Implementing Indicators
2003
A Technical Report
-------
Environment Canada
and
United States Environmental Protection Agency
ISBN 0-662-34797-8 (CD-Rom)
EPA 905-R-03-003
Cat. No. Enl64-l/2003E-MRC (CD-Rom)
Photo credits:
Blue Heron, Don Breneman
Sleeping Bear Dunes, Rober De Jonge, courtesy Michigan Travel Bureau
Port Huron Mackinac Race, Michigan Travel Bureau
Milwaukee River, Wisconsin, Lake Michigan Federation
-------
IMPLEMENTING
INDICATORS
2003
A TECHNICAL REPORT
by the Governments of
Canada
and
the United States of America
Prepared by
Environment Canada
and the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
-------
IMPLEMENTING INDICATORS 2003
A TECHNICAL REPORT
11
-------
IMPLEMENTING INDICATORS 2003
A TECHNICAL REPORT
Table of Contents
PREFACE 1
1.0 ASSESSMENTS BASED ON INDICATORS 2
1.1 State Indicators-Part 1 2
Summary of State Indicators-Part 1 2
Salmon and Trout 3
Walleye 6
Hexagenia (Mayfly) 8
Preyfish Populations 10
Lake Trout 14
Abundances of the Bethic Amphipod Diporeia (scud) 17
Benthic Diversity and Abundance-Aquatic Oliogchaete Communities 19
Phytoplankton Populations 21
Zooplankton Populations 23
Amphibian Diversity and Relative Abundance 26
Wetland-Dependent Bird Diversity and Relative Abundance 29
Area, Quality and Protection of Alvar Communities 33
1.2 State Indicators-Part 2 36
Summary of State Indicator Reports-Part 2 36
Native Freshwater Mussels 36
Urban Density 40
Economic Prosperity 43
Area, Quality and Protection of Great Lakes Islands 45
1.3 Pressure Indicators-Part 1 47
Summary of Pressure Indicators-Part 1 47
Spawning-Phase Sea Lamprey 48
Phosphorus Concentrations and Loadings 51
Contaminants in Colonial Nesting Waterbirds 53
Atmospheric Depostition of Toxic Chemicals 56
Contaminants in Edible Fish Tissue 59
Air Quality 61
Ice Duration on the Great Lakes .65
Extent of Hardened Shoreline .68
Contaminants Affecting Productivity of Bald Eagles 70
Acid Rain 72
Non-Native Species Introduced into the Great Lakes 77
1.4 Pressure Indicator Reports-Part 2 .79
Summary of Pressure Indicator Reports-Part 2 79
Contaminants in Young-of-the-Year Spottail Shiners .80
Toxic Chemicals Concentrations in Offshore Waters 84
Concentrations of Contaminants in Sediment Cores 87
E.coli and Fecal Coliform Levels in Nearshore Recreational Waters .89
Drinking Water Quality 92
Contaminants in Snapping Turtle Eggs 96
Effect of Water Level Fluctuations 99
Mass Transportation 102
111
-------
IMPLEMENTING INDICATORS 2003
A TECHNICAL REPORT
Water Use 105
Energy Consumption 108
Solid Waste Generation 112
Population Monitoring and Contaminants Affecting the American Otter. 116
1.5 Response Indicator Reports 119
Summary of Response Indicators 119
Citizen/Community Place-based Stewardship Activities 119
Brownfield Redevelopment 122
Sustainable Agriculture Practices 124
Green Planning Process 126
2.0 PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE GREAT LAKES INDICATOR SUITE 131
2.1 Societal Response Indicators 132
Commercial/Industrial Eco-Efficiency Measures 132
Cosmetic Pesticide Controls 134
2.2 Agriculture Indicators 137
Nutrient Management Plans 137
Integrated Pest Management 139
2.3 Groundwater Indicators 142
Base Flow Due to Groundwater Discharge 142
Natural Groundwater Quality and Human-Induced Changes 144
Water Use and Intensity 146
2.4 Other Indicators 149
Contaminants in Whole Fish 149
Status of Sturgeon in the Great Lakes 156
External Anomaly Prevalence Index (EAPI) for Nearshore Fish 157
3.0 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 160
IV
-------
IMPLEMENTING INDICATORS 2003
A TECHNICAL REPORT
Preface
The governments of Canada and the United States are committed to providing public access to environmental
information that is reported through the State of the Lakes Ecosystem Conference (SOLEC). This commitment is
integral to our mission to protect the environment and human health. To participate effectively in managing
human health and environmental risks, all Great Lakes stakeholders (e.g., federal, provincial, state and local
governments) as well as First Nations and Tribes; non-governmental organizations; industry; academia; private
citizens, should have access to accurate information of appropriate quality and detail.
Implementing Indicators 2003-A Technical Report is the complete compilation of the indicator reports developed
from the Implementing Indicators paper, circulated for review at SOLEC 2002. This technical report provides
fully referenced documentation for the information presented in each indicator report. The purpose of these
indicator reports is to outline the status of specific parameters within the basin in order to gauge the relative
health of the Great Lakes ecosystem. Some of these reports are updated annually while other reports have a less
frequent cycle of review. This reporting timeframe is based upon the nature of the indicator, research and
monitoring initiatives, and the rate of change in the specific indicator parameters within the Great Lakes basin.
The data presented in some cases is representative of the entire basin, while other indictors highlight only certain
geographic locations.
Summaries of these indicator reports have been included in the State of the Great Lakes 2003 report. Also
included in this standard report is a status report on each of the Great Lakes and connecting channels. These
summaries were primarily based on presentations made at SOLEC 2002 in Cleveland, Ohio. These presentations
along with the associated speaking notes can be viewed online at:
www.epa.gov/glnpo
To receive a copy of the State of the Great Lakes 2003 report please contact:
Environment Canada
Office of the Regional Science Advisor
4905 Dufferin Street
Downsview, Ontario
Canada
M3H 5T4
Environmental Protection Agency
Great Lakes National Program Office
77 West Jackson Blvd.
Chicago, Illinois
U.S.A.
60604
http://www.binational.net/
This approach of dual reports, one relatively easy to read (State of the Great Lakes 2003 report) and one with
details and references to data sources (Implementing Indicators 2003 - A Technical Report), also satisfies Guidelines
for Ensuring and Maximizing the Quality, Objectivity, Utility, and Integrity of Information Disseminated by Federal
Agencies, OMB, 2002, (67 FR 8452). The guidelines were developed in response to U.S. Public Law 106-554; H.R.
5658, Section 515(a) of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2001.
The development and maintenance of the Great Lakes suite of indicators is an evolving process. Efforts are
underway to further refine this suite to ensure that the indicator information is accessible and to ensure that the
information being presented can be used to effectively assess the health and state of the Great Lakes ecosystem.
-------
IMPLEMENTING INDICATORS 2003
A TECHNICAL REPORT
Section 1
Indicator Assessments
1.1 STATE INDICATOR REPORTS-PART 1
SUMMARY OF STATE INDICATORS-PART 1
The overall assessment for the State indicators is incomplete. Part One of this Assessment presents the
indicators for which we have the most comprehensive and current basin-wide information. Data presented in
Part Two of this report represent indicators for which information is not available year to year or are not
basin-wide across jurisdictions. Within the Great Lakes indicator suite, 38 have yet to be reported, or require
further development. In a few cases, indicator reports have been included that were prepared for SOLEC 2000,
but that were not updated for SOLEC 2002. The information about those indicators is believed to be still valid,
and therefore appropriate to be considered in the assessment of the Great Lakes. In other cases, the required
data have not been collected. Changes to existing monitoring programs or the initiation of new monitoring
programs are also needed. Several indicators are under development. More research or testing may be needed
before these indicators can be assessed.
Indicator Name
Salmon and Trout
Walleye
Hexagenia
Preyfish Populations
Lake Trout
Abundance of Benthic Amphipod Diporeia
Benthic Diversity and Abundance
Phytoplankton Populations
Zooplankton Populations
Amphibian Diversity and Abundance
Wetland-Dependent Bird Diversity and
Abundance
Area, Quality and Protection of Alvar
Communities
Assessment in 2000
No Report
Good
Mixed, improving
Mixed
Mixed
Mixed
No Report
Not Assessed
Not Assessed
Mixed, deteriorating
Mixed, deteriorating
Mixed
Assessment in 2002
Mixed
Mixed
Mixed, improving
Mixed, deteriorating
Mixed
Mixed, deteriorating
Mixed
Mixed
Mixed
Mixed, deteriorating
Mixed, deteriorating
Mixed
Green represents an improvement of the indicator assessment from 2000.
Red represents deterioration of the indicator assessment from 2000.
Black represents no change in the indicator assessment from 2000, or where no previous
assessment exists.
-------
IMPLEMENTING INDICATORS 2003
A TECHNICAL REPORT
Salmon and Trout
Indicator ID #8 - Indicator Matrix
Assessment: Mixed
Purpose
This indicator shows trends in populations of
introduced trout and salmon species in the Great
Lakes basin. These trends have been used to evaluate
the resulting impact on native fish populations.
Ecosystem Objective
In order to manage Great Lakes fisheries, a common
fish community goal was developed for all
management agencies; "To secure fish communities,
based on foundations of stable self-sustaining stocks,
supplemented by judicious plantings of hatchery-
reared fish, and provide from these communities an
optimum contribution of fish, fishing opportunities
and associated benefits to meet needs identified by
society for: wholesome food, recreation, cultural
heritage, employment and income, and a healthy
aquatic ecosystem" (GLFC, 1997).
Each lake has individual Fish Community Goals and
Objectives (FCGO) for introduced trout and salmon
species, in order to establish harvest or yield targets
consistent with FCGO for lake trout restoration, and
in Lake Ontario, for Atlantic salmon restoration.
Lake Ontario (1999): Salmon and trout catch rates in
recreational fisheries continuing at early-1990s levels.
Lake Erie (1999 draft): Manage the eastern basin to
provide sustainable harvests of valued fish species,
including.. .lake trout, rainbow trout and other
salmonines.
Lake Huron (1995): A diverse salmonine community
that can sustain an annual harvest of 2.4 million kg
with lake trout the dominant species and anadromous
(stream-spawning) species also having a prominent
place.
Lake Michigan: A diverse salmonine community
capable of sustaining an annual harvest of 2.7 to 6.8
million kg (6 to 15 million Ib), of which 20-25% is lake
trout.
Lake Superior (1990): Achieve.. .an unspecified yield
of other salmonine predators, while maintaining a
predator/prey balance that allows normal growth of
lake trout.
Non-native salmonines have become a prominent
element in the Great Lakes ecosystem and an
important concept in Great Lakes fisheries
management objectives. The populations of
introduced salmonine species are managed to keep
alewife abundance below levels associated with the
suppression of native fishes, while avoiding wild
oscillations in predator-prey ratios and the
undermining of the integrity of the ecosystem. In
addition, they are also responsible for a substantial
economic impact, through the creation of recreational
fishing opportunities.
State of the Ecosystem
Non-native salmonine species are stocked in the Great
Lakes ecosystem for a dual purpose: 1) to exert a
biological control over alewife and rainbow smelt
populations (both exotics) and 2) to develop a new
recreational fishery (Rand and Stewart, 1998) after
decimation of the native top predator (lake trout) by
the exotic, predaceous sea lamprey.
Non-native salmonines are used as a tool for alewife
control. Alewives are viewed as a nuisance in the
system since they prey on the larvae of a variety of
native fishes, including yellow perch and lake trout,
and because when alewife become very abundant
massive die-offs can occur that foul beaches used for
recreation. In addition, thiaminase in alewives also
has been suggested to cause Early Mortality
Syndrome (EMS) in salmonines that consume alewife,
which is a threat for lake trout rehabilitation
prospects in Lakes Michigan, Huron and Ontario, and
Year
Ontario-»-Erie -*-Huron-»-Michigan-o-Superior|
Figure 1. Total number of non-native salmon and
trout stocked in the Great Lakes, 1966-1998.
Source: Crawford, 2001
-------
IMPLEMENTING INDICATORS 2003
A TECHNICAL REPORT
«r 20
g
1 15
10
0)
£2
E
Year
Brown Trout D Coho Salmon D Chinook Salmon D Rainbow Trout
Figure 2. Non-native salmonie stocking by species in the great Lakes, 1966-1998.
Source: Crawford, 2001
Atlantic salmon restoration in Lake Ontario.
A dramatic increase in stocking of non-native
salmonines occurred in the 1960s and 1970s, which is
now augmented by natural reproduction. It is
estimated from stocking data that -745 million non-
native salmonines have been stocked in the Great
Lakes basin between 1966 and 1998 (Crawford, 2001).
Figure 1 shows the total amount of non-native
salmonine stocking occurring in the Great Lakes basin
from 1966-1998. From Figure 1 it is evident that Lake
Michigan is the most heavily stocked lake, with a
maximum stocking level in 1984 of 15,578,125 fish. In
contrast Lake Erie has the lowest rates of stocking,
with a maximum of 4,815,303 fish in 1977. Lakes
Ontario, Huron and Superior all seem to display a
similar trend in stocking, especially in recent years.
Since the late 1980s, the number of non-native
salmonines stocked in the Great Lakes has been
leveling off or slightly declining. This trend can be
explained by stocking limits implemented in 1993 by
fish managers to lower prey consumption by
salmonine species by 50% in Lake Ontario (Schaner et
al., 2001) and by the implementation of stocking
ceilings in Lakes Michigan and Huron, as alewife
populations are vulnerable to excessive salmonine
predation (Korik and Jones, 1999).
Figure 2 shows the non-native salmonine stocking by
species in the Great Lakes basin from 1966-1998. It is
evident from Figure 2 that chinook salmon represents
the most heavily stocked non-native salmonine in the
Great Lakes basin over the study period, accounting
for -45% of all salmonine releases (Crawford, 2001).
Chinook salmon are the least expensive of all non-
native salmonines to rear, they also prey almost
exclusively on alewife and are thus, the backbone of
stocking programs in alewife-infested lakes, such as
Lakes Michigan, Huron and Ontario. Like other
salmonines, chinook salmon are also stocked in order
to provide an economically important sport fishery,
which is a need, identified by society. While chinook
salmon have the greatest prey demand of all stocked
salmonines, an estimated 76, 000 tones of alewife are
consumed annually by all salmonine predators (Korik
and Jones, 1999).
Future Pressures
Many of these introduced species are reproducing
successfully in portions of the basin, and can be
-------
IMPLEMENTING INDICATORS 2003
A TECHNICAL REPORT
considered to be "naturalized" components of the
ecosystem. Therefore, the question is no longer
whether non-native salmonines should be introduced,
but rather how to determine the appropriate
abundance of salmonine species in this system.
Rand and Stewart (1998), suggest that predatory
salmonines have the potential to create a situation
where prey (alewife) is limiting and ultimately
predator survival is reduced. For example, during the
1990s, chinook salmon in Lake Michigan suffered
dramatic declines due to high mortality and high
prevalence of Bacterial Kidney Disease (BKD), when
alewife was no longer abundant in the prey fish
community (Hansen and Holey, 2002). Therefore it is
evident that chinook salmon are extremely vulnerable
to low alewife abundance. In addition, it is estimated
that salmonine predators could have been consuming
as much as 53% of alewife biomass in Lake Michigan
annually (Brown et al., 1999). While suppressing
alewife populations, managers must seek to avoid
extreme "boom and bust" predator and prey
populations, a condition not conducive to biological
integrity. The current adaptive management objective
is to produce a predator/prey balance by adhering to
stocking ceilings established for each lake, based on
assessment of forage species and naturally produced
salmonines. Alewife populations in the Great Lakes
have now become an object of fisheries management
concern because of their importance as a forage base
for salmonine sport fishery, and to some managers are
no longer viewed as a nuisance (Kotik and Jones,
1999). Consequently, with finite prey and habitat
resources for salmonine production, each species will
exist at some expense to others. To date there is no
evidence that current levels of non-native salmonine
stocking are an impediment to the restoration of
native salmonines; however, there is no guarantee
that this will continue to be the case in the future.
Future Activities
Many of these salmonine species are still being
stocked in order to maintain an adequate population
to suppress non-native prey species (alewife) and for
recreational fisheries. It still remains unknown to
what extent stocking of these species (where it is still
practiced) should continue in order to avoiding
oscillations in the forage base of the ecosystem. More
research needs to be conducted to determine the
optimal number of non-native salmonines, to estimate
abundance of naturally produced salmonine species,
to assess the abundance of forage species, and to
better understand the role of non-native salmonines
and exotic prey species in the Great Lakes Ecosystem.
Fisheries managers also find it difficult to predict
appropriate stocking levels in the Great Lakes basin
because there is a delay before stocked salmon
become significant consumers of alewife; meanwhile
alewife can suffer severe die offs in particularly severe
winters. Within a natural ecosystem, there will always
be limits to the level of stocking that can be
adequately sustained, and this level is based on the
balance between bioenergetic demands of both
predator and prey (Kocik and Jones, 1999). Chinook
salmon will probably continue to be the most
abundantly stocked salmonine species in the basin,
since they are inexpensive to rear, feed heavily on
alewife, and a highly valued by recreational fishers.
Fisheries managers should continue to model, assess,
and practice adaptive management with the ultimate
objective being to meet the "needs identified by
society".
Further Work Necessary
Data of both the number of stocked and naturally
produced salmonines and of prey fish abundance
(alewife) needs to be continually maintained in order
for fisheries managers to stock judiciously in
implementing adaptive management for predator/
prey balance, for recreational fisheries, and for a
healthy aquatic ecosystem. This indicator should be
reported frequently as salmonine stocking is a
complex and dynamic management intervention in
the Great Lakes Ecosystem.
Acknowledgments
Author: Melissa Greenwood, Environment Canada, Downsview, ON.
Sources
Brown Jr., E.H., Busiahn, T.R., Jones, M.L., and Argyle, R.L. (1999). Allocating
Great Lakes Forage Bases in Response to Multiple Demand. Great Lakes Fisheries
Policy and Management: a Binational Perspective. Taylor, W.W. and Ferreri CP.
(eds). East Lansing, MI, Michigan State University Press (www.msu.edu/unit/
msupress): pp. 355-394
Crawford, S.S. (2001). Salmonine Introductions to the Laurentian Great Lakes: An
Historical Review and Evaluation of Ecological Effects. Canadian Special
Publication of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences.132:205pp.
GLFC-Great Lakes Fishery Commission (2001). Strategic Vision of the Great
Lakes Fishery Commission for the First Decade of the New Millennium.
Available [online] www.glfc.org. [Accessed 2002, 08, 02]
GLFC-Great Lakes Fishery Commission. (1997). A Joint Strategic Plan for
Management of Great Lakes Fisheries, Ann Arbor, MI.
-------
IMPLEMENTING INDICATORS 2003
A TECHNICAL REPORT
Hansen, MJ. and M.E. Holey. 2002. Ecological factors affecting the sustainability
of chinook and coho salmon populations in the Great Lakes, especially Lake
Michigan, pp. 155-179 inLynch, K.D., Jones, M.L. and Taylor. W.W. Sustaining
North American salmon: Perspectives across regions and disciplines. American
Fisheries Society Press, Bethesda, MD.
Kocik, J.F., and Jones, M.L. (1999). Pacific Salmonines in the Great Lakes Basin.
Great Lakes Fisheries Policy and Management: a Binational Perspective. Taylor,
W.W. and Ferreri C.R (eds). East Lansing, MI, Michigan State University Press
(www.msu.edu/unit/msupress): pp 455-489.
Rand, PS. and Steward D.J. (1998). Prey fish exploitation, salmonine production,
and pelagic food web efficiency in Lake Ontario. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 55:318-
327.
Schaner, T., Bowlby J.N., Daniels, M., Lantry B.F. (2001). Lake Ontario Offshore
Pelagic Fish Community. Lake Ontario Fish Communities and Fisheries: 2000
Annual Report of the Lake Ontario Management Unit, pp 1.1-1.10.
Stocking data: Adapted from Crawford (2001). Primary source from the Great
Lakes Fishery Commission fish stocking database (1966-1998) received from
Mark Holey (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service), March 2000.
Walleye
SOLEC Indicator #9 - Indicator Matrix
Assessment: Mixed
Purpose
Trends in walleye fishery yields generally reflect
changes in walleye health. As a top predator, walleyes
can strongly influence overall fish community
composition and affect the stability and resiliency of
Great Lakes aquatic communities. Therefore, walleye
health is a useful indicator of ecosystem health,
particularly in moderately productive (mesotrophic)
areas of the Great Lakes.
Ecosystem Objective
Protection, enhancement, and restoration of
historically important, mesotrophic habitats that
support natural stocks of walleye as the top predator
fish are necessary for stable, balanced, and productive
elements of the Great Lakes ecosystem.
State of the Ecosystem
Reductions in phosphorus loadings during the 1970s
substantially improved spawning and nursery habitat
for many fish species in the Great Lakes. Improved
mesotrophic habitats (i.e., western Lake Erie, Bay of
Quinte, Saginaw Bay, and Green Bay) in the 1980s,
along with interagency fishery management
programs that increased adult survival, led to a
dramatic recovery of walleyes in many areas of the
Great Lakes, especially in Lake Erie. High water
levels also may have played a role in the recovery in
some lakes or bays. Annual trends in fishery
harvests generally track walleye recovery in these
areas, with peak harvests occurring in the mid-1980s
to early 1990s followed by declines from the mid-
1990s through 2001 in most areas. Total yields were
highest in Lake Erie (averaged about 4,700 metric
tons, 1975-2001), intermediate in Lakes Huron and
Ontario (<300 metric tons in all years), and lowest in
Lakes Michigan and Superior (<10 metric tons).
Declines after the mid-1990s were likely related to
shifts in environmental states (i.e., from mesotrophic
to less favorable oligotrophic conditions), less
frequent production of strong hatches, changing
fisheries, and, perhaps in the case of Lake Erie, a
population naturally coming into balance with its
prey base. The effects of non-native species on the
food web or on walleye behavior (increased water
clarity can limit daytime feeding) also may have been
a contributing factor. In general, walleye yields
peaked under ideal environmental conditions and
declined under less favorable (i.e., non-mesotrophic)
conditions. Despite recent declines in walleye yields,
environmental conditions remain improved relative
to the!970s.
Future Pressures
Natural, self-sustaining walleye populations require
adequate spawning and nursery habitats. In the Great
Lakes, these habitats lie in tributary streams and
nearshore reefs, wetlands, and embayments and have
been used by native walleye stocks for thousands of
years. Degradation or loss of these habitats is the
primary concern for the future health of walleye
populations and can result from both human causes,
as well as from natural environmental variability.
Increased human use of nearshore and watershed
environments continue to alter the natural
hydrologic regime, affecting water quality (i.e.,
sediment loads) and rate of flow. Environmental
factors that affect precipitation patterns ultimately
alter water levels, water temperature, water clarity,
and flow. Thus, global warming and its subsequent
effects on temperature and precipitation in the Great
Lakes basin may become increasingly important
determinants of walleye health. Non-native
invaders, such as zebra and quagga mussels, ruffe,
and round gobies continue to disrupt the efficiency of
energy transfer through the food web.
-------
IMPLEMENTING INDICATORS 2003
A TECHNICAL REPORT
Lake Superior
to
I
g
Year
Green Bay, Lake Michigan
g
500
[2 400
Year
Saginaw Bay, Lake Huron
Year
Lake Ontario
CO
Lake Michigan
CO
I
o
Year
Lake Huron
Year
Lake Erie
Year
Bay of Quinte
Year
Year
I Commercial n Recreational D Tribal
Figure 1. Recreational, commercial and tribal harvest of Walleye from the Great Lakes. Fish community
goals and objectives; Lake Huron: 700 metric tons; Lake Michigan: 100-200 metric tons; Lake Erie:
sustainable harvest in all basins.
Source: Fishery harvest data were obtained from Tom Stewart and Jim Hoyle (Lake Ontario-OMNR),Tom Eckhart and Steve Lapan (Lakes Ontario-
NYDEC), Karen Wright (Upper Lake tribal data-COTFMA), Dave Fielder (Lake Huron-MDNR), Lloyd Mohr (Lake Huron-OMNR), Terry Lychwyck (Green
Bay-WDNR), Bruce Morrison (Lake Erie-OMNR), Ken Cullis and Jeff Black (Lake Superior-OMNR), various annual OMNR and ODNR Lake Erie fisheries
reports, and the GLFC commercial fishery database
-------
IMPLEMENTING INDICATORS 2003
A TECHNICAL REPORT
Future Activities
Research is needed to identify further critical
reproductive habitats and how they are being affected
by environmental and anthropogenic disturbances.
This information is crucial to develop management
plans that carefully balance human demands with
ecosystem health. GIS technology will be the major
tool toward this endeavor. Continued development
and maintenance of long-term, geo-referenced
databases that encompass both ecological and
physical aspects of the Great Lakes basin are needed.
Ultimately, spatially explicit ecosystem models will be
developed to allow better forecasting of system
responses to management actions both within and
across all Great Lakes.
Further Work Necessary
Fishery yields can serve as appropriate indicators of
walleye health but only in a general sense. Yield
assessments are lacking for some fisheries
(recreational, commercial, or tribal) or in some years
for all of the areas. Moreover, measurement units are
not standardized among fishery types (i.e.,
commercial fisheries are measured in pounds while
recreational fisheries are typically measured in
numbers), which means additional conversions are
necessary and may introduce errors. Therefore, trends
in yields across time are probably better indicators
than absolute values within any year, assuming that
any introduced bias is relatively constant over time.
Given the above, a 10-year reporting cycle on this
indicator may be appropriate, and all agencies should
be encouraged to compile walleye harvest data from
their major fisheries. In light of serious fiscal
constraints now being imposed on virtually all
agencies, this recommendation may be difficult to
achieve.
Acknowledgments
Author: Roger Knight, Ohio Department of Natural Resources, OH,
roger.knight@dnr.state.oh.us
Sources
Fishery harvest data were obtained from Tom Stewart and Jim Hoyle (Lake
Ontario-OMNR), Tom Eckhart and Steve Lapan (Lake Ontario-NYDEC), Karen
Wright (Upper Lakes tribal data-COTFMA), Dave Fielder (Lake Huron-MDNR),
Lloyd Mohr (Lake Huron-OMNR), Terry Lychwyck (Green Bay-WDNR), Bruce
Morrison (Lake Erie-OMNR), KenCullis and Jeff Black (LakeSuperior-OMNR),
various annual OMNR and ODNR Lake Erie fisheries reports, and the GLFC
commercial fishery database. Fishery data should not be used for purposes outside
of this document without first contacting the agencies that collected them.
Hexagenia
SOLEC Indicator #9a - Indicator Matrix
Assessment: Mixed Improving
Purpose
The distribution, abundance, biomass, and annual
production of the burrowing mayfly Hexagenia in
mesotrophic Great Lakes habitats is measured
directly and used as the indicator. Hexagenia is used as
an indicator of ecosystem health because it is
intolerant of pollution and is thus a good reflection of
water and lakebed sediment quality in mesotrophic
Great Lakes habitats, where it was historically the
dominant, large, benthic invertebrate and an
important item on the diets of may valuable fishes.
Ecosystem Objective
Historically productive Great Lakes mesotrophic
habitats e.g., western Lake Erie; the Bay of Quinte,
Lake Ontario; Saginaw Bay, Lake Huron; and Green
Bay, Lake Michigan, should be restored and
maintained as balanced, stable, and productive
elements of the Great Lakes ecosystem with
Hexagenia as the dominant, large, benthic
invertebrate.
State of the Ecosystem
Major declines in the abundance of Hexagenia and low
abundance or absence in some Great Lakes habitats
where they were historically abundant have been
linked to eutrophication and low dissolved oxygen in
bottom waters and to pollution of sediments by
metals and petroleum products. For example,
Hexagenia was abundant in the western and central
basins of Lake Erie in the 1930s and 1940s but an
extensive mortality occurred in 1953 in the eastern
portion of the western basin. The population there
recovered in 1954, but extirpation followed
throughout the western and central basins by the
early 1960s. Improvements in water and sediment
quality in historical Hexagenia habitat following the
imposition of pollution controls in the 1960s were not
immediately followed by the recovery of Hexagenia
populations. Surveys conducted by the USGS, Great
Lakes Science Center in spring 2001 revealed no
recovery of Hexagenia in Saginaw Bay. Evidence of the
beginnings of recovery of Hexagenia in Green Bay, and
full or nearly full recovery of the population in
western Lake Erie, indicate that these mesotrophic
8
-------
IMPLEMENTING INDICATORS 2003
A TECHNICAL REPORT
habitats can be considered healthy. Canadian
biologists report the recovery of Hexagenia in the Bay
of Quinte, Lake Ontario indicating pollution control
programs have significantly improved the health of
that habitat. Most of Lake St. Clair and portions of the
upper Great Lakes connecting channels support
populations of Hexagenia with the highest biomass
and production measured anywhere in North
America (Fig. 1). However, Hexagenia was extirpated
in polluted portions of the St. Marys and Detroit
Rivers by the mid-1980s and no recovery has yet been
reported for some of these areas.
The recovery of Hexagenia in western Lake Erie is a
signal event, which shows dearly that properly
implemented pollution controls can bring about the
recovery of a major Great Lakes mesotrophic
ecosystem. With its full recovery, the Hexagenia
population in western Lake Erie will probably reclaim
its functional status as a primary agent in sediment
bioturbation and as a trophic integrator directly
linking the detrital energy resource to fish, and
particularly the economically valuable yellow perch-
walleye community. The recovery of Hexagenia in
western Lake Erie also helps remind us of one
outstanding public outreach feature associated with
using Hexagenia as an indicator of ecosystem health-
the massive swarms of winged adults that are
typical of healthy, productive Hexagenia populations
in areas of historical abundance in the Great Lakes.
These swarms are highly visible to the public who
can use them to judge the success of water pollution
control programs and the health of Great Lakes
mesotrophic ecosystems.
Future Pressures
The virtual extirpation and delayed recovery of the
Hexagenia population in western Lake Erie was
attributed to the widespread, periodic occurrence of
anoxic bottom waters resulting from nutrient inputs
in sewage and runoff from agricultural lands, and to
toxic pollutants, including oil and heavy metals,
which accumulated and persisted in the lakebed
sediments. Most point source inputs are now
controlled, but in-place pollutants in lakebed
sediments appear to be a problem in some areas.
Paved surface runoff, spills of pollutants, and
combined sewer overflows also pose a major problem
in some urban and industrial areas. Phosphorus
loadings still exceed guideline levels in some portions
6000
5000
4000
3000
.3
o 2000
ol
1000
500 1000 1500 2000
Biomass (mg dry weight/m2)
Figure 1. Mean annual biomass and production of
Hexagenia populations in North America.
Source: T.A. Edsall, R.C. Haas, and J.V. Adams, 2001.
of the Great Lakes and loadings may increase as the
human population in the Great Lakes basin grows.
The effects of non-native species on Hexagenia and its
usefulness as an indicator of ecosystem health are
unknown and may be problematic. It has been
postulated that the colonization of the western basin
of Lake Erie by the zebra mussel (Dreissena polymorpha)
and the recovery of Hexagenia are linked causally, but
no specific mechanism has yet been proposed.
Support for zebra mussel as a major factor in the
recovery of Hexagenia in the western basin is perhaps
eroded by the fact that Saginaw Bay, Lake Huron, is
also heavily colonized by the zebra mussel, but the
Hexagenia population there, which collapsed in 1955-
1956, still has not shown signs of recovery. A survey
conducted by the USGS in spring 2001 at 49 stations
(total of 140 Ponar grab samples) yielded only one
Hexagenia nymph.
Future Activities
Regulate point sources and non-point sources of
pollution and sharply reduce spills of pollutants in
the basin to improve and maintain Great Lakes water
and sediment quality consistent with the
environmental requirements of healthy, productive
populations of Hexagenia. Continue development and
application of technology and practices designed to
restore lakebed and riverbed sediment quality in
-------
IMPLEMENTING INDICATORS 2003
A TECHNICAL REPORT
• Recc
•f. D Recc
<^ |k BNotF
Recovered Fully
Recovered Partially
Recovered
Figure 2. Areas of recovery and non-recovery of
mayflies (Hexagenia) in the Great Lakes.
Source: T.A. Edsall, M.T. Bur, O.T. Gorman, and J.S. Schaeffer, 2002
Areas of Concern (AOCs) and critical Hexagenia
habitat areas that have problem levels of persistent,
in-place pollutants.
Further Work Necessary
1. Develop a monitoring program and collect baseline
data for Hexagenia populations in all major, historical,
Great Lakes mesotrophic habitats so that changes in
ecosystem health can be monitored and reported,
management strategies evaluated and improved, and
corrective actions taken to improve ecosystem health
and to judge progress toward reaching interim and
long term targets and goals.
2. Implement a new labor-saving monitoring protocol
involving sampling in late spring, immediately prior
to the annual emergence of adults and washing the
samples on a 3.2-mm screen. This approach allows
either the number or biomass of the nymphs on the
screen to serve as the metric representing the status of
the nymphal population and the health of the
ecosystem (Fig 2).
3. Conduct studies needed to describe the interactions
between Hexagenia and introduced aquatic species
and the effect of those species, if any, on the utility of
Hexagenia as an indicator of ecosystem health.
Acknowledgments
Author: Thomas Edsall, U.S. Geological Survey, Biological Resources
Division, Ann Arbor, MI, thomas_edsall@usgs.gov
Sources
Edsall, T. A., Gorman, O.T., and Evrard, L.M. 2003. Burrowing mayflies as indicators
of ecosystem health: status of populations in two western Lake Superior
embayments. Unpublished MS, Great Lakes Science Center, Ann Arbor, MI.
Edsall, T.A., Bur, M.T., Gorman, O.T., and Schaeffer, J.S. 2002. Burrowing mayflies
as indicators of ecosystem health: status of populations in western Lake Erie,
Saginaw Bay (Lake Huron), and Green Bay (Lake Michigan). Report to USEPA/
GLNPO, January 2002.28.pp.
Edsall, T. A., Hass, R.C., and Adams, J.V. 2001. Production of burrowing mayfly
nymphs inU.S. waters of Lake St. Glair./. Great Lakes Res. 27:449-456.
Preyfisn Populations
Indicator ID #17 - Indicator Matrix
Assessment: Mixed Deteriorating
Purpose
To directly measure abundance and diversity of
preyfish populations, especially in relation to the
stability of predator species necessary to maintain
the biological integrity of each lake.
Ecosystem Objective
The importance of preyfish populations to support
healthy, productive populations of predator fishes is
recognized in the FCGOs for each lake. For example,
the fish community objectives for Lake Michigan
specify that in order to restore an ecologically
balanced fish community, a diversity of prey species
at population levels matched to primary production
and predator demands must be maintained. This
indicator also relates to the 1997 Strategic Great
Lakes Fisheries Management Plan Common Goal
Statement for Great Lakes fisheries agencies.
The preyfish assemblage forms important trophic
links in the aquatic ecosystem and constitute the
majority of the fish production in the Great Lakes.
Preyfish populations in each of the lakes are
currently monitored on an annual basis in order to
quantify the population dynamics of these important
fish stocks leading to a better understanding of the
processes that shape the fish community and to
identify those characteristics critical to each species.
Populations of lake trout, Pacific salmon, and other
salmonids in have been established as part of
intensive programs designed to rehabilitate (or
develop new) game fish populations and commercial
fisheries. These economically valuable predator
species sustain an increasingly demanding and
highly valued fisheries and information on their
10
-------
IMPLEMENTING INDICATORS 2003
A TECHNICAL REPORT
status is crucial. In turn, these apex predators are
sustained by forage fish populations. In addition, the
bloater and the lake herring, which are native
species, and the rainbow smelt are also directly
important to the commercial fishing industry.
Therefore, it is very important that the current status
and estimated carrying capacity of the preyfish
populations be fully understood in order to fully
address (1) lake trout restoration goals, (2) stocking
projections, (3), present levels of salmonid abundance
and (4) commercial fishing interests.
Features
The segment of the Great Lakes' fish communities
that we classify as preyfish comprises species -
including both pelagic and benthic species - that prey
on invertebrates for their entire life history. As adults,
preyfish depend on diets of crustacean zooplankton
and macroinvertebrates Diporeia and Mi/sis. This
convention also supports the recognition of particle-
size distribution theory and size-dependent ecological
processes. Based on size-spectra theory, body size is
an indicator of trophic level and the smaller, short-
lived fish that constitute the planktivorous fish
assemblage discussed here are a discernable trophic
group of the food web. At present, bloaters (Coregonus
hoyi), lake herring (Coregonus artedi), rainbow smelt
(Osmerus mordax), alewife (Alosa pseudoharengus), and
deepwater sculpins (Myoxocephalus thompsoni), and to
a lesser degree species like lake whitefish (Coregonus
clupeaformis), ninespine stickleback (Pungitius
pungitius) and slimy sculpin (Cottus cognatus)
constitute the bulk of the preyfish communities.
In Lake Erie, the prey fish community is unique
among the Great Lakes in that it is characterized by
relatively high species diversity. The prey fish
community comprises primarily gizzard shad
(Dorosoma cepedianum) and alewife (grouped as
clupeids), emerald (Notropis atherinoides) and spottail
shiners (N. hudsonius), silver chubs (Hybopsis
storeriana), trout-perch (Percopsis omiscomaycus), round
gobies (Neogobius melanostomus), and rainbow smelt
(grouped as soft-rayed), and age-0 yellow (Perca
flavescens) and white perch (Morone americana), and
white bass (M. chrysops) (grouped as spiny-rayed).
State of the Ecosystem
Lake Ontario: Alewives and to a lesser degree
rainbow smelt dominate the preyfish population.
Alewives declined to a low level in 2002 after being
driven to intermediate levels in 2000-2001 by an
exceptionally strong 1998 year class and a strong 1999
year class; although alewives produced a weak year
class in 2000, they produced a strong year class in
2001. Rainbow smelt were at record low levels in
2000-2002; a paucity of large individuals indicates
heavy predation pressure. Alewife and rainbow smelt
moved to deeper water in the early 1990s when zebra
and quagga mussels colonized the lake and they
remain in deeper water to this day. Slimy sculpin
populations declined coincident with the collapse of
Diporeia and show no signs of returning to former
levels of abundance. No deepwater sculpins were
caught in 2000-2001. Assessment for Lake Ontario:
Mixed, deteriorating.
Lake Erie: The prey fish community in all three basins
of Lake Erie has shown declining trends. In the
eastern basin, rainbow smelt have shown declines in
abundance over the past two decades, although slight
increases have occurred in the past couple years. The
declines have been attributed to lack of recruitment
associated with expanding Driessenid colonization
and reductions in productivity. The western and
central basins also have shown declines in forage fish
abundance associated with declines in abundance of
age-0 white perch and rainbow smelt, respectively.
The clupeid component of the forage fish community
has shown no overall trend in the past decade,
although gizzard shad and alewife abundance has
been quite variable across the survey period. The
biomass estimates for western Lake Erie were based
on data from bottom trawl catches, data from acoustic
trawl mensuration gear, and depth strata
extrapolations (0-6 m, and >6 m). Assessment for
Lake Erie: Mixed, deteriorating.
Lake Michigan: In recent years, alewife biomass has
remained at consistently lower levels compared to the
1970-1980s. Some increase in abundance is noted with
strong 1995 and 1998 year classes, but the current low
population levels appear to be driven in large part by
predation pressure. Rainbow smelt have declined and
remain at lower levels, possibly due to predation.
Bloater biomass has declined steadily since 1990 and
is attributed to a lack of recruitment and slow growth.
Bloaters are expected to decline further, but may
rebound as part of an anticipated natural cycle in
abundance. Sculpins remain at the same level of
abundance and continue to contribute a significant
11
-------
IMPLEMENTING INDICATORS 2003
A TECHNICAL REPORT
V 6-r
Superior
300
Huron
Year
D Lake Herrina • Rainbow Smelt
niakeWhitefish • Bloater
Year
• Bloater • Alewife
D Rainbow Smelt D Misc.
Year
I Bloater CUDeepwater Sculpin
I Smelt BAIwife
Year
D Spiny-rayed • Soft-rayed
Clupeid
Figure 1. Preyfish population trends in the Great Lakes. The red lines indicate the general trend in overall
preyfish populations in each Lake. The measurement reported varies from Lake to Lake, as shown on the
vertical scale, and comparisons between Lakes may be misleading. Overall trends overtime provide
information on relative abundances.
Source: U.S. Geological Survey Great Lakes Science Center, except Lake Erie, which is from surveys conducted by the Ohio Division of Wildlife and
the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources
12
-------
IMPLEMENTING INDICATORS 2003
A TECHNICAL REPORT
portion of the preyfish biomass. No age-0 yellow
perch were caught in 2001, indicating another failed
year class in a series since 1989. Lake-wide biomass of
Dreissenid mussels increased between 1999 and 2001
(with the quagga mussel invasion just beginning)
while Diporeia populations continue to decline.
Assessment for Lake Michigan: Mixed, deteriorating.
Lake Huron: Similar to Lake Michigan, the decline in
bloater abundance has resulted in shift in an
increased proportion of alewives in the preyfish
community. The changes in the abundance and age
structure of the prey for salmon and trout to
predominantly younger, smaller fish suggests that
predation pressure is an important force in both
alewife and rainbow smelt populations. Sculpin
populations have varied, but have been at lower
levels in recent years. No sampling was conducted in
L. Huron in 2000 but was resumed in 2001. In 2001
bloater and rainbow smelt continued to decline in
importance while alewife continued to increase due in
part to a particularly strong 2001 year class. Alewife
regained their position as the dominant preyfish
species in Lake Huron, largely as a result of a series of
strong year classes since 1998. Whitefish continue to
decline from peak levels in the mid 1990s. Overall, the
L. Huron fish community is dominated by non-native
species, notably alewife. Round gobies and
Driessenid mussels are proliferating throughout the
lake and increasing in abundance. Assessment for
Lake Huron: Mixed, deteriorating.
Lake Superior: Over the past 10-15 years, prey fish
populations declined in total biomass when
compared to the peak years in 1986,1990, and 1994, a
period when lake herring was the dominant prey fish
species and wild lake trout populations were starting
to recover. Since the early 1980s, dynamics in the total
biomass of prey fish has been driven largely by
variation in recruitment of age-1 lake herring. Strong
year classes in 1984,1989, and 1998 were largely
responsible for peak lake herring biomass in 1986,
1990-1994, and 1999. Biomass of rainbow smelt, the
dominant prey fish during 1978-1984, has declined
but has been relatively constant over the past 10
years. Bloater biomass has nearly doubled since the
early 1980s but like smelt, has been more constant
than lake herring. The rise and fall of total prey fish
biomass over the period 1984-2001 reflects the
recovery of wild lake trout stocks and resumption of
commercial harvest of lake herring in Lake Superior.
Increases in prey fish populations are not likely
without reductions in harvest by predators and
commercial fisherman. Other species, notably
sculpins, burbot, and stickleback have declined in
abundance since the recovery of wild lake trout
populations in the mid-1980s. Thus, the current state
of the Lake Superior fish community appears to be
largely the result of the recovery of wild lake trout
stocks coupled with the resumption of human harvest
of key prey species. Assessment for Lake Superior:
Mixed, improving.
Future Pressures
The influences of predation by salmon and trout on
preyfish populations appear to be common across all
lakes. Additional pressures from Dreissena
populations are apparent in Lakes Ontario, Erie, and
Michigan. "Bottom-up" effects on the prey fishes have
already been observed in Lake Ontario following the
dreissenid-linked collapse of Diporeia and are likely to
become apparent in lakes Michigan and Huron as
Dreissenids expand and Diporeia decline.
Furthermore, anecdotal observations in Lake Ontario
indicate that Mysis are declining as Dreissenids
proliferate in profundal waters, suggesting that
dynamics of prey fish populations in future years
could be driven by bottom-up rather than top-down
effects in lakes Michigan, Huron, and Ontario.
Future Activities
Recognition of significant predation effects on
preyfish populations has resulted in recent salmon
stocking cutbacks in Lakes Michigan, Huron, and
Ontario. However, even with a reduced population,
alewives have exhibited the ability to produce strong
year classes such that the continued judicious use of
artificially propagated predators seems necessary to
avoid domination by alewife. It should be noted that
this is not an option in Lake Superior since lake trout
and salmon are largely lake-produced. Potential
"bottom-up" effects on prey fishes would be difficult
in any attempt to mitigate owing to our inability to
affect changes - this scenario only reinforces the need
to avoid further introductions of exotics into the Great
Lake ecosystems.
Further Work Necessary
It has been advanced that in order to restore an
ecologically balanced fish community, a diversity of
prey species at population levels matched to primary
production and predator demands must be
13
-------
IMPLEMENTING INDICATORS 2003
A TECHNICAL REPORT
maintained. However, the current mix of native and
naturalized prey and predator species, and the
contributions of artificially propagated predator
species into the system confound any sense of balance
in lakes other than Superior. The metrics of ecological
balance as the consequence of fish community
structure are best defined through food-web
interactions. It is through understanding the
exchanges of trophic supply and demand that the fish
community can be described quantitatively and
ecological attributes such as balance can be better
defined and the limits inherent to the ecosystem
realized.
Continued monitoring of the fish communities and
regular assessments of food habits of predators and
prey fishes will be required to quantify the food-web
dynamics in the Great Lakes. This recommendation is
especially supported by continued changes that are
occurring not only in the upper but also in the lower
trophic levels. Recognized sampling limitations of
traditional capture techniques (bottom trawling) has
prompted the application of acoustic techniques as
another means to estimate absolute abundance of
prey fishes in the Great Lakes. Though not an
assessment panacea, hydro-acoustics has provided
additional insights and has demonstrated utility in
the estimates of preyfish biomass.
It is obvious that protecting or reestablishing rare or
extirpated members of the once prominent native
prey fishes, most notably the various members of the
whitefish family (Coregonus spp), should be a priority
in all the Great Lakes. This recommendation would
include the deepwater tisco species and should be
reflected in future indicator reports. Lake Superior,
whose preyfish assemblage is dominated by
indigenous species and retains a full complement of
tiscos, should be examined more closely to better
understand the trophic ecology of a more natural
system.
