Presentation: Synopsis of SAB Workshop on Science and the Agreement by Dr. Michael Donahue, SAB U.S. Co-chair, on the SAB's Workshop that was held in Ann Arbor, MI last February. A summary of the Workshop findings was made available and Dr. Donahue presented a summary of major findings and recommendations.

Some of the workshop's findings:

• Agreement needs to better reflect the relationships between water quantity, water quality and ecosystem health.
  
  
• The mix of numeric and process approaches should be continued.
  
  
• Monitoring should be built into each annex of the Agreement. Having a separate annex for monitoring and surveillance is problematic. One of the major deficiencies in the Great Lakes is insufficient surveillance data.
  
  
• The Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement needs to be consistent with other transboundary agreements in the Great Lakes and linkages made as appropriate.
  
  
• As an outcome of the workshop, the SAB will be look into the governance issue. How can there be a better delivery of science in support the Agreement? The SAB will commission 2 or 3 white papers on this subject. It is planned to present the findings as a workshop at the 2005 IJC biennial meeting.
  
  
• Overarching considerations included:
  • Define terms to avoid ambiguities.
  • Identify lines of accountability.
  • An independent Agreement review like the National Academy of Sciences/Royal Society 1985 review is desirable.
  • The Agreement needs to be proactive and better address invasive species, land-use, habitat, etc.
  • Public health needs to be more explicit.
  • Combine related annexes (e.g., 4-6, 8 & 10, 7 & 14) to streamline the Agreement.
  
  
• Questions to Dr. Donahue:
  • Did the SAB determine whether or not the Agreement should "water quality" based or "ecosystem approach" based? No consensus was reached but the tenure of the discussion was in favor of an ecosystem approach.
  • Inclusion of specific mention of the St. Lawrence River? Not discussed in context of science focus of the workshop, but an important question.
  • Where pathogens included in the discussion of invasive species introductions via ballast water? Answer, yes but vaguely. It was noted that Health Canada has some funding to sponsor master candidate research at universities to investigate this and other health-related issues as they pertain to the Great Lakes. It was noted that pathogens were included in the 2001 WQB white paper on invasive species. There was also mention that the SAB Working Group on Ecosystem Health is organizing a colloquium on pathogens in the Great Lakes in conjunction with the American Academy of Microbiology scheduled for May, 2005 -by invitation only.
  • Did the SAB look at adopting a more risk-based approach to the Agreement? No, the SAB reviewed the Agreement as it stands.
  • Should the Agreement be "reopened? There was no agreement here. Anti-backsliding provisions would be needed at the outset.
  • Comment: Science for the sake of science is important, but science-policy linkages and policy-driven science ought to be more explicitly recognized.
  • There was considerable discussion on the ecosystem approach with recognition that we really can't manage ecosystems. Ecosystem management is fuzzy. Water quality is part of the larger issue of integrated water resources management. We need to best evaluate how we can best manage human impact on ecosystems, and not how to approach an ecosystem approach. The WQB needs to have the discussion whether the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement should be one part of a suite of management tools or should the Agreement itself be the larger piece?
  • There was also a long discussion on resource constraints in implementing the Agreement. Although it was recognized that the Agreement needs to be rooted in science and ride above resourcing issues, the "data-rich but information-poor" issue is a serious one, whereby managers and policymakers do not have the information they need to make sound decisions. The problems of gaps, redundancy, and not sharing of monitoring data are unacceptable and need to be addressed "top down" by managers, not "bottom up." It was noted that the Great Lakes International Surveillance Plan (GLISP) as called for in Annex 11 failed, so what should take its place to overcome the expressed problems? What are the decisions we need to make, and what information do we need to make the decisions?
  • There was no consensus on how the Board should proceed on these bigger issues (See Agenda item # 4.2b for related discussion). John Mills thanked Dr. Donahue and the SAB for the workshop and the report.

WQB Advice on Agreement Review

1. The Board agreed at its last meeting to undertake a watershed approach workshop to explore the ways and means of strengthening linkages between jurisdictional watershed planning initiates and the Agreement, especially Lakewide Management Plans (LaMPs). The premise going into the workshop is that, in general, there is a mismatch between watershed approaches and LaMPs. A draft questionnaire to obtain background information from the jurisdictions in advance of the workshop was reviewed.
   • The draft questionnaire as presented was intended to go to multiple watershed planning initiatives within each jurisdiction. Instead, it was discussed that the questionnaire should be revised to solicit a more generic and synoptic view of the scope and range of watershed planning initiatives underway within each jurisdiction rather than the details of specific plans.
     
