Meeting (May 30-31, 1997, Toledo, Ohio)

Meeting Attendance: Attachment 1

Meeting Facilitators:

• Ellen Carpenter, Clean Sites
• Teresa Hollingsworth, FOCALerie

Breakout Facilitators:

• Ellen Carpenter, Clean Sites
• Eleanor Heagy, FOCALerie
• Teresa Hollingsworth, FOCALerie
• Madhu Malhotra, Environment Canada

Meeting Objectives:

• Review and begin developing comments on the draft Lake Erie LaMP Progress Report.
• Provide information about how to incorporate health issues in to the LaMP process.
• Discuss how to proceed with incorporating environmental justice issues into the LaMP process.
• Reach agreement on whether to send representatives from the Forum to the IJC meeting in the fall.
• Provide information on upcoming funding opportunities for LaMP-related Forum activities.

Minutes reflect a summary of the progress of the meeting and the decisions made.

FRIDAY, MAY 30, 1997

1. Welcome and Introductions (Frank Reynolds)

Frank Reynolds opened the meeting with a welcome.

2. Approve Minutes of the January 24-25, 1997 Forum Meeting

Two spelling errors were pointed out in the attachments: 1) Attachment 18, page 4 (article 15) - town's name is West Lorne; and 2) Attachment 23, page 7 - river's name is Sydenham. The minutes were approved with the above noted changes.

3. Review Agenda

No changes were made at this time.

4. Presentation on the Lake Erie LaMP Progress Report (Attachment 2)

Lisa Thorstenberg, with U.S. EPA, reviewed the purpose and content of the Lake Erie LaMP Progress Report. She described the type of feedback the agencies are requesting from the Forum and reviewed the chapter on next steps. She noted that there are typographical errors in the report; this was due to the report being fast tracked and some technical problems (computer glitches) that occured. She noted that in Chapter 6, the Pollution Prevention paper distributed was not the correct version. The correct version (Attachment #20 of the January 24-25 Forum Meeting minutes) will be inserted in the updated version of the Progress Report.

The following questions and comments were provided by the Forum members on the Progress Report.

When will the missing sections be completed?

Response:

• This document could be worked on until it is a complete Problem Definition Document, or this Progress Report could go out for review. Some of the beneficial use impairment assessment reports are six months away from completion. The phosphorus section is almost done. The ecosystem objectives section will be a progress report/work plan as the Technical Subcommittee is not expected to have the ecosystem objectives until the Fall of 1998. Regarding the ecosystem objectives modeling tool - most of the software constraints are resolved. In 2 weeks we should have software we can work with. We are meeting now to come up with a work plan. The Forum will have a chance to see preliminary information along the way. If all goes well, the Ecosystem Objectives Task Group and then the full Forum should be seeing information in the next six months.

Are there not deadlines we have to meet, and does this mean the entire process is going to be behind schedule?

Response:

• Our deadlines are what we have set for ourselves. We can have a status report in 1997, but it won't be complete.

Regarding the bibliographic sources referenced in the Progress Report, some are outdated and not the most recent.

Response:

• We have not included the entire sources in this Progress Report; it is a problem when the document takes so long to produce. We should go back to the primary sources wherever possible.

Is this ready for the public?

Response:

• That will be one of the things to discuss in the breakout sessions. We are interested in having your feedback and recommendations on that issue. It is one of the questions contained in the Topics for Consideration Paper which was provided along with the Progress Report.

5. Process for Reviewing the Draft Lake Erie LaMP Progress Report (Attachment 3)

Teresa Hollingsworth reviewed the proposed process for reviewing the draft Progress Report and assimilating Forum members comments into a report. It was noted that we don't know if the Progress Report will be finalized in October or December. This decision will be up to the Management Committee. Consequently, we don't know if the Forum will be able to review the Progress Report again at the October meeting. Following the presentation, Forum members provided the following questions and comments:

• What about beneficial use impairments, such as fish populations, benthos, wildlife populations which are not final yet, but are expected to be in the Progress Report? Will the Beneficial Use Task Group have an opportunity to review those assessment reports with the Forum before the Progress Report is released for review to the broader public?
• Is July 18 realistic? Yes, we hope so.