With the continuous nature of changes that seems to
characterize the prey fishes, the appropriate
frequency to review this indicator is on a 5-year basis.
Acknowledgments
This report was compiled by Owen T. Gorman, USGS Great Lakes Science
Center, Lake Superior Biological Station, Ashland, WI,
owen_gorman@usgs.gov; with contributions from Robert O'Gorman and
Randy W. Owens, USGS Great Lakes Science Center, Lake Ontario Biological
Station, Oswego NY; Jean Adams, Charles Madenjian and Jeff Schaeffer,
USGS Great Lakes Science Center, Ann Arbor, M I.; Mike Bur USGS Great Lakes
Science Center, Lake Erie Biological Station, Sandusky OH; and Jeffrey Tyson,
Ohio Div. of Wildlife Sandusky Fish Research Unit, Sandusky, OH.
Sources
All preyfish trend figures are based on annual bottom trawl surveys performed by
USGS Great Lakes Science Center, except the Lake Erie figure, which is from
surveys conducted by the Ohio Division of Wildlife and the Ontario Ministry of
Natural Resources.
Lake Trout
SOLEC Indicator #93 - Indicator Matrix
Note: This indicator has been split from "Lake Trout and
Scud"
Assessment: Mixed
Purpose
This indicator tracks the status and trends in lake
trout populations, and will be used to infer the basic
structure of the cold water predator community and
the general health of the ecosystem. Lake trout were
historically the principal salmonine predator in the
coldwater communities of the Great Lakes. By the late
1950s, lake trout were extirpated throughout most of
the Great Lakes mostly from the combined effects of
sea lamprey predation and over fishing. Restoration
efforts began in the early 1960s with chemical control
of sea lamprey, controls on exploitation, and stocking
of hatchery-reared fish to rebuild populations. Full
restoration will not be achieved until natural
reproduction is established and maintained to sustain
populations. To date, only Lake Superior has that
distinction.
Ecosystem Objective
Self-sustaining, naturally reproducing populations
that support target yields to fisheries are the goal of
the lake trout restoration program. Target yields
approximate historical levels of lake trout harvest or
adjusted to accommodate stocked non-native
predators such as Pacific salmon. These targets are 4
million pounds (1.8 million kg) from Lake Superior,
2.5 million pounds (1.1 million kg) from Lake
Michigan, 2.0 million pounds (0.9 million kg) from
Lake Huron and 0.1 million pounds (0.05 million kg)
from Lake Erie. Lake Ontario has no specific yield
objective but has a population objective of 0.5-1.0
million adult fish that produce 100,000 yearling
recruits annually through natural reproduction.
14
-------
IMPLEMENTING INDICATORS 2003
A TECHNICAL REPORT
State of Ecosystem
Lake trout abundance dramatically increased in all
the Great Lakes after initiation of sea lamprey control,
stocking, and harvest control. Natural reproduction
from large parental stocks of wild fish is occurring
throughout Lake Superior supports both onshore
and offshore populations, and it may be approaching
historical levels. Stocking there has been largely
discontinued. Sustained natural reproduction, albeit
at low levels, has also been occurring in Lake Ontario
since the early 1990s, and in isolated areas of Lake
Huron, but has been largely absent elsewhere in the
Great Lakes. Parental stock sizes of hatchery-reared
fish are relatively high in Lake Ontario and southern
Lake Huron and in a few areas of Lake Michigan, but
sea lamprey predation, fishery extractions, and low
stocking densities have limited population expansion
elsewhere.
Future Pressures
Sea lamprey continue to limit population recovery,
particularly in northern Lake Huron. Fishing
pressures also continue to limit recovery. More
stringent controls on fisheries are required to increase
survival of stocked fish. In northern Lake Michigan
parental stock sizes are low and young in age due to
low stocking densities and moderate fishing
mortality, hence egg deposition is low in most
historically important spawning areas. High
biomass of alewives and predators on lake trout
spawning reefs are thought to inhibit restoration
through egg and fry predation, although the
magnitude of this pressure is unclear. A diet
dominated by alewives may be limiting fry survival
(early mortality syndrome) through thiamine
deficiencies. The loss of Diporeia and dramatic
reductions in the abundance of slimy sculpins is
reducing prey for young lake trout and may be
affecting survival. Current strains of lake trout
stocked may not be appropriate for offshore habitats
therefore limiting colonization potential.
Future Activities
Continued sea lamprey control, especially on the St.
Marys River is required to increase survival of lake
trout to adulthood. New sea lamprey control options,
which include pheromone systems that increase
trapping efficiency and disrupt reproduction, are
being researched and hold promised for improved
control. Continued and enhanced control on
exploitation is being improved through population
modeling in the upper Great Lakes but needs to be
applied throughout the basin. Stocking densities need
to be increased in some areas, especially in Lake
Michigan and the use of alternate strains of lake trout
from Lake Superior could be candidates for deep,
offshore areas not colonized by traditional strains
used for restoration. The relationship between early
mortality syndrome and alewives as prey needs to be
further investigated to account for inconsistent
experimental and empirical results. Directly stocking
of yearling or eggs on traditional spawning sites
should be used where possible to enhance
colonization.
Further Work Necessary
Reporting frequency should be every 5 years.
Monitoring systems are in place but in most lakes
measures do not directly relate to stated harvest
objectives. Objectives may need to be redefined as
end points in units measured by the monitoring
activities.
Acknowledgments
Authors: Charles R. Bronte, U.S. Fishand Wildlife Service, GreenBay, WI, James
Markham, New York Department of Environmental Conservation, Brian Lantry
U.S. Geological Survey, Oswego, NY, Aaron Woldt, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, Alpena, MI, and James Bence, Michigan State University, East Lansing,
MI.
Sources
Bence, J.R. and M.P. Ebener (eds). 2002. Summary status of lake trout and lake
whitefishpopulations in 1936 treaty-ceded waters of Lakes Superior, Huron and
Michigan in 2000, with recommendaed yield and effort levels for 2001. Technical
Fisheries Committee, 1836 Treaty-Ceded Waters of Lakes Superior, Huron and
Michigan.
Bronte, C.R., S.T Schram, J.H. Selgeby and B.L. Swanson. 2002. Reestablishing a
spawning population of lake trout in Lake Superior with fertilized eggs in
artificial turf incubators. N. Am.]. Fish. Manage. 22:796-805.
Cornelius, F.C., K.M. Muth, and R. Kenyon. 1995. Lake trout rehabilitation in
Lake Erie: a case of history. Journal of Great Lakes Research 21 (Supplement
l):65-82.
Desjardine, R.L., T.K. Groenflo, R.N. Payne, and J.D. Schrouder. 1995. Fish-
community objectives for Lake Michigan. Great Lakes Fish. Comm. Spec. Pub. 95-
1. 38p.
Elrod, J.H., R. O'Gorman, C.P Schneider, T.H. Eckert, T Schaner, J.N. Bowlby and
L.R Schleen. 1995. Lake trout rebhabilitationin Lake Ontario./. GreatLakesRes.
21 (Suppl. 1): 83-107
Eshenroder, R.L., M.E. Holey, T.K. Gorenflo, and R.D. Clark, Jr. 1995. Fish-
community objectives for Lake Michigan. Great lakes Fish. Comm. Spec. Pub. 95-
356p.
Eshenroder, R.L., N.R. Payne, J.E. Johnson, C.A. Bowen II, and M.P. Ebener. 1995.
Lake trout rehabilitation in Lake Huron. Journal of Great Lakes Research 21
(Supplement 1): 108-127
15
-------
IMPLEMENTING INDICATORS 2003
A TECHNICAL REPORT
80
Lake Superior - U.S.
60-
40-
20-
0
— Wild
Hatchery
1970 1975
Lake Superior - Canada
1980 1985 1990 1995 2000
Year
0
« 10
1970 1975
Lake Michigan
1980 1985 1990 1995 2000
Year
o
at i/r
J£ C
ro o
8-
6-
4-
2-
0
1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000
Year
30
1 25-
020-
i 1!
o
i 10-
Lake Huron
0
1975 1980
Lake Erie
1985 1990
Year
1995 2000
- All Fish
— Age 5+
— Ages 1-3
25
Lake Ontario
S 20-
v 15-
| 10-
I 5-
— Females
— Males
- Immature
0
1980
1985
1990
Year
1995
2000
Figure 1. Relative or absolute abundance of lake trout in the Great Lakes.The measurement reported varies
from Lake to Lake, as shown on the vertical scale, and comparisons between Lakes may be misleading.
Overall trends overtime provide information on relative abundances.
Source: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Hansen, M.]. [ED.]. 1996. AlaketroutrestorationplanforLakeSuperior. Great
Lakes Fish. Comm. 34p.
Holey, M.E., R.R. Rybicki, G.W. Eck, E.H. Brown, Jr., J.E. Marsden, D.S. Lavis, M.
L. Toneys, T.N. Trudeau, and R.M. Horrall. 1995. Progress toward lake trout
restoration in Lake Michigan. Journal of Great Lakes Research 21 (Supplement
Horns, W.H., C.R. Bronte, T.R. Busiahn, MP. Ebener, R.L. Eshenroder, T. Gorenflo,
N. Kmiecik, W. Mattes, J.W. Peck, M. Petzold, D.R. Schreiner. 2003. Fish-
community objectives for Lake Superior. Great Lakes Fish. Comm. Spec. Pub. 03-
01. 78p.
Lake Trout Task Group. 1985a. A Strategic Plan for the rehabilitation of lake trout
in eastern Lake Erie. Lake Erie Committee. Ann Arbor, M I.
Lantry B.F., Eckert, T.H., O'Gorman, R. and Owens, R.W. 2003. Lake trout
rehabilitation in Lake ONtario, 2002. In: NYDEC Annual Report to the Great
Lakes Fishery Commission's Lake Ontario Committee, March, 2003.
LSLTTC (Lake Superior Lake Trout Technical Committeee). 1986 Alake trout
restoration plan for Lake Superior. In Minutes of the Lake Superior Committee
(1986 annual minutes), arm Arbour, MI, Great Lakes Fishery Commission, March
20, 1986.
Ryan, P.A., R. Knight, R. MacGregor, G. Towns, R. Hoopes, and W. Culligan. 2003.
Fish-community goals and objectives for Lake Erie. Great Lakes Fish. comm. Spec.
PUbl. 03-02. 56p.
Schneider, C.R, T. Schaner, S. Orsatti, S. Lary and D. Busch. 1997. A Management
Strategy for Lake Ontario Lake Trout. Report to the Lake Ontario Committee,
Great Lakes Fishery Commission.
16
-------
IMPLEMENTING INDICATORS 2003
A TECHNICAL REPORT
Stewart, T.J., R.E. Lange, S.D. Orsatti, C.P. Schneider, A. Mathers, ME. Daniels
1999. Fish-community objectives for Lake Ontario. Great Lakes Fish. Comm.
Spec. Pub. 99-1.56p.
Wilberg, M, M.J. Hansen, and C.R. Bronte. 2003. Historic and modern
abundances of wild lean lake trout in Michigan waters of Lake Superior:
implications for restoration goals. N. Am. J.Fish. Manage. 23:100-108.
Abundances of the Bentnic Ampmpod
Diporeia
SOLEC Indicator #93a - Indicator Matrix
Note: This indicator has been split from "Lake Trout and
Scud" and has a new title
Assessment: Mixed Deteriorating
Purpose
This indicator provides a measure of the biological
integrity of the offshore regions of the Great Lakes
and consists of assessing the abundance of the
benthic macroinvertebrate Diporeia. This glacial-
marine relict is the most abundant benthic organism
in cold, offshore regions (>30 m) of each of the lakes. It
is present, but less abundant in nearshore regions of
the open lake basins, and is naturally absent from
shallow, warm bays, basins, and river mouths.
Diporeia occurs in the upper few centimeters of
bottom sediment and feeds on algal material that
freshly settles to the bottom from the water column
(i.e. mostly diatoms). In turn, it is fed upon by almost
all species of fish. In particular, Diporeia is fed upon by
many forage fish species, and these species serve as
prey for the larger fish such as trout and salmon. For
example, sculpin feed almost exclusively upon
Diporeia, and sculpin are fed upon by lake trout. Also,
lake whitefish, an important commercial species,
feeds heavily on Diporeia. Thus, Diporeia is an
important pathway by which energy is cycled
through the ecosystem, and a key component in the
food web of offshore regions. The importance of this
organism is recognized in the Great Lakes Water
Quality Agreement (Supplement to Annex 1-Sperific
Objectives).
Ecosystem Objective
The ecosystem objective is to maintain a healthy,
stable population of Diporeia in offshore regions of the
main basins of the Great Lakes, and to maintain at
least a presence in nearshore regions. On a broad
scale, abundances are directly related to the amount
of food settling to the bottom, and population trends
reflect the overall productivity of the ecosystem.
Abundances can also vary somewhat relative to
shifts in predation pressure from changing fish
populations. In nearshore regions, this species is
sensitive to local sources of pollution.
State of the Ecosystem
Populations of Diporeia are currently in a state of
dramatic decline in portions of Lakes Michigan,
Ontario, Huron, and eastern Lake Erie. Populations
appear to be stable in Lake Superior. In all the lakes
except Superior, abundances have decreased in both
nearshore and offshore areas over the past 12 years,
and large areas are now completely devoid of this
organism. Areas where Diporeia is known to be rare or
absent include the southern/southeastern and
northern portions of Lake Michigan at depths <70 m
(Figure 1), almost all of Lake Ontario (Figure 2) at
depths <70 m, the entire southern end of Lake Huron,
and the eastern basin of Lake Erie. In other areas of
these lakes, Diporeia is still present, but abundances
are lower than those reported in the 1970s and 1980s.
In all the lakes, population declines coincided with
the introduction and rapid spread of the zebra
mussel, Dreissena polymorpha, and the quagga mussel,
Dreissena bugensis. These two species were introduced
into the Great Lakes in the late 1980s via the ballast
water of ocean-going ships. Reasons for the negative
response of Diporeia to these mussel species are not
entirely clear. At least one initial hypothesis was that
dreissenid mussels were out-competing Diporeia for
available food. That is, large mussel populations were
filtering food material before it reached the bottom,
thereby decreasing amounts available to Diporeia.
More recent evidence suggests that the reason for the
decline is more complex than a simple decline in
food: 1) Diporeia is completely absent from areas
where food is still settling to the bottom and where
there are no local populations of mussels; 2) the
physiological condition of individual animals shows
no signs of food deprivation even as population
numbers are decreasing.
Future Pressures
As populations of dreissenid mussels continue to
expand, it may be expected that declines in Diporeia
will become more extensive. In the open waters of
Lake Michigan, zebra mussels are most abundant at
depths of 30-50m, as noted, and Diporeia are now gone
from lake areas as deep as 70m. Since quagga mussels
have recently been found in both Lakes Michigan and
17
-------
IMPLEMENTING INDICATORS 2003
A TECHNICAL REPORT
Diporeia Density
1994 & 1995
Diporeia Density
2000
6 9 12 15
Density (No. nfx 103
036 15
Density (No. nfx 103)
Figure 1. Density (numbers/m2x103) of scud (Diporeia) in Lake Michigan in 1994-1995 and in 2000. Over
the entire Lake, populations declined 68% over this time period.
Source: Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Huron, and quagga mussels tend to occur deeper
than zebra mussels, the decline or complete loss of
Diporeia will likely extend to depths greater than
70m in these two lakes.
Future Activities
Because of its key role in the food web of offshore
regions of the Great Lakes, trends in Diporeia
populations should be closely monitored. Continued
monitoring will not only provide information on the
extent of the decline, but also provide a better
understanding of linkages to dreissenid populations.
In addition, impacts on the offshore food web need to
be defined. Recent evidence suggests that fish species
most dependent upon Diporeia as a food source are
being affected. For instance, in Lake Michigan the
condition of lake whitefish has declined significantly
in areas where Diporeia abundances are low.
Further Work Necessary
Because of the rapid rate at which Diporeia is declining
and its significance to the food web, agencies should
report data in a timely manner. The population
decline has a defined natural pattern, and studies of
food web impacts should be spatially well
coordinated. Also, studies to define the cause of the
negative response of Diporeia to Dreissena should
continue. With an understanding of exactly why
Diporeia populations are declining, we may better
predict what additional areas of the lakes are at risk.
18
-------
IMPLEMENTING INDICATORS 2003
A TECHNICAL REPORT
1998
10000
5000
Figure 2. Density (numbers/m2 x 103) of scud
(Diporeia) in Lake Ontario in 1994,1997 , and
1998. The cross-hatched area in 1994 indicates no
samples taken.
Source: S.J. Lozano, Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory,
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Acknowledgments
Author: T. F. Nalepa, Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory, National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Ann Arbor, MI.
Sources
Dermott, R. and D. Kerec. 1997. Changes in the deepwater benthos of eastern
Lake Erie since the invasion of Dreissena: 1979-1993. Can.]. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 54:
922-930.
Dermott, R. 2001. Sudden disappearance of the amphipod Diporeia from eastern
Lake Ontario, 1993-1995./. Great Lakes Res. 27: 423-433.
Lozano, S.}.,}. V. Scharold, and T. F. Nalepa. 2001. Recent declines inbenthic
macroinvertebrate densities in Lake Ontario. Can.}. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 58:518-529.
Nalepa, T. F., D. J. Hartson, D. L. Fanslow, G. A. Lang, and S. J. Lozano. 1998.
Declines in benthic macroinvertebrate populations in southern Lake Michigan,
1980-1993. Can. ]. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 11: 2402-2413.
Pothoven, S. A., T. F. Nalepa, P. J. Schneeberger, and S. B. Brandt. 2001. Changes in
diet and body condition of lake whitefish in southern Lake Michigan associated
with changes in benthos. N.Amer.J.Fish.Manag. 21: 876-883.
Contribution of Diporeia abundances in Lake Ontario (Figure 2) from S.J. Lozano,
Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory, National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration, Ann Arbor, MI.
Benthic Diversity and
Abundance-Aquatic
Oligochaete Communities
SOLEC Indicator #104 - Indicator Matrix
Note: This indicator has been split from "Lake Trout and
Scud" and has a new title
Assessment: Mixed
Purpose
To assess species diversity and abundance of aquatic
oligochaete communities in order to determine the
trophic status and relative health of benthic
communities in the Great Lakes.
Ecosystem Objective
Develop a measure of biological response to organic
enrichment of sediments based on Milbrink's (1983)
Modified Environmental Index. This measure will
have wide application in nearshore, profundal,
riverine, and bay habitats of the Great Lakes. This
indicator supports Annex 2 of the Great Lakes Water
Quality Agreement.
State of the Ecosystem
Shortly after intensive urbanization and
industrialization during the first half of the 20th
century, pollution abatement programs were initiated
in the Great Lakes. Slowly, degraded waters and
substrates, especially in shallow areas, began to
improve in quality. By the early 1980s, abatement
programs and natural biological processes changed
habitats to the point where aquatic species tolerant
of heavy pollution began to be replaced by species
intolerant of heavy pollution.
Use of Milbrink's index values to characterize aquatic
oligochaete communities provided one of the earliest
measures of habitat quality improvements (e.g.,
western Lake Erie). This index has been used to
measure changing productivity in waters of North
America and Europe and, in general, appears to be a
reasonable measure of productivity in waters of all
the Great Lakes (Figures 1 and 2). Most index values
from sites in the upper Lakes are relatively low and
fall into the oligotrophic category, whereas index
values from sites in known areas of higher
productivity (e.g., nearshore southeastern Lake
Michigan; Saginaw Bay, Lake Huron) exhibit higher
19
-------
IMPLEMENTING INDICATORS 2003
A TECHNICAL REPORT
index values. Sites in Lake Erie, which exhibit the
highest index values, generally fall in the
mesotrophic to eutrophic range, while in Lake
Ontario nearshore sites are classified as mesotrophic,
and offshore sites are oligotrophic.
Future Pressures
At present, future pressures that may change
suitability of habitat for aquatic oligochaete
communities are unknown. Undoubtedly, pollution
programs and natural processes will continue to
improve water and substrate quality. However,
measurement of improvements could be over-
shadowed by things such as zebra and quagga
mussels, which were an unknown impact only 10
years ago. Possible pressures include non-point
pollution, regional temperature and water level
changes, and discharges of contaminants such as
Pharmaceuticals, as well as from an as yet unforeseen
source.
Future Activities
Continued pollution abatement programs aimed at
point source pollution will continue to reduce
Figure 1. Milbrink's (1983) Modified Environmental
Index applied to benthic oligochaete community
data from GLNPO's 1999 summer survey.
Source: Barbiero, Richard P. and Marc Tuchman, 2002
undesirable productivity and past residual
pollutants-as a result, substrate quality will
improve.
Whatever future ecosystem changes occur in the
Great Lakes, it is likely aquatic oligochaete
communities will respond early to such changes.
Further Work Necessary
Biological responses of aquatic oligochaete
communities are excellent indicators of substrate
0)
X
0
T3
C
O
;j5
X
0)
T3
C
0)
X
0)
T3
C
30n
2.0-
1.0-
_
o.o-
-
1997
o
w
SU Ml
3.0-
2.0-
1.0-
o.o-
3.0 -
2.0-
1.0-
0.0-
1998
0
O
0
HU
o
t
Eutrophic
8
• a
u
Oligotrophic
ER ON
o
•
U ©
O • *
1 9
SU Ml
1999
O
8
HU
9
i
ER ON
1
|
1 8
SU Ml
1
HU
y
ER ON
Figure 2. Scatter plots of values of Milbrink's (1983)
Modified Environmental Index, applied to data from
GLNPO's 1997-1999 summer surveys.
Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1997-1999.
20
-------
IMPLEMENTING INDICATORS 2003
A TECHNICAL REPORT
quality, and when combined with a temporal
component allow the determination of subtle changes
in environmental quality, possibly decades before
single species indicators. It is only in the past few
years, however, that this benthic index has been
routinely applied to the open waters of all the Great
Lakes. It is therefore critical that routine monitoring
of oligochaete communities in the Great Lakes
continue. In addition, oligochaete taxonomy is a
highly specialized and time consuming discipline,
and the classification of individual species responses
to organic pollution is continually being up-dated. As
future work progresses it is anticipated that the
ecological relevance of existing and new species
comprising the index will increase. It should be noted
that even though this index only addresses responses
to organic enrichment in sediments, it may be used
with other indicators to assess the effects of other
sediment pollutants.
Acknowledgments
Authors: Don W. Schloesser, U.S. Geological Survey, Ann Arbor, MI; Richard
P. Barbiero, Dyncorp I & ET, Inc., Chicago, IL, and Mary Beth Giancarlo,
USEPA - Great Lakes National Program Office, Chicago, IL.
Sources
Data Source: USEPA Great Lakes National Program Office, Biological Open Water
Surveillance Program of the Laurentian Great Lakes, 1997-1999.
Barbiero, Richard P. and Marc L. Tuchman. Results From GLNPO's Biological Open
Water Surveillance Program Of The Laurentian Great Lakes 1999. EPA-905-R-02-
001, January 2002.
Milbrink, G. 1983. An improved environmental index based on the relative
abundance of oligochaete species. Hydrobiologia 102:89-97.
Quality Assurance Project Plan for the Great Lakes Water Quality Surveys,
version March 2002, Great Lakes National Program Office-found in the Sampling
and Analytical Procedures for GLNPO's Open Lake Water Quality Survey of the
Great Lakes manual, version 2002, GLNPO-contact: Louis Blume, 312-353-2317,
blume.louis@epa.gov
Phytoplankton Populations
SOLEC Indicator #109 - Indicator Matrix
Assessment: Mixed
This assessment is based on historical conditions and
expert opinion. Specific objectives or criteria have not been
determined.
Purpose
This indicator involves the direct measurement of
phytoplankton species composition, biomass, and
primary productivity in the Great Lakes, and
indirectly assesses the impact of nutrient/
contaminant enrichment and invasive non-native
predators on the microbial food-web of the Great
Lakes. It assumes that phytoplankton populations
respond in quantifiable ways to anthropogenic
inputs of both nutrients and contaminants,
permitting inferences to be made about system
perturbations through the assessment of
phytoplankton community size, structure and
productivity.
Ecosystem Objective
Desired objectives are phytoplankton biomass size
and structure indicative of oligotrophic conditions
(i.e. a state of low biological productivity, as is
generally found in the cold open waters of large
lakes) for Lakes Superior, Huron and Michigan; and
of mesotrophic conditions for Lakes Erie and Ontario.
In addition, algal biomass should be maintained
below that of a nuisance condition in Lakes Erie and
Ontario, and in bays and in other areas wherever they
occur. There are currently no guidelines in place to
define what criteria should be used to assess whether
or not these desired states have been achieved.
State of the Ecosystem
Records for Lake Erie indicate that substantial
reductions in summer phytoplankton populations
occurred in the early 1990's in the western basin. The
timing of this decline suggests the possible impact of
zebra mussels. In Lake Michigan, a significant
increase in the size of summer diatom populations
occurred during the 1990's. This is most likely due to
the effects of phosphorus reductions on the silica
mass balance in this lake, and suggest that diatom
populations in this lake might be a sensitive
indicator of oligotrophication in Lake Michigan. No
trends are apparent in summer phytoplankton
21
-------
IMPLEMENTING INDICATORS 2003
A TECHNICAL REPORT
Lakes Huron or Ontario, while only three years of
data exist for Lake Superior. Data on primary
productivity are no longer being collected.
No assessment of "ecosystem health" is currently
possible on the basis of phytoplankton community
data, since reference criteria and endpoints have yet
to be developed.
It should be noted that these findings are at variance
with those reported for SOLEC 2000. This is due to
problems with historical data comparability that
were unrecognized during the previous reporting
period. These problems continue to be worked on,
and as such conclusions reported here should be
regarded as somewhat provisional.
Future Pressures
The two most important potential future pressures on
the phytoplankton community are changes in
nutrient loadings and continued introductions and
expansions of non-native species. Increases in
nutrients can be expected to result in increases in
primary productivity and possibly also in increases
in phytoplankton biomass. In addition, increases in
phosphorus concentrations might result in shifts in
phytoplankton community composition away from
diatoms and towards other taxa. As seen in Lake
Michigan, reductions in phosphorus loading might be
expected to have the opposite effect. Continued
expansion of zebra mussel populations might be
expected to result in reductions in overall
phytoplankton biomass, and perhaps also in a shift in
species composition, although these potential effects
are not dearly understood. It is unclear what effects,
3
O
E
_3
O
O
m
2 -
1 -
Erie Western Basin
Superior
8384858687888990919293949596979899 8384858687888990919293949596979899
Huron
Ontario
838485868788899091 9293949596979899 838485868788899091 9293949596979899
Erie Central Basin
e
]fl.
-
E
..
Irie
E
ia
I
si
ern
E
Sasin
8384858687888990919293949596979899 8384858687888990919293949596979899 8384858687888990919293949596979899
Year
Other
Chrysophytes
Dinoflagellates
Chlorophytes
Cyanophytes
Diatoms
Cryptophytes
Figure 1.Trends in phytoplankton biovolume (g/m3)and community composition in the Great Lakes 1983-
1999. Samples were collected from offshore, surface waters during August.
Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency-Great Lakes National Program Office
22
-------
IMPLEMENTING INDICATORS 2003
A TECHNICAL REPORT
if any, might be brought about by changes in the
zooplankton community.
Future Actions
The effects of increases in nutrient concentrations
tend to become apparent in nearshore areas before
offshore areas. The addition of nearshore monitoring
to the existing offshore monitoring program might
therefore be advisable. Given the greater
heterogeneity of the nearshore environment, any such
sampling program would need to be carefully
thought out, and an adequate number of sampling
stations included to enable trends to be discerned.
Further Work Necessary
A highly detailed record of phytoplankton biomass
and community structure has accumulated, and
continues to be generated, through regular
monitoring efforts. However, problems exist with
internal comparability of this database. Efforts are
currently underway to rectify this situation, and it is
essential that the database continue to be refined and
improved.
In spite of the existence of this database, its
interpretation remains problematic. While the use of
phytoplankton data to assess "ecosystem health" is
conceptually attractive, there is currently no objective,
quantitative mechanism for doing so. Reliance upon
literature values for nutrient tolerances or indicator
status of individual species is not recommended,
since the unusual physical regime of the Great Lakes
makes it likely that responses of individual species to
their chemical environment in the Great Lakes will
vary in fundamental ways from those in other lakes.
Therefore, there is an urgent need for the
development of an objective, quantifiable index
specific to the Great Lakes to permit use of
phytoplankton data in the assessment of "ecosystem
health".
Acknowledgments
Authors: Richard P. Barbiero, DynCorp, ACSC company, Chcicago, IL,
rick.barbiero@dyncorp.com, and Marc L. Tuchman, USEPAGLNPO, Chicago, IL,
tuchmanmarc@epa.gov.
Sources
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Great Lakes National Program Office,
Chicago, IL, unpublished data.
Zooplankton Populations
SOLEC Indicator #116 - Indicator Matrix
Assessment: Mixed
This indicator report is from 2000. Assessment has been
reevaluated in 2003. Specific objectives or criteria for
assessment have not been determined.
Purpose
This indicator directly measures changes in
community composition, mean individual size and
biomass of zooplankton populations in the Great
Lakes basin, and indirectly measures zooplankton
production as well as changes in food-web dynamics
due to changes in vertebrate or invertebrate
predation; changes in system productivity, and
changes in the type and intensity of predation and in
the energy transfer within a system. Suggested
metrics include zooplankton mean length, the ratio of
calanoid to cladoceran and cyclopoid crustaceans,
and zooplankton biomass.
Ecosystem Objective
Ultimately, analysis of this indicator should provide
information on the biological integrity of the Great
Lakes, and lead to the support of a healthy and
diverse fishery. However, the relationship between
these objectives and the suggested metrics have not
been fully worked out, and no specific criteria have
yet been identified for these metrics.
A mean individual size of 0.8 mm has been suggested
as "optimal" for zooplankton communities sampled
with a 153 mm mesh net, although the meaning of
deviations from this objective, and the universality
of this objective remain unclear. In particular,
questions regarding its applicability to dreissenid
impacted systems have been raised.
In general, calanoid/cladoceran+cydopoid ratios
tend to increase with decreasing nutrient enrichment.
Therefore high ratios are desirable. As with
individual mean size, though, clear objectives have
not presently been defined.
State of the Ecosystem
The most recent available data (1998) suggests that
mean individual lengths of offshore zooplankton
populations in the three upper lakes and the central
basin of Lake Erie exceed the objective of 0.8 (Fig. 1),
23
-------
IMPLEMENTING INDICATORS 2003
A TECHNICAL REPORT
B)
O
SE
I
B)
i
E 1-
0.99 0.88
0.87
0.59
0.71
0.65
SU
Ml HU
W
ON
ER
Lake
Figure 1. Average individual mean length of
zooplankton for the five Great Lakes. Lake Erie is
divided into western, central and eastern basins.
Length estimates were generated from data
collected with 153um mesh net tows to a depth of
100m or the bottom of the water column,
whichever was shallower. Numbers indicate
arithmetic averages.
Source: U.S. EPA - GLNPO, August, 1998
suggesting a fish community characterized by a high
piscivore/planktivore ratio. Mean individual lengths
of zooplankton populations in the western and
eastern basins of Lake Erie, as well as most sites in
Lake Ontario, were substantially below this objective.
Interquartile ranges for most lakes (considering the
three basins of Lake Erie separately) were generally
on the order of 0.1-0.2 mm, although Lake Ontario
was substantially greater.
Historical data from the eastern basin of Lake Erie,
from 1985 to 1998, indicate a fair amount of
interannual variability, with values from offshore sites
ranging from about 0.5 to 0.85 (Fig. 2). As noted
above, interpretation of these data are currently
problematic.
The ratio of calanoids to cladocerans and cyclopoids
showed a clear relationship with trophic state. The
average value for the oligotrophic Lake Superior was
at least four times as high as that for any other lake,
while Lakes Michigan and Huron and the eastern
basin of Lake Erie were also high (Fig. 3). The western
basin of Lake Erie and Lake Ontario were identically
low, while the central basin of Lake Erie had an
intermediate value. Historical comparisons of this
metric are difficult to make because most historical
data on zooplankton populations in the Great Lakes
seems to have been generated using shallow (20 m)
tows. Calanoid copepods tend to be deep living
organisms; therefore the use of data generated from
shallow tows would tend to contribute a strong bias
to this metric. This problem is largely avoided in Lake
Erie, particularly in the western and central basins,
where most sites are shallower than 20 m.
Comparisons in those two basins have shown a
statistically significant increase in the ratio of
calanoids to cladocerans and cyclopoids between
1970 and 1983-1987, with this increase sustained
throughout the 1990's, and in fact up to the present. A
similar increase was seen in the eastern basin,
although some of these data were generated from
shallow tows, and are therefore subject to doubt.
Future Pressures on the Ecosystem
The zooplankton community might be expected to
respond to changes in nutrient concentrations in the
lakes, although the potential magnitude of such
"bottom up" effects are not well understood. The
most immediate potential threat to the zooplankton
communities of the Great Lakes is posed by invasive
species. An exotic predatory dadoceran, Bythotrephes
cedarstroemii, has already been in the lakes for over ten
E
— 0.80
0.60
o"
fi
0.40
Eastern Lake Erie
Objective (Mills et al. 1987)
1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996
Year
Figure 2.Trend in Jun27-Sep30 mean zooplankton
length: NYDEC data (circles) collected with
153um mesh net, DFP data (diamonds) converted
from 64um to 153um mesh equivalent. Open
symbols = offshore, solid symbols = nearshore
(<12m). 1985-1988 are means +/-1 S.E.
Source: Johannsson ef al., 1999
24
-------
IMPLEMENTING INDICATORS 2003
A TECHNICAL REPORT
•3 10 -
'o
a.
° R -
>i
O
+ fi -
b
€5
oj 4 ,
o
TJ
€5
— 9 .
O '
(A
^
'o n
c 0 -
.5
O
4.
1
S
49
U
°f °.79 1.01 058
1=1 4- 0.21 0.24
^T l=i=l *^^ ^L &
Ml HU E C W ON
ER
Figure 3. Ratio of biomass of calanoid copepods
to that of cladocerans and cyclopoid copepods
for the five Great Lakes. Lake Erie (ER) is divided
into Western, Central and Eastern basins. (Data
collected with 153 urn mesh net tows to a depth
of 100 meters of the bottom of the water column,
whichever was shallower. Numbers indicate
arithmetic averages.
Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency-Great Lakes National
Program Office, 1998
The implementation of a long term monitoring
program on the Canadian side is also desirable, to
expand both the spatial and the temporal coverage
currently provided by American efforts. Since the use
of various indices is dependent to a large extent upon
the sampling methods employed, coordination
between of these two programs, both with regard to
sampling dates and locations, and especially with
regard to methods, would be highly recommended.
Acknowledgments
This report was prepared by Richard P. Barbiero, DynCorp, ACSC company
Chcicago, IL, rick.barbiero@dyncorp.com, Marc L. Tuchman, USEPAGLNPO,
Chicago IL USA, tuchman.marc@epa.gov, and Ora Johannsson, Fisheries and
Oceans Canada, Burlington, Ontario Canada.
Sources
Johannsson, O.E., C. Dumitru, and D.M. Graham. 1999. Examination of
ZDOplankton mean length for use in an index of fish community structure and its
application in Lake Erie. /. Great Lakes Res. 25:179-186.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Great Lakes National Program Office,
Chicago, IL, unpublished data.
years, and is suspected to have had a major impact
on zooplankton community structure. A second
predatory dadoceran, Cercopagis pengoi, was first
noted in Lake Ontario in 1998, and is expected to
spread to the other lakes. In addition, the continued
proliferation of dreissenid populations can be
expected to impact zooplankton communities both
directly through the alteration of the structure of the
phytoplankton community, upon which many
zooplankton depend for food.
Future Actions
Continued monitoring of the off shore zooplankton
communities of the Great Lakes is critical, particularly
considering the current expansion of the range of the
non-native cladoceran Cercopagis and the probability
of future invasive zooplankton and fish species.
Further Work Necessary
Currently the most critical need is for the
development of quantitative, objective criteria that
can be applied to the zooplankton indicator. The
applicability of current metrics to the Great Lakes is
largely unknown, as are the limits that would
correspond to acceptable ecosystem health.
25
-------
IMPLEMENTING INDICATORS 2003
A TECHNICAL REPORT
Amphibian Diversity and Relative
Abundance
SOLEC Indicator #4504 - Indicator Matrix
Assessment: Mixed Deteriorating
Purpose
Assessing species composition and relative
abundance of calling frogs and toads in Great Lakes
wetlands helps to infer wetland habitat health. A high
proportion of the Great Lakes basin's amphibian
species inhabit wetlands during part of their life
cycle, and many species at risk in the basin are
associated with wetlands. Similarly, there is growing
international concern about declines of amphibian
populations and an apparent increase in deformities.
Because frogs and toads are relatively sedentary, have
semi-permeable skin, and breed within and adjacent
to aquatic systems, they are likely to be more sensitive
to, and indicative of, local sources of wetland
contamination and degradation than are most other
vertebrates.
Geographically extensive and long-term surveys of
calling amphibians are possible through
coordination of skilled volunteer naturalists in the
application of standardized monitoring protocols.
Information about abundance, distribution and
diversity of amphibians provides needed measures of
their population trends, their habitat associations,
and can contribute to more effective, long-term
conservation strategies.
Ecosystem Objective
The objective is to monitor amphibian communities
and gain knowledge about their population dynamics
to understand better how to restore and maintain the
diversity of Great Lakes wetland amphibian
communities, and to sustain breeding amphibian
populations across their historical species range.
State of the Ecosystem
Since 1995, Marsh Monitoring Program (MMP)
volunteers at 474 routes across the Great Lakes basin
have collected amphibian data. Thirteen species were
recorded during the 1995 - 2001 period. Spring
Peeper was the most frequently detected species
(average calling code of 2.5; Table 1) and was
frequently recorded in full chorus (Call Level Code 3)
where it was encountered. Green Frog was detected
in more than half of station-years and average calling
code of this species was most often recorded at Call
Level 1. Gray Treefrog, American Toad and Northern
Leopard Frog were also common, being recorded in
more than one-third of all station years. Gray
Treefrog was recorded with the second highest
average calling code (1.9), indicating that MMP
observers usually heard several individuals with
some overlapping calls. Bullfrog, Chorus Frog and
Wood Frog were detected in approximately one-
quarter of station-years. Five species were detected
infrequently by MMP surveyors and were recorded
in less than 3% of station-years.
Trends in amphibian occurrence were assessed for
eight species commonly detected on MMP routes
(Figure 1). For each species, annual proportion of
stations with that species present at each route were
calculated to derive annual indices of occurrence.
Overall temporal trend in occurrence for each species
was assessed by combining route-level trends in
station occurrence. Statistically significant declines in
trends were detected for American Toad, Chorus
Species Name
% Station-years
present
Average calling
code
Spring Peeper
Green Frog
Gray Treefrog
American Toad
N. Leopard Frog
Bullfrog
Chorus Frog
Wood Frog
Pickerel Frog
Fowler's Toad
Cope's Gray Treefrog
Mink Frog
Blanchard's Cricket Frog
68.4
54.4
37.5
35.7
31.9
25.9
25.5
17.9
2.6
1.7
1.5
1.3
0.8
2.5
1.3
1.9
1.5
1.3
1.3
1.7
1.5
1.1
1.2
1.4
1.2
1.4
* MMP Survey stations monitored for multiple years considered as
individual samples.
Figure 1. Frequency of occurrence and average Call
Level Code for amphibian species detected inside
Great Lakes basin MMP stations, 1995 through
2001. Average calling codes area based upon the
three level call code standard for all MMP
amphibian surveys; surveyors record Code 1 (little
overlap among calls, numbers of individuals can
be determined), Code 2 (some overlap, numbers
can be estimated) or Code 3 (much overlap, too
numerous to be estimated).
Source: Marsh Monitoring Program
26
-------
IMPLEMENTING INDICATORS 2003
A TECHNICAL REPORT
Frog, and Green Frog. Using water levels of the Great
Lakes as a proxy for water conditions throughout the
basin, comparisons were made between trends in
mean annual water levels of the Great Lakes and
trends in amphibian annual station occurrence
indices. Some species' trends (Bullfrog, Green Frog,
Spring Peeper) appeared to track mean annual lake
levels to some degree (Figure 2), whereas others'
(American toad, Chorus Frog - not shown) showed
no apparent correlation. Differences in habitats,
regional population densities, timing of survey visits,
annual weather variability, or other additional factors
that interplay with water levels might explain
variation in species-specific amphibian populations
indices.
These data will serve as a baseline with which to
compare future survey results, and will lead to a
better understanding of the health of Great Lakes
amphibian populations and the wetlands that they
inhabit. Anecdotal and research evidence suggests
that wide variations in inland occurrence of many
amphibian species at a given site is a natural and
ongoing phenomenon. These variations are apparent
for many of the amphibian species monitored during
the past seven years. Additional years of data will
help reveal whether these observed patterns (e.g.
decline in numbers of American Toad and/or Chorus
Frog) continue and indicate significant long-term
trends. Further data are required to conclude whether
Great Lakes wetlands are successfully sustaining
amphibian populations. MMP amphibian data are
being evaluated to determine how we can gain a
better understanding of Great Lakes coastal wetlands
health.
X
-------
IMPLEMENTING INDICATORS 2003
A TECHNICAL REPORT
Future Pressures
Current pressures on this indicator will likely
continue. Habitat loss and deterioration remain the
predominant threat to Great Lakes amphibian
populations. Many coastal and Great Lakes wetlands
are at the lowest elevations in watersheds that
support very intensive industrial, agricultural and
residential development. Even more subtle impacts
such as water level stabilization, sedimentation,
contaminant and nutrient inputs, and invasion of
non-native plants and animals continue to degrade
wetlands across the Great Lakes region.
Future Activities
Because of the sensitivity of amphibians to their
surrounding environment and growing international
concern about their populations, amphibians in the
Great Lakes basin and elsewhere continue to be
monitored. Wherever possible, efforts should be
made to maintain wetland habitats as well as
associated upland areas adjacent to coastal wetlands.
There is also a need to address more subtle impacts
that are detrimental to wetland health such as inputs
of toxic chemicals, nutrients and sediments.
Restoration programs are underway for many
degraded wetland areas through the work of local
citizens, organizations and governments. Although
significant progress has been made in this area,
further programs need to be developed and
implemented for many wetland areas that have yet to
receive restoration efforts.
Further Work Necessary
Effective monitoring of Great Lakes amphibians
requires accumulation of many years of data, using a
standardized protocol, over a large geographic
expanse. A reporting frequency for this indicator of
about five years would be acceptable because
amphibian populations naturally fluctuate through
time, and a five-year timeframe would likely be able
to indicate significant changes in populations. More
rigorous studies will relate trends in species
occurrence or relative abundance to environmental
factors. Reporting will be improved with
establishment of a network of survey routes that
accurately represent the full spectrum of marsh
habitat in the Great Lakes basin. Development of
such a network is well underway and three
important tasks are already in progress: 1)
developing the amphibian indicator as an index for
X
o
IS
a
o
65 -
60 -
55 -
50 -
45 -
40 -
35 -
90 -
85 -
80 -
75 -
70 -
65 -
60 -
55 -
50 -
90-1
85-
80-
75-
70-
Bullfrog
*s /A
•\*'' / \\
** --.-^^ \ V
\ \
\ \
-v<
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001
Green Frog
/*> A
r^-*^^^ \
^^><
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001
Spring Peeper
A/A
'' r *"*\ \
*' / ^ \
'''' / \ /*
/ ^
y *"*"-•
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001
r 142.4
- 142.2
- 142.0
- 141.8
- 141.6
-141.4
-142.4
-142.2
-142.0
-141.8
-141.6
141.4
142.4
142.2
142.0
141.8
141.6
141.4
Year
Jfl
.J
!_
i
o
i
Figure 3. Comparison of mean annual water levels
of the Great Lakes (dashed line) and trends in
amphibian annual relative occurrence (solid line).
These frog populations track average Lake levels
to some degree.
Source: Marsh Monitoring Program
evaluating coastal wetland health; 2) gaining precise
geo-referenced locations for all MMP routes to enable
future spatial analyses using remote sensing and; 3)
continued recruitment efforts and training for
volunteer participants. Further work is required to
determine the relationship between calling codes
used to record amphibian occurrence and count
estimates.
28
-------
IMPLEMENTING INDICATORS 2003
A TECHNICAL REPORT
Acknowledgments
Author: Steve Timmermans, Bird Studies Canada.
The Marsh Monitoring Program is delivered by Bird Studies Canada in
partnership with Environment Canada's Canadian Wildlife Service and the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Great Lakes National Program
Office. The contributions of all Marsh Monitoring Program volunteers are
gratefully acknowledged.
Sources
Anonymous. 2003. Marsh Monitoring Program training kit and instructions for
surveying marsh birds, amphibians, and their habitats. Revised in 2003 by Bird
Studies Canada. 41pp.
Timmermans, S.T.A. 2001. Temporal relations between marshbird and amphibian
annual population indices and Great Lakes water levels: A cases study from the
Marsh Monitoring Program. Unpublished report by Bird Studies Canada. 67pp.
Timmermans, S.T.A. 2002. Quality Assurance Project Plan for implementing the
Marsh Monitoring Program across the Great Lakes basin. Prepared for United
States Environmental Protection Agency - Great Lakes National Program Office
Assistance I.D. #GL2002-145.31pp.
Weeber, R.C. 2000. The Marsh Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Project
Plan. Prepared for the United States Environmental Protection Agency - Great
Lakes National Program Office Assistance I.D. #GL975139-01-0.22pp.
Weeber, R.C., and M. Valliantos (editors). 2000. The Marsh Monitoring Program
1995-1999: Monitoring Great Lakes wetlands and their amphibian and bird
inhabitants. Published by Bird Studies Canada in cooperation with Environment
Canada and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 47pp.
