Health and welfare of Great Lakes to get an update with sign

[Claude]

Environment Minister Peter Kent is in Washington, DC today, meeting with Lisa P. Jackson, his U.S. counterpart from the Environmental Protection Agency to sign a new, updated Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement.

Originally signed in 1972, the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement is a joint effort between Canada and the United States to protect and restore the Great Lakes. Previously revised in 1978 and 1987, the agreement deals with each country's responsibilities in maintaining the health of the lakes, and discusses specific issues such as pollution, water quality and biodiversity.

[ Related: Naturally-occurring 'lake inversion' suspected in Lake Erie fish die-off ]

The agreement also identifies certain 'Areas of Concern' that have one or more, as they phrase it, 'beneficial use impairments' — changes in the biological, chemical or physical conditions of the lake that cause, for example: restrictions on fish and wildlife consumption, drinking water restrictions, drinking water taste and odor problems, beach closings, degradation of phytoplankton and zooplankton, or loss of fish and wildlife habitat. There are currently 42 Areas of Concern identified by the agreement, most of which coincide with lakeshore communities on both sides of the border.

Details aren't being made public until after the agreement is signed this afternoon, but it is expected to include new commitments regarding invasive species, climate change, habitat protection and biodiversity in the Great Lakes. According to his post on the EPA's It's Our Environment Blog, Cameron Davis, one of the U.S. negotiators of the updated agreement, says that it will also place more emphasis on preventative measures and allow for more public input.

According to Environment Canada's Great Lakes webpage, at 2pm EDT today, you can watch a live video of the signing of the Agreement.

[RUNNIN REBEL]

Thanks Claude,

Realy appreciate the info. U.S.A. Lisa Jackson is no friend of the great lakes here. That's our government motto here "Details aren't made public till AFTER its signed" But made before the elections in Nov. The new Lake Ontario water level policy wants to change the average range we have now (since the 1950's) To include lower "LOW" water levels. Have you seen the level NOW ??? Our new water plant (built under the lake) here in Webster is now up to multiple destinations its pumping Lake Ontario water too. Also how the ships leaving the ALL the Great Lakes are now filling their ballast tanks with Fresh Lake Ontario water todeliver Free back home. Sorry but the Canadiens should not put much Hope & Change into the U.S. government @ this time.

Jerry

Rebel Charters

[Cheers]

I have heard of ships filling thier ballast tanks! How can we find out more on this?

[RUNNIN REBEL]

I Hope LONG LINE Tom can come threw AGAIN with info on this. This Lake Ontario water level/Quality & Enviromentalist "Friendly" deals are as important as D.E.C decisions made.

Jerry

Rebel Charters

[fish or swim]

http://us1.campaign-archive2.com/?u=b50 ... 514bb94b7d

Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement Signed Today

“Today We Applaud; Tomorrow We Get To Workâ€

Washington, D.C., September 7, 2012 -- At today’s signing of the revised Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement in Washington, D.C., representatives from Great Lakes United and the National Wildlife Federation applauded the completion of the Agreement but cautioned the U.S. and Canadian governments that the hard work of implementing the Agreement is just beginning.

“We are honored to attend today the signing of landmark revisions to the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement, the U.S.-Canadian agreement that is so important to the health of the Great Lakes,†said John Jackson, interim executive director of Great Lakes United. “These revisions were eight years in the making. We hope they will lead to revitalized action from the governments and their partners working together bi-nationally across the entire Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River basin from Duluth to Québec City. Protection, cleanup and restoration are essential to ensure that we live in a vital, thriving Great Lakes basin. Today we applaud. Tomorrow we get to work.â€

“If fully implemented, the agreement will benefit millions of people by restoring the health of the largest fresh water resource in the world,†said Andy Buchsbaum, director of the Great Lakes office of the National Wildlife Federation. “We are pleased to see that the governments have kept the focus of the Agreement on Great Lakes water quality. While the Agreement continues to focus on cleaning up pollution in the Great Lakes, the revisions are designed to address broader threats to water quality, including aquatic invasive species, climate change, habitat destruction, and harmful substances that are not necessarily persistent toxic substances.â€

The Agreement contains some targets for addressing these stresses. For example, it requires phosphorus reduction targets for Lake Erie within three years and action plans within five years. It sets a two-year deadline for the development and implementation of an early detection and rapid response system for aquatic invasive species. It does not include timelines for cleaning up Areas of Concern (toxic hotspots) or achieving virtual elimination of chemicals of concern.

