Is BPA-Free Just as Dangerous as BPA?

Swamp Stomp

Volume 18 Issue 39

If you own a water bottle, you may have seen the phrase, “BPA- Free”, usually printed in tiny black letters or perhaps with some flashy letters on a sticker pressed onto a new bottle. This phrase is just one of many that consumers see and trust immediately. BPA-free joins the ranks of “not treated with artificial growth hormone” and other phrases that seem important, but are rarely understood. However, BPA-free could turn out to be a dangerous phrase.

First, what is “BPA” and why do we not want it in our water bottles? Bisphenol A is the full name of the actual chemical compound, and it was first used by Bayer and General Electric in the 1950s to link together other compounds. The result was a polycarbonate chain that creates a hard, highly versatile plastic. Soon, BPA was found everywhere, from water bottles to grocery receipts, and to dental sealants. However, what the scientists didn’t realize was that BPA is also an incredible endocrine-disrupting compound. It was found that BPA could act like a hormone and disrupt the vital functions that hormones in our body carry out every day. With further research, scientists discovered just how dangerous BPA could be on the reproductive system, growth and development, and metabolism of many animals, including humans. Even more frightening, in the CDC’s National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey in 2003-2004, 93% of the 2,317 subjects involved had detectable levels of BPA in their urine. Based on the research that had been conducted, the FDA banned the use of BPA in many baby products such as sippy cups, and companies began placing the now familiar BPA-free label on their products.

This should have been the end of the story, case closed. BPA-free products left us with a warm “all is well” feeling, but it shouldn’t have. Instead of using BPA in their products, companies began using an alphabet soup of alternatives such as BPP, BPZ, BPAF, and others. While these seemed to be better, safer alternatives, geneticist Patricia Hunt of Washington State University may have accidentally discovered that they are quite the opposite. While studying the effects of BPA on mice, Hunt’s control group of mice, housed in a BPA-free cage, began experiencing the genetic results of mice damaged by BPA. Something in the plastics of the BPA-free cages was causing similar damage as the BPA cages. Although something may be BPA-free, it may not be endocrine disrupting free. Hunt’s research indicated that although no BPA was present, other compounds acted in the same dangerous manner as BPA.

So what should a well-informed consumer do? Until more research is conducted, it is probably a wise choice to also avoid BPA-free plastics, usually labeled with recycling codes of 3, 6, and 7. Some safe alternatives to plastics are glass and stainless steel, which are now commonly used in water bottles and other products. In addition, when you can, avoid placing plastics in the dishwasher or the microwave. These two actions have been shown to leach increased amounts of BPA and its alternative compounds.

It took twenty years for most companies to switch from BPA to BPA-free products. Hopefully, it will not take manufacturers that long to switch from BPA-free to being free of ANY harmful BPA compounds. Maybe, if enough people stop purchasing these products, they will no longer be manufactured. Then again, that would be an uphill battle considering the inexpensive, lightweight, and fairly unbreakable plastic products we have become so accustomed to using. Here’s hoping for a SAFE plastic.

Source:

Wei-Hass, Maya. “Why BPA Free May Not Mean a Plastic Product is Safe.” National Geographic. National Geographic. September 13, 2018. Web. September 18, 2018.

Climate Migration – The New Migration

Swamp Stomp

Volume 18 Issue 38

Research has shown that most people migrate for economic reasons. The search for jobs and a better way of life are what brought millions of people to the shores of the United States and we continue to admit over a million legal immigrants every year. Cultural and environmental factors also induce migration. Cultural factors can be especially compelling, forcing people to emigrate from a country. Forced international migration has historically occurred for two main cultural reasons: slavery and political instability. Today though, the reason an ever-increasing number of people are migrating is that of environmental factors – climate migration.

The International Organization for Migration (IOM) proposes the following definition for environmental migrants:

“Environmental migrants are persons or groups of persons who, for compelling reasons of sudden or progressive changes in the environment that adversely affect their lives or living conditions, are obliged to leave their habitual homes, or choose to do so, either temporarily or permanently, and who move either within their country or abroad.”

