Cookies help us run our site more efficiently.

By clicking “Accept”, you agree to the storing of cookies on your device to enhance site navigation, analyze site usage, and assist in our marketing efforts. View our Privacy Policy for more information or to customize your cookie preferences.

Monarch butterflies are in decline in NZ and Australia – they need your help to track where they gather

News Feed
Thursday, January 2, 2025

Kathy Reid, CC BY-SAMonarch butterflies (Danaus plexippus) appear to be declining not just in North America but also in Australiasia. Could this be a consequence of global change, including climate change, the intensification of agriculture, and urbanisation? We need more citizen scientists to monitor what is really going on. Insect populations, even species that seemed impervious, are in decline globally. Monarch butterflies exemplify the problem. Once a very common species, numbers have declined dramatically in North America, engendering keen public interest in restoring populations. The monarch butterfly is an iconic species. It is usually the species people recall when drawing a butterfly and observations are shared frequently on the online social network iNaturalist. This is partly because monarch images are used in advertising, but the butterflies are also a species of choice for school biology classes and television documentaries on animal migration. Monarchs in the southern hemisphere Monarchs expanded their range to reach Australia and New Zealand during the mid-1800s. Kathy Reid, CC BY-SA The monarch butterfly’s ancestral home in North America is noted for an annual mass migration and spectacular overwintering of adults in fir forests in a few locations in Mexico, at densities of 50 million per hectare, and at multiple sites in Southern California. These sites are monitored to track the decline. What is not as well known is that this butterfly greatly extended its range, spreading across the Pacific in the mid-1800s to reach Australia and New Zealand by riding on storms that blew in from New Caledonia. The species is now part of the roadside scene in these countries and was once known as “the wanderer” – reflecting its propensity to fly across the landscape in search of milkweed plants (known as swan plants in New Zealand). In both countries, monarchs lay eggs on introduced milkweed species for their caterpillars to feed and develop. They take up the plant’s toxins as part of their own defence. Interestingly, in their expanded range in the southern hemisphere, monarchs have adapted their migration patterns to suit local conditions. They have established overwinter sites – places where large numbers of adults congregate on trees throughout winter. Need for citizen science In Australia, the late entomologist Courtenay Smithers organised people to report these sites and participate in a mark-recapture programme. Essentially, this involves attaching a small unique identifying tag to the wing, noting the age and condition of the butterfly and the date and location of capture. If the same individual is then recaptured sometime later and the information shared, it provides valuable data on survival and the distance and direction it moved, and even population size. This volunteer tagging programme enabled many aspects of the monarch’s ecology in Australia to be documented, but it was discontinued a few years ago. Moths and Butterflies Australasia now hosts the butterfly database and has become an umbrella group for encouraging everyone with a mobile phone to get involved and report and record sightings. Monarchs have established wintering sites in New Zealand and Australia. Kathy Reid, CC BY-SA A similar programme is run in New Zealand by the Moths and Butterflies of New Zealand Trust. Monarch overwintering sites and local breeding populations have been documented over the years. Alas, these data sets have been short term and haphazard. What is intriguing is that populations appear to have declined in Australia and New Zealand, perhaps reflecting climate variability, expanding cities gobbling up local breeding habitats, and the intensification of agriculture. What we need is reliable long-term data on adult numbers. Hence the call to reinvigorate interest in mark-recapture and reporting. We need the help of people who love the outdoors and love the monarch butterfly to become citizen scientists. Citizen scientists are needed to help with tagging monarch butterflies. Anna Barnett, CC BY-SA The Moths and Butterflies of New Zealand Trust is asking individuals, groups and schools to tag monarch butterflies late in the autumn when the butterflies head for their overwintering habitat. This is a great project for schools, involving students in real science and addressing an environmental issue. Each tag has a unique code. A computer system calculates the distance the monarch has flown and the time it took to get there. This information can then be collated with weather data to get a clearer picture of what is happening. We hope people will spot tagged monarchs in their gardens and record where the butterfly was sighted, together with its tag number. The author wishes to thank Washington State University entomologist David James and Moths and Butterflies of New Zealand trustee Jacqui Knight for their input, and Australian National University ecologist Michael Braby for comments. Myron Zalucki does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

Citizen scientists are called on to help with tagging monarch butterflies and find out why their numbers are dropping.

Kathy Reid, CC BY-SA

Monarch butterflies (Danaus plexippus) appear to be declining not just in North America but also in Australiasia. Could this be a consequence of global change, including climate change, the intensification of agriculture, and urbanisation?

We need more citizen scientists to monitor what is really going on.

Insect populations, even species that seemed impervious, are in decline globally. Monarch butterflies exemplify the problem. Once a very common species, numbers have declined dramatically in North America, engendering keen public interest in restoring populations.

The monarch butterfly is an iconic species. It is usually the species people recall when drawing a butterfly and observations are shared frequently on the online social network iNaturalist.

This is partly because monarch images are used in advertising, but the butterflies are also a species of choice for school biology classes and television documentaries on animal migration.

Monarchs in the southern hemisphere

Monarch butterfies hanging off a branch
Monarchs expanded their range to reach Australia and New Zealand during the mid-1800s. Kathy Reid, CC BY-SA

The monarch butterfly’s ancestral home in North America is noted for an annual mass migration and spectacular overwintering of adults in fir forests in a few locations in Mexico, at densities of 50 million per hectare, and at multiple sites in Southern California. These sites are monitored to track the decline.

