WaterWired

CRS InFocus Report: 'Federal Management of Sea Lampreys in the Great Lakes and Lake Champlain'

What else on this first day of Water Year 2024? Sea lampreys! Yes, those primitive parasitic fish with a ferocious round mouth lined with a circular array of teeth. Why am I publishing this report? Mary Frances and I are about to depart on a cruise of the Great Lakes (Toronto to Milwaukee). I am also quote familiar with Lake Champlain but did not know lampreys were there as well.

So here goes!       

Pervaze A. Sheikh, one of my favorite CRS researchers has authored (along with former CRS colleague) Christopher Field) this fascinating  report (25 September 2023): 'Federal Management of Sea Lampreys in the Great Lakes and Lake Champlain'. 

Download CRS_InFocus_Rpt_Fed_Mgmt_Sea_Lampreys_Gt_Lakes_Lake_Champlain_25Sept2023

Click on the graphics to enlarge them.

Introduction
The sea lamprey (Petromyzon marinus), sometimes known as the vampire fish (Figure 1), is a parasitic fish species native to the northern Atlantic Ocean and the waters of eastern United States and western Europe. By the early 1900s, sea lampreys had spread throughout the Great Lakes, where they harm economically important fish species such as Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar), lake trout (Salvelinus namaycush), and lake sturgeon (Acipenser fulvescens). According to some estimates, fish wounded by sea lampreys have a mortality rate of 40%-60% and a single lamprey can kill approximately 40 pounds of fish per year. Congress is interested in efforts to control sea lamprey populations and the impacts of these efforts on the health of fisheries, recreation industries, and ecosystems of the Great Lakes and Lake Champlain. This product provides an overview of the biology and spread of sea lamprey, federal sea lamprey control programs, and selected considerations for Congress.

Geographic Range of the Sea Lamprey
In the United States, sea lampreys occupy offshore, coastal, and inland waters from the Gulf of St. Lawrence to northern Florida and the Great Lakes region (Figure 2). Sea lampreys were first observed in the Great Lakes in the 1830s. According to scientists, sea lampreys entered Lake Ontario from the Atlantic Ocean through human-made shipping channels and were found in all of the Great Lakes by 1938. Genetic evidence suggests sea lampreys may be native to Lakes Ontario and Champlain, both of which are accessible from the Atlantic Ocean by water. Some scientists challenge this view, however, stating that there are few records of sea lampreys or fish with lamprey wounds in these lakes prior to the mid-1800s. Regardless of origin, many stakeholders consider sea lampreys to be a nuisance species that threatens native fish populations in the Great Lakes.

Sea Lamprey Biology
The biology of sea lampreys is relevant to control efforts, many of which are designed to target specific stages of the species’ complex life history. Sea lamprey populations from the northern Atlantic are anadromous, meaning individuals are born in freshwater, spend a part of their lives in saltwater, and then return to freshwater streams to spawn (Figure 3).

Sea lamprey populations in the Great Lakes and Lake Champlain, however, complete their life cycle within freshwater lakes and streams. After spawning, larval sea lampreys typically remain in the streams where they hatched, referred to as nursery streams, for three to seven years. Afterward, larvae metamorphose into juveniles and enter the parasitic life stage, when they start feeding on other fish. Juveniles from the Great Lakes and Lake Champlain populations migrate from their nursery streams to the deeper water of these lakes to feed on host fish. After 12-18 months of feeding, sea lampreys return to streams to develop into adults and spawn. Females can produce up to 100,000 eggs when spawning and both sexes die shortly after the spawning season.

Population Trends
Scientists use indirect methods to estimate sea lamprey populations because of the difficulty of monitoring in deep water. Two commonly used measures are (1) wounding rates on species such as lake trout and Atlantic salmon and (2) the number of individuals trapped in monitored “index”streams. Sea lamprey populations have declined in the Great Lakes and Lake Champlain since the start of control programs in the late 1950s and 1990, respectively. In the Great Lakes, populations have decreased by over 90% since the 1960s. In Lake Champlain, populations have decreased by approximately 50% since the 2000s.

