Friday, September 30, 2011

Technical Workshop On Army Corps Channel Stability Tool

Sep 30: The Great Lakes Commission (GLC) advises that over the last year, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' Detroit District has developed a stand-alone Channel Stability Tool that can be used by local stakeholders to design maintained channels in clay soils, with the goal of limiting bank failures, erosion, and sediment delivery to rivers and streams and, subsequently, to Lake Superior. The project was made possible by funding under the Great Lakes Tributary Modeling Program, which is a joint initiative between the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Great Lakes Region) and the Great Lakes states.

    The Corps of Engineers Detroit District will host a technical workshop on October 18, 2011, to introduce this new tool that can be used to estimate the stability of maintained channels and ditches in clay soils. The workshop will be held at the Minnesota Pollution Control Offices, located at 525 S. Lake Ave, #400, Duluth, MN 55802, from 1:00 – 3:00 PM. Organizations interested in learning to use the Channel Stability Tool and providing constructive feedback are invited to participate in this technical workshop.

    The tool incorporates the effects of cohesive soils, vegetation, and hydraulic scour. Representatives from the Corps of Engineers Detroit District will be demonstrating the tool and soliciting feedback on the user interface in order to ensure that the final product is useful to stakeholders. The final version of the tool, incorporating suggestions gathered during the October 18 meeting, will be released later this fall.

    Access an announcement from GLC with further details (click here). Access more information on the Great Lakes Tributary Modeling Program (click here).

GET THE REST OF TODAY'S NEWS (click here)
Major Enviros Sue Administration On Shell Oil Arctic Drilling Plan
$132.4 Million Loan Guarantee For Kansas Cellulosic Ethanol Plant
Six Winners Of The i6 Green Innovation Challenge
EPA Seeks 125 Smart Growth Communities For $1.5 Million Funding
SAB Okays Assessment Of Hg Exposures To Subsistence Fishers
DOE Releases First Quadrennial Technology Review Report
Global Change Strategic Plan Outline & Public Comment Period

Tuesday, September 27, 2011

17 Attorneys General Press For Asian Carp Control

Sep 26: Michigan Attorney General Bill Schuette announced that the newly formed national coalition of seventeen attorneys general fighting the spread of Asian carp and other aquatic invasive species though Chicago waterways have sent a letter to the leaders of three Congressional committees calling for them to move Federal legislation (H.R.892, S.471) that would force a quicker resolution to the on-going study currently being conducted by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. In particular, the coalition called for legislation to:
  • Slash three years off the current Army Corps of Engineers' study, from the end of 2015 to the end of 2012;
  • Direct the President (or his designee) to oversee the study and ensure it is completed on time;
  • Require the Army Corps to use information found in independent studies of the problem rather than duplicating such efforts, thereby speeding up the process;
  • Force the Army Corps to use the Congressionally-mandated standard of "preventing" the spread of invasive species instead of their unilateral decision to instead look for ways to merely "reduce the risk" of such a spread. 
    Schuette said, "These states understand that the job-killing invasive species flowing freely though the wide-open doorway in Chicago must be stopped now. We are turning up the heat on federal officials dragging their feet at our expense. It is too bad we need legislation to do this, but it is time for the Army Corps of Engineers to get to work."

    Schuette recently announced the results of his efforts to build a coalition beyond the Great Lakes, which resulted in 16 states joining with Michigan so far: Arkansas, Arizona, Colorado, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Minnesota, Missouri, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Utah, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming. 

    In July 2011, the Army Corps of Engineers released a list of 40 aquatic invasive species with the highest risk of traveling through the waterway in either direction. Of those species, 30 pose a high-risk to the Mississippi River Basin and ten, including Asian carp, pose a high-risk to the Great Lakes Basin. Current invasive species control efforts in the Chicago waterway, like electrical barriers, are temporary and experimental and do not address the threat of all 40 species, especially those that may travel downstream. 
 
    The Stop Asian Carp Act was introduced earlier this year by sponsors Representative Dave Camp (R-MI) (H.R. 892) and Senator Debbie Stabenow (D-MI) (S.471). The coalition letter and supportive briefing paper were both sent to Chairmen and Ranking Members of the following congressional committees charged with reviewing the legislation: the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, the House Committee on Natural Resources, and the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works. Schuette noted a recent study commissioned by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and conducted by independent scientists at the Center for Aquatic Conservation at the University of Notre Dame identified the Chicago Waterway as a "major pathway" for the spread of invasive species, concluding that "the canal represents a potential highway to environmental havoc for many species that pose a high risk to both the Great Lake and the Mississippi basins."
 
