Meeting Record for the 135^th Meeting of the Great Lakes Science Advisory Board

Wednesday, December 15 and Thursday, December 16, 2004

Held at the Great Lakes Regional Office 8^th Floor Board Room
100 Ouellette Avenue, Windsor, Ontario N9A 6T3

December 15^th - Invited Scientific Presentations

Professor Bradley Karkkainen and Dr. George Francis: "Governance Issues and Possibilities under a Renewed Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement"

December 16^th - Regular Agenda of the 135th Meeting of the Board

1. Welcome and Introductions

   Dr. Donahue called the meeting to order and welcomed several new participants in attendance. Brief self introductions then followed.

   
   
2. Approval of the Agenda

   The Secretary noted that it was decided by those attending the dinner during the previous evening to defer Dr. Braden's presentation to today's agenda, in order to encourage as much involvement as possible. He also noted that since Dr. Gibson was present, representing the Health Professionals Task Force, that an update from the Task Force needs to be added to item #7, under the liaison reports. Subject to these amendments, the agenda was accepted by everyone present.

   
   
3. Dr. Braden's Presentation: "Economic Benefits of Sediment Remediation - A Review of the Evidence".

   Dr. Braden distributed notes of his presentation to those present. (Attachment #1 - PDF document).

   Following Dr. Braden's remarks a brief discussion ensued. The Secretary indicated that anyone who is interested in previous work of the Science Advisory Board on this subject should refer to the review of valuation methodologies reported by the Board in its 1987 Report. Dr. Braden commented that the findings of the case studies, for example Waukegan Harbor, supported an increase in property values associated with clean up. He concluded that therefore there is an opportunity for local decision makers to justify allocating funding for clean up activities in terms of a municipal investment using market mechanisms such as the issuance of bonds.

   Dr. Mergler commented that a property valuation approach limited the analysis to those costs and benefits accruing as a result of individual choice. She said that even more significant costs are born collectively by society through the increased costs of reproduction as a result of decreasing fertility, or the increasing costs of remedial education for those suffering from learning disabilities, as examples.

   Dr. Braden agreed that as a methodology, the concept of "willingness to pay" becomes more abstract in the case of public goods, and that the economic behavior of "free riders" also needed to be considered when taking a societal perspective. Mr. Unwin questioned whether response variability could be influenced by external factors, such as how the survey question is asked.

   Dr. Braden responded that various techniques are used to take this into account, and that one way of addressing it is to use different methodologies that replicate results.

   Mr. Unwin added that while using two methods would indicate precision, accuracy might best be demonstrated with a follow up study.

   Dr. Braden said that he hoped to undertake follow up work as well in the future.

   The Secretary noted the assumption that "willingness to pay" for environmental benefits/cleanup considers that everyone is equally capable of making an informed and rational consumer choice. He suggested that this assumption could be strengthened by identifying one or more focus groups that have unique awareness or personal knowledge of environmental impact, perhaps as identified through loss or treatment of a family member from cancer, having a child with a learning disability, or personal suffering from a disease associated with environmental exposure from a pollutant. He queried whether such a group would provide a greater measure of "willingness to pay" as a result of their heightened awareness from personal experience.

   Dr. Braden responded that such a group could comprise a more sensitive population, and that such an idea might be worthwhile exploring further.

4. Review of the Agreement

   Mr. Weiner provided a brief overview of various activities underway related to the review of the Agreement beginning with the anticipated reference to the International Joint Commission from the Parties for a reference on public consultation. He indicated that a proposal has been submitted to the International Joint Commission based on a multi pronged approach consisting of invited public discourse using the International Joint Commission web site, a series of face to face public hearings/consultations, and the commissioning of several research papers on salient topics under the Agreement. Mr. Weiner added that the centerpiece of the consultation effort would be the International Joint Commission Biennial Meeting itself, which devoted most of the program to the topic of the review.

   Mr. Weiner also mentioned the importance of the advice of the Agreement Boards, such as the review principles articulated by the Water Quality Board, as well as the Science Advisory Board comprehensive scientific review undertaken last February.

   Mr. Weiner also cited the United States initiative related to the President's Executive Order as well as the early discussions related to the renewal of the Canada/Ontario Agreement in 2007. He said that human health has been identified as a missing element of the Canada Ontario Agreement and that further cooperation of Health Canada, Environment Canada and Ontario could be expected. He commented that while the Parties were obliged to review the Agreement, their review did not necessarily imply that it would be changed significantly. Mr. Weiner stated that in view of the various elements coincident with the review, early advice in the process would probably have the best opportunity to influence change.

