Mar 28: The International Joint Commission (IJC) of Canada and the United States released for public comment a proposed new Order of Approval and a proposed new plan, called Plan 2007, for regulating the flows through the Moses-Saunders Dam between Cornwall, Ontario and Massena, New York. The regulation affects water levels and flows in Lake Ontario and the St. Lawrence River downstream to Trois-Rivières.
For nearly 50 years, the Commission has regulated levels and flows of Lake Ontario and the St. Lawrence River as far as Trois-Rivières. In addition to the economic benefits from hydroelectric power and the St. Lawrence Seaway, regulation has provided benefits, by reducing the occurrence of extreme high and low water levels, which annually average (in value) $28.5 million to shoreline property owners and $3.5 million to recreational boaters. Plan 2007 would provide $5.5 million in new benefits on average each year.
Irene Brooks, Chair of the U.S. Section of the Commission said, "We are releasing Plan 2007 and a proposed new Order for public comment today because we believe they are the best that can be implemented at this time. The Commission must consider the requirements of the Treaty for protection and indemnification of interests that may be injured by the project. It also must consider the goals of the two federal governments when the project was developed which included providing benefits to Lake Ontario shoreline owners and protecting interests downstream."
A number of organizations issued a joint release saying the plan, "does nothing to end fifty years of documented environmental degradation along Lake Ontario and the St. Lawrence River. After more than five years of study funded by $20-million taxpayer dollars, the IJC has the opportunity to select a scientifically-based and publicly supported management plan -- Plan B+ -- which would have delivered significant environmental improvements to the region. Instead, the IJC has turned its back on the Lake and River environment by proposing a plan that continues, and perhaps even worsens, the environmental destruction of the Lake and River. . ."
Access a release from IJC (click here). Access the complete proposal documents, background and further details (click here). Access a release from the opposing organizations (click here).
Friday, March 28, 2008
Tuesday, March 25, 2008
U-M's Ballast-Free Ship Could Block Invaders
Mar 25: University of Michigan (U-M) researchers are investigating a radical new design for cargo ships that would eliminate ballast tanks, the water-filled compartments that enable non-native creatures to sneak into the Great Lakes from overseas. At least 185 non-native aquatic species have been identified in the Great Lakes, and ballast water is blamed for the introduction of most -- including the notorious zebra and quagga mussels and two species of gobies.
This week, the U.S. Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corp. will implement new rules designed to reduce Great Lakes invaders [See WIMS 2/28/08]. Ships will be required to flush ballast tanks with salt water before entering the Seaway, a practice corporation officials describe as an interim measure, not a final solution. Meanwhile, Congress is considering legislation that would force freighters to install costly onboard sterilization systems to kill foreign organisms in ballast water. The systems use filters, ultraviolet irradiation, chemical biocides and other technologies, and can cost more than $500,000.
The U-M ballast-free ship concept offers a promising alternative that could block hitchhiking organisms while eliminating the need for expensive sterilization equipment, according to Michael Parsons, professor of naval architecture and marine engineering and co-leader of the project. Parsons said, "There is no silver bullet. But the ballast-free ship has the potential to be an economic winner while addressing the ballast problem in a serious way. Ships take on ballast water for stability when they're not carrying cargo. They discharge ballast when they load freight, expelling tons of water and anything else -- from pathogenic microbes to mollusks and fish -- that's in it.
Instead of hauling potentially contaminated water across the ocean, then dumping it in a Great Lakes port, a ballast-free ship would create a constant flow of local seawater through a network of large pipes, called trunks, that runs from the bow to the stern, below the waterline. The U-M ballast-free ship concept was conceived in 2001 and patented in 2004. It is intended for new-vessel construction only. With funding from the Great Lakes Maritime Research Institute, Parsons and his colleagues recently built a 16-foot, $25,000 wooden scale model of an oceangoing bulk carrier to test the concept. The work is underway at the U-M Marine Hydrodynamics Laboratory's towing tank, the oldest facility of its kind that is owned by a U.S. educational institution.
In addition to helping fine tune the design, results from the latest round of tank tests and computer simulations suggest the ballast-free ship will deliver an unforeseen benefit. The design appears to provide a significant savings -- possibly as much as 7.3 percent -- in the power needed to propel the ship. For a 650-foot bulk carrier hauling 32,000 metric tons of cargo from the Great Lakes to Europe and back, that translates into a roundtrip fuel savings of roughly $150,000. A report on the latest test results, including their economic implications, will be published next month in the Transactions of the Society of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers.