    In the letter the AGs explain, "H.R. 892 has been referred to the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment as well as the House Natural Resources Committee Subcommittees on Water and Power and on Fisheries, Wildlife, Oceans, and Insular Affairs. S. 471 has been referred to the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works. Unfortunately, no further action has been taken on these bills while the threat of invasive species
migration through the Basins grows."
 
    Access a release from AG Schuette (click here). Access the detailed letter that includes links to related information (click here). Access legislative details for H.R.892 (click here). Access legislative details for S.471(click here).
 
GET THE REST OF TODAY'S NEWS (click here)
Industry & Enviros At Odds Over Advancement Of Oil & Gas Regs
UN Documents Global Urban Air Pollution
Shutdown Avoided; Budget Offsets For Disaster Relief Delayed
FWS 90-Day Finding On 374 Rare Southeastern Species Under ESA
First Two Green Power Communities Announced
Ceres Revamps Corporate Sustainability Awards Program
American Trucking Associations, Inc. v. The City of Los Angeles

Tuesday, September 13, 2011

Army Corps To Increase Carp Barrier Voltage This Fall

Sep 9: As the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers continues to pursue all actions needed to contain the Asian carp threat below the Electric Dispersal Barriers in the Chicago Area Waterway System (CAWS), the Agency announced plans to increase the operation of the barriers to slightly higher parameters. The increase will occur this fall. The Corps released an Optimal Operating Parameters Report including the safety tests used to inform the decision to raise the operating parameters, along with two additional reports: the Independent External Peer Review (IEPR) to test for Asian carp environmental DNA (eDNA) and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Scoping Report for the Great Lakes and Mississippi River Interbasin Study (GLMRIS).
 
    While extensive research and monitoring indicate that small Asian carp currently are not within the vicinity of the fish barriers, and all field telemetry research indicates the barrier is highly effective, the Corps is taking this conservative approach to operating the barrier out of an abundance of caution. The Efficacy Study Interim Report IIA, one of three updates released by the Corps, assesses the safety and effectiveness of the barrier at these higher operating parameters. The aspect of the report regarding safety summarizes a series of in-water tests on the barrier that include addressing field-strength mapping, sparking potential during barge fleeting and collision, voltage potentials between barges traversing the barriers, personnel in-water shock potential, stray-current corrosion potential, and optimal settings for the parasitic barrier system.
 
    The testing shows there is no appreciable increase in risk to public safety with an increase of operational parameters from the current settings of 2.0 volts per inch, 15 hertz and 6.5 millisecond pulse to the new settings of 2.3 volts per inch, 30 hertz, and 2.5 millisecond pulse length. However, it also shows that operating barriers IIA and IIB concurrently increases the area of risk for a person in the water and an increased potential for sparking in adjacent fleeting areas. The Corps does not intend to operate barriers IIA and IIB simultaneously.
 
    Access a lengthy release from the Corps and links to all documents (click here).
 
GET THE REST OF TODAY'S NEWS (click here)

Thursday, September 8, 2011

GLWQA Amendments, Forums, Webinar, & Comments

Sep 8: The Governments of Canada and the United States (the Parties) recognize the importance of engaging the Great Lakes community as they proceed with the negotiations to amend the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement (GLWQA). As the Parties near the end of the negotiation process, they are providing an opportunity for the public to input into this process through two in-person Public Forums (one in Canada and one in the United States), and a webinar.  The purpose of the meetings will be to review significant changes being contemplated for an amended Agreement. Additionally, the public may also provide written comments.
 
    In the U.S. a public forum will be held in Chicago on September 13, at the U.S. EPA Region 5 headquarters from 9 AM to 1 PM(CDT). Additionally a public webinar will be held the same day from 1 PM – 4  PM (CDT). Written comments on the significant changes being contemplated for an amended GLWQA may be submitted until September 20, 2011. The Parties have also released the presentation that will be presented at the public forums and webinar entitled, Negotiations to Amend the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement (GLWQA) Binational Public Forum.
 
    On September 7, Great Lakes United (GLU) and allied organizations submitted recommendations that they view to be essential elements of a successful agreement that will step up to the scale of environmental threats in the lakes, and also provide governing systems, leadership and strategies to implement the Agreement. The groups indicated their frustration that, "to date, almost no information has been available to the public about the substance and scope of the new Agreement, making it difficult for concerned citizens to ascertain what modernization looks like, or to provide meaningful feedback in public forums." 
 