   Mr. Weiner referred further to the review underway within Environment Canada, and noted that it is directed towards developing a new program in the context of larger Canadian government policy setting goals of economy, quality of life and binational relations. With respect to binational relations, Mr. Weiner reminded the Board that both the recent speech from the throne and the President's Executive Order referred to the importance of collaboration for the two countries. He advised that this was further emphasized when Environmental Protection Agency Secretary Leavitt and Environment Minister Dion recently met in Chicago. Mr. Weiner concluded his remarks by noting that activities under the President's Executive Order are United States domestic initiatives, and are not formally bilateral. He said that there is a question of the nature and scope of Canadian involvement in an internal review of United States policy and programs.

   Dr. Mergler questioned whether any new Great Lakes program under consideration by Environment Canada would link the Great Lakes with the St. Lawrence. Mr. Weiner responded that greater linkage could be anticipated, especially regarding Quebec and Ontario programs.

   Dr. Krantzberg joined the meeting by conference call, and provided further elaboration with respect to the International Joint Commission strategy for Agreement public consultation. She outlined a three part approach that includes the development of three expert papers for presentation at a Commission hosted roundtable, the convening of five regional workshops, and the Biennial Meeting itself, which is primarily directed to the review of the Agreement.

   Dr. Donahue provided a brief overview of activities resulting from the President's Executive Order, under the auspices of the Great lakes Interagency Task Force and the newly formed Regional Collaboration:

   http://www.epa.gov/greatlakes/collaboration/index.html.

   He referred to the recent meeting held in Chicago, where various political statements were made, with the last being made by Co Chair Schornack in relation to the regional Commissions, the Great Lakes Fishery Commission, Great Lakes Commission, and International Joint Commission, and which focused on the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement.

   Dr. Donahue indicated that eight strategy teams have been formed, three of which are lead by: Co Chair Schornack - Area of Concerns-Restoration/Sediments; Dr. Donahue - Indicators and Information; and Mr. Goddard - Invasive Species. He stated that since team membership is unrestricted, it is possible for Science Advisory Board members to contribute to ensure that Great Lakes issues remain at the fore of all deliberations and advice. Dr. Donahue recommended that anyone wishing to register as a member access the Great Lakes Information Network for information on participation. Dr. Donahue added that the other strategy team topics included non point source, habitat/species, sustainable development, persistent bioaccumulative toxic reduction, and coastal health. He concluded by stating that three themes will also be addressed by the strategy teams - human health, tribal issues, and research implications.

   Dr. Swackhamer clarified that the activities of the Regional Collaboration and Great Lakes Interagency Task Force are motivated by the Great Lakes Restoration Act and the joint letter of the Council of Great Lakes Governors on restoration priorities and not specifically by the review of the Agreement. She said however, that there is likelihood that the outcome of these consultations could form the basis for negotiating a future Agreement that reflected the views of the many United States partners in the Regional Collaboration.

   Dr. Heathcote commented that with the range of activities underway, that the Boards need to ensure that they have effective advisory and communication links with the Commission. She referred to a proposal for the Boards to meet more often, i.e. quarterly, with the Commission as an example of how this might be addressed. She added that the liaison roles of the Board secretaries are becoming increasingly important in order to coordinate activities among the many advisory groups and their members. Dr. Heathcote requested that the Board Secretary ascertain that all Science Advisory Board members are receiving International Joint Commission announcements and electronic information flow particularly with respect to activities related to the review of the Agreement.

5. Work Group Reports

   Work Group on Ecosystem Health

   Dr. Clark provided a brief update on mercury with reference to the presentation made to the Work Group on December 15 by Dr. Alan Stern. He described Dr. Stern's review of the methodology leading to the reference dose for mercury based on nervous system effects and concluded that it was supportive of the current Environmental Protection Agency standard. Dr. Clark referred the members to the papers recently published by Dr. Stern on this topic that were distributed under separate cover prior to the meeting. He commented that this has been a contentious issue in terms of the use of uncertainty factors.

   Dr. Carpenter added that while uncertainty is accounted for in relation to nervous system effects, there are other effects to consider, such as cardio vascular effects that are very significant for adult health. He said that the policy message is that while the primary concern is to protect the developing fetus and children, other adult risks might be important as well. For example, he said that if fish are too high in mercury, the beneficial effects of the omega 3 fatty acids might not out weigh such risks.

   Mr. Fox also noted that since fresh water fish have relatively smaller amounts of omega 3 fatty acids than marine fish, there could be increased risks for Great Lakes fish eaters that are not reflected in the current fish advisories.

