xvEPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Great Lakes National
Program Office
230 South Dearborn Street
Chicago. Illinois 60604
EPA 905/9-89/005
GLNPO 04-89
U.S. Progress in
Implementing The
Great Lakes Water
Quality Agreement
Annual Report to Congress
1988
-------
U.S. PROGRESS IN
IMPLEMENTING THE GREAT LAKES
WATER QUALITY AGREEMENT
ANNUAL REPORT TO CONGRESS
DRAFT
July 1989
U S. Environmental Protection Agency
GLNPO Library Collection (PL-12J)
77 West Jackson Boulevard,
Chicago, IL 60604-3590
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY i
1. INTRODUCTION 1-1
1.1 HISTORICAL OVERVIEW OF GREAT LAKES WATER QUALITY PROBLEMS 1-2
1.2 THE GREAT LAKES WATER QUALITY AGREEMENT 1-4
1.3 INSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK FOR IMPLEMENTING THE AGREEMENT 1-5
1.3.1 Role of the International Joint Commission 1-5
1.3.2 Role of the Great Lakes National Program Office 1-7
1.3.3 Role of Other USEPA Offices 1-9
1.3.4 Role of Other Federal Agencies 1-10
1.3.5 Role of the States 1-12
2. ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY OBJECTIVES UNDER THE AGREEMENT 2-1
2.1 GENERAL OBJECTIVES 2-2
2.2 SPECIFIC WATER QUALITY OBJECTIVES 2-2
2.3 ECOSYSTEM OBJECTIVES 2-4
2.4 PROCESS FOR PERIODIC REVISION OF OBJECTIVES 2-4
3. STATE OF THE GREAT LAKES 3-1
3.1 LAKE SUPERIOR 3-2
3.2 LAKE MICHIGAN - 3-2
3.3 LAKE HURON 3-6
3.4 .LAKE ERIE 3-7
3.5 LAKE ONTARIO 3-11
3.6 THE CONNECTING CHANNELS 3-13
4. MANAGEMENT PLANS 4-1
4.1 PRINCIPLES FOR REMEDIAL ACTION AND LAKEWIDE
MANAGEMENT PLANS 4-2
4.2 LAKEWIDE MANAGEMENT PLANS 4-3
4.2.1 Nutrient Management Plans 4-3
4.2.2 Lake Ontario Toxics Management Plan 4-4
4.2.3 Lake Michigan Toxic Pollutant Control/Reduction Strategy 4-6
4.3 REMEDIAL ACTION PLANS 4-6
4.4 POINT SOURCE IMPACT ZONES 4-8
4.5 FEDERAL/STATE INTERACTIONS 4-8
-------
5. REMEDIAL PROGRAMS 5-1
5.1 OVERVIEW OF REMEDIAL PROGRAMS 5-1
5.2 REGULATORY PROGRAMS 5-6
5.2.1 Point Sources 5-6
5.2.2 Nonpoint Sources 5-12
5.2.3 Contaminated Sediment 5-14
5.2.4 Airborne Contaminants 5-14
5.2.5 Contaminated Ground Water 5-15
5.2.6 Discharges from Vessels 5-16
5.3 NONREGULATORY PROGRAMS 5-17
6. DEMONSTRATION PROGRAMS 6-1
6.1 CONTAMINATED SEDIMENTS 6-2
6.2 POINT SOURCES 6-2
6.3 NONPOINT SOURCES 6-3
7. ENVIRONMENTAL SURVEILLANCE, MONITORING, AND RESEARCH 7-1
7.1 BACKGROUND 7-1
7.2 OPEN LAKE SURVEILLANCE AND MONITORING 7-7
7.2.1 Limnology 7-7
7.2.2 Water Column Contaminants 7-7
7.2.3 Sediment Contaminants 7-8
7.2.4 Fish Contaminants . 7-8
7.3 NEARSHORE AND HARBOR SURVEILLANCE 7-8
7.4 POLLUTANT LOADINGS 7-9
7.4.1 Atmospheric Deposition Monitoring 7-9
7.4.2 Tributary Monitoring 7-11
7.4.3 Contaminated Sediment 7-11
7.5 SOURCES OF POLLUTANTS 7-11
7.5.1 Point Sources 7-12
7.5.2 Nonpoint Sources 7-13
7.5.3 Contaminated Ground Water 7-13
7.6 MASS BALANCE STUDIES 7-13
7.7 RESEARCH 7-15
8. INTERNATIONAL/INTERAGENCY PROGRESS 8-1
8 1 INTERNATIONAL COORDINATION 8-1
8.2 INTER- AND INTRA-AGENCY COORDINATION 8-2
-------
9. GREAT LAKES OUTLOOK 9-1
9.1 CURRENT CHALLENGES 9-1
9.1.1 Further Reductions of Pollutant Loadings 9-1
9.1.2 Eliminating Localized Contamination Problems 9-2
9.1.3 Developing an Ecosystem Approach to Management 9-2
9.2 GENERAL STRATEGY FOR MEETING CURRENT CHALLENGES 9-3
9.2.1 Eutrophication 9-3
9.2.2 Toxic Pollutants 9-4
9.2.3 Surveillance and Monitoring 9-4
9.2.4 Environmental Management Plans 9-4
9.2.5 Remedial Activities 9-4
9.2.6 Research 9-4
9.2.7 Technology Development and Transfer 9-4
9.2.8 International/Interagency/Intra-agency Coordination 9-5
9.2.9 Public Education and Involvement 9-5
9.3 LONG-TERM PROSPECTS FOR GREAT LAKES RECOVERY 9-5
9.3.1 Toxic Substances 9-5
9.3.2 Increased Water Withdrawals 9-6
9.3.3 Global Warming 9-6
9.3.4 Ecosystem Manipulation and Biotechnology 9-6
9.3.5 Waste Management 9-7
10. FUNDING FOR GREAT LAKES PROGRAMS 10-1
10.1 FEDERAL RESEARCH AND MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS 10-1
10.1.1 The 1988 Budget 10-2
10.1.2 The 1989 Budget 10-2
10.1.3 Funding History and Trends 10-4
10.2 FEDERAL POLLUTION ABATEMENT AND CONTROL PROGRAMS 10-4
10.3 FEDERAL CONSTRUCTION GRANTS FOR WASTEWATER TREATMENT
WORKS 10-8
11. GLOSSARY OF TERMS 11-1
-------
LIST OF TABLES
2-1 Specific Water Quality Objectives under the Great Lakes Water Quality
Agreement of 1987 2-3
3-1 Water Quality Conditions in Lake Superior Compared to Great Lakes Water
Quality Agreement Objectives 3-3
3-2 Water Quality Conditions in Lake Michigan Compared to Great Lakes Water
Quality Agreement Objectives 3-5
3-3 Water Quality Conditions in Lake Huron Compared to Great Lakes Water
Quality Agreement Objectives 3-8
3-4 Water Quality Conditions in Lake Erie Compared to Great Lakes Water
Quality Agreement Objectives 3-10
3-5 Water Quality Conditions in Lake Ontario Compared to Great Lakes Water
Quality Agreement Objectives 3-12
4-1 Summary of the 1990 Phosphorus Load Reduction Goals for Lake Erie, Lake
Ontario, and Saginaw Bay 4-5
4-2 Status of U.S. Remedial Action Plans 4-9
5-1 Major Federal Programs Contributing to Great Lakes Water Quality Improvement 5-2
7-1 U.S. Environmental Surveillance and Monitoring Programs in the Great Lakes Region 7-3
7-2 U.S. Great Lakes Research Programs 7-17
10-1 Federal Funding for Selected Great Lakes Research and Management Programs 10-3
10-2 Federal Funding for Pollution Abatement and Control Programs in Selected U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency Regions 10-7
10-3 Federal Construction Grants for Wastewater Treatment Works in Selected U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency Regions 10-9
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
1-1 The Great Lakes Basin 1-3
1-2 International Joint Commission and Its Advisory Groups for the
Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement 1-6
1-3 Coordination Responsibilities of the Great Lakes National
Program Office 1-8
3-1 Areas of Concern within Lake Superior 3-3
3-2 Areas of Concern within Lake Michigan 3-5
3-3 Areas of Concern within Lake Huron 3-8
3-4 Areas of Concern within Lake Erie 3-10
3-5 Areas of Concern within Lake Ontario 3-12
5-1 Direct Linkages Between USEPA's Statutory Programs and Great Lakes Concerns 5-7
5-2 Indirect Linkages Between USEPA's Statutory Programs and Great Lakes Concerns 5-8
5-3 Progress in Meeting NMP Goal 5-11
5-4 Enforcement Action Trends - Region V Great Lakes Major Permittees 5-11
7-1 Federal Agency Participation in Great Lakes Research 7-20
10-1 Trends in Federal Funding for Selected Great Lakes Research and Management
Programs 10-5
-------
FOREWORD
The Great Lakes system is a precious natural resource that provides a wide range of
benefits to millions of U.S. and Canadian citizens. It is the largest reservoir of fresh surface
water on earth, containing about 20 percent of the world's total supply. It supports a vital
and unique biological community, provides drinking water to some 42 million people, and
serves as the basic foundation for industrial and agricultural development in the American
midwest.
Despite its immense size and immeasurable value, the Great Lakes ecosystem is fragile
and has been extensively damaged by pollution. The environmental problems of the Great
Lakes are intensified because of the low exchange rate of the system, with less than 1
percent of its water flowing out via the St. Lawrence River to the Atlantic Ocean each year.
Therefore, when pollutants reach the Great Lakes, they tend to remain there for a long
period. Pollutants settle into sediments and enter the food chain, passing from one organism
to another, accumulating in top predators, such as lake trout, birds of prey, and people.
When the Congress amended the Clean Water Act (CWA) in 1987, it called for a
strengthening of our national commitment to restore and maintain the environmental quality
of the Great Lakes. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) was designated
as the lead agency among the several agencies working to meet these goals, which are
embodied in the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement (GLWQA) between the United States
and Canada.
Section 118(c)(6) of the CWA as amended directs the Administrator of the USEPA
to submit to Congress a comprehensive annual report on progress in implementing the
GLWQA, program plans for the subsequent year, and long-term prospects for Great Lakes
recovery.
This is the first Annual Report to Congress on Progress in Implementing the GLWQA.
It provides an overview of GLWQA objectives, the state of the Great Lakes, and
accomplishments relating to resource management plans, remedial programs, and
demonstration projects for eliminating pollution in the Great Lakes Basin. It also addresses
environmental surveillance and research programs and efforts to increase interagency
cooperation.
Overall, much progress has been made in responding to the new Congressional
directives. Institutional relationships have been strengthened, environmental research and
information programs have been improved, and foundations have been developed for
remediating specific pollution problems. The restoration of the Great Lakes is certain to
be a long-term process, however, with the most difficult challenges remaining.
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
INTRODUCTION
The Great Lakes System includes the five Great Lakes and four major connecting
channels. The Lakes are shared by the United States and Canada, except for Lake Michigan
which is located wholly within the United States. Eight States (Minnesota,^ Wisconsin,
Michigan, Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and New York) and the Canadian Province
of Ontario border the Lakes.
The land area of the Great Lakes Basin is heavily developed with major urban centers
and extensive agricultural areas. The Basin supports about 50 percent of Canadian and 20
percent of U.S. industrial production. Overall, the activities of more than 37 million people
residing in the Basin and millions more residing outside of it have profoundly affected the
Great Lakes ecosystem.
Concerns about water quality in the Great Lakes have progressed through a number
of stages. In the 1880s, the contamination of drinking water intakes by human sewage led
local governments to begin primary treatment and disinfection of sewage. Primary sewage
treatment and treatment of drinking water reduced the incidence of waterborne disease in
the region through the first half of the 20th century. Still, oxygen depletion associated with
organic wastes and enrichment by excess nutrients caused biological changes in many areas
of the Lakes through the first half of this century. Beaches were closed or avoided. Algal
growth increased, causing oxygen depletion, fish kills, and loss of other organisms in some
nearshore areas, as regional development continued.
The problem of eutrophication became critical in the 1960s, especially in Lake Erie.
Cycles of algal blooms, decay, and oxygen depletion were becoming annual events. As a
result, the public demanded action. The Federal government responded by requiring and
helping to support secondary treatment of sewage and tightening controls on industrial
discharges.
Once scientific consensus was reached that high levels of phosphorus were the primary
cause of lake eutrophication, further efforts were focused on progressively reducing loadings
of this nutrient. By 1980, decreased algal growth and increased dissolved oxygen levels in
nearshore waters signified a major improvement in the water quality of most of the Great
Lakes. In addition, government programs have been successful in reducing the
concentration of many pollutants in the System, including metals and pesticides.
Despite progress, the cool-water aquatic communities, which characterized the Great
Lakes at the time of European colonization, have not been fully re-established, and the
dynamics of the ecosystem remain impaired by pollution. Phosphorus levels are still too
high in some areas. Of increasing concern is the presence of a number of persistent toxic
pollutants in the Great Lakes system, including polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), mercury,
and some pesticides. Such pollutants have been linked to adverse effects on human health,
leading to public fish consumption advisories throughout the region. They have also been
associated with adverse effects on wildlife, including reproductive impairments and
congenital abnormalities in fish and birds.
11
-------
THE GREAT LAKES WATER QUALITY AGREEMENT
The United States and Canada established the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement
(GLWQA) as the overarching framework for cooperative efforts to restore and maintain the
Great Lakes System. Initially signed in 1972, the Agreement was renegotiated in 1978 and
amended in 1983 and 1987 to reflect our increasing understanding of the Great Lakes
ecosystem and changing environmental quality objectives.
Water Quality Objectives
The first objectives of the GLWQA were general, primarily addressing conventional
pollutants. More specific and quantitative objectives were added in 1978 for 41 chemical,
physical, microbiological, and radiological parameters:
• Chemical objectives were established to include limits on 19 organic compound
categories, such as aldrin/dieldrin and PCBs, and limits on 18 inorganic chemistry
parameters, such as arsenic and mercury.
• Physical objectives were set for asbestos (lowest possible level) and for temperature
(no change that would adversely affect the general use of waters).
• Microbiological objectives were set for water and fish, requiring the substantial
absence of bacteria, fungi, or viruses that adversely affect human health.
• Objectives were set to limit the total human dose of radiation from drinking lake
water to 1 millirem.
The 1978 GLWQA also added a focus on phosphorus load reduction. Phosphorus load
reduction targets were made more stringent in 1983. Further reductions of 2,000 metric tons
per year were required in the Lake Erie Basin, and 430 metric tons per year were required
in the Lake Ontario Basin.
One of the most important elements of the 1987 GLWQA Amendments was the
inclusion of ecosystem objectives. These objectives (e.g., maintaining Lake Superior as a
balanced and stable oligotrophic ecosystem with lake trout as the top aquatic predator and
the Pontoporeia hovi as a key food chain organism) are intended to represent the cumulative
goals of limits on various individual physical, chemical, and biological parameters.
Implementing the Agreement
In the United States, responsibility for water quality management, is shared by Federal,
State and local government, with the States having the primary or lead role. Since the
Great Lakes are an international resource, the institutional framework for water quality
management is particularly complex, requiring close cooperation and coordination among
many Canadian and U.S. agencies at all levels of government.
International organizations, such as the International Joint Commission (IJC) and its
Water Quality Board, monitor and advise the United States and Canada on progress in
achieving GLWQA goals and objectives.
Under the Clean Water Act (CWA) and other Federal statutes, the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (USEPA) controls certain types of activities that an affect water quality.
The USEPA and other Federal agencies provide financial support and policy and technical
guidance for many State environmental programs and provide leadership in research and
development of new approaches to solving pollution problems.
111
-------
The States have primary responsibility for developing and implementing water quality
management plans and for regulating sources of pollutants. Local agencies also have
important roles in water quality improvement through their activities related to land use
planning, zoning, and local development requirements.
STATE OF THE GREAT LAKES
Recent surveillance and monitoring data indicate that Lake waters generally meet most
of the water quality objectives set under the GLWQA. At the close of FY 1988, levels of
phosphorus in the Great Lakes are meeting or approaching the 10 microgra'm per liter target
for open waters of the Lakes. However, for Lakes Erie and Ontario, and for Saginaw Bay
in Lake Huron, further reductions are needed to meet the objectives and target loadings.
Although the levels of many toxic pollutants declined significantly through the late
1970s, the concentration of some substances appears to have stabilized at levels above
GLWQA objectives. Overall, the Water Quality Board has identified a total of 362
chemicals of concern within the Great Lakes ecosystem, some of which are particularly
persistent. Pollutants of priority concern include total PCBs, DDT and its metabolites,
dieldrin, toxaphene, forms of dioxin and benzofuran, mirex, mercury, alkylated lead,
benzo(a)pyrene, and hexachlorobenzene. All of these compounds are capable of producing
adverse and sometimes irreversible effects in a wide range of mammalian and aquatic
species. Because they can accumulate in organisms and increase in concentration through
the food chain, their recognized threat to human health and ecosystem integrity is
significantly enhanced.
In total, about 30,000 chemical compounds are used within the Great Lakes Basin and
may be present within the system. In addition, about 1,000 new chemicals are developed
each year within the United States, suggesting that the potential list of toxic contaminants
in the Lakes may be increasing over time.
Public health fish consumption advisories continue to be in effect for all five lakes.
Restrictions apply mainly to certain game fish, such as trout and salmon, particularly larger
fish, since they tend to carry higher body burdens of toxic substances. Nursing mothers,
pregnant women, and children are advised to completely avoid eating fish species of
concern.
Currently, 42 specific areas of serious localized contamination have been identified
within the Great Lakes (30 of which are located partially or completely in the United States)
by the Water Quality Board. Referred to as Areas of Concern (AOCs), all but one of these
areas suffer from toxic substances contamination. Most have problems relating to
contaminated bottom sediments.
Lake Superior
Lake Superior is the largest and deepest of the Great Lakes and has remained the most
pristine. Water quality is generally good throughout the Lake and excellent in open lake
waters. Phosphorus concentrations in Lake Superior are the lowest of all the Great Lakes
and have not changed significantly since 1965. Concentrations of PCBs in certain fish are
of concern, however. Public health fish consumption advisories have been issued for lake
trout taken from Lake Superior waters, recommending restricted consumption of fish up to
30 inches and no consumption of fish greater than 30 inches. High concentrations of
mercury in fish from the St. Louis Bay have also resulted in fish consumption advisories.
Serious localized contamination affects three AOCs within U.S. waters: St. Louis River/Bay,
Torch Lake, and Deer Lake/Carp Creek/Carp River.
IV
-------
Lake Michigan
Lake Michigan is the second largest Lake in terms of volume and depth. Nutrient
concentrations are generally higher than those in Lake Superior. Phosphorus loadings to the
Lake are estimated to have remained below the target level of 5,670 metric tons per year
since 1981. PCS and dieldrin concentrations in fish are declining but still remain above the
Agreement objectives. Public health fish consumption advisories have been issued for lake
trout, salmon, and brown trout taken from Lake Michigan waters, recommending restricted
consumption of fish beyond specified sizes. In addition, the public has been advised not
to eat any carp or catfish, or very large lake trout, chinook salmon, or brown trout. Ten
AOCs have been designated within Lake Michigan: Manistique River, Menominee River,
Fox River and Southern Green Bay, Sheboygan, Milwaukee Harbor, Waukeegan Harbor,
Grand Calumet and Indiana Harbor Canal, Kalamazoo River, Muskegon Lake, and White
Lake.
Lake Huron
Lake Huron is the second largest Great Lake in terms of surface area (59,700 km ).
Like Lake Superior, Lake Huron has a drainage basin that supports lower population
densities and more forested lands than the other Great Lakes. Consequently, the quality of
the open waters of Lake Huron is generally high, with levels of nutrients and major ions
within GLWQA objectives. Water quality is generally good; on a relative basis, water quality
is between Lake Superior and Lake Michigan. No significant change in phosphorus levels
has been measured in the Lake since 1980, but Saginaw Bay has improved. Since 1976, the
estimated annual phosphorus loadings have approached the target value of 4,360 metric tons.
Phosphorus levels are highest in Saginaw Bay in the U.S. and lowest in Georgian Bay in
Canada. Dieldrin and DDT levels in fish are below the objectives established by the
Agreement. PCB levels remain above the current objective and no decreasing trend is
discernible. Public health fish" advisories have been issued suggesting that the consumption
of lake trout, rainbow trout, and brown trout caught in Lake Huron waters be restricted.
Of four AOCs located in Lake Huron, only one, Saginaw River/Saginaw Bay is located
within U.S. boundaries.
Lake Erie
Lake Erie is the fourth largest Great Lake in terms of surface area (25,700 km )and
is .the most shallow lake, with a mean depth of only 19 meters. It consists of three distinct
basins, which differ in water quality characteristics. Erie's shores are highly urbanized and
its major tributaries drain intensively farmed soils. Water quality conditions vary among the
three basins, although there has been an overall decreasing trend in nutrient levels in the
Lake. Available data show that phosphorus lake concentrations generally have declined since
1968. DDT and dieldrin concentrations in fish tissue are below established objectives. PCB
concentrations remain above the Agreement objective. Both carp and catfish are the subject
of public health fish consumption advisories, with restricted consumption being
recommended in New York and no consumption being recommended in other States
bordering the Lake. Seven areas of localized contamination have been designated within
U.S. waters of Lake Erie: Clinton River, Rouge River, River Raisin, Maumee River, Black
River, Cuyahoga River, and Ashtabula River.
Lake Ontario
p
Lake Ontario is the smallest of the Great Lakes (19,520 km ),but with a mean depth
of 86 meters, is deeper than Lake Erie. Located at the end of the Great Lakes chain, Lake
Ontario receives nutrients and toxic contaminants contained in the outflow of upstream
systems. Because of this source and those within the basin, Lake Ontario has relatively high
open water pollutant concentrations. Monitoring data show that phosphorus concentrations
-------
have declined markedly since 1973, and loadings are estimated to approach the target value
of 7,000 metric tons per year. PCB concentrations in lake trout greatly exceed the
Agreement objective, but are declining. DDT concentrations approximate the objective level
and are not declining. Dieldrin concentrations are below the established objective and are
declining. The public has been advised not to consume more than one meal per month of
white perch, coho salmon (under 21 inches), or rainbow trout (under 18 inches) from Lake
Ontario. The public was also advised not to consume any of the following fish from Lake
Ontario waters: American eel, channel catfish, lake trout, chinook salmon, ceho salmon
(over 21 inches), rainbow trout (over 18 inches), and brown trout (over 18 inches). Four
AOCs are located within the U.S. boundaries of Lake Ontario: Buffalo River, Eighteenmile
Creek, Rochester Embayment, and Oswego River.
The Connecting Channels
The Connecting Channels (i.e., St. Marys River, St. Clair River, Lake St. Clair, Detroit
River, and Niagara River) are the major links between each of the Great Lakes. The St.
Lawrence River is the major outflow of the Great Lakes System to the Gulf of St. Lawrence
and ultimately the Atlantic Ocean. These channels, with the exception of Lake St. Clair,
have been designated as areas for priority cleanup (i.e., AOC) because Agreement objectives
have been exceeded and/or beneficial uses have been impaired.
WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLANS
The 1987 changes to the GLWQA and the CWA introduced several new requirements
relating to water quality management planning. These new requirements focus on managing'
nutrient loadings and reducing levels of designated toxic pollutants. The new planning
requirements are intended to build on our current foundation of water quality management
planning activities to achieve GLWQA objectives.
Under Section 303 of the CWA, the States have primary responsibility for undertaking
a continuous planning process for restoring and maintaining water quality. Reports are
also required-under Section 305(b) describing the overall water quality of all navigable
waters in the State. The USEPA Regional Water Divisions assist the States in their water
quality planning efforts by providing annual guidance for overall Agency objectives, and
by reviewing and evaluating annual plans for State programs.
The 1987 Amendments to the CWA added provisions under Section 304(1) for State
Toxic Substances Control Strategies and under Section 319 for State Nonpoint Source
Program Plans. The Great Lakes States began taking action to meet these requirements
during FY 1988, with assistance from USEPA Headquarters and Regional Water Divisions.
As required by Section 304(1), all of the Great Lakes States developed and submitted listings
of water bodies that fail to meet water quality objectives due to point source discharges of
toxic substances, and proposed strategies for reducing toxics to appropriate levels, as
required under Section 304(1) of the Act. The USEPA is currently reviewing the listings
and the management strategies.
Under Section 319, each State is required to submit a report that identifies those
navigable waters, which without additional nonpoint source controls, are not expected to
meet water quality standards. The implementation of additional programs for nonpoint
source control will begin in FY 1989.
Section 118 of the CWA introduced new water quality management planning
responsibilities that apply specifically to the Great Lakes Basin. Section 118 charges
GLNPO with two management planning responsibilities: 1) in cooperation with appropriate
Federal, State, tribal, and international agencies, to develop and implement specific action
vi
-------
plans to carry out U.S. responsibilities under the GLWQA, and 2) to develop, in consultation
with the States, a 5-year plan and program for reducing the amount of nutrients introduced
into the Great Lakes.
The 1987 GLWQA Amendments call for nonattainment of objectives to be addressed
at three geographic scales: Lakewide Management Plans (LMPs) will address Critical
Pollutants that are impairing beneficial uses in waters of the open Lakes, Remedial Action
Plans (RAPs) will address use impairments within designated AOCs, and Point Source Impact
Zones adjacent to discharges will be identified and minimized.
During FY 1988, RAPs were completed for seven U.S. Areas of Concern and were
submitted to the IJC for review. The IJCs review of these initial RAP submissions has
indicated that most require additional definition of the nature and sources of environmental
problems in the respective AOCs. The States plan to submit seven additional RAPs during
FY 1989.
LMPs are intended to be cooperative strategies for reducing loadings of critical
pollutants to the open waters of each of the Lakes. Developing a useful framework for
these plans is a major challenge, since the systematic reduction of toxic substances is a
particularly complex task, both technically and institutionally. Determining the relative
importance of various sources of toxic pollution will require extensive study, since toxic
pollutants to the Great Lakes are variously borne by air, ground water, land runoff,
tributaries, industrial and municipal dischargers, and by releases from contaminated
sediment. In some cases, the detection of toxic substances from these sources will require
developing or applying new technologies. In turn, a variety of new remedial measures will
be necessary to address past as well as continuing loadings of persistent toxic pollutants to
the Great Lakes. Because many toxic substances are long lived, eliminating them is likely
to be a much longer process than that of controlling eutrophication. In FY 1989, USEPA
will work with other government agencies and nongovernment organizations to develop a
useful framework for LMPs. This framework will reflect experience gained in recent large
lake studies and management planning efforts.
In 1986, USEPA and the States of Illinois, Indiana, and Michigan prepared a Lake
Michigan Toxic Pollutant Control/Reduction Strategy. The objectives of this strategy are
to restore multiple human uses of Lake Michigan and to protect_human "health and the Lake
Michigan ecosystem by achieving a significant reduction in the loading rates of toxic
pollutants;
In February 1987, USEPA, the New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation, Environment Canada, and the Ontario Ministry of the Environment signed a
declaration of intent to prepare a Toxics Management Plan for Lake Ontario. The goal of
the Plan is a Lake that provides drinking water and fish that are safe for unlimited human
consumption and allows natural reproduction, within the ecosystem, of the most sensitive
native species.
Environmental plans for the Lakes require extensive cooperation between various
jurisdictions and levels of government, with all parties, responsible for the health of the
Great Lakes system. Within the United States, one important indication of commitment to
this cooperation was seen in June 1986 when the Governors of the eight Great Lakes States
signed the Great Lakes Toxic Substances Control Agreement. This Agreement pledges the
States to treat the Lakes as one ecosystem without regard to political boundaries. It
acknowledges that toxic pollutants are the foremost problem in the Basin and lays out goals
for the States toward promoting coordinated toxic pollution reduction programs. Since
signing the Agreement, the States have made considerable progress toward developing
coordinated control programs. In FY 1988, the Governors further agreed to establish a
permanent fund for Great Lakes studies.
vii
-------
REMEDIAL PROGRAMS
Considerable pollution control progress in the Great Lakes has been made under CWA
mandated programs. Point source discharges to the Great Lakes are now regulated under
3,675 National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits, 2,531 of which
apply to industrial facilities and 1,144 of which apply to municipal sewage treatment
facilities. Several States are now incorporating toxic limits into NPDES permits to control
discharge of toxic pollutants in effluents. Also in 1987, approximately $8 billion in Federal
and State construction grants had been invested in Great Lakes Basin municipal sewage
treatment projects.
Another provision of the CWA calls for the establishment of approved Pretreatment
Programs for commercial and industrial firms using publicly owned treatment works
(POTWs). In the Great Lakes States, a total of 476 POTWs are subject to these
requirements. A total of 466 facilities (97.9 percent) received program approval by
September 30, 1988.
The National Municipal Policy (NMP), initiated in 1984, required municipal
compliance with effluent limitations by July 1, 1988. Implementation of the NMP resulted
in 87 percent of POTWs providing at least secondary treatment of waste water. Voluntary
compliance and Federal and State enforcement are responsible for the successful record.
The remaining 13 percent of POTWs in noncompliance are currently on enforcement
timetables or in litigation.
Present emphasis for phosphorus qontrol is on nonpoint sources, particularly
contributions made by agricultural runoff since reducing agricultural sources is most cost
effective. Additional management of nonpoint sources is necessary if target phosphorus load
reductions are to be met. In past years, the USEPA and the U.S. Department of Agriculture
(USDA) Soil Conservation Service (SCS) have worked jointly with the States to conduct
demonstration projects and to promote the use of conservation tillage techniques and other
Best Management Practices in farming. During FYs 1987 and 1988, USEPA and USDA, in
conjunction with the Great Lakes States, reviewed progress in implementing the Great Lakes
Phosphorus Load Reduction Plans and fulfilling" the terms of Annex 3 of the GLWQA.
They also worked to implement an improved tracking system to measure the adoption of
conservation tillage techniques that will improve estimates of runoff. During FY 1989, both
agencies will continue to collaborate with the States to update and implement phosphorus
reduction plans. Under USDA's 1990 Water Quality Initiative, a significant increase in
technical and financial assistance related to water quality activities is expected. These
activities will be carried out in accordance with priorities identified in State management
plans.
Considerable progress has been made under other environmental programs as well.
Since Federal regulations for hazardous waste generation, transport, treatment, storage, and
disposal facilities were promulgated in 1980, USEPA and delegated State programs have
identified 25,958 permittees and permit applicants in the Great Lakes Basin. In FY 1988,
USEPA began implementing statutory provisions for corrective action at active hazardous
waste management facilities. These activities will ensure that existing contamination from
such facilities that may be affecting water quality in the Lakes will be remedied in the near
future. In addition, they may be used to accomplish cleanup of contaminated sediments in
cases where sediment contamination in the Lakes or their tributaries can be attributed to a
particular permit applicant.
Uncontrolled hazardous materials sites in the Basin have received considerable
attention in recent years as well. The USEPA's National Priorities List (NPL), required
viii
-------
under Superfund, includes over 130 sites located in the Great Lakes Basin. Moreover, States
such as Michigan, New York, Ohio, and Minnesota have created their own State Superfund
programs to address sites that do not warrant listing on the NPL, but have high State
priority for cleanup. Programs for active and abandoned hazardous waste sites will be an
important part of future efforts to address concerns related to the potential contributions
of toxic pollutants from contaminated ground water to the waters of the Great Lakes.
State air programs in'the Great Lakes Basin have also made considerable progress.
In particular, over the past few years, significant reductions in sulfur dioxide emissions have
been achieved in the Basin. Attention has now turned to control of air toxics. All eight
States are coordinating emissions inventory procedures for air toxics and jointly developing
permit guidelines to ensure that appropriate controls are placed on sources of air toxics.
The 1987 Amendments to the CWA and the GLWQA call for special attention to
nonpoint sources of pollution such as contaminated ground water, the atmosphere, and
contaminated sediments. Information on the extent of contributions made by such sources
is presently incomplete; however, sufficient data exist to conclude that they are important
causes of both localized and lakewide problems and should be considered in all management
plans for water quality restoration.
Advanced identification of significant wetlands in the Basin is in progress to protect
them for the future. Wetlands play an important role in slowing soil erosion and surface
runoff, as well as providing habitat and nursery areas for numerous species. Under Section
404 of the CWA, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USCOE), in cooperation with the
USEPA, issues permits for the placement of dredged or fill material in waters of the United
States, including wetlands. The annual number of standard dredge permits issued by the
USCOE in the Great Lakes Basin (Northcentral Division) has declined over 19 percent
during FY 1988.
DEMONSTRATION PROGRAMS
Demonstration programs have played an important role in Great Lakes programs under
the CWA by demonstrating the feasibility of alternative technologies and approaches.
Lower cost alternatives have been shown to be effective for removal of phosphorus from
point sources, for control of combined sewer overflows, and for addressing agricultural
nonpoint sources of pollution. Cost savings through demonstration projects can be
substantial. The potential savings of $17 million from one combined sewer demonstration
in Saginaw Michigan nearly equals the total authorization for Section 108(a). In the case
of agricultural sources, the cost effectiveness of alternative tillage methods is substantial,
but by demonstrating new methods at a local level, acceptance was greatly accelerated.
