TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLES
During the 1995-1997 priorities cycle, the Great Lakes Water Quality Board (WQB) was involved in several issues. WQB directed a priority on contaminated sediment and collaborated with the International Air Quality Advisory Board (IAQAB) on a priority relative to loadings, sources and pathways of persistent toxic substances (see Chapter 3.3). In addition, WQB developed position statements on uniform and fully protective fish consumption advisories, federal sale of mercury, the future of Great Lakes remedial action plans (RAPs) and the importance of other Great Lakes issues such as habitat and biodiversity. WQB also co-sponsored the following conferences and public meetings: a conference entitled Linking Local Watershed Management Efforts Across the Lake Ontario Basin in Rochester, New York on October 18-19, 1996; a conference entitled Practical and Cost Effective Watershed Management in Livonia, Michigan on May 3, 1996; and a workshop entitled Habitat 2001 in Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario on February 25-27, 1997. The following is a summary of each.
Contaminated sediment is a major cause of environmental problems and a key factor in many impairments to beneficial uses of the Great Lakes. Based on application of chemical guidelines, all 42 Great Lakes Areas of Concern have contaminated sediment. This universal obstacle to environmental recovery in Areas of Concern can potentially pose a challenge to restoring 11 of the 14 beneficial use impairments identified in Annex 2.1.c of the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement. Adequate knowledge of impact is essential for determining the degree of impairment. A variety of sediment management options is available, ranging from source control and natural recovery to full-scale remediation depending on the severity of the problem. Further, it is critical that some of these concentrated deposits of contaminated sediment be addressed relatively quickly, because over time these contaminants may be transported from a river or harbour to the open waters of the Great Lakes. Once dispersed into the lakes, cleanup is virtually impossible.
Contaminated sediment is a major problem being addressed in RAPs and lakewide management plans (LaMPs), and is known to be an issue in other areas of the Great Lakes basin. In recognition of the scope of this problem and the limited progress in addressing it, IJC identified contaminated sediment as a priority for the 1995-1997 biennial cycle. IJC assigned this priority to WQB and asked it to review the magnitude of the contaminated sediment problem and make recommendations to overcome major obstacles to sediment remediation.
WQB, with representatives from the Science Advisory Board (SAB) and Council of Great Lakes Research Managers, convened a scoping meeting in March 1996 to determine the breadth of the issues to be examined. Specifically, this scoping meeting was charged with determining whether or not there was a value-added role for WQB and IJC in moving forward on the contaminated sediment issue and, if so, detailing the nature of that contribution, the deliverables and the need for a workshop or working meetings.
As a result of this meeting, it was proposed that a sediment white paper be prepared summarizing the contaminated sediment problem, specifying key obstacles and identifying options to address them. The sediment white paper would serve as the basis for a workshop. This approach was presented and endorsed by IJC at its April 1996 Semi-Annual Meeting in Washington, D.C. It also was recognized that there are undoubtedly other aspects of the contaminated sediment issue that require further investigation and should be addressed in the future.
WQB established a Sediment Priority Action Committee (SedPAC) to prepare the white paper and organize the workshop. The white paper noted that progress has been made in the remediation of contaminated sediment, but contaminated sediment problems in Areas of Concern have been brought to closure (delisting) at only one, Collingwood, Ontario. In most Areas of Concern, progress has been slowed or completely stalled at one of two stages: decisionmaking or implementation.
RAP decisionmaking related to contaminated sediment has been limited by the complex and often conflicting requirements of environmental laws and regulations; the lack of a comprehensive decisionmaking framework geared toward resolution of sediment management problems; and the limitations of science alone in setting cleanup targets. In Areas of Concern where the decision to remediate (or not) has been made, implementation has often been limited by lack of funding and resources, reluctance of industry and the private sector to become involved and the lack of public and local support.
Science can determine the state of sediment quality, while socioeconomic and political forces govern the final cleanup targets. Since success is measured on a site-specific basis, this presents a challenge for those who may choose to enter into a partnership agreement for cleanup. Success should be defined as the degree to which the environmental or ecological impact of contaminants from sediment have been reduced or eliminated. The assessment of success should also recognize whether the "local" goals and uses of the area are achieved. Further, there is a need for pubic acceptance of a step-wise, incremental approach to management of contaminated sediment and restoration of beneficial uses, since complete rehabilitation requires a long-term effort. Success should include both incremental gains in environmental recovery of the system and extensive public participation in the decision-making process. Certainly there can be and has been progress in advancing projects toward remediation; however, implementation is the only step that results in progress toward restoration of the ecosystem.