Climate change will transform more than 143 million people into “climate migrants” escaping crop failure, water scarcity, and sea-level rise, a new World Bank report concludes. Most of the changes in populations will occur in Asia, Africa, and Latin America, but it is also occurring in our own country.

Whatever the cause of climate change, be it human meddling or the natural course of events, climate change is happening, and at an accelerated rate. One factor seems to be increased levels of CO2 in the atmosphere. Average global temperatures have increased, sea levels around the world have increased and the amount of ice contained in the great ice sheets of Greenland and Antarctica have decreased. The loss of Arctic sea ice is one of the clearest signs of climate change. The past four winters have been the lowest four maximum sea ice extents since 1979. At the same time, the region’s climate has seen temperatures increase at more than twice the rate of the rest of the world, with record-shattering seasons becoming more common.

In our own country, significant numbers of people are relocating. The increasingly hot temperatures and dwindling fresh water supplies of the southwest, the sinking coastline of the Gulf states, and the increasing number of devastating hurricanes that have plagued the south have motivated many to move to more northern locales like Seattle, Washington, and Madison, Wisconsin. People are more concerned than ever about the future of adequate water supplies, moderate weather, and comfortable temperatures to raise their families.

The decision to move to safer climates is obviously deeply personal, influenced by a person’s connection with the community they live in, their financial situation and their tolerance for risk. In the U.S., a recent study by Mathew Hauer, a demographer at the University of Georgia, estimates that 13 million people will be displaced by sea level rise alone by the year 2100. Extreme weather due to climate change displaced more than a million people from their homes last year and could reshape our nation.

Climate change is going to remap our world, changing not just how we live but where we live. As scientist Peter Gleick, co-founder of the Pacific Institute, puts it, “There is a shocking, unreported, fundamental change coming to the habitability of many parts of the planet, including the U.S.A.”

At a certain point, you have to ask: how long can New Orleans, a city already below sea level, keep pumping water out? In Miami and other cities vulnerable to sea level rise, there is much talk among architects and urban planners about sea walls and coastal barriers and floating houses. But in practice, it’s much more complex.

There are plenty of unknowns in how this will all play out, including unforeseen climate tipping points, technological innovations that help us adapt, and outbreaks of war and but at what point will we pass the tipping point and have to evacuate coastal cities and desert our “new” deserts.

https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/welcome-to-the-age-of-climate-migration-202221/ Welcome to the Age of Climate Migration – Rolling Stone, Jeff Goodell, February 25, 2018

https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2018/03/climate-migrants-report-world-bank-spd/, 143 Million People May Soon Become Climate Migrants

http://www.phschool.com/atschool/ap_misc/rubenstein_cultland/pdfs/Ch3_Issue1.pdf

Redefining Extinction

Swamp Stomp

Volume 18 Issue 37

Twenty-four thousand years ago, give or take, the species known as the cave bear, was eliminated from the Earth. Scientists have not been able to pinpoint the exact cause of the extinction of the cave bear, but they have chalked it up to possible over-hunting and competition with humans for resources. Cave bears, however, may not be as extinct as we once thought they were.

Brown bears can be found throughout the forests and tundra of North America and Eurasia. There are more than 200,000 brown bears worldwide, and researchers have found that 0.9-2.4% of living brown bears’ DNA can be traced back to cave bears. This may not appear to be such an overwhelming discovery, but it is actually only the second time a present-day species’ DNA has been found to be traceable back to a species that was alive during the ice age. Humans are the only other species with this characteristic with 1.5-4% of our DNA being traceable back to Neanderthals. Just like humans, brown bears contain this ancient DNA via interbreeding between the old and the new species.

Axel Barlow, a postdoctoral researcher at the University of Potsdam and one of the study’s lead authors, studied the genomes of polar bears, brown bears, and cave bears and compared them to each other. They found the genomes of brown bears and cave bears to be much more similar than the genomes of brown bears and polar bears. This confirmed that interbreeding had to occur to account for these similarities. Rasmus Nielsen, a geneticist at the University of California, Berkeley, notes, “The old-fashioned idea of a species [is that] it’s reproductively isolated from other species. This paper is a part of a series of papers that have been saying that worldview really is wrong.”