Section 108(a) authorized $20 million to support a number of demonstration projects
for nonpoint source pollution control techniques in the Great Lakes Basin. Numerous
agencies participated in studies to demonstrate specific control technologies, including those
for agricultural pollution; to increase public awareness of water pollution issues; to document
water quality results through monitoring; and to evaluate combined sewer systems and
sewage land application techniques. Overall, the projects have been highly successful.
In future years, USEPA expects that demonstration projects on contaminated
sediments, ground water, and air toxics will receive high priority. Section 118 (c)(3) of
the 1987 Amendments to the CWA calls for the Great Lakes National Program Office
(GLNPO) to conduct a study that includes demonstration projects addressing remedial
technologies for removal of toxic pollutants from the Great Lakes with special emphasis on
removal of toxic pollutants from contaminated bottom sediments. GLNPO began this study
in FY 1988. This study and the accompanying demonstration projects will be vital to
determine the measures necessary to clean up AOCs, of which nearly all have contaminated
ix
-------
sediment. USEPA expects that the contaminated sediments study will prove of national
relevance.
ENVIRONMENTAL SURVEILLANCE, MONITORING, AND RESEARCH
The Great Lakes Surveillance and Monitoring program is an interrelated network of
activities conducted by the States, USEPA, and other Federal agencies. The core of this
network is coordinated by GLNPO and implemented by the States, GLNPO itself, and
colleges and universities working under grants from GLNPO. The program consists of four
major components: open lake monitoring, nearshore and harbor monitoring, pollutant
loadings measuring, and pollutant source identification.
Open lake surveys measure the conditions and trends in the waters of the open lakes.
The open lakes reflect long-term changes since they are far more uniformly mixed than
the more shallow, nearshore waters that are directly influenced by pollutant discharges and
are far more variable in quality. Open lake surveys include the study of plankton and
nutrients, as well as contaminants in the water column, sediment, and fish.
Nearshore surveys are conducted using a combination of large and small ships. Water,
living organisms, and sediment are all sampled, but emphasis is often placed on fish and
sediment as the best places to measure toxic substances.
The Great Lakes receive wastes from a substantial portion of U.S. population,
industry, and agriculture. To determine total loadings to the Lakes, information must be
obtained on inputs through all pathways. Great Lakes surveys focus on two principal routes:
through the atmosphere and through tributary streams. Contaminated sediments are also
surveyed since significant quantities of stored contaminants can be recycled back into the
water and biota.
The sources of pollutants are varied. Numerous monitoring programs are in place or
are in the development phase to document compliance and improvements in the system.
These programs include NPDES discharge monitoring for point source discharges, surveys
to identify nonpoint sources of phosphorus, and identification of existing or potential
sources of contaminated ground water.
In FY 1989, GLNPO, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
and the State of Wisconsin will continue field work for a comprehensive 4-year study of the
sources and fates- of toxic pollutants in Green Bay on Lake Michigan. The "Green Bay Mass
Balance Study" involves development and field-calibration of a model that describes the
principal sources and fates of toxic pollutants in large lakes. It is addressing contributions
of toxics from point sources and from nonpoint sources, such as contaminated sediment,
ground water, and air deposition. Field work for the Green Bay Mass Balance began in
1988. If this mass balance pilot proves successful, USEPA will then apply the mass balance
approach to a whole lake system as an important tool for LMPs. In addition to serving as
an important step in the development of a new decision-making framework for water
quality management, the Green Bay Mass Balance Study will also serve as a forum for
research on the relative importance of point and nonpoint sources of pollution.
By the end of 1988, a number of important objectives were achieved in surveillance
and monitoring:
• Annual open lake phosphorus monitoring programs were completed for all five
Lakes.
-------
• An extensive fish monitoring program in nearshore and open Lake areas was
completed involving over 20 different States and Federal agencies.
• During FY 1988, USEPA, the States, USCOE, NOAA's Great Lakes Environmental
Research Laboratory, and other organizations began or continued important
programs for surveillance and research related to nonpoint sources of pollution.
• Programs were initiated for studying sources of contaminated ground water that can
affect water quality in the Great Lakes, for monitoring air deposition of toxics to
the Lakes, for studying contaminated sediments and the rates at which contaminants
may transfer from the sediment to lake water, and for monitoring contributions of
toxic pollutants to the Lakes from the tributaries that empty into them.
• USEPA and Environment Canada, working in conjunction with several States and
the Province of Ontario, completed a study of the Upper Great Lakes Connecting
Channels that addresses contaminated sediments and other toxic pollution problems
in the St. Marys River, St. Clair River, Detroit River, Niagara River, and the St.
Lawrence River.
• Monitoring stations for air toxics were established in Green Bay, and sediment
sampling and other surveillance were conducted.
The Great Lakes surveillance and monitoring program is one of the most
comprehensive and extensive monitoring programs in the United States. Advanced methods
and technologies for measuring toxic pollutants in water, air, and sediment are being used
or developed. Lessons learned from this program can be applied to other regions of the
United States.
Basic research on the Great Lakes is carried out to improve our fundamental
understanding of the physical, chemical,' and biological processes of the Lakes and their
interrelationships. Many organizations participate in Great Lakes research. Within USEPA,
the Office of Research and Development (ORD)-Large Lakes Research Station at Grosse He,
Michigan, and the National Water Quality Laboratory at Duluth, Minnesota, conduct
research specific to Great Lakes priorities. GLNPO also provides grant money for research
directly to universities and through interagency agreements with NOAA, the United States
Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), and USCOE. NOAA participates directly through
operation of its Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory at Ann Arbor, Michigan,
and also provides grants to universities for Great Lakes research under its Sea Grant
program. The USFWS National Fisheries Research Center for the Great Lakes conducts
fisheries research, and USFWS funds Cooperative Fishery Research Units at selected
universities.
Great Lakes research addresses three general areas: water quality management,
ecosystem dynamics, and fishery resources. Water quality management research projects in
FY 1988 focused primarily on developing information needed to support mass balance
modeling efforts in Green Bay and elsewhere and on the Great Lakes contaminated
sediments study. Research highlights in FY 1988 include:
• A study by the NOAA Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory
on the rate of exchange of contaminants between Green Bay and Lake
Michigan
• An investigation by the University of Minnesota of PCB uptake rates by
phytoplankton
XI
-------
• A study by GLNPO to improve tributary monitoring techniques for toxic
substances and to investigate the toxic effects of contaminants unique to
the Great Lakes Basin
• Studies by several universities for investigating the extent of sediment
contamination in Lake Ontario and for studying sediment resuspension,
deposition, and fate in the Lakes (funded by GLNPO)
• Research by the USCOE on contaminated sediments in the Great Lakes.
The emphasis en research to support the Green Bay Mass Balance Study and the
contaminated sediments study is expected to continue during the next 2 years. Another area
for research is the effects of toxic chemicals on Great Lakes species to support the
establishment or chemical specific objectives and further development of ecosystem
objectives.
INTERNATIONAL AND INTERAGENCY COOPERATION
Because the Great Lakes transcend both State and national boundaries, many programs
entail cooperative efforts involving U.S. Federal and Canadian agencies, the States and
Provinces, and local governments. Official actions concerning the Agreement are normally
led by the U.S. Department of State. At the working level, coordination, on projects related
to the Agreement is generally led by USEPA with involvement of the State Department as
required.
The 1987 Amendments to the CWA recognize that careful coordination of Great Lakes
activities is essential. The CWA requires that USEPA, through GLNPO, coordinate its
activities related to the Great Lakes and also work with other Federal and State agencies
to meet U.S. obligations under the GLWQA. The USEPA has assumed three principal
responsibilities related to coordination with Canada and the IJC:
• Coordinating U.S. environmental programs with those of Canada, including
conducting twice-yearly meetings of the Parties (the United States and Canada) to
review progress in implementing the Agreement
• Preparing reports to the IJC as called for in the Agreement
• Providing support to the IJC and its Water Quality Board in efforts to carry out
its assigned responsibilities under the Agreement.
In FY 1988, USEPA participated in joint U.S./Canadian task forces to address specific
requirements of the Agreement for coordinated projects on air deposition monitoring, toxic
substances, and contaminated sediment. Joint U.S. and Canadian activities in these areas
will continue in FY 1989 and beyond. In FY 1989, USEPA plans to make considerable
progress, together with Canada, toward implementing a coordinated joint surveillance and
monitoring plan that will support further development of compatible data systems.
GLNPO works closely on Great Lakes initiatives with other USEPA regional and
Headquarters offices, including ORD, the Office of Water, and the Office of Policy,
Planning, and -Evaluation. ORD laboratories are making important contributions to the
Green Bay Mass Balance Study, the contaminated sediments study, and other initiatives.
External to USEPA, GLNPO participated in many joint efforts with States during FY
1988, including projects related to developing RAPs, conducting fish monitoring programs,
developing air toxics inventories, studying contaminated sediments, and studying the impacts
xii
-------
of combined sewer overflows. Also in FY 1988, the USEPA worked to improve its
coordination with other Federal agencies regarding Great Lakes projects. Interagency
agreements were established with the USCOE, USFWS, and the United States Geological
Survey. Work under these agreements is continuing in FY 1989.
GREAT LAKES OUTLOOK
This first comprehensive Report to Congress on implementing the GLWQA illustrates
the substantial progress made in restoring water quality in the Great Lakes. The long-term
prospects for fully restoring and enhancing the Great Lakes depend in part on our success
in resolving current water quality issues. The future of the Lakes, however, will also be
determined by the nature of emerging or unforseen problems and our success in responding
to them. Emerging and future water quality issues need to be considered within the context
of the economic and cultural conditions that will evolve over the next 20 years. Economic
growth and development have slowed in many areas of the Great Lakes Basin. The nature
and degree of regional economic revitalization or decline will be influential on the types of
pollution problems that will have to be addressed, as well as on the resource base available
for responding to those problems.
Conditions outside the Great Lakes Basin will also influence the long-term prospects
for restoring beneficial uses of the Lakes. Changes in national and worldwide demand and
prices of commodities or natural resources will influence the regional economy and
environmental conditions. Shifting markets and technological developments could change
regional industrial profiles and demographic patterns.
Some issues are likely to be particularly important in shaping the future of the Great
Lakes, including the problem of toxic chemicals, increased water withdrawals, global
warming, ecosystem manipulation and biotechnology, and waste management. Many
Federal, State, and local organizations must participate in these challenges, which will create
a complex institutional climate. The 1987 changes to the CWA and the GLWQA recognize
this complexity and provide a management framework for the Great Lakes jurisdictions to
work together to achieve environmental results. As our knowledge -regarding the extent of
and the means for dealing with these issues grows, this framework will allow planning of
remedial actions as successful as those taken to remedy eutrophication in the Lakes.
FUNDING FOR GREAT LAKES PROGRAMS
The Federal government expends more than $500 million annually on programs
intended to improve Great Lakes water quality. More than 90 percent of this funding goes
to the construction of sewage treatment facilities, under the Construction Grants program
administered by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). Major Federal
research and management programs account for an additional $33 million, or about 7
percent of total expenditures. Pollution abatement and control programs, including State
grants and support for USEPA permitting and enforcement responsibilities, account for an
additional $15 million, or 3 percent of the total for major programs.
Recent trends include a gradual reduction in Construction Grants funding. The
program is scheduled to be phased out by 1990, to be replaced by a new Federally
supported State revolving-fund system. Funding for major Great Lakes research and
management programs declined in the middle of this past decade, but has now been restored
to the 1980 level. Furthermore, additional funding sources have been identified within
USDA's 1990 Water Quality Initiative. Funding increases have been provided to the
USEPA's Great Lakes National Program Office to support its new responsibilities under the
CWA and GLWQA. Funding for some Federal pollution abatement and control programs
xiii
-------
has been reduced, however grants for State pollution control programs have been increased.
Many other Federal programs contribute directly or indirectly to environmental
improvements in the Great Lakes. For example, USDA also supports programs that
contribute to the management and restoration of Great Lakes water quality (e.g., nonpoint
source management). Funding for these programs is not represented within the reported
totals for selected Federal programs. The costs and benefits of these types of programs are
difficult to apportion. Certainly, the Superfund program and air quality control programs
administered by the USEPA, and the numerous research and assessment programs
undertaken by various Federal natural resource management agencies, represent major
government commitments with important implications for regional environmental quality.
xiv
-------
1. INTRODUCTION
The Great Lakes are a precious natural resource, providing millions of U.S. and
Canadian citizens with valuable benefits -- among them, important commercial and sport
fisheries, a major transportation system, water supply, modifier of climate, recreational
resource, and means of waste disposal. Over the years, however, the impacts of tremendous
population growth with accompanying urbanization and industrialization along shorelines,
coupled with agricultural practices throughout the Great Lakes Basin, have seriously affected
the water quality and ecosystem health of the Lakes. As a result, the ability of the Great -
Lakes resource to continue to provide these benefits has been severely threatened.
Although the United States and Canada have made substantial progress over the last
15 years in alleviating some of the most serious water quality problems affecting the Lakes,
much remains to be done. We face the formidable challenges of decreasing further loadings
of conventional pollutants, eliminating persistent toxic substances, and, ultimately, restoring
the integrity of the Great Lakes ecosystem.
The Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement (GLWQA) was established by the United
States and Canada as the overarching framework for cooperative binational efforts to restore
and maintain the Great Lakes System. The initial Agreement, signed in 1972, focused on
reducing nutrient loadings to the Lakes in order to curb the process of eutrophication.
Renegotiation of the Agreement in 1978, and amendments in 1983 and 1987, have
substantially broadened and heightened the objectives of the GLWQA. Over the years, the
Agreement has served well in the development of measures to restore and enhance the Great
Lakes System.
In 1987, the United States confirmed its commitment to attaining the goals of the
GLWQA through enactment of the Water Quality Act Amendments to the Clean Water Act
(CWA). In particular, Section 118 of the Amendments instructs the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (USEPA) to take the lead role in the effort to meet these goals, working
with other Federal, State, and local authorities. This Section formally establishes the Great
Lakes National Program Office (GLNPO) within the USEPA as the entity with operational
responsibilities for several new Great Lakes water quality initiatives, and for overall
coordination of U.S. efforts under the GLWQA. The Act also requires the USEPA
Administrator to submit a comprehensive annual report to Congress, summarizing
achievements and progress during the previous year on the part of all agencies, prospects
for Great Lakes restoration, and efforts planned for the coming year.
This document is the first Annual Report to Congress on Progress in Implementing
the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement. The report provides a broad view of progress
in restoring the Great Lakes and incorporates background information on the Agreement and
its provisions. Recent additions to the Agreement's provisions, as well as cooperative
efforts, surveillance and monitoring activities, Federal remedial activities (including
technological demonstrations), and prospects and plans for the future are highlighted.
1-1 .
-------
1.1 HISTORICAL OVERVIEW OF GREAT LAKES WATER QUALITY PROBLEMS
The Great Lakes System includes the five Great Lakes (Figure 1-1) and their four
major connecting channels. Generally, the system flows from Lake Superior, at 600 feet
above sea level, through the other four Lakes and the connecting channels and then out
through the St. Lawrence River to the Atlantic Ocean. The Lakes are shared by the United
States and Canada, except for Lake Michigan, which is located wholly within the United
States. Eight U.S. States (Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, Illinois, Indiana, Ohio,
Pennsylvania, and New York) and the Canadian Province of Ontario border the Lakes.
The activities of more than 37 million people residing in the Basin and millions more
residing outside of it have had profound adverse effects on the Great Lakes ecosystem. The
numerous tributaries to the system receive drainage from a range of land uses and types of
soil, resulting in numerous pollution problems. The southern half of the Great Lakes Basin
is particularly intensively developed, with major urban centers and extensive agricultural
areas, all of which contribute to the degradation of water quality and ecosystem health in
the Lakes.
Concerns about water quality in the Great Lakes have progressed through four general
stages over time, focusing on disease organisms, oxygen depletion, nutrients and
eutrophication, and toxic contamination as important pollution problems. Appreciation for
the complexity of the causes of water quality degradation in the Great Lakes has grown
with experience in monitoring responses to pollution control measures over the past 20 years.
Before intensive settlement and development of the region, the waters of the Great
Lakes were clear and cool throughout the system. Algal growth was minimal and there were
many species of fish, some now extinct. The average size of individual fish was much
larger, and longer-lived species such as sturgeon and lake trout were abundant. Causes of
the drastic changes in the Great Lakes fisheries include water quality degradation, accidental
and deliberate introduction of exotic fish species, over-fishing, and habitat loss.
When cities first developed in the Basin, localized water quality degradation
attributable to waste disposal was considered inconsequential, given the huge volume of
water in the Great Lakes. Later, it was realized that fundamental changes" in such large
systems may not become obvious until they are well advanced. By the 1880s, contamination
of drinking water intakes by human sewage led local governments to begin primary
treatment and disinfection of sewage.
Primary sewage treatment and improved treatment of drinking water substantially
reduced the incidence of waterborne disease in the region through the first half of the 20th
century, except in the case of diseases contracted by swimming. Still, enrichment by
organic wastes was causing subtle biological changes in many areas of the Lakes through the
first half of this century. Beaches were frequently closed to swimming because of high
fecal coliform counts, or else were avoided because of algae, odors, floating oil, or dead
fish.
Eventually, algal growth increased, causing oxygen depletion and destruction of biota
in nearshore and estuarine areas. How such changes could affect an entire Great Lake was
not recognized until eutrophication became obvious in the shallow, more vulnerable Lake
Erie. By 1960, changes in productivity and the annual cycle of algal bloom, decay, and
oxygen depletion in Lake Erie had been linked to over-enrichment. With the public
demanding further pollution control, the Federal Government responded by requiring
secondary treatment of sewage and control of industrial waste discharges.
1-2
-------
Pennsylvania
Figure 1-1. The Great Lakes Basin
-------
Once scientific consensus was reached that the limiting nutrient for the Great Lakes
is phosphorus, phosphorus reduction became the chief objective of the first GLWQA with
Canada in 1972. In the same year, Congress passed the 1972 Federal Water Pollution
Control Act Amendments. This legislation provides the chief vehicle for fulfilling U.S.
obligations under the binational compact.
By 1980, decreased algal growth and increased dissolved oxygen levels in nearshore
waters signified an improvement in water quality in most of the Great Lakes. Today,
eutrophication of the open Lakes appears largely under control. However, toxic
contamination is now considered a major threat 10 ecosystem health and human uses of the
Lakes.
Some toxic substances are proving to be remarkably persistent in the Great Lakes
System. This is due in part to the long retention time of the two upper Lakes, Superior and
Michigan, which, on average, require 100 years or more to fully renew their water. Thus,
concentrations of contaminants in the water column can remain fairly constant over a long
period. Even though the lower Lakes have shorter retention times, their water is supplied
by the upper Lakes. Thus, they can inherit persistent water quality problems. In addition,
some contaminants can remain in the ecosystem longer by entering the food chain or
attaching to sediment particles.
1.2 THE GREAT LAKES WATER QUALITY AGREEMENT.
The Boundary Waters Treaty of 1909 affirmed that Canada and the United States have
equal rights to the use of waterways that cross the international border and that neither
country has the right to pollute its neighbor's resources. The International Joint Commission
(IJC) was established as an independent body to assist the two governments under the treaty.
For many years, the treaty primarily provided a process for limited regulation of water
levels and flows for the purposes of navigation and power production.
The first GLWQA between the United States and Canada (the Parties), signed in 1972,
called for the control of pesticides as the principal means for controlling toxic pollution.
The 1978 Agreement expanded upon this policy by requiring the control of all toxic
substances that could endanger the health and well-being of any living organism. The 1978
Agreement widened the geographic scope of the Parties' commitment, envisioning restoration
and enhancement throughout the Great Lakes Basin, not just in the waters of the Great
Lakes. The 1983 Supplement to the Agreement confirmed the phosphorus target loads and
called for the preparation of phosphorus load reduction plans.
The 1987 Amendments to the GLWQA reaffirmed our national goal to "restore and
maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the waters of the.Great Lakes
Basin ecosystem." To strengthen efforts to achieve this purpose, the Parties agreed to:
• Develop programs, practices, and technology necessary for a better understanding
of the Great Lakes Basin ecosystem, and to
• Eliminate or reduce to the maximum extent practicable the discharge of pollutants
into the Great Lakes system.
A major provision of the original Agreement that remains an important part of the
GLWQA is the setting of specific water quality objectives. These objectives specify ambient
levels of pollutants that must be attained to protect beneficial uses of the Lakes. Attainment
1-4
-------
of these water quality objectives is the major focus for directing remedial programs in
response to the GLWQA.
In addition to setting objectives, the GLWQA calls for the preparation of management
plans, implementation of remedial actions to address pollution sources, and monitoring of
compliance and environmental conditions. Implementation in each country depends on the
integration of remedial programs into national, provincial, and State laws and policies.
Responsibilities under the Agreement are shared equally by the Parties, working in
cooperation with the States and Provinces.
The 1987 revisions to the GLWQA recognize the need for strengthened efforts to
address the continuing contamination of the Great Lakes Basin ecosystem, particularly by
persistent toxic substances. The revised Agreement acknowledges that many of these toxic
substances may result in part from sources of air pollution within and beyond the Great
Lakes Basin. It also recognizes that these substances may lead to polluted ground water and
sediments that become potential sources of contaminant loadings to the Lakes.
The current GLWQA provides an awareness that further research and program
development is imperative for effective remedial actions. Also, recognizing the need for
leadership and accountability in the implementation of control measures, the roles of the two
governments and the IJC are given clearer definition. For example, the Parties are called
upon to provide six biennial progress reports to the IJC. The IJC is then to conduct
evaluations followed by recommendations to the two countries (the Department of State,
representing the United States) on the adequacy of the reported activities in satisfying the
terms of the Agreement.
1.3 INSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK FOR IMPLEMENTING THE AGREEMENT
The institutional framework for implementing the GLWQA is complex, owing to the
number and diversity of organizations that have important roles in the assessment,
management, and protection of Great Lakes water and living resources. As described below,
the IJC (or the Commission) evaluates the progress of the United States and Canada in
implementing the Agreement. The IJC Water Quality Board is the Commission's principal
advisor on water quality matters.
Each country has its own governmental structure to implement the Agreement. Within
the United States, GLNPO leads efforts to ensure compliance with the GLWQA, working
to coordinate the efforts of many Federal, State, and local institutions with operational
responsibilities in the Great Lakes region. Within this framework, the eight Great Lakes
States have the primary responsibility for implementing regulatory and management
programs that control water quality.
1.3.1 Role of the International Joint Commission
The IJC consists of six Commissioners, three appointed by the Chief Executive of
each country (Figure 1-2). The Commission addresses boundary water concerns along the
international border by calling attention to problems, recommending action to the Parties,
or evaluating actions of the governments under the Agreement.
1-5
-------
1
NTERNATIONAL JOINT COMMISSION |
U.S. SECTION
Washington, DC
CANADIAN SECTION
Ottawa, Ontario
Water Quality Board
Great Lakes'
Regional Office*
Science
Advisory Board
Key: * Administrative and technical support
Figure 1-2. International Joint Commission and Its Advisor/ Groups for the
Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement
1-6
-------
The IJC has created two boards to provide advice concerning water quality within the
Great Lakes Basin: the Water Quality Board and the Science Advisory Board. The purpose
of the Water Quality Board is to advise the IJC about progress under the Agreement and to
propose needed actions. Members serve as resource experts rather than as representatives
of their agencies. U.S. members are generally drawn from State environmental management
agencies, EPA, and other Federal regulatory agency staff. The USEPA's Great Lakes
National Program Manager is the U.S. co-chair, serving jointly with a Canadian counterpart.
The Science Advisory Board advises both the IJC and the Water Quality Board about
needed scientific research and carries out special investigations on request. Its membership
is generally drawn from government and academia. Both boards are assisted by committees
and task forces.
The IJC operates a binational Great Lakes Regional Office in Windsor, Ontario, that
provides secretariat services to the two boards of experts called for in the Agreement. The
agencies represented on the boards fund the participation of their staffs and the activities
required to serve the boards. No reimbursement for services by Government agency
personnel is provided by the IJC, although some travel costs are reimbursed to non-federal
participants.
1.3.2 Role of the Great Lakes National Program Office
GLNPO has principal operational responsibility for coordinating USEPA actions aimed
at improving Great Lakes water quality, including coordination with other Federal agencies,
Canada, and State, Local, and tribal authorities (Figure 1-3). To this end, GLNPO works
with USEPA Headquarters to ensure that Federal regulations and national policies consider
the special concerns .of the Great Lakes and that, at a minimum, they provide sufficient
flexibility to allow facility- or site-specific permitting and other decisions made within the
Great Lakes Basin to account for important priorities under the GLWQA.
GLNPO shares this interest with other geographically-based environmental programs,
such as the Chesapeake Bay Program and the Puget Sound Program. GLNPO works with
the Headquarter's Office of Marine and Estuarine Protection and individual estuary
programs to support development of policies and programs that address the special needs of
the complex ecosystems with which USEPA's geographic-based programs are concerned.
In addition to its major role of fostering cooperation among numerous and diverse
institutions, GLNPO was instructed by Congress in the 1987 CWA Amendments to:
• Develop and implement specific action plans to carry out U.S. responsibilities under
the Agreement;
• Establish a Great Lakes system-wide surveillance network, with emphasis on toxic
pollutants;
• Develop a 5-year plan for reducing the flow of nutrients into the Great Lakes; and
• Carry out a 5-year study and a series of demonstration projects relating to the
control and removal of toxic pollutants in sediments.
1-7
-------
Other F:ederal
Agencies (e.g.,
NOAA, USCOE,
USFWS, USDA,
USCG, USGS)
USEPA
Headquarters
Offices
Regions II, III, V
IJC
and Advisory Groups,
particularly the Water
Quality Board
USEPA
Great Lakes National
Program Office
Environment
Canada
Great Lakes States
(MN, Wl, IL, Ml, IN,
OH, PA, NY)
Local Authorities
and Interest Groups
Tribal Governments
Key:
NOAA—National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
USCOE—U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
USFWS—U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
USDA—U.S. Department of Agriculture
USCG—U.S. Coast Guard
USGS—U.S. Geological Survey
Figure 1-3. Coordination Responsibilities of the
Great Lakes National Program Office
1-8
-------
Each year, GLNPO develops a comprehensive work plan that defines its priority
objectives for Great Lakes programs and describes the ways in which the Office will work
at the international and national levels to ensure that environmental programs in the Great
Lakes Basin uphold the principles and objectives of the GLWQA.
GLNPO's annual work plan is guided by a 5-year program plan and strategy that lays
out the primary goals and directions of the Office for a 5-year period. Recently, in
response to changing priorities and directions from the CWA and the 1987 Agreement with
Canada, GLNPO completed a revised strategy for the period 1989 through 1993. This
strategy is available on request from GLNPO.
GLNPO's accomplishments and progress in each of its major areas of responsibility
are highlighted in subsequent chapters of this report.
1.3.3 Role of Other USEPA Offices
At USEPA Headquarters, program offices design and implement regulatory and other
programs under each of USEPA's principal statutes. USEPA has primary or oversight
authority for water pollution programs under the CWA of 1972 and the 1987 Amendments
to the CWA, and the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) of 1974, as amended in 1986. Other
laws protecting inland, marine, and groundwater resources include the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act; the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation,
and Liability Act; and the Toxic Substances Control Act.
Under the mandate of the CWA, the USEPA developed regulations and programs to
reduce pollutants entering all surface waters, including lakes, rivers, estuaries, oceans, and
wetlands. The 1987 Amendments to the CWA ensure continued support for municipal
sewage treatment plants, initiate a new State.-Federal program to control nonpoint source
pollution, and accelerate the imposition of tighter controls on toxic pollutants.
The SDWA requires the establishment of additional drinking water standards and
protects underground sources of drinking water from underground disposal of fluids. The
new amendments established two new major groundwater protection programs: the wellhead
protection program and the sole-source aquifer demonstration program.
Under the Clean Air Act of 1970 (CAA), USEPA is responsible for conducting
research and development programs, setting national standards and regulations, providing
technical and financial assistance to the State, and where necessary, supplementing State
implementation programs. USEPA is directed under the Act to set National Ambient Air
Quality Standards for "criteria pollutants," pollutants commonly found throughout the
country.
The CAA also requires USEPA to set National Emission Standards for Hazardous
Pollutants — those pollutants that can contribute to an increase in mortality or serious
illness. These programs focus mainly on direct human exposure, however, and do not
address food chain exposure to toxic substances that are atmospherically deposited and then
accumulate in fish that are subsequently ingested by humans.
At the regional level within USEPA, line divisions implement each of USEPA's media
programs (i.e., surface water, ground water, drinking water, air, hazardous waste, Superfund,
toxic substances, and pesticides). Regional staff develop permit conditions for surface water
discharges, air emissions, and hazardous waste management; review, evaluate, and select
1-9
-------
remedial alternatives for Superfund sites; plan and implement compliance inspections; and
develop and execute enforcement cases. GLNPO works with program staff in Regions II,
III, and V to assist with these activities to ensure that important site-specific decisions
uphold the provisions of the GLWQA to the maximum extent possible.
Regional line divisions also assist State programs with planning and implementing
Federal programs that have been delegated to the States. Each year, USEPA Headquarters
develops Agency Operating Guidance to communicate overall program priorities and
objectives to Headquarters, regional, and State Staff. At the regional level, USEPA program
offices develop Operating Guidance for State programs in order to communicate USEPA's
priorities and objectives for tlie coming year. GLNPO works to ensure that Great Lakes
priorities are accurately reflected in Agency Operating Guidance and annual State Program
Plans.
Finally, to conduct research and analysis for the Great Lakes, USEPA's Office of
Research and Development maintains two laboratories in Duluth, Minnesota, and Grosse He,
Michigan.
1.3.4 Role of Other Federal Agencies
Numerous other Federal agencies have responsibilities that relate, directly or
indirectly, to the achievement of GLWQA objectives. Federal agencies with major roles
include the following.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
NOAA conducts interdisciplinary environmental research, through grant-funded Sea
Grant program in the Great Lakes States and through its Great Lakes Environmental
Research Laboratory in Ann Arbor, Michigan. Areas of study include lake hydraulics,
synthesis of organic chemical and particle dynamics, physical limnology/meteorology,
ecosystem nutrient dynamics, and ecosystem studies. Other key contributions include
research conducted under the National Marine Fisheries Service, and weather and climate
monitoring undertaken by the National Weather Service.
In addition, NOAA administers the Coastal Zone Management Program, through which
four Great Lakes States currently fund Federally-approved programs to comprehensively
manage their coastal resources, including regulations for wetlands and coastal development,
protection of special areas, and other coastal activities that affect Great Lakes resources.
U.S. Armv Corps of Engineers (COE)
The COE is vested with the authority to maintain navigable waterways and to issue
permits for the transportation of dredged material for ocean dumping and for the discharge
of dredged or fill material into the waters of the United States, including the Great Lakes.
As the Federal organization that administers the dredge and fill permit programs in the
Lakes, the COE programs are critical to the maintenance of water quality.
The Corps receives over 10,000 permit applications annually. Therefore, COE
estuarine-related research primarily concerns the identification of solutions for dredged
material disposal. Some of these efforts include determining the bio-magnification and bio-
accumulation of contaminants in the estuarine environment, and developing guidelines for
disposal of highly contaminated sediments.
1-10
-------
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
The FWS has general responsibility for maintaining the fish and wildlife resources in
the United States and for providing public access to these resources. Its functions include
responsibility for fish and wildlife resources and habitats of national interest through
research, management, and technical assistance to other Federal and non-governmental
agencies.
Major FWS activities and programs in the Great Lakes Basin include permit review
and resource planning; land acquisition and habitat management (through refuges and
easements); management of migratory birds, anadromous fish, and endangered species; and
a broad research program addressing causes and effects of habitat change and coastal
contaminants. These programs provide for the collection, synthesis, and interpretation of
diverse information on species, populations, and habitats that is assembled, analyzed, and
applied for management purposes.
The FWS also conducts periodic national inventories of wetlands and waterfowl
populations, and operates the National Fisheries Center - Great Lakes. The Center's goal
is to assess, protect, and rehabilitate fish resources and habitats in the Great Lakes.
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA)
Several offices within the U.S. Department of Agriculture are actively involved in
activities that relate to Great Lakes water quality. The three agencies most directly involved
all provide direct assistance to farmers: the Cooperative Extension Service, which provides
information and education; the Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service (ASCS),
which provides financial assistance, and the Soil Conservation Service (SCS), which provides
technical assistance.
The SCS mission covers three major areas: soil and water conservation, natural
resources surveys, and community resource protection and development. Through its
nationwide network of conservation specialists, the SCS provides technical assistance to
farmers, ranchers, and foresters on methods to control erosion and sedimentation through
best management practices, and to control nonpoint sources of water pollution. The SCS
maintains extensive data archives on wind and water erosion, land use and cover,
conservation practices, and treatment needs. To assist land owners in protecting natural
resources, the USDA also administers cost sharing programs that offer special assistance for
installing certain conservation practices, protecting wetlands, and improving water quality.
