http://www.environmentmaine.org/reports/clean-water/clean-water-program-reports http://www.environmentmaine.org/reports/clean-water/clean-water-program-reports/testing-the-waters-a-guide-to-water-quality-at-vacation-beaches In 2005 there were more beach closings and advisories than at any other time in the 16 years the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) has been tracking them. The number of closing and advisory days at ocean, bay, and Great Lakes beaches topped 20,000, confirming that our nation’s beaches continue to suffer from serious water pollution. This year’s report is different, however—and more complete. For the first time, we were able to determine not only the number of closings and advisories, but also the number of times that each beach violated current public health standards. NRDC found 200 designated swimming beaches that violated public health standards at least 25 percent of the time. Those violations indicate that the beachwater was contaminated with human and animal waste, and that beachgoers were either swimming in that waste or banned from doing so due to the health risks. This year is also different because on the day we release this report we will also file a lawsuit against the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for failing to adequately protect from waterborne disease the more than 180 million Americans who go to the shore every year. The EPA missed its congressionally mandated October 2005 deadline to revise the current public health standards for beachwater quality, which are outdated and inadequate. The agency now says it will not be able to finish updating the standards, as required by the Beaches Environmental Assessment and Coastal Health Act of 2000 (BEACH Act), until 2011. NRDC is suing to force the EPA to accelerate its timetable for proposing new standards, to set standards that fully protect the public, and to establish testing methods that will enable public health officials to make prompt decisions about closing their beaches and issuing advisories. Today’s beachwater quality standards, which were set in 1986, use obsolete monitoring methods that may leave beachgoers vulnerable to a range of waterborne illnesses. Dirty coastal waters not only threaten our health but hurt our economy. Coastal “tourism and recreation constitute some of the fastest growing business sectors—enriching economies and supporting jobs in communities virtually everywhere along the coasts of the continental United States, southeast Alaska, Hawaii, and our island territories and commonwealths,” according to the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy.1 That translates into new employment opportunities: In 2000, U.S. coastal tourism and recreation generated 1.67 million jobs, a 41 percent increase from 1990, earning workers $13.8 billion in wages. Annual economic output nearly doubled during the same time period, to $29.5 billion. But U.S. “beachonomics” might have been more robust if not for the condition of our coastal waters. Some 45 percent of our waters assessed by state agencies are not clean enough for fishing or swimming, according to EPA data from 2000, the most recent year for which national information is available. In 2005, 8 percent of all water samples taken at beaches across the country exceeded the national daily bacterial standard—the outmoded standard that the EPA was supposed to update to adequately protect the public. Americans need to know that the waters in which we swim, surf, and dive are safe. At a minimum, that means that recreational waters must be tested regularly, and the results must be measured against effective health standards. When waters do not meet these standards, authorities must promptly and clearly notify the public. Over the last 16 years Testing the Waters has helped trigger the expansion of beachwater monitoring programs across the United States and prompted Congress to pass new laws—particularly the federal BEACH Act of 2000. Between the time NRDC first issued this report in 1991 and the passage and implementation of the BEACH Act, monitoring programs were initiated or expanded in 13 coastal and Great Lakes states: Alabama, California, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Maine, Massachusetts, Mississippi, North Carolina, Ohio, Oregon, South Carolina, and Texas. And as a result of federal grants now available to states through the BEACH Act, every coastal and Great Lakes state has a monitoring and public notification program in place. But if authorities are doing a better job of monitoring beaches than in the past, that monitoring also reveals the extent to which they are failing to clean up the sources of beachwater pollution. Closings and advisories are rising steadily, and most authorities are not even attempting to identify pollution sources, much less control them. Further improvements to monitoring and public notification programs should include expanding the programs to cover all designated coastal beaches and popular inland beaches. Meanwhile, if successful, NRDC’s lawsuit will prod the EPA to move more quickly to implement a new health standard. Finally, in addition to those needed improvements in the federal standard, it is time for the EPA and state and local authorities to seriously address the sources of beachwater pollution, which most often is stormwater and sewage pollution. Prevention is the best way to make sure that a day at the beach will not turn into a night in the