Help protect your drinking water, environment and community. We need you to testify at upcoming hearings on the West Valley nuclear waste site cleanup plan (described in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement) released by the federal and state government.

The safest, most cost-effective cleanup is to dig up the waste. Economists and scientists found in a new study that leaving buried waste onsite at West Valley is very risky and expensive while a full waste excavation cleanup protects the Great Lakes, poses the least health risk and is a lower cost. The leaking site, 30 miles south of Buffalo, threatens Lakes Erie and Ontario, with tons of highly radioactive waste. The new study also found major erosion will plague the site in the near future resulting in high doses of radioactivity to future generations.

Will you help protect the Great Lakes and Western New York for future generations? Please testify in support of the safest cleanup- an immediate decision to dig up the waste so it cannot leak into our drinking water. Without public pressure, the Department of Energy will select their “preferred alternative,” which is to wait up to 30 years on a final cleanup decision, while the deadly waste continues to spread underground.  Here are more details on the hearings and fact sheets to help you with your testimony.

To help you prepare your testimony, we can send you a “Testimony Talking Points” Memo with a critique of the government’s proposal, and a summary of the exciting new study revealing the real costs–economic, environmental and health–of the West  Valley cleanup which found digging up the waste is the best plan.

Please contact us at dianed@nirs.org (301-270-6477 X16) or annerabe@msn.com (518-732-4538) and we will send you the packet.  We also have sample West Valley Cleanup Resolutions and letters to the editor which succinctly summarize the issues.  See the independent new cleanup study at www.besafenet.com

Please Speak at the West Valley Public Hearings

• March 30, 6:30-9:30 PM, Crowne Plaza Albany, State & Lodge Sts., Albany, NY
• March 31, 6:00-9:00 PM, Seneca Nation, Wm. Seneca Bldg, 12837 Rt. 438, Irving, NY
• April 1, 6:30-9:30 PM, Ashford Office Complex, 9030 Route 219, West Valley, NY
• April 2, 6:30-9:30 PM, Erie Comm. College, City Campus Auditorium, 121 Ellicott St., Buffalo, NY

The deadline for public comments is June 8, 2009. (Send to Catherine.M.Bohan@wv.doe.gov) The Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Decommissioning Plan are at www.wv.doe.gov

Here are the Proposed Cleanup Options.

• Sitewide Waste Removal - Digging up or excavating waste with off-site disposal
• Sitewide Close In-Place - Leaving buried waste on site.
• Phased Decision-making - (Preferred DOE/State Alternative).  Very limited cleanup, and delay cleanup decision on most radioactive portions of site for up to 30 years.

Thank you. Together we can protect the Great Lakes region from the largest nuclear waste site in the state.

Sincerely,

Barbara Warren, Citizens’ Environmental Coalition, warrenba@msn.com
Diane D’Arrigo, Nuclear Information and Resource Service, dianed@nirs.org
Anne Rabe, Center for Health, Env. & Justice, annerabe@msn.com

“The Water Front” offers an eye­opening account of a water privatization scheme and its effects on the poor and working class citizens of Highland Park, Michigan. This film tells about the valiant struggle of residents, to fight for their right to water.

Discussion will follow, led by Julie O’Neill, Buffalo Niagara RIVERKEEPER.

For more information contact:

Cheryl Bird
Center for Sustainable Communities & Civic Engagement
716.839.8489
cbird@daemen.edu

You can also learn more about the movie at: www.thewaterfrontmovie.com

8:00 am – 4:30 pm Friday, March 27, 2009, in Toronto, Ontario

Much has been accomplished in the few years since the Walkerton tragedy, with more initiatives underway, yet Ontario’s ground  and surface water resources remain finite as:

• our population increases;
• demand for water expands;
• the climate changes; and
• we contemplate greater designs on the boreal and the taiga.

Please join us for:

• An address by Gord Miller, the Environmental Commissioner of Ontario;
• Discussions featuring 15 leaders working on freshwater issues and,
• A networking café to strengthen bonds and capture the expertise in the room.

Share your observations and recommendations as we discuss:

• What is the health of Ontario’s freshwater?
• What are we doing right to preserve our freshwater ecosystems? and,
• What more needs to be done by individuals, organizations, industry, and government?

More details about the Symposium, including registration information, are available at www.ohwi.ca. E-mail inquiries are welcome via Andrew@ohwi.ca.

