-------
7
TABLE OF CONTENTS
FOREWORD
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 OVERVIEW OF REQUIREMENTS FOR LMPS 1-1
1.2 IMPLEMENTATION FRAMEWORK 1-2
1.3 MAJOR ISSUES 1-4
2. BACKGROUND 2-1
2.1 EVOLUTION OF THE LAKEWIDE MANAGEMENT PLANNING CONCEPT 2-1
2.2 RELATIONSHIP TO EXISTING WATER QUALITY PROGRAMS 2-12
3. ESTABLISHING MULTI-INSTITUTIONAL COOPERATION 3-1
3.1 IDENTIFYING LEAD INSTITUTIONS 3-1
3.2 IDENTIFYING OTHER INSTITUTIONAL PARTICIPANTS 3-4
3.3 ESTABLISHING GROUND RULES 3-5
4. ADDRESSING CRITICAL POLLUTANTS 4-1
4.1 IDENTIFYING POLLUTANTS OF CONCERN 4-1
4.2 DEFINING THE THREATS POSED BY CRITICAL POLLUTANTS 4-8
4.3 GREAT LAKES MONITORING 4-10
4.4 LONG-TERM ISSUES 4-10
5. DETERMINING AND MEETING INFORMATION NEEDS 5-1
5.1 INFORMATION REQUIREMENTS . 5-2
5.2 QUANTITATIVE METHODOLOGIES 5-3
5.3 SOURCES OF INFORMATION 5-5
5.4 STRATEGIES FOR FILLING DATA GAPS 5-8
5.5 INFORMATION MANAGEMENT 5-9
6. DETERMINING LOAD REDUCTION REQUIREMENTS 6-1
6.1 MASS BALANCE APPROACH 6-1
6.2 DEFINING TARGET LOAD REDUCTION OBJECTIVES 6-3
6.3 IMPLEMENTATION ISSUES 6-5
6.4 MODEL SELECTION 6-6
6.5 AVAILABLE MODELS 6-7
6.6 MODEL APPLICATION 6-8
U.S. tnv : , ..- -
Great Lakes National t ;> ••-_-
Library
-------
7. EVALUATING THE EFFECTIVENESS OF CURRENT REMEDIAL PROGRAMS 7-1
7.1 MAJOR REGULATORY AND NON-REGULATORY PROGRAMS 7-1
7.2 FACTORS INFLUENCING PROGRAM EFFECTIVENESS 7-6
7.3 MEASURING PROGRAM EFFECTIVENESS 7-6
7.4 IDENTIFYING NEW REMEDIAL MEASURES TO BE CONSIDERED 7-6
8. DEVELOPING REMEDIAL ACTION STRATEGIES 8-1
8.1 MANAGING THE PROCESS 8-1
8.2 THE LAKE ONTARIO TOXICS MANAGEMENT PLAN APPROACH 8-1
8.3 IMPLEMENTATION ISSUES 8-5
8.4 ALLOCATING RESPONSIBILITY FOR SPECIFIC ACTIONS 8-6
8.5 DEVELOPING A SCHEDULE FOR REMEDIAL ACTION 8-6
8.6 MODELS FOR TECHNICAL ELEMENTS OF A STRATEGY 8-7
9. ENSURING IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PLAN 9-1
9.1 REINFORCING CONDITIONS FOR MULTI-INSTITUTIONAL COOPERATION 9-1
9.2 ENFORCEMENT OF REGULATORY ACTIONS 9-2
10. MEASURING THE EFFECTIVENESS OF PLAN IMPLEMENTATION 10-1
10.1 SURVEILLANCE AND MONITORING WITHIN THE LMP FRAMEWORK 10-1
10.2 EXISTING MONITORING PROGRAMS 10-3
10.3 SOURCE MONITORING 10-3
10.4 ECOSYSTEM MONITORING 10-4
APPENDIX A: EVALUATING AVAILABLE INFORMATION FOR IMPLEMENTING A-l
THE LAKEWIDE MANAGEMENT PROCESS
APPENDIX B: REFERENCES B-l
-------
LIST OF TABLES
2-1 Contributions of Selected Recent Activities to the Evolution of 2-2
Lakewide Management Planning
3-1 Institutional Framework for Recent Studies and Planning Efforts 3-2
4-1 Preliminary List: Lake Michigan Toxic Pollutants of Concern 4-4
4-2 Lake Ontario Toxics Management Plan's Categorization of Toxics 4-6
5-1 Lake Processes Definitions 5-6
5-2 Example Information Utility Hierarchy 5-30
7-1 Major United States Federal Programs Contributing to Great Lakes Water 7-2
Quality Improvement
7-2 Major Canadian Programs Contributing to Great Lakes Water Quality 7-4
Improvement
10-1 Temporal and Spatial Factors Affecting Pollutant Source Monitoring 10-5
A-l Environmental Legislation Affecting Great Lakes Ecosystem Quality A-2
A-2 Representative Sources of Available Information for Great Lakes A-20
Information Requirements
A-3 U.S. Environmental Surveillance and Monitoring Programs in the A-40
Great Lakes Region
A-4 U.S. Great Lakes Research Programs A-45
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
1-1 Summary Lakewide Management Planning Process 1-3
4-1 Process for Designation of Critical Pollutants 4-1
5-1 SLSA: Lake Process 5-7
6-1 A Mass Balance Budget for an Aquatic System 6-2
8-1 Management Structure for the Lake Ontario Toxics Management Plan
8-2 Sequential Process of Load Reduction Adopted for the Lake Ontario
Toxics Management Plan 8-4
-------
0 G 0 G
GGG G G
i!
i !
-------
FOREWORD
Lakewide Management Plans (LMPs) to reduce contaminant loadings in open lake waters
are required by Annex 2 of the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement (GLWQA). In addition
to this specific mandate, Annex 2 provides that in concert with Remedial Action Plans (RAPs)
for Areas of Concern (AOCs), Lakewide Management Plans are to "embody a systematic and
comprehensive ecosystem approach to restoring and protecting the beneficial uses" of lake
waters. Together, LMPs and RAPs are to serve as an important step toward the virtual
elimination of persistent toxic substances and the restoration of the chemical, physical, and
biological integrity of the Great Lakes ecosystem.
These efforts involve an array of complex technical and management issues, and a
diverse collection of jurisdictions and programs for their implementation. A process for
systematic remedial action through LMPs therefore necessarily requires a carefully constructed
institutional and programmatic framework for coordinating and directing the efforts of the
parties to meet both short- and long-term objectives of lakewide management planning under
the GLWQA.
This paper is intended to facilitate a discussion of relevant issues by core participants in
the process of developing LMPs. Chapter 1 presents a brief overview of LMP requirements, a
proposed implementation framework for developing the LMP process, and a discussion of
major issues. These include the technical issue of decision-making under uncertainty; the
development of an ecosystem-based approach through LMPs; and the relationship of the LMP
process to specific remedial actions. Background information on the evolution of the LMP
concept and examples of specific models for developing technical studies and remedial action
plans are provided in Chapter 2. The remainder of the paper presents a step-by-step
discussion of LMP process elements, from the establishment of multi-institutional cooperation
for LMP implementation to meeting the specific technical and programmatic requirements of
Annex 2.
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Lakewide Management Plans (LMPs) are required by Annex 2 of the Great Lakes Water
Quality Agreement (GLWQA) to reduce lakewide contaminant loadings to the point that all
beneficial uses in the open lake waters are restored. In addition to this specific mandate,
Annex 2 provides that in concert with Remedial Action Plans (RAPs) for Areas of Concern
(AOCs), Lakewide Management Plans are to "embody a systematic and comprehensive
ecosystem approach to restoring and protecting the beneficial uses" of lake waters. Together,
LMPs and RAPs are to serve as an important step toward the virtual elimination of persistent
toxic substances from the Great Lakes and the restoration of the chemical, physical, and
biological integrity of the Great Lakes ecosystem.
These efforts involve an array of complex technical and management issues and a diverse
collection of jurisdictions and programs for their implementation. A process for systematic
remedial action through LMPs therefore necessarily requires a carefully constructed
institutional and programmatic framework for coordinating and directing the efforts of the
parties to meet both short- and long-term objectives of lakewide management planning under
the GLWQA.
This paper is intended to facilitate a discussion of relevant issues by core participants in
the process of developing LMPs. Chapter 1 presents a brief overview of LMP requirements, a
proposed implementation framework for developing the LMP process, and a discussion of
several major issues. Background information on the evolution of the LMP concept and
examples of specific models for developing technical studies and remedial action plans are
provided in Chapter 2. The remainder of the paper presents a step-by-step discussion of LMP
process elements, ranging from the establishment of multi-institutional cooperation for LMP
implementation to meeting the specific technical and programmatic requirements of Annex 2.
1. INTRODUCTION
According to the terms of Annex 2, the process of LMP development and
implementation is to be guided by four basic principles: the plans should clearly identify
problems to be addressed, and propose remedial steps and specific monitoring requirements for
tracking progress in restoring beneficial uses; they should embody a comprehensive ecosystem
approach; they should build on existing management plans; and finally, LMPs should ensure
that the public is consulted in the process.
Specifically, Annex 2 requires that the following ten elements be included in each LMP:
1. A definition of the threat to human health or aquatic life posed by Critical Pollutants;
2. An evaluation of information available on concentrations, sources and pathways of
designated Critical Pollutants in the Great Lakes System;
3. Development of programs to obtain the information necessary to determine the schedule
of load reductions of Critical Pollutants;
4. A determination of load reductions of Critical Pollutants;
5. An evaluation of current remedial measures, and alternative additional measures to
decrease loadings of Critical Pollutants;
6. Identification of the additional remedial measures that are needed, including an
implementation schedule;
7. Identification of the entities responsible for implementation of the remedial measures;
11
-------
8. A process for evaluating remedial measure implementation and effectiveness;
9. A description of surveillance and monitoring to track remedial measures; and
10. A process for recognizing the absence of a Critical Pollutant in open lake waters.
IMPLEMENTATION FRAMEWORK
The framework for implementing the LMP process will require a combination of
technical and management activities, in a process dynamic enough to permit revisions and
updating as more and better information becomes available over time. Each of the following
steps of this process is discussed in greater detail in later sections. The first step is the basic
management task of organizing for each lake a planning group that will have responsibility for
developing a basic strategy for responding to the GLWQA requirements. This group should
include the input or participation of not only the core planning agencies, but also a
representation of agencies that will ultimately be responsible for implementing the LMP
strategy.
Second, available data must be gathered and analyzed, and load reduction requirements
and options for source controls must be developed by a technical working group. The results
should then be synthesized into a set of recommendations to be submitted to the planning
group for consideration in the selection of load reduction strategies. Once a proposed strategy
is developed, the planning group should solicit broader public input through public meetings or
hearings. Commitments from appropriate agencies to implement the final LMP, or to carry
out their programs consistently with LMP goals, and support from the local public, will be
more easily obtained if their input is considered and integrated during the early stages of the
process.
Finally, the Annex calls for the monitoring of LMP implementation, raising another set
of technical tasks. Evaluation of program results is essential to the planning group's decisions
on the need for further action, such as whether a given pollutant should be withdrawn from
the Critical Pollutant list, or should be re-evaluated for additional load reduction measures.
MAJOR ISSUES
Three broad thematic issues surface as central to LMP implementation. The first arises
from the information-intensive nature of the process. LMPs necessarily require extensive
amounts of technical information, much of which is currently unavailable. Therefore, those
engaged in developing and implementing LMPs are faced with pivotal decisions in order to
assure that representative data of the requisite accuracy, statistical confidence, reliability, and
comparability are managed in the most efficient manner to support the process. Concurrently,
an information management strategy must be established for decision-making under conditions
of uncertainty, including a hierarchy of utility for data that is collected under the specific
requirements of the GLWQA. This issue is discussed in more detail in Chapter 5.
The second major issue relates to the fact that although Annex 2 specifies that LMPs
should "embody an ecosystem approach," it is clear that they are to center on the elimination
of Critical Pollutants from the lake system -- in effect, taking a traditional pollutant reduction
approach to restoring environmental quality, instead of addressing all issues related to the
Great Lakes ecosystem, including coastal zone and watershed management. These approaches
should not be viewed as inconsistent; rather, the evolution of LMPs into an ecosystem
approach would be a natural progression from lakewide pollutant monitoring to a focus on
ecosystem response that would not be limited to open lake areas.
111
-------
Options to consider for assisting the evolution of LMP planning into an ecosystemic
approach include:
• Consult with and integrate the resource management programs early in the LMP
process, to ensure that their perspectives on ecosystem problems are included, and to
obtain their commitments to develop consistent goals in their respective programs.
• Incorporate into the LMP process goals aimed towards the monitoring and
improvement of ecosystem functioning.
• Evaluate the LMP after a specified period of its implementation, in order to
determine whether it is successfully meeting the goals of the GLWQA, and if not,
how it should be altered.
• Conduct a periodic review of the LMP to assess its evolution into an ecosystemic
response, and make recommendations for modifying it, if ecological objectives are
not being met.
A final thematic issue concerns the level of specificity of LMPs in designing pollution
control strategies. Is a LMP intended to provide broad pollutant load reduction guidance or
targets (e.g., reduce point source contributions of a selected pollutant by a particular
percentage), or is it intended to offer very specific instruction on how the reduction is to be
accomplished (e.g., including specific provisions for discharge permits for particular facilities)?
In the latter case, enforcement and/or inducement mechanisms would have to be built into the
LMP itself, with greater oversight and enforcement responsibilities retained by the planning
group.
Alternatively, the results of the LMP process may be broad, general guidance for classes
of pollutant sources. In this case, the desirable outcome would be for appropriate institutions
at the Federal, State, and local levels to commit themselves to attaining the general LMP goals.
Should the process develop as a framework for general load reduction guidance, however, the
States and Provinces may have to employ their own tier of more specific load reduction
evaluations to form a strong legal basis for their respective remedial actions.
2. BACKGROUND
The concept of lakewide management planning has evolved from a series of water
resource management efforts in the Great Lakes Basin over the last two decades. These
efforts, some of which serve as good models for the LMP process, include Phosphorus
Reduction Plans; Toxic Substances Control and Reduction Strategies of the IJC and associated
modeling efforts; the Niagara River Study; the Upper Great Lakes Connecting Channels Study;
the Green Bay Mass Balance Project; the Lake Michigan Toxic Pollutant Control/Reduction
Strategy; and most recently, the Lake Ontario Toxics Management Plan.
Referring to the latter as a particularly helpful model, as agreed among the USEPA, the
New York Department of Environmental Conservation, Environment Canada, and the Ontario
Ministry of the Environment, the goal of the Lake Ontario Toxics Management Plan is to
achieve lake conditions that provide drinking water and fish that are safe for unlimited human
consumption, and allow for natural reproduction within the ecosystem of the most sensitive
native species. The successive objectives of this strategy are to reduce toxic inputs first
through existing and developing programs; then through special efforts in geographic areas of
concern; then through lakewide analyses of pollutant fate; and ultimately, to achieve zero
discharge. The Plan comprehensively documents the specific activities, outputs, responsible
parties and deadlines required to meet these four objectives. Committees have been established
iv
-------
to address Categorization (of problem toxics), Standards and .Criteria, and Fate of Toxics; in
addition, preliminary ecosystem objectives are being developed.
Finally, although not a lake wide study, the process for developing a water quality-based
containment criterion for TCDD at the Hyde Park Landfill on the Niagara River at Niagara
Falls, New York, for the Region II Superfund program also raises many of the institutional,
policy, and technical issues relevant to LMP development and implementation.
RELATIONSHIP TO EXISTING WATER QUALITY PROGRAMS
GLWQA Requirements
In addition to Annex 2 requirements, LMPs are referenced in a number of other contexts
throughout the GLWQA. These are listed here to highlight the intent of the GLWQA to
integrate LMPs with a number of other remedial efforts in the Great Lakes.
Annex 13, on Pollution from Nonpoint Sources
Annex 14, on Contaminated Sediment
Annex 15, on Airborne Toxic Substances
Annex 16, on Pollution from Contaminated Groundwater
Annex 17, on Research and Development
State Programs
While the lead role for the development of LMPs lies with the Parties (i.e., the Federal
governments of the United States and Canada) under the terms of Annex 2, much of the
responsibility for their implementation will ultimately fall to the Great Lakes States and the
Provinces of Ontario, because of existing responsibilities under programs at that level that are
integral to the goals of the GLWQA. For instance, under Section 303 of the Clean Water Act,
the States have primary responsibility for undertaking a continuous planning process for
restoring and maintaining water quality. There are clear institutional lessons to be learned
from the experience of developing Great Lakes State Water Quality Management Plans
(WQMPs). For instance, care should be taken to include in the planning stages those
management agencies that will implement the LMP, in order to ensure future cooperation and
coordination. As another example learned from the development of WQMPs, LMP planning
should be flexible enough to update and revise the LMP as appropriate, and also to allow
implementing agencies to manipulate its structure to fit localized needs.
Other examples of programs administered by the States that should be considered for
early participation in the LMP process include:
The National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
Pretreatment Programs for publicly-owned treatment works (POTWs)
State Nonpoint Source Program Assessments and Programs
State Air Programs
State Coastal Zone Management Programs
Hazardous Waste Programs under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA) and the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liabilities Act (CERCLA)
• Groundwater Protection Strategies
• Remedial Action Plans under the GLWQA
Finally, in addition to the above, the Great Lakes States have undertaken an independent
cooperative effort to address the problem of toxic pollution. In June 1986, the Governors of
the eight States signed the Great Lakes Toxic Substances Control Agreement, pledging the
-------
States to treat the lakes as one ecosystem without regard to political boundaries. The
Agreement acknowledges that toxic pollutants are the foremost problem in the Basin, and lays
out goals for the States toward sharing information and coordinating toxic control programs.
Other Federal Programs
Numerous Federal agencies other than USEPA have responsibilities that relate, directly
or indirectly, to water quality management. Federal agencies with major programs that could
play an important role in the development of LMPs include the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration's programs administered by the National Weather Service, the
National Marine Fisheries Service, Sea Grant, and Coastal Zone Management; the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers dredge and fill permit program and related research; the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service; the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Cooperative Extension Service,
Agricultural Stabilization Service, and Soil Conservation Service; the U.S. Coast Guard; and the
U.S. Geological Survey.
3. ESTABLISHING MULTI-INSTITUTIONAL COOPERATION
From a geographical perspective, as "lakewide" plans, LMPs will necessarily involve the
cooperative efforts of a number of jurisdictions. In this regard, LMPs differ from Remedial
Action Plans, which are more limited in geographic scope and thus tend to require the
involvement of fewer jurisdictions. Furthermore, with the express exception of the plan for
Lake Michigan, which lies solely within U.S. boundaries, LMPs must be binational efforts,
requiring cooperation among national, State and Provincial governments. Moreover, because
the problem of toxic pollutants in open lake waters involves a complex array of sources and
media, such as atmospherically deposited contaminants, coordination with institutions outside
the Great Lakes region may be necessary. Thus, arranging for multi-institutional cooperation
presents a formidable challenge for implementation of the LMPs. Much of the responsibility
for accomplishing this will lie with the lead institution(s).
IDENTIFYING LEAD INSTITUTIONS
Designation of specific agencies and individuals to convene and lead the planning process
is extremely important in multi-party processes, as the leader is largely responsible for
developing an environment of cooperation and guiding the progress of the group. The
GLWQA specifies that primary responsibility for LMPs rests with the national governments,
"in consultation with the States and Provinces". In the past, multi-party Great Lake research
studies and management efforts have, in fact, been led by national-level government agencies,
and generally, sub-committees or work groups have been led by the institution or individual
perceived by the participants to have the greatest programmatic responsibility or expertise in
the particular task area.
Although continuing the leadership role of the USEPA and Environment Canada in
LMPs may be a "default" option, there are a number of alternatives that can be considered.
For instance, appropriate USEPA offices and Environment Canada may share institutional lead
for LMPs. A steering committee, formed of representatives of participating agencies who are
fully dedicated to the LMP process (i.e., separated from their agencies for scheduled periods of
several months), may elect a chairman from the group. An independent, non-governmental
organization (e.g., Center for the Great Lakes) may lead the process as a neutral convener, or
the relevant State and Provincial governments for each LMP may select a lead institution or
individual for the process.
VI
-------
A related issue is the level of representation that lead agencies, and in turn the other
participants, commit to the LMP process. The level of representation relates directly to the
ability to gain institutional support for implementation measures. Mid-level or lower level
personnel are unable to speak on behalf of their agencies, and must rely on hierarchical
approval processes to sign off on Agency commitment to LMP objectives.
IDENTIFYING OTHER INSTITUTIONAL PARTICIPANTS
While the core institutional participants for the LMP process are likely to be the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Environment Canada, the Environmental Protection
Departments of the Great Lakes States, and the Ontario Ministry of Environment, the
involvement of a number of other government agencies and non-governmental organizations is
also desirable in the course of plan development and implementation. For example,
environmental planning activities could require the cooperation of coastal, land use, or fisheries
management agencies. Research or technical studies could involve such agencies as NOAA's
Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory (GLERL), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Canada's Centre for Inland Water, National Water Research
Institute, health agencies, or universities. And finally, implementation of LMP
recommendations may involve action by government agriculture departments, waste
management agencies, air quality regulators, local zoning boards, farmers, industry, and
environmental groups.
One option for identifying key players for the LMP process is to anticipate the full
range of important interests or "stakeholders" in a given LMP process, and to prudently invite
key representatives of those groups to participate. Thus, a LMP process that is likely to call
for. changes in land use management practices might benefit from the participation of a
representative of coastal zone management interests or local zoning agencies. Similarly, the
inclusion in the planning process of representatives of farming, industry, and environmental
groups might increase the likelihood of successful implementation of the plan.
ESTABLISHING GROUND RULES
Another early task in the LMP process is the establishment of common understandings
and clarification of expectations among participants about the goals and nature of the process.
Formalizing these understandings can be essential to ensuring implementation of the plan.
Some examples of ground rules to reach agreement on are:
• What are the goals of each particular LMP?
• Is consensus required, or can a simple majority prevail?
• What are the resource limits for the planning process, and how will they affect the
anticipated schedule for LMP development, staff support, and funding of the process
itself?
• How will technical information requirements be met?
• How will individual participants ensure the approval and support of the LMP by
their institutions or interests?
• What will procedures be to respond to delinquency in keeping commitments and
meeting target dates?
Vll
-------
4. ADDRESSING CRITICAL POLLUTANTS
For the purposes of LMPs, Annex 2 mandates that a list of Critical Pollutants be
designated for the boundary waters of the Great Lakes system, or for a portion thereof.
Substances named under List No. 1 in the Supplement to Annex 1 must be considered for such
designation. Additional pollutants may be recommended by the IJC, after reviewing and
evaluating LMP progress in addressing the pollutants on this list. The listing process
delineated in Annex 1 begins with the generation of three lists for each lake: (1) Substances
believed to be toxic and present in the water, sediment, or biota of the ecosystem; (2)
Substances believed to be present in the ecosystem and potentially toxic; and (3) All other
substances believed to have potential presence in the ecosystem, and to be toxic.
As new information becomes available, substances will be promoted from the third to the
second list and from the second to the first.
For substances on the first list for which adequate toxicity data exist, criteria to protect
biota will be derived, followed by numerical Specific Objectives, where measured
concentrations exceed maximum acceptable concentrations. When a Specific Objective is
exceeded, the contaminant will be designated as a Critical Pollutant, to be addressed by the
intensive efforts specified in Annex 2. At present, neither the procedure for deriving
numerical Specific Objectives nor the process for adding and deleting substances on each of
the three lists has been adopted.
Whatever process is adopted for developing the list of Critical Pollutants, by definition it
must involve comparisons of ambient levels to some benchmark of water quality that defines
the threshold between impaired and unimpaired use. Among the options available are:
Use existing numerical Specific Objectives
Update numerical Specific Objectives
Develop ecological measures and objectives
Use a hybrid of the second and third options
Use the Lake Michigan Strategy approach involving existing standards, criteria,
objectives, and action levels
• Use the "rebuttable presumption" approach adopted by the Lake Ontario Toxics
Management Plan (LOTMP)
The Lake Michigan Strategy for Pollutants of Concern was significantly expanded,
recognizing that the existing enforceable numerical water quality standards for Lake Michigan
did not address all potential contaminants of concern and were based on outdated data and
methods of derivation. Specifically, criteria for inclusion on the list of Pollutants of Concern
now encompass exceedances of any of the following: State water quality standards, USEPA
water quality criteria, USFDA action levels in fish, or GLWQA Specific Objectives. Among
other things, the Lake Michigan Strategy requires each of the Lake Michigan States to update
its toxic substances water quality standards to be substantially equivalent to USEPA water
quality criteria by July 1989, under the Water Quality Act Amendments of 1987. Once the
new enforceable numerical WQS for Lake Michigan are promulgated, the list of Pollutants of
Concern for Lake Michigan will have to be adjusted accordingly.
IDENTIFYING POLLUTANTS OF CONCERN
The Lake Ontario Toxics Management Plan (LOTMP) process for identifying a list of
pollutants potentially warranting lakewide load reductions above and beyond those achievable
Vlll
-------
with existing source control regulating activities and geographic initiatives led to the adoption
of the following pollutant categories:
I. Ambient Data Available
A. Exceeds enforceable standard
B. Exceeds more stringent, but unenforceable criterion
C. Equal to or less than most stringent criterion
D. Detection limit too high to allow complete categorization
E. No criterion available
II. Ambient Data Not Available
A. Evidence of presence in or input to lake
B. No evidence of presence in or input to lake
The list of Category IA Toxics includes PCBs, 2,3,7,8-TCDD, Chlordane, Mirex (and
Photomirex), Mercury, Iron, and Aluminum. The list of IB Toxics includes DDT and
Metabolites, Octachlorostyrene, Hexachlorobenzene, and Dieldrin.
The actions to be taken with respect to toxicants in each category have short-term (early
implementation) and longer-term (full implementation) time-frames. This will ensure that
actions that can be taken now will begin now, while those actions that must await additional
data or the completion of preceding tasks will occur as soon as possible. The LOTMP also
provides for a revision cycle to accommodate new data or new understanding. At the end of
the process of full implementation, as the concentrations of toxicants begin to decline in the
Lake Ontario ecosystem, Category IA pollutants will no longer meet the criteria for inclusion.
There is a "rebuttable presumption" that once the enforceable standards for the IA pollutants
are no longer exceeded, the ecological health and beneficial human uses of Lake Ontario will
have been fully restored.
However, LOTMP recognizes that all ecological objectives may not be achieved, even
after all enforceable standards are met. LOTMP thus provides for ambient ecological
monitoring to compare observed ecological conditions to ecological objectives. Where serious
ecological impairments persist, the enforceable standards would have to be lowered to reflect
this reality, and the load reduction process would then continue until the next enforceable
standard was met.
DEFINING THE THREATS POSED BY CRITICAL POLLUTANTS
Because the designation of the lake-specific list of Critical Pollutants requires "a
definition of the threat to human health or aquatic life posed by Critical Pollutants, singly or
in synergistic or additive combinations with another substance, including their contributions to
the impairment of beneficial uses," and because the designation of a contaminant as a Critical
Pollutant requires that it exceed a numerical Specific Objective adopted pursuant to Annex 1,
then the numerical Specific Objective must already reflect known or inferable additive or
synergistic effects. This concept is in sharp contrast to the present procedure adopted by the
IJC's Great Lakes Science Advisory Board in revising Specific Objectives or the process used
by either party in developing water or sediment criteria or fish action levels or advisories.
Current methods of deriving aquatic chronic criteria and approaches to the development
of human health standards, objectives, and criteria are criticized for a number of deficiencies,
and different methodologies should be carefully weighed to arrive at the optimum procedure
for the purpose of LMPs. For instance, although no presently agreed upon procedure exists
for systematically accommodating the potential for synergistic effects in complex ambient
mixtures, a growing body of data supports the assumption of at least simple additivity of
toxicities for substances with similar modes of lexicological action. Thus, one option would be
ix
-------
to group Great Lakes contaminants by similar modes of toxicological action, establish a
numerical Specific Objective for the category, and sum the contaminant concentrations
detected to determine whether an exceedance is occurring. As substances with similar modes
of toxicological action often originate from similar source categories and have similar physical,
chemical, and biological properties, best available treatment technologies, technology- and air-,
soil-, or water-quality-based emissions limitations and compliance monitoring could be defined
in terms of the adopted categories, rather than for individual pollutants.
As another example, while USEPA has adopted a risk assessment policy that requires the
assumption of additivity of carcinogenic risk, there is no corresponding policy for
systematically quantifying the known or potential amplification of carcinogenic potency when
exposure to an initiator is followed by exposure to a promoter. In addition, present exposure
scenarios assume that a fully mature adult male is the target individual to be protected
throughout a 70-year lifetime. However, Great Lakes States' sport fish advisories recognize
the inherently great susceptibility of the developing fetus, the nursing infant, the young child,
and the woman of child-bearing age in setting thresholds of concern. To date, neither the
United States or Canada can account quantitatively either for the differences in dose per unit
exposure or the differences in risk per unit dose in their risk assessment procedures.
Resolution of these issues and other issues that are discussed in detail in the Options
paper will require a concerted binational research effort. In the interim, one alternative for
addressing toxic effects not accounted for in the derivation of numerical water quality
standards, Specific Objectives, or water quality criteria is to adjust each downward using an
application factor that provides the same margin of safety as that provided by using the once-
in-ten-year, 7-day drought flow (7Q10) to calculate water quality-based effluent limitations
for Great Lakes tributaries.
GREAT LAKES MONITORING
If an approach involving the use of ecological objectives (e.g., the LOTMP approach) is
adopted, research, development and pilot studies must continue in the area of ecological effects
measures and measurement methods, and an ecological effects data base for Great Lakes biota
must be developed to establish background and baseline effects incidences and distributions.
This should also include human epidemiological studies, as well. At the same time, research
must continue on the relationship between the ecological effects observed and the chemicals to
which the organisms are being exposed by all routes, singly or in additive or synergistic
combinations.
LONG-TERM ISSUES
In keeping with the ecosystem requirements of the GLWQA, it would be a natural
progression for the environmental response monitoring element of the LMP planning process to
become an avenue for emphasizing ecological effects, rather than simple reductions in pollutant
levels. The LOTMP, with its "rebuttable presumption" of restoration when numerical Specific
Objectives are met, uses ecological monitoring and objectives to determine whether the
presumption is supportable. At the same time as a greater understanding of the relationship
between ecological effect and chemical cause, the numerical Specific Objectives are to be
revised. This may be the most pragmatic alternative for blending the traditional chemical-by-
chemical and emerging ecological approaches.
-------
5. DETERMINING AND MEETING INFORMATION NEEDS
The LMP process is clearly information intensive, requiring extensive technical data and
information, much of which is currently unavailable. Consequently, in order to develop and
implement a sound, scientifically defensible LMP, it is necessary to develop information
strategies for filling information gaps and for making decisions under conditions of
uncertainty. The information management strategy should ensure that representative data of
the requisite accuracy, statistical confidence, reliability and comparability are captured, stored,
manipulated, and disseminated in the most efficient manner among data bases, statistical and
graphics packages, and modeling programs among participating institutions, using compatible
hardware and software.
SOURCES OF INFORMATION
The information needs for LMPs relate directly to three decision-making elements: (1) A
determination of load reductions of Critical Pollutants necessary to meet Agreement Objectives;
(2) An evaluation of remedial measures presently in place, and alternative additional measures
that could be applied to decrease loadings of Critical Pollutants; and (3) Identification of the
additional remedial measures that are needed to achieve the reductions of loadings. Specific
information requirements referenced in Annex 2 include:
• An evaluation of information available on concentrations, sources and pathways of
the Critical Pollutants in the Great Lakes System, including all information on
loadings of the Critical Pollutants from all sources, and an estimation of total
loadings of the Critical Pollutants by modeling or other identified means;
• Steps to be taken under Article VI of the GLWQA to develop the information
necessary to determine the schedule of load reductions of Critical Pollutants that
would result in meeting Agreement Objectives, including steps to develop the
necessary standard approaches and agreed procedures.
The first, and perhaps most critical, information management decision faced by the
Great Lakes water resource managers is a specification of the accuracy and statistical
confidence tolerances to be met in the calculation of the required load reductions for restoring
beneficial uses of the Lakes. This decision, in turn, determines whether available information
is adequate for this purpose and the nature of additional information-gathering efforts to fill
gaps.
STRATEGIES FOR FILLING DATA GAPS
Given that much of the data needed to carry out the necessary information-gathering
tasks with the desired accuracy and statistical confidence is unavailable at present, two basic
options are available to fill information gap. First, if it is decided that only data gathered
according to approved procedures and quality assurance/quality control protocols designed
specifically for the LMP process are to be used, then the problem of selecting useable data
from among all the data contained in the universe of all Great Lakes studies is moot. Such an
alternative is prohibitively expensive, and will result in a long delay before sufficient data are
available.
On the other hand, if it is decided that the development and implementation of required
load reductions is to be expedited and costs are to be kept within reasonable bounds, then a
strategy must be developed for decision-making under various degrees of uncertainty. Such a
xi
-------
strategy should define a hierarchy of utility for data collected to carry out each of the
necessary information-gathering tasks. The strategy would specify when and how to generate
reliable estimates from analogous circumstances, surrogate parameter data, mathematical models
or quantitative structure-activity relationships. Where data of the highest utility and quality
are unavailable, the strategy would default to the next lowest stratum, until either the degree
of uncertainty associated with the data in that stratum is so great as to preclude decision-
making or the required data for even the least useful approximation are unavailable. At that
point, additional field or laboratory studies would have to be conducted to fill the data gaps.
To effectively focus the limited resources available for developing and implementing
LMPs within the decision-making framework defined by the information utility hierarchy
described above, certain analytical methods will be required, including statistical methods,
uncertainty analysis, systems analysis, and mathematical modeling. Unfortunately, these
methods all require some data that are not being collected under existing Great Lakes
programs. Thus, it may be desirable to estimate values for selected parameters, rather than
conducting additional studies.
Another process that is central to LMPs is the quantification of the load reduction
required to restore beneficial uses of the Lake. Thus, the focus of data-gathering efforts must
be on the acquisition of data required to calibrate, validate and verify transport-fate models
for the Critical Pollutants in the Great Lakes. The selection of a mathematical model
appropriate for the quantification of the load-concentration relationship in each of the Great
Lakes is guided by the desired spatial and temporal resolution of the model, the degrees of
accuracy and statistical confidence required in model output and the resources available to
develop, calibrate, validate and verify the model for its intended application(s).
As indicated previously, the adoption of accuracy and statistical confidence tolerances
and the specification of the information utility hierarchies define the methodology and
information needs of the LMP process and, thus, based on which of the needed data are
available, data gaps that need to be filled. The optimum mix of monitoring, estimation, and
modeling efforts can only be determined by quantifying the costs associated with each data
gathering method, the sensitivity of the overall calculation of the load-concentration
relationship to individual input parameters, the degrees of uncertainty introduced by various
laboratory and field measurements or estimation methods for each individual input parameter,
and the desired degrees of accuracy and statistical confidence of the overall output.
Where it is determined that additional laboratory and field studies are necessary to fill
data gaps, a strategy for coordinating binational and inter-jurisdictional information
management activities must be established. This will ensure that the limited human, physical
and fiscal resources available to develop and implement LMPs will be allocated most
efficiently. Specifically, the information management strategy developed for LMPs should
account for data utility; data quality; quality assurance/quality control; standardization;
accessibility; system configuration; and tracking the status of required data.
INFORMATION MANAGEMENT
Many Federal environmental protection programs conduct extensive data collection and
analysis. Key programs include the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
permit program, permit programs under the Resource Recovery and Conservation Act, and air
source and quality monitoring activities under the Clean Air Act. In addition, government
research, monitoring and surveillance programs also serve as principal sources of information
for LMP development and implementation. A review of available data bases (attached as
Appendix A of the Options Paper) indicates that while some of the needed data are available
for some of the Critical Pollutants, their utility, quality and accessibility may be marginal at
best. For others, the required data may never have been generated. Significant data gaps
xii
-------
include the concentrations of Critical Pollutants in air emissions, wastewaters, tributaries, and
in ambient water, sediment and biota.
