2. Water samples will be taken bi-monthly at the Duluth and Grand Marais water intakes and mouths of the St. Louis, Beaver, Knife and Brule Rivers. Samples of the Duluth sewage treatment plant effluent will also be taken. Water samples from the four above tributaries and the Duluth STP will be taken by continuous sampling over a three-day period.

3. The use of freshwater clams as biological filters seems to be the logical answer to monitoring pesticide levels in the smaller tributaries and they will be incorporated into the monitoring program.

Minnesota already has an extensive pesticide monitoring program. For this reason it is estimated that total implementation of the committee monitoring recommendations will require approximately $10,000 of additional funds. Minnesota will request additional funds for a taconite monitoring and a taconite monitoring and investigation program in Lake Superior.

Wisconsin-Future program without Federal assistance

As per the Lake Michigan Enforcement Conference Pesticide Committee recommendations, the State of Wisconsin is committed to the following monitoring programs in Wisconsin waters:

1. Forty-eight composite water samples per year.

2. One hundred eighty-five biological stream samples per year.

3. Eighty fish samples per year.

4. Forty-four Lake Michigan water samples per year.

5. Forty-four plankton samples per year.

6. Approximately one hundred municipal and industrial waste sources. 7. Follow up enforcement activities.

Budget for this program is $31,500 per year.

Wisconsin-Future program with Federal assistance

Wisconsin has tentatively established a monitoring program which will commence when funding is available.

A. Water sampling

1. Lake Superior: 1-3 tributary stream sites monthly as 3-day composites. This will commence on or about June 1, 1970.

2. Lake Superior: 3 lake sites monthly along the shore will commence June 1, 1969.

3. Lake Michigan: 4 lake sites monthly on Lake Michigan proper and 3 lake sites on Green Bay monthly.

B. Biological sampling

1. Biological filters (clams) will be exposed on 20 Lake Superior tributary

streams.

2. Plankton: 4 sites on Lake Michigan monthly, 3 sites on Green Bay monthly, and 3 sites on Lake Superior monthly.

3. Fish: Analyses will be run twice a year on 10 species from one site on Lake Superior.

C. Industrial sampling

Wastewater discharges from formulators, fabric processors and other suspected sources will be sampled and analyzed. Financing necessary to undertake the additional Lake Michigan and Lake Superior monitoring activities will be $63,000.

FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ADMINISTRATION PESTICIDE QUALITY CONTROL PROGRAM TO SUPPORT PESTICIDE MONITORING

The Federal Water Pollution Control Administration will establish a pesticide quality control program to support pesticide monitoring programs. The pesticide quality control program will center in the Lake Michigan Basin Office of the Great Lakes Region and will have the support of the FWPCA Analytical Quality Control Laboratory in Cincinnati, Ohio.

This program will consist of consultation, methods review, methods development, reference samples supplied to all participating laboratories and evaluation of the results of the reference sample analyses.

The first meeting of the Lake Michigan Pesticide Quality Control Group will be held at 9:00 a.m. on July 22 and 23, 1969, at the Lake Michigan Basin Office, 1819 W. Pershing Road, Chicago, Illinois 60609.

RECENT DEVELOPMENTS

Each of the five states received a letter dated June 24, 1969, from H. W. Poston, Chicago Regional Director, FWPCA. This letter informed the states of the procedure to follow for requesting Federal monetary assistance for their Great Lakes pesticide monitoring programs.

The applications will be reviewed together. Therefore it is important that each state submit its grant application promptly.

Regional Director Poston stated that he perceived no difficulties in granting the states' monetary requests shortly after receipt.

If the FWCPA Lake Michigan office is to act as coordinator, conduct a quality control program, and aid in confirming identifications it will need additional. help. The Regional Office will also submit a plan of study to Washington to provide a basis for carrying out the Federal role in the combined pesticide monitoring effort.

Senator HART. Now, we will hear from the chief deputy director of the Michigan Department of Agriculture, John Calkins.

You have been so widely advertised, we certainly have to get to you before lunch.

STATEMENT OF JOHN CALKINS, CHIEF DEPUTY DIRECTOR, MICH-IGAN, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE; ACCOMPANIED BY ROBERT KIRKPATRICK, SUPERVISOR OF ENFORCEMENT DIVISION Mr. CALKINS. Thank you, Senator Hart, and members of the committee, and thank you for the opportunity to appear.

