New Ballast Discharge Standards Won't Protect Waters from Invasive Species
After more than a decade of debate, the Coast Guard is taking steps to address the scourge of invasive species that have been damaging America’s most vulnerable coastal and inland waters; from the Great Lakes to San Francisco and Chesapeake Bay. The most common source of introduction for these foreign creatures is water from the ballast water tanks used to stabilize large commercial vessels. In November the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposed new Clean Water Act restrictions for the boats and on Friday, March 23, the other shoe will drop when the U.S. Coast Guard publishes a new rule that establishes the nation’s first ballast water discharge standards, meant to prevent invasive species from slipping into American waters. Unfortunately, environmental experts from a broad coalition of groups claim neither move is strong enough to solve the problem.
Jennifer Nalbone, campaign director for Navigation and Invasive Species with Great Lakes United, notes that the establishment of national ballast water discharge standards means that “commercial vessels will no longer be able to merely dump their ballast tank contents in the ocean, but must install technology to kill or remove unwanted invasive species carried in their ballast tanks.” Nalbone says that though the new national requirements need to be much stronger to prevent invasions, the Coast Guard’s rule marks “a starting point, a milestone that must be improved upon.”
The final Coast Guard rule is scheduled to hit the Federal Register tomorrow and stands as the conclusion of a 10-year rule-making process. The new rule will force the use of technology to kill or remove unwanted invasive species carried in their ballast tanks, a move long-sought by conservation groups across the country. However, there is significant disappointment in the standards to which that new technology will have to perform—a similar reaction to recently announced regulations from the EPA—which are seen as only a marginal improvement over current requirements that vessels flush water from the big tanks they used to steady themselves.
The Coast Guard regulations stand as a final rule, but Great Lakes groups are urging the states and EPA to strengthen the new national ballast water standards, shore up issues related to long timelines, and address other loopholes. Both the EPA and the Coast Guard have embraced the International Maritime Organization (IMO) standards, which are not strict enough to ensure invasive species are not introduced or spread throughout the nation’s waters. Both agencies allow ships to wait as long as 2021 before putting ballast water controls in place, and both fail to articulate a more protective standard to drive the development of treatment and technology, and better protect our nation’s waters.
“The Coast Guard rule will not protect U.S. waters from ballast water invaders,” said Marc Smith, senior policy manager for the National Wildlife Federation’s Great Lakes Regional Center. “The onus now rests with the EPA and states to shut the door on invasive species to protect our waters, jobs and way of life.”
"Getting treatment technology on board ships is a welcome step, but we're disappointed the Coast Guard is manning a slow boat toward a truly protective standard," said Joel Brammeier, president and CEO of the Alliance for the Great Lakes. “The U.S. Coast Guard and EPA need to drive innovation out of the gate to stop the economic and environmental ruin visited on the Great Lakes by invasive species.”
Also concerning to the conservation community are loopholes for ships only operating in the Great Lakes. While those boats, commonly referred to as “Lakers” are not responsible for the introduction of invasive species, which usually arrive in the ballast tanks of ocean-going vessels, they do move the new arrivals from Lake to Lake, speeding the invasion. The Coast Guard rule would not impact the Lakers.
Although the Coast Guard has issued a final rule, EPA continues to review ballast water standards under the CWA. In the coming months, states will have the opportunity to incorporate more protective standards into that permit.
“The states can still push for the stronger standards necessary to truly get the problem on their shores under control,” said Thom Cmar, attorney with the Natural Resources Defense Council. “The leadership of states such as California, New York and Michigan has helped drive the development of more protective standards at the federal level, but the Coast Guard rule still falls far short of the strong action that is needed to solve this multi-billion dollar drain on our Great Lakes and coastal economies.”
Invasive species introduced and spread via ballast water discharge are already wreaking havoc on the Great Lakes and other U.S. waters. A litany of non-native invaders—including zebra mussels, quagga mussels, spiny water fleas and round gobies—have turned the Great Lakes ecosystem on its head, altering the food web and threatening the health of native fish and wildlife. Non-native ballast water invaders cost Great Lakes citizens, utilities, cities and businesses at least $1 billion every five years in damages and control costs, according to research by the University of Notre Dame.
Across the country ballast-mediated invasive species range from Asian clams in the most invaded aquatic ecosystem on the planet, the San Francisco Bay, to the spotted jellyfish in the Gulf of Mexico.
The final rulemaking is available on the Federal Register by clicking here.
For more information, click here.
By Simon Montlake
For more than a decade, Susan Jane Brown has been battling to stop a natural gas pipeline and export terminal from being built in the backcountry of Oregon. As an attorney at the nonprofit Western Environmental Law Center, she has repeatedly argued that the project's environmental, social, and health costs are too high.
All that was before this month's deadly wildfires in Oregon shrouded the skies above her home office in Portland. "It puts a fine point on it. These fossil fuel projects are contributing to global climate change," she says.