In the sediment white paper, SedPAC grouped major obstacles to sediment remediation into six categories to assist in communication and broad-based understanding:
SedPAC then identified, as IJC options, those activities IJC could undertake that could make a value-added contribution to overcoming obstacles to sediment management actions. SedPAC also ranked them as either high or lower priority options. Copies of the sediment white paper, Overcoming Obstacles to Sediment Remediation in the Great Lakes Basin, are available from IJC's Great Lakes Regional Office, as is additional information about obstacles and options to overcome them.
On June 18, 1997 a workshop entitled Identifying the Value-Added Role of the IJC in Overcoming Obstacles to Sediment Remediation in the Great Lakes Basin was convened in Collingwood, Ontario. Approximately 35 individuals participated, including representatives from WQB, SAB, Council, and SedPAC, and two Commissioners.
In general, workshop participants concurred with the categories of obstacles to sediment remediation that were identified in the white paper. Two breakout groups were then used in the workshop to identify the two or three most important IJC options to help overcome obstacles to sediment remediation. It was felt that incentives to corporate involvement are generally weak and poorly articulated, and that in most areas there is limited public and local support for sediment remediation. In addition, lack of a consistent but flexible decision-making framework continues to confound and frustrate RAP processes and other local sediment initiatives.
Workshop participants recommended two very important, value-added contributions IJC could make to help address current obstacles to sediment remediation:
Workshop participants also noted a number of other options IJC may want to pursue depending upon time and resource availability. These include: Commissioners could be opportunistic advocates for sediment funding and legislation (e.g. through Hamilton Harbour Status Assessment); IJC could recommend in its Biennial Report that the Parties and jurisdictions provide adequate staff to support sediment remediation efforts; and IJC could prepare materials and launch a binational marketing campaign that would address the importance of contaminated sediment management.
SedPAC reviewed the two primary workshop recommendations and has proposed action plans for IJC's 1997-99 cycle to address each recommendation (Tables 1 and 2). Specifically, these action plans lay out a series of complementary activities that could be taken by IJC and other organizations to help overcome obstacles to sediment management.
WQB is reviewing the workshop's recommendations and providing specific advice to IJC in fall 1997.
| Table 1. | An Action Plan Proposed by SedPAC to Utilize Benefits Assessment to Help Promote Implementation of Sediment Management Actions. |
| ACTIVITY | MECHANISM | TIMEFRAME | RESPONSIBLE PARTY |
| Compile methodologies to quantify environmental and economic benefits | Great Lakes Economic Valuation Guidebook | Initiate: fall 1997 Duration: 6-9 months |
Northeast Midwest Institute in cooperation with the WQB, SAB and Council |
| Select preferred methodologies | Sediment Forum | Initiate: spring 1998 Duration: 3 months |
WQB in cooperation with Northeast Midwest Institute, SAB and Council |
| Compile and summarize best available data on environmental and economic benefits as they pertain to contaminated sediment cleanup (both inside and outside the basin) | Summary report | Initiate: January 1999 Duration: 6 months |
WQB contract with Northeast Midwest Institute or academic organization |
| Disseminate data and information from summary report using a comprehensive communications strategy | Brochures, home page, Commissioner and IJC staff presentations | Initiate: fall 1999 | Commissioners, IJC staff, communications specialist |
| IJC leverage implementors for funding, resources and priorities | Meetings with senior management and industry; legislative briefings | Initiate: fall 1997 Duration: 2 years |
Commissioners, IJC staff |
| Table 2. | An Action Plan Proposed by SedPAC to Encourage Use of Compatible Decisionmaking Frameworks for Management of Contaminated Sediment. |
| ACTIVITY | MECHANISM | TIMEFRAME | RESPONSIBLE PARTY |
| Compile information on relevant sediment decisionmaking frameworks | White paper | Initiate - fall 1997 Duration - 9 months |
SAB or WQB in cooperation with Council |
| IJC leverage Parties/jurisdictions for funding, resources, and priorities for developing decisionmaking framework | Meetings with senior management | Initiate - fall 1997 Duration - approximately 6 months |
Commissioners |
| Develop guidelines for binational approach for decisionmaking | Binational workshop to strive for consistent/compatible approaches | Initiate - fall 1998 Duration - 6 months |
