Report of the Great Lakes Science Advisory Board
tions to the Parties’ Lakewide Management Plan process,
Annex 2 Task Force
the recommendation suggesting that the Parties demon-
strate that the Lakewide Management Plan process repre-
uring 2002, the IJC established a task force to
sents a best management effort in terms of information
provide expert advice on matters pertaining to
sharing and dissemination and adequacy of current
Annex 2:  Remedial Action Plans and Lakewide
surveillance and monitoring programs remains viable.  In
Management Plans. The task force comprises a lead IJC
addition, the SAB recommended that the Parties clarify
commissioner from each country, up to three Great Lakes
their interpretation of the Great Lakes Water Quality
Water Quality Board members, two Great Lakes Science
Agreement with respect to the development of Lakewide
Advisory Board members, a member from the Council of
Management Plans -- this also remains salient today.
Great Lakes Research Managers, the director of the IJC’s
Great Lakes Regional Office, and a provision for additional
individuals to be added as deemed necessary by the lead
During  2002,  the  IJC  established  a  task  force  to
provide  expert  advice  on  matters  pertaining  to
SAB members on the task force have gained insight on the
Parties effort to clarify their interpretation of the Great
Annex  2:    Remedial  Action  Plans  and  Lakewide
Lakes Water Quality Agreement with respect to Lakewide
Management Plans. The task force comprises a lead
Management Plans and the adequacy of information
sharing and data dissemination efforts.  The Parties have
IJC commissioner from each country, up to three
examined Lakewide Management Plan development and
Great  Lakes  Water  Quality  Board  members,  two
reporting and bilaterally determined to alter the reporting
arrangements that are detailed in Annex 2 of the Agree-
Great  Lakes  Science  Advisory  Board  members,  a
ment.  However, it remains unclear to what extent the
member from the Council of Great Lakes Research
public was consulted prior to the modification of reporting
and no formal arrangement has been devised to provide for
Managers,  the  director  of  the  IJC’s  Great  Lakes
IJC review and comment of the updated-style Lakewide
Regional  Office,  and  a  provision  for  additional
Management Plan documents now being produced.
individuals  to  be  added  as  deemed  necessary  by
Valuable data and information, particularly in regard to the
the lead commissioners.
sources and loadings of critical pollutants, have been
developed through Lakewide Management Plan activities.
In particular, data that are currently available through the
Lake Michigan Mass Balance Project are useful in targeting
Site Visit and Public Meeting in the
specific sources of critical pollutants so that appropriate
Maumee River Area of Concern
measures can be directed to reducing existing loads.
However, at least in the United States, funding for Annex 2
In keeping with the practice of the SAB to hold an annual
activities has been greatly reduced from its 1992 level.  With
public meeting, its 125  meeting was held in Toledo, Ohio,
the present level of funding, it appears that information
on May 1-2, 2002.  The meeting provided several opportu-
sharing activities as well as surveillance and monitoring
nities for site visits related to planning initiatives in the
programs may experience considerable competition for
Maumee watershed, to review progress in the implementa-
available funds.
tion of the Maumee Remedial Action Plan, and to receive
public input on scientific issues in the Area of Concern.  In
In its chapter of the 1997-99 Priorities Report, the SAB
order to accomplish this ambitious agenda, excellent
assessed scientific issues related to Lakewide Management
assistance and cooperation was provided locally from Ohio
Plans and noted that the development and implementation
EPA and the Toledo Metropolitan Area Council of Govern-
of a Lakewide Management Plan is a difficult task, particu-
ments. Through their auspices, a public meeting was held
larly as it relates to defining the threat to human health
on the evening of May 1 and  was well attended by stake-
from critical pollutants.  While there have been modifica-
holders and Remedial Action Plan planners.