    Access an overview and links to meeting and webinar details, registration, contacts and the Presentation on Amendments (click here). Access the existing GLWQA (click here). Access a release on the letter from GLU and link to the letter (click here). Access the Great Lakes United Agreement Watch blog for extensive information and (click here). [#GLakes]
 
GET THE REST OF TODAY'S NEWS (click here)

Great Lakes Commission; IJC, AOCs Meetings & Great Lakes Week

Sep 8: On October 11 & 12, Commissioners from the eight Great Lakes states and the provinces of Ontario and Québec will be meeting at the Westin Book Cadillac Hotel in Detroit, as part of Great Lakes Week, discussing Great Lakes issues of priority interest including: the Great Lakes as engines of economic recovery; Great Lakes ports in the 21st Century; lessons learned from algal blooms and dead zones in Lake Erie; the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative; renegotiation of the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement; and the proposed ecological separation of the Mississippi and Great Lakes watersheds to thwart the spread of Asian carp.
 
    Also, the International Joint Commission (IJC) will be holding its Biennial Meeting on the campus of Wayne State University in Detroit from October 11-14. Under the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement, the IJC reports on progress toward restoration and engages the public in discussions regarding fishability, swimmability and drinkability. Additionally, the Healing Our Waters-Great Lakes Coalition will be holding its Seventh Annual Great Lakes Restoration Conference on October 12-14; and the U.S. Areas of Concern (AOC) will conduct its Program Annual Meeting on October 13-14 -- both at the Westin Book Cadillac Hotel in Detroit.
 
    Great Lakes Week represents a new partnership to improve the places around the basin where people live, work, learn and play. The week's activities will bring representatives of the U.S. and Canadian governments together with a broad coalition of public and private groups to highlight efforts to implement solutions for the lakes' most pressing problems. Great Lakes Week also gathers the annual meetings and conferences of various organizations in one place, making it one of the most wide-ranging Great Lakes summits in history.
 
    Access a summary of all events during Great Lakes Weeks and links to details on registration and agendas for each (click here). [#GLakes]
 
GET THE REST OF TODAY'S NEWS (click here)

Tuesday, September 6, 2011

State of Michigan v. United States

Aug 24: In the U.S. Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit, Case No. 10-3891. Appealed from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division. In this important 57-page decision regarding Great Lakes States' continuing attempt to stop the spread of Asian Carp to the Great Lakes, the Appeals Court upheld the district court's ruling denying preliminary relief. However, importantly, unlike the lower court which said the "plaintiffs had shown only a minimal chance of succeeding on their claims"; the Appeals Court said "plaintiffs presented enough evidence at this preliminary stage of the case to establish a good or perhaps even a substantial likelihood of harm." The Appeals Court also agreed with plaintiffs that, "If the invasion comes to pass, there is little doubt that the harm to the plaintiff states would be irreparable." The case involves the State of Michigan, et al and the Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians versus the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the City of Chicago, et al.
 
    As explained by the Appeals Court, "Ambitious engineering projects that began at the time that the City of Chicago was founded have established a waterway in northeastern Illinois that connects Lake Michigan to the Mississippi watershed. (Additional links between the Mississippi and the Great Lakes exist elsewhere, from northern Minnesota to New York.) The system of canals, channels, locks, and dams, with which we are concerned, known today as the Chicago Area Waterway System (or CAWS, as the parties call it in their briefs), winds from the mouth of the Chicago River and four other points on Lake Michigan to tributaries of the Mississippi River in Illinois. The navigable link has been a boon to industry and commerce, and it supports transportation and recreation. Public health crises that once were common because the Chicago River emptied the City's sewage into the lake -- the City's freshwater supply – vanished thanks to the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal, which reversed the flow of the Chicago River so that it now pulls water from the lake, into the CAWS, and down toward the Mississippi. During heavy rains and seasonal high waters in the region, the CAWS is used to control flooding.
 