WQB and Parties in cooperation with SAB and Council |
| Test, validate and finalize subset of decisionmaking frameworks (pilot testing) | Summary report | Initiate - spring 1999 Duration - 6 months |
Parties and jurisdictions in cooperation with WQB |
| Advocate use of consistent/flexible decisionmaking frameworks | Distribution of information through reports, home pages, meetings with senior management | Initiate - spring 1999 Duration - ongoing |
Commissioners and IJC staff |
For the 1995-1997 cycle, IJC identified significant sources, pathways and reduction/elimination strategies for persistent toxic substances as one of its priorities. IJC's International Air Quality Advisory Board (IAQAB) and WQB collaborated on this priority and co-sponsored a workshop on May 21-22, 1997 to evaluate four background reports: air sources and pathways; an evaluation of programs called for under Annex 15; use of mass balance modeling to determine relative contribution of contaminants; and an evaluation of beyond compliance programs. The workshop also identified critical research, assessment and management needs and priorities. A summary of key findings and recommendations from this workshop, prepared jointly by WQB and IAQAB, is presented in Chapter 3.
WQB is reviewing the workshop's recommendations and providing advice to IJC in fall 1997.
Delivery of this priority relied on collaboration between WQB and IAQAB. Such working ties within the IJC family help ensure an integrated multimedia approach with strong linkages among research, monitoring and management.
2.4 POSITION STATEMENT ON UNIFORM AND FULLY PROTECTIVE FISH CONSUMPTION ADVISORIES
Annex 2 of the Agreement calls for restoration of beneficial uses in Areas of Concern. One of the use impairments identified is restrictions on fish and wildlife consumption. Annex 12 calls for the Parties to establish action levels to protect human health. These provisions make this an issue of interest to WQB, IJC and others in the basin. A protocol for development of fish consumption advisories was recommended by the Great Lakes Sport Fish Advisory Task Force to the Council of Great Lakes Governors for adoption in 1993 and three states are presently implementing it.
Advisories, usually provided with fishing license materials, inform prospective consumers of Great Lakes fish regarding human health risks from contaminants in the fish. They also recommend, when warranted, restricted consumption of certain species, especially for the most vulnerable consumers, such as women of child-bearing age and children. A series of studies involving children born to women who ate Lake Michigan fish during the 1970s reported neurological deficits associated with concentrations of PCBs in the mother. Another study of women who ate Lake Ontario fish at current contaminant concentrations has reported similar findings.
Ultimately, members of the public make individual dietary decisions. This is only appropriate. It also is appropriate for jurisdictions to provide information empowering individuals to exercise personal responsibility, as recognized in Annex 12.
One practical way for governments to move forward collectively on protection of human and ecosystem health is the issuance of uniform fish consumption advisories. In 1996 WQB advised IJC on the importance of uniform, fully protective fish consumption advisories for the Great Lakes. In its advice, WQB noted that there are currently three different state fish consumption advisories on Lake Michigan. This situation confuses the public and does not fully protect public health. Concern was raised that citizens of Michigan were entering the fishing season with inadequate information about the health risks associated with eating contaminated fish from the Great Lakes.
Based on WQB's advice, IJC sent letters to the Great Lakes Sport Fish Advisory Task Force, the U.S. secretary of state and the Canadian minister of foreign affairs urging the governments in the basin to adopt fully protective, uniform fish consumption advisories. In response to inconsistent fish consumption advisories for Lake Michigan and concern expressed for this situation, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued a supplementary fish consumption advisory to be used together with Michigan's fish consumption advisory for Great Lakes waters. The state of Michigan will be taking steps over the next year to develop more complete and protective information about health risks associated with eating contaminated fish from the Great Lakes. In addition, the director of the Michigan Department of Community Health recently wrote to U.S. EPA Administrator Browner requesting a joint scientific panel be assembled. The panel would be made up of members of U.S. EPA's Science Advisory Board and the Michigan Environmental Science Board. The goal of the panel would be to resolve outstanding disagreements over fish consumption advisories.
