4.0	OTHER TASK FORCE ACTIVITIES

4.1	Workshop on Indicators of Integrity and Diversity of the Great Lakes Basin Ecosystem

According to Angermeier and Karr (1994), the terms biological integrity and biological diversity are widely used by the media, citizens, policymakers and some biologists without adequate attention to the concepts they embody. For the IITF, which is tackling the even larger concepts of ecosystem integrity and ecosystem diversity, this lack of attention must be addressed.

Both ecosystem integrity and ecosystem diversity are strictly scale-dependent concepts. This workshop, which used an ecological rationality, focus was on integrity and diversity at the scale of the entirety of the Great Lakes ecosystem as defined by various criteria for observation. There is an urgent need to entify the Great Lakes ecosystem by these explicit criteria, and by others, to define ecosystem integrity and ecosystem diversity within each of those logical types of description. Defining integrity and diversity for the Great Lakes ecosystem is a step that must be taken before headway toward those ideals may be measured using indicators. Progress on the development of indicators to describe the Desired Outcomes Physical Environment Integrity and Biological Community Integrity and Diversity requires a better understanding of the various types of ecosystems, as that understanding will give a particular meaning to the terms ecosystem integrity and ecosystem diversity.

Aided by six preliminary presentations and by a commentary from IJC Commissioner Susan Bayh, the workshop participants proposed many potential indicators of integrity and diversity. However, as with previous attempts to devise environmental indicators, the group noted that the data for the indicators ranged in state of consolidation, from a high level to no decision on even the parameters for determining what information needs to be collected. The participants concluded that the following questions should be used to scrutinize the utility of each prospective indicators.

• Is the indicator measurable? If so, what is the measurement and its unit?
• Does the indicator characterize the Great Lakes Basin Ecosystem in its entirety?
• If the indicator is a surrogate for direct measurement, is there a body of knowledge that supports its relationship to integrity or diversity? Participants observed that most of the listed indicators were surrogate measures of diversity as opposed to direct measures of diversity.

4.2	1998 Great Lakes-St. Lawrence Mayors' Conference

At this conference, the IJC emphasized the need for coordination among the IITF and SOLEC initiatives. The IJC needs information to indicate progress toward the general goals outlined in the Agreement and the IETF framework provides a useful tool to organize this information. Since an increasing amount of the information base for this framework is being, or has been, shifted to the municipal/local government levels, there is an even greater need for coordination and for formation of non-traditional partnerships to collectively measure progress under the Agreement.

4.3	State-of-the-Lake Ecosystem Conference, 1998. IITF Breakout Session on Implementing Indicators

During this session the IITF suggested the indicators: PCBs in Lake Trout, which supports both the Fishability and Virtual Elimination of PTS Desired Outcomes, and Boil-Water Orders, which supports the Drinkability Desired Outcome. These two indicators were used because they represent, respectively, indicators for which data are primarily collected at the provincial/state and federal levels of government, and indicators for which the data are collected locally.

Participants were asked to identify the tasks involved in developing an indicator in the Great Lakes basin. Participants were asked not to debate the merits of the two indicators but, instead, were to treat them as though they had been adopted by the IJC and were to be implemented.

General observations from the SOLEC '98 session.

1. An indicator must be responsive to public needs.
2. The Desired Outcomes should be better communicated to the public.
3. The matter of scale is important. The loss of specific information in basin-wide reporting is significant as many issues are highly relevant to local populations. The public makes decisions (i.e. Can I drink the water? Eat the fish?) that are based on information about local conditions.
4. Tension exists between the "top-down" and "bottom-up" approaches to selecting indicators (i.e. basin versus local).
5. Agencies have ownership of the data they collect. However, lateral and vertical information transfer needs to be encouraged.
6. The IJC indicators must be compatible with those of SOLEC.
7. Panels of experts should be assembled to further progress on measurement and interpretation of proposed indicators.

Participants recommend that SOLEC be used as a forum to develop further approaches to developing indicators, since implementation will be the responsibility of the Parties.

4.4	Technical Review of the June and October 1998 and May 1999 SOLEC Draft Reports

The IITF review of the above documents contributed to the modification of the SOLEC indicators database, allowing it to be sorted by the IETF proposed Desired Outcomes and by the annexes of the Agreement. In addition, the IITF sent its progress report to SOLEC including its Catalogue of Great Lakes Databases. SOLEC provided both personnel and money to support and further the work of the IJC. The compatibility of the two indicator efforts is highlighted by the potential for the development of common measurements that could then be used to support indicator efforts of both SOLEC and the IJC.

The SOLEC organizers have used IITF documents as a major source for the compilation of the SOLEC indicators for Great Lakes Basin Ecosystem Health. As well, the IITF Catalogue of Great Lakes Databases has become a unique resource and a valuable addition to the databases which support SOLEC indicators.

4.5	The International Association for Great Lakes Research Conference, 1998 and 1999

At the 1998 conference in Hamilton, Ontario, the IITF presented a paper entitled Pilot Study Experiences for Implementing Indicators of Ecosystem Integrity in the Great Lakes Basin.

In 1999, the IITF presentation Indicators to Evaluate Progress under the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement focused on the challenges associated with achieving consensus on a suite of indicators, measurements and reporting formats by highlighting three Desired Outcomes: Swimmability, Fishability and Drinkability and the relationship of IITF to the SOLEC process. The need for more co-ordinated data gathering activities in the Great Lakes basin was underlined, and focused workshops co-sponsored by SOLEC was discussed as a means of working toward indicators implementation.

4.6	Great Lakes Commission Online GIS Workshop

Members of the IITF participated in this conference because of its relevance to implementing indicators in the Great Lakes and to potentially co-sponsoring a Geographical Information Systems (GIS) Congress related to use of Geographical Information Systems in managing, analyzing and visualizing indicators databases.

The workshop assembled GIS experts to provide guidance to the Great Lakes Commission in initiating a new project entitled Great Lakes GIS Online. The project's goal is to develop a spatial data library for the Great Lakes and to provide timely access to this information by providing the information over the Internet via the Great Lakes Information Network. If successful, this project could provide a vehicle by which the Parties can share their data with the Great Lakes community and the world.

Working sessions covered topics including: consistent coverages and data production; data access, data sharing and data limitations; visualizing Great Lakes ecosystems; and collaborative initiatives. The need for planning and coordination among all participating organizations has to occur prior to collecting data and building the database and analysis system. This process is consistent with the recommendations of the task force in this area. Some other messages included good quality assurance/quality control for data and good metadata are essential; always define the questions and the audience before beginning; and involve and receive buy-in from policy makers at beginning of the project.