It also creates an artificial connection between the Great Lakes and Mississippi River, a superhighway for organisms – such as the zebra mussel, round goby and now Asian carp- to travel between the Mississippi River and the Great Lakes.

Scientists are warning us that future aquatic invasions put the Great Lakes at risk of an “ecosystem breakdown.”

Given the threat invasive species such as the Asian carp pose to the health of the Great Lakes, we must find a way to stop their migration down the Chicago canal. The most effective, permanent option we have is to re-instate the ecological separation between the Great Lakes watershed and the Mississippi River.

In 2008, the Alliance for the Great Lakes released a report calling for the break up of the Mississippi River and Great Lakes watersheds.

There are at least six locations where permanent physical barriers could be built to separate the watersheds. The report prioritizes them according to a preliminary feasibility analysis. Any solution will likely place barriers at several locations.

A permanent breakup of the Great Lakes and Mississippi River basins is the only guaranteed way to keep invasive species from traveling between the two and causing devastating irreversible damage.

A feasible separation solution will:

1. Stop aquatic organisms at all life stages from moving between the Great Lakes and Mississippi River via the Chicago waterways;

2. Accommodate the vast majority of commodity traffic within the waterways, as only a fraction of that traffic actually enters Lake Michigan;

3. Provide new methods of moving recreational boaters between the Illinois River and Lake Michigan;

4. Anticipate very occasional overflows into Lake Michigan to prevent local flooding, while improving the water quality of the lake and waterways;

5. Serve as a one-time payment for 100 percent effective, permanent protection against invasive species.

Those are some tough words, but they reflect what a lot of people are wondering after key politicians brokered a deal with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) that will allow 26 ships to sail through a loophole and avoid complying with new progressive air pollution standards. The agreement could set a dangerous precedent when it comes time for these same ships to comply with new ballast treatment standards in our effort to fight against invasive species.

To protect human health, the EPA proposed more stringent exhaust emission standards for the largest marine diesel engines—called C3s—that sail within 200 miles of any U.S. coastline; this includes all vessel operations within the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence River. The clean air act standards are part of a coordinated U.S.–Canada strategy to address the most egregious offenders when it comes to polluted emissions from large commercial marine vessels.

Sounds great right? Sure, unless you are in the shipping industry. Once the industry got wind of the new regulations they called their (and our) Great Lakes Congressional delegation for help. The shippers argued the regulations would force them out of business and that the public health concern wasn’t great enough to trump economics. Gee, we haven’t heard that before!

Representative David Obey (D-Wisconsin), James Oberstar (D-Minnesota) and other Great Lakes lawmakers responded by meeting with the EPA to hammer out an exception for the oldest ships working the Great Lakes. We—that is, the “rest of” the constituents—were able to only get glimpses of the closed door debate from a staffer quoted in the media who alluded to a cost-benefit analysis that would prove the shippers cause. But, when we asked to see such studies they could not be unearthed. In fact, when the EPA was asked, they didn’t know to what the staffer was referring.

Splashing more fuel upon this growing fire, the Canadian Embassy weighed-in supporting the Great Lakes shippers and asking the EPA to back off. In a letter, Paul Robertson, the Embassy’s Minister of Economics argued that the costs of compliance will be too high and force some companies to stop using iconic steamers that travel the lakes carrying lots of commodities.

A deal was struck that lets 26 lakers avoid complying with the new EPA standards. For the sake of profit and at a detriment to public health, 13 ships with C3 engines will get waivers from the EPA if they can prove they will go out of business by complying. Another 13 steamships (the real dinosaurs that burn dirty bunker fuel) got out of compliance all together. Nice…

Here is the best part, in order to ensure that this agreement went through, our Great Lakes House Members attached it in the form of an amendment to a must pass bill – ironically – the same bill that will provide $475 million for Great Lakes restoration programs. The Interior spending bill that pays for the operation of the EPA was overdue and had to be passed by October 31 so that government could continue to function. So, the amendment was sure to pass—and it did—although, not without some disgruntled comment from colleagues in both the House and Senate.

The exemption does the industry no favours. Politicians, instead of helping an aging fleet to modernize, let them drift aimlessly in the mid-20th century. Instead of offering a get-out-of-jail-free card, leaders could have pursued financial assistance to help those ships make a transition to a new, more fuel efficient and cleaner burning engines.