6. DETERMINING LOAD REDUCTION REQUIREMENTS
The process of determining the reductions in loadings of Critical Pollutants necessary to
restore beneficial uses in the Great Lakes is divided into two distinct steps in Annex 2. The
first step (element three) is methodological, providing for the development of standard
approaches and agreed procedures from which the schedule of load reductions will be
developed. The second step (element four) is more mechanical, involving the actual
application of these approaches and procedures to determine the necessary numerical load
reductions. Because these two steps are closely related, they are addressed here as a single,
combined process.
MASS BALANCE APPROACH
Mathematical models using the mass balance approach involve equations representing how
the rates of various internal and external loss processes and internal exchange and storage
processes change with alterations in internal and external concentrations, and vice versa. The
equations are solved in order to calculate the change in concentrations on the system over time
when present loading rates are unaltered or reduced. If all significant internal and external
loss rates and storage rates are known, and all significant tributary and direct point source
input loading rates are quantified, then the contributions of direct nonpoint sources can be
calculated. Furthermore, a mass balance budget for an aquatic system makes it possible to
accurately determine the actual loading rate/concentration relationship with which to construct,
adjust, and test the mathematical models of pollutant transport and fate.
Unfortunately, the complete range of physical and chemical factors affecting the rates on
both sides of the equation is not well understood, and it is necessary to either conduct
additional research on source, pathway and ambient properties and conditions, or accept some
level of uncertainty in the approach used to calculate the mass balance point in the equation.
As a practical matter, it is simply not realistic to pursue the first option above, and all models
accept some degree of approximation in compensation for unknown or unquantifiable
input/output variables. The central issue in responding to the requirements of Annex 2, then,
will be in determining an acceptable degree of uncertainty in estimating the mass balance and
the necessary quantities of load reductions.
DEFINING TARGET LOAD REDUCTION OBJECTIVES
Determining load reduction requirements necessitates the determination of target ambient
concentrations for each Critical Pollutant. In order to calculate required load reductions, the
following key issues must be considered:
• Whether, to what extent and in what manner the specific objectives should be
modified to account for the potential for additive and synergistic effects with other
toxicants present in the lake ecosystem;
• The environmental component of the lake ecosystem that is the limiting medium;
• The target recovery period;
• The accuracy and statistical confidence quality assurance tolerances requirements for
load reduction requirement calculations;
• Whether, to what extent and in what manner a margin of safety is to be incorporated
into the required load reduction calculation; and
xiii
-------
o Whether, to what extent, and in what manner mathematical models will incorporate
and integrate the required accuracy, statistical confidence, time frame, and margin of
safety components in calculating required load reductions.
There are two basic approaches upon which to base target load reduction calculations.
The first is based on the fact that the goal of the GLWQA is the virtual elimination of the
presence of persistent toxic substances from the Great Lakes ecosystem, with a philosophy of
zero discharge. Consistent with this goal and philosophy, everything that can be done should
be done to eliminate the sources of persistent toxic substances in the Great Lakes. To that
end, the best available technologies for waste minimization, recycling and treatment should be
required for priority sources. The higher the percentage reduction or removal of Critical
Pollutant load, the greater the success of the approach, irrespective of its beneficial effects on
the Great Lakes ecosystem. Such an approach may be labeled technology-based. The Niagara
River agreement, which calls for the halving of persistent pollutant loads by 1994, represents a
technology-based approach. The second approach requires the quantification of the Critical
Pollutant load-concentration relationship in the Great Lakes water, sediment, and biota. This
approach may be called lakewide water quality-based.
While the goal and philosophy of the GLWQA are consistent with the former approach,
the LMP requirements of Annex 2 are consistent with the latter. Thus, the question is not
whether to quantify sources, calculate a mass balance and calibrate, validate and post-audit a
transport-fate model, but rather how to do these things most efficiently with the available data
and resources.
To implement elements 3 and 4 of the Agreement, a strategy must be developed for
obtaining measured or estimated values of loadings, lake ecosystem characteristics, and
pollutant properties essential to the quantification of load-concentration relationships. Then a
means of quantifying the load-concentration relationships must be adopted, and could include:
an assumption of conservation of pollutant concentrations and simple hydraulic dilution with
the water flowing into the Lake; a simple proportionality model based on a mass balance for
the system; or mathematical process models of various degrees of sophistication.
IMPLEMENTATION ISSUES
As discussed above, there are many technical issues relating to the development of
"agreed procedures" for determining the load reduction necessary to meet GLWQA objectives.
Each of these issues involves trade-offs between specific technical information needs and the
amount and quality of data required and data available. Although various technical approaches
exist for determining required load reductions, one key information requirement for any
approach is a determination of the input rates of Critical Pollutants. The second key
information requirement is the rates at which Critical Pollutants are removed from the
ecosystem. From these essential data, and the necessary policy decisions regarding the required
margin of safety and the desired time to recovery of the system, the amounts of required load
reductions may be derived.
Several options exist for determining the schedule for implementing these reductions that
will affect the technical and management alternatives available for achieving the targeted load
reductions. The first such option is to calculate required load reductions in successive phases,
with each succeeding phase requiring more complete and higher quality data sets than the
preceding phase. Such a phased approach is commonly used where various degrees of
uncertainty are involved in decision-making.
The next question that arises is whether the Critical Pollutants should be prioritized for
individual, sequential actions or treated simultaneously. Prioritization could be based on: the
nature, magnitude, spatial extent and temporal duration of the adverse impact; the quantity,
xiv
-------
quality and accessibility of the data available to calculate the. load-concentration relationship;
the responsiveness of the system to load reduction; or the costs associated with source
reduction. Unfortunately, as long as existing standards, objectives, and action levels are based
on threshold models of toxicity, until all the Critical Pollutants fall below their concentration
targets, by definition the Great Lakes ecosystem remains impaired.
Where regulatory cost becomes an issue, a trade-off must be struck between the cost of
calculating the load-concentration relationship consistent with the desired degree of accuracy
and statistical confidence and the actual costs of load reduction. This relationship will, in
turn, guide data gathering, since the maximum tolerable overall uncertainty will determine the
maximum tolerable uncertainty of the individual measured or estimated input parameter values.
MODEL SELECTION
After the requisite data are gathered, the appropriate process model must be selected,
then calibrated and validated for the specific pollutant and Lake. Model selection requires
trade-offs between the capacity of the model to accurately represent toxicant transport-fate
processes, and user barriers created by the data intensity, and computational and intellectual
complexities of the model. For instance, where sediment is the limiting medium, the rate of
sediment transport and the heterogeneity of sediment contamination and accumulation will
dictate the spatial resolution required. The greater the spatial resolution, the greater the
number of computational steps in the solution algorithm, and thus, the greater the computation
time and cost.
It is the absence of adequate data, not the lack of adequate models that limits current
abilities to calculate required load reduction targets with the accuracy and statistical confidence
appropriate to regulatory decision-making. The state-of-the-art of Great Lakes toxicant
transport-fate modeling is now sufficient for both screening-level and regulatory calculation of
target load reductions for the Critical Pollutants. Existing generic toxicant models applicable
to the Great Lakes include the Simplified Lake and Stream Analysis (SLSA) modeling
framework, TOXIWASP, and WASTOX, among others.
While the documentation for the models themselves may be adequate, the documentation
of their proper use in the context of the LMP framework may not be. Over the last decade,
USEPA has developed technical guidance documents for the calculation of waste load
allocations (WLAs) using mathematical models for BOD, nutrients and toxicants in rivers,
shallow lakes and estuaries in the context of the NPDES permit program. Ultimately, to assist
water resource managers in the development of LMPs, national technical guidance for Great
Lakes WLAs will probably be needed, as well.
7. EVALUATING THE EFFECTIVENESS OF CURRENT REMEDIAL PROGRAMS
The next step in the general process for LMP development involves the evaluation of
current remedial measures, and alternative additional measures that could be applied to
decrease loadings of Critical Pollutants. The effectiveness of remedial action programs can be
measured with greatest certainty where either the pollutant sources subject to control are point
discharges, or else the pollutant has a single source (of any type), which permits a direct
correlation between remedial actions and environmental concentrations. Unfortunately, most
contaminants of concern have multiple sources and/or are subject to complex physical and
chemical fate patterns, which complicates their measurement in the environment. As discussed
in a previous section, mass balance modeling is one option for tracking or estimating complex
partitioned loadings of pollutants. If a mass balance can be constructed, it may provide
indications of the relative effectiveness of various remedial programs. Further, with time
xv
-------
series measurements, a mass balance framework can provide ah overarching framework for
continuing monitoring of remedial program effectiveness.
A wide range of programs for restoring and maintaining Great Lakes water quality have
been established by the United States and Canada, as well as the Great Lakes States and the
Province of Ontario. Foremost among these are government regulatory programs, which
restrict activities having adverse effects on the environment. However, non-regulatory
government programs that encourage or enable communities and individuals to reduce pollutant
loads, are also powerful tools for water quality improvement.
Major U.S. mechanisms 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). 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. Programs administered by USEPA and other Federal agencies
also provide grants for research and public information and education related to Great Lakes
issues. Major Canadian mechanisms include point source regulatory programs under the
Fisheries Act and a host of industry-specific control programs. In addition, national programs
address atmospheric emissions, control of urban runoff, and restrictions on the production and
transport of toxic substances.
MEASURING PROGRAM EFFECTIVENESS
The effectiveness of remedial programs in reducing levels of contaminants is determined
by several factors. First, is applicability of the remedial program to principal sources of the
specific contaminants. For example, if DDT is entering a lake system primarily through
atmospheric deposition, point source controls on industrial facilities would, by definition, be
ineffective as a control approach. A second major factor is the degree to which the remedial
approach effectively reduces pollutant loadings: a ban on discharges of a pollutant is more
effective than a discharge limitation, for example.
Finally, the extent to which remedial programs are actually applied in practice can differ
substantially from theoretical or intended applicability, for lack of adequate enforcement. For
example, Section 404 permits theoretically are required for discharges of dredged and fill
material in wetlands. However, unregulated fills are known to occur in many areas of the
United States. Enforcement activities, including both self-monitoring provisions of regulatory
programs and field checks by government agencies to ensure compliance, are key indicators of
program implementation.
IDENTIFYING NEW REMEDIAL MEASURES TO BE CONSIDERED
Once the effectiveness of current remedial approaches has been evaluated, the LMP
planning process calls for the identification of the full range of program modifications or new
approaches that may be useful in reducing pollutant loadings. Some alternatives to consider
include widening the applicability of specific regulatory programs to control additional
pollutants or additional sources, to the extent permitted under current statutory authority; or
increasing the stringency on regulated sources, or requiring more effective control technologies
or practices. Enforcement of current regulatory programs could be improved, as a third
alternative, and finally, government incentives could be reoriented to promote voluntary
XVI
-------
pollution controls under existing programs (e.g., the U.S. Department of Agriculture's
Conservation Reserve Program for responding to the problem of erodible soils).
In addition to the modification of existing programs, remedial action alternatives may
include new programs or activities, such as bans on the manufacture or distribution of certain
substances; legislative initiatives, including amendments of existing programs; or non-regulatory
initiatives, including government-sponsored cleanup of in situ contamination, introduction of
new incentive programs to stimulate private water pollution control (e.g., offering tax
incentives for employment of new control technologies), or changes in the manner in which
the State and Federal governments manage their own facilities and lands.
8. DEVELOPING REMEDIAL ACTION STRATEGIES
The central decision-making element of LMPs involves the selection of remedial
measures needed to achieve the required reductions in loadings and the allocation of
institutional responsibility for implementing these measures. As discussed briefly in Chapter 1,
it should be the responsibility of the planning group, with input from the technical working
group as well as from the interested public, to agree upon a remedial action strategy, and to
take the necessary steps to ensure its implementation.
Recommendations on the remedial measures for source reduction would be provided to
the planning group by technical work groups, reflecting calculations of the required load
reduction for critical pollutants, the load reduction that is attainable through the
implementation of current or ongoing source control and cleanup measures, and an evaluation
of alternative measures. The planning group would weigh these recommendations in light of
the inter-relationships of other ongoing remedial actions, particularly those associated with
Remedial Action Plans (RAPs).
In order to obtain a level of local public support, there should also be provided an
opportunity for public review and comment, once a proposed strategy has been developed.
This input would also be considered before finalizing the remediation program.
MANAGING THE PROCESS
The LMP process includes a special provision for the identification of the persons or
agencies responsible for implementation of the remedial measures in question, underscoring
that the purpose of the planning requirement is to lead to effective action, not just to develop
a plan. As the GLWQA specifies that primary responsibility for LMPs rests with the national
governments, the core institutional participants for the LMP process are likely to be the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Environment Canada, the Environmental Protection
Departments of the Great Lakes States, and the Ontario Ministry of Environment. However,
as discussed in earlier sections, the importance of including parties who will ultimately be
responsible for LMP implementation early in the process cannot be over-emphasized.
It should also be the responsibility of the planning group to develop a schedule for
remedial action, defining a time table for implementation. In addition, because unforseen
problems can delay implementation, the planning group may wish to agree on procedures for
approving justified implementation schedule changes.
xvn
-------
THE LAKE ONTARIO TOXICS MANAGEMENT PLAN APPROACH
Although the Lake Ontario Toxics Management Plan (LOTMP) has not yet been formally
reviewed and approved for consistency with the requirements of a LMP under GLWQA
Annex 2, it is considered to represent the state-of-the art of lakewide management
plans/strategies. The LOTMP process, described in detail in Chapter 4 of the Options paper,
is based on four sequential objectives: 1) initial reductions in toxic inputs driven by existing
and developing programs; 2) further reductions achieved through special efforts to remediate
localized problems (e.g., Areas of Concern); 3) further reductions achieved through lakewide
analyses of pollutant fate; and 4) zero discharge.
The first and second objectives are to occur as a result of existing statutory mandates in
the United States and Canada, irrespective of the selection of Critical Pollutants or the
quantification of a lakewide mass balance, load-concentration relationship and target loading
rate to achieve numerical Specific Objectives in water, sediment, and biota. While the first
and second objectives are formally outside the LMP process defined by Annex 2, they are
considered to be essential elements of the LOTMP process. In addition to the advantages
associated with enhanced coordination of research data gathering, data analysis, and remedial
programs and activities within and among agencies, inclusion of objectives one and two within
the LMP framework would ensure expedited implementation by focusing public attention on
priority Great Lakes problems; clarifying agency responsibilities, commitments, priorities, and
timetables; and establishing public accountability. To secure this latter advantage, public
participation is encouraged via open meetings of the LOTMP management, coordinating and
technical advisory committees.
While objectives one and two are being implemented, data will be gathered and models
will be developed for the purpose of calculating a Lake Ontario mass balance for each Critical
Pollutant from which a transport-fate process model will be refined, calibrated, verified and
post-audited. The validated model will then be used to establish the time-dependent Critical
Pollutant load-concentration relationships in water, sediment, and biota.
A parallel effort will involve the development of numerical Specific Objectives to define
the threshold for recovery of ecological health and beneficial human uses in Lake Ontario.
Initially, the Specific Objectives may be more restrictive than existing enforceable numerical
water quality standards; however, LOTMP provides for a process to develop enforceable
numerical standards equal to the Specific Objectives, where the state-of-the-art warrants it.
Estimates of the load reductions attributable to objectives one and two will be developed
and refined over time. When confidence in the mass balance and model results is sufficient
for regulatory purposes, the difference between the estimated loading rate after completion of
objectives one and two and the estimated loading rate for meeting the numerical Specific
Objective becomes the target load reduction for objective three. As new technologies come
into existence, products are banned and waste production is minimized, loading rate reductions
above and beyond those required to meet the objective will be achieved along the path to zero
discharge.
The presumption is that once numerical Specific Objectives are met, the ecological health
and beneficial human uses of Lake Ontario will be fully restored. Still, the results of
ecological effects monitoring will be compared to ecological objectives to assure that ecological
health and beneficial uses have, in fact, been fully restored. In addition, as ecological
objectives are refined, and additional research clarifies the cause-effect relationship between
Critical Pollutant concentrations in water, sediment, and biota and observed ecological
impairments, LOTMP provides a process for revising the numerical Specific Objectives to
reflect this emerging understanding. As a result, through a series of iterations, the ecological
xvm
-------
objectives, the corresponding numerical Specific Objectives, and enforceable numerical water
quality standards will eventually converge.
IMPLEMENTATION ISSUES
Several issues stand out as critical to LMPs, and will have to be addressed by the
remedial action strategies. For instance, much of the current loadings of Critical Pollutants
from nonpoint sources can be attributed to atmospheric deposition, and/or in-place
contaminated sediments in the major Great Lakes tributaries and harbors, yet with few
exceptions, there is no concerted program for sediment remediation in the Great Lakes. Thus,
contaminated sediments or in-place pollutants merit particular attention in developing the LMP
implementation strategy. Another critical issue is whether to develop and implement LMPs for
each lake separately, or for the entire Great Lakes system, taking into account that the upper
lakes and channels contribute pollutants to the lower lakes and channels.
Although the resolution of this issue must await the development of the individual lake
LMPs, the development of an administrative process for resolving multi-lake load management
issues should begin now. Such a process might involve something as straight forward as
converging semi-annual meetings of all the LMP development, management and technical
advisory committees to facilitate the exchange of multi-lake and encourage holistic solutions.
The Great Lakes Water Quality Board might then act as final arbiter in settling disputes over
the equity of multi-lake waste load allocation formulas.
MODELS FOR TECHNICAL ELEMENTS OF A STRATEGY
Several models for technical approaches to contaminant load reduction are available, as
listed in Chapter 2. In the Phosphorus Load Reduction approach, for example, the United
States and .Canada developed an approach entailing the following technical steps:
1) Define phosphorus numerical water quality objectives for each of the Great Lakes;
2) Initiate technology-based point source controls;
3) Simultaneously, monitor the Great Lakes to identify Lakes or portions thereof in
noncompliance with phosphorus objectives, define trends in response to technology-based
load reduction, and calibrate empirical and process models of phosphorus load-
concentration-algae production relationships for each of the Great Lakes;
4) Calculate the required lakewide load reduction to meet phosphorus objectives;
5) Calculate load reduction to be achieved via technology-based point source wastewater
treatment;
6) Calculate the unmet load reduction;
7) Institute phosphate detergent bans;
8) Monitor to track lake response;
9) Recalculate unmet load reductions;
10) Apportion to each Great Lake State and the Province of Ontario its fair share of the
unmet load reduction based on the ratio of the contribution of its nonpoint source loads
to all nonpoint source loads;
11) Institute nonpoint source load reductions, particularly changes in agricultural tillage
practices;
12) Recalculate unmet load reductions; and
13) Monitor to track lake response.
In addition to the Phosphorus Reduction model, another model strategy has been
proposed for a Great Lakes contaminated sediment model remedial action program. Its goal is
to remediate contaminated sediment such that the restoration of the greatest degree and extent
xix
-------
of ecosystem health and beneficial human uses are achieved in the shortest time-frame with
the available human, physical, and fiscal resources.
In practical terms, the steps that must be taken to accomplish this are as follows: Identify
priority sites for remediation, including identification and control of point and nonpoint
sources presently contaminating the sediments or slowing the natural processes of recovery of
historically contaminated sediments; Plan, carry out, and report the results of detailed RI/FSs
at each priority site; Identify the optimum remedial action alternative, first for upstream
contaminated sediments in the watershed and then for the tributary mouth or harbor sediments;
Publish the findings and conclusions in a ROD; Obtain necessary agreements, easements,
permits, and variances for remedial action implementation; Minimize environmental impacts
during remediation, waste treatment and waste disposal with appropriate structures and
practices; Monitor environmental conditions before, during, and after remediation, waste
treatment, and waste disposal to assess the magnitudes of environmental impacts; and Refine
technologies and practices, and verify mathematical models.
The functional elements of the model program should include inter- and intra-agency
coordination and institutionalization; information management; environmental monitoring and
literature studies; sediment criteria development and field validation; analysis; decision-making;
implementation; post-implementation evaluation; information dissemination; public education
and participation; research; pilot and demonstration studies.
As sediment remedial action cannot precede source control implementation, the sediment
remedial action program should influence water management program point and nonpoint
source control priorities. The existing water quality protection programs in the U.S. and
Canada regulate point and nonpoint source effluent quality solely on the basis of impacts on
water quality, and do not address explicitly the direct impacts on sediment quality or the
effect of overlying water quality on the recovery rate of contaminated sediments. Therefore, a
high priority should be placed on integrating sediment quality and recovery considerations into
the calculation of environmental quality-based effluent limitations.
Specific examples of coordination of this effort with channel maintenance activities of
the COE and with Superfund activities are provided in the Options Paper. In addition, to
increase the coordination among the USEPA, COE, and USFWS, the existing Confined Disposal
Facility Study Committee should evolve into an Inter-Agency Coordinating Committee.
To the extent possible, remedial action for sediment contamination should be implemented
within the context of existing management plans, such as RAPs and LMPs. Coordination with
other programs will ensure internal and external consistency, and build within an evolving
implementation framework considered workable and practicable.
To ensure scientific and regulatory credibility, the logic of the decision-making process
should be set forth clearly and decision points involving scientific determinations should be
distinguished explicitly from those involving policy value judgments. To the extent possible,
the concepts, approaches, and methodologies employed should be cross-referenced to other
programs with acknowledged scientific and regulatory credibility.
Finally, implementation cannot occur in a regulatory vacuum. As such, it will be
necessary to develop memoranda of understanding or agreement to ensure the full cooperation
of other Federal agencies and to bring local and State governments into the decision-making
process early and meaningfully. This will not only facilitate comprehensibility and
acceptability, it will also increase the likelihood that the emerging program and strategy are
feasible.
xx
-------
9. ENSURING IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PLAN
The development of a LMP alone, even coupled with the necessary commitments from
the parties to undertake specific remedial actions, does not ensure its implementation. Further
steps are required to guarantee the implementation of a LMP, including built-in mechanisms
for either inducing participation of appropriate governmental agencies or enforcing compliance
within the regulated community.
There are also external pressures that could be brought to bear upon LMP participants,
such as the interest of the public in the plan's success, inspired by public participation in the
LMP process. National-level attention to the development of lakewide management programs
could also serve to enhance the implementation of a LMP. Finally, revisions to Federal, State
or local laws may prove to be necessary in order to ensure that the terms of the LMP are
carried out.
REINFORCING CONDITIONS FOR MULTI-INSTITUTIONAL COOPERATION
Through a variety of mechanisms, penalties (such as withdrawal of program funding or
certification) or inducements (such as payments or eligibility for benefit programs) may
encourage participating government entities and/or members of the regulated community to
perform under the terms of the LMP. For example, the U.S. Department of Agriculture
administers several inducement programs concerning agricultural practices that impact nonpoint
source pollution, including the Conservation Reserve Program, the Conservation Compliance
Program, the "Sodbuster Program", and the "Swampbuster Provision" of the Food Security Act.
To improve the effectiveness of programs that offer the inducement of benefits in this
particular area, active assistance should be coupled with improved enforcement of best
management practices under the Conservation Compliance Program.
There are also steps that government agencies, particularly at the Federal level, could
take to ensure coordination among each other and compliance with their respective portions of
the LMPs. As an example, under several statutes, USEPA is required to coordinate with other
federal agencies to ensure consistency of federal programs with State management plans. These
include Section 319 of the Clean Water Act, concerning Nonpoint Source Programs, and Section
307(c) of the Coastal Zone Management Act, regarding the consistency of Federal activities
that affect the coastal zone with State CZM programs. These provisions could act as important
tools, for instance, in requiring Federal land managers to comply with a State's Nonpoint
Source Program, or Federal activities offshore to be consistent with the State's coastal resource
protection regulations.
Another potential tool for obtaining cooperation from another Federal agency is Section
404(c) of the CWA, which permits EPA to deny or restrict the use of a site for the disposal of
dredged or fill material. Such authority may be exercised when a determination is made under
the Section 404(b)9(l) guidelines that disposal of the material at that site is having or will have
an unacceptable adverse effect on municipal water supplies, shellfish beds and fishery areas,
wildlife, or recreational areas.
To ensure that the regulated community complies with the terms of the LMP, it is
imperative that enforcement of any applicable regulations be effectual. There are several clear
examples of where there is a need for increasing support for compliance activities and for
enforcement under existing programs, including the Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 404
permitting program for dredge and fill activities. An alternative approach is the development
of an overall coastal enforcement strategy, which might include the use of geographic
initiatives that focus on specific areas.
xxi
-------
It may also prove helpful to provide within the LMP for authority for a Federal
response, when a State fails to implement its program. Such a response could range from
issuance of site-specific permits, to substitution of Federal program provisions for the State's,
or to withdrawing program funds under certain grant programs.
Finally, there is the option of revising statutory authorities, at Federal, State, or local
levels. For example, in its reauthorization of the FSA, Congress should reaffirm the
importance of water quality, including wetlands protection and restoration, in the activities of
the USDA, and provide for expansion of the Conservation Reserve Program, with a significant
component dedicated to improvements in water quality protection.
10. MEASURING THE EFFECTIVENESS OF PLAN IMPLEMENTATION
SURVEILLANCE AND MONITORING WITHIN THE LMP FRAMEWORK
Annex 2 requires that LMPs include "a description of surveillance and monitoring to
track the effectiveness of the remedial measures and the eventual elimination of the
contribution to impairments of beneficial uses from the Critical Pollutants." Hence, the
foremost element in the surveillance and monitoring program design should be to demonstrate
environmental responses to remediation over time. From a technical standpoint, to demonstrate
a trend of an environmental variable, a critical factor is confidence in the difference between
the data collected at an earlier point in time and the data collected at a later point in time.
This means that a monitoring plan that is to successfully demonstrate a trend in an
environmental variable must strictly limit variability.
Two types of variability in environmental data must be considered: changing
environmental conditions and changing laboratory conditions. Understanding the chemical,
physical, and biological changes and interrelationships of the environment is needed to design
the sample collection component of the monitoring program. Changes in laboratory conditions
can also increase data variability. For instance, alterations in chemical, physical, or biological
measurements in the laboratory can change the true data values among the samples collected
from the field.
There is a third component of monitoring environmental data that can result in an
unsuccessful program — alteration of program objectives at some point during the program,
resulting in compromise of the objectives initially set out for the program. While additional
objectives can certainly be incorporated, the initial objectives should not be compromised.
To restrict sample collection variability, enforce laboratory data quality, and maintain the
monitoring program along its original path, Quality Assurance Program Plans (QAPPs) are
used. When these QAPPs are followed, "laws" of the monitoring program are set forth, which,
if followed, ensure the success of the monitoring program.
For a given sampling time, the samples collected within the specified limits discussed
earlier and analyzed in the quality assured laboratory will have a certain amount of variability.
This variability will be determined after a pilot study, or from data collected from one or
more earlier studies. The monitoring program designer should know the variability of the data
and the degree of trend that should be expected (based on modeling data or previous studies).
The designer then needs to determine what is (1) an acceptable confidence interval for the data
and (2) an acceptable margin of error. In essence, the program should operate in such a
fashion that there is a minimum acceptable confidence that the mean value of the population
of data points always lies within a specified distance, or margin of error, of the true value.
XXII
-------
Another consideration in designing a sampling program is the general leveling off of
contaminant reduction that is typical of most remediation efforts. As the major contributing
loading(s) play(s) a less significant role, the trend also becomes less significant. Eventually,
annual sampling does not show a significant reduction from one year to the next year. The
question then arises as to whether monitoring can be reduced without interfering with the
quality of the program. If monitoring is reduced, it is critical that the acceptable confidence
interval and the margin of error be maintained. To maintain these two elements, the sample
size collected at any given time must not be reduced. However, sampling frequency can be
reduced.
EXISTING MONITORING PROGRAMS
There are several successful monitoring programs in the Great Lakes Basin, including
sediment, water, air, and fish monitoring programs in the Great Lakes Basin. The joint U.S.-
Canadian phosphorus monitoring program, for example, has demonstrated significant
improvements in phosphorus levels in response to remediation during the 1970s. In addition,
the fish residue monitoring programs have all been quite successful. The Great Lakes States,
U.S. Fish and Wildlife, the Great Lakes National Program Office, and the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration are involved in this highly coordinated monitoring effort. As with the other
successful monitoring programs, quality assurance plans are followed by all participating
parties.
There are also two nearshore fish programs: one, designed to measure trends in
contaminants levels of fish local to an area; and the other, designed to identify new pollutants
entering the lakes before they are universally contaminated. Both of these programs are
incomplete and need more development.
SOURCE MONITORING
LMPs are ultimately oriented towards bringing the concentrations and the effects of
specific toxic chemicals to an acceptable level or objectives. Open lake monitoring serves to
determine the extent to which toxic chemical concentrations and effects are moving towards or
are below these objectives. However, it is also important to monitor the sources of toxic
chemicals to the lake. Monitoring of tributaries, air deposition, ground water intrusion,
surface water runoff, and sediment elutriate to the lake can direct management attention
towards reduction of the most significant contributions of toxic chemicals to the lake.
Typically, source monitoring involves collection of a far more heterogeneous data set
than open lake monitoring. For example, tributary loadings of PCBs are a function of the
suspended particle size and chemistry, as these particles can carry a substantial portion of the
PCB loading. Particles are proportionally smaller along the periphery of a tributary and larger
in the middle, where the current can also carry pebbles and rocks. Therefore, per unit mass,
the smaller particles along the periphery may carry a substantial loading of PCBs. In
development of a tributary monitoring program, it would be essential to monitor at different
points in a tributary's cross section to account for the characteristic loadings of its different
regions.
There is also a temporal heterogeneity in source monitoring which is often far greater
than that characteristic of open lake monitoring. Again, understanding the source system is
critical to monitoring effectively. Often, when a heterogeneous system is monitored and the
fundamental processes controlling the system are not understood, the heterogeneity is
interpreted as randomness. When the system is well understood, its individual components can
be isolated and compared, with less resulting variability.
XXlll
-------
If a heterogeneous pollutant source is divided into components, then the number of
samples that must be collected and analyzed increases significantly relative to the number of
samples taken to monitor and characterize the open lake. This can be technically and
financially burdensome. One approach for relieving this burden is to use correctable
variables, or "surrogates," to characterize a given toxicant loading. Use of surrogates is
appropriate only if basic research fully defines the relationship between the surrogate and the
actual datum of interest before the design of the monitoring program begins.
ECOSYSTEM MONITORING
It is clear that there are several chemical monitoring programs in the Great Lakes that
successfully establish trends of some of the critical pollutants. However, Annex 2 also requires
monitoring and surveillance of the ecosystemic effects of the Critical Pollutants on Great Lakes
Biota. Unfortunately, to date, there are few monitoring programs that address ecosystem
impacts of pollutants and their improvement following remediation.
To the extent that LMP monitoring programs track the restoration of the beneficial uses
outlined in Annex 2 that relate to ecosystemic impacts, the programs should focus on
ecologically active areas adjacent to or within high impact areas, such as AOCs. In fact, a
monitoring program that focuses on open lake impacts of toxic chemicals is probably only
looking at a marginal component of the Great Lakes ecosystem, and should instead focus on
ecosystemically active sites around the Lakes in order to track the restoration of ecosystem-
related beneficial uses.
The question immediately arises when one accepts that ecosystem impacts of toxic
chemicals need to be monitored: "What do you look for when you monitor reductions of
impacts resulting from remediation?" Several approaches are available for addressing this issue,
including acute and chronic toxicity testing; biosurveys, which evaluate ecological impact on
the basis of the presence or absence of species from a type of habitat; and biomedical
responses. Using the approach adopted by the LOTMP, for example, these ecological effects
endpoints could be used as a check to determine whether meeting the numerical Specific
Objectives has, in fact, restored the Great Lakes ecosystem and its beneficial human uses. The
advantages and limitations of these approaches are discussed in the Options Paper.
XXIV
-------
1. INTRODUCTION
Annex 2 of the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement (GLWQA) commits the United
States and Canada to the development and implementation of Lakewide Management Plans
(LMPs) as a means of reducing contaminant loadings in open lake waters. In addition to the
specific mandate to reduce pollutant levels, Annex 2 provides that in concert with Remedial
Action Plans (RAPs) for Areas of Concern (AOCs), Lakewide Management Plans are to
"embody a systematic and comprehensive ecosystem approach to restoring and protecting the
beneficial uses" of the lake waters. Together, LMPs and RAPs are to serve as an important
step toward the virtual elimination of persistent toxic substances and the restoration of the
chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Great Lakes Basin ecosystem.
These efforts involve an array of complex technical and management issues, and a
diverse collection of jurisdictions and programs for their implementation. A process for
systematic remedial action through "LMPs therefore necessarily requires a carefully constructed
institutional and programmatic framework for coordinating and directing the efforts of the
parties to meet both short- and long-term objectives of lakewide management planning under
the GLWQA.
1.1 OVERVIEW OF REQUIREMENTS FOR LMPS
Annex 2 of the GLWQA specifies that the Parties (the national governments of the
United States and Canada), in consultation with State and Provincial Governments, shall
develop and implement LMPs for open lake waters, except for Lake Michigan, where the
United States has sole responsibility. The plans are to be designed to reduce loadings of
Critical Pollutants (identified by the Parties in a preceding and separate process) in order to
restore beneficial uses. LMPs are not to allow increases in pollutant loadings in areas where
Specific Objectives under the GLWQA are not exceeded.
According to the terms of Annex 2, the process of LMP development and implementa-
tion is to be guided by four basic principles. These principles require that Lakewide
Management Plans:
• Clearly identify problems to be addressed, and propose remedial steps and specific
monitoring requirements for tracking progress in restoring beneficial uses;
t Embody a comprehensive ecosystem approach;
• Build on existing management plans; and
• Ensure that the public is consulted.
The ten specific elements to be included in each LMP are:
• A definition of the threat to human health or aquatic life posed by Critical
Pollutants, singly or in synergistic or additive combination with another substance,
including their contribution to the impairment of beneficial uses;
• An evaluation of information available on concentrations, sources and pathways of
designated Critical Pollutants in the Great Lakes System, including all information on
1-1
-------
loadings of the Critical Pollutants from all sources, and an estimation of total
loadings of the Critical Pollutants by modeling or other identified methods;
• Steps to be taken pursuant to Article VI of this Agreement (development of programs
to fulfill the GLWQA) to develop the information necessary to determine the
schedule of load reductions of Critical Pollutants that would result in meeting
Agreement objectives;
• A determination of load reductions of Critical Pollutants needed to meet Agreement
Objectives;
• An evaluation of current remedial measures, and alternative additional measures to
decrease loadings of Critical Pollutants;
• Identification of the additional remedial measures and an implementation schedule for
eliminating the contribution of Critical Pollutants to impairment of beneficial uses;
• Identification of the persons or agencies responsible for implementation of the
remedial measures;
• A process for evaluating the effectiveness of remedial measure implementation;
• A description of surveillance and monitoring to track the effectiveness of the
remedial measures; and
• A process for recognizing the absence of a Critical Pollutant in open lake waters.
1.2 IMPLEMENTATION FRAMEWORK
The framework for implementing LMPs will require a combination of technical and
management activities, in a process dynamic enough to allow for revision and updating as more
and better information becomes available over time. Each of the following steps of this
process is discussed in greater detail in later chapters. As shown in Figure 1-1, the first step
is the basic management task of organizing for each lake a planning group that will have
responsibility for developing a basic strategy for responding to the GLWQA requirements.
This group should include the input or participation of not only the core planning agencies,
but also a representation of agencies that will ultimately be responsible for implementing the
LMP strategy.
Second, available data must be gathered and analyzed, and load reduction requirements
and options for source controls must be developed by a technical working group. The results
should then be synthesized into a set of recommendations to be submitted to the planning
group for consideration in the selection of load reduction strategies. Once a proposed strategy
is developed, the planning group should solicit broader public input through public meetings or
hearings. Commitments from appropriate agencies to implement the final LMP, or to carry-
out their programs consistently with LMP goals, and support from the local public, will be
more easily obtained if their input is considered and integrated during the early stages of the
LMP planning process.
