Annex 1 Paul Horvatin – U.S. EPA Great Lakes National Program Office General Points No formal EPA Position at this time. Any changes would require extensive binational consultation. Recent analysis of Annex 1. BEC discussion held. Updating Annex 1 was a lower priority than implementing other aspects of Agreement. Numbers only meaningful in a context – i.e. methods, avg. times, extent of monitoring, enforcement, placement in permits. Observations for Consideration and Reaction Little impact on domestic programs. Outdated scientific rationale. New programs adopted (by both countries) have superceded Annex 1objs. New Annex 1 could be relevant and useful. Potential uses: TMDLs, SOLEC Indicators and Reporting, Progress on GLBTS, and ongoing monitoring. Keeping Annex 1 Current Updating is immense effort, new science quickly makes out-of-date. Could make Annex action/process oriented. Require binational discussions on levels of toxic substances in Great Lakes. Not objectives, but “Action Levels”. Action Level Options Continually updated: adopt by reference most stringent standards of Fed., State, or Prov. agency, incl. emerging issues. Expand to other media-based objectives (sediment, tissue, etc.) Would not force a single “right” objective. Keep existing specific objectives, no “backsliding”. If exceeded, triggers binational consultation. Action could be taken action via GLWQA-BEC, GLBTS, POPs, CEC forum(s) and result in additional monitoring activities. Existing U.S. Programs Regulatory program and compliance monitoring, enforcement is real. GLI will be foundation for EPA position on Annex 1: Required by Law. Years of rule-making, court challenges. Incredible investment. Suggestions Consultation on “Action Level” approach. Compile relative standards for Annex 1 process every (?) years, based on current standards and monitoring data. Report on activities, accountable to public, based on current science.