Showing posts with label Buffer Zones. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Buffer Zones. Show all posts

Tuesday, August 20, 2024

what is hinted is scary

 while reading this I realized the EPA are addressing the spread of the toxins but not the cause of the toxins. 





EPA Finalizes First-of-its-Kind Strategy to Protect 900 Endangered Species from Herbicides

WASHINGTON – Today, Aug. 20, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency released its final Herbicide Strategy, an unprecedented step in protecting over 900 federally endangered and threatened (listed) species from the potential impacts of herbicide, which are chemicals used to control weeds. EPA will use the strategy to identify measures to reduce the amount of herbicides exposure to these species when it registers new herbicides and when it reevaluates registered herbicides under a process called registration review. The final strategy incorporates a wide range of stakeholder input, ensuring EPA not only protects species but also preserves a wide range of pesticides for farmers and growers.

“Finalizing our first major strategy for endangered species is a historic step in EPA meeting its Endangered Species Act obligations,” said Deputy Assistant Administrator for Pesticide Programs for the Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention Jake Li. “By identifying protections earlier in the pesticide review process, we are far more efficiently protecting listed species from the millions of pounds of herbicides applied each year and reducing burdensome uncertainty for the farmers that use them.”

The Biden-Harris Administration’s new approaches for protecting endangered species, which include the Herbicide Strategy, have resolved multiple lawsuits against EPA. For decades, EPA has tried to comply with the Endangered Species Act (ESA) on a pesticide-by-pesticide, species-by-species basis. However, because this approach is very slow and costly, it resulted in litigation against the agency and uncertainty for users about the continued availability of many pesticides. At the beginning of 2021, EPA faced almost two dozen lawsuits covering thousands of pesticide products due to its longstanding failure to meet ESA obligations for pesticides. Some of these lawsuits resulted in courts removing pesticides from the market until EPA ensured the pesticides comply with the ESA. Now, all but one of those lawsuits has been resolved. Unlike EPA’s historic approach to compliance, the Herbicide Strategy identifies protections for hundreds of listed species up front and will apply to thousands of pesticide products as they go through registration or registration review, thus allowing EPA to protect listed species much faster.

In July 2023, EPA released a draft of this strategy for public comment. EPA received extensive comments, with many reiterating the importance of protecting listed species from herbicides but also minimizing impacts on farmers and other pesticide users. In response to comments, EPA made many improvements to the draft, with the primary changes falling into three categories:

  • Making the strategy easier to understand and incorporating up-to-date data and refined analyses;
  • Increasing flexibility for pesticide users to implement mitigation measures in the strategy; and,
  • Reducing the amount of additional mitigation that may be needed when users either have already adopted accepted practices to reduce pesticide runoff or apply herbicides in an area where runoff potential is lower.

EPA focused this strategy on conventional herbicides used in agriculture in the lower 48 states because the most herbicides are applied there. In 2022, approximately 264 million acres of cropland were treated with herbicides, according to the Census of Agriculture from the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). The number of cropland acres treated with herbicides has remained fairly consistent since the early 2010s. EPA is also focusing this strategy on species listed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) because herbicides generally impact those species. For species listed by the National Marine Fisheries Service, EPA is addressing pesticide impacts through a separate initiative with that agency.

Final Herbicide Strategy

The final strategy includes more options for mitigation measures compared to the draft, while still protecting listed species. The strategy also reduces the level of mitigation needed for applicators who have already implemented measures identified in the strategy to reduce pesticide movement from treated fields into habitats through pesticide spray drift and runoff from a field. The measures include cover crops, conservation tillage, windbreaks, and adjuvants. Further, some measures, such as berms, are enough to fully address runoff concerns. Growers who already use those measures will not need any other runoff measures. EPA identified these options for growers through its collaborations with USDA under its February 2024 interagency MOU and through over two dozen meetings and workshops with agricultural groups in 2024 alone. 

The final strategy also recognizes that applicators who work with a runoff/erosion specialist or participate in a conservation program are more likely to effectively implement mitigation measures. These conservation programs include the USDA’s Natural Resources Conservation Service practices and state or private stewardship measures that are effective at reducing pesticide runoff. The strategy reduces the level of mitigation needed for applicators who employ a specialist or participate in a program. Geographic characteristics may also reduce the level of mitigation needed, such as farming in an area with flat lands, or with minimal rain such as western U.S. counties that are in the driest climates. As a result, in many of those counties, a grower may need to undertake few or no additional runoff mitigations for herbicides that are not very toxic to listed species. 