What is the significance? By discovering that Neanderthal DNA exists inside humans of today, scientists have been able to uncover aspects of humans from immunity to hair structure. So, this new knowledge could teach us something about unknown aspects of brown bears, who serve as important predators, as well as seed dispersers, in their ecosystems. However, Barlow adds, “It forces us to think on a philosophical level what we mean by species extinction.” In other words, when we say a species is extinct, we imagine it erased completely from the present, but we are finding out this is untrue. The cave bear may no longer physically roam the planet, but it lives on in the DNA of brown bears. Perhaps there will be other species found not to be as extinct as we had once thought?

Sources:

“Brown Bear.” WWF. WWF. N.d. Web. September 2, 2018.

Greshko, Michael. “Extinct Cave Bear DNA Found in Living Bears.” National Geographic. National Geographic. August 27, 2018. Web. September 2, 2018.

Elephants: the Key to a Cure for Cancer?

Swamp Stomp

Volume 18 Issue 36

Cancer, a disease known only too well by so many of us. It’s a disease that comes in many shapes, sizes, and forms. What is cancer though, besides being a popular antagonist in young adult TV shows and books, and what makes this disease so deadly?

Humans and all other living organisms are made up of cells, trillions of them. Our cells divide and redivide, again and again, in order to create new tissue and replace older worn-out cells. It is an automatic process that we have little control over. DNA, located in the nucleus of every cell, controls when a cell divides and makes copies of itself in the process. Sometimes though, the DNA is copied incorrectly resulting in various defects. These defects, or mutations, can be good things; they can result in genetic variation that allows a species to evolve over time. Many times, these defects result in diseases, and one such disease is cancer. Cancer is the rapid uncontrolled growth of cells. This cell division can create tumors, and these tumors can be deadly to the organism. Cancer is not only a serious disease in humans but in of many other species of animals as well.

Knowing what we know about cancer, it might be reasonable to assume that the larger the animal is and the more cells there are, the more likely an animal is to get cancer, right? Wrong. Elephants, which are particularly large animals, actually break this trend, due to their unique DNA. Within human DNA, there is a certain gene that acts as a tumor suppressor, known as P53. Humans have one copy of this gene, while elephants have 20 copies. P53 works by ordering cells that are at risk for cancer to be destroyed. With 20 copies of this gene, elephants are at a significantly lower risk of cancer than humans. Scientists studying this gene in elephants found that P53 works with another gene, Leukemia Inhibitory Factor (LIF6), which is actually responsible for destroying the at-risk cancer cells. When a cancerous cell begins to develop, P53 activates LIF6.

What does this mean for humans? Although cancer is a widely studied and well-known disease, scientists still have a lot of questions to answer before they can come up with a cure. By studying how other animals defend themselves, scientists hope to be able to develop a way to mimic these defenses in humans. We may find in the future that elephants end up being the gateway to a cure for cancer.

Source:

Wei-Haas, Maya. “Cancer Rarely Strikes Elephants. New Clues Suggest Why.” National Geographic. National Geographic. August 14, 2018. Web. August 26, 2018.

Clean Water Rule Now In Effect

Swamp Stomp

Volume 18 Issue 35

On August 16, 2018, the US District Court of South Carolina, Charleston Division issued an injunction to remove the 2-year delay of implementation of the Clean Water Rule. This arises out of a case brought before the Court by a number of environmental groups represented by the Southern Environmental Law Center against the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the American Farm Federation as well as a number of agricultural groups.

The result of this case was to make Clean Water Rule effective immediately and nationally. However, 26 other states have other Clean Water Rule stays that would remain in effect. The states that are affected by this decision include; California, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Texas, Vermont, Virginia and Washington.

States included in this decision are now subject the 2015 Waters of the US (WOTUS) definition. For all intensive purposes, a 2015 WOTUS includes all waters with the exception of puddles. However, while puddles are mentioned in the regulation they are not defined so, perhaps some could be jurisdictional.

