MEETING RECORD FOR THE 131st MEETING OF THE
GREAT LAKES SCIENCE ADVISORY BOARD
November 7, 2003 – IJC Conference Room, Windsor, Ontario
MEMBERS PRESENT
Isobel Heathcote (Canadian Co-chair). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .University of Guelph, Guelph, ON
Michael J. Donahue (United States Co-chair). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Great Lakes Commission, Ann Arbor, MI
William Bowerman. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Clemson University, Pendleton, SC
John Braden. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .University of Illinois, Urbana, IL
Scott Brown. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . National Water Research Institute, Burlington, ON
David Carpenter. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . University at Albany, Rensselaer, NY
Milton Clark (by teleconference). . . . . . . . . . . United States Environmental Protection Agency, Chicago, IL
Glen Fox. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Canadian Wildlife Service, Ottawa/Hull, ON
Allan Jones. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Burlington, ON
Judith Perlinger. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Michigan Technological University, Houghton, MI
Joan Rose. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI
Deborah Swackhamer. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN
Jay Unwin. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . National Council for Air and Stream Improvement, Kalamazoo, MI
MEMBERS ABSENT
Donald Dewees. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . University of Toronto, Toronto, ON
Maxine Cole. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . First Nations, Akwesasne, ON
Donna Mergler. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . University of Quebec, Montreal, PQ
Lesbia Smith. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Toronto, ON
David Stonehouse. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Evergreen, Toronto, ON
INVITEES/OBSERVERS
Douglas Alley. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .International Joint Commission, Windsor, ON
Marty Bratzel. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .International Joint Commission, Windsor, ON
Mark Burrows. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . International Joint Commission, Windsor, ON
John Gannon. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .International Joint Commission, Windsor, ON
Michael Gilbertson . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . International Joint Commission, Windsor, ON
Bruce Kirschner. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .International Joint Commission, Windsor, ON
John McDonald. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .International Joint Commission, Windsor, ON
Ann MacKenzie. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .International Joint Commission, Ottawa, ON
Sara Moore (intern). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .International Joint Commission, Windsor, ON
SECRETARY
Peter Boyer. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .International Joint Commission, Windsor, ON
1. WELCOME AND INTRODUCTIONS
Brief self introductions were made.
2. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA
The agenda was accepted as presented by all of those in attendance.
3. INVITED SCIENTIFIC PRESENTATION: Environment Canada Preliminary Results
from Selected Areas of Concern Chosen on the Basis of Health Canada Studies
Dr. Brown and Mr. Fox presented preliminary results from recent fish and wildlife health effects studies undertaken at various locations around the Great Lakes. Great Lakes Fact Sheet describing the program was distributed and is available on line at:
http://www.on.ec.gc.ca/wildlife/factsheets/fs_fish_and_wildlife-e.html
Dr. Brown noted that for western Lake Erie, an increase in external abnormalities has been observed and a decrease in internal abnormalities in fish. He said that recruitment failures in lake trout are still occurring related to early mortality syndrome. Dr. Brown also commented on the depressed thiamine levels found in predators consuming Aquatic Invasive Species, especially fish who eat alewife and smelt.
A brief discussion ensued. Dr. Swackhamer queried whether the dose response curves from different locations were comparable. Dr. Brown replied that the results were consistent with an increasing dose response.
Several members speculated about possible sources that would account for the Wheatley AOC results. The possible improper disposal of PCB material and the non containment of dredged sediments were possibilities mentioned by several commentators.
Dr. Rose inquired whether turtles were valuable sources of historical data because of their longevity and local territories. Mr. Fox responded that the age of turtles is generally determined by size and that it is difficult to estimate exact age. He added that the gull data since the 1970s and the archive represented the best source of long-term data on Great Lakes effects. Dr. Brown noted that current fish assays are quite sensitive and enable the environmental improvements to be identified. For example, he said that while sub lethal effects are still evident, they wouldn’t have been seen before because the very high levels produced gross effects such as mortality.
Following the discussion, Dr. Heathcote thanked Dr. Brown and Mr. Fox for their excellent presentation on behalf of the Board.