   Dr. Carpenter provided a brief status report on upcoming Work Group workshops to address pathogens and chemical exposure and effects in the Great Lakes. With regard to the proposed Colloquium on the transboundary management of waterborne pathogens being proposed in partnership with the American Academy of Microbiology, he said that a problem arose concerning colloquium funding, and it was decided to defer the meeting but to proceed with preparing the white papers. He said that Dr. Rose has agreed to present the findings from the papers at the Great Lakes Conference workshop in conjunction with the International Joint Commission Biennial Meeting. Dr. Carpenter indicated that the papers would be circulated to Board members for their review at the earliest opportunity.

   With respect to the upcoming workshop on chemical exposure and effects, to be held in Chicago March 29-31, he said that the meeting would highlight the recent reports of such health researchers as Susan Schantz, John Vena, Donna Mergler, and Chris DeRosa and would focus on multiple contaminants, multiple effects, and other effects not currently considered in risk assessments, such as immune effects and cardio vascular effects. Dr. Carpenter added that the workshop would also address emerging chemicals such as Perfluorooctanyl Sulfate and Polybrominated Diphenyl Ethers, and would also consider policy and program issues related to fish advisories. He indicated that recent clean up results such as the Fox River would be considered.

   Dr. Heathcote queried what policy implications might result from the workshop, and encouraged the work group to ensure that the outcomes are clearly linked to policy implications.

   Dr. Carpenter agreed and said that one policy conclusion would likely be that while levels of chemicals are slowly going down, it will be a very long time before public health is protected based on the current rate of progress. He concluded by noting that it is the intent of the work group to publish the proceedings in a peer reviewed journal.

   Work Group on Parties Implementation

   Mr. Unwin prefaced his remarks by noting that Mr. Stonehouse had resigned from the Science Advisory Board and the Work Group, and stating that Dr. Heathcote has assumed the role of Co Chair on an interim basis. He then reviewed two recent activities of the Work Group in relation to the State of the Lakes Ecosystem Conference urban land use workshop and the Great Lakes Commission workshop on the post Pollution from Land Use Activities Reference Group review. With respect to the State of the Lakes Ecosystem Conference Workshop, Mr. Unwin said that the primary purpose was to review the Work Group work plan, and that the notes from the meeting are available through the Secretary. He reported that the two Work Group contractors, Professor Valiente and Dr. Brabec presented their study approaches. He said that they would be focusing on governance, planning and institutional approaches with a view to protecting water quality from the impact of urban development, for example, the federal role in local land use decision making. He added that their reports will be available by mid January.

   Mr. Unwin concluded his report with reference to a modeling study that is being undertaken in partnership with the Ontario Ministry of the Environment. He said that this study will assess different development footprints in terms of the kind of development as well as the location of the development and its influence on storm water flow, loadings, surface water quality of receiving waters, and groundwater quantity and quality.

   Mr. Unwin stated that the budget for the study is $60K, and it is being funded solely by Ontario Ministry of the Environment. He indicated that the results of this work would be presented and discussed at the Great Lakes Conference workshop on urban land use on June 9 in Kingston, coincident with the International Joint Commission Biennial Meeting.

   Dr. Braden then summarized the post Pollution from Land Use Activities Reference Group workshop by stating that no new themes or issues emerged, per se, but the issue of leadership, or political will was identified as a key element impeding further progress on non point source management. He added that issues and concerns were noted related to new pharmaceuticals and urban growth, however Pollution from Land Use Reference Group was originally focused primarily on the challenge of non point source control of agricultural land use and therefore the workshop retained an agricultural/watershed focus.

   Work Group on Emerging Issues

   Dr. Swackhamer reported on the status of three Work Group activities: the publication of the Expert Consultation on Great Lakes Emerging Issues workshop from the 2003 Wingspread Workshop, the completion of the proceedings from the Science and the Agreement Workshop held by the Board at its February 2004 meeting, and the new activity addressing future Great Lakes governance and institutional arrangements in relation to the review of the Agreement. She reported that the publication of emerging issues expert papers was imminent; however the Toledo Journal of Law, Science and Policy had experienced publication delays. She indicated that the Work Group is in regular contact with Professor Merritt at the Toledo Law School, and she hoped to have positive progress to report by the time of the next Science Advisory Board meeting in March. With respect to the Science and the Agreement proceedings, Dr. Swackhamer said that the compilation of the transcripts, the expert presentations, and the overview papers has now been completed. She stated that an introductory section is in preparation which will accompany the Board findings and recommendations that were approved in August. She said that it was the intent of the Work Group to propose to the Board and the International Joint Commission that the complete proceedings be published as a Science Advisory Board report to the Commission. Dr. Swackhamer reminded the Board that the recommendations were submitted to the Commission and the Water Quality Board as a summary document upon Science Advisory Board approval last August, and that they were presented by Dr. Donahue in detail to both groups at the recent Fall International Joint Commission Semi Annual Meeting in Ottawa.

