Jan 29: President Obama announced his intent to nominate Lana Pollack, as a Commissioner on the International Joint Commission (IJC). Pollack was the President of the Michigan Environmental Council (MEC) for 12 years through the end of 2008 and is a former Democratic Michigan State senator (1983-1994). The IJC has three commissioners each from the United States and Canada and is designed to facilitate cooperation, resource protection and resolve disputes and treaty enforcement over boundary waters including the Great Lakes between the two countries. It assists the two countries in the protection of the transboundary environment, including the implementation of the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement and the improvement of transboundary air quality
Pollack currently chairs the Michigan Natural Resources Trust Fund Board. She earned a BA in political science from the University of Michigan (U-M) in 1965, and an MA in Education from U-M in 1970. Pollack’s nomination must be confirmed by the U.S. Senate to become official.
Access an announcement and biography from the White House (click here). Access the IJC website for complete background information (click here).
Showing posts with label IJC. Show all posts
Showing posts with label IJC. Show all posts
Monday, February 1, 2010
Thursday, January 28, 2010
34 Groups Call For Slow Down On Great Lakes Agreement
Jan 27: As the United States and Canada work toward a new Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement, 34 environmental and conservation groups are telling the governments that their timeline does not allow for proper public consultation, and that this could seriously undermine the final Agreement, its implementation, and ultimately the health of the Great Lakes. John Jackson, Director of Clean Production and Toxics with Great Lakes United (GLU) said, “The governments began consulting on thinking about the Agreement in March of 2006. They only finally announced their intent to renegotiate last June, and have proceeded to sit on their hands for the past eight months. Now, they want to jam this process through by the end of the year. I’m sorry, but that’s just not good governance.”
The dissatisfaction was expressed in a letter sent to the governments earlier this week by the groups. It is a response to a presentation by Environment Canada and U.S. EPA in a web conference earlier this month [See WIMS 1/14/10]. At that time, the government agencies revealed their process for the renegotiation. Currently, they are inviting public comment on the issue of governance until February 14 -- exactly one month from the announcement. The governments have given no indication how future public comment periods will operate.
The groups, which include formal government advisors, offer six recommendations to improve the process: (1) Release a draft government position or options paper on governance issues. (2) The release of the draft government position or options paper should set off a 60-day public comment period. (3) Once the governments have negotiated draft language on governance, release it again for a public comment period. (4) For the “issues” consultations, follow a process similar to recommendations 1-3, with the release of a draft position or options paper followed by a 60-day public comment period followed by another opportunity for comment after the governments have completed their first round of negotiations on the topic. (5) Compile a web-posted summary of comments received from public input at each stage of the consultations. (6) Release a final draft of the complete revised Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement for comment prior to completing negotiations and hold public hearings in both countries on this draft.
The Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement was first signed by Prime Minister Trudeau and President Nixon in 1972, and subsequently revised in 1978 and 1987. The Agreement committed the two countries to protecting the health of the ecosystem, prohibiting the discharge of pollution in toxic amounts, and to virtually eliminating dangerous, persistent toxic substances.
Access a release from the groups and link to access the letter (click here). Access a Binational website on Amending the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement with further details, contacts and background information (click here).
The dissatisfaction was expressed in a letter sent to the governments earlier this week by the groups. It is a response to a presentation by Environment Canada and U.S. EPA in a web conference earlier this month [See WIMS 1/14/10]. At that time, the government agencies revealed their process for the renegotiation. Currently, they are inviting public comment on the issue of governance until February 14 -- exactly one month from the announcement. The governments have given no indication how future public comment periods will operate.
The groups, which include formal government advisors, offer six recommendations to improve the process: (1) Release a draft government position or options paper on governance issues. (2) The release of the draft government position or options paper should set off a 60-day public comment period. (3) Once the governments have negotiated draft language on governance, release it again for a public comment period. (4) For the “issues” consultations, follow a process similar to recommendations 1-3, with the release of a draft position or options paper followed by a 60-day public comment period followed by another opportunity for comment after the governments have completed their first round of negotiations on the topic. (5) Compile a web-posted summary of comments received from public input at each stage of the consultations. (6) Release a final draft of the complete revised Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement for comment prior to completing negotiations and hold public hearings in both countries on this draft.
The Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement was first signed by Prime Minister Trudeau and President Nixon in 1972, and subsequently revised in 1978 and 1987. The Agreement committed the two countries to protecting the health of the ecosystem, prohibiting the discharge of pollution in toxic amounts, and to virtually eliminating dangerous, persistent toxic substances.
Access a release from the groups and link to access the letter (click here). Access a Binational website on Amending the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement with further details, contacts and background information (click here).
Wednesday, December 16, 2009
IUGLSB Says No Action Needed On St. Clair River Water Loss
Dec 15: Since 2007, a binational team of experts, with extensive public input, has been investigating whether there are ongoing changes in the St. Clair River that might be affecting water levels in the upper Great Lakes [See WIMS 5/5/09]. The International Upper Great Lakes Study Board (IUGLSB), of the International Joint Commission (IJC), released its final report and found that: (1) There has been no significant erosion of the channel in the upper reach of the St. Clair River bed since at least 2000. (2) Based on 15 different analyses, an increase in the river’s conveyance capacity accounts for 7 to 14 cm (2.8 to 5.5 inches) of the decline in head difference between Lake Michigan‐Huron and Lake Erie from 1963 to 2006; however, this change is not ongoing and there has been a slight decrease in conveyance capacity since 2000. (3) Climate is the main driver of lake level relationships over time and accounts for 9 to 17 cm (3.5 to 6.7 inches) of the decline in head difference.
In particular, hydroclimatic change contributed to a substantial decline in net water supplies to Lake Michigan‐Huron in the most recent decade. Overall, the Study Board also found that the difference in water levels between Lake Michigan‐Huron and Lake Erie (head difference) declined on average by about 23 cm (9 inches) between 1963 and 2006. They also found that shifts in the earth’s crust as it continues to adjust to the retreat of glaciers account for 4 to 5 cm (1.6 to 2 inches) of the decline in head difference with the apparent resulting decrease in water levels being more pronounced in the Georgian Bay region of eastern Lake Huron.
Given that the change in conveyance capacity is not ongoing, is small relative to the degree of scientific uncertainty associated with the various analyses and data measurements and appears to be decreasing, the Study Board did not recommend remedial measures in the St. Clair River at this time.
The organization Georgian Bay Forever (GBF), a Canadian environmental charity which has been the leading voice in raising concerns about the impact of low water levels on the unique ecology of Georgian Bay said the IUGLSB "missed a historic opportunity to recommend environmentally sound solutions to the serious water levels situation facing the middle Great Lakes." The group is now calling on IJC Commissioners to reconsider and overrule the 'do nothing' recommendations" of the IUGLSB.
GBF said, "The main recommendation of the IUGLSB final report -- that no remedial measures are needed to slow down the outflow of the middle Great Lakes -- ignores the consequence of the continuing and irretrievable loss of water from the Lakes Huron/Michigan and Georgian Bay." They indicated that, "The IUGLSB has previously conceded up to six billion more gallons (almost 23 billion litres) of water per day are flowing out of the Middle Lakes compared to 1971, but have decided the amount is too insignificant to justify any action."