bathroom or, worse, in a hospital emergency room. http://www.environmentmaine.org/reports/clean-water/clean-water-program-reports/testing-the-waters-a-guide-to-water-quality-at-vacation-beaches Fri, 10 Aug 2007 11:55:53 -0500 http://www.environmentmaine.org/reports/clean-water/clean-water-program-reports/agribusiness-and-atlantic-salmon-the-effects Historically, Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) populations ranged throughout the New England states, south to Long Island Sound, and Atlantic Canada. In the United States, salmon runs were divided into three Distinct Population Segments (DPSs), or populations that would interbreed when mature (USFWS/ NMFS, 2000). These DPS regions were delineated to include the Long Island Sound, Central New England, and Gulf of Maine Distinct Population Segments. The first two populations have been extirpated and no longer exist. The final existing population, the Gulf of Maine DPS, originally extended down to the Androscoggin River. The Androscoggin no longer supports Atlantic salmon runs, but the remaining rivers in the Gulf of Maine DPS still have “functioning wild salmon populations, although at substantially reduced abundance levels” (USFWS/NMFS, 2000). Located in the Downeast region of Maine, these rivers include the Dennys, East Machias, Machias, Pleasant, Narraguagus, Ducktrap and Sheepscot Rivers, and Cove Brook. Acknowledging the declining Atlantic salmon populations, the National Marine Fisheries Service and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service decided to classify the Atlantic salmon in this DPS as endangered, with the full protection under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). At the time of the listing, members of industry and some in the scientific community expressed concern about the classification of Atlantic salmon as endangered due to the effects of stocking and aquaculture on the population’s genetic distinctness (USFWS/NMFS, 2000). Additionally, many other stakeholders expressed apprehension regarding the listing because of the potential affect on agriculture and other land use in the Atlantic salmon’s habitat. Thus the stage was set for a formal state-wide review of the relative importance of wildlife preservation versus human agriculture interests. The Endangered Species Act (ESA), aside from making it illegal to harm or kill endangered species (both directly and indirectly), also mandates federal, state, and local agencies to ensure that their actions do not harm these species, or negatively impact their recovery (USFWS, 2001). With the listing of Atlantic salmon, regulation of pesticides, pesticide use, water withdrawal and water pollution by federal, state and local agencies was required to conform to ESA standards. Two of Downeast Maine’s prominent industries, agriculture and forestry, threaten various aspects of Atlantic salmon survival and have been under greater scrutiny following the listing. A recent report released by the Maine Environmental Policy Institute detailed the impacts of the forestry industry on Atlantic salmon (Lansky, 2004). This report will explore the effects of blueberry cultivation on Atlantic salmon in the endangered DPS. Agencies cite a number of issues that should be addressed for Atlantic salmon recovery. For example, the National Academy of Sciences (2004) listed dams as the largest threat to Atlantic salmon, but stressed the importance of monitoring water quality and stream flow. Project SHARE (Salmon Habitat and River Enhancement) emphasizes the importance of monitoring non-point source pollution (NRWC, 2003). Additionally, the recovery plan for Atlantic salmon drafted by the USFWS and NMFS (2004) listed water withdrawals and acidified water as two critical threats to their survival. Common agricultural practices of blueberry cultivation can affect all of these factors in Atlantic salmon recovery. This report will address the potential threats to the Atlantic salmon caused by the blueberry industry, specifically sedimentation, nutrient loading, pesticide contamination, water withdrawal, wastewater discharge, and acidification. The report’s findings include: • Sedimentation from low-maintenance roads throughout fields near Downeast rivers create increased problems with sedimentation of gravel beds, which are important Atlantic salmon egg and alevin habitat; • Nutrient loading is not extensive, but there is some potential for fertilizer application to fields to cause algal blooms and decreased dissolved oxygen in nearby streams and rivers; • Pesticides used on blueberry fields have limited acute toxicity to Atlantic salmon, but indirect and chronic effects may be severe; • Hexazinone- this oft-used herbicide is likely in concentrations from drift, runoff and groundwater seep high enough to change aquatic organismal communities, decreasing fitness of fry and parr; • Malathion and azinphos-methyl may have direct, acute effects on Atlantic salmon physiology and survival, even in low concentrations; • Water withdrawal can dramatically affect Atlantic salmon and the entire aquatic ecosystem, particularly in the late summer and early fall; • Discharges from processing plants and other wastewater may have adverse effects on water temperature and dissolved oxygen in rivers, but is limited to small portions of Atlantic salmon habitat; • Sulfur applications to increase acidic soil conditions are infrequent and sporadic, yet may be of concern for all life stages of Atlantic