WQB continues to recommend the following.
2.5 POSITION STATEMENT ON FEDERAL SALE OF MERCURY
As principal advisor to IJC, WQB has provided advice on a critical issue -- federal sale of mercury. Mercury is a persistent, bioaccumulative, toxic substance that governments have targeted for virtual elimination as called for in the Agreement. The U.S. holds more than 11 million pounds of mercury in its national stockpile. This mercury has been declared surplus and slated for sale worldwide. The U.S. Department of Defense is completing an environmental assessment of the implications of selling this stockpile. A preliminary review of sales in November 1995 by the Department of Defense concluded that there was no policy basis for ending sale. This review did not consider effects of sale on the world commodity market and the resulting health and environmental impacts.
WQB unanimously agrees on the need for global reduction of mercury use. Concern was raised regarding federal sale of mercury based on both environmental and economic grounds. However, a few members felt that WQB should wait for the completion of the environmental assessment to have more complete information on environmental and economic impacts. Concern also was raised that if the U.S. halted this sale of mercury, it might be perceived as controlling supplies or that this action would have no cumulative effect because other countries could increase supplies to meet demand.
Proponent WQB arguments for halting the federal sale of mercury include:
In summary, WQB strongly agrees that there needs to be global reduction in mercury use. WQB briefed IJC and formally requested a copy of the Department of Defense environmental assessment when it becomes available. By letters of September 13, 1996 to the governments of Canada and the United States, IJC expressed concern that the release of mercury to the environment is fundamentally inconsistent with the provisions of the Agreement. IJC has specifically recommended in its Sixth Biennial Report on Great Lakes Water Quality that the use of mercury be sunset and in its Eighth Biennial Report that actions to prevent, control and eliminate persistent toxic substances in production and commerce be pursued on a global basis. Therefore IJC recommended that the U.S. Government not proceed with the sale of its mercury stockpile.
WQB will continue to track the status of the environmental assessment in order to provide timely information and advise IJC on proposed federal sale of mercury.
2.6 POSITION STATEMENT ON THE FUTURE OF GREAT LAKES REMEDIAL ACTION PLANS
It has been over ten years since the Parties and jurisdictions committed to the development and implementation of RAPs to restore all beneficial uses in Areas of Concern. Recently, federal, state and provincial budget constraints have resulted in less support for RAPs and public advisory committee (PAC) activities. Further budget cutbacks are anticipated. Numerous RAP stakeholders and many PACs have indicated that further progress will be difficult. In light of the fact that WQB is the originator of RAPs, principal advisor to IJC on water quality matters, charged with assessing the adequacy and effectiveness of Great Lakes programs, and in response to concern for recent government cutbacks in RAP funding, WQB prepared a position statement on the future of RAPs based on its practical experiences over the last 11 years. The complete position statement can be found on the WQB's home page at www.ijc.org/php/publications/html/wqbrap.html(.)
WQB recognizes that much has been accomplished through RAPs and yet much needs to be done to fulfil the Agreement goal of restoring all beneficial uses in Areas of Concern. The erosion of governmental funding support for RAPs is real. Budget constraints have impacted most Great Lakes programs. However, with such budget constraints comes an opportunity to re-evaluate how RAPs have been developed and implemented, and to look for ways to form partnerships, pool resources, compensate for program restraint measures and still accomplish the important goals of restoring uses in Areas of Concern.
RAPs provide the framework to restore and sustain healthy ecosystems and communities. The RAP process draws on community members to develop a collaborative vision for a healthy ecosystem in the 42 Areas of Concern. The ecological, economic and societal factors affecting each area should drive the problem-solving approach, involving citizens in setting environmental goals and monitoring and evaluating outcomes over time.
WQB concludes that RAPs are on the cutting edge of community-based and ecosystem-based management processes. The RAP process is out in front regarding how to address local, environmental problems and are precedent setting for other regions and areas.