Wetland-Dependent Bird Diversity and
Relative Abundance
SOLEC Indicator #4507 - Indictor Matrix
Assessment: Mixed Deteriorating
Purpose
Assessments of wetland-dependent bird diversity and
abundance in the Great Lakes basin are used to
evaluate health and function of coastal and inland
wetlands. Breeding birds are valuable components of
Great Lakes wetlands and rely on physical, chemical
and biological health of their habitats. Because these
relationships are particularly strong during the
breeding season, presence and abundance of breeding
individuals can provide a source of information
about wetland status and trends. When long-term
monitoring data are combined with an analysis of
habitat characteristics, trends in species abundance
and diversity can contribute to an assessment of how
well Great Lakes coastal wetlands are able to support
birds and other wetland-dependent wildlife.
Populations of several wetland-dependent birds are
believed to be at risk due to continuing loss and
degradation of their habitats.
Geographically extensive and long-term surveys of
wetland-dependent birds are possible through
coordination of skilled volunteer naturalists in the
application of standardized monitoring protocols.
Information about abundance, distribution and
diversity of marsh birds provides needed measures
of their population trends, their habitat associations,
and can contribute to more effective, long-term
conservation strategies.
Ecosystem Objective
The objective is to restore and maintain Great Lakes
wetland bird community diversity by maintaining
and protecting the necessary quantity and quality of
wetland habitat.
State of the Ecosystem
From 1995 through 2001, 53 species of birds that use
marshes (wetlands dominated by non-woody
emergent plants) for feeding, nesting or both were
recorded by Marsh Monitoring Program (MMP)
volunteers at 434 routes throughout the Great Lakes
basin. Among bird species that typically feed in the
air above marshes, Tree Swallow and Barn Swallow
29
-------
IMPLEMENTING INDICATORS 2003
A TECHNICAL REPORT
A)
1.4
1.2 -
1 -
0.8 •
0.6 -
0.4 -
0.2 -
0
American Bittern
-10.0 (-1.9, 0.1) P = 0.048
Marsh Wren
-3.1 (-5.7,-0.3) P< 0.05
X
CD
T3
C
Q.
£
7.5 -
7 -
6.5 -
6 -
5.5 -
5 -
4.5 -
4 -
3.5 -
3
Coot/Moorhen
-10.2 (-14.6,-5.6) P< 0.001
Pied-billed Grebe
-15.9 (-21.1,-10.2) P< 0.001
Black Tern
-18.0 (-24.1,-12.9) P< 0.001
1999 2000 2001
Red-winged Blackbird
-3.0 (-4.9,-1.2) P<0.01
19-
18-
17-
16-
15-
14-
13-
12
Sora
-13.0 (-19.7,-7.6) P< 0.001
1.8 -
1.6 -
1.4 -
1.2 -
1 -
0.8 -
0.6 -
0.4-
0.2 -
Virginia Rail
-5.0 (-8.4,-1.4) P< 0.01
Year
B)
Common Yellowthroat
4.0(1.2, 6.9) P< 0.01
4 -
3.5 -
3
2.5 -
2
1996 1997 19
3.5 -
3 -
2.5 -
2 -
1.5 -
1 -
0.5 -
0
Mallard
10.4(3.8, 17.5) P< 0.01
1999 2000 2001
Willow Flycatcher
9.0(1.4, 17.3) P< 0.05
1 -
0.8 -
0.6 -
0.4 -
0.2
1995 1996 19
1999 2000 2001
Barn Swallow
3.8 (-0.5, 8.3) P = 0.08
5.5 -
5 -
4.5 -
4 -
3.5 -
3 -
2.5 -
2
Figure 1. Annual population trends of declining (A) and increasing (B) marsh nesting and aerial foraging
bird species detected at Marsh Monitoring Program routes, 1995-2001.
Source: Marsh Monitoring Program
were the two most common. Red-winged Blackbird
was the most commonly recorded marsh nesting
species, followed by Swamp Sparrow, Common
Yellowthroat and Yellow Warbler.
With only seven years of data collected across the
Great Lakes basin, the MMP is in its infancy as a long-
term population monitoring program. Bird species
occurrence and numbers, and their activity and
likelihood of being observed, vary naturally among
years and within seasons. Trends are presented for
several birds recorded at Great Lakes MMP routes
(Figure la,b). Population indices and trends (i.e.,
average annual percent change in population index)
are presented for species with statistically significant
trends, 1995 - 2001. Species with significant basin-
wide declines were American Bittern, Black Tern,
Marsh Wren, undifferentiated American Coot/
Common Moorhen (calls of these two species are
difficult to distinguish from one another), Pied-billed
30
-------
IMPLEMENTING INDICATORS 2003
A TECHNICAL REPORT
X
o
•o
ts
3
Q.
O
Q.
American Bittern
1.3
1.1-
0.9-
0.7-
0.5-
0.3
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001
Marsh Wren
6.5
6.0 H
5.5
5.0-
4.5-
4.0-
3.5
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001
Virginia Rail
142.4
2.8-
142.0 2.6
141.6 2.2-
2 -
141.2 1.1
Sora
142.3
142.2
142.1
142
141.9
141.8
141.7
141.6
141.5
141.4
1,
1.6-
1.4-
1.2-
1 -
0.8-
0.6-
0.4-
0.2
Year
142.4
-142.2
142
-141.8
-141.6
141.4
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001
142.4
142.2
142
141.8
141.6
141.4
141.2
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001
a>
?r
(D
CD
(D
Z.
V>
Figure 2. Mean annual water levels of the Great Lakes and trends in wetland bird annual abundance
indices.
Source: Marsh Monitoring Program
Grebe, Red-winged Blackbird, Sora, and Virginia Rail
(Figure la). Statistically significant basin-wide
increases were observed for Common Yellowthroat,
Mallard, and Willow Flycatcher. Barn Swallow
populations increased at a marginally non-significant
rate (Figure Ib). Each of the declining species
depends on wetlands for breeding but, because they
use wetland habitats almost exclusively, Black Tern,
American Coot, Common Moorhen, Marsh Wren,
Pied-billed Grebe, Sora, and Virginia Rail are
particularly dependent on availability of healthy
wetlands. Declines in these wetland specialists and
increases in some wetland edge and generalist species
(e.g., Common Yellowthroat, Willow Flycatcher)
suggest possible links to wetland habitat conditions.
To begin investigating this, water levels of the Great
Lakes (indicator #4861) were used as a proxy for
water conditions throughout the basin, and
comparisons were made between trends in mean
annual water levels of the Great Lakes and trends in
wetland bird annual abundance indices. Some
species' trends (American Bittern, Marsh Wren, Sora,
and Virginia Rail) appeared to track average lake
levels quite closely (Figure 2), whereas others' (e.g.,
Black Tern, Pied-billed Grebe; not shown) showed no
apparent relation with lake levels. Differences in
habitats, regional population densities, timing of
survey visits, annual weather variability, and other
additional factors likely interplay with water levels
to explain variation in species-specific bird
populations.
Future Pressures
Future pressures on wetland-dependent birds will
likely include continuing loss and degradation of
important breeding habitats through wetland loss,
water level stabilization, sedimentation, contaminant
and nutrient inputs, and invasion of non-native plants
and animals.
31
-------
IMPLEMENTING INDICATORS 2003
A TECHNICAL REPORT
Future Activities
Wherever possible, efforts should be made to
maintain high quality wetland habitats and adjacent
upland areas. There is also a need to address more
subtle impacts that are detrimental to wetland health
such as water level stabilization, invasive species and
inputs of toxic chemicals, nutrients and sediments.
Restoration programs are underway for many
degraded wetland areas through the work of local
citizens, organizations and governments. Although
significant progress has been made, further
conservation and restoration work is needed.
Further Work Necessary
Monitoring will continue across the Great Lakes
basin. Continued monitoring of at least 100 routes
through 2006 is projected to provide good resolution
for most of the wetland-dependent birds recorded by
the MMP. Recruitment and retention of program
participants will therefore continue to be a high
priority. Further work is necessary to establish
endpoints and acceptable thresholds for bird
diversity and abundance. Work is underway to
ascertain marsh bird habitat associations using
MMP bird and habitat data. Three additional
important tasks are already in progress: 1)
developing the wetland bird indicator as an index for
evaluating coastal wetland health; 2) gaining precise
geo-referenced locations for all MMP routes to enable
future spatial analyses using remote sensing, and; 3)
continued recruitment efforts and training for
volunteer participants. Assessments of relationships
among count indices, bird population parameters,
and critical environmental factors are also needed.
Sources
Anonymous. 2003. Marsh Monitoring Program training kit and instructions for
surveying marshbirds, amphibians, and their habitats. Revised in 2003 by Bird
Studies Canada. 41pp.
Timmermans, S.T. A. 2001. Temporal relations between marshbird and amphibian
annual population indices and Great Lakes water levels: A cases study from the
Marsh Monitoring Program. Unpublished report by Bird Studies Canada. 67pp.
Timmermans, S.T. A. 2002. Quality Assurance Project Plan for implementing the
Marsh Monitoring Program across the Great Lakes basin. Prepared for United
States
Environmental Protection Agency - Great Lakes National Program Office
Assistance I.D. #GL2002-145.31pp.
Weeber, R.C. 2000. The Marsh Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Project
Plan. Prepared for the United States Environmental Protection Agency-Great
Lakes National Program Office Assistance I.D. #GL975139-01-0.22pp.
Weeber, R.C., and M. Valliantos (editors). 2000. The Marsh Monitoring Program
1995-1999: Monitoring Great Lakes wetlands and their amphibian and bird
inhabitants. Published by Bird Studies Canada in cooperation with Environment
Canada and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 47pp.
Although more frequent updates are possible,
reporting trend estimates every five or six years is
most appropriate for this indicator. A variety of efforts
are underway to enhance reporting breadth and
efficiency.
Acknowledgments
Author: Steve Timmermans, Bird Studies Canada.
The Marsh Monitoring Program is delivered by Bird Studies Canada in
partnership with Environment Canada's Canadian Wildlife Service and the
United States Environmental Protection Agency's Great Lakes National
Program Office. The contributions of all Marsh Monitoring volunteers are
gratefully acknowledged.
32
-------
IMPLEMENTING INDICATORS 2003
A TECHNICAL REPORT
Area, Quality and Protection of Alvar
Communities
SOLEC Indicator #8129 (alvar) - Indicator Matrix
Note: this indicator report is from 2000
Assessment: Mixed
Purpose
This indicator assesses the status of one of the 12
special lakeshore communities identified within the
nearshore terrestrial area. Alvar communities are
naturally open habitats occurring on flat limestone
bedrock. They have a distinctive set of plant species
and vegetative associations, and include many
species of plants, mollusks, and invertebrates that are
rare elsewhere in the basin. All 15 types of alvars and
associated habitats are globally imperiled or rare.
Over 2/3 of known alvar occurrences within the
Great Lakes Basin are close to the shoreline.
Ecosystem Objective
Conservation of alvar communities relates to IJC
Desired Outcome 6: Biological Community Integrity
and Diversity. A four-year study of Great Lakes
alvars completed in 1998 (the International Alvar
Conservation Initiative-IACI) evaluated conservation
targets for alvar communities, and concluded that
essentially all of the existing viable occurrences
should be maintained, since all types are below the
minimum threshold of 30-60 viable examples. As well
as conserving these ecologically distinct
communities, this target would protect populations
of dozens of globally significant and disjunct species.
A few species, such as Lakeside Daisy (Hymenoxis
herbacea) and the beetle Chlaenius p. purpuricollis, have
nearly all of their global occurrences within Great
Lakes alvar sites.
State of the Ecosystem
Alvar habitats have likely always been sparsely
distributed, but more than 90% of their original extent
has been destroyed or substantially degraded by
agriculture and other human uses. Approximately
64% of the remaining alvar area occurs within
Ontario, with about 16% in New York State, 15% in
Michigan, 4% in Ohio, and smaller areas in Wisconsin
and Quebec.
Data from the IACI and state/provincial alvar studies
was screened and updated to identify viable
community occurrences. Just over 2/3 of known
Great Lakes alvars occur close to the shoreline, with
all or a substantial portion of their area within 1 km
of the shore.
Note that typically several different community
types occur within each alvar site.
Among the 15 community types documented, six
types show a strong association (over 80% of their
acreage) with nearshore settings. Four types have
less than half of their occurrences in nearshore
settings.
The current status of all nearshore alvar
communities was evaluated by considering current
land ownership and the type and severity of threats
to their integrity. As shown in the figure, less than I/
5th of the nearshore alvar acreage is currently fully
protected, while over 3/5th is at high risk.
No. of alvar sites
No. of community
occurences
Alvar acreage
Total in Basin
82
204
28475
Nearshore
52
138
20009
Figure 1. Number of Alvar sites/communities found
near-shore and total in the basin
Source: Ron Reid, Bobolink Enterprises
The degree of protection for nearshore alvar
communities varies considerably among
jurisdictions. For example, Michigan has 66% of its
nearshore alvar acreage in the Fully Protected
category, while Ontario has only 7%. In part, this is a
reflection of the much larger total shoreline acreage
in Ontario, as shown in the following figure. (Other
states have too few nearshore sites to allow
comparison).
Each alvar community occurrence has been assigned
an "EO rank" to reflect its relative quality and
condition. A and B-ranks are considered viable, while
C-ranks are marginal. As shown in the following
figure, protection efforts to secure alvars have dearly
focused on the best quality sites.
33
-------
IMPLEMENTING INDICATORS 2003
A TECHNICAL REPORT
Limited 11.9%
Partly 9.1%
Fully 18.8%
At High Risk 60.2%
Figure 2. Protection Status 2000. Nearshore alvar
acreage.
Source: Ron Reid, Bobolink Enterprises
Pressure on the Ecosystem
Nearshore alvar communities are most frequently
threatened by habitat fragmentation and loss, trails
and off-road vehicles, resource extraction uses such as
quarrying or logging, and adjacent land uses such as
residential subdivisions. Less frequent threats include
grazing or deer browsing, plant collecting for bonsai
or other hobbies, and invasion by non-native plants
such as European Buckthorn and Dog-strangling
Vine.
Recent Progress
Documentation of the extent and quality of alvars
through the IACI has been a major step forward, and
Ontario
Michigan
At High Risk
Partly Protected
Limited
Fully Protected
Figure 3. Comparison of acreage protected.
Nearshore alvars: Ontario and Michigan.
Source: Ron Reid, Bobolink Enterprises
has stimulated much greater public awareness and
conservation activity for these habitats. Over the past
two years, a total of 10 securement projects has
resulted in protection of at least 5289.5 acres of alvars
across the Great Lakes basin, with 3344.5 acres of that
within the nearshore area. Most of the secured
nearshore area is through land acquisition, but 56
acres on Pelee Island (ON) are through a conservation
easement, and 1.5 acres on Kelleys Island (OH) are
through State dedication of a nature reserve. These
projects have increased the area of protected alvar
dramatically in a short time.
Future Actions
Because of the large number of significant alvar
communities at risk, particularly in Ontario, their
status should be closely watched to ensure that they
are not lost. Major binational projects hold great
promise for further progress, since alvars are a Great
Lakes resource, but most of the unprotected area is
within Ontario. Projects could be usefully modeled
after the 1999 Manitoulin Island (ON) acquisition of
17,000 acres through a cooperative project of The
Nature Conservancy of Canada, The Nature
Conservancy, Federation of Ontario Naturalists, and
Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources.
Acknowledgments
Authors: Ron Reid, Bobolink Enterprises, Washago, ON, and Heather Potter,
The Nature Conservancy, Chicago, IL.
Sources
Brownell, VivianR. and John L. Riley 2000. The Alvars of Ontario: Significant
Alvar Natural Areas in the Ontario Great Lakes Region. Federation of Ontario
Naturalists, Toronto, ON.
Cusick, Allison W. 1998. Alvar Landforms and Plant Communities in Ohio. Ohio
Dept. of Natural Resources, Columbus OH.
Gilman, Bruce 1998. Alvars of New York: A Site Summary Report. Finger Lakes
Community College, Canandaigua, NY.
Lee, Yu Man, Lyn J. Scrimger, Dennis A. Albert, Michael R. Penskar, Patrick J.
Comer and David L. Cuthrell 1998. Alvars of Michigan. Michigan Natural
Features Inventory, Lansing MI.
Reid, Ron 2000. Great Lakes Alvar Update, July 2000. Prepared for distribution to
the International Alvar Conservation Initiative Working Group. Bobolink
Enterprises, Washago, Ontario.
Reschke, Carol, Ron Reid, Judith Jones, Tom Feeney and Heather Potter 1999.
Conserving Great Lakes Alvars: Final Technical Report of the International Alvar
Conservation Initiative. The Nature Conservancy, Chicago, Illinois.
34
-------
IMPLEMENTING INDICATORS 2003
A TECHNICAL REPORT
AB
EO Rank
BC&C
Partly Protected
Fully Protected
Figure 4. Protection of high quality alvars.
Source: Ron Reid, Bobolink Enterprises
35
-------
IMPLEMENTING INDICATORS 2003
A TECHNICAL REPORT
1.2 STATE INDICATOR REPORTS-PART 2
SUMMARY OF STATE INDICATORS-PART 2
The overall assessment for the State indicators is incomplete. Part One of this Assessment presents the
indicators for which we have the most comprehensive and current basin-wide information. Data presented in
Part Two of this report represent indicators for which information is not available year to year or are not
basin-wide across jurisdictions. Within the Great Lakes indicator suite, 38 have yet to be reported, or require
further development. In a few cases, indicator reports have been included that were prepared for SOLEC 2000,
but that were not updated for SOLEC 2002. The information about those indicators is believed to be still valid,
and therefore appropriate to be considered in the assessment of the Great Lakes. In other cases, the required
data have not been collected. Changes to existing monitoring programs or the initiation of new monitoring
programs are also needed. Several indicators are under development. More research or testing may be needed
before these indicators can be assessed.
Indicator Name
Native Freshwater Mussels
Urban Density
Economic Prosperity
Area, Quality and Protection of Great
Lakes Islands
Assessment in 2000
Mixed, deteriorating
Unable to Assess
Mixed
No Report
Assessment in 2002
Not Assessed
Mixed, deteriorating
(for Lake Superior basin)
Mixed (for Lake Superior
basin)
Not Assessed
Green represents an improvement of the indicator assessment from 2000.
Red represents deterioration of the indicator assessment from 2000.
Black represents no change in the indicator assessment from 2000, or where no previous
assessment exists.
Native Freshwater Mussels
SOLEC Indicator #68 - Indicator Matrix
Note: title has been changed from Native Unionid Mussels
Assessment: Not Assessed
Data are not system-wide.
Purpose
The purpose of this indicator is to report on the location and
status of freshwater mussel (unionid) populations and their
habitats throughout the Great Lakes system, with emphasis
on endangered and threatened species. This information
will be used to direct research aimed at identifying the
factors responsible for mussel survival in refuge areas,
which in turn will be used to predict the locations of other
natural sanctuaries and guide their management for the
protection and restoration of Great Lakes mussels.
Ecosystem Objective
Restoration of the richness, distribution, and abundance of
mussels throughout the Great Lakes reflecting the general
health of the basin ecosystems. The long-term goal is for
mussel populations to be stable and self-sustaining
wherever possible throughout their historical range in
the Great Lakes, including the connecting channels and
tributaries.
State of the Ecosystem
Freshwater mussels (Bivalvia: Unionacea) are of unique
ecological value as natural biological filters, food for fish
and wildlife, and indicators of good water quality. In the
United States, some species are commercially harvested for
their shells and pearls. These slow-growing, long-lived
organisms can influence ecosystem function such as
phytoplankton ecology, water quality, and nutrient cycling.
As our largest freshwater invertebrate, freshwater mussels
may also constitute a significant proportion of the large
freshwater invertebrate biomass. Because they are sensitive
to toxic chemicals, mussels may serve as an early-warning
system to alert us of water quality problems. They are also
good indicators of environmental change due to their
longevity and sedentary nature. Since mussels are parasitic
on fish during their larval stage, they depend on healthy
fish communities for their survival.
36
-------
IMPLEMENTING INDICATORS 2003
A TECHNICAL REPORT
The richness, distribution, and abundance of mussels
reflect the general health of aquatic ecosystems. They
are a particularly sensitive indicator of biofouling by
the non-native zebra mussel, Dreissena polymorpha.
Freshwater mussels, like butterflies, were prized by
amateur collectors and naturalists in the past. As a
result, many museums have extensive shell
collections dating back 150 years or more that
provide us with an invaluable "window to the past"
that is not available for other aquatic invertebrates.
Freshwater mussels have severely declined across North
America, particularly in the Great Lakes. A number of
species listed as endangered or threatened in the United
States or Canada, or in individual states (freshwater
mussels are not considered for provincial listing at present),
are found in the Great Lakes. In the United States, these
include the clubshell (Pleurobema clava), fat pocketbook
(Potamilus capax), northern riffleshell (Epioblasma
torulosa rangiana), and white catspaw (Epioblasma
obliquata perobliqua). In Canada, the northern riffleshell,
rayed bean (Villosa fabalis), wavy-rayed lampmussel
(Lampsilis fasciola), mudpuppy mussel (Simpsonaias
ambigua), snuffbox (Epioblasma triquetra), round
hickorynut (Obovaria subrotunda) and kidneyshell
(Ptychobranchus fasciolaris) are listed as endangered.
Nearly 300 species of freshwater mussels are native to the
rivers, streams and lakes of North America. This is the
richest freshwater mussel fauna in the world, representing
one-third of all described species. Unfortunately, freshwater
mussels are also one of the most endangered groups of
organisms on the continent, with nearly 72% of species
vulnerable to extinction or already extinct. The decline of
unionids has been attributed to commercial exploitation,
water quality degradation (pollution, siltation), habitat
destruction (dams, dredging, channelization), riparian
and wetland alterations, changes in the distribution and/
or abundance of host fishes, and non-native species.
Port Maitland
Lake St. Clair
Grosse Point, Ml
I
I
10
19911999
Detroit River
! Puce, ON
9861994 "
I
I
1982-831992-94
Nearshore Western^
Basin Refuge - p
f 1930-821991
Metzger Marsh! f.
Refuge
Rondeau Bay
1
astern Shore
Lake St. Clair
19612001
1999
Bass Islands
I Thompson Bay Refuge
3resque Isle Bay
I
1990-921995
Lake Erie SW Shore
1999 Sandusky Bay
2001
lo
19601998
0 = no mussels
= 10 species
Figure 1. Numbers of freshwater mussel species found before and afterthe zebra mussel invasion at 13
sites in Lake Erie, Lake St. Clair, and the Niagara and Detroit Rivers (no "before" data available for 4
sites), and the locations of the four known refuge sites (Thompson Bay, Metzger Marsh, Nearshore
Western Basin, and St. Clair Delta).
Source: Metcalfe-Smith, J.L., D.T. Zanatta, E.G. Masteller, H.L. Dunn, S.J. Nichols, P.J. Marangelo, and D.W. Schloesser, 2002
37
-------
IMPLEMENTING INDICATORS 2003
A TECHNICAL REPORT
The introduction of the zebra mussel to the Great
Lakes in the late 1980s has decimated unionid
communities throughout the system. Zebra mussels
attach to a mussel's shell, where they interfere with
activities such as feeding, respiration and locomotion
- effectively robbing it of the energy reserves needed
for survival and reproduction. Lake Erie, Lake St.
Clair and their connecting channels historically
supported a rich mussel fauna of about 35 species.
Unionid mussels were slowly declining in some areas
even before the zebra mussel invasion. For example,
densities in the western basin of Lake Erie decreased
from 10 unionids/m2 in 1961 to 4/m2 in 1982,
probably due to poor water quality. In contrast, the
impact of the zebra mussel was swift and severe.
Unionids were virtually extirpated from the offshore
waters of western Lake Erie by 1990 and Lake St.
Clair by 1994, with similar declines in the connecting
channels and many nearshore habitats. The average
number of unionid species found in these areas before
the zebra mussel invasion was 18 (Fig. 1). After the
invasion, 60% of surveyed sites had 3 or fewer
species left alive, 40% of sites had none left, and
abundance had declined by 90-95%.
It was feared that unionid mussels would be extirpated
from Great Lakes waters by the zebra mussel. However,
significant communities were recently discovered in several
nearshore areas where zebra mussel infestation rates are
low (Fig. 1).
All of the refuge sites discovered to date have two things in
common: they are very shallow (
-------
IMPLEMENTING INDICATORS 2003
A TECHNICAL REPORT
2. To assist with the above exercise, and to guide
future surveys, combine all data into a
computerized, GIS-linked database (similar to
the 6000-record Ontario database managed by
the National Water Research Institute)
accessible to all relevant jurisdictions.
3. Conduct additional surveys to fill data gaps,
using standardized sampling designs and
methods for optimum comparability of data.
The Freshwater Mollusk Conservation Society
is currently preparing a peer-reviewed, state-
of-the art protocol that should be consulted for
guidance. Populations of endangered and
threatened species should be specifically
targeted.
4. Document the locations of all existing refugia,
both within and outside of the influence of
zebra mussels, and protect them by all possible
means from future disturbance.
5. Conduct research to determine the mechanisms
responsible for survival of unionids in the
various refuge sites, and use this knowledge to
predict the locations of other refugia and to
guide their management. Research in the St.
Clair Delta refuge will begin in 2003. Ensure
that the environmental requirements of
unionids are taken into account in wetland
restoration projects.
6. Actively pursue all avenues for educating the
public about the plight of unionids in the Great
Lakes, and legislating their protection. This
includes ensuring that all species that should
be listed are listed as quickly as possible.
7. Apply the principles of the National Strategy for
the Conservation of Native Freshwater Mussels
(The National Native Mussel Conservation
Committee 1998) to the conservation and
protection of the Great Lakes unionid fauna.
Acknowledgments
Authors: Janice L. Smith, Biologist, Aquatic Ecosystem Impacts Research
Branch, National Water Research Institute, Burlington, ON, E-mail:
Janice.Smith@ec.gc.ca and S. Jerrine Nichols, U.S. Geological Survey,
Biological Resources Division, Ann Arbor, ML, E-mail:
s_jerrine_nichols@usgs.gov
Sources
Freshwater Mollusk Conservation Society website: http://ellipse.inhs.uiuc.edu/
FMCS/
Martel, A.L., D.A. Pathy J.B. Madill, C.B. Renaud, S.L. Dean and S.J. Kerr. 2001.
Decline and regional extirpation of freshwater mussels (Unionidae) in a small
river system invaded by Dreissena polymorpha: the Rideau River, 1993-2000.
Can. J. Zool. 79(12): 2181-2191.
Masteller, E.C. Pennsylvania State University at Erie, PA. Personal
Communication, December 2001.
Metcalfe-Smith, J.L., D.T. Zanatta, E.C. Masteller, H.L. Dunn, S.J. Nichols, P.J.
Marangelo, and D.W. Schloesser. 2002. Some nearshore areas in Lake Erie and
Lake St. Clair provide refuge for native freshwater mussels (Unionidae) from the
impacts of invading zebra and quagga mussels (Dreissena sp.). Presented at the
45th Conference on Great Lakes Research, June 2-6, 2002, Winnipeg, Manitoba,
abstract onp .87 of program.
Nichols S.J. and J. Amberg. 1999. Co-existence of zebra mussels and freshwater
unionids; population dynamics of Leptodea fragilis in a coastal wetland infested
with zebra mussels. Can.]. Zool 77(3): 423-432.
Nichols, S.J. and D.A. Wilcox. 1997. Burrowing saves Lake Erie clams. Nature 389:
921.
Schloesser, D.W., R.D. Smithee, G.D. Longdon, and W.R Kovalak. 1997. Zebra
mussel induced mortality of unionids in firm substrata of western Lake Erie and a
habitat for survival. American Malacological Bulletin 14:67-74.
The National Native Mussel Conservation Committee. 1998. National strategy for
the conservation of native freshwater mussels./. ShellfishRes. 17(5): 1419-1428.
Zanatta, D.T., G.L. Mackie, J.L. Metcalfe-Smith and D.A. Woolnough. 2002. A
refuge for native freshwater mussels (Bivalvia: Unionidae) from impacts of the
non-native zebra mussel (Dreissena polymorpha) in Lake St. Clair. /. Great Lakes
Res. 28(3): 479-489.
39
-------
IMPLEMENTING INDICATORS 2003
A TECHNICAL REPORT
Urban Density
SOLEC Indicator #7000 - Indicator Matrix
Note: At the time this report was prepared, the data from
the 2000 U.S. Census had not yet been released below the
county level for population density in the Lake Superior states.
Still, it is felt that this indicator will benefit from mapping of
data at the U.S. census block group and Canadian census
subdivision or enumeration area level to show not only urban
density but rural sprawl as well.
Assessment: Mixed Deteriorating (for Lake
Superior basin)
Data are not system-wide.
Purpose
To assess the human population density in the Great
Lakes basin, and to infer the degree of inefficient land
use and urban sprawl for communities in the Great
Lakes ecosystem.
Ecosystem Objective
Socioeconomic viability and sustainable development
are generally accepted goals for society.
State of the Ecosystem
This information is presented to supplement the
report on Urban Density in SOLEC 2000
Implementing Indicators (Draft for Review,
November 2000).
Overall population for the 16 U.S. Lake Superior
basin counties dropped 2.7 percent from 1930 to 2000
but increased 1.4 percent from 1990 to 2000. The U.S.
population increased 128.4 and 13.1 percent during
the same periods.
Genus Subdivisions
Lake Superior Watershed
Population Density
0 -1 persons/km2
1 -10
10-50
50 - 300
300-1000
> 1000
. Algoma, Unorganized, North Part
_
Sudbury, Unorganized, North Part
^
ault Ste. Marie
\
-
100
0
100 Kilometers
Figure 1. Population density in the U.S. and Canadian Lake Superior basin, 1990-1991. Data are from GEM Center for Science and Environmental
Outreach, Michigan Technological University.
Source: U.S. Census TIGER 1990 census block group and Statistics Canada 1991 census enumeration
area demographics; U.S. Geological Survey and Natural Resources Canada watershed boundaries
40
-------
IMPLEMENTING INDICATORS 2003
A TECHNICAL REPORT
Lake Superior Watershed
Population Density
I I 0 - persons/sq km
I 1 1 -10
IZZl 10-50
CZl 50 - 300
CZl 300-1000
• > 1000
Ch
Hibbi
Figure 2. Population density by census block group, southwestern Lake
Superior basin, 1990. Data are from GEM Center for Science and
Environmental Outreach, Michigan Technological University.
Source: U.S. Census TIGER 1990 block groups and U.S. Geological Survey watershed boundaries
Thunder Bay, Unorganized
i<5
• Lake Nipigon
Thunder Ba
-Jfc*-^
rjF
Lake Superior
Lake Superior Watershed Boundaries
Population Percent Change, 1991-1996
-34 to-15%
-15 to-5%
-5 to 0%
0 to +5%
+5 to+15%
+15 to+24%
Igoma, Unorganized, North Part
Stidt
ury, Unorganized, North Part
£'Sault ste. Marie
100 Kilometers
Figure 3. Percent change in population in the Ontario portion of the Lake
Superior basin from 1991-1996. Data are from GEM Center for Science and
Environmental Outreach, Michigan Technological University.
Source: Statistics Canada 1996 Census subdivision profiles for Ontario and Natural Resources Canada
watershed boundaries
41
-------
IMPLEMENTING INDICATORS 2003
A TECHNICAL REPORT
U.S. Census 1990 TIGER census block group data for
the 540 census block groups mostly in the Lake
Superior basin show a range of 0.1 to 5,640 persons/
km2, with a mean of 9.95, equivalent to 25.8 persons/
mi2 overall. The density calculated for the 16 counties
mostly in the Lake Superior basin was slightly lower,
at 20.1 persons/mi2 (7.76 persons/km2), compared to
70.3 persons/mi2 (27.1 persons/km2) for the U.S. as a
whole.
In 2000, the density was virtually unchanged, at 20.4
persons/mi2 (7.88 persons/km2), compared to 79.6
persons/mi2 (30.7 persons/km2) for the U.S. as a
whole and 61.8-175.0 persons/mi2 (23.9-67.6 persons/
km2) for Michigan, Minnesota, and Wisconsin.
For the 31 participating Ontario census subdivisions
that are part of the Lake Superior basin, data from
Statistics Canada shows an overall population density
of 1.29 and 1.28 persons/km2 in 1991 and 1996,
respectively. If the Algoma and Sudbury unorganized
districts, which lie mostly outside the basin, are
removed from the data set, density increases to 2.19
and 2.17 persons/km2. Unlike the U.S. data, which are
based on land area only, the Ontario data include land
and water area, thus lowering the calculated
population density. (For comparison, the population
density for the U.S. part of the basin would be 8.72
persons/km2 instead of 9.95 if water area were
included.) The population density in 1991 ranged
from 0.08 in Thunder Bay, Unorganized, to 1,393
persons/km2 on the Pic Mobert South First Nations
Reserve. The urban areas of Sault Ste. Marie and
Thunder Bay had densities of 367.8 and 352.9,
respectively. Figures 1 and 2 show persons/km2 for
the entire Lake Superior basin and a subset of the
basin. Figure 3 shows the percentage change in
population in the Ontario portion of the Basin from
1991 to 1996. The greatest population growth, in some
cases 10 to 15 percent, generally occurred in
townships adjacent to the City of Thunder Bay, which
itself was essentially unchanged (-0.2 percent).
Future Pressures
Sprawl is increasingly becoming a problem in rural
parts of the Great Lakes basin, placing a strain on
infrastructure and consuming habitat in areas that
tend to have healthier environments overall than
those that remain in urban areas. This trend is
expected to continue, which will exacerbate other
problems, such as increased consumption of fossil
fuels, longer commute times from residential to work
areas, and fragmentation of habitat.
Future Activities
As noted in the SOLEC 2000 Urban Density indicator
report, policies that encourage infill and brownfield
redevelopment within urbanized areas will reduce
sprawl. Comprehensive and land-use planning that
incorporates "green" features, such as cluster
development and greenway areas, will help to
alleviate the pressure from development, but only if
the plans are implemented through zoning,
redevelopment incentives, or other means.
Further Work Necessary
Displaying U.S. and Canadian census population
density on a GIS map will allow increasing sprawl to
be documented over time in the Great Lakes basin on
a variety of scales. For example, the maps included
with this report show the entire Lake Superior basin
and a closer view of the southwestern part of the
basin.
Acknowledgments
Author: Kristine Bradof, GEM Center for Science and Environmental
Outreach, Michigan Technological University, MI, and James G. Cantrill,
Communication and Performance Studies, Northern Michigan University,
ML
Sources
GEM Center for Science and Environmental Outreach. (2000) Baseline
Sustainability Data for the Lake Superior Basin: Final Report to the Developing
Sustainability Committee, Lake Superior Binational Program, November 2000.
Unpublished report, Michigan Technological University, Houghton, MI (http://
emmap.mtu.edu/gem/community/planning/lsb.html).
Statistics Canada. 1991. Beyond 20/20 census enumeration area demographics and
1991 and 1996 census subdivision area profiles (data purchased for the Lake
Superior basinprovided to US EPA Great Lakes National Program Office through
GEM Center project above).
US Census Bureau. TIGER 1990 Census block group demographics for 540 census
block groups mostly within the Lake Superior basin (http://www.esri.com/data/
online/tiger/index.html), as determined using ESRI ArcView 3.2 GIS software.
US Census Bureau. USA Counties 1998 CD-ROM (similar data available from US
Census Bureau, County and City Data Book:2000 at http://www.census.gov/prod/
2002pubs/OOccdb/ccOO_tabBl .pdf)
42
-------
IMPLEMENTING INDICATORS 2003
A TECHNICAL REPORT
Economic Prosperity
SOLEC Indicator #7043 - Indicator Matrix
Assessment: Mixed (for Lake Superior Basin)
Data are not system-wide.
Purpose
To assess the unemployment rates within the Great
Lakes basin, and, when used in association with other
Societal indicators, to infer the capacity for society in
the Great Lakes region to make decisions that will
benefit the Great Lakes ecosystem.
Ecosystem Objective
Human economic prosperity is a goal of all
governments. Full employment (unemployment
below 5% in western societies) is a goal for all
economies and humans are part of the ecosystem.
State of the Ecosystem
This information is presented to supplement the
report on Economic Prosperity in SOLEC 2000
Implementing Indicators (Draft for Review,
November 2000). In 1975,1980,1985, 1990, 1995 and
2000 the civilian unemployment rate in the 16 U.S.
Lake Superior basin counties averaged about 2.0
points above the U.S. average, and above the
averages for their respective states, except
occasionally Michigan (Figure 1). For example, the
unemployment rate in the four Lake Superior basin
counties in Minnesota was consistently higher than
for Minnesota overall, 2.8 points on average but
nearly double the Minnesota rate of 6.0 percent in
1985. Unemployment rates in individual counties
ranged considerably, from 8.6 to 26.8 percent in 1985,
for example.
In the 29 Ontario census subdivisions mostly within
the Lake Superior watershed, the 1996 unemployment
rate for the population 15 years and over was 11.5
percent. For the population 25 years and older, the
unemployment rate was 9.1 percent. By location the
rates ranged from 0 to 100 percent; the extremes,
which occur in adjacent First Nations communities,
appear to be the result of small populations and the
20 percent census sample. The most populated areas,
Sault Ste. Marie and Thunder Bay, had
unemployment rates for persons 25 years and older of
9.4 and 8.6 percent, respectively. Of areas with
population greater than 200 in the labor force, the
range was from 2.3 percent in Terrace Bay Township
to 31.0 percent in Beardmore Township. Clearly, the
goal of full employment (less than 5%
unemployment) was not met in either the Canadian
or the U.S. portions of the Lake Superior basin during
the years examined.
Further Work Necessary
As noted in the SOLEC 2000 write-up, unemployment
may not be sufficient as a sole measure for this
indicator. Other information that is readily available
1985 1990
Year
• United States DMichigan
• Minnesota ^Wisconsin
nU.S. Lake Superior Counties DOntario L. Superior Basin 1996
Figure 1. Unemployment rate in Michigan,
Wisconsin, and the U.S. and Ontario Lake
Superior basin, 1975-2000.
Source: U.S. Census Bureau and Statistics Canada
Families 1979
Families 1989
• USA
D Michigan
• Minnesota
• Wisconsin
D Lake Superior basin
Figure 2. Individuals below poverty level in U.S.
Great Lakes basin, 1979-1999, and families below
poverty level in Ontario Great Lakes basin, 1999.
Source: U.S. Census Bureau
43
-------
IMPLEMENTING INDICATORS 2003
A TECHNICAL REPORT
1979
1989
Year
1998
• USA
o Michigan
i Minnesota
i Wisonsin
QLake Superior basin
Figure 3. Children ages 18 or younger in poverty,
1979-1998, U.S. Lake Superior basin.
Source: U.S. Census Bureau
from the U.S. Census Bureau and Statistics Canada
includes poverty statistics for the overall population,
children under age 18, families, and persons age 65
and older. Two examples of trends in those measures
are shown in Figures 2 and 3.
For persons of all ages within the U.S. Lake Superior
basin for whom poverty status was established, 10.4
percent were below the poverty level in 1979. That
figure had risen to 14.5 percent in 1989, a rate of
increase higher than the states of Michigan,
Minnesota, and Wisconsin and the U.S. overall over
the same period. Poverty rates in all areas were lower
in 1999, but the U.S. Lake Superior basin (and Ontario
portion of the basin in 1996) was higher than any of
the three states. The 1979 poverty rate for counties
within the Lake Superior basin ranged from a low of
4.4 percent in Lake County, Minnesota, to a high of
17.0 percent in Houghton County, Michigan. In 1989
and 1999, those same counties again were the
extremes.
Similarly, among children under age 18, poverty
rates in the Great Lakes basin portions of the three
states in 1979,1989, and 1999 exceeded the rates of
Minnesota and Wisconsin as a whole, though they
remained below the U.S. rate. In a region where one-
tenth to one-sixth of the population lives in poverty,
environmental sustainability is likely to be perceived
by many as less important than economic
development.
Acknowledgments
Author: Kristine Bradof, GEM Center for Science and Environmental
Outreach, Michigan Technological University, MI and James G. Cantrill,
Communication and Performance Studies, Northern Michigan University,
ML
)rt to the Developing
November 2000.
MI (http://
i_»wni.\.ca
GEM Center for Science and Environmental Outreai
Sustainability Data for the Lake Superior Basin: Final Report to the I
Sustainability Committee, Lake Superior Binational Program, Novel
Unpublished report, Michigan Technological University, Houghton,
emmap.mtu.edu/gem/community/planning/lsb.html)
Statistics Canada. Beyond 20/20 Census Subdivision Area Profiles for the Ontario
Lake Superior Basin, 1996.
U.S. Census Bureau. State & County QuickFacts 2000. Table DP-3. Profile of
Selected Economic Characteristics (http://censtats.census.gov/data/MI/
04026.pdf #page=3).
U.S. Census Bureau. Population by Poverty Status in 1999 for Counties: 2000
(http://www.census.gov/hhes/poverty/2000census/poppvstatOO.html).
U.S. Census Bureau. USA Counties 1998 CD-ROM (includes unemployment data
from Bureau of Labor Statistics).
44
-------
IMPLEMENTING INDICATORS 2003
A TECHNICAL REPORT
Area, Quality, and Protection of Great
Lakes Islands
SOLEC Indicator #8129 (islands) - Indicator Matrix
Assessment: Not Assessed
Indicator is under development. Data are not
available.
Purpose
This indicator assesses the status islands, of one of the
12 special lakeshore communities identified within
the nearshore terrestrial area. There are over thirty
thousand islands in the Great Lakes. The islands
range in size from no bigger than a large boulder to
the world's largest freshwater island, Manitoulin, and
often form chains of islands known as archipelagos.
Though not well known, the Great Lakes contain the
world's largest freshwater island system, and are
globally significant in terms of their biological
diversity. Despite this, the state of our knowledge
about them is quite poor.
Ecosystem Objective
To assess the changes in area and quality of Great
Lakes islands individually, and as an ecologically
important system; to infer the success of management
activities; and to help focus future conservation
efforts associated with the protection of some of the
most ecologically significant habitats in the Great
Lakes.
State of the Ecosystem
By their very nature, islands are vulnerable and
sensitive to change. As water levels rise and fall,
islands are exposed to the forces of erosion and
accretion. Islands are exposed to weather events due
to their 360-degree exposure to the elements across
the open water. Isolated for perhaps tens of
thousands of years from the mainland, islands in the
- Element Occurrence
Ecological Site District
Figure 1. Distribution of Ontario's provincially rare species and vegetation communities on islands in the
Great Lakes.
Source: Ontario Natural Heritage Information Centre, March 2003
45
-------
IMPLEMENTING INDICATORS 2003
A TECHNICAL REPORT
past rarely gained new species, and their resident
species often evolved into endemics, that differed
from mainland varieties. This means that islands are
especially vulnerable to the introduction of non-
native species, among other things.
Some of the Great Lakes islands are among the last
remaining wildlands on Earth. Islands could be
considered as a single irreplaceable resource and
protected as a whole if the high value of this natural
heritage is to be maintained. For example, Michigan's
Great Lakes islands contain one-tenth of the state's
threatened, endangered, or rare species while
representing only one-hundredth of the land area. All
of Michigan's threatened, endangered, or rare coastal
species occur at least in part on its islands. The
natural features of particular importance are the
colonial waterbirds, neartic-neotropical migrant
songbirds, endemic plants, endangered species, fish
spawning and nursery use of associated shoals and
reefs and other aquatic habitat, marshes, alvars,
coastal barrier systems, sheltered embayments,
nearshore bedrock mosaic, and sand dunes.
Future Pressures
By their very nature, islands are more sensitive to
human influence than the mainland and need special
protection to conserve their natural values. Proposals
to develop islands are increasing. This is occurring
before we have the scientific information and
processes, or knowledge regarding use in place to
evaluate, prioritize, and make appropriate natural
resource decisions. Island stressors include:
development, invasive species, shoreline
modification, marina development, agriculture and
forestry practices, recreational use, navigation/
shipping practices, wastewater discharge, mining
practices, drainage or diversion systems,
overpopulation of certain species such as deer and
cormorants, industrial discharge, development of
roads or utilities, and disruption of natural
disturbance regimes.
Future Activities
The Great Lakes islands provide a unique
opportunity to protect a resource of global
importance because many islands still remain intact.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's Great Lake Basin
Ecosystem Team (GLBET)-has taken on the charge of
providing leadership to coordinate and improve the
protection and management of the islands of the
Great Lakes. The GLBET island initiative includes the
coordination and compilation of island geospatial
data and information, developing standardized
survey/monitoring protocols, holding an island
workshop in the fall of 2002 to incorporate input from
partners for addressing the SOLEC Island Indicator
needs, and completion of a Great Lakes Islands
Conservation Strategic Plan.
Recent and ongoing Great Lakes island conservation
initiatives include the newly established International
Detroit River Wildlife Refuge (the first ever
International Wildlife Refuge), the proposed
restoration of the Green Bay Cat Island Chain, and the
binational Western Lake Erie Islands Conservation
Planning Project.
The information conveyed by this indicator will help
to focus attention and management efforts to best
conserve these unique and globally significant Great
Lakes resources.
Acknowledgments
Richard H. Greenwood, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Great Lakes Basin
Ecosystem Team Leader; and Liaison to U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency-Great Lakes National Program Office, Chicago, IL.