Access a release with additional details (click here). Access photographs and color illustrations (click here). Access a video on the ballast free ship (click here).
This week, the U.S. Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corp. will implement new rules designed to reduce Great Lakes invaders [See WIMS 2/28/08]. Ships will be required to flush ballast tanks with salt water before entering the Seaway, a practice corporation officials describe as an interim measure, not a final solution. Meanwhile, Congress is considering legislation that would force freighters to install costly onboard sterilization systems to kill foreign organisms in ballast water. The systems use filters, ultraviolet irradiation, chemical biocides and other technologies, and can cost more than $500,000.
The U-M ballast-free ship concept offers a promising alternative that could block hitchhiking organisms while eliminating the need for expensive sterilization equipment, according to Michael Parsons, professor of naval architecture and marine engineering and co-leader of the project. Parsons said, "There is no silver bullet. But the ballast-free ship has the potential to be an economic winner while addressing the ballast problem in a serious way. Ships take on ballast water for stability when they're not carrying cargo. They discharge ballast when they load freight, expelling tons of water and anything else -- from pathogenic microbes to mollusks and fish -- that's in it.
Instead of hauling potentially contaminated water across the ocean, then dumping it in a Great Lakes port, a ballast-free ship would create a constant flow of local seawater through a network of large pipes, called trunks, that runs from the bow to the stern, below the waterline. The U-M ballast-free ship concept was conceived in 2001 and patented in 2004. It is intended for new-vessel construction only. With funding from the Great Lakes Maritime Research Institute, Parsons and his colleagues recently built a 16-foot, $25,000 wooden scale model of an oceangoing bulk carrier to test the concept. The work is underway at the U-M Marine Hydrodynamics Laboratory's towing tank, the oldest facility of its kind that is owned by a U.S. educational institution.
In addition to helping fine tune the design, results from the latest round of tank tests and computer simulations suggest the ballast-free ship will deliver an unforeseen benefit. The design appears to provide a significant savings -- possibly as much as 7.3 percent -- in the power needed to propel the ship. For a 650-foot bulk carrier hauling 32,000 metric tons of cargo from the Great Lakes to Europe and back, that translates into a roundtrip fuel savings of roughly $150,000. A report on the latest test results, including their economic implications, will be published next month in the Transactions of the Society of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers.
Access a release with additional details (click here). Access photographs and color illustrations (click here). Access a video on the ballast free ship (click here).
Tuesday, March 18, 2008
Lake Superior VHS Emergency Prevention & Response Plan
Mar 17: The four units of the National Park System on Lake Superior (Isle Royale National Park, Apostle Islands and Pictured Rocks National Lakeshores, and Grand Portage National Monument) and the Grand Portage Band of the Lake Superior Chippewa have approved a plan to protect park and tribal fishery resources from viral hemorrhagic septicemia virus, (VHS or VHSv) [See WIMS 1/24/08]. VHSv is the deadly fish virus that has been recently detected in lower Great Lakes’ freshwater fish. It has not yet been found in Lake Superior. VHSv can infect a wide range of fish species and has been the cause of large fish kills in other parts of the Great Lakes. Great Lakes fish have no exposure history to VHSv and, therefore, are especially susceptible to the disease. In fact, according to the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, there has not been a virus in the past that has affected so many fish species from so many fish families in the Great Lakes. VHSv does not pose a threat to human health.
The plan -- Emergency Prevention and Response Plan for Viral Hemorrhagic Septicemia -- is focused on (1) preventing contamination of the waters of the four units of the National Park System located in the Lake Superior basin and the Grand Portage Indian Reservation, (2) detecting the introduction of VHSv and (3) responding to VHSv detection and outbreaks. The plan will assist park and tribal managers, staff and cooperators in assessing the risk of VHSv introduction and, subsequently, planning and implementing the appropriate levels of prevention and monitoring actions for their area based upon that risk. The plan also provides a framework for response. Implementation of this plan will require close coordination with tribes; federal, state and provincial agencies and other organizations as they implement their own plans around the basin. The plan includes an analysis of the risks posed by the various pathways, or vectors, for transmission of the virus; a listing of known measures to prevent or contain the virus; an overall plan for the prevention of or response to the virus in the four National Park System units and the Grand Portage Indian Reservation and recommendations for enhancing cooperation with tribes, agencies and other organizations.
