John Mills, Environment Canada
Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. [French] Commissioners, colleagues and Great Lakes constituents. On behalf of the Parties of the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement, the governments of Canada and the United States, I would like to thank the Commission for the opportunity to participate in this morning's program on a public forum. [French].
The Great Lakes basin is a region of substantial economic activity. An area that's steeped in history and is pivotal to the development of both our nations. It's also an area of unique natural and environmental resources. Water in the Great Lakes integrates the effects of history, economic activity and resource exploration. Inevitably, in a discussion of water quality an array of interests and perspectives are evident. The Commission is charged with listening to these interests and these perspectives and providing an objective appraisal of the efforts of the two countries to as the Agreement states, "restore and maintain the integrity of the waters of the Great Lakes Basin Ecosystem." The Commission has served us well in this difficult task and we certainly wish you well in your present deliberations. The task for the governments in this session is to report on activities conducted over the past two years, to present information on some of the accomplishments we believe we have achieved, and to speak about some of the priorities and challenges that we have for the future.
By way of a brief explanation, I would like to outline the structure of the government's presentation. Following some introductory comments from both governments, Mr. Dave Ullrich, Region V Administrator for the United States Environmental Protection Agency and I will provide an overview of the binational effort. This will be followed by a short break. After the break there will be a presentation on the domestic program of the United States given by Dave and Jeanne Fox, Region 2 Administrator of EPA. Following that, the Canadian domestic program will be presented by Ivy Wile, Assistant Deputy Minister for Ontario's Ministry of Environment, and myself. We have left time at the conclusion of the presentation for discussion and questions. In this regard, I would encourage listeners to make mental notes or reminders of things that they have heard during the presentation, that they would like to raise questions and bring them up during that question and answer period. At the end of the presentation, government representatives here will be available in the foyer in the lobby for media interviews.
Canada is aware of the Commission's ongoing interest in determining the level of government commitment to the Great Lakes and the extent to which the obligations under the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement are being met. The Commission has noted with concern the significant changes that have occurred in government agencies. In Canada, both at the federal and provincial levels, there have been budget cutbacks that are part of a more global trend toward reducing government expenditures and debt. I would stress however, that despite these pressures we have maintained our commitments on the Great Lakes by identifying key priorities and protecting those associated resources.
Canada also continues to pursue policy and legislative initiatives at the national level which reinforce our programs and priorities for the lakes, specifically, a major statutory review of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act was undertaken, and a revised Act introduced into House of Common in December of 1996. The Bill was co-sponsored by the Ministers of Environment and Health, and that bill would strengthen and modernize the Act. The June 1997 federal election intervened in the passage of the Bill, but the government has announced its intention to reintroduce the Bill to revise the Act. That June election also intervened in the passage of a bill to establish a Canadian Endangered Species Protection Act, legislation which would be supportive of our programs and activities on the lakes. Discussions are continuing on the reintroduction of this Bill as well.
To participate in this brief introductory session and provide some perspectives from the United States, we are pleased to have with us this morning, Mr. Bob Perciasepe from Washington. Mr. Perciasepe is the Assistant Administrator for Water in the U.S. EPA Agency. In this position, he has responsibility for the National Water Quality Management Program, a responsibility covering a broad range of activities from standard setting, to permit of discharges, to the linking of the ecosystem management with water quality programs. Bob is also a friend of the Great Lakes. I believe that one of his first official functions almost immediately after being confirmed and sworn in, was to appear before this Commission in the Great Lakes Biennial Meeting in October of 1993. He also spoke at the Duluth meeting of 1995. We are pleased that Bob is with us today.
Thank you, John. Commissioners, I want to thank you for the invitation in hosting this biennial meeting. I think that it's fitting that we are here in Niagara Falls celebrating the quarter century birthday of probably one of the most historic environmental initiatives in history and one that has continued to produce good results. But I think as the Commissioners clearly laid out in their introductory remarks today, significant challenges remain in front of us. I want to also point out that this month, or just the month that ended yesterday, marked the 25th Anniversary in the United States of the enactment of the Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 or as we call in shorthand, the Clean Water Act. In many ways, in the United States most of the tools that we were given to live up to our many parts of the Agreement were provided in the Clean Water Act and to help us meet our obligations. I think we will hear a lot about the progress over the next several hours and days and I'll mention some of those key points in my opening remarks as well, but we also have to keep in mind some of the hurdles in front of us as we are thinking about how we are moving incrementally forward.
There was another interesting thing about 25 years ago, give or take a few years, something came into our terminology which we don't use too much anymore, called "spaceship earth." We can all smile with some of the current science fiction movies and whatnot but believe me, 25 years ago, those who lived through the era when pictures of the earth came back and were on the front pages of newspaper as a blue orb sitting out in the darkness of space, I think as humans our view of this planet we live on and its fragile positioning in the cosmos, I think was changed and I think changed forever. I think that played an important role in some of the work that all of us were doing 25 years ago in the environmental movement and the birth of some of the more modern environmental programs that we both have in Canada and the United States.
So 25 years, a quarter century is an interesting time to reflect on all of these things. I think we need to continually remind ourselves -- we have to force ourselves to remind ourselves -- on how fragile our environment and our ecosystems really are. I think that can help us to be motivated to the challenges that we have to deal with. And speaking of challenges, John mentioned that it's been two years since the Duluth meeting, and at that meeting in some of my opening remarks, I issued a number of challenges to a number of the stakeholders. . . and I'm not going to go through those in detail here, but we will hear some of it as we go through some of the government reports during the course of the day. I would like to highlight a couple of them that I thought were kind of interesting as I looked to see how we were making progress.
I remember the Commissioner of Environment from the State of Minnesota was at the meeting in Duluth, it was as a host state, and he challenged the federal government to not sell 11-million pounds of mercury held by the Department of Defense, and I'm pleased to report today that the sales of that 11-million pounds of mercury remains suspended, and we continue to work with the Department of Defense to come up with proper ways to deal with the long-term management of that stockpile.
In April of this year, the two countries signed a Binational Toxics Strategy which set some very specific goals for us to achieve, which sets us further on the course to virtual elimination. The Great Lakes Initiative that is being enacted by the states in the United States at this time, I challenge us to have that completed by the next biennial. I am somewhat happy to report, but happy to report that four of the states have completed their adoption process -- Indiana, Wisconsin, Michigan and Ohio -- and the remaining states are on track to get theirs done by the end of this year. I want to pledge today with the Environmental Protection Agency and working with the states, that we will get those completed by early 1998. That will represent rules that will as they are implemented, reduce toxic pollution into the Great Lakes from the U.S. side by over a million pounds.
Also I made some challenges to the private industry and business sector, that they need to step up and move beyond compliance with the laws. One notable example I would like to mention here, is the chlor-alkali industry that has stepped up and is looking at a 50% reduction not only in emissions of mercury but also of use of mercury. So we are going to work with them to see how we can continue to push that.
Some national highlights from the U.S. side. Probably one of the notable things that has been happening over the last two years -- and I guess this is not a mystery to most people -- is the dynamic between the executive branch of government and the legislative branch of government in Washington. Two years ago, the Congress actually took a hold of that Clean Water Act, that I mentioned was enacted 25 years ago, and tried to modify it. A lot of things have been said about that, but the bottom line is, that was the wrong direction and it would have been damaging to the structural underpinnings of the Clean Water Program in the United States. I'm proud that the executive branch, the Clinton Administration was opposed to that, and I think we were aided by the strong environmental voice of the American people. This threat has been removed. That is not a small bit of activity that has been going on in Washington. Sometimes we forget how ideological and philosophical approaches to dealing with problems continue to be debated at the national level.
I want to talk about some specific actions over the last couple of years. One of the key components of my bosses' strategy on dealing with environmental protection as we move into the next century is the public's right to know about the condition of their environment. We are moving on a number of fronts that I would like to mention very briefly. One of the ones that I find most exciting is providing information to the public on a watershed basis throughout the entire United States, including the Great Lakes basin. Not only on the information that's available in those watersheds, but also the condition and the vulnerability of those watersheds-- and to use this in concert with the state programs of identifying impaired watersheds. We have made this information available both in publications and also on the internet.
We are working to lower the threshold for reporting for the Toxics Release Inventory and we are watching from the national level to assure that fish advisories are uniformly applied throughout the Great Lakes basin and the Center for Disease Control and EPA will take action when we think we need to make sure that that is there. The President has issued an Executive Order on children and particularly with an emphasis on environmental protection for children, one that we are all working on to implement.
I want to briefly say something about air deposition. This is where we need to get beyond the Great Lakes basin, start looking at the airshed. We have done a number of things at the national level in the U.S. government that will have a beneficial impact. One of them is the new particulate matter and ozone standards that we have proposed and we continue to fight for at the national level as we reduce those pollutants over the next decade, and further, they will be an additional benefit on air deposition to water bodies. We have finalized standards for medical and municipal waste incinerators in the last year and a half, and these will remove over 100 tons of mercury being emitted into the air in the United States, as well as significant reductions in dioxin from those major sources of dioxin. In the Superfund program we are accelerating cleanups and we continue to stand firm in places like the Fox River where we need to have that cleanup take place.
I know that the Second Great Water Bodies Report that was produced in Washington is of concern to many people in the audience, and I'd like to say that the Great Water Bodies Report clearly identified the problems that remain and that are in front of us related to air deposition of toxics and other pollutants into the waters of the United States, in particular the Great Lakes. I want to say that the Great Water Bodies Report is not the end. It is not the end of the game. We are now in the process of putting together a national strategy to tackle the problems that were identified in that report, including using authorities we have, that we haven't yet used to tackle some of those problems.
Persistent bioaccumulative toxics -- we have a multi-program effort underway to look across all the different programs at things like mercury and dioxin, the Tier I Binational Strategy List, and nonpoint sources continue to be something of great concern to us. In many respects we have done the easy part, on the Water Pollution Control Act, and now we have to get to the harder stuff. And I have to say that the serious threats still remain in front of us in that regard.
Just two weeks ago today, Vice-President Gore issued a challenge and a charge to the federal agencies to put together an action plan in the next 120 days to tackle some of these remaining problems using our existing authorities and expanding on our existing authorities, in three main areas: protecting the public from health threats, more effective control of polluted runoff, and water quality protection on watershed level. He talked specifically about reducing fish advisories, protecting beaches, new strategies and standards on polluted runoff and animal feeding operations and a new national goal to be gaining -- not losing -- gaining 100,000 acres a year of wetlands in the United States by the year 2005. So we are working very hard on this. History will show that we can continue to make progress, but more needs to be done, and we cannot rest. I think we need to also know that clean water is everybody's business. The government's here reporting on some of the things we're doing, but really it's going to require everybody to work together; these problems don't get easier, they continue to get harder. But I think if we all work together, we can make the job move forward, we can complete the job and we need to do that for our children. Thank you.
John Mills, Environment Canada
Thank you, Bob for those comments. Ladies and gentlemen, during this part of the presentation, my colleague David Ullrich and I would like to focus on those activities which the two countries undertake jointly and cooperatively in support of the Agreement. In considering our binational efforts, we are going to focus on two elements: A brief retrospective of the situation in the basin and a review of our work over the last two years. When we consider our binational initiatives, it is useful from time- to-time to consider the context within which we conduct our affairs. This context has been established over a number of years. Because this public forum occurs during the year in which we are celebrating the 25th Anniversary of the Agreement, we feel it would be appropriate to devote some time to reflect upon this 25 year context and celebrate what we feel are some of the accomplishments over that period. As well, it is an opportunity for the governments to acknowledge the absolutely essential contribution and efforts of individual citizens, scientists, academics, private and public sector organizations and institutions which have led to the progress in the Great Lakes basin. In this regard, Environment Canada and EPA have produced a commemorative document to celebrate that 25 years of effort and I would encourage you to pick up a copy of it at our booth in the display area.
There are a number of people in this room who have devoted considerable part of their working lives to the Great Lakes. There are also some who can recall the conditions in the Great Lakes which gave rise to the Agreement in 1972. Over the next two days the environmental challenges we still face will be discussed and debated. While these challenges are permitable and we may question the extent and the pace of our efforts, we have I believe, demonstrated a history of responding to challenges. A review of some of our past successes gives pause for reflection, and I believe, optimism for the future.