1-2
-------
Finally, the Annex calls for the monitoring of LMP implementation, raising another set
of technical tasks. Evaluation of program results is essential to the planning group's decisions
on the need for further actions, such as whether a given pollutant should be withdrawn from
the Critical Pollutant list, or re-evaluated for additional load reduction measures.
1.3 MAJOR ISSUES
The LMP process is complex, raising numerous specific policy and technical questions.
However, three broad thematic issues surface as central to LMP implementation. The first
arises from the information-intensive nature of the process. LMPs necessarily require
extensive amounts of technical information, much of which is currently unavailable.
Therefore, those engaged in developing and implementing LMPs will be faced with pivotal
decisions about what types and how much information can and must be gathered to support
the process.
The second major issue relates to the mandate that LMPs be ecosystem-based, or
oriented to reflect ecological processes within the Lake system. The initial GLWQA guidance
for LMPs clearly emphasizes pollutant load reduction as a planning objective. How the LMP
process evolves to ensure the integration of an ecological perspective is a key concern.
A final thematic issue concerns the level of specificity of LMPs in designing pollution
control strategies. Is a LMP intended to provide broad pollutant load reduction guidance or
targets (e.g., reduce point source contributions of a selected pollutant by a particular
percentage), or is it intended to offer very specific instruction on how the reduction is to be
accomplished (e.g., including specific provisions for discharge permits for particular facilities)?
This issue has bearing on the role of implementing institutions, typically State agencies, in the
latter phases of the LMP process. Will States need to undertake additional technical studies to
determine specific measures necessary to achieve LMP load reductions, or will the
determination of these requirements be considered part of the primary LMP process?
1.3.1 Decision-Making Under Uncertainty
Lakewide management planning is an information-intensive process, requiring extensive
data on the threats posed by specific pollutants, their loading rates and fate in the lake system,
and likely benefits of certain control strategies. Because much of this information is currently
unavailable, it is likely that participants in the planning process will have to carry out their
responsibilities under conditions of uncertainty.
This suggests that the planning group must think strategically about information
requirements, and make important choices about filling selected information gaps. Clearly,
certain types of information are necessary to support particular decisions, enforcement actions,
or effective evaluation of progress towards specific goals. Participants in the planning process
will have to evaluate the importance of certain decisions or actions, in light of the information
"burden" or data required to support those decisions. For example, the group may decide that
a particular enforcement approach would require excessive investment in information
gathering, whereas a non-regulatory approach or incentive-based approach could yield the
desired load reduction without such a high research burden.
In order to fill the information gaps for the purposes of LMP development, and at the
same time permit decision-making with an acceptable level of uncertainty, an information
strategy should be developed, defining a hierarchy of utility for data that is collected under
the specific requirements of the GLWQA. The strategy should specify when and how to
1-4
-------
generate reliable estimates from analogous circumstances, surrogate parameter data,
mathematical models or quantitative structure-activity relationships.
It is critical that lakewide management not become paralyzed by gaps in information or
by lengthy studies to obtain addditional information. Experience shows that a key is to
develop workable approaches for identifying which information is most useful and cost-
effective to obtain. Where data of the highest utility and quality are unavailable, the strategy
should default to the next lowest level, and so on down the line, until either the degree of
uncertainty associated with that particular level is so great as to preclude decision-making, or
the required data for even the least useful approximation are unavailable. At that point,
additional field or laboratory studies should be conducted to fill the data gaps.
There should be concurrent efforts to develop an information management strategy to
assure that representative data of the requisite accuracy, statistical confidence, reliability, and
comparability are captured, stored, manipulated, and disseminated in the most efficient manner
among data bases, statistical and graphics packages and modeling programs, using compatible
hardware and software. Working to further cooperation and integration among existing
government data gathering programs would help reduce duplication of effort as well as the
level of uncertainty.
1.3.2 Developing an Ecosvstem-Based Planning Approach
Although Annex 2 specifies that lakewide management plans should "embody an
ecosystem approach," it is clear that they are to center on the elimination of Critical Pollutants
for the lake system -- in effect, taking a traditional pollutant reduction approach to restoring
environmental quality. In other words, the planning process relies primarily on measurements
and control of particular contaminants, rather than on the testing and restoration of ecological
functions themselves. In this context, activities within the basin and in the nearshore areas are
likely to be dealt with principally in a pollutant loading context, instead of as an integral part
of the planning process. Hence, one key issue relates to the current focus of the LMP process
on the lake systems themselves, without extensive or explicit incorporation of broader
basin/watershed concerns. As the LMP concept is developed and tested, the evolution of the
ecological aspects of the process are certain to be of concern.
The current pollution control approach can be wholly consistent with the broader
ecosystem approach. In keeping with the ecosystem requirements of the GLWQA, it would be
a natural progression for the environmental response monitoring element of the LMP planning
process to become an avenue for emphasizing ecological effects, rather than reductions in
pollutant levels. Ecosystemic elements of lakewide monitoring would, in essence, fuse the
LMP with the Remedial Action Planning (RAP) efforts for Areas of Concern, since the RAPs
address point or nonpoint sources that contribute Critical Pollutants to the open lake waters.
Efforts to reduce levels of Critical Pollutants in open lake waters necessarily entails tracing the
pollutant back to its source, often involving land use issues, and often in discrete problem
areas (or Areas of Concern) along the shoreline.
Moreover, basin-wide impacts on the open lake ecosystems include not only pollutant
threats, but other natural and anthropogenic effects on the physical and chemical processes that
are integral to ecosystem functioning and health. In light of the substantial land use planning
and Coastal Zone Management activities in the Great Lakes region, the integration of programs
involving them into the LMP process is also likely to be an important and complex issue.
1-5
-------
Options to consider for assisting the evolution of LMP.planning into an ecosystemic
approach that addresses all threats to the Great Lakes ecosystem processes and components
include:
• Consult with and integrate the resource management programs early in the LMP
process, to ensure that their perspectives on ecosystem problems are included, and to
obtain their commitments to develop consistent goals in their respective programs.
• Incorporate into the LMP process goals aimed towards the monitoring and
improvement of ecosystem functioning.
• Conduct a periodic review of the LMP, in order to assess its evolution into an
ecosystemic response, and make recommendations for modifying it, if it appears to
be mired in a pollution loading reduction approach.
• Evaluate the LMP after a specified period of its implementation, in order to
determine whether it is successfully meeting the goals of the GLWQA, and if not,
how it should be altered.
1.3.3 Specificity of LMP Recommendations
As discussed in section 1.2 above, the third step in developing and implementing an
LMP is appropriately that of synthesizing available data into a set of recommendations to the
planning group, which must then act to develop load reduction strategies and obtain
commitments from appropriate institutions. Annex 2 describes the LMP process as either a
broad framework that provides general guidance for pollutant load reduction from classes of
sources (e.g., industrial discharges), or as a more specific process that could yield definitive,
quantitative prescriptions for load reductions from particular sources (e.g., a ten percent
reduction in contaminant loadings from a specific facility). In this light, several options
appear for how specific or general the LMP guidance should be.
First, the recommendations of the technical group, and the subsequent reduction
strategies of the planning group, may result in very specific, quantitative remedial measures
directed at individual pollutant sources. In this case, enforcement and/or inducement
mechanisms would have to be built into the LMP itself, with greater oversight and
enforcement responsibilities retained by the planning group.
Alternatively, the results of the LMP process may be broad, general guidance for classes
of pollutant sources. In this case, the desirable outcome would be for appropriate institutions
with enforcement or inducement authority at the Federal, State, and local levels to commit
themselves to attain the general goals. Should the LMP process develop as a framework for
general load reduction guidance, however, State and Provincial governments may have to
employ a second tier of more specific load reduction evaluations, in order to form a strong
legal basis for their respective remedial actions. In addition, care must be taken to avoid the
problems of inconsistent standards or incompatible methods between and among State or local
governments involved in the commitment to meet the LMP goals.
These options should be carefully considered, as a choice between them will make a
significant difference in the role and authority of the LMP planning body. The choice will
also hinge on the level of specificity upon which the LMP planning group is able to reach
consensus. In other words, it may be that to require agreement on too great a level of
specificity in implementation is not appropriate for such a large effort as the LMP process. In
this case, general guidance provided by the LMP may be the best approach.
1-6
-------
2. BACKGROUND
This chapter briefly discusses the evolution of the lakewide management planning
concept, with emphasis on previous efforts at water resource management that should prove to
be of use in the development of a framework for LMPs. Also included in this chapter is a
section on the relationship of LMPs to existing State and Federal water quality-related
programs.
In coordinating the LMP process with the ongoing planning efforts and studies described
below, other requirements of the GLWQA, and existing water quality programs, it is important
to note not only technical aspects (methodologies and successes/failures thereof), but also the
institutional organization and process-related considerations. Even as the United States and
Canada negotiated the terms of the GLWQA, the institutional complexity of the respective
systems for water quality management was recognized. With the signing of the Agreement,
commitments were made to achieve specific objectives and to work toward consistency
between their respective national objectives and those set by the States and Provinces. This
commitment should be reflected in any lakewide effort involving the array of jurisdictions and
institutions that LMP planning and implementation encompass.
2.1 EVOLUTION OF THE LAKEWIDE MANAGEMENT PLANNING CONCEPT
The concept of lakewide management planning has evolved from a series of water
resource management efforts that have been undertaken in the Great Lakes Basin over the last
two decades. These efforts provide a number of models that can be drawn upon in developing
practical guidance for LMP development and implementation. In particular, early experience
with the development of Phosphorus Plans and the initial comprehensive lakewide management
efforts now underway for Lakes Ontario and Michigan offer important lessons. Efforts to
develop LMPs will also benefit from the recent and ongoing experiences of mass balance
modeling studies in the Upper Great Lakes Connecting Channels and in Green Bay
(Table 2-1).
2.1.1 Phosphorus Reduction Plans
The first plans to address lakewide concerns were the phosphorus reduction plans
required by the 1983 Supplement to Annex 3 of the GLWQA, after a series of technical and
management approaches had evolved for addressing excess phosphorus loadings. The earliest
studies of this issue focused on identifying the nutrient responsible for hyper-eutrophication of
certain areas of the Great Lakes. As consensus emerged in the late 1960's and early 1970's
that the limiting nutrient was phosphorus, the initial management response was the enactment
of a phosphate detergent ban by the City of Chicago.
In a broader effort, the United States and Canada signed the GLWQA in 1972, part of
which focused specifically on resolving the eutrophication problem in the Great Lakes system.
Toward this end, the GLWQA advocated adoption of a one milligram/liter best technology-
based phosphate effluent limitation for all municipal dischargers with a flow of one million
gallons per day or greater.
2-1
-------
1
BP
4»
I
o
13
o o •
• • o
O O O 9 • O
O •
• O
O O
o o • o
c
*J
CO
s I
*n
§
•W 01
ii
a
a * s c
•w e 1-1 «
BJ O *^ ^
13 g
« 2 t
I
Ml
5 ® *C •
o ^
o o fl) c5
^ a
o o
11
* i
o •
I-
s g
S I
5 £
2-2
-------
SI
H
>
H
8
ii
V
I
^ J.
3J1I
lilt
I
$S
•s
• e o •
• • • e e
• o e • e
•- M
I I
g I
** >
!J I
M
I
o
I i a
•
1
|||
Jf
U
1
|
J s
a •-
i
l
c
I
a
I
fi
il
Se
,m*
, :ili
8 «"**
fl z c
o a •
2-3
-------
Meanwhile, the technical approach for addressing the problem of phosphorus reduction
had been evolving over a period of decades. Early on, an empirical model that related
phosphorus loads to algae concentrations in lake water was found capable of simulating Lake
Erie conditions with a fair degree of accuracy. A subsequent process model was designed to
simulate all the important processes that affect the phosphate load/phosphate concentration/ -
algae production relationship, through the use of mass balance equations. These models
enabled the calculation of the load reduction required to attain the phosphate water quality
objective of the GLWQA.
By 1977, it became apparent that the control of industrial point sources and limitations
on phosphates in detergents were not going to produce a sufficient reduction in loadings. It
was estimated that agricultural applications of fertilizers and combined sewer overflow
accounted for most of the remaining uncontrolled phosphorus load. Atmospheric deposition
was estimated to account for only about six percent of total loadings to the lower Great Lakes.
Consequently, it was clear that changes in agricultural practices, such as no-till or low-
till management, would be required to meet the target loads. As an added benefit, because
most of the atmospheric phosphorus in excess of background was believed to originate from
upwind agricultural areas, the proposed changes in farm practices were also expected to reduce
the atmospheric deposition of phosphorus within the Lakes.
Pursuant to requirements in Annex 3 of the 1978 Agreement, the International Joint
Commission (IJC) Science Advisory Board and Great Lakes Water Quality Board (GLWQB)
formed a task force to evaluate the target loads for Saginaw Bay and for Lakes Erie and
Ontario. The resulting report confirmed the original target loads for the bay and the lower
lakes.
The 1983 Supplement to Annex 3 reconfirmed the target loads and adopted a binational
wasteload allocation based on the relative proportion of the nonpoint source load from each of
the parties, assuming full compliance with the technology-based limit for municipal wastewater
treatment plants.
As is the case with LMPs, the central purpose of phosphorus reduction plans under the
1983 Supplement was the identification of the additional remedial measures necessary to
achieve the reduction of loadings and eliminate the contribution to impairment of beneficial
uses in the lower Great Lakes. To this end, the Supplement called for the adoption of a
binational phosphorus load reduction plan for each of these waterbodies. The allocation among
States was also based on an existing proportions approach. This provided the necessary
flexibility for each State in meeting its total load allocation. The resulting U.S. Plan for
Phosphorus Load Reduction was published in 1986.
2.1.2 Toxic Substances Control and Reduction
With the successful application of the phosphorus mass balance process models in
determining target phosphorus loads for the lower Great Lakes, attention was turned to the
new challenge of toxic substances modeling. Much of the process data developed for
phosphorus models were also useful for toxicant modeling, although other data must be
measured or estimated for each toxicant in a separate effort.
Regarding the development of a coherent lakewide toxics management strategy, it is
helpful to review the evolution of the GLWQB's two-track toxics strategy. In January 1985, at
a meeting of the GLWQB's Toxic Substances Committee (TSC), a proposal was made to
evaluate the possibility of determining target acceptable loads for a select set of toxicants
necessary to restore full use of the sport and commercial fisheries in each of the Great Lakes.
2-4
-------
In support of this concept, an analogy was drawn to the lakewide total load management
approach taken to address the hyper-eutrophication problem in the lower Lakes.
The response by the TSC to this proposal was generally positive, although a consensus
was reached that the analogy between phosphorus and toxicants had to be drawn with caution.
While there is an optimum concentration of phosphorus in each of the Great Lakes that
properly balances productivity and water quality, the optimum concentration of an
anthropogenic toxicant in the Great Lakes ecosystem is zero, and the goal of the GLWQA is
the virtual elimination of persistent toxic substances. Furthermore, whereas consistently over-
estimating the phosphorus load-concentration relationship would result in over-regulation of
sources with adverse consequences for the productivity of the Lakes, consistently
overestimating the toxicant load-concentration relationship would not.
In this light, it becomes a question of whether target loads should be calculated for
Critical Pollutants, although there are compelling arguments that target load reductions are
necessary simply in order to manage scarce resources in the effort to reduce any number of
Critical Pollutants to meet specific water quality objectives. Regardless, it is clearly more
appropriate in the case of toxics management to speak in terms of target load reductions,
rather than target acceptable loads.
The question of which Great Lakes pollutants merited priority status for lakewide total
load management led the GLWQB's Programs Committee to propose a two-track strategy for
addressing the problem of persistent toxic substances in the Great Lakes. The purpose of the
Primary Track was to undertake immediate efforts to significantly reduce the loadings of
Critical Pollutants to the Great Lakes over the next three to five years. At the same time,
efforts would continue to develop a systematic process for selecting Critical Pollutants from
amongst the list of known Great Lakes contaminants. This process was referred to as the
Comprehensive Track.
To begin the process, the Water Quality Board adopted a consensus list of eleven highly
persistent, highly bioaccumulative toxic contaminants in the Great Lakes — the "Critical
Pollutants". At the same time, while the use of the systematic process for identifying Critical
Pollutants to be developed by the IJC's Coordinating Committee could result in the deletion of
one or more of the consensus Critical Pollutants and the addition of new ones in their place, it
was determined that until such a list was developed, the absence of an approved selection
process should not slow efforts to significantly reduce the loads of the consensus list.
Although a process was developed to deploy this two-track toxics strategy, it was never
fully implemented, for two reasons. First, the lakewide management planning concept was
evolving during the renegotiation of the GLWQA in 1986 and 1987, at about the same time the
two-track strategy was being fleshed out. As such, the LMP was a moving target that would
be virtually impossible to integrate with the two-track strategy. Second, available resources in
recent years have been insufficient to support this effort, and at the same time, the
development and review of Remedial Action Plans, the implementation of and reporting on the
Upper Great Lakes Connecting Channels Study, the design and conduct of the Green Bay Mass
Balance Study, the renegotiation of the GLWQA and the writing of the 1987 GLWQB report.
Nevertheless, the IJC's Toxic Substances Committee sponsored a Lake Ontario modeling
workshop in 1987 to test the feasibility of calculating target load reductions for the Critical
Pollutants using existing or modified mathematical models. Each of three models was put
through nine different "exercises" to test its performance. One of the most important findings
of the workshop was that even for highly studied compounds like PCBs (polychlorinated
biphenyls), available data were insufficient to reconstruct historical loads with which to
calibrate the models using historical data. Present-day tributary and point source monitoring
2-5
-------
data were also inadequate. However, as a screening tool, the workshop models were able to
focus attention on important parameters for which additional data gathering is critical. The
key findings of the workshop are summarized in Chapter 6.
Meanwhile, modelers at the NOAA's Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory
(GLERL) had begun to construct a Lake Michigan ecosystem model that links nutrients,
fisheries, and toxicant processes, and which will allow water resource managers to explore the
impacts of various management decisions on the ecosystem's response in all three areas.
Conversely, if desirable water quality and fisheries objectives are specified, the model could be
run to determine the optimum nutrients, fisheries and toxicants management strategy. Such a
tool represents a breakthrough in Great Lakes modeling and will make it possible, for the first
time, to take a quantitative ecosystem approach to Great Lakes resource management.
2.1.3 Niagara River Study
In February 1981, the Niagara River Toxics Committee (NRTC), made up of technical
staff from U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), Environment Canada (EC), the
New York Department of Environmental Conservation (NYDEC), and the Ontario Ministry of
the Environment (OMOE), was established to oversee and coordinate a major binational
investigation of toxic chemicals entering the Niagara River. After completing its work, the
NRTC issued a comprehensive report and recommendations in October 1984. Soon thereafter,
each of the four agencies developed specific action plans and special initiatives in response to
that report and its recommendations.
Continued discussions among the four agencies brought about a consensus on the need
for a long-term binational commitment on joint and coordinated actions, beginning with river
monitoring. By October 1986, the first attempt at a comprehensive work plan was completed
by technical staff from the four agencies. By February 1987, an overall policy direction had
been agreed to, along with specific commitments for the reduction in Niagara River loadings
of persistent chemicals of concern by 50 percent by 1996. The Niagara River Toxics
Management Plan (NRTMP) officially began with the signing of the "Declaration of Intent," on
February 4, 1987.
The Workplan is the portion of the Niagara River Toxics Management Plan (NRTMP)
that specifies the strategy, organization, and activities necessary to ensure that the goals of the
Declaration of Intent are met in a timely and effective manner. It provides participating
agency managers and interested citizens in the United States and Canada the means for
assessing joint programs, measuring progress, identifying problems, and recommending changes.
The Workplan is updated annually to include new or revised operating methods and activities.
The original NRTMP was revised in July 1987, to fine-tune the original Workplan's
commitments and schedules, and a more extensive revision has been undertaken for 1988. This
revision reflects work completed to date, including the collection and analysis of additional
data, the initial selection of priority toxics for 50 percent reduction by 1996, and
improvements in regulatory programs, along with suggestions from the public. The 1988
Revision includes important new ideas and concepts, to allow the four agencies to move
forward into a new phase of Plan implementation. In order to ensure continuity in the
planning process, all of the activities listed in the prior Workplan either have been reported as
completed, or have been brought forward and incorporated in the revised Workplan.
2-6
-------
The fundamental goal of the NRTMP is to reduce the loadings of toxic chemicals to the
Niagara River. Reductions will be achieved by accomplishing three related objectives:
- Reducing the inputs of identified priority toxics (i.e., those toxics exceeding existing
standards and criteria).
- Determining if there are additional toxics which warrant priority attention.
- Implementing existing and developing programs for the control of all toxics.
Fifteen Niagara River toxics have been selected for priority attention because they are
present in the Niagara River/Lake Ontario ecosystem at unacceptably high levels. Seven of the
fifteen are found in the Niagara River water column at levels that exceed existing standards or
criteria. Nine of the fifteen toxics, including one of the seven just mentioned, are found in
Lake Ontario sportfish at levels that exceed existing standards or criteria. Ten of the fifteen
priority toxics have significant Niagara River sources. The four parties are committed to
reducing the point and nonpoint source loadings of these chemicals by 50 percent by 1996.
Six of the fifteen priority toxics have significant upstream Great Lakes sources. The
four parties will prepare a letter alerting the IJC to this problem and requesting the responsible
jurisdictions to take corrective actions. Not all of the significant sources of the fifteen priority
toxics have been identified. Work will therefore continue, under the auspices of the Niagara
River and Lake Ontario planning efforts to identify these sources. This will include, as
appropriate, the development of mathematical models relating pollutant inputs to the levels of
pollutants in the ambient water column, sediments, and biota.
The fifteen priority toxics discussed above were selected from a master list of ninety-
two persistent toxic chemicals, present or potentially present in the Niagara River. However,
the four parties recognize that the list of ninety-two is not exhaustive, that there are
limitations in ambient and source data bases and in the availability of standards and criteria.
The four parties have, therefore, developed a system for categorizing toxics. The system is
used to determine either that a toxic chemical warrants corrective action on a priority basis or
that a toxic can be controlled more routinely through the implementation of existing and
developing programs that apply to the control of all toxics.
The goal of the NRTMP is to reduce the Niagara River loadings of all toxics, not just
priority toxics. For this reason, the four parties are committed to preparation, by June 1989
and annually thereafter, of detailed point and nonpoint source program status reports. The
reports will describe the status of existing and developing toxics control programs affecting the
Niagara River, and will include schedules for the full implementation of these programs. The
four parties are also committed to evaluating how source reduction activities will be included
in the next Plan update. Additionally, EPA/DEC and OMOE will, by September 1989, and
annually thereafter, prepare reports summarizing progress in reducing the point source loading
of the full range of toxics monitored in municipal and industrial treatment plan effluents.
Since the release of the Niagara River Toxics Committee Report, in the fall of 1984, the
four agencies, acting individually and together, have undertaken a variety of initiatives. Some
of the major accomplishments since that time include the following:
- The four agencies developed mutually-agreed-upon sampling and analytical protocols,
and DOE began the implementation of an ambient river monitoring program for the
weekly analysis of NRTC priority chemicals. Reports have been prepared on data
collected in 1984-1986 and 1986-1987.
- The four agencies developed a screening protocol to identify chemicals subject to the
SO percent reduction requirement of the Declaration of Intent. Ten chemicals have
2-7
-------
already been listed, and work will continue to assess additional chemicals for
inclusion.
- NYDEC was able to report an 80 percent reduction in EPA priority pollutant
loadings to the Niagara River from New York point sources for 1985-1986, when
compared with the results found by the NRTC. OMOE reported a 60 percent
reduction of the same chemicals from Ontario sources for 1986-1987, when compared
with the NRTC results.
- EPA initiated work on special studies which include an estimate of baseline loadings
for chemicals entering the Niagara River from hazardous waste sites, a comprehensive
areawide groundwater model for Niagara Falls, New York, and a study of the
bioaccumulation of toxic chemicals, especially dioxin, in fish in Lake Ontario. EPA
also designated a special Niagara Frontier Program Manager, established a Niagara
Program Staff, and opened a Public Information Office in Niagara Falls, New York.
2.1.4 TJooer Great Lakes Connecting Channels Study
Following the success of the binational study of the lower Great Lakes connecting
channel, the Niagara River, in the period 1985-1987 the United States and Canada conducted a
study of the connecting channels of the upper Great Lakes, including the St. Mary's River,
connecting Lake Superior to Lake Huron, the St. Clair River, and the Detroit River, along
with Lake St. Clair, linking Lakes Huron and Erie. To place the sources of the problems into
quantitative perspective, the analytical framework adopted in the Upper Great Lakes
Connecting Channels Study (UGLCCS) was based on mass balance.
Within this framework, contributions from agricultural and urban runoff, combined
sewer overflows, atmospheric deposition and in-place contaminated sediments were considered,
in addition to point sources. Although mass balances were completed for only a few pollutants
and a few limited segments, mixing zone, spill plume, and transport-fate models were
calibrated with the point source, water column and sediment data collected. These models
aided in evaluating the downstream and transboundary pollution potential of upstream point
sources, as well as defining load-concentration relationships with which to re-calculate water
quality-based point source effluent limitations.
In the context of the mass balance framework, the relative significance of nonpoint
source and in-place contaminated sediment contributions to water column contaminant levels
was also revealed. These results will be used to guide additional studies necessary for the
development of Remedial Action Plans for the St. Mary's, St. Clair, and Detroit Rivers.
2.1.5 Green Bav Mass Balance Project
As originally conceived, the Green Bay Mass Balance Study was to be a pilot test of all
the technical elements of a comprehensive toxic substances management strategy on a system
large enough to present problems of scale, yet small enough to be cost-effective. The overall
goal of the Green Bay Mass Balance Study is to test models for toxics in order 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.
2-8
-------
During 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 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.
Participating agencies include: USEPA - Great Lakes National Program Office (GLNPO),
Environmental Research Laboratories (ERLs) at Grosse He, Duluth, and Athens, and EPA
Region V; States - Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources and Michigan Department of
Natural Resources; and NCAA's GLERL (Ann Arbor) and Sea Grant (Michigan and
Wisconsin). The management structure of the study involves Operational Committees that
report to a Technical Coordination Committee, under the guidance of a Management
Committee. Grants have been issued to a number of academic institutions to assist these
parties in implementing various components of the study.
2.1.6 Lake Michigan Toxic Pollutant Control/Reduction Strategy
On December 5, 1984, the U.S. District Court for Northern Illinois issued a Final
Judgement in the matter of Scott v. City of Hammond, requiring the States bordering Lake
Michigan to arrive at Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) for their Lake Michigan waters
by March 6, 1985. In June 1985, EPA Region V reviewed the State determinations in light of
current research, available data, State water quality standards, Agency guidance, and statutory
requirements.
For non-conventional pollutants, phosphorus and ammonia problems were acknowledged
for some nearshore water (e.g., Green Bay), but existing plans and actions were deemed
adequate to address these problems. For toxic pollutants, nine were concluded to be violating
the established water quality standards or were otherwise impacting a beneficial use of Lake
Michigan — PCBs, PAHs, chlordane, dieldrin, PCDDs, PCDFs, selenium, and silver.
Unfortunately, lack of data and the proper technical conditions precluded development of
TMDLs for many of those substances at that time. However, Region V recommended that the
Water Quality Standards Workgroup (comprised of State and Federal officials) undertake the
development of a detailed program to address data deficiencies and arrive at definitive
TMDLs.
Subsequently, in January 1986, representatives of the Lake Michigan States met to
determine how best to implement the Scott Decision. It was agreed to develop a two-phase
strategy for this purpose. The resulting Lake Michigan Toxic Pollutant Control/Reduction
Strategy was signed by the Lake Michigan States in July 1986.
The objective of the Strategy is to fully restore the multiple uses of Lake Michigan and
to protect human health and the Lake Michigan ecosystem by significantly reducing the
loading rates of problem toxic pollutants to the Lake. Phase I of the Strategy's two-phase
process consists of several elements intended to define, quantify, and control the major
toxicant problems in Lake Michigan, and enhance the States' ability to control toxicants in
general.
2-9
-------
As the first step of implementation, a list of pollutants of concern will be prepared,
serving to direct lakewide toxicant control, monitoring, and modeling resources. The extent of
the area of pollutant impact will be considered in determining whether a pollutant should be
included on this list. Phase I toxicant control will focus on ensuring that National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits contain appropriate effluent limitations for
these pollutants, based on water quality standards and on appropriately defining mixing zones.
The last part of Phase I will consist of efforts to determine whether Lake Michigan
water quality and uses are adequately protected by current toxicant control measures. Such
efforts may include modeling and additional monitoring of Lake Michigan water and fish. As
the ability to conduct modeling studies is dependent on the availability of appropriate models,
Phase I of the Strategy also includes an assessment of current techniques, identification of
shortfalls and enhancement of modeling capabilities.
If water quality and uses are not found to be adequately protected in Phase I, the
Strategy provides for the development and implementation of cost-effective total lake load
reduction plans in Phase II. These plans may include implementation of best management
practices for nonpoint sources of pollution and supplementary controls for point sources. In
addition, TMDLs may be developed, where feasible and appropriate.
In 1987, the National Wildlife Federation's Great Lakes Natural Resources Center in Ann
Arbor, Michigan, filed suit against USEPA for non-compliance with the Scott decision. That
suit is still pending.
2.1.7 Lake Ontario Toxics Management Plan
A binational Coordination Committee consisting of senior managers from Environment
Canada, and the Ontario Ministry of the Environment, the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, and the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (the "four
parties") met in Rochester, New York, on February 28 and adopted a plan to clean up toxic
pollutants in Lake Ontario.
Adoption of the plan fulfills a commitment made by the principals of the four
participating agencies when they signed a Declaration of Intent on February 4, 1987. Shortly
thereafter, the four parties formed a Lake Ontario Toxics Committee, under the direction of
the existing policy-level Coordination Committee, to develop the Plan.
On January 28, 1988, at an open public meeting in Niagara Falls, New York, the Lake
Ontario Toxics Committee presented a draft Plan to the Coordination Committee. At that
meeting, the Coordination Committee directed the Lake Ontario Toxics Committee to:
• Pursue an aggressive public outreach effort to ascertain the public's views on the
draft plan.
• Continue its efforts to develop supplemental information and data to improve the
Plan.
The initial public outreach effort has been completed, supplemental information and data
have been generated, and the results of these efforts are reflected in the Lake Ontario Toxics
Management Plan and its accompanying Public Responsiveness Document.
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 that allows
2-10
-------
natural reproduction within the ecosystem of the most sensitive native species, such as bald
eagles, ospreys, mink, and otters. The plan includes four objectives to meet this goal:
• Reductions in toxic inputs driven by existing and developing programs.
• Further reductions in toxic inputs driven by special efforts in geographic areas of
concern.
• Further reduction in toxic inputs driven by lake-wide analyses of pollutant fate.
• Zero discharge of toxics to the lake.
The plan comprehensively documents the specific activities, outputs, responsible parties
and deadlines required to meet these four objectives. The four parties will prepare annual
status reports and Plan updates. The Coordination Committee will continue to meet at least
every six months at locations around Lake Ontario to ensure full public accountability in
meeting the obligations in the Plan.
To date, the four parties have:
• Established a Categorization Committee that will keep the list of problem toxics
current; the first updated list will be available in July 1989.
• Established a Standards and Criteria Committee to reconcile differences in chemical-
specific standards for toxics; recommendations will be available in July 1989.
• Established a Fate of Toxics Committee to determine the reductions in toxic loadings
necessary to achieve chemical-specific standards; preliminary load reduction targets
will be available by March 1990.
• Obtained commitments that the Ecosystem Objectives Work Group, currently being
established by the United States and Canadian governments under the Great Lakes
Water Quality Agreement, will develop preliminary ecosystem objectives for Lake
Ontario by February 1990.
2.1.8 Hvde Park Landfill Superfund Cleanup
Although not a binational mass balance study per se, the process for developing a water
quality-based containment criterion for TCDD at the Hyde Park Landfill on the Niagara River
at Niagara Falls, New York, for the Region II Superfund program has fostered inter-agency
cooperation in conducting the laboratory and field studies necessary to fill data gaps, calibrate
a model and calculate the TCDD load-concentration relationship for TCDD in Lake Ontario.
To assist Region II Superfund, USEPA's Environmental Research Laboratory in Duluth,
Minnesota is conducting lab studies of the TCDD sediment/water bioconcentration factor in
carp, while GLNPO's vessel, the Roger R. Simons, collected sediment surface grab and core
samples from about 60 stations in Lake Ontario in 1987 for purposes of defining the horizontal
and vertical distribution of TCDD. These results will make possible the field validation of the
fish/sediment ratio, as well as the reconstruction of the historical load with which a load-
concentration model can be calibrated to reproduce the time trend observed in fish. Once
calibrated, the model will be used to establish a maximum loss rate for TCDD at the Hyde
Park Landfill from which final containment criteria will derive.
2-11
-------
While the Lake Ontario Plan and Lake Michigan Strategy are similar in approach,
including the development of ambient water quality objectives or standards as targets for the
necessary load reductions, the Niagara River Plan avoids defining "safe" levels of pollutants in
water, sediment and biota, calling instead for a halving of the total load of priority persistent
toxic substances to the Niagara River over the next ten years.
2.2 RELATIONSHIP TO EXISTING WATER QUALITY PROGRAMS
2.2.1 GLWOA Requirements
In addition to Annex 2 requirements, LMPs are referenced in a number of other contexts
throughout the GLWQA. These are noted here to fully describe the roles of lakewide
management plans, and how they are integrated with a number of other GLWQA programs.
Annex 13, on Pollution from Nonpoint Sources, requires the Parties, in conjunction with
the States and Provinces, to identify land-based activities that contribute to the water quality
problems described in RAPs or in LMPs, including, but not limited to, phosphorus and Critical
Pollutants. Furthermore, the Parties are to develop and implement watershed management
plans, consistent with the objectives and schedules for individual RAPs or LMPs.
Annex 14, on Contaminated Sediment, provides that information obtained through
research and studies on contaminated sediment shall be used to guide the development of RAPs
and LMPs, although such efforts must not be used to forestall the implementation of remedial
measures already underway.
Annex 15, addressing Airborne Toxic Substances, requires the Parties to use its mandated
Integrated Atmospheric Deposition Network to develop RAPs and LMPs.
Annex 16, entitled Pollution from Contaminated Groundwater, states that the Parties
shall estimate the loadings of contaminants from groundwater to the Lakes to support the
development of RAPs and LMPs
And finally, Annex 17, on Research and Development, requires the following types of
research in order to meet the scientific needs of Annex 2 as a whole:
• develop load reduction models for pollutants;
• determine the physical and transformational processes affecting the delivery of
pollutants by tributaries;
• determine the relationship of contaminated sediments on ecosystem health;
• determine pollutant exchanges between the Areas of Concern and the open lakes,
including cause-effect inter-relationships among nutrients, productivity, sediments,
pollutants, biota and ecosystem health, and to develop in-situ chemical, physical, and
biological remedial options;
2-12
-------
• determine the aquatic effects of varying lake levels in relation to pollution sources,
particularly respecting the conservation of wetlands and the fate and effects of
pollutants in the Great Lakes Basin Ecosystem; and
• determine the impact of water quality and the introduction of non-native species on
fish and wildlife populations and habitats in order to develop feasible options for
their recovery, restoration, or enhancement.
2.2.2 State Programs
While the lead role for the development of LMPs lies with the Federal governments
under the terms of Annex 2, much of the responsibility for implementing the water pollution
control programs ultimately falls to the States and Provinces. Further, under Section 303 of
the Clean Water Act (CWA), the States also have primary responsibility for undertaking a
continuous planning process for restoring and maintaining water quality. The USEPA Regional
Water Divisions assist the States with this function by providing annual guidance for overall
agency objectives, and by reviewing and evaluating annual plans for monitoring and
compliance enforcement.