salmon. http://www.environmentmaine.org/reports/clean-water/clean-water-program-reports/agribusiness-and-atlantic-salmon-the-effects Fri, 10 Aug 2007 12:47:48 -0500 http://www.environmentmaine.org/reports/clean-water/clean-water-program-reports/shell-game-how-the-federal-government-is-hiding-the-mismanagement-of-our-nations-fisheries Ocean fish are the last wild creatures that humans hunt for food on a large scale. The oceans once supplied a seemingly unending bounty of seafood, with codfish so plentiful off the coast of New England, fishermen merely needed to dip baskets into the water to catch them. Today, many of our nation’s commercially important fish populations (or what fishery managers call “stocks”) are fished at unsustainably high rates, with some, like New England cod stocks, fished down to historic lows, endangering the future of not only the fish stocks, but our nation’s fishermen. As American seafood consumption continues to rise, we need healthy, productive fish stocks to support this growing demand. Overfishing – catching fish faster than they can reproduce – threatens the vitality of our fish stocks and the fishermen who depend on them for their way of life. Twenty years of ineffective regulation of U.S. fisheries by the National Marine Fisheries Service and the regional fishery management councils led to fish stock crashes in New England, the Pacific, and other parts of the country, resulting in severe economic and ecological impacts. Congress recognized the threat posed by overfishing when it passed amendments to Magnuson Act known as the Sustainable Fisheries Act in 1996, requiring the regional fishery management councils, using guidance provided by the National Marine Fisheries Service, to define and eliminate overfishing and create plans to rebuild overfished populations within 10 years if possible. To track rebuilding progress, the Sustainable Fisheries Act also required the Secretary of Commerce to report to Congress annually on the status of each fish stock managed by the councils. This report analyzes data from the 2001 – 2004 “Status of U.S. Fisheries” reports (the most recent reports available) and action by the regional fishery management councils from 2001 – 2005 to assess the efforts made by fishery managers to eliminate overfishing and rebuild overfished stocks. Key findings of this analysis include: Progress reducing the number of stocks that are overfished and experiencing overfishing is an administrative shell game. At first glance there appears to be a declining trend in the number of stocks that are overfished and experiencing overfishing. However, administrative actions, such as dropping stocks out of the count, deciding that not enough information existed so they should be moved to the “unknown” category or collapsing many stocks into one “complex,” account for most of the declining trend: 60 percent of the overfished stocks and 75 percent of the stocks experiencing overfishing between 2001 and 2004 were taken off the list due to administrative shuffling or reclassification. In a nutshell, the number of stocks that are overfished and experiencing overfishing has not appreciably declined. By 2004, only 13 percent of the nation’s fish stocks could be considered “healthy.” The number of healthy stocks, i.e., those stocks that are both not overfished, nor experiencing overfishing, remained constant between 2001 and 2004. Not only is the number of healthy stocks very low, there has not been a discernable gain in healthy stocks between 2001-2004. Councils have a pattern of allowing overfishing to continue on overfished stocks. Many councils allowed overfishing to continue on overfished stocks between 2001 and 2004, including New England’s Georges Bank cod, Pacific groundfish, and Gulf of Mexico red snapper. As of 2004, five councils and NMFS allowed 27 overfished stocks to also be subjected to overfishing, despite legal requirements to end overfishing. Some councils refuse to accept scientific recommendations with disastrous results. Several councils have a history of refusing to accept scientific information that requires the adoption of strict conservation measures. It took a federal lawsuit to force the New England Council to adopt a plan to rebuild Georges Bank cod by 2026. The Gulf Council exceeded red snapper catch levels recommended by scientists by 50 percent and, as a result, does not expect the population to be rebuilt until 2032. It took a federal disaster declaration for the Pacific Council to finally take action to protect groundfish and, as a result, canary rockfish will not be rebuilt until 2074. Ineffective management tools are common. When councils set catch levels without a mechanism to stop fishing once the level is reached, overfishing often results. Many councils continue to use these ineffective measures, even when a stock is declared overfished. Closed areas or fishing moratoria have allowed successful rebuilding of whiting and lingcod in the Pacific, and goliath and Nassau grouper in the Gulf of Mexico. NMFS does not know if the majority of stocks it manages are overfished or experiencing overfishing. In 2004, NMFS did not know whether 70 percent of all the nation’s stocks were overfished or not. For over half of all the nation’s stocks, it does not know if they are experiencing overfishing. NMFS has worked to increase its knowledge of commercially important stocks, but knows less about so called “minor” stocks than it did four years prior. Out-of-date