In my statement I will attempt to provide information on what has been done, what is being done, and what should be done to assure judicious and proper use of these materials which are necessary for the control of pests. I truly believe that few people have taken the time to understand the many protections provided them by various governmental agencies-State, Federal, and local-in the area of pesticides.. And as Senator DeGrow has mentioned already this morning, although pesticides misuse is attributed and has been attributed widely to agriculture, we feel and we know from research that is done in this immediate area through Michigan State University that urban areas are contributing in some cases the heaviest pesticide loan to our watersheds.

Effective, safe pesticides must be available to farmers, food processors, and others if we are to continue to have adequate, high-quality food available at a reasonable cost. Pesticides are also useful tools in natural resource management. An example of this here in Michigan and in the Great Lakes area would be the use of the pesticide called a lampricide for control of the sea lamprey which has led to the establishment of our Coho salmon and establishment of other fishes in the Great Lakes. This is one example of a nonagricultural use of pesticides.

Also, pesticides are very widely used in public health. And probably worldwide, this has been one of the great uses of DDT, for example.

Before a pesticide can be registered for use in Michigan, it must be approved by the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the laboratory division of the Michigan Department of Agriculture. If it is to be used in food production, it must also be cleared by the U.S. Public Health

Service, Food and Drug Administration. Where there is any question of possible effects on wildlife or contamination of the environment, the U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, reviews the application for registration.

The Michigan Department of Agriculture relies by law on the research data and recommendations of the Michigan State University experiment station, and the pesticide research center at MSU, which has some of the most capable scientists in the world. Concerning persistent pesticides, their goal-this is the goal of the Michigan State University-is spelled out as follows:

Broad spectrum (so-called "hard pesticides") are not recommended for any situation where practical, selective, short-lived chemicals are available.

The Michigan Department of Agriculture Laboratory Division registers pesticides and enforces the labeling requirements for all economic poisons, including pesticides. It also tests the products to assure the users that the materials meet the guarantees and labeling requirements. In 1968 the department suggested that the registration of pesticides be tightened by an amendment to authorize the department to deny registration of certain pesticides, upon the advice of the MSU experiment station, even though these may have been previously approved by the Federal Government. The amendment also deleted the provisions of the prior law which permitted companies to register pesticides, "under protest," if so labeled. This legislation was enacted in 1968, and permits the department to deny registration of pesticides for uses not recommended by MSU. This new legal tool was a basis for the department's recent action with regard to DDT.

The department laboratory tests hundreds of samples of various kinds of foods every year to protect consumers against residues that might be above tolerances. Monitoring of pesticide residues in the public food supply has been carried on at the Michigan Department of Agriculture's laboratory since 1933, in conjunction with the department's dairy and food inspection divisions. We cooperate very closely with the Food and Drug Administration, which conducts similar programs on foods moving in interstate commerce. Pesticide tolerances established for foods by the Federal Food and Drug Administration are used in enforcing Michigan food laws. This applies to recent action with regard to coho salmon.

And also, another thing that has been in the newspaper recently is that there have been some claims with regard to grapes in Michigan. And I would say that we test grapes routinely. And we have never found tolerances of pesticide above FDA guidelines in any Michigan grapes.

The Michigan Department of Agriculture laboratory in East Lansing is one of the most modern State laboratories in the Nation. One of its important functions is to protect the citizens of Michigan from pesticide residues in food. Scientists in this laboratory, using highly sophisticated equipment, are able to detect pesticides in quantities as minute as fractions of parts per billion, even down to parts per trillion.

The Plant Industry Division of the Michigan Department of Agriculture has a responsibility in preventing the introduction and spread of plant pests and diseases in Michigan. The competition of people with plant insects and diseases has been a life and death struggle

through the ages. Many times the pests have won. At the risk of oversimplification, may I state that your Michigan plant pest control officials operate under the guideline of an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. Early detection through trapping and other surveillance programs is effective in determining the presence of plant pests and diseases before they have an opportunity to cause widespread damage. The Japanese beetle infestation is an example of this, as is the State's efforts in gypsy moth control.