Emergency recommendations for the parks and the Grand Portage Band include an outreach campaign; boat decontamination; restrictions on the use of bait; and insuring that agency operations and practices do not spread the virus, including agency-controlled vessel ballast water. All of these actions will be implemented in close coordination and collaboration with the respective tribal and state regulatory agencies. Longer-term, non-emergency recommendations include research; enforcement of laws and regulations; collaborating with the U.S. Coast Guard and the states and commenting on the development of their ballast water regulations; engaging with other stakeholders on aquatic invasive species prevention measures and the harmonization of regulations amongst agencies; conducting pre-infection fisheries assessments; and working with other stakeholders to conduct a detailed risk assessment.
Access a release from NPS Midwest Regional Office (click here). Access an overview of the Plan on the NPS Apostle Islands National Lakeshore website (click here). Access the complete 149-page Plan (click here).
The plan -- Emergency Prevention and Response Plan for Viral Hemorrhagic Septicemia -- is focused on (1) preventing contamination of the waters of the four units of the National Park System located in the Lake Superior basin and the Grand Portage Indian Reservation, (2) detecting the introduction of VHSv and (3) responding to VHSv detection and outbreaks. The plan will assist park and tribal managers, staff and cooperators in assessing the risk of VHSv introduction and, subsequently, planning and implementing the appropriate levels of prevention and monitoring actions for their area based upon that risk. The plan also provides a framework for response. Implementation of this plan will require close coordination with tribes; federal, state and provincial agencies and other organizations as they implement their own plans around the basin. The plan includes an analysis of the risks posed by the various pathways, or vectors, for transmission of the virus; a listing of known measures to prevent or contain the virus; an overall plan for the prevention of or response to the virus in the four National Park System units and the Grand Portage Indian Reservation and recommendations for enhancing cooperation with tribes, agencies and other organizations.
Emergency recommendations for the parks and the Grand Portage Band include an outreach campaign; boat decontamination; restrictions on the use of bait; and insuring that agency operations and practices do not spread the virus, including agency-controlled vessel ballast water. All of these actions will be implemented in close coordination and collaboration with the respective tribal and state regulatory agencies. Longer-term, non-emergency recommendations include research; enforcement of laws and regulations; collaborating with the U.S. Coast Guard and the states and commenting on the development of their ballast water regulations; engaging with other stakeholders on aquatic invasive species prevention measures and the harmonization of regulations amongst agencies; conducting pre-infection fisheries assessments; and working with other stakeholders to conduct a detailed risk assessment.
Access a release from NPS Midwest Regional Office (click here). Access an overview of the Plan on the NPS Apostle Islands National Lakeshore website (click here). Access the complete 149-page Plan (click here).
Monday, March 17, 2008
Lt. Governors Adopt Great Lakes Compact Resolution
Mar 14: At its winter meeting on March 13, the National Lieutenant Governors Association (NLGA) unanimously supported a resolution that encourages state legislatures in the region to quickly pass Great Lakes Compact legislation that will protect and preserve Michigan's greatest natural resource. Michigan Lt. Governor John Cherry co-sponsored the resolution. Cherry, former chair of the NLGA, said that the resolution also urges all three presidential candidates from both parties to outline their plans and priority actions for Great Lakes restoration and protection that will be initiated in 2009 and beyond.
Cherry said, "This resolution sends two clear messages: State legislatures around the region -- including our own here in Michigan -- must ratify the Great Lakes Compact as soon as possible, and individuals who are interested in being our country's next president must outline in detail what they plan to do to protect and preserve our Great Lakes. Our country's next president must make the Great Lakes a top priority -- both today and tomorrow." The resolution was sponsored by Lt. Governor Barbara Lawton (D-WI), and Lt. Governor Carol Molnau (R-MN).
Four states have now enacted the Compact including: MN; IL; IN; and NY. WI, OH and PA have all passed a bill in one legislative Chamber. MI has bills pending on the floor of both Chambers awaiting a final vote. Recently, however, the bills in the Ohio and Wisconsin legislatures have become bogged down in political controversy and their future is in doubt [See WIMS 2/19/08]. When all eight state legislatures in the Great Lakes region pass the Great Lakes Compact, Congress will be asked to provide its consent, which will turn the compact into state and Federal law.