     
   • Suggested one survey to be distributed - to each jurisdiction (the eight states and two provincial governments (Ontario and Quebec). In Ontario, the Conservation Authorities should be approached through Conservation Ontario).
     
     
   • Will utilize WQB members to ensure the quality of information on the surveys.
     
     
   • Keep at forefront the purpose of the questionnaire and workshop-for the WQB to provide advice to the Commission on review of the Agreement.
     
     
   • How do these jurisdictions categorize their approach? Each jurisdiction will have its own mandate.
     
     
   • This questionnaire and workshop would be a mechanism to make the RAPs and LaMPs more relevant for the jurisdictions.
     
     
   • Include a question regarding what scale the plans being developed at? (e.g., third order streams?) What is the level of detail of planning?
     
     
   • Has there been public consultation while developing the plans?
     
     
   • Determine the various definitions of watershed plans. This definition will probably evolve as this process moves along.
     
     
   • The objectives should be clearly laid out at the outset of this activity. This is an opportune time to make the connections between the various initiatives underway within the Great Lakes -there is increased attention on the Great Lakes due to the pending review of the Agreement, Annex 2001, and the initiatives of the Great Lakes Commission and Council of Great Lakes Governors The WQB should make those connections.
     
     
   • The WQB would like to know about what tools/models watershed planners have available to watershed planners.
     
     
   • WQB should be careful not to concentrate strictly on watershed plans, as there are watershed practices (i.e., permit programs) that will have an impact on water quality. Many practices are better linked with municipal plans than watershed plans.
     
     
   • Need to craft questions to identify how the LaMPs and watershed plans may be better linked.
     
     
   • The drivers for watershed planning should be queried -e.g., natural resource damages, superfund, etc.
     
     
   • The only place in the Agreement where watershed plans are explicit is Annex 13, (i.e. the development of watershed plans to assist with addressing non-point source pollution).
     
     
   • The questionnaire was considered a good idea as many organizations are limited in their ability to travel to workshop to discuss the issue.

   Action Item: Gannon/Montgomery revise questionnaire and WQB workshop planning sub-group develop format/agenda/list of invitees/logistics for the upcoming workshop.

2. Additional Advice on Agreement Review

   This agenda item is for the Board to consider what issues in addition to the watershed workshop it may wish to consider as part of its advice on Agreement review.

   • A question was raised regarding timing on review of the Agreement. Gary Gulezian, who serves on the Binational Executive Committee (BEC), informed the WQB members that a review schedule has not been finalized by the Parties. There is a BEC review process document which is intended to go out for public comment following the BEC meeting in December. Once the review process has started, it will take about 18 months to complete. It is scheduled to begin early 2005. [NOTE: Since the October WQB meeting, the BEC meeting has been rescheduled for February, 2005 and, therefore, the Parties' review likely will not begin as early in 2005 as indicated here].
     
     
   • It would be helpful to know what type of review the Parties are planning- will the review be Annex by Annex or will it address the broader issues? This is not known at this time, but it was suggested that once the review is started, the broader questions will be brought up.
     
     
   • As principal advisor to the Commission, the WQB is coordinator of the advice on review of the Agreement from the other IJC Boards/Council. The WQB should be soliciting advice from others, such as the SAB report today and reviewing other pertinent documentation, including the Pollution Probe reports. The WQB need not be inviting its own public comment, as the IJC has already requested to the Parties that it wishes to lead public consultation efforts. It was noted that the IJC already is hosting a website to solicit comment from interested public (http://www.ijc.org/rel/boards/b_board/en/index.php).
     
     
   • It was also noted that the WQB would like to see the Parties' framework proposed for the review of the Agreement as it would assist the Board to able to better determine how the WQB can be most effective in garnering its advice.
     
     
   • It was resolved for the Board to assert affirmative responsibility and take a comprehensive look at the Agreement. The WQB's role is clear and the Commission will be looking to the Board for its advice.
     