What is not as well known is that this butterfly greatly extended its range, spreading across the Pacific in the mid-1800s to reach Australia and New Zealand by riding on storms that blew in from New Caledonia.

The species is now part of the roadside scene in these countries and was once known as “the wanderer” – reflecting its propensity to fly across the landscape in search of milkweed plants (known as swan plants in New Zealand). In both countries, monarchs lay eggs on introduced milkweed species for their caterpillars to feed and develop. They take up the plant’s toxins as part of their own defence.

Interestingly, in their expanded range in the southern hemisphere, monarchs have adapted their migration patterns to suit local conditions. They have established overwinter sites – places where large numbers of adults congregate on trees throughout winter.

Need for citizen science

In Australia, the late entomologist Courtenay Smithers organised people to report these sites and participate in a mark-recapture programme. Essentially, this involves attaching a small unique identifying tag to the wing, noting the age and condition of the butterfly and the date and location of capture.

If the same individual is then recaptured sometime later and the information shared, it provides valuable data on survival and the distance and direction it moved, and even population size. This volunteer tagging programme enabled many aspects of the monarch’s ecology in Australia to be documented, but it was discontinued a few years ago.

Moths and Butterflies Australasia now hosts the butterfly database and has become an umbrella group for encouraging everyone with a mobile phone to get involved and report and record sightings.

Monarch butterflies hanging off a ginkgo tree.
Monarchs have established wintering sites in New Zealand and Australia. Kathy Reid, CC BY-SA

A similar programme is run in New Zealand by the Moths and Butterflies of New Zealand Trust. Monarch overwintering sites and local breeding populations have been documented over the years. Alas, these data sets have been short term and haphazard.

What is intriguing is that populations appear to have declined in Australia and New Zealand, perhaps reflecting climate variability, expanding cities gobbling up local breeding habitats, and the intensification of agriculture.

What we need is reliable long-term data on adult numbers. Hence the call to reinvigorate interest in mark-recapture and reporting. We need the help of people who love the outdoors and love the monarch butterfly to become citizen scientists.

A Monarch butterfly with a tag on its wing
Citizen scientists are needed to help with tagging monarch butterflies. Anna Barnett, CC BY-SA

The Moths and Butterflies of New Zealand Trust is asking individuals, groups and schools to tag monarch butterflies late in the autumn when the butterflies head for their overwintering habitat. This is a great project for schools, involving students in real science and addressing an environmental issue.

Each tag has a unique code. A computer system calculates the distance the monarch has flown and the time it took to get there. This information can then be collated with weather data to get a clearer picture of what is happening.

We hope people will spot tagged monarchs in their gardens and record where the butterfly was sighted, together with its tag number.


The author wishes to thank Washington State University entomologist David James and Moths and Butterflies of New Zealand trustee Jacqui Knight for their input, and Australian National University ecologist Michael Braby for comments.


The Conversation

Myron Zalucki does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

Read the full story here.
Photos courtesy of

As Federal Support for On-Farm Solar Declines, Is Community Agrivoltaics the Future?

Byron Kominek, who owns the farm, sees similar benefits from the solar panels he has installed on some of the land. “What’s important is to think about the solar array as a tree canopy,” Kominek said. The solar garden includes 3,276 panels that generate 1.2 megawatts of community solar power, enough to power 300 homes. […] The post As Federal Support for On-Farm Solar Declines, Is Community Agrivoltaics the Future? appeared first on Civil Eats.