Access a release including a copy of the resolution (click here). Access the current status of enacting the Compact from the Council of Great Lakes Governors (click here).
Cherry said, "This resolution sends two clear messages: State legislatures around the region -- including our own here in Michigan -- must ratify the Great Lakes Compact as soon as possible, and individuals who are interested in being our country's next president must outline in detail what they plan to do to protect and preserve our Great Lakes. Our country's next president must make the Great Lakes a top priority -- both today and tomorrow." The resolution was sponsored by Lt. Governor Barbara Lawton (D-WI), and Lt. Governor Carol Molnau (R-MN).
Four states have now enacted the Compact including: MN; IL; IN; and NY. WI, OH and PA have all passed a bill in one legislative Chamber. MI has bills pending on the floor of both Chambers awaiting a final vote. Recently, however, the bills in the Ohio and Wisconsin legislatures have become bogged down in political controversy and their future is in doubt [See WIMS 2/19/08]. When all eight state legislatures in the Great Lakes region pass the Great Lakes Compact, Congress will be asked to provide its consent, which will turn the compact into state and Federal law.
Access a release including a copy of the resolution (click here). Access the current status of enacting the Compact from the Council of Great Lakes Governors (click here).
Friday, March 14, 2008
CDC/ATSDR Release Great Lakes AOC Health Report
Mar 14: Following an inquiry and investigation from Representatives John Dingell (D-MI), the Chairman of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and Bart Stupak (D-MI), the Chairman of the Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) has publicly released a study that reportedly demonstrates a correlation between pollution in the Great Lakes and health issues such as cancer mortality and higher infant mortality rates [See WIMS 2/29/08].
On February 7, the Center for Public Integrity (CPI) announced that the massive 400-page study, officially entitled, Public Health Implications of Hazardous Substances in the Twenty-Six U.S. Great Lakes Areas of Concern [AOCs], completed in July 2007, was being withheld [See WIMS 2/8/08]. The report follows several years of work and extensive scientific peer review. CPI released an unofficial redacted copy of the report and said it had been withheld for 7 months because it contained potentially “alarming information” as evidence of elevated infant mortality and cancer rates."
Representative John Dingell issued a statement on the decision to release the report and said, “The good news is that the CDC finally decided to make the report public. The bad news is that it took the urging of this Committee to make them do it. What we still do not know is why this agency, given its historically credible reputation, has kept this report under wraps for almost a year. The Committee will continue its investigation into who made the decision to withhold the publication of the report, the basis for doing so, and how the CDC and ATSDR treated the scientists involved in conducting the study and writing the report.”
In releasing the report, ATSDR also issued what it called a 9-page, "Statement of Scientific Concerns About the Draft Report." According to the Statement Summary, "Understanding environmental conditions in the Great Lakes region and protecting residents from possible health effects is a priority for CDC and ATSDR. Community members in the Great Lakes region deserve accurate information provided in a timely manner. The decision to take additional time to improve the draft report in order to ensure its scientific quality was difficult, but it was necessary. The delay in issuing the draft report has not deprived the public of critical environmental health information because the health assessments and other environmental data on which the draft report was based already are publicly available elsewhere.
"CDC and ATSDR consistently have provided the people living in the Great Lakes states with up-to-date information to help protect them from exposures to toxic chemicals. Between January 2001 and February 2008 in the 8 Great Lakes states, ATSDR has developed and supported 756 documents pertaining to 528 sites and both ATSDR and CDC’s National Center for Environmental Health have many ongoing scientific and programmatic activities in those states. CDC and ATSDR are committed to providing useful, scientifically sound information that will help decisionmakers protect public health and the environment."
ATSDR indicates further that the intent of the draft report was to help decision-makers set future priorities for research and public health action. Accordingly, "ATSDR staff identified and assembled certain existing data related to both environmental pollutants and health, and they distributed a draft report for peer review in 2004. Between April 2004 and July 2007, the draft report underwent revision. When the draft report was reviewed by ATSDR leadership in June 2007, significant scientific shortcomings were identified. Similar concerns also were expressed by multiple levels of scientific leadership within CDC, ATSDR, and among various partners and stakeholders. The report is being rewritten to address those scientific concerns.
"The draft reports from 2004 and 2007 were provided to the Institute of Medicine -- an independent, unbiased, authoritative source of science-based health information -- to conduct an independent review of the science presented in the draft report and the decision to improve its scientific content and communication prior to release. Those drafts are made available here. When the 2008 revised draft is complete, it will also be made available here."