When we consider the last 25 years on the Great Lakes, there are inevitably different perspectives on how we would measure progress. We have chosen today to consider progress in the basin in terms of our institutions and governance, the growth of science and its application to environmental issues in the Great Lakes and beyond, public involvement, the reduction of pollution, and the improvement in environmental quality. The Great Lakes benefitted from the growth of the environmental movement, both in Canada and United States in the 1960s. During the past 25 years we have seen the formation or development of government environmental agencies, environmental policies and laws in institutions, and institutes devoted to environmental studies. Indeed I would say the signing of the Agreement itself in 1972 and its subsequent revisions and amendments are symbolic of the growth in environmental awareness and responsiveness. The Great Lakes basin has witnessed the growth and evolution of organizations devoted to the Great Lakes region -- some devoted exclusively to the environmental interests, such as Great Lakes United. While others may promote regional, economic or business interests, but contribute to the public policy development in environmental affairs, e.g. the Council of Great Lakes Industries. There are many others who are participating in this forum today. The both formal and informal networking among such groups, together with Great Lakes industries' interests in universities, in government organizations contributes to a substantial system of governance for the Great Lakes. The IJC is a significant player in that Great Lakes governance network.
The last 25 years have seen a vast improvement in our understanding of the lakes and this has occurred as a result of our investment in science. Our science has provided the basis of our understanding and action on eutrophication, exotic species such as sea lamprey, toxic substances and long-range transport of atmospheric pollution. Most recently, science is at the forefront of the debate and discussions on endocrine effects of contaminants. You've seen a number of scientific innovations in the Great Lakes basins -- the environmental sampling technology, analytical techniques and statistical analysis. Chemical analysis of archive museum samples have helped provide a retrospective picture of the historic wildlife contaminant burdens and their impacts on population ecology. The scientific effort in the basin on the impact of atmospheric deposition and long-range transport have had a significant influence on the global agenda for persistent toxic substances.
The scientific community has led discussions on the ecosystem concept and the call for its inclusion in the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement. The ecosystem perspective provides both a philosophical framework and scientific rationale for the notion that everything in the basin is related to and affects to some degree everything else in the basin. It recognizes that no one factor was responsible for the ecological decline in the region, and that existing problems cannot be addressed within strict jurisdictional, geographic or disciplinary boundaries. There now exists in the basin a variety of government, university laboratories, research stations and institutes devoted to Great Lakes studies. Scientific conferences are held annually under the auspices of the International Association of Great Lakes Research, and research findings are published in the Journal of Great Lakes Research, established in 1975. The scientific community continues to serve us well.
Another notable advancement over the past 25 years has been the growth of public involvement on environmental issues. Increased environmental knowledge and awareness has been due in part to the tremendous increase in the coverage of environment in our education curricula and in the media. Today there are countless grassroots organizations working at the community level in the Great Lakes basin. They play a critical role for a much larger Great Lakes constituency. Public consultation and involvement have been critical to the development of many programs and activities arising in the Great Lakes Agreement. Foremost among these have been the citizen participation in the development of remedial action plans for those designated Areas of Concern. Concerned and knowledgeable citizens have played and will continue to play a key role in advancing environmental affairs within the basin.
Of course, a major measure of progress in the Great Lakes basin over the last 25 years has been the reduction in pollution -- physical pollution in the form of objectionable and nuisance materials forming scum, sludge and odor have almost been eliminated. Occurrences in magnitudes of chemical spills in the lakes have been reduced significantly. Significant investments have been made in the lakes -- some $7.6 billion to construct and upgrade municipal treatment plants. Industry has also made major investments in pollution abatement.
A major objective of the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement has been the control of eutrophication in the lakes due to excessive nutrient loadings. Loading targets were set for phosphorus and these targets have been achieved in Lakes Superior, Huron and Michigan. Lake Erie and Ontario are at or near target lows. These targets have been achieved primarily through enhanced sewage treatment and this means that eutrophication is no longer a problem in the Great Lakes on a lakewide basis. I think a major accomplishment for binational cooperation.
In the case of Lake Erie shown here, loadings of phosphorus from municipal sources have been reduced by almost 80% despite the increase in population and municipal discharges. Algae biomass in the lakes have been reduced and water clarity improved. The extent of oxygen depletion at the bottom waters of this lake have also improved. Industrial sectors in the basin have also achieved a significant pollution reduction. For example in the pulp and paper industry, Great Lakes mills today discharge about one-eighth of the loadings of oxygen-consuming waste that they discharged in the late 1960s, despite increase in production of paper products.
Ultimately, the contribution of our institutions, our commitments to science, the countless volunteer hours expended by involved public, and the major public and private sector investment in pollution abatement must be measured in terms of improved environmental quality for all who live in the Great Lakes basin. Here again there are ample examples that substantial progress has been achieved over the 25 years and this progress reflects the combined effort of jurisdictions around the basin. We have measured improvement in open lake water quality, particularly in Lakes Erie and Ontario where substantial stress was evident. In addition, we have measured substantial declines in contaminant burdens in the basin and improvements in populations of sentinel fish and wildlife species.
Several persistent toxic substances, such as PCBs, DDT and mercury have declined in fish and wildlife by as much as 90%. The example shown here is for the double-crested cormorant. Populations of the cormorant were devastated by toxic chemicals and a number of nesting pairs in the Great Lakes basin decreased 86% between the 1950s-1970s.. Today the cormorant is more numerous than in anytime in recorded history. The main culprit as many of you are aware was DDE, a breakdown product of DDT which affect egg-formation in the female bird. DDE and PCB levels in cormorant eggs at monitoring sites have decreased by more than 80% between 1971 and 1989. Similar reductions have been recorded in several other species of Great Lakes fish and wildlife, including herring gulls, common terns, osprey and lake trout.
The reduction in contaminant burden is also evident in human population. Controls on lead and gasoline have led to measurable reductions in atmospheric deposition of lead in the Great Lakes basin and reduced lead in sediment. The example shown here is the declining environmental levels are reflected in lead levels in the blood of children. Trends in blood levels of Ontario children are compared to the level of lead in gasoline. Declining levels of contaminants such as PCB and DDT have also been measured in the breast milk of women. The example of DDT in the breast milk of Ontario women is presented here.
Our point in presenting this information is that we have made progress and there are many encouraging trends. That is not to deny that there are continuing problems. For example a preliminary analysis of our most recent data-set on pollution releases from industrial facilities within the basin indicates that in 1994 about 129,000 metric tonnes of pollutants were released. Releases to the air accounted for more than 80% of that total. There is no doubt that we have continuing challenges. Further advances in pollution abatement from both municipal and industrial facilities are required. Levels of persistent toxic substances remain unacceptably high in a number of cases. The long range transport of contaminants leaves the lakes vulnerable to the deposition of substances from the air, from sources both within and from far outside the basin. Exotic species continue to be unintentionally introduced into the lakes, with severe impacts on indigenous species. And the sensitive and reproductive nearshore area and tributaries of the Great Lakes system continue to be stressed by the influence of urbanization of land use changes. This is particularly evident in the lower lakes.
We have met challenges in the past and achieved progress. My colleague Dave Ullrich will now outline some of the highlights of binational activities which have occurred over the last two years that responds in part to some of those continuing challenges.
Thank you very much, John. Commissioners, ladies and gentlemen. It is indeed an honor for me to be here today to join in the efforts to protect this magnificent resource that we have and share in the Great Lakes. I must say, I'm particularly impressed to see the young people in the audience, it's a real testament to your commitment that you are here with us on a Saturday morning, but after all I think you probably have an even greater stake in all of this than those of us who have been at it for awhile. So welcome to everyone.
My portion of the presentation is to give highlights of the binational effort over the past several years. This period saw some notable accomplishments which have helped advance the restoration of the Great Lakes basin ecosystem. I will also discuss some of the priorities that the Parties see ahead over the next two years. A major priority is the control of persistent toxic substances. While controls are the domestic responsibilities of the Great Lakes jurisdictions the Parties continue to cooperate on research, monitoring and surveillance, problem definition and priority setting.
To advance the efforts of the Parties and in part to respond to the advice and recommendations of the Commission, the Minister for Environment Canada and the Administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency signed the Great Lakes Binational Toxic Strategy on April 7 of this year [1997] in Washington. The strategy reinforces some of our existing mechanisms by establishing a more collaborative and systematic procedure for responding to persistent toxic substances. This includes the assembly and assessment of information on sources, the review of current controls, the identification of further control options, and of course the implementation of actions which would advance us towards the virtual elimination of toxics. This strategy also sets quantitative milestones for PCBs, dioxins, furans and mercury. The success of the strategy will depend on cooperation among federal agencies, provincial and state governments, tribes and First Nations working together with public and private partners to achieve real progress towards the goal of virtual elimination.
The Parties continued with the second State of the Lakes Ecosystem Conference, last November in Windsor, Ontario. The scientific conference focused on the state of the nearshore system, that area of the lakes between land-based human activity and the open waters of the Great Lakes. The report from this conference was released in September of this year and copies are available from Environment Canada, U.S. EPA and in the various Great Lakes websites. The next State of the Lakes Conference is scheduled to be held in October of 1998 in Buffalo, New York. This conference will focus on the development of environmental and socioeconomic indicators for the Great Lakes, and review progress on protecting environmentally important nearshore areas. The Parties will continue to solicit and respond to advice on the State of the Lakes Reporting and we would like to acknowledge the contributions of the Commission in this regard.
The Parties would also refer the Commission to the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence Health Conference held in May of this year in Montreal, Quebec. This conference brought together 280 participants to consider the effects of the environment on human health. The conference was hosted by Health Canada, the U.S. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry and the Quebec Ministry of Health and Social Services. The conference provided more than 130 presentations and posters, and two roundtables on the latest scientific knowledge on the public health implications of endocrine disruptors and neurobehavioral effects. Some observations offered at the conference were -- exposure levels declined in the 1970s and 1980s, however, the body burdens still concern us. Most at risk are fetuses, nursing infants, subsistence and sport-fishers, and older adults. These populations have high rates of body burdens compared to the general population. Also, there is much evidence of subtle but profound effects of contaminants in the findings of several epidemiological studies. This conference provided a very useful forum to broach the issue of environment and human health. Proceedings of the conference will be published next year in a supplement of Environmental Research.
The Parties continued their work on the Integrated Atmospheric Deposition Network. In a broader context the Commission will also be aware of the initiatives being pursued on transboundary air quality. Environment Canada minister and U.S. EPA Administrator announced in April this year a program to develop a joint plan of action for addressing transboundary air pollution. As well, discussions have been held on the possible development of annexes to the Canada-US. Air Quality Agreement to deal with smog and particulate matter in air.
International efforts are continuing on the development of the Lake Superior Binational Program. Lakewide Management Plans and Remedial Action Plans for the upper lakes connecting channels -- that is the Detroit, St. Clair and St. Marys Rivers. All of this work entails considerable effort to engage stakeholders, reach consensus on problem definition, identify the environmental objectives to be obtained and most importantly, implement restorative and protective measures. Lakewide activities are well underway on three of the Great Lakes --Lake Superior, Lake Erie and Lake Ontario.
The Lake Superior Binational Program as part of its effort to track and report on activities has prepared a five-year progress report which is available this weekend. The report highlights actions and results since 1992 in the areas of pollution prevention, special designations, and controls and regulations.
LaMP Stage I problem definitions have been completed for Lake Superior and Ontario with the Lake Erie Stage I document expected in 1998. The Stage II load reductions and ecosystem targets document has been drafted for Lake Superior and public comments received. The Stage II document for Lake Ontario is expected in the winter of 1999.
Binational RAPs are proceeding with some difficulty. We are aware of the Commission's interest in the Detroit River RAP and the Parties have recently received the status assessment report from the Commission. The perspectives and recommendation of the Commission will be reviewed. The Commission may be aware that Environment Canada Minister, Stewart met with Governor Engler of Michigan recently to discuss activities on the Detroit River. The Parties will maintain efforts towards the successful remediation of the Detroit River.
1997 marked the 10th anniversary of the Niagara River Declaration of Intent. This declaration by the four Canadian and U.S. environmental agencies involved commits to achieving reductions in the loading of toxics to the river and the monitoring and reporting of results under the Niagara River Toxics Management Plan. Continuing improvements are being documented by the jurisdictions including reported reductions in loadings of 85% from municipal and industrial facilities by New York State. Development in implementation of hazardous waste site cleanup plans by New York State. 99% reduction in priority pollutants by Ontario sources and measured improvements in water quality and biomonitors.
In April of 1996, the Great Lakes Agricultural Summit was held in East Lansing, Michigan. This effort was led by the Great Lakes Commission with team support from Michigan State University, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, the World Wildlife Fund and the University of Guelph. Financial support was provided by the Great Lakes Protection Fund. The summit attracted wide participation. A resource document for the summit was produced and a subsequent Action Agenda for Great Lakes Basin Agriculture was developed and is available from the Great Lakes Commission. The Parties views initiatives such as the summit as important vehicles to engage Great Lakes sectoral interests. The shared experiences help advance understanding in the basin and bring forward opportunities for collaboration.
