< About this document > Title: The ADVISOR... November/December 1995 Description: Great Lakes Commission bimonthly newsletter Agency: Great Lakes Commission Date: November/December 1995 Keyword: Great Lakes policy Contact: Christine Manninen (manninen@glc.org) Great Lakes Commission 400 Fourth St., Argus II Bldg. Ann Arbor, MI 48103-4816 Phone: 313-665-9135 Fax: 313-665-4370 E-mail: glc@glc.org < Editorial: A call to common sense > By Michigan Governor John Engler Chair, Council of Great Lakes Governors; Chair, National Republican Governors' Association America is now at an historic crossroad, where Washington's grip on the power that belongs to the people is weakening. As chair of the Council of Great Lakes Governors, I want our states to lead the way in reclaiming our constitutional authority and establishing a new federalism. Simply stated, we cannot afford to allow the federal government to continue making decisions for us that we are better off making ourselves. The obstacle of misguided federal regulation must be removed, and I'm asking all citizens and elected officials of the Great Lakes states to assist in this effort. This is not a call to arms, it's a call to common sense. That is the kind of revolution Washington needs to end the wasteful, needless laws and regulations that have tormented taxpayers for so long. We have to restore reason to the way things work in our nation's government. As an example, in 1986 the Environmental Protection Agency ordered Michigan to begin Auto Emissions Testing (AET) as a means of reducing air pollution. That meant annual inspections on vehicles in our state's three most populous counties Wayne, Oakland and Macomb. It also meant an unnecessary hassle and expense for residents. Between 1986 and 1995, the program's cost to motorists has been more than $100 million. Air quality improved over that period, but it wasn't because of AET. It was because the state reduced factory pollution, improved emission equipment on vehicles and required cleaner fuel. Come to find out, pollutants from tailpipes make up only two-tenths of one percent of the total pollution in the tri-county area. That's close to none. Michigan plans to eliminate AET at the end of this year, but that's possible only because the state is in clean air attainment with the EPA. Even though the EPA has admitted that AET is largely ineffective, it would still be mandating the program if our air did not meet government standards. Policies like this typify Washington logic keep beating that dead horse. And bureaucrats will continue to do so until we pull back on their reins and regain control. Americans have two options they can let their federal government continue to run rampant, or they can reclaim their constitutional power and bring responsibility back to the state and local levels. The choice is not difficult. In Michigan over the last few years, we have been able to retrieve some authority to reform our welfare system, through waivers from Washington. The results? Our welfare caseload has dropped from 240,000 in 1992 to less than 177,000 this October. The number of welfare cases with earned income today is at nearly 31 percent, compared to a national average of 8 percent. And our reforms have already saved Michigan taxpayers more than $100 million. Meanwhile, thanks in part to the money we are saving and the additional number of people who are working, Michigan's economy is stronger than ever. That is what can happen through a transfer of power to the states and cities, where efficiency and sensibility can return to government programs. That is what must happen to make this country what our founding fathers intended it to be. The proud and patriotic people of the Great Lakes should take the lead to see that it does. < Editorial: Environmental partnerships, A blueprint for future > By Wisconsin Governor Tommy Thompson Chair, National Governors' Association In Wisconsin, we have a long tradition of having the courage to try something new and different in order to make things better. As Wisconsin's longest-serving governor, I have been proud to expand on this tradition, bringing together all the people of our state our workers and our employers in order to find innovative solutions to the new challenges we face at the threshold of the 21st century. The National Governors' Association, of which I am currently chair, recently issued a report titled "Building a Stronger America: A Blueprint for States and the Next Century," which addresses federal/state partnerships and the fundamental shift in power away from Washington, D.C., back to state and local government. The results of these partnerships have been especially successful in the area of environmental policy. The premise behind environmental partnerships is that promoting a healthy business climate and protecting the environment are not mutually exclusive. In Wisconsin and throughout the nation, governors are working together with business to create a climate that encourages economic development while preserving our environment and natural resources. In the Great Lakes region, where much of industry has the potential to impact our shared resource, it is particularly important to establish these partnerships in order to address point and nonpoint source pollution. For example, Wisconsin recently initiated the Great Printers Project, a partnership that brings together the state's printing industry, Citizens for a Better Environment, the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources and the University of Wisconsin's Solid and Hazardous Waste Education Center. Under this initiative, all printers can become "great printers" by committing to reducing emissions through changes in design and wise choices in the selection and processing of raw materials. They use inks with low volatile organic compound content, avoid inks with chlorinated compounds and colors with high metal content, and maximize use of recycled paper. Participating printers also are eligible to receive financial assistance for meeting or exceeding Environmental Protection Agency standards for waste disposal and air emissions, and technical assistance to produce quality products with minimal environmental impact. The project is not limited to Wisconsin but is getting started in three other Great Lakes states as well. Once a business is enrolled and trained, pollution prevention will be a standard business practice. The environment is spared as business becomes more efficient and competitive; costs are lowered by reducing waste and energy use; and markets