen – and the effects spread to whole communities – fewer fishermen means less dollars for local shops, restaurants and more. For consumers, it can mean lower quality fish and a further reliance on industrially processed foods.”

Here is a link to the Federal Register notice. http://www.ofr.gov/(X(1)S(3wgpeabwc3u0oolrf5h5u1ls))/OFRUpload/OFRData/2012-31118_PI.pdf

* * *

By Paul Rogers, San Jose Mercury News

In a move that would permanently ban oil drilling along more than 50 miles of Northern California coast, the Obama administration announced plans Thursday to expand two Northern California marine sanctuaries, extending them up the rugged Sonoma and Mendocino coast.

The announcement, at a news conference in Washington, D.C., with members of the Bay Area congressional delegation and officials from NOAA, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, marks the largest expansion of national marine sanctuaries in California in 20 years — since President George. H.W. Bush established the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary in 1992.

“This area is a national treasure.  It needs and it deserves permanent protection from oil and gas exploration,” said Rep. Lynn Woolsey, D-San Rafael, who led efforts to expand the sanctuaries.

“This is a matter of economic common sense.  Jobs and livelihoods hang in the balance,” she said. “No one is going to vacation on the Sonoma coast if they are looking at oil derricks.”

While national marine sanctuaries ban oil drilling and other extractive activities, and set rules on such practices as sewage dumping by cruise ships, they do not ban fishing or boating.

Read More: HERE

* * *

Areas of  “no-fishing or gathering, but privatized “science”, oil drilling and fracking OK” zones, implemented by a corrupt MLPA “Initiative”

By Dan Bacher

Yesterday’s LA Times article, “California’s marine reserve network now complete,” claims that “California officials today completed the largest network of undersea parks in the continental United States — 848 square miles of protected waters that reach from the Oregon state line to the Mexican border.” (http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-undersea-parks-20121219,0,4717471.story)

However, this article, as previous ones in the Times, fails to address any of the real, substantial criticisms of the Marine Life Protection Act (MLPA) Initiative process by grassroots environmentalists, Indian Tribe members, commercial fishermen, recreational anglers and advocates of democracy and transparency in government.

The reporter, Kenneth R. Weiss, portrays a false conflict of “fishermen versus environmentalists” over the MLPA Initiative when the real conflict is one of public policy between those that favor corporate greenwashing and the privatization of conservation and those who oppose corporate greenwashing and the privatization of conservation. The reporter fails to mention the “inconvenient truths” about the MLPA Initiative.

First, the Times falsely portrays the new closed zones as “undersea parks” when they are anything but. These so-called “marine protected areas” do not protect the ocean from oil spills and drilling, military testing, corporate aquaculture, wind and wave energy projects and all other impacts on the ocean other than fishing and gathering.

In violation of the letter and spirit of the landmark Marine Life Protection Act of 1999, these marine reserves fail to comprehensively protect the ocean from ocean industrialization and other threats to the marine ecosystem.

“Marine protected areas can in some instances be beneficial for specific areas, species or ecosystems,” said Zeke Grader, Executive Director of the Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen’s Associations. “However, the problem we have here is that these ‘marine protected areas’ are in essence no fishing zones and they don’t protect for water quality and other types of development or insults to the environment from activities such as seismic testing.”

Oil-industry overseen

Second, the Times fails to mention that the MLPA Blue Ribbon Task Forces that oversaw the implementation of these “marine protected areas” included a big oil lobbyist, marina developer, real estate executive and other individuals with numerous conflicts of interest.