Sources
Richard Greenwood, USF WS Liaison to USEPA Great Lakes National Program
Office, Team Leader Great Lakes Basin Ecosystem Team, Great Lakes National
Program Office Chicago, IL 60604, Ph: 312-886-3853, Email:
rich_greenw ood@fws.gov or greenwood.richard@epa.gov
Dr. Karen E. Vigmostad Great Lakes Policy Analyst Ecosystem Team, Northeast-
Midwest Institute, Washington, DC Ph: 202-464-4016, Email:
kvigmostad@nemw.org
Dr. Judy Soule, Director, U.S. Network Partnerships, Nature Serve, East Lansing,
Michigan, Ph: 517-381-5310, Email: judy_soule@natureserve.org
Susan Crispin, Director, Montana Natural Heritage Program, Helena, MT, Ph: 406-
444-5434, E-mail: scrispin@state.mt.us
46
-------
IMPLEMENTING INDICATORS 2003
A TECHNICAL REPORT
1.3 PRESSURE INDICATOR REPORTS-PART 1
SUMMARY OF PRESSURE INDICATORS-PART 1
The overall assessment for the Pressure indicators is incomplete. Part One of this Assessment presents the
indicators for which we have the most comprehensive and current basin-wide information. Data presented in
Part Two of this report represent indicators for which information is not available year to year or are not
basin-wide across jurisdictions. Within the Great Lakes indicator suite, 38 have yet to be reported, or require
further development. In a few cases, indicator reports have been included that were prepared for SOLEC 2000,
but that were not updated for SOLEC 2002. The information about those indicators is believed to be still valid,
and therefore appropriate to be considered in the assessment of the Great Lakes. In other cases, the required
data have not been collected. Changes to existing monitoring programs or the initiation of new monitoring
programs are also needed. Several indicators are under development. More research or testing may be needed
before these indicators can be assessed.
Indicator Name
Spawning-Phase Sea Lamprey
Phosphorus Concentrations
and Loadings
Contaminants in Colonial Nesting
Waterbirds
Atmospheric Deposition and Toxic
Chemicals
Contaminants in Edible Fish Tissue
Air Quality
Ice Duration on the Great Lakes
Extent of Hardened Shoreline
Contaminants Affecting
Productivity of Bald Eagles
Acid Rain
Non-native Species introduced into
the Great Lakes
Assessment in 2000
Mixed
Mixed
Good
Mixed, improving
Mixed, improving
Mixed
No Report
Mixed, deteriorating
Mixed, improving
Mixed
Poor
Assessement in 2002
Mixed, improving
Mixed
Mixed, improving
Mixed
Mixed, improving
Mixed
Mixed, deteriorating (with
respect to climate change)
Mixed, deteriorating
Mixed, improving
Mixed, improving
Poor
Green represents an improvement of the indicator assessment from 2000.
Red represents deterioration of the indicator assessment from 2000.
Black represents no change in the indicator assessment from 2000, or where no previous
assessment exists.
47
-------
IMPLEMENTING INDICATORS 2003
A TECHNICAL REPORT
Sea Lamprey
Indicator ID #18 - Indicator Matrix
Assessment: Mixed Improving
Purpose
Estimates of the abundance of sea lamprey are
presented as an indicator of the status of this
invasive species and of the damage it causes to the
fish communities and aquatic ecosystems of the
Great Lakes. Populations of the native top predator,
lake trout, and other fishes are negatively affected by
mortality caused by sea lamprey.
Ecosystem Objective
The 1955 Convention of Great Lakes Fisheries created
the Great Lakes Fishery Commission (GLFC) "to
formulate and implement a comprehensive program for the
purpose of eradicating or minimizing the sea lamprey
populations in the Convention area" (GLFC 1955). Under
the Joint Strategic Plan for Great Lakes Fisheries, lake
committees, consisting of all fishery management
agencies, have established Fish Community
Objectives (FCOs) for each of the lakes. These FCOs
cite the need for sea lamprey control to support
objectives for the fish community, in particular,
objectives for lake trout, the native top predator. The
FCOs include endpoints for sea lamprey of varying
specificity:
Superior (Bushian 1990) - 50% reduction in parasitic-
phase sea lamprey abundance by 2000, and a 90% reduction
by 2010;
Michigan (Eshenroder et al. 1995) - Suppress the sea
lamprey to allow the achievement of other fish-community
objectives;
Huron (Desjardine et al. 1995) - 75% reduction in parasitic
sea lamprey by the year 2000 and a 90% reduction by the
year 201 Ofrom present levels;
Erie (1999 draft) - Sea lamprey are a pest species requiring
control;
Ontario (Stewart et al. 1999) - Suppress sea lamprey to
early-1990s levels, and maintaining marking rates at <0.02
marks/lake trout.
State of the Ecosystem
The first complete round of stream treatments with
the lampritide TFM, as early as 1960 in Lake
Superior, successfully suppressed sea lamprey to less
than 10% of their pre-control abundance in all of the
Great Lakes.
Mark and recapture estimates of the abundance of
sea lamprey migrating up rivers to spawn is used as
a surrogate of the abundance of parasites feeding in
the lakes during the previous year. Estimates of
individual spawning runs in trappable streams are
used to estimate lake-wide abundance using a new
regression model that relates run size to stream
characteristics (Mullett et al. in press). Sea lamprey
spend one year in the lake after metamorphosing, so
this indicator has a two-year lag in demonstrating
the effects of control efforts. Figure 1 presents these
lake-wide estimates since 1980.
Lake Superior: During the past 20 years, populations
have fluctuated but remain at levels less than 10% of
peak abundance. The FCO for sea lamprey was met in
1994 and 1995, but abundance has increased since
1995 (Heinrich et al. in press). Recent increased
abundance estimates have raised concern in all
waters. Marking rates have shown the same pattern
of increase especially in some areas of Canadian
waters. Survival objectives for lake trout continue to
be met but could be threatened if increases were to
continue. Stream treatments were increased during
2001 and 2002 in response to the observed trends.
The effects of these additional stream treatments will
be first observed in the spawning-run estimates
during 2003.
Lake Michigan: The population of sea lamprey has
shown a continuing, slow trend upward. Marking
rates on lake trout have shown a similar trend
upward in recent years, but the general FCOs for
survival are being met (Lavis et al. in press). Increases
in abundance during the 1990s had been attributed
to the St. Marys River. The continuing trend in recent
years suggests sources of sea lamprey in Lake
Michigan itself rather than from Lake Huron as
previously believed. Stream treatments were
increased in 2001 and 2002 including treatment of
newly discovered populations in lentic areas.
Lake Huron: Following the success of the first full
round of stream treatments during the late 1960s, sea
lamprey populations were suppressed to low levels
(<10%) through the 1970s (Morse et al. in press). During
the early 1980s, populations increased in Lake Huron,
particularly the north. This increase continued and
peaked in 1993. Through the 1990s Lake Huron
contained more sea lamprey than all the other lakes
combined. FCOs were not being achieved. The Lake
48
-------
IMPLEMENTING INDICATORS 2003
A TECHNICAL REPORT
Superior
^#^^*p<&&^
Year
Figure 1. Figure 60. Total annual abundance of sea
lamprey estimated during the spawning migration.
*Note the scale for Lake Erie is 1/5th the scale size
when compared to the other Lakes.
Source: Gavin Christie and Jeffrey Slade, Great Lakes Fishery
Commission, Rodney McDonald, Department of Fisheries and Oceans
Canada, and Katherine Mullett, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Huron Committee had to abandon its lake trout
restoration objective in the northern portion of the
lake during 1995 because so few lake trout were
surviving attacks by sea lamprey to survive to
maturity. The St. Marys River was identified as the
source of this increase. The size of this connecting
channel made traditional treatment with the
lampritide TFM impractical. A new integrated
control strategy including targeted application of a
new formulation of a bottom-release lampricide,
enhanced trapping of spawning animals, and sterile-
male release was initiated in 1997 (Schleen et al. in
press). As predicted, a decline in spawning-phase
abundance was observed during 2001 as a result of
the completion of the first full round of lampricide
spot treatments during 1999. While this decline
continued through 2002, the population shows
considerable variation and the full effect of the
control program will not be observed for another 2-4
years (Adams et al. in press). Wounding rates and
mortality estimates for lake trout have also declined
during the last two years.
Lake Erie: Following the completion of the first full
round of stream treatments in 1987, sea lamprey
populations collapsed (Sullivan et al. in press). Marking
rates on lake trout declined and survival increased to
levels sufficient to meet the rehabilitation objectives
in the eastern basin. However, during the mid-1990s,
sea lamprey abundance has increased to levels that
threatened the lake trout restoration effort. A major
assessment effort during 1998 indicated that the
source of this increase was several streams in which
treatments had been deferred due to low water flows
or concerns for non-target organisms. These critical
streams were treated during 1999 and 2000. Sea
lamprey abundance was observed to decline in 2001
and then more dramatically in 2002. While more
years of low abundance will be required for full
confirmation, these decreases can be interpreted as
successful. Wounding rates on lake trout have also
declined in the lake.
Lake Ontario: Abundance of spawning-phase sea
lamprey has continued to decline to low levels
through the 1990s (Larson et al. in press). The
abundance of sea lamprey has remained stable
during 2000-2002. The FCOs for sea lamprey
abundance continues to be achieved, but lake trout
marking rates have exceeded the target if only
slightly during the last two years.
49
-------
IMPLEMENTING INDICATORS 2003
A TECHNICAL REPORT
Future Pressures
Since parasitic-phase sea lamprey are at the top of
the aquatic food chain and inflict high mortality on
large piscivores, population control is essential for
healthy fish communities. The potential for sea
lamprey to colonize new locations is increased with
improved water quality and removal of dams.
Increasing abundance in Lake Erie demonstrates how
short lapses in control can result in rapid increases of
abundance and that continued effective stream
treatments are necessary to overcome the
reproductive potential of this invading species.
As fish communities recover from the effects of sea
lamprey predation or overfishing, there is evidence
that the survival of parasitic sea lamprey may
increase due to prey availability. Better survival
means that there are more residual sea lamprey to
cause harm. Significant additional control efforts, like
those on the St. Marys River, may be necessary to
maintain suppression.
The GLFC has a goal of reducing reliance on
lampritides and increasing efforts to integrate other
control techniques, such as the sterile-male-release-
technique or the installation of barriers to stop the
upstream migration of adults. Pheromones that affect
migration and mating have been discovered and offer
exciting potential as new alternative controls. The
use of alternative controls is consistent with sound
practices of integrated pest management, but can put
additional pressures on the ecosystem such as
limiting the passage of fish upstream of barriers.
Care must be taken in applying new alternatives or
in reducing lampricide use to not allow sea lamprey
abundance to increase.
Future Actions
The GLFC has increased stream treatments and
lampricide applications in response to increasing
abundances. The GLFC continues to focus on research
and development of alternative control strategies.
Computer models, driven by empirical data, are
being used to best allocate treatment resources, and
research is being conducted to better understand and
manage in the variability in sea lamprey
populations.
Further Work Necessary
Targeted increases in lampricide treatments are
predicted to reduce sea lamprey to acceptable levels.
The effects of increased treatments will be observed
in this indicator beginning in 2003. Discrepancies
among estimates of different life-history stages need
to be resolved. Efforts to identify all sources of sea
lamprey need to continue. In addition, research to
better understand lamprey/prey interactions, the
population dynamics of sea lamprey that survive
control actions, and refinement of alternative control
methods are all key to maintaining sea lamprey at
tolerable levels.
Acknowledgments
Authors: Gavin Christie, Great Lakes Fishery Commission, Ann Arbor, ML, Jeffrey
Slade and Kasia Mullett, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Ludington and
Marquette, ML, and Rodney McDonald, Dept. Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Sault
Ste. Marie, Ontario.
Sources
Adams, J.V., Bergstedt, R.A., Christie, G.C., Cuddy, D.W., Fodale, M.F., Heinrich,
J.W., Jones, M.L., McDonald, R.B., Mullett, K.M., and Young, R.J. in press.
Assessing assessment: can we detect the expected effects of the St. Marys River
sea lamprey control strategy? /. GreatLakesRes. 29 (Suppl. 1)
Busiahn, T.R. (ed.). 1990. Fish community objectives for Lake Superior.
Lakes Fish. Comm. Spec. Pub. 90-1. 23 p.
Great
Desjardine, R.L., Gorenflo, T.K., Payne, R.N., and Schrouder, J.D. 1995. Fish-
community objectives for Lake Huron. Great Lakes Fish. Comm. Spec. Pub. 95-1.
38p.
Eshenroder, R.L., Holey, M.E., Gorenflo, T.K., and Clark, R.D. J.D. 1995. Fish-
community objectives for Lake Michigan. Great Lakes Fish. Comm. Spec. Pub.
95-3. 56 p.
Great Lakes Fishery Commission. 1955. Convention on Great Lakes Fisheries.
Great Lakes Fishery Commission, Ann Arbor, MI.
Heinrich, J.W., Mullett, K.M, Hansen, M.J., Adams, J.V., Klar, G.T., Johnson, D.A.,
Christie, G.C., and Young, R.J. in press. Sea lamprey abundance and management
in Lake Superior, 1957-1999. /. GreatLakesRes. 29 (Suppl. 1)
Larson, G.L., Christie, G.C., Johnson, D.A., Koonce, J.F., Mullett, K.M., and
Sullivan, W.P. in press. The history of sea lamprey control in Lake Ontario and
updated estimates of suppression targets. /. Great Lakes Res. 29 (Suppl. 1)
Lavis, D.S., Hallett, A., Koon, E.M., and McAuley T. inpress. History of and
advances in barriers as an alternative method to suppress sea lampreys in the Great
Lakes. /. GreatLakesRes. 29 (Suppl. 1)
Morse, T.J., Ebener, M.P., Koon, E.M., Morkert, S.B., Johnson, D.A., Cuddy, D.W.,
Weisser, J.W., Mullet, K.M., and Genovese, J.H. inpress. Acase history of sea
lamprey control in Lake Huron: 1979-1999. /. GreatLakesRes. 29 (Suppl. 1)
Mullett, K M., Heinrich, J.W., Adams, J.V. Young, R. ]., Henson, M.R, McDonald,
R.B., and Fodale, M.F. inpress. Estimating lake-wide abundance of spawning-
phase sea lampreys (Petromyzon marinus) in the Great Lakes: extrapolating from
sampled streams using regression models. /. GreatLakesRes. 29 (Suppl. 1)
Schleen, L.R, Christie, G.C., Heinrich, J.W., Bergstedt, R.A., Young, R.J., Morse, T.J.,
Lavis, D.S., Bills, T.D., Johnson J., and Ebener, M.P in press. Development and
implementation of an integrated program for control of sea lampreys in the St.
Marys River. /. GreatLakesRes. 29 (Suppl. 1)
Stewart, T.J., Lange, R.E., Orsatti, S.D., Schneider, C.P, Mathers, A., and Daniels
M.E. 1999. Fish-community objectives for Lake Ontario. Great Lakes Fish.
Comm. Spec.Pub. 99-1. 56p.
50
-------
IMPLEMENTING INDICATORS 2003
A TECHNICAL REPORT
Sullivan, W.P., Christie, G.C., Cornelius, F.C., Fodale, M.F., Johnson, D.A., Koonce,
J.F., Larson, G.L., McDonald, R.B., Mullet, K.M., Murray, C.K., and Ryan, P.A. in
press. The sea lamprey in Lake Erie: a case history. /. Great Lakes Res. 29(Suppl.
1)
Phosphorus Concentrations and Loadings
SOLEC Indicator #111 - Indicator Matrix
Assessment: Mixed
Purpose
This indicator assesses total phosphorus levels in the
Great Lakes, and is used to support the evaluation of
trophic status and food web dynamics in the Great
Lakes. Phosphorus is an essential element for all
organisms and is often the limiting factor for aquatic
plant growth in the Great Lakes. Although
phosphorus occurs naturally, the historical problems
caused by elevated levels have originated from man-
made sources. Detergents, sewage treatment plant
effluent, agricultural and industrial sources have
historically introduced large amounts into the Lakes.
Ecosystem Objective
The goals of phosphorus control are to maintain an
oligotrophic state in Lakes Superior, Huron and
Michigan; to maintain algal biomass below that of a
nuisance condition in Lakes Erie and Ontario; and to
eliminate algal nuisance growth in bays and in other
areas wherever they occur (GLWQA Annex 3).
Maximum annual phosphorus loadings to the Great
Lakes that would allow achievement of these
objectives are listed in the GLWQA. The expected
concentrations of total phosphorus in the open
waters of the Great Lakes, if the maximum annual
loads are maintained, are listed in the following
table:
State of the Ecosystem
Strong efforts begun in the 1970s to reduce
phosphorus loadings have been successful in
maintaining or reducing nutrient concentrations in
the Lakes, although high concentrations still occur
locally in some embayments and harbors.
Phosphorus loads have decreased in part due to
changes in agricultural practices (e.g., conservation
tillage and integrated crop management), promotion
of phosphorus-free detergents, and improvements
made to sewage treatment plants and sewer systems.
Average concentrations in the open waters of Lakes
Superior, Michigan, Huron, and Ontario are at or
below expected levels. Concentrations in the three
basins of Lake Erie fluctuate from year to year (Figure
1) and frequently exceed target concentrations. In
Lakes Ontario and Huron, although most offshore
waters meet the desired guideline, some offshore and
nearshore areas and embayments experience
elevated levels which could promote nuisance algae
growths such as the attached green algae,
Cladophora.
Summarizing the information into an indicator is too
subjective until the specifics regarding the metric
have been defined.
Future Pressures
Even if current phosphorus controls are maintained,
additional loadings can be expected. Increasing
numbers of people living along the Lakes will exert
increasing demands on existing sewage treatment
facilities, possibly contributing to increasing
phosphorus loads.
Future Actions
Because of its key role in productivity and food web
dynamics of the Great Lakes, phosphorus
concentrations continue to be watched by
environmental and fishery agencies. Future activities
that are likely to be needed include: 1) Assess the
capacity and operation of existing sewage treatment
plants in the context of increasing human
populations being served. Additional upgrades in
construction or operations may be required; 2)
Conduct sufficient tributary monitoring to support
the calculation of annual loadings of phosphorus to
each Great Lake by source category (i.e., sewage
treatment plans, tributaries, etc.). If the phosphorus
Lake
Superior
Huron
Michigan
Erie - Western Basin
Erie - Central Basin
Erie - Eastern Basin
Ontario
Phosphorus Guideline (|jg/L)
5
5
7
15
10
10
10
Figure 1. Phosphorus guidelines for the Great
Lakes.
Source: Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement, 1978
51
-------
IMPLEMENTING INDICATORS 2003
A TECHNICAL REPORT
concentrations remain stable at or below the
maximum target levels for most of the Lakes,
loadings information might be useful, but not critical.
Further Work Necessary
The analysis of phosphorus concentrations in the
Great Lakes is ongoing and reliable. However, a
coordinated enhanced monitoring program is
required with agreement on specifics such as
analytical and field methodologies, sampling
locations, inclusion of nearshore and embayment
sites, determination of the indicator metric and the
index. The data needed to support loadings
calculations have not been collected since 1991 in all
lakes except Erie, which has loadings information up
to 2000. Efforts to do so should be reinstated for at
least Lake Erie. Otherwise, the loadings component of
this SOLEC indicator will remain unreported, and
changes in the different sources of phosphorus to the
Lakes may go undetected.
Acknowledgments
Author: Scott Painter, Environment Canada, Burlington, ON.
Sources
Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement (GLWQA). 1978. Revised Great Lakes
Water Quality Agreement of 1978. As amended by Protocol November 18,1987.
International Joint Commission, Windsor, Ontario.
Richardson, V. Environmental Conservation Branch, Environment Canada.
Warren, G. Great Lakes National Program Office, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency.
M 20
=3
| 15
Q.
8 10
Michigan
JL
1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000
Year
o 40-
_c
Q.
I
^ 301
Western
Erie
I
1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000
Year
S 25|
en
320
c/1
o 15
Q.
8 10
^ 5
Superior
? 25i
O)
320
(/)
=3
o 15
Q_
8 10
l^
Huron
1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000
Year
1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000
Year
1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000
Year
1985 1990 1995 2000
Year
Figure 2.Total phosphorus trends in the Great Lakes 1971 -2002 (Spring, Open Lake, Surface). Blank
indicates no sampling. Horizontal line on each graphic represents the phosphorus guideline as listed in
the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement foreach Lake. Burgundy bar graphs represent Environment
Canada data. Blue bar graphs represent U.S. Environmental Protection Agency data.
Source: Environmental Conservation Branch, Environment Canada and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
52
-------
IMPLEMENTING INDICATORS 2003
A TECHNICAL REPORT
Contaminants in Colonial Nesting
Waterbirds
SOLEC Indicator #115 - Indicator Matrix
Assessment: Mixed Improving
Purpose
This indicator will assess current chemical
concentrations and trends as well as ecological and
physiological endpoints in representative colonial
waterbirds (gulls, terns, cormorants and/or herons)
on the Great Lakes. These features will be used to
infer and measure the impact of contaminants on the
health, i.e. the physiology and breeding
characteristics, of the waterbird populations. This
indicator is important because colonial waterbirds
are one of the top aquatic food web predators in the
Great Lakes ecosystem and they are very visible and
well known to the public. They bioaccumulate
contaminants to the greatest concentration of any
trophic level organism and they breed on all the
Great Lakes. Thus, they are a very cost efficient
monitoring system and allow easy inter-lake
comparisons. The current Herring Gull Egg
Monitoring program is the longest continuous-
running annual wildlife contaminants monitoring
program in the world (1974-present). It determines
concentrations of up to 20 organochlorines, 65 PCB
congeners and 53 PCDD and PCDF congeners (Braune
et al. In review).
Ecosystem Objective
One of the objectives of monitoring colonial
waterbirds on the Great Lakes is to discover the
point when there is no difference in contaminant
levels and related biological endpoints between birds
on and off the Great Lakes. When colonial waterbirds
from the Great Lakes do not differ in chemical and
biological parameters from birds off the Great Lakes,
e.g. birds in northern Saskatchewan or the
Maritimes, then our clean-up objective will have
been reached. Other objectives include determining
temporal and spatial trends in contaminant levels in
colonial waterbirds and detecting changes in their
population levels on the Great Lakes.
State of the Ecosystem
The Herring Gull Egg Monitoring Program has
provided researchers and managers with a powerful
tool (a 28 year database) to evaluate changes in
contaminant concentrations in Great Lakes wildlife
(Figure 1). The extreme longevity of the egg database
makes it possible to calculate temporal trends in
contaminant concentrations in wildlife and to look
for significant changes within those trends.
Contaminant "hot spots" for wildlife have been
identified by testing for spatial patterns among the
15 Annual Monitor Colonies (Weseloh et al. 1990,
Ewins et al. 1992) (Figure 2). The database shows that
most contaminants in gull eggs have declined a
minimum of 50% and many have declined more than
90% since the program began in 1974. In 2002, PCB,
HCB, DDE, HE, dieldrin, mirex and 2,3,7,8-TCDD levels
measured in eggs from the Annual Monitor Colonies
(N=105) were analysed for temporal trends. Analysis
showed that in 72% of cases (76/105), the
contaminants were decreasing as fast as or faster in
recent years than they had in the past. In 22% of
cases (23/105), contaminants were decreasing slower
than they had in the past. (Calculated from Bishop et
al 1992, Pettit et al 1994, Pekarik et al 1998 and
Jermyn et al 2003, as per Pekarik and Weseloh, 1998).
PCBs were the compound showing the most frequent
reduction in their rate of decline.
A comparison of 1999 and 2001 levels of the seven
contaminants at the 15 sites (N=105) showed that in
78% of the cases (82/105), levels decreased since 1999.
More than half of these comparisons (43/82) showed
declines from 1999 to 2000 and from 2000 to 2001.
Dieldrin and Granite Island (Lake Superior) showed
the greatest number of repeatedly declining
i 10
nI innnnn
Year
Figure 1. Temporal trends in DDE in herring gull
eggs from Toronto Harbour, 1974-2002.
Source: Bishop et al., 1992; Pettit etal., 1994; Pekarik et al., 1998 and
Jermyn et al., 2003
53
-------
IMPLEMENTING INDICATORS 2003
A TECHNICAL REPORT
comparisons. In 20% of the cases (21/105), levels
increased since 1999. In 38% of these cases (8/21),
levels increased from 1999 to 2000 and from 2000 to
2001. 2,3,7,8-TCDD and Channel-Shelter Island
(Saginaw Bay, Lake Huron) showed the greatest
number of repeatedly increasing comparisons. Two
percent of the cases (2/105), both involving HCB,
showed no change in levels from 1999 to 2001
(Jermyn et al. 2003).
Spatially, in 2001, gull eggs from Lake Ontario and
the St. Lawrence River continued to have the greatest
levels of mirex. The greatest dioxin (2,3,7,8-TCDD)
levels were found at Saginaw Bay (Lake Huron)
followed by the St. Lawrence-Lake Ontario-Niagara
River corridor. Sites on Lake Michigan had the
greatest levels of dieldrin and heptachlor epoxide.
Eggs from Saginaw Bay and Lake Michigan had the
greatest levels of DDE. HCB was found in the greatest
amounts at Saginaw Bay and the Niagara River. Eggs
from Saginaw Bay and the Detroit River-Western
Lake Erie area had the greatest levels of PCBs (Jermyn
et al. 2003).
In terms of gross ecological effects of contaminants on
colonial waterbirds, e.g. eggshell thinning, failed
reproductive success and population declines, most
species seem to have recovered. Populations of most
species have increased over the past 25-30 years
(Blokpoel and Tessier 1993,1996,1997,1998; Austin et
al. 1996; Scharf and Shugart 1998, Cuthbert et al. 2001;
Colonies (arranged west to east)
| 11908 D2001
Figure 2. Changes in spatial patterns of PCB1:1
levels in herring gull eggs from the Annual Monitor
Colonies, 1999 and 2001.
Source: Jermyn et al., 2003
inn
Figure 3. Nest Numbers (number of breeding pairs)
of Double-crested Cormorants on Lake Ontario,
1979-2002.
Source: Price and D.V. Weseloh, 1986; Havelka and D.V. Weseloh, 2003
Weseloh et al. 2002; Morris et al. in review, CWS
unpubl. data). Interestingly, Double-crested
Cormorants, whose population levels have increased
more than 400-fold (Figure 3), have been shown to be
still exhibiting some eggshell thinning (Custer et al.
1999). Although the gross effects appear to have
subsided, there are many other subtle, mostly
physiological and genetic endpoints that are being
measured now that were not measured in earlier
years. For example, porphyrins, retinoids and
germline minisatellite DNA mutations have been
found to correlate with contaminant levels in
Herring Gulls (Fox et al. 1988, Fox 1993, Grasman et
al. 1996, Yauk and Quinn 1999). However, the
conclusion is that the colonial waterbirds of the
Great Lakes are much healthier now than they were
during the 1970s.
Future Pressures
Future pressures for this indicator include all sources
of contaminants which reach the Great Lakes. This
includes those sources that are already well known,
e.g. re-suspension of sediments, as in western Lake
Erie, and atmospheric inputs, such as PCBs in Lake
Superior, as well as lesser known ones, such as
underground leaks from landfill sites.
Future Activities
The annual collection and analysis of Herring Gull
eggs from 15 sites on both sides of the Great Lakes
and the assessment of that species' reproductive
success is a permanent part of the Great Lakes
54
-------
IMPLEMENTING INDICATORS 2003
A TECHNICAL REPORT
surveillance activities; likewise, so is the regular
monitoring of population levels of most of the
colonial waterbird species. The plan is to continue
these procedures. Research work on improving and
expanding the Herring Gull Egg Monitoring program
is done on a more opportunistic, less predictable
basis (see below, Further Work Necessary).
Further Work Necessary
We have learned much about interpreting the
Herring Gull egg contaminants data from associated
research studies. However, much of this work is done
on an opportunistic basis, when funds are available.
Several research activities should be incorporated
into routine monitoring, e.g. tracking of porphyria,
vitamin A deficiencies and evaluation of the avian
immune system. Likewise, more research should
focus on new areas, e.g. the impact of endocrine
disrupting substances and factors regulating
chemically-induced genetic mutations.
Acknowledgments
Authors: D. V. Chip Weseloh and Tania Havelka, Canadian Wildlife Service
(CWS), Environment Canada, Downsview, ON.
Thanks to past and present staff at CWS-Ontario Region (Burlington and
Downsview), including Glenn Barrett, Christine Bishop, Birgit Braune, Neil
Burgess, Rob Dobos, Pete Ewins, Craig Hebert, Kate Jermyn, Margie Koster, Brian
McHattie, Peirre Mineau, Cynthia Pekarik, Karen Pettit, Jamie Ried, Peter Ross,
Dave Ryckman, John Struger and Stan Teeple as well as past and present staff at
the CWS National Wildlife Research Centre (Ottawa, ON), including Masresha
Asrat, Glen Fox, Michael Gilbertson, Andrew Gilman, Jim Learning, Rosalyn
McNeil, Ross Norstrom, Laird Shutt, Mary Simon, Suzanne Trudeau, Bryan
Wakeford, Kim Williams and Henry Won and wildlife biologists Ray Faber, Keith
Grasman, Ralph Morris, Jim Quinn and Brian Ratcliff for egg collections,
preparation, analysis and data management over the 28 years of this project. We
are also grateful for the logistical and graphical support of the Technical
Operations Division and the Drafting Department at the Canada Centre for Inland
Waters, Burlington, Ontario.
Sources
Austen, M.J., H. Blokpoel and G.D. Tessier. 1996. Atlas of colonial waterbirds
nesting on the Canadian Great Lakes, 1989-1991. Part 4. Marsh-nesting terns on
Lake Huron and the lower Great Lakes system in 1991. CWS, Ontario Region,
Technical Report No. 217. 75pp.
Bishop, C.A., D.V. Weseloh, N.B. Burgess, R.J. Norstrom, R. Turle and K. A. Logan.
1992. An atlas of contaminants in eggs of colonial fish-eating birds of the Great
Lakes (1970-1988). Accounts by location & chemical. Volumes I & 2. CWS,
Ontario Region, Technical Report Nos. 152 & 153, 400 & 300 pp.
Blokpoel, H. and G.D. Tessier. 1993-1998. Atlas of colonial waterbirds nesting on
the Canadian Great Lakes, 1989-1991. Parts 1-3,5. CWS, Ontario Region,
Technical Report Nos. 181, 225, 259, 272. 93 pp, 153 pp, 74 pp, 36pp.
Braune B.M., C.E. Hebert, L.S. Benedetti and B.J. Malone. In review. An
Assessment of Canadian Wildlife Service Contaminant Monitoring Programs.
CWS Technical Report. Headquarters. Ottawa.
Custer, T.W., C.M. Custer, R.K. Hines, S. Gutreuter, K.L. Stromborg, P.O. Allen and
M.J. Melancon. 1999. Organochlorine contaminants and reproductive success of
Double-crested Cormorants from Green Bay, Wisconsin, USA. Environmental
Toxicology & Chemistry 18:1209-1217.
Cuthbert, F.J., J. McKearnan and A.R. Joshi. 2001. Distribution and abundance of
colonial waterbirds in the U.S. Great Lakes, 1997-1999. Report to U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, Twin Cities, Minnesota.
Ewins, P.J., D.V. Weseloh and P. Mineau. 1992. Geographical distribution of
contaminants and productivity measures of Herring Gulls in the Great Lakes: Lake
Huron 1980. Journal of Great Lakes Research 18(2):316-330.
Fox, G. A. 1993. What have biomarkers told us about the effects of contaminants on
the health of fish-eating birds in the Great Lakes? The theory and a literature
review. Journal of Great Lakes Research 19:722-736.
Fox, G. A., S. W. Kennedy, R.J. Norstrom, and D.C. Wgfield. 1988. Porphyria in
herring gulls: a biochemical response to chemical contamination in Great Lakes
food chains. Environmental Toxicology & Chemistry 7:831-839.
Grasman, K.A., G.A. Fox, P.p. Scanlon and J.R Ludwig. 1996. Organochlorine-
associated immunosuppression in prefledging Caspian terns and her ring gulls from
the Great Lakes: an ecoepidemiological study. Environmental Health Perspect.
104:829-842.
Havelka, T. and D.V. Weseloh. 2003. Continued growth and expansion of the
Double-crested Cormorant (Phalacrocorax auritus) population on Lake Ontario,
1982-2002. CWS, Ontario Region, Unpublished Report.
Jermyn, K., C. Pekarik, T. Havelka, G. Barrett and D.V. Weseloh. 2003. An atlas of
contaminants in eggs of colonial fish-eating birds of the Great Lakes (1998-2001).
Accounts by location & chemical. Volumes I & 2. CWS, Ontario Region,
Unpublished Report.
Morris, R.D., D. V. Weseloh and J.L. Shutt. In review. Distribution and abundance
of nestingpairs of Herring Gulls (Larus argentatus) on the North American great
Lakes. Journal of Great Lakes Research.
Pekarik, C. and D.V. Weseloh. 1998. Organochlorine contaminants inHerring Gull
eggs from the Great Lakes, 1974-1995: change-point regression analysis and short-
term regression. Environmental Monitoring and. Assessment 53:77-115.
Pekarik, C., D.V. Weseloh, G.C. Barrett, M. Simon, C.A. Bishop, and K.E. Pettit.
1998. An atlas of contaminants in the eggs of fish-eating colonial birds of the great
lakes (1993-1997). Accounts by location & chemical. Volumes I & 2. CWS,
Ontario Region, Technical Report Nos. 321 & 322, 245 & 214 pp.
Pettit, K.E., C. A. Bishop, D.V. Weseloh and R.J. Norstrom. 1994. An atlas of
contaminants in eggs of colonial fish-eating birds of the Great Lakes (1989-1992).
Accounts by location & chemical. Volumes I & 2. CWS, Ontario Region, Technical
Report Nos. 194 & 195, 319 & 300 pp.
Price, I.M. and D.V. Weseloh. 1986. Increased numbers and productivity of
Double-crested Cormorants, Phalacrocorax, onLake Ontario. Can. Field-Nat.
100:474-482.
Scharf, W.C. and G.W. Shugart. 1998. Distribution and abundance of gull, tern and
cormorant nesting colonies of the U.S. Great Lakes, 1989 and 1990. (W. W.
Bowerman and A.S. Roe, Eds.) Publication No. 1, Gale Gleason Environmental
Institute, Lake Superior State University Press, Sault Ste. Marie, MI 49783 U.S.A.
56 pp
Weseloh D.V, P. Mineau and J. Struger. 1990. Geographical distribution of
contaminants and productivity measures of Herring Gulls in the Great Lakes: Lake
Erie and connecting channels 1978/79. Science of the Total Environment
91(1990):141-159.
Weseloh, D.V., C. Pekarik, T. Havelka, G. Barrett and J. Reid. 2002. Population
trends and colony locations of Double-crested Cormorants in the Canadian Great
Lakes and immediately adjacent areas, 1990-2000: a manager's guide. Journal of
Great Lakes Research 28:125-144.
Yauk, C.L. and J.S. Quinn. 1999. Genetic structure amongbreeding Herring Gulls
(Larus argentatus) from the Great Lakes and eastern Canada. Journal of Great Lakes
Research 25:856- 864.
55
-------
IMPLEMENTING INDICATORS 2003
A TECHNICAL REPORT
Atmospheric Deposition of Toxic
Chemicals
SOLEC Indicator #117 - Indicator Matrix
Assessment: Mixed
Purpose
To estimate the annual average loadings of priority
toxic chemicals from the atmosphere to the Great
Lakes and to determine temporal trends in
contaminant concentrations. This information will
be used to aid in the assessment of potential impacts
of toxic chemicals from atmospheric deposition on
human health and the Great Lakes aquatic
ecosystem, as well as to track the progress of various
Great Lakes programs toward virtual elimination of
toxic chemicals from the Great Lakes.
Ecosystem Objective
The Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement (GLWQA)
and the Binational Toxics Strategy both state the
virtual elimination of toxic substances to the Great
Lakes as an objective. Additionally, GLWQA General
Objective (d) states that the Great Lakes should be
free from materials entering the water as a result of
human activity that will produce conditions that are
toxic to human, animal, or aquatic life.
State of the Ecosystem
The Integrated Atmospheric Deposition Network
(IADN) consists of five master sampling sites, one
„— 10000 -
I
a
c
••jg 1000 -
i
o 100 -
.
I i
1991 19
i
I,
«f
i 1
i 1
'
I
L
If
)2 1993 1994 1995 199
• Lake Superior @ Eagle Harbor
• Chicago
D Lake Erie
@ Sturgeon Point
Year
1
it
if
i
H
fl
fl 1
Jm L
6 1997 1998 1999 2000
D Lake Superior @ Bru e River
• Lake Michigan @ Sleeping Bear Dunes
D Lake Huron @ Burnt Island
D Lake Ontario @ Point Petre
Figure 1. Annual average concentrations of gas-
phase ZPCBs for IADN stations. Error bars
represent the standard error for each average.
Source: Buehler, S.S., and Hites, R.A., 2002
near each of the Great Lakes, and several satellite
stations. This joint United States-Canada project has
been in operation since 1990. Since that time,
thousands of measurements of the concentrations of
polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), pesticides,
poly cyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), and trace
metals have been made at these sites. Concentrations
are measured in the atmospheric gas and particle
phases and in precipitation. These data have been
interpreted in terms of temporal trends and loadings
to the Lakes.
Concentrations
Concentrations of gas-phase PCBs (EPCB) have
generally decreased over time at the master stations
(see Figure 1) with half-lives on the order of 3-6 years.
EPCB is a suite of congeners that make up most of the
PCB mass and represent the full range of PCBs.
Including more recent data (namely the somewhat
higher levels from 1997-1999) lengthens previously
calculated half-lives. However, 2000 concentrations
show a decrease and preliminary 2001 data show
levels nearly the same as those shown for 2000. It is
assumed that PCB concentrations will continue to
decrease slowly.
The Lake Erie site consistently shows relatively
elevated EPCB concentrations compared to the other
master stations. Higher concentrations for this
station are probably due to the proximity of the
sampling site to the city of Buffalo, New York. Figure
1 also shows that EPCB concentrations at a satellite
site in downtown Chicago are an order of magnitude
higher that at the other more remote sites.
Gas-phase a-hexachlorocydohexane (HCH)
concentrations are decreasing at all sites, with half-
lives of 4-5 years; see Figure 2. This downward trend
is, in general, the case for the other banned or
restricted pesticides measured by the IADN.
Concentrations of organochlorine pesticides in
precipitation have also decreased over time.
Loadings calculations (see loadings section below)
reveal that inputs of measured in-use pesticides
(lindane and endosulfan) are generally twice as much
as that of the highest banned pesticide, and banned
pesticides are volatilizing out of the Lakes in
amounts almost 10 times more than the in-use
pesticides.
Benzo[fl]pyrene (BaP), a PAH, is produced by the
56
-------
IMPLEMENTING INDICATORS 2003
A TECHNICAL REPORT
375
350-
325
300
"^275
g 250
c 225
o
I 175~
§ 150-
8 125
O 1°°
1 75-
50-
25-
1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000
Year
uLake Superior izziLake Michigan ^Lake Erie • Lake Huron cziLake Ontario—All Site^
Figure 2. Annual average gas-phase a-HCH
concentrations at IADN master stations.The line
represents a first-order decrease fitted to the
average for all five Lakes.
Source: Buehler, S.S., and Hites, R.A., 2002
100
^ 80
g 60
1 40
20
'
.
i
I
i
J
f
n
L
1
j
j
j
1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000
Year
• Lake Superior g Lake Michigan • Lake Erie • Lake Huron o Lake Ontario |
Figure 3. Annual average particle-phase
concentrations of Benzo[a]pyrene (BaP).
Source: IADN Steering Committee, 2002
incomplete combustion of almost any fuel and is
carcinogenic. Figure 3 shows the annual average
particle-phase concentrations of BaP. The
concentrations of BaP are relatively high at Lakes
Erie and Ontario, sites near major population centers,
and the concentrations are relatively unchanged as a
function of time at all sites. Concentrations in
Chicago, not shown, are about one to two orders of
magnitude higher.
Loadings
An atmospheric loading is the amount of a pollutant
entering a lake from the air, which equals wet
deposition (rain) plus dry deposition (falling
particles) plus gas absorption into the water minus
volatilization out of the water. Basin-wide loadings
are loadings summed over all five Lakes. Annual
total basinwide loadings for a-HCH, lindane (y-HCH),
dieldrin, p,p'-DDT, and EPCBs are given in Figure 4. A
bar pointing downward indicates that the net
loading is negative and the compound is volatilizing
into the atmosphere. This occurs after the main
sources to the air have been cut off and the air
becomes "cleaner" relative to the water. The figure
shows that the absolute values of the loadings are
generally getting smaller, which indicates that the
lake water and the air above it are getting closer to
being in equilibrium. Note that in 1998, only DDT and
lindane still had a net positive deposition to the
region. DDT is very close to equilibrium; lindane most
likely still has a sizable positive loading because it is
currently in use in the region.
Figure 5 shows loadings of metals to Lakes Huron
and Ontario over time (data are not available for
Lakes Superior, Michigan, and Erie). In general,
loadings of metals seemed to decrease during the
1990s but show an increase in 1997 and 1998 for lead
and cadmium, mainly due to an increase in wet
deposition, which dominates deposition of metals to
the Lakes. Loadings for 1997 and 1998 for arsenic and
selenium do not include wet deposition, as data were
not available. Dry deposition of metals has been
consistent over time.
A report on the atmospheric loadings of these
compounds to the Great Lakes has recently been
published for data through 1998. It is available online
at: <
-------
IMPLEMENTING INDICATORS 2003
A TECHNICAL REPORT
-3200
Year
ia-HCH n Lindane • Dieldrin aSum-PCB
Figure 4. Annual total basinwide loadings for
a-HCH, lindane, dieldrin, and EPCBs.
Source: Buehler etal., 2001
,-
c .E
140
120
80
60
40
20
1995
Year
• Lead DArsenic •Selenium •Cadmium |
Figure 5. Annual loadings of metals to Lakes Huron
and Ontario combined. Data are not available for
Lakes Superior, Michigan and Erie.
Source: Buehler etal., 2001
substances may not decrease or decrease very
slowly. Currently released substances not monitored
by IADN, including mercury, other in-use pesticides,
and dioxins and furans, will also present a threat
into the future.
Atmospheric deposition of "emerging" chemicals of
concern, such as brominated flame retardants and
other compounds that may currently be under the
radar, could also serve as a future stressor on the
Great Lakes.
Future Activities
In terms of in-use agricultural chemicals, such as
lindane, further restrictions on the use of these
compounds may be warranted. Controls on the
emissions of combustion systems, such as factories
and motor vehicles, may induce a decline in the input
of PAHs to the Great Lakes' atmosphere.
Remaining sources of PCBs, such as contaminated
sediments, sewage sludge, and in-use electrical
equipment, could perhaps be addressed more
systematically through efforts like the Canada-US
Binational Toxics Strategy and EPA's Persistent
Bioaccumulative Toxics (PBT) Program. Many of
these sources are located in urban areas, which is
reflected by the higher levels of PCBs measured in
Chicago. Research to investigate the significance of
these remaining sources is underway. Such work will
help prioritize PCB disposal and remediation
projects in order to further reduce atmospheric
deposition. This is important since fish consumption
advisories for PCBs exist for all five Great Lakes.
Voluntary pollution prevention activities,
technology-based pollution controls, and chemical
substitution (for pesticides and industrial chemicals)
can aid in reducing the amounts of toxic chemicals
deposited to the Great Lakes. Efforts to achieve
reductions in use and emissions of toxics worldwide
through international assistance and negotiations
should also be supported.
Further Work Necessary
The Integrated Atmospheric Deposition Network
(IADN) should continue. Only through long-term
monitoring of the atmosphere will it become clear if
reduction efforts have been effective.
In order to more fully characterize atmospheric
deposition to the lakes, Environment Canada and
USEPA are adding analytes such as mercury, dioxins,
and polybrominated diphenyl ethers to the list of
those monitored at selected sites as funding allows.
USEPA and Indiana University have recently
installed a monitoring station in Cleveland, Ohio, in
order to obtain additional information on the
influence of urban areas on deposition to the Lakes.
58
-------
IMPLEMENTING INDICATORS 2003
A TECHNICAL REPORT
Acknowledgments
Author: This report was prepared onbehalf of the IADN Steering Committee by
Melissa Hulting, IADN Program Manager, U.S. EPA, Great Lakes National
Program Office, hulting.melissa@epa.gov, 312-886-2265.
Sources
Concentration trend figures were contributed by Stephanie Buehler, Ron Hites,
and Ilora Basu of Indiana University.
IADN Principal Investigator
Air Quality Research Branch
Environment Canada
4905 Dufferin Street,
Toronto, ON M3H5T4
IADN Program Manager
Great Lakes National Program Office
US Environmental Protection Agency
77 West Jackson Boulevard, G-17J
Chicago, IL 60604
Buehler et al 2001. Atmospheric Deposition of Toxic Substances to the Great
Lakes: IADN Results Through 1998. United States Environmental Protection
Agency and Environment Canada, 88pp. (ISBN* 0-662-31219-8. Public Works
and Government Services Canada Catalogue Number En56-156/1998E. US EPA
Report Number 905-R-01-007.)
Buehler, S.S. and Hites, R. A. 2002. The Great Lakes' Integrated Atmospheric
Deposition Network. Environmental Science and Technology
36(17): 354A-359A.
IADN Steering Committee, 2002, unpublished.
Contaminants in Edible Fish Tissue
Indicator ID # 4083 - Indicator Matrix
Assessment: Mixed Improving
Purpose
To assess the historical trends of the edibility of fish
in the Great Lakes using fish contaminant data and a
standardized fish advisory protocol. The approach is
illustrated using the Great Lakes protocol for PCBs as
the standardized fish advisory benchmark applied to
historical data to track trends in fish consumption
advice. US EPA GLNPO salmon fillet data (Minnesota
DNR salmon fillet data for Lake Superior) are used as
a starting point to demonstrate the approach.
Unfortunately data gaps and data variability with
the GLNPO salmon fillet data do not allow us to
discern statistically significant trends.