Access a release from IUGLSB (click here). Access links to the complete scientific report, a summary for the public, 34 scientific reports that form the foundation for the main report and additional information (click here). Access a release from GBF (click here). Access the GBF website for links to a critique of the report and extensive background information (click here).
In particular, hydroclimatic change contributed to a substantial decline in net water supplies to Lake Michigan‐Huron in the most recent decade. Overall, the Study Board also found that the difference in water levels between Lake Michigan‐Huron and Lake Erie (head difference) declined on average by about 23 cm (9 inches) between 1963 and 2006. They also found that shifts in the earth’s crust as it continues to adjust to the retreat of glaciers account for 4 to 5 cm (1.6 to 2 inches) of the decline in head difference with the apparent resulting decrease in water levels being more pronounced in the Georgian Bay region of eastern Lake Huron.
Given that the change in conveyance capacity is not ongoing, is small relative to the degree of scientific uncertainty associated with the various analyses and data measurements and appears to be decreasing, the Study Board did not recommend remedial measures in the St. Clair River at this time.
The organization Georgian Bay Forever (GBF), a Canadian environmental charity which has been the leading voice in raising concerns about the impact of low water levels on the unique ecology of Georgian Bay said the IUGLSB "missed a historic opportunity to recommend environmentally sound solutions to the serious water levels situation facing the middle Great Lakes." The group is now calling on IJC Commissioners to reconsider and overrule the 'do nothing' recommendations" of the IUGLSB.
GBF said, "The main recommendation of the IUGLSB final report -- that no remedial measures are needed to slow down the outflow of the middle Great Lakes -- ignores the consequence of the continuing and irretrievable loss of water from the Lakes Huron/Michigan and Georgian Bay." They indicated that, "The IUGLSB has previously conceded up to six billion more gallons (almost 23 billion litres) of water per day are flowing out of the Middle Lakes compared to 1971, but have decided the amount is too insignificant to justify any action."
Access a release from IUGLSB (click here). Access links to the complete scientific report, a summary for the public, 34 scientific reports that form the foundation for the main report and additional information (click here). Access a release from GBF (click here). Access the GBF website for links to a critique of the report and extensive background information (click here).
Friday, November 20, 2009
IJC On Asian Carp: "A Battle That We Cannot Afford To Lose"
Nov 19: In letters sent to the Governor of Illinois, the U.S Army Corps of Engineers, the U.S. EPA and the Council on Environmental Quality, the International Joint Commission (IJC) expressed its concerns that Asian carp could invade the Great Lakes by way of the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal. The IJC said it is concerned that the electric barrier could be breached by a single power outage, or that a heavy rain storm could cause flooding that would allow the carp to migrate into the canal from the Des Plaines River.
The IJC indicated it supports the Barrier Advisory Panel's recommendation to construct a physical separation between the Des Plaines River and the Chicago Sanitary Ship Canal. The IJC also supports action to close off the canal and Deep Run Creek in a manner that would permit storm water discharge while precluding the passage of Asian Carp. Further, a rapid response effort must be undertaken as soon as possible to push back the Asian carp and allow the Army Corps of Engineers to conduct scheduled maintenance of the electric barrier and complete the construction of a second electric barrier [See WIMS 11/16/09].
Herb Gray, Canadian Section chair of the IJC said, "We must stop Asian carp and other species before they use the Chicago Sanitary Canal to invade the entire Great Lakes system that is shared by Canada and the United States." Irene Brooks, U.S. Section chair of the IJC said, "Invasive species such as Asian carp are the foremost threat to the biological integrity of the Great Lakes basin ecosystem. The impact of invasive species already in the system, from the sea lamprey to the zebra mussel, serve as harbingers of the economic and environmental costs to come if this crucial threat is not controlled."
The letters state, ". . .we urge you to take immediate action to cut through any and all administrative and bureaucratic obstacles that exist. . . so that. . .agencies involved can execute the plans without delay. Response personnel must be given every opportunity possible to eliminate the risk of this invasion by Asian carp and avoid almost certain disastrous economic and environmental consequences to the Great Lakes, a unique resource shared between the United States and Canada. This is a battle that we cannot afford to lose."
Meanwhile, the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reported on November 19, that the "decade-old battle to keep Asian carp out of the Great Lakes might be over." Citing new Asian Carp DNA research that shows the fish likely have made it past the $9 million electric fish barrier on the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal. Information released by the Chicago District of the Army Corps of Engineers on November 20, indicates areas above the electric barrier on the Calumet Sag Channel as far as the Obrien Lock where Asian Carp DNA was recently detected. The sampling was done on October 10, 2009.
On November 20, reacting to the new testing showing the presence of Asian carp DNA past the electric barrier and adjacent to the O’Brien Lock just 6 miles south of Lake Michigan in the Calumet River, the Alliance for the Great Lakes joined other conservation groups including National Wildlife Federation, Great Lakes United, and the Healing Our Waters-Great Lakes Coalition in calling for an immediate closure of all Chicago waterways and locks leading to Lake Michigan "in a last-ditch attempt to keep the destructive Asian carp from invading the Great Lakes."
The groups demanded that "the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and state of Illinois close the O'Brien, Chicago River and Wilmette locks until monitoring results show the waterways are completely clear of bighead and silver carp and that an electric barrier built to keep them out of Lake Michigan and the other Great Lakes has not been breached."
Access a release from IJC (click here). Access the letters (click here). Access the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel article (click here). Access the Army Corps information (click here). Access the Army Corps website for more information on the Asian Carp migration (click here). Access a release from the Alliance with links to additional information (click here). Access a report from the Detroit Free Press (click here).
The IJC indicated it supports the Barrier Advisory Panel's recommendation to construct a physical separation between the Des Plaines River and the Chicago Sanitary Ship Canal. The IJC also supports action to close off the canal and Deep Run Creek in a manner that would permit storm water discharge while precluding the passage of Asian Carp. Further, a rapid response effort must be undertaken as soon as possible to push back the Asian carp and allow the Army Corps of Engineers to conduct scheduled maintenance of the electric barrier and complete the construction of a second electric barrier [See WIMS 11/16/09].
Herb Gray, Canadian Section chair of the IJC said, "We must stop Asian carp and other species before they use the Chicago Sanitary Canal to invade the entire Great Lakes system that is shared by Canada and the United States." Irene Brooks, U.S. Section chair of the IJC said, "Invasive species such as Asian carp are the foremost threat to the biological integrity of the Great Lakes basin ecosystem. The impact of invasive species already in the system, from the sea lamprey to the zebra mussel, serve as harbingers of the economic and environmental costs to come if this crucial threat is not controlled."
The letters state, ". . .we urge you to take immediate action to cut through any and all administrative and bureaucratic obstacles that exist. . . so that. . .agencies involved can execute the plans without delay. Response personnel must be given every opportunity possible to eliminate the risk of this invasion by Asian carp and avoid almost certain disastrous economic and environmental consequences to the Great Lakes, a unique resource shared between the United States and Canada. This is a battle that we cannot afford to lose."
Meanwhile, the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reported on November 19, that the "decade-old battle to keep Asian carp out of the Great Lakes might be over." Citing new Asian Carp DNA research that shows the fish likely have made it past the $9 million electric fish barrier on the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal. Information released by the Chicago District of the Army Corps of Engineers on November 20, indicates areas above the electric barrier on the Calumet Sag Channel as far as the Obrien Lock where Asian Carp DNA was recently detected. The sampling was done on October 10, 2009.