Due to rich geologic formations and a  high demand for metal, the Great Lakes region is facing a potential metallic sulfide and uranium mining boom. Mineral exploration companies are actively pursuing mineral leases near Lake Michigan and around Lake Superior throughout Minnesota, Michigan and Ontario.  Metallic sulfide and uranium mining have a poor track record of significant water pollution and human health implications, leading many citizens to believe the Great Lakes an inappropriate location for a new mining district.

Metallic sulfide mining (hardrock mining) is the mining of metals, such as nickel and copper, which are embedded in a sulfide ore body. When sulfides are unearthed and exposed to water and air, a chemical reaction generates sulfuric acid that can leach into the surrounding environment. This acid mine drainage is a problem because it can introduce toxic heavy metals, such as arsenic, lead, and mercury, into waterways. This is widely held as one of the most important and widespread sources of pollution associated with the mining industry throughout the world.

Uranium mining also has a poor global track record. Although nuclear power is being considered as an alternative energy source to help decrease greenhouse gas emissions, there are many risks associated with the mining and processing of uranium. Mining and exploration can result in the spread of radioactive dust particles through air and water. Exposure to radioactive elements from drinking water, food supplies, or radon gas can cause lung cancer, bone cancer and numerous reproductive problems.

Not only do uranium and metallic sulfide mining pose human health hazards and threaten freshwater, but many of these prospective mines threaten some of the last, and most beloved, public lands throughout the Great Lakes region.

The Places Under Threat

Minnesota’s north shore is a paradise of waterfalls, cliffs and rocky beaches.  Mining corporations are heavily exploring the Arrowhead region located between Lake Superior and the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness.  The area also hosts Voyageurs National Park. The Canadian Polymet Mining Corporation has proposed a mine called the Northmet Project and, according to the company, the proposed mine will generate acid drainage that will likely require perpetual treatment.

Numerous other mining companies are exploring throughout Minnesota. These potential mines threaten numerous wetlands, the headwaters of the Mississippi River and Lake Superior tributaries.

The granite cliffs and rocky coastline of Lake Superior’s north shore of Ontario date back to some of the earliest days of the Earth and are home to the striking Pukaswa National Park and Lake Superior Provincial Park.  Mining corporations are exploring extensively throughout the area from Thunder Bay, South of Lake Nipigon to Sault St. Marie.  Although mining is part of the heritage of this region, most mineral deposits explored today are of a very low grade. This exploration of deeper and lower grade ores in metallic sulfide bodies causes not only a greater disturbance to ecosystems, but also a greater dependence on technology to control or contain the chemicals produced or used. If improper technology is used, or the technological systems fail, damaging consequences such as soil erosion, air pollution and contamination of surface and groundwater can occur. Concern for the health of the Great Lakes is exacerbated when considering the cumulative impacts of potential mining along the north and south shores of Lake Superior.

Lake Superior’s south shore runs through the states of Wisconsin and Michigan.  Due to the introduction of relatively strict mining legislation, there are currently no companies active in Wisconsin. However, pollution, like water, does not obey political boundaries and mines proposed in neighboring Michigan could be harmful to waterways shared across borders.

Although Michigan’s Upper Peninsula has a history of iron mining with some resulting acid mine drainage, metallic sulfide and uranium mining are fairly new prospects in the region. One project of concern is Aquila Resource’s (Canada) proposed gold and zinc metallic sulfide mine that threatens sacred Native American burial grounds and the Shakey Lakes Savanna. Pine and oak barrens and five distinctly different savanna ecosystems define these beautiful public recreational lands. The ore body also lies between both states of Wisconsin and Michigan and along the Menominee River that drains into Lake Michigan.

Another threat to the Great Lakes in Michigan is Anglo-Australian mining giant Kennecott/Rio Tinto’s proposed Eagle Mine project, found in the Huron Mountains on the Yellow Dog Plains.  Kennecott/Rio Tinto is a global mining giant with a reputation as a bad neighbor. It is the first to apply for a permit to operate a metallic sulfide mine under Michigan’s weak new mining law.