are expanded by attracting more environmentally sophisticated customers. Additionally, the project is transferable to other industries both large and small. For instance, a similar Pulp and Paper Pollution Prevention Project is underway in Wisconsin, and a new partnership with the dry cleaning industry was recently finalized. In the past, government has often over-regulated businesses, particularly small businesses that are the backbone of America's economy. The price of over-regulation is typically an increase in costs and a decrease in productivity and competitiveness. Yet we must always be mindful that some businesses have abused our environment, leading to long-term damage to our natural resources. Today, states are becoming smarter at balancing the health and safety of citizens and natural resources while eliminating or simplifying burdensome regulations. As Congress moves toward granting more regulatory flexibility to the states, environmental partnerships will clearly become a blueprint for the future. In Wisconsin, we take great pride in our association with the Great Lakes Commission. In addition to sharing a common concern for a precious natural resource, we share an attitude rooted in optimism about our future. We know that by working together, we will continue to enjoy the economic benefits of the Great Lakes while, at the same time, preserving their scenic beauty for our children and generations to come. < Great Lakes Day, semiannual meeting dates set > Mark your calendars and plan to attend the following Commission-coordinated events scheduled for the first half of 1996. Great Lakes Day in Washington, March 13. This annual event will feature a Commission-sponsored Congressional Breakfast on Capitol Hill, a briefing on Commission priorities for congressional staff and a consultative session with the U.S. Department of Transportation on maritime matters. Great Lakes Information Network Conference: Mapping a Partnership for the future, April 9-10. To be held at the Lansing Center in Lansing, Mich., the event will provide a forum for Geographic Information System (GIS) and GLIN interests to share ideas on proposed partnership initiatives (see related story on page 4 and enclosed registration form). Great Lakes Agriculture Summit, April 22-23. This meeting of agriculture and environmental interests in the Great Lakes binational region will be held at Michigan State University in East Lansing. The culmination of a two-year Agricultural Profile project led by the Great Lakes Commission with support from the Great Lakes Protection Fund, the summit will focus on the economic and environmental implications of farming in the Great Lakes Basin, and yield research and policy priorities. Semiannual Meeting of the Great Lakes Commission, May 15-16. Hosted by the Indiana Delegation led by Commission Chair Pat Ralston, the meeting will be held at the University Place Conference Center in Indianapolis. It will feature special sessions offering informal dialogue on selected issues, as well as policy discussions and decisions in plenary session. The informal sessions will focus on three program areas of the Commission's Strategic Plan: Resource Management and Environmental Quality; Transportation and Economic Development; and Communications and Information Management. Comments and special session topic suggestions are welcome. Contact: Mike Donahue, mdonahue@glc.org. < Commission continues support for ANS Act > In late November, thanks to growing regional concern and strong leadership from key Great Lakes Congressional Delegation members, a prospective repeal of the Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control Act of 1990 was avoided. A provision was removed from the House budget reconciliation bill that would have abolished the ANS Act, leaving only selected U.S. Coast Guard and Army Corps of Engineers activities intact. In a Nov. 1 letter, the Commission urged members of the Great Lakes Congressional Delegation to oppose efforts to dismantle the act. "If the act is repealed, a well-developed and effective prevention and control program will unravel," Commission Chair Pat Ralston noted. In the last five years, NANPCA (Public Law 101-646) has been a first-line defense against aquatic nuisance species. The act established a national Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force and a Great Lakes Panel on Aquatic Nuisance Species, both of which have improved intergovernmental coordination, leveraged nonfederal funds, promoted development and implementation of prevention and control technologies, and informed hundreds of thousands of water resource users of strategies to combat the infestation problem. Great Lakes Commission advocacy efforts will now turn to NANPCA reauthorization, which will come before Congress sometime next year. For more information, contact Commission Executive Director Mike Donahue, mdonahue@glc.org; or Allegra Cangelosi, Northeast-Midwest Institute, 202-544-5200, acangelo@great-lakes.net. < Basin Program's zone-tillage project shows results > A tour of Ohio farms participating in a zone-tillage demonstration project was a highlight of the fall meeting of the National Association of Conservation Districts' Great Lakes Committee, held Oct. 12 in Tiffin, Ohio. Commission Executive Director Mike Donahue is an adviser to this group, which includes conservation district representatives from every Great Lakes state. Zone-tillage is an alternative method of conservation tillage that involves tilling 6- to 8-inch strips in cropland anytime following harvest until winter. This allows the soil to warm up and dry more quickly, creating a better environment for the seed. Corn planted in these strips will generally emerge as if the field was conventionally tilled, while maintaining 30 percent or greater residue cover between the rows. "Comparisons have found that zone-till corn developed better root systems early in the season than no-till corn," reported John Crumrine, zone-tillage project officer from the Seneca County Soil and Water Conservation District in Ohio. Crumrine presented results of the three-year study, funded in 1993 by U.S. EPA Region 5 under the Commission's Great Lakes Basin Program for Soil Erosion and Sediment Control, to address the problem of inconsistent no-till corn yields on silt-loam soils in need of erosion control measures. According to Seneca County farmers, slow growth of young corn plants has been a problem with regular conservation tillage (no-till), but with zone-tillage, farmers are seeing good early growth and