December 4, 2001

The Commission has reviewed the combined Stage 1 and 2 RAP for the United States portion of the Niagara River AOC and the documents associated therewith within the context of the requirements for Stage 1 and Stage 2 RAPs set forth in the Agreement.

Stage 1 RAPs are expected (intended) to contain:

• a definition and detailed description fo the environmental problem in the AOC; and
• a definition of the causes of the use impairment, including a description of all known sources of the pollutants involved.

Stage 2 RAPs are expected (intended) to contain:

• an evaluation of remedial measures in place;
• an evaluation of alternative additional measures to restore beneficial uses;
• a selection of additional remedial measures to restore beneficial uses;
• a schedule for their implementation; and
• an identification of the persons or agencies responsible for implementation of remedial measures.

In addition to these required Stage 2 elements, Annex 2 of the Agreement also details general principles for RAPs that include:

• RAPs shall embody a systematic and comprehensive ecosystem approach to restoring and protecting beneficial uses in Areas of Concern; and
• the Parties, in cooperation with State and Provincial Governments, shall ensure that the public is consulted in all actions undertaken pursuant to this Annex.

With respect to all of the above matters, the Commission notes that much of the material in the RAP document has been superceded by the aggressive implementation efforts of the Niagara River Toxics Management Plan (NRTMP), and is of the view that detailed comments on the report would not be helpful toward the overriding goal of restoring beneficial uses in the Niagara River. Instead, the Commission offers the following general comments.

First, it is clear that implementation efforts under the NRTMP are a key element in restoring certain beneficial uses in the AOC. Accordingly, effective coordination between the RAP effort and binational NRTMP is necessary. Greater emphasis on public consultation would enhance the identity of the RAP effort and help ensure that confusion between the NRTMP and the RAP does not exist.

Second, the Commission is concerned about the evaluation of remedial measures in place and the evaluation of alternative additional measures to restore beneficial uses. These issues are extremely complex in regard to the existing hazardous waste sites and continued effort is required to track progress toward the ultimate restoration of beneficial uses and consult with the public in regard to the nature of this progress. Existing RAP efforts in regard to this issue may need to be supplemented.

As the United States government is aware, during the past few years, the Commission has been undertaking status assessments of progress in restoring beneficial uses in selected AOCs. Currently, the Commission is engaged in a status assessment of the binational Niagara AOC. We have met with officials and members of the public on this matter over the past many months and hope to complete our work by early 2002.

In closing, the Commission believes that much good work has been done by countless individuals to improve conditions in the Niagara River. It is an ongoing process. We recognize that much has been done but much also remains to be done. The Commission looks forward to receiving further reports on work to restore beneficial uses in the Niagara River.