Great Lakes Water Quality Board
Summary of Discussion for 161st Meeting
By Teleconference
Friday, February 25, 2005

U.S. Members Present
Suzanne Hanson Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Duluth, MN
Gary Gulezian (Interim Co-Chair) U.S. EPA, Chicago, IL
Walley Turner (for B. Knight) Natural Resources Conservation Service, Washington, DC
David Ullrich Great Lakes Cities Initiative, Chicago, IL
 
Canadian Members Present
John Carey NWRI, Environment Canada, Burlington, ON
David DeLaunay Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Toronto, ON
Scott Duff (for C. Lalonde) Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food, Guelph, ON
Pradeep Kharé (Co-Chair) Environment Canada, Downsview, ON
Jim Smith Ontario Ministry of Environment, Toronto, ON
Craig Mather Aurora, Ontario
Peter Thompson Dept. of Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Sarnia, ON
 
Observers Present
Renée Bowler Ontario Ministry of Environment, Toronto, ON
Jim Chandler IJC Washington, DC
Kai Chen IJC Windsor, ON
Kelly Montgomery IJC Windsor, ON
Henri Selles Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Toronto, ON
Charles Whitmore Natural Resource Conservation Service, US, Washington, DC
 
Secretary
John Gannon International Joint Commission, Windsor, ON

 

4.0 Advice on Review of the Agreement

4.2 Update on Document Review

John Carey reported that a teleconference recently was held with the WQB sub-group reviewing documents pertinent to the Agreement Review. The over-riding question is whether the Agreement in its present form is necessary and sufficient to address the current Great Lakes issues and the emerging issues identified in the Pollution Probe reports and the SAB Emerging Issues Workshop and other pertinent documents. The options for the WQB in reviewing documents pertinent to the Agreement review were determined to be:

  1. Line by line review of current Agreement, identifying minor corrections and emphasizing current link to the Boundary Waters Treaty should be maintained.
  2. Emerging issues analysis (e.g., invasive species, new chemicals of concern, etc.) and whether they can be sufficiently addressed in the current Agreement.
  3. Ecosystem approach – A broader analysis of the ecosystem approach and the implications for resource management within the context of the Agreement.

Action Item: Develop questions on effectiveness of current Agreement and share for review and comment with documents review sub-group.

Action Item: Compile pertinent ecosystem approach documents and send to WQB members.

Action Item: Develop lexicon/dictionary of ecosystem approach terms for WQB members.

Action Item: Review from policy perspective SAB Emerging Issues Workshop summary and SAB Science and Agreement Workshop summary and other documents as deemed necessary.

5.0 IJC February Executive Meeting – Debriefing

David DeLaunay represented Prad in person at the IJC Executive Meeting on February 15th in Ottawa and Gary Gulezian joined by teleconference. All of the Co-chairs of the Agreement Boards/Council were invited to give brief progress reports on ongoing 2003-05 work plan activities and to provide input to preliminary discussions in 2005-07 potential priorities. The Boards/Council presentations (including WQB) were in three parts: 1) ongoing work related to advice on Agreement review; 2) other ongoing work; and 3) future activities.

An issue that generated dialogue with the Commission was the Earth Observation/Great Lakes Observation System (EOS/GLOS). The Council of Great Lakes Research Managers and the International Air Quality Advisory Board are especially interested in this system of automated buoys and remote sensing data collection systems. It was agreed that the WQB should be briefed on this issue at an upcoming meeting to determine a possible WQB role in its development and implementation.

Action Item: Arrange for EOS/GLOS briefing at April WQB Meeting.

It was also recommended that the briefing slides for all of the Agreement Boards/Council be circulated to WQB members.

Action Item: Circulate IJC February Executive meeting visual aid presentation.