On November 20, reacting to the new testing showing the presence of Asian carp DNA past the electric barrier and adjacent to the O’Brien Lock just 6 miles south of Lake Michigan in the Calumet River, the Alliance for the Great Lakes joined other conservation groups including National Wildlife Federation, Great Lakes United, and the Healing Our Waters-Great Lakes Coalition in calling for an immediate closure of all Chicago waterways and locks leading to Lake Michigan "in a last-ditch attempt to keep the destructive Asian carp from invading the Great Lakes."
The groups demanded that "the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and state of Illinois close the O'Brien, Chicago River and Wilmette locks until monitoring results show the waterways are completely clear of bighead and silver carp and that an electric barrier built to keep them out of Lake Michigan and the other Great Lakes has not been breached."
Access a release from IJC (click here). Access the letters (click here). Access the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel article (click here). Access the Army Corps information (click here). Access the Army Corps website for more information on the Asian Carp migration (click here). Access a release from the Alliance with links to additional information (click here). Access a report from the Detroit Free Press (click here).
Thursday, November 5, 2009
Comments Wanted On IJC Work Group Reports
Nov 3: The International Joint Commission (IJC) is inviting comments on a series of reports it released in September on its 2007-09 Priorities under the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement between Canada and the United States. The reports, developed by work groups of the IJC advisory boards, address critical issues of the nearshore, eutrophication, beaches and recreational water quality, chemicals of emerging concern, binational aquatic invasive species (AIS) rapid response, and the benefits and risks of Great Lakes fish consumption.
Commissioners of the IJC are encouraging persons to provide comment on the Work Group Reports during an open public comment period running now through November 30th. The Commission is developing its 15th Biennial Report on Great Lakes Water Quality based on the reports and comments received from the public at its Biennial Meeting in Windsor last month and during this open comment period [See WIMS 10/6/09].
Access the reports and provide your comments online conveniently (click here).
Access links to the key documents for the review of the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement (GLWQA) between Canada and the United States (click here).
Commissioners of the IJC are encouraging persons to provide comment on the Work Group Reports during an open public comment period running now through November 30th. The Commission is developing its 15th Biennial Report on Great Lakes Water Quality based on the reports and comments received from the public at its Biennial Meeting in Windsor last month and during this open comment period [See WIMS 10/6/09].
Access the reports and provide your comments online conveniently (click here).
Access links to the key documents for the review of the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement (GLWQA) between Canada and the United States (click here).
Tuesday, October 6, 2009
Live Webcast Of IJC's Biennial Meeting
Oct 5: The International Joint Commission (IJC) has announced that there will be live webcast of sessions from the IJC's Biennial Meeting under the Great Lakes Quality Agreement. The two-day agenda for October 7 & 8 includes: Opening plenary; Keynote speakers James Bruce, Environmental Consultant and Cameron Davis, Senior Advisor to U.S. EPA Administrator; Reporting out from the six priority workshops; "Great Lakes Protection and Restoration" Senior U.S. and Canadian officials; Public forum and dialogue on Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement; "A Look to the Future" by Commissioner Pierre Trépanier; and "Rethinking Water for the 21st Century: New Challenges, New Opportunities" Peter Gleick.
Access the complete agenda (click here). Access the Great Lakes Live website for the webcast (click here).
Access the complete agenda (click here). Access the Great Lakes Live website for the webcast (click here).
Monday, June 15, 2009
U.S. & Canada To Update Great Lakes Agreement
Jun 13: At a celebration of the 100th anniversary of the Boundary Waters Treaty between Canada and the U.S. in Niagra Falls, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton announced the two countries have agreed to update the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement. She said we have "to update it to reflect new knowledge, new technology, and, unfortunately, new threats."
She said, "The Agreement was last amended in 1987 and since then, new invasive species have appeared in our lakes, new worrisome chemicals have emerged from our industrial processes, our knowledge of the ecology of the region and how to protect it has grown considerably. In its current form, the Great Lakes Agreement does not sufficiently address the needs of our shared ecosystem. So I’m pleased to announce that Canada and the United States have agreed to update the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement. We look forward to working closely with state, provincial, and local governments throughout Canada, as well as other stakeholders, in the coming months to produce an agreement that reflects our best knowledge and our unshakable commitment to preserving this vital natural resource.
"Now, as we work together on this, we must also strengthen our response to other environmental threats, especially climate change, one of the most urgent problems facing our world which endangers our world’s water sources, the safety of coastal regions, the future of agriculture and health, and the stability of communities everywhere. It is a paramount threat, and it demands effective and bold action, which can only be achieved through partnership. . ."
Great Lakes United applauded the announcement. John Jackson, Director of Clean Production and Toxics at Great Lakes United said, “Citizens and organizations from across the region have been calling on the Canadian and United States governments to truly commit to the binational protection of the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence River. With this announcement I’m more optimistic than ever that our governments will reinvigorate their dedication to shared responsibility and stewardship over these vital waters. Any renegotiation must involve the public, and it must build a framework for addressing the issues that the Great Lakes will face over the coming years and decades. Making the announcement is the easy part. The real work has only just begun.”
Access the full text of Secretary Clinton's comments (click here). Access the press conference Q&A text (click here). Access a release from GLU (click here). Access a report on Great Lakes Governance from the Centre for Engineering and Public Policy at McMaster University (click here).
She said, "The Agreement was last amended in 1987 and since then, new invasive species have appeared in our lakes, new worrisome chemicals have emerged from our industrial processes, our knowledge of the ecology of the region and how to protect it has grown considerably. In its current form, the Great Lakes Agreement does not sufficiently address the needs of our shared ecosystem. So I’m pleased to announce that Canada and the United States have agreed to update the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement. We look forward to working closely with state, provincial, and local governments throughout Canada, as well as other stakeholders, in the coming months to produce an agreement that reflects our best knowledge and our unshakable commitment to preserving this vital natural resource.
"Now, as we work together on this, we must also strengthen our response to other environmental threats, especially climate change, one of the most urgent problems facing our world which endangers our world’s water sources, the safety of coastal regions, the future of agriculture and health, and the stability of communities everywhere. It is a paramount threat, and it demands effective and bold action, which can only be achieved through partnership. . ."
Great Lakes United applauded the announcement. John Jackson, Director of Clean Production and Toxics at Great Lakes United said, “Citizens and organizations from across the region have been calling on the Canadian and United States governments to truly commit to the binational protection of the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence River. With this announcement I’m more optimistic than ever that our governments will reinvigorate their dedication to shared responsibility and stewardship over these vital waters. Any renegotiation must involve the public, and it must build a framework for addressing the issues that the Great Lakes will face over the coming years and decades. Making the announcement is the easy part. The real work has only just begun.”
Access the full text of Secretary Clinton's comments (click here). Access the press conference Q&A text (click here). Access a release from GLU (click here). Access a report on Great Lakes Governance from the Centre for Engineering and Public Policy at McMaster University (click here).