The Forum members agreed with the process outlined.

6. Panel Discussion on Phosphorus

Ed Iwachewski moderated the panel discussion on phosphorus. Presentations were made the following speakers:

• I. Paul Bertram, Great Lakes National Program Office, U.S. EPA
  (Presentation outline is included in Attachment 4.)
• II. Dave Baker, Water Quality Laboratory, Heidelberg College
  (Presentation outline is included in Attachment 5.)
• III. Phil Ryan, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources
  (Presentation outline is included in Attachment 6.)
• IV. Dave Culver, Department of Zoology, Ohio State University
  (Handouts provided during the meting are included in Attachment 7.)

Points highlighted during Dr. Culver's presentation include:

• Whatever we do external to Lake Erie to reduce phosphorus, is relatively minor compared to the impact of zebra mussels, due to their high level of phosphorus excretion (both total phosphorus and soluble phosphorus).
• Changes in relative amounts of phosphorus and nitrogen coming into the lake is critical in determining which algae grows.
• Less phosphorus is going into the sediments because mussels intercept it, digest it, and put it back into the water column.
  

7. Question and Answer Session

Following the panel discussion on phosphorus, Forum members asked the following questions which were responded to by the panelists:

What are we doing about the total amount of phosphorus in the lake? Is it accumulating?

Response:

• Measurements of total phosphorus in the lake indicate that we are more or less stable; more phosphorus is coming out from external sources than is exiting to Lake Ontario.

Response:

• Concentrations in the water column is decreased but total phosphorus circulating in active biomass may be increasing or at least it is certainly being turned over more, which means that the total phosphorus in the lake is increasing, if you are including the phosphorus stored in the sediments.

Response:

• There is difficulty in keeping the same loadings, given that the population is on the increase. So, the net amount of phosphorus may increase.

Can phosphorus be removed by harvesting fish?

Response:

• Yes, but it is a low amount relative to the total amount of phosphorus. The largest amount of phosphorus is in the sediment.

Is climatic change and variability, such as droughts, floods, temperature changes, being taken into account?

Response:

• Lowest loading recently was 1987 (a drought year) and the highest loading recently was a rainy year, so loadings do relate directly to weather. Another meter of water in Lake Erie would increase the thickness of the hypolimnion.

Response:

• Trends analysis on agricultural changes shows that we are seeing an increasing frequency of severe storms, which makes controlling erosion more critical.

Response:

• Modeling food web in Lake Erie takes into account that the hypolimnion would change in thickness depending on temperature.

How does urban use of phosphorus (for lawns) impact the input from tributaries?

Response:

• Given the land area involved in agriculture compared to urban land, there would be more phosphorus associated with agriculture. Plus urban lawns are the ultimate no-till and most of rain would soak into ground.

Response:

• Rates of application are much higher in urban settings. Much of the phosphorus from urban watersheds relates to paved areas; stormwater from streets and malls. Stormwater retention ponds will be phosphorus retention ponds

Are phosphorus limits set by Canada in detergents, effluent, and agriculture as low as in the US?

Response:

• Detergents in Canada is set at 2.2% versus .5% in the United States. Regarding agriculture, the monitoring programs in Canada cannot rival those in the U.S. There are programs, but they are voluntary. On infrastructure, we haven't spent as much, but we don't have the same amount to deal with as in the U.S.

Response:

• Regarding loadings from agricultural practices - Ontario is meeting the loadings target, whereas the U.S. has not in all cases.

Phosphorus is a limiting nutrient in a freshwater ecosystem. We can have too much or too little. It looks like we are at the target or below. How far are we going to go in further reducing phosphorus and what will be the consequences to the ecosystem?

Response:

• I do not necessarily believe in further reducing phosphorus levels. I would be surprised if phosphorus decreased. It may even increase. We may see a return in water quality problems if we don't plan for this.

Response:

• There are implications in the food web and many other changes in Lake Erie as well. We need to have a good understanding of the linkages (which we don't have).

Response:

• There are three interconnecting basins, and trying to reach optimum distribution of phosphorus in all three basins is very difficult.

Response:

• I will be amazed if we can demonstrate that we've taken out too much phosphorus. Deciding what phosphorus levels are appropriate depends on what society's objectives are for the ecosystem and beneficial uses of the lake.