Federal Control Programs
Sea lamprey control and research are implemented by several federal agencies, nonfederal agencies, and other partners. Control and research efforts in the Great Lakes are coordinated by the Great Lakes Fishery Commission (GLFC). The GLFC is a binational entity with Canada established by the United States and Canadian Convention on Great Lakes Fisheries in 1954 and codified by the Great Lakes Fishery Act of 1956 (16 U.S.C. §§931-939). In the United States, the GLFC’s control efforts are largely implemented by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), and state fish and wildlife agencies. The GLFC’s research activities are conducted in cooperation with the U.S. Geological Survey; universities; and state, provincial, and tribal entities. Legislation that addresses aquatic invasive species has typically established that the GLFC retains authority and responsibility to implement a comprehensive sea lamprey control program (e.g., the Great Lakes Fish and Wildlife Restoration Act; 16 U.S.C. §§941-941h).

Sea lamprey control in Lake Champlain is coordinated by the Lake Champlain Fish and Wildlife Management Cooperative (LCFWMC), which was formed in 1973 to coordinate efforts to mitigate the impacts of sea lampreys on Lake Champlain’s fisheries. The LCFWMC is a partnership of FWS, the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, and the Vermont Department of Fish and Wildlife.

Control Methods
Managers use physical, chemical, and biological control methods to reduce sea lamprey populations in the Great Lakes and Lake Champlain. Physical control targets adult sea lampreys before they spawn in the early spring. These methods include barriers to prevent sea lampreys from reaching spawning areas and traps to remove adults from tributaries. Chemical control involves the application of lampricides or pheromones. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) must approve lampricides used in the United States, which are restricted-use pesticides manufactured for designated federal and state agencies. Lampricides are typically applied to streams and deltas to target sea lamprey larvae at nurseries. Application of lampricides follows a procedure that includes conducting pre- and post-assessment of sea lampreys and nontarget species and notifying residents who rely on treated lakes and streams for water. Pheromones are typically used to lure adults and larvae into traps for disposal. Biological control, used less commonly than other methods, involves the release of sterile males during spawning to reduce sea lampreys’ reproductive success.

Selected Federal Funding for Control Efforts
Federal funding for sea lamprey control comes from several programs. Congress has on several occasions expanded the scope and scale of programs to meet the goals of federal control efforts for sea lampreys and other aquatic invasive species. The Great Lakes Restoration Initiative (GLRI; 33 U.S.C. §1268(c)(7)) provides funding, allocated by EPA, to federal and state agencies for control of aquatic invasive species, including sea lampreys. In 2021, Congress extended the annual authorization of appropriations for GLRI and provided for an annual increase from $375 million in FY2022 and ending at $475 million in FY2026. Congress also has provided supplementary funds for sea lamprey control through annual appropriations to FWS’s Fish and Aquatic Conservation program.

Considerations for Congress
Research from the GLFC and LCFWMC suggests control efforts must be ongoing to prevent the rebound of sea lamprey populations. Recent studies from Lake Champlain also suggest sustained control requires that a large proportion of the larval population receive effective treatment every year. Congress may consider evaluating the impact of current efforts and the resources needed for long- term control.

Some stakeholders have expressed concern over chemical control of sea lamprey, especially the potential for negative effects on nontarget species, such as the common mudpuppy (Necturus maculosus). GLFC and LCFWMC scientists contend that lampricides have minimal effects on non-lamprey species, but some other scientists note that studies may not have addressed all potentially affected species. Additionally, some scientists suggest any negative effects of chemical control on nontarget species are usually short-lived or are not likely to result in mortality. Congress may consider conducting further oversight on EPA procedures for assessing the effect of lampricides on nontarget species, such as those listed under the Endangered Species Act (16 U.S.C. §§1531-1544).

This product was coauthored by Christopher Field, former CRS Analyst in Natural Resources.

Enjoy! I'll keep my hands out of the water.

