RECOMMENDATIONS

1997-1999 SCIENCE ADVISORY BOARD RECOMMENDATIONS:

The Science Advisory Board recommends the following.

• (1.1) The IJC advise the Parties to collaborate on the preparation of a comprehensive statement, for the entire Great Lakes basin, of the threat to human health posed by critical pollutants and that this comprehensive assessment be used in the preparation of Lakewide Management Plans.

• (1.1) The IJC urge the Parties to increase consultation between health authorities and local communities to assist them, and particularly vulnerable subpopulations, to discern whether adverse effects, either overt or subtle, are occurring due to their exposures to persistent toxic substances.

• (1.2) The IJC ask the Parties to clarify their interpretation of the Agreement with respect to the development of Lakewide Management Plans. If it is intended that the plans address ecosystem management objectives in order to restore beneficial uses, the SAB recommends that the Parties clarify the rules of inference for establishing causal relationships so that the role of the LaMPs in achieving the restoration goals of the Agreement is made explicit.

• (1.2) The IJC, the Great Lakes Fishery Commission, and the Great Lakes Commission, and their respective staffs hold regular meetings to discuss matters of mutual interest related to the Agreement and its resource management implications.

• (1.3) The IJC request the Parties to publically release all available air emissions data for use in the LaMPs. These data, for all states and provinces, not just those in the basin, are essential to estimate the role that air sources play in contamination of the lakes.

• (1.3) The IJC request the Parties to ensure that all data collected by the Parties be made available at no cost to the LaMP teams.

• (1.3) The IJC request the Parties to advise LaMP managers that the following actions are needed to ensure that the LaMPs fulfill the requirements of Annex 2:
  • solicit and support involvement of scientists to ensure the adequacy of the methodology and data used to estimate the load reductions to be achieved by the LaMPs;
  • include existing monitoring data in the estimates of loads;
  • identify all atmospheric sources to the lakes;
  • estimate the change in chemical burdens in water and fish as a result of key remediation scenarios and include estimates of costs; and
  • develop a system for using existing monitoring data.

• (1.4) The IJC challenge the Parties to demonstrate that the LaMP process represents its best management effort in terms of information sharing and dissemination and adequacy of current surveillance and monitoring programs.

• (2.1) The IJC challenge the Parties to demonstrate that their existing policies and programs, such as the Binational Toxic Substances Strategy, will be sufficient to achieve established water quality criteria.

• (2.1) The IJC endorse the bald eagle as an ecosystem indicator for the Agreement and recommend that the Parties commit funding to the long-term monitoring of the population status, trends in concentrations and effects of persistent toxic substances in Great Lakes bald eagles.

• (2.1) The IJC recommend that the Parties select biochemical indicators to monitor trends in exposures of fish, wildlife and human populations to compounds that interact with the aryl hydrocarbon (Ah) receptor, and fund research to develop biochemical assays to determine trends of chemically-induced changes acting through other mechanisms.

• (2.2) The IJC urge the Parties to implement the WHO toxic equivalency factors approach in the development of water quality criteria.

• (4.0) The IJC identify to the Parties the need for continued action and vigilance in the control of pollution from nonpoint sources. Such action will be particularly urgent in Areas of Concern where nonpoint sources have been a major contributor to the impairment of beneficial water uses.

• (4.0) The IJC begin discussions with the Parties to review the adequacy of the phosphorus load reduction targets described in Annex 3 (Control of Phosphorus) of the Agreement, because phosphorous continues to be a concern in the lower lakes.

• (4.0) The IJC initiate discussions with its advisory boards and the Parties about the significance, sources, biology and pathways of microorganisms arising from nonpoint sources of pollution.

• (4.0) The IJC urge the Parties to ensure that there are adequate monitoring and surveillance programs for nonpoint sources of pollution, particularly for the evaluation of the effectiveness of specific management actions, for the identification of cause-and-effect relationships and for informed decision making about the control of nonpoint sources.

• (4.0) The IJC request the Parties to increase funding for research and development of new technologies and techniques for the control of urban and rural nonpoint sources of pollution.

• (4.0) The IJC urge the Parties to place special emphasis on urbanizing areas; that is, those areas in transition from rural to urban uses. Such land-use changes represent opportunities for implementation of watershed management plans as defined under Annex 13, 2(b), as a condition of their development.

• (4.0) The IJC request the Parties report on their implementation of the recommendations for agricultural practices that were published in its Ninth Biennial Report on Great Lakes Water Quality.

• (6.1) The IJC advise the Parties of the importance of traditional ecological knowledge for understanding the Great Lakes basin ecosystem, and the need to develop mechanisms and processes to ensure that the opportunity to contribute such knowledge is fully provided to aboriginal people and their structures of governance.

• (6.1) The IJC continue to strengthen its consultations with First Nation, Indian and Tribal governments so as to perform its roles of assisting the Parties in the implementation of the Agreement and in preventing and resolving disputes under the Boundary Waters Treaty.

• (6.1) The IJC advise the Parties of the need to involve First Nation, Indian and Tribal governments in the institutional arrangements under the Agreement in order to benefit from their knowledge and expertise, and to enhance binational cooperation in its implementation.

• (6.2) The IJC promote the development of an information technology system basinwide, as a tool for better management and binational cooperation for the Great Lakes.

• (6.2) The IJC advise the Parties to investigate the feasibility and value of a systematic, cooperative approach to applying information technology to the management and research challenges of the Great Lakes and consider research and technology transfer needs in four specific areas:
  • development of a digital Great Lakes computer framework capable of real-time interaction with in-situ data from physical, chemical, biological and geological sensors;
  • realistic three-dimensional coastal water-circulation models capable of nowcasting and forecasting;
  • development of distributed computer applications systems that can integrate a variety of multidisciplinary software packages; and
  • development of additional chemical, physical, biological and geological in-situ sensors.