A similar effort was announced in April of this year by Environment Canada in conjunction with the 11th International Great Lakes-St. Lawrence Mayors Conference in Toledo, Ohio. A municipal water quality network has been established to bring together regional waterfront municipalities in the U.S. and Canada. The network will encourage the sharing of information about drinking water systems and wastewater treatment.
This summarizes some of the highlights over the last two years. In the next two years, binational priorities anticipated by the Parties are: the implementation of the Binational Toxics Strategy; a six year review of the Integrated Atmospheric Deposition Network, a component of the Great Lakes International Surveillance Plan; the next stage of the State of the Lakes Ecosystem Conference will be held in October, 1998 and the report delivered in 1999. Also there will be aspects of governance on the agenda. The Parties are required to review the operation and effectiveness of the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement after the next Biennial Report of the IJC. In addition, the Parties will be considering the functioning of its Binational Executive Committee at upcoming meetings. This committee, composed of Canadian and U.S. government agency representatives oversees the Binational Great Lakes Program.
Commissioners, this concludes the Binational Program component of the governments' presentation. In summary, the Parties contend that progress is being achieved on the Great Lakes, that progress is a reflection of the combined efforts of jurisdictions around the lakes together with public and private sector inputs, and that we still have substantial challenges before us. With the continued good will and hard work of all interests we will believe these challenges will be met as they have been met in the past. With your concurrence, Commissioners I would suggest a short break before resuming with the presentations on the U.S. and Canadian domestic activities.
First of all I would like to thank the IJC Commissioners for providing the United States an opportunity to talk about progress we have made in cleaning up the Great Lakes. With me here today is our Administrator of Region II of U.S. EPA, Jeanne Fox and she has representatives from the states of New York and Pennsylvania as well. Also here in the audience today are representatives of the six states that border the U.S. side of the Great Lakes -- Minnesota, Michigan, Wisconsin, Illinois, Indiana and Ohio -- I know for sure Tracy Mehan from Michigan and Bruce Baker from Wisconsin; there may be others as well.
Twenty-five years ago the people of the United States and Canada recognized the importance of a healthy Great Lakes to the well-being of our citizens and economies. The Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement joined our two nations in the effort to improve the health of this magnificent resource. The Great Lakes basin ecosystem is one of the most important natural resources in North America having about 18% of the world's freshwater and it has global significance. The lakes are a wellspring of biological abundance and diversity for all of North America. They have over 10,000 miles of shoreline across eight of the United States. as well as two Canadian provinces. The people who live in or visit the Great Lakes region enjoy the wealth of natural beauty and recreational opportunities and appreciate special meaning associated with the Great Lakes. For me it is both an honor and a daunting responsibility to be part of the challenge to protect and restore the Great Lakes basin ecosystem.
Looking back 25 years, when this landmark agreement was signed, there were reports that Lake Erie was dead and the Great Lakes were a declining ecosystem. Environmental effects from industrial and human development of the basin were devastating. Despite their size we have come to learn that the Great Lakes though vast, are a sensitive ecosystem. Never before had an ecosystem the size of the Great Lakes been so threatened. The evidence was mounting and the effects were obvious. Floating debris on the Cuyahoga River flowing through Cleveland caught fire. Many of the Great Lakes rivers and tributaries did not support aquatic life because the water and underlying sediment were too polluted from cities, industries and farms. Fisheries were closed and fish advisories were issued due to mercury, PCBs, DDT and other toxic pollutants. Sport fish around the lakes had been decimated by the sea lamprey. Birds, including the bald eagle which is our national symbol were in decline due to the pervasive use of toxic chemicals, especially DDT. Beach closing were common in many recreational spots on the lakes causing public alarm. Air pollution was a serious problem, harming people's health and depositing toxic pollutants in the lakes. Unfortunately, the vast open waters of the lakes and extensive miles of shoreline made the Great Lakes particularly vulnerable to this pollution.
There may be people in this room who had a hand in drafting the original Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement in those troubled times. To them I say thank you for having the hope, courage and the vision for a better future. At a time when many believe the Great Lakes to be hopelessly damaged, you saw an opportunity for recovery and formed a framework to achieve that goal. The environment in which our children are growing up is cleaner and healthier as a result, and again I thank each and every one of you.
So where are we now in cleaning up the Great Lakes? What progress has been made? What is our promise for the future? Together we have made tremendous progress in restoring the health of the Great Lakes ecosystem over the years. This progress has been made by a large and diverse number of federal, state and local partners who had a vision for the future of the lakes. Much of the early progress was made through the implementation of federal and state regulatory programs. The public and citizens groups have also done their part to clean up and protect the Great Lakes. Industries also have made great strides in developing innovative solutions to pollution problems in the lakes and have realized that being clean and green company not only helps the environment but is good for the business bottom line as well. I would add that the tribal perspective has been tremendously beneficial for us in the U.S. as well, in working on the Great Lakes.
Yet at the time of the 1987 Amendment to the Agreement it was recognized that an ecosystem approach was necessary for protecting and restoring the chemical, physical and biological integrity of the Great Lakes ecosystem. Implementing the ecosystem approach has been our organizing principle. The benefits of this approach have been enormous. We are working to solve environmental problems in a holistic and integrated way using more creative and efficient solutions. Instead of looking at one piece of the puzzle with our partners we are addressing the health of the Great Lakes as a whole and each Great Lake as an essential part. We recognize that a diverse set of institutions must come together to tackle the problems confronting us. We have also made tremendous strides in understanding the complex nature of these lakes and their watersheds. Without this knowledge we would have been shooting in the dark to find strategies for recovery. Because of this we have been able to successfully design effective remedies for recovery of the Great Lakes.
We have three main goals in the United States to guide us in our quest for a clean and healthy Great Lakes ecosystem. These have been the cornerstones of Great Lakes environmental management since the early 1990s and reflect an ecosystem approach. 1) reduce and eliminate toxic inputs to the Great Lakes basin; 2) protect and restore vital habitats; and 3) protect human and biological health.
The first goal is reducing and eliminating toxic inputs to the Great Lakes basin. The toxic problem in the Great Lakes has long been considered the signature crisis of the Great Lakes ecosystem. I am happy to report that on a number of fronts there has been significant progress in addressing toxic inputs to the Great Lakes. Our emphasis has been to prevent and reduce releases of toxic pollutants and to remedy past contamination, centering around chemicals that are commonly referred to as persistent toxic substances, especially those which bioaccumulate. Many of these toxic substances come from sources far away from the Great Lakes. The good news is that from their highest levels in the late 1970s and early 1980s there has been an order of magnitude drop in the levels of many toxic chemicals found in the Great Lakes. For example, PCBs and DDT concentrations in lake trout in Lake Michigan have dropped appreciably. Air emissions, including those of toxics release inventory chemicals have been on a downward trend. This trend is expected to continue as we move into the next century due to the further implementation of the Clean Air Act.
We owe this encouraging progress to a full range of programs that have been put into place over the past two decades, including pollution prevention and environmentally protective standards. Much of the early U.S. progress under the Agreements stemmed directly from the federal and state regulatory programs. The Clean Water Act has been the primary tool EPA and the states have used to clean up the Great Lakes. In 1991, Congress passed the Great Lakes Critical Program Act which required the agency and its state partners to develop more protective and uniform standards, criteria and procedures to control industrial discharges. We are proud of the precedent setting development of the Great Lakes Water Quality Guidance and the progress that has been made. To date, Indiana, Michigan, Ohio and Wisconsin have completed the adoption process for the guidance. The process is underway in the all of the other Great Lakes states as well. When fully implemented, an annual reduction of over one million pounds of contaminants entering the Great Lakes basin is expected.
We have also put strong emphasis on pollution prevention everywhere in the basin as a fundamental building block of our environmental ethic. Known as the country's industrial heartland the Great Lakes basin is a truly fitting place to use pollution prevention as a tool to solve environmental problems. We have recognized that pollution prevention is the preferred approach to solving the toxics problem. Over the last decade, we have formed many partnerships and invested millions of dollars which has led to the creation of one of the strongest pollution prevention efforts in the country.
Other encouraging news is that pollution prevention ethic is strongly supported. There is evidence that we as a society are using fewer hazardous substances and that industry is both using and emitting smaller amounts of these chemicals, even as the population increases. U.S. EPA and its partners have placed a high importance on mercury over the past several years. The Great Lakes states have been leaders in developing innovative approaches to mercury reduction.
For example, Michigan formed a Mercury Pollution Prevention Task Force to work with industry. One of their notable successes, an agreement with the auto industry to phase out the use of mercury switches, will lead to a use reduction of nearly 10 tons per year. Minnesota has required relay manufacturers to collect and recycle used mercury relays, and a collection and recycling program for mercury thermostats is set to begin throughout Region V shortly. Several states have undertaken outreach programs to hospitals resulting in reductions in the use of mercury containing medical equipment and improved waste handling procedures. Important local efforts are also underway, including significant mercury pretreatment programs at the Detroit and Duluth Sanitary districts and mercury reduction initiatives in Milwaukee and Green Bay, Wisconsin. Because of these efforts and as a result of a ban on mercury in paints and a phaseout of mercury in pesticides, mercury use has fallen significantly; 82% between 1980 and 1995. Mercury emissions and most importantly the deposition of mercury into the Great Lakes basin has also dropped. Measurement of mercury in sediments in Minnesota lakes indicate that after peaking in the 1970s there has been a sharp decline as a result of lower regional emissions.
In addition to prevention we have also put an emphasis on tackling a very difficult environmental problem in the Great Lakes -- this is the problem of contaminated sediments. This is the legacy of many years of discharging to our rivers. In addition to adverse environmental effects contaminated sediment in Great Lakes harbors can also have significant economic impacts because in some places navigational dredging has been delayed. Great Lakes cities want to clean up their waterfronts and revitalize them for both recreational and economic reasons and to improve the overall quality of life.
Contaminated sediments are a barrier to achieving this revitalization in many Great Lakes locations. Cycling of contaminants from bottom sediments is a leading source of contamination of the Great Lakes foodchain. The most pronounced effects are seen locally in the Areas of Concern in the U.S. However, each lake is also affected through resuspension of contaminants moving out into the lake. To date a majority of U.S. Areas of Concern have been assessed to help define the nature and extent of the problem. The Great Lakes Office's sampling boat, the Mud Puppy has been providing technical assistance to state and local communities and has initiated or completed 19 such assessments over the past four years.
Although there is more assessment work to be done, we are placing a continuing emphasis on finding these hotspots and cleaning them up. For example, at Waukegan Harbor approximately one million pounds of PCBs have been removed. In Manistique, Michigan approximately 60,000 cubic yards of PCB contaminated sediments have been removed to date with many more scheduled for the future. At the Ford site, in the River Raisin Area of Concern, 28,000 cubic yards of PCB-contaminated sediments were removed over this past summer.
We are also looking to form new innovative partnerships at the local level to help solve the contaminated sediment problem. In the Ashtabula River Area of Concern a unique partnership has been formed to try to help solve these problems.
Finally in the toxics area, having good scientific and environmental information upon which to make decisions, engage progress is essential. We have initiated one of the largest and most detailed investigations of its kind -- the Lake Michigan Mass Balance Study -- which will put information into the hands of decision-makers to determine the relative contributions from the atmosphere, tributaries, and sediments. EPA has also issued two Great Waters reports required by the Clean Air Act.
The second major goal is protecting and restoring vital habitats. One of the benefits of the ecosystem approach is that we look at places comprehensively and take into account not only toxics and human health issues but also look at our native ecosystems including forests, rivers, wetlands, savannahs and prairies which provide critical habitat for a diversity of plant and animal life. In order to protect and restore important habitats of the basin, we are working with our partners, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services has the lead role in this area. U.S. Department of Agriculture, the Army Corps of Engineers as well as a variety of state, tribal, non-profit and citizen organizations all have critical roles and are making important contributions.
To begin to put these pieces together the Nature Conservancy with support of U.S. EPA, produced a landmark study which reported that the Great Lakes basin has over 130 globally rare or threatened plant or animal species. A few examples of the many initiatives undertaken in this area are the Metzgers Marsh Restoration Project in Ohio is an example of multiple partners working cooperatively to restore a 900 acre coastal marsh through the rebuilding of a lakefront dyke and installation of water control structure. The Chicago Wilderness Project is a partnership of over 35 different members joining together to protect an area that includes portions of Wisconsin, Illinois and Indiana. A project involving over 80 local businesses in the Les Chenaux Channels located in northern Lake Huron has begun.