"If you wanted time to do your own research, you shouldn’t have gone into academics." - @ass_deans

CRS Insight Report: 'Mountain Valley Pipeline - Congressional Authorization'

Paul W. Parfomak and Adam Vann co-authored this CRS Insight report (updated 12 July 2023): 'Mountain Valley Pipeline: Congressional Authorization'.

Download CRS_ Insight_Rpt_MVP_Cong_Auth_12July2023

Insight reports have embedded material. They won't be functional in material I'll post here so check the online reports.

The Mountain Valley Pipeline (MVP) is a 303-mile natural gas transmission pipeline, currently under construction, which would link natural gas fields in West Virginia to the existing Transco pipeline in Virginia (Figure 1). The project has faced numerous permitting challenges in federal court, which has repeatedly caused construction to be suspended. A separate pipeline, the MVP Southgate Project—still in development—would extend the MVP into North Carolina. The MVP’s permitting challenges, as well as recent legislation to authorize its completion, are of continuing interest in Congress.

MVP Federal and State Permit Status
Like other large infrastructure projects, the MVP requires authorizations from a range of agencies under various federal statutes. Key agency requirements, and their status, are summarized below.

• Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). Interstate natural gas pipelines require a certificate of public convenience and necessity from FERC pursuant to the Natural Gas Act. FERC issued a certificate to the MVP in 2017, and has extended the MVP’s construction deadline twice, most recently to October 2026.

• National Park Service (NPS). The MVP crosses NPS lands under the Blue Ridge Parkway, so it requires an NPS right of way. The agency issued the right of way in 2017 and reissued it in 2020.

• U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). Federal agencies approving parts of the MVP must consult with FWS under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). A Biological Opinion the FWS issued in 2020 was vacated and remanded by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in 2022. FWS issued a revised Biological Opinion on March 1, 2023.

• U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps). The MVP requires a Corps permit under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) and Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act for its water crossings. The Corps first authorized the MVP by general permit, but the Fourth Circuit rejected that option twice, in 2018 and 2020. The MVP therefore applied for an individual permit in February 2021. The Corps issued the permit on June 23, 2023.

• U.S. Forest Service (FS) and Bureau of Land Management (BLM). The FS and BLM must approve rights of way for the MVP to cross federal land under their jurisdiction. The Fourth Circuit has twice vacated and remanded Forest Plans and associated BLM rights of way for the MVP, in 2018 and 2022. FS and BLM issued new records of decision and approved rights of way for MVP in May 2023.

  In addition to federal agency authorizations, under CWA Section 401, the MVP requires water quality certification from the states. In 2021, Virginia granted its certification, which was subsequently upheld by the Fourth Circuit. West Virginia also granted its certification in 2021, but that certification was vacated by the Fourth Circuit in April 2023. West Virginia reissued its certification on June 8, 2023.

  Legislation to Approve MVP
  The MVP has been a controversial project since it was proposed. Opponents have expressed concerns about the need for the pipeline, its potential environmental impacts, and its potential safety risks, especially in minority and low-income communities (i.e., environmental justice). MVP’s proponents cite its purported economic benefits (e.g., jobs and lower energy prices), natural gas royalties, gas supply reliability, and its potential role supplying gas exports to U.S. allies. The Biden Administration also has supported the pipeline.

  In the face of ongoing permit litigation and agency reviews, bills in the 118th Congress (S. 1399, S. 1449, and H.R. 3500) have sought to approve completion of the MVP. On June 3, 2023, President Biden signed the Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2023 (P.L. 118-5) which includes language to approve the pipeline. Section 324 finds that “construction and operation of the Mountain Valley Pipeline is required in the national interest.” Under the act, “Congress ... ratifies and approves all authorizations, permits, verifications, extensions, biological opinions, incidental take statements, and any other approvals or orders issued pursuant to Federal law necessary for the construction and initial operation at full capacity of the Mountain Valley Pipeline.” The act further directs the relevant federal agencies “to continue to maintain” such authorizations and declares that “no court shall have jurisdiction to review any action taken” by these agencies to approve the pipeline, seeking to shield these actions from further litigation. The act also gives the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit “original and exclusive jurisdiction over any claim alleging the invalidity” of Section 324. Notwithstanding these judicial provisions, on July 10, 2023, the Fourth Circuit granted a motion to stop construction of MVP through the Jefferson National Forest while it considers the constitutionality of the act. On July 11, 2023, the Fourth Circuit also granted a motion to stay the FWS Biological Opinion.