Catherine Reheis-Boyd, the president of the Western States Petroleum Association, served on the MLPA Blue Ribbon Task Forces for the South Coast, Central Coast, North Central Coast and North Coast. Reheis-Boyd, a relentless advocate for offshore oil drilling, hydraulic fracturing (fracking), the Keystone XL Pipeline and the weakening of environmental laws, CHAIRED the task force that developed the MPAs that went into effect in Southern California on January 1. (http://blogs.alternet.org/danbacher/2012/06/24/the-most-censored-environmental-story-of-2012)

Most recently, Reheis-Boyd on December 10 claimed that “hydraulic fracturing is safe for California” in her letter to the editor in the Sacramento Bee. (http://www.sacbee.com/2012/12/10/5040406/hydraulic-fracturing.html)

“Hydraulic fracturing has been employed in California for 60 years and there has never been evidence that it has caused harm to water supplies or the environment,” she claimed. “As president of the Western States Petroleum Association, I can state that members remain committed to producing safe, reliable California energy supplies while continuing to protect the environment and public health.”

If having a big oil lobbyist, an advocate for offshore oil drilling and hydrofracking, in charge of the development of “marine protected areas” on the South Coast isn’t corporate greenwashing and bad public policy, I don’t know what is!

Many grassroots environmentalists and fishermen believe that Reheis-Boyd was appointed to the task force to make sure that the oil industry’s interests were protected and to ensure that recreational and commercial fishermen and seaweed harvesters, the most vocal opponents of offshore oil drilling and hydrofracking, are removed from many areas on the ocean to clear a path for ocean industrialization.

David Gurney, independent journalist and co-chair of the Ocean Protection Coalition, commented on the opening of new lease-sales for hydrofracking – and Reheis-Boyd’s role in pushing for increased fracking in California. (http://noyonews.net/?p=8215)

“Last week, Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar announced new lease-sales for Bureau of Land Management lands in California for ‘fracking’ development. Offshore areas are showing up on maps: reservoirs of underwater natural gas deposits, that lie under the ocean off Santa Barbara and Southern California,” he said.

“It’s clear that government and petroleum officials want to ‘frack’ in the very same areas Reheis-Boyd was appointed to oversee as a ‘guardian’ of marine habitat protection for the MLPA ‘Initiative,’”said Gurney.

“What’s becoming obvious is that Reheis-Boyd’s expedient presence on the ‘Blue Ribbon Task Force’ for the MLPAI was a ploy for the oil industry to make sure no restrictions applied against drilling or fracking in or around so-called marine protected areas,” Gurney emphasized.

“Objections to the obvious conflict of interest of Reheis-Boyd at the top level of the MLPA ‘Initiative’ fell upon deaf ears during the MLPAI’s run, and were in fact actively discouraged by the Kearns and West energy interest facilitators during the quasi ‘public process,’ during which fishing and food gathering interests were exclusively thrown off areas of ocean slated to become sacrifice zones for oil industry pollution,” concluded Gurney.

Resources Legacy Foundation: The shadowy foundation behind the “Initiative”

Third, the Times claims that “Michael Mantell, a Sacramento lawyer who coordinates philanthropy and conservation, organized the David and Lucile Packard Foundation, the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation, the Marisla Foundation and two others to pick up the state’s costs, including paying for panels of local leaders to take testimony and make recommendations. So far, the foundations have spent more than $23 million.”

However, the reporter doesn’t mention that this money was funneled through the shadowy Resources Legacy Fund Foundation. This is an inherent conflict of interest, since this foundation also funds many of the corporate “environmental” NGOs who lobbied for the creation of marine reserves with the least possible protection from all other human impacts on the ocean other than fishing.

The Resources Legacy Fund Foundation also funds, along with the Stephen Bechtel Jr. Foundation and the David and Lucile Packard Foundation, the Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC) studies advocating the construction of a peripheral canal or tunnel. The canal or tunnel would hasten the extinction of Central Valley salmon, steelhead, Delta smelt, longfin smelt, green sturgeon and other fish populations. (http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2012/06/05/18714814.php)

Incomplete and terminally flawed science

Fourth, the Times failed to mention that the Northern California Tribal Chairman’s Association, including the Chairs of the Elk Valley Rancheria, Hoopa Valley Tribe, Karuk Tribe, Smith River Rancheria, Trinidad Rancheria, and Yurok Tribe, believes the science behind the MLPA Initiative developed by Schwarzenegger’s Science Advisory Team is “incomplete and terminally flawed.” (http://blogs.alternet.org/danbacher/2012/06/08/yurok-tribe-challenges-mlpa-initiatives-terminally-flawed-science)