There are clear institutional lessons to be learned from the experience of developing State
Water Quality Management Plans (WQMPs), as in many cases, cooperation between permitters
and planners has been limited, resulting in State water quality management that does not fulfill
the objectives of the respective plans. In particular, in the development of LMPs, care should
be taken to include the management agencies that will implement the LMP in the process, in
order to ensure future cooperation and coordination, and to provide mechanisms for flexibility
to update and revise the LMP.
The methods for revising water quality management plans and for incorporating multi-
jurisdictional perspectives varies from State to State. Several of the States have formal revision
cycles, but many have incorporated the water quality management planning process into their
annual program planning, or their day-to-day operational procedures. One lesson that may
well be drawn to apply to the LMP process is that such planning should be flexible enough to
allow implementing agencies to manipulate its structure in order to fit localized needs.
Several of the Great Lakes States provide options by example for facilitating cooperation
as well as flexibility in the water quality management planning process. Some examples
include Illinois' WQMP, which routinely includes revisions to the plan in the Illinois Division
of Water Pollution Control's annual program planning process. In all cases, any amendments to
the water quality management plan are attached in an appendix to the annual program
planning document. Public hearings are then held to solicit comments and other input on the
entire document, including the appendix. Thus, not only is the process dynamic enough to
address new priorities, but it also allows the implementing parties the opportunity to influence
management planning priorities.
Minnesota's water quality management plan has been developed in accordance with Rule
40 CFR Part 130, as published in the Federal Register on January 11, 1985. The current plan
developed in 1986 and updated in 19987 and 1988, focuses on point source problems and
controls. The 1987 amendments to the Clean Water Act require water quality problem
assessment and development of control actions in other program areas. During the past year, a
nonpoint source assessment and management plan, a lake water quality assessment report
(including control measures), and the impacted waterbodies report (304(1) lists) have been
developed. These plans were made available to the public, as well as to an interagency,
multimedia committee, for review and comment before endorsements were sought from several
2-13
-------
levels of local or regional authorities. Minnesota has not integrated, but anticipates integrating
all of the individual plans into a "Clean Water Strategy" for the State.
New York's water quality management is a continuous planning process. The State's
WQMP is comprised of a compilation of annual program planning strategies, the updates of
which are based upon a regularly published list of New York's priority pollution problems.
This list is based upon interagency, multimedia collaboration. Updates also occur through
changes in permitting and construction grants processes as well as modifications of the water
quality standards. Public input goes beyond that prescribed by regulation (e.g., the public
notice provisions of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System). In particular, both
New York RAPs and the Lake Ontario Toxics Management Plan development and
implementation processes have involved and will continue to involve the interested public.
Each water-related division in the Ohio EPA was responsible for its own section of that
State's WQMP, thus ensuring that objectives reflected multiple perspectives. Revisions occur
each time a specific management strategy is published. The strategy is certified as part of the
WQMP; the sum of all the strategy documents, plus the original WQMP constitutes the plan.
Public notices are published each year, to solicit input to various strategies, with related
agencies contributing to the process as necessary.
Wisconsin has a WQMP for each of twenty 20 drainage basins. These plans have been in
existence since 1978, and are generally revised on a five-year cycle. The revision process
requires the following steps: All Department of Natural Resource personnel working in the
respective drainage basin confer and reach consensus on site-specific and basinwide issues, and
produce a list of priorities. The list is presented at public meetings held statewide, in order to
target priorities more specifically. Plans are then revised to meet resulting priorities.
Other water quality-related programs administered by the States include the NPDES, for
which permitting activities are delegated to the 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, 2531 applying to industrial facilities, and 1144 to
municipal facilities.
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 requirements. Efforts are currently underway to delegate
administration of the CWA Pretreatment Program to the States. As of September 30, 1988,
four Great Lakes States had received approval for State administration, and three other States
have been active in the Program implementation although administration has not yet been
officially delegated to the State.
In addition, the 1987 amendments to the CWA added provisions under Section 319 for
State Nonpoint Source Program Assessments and Programs. The assessments were to determine
those waters of each State that are adversely affected by nonpoint source inputs, identify the
categories of nonpoint sources that contribute to water quality degradation, and describe
existing programs designed to control each significant category of nonpoint source pollution.
Although Section 319 has not been funded to data, most States have developed NPS programs
using other sources of funding.
State air programs under the Clean Air Act (CAA) have also been effective in reducing
conventional pollutant concentrations, especially of sulfur and nitrogen compounds.
Atmospheric transport and deposition are believed to be an important source of toxic
contaminants to the Great Lakes. States have also worked with GLNPO to implement the
Great Lakes Atmospheric Deposition (GLAD) Network to measure deposition of nutrients and
2-14
-------
toxics throughout the Basin. As a sufficient data base is assembled and evaluated, States, in
conjunction with USEPA, will evaluate the need for regulatory and other controls on air toxic
emissions.
Under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (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 corrective action programs mandated in
recent RCRA amendments. Under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation,
and Liabilities Act (CERCLA), USEPA Regions and State environmental agencies have
continued to identify, characterize, and address abandoned hazardous materials dumpsites. 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 national Superfund list, but
have high State priority for cleanup.
The 1986 Amendments to the Safe Drinking Water Act (SOWA) require the development
of Wellhead Protection Programs at the State level. All States within Region V are preparing
grant proposals to obtain funding for wellhead protection program development activities.
Currently, Illinois has the most sophisticated wellhead protection strategy of all the Great
Lakes States, through the Illinois Ground Water Protection Act, requiring the establishment of
setback zones around public water supply wells. The Act also restricts land use in relation to
wellhead areas.
In addition to addressing the specific planning requirements of the GLWQA, the CWA,
and other relevant statutes described above, the Great Lakes States have undertaken an
independent cooperative effort to address the problem of toxic pollution. In June 1986, the
Governors of the eight States signed the Great Lakes Toxic Substances Control Agreement,
pledging the States to treat the lakes as one ecosystem without regard to political boundaries.
The Agreement acknowledges that toxic pollutants are the foremost problem in the Basin, and
lays out goals for the States toward coordinating control programs.
States also have assumed primary responsibility for preparing Remedial Action Plans
under Annex 2 of the GLWQA. USEPA has provided technical assistance and guidance to the
States to facilitate RAP preparation, and has requested that the RAPs be submitted to USEPA
as updates to their Statewide WQMPs. 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.
Each of the Great Lakes States, except Illinois and Pennsylvania, have undertaken a
program to complete RAPs for their Areas of Concern. The State of Illinois has one AOC --
Waukegan Harbor. 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
Pennsylvania.
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 involved the public from the outset in the preparation of the RAPs. In
addition, the Board sponsored a number of workshops on RAP preparation. Citizen
involvement is viewed as particularly important because the solutions to many of the AOC
problems will require strong local support to control nonpoint sources and to raise the funds
necessary to support the needed remedial actions. This will be particularly true for the
cleanup of polluted sediments.
2-15
-------
toxics throughout the Basin. As a sufficient data base is assembled and evaluated, States, in
conjunction with USEPA, will evaluate the need for regulatory and other controls on air toxic
emissions.
Under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (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 corrective action programs mandated in
recent RCRA amendments. Under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation,
and Liabilities Act (CERCLA), USEPA Regions and State environmental agencies have
continued to identify, characterize, and address abandoned hazardous materials dumpsites. 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 national Superfund list, but
have high State priority for cleanup.
The 1986 Amendments to the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) require the development
of Wellhead Protection Programs at the State level. All States within Region V are preparing
grant proposals to obtain funding for wellhead protection program development activities.
Currently, Illinois has the most sophisticated wellhead protection strategy of all the Great
Lakes States, through the Illinois Ground Water Protection Act, requiring the establishment of
setback zones around public water supply wells. The Act also restricts land use in relation to
wellhead areas.
In addition to addressing the specific planning requirements of the GLWQA, the CWA,
and other relevant statutes described above, the Great Lakes States have undertaken an
independent cooperative effort to address the problem of toxic pollution. In June 1986, the
Governors of the eight States signed the Great Lakes Toxic Substances Control Agreement,
pledging the States to treat the lakes as one ecosystem without regard to political boundaries.
The Agreement acknowledges that toxic pollutants are the foremost problem in the Basin, and
lays out goals for the States toward coordinating control programs.
States also have assumed primary responsibility for preparing Remedial Action Plans
under Annex 2 of the GLWQA. USEPA has provided technical assistance and guidance to the
States to facilitate RAP preparation, and has requested that the RAPs be submitted to USEPA
as updates to their Statewide WQMPs. 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.
Each of the Great Lakes States, except Illinois and Pennsylvania, have undertaken a
program to complete RAPs for their Areas of Concern. The State of Illinois has one AOC —
Waukegan Harbor. 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
Pennsylvania.
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 involved the public from the outset in the preparation of the RAPs. In
addition, the Board sponsored a number of workshops on RAP preparation. Citizen
involvement is viewed as particularly important because the solutions to many of the AOC
problems will require strong local support to control nonpoint sources and to raise the funds
necessary to support the needed remedial actions. This will be particularly true for the
cleanup of polluted sediments.
2-15
-------
2.2.3 Other Federal Programs
Finally, numerous Federal agencies other than USEPA have responsibilities that relate,
directly or indirectly, to water quality management. Federal agencies with major programs
that could play an important role in the development of LMPs include the following:
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
NOAA conducts interdisciplinary environmental research, through grant-funded Sea
Grant programs 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 Sea Grant program, 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
Corps 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.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS)
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.
The operations of the FWS include those conducted in the coastal zone, the contiguous
lands, and the waters that flow into the coastal area. Major FWS programs involving coastal
issues 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.
2-16
-------
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA)
Several offices within the USDA 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 Service, which provides financial assistance, and the Soil Conservation
Service (SCS).
The SCS mission covers three major areas: soil and water conservation, natural resource
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 SCS also administers cost sharing
programs that offer special assistance for installing certain conservation practices, protecting
wetlands, and improving water quality.
U.S. Coast Guard (USCG>
An important role of the U.S. Coast Guard is to respond to spills in Lake waters,
encourage spill prevention, control shipping, enforce the prohibition of discharging of vessel
waste into the Lakes, and enforce the laws regarding the handling and transfer of hazardous
substances and oil on the Lakes.
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)
The USGS conducts a national program of water resources investigations, including 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 Great Lakes issues,
such as the effects of contaminated ground water on Lake surface water quality.
2-17
-------
3. ESTABLISHING MULTI-INSTITUTIONAL COOPERATION
Annex II of the GLWQA provides that the U.S. and Canadian governments, in
consultation with State and Provincial governments, shall develop and implement LMPs for
open lake waters. These plans must be designed to reduce loadings of Critical Pollutants in
order to restore beneficial uses.
From a geographical perspective, as "lakewide" plans, these LMPs will necessarily involve
the cooperative efforts of a number of jurisdictions. In this regard, LMPs differ from
Remedial Action Plans, which are more limited in geographic scope and thus tend to require
the involvement of fewer jurisdictions. Furthermore, with the express exception of the plan
for Lake Michigan, which lies solely within U.S. boundaries, LMPs must be binational efforts,
requiring cooperation among national, State and Provincial governments.
Moreover, because the problem of toxic pollutants in open lake waters involves a
complex array of sources and media, cooperation among various jurisdictions also will be
necessary to implement the plans. In some cases, for example the reduction of atmospherically
deposited contaminants, coordination with institutions outside the Great Lakes region may be
necessary. Thus, arranging for multi-institutional cooperation presents a formidable challenge
for implementation of the LMPs.
3.1 IDENTIFYING LEAD INSTITUTIONS
Designation of specific agencies and individuals to convene and lead the planning process
is extremely important in multi-party processes, as the leader is largely responsible for
developing an environment of cooperation and for guiding the process of the group. The
GLWQA specifies that primary responsibility for LMPs rests with the national governments,
"in consultation with the States and Provinces", unlike the RAP requirement that the national
governments "shall cooperate with" State and Provincial governments. In the past, multi-party
Great Lake research studies and management efforts have, in fact, been led by national-level
government agencies, and generally, sub-committees or work groups have been led by by the
institution or individual perceived by the participants to have the greatest programmatic
responsibility or expertise in the particular task area. As shown on Table 3-1, relevant
Regional Offices or GLNPO of the USEPA have served as the lead U.S. institution for recent
planning efforts. Environment Canada has served as the Canadian lead institution. Multi-
party research efforts tend to be led by national-level research institutions. For example, the
Large Lakes Laboratory of the USEPA had the lead role in organizing and implementing the
Saginaw Bay Study, and GLNPO has assumed the lead role in carrying out the Green Bay Mass
Balance Study.
Although continuing the leadership role of the USEPA and Environment Canada in
lakewide management planning is a "default" option, there are a number of alternatives for
process leadership that can be considered. Options for LMP process leadership include:
• Appropriate USEPA offices and Environment Canada share institutional lead for
LMPs.
• A steering committee, formed of representatives of participating agencies who are
fully dedicated to the LMP process (i.e., separated from their agencies for scheduled
periods of several months), elect a chairman from the group.
3-1
-------
V)
^
g
z
<
^
a
S
vt
ai
-J U
a iu
< ae
3
N»
^
«l •
I Q V V b.
L. w a
: •*. >. e a
i C i- v
l^a-g
S 2 * I « Z
.8o|»5
k B — 5 I.
s^g
iu ^ u
r s j<
^§ fe
P^>-
^ _i »,
c o>
C ,- ti
sli
• • u •* •* £ • • •» ••'V
x— «»iui«o*-"C
Vt.'-*' — 'O'-C • O
C«vutkS— cc
5 S 5 L. c > g « •-
o»-£c3'«ccu'»
< 2"~ o «> o iu 5
111 .
'S 8.^52z-s£>e
2 -B ? - e T » ° w C £
"•2558.^- iS'«
— • " * jf UJ X c w »
2 |'8»..-6S^H
c £°w«iu.2*-«§
lu*«|SS§S!o2
Sc«!g|-;8*?«S
-S3!**",,*?!
SSs-|5«»S;5 S °
«5S.1.t,£ji-».-
•— tT«,C-2c'-''
«J S°2 = 55? - §
= -S-c'2-ai3-
c^S^-S Sfs
iOW^wC >M^
~«»CB«CCC
X O « Z U IU — —
M
U
u
e)
U
£
1
4*
M
i!
g
L.
19
I
3-2
-------
~ fc
| IsHSSiUUI
I |51|=^1121|2
u
U
in* *!•,
1M a!l!
*ii* *iM
w " 7 u. ti 5
S*. _ «) to
_ o • - -J_ a-
111: i:«|
0 S *• £ -ogo*
• 2 • i fe.i*'0'
>» C ^ ** O ** T) T3
f«£« u««c
^™ • ^ ^ w ^ B
^|*g 55.
V&Xtl *• «1 — U
V £S J fe "•• *
*- & a. *^
2-5*^ *
u ui u u
s
v>
^v
z
UJ
u
UJ
Of
** ^ £ V ^ ^ •» U 4l '
• XUWOOW»«-
x*> "• "« 5
U S fe fe •"
C C 3 3 **
•I « 4rf *rf U
n E m • 2
< C z z *<
o o
c±--£
*
I Ml
t_ ». u £ r
a. o - -
C £ «"
S*° Zr-SX-^-i-g
•5,?fe » 5 S 2 fe - «
v t> ^ „ **(/»>• a
C!£ g a3>=*
l!| gli'g.?!'5
yi° •g§«i&?
*I«. •c«E5?*..£
i «-
E i-3T?
^11
=:? i s s
£ji>u C >^«o«o
• * 2 •- u j<" S S S. ic t
«/> •- C C at-cacfuTiM
. _ 5 ~ IT o 5 *. 5 — C —
3 -> u z «>-uv>uzoo
C
•
•*
•3
O
a.
u
X
C <"
o a
£ *-
C €, £
«
3-3
-------
• An independent, non-governmental organization (e.g., Center for the Great Lakes)
leads the process as a neutral convener.
• The relevant State and Provincial governments for each LMP select a lead institution
or individual for the process.
A related issue is the level of representation that lead agencies, and in turn the other
participants, commit to the LMP process. The level of representation relates directly to the
ability to gain institutional support for implementation measures. Mid-level or lower level
personnel are unable to speak on behalf of their agencies, and must rely on hierarchical
approval processes to sign off on Agency commitment to LMP objectives.
3.2 IDENTIFYING OTHER INSTITUTIONAL PARTICIPANTS
The core institutional participants for the LMP process are likely to be the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Environment Canada, the Environmental Protection
Departments of the Great Lakes States, and the Ontario Ministry of Environment. However,
the involvement of a number of other government agencies and non-governmental
organizations is likely to be required in the course of plan development and implementation.
For example:
• Environmental planning activities could require the cooperation of coastal, land use,
or fisheries management agencies.
• Research or technical studies could involve such agencies as NOAA's Great Lakes
Environmental Research Laboratory (GLERL), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers, Canada's Centre for Inland Water, National Water
Research Institute, health agencies, or universities.
• Implementation of LMP recommendations may involve action by government
agriculture departments, waste management agencies, air quality regulators, local
zoning boards, farmers, industry, and environmental groups.
One option for identifying key players for the LMP process is to anticipate the full
range of important interests or "stakeholders" in a given LMP process, and to prudently invite
key representatives of those groups to participate. Thus, a LMP process that is likely to call
for changes in land use management practices might benefit from the participation of a
representative of coastal zone management interests or local zoning agencies. Similarly, the
inclusion in the planning process of representatives of farming, industry, and environmental
groups might increase the likelihood of successful implementation of the plan.
3.3 ESTABLISHING GROUND RULES
Another early task in the LMP process is the establishment of common understandings
and clarification of expectations among participants about the goals and nature of the process.
Formalizing these understandings can be essential to ensuring implementation of the plan.
Some examples of ground rules to reach agreement on are:
• What are the goals of the particular LMP process? If wider participation in the
effort is sought (i.e., including interests beyond the core group), it may be necessary
3-4
-------
to broaden the range of issues that will be on the table, in order to provide room for
bargaining on specific provisions.
Is consensus required? Must the entire group agree on the LMP strategy, or can a
simple majority prevail? One approach is to agree that participants will concur on
the overall planning strategy, although they may not concur with some specific
recommendations.
What are the resource limits for the planning process? This broad issue area
embraces questions relating to anticipated schedule for LMP development, staff
support, and funding of the process itself. It is important to note that complete
funding of multi-party processes by the lead institution(s) can have the effect of
disenfranchising other participants, unless the lead group(s) are perceived as neutral
parties.
How will technical information requirements be met? Participants may wish to
decide from the outset to jointly determine information needs and agree on how
analyses will be carried out.
How will individual participants ensure the approval and support of the LMP by
their institutions or interests? As noted earlier, more senior representatives have an
easier time of ensuring institutional support for the outcome of multi-institutional
processes. However, efforts can be made early in the process to account for
hierarchical approval requirements at key planning milestones.
What will procedures be to respond to delinquency in keeping commitments and
meeting target dates?
3-5
-------
4. ADDRESSING CRITICAL POLLUTANTS
For the. purposes of LMPs, Annex 2 mandates that Critical Pollutants be designated by the U.S.
and Canadian governments, in coordination with the States, Provinces, and the International Joint
Commission (IJC). Toxic substances Used under a separate Annex 1 requirement must be considered for
designation as Critical Pollutants. Additional pollutants may be recommended by the IJC, after
reviewing and evaluating LMP progress.
This chapter discusses options and issues related to addressing Critical Pollutants through Lakewide
Management Plans. The following chapter describes three processes for designating and responding to
pollutants of concern under, the GLWQA, the Lake Michigan Strategy, and the Lake Ontario Toxics
Management Plan.
4.1 IDENTIFYING POLLUTANTS OF CONCERN
4.1.1 Designating Critical Pollutants under the GLWOA
Annex 1 of the GLWQA provides a systematic process for categorizing, prioritizing, and
controlling Great Lakes contaminants. As shown in Figure 4-1, this process begins with the
development of three lists:
1) Substances believed to be toxic and present in the water, sediment, or biota of the Great
Lakes System;
2) Substances believed to be present in the system and potentially toxic; and
3) All other substances believed to have the potential of being discharged into the system, and
to be toxic.
As new information becomes available, substances are to be promoted from the third to the first
list and from the second to the first. For substances on the first list for which adequate toxicity data
exist, criteria to protect aquatic and terrestrial populations and human health will be derived, and
maximum acceptable concentrations in water, sediment, and biota will be compared to measured
concentrations. Where measured concentrations approach or exceed maximum acceptable concentrations
in the open lake ecosystem, numerical Specific Objectives will be developed to protect the ecosystem
and beneficial human uses. If a Specific Objective is exceeded, the contaminant will be designated as
a Critical Pollutant, subject to the LMP process.
Once lakewide monitoring, conducted as part of the LMP process, confirms that the Critical
Pollutant no longer exceeds its Specific Objectives in the open lake ecosystem, the contaminant will be
removed from the Critical Pollutant list. Additional source control/ reduction efforts in pursuit of the
goal of zero discharge can continue outside the LMP process, however, under the provisions of
Annex 12, for example.
At present, neither the procedure for deriving numerical Specific Objectives nor the process for
adding and deleting substances on each of the three lists has been formally adopted, although binational
GLWQA implementation committees have initiated discussions to accomplish these ends over the next
two years.
At this juncture it is important to note that the list of eleven substances originally designated by
the IJC's Water Quality Board (WQB) in 1985 as "Critical Pollutants" (see Chapter 2 for discussion) has
no status within the context of Annex 2. The LMP Critical Pollutants list for the Great Lakes may
contain all, some, or none of these pollutants. Concern has been expressed that the GLWQB's
designation of Critical Pollutants under Annex 1 may foster a situation where the list is imposed upon
4-1
-------
I
O
O
§
1
2
S
(A
i
O)
il
4-2
-------
LMPs from the "top down," rather than developing within the context of the LMP process itself. To
assure that the "bottom up" approach is pursued, each of the Annex 1 committees could be co-chaired
by the U.S. and Canadian co-chairs of the equivalent of a Management Committee for LMPs. In this
way, the LMP development experience would be an integral part of the Annex 1 process leading to the
adoption of Critical Pollutants for each of the lakes.
Whatever process is adopted for developing the list of Critical Pollutants, by definition it must
involve comparisons of ambient levels to some benchmark of water quality that defines the threshold
between impaired and unimpaired use. Among the options available for establishing the list of Critical
Pollutants are to use:
Existing numerical Specific Objectives;
Numerical Specific Objectives which have been revised or updated;
Ecological measures and objectives;
A combination of the second and third options;
The Lake Michigan Strategy approach involving existing standards, criteria, objectives, and
action levels;
• The "rebuttable presumption" approach adopted by the Lake Ontario Toxics Management
Plan (LOTMP).
The following sections summarize the Lake Michigan Strategy and LOTMP and raise issues related
to the existing State Water Quality Standards, Specific Objectives, and USEPA water quality criteria.
4.1.2 The Lake Michigan Strategy for Pollutants of Concern
Recognizing that the existing numerical water quality standards for Lake Michigan did not address
all potential contaminants of concern and were based on outdated data and methods of derivation, the
Lake Michigan Toxic Pollutant Control/Reduction Strategy was designed to account for a wider range
of criteria. Specifically, criteria for inclusion on the list of Pollutants of Concern encompass exceedances
of any of the following: State water quality standards, USEPA water quality criteria (10~6 cancer risk),
USFDA action levels in fish, or GLWQA Specific Objectives.
Sport fish advisory levels had not previously been used in the list's development, and USEPA
water quality criteria had not been adjusted downward to reflect the greater fish consumption rates by
citizens of the Great Lakes Basin or the higher lipid content and bioaccumulation factors for the most
popular Great Lakes sport fish vis-a-vis the national averages used in the derivation of national criteria.
For the heavy metals whose toxicity are hardness-dependent, open water hardness data for Lake
Michigan were used where available, and otherwise, drinking water supply intake data were used.
Contaminant data in the IJC Appendix E Reports, GLNPO and academic institution open lake
water column monitoring and fish tissue data were reviewed, and the highest reported concentrations
in the open lake water or biota were compared to the most restrictive of the applicable standards,
objectives, criteria or action levels. The resulting list of Pollutants of Concern and the rationale for
their inclusion on the list are summarized in Table 4-1.
Among other things, the Lake Michigan Strategy requires each of the Lake Michigan States to
update its toxic substances water quality standards to be substantially equivalent to USEPA water quality
criteria by 1988. The Water Quality Act Amendments of 1987 extended this deadline until July 1989.
Once the new enforceable numerical Water Quality Standards for Lake Michigan are promulgated, the
list of Pollutants of Concern for Lake Michigan will have to be adjusted accordingly.
4-3
-------
Table 4-1. PRELIMINARY LIST: Lake Michigan Toxic Pol Iutants of Concern
SUBSTANCE
PLACE DETECTED
BENCHMARK EXCEEDED
• PCB's
DIELDRIM
Tributary Mouth/ Harbor,
nearshore and open lake
waters, sediment, and biota
FDA action level, IJC fish
flesh objective, EPA water
quality criterion
* HEXACHLORO-
BENZENE
• 2,3,7,8-TCDD
CHLORDANE
Fish from nearshore waters
Water column and fish from
nearshore and open waters
EPA water quality criterion
FDA action level and EPA
water quality criterion
TOXAPHENE
HEPTACHLOR/
HEPTACHLOR
EPOX1DE
DOT/TDE
HEXACHLORO-
CYCLOHEXAHE
*1 PCDF's
*2 PAH's
Fish and sediments
IJC objective and EPA water
quality criterion
EPA water quality criterion
By analogy to 2,3,7,8-TCDD
EPA water quality criterion
This substance was also identified by the IJC's Water Quality Board as a "Critical Pollutant" in
the WQB's 1985 Report on Great Lakes Water Quality.
As 2,3,7,8-tetrachtorodibenzofuran
As benzo(a)pyrene
4-4
-------
In an unrelated but parallel effort, GLNPO has been working with the Great Lakes States to
develop sport fish advisories in a manner consistent with that for deriving human health and water
quality criteria for "fish only" exposure. For carcinogens, this will involve the use of a dose-response
model and the adoption of a design acceptable lifetime increased cancer risk from consumption of Great
Lakes fish. One approach to the derivation of risk-based sport fish advisories has been developed by
the State of Minnesota.
4.1.3 The Lake Ontario Plan Category IA Pollutants List
The LOTMP process for identifying a list of pollutants potentially warranting lakewide load
reductions beyond those achievable by existing control programs and local initiatives led to the adoption
of the following pollutant categories:
I. Pollutants for which ambient data are available
A. Exceeds enforceable standard
B: Exceeds more stringent, but unenforceable criterion
C. Equal to or less than most stringent criterion
D. Detection limit too high to allow complete categorization
E. No criterion available
II. Pollutants for which ambient data are not available
A. Evidence of presence in or input to lake
B. No evidence of presence in or input to lake
Table 4-2 lists toxic substances in each category.
The actions to be taken with respect to toxicants in each category have short-term (early
implementation) and longer-term .(full implementation) time-frames. This will ensure that actions that
can be taken now will begin now, while those actions that must await additional data or the completion
of preceding tasks will occur as soon as possible. The LOTMP also provides for a revision cycle to
accommodate new data or new understanding. The early implementation and full implementation actions
planned for each of the LOTMP pollutant categories are summarized below:
Actions for Category IA Toxics
Early Implementation:
Construct preliminary loadings matrix (Revised matrix by December 1989)
Construct preliminary models of chemical fate (By January 1990)
Establish preliminary load reduction targets to meet existing standards (By March 1990)
Establish preliminary plan to achieve load reduction targets (By March 1990)
Implement selected, high-priority components of preliminary plan (After March 1990)
Full Implementation:
• Ensure that consistent set of adequately protective, legally-enforceable standards are
available (Report by July 1989)
• Refine preliminary loadings matrix, preliminary models of chemical fate, load
reduction targets (1994)
• Finalize plan to achieve load reduction targets (1994)
• Implement plan (After 1994)
4-5
-------
Table 4-2. Lake Ontario Toxics Management Plan's Categorization of Toxics
Category IA Toxics
PCS**
dioxin*
(2,3,7,8-TCDD)
chlordane
mi rex*
(nirex + photomirex)
mercury*
iron
aluninun
Category IB Toxics
DDT + metabolites*
octachIorostyrene
hexachIorobenzene*
dietdrin*
Category 1C Toxics
hexachIorocycIohexanes
(including lindane + alpha-BHC)
heptachlor/heptachlor epoxide
aldrin
endrin
1,2-dichIorobenzene
1,3-dichIorobenzene
1,4-dieh Iorobenzene
1,2,3-trichlorobenzene
1,2.4-trichtorobenzene
1,3,5•trichtorobenzene
1,2,3,4-tetrachlorobenzene
copper
nickel
zinc
chrojaiun
lead
Manganese
Category ID Toxics
toxaphene*
cadniun
Category IE Toxics
pentachIorobenzene
polyfluorinated biphenyls
dioxins (other than 2,3,7,8-TCOO)
polychlorinated dibenzofurans*
heptachIorostyrene
let rachIoroani soIe
pentachIoroani soIe
chlorophenyl-[chloro (trifluoromethyl)
phenyI]Methanone
1,1'-(Offluoromethylene)bis-dichloro
(trifIuoromethyI)•benzene
pentachIorotoIuenes
endosulfan
nonachlor (cis + trans)
Category IIA Toxics
hatpqenated alkanes
methylene chloride
dichloro(trifluoromethyl)-a-a-
difluoro diphenyI-methane
t r i chIorofIuoromethane
dichloromethane
dichIorobromomethane
d i bronochIoromethane
t r i chIoromethane
1,2•dichIoropropane
haloaenated a Uenes
endosulfan sulfate
hexachIorobutad i ene
cis-1,3-dichloropropene
trans•1,3•dichIoropropene
aldehydes
endrin aldehyde
phthalate esters
diethyl phthalate
di-n-butyl phthalate
di-n-octyl phthalate
butylbenzyl phthalate
bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
dioctyl phthalate
chlorinated ethanes
1-dichloroethane
2-dichloroethane
1,1-trichloroethane
1.2-trichloroethane
1 1,2,2-tetrachloroethane
hexachloroethane
chlorinated ethylenes
1.1-dichloroethylene
trans-1,2-dichloroethylene
trichloroethylene
tetrachIoroethyIene
ketones
isophorooe
phenols
bromophenol
dibromophenol
tribromophenol
pentachIorophenoI
4-6
-------
Table 4-2. lake Ontario Toxics Management Plan's Categorization of Toxics (continued)
Category IIA Toxics (continued)
haleathers
4-broaopMnytphenyl ether
pentachlorophenylmethyl ether
tribroMoanisole
di bromochIoroani soIe
bronodichloroanisole
hydrocarbons
benzene
ethers
diethy
hexachIorostyrene
pentachIorostyrene
oolvnucletr aromatic hydrocarbons
phenanthrene
anthracene
fluoranthene
pyrene
chrysane
perylene
coronene
benzo(«)pyrene*
benzo(e)pyrene
befuo
-------
Actions for Category IB Toxics
• Ensure that consistent set of adequately protective, legally-enforceable water quality
standards are available
• Move toxic to Category IA or 1C, as appropriate
• Concurrently construct preliminary loadings matrix and preliminary models of chemical fate
Actions for Category 1C Toxics
• No short-term water quality-based actions are necessary
• Review as criteria change
Actions for Category ID Toxics
• Use more sensitive analytical method or surrogate monitoring technique
• Move to Category IA, IB, 1C, or IE, as appropriate
Actions for Category IE Toxics
• Develop criterion, as necessary
• Move to Category IA, IB, 1C, ID, as appropriate
Actions for Category IIA Toxics
• Monitor in ambient environment, as appropriate
Priority will be given to six chemicals that exceed water quality standards in Niagara
River at Niagara-on-the-Lake
• Move to Category IA, IB, 1C, ID, IE, as appropriate
Actions for Category IIB Toxics
• No short-term water quality-based actions are necessary
• Review as new evidence becomes available
Actions for All Categories of Toxics
• Develop definitive categorization, as appropriate, based on water column and fish tissue
data in relation to water column and fish tissue standards, and criteria respectively
• Use ambient data for other media (e.g., sediment) for Category I categorization as standards
and criteria for these media become available
• Review categorization periodically to reflect new data, and to reflect changes in standards
and criteria
At the end of the process of full implementation, as the concentrations of toxicants begin to
decline in the Lake Ontario ecosystem, Category IA pollutants will no longer meet the criteria for
inclusion. There is a "rebuttable presumption" that once the enforceable standards for the IA pollutants
are no longer exceeded, the ecological health and beneficial human uses of Lake Ontario will have been
fully restored. However, LOTMP recognizes that all ecological objectives may not be achieved, even
after all enforceable standards are met. LOTMP thus provides for ambient ecological monitoring to
compare observed ecological conditions to ecological objectives. Where serious ecological impairments
persist, the enforceable standard will have to be lowered to reflect this reality. The load reduction
process would then continue until the next enforceable standard was met.
4-8
-------
4.2 DEFINING THE THREATS POSED BY CRITICAL POLLUTANTS
Although the designation of the lake-specific list of Critical Pollutants occurs outside the LMP
process defined by Annex 2, the first element of the LMP process is a requirement for a recapitulation
of the reason(s) for their inclusion — "a definition of the threat to human health or aquatic life posed
by Critical Pollutants, singly or in synergistic or additive combinations with another substance, including
their contributions to the impairment of beneficial uses." Hence, the designation of a contaminant as
a Critical Pollutant requires that it exceed a numerical Specific Objective adopted pursuant to Annex 1,
then the numerical Specific Objective must already reflect, to the extent possible, known or inferable
additive or synergistic effects based on the presence of other Critical Pollutants and toxic contaminants
in the water, sediment, and fish of the open lake ecosystem. This would be in sharp contrast to the
present procedure adopted by the IJCs Great Lakes Science Advisory Board in revising Specific
Objectives or the process used by either party in developing water or sediment criteria or fish action
levels or advisories.
Criticism of the present approach for the derivation of aquatic chronic criteria has focused on the
following deficiencies:
• Short-term chronic tests cannot always reveal population-threatening chronic toxicities that
accrue as a result of cumulative life-cycle exposures.
• The exposure regime underestimates the actual dose, as uptakes by the impingement of
contaminated particles on gills or through the foodchain are not simulated.
• Given the high degree of sensitivity of juvenile organisms to many toxic compounds, an
additional route of exposure (contribution of lipid soluble toxics via the parent through the
egg), may play an exceedingly important role in population growth and reproduction.
Standard laboratory toxicity tests do not indicate this route of exposure.
• The standard toxicity testing protocol has been traditionally used to estimate a chronic
criteria for the protection of stream and river biota during a low flow period. Since most
"chronic" tests elapse between a 7- and 30-day period, a chronic criteria derived from these
tests should be protective through a 7-day low flow period. When the river flow exceeds
the low flow condition, the concentration of the toxic chemical is less than the low flow
criteria. Region V interprets the low flow condition to be the 7Q10, which occurs,
theoretically, for 7 continuous days once every 10 years. Therefore, the instream
concentration is, theoretically, less than the chronic criterion 99.8 percent of the time. If
the criteria is applied to an open lake system, such as the Great Lakes, or to an open bay,
such as the Chesapeake Bay, the "low flow" margin of safety disappears.
In defense of the water quality criteria, it is clear that they provide a systematic approach to the
evaluation of chemical-specific toxicity. Quality assurance/quality control data bases are used. The
approach outlined by Stephan, et al. (1985), provides a clear statistical approach to the derivation of
criteria from a minimum number of toxicity tests on eight species of organisms. While eight organisms
certainly do not represent the universe of organisms in the ecosystem, it is an administratively defensible
compromise, given financial and methodological constraints.
The existing set of Specific Objectives to protect aquatic or terrestrial life in Annex 1 is based
on outmoded test methods, data, and data analysis techniques from the mid-1970s.
4-9
-------
Common criticism of the existing approaches to the development of human health standards,
objectives, and criteria include:
• Methodologies consider only some direct water-related routes of exposure (i.e., drinking
water, gulping water, fish consumption), and ignore others (i.e., dermal uptake, inhalation
via volatilization).