Some of the thickest hay in the meadow at Jack’s Solar Garden, in Longmont, Colorado, is on the west side under an elm tree. The tree offers shade, absorbs the brunt of afternoon sun, and keeps more moisture in the ground. Byron Kominek, who owns the farm, sees similar benefits from the solar panels he has installed on some of the land. “What’s important is to think about the solar array as a tree canopy,” Kominek said. The solar garden includes 3,276 panels that generate 1.2 megawatts of community solar power, enough to power 300 homes. Through his agrivoltaic system—the dual use of land for solar generation and agriculture—he’s found success growing blackberries, raspberries, asparagus, and more under the panels. While growing these crops, he’s also been able to generate and sell electricity—another boost to farm revenue. With hotter, drier years ahead, Kominek also thinks having additional shade on farmland will be important for reducing ground temperatures and keeping water in the soil. Both will expand the lifespan of his property. Through his agrovoltaic system—the dual use of land for solar generation and agriculture—Byron Kominek can grow crops while generating and selling electricity, a boost to farm revenue. Like most farmers and farm advocates, Kominek is concerned about the loss of productive farmland across the country. He sees large-scale solar energy development that involves wiping out farms entirely as part of that problem, but he believes his farm and many others can demonstrate a different approach. “It takes a little bit more upfront, but one can consider some of the main points around developing solar arrays that can make it safer, more accessible, and useful for farmers and ranchers for the long run,” Kominek said. The Biden administration invested in solar through landmark climate legislation, which included additional funds for on-farm solar projects. State policies have also helped spur agrivoltaic growth. But the Trump administration has taken steps to move federal support away from solar energy. Most recently, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) said it would no longer support solar projects that take away viable farmland. That will make it harder for rural businesses and farmers to access grants and loan guarantees that largely go to small-scale solar arrays. In years past, farmers have gravitated toward these awards because of the energy cost benefits that can help sustain their businesses. Increasingly, though, as federal policies become less stable for solar, states and farm groups are looking to community solar projects to fill the gaps. Trump’s Far-Reaching Changes to Rural Energy In August, the USDA shared a press release explaining how the agency would move away from solar through changes to the Rural Energy for America Program (REAP). First created under a different name in the 2002 Farm Bill, REAP has grown to become the primary program in the farm legislation. While other technologies once dominated, energy efficiency and solar projects are now some of the most popular. The program currently supports solar projects that range in scale, funded through grants and loan guarantees for agricultural producers or small rural businesses. Solar arrays can range from small-scale, like task-oriented solar for an irrigation pump, to multi-acre utility-scale projects where electricity generated can go to the grid. It’s also a low-risk, established technology that farmers and small rural businesses have gravitated toward to stabilize energy prices. Company climate pledges and consumer demand are also pushing low-carbon products, which has similarly pushed farmers to solar. “The benefit of solar to agriculture producers is that it provides stable energy cost, predictable energy cost, and helps them to reduce their carbon footprint, as markets increasingly demand,” said Andy Olsen, senior policy advocate at the Environmental Law and Policy Center. “The benefit of solar to agriculture producers is that it provides stable energy cost, predictable energy cost, and helps them to reduce their carbon footprint, as markets increasingly demand.” A recent USDA memo sent to state Rural Development directors and obtained by Civil Eats provides more insights into how the agency plans to move REAP away from solar. Ground-mounted solar projects larger than 50 kilowatts and installed on “certified cropland” are now ineligible for REAP loan guarantees, it says. Any solar projects that have any component made in a foreign adversary country, like China, would also be ineligible. Solar projects that fall under these size, location, and component restrictions will also be “disincentivized” for REAP grants. From 2015 to 2025, 72 percent of REAP projects included solar, according to an analysis by the Environmental Law and Policy Center shared directly with Civil Eats. An estimated 65 percent of these solar projects were larger than 50 kW and could therefore be ineligible for loans, or “docked,” under the new parameters. While available data does not directly include the size of projects, the center’s analysts came to this conclusion by estimating kilowatts by the cost of the project. A separate analysis by the National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition, also shared with Civil Eats, found that relatively few—only about 150—of these projects are larger than 50 kW, mounted on the ground, and classified as an agriculture project. Many existing REAP projects involve solar arrays mounted on land adjacent to buildings or on the edge of property. But experts point out that nearly every solar array, no matter the size or location, is likely made using components from China. “This is farmers who are saying, ‘I want to go solar to help my farm,’ or, ‘I’m a rural small business and I want to go solar to help my business,’” said Liz Veazey, state policy campaigns director at Solar United Neighbors. “These people are not going to put a bunch of solar in the middle of their farm and impact their farm. They should be able to do whatever they want with their land.” Rural businesses and farms look to REAP and solar as a way to stay in business by lowering or controlling their energy costs, Veazey said. These projects can also create jobs that support the broader local, rural economy. REAP loan guarantees specifically can help support utility-scale solar projects that farmers can use to sell electricity. REAP applications are scored and get “priority points” based on criteria like energy savings, location, committed matching funds and more. These scores are factored into USDA’s selection process. As the internal USDA memo notes, the new restrictions on solar projects will be factored into this point system. But it’s unclear how severely projects involving more than 50 kW, ground-mounted solar, projects on farmland, and systems made with components produced in China will be docked in this new system. Depending on how much projects are docked because of the new solar parameters, it could lead to hundreds fewer systems receiving grants, Veazey said. The USDA is expected to reopen REAP applications on October 1, and she expects more