Good News for Toxic Sites and a Poorly Spun Tale on Invasive Species

Foreign mussels are causing toxic algae blooms in the Great Lakes and inland lakes. ~Enlarge

Lots of (non-Asian Carp) news in the past few weeks worthy of mention and of course,  comment.

A couple of weeks ago USEPA Administrator Lisa Jackson released the final Great Lakes Restoration Initiative plan for 2010. It's along the lines of the draft circulated for comment last year, but it has been updated to reflect the immediacy of the Asian Carp issue.

The highlight of the plan for me continues to be cleanup of the toxic sites known as Areas of Concern. There are 30 such sites on the U.S. side of the Lakes and they contain PCB's and other heavy manufacturing waste left as a legacy from the industrial era of 40-50 years ago.

Focusing on these sites not only improves the health and well-being of the communities where they are located, it also facilitates economic recovery. No one will invest in these areas as long as they carry the stigma "Area of Concern."

Lets give kudos to the agency for making toxic site cleanup a priority.

Unfortunately, the plan's provision for dealing with invasive species deserves no such praise.

While most of the press coverage of the plan has been favorable, the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel and the Detroit Free Press have dug deeper and question what they see related to invasives.

The Journal Sentinel notes that the plan calls for "zero-tolerance" for invasives, but says "the tough talk is not backed up by the formal plan." It continues to focus on reactive measures versus enacting regulations to prevent invasives from entering the Great Lakes in the first place.

The Detroit Free Press editors, while praising the overall plan, described the invasive deadlines as "dubious and inconsistent" and said it's "hardly a sign on which to base optimism." 

Perhaps the strongest criticism came from Henry Henderson of the Natural Resources Defense Council when he wrote in his blog that the plan "...is fundamentally inadequate on the major issue of invasive species...."

The EPA's Jackson would have been better off leveling with the public about what can realistically be done about invasives at this time instead of spinning a tale about "zero-tolerance".  That failure could also create a negative halo-effect for the rest of the plan, as in, what else aren't they telling us.

One final note - if you're wondering where dealing with sewage overflows is in the plan, well, it isn't. That $13 billion problem, arguably the biggest one the Great Lakes face, has mostly been left for a future generation to deal with.

Another Bill

Last week came the announcement of another piece of Great Lakes legislation - the Great Lakes Ecosystem Protection Act- that would authorize funding for Great Lakes programs for the next five years. This versus having to fight for a bill every year. It rolls a couple of programs together and also provides for oversight "councils and committees" to monitor progress on Great Lakes restoration.

If the bill passes it would still have to be funded via the budget appropriation process, always a roll of the dice. But it codifies Great Lakes restoration for the next five years and provides congress with the framework for funding, a big improvement from the current year-to-year process. The bill makes sense but isn't the "game-changer" that some have called it.

Related to those oversight "councils and committees", oversight is necessary but what's being proposed appears to be heavily reliant on federal and state agencies and commissions, and honestly, it sounds like more bureaucracy.

What would help is a citizen's advisory committee to make recommendations and monitor progress. And it should be composed of people not eligible for or dependent on restoration funding.   

It's easier to be objective when you don't want money from the people you're advising and evaluating.

gw

Henry Henderson wrote an excellent critique of the final GLRI initiative on his NRDC blog. Here's the link.

http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/hhenderson/hope_for_an_effective_great_la.html

Gitte Laasby in the NW Indiana Post-Tribune writes today about her effort to find out why the Grand Calumet River was not selected to receive cleanup funds. As always, excellent research and reporting by Laasby.

http://www.post-trib.com/news/2088998,grandcalepa0308.article