consistently better yields, especially following a previous crop of wheat. In a Wood County, Ohio, project (also funded under the Great Lakes Basin Program), 1994 crop yields showed that the zone-tilled corn plots produced an average of eight bushels more than the no-tilled plots and 18 bushels more than conventionally tilled plots. Other regional initiatives to conserve soil and protect water quality in the Great Lakes Basin also were recognized at the meeting, including a new multiyear project to study historical water quality data in the Lake Erie watershed. Dr. David Baker, director of the Water Quality Laboratory at Heidelberg College in Tiffin, Ohio, discussed the Lake Erie project, which involves researchers from Ohio State University, Case Western University and Heidelberg College, with support from the U.S. Department of Agriculture. An advisory committee will include representatives from agri-business, universities, and federal, state and regional agencies, including the Great Lakes Commission. In other business, Great Lakes Commission staff members Tom Crane and Lori Reynolds provided the committee with updates on Commission initiatives, including the Ecosystem Charter and the Agricultural Profile project. Contact: Tom Crane, tcrane@glc.org. < Congress boosts funding for Basin Program: $350,000 in FY1996 > Now entering its sixth year, the Great Lakes Basin Program for Soil Erosion and Sediment Control continues to be a regional force behind local initiatives to protect and enhance the basin's water and land resources (see related story at left). Of $350,000 in new funding from the U.S. Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service, more than $200,000 will be available for local projects in member states this year. Previously funded projects have ranged from watershed initiatives that restore sediment-laden trout streams to innovative tillage practices that increase farmers' harvests, while protecting erodible soils. "Request for proposals." Following an initial request for proposals in December, project proposals will be due in February 1996 and final funding decisions made by mid-May. Plans for the FY1996 grants program will be finalized at a Dec. 8 meeting of the Commission's Soil Erosion and Sedimentation Task Force. Organizations eligible to apply for the grants include state agencies, county governments, regional planning commissions, soil and water conservation districts, colleges and universities, research institutes and nonprofit, citizen-based organizations. Under a cooperative agreement between the NRCS and the Commission, the Basin Program protects and improves the water quality of the Great Lakes Basin by controlling erosion and sedimentation; limiting the input of associated nutrients and toxic contaminants; and minimizing damages to harbors, streams, fish and wildlife habitat, recreational facilities and the basin's system of public works. In its five-year history, the program has provided $3.67 million to fund 59 projects throughout the basin and, in the process, saved more than 300,000 tons of soil from being lost to erosion and sedimentation. Contact: Tom Crane, tcrane@glc.org. < GLIN: Mapping a partnership for the future > Now in its third year, GLIN reached a milestone in October, when more than 100,000 transactions were recorded for the month. The network (www.great-lakes.net) is supported by grants from the Ameritech Foundation; the U.S. Department of Commerce, National Telecommunications and Information Administration; and U.S. EPA, GLNPO. Thanks to the commitment of partner agencies and organizations, the Great Lakes Information Network continues to be the region's most complete Internet-based communications system for disseminating regional data and information. The latest challenge identified by GLIN partners is sharing spatial data and maps online. It is no small task, yet the region recognizes this as a challenge worth taking, because the result will be better-informed decisionmaking. "There's a gap between the public and government agencies that hold much of this spatial data," according to Roger Gauthier, hydrologist with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. "The Web is the evolution of data delivery, a logical extension to our previous ways of disseminating data." A likely future scenario may be that, in the event of an oil spill, emergency responders could access spatial and near real time data onsite from large Great Lakes data holders such as U.S. EPA, the Corps and NOAA. Instant access to online maps, data and graphics could help local, state and federal responders locate and protect wetlands, endangered species habitat, or a public water supply. Other principal holders of spatial information in the Great Lakes Basin include the U.S. Geological Survey, Environment Canada, National Biological Service, numerous state agencies and universities. "A lot of spatial data exist, held by a variety of organizations, but developing and coordinating these vast stores of information is a very time- and labor-intensive process," says Pranas Pranckevicius, Great Lakes data manager at the U.S. EPA, Great Lakes National Program Office. "Pooling our resources and making the information accessible to the public via GLIN would reduce duplication of efforts and benefit all parties involved." The Commission recently received a $189,000 grant from GLNPO to help coordinate these efforts. Working with major spatial data holders, the Commission is engaged in designing the role GLIN should play in this arena. To further this new partnership between GLIN and spatial data providers, a GLIN conference, "Mapping a Partnership for the Future," is planned for April 9-10, (see insert in this ADVISOR). Sponsored by GLNPO; the Army Corps, Detroit District; the Great Lakes Commission; and the GLIN Advisory Board, the conference will feature plenary sessions, speakers, panel discussions, workshops and hands-on training sessions, and provide a forum for spatial data and GLIN interests to meet and share ideas. The conference is being held in conjunction with the 5th Annual IMAGIN Forum (April 11-12), a statewide geographic information systems conference that brings together recognized experts from the GIS industry and government. IMAGIN (Improving Michigan's Access to Geographic Information Networks) is a consortium of organizations and individuals interested in the use, application, quality and availability of GIS technology in Michigan. For information on IMAGIN, contact Joe VanderMeulen at the Legislative Service Bureau, 