information about the point system to be released then. “Making it harder to get these grants is probably going to reduce applications for solar, [and] potentially push applications to other, maybe less practical technologies,” Veazey said. The new REAP parameters add to a wave of “uncertainty and chaos” in the program, Veazey said. Earlier this year, USDA briefly froze REAP funding and delayed opening the latest cycle of applications. Veazey said she’s also concerned that cuts to agency staff could make it harder to process all the applications. “Making it harder to get these grants is probably going to reduce applications for solar, [and] potentially push applications to other, maybe less practical technologies.” Meanwhile, the federal government has implemented other policies that signal a shift away from solar energy. The Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) boosted the amount REAP grants could cover to 50 percent. Developers could also stack these grants with other IRA tax credits to further lower the cost of the project. However, under the Republican-backed One Big Beautiful Bill Act, several IRA credits for clean energy were rolled back. Specifically, the residential solar credit will go away at the end of 2025, and the solar credit for businesses that many farmers or rural businesses could have used becomes more complicated with the introduction of “foreign entity of concern” rules that clean energy developers are still seeking formal guidance on. Already, getting a REAP grant entails a competitive but complicated application process, particularly for farmers and rural businesses that may not have technical expertise or support. Adding additional parameters, particularly around foreign components, could add red tape to the application process. The new parameters set by the USDA are “largely killing the REAP program,” said Olsen of the Environmental Law and Policy Center. States Consider Community Solar As the federal policy on solar shifts, some states are increasingly exploring community solar programs that can include farms and rural businesses. Community solar arrays are often funded by private investments and subscriber payments. These are generally smaller, requiring about 50 acres, and usually capped at 5 MW of electrical capacity. So far, 19 states have community solar programs and are exploring agrivoltaics as a way of bringing on low-cost power quickly. This system allows residents and small businesses to get a credit on their electricity bill that could help offset costs. Farmers who implement these projects can also directly see benefits from lower-cost power or selling electricity. So far, 19 states have community solar programs and are exploring ways to enhance agrivoltaics, said Liz Perera, senior director of national programs and policy at Coalition for Community Solar Access (CCSA). These states are trying to bring on low-cost power quickly, and community solar is an economical way of doing this, she continued. “As the cost of power goes up and electricity on these farms goes up, there’s going to be a lot more interest in solar on these farms,” Perera said. “That’s their way of actually dealing with that increased cost.” With community solar projects, farmers can lease land to solar developers, earning dollars from lease payments while still harvesting crops on nearby fields, Perera said. These also bring economic benefits for the entire community. CCSA estimates that 750 mW of community solar nationwide could deliver $2.1 billion in economic impact and create over 14,000 local jobs, based on state-level studies. In Colorado, for example, the community solar program has brought $1.4 billion in private investment while creating jobs largely in rural communities, according to a CCSA report. Creating Opportunities for Agrivoltaic Meanwhile, the types of crops that can be grown in an agrivoltaic system are also expanding with further investment and research. Leafy greens, berries, root vegetables, legumes and more can all be grown under the arrays, Perera said. In September, American Farmland Trust (AFT) announced the Farmers Powering Communities partnership with Reactivate and Edelen Renewables Community Solar. The initiative aims to bring more community-scale solar projects to farmers and rural communities, which AFT believes will protect farmers and farmland while delivering energy savings to rural communities. These projects can also be a mix of agrivoltaics, rooftop solar, and arrays on the edge of farmland. The coalition aims to connect with partners across the country, but is currently focused on New York, Massachusetts, and New Jersey, states that have already have community solar and agrivoltaic programs. Ethan Winter, director of the Smart Solar program at AFT, said these states are more land constrained. “You’re trying to create some opportunity for the next generation of producers, you’re trying to not accelerate farmland loss, and you’ve got some really ambitious energy targets that are going to continue despite the federal policy headwinds,” Winter said. For farmers, one of the key barriers to entering the community solar space is a lack of information about the process, said Joel Tatum, senior solar specialist at AFT. This partnership aims to give farmers the background and research to site projects responsibly. “You’re trying to create some opportunity for the next generation of producers, you’re trying to not accelerate farmland loss, and you’ve got some really ambitious energy targets that are going to continue despite the federal policy headwinds.” Still, agrivoltaics and incorporating community solar into farms is an emerging concept. Even as innovations, farmer interest, and public awareness of solar on farmland grow, consistent support from the federal or state level are necessary. Despite the lagging support at the federal level, many groups remain optimistic that community solar and agrivoltaics will persist. On September 16, community solar developer Lightstar Renewables officially launched its Plains Road Agrivoltaics project in Montgomery, New York. The solar project was tailored to fit within the existing operations at the DiMartino Farm, so hay planting and harvesting can continue around or under the panels. The project is expected to generate enough energy to power 466 homes annually. Previously, county bylaws had banned solar development on prime farmland. But developers and partners on the project were able to amend these bylaws with specific height restrictions and lot coverage, allowing for agrivoltaics, said Lucy Bullock-Sieger, chief strategy officer at Lightstar. This shift is happening in other parts of the country as well, as more examples of agrivoltaics show their benefit to farms and communities, she said. “Agrivoltaics is going to be even more important because the conversation over prime farmland is not going away,” she said. “We have this opportunity to make sure that people understand that agrivoltaics is a viable, commercial, and scalable option for farmers.” The post As Federal Support for On-Farm Solar Declines, Is Community Agrivoltaics the Future? appeared first on Civil Eats.

