The Feature Presentation

"Do we realize that industry, which has been our good servant, might make a poor master?"

~ Aldo Leopold

We've hinted at it before, but it's time to come out and say it.

The National Wildlife Federation is kicking off our new campaign to hold multinational shipping corporations responsible for the damage done by invasive species. We're going to be placing ads throughout the lakeside counties of New York state as well as Albany.

Our message is simple: we need to tell the New York Attorney General, Eric Schneiderman, that we want him to make shipping conglomerates pay for their role in bringing invasive species into our lakes.

New York state taxpayers have sent millions of dollars toward bailouts for the shipping industry in the form of cleanup fees and other environmental regulations. We trusted these companies to do their own math, and they keep telling us they don't owe a thing. Now it's time to put them in front of a judge.

You may remember that Mr. Schneiderman stood up to national banks when he refused to take an unfair settlement in a nationwide lawsuit over the mortgage crisis. People across the country send him letters thanking him for his courage when other states decided to roll over. He took in donations from dozens of out-of-state residents who were thankful someone stood up to the bailed-out executives. That took courage, and we want him to show the same courage here.

For our supporters in New York state, we will be rolling out a group petition and a page with contact information for your state legislators and Mr. Schneiderman's office.

For all our supporters, it's time to spread the word to people who don't read our blog. Not only are they missing out, but we'll need all the voices we can get.

Check us out on Facebook. And watch a sneak preview of our first ad while you're at it.

This is going to be big - and we'll need your help to make it bigger. Friend us, email us, and tell us what you think.

We're going to make the multinational shippers pay their tab. Join us.

Let's Save Our Lakes

We’re rolling out an awareness campaign – local TV channels and radio stations have generously donated airtime. During these 30 second segments, we’re going to educate ourselves and our neighbors on how to keep our water clean.

Here are the tips we will be shining the spotlight on:

Disconnect your downspout from the sewer system.

Use grass, soil, clay bricks outside (rather than pavement, gravel), so that we can minimize sewage overflows and so that rainwater can soak into the ground.

Avoid pesticides.

Don’t flush or pour chemicals or pharmaceuticals down the drain.

Take unused drugs back to the pharmacy or to a hazardous waste disposal site.

Don’t introduce any foreign fish or species into our waterways. Don’t dump your aquarium fish anywhere, including the toilet.

Avoid antibacterial soap because it contains riclosan, which is toxic to wildlife and converts to a form of dioxin in the water.

Let’s continue to push forward and ensure clean water for our children and generations to come.

Barbara L works for the National Wildlife Federation's Great Lakes office.

The Dangers of Invasive Species

Ballast water is carried by ships from port to port in order to stabilize the ship when it is not fully loaded with cargo. Ships intake water at one port and subsequently release it when loading cargo at another port. Some ballasts release enough water to fill up an entire high school gym. Unfortunately, during this process foreign species from one ecological system can be introduced into another. These invasive species have had serious impacts on the Great Lakes. Most notably, eroding the foundation of the natural food chain and threatening long lived commercial and recreational fish species. Invasive species can also disrupt water infrastructure and impose high control costs. The invasive species Sea Lamprey alone is estimated to cost over $500 million annually in lost fishing opportunities and other indirect economic impacts.

Today, the main tool used to manage ballast water discharge is ballast water exchange, mandated by the National Invasive Species Act. Ships are required to discharge coastal ballast water mid-voyage and replace it with oceanic water in hopes of flushing out all of the coastal species. The effectiveness of this system however is highly questionable.

Since 1989, the year the National Invasive Species Act was introduced, the rate of introduction of invasive species has actually increased, primarily due to the ineffectiveness of ballast water exchange. There are several issues that should raise concern regarding this stopgap system. First, ballast tanks are full of impediments and curves, making it difficult to fully flush out all of the water. During a standard exchange, certain areas of a ballast tank may not fully clear, rendering the exchange ineffectual.
Second, invasive species can accumulate in tank sediments, which are not necessarily removed during water exchange. These sediments form a sludge which sticks to the sides of the ballast tanks and are extremely resistant to removal from simple water flow. Unfortunately, these organisms can survive in the small volume of water that would be left after a ballast tank is fully pumped out.