517-373-3028, jvanderm@libofmich.lib.mi. GLIN conference information is available from GLIN Director Carol Ratza, 313-665-9135, cratza@glc.org. < GLIN guides available > Now anyone can learn to access Great Lakes resources on the Internet with the help of the new "Great Lakes Information Network Tour Guide". An excellent resource for staff Internet training sessions, the tour guide also is a handy desktop reference for checking an agency's web address or the definition of a new Internet vocabulary word. The 90-page publication was developed by the Commission with funding from U.S. EPA, GLNPO; U.S. Department of Commerce, National Telecommunications and Information Agency; and the Ameritech Foundation. The guides are $7 (U.S.), and there is a 10 percent discount on orders of 10 or more. To order, contact the Commission at 313-665-9135; glc@great-lakes.net. < Newest GLIN partners: Ohio Lake Erie Commission, Office > The newest home page on the Great Lakes Information Network (GLIN) features links to many Lake Erie projects, including the Lake Erie Protection Fund, annual Ohio Coastweeks celebration, Lake Erie license plates and the "Erie . . . Our Great Lake" credit card. A joint effort of the Ohio Lake Erie Commission and the Ohio Lake Erie Office, the home page furthers their goals of protecting the quality of the lake's waters and ecosystem and promoting economic development in the region. "We are very proud to join the GLIN partnership and make information about our programs and activities available to the larger community of Great Lakes interests," says Dr. Jeff Busch, executive director of the Ohio Lake Erie Office, and member of the Great Lakes Commission's Ohio Delegation. "We expect to benefit greatly from our presence online and from the resources of our fellow GLIN partners." The home page, found at http://www.great-lakes.net:2200/partners/OLEO/oleo.html, features a wide variety of facts and figures about Lake Erie and Ohio initiatives to protect the lake. The Coastweeks page provides details on Ohio cleanups, planning a Coastweeks event and the "Life on Lake Erie" photo contest (the 1995 grand prize winners are currently featured). The commission's bimonthly "North Coast Newsletter," an insert in Ohio Sea Grant's "Twine Line," also will be online starting with the December 1995 issue. On the Lake Erie Protection Fund page, abstracts of completed research projects and an application for submitting proposals are available. The Ohio Lake Erie Commission, which receives staff and administrative support from the Ohio Lake Erie Office, is comprised of the directors of Ohio's Environmental Protection Agency and the state departments of natural resources, agriculture, health, transportation and development. The home page also links to many of these agencies. Questions or comments about the information on the Ohio Lake Erie Commission/Office pages can be directed to Johanna Gudorf at the Ohio Lake Erie Office, 419-245-2514. < Commission's contingency planning project receives funding > The Commission's area contingency planning project recently received $100,000 in additional funding from U.S. EPA Region 5 to continue ongoing oil spill protection and response planning efforts in the Great Lakes Basin. Commission staff is responsible for collecting information on economically and environmentally sensitive areas that may need protection in the event of a spill; identifying and compiling locational information for major facilities, pipelines, transportation corridors and other potential spill sources; and using these data to create maps for use by emergency planners and responders. The project's current focus is to complete mapping of the Detroit sub-area and begin similar mapping efforts for the Milwaukee, Duluth and Sault Ste. Marie sub-areas. Through a cooperative agreement with U.S. EPA Region 5, the Commission has provided support in developing the Oil Pollution Act Area Contingency Plan since August 1992. Contact: Laura Beer, lbeer@glc.org; or Tom Crane, tcrane@glc.org. < Air toxics project targets mobile sources > The Commission-coordinated Great Lakes Toxic Air Emissions Inventory moves into the research and development stage once again in 1996 as the Great Lakes states work together with U.S. EPA to develop a mobile source emissions estimation module. The mobile source module will allow state air agencies to estimate toxic air emissions from cars, trucks, buses, ships and other on- and off-road vehicles. A six-month scoping study will kick off this effort, with the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency taking the lead. Forty-nine toxics of concern will be analyzed to determine which are emitted from mobile sources. The study will then focus on those toxic compounds that can potentially bioaccumulate and also may contaminate drinking water, resulting in potential human health risks. Funding for the effort comes under the auspices of Section 112(m) of the Clean Air Act, with U.S. EPA Region 5 providing a new $900,000 grant to the Great Lakes Commission. To date, U.S. EPA has allocated more than $2 million to the Great Lakes states, working together through the Commission, for development and testing of the Regional Air Pollutant Inventory Development System (RAPIDS) point and area source inventory software and protocol (see May/June 1995 ADVISOR for more information). The eight states are now working to compile the first regional inventory of toxic air emissions. As the companion effort to develop the specifications for the mobile source module gets under way in early 1996, the states will be one step closer to the goal of a full regional point, area and mobile source inventory for the 49 toxics of concern. Contact: Carol Ratza, cratza@glc.org. < State Natural Resources Directors Conference > With 14 states represented, the fifth annual State Natural Resources Directors Conference provided a valuable opportunity to gain information on key issues affecting water and related land resources in the midwestern United States. Held Oct. 11-12 at Meremac State Park in Sullivan, Missouri, the conference was a cooperative effort of several state agencies and the U.S. Corps of Engineers. "Managing Natural Resources in America's Heartland" was this year's theme. During the two-day gathering, each state and Corps of Engineers office had an opportunity to discuss their innovative programs, special initiatives and other advancements in natural resource management. The Commission's Ecosystem Charter and Strategic Plan initiatives, presented by Executive Director Mike Donahue, were