Chesapeake Bay’s oysters make a steady comeback

The Maryland mollusks have survived decades of overharvesting, disease and drought.

For the fifth year in a row, the oyster population in the Chesapeake Bay is doing well after decades of combating drought, disease, loss of habitat and overharvesting.The Maryland Department of Natural Resources said in March that its annual fall oyster survey showed that the “spatfall intensity index” — a measure of how well oysters reproduced and their potential population growth — again hit above a 40-year median.“We seem to be making some headway,” said Lynn Waller Fegley, director of fishing and boating services for the Maryland Department of Natural Resources. “With the work we’ve done to help restore oysters, and combined with the fact that we’ve been gifted with some really favorable environmental conditions, we’ve seen the oyster population trend upward.”Oyster-processing companies, oystermen, conservation groups and local fish and wildlife departments in the region have spent years trying to boost the population of oysters, which serve an important role as “filter feeders,” sifting sediment and pollutants such as nitrogen out of the water.The cleaner water in turn spurs underwater grasses to grow, while oyster reefs create habitats for fish, crabs and dozens of other species. Adult oysters can filter up to two gallons of water per hour, making them the bay’s “most effective water filtration system,” according to experts at the Chesapeake Bay Foundation, a nonprofit organization that advocates for the health of the bay.Oysters thrive in brackish water — a mix of saltwater and freshwater. They attach and grow on hard surfaces such as rocks, piers or old shells. Too much rain lowers the salinity, while drought makes water too salty. Both situations can create conditions in which oysters can become vulnerable to disease or unable to reproduce as well.Before the 1880s, the oyster population was so healthy it could filter in a week a volume of water equal to that of the entire bay — about 19 trillion gallons — according to the bay foundation. But now it would take the vastly smaller oyster population more than a year to do the same amount.This fall, biologists in Maryland collected more than 300 oyster samples from the bay and tributaries, including the Potomac River, for their annual survey. The results were promising, experts said, given that 2023 was an unusual year for oysters because drought conditions raised the salinity in the bay.There are several other encouraging signs, experts said. The mortality rate of oysters has stabilized, their “biomass index,” which shows how oyster populations are doing over time, has been increasing for the past 14 years, and an analysis of their habitat showed continued improvements.“They’ve been hit by a pretty severe drought, then got pretty decimated by disease,” Fegley said. “They’ve been cycling back, and we’re now in a state of grace.”Another sign oysters are doing better is their “spat sets” — the process of the tiny larvae (spat) attaching to a hard surface so they can grow into mature oysters. A high number of spat equals successful reproduction. A low number means there are fewer young oysters that will grow into adults.Fegley said last year, the bay’s oysters had “epic, generational spat sets.”“Not only were there a lot of young oysters, which is a good sign of health, but they were distributed through the bay in a way that we had not seen in many years where they were farther up tributaries,” Fegley said. “We’ve had years where the conditions in the bay were just right — with a good balance of salinity levels, no disease and good reproduction.”The success of oysters is also due in part to Maryland and Virginia working over the past few years to build more oyster reefs along the bottom of the bay so oysters could grow successfully, according to Allison Colden, executive director of Maryland for the Chesapeake Bay Foundation. In recent years, she said, more than 1,300 acres of oyster reefs have been replenished in both states.In the past decade, Virginia has also tried to boost its oyster population with aquaculture farms that raise oysters in cages and return their spat to natural waters. The commonwealth increased its number of oyster farms to more than 130 in 2018, up from 60 in 2013, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture.Last season, Virginia harvested 700,000 bushels of oysters, one of the highest annual harvests since the late 1980s, according to Adam Kenyon, chief of the shellfish management division at the Virginia Marine Resources Commission.Those efforts, plus Mother Nature, have helped create the delicate combination oysters need to survive.“In the last five years, we’ve seen a rebound,” Colden said. “Reproduction has been higher than the long-term average, and we’re seeing more consistency in how they’re doing year-to-year, and that’s a positive sign.”For Jeff Harrison, a fifth-generation waterman who serves as president of the Talbot County Watermen Association, the changes have been like a roller coaster over the 47 years he has made a living off the bay. He’s seen diseases hit, oyster-harvesting seasons shortened, prices fluctuate and many other watermen leave the business because they couldn’t turn a profit.“I’ve seen some of the worst seasons in oystering,” he said. “We’d always have ups and downs. Now we’re seeing a steady up, and we’re hoping we have turned the corner.”

These communities are unaware they’ve lived near toxic gas for decades. Why has no action been taken?

Five facilities near schools and houses in LA County fumigate produce shipped from overseas with methyl bromide. But the air agency doesn’t plan to monitor the air or take any immediate steps to protect people from the gas, which can damage lungs and cause neurological effects.