• Other media exposures (e.g., air, food) are ignored in setting acceptable concentrations in
water.
• Additivity of carcinogenic risk or non-carcinogenic toxicants is not addressed.
Although no presently agreed upon procedure exists for systematically accommodating the potential
for synergistic effects in complex ambient mixtures, a growing body of data support the assumption of
at least simple additivity of toxicities for substances with similar modes of lexicological action. Thus,
one option would be to group Great Lakes contaminants by similar modes of lexicological action,
establish a numerical Specific Objective for the category, and sum the contaminant concentrations
detected to determine whether an exceedance is occurring. As substances with similar modes of
lexicological action often originate from similar source categories and have similar physical, chemical,
and biological properties, best available treatment technologies, technology- and air-, soil-, or water-
quality-based emissions limitations and compliance monitoring could be defined in terms of ihe adopied
caiegories, rather than for individual pollutants.
While USEPA has already adopted a risk assessment policy that requires the assumption of
additivity of carcinogenic risk, there is no corresponding policy for systematically quantifying the known
or potential amplification of carcinogenic potency when exposure to an initiator is followed by exposure
to a promoter. For example, 2,3,7,8-TCDD and other pplychlorinated dioxins are potent promoters
and are present in Great Lakes air and fish. Great Lakes inhabitants are also exposed to initiators like
condensed polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) in the air they breathe. Taken together, the cancer
risk from exposures via these multi-media pathways may be unacceptable, even after both substances
are brought below their respective individual air and water quality standards.
In addition, present exposure scenarios assume that a fully mature adult male is the target
individual to be protected throughout a 70-year lifetime. However, Great Lakes States' sport fish
advisories recognize the inherently great susceptibility of the developing fetus, the nursing infant, the
young child, and the woman of child-bearing age in setting thresholds of concern. To date, neither the
United States or Canada can account quantitatively either for the differences in dose per unit exposure
or the differences in risk per unit dose in their risk assessment procedures. Yet for example, a recently
released study by the Natural Resources Defense Council indicates that because of the differences in the
eating habits of children and adults, children are receiving up to 40 times the dose per unit body weight
for some pesticide residues in fruit (Science News, 1989). Resolution of either of these issues with
scientifically credible answers will require a concerted binational research effort. Without such an
effort, the existing approach to the development of numerical Specific Objectives will continue to grow
even less credible and even less protective, undermining public support for the LMP process.
In the interim, one alternative for addressing toxic effects not accounted for in the derivation of
numerical water quality standards, Specific Objectives, or water quality criteria is to adjust each
downward using an application factor thai provides ihe same margin of safety as that provided by using
the once-in-ten-year, 7-day drought flow (7Q10) lo calculaie waier quality-based effluent limitaiions
for Greal Lakes tributaries. In the Great Lakes, for its largest tributaries, the ratio of the average
tributary flow to the 7QlOs is about 6:1. If one-quarter of the 7Q10 is given over to mixing, the margin
of safety under average flow conditions is 24 fold. While multiplying each of the individual numerical
Specific Objectives by l/24th to define cleanup criteria for the open lake will significantly increase the
4-10
-------
costs of cleanup and extend the time to recovery, it may be the only approach consistent with existing
regulatory procedures to attempt to address the problem of potential synergism.
The present list of numerical Specific Objectives to protect aquatic life adopted in Annex 1 of
the 1978 GLWQA are susceptible to all of the above criticisms and do not incorporate a margin of safety
to account for additive or synergistic effects. However, the Annex 1 numerical Specific Objectives are
presently undergoing revision. Unfortunately, the procedures and data to be used in the revision process
have not yet been made public, so it is not possible to assess how the threats will be defined in the
future, nor has the process for public participation been defined. The danger here is that even
scientifically defensible procedure using valid data will be perceived as lacking credibility in the absence
of an open process providing for meaningful public involvement.
4.3 GREAT LAKES MONITORING
If an approach involving the use of ecological objectives (e.g., the LOTMP approach) is adopted,
research, development and pilot studies must continue in the area of ecological effects measures and
measurement methods, and an ecological effects data base for aquatic, amphibian, and terrestrial life for
Great Lakes tributaries, harbors, nearshore waters, and open waters must be developed to establish
background and baseline effects incidences and distributions. This should also include human
epidemiological studies, as well. At the same time, research must continue on the relationship between
the ecological effects observed and the chemicals to which the organisms are being exposed by all routes,
singly or in additive or synergistic combinations. Without a concerted, multi-agency binational effort
in this regard, the use of ecological objectives as a check-and-balance on the numerical Specific
Objectives approach to lake restoration will be precluded.
The concept and methodologies of ecological monitoring are taken up in Chapter 10.
4.4 LONG-TERM ISSUES
It is clear, under the terms of the GLWQA, that LMPs are to center on the elimination of Critical
Pollutants for the lake system — in effect, taking a traditional pollutant reduction approach to restoring
environmental quality. However, LMPs and RAPs together are also to serve as an important step toward
virtual elimination of persistent toxic substances and restoring the chemical, physical, and biological
integrity of the Great Lakes Basin Ecosystem. In keeping with the ecosystem requirements of the
GLWQA, it would be a natural progression for the environmental response monitoring element of the
LMP planning process to become an avenue for emphasizing ecological effects, rather than simple
reductions in pollutant levels. Ecosystemic elements of lakewide monitoring would, in essence, fuse the
LMP with the RAP efforts for Areas of Concern, not only insofar as the RAPs address point or
nonpoint sources contributing Critical Pollutants to the open lake waters, but also because, in reality,
the two efforts are not separable, from an ecosystem perspective.
The LOTMP, with its "rebuttable presumption" of restoration when numerical Specific Objectives
are met, uses ecological monitoring and objectives to determine whether the presumption is supportable.
At the same time as a greater understanding of the relationship between ecological effect and chemical
cause, the numerical Specific Objectives are to be revised. This may be the most pragmatic alternative
for blending the traditional chemical-by-chemical and emerging ecological approaches.
4-11
-------
5. DETERMINING AND MEETING INFORMATION NEEDS
The Lakewide Management Plan process is clearly information intensive, requiring
extensive technical data and information, much of which is currently unavailable.
Consequently, in order to develop and implement a sound, scientifically defensible LMP, it is
necessary to develop information strategies for filling information gaps and complementary
strategies for decision-making under uncertainty, so that the complexity and cost of the
information-gathering necessary to develop and implement the LMP process at any given step
are not disproportionate to the effort of actual remedial measures. The information
management strategy should allow representative data of the requisite accuracy, statistical
confidence, reliability and comparability are captured, stored, manipulated, and disseminated in
the most efficient manner among data bases, statistical and graphics packages, and modeling
programs, using compatible hardware and software.
The information needs for LMPs relate directly to three decision-making elements:
• A determination of load reductions of Critical Pollutants necessary to meet
Agreement Objectives;
• An evaluation of remedial measures presently in place, and alternative additional
measures that could be applied to decrease loadings of Critical Pollutants; and
• Identification of the additional remedial measures that are needed to achieve the
reductions of loadings.
Specific information requirements referenced in Annex 2 include the following:
• An evaluation of information available on concentrations, sources and pathways of
the Critical Pollutants in the Great Lakes System, including all information on
loadings of the Critical Pollutants from all sources, and an estimation of total
loadings of the Critical Pollutants by modeling or other identified means;
• Steps to be taken under Article VI of the GLWQA to develop the information
necessary to determine the schedule of load reductions of Critical Pollutants that
would result in meeting Agreement Objectives, including steps to develop the
necessary standard approaches and agreed procedures.
This chapter examines the information and methodology requirements of the LMP
process, focusing on the theme of decision-making under uncertainty. Also addressed is the
need for adopting design accuracy and reliability tolerances to govern the quantification of the
required load reduction and a set of information utility hierarchies to guide decision-making
under uncertainty. The information utility hierarchies then translate into data and
methodology requirements for each component of the decision-making elements listed above.
Following a summary of sources of available data, major information gaps are identified and
various strategies for filling those gaps are discussed. Finally, the need to develop and
implement an information management strategy to complement LMP development and
implementation is considered, and critical elements of such an information management
strategy are identified.
5-1
-------
5.1 INFORMATION REQUIREMENTS
The first, and perhaps most critical, decision faced by the Great Lakes water resource
managers is a specification of the accuracy and statistical confidence tolerances to be met in
the calculation of the required load reductions for restoring beneficial uses of the Lakes. This
decision, in turn, determines whether available information is adequate for this purpose and
the nature of additional information-gathering efforts to fill gaps.
The development and implementation of a LMP requires information and methodologies
necessary and sufficient to:
• Inventory all significant point and nonpoint sources;
• Quantify the loading rates to air, surface water and ground water pathways from all
significant point and nonpoint sources;
• Quantify the loading rates from each pathway to the lake;
• Based on a quantitative understanding of the significant transport and fate processes
in the lake, calculate a mass balance;
• Based on the system mass balance, calibrate a time-variable mathematical model with
which to establish the time-dependent load-concentration relationship for the lake;
• Identify the limiting medium in the lake ecosystem and specify the desired time-to-
recovery and the margin of safety in the required load reduction target;
• Calculate the required load reduction;
• Quantify the load reductions attainable when existing and feasible alternative
remedial measures are fully implemented; and
t Quantify the additional load reduction required to achieve the target load reduction
above and beyond that attainable under existing remedial measures.
Under ideal circumstances, LMPs would be based on perfect information. However,
much of the data needed to carry out the tasks listed above with the desired accuracy and
statistical confidence is unavailable at present. Given this situation, two basic options are
available to fill information gap. First, if it is decided that only data gathered according to
approved procedures and quality assurance/quality control protocols designed specifically for
the LMP process are to be used, then the problem of selecting useable data from among all the
data contained in the universe of all Great Lakes studies is moot. Such an alternative is
prohibitively expensive, and will result in a long delay between the time when the need for a
LMP is recognized and the time when the available data are sufficient to support the
development and implementation of required load reductions.
On the other hand, if it is decided that the development and implementation of required
load reductions is to be expedited and the costs of development and implementation are to be
kept within reasonable bounds, then a strategy must be developed for decision-making under
various degrees of uncertainty. Such a strategy should define a hierarchy of utility for data
collected to carry out each of the above iterated tasks. The strategy would specify when and
how to generate reliable estimates from analogous circumstances, surrogate parameter data,
mathematical models or quantitative structure-activity relationships.
5-2
-------
Where data of the highest utility and quality are unavailable, the strategy would default
to the next lowest stratum and so on down the line, until either the degree of uncertainty
associated with the data in that stratum was so great as to preclude decision-making or the
required data for even the least useful approximation are unavailable. At that point, additional
field or laboratory studies would have to be conducted to fill the data gaps.
Based on the number and complexity of the calculations required to arrive at an
approximation of a Critical Pollutant mass balance and a load-concentration relationship, the
propagation of parameter uncertainty through to the final output may result in an uncertainty
many times that of even the most uncertain individual parameter values employed in the
calculation. Consequently, the final output cannot be held to the same rigorous accuracy and
reliability tolerances of the individual parameters.
Nevertheless, the greater the uncertainty in the final output, the greater the margin of
safety required in its regulatory application. It follows that the greater the margin of safety,
the greater the likelihood of over-regulation of the Critical Pollutants. Thus, to the extent
possible, the uncertainties in the individual parameter values must be held to a minimum.
However, the lower the uncertainties in the individual parameter values, the higher the cost of
the data-gathering effort. Hence, a central question in the LMP process becomes where to
strike an appropriate balance between accuracy and reliability of model outputs and the cost of
obtaining them.
Using sensitivity analysis and systems analysis methodologies, the least-cost mix of data
estimation and additional data-gathering activities can be identified that meet the accuracy and
reliability performance objectives adopted by the Great Lakes water resource managers. These
and other quantitative methodologies likely to be needed in the development and
implementation of LMPs are discussed in the following section.
5.2 QUANTITATIVE METHODOLOGIES
To effectively focus the limited resources available for developing and implementing
LMPs within the decision-making framework defined by the information utility hierarchy
adopted, certain analytical methods will be required. These methods include:
• Statistical methods for determining the required sampling locations and frequencies to
quantify loading rates and concentration distributions with desired degrees of
accuracy and statistical confidence.
• Kriging and other statistical methods for estimating ambient concentration
distributions from limited nearby sampling results.
• Factor analysis, principal components analysis, etc., to decompose ambient
contaminant distribution profiles into the percentage contributions of individual
source or source category fingerprints, thus focusing limited source control resources
on the principal sources.
• Mathematical models to quantify nonpoint source loading rates otherwise costly or
impossible to quantify with existing monitoring methods.
• Mathematical models to quantify large lake loading rate-concentration relationships.
• Sensitivity analysis to identify those parameters which most strongly influence the
model result and the equation(s) quantifying that influence.
5-3
-------
• Uncertainty analysis to quantify the effect on the overall model result attributable to
the uncertainties associated with sensitive model parameters, singly or in realistic
combinations.
• Systems analysis to optimize the allocation of resources to source, pathway and
ambient monitoring and modeling under accuracy, statistical confidence and cost
constraints.
Unfortunately, these methods all require some data that are not being collected under
isting Great Lakes programs. One option is to estimate values for some parameters, rather
an conduct additional studies. Some of the major quantitative methods for estimating data
lues include:
• Quantitative structure-activity relationships (QSARs) for the estimation of physical
and chemical properties of the Critical Pollutants:
- diffusion coefficients in air and water
- boiling point
- vapor pressure
. aqueous solubility
- Henry's Law Constant
- soil/water and sediment/water partition coefficients
- aquatic life bioconcentration factors and bioaccumulation factors
- hydrolysis rate constants
• Air, wastewater, and soil infiltration release rate factors for point source industrial
categories as a function of production volume
• Air, runoff, and soil infiltration release rate factors for nonpoint source categories as
a function of application rate or weight per unit area
• Liquid and solid hazardous waste generation factors for point and nonpoint source
categories as a function of production volume, coupled with data on the percentage
routing of solid and hazardous wastes to the various waste disposal alternatives
• Air, wastewater and soil infiltration release rate factors for liquid and solid hazardous
waste disposal facility categories
• Release rate factor reduction factors as a function of feasible waste minimization,
recycling and waste treatment technologies.
Central to the LMP process is the quantification of the load reduction required to restore
beneficial uses of the Lake. Thus, the focus of data-gathering efforts must be on the
quisition of data required to calibrate, validate and verify transport-fate models for the
•itical Pollutants in the Great Lakes.
2.1 Transport-Fate Mathematical Modeling
The selection of a mathematical model appropriate for the quantification of the load-
ncentration relationship in each of the Great Lakes is guided by the degrees of accuracy and
itistical confidence required in model output and the resources available to develop, calibrate,
.lidate and verify the model for its intended application(s). Great Lakes modelers tend to use
•nplified models because of their lesser data needs, more rapid comparability and lower cost.
le most common simplifying assumption is that each of the Great Lakes is an unstratified,
5-4
-------
well-stirred reactor, resulting in complete mixing in the vertical and horizontal directions.
Given their long hydraulic retention times, this assumption would appear reasonable.
However, as was observed in the Lake Ontario workshop, the water column half-life for
substances strongly associated with particles may be on the order of three to six months, in
which case seasonal stratification and mixing phenomena may become important.
Other important findings of the workshop that bear on the information needs of the
LMP process were:
• The need to more accurately quantify.
- contribution of the sediments to bioaccumulation in top predator fish and birds;
- the depth of the active sediment layer, and thus the clearance rate of sediments;
- the rates of volatilization and vapor deposition as a function of temperature and
seasonal conditions.
• The potential significance of the following on the time for recovery of the Great
Lakes:
- the sponging effect of settling algae on the concentration of dissolved bioavailable
Critical Pollutants in the water column;
- the clearance rate of Critical Pollutants from top predator fish.
Generic and Great Lakes-specific mathematical models capable of simulating the
transport and fate of toxic pollutants in the Great Lakes system are summarized in a
subsequent section. The data requirements of the most simplified of Great Lakes models are
summarized in Table 5-1. Model processes are depicted in Figure 5-1.
5.3 SOURCES OF INFORMATION
Many Federal environmental protection programs conduct extensive data collection and
analysis. Key programs include the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
permit program, permit programs under the Resource Recovery and Conservation Act, and air
source and quality monitoring activities under the Clean Air Act. In addition, government
research, monitoring and surveillance programs also serve as principal sources of information
for LMP development and implementation. Such programs, involving collection and analysis
of information on Critical Pollutant properties, concentrations, sources, treatabilities, loadings
and pathways are discussed in Appendix A. Potential data sources; general data utility, quality
and accessibility; and the responsible agencies and programs are also summarized in the
Appendix (Table A-3).
While this Table is fairly extensive, it is not intended to be a complete list of all the
parameters that would be required for the LMP process. Rather, it is intended to clarify the
complexity and data intensity of any systematic procedure for quantifying target load
reductions, attainable load reductions, unmet load reduction and the mix of source control and
cleanup activities necessary to meet the unmet target load reduction. The actual list of
parameters required to develop and implement a LMP will be determined by the accuracy and
reliability tolerances adopted anc the information utility hierarchies specified.
5-5
-------
Table 5-1
SLSA: LAKE PROCESSES DEFINITIONS
Paraaeters Water Column Sediment
Chemical/Biological
Loading Rate (kg/day) WT
SUB of hydrolysis, oxidation biodegradatlon,
photolysis, volatilization rates (/day) R. K.
Partition Coefficients ITl Tfl
Physical
Solids Concentration (ng/1) a. m.
Depths (a) HI HZ
Voluaes (a3) V^ V2
Flow Rate (a /day) Qj
(Velocity) (a/day) (Uj • QjHj/Vj)
(Detention Tiae) (day) (t . • V /Q )
ox i i
Settling Velocity (a/day) w^ —
Resuspension Velocity (aa/yr) — vfs
Diffusion Exchange Coefficient — K.
(ca/day)
Sedimentation Velocity (aa/yr)
(Sedimentation rate coefficient)
(/day) - (K$ - wg/!
Concentrations
Total Dissolved * Particulate CTJ cT2
Particulate (ug cheaical/g solids)
Fractions^
Particulate Fp - t ^ fpl
Dissolved fd - i ^.1m^r fdl
(1) Fonrin units of 1-kg and a in units of ag/1, a conversion factor of 10
kg/ag is necessary in order that these fractions are dioensionless, i.e., a
-------
s
I/I
2
2
o
O
o:
O
§
2
=>
a
1
a
0.
o
I
m
O
5-7
-------
5.4 STRATEGIES FOR FILLING DATA GAPS
A review of the entries in Table A-3 indicates that while some of the needed data are
available for some of the Critical Pollutants, their utility, quality and accessibility may be
marginal at best. For other Critical Pollutants, the required data may never have been
generated.
Significant data gaps include the concentrations of Critical Pollutants in air emissions,
wastewaters, tributaries, and in ambient water, sediment and biota. This arises primarily as a
result of two factors. First, such data are not required to calculate water quality- or air
quality-based point source limitations or to establish compliance with those limitations.
Second, the limits of quantification for the analytical methods used for the Critical Pollutants
are generally too high to detect concentrations corresponding to loading rates of concern in
wastewaters or ambient levels in surface or ground water. Where fish tissue results are
available, corresponding water, sediment and fish food chain analyses are generally unavailable,
making it virtually impossible to calculate field bioaccumulation factors. The absence of a
horizontal and vertical profile of sediment contaminant concentrations precludes a
reconstruction of the historical loading rate curve and thus the calibration of the model with
existing fish and bird egg trend monitoring data. Nor is it possible to assess the contribution
of the benthic food chain to the bioaccumulation of Critical Pollutants in top predator aquatic,
avian and mammalian species.
The limited data available on the physical, chemical, biological and toxicological
properties of the Critical Pollutants were obtained using a variety of methods under a variety
of conditions meeting inconsistent or non-existent quality control performance objectives.
Given the uncertainties in the estimates of point and nonpoint source loading rates for even
the most well studied Critical Pollutant, the significance of the uncertainties in measured and
estimated properties affecting Critical Pollutant transport and fate may be such that little
additional data gathering would be needed at this time.
One issue is the likelihood that pollutants of concern will degrade naturally through
hydrolysis, photolysis or biodegradation. However, since many of the compounds likely to be
designated as Critical Pollutants tend to be highly refractory and bioaccumulative in the Great
Lakes ecosystem, the rates of chemical and biological degradation processes are probably
insignificant relative to rates of volatilization, sedimentation, and outflow. Thus, data
collection efforts should focus more on the latter than the former.
5.4.1 A Least-Cost Strategy For Filling Data Gaps
As indicated previously, the adoption of accuracy and reliability tolerances and the
specification of the information utility hierarchies define the methodology and information
needs of the LMP process and, thus, based on which of the needed data are available, data
gaps that need to be filled. While the proposal of a set of logical and defensible accuracy and
reliability tolerances and information utility hierarchies for each of the key LMP elements is
beyond the scope of this discussion, one alternative for one of the elements will be proposed to
clarify the concept and the approach.
For purposes of illustration, it is assumed that the most desirable data are accurate to
within +/- 50% of the true value at the 95th percentile of statistical confidence. Although
more accurate data may be obtainable under some circumstances, the above design tolerances
are about the best one can expect to be met routinely. The tolerances achievable for the
overall calculation of the required load reduction may be an order of magnitude greater,
perhaps +/- 500% of the true value at the same level of statistical confidence. The inclusion
5-8
-------
of an ample margin of safety in the calculation of the required load reduction will assure the
protection of public health and the environment.
An example information utility hierarchy for quantifying loading rates from point
sources is set forth in Table 5-2.
Using sensitivity analysis and systems analysis methods, it should be possible to
determine the least-cost mix of tolerances on the input data so as not to exceed the tolerances
on the overall calculation of the required load reduction. This set of least-cost tolerances
would then determine at what point in the information utility hierarchy it would be necessary
to default to additional data gathering in order to fill the data gaps with data of the required
tolerances.
For purposes of illustration, assume that the least-cost tolerances on point source loadings
for a particular Critical Pollutants is ± 2X at the 95th percentile of statistical confidence. If
this constraint were applied to the example information utility hierarchy, the procedures would
be likely to default to additional data gathering after the second stratum of utility, and perhaps
after the first. In order to be able to proceed further down the strata to make use of available
data, the design tolerances would have to be relaxed. This, in turn, would require a relaxation
of the design tolerances on the overall calculation of the required load reduction which, in
turn, would require the adoption of a larger margin of safety which would translate into a
greater likelihood of overregulation.
There is a trade-off between the complexity and cost of laboratory and field data
gathering, on one hand, and the complexity and cost of statistical, modeling and estimation
methods, on the other hand, necessary and sufficient to quantify loading rates, load-
concentration relationships and expected load reductions for the implementation of the three
critical LMP elements identified in the introduction. The optimum mix of monitoring,
estimation, and modeling effects can only be determined by quantifying the costs associated
with each data gathering method, the sensitivity of the overall calculating of the load-
concentration relationship to individual input parameters, the degrees of uncertainty introduced
by various laboratory and field measurements or estimation methods for each individual input
parameter, and the desired degrees of accuracy and statistical confidence.
5.5 INFORMATION MANAGEMENT
Based on the anticipated data intensity and complexity of the optimum mix of laboratory
and field measurements and estimation methods, it would appear necessary to develop an
information management strategy to complement the ecosystem management strategy embodied
in the LMP. The following is a discussion of elements to consider in developing such an
information management strategy, the corresponding programmatic implementation
infrastructure, and the implementing hardware and software. With the above information and
constraints, systems analysis methods could then be used to optimize the allocation of resources
between laboratory and field measurements and estimation methods.
Where it is determined that additional laboratory and field studies are necessary to fill
data gaps, a process for coordinating binational and inter-jurisdictional activities must be
established. This will ensure that the limited human, physical and fiscal resources available to
develop and implement LMPs will be allocated most efficiently.
5-9
-------
Table 5-2
Example Information Utility Hierarchy
LOADING RATES
Point Sources
1. Calculated from wastewater flows and concentrations measured via sampling frequent enough to
meet the design accuracy and reliability performance objectives.
2. Calculated from wastewater flow and concentration measured once per week in routine compliance
monitoring for the NPDES permit program assuming uncorrelated lognormal distributions of flow
and concentration.
3. Calculated from wastewater flow and concentration measured once per month in routine
compliance monitoring for the NPDES permit program itsuming uncorrelated lognormal
distributions of flow and concentration.
4. Estimated from annual production or use volume data and BAT-based release factors appropriate
to the industrial category and facility treatment configuration when available or equivalent release
factors when unavailable.
5. Estimated from wastewater flows and surrogate parameter concentrations measured no less than
once per week and for which a correlation exists at r • 0.90 or better assuming uncorrelated
lognormal distributions of flow and concentration.
6. Estimated from wastewater flow and surrogate parameter concentration measured no less than once
per week and for which a correlation is presumed, assuming uncorrelated lognormal distributions
of ftow and concentration. (For example, in the absence of effluent concentration data but where
sludge concentration data are available, assuming the average concentration in sludge is equal to
the average concentration on suspended solids, and assuming that the distribution between the
particle and dissolved phases is determined by simple organic carbon-driven partitioning, then the
total suspended solids loading rate can be converted into a dissolved and paniculate-associated
Critical Pollutant loading rate.)
7. In the absence of annual production or use volume data, use estimated annual production or use
volume data geometric mean annual for industrial category.
S. In the absence of annual production or use volume data, and in the absence of release factor
estimates, assume geometric mean volume for the industrial category and geometric mean of
release factors for chemically similar substances.
9. In the absence of data with which to generate BAT-equivalent release factors or surrogate
relationships, assume 2% of production/use volume loss by all routes, or 2%/3 to each of air,
water, and solids.
10. In the absence of daa. with which, to' generate BAT-equivalent release factors or surrogate
relationships, and in the absence of production or use volume data, assume geometric mean annual
volume data and assume 2% loss by all routes, or 2%/3 to each of air, wastewater, and solids.
5-10
-------
5.5.1 Data Utility
In the past, with few exceptions, data used to calculate source loading rates, Great Lakes
mass balances and load-concentration relationships were not originally gathered for these
purposes. As a result, their utility has been somewhat compromised. Such limitations arise
from the collection of data at the right place(s) and the wrong time(s) and vice versa;
collection of data and using a sampling strategy with a spatial and temporal resolution
inappropriate to the degree of spatial and temporal heterogeneity encountered and the uses to
which the data are to be put; the use of analytical methods with limits of quantification too
high to quantify ambient levels; or testing of a substance under conditions inapplicable to the
Great Lakes environment.
To maximize data utility, the objectives of the LMP-related studies must be well defined
and standardized binational, multi-jurisdictional protocols and procedures should be adopted.
5.5.2 Data Quality
The overall accuracy and statistical confidence desired in the quantification of the
required load reduction will dictate the accuracy and statistical confidence tolerances on
individual input parameter values. Based on the cost of uncertainty reduction, the least-cost
mix of tolerances on the individual input parameters can be calculated via systems analysis
methods.
5.5.3 Quality Assurance/Quality Control
To ensure that the data quality objectives are achieved, a binational multi-jurisdictional
quality assurance project plan can be developed for all LMP-related studies. Quality control
procedures should be developed, disseminated and rigorously enforced. Blind duplicates,
replicates and round robbin spikes could be incorporated into pre-study evaluations to ensure
adequate field and laboratory performance. Similar quality control objectives and procedures
could be developed for data transcription, encoding and entry. Double entry procedures could
be used to minimize data error in the LMP-related data bases.
5.5.4 Standardization
Data could be formatted, stored, and analyzed according to standardized protocols agreed
to by all participating local, State, Federal, and international agencies to assure compatibility
and comparability.
5.5.6 Accessibility
All data should be stored in a computer data base readily accessible to all interested
parties via mainframe or PC. The centralized system should be protected so that data cannot
be entered without QA/QC review and could not be altered or deterred without the consent of
the program manager.
5.5.7 System Configuration
The system could be configured to facilitate linkage with Geographical Information
Systems, mathematical models, prioritization algorithms, and statistical and systems analysis
packages.
5-11
-------
5.5.8 Tracking
The status of required data should be tracked routinely. Where data gaps are
encountered, priorities should be established to fill them based on the sensitivity of the
decision making algorithm to data error or uncertainty, the time and cost of the laboratory
testing or field studies required, and the acceptability of surrogate, QSAR-estimated, or default
values.
5-12
-------
6. DETERMINING LOAD REDUCTION REQUIREMENTS
The process of determining of the reductions in loadings of Critical Pollutants necessary
to restore beneficial uses in the Great Lakes is divided into two distinct steps in the
Agreement. The first step (element three of Annex 2) is methodological, providing for the
development of standard approaches and agreed procedures from which the schedule of load
reductions will be developed. The second step (element four) is more mechanical, involving
the actual application of these approaches and procedures to determine the numerical load
reductions necessary. Because these two steps are closely related, they are addressed as a
single, unit process in the following discussion.
6.1 MASS BALANCE APPROACH
Simply stated, the mass balance approach describes the process wherein the loading rates
of specific pollutants to a lake ecosystem (the input side of the equation) are balanced by the
rates at which these pollutants are removed from the system by all internal and external routes,
plus the rate at which they are accumulated and stored (the output side of the equation)
(Figure 6-1). When the total input rate is greater than the total loss rate, the amount in
storage is increasing, the pollutant concentration on one or more compartments of the system is
increasing, and the storage compartments become net sinks. When loss exceeds input, the
concentrations must decline and the storage compartments become net sources. The
concentrations in the water, sediment, and biota within the lake are determined by competing
internal exchange processes.
Mathematical models using the mass balance approach involve equations that mimic how
the rates of various internal and external loss processes and internal exchange and storage
processes change with alterations in internal and external concentrations, and vice versa. The
equations are then solved, often with the use of a computer, to calculate the change in
concentrations on the system over time when present loading rates are left unchanged or
reduced.
Point sources include outfalls (sewer pipes) from municipal wastewater treatment plants
(WWTPs), combined sanitary sewer/storm sewer overflows (CSOs), separated storm sewers, and
industries. Nonpoint sources include urban and rural storm water runoff, ground water
infiltration, sediment resuspension/release, and wet (rainfall) and dry (dustfall) atmospheric
deposition. Spills may impact the system via sewers, runoff, or ground water infiltration.
Tributaries also act as sources to larger rivers or to lakes, carrying the combined loads from all
of the above in their watersheds.
The routes by which pollutants are lost from the river or lake include outflow to
downstream waterbodies, volatilization from the surface into the air, burial beneath the active
layer of the sediments, and chemical transformations resulting from the absorption of sunlight,
breakdown by bacteria, or reaction with water or other substances dissolved in water. Storage
can occur in the water column, the sediment, or biological organisms.
6-1
-------
1
•f
1
CO
o
g
1
EC
O
CD
UJ
O
5
<
CO
CO
I
CD
-------
If all significant internal and external loss rates and storage rates are known, and all
significant tributary and direct point source input loading rates are quantified, then the
contributions of direct nonpoint sources can be calculated. As nonpoint source contributions,
especially sediment resuspension and release, are often hard to quantify, the mass balance
approach may be the only effective way to estimate the significance of the contribution of in-
place contaminated sediments to resource impairment. Furthermore, without a mass balance
budget for an aquatic system, it is not possible to accurately determine the actual loading
rate/concentration relationship with which to construct, adjust, and test the mathematical
models of pollutant transport and fate.
Unfortunately, the complete range of physical and chemical factors affecting the rates of
both sides of the equation is not well understood, and it is necessary to either conduct
additional research on source, pathway and ambient monitoring studies, accept some level of
uncertainty in the approach used to calculate the mass balance point in the equation.
As a practical matter, it is simply not realistic to pursue the first option above, and all
models accept some degree of approximation in compensation for unknown or unquantifiable
input/output variables. The central issue in responding to elements three and four of the
Agreement, therefore, will be in determining the degree of uncertainty which can be accepted
in estimating the mass balance equation and the quantities of load reductions necessary. The
term "accepted" has technical, management, political, legal, and economic ramifications, and is
a crucial prerequisite for successful implementation of load reduction efforts. This importance
is reflected in the language of element three, which alludes to the development of "agreed
procedures" for the calculation of necessary load reductions.
6.2 DEFINING TARGET LOAD REDUCTION OBJECTIVES
Determining load reduction requirements necessitates the determination of target ambient
concentrations, expressed as narrative ecological objectives or numerical specific objectives for
each Critical Pollutant. The development of these objectives occurs outside the LMP process
pursuant to Annex 1 of the GLWQA, but is an essential input element to the determination of
the load reductions required to restore beneficial uses. In order to calculate required load
reductions, the following key issues must be considered:
• Whether, to what extent and in what manner the specific objectives should be
modified to account for the potential for additive and synergistic effects with other
toxicants present in the lake ecosystem;
• The environmental component of the lake ecosystem (water, sediment or biota) that is
the limiting medium;
• The target recovery period (i.e. how rapidly the ecosystem should recover to meet the
specific objectives in the limiting medium);
• The accuracy and statistical confidence requirements for load reduction requirements
calculations;
• Whether, to what extent and in what manner a margin of safety is to be incorporated
into the required load reduction calculation; and
• Whether, to what extent, and in what manner mathematical models will incorporate
and integrate the required accuracy, statistical confidence, time frame, and margin of
safety components in calculating required load reductions.
6-3
-------
There are two basic approaches for calculating target load reductions. The first is based
on the GLWQA goal of virtual elimination of the presence of persistent toxic substances from
the Great Lakes ecosystem. Consistent with this goal, all possible actions would have to be
taken to eliminate the sources of persistent toxic substances in the Great Lakes. To that end,
the best available technologies for waste minimization, recycling and treatment would be
required for priority sources. This type of technology-based approach was employed in the
Niagara River four-party agreement, which calls for halving persistent pollutant loads by 1994.
The second approach involves the quantification of the Critical Pollutant load-
concentration relationship among different environmental components or compartments, such as
water, sediment, and biota. This type of approach, which is embodied in the LMP
requirement, involves measuring or estimating values of loadings, determining lake ecosystem
characteristics, and understanding those pollutant properties essential to the quantification of
load-concentration relationships. Then a means of quantifying the load-concentration
relationships must be adopted. Three major options for quantifying these relationships are:
1) An assumption of conservation of pollutant concentration (i.e., no degradation or loss)
and simple hydraulic dilution with the water flowing into the Lake;
2) A simple proportionality model based on a mass balance for the system; or
3) Mathematical process models of various degrees of sophistication.
The first option is presently being pursued in the calculation of water quality-based
effluent limitations for point source dischargers under the NPDES permit program. While
appealing because of its simplicity, regulatory credibility, and apparent margin of safety, this
approach has shortcomings in cases involving 1) persistent, bioaccumulative pollutants that
become associated with settling particles; and 2) sediment which contributes to the
bioaccumulation of Critical Pollutants via the benthic-based food chain. In such cases,
assuming conservation of concentration (mass loading rate divided by flow rate) can result in
an underestimation of waste load reduction requirements. An accumulation of mass model
would be required to incorporate both desorption kinetics and the actual benthic-based
bioaccumulation factors measured in the field.
The second option would be viable if: 1) all fate processes were a linear function of
concentration; and 2) the rate of recovery were not an important water resource management
parameter. Actually, the rates at which Critical Pollutants diffuse across the air/water and
water/sediment interfaces are linear functions of the difference in the concentrations in the
juxtaposed phases. Thus, as the concentration difference decreases, the rate of diffusion across
the interfaces decreases non-linearly. As a result, the significance of the atmospheric and
sediment as sources or sinks or Critical Pollutants will be either overstated or understated.
This would be unfortunate, since of the findings of the Lake Ontario workshop was that a
halving of the total load solely from reductions in atmospheric concentrations will result in
more than a halving of the aquatic ecosystem concentrations at steady state, since the "back
pressure" retarding volatilization will have been reduced, facilitating further volatilization loss,
with a net load reduction greater than one-half. In addition, the rate of recovery of the
system is an important management consideration. For example, if it takes an infinite amount
of time to achieve the Specific Objective at steady state, the load reduction is of no practical
utility.