The third major goal is protecting human and biological health. This goal is closely linked to our first two goals and it reflects an emphasis on the people and living organisms within the Great Lakes basin that we seek to protect. There are encouraging developments in this area as well. As a personal example, my office on the 19th floor of a building in downtown Chicago often provides me an opportunity to look out and see the wildlife in downtown Chicago. I've had the good fortune recently of spotting a couple of peregrine falcons, who utilize a large concrete structure near my office -- it happens to be a federal prison -- but they find that a very good location to do their hunting in the downtown Chicago area. I'm very inspired that even in some of our harshest environments, most heavily developed environments, there are symptoms of hope and recovery.
There are other signs that we are making progress in this area. For the first time since the days of widespread DDT use, eagles along the shores of the Great Lakes are beginning to fledge young eaglets. The Great Lakes eaglets still lag behind their inland counterparts in reproductive success, but this is a sign that things are improving.
Lake Erie went from an ecological wasteland to the walleye capital of the world since the inception of the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement. Sport anglers in Ohio last year caught 2.6 million walleye from Lake Erie (referring to the slide -- This is one of our employees on his weekend duties for EPA). Lake trout populations after almost 30 years have again become self-sustaining in offshore areas of Lake Superior. Stocking has been discontinued in some areas and improvements are expected to continue and may occur soon in other lakes.
Mayflies the favorite food of fish disappeared from Green Bay in 1939 and from western Lake Erie in the early 1950s. They are coming back in dramatic numbers.
Despite this progress there are other threats to the Great Lakes ecosystem that continue to plague and that will be hard to solve. For example, exotic species have had a huge impact on the Great Lakes ecosystem and remain a serious challenge. Early invaders such as the lamprey and alewife continue to impact Great Lakes fisheries. More recent exotics including the zebra mussel and spiny water flea are also causing ecological as well as environmental harm.
The Great Lakes are a vast natural resource that supports a variety of uses. One of the most important being, recreation. The key questions citizens mostly have is whether they can use the lakes as a resource and enjoy them in a safe, clean and healthy way. We have been tracking the beach closings in certain areas over the years and are pleased to report that there is a downward trend in this area.
Of paramount importance is the protection of human health. One of the remaining issues facing us is not being able to eat a wide variety of Great Lakes fish, due to the presence of toxic contaminants in the Great Lakes basin. Scientific studies have indicated that potential human health and developmental effects may be experienced by people that have or are consuming Great Lakes fish as part of their diet.
Next I would like to talk a little bit about partnerships and approaches to solving these environmental problems. They are very important. This is one of the most important aspects of cleaning up and protecting the Great Lakes, because it reflects the way we work with partners as we go about achieving our goals. An alliance of federal, state, tribal and other non-governmental agencies cooperate and manage a nested structure of activities as a partnership to ensure that we meet the goals of the Agreement. This nested structure parallels the natural boundaries found in the Great Lakes ecosystem -- from local landscapes to smaller watersheds, to individual lake basins, building to the entire basin and beyond.
The foundation and basic organizing design for place-based approach in the Great Lakes resides in geographically focused efforts such as the Remedial Action Plans [RAPs] and Lakewide Management Plans [LaMPs]. These are developed and implemented through an ecosystem, multimedia-based approach for assessing impairments and restoring beneficial uses. Each of the areas we are working in will have a unique blend of circumstances and solutions tailored to issues that must be addressed. This is sometimes referred to as community-based environmental protection which is an environmental problem-solving approach that takes the needs, desires and inputs of the community into account and includes working directly with those communities to carry out the solutions. On a larger scale, LaMPs are being developed to address and manage a whole lake, from an ecosystem perspective, which will lead to the elimination of impairments to beneficial uses. The LaMP process involves a large number of binational, federal, state, provincial, tribal and non-governmental agencies coming together to integrate their vision for the lake. These LaMPs are serving as platforms to address the broad range of environmental issues facing the lake. I do want to point out that in my earlier remarks, not having mentioned Lake Michigan is not a reflection that good work is not happening there -- because a great deal is -- it was just more of a national effort, rather than a binational effort.
We must continue to lay the groundwork for a cleaner and healthier Great Lakes in the future. As we stand on the brink of a new century, we face environmental challenges that are much different than those in the 1970s. The social and economic context in which these problems are occurring has changed as well. We must continue our work in a number of important areas, even as we see the progress being made. Many issues are facing us and there is a need to press on and rise to new challenges, so that future generations will be able to see that the Great Lakes are a much better place because of the work of the previous generation.
The issues that we will have to deal with are complex and varied. We have major population centers that are faced with urban sprawl and resulting loss of habitat. Toxic chemicals, continue to be a very serious concern. The global issue of climate change is going to be a major issue.
And we have to deal with water quantity issues in addition to those water quality issues. And there are new mining and exploration threats. I am confident that even though more work needs to be done, we are in a much better position today to solve these complex problems. An integrated approach based on natural and human communities is the best way to ensure that our goals are reached for a cleaner and healthier Great Lakes. We will continue to be responsive and effective in dealing with environmental problems confronting us on a regional, national and international scale. Today, I call on each of you from the Great Lakes environmental community to help continue this partnership, to be responsive and effective in dealing with the continuing problems we face, as well, as rising to the challenge to solve the new ones. Thank you very much for your time, patience and attention. At this point, I would like to turn it over to Jeanne Fox of Region II.
Jeanne Fox, U.S. EPA, Region II.
Thank you. I'm not having any slides so if you turn the lights up a little bit I can see who I'm talking about. I'm Jeanne Fox and I'm the Regional Administrator from Region II for EPA, which includes New York State. I will be speaking on behalf of my region as well as the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. I would first like to thank the Commission for inviting me to participate in today's forum, as well as its Anniversary celebration.
And the truth is, we do have a lot to celebrate. Today the Great Lakes are healthier and have a brighter future than at any other time in the last 25 years. And that's because of the efforts of a lot of people who are in this room, as well as a number of others. Before I begin, I would like to introduce Jerry Mikol in the front, who's director of New York DEC's Region IX and Kelly Burch behind him, who is the Chief Officer of the Great Lakes for the Pennsylvania DEP. I expect that later on, I'll be asking them to help out with questions from the audience, and the two of them together know almost everything about the State's efforts in Pennsylvania and New York, to help clean up the Great Lakes.
Since Dave covered the efforts about the upper Great Lakes, I'll focus on Lake Erie, Niagara River, Lake Ontario and the St. Lawrence River. As Dave said, things look pretty bad for the Great Lakes in the 1970s. Lake Erie was considered to be dying; choked by too much phosphorus. And Lake Ontario was widely believed to be heading in the same direction. Against this bleak background Congress and the President created the Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, which was spoken about by Bob Perciasepe. And thanks to this Act, the discharge of pollutants from municipal and industrial facilities is now effectively controlled through permits under the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System [NPDES]. In the New York portion of the Great Lakes basin, we have widespread compliance with those permits. Just one example of the effectiveness of the NPDES Program is the Niagara River. Where the input of toxics from point sources have been reduced by over 85% since 1981. Our success in controlling discharges from municipal wastewater treatment plants is due in large part to the major investment that we have made in infrastructure.
Since 1972, EPA passing the money through the State of New York, has given municipalities in the Great Lakes basin almost $1.9-billion in grants and has helped capitalize the state program that made $500-million low interest loans available. One of the significant successes of our investment was the ability to reduce the phosphorus loadings in the lakes. This helped New York's Phosphorus Load Reduction Program reduce the levels in Lake Ontario by more than half. But we must go beyond just controlling pollution from point sources; we all know that. We must also address nonpoint source pollution which obviously includes such things as runoff from agricultural fields. In the Clean Sweep Program EPA has worked with Erie County, in New York to help farmers in Erie and 14 other counties get rid of the unwanted pesticides in the environment, and use it in a safer manner. To date we have been able to properly dispose of over 120,000 pounds of agricultural hazardous products in the Niagara River and the Lake Ontario basin.
We have also taken major steps to reduce the runoff of toxic chemicals from the hazardous waste sites. Again, using the Niagara River as an example. In 1989, EPA and New York State identified 26 U.S. sites that were the biggest contributors of toxic chemicals into the river. And we put them on an expeditive remediation schedule. Remedial construction is now complete at seven of those sites and is well underway at 11 others. We estimate the toxic inputs to the river from these sites will be cut by over 80% by the end of this year. We also have to address pollutants that settle out of the atmosphere, that's been spoken about. EPA will be using Section 112-M of the Clean Air Act to ensure that atmospheric emissions of pollutants do not cause harm to the public health, or to the environment in waters such as the Great Lakes.
In addition to cutting the load of the pollutants to the lakes, we must also restore and protect the fish and wildlife populations and their habitats. That is why your Great Lakes National Program Office provides funding for Berry Beach and wetlands habitat restoration on Lake Ontario's shoreline; and creation of wildlife and nesting habitat at Deer Creek Marsh at the far eastern end of Lake Ontario. And that is why DEC is working in partnership with a coalition of industrial and citizen groups to return river otters to central and western New York State. A total of 88 river otters have been introduced to the Lake Ontario basin so far.
The continuation of all these programs is essential to our progress in the Great Lakes. However, the goal of restoring and protecting the integrity of the Great Lakes will only be accomplished through the formation of partnerships. For example, EPA and DEC are working with Environment Canada and the Ontario Ministry of Environment and Energy to develop a Lakewide Management Plan for Lake Ontario. The four parties are in a process of finalizing the LaMP Stage 1 document which lays out the environmental problems of the lake and what the four parties will do to solve these problems. The four parties are also working together on the Niagara River Toxic Management Plan. Initiated in 1987, the plan identified 18 persistent toxic chemicals and set out our actions to reduce them. With financial assistance provided by EPA, DEC is working with community-based groups on Remedial Action Plans. Stage 2 Remedial Action Plans, which identify specific actions are complete now for all six designated Areas of Concern in New York. We are now in the process of implementing the recommendations in these plans.
It is due to the success of the programs that I've mentioned, and many others, as well as the success of our cooperative efforts that we have seen dramatic and measurable improvements in the Great Lakes basin. For example, there's been reductions in the level of toxics found in the water, fish and sediment in the Niagara River. Sediment cores taken in 1995 from Lake Ontario, at the mouth of the Niagara River, show a dramatic decrease in PCBs and a host of other toxic chemicals. These reduced levels are a reflection of the steadily decreasing loads of these chemicals from the Niagara River over time. In Lake Ontario, the herring gull populations are fully recovered after having had reproductive problems because of the toxic chemicals such as DDTs and PCBs.
But despite all of the progress that we have made, we still have a way to go; the job is far from done. EPA and DEC will continue to work together to implement and improve our programs for managing point and non-point source pollution, for cleaning up the Superfund sites, and in dealing with atmospheric sources of pollution. We will continue to work with our partners to restore and protect fish and wildlife populations and their habitats. New York State will implement its Clean Water-Clean Air Bond Act which is a $1.75-billion Bond Act passed this last year by New York voters. $25-million was specifically targeted for projects supporting the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement. And monies from the bond acts total over $150-million for other projects in the basin in New York State.
EPA and DEC will continue to work together to implement the requirements of the Great Lakes Water Quality Guidance in New York. We will also continue our commitment to our binational efforts, the Niagara River Toxic Management Plan and the Lake Ontario LaMP. We will seek to work even more effectively with our federal, state and local partners to restore and protect the Great Lakes. EPA and DEC commit to continuing and improving our involvement with the public. The public is the essential link to the success of our efforts in all of these programs. We will continue our commitment to hold a public meeting twice a year, to report on our progress on the Niagara River Toxics Management Plan and continue our annual meetings for the Lake Ontario Coordination Committee. We, along with our Canadian counterparts, are also establishing a lakewide advisory network for Lake Ontario to increase public understanding and involvement in the LaMP. EPA is also working together with DEC to develop better ways to inform the public of the quality of the water across the state in more meaningful and understandable terms, by developing environmental indicators.
In conclusion, I am encouraged at the number of members of the general public and of the young people here who are participating in today and tomorrow's event. I take this as a sign of the public's ongoing concern about the Great Lakes and their willingness to continue to help us in our work. The author, Gunter Gloss once said, "The job of a citizen is to keep their mouth open." I believe the job of we in government, is to keep our ears open.