well-received and viewed as possible models for similar planning efforts in other states and Corps districts. Commission Chair Pat Ralston (IN) and Commission member Don Anderson (Ohio) were among the state directors in attendance. Alternate Commissioners Dave Herbst (IN) and John Comerio (IL) also participated. According to Ralston, the conference originated in 1991 when the national recession was shrinking the budgets of state agencies. "Our funding was being taken away at a time when we were being asked to do more for our customers," Ralston said. "We couldn't think of a better time to join together and learn from one another." From that small, initial meeting at Brown County State Park in Nashville, Ind., which brought together nine representatives from four states (Ohio, Illinois, Kentucky and Indiana), the conference has grown into a much-anticipated annual event. "Participation from federal agencies, notably from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, has been a very important factor," Ralston says. "The conference now provides a valuable exchange of information between the states and the federal government." The 1996 conference, to be hosted by Indiana in Indianapolis, will feature an expanded program and participation from even more states, federal partners and regional river basin commissions. The Great Lakes Commission will provide conference support. Contact: Mike Donahue, mdonahue@glc.org. < Great Lakes spill team tackles cold weather response > Cold weather oil spills, although not common in the Great Lakes Basin, are potentially very costly and difficult to contain. These spills present a unique set of challenges for responders, including access difficulties due to ice, as well as safety concerns due to exposure to frigid temperatures and falls on slippery surfaces. A February 1994 oil spill in the Detroit River caused by a power station's corroded drain line highlights some of these challenges. Cleanup efforts in the river were severely hampered, in part because ice covered a vast majority of the spill area. Ice-breaking tug boats were called in to help recover the nearly 1,000 gallons of spilled oil. To better address the challenges of such spills, the Region 5 Regional Response Team's (RRT) Cold Weather Response Workgroup is producing a reference booklet for planners and responders dealing with cold weather oil spills. Responders from the Canadian Coast Guard and Environment Canada are assisting in this effort. "We are trying to translate previously published arctic and salt water spill response techniques into an inland, freshwater situation," says Steve Lee, workgroup chair and supervisor of the emergency response team at the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. "The information will be primarily aimed at facility operators and planners, but will also be a potential tool for responders." Due out in summer 1996, the booklet will cover the fate and effect of petroleum spills, cold weather ecology of the region's plants and animals, various strategies for dealing with oil in ice and snow, health and safety concerns and how to choose and maintain the appropriate equipment. Case studies will be included. The Region 5 RRT is responsible for overall planning, preparedness and response for oil and hazardous materials releases in the region that includes Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio and Wisconsin. For more information on the Cold Weather Response booklet, contact Steve Lee, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, 612-297-8610. For general information on the Region 5 RRT, contact Sheila Calovich, U.S. EPA Region 5, 312-353-1505. < IJC boards focus on toxic contaminants, management tools > Atrazine. Dioxin. Lead. Mercury. PCBs. If these chemicals can alter the endocrine and reproductive systems of animals exposed in the wild as well as humans exposed to high levels what, if any, are the effects of these chemicals on the general public? This question is just one of the many challenges facing scientists today, according to the International Joint Commission's (IJC) Science Advisory Board. The board, co-chaired by Great Lakes Commission Executive Director Mike Donahue, explored several key issues and made recommendations in a report released at the IJC's Biennial Meeting on Great Lakes Water Quality in September. Recommendations of the IJC's several advisory groups highlight the need for more intense research efforts on pollution prevention and specific links between human illness and environmental exposure to toxic contaminants, and the importance of developing management tools to help governments set priorities and make appropriate decisions with limited data and resources. In addition to the three reports summarized below, the Lake Erie Task Force and Indicators for Evaluation Task Force also prepared reports. The IJC will consider these recommendations when preparing its Eighth Biennial Report on Great Lakes Water Quality, due out in April 1996. The full reports are available online at http://www.great-lakes.net:2200/partners/IJC/ijchome.html or by contacting the IJC Great Lakes Regional Office in Windsor at 313-226-2170 or 519-257-6734. GREAT LAKES WATER QUALITY BOARD "Pollution prevention is a mark of the maturation of environmental stewardship and should be actively promoted as a standard business practice and a central ethic of environmental protection." So concludes the Great Lakes Water Quality Board, which calls on the United States and Canada to place greater emphasis on pollution prevention when developing future strategies for reducing and eliminating the release of toxic pollutants into the environment. Recognizing that pollution prevention is displacing the "end-of-pipe" approach to waste management, the board recommends current inventory efforts be examined to determine if reductions due to pollution prevention can be quantified and if a materials management inventory, rather than a waste management inventory, would be timely and appropriate. With a similar pollution prevention philosophy emerging in the pulp and paper sector, the board endorses efforts to measure and reduce discharges of dioxins, dibenzofurans and AOX (adsorbable organic halogens), and suggests that ongoing research on bioindicators and emerging technologies be summed up in a state of the Great Lakes ecosystem report, released jointly every two years by the United States and Canada. Regarding pesticide use, the board recommends that database development and analysis for no-till and pesticide applications be pursued