Because of its close ties to landowners and an established delivery system for
agricultural programs, USDA's role in planning and implementing activities identified in
Section 319 State Water Management Plans continues to grow. As part of this increased
activity, SCS water quality coordinators have been detailed to a number of State water
quality agencies to assist in developing 319 plans, and SCS employees have also been
assigned to EPA regional offices to further assist with coordination.
U.S. Coast Guard (USCG)
An important role of the U.S. Coast Guard in the Great Lakes is to respond to spills,
encourge spill prevention, control shipping, enforce the prohibition of discharging of ship's
waste into the lakes, and enforce the laws regarding the handling and transfer of hazardous
substances and oil on the Lakes.
1-11
-------
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)
The USGS conducts a national program of water resources investigations, which
includes flow and water quality monitoring of Great Lakes tributaries and a range of special
studies on surface water and ground water. The USGS also works with the States, through
its Federal-State Cooperative Program, to perform special studies of national and State
interest. The USGS serves an important role in providing technical leadership on major
issues, such as the effects of contaminated ground water on Great Lakes surface water
quality.
1.3.5 Role of the States
In the area of water quality, the States have the primary responsibility for managing
and protecting water resources, except on Native American lands, where tribal governments
have primary responsibility. The eight Great Lakes States implement most of the water
quality management and protection programs under the CWA and SDWA. In general, State
programs must meet or exceed minimum standards established at the Federal level. The
States report regularly to the USEPA and to Congress on the development and
implementation of water quality management plans and on their progress in restoring and
maintaining water quality.
1-12
-------
2. ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY OBJECTIVES UNDER THE AGREEMENT
Through the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement (GLWQA), the United States
and Canada have jointly established objectives that will guide their efforts to
restore and enhance water quality in the Great Lakes System. Acknowledging the
institutional complexity of their water quality management systems, both
countries made commitments to achieve the objectives and to work toward
achieving consistency between national objectives and those set by the States
and Provinces.
The objectives of the original GLWQA were general, mainly addressing the
issue of conventional pollutants in the Great Lakes system. The intent was to
reduce sewage and industrial discharges that were largely responsible for the
obvious degradation of some of the Lakes. In 1978, the GLWQA added more specific
and more quantitative objectives for 41 physical, chemical, and biological
parameters. It was recognized that objectives needed to account for the special
problem of persistent toxic substances, especially those that are easily
transferable from one medium to another (e.g., contaminants in sediments, which
can re-enter the water column under certain chemical or physical conditions).
The 1978 GLWQA also added a focus on phosphorus load reduction, reflecting
an improved understanding of the process of lake eutrophication. Target
phosphorus loading rates for each basin, key bays, and channels were set.
Further target reductions in these loading rates were set in 1983. (The
phosphorus reduction initiative is discussed in Chapter 4.)
The 1987 Amendments to the Agreement introduced a number of new ideas for
directing future water quality management efforts. An awareness of the
increasing number of toxic" substances found in the Great Lakes, as well as the
rapid development rate of new chemicals in both the United States and Canada, led
to a more cautionary approach to establishing new objectives. This approach
requires the identification of "potentially" toxic substances, as well as those
toxic substances that have the "potential" for being discharged into the Great
Lakes System. It also envisions the review and modification of GLWQA objectives
as necessary, at least once every 2 years.
Perhaps the most important addition to the GLWQA objectives in 1987 was the
inclusion of Ecosystem Objectives. These Objectives are intended to represent
the cumulative goals of limiting various physical, chemical, and biological
parameters. Environmental Objectives allow water quality managers to better
account for multimedia toxic pollutant problems, as well as the combined effects
of multiple pollutants, since they address the ultimate effect of contaminants
on the Great Lakes System. Once the causes of a problem can be determined, even
if it represents the cumulative effects of multiple pollutants or multiple
sources, the problem can be addressed using the full range of available
regulatory and other environmental measures.
2-1
-------
2.1 GENERAL OBJECTIVES
The general water quality management objectives of the GLWQA reflect
earlier concerns with the problem of conventional pollutants contained in sewage
and industrial discharges. Despite this orientation, the general objectives
contain key references (e.g., beneficial uses, freedom from toxic conditions)
that form a foundation for subsequent specific and ecosystem objectives. As
described in Article III of the GLWQA, it was agreed that the waters of the Great
Lakes should be free from:
• Substances that directly or indirectly enter the waters as a result of
human activity and that will settle to form putrescent or otherwise
objectionable sludge deposits, or that will adversely affect aquatic
life or waterfowl;
• Floating materials such as debris, oil, scum, and other immiscible
substances resulting from human activities in amounts that are unsightly
or deleterious;
• Materials and heat directly or indirectly entering the water as a result
of human activity that alone, or in combination with other materials,
will produce color, odor, taste, or other conditions in such a degree as
to interfere with beneficial uses;
• Materials and heat directly or indirectly entering the water as a result
of human activity that alone, or in combination with other materials,
will produce conditions that are toxic or harmful to human, animal, or
aquatic life; and
• Nutrients directly or indirectly entering the waters as a result of human
activity in amounts that create growths of aquatic life that interfere
with beneficial uses.
2.2 SPECIFIC WATER QUALITY OBJECTIVES
The United States and Canada also have adopted a set of specific objectives
intended to represent the minimum levels of water quality desired in the boundary
waters of the Great Lakes System. Specific Objectives were developed as Annex
1 of the GLWQA to establish minimum acceptable conditions, and were expanded in
1978 to include a total of 41 chemical, physical, microbiological, or
radiological parameters (Table 2-1).
The chemical parameters included in this list are organized according to
three categories: persistent toxic substances, non-persistent toxic substances,
and other substances. Objectives for persistent toxic substances include those
for selected pesticides, metals, and other organic and inorganic substances
known to be present in the Lakes and to have adverse toxic effects on human
health, wildlife, or aquatic life. Objectives for persistent organic toxic
substances are expressed as concentration limits for ambient water, fish tissue,
or both.
2-2
-------
Table 2-1. Specific Water Quality Objectives Under the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement
Chemical
Persistent Toxic
Substances
Nonpersistent
Toxic Substances
Organic
Inorganic
Organic
Pesticides
Other Compounds
Metal*
Other Inorganic
Substances
Pesticides
Other Substances
Inorganic
Other Substances
Physical
Substance
Aldrin/Oieldrm
Chlordane
DOT and metabolites
Heptachlor/Heptachlor epoxide
Lindane
Methoxychlor
Mirex
Toxaphene
Dibutyl phthalate
Di (2-Ethylhexyl) phthalate
Other Phthalate esters
Polychlorinated biphenyls
Unspecified Organic Compounds
Mercury
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Iron
Lead
Nickel
Selenium
Zinc
Fluoride
Total Disolved Solids
Diazinon
Guthion
Parathion
Other Pesticides
Unspecified Compounds
Oil and Petrochemicals
Ammonia
Hydrogen Sullide
Dissolved Oxygen
pH
Nutrients
Tainting Substances
Asbestos
Temperature
Microbiological
Radiological
In Water
0.001 jig/I (sum)
0.06 |ig/l
0.003 no" (sum)
0.001 no/1 (sum)
0.01 HB/I
0.04 |ig/l
< detecti on
0.008 (ig/l
4.0 |ig/l
0.6 ng/i
0.2 |ig/l
0.5 units from ambient
Low enough to prevent nuisance growth of algae, weeds, and slimes
Raw public water supply sources essentially free of objectionable tastes and odors
Levels of phenolic compounds <1 0 mg/l
Other substances shall not affect the acceptabilty of ed ble organisms as determined by organoleptic tests
Lowest possible level; adequate to prevent harmful effects on human health
No change that would adversely affect any local or general use of the waters
Substantially free from bacteria, fungi, or viruses that may produce enteric disorders,
skin infections, or other human diseases and infections
TED50 from drinking 2 2 I lake water per day for l.year shall not exceed 1 millirem to the whole body
I
U>
-------
Chemical limits are set for three non-persistent pesticides (diazinon,
guthion, and parathion) atid two inorganic substances (ammonia and hydrogen
sulfide). All other nonpersistent chemicals and complex effluents have
objectives set in terms of their toxicity to sensitive local species. Objectives
for oil and petroleum hydrocarbons also specify that these substances shall not
cause sheens on the water, odors, tainting of fish, or deposits on the shoreline.
Other substances for which objectives have been set include dissolved
oxygen, pH, nutrients, and tainting substances. The levels for all of these
objectives are shown in Table 2-1.
2.3 ECOSYSTEM OBJECTIVES
The 1987 revisions of the GLWQA call for the development of Ecosystem
Objectives for boundary waters of the Great Lakes System, or portions thereof,
and for Lake Michigan. The agreement on Ecosystem Objectives includes the
following commitments:
• Lake Superior should be maintained as a balanced and stable oligotrophic
ecosystem with lake trout as the top aquatic predator of a cold-water
community and the Pontoporeia hovi as a key organism in the food chain.
• Ecosystem Objectives shall be developed for each of the Great Lakes as
the state of knowledge permits.
Annex 11 of the GLWQA introduces the concept of ecosystem health indicators
for use in measuring "attainment of Ecosystem Objectives. For example, the
indicator for lake trout in Lake Superior is described in terms of productivity
greater than 0.38 kilograms/hectare; stable, self-producing stocks; and freedom
from contaminants at concentrations that adversely affect the trout themselves
or the quality of the harvested products.
Subsequent Ecosystem Objectives could take a number of forms, as there are
many possible indicators of ecological condition, including biological
diversity, stability, and productivity. Objectives may be developed to describe
a general condition, the status of particular populations, or the relationships
among the members of the biological community.
Ecosystem Objectives offer the advantage of collectively representing
chemical, physical, and biological conditions. Therefore, they are better able
to account for the cumulative or synergistic effects of multiple contaminants,
multiple pollutant sources, and multiple pathways of exposure to toxic
substances. Thus, the Ecosystem Objectives and indicators are potentially a
better measure of attainment of the Agreement's broad goals.
2.4 PROCESS FOR PERIODIC REVISION OF OBJECTIVES
A 1987 supplement to Annex 1 outlines a process for the periodic review of
existing objectives and the establishment of new objectives. The United States
and Canada, working with the States and the Provinces, have agreed to consult at
least once every two years to modify Specific Objectives and establish action
2-4
-------
levels for persistent toxic substances. The Agreement also stipulates that the
public will be involved in the development and adoption of objectives.
Information is continually being developed on the identity and toxicity of
additional substances for which objectives may be appropriate. As this
information is developed, it will be used to refine existing objectives, or
establish new ones.
To assist in the review process, the United States and Canada are required
to compile and maintain lists of substances for which objectives may be needed.
These lists will identify all substances that are present or have the potential
to be present within the water, sediment, or aquatic biota of the Great Lakes
System and are believed, alone or when combined with another substance, to have
toxic effects on aquatic, animal, or human life.
The development of new objectives requires that the effects of a substance
on aquatic life, wildlife, and human health be considered. Once these effects
are known, the level of the objective can be set for the use that is most
sensitive or requires the greatest protection. Individual levels can be set for
contaminant concentrations in various media. For example, the Specific
Objective for DDT in the water column has been set to protect aquatic life, while
the DDT objective for fish tissue is set to protect fish-eating birds (the
animals most affected by the DDT concentrations in fish). Other levels are set
to protect human consumers of fish.
2-5
-------
3. STATE OF THE GREAT LAKES
Marking progress in attaining the objectives of the Great Lakes Water Quality
Agreement (GLWQA) is a primary role of the Water Quality Board of the International Joint
Commission (IJC). In its 1987 Report to the IJC, the Board offered mixed reviews, citing
major strides in the reduction of phosphorus concentrations, but serious problems related
to lakewide levels of certain persistent toxic substances and localized problems of sediment
and water contamination.
The water quality of the Great Lakes has improved in many ways over the past
two decades. The premature aging of the Lakes through the process of eutrophication has
been slowed by reducing the volume of organic material and nutrients, especially
phosphorus, that enters the system. Progress has also been made in reducing the levels of
some toxic contaminants, including mercury and a number of pesticide compounds.
However, the levels of some of the pollutants of early concern, including phosphorus,
polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), dieldrin, and DDT, persist above acceptable levels in
some areas. Moreover, a new cast of more than 300 other pollutants of concern has now
been identified within the Great Lakes System. Concerted efforts are being made to
understand the sources of these pollutants and their behavior in the environment, as well
as the range of possible threats they may pose to human health.
Substantial reductions (over 80 percent from point sources) of nutrient loads to the
Great Lakes during the 1970s and early 1980s have resulted in significant improvements of
the Lakes from their more eutrophic status to their more natural meso- or oligotrophic
status. The natural composition of algae and zooplankton has started to return.
Improvements have also been attained for some persistent toxic substances. Between
1969 and 1972, Federal legislation was enacted to restrict or ban the use of dieldrin,
heptachlor, DDT, PCB, mercury, and mirex within the Great Lakes Basin. In nearly all
Lakes, PCB concentrations in lake trout decreased during the late 1970s. This trend did not
continue substantially, however; current, concentrations in lake trout still remain above the
Agreement objective in all the Great Lakes. PCB concentrations in forage fish remain at
or below the objective level in all Lakes except Lake Michigan, where concentrations in
bloater chub exceed the objective.
In the late 1970s, DDT concentrations also declined substantially in all Lakes but Lake
Huron. DDT levels apparently have stopped declining, however. One possible explanation
for the continuing presence of banned pesticides in the Great Lakes System is that these
substances are being atmospherically transported from countries where they are still in use.
This thesis is supported by the continuing presence of unweathered forms of such pesticides.
Despite improvements, the Water Quality Board has identified 42 Areas of Concern
(AOCs) within the Great Lakes that exceed established GLWQA objectives and exhibit
impaired beneficial uses. The Water Quality Board has also identified 362 chemicals of
concern within the Great Lakes ecosystem, some of which are particularly persistent. In
total, about 30,000 chemical compounds are used within the Great Lakes Basin and may be
present in the system. An additional 1,000 new chemicals are developed each year within
the United States, suggesting that the potential list of toxic contaminants in the Lakes is
increasing over time.
3-1
-------
3.1 LAKE SUPERIOR
Lake Superior, the largest (82,100 km2)and deepest (maximum-depth of 407 m and
mean depth of 149 m) of the Lakes, has remained the most pristine and oligotrophic system.
Concentrations of nutrients and major ions in the open waters of Lake Superior have
consistently met Agreement objectives (Table 3-1). Species composition of phytoplankton
and zooplankton communities are typical of waters that are naturally low in nutrients.
Results of surveys conducted since 1968 indicate that phosphorus concentrations have
remained around 3.5 micrograms/liter, the lowest level for any of the Great Lakes and well
within GLWQA objectives.
However, concentrations of PCBs in lake trout in Lake Superior continue to exceed
the Agreement objective (0.1 mg/kg in whole fish), while the DDT, dieldrin, and mercury
objectives (1.0 mg/kg, 0.3 mg/kg, and 0.5 mg/kg, respectively, in whole fish) are being met.
Although lower concentrations of DDT and dieldrin have been observed in lake trout since
1982-1983, PCB concentrations appear to be fluctuating, with no discernible trend.
Public health fish consumption advisories have been issued for lake trout taken from
Lake Superior waters, recommending restricted consumption of fish up to 30 inches and no
consumption of fish greater than 30 inches.
In addition, the Water Quality Board has identified seven AOCs in Lake Superior,
where GLWQA objectives are not being met (Figure 3-1). The following three AOCs are
located within the United States:
• St. Louis River/Bay - Bay sediments are moderately to heavily polluted with
arsenic, chromium, and copper. Some localized areas of sediment are also
contaminated by lead and mercury. The macrobenthic community is typical of
polluted sediment environments. Public health advisories recommend restricted
consumption of large northern pike, carp, white sucker, and walleye. •
• Torch Lake - Copper levels are six to nine times higher than the GLWQA
objective. Sediments are also contaminated by copper. The macroinvertebrate
community is sparse. Walleye and sauger exhibit several types of tumors. State
health advisories recommend no consumption of all sizes of walleye and sauger.
• Deer Lake. Carp Creek. Carp River - Sediments and fish are contaminated by
mercury. No bald eagle offspring have been produced from nesting areas. Health
advisories restrict consumption of all species of fish.
3.2 LAKE MICHIGAN
Lake Michigan, which lies completely within the United States, is the second largest
Lake in terms of volume and depth, but the third in terms of surface area (57,800 km ).
Nutrient concentrations in Lake Michigan are generally higher than those in Lake Superior,
placing the Lake in the oligotrophic to mesotrophic classification. This condition is
reflected by the phytoplankton community. Open-water phytoplankton species composition
and biomass are dominated by diatoms. Species associated with eutrophic waters are not
common in the open Waters of the Lake, but are present in the Green Bay region. The
zooplankton community structure is indicative of oligotrophic conditions.
3-2
-------
Figure 3-1. Areas of Concern within Lake Superior
1. Penninsula Harbor
2. JacKfish Bay
3. Nipigon Bay
Thunder Bay
St. Louis River
Torch Lake
Deer Lake
Table 3-1 . Water Quality Conditions in Lake Superior Compared to Great Lakes
Water Quality Agreement Objectives
Parameter
Aldrin/Dieldrin
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chlordane
Chromium'
Copper
DDT/TDE
Diazinon
Dibutyl phthalate
DEHP
Endrin
Fluoride
Guthion
Heptachlor/Heptachlor Epoxide
Iron
Lead
Lindane ( - BHC)
Mercury
Methoxychlor
Mirex
Nickel
Other Phthalates
Parathion
PCBs
Phenols
Selenium
Toxaphene
Zinc
Phosphorus
Objective in Water
mlcrograms/L
0.001
50
0.2
0.06
50
5
0.003
0.08
"4
0.6
0.002
1200
0.005
0.001
300
25
0.01
02 (filtered)
0.04
Less than DL
25
0.2
0.008
1
10
0.008
30
5
Objective In Fish
mg/kg
0.3
1
0.3
0.3
0.5
0.1
5
Lake Superior* Water
mlcrograms/L
0.52
0.027
0.091
0.89
0.0002
2.5"
0.029
0.002
ND
0.58
NM
0.0006
0.12
0.39
4
Lake Superior* Fish
mg/kg
0.05
0.02
0.3
T
T
NO
ND
NM
0.5
5
Values obtained from the draft Appendix B to the Water Quality Board Report to the International vioint Commission and staff at the
USEPA Great Lakes National Program Office.
Public Health Fish Consumption Advisory
Lake Superior
(Applies to Michigan, Wisconsin, and Minnesota waters)
Restrict Consumption1
Lake trout up to 30", Walleye up to 26" (Wisconsin waters).
Do Not Eat*
Lake trout over 30", Walleye over 26" (Wisconsin waters).
1 Also applies to tributaries into which migratory species enter
* Nursing mothers, pregnant women, women who anticipate bearing children, and children age 15 and under should not eat the
fish listed in any of the categories listed above.
3-3
-------
Phosphorus loading estimates for Lake Michigan were fairly stable between 1976 and
1980. Since 1981, estimated total phosphorus loadings to Lake Michigan have remained
under the GLWQA target loading value of 5,600 metric tons/year.
PCB and DDT concentrations appear to be gradually declining in Lake Michigan lake
trout, but still remain above the Agreement objectives (0.1 mg/kg and 1.0 mg/kg,
respectively, in whole fish) (Table 3-2). PCB concentrations are about 40 times the
objective; DDT about 2 times. Dieldrin concentrations have fluctuated over recent years,
but remain near the Agreement objective level (0.3 mg/kg in whole fish).
Public health fish consumption advisories have been issued for lake trout, salmon, and
brown trout taken from Lake Michigan waters, recommending restricted consumption of fish
beyond specified sizes. In addition, the public has been advised not to eat any carp or
catfish, or very large lake trout, chinook salmon, or brown trout.
The Water Quality Board has identified the following 10 AOCs in Lake Michigan,
indicating local non-compliance with GLWQA objectives (Figure 3-2):
• Manistioue River - The lower river and harbor have elevated levels of lead and
PCBs. Harbor sediments contain cadmium, lead, PCBs, and zinc. Benthos in the
area is dominated by pollution-tolerant species. A fish consumption advisory is
in place for all carp.
• Menominee River - Water in the lower river is contaminated with arsenic.
Sediments are moderately to heavily contaminated by arsenic, mercury, and PCBs.
A low frequency of tumors has been found in local fish, and river water has been
found to be toxic to certain aquatic invertebrate larvae. A fish consumption
advisory is in place for lake trout, chinook salmon, brown trout, carp, and catfish.
• Fox River and Southern Green Bay - Over 100 toxic substances, including 37
priority pollutants and 11 different resins and fatty acids, have been identified
in discharges to the lower Fox River. Sediments in the lower river were heavily
polluted with lead, mercury, oil and grease, PCBs, zinc, and DDT. A high
frequency of tumors has been detected in some fish. Fish consumption is restricted
for 10 species in the area. Reproductive impairments of cormorants and abnormal
thyroids in herring gulls have been found. Bacteria densities periodically exceed
Wisconsin limits for "full body contact." High phosphorus levels are responsible
for eutrophic conditions in the lower bay.
• Shebovaan - Very high PCB levels have been found in the water column and the
sediment. Pollution-tolerant species dominate the benthos and periphyton.
Consumption of salmon and trout is restricted.
• Milwaukee Harbor - Residual open water pollution and heavy sediment
contamination by cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, oil and grease, PCBs, and zinc
exists. Chlordane and DDT are also present. Benthos and phytoplankton are
dominated by pollution-tolerant organisms. Bacterial counts increase at area
beaches after heavy rainfalls. High phosphorus loadings have contributed to
eutrophic conditions. Fish consumption advisories are in place for northern pike.
Consumption of small mouth bass, perch, redhorse sucker, and rock bass is also
restricted.
3-4
-------
Figure 3-2. Areas of Concern within Lake Michigan
8. Manistique River
9. Menominee River
10. Fox River and Southern Green Bay
11. Sheboygan
12. Milwaukee Estuary
13. Waukegan Harbor
14. Grand Calumet River and Indiana Harbor Ship Canal
15. Kalamazoo River
16. Muskegon Lake
17. White Lake, Montague
Table 3-2. Water Quality Conditions in Lake Michigan Compared to Great Lakes
Water Quality Agreement Objectives
Parameter
Aldrin/Dieldrin
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chlordane
Chromium
Copper
DOT/IDE
Diazinon
Dibutyl phthalate
DEHP
Endnn
Fluoride
Guthion
Heptachlor/Heptachlor Epoxide
Iron
Lead
Lindane ( - BHC)
Mercury
Methoxychlor
Mirex
Nickel
Other Phthalates
Parathion
PCBs
Phenols
Selenium
Toxaphene
Zinc
Phosphorus
Objective In Water
micrograms/L
0.001
50
0.2
0.06
50
5
0.003
0.08
4
0.6
0.002
1200
0.005
0.001
300
25
0.01
0.2 (filtered)
0.04
Less than DL
25
0.2
0.008
1
10
0.008
30
7
Objective In Fish
mg/kg
0.3
1
0.3
0.3
0.5
0.1
5
Lake Michigan* Water
micrograms/L
0.69
0.044
0.68
0.39
0.0002
75
0.25
0.045
NO
0.6
NM
0.002
2.7
0.59
5.5
Lake Michigan* Fish
mg/kg
0.3
0.1
3
T
T
ND
ND
NM
5
2
Values obtained from the dratt Appendix B to the Water Quality Board Report to the International Joint Commission and staff at the
USEPA Great Lakes National Program Office.
Public Health Fish Consumption Advisory
Lake Michigan
(Applies to Michigan, Illinois, Indiana, and Wisconsin waters)
Restrict Consumption'
Lake trout 20-23", Coho salmon over 26", Chinooksalmon21-32",
Brown trout up to 23".
Do Not Eaf
Lake trout over 23", Chinook over 32", Brown trout over 23"
Carp, and Catfish.
1 Also applies to tributaries into which migratory species enter
* Nursing mothers, pregnant women, women who anticipate bearing children, and children age 15 and under should not eat the
fish listed in any of the categories listed above.
3-5
-------
• Waukeean Harbor - Very high PCB levels have been detected in water and
sediment. There are indications of bioaccumulation of PCBs in local organisms.
A fish advisory recommends against consumption of all species in the area.
• Grand Calumet River and Indiana Harbor Canal - GLWQA objectives have been
exceeded for copper, lead, selenium, iron, zinc, ammonia, and phenolics.
Sediments also are highly contaminated with chromium, lead, oil and grease, PCBs,
and zinc. Some fish tumors and a high incidence of fin rot were found. A fish
advisory recommends against consumption of all species in the area. Fecal
coliforms and phosphorus levels exceed standards.
• Kalamazoo River - High PCB levels have been found in the water column and
sediment. Elevated phosphorus levels are found downstream of Kalamazoo.
Consumption of all fish species is restricted with no consumption of carp, suckers,
catfish, and largemouth bass.
• Muskeaon Lake - Some shoreline sediments are contaminated with cadmium,
chromium, copper, lead, mercury, zinc, and pyrene. Excess nutrient enrichment
has resulted in algal blooms.
• White Lake - Contaminants via ground water include chloroform, trichloroethylene,
carbon tetrachloride, and perchloroethylene. Sediments are contaminated with
chromium, and some benthos are affected in the vicinity of the contaminated
groundwater plume. Carp consumption is restricted.
3.3 LAKE HURON
Lake Huron is the second largest Great Lake .in terms of surface area (59,700 km2).
Like Lake Superior, Lake Huron has a drainage basin that supports lower population
densities and more forested lands than the other Great Lakes. Consequently, the quality of
the open waters of Lake Huron is generally high, with levels of nutrients and major ions
within GLWQA objectives.
_In general, the trophic status of the open waters of the Lake has remained stable,
between the status of Lake Michigan and Lake Superior. Phytoplankton and zooplankton
species assemblages in the open waters are consistent with those typically encountered in
oligotrophic waters. Phytoplankton species composition and biomass are dominated by
diatoms. Species typical of eutrophic waters are not common, although they occur in some
lake areas subject to nutrient enrichment.
Levels of total phosphorus, measured during the spring months, have been stable from
1971 through 1985 (Table 3-3). Total phosphorus concentrations in the Georgian Bay have
been consistently lower than those found in Lake Huron proper. Georgian Bay area
phosphorus concentrations decreased by approximately 1.5 micrograms/liter from 1980
through 1985. The highest mean total phosphorus concentrations in Lake Huron occur in
Saginaw Bay (21 micrograms/liter).
Although these concentrations are substantially lower than those observed in 1978, no
significant decreases in phosphorus concentrations occurred from 1980 to 1985. Estimated
total phosphorus loadings for Lake Huron indicate that the annual inputs have been near the
loading objective target value (4,360 tons/year) since 1976. Inputs for Saginaw Bay remain
21 metric tons above its target of 440 metric tons, however.
3-6
-------
Concentrations of dieldrin and DDT in Lake Huron lake trout are below the
Agreement objective (0.3 mg/kg and 1.0 mg/kg, respectively, in whole fish), although there
appears to be no decreasing trend in concentrations since 1979. As with most of the other
Great Lakes, Lake Huron's PCB concentrations in lake trout continue to exceed the
objective (0.1 mg/kg in whole fish). There also does not appear to be a trend of decreasing
PCB concentrations since 1979. Public health fish advisories have been issued suggesting
that the consumption of lake trout, rainbow trout, and brown trout caught in Lake Huron
waters be restricted.
Of the four AOCs on Lake Huron, only one has been identified within U.S.
boundaries (Figure 3-3):
• Saginaw River/Saeinaw Bay - Contaminants in water include primarily metals,
PCBs, and phenols. Bay sediments are also contaminated with metals and PCBs.
A health advisory recommends no consumption of carp and catfish. Consumption
of lake trout, rainbow trout, and brown trout is also restricted. Fish-eating bird
populations are affected by contaminants as shown in reproductive failure and
increased incidence of cross-beak syndrome.
3.4 LAKE ERIE
Lake Erie is the fourth largest Great Lake in terms of surface area (25,700 km2)and
is the most shallow lake, with a mean depth of only 19 meters. It consists of three distinct
basins, which differ in water quality characteristics. Its shores are highly urbanized and its
major tributaries drain intensively farmed soils. Lake Erie was the first of the Lakes to
show systemwide signs of cultural eutrophication, but was also quicker to respond than the
other Lakes to cleanup efforts because of its relatively short retention time.
Even so, Lake Erie is characterized as a mesotrophic lake with eutrophic conditions
dominating in the western and central basins. Diatoms dominate the biomass, and green
algae are also an important component of the community. Zooplankton assemblages
throughout the Lake are mixed, being more indicative of eutrophic conditions than
oligotrophic conditions, although some oligotrophic species are present.
Data from 1985 and 1986 indicate that Lake Erie central basin mean annual total
phosphorus concentrations fluctuate between 11 and 13 micrograms/liter (Table 3-4). In
1985, it was estimated that over 2,000 tons of soluble phosphorus are released annually from
the central basin sediments through anoxic regeneration. In spite of these large
contributions from internal processes, significant reductions in open lake total phosphorus
concentrations have been documented. During the period from 1968 to 1985, total
phosphorus concentrations declined at an annual rate of about 0.56 microgram/liter/year.
A significant decrease in total phosphorus loadings to Lake Erie occurred during the same
period, from a high of 28,000 tons/year in 1968 to the current level near 11,180 tons/year.
However, the established target loading rate of 11,000 tons/year has not been achieved.
3-7
-------
Figure 3-3. Areas of Concern within Lake Huron
18. Saginaw River System and Saginaw Bay
19. Collingwood Harbor
20. Pentang Bay to Sturgeon Bay
21. Spanish River
38. St. Mary's River
39. St. Clair River
Table 3-3. Water Quality Conditions in Lake Huron Compared to Great Lakes
Water Quality Agreement Objectives
Parameter
Aldrin/Dieldrin
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chlordane
Chromium
Copper
DDT/TDE
Diazinon
Dibutyl phthalate
DEHP
Endrin
Ruoride
Guthion
Heptachlor/Heptachlor Epoxide
Iron
Lead
Lindane ( - BHC)
Mercury
Methoxychlor
Mirex
Nickel
Other Phthalates
Paratfiion
PCBs
Phenols
Selenium
Toxaphene
Zinc
Phosphorus
Objective in Water
micrograms/L
0.001
50
0.2
0.06
50
5
0.003
0.08
4
0.6
0.002
1200
0.005
0.001
300
25
0.01
0.2 (filtered)
0.04
Less than DL
25
0.2
0.008
1
10
0.008
30
5
Objective in Fish
mg/kg
0.3
1
0.3
0.3
0.5
0.1
5
Lake Huron* Water
micrograms/L
0.00037
0.21
0.015
0.000032
0.13
0.4
ND(0.002)
0.00005
0.00021
4.8
0.022
0.000835
0.011
ND(0.002)
ND(0.002)
0.54
NM
0.000394
0.48
0.29
4.5
Lake Huron* Fish
mg/kg
0.1
0.4
0.05
0.1
T
T
T
0.18
NM
2
0.52
Values obtained from the draft Appendix B to the Water Quality Board Report to the International Joint Commission and staff at the
USEPA Great Lakes National Program Office
Public Health Fish Consumption Advisory
Lake Huron
Restrict Consumption1
Lake trout. Rainbow trout, and Brown trout
Do Not Eat*
1 Also applies to tributaries into which migratory species enter
* Nursing mothers, pregnant women, women who anticipate bearing children, and children age 15 and under should not eat the
fish listed in any of the categories listed above.
3-8
-------
Concentrations of DDT and dieldrin in Lake Erie remain below the Agreement
objective for fish tissue concentration. PCB concentrations are elevated above the objective
level, with concentrations in walleye being about five times the objective level. Both carp
and catfish are the subject of public health fish consumption advisories, with restricted
consumption being recommended in New York and no consumption recommended in other
States bordering the Lake. The Water Quality Board has designated seven AOCs within the
U.S. boundaries of Lake Erie (Figure 3-4):
• Clinton River - Sediments downstream of Red Run are contaminated with metals
and oil and grease affecting benthic communities in the lower river. Fecal
coliform bacteria levels exceed the objective, as does total phosphorus loading.
• Rouge River - Toxic substances in the lower river include PCBs and metals.
Sediments are heavily polluted with metals. Other contaminants include
dibenzofurans, HCB, PCBs, and PAHs. Health advisories recommend no
consumption of carp. Fish kills occur regularly during the summer, and the
benthos community reflects pollution-tolerant species. High fecal coliform levels
are also a problem as a result of combined sewer overflows.
• River Raisin - Contaminants present in the water column include metals and PCBs.
Sediments are contaminated with PCBs, chromium, copper, and zinc. Invertebrate
populations decrease in the vicinity of Monroe Harbor. Elevated fecal coliform
levels are experienced during wet weather conditions. Health advisories
recommend no consumption of carp.
• Maumee River - Violations of Ohio water quality standards occur for ammonia,
arsenic, lead, copper, zinc, cadmium, iron, and mercury. Sediments are heavily
polluted with metals and were found toxic to minnows and invertebrates. PCBs
have been detected in fish. Fecal coliform exceed Ohio EPA standards.
