Duluth News Tribune:
http://www.duluthnewstribune.com/articles/index.cfm?id=42649§ion=News
Environmental groups back effort to ban salties
John Myers
Duluth News Tribune - 05/23/2007
More environmental groups are backing a controversial effort to keep oceangoing ships out of the Great Lakes to control invasive species.
The Healing Our Waters Coalition — comprised of 90 local, state and national environmental groups that focus on Great Lakes restoration — on Wednesday called for an immediate moratorium on salties entering the Great Lakes until technology is installed to ensure the ships’ ballast water doesn’t hold invasive species.
The coalition’s call adds more strength to an earlier demand for a ban on salties made earlier this year by the group Great Lakes United that went mostly ignored.
The coalition says alternatives are easily available to using salties in the Great Lakes, including rail, trucks, barges and lake-bound freighters that don’t enter the ocean.
“Invasive species are destroying the Great Lakes and Congress is dragging its feet,’’ said Jeff Skelding, campaign director for the coalition, in a teleconference Wednesday. “It’s time to fight back … We have to shut the door now.’’
Supporters of the ban on salties say the ships make up only a small portion of Great Lakes shipping but account for many of the region’s most serious environmental problems.
Removing salties would remove the pathway that most of the Great Lakes invasive species take to enter the lakes from faraway ports, including zebra mussels and viral hemorrhagic septicemia, VHS.
The 185 invasive species now in the Great Lakes cost an estimated $5 billion annually across the lakes, in the U.S. and Canada, including $500 million annually for zebra mussels alone.
Industry officials have asked for patience, saying technology is being developed that may remove invasive species from ballast water — including chemical, physical (heat, UV light or high pressure) and filter treatments.
Salties are among the most lucrative visitors to many ports, including Duluth Superior.
Lisa Marciniak, spokeswoman for the Seaway Port Authority of Duluth, said salties made up only 137 of 1,187 ship visits last year, about 12 percent, but account for more than 30 percent of total value moved through the port, especially grain shipments.
“It’s important to us because it’s a high-value cargo,’’ Marciniak said.
…
Buffalo News:
http://www.buffalonews.com/cityregion/buffaloerie/story/83075.html
To protect the lakes, ban is sought on oceangoing ships
By John F. Bonfatti NEWS STAFF REPORTER
Updated: 05/24/07 7:04 AM
A group of Great Lakes advocacy groups Wednesday called for a moratorium on oceangoing ships on the lakes, blaming them for an influx of invasive species that have had negative impacts on the lakes.
“A small sliver of Great Lakes shipping — oceangoing vessels — has caused and will continue to cause” the impacts, Jennifer Nalbone of Great Lakes United said during a conference call.
Earlier this year, Great Lakes United called for a ban on these ships, which are believed to have brought nonnative invader species like the zebra and quagga mussels to the lakes in their ballast water.
Now, the Healing Our Waters Great Lakes Coalition, which consists of more than 90 conservation and environmental groups, has joined the effort. The coalition’s campaign director, Jeff Skelding, says the proposal is drastic but necessary.
“What is more extreme, offering a solution . . . or standing by complacently as wave after wave of new invasives come into the lakes?” he asked.
“We choose to stand up for the millions of anglers, small businesses, municipalities and residents who depend on the Great Lakes,” Skelding added.
The groups say that there are alternate modes of shipping — including lakers, rail and truck — if oceangoing vessels were not allowed in the lakes.
They pointed to a 2005 study showing that the use of these alternatives would cost shippers an additional $55 million, and another study that said invasive species cost Great Lakes businesses and municipalities $5 billion a year in damage and control costs.
“The [added] cost [of alternative transportation] is overshadowed by the cost of stopping the next billion-dollar invader,” said Nalbone, who is Great Lakes United’s director of navigation and invasive species.
Nalbone blamed the federal governments of the United States and Canada for not coming up with a proper regulatory response to the spread of invasive species, despite general consensus that such a response is what is needed.
“When environmental and conservation interests are calling for the same thing as the industry, it should be a political softball,” Nalbone said. “Despite the chaos, Congress has failed to act.”
The United States Great Lakes Shipping Association, an organization representing Great Lakes agents for shippers, agrees that a comprehensive, binational agreement is needed but disputed other points made by the moratorium advocates.
Stuart Theis, the shipping association’s executive director, said the cost of transferring cargo from oceangoing vessels would be much more than $55 million.
He said he understands why states like Michigan are pushing forward with their own standards, but said enacting legislation on a state-by-state basis is the wrong approach.
“It will cause huge confusion. It will damage commerce. It will cost jobs,” said Theis, adding that such laws may also possibly violate international treaties.
…
Greenwire Wednesday, May 23, 2007
GREAT LAKES: Coalition calls for moratorium on oceangoing vessels
Lucy Kafanov, E&ENews PM reporter
Environmentalists called for a moratorium today on oceangoing vessels in the Great Lakes in hopes of spurring Congress to pass legislation to address invasive species' threat to fisheries, beaches and water-dependent industries.
"Our call for a moratorium stems from the fact that the Great Lakes are under attack and Congress has yet to respond," said Jeff Skelding, campaign director for the Healing Our Waters-Great Lakes Coalition. "We have solutions. It is time to use them. Congressional delay is exacerbating the problem and costing citizens more money."
The coalition of 90 groups is backing legislation that takes aim at water pollution, invasive species and wetlands destruction by promoting recommendations of a 2005 cleanup plan outlined by the Great Lakes Regional Collaboration -- a task force of federal, state, local and tribal agencies; non-governmental organizations; and other regional interests.
The "Great Lakes Collaboration Implementation Act" is sponsored by Sens. Carl Levin (D-Mich.) and George Voinovich (R-Ohio) and Reps. Vern Ehlers (R-Mich.) and Rahm Emanuel (D-Ill.).
Oceangoing vessels are a target because they often carry invasive species in their ballast water. Invasives that rode such vessels into the lakes include the zebra mussel, round goby and the Eurasian ruffe.
There are several legislative proposals for battling invasive species on the table in Congress. Several House Republicans introduced legislation yesterday to create ballast-water discharge standards that are 100 times more stringent than current international standards. And House and Senate versions of the Water Resources Development Act include amendments aimed at keeping certain species out of the lakes.
Skelding said the coalition supports such efforts but favors a comprehensive bill.
A Great Lakes moratorium on shipping vessels would expand the use of barge, rail and truck traffic. Transportation consultant James Roach, said the United States and Canada would have to spend an additional $55 million jointly to utilize alternative ways of moving cargo if oceangoing vessels were banned. Such vessels make up 7 percent of the total transportation on the Great Lakes.
"We are not calling for a complete shutdown of the seaways," Skelding said in a teleconference. "We are not targeting the shipping industry. Congress has the power at its fingertips to resolve the problem."
---
Distributed without profit to those who have expressed an interest in receiving aquatic invasive species information for research and educational purposes.