data is prevalent for some councils. The variance in the availability of current data for different councils is striking. The Gulf, South Atlantic and Caribbean councils work with data that is sometimes over 5 years old. While the New England, Pacific, North Pacific, and Western Pacific councils tend to work with more recent data. Ten years after the passage of the Sustainable Fisheries Act, efforts to prevent overfishing and rebuild overfished populations remain inadequate. Overfishing continues on overfished populations, while administrative changes to the status of the stocks reports mask the councils’ failures to control overfishing. Recent council actions to rebuild overfished populations are an improvement over past inaction, but still fall short of what is required to protect our nation’s fish. Councils need to move beyond adopting the easiest and most obvious measures, actively encourage better data collection, and utilize moratoria, long-term closures, and “hard” catch limits to provide the thorough levels of protection needed for sustaining fish populations for future generations. http://www.environmentmaine.org/reports/clean-water/clean-water-program-reports/shell-game-how-the-federal-government-is-hiding-the-mismanagement-of-our-nations-fisheries Fri, 10 Aug 2007 12:51:46 -0500 http://www.environmentmaine.org/reports/clean-water/clean-water-program-reports/troubled-waters-an-analysis-of-clean-water-act-compliance-july-2003--december-2004 When drafting the Clean Water Act in 1972, legislators set the goals of making all U.S. waterways fishable and swimmable by 1983 and eliminating the discharge of pollutants into the nation’s waterways by 1985. More than 30 years later, we are far from realizing the Clean Water Act’s original vision. Using information provided by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in response to a Freedom of Information Act request, this report analyzes all major facilitiesa violating their Clean Water Act permits between July 1, 2003 and December 31, 2004, reveals the type of pollutants they are discharging into our waterways, and details the extent to which these facilities are exceeding their permit levels. More than two decades after the drafters of the Clean Water Act hoped that all waterways would be pollution-free, we find that facilities across the country continue to discharge more pollution into our waterways than allowed under the law. Key findings include: Thousands of facilities continue to exceed their Clean Water Act permits. • Nationally, more than 3,700 major facilities (62%) exceeded their Clean Water Act permit limits at least once between July 1, 2003 and December 31, 2004. • The ten U.S. states that allowed the highest percentage of major facilities to exceed their Clean Water Act permit limits at least once are West Virginia, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, Iowa, Ohio, New Hampshire, Utah, the District of Columbia, and Maine. • The eight U.S. counties with the most facilities exceeding their Clean Water Act permits at least once in this period are Harris County, Texas; Worcester County, Massachusetts; New Haven County, Connecticut; Allegheny County, Pennsylvania; Hartford County, Connecticut; Calcasieu Parish, Louisiana; Erie County, New York; and Fairfield County, Connecticut. These facilities often exceed their permits more than once and for more than one pollutant. • Nationally, 436 major facilities exceeded their Clean Water Act permit limits for at least half of the monthly reporting periods between July 1, 2003 and December 31, 2004. • Thirty-five (35) facilities exceeded their Clean Water Act permits during every monthly reporting period between July 1, 2003 and December 31, 2004. • The 3,700 major facilities exceeding their permits in the time period studied reported more than 29,000 exceedances of their Clean Water Act permit limits. This means that many facilities exceeded their permits more than once and for more than one pollutant. • The ten U.S. states that allowed the most exceedances of Clean Water Act permit limits between July 1, 2003 and December 31, 2004 are Ohio, Texas, New York, Pennsylvania, Louisiana, Tennessee, Indiana, West Virginia, Massachusetts, and Illinois. These facilities often exceed their permits egregiously. • Major facilities exceeding their Clean Water Act permits, on average, exceeded their permit limits by about 275%, or almost four times the allowed amount. • The ten U.S. states that allowed the highest average permit exceedance between July 1, 2003 and December 31, 2004 are Hawaii, Wyoming, South Dakota, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Indiana, Mississippi, Delaware, Illinois, and Georgia. • Nationally, major facilities reported approximately 2,500 instances between July 1, 2003 and December 31, 2004 in which they exceeded their Clean Water Act permit limits by at least six-fold (500%). • The U.S. states that allowed at least 100 exceedances of at least 500% are Ohio, Indiana, Pennsylvania, New York, Tennessee, Texas, and Massachusetts. At a time when our federal leaders should be working with the states to clean up our waterways and enforce the law, the Bush administration has suggested, proposed, or enacted numerous policies that would weaken the Clean Water Act and threaten the future of America’s rivers, lakes, streams, wetlands, and oceans. Rather than weakening the Clean Water Act, the Bush administration and our elected officials should tighten