6-4
-------
Option 3, the process model, allows exploration of the effect of various load reduction
strategies on the rate of recovery and the cost of recovery in a quantitative fashion. This
approach has advantages in its ability to account for complex process affecting the transport
and fate of Critical Pollutants and indicate pathway reduction priorities.
6.3 IMPLEMENTATION ISSUES
As discussed above, many technical issues relate to the development of "agreed
procedures" for determining the load reduction necessary to meet Agreement objectives. Each
of these issues involve specific technical information needs and "trade-offs" between these
needs and the amount and quality of data required and "trade-offs" between these requirements
and the amount and quality of data available. Although various technical approaches exist for
determining required load reductions, one key information requirement for any approach is a
determination of the total input loads of Critical Pollutants delivered to the ecosystem (the
input rate). The second key information requirement is the rates at which Critical Pollutants
are removed from the ecosystem via internal loss processes (e.g., hydrolysis, photolysis, and
biodegradation) and external loss processes or outputs (e.g., volatilization, sedimentation, and
outflow). From these essential data, and the necessary policy decisions regarding the required
margin of safety and the time to recovery of the system, the amounts of required load
reductions may be derived. However, just as technical and management options exist for
calculating the amounts of needed Critical Pollutants reductions, options also exist for
determining the schedule for implementing these reductions. These options will affect the
technical and management alternatives available for achieving the targeted load reductions.
The first such option is whether to calculate required load reductions in successive
phases, with each succeeding phase requiring more complete and higher quality data sets than
the preceding phase. Such a phased approach is commonly used where various degrees of
uncertainty are involved in decision-making. For example, when deciding whether additional
remedial measures are necessary to meet load reduction requirements calculated with screening
level data and models, if a screening level evaluation indicates that existing remedial measures
will be sufficient, no additional data gathering and modeling would be necessary (however,
post-remediation monitoring would be implemented to track progress toward achieving the
specific objective in the limiting medium). To compensate for the high degree of uncertainty
involved in the screening level calculation, a large margin of safety could be used. Only if the
screening level calculation demonstrated the need for additional load reductions would
additional data gathering and modeling be pursued and a more rigorous analysis conducted. In
this example, the phased approach would avoid unnecessary data gathering, which can be a
highly expensive undertaking where toxicants are concerned.
Whether or not a phased approach is pursued, the next question that arises is whether the
Critical Pollutants should be prioritized for individual, sequential action or treated
simultaneously. Prioritization could be based on the following criteria:
• The nature, magnitude, spatial extent and temporal duration of the adverse impact;
• The quantity, quality and accessibility of the data available to calculate the load-
concentration relationship;
• The responsiveness of the system to load reduction; and
• The costs associated with source reduction.
6-5
-------
The advantages of prioritizing the Critical Pollutants according to these criteria include
accelerating load reduction implementation (by reducing the lag time to the acquisition of
adequate data) and the reduced cost of the data gathering effort. Disadvantages are that
prioritization is not provided for in Annex 2; will focus resources on the best studied (and not
necessarily most problematic) pollutants; and will reduce only a few of the Critical Pollutants
at a time, which does not fully restore the beneficial uses of a Lake. Only when all Critical
Pollutants are below their specific objectives is the lake restored.
When utilizing screening level mathematical models, it must be recognized that a useful
screening level calculation might necessitate the use of worst-case loading estimates, with the
assumption of conservation of mass, under adverse hydrologic conditions (e.g., storm events),
to provide the ample margin of safety necessary to compensate for uncertainties in Critical
Pollutants loading rates, ambient concentrations, and physical/chemical and properties and
process rates. Such screening tools have the advantage of being far less data intensive and
expensive to implement than the complex process models which were used to calculate target
load reductions for phosphorus. On the other hand, the magnitude of the margin of safety
required to offset calculation uncertainties may result in significant overestimate of the load-
concentration relationship and a concomitant loss of public and private sector acceptability.
Where regulatory cost becomes an issue, a trade-off must be struck between the cost of
calculating the load-concentration relationship consistent with the desired degree of accuracy
and statistical confidence and the actual costs of load reduction. Although a variety of
systematic approaches exist to establish such cost-uncertainty and cost-load reduction
relationships, all eventually involve value judgments regarding the trade-offs relating to the
environmental consequences of relaxing the margin of safety to reduce load reduction costs.
The more expensive remedial actions require higher accuracy and reliability in the calculation
of the underlying load reduction requirements, with the most expensive remedial actions
requiring the lowest tolerable margin of safety. This relationship will, in turn, guide data
gathering, since the maximum tolerable overall uncertainty will determine the maximum
tolerable uncertainty of the individual measured or estimated parameter values.
6.4 MODEL SELECTION
After the requisite data are gathered, the appropriate process model must be selected,
then calibrated and validated for the specific critical pollutant and Great Lake. Selection,
calibration and validation criteria specific to the LMP process will probably have to be
developed for this purpose. Approaches to developing such criteria are discussed in greater
detail in Great Lakes Modeling: Uses. Abuses and Future (IJC 1985).
Model selection requires trade-offs between the capacity of the model to accurately
represent toxicant transport-fate properties, and user barriers created by the data intensity, and
computational and intellectual complexities of the model. Given the long hydraulic retention
times of the Great Lakes and the long aquatic ecosystem half-lives of the Critical Pollutants,
assuming that each of the Great Lakes is a well-stirred chemical reactor that distributes
pollutants between the water column and the sediments may well suffice for screening level
calculations. Where thermal bars, thermal stratification and thermal differentials between
tributary waters and the lake waters retard mixing of the water column, a finer spatial
resolution may be necessary. Where the sediment is the limiting medium, the rate of sediment
transport and the heterogeneity of sediment contamination and accumulation will dictate the
spatial resolution required.
6-6
-------
6.5 AVAILABLE MODELS
The state-of-the-art of Great Lakes toxicant transport-fate modeling is now sufficient
for both screening-level and regulatory calculation of target load reductions for the Critical
Pollutants. The absence of adequate data, not adequate models, is now the limiting factor in
calculating a required load reduction target with the accuracy and statistical confidence
appropriate to regulatory decision making.
The Simplified Lake and Stream Analysis (SLSA) modeling framework (DiToro et al.,
1981) is an existing generic model which treats lakes as well-stirred, two-phase chemical
reactors containing both sediment and water column compartments that exchange particles and
pore water. SLSA can be run in both steady state and time-dependent modes. In another
example, USEPA's EXAMS II model divides the water column and sediment compartments into
layers, each of which is treated as a well-stirred chemical reactor which can exchange matter
with its nearest neighbors. EXAMS II may also be operated in both steady state and
time-dependent modes. A third example model, SERATRA (Battelle Northwest), is a fully
dynamic, time-dependent model and allows for vertical and lateral mixing without
compartmentalizing or layering the environment. Where SLSA and EXAMS II assume
instantaneous equilibrium between particles and water, SERATRA incorporates a kinetic
expression for particle adsorption and desorption whose magnitudes decrease as equilibrium is
approached.
Toxics models applicable to Great Lakes embayments include the Saginaw Bay PCBs
model (LLRS-Grosse lie) and a nutrients cell model (Limno Tech, Inc.) Researchers at the
University of Michigan-Ann Arbor and Northern Michigan University-Marquette have
developed a model of Green Bay nutrient dynamics which may also be applicable to toxic
substances transport and fate analyses. In addition, researchers at NOAA-GLERL have
modified TOXIWASP to account for the kinetics of adsorption and desorption. The model has
been used to simulate the time-dependent transport-fate of octachlorostyrene in Lake St. Clair.
Toxics models developed for the open waters of the Great Lakes include WASTOX
(Manhattan College), now adapted to the IBM PC-AT. WASTOX mates the environmental fate
portion of EXAMS to the hydrodynamics portion of WASP (Manhattan College).
Bierman and Swain (1982) determined that the DDT loss rate for Lake Michigan was
greater than expected from hydraulic dilution and aquatic degradation and concluded that this
could be attributed to DDT removal via particle settling with subsequent burial in the
sediments, effectively isolating it from the overlying aquatic ecosystem.
Simplified whole lake models of toxic substances fate have been applied by Thomann
and DiToro (1983) to PCBs accumulation in Lake Michigan. Thomann and Connolly (1984)
subsequently modified the model to include a food chain component for bioaccumulation of
PCBs in top predator fish. Rodgers and Swain (1983) estimated that "to eventually achieve a
guideline of 2 mg/kg for coho salmon and lake trout the PCB loading would have to decline to
approximately 1.52 and 0.76 metric tons/yr, respectively."
The Green Bay Mass Balance Study is intended to test the new WASP 4 modeling
framework, to determine whether it is sufficiently accurate and reliable to be used to develop
a load reduction strategy for Green Bay, in particular, and the Great Lakes, in general.
6-7
-------
6.6 MODEL APPLICATION
While the documentation for the models themselves may be adequate, documentation on
their use in the context of the LMP framework may be lacking. Over the last decade, USEPA
has developed technical guidance docuyments for the calculation of waste load allocations
(WLAs) using mathematical models for BOD, nutrients and toxicants in rivers, shallow lakes
and estuaries in the context of the NPDES permit program. Ultimately, to assist water
resource manager in the development of LMPs, national technical guidance for Great Lakes
WLAs may be needed, as well.
6-8
-------
7. EVALUATING THE EFFECTIVENESS OF
CURRENT REMEDIAL PROGRAMS
The next step in the general process for LMP development involves the evaluation of
remedial measures presently in place, and alternative additional measures that could be applied
to decrease loadings of Critical Pollutants. A wide range programs for restoring and
maintaining Great Lakes water quality have been established by the United States and Canada,
as well as the Great Lakes States and the Province of Ontario. Although extensive information
is available on the effectiveness of certain control technologies, empirical information on the
effect of multiple control programs on ambient concentrations of pollutants is limited.
This chapter provides an overview of major Federal regulatory and nonregulatory
programs for remediating pollution in the Great Lakes, outlines some of the major factors
determining program effectiveness, and addresses general options for measuring program
effectiveness and examining remedial measure alternatives.
7.1 MAJOR REGULATORY AND NON-REGULATORY PROGRAMS
A wide variety of remedial programs has been established to improve water quality.
Foremost among these are government regulatory programs, which restrict activities having
adverse effects on the environment. However, nonregulatory Government programs, which
encourage or enable communities and individuals to reduce pollutant loads, are also powerful
tools for water quality improvement. The private sector too 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.
Major U.S. mechanisms 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 7-1). 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. Programs administered by USEPA and other
Federal agencies also provide grants for research and public information and education related
to Great Lakes issues.
Major Canadian mechanisms include point source regulatory programs under the
Fisheries Act and a host of industry-specific control programs (Table 7-2). In addition,
national programs address atmospheric emissions, control of urban runoff, and restrictions on
the production and transport of toxic substances.
7-1
-------
Table 7-l. Major United Slates Federal Programs
Contributing to Great Lakes Water Quality Improvement
Programs
Statutory Authority/
Implementing Measure
Explanation
REGLTLATORY PROGRAMS
Clean Water Act (CWA)
National Pollutant
Discharge and Elimination
System (NPDES) Permit
Program
NPDES Pretreannent Program
Dredge and Fill Permit
Program
Section 401 of the CWA
(33 USC 1341)
Section 10 of the Riven
and Harbors Act of 198S
Manufacture and Sale of
Toxic Substances
Pesticide Control
Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA)
amended
Federal Water Pollution Control
Act of 1972 as amended
Section 402 of the CWA
(33 USC 1342); NPDES Permit
Regulation* (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
(SI FR 219. at 41220 et
seq) (November 13. 19S6;
33 CFR 320 « 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)
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)
Water quality criteria and EPA
regulations for issuing permits
for the discharge of 'any
pollutant or combination of
pollutants' into waters of the
U.5.; 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.
Th« Secretary of the Army,
acting through the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineer*, 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., pien or docks)
to ensure that these actions do
not adversely affect
navigability.
Enpowers EPA to regulate
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
regulate the transportation, as
treatment, disposal, and storage
of solid and hazardous wastes.
Environmental Impact
Statement Requirements
National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA)
NT-PA directs all Federal
agencies to determine the
potential environmental impacts
of their proposed activities and
to consider those impacts in the
decision-making process.
7-2
-------
Table 7-1. Major United States Federal Programs
Contributing to Great Lakes Water Quality Improvement
(continued)
Programs
Construction Grants Program
Statutory Authority/
Implementing Measure
Explanation
Clean Water Act (Section 201)
Section 201 provides funding for
the development and
implementation of waste
treatment management plans
and practices, including
construction of wastewater
treatment facilities.
Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act (CERCLA. as
amended)
AS amended by the Superfuad
Amendments and Reauthorization
Act of 1987
CERCLA authorizes the Federal
Government to develop a
system for identifying aad
cleaning up chemical and
hazardous substance releases
harmful to public health and
the environment.
Fish and Wildlife
Coordination Act
(16 USC 661 et seq)
Administrative agreements
between agencies
Section 307 of the Coastal
Zone Management (CZM) Act
(16 USC 14J6)
NQNBEGULATORY PROGRAMS
Executive Order 11990 on
the Protection of Wetlands
(45 FR 26961 (1977))
Executive Order 11988 on
Floodplain Management
(45 FR 269S1 (1977))
Endangered Species Act
(16 USC 1531 et >eq)
Regulations on Federal
Consistency with Approved
Coastal Management Programs
(15 CFR 930.1 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)
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.
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.
7-3
-------
Table 7-2. Major Canadian Programs
Contributing to Great ' .akes Water Quality Improvement
Programs
Statutory Authority/
Implementing Measure
Explanation
Programs
Fisheries Act
Fisheries Act (FA), RSC 1970
Allows the federal government
to set water quality standards
for several industrial sectors:
meat and poultry products.
potato processing, petroleum
refining, chlor-alkaii mercury.
and pulp/paper/metal mining;
to control municipal dishcarges;
to regulate pretreatment
standards; to control persistam
tonic substances, phosphorous
loadings, inputs from
agriculture and forestry, and
dredging activities.
Pulp and Paper Effluent
Regulations
Petroleum Refining Liquid
Effluent Regulations
Metal Mining Liquid
Effluent Regulations
Canada Water Act
FA, CRC 197S
FA, CRC 1978
FA, CRC 1978
Canada Water Act
(CWA) RSC 1970
Provides for water quality
management authorities in
cooperation with the provinces.
Atomic Energy Control Act
Controlled hauling disposal
of dangerous liquid and
solid wastes
Canada Shipping Act
Regulation of air emissions,
fuel and fuel components
Removal of contaminated
sediments
General control over the
manufacture, transportation.
use, disposal, importation,
and exportation of chemicals
and wastes where not
adequately covered by other
regulatory legislation.
Industry specific emission
standards, regulations, and
guidelines as well as
national ambient air quality
objectives have been established.
Guidelines for the control
urban runoff
Regulations regarding the
registration, safety,
and manufacturing of
control products to protect
human health and the host
plant, animal or article.
RSCC-A-19
Transportation of
Dangerous Goods Act
RSC 19<0, c.36
RSC 1970
Canadian Environmental
Protection Act (CEPA),
promulgated in June 1918.
CEPA, 198S
CEPA, 1988
Canada Clean Air Act
(CAA)
Provincial Drainage Act
Pest Control Products Act
(PCPA)
7-4
Provides authority to control
thermal discharges
Regulations of shipping
activities that adversly impact
water quality, including: control
of the discharge of oil, vessel
wastes, and shipbovd wastes.
Ministry of Environment
can order the removal of
contaminated sediments
Recommends methods of of
managing urban runoff;
programs are actually carried
out by provincial and municipal
governments
-------
Table 7-2. Major Canadian Programs
Contributing to Great Lakes Water Quality Improvement
(continued;
Programs
Statutory Authority;
Implementing Measure
Explanation
Compel disclosure of
information about chemicals
in commercial use; undertake
investigations to determine
their fate in commerce aat
the environment; ECA reetrict
the handling and ditpoeal of
selected substance*; the
provinces control the ute
of such substances
Nonreftulatorv Programs
Farm Pollution Advisory
Committee
Environmental Contaminants
Act (ECA)
CEPA, 19SS
Mechanisms for
international cooperation
Funding for Research
Construction of waste
water treatment plants
FA, 1970
FA. 1970
FA. 1970 and
OVA, 1970
Under Section 3( I) of
CEPA. this committee advises
the Minister about whether or
not animal waste is being
handled and disposed of
inaccprdaace with 'normal
fanning practice," and thereby
not impacting quality of nearby
water bodies.
7-5
-------
7.2 FACTORS INFLUENCING PROGRAM EFFECTIVENESS
The effectiveness of remedial programs in reducing levels of Contaminants of Concern is
determined by several factors:
• Applicability of the remedial program to principal sources of the specific
contaminants. The remedial program first must be relevant to the contaminant
source. For example, if DDT is entering a lake system primarily through
atmospheric deposition, point source controls on industrial facilities would, by
definition, be ineffective as a control approach.
• Technical efficacy of the control methodology. A second major factor is the degree
to which the remedial approach effectively reduces pollutant loadings. Thus, a ban
on discharges of a pollutant would be more effective than a discharge limitation.
Requirements relating to specific control technologies or best management practices
are associated with expected performance levels. As discussed below, the
effectiveness of some control methodologies can be difficult to determine.
• Actual Implementation of the remedial program. The extent to which remedial
programs are actually applied "on the ground" can differ substantially from theoretical
or intended applicability. For example, Section 404 permits theoretically are required
for discharges of dredged and fill material in wetlands. However, unregulated fills
are known to occur in many areas of the United States. Enforcement activities,
including both self-monitor ing provisions of regulatory programs and field checks by
government agencies to ensure compliance, are key indicators of program
implementation.
7.3 MEASURING PROGRAM EFFECTIVENESS
The effectiveness of remedial action programs can be measured with greatest certainty,
where: (a) the pollutant source subject to control are point discharges, which can be easily
monitored, or (b) the pollutant has a single source (of any type), which permits a direct
correlation between remedial actions and environmental concentrations.
Unfortunately most contaminants of concern have multiple sources, and/or are subject to
complex physical and chemical fate patterns, which complicate their measurement in the
environment. Consequently, where a pollutant has multiple sources, or resides temporarily in
environmental "sinks" or reservoirs, the effectiveness of the remedial program must be
estimated or measured indirectly.
As discussed in a previous section, mass balance modeling is one option for tracking or
estimating, complex partitioned loadings of pollutants. If a mass balance can be constructed, it
may provide indications of the relative effectiveness of various remedial programs. Further,
with time series measurements, a mass balance framework can provide an overarching
framework for continuing monitoring of remedial program effectiveness.
7.4 IDENTIFYING NEW REMEDIAL MEASURES TO BE CONSIDERED
Once the effectiveness of current remedial approaches has been evaluated, the LMP
planning process calls for the identification of the full range of program modifications or new
approaches that may be useful in reducing pollutant loadings.
7-6
-------
Alternatives for program modification include such options as:
o Widening the applicability of specific regulatory programs to control additional
pollutants or additional sources, to the extent permitted under current statutory
authority.
o Increasing the stringency (e.g., discharge limitations) on regulated sources, or
requiring more effective control technologies or practices.
o Improving the enforcement of current regulatory programs.
o Shifting government incentives to promote voluntary pollution controls under existing
programs (e.g., the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Conservation Reserve Program
for responding to the problem of credible soils).
In addition to the modification of existing programs, remedial action alternatives may
include new programs or initiatives. These might include such options as:
o Bans on the manufacture or distribution of certain substances, or limited bans such as
those established for phosphorus.
o Legislative initiatives, including amendments of existing programs, to address
currently unregulated contaminants or pollutant sources.
o Nonregulatpry initiatives, including government-sponsored cleanup of in situ
contamination, such as localized areas of contaminated sediment or ground water;
introduction of new incentive programs to stimulate private water pollution control
(e.g., offering tax incentives for employment of new control technologies); or changes
in the way State and Federal governments administer their own facilities and lands.
7-7
-------
8. DEVELOPING REMEDIAL ACTION STRATEGIES
The central decision-making element of Lakewide Management Planning involves the
selection of remedial measures needed to achieve the required reductions in loadings and the
allocation of institutional responsibility for implementing these measures. This element of the
LMP process integrates both technical and management considerations, by relying upon the
technical recommendations derived from earlier steps in the LMP process to develop specific
remedial action strategies that involve the commitments of a number of institutions. In
keeping with the requirements of the GLWQA, public participation should also be integrated at
this phase, through hearings or meetings before the remedial action strategies are finalized.
8.1 MANAGING THE PROCESS
As discussed briefly in Chapter 1, recommendations on the remedial measures for source
reduction would be provided to the lakewide management planning group by technical work
groups. These recommendations would reflect calculations of the required load reduction for
critical pollutants, the load reduction that is attainable through the implementation of current
or ongoing source control and cleanup measures, and an evaluation of alternative measures.
In arriving at a remedial lakewide strategy, the planning group would then consider these
recommendations in light of the inter-relationships of other ongoing remedial actions,
particularly those associated with Remedial Action Plans (RAPs). There should also be
provided an opportunity for public review and comment, once a proposed strategy has been
developed, the input of which would also be considered before finalizing the remediation
program. To obtain commitments from the variety of implementing agencies, it would be
important to get the assistance and advice of an appropriate representation of such agencies at
this point, as well.
8.2 THE LAKE ONTARIO TOXICS MANAGEMENT PLAN APPROACH
Although the Lake Ontario Toxics Management Plan (LOTMP) has not yet been formally
reviewed and approved for consistency with the requirements of a LMP under GLWQA
Annex 2, it is considered to represent the state-of-the art of lakewide management
plans/strategies. The LOTMP process began with the identification of Critical Pollutants (see
Chapter 4 for details). A phased approach for implementation has been adopted involving
short-term (early implementation) and long-term (full implementation) activities. The load
reduction strategy of the LOTMP is based on four sequential objectives: 1) initial reductions
in toxic inputs driven by existing and developing programs; 2) further reductions achieved
through special efforts to remediate localized problems (e.g., Areas of Concern); 3) further
reductions achieved through lakewide analyses of pollutant fate; and 4) zero discharge.
The first and second objectives are to occur as a result of existing statutory mandates in
the United States and Canada, irrespective of the selection of Critical Pollutants or the
quantification of a lakewide mass balance, load-concentration relationship and target loading
rate to achieve numerical Specific Objectives in water, sediment, and biota.
Thus, significant loading rate are expected to continue to occur during the period of
LMP development for Lake Ontario. The point source load reductions include not only those
attributable to technology-based effluent limitations but those attributable to near-field water
quality-based effluent limitations (e.g., tributaries, harbor mouths), as well.
8-1
-------
While the first and second objectives are formally outside the LMP process defined by
Annex 2, they are considered to be essential elements of the LOTMP process. In addition to
the advantages associated with enhanced coordination of research data gathering, data analysis,
and remedial programs and activities within and among agencies, inclusion of objectives one
and two within the LMP framework would ensure expedited implementation by focusing
public attention on priority Great Lakes problems; clarifying agency responsibilities,
commitments, priorities, and timetables; and establishing public accountability. To secure this
latter advantage, public participation is encouraged via open meetings of the LOTMP
management, coordinating and technical advisory committees. The committees and their
relationships are defined in Figure 8-1.
While objectives one and two are being implemented, data will be gathered and models
will be developed for the purpose of calculating a Lake Ontario mass balance for each Critical
Pollutant from which a transport-fate process model will be refined, calibrated, verified and
post-audited. The validated model will then be used to establish the time-dependent Critical
Pollutant load-concentration relationships in water, sediment, and biota.
A parallel effort will involve the development of numerical Specific Objectives to define
the threshold for recovery of ecological health and beneficial human uses in Lake Ontario.
Initially, the Specific Objectives may be more restrictive than existing enforceable numerical
water quality standards; however, LOTMP provides for a process to develop enforceable
numerical standards equal to the Specific Objectives, where the state-of-the-art warrants it.
Estimates of the load reductions attributable to objectives one and two will be developed
and refined over time. When confidence in the mass balance and model results is sufficient
for regulatory purposes, the difference between the estimated loading rate after completion of
objectives one and two and the estimated loading rate for meeting the numerical Specific
Objective becomes the target load reduction for objective 3. This sequential process of
successive load reductions leading to fulfillment of objective 3 is shown in Figure 8-2. As
new technologies come into existence, products are banned and waste production is minimized,
loading rate reductions above and beyond those required to meet objective 3 will be achieved
along the path to zero discharge.
As the load reduction proceeds under the LOTMP, a parallel effort is to be pursued to
develop, refine, and establish ecological objectives and to develop and refine methods for
measuring corresponding ecological effects endpoints (e.g., hatching success of herring gull
populations, twisted beaks in double crested cormorants, tumors in coho salmon), to conduct
lakewide monitoring with those methods, and to establish a trend data base of ecological
effects measurements.
8-2
-------
<0
te o e
5 '= o
a o
•c
o
O)
o
*-
(0
o
M
.9
X
-2 o
•S ™
1°
(0
**
co
o
•
d>
O
.£ o .£
o c
.^ o
CC2
CO
a
O)
o
CL
zco
8-3
-------
s« «
— o
III"
I
= s
1
**
= l|
3 W -5
«
CM
I'
illii
Ul't
12
3
O)
I
li
f* fl)
li
o o
3 (0
•o c
g
1
Is
- s
JS (B
| «
II
CJ
w
i
O)
il
o>
I
8-4
-------
The presumption is that once numerical Specific Objectives are met, the ecological health
and beneficial human uses of Lake Ontario will be fully restored. Still, the results of
ecological effects monitoring will be compared to ecological objectives to assure that ecological
health and beneficial uses have, in fact, been fully restored. In addition, as ecological
objectives are refined, and additional research clarifies the cause-effect relationship between
Critical Pollutant concentrations in water, sediment, and biota and observed ecological
impairments, LOTMP provides a process for revising the numerical Specific Objectives to
reflect this emerging understanding. As a result, through a series of iterations, the ecological
objectives, the corresponding numerical Specific Objectives, and enforceable numerical water
quality standards will eventually converge.
8.3 IMPLEMENTATION ISSUES
Several issues stand out as critical to LMPs, and will have to be addressed by the
remedial action strategies. For instance, much of the current loadings of Critical Pollutants
from nonpoint sources can be attributed to atmospheric deposition, and/or in-place
contaminated sediments in the major Great Lakes tributaries and harbors. While atmospheric
deposition is being addressed indirectly through FIFRA bans of persistent pesticides, a TSCA
phase-out of PCBs, technology-based RCRA source control requirements and technology-based
air emissions controls under the CAA, with the exception of a few sporadic efforts under
Superfund, and incidental remediation attributable to navigation channel maintenance by the
COE, there is no concerted program for sediment remediation in the Great Lakes. This,
despite the fact that contaminated sediment is the primary source of the problem(s) in the vast
majority of Great Lakes Areas of Concern in the United States and Canada. Thus,
contaminated sediments or in-place pollutants merit particular attention in developing the LMP
implementation strategy.
Models for the technical elements of an LMP strategy are described in section 8.4,
below.
Another critical issue is whether to develop and implement LMPs for each lake
separately, or for the entire Great Lakes system, taking into account that the upper lakes and
channels contribute pollutants to the lower lakes and channels. For example, in developing a
pathway loading matrix for the Categories IA and IB pollutants for LOTMP, it was learned
that much of the surface water pathway pollutant loads is coming from the Niagara River.
But when the Niagara River source inventory was completed and ambient monitoring data
were evaluated, it was learned that for six pollutants Lake Erie is a significant source to the
Niagara River. (Their analysis did not continue "upstream," but it can be inferred that some
of those pollutants may be entering Lake Erie via the Detroit River or St. Clair River
connecting channels.) Thus, even if the conditions in Lake Erie do not warrant Critical
Pollutants status for one or more of the six pollutants of concern to LOTMP, Lake Erie load
reductions for the six (and perhaps Detroit River and St. Clair River load reductions) will have
to be considered as part of the process for restoring Lake Ontario water quality under LOTMP.
The relative contributions of the various pollutant pathways, the hydraulic retention times, the
sedimentation processes and the benthic and pelagic food chains for each of the lakes are just
different enough that this type of circumstance may not be unique to the lower lakes.
Although the resolution of this issue must await the development of the individual lake
LMPs, the development of an administrative process for resolving multi-lake load management
issues should begin now. Such a process might involve something as straight forward as
converging semi-annual meetings of all the LMP development, management and technical
advisory committees to facilitate the exchange of multi-lake and encourage holistic solutions.
8-5
-------
The Great Lakes Water Quality Board might then act as final arbiter in settling disputes over
the equity of multi-lake waste load allocation formulas.
8.4 ALLOCATING RESPONSIBILITY FOR SPECIFIC ACTIONS
The LMP process includes a special provision for the identification of the persons or
agencies responsible for implementation of the remedial measures in question. This provision
underscores that the purpose of the planning requirement is to lead to effective action, not just
to develop a plan. The GLWQA specifies that primary responsibility for LMPs rests with the
national governments. Unlike the RAP requirement, which specifies that the national
governments "shall cooperate with" State and Provincial governments to ensure plan
development and implementation, the LMP provision specifies that the national governments
shall develop and implement plans "in consultation with" State and Provincial governments.
This suggests that the larger (regional or national) scale of LMPs and the involvement of more
jurisdictions was seen as a basis for a stronger leadership role by national agencies.
The core institutional participants for the LMP process are likely to be the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Environment Canada, the Environmental Protection
Departments of the Great Lakes States, and the Ontario Ministry of Environment. However,
the involvement of a number of other government agencies and non- governmental
organizations is likely to be required in the course of plan development and implementation.
For example:
• Environmental planning activities could require the cooperation of coastal, land use,
or fisheries management agencies.
• Research or technical studies could involve such agencies as NOAA's Great Lakes
Environmental Research Laboratory (GLERL), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers, Canada's Centre for Inland Water, National Water
Research Institute, health agencies, or universities.
• Implementation of LMP recommendations may involve action by government
agriculture departments, waste management agencies, air quality regulators, local
zoning boards, farmers, industry, and environmental groups.
Chapter 3 discusses in greater detail the issue of involving those persons or agencies
ultimately charged with implementing the plan in the planning process, as a way of developing
commitment; Chapter 9 briefly discusses approaches for ensuring the implementation of LMPs
among these agencies.
8.5 DEVELOPING A SCHEDULE FOR REMEDIAL ACTION
In addition to agreeing on the strategy for remedial action, the planning group also must
define a time table for implementation. Milestones, keyed to a schedule, provide a basis for
determining whether the plan will be effective. In addition, because unforseen problems can
delay implementation, the planning group may wish to agree on procedures for approving
justified implementation schedule changes.
8-6
-------
8.6 MODELS FOR TECHNICAL ELEMENTS OF A STRATEGY
As discussed in Chapter 2, there are models available for both technical elements and
institutional organization, through previous efforts at lakewide planning. Below are several
models for the technical elements of LMPs.
8.6.1 The Phosphorus Load Reduction Model
As an example of a contaminant load reduction strategy, the United States and Canada
developed an approach entailing the following technical steps for systematically reducing
phosphorus levels in the Great Lakes:
• Define phosphorus numerical water quality objectives for each of the Great Lakes.
• Initiate technology-based point source controls.
• Simultaneously, monitor the Great Lakes to:
- identify Lakes or portions thereof in noncompliance with phosphorus objectives;
- define trends in response to technology-based load reduction; and
- calibrate empirical and process models of phosphorus load-concentration-algae
production relationships for each of the Great Lakes.
• Calculate the required lakewide load reduction to meet phosphorus objectives.
• Calculate load reduction to be achieved via technology-based point source wastewater
treatment.
• Calculate the unmet load reduction.
• Institute phosphate detergent bans.
• Monitor to track lake response.
• Recalculate unmet load reductions.
• Apportion to each Great Lake State and the Province of Ontario its fair share of the
unmet load reduction based on the ratio of the contribution of its nonpoint source
loads to all nonpoint source loads.
• Institute nonpoint source load reductions, particularly changes in agricultural tillage
practices.
• Recalculate unmet load reductions.
• Monitor to track lake response.
Interestingly, the most recent interpretation of the data obtained from the Lake Erie
demonstration projects and Maumee River studies is that the institution of conservation tillage
practices was not as effective in reducing phosphorus loads to Lake Erie as anticipated. As a
result, efforts are now underway to encourage land set-asides under the Department of
Agriculture's subsidy program to take enough agricultural land out of production to achieve
the target phosphorus loads for Lake Erie.
8-7
-------
8.6.2 A Model for Contaminated Sediment Remediation
What follows is a description of a preferred model program for sediment remediation
within the RAP/LMP framework. However, the logic of the strategy is generally applicable to
any of the other source/pathway categories, as well.
The goal of the Great Lakes contaminated sediment model remedial action program is to
contribute its appropriate share to the restoration and protection of the health of the Great
Lakes ecosystem and its beneficial human uses consistent with the goals, objectives, and
priorities of the Remedial Action Plans and Lakewide Management Plans developed pursuant
to Annex 2.
The objective of the model program must be to remediate contaminated sediment such
that the restoration of the greatest degree and extent of ecosystem health and beneficial human
uses are achieved in the shortest time-frame with the available human, physical, and fiscal
resources.
To meet this objective the program must be able to:
• Define: 1) narrative and numerical physical, chemical, biological, and ecological
objectives consistent with desirable human and ecological health and beneficial
human use protection end-points; and 2) interim objectives consistent with the logic
of the cleanup cycle and the moving target of "background levels."
• Define the nature, magnitude, extent, and persistence of the sediment contamination
precluding the achievement of those objectives.
• Target resources to the most significant problems amenable to restoration and to
which the Area of Concern or the whole lake ecosystem will be most responsive.
• Minimize the environmental impacts during remediation, waste treatment, and waste
disposal.
• Demonstrate the validity of its decision-making process and the effectiveness of its
decisions.
The flow of decision-making logic of the implementation strategy is as follows:
1) Identify priority sites for remediation.
2) Identify and control point and nonpoint sources presently contaminating the
sediments or slowing the natural processes of recovery of historically contaminated
sediments.
3) Plan, carry out, and report the results of detailed remedial investigations/feasibility
studies (RI/FSs) at each priority site.
4) Identify the optimum remedial action alternative or optimum mix of alternatives, fi"t
for upstream contaminated sediments in the watershed and then for the tributary
mouth or harbor sediments. Publish the findings and conclusions in a record of
decision (ROD).
5) Obtain necessary agreements, easements, permits, and variances for remedial action
implementation.
8-8
-------
6) Minimize environmental impacts during remediation, waste treatment and waste
disposal with appropriate technologies and practices.
7) Monitor environmental conditions before, during, and after remediation, waste
treatment, and waste disposal to assess the magnitudes of environmental impacts.
Refine technologies and practices, and verify mathematical models.
The functional elements of the mode! program should include the following:
Inter- and Intra-Agency Coordination and Institutionalization
Information Management
Environmental and Literature Studies
(Data and Information Capture)
Sediment Criteria Development and Field Validation
Analysis
Decision Making
Implementation
Post-Implementation Evaluation
Information Dissemination
Public Education and Participation
Research
Pilot and Demonstration Studies.
Three of these elements: Inter- and Intra-Agency Coordination, Decision Making and
Implementation are described in detail below.
Inter- and Intra-Aaencv Coordination and Institutionalization. As sediment remedial
action cannot precede source control implementation, the sediment remedial action program
should influence water management program point and nonpoint source control priorities. The
existing water quality protection programs in the U.S. and Canada regulate point and nonpoint
source effluent quality solely on the basis of impacts on water quality, and do not address
explicitly the direct impacts on sediment quality or the effect of overlying water quality on the
recovery rate of contaminated sediments. Therefore, a high priority should be placed on
integrating sediment quality and recovery considerations into the calculation of environmental
quality-based effluent limitations.
This will require the publication of sediment quality criteria consistent with existing
water quality criteria; the adoption of a policy stating the maximum acceptable
time-to-recovery for streams, bays or estuaries, and lakes; and the publication of national
technical guidance for identifying the assimilative capacity-limiting medium and calculating
sediment quality-based Total Maximum Daily Loads and Waste Load Allocations.