Moderates Feeling the Heat<p>If elected, Mr. Biden has vowed to stop new drilling for oil and gas on federal land and in federal waters and to rejoin the 2015 Paris climate accord that President Donald Trump gave notice of quitting. He would reinstate Obama-era regulations of greenhouse gas emissions, including methane, the largest component of natural gas.</p><p>The Biden climate platform also states that all federal infrastructure investments and federal permits would need to be assessed for their climate impacts. Analysts say such a test could impede future LNG plants and pipelines, though not those that already have federal approval. </p><p>Climate change activists who pushed for that language say much depends on who would have oversight of federal agencies that regulate the industry. Some are wary of Biden's reliance on advice from Obama-era officials, including former Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz, who is now on the board of Southern Company, a utility, and a former Obama environmental aide, Heather Zichal, who has served on the board of Cheniere Energy, an LNG exporter. </p>
The Push for U.S. Fuel Exports<p>As vice president, Biden was part of an administration that pushed hard for global climate action while also promoting U.S. oil and gas exports to its allies and trading partners. As fracking boomed, Obama ended a 40-year ban on crude oil exports. In Europe, LNG was touted both as an alternative to coal and as strategic competition with Russian pipelines.</p><p>That much, at least, continued with President Trump. Under Energy Secretary Rick Perry, the agency referred to liquified U.S. hydrocarbons as "<a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/29/us/freedom-gas-energy-department.html" target="_blank">freedom gas</a>."</p><p>Mr. Trump has also championed the interests of coal, oil, and gas while denigrating the findings of government climate scientists. He rejected the Paris accord as unfair to the U.S. and detrimental to its economy, but has offered no alternative path to emissions cuts. </p><p>Still, Trump's foreign policy has not always served the LNG industry: Tariffs on foreign steel drove up pipeline costs, and a trade war with China stayed the hand of Chinese LNG importers wary of reliance on U.S. suppliers. </p><p>Even his regulatory rollbacks could be a double-edged sword. By relaxing curbs last month on methane leaks, the U.S. has ceded ground to European regulators who are drafting emissions standards that LNG producers are watching closely. "That's a precursor of fights that will be fought in all the rest of the developed world," says Mr. Hutchison. </p><p>Indeed, some oil-and-gas exporters had urged the Trump administration not to abandon the tougher rules, since they undercut their claim to offer a cleaner-burning way of producing heat and electricity. "U.S. LNG is not going to be able to compete in a world that's focused on methane emissions and intensity," says Erin Blanton, a senior research scholar at the Center on Global Energy Policy at Columbia University. </p>
Stepping on the Gas<p>In July, the Department of Energy issued an export license to Jordan Cove's developer, Canada's Pembina Pipeline Corp. In a statement, Energy Secretary Dan Brouillette said the project would provide "reliable, affordable, and cleaner-burning natural gas to our allies around the world."</p><p>As a West Coast terminal, Jordan Cove offers a faster route to Asia where its capacity of 7.8 million tons of LNG a year could serve to heat more than 15 million homes. At its peak, its construction would also create 6,000 jobs, the company says, in a stagnant corner of Oregon.</p><p>But the project still lacks multiple local and state permits, and its biggest asset – a Pacific port – has become its biggest handicap, says Ms. Blanton. "They are putting infrastructure in a state where there's no political support for the pipeline or the terminal, unlike in Louisiana or Texas," she says. </p><p>Ms. Brown, the environmental lawyer, says she wants to see Jordan Cove buried, not just mothballed until natural gas prices recover. But she knows that it's only one among many LNG projects and that others will likely get built, even if Biden is elected in November, despite growing evidence of the harm caused by methane emissions. </p>
- Biden Commits to Banning Fossil Fuel Subsidies After DNC Dropped It ›
- As Biden Embraces More Ambitious Climate Plan, Fossil Fuel Execs ... ›
- Biden Announces $2 Trillion Climate and Green Recovery Plan ... ›
EcoWatch Daily Newsletter
By Grayson Jaggers
The connection between the pandemic and our dietary habits is undeniable. The stress of isolation coupled with a struggling economy has caused many of us to seek comfort with our old friends: Big Mac, Tom Collins, Ben and Jerry. But overindulging in this kind of food and drink might not just be affecting your waistline, but could potentially put you at greater risk of illness by hindering your immune system.
- 15 Indigenous Crops to Boost Your Immune System and Celebrate ... ›
- 15 Supplements to Boost Your Immune System Right Now - EcoWatch ›
- Should I Exercise During the Coronavirus Pandemic? Experts ... ›
- The Immune System's Fight Against the Coronavirus - EcoWatch ›
As the world continues to navigate the line between reopening and maintaining safety protocols to slow the spread of the coronavirus, rapid and accurate diagnostic screening remains critical to control the outbreak. New mobile-phone-based, self-administered COVID-19 tests being developed independently around the world could be a key breakthrough in making testing more widely available, especially in developing nations.
- FDA Approves First In-Home Test for Coronavirus - EcoWatch ›
- When Should You Get a COVID-19 or Antibody Test? - EcoWatch ›
- Trump Plans to End Federal Funding for COVID-19 Testing Sites ... ›
- Trump Insider Embeds Climate Denial Into Agency Reports ... ›
- Climate Denier Is Named to Leadership Role at NOAA - EcoWatch ›
New Jersey is one step closer to passing what environmental advocates say is the strongest anti-plastic legislation in the nation.