Great Lakes Commission
Comments to IJC, LEEP Report
October 4, 2013
Page 1
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
CHAIR
Kenneth G. Johnson
Administrator
Water Division
Wisconsin Department of
Natural Resources
Madison, Wisconsin
VICE CHAIR
Kelly Burch
Regional Director
Northwest Regional Office
Pennsylvania Department of
Environmental Protection
Meadville, Pennsylvania
IMMEDIATE PAST CHAIR
James M. Tierney
Assistant Commissioner
for Water Resources
New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation
Albany, New York
Marc Miller
Director
Illinois Department of
Natural Resources
Springfield, Illinois
Kari Bennett
Commissioner
Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission
Indianapolis, Indiana
Jon W. Allan
Director
Office of the Great Lakes
Michigan Department of
Environmental Quality
Lansing, Michigan
Thomas E. Huntley
Minnesota State Representative
Duluth, Minnesota
Joseph Martens
Commissioner
New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation
Albany, New York
James Zehringer
Director
Ohio Department of
Natural Resources
Columbus, Ohio
William Carr
Manager
International Relations and Policy
Office of International
Relations and Protocol
Toronto, Ontario
Eric Marquis
Québec Government Representative
Chicago, Illinois
Ensuring environmental and
economic prosperity for the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence region through communications, policy research and development, and advocacy.
October 4, 2013
Ms. Lana Pollack, United States Chair
Mr. Joseph Comuzzi, Canadian Chair
International Joint Commission
Great Lakes Regional Office
P.O. Box 32869, Detroit, MI 48232
Dear Commissioners Pollack and Comuzzi:
The Great Lakes Commission (GLC) is pleased to provide comments to the International Joint Commission (IJC) on its August 2013 draft Lake Erie Ecosystem Priority (LEEP) report. This is an extremely important report and the GLC applauds the IJC on its efforts to identify phosphorus reduction priorities for the Lake Erie basin. Along with our comments, which are both general and specific, are some thoughts on opportunities for collaboration between our two Commissions regarding Lake Erie phosphorus reduction priorities.
We appreciate the chance to provide these comments and look forward to receiving the final report and hearing about the IJC’s anticipated next steps once the recommendations are adopted.
General Comments
The GLC is pleased to see that the draft LEEP report echoes many of the findings of our September 2012 Report of the GLC Phosphorus Reduction Task Force ( The draft LEEP report and the GLC task force report both acknowledge recent science and information that shows: a) the significance of agriculture as a primary uncontrolled source of phosphorus loadings into Lake Erie; and b) that dissolved reactive phosphorus (DRP), presents unique challenges for nutrient loading and cycling that cannot be resolved by addressing total phosphorus inputs alone. In particular, the draft LEEP report and the GLC task force report both call for actions to build on this information through:
•improved education and outreach;
•targeting financial and technical assistance to priority watersheds;
•focused efforts to address dissolved reactive phosphorus (DRP);
•increased efforts on managing agricultural drainage.
We further applaud the report for explicitly acknowledging the link between phosphorus loads and harmful algal blooms and recommending actions that recognize the importance of leveraging voluntary, non-voluntary/regulatory programs and call for implementing specific new approaches that include elements of both.
Specific Comments on the Recommendations
Recommendation #2
- It is unclear what is meant by “phosphorus cleanup plan.” The word“cleanup” suggests remedial activities to remove phosphorus thatis already in the tributaries or Lake Erie (e.g., dredging phosphorus-laden sediment from a tributary). This is quite different from a TMDL-like framework whereby allocations specify load reduction targets that prevent phosphorus from entering waterways (e.g., from land conservation practices). The two approaches require the use of very different technologies and practices. If the intent is to reduce loadings from nonpoint sources as well as remove phosphorus that is already in the system, then the recommendation should clearly make this distinction. If the intent is to address “cleanup”, removal or remediation of phosphorus that is already in the system, then a TMDL or similar framework is not the most appropriate mechanism to accomplish the objective.
- Also related to, but not withstanding the previous comment, we recommend the following language change to the last sentence as noted in the underlined below. “Such a plan will take into account all significant phosphorus sources (both total and DRP), and allocate reductions of total phosphorus and DRP according to relative loadings.
Recommendation #9
- The GLC supports the recommendation calling for a ban on the application of manure and biosolids from agricultural operations on frozen ground or ground covered with snow. With support from the proper state and provincial agencies, we see this as clear, firm, and easily implementable recommendation.
Recommendation #15
- The GLC applauds this recommendation urging jurisdictions and agencies to improve data management and data coordination. This issue is one that is consistently mentioned by our member states and provinces and other partners as vital to the implementation of successful phosphorus reduction efforts and nonpoint source pollution prevention and control programs. The GLC has considerable experience with data management through its management of the Great Lakes Information Network, extensive GIS mapping capacity, and related data integration efforts for the Great Lakes Observing System and the IJC's Lake Ontario-St. Lawrence River Study.
Comments on the Report Language
On page 50, Section 4.2.1, second paragraph, the report speaks of phased targets nested in an adaptive management framework. The GLC commendsthis approach to assess progress at periodic intervals over time. We are curious as to whether there is a scientific basis to the suggested three-year intervals for evaluation. If not, we suggest that a five-year interval would allow outlier years to be smoothed out and would be consistent with the review and renewal of point source discharge permits into the Western Lake Erie basin, which might also helpful in assessing overall ecosystem improvements over time.
Opportunities for Collaboration
Recommendations 2 and 15 are of particular interest to the GLC as ones that will require a high degree of collaboration and coordination between multiple states and partners in order to be implemented. The GLC is well-positioned and willing to assist the IJC and its partners in these efforts. Particularly, the GLC would be pleased to share its views, and/or to work with the jurisdictions and other partners to determine how best to facilitate a coordinated approach among the governmentsof Michigan, Ohio and Ontario, supported by U.S. EPA and Environment Canada, to develop a TMDL-like phosphorus reduction plan for the western and central basins of Lake Erie.
The GLC also has much experience in managing and integrating data and information for our members and other partners. Again, we will be happy to share our ideas and visions about how the region might go about developing and managing a common data portal that links relevant distributed data related to nutrients and algal blooms in Lake Erie. It is our belief that for data and information management efforts to be successful, they must go beyond sharing reports and data files to also include the building of analytical tools and maps that can facilitate the individual use of that data and information in order to make timely and relevant decisions.
On behalf of the GLC, I thank you again for the invitation to provide these comments. We welcome the opportunity to elaborate on or discuss any of these comments with you or your staffs. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at 734-971-9135 or via email at .
Sincerely,
Tim Eder,
Executive Director