The Yurok Tribe said it has attempted on numerous occasions to address the scientific inadequacies with the MLPA science developed under the Schwarzenegger administration by adding “more robust protocols” into the equation, but was denied every time. This denial of consideration of the Tribe’s scientific data flies in the face of false claims by MLPA advocates that the privately funded initiative creates “Yosemites of the Sea” and “underwater parks” based on “science.”

For example, the MLPA Science Advisory Team in August 2010 turned down a request by the Yurok Tribe to make a presentation to the panel. Among other data, the Tribe was going to present data of test results from other marine reserves regarding mussels.

“The data would have shown that there was not a statistical difference in the diversity of species from the harvested and un-harvested areas,” wrote John Corbett, Yurok Tribe Senior Attorney, in a letter to the Science Advisory Team on January 12, 2011. “The presentation would have encompassed the work of Smith, J.R. Gong and RF Ambrose, 2008, The Impacts of Human Visitation on Mussel Bed Communities along the California Coast: Are Regulatory Marine Reserves Effective in Protecting these Communities.’”

It must be noted that Ron LeValley, Co-Chair of the MLPA Science Advisory Team for the North Coast, and two others were arrested earlier this year by the Del Norte County District Attorney for conspiracy to embezzle over $870,000 from the Yurok Tribe. “Raymond, McAllister and LeValley are accused of using an elaborate system of fake invoices, false purchase requests and electronic bank transfers to embezzle more than $870,000 in federal funds from the Yurok Tribe during a three-year period of wildlife preservation studies,” according to the Eureka Times Standard on September 28. For more information, go to: http://www.times-standard.com/localnews/ci_21651665/hearing-continued-three-accused-embezzlement

The LA Times article, as many others published about this process, fails to mention the conflicts of interest, failure to comprehensively protect the ocean, shadowy private funding and incomplete and terminally flawed science that have made the MLPA Initiative into one of the most egregious examples of corporate greenwashing in California history.

The LA Times, by failing to do any research into the conflicts of interest and multitude of public policy problems that plagued the MLPA Initiative, performs a great disservice to its readers and effectively greenwashes this privately funded, rigged process.

* * *

           From an industry sponsored video claiming, despite mounting evidence to the contrary, that since fracking occurs deep underground, there is no threat to aquifers.

By David Gurney

California’s best kept secret since leaky pipes at San Onofre, earthquake faults under Diablo Canyon, the $54 million hidden slush fund at State Parks, and the Governator’s maid, is that the state already hosts at least 628 “fracked” oil wells.

While the rest of the nation is in an uproar to immediately ban a practice that is known to poison water tables and destroy drinking water, the head of the Western States Petroleum Association (WSPA) Catherine Reheis-Boyd, declared in a release to the Sacramento Bee  that hydraulic fracking is “safe for California.”  She claimed in the article “virtually all California drilling activities are overseen by one or more agencies.  Existing regulations already provide for extensive environmental protection and worker and public safety.”

Facts indicate the exact opposite is true.  

Ms. Reheis-Boyd, president and spokesperson for the WSPA, also served as Chair for the controversial Marine Life Protection Act “Initiative,” revealing stark levels of deception and corruption, both within the “Initiative” and California politics in general.

Last week, Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar announced new lease-sales of Bureau of Land Management (BLM) lands in California, for oil and natural gas “fracking.”  Offshore areas are also showing up on maps, indicating reservoirs of underwater deposits beneath the ocean off Santa Barbara and Southern California.  It’s clear that government and petroleum officials want to “frack” in the very same areas Catherine Reheis-Boyd was appointed to oversee, as “guardian” of marine habitat protection for the MLPA “Initiative.”

