Environmental Protection Agency Archives - Page 10 of 12

Trump Budget Would Zero Out Funding For Puget Sound Recovery, Again

February 14, 2018 — Members of Congress who represent Puget Sound are pushing back against the Trump administration’s budget for 2019 in part because it would zero out all federal funding for cleanup and recovery of the iconic ecosystem.

The proposal cuts all funding for the Environmental Protection Agency’s geographic program for Puget Sound, as well as for a national estuary program and for Pacific salmon recovery through National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration fisheries. The administration says it wants local governments to take on the responsibility and continue recovery efforts.

The missing money totals more than $30 million, says Sheida Sahandy, Executive Director of the state’s Puget Sound Partnership, which coordinates cleanup. Those funds are leveraged with money from other state and local sources to get work done, so she says the cuts would be “crippling.”

“We’re at tipping point for, for example, the Orca,” she said, referring to the dwindling population of southern resident killer whales, which has reached its lowest number in 30 years. Only 76 are left in the wild.

“We are fearing extinction around the corner and stopping our efforts at this point in their tracks would essentially mean that we’re giving up on saving them,” Sahandy said, adding that the orcas are only the most obvious example of what’s at stake.

If there’s any silver lining, it’s that her agency has been through this once before.

Last year, the President’s budget proposed nearly identical cuts. Congress ultimately pushed back, reinstating all $28 million in the geographic program for Puget Sound in the 2018 budget.

But Sahandy says it will take a lot of advocacy once again. She says Washington state is so far away from the capitol that many well-meaning members of Congress need to be reminded why their support is critical.

Read the full story at KNKX

Network seeks to bring together data on harmful algal blooms

February 6, 2018 — A group of scientists is coming together to share information related to harmful algal blooms in Alaska.

Under the umbrella of the Alaska Ocean Observation System, part of the national ocean observation system network, a partnership of state agencies, Alaska Native organizations and the University of Alaska has launched the Alaska Harmful Algal Bloom Network. The intent is to stitch together a statewide approach to researching, monitoring, responding to and spreading information about harmful algal blooms in the state.

Algal blooms are natural processes in the ocean and occur when the population of algae in a certain area increases dramatically. However, they can turn toxic when certain types of algae proliferate and produce chemicals that can be harmful to other plants, animals and people, or consume all the oxygen in the water as they decay. The events, called harmful algal blooms, occur all over the planet, in both freshwater and the ocean, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

“Over the last 10 years, we’ve been seeing more and more of these bloom events happening,” said Ginny Eckert, a professor at the University of Alaska Fairbanks in Juneau and co-chair of the Alaska Harmful Algal Bloom Network’s executive committee. “It’s always a question: Are we seeing more because we’re paying attention more? But … the more information we can get out to people, (the better).”

Harmful algal blooms can have devastating consequences. In 2014, nearly 500,000 Ohio residents had to go without clean drinking water because of harmful algal blooms near a water treatment plant in Lake Erie. A harmful algal bloom in a lake that flowed into the ocean near Monterey Bay, California in 2007 is thought to have killed 11 sea otters with infections of microcystin, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Every year in Alaska, a number of alerts go out to shellfish gatherers to be careful because some of the clams, oysters and mussels may have high levels of a toxin that causes paralytic shellfish poisoning, a fatal condition in humans.

Read the full at the Peninsula Clarion

Scott Pruitt pushes back on finding that would restrict pesticides’ use to protect fish

February 5, 2018 — For months, chemical companies have waged a campaign to reverse findings by federal fisheries scientists that could curb the use of pesticides based on the threat they pose to endangered species. They scored a major victory this week, when Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt announced he would press another federal agency to revisit a recent opinion triggering such restrictions.

The struggle over an arcane provision of the Endangered Species Act, in which the EPA must affirm that the pesticides it oversees do not put species’ survival in jeopardy, has become the latest front in the battle over a broad-spectrum insecticide known as chlorpyrifos. Pruitt denied a petition to ban its agricultural use after questioning EPA scientists’ conclusions that exposure impedes brain development in infants and fetuses.

Speaking to the National Association of State Departments of Agriculture on Wednesday, Pruitt said he plans to inform the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Marine Fisheries Service “that there needs to be a consultation because we have usage data, frankly, that wasn’t considered.”

NOAA Fisheries issued a Biological Opinion on Dec. 29, which was publicly released Jan. 9 by the environmental law firm Earthjustice, finding that the current use of chlorpyrifos and malathion “is likely to jeopardize the continued existence” of 38 species of salmon and other fish in the Pacific Northwest and destroy or harm the designated critical habitat of 37 of those species. It found another pesticide, diazinon, could jeopardize the continued existence of 25 listed fish species and could harm critical habitat for 18 of them.

In allowing chlorpyrifos to stay on the market — the product is already prohibited for household products — Pruitt cited concerns raised by the Department of Agriculture, pesticide industry groups and an EPA scientific review panel about studies the agency used to conclude that the pesticide poses a serious enough neurological risk to ban its use on dozens of crops. One study, by researchers at Columbia University, found a connection between higher exposure levels to chlorpyrifos and learning and memory problems among farmworkers and children.