on a binational basis, and the application of geopositioning, remote sensing, biotechnology and other emerging capabilities be explored. GREAT LAKES SCIENCE ADVISORY BOARD "Twenty years of experience with very diverse persistent, toxic and bioaccumulative hazards in the Great Lakes Basin suggests the need for a systematized approach to evaluating the range of health and ecological effects linked to environmental exposures." Addressing this basic research need and the transition away from the use, generation and discharge of persistent toxic substances, the Great Lakes Science Advisory Board recommends furthering research to identify links between human disease and exposure to chemicals that affect the endocrine system. The board also recommends a close examination of asthma and other established health problems that have been tied to pollution, and development of indicators of illness related to human exposure to toxic chemicals in the environment. To improve decisionmaking in this arena, the board recommends that risk management and "weight of evidence" decisions be clear as to the evidence, assumptions and values used, and the uncertainties and consequences involved. Also, scientific risk characterization should formally include disclosure of the choices embedded in the design of supporting research, modifiers of risk factors used and all relevant uncertainties. COUNCIL OF GREAT LAKES RESEARCH MANAGERS "As the Great Lakes community moves towards the year 2000, continued care needs to be taken to ensure that the limited resources are directed towards scientific and management priorities." To aid in the selection of research priorities and policy options, the council focused on enhancing its ongoing inventory of Great Lakes research and examining the need to recruit qualified professionals to replace those retiring from Great Lakes research institutions. Reflecting the ecosystem approach to management, the next update of the Great Lakes Research Inventory will include research activities addressing exotic species, land use, wetlands, shoreline habitat and management of fisheries, wildlife and forestry, natural ecological processes, and more. To improve its timeliness and accessibility, the inventory is now available on the Internet via the Great Lakes Information Network (http://www.great-lakes.net:2200/partners/IJC/ri). Citing this example, the council strongly recommends taking advantage of new communications technology to improve dialogue among scientists, managers and others in the Great Lakes region. < Great Lakes Science: What will the future hold? > With the fate of many Great Lakes programs now in the hands of the U.S. Congress and Canadian Parliament, many questions remain about how federal, state, provincial and local budget cuts will affect the quantity and quality of research on the Great Lakes. What programs will be cut? What research will be affected? How can the Great Lakes research community compensate for its losses and move on? These were just some of the concerns addressed at a Sept. 24 public forum on the future of Great Lakes science, co-convened by John Gannon of the National Biological Service, Great Lakes Science Center; and John Hartig of the International Joint Commission. The forum, moderated by Hartig and held in conjunction with the IJC's biennial meeting, highlighted ways to maintain a strong scientific foundation for policy and management decisionmaking in the face of proposed funding cuts. Panel members included Gannon; Douglas Jester, Michigan Department of Natural Resources; John Kelso, Department of Fisheries and Oceans in Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario; and Ed Mills, of Cornell University Oneida Lake Biological Station, who represented the International Association for Great Lakes Research. "Everyone realizes that sound and credible environmental decisionmaking depends on good science and strong databases, but now is not the time to sit back and do nothing," Gannon says. "With environmental and resource issues shifting so quickly, decisionmakers in research, science and management must adapt to change." To improve effectiveness of Great Lakes research with limited resources, seven practical improvements were proposed: * Clarify and reach agreement on research priorities by focusing time and money on the most needed research and calling on binational organizations (like the IJC, IAGLR, Great Lakes Commission and Great Lakes Fishery Commission) to play a greater role in the decisionmaking process; * Plan cooperatively by making greater use of cooperative planning processes (RAPs, LaMPs) that require and benefit from research and science; * Share responsibility for delivery of programs by combining U.S. and Canadian surveillance efforts into a single, binational program, developing government-university and public-private centers of specialty in science analysis, furthering community-based, volunteer monitoring programs and ensuring that Canada becomes a contributing member of the Great Lakes Protection Fund; * Share capital resources by creating a Great Lakes vessel pool to maximize the use of current research vessels, sharing analytical equipment and establishing more cooperative agreements between governments and universities; * Build partnerships and cooperatives by exploring possibilities for joint projects and co-locating government labs on university campuses to foster collaborative, interdisciplinary research; * Develop new approaches to management and science issues by exploring new funding alternatives, such as designating a portion of license plate fees for research and ecosystem-based management; and * Communicate value and benefits of research and science by using the Internet to foster communication and dialogue, and by taking responsibility for communicating the value and benefits of science to colleagues and the public, in general. For more information or for a meeting summary, contact John Gannon, National Biological Service, Great Lakes Science Center, 313-994-3331 ext. 237, john_gannon@nbs.gov; or John Hartig, IJC, 519-257-6711, hartigj@ijc.wincom.net. < IJC 1995-97 priorities released > In response to recommendations from the IJC's advisory groups, this preliminary list of IJC priorities for 1995-97 was released at the IJC's semiannual meeting, held Oct. 24-27 in Ottawa. * Persistent toxic substances: Impact on human and ecosystem health, sources and pathways,measurement, reduction/elimination. Examine new evidence pertaining to the disruption of the endocrine system by persistent toxic substances