The Yellow Dog Plains, part of the Escanaba River State Forest, are surrounded by many state, federal, and private preservation areas, including the McCormick Wilderness. Kennecott proposes to fence off 120 acres of public land for roughly 40 years in order to complete the project.  The company also proposes to blast under the Salmon Trout River, a blue ribbon trout stream and tributary of Lake Superior which is only 10 miles away. The company also proposes to use the Eagle Rock outcrop, sacred to the Keweenaw Bay Indian Community (KBIC), as the portal to the proposed mine. Adding to the potential cumulative impact to Lake Superior, many other mining companies are exploring the region as well.
teresa@savethewildup.org

Three years ago, nearly 200 scientists said we had less than a decade to turn around the spiraling decline of the Great Lakes ecosystem, or it might collapse entirely. In 2009, the lakes are still beleaguered by the unfinished clean-ups of the last century, and the new, complex stresses of more than 100 invasive species, the return of dead zones, algae, a new generation of chemical pollution, and a warming climate with more extreme weather.
Among scientists and citizens, the Great Lakes are on the “can’t wait” list.

Unfortunately, during Obama and Harper’s meeting in Ottawa, the Great Lakes were not placed on the leaders’ list. While there was a lot to cover in this brief visit, one would think that the engine that drives the third largest economy in the world—the trans-boundary Great Lakes region—would have been on the short list.

In 2008 the Brookings Institute pointed out that the lubricant for this massive economic engine is the Great Lakes. Unfortunately, decades of environmental degradation have lessened this competitive advantage and have brought Great Lakes health to a tipping point. The Brookings Institute concluded that improved environmental protection is essential for the economic well-being of the Great Lakes region. They asserted that this requires a binational effort that commits to shared goals. The Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement is a prime tool for achieving this binational effort.

Since 1972, the Agreement has played an important role in shaping the efforts of the United States and Canada in their effort to protect and restore the freshwater treasure we hold in common. It sets out the two countries’ shared goals and plans for protecting and restoring the lakes and has led to major initiatives to clean up and protect them. Yet, for much of the last decade the Agreement has only collected dust.

Leaders in the Great Lakes–St. Lawrence River region, have repeatedly asserted that now is the time to update and revitalize the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement. These voices are coming from all sectors, including environmental and wildlife conservation groups, scientists, industry, the broader public, in addition to federal, provincial, state, aboriginal, tribal, and municipal governments.

This is why more than fifty groups sent a joint letter to Prime Minister Harper and President Obama calling on them to formally state that, beginning this year, they will  revitalize and revise the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement within the context of 21st century challenges. The letter also urged them to involve the public in the decision-making process around revising and implementing the Agreement.

Unfortunately, the leaders did not make this commitment at their meeting. Yet, the activities that produced the letter did raise the profile of the need for a renewed Agreement among people in government across many jurisdictions. It also led to considerable media coverage, getting the words “Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement” into the press for the first time in many years. And perhaps most importantly, it provided a catalyst for environmental and conservation groups from across the region to collaborate on strategies and to make plans to move forward on revitalizing this important framework for Great Lakes protection.

We will continue to urge President Obama and Prime Minister Harper to forge a new, bold partnership in binational problem solving for the Great Lakes through a renewed Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement. Doing so will help revitalize our struggling economies, improve public health, and help buffer the inexorable ecological disruptions from our changing climate.
jjackson@glu.org
jane@janeelderstrategies.com

From 2005-2007 nearly 50 organizations and over 75 scientists, including citizen scientists, came together to compile long-term monitoring data on 50 indicators. They interpreted the data, translated the science for citizens and policy-makers, and helped prepare a comprehensive and integrative assessment of ecosystem health.

This assessment documented substantial environmental improvements, including reductions in oil spills and releases, phosphorus, chloride, and untreated waste from combined sewer overflow discharges, declines in contaminants in fish and wildlife, and substantial progress in remediating contaminated sediment.

These environmental improvements, in turn, have resulted in significant ecological recovery in this region, including an increase in the populations of bald eagles, peregrine falcons, lake sturgeon, lake whitefish, walleye, and burrowing mayflies in large areas from which they had been extirpated or negatively impacted.

Indeed, over 35 years of pollution prevention and control undertaken in response to the Canada-U.S. Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement, U.S. Clean Water Act, Canada Water Act, U.S. Endangered Species Act, and more have resulted in a return of charismatic megafauna.

This ecological recovery is remarkable, but many environmental and natural resource challenges remain. Six key environmental and natural resource challenges include: population growth, transportation expansion, and land use changes; non-point source pollution; toxic substances contamination; habitat loss and degradation; introduction of exotic species; and, greenhouse gases and global warming.