Access the ATSDR website for the Great Lakes report which contains extensive links to background information, the Statement of Concern, the 2004 & 2007 drafts, and more (click here). Access a statement from Representative Dingell (click here).
On February 7, the Center for Public Integrity (CPI) announced that the massive 400-page study, officially entitled, Public Health Implications of Hazardous Substances in the Twenty-Six U.S. Great Lakes Areas of Concern [AOCs], completed in July 2007, was being withheld [See WIMS 2/8/08]. The report follows several years of work and extensive scientific peer review. CPI released an unofficial redacted copy of the report and said it had been withheld for 7 months because it contained potentially “alarming information” as evidence of elevated infant mortality and cancer rates."
Representative John Dingell issued a statement on the decision to release the report and said, “The good news is that the CDC finally decided to make the report public. The bad news is that it took the urging of this Committee to make them do it. What we still do not know is why this agency, given its historically credible reputation, has kept this report under wraps for almost a year. The Committee will continue its investigation into who made the decision to withhold the publication of the report, the basis for doing so, and how the CDC and ATSDR treated the scientists involved in conducting the study and writing the report.”
In releasing the report, ATSDR also issued what it called a 9-page, "Statement of Scientific Concerns About the Draft Report." According to the Statement Summary, "Understanding environmental conditions in the Great Lakes region and protecting residents from possible health effects is a priority for CDC and ATSDR. Community members in the Great Lakes region deserve accurate information provided in a timely manner. The decision to take additional time to improve the draft report in order to ensure its scientific quality was difficult, but it was necessary. The delay in issuing the draft report has not deprived the public of critical environmental health information because the health assessments and other environmental data on which the draft report was based already are publicly available elsewhere.
"CDC and ATSDR consistently have provided the people living in the Great Lakes states with up-to-date information to help protect them from exposures to toxic chemicals. Between January 2001 and February 2008 in the 8 Great Lakes states, ATSDR has developed and supported 756 documents pertaining to 528 sites and both ATSDR and CDC’s National Center for Environmental Health have many ongoing scientific and programmatic activities in those states. CDC and ATSDR are committed to providing useful, scientifically sound information that will help decisionmakers protect public health and the environment."
ATSDR indicates further that the intent of the draft report was to help decision-makers set future priorities for research and public health action. Accordingly, "ATSDR staff identified and assembled certain existing data related to both environmental pollutants and health, and they distributed a draft report for peer review in 2004. Between April 2004 and July 2007, the draft report underwent revision. When the draft report was reviewed by ATSDR leadership in June 2007, significant scientific shortcomings were identified. Similar concerns also were expressed by multiple levels of scientific leadership within CDC, ATSDR, and among various partners and stakeholders. The report is being rewritten to address those scientific concerns.
"The draft reports from 2004 and 2007 were provided to the Institute of Medicine -- an independent, unbiased, authoritative source of science-based health information -- to conduct an independent review of the science presented in the draft report and the decision to improve its scientific content and communication prior to release. Those drafts are made available here. When the 2008 revised draft is complete, it will also be made available here."
Access the ATSDR website for the Great Lakes report which contains extensive links to background information, the Statement of Concern, the 2004 & 2007 drafts, and more (click here). Access a statement from Representative Dingell (click here).
Monday, March 10, 2008
Report On Climate Change & CSO Impacts In The Great Lakes Region
U.S. EPA release of a final report entitled, A Screening Assessment of the Potential Impacts of Climate Change on Combined Sewer Overflow (CSO) Mitigation in the Great Lakes and New England Regions. The document was prepared by the National Center for Environmental Assessment's Global Climate research staff. The report is a screening-level assessment of the potential implications climate change has had on combined sewer overflow (CSO) mitigation in the Great Lakes and New England Regions [See WIMS 3/29/07].
Combined sewer systems (CSSs) collect and co-treat storm water and municipal wastewater. During high intensity rainfall events, the capacity of CSSs can be exceeded resulting in the discharge of untreated storm water and wastewater directly into receiving streams. The combined sewer overflow events (CSOs) can result in high concentrations of microbial pathogens, biochemical oxygen demand, suspended solids, and other pollutants in receiving waters. Climate change in many parts of the country is expected to increase the proportion of rainfall occurring in high intensity events, resulting in increased stormwater runoff. The report indicates that these changes present a risk of increased CSO frequency and water quality impairment.