and the resulting effect on the neurobehavior of animals and humans; and identify significant pathways by which persistent toxic substances enter the Great Lakes, including air deposition from sources internal and external to the basin. * Remediation and management of sediments contaminated by persistent toxic substances. Assess government programs and identify options for remediation, destruction or storage of persistent toxic substances that are located in contaminated sediments (important in RAPs and LaMPs). * Lake Erie ecological model. Modify the 1994-95 Lake Erie model to increase understanding of the lake's ecosystem and provide a functional tool for future resource management decisions. * Pesticides. Assess recent trends in pesticide use in the Great Lakes Basin, evaluate ongoing initiatives in the region and provide advice on potential improvements to these programs. * Improving effectiveness of science and research in the Great Lakes. Explore cost saving strategies, new ways to share information, and coordination of efforts via a partnership approach between the United States and Canada to combat the potential negative effects of budget cuts on the Great Lakes science and research community. < Ruffe range expansion brings new challenges > Revised goal of Ruffe Control Program, November 9, 1995: To prevent or delay the further spread of ruffe through the Great Lakes and prevent their spread to other inland lakes and watersheds. The recent discovery of three ruffe in northern Lake Huron, more than 300 miles east of the previously known range, has prompted scientists and resource managers to re-examine the goal and objectives of the Ruffe Control Program, developed earlier this year under the auspices of the national Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force. "Our main priorities now are slowing the spread of ruffe in the Great Lakes and preventing spread to the Mississippi Basin and inland waters," says Ruffe Control Committee Chair Tom Busiahn. "Although preventing spread by chemical treatment is no longer a feasible alternative, the committee maintains that appropriate technologies (mainly biological and physical) can still be used to diminish the spread of ruffe." Other revisions to the plan's eight objectives: * Explore bait-fish management techniques, as recommended by state fishery agencies through the Great Lakes Fishery Commission's Council of Lake Committees; * Focus on the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal to prevent ruffe migration into the Mississippi Basin; * Recommend fish management practices that will increase the resilience of fish communities to ruffe and continue to assess the impact of ruffe on Great Lakes fish habitats and populations; and * Write a critical evaluation of the Ballast Water Management Plan that has been in effect since 1993, in cooperation with officials from the Lake Carriers' Association, Duluth Port Authority, U.S. Coast Guard and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. In a related action, the Great Lakes Fishery Commission's Council of Lake Committees recommended revising the Ballast Water Management Plan to include affected Lake Huron ports. Ruffe were first collected in Duluth Harbor fish surveys in 1986 and have migrated steadily eastward along the south shore of Lake Superior. The ruffe apparently reached the Lake Huron ports of Thunder Bay, Ontario, and Alpena, Mich., in the ballast water of Great Lakes ships. The Ruffe Control Program will be revised based on the new goal and objectives. Further information is available from Tom Busiahn, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 715-682-6185. < Model state strategy adopted by Great Lakes ANS Panel > A model state management plan for the prevention and control of aquatic nuisance species was adopted at the Great Lakes Panel meeting, held Sept. 21-22 in conjunction with the International Joint Commission biennial meeting in Duluth, Minn. The model plan, developed by Great Lakes Commission staff with guidance from panel members and coastal managers, will help each Great Lakes state identify the strategic actions and tasks needed to effectively address its aquatic nuisance species management goals. The model is based on findings from a regional workshop held in May, co-sponsored by the Michigan Department of Natural Resources and the Commission with funding from Section 308 of the federal Coastal Zone Management Act. According to Chris Shafer, chief of the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality's Great Lakes Shorelands Section, the state management plans will play a crucial role in future ANS initiatives in the region. "Prevention and control of aquatic nuisance species will be greatly improved by identifying the areas within each state where technical and financial assistance is most needed to eliminate or reduce environmental, public health and safety risks," Shafer says. "The continued spread of aquatic nuisance species needs to be addressed on a consistent state-by-state basis, as part of larger regional and national efforts." Individual state management plans are called for under section 1204 of the Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control Act of 1990. The key goals of the state plans, as articulated in the strategy, are to prevent future introductions of nonindigenous species into state waters, limit the spread of existing nonindigenous species and develop and implement management plans for the species of primary concern. Also at the September panel meeting, plans were put in motion for an ANS research symposium in March 1996 and for preparation of an inventory of information/education materials on ANS prevention and control. The Great Lakes Panel, staffed by the Commission, was recently awarded additional funding for ANS activities from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, through Interjurisdictional Fisheries Act monies contributed by Indiana. For a copy of the model state management plan or for more information, contact Kathe Glassner-Shwayder, shwayder@glc.org. < Native fish found inside round goby specimen > A trout-perch has been discovered in the stomach of a round goby specimen, marking the first time a Great Lakes fish species has been found in a goby. "This is an important finding because previously we thought the gobys' impacts on native fish populations were mainly displacement and disruption of spawning patterns," says Dave Jude, research scientist at the University of Michigan's Center for the Great Lakes and Aquatic Sciences. "Now we have