4. OLD BUSINESS
Dr. Carpenter reported that the Proceedings of the Mercury Workshop would be submitted to Environmental Health Perspectives in early January and would be published in the summer of 2004.
Dr. Swackhamer reported that the co-editors of the Proceedings from the Expert Consultation on Emerging Issues have made the decision to publish the proceedings in the Toledo Journal of Great Lakes Law, Science and Policy. Dr. Donahue commented that the Great Lakes Commission (GLC) was still waiting for the Journal to publish proceedings from a conference in May 2001 and cautioned that the Workgroup formalize their commitment with the Journal. The secretary said that such a commitment has been received as correspondence from the Chair of the Legal Institute of the Great Lakes and is available for review by any member upon request (attachment 1).
5. NEW BUSINESS
5.1 IJC 2003 – 2005 Great Lakes Priorities
The secretary distributed a summary table of the proposed priorities and draft budget arising from the Co-chairs discussion during the IJC Semi Annual Meeting (attachment 2). Dr. Jones commented that while some priorities did not have SAB involvement, such as climate change, there is a scientific component that might still need to be addressed. Dr. Donahue queried IJC staff whether the Commission was still interested in receiving advice on the review of the GLWQA by March 2004. Ms. MacKenzie replied that there was an urgency in terms of the Commission schedule and desire to issue a separate report, coincident with the issuance of the 12th Biennial Report to Governments. She noted that the 12th Biennial Report triggers the upcoming review by the Parties on the operation and effectiveness of the Agreement under Article X , and that the Commissioners might desire to provide any of their advice on that review to precede the government review process. Ms. MacKenzie added that it was clear from the comments of government representatives that there is currently no perceived urgency to undertake a review of the Agreement at the moment.
Dr. Heathcote suggested that perhaps a two stage process with existing material assembled and reviewed by spring, with further consideration of new requirements to follow according to an agreed upon work plan.
Dr. Donahue commented that there exists a lot of relevant material that could enable the Board to avoid duplicate effort. He said that the nature and level of SAB responsibility needed to be carefully considered, recognizing that political acceptability fundamentally relates to scientific credibility. Dr. Donahue stressed that while the process of review was important, identifying the substantive content to reflect the latest and best scientific approaches was also expected from the SAB. He emphasized that the challenge for the Board will be to provide very specific advice.
Dr. Jones added that the challenge was also to provide broad overarching advice in terms of the scientific principles that support the intent and purpose of the Agreement. He acknowledged Dr. Donahue’s point concerning the specific provisions, and suggested that perhaps these would warrant more detailed consideration and require more time. Dr. Jones referred the members to the Wingspread findings on emerging issues and queried whether, for example, annexes that are rendered obsolete by continual advances in science are necessary in a binational agreement that is essentially of a long-term nature.
Dr. Heathcote commented that whatever advice that the Board developed needed rigorous peer review in order to have credibility. She added that not all of the issues in the Agreement pertain to science, and that the Board needed to focus on those that science can support.
Dr. Donahue proposed that the next SAB meeting be used to conduct a workshop on state of science in relation to advice on the review of the Agreement. He said that he was confident that over 1½ - 2 days that the important topics could be addressed that included principles as well as specific issues, and that a group of experts could be identified that, together with the Board, could develop scientific advice for the IJC.
Dr. Bowerman queried the members of the Workgroup on Emerging Issues on the role of the Wingspread consultation on emerging issues as background for the meeting. Dr. Heathcote added that the Wingspread workshop was never intended as a basis for a review of the Agreement. The secretary responded that the findings from the Wingspread meeting addressed part of the issue in terms of the restoration and management challenges facing the Great Lakes in the next 25 years. He said therefore one could use the findings as a template to see whether the current agreement is adequate, or to identify those further provisions that might be needed to address those challenges.
A brief discussion ensued on intentions of the Water Quality Board Co-chairs to provide preliminary advice to the Commissioners at the December Executive Meeting, and it was noted by the Board that any activity that they wished to plan needed to be coordinated with other Commission and Board activities.
Dr. Clark commented that any SAB advice needed to focus on science, e.g. what is the scientific rationale for changes in terms of the goals and address questions such as will the changes be more efficient or more relevant related to the most current knowledge. Dr. Clark emphasized that every change would need to be supported by a scientifically defensible rationale, and that he was not convinced that the Agreement needed major revision.