In summary Five facilities near schools and houses in LA County fumigate produce shipped from overseas with methyl bromide. But the air agency doesn’t plan to monitor the air or take any immediate steps to protect people from the gas, which can damage lungs and cause neurological effects. In a quiet Compton neighborhood near the 710 freeway, children on a recent afternoon chased each other at Kelly Park after school. Parents watched their kids play, unaware of a potential threat to their health.  On the other side of the freeway, just blocks from the park and Kelly Elementary School, a fumigation company uses a highly toxic pesticide to spray fruits and vegetables.  The facility, Global Pest Management, has been emitting methyl bromide, which can cause lung damage and neurological health effects, into the air near the neighborhood for several decades.  Earlier this year, the South Coast Air Quality Management District asked the company — along with four other fumigation facilities in San Pedro and Long Beach — to provide data on their methyl bromide usage. But the air quality agency does not plan to install monitors in the communities that would tell residents exactly what is in their air, or hold community meetings to notify them of potential risks. Instead, the South Coast district has launched a preliminary screening of the five facilities to determine if a full assessment of health risks in the neighborhoods is necessary. But even if that analysis is conducted, the agency won’t require the companies to reduce emissions unless they reach concentrations three times higher than the amounts deemed a health risk under state guidelines, said Scott Epstein, the district’s planning and rules manager. Piedad Delgado, a mother picking up her daughter from the Compton school, said she “didn’t even know” that the hazardous chemical was being used nearby. When a CalMatters reporter told her about the fumigation plant, Delgado wondered if it was causing her daughter’s recent, mysterious bouts of headaches and nausea. “It’s concerning. We may be getting sick but we don’t know why,” she said. For about the past 30 years, the companies have sprayed methyl bromide on imported produce arriving at the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach to kill harmful pests. Adults and children are shown after school at Kelly Elementary School in Compton, which is near a facility that uses a highly toxic fumigant, methyl bromide. Photo by Joel Angel Juarez for CalMatters Methyl bromide, which was widely used to treat soil on farm fields, has been banned worldwide for most uses since 2005 under a United Nations treaty that protects the Earth’s ozone layer. Exemptions are granted for fumigation of produce shipped from overseas. While little to no residue remains on the food, the gas is vented into the air where it is sprayed. State health officials have classified methyl bromide as a reproductive toxicant, which means it can harm babies exposed in the womb. With acute exposure, high levels can cause headaches, dizziness, nausea and difficulty breathing, while chronic exposure over a year or longer could cause more serious neurological effects, such as learning and memory problems, according to the California Air Resources Board. “It’s concerning. We may be getting sick but we don’t know why.”Piedad Delgado, Compton Resident State and local air quality officials are responsible for enforcing laws and regulations that protect communities from toxic air contaminants such as methyl bromide, while the Los Angeles County Agricultural Commissioner issues the permits to the fumigation companies. After CalMatters reported about the facilities last month, members of Congress representing the communities demanded “greater monitoring, transparency and oversight surrounding these fumigation facilities and their toxic emissions.” “We have serious concerns about the prevalent use of methyl bromide, a toxic pesticide, by container fumigation facilities in Los Angeles County,” U.S. Reps. Nanette Barragán, Maxine Waters and Robert Garcia wrote in an April 11 letter to state and local air regulators and county and federal agricultural officials.  “Several of these fumigation facilities are located close to homes, schools, parks, and other public spaces. Our communities deserve a greater understanding of the levels of toxic emissions from these facilities, the health risks from exposure to such emissions, and the oversight processes in place to ensure all protocols are maintained at these sites,” they wrote. “Our communities deserve a greater understanding of the levels of toxic emissions from these facilities, the health risks from exposure to such emissions, and the oversight processes in place.”U.S. Reps. Nanette Barragán, Maxine Waters and Robert Garcia Even though the San Pedro facility at the Port of Los Angeles and the Compton plant use the largest volumes of methyl bromide — a combined 52,000 pounds a year — the air in nearby communities has never been tested.  The two Long Beach facilities use much less, yet state tests in 2023 and 2024 detected potentially dangerous levels in a neighborhood near an elementary school. South Coast district officials said although certain levels of methyl bromide in the air could cause health effects, it doesn’t necessarily mean immediate action is necessary.  “We don’t want to go out and unnecessarily concern folks if there isn’t (a health concern), but we are actively investigating this right now,” said Sarah Rees, the South Coast district’s deputy executive office for planning, rule development and implementation.   Global Pest Management, which fumigates in Compton and Terminal Island, did not return calls from CalMatters. An employee at the facility declined to comment. A general manager at SPF Terminals in Long Beach also declined to comment.  Greg Augustine, owner of Harbor Fumigation in San Pedro, said his company has been permitted for more than 30 years and complies with all requirements. “To protect the health of our community, the air district establishes permit conditions and we comply with all of those permit conditions,” he said. “Those are vetted by the air district…and they’re all designed to protect the health of our community.”  “To protect the health of our community, the air district establishes permit conditions and we comply with all of those permit conditions.” Greg Augustine, owner of Harbor Fumigation in San Pedro Daniel McCarrel, an attorney representing AG-Fume Services, which fumigates at facilities in Long Beach and San Pedro, did not respond to questions but previously told CalMatters last month that the company is adhering to all of its permit conditions.  High levels found in Long Beach  Back in 2019, during regionwide testing, South Coast district officials detected methyl bromide in the air near the two West Long Beach facilities close to concentrations that could cause long-term health effects. The South Coast district took no action at the time — other than to publish a large study online of all toxic air contaminants throughout the four-county LA basin. Then, several years later, the state Air Resources Board found that the two facilities — SPF Terminals and AG-Fume Services — spewed high concentrations of methyl bromide at various times throughout the year. The state’s air monitor near Hudson Elementary School in West Long Beach — which is just about 1,000 feet from the two facilities — detected an average of 2.1 parts per billion in 2023 through part of 2024. Exposure to as little as 1 ppb for a year or more can cause serious nervous system effects as well as developmental effects on fetuses, according to state health guidelines. Spikes of methyl bromide were as high as 983 and 966 ppb in February and March of 2024. Short-term exposure to 1,000 ppb can cause acute health effects such as nausea, headaches and dizziness.  But state and district air-quality officials didn’t inform nearby residents about any of the monitoring data for longer than a year — not until three months ago, in a community meeting held in Long Beach.  First: Edvin Hernandez, right, waits to pick up his son at Kelly Elementary School in Compton, which is near a fumigation plant. Last: SPF Terminals in Long Beach uses methyl bromide. High levels of the gas were found near an elementary school in West Long Beach. Photos by Joel Angel Juarez and J.W. Hendricks for CalMatters Upon learning of the test results, the Los Angeles County Agricultural Commissioner a few months ago added new permit conditions for SPF Terminals and AG-Fume Services, including shutting doors, installing taller smokestacks and prohibiting fumigation during school hours, according to permits obtained by CalMatters. But the county permits for the three San Pedro and Compton facilities, which use much larger volumes of methyl bromide, remain unchanged, with none of the protections added to the Long Beach permits. And officials still have not held any community meetings there. The agricultural commissioner’s office declined to comment on the facilities. A complex web of ‘hot spots’ rules for methyl bromide About 38% of the methyl bromide used in California for commodity fumigation is in LA County, according to Department of Pesticide Regulation data for 2022. After many Long Beach residents expressed concerns, the South Coast district assessed all nine facilities permitted to use the chemical in the region and determined that five could pose a risk to residents.  