Ecosystem Objective
Overall Human Health Objective: The health of
humans in the Great Lakes ecosystem should not be
at risk from contaminants of human origin. Fish and
wildlife in the Great Lakes ecosystem should be safe
to eat; consumption should not be limited by
contaminants of human origin.
Annex 2 of the GLWQA requires LaMPs to define
"...the threat to human health posed by critical
pollutants... including beneficial use impairments."
State of the Ecosystem
Since the 1970's, there have been declines in many
persistent bioaccumulative toxic (PBT) chemicals in
the Great Lakes basin. However, PBT chemicals,
because of their ability to bioaccumulate and persist
in the environment, continue to be a significant
concern.
Fish Consumption Programs are well established in
the Great Lakes. States, tribes, and the province of
Ontario have extensive fish contaminant monitoring
programs and issue advice to their residents about
how much fish and which fish are safe to eat. This
advice ranges from recommendations to not eat any
of a particular size of certain species from some
water bodies, to recommending that people can eat
unlimited quantities of other species and sizes.
Lake
Superior
Huron
Michigan
Erie
Ontario
Contaminants on which Fish Advisories are
based on in Canada and the United States
PCBs,
PCBs,
PCBs,
PCBs
PCBs
mercury, toxaphene, chlordane, dioxin
mercury, dioxin, chlordane, toxaphene
mercury, dioxin, chlordane
dioxin, dioxinmercury
mercury, mirex, toxaphene, dioxin
Figure 1. Contaminants on which Fish Advisories
are based in Canada and the United States.
Source: Sandy Hellman, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Great
Lakes National Program Office
Advice from these agencies to limit consumption of
fish is mainly due to levels of PCBs, mercury,
chlordane, dioxin, and toxaphene in the fish. The
contaminants are listed by lake, in the following
table.
Lake Contaminants that Fish Advisories are based
on in Canada and United States State, tribal and
provincial governments provide information to
consumers regarding consumption of sport-caught
fish. This information is not regulatory-its guidance,
59
-------
IMPLEMENTING INDICATORS 2003
A TECHNICAL REPORT
or advice. Although some states use the Federal
commercial-fish guidelines for the acceptable level of
contaminants when giving advice for eating sport
caught fish, consumption advice offered by most
agencies is based on human health risk. This
approach involves interpretation of studies on health
effects from exposure to contaminants. Each state or
province is responsible for developing advisories for
protecting the public from pollutants in fish and
tailoring this advice to meet the health needs of its
citizens. As a result, the advice from state and
provincial programs is sometime different for the
same lake and speices within that lake.
Future Pressures
Organochlorine contaminants in fish in the Great
Lakes are generally decreasing. As these
contaminants decline mercury will become a more
important contaminant of concern regarding the
edibility of the fish. Emerging contaminants, such as
certain brominated flame-retardants, are increasing
in the environment and causing concern.
Screening studies on a larger suite of chemtials is
needed. The health effects of multiple contaminants,
including endocrine disrupters, need to be addressed.
Future Actions
To protect human health, actions must continue to be
implemented on a number of levels. Reductions and
monitoring of contaminant levels in environmental
media and in human tissues is an activity in
particular need of support. Health risk
communication is also a crucial component to
protecting and promoting human health in the Great
Lakes.
There is a need for surveillance to evaluate how
much fish people eat and biomonitoring to determine
actual tissue levels, particularly within sensitive
populations.
Further Work Necessary
1. Evaluation of historical data: the long-term fish
contaminant monitoring data sets that have
been assembled by several jurisdictions for
different purposes need to be more effectively
utilized. Relationships need to be developed
that allow for comparison and combined use of
existing data from the various sampling
programs. These data could be used in
PCBs in Lake Superior Coho Salmon
•? 2
E
Q.
S 1.5
m t n
2
0.5
Do not eat
One meal every two months
One meal per month
One mealperweek Unlimited consumption
PCBs in Lake Michigan Coho Salmon
— 2
t 1.5
t/)
£ 1'°
0.5
One me
— 2-
E
Q.
S 1.5-
m m
o Lu
Q.
0.5-
Do not eat
One meal every two months
One meal per month
I 1 1
^v^\*>\#\A#^v°
Year A
al per week Unlimited consumption
PCBs in Lake Huron Coho Salmon
Do not eat
One meal every two months
One meal per month
1 II I •
One meal per week Unlimited consumption
PCBs in Lake Erie Coho Salmon
~ 2-
E
Q.
e 1.5-
tn
g 1.0
0.5'
One me
— 2-
1 1.5-
in
0.
0.5-
Do not eat
One meal every two months
m One meal per month
I •••• 1 1 - . • •
# ^ ^ ^ •?> ^ ^ ^ |?
1 per week Unlimited consumption
PCBs in Lake Ontario Coho Salmon
Do not eat
II One meal every two months
1 | -
1 One meal per monthl
One meal per week Unlimited consumption
1.9
1.0
0.2
0.05
1.9
1.0
0.2
0.05
1.9
1.0
0.2
0.05
1.9
1.0
0.2
0.05
1.9
1.0
0.2
0.05
Figure 2. Results of a uniform fish advisory
protocol applied to historical data (PCBs, coho
salmon) in the Great Lakes. Blank indicates no
sampling.
Source: Sandy Hellman, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency-Great
Lakes National Program Office
60
-------
IMPLEMENTING INDICATORS 2003
A TECHNICAL REPORT
expanding this indicator to other
contaminants and species and for
supplementing the data used in this
illustration.
2. Coordination of future monitoring.
3. Agreement on fish advisory health benchmarks
for the contaminants that cause fish advisories
in the Great Lakes. Suggested starting points
are: The Great Lakes Protocol for PCBs, US EPA
IPJS RfD for mercury, and Health Canada's TDI
for toxaphene.
Acknowledgments
Authors: Sandy Hellman, USEPAGreat Lakes National Program Office, Chicago,
IL and Patricia McCann, Minnesota Department of Health, St. Paul, MN.
Sources
Sandy Hellman, U.S. EPA, Great Lakes National Program Office,
hellman.sandra@epa.gov.
De Vault, D.S. and J. A. Weishaar. 1983. Contaminant analysis of 1981 fall run coho
salmon. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Great lakes National Program
Office. EPA 905/3-83-001.
De Vault, D.S. and J. A. Weishaar. 1984. Contaminant analysis of 1982 fall run coho
salmon. U.S. Environmental protection Agency, Great Lakes National Program
Office. EPA 905/3-85-004.
De Vault, D.S., and J.A. Weishaar, J.M. Clark and G. Lavhis. 1988. Contaminants
and trends in fall run coho salmon. Journal of Great Lakes Research 14:23-33.
Air Qualih
SOLEC Indicator #4176 - Indicator Matrix
Assessment: Mixed
Purpose
To monitor the air quality in the Great Lakes
ecosystem, and to infer the potential impact of air
quality on human health in the Great Lakes basin.
Ecosystem Objective
Air should be safe to breathe. Air quality in the Great
Lakes ecosystem should be protected in areas where
it is relatively good, and improved in areas where it
is degraded.
State of the Ecosystem
Overall, there has been significant progress in
reducing air pollution in the Great Lakes basin. For
most substances of interest, both emissions and
ambient concentrations have decreased over the last
ten years or more. However, progress has not been
uniform and differences in weather from one year to
the next complicate analysis of ambient trends.
Ozone can be particularly elevated during hot
summers. Drought conditions result in more fugitive
dust emissions from roads and fields, increasing the
ambient levels of particulate matter.
In general, there has been significant progress with
urban/local pollutants over the past decade or more,
though somewhat less in recent years, with a few
remaining problem districts. Ground-level ozone and
fine particles remain a concern in the Great Lakes
region, especially in the Windsor-to-Ottawa corridor
and the Lake Michigan basin. These pollutants
continue to exceed their Ambient Air Quality Criteria
(AAQC) at a majority of monitoring locations in
Southern Ontario. As well, an increased emphasis
has been placed on monitoring finer fractions of
particulate matter (PM10 and PM2 due to known
negative health effects.
For the purposes of this discussion, the pollutants
can be divided into urban (or local) and regional
pollutants. For regional pollutants, transport is a
significant issue, from hundreds of kilometers to the
scale of the globe; formation from other pollutants,
both natural and man-made, can also be important.
Unless otherwise stated, references to the U.S. or
Canada in this discussion refer to the respective
portions of the Great Lakes basin. Latest published
air quality data are for 2000 (Canada - Ontario and
the U.S.).
Urban/Local Pollutants
Carbon Monoxide (CO): In the U.S., CO ambient levels
have decreased approximately 41 percent over 1991
to 2000, and 61 percent over 1981 to 2000. Currently,
there are no non-attainment areas in the U.S. for CO.
Nationally, U.S. emissions of CO decreased five
percent from 1991 to 2000, and 18 percent from 1981
to 2000. Over Canada, there has been a 30 to 40
percent reduction in composite site concentration
over 1988 to 1997, with a 33 to 39 percent reduction
in Ontario for the period 1991 to 2000. Emissions
have decreased nationally by 17 percent since 1988
with a 4.1 percent decline in Ontario between 1991
and 2000. These declines are mainly the result of
more stringent transportation emission standards.
Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2): Over Canada, average ambient
NO2 levels have remained relatively constant since
the early 1990's. Ontario concentrations have
declined slightly in the range of 5 tolO percent during
61
-------
IMPLEMENTING INDICATORS 2003
A TECHNICAL REPORT
the period 1991 to 2000. Canadian emissions of
nitrogen oxides (NOJ, the family of nitrogen oxides,
increased slightly from 1980 to 2000. In the U.S.,
ambient concentrations decreased 11 percent from
1991 to 2000, but remain unchanged in the Lake
Michigan area. There are currently no NO2 non-
attainment areas in the U.S. In the U.S., emissions of
NOx increased by approximately three percent from
1991 to 2000. (For more information on oxides of
nitrogen, please refer to the SOLEC Indicator Report
#9000 Acid Rain.)
Sulfur Dioxide (SO2): From 1991 to 2000, ambient
concentrations of SO2 in the U.S. decreased 37
percent. There are three non-attainment areas in the
Great Lakes region for SO2 (Lake County, Indiana;
Cleveland-Akron-Lorain, Ohio; and Toledo, Ohio).
National SO2 emissions in the U.S. were reduced 27
percent from 1990 to 2000. Canadian ambient levels
have remained fairly constant since 1994, with two
violations of the one-hour criteria in 2000 (Sudbury
and Mississauga). Canadian emissions decreased 45
percent from 1980 to 2000, but have remained
relatively constant since 1995. Even with increasing
economic activity, emissions remain below the target
national emission cap. (For more information on
sulfur dioxide, please refer to the SOLEC Indicator
Report #9000 Acid Rain.)
Lead: U.S. concentrations decreased 93 percent from
1981 to 2000 and 50 percent from 1991 to 2000. There
are no non-attainment areas for lead in the Great
Lakes region. National lead emissions in the U.S.
decreased 94 percent from 1981 to 2000, but only four
percent from 1991 to 2000, as a result of regulatory
efforts to reduce the content of lead in gasoline.
Similar improvements in Canada have followed with
the usage of unleaded gasoline, with only isolated
exceedances of ambient criteria near industrial sites.
Total Reduced Sulfur (TRS): This family of compounds is
of concern in Canada due to odor problems, normally
near industrial or pulpmill sources. Ambient
concentrations are significantly lower than in the
early 1990's with a decrease of 33.3 percent during
the period of 1991 to 2000. This decline parallels
emission reductions, though there is little trend in
recent years. There are still periods that are above
the ambient criteria near a few centers.
PM10: The U.S. National Ambient Air Quality
Standard (NAAQS) addresses PM10 (particles with a
diameter of 10 microns or less). Ambient
concentrations in the U.S. have decreased 19 percent
from 1991 to 2000. There are currently three non-
attainment areas in the Great Lakes region (two in
Cook County, Illinois; and one in Lake County,
Indiana). National direct source man-made emissions
decreased 47 percent from 1981 to 2000, but only six
percent from 1991 to 2000. Canadian objectives have
focused on Total Suspended Particulate matter (TSP).
Both PM10 and TSP affect locations relatively dose to
pollutant sources. Since 1997 there has been an
interim Ontario PM10 objective of 50ug/m3, with the
number of ambient PM monitors having more than
doubled from 20 in 1996 to 43 in 2000. Emissions
decreased from 1988 to 1992, but have shown no
significant trend since that time. Five of the 10 real-
time ambient PM10 monitors (all in urban areas)
recorded exceedances of the interim objective in 2000.
Regional Pollutants
Ground-Level Ozone (O3): Ozone is almost entirely a
secondary pollutant, which forms from reactions of
precursors (VOCs-volatile organic compounds and
NOx - oxides of nitrogen) in the presence of heat and
sunlight. Ozone is a problem pollutant over broad
areas of the Great Lakes region, except for the Lake
u
Figure 1. Regional meteorologically adjusted
trends (%/yr) in 1-hr averaged ozone in the
northern United States and southern Canada using
cluster analysis.
Source: 1980-1993 from NARSTO, 2000
62
-------
IMPLEMENTING INDICATORS 2003
A TECHNICAL REPORT
Superior basin. National assessments find some
uneven improvement in peak levels, but with
indications that average levels may be increasing on
a global scale (NARSTO 2000). Local onshore
circulations around the Great Lakes can exacerbate
the problem, as pollutants can remain trapped for
days below the maritime inversion. Consistently
high levels are found in provincial parks near Lakes
Huron and Erie, and western Michigan is impacted
by transport across Lake Michigan from Chicago. In
the U.S., high 1-hour concentrations have decreased
10 percent from 1991 to 2000, while 8-hour ozone
concentrations have only decreased 7 percent during
the same period. There are eight ozone non-
attainment areas in the Great Lakes basin (Chicago,
Illinois; Lake and Porter Counties, Indiana;
Milwaukee, Wisconsin; Manitowoc County,
Wisconsin; Door County, Wisconsin; Erie,
Pennsylvania; Buffalo-Niagara Falls, New York; and
Jefferson County, New York). VOC emissions have
decreased 16 percent and NOx emissions have
increased three percent from 1991 to 2000. In Canada,
there has been little trend in the number of
exceedances of the ozone objective in the 1990s, and
mean annual levels increase. Man-made VOC
emissions have decreased about 17 percent since
1991, although most of this decrease occurred in the
period 1991 to 1996, with emissions fairly constant
since 1996. NOx emissions have remained fairly
constant since 1995 with a slight increase in overall
emissions since 1990.
PM2 5: This fraction of particulate matter (diameter
2.5 microns or less) is of health concern because it can
penetrate deeply into the lungs, in contrast to larger
particles. PM25 is mostly a secondary pollutant,
produced from both natural and man-made
precursors (SO2, NOx, and ammonia). A Canada-
Wide-Standard (CWS) threshold of 30 ug/m3 (24-
hour average, based on the 98th percentile ambient
measurement) was established in June 2000. As PM25
monitoring has only begun quite recently, there are
not enough data to show a national long-term trend
in urban concentrations. In Ontario, based on
continuous monitoring of PM2 5 conducted at 14 sites
in 2000, 93 percent of the sites exceeded 30 ug/m3 (24-
hour average), however only two locations, Hamilton
Downtown and Sarnia, exceeded the CWS 98th
percentile threshold. As of August 2002, Ontario has
also introduced PM2 5 into their Air Quality Index and
Smog Advisory Programs, with an exceedance
threshold set at 45 ug/m3 (3-hour average). In the
U.S., there are not enough years of data from the
recently established reference-method network to
determine trends, but it appears that there may be
many areas which do not attain the new U.S.
standard (annual average of 15 ug/m3 and 24-hour
average of 65 ug/m3).
Air Toxics: This term captures a large number of
pollutants that, based on the toxitity and likelihood
for exposure, have potential to harm human health
(e.g. cancer) or cause adverse environmental and
ecological effects. Some of these are of local
importance, near to sources, while others may be
transported over long distances. Monitoring is
difficult and expensive, and usually limited in scope.
Usually such toxic air pollutants are present only at
trace levels. In both Canada and the U.S., efforts focus
on minimizing emissions. In the U.S. the Clean Air
Act targets a 75% reduction in cancer "incidence",
and "substantial" reduction in non-cancer risks. The
maximum available control technology (MACT)
program sets emissions standards on industrial
sources to reduce emissions of air toxics. Once fully
implemented, these standards will cut emissions of
toxic air pollutants by nearly 1.5 million tons per
year from 1990 levels. In Canada key toxics such as
benzene, mercury, dioxins, and furans are the subject
of ratified and proposed new standards, and
voluntary reduction efforts. Some ambient trends
have also been found. In the U.S., concentrations of
benzene and toluene have shown significant
decreases from 1993 to 1998, notably in the Lake
Michigan region due to the use of reformulated
gasoline. Styrene has also shown a significant
decrease from 1996 to 1998.
Emissions are being tracked through the National
Pollutant Release Inventory (NPRI-Canada), the U.S.
National Toxics Inventory (NTI), and the Great Lakes
Regional Air Toxics Emissions Inventory. NTI data
indicate that national U.S. toxic emissions have
dropped 23 percent between 1990 and 1996, though
emission estimates are subject to modification, and
the trends are different for different compounds. In
Canada, NPRI information includes information on
significant voluntary reductions in toxic emissions
through the ARET (Accelerated Reduction/
Elimination of Toxics) program. The Great Lakes
Toxics Inventory is an ongoing initiative of the
regulatory agencies in the eight Great Lakes States
63
-------
IMPLEMENTING INDICATORS 2003
A TECHNICAL REPORT
and the Province of Ontario. Emissions inventories
have been developed for 1996,1997 and 1998, but
different approaches were used to develop these
inventories making trend analysis difficult.
Future Pressures
Continued population growth and associated urban
sprawl are threatening to offset emission reduction
efforts and better control technologies, through both
increased vehicle-miles traveled and energy
consumption. The changing climate may affect the
frequency of weather conditions conducive to high
ambient concentrations of many pollutants. There is
also increasing evidence of changes to the
atmosphere as a whole. For example, average ground
level ozone concentrations may be increasing on a
global scale. Continuing health research is both
broadening the number of toxics, and producing
evidence that existing standards should be lowered.
There is epidemiological evidence of health effects
from ozone or fine particulates down to or below
levels previously considered to be background or
"natural" levels of 30-50 ppb (daily maximum hourly
values).
9.4'
n
c
o
l!
If
II
o o
9.2-
9.0-
8.8-
8.6-
8.4-
8.2-1
• •
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Ambient Ozone Concentrations
(ppb, 1-hr max., lagged 1 day)
Figure 2. Association of respiratory admissions to
Ontario hospitals with ozone pollution. National Air
Quality Objectives for Ground-Level Ozone:
Science Asssessment.
Source: Environment Canada, 1999
Future Activities
Major pollution reduction efforts continue in both
U.S. and Canada. In Canada, new ambient standards
for particulate matter and ozone have been endorsed,
with a 2010 attainment date. This will involve
updates at the Federal level and at the provincial
level (Ontario Anti-Smog Action Plan). Toxic air
pollutants are also addressed at both levels. The
Canadian Environmental Protection Act (CEPA) was
recently amended. In the U.S., new, more protective
ambient air standards have been promulgated for
ozone and particulate matter. MACT (Maximum
Available Control Technology) standards continue to
be promulgated for sources of toxic air pollution.
USEPA has also begun looking at the risk remaining
after emissions reductions for industrial sources take
effect.
At the international level, Canada and the U.S. signed
the Ozone Annex to the Air Quality Agreement in
December 2000. The Ozone Annex commits both
countries to emission reductions from the major
sources of NOx and VOCs, thereby helping both
countries attain their ozone air quality goals to
protect human health and the environment. Canada
estimates that total NOx reduction in the Canadian
transboundary region will be 44 percent year round
by 2010. The U.S. estimates that the total NOx
reductions in the U.S. transboundary region will be
36 percent year-round by 2010 and 43 percent during
the ozone season. Canada and the U.S. have also
undertaken cooperative modeling, monitoring, and
data analysis and developed a work plan to address
transboundary PM issues. Their objective is to issue
a report on transboundary PM issues by the end of
2003 that will be the focus of decision making on
whether to develop a PM Annex to the Air Quality
Agreement. Efforts to reduce toxic pollutants will
also continue under NAFTA and through UN-ECE
protocols.
Further Work Necessary
PM2 5 networks will continue to develop in both
countries, to determine ambient levels, trends, and
consequent reduction measures. Review of standards
or objectives will continue to consider new
information. The U.S. is considering deployment of a
national toxic monitoring network.
64
-------
IMPLEMENTING INDICATORS 2003
A TECHNICAL REPORT
Limitations
It must be emphasized that this indicator report does
not consider indoor air quality, or allergens. The
monitoring networks are urban-focused, and are
considered deficient for toxic pollutants.
Acknowledgments
Authors: Bryan Tugwood, Environment Canada, Meteorological Services of
Canada, Downsview, ON; Todd Nettesheim, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Great Lakes National Program Office, Chicago, IL; and Michael Rizzo,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Air and Radiation Division, Chicago, IL.
Sources
Environment Canada. (2000). National Pollution Release Inventory: National
Overview 1998. [online]. Available: http://www.ec.gc.ca/pdb/npri/.
Environment Canada. (1999). National ambient Air Quality Objectives for
Ground-level Ozone: Science Assessment Document. Federal-Provincial Working
Group onAir Quality Objectives and Guidelines, [online]. Available: http://
www.hc-sc.gc.ca/ehp/ehd/catalogue/bch_pubs/ozonesad/partl.pdf.
Great Lakes Commission. (2002). 1999 Inventory of Toxic Air Emissions, Point and
Area Sources, [online]. Available: http://www.glc.org/air/.
Great Lakes Regional Air Toxics Emissions Inventory, [online]. Available: http://
www.glc.org/air/air3.html.
NARSTO. (2000). An Assessment of Tropospheric Ozone: ANorth American
Perspective, [online]. Available: http://www.cgenv.com/Narsto/.
Ontario Ministry of Environment. (2003). 2000 Air Quality Report, [online].
Available: http://www.ene.gov.on.ca/envision/AirQuality/2000report.htm.
Ontario Ministry of the Environment. Air Quality in Ontario: 2000. Queen's
Printer for Ontario, 2001.
Ontario Ministry of the Environment. (2003). 2000 Air Quality Report, [online].
Available: http://www.ene.gov.on.ca/envision/AirQuality/2000report.htm.
U.S. EPA. 2002. Green Book: Non-attainment Areas for Criteria Pollutants. Office
of Air Quality planning and Standards, [online]. Available: http://www.epa.gov/
oar/oaqps/greenbk/.
U.S. EPA. 2001. Latest Findings on National Air Quality: 2000 Status and Trends.
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards. EPA-454/K-01-002. [online].
Available: http://www.epa.gov/air/agtrndOO/index.html.
U.S. EPA. 2000. Canada-U.S. air Quality Agreement: 2000 Progress Report. Clean
Air Markets Division. EPA- 430/R-00-009. [online]. Available: www.epa.gov/
airmarkets/usca/airusOO.pdf.
U.S. EPA. Base year 1999 emissions data, [online]. Available: http://www.epa.gov/
ttn/chief/trends/procedures/neiproc_99.pdf.
Ice Duration on the Great Lakes
SOLEC Indicator #4858 - Indicator Matrix
Assessment: Mixed Deteriorating (with
respect to climate change)
Purpose
To assess the ice duration and thereby the
temperature and accompanying physical changes to
each lake over time, in order to infer the potential
impact of climate change.
Ecosystem Objective
This indicator is used as a potential assessment of
climate change, particularly within the Great Lakes
basin. Changes in water and air temperatures will
influence ice development on the Lakes and, in turn,
affect coastal wetlands, nearshore aquatic
environments, and inland environments.
State of the Ecosystem
Air temperatures over a lake are one of the few
factors that control the formation of ice on that
surface. Colder winter temperatures increase the rate
of heat released by the lake, thereby increasing the
freezing rate of the water. Milder winter
temperatures have a similar controlling effect, only
the rate of heat released is slowed and the ice forms
more slowly. Globally, some inland lakes appear to
be freezing up at later dates, and breaking-up earlier,
than the historical average, based on a study of 150
years of data (Magnuson et al., 2000). These trends, as
the authors put it, add to the evidence that the earth
has been in a period of global warming for at least
the last 150 years.
The freezing and thawing of lakes is a very important
aspect to many aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems.
Many fish species rely on the ice to give their eggs
protection against predators during the late part of
the ice season. Nearshore ice has the ability to change
the shoreline as it can encroach upon the land during
winter freeze-up times. Even inland systems are
affected by the amount of ice that forms, especially
within the Great Lakes basin. Less ice on the Great
Lakes allows for more water to evaporate and be
spread across the basin in the form of snow. This can
have an affect on the foraging animals (like deer),
who, need to dig through snow during the winter in
order to obtain food.
65
-------
IMPLEMENTING INDICATORS 2003
A TECHNICAL REPORT
Lake Superior
Ice Season
Lake Michigan
Lake Erie
50-
40
30
20-
10
0
/vfc Av> X? >?> >v> X? X? X? X? K^>- KJ
Figure 1 .Trends of maximum ice cover and the corresponding date on the Great Lakes, 1972-2000. Source: National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
Observations of the Great Lakes data showed no real
conclusive trends with respect to the date of freeze-
up or break-up. A reason for this could be that due to
the sheer size of the lakes, it wasn't possible to
observe the whole lake during the winter season (at
least before satellite imagery), and therefore only
regional observations were made (inner bays and
ports). However, there was enough data collected
from the ice charts to make a statement concerning
the overall ice cover during the season. There appears
to be a decrease in the maximum ice cover per season
over the last thirty years (figure 1).
The trends on each of the five lakes show that during
this time span the maximum amount of ice forming
each year has been decreasing, which, in-f act, can be
correlated to the average ice cover per season
observed for the same time duration (figure 2).
Between the 1970's and 1990's there was at least a ten
percent decline in the maximum ice cover on each
lake, and almost as much as 18% in some cases, with
the greatest decline occurring during the!990's.
Since a complete freeze-up did not occur on all the
Great Lakes, a series of inland lakes (known to freeze
every winter) in Ontario were looked at to see if there
66
-------
IMPLEMENTING INDICATORS 2003
A TECHNICAL REPORT
Lake
Erie
Huron
Michigan
Ontario
Superior
1970-1979
94.5
71.3
50.2
39.8
74.5
1980-1989
90.8
71.7
45.6
29.7
73.9
1990-1999
77.3
61.3
32.4
28.1
62.0
Change from
1970s to 1990s
-17.2
-10.0
-17.8
-11.7
-12.6
Figure 2. Mean Ice coverage, in percent, during the
corresponding decade.
Source: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
was any similarity to the results in the previous
studies. Data from Lake Nipissing and Lake Ramsey
were plotted (Figure 3) based on the ice-on date
(complete freeze-over date) and the break-up date
(ice-off date). As it turns out, the freeze-up date for
Lake Nipissing appears to have the same trend as the
other global inland lakes: freezing over later in the
year. Lake Ramsey however, seems to be freezing
over earlier in the season. The ice-off date for both
however, appear to be increasing, or occurring at
later dates in the year. These results contradict what
is said to be occurring with other such lakes in the
Northern Hemisphere (see Magnuson et al., 2000).
Future Pressures
Based on the results of figure 1 and table 1, it seems
that ice formation of the Great Lakes should continue
to decrease in total cover, if the predictions on global
atmospheric warming are true. Milder winters will
have a drastic effect on how much of the lakes are
covered in ice, which in turn, will have an effect on
many aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems that rely on
lake ice for protection and food acquisition. However,
because only a small number of data sets were
collected and analyzed for this study, this is not
conclusive. To reach a level of significance that would
be considered acceptable, more data on lake ice
formation would have to be gathered.
Future Activities
Increased winter and summer air temperatures
appear to be the greatest influence on ice formation.
Currently there are certain protocols, on a global
scale, that are being introduced in order to reduce the
emission of greenhouse gases. The most substantial of
these is the Kyoto Protocol, which looks at decreasing
the emissions of greenhouse gases by 2008, with a
large amount of attention on decreasing carbon
dioxide. Countries that have not agreed to adhere to
this protocol are taking other measures to reduce
their emissions.
Further Work Necessary
While the data for the Great Lakes is easily obtained
from 1972-present, smaller inland lakes, which may
be affected by climate change at a faster rate, should
be looked into. As much historical information that is
available should be obtained. The more data that is
received will increase the statistical significance of
365
360
355
350
330
325
320
315
\
1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985
Season
' Nipissing
' Ramsey
1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000
Ice Season
• Nipissing
Linear (Nipissing)
• Ramsey
• Linear (Ramey)
Figure 3. Ice-on and ice-off dates for Lake Nipissing (black dashed line) and Lake Ramsey (pink solid line).
Data were smoothed using a 5-year moving average.
Source: Climate and Atmospheric Research, Environment Canada
67
-------
IMPLEMENTING INDICATORS 2003
A TECHNICAL REPORT
the results, and therefore have greater meaning in the
end. It would convenient for the results to be
reported every four to five years (at least for the
Great Lakes), and quite possibly a shorter time span
for any new inland lake information. It may also be
feasible to subdivide the Great Lakes into bays and
inlets, etc., in order to get an understanding of what
is occurring in nearshore environments.
Acknowledgments
Author: Gregg Ferris, Environment Canada Intern, Downsview, ON.
All data analyzed and charts created by the author.
Sources
Magnuson, J.J., D.M. Robertson, B.J. Benson, R.H. Wynne, D.M. Livingston, T.
Arai, R.A Assel, R.G. Barry, V. Carad, E. Kuusisto, N.G. Granin, T.D. Prowse, K.M.
Stewart, and V.S. Vuglinski. 2000. Historical Trends in Lake and River Ice Cover
in the Northern Hemisphere. Science 289(Sept. 8): 1743-1746.
Ice charts obtained from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
(NO AA) and the Canadian Ice Service (CIS).
Data for Lake Nipissing and Lake Ramsey obtained from Walter Skinner, Climate
and Atmospheric Research, Environment Canada-Ontario Region.
Extent of Hardened Shoreline
SOLEC Indicator #8131 - Indicator Matrix
Note: this indicator report is from 2000
Assessment: Mixed Deteriorating
Purpose
This indicator assesses the extent of hardened
shoreline through construction of sheet piling, rip
rap, or other erosion control structures.
Ecosystem Objective
Shoreline conditions should be healthy to support
aquatic and terrestrial plant and animal life,
including the rarest species.
Anthropogenic hardening of the shorelines not only
directly destroys natural features and biological
communities, it also has a more subtle but still
devastating impact. Many of the biological
communities along the Great Lakes are dependent
upon the transport of shoreline sediment by lake
currents. Altering the transport of sediment disrupts
the balance of accretion and erosion of materials
carried along the shoreline by wave action and lake
currents. The resulting loss of sediment
replenishment can intensify the effects of erosion,
causing ecological and economic impacts. Erosion of
sand spits and other barriers allows increased
exposure and loss of coastal wetlands. Dune
formations can be lost or reduced due to lack of
adequate nourishment of new sand to replace sand
that is carried away. Increased erosion also causes
property damage to shoreline properties.
State of the Ecosystem
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA) Medium Resolution digital
Shorelines dataset was compiled between 1988 and
1992. It contains data on both the Canadian and U.S.
shorelines, using aerial photography from 1979 for
the state of Michigan and from 1987-1989 for the rest
of the basin.
From this dataset, shoreline hardening has been
categorized for each Lake and connecting channel.
Figure 1 indicates the percentages of shorelines in
each of these categories. The St. Clair, Detroit, and
Niagara Rivers have a higher percentage of their
shorelines hardened than anywhere else in the basin.
68
-------
IMPLEMENTING INDICATORS 2003
A TECHNICAL REPORT
Lake/ Connecting
Channel
Lake Superior
St. Marys River
Lake Huron
Lake Michigan
St. Clair River
Lake St. Clair
Detroit River
Lake Erie
Niagara River
70-100%
Hardened
3.1
2.9
1.5
8.6
69.3
11.3
47.2
20.4
44.3
40-70%
Hardened
1.1
1.6
1.0
2.9
24.9
25.8
22.6
11.3
8.8
15-40%
Hardened
3.0
7.5
4.5
30.3
2.1
11.8
8.0
16.9
16.7
0-15%
Hardened
89.4
81.3
91.6
57.5
3.6
50.7
22.2
49.1
29.3
No n -structural
Modifications
0.03
1.6
1.1
0.1
0.0
0.2
0.0
1.9
0.0
Unclassified
3.4
5.1
0.3
0.5
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.4
0.9
Figure 1. Percentages of shorelines in each category of hardened shoreline.The St. Clair, Detroit and
Niagara Rivers have a higher percentage of their shorelines hardened than anywhere else in the basin.
Lake Erie has the highest percentage of its shoreline hardened, and Lakes Huron and Superior have the
lowest.
Source: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Of the Lakes themselves, Lake Erie has the highest
percentage of its shoreline hardened, and Lakes
Huron and Superior have the lowest.
In 1999, Environment Canada assessed change in the
extent of shoreline hardening along about 22
kilometers of the Canadian side of the St. Clair River
from 1991-1992 to 1999. Over the 8-year period, an
additional 5.5 kilometers (32 percent) of the shoreline
All 5 Lakes
All Connecting
Channels
Entire Basin
I 0-15% Hardened
I 40-70% Hardened
n 15-40% Hardened
• 70-100% Hardened
Figure 2. Shoreline hardening in the Great Lakes
compiled from 1979 data for the state of Michigan
and 1987-1989 data for the rest of the basin.
Source: Environment Canada and National Oceanic Atmospheric
Administration
had been hardened. This is clearly not representative
of the overall basin, as the St. Clair River is a narrow
shipping channel with high volumes of Great Lakes
traffic. This area also has experienced significant
development along its shorelines, and many
property owners are hardening the shoreline to
reduce the impacts of erosion.
Future Pressures on the Ecosystem
Shoreline hardening is not generally reversible, so
once a section of shoreline has been hardened, it can
be considered a permanent feature. As such, the
current state of shoreline hardening likely represents
the best condition that can be expected in the future.
Pressure will continue to harden additional stretches
of shoreline, especially during periods of high lake
levels. This additional hardening in turn will starve
the downcurrent areas of sediment to replenish that
which eroded away, causing further erosion and
further incentive for additional hardening. Thus, a
cycle of shoreline hardening can progress along the
shoreline.
The future pressures on the ecosystem resulting from
existing hardening will almost certainly continue,
and additional hardening is likely in the future. The
uncertainly is whether the rate can be reduced and
ultimately halted. In addition to the economic costs,
the ecological costs are of concern, particularly the
69
-------
IMPLEMENTING INDICATORS 2003
A TECHNICAL REPORT
I 70-100% Hardened • 40-70% Hardened
Figure 3. Shoreline hardening by Lake compiled
from 1979 data for the state of Michigan and 1987-
1989 dataforthe rest of the basin.
Source: Environment Canada and National Oceanic Atmospheric
Administration
further lost or degradation of coastal wetlands and
sand dunes.
Future Actions
Shoreline hardening can be controversial, even
litigious, when one property owner hardens a stretch
of shoreline that may increase erosion of an adjacent
property. The ecological impacts are not only difficult
to quantify as a monetary equivalent, but difficult to
perceive without an understanding of sediment
transport along the lakeshores. The importance of the
ecological process of sediment transport needs to be
better understood as an incentive to reduce new
shoreline hardening. An educated public is critical to
ensuring wise decisions about the stewardship of the
Great Lakes basin ecosystem, and better platforms
for getting understandable information to the public
is needed.
Further Work Necessary
It is possible that more recent aerial photography of
the shoreline will be interpreted to show more
recently hardened shorelines. Once more recent data
provides information on hardened areas, updates
may only be necessary basinwide every 10 years,
with monitoring of high-risk areas every 5 years.
Acknowledgments
Authors: John Schneider, USEPA Great Lakes National Program Office, Chicago,
IL, Duane Heaton, USEPA Great Lakes National Program Office, Chicago, IL, and
Harold Leadlay Environment Canada, Environmental Emergencies Section,
Downsview, ON.
Sources
Great Lakes Electronic Environmental Sensitivity Atlas, Environment Canada-
Environmental Protection Branch, Ontario Region.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Medium Resolution Digital
Shoreline. 1988-1992. The National Geophysical Data Center.
Contaminants Affecting Productivity of
Bald Eagles
SOLEC Indicator #8135 - Indicator Matrix
Assessment: Mixed Improving
Purpose
This indicator assesses the number of territorial
pairs, success rate of nesting attempts, and number
of fledged young per territorial pair as well as the
number of developmental deformities in young. The
concentrations of persistent organic pollutants and
selected heavy metals are also determined in
unhatched bald eagle eggs, and in nestling blood and
feathers. Data will be used to infer the potential for
harm to other wildlife caused by eating
contaminated prey items.
,^P**~
<
Figure 1. Approximate nesting locations of bald
eagles along the Great Lakes shorelines, 2000.
Source: W. Bowerman, Clemson University, Lake Superior LaMPs, and for
Lake Ontario, Peter Nye, and N.Y. Department of Environmental
Conservation
70
-------
IMPLEMENTING INDICATORS 2003
A TECHNICAL REPORT
200
180
160
140-
120
100
80
60-
40
20
?N J
^
Year
-Superior-•-Michigan-A- Huron-"- Erie- Ontario
Figure 2. Average number of occupied territories
per year by Lake.
Source: Dave Best, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; Pamela Martin,
Canadian Wildlife Service; and Michael Meyer, Wisconsin Department of
Natural Resources
.2 80-
5
£ 70-
£
"O
a 50-
3
U
° 40-
'S 30-
£
2 2°-
a- 10-
-
r
-
1
r
-,
r
jf
-
-
-
Superior Michigan Huron Erie Ontario
• 1962-1966 11972-1976 D1982-1986 D1992-1996
D1967-1971 B1977-1981 D1987-1991 11997-2001
Figure 3. Average percentage of occupied
territories fledging at least one young.
Source: Dave Best, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; Pamela Martin,
Canadian Wildlife Service; and Michael Meyer, Wisconsin Department of
Natural Resources
Ecosystem Objective
This indicator supports annexes 2,12, and 17 of the
Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement.
State of the Ecosystem
Concentrations of organochlorine chemicals are
decreasing or stable but still above No Observable
Adverse Effect Concentrations (NOAECs) for the
primary organic contaminants, DDE and PCBs. Bald
eagles are now distributed extensively along the
shoreline of the Great Lakes (Figure 1).
The number of active bald eagle territories has
increased markedly from the depths of the
population decline caused by DDE (Figure 2).
Similarly, the percentage of nests producing one or
more fledglings (Figure 3) and the number of young
produced per territory (Figure 4) have risen. The
recovery of reproductive output at the population
level has followed similar patterns in each of the
Lakes, but the timing has differed between the
various Lakes. Lake Superior recovered first,
followed by Erie and Huron, and most recently, Lake
Michigan. An active territory has been reported from
Lake Ontario. Established territories in most areas
are now producing one or more young per territory
indicating that the population is healthy and capable
of growing. Eleven developmental deformities have
been reported in bald eagles within the Great Lakes
watershed; five of these were from territories
potentially influenced by the Great Lakes.
1.6-
1.4-
? 1.2-
'5
'S 1.0-
u.
'S 0.8-
fe
| 0.6-
3
Z 0.4-
0.2-
0 -
r
1
r
rT
1
1
t *
*|T
r
-,
n
-,
1
Superior Michigan Huron Erie Ontario
• 1962-1966 •
D 1967-1 971 •
1972-1976 D 1982-1 986 D 1992-1 996
1977-1981 D1987-1991 11997-2001
Figure 4. Average number of young fledged per
occupied territory per year.
Source: Dave Best, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; Pamela Martin,
Canadian Wildlife Service; and Michael Meyer, Wisconsin Department of
Natural Resources
Future Pressures
High levels of persistent contaminants in bald eagles
continue to be a concern for two reasons. Eagles are
relatively rare and contaminant effects on
individuals can be important to the well-being of
local populations. In addition, relatively large areas
of habitat are necessary to support eagles and
continued development pressures along the
shorelines of the Great Lakes constitute a concern.
The interactions of contaminant pressures and
habitat limitations are unknown at present. There
71
-------
IMPLEMENTING INDICATORS 2003
A TECHNICAL REPORT
are still several long reaches of the Great Lakes
shoreline, particularly around Lake Ontario, where
the bald eagle has not recovered to its pre-DDE
status.
Further Work Necessary
The health and contaminant status of bald eagles
should continue to be monitored across the Great
Lakes basin. A variety of groups continue to
accomplish this work and provide compatible data
for basinwide assessment. Two particular needs for
additional data still exist. There is no basinwide
effort directed toward assessing habitat suitability of
shoreline areas for bald eagles. Further, it is not
known to what degree the shoreline populations
depend on recruiting surplus young from healthy
inland populations to maintain the current growth
rate or whether the shoreline populations are self-
sustaining.
Acknowledgments
Authors: Ken Stromborg and David Best, U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service, East, and Pamela Martin,
Canadian Wildlife Service.
Sources
Additional data were contributed by: Ted Armstrong, Ontario Ministry of Natural
Resources; Lowell Tesky Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources; Cheryl
Dykstra, Cleves, OH; Peter Nye, New York Department of Environmental
Conservation; William Bowerman, Clemson University. Lake Erie and Lake
Superior LaMPs, John Netto, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service assisted with computer
support.
Dykstra, C.R., M.W Meyer, S. Postupalsky K.L. Stromborg, O.K. Warnke, and R.G.
Eckstein. In press. Bald Eagles of Lake Michigan: Ecology and Contaminants, in T.
Edsalland M. Munawar (eds.) State of Lake Michigan, Ecovision World
Monograph Series.
Bowerman, WW, DA Best, JPGiesy MC Shieldcastle, MW Meyer, S Postupalsky
and JG Sikarskie. 2003. Associations between regional differences in
polychlorinated biphenyls and dichlorodiphenyldichloroethylene in blood of
nestling bald eagles and reproductive productivity. Environ Toxicol Chem.
22(2):371-376.
Badzinski, D.S. 2001. Southern Ontario Bald Eagle Monitoring Project: 2001
Final Report. Unpublished report to Canadian Wildlife Service by Bird Studies
Canada. 16pp.
Contacts for most current data:
Dave Best, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, East Lansing Field Office, 2651
Coolidge Rd., East Lansing, MI 48823,517-351-6263, Dave_Best@fws.gov
Pamela Martin, Canadian Wildlife Service, Box 5050,867 Lakeshore Road,
Burlington, ON L7A 4A6,905 336-4879, Pamela.Martin@ec.gc.ca
Michael Meyer, Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, 3550 Mormon
Coulee Rd., LaCrosse, WI54601, 608-219-7520, Michael.Meyer@dnr.state.wi.us.
Acid Rain
SOLEC Indicator #9000 - Indicator Matrix
Assessment: Mixed Improving
Purpose
To assess sulfate levels in precipitation and critical
loadings of sulfate to the Great Lakes basin, and to
infer the efficacy of policies to reduce sulfur and
nitrogen oxide emissions to the atmosphere.
Ecosystem Objective
The 1991 Canada-U.S. Air Quality Agreement (Air
Quality Agreement) pledges the two nations to
reduce the emissions of acidifying compounds by
approximately 40% relative to 1980 levels. The 1998
Canada-Wide Acid Rain Strategy for Post-2000
intends to further reduce emissions to the point
where deposition containing these compounds does
not adversely impact aquatic and terrestrial biotic
systems.
State of the Ecosystem
Acid rain, more properly called "acidic deposition",
is caused when two common air pollutants (sulfur
dioxide-SO2 and nitrogen oxides-NOx) are released to
the atmosphere, react and mix with high altitude
water droplets and return to the earth as acidic rain,
snow, fog or dust. These pollutants can be carried
over long distances by prevailing winds, creating
acidic precipitation far from the original source of the
emissions. Environmental damage typically occurs
where local soils and/or bedrock do not effectively
neutralize the acid.
Lakes and rivers have been acidified by acid rain
causing the disappearance of many fish species,
invertebrates and plants. Not all lakes exposed to
acid rain become acidified however. Lakes located in
terrain that is rich in calcium carbonate (e.g. on
limestone bedrock) are able to neutralize acidic
deposition. Much of the acidic precipitation in North
America falls in areas around and including the
Great Lakes basin. Northern Lakes Huron, Superior
and Michigan, their tributaries and associated small
inland lakes are located on the geological feature
known as the Canadian Shield. The Shield is
primarily composed of granitic bedrock and glacially
derived soils that cannot easily neutralize acid,
thereby resulting in the acidification of many small
72
-------
IMPLEMENTING INDICATORS 2003
A TECHNICAL REPORT
Canada-1999
Other
Transportation <-| <
Industrial
Sources
53%
Electric
Utilities
25%
Fuel
Combustion
18%
United States-1999
Other
Transportation <•] o/0
Industrial
Sources
8%
Fuel
Combustion
18%
Electric
Utilities
67%
Canada-1999
Other
2%
Electric Utilities
12%
Transportation
56%
Industrial
Sources
11%
United States-1999
Transportation
55%
Electric Utilities
23%
Fuel
Combustion
17%
Figure 2. Sources of nitrogen oxide emissions in
Figure 1. Sources of sulphur dioxide emissions in Canada and the U.S., 1999.
Canada andthe U.S., 1999. Source:Canada-UnitedStatesAirQualityAgreement,ProgressReport,
Source: Canada-United States Air Quality Agreement, Progress Report, 2002
2002
lakes (particularly in northern Ontario and the
northeastern United States). The five Great Lakes are
so large that acidic deposition has little effect on them
directly. Impacts are mainly felt on vegetation and
inland lakes in acid-sensitive areas.
A recent report published by the Hubbard Brook
Research Foundation has demonstrated that acid
deposition is still a significant problem and has had a
greater environmental impact than previously
thought. For example, acid deposition has altered
soils in the northeastern U.S. through accelerated
leaching of base cations, accumulating
concentrations of nitrogen and sulfur, and increasing
concentrations of aluminum in soil waters. Acid
deposition has also contributed to the decline of red
spruce trees and sugar maple trees in the eastern U.S.