• Black River - Ohio water quality standards are violated for ammonia, iron, lead,
phenol, cyanide, cadmium, copper, and zinc. Sediments are heavily polluted with
oil and grease, metals, and PAHs. Benthos are severely degraded. Fecal coliform
also violate Ohio standards. Health advisories recommend no consumption of all
fish species.
• Cuvahoea River - Toxics in the water include cyanide, iron, copper, ammonia,
phenol, lead cadmium, and zinc. Sediments are heavily polluted with metals and
oil and grease, and moderately polluted with PCBs; DDT, PAHs, and phthalates.
Benthos are degraded, and elevated levels of fecal coliform bacteria are common.
• Ashtabula River - Ohio water quality standards are violated for zinc, cadmium,
and mercury. Sediments are heavily polluted with arsenic, cadmium, chromium,
copper, lead, mercury, PCBs, and zinc. River water is acutely toxic to Daphnia.
Health advisories recommend no consumption of all fish species.
3-9
-------
Figure 3-4. Areas of Concern within Lake Erie
22. Clinton River
23. Rouge River
24. Raisin River
25. Maumee River
26. Black River
27. Cuyahoga River
28. Ashtabula River
29. Wheatley
30. Buffalo River
40. Detroit River
Table 3-4. Water Quality Conditions in Lake Erie Compared to Great Lakes
Water Quality Agreement Objectives
Parameter
Aldrin/Oieldrin
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chlordane
Chromium
Copper
DOT/IDE
Diazinon
Dibutyl phthalate
DEHP
Endrin
Fluoride
Guthion
Heptachlor/Heptachlor Epoxide
Iron
Lead
LJndane ( - BHC)
Mercury
Methoxychlor
Mirex
Nickel
Other Phthalates
Parathion
RGBs
Phenols
Selenium
Toxaphene
Zinc
Phosphorus
Objective in Water
micrograms/L
0.001
50
0.2
0.06
50
5
0.003
0.08
4
0.6
0.002
1200
0.005
0.001
300
25
0.01
0.2 (filtered)
0.04
Less than DL
25
0.2
0.008
1
10
0.008
30
10/15
Objective in Fish
mg/kg
0.3
1
0.3
0.3
0.5
0.1
5
Lake Erie* Water
micrograms/L
0.000934
0.43
0.72
0.000084
0.39
1.8
0.000259
100
0.34
0.002148
0.033
1.1
NM
0.00295
2.1
1.2
16.6
Lake Erie* Fish
mg/kg
0.06
0.05
0.2
T
T
ND
NM
1.5
Values obtained from the draft Appendix B to the Water Quality Board Report to the International Joint Commission and staff at the
USEPA Great Lakes National Program Office.
Public Health Fish Consumption Advisory
Lake Erie
Restrict Consumption1
Carp and Catfish (New York waters—eat no more than one meal
per month).
Do Not Eat*
Carp and Catfish (applies to Michigan, Ohio, and Pennsylvania
waters).
1 Also applies to tributaries into which migratory species enter
* Nursing mothers., pregnant women, women who anticipate bearing children, and children age 15 and under should not eat the
fish listed in any of the categories listed above.
•3-10
-------
3.5 LAKE ONTARIO
Lake Ontario is the smallest of the Great Lakes (19,520 km2),but with a mean depth
of 86 meters, is deeper than Lake Erie. Located at the end of the Great Lakes chain, Lake
Ontario receives nutrients and toxic contaminants contained in the outflow of upstream
systems. Because of this source and those within the drainage basin, Lake Ontario generally
has high open water pollutant concentrations. Still, data on phytoplankton indicator species
from the first two years of a bioindex monitoring program on Lake Ontario suggest that the
rate of eutrophication has declined, changing its status from meso-eutrophic to meso-
oligotrophic. These changes coincide with a decrease in phosphorus loadings. Zooplankton
community structure is indicative of mesotrophic to oligotrophic conditions.
Since surface total phosphorus concentrations peaked in the Spring of 1973, all
measured forms of phosphorus in Lake Ontario have declined markedly. Annual surveys
conducted from 1973 to 1986 show total phosphorus decreasing significantly at an annual
rate of 2.35 micrograms/liter. Spring total phosphorus levels in the offshore waters averaged
10.7 micrograms/liter in 1985 and 1986 (Table 3-5). This is consistent with a trend of
declining total phosphorus loadings to Lake Ontario since 1976. Total phosphorus loading
appears to be approaching the GLWQA target of 7,000 tons/year.
Lake trout in Lake Ontario contain PCB concentrations that greatly exceed the
Agreement objective of 0.1 mg/kg. Even though there appears to be a slight downward
trend in concentration over the last nine years, PCB levels still are ten times the Agreement
objective. DDT concentrations in lake trout approach the GLWQA objective and apparently
have not declined significantly in recent years. However, dieldrin concentrations in lake
trout appear to be declining in Lake Ontario.and are already lower than the Agreement
objective of 0.3 mg/kg.
Regardless of these declines, the public has been advised not to consume more than
one meal per month of white perch, coho salmon (under 21 inches), or rainbow trout (under
18 inches) from Lake Ontario. The public was also advised not to consume any of the
following fish from Lake Ontario waters: American eel, channel catfish, lake trout, Chinook
salmon, coho salmon (over 21 inches), rainbow trout (over 18 inches), and brown trout (over
18 inches).
The Water Quality Advisory Board also identified four AOCs within the U.S.
boundaries of Lake Ontario (Figure 3-5). These areas, which exceed GLWQA water quality
objectives for at least one parameter, are as follows:
• Buffalo River - Water quality standards are exceeded for metals, dieldrin, BHC,
and chlordane. River and harbor sediments are heavily polluted with iron,
mercury, and oil and grease. Other contaminants include DDT, HCB, and PAHs.
The macrobenthic community is dominated by pollution-tolerant species.
• Eiehteenmile Creek - Trichlorofluoromethane has been found in the water.
Cadmium, copper, lead, nickel, DDT, and dieldrin exceed GLWQA objectives.
Sediments at the mouth are moderately to heavily polluted with chromium, copper,
lead, nickel, and zinc.
• Rochester Embavment - Ammonia levels exceed the New York objective. Harbor
sediments are moderately to heavily polluted with arsenic, copper, cyanide, nickel,
and zinc. The macrobenthos show moderate effects of both toxic and organic
pollution. Phosphorus levels remain high due to combined sewer overflows.
3-11
-------
Figure 3-5. Areas of Concern within Lake Ontario
31. Eighteen Mile Creek
32. Rochester
33. Oswego River
34. BayQuinte
35. Port Hope
36. Toronto
37. Hamilton Harbor
42. St. Lawrence River
Table 3-5. Water Quality Conditions in Lake Ontario Compared to Great Lakes
Water Quality Agreement Objectives
Parameter
Aldrin/Dieldrin
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chlordane
Chromium
Copper
DDT/TDE
Diazinon
Dibutyl phthalate
DEHP
Endrin
Fluoride
Guthion
Heptachlor/Heptachlor Epoxide
Iron
Lead
Lindane ( - BHC)
Mercury
Methoxychlor
Mi rex
Nickel
Other Phthalates
Parathion
PCBs
Phenols
Selenium
Toxaphene
Zinc
Phosphorus
Objective in Water
micrograms/L
0.001
50
0.2
0.06
50
" 5
0.003
0.08
4
0.6 .
0.002
1200
0.005
0.001
300 .
25
0.01
0.2 (filtered)
0.04
Less than DL
25
0.2
0.008
1
10
0.008
30
10
Objective in Fish
mg/kg
0.3
1
0.3
0.3
0.5
0.1
5
Lake Ontario* Water
mlcrograrns/L
0.000631
0.98
0.2
0.000046
1.1
2.1
0.000375
19.9
0.5
0.00185
0.01
0.000084
NO
1.9
NM
0.0031
0.17
1
10
Lake Ontario* Fish
mg/kg
0.2
0.56
0.18
0.5
T
T
ND
0.14
0.14
NM
5
0.52
9.7
Values obtained from the draft Appendix B to the Water Quality Board Report to the International Joint Commission and staff at the
USEPA Great Lakes National Program Office.
Public Health Fish Consumption Advisory
Lake Ontario
(New York waters)
Restrict Consumption'
White perch, Coho salmon up to 21". Rainbow trout up to 18" (eat
no more than one meal per month).
Do Not Eat*
American eel, Channel catfish, Lake trout, Chinook salmon, Coho
salmon over 21", Rainbow trout over 25", Brown trout over 18".
1 Also applies to tributaries into which migratory species enter
* Nursing mothers, pregnant women, women who anticipate beanng children, and children age 15 and under should not eat the
fish listed in any of the categories listed above.
3-12
-------
• Osweao River - Water samples contain metals and chloroform. Ammonia levels
exceed the Agreement objectives. Sediments are classified as moderately to heavily
polluted with arsenic, copper, and manganese. Halophilic species dominate the
diatoms populations due to high chloride levels.
3.6 THE CONNECTING CHANNELS
The Connecting Channels (i.e., St. Marys River, St. Clair River, Lake St. Clair, Detroit
River, and Niagara River) are the major links between each of the Great Lakes. The St.
Lawrence River is the major outflow of the Great Lakes System to the Gulf of St.
Lawrence, and ultimately, the Atlantic Ocean. With the exception of Lake St. Clair, each
of these channels has been designated an AOC because Agreement objectives have been
exceeded and/or beneficial uses have been impaired. The specific reasons for their
designation are listed below:
• St. Marvs River - Elevated levels of phenols, iron, zinc, cyanide, and ammonia are
found in the water. Certain sediments are contaminated with ether solubles, iron,
oil and grease, PCBs, PAHs, and zinc. Benthos are impaired near Sault Ste. Marie,
and bacterial counts exceed the provincial objective. Consumption of some gizzard
shad is restricted. The major problems are associated with industrial sources in
Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario.
• St. Clair River - Contaminants in the water include a range of organic chemicals
(e.g., perchloroethylene, carbon tetrachloride, chloroform, methylene chloride).
Sediment contaminants include chromium, copper, mercury, and zinc. Other
contaminants include lead, PCBs, TCDD, and trace organics. Benthic communities
are impaired and bacterial contamination is common due to combined, sewer
overflows. The major problems are associated with industrial and municipal
sources in Sarnia, Ontario.
• Detroit River - In 1981, contaminants identified included phenols, iron, copper,
and mercury. Sediments contain organics and metals such as benzo(a)pyrene,
cadmium, DDT, HCB, mercury, and PCBs. Benthos are seriously disrupted. Fecal
coliform bacteria violations occur and phosphorus levels are elevated. Consumption
of some rock bass, walleye, and freshwater drum is restricted. Health advisories
recommend no consumption of carp. Most of the problems are associated with
discharges from the Detroit area, but some are from the Windsor, Ontario, area.
• Niagara River - Contaminants in the water include a variety of organics and
metals. Sediments in excess of Ontario guidelines include arsenic, chromium,
copper, lead, mercury, PCBs, and zinc. Benthos are disrupted, and toxicity is a
limiting factor along the shoreline. Consumption of specific sizes of white sucker,
american eel, rainbow trout, coho salmon, white perch, and lake trout is restricted.
The major problems are associated with the Buffalo/Niagara Falls complex.
• St. Lawrence River - Agreement objectives were exceeded for phenols, heptachlor/
heptachlor epoxide, cadmium, iron, copper, zinc, aldrin/dieldrin, and PCBs.
Sediments are contaminated with metals and PCBs. Benthic populations exhibit
reduced diversity and low numbers of taxa. Elevated fecal coliform levels are
common in the summer. Consumption of 12 fish species are restricted. Health
advisories recommend no consumption of large northern pike and walleye. The
problems are associated with Massena, New York, and Cornwall, Ontario.
3-13
-------
4. MANAGEMENT PLANS
The basic management framework of the Agreement consists of the Environmental
Quality Objectives and beneficial uses discussed in Chapter 2, the monitoring of the state
of the Lakes and pollutant inputs (see Chapter 7), and management plans to identify the
remedial actions needed to attain the desired objectives and beneficial uses. The Agreement
calls for remedial actions to occur at three geographic scales: Lakewide Management Plans
(LMPs) will address Critical Pollutants that impair beneficial uses in open waters of the
Lakes, Remedial Action Plans (RAPs) will address use impairments within designated Areas
of Concern (AOCs), and Point Source Impact Zones adjacent to discharge points will be
identified and minimized. Phosphorus Load Reduction Plans, mandated in Annex 3 in 1983,
now fall within the context of LMPs. The requirements for LMPs and RAPs can be
satisfied by implementating various provisions contained within the U.S. Clean Water Act
(CWA), as amended in 1987.
Under Section 303 of the CWA, the States have primary responsibility for undertaking
a continuous planning process for restoring and maintaining water quality. The
Administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) must periodically
review and approve these efforts. In addition to this overarching planning requirement,
numerous other programs have been established to address more specific water quality
management problems. These include: CWA Section 319-State Nonpoint Source Program
Plans; Section 305(b)-Water Quality Inventories; Section 304(l)-State Toxic Substances
Control Strategies; and State Groundwater Protection Strategies developed pursuant to the
Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments of 1986.
Under Section 319, each State is required to submit a report, that identifies navigable
waters that are not expected to meet water quality standards, without additional nonpoint
source controls. Reports required under Section 305(b) describe the overall water quality
of all navigable waters in the State. During FY 1988, the USEPA and States worked to
implement Section 304(1), which requires that the States identify waters that are not expected
to meet water quality standards after dischargers have met current technology-based
requirements. Under this Section, States were required to submit listings of nonattainment
waters to USEPA by April I, 1988. USEPA's Water Management Divisions in Regions II;
III, and V are now reviewing lists submitted by the Great Lakes States. The Act also
requires States to develop and submit strategies for reducing discharges of toxic substances
to the listed waters and bringing water quality into compliance with applicable standards.
Implementation of Section 304(1) continues to be a priority for USEPA Regional and
State water programs in FY 1989. The Great Lakes National Program Office (GLNPO) will
participate with the USEPA's regional water programs in reviewing State lists and attainment
strategies during FY 1989 to ensure that activities under Section 304(1) are consistent with
the goals of the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement (GLWQA). This effort will also be
coordinated by GLNPO with other efforts toward reducing toxic pollution in the Great
Lakes.
Section 118 of the CWA introduced new water quality management planning
responsibilities that apply specifically to the Great Lakes Basin. Section 118 charges
GLNPO with two management planning responsibilities: 1) in cooperation with appropriate
Federal, State, tribal, and international agencies, to develop and implement specific action
plans to carry out U.S. responsibilities under the GLWQA, and 2) to develop, in consultation
4-1
-------
with the States, a five-year plan and program for reducing the amount of nutrients
introduced into the Great Lakes.
USEPA is combining these planning requirements where appropriate and incorporating
them within the existing water quality management framework. Requirements for the
development of specific action plans under the CWA have been combined with those for
RAPs and LMPs under the GLWQA. The provision calling for a five-year plan for
nutrients is being met by the Phosphorus Reduction Plans. USEPA will also work to
incorporate Phosphorus Load Reduction Plans, RAPs, and LMPs in State water quality
management planning.
4.1 PRINCIPLES FOR REMEDIAL ACTION AND LAKEWIDE MANAGEMENT PLANS
Article IV(f) of the GLWQA states:
The Parties recognize that there are areas in the boundary waters of the
Great Lakes System where, due to human activity, one or more of the
General or Specific Objectives of the Agreement are not being met.
Pending virtual elimination of persistent toxic substances in the Great
Lakes System, the Parties, in cooperation with State and Provincial
Governments and the Commission, shall identify and work toward the
elimination of: (i) Areas of Concern pursuant to Annex 2; (ii) Critical
Pollutants pursuant to Annex 2; and (iii) Point Source Impact Zones
pursuant to Annex 2.
This sets the stage for the action planning provisions of the Agreement that link together
achievement of environmental quality objectives and. remedial programs.
In Annex 2 of the GLWQA, four basic principles are given to guide the development
of RAPs and LMPs. The principles state that the plans must:
• Clearly identify problems to be addressed, proposed remedial steps, and specific
monitoring requirements for tracking progress in restoring beneficial uses
• Embody a comprehensive ecosystem approach
• Build on existing management plans
• Ensure that the public is consulted.
The GLWQA emphasizes that these principles are intended to lead to the attainment
of long-term environmental quality goals, including the prohibition of all discharges of toxic
substances, particularly those that have been shown to be persistent. In the short-term, they
are intended to achieve reductions in the concentrations of toxic substances, especially in
designated "Point Source Impact Zones" (areas contiguous to a point source where water
quality does not meet GLWQA objectives) and AOCs.
4.2 LAKEWIDE MANAGEMENT PLANS .
LMPs, described in Annex 2 of the GLWQA as an approach for reducing contaminant
loadings in open lake waters, involve the same four basic principles as those for RAPs.
However, LMPs differ from RAPs in the breadth of their focus, as they address entire lakes
rather than the more localized AOCs. Given this scope, monitoring becomes more complex
4-2
-------
and airborne deposition becomes a far more important factor. In addition, the selection of
the appropriate mix of remedial actions and coordination among jurisdictions differ from
those of the RAP process.
The Water Quality Board has developed a systematic method of identifying chemicals
that should be given priority in the LMP process. This system is consistent with that
enunciated in Annex 1 of the GLWQA and in Chapter 2 of this report.
Simultaneously, GLNPO has begun working with the States and EPA Regional Offices
to define options regarding the prototype content and format of LMPs and to coordinate the
development of specific plans. In particular, GLNPO is working with the States to relate
this process to existing programs and requirements under the CWA.
LMPs will build upon the earlier experience with Phosphorus Plans and the initial
lake management efforts now under way in Lakes Ontario and Michigan, described below.
LMPs also will draw upon a number of recent and ongoing mass balance modeling studies,
including studies of the upper Great Lakes connecting channels and Green Bay. (These
studies are described in a subsequent chapter on surveillance and monitoring.)
Development of toxic control strategies for Lakes Michigan and Ontario was underway
before the LMP requirement was added to the GLWQA in 1987. Both of those efforts
contain major elements of the mandated LMPs. It is expected that they will continue to be
developed in a manner that will fulfill the LMP provisions of the GLWQA.
The first plans to address lakewide loadings of a pollutant from all sources were the
phosphorus load reduction plans called for in the 1983 Supplement to Annex 3 of the
GLWQA. The central purpose of the load reduction plans is the same as envisioned in
LMPs: "identification of the additional remedial measures that are needed to achieve the
reduction of loadings and eliminate the contribution to impairment of beneficial uses."
4.2.1 Nutrient Management Plans
The GLWQA of 1978 set forth a general framework in Annex 3 for Canada and the
United States to reduce phosphorus loadings to the Great Lakes. In 1983, a Supplement to
Annex 3 was approved, delineating phosphorus loading levels of the lakes and embayments.
The Supplement confirmed a belief that phosphorus loading objectives can be attained
through existing programs in the Upper Lakes. However, additional actions were required
to obtain target loads for Lake Erie, Saginaw Bay, and Lake Ontario. The 1987 GLWQA
modified the reductions needed for Lake Ontario based on new analysis. However, the
allocation of reduction requirements between the United States and Canada is not yet
finalized.
The Great Lakes Phosphorus Task Force (including representatives of the States of
Indiana, Michigan, New York, Ohio, and Pennsylvania) allocated Lake Erie target load
reductions among each responsible State. In addition, Michigan and New York were
assigned a target load reduction for Saginaw Bay and Lake Ontario, respectively. Federal
agencies participating on the Task Force were the Soil Conservation Service and the
Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service of the U.S. Department of Agriculture
(USDA); the Cooperative Extension Service in New York, Michigan, and Ohio; and the
USEPA (Regions II, III, V and GLNPO).
The allocation of target load reductions among these States reflects the potential for
reducing nonpoint source pollution primarily from agriculture, while maintaining current
4-3
-------
1 mg/1 effluent limitations for municipal wastewater treatment plants discharging 1 MOD
or greater. The nonpoint source pollution abatement components were based upon obtaining
new funds to support an accelerated effort to meet-the 1990 goal for phosphorus load
reduction.
Interagency task forces in each of the Great Lakes States developed individual State
Plans to achieve full compliance with point source discharge limits and reduction of
agricultural phosphorus loads through conservation tillage and better nutrient management.
Based on these Plans, the Great Lakes. Phosphorus Task Force then prepared load reductions
plans for Saginaw Bay and Lakes Erie and Ontario in 1986. Each Plan outlines the State
and Federal efforts and activities that are necessary to ensure that the State meets its target
load reduction. The State Plans assumed a base level program support from the Soil
Conservation Service and Associated USDA agencies to implement the agricultural nonpoint
source components and funding for an accelerated effort. The last State Plan was completed
in September 1986.
Table 4-1 outlines the projected 1990 phosphorus load reduction versus the actual
1988 reductions, by waterbody. The data indicate that the actual phosphorus load
reductions to Lake Erie, Lake Ontario, and Saginaw Bay were less than those that had been
projected. The targeted phosphorus load reduction associated with implementation of
agricultural management programs will require greater attention if the 1990 reduction goals
are to be met. All the States except Indiana identified the need for increased funding to
accelerate agricultural nonpoint source controls to achieve their 1990 goals. However, no
new funding targeted to the implementation of the Phosphorus Load Reduction Plans, has
been forthcoming at the Federal or State level.
Phosphorus load reductions to Saginaw Bay and Lakes Erie and Ontario as of 1988
were 207.8, 330.2, and 105.5 metric tons, respectively. These are significant reductions,
given that they have been achieved with existing programs and competing priorities.
4.2.2 Lake Ontario Toxics Management Plan
In February 1987, USEPA, the New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation, Environment Canada, and the Ontario Ministry of the Environment signed a
declaration of intent to prepare a Toxics Management Plan for Lake Ontario. The
development of this draft plan is a significant step in taking remedial measures for open
lake waters. Lessons learned from developing and implementing this plan will be important
to the preparation of a prototype LMP. The Lake Ontario Plan is to be completed in
February 1989. The draft plan cites bioaccumulation of toxic chemicals in fish to levels
that make fish unsafe for human consumption as the most serious known problem in the
Lake.
4-4
-------
Table 4-1. Summary of the U.S. 1990 Phosphorus Load Reduction Goals for Lake Erie,
Lake Ontario, and Saginaw Bay, as compared to 1988 Reduction in Phosphorus
Loads
Lake Erie:
1990 Goal 1700
1988 Reductions 330
Reduction Needed to Meet 1990 Goal 1370
Lake Ontario:
1990 Goal 235
1988 Reductions 106
Reduction Needed to Meet 1990 Goal 129
Saeinaw Bav:
1990 Goah- 225
1988 Reductions 208
Reduction Needed to Meet 1990 Goal 17
The goal of the Lake Ontario Toxics Management Plan (LOTMP) is a Lake that
provides drinking water and fish that are safe for unlimited human consumption, and allows
natural reproduction within the ecosystem of the most sensitive native species, such as bald
eagles, osprey, mink, and otters. To achieve this broad goal, the LOTMP envisions a
sequence of four stages of remedial measures:
• Reductions in toxic inputs driven by existing and developing programs
• Further reductions in toxic inputs driven by special efforts in geographic AOCs
• Further reductions in toxic inputs driven by lakewide analyses of pollutant fate
• Zero discharge.
The draft plan calls for three principal actions:
• Full implementation of current programs, such as the State Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System program in New York State and the Municipal Industrial
Strategy for Abatement program in Ontario.
• The development and implementation of RAPs to address the problems in eight
geographic AOCs, such as the Niagara River and Hamilton Harbor.
• The development and implementation of chemical-specific management plans to
reduce the levels of problem toxics (e.g., polychlorinated biphenyls, mercury,
mirex, chlordane, dioxin, DDT, dieldrin, and hexachlorobenzene) below protective
4-5
-------
ambient standards. As a check on the effectiveness of chemical-specific
management plans, ecosystem objectives and indicators will be developed and
monitored.
Concurrent with the preparation of a final plan, the four Agencies began a number
of significant activities in FY 1988, including:
• A system for categorizing toxics as a first step in implementing a chemical-by-
chemical approach to toxics in Lake Ontario and for the Niagara River;
• A joint Lake Ontario Standards and Criteria Committee to ensure that a consistent
set of adequately protective, legally enforceable standards are available;
• Development of mathematical models for relating toxic inputs to Lake Ontario and
Niagara River responses, and to assist in the identification of source-specific
problems; and
• Development of ecosystem objectives for Lake Ontario as a check on the
effectiveness of the chemical-by-chemical approach to toxic control and as a first
step toward the establishment of an ecosystem-based approach.
4.2.3 Lake Michigan Toxic Pollutant Control/Reduction Strategy
In 1986, USEPA and the States of Illinois, Indiana, and Michigan prepared a Lake
Michigan Toxic Pollutant Control/Reduction Strategy. The objective of the strategy is to
restore multiple human uses of Lake Michigan and to protect human health and the Lake
Michigan ecosystem by achieving a significant reduction in the loading rates of toxic
pollutants. The strategy includes specific commitments for each State and EPA that have
been incorporated into the annual State program plans negotiated with the USEPA Region V
Water Division. The strategy anticipates using a whole-lake mass balance approach to
modeling toxic pollutants and evaluating potential regulatory controls. The Green Bay Mass
Balance Study is identified by the strategy as a key milestone in the development of a LMP
for Lake Michigan.
4.3 REMEDIAL ACTION PLANS
RAPs are the result of a process that began in 1981, when the Great Lakes Water
Quality Board identified a number of geographic areas within the Great Lakes Basin that
had severe water quality problems and named them AOCs. These areas were seriously out
of compliance with Agreement objectives or jurisdictional standards, criteria, or guidelines
established to protect beneficial uses. The present 42 AOCs include lake areas adjacent to
most of the major metropolitan and industrial centers within the Basin. Of the total number
of AOCs, 41 suffer from toxic substances contamination. Most of these have problems
related to contaminated bottom sediments.
RAPs are to include eight major components defined in Annex 2.4(a):
(i) A definition and detailed description of the environmental problem in the
Area of Concern, including a definition of the beneficial uses that are
impaired, the degree of impairment, and the geographic extent of such
impairment
4-6
-------
(ii) A definition of the causes of the use impairment, including a description of
all known sources of pollutants involved and an evaluation of other possible
sources
(iii) An evaluation of remedial measures in place
(iv) An evaluation of alternative additional measures to restore beneficial uses
(v) A selection of additional remedial measures to restore beneficial uses and a
schedule for their implementation
(vi) An identification of the persons or agencies responsible for implementation
of remedial measures
(vii) A process for evaluating remedial measure implementation and effectiveness
(viii) A -description of surveillance and monitoring processes to track the
effectiveness of remedial measures and the eventual confirmation of the
restoration of uses.
Annex 2 also identifies three stages in the RAP development process at which the
RAP should be submitted to the International Joint Commission (IJC):
• When a definition of the problem has been completed under subparagraphs (i) and
(ii) (listed above);
• When remedial and regulatory measures are selected under subparagraphs (iii), (iv),
(v), and (vi); and
• When monitoring indicates that identified beneficial uses have been restored under
subparagraphs (vii) and (viii).
The call for review of the RAPs at the problem definition stage is based on early
efforts to develop RAPs. Obtaining concensus among the concerned units of government,
interest groups, and the public on the definition of the AOC problems was more difficult
than expected and resulted in major reworking of some RAPs that were thought to be near
completion. The two major contributing factors were the late entry of some participants
in the RAP process and the difficulty in focusing on use impairments, rather than on
pollution control.
In the United States, the States have assumed the primary responsibility for preparing
RAPs. USEPA has provided technical assistance and guidance to the States to facilitate
RAP preparation. In addition, USEPA has requested that the States submit their completed
RAPs to USEPA as updates to their Statewide Water Quality Management Plans. The Water
Management Divisions of USEPA Regions II and V have integrated the RAP preparation
and review process into the continuing planning process required under the CWA. GLNPO
is responsible for reporting progress in RAP development to the IJC.
Each of the Great Lakes States, except Illinois and Pennsylvania, have undertaken a
program to complete RAPs for their AOCs. The State of Illinois has one AOC, Waukegan
Harbor, Illinois. This site is also a Superfund site and will be cleaned up based upon a
USEPA and Outboard Marine Corporation consent decree. There are currently no AOCs
in the State of Pennsylvania. Table 4-2 lists the status of each AOC by State. At the end
4-7
-------
of FY 1988, the Water Quality Board had received and reviewed seven U.S. RAPs. Seven
more U.S. RAPs are scheduled for completion in FY 1989 and four in FY 1990.
Throughout the RAP development process, public involvement has played an
important role. Both the Water Quality Board and the Science Advisory Board encouraged
the jurisdictions to involve the public from the outset in the preparation of the RAPs. In
addition, the Water Quality Board sponsored a number of workshops on RAP preparation.
Citizen involvement is viewed as particularly important because strong local support will be
critical to control nonpoint sources and to raise the funds necessary to support the needed
remedial actions. A strong base of public support is especially important for remedial
actions involving contaminated sediment cleanup, since there are no established government
programs specifically dedicated to these types of activities. However, some Federal support
may be available through GLNPO's demonstration project program, Superfund, or Federal
maintenance dredging programs.
4.4 POINT SOURCE IMPACT ZONES
While not a formal part of LMPs or RAPs, the commitment to identify Point Source
Impact Zones and reduce their size and effect is an important aspect of attaining the
objectives of the GLWQA. The first report on Point Source Impact Zones is due September
30, 1989. USEPA is currently working with the Great Lakes States to establish consistent
definitions and methods of reporting.
4.5 FEDERAL/STATE INTERACTIONS
The successful completion and implementation of management plans in the Great
Lakes Basin will require a close working relationship between the Federal Government and
the States. The States have primary responsibility for water quality management,
implementing most of the environmental measures called for by environmental plans.
The States also have the lead in preparing the U.S. RAPs. USEPA has provided
support in the form of contractor assistance and grants to the States for RAP development.
In addition, USEPA has requested that the RAPs npt only be submitted to the Water Quality
Board for review, but also to USEPA under provisions of the CWA. This allows integration
of the RAPs into the Federal management structure.
While the GLWQA assigns responsibility for completing LMPs to the Federal
Government, it is essential that the plans be developed in partnership with the States. The
USEPA is already involving each of the States in defining the process and schedule of the
development of these management plans. As with the RAPs, USEPA expects that the
completion of the LMPs will integrate the tools and requirements of existing Federal and
State laws and regulations. In the case of both the Lake Michigan Toxics Strategy and the
Lake Ontario Management Plans, the efforts are Federal/State combined programs.
The Great Lakes States also have worked jointly toward achieving the goals of the
GLWQA. In June 1986, the Governors of the eight Great Lakes States signed "The Great
Lakes Toxic Substances Control Agreement." This Agreement pledges the States to treat the
Lakes as a single ecosystem despite political boundaries, acknowledges that toxic pollutants
are the foremost problem to be addressed, and lays out goals for the States.
4-8
-------
Table 4-2. Status of U.S. Remedial Action Plans
Projected Date to
Areas of Concern Submit Completed RAPs
by State for IJC Review
Illinois
Waukegan Harbor Deferred
Indiana
Grand Calumet/ • 1989
Indiana Harbor
Michigan
Torch Lake 1987
Deer Lake/Carp River 1987
Manistique River 1987
Kalamazoo River Pending Civil Litigation
Muskegon Lake 1987
White Lake 1987
Saginaw River/ 1988
Saginaw Bay
Clinton River 1988
Rouge River 1988
River Raisin 1987
Michigan/Ontario
St. Mary's River 1989
St. Clair River 1989
Detroit River 1989
Minnesota/Wisconsin
St. Louis River 1990
New York
Buffalo River 1989
Eighteenmile Creek 1990
Rochester Embayment 1990
Oswego River 1989
New York/Ontario
St. Lawrence River 1990
Niagara River 1991
4-9
-------
Table 4-2. Status of U.S. Remedial Action Plans
(continued)
Projected Date to
Areas of Concern Submit Completed RAPs
by State for IJC Review
)hic
Maumee River 1989
Black River 1990
Cuyahoga River 1991
Ashtabula River 1989
Wisconsin/Michigan
Menominee River 1989-
Wisconsin
Fox River/ - 1987
Southern Green Bay
Sheboygan Harbor 1989
Milwaukee Estuary 1990
More recently, the Governors agreed to establish a permanent fund for Great
Lakes studies. Many of the activities under both of these State agreements will lead
directly and indirectly to the completion of and implementation of management plans,
and ultimately to the attainment of the Agreement objectives. Considerable progress has
already been made toward this goal by USEPA Headquarters and regional regulatory and
remedial programs by the States.
While the provisions of the CWA and the GLWQA that pertain to the development
of management plans are not literally identical, they are conceptually consistent. The
USEPA will meet the "Action Plans" requirement of Section 118 of the CWA
Amendments by working with the States, other Federal agencies, tribal organizations, and
Canada to complete RAPs and LMPs. In addition, the requirements of the CWA
Amendments to complete individual toxic control strategies and nonpoint source
management plans are intended as direct support for the development of RAPs and
LMPs.