Now the agency is going through a complex process outlined under the state’s Air Toxics “Hot Spots” law, enacted in 1987. Usage data, weather patterns and proximity to neighborhoods will be used to calculate a “priority score” for each of the five facilities. If a facility’s score is high enough, then the company will be required to conduct a full health risk assessment to examine the dangers to the community. None of the scores have been released yet. Risk assessments under the air district’s rules are a complicated, multi-step process likely to take many months. Smokestacks are shown at a facility that fumigates imported produce at the Port of Los Angeles in San Pedro. AG-Fume Services and Harbor Fumigation operate at this facility. Photo by Joel Angel Juarez for CalMatters And these health assessments may not trigger any changes at the facilities. It all depends on whether certain thresholds for hazards are crossed. The state Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment has set guidelines, called reference exposure levels, for concentrations of methyl bromide that could cause the long-term or short-term health effects, such as respiratory and neurological damage, nausea and fetal effects, based on human and animal studies. But South Coast district officials said action isn’t triggered if methyl bromide exceeds these reference levels. Instead, the district uses a state-created “hazard index” based on them. If a facility’s hazard index reaches one — which means concentrations outside the facility have reached the reference dose and could cause harm — the company must notify the public, under a South Coast district regulation. However, the facilities will only be required to take steps to reduce emissions if the hazard index reaches three — three times the reference level that indicates potential harm, according to that regulation. Expedited action is required under the rule if the index is five times higher.   “Just because it’s above the (reference level), it doesn’t mean it’s going to cause health impacts,” said Ian MacMillan, assistant deputy executive officer at the South Coast air district. He said the reference level indicates “there’s a possibility that there could be health impacts.”  The series of escalating thresholds is designed as a balancing act between regulating facilities and protecting the public, officials said. MacMillan also said methyl bromide emissions must be considered in the context of overall air quality in the region — the entire LA basin has an average hazard index of 5.5 when considering all sources of toxic air pollutants from industries and vehicles, he said. When told about the fumigation plants and lack of air testing and risk assessments, residents contacted by CalMatters were outraged. “There’s no interest from the government to protect our health,” said Edvin Hernandez, a father picking up his 9-year-old son from Kelly Elementary School in Compton. “We’re surviving by the hand of God.” The members of Congress — Barragán, Waters and Garcia — asked air regulators to install monitors near all Los Angeles County fumigation facilities, compile inspection records, conduct health assessments in the communities and provide all of the results on a public website.  “It is egregious that communities in California are still being impacted by this harmful and unnecessary chemical,” said Alison Hahm, a staff attorney with the Natural Resources Defense Council, which is working with community members. “In addition to stopping this ongoing public health threat in West Long Beach and Los Angeles, residents are demanding accountability and remedies for the harm endured.” The methyl bromide facilities in L.A. County are subjected to a different permitting process than elsewhere in California.  That’s because in 1996, the South Coast air district and the Los Angeles County Agricultural Commissioner agreed to share responsibility for regulating fumigating facilities. The agricultural office is tasked with issuing permits and the air agency is in charge of setting emissions limits and enforcing them.   In the Bay Area, the local air district has a similar agreement with agricultural departments that originated in 1997. However, the district decided that agreement is out of date so it is now issuing permits, too. One facility in the Bay Area uses the pesticide, Impact Transportation of Oakland. In 2019, the air district assessed the health risks of that facility and modeled how the fumes spread.   In the San Joaquin Valley, new facilities or those changing their methyl bromide use are subject to a health risk evaluation before a permit is issued. Facilities permitted before the air district was established in 1992 are subject to a review like the one that the South Coast district is now launching in San Pedro and Compton. The Los Angeles Agriculture Commissioner’s office, when asked whether it conducts a risk assessment before issuing permits, declined to answer any questions. CalMatters filed a public records request seeking risk assessments, but they said they had no records matching the request.   South Coast air regulators said they and the commissioner are now considering if any changes to their agreement should be made.  Allowed to use up to a half-ton of methyl bromide a day  Fumigation of produce using methyl bromide occurs within an enclosed facility, and the produce is covered by a tarp when sprayed. The fumes are then released into the atmosphere through tall smokestacks, a process called aeration. CalMatters filed a public records request with the county agricultural office and received the five facilities’ permits for 2023 through 2025. The permits show that the two Long Beach companies are now required to take an array of new precautions to limit fumes emitted into communities that the three Compton and San Pedro families are not — even though the Long Beach ones use much smaller volumes of methyl bromide. The San Pedro and Compton plants are allowed to use up to 1,000 pounds of methyl bromide in a 24-hour period. In contrast, the Long Beach plants can use up to 200 pounds in 24 hours, and in Oakland, Impact Transportation’s permit allows only 108 pounds.  First: Pallets of produce are piled up at the outer berths at the Port of Los Angeles in San Pedro. Last: A tarped area holds a tank that contains a hazardous gas, most likely methyl bromide. A fan and roof vents ventilated the area while garage doors were left open on April 8, 2025. AG-Fume Services and Harbor Fumigation operate at this location. Photos by Joel Angel Juarez for CalMatters The San Pedro and Compton facilities release fumes into the atmosphere during the daytime, except when they use an exhaust stack meeting certain height requirements, according to their permits. The two Long Beach facilities, SPF Terminals and AG Fume Services, have new, additional requirements this year: Fumigation can’t occur between 8:30 a.m. and 3:30 p.m. when a school is within 1,000 feet. And by the end of this month, they must replace their smokestacks with taller ones that are at least 55 feet tall, which disperse the fumes better. All doors must be closed during fumigation and aeration and fans must be used in the aeration process.  ‘We don’t have a choice’ At a ballpark on a recent day in San Pedro, Eastview Little League players took the field.  When a 13-year-old boy on the Pirates team was up to bat, his mom, Amy Shannon, cheered him on.  “Let’s go D! Deep breath boy, you got it!” she shouted.  Then she paused. Maybe she shouldn’t be encouraging her son to take a deep breath, she said. Shannon had just learned from CalMatters about the fumigation facility across the street from the baseball field. Amy Shannon, left, and Roxanne Gasparo, right, attend their children’s Little League game at Bloch Field near the Port of Los Angeles in San Pedro on April 8, 2025. Both women were unaware that a fumigation facility nearby has been using a toxic gas for about 30 years. Photo by Joel Angel Juarez for CalMatters At the facility where AG Fume and Harbor Fumigation operate, located at 2200 Miner Street, it was business as usual that day. A ship was docked on one side of the Los Angeles Port berth. On the other side, hundreds of stacks of fruits and vegetables were visible through several large garage doors.  Some of the stacks were covered with plastic. A tank containing a fumigant — labeled with a hazard sign depicting a skull — was hooked up outside. Yellow smokestacks protruded from the facility.  An AG-Fume Services truck was parked near one of the garage doors. Workers wearing yellow vests and sun-protective hats closed the garage doors, but left them slightly open at the bottom.  At the baseball field, Shannon watched the game with a friend, Roxanne Gasparo. Both women grew up in San Pedro. Gasparo said she wasn’t at all surprised to learn that a dangerous gas could be in their air.   “Because it’s a port town, unfortunately, we’re used to pollution. We have the port, obviously, and all the refineries next to us,” Gasparo said. “There’s really no way to get out of it unless you leave the city, and because most of the families here are blue collar families that rely on the unions, we kind of don’t have a choice,” she added. “We just deal with it and raise our kids the best we can.” More about air pollution in port communities ‘We should be in crisis mode’: Toxic fumigant could be seeping into these communities March 21, 2025March 26, 2025 Polluted communities hold their breath as companies struggle with California’s diesel truck ban December 10, 2024December 10, 2024

