Browsing by Author "Lake Superior Binational Program"

Now showing 1 - 3 of 3
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Lake Superior Aquatic Invasive Species Complete Prevention Plan
    (2014) Lake Superior Binational Program
    This report summarizes a team effort to identify methods and actions to prevent new exotic species from entering Lake Superior. The plan seems to acknowledge that introduction of AIS is a result of generally unintentional human behavior, and is therefore preventable. Key contents of the report are extracted and reproduced below. Abstract: “Situated at the head of the Great Lakes St. Lawrence Seaway system, a 2,342 mile long (3,700 km) water navigation system connected to global trade, Lake Superior is at risk for continued invasion by aquatic invasive species (AIS), including plants, animals, and microscopic organisms. As of April 2010, 89 non-native aquatic species have been found in Lake Superior. These include Eurasian watermilfoil, sea lamprey, and most recently, the fish disease Viral Hemorrhagic Septicemia (VHS). AIS have caused devastating economic and ecosystem effects that impart significant losses to the region in the form of damage and control costs, degraded water quality, job losses, declining property values, compromised native species, decreased biodiversity, and other negative impacts. “This Lake Superior Aquatic Invasive Species Complete Prevention Plan outlines recommended actions that need to be newly implemented, in addition to existing efforts, to prevent new aquatic invasive species from entering and becoming established in the Lake Superior ecosystem. Through the process of developing this plan, Canadian and U.S. government agencies involved in the Lake Superior Lakewide Action and Management Plan (LAMP) have consulted broadly and have developed recommendations for consideration by each jurisdiction. However, citizens, organizations and government agencies in both Canada and the United States need to work together to implement the recommended actions and ensure that protecting Lake Superior from new invasive species is a top priority for all. The Lake Superior LAMP will utilize an adaptive management approach to monitoring implementation progress and overall effectiveness of this prevention plan. “Key recommended actions for the United States and Canada include: ● Implement compatible, federal regulatory regimes for ballast water discharge that are protective of the Great Lakes for both the U.S. and Canada. ● Support the development, testing and implementation of effective ballast treatment systems that meet the operational characteristics of Great Lakes ships. ● Establish federal screening processes for organisms in trade to classify species into three lists: prohibited, permitted, and conditionally prohibited/permitted. ● Establish an immediate moratorium on the trade of prohibited species. ● Consider the concept of a “Certified Pathogen-Free through Raising from Seed” category for plants sold through garden centers and nurseries. ● Expand or implement education programs to increase consumer awareness of the risk of AIS. ● Require permits for shoreline restoration projects, which identify AIS introduction issues and include best management practices and restrictions that minimize the potential for introducing invasive species. ● Implement education programs to raise awareness of the issue and promote compliance with prevention actions among contractors and residents. ● Ensure that existing laws prohibiting the sale of invasive species are enforced for on-line and mail order purchases of aquatic plants. ● To prevent the illegal transport of bait across the U.S./Canadian border and on shared waters, ensure effective education and prevention efforts at border crossings and at retail bait shops, and conduct monitoring to gauge the effectiveness of such efforts. ● Make AIS prevention education, regulation, and enforcement a priority in all Lake Superior jurisdictions, and implement prevention approaches that target specific audiences (e.g., boaters, anglers, professional fishing guides, plant nurseries). ● Build capacity for education and enforcement efforts within local communities by providing outreach products that can be tailored for local use, and coordinate consistent messaging across jurisdictions. ● Explore options for a broad range of prevention measures at public boat launches. ● Review and adjust policies for the operation of the locks at Sault Ste. Marie to include best management practices that effectively prevent fish from passing through the locks, including closing the upper and lower gates when not in use and the use of in-stream barriers or deterrent technologies, if necessary. ● Investigate options to achieve ecological separation of the Great Lakes and Mississippi River watersheds to protect the Great Lakes from the invasion of Asian carp. ● Until ecological separation is achieved, maintain the electric barriers in the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal at optimum conditions and ensure their continued operation. ● Establish structural measures to prevent the inadvertent introduction of Asian carp from floodwaters of the Des Plaines River into the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal. ● Adapt invasive species management to the challenge of a changing climate – monitor ecosystem changes, coordinate information resources, and engage in further research.”