Sulfur Dioxide and Nitrous Oxides Emissions
Reductions: SO2 emissions come from a variety of
sources. The most common releases of SO2 in Canada
are industrial processes such as non-ferrous mining
and metal smelting. In the United States, electrical
utilities constitute the largest emissions source
(Figure 1). The primary source of NOx emissions in
both countries is the combustion of fuels in motor
73
-------
IMPLEMENTING INDICATORS 2003
A TECHNICAL REPORT
vehicles, with electric utilities and industrial sources
also contributing (Figure 2).
Canada is committed to reducing acid rain in all
parts of the country to levels below those that cause
harm to ecosystems-a level commonly called the
"critical load". In 2000, total SO2 emissions in
Canada were 2.5 million tonnes, which is about 20
percent below the national cap of 3.2 million tonnes
as established under Annex 1 (the Acid Rain Annex)
of the Air Quality Agreement. Emissions in 2000 also
represent a 45 percent reduction from 1980 emission
levels. The seven easternmost provinces' 1.6 million
tonnes of emissions in 2000 were 29 percent below
the eastern Canada cap of 2.3 million tonnes as
established under the Acid Rain Annex.
In 2001, all participating sources of the U.S. EPA's
Acid Rain Program (Phase II) achieved a total
reduction in SO2 emissions of about 32 percent from
1990 levels, and 35 percent from 1980 levels. A total
number of 3,065 units participated in the Acid Rain
Program in 2001. These units reduced their SO2
emissions to 10.63 million tons in 2001, 5 percent
lower than 2000 emissions. Full implementation of
the program in 2010 will achieve a 10 million ton
reduction of SO2 emissions, about 40 percent below
1980 levels. (For additional information on SO2
emission reductions, including sources outside the
Acid Rain Program, please refer to the SOLEC
Indicator Report #4176 Air Quality).
By 2000, Canadian NOx emissions were reduced by
more than 100,000 tonnes below the forecast level of
970,000 tonnes (established by Acid Rain Annex) at
power plants, major combustion sources, and
smelting operations. Canada is also developing other
programs to further reduce NOx emissions (For
additional details, please refer to the SOLEC Indicator
Report # 4176 Air Quality).
In the U.S., reductions in NOx emissions have
significantly surpassed the 2 million ton reduction
for stationary and mobile sources mandated by the
Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990. Under the Acid
Rain Program alone, NOx emissions for the 2,626
affected sources in 2001 were 4.7 million tons, 30
percent lower than emissions in 1990. (For additional
information on NOx emission reductions, including
sources outside the Acid Rain Program, please refer
to the SOLEC Indicator Report # 4176 Air Quality).
Future Pressures
Figure 3 illustrates the trends in SO2 emission levels
in Canada and the United States measured from 1980
to 2000 and predicted through 2010. U.S. levels
dropped by 34 percent from 1980 to 2000. Canadian
SO2 emission levels decreased 45 percent from 1980 to
2000. Overall, a 38 percent reduction in SO2
emissions is projected in Canada and the United
States from 1980 to 2010, mainly due to controls on
electric utilities under the Acid Rain Program and the
desulphurization of diesel fuel under Section 214 of
the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments in the U.S. In
Canada, reductions of SO2 are mainly attributed to
reductions from the non-ferrous mining and smelting
sector, and electric utilities as part of the Canada-
Wide Acid Rain Strategy program. Despite these
efforts, rain is still too acidic throughout most of the
Great Lakes region.
Figure 4 illustrates the trends in NOx emission levels
in Canada and the United States measured from 1990
to 2000 and predicted through 2010. U.S. levels
increased by approximately five percent from 1990 to
1999, but decreased by the same percentage from
1999 to 2000. In 2010, U.S. levels are expected to
decrease by approximately 21 percent from 2000
levels. U.S. reductions in NOx emissions are
attributed to controls in electric utilities under the
Acid Rain Program, the estimated controls associated
with EPA's Regional Transport NOx SIP Call, the Tier
1980
2010
*" Canada
• Total
•U.S.
Figure 3. Canada - U.S. SO2 emissions, 1980-2010.
Source: Canada-United States Air Quality Agreement, Progress Report,
2002
74
-------
IMPLEMENTING INDICATORS 2003
A TECHNICAL REPORT
35
10-
•• 30
25 m
:• 20
••15
•• 5
1995
2000
Year
2005
2010
------- Canada
-Total —•-- U.S.
Figure 4. Canada - U.S. NOx emissions, 1990-2010.
Source: Canada-United States Air Quality Agreement, Progress Report,
2002
2 Tailpipe Standard, and the Heavy-Duty Engine and
Vehicle Standards and Highway Diesel Fuel
Rulemaking. Canadian NOx emissions have
increased slightly since 1990, but are expected to
decrease to 1980 levels by 2010. These small
reductions are also attributed to mobile sources.
Figure 5 compares wet sulfate deposition (kilograms
sulfate per hectare per year) over eastern North
America before and after the 1995 Acid Rain Program
Phase I SO2 emission reductions to assess whether
the emission decreases have had an impact on large-
scale wet deposition. The five-year average sulfate
wet deposition pattern for the years 1996-2000 is
considerably reduced from that for the five-year
period prior to the Phase I emission reductions (1990-
1994). For example, the large area that received 25 to
30 kg/ha/yr of sulfate wet deposition in the 1990-1994
period almost disappeared in 1996-2000 period. The
shrinkage of the wet deposition pattern between the
two periods strongly suggests that the Phase I
emission reduction were successful at reducing the
sulfate wet deposition over a large section of eastern
North America. If SO2 emissions remain relatively
constant after the year 2000, as predicted (Figure 3), it
is unlikely that sulfate deposition will change in the
coming decade. Sulfate deposition models predict
that in 2010, critical loads for aquatic ecosystems in
eastern Canada will still be exceeded over an area of
800,000 to 1,200,000 km2.
A somewhat different story occurs for nitrate wet
deposition in that the spatial patterns shown in
Figure 5 are approximately the same before and after
the Phase I emission reductions. This suggests that
the minimal reductions in NOx emissions after Phase
I resulted in minimal changes to nitrate wet
deposition over eastern North America.
Pressures will continue to grow as the population
within and outside the basin increases, causing
increased demands on electrical utility companies,
resources and an increased number of motor
vehicles. Considering this, reducing nitrogen
deposition is becoming more and more important, as
its contribution to acidification may soon outweigh
the benefits gained from reductions in sulfur dioxide
emissions.
Future Activities
The effects of acid rain can be seen far from the
source, so the governments of Canada and the United
States are working together to reduce acid emissions.
, ' -
Figure 5. Patterns of wet non-sea salt SO4 and wet
NO3 deposition fortwo five-year periods during the
1990s. (top left: SO4 for 1990-1994; top right: SO4for
1996-2000; bottom left: NO3 for 1990-1994; bottom
right: NO3 for 1996-2000).
Source: Canada-U.S. Air Quality Agreement 2002 Progress Report
75
-------
IMPLEMENTING INDICATORS 2003
A TECHNICAL REPORT
The 1991 Canada-United States Air Quality
Agreement addresses transboundary pollution. To
date, this agreement has focused on acidifying
pollutants and significant steps have been made in
the reduction of SO2 emissions. However, further
progress in the reduction of acidifying pollutants is
required.
In December 2000, Canada and the United States
signed Annex III (the Ozone Annex) to the Air Quality
Agreement. The Ozone Annex committed Canada
and the U.S. to aggressive emission reduction
measures to reduce emissions of NO and volatile
x
organic compounds. (For more information on the
Ozone Annex, please refer to the SOLEC Indicator
Report # 4176 Air Quality).
The 1998 Canada-Wide Acid Rain Strategy for Post-
2000 provides a framework for further actions, such
as establishing new sulfur dioxide emission
reduction targets in Ontario, Quebec, New
Brunswick and Nova Scotia. In fulfillment of the
Strategy, each of these provinces has announced a
50% reduction in its existing emissions cap. Quebec,
New Brunswick and Nova Scotia are committed to
achieving their caps by 2010, while Ontario
committed to meet its new cap by 2015.
Since the last SOLEC Report, there has been
increasing interest in both the public and private
sector in a multi-pollutant approach to reducing air
pollution. In February 2002, U.S. President George W.
Bush proposed the Clear Skies Initiative, which
would significantly reduce power plant emissions of
SO2, NOx, and mercury. This initiative would
establish national, enforceable emission caps for the
three pollutants and would provide a cut in SO2
emissions of 73 percent from 2000 emissions of 11
million tons and in NOx emissions by 67 percent from
2000 emissions of 5 million tons by 2018.
Further Work Necessary
While North American SO2 emissions and sulfate
deposition levels in the Great Lakes basin have
declined over the past 10 to 15 years, many acidified
lakes do not show recovery (increase in water pH or
alkalinity). Empirical evidence suggests that there are
a number of factors acting to delay or limit the
recovery response, e.g. increasing importance of
nitrogen-based acidification, soil depletion of base
cations, mobilization of stored sulfur, climatic
influences, etc. Further work is needed to quantify the
additional reduction in deposition needed to
overcome these limitations and to accurately predict
the recovery rate.
Acknowledgments
Authors: Dean S. Jeffries, National Water Research Institute, Environment Canada,
Burlington, ON; Robert Vet, Meteorological Service of Canada, Environment
Canada, Downsview, ON; and Todd Nettesheim, Great Lakes National Program
Office, United States Environmental Protection Agency, Chicago, IL.
Sources
Canada-U.S. 2002. Canada-United States Air Quality Agreement 2002 Progress
Report, Ottawa, Ontario and Washington, D.C., p58
Driscoll, C.T., G.B. Lawrence, A.J. Bulger, T.J. Butler, C.S. Cronan, C. Eagar, K.
Fallen Lambert, G.E. Likens, J.L. Stoddard and K.C. Weathers. 2001. Acidic
deposition the northeastern United States: sources and inputs, ecosystem effects,
and management strategies. BioScience 51(3): 180-198.
Environment Canada. 1997. The 1997CanadianAcid Rain Assessment, Volume 2:
Atmospheric Science Assessment Report, Ottawa, Ontario.
Jeffries, D.S., T.A. Clair, S. Couture, PJ. Dillon, J. Dupont, W. Keller, O.K. McNicol,
M.A. Turner, R. Vet, and R. Weeber. 2003. Assessing the recovery of lakes in
southeastern Canada from the effects of acidic deposition. Ambio 32(3): 176-182.
USEPA. (2001). Latest Findings on National Air Quality: 2000 Status and Trends.
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards. EPA-454/K-01-002. [online].
Available: http://www.epa.gov/oar/aqtrndOO/brochure/OObrochure.pdf.
USEPA. (2000). Canada-U.S. Air Quality Agreement: 2000 Progress Report. Clean
Air Markets Division. EPA-430/R-00-009. [online]. Available: http://
www.epa.gov/airmarkets/usca/airusOO.pdf.
USEPA. (2001). U.S. EPA's Clean Air Markets Division - 2001 Emissions
Scorecard. [online]. Available: http://www.epa.gov/airmarkt/emissions/score01/
grahs01.pdf.
USEPA. Base Year 1999 emissions data, [online]. Available: http://www.epa.gov/
rtn/chief/trends/procedures/neiproc_99.pdf.
76
-------
IMPLEMENTING INDICATORS 2003
A TECHNICAL REPORT
Non-Native Species Introduced into the
Great Lakes
SOLEC Indicator #9002 - Indicator Matrix
Assessment: Poor (aquatic portion)
Purpose
This indicator reports introductions of aquatic
organisms not naturally occurring in the Great
Lakes, and is used to assess the status of biotic
communities in these freshwater ecosystems. Human
activities associated with shipping, canals, deliberate
release (authorized and not), and aquaculture are
responsible for the bulk of non-indigenous species
(NIS) present in the Great Lakes. Reporting new
species will highlight the need for more effective
safeguards to prevent the introduction and
establishment of new NIS.
I
L
Axidental Aquarium Shipping Canal Cultivation Deliberate Natural Railroads Solid Unkno.
release release release release means and ballast
highways
Release Mechanism
I • Fauna D Flor;
Figure 2. Release mechanisms for aquatic non-
native species established in the Great Lakes basin
since 1830.
Source: Mills et al., 1993, Ricciardi, 2001
Ecosystem Objective
The purpose of the U.S. and Canada Water Quality
Agreement is, in part, to restore and maintain the
biological integrity of the waters of the Great Lakes
ecosystem. Minimally, it is intended to prevent
extinctions and unauthorized introductions. Nearly
10% of the NIS introduced in the Great Lakes have
had a significant impact on ecosystem health, a
percentage consistent with findings in the United
f 70"
5 60-
1 50-
"S
I 40-
30-
20-
10-
1830 1850 1870 1890 1910 1930 1950 1970 1990
Figure 1. Cumulative number of aquatic non-native
species established in the Great Lakes basin since
the 1830s.
Source: Mills et al., 1993, Ricciardi, 2001
Kingdom and the Hudson River of North America. In
particular and most recently, live fish and
invertebrates in ballast water discharges into the
Great Lakes have been demonstrated to constitute a
threat to the ecosystem.
State of the Ecosystem
Numbers of NIS introduced and established in the
Great Lakes have increased steadily since the 1830s
(Figure 1). The identification of ship ballast water as a
major vector transporting unwanted organisms into
the Great Lakes (Figure 2) has motivated control
efforts. In 1989, Canada introduced voluntary ballast
exchange, as recommended by the International Joint
Commission and Great Lakes Fishery Commission in
the wake of Eurasian ruffe and zebra mussel
introductions. In 1990, the United States Congress
passed the Aquatic Nuisance Species Control and
Prevention Act (followed by the Non-Indigenous
Species Act) and by May of 1993, the first and only
ballast management regulations in the world were
adopted. Although ballast exchange programs have
been implemented in Canada and the United States,
new species associated with shipping activities
continue to become established. Other non-native
species, such as the European flounder, have been
observed but have not become established.
Future Pressures
Non-native species have invaded the Great Lakes
77
-------
IMPLEMENTING INDICATORS 2003
A TECHNICAL REPORT
I SH
20-
10-
ll
Endemic Region
I • Fauna D Flora I
Figure 3. Regions of origin for aquatic non-native
species established in the Great Lakes basin.
Source: Mills et al., 1993, Ricciardi, 2001
basin from regions around the globe (FigureS), and
increasing world trade will elevate the risk that new
species will continue to gain access to these
ecosystems. New diversions of water into the Great
Lakes, and fast-growing aquaculture industries such
as fish farming, live food, and garden ponds, will also
increase the risk of new invasive species. Changes in
water quality, temperature, and the previous NIS
introductions may make the Great Lakes more
hospitable for the establishment of new invaders.
Future Actions
Researchers are seeking to better understand the
contributions of various vectors and donor regions,
the receptivity of the Great Lakes ecosystem, and the
biology of new invaders, in order to recommend
improved safeguards that will reduce the invasion
risk of new biological pollutants in the Great Lakes.
Further Work Necessary
To restore and maintain the biological integrity of the
Great Lakes, it is essential that the routes of entry for
non-native species be closely monitored, and effective
safeguards introduced and adjusted as necessary.
Acknowledgments
Authors: Edward L. Mills and Kristen T. Holeck, Department of Natural Resources,
Cornell University, Bridgeport, NY and Margaret Dochoda, Great Lakes Fishery
Commission, Ann Arbor, ML
Sources
Mills, E.L., J.H. Leach, J.T. Carlton, and C.L. Secor. 1993. Exotic species in the
Great Lakes: A History of Biotic Crises and Anthropogenic Introductions. Journal
of Great Lakes Research. 19(1): 1-54.
Ricciardi, A. 2001. Facilitative interactions among aquatic invaders: is an
"invasional meltdown" occurring in the Great Lakes? Can.]. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 58:
2513-2525.
78
-------
IMPLEMENTING INDICATORS 2003
A TECHNICAL REPORT
1.4 PRESSURE INDICATOR REPORTS-PART 2
SUMMARY OF PRESSURE INDICATORS-PART 2
The overall assessment for the State indicators is incomplete. Part One of this Assessment presents the
indicators for which we have the most comprehensive and current basin-wide information. Data presented in
Part Two of this report represent indicators for which information is not available year to year or are not
basin-wide across jurisdictions. Within the Great Lakes indicator suite, 38 have yet to be reported, or require
further development. In a few cases, indicator reports have been included that were prepared for SOLEC 2000,
but that were not updated for SOLEC 2002. The information about those indicators is believed to be still valid,
and therefore appropriate to be considered in the assessment of the Great Lakes. In other cases, the required
data have not been collected. Changes to existing monitoring programs or the initiation of new monitoring
programs are also needed. Several indicators are under development. More research or testing may be needed
before these indicators can be assessed.
Indicator Name
Contaminants in Young-of -the- Year
Spottail Shiners
Concetnrations of Contaminants in
Sediment Cores
E.coli and Fecal Coliform Levels in
Nearshore Recreational Waters
Drinking Water Quality
Contaminants in Snapping Turtle
Eggs
Mass Transporation
Water Use
Energy Consumption
Solid Waste Generation
Population Monitoring and
Contaminants Affecting the
American Otter
Assessment in 2000
No Report
No Report
Mixed
Good
Mixed
Not Assessed
Not Assessed
No Report
No Report
Not Assessed
Assessement in 2002
Mixed, improving
Mixed, improving
Mixed
Good
Mixed
Mixed
Mixed
Mixed, deteriorating (for
Lake Superior basin)
Mixed
Mixed
represents an improvement of the indicator assessment from 2000.
Red represents deterioration of the indicator assessment from 2000.
Black represents no change in the indicator assessment from 2000, or where no previous
assessment exists.
79
-------
IMPLEMENTING INDICATORS 2003
A TECHNICAL REPORT
Contaminants in Young-of-the-Year
Spottail Shiners
Indicator ID #114 - Indicator Matrix
Assessment: Mixed Improving
Purpose
Fish are an important indicator of contaminant levels
in a system because of the bioaccumulation of
organochlorine chemicals and metals in their tissues.
Contaminants that are often undetectable in water
may be detected in juvenile fish. Juvenile spottail
shiner (Notropis hudsonius) was selected by Suns and
Rees (1978) as the principal biomonitor for assessing
trends in contaminant levels in near shore waters. It is
the preferred species for the following reasons: it has
limited range in the first year of life; undifferentiated
feeding habits in early stages; is important as a forage
fish; and is present throughout the Great Lakes. The
position it holds in the food chain also creates an
important link for contaminant transfer to higher
trophic levels.
Ecosystem Objective
To identify areas of concern and monitor contaminant
trends over time for the near shore waters of the Great
Lakes.
Concentrations of toxic contaminants in juvenile
forage fish should not pose a risk to fish-eating
wildlife. The International Joint Commission's
Aquatic Life Guideline (GLWQA1978) and the New
York State Department of Environmental
Conservation (NYSDEC) Fish Flesh Criteria (Newell
et al., 1987) for the protection of piscivorous wildlife
are used as acceptable guidelines for this indicator.
Contaminants detected in forage fish and their
respective guidelines are: poly chlorinated biphenyls
(PCBs), lOOng/g; dichlorodiphenyl trichloroethane
and breakdown products (total DDT), 200ng/g;
hexachlorocyclohexane, lOOng/g; hexachlorobenzene
(HCB), 330ng/g; octachlorostyrene, 20ng/g;
chlordane (500ng/g); and mirex (5ng/g). Since the
mirex guideline is equal to the detection limit, if mirex
is detected, the guideline is exceeded.
State of the Ecosystem
In each of the Great Lakes, PCB is the contaminant
most frequently exceeding the guideline. Total DDT is
often detected and although the guideline was
exceeded in the past, currently concentrations are
well below the guideline. Mirex is detected and
exceeds the guideline only at Lake Ontario locations.
Other PBT chemicals listed above are not frequently
detected, and if detected, are at concentrations well
below guidelines.
Lake Erie: Trends were examined for four locations in
Lake Erie: Big Creek, Leamington, Grand River and
Thunder Bay Beach. Overall, the trends show higher
concentrations of PCBs in the early years with a
steady decline over time. At Big Creek PCB
concentrations were high until 1986, usually
exceeding 300ng/g. After 1987, PCB concentrations
have remained near the guideline of 100 ng/g. At the
tte^
a 100-fj-
£ 50-H-
n. 11.
lii.i.i.
Figure 1. PCB and total DDT levels in juvenile
spottail shiners from four locations in Lake Erie.
The figures show mean concentration plus
standard deviation. The red line indicates the
wildlife protection guideline. When not detected,
one half of the detection limit was used to calculate
the mean concentration.
Source: Ontario Ministry of the Environment
80
-------
IMPLEMENTING INDICATORS 2003
A TECHNICAL REPORT
Figure 2. PCB levels in juvenile spottail shiners
from two location in Lake Huron.The figures show
mean concentration plus standard deviation of
PCBs.When not detected, one half of the detection
limit was used to calculate the mean concentration.
Source: Ontario Ministry of the Environment
Grand River, PCBs declined from a high of 146ng/g
in 1976 to less than the detection limit (20n/g) in 1990.
At Thunder Bay Beach the highest concentration of
PCBs was in 1978 (146ng/g). After 1978, PCB
concentrations have been less than the lOOng/g
guideline.
Total DDT concentrations at Lake Erie sites have been
well below the guideline except at Leamington where
183ng/g was reported in 1986. Maximum
concentrations at other Lake Erie sites were found in
the 1970s and ranged from 38ng/g at Thunder Bay
Beach to 75ng/g at Big Creek.
Lake Huron: Trend data are available for two
locations in Lake Huron: Collingwood Harbour and
Nottawasaga River. At Collingwood Harbour the
highest PCB concentrations were found when
sampling commenced in 1987 (206ng/g). Since then,
PCB concentrations have either exceeded or fallen just
below the guideline. At the Nottawasaga River the
highest concentration of PCBs was in 1977 (90ng/g).
Concentrations declined to less than the detection
limit by 1987. The highest concentration of total DDT
at Collingwood Harbour was found in 1987 (24ng/g).
At the Nottawasaga River, there has been a steady
decline in total DDT since 1977 when concentrations
were!06ng/g.
Lake Superior. Trend data were examined for four
locations in Lake Superior: Mission River, Nipigon
Bay, Jackfish Bay and Kam River. Generally
contaminant concentrations were low in all years and
at all locations. The highest PCB concentrations in
Lake Superior were found at the Mission River in
Efe
i
Total DDT Levels in Juvenile Spottail
Figure 3. PCB and total DDT levels in juvenile
spottail Shiners from five locations in Lake
Superior. The figures show mean concentration
plus standard deviation of PCBs and total DDT.
When not detected, one half of the detection limit
was used to calculate the mean concentration.
Source: Ontario Ministry of the Environment
1983 (139ng/g). All other analytical results were less
than the guideline. Maximum concentrations for
PCBs at the Lake Superior sites were from 1983 and
ranged from 51ng/g at Nipigon Bay to 89ng/g at
Jackfish Bay. The highest concentrations of DDT were
found in 1990 at Nipigon Bay (66ng/g) and Kam
River (37ng/g).
81
-------
IMPLEMENTING INDICATORS 2003
A TECHNICAL REPORT
PCB Levels in Juvenile Spottail
Shiners from Lake Ontario
at Twelve Mile Creek
1500
1000
100
0
If g-
Year
Mirex Levels in Juvenile Spottail
Shiners from Lake Ontario at
Twelve Mile Creek
30
20
10
A
Year
Total DDT Levels in Juvenile
Spottail Shiners from Lake Ontario
at Twelve Mile Creek
200
Year
PCB Levels in Juvenile Spottail
Shiners from Lake Ontario at the
Credit River
„ 2000
IS 1500
^ 1000
Mirex Levels in Juvenile Spottail
Shiners from Lake Ontario at the
Credit River
CD
Z
500
0
• n.n.T-i _
50
oi 40
e 30
g" 20
i 10
0
TTtTT
Total DDT Levels in Juvenile Spottail
Shiners from Lake Ontario at the
Credit River
40°
300
& <&
3 NX)
200 --
100 I
0
A
-------
IMPLEMENTING INDICATORS 2003
A TECHNICAL REPORT
Lake Ontario: Contaminant concentrations from five
locations were examined for trend analysis for Lake
Ontario: Twelve Mile Creek, Burlington Beach, Bronte
Creek, Credit River and the Humber River.
PCBs, total DDT and mirex are generally higher at
these (and other Lake Ontario) locations than
elsewhere in the Great Lakes. Overall, PCBs at all
locations tended to be higher in the early years,
ranging from 3 to 30 times the guideline. The highest
concentrations of PCBs were found at the Humber
River in 1978 (2938ng/g). In recent years PCBs have
generally ranged from lOOng/g to 200ng/g.
Mirex has exceeded the guideline intermittently at all
five locations. The maximum concentration was
37ng/g at the Credit River in 1992. Since 1992, mirex
has not been detected at any of these locations.
Total DDT concentrations approached or exceeded
the guideline at all five locations in the 1970s and on
occasion in the 1980s. The maximum reported
concentration was at the Humber River in 1978 when
total DDT was 443ng/g. The typical concentration of
total DDT at all five locations is currently near 50 ng/
Acknowledgments
Author: Emily Awad and Alan Hayton, Sport Fish Contaminant Monitoring
Program, Ontario Ministry of Environment, Etobicoke, ON.
Sources
Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement (GLWQA). 1978. Revised Great Lakes
Water Quality Agreement of 1978. As amended by Protocol November 18,1987.
International Joint Commission, Windsor, Ontario.
Ontario Ministry of the Environment. Sport Fish Contaminant Monitoring
Program. Juvenile Fish Database. Unpublished data.
Contact: Alan Hayton, Group Leader, Sport Fish Contaminant Monitoring
Program. Email to: sportfish@ene.gov.on.ca.
Newell, A.J., D.W Johnson and L.K. Allen. 1987. Niagara River Biota
Contamination Project: Fish Flesh criteria for Piscivorous Wildlife. Technical
Report 87-3. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation,
Albany, New York.
Scheider, W. A., C. Cox, A. Hayton, G. Hitchin, A. Vaillancourt. 1998. 'Current
Status and Temporal Trends in Concentrations of Persistent Toxic Substances in
Sport Fish and Juvenile Forage Fish in the Canadian Waters of the Great Lakes'.
Environmental Monitoring and Assessment. 53:57-76.
Suns, K. andRees, G. 1978.'Organochlorine Contaminant Residues in Young-of-
the-Year Spottail Shiners from Lakes Ontario, Erie, and St. Clair'. J. Great Lakes
Res. 4: 230-233.
Lake Michigan: No spottail shiners were sampled in
Lake Michigan under this sport fish contaminant
monitoring program.
Future Activities
Organochlorine contaminants have declined in
juvenile fish throughout the Great Lakes. Regular
monitoring should continue for all of these areas to
determine if levels are below wildlife protection
guidelines. Analytical methods should be improved
to accommodate revised guidelines and to include
additional contaminants such as dioxins and furans,
dioxin-like PCBs and poly-brominanted diphenyl
ethers. For Lake Superior, the historical data do not
include toxaphene concentrations. Since this
contaminant is responsible for most of the
consumption advisories and restrictions on sport fish
from this lake (Scheider et al., 1998), it is
recommended that analysis of this contaminant be
included in any future biomonitoring studies in Lake
Superior.
83
-------
IMPLEMENTING INDICATORS 2003
A TECHNICAL REPORT
Toxic Chemical Concentrations in
Offshore Waters
SOLEC Indicator #118 - Indicator Matrix
Assessment: Mixed Improving
Data are not system-wide.
Purpose
This indicator reports the concentration of priority
toxic chemicals in offshore waters, and by
comparison to criteria for the protection for aquatic
life and human health infers the potential for impacts
on the health of the Great Lakes aquatic ecosystem.
As well, the indicator can be used to infer the
progress of virtual elimination programs.
Ecosystem Objective
The Great Lakes should be free from materials
entering the water as a result of human activity that
will produce conditions that are toxic or harmful to
human, animal, or aquatic life (GLWQA, Article
State of the Ecosystem
Many toxic chemicals are present in the Great Lakes.
As a result of various ecosystem health assessments, a
comparatively small number have been identified as
"critical pollutants". Even so, it is impractical to
summarize the spatial and temporal trends of them
all within a few pages.
Organochlorines, several of which are on various
"critical pollutant" lists, have and are still declining in
the Great Lakes in response to management efforts.
Spatial concentration patterns illustrate the
ubiquitous nature of some, or the influence of
localized source(s) of others. An example of an
organochlorine with more widespread distribution is
dieldrin (Figure 1) which is observed at all open lake
Dieldrin Concentrations (ng/L)
<0.15
0.15-0.20
• 0.20 +
St. Lawrence River
Downstream,
St. Clair River
86 88 90 92 94 96 98
86 88 90 92 94 96 98
Figure 1. Spatial dieldrin patterns in the Great Lakes (Spring 1997,1999, or 2000, Surface) and annual
mean concentrations for the interconnecting channels from 1986 to 1998. Units = ng/L.
Source: Environmental Conservation Branch, Environment Canada
84
-------
IMPLEMENTING INDICATORS 2003
A TECHNICAL REPORT
Chemical
Period of
Record
Dissolved
Phase
Particulate
Phase
Chlorobenzenes
1,2-dichlorobenzene
1,3-dichlorobenzene
1,4-dichlorobenzene
1 ,2,3-trichlorobenzene
1 ,2,4-trichlorobenzene
1 ,3,5-trichlorobenzene
1 ,2,3,4-tetrachlorobenzene
Pentachlorobenzene
Hexachloro benzene
Pesticides and PCBs
a-BHC
Y-BHC
a-Chlordane
y-Chlordane
p,p'-DDT
o,p'-DDT
D.D'-TDE
P,P'-DDE
Dieldrin
a-endosulfan
(3-endosulfan
Heptachlor-epoxide
Mi rex
PCBs
PAHs
Acenaphthylene
Anthracene
Benz(a)anthracene
Benzo(a)pvrene
Benzo(b/k)fluoranthene
Benzo(ghi)perylene
Chrysene/triphenylene
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene
Fluoranthene
Fluorene
Indenopyrene
1 -methylnaphthalene
2-methvlnaphthalene
Naphthalene
Phenanthrene
Pyrene
1986-1997
1986-1997
1986-1997
1986-1997
1986-1997
1986-1997
-1997
1986-1997
1986-1997
1986-1997
1986-1997
1986-1997
1986-1997
1986-1997
1986-1997
1986-1997
1986-1997
1986-1997
1986-1997
1986-1997
1986-1997
1986-1997
1986-1997
1989-1997
1990-1997
1986-1997
1988-1997
1986-1997
1989-1997
1986-1997
1990-1997
1986-1997
1989-1997
1989-1997
1990-1997
1990-1997
1990-1997
1989-1997
1986-1997
-62.6
-71.0
-53.2
-61.6
-63.7
-52.5
-54.5
-57.5
-69.6
-80.3
-51.5
NS
~
NS
NS
-56.5
-48.2
-56.0
-59.0
-42.3
NS
-40.8
—
NS
NS
+272.0
NS
-53.0
NS
NS
+36.0
+239.8
-42.2
NS
-57.0
-61.0
NS
-75.1
-65.2
-51.0
-68.1
NS
-35.2
-29.1
-23.2
-60.1
—
-49.6
-75.5
~
-43.4
-33.8
NS
NS
+205.9
-22.0
+35.9
+219.5
~
—
—
-25.0
+28.1
Industrial By products
Hexachlorobutadiene
Octachlorobutadiene
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
1986-1997
1989-1997
1989-1997
-64.0
—
-84.6
-64.9
-89.6
~
Figure 2. Percent composition
change at Niagara-on-the-Lake.
NS = no significant trend,
'-' = too few values above the
detection limit.
Source: Environmental Conservation Branch,
Environment Canada
85
-------
IMPLEMENTING INDICATORS 2003
A TECHNICAL REPORT
stations and connecting channels sites.
Concentrations throughout the Great Lakes have
decreased by more than 50% between 1986 and 2000
and are still declining. However, dieldrin exceeds
New York State's water quality criterion for the
protection of human consumers of fish by a factor of
50-300 times.
Hexachlorobenzene (HCB), octachlorostyrene, and
mirex exemplify organochlorines whose presence is
due to historical, localized sources. Consequently,
their occurrence in the environment is isolated to
specific locations in the Great Lakes basin.
Concentrations of all three in the Niagara River have
decreased by more than 50% between 1986 and 1998.
Both HCB and mirex continue to exceed New York
State's criteria for the protection of human consumers
of fish by a factor of 2 and 7, respectively.
Figure 2 illustrates the percentage change in
concentration in dissolved phase and particulate
phase samples collected at the mouth of the Niagara
River during the period 1986 to 1997. Most
chlorobenzenes, chlorinated pesticides and PCBs have
decreased in concentration. For PAHs, some have
decreased, some have not changed and a few have
increased.
The research community in the Great Lakes basin is
actively pursuing the emerging chemicals issue. The
monitoring community will need to incorporate these
results in planning future monitoring programs.
Further Work Necessary
Environment Canada conducts routine toxic
contaminant monitoring in the shared waters of the
Great Lakes. However, a coordinated binational
monitoring program is required with agreement on
specifics such as frequency, analytical and field
methodologies, and sampling locations. An agreed
upon approach for summarizing and reporting the
indicator will also be required given that many
chemicals and locations have unique stories to tell.
Acknowledgments
Authors: Scott Painter, Environment Canada, Burlington, ON.
Sources
Richardson, V. Environmental Conservation Branch, Environment Canada.
Williams, D.J., M.A.T. Neilson, J. Merriman, S. L'ltalien, S. Painter, K. Kuntzand
A.H. El-Shaarawi. 2000. The Niagara River Upstream/Downstream Program 1986/
87-1996/97. Concentration, Loads, Trends. Ecosystem Health Division,
Environmental Conservation Branch, Environment Canada.
EHD/ECB-OR/00-01/1.
Future Pressures
Management efforts to control inputs of
organochlorines have resulted in decreasing
concentrations in the Great Lakes, however, historical
sources for some still appear to affect ambient
concentrations in the environment. The increase in
some PAH concentrations in localized areas should be
reviewed and analyzed in more detail. The ecosystem
impact is unknown. Chemicals such as endocrine
disrupting chemicals, in-use pesticides, and
Pharmaceuticals are emerging issues.
Future Actions
The Great Lakes Binational Toxics Strategy efforts
need to be maintained to identify and track the
remaining sources and explore opportunities to
accelerate their elimination.
Targeted monitoring to identify and track down local
sources should be considered for those chemicals
whose distribution suggests localized influences.
86
-------
IMPLEMENTING INDICATORS 2003
A TECHNICAL REPORT
Concentrations of Contaminants in
Sediment Cores
SOLEC Indicator #119 - Indicator Matrix
Assessment: Mixed Improving
Data are not system-wide.
Purpose
This indicator analyzes the concentration of toxic
chemicals in sediments from two perspectives:
1. by comparing contaminant concentrations to
available sediment quality guidelines, we can
infer potential harm to aquatic ecosystems from
contaminated sediments; and
2. using contaminant concentration profiles in
sediment cores from open lake and, where
appropriate, Areas of Concern index stations,
we can infer progress towards virtual
elimination of toxics in the Great Lakes.
Ecosystem Objective
The Great Lakes should be free from materials
entering the water as a result of human activity that
will produce conditions that are toxic or harmful to
human health, animal, or aquatic life (GLWQA,
Article III(d)). The GLWQA and the Binational
Strategy both state the virtual elimination of toxic
substances to the Great Lakes as an objective.
Index
A sediment quality index (SQI) was developed from
the metrics used in the recently approved Canadian
Water Quality Index. The SQI was calculated
according to an equation incorporating three
elements; scope-the % of variables that did not meet
guidelines; frequency-the % of failed tests relative to
the total number of tests in a group of sites, and;
amplitude-the magnitude by which the failed
variables exceeded guidelines. A modified SQI was
also developed, using only the scope and amplitude
elements, which computed the SQI score per site with
no grouping of sites. A full explanation of the SQI
derivation process and a possible classification
scheme based on the SQI score (0-100, poor to
excellent) is provided in Grapentine et al. (In Press).
State of the Ecosystem
Environment Canada initiated a comprehensive
sediment contaminant survey of the open waters of
the Great Lakes in 1997. Data for 34 chemicals with
guidelines were available for Lakes Erie and Ontario.
Generally, the Canadian federal probable effect level
(PEL) guideline (CCME, 2001) was used when
available, otherwise the Ontario lowest effect level
(LEL) guideline (Persaud et al., 1992) was used. The
SQI ranged from fair in Lake Ontario to excellent in
eastern Lake Erie (Figure 1). Spatial trends in
sediment quality in Lakes Erie and Ontario reflected
overall trends for individual contaminant classes such
as mercury and poly chlorinated biphenyls. The
spatial representation of sediment quality using the
individual site SQI scores as well as the area SQI
scores represent the individual spatial patterns in the
34 chemicals.
Lake and Basin
Erie
Western Basin
Central Basin
Eastern Basin
Ontario
Niagara
Mississauga
Rochester
Kingston
SQI
85
86
95
67
66
70
87
Figure 1. SQI for Lakes Erie and Ontario.
Source: Painter, S. et al., 2001; Marvin, C.H. et al., 2002
The USEPA-GLNPO used the SQI to evaluate data
collected as part of their investigation of
contaminated sediments in nearshore areas and rivers
within the Areas of Concern. The SQI was applied to
5 priority AOCs for which the USEPA has collected
sediment data. Figure 2 contains the SQI scores for
these 5 priority AOCs. SQI scores for these AOCs are
based on the results of available chemical analysis for
surfitial sediment concentrations only. Future
sediment data collected at these sites can be
87
-------
IMPLEMENTING INDICATORS 2003
A TECHNICAL REPORT
Site SQI Score
Grand Calumet River/Indiana Harbor, IN 24.5
Saginaw River and Harbor, Ml 57.5
Buffalo River, NY 93.2
Sheboygan River and Harbor, Wl 29.4
Ashtabula River and Harbor, OH 36.4
Figure 2. SQI scores for 5 U.S. priority AOC
sediment assessments, data collected from 1987-
1989.
Source: Scott Cieniawski, U.S. EPA
SQI values
• 0-40 (Poor)
• 40-60 (Marginal)
o 60-80 (Fair)
o 80-95 (Good)
• 95 + (Excellent)
Figure 3. Site Sediment Quality Index (SQI) based
on lead, zinc, copper, cadmium and mercury.
Source: Chris Marvin, Environment Canada, National Water Research
Institute (1997-2001 data for all Lakes except Michigan); and Ronald
Rossman, USEPA (1994-1996 data for Lake Michigan)
Chemical
Mercury
Lead
PCBs
HCB
Dieldrin
Chordane
DDT
Toxaphene
Dioxins
PAHs
Lake Ontario
73
30
38
38
19
20
60
N/A
70
N/A
Lake Erie
(Western
Basin)
37
40
40
N/A
+
N/A
42
+
N/A
38
Lake St. Clair
N/A
N/A
49
49
+
-
78
N/A
N/A
N/A
Figure 4. Percent Reduction in Concentrations at
Open Lake Index Sites.
Source: Painter, S. etal., 2001; Marvin, C.H. etal., 2002
compared to these SQI scores to determine trends in
sediment contamination.
Environment Canada and USEPA integrated available
data from each of the open waters of the Great Lakes.
To date, data on lead, zinc, copper, cadmium, and
mercury have been integrated. Figure 3 illustrates the
site by site SQI for Great Lakes sediments based on
these metals.
Environment Canada analyzed the open lake
sediment data to identify trends in sediment
contamination at open lake index sites. Figure 4
illustrates the percent reduction in contaminant
concentrations from cores at these index stations. In
most cases, the declines in concentrations are in the
range of 40%-50%.
Future Pressures
Management efforts to control inputs of historical
contaminants have resulted in decreasing
contaminant concentrations in the Great Lakes open-
water sediments for the standard list of chemicals.
However, additional chemicals such as
polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PDBEs),
polychlorinated naphthalenes (PCNs),
poly chlorinated alkanes (PCAs), endocrine disrupting
chemicals, and in-use pesticides and pharmaceuticals
represent emerging issues, and potential future
stressors to the ecosystem.
Future Actions
Binational Toxics Strategy needs to be maintained to
identify and track the remaining sources of
contamination and to explore opportunities to
accelerate their elimination.
1. Targeted monitoring to identify and track down
local sources of pollution should be considered
for those chemicals whose distribution in the
ambient environment suggests localized
sources.
2. The research community in the Great Lakes
basin should continue to actively pursue the
emerging chemicals issues. The monitoring
community should incorporate the results of
this research in the planning and
implementation of future monitoring programs
in the Great Lakes Basin.
88
-------
IMPLEMENTING INDICATORS 2003
A TECHNICAL REPORT
Further Work Necessary
1. Environment Canada, Ontario Ministry of the
Environment, and the USEPA need to
determine the availability of historical and
current sediment quality data (both near-shore
and open lake) to facilitate both spatial analysis
AND to confirm the availability of Index sites
to examine temporal trends.
2. Continued exploration and refinement of the
SQI approach should be explored, especially
the issue of agreement on guidelines to use in
implementing the SQI and an appropriate
classification scheme.
Acknowledgments
Authors: Scott Painter and Chris Marvin, Environment Canada, Burlington,
ON, Scott Cieniawski, USEPA, Chicago, IL.
Sources
Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME). 1999, updated 2001.
Canadian Environmental Quality Guidelines. Canadian Council of Ministers of
the Environment. Winnepeg, MB, Canada.
Cieniawski, Scott and Marc Tuchman, USEPA/GLPNO, 1987-1989. Unpublished
data.
Grapentine L., C. Marvin, S. Painter. (In Press). Development and evaluation of a
sediment quality index for the Great Lakes and associated Areas of Concern.
Human and Ecological Risk Assessment.
Marvin, C.H. et al. 2002. Surficial sediment contamination in Lakes Erie and
Ontario: A comparative analysis. Journal of Great Lakes Research 28(3): 437-450.
Painter, S. et al. 2001. Sediment contamination in Lake Erie: A 25-Year
retrospective analysis. Journal of Great Lakes Research 27(4): 434-448.
Persaud, D., R. Jaagumagi, and A. Hayton. 1992. Guidelines for the Protection and
Management of Aquatic Sediment Quality in Ontario. Water Resources Branch,
Ontario Ministry of the Environment and Energy. June 1992.
Rossman, R. USEPA, ORD-NHEERL-MED, 1994-1996. Unpublished data.
E.coli and Fecal Coliform Levels in
Nearshore Recreational Waters
SOLEC Indicator #4081 - Indicator Matrix
Assessment: Mixed
Data are not system-wide and multiple data sources
are not consistent.
Purpose
To assess E. coli and fecal coliform levels, which act as
a surrogate indicator for other pathogen types, in
nearshore recreational waters in order to infer
potential harm to human health through body contact
with nearshore recreational waters.
Ecosystem Objective
Waters used for recreational activities involving body
contact should be substantially free from pathogens,
including bacteria, parasites, and viruses, that may
harm human health. As the surrogate indicator, E. coli
and fecal coliform levels should not exceed national,
state, and/or provincial standards set for recreational
waters. The Ontario provincial standard currently in
use is a maximum count of 100 E. coli per 100 mL
(Ministry of Health, 1998). US EPA's bacteria criteria
recommendations for E. coli are a geometric mean of
126 colony forming units (cfu) per 100 mL (US EPA,
1986) or 235 cfu per 100 mL as a single sample
maximum. When high levels of these indicator
organisms are detected, swimming at beaches is
closed or advisories are issued to protect swimmers.
This indicator supports Annexes 1, 2 and 13 of the
GLWQA.
State of the Ecosystem
One of the most important factors in nearshore
recreational water quality is that bacterial levels be at
a level that will be safe for the public. Recreational
waters may become contaminated with animal and
human feces from sources and conditions such as
combined sewer overflows (CSOs) and Sanitary
Sewer Overflows (SSOs) that occur in certain areas
after heavy rains, agricultural run-off, and poorly
treated sewage. The trends provided by this indicator
will aid in beach management and in the prediction
of episodes of poor water quality. In addition, states
are identifying point and non-point sources of
pollution at their beaches, which will help identify
why beach closings are occurring and possibly
89
-------
IMPLEMENTING INDICATORS 2003
A TECHNICAL REPORT
identify remediation measures that can be taken to
reduce the number of closings and advisories.
Trends: Figure 1 shows that for both the U.S. and
Canada as the frequency in monitoring and reporting
increases, more advisories and closings are also
observed, especially after 1999. In fact, both countries
experienced a doubling of beaches that had advisories
or closings for more than 10% of the season in 2000.
Further analysis of the data may show seasonal and
local trends in recreational water. If episodes of poor
recreational water quality can be associated with
specific events, then forecasting for episodes of poor
water quality may become more accurate. Thus far it
has been observed in the Great Lakes basin that
unless new contaminant sources are removed or
introduced, beaches tend to respond with similar
bacteria levels after events with similar precipitation
and meteorological conditions.
There may be new indicators and new detection
methods available in the near future through current
research efforts occurring binationally in both public
and private sectors, and academia. Although
currently a concern in recreational waters, viruses and
parasites are difficult to isolate and quantify, and
feasible measurement techniques have yet to be
developed. Comparisons of the frequency of beach
closings and advisories are typically limited due to
use of different water quality criteria in different
localities. Conditions required to post Canadian
beaches have become more standardized due to the
1998 Beach Management Protocol, but the conditions
required to remove the postings remain variable. In
the U.S., all coastal states intend to adopt E. coli
indicators for fresh water as a condition of the
BEACH Act grant by April, 2004.
Figure 2 illustrates how reporting is evolving from
comparing assigned beach advisories or closings
towards comparing actual exceedances of geometric
mean standards. The method of issuing beach
advisories is sometimes imperfect. When bacterial
counts are above the standard, this information is not
known until one or two days later when the lab
results arrive. This process may leave a potentially
contaminated beach open, risking swimmers' health,
and may result in an advisory being issued when the
problem has likely passed. Methods are needed to
identify risk before exposure takes place. An
examination of historical geometric means may
provide a less subjective means of determining the
health risk category of beaches.