Tuesday, May 5, 2009
GBA Disputes IJC St. Clair River Report
May 1: The Georgian Bay Association (GBA) is calling the International Joint Commission (IJC) report on erosion of the St. Clair River and water levels in the Upper Great Lakes "premature and its science incomplete." The draft study -- Impacts on Upper Great Lakes Water Levels: St. Clair River -- was released by the International Upper Great Lakes Study (IUGLS), an arm of the IJC, on May 1, and concluded that “remedial measures not be undertaken at this time.” [See WIMS 5/1/09].
GBA commissioned Baird & Associates, an internationally respected coastal consulting engineering firm, who release a 2004 report that found that decades of dredging in the St. Clair River, shoreline alterations and sand and gravel mining have led to an increased conveyance that draws more water from Lakes Michigan and Huron into the lower Lakes and out to the Atlantic Ocean. While the IUGLS study found that 6 billion more gallons of water are flowing out of Lakes Michigan and Huron per day as compared to 1971, they said it is due to "natural causes," and that no remedial measures need to be taken. The 2004 Baird Report found that the loss is 12 billion gallons per day and increasing.
Roy Schatz, Founding President of the GBA Foundation said, "The changes in the St. Clair River and their effect on water levels have been cited previously following rigorous and public scientific processes -- the new Study Board was meant to examine physical changes and establish the best solutions moving forward. The fact that it completely dismisses such an enormous increase in outflow and recommends that nothing be done about it is very disturbing." Bill Bialkowski, a recently retired engineer and GBA Foundation water levels committee member who has devoted years of volunteer time and expertise to this issue said, "They started with flawed data and they got flawed conclusions. The Study Board needs to move to a higher level of science in order to understand this complex river. It appears that sources were carefully screened to support preconceived conclusions."
Access a release and more information from GBA (click here).
GBA commissioned Baird & Associates, an internationally respected coastal consulting engineering firm, who release a 2004 report that found that decades of dredging in the St. Clair River, shoreline alterations and sand and gravel mining have led to an increased conveyance that draws more water from Lakes Michigan and Huron into the lower Lakes and out to the Atlantic Ocean. While the IUGLS study found that 6 billion more gallons of water are flowing out of Lakes Michigan and Huron per day as compared to 1971, they said it is due to "natural causes," and that no remedial measures need to be taken. The 2004 Baird Report found that the loss is 12 billion gallons per day and increasing.
Roy Schatz, Founding President of the GBA Foundation said, "The changes in the St. Clair River and their effect on water levels have been cited previously following rigorous and public scientific processes -- the new Study Board was meant to examine physical changes and establish the best solutions moving forward. The fact that it completely dismisses such an enormous increase in outflow and recommends that nothing be done about it is very disturbing." Bill Bialkowski, a recently retired engineer and GBA Foundation water levels committee member who has devoted years of volunteer time and expertise to this issue said, "They started with flawed data and they got flawed conclusions. The Study Board needs to move to a higher level of science in order to understand this complex river. It appears that sources were carefully screened to support preconceived conclusions."
Access a release and more information from GBA (click here).
Friday, May 1, 2009
No Action Necessary Now For St. Clair River Erosion
May 1: The International Upper Great Lakes Study (IUGLS) issued a draft report nearly one year ahead of its original schedule, indicating that erosion of the St. Clair River is not ongoing and recommended that “remedial measures not be undertaken at this time.” The report -- Impacts on Upper Great Lakes Water Levels: St. Clair River -- is the product of intense effort by a 10 member binational Study Board of experts and public members, who commissioned 42 research projects that engaged over 100 scientists. Fourteen public meetings have been scheduled throughout the region where residents can learn about the findings and provide comments.
The Study Board was appointed by the International Joint Commission (IJC) to determine whether the conveyance capacity of the St. Clair River has changed, to assess if there is ongoing erosion in the river bed and to identify other factors that may be affecting water levels. Specifically, the independent panel examined the change in head drop (or difference in water levels) between Lake Huron and Lake Erie, estimating the decline to be 23 centimeters (cm) or 9 inches (in) between 1962 and 2006. After an exhaustive effort to collect and verify historical data, conduct new research and analyze results, three key factors were identified as contributing to the decline: A change in the conveyance of the St. Clair River; Changes in climatic patterns; and Glacial isostatic adjustment.
The report emphasized that, “Climate is the main driver of the lake level relationships between lakes and over time. There has been a persistent decline in net total supply of water to Lake Superior and Lake Michigan-Huron over the past two decades that has resulted in declining lake levels and a change in the relationship to Lake Erie.” The Study Board also recommended that, “The need for mitigative measures in the St. Clair River continues to be examined as part of the continuing Study that will include a comprehensive assessment of the future effects of climate change on water supplies in the upper Great Lakes basin on Lake Superior regulation.”
Access a release from the IUGLS (click here). Access an overview and summary of the report (click here). Access links to the complete report, upcoming public meetings, commenting procedures and more (click here).
The Study Board was appointed by the International Joint Commission (IJC) to determine whether the conveyance capacity of the St. Clair River has changed, to assess if there is ongoing erosion in the river bed and to identify other factors that may be affecting water levels. Specifically, the independent panel examined the change in head drop (or difference in water levels) between Lake Huron and Lake Erie, estimating the decline to be 23 centimeters (cm) or 9 inches (in) between 1962 and 2006. After an exhaustive effort to collect and verify historical data, conduct new research and analyze results, three key factors were identified as contributing to the decline: A change in the conveyance of the St. Clair River; Changes in climatic patterns; and Glacial isostatic adjustment.
The report emphasized that, “Climate is the main driver of the lake level relationships between lakes and over time. There has been a persistent decline in net total supply of water to Lake Superior and Lake Michigan-Huron over the past two decades that has resulted in declining lake levels and a change in the relationship to Lake Erie.” The Study Board also recommended that, “The need for mitigative measures in the St. Clair River continues to be examined as part of the continuing Study that will include a comprehensive assessment of the future effects of climate change on water supplies in the upper Great Lakes basin on Lake Superior regulation.”
Access a release from the IUGLS (click here). Access an overview and summary of the report (click here). Access links to the complete report, upcoming public meetings, commenting procedures and more (click here).
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
ATSDR Report On Chemical Releases In The Great Lakes Region
Jan 27: The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR), announced the official availability of the report, ATSDR Studies on Chemical Releases in the Great Lakes Region [74 FR 4751]. The report responds to a request from the International Joint Commission (IJC), the binational organization that works to implement the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement (GLWQA) between the U.S. and Canada. The GLWQA calls for the two nations to define "the threat to human health from critical pollutants" found in the Great Lakes basin.
The report summarizes previously-published public health assessment products and chemical release information for the 26 U.S. Areas of Concern (AOCs) and 54 counties that are in close geographic proximity to those AOCs. ATSDR says, "It is a descriptive report that does not make associations between health outcomes and chemical exposures." The compilation of environmental data, gathered by ATSDR and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), is intended to help decision-makers set future priorities.
The originally controversial report, which had been suppressed for nearly a year was revealed on February 7, 2008, by the Center for Public Integrity (CPI) which announced that a massive 400-page study, originally entitled, Public Health Implications of Hazardous Substances in the Twenty-Six U.S. Great Lakes Areas of Concern [AOCs], and completed in July 2007, was being withheld [See WIMS 2/8/08]. The suppression of the study was the subject of an inquiry and investigation from Representatives John Dingell (D-MI), then Chairman of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and Bart Stupak (D-MI), the Chairman of the Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee [See WIMS 3/14/08].
