Sep 30: A release from the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) indicates that although Hurricane Ike is long gone, its impact lingers more than a thousand miles from where it made landfall. Runoff from tributaries dumped massive amounts of sediment into Lake Michigan, contaminating the water, compromising near-shore navigation and raising E coli bacteria to levels unsafe for swimming. Richard Whitman, a USGS expert on beach health said, "The local effects that Ike had on Lake Michigan's Indiana shoreline, water depth, and water quality have been profound."
While assessing Ike's impact on the lake, Whitman noted that, "The velocity and height of a tributary emptying into Lake Michigan at Portage, Indiana went off the chart. We measured a tremendous amount of sediment accumulation Near Ogden Dunes." USGS uses high tech, state-of-the-art equipment in the lake to measure runoff, the lake's currents, and sediment input during storms. These data are used to forecast whether a beach is unsafe for swimmers. Beaches are subject to high bacteria levels following storms. Heavy rains from Ike significantly impacted northwestern Indiana and Chicago because the ground was already saturated by a stalled cold front.
Access a release from USGS with links to videos, pictures, and real-time data (click here).
Thursday, October 2, 2008
Monday, September 29, 2008
Great Lakes Interim Final Rule On Discharge Of Dry Cargo Residue
Sep 29: The U.S. Coast Guard announced in the Federal Register [73 FR 56492-56501] that it is amending its regulations to allow the discharge of bulk dry cargo residue (DCR) in limited areas of the Great Lakes by self-propelled vessels and by any barge that is part of an integrated tug and barge unit. DCR is the residue of non-toxic and non-hazardous bulk dry cargo like limestone, iron ore, and coal. The regulations also add new recordkeeping and reporting requirements and encourage carriers to adopt voluntary control measures for reducing discharges. Discharges are now prohibited in certain protected and sensitive areas where, previously, they were allowed. The Coast Guard also requests public comments on the need for and feasibility of additional conditions that might be imposed on discharges in the future, such as mandatory use of control measures, or further adjustments to the areas where discharges are allowed or prohibited.
The interim final rule takes effect September 29, 2008. Initial reports under amended 33 CFR 151.66(c)(4) are due January 15, 2009. Comments and related material submitted in response to the request for comments must be received before January 15, 2009. The action follows a May 23, 2008, notice of the rulemaking and of the availability of a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS). The Coast Guard says it received written comments on the proposed rule from 55 sources, and heard from 3 commenters at two public meetings in Duluth, MN, and Cleveland, OH, An additional notice of the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) and the Record of Decision (ROD)was announced on August 22, 2008.
In response to public comments, the Coast Guard extended the areas where DCR discharges are prohibited to include waters within three miles of shore at the following sites: Indiana Dunes and Sleeping Bear National Lakeshores on Lake Michigan and Grand Portage National Monument and Apostle Islands and Pictured Rocks National Lakeshores on Lake Superior.
Access the FR notice (click here). Access the docket for this rulemaking for background information and to review and submit comments (click here).
The interim final rule takes effect September 29, 2008. Initial reports under amended 33 CFR 151.66(c)(4) are due January 15, 2009. Comments and related material submitted in response to the request for comments must be received before January 15, 2009. The action follows a May 23, 2008, notice of the rulemaking and of the availability of a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS). The Coast Guard says it received written comments on the proposed rule from 55 sources, and heard from 3 commenters at two public meetings in Duluth, MN, and Cleveland, OH, An additional notice of the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) and the Record of Decision (ROD)was announced on August 22, 2008.
In response to public comments, the Coast Guard extended the areas where DCR discharges are prohibited to include waters within three miles of shore at the following sites: Indiana Dunes and Sleeping Bear National Lakeshores on Lake Michigan and Grand Portage National Monument and Apostle Islands and Pictured Rocks National Lakeshores on Lake Superior.
Access the FR notice (click here). Access the docket for this rulemaking for background information and to review and submit comments (click here).
Legacy Act Passes; White House Cuts Funding
Sep 29: The Great Lakes Commission (GLC) issued a release applauding Congressional leaders for securing reauthorizing of the Great Lakes Legacy Act (H.R 6460). The House of Representatives re-approved an amended version of H.R. 6460 on September 28, which extends the Legacy Act for two years at level funding of $54 million per year. The bill now goes to President Bush for signing.
According to a release from Michigan Lt. Governor and Great Lakes Commission (GLC) Chairman John Cherry, "While this is a positive step forward, the Great Lakes Commission is disappointed that despite the best efforts of our region’s Congressional leaders, no additional funding was provided. HR 6460 first passed the House of Representatives on September 18 at $150M. At the 11th hour, the Bush Administration weighed in with a letter to House and Senate leaders in opposition to the bill, because of the proposed funding increase. To gain approval in the Senate, the bill was amended and the funding kept level with legislation approved in 2002."