Future Pressures
Additional point and non-point source pollution at
coastal areas due to population growth and increased
land use may result in additional beach closings and
advisories. Inability to develop a rapid test protocol
for E. coli is lending support to advanced models to
predict when to post beaches.
Proportion of U.S. Great Lake Beaches
with Beach Advisories for the
1998-2001 Bathing Seasons
% Time with Beach Advisories
and Closures
• 0% Closed
n1%- 4% Closed
• 5%-9% Closed
• >10% Closed
Number of Great Lakes Beaches
reported each year:
U.S. Canada
313-2001 -304
329-2000-293
316-1999-238
298-1998-218
Proportion of Canadian Great Lake Beaches
with Beach Advisories for the
1998-2001 Bathing Seasons
Figure 1. Proportion of U.S. and Canadian Great Lakes beaches with beach advisories and closures for
1998 to 2001 bathing seasons.
Source: Adapted from U.S. EPA Beach Watch Program, National Health Protection Survey of Beaches for Swimming, 1998-2001, and Canadian data
obtained from Ontario Health Unites along the Great Lakes
90
-------
IMPLEMENTING INDICATORS 2003
A TECHNICAL REPORT
Canadian Great Lake Beaches
that Exceeded the Standard
Canadian Great Lake Beaches
with Beach Advisories
Figure 2. Status of Canadian Great Lakes beaches reported in terms of Beach Advisories versus
Provincial Standard Exceedances (for the 1999 to 2001 bathing seasons).
Source: Data obtained from Ontario Health Units along the Great Lakes
Future Activities
Wet weather sources of pollution have the potential to
carry pathogenic organisms to waters used for
recreation and contaminate them beyond the point of
safe use. USEPA is providing administrative, technical
and financial support to state and local agencies to
assist in the identification and remediation of
pollution sources at high use beaches that are affected
by CSOs, SSOs, and stormwater. Also, many
municipalities are in the process of developing long-
term control plans to address wet weather impacts.
The Great Lakes Strategy 2002 (http://
www.epa.gov/glnpo/gls/index.html) envisions that
all Great Lakes beaches will be swimmable and sets a
goal that by 2010, 90% of monitored, high priority
Great Lakes beaches will meet bacteria standards
more than 95% of the swimming season. To help meet
this goal, USEPA will build local capacity in
monitoring, assessment and information
dissemination to help beach managers and public
health officials meet reccomendations contained in
with U.S. EPA's National Beach Guidance (U.S. EPA
July, 2002) at 95% of high priority coastal beaches.
Creating wetlands around rivers or areas of wet
weather sources of pollution may help lower the
levels of bacteria that cause beaches to be closed or
advisories issued. The wetland area may reduce high
bacterial levels that are typical after storm events by
detaining and treating water in surface areas rather
than releasing the bacteria rich waters into the local
lakes and recreational areas. Studies by the Lake
Michigan Ecological Research Station show that
wetlands could lower bacterial levels at State Park
beaches, but more work is needed (Mitchell, 2002).
Further Work Necessary
Variability in the data from year to year may result
from changing seasonal weather conditions, the
process of monitoring and variations in reporting,
and may not be solely attributable to actual increases
or decreases in levels of microbial contaminants. At
this time, not all beaches are monitored in the Great
Lakes basin, but most public coastal beaches in the
U.S. will be monitored as a condition of the BEACH
Act grants. Another BEACH Act grant condition is
that recipients submit complete beach monitoring and
advisory/closure data to the USEPA annually. In
Canada there are plans to develop a web based data
entry system to increase the efficiency and accuracy
of the data collection and reporting system. The State
of Michigan has an online site (http://www.glin.net/
beachcast) where beach monitoring data is posted by
Michigan beach managers.
Due to the nature of the lab analysis, each set of beach
water samples requires an average of 1 to 2 days
before the results are communicated to the health unit
beach manager. To ensure accurate posting of Great
Lakes beaches, methods must be developed to deliver
quicker results. This issue may be addressed in the
91
-------
IMPLEMENTING INDICATORS 2003
A TECHNICAL REPORT
near future, as the BEACH Act requires USEPA to
study issues associated with pathogens and human
health and to publish new or revised Clean Water Act
Section 304(a) criteria. U.S. EPA's National Health &
Environmental Effects Reseach Laboratory (NHEERL)
in Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, is
evaluating methods for rapidly detecting
recreational water quality and NHEERL and the
Centers for Diesease Control and Prevention are
carrying out epidemiological studies that relate
swimming-associated illnesses to water quality. The
information developed will be used by U.S. EPA's
Office of Water to develop monitoring guidance.
NHEERL conducted a pilot study at a Lake Michigan
beach in 2002 and has begun implementing the
studies this year at 2 Great Lakes beaches and will
continue the studies at coastal freshwater and
marine beaches through 2005. Until new indicators
are available, predictive models and/or the
experience of knowledgeable environmental or public
health officers (who regularly collect the samples)
can be used. Each method takes a variety of factors
into account, such as amount of rainfall, cloud
coverage, wind, current, point and non-point source
inputs, presence of wildlife, to predict whether it is
likely that E. coli or fecal coliform levels will be
exceeded.
Acknowledgments
Authors: Christina Clark, Environment Canada intern, Downsview, ON, David
Rockwell and Martha Aviles-Quintero Environmental Protection Agency-Great
Lakes National Program Office, Chicago, IL and Holiday Wirick, Environmental
Protection Agency Region 5 - Water Division, Chicago, IL
Sources
Canadian data obtained from Ontario Health Units along the Great Lakes.
Health Canada. (October 26,1999). Guidelines for Canadian Recreational Water
Quality, 1992,101 p. [online].
Available: http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/ehp/ehd/catalogue/bch_pubs/
recreational_water.htm [July 12,2002].
Ministry of Health. January 1,1998. Beach Management Protocol-Safe Water
Program, [online]. AlgomaHealthUnit. Available: http://www.ahu.on.ca/
health_info/enviro_health/enviro_water/
enviro_water_BeachManagement%20Protocol.htm [July 12,2002].
Mitchell, David. (2002). E. coli testing may have outlived usefulness, [online].
The Times Online. Available: http://www.thetimesonline.com/index.pl/
articlesubpc?id=23927743 [July 17, 2002].
U.S. EPA. (January, 1986). Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Bacteria-1986.
[online]. Available: www.epa.gov/OST/beaches
U.S. EPA. (July, 2002). National Beach Guidance and Required Performance
Criteria for Grants, [online]. Available: www.epa.gov/OST/beaches
U.S. EPA. (2002). National Health Protection Survey of Beaches for Swimming
(1998 to 2001). [online]. Available: http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/beaches.
U.S. EPA. (2002). Great Lakes Strategy 2002. [online]. Available: http://
www.epa.gov/glnpo/gls/index.html.
Drinking Water Quality
SOLEC Indicator #4175 - Indicator Matrix
Assessment: Good
Data from multiple data sources are not consistent.
Purpose
The purpose of this indicator is to assess the chemical
and microbial contaminant levels in drinking water
and drinking water sources, and to evaluate the
potential for human exposure to drinking water
contaminants and the efficacy of policies and
technologies to ensure safe drinking water.
Ecosystem Objective
The desired objective is that all treated drinking water
should be safe to drink and be free from chemical and
microbiological contaminants, supporting Annexes 1,
2,12 and 16 of the Great Lakes Water Quality
Agreement. To ensure safe drinking water and
minimal potential health risks, it is important to
include raw (or source) water as part of the
assessment. Lower contaminant levels in raw water
indicate a healthier ecosystem, and fewer health
associated risks for humans.
State of the Ecosystem
Similar to SOLEC 2000, this indicator's evaluation is
based on ten parameters. The chemical elements
considered are atrazine, nitrate, and nitrite. The
microbiological elements are total coliform,
Escherischia coli (E. coli), Giardia, and Cryptosporidium.
Turbidity, and total organic carbon (TOC)/dissolved
organic carbon (DOC), while not necessarily health
hazards in themselves, can be used to indicate other
potential health problems that may arise. Finally,
taste and odor are included because of their
importance to consumers. Unlike 2000, this indicator
has expanded to include raw, treated, and
occasionally distributed samples from lake, river,
and ground water sources. The map provided shows
the locations of the public water systems (PWSs) and
also the source from which the water is drawn. All
analyses in this report are based on information
provided by 114 PWSs for the years 1999 to 2001 and
a review of the U.S. Safe Drinking Water Information
92
-------
IMPLEMENTING INDICATORS 2003
A TECHNICAL REPORT
"« " • i4>* '
Figure 1. Locations of the public water systems
(PWS) and the source from which the water is
drawn.
Source: Mike Makdisi, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Intern
System (SDWIS).
The risk for human exposure to chemical
contaminants is minimal, based on atrazine data
from 104 PWSs, and nitrate and nitrite data from 56
PWSs. Average and maximum levels for all three
chemicals rarely exceeded the limits in treated
drinking water, and most facilities' source water had
levels so low that treatment was not needed to
ensure compliance with the set standards. No
violations occurred in treated water for atrazine, and
only one water treatment plant (WTP) violated
standards for nitrate. However small, a potential risk
for exposure exists. Examination of the raw water
showed that 8 samples, taken at two river WTPs and
two lake WTPs, had elevated levels of atrazine in
source water. On one occasion at a river WTP and on
one occasion at a lake WTP, the elevated level of
atrazine persisted after treatment. High levels of
nitrate and nitrite were only found in raw water
only during the months of May and June. Three
WTPs had source water levels high enough to require
treatment. Two of the three use ground water sources
and one uses a Great Lakes connecting river.
By themselves, TOC and DOC do not necessarily
threaten human health. They can, however, indicate
the quality of source water and the potential for
disinfectant chemicals such as chlorine to combine
with organic carbon to form harmful byproducts
during treatment. Both the province of Ontario and
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency have
established TOC or DOC objectives or standards,
along with proper treatment procedures, to keep taste
and odor levels, partially caused by TOC/DOC, low,
and to keep harmful byproducts, produced during
disinfection, at safe levels.
Based on the 98 PWSs that provided information,
TOC/DOC levels are usually higher in inland lakes
and rivers, regardless of the season, with occasional
elevated levels, scattered throughout the year, found
in the Great Lakes and their connecting channels.
Trends also indicate that WTPs across the basin are
keeping their TOC/DOC levels relatively low after
treatment. According to the data reported, almost 36%
of the PWSs needed to treat their water for TOC/
DOC at one point or another in order to meet the
stated goals, but almost every elevated sample was
reduced significantly during purification, as the
graph demonstrates. The graph compares samples
taken from water before treatment to the same water
after treatment from various WTPs from around the
basin. Based on these trends and results, it is dear
that our technology is sufficient to keep TOC/DOC
levels low, and assuming the disinfection process is
managed properly, the relative risk of human
exposure to harmful byproducts is low.
Taste and odor are very important to the consumer,
but are also very difficult to analyze quantitatively.
While the U.S. has a secondary standard (a non-
enforceable guideline regulating contaminants that
may cause cosmetic or aesthetic effects) of 3 TON
(Threshold Odor Number), different ways of testing
occur all throughout the basin. Neither standardized
measurements, nor monitoring is required in the U.S.
or Canada.
Since taste and odor problems are often associated
with warmer waters, it is expected that higher levels
of Geosmin and 2-MIB (chemicals indicative of taste
and odor, which are also associated with algae
blooms) would be found in the late summer and early
fall. During 1999 to 2001, this pattern appeared in
samples taken from the Great Lakes surface water, yet
even these samples indicated few taste and odor
problems. In contrast to Great Lakes surface water,
elevated levels of Geosmin and 2-MIB were found
during other times of the year in river water, and
93
-------
IMPLEMENTING INDICATORS 2003
A TECHNICAL REPORT
D)
o
o
Q
O
O
0
OOOOOOOOQOOOOOOOOO
Months
CN CM CM
Raw
Treated
Figure 2. Raw and treated total organic carbon and total dissolved organic carbon, 2000.
Source: WTPs across Ontario and the United States
once in ground water. The most notable time was
during the spring and early summer of 2000.
Overall, based primarily on samples before
distribution, there were infrequent problems with
taste and odor in drinking water from the Great Lakes
basin. The TON standard was rarely exceeded when
monitored, and few complaints from consumers were
reported. Of the 60 WTPs that tested Geosmin and
MIB in treated water, over two-thirds had drinking
water that was always free from taste and odor
problems.
Turbidity is important for the assessment of water
quality. In raw water, it can disrupt the disinfecting
efficiency of the treatment process, hide potential
microorganisms, interfere with the filtration process,
and may consist of toxic particles or particles that
adsorb or bond with toxic substances. In treated
water, it can act as an indicator of the efficiency of the
drinking water treatment process.
The trend for turbidity from 1999-2001 shows that, for
the most part, the turbidity levels for source water
from the Great Lakes is declining, as demonstrated by
the graph. The most turbid source water samples are
from the Great Lakes, it's connecting rivers, and
inland rivers, while inland lakes and ground water
sources have lower levels. The established maximum
acceptable concentration for treated drinking water
in any one given sample for Ontario is 1.0 NTU
(Nephelometric turbidity unit), and 5.0 NTU for the
U.S. Only 7 samples were found in 4 WTPs in Ontario
that exceeded this standard, and no exceedences were
found in the US. Additional standards apply to U.S.
WTPs for average monthly turbidity levels. A review
of violations from the U.S. SDWIS database showed
that only two PWSs may have violated these turbidity
standards, but because the type of violation reported
could have been caused by other factors, turbidity
violations were not confirmed for this report. Overall,
the WTPs within the Great Lakes basin rarely have
problems with turbidity in drinking water by
consistently reducing source water turbidity levels
with treatment by several orders of magnitude. This
demonstrates the effectiveness of our current
technologies.
Based on data provided by 48 WTPs, the trend for
total coliform and E. coli from 1999-2001 shows that
higher coliform counts are found in the Great Lakes
surface waters and rivers, with the highest counts
occurring during the spring, summer and early fall. In
addition, higher coliform counts are more apparent in
raw waters of the U.S. than Canada. This observation
may be due to the different methods used to detect
and measure coliform populations in drinking water.
The U.S. often uses more sensitive tests to detect
94
-------
IMPLEMENTING INDICATORS 2003
A TECHNICAL REPORT
12-
10
2000
Year
• Lake Erie
• Lake Michigan
Lake Huron
Lake Superior
• Lake Ontario
Figure 3. Annual average turbidity for raw water
from the Great Lakes Surface.
Source: WTPs across Ontario and the United States
microorganisms, in addition to tests that are
common to both countries.
Total coliform by itself is not necessarily harmful, but
may indicate the presence of harmful bacteria such as
E. coli. For any amount of coliform found in Ontario
source waters, treatment is necessary. In the U.S., no
more than 5% positive coliform samples may be
found in distributed waters, and WTPs drawing
surface water must provide disinfection treatment.
The set standard in both countries for E. coli is zero. A
review of SDWIS found only one violation for
coliform, from a groundwater WTP, and zero
violations for E. coli. Ontario does not have a user-
friendly way to check for violations, nevertheless,
few samples provided by WTPs showed exceedences
for either total coliform or E. coli. These low
exceedence rates, compared to the higher rates of
coliform and E. coli found in source waters,
demonstrate how WTPs within the Great Lakes
basin have effective disinfection processes, high
water quality in distribution systems, and a low
probability of human exposure to either coliform or
E. coli.
For Giardia and Cryptosporidium, there is continuing
debate regarding their method of detection and the
reliability of those results, so there are no proposed
numerical guidelines at the moment for Ontario. The
U.S. has established treated water standards of 99%
physical removal of Crypto by filtration, and 99.9%
removal and/or inactivation of Giardia by filtration
and disinfection, ensured by limits on post treatment
turbidity and disinfectant residual levels.
Accordingly, direct testing by WTPs for these
organisms are not mandatory in Ontario or in the U.S.
Out of 73 Ontario PWSs, less than 10% provided data
for these parameters. In the U.S., less than half of the
41 PWSs provided data. Of the two WTPs from the
PWSs that did report data (one using water from a
Great Lakes connecting river, and one using water
from an inland river), found that samples taken after
rain events, regardless of the season, showed higher
levels of protozoa present in the water. Of all the
WTPs that provided data, non-detection to very low
occurrences of the organisms in raw water were
generally reported. Accordingly, it was rare to find
any Giardia or Crypto in treated waters (two Great
Lakes and one river WTP reported positive samples),
and no reports of Giardia or Crypto were found in the
few reported samples from distributed water.
Overall, the quality of drinking water in the Great
Lakes is good. This is in large part due to current
technologies; few elevated levels that violate drinking
water standards and put humans at risk persist past
the purification process. The quality of some source
waters, however, is still in question. Many
contaminants remain at high enough levels to be a
concern.
Future Pressures
The greatest pressures come from degraded runoff.
Reduced quality of runoff may be caused by a
number of reasons, including the increasing rate of
industrial development on or near water bodies,
low-density urban sprawl, and agriculture,
including both crop and livestock operations. In
addition, point source pollution, such as that from
wastewater treatment plants, also can contribute to
pollution. It is unknown to what extent new
pressures, such as newly introduced chemicals and
invasive species, will impact water quality. If these
problems persist, microbiological and chemical
contaminants will continue to pose a health risk for
humans, as will the disinfection process which
creates harmful byproducts.
Future Activities
The importance of high quality source water cannot
be over emphasized. In the U.S., states are conducting
95
-------
IMPLEMENTING INDICATORS 2003
A TECHNICAL REPORT
source water assessments, and the results should
start appearing in 2003. Implementation of source
water protection measures, including creative ways
of mitigating sources of harmful runoff, will continue
to be beneficial, and the practice of routine raw water
monitoring would also be useful. High quality source
water not only reduces the costs associated with
treating water, but also promotes a healthier
ecosystem and less risk of exposure to harmful
contaminants to humans.
Further Work Necessary
The distribution of PWSs currently being examined,
and the sources from which they draw water, provide
incomplete coverage of treatable drinking water in
the Great Lakes basin. Expansion of these data
sources would help to provide a more complete and
accurate picture of Great Lakes drinking water
quality. Better ways of gathering and assessing data
are also needed. Since mid-2000, Ontario has been
mandating all PWSs to make all drinking water
quality reports accessible to the public in a
comprehensible and consistent format, similar to the
established Consumer Confidence Reports in the U.S.
While these are good for identifying violations and
exceedences on a periodic basis, a better, standardized
way of collecting data would be useful. In addition,
the required time it takes to collect data somehow
needs to be reduced. A database, accessible to all
PWSs, researchers, and the public would help, as
would the establishment of a collaborative effort
between PWSs and the trend analyzers. Continued
evaluation of these ten parameters need to be
maintained to insure relevance to human and
ecosystem health, as well as feasibility in data
collection. The appropriate reporting frequency for
this indicator should continue to be every two years,
incorporating newly changed regulations and varying
pressures.
Acknowledgments
Authors: Mike Makdisi, USEPA: ORISE Intern & Angelica Guillarte,
Environment Canada Intern.
Much thanks goes to Tom Murphy, Miguel Del Toral, Kimberly Harris, and
Sahba Rouhani from the USEPA, and Fred Schultz from the Chicago Water
Department for their input. Additional thanks go to all the operators and
managers from the water treatment plants that helped to gather and submit
data.
Sources
Madden, Molly. 2000. Drinking Water Quality Indicator from SOLEC 2000:
Implementing Indicators, Nov. 2000. Unpublished.
O'Connor, Dennis. 2002. Part Two Report of the Walkerton Inquiry, [online].
Available: http://www.ene.gov.on.ca/water.htm.
Ontario Ministry of the Environment. 2001. Ontario Drinking Water Standards.
[online]. Available: http://www.ene.gov.on.ca/envision/Waterreg/Waterreg.htm.
Stewart, John C. 1990. Drinking Water Hazards. Envirographics: Hiram, Ohio.
National Primary Drinking Water Regulations-EPAs Drinking Water Standards.
[online]. Available: http://www.epa.gov/safewater/mcl.html.
What's in the Water, [online], http://www.waterqualityreports.org/factsheets.html.
http://www.cityofelliotlake.com/community/
engineering_department.htm#public_works_department
http://www.city.kawarthalakes.on.ca/CustomerService/water/
DrinkingWaterIndex.htm
http://www.ontariotowns.on.ca/dunnville.shtml
http://www.townoflakeshore.on.ca/
http://www.muskoka.corn/communityhtm
http://www.muskoka.com/communityhtm
http://www.city.quintewest.on.ca/services/pubworks/waterreports.htm
http://www.town.porthope.on.ca/wwmenu.htm
http://www.regi on.durham.onca/works.asp?nr=departments/works/ser vices/water/
waterquality.html
http://www.region.peel.on.ca/pw/water/index.htm
http://www.region.waterloo.on.ca/web/region.nsf/
C56e308f49bfeb7885256abc0071ec9a/
5e27da36428bc97e85256b260063afl9!OpenDocument
Contaminants in Snapping Turtle Er
SOLEC Indicator #4506 - Indicator Matrix
Assessment: Mixed
Data are not system-wide.
Purpose
Snapping Turtles inhabit and nest in (coastal)
wetlands in the Great Lakes basin, particularly the
lower Great Lakes. Contaminant trends, and
physiological and ecological endpoints, will be
assessed in this aquatic-terrestrial reptile. This
assessment will provide a better understanding of the
impact of contaminants on the physiological and
ecological health of the individual turtles and wetland
communities.
While other Great Lakes wildlife species may be more
sensitive to contaminants than Snapping Turtles,
there are few other species that are as long-lived, as
common year-round, inhabit such a wide variety of
habitats, and yet are limited in their movement
between wetlands. Snapping Turtles are also at the
top in the aquatic food web and bioaccumulate
contaminants. Plasma and egg tissues offer a non-
destructive method to monitor recent exposure to
chemicals as well as an opportunity for long-term
contaminant and health monitoring. Since they
96
-------
IMPLEMENTING INDICATORS 2003
A TECHNICAL REPORT
inhabit coastal wetlands throughout the lower Great
Lakes basin, they allow for multi-site comparisons on
a temporal and spatial basis. Consequently, Snapping
Turtles are a very useful biological indicator species of
local wetland contaminants and the effects of these
contaminants on wetland communities throughout
the lower Great Lakes basin.
Ecosystem Objective
This indicator supports Annexes 1,2,11 and 12 of the
GLWQA.
Endpoint
Chemical levels, biological and reproductive
measures (exact measures to be confirmed) in
Snapping Turtles are not different from those turtles
from reference sites away from the Great Lakes, e.g.
inland sites from Ontario, Atlantic Canada or the
Prairies.
State of the Ecosystem
For more than 20 years, the Canadian Wildlife Service
(CWS) has collected Snapping Turtle eggs and
examined the species' reproductive success in
relation to contaminant levels on a research basis.
The following tables provide a summary of
contaminant levels in eggs collected at various sites
over the past 18 years. Complementary data exist for
only one U.S.
Great Lakes coastal wetland, Akwesasne, and these
data were collected by CWS.
CWS is currently examining the health of Snapping
Turtles in Canadian AOCs on the lower Great Lakes
basin (2001-2005), expanding its Snapping Turtle
program by adding physiological endpoints (e.g.,
immune and thyroid functions, oxidative stress) to
previously measured endpoints (e.g., contaminant
levels in eggs, hatching success and deformity rates).
The earlier program has shown that contaminants in
Snapping Turtle eggs change over time and between
sites on the Great Lakes basin, with significant
differences between contaminated and reference sites
continuing to occur (Bishop et al, 1996,1998).
Snapping turtle eggs collected at two Lake Ontario
sites (Cootes Paradise and Lynde Creek) had the
highest concentrations of poly chlorinated dioxins and
number of furans (Bishop et al. 1996,1998). Eggs from
Cranberry Marsh (Lake Ontario) and two Lake Erie
sites (Long Point and Rondeau Provincial Park) had
similar levels of PCBs and organochlorines (Bishop et
al. 1996,1998). Eggs from Akwesasne (St. Lawrence
River) contained the highest level of PCBs (Bishop et
al. 1998). Levels of PCBs and DDE increased
significantly from 1984 to 1990/91 in eggs from
Cootes Paradise and Lynde Creek, but levels of
dioxins and furans decreased significantly at Cootes
Paradise during this time (Struger et al. 1993; Bishop
et al. 1996). Eggs with the highest contaminant levels
also showed the poorest developmental success
(Bishop et al. 1991,1998). Rates of abnormal
development of Snapping Turtle eggs from 1986-1991
were highest at all four Lake Ontario sites compared
to other sites studied (Bishop et al. 1998).
In 2001, CWS collected Snapping Turtle tissues from
three Areas of Concern (AOCs), the St. Clair and
Detroit Rivers, and Wheatley Harbour, and two
reference sites. The CWS found that clutch size, which
refers to the number of eggs laid by a female, was
smallest at the St. Clair River AOC (28 eggs) and
largest near Wheatley Harbour (42 eggs) (K. Fernie,
CWS unpublished data). Despite having the largest
dutches, hatching success was very poor, hatchlings
were smaller and had more deformities near the
Wheatley AOC compared to reference sites. The
growth of young turtles from near the Wheatley
Harbour AOC was suppressed, and changes in
growth were also seen in juveniles from the St. Clair
and Detroit River AOCs. 15% of adult male turtles
from one AOC showed effects of being exposed to
estrogenic-mimicking contaminants, having a
protein in their blood that normally only appears in
females. Males from the other two AOC sites had
shorter penises relative to their body length. A
L*e
Reference site
Lake St. Clair
Detroit River
Erie
Erie
Ontario
Ontario
St. Lawrence River
Site
Algonquin Park
St. Clair N.W.A.2
Turkey Creek
Wheatley area
Rondeau Provincial Park
Cootes Paradise
Lynde Creek
Akwesasne
1984
0.187
1.095
1.093
1.315
0.869
1989-1991
0.018
0.617
3.575
1.430
3.946
1998-1999
0.020
2.956
6.3733
2001-20021
0.016
0.074
1.134
0.491
1.306
Figure 1. Total PCB concentrations in Snapping
Turtle eggs from selected sites and years.
Contaminants are ppm on a wet weight basis.
1K. Fernie, unpublished data; 2St. Clair National
Wildlife Area; 3Mean concentrations for Raquette
and St. Regis sites in Akwesasne.
Source: Canadian Wildlife Service contaminants database
97
-------
IMPLEMENTING INDICATORS 2003
A TECHNICAL REPORT
Lake
Reference site
Lake St. Clair
Erie
Ontario
Ontario
St. Lawrence River
Site
Algonquin Park
St. Clair N.W.A.'
Rondeau Provincial Park
Cootes Paradise
Lynde Creek
Akwesasne
1984
0.027
0.115
0.040
0.200
0.010
1989-1991
0.002
0.037
0.389
0.232
0.068
1998-1999
0.002
0.135
0.020 3
2001-2002
0.013
0.058
0.088
-
Figure 2. DDE concentrations in snapping turtle
eggs from selected sites and years.
Concentrations are ppm on a wet weight basis.
1K. Fernie, unpublished data; 2St. Clair National
Wildlife Area; 3Mean concentrations for Raquette and
St. Regis sites in Akwesasne.
Source: Canadian Wildlife Service contaminants database
interpret basin-wide trends. This species offers an
excellent opportunity to monitor the health and
contaminant concentrations in coastal wetland
populations. Immune function, oxidative stress
relating to neuro-degenerative problems (e.g., cancer,
immune disorders), and newly emerging
contaminants also need to be examined in the long-
term monitoring program.
Acknowledgments
Author: Kim Fernie, Canadian Wildlife Service, Environment Canada,
Burlington, ON. Dr. Fernie can be contacted at kim.fernie@ec.gc.ca. Thanks
to other past and present staff at CWS-Ontario Region (Burlington and
Downsview), as well as staff at the CWS National Wildlife Research Centre
(Hull, PQ), the wildlife biologists not associated with the CWS, and private
landowners.
similar finding was also found in alligators
inhabiting contaminated sites in Florida.
Future Pressures
Future pressures for this indicator include all sources
of contaminants which reach the Great Lakes
wetlands, including traditional chemicals (e.g. PCBs,
DDT/E, mirex) newly emerging ones (e.g. PAHs,
polybrominated diphenyl ethers or flame
retardants). Snapping Turtle populations face
additional pressures from commercial harvesting of
adult turtles and road-side killings during the
nesting season in June.
Future Activities
CWS is evaluating the establishment of a long-term
monitoring program involving the Snapping Turtle
and is using the current study (2001-2005) to assess
appropriate methodologies. Such a program would
likely involve the following periodic measurements:
1. total DDT, PCBs/PCDFs/PCDDs and other
organochlorines, mercury and other metals in
plasma and eggs from multiple Great Lakes
sites.
2. various biological endpoints: dutch size,
hatching success, vitamin A, thyroid function,
liver enzyme induction, and clinical chemistry
analyses of adult turtles.
Further Work Necessary
The health and contaminant status of Snapping
Turtles should be monitored on a regular basis across
the Great Lakes basin where appropriate. Once the
usefulness of the indicator is confirmed, it will be
necessary to foster a complementary U.S. program to
Sources
Bishop, C.A., R.J. Brooks, J.H. Carey, P. Ng, R.J. Norstrom, D.R.S. Lean. 1991. The
case for a cause-effect linkage between environmental contamination and
development in eggs of the common snapping turtle (Chedlydra s. serpentina)
from Ontario, Canada. Journal of Toxicology Environmental Health 33:521-547.
Bishop, C.A., P. Ng, R.J. Norstrom, R.J. Brooks, K.E. Petttt. 1996. Temporal and
geographic variation of organochlorine residues in eggs of the common snapping
turtle (Chedlydra serpentina serpentina) (1981-1991) and comparisons to trends in
the herring gull (Larus argmtatus) in the Great Lakes basin in Ontario, Canada.
Archives of Environmental Contamination & Toxicology. 31:512-524.
Bishop, C.A. P Ng, K.E. Pettit, S.W. Kennedy, J.J. Stegeman, R.J. Norstrom, R.J.
Brooks. 1998. Environmental contamination and developmental abnormalities in
eggs and hatchlings of the common snapping turtle (Chedlydra serpentina
serpentina) from the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River basin (1989-1991).
Environmental Pollution. 101:143-156.
Canadian Wildlife Service, Environment Canada. Database of Contaminants.
Unpublished data.
Fernie, Kim. Canadian Wildlife Services. Unpublished data.
Struger ]., J.E. Elliott, C.A. Bishop, M.E. Obbard, R.J. Norstrom, D.V. (Chip)
Weseloh, M. Simon, P Ng. 1993. Environmental contaminants in eggs of the
common snapping turtles (Chdydra serpentina serpentina) from the Great Lakes-
St. Lawrence River Basin of Ontario, Canada (1981,1984).
98
-------
IMPLEMENTING INDICATORS 2003
A TECHNICAL REPORT
Effect of Water Level Fluctuations
SOLEC Indicator #4861
Assessment: Mixed
Data are available for water level fluctuations for all
lakes. A comparison of wetland vegetation along
regulated Lake Ontario to vegetation along
unregulated Lakes Michigan and Huron provides
insight into the impacts of water level regulation.
Purpose
The purpose of this indicator is to examine the
historic water levels in all the Great Lakes, and
compare these levels and their effects on wetlands
with post-regulated levels in Lakes Superior and
Ontario, where water levels have been regulated
since about 1914 and 1959, respectively. Naturally
fluctuating water levels are known to be essential for
maintaining the ecological health of Great Lakes
shoreline ecosystems, especially coastal wetlands.
Thus, comparing the hydrology of the Lakes serves as
an indicator of degradation caused by the artificial
alteration of the naturally fluctuating hydrological
cycle. Furthermore, water level fluctuations can be
used to examine effects on wetland vegetation
communities over time as well as aid in interpreting
estimates of coastal wetland area, especially in those
Great Lakes for which water levels are not regulated.
Ecosystem Objective
The ecosystem objective is to maintain the diverse
array of Great Lakes coastal wetlands by allowing, as
closely as is possible, the natural seasonal and long-
term fluctuations of Great Lakes water levels. Great
Lakes shoreline ecosystems are dependent upon
natural disturbance processes, such as water level
fluctuations, if they are to function as dynamic
systems. Naturally fluctuating water levels create
ever-changing conditions along the Great Lakes
shoreline, and the biological communities that
populate these coastal wetlands have responded to
these dynamic changes with rich and diverse
assemblages of species.
State of the Ecosystem
Water levels in the Great Lakes have been measured
since 1860, but 140 years is a relatively short period
of time when assessing the hydrological history of
the Lakes. Sediment investigations conducted by
Thompson and Baedke on the Lake Michigan-Huron
system indicate quasi-periodic lake level fluctuations
(Fig. 1), both in period and amplitude, on an average
of about 160 years, but ranging from 120-200 years.
Within this 160-year period, there also appear to be
sub-fluctuations of approximately 33 years. Therefore,
to assess water level fluctuations, it is necessary to
look at long-term data.
Because Lake Superior is at the upper end of the
watershed, the fluctuations have less amplitude than
the other Lakes. Lake Ontario (Fig. 2), at the lower
end of the watershed, more dearly shows these
quasi-periodic fluctuations and the almost complete
elimination of the high and low levels since the Lake
level began to be regulated in 1959, and more
rigorously since 1976. For example, the 1986 high
level that was observed in the other Lakes was
eliminated from Lake Ontario. The level in Lake
Ontario after 1959 contrasts with that of Lake
Michigan-Huron (Fig. 3), which shows the more
characteristic high and low water levels.
The significance of seasonal and long-term water
level fluctuations on coastal wetlands is perhaps best
explained in terms of the vegetation, which, in
addition to its own diverse composition, provides the
substrate, food, cover, and habitat for many other
species dependent on coastal wetlands.
181.0
180.5
180.0
179.5
E 179.0
= 178.5
15 178.0
£ 177.5
LU
177.0
176.5
176.0
175.5
175.0
I
l^^~ Measured upper limit
|
1
[|
UA/
pv
|
|\
s
o
V
J
AM
w
1
/
-f
±
173
/
/
-/
177
f
AO
JJUL/
'unC/y
liayw'
\
1"'
w
ifflflfKj
1300 20
/
/
4/
IH&
6C
00
\
^\_
/ear fluctuations
^
S~
/
1
f\
s\
r
\
£
V
-
_
Elevation
• 3
580
578
576
574
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000
Calendar year before 1950
I I 1 1 AD ' BC ' ' ' ' 1 1
1950 1500 1000 500 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
Year
Figure 1. Sediment investigations on the Lake
Michigan-Huron system indicates quasi-periodic
lake level fluctuations.
Source: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 1992 (and
updates)
99
-------
IMPLEMENTING INDICATORS 2003
A TECHNICAL REPORT
177.5
Year
Figure 2. Actual water levels for Lakes Huron and Michigan. IGLD-lnternational Great Lakes Datum. Zero
for IGLD is Rimouski, Quebec, at the mouth of the St. Lawrence River. Water level elevations in the Great
Lakes/St. Lawrence River system are measured above water level at this site.
Source: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
S2
01
•3
76.0
75.5
75.0
74.5
74.0
73.5
Year
Figure 3. Actual water levels for Lake Ontario. IGLD-lnternational Great Lakes Datum. Zero for IGLD is
Rimouski, Quebec, at the mouth of the St. Lawrence River. Water level elevations in the Great Lakes/St.
Lawrence River system are measured above water level at this site.
Source: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
100
-------
IMPLEMENTING INDICATORS 2003
A TECHNICAL REPORT
Seasonal water level fluctuations result in higher
summer water levels and lower winter levels.
Additionally, the often unstable summer water levels
ensure a varied hydrology for the diverse plant
species inhabiting coastal wetlands. Without the
seasonal variation, the wetland zone would be much
narrower and less diverse. Even very short-term
fluctuations resulting from changes in wind direction
and barometric pressure can substantially alter the
area inundated, and thus, the coastal wetland
community.
Long-term water level fluctuations, of course, have
an impact over a longer period of time. During
periods of high water, there is a die-off of shrubs,
cattails, and other woody or emergent species that
cannot tolerate long periods of increased depth of
inundation. At the same time, there is an expansion
of aquatic communities, notably submergents, into
the newly inundated area. As the water levels recede,
seeds buried in the sediments germinate and vegetate
this newly exposed zone, while the aquatic
communities recede outward back into the Lake.
During periods of low water, woody plants and
emergents expand again to reclaim their former area
as aquatic communities establish themselves further
outward into the Lake.
The long-term high-low fluctuation puts natural
stress on coastal wetlands, but is vital in maintaining
wetland diversity. It is the mid-zone of coastal
wetlands that harbors the greatest biodiversity. Under
more stable water levels, coastal wetlands occupy
narrower zones along the Lakes and are considerably
less diverse, as the more dominant species, such as
cattails, take over to the detriment of those less able to
compete under a stable water regime. This is
characteristic of many of the coastal wetlands of Lake
Ontario, where water levels are regulated.
Future Pressures
Future pressures on the ecosystem include additional
withdrawals or diversions of water from the Lakes, or
additional regulation of the high and low water
levels. These potential future pressures will require
direct human intervention to implement, and thus,
with proper consideration of the impacts, can be
prevented. The more insidious impact could be
caused by global climate change. The quasi-periodic
fluctuations of water levels are the result of climatic
effects, and global warming has the potential to
greatly alter the water levels in the Lakes.
Future Actions
The Lake Ontario-St. Lawrence River Study Board is
undertaking a comprehensive 5-year study for the
International Joint Commission (IJC) to assess the
current criteria used for regulating water levels on
Lake Ontario and in the St. Lawrence River.
The overall goals of Environment/Wetlands Working
Group (of the IJC study) are (1) to ensure that all
types of native habitats (floodplain, forested and
shrubby swamps, wet meadows, shallow and deep
marshes, submerged vegetation, mud flats, open
water, and fast flowing water) and shoreline features
(barrier beaches, sand bars/dunes, gravel/cobble
shores, and islands) are represented in an abundance
that allows for the maintenance of ecosystem
resilience and integrity over all seasons, and (2)
maintain hydraulic and spatial connectivity of
habitats to ensure that fauna have access, temporally
and spatially, to a sufficient surface of all the types of
habitats they need to complete their life cycles.
The environment/wetlands component of the IJC
study provides a major opportunity to improve the
understanding of past water-regulation impacts on
coastal wetlands. The new knowledge will be used to
develop and recommend water level regulation
criteria with the specific objective of maintaining
coastal wetland diversity and health.
Also, continued monitoring of water levels in all of
the Great Lakes is vital to understanding coastal
wetland dynamics and the ability to assess wetland
health on a large scale. Fluctuations in water levels
are the driving force behind coastal wetland
biodiversity and overall wetland health. Their effects
on wetland ecosystems must be recognized and
monitored throughout the Great Lakes basin in both
regulated and unregulated Lakes.
Further Work Necessary
Human-induced global climate change could be a
major cause of lowered water levels in the Lakes in
future years. Further study is needed on the impacts
of water level fluctuations on other nearshore
terrestrial communities.
101
-------
IMPLEMENTING INDICATORS 2003
A TECHNICAL REPORT
Also, an educated public is critical to ensuring wise
decisions about the stewardship of the Great Lakes
basin ecosystem, and better platforms to getting
understandable information to the public are needed.
Acknowledgments
Author: Duane Heaton, USEPA-Great Lakes National Programs Office,
Chicago, IL.
Much of the information and discussion presented in this summary is based
on work conducted by the following: Douglas A. Wilcox, Ph.D. (US
Geological Survey / Biological Resources Division); Todd A. Thompson,
Ph.D. (Indiana Geological Survey); Steve J. Baedke, Ph.D. (James Madison
University)
Sources
Baedke, S.J., andT.AThompson. 2000. A 4,700-year Record of Lake Level and
Isostasy for Lake Michigan. Journal of Great Lakes Research 26(4): 416-426.
International Lake Ontario-St. Lawrence River Study Board, Technical Working
Group on Environment/Wetlands, http://www.ijc.org. International Joint
Commission, Great Lakes Regional Office, Windsor, Ontario and Detroit,
Michigan.
Maynard, L. And D. Wilcox. 1997. Coastal Wetlands of the Great Lakes. State of
the Lakes Ecosystem Conference 1996 Background Paper. Environment Canada
and United States Environmental Protection Agency.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 1992 (and updates^
Great Lakes Water Levels, 1860-1990. National Ocean Service, Rockville,
Maryland.
Mass Transportation
SOLEC Indicator #7012 - Indicator Matrix
Assessment: Mixed
Data from multiple sources are not consistent.
Purpose
The purpose of the indicator is to assess the
percentage of commuters using public transportation,
and to infer the stress caused by the use of private
motor vehicle and its resulting high resource
utilization and pollution creation, to the Great Lakes
ecosystem.
Ecosystem Objective
This indicator supports one of the general objectives
from the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement
"These waters should be free from materials...directly
and indirectly entering the water as a result of human
activity that...will produce conditions that are toxic
or harmful to...life", as well as Annex 15 of the
Agreement. In addition, this indicator promotes
sustainable development as interpreted by Canada
and the United States through continuing efforts of
agencies, such as the Canadian National Roundtable
on Environment and Economy.
State of the Ecosystem
For this indicator, public transit ridership data for the
years 1993 - 2000 were collected from 38 transit
authorities in Ontario, and data for the years 1996 -
2000 were collected from 15 transit agencies in the
United States within the Great Lakes basin. This
report encompasses a more extensive geographical
area than the 2000 SOLEC report that cited only four
communities that were specifically along Lake
Ontario and Lake Erie. The U.S. data are based on the
daily average number of unlinked trips (where
transfers are counted as a different trip), of which
approximately 90% are bus or rail trips. The other
approximately 10% are based on less used forms of
public transportation, such as van/car pooling.
Canadian data are based on adult ridership numbers
for each transit system cited, not differentiating
between linked or unlinked trips, except for the
regional transit authority or GO Transit system.
For this SOLEC, although municipal populations in
all Canadian cities cited for this indicator remain
relatively constant, the trend is an increase in public
transit ridership in many established urban areas
particularly in Southern Ontario, and the converse for
rural areas in Northern Ontario. The increase in
public transit ridership from 1993-2000 is evident in
the established urban areas of the cities of Toronto
and Hamilton, and in developing suburban areas of
Markham, Oshawa and Richmond Hill, all
constituting the Greater Toronto Area (GTA) and
Brampton, Mississauga and Oakville, bordering the
GTA. More importantly, is a visible increase in
ridership for transit agencies serving inter-regional
areas, or agencies linking other agencies, specifically
the GO Transit in Ontario, servicing numerous areas
within the GTA, including the developing suburban
communities. (Fig. 1)
The observed increase in Canadian public transit
ridership trend particularly for transit agencies
working with other transit agencies, support the
conclusions of the previous SOLEC showing a direct
relationship between public transportation and the
degree of urban density. Toronto, as the most
populous, and most established community of the
Canadian cities cited for this study, showed the
highest public transit ridership, (Fig. 2), and the
102
-------
IMPLEMENTING INDICATORS 2003
A TECHNICAL REPORT
development of urban centers bordering the GTA,
such as Mississauga, Brampton and Oakville,
increases the use of public transportation, as well.
Public transit ridership numbers in U.S. cities and
surrounding suburbs remained relatively constant
from 1996 to 2000 (Fig. 3). The majority of transit
agencies have not seen more than a two percent
change in ridership numbers, and less than 10% of the
service area population use public transportation. The
four agencies that showed the four highest transit use
percentages are located in the four largest cities. Of
these four, the Chicago Transit Authority (CTA),
which serves the city of Chicago and 38 suburbs, had
the largest percent of transit use. Chicago is the
largest city in the Great Lakes basin and its transit use
numbers are climbing.
These trends show how transit system accessibility to
densely populated areas determine the percentage of
transit use rather than the size of a city. Milwaukee is
half the size of the city of Detroit, yet more people are
using the public transit system. Detroit's population
may be more spread out or Milwaukee's population
may be more concentrated within the city limits. The
Northeast Illinois Regional Commuter Railroad
Total GO System -n- Total GO Rail -A- Total GO Bus |
Figure 1. GO Transit System's ridership trends,
1965-1998, including total two-way rides, weekday
plus weekend, trips without passengers
transferring from a bus-train or train-bus
connection. Data are only from 1965-1998
because the reporting system for trips without
transfers h as been abandoned by the transit
system.
Source: GO Transit System, Toronto, Ontario
"t/T
0
3
Q.
<£
^^
Z
/
/
5 /
• ^_> v^
Year
330
325
320 jo
315 &
310 in
305 -5'
300 "§
295 S
290 =
285 =
280
275
\
^^ Toronto Populat on -•- TTC Ridership (Adult)
Figure 2. Toronto Transit Commission's annual
ridership trend from 1993-2000.
Source: Toronto Transit Commission (TTC)
Corporation (NIRCRC) has a smaller percentage of
transit use than Chicago's other reported transit
agency, the CTA. NIRCRC's service area is twice as
large as the CTA's, even reaching into surrounding
states, while the CTA focuses more on inner city
travel. Percentage of transit use is high where the
concentration of people is the highest.
Future Pressures
The increasing rate of industrial development and
land use segregation in suburban areas present the
most pressure for this indicator and for the Great
Lakes ecosystem. This low-density urban sprawl is
more suitable for private motor vehicle commute, and
the high availability of space allows for extensive
parking lots. Public transportation for traveling to
and from work is more efficient and less polluting
than traveling via private automobile, in terms of
time saved from traffic and resource utilization.
However, the convenience afforded by a private
motor vehicle for traveling to and from work seems
to outweigh the benefits of public transit use,
depending on how well linkages are established
between and within transit systems. Also, if some
cities continue to have low ridership numbers, then
there will be empty or near-empty buses still
running that may be more polluting than the
equivalent number of private motor vehicles.