This problem is exacerbated by ships who are exempt from ballast water exchange when they declare “No Ballast on Board.” These ships, while containing no ballast water, often contain this dangerous sludge. When they reach the Great Lakes and subsequently intake and discharge ballast water there, invasive species from the sludge are released into the Great Lakes.

Finally, ballast water exchange is an extremely costly procedure considering its overall effectiveness. Ballast exchange is a much more complex procedure than simply emptying and filling a ship. The weight of onboard cargo and ballast water must be considered when doing the exchange. Miscalculations can result in significant structural damages to a ship. Further, the time costs to cargo companies are extensive as well, as the exchange can take up to 41 hours for larger cargo ships. If we are going to force freight companies to spend resources to clean their ballast water, we might as well make sure they are spending efficiently.
In conclusion, it is the position of the National Wildlife Federation that ballast water exchange is a costly and ineffective procedure for combating invasive species in the Great Lakes. While it surely helps more than it hurts, it is far from a perfect system, and its many drawbacks necessitate the introduction of new preventive measures into the Federal legislature. As you will no doubt hear in subsequent statements, other more viable methods, such as filtration and hydro-cyclone technology, are readily available. Alternatively, the EPA could impose certain standards and force the market to adapt with better technology.

Pay What You Owe

After every group dinner, there comes a time to divvy up the check.

In the non-profit world, this can get a little tense. We often meet with donors, lawmakers, and other groups' officers at a corner bar about a half mile from our office. It's a great setting for after-work strategy sessions, but they don't do split checks. At all. And we don't do expense accounts.

Usually we write down our share based on what we ordered on the front. It's a good system. And people in our industry are pretty honest about these things.

For some reason this gets thrown out the window when we're talking about environmental cleanup. Sure, we still get a group tab - but the people who do the damage spend half their time saying they didn't do it. The other half of the time they lobby the rest of us to cover their share. When it comes to the damage done by invasive invertebrates, Asian carp, and other foreign species now squatting in the Great Lakes, well, the shipping companies have told states that it's everyone's problem. Shame they weren't so willing to share their profits.

We've thought about this a lot lately in the office. And we've come to the conclusion that the best analogy for the multinational shipping industry is the tobacco industry. It's another group of profit-seeking corporations which caused a lot of damage while leaving everyone else to clean up the very expensive, very painful mess.

No one wants to sue over a split appetizer. But when the numbers get into the hundreds of millions of dollars, maybe it's time to send in the lawyers.

Great Lakes Restoration Initiative

The Great Lakes Restoration Initiative of 2009 that included $475 Million to the Great Lakes and almost a billion for sewer infrastructure modernization appears to be the high water mark for Great Lakes awareness and action. But, as stunning an accomplishment as it was, I am not sure that statement is a positive one.



Since the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative is such a momentous undertaking, we should expect, or even demand, momentous results. However, in the two years since its launch, there seems to be little to show. Even with some successful and needed projects, the EPA process of spending the funds has been wrought with delays, set backs, and disagreements. While a consensus cannot be expected with such contentious politics and such a large amount of money, the Great Lakes cannot afford to be lost in the shuffle.



To make matters worse, the horizon grows bleaker with each passing day. The “Super Committee,” certainly a misnomer, set to address the budgetary concerns that dominated Washington this summer continue to illustrate the growing gap in Congress. Despite Congressional delegates who care about the Great Lakes, it is easy to see a scenario in which the restoration of the lakes is compromised in hopes of getting a deal done. The large amounts of money that have been given in the past could vanish, taking the health of the Great Lakes with it.



In 2011 alone, the GLRI budget was reduced 35%. Coupled with the massive algae blooms in Lake Erie and crashing fish populations in Lake Huron, the Great Lakes are actually in need of significantly more funding. With the 2012 election approaching quickly and public outrage regarding the deficit, I fear that the GLRI budget will decrease when the lakes are only growing increasingly vulnerable.