Now that the deal is done, there is some concern that this will become an issue for foreign ships operating in US waters. Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) described the deal as very narrow in hopes of avoiding such a calamity. Still, others are worried that the loophole will undermine the coordinated bi-national strategy to protect human health in the US-Canada emissions control area. Time will tell.

Let’s hope our Great Lakes delegation can recover their restoration compass and gravitas among their colleagues. Future progress for restoration and clean air and water is at stake.

Tiffany Pache blogs for the Healing Our Waters Coalition at www.healthylakes.org

Debunking Bunker Fuel

Great Lakes United has been leading an effort to clear up many myths around the emissions standard and its impact on the shipping industry, the environment, and human health.

Working with the Ohio Environmental Council, Great Lakes United produced two factsheets. One provides an overview of the standard, while the second counters dire claims being made by the Great Lakes shipping industry. The factsheets are available online at: www.glu.org.

As the Watertown Daily Times reports, the bill would transform the $32 million department into a $3.5 billion agency. The funds could then be put toward improving locks, dams and other navigational infrastructure.

The danger, however, is that the funding could be put toward physical expansion of the Seaway, not just maintenance and upgrades. Expansion refers to the enormous task of enlarging the locks and channels of the St. Lawrence Seaway to make way for larger vessels to access the Great Lakes.

For decades stakeholders from a variety of sectors have fought, and beaten back, expansion proposals. Such a massive project would destroy fragile habitat, re-suspend settled contaminated sediments, and exacerbate the problem of invasive species that come into the Great lakes in the ballast of ocean-ships.

In 2007, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and Transport Canada released a report that took expansion off the table, instead focussing on improving the infrastructure already in place.

The environmental toll of the St. Lawrence Seaway has been dramatic. Construction dug new, deeper channels in the riverbed, flooded shallow sections, blasted away islands, displaced six villages and built a series of locks. With ocean vessels plying the Great Lakes, they also brought the greatest ecological nightmare to beset the region: aquatic invasive species.

Meanwhile, the economic performance of the Seaway has been lacklustre. Of the cargo moved across the five Great Lakes, less than 7 per cent is international goods being imported or exported on ocean-going vessels. When the Seaway was built it was heralded as opening the door to an economic renaissance. Instead, Congress forgave the $110 million construction debt in 1982, and the Corporation has never turned a profit. Today, it operates well below capacity.

To take action against this proposal go to savetheriver.org.

On the world stage, the scope of this project can be compared to some of the largest waterway and dam projects undertaken in the world, rivaling the Suez Canal in Egypt, opened in the late 1800s, the Panama Canal opened in 1914, and Stalin’s White Sea-Baltic Canal network constructed in the 1930’s, and now largely obsolete. The 2,012 megawatts of power generated by the Robert Moses Saunders dam is akin to the 2,080 megawatt Hoover Dam.

Fifty years ago, there was no environmental review of how this massive project would impact the environment and how those impacts would be mitigated. Today, with 50 years of hindsight, we see how it has ushered in a host of environmental problems associated with artificial water level manipulation, massive and ongoing dredging of shallow areas, and how it precipitated one of the worst ecological crises to hit the region: a proliferation of aquatic invasive species.

As the industry held much smaller anniversary celebrations than those choreographed in 1959, this summer Great Lakes United took this anniversary as an opportunity to lay the foundation for the next 50 years of commercial shipping on the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence River. Great Lakes United rallied over 50 public interest groups from across the region to articulate what changes would be needed for the Seaway – and the shipping industry in general – to be a cause of celebration for the entire region, not just the industry itself.

Outlined in “A Better Seaway: Seven Principles to Guide Sustainable Shipping on The Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River”, the principles address a broad range of environmental impacts, from invasive species to ice-breaking, to air emissions. While international vessels have been a focal point for many of the environmental impacts associated with shipping on the Great Lakes, particularly invasive species, the principles also address domestic operations. Upon release, the principles quickly gained broad public support, from environmental and conservation NGOs to boating and fishing associations, religious organizations and more. They also triggered discussion throughout the news media on the legacy of the Seaway, and the tension of an industry that depends upon the water that it continues to harm.

The seven principles are aggressive benchmarks that will require a steadfast effort to meet. They lay the foundation of how commercial navigation can benefit the people and economies of the Great Lakes region, ensure its own viability, and become a true steward for this spectacular, yet fragile, natural wonder. The Seaway and shipping industry is at the headwaters of a challenging and exciting future. The decisions they make today will set a legacy that lasts well beyond the next 50 years.

