Advocacy Project: The Salmon Challenge

Title
The Salmon Challenge

Purpose
Salmon Challenge is a game to help you see how your decisions help or harm our environment and our salmon. The environmental lessons learned from this game can also be applied to other wildlife and humans that use estuaries, rivers, lakes, and ponds for a variety of purposes.

Background/Reasoning/Evidence
Polluted runoff that enters rivers, lakes, and estuaries has a major impact on the environment and endangers the health of wildlife and humans. Polluted runoff comes from a variety of sources that are hard to regulate. However, there are several things you can do around your home to improve the water quality of rivers, lakes, and estuaries.

Instructions
1. You will be given ten questions, just choose the best answer by clicking on it with your mouse. Good choices will help your salmon grow big and strong and migrate to Puget Sound, bad choices will harm or kill your salmon.
2. You may get a Water Quality Alert with no good solution.
3. Click on CHECKUP to see your salmon's current size, health and location.
4. Click on TRY to give your salmon a jumpstart if you discover it is sick.
5. Clicking on the arrow will take you to the next question
6. When you are finished with the game, post a comment about what you learned from it!
*NOTE: Salmon Challenge requires Shockwave Player plug-in (external link) to view the animations.

CLICK on the Salmon below to play!

Advocacy Project: Letter to Public Official

Lauren W.
123 Rainbow Road
LaLa Land, MN 54321

April 28, 2009

Representative Tim Walz
227 E Main St #220
Mankato, MN 56001

RE: Support for Bill H.R.585.

Dear Congressman Walz,

I urge you to support Bill H.R. 585, which directs the President to enter into an arrangement with the National Academy of Sciences to evaluate certain Federal rules and regulations for potentially harmful impacts on public health, air quality, water quality, plant and animal wildlife, global climate, or the environment; and to direct Federal departments and agencies to create plans to reverse those impacts that are determined to be harmful by the National Academy of Sciences. In relation to this bill, I am asking you to focus your support on the Minnesota River Basin in particular.

The 1st district of Minnesota has long been affected by problems with the water quality of the Minnesota River. Degradation in water quality has occurred in the Minnesota River over the last 150 years due to significant changes in land use. The water quality of the river is severely impacted by pathogens, sediment, phosphorus and nitrogen. These pollutants come from a variety of sources including runoff and erosion from agricultural fields, stream banks and stream channel scouring, city streets, construction sites, feedlots, and the effluent from wastewater treatment plants and septic systems. All of these pollutants cause health hazards for wildlife and humans, reduced fish populations, and impaired recreational opportunities. Concerted efforts are needed by town dwellers, farmers, municipalities, and industries to reduce pollution of the river and its tributaries.

Support of Bill H.R. 585 will help to develop local water quality goals to improve the quality of life in and around the Minnesota River. The creation of water quality goals would help to ensure that the fish are safe to eat, opportunities for fishing and boating are not limited by pollution, and it is safe to swim in the river. There is less concern about the water quality standards and more concern about the quality of life. People want to use and enjoy the Minnesota River without being concerned about potential health hazards. I appreciate your support of the environment and your past service as co-chair of the Upper Mississippi River Basin taskforce and efforts in Congress to secure funding for the Navigation and Ecosystem Sustainability Program.

To assure our community’s health and safety and to make progress in the cleanup of the Minnesota River Basin, please support Bill H.R. 585 by voting “yes” when it is proposed in the House of Representatives.

Should you need additional information, please do not hesitate to contact me at 888-999-1010. I look forward to your response.


Sincerely,

Lauren W.

Advocacy Project: Issue Overview

Introduction
· Problem: Many assessed rivers, lakes, and estuaries throughout the United States are unsafe for fishing or recreational purposes.
· Current Legislation: H.R.585, To direct the President to enter into an arrangement with the National Academy of Sciences to evaluate certain Federal rules and regulations for potentially harmful impacts on public health, air quality, water quality, plant and animal wildlife, global climate, or the environment; and to direct Federal departments and agencies to create plans to reverse those impacts that are determined to be harmful by the National Academy of Sciences.