Costa Rica Ghost Net Cleanup Saves Marine Life in Puntarenas

For the Oceans Foundation successfully completed the first stage of its ghost net rescue campaign in Costa de Pájaros, Puntarenas, removing approximately 15 tons of abandoned fishing nets from the seabed, enough to nearly fill a 20-ton truck, according to social media reports and foundation statements. The initiative aims to eliminate these silent killers that […] The post Costa Rica Ghost Net Cleanup Saves Marine Life in Puntarenas appeared first on The Tico Times | Costa Rica News | Travel | Real Estate.

For the Oceans Foundation successfully completed the first stage of its ghost net rescue campaign in Costa de Pájaros, Puntarenas, removing approximately 15 tons of abandoned fishing nets from the seabed, enough to nearly fill a 20-ton truck, according to social media reports and foundation statements. The initiative aims to eliminate these silent killers that harm marine life and promote sustainable fishing practices in Costa Rica’s coastal communities, a critical step toward preserving ourcountry’s rich biodiversity. Ghost nets are abandoned, lost, or discarded fishing gear that continue to trap marine life, such as fish, sea turtles, dolphins, and sharks, while damaging coral reefs and seagrass beds. Globally, an estimated 640,000 tons of ghost gear pollute the oceans, contributing to 10% of oceanic litter, according to the Food and Agriculture Organization. In Costa Rica, these nets threaten iconic species like the hawksbill turtle and disrupt artisanal fishing livelihoods, exacerbating ocean pollution and habitat loss. The cleanup effort united 20 artisanal fishing families, professional rescue divers, and more than 60 volunteers, showcasing community-driven conservation. The operation was led by Captain Gabriel Ramírez of UDIVE 506, with eight fishing boats navigating the Gulf of Nicoya’s challenging currents. Reportedly, organizations including the Parlamento Cívico Ambiental, ACEPESA, Coast Guard, Red Cross, IPSA, REX Cargo, and Cervecería y Bebidas San Roque provided logistical support, transportation, hydration, and assistance with sorting and processing the recovered nets. Marine Biology students from the National University (UNA) played a key role by preparing the nets for recycling, ensuring minimal environmental impact. “Each of us can contribute to the environment. This is not for me or for you—it’s for Costa Rica, for the planet, and for marine life,” said Jorge Serendero, Director of Fundación For the Oceans. This cleanup builds on Costa Rica’s leadership in marine conservation, with over 30% of its territorial waters protected as of 2021, a global benchmark. The foundation reported a tense moment when a diver became entangled in a drifting net due to strong currents. Thanks to the quick action of his colleagues, he was freed unharmed, underscoring the risks of such operations. This campaign highlights the power of collective action in protecting marine ecosystems, a priority for Costa Rica as it expands marine protected areas like Cocos Island. Fundación For the Oceans plans additional cleanups in 2025 to address ghost nets across Costa Rica’s Pacific coast. Interested individuals can contact For the Oceans Foundation at info@fortheoceansfoundation.org or +506 8875-9393 to volunteer, donate, or learn about upcoming initiatives to safeguard the oceans. The post Costa Rica Ghost Net Cleanup Saves Marine Life in Puntarenas appeared first on The Tico Times | Costa Rica News | Travel | Real Estate.

Suggested Viewing

Join us to forge
a sustainable future

Our team is always growing.
Become a partner, volunteer, sponsor, or intern today.
Let us know how you would like to get involved!

CONTACT US

sign up for our mailing list to stay informed on the latest films and environmental headlines.

Subscribers receive a free day pass for streaming Cinema Verde.
Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.