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Public Comment Form about Mining in the Lake Superior Basin
    (2013-12) Lake Superior Binational Program
    This is a 291-page raw data summary of comments downloaded from Survey Monkey, and published on the LSBF website. The pdf is undated. The LSBF website contains a short article about the survey, noting that the survey was open for public commentary from March 15 to July 31 2013, and that nearly 1,600 individuals provided comments. There were 45 questions posed to respondents. Some key findings relevant to mining and water resources are extracted and reproduced below. “When asked if there should be specific criteria to prohibit mining activities in environmentally or culturally sensitive areas, 64.9 % said yes, 18.8% said mining should not be restricted in any areas. “When asked ‘Which of the following statements best describes your opinion about mining operations in the Lake Superior basin?’ the most picked response was ‘I do not support any new mines in the Lake Superior basin,’ (38.8% response rate) followed by ‘I support mining operations that can be done using proven responsible management practices that minimize environmental damages’ (25.8% response rate). “When asked is there should there be a moratorium on new mining activity in the Lake Superior basin until it can be proven that new mines won’t pollute surface and groundwater, 63.4% said yes, and 31.8% said no.” Among other results, 68% felt that mining should be restricted in areas where culturally significant food is harvested or grown. 76% felt that mining should be restricted where wetlands have international significance or in locations with endangered plants or animals. 70% felt that mining should be restricted in areas with historic importance. 96% disagreed that taxpayers should pay for clean-up and restoration of damages; while 95% felt that mining companies should pay for these costs. 91% felt that open public meetings should be held to inform the public about mining company compliance. 89% want disclosure of chemicals used in the mining process.”
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Responsible Mining in the Lake Superior Basin
    (2013) Lake Superior Binational Program
    The Lake Superior Binational Forum drafted a statement on responsible mining, with recommendations for future mining projects, which are summarized in this document. The statement aims at a “zero discharge” principle. The Forum held three public meetings to gather input for the statement. Key excerpts are reproduced below: “Responsible Mining Should: A. Meet or exceed the provisions of the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement of 2012 between Canada and the United States in: 1. Adopting the goal of zero discharge and zero emission of persistent bioaccumulative toxic substances in the basin, thereby preventing further degradation of the ecosystem. 2. Anticipating and preventing pollution and other threats to water quality in the Great Lakes to reduce overall risks to the environment and human health. 3. Incorporating the precautionary approach, as set forth in the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, that “Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation.” 4. Incorporating the “polluter pays” principle, as set forth in the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, “that the polluter should bear the cost of pollution.” 5. Applying innovation – considering and applying advanced and environmentally-friendly ideas, methods and efforts to prevent environmental problems. 6. Considering social, economic and environmental factors, including assessment of full life cycle costs and benefits, and incorporating a multi-generational standard of care. B. Be clear and transparent with regulatory agencies, affected communities, and the public, while fostering cooperation with relevant agencies and the greater public. C. Carry out rigorous environmental assessment of all aspects and phases of the mining and milling process, including potential future expansion of mining activities. Public opinion and advice should be incorporated where possible, and the assessment process should explain why other public proposals were not incorporated into the final decision. D. Recognize that short-term mining operations can have long-term legacies, so approved plans should secure funding for staffing, monitoring, prevention, and repair of mining sites after closure. E. Contribute to the local, regional, and national economy through a fair wage, salary, and benefit structure, and in paying all taxes assessed by government agencies in each jurisdiction in which it operates F. Respect private and other land rights and where applicable compensate land owners for losses of value, and land users for losses of opportunity.” The document also contains nine recommendations for future mining operations, briefly summarized as follows: 1. Develop a common set of criteria for use by governments, NGOs and industry to guide the permitting process. Currently public agencies use different criteria in each state. 2. Avoid mining in places with high environmental or social/cultural value. 3. Improve public participation by stakeholders in the environmental assessment process through the collection of adequate baseline data; consideration of potential worst-case scenarios; and independent third-party review processes. 4. Water quality objectives that are consistent with the LAMP should be developed. 5. Overburden and tailings should be discharged into water bodies or wetlands; acid-generating materials should be segregated; and hazardous materials plans should be made public. 6. Companies should make atmospheric emission reports. Environmental assessments should consider greenhouse gas emissions from mining operations. 7. Companies should set aside financial resources for the exploration phase to cover clean-ups, reclamation and long-term monitoring. The public should have the right to comment on the adequacy of these resources and reclamation activities. 8. The public should have the right to access monitoring and periodic technical reports during the life of the mining operation; and to do independent third-party review of the process. 9. Companies should have a reclamation plan with resources set aside for each operation. Mined areas should be re-contoured and stabilized. 10. Citizen participation and oversight are important elements listed under “social impacts and decision making,” including the engagement of Tribal Nations, First Nations and Metis. 11. Research is needed on the cumulative and indirect effects of mining; climate change and mining impacts; and human health research, including impacts on people, fish and wild rice.