Read the full story at the Washington Post

Pruitt’s EPA puts brakes on Pebble Mine proposal in Bristol Bay, Alaska

January 31, 2018 — Activists fighting a proposed gold and copper mine in Bristol Bay, Alaska breathed a sigh of relief on Friday, 26 January, when the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) upheld an Obama-era declaration that the proposed Pebble Mine, which would sit in the watershed for the world’s biggest sockeye salmon run, could cause irreversible harm to area fisheries.

Fishermen, native groups, and conservationists fought against the mine proposal for years, and won a temporary victory with a 2014 EPA ruling that stated mining could lead to “significant and irreversible harm” to local fishing grounds. But after years of eyeing the site, the project’s main backer, Northern Dynasty Minerals, filed for its first federal application in December 2017, just a month after President Donald Trump was elected, and fanned fresh concerns with activists opposing the mine.

EPA head Scott Pruitt issued a statement Friday that the order does not block the mine outright, but does shelve the permitting process until further environmental impact reviews can be conducted.

“It is my judgement at this time that any mining projects in the region likely pose a risk to the abundant natural resources that exist there,” Pruitt said in the statement. “Until we know the full extent of that risk, those natural resources and world-class fisheries deserve the utmost protection. Today’s action allows the EPA to get the information needed to determine what specific impacts the proposed mining project will have on those critical resources.”

Read the full story at Seafood Source

EPA halts plans to lift proposed mine restrictions in Alaska

January 29, 2018 — The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency on Friday halted plans to withdraw proposed restrictions on mining activity near a major Alaska salmon fishery, drawing praise from opponents of the Pebble Mine project.

Last year, in settling a legal dispute with the Pebble Limited Partnership, which wants to build a copper and gold mine in Alaska’s Bristol Bay region, the EPA agreed to initiate a process to withdraw restrictions proposed during the Obama administration.

But in a release Friday, EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt said based on comments the agency has received, “it is my judgment at this time that any mining projects in the region likely pose a risk to the abundant natural resources that exist there.”

“Until we know the full extent of that risk, those natural resources and world-class fisheries deserve the utmost protection,” he said.

About half of the world’s sockeye salmon is produced by Bristol Bay, the EPA has said.

Tom Collier, CEO of the Pebble partnership, said the EPA’s announcement does not deter the project. Pebble recently filed a permit application with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, which will trigger an environmental review of the project.

“We believe we can demonstrate that we can responsibly construct and operate a mine at the Pebble deposit that meets Alaska’s high environmental standards,” he said in a release. “We will also demonstrate that we can successfully operate a mine without compromising the fish and water resources around the project.”

The restrictions on development proposed under President Barack Obama were never finalized; a judge had ordered the agency to stop work related to that process while the litigation between Pebble and the EPA played out.

The EPA said Friday’s announcement doesn’t derail the permit application process but said the application “must clear a high bar, because EPA believes the risk to Bristol Bay may be unacceptable.”

The agency said it plans to solicit additional public comment.

U.S. Sen. Lisa Murkowski, a Republican, said Pruitt is taking a balanced approach that lets Pebble enter the permitting process but also acknowledges EPA’s duty to protect the region’s fisheries.

Read the full story from the Associated Press at the New Jersey Herald

EPA: New Bedford Harbor among top opportunities in New England

January 18, 2018 — NEW BEDFORD, Mass. — New Bedford Harbor has been identified by the U.S. Environmental Protection agency as one of two Superfund sites in New England with the greatest potential for redevelopment and commercial use.

No funding comes with the designation, but additional staff time and attention could be devoted to the sites, EPA spokeswoman Kelsey Dumville said in an interview.

No. 1 on the Port of New Bedford’s priority list is extending North Terminal by 800 feet, Port Director Edward Anthes-Washburn said. The space would add more room to dock commercial fishing boats, and it could serve other purposes in the future, he said. Boats are rafted three and four deep on the docks in the central waterfront.

“We definitely have a small supply and high demand for dockage,” he said.

The city could also use the space for cargo or offshore wind-related operations, he said.

The New Bedford Harbor Development Commission has applied for a $15 million federal grant for the North Terminal bulkhead and dredging.

Mayor Jon Mitchell’s office has said the project would not only finalize cleanup of the harbor and create more dockage, but also create at least 900 new jobs and spur millions of dollars in private investment.

“The purpose of this project is to promote growth in the Port of New Bedford across multiple industries: fishing, offshore wind, cargo, and island freight,” Mitchell said in a press release in October.

The New England regional EPA office in Boston made recommendations about sites to be named among the 31 nationally with the most redevelopment potential, EPA spokeswoman Emily Bender said. The other New England site is Raymark Industries Inc., a former manufacturer of automobile brakes, clutches and other parts in Stratford, Conn.

Read the full story at the New Bedford Standard-Times

Government Scientists Say A Controversial Pesticide Is Killing Endangered Salmon

January 12, 2018 — The federal government’s top fisheries experts say that three widely used pesticides — including the controversial insecticide chlorpyrifos — are jeopardizing the survival of many species of salmon, as well as orcas that feed on those salmon.