More organizations are endorsing the principles every day. Citizens are also invited to support these principles.

To learn more about these principles and to voice your support, check out the campaign website, www.abetterseaway.com.

Sidebar: Seven Principles for a Sustainable Seaway

1. Ships must not introduce or spread aquatic invasive species.

Imagine a world where protections are in place to stop the next zebra and quagga mussel from entering the Great Lakes and spreading as far west as Nevada and California. That world can, and must, become a reality. The United States and Canada must require ballast water treatment for ships to eliminate this threat. Absent effective federal regulations, a moratorium on international vessel access to the Great Lakes or implementation of state, provincial or coordinated binational regulations for the Great Lakes- St. Lawrence River should be put in place.

2. Climate change is real, and proactive steps must be taken to meet this challenge head on.

Scientists estimate that lake levels will drop dramatically – perhaps as much as 3 feet by the 2050s. This presents a formidable challenge to the entire shipping industry. The impact of lower lake levels will include restrictions in vessel draft and tonnages carried, raising transportation costs by as much as 22 per cent. There is a silver lining. The smaller carbon footprint of shipping relative to rail or truck gives this mode of transport an advantage in the fight to slow climate change. Adapting to climate change provides an opportunity to redefine an outdated industrial model and align operations with restoration.

3. Unnecessary and costly system expansion proposals must be abandoned.

For decades, a broad range of Great Lakes stakeholders have repeatedly fought back expansion proposals that would seek to allow larger vessels to enter and operate on the Great Lakes. Expansion is environmentally unsustainable and the region is wasting time and money debating whether it should be an option for a system that is already underutilized. Canada and the United States must make it unequivocally clear that their future pursuit is not a bigger Seaway, it’s a better Seaway.

4. Air emissions should be cleaned up for shipping to truly be the cleanest mode of transportation in regards to air pollution.

While waterborne transportation may be more fuel efficient than rail or truck, when it comes to human health “better than the other guy” is not good enough. The United States and Canada are proposing to create a North American Emission Control Area to control nitrogen oxides, sulphur oxides and particulate matter emissions from international vessels. Unfortunately, domestic vessels are not yet required to meet these same standards, but they should.

5. Work towards the elimination of all pollutants into the Great Lakes.

Virtually every other waste stream, from sewage to grey water, is regulated under a host of state, federal and international requirements. However, across the board, monitoring and inspection of regulation compliance is dependent merely upon auditing of vessels log books. Without increased monitoring and enforcement, diligence can turn to negligence very quickly. One glaring inadequacy is the continued practice of sweeping dry waste cargo from decks and into the water. Existing laws that prohibit dry cargo dumping must be enforced.

6. Minimize ice-breaking, especially in sensitive areas.

Winter ice on the St. Lawrence River protects fragile shores and resting species. Migration and feeding of birds, as well as the movement of large mammals, can be disrupted by early ice breaking. In addition, if a vessel has a spill, emergency response is slower and more difficult in ice than in open water. Understanding and addressing concerns around premature ice breaking is part of a transformation to a sustainable and safer Seaway.

7. Citizen engagement and industry transparency should become the norm in Seaway governance.

Good governance, accountability and transparency ensure that decision-makers make informed choices and that the public has the information to help shape them. The culture of the Seaway has historically been resistant to outside input. Seaway planning must reflect willingness on behalf of the agencies themselves to be challenged with fresh ideas and to change a longstanding culture that caters to a narrow group of stakeholders. Public involvement offers an opportunity to develop plans that are compatible with goals of Great Lakes restoration and ensure that the Seaway and the shipping industry operate sustainably for the next 50 years and beyond.

With this logic we’d be building backup highways just in case there’s a pothole on the first.

Right now there are two locks at Sault Ste Marie. Collectively called the “Soo locks”, they are the Poe Lock, which handles the 1000 foot lakers that move goods like coal and iron around the region, and the MacArthur Lock, which is smaller and used only by salties. Together, they handle approximately 80 million tons of cargo every year, well within their maximum capacity. Both are fully operational, and with proper care and maintenance they will serve the shipping industry well for decades to come.

Construction funding for a third commercial lock was authorized by Congress in 1986. Envisioned as a backup to the Poe Lock, it was to be built in the footprint of two outdated and non-operational locks. Proponents of this project argue that the redundancy is needed in case of lock failure or a terrorist attack.

After the original authorization, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers studied the project but the federal government never coughed up funding for the lock. Like many old authorized projects, it was left to collect dust on a backshelf, where it was easily forgotten about. That is, until the winds of economic stimulus started blowing.