   With respect to the activity on Great Lakes governance, Dr. Swackhamer said the approach would comprise inviting 5 expert papers that would address the range of possibilities for improving binational capacity for Great Lakes management from the existing arrangements under the current Agreement with its focus on water quality, to one where science and policy could be more strongly linked based on ecosystem management. She indicated that the next step would be to hold an expert consultation to discuss the papers, and finally to present them for public input at the governance workshop scheduled for the Biennial meeting. She emphasized that the approach was not to be prescriptive, or to advocate a preferred approach, but to define a framework, or a range of opportunities that the Parties and the public could consider in their review of the Agreement.

   Dr. Donahue indicated that the draft terms of reference for the invited papers will be reviewed early in January, and that the Work Group would circulate the Board, and welcome further input. He also stated that Board input on candidates for the papers would also be sought at this time. He said that since the deadline for the papers would be March 31, 2005 that the Work Group would be preceding quickly with finalizing the terms of reference and in selecting the authors.

6. 2003-2005 SAB Priorities Report

   The Secretary referred to the timeline established for the production of the report, and suggested that a table of contents be developed now to ensure that all of the topics proposed for inclusion in the report can receive early approval by the Board. The topics were presented by Work Group from various members:

   1. Emerging Chemicals (May 2004 Work Group consultation)
   2. Chemical Exposure and Effects (Chicago March 2005 Workshop)
   3. Mercury Update (based on briefing by Dr. Stern)
   4. Microbiology/Pathogens (expert papers and Biennial Workshop)
   5. Urban Land Use
      
      
      • Governance and legal aspects, e.g. federal role
      • Modeling - Assessment of the Impact of Development Alternatives on Water Quality
      • Review of State of the Lakes Ecosystem Conference Indicators
        
        
   6. Science and the Agreement (February 2004 workshop)
   7. Great Lakes Governance and Institutional Opportunities under a Revised Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement (5 commissioned expert papers)

   A brief discussion ensued on whether the incorporation of new information from individual members was appropriate for inclusion in the Board report. The Secretary indicated that this had been done in the last report and qualified as "watching briefs" that did not contain Board recommendations, but nonetheless conveyed salient scientific information to Commissioners. He added that, for example, the section on pathogens that was contributed by Dr. Rose was later reflected in the International Joint Commission's 12^th Biennial Report.

   Dr. Heathcote stated that the Board had other mechanisms available to it in order to transmit new scientific information, for example, additional briefing meetings with Commissioners. She added that conveying preliminary scientific information in its reports did not provide scientific advice in a way that could be always easily understood or acted upon by the Commission. Dr. Heathcote suggested that the Board focus its advice on the policy implications of its work, and recommended that it direct its communication efforts in a way that its message can be clearly understood and acted upon by the Commission.

   The Section Advisers, Dr. Austin and Ms. MacKenzie responded that the Board also engages other audiences through its reports, who no doubt appreciate the scientific content; however they agreed that the focus is to provide advice useful to the Commission.

   Following this discussion, it was agreed that the Science Advisory Board report would comprise the topics listed above, and that any new topics outside of the Boards current activities would not be considered for publication, but could be the subject of special briefings, presentations or identified as new priority candidates for the next planning cycle.

7. Liaison Reports from the Health Professionals Task Force, Water Quality Board, International Air Quality Advisory Board, and Council of Great Lakes Research Managers Representatives and Secretaries