Jackson said, “While we praise today the signing of this new Agreement, this is only the first step. No matter what the words on the page say, this Agreement will only be effective if the U.S. and Canadian governments act to implement it.â€

“We know this from experience,†Buchsbaum said. “For example, when the governments enacted new laws and rules to implement the 1987 Amendments – as the U.S. Congress and the U.S. EPA and Environment Canada did to address persistent toxic substances in the Great Lakes – the Agreement helped bring the lakes back to health. But when the governments have failed to implement parts of the Agreement, the lakes suffer.â€

U.S. and Canadian officials have stated in reports that the Great Lakes would be far better off today if the governments had more fully implemented the 1987 Agreement—the last time the Water Quality Agreement was updated.

“We ring this alarm bell with today’s revised Agreement,†Jackson said. “We call on the governments to ensure a more effective implementation of the Agreement they signed today.â€

Great Lakes United and the National Wildlife Federation requested that the governments take the three following actions:

1) Ensure that adequate resources are available to implement the Agreement. “Unfortunately, we are currently going the wrong direction on this matter,†Jackson said. “In the past year, the Canadian Government has moved swiftly towards its goal of eliminating hundreds of government scientist positions, even as they commit in the revised Agreement to science-based decision-making. Canada is planning to close down the major Canadian research station dedicated to freshwater experimentation that has been so important in deepening our understanding of problems and solutions.â€

“On the U.S. side, there has been better news, but the future is worrisome,†Buchsbaum said. “We were pleased to see $475 million added to the Great Lakes budget in 2010 under the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative. But we now see budget fights that have reduced that budget to $300 million dollars annually. The federal fund to support sewage treatment upgrades (so important for the Great Lakes) has also been substantially cut. We fear what further cuts may come.â€

2) Strengthen and expand legislation and regulations as needed to protect the Great Lakes. In Canada, movement is in the opposite direction aimed at weakening legislation such as the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act and the Fisheries Act. In the U.S., Congressional efforts have been to gut the Clean Water Act protections that are the foundation of Great Lakes health.

“The Great Lakes need more protections, not fewer,†said Buchsbaum.

3) Involve the public to ensure progress and accountability. “We need opportunities for more complete public and stakeholder engagement in the implementation of the Agreement,†said Jackson. The new Agreement has more references to involving the public than did the previous one—though it is weak in how it will specifically engage U.S. and Canadian citizens. The only specific commitment is a public forum once every three years. “We need true public engagement by, for example, including stakeholders as full members of working committees set up under the Agreement,†he said.

“We hope that this revised Agreement will revitalize the binational focus on protecting and restoring the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River ecosystem,†said Jackson. “This Agreement is the main way in which the governments work internationally across the basin on water quality issues. For the well-being of the millions of people who live in the basin, we must ensure that this new Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement is implemented fully and effectively.â€

[fish or swim]

People claim to be concerned about these issues but you have to show up...

http://www.dunnvillechronicle.com/2012/ ... ty-for-ijc

"The IJC was in town recently holding a public meeting to talk about algae. Not many people came, perhaps twenty, an indication of how many people care about the subject."

[LongLine]

Thanx Jerry, I didn’t have much to do today anyways… I read thru it and there are a lot of things in it but I only picked out things that I feel would be of major interest to fishermen. (Please realize that I'm not a lawyer)

Where does the treaty apply?

-“Great Lakes Basin Ecosystem†means the interacting components of air, land, water and living organisms, including humans, and all of the streams, rivers, lakes, and other bodies of water, including groundwater, that are in the drainage basin of the Great Lakes and the St. Lawrence River

One guiding principle:

“that the polluter should, in principle, bear the cost of pollutionâ€

so if occidental or whoever messes it up – there goin’na pay. (Also, the old adage “solution to pollution is dilution†is no longer acceptable)

The state can make their own laws, so even if I’m perfectly legal via the federal treaty, I still have to worry about state & local regulations:

-Objectives developed jointly by the Parties do not preclude either Party from establishing more stringent domestic requirements.

-that chemicals of mutual concern may be managed at the federal, state, provincial, tribal, and local levels through a combination of regulatory and non-regulatory programs

Max targets for Phosphorous levels & loading rates are numerically stated in the treaty for each lake. These are the only really “cast in stone†or “hardcore†number limits in the document.