Lessons learned from this indicator exercise include that monitoring is essential, including citizen science. In addition, without monitoring management is flying blind. If management does not measure or progress toward a quantitative target, however, it cannot manage. Public indicator reporting creates an informed constituency that catalyzes further pollution prevention, and remediation/rehabilitation and scientific indicator reporting should be performed every 3-5 years to sustain momentum. All the while, celebrating successes creates a positive environment that sets the tone for even greater achievements.

John_Hartig@fws.gov

At the end of the pipes though, releases of urban runoff significantly degrade water quality in lakes and rivers. Fortunately, engineers today have started to make peace with stormwater. Together with town planners, landscape architects, biologists, and other experts, engineers are finding natural processes to keep streets and sidewalks clear while improving water quality.

Green infrastructure takes advantage of natural processes such as filtration and infiltration to manage rain on the ground, closer to where it falls. These systems mimic the natural processes of wetlands, marshes and forests, which have kept our water clean and our air fresh for millions of years.

Attractive, cost-effective, and easy to maintain green infrastructure solutions are gaining ground in cities across North America.

Seattle built its first natural drainage system pilot project in 2001 and has redesigned residential developments so that plants, trees, and soil “clean up” runoff. The new vegetated swales, stormwater cascades, and small wetland ponds allow soil to absorb water, slow flows, and filter out many contaminants. The permeable surfaces for residential streets were increased by 11 percent, surface detention in swales was provided, and over 100 trees and 1100 shrubs were planted. These efforts reduced the volume of stormwater leaving the street  by 99 percent.

Delsom Estates, a residential area in Delta, British Columbia, took green infrastructure from idea to reality through a collaborative community process. Approximately one-third of the urban landscape is covered by road rights-of-way, creating opportunities to capture rain where it falls and to restore it to natural hydrologic pathways. Unlike traditional end-of-pipe approaches, permeable pavements allow the water to be filtered through the ground before reaching the water body.

Smaller cities can take advantage of green infrastructure as well. Maplewood, a municipality of about 30,000 in Minnesota, installed 350 rain gardens in public and private lots to help manage their stormwater. With improved water quality in their lakes and an impressive array of rain gardens, the citizens have demonstrated how green infrastructure can make a significant difference to community living and water quality.

Quebec City has also integrated green infrastructure into their design, preventing 6 million cubic metres of wastewater from entering the St.. Charles River. The city replaced 8km of concrete shoreline with 65,000 square metres of native plants, recreating diverse wildlife habitats along the river. Along with retention ponds, such landscape controls efficiently manage wastewater overflows.

Since 2003, the City of Toronto has been integrating green infrastructure into its Wet Weather Flow Master Plan (WWFMP), a 25-year plan to protect the water quality of rivers, streams and other water bodies. A key component of this master plan is raising public awareness about the issue and encouraging participation by Toronto’s residents. Their downspout disconnection program shows that residents, with simple actions, can play an important role to reduce combined sewers overflows.

The integration of such practices requires collaboration among professionals, diverse approaches, incentives, and regulatory changes in order to encourage faster implementation. While local acceptance may be hindered by potential liability issues, lack of performance data, and unfamiliarity with green infrastructure techniques, improvements in design specifications are part of many revised stormwater management and planning guides. Why not consider them in your community as a way to save money, revitalize the economy, prevent pollution and build better living places?

nathalie@solutionsecosmarts.com

The government has refused to add Port Stanley to the list. All the while, these contaminants wash along the Lake Erie shoreline to a municipal water intake that provides drinking water for 100,000 people, including parts of London.

At least three of the fourteen use impairments used to designate a site an Area of Concern under the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement are present in Port Stanley, according to Environment Canada studies. A more detailed investigation of conditions in the harbour could well show other use impairments.

But it is highly unlikely that Port Stanley will be recognized as an Area of Concern. Since the Canadian and U.S. governments named 42 Areas of Concern around the Great Lakes in 1987, only one other area has been added: Presque Isle Bay at Erie, Pennsylvania, in 1991. In the last 18 years no new Areas of Concern have been designated.

In 1998, the International Joint Commission, which oversees the AOC program, said that Lake St. Clair and the St. Joseph River should be considered by the governments for designation as Areas of Concern. The two federal governments decided not to designate them saying that the problems in them could be addressed through other programs.