Now I would like to introduce our next speaker. EPA Region II has a long standing government-to-government relationship with the individual Indian nations that have territory within the regions boundaries. More recently we've been working with the Haudenosaunee Environmental Task Force, which is composed of delegates from each of the Haudenosaunee nations. The task force is committed to identifying environmental problems that confront the Haudenosaunee and to find solutions to these problems. The task force working on its own initiative prepared a very impressive report entitled, "The Haudenosaunee Environmental Restoration Strategy." Building on that effort, EPA Region II and DEC are now working with the task force on how we can work together to address the environmental problems that confront us all. In the spirit of that partnership I'm very pleased to introduce the executive director for one month now, of the task force, Jim Ransom, who will talk to you directly. Thank you.
Jim Ransom, Haudenosaunee Environmental Task Force
Good morning. My name is Jim Ransom, I'm a member of the Wolf Clan in the Mohawk Nation. I would like to send greetings and thanks to the Tuscarora Nation for allowing me to speak in their territory. I also want to send greetings and thanks to Jeanne Fox and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for providing me with this opportunity to speak. And finally, I would like to send greetings and thanks to the Commissioners for convening this gathering and listening to the people speak for the next two days.
The Haudenosaunee Confederacy was created over 500 years ago and is one of the oldest governments in North America. It was created by five nations: the Mohawks, Oneidas, Onondagas, Cayugas and Senecas. In the early 1700s, The Tuscaroras became the sixth nation of the confederacy. At their peak the Haudenosaunee were one of the most influential people in North America. The circle of influence of the confederacy covered an area from what is now New England to the Illinois region, and from the Ottawa River to Chesapeake Bay.
The strength of the confederacy in influencing such a vast region, did not come from force alone. Instead it was ... in being statesmen, in promoting peace, and being prepared to enforce laws to maintain that peace. Thirteen colonies recognized the strength of the confederacy and used it as a model in becoming the United States of America. In 1987, the United States Congress passed a resolution recognizing the contributions of the confederacy to the U.S. Constitution. The Haudenusaunee Confederacy exists today and its Grand Council continues to meet at the Onondaga Nation near Syracuse, New York.
In 1992, the United Nations Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, the United Nations drafted Agenda 21, Chapter 26 to recognize and strengthen the role of indigenous peoples in their communities around the world. The Haudenusaunee who presented at that summit, and with the support of the United Nations, developed a comprehensive plan to protect the natural world using our traditional knowledge. The Haudenusaunee Environmental Task Force was created and sanctioned by the Grand Council of the Confederacy to develop this plan.
In July 1995, we presented the document that Jeanne mentioned, the Haudenosaunee Environmental Restoration on an Indigenous Strategy for Human Sustainability, to the United Nations at the Summit of Elders. It is the among the most comprehensive of responses to Agenda 21, Chapter 26. Since this summit, much of our work has focused on implementing the strategies outlined in the restoration plan. We are helping our communities to conserve, preserve, protect and restore our environmental, natural and cultural resources.
However, we recognize that in order to be successful, we must form partnerships with other entities who have a common interest in protecting the natural world. While, we as a peoples have an inherent respect for the natural world, it is not enough, when you are dealing with PCBs, heavy metals and the other toxic contaminants of the Great Lakes basin. We need to combine our collective knowledge of the natural world with today's science. We have achieved great progress in creating a full partnership with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, consistent with the intent of Agenda 21, Chapter 26. We are cooperatively working together to develop environmental agreements on a community level, nation level and confederacy level. And we look forward to creating partnerships with other entities such as Environment Canada, the provinces in Canada, the states in the United States, and non-governmental organizations, and others. We understand that only by working together can we ensure a Seventh generation of all peoples.
We would like to recognize and acknowledge the efforts of the International Joint Commission in giving indigenous peoples a voice. Henry Lickers who is a Seneca and many people here know him, is a member of the Science Advisory Board for the IJC. Katsi Cook, a Mohawk and a Mohawk midwife was a former member of the IJC's Workgroup on Ecosystem Health. I also want to thank Commissioner Béland for meeting with the Haudenosaunee Environmental Task Force, earlier this year. All of these activities represent a good start by the IJC for fulfilling the intent of Agenda 21, Chapter 26. Despite these accomplishments, there is still much that needs to happen.
I would like to share three recommendations with the Commission: (1) The International Joint Commission should appoint Indigenous Commissioners to the Commission. For the IJC, the sharing of our knowledge and understanding of the natural world will benefit its work. For the governments of Canada and the United States, they will be able to show the world their commitment to the implementation of the Agenda 21, Chapter 26. The involvement and increased participation of Indigenous peoples on the Commission will strengthen and empower ourselves and our communities; (2) I understand half an hour of the session this weekend will be dedicated to Native issues. And I would like to recommend that all future biennial meetings of the International Joint Commission designate at least one half hour of the agenda to Native issues. I would like the members of the Haudenosaunee Confederacy, Indigenous communities from throughout the Great Lakes basin should be treated with respect and dignity. Recognition of the importance of Indigenous people to the Great Lakes basin will accomplish that goal. This designated time period will help to ensure that Indigenous peoples fully participate in future meetings of the IJC; (3) Indigenous people should be appointed to all of the boards and committees of the International Joint Commission. Our knowledge and relationship with the natural world will benefit these boards and committees.
Again, I would like to thank Jeanne Fox for granting me the time to address this gathering this morning. And I would like to thank the Commissioners for listening. We look forward to improving the relationship between Indigenous peoples, the IJC and others throughout the Great Lakes basin.
John Mills, Environment Canada
Ladies and gentlemen, I would like to now, turn our attention to the Canadian domestic program. Before I do, and I'm going to ask my colleague Ivy Wile to join me at the other podium. But before we get into that, I just want to pick up on a point that David made in his comments regarding the young people here, and I think I just want to echo those comments. There are a group of students from Toronto here that are going to be writing a report on what they see and what they feel about what is going on here. And I for one, look forward to reading that report, with a great deal of interest.
The Canadian domestic program is delivered jointly by the governments of Canada and Ontario, in concert with our numerous partners through the Canada-Ontario Agreement [COA]. It is actually COA that is the principal mechanism by which Canada maintains and meets its commitments under the Canada-U.S. Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement. COA enables Canada and Ontario to work closely together, in a cooperative effort of seven federal departments and four provincial ministries. This slide identifies the federal and provincial signatories to COA.
Before getting into the presentation, I would like to take a minute to introduce you to the representatives of the departments and ministries who are here today. Maybe we could just turn the lights up for a second and people could recognize those representatives. Andy Gilman and Sophie de Villers from Health Canada, John Cooley from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans; Frank Marks from Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada; Chuck Pautler, Gail Krantzberg and Ian Smith from the Ministry of Environment from Ontario; Len Senyshyn from the Ministry of Agriculture Food and Rural Affairs; and from Environment Canada, Vic Shantora, John Carey, Ron Shimizu, Simon Llewellyn and Mike Goffin. The reason I've introduced these people is that a little later on, Ivy and I will be asking them to help us respond to your questions and concerns, at the end of the governments presentation.
Ivy Wile, Ministry of Environment and Energy
The COA which was signed in 1994, sets out an ambitious six year plan which provides the framework for coordination of shared federal-provincial responsibilities. The current COA is the fourth such agreement we've signed between the two governments since 1971. This agreement is focused on results. And for the first time ever, sets out very measurable targets, for action by the many partners who contribute to Great Lakes cleanup -- including governments, First Nations, industry, environmental organizations, community groups and individuals. COA also provides the basis for holding their government accountable and for demonstrating progress. Canada and Ontario recognize that cooperative arrangements with the U.S. is vital, and COA is also our mechanism which enables us to work with our colleagues, south of the border.
COA places emphasis on important priorities such as cleaning up Areas of Concern, virtual elimination of persistent toxics, ecosystem and human health issues. Actions under COA are designed to achieve three main objectives: restoring degraded areas, preventing and controlling pollution, conserving and protecting human health and ecosystem health. COA establishes a specific timeframe for action. But, we need to bear in mind that it is only a six year plan, and our commitment to the Great Lakes is for the long term. We must remember that the Great Lakes did not become degraded over night, and environmental quality will not be restored over night, because environmental systems require time to recover even after remedial actions are implemented. Recognizing this, we will continue to take action and monitor progress on the long term. Challenge faced on the Great Lakes cannot be solved by governments alone. I believe, we also heard that from our American colleagues. The combined efforts of all members of the Great Lakes community have led to significant successes and continue to be needed if all of us who live and work and play, in the Great Lakes basin are to see a vital ecosystem that is a benefit to us, and to the present and future generations. John?
John Mills, Environment Canada
Since the signing of the last COA in 1994, both governments have experienced a reduction in available resources. This change, as most of you are aware is consistent with the global trend towards smaller and more affordable government. As a result, the agencies participating in COA have focused their attention on those programs and actions which will result in the greatest direct environmental improvement in the Great Lakes. Governments have also forged new partnerships with those who share responsibility for the lakes, and with people interested in a healthy, clean and economically viable region. It is also becoming increasingly important for our governments to demonstrate there are both economic and environmental benefits to cleanup and protection of the Great Lakes ecosystem.
When we developed the COA targets in 1994, they were set as challenges, meant to stretch the limits of our ability. We are now at the mid-point of the current COA. An appropriate time to check on the progress and make necessary adjustments. We are assessing our collective ability to meet the COA targets and preliminary indications from that assessment, are that by focusing our efforts and by using innovative approaches to developing partnerships and other innovative measures, the majority of those COA targets can and will be delivered on time. There are however, some that will require more time than originally anticipated. This does not mean that we are not keeping to our commitments. On the contrary, governments are dedicated to continuing the efforts beyond the year 2000, to cleanup the Great Lakes.
We are proud of the success over the past 25 years, and we are also immensely pleased with the extent to which the Great Lakes community is joined in helping to restore the Great Lakes basin ecosystem. I would like to offer a few examples. The ecological response of the herring gull population to declining contaminant levels in the Great Lakes is one tangible example of the success we have achieved. The numbers of herring gulls in the basin has increased dramatically over the past 25 years. They continue to be a major indicator species for environmental contamination, and are the symbol -- you can see on my lapel -- of the Federal Great Lakes Program. In addition the Herring Gull Monitoring Program, currently in its 25th year, is one of the longest running wildlife monitoring programs for contaminants in the world.
As Dave also mentioned, the peregrine falcon returned to the basin, from the cliffs of Thunder Bay through to the office towers in Toronto, is another real success story. This is one endangered species which has responded well throughout North America to the combined recovery efforts of people working together to reduce loadings of toxic chemicals and enhance wildlife habitat. And innovative technologies are being developed as part of Canada's Great Lakes Program which are now being successfully used internationally. There are many more specific examples of accomplishments we have made in meeting our commitments to COA, and we would like to now highlight a few of those. Ivy?
Ivy Wile, Ministry of Environment and Energy
I would like now to turn to the progress that is being made towards meeting COA targets and meeting our commitments under the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement. I agree with John, when he stated that our two governments are quite proud of what we and our partners have been able to achieve so far. Specific information on our progress is contained in the Second Progress report which is available in the display area by the Environment Canada display, and I would encourage all of you to pick up a copy.
I would like to highlight progress using two different measures: innovative approaches and environmental results. First, under COA's objective to restore degraded areas, we are pleased to say that one Area of Concern or RAP area, Collingwood Harbour has been fully delisted. More than 50% of necessary actions to restore the remaining 16 Areas of Concern have been implemented, leading to 13% of beneficial uses being fully restored and significant progress towards restoration on the remainder. As a result, more beaches are swimmable, people have greater access to waterfronts, fish and wildlife communities are improving.
Another example of progress is the upgrading of sewage treatment plants. Seven sewage treatment plants have been optimized, and projects at 12 additional plants are underway. A great many sewage treatment plants have achieved phosphorus reductions which exceed all of our regulatory limits. These optimization projects clearly demonstrate, that environmental objectives can be achieved while at the same time saving taxpayers millions of dollars in capital investments.
We are also focusing our efforts on characterizing contaminated sediments, and developing and demonstrating innovative remediation technologies. Some of the highlights include: $9.3-million cleanup of contaminated sediments in Thunder Bay Harbour, Lake Superior sponsored by Abitibi, Canadian National Railways, Northern Wood Preservers, Environment Ontario and Environment Canada. A second project, a government industry partnership to cleanup contaminated sediments in Welland River, is also underway; and a $25-million rehabilitation plan for the ... Deloro Mine Site has been put in place. We have also successfully demonstrated some new Canadian remediation technology at a number of sites. This not only helps to fix the historical problems, but it is also an opportunity to market Canadian technology overseas.