  Following enactment of P.L. 118-5, on June 15, 2023, the MVP’s developer wrote to FERC requesting a three-year “extension of time until June 18, 2026 to complete construction of the MVP Southgate Project.” Because the act does not apply to Southgate, the project must continue through its own regular permitting process, which also faces challenges, including North Carolina’s initial denial of a CWA Section 401 water quality certification in 2020.

  Although infrequent, direct congressional authorization of major infrastructure projects has occurred before, notably under the Trans-Alaska Pipeline Authorization Act of 1973 (P.L. 93-153). However, some in Congress continue to oppose completion of the MVP. Some Members object to the act’s perceived special treatment favoring the project outside the regular permitting process, the impact of its construction on landowners, and its potential contribution to climate change, among other concerns. Nonetheless, given the MVP’s permitting provisions in P.L. 118-5, the pipeline’s developer intends to complete construction by the end of 2023. As development of the MVP continues, the status of the pipeline, potential safety issues due to its construction pauses, market demand for its associated natural gas supplies, and the ongoing Fourth Circuit litigation may be oversight issues for Congress.

Enjoy! 

“There are far better things ahead than any we leave behind.” - C.S. Lewis

CRS InFocus Report: 'Status of Efforts to Restore Chesapeake Bay Water Quality'

Laura Gatz authored and updated (30 June 2023) this CRS InFocus report: 'Status of Efforts to Restore Chesapeake Bay Water Quality'.

Download CRS_InFocus_Rpt_Status_Efforts_Restore_Chesapeake_Bay_WQ_30June2023

The maps are from the Chesapeake Bay Foundation and the USGS. Click on them to enlarge them.. The watershed (land area) is about 64,000 square miles.
Here are some more facts about the Bay.

For decades, Chesapeake Bay jurisdictions (Delaware, Maryland, New York, Pennsylvania, Virginia, West Virginia, and the District of Columbia), multiple federal and local agencies, and others have worked to improve water quality in the Bay. Nonetheless, poor water quality in the Bay and its tidal tributaries persisted, prompting litigation that ultimately required the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to establish a Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL)—or a “pollution budget” for the Bay. Established in 2010, the TMDL includes interim and final goals for each jurisdiction to achieve by 2017 and 2025, respectively. As the target date for the final TMDL goals approaches, stakeholders are examining the progress toward these goals and the continuing challenges Bay jurisdictions and others face in improving the Bay’s water quality.

What Is a TMDL?
The Clean Water Act (CWA) requires states to identify waters that are “impaired” by pollution (i.e., not meeting state water quality standards). For those waters, the act directs states to establish a TMDL, which is a calculation of the amount of a pollutant that can enter a waterbody and still allow the waterbody to meet state water quality standards for that pollutant. TMDLs include a quantitative assessment of the pollutant sources and reductions required to attain water quality standards. TMDLs address both point sources of pollution (e.g., wastewater or industrial discharges) and nonpoint sources (e.g., urban runoff and agricultural runoff). The CWA directs states to submit TMDLs to EPA for approval. If EPA disapproves, the act directs EPA to develop a TMDL for the waterbody.

Chesapeake Bay TMDL
EPA established a Chesapeake Bay TMDL in 2010 pursuant to consent decrees resolving litigation over impairment of Bay waters in Virginia and the District of Columbia. The TMDL was also a key feature of a 2010 strategy to restore the Chesapeake Bay. The Federal Leadership Committee for the Chesapeake Bay, chaired by EPA, created the strategy in response to Executive Order 13508, issued in May 2009.