House Transportation & Infrastructure Committee Chair, Representative James Oberstar (D-MN) explained further in a Floor statement saying, "Regrettably, when this measure got over to the Senate, as so often happens in the other body, one person can shut down the Senate and can shut down the country. In this case one objection held up Senate action on the bill until funding for the program was cut. I'm just so disappointed and so anguished over the failure of the Senate to provide the funding. They didn't change anything else in the bill, just implementing it, just funding it. That is cutting out the heart. . . We will come back next year. There will be a different spirit in the White House, a different spirit in the Congress. We will fix that."
Access a release from the GLC (click here). Access legislative details for H.R 6460 including links to Floor statements (click here).
According to a release from Michigan Lt. Governor and Great Lakes Commission (GLC) Chairman John Cherry, "While this is a positive step forward, the Great Lakes Commission is disappointed that despite the best efforts of our region’s Congressional leaders, no additional funding was provided. HR 6460 first passed the House of Representatives on September 18 at $150M. At the 11th hour, the Bush Administration weighed in with a letter to House and Senate leaders in opposition to the bill, because of the proposed funding increase. To gain approval in the Senate, the bill was amended and the funding kept level with legislation approved in 2002."
House Transportation & Infrastructure Committee Chair, Representative James Oberstar (D-MN) explained further in a Floor statement saying, "Regrettably, when this measure got over to the Senate, as so often happens in the other body, one person can shut down the Senate and can shut down the country. In this case one objection held up Senate action on the bill until funding for the program was cut. I'm just so disappointed and so anguished over the failure of the Senate to provide the funding. They didn't change anything else in the bill, just implementing it, just funding it. That is cutting out the heart. . . We will come back next year. There will be a different spirit in the White House, a different spirit in the Congress. We will fix that."
Access a release from the GLC (click here). Access legislative details for H.R 6460 including links to Floor statements (click here).
Friday, September 26, 2008
Council Of Canadians Calls For Compact Correction
Sep 24: Canada's largest citizens’ organization, the Council of Canadians, issued a release, "demanding that the Canadian government intervene to secure an amendment to the Great Lakes Compact which has now received approval of both the U.S. House and Senate [See WIMS 9/23/08]. The organization is calling for an elimination of the loophole that would grant bottled water corporations unlimited access to Great Lakes water in 20 litre [actually 5.7 gallons] containers. Maude Barlow, national chairperson of the Council of Canadians said, “Although we welcome the Compact’s ban on diversions through pipelines and other means, the bottled water exception is a gaping hole that would undermine the agreement’s ability to truly protect the Great Lakes. In remaining silent on this issue, the Harper government has abdicated its responsibility to protect the Great Lakes and the Canadian public interest.”
The Council said while the Compact sets out to prevent diversions from the Great Lakes, the definition of diversions does not apply to water as a “product” and they are concerned about the trade implications of this definition. Meera Karunananthan, national water campaigner for the Council of Canadians said, “Once their access to Great Lakes water is entrenched in the Compact, it will be difficult to regulate corporations taking water out of the Great Lakes in containers because they will be further protected in international trade agreements such as the North American Free Trade Agreement.”
Access a release from the Council (click here).
The Council said while the Compact sets out to prevent diversions from the Great Lakes, the definition of diversions does not apply to water as a “product” and they are concerned about the trade implications of this definition. Meera Karunananthan, national water campaigner for the Council of Canadians said, “Once their access to Great Lakes water is entrenched in the Compact, it will be difficult to regulate corporations taking water out of the Great Lakes in containers because they will be further protected in international trade agreements such as the North American Free Trade Agreement.”
Access a release from the Council (click here).
Tuesday, September 23, 2008
House Approves Great Lakes Compact
Sep 23: On a "Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass," requiring a 2/3 majority, the U.S. House approved the Great Lakes Compact (S.J. Res. 45), by a vote of 390 - 25. Environmental and conservation groups praised the approval and commended U.S. Representatives John Conyers (D-MI), Vern Ehlers (R-MI), Rahm Emanuel (D-IL), Steve LaTourette (R-OH) and Jim Oberstar (D-MN); and Senators Russ Feingold (D-WI), Herb Kohl (D-WI), Carl Levin (D-MI), Arlen Specter (R-PA) and George Voinovich (R-OH), where the measure was approved by voice vote in August [See WIMS 8/4/08]. The President has indicated he will sign the approval.