Who is affected by the issue?
· Who is affected the most? Anyone who uses unsafe rivers, lakes, and estuaries for irrigation, swimming, fishing, rafting, boating, and industrial purposes. Also, anyone who consumes fish taken from rivers, lakes, and estuaries with poor ambient water quality. These conditions may also affect wildlife which uses the water for drinking or as a habitat.
· Who loses and what do they lose? People and animals loose good health and a safe habitat.
· Who gains and what do they gain? Industrial factories, construction companies, mining companies, sewage treatment plants, cities with storm-sewer outflows into bodies of water, and farmers gain an outlet source for their pollutant runoff.

What are the consequences of the issue?
· For the individuals mostly affected? Untreated human waste, sediment, oil, antifreeze, contaminated groundwater, garbage, acid rain, fertilizers, and other chemicals cause disease and death in humans and wildlife. It also destroys the natural habitat of many organisms and the natural environment for human enjoyment.
· For their families? The loss or harm of a loved one due to death or disease.
· For society? If these measures are not taken to correct water pollution, life on earth will suffer severely. Global environmental collapse is not inevitable.

What is the economic impact of the issue?
· What are the economic costs of the issue, and who bears these costs? It is expensive for the government to treat and prevent water contamination.
· What are the economic benefits of the issue, and who benefits? Water treatment and prevention costs money to maintain, but prevention is much cheaper than cleaning up water pollution that has already occurred. In the end, this could benefit the government by saving them money.

What is the social impact of the issue?
· What are the social costs of the issue, and who bears these costs? If these measures are not taken to correct water pollution, life on earth will suffer severely. Global environmental collapse is not inevitable.
· What are the social benefits of the issue, and who benefits? In some ways, it benefits society and government to not have to pay for treatment or clean-up of water pollution and direct the money to other important issues that also protect the health of society.

What are the barriers?
· What are the barriers to addressing this issue? Cost, clean-up labor, sustainability.
· How can they be overcome? Don’t try to return these bodies of water to pristine conditions all at once. Set goals for maintaining healthy eco-systems and may concentrate of the protection of populations of endangered species and protecting human health. Start out by focusing on the designation of uses, which allow for some water contamination as long as a particular type of contamination is not harmful to the designate uses.

What are the resources?
· What resources will we need to address this issue? Funding, clean-up labor, staff to monitor and maintain improved water quality.
· Where and how can they be tapped? Environmental laws may require government and taxpayers to provide funding, clean-up resources, and staff to correct the water pollution problem.

What is the history of this issue?
· What is the history of the issue in the community? Serious degradation in water quality has occurred in the Minnesota River over the last 150 years due to significant changes in land use. The poor water quality of the Minnesota River is due to the vast agricultural landscape that contributes billions of dollars to the economy of Minnesota
· What past efforts were made to address it? In relation to the Minnesota River, the DNR has posted signs warning of fines for dumping “garbage” into the river. Several forms of legislation have been passed in recent decades to try to control water pollution.
· What were the results? Stronger legislation is needed to reduce unsanitary levels of pollution.
Allies & Opponents
· Who would support this issue? Those who enjoy rivers, lakes, and estuaries for recreational purposes. In addition, anyone who’s health has deteriorated to due poor ambient water quality.
· Who would oppose this issue? Those who use rivers, lakes, and estuaries as a convenient source for runoff. In addition, government or taxpayers who wouldn’t want to cover the cost to correct the problem.

My Recommendation
· How do you want policy-makers to vote on this proposed policy? I want my local representative to vote YES on H.R.585!

Advocacy Project: Healthy People/THOMAS

Note: The photo above was taken (by me) near my home in Courtland, MN, which is located in the Minnesota River valley. I chose the goal listed below because I have often heard of problems with pollution in the Minnesota River. I have been told never to go swimming in the river if I didn't want to come out with an extra leg or arm growing on me from all the chemicals in the river!