4-10
-------
5. REMEDIAL PROGRAMS
Remedial programs to control pollution have been under way within the Great Lakes
Basin for many years. These include regulatory programs such as discharge permits, and
non-regulatory programs such as construction grants or information/education programs.
Although existing programs have been "successful, many water quality problems remain,
including critical pollutants that result in fish consumption advisories and reproductive
disorders in biota, and localized use impairments occuring in Areas of Concern (AOCs).
Many of these problems are caused by persistent toxic substances, some of which continue
to enter the Great Lakes System. A major source of persistent toxics, however, is the
recycling from historic unregulated discharges that are stored in contaminated sediment
deposits. To resolve these critical outstanding problems, current programs must be
coordinated more effectively and new programs may have to be initiated.
Within the prescribed management planning framework, the Great Lakes Water Quality
Agreement (GLWQA) identifies a number of specific pollutant sources that require control,
abatement, and remedial efforts in the United States and Canada:
Point source discharges of pollutants to surface water
Nonpoint discharges to surface water
Contaminated sediment
Atmospheric deposition of pollutants to surface water
Groundwater discharges of contaminants to surface water
Discharges from vessels and related shoreline facilities.
. Progress in each of these areas, including remedial action programs to address them,
are discussed in this Chapter.
5.1 OVERVIEW OF REMEDIAL PROGRAMS
A wide variety of approaches exist for • improving water quality. Government
regulatory programs are a primary mechanism for controlling pollution discharges.
Nonregulatory Government programs, which encourage or enable communities and
individuals to reduce pollutant loads, are also important. The private sector can
independently contribute to water quality improvements by changing production processes
to improve the quality or reduce the volume of discharges entering the Great Lakes.
Government approaches for remedial action include regulatory and incentive/grant
programs, such as those provided under the Clean Water Act (CWA), the Clean Air Act
(CAA), and the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) (Table 5-1). Cleanup
of hazardous waste is accomplished under authority of the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) or Superfund, and RCRA.
Immediate concerns for human health hazards are addressed by U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (USEPA) programs (i.e., under the Toxic Substances Control Act and the
Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act) and programs administered by the U.S.
Food and Drug Administration and State health departments. Other programs administered
by USEPA and other Federal agencies provide grants for research and public information
and education related to Great Lakes issues.
5-1
-------
Table 5-1. Major Federal Programs Contributing to Great Lakes Water Quality Improvement
Programs
Statutory Authority/
Implementing Measure
Explanation
REGULATORY PROGRAMS
Clean Water Act (CWA)
National Pollutant
Discharge and Elimination
System (NPDES) Permit
Program
NPDES Pretreatment
Program
Dredge and Fill Permit
Program
Section 401 of the CWA
(33 USC 1341)
Section 10 of the Rivers
and Harbors Act of 1988
Federal Water Pollution Control
Act of 1972 as amended
Section 402 of the CWA
(33 USC 1342); NPDES Permit
Regulations (40 CFR 125;
40 CFR 122)
Section 402 of the CWA (33 USC
1342; General Pretreatment
Regulations (40 CFR 403)
Section 404 of the CWA
(51 FR 219, at 41220 et
seq) (November 13, 1986;
33 CFR 320 et seq)
Agreements made on a
State-by-State basis
Section 10 Permit Regulations
for Structures or Work
Affecting Navigable Waters
(51 FR 41220; 33 USC 322)
Water quality criteria and EPA
regulations for issuing permits
for the discharge of "any
pollutant or combination of pollutants"
into waters of the U.S.; discharges
regulated under Section 404 are
excepted. All eight Great Lakes States
have received NPDES approval
authority.
Four of the Great Lakes States
have received pretreatment
program delegation and three others
have been active in the pretreatment
program implementation, although they
have not assumed the program.
The Secretary of the Army,
acting through the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, issues
discharge of dredged or fill permits for
the material into the waters of the
United States.
Section 404 permit applicants
must obtain State certification that
proposed discharges would comply with
water quality standards. Some States
generally waive exercise of this
authority.
The Corps issues Section 10
permits for dredge or fill
activities and building of
structures (e.g., piers or docks) to
ensure that these actions do not
adversely affect navigability.
5-2
-------
Table 5-1. Major Federal Programs Contributing to Great Lakes Water Quality Improvement
(continued)
Programs
Statutory Authority/
Implementing Measure
Explanation
Manufacture and Sale of
Substances '
Pesticide Control
Resource Conservation and
Act (RCRA)
Environmental Impact
Statement Requirements
Fish and Wildlife
Coordination Act
(16 USC 661 et seq)
Toxic Substance Control
Act (TSCA)
Federal Insecticide, Fungicide,
and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA)
Standards for Owners and
Operators of Hazardous Waste
Disposal Facilities
(40 CFR 264 et seq)
National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA)
Administrative agreements
between agencies
Section 307 of the Coastal Regulations on Federal
Zone Management (CZM) Act Consistency with Approved
(16 USC 1456) Coastal Management Programs
(15 CFR 930.1 et seq)
Enpowers EPA to regulate Toxic
chemical substances and mixtures that
present an unreasonable risk to human
health or the environment.
FIFRA governs the licensing or
registration of pesticide products.
RCRA authorizes USEPA to Recovery
regulate the transportation, as amended
treatment, disposal, and storage
of solid and hazardous wastes.
NEPA directs all Federal
agencies to determine the potential
environmental impacts of their
proposed activities and to consider
those impacts in the decision-making
process.
Federal permit actions related
to water projects are subject to
requirements of the Coordination Act.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(USFWS) and National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS) ensure that "equal
consideration" be given to fish and
wildlife.
Requires applicants for Federal
license or permits to conduct an
activity in the coastal zone of a
State with an approved CZM plan and
to obtain State certification of
consistency with the plan.
5-3
-------
Table 5-1. Major Federal Programs Contributing to Great Lakes Water Quality Improvement
(continued)
Programs
Statutory Authority/
Implementing Measure
Explanation
NONREGULATORY PROGRAMS
Executive Order 11990 on
the Protection of Wetlands
(45 FR 26961 (1977))
Executive Order 11988 on
Floodplain Management
(45 FR 26951 (1977))
Endangered Species Act
(16 USC 1531 et seq)
Incorporated within organiza-
tional policies and procedures
on an agency-by-agency basis
Incorporated within organiza-
tional policies and procedures
on an agency-by-agency basis
Endangered Species Committee
Regulations (50 CFR 402 et seq)
Construction Grants Program Clean Water Act (Section 201)
Superfund Program
EPA Nonpoint Source
Program
As amended by the Superfund
Amendments and Reauthorization
Act Of 1987 (SARA)
CWA Section 319
Strong directive to Federal
agencies, including Federal and
licensing agencies, to minimize the
destruction, loss, or degradation of
wetlands and to preserve and enhance
their beneficial wetlands.
Strong directive to Federal
agencies, including Federal and
licensing agencies, to reduce flood risks
and preserve the natural and beneficial
values of floodplains.
The USFWS and the NMFS
issues joint guidelines on review
procedures for ensuring that Federal
actions (including permitting) would
not jeopardize listed species.
Section 201 provides funding for the
development and implementation of
waste treatment management plans and
practices, including construction of
wastewater treatment facilities.
CERCLA authorizes the Federal
Government to develop a
system for identifying and
cleaning up chemical and hazardous
substance releases harmful to public
health and the environment.
States are required to develop an
assessment of nonpoint source impact
on surface waters. To qualify for
funding, States must develop
management programs to correct NFS
impacts identified in their assessment
reports.
5-4
-------
Table 5-1. Major Federal Programs Contributing to Great Lakes Water Quality Improvement
(continued)
Programs
Statutory Authority/
Implementing Measure
Explanation
Food Security Act
Food Security Act (FSA) of 1985
Small watersheds projects Public Law 83-566 (PL-5-66)
Agricultural Conservation
Program (ACP)
Section 17 of the Domestic
Soil Conservation and
Allotment Act (PL 74-461)
Environment Impact
Statements (EISs)
National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969
FSA requirements include development
and implementation of erosion control
plans on highly credible agricultural
lands as a means for maintaining
eligibility for USDA programs. Within
FSA, the Conservation Reserve
Program (CRP) provides for temporary
retirement from production of some of
the most highly credible of these lands.
SCS provides technical and financial
assistance to landowners on a
watershed basis to correct resource
problems.
Through the ACP, USDA's
Agricultural Stabilization and
Conservation Service provides direct
financial assistance to landowners in
the application of conservation
practices and other Best Management
Practices for water quality
improvement arid erosion control. The
Soil Conservation Service provides
technical assistance. •
NEPA's most far-reaching provision
requires every Federal agency to
prepare an Environmental Impact
Statement (ElS).for each proposed
major Federal action significantly
affecting the quality of the human
environment, including major Federal
dredging projects. Title II of NEPA
created the Council on Environmental
Quality, which oversees environmental
improvement programs.
5-5
-------
As a result of the GLWQA's new focus on ecosystem management, USEPA and the
States are working to integrate the full range of regulatory and nonregulatory mechanisms
to improve environmental quality.
5.2 REGULATORY PROGRAMS
Particular efforts have been made to coordinate the many programs administered by
the USEPA that contribute, directly and indirectly, to achieving GLWQA objectives
(Figures 5-1 and 5-2). For the purposes of this discussion, the contributions of each
program are determined by the terms of authorizing statutes (i.e., whether the s-taluce grants
authority for regulation and establishes compliance enforcement powers or provides for
another form of environmental management) and by the maturity of the program (i.e., its
stage of development or implementation).
Some Government programs are well established in the Great Lakes Basin and have
long contributed to water quality improvement. For example, National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permits have been issued to direct dischargers in all eight
Great Lakes States for more than a decade, resulting in the reduction of discharges of
conventional and toxic pollutants.
In contrast, other Government programs are only in formative stages and have yet to
result in tangible environmental improvements. For example, programs addressing
contaminated sediment problems are currently focused on research and development to
discover the extent and significance of the problem, and on technology development and
demonstration for purposes of identifying feasible technological alternatives and institutional
mechanisms (i.e., criteria for cleanup) for program implementation. Programs for
groundwater protection, such as the RCRA land disposal restrictions program, are in initial
implementation phases, but are also active in technology development and demonstration.
Therefore, achievements regarding point source discharges are measurable in terms of
environmental results, and achievements for other programs are better characterized in terms
of progress toward implementation.
5.2.1 Point Sources
Preliminary mass balance studies on selected Great Lakes systems suggest that point
sources of pollutants contribute varying proportions of the total, depending upon the
pollutant and the lake. As control of point sources improves, they account for a decreasing
proportion of total loadings. Past point sources are the original cause of many current
problems of sediment contamination and atmospheric deposition of pollutants, even though
current sources have been controlled. Point sources are regulated by a variety of
mechanisms identified in the following discussions.
5-6
-------
USEPA'S
Statutory
Programs
Point Source
Discharges
Clean Water Act
Permits for
Direct & Indirect
Discharges
Clean Air Act
Ul
I
RCRA
CERCLA
TSCA
RFRA
GREAT LAKE CONCERNS
Nonpolnt
Discharges
Programs to
Control Nonpoint
Pollution
Controls and
Clean-Up for
Releases of
Hazardous Waste
Remediation for
Spills and
Abandoned Dump
Sites
Controls Use and
Manufacture of
Toxic Materials
Controls for
Nonpoint
Discharges of
Pesticides
Contaminated
Sediments
Atmospheric
Deposition
Ground-Water
Discharges
Criteria/Programs
for Management of
Contaminated
Sediments
Controls for Air
Emissions
Some Contamin-
ated Sediments
Are Regulated
When Disposed
Controls and
Clean-Up for
Discharges to
Ground Water
Remediation for
Contaminated
Sediments
Remediation for
Contaminated
Ground Water
Figure 5-1. Direct Linkages Between USEPA's Statutory Programs and Great Lakes Concerns
-------
GREAT LAKE CONCERNS
VJ1
CD
USEPA'S
Statutory
Programs
Contaminated
Sediments
Point Source
Discharge*
Atmospheric
Deposition
Ground-Water
Discharges
Persistent Toxic I
Substances
S'rWWw' "^^^Ji ^^**^"*^
Figure 5-2. Indirect Linkages Between USEPA's Statutory Programs and Great Lakes Concerns
-------
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
Direct discharges of pollutants to the Great Lakes System are regulated by permits
issued as part of the NPDES, established under the CWA. (The NPDES program is under
the jurisdiction of the USEPA, although permitting activities are administered by the eight
Great Lakes States, in accordance with CWA provisions for State delegation by the USEPA.)
Within the United States, discharges to the Great Lakes Basin are regulated by 3,675 NPDES
permits: 2,531 apply to industrial facilities and 1,144 to municipal facilities. Of the total
number of major industrial and municipal facilities permitted in New York State, 70 percent
of the industrial facilities and 50 percent of the municipal facilities are located in the Great
Lakes portion of the state.
The total number of permits in the basin has remained fairly stable over the past
decade, with some changes in localized distribution. However, permit provisions have
become more restrictive over this period, especially with regard to concentrations of
phosphorus, heavy me'tals, and certain toxic constituents. A new trend may be developing
toward further restriction of discharges of toxic substances, based upon the principle of
disallowing any further degradation of ambient water quality.
Regulatory requirements and Government support have collectively resulted in a
significant reduction of point source discharges of phosphorus to the Great Lakes. In 1985,
79 percent of all sewered municipal discharges was subject to additional treatment for
phosphorus removal. State bans on the use of detergent products containing phosphates have
also aided progress by reducing phosphorus concentrations in raw municipal waste water.
As a consequence, at least 163 of 187 major municipal sewage treatment facilities in the
Basin now comply with the 1 milligram per liter effluent limit for phosphorus set by the
GLWQA. Overall, phosphorus discharges from point sources in the Great Lakes Basin have
declined about 80 percent since 1972.
Pretreatment
Another provision of the CWA calls for the establishment of approved Pretreatment
Programs for publicly-owned treatment works (POTWs). In the Great Lakes States, a total
of 476 POTWs are subject .to these pretreatment requirements. (Of this total, 222 POTWs
have effluent flows greater than 5 million gallons per day.) The program approval rate
within the Great Lakes States has been better than the national average. There are 33
approved pretreatment control authorities in New York State counties containing areas that
drain into the Great Lakes area. A total of 466 facilities, or 97.9 percent of those POTWs
subject to the new requirements, received program approval by September 30, 1988.
Efforts are currently under way to delegate administration of the CWA Pretreatment
Program to the States. As of September 30, 1988, four Great Lakes States have received
approval for State Administration; three other States have been active in Pretreatment
Program implementation, although program administration has not yet been officially
delegated. (Nationwide, 25 of the 39 NPDES States and territories had received delegation
of the Pretreatment Program.)
National Municipal Policy
The CWA required that by July 1, 1987, POTWs meet NPDES permit effluent limits
based on secondary treatment or any more stringent limit necessary to meet water quality
standards. Because of historic problems with municipal compliance, the Agency developed
5-9
-------
the National Municipal Policy (NMP) in January 1984, placing renewed emphasis on
improving municipal compliance rates in order to protect the Nation's water quality. NMP
established enforcement priorities for facilities that did not meet the July 1, 1987 deadline.
As of July 27, 1988, 87 percent of Region V's major POTWs had met the
requirements of the NMP. Ninety percent of the Region's minor facilities are also in
compliance, compared to 77 percent before NMP. As a result, 95 percent of the total
sewage processed in the United States receives at least secondary treatment. Voluntary
compliance and Federal and State enforcement are responsible for achieving the compliance
record. Of the 13 percent of POTWs that did not achieve compliance, most are on
enforceable timetables leading to compliance or litigation. USEPA Region V or the States
have court actions pending against 62 large cities that have failed to meet the NMP, and
have placed 29 city plants on court-ordered compliance schedules. Figure 5-3 provides a
summary of progress in meeting the NMP goals.
In addition to the NMP, there has been an increase in State and USEPA enforcement
actions in 1988. Figure 5-4 shows State and Federal enforcement actions taken against
Great Lakes Basin dischargers in Region V. In FY 1988, Federal and State enforcement
actions were at an all-time high. As of September 30, 1988, over 585 Administrative Orders
were issued in the Great Lakes Basin by the USEPA and the States. Over 232 State and
Federal judicial actions (civil referrals) were initiated in 1988, more than in any previous
year. Many of these actions were taken against POTWs under the NMP, while many others
were initiated for violators of NPDES permit limitations. This enforcement has a direct link
to improving effluent quality, as fines collected as part of enforcement actions provide a
strong deterrent to noncompliance for other permittees.
Under the wastewater compliance programs, State and USEPA inspected 92 percent
of the major dischargers in Region V in FY 1988. Nearly 900 inspections of major NPDES
permitted facilities were conducted in the Great Lakes Basin between USEPA Regions II,
III, and V. Through these inspections, the State and USEPA evaluate compliance with
permit conditions and check to ensure that the self-reported data generated by the permittee
are accurate and complete.
USEPA Region V will focus on four areas to maintain and improve on water quality
gains:
• Implementation of compliance maintenance programs with the States;
• Correction of combined sewer overflow (CSO) problems;
• Transition of construction grant programs from the Federal Government to the
States; and
• Control of toxic chemicals from municipal discharges.
5-10
-------
Figure 5-3. Progress in Meeting NMP Goal
Administrative Order
Civil Referral
Consent Decree
State FY86 EPAFY86 State FY87 EPA FY87 State FY88 EPA FY88
Figure 5-4. Enforcement Action Trends—Region V
Great Lakes Major Permitees
5-11
-------
Combined Sewer Overflows
Future efforts to reduce discharges will be expanded to include programs to control
combined sewer overflow and, where necessary, develop and issue permits for nonpoint
source discharges. USEPA is leading efforts "to develop a national permitting strategy for
the control of CSOs. It is estimated that between 15,000 and 20,000 CSOs are in operation
nationwide. USEPA Region V has developed a Strategy to complement control programs
for sanitary sewers and separate storm sewers by fashioning CSO permits on technology- and
water quality-based standards. The Strategy will result in more effective community
management of combined sewer systems through planned operation and maintenance
procedures, and construction, if needed to attain designated uses and meet water quality
standards.
Storm Water
The USEPA regards storm water as a point source to the extent that it is discharged
by way of industrial and municipal storm drains. Under the 1987 Amendments to the CWA,
industries discharging storm water must apply for a permit and must equip storm drains
with the best available technology or the best conventional pollution control technology
available. Similarly, municipalities serving more than 250,000 people must decrease
discharges from storm drains to the maximum extent possible. Regulation on issuing
stormwater permits as required by these provisions is expected in 1989. Meanwhile, in FY
1988, a prototype permit for stormwater discharges was developed for the Rouge River that
will serve as a model for similar efforts elsewhere in the Great Lakes Basin.
Point source loadings of virtually all toxic substances have also declined in recent
years. For the most persistent pollutants of concern (i.e., the organochlorine pesticides and
polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs)) in the Great Lakes system, the reduction in their point
source loadings can be attributed in part to bans or restrictions on their use and disposal
under national pesticide and toxic substances control statutes. For other toxic substances,
particularly the heavy metals, permits re-issued over the last five years increasingly contain
both technology-based and water quality-based effluent limitations.
Vigorous enforcement of point source effluent limitations, combined with the adoption
of ever more stringent water quality standards in successive 3-year revision cycles, should
result in further significant load reductions from point sources over the next decade.
5.2.2 Nonooint Sources
Progress has been made toward controlling or reducing concentrations of conventional
pollutants that flow to the Great Lakes from nonpoint sources. However, nonpoint source
programs are still in the beginning stages for both nutrients and toxics. Nonpoint sources
of toxic pollutants, particularly pesticides, have long been a concern. The emerging
nonpoint source programs will provide some reduction in quantities that enter the lakes, but
extensive surveillance work is required to characterize the nature arid extent of toxic
pollutants reaching the Lakes from nonpoint sources before it can be determined whether
special programs are needed for toxics as they are for phosphorus.
Recent U.S. efforts to control nonpoint sources of pollution have arisen because of
statutory requirements specified in Section 319 of Amendments to the Clean Water Act.
Each State was required to develop a Nonpoint Source Assessment and a Nonpoint Source
Management Program by August 4, 1988. The assessments are designed to determine those
waters of each State that are adversely affected by nonpoint source inputs, identify the
5-12
-------
categories of nonpoint sources that contribute to water quality degradation, and describe
existing programs designed to control each significant category of nonpoint source pollution.
The majority of the Great Lakes States have prepared draft assessments and management
programs. These documents are now being reviewed by USEPA.
In the Great Lakes, nonpoint source programs for controlling phosphorus are of
particular concern in Lake Erie, Lake Ontario, and Saginaw Bay. Nonpoint source control
of phosphorus has emphasized the management of crop residues to prevent nutrient loss by
soil erosion, proper management of livestock wastes, and proper management of fertilizers.
Past cooperative efforts between the USEPA, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA),
and the States have involved demonstration programs, public outreach efforts, and other
projects intended to promote the use of proper tillage and animal waste and fertilizer
management techniques by farmers throughout the Great Lakes Basin. USDA programs,
particularly those under the Food Security Act, provide important assistance in reducing
agricultural nonpoint sources. Of particular benefit are programs that encourage improved
management of crop residues and the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP), which takes
highly erodable land out of production.
In FY 1988, the Great Lakes Phosphorus Task Force evaluated progress in reducing
phosphorus loadings from nonpoint sources. Substantial progress has been made by New
York in reducing nonpoint source phosphorus loads to Lake Ontario, with over half of the
targeted load reduction already met. Similarly, Michigan has attained 36 percent of its load
reduction goal for Saginaw Bay. In Lake Erie, a 25-percent reduction has been achieved,
although New York, Ohio, and Pennsylvania have achieved considerably lower load
reductions than necessary to meet the reduction schedule. Ohio must still achieve a greater
load reduction than all other States combined.
Under an Interagency Agreement with the U.S. Soil Conservation Service, the USEPA
recently funded a project to track conservation tillage practices using remote sensing
techniques in 58 counties in Indiana, Michigan, and Ohio. The study will continue in
FY 1989 and will provide an improved estimate of phosphorus load reductions achieved as
a result of continuing use of conservation tillage. Also in FY 1988, USEPA initiated a
special study to evaluate conservation tillage practices in Ohio, an area where nonpoint
phosphorus discharges are particularly high. Based on the results of these studies, the Great
Lakes National Program Office (GLNPO) and the States will determine whether present
programs are capable of providing the level of reduction required to meet the goals of the
GLWQA. If further reductions are necessary, recommendations for additional measures will
be developed.
In FY 1988, GLNPO funded a workshop on developing watershed management plans
for State agencies in the Great Lakes Basin. This workshop was the first step toward
fulfilling the requirements of the GLWQA to place necessary controls on toxic pollution
from nonpoint sources. In FY 1989, USEPA will continue to characterize the extent of
nonpoint sources of toxic pollution and identify toxic pollutant demonstration projects
similar to those conducted to assist with programs for conventional pollutants.
Because nonpoint sources of pollution are often reduced as they flow through wetland
areas, wetland protection is an important component of watershed management planning.
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USCOE), in cooperation with the USEPA, administers
a permit program under Section 404 of the CWA to regulate the discharge of dredged or fill
material in waters of the United States, including wetlands. In FY 1988, over 680 standard
permits were issued in the Great Lakes States (USCOE Northcentral Division), a decline of
19.5 percent from 1987.
5-13
-------
Other efforts to protect wetlands include the advanced identification (ADID) of
significant wetlands. The process of advanced identification identifies wetland areas
unsuitable for filling. In Region V, four ADID studies have been completed involving over
2,500 acres of wetlands. The study areas include the Grand Calumet River/Indiana Harbor
Canal, Indiana; Lake County, Illinois; Green Bay, Wisconsin; and Lake Calumet, Illinois.
5.2.3 Contaminated Sediment
Contaminated sediment is believed to be an important contributor of toxic pollutants
to the waters of the Great Lakes. As noted in Chapter 3, all of the U.S. AOCs are known
to have contaminated sediment problems. RAPs are in various stages of preparation for
these areas (see Chapter 4 for details). No remedial actions (e.g., excavation or containment
of contaminated sediment) have been undertaken yet.
During FY 1988, GLNPO began implementing its contaminated sediment study,
entitled the Assessment and Remediation of Contaminated Sediments, laying the foundation
for demonstration projects for remedial actions. Accomplishments are discussed in Chapter
6, on Demonstration Programs.
The Buffalo, Chicago, and Detroit District offices of the USCOE have responsibility
for maintaining adequate depths for navigation on the Great Lakes at selected harbors and
river channels, as determined by Congress. In order to achieve this goal, dredging of many
of these navigation channels is required. Because much of the sediment that is dredged
from the harbors and lake bottom is considered to be polluted, confined disposal facilities
have been built around the Lakes to contain this material. The result of this process is
beneficial to Great Lakes water quality, because the contaminated sediment is removed from
the aquatic system rather than remaining in the channel or being transported into the Lake.
Over 2 million cubic yards of contaminated bottom sediment was removed and confined in
1988 from 10 Great Lakes harbors.
Other activities undertaken by the Corps include conducting routine sediment testing
at harbors scheduled for dredging, construction of confined disposal facilities, and special
studies to characterize contaminated sediments. The Corps also operates the Waterways
Experiment Station in Vicksburg, Mississippi, which contributes to the state-of-the-art
knowledge regarding navigation and water quality impacts.
5.2.4 Airborne Contaminants
Existing regulatory programs for air pollution control have been effective in reducing
conventional pollutant concentrations, especially of sulfur and nitrogen compounds. In
FY 1988, Regions V and II of the USEPA were allocated $980,000 to support existing
control programs under the CAA. There are currently 609 regulated facilities in the
counties of the Great Lakes area that are in compliance with the requirements of the CAA.
Of the 26 facilities that are in violation, 7 are already on compliance schedules.
However, atmospheric transport and deposition are believed to be an important source
of toxic contaminants to the Great Lakes. For instance, atmospheric deposition is the most
likely means of transport for some toxic pollutants found in the Upper Great Lakes, where
neither direct discharges nor land runoff can account for their presence.
There is considerable uncertainty as to specific sources and source categories that are
causing the concentrations of toxics observed in the Great Lakes ecosystem. The source
5-14
-------
categories of primary concern are: 1) municipal waste combustors (MWCs) for mercury,
dioxin, dibenzofurans and PCBs, 2) electrical transformers for PCBs and dibenzofurans, 3)
pesticide application for toxaphene, aldrin, and chlordane, and 4) mercury ore processing
plants, chlor-alkali plants, and sewage sludge incinerators for mercury.
On July 7, 1988, under Section 111 of the CAA, USEPA published a decision to
regulate MWC emissions, including constituents such as dioxins, dibenzofurans, heavy
metals, and other organics such as PCBs. The regulations will be based on the use of best
demonstrated technology considering cost and other impacts. USEPA has issued interim
operation guidance under the new source review requirements of the CAA that would
effectively require emission limits for new MWC permits to be based on good combustion
controls plus acid gas scrubbers followed by fabric filters or electrostatic precipitators.
These -requirements will substantially reduce the toxic components of MWC emissions.
For controlling mercury emissions from other sources, USEPA has listed mercury as
a hazardous air pollutant under Section 112, and has regulated mercury ore processing
plants, chlor-alkali plants (which produce chlorine gas" and alkali metal hydroxide), and
sewage sludge incinerators.
As described in Chapter 7, Monitoring and Surveillance, GLNPO and the Great Lakes
States have implemented the Great Lakes Atmospheric Deposition monitoring network to
measure deposition of nutrients and toxics throughout the Basin. As a sufficient data base
is assembled and evaluated, the USEPA, in conjunction with the States, will evaluate the
need for regulatory or other controls on air toxics emissions needed in the Great Lakes
Basin to meet the goals of the GLWQA. If special controls are indicated, recommendations
will be developed.
5.2.5 Contaminated Ground Water
Contaminated ground water in the Great Lakes Basin, derived from both direct and
tributary sources, has recently been recognized by Congress, the International Joint
Commission, and the GLWQA to be an important source of contamination for the Great
Lakes. Both Section 118 of the CWA and the GLWQA require that the impacts of
contaminated ground water on water quality in the Great Lakes be investigated and
evaluated.
The USEPA made considerable progress during FY 1988 toward addressing
groundwater contamination in the Great Lakes Basin. The Agency's hazardous waste
programs implemented under RCRA of 1976 (as amended) and under CERCLA (as
amended) have continued to address both active and inactive hazardous waste sites, one of
the principal sources of contaminated ground water in the Great Lakes Basin and throughout
the United States. Additionally, the USEPA is now implementing a Wellhead Protection
Program, as mandated by the 1986 Amendments to the Safe Drinking Water Act.
Under RCRA, the USEPA and the States have continued to issue permits for active
hazardous waste treatment, storage, and disposal facilities in the basin, and have begun to
implement the corrective action program mandated by the 1984 Amendments to RCRA. In
addition, during FY 1988, USEPA began promulgating regulations that restrict certain
hazardous waste from land disposal. This program, together with minimum technology
standards for landfills and surface impoundments that became effective this year, provides
considerable protection against future groundwater contamination caused by placement of
hazardous waste on the land. In Region II, there are currently 55 facilities subject to
5-15
-------
RCRA. Extensive corrective action programs are being carried out at two facilities in
Niagara Falls, New York: CECOS and Occidental Chemical Corporation.
Under CERCLA, USEPA regional programs and State environmental agencies have
continued to identify, characterize, and address abandoned hazardous materials dumpsites
in the Great Lakes Basin. Presently, the National Priorities List (NPL) includes over 131
sites located within the Basin. In addition, States such as Michigan, New York, Ohio, and
Minnesota have created their own State Superfunds to address sites that do not warrant
listing on the NPL but have high State priority for cleanup. New York State has the third
largest number of Superfund sites in the country, with 76 sites on the NPL. A total of
twenty-four sites are located in the Great Lakes Basin, including some of the most complex
hazardous waste sites in the country, such as Love Canal, OCC Hyde Park, S-Area, 102nd
Street, Pollution Abatement Services, and GM Central Foundry. Four Great Lakes Areas
of Concern are included on the NPL because of contaminated sediment problems:
Sheboygan, Waukegan, Torch Lake, and Ashtabula.
The 1986 Amendments to the Safe Drinking Water Act require the development of
Wellhead Protection Programs at the State level. All States within Region V of the USEPA
are including wellhead protection activities in their State grant applications. Four States
(Indiana, Ohio, Illinois, and Minnesota) are committed to developing program plans which
will be supported by $2.5 million of CWA, Section 106 funds.
Currently, Illinois has the most sophisticated wellhead protection strategy of all the
Great Lakes States. The State Legislature recently passed the Illinois Ground Water
Protection Act, requiring the establishment of setback zones around public water supply
wells. The Act also places restrictions on land use in relation to wellhead areas.
Minnesota, Wisconsin, Indiana, and Ohio have begun preliminary wellhead protection
projects as well. Michigan has delegated authority for wellhead protection programs- to the
Michigan Department of Natural Resources and the State Department of Health. The State
agencies will participate in a USEPA Region V task force during FY 1989 to generate
consensus regarding'the State wellhead protection program.
5.2.6 Discharges from Vessels
In addition to permitted discharges, some pollutants have entered the Great Lakes
System as a result of accidental spills from vessels. As reported by the U.S. Coast Guard
(USCG), the frequency of spills has been generally stable over the past decade, with a total
of 218 incidents occurring in U.S. waters of the Great Lakes during calendar year 1987.
Of this total, nine incidents involved the accidental release of hazardous chemicals and the
remainder involved oil spills. Interagency response teams, led by the USCG, assessed each
incident and monitored cleanup activities. Cleanup costs, excluding those for Government
oversight, have been borne by private firms responsible for spills.
In FY 1989, the Loading and Sources Subcommittee of the Great Lakes Water Quality
Board is requesting annual discharge loading summaries of all discharges, including spills
of hazardous polluting substances from onshore and offshore sources (including vessels) into
the Great Lakes.
In addition to conventional and toxic pollutants, exotic species of organisms can pose
a threat to the Great Lakes. Nonindigenous fish have entered the Great Lakes and
disrupted the balance of native species. The most recent example is the discovery in Lake
Superior of the River Ruffe, a European perch-like fish. The River Ruffe were probably
5-16
-------
transported via ballast water. The Great Lakes Fishery Commission recommends controls
on ocean going ships discharging their water ballast in the Lakes.
5.3 NON-REGULATORY PROGRAMS
Non-regulatory programs are also necessary to achieve GLWQA objectives, some
taking the form of direct government subsidy of activities that improve water quality. The
most important of these is the Construction Grants program of the CWA, under which over
$500 million was obligated for Great Lakes States in FY 1988. Federal and State support,
exceeding $8 billion in sewage treatment facility construction grants through FY 1988, has
been provided to assist municipalities throughout the Great Lakes Basin in meeting more
restrictive effluent limitations. As a result of the Construction Grants Program, all major
population centers in the Great Lakes Basin are now served by municipal wastewater
treatment facilities. By 1985, for example, more than 95 percent of the population within
Region V of the USEPA (i.e., Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio, and Wisconsin)
was served by treatment facilities, and 99 percent of the sanitary wastes in sewered areas
received at least secondary treatment.