RAP implementation and continued progress toward watershed and ecosystem-based management can and must continue to thrive with strong local leadership and initiative, despite reductions in some state, provincial and federal programs. The Parties and jurisdictions, and IJC, must not abandon RAPs. Further, it is becoming well recognized that for LaMPs to be successful, RAPs will have to be successful. It is paramount that the federal, state and provincial governments continue to provide leadership and resources to fulfil commitments to RAPs as articulated in the Agreement. Governments should be viewed as facilitators of RAPs and partnership builders.
Based on a basinwide review of the Great Lakes RAP program, WQB concludes the following:
WQB recommends the following.
2.7 POSITION ON THE IMPORTANCE OF OTHER GREAT LAKES ISSUES
The purpose of the Agreement is "to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the waters of the Great Lakes Basin Ecosystem." While not precisely defined, integrity is generally understood to include health of constituent populations of the ecosystem, biological diversity of ecological communities, and the ecosystem's ability to withstand stress or adapt to it.
WQB recognizes that prevention and remediation of persistent toxic substance problems is an important and continuing priority of IJC. WQB concurs with this emphasis and is pleased with its responsibilities to address the IJC priorities on loadings, sources and pathways of contaminants and contaminated sediment.
However, WQB continues to be concerned that other important issues are not receiving priority attention. Issues, such as loss of habitat and biodiversity and impacts of exotic species, should also be viewed as important Great Lakes issues. This has been a continuing key message of the State of the Lakes Ecosystem Conference (SOLEC).
SOLEC reports assess the state of the living components of the Great Lakes ecosystem, specifically the health of aquatic communities and humans. In addition, measures of physical, chemical and biological stresses that affect the ecosystem are equally important in describing the state of the lakes and providing vital information for programs designed to restore and protect the integrity of the ecosystem.
WQB recommends the following.
WQB will continue to liaison with the Great Lakes Fishery Commission and other technical experts in the field to provide advice on habitat, biodiversity, exotic species and related issues.
2.8 LINKING LOCAL WATERSHED MANAGEMENT EFFORTS ACROSS THE LAKE ONTARIO BASIN
On October 18-19, 1996 WQB and the Finger Lakes-Lake Ontario Watershed Protection Alliance (FL-LOWPA) co-sponsored a conference entitled Linking Local Watershed Management Efforts Across the Lake Ontario Basin in Rochester, New York. The conference was the first public meeting of WQB under IJC's revised policy to improve public involvement and consultation in its affairs. The conference was the product of a unique partnership between two water quality entities representing perspectives from different geographic levels -- local and basinwide -- which saw benefits in meeting together. FL-LOWPA is an alliance of 24 counties in New York's Lake Ontario basin committed to improving the health of the region's watersheds based on local, coordinated programs.
The conference provided a forum for exchanging ideas pertaining to watershed management between those in government agencies responsible for the development of basinwide management concepts and initiatives and those working at the local level to implement programs. The conference also provided an opportunity for these groups working on resource management at varying levels to discuss how they might reinforce and complement each other's work to strengthen watershed management in the Lake Ontario basin.
It was the general conclusion of the conference that responsibility for the future health of New York's watersheds rests mainly with local communities, supported by government at multiple levels. FL-LOWPA, in cooperation with its member counties and local, regional, state and federal organizations, can facilitate cooperative watershed management in the Lake Ontario basin by supporting:
WQB has a strengthened commitment to foster communication between basinwide and local entities, including:
WQB also can help link institutionally separate issues, such as water quality, habitat and lake levels, providing a conceptual umbrella to assist local ecosystem-based watershed planning.
The conference steering committee recommended the following to improve the roles of FL-LOWPA and WQB in facilitation of cooperative watershed management.
WQB is reviewing the conference's recommendations and providing specific advice to IJC in fall 1997.
2.9 PRACTICAL AND COST EFFECTIVE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT
On May 3, 1996 WQB co-sponsored a conference entitled Practical and Cost-Effective Watershed Management in Livonia, Michigan with 23 other organizations and agencies. The conference attempted to move beyond theory to practice by presenting practical and cost-effective methods for implementing watershed management. The conference included technical sessions on: practical methods to protect and enhance habitats; storm water management; theory, practice and institutional arrangements; and funding local activities to put watershed management into action.