Given the present limited resources available to implement the model remediation
strategy, contaminated sediment remediation activities must be coordinated with and integrated
into routine navigation channel maintenance activities of the COE and the soil, groundwater,
and sediment cleanup activities of Superfund and RCRA programs.
To increase the coordination between Superfund program activities and the contaminated
sediment remedial action program, the following steps should be taken:
• The proposed Hazard Ranking System (HRS) should be modified to take into account
explicitly the near-field and far-field impacts of abandoned hazardous waste sites on
water quality directly via runoff, indirectly via groundwater, or both.
8-9
-------
• The Superfund Public Health Evaluation Manual should be updated to include
methods for quantifying exposure from contaminated sediments before, during, and
after remediation, treatment, and disposal. The existing sediment pica pathway is
neither realistic nor adequate for this purpose.
• The highest Superfund cleanup priorities in the Great Lakes Basin should be given to
those sites that are significant sources of problem pollutants to Great Lakes
tributaries, harbors, or nearshore waters that are a high priority for cleanup under
Aquafund.
• RI/FS plans for such sites should be developed in conjunction with the corresponding
RI/FS plans for the impacted Aquafund sites and field studies should be conducted
simultaneously to conserve resources and ensure comparability of results.
To increase the coordination among the USEPA, COE, and USFWS, the existing .
Confined Disposal Facility Study Committee should evolve into an Inter-Agency Coordinating
Committee.
The sediment remedial action program should also influence research and
chemical-testing priorities within ORD, OSWER, and OPTS, and water and sediment quality
criteria development and promulgation priorities within OWRS.
Decision Making. Sediment survey priorities should be set based on: the ecological,
recreational, and economic importance of the waterbody; the rate and extent of sediment
deposition; the nature and degree of industrialization in the watershed of the tributary; and the
degree of commercial activity in the harbor area. Survey sampling should be sufficient to
define the nature, magnitude, extent, and persistence of the contamination problem at the
screening level.
Screening level data are then input to the priority-setting formula. Priority sites are then
resurveyed to better define the problem and its solution.
The following factors should be given weight in the priority-setting formula:
• The uses to which the overlying waters are being or could be put
• The degree to which a particular use is precluded in terms of:
- The fraction of the total area of bottom surface covered by sediment exceeding
the sediment criterion by some magnitude
- The time required for the sediment contaminant level to fall below the sediment
standards under natural physical, chemical, and biological processes
• The ecological, social, and economic significance of the effects of the contaminants,
singly or in combination
• The population size involved in each use
• The value of each use
• The degree of responsiveness of the local environment to the remedial action
8-10
-------
• The degree of responsiveness of the whole lake environment to the load reduction
associated with the remedial action.
As some of the data required for decision making are of laboratory origin, and as
laboratory priorities in other programs may be insensitive or only marginally sensitive to
sediment program needs, the sediment strategy should include resources to fund laboratory
studies of the properties and process rates associated with high-priority pollutants.
While the priority-setting formula should dictate remedial action priorities overall, targets
of opportunity should not be foregone. Such targets of opportunity may arise where the COE
is planning to dredge, where a Superfund cleanup is contemplated, or where studies are being
conducted in conjunction with the calculation of a tributary watershed total maximum daily
load (TMDL) and waste load allocation (WLA) for National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) permit and Best Management Practice (BMP) conditions development.
Facilitation of inter- and intra-agency coordination should enhance such opportunities.
To ensure scientific and regulatory credibility, the logic of the decisionmaking process
should be set forth clearly and decision points involving scientific determinations should be
distinguished explicitly from those involving policy value judgments. Where the
decisionmaking process involves mathematical modeling of environmental or economic
processes or analytical methodologies such as systems analysis or cost-benefit analysis, the
value-laden assumptions, approximations, and truncations should be identified clearly and the
nature, magnitude, and significance of the errors and uncertainties they introduce into the
decisionmaking process should be accurately characterized.
To the extent possible, the concepts, approaches, and methodologies employed should be
cross-referenced to other programs with acknowledged scientific and regulatory credibility.
For example, where sediment criteria are to be used, their scientific credibility will be
enhanced if they are shown to be derived in a manner consistent with that for water quality
criteria.
Implementation. Implementation cannot occur in a regulatory vacuum. As such, it will
be necessary to develop memoranda of understanding or agreement to ensure the full
cooperation of other Federal agencies and to bring local and State governments into the
decisionmaking process early and meaningfully. This will not only facilitate comprehensibility
and acceptability, it will also increase the likelihood that the emerging program and strategy
are feasible.
To the extent possible, remedial action for sediment contamination should be
implemented within the context of the existing Remedial Action Plan and Lakewide
Management Plan processes. As mentioned previously, remediation also should be coordinated
with other program activities (e.g., routine channel maintenance by the COE). This will ensure
internal and external consistency, and build within an evolving implementation framework
considered workable and practicable.
The objective of the model program is to restore fully beneficial uses of the impacted
water body. In principle, this will require that the remedial action proceed until all sediment
quality objectives are met. As targets of opportunity present themselves, where feasible,
additional remedial measures could be taken, consistent with the goal of the GLWQA that the
presence of persistent toxic substances be virtually eliminated from the Great Lakes ecosystem.
Nevertheless, basic logic may require that restoration of a particular site proceed only
insofar as the levels of sediment in communication with the overlying aquatic ecosystem are
8-11
-------
equivalent to "background" levels. To proceed further would result in the overlying water
column recontaminating the sediments.
The question arises, then, as to where and when to define "background" levels. As each
source control, upstream sediment remedial action, and tributary mouth or harbor remedial
action will reduce the loading rates of persistent toxic pollutants to the Great Lakes system,
background levels in the nearshore and open waters of each of the Great Lakes will continue
to fall over time. The rate of decline could be predicted via mathematical modeling based on
estimates in the rates of load reduction over the remedial action cycle. Background levels
predicted to occur at the end of the remedial action cycle could then be used to define interim
remedial action objectives.
For example, if it is reasonable to assume that it will take 20 years to complete the
implementation of source controls, upstream contaminated sediment remediation, and tributary
mouth and harbor remediation, then the predicted background levels at the end of the 20-year
remediation cycle would define how clean is clean. While sediments remediated early in the
cycle would experience background levels higher than those predicted for the end of the cycle,
re-equilibration with the overlying water column should be rapid enough and the total load
released from this re-equilibration process should be small enough that the background target
will still be hit at the end of the 20-year period.
The next remediation cycle would then commence, and the new target remediation levels
would be projected background or final objective concentrations, whichever are higher. In
this way, the levels in sediments could be ratcheted down systematically without involving
substantial recontamination from background levels in the overlying waters.
8-12
-------
9. ENSURING IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PLAN
The development of a Lakewide Management Plan (LMP) alone, even coupled with the
necessary commitments from the parties to undertake specific remedial actions, does not ensure
its implementation. Further steps are required to guarantee the implementation of a LMP,
including built-in mechanisms for either inducing participation of appropriate governmental
agencies or enforcing compliance within the regulated community.
There are also external pressures that could be brought to bear upon LMP participants,
such as the interest of the public in the plan's success, inspired by public participation in the
LMP process. National-level attention to the development of lakewide management programs
could also serve to enhance the implementation of a LMP. Finally, revisions to Federal, State
or local laws may prove to be necessary in order to ensure that the terms of the LMP are
carried out.
9.1 REINFORCING CONDITIONS FOR MULTI-INSTITUTIONAL COOPERATION
Through a variety of mechanisms, penalties (such as withdrawal of program funding or
certification) or inducements (such as payments or eligibility for benefit programs) may
encourage participating government entities and/or members of the regulated community to
perform under the terms of the LMP.
For example, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) administers several inducement
programs concerning agricultural practices that impact nonpoint source pollution. The
Conservation Reserve Program uses 10-year contracts between farmers and USDA to remove
highly erodible cropland from production and plant the land with grass or trees. In return,
USDA offers annual rental payments for the cropland and 50% cost sharing to the farmers for
the cost of establishing permanent vegetative cover.
The USDA's Conservation Compliance Program attempts to discourage continued
production of crops on highly erodible lands that do not have an approved conservation
system. This program requires the development and implementation of a conservation plan for
highly erodible cropland, without which, the farmer is no longer eligible for several USDA
programs, including Conservation Reserve Program payments, Farmers Home Administration
loans, crop insurance, and price and income supports.
The "Sodbuster Program" prohibits a farmer must refrain from planting highly erodible
cropland that was planted during 1981-85, unless he establishes an approved conservation
system. As with the Conservation Compliance Program, eligibility for other programs hinges
on compliance with this requirement. Similarly, the aim of the "Swampbuster Provision" of the
Food Security Act (FSA) is to discourage conversion of wetland to agricultural uses, on penalty
of losing eligibility for certain benefits.
To improve the effectiveness of programs that offer the inducement of benefits in this
particular area, active assistance should be coupled with improved enforcement of best
management practices under the Conservation Compliance Program.
There are also steps that government agencies, particularly at the Federal level, could
take to ensure coordination among each other and compliance with their respective portions of
the LMPs. As an example, under several statutes, USEPA is required to coordinate with other
federal agencies to ensure consistency of federal programs with state management plans. These
include Section 319 of the Clean Water Act, concerning Nonpoint Source Programs, and Section
9-1
-------
307(c) of the Coastal Zone Management Act, regarding the consistency of Federal activities
that affect the coastal zone with State CZM programs.
These provisions could act as important tools, for instance, in requiring Federal land
managers to comply with a State's Nonpoint Source Program, or Federal activities offshore to
be consistent with the State's coastal resource protection regulations.
Another potential tool for obtaining cooperation from another Federal agency is Section
404(c) of the CWA, which permits EPA to deny or restrict the use of a site for the disposal of
dredged or fill material. Such authority may be exercised when a determination is made under
the Section 404(b)9(l) guidelines that disposal of the material at that site is having or will have
an unacceptable adverse effect on municipal water supplies, shellfish beds and fishery areas,
wildlife, or recreational areas.
It may also prove helpful to provide within the LMP for authority for a Federal
response, when a State fails to implement its program. Such a response could range from
issuance of site-specific permits, to substitution of Federal program provisions for the State's,
or to withdrawing program funds under certain grant programs.
Finally, there is the option of revising statutory authorities, at Federal, State, or local
levels. For example, in its ^authorization of the FSA, Congress should reaffirm the
importance of water quality, including wetlands protection and restoration, in the activities of
the USDA, and provide for expansion of the Conservation Reserve Program, with a significant
component dedicated to improvements in water quality protection.
9.2 ENFORCEMENT OF REGULATORY ACTIONS
To ensure that the regulated community complies with the terms of the LMP, it is
imperative that enforcement of any applicable regulations be effectual. Local enforcement is
severely handicapped, if the enforcement program is not credible for lack of support. There
are several clear examples of where there is a need for increasing support for compliance
activities and for enforcement under existing programs, including the Clean Water Act (CWA)
Section 404 permitting program for dredge and fill activities. In other areas, USEPA, the
States, and local pretreatment programs need to complement their implementation efforts with
vigorous enforcement efforts, through increased use of the new administrative penalty
authority by EPA, for example. Audits under the National Municipal Policy provisions may
also play an important role in ensuring compliance. EPA should supplement these efforts,
especially when the seriousness of the violation warrants the use of the larger CWA penalties.
An alternative approach is the development of an overall coastal enforcement strategy,
which might include the use of geographic initiatives that focus on specific areas. Self-
monitoring has a role in enforcement, as well. The reporting requirements in NPDES permits
usually require the applicant-facility to submit the results of its self-monitoring in compliance
reports. These Discharge Monitoring Reports are tracked by EPA and States with approved
NPDES programs to measure compliance at individual facilities and to identify regional or
national trends. This information, supplemented by monitoring and inspections conducted by
EPA and NPDES States, serves as the basis for enforcement actions ranging from telephone
notices of violations to civil or criminal suits.
One approach that has been used with success is to have planning and implementation
group meetings that are open to the public. This fosters accountability, cooperation, and
coordination among participating groups.
9-2
-------
10. MEASURING THE EFFECTIVENESS OF
PLAN IMPLEMENTATION
This chapter focuses on measuring the effectiveness of LMP implementation. First,
there is a general discussion of the foremost considerations in monitoring program
development. Second, a brief overview is provided of existing programs in the Great Lakes
Basin that track the effectiveness of remedial measures. Third, surveillance and monitoring
options to track post-remedial improvements in ecosystem-related beneficial uses are presented.
Finally, the chapter concludes with a section on the ecosystem approach to LMP monitoring
programs.
10.1 SURVEILLANCE AND MONITORING WITHIN THE LMP FRAMEWORK
The Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement (GLWQA) states that Lakewide Management
Plans (LMPs) should include "a description of surveillance and monitoring to track the
effectiveness of the remedial measures and the eventual elimination of the contribution to
impairments of beneficial uses from the Critical Pollutants." If the objective of a surveillance
and monitoring program is to track the effectiveness of remedial measures, then the foremost
element in the program design is to demonstrate environmental responses to remediation over
time.
To demonstrate a trend of an environmental variable, such as the open lake phosphorous
concentration, confidence in the difference between the data collected at an earlier point in
time and the data collected at a later point in time is critical. This means that a monitoring
plan that is to successfully demonstrate a trend in an environmental variable must strictly limit
variability. Limiting data variability is, therefore, essential to any monitoring program
designed to track the effectiveness of remedial measures.
Two types of variability in environmental data must be considered: changing
environmental conditions and changing laboratory conditions. Understanding the chemical,
physical, and biological changes and interrelationships of the environment is needed to design
the sample collection component of the monitoring program. For example, seasonal variations
in fish physiology can impact PCS concentrations in the fish. A monitoring program that is
designed to follow the decline of PCBs in fish should compare fish from different years
collected in the same season. Collection may also be limited to fish of a certain age, length,
lipid content, and sex.
Changes in laboratory conditions can also increase data variability. Alterations in
chemical, physical, or biological measurements in the laboratory can change the true data
values among the samples collected from the field. For instance, if the instrument that
measures PCBs in the laboratory consistently generates data values ten percent lower than the
values it generated a year earlier, a trend of reduced PCB concentrations might be inferred
when, in fact, no trend occurred. If the instrument gives varied results from sample to
sample, data variability might be increased, potentially resulting in an inability to detect a
subtle trend in the environmental response.
There is a third component of monitoring environmental data that can result in an
unsuccessful program -- alteration of program objectives at some point during the program,
resulting in compromise of the objectives initially set out for the program. While additional
objectives can certainly be incorporated, the initial objectives should not be compromised. For
example, it might be completely acceptable to monitor for selenium in addition to PCBs at
some point several years after the monitoring program for PCBs was initiated. However, if the
10-1
-------
incorporation of selenium monitoring required that the sampling season of the program be
altered, resulting in changing PCS data for the fish collected, this alteration would be
unacceptable.
To restrict sample collection variability, enforce laboratory data quality, and maintain the
monitoring program along its original path, Quality Assurance Program Plans (QAPPs) are
used. When these QAPPs are followed, "laws" of the monitoring program are set forth, which,
if followed, ensure the success of the monitoring program. In essence, once the QAPP is
approved, the monitoring program proceeds on its own. It is important to collect the
appropriate samples, generate reliable data, and maintain the monitoring program along a
steady course. It is also important to collect enough samples to establish confidence in the data
without collecting more data than is affordable. To this end, the statistical element of the
monitoring program needs to be addressed.
For a given sampling time, the samples collected within the specified limits discussed
earlier and analyzed in the quality assured laboratory will have a certain amount of variability.
This variability will be determined after a pilot study, or from data collected from one or
more earlier studies. The monitoring program designer should know the variability of the data
and the degree of trend that should be expected (based on modeling data or previous studies).
The designer then needs to determine what is (1) an acceptable confidence interval for the data
and (2) an acceptable margin of error. In essence, the program should operate in such a
fashion that there is a minimum acceptable confidence that the mean value of the population
of data points always lies within a specified distance, or margin of error, of the true value.
Confidence intervals are generally set at 90 or 95 percent for monitoring programs,
indicating that we need to be highly confident that the data generated is close to the true
value. The acceptable margin of error depends, to a large extent, upon the level of trend that
is expected. If sampling occurs once a year at a specified time and a 10 percent decrease in
contamination is expected, the margin of error should be less than the expected decrease.
One common, if not universal, trend that occurs following remediation is that there is
initially a high level of contaminant reduction, which gradually levels off. This trend often
follows a first order decay type of reduction. This type of trend should be expected, as
remediation of a large source of contamination results in relatively large loading reductions.
As the large source is diminished, smaller sources that are not remediated play an increased
role in keeping levels higher than background. As the major contributing loading(s) play(s) a
less significant role, the trend also becomes less significant. Eventually, annual sampling does
not show a significant reduction from one year to the next year.
The question then arises as to whether monitoring can be reduced without interfering
with the quality of the program. If monitoring is reduced, it is critical that the acceptable
confidence interval and the margin of error be maintained. To maintain these two elements,
the sample size collected at any given time must not be reduced. However, sampling
frequency can be reduced. For example, if the fish PCB levels are not decreasing substantially
between years, sampling might be conducted biannually instead of annually.
The purpose of this section was to highlight only the most important components of
monitoring programs. The following section briefly discusses two existing programs in the
Great Lakes Basin that track environmental improvements in response to remediation measures.
10-2
-------
10.2 EXISTING MONITORING PROGRAMS
There are several successful monitoring programs in the Great Lakes Basin, including
sediment, water, air, and fish monitoring programs in the Great Lakes Basin. Two programs
are highlighted here: the open lake phosphorous monitoring program and the open lake fish
contaminant monitoring program.
The joint U.S.-Canadian phosphorous monitoring program has demonstrated significant
improvements in phosphorous levels in response to remediation during the 1970s. The question
that both the U.S. and Canadian monitoring programs need to address is the extent to which
annual sampling should continue if trend analysis can continue on a biannual basis. Such an
action should not interfere with the agreed upon confidence or margin of error of the data,
although it may pose other technical, administrative, and political difficulties.
The fish residue monitoring programs have all been quite successful. The open lake fish
program is designed to measure trends in the levels of four groups of chemicals that were
banned partially or completely in the 1970's: PCBs, DDT, dieldrin, and the chlordanes. The
Great Lakes States, U.S. Fish and Wildlife, the Great Lakes National Program Office, and the
U.S. Food and Drug Administration are involved in this highly coordinated monitoring effort.
As with the other successful monitoring programs, quality assurance plans are followed by all
participating parties.
There are also two nearshore fish programs: one, designed to measure trends in
contaminants levels of fish local to an area and the other, designed to identify new pollutants
entering the lakes before they are universally contaminated. Both of these programs are
incomplete and need more development.
10.3 SOURCE MONITORING
Lakewide Management Plans are ultimately oriented towards bringing the concentrations
and the effects of specific toxic chemicals to an acceptable level or objectives. Open lake
monitoring serves to determine the extent to which toxic chemical concentrations and effects
are moving towards or are below these objectives. However, it is also important to monitor
the sources of toxic chemicals to the lake. Monitoring of tributaries, air deposition, ground
water intrusion, surface water runoff, and sediment elutriate to the lake can direct
management attention towards reduction of the most significant contributions of toxic
chemicals to the lake. This section briefly outlines the major considerations of source
monitoring.
Typically, source monitoring involves collection of a far more heterogeneous data set
than open lake monitoring. For example, tributary loadings of PCBs are a function of the
suspended particle size and chemistry, as these particles can carry a substantial portion of the
PCB loading. Particles are proportionally smaller along the periphery of a tributary and larger
in the middle, where the current can also carry pebbles and rocks. Therefore, per unit mass,
the smaller particles along the periphery may carry a substantial loading of PCBs. In
development of a tributary monitoring program, it would be essential to monitor at different
points in a tributary's cross section to account for the characteristic loadings of its different
regions.
There is also a temporal heterogeneity in source monitoring which is often far greater
than that characteristic of open lake monitoring. Again, understanding the source system is
critical to monitoring effectively. During heavy rainfall, resuspension of tributary sediment
increases, resulting in high loadings and concentrations of PCBs. However, at low drought
10-3
-------
flows, there is also a higher concentration .of PCBs, due to low dilution. The lowest PCB
concentrations might occur at normal flow periods. If most of the PCB loading to a lake from
a tributary occurs during a storm event, then a monitoring program may need to incorporate a
storm event monitoring component. Similarly, if monitoring for the toxic impacts of PCBs on
biota is important, monitoring might include a drought flow component to characterize impacts
under such extreme conditions.
Often, when a heterogeneous system is monitored and the fundamental processes
controlling the system are not understood, the heterogeneity is interpreted as randomness.
When the system is well understood, its individual components can be isolated and compared,
with less resulting variability. For example, PCB measurements might only be compared from
the same cross sectional point in a tributary under the same flow conditions each year.
Table 10-1 shows some of the factors which affect the variability of different sources of toxic
chemicals to an open lake.
If a heterogeneous pollutant source is divided into components, then the number of
samples that must be collected and analyzed increases significantly relative to the number of
samples taken to monitor and characterize the open lake. This can be technically and
financially burdensome. One approach for relieving this burden is to use correctable
variables, or "surrogates," to characterize a given toxicant loading. For example, if PCB
concentration can be correlated with the particle size and chemistry of solid material in a
tributary, which is a function of flow velocity, then perhaps routine monitoring of flow
velocity can be used to monitor one component of tributary PCB loadings at a small fraction
of the cost for monitoring PCB loadings within this component directly. Use of surrogates is
appropriate only if basic research fully defines the relationship between the surrogate and the
actual datum of interest before the design of the monitoring program begins.
In conclusion, source monitoring involves a more heterogeneous data base than open lake
monitoring, which also has many variables. To reduce variability, it is advised that sources be
broken down into spatial and temporal components. Trends can be established on comparison
among these components from year to year.
10.4 ECOSYSTEM MONITORING
It is clear that there are several chemical monitoring programs in the Great Lakes that
successfully establish trends of some of the critical pollutants. However, Annex 2 also requires
"a description of surveillance and monitoring to track...the elimination of the contribution to
impairments of beneficial uses from the Critical Pollutants."
A list of the impairments of beneficial uses indicates that the ecological impacts of the
critical pollutants are impacts to beneficial uses. In particular, the following items in Annex 2,
[l(c)] are listed as impairments to beneficial uses:
"(iii) degradation of fish and wildlife populations;
(iv) fish tumors and other deformities;
(v) bird or animal deformities or reproduction problems;
(vi) degradation of benthos;
(viii) eutrophication or undesirable algae;
(xiii) degradation of phytoplankton and zooplankton populations; and
(xiv) loss of fish and wildlife habitat."
10-4
-------
Table 10-1. Temporal and Spatial Factors Affecting Pollutant Source Monitoring
Pollutant
Source
Temporal Variability
Factors
Spatial Variability
Factors
Tributaries
Flow
Rainfall
Season
Cross section
Type of bedlpad
Drainage basin
characteristics
Terrain
Proximity to and
orientation of
municipalities,
industries, and
agriculture
Air Deposition
Temperature
Rainfall
Humidity
Wind speed
Proximity and
orientation relative
to cities
Wind patterns
Sediment
Wind effects
dredging activities
Commercial shipping traffic
Sedimentation rates
Hot spots
Proximity of
industrial and
municipal outfalls
and waste sites
Depth, history
Runoff
Rainfall
Season
Agricultural practices
Terrain
Soil
Ground water
Rainfall
Changes in recharge zone
Terrain
Soil
Aquifer material
Recharge zone
characteristics
10-5
-------
Therefore, the GLWQA asks for monitoring and surveillance of the ecosystemic effects
of the Critical Pollutants on Great Lakes Biota. Unfortunately, to date, there are few
monitoring programs that meet those criteria discussed above that address ecosystem impacts of
pollutants and their improvement following remediation.
The most valuable ecosystems in the Great Lakes Basin are invariably the most
biologically diverse and most essential to reproduction. Often, these ecosystems comprise those
nearshore areas that are protected from the rough wave action of the exposed shoreline,yet
close enough to the lakes, or tributary to the lakes, to benefit from the water that they
provide. Swamps, marshlands, inlets, and tributaries provide many aquatic, terrestrial, and
avian species and the plants upon which they depend for food and shelter. Lakewide
management plans, under the terms of the GLWQA, must be designed, in part, to protect these
valuable resources. Consequently, monitoring programs must track the progress in restoration
of these resources.
This ecosystemic element of lakewide monitoring would, in essence, fuse the lakewide
management plan with the remedial action plans, as many of the critical ecosystems around the
lakes exist near or within harbor and inlet areas. While active ecosystems thrive on a
consistent yet protected source of water, so also do industries, municipalities, commerce and
agriculture. Thus, many of the Areas of Concern (AOCs) exist in or adjacent to potentially
highly active ecosystems. To the extent that Lakewide monitoring programs track the
restoration of the beneficial uses outlined in Annex 2 that relate to ecosystemic impacts, the
programs will focus on ecologically active areas adjacent to or within high impact areas, such
as AOCs.
The question immediately arises when one accepts that ecosystem impacts of toxic
chemicals need to be monitored: "What do you look for when you monitor reductions of
impacts resulting from remediation?" The answer is that there are several approaches to
monitoring ecosystem recovery, and that no single monitoring program will identify restoration
of every impact. Management options regarding the use of different indicators of impact are
many. Several of the approaches are listed below, along with a brief discussion of their
attributes and their limitations.
10.4.1 Acute and chronic toxicitv testing
These tests are typically conducted for a period of no more than seven days. Acute tests
measure organism mortality. Chronic tests measure test organism short term growth and
reproduction. These tests excel because they can rapidly identify water or sediment that is
toxic to lower food chain organisms. These tests are also routinely conducted at national and
State levels. These tests are limited because they do not address long-term impacts and
multimedia impacts (e.g. sediment and water and parental egg contamination together), and
they fail to detect the bioaccumulative effects of persistent toxicants on higher food chain
organisms. They also fail to detect subtle impacts on inter- and intra-species interactions and
on organism function.
10.4.2 Biosurvevs
These surveys evaluate ecological impact on the basis of the presence or absence of
species from a type of habitat. Indices that use species quantity and diversity and compare
unimpacted areas as references are used. These surveys excel because the absence of species is
an excellent method for determining even subtle impacts. Return of the species indicates
improvement.
10-6
-------
Multimedia, multicontaminant, lifetime exposures that integrate acute and chronic toxic
effects of pollutants on lower food chain organisms with bioaccumulative effects on higher
food chain organisms can be monitored. The results of subtle impacts on ecosystem balance
and organism function are also incorporated.
These surveys are limited because they can not readily segregate the impacts caused by
toxicants from those caused by physical factors, such as sedimentation, or from impacts caused
by nutrients. Furthermore, for species that use the ecosystems for only a short, but important,
period in their lives, these surveys will not indicate their presence or absence. These
organisms include migrating waterfowl that may use the areas to feed in the spring prior to
egg laying in the more arctic regions and fish that use these areas briefly to spawn.
10.4.3 Biomedical responses
These responses occur at the systemic (e.g. immune system, respiratory system),
morphological (e.g. liver histopathology, DNA adducts) or chemical (e.g. liver enzymes, nervous
system chemicals) level of biological resolution in all plants and animals. These responses excel
because they often respond specifically to toxicant impacts. They can be evaluated in higher
food chain organisms that are often more sensitive to bioaccumulative compounds and that may
utilize the ecologically active area only intermittently.
They can also be used to indicate the population level impacts of toxicants on the
impacted species. Because these indicators can be evaluated in organisms collected from the
wild, they show the impacts that result from multicontaminant, multimedia, lifetime exposure.
The limitation to biomedical responses is that they, like the toxicity tests, do not integrate
impacts beyond the single species level.
If a monitoring program is designed to track the restoration of ecosystem related
beneficial uses following remediation, as required, then monitoring programs which focus on
ecosystemically active locations around the lakes will need to be established. A monitoring
program that focuses on open lake impacts of toxic chemicals is probably only looking at a
marginal component of the Great Lakes Ecosystem.
10-7
-------
APPENDIX A. EVALUATING AVAILABLE INFORMATION
FOR IMPLEMENTING THE LAKEWIDE MANAGEMENT PROCESS
Introduction
The purpose of this discussion is to provide an evaluation of information necessary and
available for developing and implementing Lakewide Management Plans. This discussion will
address information as to its utility, availability, accessibility, and quality. To do this, it will
be necessary to summarize current U.S. and Canadian binational agreements and federal and
state or provincial government environmental statutes, regulations, and programs affecting the
Great Lakes under whose authority the necessary information is gathered or generated. Where
possible, an attempt will be made to distinguish between information obtained under existing
programs and what could be required (or obtained) under the statute. To the extent that the
information capture recommendations of the GLWQA anticipate the development and
implementation of LMPs, these requirements will be noted as well.
The Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement (GLWQA)
The first GLWQA was signed by the U.S. and Canada in 1972 under the aegis of the
1909 Boundary Waters Treaty. Subsequently, the GLWQA was renegotiated in 1978 and in
1987. The GLWQA of 1978 contains both general and specific objectives to fulfill the
Agreements' purpose. The general objectives aim to maintain and augment water quality by
ensuring that boundary waters of the Great Lakes system are free from substances resulting
from human activity which would adversely impact human, animal, or aquatic life, that are
unsightly or deleterious, or which would interfere with beneficial uses of the water.
The 1987 Amendments to the GLWQA reaffirmed the 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.
Legislation
Numerous legislative acts, regulations, and programs exist at the federal, state, and
provincial levels which regulate point and some nonpoint source discharges, and affect ambient
water, sediment, and biota quality. These major regulatory and nonregulatory programs are
discussed briefly here to give an overview of their contributions to Great Lake water quality
improvement. Table A-l provides a matrix for such environmental legislation affecting the
Great Lakes ecosystem quality.
A-l
------- An error occurred while trying to OCR this image.
-------
8* -rf — >
u _ 39
111!
""« s c
I--
01
3
w
«
U
to
U
00
c
*4
u
01
>*•
>M
<
c
_o
w
»
•"* *
« •- - _ —
Ii! 8|1
M U
**"*. — .
'tf ~~r r~ s-§
|sl = •
is§
• 01
«x ,s.5i " " " Si
~1_"I _ _ i
- —\i
i!
I!
— 8
i!
S : 5 S :
I i s i t 2 8 5
§2.1 5 S 1 S ? «,
^:» 2^1 » • — i HZ
• a y • ^ i •• *. « 5 ^ 13
1i* I s ! 8_ I I 1; i • ??
-il ; i s i;? ; i i ii : 5 it
•»••.. ± u {. »•• « » . _.? - X -g
il I ill s i si! i i ^ *
A-3
-------
V
u
u
B -O
— fll
1C S
V C
t> O
u U
c •^
IS,
"
0!
01 O
5 .£&
!IH||
i . s s
. Si £
1'i!
i!!i
,i=i
M8!>
w X S
1 . | I
- i * i
|h|
l|i]
!!{
ill
It'll
i|
|[|
*•
_, _ fti
"" ***
m
"
: « «
M
i
.
M M M A*
i :! ii \ I
I I U I . !
«... ! | 1 » S
: • !* 23 s t i i 1
?:r« sg "1 r | S
S : * » | 5 _• 8 ? 5 * 1
2:25 ,2 ?? S . ^ -
u. J ik 5 ^ gc k —
A-4
-------
Canadian Legislation:
o Fisheries Act (FA)
The Fisheries Act is the most significant federal statute for the protection of fish
habitat from chemical pollution. Promulgated in 1977, the habitat protection provisions
of the act provide for the protection of fish and fish habitat from disruptive and
destructive activities. Section 33(2) of the act provides comprehensive powers to protect
fish, fish habitat, and man's use of fish by prohibiting the discharge of deleterious
substances to waters of Canadian fisheries and is legally enforceable when an impact on
fish or fish habitat can be shown. A deleterious substance is defined by Section 33(11)
as any substance or water that has been processed or changed which, if added to the
system, would degrade the quality of the water so that it is rendered deleterious to fish
or fish habitat.
Regulations have been promulgated under the FA addressing certain industrial
sectors: meat and poultry products, potato processing, petroleum refining, chlor-alkali
(mercury), pulp and paper, and metal mining. However, the act regulations and
guidelines have not been promulgated for other major sectors, such as organic chemical,
iron, and steel industries. In addition, there is one recent regulation governing the use
of fish toxicants in fishery management programs.
The FA establishes that the federal government can protect fish habitat and waters
frequented by fish from leachates from landfills or waste disposal sites.
o Canada Water Act (CWA)
The Canada Water Act provides for water quality management authorities under
agreement with the provinces. These agreements cover water quality objectives, central
programs, monitoring requirements and shared cost programs.
o Canadian Environmental Protection Act (CEPA)
The Canadian Environmental Protection Act was proclaimed in June 1988. CEPA
strengthens environmental protection in Canada through assessment and evaluation of
new and existing chemicals, the development of new regulations for better management
of chemicals and the implementation of an enforcement and compliance policy for
consistent applications of the law.
Under Section 3(1) of the act, the Farm Pollution Advisory Committee advise the
Minister of the Environment about whether or not, in a specific situation, animal waste
is being handled and disposed of in accordance with "normal farming practice", and
thereby not impacting quality of nearby water bodies.
The CEPA, in addition to regulating point source air emissions, also has the authority
to regulate fuel and fuel components, which may contribute to ambient air pollution and
atmospheric deposition.
A-5
-------
Under the CEPA, the OMOE can order the removal of contaminated sediments and
provincial guidelines are designed to protect the aquatic environment from pollutants that
may be released from the disposal of sediments. The guidelines are also used to assess
the level of contamination of inplace pollutants, in the absence of other objectives.
The CEPA also provides control over the manufacture, transportation, use, disposal,
importation and exportation of chemicals and wastes where not adequately controlled by
regulation in other legislation.
Food and Drug Act (FDA)
The federal Food and Drug Act authorizes Health and Welfare Canada to establish
fish consumption guidelines for fish in commerce.
Canada Clean Air Act (CAA)
Under the Clean Air Act, industrial emission standards, regulations and guidelines
have been established for several substances. National ambient air quality objectives
have been established as a guide in developing programs to reduce the damaging effects
of air pollution.
Canada Shipping Act (CSA)
The Canada Shipping Act controls pollution from ships. Regulations have been
passed under this legislation directed at shipping activities that may impact water quality,
including the control of the discharge of oil, vessel wastes, and shipboard wastes.
Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act (TDGA)
The Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act prescribes safety requirements,
standards, and safety marks on all means of transport across Canada.
Provincial Drainage Act
Guidelines for the control of urban runoff are addressed by the provincial
governments. Under the Provincial Drainage Act, draft guidelines for urban drainage
design, erosion and sediment control for urban construction sites are developed. Many
of the practices recommended in these guidelines are implemented at the municipal level.
The Provincial Drainage Act and other environmental acts provide the basis for many
programs to manage and improve operations on agricultural lands.
Pest Control Products Act (PCPA)
The principal statute controlling pesticides in Canada is the Pest Control Products
Act. The PCPA sets out regulations regarding the registration, safety, and manufacturing
of control products to protect human health and the host plant, animal or article.
Environmental Contaminants Act (ECA)
A-6
-------
The federal Environmental Contaminants Act provides the power to compel disclosure
of information about chemicals in commercial use, and to undertake investigations to
determine their fate in commerce and the environment. The EGA restricts the handling
and disposal of selected substances; however, the provinces control the use of such
substances.
United States Legislation
o Clean Water Act (CWA)
The Clean Water Act, amending the Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972
contains several programs designed to improve water quality of the Great Lakes basin.
The first and most important is the National Pollutant Discharge and Elimination System
(NPDES) Permit program provided for under Section 402 of the CWA. The NPDES
program permits for all eight Great Lakes States approval authority for 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. The NPDES Pretreatment program
(under Section 307 of the CWA) provides the states authority to delegate pretreatment to
point source industries.
Under Section 404 of the CWA, the Dredge and Fill Permit program (initiated
November 1986) provides the Army Corps of Engineers authority to issue 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.
Section 201 of the CWA provides funding for the development and implementation of
waste treatment management plans and practices, including construction of wastewater
treatment facilities.