Non-regulatory programs also can take the form of financial incentives, such as tax
deductions for pollution control modifications, or new technology development and transfer,
such as demonstration programs for new technologies or encouragement of no-till farming
practices by the USDA's Soil Conservation Service field personnel. More information on
these demonstration programs is provided in Chapter 6.
5-17
-------
6. DEMONSTRATION PROGRAMS
Demonstration projects are an important step in the continuum of activities required
to bring an environmental pollution control program from conception to implementation and,
ultimately, to the point where measurable environmental results are achieved. Demonstration
programs have played an integral role in the overall progress achieved in the Great Lakes
Basin toward reduction of phosphorus inputs to the Lakes. The U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (USEPA) has conducted or participated in demonstration projects for
phosphorus reduction from point and nonpoint sources for many years, involving many
State, Federal, and local agencies working in cooperation.
Demonstration projects can also result in substantial cost savings, by showing the
feasibility of alternative technologies and practices. For instance, a Section 10B
demonstration project in Saginaw, Michigan, presented alternative means of controlling
combined sewer overflows at a savings of $17 million in capital costs, together with lower
annual maintenance.
The 1987 Amendments to the CWA call for Great Lakes National Program Office
(GLNPO) to conduct a study that includes demonstration projects addressing remedial
techno'logies for removal of toxic pollutants from the Great Lakes, with an emphasis on their
removal from contaminated bottom sediments. The contaminated sediments study, in
particular, the accompanying demonstration projects, will be important in developing and
estimating the costs of Remedial Action Plans, as so many of the Areas of Concern (AOCs)
have contaminated sediment problems. Moreover, the lessons learned in the contaminated
sediments study should prove to be of national relevance.
Demonstration projects may take many forms. Most commonly, they involve
demonstration of a hardware, device or engineering technique for pollution cleanup or
abatement. Demonstration projects may also involve development and testing of institutional
models or regulatory alternatives for addressing environmental problems. Such projects
typically involve cooperative efforts by several government organizations at the Federal,
State, and/or local levels.
In the Great Lakes, as programs evolve to respond to the need for ecosystem
approaches to environmental management, demonstration projects are likely to address the
problems of intra-jurisdictional and cross-program coordination, within the United States
as well as between the United States and Canada. In the future, GLNPO's demonstration
programs are expected to combine both the technical and scientific aspects of pollution
problems and increasingly complex coordination issues.
This Chapter describes recent demonstration projects conducted in the Great Lakes
Basin in the three areas of particular concern to the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement
(GLWQA): contaminated sediments, point source discharges, and nonpoint discharges.
6-1
-------
6.1 CONTAMINATED SEDIMENTS
As noted previously, the CWA requires that GLNPO conduct demonstration projects
concerning cleanup of toxic pollutants, with special emphasis on removal or containment of
contaminated sediments. The Act requires that GLNPO give priority consideration to
demonstration projects in five locations: Saginaw Bay on Lake Huron, Sheboygan Harbor
(Wisconsin) and the Grand Calumet River on Lake Michigan, and the Ashtabula and Buffalo
Rivers on Lake Erie.
Accomplishments during FY 1988 included work on assessment protocols for sedinient,
a sediment problems severity index for site ranking, predicting the fate and effects of
contaminated sediments, and work with EPA's Headquarters Office of Water on cleanup
criteria for pollutants in sediment. Also in FY 1988, GLNPO neared agreement on an
interagency agreement with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USCOE) to assist with
planning the demonstration program. Under the agreement, the Corps will assist GLNPO
with researching and evaluating remedial technologies for sediments, accompanied by a
literature review. GLNPO will also cosponsor a public interest workshop on contaminated
sediments.
The contaminated sediment study, like other Great Lakes programs, will entail
cooperation between Federal, State, and local agencies and cooperation between different
USEPA programs at the Federal and State levels. Efforts to coordinate with other USEPA
programs and to ensure that contaminated sediment problems are given adequate
consideration in other USEPA regulatory and remedial programs will be very important.
In FY 1989, GLNPO will be working with USEPA (Headquarters and regional Superfund
programs), as well as with the USCOE, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and others to conduct
assessments in selected AOCs, and continue research on the effects and costs of alternative
remedial actions. • .
6.2 POINT SOURCES
Demonstration projects for addressing point sources of pollution on the Great Lakes
have concentrated on controlling conventional pollutants and reducing eutrophication.
GLNPO has participated in evaluating and demonstrating techniques for phosphorus uptake
from sewage, anaerobic oxidation phosphorus removal techniques, and in-line storm flow
control devices. Each of these has shown potential for reducing discharges of phosphorus
and other pollutants to the Lakes at a lower cost.
In future years, Great Lakes programs for point sources will focus on controlling
discharges of toxic pollutants. During the next two years, several important new programs
for controlling point source discharges of toxic pollutants will be developed and
implemented under the CWA, including programs under Section 304(1), discussed in
Chapter 4.
In FY 1989, GLNPO will begin developing a process for addressing Point Source
Impact Zones in the Great Lakes, as required by the GLWQA, and will continue to work
toward development of Lakewide Management Plans. These programs will require new or
improved biological and chemical monitoring techniques and new regulatory approaches that
will be the subjects of future Great Lakes demonstration projects.
6-2
-------
6.3 NONPOINT SOURCES
Demonstration programs for nonpoint source pollution control techniques have had
many successes in the Great Lakes. In 1972, Section 108(a) of the CWA authorized $20
million for USEPA to demonstrate the engineering and economic feasibility of pollution
control in the Great Lakes Basin. This program was perhaps the largest nonpoint source
control demonstration program in the United States.
GLNPO has worked closely with USEPA's Office of Research and Development,
Headquarters and regional water programs, and State and local government organizations to
conduct demonstration projects that covered a range of objectives, including demonstrating
specific control technologies, controlling agricultural pollution through implementation of
Best Management Practices, increasing public awareness of water pollution issues,
documenting water quality results through monitoring, evaluating combined sewer systems,
and evaluating various sewage land application techniques.
Management projects conducted under the Section 108(a) program included
development of a watershed management computer model for identifying important pollution
sources, development of model ordinances for pollution control, and development of other
management tools. Other projects involved demonstrating sewage sludge land application
techniques and conservation tillage practices. A key aspect of the tillage demonstration
projects was the institutional aspect, which showed that by providing funding and technical
assistance to local soil and water conservation districts, tremendous amounts of local support
could be developed.
These projects have provided important institutional and technical insights beneficial
to State and local programs. USEPA will continue -to sponsor nonpoint source demonstration
projects to ensure that the reductions in phosphorus discharges already achieved in the Basin
are maintained. If ongoing evaluations show-that more controls are necessary, USEPA will
work toward further reductions through new demonstration and public education projects.
In FY 1988, GLNPO funded a workshop on developing watershed management plans
for State agencies in the Great Lakes Basin. This workshop was the' first step toward
fulfilling the requirements of the GLWQA for placing necessary controls on toxic pollution
from nonpoint sources. In FY 1989, USEPA will continue to characterize the extent of
nonpoint sources of toxic pollution and identify toxic pollutant demonstration projects
similar to those conducted to assist with programs for conventional pollutants.
For the Agricultural Demonstration Project, the programs of USDA have provided
essential support, particularly in the form of technical assistance from the SCS and
information and education support from the Cooperative Extension Service.
6-3
-------
7. ENVIRONMENTAL SURVEILLANCE, MONITORING, AND RESEARCH
Meeting the objectives of the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement (GLWQA) and
the Clean Water Act (CWA) requires extensive surveillance, monitoring, and research efforts.
Information is required to support the development of water quality objectives, prepare
reports on conditions and trends in the Lakes, identify the causes of water quality
degradation, and design and enforce effective remedial strategies.
Information needed to support the GLWQA and the CWA is currently provided by
a number of government-supported programs within the Great Lakes region. However,
these programs are undertaken by a variety of Federal, State and local agencies, each with
their individual missions and responsibilities.
The 1987 Amendments to the CWA require the Great Lakes National Program Office
(GLNPO) of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) to establish a Great Lakes
system-wide surveillance network, and to coordinate the many environmental activities
relating to the Great Lakes undertaken by Federal, State, and local authorities.
Substantial progress has been made in the coordination of surveillance, monitoring,
and research activities relating to Great Lakes water quality. These activities have evolved
from the past focus on nutrients to obtaining toxic substance information as well. Major
surveillance, monitoring, and research program-objectives are to:
• Provide definitive information on the achievement of water quality objectives;
• Evaluate water quality trends;
• Identify emerging environmental problems;
• Support the development of Lakewide Management Plans (LMPs) and Remedial
Action Plans (RAPs), including assisting in the development of pollutant mass
balance models for the Great Lakes; and
• Assess the degree to which jurisdictional pollution control requirements are being
met.
This chapter summarizes progress in developing a coordinated framework for Great
Lakes environmental surveillance, monitoring, and research. It highlights the role of each
of these areas in developing a major management framework innovation envisioned by
recent Amendments to the GLWQA: the pollutant mass balance approach.
7.1 BACKGROUND
Surveillance and monitoring are necessary to identify and assess pollutant sources,
determine pollutant loadings, measure water quality trends, identify emerging problems,
assess the efficacy of remedial actions, and confirm compliance with source control or
cleanup standards. Carrying out surveillance and monitoring in a system as large as the
Great Lakes is difficult, however, and requires the use of large vessels.
Also, as concern has shifted from problems related to nutrient enrichment to those
related to toxic pollutants, the cost and complexity of surveillance have grown exponentially.
7-1
-------
Thus, an important component of the Great Lakes surveillance and monitoring program is
setting surveillance priorities, in terms of pollutants of concern, media and sources to
monitor, and areas to survey.
The first major surveillance program to address the objectives of the GLWQA was the
Great Lakes International Surveillance Plan (GLISP), developed jointly by the United States
and Canada in 1975. The original GLISP called for a cycle of intensive surveys of the
Great Lakes conducted in a serial fashion (one lake at'a time, with each lake surveyed
once or twice a decade).
The first set of surveys was completed in 1983, and provided baseline data on water
chemistry and microbiology, including information crucial to assessing problems of lake
eutrophication caused by excessive levels of phosphorus. Since completion of the initial
intensive cycle of studies, USEPA has continued-a modified open lake sampling program
to provide annual updates to our understanding of water quality on all Lakes except Lake
Superior. Because of its high quality and slow rate of change, Lake Superior is sampled less
frequently.
Great Lakes surveillance programs have evolved substantially in recent years, in
response to changing priorities and increasing demand for information. As discussed earlier,
the GLWQA reflects an increasing concern about toxic substances, especially those that are
persistent in the environment. Responding to the problem of toxic pollutants requires an
increased understanding of ecosystem structure and functions, interactions among physical,
chemical, and biological components of the ecosystem, and the responses of organisms to
various environmental conditions. As shown in Table 7-1, Federal and State surveillance
and monitoring programs are responding to these increased information needs, with steadily
increasing emphasis on toxic substances and biological systems.
Many of the environmental surveillance programs in operation within the Great Lakes
region are part of, or make use of, larger national surveys or studies. For example, the
National Weather Service of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
monitors nationwide weather and climatic conditions, documenting precipitation patterns,
which are essential to understanding Great Lakes hydrology. NOAA, the U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers (USCOE), and the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) survey bathymetric and
hydrologic conditions within the Lakes and their tributaries, providing a foundation for
other studies. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) monitors populations of fish and
waterfowl and conducts the National Wetlands Inventory. (NOAA also surveys wetlands in
coastal areas of the United States.) And finally, the USEPA carries out regional and
national surveys of air quality and drinking water conditions.
These and other such programs contribute information that is vital to a full
understanding of Great Lakes water quality conditions. Conversely, Great Lakes monitoring
programs contribute data to national networks and data bases. For example, results from
the Great Lakes Atmospheric Deposition (GLAD) network are transferred to the National
Atmospheric Deposition Program. Also, results from open lake and tributary monitoring,
together with fish contaminant data, are transferred to STORET, the national water quality
data base.
The core U.S. program for surveillance of the Great Lakes is coordinated, and to a
large extent, conducted by GLNPO, and is directly focused on the requirements of the
GLWQA. This program consists of four major components: open lake, nearshore/harbor,
pollutant loadings, and sources of pollutants.
7-2
-------
Table 7-1. U.S. Environmental Surveillance and Monitoring Programs in the Great Lakes Region
Programs/Activities
Explanation
Relevant Institutions
Open Lake Water Quality
Surveillance Program
Fish Contaminant
Monitoring: Wholefish
Fish Contaminant
Monitoring: Edible
Portions
Local Area Fish
Contaminant Surveys
Harbor and Connecting Channels
Sediment Surveys
Open Lake Sediment Surveys
Systematic field surveys of
water chemistry and plankton.
Smelt, lake trout, and walleye
(Lake Erie only) from the
open lakes are analyzed for a
wide variety of known or
emerging problem pollutants to
evaluate trends and lake-wide
response to regulatory actions.
Periodic scans to detect new
contaminants are also conducted.
Skin-on fillets of salmon are
collected from Great Lakes
harbors and tributary mouths
during spawning runs. In Lake
Erie, Rainbow Trout are also
collected. The fish are analyzed
for known problem contaminants to
evaluate trends and provide
information on human exposure.
Non-migratory fish are sampled
to identify local hot spots
and trends.
Periodic collection of samples
from all major tributary mouths
and harbors and the connecting
channels for broad-scan analyses,
including heavy metals and
persistent organics.
Preliminary program initiated
in Lake Ontario during 1987.
USEPA-Great Lakes National
Program Office
USEPA-Great Lakes National
Program Office, U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service
(USFWS)
Great Lakes States, USEPA-
GLNPO, and U.S. Food and
Drug Administration (USFDA)
USEPA-Great Lakes National
Program Office and Great
Lakes States
USEPA-Great Lakes National
Program Office, U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers Section 10 and
404 Program outputs
USEPA-Great Lakes National
Program Office, Region II
Superfund Office, Office of
Research and Development,
and New York State Department
of Environmental Conservation
7-3
-------
Table 7-1. U.S. Environmental Surveillance and Monitoring Programs in the Great Lakes Region
(continued)
Programs/Activities
Explanation
Relevant Institutions
Tributary Sediment Surveys
Tributary Fish Collection
Surveys
Colonial Bird Contaminant
Surveys
Bathymetric and Hydrologic
Surveys of Open Lake Areas.
Bathymetric and Hydrologic
Surveys in Navigation
Channels and Harbors
Fishery Surveys
National Contaminant
Biomonitoring Program
Point Source Effluent
Biomonitoring
National Resources Inventory
Samples collected in zones of
degraded sediment quality, usually
downstream of significant point or
nonpoint sources. Often performed
in conjunction with use attainability
analyses or National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
permit reissuance.
Popular sport fish are collected
and analyzed for pesticides and other
persistent toxicants.
Eggs of fish-eating colonial
birds are' collected and analyzed
for contaminants.
Map lake bottom topography,
determine water budgets,
monitor lake levels and
water withdrawals.
Map bottom contours in
navigational channels to
support channel maintenance
projects and provide navigational aids.
Monitor fish populations and
commercial activities including
surveys of fish abnormalities
such as tumors.
Nationwide sampling system,
including fish and wildlife
tissue analysis for persistent
pollutants.
Biomonitoring of discharges
to detect and prevent toxicity.
Broad, comprehensive survey of
the nation's soil, water and related
resources. Prepared every 5 years.
Great Lakes States
Great Lakes States
Great Lakes States and
USFWS
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA)
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
NOAA-National Marine Fisheries
Service, USFWS, USEPA and
States
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
USEPA and States
USDA-Soil Conservation Service
7-4
-------
Table 7-1. U.S. Environmental Surveillance and Monitoring Programs in the Great Lakes Region
(continued)
Programs/Activities
Explanation
Relevant Institutions
National Human Tissue
Contaminants Data Base
Climate and Weather
Monitoring
Waterfowl Surveys
National Wetlands Inventory
Coastal Wetlands Inventory
National Mapping Program
Point Source Discharge
Monitoring
Pesticide Use Inventory
Tributary Mouth Water
Quality Monitoring
Samples of fatty tissues
analyzed, with results stored
in national data base.
Monitor temperature,
precipitation, and other
weather parameters.
Conduct national surveys of
waterfowl populations and
determine trends.
Map all U.S. wetlands and
determine national trends.
Map wetlands in coastal areas
and determine trends.
Systematic mapping and
characterization of land use
and land cover, including surface
topography, surface waters and
wetlands, natural forests,
agricultural lands, urban centers,
and major industrial complexes.
Self-monitoring of effluent
characteristics as provisions
of NPDES permits.
Estimates of pesticide use by
crop and acres planted per
crop yields calculated statewide
pesticide use figures.
Systematic sampling of
tributary water for pollutants.
Flow and concentration data are
reported to International Joint
Commission (IJC) for calculation
of phosphorus loads to the Lakes.
U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency
NOAA-National Weather Service
and State Agencies
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration
U.S. Geological Survey
Permittees, States, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency
USEPA-Office of Pesticide
Programs
Great Lakes States and
U.S. Geological Survey
7-5
-------
Table 7-1. U.S. Environmental Surveillance and Monitoring Programs in the Great Lakes Region
(continued)
Programs/Activities Explanation Relevant Institutions
Streamflow Monitoring Routine monitoring of flow U.S. Geological Survey
and National Stream and core set of quality
Quality Accounting Network parameters for major tributaries.
Great Lakes Atmospheric Monitoring network to measure Great Lakes National
Deposition Network (GLAD) deposition of nutrients and Program Office and States
toxics, throughout the Basin.
7-6
-------
7.2 OPEN LAKE SURVEILLANCE AND MONITORING
Open lake surveys measure the conditions and trends in the open waters of the lakes.
These waters reflect long term changes, as they are far more uniformly mixed than the
shallower, nearshore waters that are directly influenced by pollutant discharges and are far
more variable in quality. Open lake waters are generally defined as being greater than 30
feet in depth.
Most open lake surveillance is conducted using large vessels, although water sampling
is done by helicopter, and some useful information is obtained from municipal drinking
water intakes that are located in open lake waters. The GLNPO research vessel, the R.V.
Roger Simons, has been used for many years to gather open lake water samples to measure
chemistry and plankton populations. However, at 49 years of age, the vessel is nearing the
end of its useful life, and its ship-board laboratory is very limited. At the close of 1988,
arrangements were nearing completion for the purchase of a replacement vessel that will be
outfitted during FY 1990. By 1991, the new vessel should be available to conduct surveys,
including the measurement of toxic contaminants.
7.2.1 Limnology
The limnology program carried out by GLNPO characterizes the biological and
chemical status of the Lakes by measuring water chemistry (with particular emphasis on
nutrients), plankton populations, and biological productivity. This program supports the
development, testing, and refinement of eutrophication models used to estimate the
phosphorus assimilative capacity of the Lakes, which in turn, provides a basis for developing
target load reductions.
The models are also used for interpreting data, defining the applicability of specific
data sets, and designing improved monitoring programs for the collection of data. The
transfer of models from the USEPA's mainframe computer to personal computers began in
1986 and new software continues to be developed to assist the surveillance-research-
management process.
The productivity measurements made as part of the limnology program will assist in
describing the trophic status and assessing the response of the Lakes to nutrient control
programs. The measurements will also assist in interpreting trends in algal and plankton
populations and in anticipating resultant impacts on fish communities in response to
phosphorus source control measures.
7.2.2 Water Column Contaminants
Toxic contaminants in Great Lakes waters can exert adverse effects on aquatic and
terrestrial populations ranging from subtle behavioral changes through increased
susceptibility to diseases, birth defects, tumors, reproductive failure, and premature death.
Over the past ten years, GLNPO has sponsored surveys of toxic metals in the Great Lakes.
Other programs, most notably the Sea Grant Program of NOAA, have funded studies of
various contaminant distributions in one or more of the Great Lakes.
Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) in Lake Michigan have been of special interest to
academic researchers trying to understand and measure the rates of the processes that
distribute and transform toxic pollutants in the Great Lakes ecosystem. No routine program
to monitor toxic organics in water of the open Lakes currently exists in the United States,
7-7
-------
due to technological limitations in such trace level analyses. A major anticipated product
from the Green Bay Mass Balance Study is the further development of needed technology
to perform such analyses and the transfer of that technology to open Lake monitoring
programs.
7.2.3 Sediment Contaminants
Initial strides have been taken toward developing an open lake sediment sampling
program. In 1987, with the financial assistance of the USEPA's Region II Superfund
program, the R.V. Roger Simons collected open lake sediment samples from approximately
60 locations in Lake Ontario to characterize the concentration and distribution of persistent
toxic pollutants along the bottom of the Lake, with particular focus on 2,3,7,8-TCDD. This
information is fundamental to developing a mass balance model for the Lake. In FY 1989,
GLNPO will begin to take open lake sediment samples in Lake Michigan.
7.2.4 Fish Contaminants
Most toxic pollutants are found in very small concentrations in lake water, making
them very difficult to detect or measure. However, some toxic pollutants accumulate in the
tissues of organisms and increase in concentration through the food chain. The primary
program for detecting and tracking such pollutants in the Lakes has been the Great Lakes
Fish Contaminant Monitoring Program. This program, initiated in 1977, has involved the
participation of 20 different State and Federal agencies.
Fish tissue monitoring complements not only water chemistry studies, but also provides
a means of estimating fish bioaccumulation factors that are a critical component in the
development of water quality standards to protect human health, as well as fish-eating
land-based predators. Through this program, major declines in concentrations of
contaminants such as DDT, PCB, and dieldrin have been documented in top predator fish
collected in the open waters of the lakes over the past 15 years.
However, during the same period, numerous other persistent pesticides and industrial
chemicals have been identified in Great Lakes fish as part of the early warning component
of the program. For some of these compounds, such as toxaphene, mirex, and dioxin,
regulatory action has since been taken. For the majority of these compounds, however,
insufficient information is available to judge their effects on human health and the
environment. Until further information on such compounds is obtained, needed regulatory
measures cannot be adequately defined.
7.3 NEARSHORE AND HARBOR SURVEILLANCE
Nearshore surveys are conducted using a combination of large and small vessels.
Water, living organisms, and sediment are all sampled, but emphasis is often placed on fish
and sediment as the best places to sample for toxic substances.
Severely degraded nearshore areas have been designated as Areas of Concern (AOCs)
and surveillance plans are being developed for them as part of the RAPs that are being
prepared to guide their restoration. Surveillance within the AOCs is to be conducted by
State and local organizations. An exception to this is the surveillance to be conducted as
part of the GLNPO demonstration projects for contaminated sediments.
7-8
-------
In other nearshore areas, GLNPO conducts surveys from time to time to identify hot
spots and trends. A major interagency nearshore study of the Upper Great Lakes
Connecting Channels is nearing completion.
To focus limited surveillance resources on "hot spots," GLNPO is expanding its routine
fish monitoring program to include non-migratory fish collection. Non-migratory nearshore
fish, such as the young-of-the-year spottail shiner, do not range far from their place of
birth, thus accumulating toxicants from a fairly narrow area of the Great Lake shoreline.
When analyzed for a broad spectrum of toxic substances, these fish can serve to focus in
on existing or new pollution sources. After source control or cleanup measures have been
instituted, such fish will aid in measuring the response of the harbor and nearshore aquatic
ecosystems to those remedial activities.
7.4 POLLUTANT LOADINGS
In addition to measuring ambient open Lake and nearshore water quality, USEPA is
concerned with estimating the extent of actual ongoing loadings of pollutants to the Lakes.
This information is vital to understanding the ecosystem and the extent of pollution and the
control needed to attain the water quality objectives set by the GLWQA. It also reveals the
relative significance of various types of pollutant sources. This knowledge will be used to
guide environmental management decisions through mass balance modeling of the ecosystem
(described in Section 7.6).
To determine total loadings, information must be obtained on inputs through all
pathways. The two principal routes are through the atmosphere and through tributary
streams. An intermediate category is that of contaminated sediments that can recycle
significant quantities of stored contaminants back into the water and biota. Sources of
pollutants that are conveyed by tributaries are discussed in Section 7.5 and include point
source discharges, nonpoint sources, and contaminated ground water.
7.4.1 Atmospheric Deposition Monitoring
In 1981, GLNPO established an atmospheric deposition monitoring network to provide
basic data on the nature and magnitude of the atmospheric deposition problem in the Great
Lakes. The network is based on the pre-existing GLAD network begun in 1976. By 1982,
this network consisted of 36 wet-only precipitation samplers located at rural, urban, and
background sites around the Great Lakes shoreline and on some islands.
Since 1985, GLNPO has been involved in a major undertaking to plan and implement
an enhanced atmospheric research and monitoring program capable of detecting and
quantifying toxic organic substances in wet and dry deposition to the Great Lakes. This
planning process recongizes the need for a fully coordinated, joint U.S. and Canadian
program with compatible sampling and analytical protocols.
Two major workshops of experts have been held to assess the problem of atmospheric
deposition and to assist in the design of an atmospheric research and monitoring program.
The first was sponsored by GLNPO and the University of Minnesota and the second was
sponsored by the IJC at Scarborough, Ontario. In addition, the IJC Surveillance Work
Group established the Atmospheric Deposition Task Force, charged with the design of an
atmospheric research and monitoring network.
7-9
-------
As a result of the activities described above, there are two major research and
monitoring plans to address the deposition of air toxics to the Great Lakes. The first was
completed in 1987 for GLNPO and is entitled, "Proposed Modification of the Great Lakes
Atmospheric Deposition (GLAD) Network to Include Toxic Organics." This plan calls for
the establishment if five master stations across the Great Lakes to support necessary research
on deposition and exchange processes along with development of improved samplers.
Concurrent with establishment of the master stations, the plan calls for the
enhancement of twelve routine GLAD stations to include sampling for toxic organics using
currently available sampling equipment. Under a joint grant to the Illinois State Water
Survey and DePaul University, GLNPO established the first master station and two routine
stations on Green Bay in 1988 to begin deployment of the planned network and to support
the ongoing Green Bay Mass Balance Study. In addition, GLNPO has continued to
participate in planning discussions with Canadian and U.S. experts to further refine the
enhancement of the GLAD Network to achieve compatibility with and concurrence of
Canadian programs.
In 1988, the IJC Atmospheric Deposition Task Force completed its plan entitled, "A
Plan for Assessing Atmospheric Deposition to the Great Lakes." The IJC plan calls for the
establishment an operation of two master station over a two-year period, followed by the
phased establishment of routine stations as research results become available. This plan was
submitted to the Water Quality Board with a recommendation for its inclusion in the Great
Lakes International Surveillance Plan.
In December' 1988, the Parties established a small committee to review the two existing
plans, to resolve the remaining differences in the plans, and to recommend a joint U.S.-
Canadian research and monitoring plan on atmospheric deposition. It is anticipated that the
joint plan will be completed by June 1989. Concurrently, three ad hoc committees of
experts are completing detailed planning of quality assurance/quality control procedures,
analytical methods, sampler design, and siting criteria to be used in the deployment of the
joint network.
There are three projects recently completed or ongoing in the Great Lakes Basin that
will further contribute to understanding of the air sources of problem toxic pollutants
entering the Great Lakes. The first is the Air Toxic Emission Inventory for the Southeast
Chicago (Summerhays and Croke 1987), phase one of a two-phase study recently completed
by USEPA Region V's Air Management Division. The first phase attempted to estimate the
emissions rates of a wide variety of inorganic and organic pollutants in a well-defined,
highly industrialized geographic area of the shores of Lake Michigan. In the second phase,
mathematical modeling will relate emissions rates to concentrations at ground level and the
corresponding health risks to exposed humans.
The second pilot project is. the Emissions Inventory and Deposition Modeling of Air
Toxics in the Lake Michigan Region, now underway, with a preliminary report by USEPA
Region V's Air Management Division to be completed in early 1989. Once air source data
from the major metropolitan areas are collected, USEPA will attempt to model deposition
of toxic pollutants to the Lake Michigan watershed and directly to the Lake to estimate total
atmospheric deposition loadings from near-field sources in the Lake Michigan airshed.
The third project, the Great Lakes Air Toxics Transboundary Project, focuses on
sources located in a 50-kilometer-wide corridor on either side of the shores of the Detroit
River-St. Clair River systems, including the Detroit/Windsor and Port Huron/Sarnia
urban/industrial centers. The project includes an emissions inventory, dispersion modeling,
7-10
-------
human risk assessment, and deposition analysis of pollutants of concern in the watershed
basin.
Taken together, these projects will add considerably to USEPA's understanding of the
significance of air deposition to the water quality of the Great Lakes and their connecting
channels. These projects represent an important step in implementing the total load
management approach embodied in the LMPs required in Annex 2 of the GLWQA.
Also in FY 1988, through Region V Air and Water Divisions, GLNPO negotiated new
State air and water program plans, encouraging the States to inventory combustion sources
and sample and analyze them for Critical Pollutants. Data obtained will be used to further
guide development of LMPs.
7.4.2 Tributary Monitoring
Tributary loadings are estimated by combining USGS river flow data with water
quality sampling data gathered by the States. Intensive studies of storm flows have been
sponsored by GLNPO in recent years to determine the adequacy of existing routine
monitoring for sediment and phosphorus. An intensive surveillance project is being
conducted as part of the interagency study of Green Bay that will provide important
information on the feasibility of monitoring toxic organic compounds in tributary waters.
7.4.3 Contaminated Sediment
Information for estimating the release of pollutants from sediments can be obtained
from various sources. Chemical analyses and toxicity testing of tributary and harbor
sediments can be required in the course of USCOE dredging projects or as a provision of
private dredge and fill actions, which are permitted by the Corps under Section 404 of the
CWA. The States must certify the consistency of permitted dredge and fill actions with
their water quality regulations.
Hazardous waste regulations can involve data collection and analysis that is relevant
to Great Lakes water quality management. For example, an open lake sediment survey was
undertaken by Region II of the USEPA to determine the maximum acceptable rate of loss
of 2,3,7,8-TCDD from the Hyde Park landfill to Lake Ontario. With this information, the
Regional Superfund office will negotiate final containment requirements for the landfill.
To further evaluate the extent of the contaminated sediment problem, GLNPO will
begin an open Lake sediment survey program in FY 1989. This program will initially
survey Lake Michigan. In addition, it is anticipated that some States will sponsor surveys
of sediment contamination in AOCs as part of their development of RAPs.
7.5 SOURCES OF POLLUTANTS
The identification and monitoring of pollutant sources is essential to support regulatory
programs. The sources of pollutants are varied. Numerous monitoring programs are in
place or else are in the development phase to determine compliance and improvements in
the system.
7-11
-------
7.5.1 Point 'Sources
Point source dischargers are required by their permits to report the concentrations of
their discharges. This information is useful in identifying sources of pollutants and to a
limited degree, in estimating loadings entering the tributaries. Also, toxicity testing
requirements are included in some permits, providing useful information.
The Agreement mandates that municipal wastewater treatment facilities meet a
technology-based 1 mg/1 phosphorus limitation to achieve lakewide target nutrient load
reductions. In addition, the Agreement calls for the virtual elimination of the discharge of
persistent toxic substances to the Great Lakes, requires that toxic discharges cease, and
directs the Parties to reduce the size of the zones of degraded water quality in the vicinity
of point source discharges to the maximum practicable extent.
GLNPO, with the. assistance of USEPA Regions II, III, and V, analyzes point source
discharge data submitted by facilities that are required to monitor their waste waters for
compliance with effluent limitations in permits issued and enforced under the National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES). Phosphorus loading estimates for point
sources based on these data are submitted to the Great Lakes Water Quality Board for
inclusion in its biennial report on Great Lakes water quality. Phosphorus loading estimates
are also used to judge progress of the United States under the Phosphorus Load Reduction
Plan developed under the GLWQA.
Existing information on toxic pollutants of concern in wastewater discharges within
the Great Lakes system is still too scant for accurate estimates of point source load
contributions to each of the Great Lakes. Some permits require routine toxicity testing of
effluents, involving tests such as bioassays. While these tests are carried out by the
permittee, results are shared with State and Federal agencies. Surveys to assess compliance
with permit limitations are also conducted by regulatory agencies.
Permittee self-monitoring data are stored in a computer information system known
as the Permit Compliance System. The results of Federal or State agency compliance
inspection monitoring and select self-monitoring data are also contained in STORET,
USEPA's general water, sediment, and biota quality data base. Permittee and agency whole
effluent toxicity test results are summarized in the CETIS data base.
To analyze the contributions of persistent toxic pollutants by point sources, GLNPO
has supported a national data base of monitoring data from Form 2c NPDES permit
applications. In addition, USEPA Region V and GLNPO have supported the Michigan
Department of Natural Resources in updating and expanding its Critical Materials Register,
a list of toxic substances meriting State surveillance. Each year, Michigan facilities are
required to report the production/use, discharge, and disposal in solid residuals of critical
materials.
These data are compiled in a computer data base developed under the Toxic
Substances Control Act. Total loadings of Great Lakes pollutants of concern can be
compiled on an individual facility, river or lakewide basis. GLNPO is using these loading
estimates as part of a larger effort to calculate total loadings of persistent toxicants to the
Great Lakes from all sources.