Access the FR announcement (click here). Access links to the final report and extensive background information (click here).
The report summarizes previously-published public health assessment products and chemical release information for the 26 U.S. Areas of Concern (AOCs) and 54 counties that are in close geographic proximity to those AOCs. ATSDR says, "It is a descriptive report that does not make associations between health outcomes and chemical exposures." The compilation of environmental data, gathered by ATSDR and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), is intended to help decision-makers set future priorities.
The originally controversial report, which had been suppressed for nearly a year was revealed on February 7, 2008, by the Center for Public Integrity (CPI) which announced that a massive 400-page study, originally entitled, Public Health Implications of Hazardous Substances in the Twenty-Six U.S. Great Lakes Areas of Concern [AOCs], and completed in July 2007, was being withheld [See WIMS 2/8/08]. The suppression of the study was the subject of an inquiry and investigation from Representatives John Dingell (D-MI), then Chairman of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and Bart Stupak (D-MI), the Chairman of the Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee [See WIMS 3/14/08].
Access the FR announcement (click here). Access links to the final report and extensive background information (click here).
Wednesday, November 12, 2008
Report Looks At "Ecological Separation" Of Great Lakes & Mississippi
Nov 12: The Great Lakes Fishery Commission (GLFC) and the Great Lakes Fishery Trust (GLFT) announced the release of a three-year study by the Alliance for the Great Lakes (Alliance) that takes a first look at stopping the transfer of invasive species between the Great Lakes and Mississippi River systems. While an electrical dispersal barrier currently provides some control on the Chicago Sanitary and Ship canal, long term solutions are needed to further reduce the risk of invasions.
The report -- Preliminary Feasibility of Ecological Separation of the Mississippi River and the Great Lakes -- co-funded by the Fishery Trust and the Fishery Commission, is the first systematic look at commercial and recreational traffic on the waterway and at potential, long term solutions to prevent biological transfers. The study was funded pursuant to a recommendation from an Invasive Species Summit meeting convened in 2003 by Chicago Mayor Richard M. Daley that called for a project to examine long-term solutions to reduce the risk of invasive species in the waterway.
According to a release from GLFC and GLFT, the Chicago Waterway System, a series of canals built in the 1800s that famously “reversed the flow” of the Chicago River to improve sanitation, artificially connects the Great Lakes and Mississippi River basins. The waterway serves as a transportation corridor and provides access for recreational boaters. The connection, however, also is a conduit for invasive species, with zebra mussels and round gobies moving from the Great Lakes to the Mississippi basin and with Asian carp currently threatening to enter the Great Lakes from the Mississippi. With increasing global trade, the threat of invasive species is only expected to grow.
Rebecca Humphries, Chair of GLFT and Director of the Michigan Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) said, “Invasive species continue to pose one of the biggest threats to the future of the Great Lakes and the Chicago waterway is a direct link for species to enter Lake Michigan. This study helps establish a course to address this important link." GLFC Chair Michael Hansen, a professor at the University of Wisconsin -- Stevens Point said, “With the benefit of hindsight the Great Lakes and Mississippi systems should never have been connected in so direct a way. Our task now is to find permanent and effective solutions to the threat that this waterway poses. The commission calls upon the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to consider the Alliance’s recommendations and launch a full-scale study, with the ultimate goal of achieving long term separation between the two basins.”
According to a release from the Alliance leading Great Lakes advocates are calling for Federal leadership and funding for “ecological separation” of the Great Lakes from the Mississippi River basin to protect both great watersheds from the perils of invasive species. Alliance VP for Policy Joel Brammeier, lead author of the report said, “The Great Lakes and the Mississippi River are at risk because of a connection that’s nothing natural. Fifteen miles of water and an experimental electric barrier are all that’s standing between the Great Lakes and Asian carp. We’ve got to get serious about a real solution.”
Herb Gray, Canadian Section chair of the International Joint Commission (IJC) said, "We must find a way to stop Asian Carp and other species before they use the Chicago Sanitary Canal to invade the entire Great Lakes system that is shared by Canada and the United States." A release from IJC indicates, "The IJC strongly supports the maintenance of the electric fish dispersal barrier and construction of a second electrical barrier in the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal, but recognizes the limitations of these measures. While not endorsing any specific long-term strategy, the IJC is impressed with the creative effort to engage as many stakeholders as possible and to carefully examine a range of actions to stop the movement of invasive species between the two watersheds while taking the economic and social dimensions into account."
Access a release from GLFC and GLFT (click here). Access a release from the Alliance with links to related information (click here). Access a release from IJC (click here). Access an Executive Summary of the report (click here). Access the complete 112-page report (click here).
The report -- Preliminary Feasibility of Ecological Separation of the Mississippi River and the Great Lakes -- co-funded by the Fishery Trust and the Fishery Commission, is the first systematic look at commercial and recreational traffic on the waterway and at potential, long term solutions to prevent biological transfers. The study was funded pursuant to a recommendation from an Invasive Species Summit meeting convened in 2003 by Chicago Mayor Richard M. Daley that called for a project to examine long-term solutions to reduce the risk of invasive species in the waterway.
According to a release from GLFC and GLFT, the Chicago Waterway System, a series of canals built in the 1800s that famously “reversed the flow” of the Chicago River to improve sanitation, artificially connects the Great Lakes and Mississippi River basins. The waterway serves as a transportation corridor and provides access for recreational boaters. The connection, however, also is a conduit for invasive species, with zebra mussels and round gobies moving from the Great Lakes to the Mississippi basin and with Asian carp currently threatening to enter the Great Lakes from the Mississippi. With increasing global trade, the threat of invasive species is only expected to grow.
Rebecca Humphries, Chair of GLFT and Director of the Michigan Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) said, “Invasive species continue to pose one of the biggest threats to the future of the Great Lakes and the Chicago waterway is a direct link for species to enter Lake Michigan. This study helps establish a course to address this important link." GLFC Chair Michael Hansen, a professor at the University of Wisconsin -- Stevens Point said, “With the benefit of hindsight the Great Lakes and Mississippi systems should never have been connected in so direct a way. Our task now is to find permanent and effective solutions to the threat that this waterway poses. The commission calls upon the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to consider the Alliance’s recommendations and launch a full-scale study, with the ultimate goal of achieving long term separation between the two basins.”
According to a release from the Alliance leading Great Lakes advocates are calling for Federal leadership and funding for “ecological separation” of the Great Lakes from the Mississippi River basin to protect both great watersheds from the perils of invasive species. Alliance VP for Policy Joel Brammeier, lead author of the report said, “The Great Lakes and the Mississippi River are at risk because of a connection that’s nothing natural. Fifteen miles of water and an experimental electric barrier are all that’s standing between the Great Lakes and Asian carp. We’ve got to get serious about a real solution.”
Herb Gray, Canadian Section chair of the International Joint Commission (IJC) said, "We must find a way to stop Asian Carp and other species before they use the Chicago Sanitary Canal to invade the entire Great Lakes system that is shared by Canada and the United States." A release from IJC indicates, "The IJC strongly supports the maintenance of the electric fish dispersal barrier and construction of a second electrical barrier in the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal, but recognizes the limitations of these measures. While not endorsing any specific long-term strategy, the IJC is impressed with the creative effort to engage as many stakeholders as possible and to carefully examine a range of actions to stop the movement of invasive species between the two watersheds while taking the economic and social dimensions into account."