   Health Professionals Task Force

   Dr. Gibson gave a brief presentation on the activities of the Health Professionals Task Force. He noted that the Health Professionals Task Force was created in 1995, and that their mandate was due for review and renewal next year. He said that the purpose of the Health Professionals Task Force was to provide advice on the educational needs of health professionals and to promote environmental education and communication of environmental health information. He added that the Health Professionals Task Force also provided advice to the International Joint Commission on environmental health policy issues that were continental and global in scope, for example at the Commission for Environmental Cooperation level, and the United Nations Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants. Dr. Gibson indicated that various Health Professionals Task Force reports can be accessed through the International Joint Commission web site, for example a review of health effects related to a variety of critical pollutants such as methylmercury, Perfluorooctanyl Sulfate, and Particulate Matter. With respect to the educational aspect of their mandate, he said that the Health Professionals Task Force has partnered in supporting a program for environmental health scholars in the Great Lakes. He said that three scholars are currently being supported, two in the United States and one in Canada. He said that the program enables a participant to support a percentage of someone's time to enable them to influence curriculum in their own institution. Dr. Gibson then reviewed the membership and concluded by stating that he was the current acting Canadian Co Chair and that in this capacity he would be emphasizing closer linkage to the Science Advisory Board when providing health advice to the Commission.

   Water Quality Board

   Dr. Gannon provided a brief summary of Water Quality Board activities beginning with the review of the Agreement. He noted that the principals for review that were developed by the Board have been submitted to the International Joint Commission and are available in the Board area of the International Joint Commission web site. He said that an upcoming Board workshop on Watershed Management is planned for March 2005, and it will address a key issue of the current Agreement - the linkages between Lakewide Management Plans, Remedial Action Plans, and Watershed plans and how a more effective integration of the efforts could achieve a better ecosystem, basin wide approach to management. In addition to the workshop, the Water Quality Board was also planning a review of the Science Advisory Board Science and the Agreement workshop, along with the three reports received from Pollution Probe in order to further identify additional policy, program, or institutional issues that the Board might highlight for the Commission. Science Advisory Board participation on the Water Quality Board subcommittee was raised, and Dr. Swackhamer indicated that she would be willing to participate, depending on the timing and scope of their activities. The Board secretaries agreed to pursue this further with the Subcommittee Chair, Dr. Carey and confirm this further with Dr. Swackhamer.

   Dr. Gannon concluded with reference to Annex 2 activities under the Water Quality Board. He said that Ms. Boughton is the Chair of the Water Quality Board's Annex 2 Subcommittee. He said that the subcommittee has been focusing on improving communication among Remedial Action Plan practitioners and strengthening linkages to the research community. With respect to the latter, he said that a symposium is planned at International Association for Great Lakes Research on the restoration of beneficial uses in relation to a scientifically based listing and delisting criteria. He added that to achieve this, it would also be necessary to develop appropriate monitoring protocols. Dr. Gannon commented that it was apparent that a generic "one size fits all" approach is not the way to go in this regard, and that what is needed is to address this need for each Area of Concern and their unique challenges.

   Dr. Swackhamer commented that some discussion was underway on the most appropriate use of funding provided under the United States Legacy Act. She said that a discussion by the Water Quality Board on the ranking of Area of Concern and the priorities for spending would make an important contribution to the discussion. For example, she said that rather than spend the limited funding under the Act on environmentally critical sites, it might be better to use the limited funds on smaller orphan sites that might otherwise never get cleaned up. She said that this is the nature of the discussion that would benefit from further analysis and debate.

   International Air Quality Advisory Board

   Mr. McDonald provided an update on International Air Quality Advisory Board activities based on the written report distributed to the Board under separate cover. (Attachment #2 - PDF document)

   Council of Great Lakes Research Managers

   Mr. Burrows provided an update on Council activities.

   Following the presentation, Dr. Swackhamer indicated that since she felt that she has been unable to fulfill her responsibilities as a Council Liaison Representative, and that she wished to step aside so that another Board member might fulfill this role more effectively.

   Dr. Heathcote requested that the role of liaison be placed on the agenda for the next meeting, and in the meantime for members to consider the Council position.

   Dr. Donahue added that he was the other Council liaison; however he acknowledged that he is only able to provide information when the Council Secretary briefs him on the various activities.

8. Other Business

   Several Work Group members commented that the placement of the invited presentation in the afternoon of Day 1 of the meeting reduced the time available for Work Group discussion. It was also noted that increased Board interaction was also beneficial. Several suggestions were made for the invited presentations to occur later in the day, and also for the Work Group meetings to begin earlier, particularly if the meetings comprised lengthy and full agendas.

9. Future Meetings

   #136; March 3-4, 2005, Windsor, Ontario
   #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 Co Chairs requested that the Secretary identify the November/December future meeting date by email in order to receive everyone's input on the date.

10. Adjournment

    There being no further business of the Board, Mr. Fox moved that the meeting be adjourned with seconding by Mr. Unwin. The motion was approved by all of those who were present.

    Lunch Time Open Forum

    General and individual discussion continued among members over lunch, and no action items were identified for follow up.