What is the interpretation of the GLWQA? Do we keep aiming for the phosphorus target or try to further decrease phosphorus? This question relates to the aerobic hypolimnion in the central basin.

Response:

• It will be difficult to further decrease phosphorus, due to the population increase.

The mathematical equations to arrive at target loadings were done in 1978. Is this being updated now?

Response:

• It should be, yes.

Response:

• Some of those models were very sophisticated and would be expensive to duplicate. The turnover rates of biomass is very fast for many species, so to draw up a model which takes into account the rapidity of phosphorus turnover and the complexity of variability in climate, etc., would be hard to duplicate, and these factors don't even include the water column complexity.
  
  
• Do we need an aerobic hypolimnion in the central basin, and if we reduce concentration to half of what they are now what would happen to fish populations?

Response:

• Regarding the aerobic hypolimnion, it would extend the habitat of some fish species (yellow perch, burbot), but the overall productivity would decrease.

Response:

• Historically, the hypolimnion was never aerobic. People who argue that it should be say it would increase habitat for cold water fish, but historically fish species would migrate seasonally in the basin. The area has poor habitat and is too warm. There is no need for an aerobic hypolimnion. Regarding reducing phosphorus to levels where that would happen - this is already happening in that there are more cold water species in this area of the lake now, but it is not a healthy or sustainable situation; we would have a less favourable fish community.

Response:

• I disagree with the implication of the question that we need to aim for half of the target concentration suggested by the modeling exercise; the lake needs 10 years to adjust to new conditions due to internal loadings in sediment.

8. Presentation on Health Issues (Attachment 8)

Jim Cowden, member of the Forum, made a presentation on how health issues could be incorporated into the LaMP process.

SATURDAY, MAY 31, 1997

9. Review Agenda

No changes were made.

10. Discussion of the Chapter on Key Issues

The following sections of Chapter 2 were discussed:

II. Exotics (Attachment 9)

A presentation on exotics and the Ohio State Management Plan was made by Randy Sanders, Ohio Department of Natural Resources. Following his presentation, Forum members provided the following questions and comments:

What is the status of controlling ballast water?

Response:

• The U.S. Coast Guard Marine Safety Office has the primary role in regulating ballast water. Regarding the ruffe, there are new microfiltration systems now being installed and tested which are designed to filter out organisms as the water is being taken on to ships, but it is difficult to have a 100% foolproof prevention system.

Is there information on the potential for more exotics?

Response:

• There is a better information exchange and we are starting to look at potential problems. There is much better control now on what species are being stocked. We have learned from our mistakes.
• Include references to sections on exotics and zebra mussels.

II. Changes in Fish Populations

Phil Ryan, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, reviewed the section on changes in fish populations contained in Chapter 2 of the draft Progress Report. Following his presentation, Forum members provided the following comments:

1. There needs to be a better integration of this section with the rest of the report.
2. The report seems to focus on what's happened in the 1990s, and the report should look at longer-term trends.
3. Rewrite the end of this section to stress the potential problems we are facing.
4. Why is Ontario increasing the quota on fisheries this year when the populations are depressed?

Response:

• This is occuring in the western basin, the west-central basin, and to a small extent in the east-central basin; in the western half of the lake the yellow perch population (aged 2 plus) is on the increase, we haven't seen this change in the eastern half of the lake.

Section 2.3.1. The statement regarding what species need embayments and river mouths should be changed because small- and largemouth bass and channel catfish can also live in near-shore areas.

Response:

• This statement was based on optimum conditions for these species and these conditions are best found in embayments and river mouths
• Yellow perch should be planktivore not benthivore.
• Include more graphs.
• Table 2.3 could be improved by eliminating some of the historical matter included now. Regarding expanding or defining stocks - explain the reasons.
• Section 2.3.2.b, Figures 2-1 through 2-3 are missing.

III. Wetlands and Habitat

The facilitators invited Forum members to provide comments on the section on Wetlands and Habitat in Chapter 2. The following questions and comments were provided by Forum members (responses were provided by agency representatives in attendance at the Forum meeting):

Regarding the destruction of habitat, are the high water levels having an impact and will any controls be implemented?

