Great Lakes Water Quality Board 177th Meeting
Summary of Discussion
Held Jointly with the
Great Lakes Science Advisory Board (154th Meeting)
St. Clair Centre for the Arts, Windsor, Ontario
October 8, 2009

3. Discussion of the IJC Biennial Meeting

Many WQB and SAB members and alternates commented favorably on the content and format of the two-day meeting that had just concluded.

Comments included:

• Compliments on format both days, including brief summaries of 07-09 nearshore priorities in plenary, the way the breakout sessions were conducted, brief report-outs of key findings/themes from the breakout sessions and the more integrated, joint presentations by governments on their progress on Agreement obligations.
• This was the first biennial meeting in many years to highlight the work of the Agreement advisory Boards; validated the multi-Board work group approach to conducting the 07-09 activities.  The early reporting (June 2009) however, did not allow for work to be conducted during a full 2-year cycle.

Action Item: Prepare draft letter from SAB-WQB Co-chairs to the Commission on the positive attributes (content and format) of the 2009 Biennial Meeting, especially focusing on the 07-09 work activities of the Agreement Boards and their multi-Board work groups.

The public in attendance also provided comments on the Biennial Meeting, including:

• Overall favorable comments on format and content of the meeting with special emphasis on ample opportunity for public input during the breakout sessions.
• Concern was expressed about the reports not being made available prior to the meeting.  It was noted that all but the nearshore framework report were available on the IJC website many weeks in advance of the meeting.  Evidently, some people visiting the website did not click on the “reports” icon on the home page.
• Overall, compliments on the IJC meeting website as informative, including, the plain English student versions of the reports.
• Overall, favorable comments on the nearshore theme as timely and important.
• Concern was expressed that the nearshore theme did not allow for IJC assessment of governments’ progress on Remedial Action Plans (RAPs) in Areas of Concern (AOCs).  It was noted that the WQB and SAB should have followed up on their assessment of progress in the Niagara Region last June.  The IJC is completing an update on its 2003 AOCs assessment report.

Action Item: Send the IJC’s response to John Jackson’s letter, which requested the IJC resume its late 1990s-early 2000s assessment of selected RAPs, to WQB and SAB Co-chairs.

A question arose as to whether the 07-09 nearshore reports were still open for public comment.  People were informed that the reports are finished and will not be revised.  However, the public will have an open-comment period to provide input on the reports and the biennial meeting.  The IJC will use contents of the 07-09 nearshore reports, the results of the breakout sessions at the Biennial Meeting and comments received during the open-comment period in the development of its 15th Biennial Report on Great Lakes Water Quality.

4. Review of Potential 2009-2011 Priorities

It was noted that the issues undertaken during the 07-09 priorities were ones that the Parties have been struggling to deal with effectively for a long time and, therefore binational attention to these issues via the Agreement multi-Board work groups was deemed to be potentially value-added.  However, it is unrealistic to expect that such long-standing concerns would be resolved in one biennial work plan cycle.  Consequently, much of the discussion centered on what aspects of the 07-09 nearshore work should be continued or modified for the 09-11 proposed work plan and budget. 

Main discussion points included:

• Non-point pollution:  It was noted that the ecosystem response to eutrophication is considerably different in many respects in the late 90s-00s in comparison to the 60s and 70s.  Some evidence is being accrued that non-point source pollution for agricultural practices and urban sprawl requires special attention.  Is there justification for a new reference to repeat in some aspects the Pollution from Land-Use Activities Reference Group (PLUARG)?  This is sometimes has been referred to as PLUARG II.  In lieu of a full-blown reference, there may be value in reviewing the old PLUARG reports, especially in terms of comparing selected watersheds then and now.
• It was noted that the relationships between water quantity and water quality in influencing the re-surgence of eutrophication received insufficient attention during the 07-09 work.  At least in part, this issue was raised in terms of possible IJC internal issue, whereby communication and cooperation between Agreement (mainly water quality) activities and Boundary Waters Treaty (mainly water quantity) activities potentially could be improved.
• It was encouraged to include human health issues in the 09-11 priorities.  Response was that human health as well as climate change, invasive species, etc. could be best considered as part of the nearshore condition assessment, which is one of the main recommendations in 07-09 nearshore framework report.
• It was proposed that the nearshore condition assessment be a major focus in the 09-11 work-plan.  The Parties could use IJC’s assistance in developing the elements (e.g., “tool box”) of a nearshore condition assessment in an ecosystem context to address physical, chemical and biological integrity (including human health) in the nearshore areas.  All of the 07-09 work groups could have a role to play by considering their proposed 09-11 work activities in an adaptive management framework that would assist in developing actionable, testable resource management options.  Proposed work should address scientific policy, and institutional aspects.
• There was overall positive feedback on an adaptive management approach to the 09-11 priorities work plan.  Most of the workgroups have science initiatives which are recommended for additional work in the 07-09 reports.  These initiatives could be re-focused to better address the proposed nearshore condition assessment in an adaptive management context.  However, there was discussion on the importance of also earnestly addressing institutional aspects, including capacity building of existing organizations, getting the watershed-based organizations truly involved in the nearshore areas of the Great Lakes and tracing and addressing impacts upland and upstream in the tributaries.  This will involve an operational shift in LaMPs from a primarily planning mode to one much more central to programs implementation.  The actual experimental intervention in adaptive management is fairly well understood by the scientific community but can be a “nightmare” when applied to existing environmental regulatory programs.  So, there were strong affirmations that the 09-11 nearshore condition assessment earnestly address scientific institutional and policy perspective.
• The discussion was also tempered with caution of not addressing the issue too broadly but asking the question, “what would an adaptive management regime look like in the nearshore areas of the Great Lakes.”  There may be need to prioritize work on selected watersheds and adjacent nearshore areas for maximum benefit to address problems such as, non-point pollution, climate change adaptation, and potential effects of renewable energy.
• It was also suggested that the timeframe for presenting the proposed 09-11 work plan and budget is short, but should include broader input from Agreement Boards’ members.

Action Item:  Develop draft 09-11 work plan and budget for review and comment by Agreement Boards members prior to the IJC Fall Semi-Annual Meeting at the end of October in Ottawa.