Still, there remain ardent and vocal advocates for the lakes in Congress and in the public. It is now up to them, and us, to ensure that the GLRI is not forgotten. There is a reason why Congress felt it necessary to bestow the funding in 2009. While good faith efforts to spend those funds have been made, the fact of the matter is that new problems have emerged. Let’s not let these facts become lost on Congress. Long past the election, the Great Lakes will still have problems. Our representatives cannot forget that. Let’s help them remember.





Kevin Butler works for the National Wildlife Federation’s Great Lake’s Office.

Remembering the GLRI

The Great Lakes Restoration Initiative of 2009 that included $475 Million to the Great Lakes and almost a billion for sewer infrastructure modernization appears to be the high water mark for Great Lakes awareness and action. But, as stunning an accomplishment as it was, I am not sure that statement is a positive one.

Since the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative is such a momentous undertaking, we should expect, or even demand, momentous results. However, in the two years since its launch, there seems to be little to show. Even with some successful and needed projects, the EPA process of spending the funds has been wrought with delays, set backs, and disagreements. While a consensus cannot be expected with such contentious politics and such a large amount of money, the Great Lakes cannot afford to be lost in the shuffle.

To make matters worse, the horizon grows bleaker with each passing day. The “Super Committee,” certainly a misnomer, set to address the budgetary concerns that dominated Washington this summer continue to illustrate the growing gap in Congress. Despite Congressional delegates who care about the Great Lakes, it is easy to see a scenario in which the restoration of the lakes is compromised in hopes of getting a deal done. The large amounts of money that have been given in the past could vanish, taking the health of the Great Lakes with it.

In 2011 alone, the GLRI budget was reduced 35%. Coupled with the massive algae blooms in Lake Erie and crashing fish populations in Lake Huron, the Great Lakes are actually in need of significantly more funding. With the 2012 election approaching quickly and public outrage regarding the deficit, I fear that the GLRI budget will decrease when the lakes are only growing increasingly vulnerable.

Still, there remain ardent and vocal advocates for the lakes in Congress and in the public. It is now up to them, and us, to ensure that the GLRI is not forgotten. There is a reason why Congress felt it necessary to bestow the funding in 2009. While good faith efforts to spend those funds have been made, the fact of the matter is that new problems have emerged. Let’s not let these facts become lost on Congress. Long past the election, the Great Lakes will still have problems. Our representatives cannot forget that. Let’s help them remember.

Kevin B works for the National Wildlife Federation’s Great Lake’s Office.

Oral Legislative Testimony on proposed Ballast Water Legislation

There is a threat of national legislation overruling the groundbreaking standard adopted by New York. In particular, the regulations proposed by the Coast Guard or the Interior and Environment Appropriations bill as amended by the LaTourette amendment would prohibit states from receiving EPA funding if they have adopted ballast water requirements that are more stringent than federal requirements. Therefore, we tried to convince the Senators to adopt a national standard containing the biological performance standards adopted by the States of California and New York.

Before the Senate Committee on Environmental and Public Works:

Thank you, members of the Committee, for this opportunity to testify before you today. My name is Corina Helfenstein. I am the campaign coordinator of the National Wildlife Federation’s Great Lakes office. NWF is America’s oldest and largest conservation organization. But I am also a resident of the beautiful shores of Lake Ontario. As such, I have personally witnessed some of the disastrous consequences of the deterioration of Lake Ontario’s ecosystem. And I can tell you, the concern about invasive species that I address today is real, and it is most urgent.

I know that this particular problem has been and is currently a big concern for this Committee as well. And I applaud your commitment to the protection of the wildlife habitat of the Great Lakes, one of our nation’s most valuable natural resources.

My testimony today will focus on two issues: first, the threats by invasive species the Great Lakes are currently experiencing; and second, the importance of effective and stringent legislation against such species. The bottom line is this: the New York standards, which implement the national ballast water discharge permit, provide an effective means to fight invasive species. It would be regrettable and a huge lost opportunity to overrule them by laxer federal standards.