7-12
-------
7.5.2 Nonooint Sources
Annex 3 of the GLWQA sets forth a general framework for Canada and the United
States to reduce phosphorus loading to the Great Lakes. Subsequent supplements to the
Annex recognized that nonpoint source controls on phosphorus, particularly from agricultural
activities, would be required to meet the Agreement goals. The Great Lakes Phosphorus
Task Force, comprised of Federal, State, and local entities, allocated phosphorus load
reductions for each State.
Each State currently monitors phosphorus levels and reports on progress in meeting
targeted reduction goals. Routine monitoring of pollutant loads from nonpoint sources is
seldom conducted through direct measurement of runoff. More often, changes in loadings
are estimated by tracking changes in land management and farming practices and calculating
expected changes in pollutant runoff. These calculations are based on intensive research
surveys used to identify the results of various management practices.
7.5.3 Contaminated Ground Water
Pollution from contaminated ground water is the subject of Annex 16 of the GLWQA.
The United States and Canada must report on progress made to control sources of
contamination of groundwater aquifers and prevent movement of polluted ground water to
the boundary waters of the Great Lakes. Each responsible State and province must first
identify existing and potential sources of contaminated ground water to the Great Lakes.
USEPA Region V has adopted a Ground Water Protection Strategy, focusing on
multiprogram groundwater issues and designed to unify the many groundwater initiatives
at the Regional level. The Strategy's goals and objectives will guide Region V's future
groundwater protection activities, and promote a coordinated approach to groundwater
decision making.
The goals of the Strategy encompass groundwater protection and restoration, and
promote an area-wide groundwater perspective. The Strategy objectives center on including
groundwater objectives in Regional decision making, and developing risk, based health and
environmental decision-making criteria. The objectives also addresss the identification and
restoration of ground water impacting surface water, assisting in the implementation of State
groundwater strategies, and increasing the collection and accessibility of water quality data.
Other U.S. efforts in support of Annex 16 include the following: GLNPO initiated
a training program for staff to use the Geographic . Information System to map the
hydrogeologic conditions of the Great Lakes. The Green Bay Study will include compiling
a comprehensive inventory of known and potential sources of groundwater contamination
in the Green Bay Basin. The USGS recently completed a 4-year study in cooperation with
Canada on the environmental conditions in the Upper Great Lakes Connecting Channels.
One objective of the study was to be determine groundwater loadings into the Connecting
Channels.
7.6 MASS BALANCE STUDIES
As described in Chapter 4, the pollutant mass balance concept is crucial to developing
the systematic and comprehensive ecosystem approach to water quality management that is
envisioned under the recently revised GLWQA. Mass balance models must draw upon
7-13
-------
established surveillance and monitoring programs for information, but also rely on research
programs for study design, development, and interpretation.
USEPA regards the "mass balance" approach to be integral to satisfying the GLWQA
principle of systematic and comprehensive remedial planning. The mass balance approach
adopts the concept of conservation of mass in evaluating the sources, transport, and fate of
contaminants. Its underlying principle is that the quantities of contaminants entering the
system, less quantities stored, transformed, or degraded in the system, must equal quantities
leaving the system.
Using computer models and data concerning the sources and quantities of toxic
pollutants, their physical properties, and the descriptive characteristics of the Great Lakes,
the mass balance approach allows scientists to identify the most significant sources of
pollutants and to evaluate potential effects of changes in pollutant loadings. This, in turn,
helps managers to set priorities for funding of research, remedial actions, and regulatory
programs.
A number of surveillance and monitoring programs provide information on the
magnitude and types of pollutant loadings to the Great Lakes. Data is required on pollutant
loadings from all potential pathways. Some of these pathways are monitored directly, such
as atmospheric deposition. Other pathways, such as point source loadings to surface water,
are monitored by States with assistance.or advice as needed from the GLNPO. Still others,
such as pollutant transfers from sediments, are or will be estimated using predictive models
and limited environmental monitoring data. The Upper Great Lakes Connecting Channel
Study and the Green Bay Mass Balance Study are providing valuable data with which to
assess these pathways.
The Upper Great Lakes Connecting Channel Study was a four-year binational effort,
involving the coordinated efforts of 11 Federal, State, Provincial, and local agencies, to
investigate toxic chemicals and other environmental concerns in the Upper Great Lakes
Connecting-Channels. The objective of the study was to improve regulatory management
of point and nonpoint pollution sources in the Detroit, St. Clair, and St. Mary's Rivers, and
in Lake St. Clair. The study was organized so that the participating agencies could
coordinate ongoing studies in the areas and identify priorities for remedial actions.
The overall goal of the Green Bay Mass Balance Study is to test models for toxics to
improve our understanding of the sources, transport, and fate of toxic compounds, to
evaluate the technological capability to measure multimedia loadings to a system, and
ultimately to guide and support regulatory activity. The study will serve as a pilot for
future modeling studies of Great Lakes ecosystems.
During FY 1987, field reconnaissance was done in the Bay and tributaries, and the
first atmospheric deposition monitoring stations were established in preparation for the
main field season -- August 1988 through September 1989. Samples to be collected during
this time include bottom sediments, Bay-lake exchange, atmospheric deposition, water and
suspended sediments, tributary loads, point and nonpoint sources, ground water, and biota.
The Mass Balance Study will apply models to PCBs, dieldrin, cadmium, and lead. The
physical/chemical models will be coupled with a food chain model to allow estimation of
body burdens in target fish species: carp, brown trout, and walleye. The integrated model
will then be used to predict concentrations in the water, sediment, and biota under
alternative regulatory and remedial actions.
7-14
-------
7.7 RESEARCH
Research on the Great Lakes is carried out to improve our fundamental understanding
of the physical, chemical and biological processes of the Lakes and their interrelationships.
Research is conducted primarily by universities that are funded by the National Science
Foundation, USEPA's Office of Research and Development (ORD), and NOAA's Sea Grant
Program. The results of these studies provide a context for addressing problems of water
quality restoration and protection, habitat maintenance, and fisheries management.
Applied research in the Great Lakes is conducted on a wide range of topics by a
number of Federal agencies. Much of this work is undertaken by the ORD Large Lakes
. Research Station at Grosse He, Michigan, and at its National Water Quality Laboratory at
Duluth, Minnesota; NOAA's Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory (GLERL) at
Ann Arbor, Michigan; and the USFWS, which operates the National Fisheries Research
Center-Great Lakes.
NOAA also provides grants to Universities for Great Lakes research under its Sea
Grant Program, and the USFWS funds Cooperative Fishery Research Units at selected
universities. GLNPO provides grant money for research directly to universities and through
interagency agreements with other governmental organizations, including NOAA, the
USFWS, and the USCOE.
Great Lakes research consists of three general areas: water quality management,
ecosystem dynamics, and fishery resources (Table 7-2). Many of the major Great Lakes
research organizations contribute to multiple research areas, although one organization has
assumed a leadership role for each area (Figure 7-1). Projects within each area are planned
and conducted to ensure that overlap is minimized and that each project makes a needed
and unique contribution that furthers the scientific understanding of physical, chemical, or-
biological processes working in the ecosystem. Similarly, the results of projects in each area
are used to identify emerging research needs and to design effective research plans.
GLNPO has supported research by the Argonne National Laboratory, the Illinois Water
Survey, and various universities on atmospheric deposition to Lake Michigan. Argonne has
also carried out research on Lake Michigan biological systems. Research by the USCOE has
focused on Great Lakes water levels and flows and on dredging and disposal of dredged
materials. In FY 1988, GLNPO provided funds for research on contaminated sediments to
the USCOE under an interagency agreement. GLNPO also funded research and development
activities to address toxics in the Great Lakes during 1987 and 1988, including studies on
improved tributary monitoring methods for toxics and an investigation of the toxic effects
of contaminants unique to the Great Lakes.
Research support for the Green Bay Mass Balance Study was the top GLNPO priority
in FY 1988. Matching funds were provided to GLERL for investigating the rate of
exchange of contaminants between Green Bay and Lake Michigan. This work will support
the development of a mathematical model by EPA's Large Lakes Research Station to
simulate pollutant exchanges as part of the overall pollutant transport component of the
mass balance study.
Also in FY 1988, GLNPO funded research at the University of Minnesota to
investigate the rate of uptake of PCBs, an important contaminant in Green Bay, by phyto-
plankton. This work will also support the development of a mathematical model to be used
in the mass balance. Both of these projects and other developmental work for the Green
Bay study are continuing in FY 1989.
7-15
-------
In addition, GLNPO funded research to support its contaminated sediments study in
FY 1988. Through an interagency agreement with the ORD, GLNPO funded research at
several universities to investigate the extent of sediment contamination in Lake Ontario and
to study sediment resuspension, deposition, and fate in the Lakes. This latter work will
support the development of mathematical models to describe the rates at which contaminants
are transferred from water to sediment and from sediment to water. In addition to
supporting the contaminated sediments study, this project will contribute important
information to the Green Bay Mass Balance Study. Both projects are continuing in FY
1989.
The recent trend toward understanding Great Lakes pollution problems in the context
of their significance for the whole ecosystem (the ecosystem management approach called
for by the GLWQA), will shape research priorities for Great Lakes programs in the future.
Because an ecosystem approach to research and management requires the integration of
many different disciplines and perspectives for problem solving, many Federal and State
organizations will continue to be involved in Great Lakes research. Thus, the need for
effective coordination will likely increase in the future.
One area in which GLNPO will continue to be an important contributor to research
programs is the development and implementation of demonstration programs for pollution
abatement and remediation on the Great Lakes, which is addressed in Chapter 6.
To perfect available methodologies for quantifying ultratrace concentrations of
persistent and highly bioaccumulative toxic pollutants, GLNPO is testing a number of
high-volume sample concentration techniques. The use of such methodologies will be
demonstrated in the Green Bay Mass Balance Study, where water column levels .of PCBs
and dieldrin must be measured to quantify the relationship between loadings and
concentrations, and between concentrations and the rate of various water cohimn removal
processes.
In FY 1989, GLNPO plans to start sampling sediments in the main body of the Lakes
to measure the distribution, storage, and fate of toxic pollutants in the ecosystem. This
sampling will provide a chronology of toxic inputs to the Lakes and support mass balance
models for Critical Pollutants. Sampling will also support the development of LMPs as
required in the GLWQA and the contaminated sediments study mandated by the CWA
Amendments of 1987. GLNPO coordinates this work with the development of national
sediment criteria and sediment contaminant cycling studies conducted by USEPA's ORD
Laboratories at Duluth, Minnesota, and at Grosse He, Michigan.
In addition, GLNPO has co-funded the development of a technique for measuring
the tumor-producing potential of contaminated sediments in nearshore bottom feeders, such
as the brown bullhead. Such methods are critical for surveying the toxicity potential of
contaminated sediments. This work may lead to more refined studies and assays of chemical
carcinogenesis, to determine the relative severity of effects of different toxic chemicals.
Finally, under a grant from GLNPO, the University of Texas is developing an assay
for estimating the carcinogenic potency of a mixture of contaminants extracted from Great
Lakes fish. This assay may aid in estimating the health risks associated with the complex
mixture of contaminants in Great Lakes fish eaten by humans and wildlife. This approach
is being extended by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's Lansing District Office under a
grant to Michigan State University to study the eggs of fish-eating birds in the Great Lakes.
7-16
-------
Table 7-2. U.S. Great Lakes Research Programs
Programs/Activities
Explanation
Relevant Institutions
Water Quality Management
Contaminated Sediment
Studies
Atmospheric Deposition
Mathematical Models
Water Quality Criteria
to Protect Aquatic Life
Engineering research and
remediation technologies.
Sediment resuspension,
deposition and fate for
remediation activities and
mass balance models.
Research into methodologies and
technologies for air particle and
vapor contract to USEPA-Great Lakes
collection, measuring wet and dry
deposition, linking receptor patterns
to sources. Preliminary quantification
of wet and dry deposition loads to
Green Bay in 1988.
Development of mathematical
.models representing the
processes of transport, dissipation,
accumulation, transformation, and loss
of particles, nutrients, and pollutants
in large aquatic ecosystems.
Studies of acute, chronic and life
cycle toxicological effects of high
priority chemicals, including those
found in the Great Lakes.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
USEPA, ORD, and LLRS
DePaul University under
National Program Office
USEPA's Large Lakes Research
Station (LLRS)-Grosse He
USEPA's Environmental Research
Laboratory (ERL)-Duluth
7-17
-------
Table 7-2. U.S. Great Lakes Research Programs (continued)
Programs/Activities
Explanation
Relevant Institutions
Sediment Quality Criteria Development of a land use and
management-driven model to aid
in the identification of agricultural
nonpoint source pollution. The model,
AGNPS (Agricultural Nonpoint Source),
includes components related to pollutant
transport and loading, groundwater
contamination, and lake hydrology.
Studies of the rates of release
and biological availability of
toxic pollutants from
contaminated sediments to test
methodologies for deriving
water quality-equivalent
sediment quality criteria.
Risk Assessment
Research into the sources of
and methods for reducing uncertainties
in exposure and toxicity estimates upon
which source control and cleanup activities
are based.
USD A Agricultural Research Servii
North Central Soil Conservation
Research Laboratory, Morris, MN
USEPA's ERL-Duluth,
USEPA's LLRS-Grosse He
and USFWS-Columbia,
MO/Ann Arbor
USEPA
Quantitative Structure
Activity Relationships
(QSARs)
Fisheries Resources
Impacts of Contaminants on
Fisheries
Research into methods for
estimating physical, chemical,
biological, and toxicological properties
affecting risk using QSARs and readily
measured or estimated property data.
Development of a menu driven expert system
to guide regulatory uses of these methods.
Impacts of tumors on fish
productivity and health,
effects of parentally
transferred contaminants
on lake trout, effects of
nutrient loading on lake
trout habitat.
USEPA's ERL-Duluth
U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (USFWS)-National
Fisheries Center-Great Lakes
Ann Arbor
7-18
-------
Table 7-2. U.S. Great Lakes Research Programs (continued)
Programs/Activities Explanation Relevant Institutions
Ecosvstem Dynamics
Green Bay Studies Research in support of pilot NOAA-Great Lakes Environmental
mass balance modeling effort: Research Laboratory
water volume and sediment
transport; sediment resuspension;
exchange across air/water and sediment
interfaces; development of a bottom-resting
flume to determine bottom erosion
thresholds; fish food web, nutrient,
and contaminant dynamics.
Human Health Water Development and application USEPA-ORD-Cincinnati
Quality Criteria of pharmacodynamic models for transfer
of dose-response relationships from
animal models to humans.
7-19
-------
Water Quality Management
EPA
GLERL
NFRC
Sea
Grant
1
Ecosystem Dynamics Research
Fishery Resources Research
EPA
GLERL
NFRC
Sea
Grant
Key:
EPA: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
GLERL: Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory (NOAA)
NFRC: National Fisheries Research Center, Great Lakes (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service)
Figure 7-1. Federal Agency Participation in Great Lakes Research
7-20
-------
8. INTERNATIONAL/INTERAGENCY PROGRESS
The relationship between Federal and State environmental programs and the Great
Lakes Water Quality Agreement (GLWQA) is complex and involves numerous planning,
permitting, and enforcement efforts that serve both the purposes of various environmental
statutes and the objectives of the Agreement. Environmental management decisions are
made within the Great Lakes Basin at all levels of government: Federal, State, and local.
Many agencies and organizations, therefore, work collaboratively and independently toward
achieving both the goals of their authorizing statutes and the goals of the GLWQA. This
complex interaction requires communication and coordination, one of the principal functions
of the Great Lakes National Program Office (GLNPO).
Although coordination efforts have been discussed throughout the report, this chapter
provides a consolidated summary of progress during FY 1988 in accomplishing specific
coordination objectives set out in the recent Amendments to the GLWQA and the Clean
Water Act (CWA). Both include provisions for more formal interactions between
organizations involved in environmental programs in the Great Lakes Basin. These
provisions, in turn, form the basis for a new coordination strategy for GLNPO that
includes regular meetings with State government representatives, twice-yearly meetings of
the Parties (the United States and Canada), and formal Memoranda of Agreement regarding
roles and responsibilities in Great Lakes programs between GLNPO and other U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) organizations and between USEPA and the Great
Lakes States.
8.1 INTERNATIONAL COORDINATION
Three major types of international activities and coordination are required by Section
118 of the CWA and the GLWQA:
• Coordination of U.S. and Canadian implementation;
• Reporting of progress to the International Joint Commission (IJC); and
• Support to IJC Boards and Committees in their evaluative role.
In coordinating implementation, U.S. and Canadian staff members work together as
representatives of their respective governments to solve mutual problems and conduct
coordinated projects.
The 1987 changes to the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement require that the United
States and Canada meet twice each year to "...coordinate their respective work plans with
regard to the implementation of [the] Agreement and to evaluate progress made." Article
X of the Agreement further requires that these meetings be conducted in conjunction with
the State and Provincial governments. In response to this new requirement, GLNPO began
in August 1988 to implement a schedule of regular meetings with State program repre-
sentatives in preparation for the twice-yearly meetings between the Parties.
Under the Agreement, the United States and Canada have responsibility for setting
water quality objectives, preparing management plans, implementing remedial programs, and
monitoring water quality.
8-1
-------
In FY 1988, GLNPO personnel began serving on joint groups to address specific
requirements of the Agreement for coordinated projects on air deposition monitoring,
contaminated sediments, and development of specific objectives for toxic substances. One
important activity in this area was work on the Upper Great Lakes Connecting Channels
Study final report, discussed in Chapter 4. Considerable progress was made in FY 1988 and
the report will be released in early FY 1989. Joint U.S. and Canadian activities in these
areas will continue in FY 1989 and beyond.
In supporting the IJC, U.S. and Canadian staff members serve on various committees
and task forces as nonpartisan experts to prepare reports and develop recommendations for
the Commissioners. They also assist the Water Quality Board and Science Advisory Board
by participating in special projects and on task forces.
GLNPO and Canada prepare and submit to the IJC reports on progress achieved
implementing the provisions of the GLWQA. Reports reflect the various requirements of
the Agreement Annexes. The IJC evaluates the progress made by both governments
on a regular schedule and determines the adequacy of programs in satisfying the
requirements and objectives of the Agreement.
One special initiative begun in FY 1988 involved a restructuring of the IJC's Water
Quality Board Programs Committee. The Committee structure, under the co-direction of
the Director of GLNPO and its Canadian counterpart, has assumed responsibility for
management of all Water Quality Board activities. During FY 1988, the Programs
Committee began establishing new subcommittees and reorganizing procedures for the Water
Quality Board. To support the work of the IJC during 1989 and beyond, USD A SCS
expects to detail an employee to the IJC Regional Office in Windsor, Ontario.
8.2 INTER- AND INTRA-AGENCY COORDINATION
One of GLNPO's major responsibilities under Section 118 of the CWA is to "...in
cooperation with the appropriate Federal, State, tribal, and international agencies...develop
and implement specific action plans to carry out the responsibilities of the United States
under the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement of 1978." The Act further requires that
GLNPO "...coordinate the actions of the Agency (including actions by Headquarters and
regional offices thereof) aimed at improving Great Lakes water quality" and that GLNPO
"...coordinate actions of the Agency with the actions of other Federal agencies and State and
local authorities, so as to ensure the input of those agencies and authorities in developing
water quality strategies and obtain the support of those agencies and authorities in achieving
the objectives of the Agreement."
In FY 1988, GLNPO worked to improve its coordination within USEPA and with
other Federal agencies and the Great Lakes States. During the year, GLNPO established
interagency agreements with the:
• U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for assistance with the contaminated sediments
study;
• National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to participate in field monitoring
for the Green Bay Mass Balance Study;
8-2
-------
• U.S. Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service (SCS): to conduct studies
of conservation tillage usage in Indiana, Michigan, and Ohio; and in cooperation
with the USDA Extension Service, develop an interagency agreement for the
purpose of updating and expanding the SCS Field Office Technical Guide to better
reflect current water quality management technology.
• U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for assistance with sediment monitoring efforts with
dissolved oxygen survey of Lake Erie; and
• U.S. Geological Survey for assistance with groundwater contamination studies.
Within USEPA, GLNPO has established agreements for participation by other USEPA
programs and offices in Great Lakes initiatives. In FY 1988, GLNPO entered into
agreements with the Office of Research and Development to fund Great Lakes work at the
Large Lakes Research Station and the National Water Quality Laboratory. These two
laboratories are making important contributions to the Green Bay Mass Balance Study, the
contaminated sediments study, and other GLNPO initiatives. Also in FY 1988, GLNPO
entered into an agreement with the Region V Air Program to conduct inventories of toxic
air emissions in the regions of Detroit and Lake Michigan. This project will continue
through FY 1989.
During FY 1988, GLNPO participated with USEPA Headquarters in development of
the Agency Operating Guidance for water programs and with regional water divisions in
developing State water program guidance. These two activities are the principal methods
by which USEPA program priorities are communicated throughout the Agency and to the
States. In FY 1989, GLNPO plans to expand its efforts in this area to include participation
in program guidance development for other USEPA programs as well.
GLNPO participated in many joint efforts with States during FY 1988. . Some
important accomplishments included:
• Providing support to the States of Michigan, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Ohio, and
Pennsylvania and to various academic institutions including DePaul University, the
Universities of Minnesota, Illinois, and New York State University for 19 Great
Lakes Atmospheric Deposition (GLAD) Stations, 2 enhanced GLAD stations, and
1 enhanced GLAD master station;
• Providing support to the Ohio Department of Natural Resources for a remote
sensing study to evaluate the effectiveness of the transect survey technique;
• Establishing support to the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources for fish and
tributary montioring in Green Bay;
• Providing support to the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency for preparing
Remedial Action Plans for Areas of Concern in Minnesota;
• Providing support to the New York Department of Environmental Conservation for
developing Remedial Action Plans and conducting special studies on the Niagara
River;
• Providing support to the State of Indiana for studying contaminated sediments in
the Grand Calumet/Indiana Harbor Area of Concern;
8-3
-------
Providing support to the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency for developing
Remedial Action Plans; and
Providing support to the Council of Great Lakes Governors to assist with
implementation of the Great Lakes Toxic Substances Control Agreement, signed by
the Governors in 1986.
8-4
-------
9. GREAT LAKES OUTLOOK
Although substantial progress has been made toward restoring the beneficial uses of
the Great Lakes, major challenges remain. Water quality management and protection are
becoming increasingly complex, both technically and institutionally. Earlier water pollution
control efforts focused almost exclusively on point sources. These sources could be readily
identified and addressed, mainly by government regulatory and grant programs.
Conversely, the control of nonpoint sources of pollution has been more complicated,
in part, because nonpoint sources are varied and diffusely distributed (e.g., runoff from
agricultural areas, urban areas, and waste sites). It also has been difficult to determine the
relative contribution of various nonpoint sources to specific pollution problems, and
therefore, to identify the most important targets for control. Finally, the implementation
of nonpoint source controls tends to require the cooperative efforts of various Federal, State,
and local agencies, including those concerned with agriculture, waste management, land use
planning, zoning, and construction permits.
The problem of certain persistent toxic contaminants and the management of many
chemicals being introduced into the environment have added new dimensions to the
difficulty of water quality management and protection. Toxic chemicals can enter the
environment through a variety of media, including point sources, nonpoint sources, the
atmosphere, and ground water. Some contaminants may originate great distances from the
Lakes. Others may cycle through the environment, appearing at various times in the
atmosphere, water column, sediment, and aquatic organisms. Because of the complex nature
of the problem, identifying and implementing effective remedial strategies for the problems
of persistent toxic chemicals present major technical and institutional challenges.
9.1 CURRENT CHALLENGES
In the near term, additional reductions in certain conventional pollutants, notably
phosphorus, must be achieved in order to meet long-standing water quality objectives. The
transition must be made from planning to remedial action for specific areas with serious
localized water quality or sediment contamination problems. Efforts to develop and
implement an effective management framework for systematically reducing lakewide levels
of toxic substances must be successful.
9.1.1 Further Reductions of Pollutant Loadings
Additional reductions in phosphorus loadings to the Great Lakes are anticipated. The
compliance records of publicly-owned treatment works (POTWs) continue to improve. As
discussed earlier in this report, all POTWs in the Great Lakes Basin should be meeting a
1 mg/1 effluent limit for phosphorus by 1990. The detergent phosphate ban adopted by
Ohio in 1988 will help reduce phosphorus loads, particularly from system overflows and
treatment plant bypasses. Phosphate detergent bans are now in effect for all of the Great
Lakes Basin, except a small portion in Pennsylvania. Implementation of the Phosphorus
Management Plan developed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), in
conjunction with key states (Indiana, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and New York), should
fully achieve target load reductions, although it is not clear that the means to carry out the
needed actions are available.
9-1
-------
Canada has recently introduced a technology-based point source permit program that
is designed to reduce loadings of both nutrients and toxic chemicals to the Lakes. The
resulting reduction of nutrient loadings from Canadian industrial sources is expected to have
positive impacts on all of the Lakes.
Progress has also been made in reducing levels of many toxic contaminants. Actions
from 1969 to 1972 to ban uses of dieldrin, heptachlor, DDT, polychlorinated biphenyls
(PCB), and mirex within the Great Lakes Basin resulted in initial marked decreases in
environmental concentrations of these pollutants. The concentration of some contaminants
have since stabilized at levels above established objectives, however. In particular, PCB and
dieldrin concentrations, and in some areas DDT concentrations, found in the flesh of certain
fish species remain unacceptably high. Until the concentration of these pollutants can be
reduced further, public fish consumption advisories and concern regarding adverse effects
on human health and wildlife will continue.
In addition to contaminants that have been early targets of source controls, there is
an extensive list of hundreds of toxic chemicals that must be addressed in the coming years.
9.1.2 Eliminating Localized Contamination Problems
A major step toward further water quality improvement has been the designation of
specific areas of localized contamination.for cleanup initiatives. Remedial Action Plans
(RAPs) are at various stages of development for all U.S. Areas of Concern (AOCs).
To realize anticipated water quality improvements, however, the RAP process must
progress from the planning phase to actual implementation of remedial measures. In some
cases, additional point source reductions will be required, placing the burden on specific
industrial or municipal dischargers. In other cases, special projects for remediating
contaminated sediment problems will be necessary. If responsibility for sediment
contamination cannot be assigned to a particular source, the general public will have to bear
the costs of remedial action.
9.1.3 Developing an Ecosystem Approach to Management
The best prospect for protecting and restoring the beneficial uses of the Great lakes
lies in developing and implementing management approaches that are more responsive to
actual ecosystem conditions. Traditionally, in the Great Lakes and elsewhere, water quality
has been determined mainly based upon chemical criteria. Although such criteria will
continue to serve as important benchmarks against which progress can be measured,
consideration also must be given to "Lake Ecosystem Objectives" envisioned by the
GLWQA.
Water quality managers must develop and implement an effective ecosystem-based
management framework, as well as the information base necessary to support that
framework. The Lakewide Management Plan (LMP) concept, described in Chapter 4, builds
upon some initial toxic substance control strategy development efforts underway in Lakes
Ontario and Michigan. These efforts, which focus on the development of "mass balance
models," will be important in guiding management decisions on pollutant load reduction.
Lakewide Management Planning is particularly complex, both technically and
institutionally. Substantial amounts of data must be gathered and analyzed to develop useful
models. This typically entails close cooperation by numerous government agencies to ensure
9-2
-------
that individual studies mesh and standardized sampling and analytical protocols are
employed.
The selection of strategies for remedial action are likely to be equally complex. Some
remedial action options can be effected through the existing patchwork of regulatory and
nonregulatory programs. For example, in the United States, remedial actions could entail
additional restrictions for particular discharges permitted under the CWA or hazardous
waste cleanup under Superfund provisions. In some cases, however, special remedial initia-
tives may be necessary. For example, USEPA, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and the
States would have to collaborate to accomplish a major dredging project to remove
contaminated sediments. Assigning responsibility for such initiatives and financing them
will present major challenges in the coming years.
9.2 GENERAL STRATEGY FOR MEETING CURRENT CHALLENGES
The Great Lakes National Program Office (GLNPO) of the USEPA recently released
its "Five Year Program Strategy for Great Lakes National Program Office, FY 1989-1993."
The principal goals of the five-year program strategy for GLNPO are to:
• Conduct a study and demonstration program to assess and address contaminated
bottom sediments;
• Support the completion of LMPs for Lakes Michigan, Ontario, and Erie to
determine the steps needed to make fish safe to eat;
• Obtain sufficient information about sources, fates, and effects of pollutants to
support a mass balance approach in remedial programs;
• Support the completion and implementation of RAPs to restore beneficial uses in
all geographic AOCs-
• Evaluate results of point source and nonpoint source remedial programs to
determine whether additional controls are needed to restore oxygen levels in Lake
Erie;
• Strengthen partnerships with the Great Lakes States, other EPA programs, and other
Federal agencies in carrying out all responsibilities; and
• Protect the Lakes from human abuse by improving public understanding of the
Great Lakes system and related issues.
The activities described in the Strategy are responsive to requirements of both the
CWA and the GLWQA. Highlights of the GLNPO program plan for FY 1989, are detailed
below.
9.2.1 Eutroohication
GLNPO will work with the States and other Federal water programs to update the
U.S. Phosphorus Load Reduction Plan, incorporating nonpoint source management programs
developed under Section 319 of the CWA. The Office will also work with the States and
non-government organizations to develop techniques for monitoring the adoption of nonpoint
source management practices. It will convene a technology workshop for State and local
9-3
-------
governments on low-cost nutrient control techniques and initiate an inventory of sources of
nitrogen in the Great Lakes.
9.2.2 Toxic Pollutants
GLNPO program plans for FY 1989 include coordinating an interagency effort to
develop an approach for designating Critical Pollutants, as required under the GLWQA.
Work will continue on the mass balance pilot study in Green Bay. Analyses of toxic
pollutant control efforts will be carried out to meet reporting requirements of the GLWQA.
9.2.3 Surveillance and Monitoring
GLNPO will acquire a research vessel, replacing the 50-year old Roger Simons, to
continue comprehensive water quality monitoring, fish contaminant monitoring, and
limnological studies. It will establish air toxic deposition monitoring sites for Lake Huron
and Lake Erie and continue to coordinate multi-agency efforts related to the U.S./Canadian
air deposition network. In addition, GLNPO will work to establish approaches for assessing
the impacts of contaminated ground water and the intermedia transfer of toxic contaminants.
9.2.4 Environmental Management Plans
In FY 1989, GLNPO will continue to support the States in the development and
implementation of RAPs and will continue to monitor progress in restoring beneficial uses
within the AOCs. It will convene a workshop with the States and Canada on substantive
and process requirements for LMPs. GLNPO will also coordinate the development and
implementation of a strategy to reduce Point Source Impact Zones in accordance with the
GLWQA.
9.2.5 Remedial Activities
GLNPO will develop a strategy and ranking scheme for the Assessment and
Remediation of Contaminated Sediment program, which will be used initially to select sites
for demonstration projects. Cooperative efforts will continue with USEPA and State
regulatory offices to continue development of regional programs for the control of combined
sewer overflows, air quality protection, Superfund actions, and wetlands and. groundwater
protection. GLNPO will also work with the USEPA's Offices of Information Resources
Management and Research and Development, Region II and HI, as well as State agencies and
the International Joint Commission (IJC) to develop supporting Geographic Information
System approaches for Great Lakes water quality management.
9.2.6 Research
In FY 1989, GLNPO will work with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration to develop a listing of overall research needs for the Great Lakes and will
continue to help coordinate multi-agency research efforts within the Basin.
9.2.7 Technology Development and Transfer
GLNPO will continue to transfer phosphorus control technology to State and local
agencies by co-sponsoring a workshop and participating in technology transfer forums. It
will work with the Office of Marine and Estuarine Protection to develop a general
technology transfer strategy.
9-4
-------
9.2.8 International/Interagencv/Intra-agencv Coordination
GLNPO will continue to provide senior staff support to U.S. and Canadian principals
in the implementation of the GLWQA. It will continue to work with other Federal agencies,
developing other formal interagency agreements as appropriate. It will continue to conduct
regular meetings with State representives and will track regional and State developments.
9.2.9 Public Education and Involvement
In FY 1989, GLNPO will complete a comprehensive strategy for public education and
involvement. It will compile and disseminate existing teaching material on Great Lakes
issues and will continue to conduct regular meetings with public interest groups.
9.3 LONG-TERM PROSPECTS FOR GREAT LAKES RECOVERY
The long-term prospects for fully restoring and enhancing the Great Lakes depend
in part on our success in resolving current water quality issues. However, the future of the
Lakes will also be determined by the nature of emerging or unforeseen problems and our
success in responding to them.
Emerging and future water quality issues need to be considered within the context of
the economic and cultural conditions that will evolve over the next 20 years. Economic
growth and development have slowed in many areas of the Great Lakes Basin. The nature
and degree of the economic revitalization or decline that occurs within the region will be
major factors determining the kinds of pollution problems that will be faced, as well as the
resource base available for responding to those problems.
Conditions outside the Great Lakes Basin will also influence the long-term prospects
for restoring beneficial uses of the Lakes. Changes in national and worldwide demand and
prices of commodities or natural resources will influence the regional economy and
environmental conditions. For example, a substantial increase in oil and gas prices could
stimulate the development of energy resources within the Great Lakes Basin. Shifting
markets and technological developments could change regional industrial profiles and
demographic patterns.