     
   • There are three planned phases of the Review
     • Plan for how to do the Review
     • The Review itself (i.e., will it be Annex by Annex, or broader?)
     • Revisions, if the review concludes this is needed
     
     
   • It was suggested that the WQB have a conference call specifically discussing advice on the review of the Agreement. This type of an arrangement was considered important in the short-term to strengthen the WQB's position and views regarding the review of the Agreement. The WQB will have discussions regarding the status of the Agreement as a water quality agreement vs. an ecosystem agreement, and regarding governance in the Great Lakes basin.

   Action Item: Gannon to arrange conference call to determine what additional issues the Board wishes to undertake pertinent advice on the review of the Agreement.

3. Release of the Pollution Probe Reports
   
   • John Gannon suggested three options based on past practices at IJC:
     1. Release as report to the WQB with disclaimer of no IJC or WQB endorsement of views, with IJC/WQB cover.
     2. Release as report to WQB with introduction by WQB on items in the report it wishes to highlight or endorse, with IJC/WQB cover.
     3. Acknowledge receipt and authorize Pollution Probe to publish under its own cover.
     
     
   • It was suggested the WQB pull out key pieces of advice/recommendations from the reports that can be supported by the Board. The reports should be released but not with WQB endorsement.
     
     
   • In addition to the Principles document on Agreement review and the watershed workshop, the WQB needs to define a broader commitment in regards to what they will contribute to the review of the Agreement.
     
     
   • The Board concurred to post the Pollution Probe reports as an attachment to the minutes of this meeting which acknowledges receipt of the reports by the Board and gets the reports out to the "public" without having the WQB publicly release them (see link to the reports below): http://www.pollutionprobe.org/Publications/Water.htm

     Action: Gannon to amend previous meeting minutes and attach Pollution Probe reports to these minutes.

   • Need to ensure WQB gets the consent of Pollution Probe for above action.

     Action: Gannon contact Pollution Probe to obtain concurrence with Board's decision.

   • The WQB will use the Pollution Probe reports as a starting point, and also review other pertinent documents. This will be "initial commentary" and garnering advice to the Commission, not Agreement review per se. It was agreed to form a WQB sub-group to review the Pollution Probe reports and other documents and report to the full Board at its next meeting (January 25-26, 2005 in Chicago). Carey agreed to chair sub-group of Shalaby, Thompson, Mather, Lalonde, and Elmaraghy. The sub-group will evaluate the reports and other pertinent documents and recommend advice from the Board to the Commission and highlight issues that the Board may wish to investigate more thoroughly in the future.

     Action Item: Carey and Gannon arrange conference call with sub-group to initiate documents review.

   • There was also a discussion on the issues that were raised in previous Agreement reviews and the drivers for revisions in 1978 and 1987. There was interest in developing a bibliography documenting Agreement history that would be valuable in the review pending before us, perhaps leading to a concise report from the Board documenting Agreement history.

     Action Item: Gannon: Compile other available information that is relevant to the review of the Agreement (e.g., the Wingspread session earlier this year).

The Annex 2 work group continues to discuss the issues whereby the WQB could play a value-added role to advance implementation of RAPs and LaMPs. The WQB can help raise the profile of the importance of Annex 2 activities in AoCs. This is consistent with the two roles of the IJC to "assist and advise" the Parties. A survey of RAP practitioners to query how the WQB might best assist their efforts was proposed. There was interest in continuing efforts to improve communication between the Board and RAP/LaMP groups such as the mail-out this summer on Presque Isle RAP accomplishments and the Collingwood Harbour paper in the Journal of Great Lakes Research. The biennial meeting next June is an opportunity for a WQB site visit to the Bay of Quinte AOC.

Action Item: Annex 2 work group consider survey of RAP practitioners and other mechanisms to further WQB/RAPs groups communications.

The WQB has a liaison function with the SAB on this activity. The SAB is working on three major tasks:

1. Hired two consultants; one Canadian, one U.S. to consider such questions as what are the impacts of governance issues on urbanization on both sides of the border.
2. Conduct an inventory and assessment of Best Management Practices (BMPs). Sp
3. Model a variety of BMPs scenarios within a selected watershed. Need to use a "real-life" watershed with extensive data available. The Toronto Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) has been modeling two sub-watersheds to determine which BMPs would work the best. The SAB maybe able to piggyback on the TRCA work.

This is another WQB liaison function with the SAB. Two workshops are being planned on chemical mixtures and pathogens. In addition, Adel Shalaby gave a presentation on the new Canadian Great Lakes Health Network.