The final strategy uses the most updated information and processes to determine whether an herbicide will impact a listed species and identify protections to address any impacts. To determine impacts, the strategy considers where a species lives, what it needs to survive (for example for food or pollinators), where the pesticide will end up in the environment, and what kind of impacts the pesticide might have if it reaches the species. These refinements allow EPA to focus restrictions only in situations where they are needed.

The final strategy will also expedite how EPA complies with the ESA through future consultations with FWS by identifying mitigations to address the potential impacts of each herbicide on listed species even before the agency completes the consultation process for that herbicide—which in many cases, can take five years or more. Further, EPA and FWS expect to formalize their understanding of how this strategy can inform and streamline future ESA consultations for herbicides.

The final strategy itself does not impose any requirements or restrictions on pesticide use. Rather, EPA will use the strategy to inform mitigations for new active ingredient registrations and registration review of conventional herbicides. 


EPA understands that the spray drift and runoff mitigation from the strategy can be complicated for some pesticide users to adopt for the first time. EPA has also developed a document that details multiple real-world examples of how a pesticide applicator could adopt the mitigation from this strategy when those measures appear on pesticide labels. To help applicators consider their mitigation options, EPA is developing a mitigation menu website that the agency will release in fall 2024 and plans to periodically update with additional mitigation options, allowing applicators to use the most up-to-date mitigations without requiring pesticide product labels to be amended each time new measures become available. EPA is also developing a calculator that applicators can use to help determine what further mitigation measures, if any, they may need to take in light of mitigations they may already have in place. EPA will also continue to develop educational and outreach materials to inform the public and help applicators understand mitigation needs and where descriptions of mitigations are located.

The Final Herbicide Strategy and accompanying support documents are available in docket EPA-HQ-OPP-2023-0365 at the Regulations.gov page.

Visit EPA’s website to learn more about how EPA’s pesticide program is protecting endangered species.

Read the Final Herbicide Strategy

Wednesday, December 9, 2020

ElectroHemp cleanup system fixes this

Daily I read about a situation where the ElectroHemp Remediation and Prevention system would save both Business and Public money whether its EPA fines or by cities large and small that have to clean up the water before it is sold to the public.




This latest Iowa cattle feedlot if it would have incorporated a Buffer Zone and or Electrokinetics System the pollution could have been prevented.
  

            Lessoning Agriculture Field Water Runnoff Pollution




 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 7 - 11201 Renner Blvd., Lenexa, KS 66219 Serving Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska, and Nine Tribal Nations Iowa Cattle Feedlot Penalized for Clean Water Act Violations Contact Information: Ben Washburn, 913-551-7364, washburn.ben@epa.gov Environmental News 

 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE (Lenexa, Kan., Dec. 9, 2020) - A judge has ruled in favor of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and fined Tony and Joshua Brown of Armstrong, Iowa, a $76,000 penalty for violating the federal Clean Water Act. The brothers, doing business as Riverview Cattle, discharged pollutants from their cattle feedlot on 41 days into the East Fork of the Des Moines River, according to the judge’s ruling. “We are encouraged by Judge Coughlin’s ruling,” said David Cozad, director of EPA Region 7’s Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Division. “Animal feedlot pollution is a serious threat to our nation’s waters and this ruling sends the right message that feedlot owners must comply with the law.” Animal feeding operations that contain over 300 head of cattle and discharge pollutants through man-made conveyances to streams and rivers are required to obtain a Clean Water Act permit and take measures to minimize or eliminate discharges of pollutants in stormwater runoff from their facilities. According to the court ruling, Riverview Cattle repeatedly discharged stormwater containing pollutants through an underground pipe that drained into the river, without having obtained a permit. Despite Riverview’s assertion that pollutants never reached the river, Administrative Judge Christine Donelian Coughlin upheld EPA’s observations, modeling, and other evidence, and found the feedlot liable for Clean Water Act violations. Runoff from animal feeding operations regularly contains bacteria, ammonia, and oxygen-depleting substances that are toxic to aquatic life and potentially harmful to people. The Iowa Department of Natural Resources determined that the East Fork of the Des Moines River is impaired for recreational use due to high levels of bacteria, in part resulting from runoff from feedlots. 


 # # # Learn more about EPA Region 7: www.epa.gov/aboutepa/epa-region-7-midwest Connect with EPA Region 7 on Facebook: www.facebook.com/eparegion7 Follow us on Twitter: @EPARegion7

Friday, April 26, 2019

Trees Shrubs as Farm Buffer Zones

Trees and Shrubs growing along the edge of fields act as Farm Buffer Zones and clean farm runoff which protect streams and waterways from toxins and pollutants

RIPARIAN FOREST BUFFERS are trees, shrubs, and grasses located next to rivers, streams, and lakes to help protect aquatic resources by filtering farm runoff and preventing erosion. Buffer areas can support wildlife habitat, produce crops, improve water quality, and reduce flood damage.