Some issues are likely to be particularly important in shaping the future of the Great
Lakes. As described below, issues include the problem of toxic chemicals, increased water
withdrawals, global warming, ecosystem manipulation and biotechnology, and waste
management.
9.3.1 Toxic Substances
As discussed throughout this report, some toxic chemicals of current concern, such as
PCBs and DDT, appear to be particularly difficult to eliminate from the Great Lakes
System. Even identifying the sources of some contaminants can be complicated, especially
where atmospheric deposition or contaminated ground water are suspected. Once sources
can be identified, eliminating or reducing contaminant loadings is usually a long-term or
gradual process, which allows industries and communities time to adjust to new requirements
or adopt new ways of doing business; Remediating problems related to past activities (e.g.,
contaminated sediment or leaking hazardous waste sites, both of which serve as important
reservoirs for toxic substances in the Great Lakes) will take years to accomplish and will
require a continuing major commitment of public funds.
9-5
-------
In addition to responding to continuing problems associated with toxic substances of
current concern, numerous new toxic chemical challenges are likely to surface. It is
estimated that each year, 1,000 new chemicals are developed within the United States. It
is probable that some of these chemicals will prove toxic and be incorporated into the Great
Lakes System.
9.3.2 Increased Water Withdrawals
Lake levels are controlled in accordance with an agreement between the United States
and Canada. In the coming years, increased demands for both consumptive and
nonconsumptive uses of Great Lakes water are likely. Any growth within the Basin may
require the withdrawal of more water to support new industrial or community development.
There may also be continued pressure, especially during drought years, for the diversion of
water to commerical navigation routes, such as the Mississippi River System. Increasing
demands for municipal water supplies and irrigation water are also likely to result in
growing pressure for the transfer of water outside the Great Lakes Basin.
Increased water withdrawals and changes in lake volumes could have a wide range of
effects on beneficial uses of the Great Lakes System. Additional withdrawals within the
Basin could signal increasing discharges of pollutants, depending upon the purpose of the
withdrawals and the efficacy of pollution control technologies employed. Increased
consumptive uses within the Basin and interbasin transfers of water would result in some
reduction of lake levels. Navigation and recreational uses of the Great Lakes could be
affected by even modest changes in lake level. Groundwater flow patterns and the
hydrologic regime of wetland areas could also be altered. Such hydrologic changes could
adversely affect water quality.
9.3.3 Global Warming
The "greenhouse effect," caused by rising levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere
attributable to burning of fossil fuels, in conjunction with the destruction of the atmospheric
ozone layer by chlorofluorocarbons and other gaseous emissions, could result in gradual
global warming.
Even very small changes in average temperature can result in major environmental
effects. A change of only a few degrees can change precipitation patterns, the natural
distribution of plants and animals, and agricultural productivity. Within aquatic ecosystems,
temperature affects the rates of chemical and biological processes, community composition,
and biological productivity.
9.3.4 Ecosystem Manipulation and Biotechnology
The Great Lakes Ecosystem has been substantially modified by human activities.
These modifications have included major changes in water quality (e.g., nutrient enrichment)
and shifts in the composition of the biological community through harvesting of
commercially valuable species and habitat modification.
In recent years, efforts have been made to restore ecosystem integrity by improving
water quality conditions and reintroducing or strengthening key populations (e.g., lake
trout). As our understanding of ecosystem dynamics continues to improve, our ability to
9-6
-------
manipulate natural systems to meet particular societal objectives (e.g., provide more
sportfishing opportunities) will also increase.
Biotechnology, composed of genetic engineering and biotransformation of enzymes,
is one particular area of scientific advancement that may play an important role in efforts
to manipulate or manage the Great Lakes Ecosystem. Individual species may be modified
or enhanced to increase biological production or alter population or community dynamics.
As noted by the Water Quality Board of the IJC, biotechnology may also have future
relevance in addressing particular pollution problems. For example, genetically engineered
organisms may be used to increase the performance of wastewater treatment facilities or
reduce farmers' reliance on chemical pesticides.
9.3.5 Waste Management
Waste management is emerging as an important issue affecting the long-term prospects
for the recovery of the Great Lakes System. As noted by the Water Quality Board in its
1987 Report to the IJC, the disposal of sewage sludge, dredged materials, and solid wastes
will continue to pose major problems. Incineration, considered by some to be a promising
solution, raises concerns with regard to atmospheric deposition of residual products. Waste
minimization and resource recovery are held out as other options worthy of greater
emphasis.
9-7
-------
10. FUNDING FOR GREAT LAKES PROGRAMS
The Federal government expends more than $500 million annually on programs
intended to improve Great Lakes water quality. More than 90 percent of this funding goes
to the construction of sewage treatment facilities, under the Construction Grants program
administered by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). Major Federal
research and management programs account for an additional $33 million, or about 7 percent
of total expenditures. Pollution abatement and control programs, including State grants and
support for USEPA permitting and enforcement responsibilities, account for an additional
$15 million, or 3 percent of the total for major programs.
Many other Federal programs contribute directly or indirectly to environmental
improvements in the Great Lakes. For example, USDA supports programs that contribute
to the management and restoration of Great Lakes water quality (e.g., nonpoint source
management). Funding for these programs is not represented within the reported totals for
selected Federal programs. The costs and benefits of these types of programs are difficult
to apportion. Certainly, the Superfund program administered by the USEPA, and the
numerous research and assessment programs undertaken by various Federal natural resource
management agencies, represent major government commitments with important implications
for regional environmental quality.
10.1 FEDERAL RESEARCH AND MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS
As discussed earlier in this report, numerous Federal research and management
programs contribute, directly and indirectly, to efforts to improve water quality in the Great
Lakes System. A broad base of Federal support is provided under large national programs,
such as those funded by the National Science Foundation (NSF) and particular offices within
major environmental protection and natural resource management and development agencies:
USEPA's Office of Research and Development (ORD); the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA) National Marine Fisheries Service, National Ocean
Service and Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research; the U.S. Geological Survey's
Water Resources Division; the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's (FWS) Research and
Development Division; the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Waterways Experiment Station;
and the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Soil Conservation Service, and Agricultural
Research Service.
In addition to the broad base of national support, which benefits the Great Lakes
region along with the rest of the nation, a number of Federal programs are specifically
dedicated to Great Lakes research and management. These central Federal Great Lakes
programs are:
USEPA
• Great Lakes National Program Office (GLNPO)
• Large Lakes Research Station
10-1
-------
NOAA
• Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory
• Sea Grant
• Coastal Zone Management (CZM)
USFWS
• Great Lakes National Fishery Research Laboratory
10.1.1 The 1988 Budget
In 1988, the Congress allocated $31.6 million for major Federal Great Lakes research
and management programs. As shown in Table 10-1, NOAA programs collectively account
for $15.6 million or 49 percent of this total, USEPA programs account for $12.9 million or
about 41 percent, and the FWS Great Lakes Fishery Laboratory accounts for $3.1 million
or about 10 percent. (The Fishery Laboratory also receives some funds from other agencies,
under various interagency agreements.)
The 1988 budget for these programs represents a $6.2 million increase over the 1987
budget. Most of this increase is attributable to a doubling of the budget for GLNPO (from
$5.3 million in 1987 to $11.0 million in 1988). It included an appropriation of $1.5 million
for the purchase and refitting of a new research vessel.
Most of these resources were dedicated to monitoring and research, with a substantial
emphasis on Federal-State cooperative efforts. For example, GLNPO allocated about $6.5
million to lake surveillance and assessment of pollutant loadings and about $2.5 million to
remedial activities. Approximately one-half of this total funding was; expended in joint
Federal-State projects or as direct awards to States. GLNPO allocated about $1.5 million
to general administration and the remainder of its budget to support international efforts
under the GLWQA.
10.1.2 The 1989 Budget
In 1989, the budget for major Great Lakes research and management programs will
increase by $1.9 million, reaching a total of $33.5 million. (This actually represents the
addition of $3.4 million in new funding, accounting for the one-time appropriation of funds
in 1988). Most of this increase is to be allocated to GLNPO to support its increased
responsibilities under the CWA and the GLWQA. Specifically, the GLNPO budget will
increase by $3.6 million, $600,000 of which is to support ten new staff positions and the
remaining $3 million is to support the bilateral agreement with Canada and complete the
outfitting of the research vessel.
The budget allocations for other major Federal Great Lakes research and management
programs will remain fairly stable. However, increases for GLNPO activities are tending
to equalize the distribution of funds for USEPA and NOAA research and management
programs.
10-2
-------
TABLE 10-1. FEDERAL FUNDING FOR SELECTED GREAT LAKES RESEARCH AND MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS ($ millions)
t— »
o
1
u>
PROGRAM
EPA GLNPO
Large Lakes
Research Station
NOVA GLERL
Sea Grant (1)
Coastal Zone
Management (2)
Fish and Wildlife
Fishery Laboratory (3)
TOTAL
FY
1980
6.5
3.9
3.3
5.3
3.8
2.0
24.8
FY
1981
6.0
3.1
3.4
3.8
5.1
2.1
23.5
FY
1982
5.4
2.5
3.6
4.9
6.4
2.1
24.9
FY
1983
4.7
2.5
3.6
5.2
3.6
2.1
21.7
FY
1984
4.0
2.5
3.6
5.2
1.6
2.1
19
FY
1985
6.5
2.5
3.6
5.4
7.6
2.3
27.9
FY
1986
4.8
2.4
3.8
5.6
5.5
2.8
24.9
FY
1987
5.3
1.9
4.1
5.6
5.6
2.9
25.4
FY
1988
11.0
1.9
4.4
5.6
5.6
3.1
31.6
FY
1989
13.0
2.0
4.6
5.6
5.6
2.7
33.5
(1) Includes funds allocated to programs in Illinois. Indiana. Michigan. Minnesota, New York. Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin.
The FY 1989 funding level is estimated.
(2) Comprises funding allocated to Great Lakes States with CZM programs: Michigan. New York, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin.
The FY 1989 funding level is estimated.
(3) Represents only those funds provided to the laboratory directly by Congressional appropriation.
Does not include funds transferred from other agencies.
-------
10.1.3 Funding History and Trends
Over the past 10 years, major Federal Great Lakes research and management programs
have been funded at a level of about $25 million annually. Support declined in 1983 and
1984, with major reductions in funding for GLNPO and the Coastal Zone Management
Program. More recently, funding levels have increased, reaching a new high of $33.5
million in 1989.
Expressed in real dollars, calculated using the Gross National Product (GNP) implicit
price deflator and 1982 as a base year, budget reductions over the past decade were
substantial. At its low point in 1984, the funding level was more than $11 million less than
it was in 1980 (Figure 10-1). This represents a 39 percent reduction in support. Data
collection and analysis programs were principal targets of funding decreases. Funding
increases the following year fully offset the 1984 budget reductions, with the average of
1984 and 1985 total funding levels approximating those in 1983.
In terms of real dollars, funding increases in 1988 and 1989 have restored the total
budget for research and management programs to the 1980 level of about $29 million.
Comparing the 1989 budget to the 1980 budget, GLNPO is the only office that has
registered a significant increase ($3.5 million in real dollars), while the budget for the
USEPA's Large Lakes Research Station has declined by $2.8 million and the budget for
NOAA's Sea Grant Program in the Great Lakes has declined by about $1.4 million. The
other major programs are funded in 1989 at about the same level that they were in 1980.
10.2 FEDERAL POLLUTION ABATEMENT AND CONTROL PROGRAMS
As described in earlier chapters, the core of Federal activities for water pollution
abatement and control are a set of programs administered by the USEPA's Office of Water
(OW). These programs include activities related to:
• enforcement of regulatory provisions;
• overview of State administration of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) permit program;
• issuance of grants for State pollution control programs under Section 106 of the
CWA;
• development of effluent standards and guidelines;
• water quality monitoring and analysis; and
• development of water quality standards and regulations.
Most of these activities are administered by the Regional Offices of the USEPA. The
Great Lakes Basin is served by three such offices: Region V, which is the principal office,
serving six Great Lakes States (i.e., Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio, and
Wisconsin); Region II, which includes one Great Lakes State (i.e., New York), as well as
New Jersey, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands; and Region III, which includes only a
small portion of the basin (i.e., one county in northwestern Pennsylvania), as well as
Delaware, the District of Columbia, Maryland, West Virginia and Virginia.
10-4
-------
1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989
Fiscal Year
B FWS Fishery Laboratory
Q NOAA Coastal Zone Management
n NOAA Sea Grant
Q NOAA Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory
B USEPA Large Lakes Laboratory
| USEPA Great Lakes National Program Office
* Expressed in real dollars, calculated using the GNP implicit price deflator and FY 1982 as a base year.
The FY 1987 index of 117.5 was used to estimate real dollar funding levels for FY 1988 and FY 1989.
FIGURE 10-1. Trends in Federal Funding for Selected Great Lakes Research and
Management Programs
10-5
-------
Consequently, it is difficult to accurately determine the exact portion of USEPA water
pollution abatement and control funding allocated to the Great Lakes Basin. However, since
Region V incorporates most of the Great Lakes Basin, it is considered the best focus for a
general budget analysis.
Within Region V, total obligations for USEPA water pollution abatement and control
programs amounted to about $12.3 million in 1980 (Table 10-2). Total funding declined
gradually until 1984, when it began increasing steadily, reaching a high of about $17.8
million in 1987. Obligations have declined again in the past two years, with a $2 million
reduction being anticipated in 1989.
Most of the funding for these USEPA pollution and control programs is allocated to
the States in the form of CWA Section 106 grants. These grants account for 55 .to 80
percent of total Region V program resources over the past decade.
In addition to these major Federal pollution abatement and control programs, some
portion of the USEPA's Region II and Region III water program resources are expended
within the Great Lakes Basin. Further, a wide range of other contaminant control programs
contribute directly to water quality improvements. These include the following:
• Suoerfund - Under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act (CERCLA), 228 sites in USEPA's Region V have been included on
the National Priorities List, and thus are eligible for up. to $2 million each in
funding for cleanup. Some of these hazardous waste cleanup efforts are certain to
benefit water quality in the Great Lakes Basin.
°f Contaminated Sediments - The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
(COE) undertakes a range of environmental protection activities in association with
its responsibility to maintain the nation's navigable waterways. Within the Great
Lakes Basin, a portion of COE funding is allocated for issuing and enforcing
dredge and fill permits under Section 404 of the CWA. In addition, more than $12
million was expended in the Basin in 1988 for activities related to the confinement
of contaminated sediments, testing of sediment, water quality monitoring,
construction of confined disposal facilities, and special studies.
Nonooint Source Controls for Agricultural Areas - The U.S. Department of
Agriculture operates a number of national-scale programs to encourage appropriate
consideration of soil erodibility and nonpoint source contaminant control. Some
portion of the funds expended on this national program, including allocations for
local extension services, directly benefit Great Lakes water quality.
Soill Clean-Uo - The U.S. Coast Guard works with the USEPA in responding to
offshore spills of hazardous materials and oil. Generally, costs for cleanup are
borne almost entirely by responsible parties, however, some costs are incurred by
the Federal government (e.g., less than $100,000 annually).
10-6
-------
TABLE 10-2 FEDERAL FUNDING FOR POLLUTION ABATEMENT AND CONTROL PROGRAMS IN SELECTED U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGIONS
($ Millions Obligated)
1 — •
o
1
^4
PROGRAM
WATER QUALITY ENFORCEMENT
REGION II
REGION III
REGION V
ALL REGIONS
WATER QUALITY PERMITS
REGION II
REGION III
REGION V
ALL REGIONS
SECTION 100 GRANTS
REGION II
REGION III
REGION V
ALL REGIONS
EFFLUENT STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES
FY
1080
0.07
2.20
0.20
1.30
640
0.10
8.80
48.90
FY
1981
0.03
3.00
0.20
0.03
4.30
6.80
0.40
9.10
61.20
FY
1982
1.70
2.90
2.30
17.20
0.70
0.30
0.00
9.90
6.70
0.40
9.30
61.30
FY
1983
1.30
1.70
1.50
13.00
0.70
0.20
0.00
10.00
000
0.80
4.00
54.10
FY
1984
1.20
1.70
1.'40
13,20
0.90
0.40
0.70
14.00
. 0.00
0.70
9.60
63.90
FY
1985
1.40
2.30
1.80
10.00
1.10
0.50
1.00
15.90
050
7.50
10.70
01.30
FY
1980
1 50
1.50
1 90
17.30
1.10
0.60
1 20
14.30
0.70
7.00
1090
02.10
FY
1987
1.70
1.00
200
1800
0.90
0.30
1.20
1530
780
800
12.00
71.10
FY
1988
150
1.70
220
1980
1.00
050
1.00
1700
0.00
750
1050
00.90
FY
1989*
0.90
090
1.30
11.10
0.50
030
080
14.00
0.50
7.40
11.10
61.70
ALL REGIONS 20.50
WATER QUALITY MONITORING AND ANALYSIS
23.70
13.00
13.00
10.70
9.20
7.70
7.50
REGION V TOTAL
(include* 10% of Effluent
Standard! «nd Guidelines)
* Authorized funds
12.30
11.00
14.40
8.40
14.00
15.80
10.10
17.80
040
5.00
REGION II
REGION III
REGION V
ALL REGIONS
WATER QUALITY
REGION II
REGION III
REGION V
ALL REGIONS
1.20
0.20
0.80
10.70
STANDARDS AND REGULATIONS
0.01
0.01
0.03
1.20
0.20
0.05
0.09
3.30
0.01
1.00
0.70
0.30
0.70
8.20
0.07
0.08
0.20
3.00
0.80
0.50
0.70
8.30
0.09
0.10
0.20
2.90
1.00
0.00
100
13.10
0.20
0.30
0.30
4.00
0.90
000
1.10
12.80
0.20
0.30
0.30
0.50
1.00
0.90
0.90
11.10
0.20
0.20
0.40
0.70
0.80
1.00
0.90
1240
0 10
0.30
0.40
7.00
1.30
0.80
0.80
12.40
0.20
030
040
0.50
0.05
0.00
000
5.90
0.09
0.10
0.20
5.00
10.10
14.00
-------
10.3 FEDERAL CONSTRUCTION GRANTS FOR WASTEWATER TREATMENT WORKS
The largest Federal program directly. affecting Great Lakes water quality is the
USEPA's Construction Grants program, which is mainly intended to help local governments
build or upgrade sewage treatment plants. As noted earlier in this report, cumulatively,
more than $7.9 billion in Federal and State support has been expended on sewage treatment
facility construction. In 1988, over $500 million was obligated to Great Lakes States under
the Construction Grants program.
Almost all funding under this program is expended for facility development and
implementation under Section 201 of the CWA (Table 10-3). State allotments under Sections
205(g) and 205(j) represent much smaller program components.
Construction grants funding within Region V of the USEPA reached high points in
1981, 1983, and 1988, when more than $500 million were obligated annually. A reduction
in spending is anticipated in 1989, with obligated funding expected to be less than one-
half the level in 1988.
Still, funding has been sufficient to support numerous important projects. This
includes one of the largest municipal wastewater construction projects in the Region under
way in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. Overall, the USEPA has contributed $414 million toward this
$1.7 billion water pollution abatement effort. When completed in the mid-1990s, the facility
will provide a highly reliable secondary wastewater treatment and will eliminate the
discharge of combined sewer overflows to Lake Michigan.
The CWA envisions the Construction Grants program phasing out by 1990. Still, the
USEPA will continue to help finance municipal sewage treatment facilities through a new
State revolving-fund system. Great Lakes States within Region V are authorized to receive
over $1.8 billion through 1994 under this State-managed.system.
10-8
-------
o
I
lO
TABLE 10-3 FEDERAL CONSTRUCTION GRANTS FOR WASTEWATER TREATMENT WORKS IN SELECTED U S ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGIONS
(S Million! OblKial.dl
PROGRAM
201 CONSTRUCTION GRANTS
REGION II
REGION III
REGION V
ALL REGIONS
206
-------
11. GLOSSARY OF TERMS
Ammonia - a reduced form of nitrogen, is an important plant nutrient often measured as
an indicator of biological productivity or enrichment, i.e., eutrophication. Un-ionized
ammonia, is the principal toxic form of ammonia. Ammonia can be acutely toxic to
freshwater organisms, depending upon prevalent pH and temperature.
Areas of Concern (AOCs) - a geographic area that fails to meet the General or Specific
Objectives of the Agreement where such failure has caused or is likely to cause impairment
of beneficial use or of the area's ability to support aquatic life.
Best Management Practices (BMPs) - schedules of activities, prohibitions of practices,
maintenance procedures, and other management practices to prevent or reduce the pollution
of waters of the United States. BMPs also include treatment requirements, operating
procedures, and practices to control plant site runoff, spillage or leaks, sludge or waste dis-
posal, or drainage from raw material storage.
Bioaccumulation - the rate at which a compound is accumulated and distributed in an
organism.
Boundary Waters - the Great Lakes Basin waters forming the common border between the
United States and Canada including their bays, arms, and inlets.
Cladophora - a genus of branched filamentous septate green algae, usually firmly attached
to solid substrates, as on Great Lakes shores, where nutrient levels trigger growth;
occasionally washed loose by storms to accumulate as a "nuisance" on beaches; or indication
of eutrophication.
Contaminated Ground Water - subsurface water contained in soils, sediments, and/or
fractured rocks which contains toxic levels of environmental pollutants derived from shallow
waste-disposal sites (i.e., landfills, dumpsites, and lagoons); deep and shallow well injection
of liquid waste; and leachate of persistent pesticides or other chemical residues from
agriculture and of radionuclides from nuclear refineries.
Contaminated Sediments - sediments containing pollutants in potentially harmful
concentrations and which may be released by physical or biological processes. In the Great
lakes context, concentrations of contaminated sediments in harbor and river mouth areas are
the primary concern.
Conventional Pollutants - chemicals such as various forms of nitrogen, phosphorus, and
carbon, which cause oxygen depletion or-excessive enrichment and eutrophication of the
aquatic environment.
Critical Pollutants - substances that persist at levels that, singly or in synergistic or additive
combination, are causing, or are likely to cause, impairment of beneficial uses despite past
application of regulatory controls due to their presence in open lake waters, ability to cause
or contribute to a failure to meet Agreement Objectives through their recognized threat to
human health and aquatic life, or ability to bioaccumulate.
11-1
-------
Cvanide - Cyanide can be present in many forms in the environment. The transport, fate,
and toxicity of the chemical is quite dependent on the specific form. Hydrogen cyanide and
its salts are highly toxic following acute exposure by humans, experimental animals, and
both aquatic and terrestrial wildlife.
DDT - DDT and its metabolites, DDD and DDE, are very persistent in the environment and
have been shown to be carcinogenic to mice. DDT, DDD, DDE and the other persistent
organochlorine pesticides are primarily responsible for the great decrease in the reproductive
capabilities and consequently in the population of fish-eating birds, such as the bald eagle,
brown pelican, and osprey. DDT has also been shown to decrease the populations of
numerous other species of waterbirds, raptors, and passerines significantly.
Dieldrin - the pesticide aldrin' degrades to dieldrin, which is very persistent in the
environment. Both pesticides are carcinogens, are acutely toxic to aquatic organisms, and
are bioconcentrated by aquatic organisms. Dieldrin is one of the most persistent of the
chlorinated hydrocarbons. Both pesticides, and especially dieldrin, have been associated with
large-scale bird and mammal kills in treated areas.
Dioxin (TCDD) - is a particularly hazardous group of 75 chemicals of the chlorinated
dioxin family. 2,3,7,8 - TCCD or 2,3,7,8- tetrachlorodibenzo-para-dioxin is a particularly
dangerous member of this group.
Ecosystem Approach - a comprehensive consideration of the variables (e.g., water,
chemicals, toxic substance, and biota) making up the basic ecological system. When applied
to a large regional system, the ecosystem approach requires considerations of three major
interacting subsystems: physical, chemical, and biological phenomena; responsible
institutions and their interactions and the socioeconomic system that utilizes the resources
and receives the benefits or bears the burden of the result of management actions. This
approach carries with it an expectation of management and criteria for taking management
actions implicitly beyond the scope of conventional scientific inquiry in that they
incorporate societal values, relationships to increasingly scarce resources, and evolving life
styles in the basin.
Ecosystem Objectives - environmental objectives that specify the nature of the Great Lakes
in their desired state in terms of living organisms, their population characteristics and or
condition of individual organisms. For example, the objectives for Lake Superior call for
the lake to be a stable oligotrophic ecosystem with lake trout as the top aquatic predator
of a cold-water community and with Pontoporeia hovi as a key organism in the food chain.
Effluent - the discharge of treated wastewater from municipal and industrial facilities.
Estuary - in regards to the Great Lakes, the estuary (or the estuary's environment) is
defined as that portion of the inflowing river in which river water is measurably diluted
with lake water. A compositional gradient between the two water masses is often evident
associated with freshwater dilution.
11-2
-------
Eutrophication - the overproduction of microscopic plant life stimulated by unnaturally
abundant nutrient inputs. Problems associated with cultural input include turbidity,
aesthetic nuisances, changes in algal species, filter clogging, taste and odor problems in
water supplies, and oxygen depletion in lake water.
Fish Consumption Advisories - an advisory issued by the jurisdiction to protect human
health against exposure to toxic chemicals concentrated in fish tissue.
Furans (Polvchlorinated Dibenzofurous - PCDFs^ - were noted in lake trout, common carp,
and large mouth bass, and frequently occur as trace contaminant' of polychlorinated
biphenyls. Referred to as an "emerging problem" by the International Joint Commission.
Great Lakes Basin Ecosystem - the interacting components of air, land, water, and living
organisms, including humans, within the drainage basin of the St. Lawrence River at or
upstream from the point at which this river becomes the international boundary between
Canada and the United States.
Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement (GLWOA) - an international agreement revised in
November 1987 between the United States and Canada to restore and enhance the quality
of the Great Lakes system and strengthen their commitment to solving the most critical
problems on the lakes. It emphasizes the concept of ecosystem management for the Great
Lakes Basin and recognizes that resource management issues in the Basin should be
addressed within the context of the entire ecosystem, taking into consideration the
relationships between environmental media and media-specific environmental programs.
Habitat - the physical, chemical, and biotic components of the environment, including water
quality. Recognition of other components of habitat other than water quality determines
the composition and well-being of the Great Lakes biological community. Quality of habitat
is particularly significant for successful spawning, growth, and recruitment of fish and for
determining the quality and quantity of food available at all levels of the food chain.
Heptachlor - Heptachlor and its active metabolite, heptachlor epoxide, are very persistent
in the environment, resisting chemical and biological breakdown into harmless substances.
These pollutants ase liver carcinogens when administered orally to rats. Heptachlor is toxic
at low concentrations in some aquatic invertebrate and fish species, and shows a strong
tendency to bioaccumulate. It can concentrate at levels thousands of times greater than
those in the surrounding water in a variety of aquatic organisms.
Hexachlorobenzene (HCB) - a very persistent environmental pollutant that can be
bioaccumulated. HCB is readily sorped onto sediment particles, although desorption does
occur, producing continuous, low-level concentrations of HCB in the surrounding
environment. Hexachlorobenzene is carcinogenic in mice, rats, and hamsters, and produces
adverse effects in humans upon exposure.
In-Place Pollutant - pollutants that have accumulated, usually in the river or lake sediments,
from which they may be released by physical or biological processes.
11-3
-------
International Joint Commission (IJCJ - established by the 1909 Boundary Waters Treaty. A
binational Commission with responsibility for decisions regarding obstruction or diversion
of U.S./Canadian boundary waters and to which other questions or matters of difference can
be referred for examination and report. The Commission also has powers to resolve
differences arising over the common frontier. In 1972 the Commission was given
responsibility for assisting and monitoring the two governments' implementation of the Great
Lakes Water Quality Agreement.
Loadings (Phosphorous: Pollutant) - total quantity entering the Lakes, often recognized as
the volume-weighted concentration of one or several pollutants discharged from either a
point source or nonpoint source of pollution.
Mass Balance Approach and Models - a framework for management of persistent toxic
substances requiring information about the quantity of a substance entering the ecosystem;
the quantity stored, transferred or degraded within the ecosystem; and the quantity leaving.
The difference between inputs and outputs is the quantity that remains to be" recycled or
lost to the sediment and the atmosphere.
Mercury - both organic and inorganic forms of mercury are reported to be teratogenic and
embryotoxic in experimental animals. In humans, prenatal exposure to methylmercury has
been associated with brain damage. Atmospheric transport is the major environmental
distribution pathway for mercury. Adsorption onto suspended and submerged sediments is
the most important process determining the fate of mercury in the aquatic environment.
Mercury is strongly bioaccumulated by numerous mechanisms. Methylmercury is the most
readily accumulated and retained form of mercury in aquatic biota, and once it enters a
biological system it is very difficult to eliminate.
Mirex - Mirex, which has been used as a fire retardant and pest control agent, at one time
was produced in the Lake Ontario Basin. Its continued presence in the Lake Ontario system
has caused some concern. Bioaccumulation is well known for a variety of organisms but
the effect of this bioaccmulation on the aquatic ecosystem is unknown. There is evidence
that mirex is very persistent in bird tissue.
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) - the national program for
controlling direct discharges from point sources of pollutants (e.g., municipal sewage
treatment plants, industrial sites) into waters of the United States.
Nearshore Waters - the waters adjacent to the lakeshore directly affected by discharges from
onshore and that interact with land by wave and wind actions.
Nitrate Plus Nitrite - an oxidized form of nitrogen, nitrate plus nitrite (often in conjunction
with ammonia), is measured in aquatic systems as an indicator of biological productivity or
enrichment (i.e., eutrophication) Excessive nitrate plus nitrite may also indicate the presence
of agricultural fertilizer originating from nonpoint source runoff from adjacent land or
point source discharges of sewage treatment plants.
Nonpoint Sources - polluted land runoff derived from numerous diffuse sources rather than
one (or several) discrete discharge point(s).
Oligotrophic Ecosystem - those lakes poorly provided with the basic nutrients required for
plant and animal production; poorly nourished in contrast to a eutrophic ecosystem.
11-4
-------
Open Lake - those waters in a lake unaffected by physical and chemical processes
originating or resulting from the adjacent land mass. Physical, chemical, and biological
phenomena resemble oceanographic conditions in open lake waters.
Polvchlorinated Biohenvls (PCBs) - highly persistent, highly bioaccumulative, and highly
toxic pollutants that, due to presently high levels in some commercial and sport fish species
are believed to constitute a threat to public health. PCBs are still in use for electrical
purposes pending replacement. There appears to be recycling of the pollutant in the Great
Lakes from contaminated sediments (both rivers and lakes) and the atmosphere.
Phosphorus - present as a constituent of various organic and inorganic complexes and
compounds; the initial limiting nutrient in most freshwater systems; when phosphate
phosphorus is abundant, other chemical substances may become limiting to growth of aquatic
plants.
Point Source - any discernible, confirmed, and discrete conveyance, including but not
limited to any pipe, ditch, channel, tunnel, conduit, well, discrete fissure, container, rolling
stock, concentrated animal feeding operation, vessel, or other floating craft from which
pollutants are or may be discharged.
Publiclv-Owned Treatment Work (POTW) - any device or system used in the treatment
(including recycling and reclamation) of municipal sewage or industrial wastes of a liquid
nature that is owned by a "State" or "municipality". This definition includes sewers, pipes,
or other conveyances which convey wastewater to the treatment works.
Remedial Action Plans (RAPs) - plans prepared by the jurisdictions, following guidelines
developed by the Great Lakes Water Quality Board, aimed at restoring all beneficial uses
to Areas of Concern. These goals are to be accomplished through implementation of
programs and measures to control sources and remediate environmental problems. The
restoration effected under this initiative would also remove the threat posed by Areas of
Concern to the adjacent nearshore and open lake water quality.
Specific Objectives - the concentration or quantity of a substance or level of effect that the
Parties agree, after investigation, to recognize as a maximum or minimum desired limit for
a defined body of water or portion thereof, taking into account the beneficial uses or level
of environmental quality which the Parties desire to .secure and protect
Toxaohene - a chlorinated organic pesticide that is persistent in the natural environment.
Toxaphene has induced liver cancer in mice and thyroid tumors in rats. Transport through
the soil, water, and air can occur relatively easily. It has a relatively high degree of toxicity
in aquatic organisms and has resulted in fish kills and adverse effects on fish development
and reproduction. Bioaccumulation in birds and mammals may result in exposure to
excessive concentrations. Bird kills due to toxaphene have been reported. Presence in the
Great Lakes is suspected to be primarily due to atmospheric deposition.
Toxic Pollutants - substances that can cause death, disease, behavioral abnormalities, cancer,
genetic mutations, physiological or reproductive malfunctions, or physical deformities in .any
organism or its offspring or that can become poisonous after concentrations in the food
chain or in combination with other substances.
Trophic Status - the degree of nutrient enrichment and resultant biotic productivity in a
lake resulting from geologic, climatologic, biologic, factors or influences, as well as from
humans.
11-5
------- |