Access an overview and link to the complete 52-page report and background information (click here).
Combined sewer systems (CSSs) collect and co-treat storm water and municipal wastewater. During high intensity rainfall events, the capacity of CSSs can be exceeded resulting in the discharge of untreated storm water and wastewater directly into receiving streams. The combined sewer overflow events (CSOs) can result in high concentrations of microbial pathogens, biochemical oxygen demand, suspended solids, and other pollutants in receiving waters. Climate change in many parts of the country is expected to increase the proportion of rainfall occurring in high intensity events, resulting in increased stormwater runoff. The report indicates that these changes present a risk of increased CSO frequency and water quality impairment.
Access an overview and link to the complete 52-page report and background information (click here).
Great Lakes Protection Fund RFP For IT Prototypes
Mar 7: The Great Lakes Protection Fund (GLPF) issued a Request for Preproposals (RFP) that seeks a suite of projects to design, deploy, and evaluate information technology prototypes that permit individuals, institutions, and/or private corporations to make healthier choices for the Great Lakes ecosystem. The Fund believes that the deployment of new or existing information technology prototypes that connect behaviors and ecosystem outcomes can push the collection of individual, isolated behaviors towards a tipping point that improves Great Lakes health. GLPF said it wants to support a number of project teams willing to test this hypothesis. Submissions are due by midnight, April 20, 2008.
The RFP indicates that many of the problems plaguing the Great Lakes are the result of a large number of individual, seemingly inconsequential, disjointed decisions. These problems include: the widespread use of water at times that stress the infrastructure and lead to combined sewer overflows; the use of electricity during peak periods from power plants that are relatively high emitting facilities; purchasing, shipping, and other contract decisions that lead to the release of exotic species; and other manufacturing, planning, development, or land-use choices that result in toxic or nutrient pollution of the Lakes.
For example, the RFP cites: individual households that choose not run their appliances during a rainstorm are usually unaware of and not rewarded for the reduced stress on combined sewers. Similarly, individuals or institutions that overcool their facilities during peak summer power hours are unaware of the impacts of this decision on the region’s ambient air quality. The aggregate impact of such small choices can be significant enough to drive either degraded or improved ecosystem conditions. The Fund believes that information technology can be used to increase the transparency of these seemingly inconsequential actions and provide individuals with the opportunity to make changes on basin lands, and in basin waters, to improve the ecological integrity of the Great Lakes.
GLPF indicates that, "Ideally, projects will not only include a subset of users in demonstration or pilot settings, but also be designed with the active involvement of future, potential users or customers. This strategy has proven to be the most effective way of creating a path to scale, so that the project team can influence behavior across the set of actors that affect the health of the basin. Projects that rely on a "create and disseminate" approach -- building a prototype without the involvement of the basin-wide community of potential users and distributing reports, software or samples -- are not encouraged."
Non-profit organizations (including environmental organizations, trade associations, and universities), governmental agencies, individuals, and for-profit businesses are eligible for Fund support. Budget requests should reflect the full amount of funds necessary to complete the work. The average level of support has been $150,000-$250,000, but budgets in the past have ranged from $15,000 to $1.5M. Matching funds are not necessary.
Access links to the RFP, project ideas an FAQ document and related information (click here).
The RFP indicates that many of the problems plaguing the Great Lakes are the result of a large number of individual, seemingly inconsequential, disjointed decisions. These problems include: the widespread use of water at times that stress the infrastructure and lead to combined sewer overflows; the use of electricity during peak periods from power plants that are relatively high emitting facilities; purchasing, shipping, and other contract decisions that lead to the release of exotic species; and other manufacturing, planning, development, or land-use choices that result in toxic or nutrient pollution of the Lakes.
For example, the RFP cites: individual households that choose not run their appliances during a rainstorm are usually unaware of and not rewarded for the reduced stress on combined sewers. Similarly, individuals or institutions that overcool their facilities during peak summer power hours are unaware of the impacts of this decision on the region’s ambient air quality. The aggregate impact of such small choices can be significant enough to drive either degraded or improved ecosystem conditions. The Fund believes that information technology can be used to increase the transparency of these seemingly inconsequential actions and provide individuals with the opportunity to make changes on basin lands, and in basin waters, to improve the ecological integrity of the Great Lakes.