Dr. Donahue agreed, and noted that the SAB approach was that a review was needed and there was no presumption in advance that there would major or minor changes.
Dr. Heathcote suggested that the Board use a two stage process: (1) bring together what’s been done, and identify the scientific principles in relation to Agreement goals and purpose; and (2) request input, and identify key areas for review by the Parties. Dr. Heathcote said that several concurrent activities such as the January Wingspread workshop being planned by the Canadian Environmental Law Association could present additional opportunities for discussion, and for this reason she favoured a more iterative approach.
Dr. Donahue said that the SAB could provide leadership on four or five topical areas of the Agreement that are most important in relation to science, and suggested using its February meeting to hold a 1½ day workshop involving invited experts to assist it in developing its advice. He added that it would also be helpful for each member to contribute their ideas in the form of the “three most significant science based questions in relation to the Agreement.”
Dr. Heathcote added that the invited experts could provide an annex by annex review that would provide a good basis for discussion and that such reviews could be provided without any cost to the IJC.
In conclusion, Drs. Donahue, Jones and Perlinger agreed to meet as a Review of the Agreement Planning Group to plan the proposed February workshop on behalf of the SAB based upon the discussion. They agreed to hold their initial meeting as a conference call on November 18th at 9 a.m.
5.2 2003-2005 Work Group Work Plans
∙ Work Group on Ecosystem Health:
#1 Activity – Health Effects of New chemicals
Dr. Carpenter reported that the Workgroup was planning to hold a small workshop at the February meeting to address this, however in light of the SAB intention to use both dates in February, the date for the activity could be moved to meeting #133, May 12-13. Dr. Heathcote queried whether the Workgroup might also consider new effects, and referenced the changes in peripheral vision experienced by some highly exposed Russion populations as an example. Dr. Carpenter replied that the focus of the activity would be on new chemicals, e.g. PFOS, PBDE, and pesticides, however new effects in relation to these substances would definitely receive consideration.
#2 Activity – Microbiological Pathogens
Dr. Rose reported that the modest budget for this activity was insufficient, however the Workgroup is proposing to partner with the American Academy of Microbiology to undertake a colloquia on the Transboundary Management of Microbial Pathogens. She indicated that the colloquia would comprise a HAZMAT (Hazardous materials handling) approach applied to pathogens. Dr. Rose added that there are several agencies that are actively interested in this area of science, including DOD (security) and U.S. GS (beach closings). She suggested holding the event next September – October in some location on the Great Lakes, and indicated that she planned to prepare a one page description of the activity for distribution to the SAB. Mr. Alley alerted the Workgroup to be aware when proposing their date that SOLEC dates are October 6, 7, and 8.
#3 Activity - Multi Media Exposure
Dr. Carpenter described holding a small workshop in November 2004 or February 2005 to consider a range of different contaminants in terms of multiple paths of exposure. He said that the approach would include: (1) a range of contaminants in different media; e.g. ingestion, inhalation, dermal; (2) interactions among chemicals that have a common target organ; e.g. brain, immune system; and (3) fish as a model of exposure to a chemical mixture. Dr. Carpenter added that the workshop would be based on four – half-day sessions planned to occur over: an evening, Day 1; full-day 2; and Day 3-morning, period of time. He indicated that risk assessment expertise would be sought to contribute to the session, and that additional funds could be augmented by the various agencies who are responsible for risk assessment procedures.
∙ Work Group on Parties Implementation
Mr. Unwin stated that the workgroup assumed that the funding to be supplied for the land-use activity would be the mid-level estimates of $25K/year. He said that even at the highest level the budget was insufficient and therefore the Workgroup was planning on partnering with other organizations. He said that a further conference call will be held on November 18th with the other IJC Boards to finalize a preproposal that can be used as a basis to approach other organizations. As an example, Mr. Unwin indicated the interest of Great Lakes Mayors might merit developing an inventory of best practices and case histories. He said that this information could be collected by asking the Mayors to provide information on activities that they are most proud of, in terms of water quality improvements. In relation to PLUARG (Pollution from Land Use Reference Group), he noted that there are lessons to be learned in terms of the process, accounting for its success and in identifying what is missing. He said that any new PLUARG type activity should be based on the past success. Mr. Unwin reported that the intention is to develop a plan for a new PLUARG type study, focusing on urban impacts, possibly by October 2004. Brief comments ensued from several members: Dr. Donahue reviewed the various elements of land-use activities being undertaken through the Great Lakes Commission, and noted that a coordinating meeting was planned next week that would present several opportunities for partnering; Dr. Rose added that other initiatives were also underway in relation to community health; and, Dr. Swackhamer commented that the new version of the Research Inventory includes land use, and it could be also be a new tool to benefit research.