Another area of focus has been the development of innovative partnership arrangements. For example in the Severn Sound RAP, an environmental association has been established as a partnership of seven municipalities, Friends of the Wye Marsh, Environment Canada and Environment Ontario to continue efforts to fully restore this Area of Concern. In metro Toronto, a four-party agreement is being finalized between Environment Canada, Ministry of Environment, the Waterfront Regeneration Trust and the Metro Toronto Region and Conservation Authority. These collaborative arrangements ensure the continued implementation of Remedial Action Plans, with clear community leadership, while maintaining government accountability.
Another noteworthy result is our collective efforts to conserve and protect species and rehabilitate habitat. We have completed four recovery plans for threatened species, such as Henslow sparrow, peregrine falcons, Eastern spiny soft-shelled turtle and a further eight plans are in progress. Fish community goals have been developed for Lake Erie, Superior and Huron and we have completed the rehabilitation of over 2,000 hectares of wetlands and over 500 kilometres of riparian habitat.
John Mills, Environment Canada
Under COA's [Canada-Ontario Agreement] Objective 2: to Prevent and Control Pollution, our focuses have been on reducing the use, generation and release of priority substances. Tier I substances are those of greatest concern -- the mega-uglies. And our focus is to virtually eliminate those. Tier II substances are those pollutants that have demonstrated potential to impair the Great Lakes ecosystem and are being addressed through life-cycle management and voluntary reductions at source. Efforts have led to reductions in Tier I substances, e.g. under the ARET Program, industries have reported the following: alkyl-lead reductions by 85%; octochlorostyrene reduced by 18%; dioxins and furans reduced by 66% and B(A)P reduced by 20%. In addition, reductions have been achieved in four of the eight COA Tier II substances: cadmium reduced by 20%, 1,4-dichlorobenzene reduced by 40%; PAHs reduced by 30% and pentachlorophenol reduced by 5%.
We will continue to press for future reductions through a combination of voluntary and regulatory approaches enroute to our goal of virtual elimination for Tier I and significant reductions in Tier II substances. We have achieved two significant milestones in relation to the prevention and control of pollution. The first, as was mentioned previously in the binational section was a signing of the Binational Toxics Strategy. Work continues to implement that strategy. Our second target achievement is confirmation of zero discharge of the five priority pesticides within Ontario's commercial sector. These priority pesticides are aldrin/dieldrin, chlordane, DDT, toxaphene and mirex.
The Federal/Ontario governments have encouraged voluntary pollution prevention as a preferred approach to environmental protection in the Great Lakes. While this approach has achieved some reductions of priority substances, we are concerned with the slow rate of progress to-date. As a result, a more targeted approach is being considered involving performance-based agreements with various sectors and facilities to produce more verifiable results.
We would also like to highlight progress on PCBs in collaboration with owners. Forty-six per cent of the high level PCBs have been decommissioned and 30% of the high level PCB waste and 20% of the low level PCB waste in storage has been destroyed. In an effort to continue action on PCB decommissioning and destruction both governments are jointly sponsoring a number of outreach activities across Ontario. These PCB outreach programs are designed to ensure that owners are aware of COA targets and their options for dealing with PCBs to the year 2000 and beyond. Companies such as Ontario Hydro, Eli Ecologic, Bovard Waste Management, General Electric and Toronto Hydro to name just a few are to be acknowledged for their efforts to destroy PCB waste.
Ivy Wile, Ontario Ministry of Environment and Energy
Under our third objective, which is to conserve and protect human and ecosystem health, we've made progress in a variety of areas. On the human health side we have carried out a number of research and outreach activities. For example, we've completed seven research studies on the exposure and susceptibility of high risk populations to contaminants such as PCBs. Studies are also examining the effects of persistent pollutants on reproduction, breast cancer, neurobehaviour and other impacts. Human health indicators are being developed to monitor long-term changes in health risks. As an added feature, support is being provided to community education projects to increase their understanding and to help them understand the risks and take avoidance measures.
On the ecosystem side through incentive programs with land owners and cooperative efforts with land trusts, significant strides are being made in protecting terrestrial and aquatic natural areas. A total of half a million hectares of land has been protected in the Great Lakes basin since 1992. Through collaborative efforts between Environment Canada, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Ducks Unlimited and many other partners, we have secured more than 3,000 hectares of wetland habitat.
To advance the conservation of biodiversity our efforts are now focused on implementing the Canadian Biodiversity Strategy within the Great Lakes basin. Many of the successes we have achieved are a direct result of action taken by various stakeholder groups. One such example is the Ontario Environmental Farm Planning Process led by the Ontario Farm Environmental Coalition and funded by federal and provincial government agencies. Since the fall of 1992, more than 10,000 farmers have attended environmental farm planning workshops and over 5,000 integrated farm action plans have now been developed. As an aside, I would like to mention that in Ontario we have legislation that requires all farmers to take training and be certified; the training relates to the safe and effective use of pesticides and has a particular focus on alternatives and on integrated pest management measures to reduce pesticide use. And over 45,000 farmers have received this training. As mentioned earlier in the U.S. presentation, in the area of LaMPs, we've made some progress. Environmental problems and sources have been identified for Lake Superior and Ontario, and will be completed for Lake Erie in 1998, and load reductions and ecosystem targets have been developed for Lake Superior.
John Mills, Environment Canada
What Ivy and I have provided you this morning is only a glimpse of the many activities and programs underway at this halfway point of the current COA. Again, I would encourage you all to read the Second Progress Report to get a fuller picture of the achievements to-date.
In conclusion of the Canadian domestic program presentation, I would like to leave you with some thoughts on that program. Our first and foremost responsibility is to get environmental results, and to find the right indicators or measures of real progress. While we have made substantial progress, work on some targets will continue beyond the year 2000. We will also continue to invest in research and monitoring to identify and respond to emerging issues. As a result of 1996 SOLEC and other fora we know that there are other areas which our two countries and participating agencies need to focus attention on, including dealing with exotic species, land-use impacts and the impact of toxic chemicals on human health and in that regard I would like to encourage you to pick up a copy of the State of Knowledge Report on Environmental Contaminants and Human Health in the Great Lakes Basin, a recently published document coming from the Great Lakes 2000 Program.
We also recognize that our current agreement is only a milestone in our efforts to clean up the Great Lakes. And to paraphrase Frost, "We know that we have many more miles to travel and many more milestones to achieve before our job is done." Future success depends on all of us, all of you, continuing to participate and support. And I want to thank you sincerely for your participation in the past and your patience and participation here today and, will look forward to a continuing participation in the future. Thank you.
John Mills
The next part of this session was an open microphone to ask questions. We are running a little bit behind time, so I'm going to eat into your lunch time, so that you don't cut back on your opportunity to ask questions. What I would like to do at this point is to ask you if you have some questions to please use the microphones in the walkways and please identify yourself and to whom you would like the question addressed.
Q: Lee Botts, Lake Michigan Federation: I have three questions, the first one is to Mr. Perciasepe. He referred to what he recognized as unhappiness with the Second Great Waters Report this morning, and my questions is: Given the emphasis that has been placed on the problem of atmospheric deposition, does your comment mean that you recognize at the conclusion of the Second Great Water Report that everything that needed to be done about atmospheric deposition is already underway, or are you going to try harder?
R: Bob Perciasepe: The Great Water Bodies Report lays out in some pretty good terms and analysis what some of the remaining problems are. The other part of the report was supposed to be and was, this determination or proposed determination under Section 1.12 of the American Clean Air Act whether or not we had adequate authority to deal with those problems that were identified. And I think there is a recognition that we think we have adequate statutory authority from Congress but we haven't exercised all that authority to the extent we need to do to deal with all those problems that have been identified in the report. So what we are endeavoring to do right now as a companion piece to when we have to make the final determination is to lay out strategically what other actions will be taken or are coming up in the future and underway that will be targeted toward dealing with those remaining problems using our existing statutory authority. I have to say that we do not want to ask Congress to reopen the Clean Air Act to give us more authority. We are going to look at how to maximize using the existing authority under the Act. So that the differences I think in the way that this has been described has been: Do we have adequate statutory authority versus have we exercised all that statutory authority. So that's what we're trying to do a strategy on.
R: (Botts) Okay, we'll be watching. I forgot to say, my name is Lee Botts and I'm a member of the Board of Directors of the Lake Michigan Federation. My next two questions are to Dave Ullrich. Dave, you identified the Integrated Atmospheric Deposition Network and the Great Lakes International Surveillance Program [GLISP] as two things that were going to be worked on for the future. It was up there as an acronym GLISP, and I was amazed to see it because we haven't been hearing anything about GLISP for years now. Does that mean, you're going to bring it back?
R: David Ullrich: I am going to have to ask for a little help from my colleagues here. I have Gary Gulezian who is the new director of our Great Lakes Water Quality Program with an extensive air background as well, and Jodi Traub who is head of our Water Program with an extensive Superfund background. Gary can you help me out on that a little bit?
R: Gary Gulezian, U.S. EPA: I can talk some to the IADN issues but I can't talk to the GLISP issues. That was before my involvement in Great Lakes issues. I think I would like to talk to some of our Canadian colleagues. IADN is an international effort ...
Q: (Botts) Well, it is ongoing, but the point is, is GLISP on going? That is the question.
R: (Gulezian) I guess I would like to turn it over to some of the people in Environment Canada who have been working on IADN and included that item on GLISP in the talking points.
R: Simon Llewellyn, Environment Canada: GLISP has not been ongoing for a number of years. But we have an intent to reopen the question of monitoring and surveillance. On the Canadian side we have done in the last 18 months a very intensive look at what we think are the requirements for monitoring in the lakes that range all the way from chemistry to some of the biological parameters. Having done a draft of that, our next step in trying to put back a cooperative monitoring program is to review that with our provincial colleagues and Fisheries and Oceans as well as the LaMP cochairs and U.S. EPA. But that is not to suggest that there has not been any monitoring going on in the lakes throughout all these years. There has been a lot of monitoring going on. It is that data which you are seeing summarized in the trends. But GLISP per se, why you haven't heard has not been in place and we would strongly like to put something back in that is now relevant to where we see the future priorities are.
Q: (Botts) I think that's encouraging. Finally, I would like to remind Mr. Ullrich that Ashtabula is not unique. In fact, the Ashtabula arrangements that are so innovative were based on an effort that first began at the Indiana Harbor and Ship Canal at the south end of Lake Michigan. My question to you is, "Will you please inform the IJC that there is some place else where a great deal of partnership is being developed in order to clean up the largest concentration of contaminated sediments in the Great Lakes and let them know that there are a lot of new kinds of efforts being made at the south end of Lake Michigan as well as on Lake Erie?"
R: (Ullrich) I will do that immediately. IJC Commissioners, not only is there wonderful partnership activity going on in Ashtabula. I will say that, and this is I think very important Ms. Botts, or Lee, that we must recognize that each one is unique. Because the people and places are unique and one of the things that we have tried to do from a federal standpoint is not a one size fits all approach, but tailor our approaches to the people and places who are there, and I thoroughly enjoy the uniqueness of each one of these wonderful partnerships as are forming.
John Mills
Can we take one from the center aisle, please?
Q: My name is Elaine Kennedy, I'm alternate for the Chair of the Ontario Public Advisory Council and I am also Chair of the Public Advisory Committee of the St. Lawrence Remedial Action Plan at Cornwall. My comment/question is directed at Ms. Wile. The public who are concerned about environmental issues have in mind the seven generations that Jim Ransom referred to. However, the politicians do not. Their long-term vision is 3-4 years for the next election. Their short-term is the next media scrum. We count on civil servants to have the long-term visions and thus advise the politicians where their responsibilities are for future generations. What is your department's plan to encourage Minister Sterling to reconsider his reduced support for the RAPs, especially the PACs?
R: Ivy Wile, Ontario Ministry of Environment and Energy: I think part of your question refers to the elimination of some of the RAP coordinator positions. I believe six positions were eliminated, and I think I want to show you that it was done with very careful consideration as to the stage of the RAP, the ability of staff from our regional, district offices to provide ongoing support -- and I believe you're getting that in the eastern region from southeast region -- and perhaps the status of the RAP and the discussions that were taking place on partnerships. We had mentioned several that partnerships and the willingness by local communities to assume more ownership and more leadership in the RAP areas, as far as overall funding, I think we are still continuing to contribute all the funding to infrastructure renewals, remediation programs; we've mentioned several of them in our presentation -- DeLoro mine site in particular, I think in your area, so the funding is continuing to flow and I assure you that Mr. Sterling is very committed to continuing our contributions to the RAP areas and to the Great Lakes in general.