Gypsy moth, a major destroyer of forests and foliage, was brought to the United States more than 100 years ago and gained a toehold in Massachusetts and other Eastern States. For more than 100 years. Massachusetts has battled to save her forests from the ravages of gypsy moth. Michigan Department of Agriculture scientists, recognizing the threat to Michigan, protected Michigan's forests through continual surveillance which led to early detection and eradication of gypsy moth in Michigan. Since 1962, it has only been necessary to treat one area in one country of the State of gypsy moth control, and a relatively safe, nonpersistent pesticide was used.

In connection with gypsy moth, something crossed my desk yesterday that I think is pertinent. This is an item from New Jersey, and I quote from a newsletter of the National Association of Soil and Water Conservation Districts:

Concern over defoliation of forested areas by gypsy moth in the Morris County Soil Conservation District of New Jersey led district supervisors to call a special meeting and develop recommendations for dealing with the problem. The damage to trees and landscape and of plantings was destroying forest resources, impairing wildlife habitat and creating a fire hazard.

I only mention this to point up that, as I said before, our aim is to use an ounce of prevention which we feel is worth a pound of cure. And we feel if we can keep the gypsy moth from Michigan with small applications of pesticide, that is to the benefit of the entire State.

The department, through the plant industry division, enforces the act (P.A. 233) requiring the licensing of "Customs Applicators of Economic Poisons Out of Doors." This law was passed in 1959. The legislature strengthened it last year by amending it to permit the licensing of these operators for certain specific types of equipment and pesticides based on the licensees' qualifications. The amendments also add the director of the pesticide research center at Michigan State University as a member of the advisory committee established by the act. Further amendments proposed by the department and now in the legislature, provide for much stricter controls on commercial pescticide applicators, and will include indoor, in addition to outdoor, applicators.

The plant industry division conducts insect control programs in cooperation with the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Plant Pest Control Division. No such cooperative program of insect control in Michigan is conducted without review and approval of the Federal Committee on Pest Control. This committee, made up of representatives of the U.S. Department of Agriculture; the U.S. Department of the Interior: the U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare: and the U.S. Department of Defense, reviews each pest control program and must give its unanimous approval or the program is not carried

on. There is an opportunity for evaluation of many facets of pesticide use, including long-range environmental implications, and this committee sometimes refers such questions to the National Academy of Science for further recommendations before reaching a decision."

Pesticides have been used by the Michigan Department of Agriculture for control of the Japanese beetle, gypsy moth, cereal leaf beetle and for eradicating the common barberry which is the alternate host for the black stem rust of grains.

It is interesting to note that, in light of the present controversy regarding the usage of DDT and other pesticides, the Michigan Department of Agriculture has used no DDT since 1962.

A summary of the changing usages in control of these pests follows:

JAPANESE BEETLE

From its discovery in the State in 1932 and until 1942, arsenate of lead was applied at the rate of 1,000 pounds per acre as a soil insecticide. During the war years, this rate was reduced to 500 pounds per

acre.

In 1946 chlordane became available and was found to be effective for this purpose at the rate of 10 pounds per acre. A small amount of DDT was also used at the rate of 25 pounds per acre.

Aldrin and dieldrin came into use in the late 1940's at 3 pounds per acre. This rate was later reduced to 2 pounds per acre. This is compared to an early use of 1,000 pounds per acre of arsenate of lead for the same insect.

GYPSY MOTH

DDT, at the rate of 1 pound per acre, was used in aerial application until 1962.

By 1967, when it was again necessary to treat an area in one county, the insecticide Sevin was used. Sevin is desirable because of its relatively low toxicity to mammals and fish, and because it has a short residue period.

CEREAL LEAF BEETLE

The first spraying for this insect occurred in 1963 when 1 pound of Malathion per acre was used. Research performed in 1963 showed that 8 ounces per acre were effective; therefore, this rate was used in 1964. Further research resulted in a reduction to 5.3 ounces in 1965 and to 4 ounces in 1966. Malathion is a relatively "safe" chemical that has been sprayed on pheasants in massive overdoses with no ill effects.

BARBERRY ERADICATION

For many years, salt was the standard chemical for eradicating the common barberry which is the alternate host for the black stem rust. Now the herbicide Ammate is used. Eight ounces of Ammate are equivalent in effectiveness to 100 pounds of salt.

In addition to this progress in plant pest control use of pesticides, the Michigan Department of Agriculture's Dairy Division has been active in encouraging the State's more than 10,000 individual milk producers to eliminate the use of organochlorines (the so-called hard