Here are some things directly affecting us boaters & fishermen:

1. Regarding general discharges from vessels:

-The Parties’ responsibility for implementation of this Annex is expected to rest principally with Transport Canada, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, the Canadian Coast Guard, the United States Coast Guard, and the United States Environmental Protection Agency and other agencies, as appropriate.

-“Vessel†means any ship, barge, or other floating craft, whether or not self-propelled, used or capable of being used for marine transportation or navigation;

-“Discharge†includes, but is not limited to, any spilling, leaking, pumping, pouring, emitting or dumping; it does not include unavoidable direct discharges of Oil from a properly functioning vessel engine;

Phew…my old two-stroke outboard is still legal!! (According to Federal treaty and as long as I keep her tuned up)

2. More

-The Parties shall address discharges to the Waters of the Great Lakes as follows:

-develop and implement regulations to require that every vessel operating on the Great Lakes that is provided with toilet facilities shall be equipped with an approved device or devices to contain, incinerate, or treat sewage to an adequate degree;

-that each Vessel shall have a suitable means of containing on board fuel Oils spills caused by loading or unloading operations, including those from tank vents and overflow pipes;

-“Harmful Quantity of Oil†means any quantity of Oil that, if discharged from a Vessel that is stationary into clear calm water on a clear day, would produce a film or a sheen upon, or discoloration of, the surface of the water

Ok, not worried about the toilet as I don’t have one and that’s been law for a long time. The oil spill thing may be an issue with some though. Guys are going to have to be real careful about fueling at the dock. Better not overfill the tank& have any go in the water. Discharge in previous quote refers more to exhaust/drive side of motor & not the fill side.

3. “Bilge vs Ballast†water. I found this interesting;

-“Ballast Water†means water with its suspended matter taken on board a vessel to control trim, list, draught, stability or stresses of the ship;

-“Oil†means Oil of any kind or in any form, including, but not limited to, petroleum, fuel Oil, Oil sludge, Oil refuse, Oil mixed with ballast or bilge water and Oil mixed with waste other than dredged material;

Keep your bilges clean. If you have oil & water in the bilge then pump it out on the water, you may encounter an issue.

4. This may be troublesome:

-the discharge of garbage, except for cargo residue, shall be prohibited; …

-“Garbage†means all kinds of food waste, domestic waste and operational waste, all plastics, cargo residues, cooking oil, fishing gear, and animal carcasses generated during the normal operation of the Vessel and liable to be disposed of continuously or periodically;

I never throw cut-off pieces of fishing line overboard (& hopefully you guys don’t either), however animal carcasses may be an issue. Current fishing regs say it’s ok to gut a fish & dispose innards overboard, if you’re far enough away from shore. I read the treaty to say it’s a no-no.

5. Regarding invasives:

-implement programs to prevent the introduction and spread of AIS by

(ii) recreation and other resource use including, but not limited to, boating and personal watercraft use, fishing, hunting, diving, and float plane aviation;

Bait fish regs, pulling your drain plug, cleaning off your trailer, hulls, etc are types of things in accordance with the treaty.

6. The biggie – water levels:

-The Lakewide Action and Management Plans will be the principal mechanisms for coordinating development and implementation of the lakewide habitat and species protection and restoration conservation strategies under this Annex.

-Recognizing that climate change has an impact on Great Lakes water quality and water quantity, the Parties shall ensure that their actions taken pursuant to this Annex are coordinated, as appropriate, with the water quantity management actions taken by or in conjunction with the International Joint Commission .

The treaty doesn’t say anything about water level. The water level issue of the last couple years was presented as a means to restore habitat by an arm of the IJC. I'm not clear wether 2nd paragraph refers to water flow out the St lawrance or mid-west water withdrawl; or both.

IMO, the “saving grace†to this whole treaty is the multiple mention of mutual agreement between many parties/agencies/advisors/localities and public input. It also agrees & tasks the IJC and advisors to specific periodic public reporting – both input and output before any actions are taken.

Here’s the complete text of the agreement:

http://www.epa.gov/glnpo/glwqa/index.html

http://www.epa.gov/glnpo/glwqa/20120907 ... _FINAL.pdf

Man, where'd the time go?

Tom B.

(LongLine)