Q: (Kennedy) We encouraged through COA that this be continued, especially in the form of leadership for the Public Advisory Committees. We can have partnerships, but we also must have leadership. Thank you.
John Mills
Can we take one on my left here?
Q: Thank you. My name is Tim Eder. I'm with the National Wildlife Federation. My question is for you, Mr. Mills. I believe that Canada-Ontario Agreement as well as the Virtual Elimination Strategy signed by the U.S. and Canada pledges a 90% reduction in releases of mercury, but it is also my understanding that due to Ontario Hydro's decommissioning of their nuclear power facilities, that the release of mercury from Ontario could increase by as much as 70% due to the replacement of that power generating capacity with the burning of coal. Is that accurate? And if so, what will Canada and Ontario do about the potential for increased mercury release?
R: John Mills, Environment Canada: I cannot comment on the accuracy of your predictions in terms of the emissions. I am really not an expert in that area. But, it is quite obvious that given the changes, given the things that are happening with Ontario Hydro, it makes that target that much more challenging. I would look to one of my colleagues, I'm not sure, Ron can you comment on the specifics in terms of the prediction of 70% increase. Those are figures that are new to me.
R: Ron Shimizu, Environmental Protection Branch, DOE: I believe those are estimates at this time, Tim. We will continue to work, certainly with Ontario Hydro in trying to get them to eliminate their emissions, certainly including mercury. There's even more emphasis on that, as we also put it more priority on their emissions for ground-level ozone, and also on fine particulates. I think perhaps I might ask my provincial colleague, Ian Smith who I understand is working on mercury at this time, to comment more specifically.
R: Ian Smith, Ontario Ministry of the Environment: Hydro is a pretty hot topic. I don't think your 70% number is correct. It may be correct for that particular sector, but in terms of total emissions in Ontario, certainly it won't increase emissions by 70%. But because mercury has been a bit of a problem substance for us in Ontario, even with the work we are doing under COA, the reductions have been less than we anticipated. So in Ontario we are starting a whole new initiative modeled after the Michigan and Minnesota activities to focus on mercury. One of the focus areas is currently energy, both conservation and alternate energy sources. I hope that answers your question.
Q: (Eder) What are you saying about the 90% reduction target? Are you saying that that's no longer a target?
R: (Smith) Oh no, we're clearly pursuing that target, but right at this point, we don't think we can meet 90%. One of the problems clearly is the nuclear problems that we are having at Ontario Hydro. The need for us in Ontario to either search out alternate sources within the province, potentially importing electricity from other sources. Our agency is currently evaluating all of those alternatives. And mercury is high on the list of how they evaluate alternative energy sources. It is not being forgotten.
Q: (Eder) Thank you.
John Mills
Can we go to the aisle to my right, please.
Q: My name is Sydney Baiman. I'm from the Chicago area. I work for an organization called NEIS, Nuclear Energy Information Service. I was concerned here about the IJC. Many toxins and pollutants have been mentioned but nothing has been mentioned about the radiation effects, radioactive effects of the lakes. There are at least from 30-50 deadly radioactive hazards that border the Great Lakes and the rivers which emit radioactive contaminants like cesium-137, strontium and on Lake Ontario alone, there are 18 nuclear reactors that border both the Canadian and U.S. side. These plants use the water to cool their reactors. They are constantly taking in and emitting millions and millions in gallons of contaminated water back into the lake. The American side has boiling water reactors which are very bad polluters. The Canadian sides have the CANDU reactors which are known to emit way, way too much tritium. As a matter of fact, there is far too much tritium in the drinking water of Lake Ontario. One nuclear reactor makes 500 pounds of plutonium and 30,000 pounds total waste per year which affects the surrounding ecosystems. Just for an example, there are now on the dunes of Lake Michigan, three large dry casks stored with the high-level nuc-spent fuel, each cask contains enough high-level waste to equal 100 Hiroshima bombs, and there are three of these on the Sleeping Bear Dunes of Lake Michigan. Now we know that these casks are leaking radioactive substances, and I was wondering if the IJC has any policy about controlling the radiation and your Canadian nuclear program. Of course if you're going to clean up the lakes, you're going to have to shut down the nuclear reactors, because these radiative pollutants are not only persistent, but they are permanent and very deadly for health, breast cancer and low-weight babies. I'm asking all of you.
R: John Mills: The question as I understand it, has the IJC looking at radionuclide as a toxic substance. Yes, they have.
Q: (Baiman) You have not mentioned it once; not one report. And this always happens with government reports. It happened in the global talks. Nothing is ever mentioned about radiation.
R: (Mills) Your point is taken. In terms in how the governments deal with radionuclide, there are regulatory programs in place in both countries, to deal with that, to address those situations or that issue. Again, I am not an expert on it. But I wonder if one of my colleagues can help me out here. Ron?
R: Ron Shimizu: The International Joint Commission does have right now a task force, I believe on nuclear or radionuclides in the Great Lakes basin. There are probably members of that task force in the audience. Murray, would you like to make comment?
R: Murray Clamen, IJC: My name is Murray Clamen, I cochair the Nuclear Task Force of the IJC which is in the final stages of completing a report. If you look at the priorities document that is available right here, in the back of that there is some interim findings of the task force. The IJC has obviously expressed a very strong interest in the question of radioactivity in the basin recently, and the task force is attempting to deal with things like monitoring and compliance, and data reporting. That is the first of perhaps an extended look at nuclear issues that the IJC is dealing with. Does that address your question?
Q: (Baiman) Well, I don't know what you mean by "compliance," because the nuclides certainly don't abide by any of them, by clean water or clean air safety rules. I would suggest that the IJC have a strong statement that these plants be closed and do not go into the MOX program, which would just accelerate the nuclear program -- by MOX I mean the mixed plutonium based fuel which supposedly you are going to be the first people to experiment with -- and I suggest strongly that you do not do this and recommend that the plants be shut down. That is my suggestion. Thank you.
R: (Clamen) The Commissioners are here and I'm sure they are listening very carefully to that and other recommendations. Thank you.
John Mills
Can we move to the centre aisle, please?
Q: Hello, my name is Eleanor Dudar. I am the Toronto Board of Education's Environmental Education Officer. First I want to say, I am encouraged by the broadening perspective we now begin to talk about and begin to think in terms of, rather than Water Quality Agreements, simply ecosystem health. And that of course, is reflected in a number of ministries at the provincial and federal level here on the Canadian side. I am encouraged also that so many of you have spoken of the importance of public education. There is for me a really critical piece missing. No one has talked about education in the schools. In Ontario we face a time of unprecedented change in all sorts of ways in our education system, specifically our curriculum is being revised and rewritten, and I'm wondering what strategies you may have for working with your colleagues at both the ministerial and curriculum writing areas to make sure that as we face this basics education thrust that people at all levels understand that there need to be new basics, not just old basics? Additionally, were there any colleagues from the Ministry of Education invited to be here and if not, why not?
R: Ivy Wile: I don't believe we have invited any colleagues from Ministry of Education and perhaps that is an oversight we should correct in the future. But we do work closely with curriculum development. We've recently launched a program on Partners and Air, which involves students, they're interactive on the web, direct linkage to air data and we encourage them to share their data amongst schools and present their data at various events which we sponsor. I know other organizations, the Lung Association, a number of others also involved in various educational projects. So we are actively involved.
Q: (Dudar) Thank you. That's a start, but what is really important is that as the new curriculum is written, that all of us here, as citizens or as people in the employ of the civil service be sure that we insist that environmental and sustainability education is both explicitly and implicitly embedded in our science and social studies programs. Thank you.
R: John Mills: Perhaps just add a couple of comments. We are very shortly going to be releasing a CD-ROM on the Great Lakes that covers a whole range of information topics and the audience for this CD-ROM is public and high schools, particularly Ontario, wherever, but is a very broad-based one. It also provides a lot of information about how to link in to a whole range of information sources well beyond the federal/provincial governments. The only other thing to mention is that there is information around Health and Welfare are producing teacher kits in the Health and Environment area which is being prepared in conjunction with a number of the teacher groups and that is available, in fact Dr. Andy Gilman is here if you want to perhaps more directly to him about that. So there are a number of activities underway on the educational front. David do you want to make a couple of comments.
R: David Ullrich: Yes, I would like to address the issue just briefly and first of all thank you very much for raising that issue because frankly 50 or 70 years ago if we had done a better job on education we wouldn't be having the problems that we have right now. This has been a real effective part of our programs on the U.S. side. Each of our ten regional offices has somewhere in the neighborhood of just under $200,000 that we give out in environmental education grants to various schools and organizations around the country and in the Great Lakes area as well. In addition to that, there are national environmental education grants. We have a number of projects. One in particular, the mighty acorns project with the Nature Conservancy that takes school children, including my seven year old son, out into the few remaining prairies in the Chicago area to gather seeds and just a wide variety of activities. But I could not agree with you more that this is probably one of the most effective prevention strategies that we could engage in. Unfortunately, our dollars are not as large as we would like, but I think our return on our investment there is probably greater than almost any place else. So thank you very much for raising it.
John Mills
I would just echo that there are a number of programs on the Canadian side also. And I won't take up your time because I know there are a number of people who want to ask questions. So I'm going to immediately go to the aisle on the right. I'm sorry, did I miss... I was going this way? Excuse me, on the left.
Q: I have a question for David Ullrich. I am Russell Bimber from Painesville, Ohio. Retired after 40 years as a pesticide research chemist with Diamond Alkali and Diamond Shamrock Corporation and successors. Have you had a problem with state EPA's investigating Superfund sites on behalf of U.S. EPA, ignoring large quantities of hazardous waste that companies have reported burying in order to please local real estate interests?
R: David Ullrich: I am not aware of any such situations where either a state or federal person might have ignored any particular waste that might have been disposed of. I think that with the large magnitude of sites that we are trying to deal with there may have been occasions where perhaps we have not identified all of the waste at the initial effort to deal with it, but I am quite confident that when situations are brought to our attention that there is waste that may have been overlooked, that that is investigated; whether by state or federal investigators. I am not aware of any specific situation where that might have occurred.
Q: (Bimber) I would like to send you some documentation on one such site. Thank you.
R: (Ullrich) I would very much like to know about that.
John Mills
Now we go to the right.
Q: This is for Jeanne Fox. My name is Larry Behan, I'm the vice-chairman of the Sierra Group in Buffalo. Last Tuesday night at our meeting, we had a very frustrated member come and tell us about a veal factory farm on the shores of Lake Erie just inside of Sturgeon Point. He lives right next door to this veal factory and he and his neighbours have been subjected to terrible odour from it, for a number of years. They have looked at it and it appears to be draining calf manure into Lake Erie, Went Beach and Woodlawn Beach are just down the way from it. There is a clean water intake to the other side of it. He has been to the DEC and the Department of Agriculture and has not been able to get any satisfaction from them. I would like your advice as to how we might be able to help him in this situation.
R: Jeanne Fox: I'm going to ask Gerry Mikol to respond. He's from DEC, the regional director and tells me he's aware of the situation. For our Canadian friends, the way we work is we delegate to the states many programs. We do thought, because the federal programs have oversight and work with the state agencies in that regard, who obviously talked to Jerry about this afterward and found out everything he knows about it and then we can do some follow-up. But, I would like Gerry Mikol to talk about this.
R: Gerry Mikol, NYSDEC: Larry, thank you. We are familiar with the specific situation you refer to and the farm. We've actually sent some of our inspectors out there over the last several months. Rather than get into the details I think one of my water quality engineers is here today who is family with the results and we could chat together on that site. But we have been aware of the situation, we've been out there as well.
Q: (Behan) Okay, we'll be in touch.
John Mills
Can we go to the centre aisle, please.
Q: My name is Roberta Birkman and I'm a science teacher with the Toronto Board of Education. In listening to the different presentations this morning, I heard several times that the sediments were removed or dredged, or taken away so that they wouldn't go directly into the water; removing the contaminants. My question is, "What happens to those sediments once they are removed, how are they dealt with so they don't re-enter the ecosystem?" And anyone can answer.
R: David Ullrich: From our own experience on the U.S. side there are a number of different strategies that are used to deal with the sediments once they are removed. One technique is to try to concentrate them and then use a thermal-destruction process to destroy them, to virtually nothing of what they had been before. That is a very expensive approach to dealing with the chemicals, PCBs in particular, but when you can concentrate and then thermally destroy them, that is an effective means.
Q: (Birkman) Can I just ask you then, what do you mean by thermal destruction?