In 2004, citizens in Elmira, Ontario, urged the government to designate their area as an Area of Concern. They argued that dioxins and other toxics from chemical plants in this town of 12,000 people flow down the Grand River, causing contamination all the way out to Lake Erie. The governments, again, denied the request.

Why do people want to have their area designated as an Area of Concern? The prime reason is that it increases the attention of federal, provincial and state governments in cleaning up the area. It means that a more thorough assessment of the problems in the area will be carried out, and that a clean-up plan will be developed. It also means that the public must be involved in the processes around the clean-up, usually in the form of a public advisory committee. Finally, being designated as an Area of Concern raises the priority given to the area when decisions are being made about which clean-up projects to fund.

The reasons why communities sometimes want to be designated as Areas of Concern are the very reasons why the federal, provincial and state governments are not interested in designating new ones. They do not want to have more locations where they are committed to carrying out the thorough assessments, planning and clean-up that the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement entails. In response to the request from Elmira for designation, Canada’s Minister of the Environment said, “Environment Canada has not considered any further Area of Concern designations and has placed a priority on the environmental recovery and delisting of the existing designated areas.”

An important part of a revitalized Agreement is a meaningful role for the public.

The residents of Port Stanley, Elmira and those concerned about the St.. Clair and St. Joseph rivers have been ignored because officials are under no obligation to listen.

The International Joint Commission and the federal governments should put in place a formal means of petitioning the government to designate a new area of concern. In addition, it could require the governments to periodically conduct a survey to determine whether additional sites should be designated as Areas of Concern.

Despite the many criticisms that are made of the Area of Concern and remedial action planning processes, this program has contributed immensely towards the cleanup of the Great Lakes. Refusing to designate other areas that are toxic hotspots will only slow that cleanup. Indeed it will allow increased contamination of the Great Lakes.

jjackson@glu.org

To commemorate the signing —and the hundred years of water cooperation it ushered—the Consulate General of Canada, the United States Consulate General, and the International Joint Commission are hosting Boundary Waters Week from June 5 to 14 in Niagara Falls, New York and Ontario.

During the week in June, communities along the Niagara River and the Boundary Waters Treaty Centennial Committee will host a series of water-themed conferences, festivals, exhibits and events featuring distinguished environmental speakers and dignitaries. Highlights include a special ceremony on the Rainbow Bridge at Niagara Falls on Saturday, June 13.

To help mark the event, Great Lakes United is hosting several activities during the Boundary Waters Week, including a workshop for activists working on cleaning up toxic hotspots, a tour of environmental hotspots along the Niagara River, and a meeting of the coalition to discuss campaigns for 2009.

In a release, Congresswoman Louise M. Slaughter, Honorary Chair of the Boundary Waters Treaty Centennial Committee said, “This summer we will celebrate the 100th anniversary of the world’s first environmental agreement, the Boundary Waters Treaty. To this day, this historic accord remains a model of binational governance and a guide for two countries working to protect their shared natural resources for future generations.”

Her comments were supported by Niagara Falls, Ontario, Mayor Ted Salci, who is also an honourary chair of the committee: “Municipalities along the Niagara are pleased to honour this treaty by seeking new ways to protect, preserve and celebrate ‘our shared waters.’ ”

From environmental concerns with siting to the lack of consistent permitting regulations, there are major challenges involved in developing wind energy resources in the Great Lakes region. Onshore wind development is beginning to expand at a rapid pace and plans for offshore wind turbines in the lakes are proceeding amidst a flurry of issues, and setting new precedents for in-lake turbines.

Formed in May, 2008, The Great Lakes Wind Collaborative (GLWC) is a group established to build consensus and identify and address issues affecting the safe planning, development, and operation of wind power facilities in the Great Lakes region. The group acts as a forum for dialogue and an opportunity to exchange information the sustainable development of wind power in the region.

GLWC members include representatives from a broad spectrum of interests throughout the Great Lakes region, from state, provincial and federal regulators to industry and NGOs. Great Lakes United is serving the coalition as a member of the Steering Committee. Anyone can join the GLWC and receive updates on the group’s work and meetings by signing at www.glc.org/energy/wind/

Watch for information on the GLWC’s 2nd Annual Meeting slated to take place the second week of June in Milwaukee, WI. For more information please visit the GLC website, or contact: John Hummer or Victoria Pebbles, Great Lakes Commission, jhummer@glc.org, vpebbles@glc.org, 734-971-9135.