The Chesapeake Bay TMDL is the largest single TMDL developed to date in terms of area covered. It addresses all segments of the Bay and its tidal tributaries that are impaired from discharges of nitrogen, phosphorus, and sediment. The TMDL set two broad goals: an interim goal of having 60% of pollution control measures needed to attain water quality standards in place by 2017 and a final goal of having 100% of the measures in place by 2025. EPA is using an accountability framework to implement the TMDL. This framework includes four elements: watershed implementation plans (WIPs), two-year milestones, EPA tracking and assessment, and backstop federal actions if Bay jurisdictions do not meet their commitments. Examples of potential backstop federal actions include expanding CWA permit coverage to unregulated sources, conditioning or redirecting EPA grants, and requiring additional pollutant load reductions from point sources.

WIPs
Bay jurisdictions each created WIPs, which detailed specific steps they planned to take to meet and maintain their pollutant allocations under the TMDL. Bay jurisdictions developed WIPs in three phases and submitted them to EPA in 2010 (Phase I), 2012 (Phase II), and 2019 (Phase III). Phase I and II WIPs described specific actions and controls to be implemented by 2017 and 2025 to achieve applicable water quality standards. Phase II WIPs built upon Phase I WIPs by including more specific local actions. Phase III WIPs include refined actions and controls the jurisdictions intend to take through 2025 to meet the goals of the TMDL (see “Phase III WIPs”).

Milestones
Bay jurisdictions submitted their first set of milestones to EPA in 2012. These milestones identify short-term goals on an interim two-year basis, which can be used to assess progress toward the longer-term goals. The most recent set of milestones covers 2022-2023.

2017 Midpoint Assessment
The Chesapeake Bay TMDL called for a midpoint assessment in 2017 to review jurisdictions’ progress toward meeting the goals established in the TMDL. According to data submitted by Bay jurisdictions and assessed by EPA, jurisdictions collectively surpassed the 2017 interim goals for reducing phosphorus and sediment, but they did not achieve the 2017 interim goal for reducing nitrogen. Reductions of specific pollutants in individual Bay jurisdictions varied widely.

EPA also assessed the Bay jurisdictions’ implementation of programs to achieve pollution reductions across sectors and found that achievements and shortfalls varied. The wastewater sector in particular had much success, achieving its 2025 load reduction goals 10 years ahead of schedule through treatment plant upgrades, technology advances, and nutrient discharge limitations in CWA discharge permits. Efforts to reduce nitrogen deposition from atmospheric sources (e.g., power plants and vehicles) were also on track to meet the 2025 TMDL goals. However, while jurisdictions had improved their urban/suburban stormwater regulatory programs, EPA reported that overall loads in the sector continued to increase due to population growth and development. EPA also found that, in some cases, jurisdictions were not making sufficient progress in implementing their planned policies and programs in the agricultural sector and were falling short of meeting the pollution reduction goals in that sector.

As part of the 2017 assessment, EPA identified Delaware’s agricultural sector, Maryland’s urban/suburban stormwater sector, New York’s wastewater sector, and Pennsylvania’s trading/offsets sectors as needing enhanced oversight. This means EPA identified specific concerns with the jurisdictions’ implementation of strategies to meet TMDL goals. The agency may take additional actions to ensure that the jurisdiction stays on track.

In addition, EPA identified two sectors in Pennsylvania— agriculture and urban/suburban stormwater—as requiring backstop action levels, meaning the agency had substantial concerns with actions taken to meet the TMDL goals. For these two sectors, EPA has taken actions intended to get the jurisdiction on track, such as establishing an expectation for more frequent and detailed reporting and an expectation that Chesapeake Bay funds provided to Pennsylvania would be applied to specific priority watersheds.

Phase III WIPs
In 2019, EPA received final Phase III WIPs from Bay jurisdictions specifying actions they plan to implement between 2019 and 2025 to achieve the TMDL goals. Bay jurisdictions incorporated midpoint assessment results and new science and data, such as improved modeling tools, higher-resolution land cover data, additional monitoring data, and greater variety of approved best management practices (BMPs) in their Phase III WIPs. Bay jurisdictions also considered other factors, such as population growth, land use changes, and climate change. In 2018, a committee composed of EPA and other Bay partners revised nitrogen and phosphorus targets to reflect refinements to the most recent version of the Chesapeake Bay watershed model. Some of the revised targets require additional pollution reductions beyond the original 2025 goals, whereas other targets require lesser reductions. The new targets reflect that pollution controls in some areas may be more effective than similar controls in other areas.