    "This effort to connect the Great Lakes and Mississippi watersheds has not been without controversy. At the turn of the 20th century, Missouri sued in the Supreme Court to stop Illinois from opening the Sanitary and Ship Canal. An opinion by Justice Holmes rejected Missouri's challenge; the Court concluded that the state had not presented enough evidence to establish that the flow of sewage toward the Mississippi would create a public nuisance. Missouri v. Illinois, 200 U.S. 496 (1906); see also Missouri v. Illinois, 180 U.S. 208 (1901). Several years later a broader fight erupted among the states bordering the Great Lakes, and the Court began to issue decrees setting the maximum rate at which Illinois may divert water away from Lake Michigan and into the CAWS. E.g., Wisconsin v. Illinois, 449 U.S. 48 (1980); Wisconsin v. Illinois, 388 U.S. 426 (1967); Wisconsin v. Illinois, 311 U.S. 107 (1940); Wisconsin v. Illinois, 278 U.S. 367 (1929). Nor has opening a pathway between these bodies of fresh water come without costs. This appeal requires us to consider one of those costs: the environmental and economic harm posed by two invasive species of carp, commonly known as Asian carp, which have migrated up the Mississippi River and now are poised at the brink of this man-made path to the Great Lakes. The carp are voracious eaters that consume small organisms on which the entire food chain relies; they crowd out native species as they enter new environments; they reproduce at a high rate; they travel quickly and adapt readily; and they have a dangerous habit of jumping out of the water and harming people and property.
 
    "In an attempt to stop the fish, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin, all states bordering the Great Lakes, filed this lawsuit against the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (the Corps) and the Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago (the District), which together own and operate the facilities that make up the CAWS. The plaintiff states allege that the Corps and the District are managing the CAWS in a manner that will allow invasive carp to move for the first time into the Great Lakes. The states fear that if the fish establish a sustainable population there, ecological disaster and the collapse of billion-dollar industries that depend on the existing ecosystem will follow. They say that the defendants' failure to close down parts of the CAWS to avert the crisis creates a grave risk of harm, in violation of the federal common law of public nuisance, see American Electric Power Co., Inc. v. Connecticut, 131 S. Ct. 2527 (2011), and they advance a related claim against the Corps based on the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. § 702. The states asked the district court for declaratory and injunctive relief and moved for a preliminary injunction that would require the defendants to put in place additional physical barriers throughout the CAWS, implement new procedures to stop invasive carp, and expedite a study of how best to separate the Mississippi and Great Lakes watersheds permanently. Other parties intervened to protect their interests -- the Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians on the side of the plaintiffs, and the City of Chicago, Wendella Sightseeing Company, and the Coalition to Save Our Waterways as defendants. The district court denied the motion for a preliminary injunction, and the states appealed immediately. See 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1).
 
    "We conclude that the court's decision to deny preliminary relief was not an abuse of discretion. Our analysis, however, differs in significant respects from that of the district court, which was persuaded that the plaintiffs had shown only a minimal chance of succeeding on their claims. We are less sanguine about the prospects of keeping the carp at bay. In our view, the plaintiffs presented enough evidence at this preliminary stage of the case to establish a good or perhaps even a substantial likelihood of harm – that is, a non-trivial chance that the carp will invade Lake Michigan in numbers great enough to constitute a public nuisance. If the invasion comes to pass, there is little doubt that the harm to the plaintiff states would be irreparable. That does not mean, however, that they are automatically entitled to injunctive relief. The defendants, in collaboration with a great number of agencies and experts from the state and federal governments, have mounted a full-scale effort to stop the carp from reaching the Great Lakes, and this group has promised that additional steps will be taken in the near future. This effort diminishes any role that equitable relief would otherwise play. Although this case does not involve the same kind of formal legal regime that caused the Supreme Court to find displacement of the courts' common-law powers in American Electric Power, on the present state of the record we have something close to it. In light of the active regulatory efforts that are ongoing, we conclude that an interim injunction would only get in the way. We stress, however, that if the agencies slip into somnolence or if the record reveals new information at the permanent injunction stage, this conclusion can be revisited."
 