Access a release from GLFC and GLFT (click here). Access a release from the Alliance with links to related information (click here). Access a release from IJC (click here). Access an Executive Summary of the report (click here). Access the complete 112-page report (click here).
Monday, November 10, 2008
International Upper Great Lakes Study Meeting
Nov 10: The International Upper Great Lakes Study (IUGLS) will be holding a public meeting at the University of Toledo, Lake Erie Center, from 7 to 9 PM on Wednesday, November 19th, 2008. Persons interested in and concerned about Great Lakes water levels are urged to attend and to share personal examples of the impact of changing water levels. The initial focus of IUGLS is whether possible physical changes in the St. Clair River and other factors are contributing to changes in the relative levels of Lake Erie and Lake Huron [See WIMS 4/4/08].
At the meetings, experts from the binational study of water levels in the Upper Great Lakes will present the latest scientific work and provide current information about water levels. They will also briefly outline the structure and purpose of the Study and review a history of water level regulation in the Great Lakes. The presentation will stress the importance of public input to the Study process and the need for interested individuals and organizations from throughout the basin to participate. Attendees will have an extensive opportunity to present their views and ask questions.
More broadly, the Study is examining whether regulation of outflows from Lake Superior might be improved to take into consideration changing climate and evolving interests of property owners, ecosystems, local governments, the shipping sector, and the recreation/tourism industry. IUGLS was launched by the International Joint Commission (IJC) of the U.S. and Canada in March of 2007. While the overall project has a five year timeline, a final report regarding the St. Clair River question is due in June of 2009.
Access the IUGLS website for details and further information (click here). Access information and presentations from previous meetings (click here). Access a 22-page progress report on the International Upper Great Lakes Study (click here).
At the meetings, experts from the binational study of water levels in the Upper Great Lakes will present the latest scientific work and provide current information about water levels. They will also briefly outline the structure and purpose of the Study and review a history of water level regulation in the Great Lakes. The presentation will stress the importance of public input to the Study process and the need for interested individuals and organizations from throughout the basin to participate. Attendees will have an extensive opportunity to present their views and ask questions.
More broadly, the Study is examining whether regulation of outflows from Lake Superior might be improved to take into consideration changing climate and evolving interests of property owners, ecosystems, local governments, the shipping sector, and the recreation/tourism industry. IUGLS was launched by the International Joint Commission (IJC) of the U.S. and Canada in March of 2007. While the overall project has a five year timeline, a final report regarding the St. Clair River question is due in June of 2009.
Access the IUGLS website for details and further information (click here). Access information and presentations from previous meetings (click here). Access a 22-page progress report on the International Upper Great Lakes Study (click here).
Monday, September 22, 2008
IOM Says CDC Great Lakes Reports Have Shortcomings
Sep 5: According to a release and a review by the National Academy of Sciences' Institute of Medicine (IOM), two drafts of a yet-to-be-finalized report [See WIMS 3/14/08] looking at health and pollution data from the Great Lakes region have problems that diminish the documents' scientific quality. These shortcomings limit the usefulness of the drafts -- prepared by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention -- in determining whether health risks might be associated with living near the lakes.
Questions about the scientific quality of the drafts and concern following the unauthorized publication of one of the interim drafts on a public website [See WIMS 2/8/08] led CDC to ask the IOM for an independent review of the documents. The drafts originated with an international commission's request for CDC's Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) to evaluate the public health implications of hazardous materials present in certain areas within U.S. states in the Great Lakes basin. The IOM committee focused on a 2007 draft and a 2008 version that was prepared after directors within ATSDR expressed apprehension about the 2007 draft's methodology and conclusions and postponed its public release. No final report has been released.
"We found problems in how each draft was developed, which data were used, and what conclusions the authors drew," said Robert Wallace, Irene Ensminger Stecher Professor of Epidemiology and Internal Medicine, College of Public Health, University of Iowa, Iowa City, and chair of the committee that wrote the report. "Our task was to focus solely on the scientific quality of the drafts and not to assess whether pollution around the Great Lakes poses health concerns," he added. "The problems we found in the drafts would limit the ability of officials and others to draw conclusions from them about whether any health risks are associated with living in or near certain places around the Great Lakes."
Most of the concerns about the 2007 draft raised by CDC's peer reviewers and ATSDR directors -- particularly how data were selected and used -- are valid, the committee concluded. Pollution and health data were lumped together despite differences in where and when the information was collected and despite lack of supporting evidence or explanation of how particular contaminants could lead to any of the identified health problems. The release indicates that, "This juxtaposition of data without explanation or support could lead readers to assume links between contamination and health problems regardless of whether they actually exist. Furthermore, some data that might have provided useful evidence apparently were not considered, and the drafts contained little explanation for why the data used were chosen."
The Committee concluded, "The 2008 draft provides only a summary of selected data on chemical releases and contamination and does not add substantially to the understanding of pollution around the Great Lakes. Though the authors' decision to leave out the health data in the 2008 draft is understandable given its incompatibilities with the available contamination data, it significantly changed the nature of the resulting draft and scope of response to the original request to CDC." The committee also noted problems with using the selected contaminant data as indicators of actual exposures. Moreover, the draft lacks information on other potential sources of contaminants or ways that people could be exposed.
Access a release from the IOM and link to the complete 50-page report (click here). Access the ATSDR website for the Great Lakes report which contains extensive links to background information, the Statement of Concern, the 2004 & 2007 & 2008 drafts, and more (click here).
Questions about the scientific quality of the drafts and concern following the unauthorized publication of one of the interim drafts on a public website [See WIMS 2/8/08] led CDC to ask the IOM for an independent review of the documents. The drafts originated with an international commission's request for CDC's Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) to evaluate the public health implications of hazardous materials present in certain areas within U.S. states in the Great Lakes basin. The IOM committee focused on a 2007 draft and a 2008 version that was prepared after directors within ATSDR expressed apprehension about the 2007 draft's methodology and conclusions and postponed its public release. No final report has been released.
"We found problems in how each draft was developed, which data were used, and what conclusions the authors drew," said Robert Wallace, Irene Ensminger Stecher Professor of Epidemiology and Internal Medicine, College of Public Health, University of Iowa, Iowa City, and chair of the committee that wrote the report. "Our task was to focus solely on the scientific quality of the drafts and not to assess whether pollution around the Great Lakes poses health concerns," he added. "The problems we found in the drafts would limit the ability of officials and others to draw conclusions from them about whether any health risks are associated with living in or near certain places around the Great Lakes."
Most of the concerns about the 2007 draft raised by CDC's peer reviewers and ATSDR directors -- particularly how data were selected and used -- are valid, the committee concluded. Pollution and health data were lumped together despite differences in where and when the information was collected and despite lack of supporting evidence or explanation of how particular contaminants could lead to any of the identified health problems. The release indicates that, "This juxtaposition of data without explanation or support could lead readers to assume links between contamination and health problems regardless of whether they actually exist. Furthermore, some data that might have provided useful evidence apparently were not considered, and the drafts contained little explanation for why the data used were chosen."