GLPF indicates that, "Ideally, projects will not only include a subset of users in demonstration or pilot settings, but also be designed with the active involvement of future, potential users or customers. This strategy has proven to be the most effective way of creating a path to scale, so that the project team can influence behavior across the set of actors that affect the health of the basin. Projects that rely on a "create and disseminate" approach -- building a prototype without the involvement of the basin-wide community of potential users and distributing reports, software or samples -- are not encouraged."
Non-profit organizations (including environmental organizations, trade associations, and universities), governmental agencies, individuals, and for-profit businesses are eligible for Fund support. Budget requests should reflect the full amount of funds necessary to complete the work. The average level of support has been $150,000-$250,000, but budgets in the past have ranged from $15,000 to $1.5M. Matching funds are not necessary.
Access links to the RFP, project ideas an FAQ document and related information (click here).
Friday, March 7, 2008
Great Lakes Commission Advisor Newsletter Available
Mar 6: The current issue of the Great Lakes Commission's Advisor newsletter, is now available on the Commission's website. Highlights of the issue include: Cover story: Three regions, one problem - low water levels; FY2009 legislative priorities presented to Congress [See WIMS 2/22/08]; Report on local investments in Great Lakes proection released [See WIMS 2/29/08]; Wind Collaborative to facilitate clean energy development; and Perspectives: AIS harm Native American livelihoods.
Access the latest issue (click here).
Access the latest issue (click here).
Wednesday, March 5, 2008
Latest Council of Great Lakes Governors Newsletter
Mar 4: The Council of Great Lakes Governors (CGLG) announced the availability of the March 2008 edition of its quarterly newsletter, THE COMPASS. Highlights in the issue include: A Message from Council Chair, Wisconsin Governor Jim Doyle; Momentum Builds for Great Lakes Compact; Governors Challenge Congress to Prioritize the Great Lakes; GLBSRP Drives Ethanol Research; GLNA Holds German Sales Mission; and U.S.-Australia Treaty Generates Defense Sector Export Opportunities.
Access a link to the CGLG newsletter and past issues (click here).
Access a link to the CGLG newsletter and past issues (click here).
Tuesday, March 4, 2008
EPA's Great Lakes 2008 Earth Day Challenge
Mar 4: U.S. EPA Region 5 Administrator and Great Lakes National Program Manager, Mary Gade, has issued a call to join in the Great Lakes 2008 Earth Day Challenge. EPA is striving to mobilize hundreds of thousands of citizens in the Great Lakes basin to connect with their environment this April by helping address the environmental impact of electronic wastes and unwanted medicines. The Challenge is meant to galvanize public participation in collection events for those wastes so that one million pounds of electronic waste can be recycled and one million pills of unwanted medicines can be disposed of responsibly.
Gade said, "I am asking you to become a partner with us in spreading the news about planned collection events during Earth Week and in creating new ones. We need your help both in identifying events to be a part of the Challenge and in getting the word out to the public about these events. If your organization wishes to partner with us, please fill out the web-based partners form you can find at our Earth Day Challenge Website . . . Our partner, Earth 911, is developing an online clearinghouse that will list collection events in the basin to be held April 19-27, 2008, to show people where they can participate near their homes. If your organization is planning a collection event, we invite you to list it by filling out the registration form that can be accessed from the Challenge Web Site.
"In addition, if your organization does not have a collection event planned, but would like to do so, we can provide technical assistance and information to help you set up your event. There will also be an opportunity for Challenge partners to share the results of these collection events to gauge whether the Challenge goal as a whole has been met."
Access the Earth Day Challenge Website for complete details (click here).
Gade said, "I am asking you to become a partner with us in spreading the news about planned collection events during Earth Week and in creating new ones. We need your help both in identifying events to be a part of the Challenge and in getting the word out to the public about these events. If your organization wishes to partner with us, please fill out the web-based partners form you can find at our Earth Day Challenge Website . . . Our partner, Earth 911, is developing an online clearinghouse that will list collection events in the basin to be held April 19-27, 2008, to show people where they can participate near their homes. If your organization is planning a collection event, we invite you to list it by filling out the registration form that can be accessed from the Challenge Web Site.
"In addition, if your organization does not have a collection event planned, but would like to do so, we can provide technical assistance and information to help you set up your event. There will also be an opportunity for Challenge partners to share the results of these collection events to gauge whether the Challenge goal as a whole has been met."
Access the Earth Day Challenge Website for complete details (click here).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