EPA’s evaluations of the Bay jurisdictions’ Phase III WIPs indicated that both New York’s and Pennsylvania’s plans were deficient in certain areas. While New York submitted an amended plan, which EPA found would meet the state’s portion of the 2025 goal, EPA found that Pennsylvania’s amended plan did not meet the state’s portion of the 2025 goal. Other Bay jurisdictions and the Chesapeake Bay Foundation sued EPA in 2020 for failing to enforce provisions of the CWA by not requiring Pennsylvania to develop a plan to fully meet pollution reduction goals. (The lawsuit initially included claims regarding New York’s plan and EPA’s review of that plan, but those claims were dismissed after EPA approved New York’s amended plan.) In April 2023, EPA reached a tentative settlement with the plaintiffs in which EPA proposed to increase compliance and enforcement efforts, prioritize its efforts in certain Pennsylvania jurisdictions that contribute the most pollution or have the largest impacts, and determine whether certain stormwater dischargers or animal feeding operations should be designated as significant contributors of pollutants that are therefore subject to permitting requirements.

Progress Toward 2025 Goals
Although the Bay jurisdictions have made progress in implementing practices and controls to achieve TMDL goals, EPA indicates that the jurisdictions are “off course” in meeting their goals. Bay jurisdictions have reported that, as of 2021, they have BMPs in place to achieve 49% of the nitrogen reductions, 64% of the phosphorus reductions, and 100% of the sediment reductions needed to attain applicable water quality standards when compared to the 2009 baseline established in the Bay TMDL. In FY2024, EPA plans to evaluate progress toward meeting the 2022-2023 milestone commitments.

Challenges
EPA and other stakeholders acknowledge that, despite progress in reducing pollutants to the Bay, challenges in achieving the TMDL goals and improving the Bay’s water quality remain. While jurisdictions’ efforts have prevented a significant increase in pollution, they face challenges in meeting targets due to factors such as land use changes, population growth, changes in climate, and the voluntary nature of BMPs implemented to address nonpoint source pollution. EPA’s Chesapeake Bay Program (CBP) estimates that 27% of the Bay area met water quality standards in 1985, improving to the mid-30% range by 2020.

In May 2023, the CBP’s Scientific and Technical Advisory Committee (STAC), an independent entity that provides scientific and technical advice to CBP, found that (1) efforts to reduce nonpoint sources of nutrients have not resulted in sufficient levels of BMP implementation to meet the TMDL, and (2) the implementation that has occurred has not been as effective at producing the pollutant reductions as expected, meaning more controls would be needed to achieve the target pollutant reductions. In addition, while nutrient and sediment reductions have led to some water quality improvements in some portions of the Bay, no significant improvement has been measured in the majority of the water quality standards established for the various Bay habitats (especially in deep waters), suggesting a lagging response. STAC concluded that ongoing changes may require thinking differently about what constitutes a “restored” Chesapeake Bay. It also suggested potential opportunities for improvements. For example, prioritizing management actions in areas or habitats where pollution reduction limits might be achieved first and yield more immediate impacts on living resources may magnify the impacts of TMDL implementation.

Congressional Interest
Congress has funded Bay restoration efforts through EPA and other agencies for decades. In FY2023, Congress appropriated $92.0 million to EPA for the CBP. In addition, Congress provided $238.0 million in supplemental appropriations through the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (P.L. 117-58) to be provided in equal amounts in each of FY2022 through FY2026. The President’s FY2024 budget requests $92.1 million for CBP. Congress may consider additional oversight of the CBP and its efforts to restore the Bay as the 2025 TMDL goal approaches.

Enjoy!

"The only thing that’s worse than hiring a corporate lawyer or an accountant to be a university president is to hire someone who was both." - @ass_deans

CRS Report: 'East Palestine, OH, Train Derailment and Hazardous Materials Shipment by Rail: Frequently Asked Questions' And More!