It’s a fresh attack on a chemical that the Environmental Protection Agency was ready to take off the market a year ago — until the Trump administration changed course.

Chlorpyrifos is widely used by farmers to protect crops like strawberries, broccoli and citrus fruit from insect pests. In recent years, though, scientists have found evidence that exposure to chlorpyrifos residues can harm the developing brains of small children, even in the womb.

Two years ago, the Environmental Protection Agency issued a proposal that would have stopped farmers from using chlorpyrifos. The final decision, however, fell to the Trump administration, and EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt decided to keep the chemical on the market while the agency continues to study its risks.

This new report, however, examines another danger entirely — the risk that chlorpyrifos and two other pesticides, diazinon and malathion, are washing into streams and rivers and harming wildlife.

The National Marine Fisheries Service concluded that continued use of the chemicals is likely to jeopardize the survival of endangered species of salmon, as well as orcas that eat the salmon. According to the report, use of chlorpyrifos is affecting 38 species of endangered fish, and it’s having negative effects on 37 areas that have been designated as “critical habitat” for endangered species.

Read the full story at New England Public Radio

South Jersey Times: Christie should fight hard to keep drilling ban

January 11, 2018 — With less than a week to go in office and part of his legacy on the line, Gov. Chris Christie has called out President Donald Trump over his administration’s unilateral call to open the entire East Coast to offshore energy drilling.

The possibility of drilling causing a spill despoiling the Atlantic Coast or otherwise ruining New Jersey’s tourism and fishing industries has long been a third rail of Garden State politics, uniting Democrats and Republicans alike. Past attempts to increase coastal drilling — and even President Barack Obama authorized them — generally had “opt-out” features for states, often won after protests from New Jersey lawmakers and governors.

The latest move by U.S. Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke, with Trump’s apparent blessing, to open both the Atlantic and Pacific coasts to more drilling has no specific carve-outs. A current drilling moratorium for the Atlantic coast was supposed to last until at least 2022.

With all due respect to most of the New Jersey elected officeholders who circled the wagons against the Zinke proposal, just as they had in the past: They have no juice with this president.

Read the full story at the South Jersey Times

Seafood Council backs NOAA nominee

December 11, 2017 — The issue of who exactly will run NOAA for the Trump administration is gathering steam within the Beltway and without, with various special interest groups — fishing stakeholders, environmentalists, scientists, politicians et al — weighing in on the nomination of Barry Myers.

Myers, who most recently served as the chief executive officer of the private weather forecasting company AccuWeather, has been criticized in some quarters for lack of a scientific background and fears that he might begin dismantling the National Weather Service to give private weather forecasting companies an advantage.

There also has been concern that Myers would fall in line with other Trump appointees, such as EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt and Energy Secretary Rick Perry, in downplaying the human role in climate change.

And what of fishing? Several stakeholders, such as the Northeast Seafood Coalition, have endorsed Myers’ candidacy, hoping that he will bring a new perspective to the ongoing battle between fishermen and NOAA Fisheries’ science team.

“In our region, NOAA science has struggled to accurately measure the abundance of fish stocks while fisheries management has been guided by management that has served the ‘weakest link’ in the complex,” NSC Executive Director Jackie Odell wrote in the coalition’s endorsement of Myers. “We believe Mr. Myers will bring a fresh and much-needed perspective and approach to strengthening the science underlying the management of our fishery, along with a commitment to achieving sustainability of not only these fish stocks, but also the fishing businesses that rely upon a well-managed fishery.”

Read the full story at the Gloucester Times

Cantwell Introduces Solution to Shield WA Fishermen from Unnecessary Costs, Delays

December 7, 2017 — WASHINGTON — The following was released by the office of Sen. Maria Cantwell:

U.S. Senator Maria Cantwell (D-WA) introduced the Fishing and Small Vessel Relief Act (S.2194) to extend protections for fishermen and small vessel owners from adhering to costly requirements that do not tangibly protect or improve water quality for vessels of their size. An EPA study found that incidental discharges from these small vessels do not generate a significant threat to our waters.

The bill will extend a current moratorium that exempts fishing vessels and vessels under 79 feet from incidental discharge permitting requirements mandated by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). These vessels have been continuously exempt since 2008 under a temporary moratorium as they do not pose a serious environmental risk.

“Fishermen are key drivers of Washington state’s growing economy. We need their boats out fishing, not bogged down by regulations meant for large vessels like oil tankers,” said Cantwell.

Cantwell’s science-based legislation brings stability to small vessel owners who have been at unease due to an impending December 18^th expiration of the current moratorium. More than 115,000 small vessels nation-wide would receive relief under the Cantwell legislation. Commercial fishing boats make up the bulk of the protected vessels, but many research vessels, tour boats, tugboats, towboats, and offshore supply boats would also qualify.The EPA’s vessel incidental discharge permitting requirements are intended to prevent water pollution and the spread of invasive species through release of bilge water, ballast, and other discharges. These regulations are critical to safeguard the environment from large vessels, who are more likely to carry pollutants and run a greater risk of introducing invasive species. Vessel discharge from smaller vessels does not pose a serious environmental risk.

A copy of the bill can be found HERE.