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.

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.

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.