enforcement of Clean Water Act programs; strengthen standards to protect our rivers, lakes, streams, wetlands, and coastal waters; and ensure the public’s right to know about water pollution by increasing and improving access to accurate and comprehensive compliance data and discharge reporting. http://www.environmentmaine.org/reports/clean-water/clean-water-program-reports/troubled-waters-an-analysis-of-clean-water-act-compliance-july-2003--december-2004 Fri, 10 Aug 2007 12:56:30 -0500 http://www.environmentmaine.org/reports/clean-water/clean-water-program-reports/troubled-waters-an-analysis-of-2005-clean-water-act-compliance October 18, 2007 marks the 35th anniversary of the Clean Water Act, a landmark law intended to restore and maintain the physical, chemical and biological integrity of the nation’s waters. In passing the Clean Water Act, Congress set the goals of eliminating the discharge of pollutants into the nation’s waterways by 1985 and making all U.S. waterways fishable and swimmable by 1983. Although we have made significant progress in improving water quality since the passage of the Clean Water Act, we are far from realizing the Act’s original vision. Using information provided by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in response to a Freedom of Information Act request, this report analyzes all major facilities [a] that exceeded their Clean Water Act permits between January 1, 2005 and December 31, 2005; reveals the type of pollutants they are discharging into our waterways; and details the extent to which these facilities are exceeding their permit levels. More than two decades after the drafters of the 1972 Clean Water Act intended for the discharge of all pollutants to be eliminated, facilities across the country continue to violate pollution limits, at times egregiously. Findings include: - Thousands of facilities continue to exceed their Clean Water Act permits. - Nationally, more than 3600 major facilities (57%) exceeded their Clean Water Act permit limits at least once between January 1, 2005 and December 31, 2005. - The 10 U.S. states with the highest percentage of major facilities exceeding their Clean Water Act permit limits at least once are Maine, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, New Hampshire, Ohio, Connecticut, New York, North Dakota, California, and West Virginia. - The 10 U.S. counties with the most facilities exceeding their Clean Water Act permits at least once in this period are Harris County, Texas; Los Angeles County, California; Worcester County, Massachusetts; New Haven County, Connecticut; Calcasieu Parish, Louisiana; Allegheny County, Pennsylvania; Hartford County, Connecticut; Will County, Illinois; Wayne County, Michigan; and Erie County, New York. These facilities often exceed their permits more than once and for more than one pollutant. - The 3600 major facilities exceeding their permits in the time period studied reported more than 24,400 exceedances of their Clean Water Act permit limits. This means that many facilities exceeded their permits more than once and for more than one pollutant. - The 10 U.S. states with the most exceedances of Clean Water Act permit limits between January 1, 2005 and December 31, 2005 are Ohio, Pennsylvania, New York, Texas, California, Massachusetts, Louisiana, Tennessee, Alabama, and Florida. - Nationally, 628 major facilities exceeded their Clean Water Act permit limits for at least half of the monthly reporting periods between January 1, 2005 and December 31, 2005. These facilities often exceed their permits egregiously. - Major facilities exceeding their Clean Water Act permits, on average, exceeded their permit limits by 263%, or nearly four times the allowed amount. - The 10 U.S. states with the highest average permit exceedance between January 1, 2005 and December 31, 2005 are New Mexico, Vermont, Arizona, West Virginia, Iowa, Mississippi, Illinois, Indiana, California, and Hawaii. - Nationally, major facilities reported more than 1800 instances between January 1, 2005 and December 31, 2005 in which they exceeded their Clean Water Act permit limits by at least six-fold (500%). - The U.S. states with at least 100 exceedances of at least 500% above the permit limit are California, Pennsylvania, and Ohio. Our federal leaders should be working with the states to address this illegal pollution and clean up all of our waterways. Over the last six years the Bush administration has suggested, proposed or enacted numerous policies that undermine the Clean Water Act and threaten the future of America’s rivers, lakes, streams, wetlands and oceans. The administration has not only undercut the Clean Water Act, but also eliminated Clean Water Act protections from key waterways altogether. Rather than weakening the Clean Water Act, the Bush administration and state officials should: restore Clean Water Act protections to all waterways; tighten enforcement of the Clean Water Act; strengthen implementation of the Clean Water Act to better protect our rivers, lakes and streams; and ensure the public’s right to know about water pollution by increasing and improving access to compliance data and discharge reporting. [a Facilities are designated as “major” based on an EPA scoring system that considers a combination of factors, including toxic http://www.environmentmaine.org/reports/clean-water/clean-water-program-reports/troubled-waters-an-analysis-of-2005-clean-water-act-compliance Wed, 14 Nov 2007 15:55:59 -0600