The decision handed down to the agencies by U.S. District Court Judge David C. Norton appears to be largely a political one. In a highly unusual statement by the Judge, it would seem that the Trump administration is being punished for Obama era injunctions. Judge Norton cites in his decision the case of the City of Chicago v. Sessions:

“[U]nder the Obama administration, such injunctions stymied many of the President’s policies, with five nationwide injunctions issued by Texas district courts in just over a year[.] At that time, then-Senator and now-Attorney General Sessions characterized the upholding of one such nationwide preliminary injunction as “a victory for the American people and for the rule of law.” Press Release, Sen. Jeff Sessions III, June 23, 2016. Now, many who advocated for broad injunctions in those Obama era cases are opposing them.”

He further adds a rather fascinating statement of his own:

“This court agrees that nationwide injunctions should be utilized “only in rare circumstances.” Id. This is one such set of rare circumstances. Just because the political shoe is on the other foot does not mean that nationwide injunctions are no longer appropriate. What is good for the goose is good for the gander.”

His decision is based upon a perceived violation of the Administrative Procedures Act. This Act governs how the US government issues among other things regulations. The 2-year delay in the implementation of the Clean Water Rule was issued as a regulation with a 10-day public comment period. Apparently, this was not enough for the Judge. The rule was simply to delay the implementation of the new WOTUS definition.

It should be noted that the Clean Water Rule only defines what is a WOTUS. Not one word of the Rule has anything to do with cleaning up water. A number of environmental groups have rallied around the Clean Water Rule as some sort of water and wetland protection rule. It is not. It simply defines what waters are subject to federal regulation. The assumption is that if it is regulated by the federal government it must be cleaner. It is a bit ironic to make this assumption as the federal government has been responsible for more wetland loss than any other single entity. Just a few decades ago it was the policy of the federal government to drain and fill wetlands. Why then do you suppose that giving the federal government unilateral control over wetlands and waters would guarantee their protection? History would seem to dispute this.

In the meantime, it is safe to expect a delay on the issuance of any permits or Jurisdictional Determinations in the affected states. The Corps will need to issue some guidance on how it will comply with the Court’s findings as there is no current 2015 WOTUS guidance in place. As soon as it breaks we will post it on our FaceBook page and publish a follow-up newsletter.

References: August 16, 2018, Order No. 2-18-cv-330-DCN

Definition of Waters of the United States-Addition of Applicability Date to 2015 Clean Water Rule

GMOs May Help Feed the World

Swamp Stomp

Volume 18 Issue 34

When shoppers see the term “GMO” on an item at their local grocery store, they usually stay away. GMO, or Genetically Modified Organism, tends to bring a negative connotation and an image of an overly-inbred vegetable that has spent its entire lifespan in a lab. In reality, a GMO is just an organism whose DNA has been altered for some reason. These reasons can include increased crop yield or even increased nutritional value.

This is where Crispr comes into play. Crispr is a technique for gene-editing that scientists have applied in selective breeding to change the DNA of many organisms. The CRISPR method begins with an identified trait that scientists believe shows some aspect of an organism that is desirable. For instance, the desired trait could be larger fruit or less fat. They then identify the trait within the DNA sequence of the organism they want to change. Using a restriction enzyme, which acts as a pair of “scissors” for DNA sequences, the desired DNA sequence of the organism is cut and guided to the right location by a developed piece of RNA. Once the DNA is cut, a new trait can be introduced into the DNA or the existing trait can be modified. Then, the DNA repairs itself and the guide RNA and restriction enzyme are removed. Once this occurs, the organism can be bred with other compatible organisms and the new DNA sequence can be passed on to future generations.

The advances in agriculture and other sciences that have resulted from the CRISPR method are tremendous. Farmers have been able to use GMOs engineered to be more resistant to pesticides or produce pesticides themselves. In Hawaii, disease-resistant papayas have been developed. Additionally, scientists have been developing cacao more resistant to West African viruses, bananas more resistant to deadly fungus, rice more resistant to harsh climates, and wheat lower in gluten. GMOs are even allowing crops to be grown where so many have faced famine in order to feed a growing population.

