Minutes of the 134th Meeting of the Great Lakes Science Advisory Board
Held at the International Joint Commission Great Lakes Regional Office
100 Ouellette Avenue, 8th Floor
Windsor, Ontario
September 30th, 2004; 8:00 AM - 12:30 PM

1. Welcome and Introductions

   The Co Chairs called the meeting to order, and welcomed the new assistant to the Board Secretary, Ms. Jill Mailloux. Brief self introductions followed. Dr. Kay Austin, Washington Section Adviser to the Board was also in attendance at the meeting by a telephone conference link.

   
   
2. Approval of the Agenda

   Since the Board had agreed to convene the meeting earlier than scheduled, Dr. Heathcote suggested that routine items be dealt with prior to the arrival of Dr. MacIsaac. An additional item on the International Joint Commission Biennial Meeting was suggested by the Secretary under other business. The agenda was then approved by all of those in attendance.

   
   
3. Meetings

   Next -	#135; December 15 – 16, 2004, Windsor, Ontario – No change
   Future -	#136; NEW DATE – March 3 – 4, 2005 location to be determined. #137; June 9 – 11 Public Meeting in Association with the International Joint Commission Biennial Meeting, Kingston, Ontario #138; September 29 – 30, 2005, location to be determined.

   The International Joint Commission Spring Semi Annual Meeting was noted as scheduled for April 12 – 15, 2005 in Washington D.C.

   A brief discussion ensued on the merits of meeting at an alternate location in the basin, and possibly reviewing progress at an Area of Concern as had been done on occasions in the past. The secretary commented that the International Joint Commission Windsor office was considered a default meeting location primarily because of cost and convenience; however the Board could meet in other locations by exception. He added that the Area of Concern site visits were conducted in coordination with Commission Annex 2 Status Assessments, and that none of these were currently planned. The secretary said that the review process had returned to the oversight of the Water Quality Board. He said that the Annex 2 Task Force had been sunsetted and that the Water Quality Board was reorganizing a new Work Group to address Annex 2 issues. Dr. Clark suggested that meeting in an Area of Concern where remedial actions are significant and science based could be quite relevant and interesting for the Board. He said the most current example is Green Bay, and that it represents the second largest clean up activity in the basin. Dr. Donahue added that another alternative could be a Canadian site near Kingston, for example, Port Hope. After a brief discussion, the secretary was directed to develop a cost comparison for Board travel associated with Windsor, Green Bay, and Port Hope. (Attachment #3 - PDF document).

   
   
4. Invited Scientific Presentation: Dr. Hugh MacIsaac: "Invasive species in the Great Lakes: Mechanisms of Introduction, Resource Management Implications, and Control Options". Dr. MacIsaac's power point presentation was made available to each of the members.
   
   
5. Other Business
   • Future Invited Scientific Presentations and Speakers

     Several suggestions were offered for future invited scientific presentations including: Human Health/Dr. Susan Schantz, Climate Change/Ms. Linda Mortsch, Annex 2 Research/Dr. John Braden, and Science and Communication/Dr. William Leiss. A discussion ensued on improving the structure of meetings, and reviewing the organization of the Board Work Groups. Comments with respect to the meetings were as follows:

     • meeting dates need to be firm and preferably a year in advance in order to for them to be locked into members schedules
     • not enough time is being spent together as a Board
     • organized dinners are an important part of the meeting and should include a speaker whenever possible
     • the practice of meeting from noon on day 1 until noon on day 2 should be extended until 2 PM on day 2 to provide for an open forum over lunch, and more time for discussion of the individual agenda items
     • the Work Group meetings could be placed in the middle of the meeting, and the invited scientific presentation moved to day 1 between 4 – 5 PM.
     • the Meeting could be structured around scientific themes based on International Joint Commission priorities, other Board activities/interests, or speaker's topics
     • Board members are to be encouraged to provide a brief presentation on their current activities or research at each meeting

     Following the discussion, Dr. Heathcote developed a meeting template to be followed in future meetings and presented it to the Board for their concurrence. It was agreed by all of those in attendance that the new template reflected the consensus of the discussion. (Attachment #1 - PDF document)

     Dr. Heathcote asked the question of whether the Work Group structure still served the needs of the Board. She said that some other options might include a different roster of groups or topic areas, or project based. She recognized that all of the Board's work planning and activities occurred at the Work Group level as presently constituted. Dr. Braden responded that essentially the Board functions on a project basis, but through the Work Groups. He added since the Work Group's were based on a division of labor based on the expertise and interests of the membership, a variety of projects could be handled by the Board.

     Dr. Heathcote asked the question "how does the Board become more engaged with the activities underway in each of the Work Groups?" Dr. Jones responded that one way would be to have each Work Group make a formal presentation to the Board beyond the status reporting that currently occurs and encourage greater interaction of the Board during the reports.

     Dr. Donahue reiterated the suggestion of each meeting having a theme, and added that the invited scientific presentation, Board member presentation, and dinner speaker could each reinforce the theme. He offered "science and governance" as the theme of the next meeting. Mr. Unwin commented that while he liked the idea of a theme, he didn't want to lose the flexibility of not having a discussion, or of having only a limited discussion of a topic when it didn't fit the theme.