    The Appeals Court indicated in its concluding remarks, "We take very seriously the threat posed by the invasive species of carp that have come to dominate parts of the Mississippi River basin and now stand at the border of one of the most precious freshwater ecosystems in the world. Any threat to the irreplaceable natural resources on which we all depend demands the most diligent attention of government. As the case proceeds, the district judge should bear in mind that the risk of harm here depends upon both the probability of the harm and the magnitude of the problem that would result. In the end, however, the question whether the federal courts can offer meaningful equitable relief – either preliminary or permanent -- to help abate a public nuisance in the face of agency action is factual in nature. It depends on the actual measures that the agencies have implemented already and those that they have committed to put in place going forward. Our ruling today is tied to our understanding of the current state of play. We recognize that the facts on the ground (or in the water) could change. The agencies currently working hard to solve the
carp problem might find themselves unable to continue, for budgetary reasons, because of policy changes in Washington, D.C., or for some other reason. If that happens, it is possible that the balance of equities would shift. Similarly, new evidence might come to light which would require more drastic action, up to and including closing locks on Lake Michigan for a period of time. If either situation comes to pass, then the district court would have the authority to revisit the question whether an exercise of its equitable powers is warranted, taking into account the principles we have discussed in this opinion. As things stand now, however, preliminary relief is not appropriate. The district court's judgment is affirmed."

    Access the complete opinion (click here). [*GLakes, *Wildlife, #CA7]

GET THE REST OF TODAY'S NEWS (click here)

GLU On Ontario's Potential "Great Lakes Protection Act"

Sep 5: Ontario's governing Liberal Party released its platform in advance of the October 6 provincial election, promising a Great Lakes Protection Act, if elected. From the Great Lakes–St Lawrence River Basin Sustainable Water Resources Agreement signed by Premier McGuinty in 2005 to the Ontario Water Opportunities and Water Conservation Act of 2010, "Ontario has done a pretty good job of leading efforts that improve Great Lakes health," according to Derek Stack, Executive Director of the bi-national environmental group Great Lakes United (GLU). He said, "Now Ontario is poised to be the first among Great Lakes states and provinces to legislate a Great Lakes Protection Act."

    The platform details an investment of $16 million over four years through a Great Lakes Protection Act. Stack said, "With promises to fund beach clean-up properly implemented, the province can seriously promote Great Lakes health. It's simple, the number one reason people work to protect the Great Lakes is that they use and appreciate the resource. A fund to promote beach clean-up and recreation will help to foster a higher public profile for the Great Lakes in the provincial psyche. While this is a positive step forward, even if it is well-targeted, less than $1M a year per Great Lake is hardly a windfall." 
    GLU indicated in a release that, "The Americans, despite a much bleaker financial outlook at all levels, are investing hundreds of millions of dollars into 'on the ground' actions that restore Great Lakes health, in addition to billions more for infrastructure upgrades. In all fairness, that's primarily a federal contribution. The Canada-Ontario Agreement details that kind of fiscal transfer from the federal government. And that Agreement will need to comply with the regulations set out in the Canada–US Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement currently being renegotiated."
    Access a posted release from GLU (click here). Access the Liberal Party platform (click here).
GET THE REST OF TODAY'S NEWS (click here)

$6 Million Challenge To Restore Great Lakes & Create Jobs

Aug 23: U.S. EPA announced that the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative (GLRI) is setting aside approximately $6 million for Federal agencies to sign up unemployed workers to implement restoration projects in Federally-protected areas, on tribal lands and in Areas of Concern (AOCs) in the Great Lakes basin. EPA will fund individual projects up to $1 million. To qualify for funding, each proposed project must provide jobs for at least 20 unemployed people. EPA Great Lakes National Program Manager and Region 5 Administrator Susan Hedman said, "These projects will help to restore the Great Lakes and put Americans back to work. In a sense, we will be using these funds to create a small-scale 21st century Civilian Conservation Corps."

    Funded projects will advance the goals and objectives of the GLRI Action Plan, developed by EPA with 15 other Federal agencies in 2010. Projects must provide immediate, direct ecological benefits; be located in areas identified as federal priorities such as national lakeshores or areas of concern; include a detailed budget, and produce measurable results. EPA will award funding for selected projects by the end of September. The Agency said it will provide details on the selected projects as soon as that information is available. EPA noted that the Great Lakes provide some 30 million Americans with drinking water and support a multi-billion dollar economy. 

    According to a release from EPA, the GLRI Action Plan, which covers FY 2010 through 2014, ensures accountability by including measures of progress and benchmarks for success over the next three years. It calls for aggressive efforts to address five urgent priority "Focus Areas" including: Cleaning up toxics and toxic hot spot areas of concern; Combating invasive species;
Promoting near-shore health by protecting watersheds from polluted run-off; Restoring wetlands and other habitats; and,  Tracking progress, education and working with strategic partners.
 
    Access a release from EPA and link to more information on the GLRI and the Action Plan (click here).
 
GET THE REST OF TODAY'S NEWS (click here)