On the other hand, some people wonder if GMO foods are safe and healthy to eat. Genetic engineering is a relatively new development. As a result, research on the long-term health effects of GMO foods is limited. GMO foods still have to meet the same safety requirements as foods grown from non-GMO seeds but critics suggest there’s more to be concerned about. Some people worry that GM foods may be linked to allergies, antibiotic resistance, or cancer. Others suggest these concerns are unfounded.

The CRISPR method though is so much more than making a tomato look more red or a mushroom-less spotted. It is helping combat diseases without the use of pesticides, boost beneficial nutrients, increase tolerance to heat, cold, and drought, and increase crop yield. GMOs can help us find sustainable ways to feed people and help make us healthier through scientific advancement.

Source:

Niiler, Eric. “Why Gene Editing is the Next Food Revolution.” National Geographic. National Geographic. August 10, 2018. Web. August 12, 2018.

https://www.healthline.com/health/gmos-pros-and-cons, October 5, 2016 — Written by Treacy Colbert

2018 Soil Auger Buyer’s Guide

The Swamp Stomp

Volume 18, Issue 33

Wetland Soil Augers

One of the most frequently asked questions by our wetland delineation students is, “what type of soil auger should I buy?”

A quick browse through any of the forestry supply companies catalogs and you are quickly overwhelmed. Who would have thought that there we so many different types of soil augers? Some of them are quite expensive. Many are modular and you end up buying part of an auger and have to order more parts. You do not want to drop a grand on an auger only to find out it is not what you needed or expected.

To help you get a handle on this I have put together brief pros and cons of the most common soil augers used for wetland delineation. This list is based upon my personal field experience with these augers. Each has its place so be prepared to buy a few. I do have a favorite all around auger which I will also cover, but I own a bunch.

Tube Sampler

This is a favorite for the beginning wetland delineator. One of its biggest assets is it is the cheapest. However, it has limitations. The basic construction is a simple tube that is cut open at the bottom. There is usually about a 16 inch half pipe slice that is used to examine the soil profile in-situ. The very end is a ring that everyone gets their fingers stuck in. A good one is about 24 inches in length with an opening extending about 16-18 inches. There is a short t-handle on the top. Sometimes this is detachable with a screw fitting. Others have the handle welded on. The former is a bit more expensive.

One of the biggest advantages of this type of auger is the small footprint it makes. In glacial regions, it is sometimes the only auger that can get in between the rocks. It is also very handy for quick assessments.

The biggest disadvantage is the relatively small amount of soil sample this auger extracts. Oftentimes, it just is not enough sample to make a wetland determination. Small rocks are also a problem as they will plug up the tube end. The issue of cleaning it the sampler end out is also a challenge. Don’t stick your finger in the end. It is sharp and just the right size to get your finger stuck. Use a stick to clean it out.

Screw Sampler

This auger looks like a giant corkscrew. The screw is about a foot long and is about 2-3 feet in total length. The screw is usually attached by extension bars that can be added to achieve a comfortable length. It has a slightly larger footprint than the tube sampler and is similarly useful in glaciated regions.

The biggest challenge with using this auger is the ability to measure the thickness of a hydric soil feature. The screw blades are about .5 inches thick. This results in a stretching of the soil sample. It is hard to estimate how thick a feature may be using this auger. It also provides a very small about of soil sample.

Bucket Auger

This is probably the most common type of auger used by soil scientists. Not necessary wetland delineators, however. The basic design looks like a coffee can with one end open and the other end has two blades welded onto it. An extension bar connects in between the bucket and a t-handle on the top. All of these items can be customized to fit the user’s needs.

If you are just starting out delineating, you will probably be handed one of these bucket augers. There always seems to be one hiding in a closet in the office. Someone bought it, used it once and there it sits.

I do not have a lot of pros to offer with this type of auger. The biggest problem is that it grinds up the soil profile making it very hard to distinguish the hydric features if the soil. It also requires that once you auger down and grab a sample you then have to tip the bucket upside down and bang out the sample. This also obscures the features.