A State list of surface waters and development of strategies is required under Section
402(1) to be submitted to EPA for review, approval, and implementation by each state.
This list must include: a list of those waters within the state which cannot reasonably be
anticipated to attain or maintain water quality standards for such waters reviewed,
revised, or adopted due to toxic pollutants, or that water quality which shall assure
protection of public health, public water supplies, agricultural and industrial uses, and
the protection and propagation of objectives; a list of all navigable waters for which the
state does not expect the applicable standard will be achieved after technical
requirements are met, due entirely or substantially to discharges from point sources of
any toxic pollutants [listed in Section 307(a)]; a determination of the specific point
sources for each segment of the waters discharging any such toxic pollutant which is
believed to be preventing or impairing such water quality and the amount of each such
toxic pollutant discharged by each such source; and an individual control strategy which
the state determines will produce a reduction in the discharge of toxic pollutants from
point sources identified by the state through the establishment of effluent limitations
under Section 402 and water quality standards which reduction is sufficient, in
combination with existing controls on point and nonpoint sources of pollution, to achieve
the applicable water quality standard.
A-7
-------
Section 307 provides for toxic and pretreatment effluent standards. The NPDES
Pretreatment Program provides the states with the authority to delegate pretreatment
programs to municipalities. POTWs usually only provide pretreatment for domestic
loadings but under this section of the CWA, they are also now regulated to provide
supplementary secondary pretreatment for industries.
Directly addressed to the Great Lakes are programs provided under Sections 108, 118,
and 521. Section 108 provides for the development of projects to demonstrate new
methods and techniques and to develop preliminary plans for the elimination or control
of pollution, within all or any part of the watersheds of the Great Lakes. Such projects
are required to demonstrate the engineering and economic feasibility and practicality of
removal of pollutants and prevention of any polluting matter from entering into the
Great Lakes in the future and other reduction and remedial techniques which will
contribute substantially to effective and practical methods of pollution prevention,
reduction, or elimination.
Section 118 of the CWA provides for Great Lake research, such as demonstration
projects on the feasibility of controlling and removing toxic pollutants (providing LMPs)
and the establishment of Novas Great Lakes Research Office. This section also provides
for the establishment of a Great Lakes Inspection and Surveillance Program (GLISP).
Section 521 authorizes a study of the effects of Great Lakes water consumption on
economic growth and environmental quality in the Great Lakes region and of control
measures that can be implemented to reduce the quantity of water consumed.
Information of the latest scientific knowledge on: the kind and extent of all
identifiable effects on health and welfare including plankton, fish , shellfish, wildlife,
plant life, shore lines, beaches, esthetics, and reaction which man be expected from the
presence of pollutants in any body of water (including ground water); the concentration
and dispersal of pollutants, or their byproducts, through biological, physical, and
chemical processes; and the effects of pollutants on biological community diversity,
productivity, and stability, including information on the factors affecting rates of
eutrophication and rates of organic and inorganic sedimentation for varying types of
receiving waters are required under Section 304(a) of the CWA.
Rivers and Harbors Act
The Army Corps of Engineers has the authority to issue Section 10 Permit
Regulations for Structures or Work Affecting Navigable Waters permits for dredge or fill
activities and building structures to ensure that these actions do not adversely affect
navigability of the waters.
Toxic Substance Control Act (TSCA)
TSCA empowers EPA to regulate the manufacture, storage, transport, use, and
disposal of non-pesticide chemical substances and mixtures that present an unreasonable
risk to human health or the environment as a result of their commercial manufacture and
distribution in commerce.
A-8
-------
Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA)
FIFRA governs the registration of pesticide products. Registration standards specify
labelling requirements, use limitations, application methods, residue tolerances in food,
and reporting requirements.
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)
RCRA authorizes EPA to regulate the transportation, treatment, disposal, and storage
of solid and hazardous wastes. For instance, RCRA requires cradle-to-grave tracking of
hazardous waste under a manifest system; establishes technical operation conditions for
RCRA permitted waste disposal facilities; and established closure and post closure
cleanup and monitoring requirements for decommissioned hazardous waste facilities.
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
With Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) requirements, NEPA directs all federal
agencies to report the potential environmental impacts of their proposed activities and to
consider those impacts in the decision-making process.
Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act
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.
Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA)
Section 307 of the CZMA 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.
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA)
As amended by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA) of
1987, Superfund authorizes the federal government to develop a system for identifying,
ranking, and cleaning up high priority abandoned waste disposal sites that represent an
unacceptable risk to public health and the environment.
A-9
-------
o Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA)
The SDWA of 1974, as amended by the SDWA Amendments of 1986, provides for
control of the quality of drinking water by authorizing the EPA to establish National
Primary Drinking Water Regulations for contaminants known or suspected of causing
adverse human health effects. The SDWA regulations specify monitoring and analytical
requirements for regulated contaminants in public water supplies. The SDWA regulations
also effectively prohibit any underground injection that is not authorized by permit or
rule, providing particular protection for sole source aquifers.
o Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA)
The FFDCA authorizes the establishment of residue tolerances for unavoidable
deleterious substance in foodstuffs, including commercially caught fish. These tolerances
are based on public health and human food loss considerations, and have been developed
for all registered pesticides and a number of substances. When a pesticides's registration
is cancelled, the tolerance must be withdrawn. However, if the pesticide persists in the
environment, action levels are developed for the unavoidable residues to permit
remarketing of the foodstuff in the U.S. Economic and social factors are taken into
account along with public health considerations in establishing action levels.
o Clean Air Act (CAA)
The federal CAA provides EPA with the authority to regulate activities affecting air
quality. This is accomplished by the development of ambient air standards and by
control of emissions of specific pollutants from specific categories of point sources via
the development of Nation Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPs).
At present, impacts of air sources on water quality can not be taken into account under
the CAA in developing air quality standards or NESHAPs. Under CAA state takeover
provisions, each of the Great Lake states has been approved by EPA to administer the
CAA. Under state CAA provisions, additional source control measures can be taken to
prevent nuisance conditions or unacceptable risks to the public health or the
environment.
Available Information
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA):
RCRA authorizes EPA to regulate the transportation, treatment, disposal, and storage of
solid and hazardous wastes. For example, RCRA requires cradle-to-grave tracking of
hazardous waste under a manifest system; establishes technical operation conditions for RCRA
permitted waste disposal facilities; and establishes closure and post closure cleanup and
monitoring requirements for decommissioned hazardous waste facilities.
The EPA's Hazardous Waste Identification Program designates wastes as hazardous in two
ways: the characteristics (40 CFR Subpart C) and hazardous waste listings (40 CFR Subpart
D). Wastes which are characteristically hazardous remain so until they no longer exhibit the
characteristic. There are four characteristics: ignitability, corrosivity, reactivity, and toxicity.
A-10
-------
It is the generators responsibility to make the determination of whether a solid waste exhibits a
hazardous characteristic.
In addition to characteristics, the Agency has studied wastes generated from a number of
industrial sectors and has determined that they should be listed as hazardous because they
contain significant levels of toxic constituents that are carcinogenic and/or toxic from chronic
exposure. EPA determined that listed wastes typically and frequently contain toxic
constituents at levels posing a substantial present or potential threat to human health or the
environment when the wastes are improperly treated, stored, transported, disposed of, or
otherwise managed.
EPA published two lists of hazardous wastes, one composed of wastes generated from
non-specific sources and one composed of wastes generated from specific sources. EPA also
published two lists of commercial chemical products which are hazardous wastes when
discarded or spilled. These lists have been amended several times, and are currently published
in 40 CFR Parts 261.31, 261.32, and 261.33, respectively.
In addition to characteristics and listings, the definition of hazardous waste specifies two
other ways in which a solid waste can be designated as a hazardous waste and one way in
which a material that is not a solid waste must be treated as a hazardous waste: 1) 40 CFR
Part 261.3(aX2)(iv) states that any mixture of listed hazardous waste and solid waste also is the
listed hazardous waste ("mixed rule"); 2) 40 CFR Part 261.3(c)(2)(i) states that any residues
from the storage, treatment, or disposal of listed hazardous waste is the listed hazardous waste
is the listed hazardous waste ("derived from rule"; and 3) media which contains a listed waste
(such as contaminated soil and ground water) must be managed as if it were a hazardous waste
until the listed waste is removed from the media. These rules apply regardless of the
concentrations and mobilities of hazardous constituents in the "secondary" wastes.
Listed wastes remain designated as hazardous unless and until delisted according to
procedures set forth at 40 CFR Parts 260.20 and 260.22.
RCRA requires nine information collection and management databases to sort and
organize data from regulated hazardous waste management facilities obtained under the
authority of RCRA Section 3007. Summarized below are the data bases, including statute
requirement, information captured, and information availability. All data bases should be
accessible to all USEPA regions when available.
1. Hazardous Waste Data Management System (HWDMS): HWDMS is currently available
and provides an automated storehouse of information from all facilities handling RCRA
hazardous waste. The system has been used primarily to track facilities through
notification, permitting, closure or post-closure processes, compliance monitoring,
enforcement activities, and facility financial responsibilities. Information consists mostly
of RCRA Part A and Part B permit applications. The information contents of Part A
and Part B of the permit application are described in 40 CFR Part 270.13 (Part A) and
40 CFR Part 270.14 (Part B). In summary, Part A contains general location information
about the facility, and Part B contains general and specific information on the hazardous
waste generated by the facility. HWDMS is, however, supplemented by additional
sources including Generator Notification forms, and Regional site inspection data. The
system derives it's data from regional data bases which are used to update the national
system on a weekly basis. Currently, the system is divided into two components: a
A-ll
-------
version containing detailed data for all Treatment, Storage, or Disposal (TSD) facilities;
and an older version containing the inventory of all handlers of RCRA hazardous wastes
including generators and transporters. The older version of HWDMS is updated monthly
by the Regional offices.
2. Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Information Systems (RCRIS): RCRIS is still
not available by completion date is expected in 1989. When complete, RCRIS will be
used to replace HWDMS with an OSWER-wide information management system. RCRIS
will be primarily oriented toward facility/handler information and may include
administrative and regulatory support functions. Information from HWDMS will be
supplemented by independent data from surveys such as the TSDR and Generator
surveys. RCRIS is being developed to support a more user-friendly and flexible
interface to these data for regulatory and program support, and to allow pathways to
other EPA data resources. RCRIS will be implemented in three phases:
o Facility/Handler contains data on handler identification, compliance and
enforcement, permit processing, closure/post closure, financial responsibility, manifest
tracking, environmental monitoring, and biennial reporting (waste volumes, permit
compliance, and monitoring results).
o Administrative Support: contains outside queries, workload planning and analysis,
budget and program planning, state authorization status, audit history, and summaries.
o Regulatory Support consists of pathways to other data sources to support waste
identification and assessment, development of facility standards, and environmental
change assessment.
3. Biennial Report Data Systems (BIRDS): RCRA Sections 3002(a)(6) and 3004(a) establish
biennial reporting requirements. BIRDS is an automated system to support EPA's
biennial reporting requirements to Congress. This system is being implemented for the
1987 reporting period on a facility-specific basis to avoid past problems due to
inconsistent reporting by the states. The 1987 reporting period will contain information
from 23 states. Information will address four major congressional concerns: quantities
and nature of hazardous waste generated during the reporting year, final disposition of
wastes generated, waste minimization efforts performed, and changes made to the volume
and toxicity of wastes compared to previous reporting years. BIRDS will also be used to
support CERCLA SARA 104(k) State Capacity Assurances, the 1990 Waste Minimization
Report to Congress, OSWER Waste System Report, and various public information
requests as well as to update HWDMS and the RCRA Capacity Data Base.
4. Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, Disposal, and Recycling (TSDR) Survey: The
TSDR Survey was initiated primarily to assess capacity and the availability of alternatives
to land disposal for wastes scheduled for restriction under the HSWA Land Disposal
Restrictions. This survey effort consists of an initial screening survey (TSDR Screening
Survey) sent to 5,304 TSDR facilities, and a much more complex questionnaire (TSDR
Survey) sent to 2,625 facilities selected based on results from the previous effort. The
TSDR Survey, when complete, will constitute the most comprehensive data base of
information from the universe of active treatment, disposal, and recycling facilities.
A-12
-------
5. Hazardous Waste Generator Survey: The Generator Survey was developed to support
OSW regulatory initiatives brought on by the HSWA Land Disposal Restrictions, the
regulation of hazardous waste tanks, and Superfund capacity requirements.
Approximately 10,000 questionnaires have been sent to generators constituting a national
sample of the total universe of generators. Information within the survey includes
volume and characteristics of hazardous waste generated (including physical/chemical
form and constituent concentrations), waste management capacity data, tank system
information, waste minimization efforts and information on solid waste management
units (SWMUs).
6. Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) National Mail Survey: The RIA Mail Survey was
initiated in 1982 and contains data from 1981 for 2,084 generator and 1,462 TSD
facilities. All data from this survey has been coded and entered into a stand-alone data
base. These data have been used extensively to support the development of Regulatory
Impact Analyses as well as for background document preparation. Data within this
survey include general facility identification, and waste generation information, as well
as detailed description of on-site waste management in surface impoundments, tanks,
land treatment units, containers, underground injection wells, landfills, and incinerators.
7. Mineral Processing Survey: RCRA Section 300l(b) regulates the mining survey. The
Mineral Processing Survey is being conducted to support litigation requirements for a
second mining report to Congress due in 1989. It is anticipated that the survey will be
mailed to a national sample of the mineral processing facilities by the end of December,
1988. Data from this survey will include waste identification and quantities, processing
units that generate or receive a waste, surface impoundment and other waste management
data, and environmental monitoring data near waste management units.
8. Solid Waste Landfill Survey: RCRA Section 4010(a) regulates Subtitle D studies. The
Solid Waste Landfill Survey was developed to support HSWA requirements to conduct a
study and report to Congress on the adequacy of existing guidelines and criteria for
Subtitle D waste management units. The survey consists of a small national sample of
residential and municipal landfills. Information in the survey included landfill
identification and size, hydrogeologic and water source information, waste characteristics,
landfill unit information (size and liner characteristics), groundwater monitoring systems,
and operating costs.
9. Industrial Subtitle D Telephone Survey: RCRA Section 3007 regulate general
authorization to obtain information from regulated facilities. RCRA Section 4010(a)
regulates Subtitle D studies. The Industrial Subtitle D Telephone Survey was developed
to support HSWA requirements to conduct a study and report to Congress on the
adequacy of existing guidelines and criteria for Subtitle D waste management units. This
survey was developed due to congressional concern over the effect of industrial Subtitle
D waste on groundwater. This survey was originally developed as a precursor to a more
detailed survey which was never developed due to shifts in program emphases.
Information in this survey includes quantity and characteristics of on-site landfills,
surface impoundments, land application units, and waste piles.
A-13
-------
Federal Water Pollution Control Act, Commonly Referred to as Clean Water Act (CWA):
The Clean Water Act, amending the Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972,
contains several programs designed to improve water quality of the Great Lakes basin.
Although there are not many data bases that compile and centralize all this water quality
information, the sections of the CWA contain the means for obtaining such information which
would then be available to all USEPA regions. This discussion will attempt to summarize each
important section directly or indirectly pertaining to the Great Lakes Basin.
The overall objective of the CWA is "to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and
biological integrity of the U.S. waters" as set forth by Section 101(a).
Section 301 (a) states that "the discharge of any pollutant by any person shall be
unlawful". Under Sections 302 and 303 of the CWA, states are required to adopt water quality
standards for the state's surface waters. A biannual report to EPA is required from each state
under Section 305(b) containing: a description of the water quality of all waters including
supplemental descriptions of seasonal, tidal, and other variations; an analysis of the extent to
which all navigable waters provide for the protection and propagation of a balanced population
of shellfish, fish, and wildlife, and allow recreational activities in an on the waters; an analysis
of the extent to which the elimination of the discharge of pollutants and the level of water
quality which provides for the protection and propagation of a balanced water body, together
with recommendations as to additional action necessary to achieve such objectives and for what
waters such additional action is necessary; an estimate if the environmental impact, the
economic and social costs necessary to achieve the objectives, the economic and social benefits
of such achievement, and an estimate of the data of such achievement; and a description of
the nature and extent of non-point sources of pollutants, and recommendations as to the
programs which must be undertaken to control each category of such sources, including an
estimate of the costs of implementing such programs. These data should be available to all
USEPA regions following submission to Congress.
Triannually the water quality standards and programs for improvement of water quality
are submitted to EPA for approval.
One of the most important programs provided by the CWA is the National Pollutant
Discharge and Elimination System (NPDES) Permit program, provided for under Section 402.
The NPDES program permits for all eight Great Lake states approval authority for 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. All NPDES permittee are regulated to self
monitor for local pollutants as well as those listed in Section 307(a). The NPDES Form 2C
provides information on 140 pollutants including toxic, conventional, and nonconventional
categories. Section 31) provides for oil and hazardous substance liability which requires such
information on oil and toxics. Section 308 requires inspections and monitoring of effluents by
the owner or operator of any point source and provides the Administrator with the authority to
obtain such information as necessary to regulate such point sources. Municipalities monitor
POTWs and are also regulated by the EPA or the state if applicable.
A data base provided under the NPDES program is the Permit Compliance System (PCS)
which contains the monitoring data by the permittee. Such data should be accessible to all
USEPA regions.
A-14
-------
Perhaps an even more important provision of the CWA for obtaining information for the
Great Lakes is Section 304(1). A State list of surface waters and development of strategies is
required to be submitted to EPA for review, approval, and implementation by each state. This
list must include: a list of those waters within the state which cannot reasonably be anticipated
to attain or maintain water quality standards for such waters reviewed, revised, or adopted due
to toxic pollutants, or that water quality which shall assure protection of public health, public
water supplies, agricultural and industrial uses, and the protection and propagation of fish and
food species; a list of all surface waters for which the state does not expect the applicable
standard will be achieved after technical requirements are met, due entirely or substantially to
discharges from point sources of any toxic pollutants [listed in Section 307(a)]; a determination
of the specific point sources for each segment of the waters discharging any such toxic
pollutant which is believed to be preventing or impairing such water quality and the amount of
each such toxic pollutant discharged by each such source; and an individual control strategy
which the state determines will produce a reduction in the discharge of toxic pollutants from
point sources identified by the state through the establishment of effluent limitations under
Section 402 and water quality standards which reduction is sufficient, in combination with
existing controls on point and nonpoint sources of pollution, to achieve the applicable water
quality standard.
Section 307 provides for toxic and pretreatment effluent standards. The NPDES
Pretreatment Program provides the states with the authority to delegate pretreatment programs
to municipalities. POTWs usually only provide pretreatment for domestic loadings but under
this section of the CWA, they are also now regulated to provide supplementary secondary
pretreatment for industries. There is a pretreatment survey in effect which is administered to
all industries within the municipality requesting information as to the discharge of toxins to
the sewer, affecting the POTWs. There is a Pretreatment Enforcement Tracking System
(PETS) required by the USEPA but has not been in effect yet.
Directly addressed to the Great Lakes are programs provided under Sections 108, 118,
and 521. Section 108 provides for the development of projects to demonstrate new methods
and techniques and to develop preliminary plans for the elimination or control of pollution,
within all or any part of the watersheds of the Great Lakes. Such projects are required to
demonstrate the engineering and economic feasibility and practicality of removal of pollutants
and prevention of any polluting matter from entering into the Great Lakes in the future and
other reduction and remedial techniques which will contribute substantially to effective and
practical methods of pollution prevention, reduction, or elimination.
Section 118 of the CWA provides for Great Lake research, such as demonstration
projects on the feasibility of controlling and removing toxic pollutants (providing LMPs) and
the establishment of Novas Great Lakes Research Office. This section also provides for the
establishment of a Great Lakes Inspection and Surveillance Program (GLISP).
Section 521 authorizes a study of the effects of Great Lakes water consumption on
economic growth and environmental quality in the Great Lakes region and of control measures
that can be implemented to reduce the quantity of water consumed.
Section 115 of the CWA authorized allocation of funds ($15 million) for the
identification and removal of contaminated sediment, with emphasis on toxic substances in
harbors and navigable waterways. Sites identified as potential contaminated sediment problem
areas were ranked and 27 sites identified are in the Great Lakes.
A-15
-------
Information of the latest scientific knowledge on: the kind and extent of all identifiable
effects on health and welfare including plankton, fish , shellfish, wildlife, plant life, shore
lines, beaches, esthetics, and reaction which may be expected from the presence of pollutants
in any body of water (including ground water); the concentration and dispersal of pollutants,
or their byproducts, through biological, physical, and chemical processes; and the effects of
pollutants on biological community diversity, productivity, and stability, including information
on the factors affecting rates of eutrophication and rates of organic and inorganic
sedimentation for varying types of receiving waters are required under Section 304(a) of the
CWA.
Section 310 provides for the abatement of international pollution. If Canada has reason
to believe that pollution discharged by the U.S. is occurring which endangers the health or
welfare of persons in Canada, they may request the Secretary of State to abate such pollution
and adopt the institution of enforcement proceeding against any person to obtain the abatement
of pollution subject.
On a biennial basis under Section 314 (Clean Lakes Program), each state is required to
prepare and submit to EPA information containing: an identification and classification of the
eutrophic condition of all publicly owned lakes in the state; a description of procedures,
processes, and methods to control sources of pollution of such lakes; a description of methods
and procedures to restore the quality of such lakes; methods and procedures to mitigate the
harmful effects of high acidity; a list and description of the lakes known to be impaired; and
an assessment to the status and trends of water quality in lakes including the nature and extent
of pollution loading from point and nonpoint sources and the extent to which the use of the
lakes is impaired as a result of such pollution.
As the concern for nonpoint sources of pollutants is of high priority, the CWA provides
for nonpoint source management programs in Section 319.
Under Section 404 of the CWA, the Dredge and Fill Permit program (initiated November
1986) provides the Army Corps of Engineers with the authority to issue permits for discharge
of dredged or fill 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.
A few additional data sources provided under the CWA include the STORET Water
Quality File which provides chemical-specific data on analysis of various media (water,
sediment, and fish tissue) at water quality stations.
The STORET Effluent File provides a repository for Discharge Monitoring Results
(DMR) (industrial self-monitoring) for many industries and municipalities. This is especially
true in Region V where this region is storing data in the Permit Compliance System (PCS) (as
required) and also in STORET-EF for analysis purposes. Form 2C data is also available in the
STORET-EF file for many industries and municipalities. Again this is very true for
Region V. An effort is underway to provide a system to allow pretreatment information (i.e.,
indirect discharger DMR data, SIC codes, and flows) to be stored in the STORET-EF and the
Industrial Facility Discharge file.
A-16
-------
The Industrial Facilities Discharge (IFD) file contains locational information about
NPDES facilities (municipal and industrial). The IFD file contains SIC codes, flow
information and is linked hydrologically to the STORET and PCS data bases, as well as other
minor files and is part of the IHS system.
The Permit Compliance System (PCS) contains information on industries and
municipalities compliance with their NPDES permits. This includes name, address, etc., as
well as DMR data, and permit limits. PCS is currently linked to the STORET/IHS systems.
There are a few draw backs of this system in that it contains information mostly on major
dischargers only; is tightly controlled by OWEP; and is difficult to get usable information out
of it.
The Complete Environmental Toxicity Information System (CETIS) contains data on
toxicity testing data results and is linked to STORET/IHS. Currently, headquarters (OWEP) is
storing data into a PC version of this mainframe data base (PC-CETIS).
The STORET-BIOS file contains data on contaminants detected in aquatic biota,
primarily fish and shellfish.
The Drinking Water File is another IHS system that is linked to STORET and has
information regarding drinking water public utilities (both ground water and surface water).
This file has recently be updated by OTS.
The STORET-Data Flow File is the same as the USGS daily flow file except that it is
about 3 months behind. This file contains daily flow information on all USGS gaging stations
in the U.S. This system is hydrologically linked to the STORET/IHS system.
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA);
Commonly Referred to as Superfund:
As amended by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA) of 1987,
Superfund 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.
It was estimated that up to 69 national priority list sites are adjacent to the Great Lakes
in 1987. The number is continually changing as new sites are listed and the proximity of these
sites to the lakes is variable, as are the intensity and nature of the contamination.
Title III, Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know, of SARA established
State Emergency Response Commissions, Emergency Planning Districts, and Local Emergency
Planning Commissions and these commissions are to prepare comprehensive emergency response
plans. Under Section 302, a list of extremely hazardous substances was published in Appendix
A of the "Chemical Emergency Preparedness Program Interim Guidance."
Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS) containing chemical identification, hazardous
ingredients, physical data, fire and explosion data, health hazard information, first aid,
reactivity data, spill or leak procedures, waste disposal, and special protection information were
required to be prepared for a hazardous chemical under the Occupational Safety and Health
A-17
-------
Act (OSHA). These MSDS are now required under Section 311(a) of SARA to be submitted to
the SARA-established emergency commissions.
Section 312 of SARA requires facilities which are required to prepare MSDS to prepare
and submit to the SARA-established emergency commissions emergency and hazardous
chemical inventory forms. These forms should contain information regarding the amount of
hazardous substance at the facility.
Toxic Chemical Release Forms are required by facilities for each toxic substance that
was manufactured, processed, or otherwise used in quantities exceeding the toxic substance
threshold quantity under Section 313.
Clean Air Act (CAA):
The federal CAA provides EPA with the authority to regulate activities affecting air
quality. This is accomplished by the development of ambient air standards and by control of
emissions of specific pollutants from specific categories of point sources via the development
of Nation Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPs) required under Section
112 of the CAA. At present, impacts of air sources on water quality can not be taken into
account under the CAA in developing air quality standards or NESHAPs. Under CAA state
takeover provisions, each of the Great Lake states has been approved by EPA to administer the
CAA regulations. Under state CAA provisions, additional source control measures can be
taken to prevent nuisance conditions or unacceptable risks to the public health or the
environment.
A study entitled "Emissions Data for Several Pollutants of Concern in the Great Lakes
Basin" was reported in 1987. This report may provide valuable information necessary to follow
plans set forth in the GLWQA. The Urban Air Toxics Monitoring Program might also prove
valuable to the plans.
Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA)
TSCA empowers EPA to regulate the manufacture, storage, transport, use, and disposal
of non-pesticide chemical substances and mixtures that present an unreasonable risk to human
health or the environment as a result of their commercial manufacture and distribution in
commerce.
Section 8(b) of TSCA required EPA to compile an inventory of chemicals manufactured
or processed from 1975 to present. Chemical companies are then required to submit to EPA
their products for inclusion in the inventory. Section 8(d) requires manufactures of chemicals
to submit copies of health and safety studies conducted on the manufactured chemicals.
If an unreasonable risk to health or the environment is suspected of a manufactured
chemical, Section 4(a) of TSCA requires the testing of such chemicals. Under this section,
testing may also be required if a chemical will be produced in such quantities that significant
human or environmental exposure could result.
A-18
-------
The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA)
FIFRA governs the registration of pesticide products. Registration standards specify
labelling requirements, use limitations, application methods, residue tolerances in food, and
reporting requirements.
Section 3 of FIFRA requires that "no person in any State may distribute, sell, offer for
sale, hold for sale, ship, deliver for shipment, or receive and (having so received) delivery or
offer to deliver, to any person any pesticide" without registration with EPA. Registration
information on pesticides include physical, chemical, and toxicity data, as well as production
and distribution data. This information may be useful in plans for the GLWQA.
Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA)
The SDWA of 1974, as amended by the SDWA Amendments of 1986, provides for
control of the quality of drinking water by authorizing the EPA to establish National Primary
Drinking Water Regulations (Section 101) for contaminants known or suspected of causing
adverse human health effects. To date, the primary regulations encompass standards for 25
contaminants, however, the 1986 amendments require the regulation of many more
contaminants. The SDWA regulations specify monitoring and analytical requirements for
regulated contaminants in public water supplies. The SDWA regulations also effectively
prohibit any underground injection that is not authorized by permit or rule, providing
particular protection for sole source aquifers.
The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
With Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) requirements, NEPA directs all federal
agencies to report the potential environmental impacts of their proposed activities and to
consider those impacts in the decision-making process. A Data Base containing information
available in the EIS's is accessible to all regions.
Table A-2 summarizes a few of these and other representative sources of information
contributing to Great Lakes water quality.
Great Lakes Research and Monitoring Programs
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. 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.
A-19
------- An error occurred while trying to OCR this image.
------- An error occurred while trying to OCR this image.
------- An error occurred while trying to OCR this image.
------- An error occurred while trying to OCR this image.
------- An error occurred while trying to OCR this image.
------- An error occurred while trying to OCR this image.
------- An error occurred while trying to OCR this image.
------- An error occurred while trying to OCR this image.
------- An error occurred while trying to OCR this image.
------- An error occurred while trying to OCR this image.
------- An error occurred while trying to OCR this image.
------- An error occurred while trying to OCR this image.
------- An error occurred while trying to OCR this image.
------- An error occurred while trying to OCR this image.
------- An error occurred while trying to OCR this image.
------- An error occurred while trying to OCR this image.
------- An error occurred while trying to OCR this image.
------- An error occurred while trying to OCR this image.
------- An error occurred while trying to OCR this image.
-------
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 A-3, 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 monitors nationwide weather and climatic conditions, documenting
precipitation patterns, which are essential to understanding Great Lakes hydrology. The
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
(COE), 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). 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 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 by and to a
large extent is conducted by GLNPO and is directly focused on requirements under the
GLWQA. This program consists of four major components: open lake, nearshore/harbor,
pollutant loadings, and sources of pollutants.
A-39
-------
Table A-3. 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
contaminant! 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 risk are analyzed
for known problem contaminanq to
evaluate trends and provide
information on human exposure.
Non-migratory fish are sampled
to identify local hot spots
and trend*.
Periodic collection of samples
from all major tributary mouths
and harbors and the connecting
channels for broad-scan analyses,
including heavy metals and
persistent organic*.
Preliminary program initiated
in Lake Ontario during 1987.
USEPA-Great Lakes National
Program Office
USEPA-Creat 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 n
Superfund Office, Office of
Research and Development,
and. New York State Department
o'f Environmental Conservation
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
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
re issuance.
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.
Great Lakes States
Great Lakes States
Great Lakes States and
USFWS
National Oceanic Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA)
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
NOAA-National Marine Fisheries
Service, USFWS, USEPA and
States
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
A-40
-------
Table A-3. U.S. Environmental Surveillance and Monitoring Programs in the Great Lakes Region
(continued)
Programs/ Activities Explanation
Relevant Institutions
USEPA and States
USDA-Soil Conservation Service
Point Source Effluent
Biomonitoring
National Resources Inventory
Biomonitoring of discharges
to detect and prevent toxicity.
Broad, comprehensive survey of
the nation's soil, water and related
resources. Prepared every 5 years.
National Human Tissue
Contaminants Data Base
Climate and Weather
Monitoring
Waterfowl Surveys
National Wetlands Inventory
Coastal Wetlands Inventory
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.
U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency
NOAA-National Weather Service
and State Agencies
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
VS. Fish and Wildlife Service
National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration
National Mapping Program
Point Source Discharge
Monitoring
Pesticide Use Inventory
Tributary Mouth Water
Quality Monitoring
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 N7DES 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 (LJC) for calculation
of phosphorus loads to the Lakes.
U.S. Geological Survey
Permittees, States, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency
USEPA-Office of Pesticide
Programs
Great Lakes States and
U.S. Geological Survey
Streamflow Monitoring
and National Stream
Quality Accounting Network
Great Lakes Atmospheric
Deposition Network (GLAD)
Routine monitoring of flow
and core set of quality
parameters for major tributaries.
Monitoring network to measure
deposition of nutrients ind
toxics, throughout the Basin.
U.S. Geological Survey
Great Lakes National
Program Office and States
A-41
-------
great Lakes Research Programs
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 funded by the National Science Foundation, USEPA's Office of
Research and Development (ORD), and NOAA's Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory
(GLERL) 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; 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 A-4 gives a representation of recent U.S. Great Lakes research
programs. Many of the major Great Lakes research organizations contribute to multiple research areas,
although one organization has assumed a leadership role for each area. 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.
A-42
-------
Table A-4. U.S. Great Lakes Research Programs
Programs/ Activities
Explanation
Relevant Institutions
Contaminated Sediment
Studies
Impacts of Contaminants of
Fisheries
Green Bay Studies
Atmospheric Deposition
Engineering research and
remediation technologies.
Sediment resuspension,
deposition and fate for
remediation activities and
mass balance models.
Impacts of tumors on fish
productivity and health,
effects of parentally
transferred contaminants
on lake trout, effects of
nutrient loading on lake
trout habitat
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
USEPA, ORD, and LLRS
U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (USFWS)-National
Fisheries Center-Great
Ann Arbor
Research support of pilot
mass balance modeling effort
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.
NOAA-Great Lakes Environmental
Research Laboratory
Research into methodologies and
technologies for air panicle
measuring wet and dry deposition,
linking receptor patterns to sources.
Preliminary qualifications of wet and dry
deposition leads to Green Bay in 19M.
DePaul University under
contract to USEPA-Great Lakes
National Program Office
Mathematical Models
Water Quality Criteria
to Protect Aquatic Life
Sediment Quality Criteria
Human Health Effects
Development of mathematical
models representing the
processes of transport, dissipation.
accumulation, transformation, and loss
of panicles, nutrients, and air
pollutants in large aquatic ecosystems.
Studies of acute, chronic life
cycle effects of high priority
chemicalj, including those found in the
Great Lakes.
Studies of the rates of release
and biologicaJ availability of
toxic pollutants from
' contaminated sediments to test
methodologies for deriving
water quality-equivalent
sediment quality criteria.
Development and application
Criteria of pharmacodynamic models for
transfer of dose-response relationships
from animal models to humans.
USEPA's Large Lakes Research
Station-Gross* lie
USEPA's Environmental Research
Laboratory- Duluth
USEPA's Environmental Research
Laboratory-Duluth. USEPA's
Large Lakes Research Station-
Grosse lie and USFWS-Columbia,
MO/Ann Arbor
USEPA -ORD-Cincinnati
Risk Assessment
Quantitative Structure
Activity Relationships
(QSARS)
Research into the sources of
methods for reducing
uncertainties in exposure and toxiciry
estimates upon which source control and
cleanup activities are based.
Research into methods for
estimating physical, chemical,
biological, and lexicological properties
affecting risk using QSARS and
readily measured or estimated properly
data. Development of a menu driven
expen system to guide regulatory uses
of these methods.
U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency
USEPA's Environmental Research
Laboratory- Duluth
A-43
-------
APPENDIX B
REFERENCES
Bierman, V. JM Jr., and W. R. Swain. 1982. Mass Balance Modeling of DDT Dynamics in Lakes
Michigan and Superior. Environ. Sci. Tech. 16:572.
DiToro, D., D. O'Connor, R. Thomann, and J. St. John. 1981. Analysis of Fate of Chemicals in
Receiving Waters - Phase 1. Chemical Manufacturers Association, Aquatic Research Task Group.
Washington, D.C.
IJC (1985). International Joint Commission Uses, Abuses, and Future of Great Lakes Modeling. Report
of the Modeling Task Force to the Great Lakes Science Advisory Board. Great Lakes Regional Office.
Windsor, Ontario, Canada.
Rodgers, P. W., and W. R. Swain. 1983. Analysis of polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) loading trends in
Lake Michigan. J. Great Lakes Res. 9(4):548-558.
Science News, 1989, V. 135 (March 11): 154
Stephan, C. E., D. I. Mount, D. J. Hansen, J. H. Gentile, G. A. Chapman, and W. A. Brongs. 1985.
Guidelines for Deriving Numerical National Water Quality Criteria for the Protection of Aquatic
Organisms and Their Uses. Environmental Research Laboratory, Office of Research and Development,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Duluth, Minnesota, July. PB85-227049.
Thomann, R. V., and D. M. DiToro. 1984. Physico-Chemical Model of Toxic Substances in the Great
Lakes. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA-600/S3-84-050.
Thomann, R. V., and J. P. Connolly. 1984. An Age-Dependent Model of PCB in a Lake Michigan Food
Chain. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA-600/S3-84-026.
B-l
------- |