Response:

• Water level fluctuation is critical for a healthy wetland ecosystem. Most wetlands on the Great Lakes are adapted to a much greater amount of fluctuation than what we see now.
• Need to clarify the impact of carp on wetlands.

IV. PCBs

The facilitators asked Forum members to please submit written comments on this section to Teresa or Ellen by June 27.

11. Break Out Sessions (Attachment 10)

Before the break out sessions were convened, Sandra George, with Environment Canada, noted that the agencies would like to see summarized comments from the Forum on the Progress Report. She pointed out that not all comments can be incorporated into the report and these will be dealt with individually (that is, the Work Group will respond directly to individuals who made comments). She reported that agency review is occuring simultaneously and all comments (Forum and agency) will be considered. There will be substantial changes in the Progress Report made by September. The agencies are aiming for public release of the Progress Report in October. Ms. George was asked if the document will identify minority opinions. She indicated that it depends on what the comments are and how substantial they are.

Four break out sessions were convened to review and begin developing comments on the following chapters of the draft Progress Report, as well as to begin developing responses to questions in the "Topics For Your Consideration" paper:

• Beneficial Use Impairment Assessments (Chapter 3)
• Sources and Loadings (Chapter 4)
• Ecosystem Objectives (Chapter 5)
• Public Involvement and the Forum (Chapter 6)

12. Presentations to the Forum on the Break Out Sessions

The following presentations were made to the Forum:

I. Beneficial Use Impairment Assessments

• Seven reports are to be added to the draft Progress Report. They are: beach closings, degraded fish populations, loss of fish habitat, bird or animal deformities, benthic impacts, wildlife populations, and added costs to agriculture or industry.
• The Beneficial Uses Task Group has begun to look at beach closings and fish populations, but these are now being revised.
• A Task Group conference call will be held after the Beneficial Use Impairment Assessments Technical Subcommittee (BUIASC) meeting on July 23 to develop recommendations to the Forum on the remaining BUIASC reports.
• The comments developed and presented to the Forum were reported as follows:

Beneficial Use Task Group Comments:

• List the key conclusions at the beginning of Chapter 3.
• Need trends to be generalized. For example, fish populations in 1960s, 80s, and 90s.
• Key issues in Chapter 2 need to reflect challenges-identify controversies, problems, etc.
• Cross-reference among chapters, especially between chapters 2 and 3.
• Need a general overall assessment of the lake's ecosystem.
• Clarify function of the Progress Report as part of the problem identification phase.
• Human health issues should be added as a parking lot issue.

Comments on the Release of the Progress Report to the Broader Public:

• Interest in the LaMP is flagging, we need to get something out. The Progress Report should go out soon to the broader public.

Individual Comments:

• Conflict over restrictions on fish consumption between public and commercial interests should be recognized.
• There is no forum for resolving conflicts over the apportionment of fish quotas.
• Recognize the affect of weather on fish populations.
  

II. Sources and Loadings

The comments developed and presented to the Forum were reported as follows:

Sources and Loadings Task Group Comments on Chapter 4:

• Appreciated highlighted sections and definitions.
• First couple of pages - be clear on how the pollutants were selected; 1) what are they, and 2) how were they selected?
• Some numbers/values are expressed as ranges and in tables. Comments here on relative confidence would be useful.
• Possibility of adding an appendix that looks at pollutant by pollutant showing critical analysis.
• Will need to assess existing programs (in another chapter).

General Comments on the Progress Report:

• Uncomfortable with PCBs being identified as a key issue. Are PCBs getting false level of emphasis?
• Would "trends in critical pollutants" be better?
• Perhaps "Key Issues" is not the correct name for this section-are they "Lakewide Topics?" (How would you define a key issue? How were key issues chosen?)

Comments on the Release of the Progress Report to the Broader Public:

• Are not comfortable with the current document. Cannot make the decision now. We should plan to make our decision in October.
• Forum focus should be on getting our ideas into the document between now and September.

Responses to the Questions Contained in Part II of the "Topics For Your Consideration" Paper:

1. Is It useful to expand on the physical description of the basin?

Response:

• Does not need to be expanded on here or to be specific to the Sources & Loadings Section. Information can be cross-referenced-reference to introductory information.