Riparian Forest Buffer
Riparian forest buffers are natural or re-established streamside forests made up of tree, shrub, and grass plantings. They buffer non-point source pollution of waterways from adjacent land, reduce bank erosion, protect aquatic environments, enhance wildlife, and increase biodiversity.USDA

Tools



Add Trees to the Plants as Water Protectors 

Thursday, February 28, 2019

STL Bioremediation and Erosion Control


Those black snake looking net tubes that are used to control erosion are also bioremediation filters.

These images are from the same  area of StLouis with the 3 Basin Water Pollution and Filtration setup that cleans pollution from water runoff from a stlouis city street and building parking lots.

Here's some close up images showing how well these dentrifying bioremediation systems work when placed at or near ground level.







The erosion control filters are performing an outstanding job.








Notice the uphill side in the images above, the soil and organic matter is building up? This proves the filters are trapping the soil runnoff before it travels into the waterway below.



Yes those are wood chips in the black snake netting

This also means any contaminants in the water runnoff are also filtered in this modified dentrifying biofilter.






Sunday, February 17, 2019

StL Plants As Water Protectors

Recently I was in a suburb of StLouis City and happened across this 3 Basin Water Pollution and Filtration setup that cleans pollution from water runoff from a stlouis city street and building parking lots.


Bioremediation and Phytoremediation are the 2 forms of water pollution filtration and cleanup used in this real life St.Louis example. The microbes are the workhorses with this bioremediation system.

A site inspection revealed a 3 level catch basin design. Each catch basin draining into the "downhill" basin below. Each water catch basin also appears to be geared for different contaminant and toxin removal.

Middle Water Filtration Catch Basin

Middle Water Filtration Catch Basin

Upper Water Filtration Catch Basin



Gravel Base Middle Basin

small gravel bioremediation filtration

Each water basin allows the time needed for the toxins and contaminants the opportunity to mingle and the microbes and plant roots. 

This allows the microbes a homebase to feast and break down the contaminants and plant roots the time needed to phytoextract contaminants.

The middle basin with the gravel base is very similar to how a sand filtration system works in a fish tank. The gravel and rocks provide a safe home for the microbes to thrive.

The microbes are the workhorses with this bioremediation system.


Saturday, February 2, 2019

Lessoning Agriculture Field Water Runnoff Pollution

 Agriculture contaminants is one of the 3 pollution sources quoted in EWG's Tap Water Database: Pollution Sources and is one reason ElectroHemp has been sharing ways farmers can use buffer zones, filter strips with phytoremediation to lesson field pollution runoff scenarios.

Agriculture

Agricultural activities are one of the main sources of water pollution for U.S. rivers, streams, lakes, wetlands and groundwater. Each year, farm operators apply more than 12 million tons of nitrogen fertilizer and 8 million tons of phosphorous fertilizer to cropland, some of which runs off into water sources.


Manure is another important source of water contamination. It’s estimated that livestock produce up to 1 billion tons of manure each year, and runoff from farms and feedlots can be laden with sediments and disease-causing microorganisms. And many pesticides have no federally mandated limits for drinking water, which means utilities and their customers have no benchmark to know if the amount of a specific pesticide in water is safe.



Many water utilities in farm country are forced to treat water supplies to remove agriculture-related pollutants, often relying on expensive processes such as carbon treatment and ion exchange. Despite utilities' efforts, agricultural contaminants are detected in the drinking water served to millions of Americans each year.


Source: EWG's Tap Water Database: Pollution Sources




Tuesday, January 1, 2019

Remediation Terminology Definitions

Frequently used Soil and Water definitions ElectroHemp uses  when sharing the BioRad system and process which organically cleans Water and Soil in the Phyto-Enhanced system.

Phytoremediation is defined by UNEP as the living green plants for in sutu removal, degradtion, and containment in soils, surface waters, and groundwater.
Phytoremediation is defined by UNEP as the living green plants for in sutu removal, degradtion, and containment in soils, surface waters, and groundwater.
Bioremediation is a process that uses mainly microorganisms, plants, or microbial or plant enzymes to detoxify contaminates in the soil and other environments.
Bioremediation is a process that uses mainly microorganisms, plants, or microbial or plant enzymes to detoxify contaminates in the soil and other environments.