to take into account the fact that nonindigenous species may be preying upon Great Lakes fish." The 51-mm adult trout-perch was discovered by Jude in November during routine analysis of goby specimens collected a year earlier (Sept. 14, 1994) in the St. Clair River near Algonac State Park in an EPA-funded study. "Out of the 1,000 or so goby specimens that I've dissected since 1990, this is the first to contain a native fish," Jude says. "We had suspected that nonindigenous species would eventually prey on native fish, but this is the first proof that they do." About 2.6 grams of zebra mussels were found in the specimen along with the trout-perch, according to Jude. This is not uncommon, however, since round gobies regularly feed on aquatic insects, zebra mussels and some native snails. The goby, a bottom-dwelling fish, was first discovered by Jude in the St. Clair River in 1990, and has since spread rapidly through the Great Lakes system. Native to the Black and Caspian seas, the goby (like zebra mussels and ruffe) is presumed to have arrived in the Great Lakes in the ballast water discharge of a transoceanic vessel. Of the two goby species (round and tubenose), the round goby is more aggressive and poses a greater threat to native fish. This year, round gobies were sighted in the Duluth-Superior Harbor and in several areas on the southern coast of Lake Erie. The most recent sighting was by a diver in Lake Ontario near Cape Vincent, N.Y. This sighting, if confirmed, would be the first in Lake Ontario. "Round gobies are thriving in the Great Lakes Basin because they are aggressive, voracious feeders and one of the few species that eat zebra mussels," Jude says. "Gobies take over prime spawning sites traditionally used by native species, compete with native fish for habitat, spawn multiple times, feed at night and ultimately, change the balance of the ecosystem." The distinctive features of the round goby are fused pelvic fins, a black spot on the first dorsal fin and frog-like, raised eyes. Jude also verified recent reports that a tubenose goby was found in the Detroit River. Tubenose gobies, the smaller of the two species, had been considered rare in the St. Clair River and were not expected to proliferate as fast as the round goby. Ironically, the Great Lakes Basin is providing a sanctuary for the tubenose goby, which is an endangered species in its native habitat. Contact: Dave Jude, University of Michigan, 313-763-3183. < Voters say no to Quebec secession > Canada remains intact, but just barely, after a referendum calling for Quebec to secede from the country failed October 30. With 95 percent of eligible voters taking part, the referendum was defeated by a 1 percent margin just over 50,000 of the 4.6 million ballots cast. Championed by the Parti Quebecois and Quebec Prime Minister Jacques Parizeau, the 1995 referendum was based on reinforcing the status of the French, unleashing Quebec's potential to develop its economy and implementing a distinctively social democratic agenda. Throughout Quebec's history, the survival of the French influence has been a central concern of Quebeckers. Today, out of a total population of about 7 million, Quebec has more than 5 million people of French origin. This was the third vote on Quebec's constitutional relationship to Canada. In 1980, Qu‚bec voters turned down (by a 20 percent margin) a similar referendum on whether the province could negotiate a sovereignty association with Canada. Also voted down was a 1992 referendum held across Canada that concerned whether the Charlottetown agreement between the federal government and Canadian provinces should be used as the basis for constitutional renewal. The Great Lakes Commission has had a continuing interest in this matter since Quebec has Observer status, makes significant contributions to the region's economy and shares many of the Commission's long-term goals for the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence Basin. The referendum was a recurring topic of discussion at the Commission's recent annual meeting held in Quebec City. < Great Lakes Calendar, ADVISOR Nov/Dec 1995 > Commission events December 7 Agricultural Profile Advisory Committee Meeting. Holiday Inn North; Ann Arbor, MI. Contact: Jim Nicita, 313-665-9135; jnicita@glc.org. 8 Soil Erosion and Sedimentation Task Force Meeting. Holiday Inn North; Ann Arbor, MI. Contact: Tom Crane, 313-665-9135; tcrane@glc.org. 13 Great Lakes Spills Experts Meeting. U.S. EPA Region 5 offices; Chicago, IL. Contact: Tom Crane, 313-665-9135; tcrane@glc.org. 14 Great Lakes Spills Protection Initiative. General Services Administration Conference Center, U.S. EPA Region 5 offices; Chicago, IL. Contact: Tom Crane, 313-665-9135; tcrane@glc.org. March 13 Great Lakes Day in Washington. Congressional Breakfast, issues briefing and consultative session on maritime matters. Contact: Steve Thorp, 313-665-9135; sthorp@glc.org. April 9-10 Great Lakes Information Network Conference: Mapping a Partnership for the Future. Lansing Center; Lansing, MI. Contact: Carol Ratza, 313-665-9135; cratza@glc.org. 22-23 Great Lakes Agriculture Summit. Kellogg Center, Michigan State University; East Lansing, MI. Contact: Jim Nicita, 313-665-9135; jnicita@glc.org. May 15-16 Semiannual Meeting of the Great Lakes Commission. University Place Conference Center; Indianapolis, IN. Contact: Rita Straith, 313-665-9135; rstraith@glc.org. Basin events January 7-10 Indiana Association of Conservation Districts, Annual Meeting. Indianapolis, IN. Contact: Robert White, Indiana Association of Conservation Districts, 317-692-7374. 16-18 Ohio Association of Conservation Districts, Annual Meeting. Worthington, Ohio. Contact: Gary Mast, Ohio Federation of Soil and Water Conservation Districts, 216-674-6278. 18 Michigan SPAC Quarterly Meeting. Kellogg Center, Michigan State University; East Lansing, MI. Contact: Matt Doss, 313-665-9135; mdoss@glc.org. February 15 Second Annual Western New York Stormwater Management Conference & Trade Show. Rochester Marriott; Rochester, N.Y. Contact: Paula Smith, Monroe County Soil and Water Conservation District, 716-473-2120. March 5-7 Sixth International Zebra Mussel and Other Aquatic Nuisance Species Conference. Hyatt Regency; Dearborn, MI. Contact: 1-800-868-8776. April 2-4 Freshwater Spills Symposium. U.S. EPA Conference Center; Chicago, IL. Contact: Ann Whelan, U.S. EPA Region 5, 312-886-7258. May 26-30 39th Annual Conference on Great Lakes Research. Erindale College; Mississauga, ON. Contact: Gary Sprules, Erindale College, 905-828-3987.