2. Would descriptions of future monitoring programs be useful?

Response:

• Yes, but not in Chapter 4. Relates more to Chapter 7.
• Statements about the quality of data and gaps in data may belong here (Chapter 4), but not future programs/actions.
• Historical data-past regulatory controls provides context-should be here, but "action" information like clean sweeps does not belong in Chapter 4.

3. Are you aware of any additional data source?

Response:

• Database and their limitations needs to be clear.
• Uncomfortable with the whole TRI database-only use to identify potential sources. It is not acceptable for loadings. Look into: 1) stormwater data; and 2) air release data.

4. Use LIMS to generate public information?

• Don't know enough about LIMS to answer.

III. Ecosystem Objectives

The comments developed and presented to the Forum were reported as follows:

Ecosystems Objectives Task Group Comments Regarding Chapter 5:

Part 1:

• Philosophy/goal of chapter
• Define ecosystem objectives
• Summarize public workshops

Part 2:

• Describe the process of developing ecosystem objectives, problems encountered, current products.

Part 3:

• Work plan/next steps (Task Group should receive within two weeks)
• Provide snapshot of how the model works.
• Discussion regarding other variables, e.g. human health, climate, social/economic factors, etc.
• Chapter must set out what is included/done and also touch on what is missing.
• Make clear that this is a good start, but this is not the end/finished product. The model will continue to evolve.

Comments on the Release of the Progress Report to the Broader Public:

• General consensus is: re-evaluate the release of the Progress Report to the general public.
• Possibly need a "marketing plan" that identifies target audiences and vehicles and messages for them. The end product may be a series of newsletters.

IV. Public Involvement and the Forum

Comments developed and presented to the Forum were reported as follows:

Education and Outreach Task Group Comments on Chapter 6:

• Ecosystem Objectives Workshops: Include discussion and summary in Chapter 6 or in introduction to Chapter 5.
• Information/education materials - provide samples: figures 1, 2, 3 ...
• Placement of pollution prevention (P2) and environmental justice in Progress Report
• Consider broader definition of P2
• toxics- land use/site planning, wetlands preservation
• endocrine disruptors
• Insert "other guiding principles" between GLWQA and LaMP in Chapter 2. New section 1.5 describes broad P2 and environmental justice. Include authorities in Chapter 1 appendix. Infuse throughout.
• Section 6.9.4.d Membership: include minority, low income, and ethnic groups.
• Future Forum meeting in environmental justice community.
• Identify publics and how they utilize lake
• Identify information/education activities outside LaMP process to leverage

Responses to Questions in the "Topics for Your Consideration" Paper:

• Future Forum discussions:
• Environmental Justice barriers and opportunities
• How to broaden definition of P2, tools
• Wetlands and natural feature inventories
• Stormwater management
• Groundwater protection
• Conservation planning
• SOLEC white paper on information management - act on recommendations
• Communication strategy
• Release Progress Report with ecosystem objectives chapter and phosphorus discussion to general public
• Work Group/Forum interaction:
• open door policy
• joint meetings in person or by phone
• review and comment on strategies, plans, materials

Additional Comments:

• Update internet sites with meeting minutes and Progress Report
• Include an index with Progress Report

At the conclusion of the presentations, the Forum discussed the issue of releasing the Progress Report. Based upon the input from the Task Groups there appeared to be three options:

1. Release the report soon.
2. Release the revised Progress Report after October meeting and Forum review of revised report.
3. Re-evaluate release of Progress Report - develop plan for release and distribution and a marketing plan.

Forum members raised the following questions and comments:

• What is the point of releasing document? - Asking for input? As an update?
• The Progress Report can be used to increase awareness, invite comments, participation and feedback, and set priorities for future actions.
• Forum wants to see the Progress Report after the agencies have made changes and before it goes to the public.
• Fact sheet should be an executive summary but designed like a newsletter/brochure that asks for comments, invites participation.

After discussion , there was general agreement that release to the broader public should occur: 1) after the Forum has had a chance to review and provide input on the revised report (which should include the missing sections) at its October meeting; and 2) in accordance with a marketing plan that considers the use of fact sheets, executive summary, full color brochure with web site and tear off sheet, etc.