8-8 Objective: Increase in Proportion of Assessed Rivers, Lakes, and Estuaries That Are Safe for Fishing and Recreational Purposes

• 8-8a. Rivers and streams
• 8-8b. Lakes, ponds, and reservoirs

Progress Quotient Chart Data: Tracking data for objectives 8-8a and b are unavailable.

Progress Information: Data were not available to measure progress for surface water health risks (8-8a and b). New data sources were identified and baselines established for objectives 8-8. Additional data are anticipated for these objectives to assess progress by the end of the decade.

• 8-8a. 2000 Baseline: 55% (Percent Assessed Good*)
• 8-8a. 2010 Target: 58% (Percent Assessed Good*)
• 8-8b. 2000 Baseline: 63% (Percent Assessed Good*)
• 8-8b. 2010 Target: 66% (Percent Assessed Good*)

* Good is defined by EPA as fully supporting all of the following uses or fully supporting all uses but threatened for one or more uses: aquatic life support, fish consumption, primary contact [swimming], secondary contact [boating], drinking water supply, and agriculture.

Disparities:

• Race and Ethnicity: Data for objectives 8a-8b are unavailable or not applicable.
• Gender, Income, and Location: Data for objectives 8a-8b are unavailable or not applicable.

Opportunities and Challenges: The passage of the Beaches Environmental Assessment and Coastal Health (BEACH) Act in October 2000 amended the Clean Water Act to (1) establish a national grants program to improve consistency of water quality standards, beach monitoring, and public notification approaches and (2) strengthen national information collection. The EPA established its BEACH program to promote greater consistency in beach health programs and to provide better information to the public. As part of that program, the EPA compiles information on beach advisories and closures. It has collected that information using annual questionnaires sent to participating States, Tribes, local governments, and other agencies that maintain swimming beaches. The questionnaire collects information about advisories and closings that have occurred throughout the swimming season

Emerging Issues: Beach monitoring programs are typically run by local health agencies, and programs vary by location. Monitoring results are inconsistent because agencies use different indicator organisms and varying monitoring frequencies. As part of its beach grant program, EPA has set performance criteria that States and other governments must meet to receive beach grants. These criteria are expected to improve the reporting of beach advisory data.

Related Bill:

• H.R.585
• Title: To direct the President to enter into an arrangement with the National Academy of Sciences to evaluate certain Federal rules and regulations for potentially harmful impacts on public health, air quality, water quality, plant and animal wildlife, global climate, or the environment; and to direct Federal departments and agencies to create plans to reverse those impacts that are determined to be harmful by the National Academy of Sciences.
• Sponsor: Rep Lee, Barbara [CA-9] (introduced 1/15/2009) Cosponsors (5)
• Latest Major Action: 1/16/2009 Referred to House subcommittee. Status: Referred to the Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment.
• My Political Representative: Timothy J. "Tim" Walz (represents District 1, which includes the area of the Minnesota River valley where Courtland, MN is located)

Advocacy Project: My Political Representatives

President: Barack Obama (DFL)

http://www.whitehouse.gov/

U.S. Representative: James L. Oberstar (DFL)
231 Federal Building

Duluth, MN 55802

(218) 727-7474

U.S. Senator: Amy Klobuchar (DFL)
302 Hart Senate Office Building

Washington, DC 20510

(202) 224-3244

Minnesota Governor: Tim Pawlenty (GOP)

Office of the Governor

130 State Capitol

75 Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd.

St. Paul, MN 55155

(651) 296-3391

State Representative: Thomas Huntley (DFL)
585 State Office Building

100 Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd.

St. Paul, MN 55155

(651) 296-2228

State Senator: Yvonne Prettner Solon (DFL)
75 Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd.

Capitol Building, Room G-9

St. Paul, MN 55155-1606

(651) 296-4188

St. Loius County Administrator: Alan Mitchell

(218) 726-2448

District 2 County Comissioner: Steve O’Neil
Room 208100 N. 5th Avenue West

Duluth, MN 55802

(218) 726-2359

Duluth City Mayor: Don Ness (DFL)

Mayor's Office

Room 402, 411 West First Street

Duluth, MN 55802

(218) 730-5230