The Committee concluded, "The 2008 draft provides only a summary of selected data on chemical releases and contamination and does not add substantially to the understanding of pollution around the Great Lakes. Though the authors' decision to leave out the health data in the 2008 draft is understandable given its incompatibilities with the available contamination data, it significantly changed the nature of the resulting draft and scope of response to the original request to CDC." The committee also noted problems with using the selected contaminant data as indicators of actual exposures. Moreover, the draft lacks information on other potential sources of contaminants or ways that people could be exposed.
Access a release from the IOM and link to the complete 50-page report (click here). Access the ATSDR website for the Great Lakes report which contains extensive links to background information, the Statement of Concern, the 2004 & 2007 & 2008 drafts, and more (click here).
Monday, May 5, 2008
Next IJC Biennial Meeting October 6-7, 2009, In Windsor, Ontario
May 1: The International Joint Commission's (IJC's) next Biennial Meeting will take place on October 6-7, 2009, in Windsor, Ontario. The meetings will be held at the St. Clair Centre for the Arts. The IJC holds a Biennial Meeting every two years to hear from scientists and the public about issues relating to the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement, and to assist the Commission with preparing its Biennial Report on the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement. These reports assess the governments’ progress in meeting the goals of the Agreement to restore the physical, biological and chemical integrity of the Great Lakes waters. The upcoming meeting in Windsor will assist the IJC in preparing its 15th Biennial Report.
The IJC was established under the Boundary Waters Treaty of 1909 to help prevent and resolve disputes by the United States and Canada over the use of the waters they share. Under the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement, the Commission is charged with making a full report to the federal, state and provincial governments in the Great Lakes basin every two years on progress toward achieving the general and specific objectives of the Agreement.
Access an IJC announcement (click here). Access the IJC website for additional information (click here).
The IJC was established under the Boundary Waters Treaty of 1909 to help prevent and resolve disputes by the United States and Canada over the use of the waters they share. Under the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement, the Commission is charged with making a full report to the federal, state and provincial governments in the Great Lakes basin every two years on progress toward achieving the general and specific objectives of the Agreement.
Access an IJC announcement (click here). Access the IJC website for additional information (click here).
Wednesday, April 30, 2008
Controversial AOC Health Report Released For Comments
Apr 30: Dr. Henry Falk, Director, Coordinating Center for Environmental Health and Injury Prevention, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), announced that the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) had issued a revised report for public comment on what is known about environmental contaminants and human health in 26 Great Lakes “Areas of Concern” (AOCs). The controversial report which had been suppressed for nearly a year responds to a request from the International Joint Commission (IJC) to define the threat to human health from critical pollutants found in the Great Lakes basin. The report analyzes many sources of data on environmental exposures and on human health in the Great Lakes basin. The report is open for public comment for 60 days.
On February 7, the Center for Public Integrity (CPI) announced that a massive 400-page study, originally 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]. Subsequently, an inquiry and investigation from Representatives John Dingell (D-MI), the Chairman of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and Bart Stupak (D-MI) caused the study to be publicly released [See WIMS 3/14/08]. The latest 2008 draft report released for comment is now entitled, Selected Information on Chemical Releases Within Great Lakes Counties Containing Areas of Concern (AOC).
According to a CDC announcement, the key conclusions of the revised report include: 1) available environmental health data provide a useful but only a partial picture of the burden of chemical exposures people in the region face; 2) current health and environmental data collection cannot define the threat to human health from critical pollutants in the Great Lakes region; and 3) need for additional data collection and analysis to permit scientists, decision makers, and members of the public to define the threat to human health from pollutants in the Great Lakes basin. CDC indicates that comments should be submitted by email to: greatlakes@cdc.gov.
Access the CDC announcement (click here). Access the ATSDR website for the Great Lakes report which contains extensive links to background information, the Statement of Concern, the 2004 & 2007 & 2008 drafts, and more (click here). Access the 2008 draft report (click here).
On February 7, the Center for Public Integrity (CPI) announced that a massive 400-page study, originally 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]. Subsequently, an inquiry and investigation from Representatives John Dingell (D-MI), the Chairman of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and Bart Stupak (D-MI) caused the study to be publicly released [See WIMS 3/14/08]. The latest 2008 draft report released for comment is now entitled, Selected Information on Chemical Releases Within Great Lakes Counties Containing Areas of Concern (AOC).
According to a CDC announcement, the key conclusions of the revised report include: 1) available environmental health data provide a useful but only a partial picture of the burden of chemical exposures people in the region face; 2) current health and environmental data collection cannot define the threat to human health from critical pollutants in the Great Lakes region; and 3) need for additional data collection and analysis to permit scientists, decision makers, and members of the public to define the threat to human health from pollutants in the Great Lakes basin. CDC indicates that comments should be submitted by email to: greatlakes@cdc.gov.
Access the CDC announcement (click here). Access the ATSDR website for the Great Lakes report which contains extensive links to background information, the Statement of Concern, the 2004 & 2007 & 2008 drafts, and more (click here). Access the 2008 draft report (click here).
Friday, April 4, 2008
Meetings Will Present Findings On Upper Great Lakes Water Levels
Apr 3: Public advisors to a binational study of Great Lakes water levels announced that three public meetings will be held in Michigan this spring. The meetings are scheduled for Bay City on April 28; Port Huron on April 29; and Muskegon on May 3. In February two public meetings were held in the Detroit area [See WIMS 2/6/08].
At the meetings, experts from the International Upper Great Lakes Study (IUGLS) will present the latest scientific findings and provide current information about water levels. They will also briefly outline the structure and purpose of the Study and review a history of water level regulation in the Great Lakes. The presentation will stress the importance of public input to the Study process and the need for interested individuals and organizations from throughout the basin to participate. Attendees will have an extensive opportunity to present their views and ask questions.
The initial focus of IUGLS is whether possible physical changes in the St. Clair River are contributing to near record low levels in the upper Great Lakes. More broadly, the Study is examining whether regulation of outflows from Lake Superior might be improved to take into consideration changing climate and evolving interests of property owners, the environment, local governments, the shipping sector, and the recreation/tourism industry. IUGLS was launched by the International Joint Commission (IJC) of the U.S. and Canada in March of 2007. While the overall project has a five year timeline, a final report regarding the St. Clair River question is due in June of 2009. The study area includes lakes Superior, Michigan, Huron and Erie, and their interconnecting channels (St. Mary's River, St. Clair River, Lake St. Clair, Detroit River and Niagara River), up to Niagara Falls.
Access a release with details on the locations and times of the meetings (click here). Access the IUGLS website for details and further information (click here).
At the meetings, experts from the International Upper Great Lakes Study (IUGLS) will present the latest scientific findings and provide current information about water levels. They will also briefly outline the structure and purpose of the Study and review a history of water level regulation in the Great Lakes. The presentation will stress the importance of public input to the Study process and the need for interested individuals and organizations from throughout the basin to participate. Attendees will have an extensive opportunity to present their views and ask questions.
The initial focus of IUGLS is whether possible physical changes in the St. Clair River are contributing to near record low levels in the upper Great Lakes. More broadly, the Study is examining whether regulation of outflows from Lake Superior might be improved to take into consideration changing climate and evolving interests of property owners, the environment, local governments, the shipping sector, and the recreation/tourism industry. IUGLS was launched by the International Joint Commission (IJC) of the U.S. and Canada in March of 2007. While the overall project has a five year timeline, a final report regarding the St. Clair River question is due in June of 2009. The study area includes lakes Superior, Michigan, Huron and Erie, and their interconnecting channels (St. Mary's River, St. Clair River, Lake St. Clair, Detroit River and Niagara River), up to Niagara Falls.