13. Discussion on Environmental Justice and the Ontario Environmental Bill of Rights

The facilitators announced that at this time we were scheduled to have speakers from the agencies make presentations on environmental justice and the Environmental Bill of Rights. However, due to scheduling conflicts the speakers were unable to attend the meeting. The Forum concurred with the proposal that speakers on these topics be invited to make presentations on these subjects at the next Forum meeting.

14. Discuss Invitation to the IJC Meeting in the Fall

Ellen Carpenter announced that there would be an IJC meeting in Niagara Falls, Ontario on November 1-2. The Lake Michigan and Lake Superior Forum Co-Chairs have discussed the possibility of meeting before or after the IJC meeting to share information and ideas, exchange views, and learn from one another. The co-chairs have extended an invitation to the Lake Erie Forum to join the meeting as well. The time, place, and agenda for this meeting is still to be developed, but the Lake Erie Forum may want to be thinking about whether they want to send a representative, and, if so, who should we send. There is no funding for travel available at this time. Forum members living in the area may be willing to volunteer to attend the meeting. This issue also suggests the question of whether the Forum would like to consider electing co-chairs.

The Forum will consider these issues at their next meeting in October.

Jeanna Paluzzi provided an update on some of the Lake Michigan Forum's activities, including the work on the LaMP's Phase I report, an interim document (like our Progress Report) is being developed, and the various partnerships being developed to implement LaMP-related activities.

15. Discussion of Funding Issues (Attachment 11)

Terry Yonkers, with the Lake Erie Alliance which is the Lake Erie counterpart to the Lake Michigan Federation, is concerned about the lack of public interest in environmental issues, and wants to get the word out on Lake Erie issues. The Lake Erie Alliance is developing funding proposals to submit to the Great Lakes Protection Fund and the Joyce Foundation. The proposed project includes sailing around Lake Erie, stopping at ports and highlighting environmental issues. This project is designed to acquaint the residents around Lake Erie with LaMP issues. Specifically, the project's goal is to:

bring about the integration of public health, economic, socio-cultural, and sustainability issues into the Lake Erie LaMP, to utilize a human ecosystem approach to broaden the perspective of the current ecosystem approach as it is applied to the Lake Erie LaMP, and to engage the public in a dialogue about the place of humans, human organizations, and human technology in the sustainability of the Lake Erie Ecosystem as a human ecosystem.

The Lake Erie Alliance proposes to facilitate up to twenty meetings with Lake Erie Basin residents and organizations during the summer and fall of 1998 to receive public input on the enhanced Stage 1-Problem Definition report and to receive input on the Stage II- Implementation Plan. The Lake Erie Alliance indicated that a letter of support for this project from the Forum would be appreciated. The pre-proposal is included in full in Attachment 11. Attached to the pre-proposal is a response page. Each Forum member is requested to fax or mail back the response page to Teresa or Ellen indicating whether or not you agree with the Forum providing a letter of support for the Lake Erie Alliance's proposal. You are requested to submit your response as soon as possible.

Jim Wilkinson reported that he is working on the question of the Forum becoming a legal non-profit entity which could seek funding.

Don Arcuri asked for ideas for projects the Forum might want to see funded through the Lake Erie Protection Fund. Don needs to know your ideas by June 9, 1997.

16. Evaluation & Wrap Up (Attachment 12)

The facilitators thanked the Forum members for attending the meeting and requested that they fill out and hand in the evaluation forms. An evaluation summary is included in Attachment 12.

Forum members were reminded that the next Forum meeting will be held in Niagara Falls, Ontario on October 3-4, 1997. The following dates were confirmed for future meetings and possible meeting locations were identified:

• January 23-24, 1998 - Detroit or Ann Arbor, Michigan; and
• May 1-2, 1998 - Simcoe or Kitchener/Waterloo or Brantford, Ontario or Grand Island, New York.

RESPONSE PAGE

I have reviewed the Lake Erie Alliance's Pre-proposal and I:

____Agree with the Forum providing a letter of support for the project.

____Do not agree with the Forum providing a letter of support for the project


Please return this form by mail or fax to:

 
Last Updated:  July 18, 2001

EPA Home | Privacy and Security Notice | Contact Us