Soil scientists like these augers because they are trying to obtain a discrete sample at a specific depth. This is usually why the extension bars are so long. I have seen some augers used in the field that were over 6 feet long. This is very hard to use if you are 5’6” tall.

Dutch Auger (My Favorite)

This auger was made for wetland delineations. It is a double blade at the end of an extension bar and t-handle. It cuts a very nice sample without disturbing the profile integrity. You can usually auger down several feet fairly easily and lay out the samples in more or less the same way they would be found in the pit. You also get a decent amount of sample to play with.

There are a number of brands and styles of this type of auger. The biggest difference between the individual styles is a represented by the size and pitch of the blades. The original use of the Dutch auger was for muddy soils. However, there have been many modifications to the design and there is such a thing as a combination auger that works well in loamy soils as well as mud.

Sharp-Shooter

This is also known as a tree planting spade. It is simply a shovel that is 4 inches wide and 16 inches long. It digs a small hole and cuts a nice sample. In a pinch, this shovel will work in almost any circumstance.

The biggest advantage of this sampler is the cost. You can pick one of these up in your local home improvement center for about $25. Most of the other augers mentioned are well north of $200.

The biggest downside to this device is the work associated with it. Digging a hole is a lot of work. You get a nice amount of sample and you can even cut a nice sidewall to see the profile. However, this took a lot of work.

Quick Connect or Not

One last note on the issue of quick connects. To be frank, I have yet to see one of these work once they were put into field use. The fittings get gummed up with dirt and the quick connects jamb. I would suggest going with an all welded design. You are not going to take these apart anyway so why spend the extra money. If you need to travel by airplane, TSA is not going to let you carry these on so there is no need to break them down. Just check them or better yet, buy a shovel for $25 when you get to the job site.

Soil Auger Sources

Project Manager / Senior Wetland Scientist

Ecology and Environment, Inc. is seeking a Project Manager / Senior Wetland Scientist for our Portland, OR office. This position will perform, lead and manage environmental projects including, but not limited to, renewable energy, pipeline, and transmission line projects. This position will also be responsible for oversight of field studies including wetland delineations and habitat assessments. A successful candidate will have demonstrated abilities in project management, project-related research, and technical writing.

Responsibilities:
•Project Management◦Effectively lead project teams
◦Understand and account for project contract requirements and ensure deliverables and schedules are met with the appropriate level of quality

•Coordinate and Lead Field Teams◦Wetland delineations
◦Plant identification

•Manage Federal and State Environmental Impact Assessments◦Prepare NEPA and Oregon EFSC documents
◦Prepare wetland 404 permits and state wetland permit applications

•Manage Personnel◦Ensure project teams work together to achieve results; set performance targets for staff, provide inspiring leadership and direction, and actively identify and resolve issues
◦Provide guidance and mentorship to junior level staff

•Provide expertise on current regulatory and scientific standards◦Lead federal and state agency coordination and negotiation
◦Understand and stay current with appropriate regulatory requirements and scientific standards
◦Provide advice and guidance to E & E staff on regulatory requirements and scientific standards

•Business development◦Seek out and identify potential project opportunities and develop client relationships
◦Assist in preparing proposals, work plans, and cost estimates

Requirements:
•Bachelor’s degree in Environmental Science, Biology or a related discipline
•10 – 15 years of related experience including managing projects, teams, and managing/leading field surveys
•Professional Wetland Scientist (PWS) certification and environmental consulting experience preferred
•Experience working with federal, state, and local agencies, preferably in the Pacific Northwest
•Knowledge of major federal statutes and implementing regulations (NEPA, CWA, CAA, etc.)
•Experience delineating wetlands and other waters and permitting impacts pursuant to federal and state regulations
•Experience supporting business development activities including proposal development, attending and presenting at conferences, and developing and maintaining client relationships preferred
•Experience utilizing GIS and mobile applications for field data collection a plus
•Excellent leadership and interpersonal communication skills
•Strong organizational, analytical, and strategic planning skills with attention to detail and a high quality of work in a pressure environment
•Ability to elicit cooperation from a wide variety of, disciplines, and experts including senior management and clients
•Ability to travel to support project needs

We are a global network of innovators and problem solvers, dedicated professionals and industry leaders in scientific, engineering, and planning disciplines working together with our clients to develop technically sound, science-based solutions to the leading environmental challenges of our time. E & E offers opportunities for growth in a team-oriented environment. Candidates must be eligible to work in the U.S.; Visa sponsorship will not be provided. Please view our website at www.ene.com to apply online. Local candidates preferred.