In January, with the tremendous flurry around what projects could make it into the national stimulus bill, proponents drew attention to the project as being ready to start construction.

However, while the project may be ready for construction, it is by no means worthy of funding. In a letter co-signed by 17 groups across the region, Great Lakes United outlined its opposition to this wasteful spending.

At the top of the list: shipping traffic doesn’t justify the expenditure. The Corps own traffic projections for cargo moved through the Soo locks into 2050 is modest and can be handled with the existing two commercial locks. The Corps have also stated that the navigation system on the whole is “highly dependable” with a small fraction of downtime associated with lock failures. The Corps has promoted the maintenance of the current infrastructure to ensure that the system remain reliable. In our letter we agreed; repair and maintenance of the current navigation system to ensure worker safety and to maximize efficiency is a higher priority than developing and maintaining redundant pieces of equipment into a system that is already dependable.

Put simply, the groups pointed to the obvious. With such a tremendous need for restoration of the Great Lakes ecosystem for the benefit of all citizens, the building of a half billion dollar lock for one industry just in case there is a problem at the Poe, is wasteful.

We were struck, imagining what pressing modern day needs a half a billion dollars could be used for instead: equip salties with ballast treatment technologies? Run a port monitoring program to detect and eradicate invasive species as soon as they arrive? Help the Great Lakes shipping industry adapt to lower water levels associated with climate change? Ensure the navigation system is well maintained and secure? Compared to all the 2009 needs for navigation system operations, spending so much money on a project conceived over two decades ago but never funded, was mindboggling.

Fortunately, the Corps shocked the shipping industry by denying the extra lock federal stimulus money. But the project is not dead. Just this year in annual appropriations, Congress took a first step and gave the Corps $17 million to construct a set of coffer dams at the lock site, which would enable the immediate area to be dried for future lock construction. Congress could still breathe life into this project by further funding activities at this site in coming years with additional annual appropriations.

Great Lakes United will stay on top of this issue. At the very least, Congressional hearings are needed to determine if the economic justification for this project exists given that it’s not the 1980’s anymore.

SIDEBAR
How did this happen?

The Soo Lock is one of literally thousands of Corps projects that have been authorized by Congress, but have not been constructed.

In fact, the Corps has an estimated $80 billion backlog of authorized-but-not-yet-constructed projects on the books. With a $2 billion per year Corps construction budget, it is likely that many of these projects will never be constructed. However, many still persist as a threat because it is seldom that the conditions for ‘de-authorizing’ a project are met.

Currently, a project must receive no funding for a period of approximately 9 years (including study funding) in order to be automatically de-authorized.

The Corps Reform Network (of which Great Lakes United is a member) is working to change the law so old ‘legacy’ projects like the Soo Lock will be reviewed and de-authorized on a regular basis.

De-authorizing outdated or harmful Corps projects will reduce the Corps’ massive backlog, help the nation prioritize those projects that are in the broadest national interest, and help prevent special interests from breathing new life into old and outdated projects, like they did for the 1986 authorization for an extra lock at the Soo.

For more information contact:
George Sorvalis
Corps Reform Network
gsorvalis@nwf.org

You can learn more baout the Corps Reform Network at:
www.corpsreform.org

The partnership between volunteers and the USCG is unique. In the event of a spill, volunteers are trained to assess shoreline damage and identify sensitive areas so that spill response resources can be deployed quickly, while reducing environmental damage.

The first twelve hours of a spill are the most critical. Current manpower resources through the USCG are limited on the St. Lawrence River increasing the potential for significant damage. The new program increases the number of people able to respond to a spill, assess the damage, and then deploy the necessary resources in a timely manner. Volunteers also provide important local knowledge about the River, its flows and its sensitive areas. This sort of detailed knowledge is helpful to Coast Guard staff who are typically only stationed in the region for three years, before being transferred to a new location.

The launch of the program comes in the wake of the San Francisco oil spill in the fall of 2007. The spill occurred when a container ship hit the Oakland Bay Bridge, releasing 58,000 gallons of bunker fuel into the surrounding waters. Concerned local citizens arrived on the scene to offer any help they could, but were unable to be utilized to their full extent. The resources needed to train volunteers in order to safely assist with response to the spill were limited and the training extensive. Had volunteers been pre-trained, the spill extent could have been assessed more quickly and resources deployed for faster containment.