Contamination is defined as any impairment of the quality of the water of the State by sewage or industrial waste to a degree which creates an actual hazard to public health thru poisoning or through the spread of infectious disease.
Contamination is defined as any impairment of the quality of the water of the State by sewage or industrial waste to a degree which creates an actual hazard to public health thru poisoning or through the spread of infectious disease.

Heavy Metals are defined as the metals that have an atomic mass greater than 20 and are transition metals, metalloids, actinides, and lanthanides.
Heavy Metals are defined as the metals that have an atomic mass greater than 20 and are transition metals, metalloids, actinides, and lanthanides.


Toxicity is the ability of a substance to cause a living organism to undergo adverse effects upon exposure.
Toxicity is the ability of a substance to cause a living organism to undergo adverse effects upon exposure.




Tuesday, December 25, 2018

Missouri Politicians and MO Dept Ag

It's time to get proactive instead of reactive and create the infastructure needed to capitalize on the budding Hemp Industry.

One of the ways Hemp can help the State of Missouri is by removing the pollution in soil and water with the system ElectroHemp has designed 

It's not Rocket Science it's Phyto Science. The Magic Happens in the Roots of the Plants as they absorb the pollution. Scotty link


Kentucky quickly submits its hemp oversight plan to USDA

By BRUCE SCHREINER, December 20, 2018


In 2018, Kentucky farmers planted more than 6,700 acres (2,710 hectares) of hemp — more than twice last year’s production, according to the state’s agriculture department. More than 70 Kentucky processors are turning the plant into products. Those processors paid $7.5 million to Kentucky growers in 2017 to help supply hemp and reported $16.7 million in gross product sales, the state agriculture department said.


That’s barely a blip on the radar for Kentucky’s diversified agriculture sector.


But the state’s agriculture department received more than 1,000 applications from farmers and processors looking to participate in the 2019 hemp program. In another sign of hemp’s growing popularity, an informational and networking session in October in Elizabethtown drew about 750 farmers, processors, manufacturers and others interested in hemp, the department said.


Wednesday, June 20, 2018

ElectroHemp Hydroponic Remediation Examples

Water Pollution Clean Up Contamination Removal - Pilot Study Option 11A and 12A .

Water pump circulates contaminated water through the plant roots which phytoextract the toxins.

Testing Highlights

Each Stage allows for determining the reduction in water contamination levels (11A).

  • Reduction per plant, stage, and total.
  • Financial Costs of phytoremediation
  • Length of Time Required for Total, Partial phytoextraction of contamination.
  • Before, During, After Plant phyto-location tests: Roots, Stalk, Leaves, Seeds


It's not Rocket Science it's Phyto Science 


The Magic Happens in the Roots of the Plants as they absorb the pollution.


Infographic by Scotty scottscontracting@gmail.com
Water Pollution Clean Up Contamination Removal - Pilot Study Option 11A. 4 Stage Water cleanup testing station. Hydroponic toxic removal.
Water Pollution Clean Up Contamination Removal - Pilot Study Option 11A. 4 Stage Water cleanup testing station. Hydroponic toxic removal.

Water Pollution Clean Up Contamination Removal - Pilot Study Option 12A.   Testing Options Individual Plant Pots
Water Pollution Clean Up Contamination Removal Pilot Study Option 12A. 
Testing Option- Individual Plant Pots




Wednesday, June 6, 2018

Eligible Practices Cost Share Assistance CRP program USA Farmers


information on the Conservation Reserve Program and how Hemps great phytoremediation abilities could play a role in lessening chemical-laden water runoff into rivers.

Eligible Practices: For this [Conservation Reserve Program aka CRP] signup, the land must be eligible and suitable for any of the following conservation practices:

Grass Waterways, Non-easement
Shallow Water Area for Wildlife
Filter Strips
Denitrifying Bioreactor on Filter Strips
Saturated Filter Strips
Riparian Buffer
Denitrifying Bioreactor on Riparian Buffers
Saturated Riparian Buffer
Wetland Restoration on Floodplain
Wetland Restoration, Non-floodplain
Farmable Wetlands Pilot Wetland
Farmable Wetland Pilot Buffer

Duck Nesting Habitat
FWP Constructed Wetland
FWP Aquaculture Wetland restoration
FWP Flooded Prairie Wetland

Cost-Share Assistance: Cost-share of up to 50 percent of the re-reimbursable cost of installing the practice is provided by FSA.





Search This Blog

ElectroHemp Introduction

ElectroHemp Hazardous Waste Remediation Intro

ElectroHemp BioRad Hazardous Waste Cleanup Introduction ElectroHemp - BioRad CleanUp 5 Stage Phytoremediation Treatment Train - Remove...