Over 300 people participated, including elected township, village and city officials; planning and zoning officials; government managers and staff; developers; builders; consultants; planners; engineers; landscape architects; park and subdivision design and review consultants; road commissioners and staff; drain commissioners and staff; citizen groups; property owners; and other stakeholders. More detailed information can be found in the summary report under the WQB's home page www.ijc.org/conseil_board/water_greatlakes/en/glwqb_home_accueil.htm(.)
The summary report:
Session participants recognized that one major challenge in ensuring habitat is adequately addressed in watershed management efforts is that "habitat has no home" (i.e. physical habitat often "falls through the cracks" and does not receive adequate attention in traditionally separate water quality management and fish and wildlife management programs). To address this challenge, there must be a concerted effort to ensure habitat is an integral part of community master plans. Critical components of a process ensuring habitat is incorporated into community master plans include:
Options to be considered in plan development include:
Higher priority must be given to soft engineering alternatives to achieve "win-win" outcomes for habitat and economic development, and so as not to preclude future options.
Higher priority must be given to adequate monitoring and assessment, including inventories and classification systems. Session participants suggested that individuals must get involved up-front in project planning to adequately address habitat and ensure adequate assessment and monitoring. In addition, habitat rehabilitation and enhancement projects should be viewed as experiments, helping to ensure follow-up assessment in order to guide future habitat projects.
From a strategic perspective, greater emphasis should be placed on "piggy backing" habitat protection and rehabilitation on other local and regional planning and development initiatives. For example, communities can capitalize on waterfront redevelopment to ensure habitat gets incorporated into master plans. Although a systematic and comprehensive process of habitat conservation, rehabilitation and restoration will be a long-term endeavour, considerable opportunities exist to move forward with short-term actions that will benefit habitat and other issues (e.g. land use, economy, agriculture and recreation). Some examples of practical actions include:
Additional practical actions need to be identified.
WQB recommends the following.
On February 25-27, 1997 WQB co-sponsored a workshop entitled Habitat 2001 dealing with the future of habitat restoration and protection on the Upper Great Lakes. Other co-sponsors included: Great Lakes Fishery Commission, Environment Canada, U.S. EPA, HabCARES Steering Committee, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, the Habitat Subcommittee of the Lake Superior Binational Program and the Lake Superior Programs Office. Over 50 Upper Great Lakes people with an interest in aquatic and terrestrial habitat attended.
Key issues addressed include: habitat science and technology; the continuing trend of habitat loss; the challenge of setting lakewide habitat objectives and delisting Areas of Concern; and information needs required to derive environmental objectives for the Upper Great Lakes. All workshop participants were challenged to provide leadership and become champions for action.
Important findings include: the science and technology of habitat rehabilitation and conservation is evolving rapidly; fish community objectives should be ecosystem-based; indicators are important to measure and celebrate progress; greater emphasis must be placed on linking aquatic and terrestrial habitat initiatives; issues of scale, communication and overlapping mandates must be addressed; and RAPs, LaMPs and watershed plans are vehicles to move forward with action. Table 3 presents breakout group summaries of next steps needed for each Upper Great Lake.
| Table 3. | Habitat 2001 Breakout Group Output of Next Steps Needed to Help Move Forward with Habitat Restoration and Preservation on the Upper Great Lakes. |
| LAKE | NEXT STEPS IDENTIFIED IN HABITAT 2001 BREAKOUT GROUPS |
| Superior |
|
| Michigan |
|
| Huron |
|
WQB recommends the following.
IJC should be a co-sponsor of these events, consistent with use of an ecosystem approach and especially Annex 2 of the Agreement.