After the first year of the St. Lawrence program, Save The River has trained 20 volunteers and will be adding more volunteers to their program in 2009. Volunteers attend a two hour training session with Save The River and United States Coast Guard staff, where they learn the role of volunteers in the spill response plan and safety precautions necessary when assessing spill extent and shoreline damage. Volunteers are also taught how to assess shoreline damage and report that information back to United States Coast Guard staff in a timely manner to reduce spill response time.

This program is the only one of its kind in the Great Lakes region. The unique partnership created between Save The River and the United States Coast Guard has allowed a citizens’ group to be a part of spill response planning and enabled local citizens to better protect the place they call home.

Sarah Walsh is program manager with Save The River, a non-profit environmental organization located on the outlet of the Great Lakes, the St. Lawrence River. She can be reached at
sarah@savetheriver.org

Attend a meeting in Duluth or Cleveland or send written comments before July 22

The U.S. Coast Guard released a draft Environmental Impact Statement for the rulemaking: “Dry Residue Discharges in the Great Lakes”. In this rulemaking the Coast Guard proposes to deviate from federal and international laws and permit the dumping of cargo- such as limestone, iron ore, coal, and grain- from commercial vessels into the Great Lakes.

The public can comment through July 22 on the proposed Coast Guard policy by submitting written comments or speaking at a public meeting. Public meetings are scheduled for July 15 in Duluth, Minnesota, and July 17 in Cleveland, Ohio.

Background:

When ships on the Great Lakes dump waste material into the water, it is called “cargo sweeping” or “dry cargo discharge.” The actual quantity of waste material dumped into the lakes in a single shipping season is astounding. In 2004-2005, U.S.-flag carriers dumped more than 653,000 pounds of iron ore, 219,000 pounds of coal, 228,000 pounds of limestone and 11,300 pounds of other material into the Great Lakes.

Many of the cargo residues — especially iron ore and taconite — contain mercury and other toxic metals that can harm natural habitats in the lakebeds, as well as people who eat fish contaminated by the metals. Environmental effects of cargo sweeping are largely unknown.

Clear laws exist on both the international and domestic levels that prohibit the dumping of garbage in any of the internal waterways of the United States. The International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL) is the primary international treaty covering the discharge of pollutants into the ocean. The United States is signatory to MARPOL, which articulates that garbage is not to be dumped within 12 nautical miles off the oceanic coast and therefore does not allow dumping in the Great Lakes. To implement MARPOL Congress passed the Act to Prevent Pollution from Ships (APPS) in 1987. Under both MARPOL and APPS operational wastes (ie: cargo residues) fall under the definition of garbage.

The Coast Guard’s draft interim enforcement policy required under APPS, in place since 1997, has allowed ships to “sweep” cargo residues that litter vessel decks off the side of the ship and into the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence River Basin. Congress recently ordered the Coast Guard to examine cargo sweeping and its effects and the Coast Guard has now proposed a rulemaking on the practice.

The Coast Guard’s proposed rule is illegal, because dry cargo residues fall under the description of garbage in domestic and international law and are thus prohibited to be dumped into inland waters. The Coast Guard should be developing rules that set standards and deadlines to virtually eliminate dry cargo dumping to protect the Great Lakes- St. Lawrence River ecosystem and comply with the law!

Take Action:

Comment to the Coast Guard in writing or at one of the two public meetings.

Make your comments at the public meetings, or submit them in writing by July 22nd. The Coast Guard’s Notice of Proposed Rulemaking can be viewed, and comments can be submitted, online here.

Other means of submission include:

Fax:
202–493–2251.

Mail:
Docket Management Facility (M–30)
U.S. Department of Transportation
West Building Ground Floor, Room W12–140
1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE.
Washington, DC
20590– 0001

Refer to Docket No. USCG-2004-19621 on your submission.

Duluth, Minn. Cleveland, Ohio
July 15, 1 p.m.-5 p.m. July 17, 1 p.m.-5 p.m.
Holiday Inn The Forum Conference Center
200 W. 1st St. 1375 E. 9th St.
Duluth, Minn. Cleveland, Ohio
Phone: 218-727-7492 Phone: 216-241-6338

For more information:

The Coast Guard’s draft EIS can be found here. Scroll down to the bottom of the page to find the draft EIS and its 20 appendices.

Read Great Lakes United’s 2006 comments to the Coast Guard when they were preparing the EIS here.