Access a release with details on the locations and times of the meetings (click here). Access the IUGLS website for details and further information (click here).
Friday, March 28, 2008
IJC Plan For Regulating Lake Ontario & St. Lawrence River
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).
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 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).
Friday, February 8, 2008
ATSDR Great Lakes AOCs Report Held Up 7 Months
Feb 7: According to the Center for Public Integrity (CPI), "For more than seven months, the nation’s top public health agency has blocked the publication of an exhaustive federal study of environmental hazards in the eight Great Lakes states, reportedly because it contains such potentially “alarming information” as evidence of elevated infant mortality and cancer rates."
CPI says the 400-plus-page study, Public Health Implications of Hazardous Substances in the Twenty-Six U.S. Great Lakes Areas of Concern, was undertaken by a division of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention at the request of the International Joint Commission (IJC), an independent bilateral organization that advises the U.S. and Canadian governments on the use and quality of boundary waters between the two countries. The study was originally scheduled for release in July 2007 by the IJC and the CDC’s Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR).
CPI has obtained the study, which it says "warns that more than nine million people who live in the more than two dozen 'areas of concern' [AOCs] -- including such major metropolitan areas as Chicago, Cleveland, Detroit, and Milwaukee -- may face elevated health risks from being exposed to dioxin, PCBs, pesticides, lead, mercury, or six other hazardous pollutants."
Access a brief article on the report and link to the report which is marked throughout "do not quote or cite" (click here). Access links to various Internet citations to the report (click here). Access various Blog posts regarding the report (click here). Access various news media reports (click here). Access complete information on Great Lakes AOCs (click here).
CPI says the 400-plus-page study, Public Health Implications of Hazardous Substances in the Twenty-Six U.S. Great Lakes Areas of Concern, was undertaken by a division of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention at the request of the International Joint Commission (IJC), an independent bilateral organization that advises the U.S. and Canadian governments on the use and quality of boundary waters between the two countries. The study was originally scheduled for release in July 2007 by the IJC and the CDC’s Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR).
CPI has obtained the study, which it says "warns that more than nine million people who live in the more than two dozen 'areas of concern' [AOCs] -- including such major metropolitan areas as Chicago, Cleveland, Detroit, and Milwaukee -- may face elevated health risks from being exposed to dioxin, PCBs, pesticides, lead, mercury, or six other hazardous pollutants."
Access a brief article on the report and link to the report which is marked throughout "do not quote or cite" (click here). Access links to various Internet citations to the report (click here). Access various Blog posts regarding the report (click here). Access various news media reports (click here). Access complete information on Great Lakes AOCs (click here).
Wednesday, February 6, 2008
Upcoming Upper Great Lakes Study Meetings In SE Michigan
Feb 4: The Public Interest Advisory Group (PIAG) of the International Upper Great Lakes Study (IUGLS) -- a binational team of researchers studying whether possible physical changes in the St. Clair River are contributing to record low levels in the Great Lakes -- has scheduled two public meetings in the Detroit area for February 19-20, 2008. PIAG co-chair Kay Felt and researchers will present an overview of the Study, highlighting the latest findings and focusing on the importance of public input and collaboration with local governments. Attendees will have an extensive opportunity to present their views and ask questions. More broadly, the Study is examining whether regulation of outflows from Lake Superior might be improved to take into consideration changing climate and evolving interests of property owners, local governments, the shipping industry, and the recreation/tourism industry.
On Tuesday, February 19, 2008, from 7 to 9 PM, PIAG will meet at the Grosse Pointe War Memorial, 32 Lakeshore Drive, Grosse Pointe Farms. On Wednesday, February 20, 2008, from 1 to 3 PM, PIAG will meet jointly with the Southeast Michigan Council of Governments (SEMCOG), at 535 Griswold St., Suite 300, Detroit, Michigan.
The International Joint Commission (IJC) appointed the International Upper Great Lakes Study Board in February 2007 to examine whether the regulation of Lake Superior outflows can be improved to address the evolving needs of the upper Great Lakes. The study area includes lakes Superior, Michigan, Huron and Erie, and their interconnecting channels (St. Mary's River, St. Clair River, Lake St. Clair, Detroit River and Niagara River), up to Niagara Falls.
Major topics for investigation include determining the factors that affect water levels and flows, developing and testing potential new regulation plans and assessing the impacts of these potential plans on the ecosystem and human interests. Physical changes in the St. Clair River will be investigated early in the study as one factor that might be affecting water levels and flows. Depending on the nature and extent of the physical changes, and their potential impact on water levels and flows, the study may also explore potential remediation options.
On November 1, 2007, the IUGLS released preliminary results that did not appear to support the theory that an eroding river bed is responsible for causing the Lake Michigan-Huron system to "hemorrhage" 2.5 billion gallons of water a day [See WIMS 11/2/07]. On August 14, 2007, an analysis from a consultant for the Georgian Bay Association (GBA), indicated that the channel drainage in the St. Clair River was causing the extensive loss of water from the Lake Michigan-Huron system. However, the preliminary results from the extensive IUGLS indicate that the so-called "armour layer" in the upper part of the St. Clair River is considered to be stable and therefore, the bed cannot be eroding.
Access the IUGLS website for details and further information (click here).
On Tuesday, February 19, 2008, from 7 to 9 PM, PIAG will meet at the Grosse Pointe War Memorial, 32 Lakeshore Drive, Grosse Pointe Farms. On Wednesday, February 20, 2008, from 1 to 3 PM, PIAG will meet jointly with the Southeast Michigan Council of Governments (SEMCOG), at 535 Griswold St., Suite 300, Detroit, Michigan.
The International Joint Commission (IJC) appointed the International Upper Great Lakes Study Board in February 2007 to examine whether the regulation of Lake Superior outflows can be improved to address the evolving needs of the upper Great Lakes. The study area includes lakes Superior, Michigan, Huron and Erie, and their interconnecting channels (St. Mary's River, St. Clair River, Lake St. Clair, Detroit River and Niagara River), up to Niagara Falls.
Major topics for investigation include determining the factors that affect water levels and flows, developing and testing potential new regulation plans and assessing the impacts of these potential plans on the ecosystem and human interests. Physical changes in the St. Clair River will be investigated early in the study as one factor that might be affecting water levels and flows. Depending on the nature and extent of the physical changes, and their potential impact on water levels and flows, the study may also explore potential remediation options.
On November 1, 2007, the IUGLS released preliminary results that did not appear to support the theory that an eroding river bed is responsible for causing the Lake Michigan-Huron system to "hemorrhage" 2.5 billion gallons of water a day [See WIMS 11/2/07]. On August 14, 2007, an analysis from a consultant for the Georgian Bay Association (GBA), indicated that the channel drainage in the St. Clair River was causing the extensive loss of water from the Lake Michigan-Huron system. However, the preliminary results from the extensive IUGLS indicate that the so-called "armour layer" in the upper part of the St. Clair River is considered to be stable and therefore, the bed cannot be eroding.
Access the IUGLS website for details and further information (click here).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