R: (Ullrich) A common term is incineration. It's burning it up at high temperatures. I know that's a very controversial subject. I've been involved in many of those situations myself. But the other primary means is to use some form of land disposal with the double liner, leachate collection system and long-term monitoring to make sure that if there are any leaks that they can be dealt with effectively at that time. Those are two of the primary approaches that are taken once the material is removed. And I would say that although there continues to be controversy about these disposal or destruction techniques, it is such a vast improvement over having them loose in a water environment or other places where humans and plant an animal life can be exposed, that it is clearly a step in the right direction. Although, there continues to be extensive research on better ways to ultimately dispose of these materials.
John Mills
Can we go to the left aisle.
Q: My name is John Mahan. I'm really not representing anybody but myself. I am a writer that specializes in Great Lakes ecosystem issues, however. Ms. Wile you used the term "safe use of pesticides." I'm familiar with Dr. Peterson's research that shows the one hit scenario that goes like this: a miniscule dose of various organochlorines one time on day 15 of a rat's gestation causes profound and permanent effects on its offspring later on. Endocrine disruption is the popular term. I'm also familiar with research by Dr. Porter that tells us that such commonly-used pesticides such as aldicarb at exquisitely small levels, levels as small as what we are finding in drinking water now, when given in combination with other pollutants in the environment, cause similar endocrine disrupting effects on mice. That's just the tip of the iceberg and I won't belabor the issue. But I have to ask you, would you define your term "the safe use of pesticides" and put it in the context of the government's commitment to virtual elimination of such substances.
R: Ivy Wile: I think the context that I had in my speech was from the perspective that farmers are trained to ensure they understand how to mix, load, avoid spills and that they understand the nature of the chemicals and toxicity of the chemicals they are using and perhaps use that information to make better choices. Look at opportunities to reduce use through integrated pest management, other alternatives. So it was safe in that context as opposed to the direct toxicity of the chemical.
Q: (Mahan) Safe, if they are used as prescribed, they are dangerous. When they are used on the crops they go into groundwater. If they are used with IPM even. Since they are persistent how is this consistent with virtual elimination. Do you have a target of eliminating them entirely?
R: (Wile) We identified progress on eliminating five of the most persistent toxics, toxic pesticides. I believe mirex, aldrin, dieldrin, chlordane and we've actually found that these have been eliminated from commercial use. We've banned their use effectively and then followed up through an audit to ensure that there was no illegal use or continued discharge. So we've made some serious efforts to get rid of the most persistent chlorinated hydrocarbon types of pesticides.
Q: (Mahan) What are you doing to see that they are not replaced by equally damaging ones?
R: (Wile) I suppose the fact that they are less persistent is one factor. Also we are reducing application rates, we are implementing various risk management measures. I'm not a pesticide expert but certainly the newer pesticides go through a much more rigorous assessment process before they are put on the market, than perhaps pesticides which have been on the market for 20 or 30 years and went through a much less vigorous testing process. When they are registered for use by federal agencies both in Canada and the U.S.
Q: (Mahan) I won't keep belaboring the point except to make sure I understand. Your goal appears not to be virtual elimination, but control. Is that correct?
R: David Ullrich(?) There's virtual elimination of Tier of I substances. That is the goal.
Q: (Mahan) But the goal also not to damage the ecosystem and what are we doing about the ones that are replacing them.
John Mills
I think the point is made. Maybe we can carry on the conversation/discussion outside. There are a number of other people that need to chat and I'm really conscious of the time and people are taking their lunch hour. Let's go to the right.
Q: My name is Paul Muldoon, Council of the Canadian Environmental Law Association. It's a two-part question. The first part is for you Mr. Mills and the second part is Ivy Wile. And both relate to comments in Canada's response to the recommendations of the Eighth Biennial Report of the International Joint Commission. Let me ask the first question first. You mentioned in your speech Mr. Mills and in the report, that one of the responses to the IJC's recommendations is proposal for Canadian Environmental Protection Act and that Act would really be a cornerstone piece of legislation to allow Canada to fulfill its obligations under the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement [GLWQA]. What you fail to outline in this and I'd like a response, is the proposed definition of virtual elimination in that piece of legislation. Section 65 of that legislation states that "virtual elimination really relates to a continued use of the most persistent, bioaccumulative substances because you are allowed to use those and not only allowed to use them, but in fact they can only be controlled to the extent that they are released in detectable amounts and harm is established." That would seem to be in counter-position to the precautionary principle to pollution prevention, but clearly it seems to be exactly opposite, word-for-word contrary to the definition of virtual elimination in the Eight Biennial Report, particularly page 10. So can you please reconcile your definition in section 65 with page 10 of the Eighth Biennial Report of the term virtual elimination.
R: John Mills
I am going to turn to my colleague, Mr. Shantora to help in this regard who knows a lot more about Section 65 than I do.
R: Vic Shantora, Environment Canada
Good morning, my name is Vic Shantora. I think Paul the issue is a little more complex than perhaps what you have set out here. The objective is to ensure that the use or the release if it's persistent, toxic or bioaccumulative is prevented. In the case of commercially found chemicals or whatever, other sections of the Act, even the existing Canadian Environmental Protection Act, allow for bans and phaseouts. This particular new section, and by the way it has not been reintroduced into parliament, so I'm not in a position to indicate the substance of any of the provisions as yet, but the objective of the new provisions would be to set out a broad national framework to ensure that virtual elimination occurs. The process by which that will happen is for example for dioxins and furans that by setting these targets, these long-term goals we will be looking to industries or emitters of these particular substances, and I'm thinking of dioxins and furans in particular to look at alternate strategies, alternate processes, alternate techniques so as to prevent their releases.
Q: (Muldoon): My point is that that is not what the Section says. So I'm hoping and I'm asking for you to go back and tell Ottawa to redefine that Section to conform to your statement; that would be useful. The section part of the question is to Ivy Wile. And the statement I would just like to comment on is the Province of Ontario stated the proposed provincial legislation initiatives over the past two years will not reduce environmental protection. Yet in the last two years, we've seen a repeal on the ban on incinerators in Ontario, a proposal not to require pulp and paper industries to undertake AOX plans to achieve the zero discharge commitment. We've seen about a 39% cut in your budget which means that the water monitoring and surveillance regime stations have been down from 700 to 200 since 1991. It is the least number of air monitoring stations we have had in Ontario in 20 years and there is noticeable decline in enforcement actions. So how do you reconcile those initiatives with the statement in your response to the IJC?
R: Ivy Wile: Perhaps I can take them one at a time, Paul. The ban on incinerators which was lifted. You are well aware that was indicated in Mr. Harris' election campaign and he lived by that commitment and made the changes. However, I would like to think that the new criteria we can put in place which would control new incinerators are really very stringent and certainly dioxins and furans levels emissions if any, would be extremely low under the strict requirements we put in place. As far as the AOX, you know that was a proposal that was put forward under some of our regulatory reform initiatives. No decision has been taken. All the pulp and paper mills with one exception are well ahead of reducing AOX levels. They in fact were possible in a situation where we can reduce the limits ahead of schedule and we're also participating in some studies that are looking at what are the components of AOX and should we regulate the individual chemical components, since AOX is simply a surrogate measure. Monitoring stations, you mentioned that we had the lowest number of air monitoring stations in 20 years? That's incorrect. In fact 20 years ago, we probably had far fewer monitoring stations than we have today. What we are trying to do is rationalize where we do our monitoring. In the past, they were added in somewhat of an ad hoc manner and we're putting a lot of time, effort and money into upgrading our monitoring systems so that we for instance, PM10 and 2.5 monitors because they are more significant to health...
Q: (Muldoon) Is there is disagreement that there's a less number. Are you saying there is more or less air monitoring station than there was let's say, five years ago?
R: (Wile) I can't that answer that exactly, but I can certainly find the information for you and let you know; I don't have it with me today. But, I would say we're roughly in the same ballpark. Water-monitoring stations, many of the stations, as you know we've tried to focus our efforts, we've tried to identify where instead of monitoring, because you've always monitored there, which doesn't seem a particularly useful way to spend taxpayer's money, we have focused on where the monitoring should take place, and some of the drop-in stations actually are flow-measuring stations rather than actual monitoring water quality.
John Mills
I'm going to take two more questions and then we'll close up because I see we've now taken almost half an hour of your lunch period.
Q: I'll try to make this quick. I'm Mary Ginnebaugh, from the Detroit River AOC and my question is to EPA. The Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement is very clear about the commitment in conjunction with the state to ensure that Remedial Action Plans are being addressed and there is a commitment to that. The state of Michigan which has 14 AOCs, three of which are international, has made a decision to reduce their level of support and effectively walk away from their commitment to the RAP process. My question to EPA is what are they going to do and are prepared to do to ensure that there is meaningful public involvement in the Michigan RAP process and what commitment to ensure the delivery of the stage II requirements within each RAP?
R: David Ullrich: Well, we have a number of thoughts in mind and I will not speak for Michigan. If Tracy Mehan is here and would like to add anything, I would be happy to have him address it as well. We recognize the central importance of the RAPs to this process and I will say at the outset that making this work as effectively and as efficiently and as fast as we would like has been a real frustration. I think part of it is a reflection of the complexity of the issues that we are dealing with and the desire to have the broadest participation in the process. Very honestly, we are learning how to manage such a process as we are going along. I think particularly over the last two or three years where we have developed some strong partnerships in the Ashtabula area, in the Grand Calumet River area, of Northwest Indiana and other areas, it is my hope is that we can transfer some of what we have learned to Michigan and other areas as well.
In addition to that, we have found that we can be much more effective if we have people not in Chicago, but out in whether it's Detroit or other of the Areas of Concern. Unfortunately, the bureaucratic process associated with that takes time as well. But we are in the process of seeing if we can get more of our people out directly in these areas of concern to get to know the people and to know the problems better. So that is one thing that we are doing as well. Beyond that, with one of our new approaches in re-inventing environmental problem-solving approaches, we are focusing on specific geographic areas. I think you know about the Southeast Michigan initiative, we are not only dedicating individual people who might have had just a water background before, but we are trying to bring air, hazardous waste, pesticides, toxics people as well. So those who might not have been working on these types of issues before now have their time and their expertise available. We're basically trying to steer our resources better towards these priorities and Areas of Concern are a priority. So if a state does have a resource problem or concern, we are prepared to steer our resources in that direction, and a key part of that will be enhanced public participation.
John Mills
We'll take one more question from the right. And I will make the point, that I know there are others that want to talk, but I am very conscious of the time. Representatives of the government are available to talk with you individually, please make sure you come and talk to them directly. Please, one more question.
Q: I'm a concerned student from Revere High School in Ohio and I have a question that returns us to the education issue that was brought up earlier. You mentioned that there are lots of teacher's kits that the teachers can receive to teach the students about the Great Lakes and I was wondering do any of those teacher's kits actually teach the students about the environmental problems that we are having, such as the nuclear reactors and the increased breast cancer risk and stuff like that? Or do they just teach the issues of ecological aspects and industry aspects and your basic knowledge like that.
R: David Ullrich: I'm not familiar with the packages. My understanding was that they dealt with a wide range of problems as to whether or not they address specifically the issues associated with nuclear reactors and associated problems, I just don't know one way or another. But I would be happy to make sure that you get the information that is available and to the extent that that might not address all of the issues, then we can take that information back and see whether or not adjustments could be made in the information that is provided.
John Mills
Thank you very much, ladies and gentlemen. I will now turn it back to the Commissioners who have been sitting patiently and I know Co-Chairman Mr. Baldini had a couple of announcements to make. Thank you for your patience and if there other questions, please come and talk to us directly.
Chairman Baldini
Let's thank government for their presentations. I know they are going to be here to answer some of your questions. A couple of very quick points. First of all, on the back table there is a document that looks like this. It is called, "The Proposed Priorities for the Next Cycle." We would like you to pick that up. This is how we plan. We plan in two year cycles. These are our proposed priorities for the next two years. We would like you to review it, we would like comments from you. And please send those to any one of our three offices, Washington, Ottawa or Windsor. Please do that. Secondly, there are displays. I noticed quite a few people have stopped in to see them, right next door. Some of you have not picked up your tickets for this evening's dinner yet. You paid for them, you have to pick up your tickets. And also a reminder about the speakers cards -- fill those out. And last, we would like to start as close to 1:00 p.m. as possible. There is a quick buffet in the dining room. Inexpensive, but good food I'm told. They set it up specially for us to try and move things quickly. So thank you once again, very much and let's thank every one else. See you at one o'clock, 35 minutes Adjournment for lunch