2.11 GREAT LAKES WATER QUALITY BOARD MEMBERSHIP FOR 1995-1997
| Canadian Members | U.S. Members |
| Mr. Vic Shantora (Canadian Co-Chair) Director General Toxic Pollution Prevention Directorate Environment Canada 351 St. Joseph Blvd., 13th Floor Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0H3 | Mr. Val Adamkus, U.S. Cochair (retired May 1997) Administrator U.S. National Program Manager U.S. EPA, Region V 77 W. Jackson St., R-19-J Chicago, Illinois 60604 |
| Dr. James Ashman Director, Ministry and Corporate Affairs Deputy Minister's Office Ontario Ministry of Agriculture Food and Rural Affairs 1 Stone Road West Guelph, Ontario N1G 4Y2 | Mr. Gary Gulezian (alternate) U.S. EPA-GLNPO 77 West Jackson Blvd. (A-18J) Chicago, Illinois 60604 |
| Dr. John M. Cooley, Director Great Lakes Laboratory for Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences Dept. of Fisheries & Oceans, CCIW P.O. Box 5050 Burlington, Ontario L7R 4A6 | Mr. Paul W. Johnson, Chief Natural Resources Conservation Service U.S. Dept. of Agriculture P.O. Box 2890 MNCS-USDA Washington, D.C. 20013 |
| Dr. Douglas P. Dodge Fish & Wildlife Branch Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources P.O. Box 7000 Peterborough, Ontario K9J 3C7 | Mr. Bob Burris/Mr. Tom Sommer (alternates) USDA/Nat. Res. Cons. Serv. One Maritime Plaza, 4th Floor Toledo, Ohio 43604-1866 |
| Dr. Andrew P. Gilman Chief, Health Effects Prog. Div. Health Canada Room 1108, Main Statistics Bldg. Tunney's Pasture Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0K9 | Illinois
Mr. Peter L. Wise, Associate Director |
| Ms. Denyse Gouin Ministry of Environment and Wildlife Aquatic Ecosystems 675 Rene-Levesque E., Box 22 Québec, Québec G1R 5V7 | Indiana
Mr. Mike O'Connor (Acting Representative) |
| Dr. Daniel Krewski, Acting Director Bureau of Chemical Hazards Environmental Health Centre Health Canada Tunney's Pasture Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0L2 | Michigan
Mr. G. Tracy Mehan, III |
| Mr. Simon Llewellyn Environment Canada Regional Director ECB-OR 4905 Dufferin Street Downsview, Ontario M3H 5T4 | Minnesota
Mr. Rod Massey, Manager |
| Mr. J. Craig Mather Chief Administrative Officer Metro Toronto & Region Conservation Authority 5 Shoreham Drive Downsview, Ontario M3N 1S4 | Ms. Patricia Burke (alternate) Water Division Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 520 Lafayette Rd. N. St. Paul, Minnesota 55155 |
| M. Henri St-Martin Ministère de l'Environnement et de la Faune du Québec Chef du Service des pesticides et des eaux souterraines 2360, chemin Sainte-Foy, 2étage Sainte-Foy (Québec) G1V 4H2 | New York
Mr. N.G. Kaul, P.E., Director |
| Ms. Helle M. Tosine, Director Program Development Branch Ontario Ministry of Environment and Energy 40 St. Clair Ave. W., 14th Fl. Toronto, Ontario M4V 1L5 | Mr. Richard Draper (alternate) NYSDEC Great Lakes Section, Division of Water 50 Wolf Road, Rm 310 Albany, New York 12233-3500 |
| Dr. Gail Krantzberg (alternate) Program Development Branch Ontario Ministry of Environment & Energy 40 St. Clair Avenue West, llth Floor Toronto, Ontario M4V lM2 | Ohio
Mr. Donald R. Schregardus, Director |
| Mr. Hardy Wong, Director West Central Region Hamilton Regional Office Ontario Ministry of the Environment and Energy 119 King Street West, 12th Floor Hamilton, Ontario L8P 4Y7 | Mr. Thomas Behlen (alternate) Ohio Environmental Protection Agency P.O. Box 1049 Columbus, Ohio 43216-1049 |
| Section Liaisons
Mr. James G. Chandler | Pennsylvania
Mr. Kelly Burch, Chief |
| Mr. Edward A. Bailey International Joint Commission Canadian Section 100 Metcalfe Street, 18th Floor Ottawa, Ontario K1P 5M1 | Wisconsin
Ms. Susan Sylvester |
| Secretariat Responsibilities
Dr. John H. Hartig, Secretary | Mr. Greg Hill (alternate) Wisconsin Dept. of Natural Resources Administrator, AD/5 Division of Water 101 S. Webster St., P.O. Box 7921 Madison, Wisconsin 53707-7921 |