Despite the overwhelming approval, it did not come without controversy and concern. Two Great Lakes Representatives -- Bart Stupak (D-MI) and Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) both raised concerns regarding loopholes in the Compact [See WIMS 9/8/08]. Of major concern were the exemption of water in a container smaller than 5.7 gallons ("the bottled water loophole"); creating a Federal definition of Great Lakes water as a "product" subject it to international trade law obligations (e.g. NAFTA, GATT, etc.) and related "public trust doctrine" issues.
On Monday, September 22, Representative Stupak urged all 435 members not to approved the Compact until some answers were received from his previous inquiries in July to the U.S. Department of State, U.S. Trade Representative and the IJC (See link below). Kucinich had argued that Congress could close the loopholes without sending the Compact back to the State to be ratified again by passing his bill H.R. 6814 and adding specific language in the Committee Report for the Compact which strengthens the public trust doctrine provisions in the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 in ways that Compact Report language could not.
Various groups indicating their support included: Great Lakes United; National Wildlife Federation; Alliance for the Great Lakes; Healing Our Waters-Great Lakes Coalition; Council of Great Lakes Governors; Michigan Environmental Council; Michigan League of Conservation Voters; Tip of the Mitt Watershed Council; and Sierra Club.
Access the roll call vote (click here). Access legislative details for S.J.Res.45 (click here). Access a release from Representative Stupak (click here). Access the Committee on Judiciary. H. Rept. 110-863 (click here). Access legislative details for H.R. 6577 (click here).
Despite the overwhelming approval, it did not come without controversy and concern. Two Great Lakes Representatives -- Bart Stupak (D-MI) and Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) both raised concerns regarding loopholes in the Compact [See WIMS 9/8/08]. Of major concern were the exemption of water in a container smaller than 5.7 gallons ("the bottled water loophole"); creating a Federal definition of Great Lakes water as a "product" subject it to international trade law obligations (e.g. NAFTA, GATT, etc.) and related "public trust doctrine" issues.
On Monday, September 22, Representative Stupak urged all 435 members not to approved the Compact until some answers were received from his previous inquiries in July to the U.S. Department of State, U.S. Trade Representative and the IJC (See link below). Kucinich had argued that Congress could close the loopholes without sending the Compact back to the State to be ratified again by passing his bill H.R. 6814 and adding specific language in the Committee Report for the Compact which strengthens the public trust doctrine provisions in the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 in ways that Compact Report language could not.
Various groups indicating their support included: Great Lakes United; National Wildlife Federation; Alliance for the Great Lakes; Healing Our Waters-Great Lakes Coalition; Council of Great Lakes Governors; Michigan Environmental Council; Michigan League of Conservation Voters; Tip of the Mitt Watershed Council; and Sierra Club.
Access the roll call vote (click here). Access legislative details for S.J.Res.45 (click here). Access a release from Representative Stupak (click here). Access the Committee on Judiciary. H. Rept. 110-863 (click here). Access legislative details for H.R. 6577 (click here).
Canadian Mayors Call For Great Lakes Commitments
Sep 22: According to a release from the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Cities Initiative, mayors representing over 7 million Canadians in Ontario and Quebec issued a letter calling on the five Federal political leaders in the Canadian election to publicly declare their proposals for protecting the Great Lakes and the St. Lawrence River. Thunder Bay Mayor Lynn Peterson, chair of Cities Initiative said, "Canadian municipalities are spending over $4 billion a year on Great Lakes and St. Lawrence protection. Given the national and international importance of this massive fresh water resource, it is time we have a substantial commitment from our federal government."
Canadian members of the Cities Initiative issued the letter a day after presidential candidates in the United States raised the importance of Great Lakes protection in their federal election campaign. Toronto Mayor David Miller said, "We are encouraged that, through the activities of the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Cities Initiative and other organizations, both U.S. presidential candidates are acknowledging the critical importance of protecting this vital resource. Senator Barack Obama has come forward with his proposal and Senator John McCain has made known his concern for the future of the Great Lakes. It is time our federal party leaders stepped up and made their voices heard."
Access a release from the Cities Initiative (click here). Access the Cities Initiative website (click here).
Canadian members of the Cities Initiative issued the letter a day after presidential candidates in the United States raised the importance of Great Lakes protection in their federal election campaign. Toronto Mayor David Miller said, "We are encouraged that, through the activities of the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Cities Initiative and other organizations, both U.S. presidential candidates are acknowledging the critical importance of protecting this vital resource. Senator Barack Obama has come forward with his proposal and Senator John McCain has made known his concern for the future of the Great Lakes. It is time our federal party leaders stepped up and made their voices heard."
Access a release from the Cities Initiative (click here). Access the Cities Initiative website (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).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