Aquatic invasive species are one of the biggest threats facing the Great Lakes and their tributaries today. These species have few natural predators, so they outcompete native species, reproduce massively, and damage the Great Lakes ecosystem. Once they have established themselves in the Great Lakes, it will be basically impossible to get rid of them. To give only one example, there is the Asian Carp, who’s entry into the Great Lake ecosystem is imminent, Because they eat primarily plankton and they can attain such a large size, scientists suggest that these carp have the potential to deplete zooplankton populations. Thus, they basically leave none left for many populations of native species that rely on this food source, including fish with a high value for the fishing industry. Apart from causing great ecological damage, invasive species also imply enormous economic costs. Research suggests that the annual cost to the Great Lakes region from invasive species introduced by shipping exceeds $200 million annually.

Thus, ballast water discharges from cargo ships are by far the largest source of invasive species in the Great Lakes. The groundbreaking standard adopted by New York implements the national ballast water discharge permit of the Clean Water Act. It adopts very stringent biological performance standards. This basically means that no ship can enter the Great Lakes unless it has the technology to disinfect its ballast water to stop the discharge of invasive species. Therefore, the New York standard provides exactly the stringent regulation that we urgently need to face the threat of invasive species. In contrast, the rules currently under discussion by EPA and the Coast Guard clearly fall short of this aim.

It has been claimed that with current technologies, it is impossible to meet the New York standards. But this is not true. The required technology will soon be widely available. While it is not yet in widespread use, this is simply because there was no market for it. If the New York standard is adopted nationally, this will provides sufficiently strong incentives to drive development and implementation of the technology. This is just the sort of development that Congress wanted to see when it adopted the technology-forcing Clean Water Act.

Some opponents of the New York standard claim it to be "scientifically unsupportable." However, I would call the alternative of not having stringent standards “economically and ecologically unsupportable”. We have to keep in mind that the ecological and economical costs generated by invasive species will be borne for centuries to come.

Therefore, I encourage you to dismiss any proposal for a national ballast water control less stringent than the standard introduced by New York.

Thank you.

Great Lakes restoration - or how to double the benefit of every invested dollar

Yesterday, the White House site unveiled the President's Budget for the fiscal year 2012 with the bold statement that “the President has put forward a plan to rebuild our economy and win the future by out-innovating, out-educating, and out-building our global competitors and creating the jobs and industries of tomorrow.” Great! This sounds very promising. But when I consider the budget allocated to the restoration of the Great Lakes, I cannot help but wonder if the President lacks some sound investment counseling.

For 2010, the President has accorded the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative (GLRI, the federal Great Lakes restoration program) a tremendous $ 475 millions. However, he has reduced this amount to $ 300 millions for 2012. But keeping funding levels for the GLRI high is crucial to tackle some of the most serious pollution problems facing the Great Lakes such as untreated sewage, industrial pollutants and invasive species.

Restoration projects funded by the federal government are already producing great results.

For Lake Ontario for example, contamination such as PCBs and dioxin from the mouth of the Oswego River has been successfully cleaned up so that now the area is safe for fishing and swimming again. But there is a lot more work to be done, such as upgrading sewage treatment, to protect our health and beaches. And cutting money for these projects will not save money because the problems become more expensive to solve the longer we wait to tackle them.

Restoring our lakes is also a great investment for the future. Restoration projects provide an opportunity to reinvigorate the economy of the region and boost the competitiveness of the nation as a whole. An opportunity not to be missed! A study analyzing the benefits and costs of the Great Lakes restoration strategy shows that for every dollar that goes into Great Lakes restoration, there is $2 of economic benefit. What an easy way to double one’s investment! One would think that this is a compelling reason to act accordingly. And indeed, Democrats and Republicans agree that the GLRI is a priority. What is needed now is the willingness to “walk the talk” and grant continued high levels of federal funding for Great Lakes restoration.

And the solution involves you too. Spread the word that our Great Lakes, source of drinking water for 30 million people, need help. Contact our elected federal officials and let Senators know that cutting back on Great Lakes restoration efforts is unacceptable. For more information and ways to get involved, visit: http://healthylakes.org.