Ben Goldman, a CRS Analyst in Transportation Policy, produced this brief (7 pages) but important report, 'East Palestine, OH, Train Derailment and Hazardous Materials Shipment by Rail: Frequently Asked Questions'.

Download CRS_Report_East_Palestine_OH_Hazmet_FAQ

The picture and video below are not from the CRS report.

Summary
On February 3, 2023, a freight train carrying hazardous materials operated by Norfolk Southern Railway Corporation derailed in the town of East Palestine, OH. The derailment involved a fire and damaged several railcars, but no deaths or injuries were initially reported. Emergency responders intentionally released a quantity of vinyl chloride, a flammable gas, from some of the damaged railcars to prevent them from exploding and then burned the gas to dispose of it. This action required the evacuation of many residents in and around East Palestine due to potential airborne exposure to toxic combustion byproducts. Once cleared to return to their homes, some residents complained of respiratory illnesses and the deaths of wild and domesticated animals.

The incident is being investigated by the National Transportation Safety Board. Cleanup efforts are being monitored by the Environmental Protection Agency. The derailment and the response to it have prompted calls for legislative and regulatory action related to the safe transportation of hazardous materials (hazmat) by rail. This Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) report focuses on the federal safety standards, voluntary industry guidelines, railroad operating practices that may be considered in understanding how and why this derailment occurred, and how to prevent similar derailments in the future. It also provides a brief summary of past legislative responses to railroad safety issues.

Read on...

Here are a video and photo from USATODAY:

https://tinyurl.com/yxbaetxc

“The only presidents I want to see are dead presidents in my wallet. They’re using East Palestine like China and Russia and the U.S. are using Ukraine. It’s a proxy war.” - Joe Botinovch, East Palestine flower shop owner. (in Politico.

Enjoy!

CRS Insight Report: 'Hurricane Ian Recovery - Brief Overview of FEMA Programs and Resources'

Lauren R. Stienstra, Elizabeth M. Webster, Bruce R. Lindsay, William L. Painter and Diane P. Horn assembled the CRS Insight report (30 September 2022): 'Hurricane Ian Recovery: Brief Overview of FEMA Programs and Resources'

Download CRS_Insight_Report_Hurrican_Ian_FEMA_Resources_30Sept2022

Insight reports have embedded URLs that may not show up in text that is pasted in. I will paste the introduction.

Introduction
On September 28, 2022 Hurricane Ian made landfall as a Category 4 major hurricane near Cayo Costa, Florida. According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the storm has caused an extremely dangerous storm surge, winds, and flooding across the Florida Peninsula, and later, the South Carolina coast. On September 25, 2022, President Joseph R. Biden issued an emergency declaration for Florida under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (the Stafford Act, P.L. 93-288, as amended; 42 U.S.C. §§5121 et seq.) to support state and local efforts to save lives, protect property, and avert the incident from becoming a major disaster. On September 29, 2022, the President signed a major disaster declaration for the incident and authorized a suite of disaster assistance programs, including Individual Assistance, Public Assistance, and Hazard Mitigation Assistance. Several counties have been authorized to receive Individual Assistance and Public Assistance—Category A (debris removal), and even more have been authorized to receive Public Assistance—Category B (emergency protective measures.) The Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP) has been made available statewide. The situation in Florida is still dynamic; additional declarations for other counties and designated areas (or additional forms of assistance for existing declarations) may be forthcoming if the President determines that federal assistance is necessary to support state and local recovery. Later that same day, the President additionally authorized an emergency declaration for South Carolina under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (the Stafford Act, P.L. 93-288, as amended; 42 U.S.C. §§5121 et seq.).

Information about state and county disaster assistance authorizations is published in FEMA’s declaration database.

The photo is from NPR:

FEMA’s Hurricane Ian webpage provides information on and directions to apply for disaster assistance.

Some of the links to CRS reprts are broken. In that case, search on the CRS Reports page.

Best of luck!

"When a butterfly flutters its wings in one part of the world, it can eventually cause a hurricane in another." ~ Edward Norton Lorenz