     Dr. Heathcote responded that designating a theme should not preclude other business of the Board from going forward.

     It was unanimously decided by all of those in attendance that the concept of a meeting theme be used at the next meeting, and that the structure of future meeting follow the "new meeting template" as drafted by Dr. Heathcote.

   • Work Group on Parties Implementation Reappointment of Ms. Victoria Pebbles – Dr. Braden moved that Ms. Pebbles be reappointed to serve as a non Board member of the Work Group for a two year term ending September 29, 2006. The motion was seconded by Mr. Unwin and approved by all of those in attendance.
   • International Joint Commission 2004 Fall Semi Annual Meeting, October 20; Ottawa, Ontario the secretary updated the Board on the Science Advisory Board topics to be presented at the upcoming International Joint Commission Semi Annual Meeting. He indicated that the major topic would be the "Science and the Agreement Workshop" recommendations, along with a status report on 3 International Joint Commission priority activities including land use, pathogens and chemical mixtures.
   • 2005 Great Lakes Conference and International Joint Commission Biennial Meeting; June 9 – 11, Kingston Ontario

     The secretary referred to the draft program distributed at the meeting dated September 22, 2004, and noted several workshops were being planned that the Science Advisory Board could host. He added that planning was still preliminary; however he said that it would be advisable for the Work Groups to begin planning their involvement, and following the evolution of the program as it becomes refined by the Commissioners in the months ahead.

   • Membership

     Dr. Heathcote invited members to provide input on scientific expertise, or individuals that could be considered when reviewing future membership of the SAB. Several suggestions were made for broad scientific areas of expertise including AIS, water quantity, conservation, and climate change. Dr. Heathcote suggested that individual names could also be submitted to her, Dr. Donahue, or the Board secretary at the convenience of the members.

   
   
6. 2003 – 2005 SAB Priorities and Work Group Activities:
   
   
   • Work Group on Ecosystem Health

     Mr. Fox reported that the Colloquium being planned in cooperation with the American Academy of Microbiology has been scheduled for May 13-15 2005 in Traverse City, Michigan. He said that AAM involvement occurs whenever there is an issue of critical importance to microbiology and in this case the primary focus is the transboundary management of waterborne microbial pathogens. Mr. Fox added that 5 white papers would be developed from invited experts under the direction of the WG, and that they would be distributed in advance to the participants.

     Mr. Fox reported that the second activity underway by the WG is a "Conference on Multimedia Exposure and Interaction Among Chemicals" to take place in Chicago in March 2005. He said that the conference would focus on exposure, adverse effects, risk and risk assessment, and efforts to integrate such information into community based programs.

   • Work Group on Parties Implementation

     Dr. Heathcote said that essentially 3 small tasks have been identified by the Work Group:

     Task 1 – an inventory of urban water practices and techniques using case studies of Toronto and Detroit (Rouge River). Dr. Heathcote commented that such a review by itself ends up being broad and shallow as it doesn't address actual performance of the method. However, she said that the Work Group is still exploring possibilities to compare and contrast current approaches from the United States and Canada.

     Task 2 – a modeling exercise to assess the merits of best practices and designs to give an integrated perspective of their total impact. Dr. Heathcote said that the Ontario Ministry of the Environment and United States Environmental Protection Agency are interested in participating and could possibly fund such an assessment.

     Task 3 – a review of laws, policies and institutions to determine the federal role in land use decision making. Dr. Heathcote added that two small contracts have been given to Dr. Brabec and Ms. Valiente to provide advice and recommendations on the effectiveness of existing federal roles and the potential for this role to be strengthened to provide increased protection of Great Lakes water resources.

     Dr. Heathcote completed her report by noting that the Work Group is hosting a workshop next Friday, October 8 during the State Of the Lakes Ecosystem Conference, and will be participating in the upcoming Great Lakes Commission "Post PLUARG" workshop planned for November 8 – 10 in Ann Arbor, Michigan, through the attendance of Mr. Unwin.

   • Work Group on Emerging Issues

     Dr. Jones reported on three work group activities – the first, on the status of the publication of the Wingspread Emerging Issues Expert Consultation planned for the Toledo Journal of Law Science and Policy, he said that there is a concern that the papers have not yet been published. Therefore, the Work Group Co Chairs have decided to write to the Journal to assert the importance of publishing the information, particularly given the interest in the reviewing and possibly updating the Agreement. The second topic, the report from the Science and the Agreement Workshop, Dr. Jones indicated that the Work Group has decided to develop a summary report to publish along with the Science Advisory Board recommendations and the abstracts. He indicated that the transcripts and power point presentations would also be compiled and would be made available upon request. Dr. Jones referred to the third topic, Science and Governance, as having its genesis from the Wingspread workshop. He said that the Work Group identified it for further work in order to contribute to the process of the Agreement review, and also to contribute to an activity identified by the International Joint Commission for a workshop at the upcoming Biennial meeting. Dr. Donahue added that the focus of this planned activity will be to identify the governance aspects that are needed to support the implementation of the scientific approaches needed to update the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement. He said a question might be "what are the governance arrangements necessary to foster the advancement of science?" Dr. Jones noted that governance is used in its broadest sense to incorporate private and public institutional arrangements along with those of government. Dr. Bowerman suggested that any look at governance also include an assessment of international arrangements such as those in Europe through such instruments as their Annex 2000 agreement. Dr. Clark commented that science needs interaction with the public to be effective and relevant. Dr. Heathcote queried whether the Board should be reaching out more to the Great Lakes public and raising its role and profile? Dr. Donahue agreed it should, and added that while the Board's mandate was to advise the International Joint Commission, it needed to foster greater interaction and learning with the public in order to fulfill that role to the best of its ability.