The ‘South Coast Study Region’ for the MLPAI on left, natural gas deposits on right. (See: LINK)

What’s becoming increasingly obvious, is that Reheis-Boyd’s expedient presence as Chair of the Initiative’s “Blue Ribbon Task Force,” was in fact a ploy by the the oil industry to make sure no restrictions were applied in the MLPA against drilling or fracking, in or around so-called marine protected areas.

Objections to the obvious conflict of interest of Reheis-Boyd’s appointment to the top levels of the MLPA “Initiative” fell upon deaf ears during the boondoggle’s run, and were in fact actively squelched by Kearns and West energy-interest facilitators – who ran the meeetings during the quasi “public process” – a process which forced fishing and food gathering interests off the ocean in areas now apparently slated to become sacrifice zones for the oil industry.

Meanwhile, an October story by Bay Area NBC investigative reporter Stephen Stock revealed that California has already had numerous “fracked” wells that state regulators failed to even keep track of.

Fracking has been taking place for over five decades in Sacramento, Monterey, Los Angeles and Kern Counties, without any state oversight or regulation whatsoever.

According to Tim Kustic, chief oil and gas supervisor at the Department of Conservation, (link)  “We don’t have an exact number of how many wells in the state are fracture stimulated.”

see the video here:

In California, the practice of fracking does not even require a permit.  According to an Aug. 2012 article in San Luis Obispo’s ‘New Times’ – “The oil company drilling under Lyon’s…ranch and vineyard wasn’t required to obtain a permit or notify anyone before it began high-pressure pumping of a mix of water, sand, and a cocktail of “trade secret” chemicals, deep down into the earth.  Not Lyons, not the county, not the state, not even the federal overseers of oil and gas drilling.”  (link)

Negligent California law makers and supervisors are scrambling to catch up with the rest of the nation and the world, in regulating an alarming practice many believe sacrifices pure, unpolluted water for natural gas.  Meanwhile, residents in the above mentioned counties may be well-advised to have their water tested.

Please also see:  Fracking explained (You Tube)

And:  How water is polluted by fracking (You Tube)

And:  Former MLPA chair says hydrofracking is ‘safe for California’

* * *

Proposed fracking sacrifice zones in central and offshore Southern California (source: Food & Water Watch)

Food and Water Watch is on the vanguard to ban fracking in the United States.  According to their website:

“Fracking is short for hydraulic fracturing. It’s an extremely water-intensive process where millions of gallons of fluid – typically a mix of water, sand, and chemicals, including ones known to cause cancer – are injected underground at high pressure to fracture the rock surrounding an oil or gas well. This fracking releases extra oil and/or gas from the rock, so it can flow into the well.

But the process of fracking introduces additional industrial activity into communities beyond the well. Clearing land to build new access roads and new well sites, drilling and encasing the well, fracking the well and generating the waste, trucking in heavy equipment and materials and trucking out the vast amounts of toxic waste — all of these steps contribute to air and water pollution risks and devaluation of land that is turning our communities into sacrifice zones. Fracking threatens the air we breathe, the water we drink, the communities we love and the climate on which we all depend. That’s why over 250 communities in the U.S. have passed resolutions to stop fracking, and why Vermont, France and Bulgaria have stopped it.”

This week, it has become clear that California is next on the list to have large areas of the state become sacrifice zones for the natural gas/oil industries.

Since fracking is “an extremely water-intensive process” how can it make sense to ‘frack’ in food producing areas, where extemely limited water is already a critical issue?  And why would we want to poison our ocean, farms, wildlife and water – to make the oil companies even richer?

Add to this the absolute madness of creating mini-earthquakes by fracking, in the already earthquake-prone areas of the San Andreas Fault, and you have a sure-fire recipe for disaster.  Do the oil companies have enough insurance to cover themselves if they trigger “The Big One” in Southern California?

To learn more on how to become involved in the fight to ban fracking, go to:

Food and Water Watch: FRACKING

And please sign the F&W Watch petition to ban fracking in California  HERE.

* * *