Ecology and Environment, Inc. is an EO and AA employer – M/F/Vets/Disabled/and other protected categories.

Project Puffin

Swamp Stomp

Volume 18 Issue 32

Forty-five years ago, Stephen Kress had a goal: restore Atlantic puffins to the Gulf of Maine. While many believed that nature should be left to “take its course,” Kress devoted his life to making this goal a reality. Through the creation of the National Audubon Society’s Project Puffin, Kress was able to restore more than 1000 nesting pairs to three Maine islands and earn the title, “The Puffin Man.”

Island stewards, also called “Puffineers,” are the backbone of Project Puffin. These interns live on Eastern Egg Rock, one of the Maine islands where puffins have been restored. During the breeding season, they record details on the puffins and their behaviors. The island stewards live minimally during the 10 weeks from June to August in tents, with food and water brought to the island every two weeks. Their work has been critical to not only re-establishing Atlantic puffins to their former nesting places but also in providing data on climate change. The warming Gulf of Maine, which has warmed faster than any place on Earth except for an area northeast of Japan, has caused a change in the diets of puffins. For instance, haddock was never part of puffins’ diets prior to 2010. But in 2017, haddock made up 14% of puffin chicks’ diets on Seal Rock and 6% of their diets on Eastern Egg Rock. The warmer water has caused fish like haddock to move from their more southern environments to northern environments like the Gulf of Maine. Not only does this affect the diets of puffins, but it affects the prior and current ecosystems of the haddock. More haddock in the Gulf of Maine means more competition for the fish that already live there, which could be a serious problem for these fish populations. Moreover, the data that has been amassed over four decades on this by these island stewards is instrumental in understanding the effects of climate change.

Project Puffin is so much more than data, however, to the interns that work on Eastern Egg Rock. Project Puffin has not only given Atlantic puffin populations a second chance, but it has also opened up opportunities that have shaped the lives of the interns involved. Kevin Bell helped bring puffins from Newfoundland to Eastern Egg Rock in 1975, and today he is the CEO of Chicago’s Lincoln Park Zoo. Nicole Faber, who has been working on Eastern Egg Rock for three summers says, “It’s incredible to live at the pace of another species. We’re following the birds and what they do. It’s not something you normally do in life. There are so many things we are shut off from, but we have to respond to the birds. It’s a good thing. You have to be OK sitting with yourself in your own brain.”

In more ways than one, Project Puffin is a story of success. Stephen Kress reinvented the future of the Atlantic puffin whilst furthering the passion so many have for protecting our planet.

Sources:

Fleming, Deirdre. “Atlantic puffin colony soars again, but only with the help of some humans.” Portland Press Herald. Portland Press Herald. July 22, 2018. Web. August 1, 2018.

“Project Puffin Story.” Audubon. Audubon Project Puffin. N.d. Web. August 1, 2018.

Category: Newsletter

Alishia M.

Mike E.

Julliette G.

Shelli W.

Ernest V.

William M.

Rebecca W.

Jessica T.

Kelley B.

Myrna G.

Ashley A.

Shannon H.

Erin W.

Tim G

Sydney B.

Heather G.

Rhonda V.

Thomas T.

Andrea F.

Elyse T.

Jessica T.

Justin M.

Scott R.

Grete B.

Rhonda V.

Valerie F.

Anna Marie P.

Kelsey D.

Erin W.

Jesse P.

Nathan M.

Blanche M.

Alishia M.

Stephanie B.

Zachary S.