   Following the discussion, the Board agreed that the Work Group proceed to undertake a project on governance as part of its work plan.

   
   
7. Old Business: Science Advisory Board Summary of Recommendations from the Science and Agreement Workshop held February 2004

   The secretary distributed copies of the summary and the covering letter as a follow up information item for the Board. No further discussion occurred.

   
   
8. Production Schedule and Input to the 2003 – 2005 Science Advisory Board Report

   The secretary referred to the "Draft Schedule for Production of the 2003-2005 Priorities Report" dated May 5, 2004 that he distributed to those in attendance. (Attachment #2 - PDF document). He highlighted three issues for Board consideration:

   • The report would be submitted following the Biennial Meeting, and therefore it will be important for the Boards to present their findings at either the Semi Annual Meeting or a special briefing meeting in order to advise the Commission,
   • An issue from the last report was whether non priority topics submitted by individual members would be eligible for inclusion in the report. The secretary noted that this was accommodated in the 2001-2003 report under the aegis of "watching briefs" and did not include Board recommendations. He noted that one topic from this section of the report, on waterborne pathogens, made a significant contribution to the International Joint Commission's 12th Biennial Report, and,
   • The Board needed to commit itself to a schedule as soon as possible in order to provide for sufficient time to review the report content, and especially the recommendations.

   It was decided by those in attendance to defer discussion on the issue of non priority topics to the December meeting to allow those not in attendances to express their views. Any member who is considering contributing to the report in this way is encouraged to present their topic and ideas at the December meeting as well, in order that the table of contents for the report can be compiled early in the process. A brief discussion ensued on deadlines for early drafts and Board reviews. It was agreed as follows:

   May 31 –	Work Group Co Chairs and Secretaries to submit 1st draft to the Board Secretary for distribution to the Board
   June 30 –	completion of Board review, revision and deadline of June 30 for 2nd draft. Distribution of Draft 2 for review and comment.
   July 31 –	deadline for final comment
   July 31 - August 19	Science Advisory Board Report finalized and submitted to Information Services for inclusion in the 2003 – 2005 International Joint Commission Great Lakes Priorities Report.

   
   
9. Liaison Reports and Discussion of the Role of Board Liaisons

   The members with liaison roles were identified as: Water Quality Board – Dr. Heathcote/Mr.Unwin, Council of Great Lakes Research Managers – Drs. Swackhamer/Donahue, International Air Quality Advisory Board – Dr. Perlinger. Dr. Perlinger reported that the International Air Quality Advisory Board efforts to refine multi media modeling efforts were ongoing. She referred to three other activities as being tracked closely by International Air Quality Advisory Board: the air quality indicator study in Detroit – Windsor, with its strong human health component, the western Lake Ontario micrometeorology study, and the work being done to measure aerosols/visibility, in the United States National Parks. Dr. Perlinger added that she was unable to attend the Vermont meeting because of conflicts with her own field work.

   Dr. Heathcote suggested that in view of the opportunity to have the respective Board secretaries brief the Board directly when the meetings are held in the Regional Office, that the matter of future status reports is provided by the respective Board secretaries. She added that the liaison function of the members did not have to necessarily change, as it is still desirable to have a designated point person to interact with the other Boards.

   Dr. Clark commented on the importance of developing models that integrate air pollutants with their impact on humans, particularly environmental exposures through the food web. He emphasized that the work of the International Air Quality Advisory Board in this area needed to be supported and encouraged by the Science Advisory Board, and wondered how greater cooperation could occur. Dr. Clark said this was particularly relevant for mercury, and he suggested that an update on mercury from the last priority cycle might be one way for this to be done. He offered to prepare a status update on mercury science, including any new, peer reviewed mercury findings. He said that he could prepare a short document (few pages) that would also include maps of mercury fish consumption advisories--45 states have one---as well as all of Ontario which would enable one to appreciate the scale of the problem. Dr. Clark said that he could also include reference to efforts on the part of parties to reduce mercury emissions as part of the update. He said that he would present the information at the next meeting of the Science Advisory Board in December.

   
   
10. Adjournment

    There being no further business of the Board, Dr. Braden moved that the meeting be adjourned, with seconding by Dr. Perlinger. The motion was approved by all of those in attendance.