∙ Work Group on Emerging Issues
Dr. Jones presented two activities to comprise the Workgroups major focus over the next cycle: (1) fulfill a coordinating role on behalf of the Board in relation to SAB advice on the review of the Agreement, and, (2) receive input on further suggestions for more detailed follow up on topics arising from the Expert Consultation that was held at Wingspread last February.
6. LIAISON REPORT
∙ Council of Great Lakes Research Managers (CGLRM)
Dr. Swackhamer reported that two major activities underway by the CGLRM involve the development of the Great Lakes Observation System (GLOS) and the development of a Research Strategy to implement Annex 17. She indicated that to date the GLOS primarily involved theNational Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the Great Lakes Commission through the development of a business plan, however the intention in year 2 is to address implementation, with major funding ultimately being needed once these planning stages are concluded and hardware/ infrastructure is designed and installed. Mr. Unwin questioned what resulted from the CGLRM interest in undertaking a new International Field Year for Great Lakes Research program (IFYGL)? Mr. Burrows responded that it is the intention to address any new proposals such as IFYGL within the context of the Research Strategy.
∙ Water Quality Board (WQB)
Dr. Gannon provided a brief summary of WQB activities on behalf of Mr. Unwin and Dr. Heathcote. He addressed WQB discussions related to: (1) advice on the review of the Agreement, (2) Annex 2 Task Force (3) land use, and, (3) physical integrity. Dr. Gannon said that he would circulate his meeting notes from the WQB October 17th conference call as soon as they are available.
∙ International Air Quality Advisory Board (IAQAB)
Dr. Perlinger provided a detailed summary of IAQAB activities which is attached in full with these minutes (attachment 3).
7. MEMBERSHIP
∙ Work Group Assignments
Dr. Braden NOMINATED Dr. Rose to serve on the Work Group on Ecosystem Health and for Dr. Perlinger to serve on the Work Group on Emerging issues, with SECONDING by Dr. Swackhamer. The motion was APPROVED unanimously by all present.
Dr. Jones NOMINATED Dr. Swackhamer to serve as U.S. Cochair of the Work Group on Emerging Issues with SECONDING by Dr. Braden. The motion was APPROVED unanimously by all of those present.
Dr. Swackhamer moved that Dr. Jones be appointed as the Canadian Co-chair of the Work Group on Emerging Issues effective December 31, with SECONDING by Dr. Rose. The motion was APPROVED unanimously by all present.
∙ SAB Membership
The Board Co-chairs invited a brief discussion on areas of expertise needed by the Board, and specific candidates for consideration ass nominees. Drs. Heathcote and Donahue encouraged the submission of additional considerations individually whenever an appropriate candidate is identified. Three initial areas of expertise were identified: related to chemistry/modeling (QSARs), economics, microbiology and ecology.
8. OTHER BUSINESS
Two suggested topics for future scientific presentations were raised: (1), Great Lakes Observation System, and (2) the status of the Lake Michigan Mass Balance Project (LMMB). Dr. Warren was identified that as the possible speaker for the LMMB topic.
9. FUTURE MEETINGS
#132 February 5 – 6, 2004 Ann Arbor, MI
#133 May 12 – 13, 2004 Approved, Location to be determined
#134 September 29 – 30, 2004 Approved, Location to be determined
#135 November 18 – 19, 2004 Proposed, Location to be determined
#136 February 23 – 24, 2005 Proposed, Location to be determined
10. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business of the Board, Dr. Brown moved that the meeting be adjourned, with SECONDING by Mr. Unwin. The motion was APPROVED unanimously by all present.