Please feel free to contact:

Alliance for the Great Lakes
Lyman Welch, 312-939-0838 ext. 230
lwelch@greatlakes.org

Great Lakes United
Jennifer Nalbone
716-213-0408
jen@glu.org

Mark Mattson
Lake Ontario Waterkeeper
416-861-1237

National Wildlife Federation
Michael Murray
734-887-7110
murray@nwf.org

July 15, 2008 from 1:00 pm to 5:00 pm
Holiday Inn
200 West First Street
Duluth, MN 55802

and

July 17, 2008 from 1:00 pm to 5:00 pm
The Forum Conference Center, One Cleveland Center
1375 East Ninth Street
Cleveland, OH 44114

The proposed rule can be found at 73 Fed. Reg. 30014 (May 23, 2008). This rule and the Draft EIS can be viewed at www.uscg.mil/hq/g-m/mso/dry_cargo.htm or at www.regulations.gov – under ’search’ enter ‘USCG-2004-19621.’ Additional details on the public meetings can be found at 73 Fed. Reg. 32273 (June 6, 2008). We will consider all comments and related materials received by July 22, 2008.

You are receiving this email because you are on the Coast Guard’s interested party list for this rule. If you would like to be removed from the interested party list or would like to remain on the list and receive only paper mailings, please reply to this message and describe your preference. If you know someone else who would like to be on the interested party list for this rule, feel free to forward this message to them so they can e-mail us and subscribe to this list.

Thank you for your continued interest!

Sincerely,

LT Heather St. Pierre
Environmental Standards Division
U.S. Coast Guard Headquarters (CG-5224)
Work: 202-372-1432
E-mail: Heather.J.St.Pierre@uscg.mil
Website: www.uscg.mil/hq/g-m/mso/estandards.htm

July 15, 2008 from 1:00 pm to 5:00 pm
Holiday Inn
200 West First Street
Duluth, MN 55802

and

July 17, 2008 from 1:00 pm to 5:00 pm
The Forum Conference Center, One Cleveland Center
1375 East Ninth Street
Cleveland, OH 44114

The proposed rule can be found at 73 Fed. Reg. 30014 (May 23, 2008). This rule and the Draft EIS can be viewed at www.uscg.mil/hq/g-m/mso/dry_cargo.htm or at www.regulations.gov – under ’search’ enter ‘USCG-2004-19621.’ Additional details on the public meetings can be found at 73 Fed. Reg. 32273 (June 6, 2008). We will consider all comments and related materials received by July 22, 2008.

You are receiving this email because you are on the Coast Guard’s interested party list for this rule. If you would like to be removed from the interested party list or would like to remain on the list and receive only paper mailings, please reply to this message and describe your preference. If you know someone else who would like to be on the interested party list for this rule, feel free to forward this message to them so they can e-mail us and subscribe to this list.

Thank you for your continued interest!

Sincerely,

LT Heather St. Pierre
Environmental Standards Division
U.S. Coast Guard Headquarters (CG-5224)
Work: 202-372-1432
E-mail: Heather.J.St.Pierre@uscg.mil
Website: www.uscg.mil/hq/g-m/mso/estandards.htm

July 15, 2008 from 1:00 pm to 5:00 pm
Holiday Inn
200 West First Street
Duluth, MN 55802

and

July 17, 2008 from 1:00 pm to 5:00 pm
The Forum Conference Center, One Cleveland Center
1375 East Ninth Street
Cleveland, OH 44114

The proposed rule can be found at 73 Fed. Reg. 30014 (May 23, 2008). This rule and the Draft EIS can be viewed at www.uscg.mil/hq/g-m/mso/dry_cargo.htm or at www.regulations.gov – under ’search’ enter ‘USCG-2004-19621.’ Additional details on the public meetings can be found at 73 Fed. Reg. 32273 (June 6, 2008). We will consider all comments and related materials received by July 22, 2008.

You are receiving this email because you are on the Coast Guard’s interested party list for this rule. If you would like to be removed from the interested party list or would like to remain on the list and receive only paper mailings, please reply to this message and describe your preference. If you know someone else who would like to be on the interested party list for this rule, feel free to forward this message to them so they can e-mail us and subscribe to this list.

Thank you for your continued interest!

Sincerely,

LT Heather St. Pierre
Environmental Standards Division
U.S. Coast Guard Headquarters (CG-5224)
Work: 202-372-1432
E-mail: Heather.J.St.Pierre@uscg.mil
Website: www.uscg.mil/hq/g-m/mso/estandards.htm