Future Action
Increased communication and assistance between
different levels of government, public interest groups,
103
-------
IMPLEMENTING INDICATORS 2003
A TECHNICAL REPORT
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000
!&<
-*- Chicago - CTA
0 Cleveland
•*- Detroit - DDT
*~ Milwaukee
_«_ Buffalo
Chicago- NIRCRC
-•- Detroit - DTC
— Detroit - SMART
Duluth
-*- Erie
D Gary
•*• Green
-•- Rochester
0 Saginaw
-1- Toledo
3ay
Figure 3. Percentage of transit use for 15 U.S.
Transit Agencies in the Great Lakes basin from
1996-2000. The dramatic decrease in Detroit-DTC's
% of transit use in 1998 is due to a service area
increase of approximately 15.5 times the area
reported in 1997. SMART = Suburban Mobility
authority for Regional Transit, CTA = Chicago
Transit Authority, NIRCRC = Northeast Illinois
Regional Commuter Railroad Corporation, DDT =
Detroit Department of Transportation, DTC = Detroit
Transportation Corporation.
Source: National Transit Database
academia and transit authorities are necessary for
promoting public transit use, as well as the
development of cost-effective public transit
infrastructure for more efficient transit routes and
transit fares. Both of these will mitigate the pressures
on mass transportation and the ecosystem. Toronto is
a prime example as the city is currently working with
the federal and provincial governments to improve
the Toronto Transit Commission's infrastructure to
improve its service to the public. Ultimately this will
relieve the stress to the Great Lakes ecosystem caused
by pollution from private motor vehicle use.
Further Work Necessary
Development of an efficient and consistent database
accessible to all transit authorities, researchers and the
public in the entire Great Lakes basin would help in
assessing the trends of public transit use in a larger
context, increasing access to data and consistency in
the data for improved efficiency of reporting for the
indicator. A census in each transit agency's service
area may be a better way to determine percent
ridership since statistics for this report are based on
"unlinked trips", or the number of people that board
public transportation vehicles. One person could be
counted multiple times depending on the number of
trips or transfers taken, whereas a census would
count the number of people, not the number of trips,
and may provide more insight into why people
choose to or choose not to use public transportation.
The appropriate reporting frequency for this indicator
is approximately 6 years as it takes time to collect
consistent and comparable data from each transit
authority. From the data collected for this study,
trends are clearer with collected data spanning the
suggested reporting frequency time frame.
Acknowledgments
This report was prepared by Angelica Guillarte, Environment Canada and Mary
Beth Giancarlo, USEPA- Great Lakes National Program Office.
Thanks to Michael Canzi of the Canadian Urban Transit Association and
transit authorities for submitting the requested data. The Canadian Urban
Transit Association (CUTA) is an association of providers of urban transit services,
suppliers and related organization in Canada.
Sources
Rivers, Ray and John Barr. SOLEC 2000: Mass Transportation Indicator (Draft).
Unpublished.
The United States data source canbe found on the National Transit Database
website (http://www.ntdprogram.com).
Federal Transit Administration. National Transit Database Reporting Manual.
[online]. Available: http://www.ntdprogram.com/NTD/ntdhome.nsf/Docs/
NTDPublications?OpenDocument#
Federal Transit Administration. Uniform System of Accounts, [online]. Available:
http://www.ntdprogram.eom/N TD/ReprtMan.nsf/Docs/USOA/$File/USOA.pdf
Federal Transit Administration. Agency Information, [online]. Available: http://
www.ntdprogram.com/ORS/
01/web-agencynsf/AgencyInformation?OpenForm
The Canadian Urban Transit Association (CUTA), provides direct links to all transit
authorities in Canada who are
members, [online]. Available: www.cutaactu.on.ca.
All Canadian Transit Authorities who submitted requested data:
Ajax/Pickering Transit
110 Westney Road South
Ajax, Ontario L1S 2C8
Barrie Transit
24 Maple Avenue, Unit 205
Barrie, Ontario L4M 7W4
GO Transit
20 Bay St., Suite 600
Toronto, ON M5W2W3
Guelph Transit
59 Garden Street
Guelph, ON N1H3A1
104
-------
IMPLEMENTING INDICATORS 2003
A TECHNICAL REPORT
Hamilton Street Railway Company
City of Hamilton: Transportation, Operations and Environment-Transit
Mount Hope, ON LOR 1WO
Mississauga Transit
975 Central Parkway West
Mississauga, ON L5C 3B1
Niagara Transit Commission
4320 Bridge Street
Niagara Falls, Ontario L2E 2R7
Oakville Transit
Town of Oakville,
480 Wyecroft Road, P.O. Box 310
Oakville, ON L6J 5A6
Oshawa Transit Commission
710 Raleigh Avenue
Oshawa, ON L1H3T2
St. Catharines Transit
2012 First Street South RR3
St. Catharines, Ontario L2S 3V9
Stratford Transit
City of Stratford, Communities Services Department
Transit Division, 27
Stratford, ON N5A 6W3
Toronto Transit Commission
1900 Yonge Street
Toronto, ON M4S1Z2
Whitby Transit
575 Rossland Road East
Whitby, Ontario LIN 2M8
Water Use
SOLEC Indicator #7056 - Indicator Matrix
Assessment: Mixed
Data from multiple sources are not consistent.
Purpose
This indicator measures the per capita water use in
the Great Lakes basin and indirectly measures the
demand for water resources within the basin and the
amount of wastewater generated.
Ecosystem Objective
This indicator provides a quantitative measure of the
rate at which natural resources are being used.
Current North American water use rates are in excess
of 300 liters per day; making Canada and the U.S.
among the highest water using nations, per capita, on
the Earth. This high consumptive rate of water use
results in increased demand to pump and treat water
in addition to considerable wastewater pollution.
Sustainable development is a societal goal for the
Great Lakes basin. Resource conservation needs to be
a top priority in order to reduce the amount of water
that is used and the amount of wastewater that
results from such water use.
This indicator supports Annex 8 of the Great Lakes
Water Quality Agreement.
State of the Ecosystem
Hydroelectric water use continues to be the largest
use of all the categories at approximately 95% for
each reported year. Almost all of the water
withdrawn from the St. Lawrence River basin is for
hydroelectric power, which heavily influences the
total water use for the basin (Figure 1). However,
hydroelectric water use is considered to be an
"instream" use, meaning that the water is not
actually removed from the source, and therefore does
not add to consumptive use.
From a sectoral analysis of municipal water use on
the Canadian side of the Great Lakes basin,
residential water use accounts for almost 50% of the
total municipal water use in 1999 (Figure 2). The
residential sector displays an increase in municipal
water use by 58.7% from 1983-1999, in the
commercial sector there is an increase in municipal
105
-------
IMPLEMENTING INDICATORS 2003
A TECHNICAL REPORT
water use of 54.8% from 1983-1999. In addition, there
is an increase in industrial municipal water use by
42.4% over the same period. The only sector which
displays a decrease in municipal water was the
"other" category-the term for the daily average flow
that is not accounted for (i.e. system leaks). From
1983-1999 this sector decreased by 10.8%. The rise in
residential water use can be attributed to an increase
in municipal populations, an increase in economic
activity and in addition, recent warmer summer
temperatures, resulting in increased amounts of
water being used for lawn maintenance (National
Indicators Office, 2001).
When analyzing the trends in municipal water use in
Canadian municipalities of populations greater than
1000 in the Great Lakes basin, the average per capita
water use over all sectors and municipalities has
actually decreased by 15% from 1983-1999 (Figure 3).
This decrease in per capita water use could be
attributed to new technological advances in water
saving devices, metering and full-cost volume-based,
user pay systems which provide economic incentives
to promote water conserving behavior (National
Indicators Office, 2001). Per capita water use in the
United States has increased by approximately ten
percent from 1985 to 1995 (Figure 3) even though the
population served decreased in 1995. This increase in
per capita water use could be attributed to an
increase in public use and losses, and possible water
transfer between states or regions.
Apart from hydroelectric generation, thermoelectric
generation (fossil fuel and nuclear) makes up over
50% of the total water (surface and groundwater)
used in the U.S. side of the Great Lakes basin.
Industrial and public water supply make up
approximately 40% of the water use, and less than
10% of the water used is from self-supplied domestic,
irrigation, livestock, and other categories. These
percentages have remained relatively stable since
1987. New York State (NYS) by far uses the most
"u:
0
1
>
03
;c
™E
90
80
70
60
40
20
0
II
[ 1
1987
•
U_ 1
1
1988
, r
u_ 1
1
1989
r
h_ 1
1
r
~\~L_
1
1990 1991
Year
a
1
1992
-, r
cJ
r
1
1993
d
1998
D PWS DDomestic D Irrigation D Livestock • ndustrial D Fossil Fuel •Thermoelectric DOther
Figure 1 b. Great Lakes water, other surface water,
and groundwater use by category in the Great
Lakes basin from 1987 to 1993, and 1998 (without
Hydroelectricity).The Province of Ontario did not
submit water use data for 1987. PWS = Public
Water Supply.
Source: Great Lakes Commission, Annual Report of the Great Lakes
Regional Water Use database repository. Adapted for SOLEC by U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency-Great Lakes National Program Office
nflJ
nflJ
Lake Superior Lake Michigan • Lake Huron • Lake Erie DLake Ontario • St. La
Figure 1a. Great Lakes water, other surface water,
and groundwater use by basin from 1987 to 1993,
and 1998. The Province of Ontario did not submit
water use data for 1987.
Source: Great Lakes Commission, Annual Report of the Great Lakes
Regional Water Use database repository. Adapted for SOLEC by U.S. EPA-
GLNPO
• Residential nCommercial •Industrial • Other
Figure2. Daily average municipal water use by
sector on the Canadian side of the Great Lakes
basin, 1983-1999.
Source: Municipal Water Use Database (MUD). Adapted for SOLEC by
Environment Canada
106
-------
IMPLEMENTING INDICATORS 2003
A TECHNICAL REPORT
&
2 0.6 •
0
12
0. U'4
"E
—— ^^
1982 1984 1986
1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000
Year
•*• Canada -°- United States \
Figure 3. Average municipal per capita water use
on the Canadian, 1983-1999, and U.S., 1985-1995,
sides of the Great Lakes basin.
Source: Municipal Water Use Database (MUD). Adapted for SOLEC by
Environment Canada, and the U.S. EPA-GLNPO
water, which is the result of a large hydroelectric
water use. For example, in 1998, hydroelectric made
up 98% of the total water use for NYS. There is no
consistent trend for water withdrawls among the
Great Lakes states (Figure 4). For example, in 1998
Illinois's water use was reduced by almost 50% due
to the shutting down of a nuclear power plant.
Michigan had been unable to submit current water
use data in the Great Lakes Commission format until
1998. The data from 1987 to 1993 has been based on
Michigan's base year data of 1985. Water use data
from Minnesota for 1988 and 1989 has been removed
since it was reported erroneously.
Future Pressures
As population and economic activity are predicted to
increase in the Great Lakes basin, it is expected that
an increased demand for water will also continue.
Water use in the Great Lakes will continue to
increase especially for thermoelectric power,
agriculture, and residential uses. The combined
projections of both the U.S. and Canada indicate a
modest increase in water use of -5% for the entire
Great Lakes basin between 1995-1996, and 2020-2021
(Michigan DEQ, 2000) and based on Canadian data
displayed in Figure 2, this proposed modest increase
in residential water use has already been surpassed.
In order to mitigate the effects of a growing
consumptive population and possible decline in lake
levels due to climate change, water use conservation
programs need to be implemented in order to achieve
rates similar to those in European cities.
Currently there is no net loss of water due to
diversions, however, growing communities in the
U.S. near the basin border, where water is scarce and
of poor quality, may look to the Great Lakes as a
source in the future.
Future Activities
There is a need in the Great Lakes basin for
municipalities to implement water conservation
strategies in order to reduce excessive water use in
the basin. According to Great Lakes United, in 1997
some municipalities in the basin, including Chicago,
Toronto and Hamilton did not meter all water usage.
The installation of water meters can reduce water
usage by 15-20%. The pricing of water in the Great
Lakes basin is also extremely cheap. According to
Great Lakes United (1997), households in Canada and
the U.S. use twice as much water as their European
counterparts, however they only pay half as much
for it. Thus, there is a direct correlation between the
price of water and the amount used. Low water
pricing encourages high water consumption and,
high pricing seems to encourage conservation.
Further Work Necessary
From sectoral analysis in 1999, residential water use
in the Ontario portion of the Great Lakes basin
accounted for almost half of the total municipal
water used. This finding indicates a need for a better
i/r 60
c
o
c
^
0)
V)
10-
1
t
-
1987
f
-
1988
~
t
1989
I
1
1990
Year
\
-
1991
I
-
1992
\
T
h-
1993 1998
• Illinois D Indiana • Michigan • Minnesota D Ohio D Pennsylvan a • VMsconsin
Figure 4. Water use by jurisdiction in the U.S. side
of the Great Lakes Basin from 1987 to 1993, and
1998 (without NewYork State).
Source: Great Lakes Commission, Annual Report on the Great Lakes
Regional Water Use Data Base Repository, adapted for SOLEC by U.S.
EPA-GLNPO
107
-------
IMPLEMENTING INDICATORS 2003
A TECHNICAL REPORT
understanding of the relationship between
population growth, economic growth and water use.
In addition there needs to be a concerted effort, and
available resources, for consistently collecting and
reporting on data on both sides of the border. Great
Lakes Commission's water use data are based on
water license permits, whereas Environment
Canada's data are based on surveys of actual water
use from major users in the basin, and therefore tend
to be lower. Another agency, the United States
Geological Survey, collects water use data by county,
then aggregates them by state, makes estimates of
missing data elements, and estimates actual water use
for its five year reports.
Acknowledgments
Authors: Melissa Greenwood, Environment Canada, Downsview, ON and
Mary Beth Giancarlo, U.S. EPA-GLNPO, Chicago IL. Marilyn Ratliff (Great Lakes
Commission) and Deborah Lumia and Howard Perlman (USGS) assisted in
the preparation of this report.
Sources
Note: All Canadian data collected were for Municipalities in Ontario with a
population greater than 1000, and included all surface water and municipal
groundwater wells. All United States data (and provincial data from the Great
Lakes Commission) includes all surface water and all groundwater wells.
Environmental Economics Branch, Policy and Communications, Environment
Canada. Municipal Water Use Database (MUD). Environment Canada, Ottawa,
Ontario Kl A OH3. Available online: www3.ec.gc.ca/MUD.
Great Lakes Commission, Ann Arbor, MI. Annual Report of the Great Lakes
Regional Water Use Database Repository: 1987-1993, and 1998.
Great Lakes United. (February, 1997). The Fate of the Great Lakes: Sustaining or
Draining the Sweetwater Seas? [online]. Available: http://www.glu.org/
publications/fate%20report/fate_con.htm. Accessed [2002-07-22].
International Joint Commission. (1999). Protection of the Waters of the Great
Lakes, Interim Report to the Governments of Canada and the United States.
[online]. Available: http://www.ijc.org/boards/cde/interimreport/
interimreporte.html. Accessed: [2002-07-22].
International Joint Commission. (2000). Protection of the Waters of the Great
Lakes, Final Report to the Governments of Canada and the United States.
[online]. Available: http://www.igc.org/ijcweb-e.html. Accessed: [2002-08-02].
Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ). (May 2000). Background
Information on Water Uses in the Great Lakes Basin, [online]. Available: http://
www.michigan.gov/deq/l,1607,7-135-3313_3677_3704-12583-,00.html.
Accessed: [2002-07-22].
National Indicators Office, Environment Canada. (Summer 2001). National
Environmental Indicator Series. Urban Water: Municipal Water Use and
Wastewater Treatment. SOE Bulletin No. 2001-1. [online]. Available:
www.ec.gc.ca/soer-ree. Accessed: [2002-05-15].
USGS. Estimated Use of Water in the United States: 1985,1990, and 1995.
Energy Consumption
SOLEC Indicator # 7057 - Indicator Matrix
Assessment: Mixed Deteriorating (U.S.
section of Lake Superior only)
Data are not system-wide.
Purpose
To assess the amount of energy consumed in the
Great Lakes basin per capita, and to infer the demand
for resource use, the creation of waste and pollution,
and stress on the ecosystem.
Ecosystem Objective
Sustainable development is a generally accepted goal
in the Great Lakes basin. This indicator supports
Annex 15 of the Great Lakes Water Quality
Agreement. Resource conservation minimizing the
unnecessary use of resources is an endpoint for
ecosystem integrity and sustainable development
State of the Ecosystem
Data extracted from the Energy Information
Administration (EIA) 1998 "Retail Electricity Sales"
tables for the 29 utilities operating in the Lake
Superior basin can be used to calculate the following
• Lake Superior Basin DMichigan DMinnesota •Wisconsin
Figure 1. Electric energy use per consumer by
sector in the U.S. Lake Superior basin and in the
states of Michigan, Minnesota, and Wisconsin in
1998. Note that this is not energy use per capita.
Data are from Energy Information Administration.
Source: GEM Center for Science and Environmental Outreach, Michigan
Technological University
108
-------
IMPLEMENTING INDICATORS 2003
A TECHNICAL REPORT
averages of energy use: 7,749 kilowatt-hours (kWh)
per residential consumer, 6,108,394 kWh per
industrial consumer, 44,116 kWh per commercial
consumer, and 35,337 kWh per consumer for all
sectors (Figure 1). Note that consumers may include
households and businesses and is not equivalent to
per capita energy use. Overall energy use per
consumer is higher for the Lake Superior basin than
for Michigan, Minnesota, or Wisconsin, mainly
because industrial energy use is much higher.
Commercial energy use per consumer is lower in the
basin than in any of the three states, as is residential
energy use, except for Michigan, which is slightly less
than for the basin.
Total electric energy use (reported in Megawatt-
hours) could also be used as a measure independent
of the number of consumers (Figure 2).
Future Pressures
The Energy Information Administration gathers data
on total energy consumption by sector and state over
time. Michigan, as the only state that is almost
entirely in the Great Lakes basin, can be used as an
example of electricity consumption trends over time
(Figure 3). Electric energy consumption in Michigan
rose 21.8 percent between 1988 and 1998, mainly due
to increases in the commercial and residential sectors
since 1992.
Canada's Energy Outlook 1996-2020 (http://
nrnl.nrcan.gc.ca:80/es/ceo/toc-96E.html) notes that
"a significant amount of excess generating capacity
exists in all regions of Canada" because demand has
not reached the level predicted when new power
plants were built in the 1970s and 1980s. Demand is
projected to grow at an average annual rate of 1.3
percent in Ontario and 1.0 percent in Canada overall
between 1995 and 2020, compared to 2.6 percent
annually from 1980 to 1995. From 2010-2020, Ontario
will add 3,650 megawatts of new gas-fired and 3,300
megawatts of clean coal-fired capacity. Several
hydroelectric plants will be redeveloped, but none
appear to be in the Lake Superior basin. Renewable
resources are projected to quadruple between 1995
and 2020, but will contribute only 3 percent of total
power generation.
Future Activities
A report by the nonprofit Union of Concerned
Scientists (UCS), Powerful Solutions for Wisconsin: Seven
Ways to Switch to Renewable Electricity, cites Wisconsin's
proactive policies, such as a Climate Change Action
Plan, that encourage investment in energy efficiency
and renewable energy (www.ucsusa.org):
A UCS analysis for Wisconsin found that an 800
MW mix of new renewables would create
about 22,000 more job-years than new gas and
coal plants over a 30-year period. A study by
the Wisconsin Energy Bureau found
renewables would produce over three times
more jobs, income and economic activity than
the same amount of electricity generated from
new coal and natural gas power plants. They
also found that a 75 percent increase in
renewable energy use by 2010 (equal to 775
MW of new renewables) would generate
approximately 3,316 more jobs, $81 million in
higher disposable income and a $165 million
increase in gross state product than
conventional power plant investments. This
scenario also would reduce 20 percent of the
growth in electricity sector CO2 emissions
between 1990 and 2010 and save an estimated
$60 million per year in potential future
environmental regulations on carbon
emissions.
As of 1998, renewables, mainly hydropower,
supplied less than three percent of Wisconsin's
Commercial
Industrial Residential All Sectors
Sector
I Lake Superior Basin D Michigan • Minnesota • Wisconsin
Figure 2. Total electric energy use (MWh) in the
U.S. Lake Superior basin by sector, 1998. Data are
from Energy Information Administration.
Source: GEM Center for Science and Environmental Outreach, Michigan
Technological University
109
-------
IMPLEMENTING INDICATORS 2003
A TECHNICAL REPORT
J 100
Energy Us
watt-hours in
80
60
Year
-•- Residential -o- Commercial Total
-*- Industrial -«- Other
Figure 3. Electric energy consumption in Michigan
by sector, 1988-1998. Data are from Energy
Information Administration.
Source: GEM Center for Science and Environmental Outreach, Michigan
Technological University
electricity. A1993 UCS report, Powering the Midwest,
identified biomass (crops of switchgrass and hybrid
poplars) as a potential source of 30 percent of
Wisconsin's energy needs at 5 cents per kilowatt-
hour and 60 percent for an extra penny of production
costs. Wind power could provide almost half the
state's total demand at 6 cents per kilowatt-hour and
is particularly suited to areas near Lake Superior.
Solar energy may help reduce peak loads during hot
weather. Wisconsin has developed a statewide
daylighting design services program to educate
architects, builders, and engineers on incorporating
daylighting into Wisconsin building practices.
The nonprofit RENEW Wisconsin is working with
utilities to seek national third-party certification for
their renewable power products, to which about 70
percent of Wisconsin energy customers currently have
access (http://renewwisconsin.org/greenpow.html).
For example, RENEW negotiated an agreement with
Wisconsin Electric Power to supply its Energy for
Tomorrow program with renewable energy generated
primarily in Wisconsin, with public support and
marketing assistance from RENEW and Wisconsin's
Environmental Decade.
Another UCS report, Assessing Wind Resources in
Minnesota: A Guide for Landowners, Project Developers
and Power Suppliers, provides guidance in assessing
potential wind resources. The report includes a map
of annual average wind power in the U.S. that shows
moderate wind power classes along Lake Superior.
Further Work Necessary
Electric power data for the entire United States is
available on the Internet from the Energy Information
Agency (EIA) of the U.S. Department of Energy
(http://www.eia.doe.gov/fuelelectric.html).
Databases include power generation by utility
company, peak demand output of individual plants,
and energy use per consumer by utility and by
residential, industrial, and commercial sectors.
According to EIA state electricity profiles, utility and
non-utility generation per person is 10,240 kWh (rank
36) in Michigan, 10,030 kWh (rank 37) in Minnesota,
and 10,790 kWh in Wisconsin (rank 34) (http://
www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/st_profiles/
toc.html). Electric energy consumption per consumer
is reported by utility service area, essentially making
it impossible to match to any census population
figures for the Lake Superior basin. The "per
consumer" approach for residential consumption,
however, should be a reasonable measure of
household consumption over time. The commercial
and especially industrial sectors may be more
variable if major consumers leave or join the grid.
Deregulation may also complicate the tracking of
energy produced in one region but consumed in
another. Per capita electric energy consumption, the
State
Figure 4. Per capita energy consumption (kWh) by
state in the Great Lakes basin, 1999. Data are from
Energy Information Administration.
Source: GEM Center for Science and Environmental Outreach, Michigan
Technological University
110
-------
IMPLEMENTING INDICATORS 2003
A TECHNICAL REPORT
160
140
9> 2 sn - -
Sate
Figure 5. Per capita total energy consumption
(kWh) from all sources (coal, natural gas,
petroleum, electricity, and other) in the U.S. Great
Lakes States, 1999. Data reported in Btu,
converted to kWh equivalent. Data are from
Energy Information Administration.
Source: GEM Center for Science and Environmental Outreach, Michigan
Technological University
desired measure for this indicator, can be calculated
only at the state level from EIA energy use tables
(Figure 4).
The U.S. Geological Survey reports total power
generation and subsets for hydroelectric and
thermoelectric (fossil fuel) generation by watershed as
part of their national water-use database, updated
every five years (http://water.usgs.gov/watuse). The
USGS data is convenient because it is already linked
to the watersheds that make up the U.S. portion of
the Lake Superior basin. However, according to USGS
water-use staff, 1995 is probably the last year for
watershed-based data to be reported.
For the 15 sub-basins of the U.S. Lake Superior basin,
the USGS water-use data shows an increase in total
electric power generation, from 3,204 gigawatt-hours
(million kilowatt-hours) in 1985 to 3,639 gigawatt-
hours in 1990 to 4,719 gigawatt-hours in 1995. Most of
that power is thermoelectric; the rest is hydroelectric.
The Dead-Kelsey watershed, surrounding Marquette,
Michigan, produced 73 percent of the total power all
three years. The St. Louis watershed in the Duluth-
Superior area added 15 to 18 percent of the total. Both
areas serve mines and other large industrial
customers. Of the total power generated in the basin,
79 to 86 percent comes from fossil fuel plants. It
appears that the USGS data includes only utility
power generators, not non-utilities.
The EIA also has state-level per capita energy
consumption data for all types of energy by source
(coal, natural gas, petroleum, electricity, and other). It
might be reasonable to track either total energy
consumption for one state, such as Michigan, over
time or total energy consumption for each of the
Great Lakes states and the U.S. for the same year
(Figure 5).
Acknowledgments
Author: Kristine Bradof, GEM Center for Science and Environmental Outreach,
Michigan Technological University, MI and James G. Cantrill, Communication and
Performance Studies Northern Michigan University, MI.
Sources
GEM Center for Science and Environmental Outreach. (2000). Baseline
Sustainability Data for the Lake Superior Basin: Final Report to the Developing
Sustainability Committee, Lake Superior Binational Program, November 2000.
Unpublished report. Michigan Technological University, Houghton, MI. [online].
Available: http://emmap.mru.edu/gem/community/planning/Isb.html.
U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration, FormEIA-861,
"Annual Electric Utility Report."
Data for utilities within the Lake Superior watershed extracted and energy use
per consumer calculated by GEM Center for Science and Environmental
Outreach, Michigan Technological University, from 1998 retail electricity sales
tables (www.eia.doe.gov/fuelelectric.html).
Per capita electric and total energy use for the U.S. states in the Great Lakes basin
were calculated from Table 1.6 "State-Level Energy Consumption, Expenditures,
and Prices 1999" (http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/aer/txt/tab0106.htm) and Table
10 "Energy Consumption by Source and Total Consumptionper Capita, Ranked by
State, 1999" (http://ftp.eia.doe.gov/pub/state.data/html/ranklO.htm).
111
-------
IMPLEMENTING INDICATORS 2003
A TECHNICAL REPORT
Solid Waste Generation
Indicator ID #7060 - Indicator Matrix
Assessment: Mixed
Data from multiple sources are not consistent.
Purpose
To assess the amount of solid waste generated per
capita in the Great Lakes basin (GLB), and to infer
inefficiencies in human economic activity (i.e. wasted
resources) and the potential adverse impacts to
human and ecosystem health.
Ecosystem Objective
Solid waste provides a measure of the inefficiency of
human land based activities and the degree to which
resources are wasted. In order to promote
sustainable development, the amount of solid waste
generated in the basin needs to be assessed and
ultimately reduced. Reducing volumes of solid waste
are indicative of a more efficient industrial ecology
and a more conserving society. Reduced waste
volumes are also indicative of a reduction in
contamination of land through landfilling and
incineration and thus reduced stress on the
ecosystem.
This indicator supports Annex 12 of the Great Lake
Water Quality Agreement (GLWQA)
State of the Ecosystem
Canada and the United States are among the highest
waste producers on Earth. However, both countries
are working towards improvements in waste
management by developing efficient strategies to
reduce, prevent, reuse and recycle waste generation.
Figure 1 displays the average per capita municipal
solid waste generation in a selection of some of the
most populated municipalities in the Ontario portion
of the Great Lakes basin during 1991-2001. From this
data, it is evident that there is a continual decline of
municipal solid waste generation from 1991 to
present. 1991 had the highest per capita generation at
a value of 0.681. Per capita solid waste generation
declined -45% in 2001 to a value of 0.373. The rate of
per capita municipal solid waste generation appears
to have leveled off in the late 1990's. And it must be
noted that the apparent increase in per capita
generation in 2000 may not be completely accurate
since there was less data collected to obtain the
average for 2000 as compared to 1999 and 2001. The
decline in per capita solid waste generation in the
early 1990's can be attributed to the increased access
to municipal curbside recycling, backyard and
centralized composting programs in most Ontario
municipalities.
In addition, Figure 1 displays the average per capita
municipal solid waste generation (MSWG) disposed
in Minnesota's counties of the Great Lakes basin
during 1991-2000. The data shows the amount of
MSWG disposed declined slightly from 1991 to 1993,
and then increased from 0.386 tonnes per capita in
1994 to 0.436 tonnes per capita in 2000. The data
suggests that these trends in MSWG are not
significant despite growth in population over the
same time period. The counties of Cook, Lake and
Pine represent the highest increase of per capita SWG
during 1993 to 2000. For example, Cook County in
1993 increased 45% of the municipal SWG.
Figure 1, also displays the average trends of the
waste disposed per capita (in tons) in Indiana by
estimated county of origin in a final disposal facility.
The graphic shows a 21% increase in the per capita of
non-hazardous waste disposed between 1992 and
1998. From 1998 to 2000 there was a 9% decrease of
the amount disposed.
Tons/person
1.4 -
. -"*---^^
A A * *^"
o ^
""° "fr~— ^ • i _ju j<^-—
1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001
Year
-O— Ontario MSW —A— Indiana Disposal Facilities —*— Minnesota MSWG
Figure 1. Average per capita solid waste
generation and disposal (tons/person) from
selected municipalities in Ontario, Indiana and
Minnesota, 1991-2001. MSW = Municipal Solid
Waste; MSWG = Municipal Solid Waste
Generation.
Sources: IDEM-lndiana Department of Environmental Management,
2000; MOEA-Minnesota Office of Environmental Assistance, 2000,
Ontario data obtained from Statistics Canada, Environmental Account
and Statistics Division, and Demography Division
112
-------
IMPLEMENTING INDICATORS 2003
A TECHNICAL REPORT
The Illinois Environmental Protection Agency,
Bureau of Land, reported the projected disposal
capacity of the solid waste in sanitary landfills for
2000. The regional waste disposed and landfill
capacity (in tons) for the Great Lake basin counties
was 1.7 percent cubic yards. This area has a per
capita capacity below of the state average. The
municipal wastes generated and recycled was 7.4
cubic yards.
The Michigan Department of Environmental Quality
(DEQ) reports on data of total waste disposed in
Michigan landfills in per capita cubic yards from 1996
to 2001. In 1996 the solid waste landfilled per capita
was 3.76 cubic yards and in 2001 the value increased
to 4.84, showing a 32% increase of solid waste
disposed in landfills.
New York Department of Environmental
Conservation provided the State SWG data from 1990
to 1998. The data reflects that the average of SWG in
per capita from 1990 to 1998 increased a 20% and
decreased a 3% from 1995 to 1996. The New York
statewide of reusable tons increased approximately
30% of the waste disposed.
The Region 3 of the Environmental Protection Agency
in Pennsylvania provided the daily per capita amount
of Pennsylvania counties in the GLB of MSW
generated. In 1998 the MSW generated for Crawford
was 2.4 (pounds/person/day), 3.8 for Erie and 1.4 for
Potter. The amount of MSW per capita in 1999 for
Year
I NEDO R/C Generatedn NWDO R/C Generatedn NEDO R/C Disposed
I NWDO R/C Disposed a NEDO R/C Recycled n NWDO R/C Recycled
Figure 2. Ohio counties average per capita solid
waste landfill facilities generated, disposed and
recycled in the Great Lakes basin, 1999-2000.
Source: Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, Division of Solid and
Infectious Waste Management
those counties increased, Crawford had 2.59, Erie 3.73
and Potter 2.64 daily per capita generations. The
Department of Environmental Protection (DEP)
provided the statewide MSW generation during 1988
to 2000 that increased 30% of the waste disposed.
The calculated average per capita municipal waste
landfilled in Wisconsin in 2001 was 1.85 tons, as
reported by the Department of Natural Resources.
The counties with the larger average values are those
located closer to the Lake Michigan. For example,
Calumet average value is 4.87 tons per person, Dodge
is 4.20, Green Lake is 12.11, Kenosha is 3.80 and
Manitowoc 4.35 tons per person.
The Ohio Environmental Protection Agency provided
the residential and commercial solid waste
management district landfill generated, disposed and
recycling data according to the 88 counties, which
are grouped into 52 single and multi-county districts.
The Northeast District Office (NEDO) and the
Northwest District Office (NWDO) are districts that
include the counties in the Great Lakes basin. Figure
2 presents the average amount of the NEDO and
NWDO residential and commercial solid waste
management district (SWMD) generated, disposed
and recycled for 1999 and 2000. The disposal value of
solid waste for NEDO increased 3%. The amount of
GSW increased 6% for NWDO over the same time
period. The recycled amount increased 2% for NEWO
and 32% for NWDO from 1999 to 2000.
Reuse and recycling are opportunities to reduce solid
waste levels. By looking at recycling and waste
diversion in Ontario, both the tonnage of municipal
solid waste diverted from disposal and the number
of households with access to recycling have increased
in recent years (WDO, 2001c).
Figure 3 shows the trends in residential recycling
tonnages in all of Ontario from 1992-2000 (WDO,
2001). From this figure it is evident that there has
been a 41% increase in the amount of residential
recycling from 1992-2000, which may be accounting
for the reduced per capita solid waste generation
displayed in recent years in Ontario municipalities.
Future Pressures
The generation and management of solid waste raise
important environmental, economic and social issues
for North Americans. It costs billions of dollars per
113
-------
IMPLEMENTING INDICATORS 2003
A TECHNICAL REPORT
1992 1994 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000
Year
Figure 3. Residential recycling tonnage in Ontario,
1992-2000.
Source: WDO-Ontario Waste Diversion Organization, 2000
are filling up fast. In addition, the generation of
municipal solid waste contributes to soil and water
contamination and even air pollution etc. It is
estimated that far more residential solid waste is
being generated each year, but a greater proportion is
being recovered for recycling and reuse.
The state of the economy has a strong impact on
consumption and waste generation. Waste generation
continued to increase through the 1990's as economic
growth continued to be strong (US EPA, 2002). Much
of this increase in waste generation in the 1990's was
due to the booming economy and many people found
themselves with a large disposable income (US EPA,
2002). An economic growth results in more products
and materials being generated. This growth should
send a message for a larger investment in source
reduction activities. Source reduction activities will
help to save natural resources, it will reduce the
toxicity of wastes and it will also reduce costs in
waste handling and will make businesses more
efficient.
Future Activities
There is a need to assess and determine which
material makes up the majority of the municipal
solid waste that is generated each year. This will help
managers target waste reduction efforts towards
limiting the amount of these products that make it
through the waste stream. It would also be interesting
to research how different waste reduction techniques
can produce differing trends in solid waste reduction.
For example, user pay, "PAYT" (pay as you throw
away) unit-based pricing, is becoming a more
acceptable method for financing residential waste
management services and making households more
directly responsible for their waste generation and
disposal habits (WDO, 2001 a). Bag limits on waste
are usually a first step many municipalities take in
order to make the transition to user pay systems
easier. User pay programs have gained momentum
across most of Canada with most growth occurring
in the mid to late 1990's. Imposing these limits
encourages homeowners to be more conscious of the
amount and type of waste generated as they now
associate a financial cost with their consumptive
behavior. It makes a homeowner personally
responsible and encourages alternative waste
diversion activities.
Other examples are an ambitious statewide education
campaign dedicated to educate the residents on the
benefits of waste reduction and to show them how
solid waste can affect their own health and the health
of their environment. A local government waste
prevention program consisting of a network of
counties and cities was organized to discuss and
create methods to help in waste reduction activities
that would better protect the state's environment and
public health. Developing methods for standardizing
information and for tracking waste will aid in
improving the sharing of information and data
statewide.
Further Work Necessary
The province of Ontario has set a challenging task for
the WDO to reach a 50% waste diversion. Ontario
residents diverted at total of 29% of 1.23 million tones
of their residential waste from disposal in 1998. In
order to achieve a 50% reduction in waste the
following practices need to be encouraged: increased
financial support, expand provincial 3R regulations,
need to change societal habits and behavior towards
waste generation, need to invest more into
infrastructure and lastly, the adoption of waste
management user fees (WDO, 2001b).
To report on this indicator in the future, data on waste
diversion should be incorporated as well as waste
generation. Looking at the changes in the amount of
waste that is removed from the waste stream can be
used to infer how the behavior of society is changing
with regards to wasting resources and sustainable
development.
During the process of collecting data from this
indicator, it was found that most U.S. states and
114
-------
IMPLEMENTING INDICATORS 2003
A TECHNICAL REPORT
Ontario municipalities compile and report on solid
waste information in different formats. Future work
to organize a standardized method of collecting,
reporting and accessing data for both the Canadian
and U.S. portions of the Great Lakes basin will aid in
the future reporting of this indicator.
Acknowledgments:
Authors: Martha I. Aviles-Quintero, USEPA-GLNPO, Chicago, IL and
Melissa Greenwood, Environment Canada, Downsview ON.
Ontario data for the disposal of waste by province was obtained from
Statistics Canada, Environmental Account and Statistics Division, and
Demography Division (http://www.statcan.ca/starthtml).
Data collected are based on the values obtained by contacting the waste
management departments of Ontario municipalities around the Great Lakes
Basin. For any further details regarding specific municipalities, please
contact Melissa Greenwood.
The recycling data collected from the province of Ontario, were adapted
from the Municipal 3Rs in Ontario: 2000 Fact Sheet, published by the WDO -
Ontario Waste Diversion Organization (http:///www.wdo.on.ca).
The United States data of municipal waste generated per capita, average,
landfill capacity, disposed and recycled waste were collected by contacting
the different State and Federal Agencies managements departments and
searching their websites. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region
5, Pollution Prevention & Program Initiatives Section provided the contact
list for the searching values. Some data were adapted using the counties on
the Great Lakes basin and using the census-estimate populations to calculate
the per capita generation, disposed and recycled.
Illinois data of the Waste Disposed and Landfill Capacity per capita in cubic
yards by Region for 2000, was provided by the Illinois Environmental
Protection Agency (IEPA), Bureau of Land. The Region 2 is the Chicago
Metropolitan basin that included counties on the Great Lakes Basin.
(http://www.epa.state.il.us)
Indiana data of the Municipal solid waste per capita for 2001, was offered
from Indiana Department of Environmental Management (IDEM). Also, we
used the 2000 Summary of Indiana Solid Waste Facility Data Report to
calculate the waste disposed per capita. We used the census-estimate
population for 1992-2000 by counties on the Great Lakes Basin to obtain
those values, (http://www.in.gov.idem/land/sw/index.html)
Michigan data of the total solid waste disposed in Michigan Landfills per
capita in cubic yards for 1996-2001, was provided by Michigan Department
of Environmental Quality, Waste Management Division. The report was used and
adapted to calculate the per capita amount using the census-estimated population
1996-2001. (http://www.deq.state.mi.us)
Minnesota data of the Municipal solid waste generation per capita for 1991-
2000, was provided by Minnesota Office of Environmental Assistance
(MOEA). The SCORE report is a full report to the Legislature that the main
components is to identify and targeting source reduction, recycling, waste
management and waste generation collected from all 87 counties in
Minnesota, (http://www.moea.state.mn.us)
New York data of the Solid waste generated and recycled intones for 1990-1998,
was provided by New York State Department of Environmental Conservation,
Division of Solid and Hazardous Materials. The data was adapted to obtain the per
capita generation with the census-estimate populationper year, (http://
www.dec.state.ny.us)
Ohio data of Disposed and recycled generated solid waste per capita in
landfills for each solid waste management district for 1999-2000, was provided by
Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, Division of Solid Waste and Infectious
Waste Management. The data of Northeast and Northwest district office was
adapted by counties on the Great Lakes basins and census-estimate data
populationper year, (http://www.epa.state.oh.us)
Pennsylvania data of the Average per capita recycled generation rates was
provided by Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, Bureau of
Land Recycling and Waste Management, (http://www.dep.state.pa.us)
Wisconsin data of municipal waste landfill tones capacity for 2001, was
provided by Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (DNR), Bureau of
Waste Management, (http://www.dnr.state.wi.us)
Sources:
Statistics Canada (2001). Environmental Account and Statistics Division, and
Demography Division. Disposal of Waste by Province and Territory, 2000
Preliminary Estimates, [online] Available: http://www.statcan.ca/start.html
Accessed [2002-06-24]
WDO-Ontario Waste Diversion Organization. (2001a). The Waste Diversion
Impacts of Bag Limits and PAYT Systems in North America, [online] Available
http:///www.wdo.on.ca Accessed [2002-08-02]
WDO-Ontario Waste Diversion Organization (2001b). Waste Diversion and
Concept Testing, Qualitative and Quantitative Findings, [online] Available at:
http://www.wdo.on.ca. Accessed [2002-08-02]
WDO-Ontario Waste DiversionOrganization(2001c). Municipal 3RsinOntario:
2000 Fact Sheet, [online] Available at: http://www.wdo.on.ca.
Accessed [2002-07-22]
U.S. Census Bureau. 1990's, 2000's Population Estimates, [online] Available
[online] www.census.gov/popest/estimates.php
US EPA. (June 2002). Municipal Solid Waste in the United States: 2000 Facts and
Figures. Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (5305N) EPA530-R-02-
001, [online] Available http://www.epa.gov Accessed [2002,08-02]
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency, Bureau of Land, Annual Landfill
Capacity Report (January 2002). Non-hazardous Solid Waste Management and
Landfill Capacity in Illinois. [IEPA/BOL/01-014]
(http://www.epa.state.il.us/land/landfill-capacity/index.html)
Indiana Department of Environmental Management, Office of Land Quality, 2000
Summary of Indiana Solid Waste Facility Data Report.
(http://www.state.in.us/idem/land/sw/qtelyrpts/fars/farOO.pdf)
Michigan Department Environmental Quality, Waste Management Division,
Report of Solid Waste Landfilled in Michigan (February 2002).
(http://www.michigan.gov/deq/l,1607,7-135-3312_4123-47581-,00.html)
Minnesota Office of Environmental Assistance, Report on 2000 SCORE Programs,
ASummary of Waste Management in Minnesota 2000 (April 2002). (http://
www.moea.state.mn.us/lc/scoreOO.cfm)
115
-------
IMPLEMENTING INDICATORS 2003
A TECHNICAL REPORT
Population Monitoring and Contaminants
Affecting the American Otter
bULEC Indicator #8147 - Indicator Matrix
Assessment: Mixed
Data are not system-wide. Data are from multiple
sources.
Purpose
To directly measure the contaminant concentrations
found in American otter populations within the Great
Lakes basin and to indirectly measure the health of
Great Lakes habitat, progress in Great Lakes
ecosystem management, and/or concentrations of
contaminants present in the Great Lakes.
Importantly, as a society we have a moral
responsibility to sustain healthy populations of
American otter in the Great Lakes/St. Lawrence
basin.
Ecosystem Objective
The importance of the American otter as a bio-
sentinel is related to IJC Desired Outcomes 6:
Biological Community Integrity and Diversity, and 7:
Virtual Elimination of Inputs of Persistent Toxic
Chemicals. Secondly, American otter populations in
the upper Great Lakes should be maintained, and
restored as sustainable populations in all Great Lakes
coastal zones, lower Lake Michigan, western Lake
Ontario, and Lake Erie watersheds and shorelines.
Lastly, Great Lakes shoreline and watershed
populations of American otter should have an annual
mean production of >2 young/adult female; and
concentrations of heavy metal and organic
contaminants should be less than the NOAEL found
in tissue sample from mink as compared to otter
tissue samples.
State of the Ecosystem
In a review of State and Provincial otter population
data indicates primary areas of population
suppression still exist in southern Lake Huron
watersheds, lower Lake Michigan and most Lake Erie
watersheds. Data provided from New York
Department of Environmental Conservation and
Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources suggests that
otter are almost absent in western Lake Ontario
(Figure 1). Most coastal shoreline areas have more
suppressed populations than interior zones.
Areas of otter population suppression are directly
related with human population centers and
subsequent habitat loss, and elevated contaminant
concentrations associated with human activity. Little
statistically viable population data exists for the
Great Lakes populations, and all suggested
population levels illustrated were determined from
coarse population assessment methods.
Future Pressures
American otters are a direct link to organic and heavy
metal concentrations in the food chain. It is a more
sedentary species and subsequently synthesizes
contaminants from smaller areas. Contaminants are
a potential and existing problem for many otter
populations throughout the Great Lakes. Globally,
indications of contaminant problems in otter have
been noted by decreased population levels,
morphological abnormalities (i.e. decreased baculum
length) and decline in fecundity. Changes in the
species population and range are also representative
of anthropogenic riverine and lacustrine habitat
alterations.
Future Actions
Michigan and Wisconsin have indicated a need for an
independent survey using aerial survey methods to
index otter populations in their respective
jurisdictions. Minnesota has already started aerial
population surveys for otter. Subsequently, some
presence absence data may be available for Great
Lakes watersheds and coastal populations in the
near future. In addition, if the surveys are conducted
frequently the trend data may become useful.
There was agreement among resource managers on
the merits of aerial survey methods to index otter
populations. Although, these methods are only
appropriate in areas with adequate snow cover.
New York Department of Environmental
Conservation, Ohio Department of Natural
Resources, Federal jurisdictions and Tribes on Great
Lakes coasts indicated strong needs for future
contaminant work on American otter.
Funding, other than from sportsmen is needed by all
jurisdictions to do habitat, contaminant and aerial
survey work.
116
-------
IMPLEMENTING INDICATORS 2003
A TECHNICAL REPORT
Otter Population Stability
— Stable
— Non-Stable
~ Almost Absent
— Extirpated
600
600
1200 Kilometers
Figure 1. Figure 95. Great Lakes shoreline population stability estimates for the American Otter.
Source: Thomas C.J. Doolittle, Bad River Band of Lake Superior Tribe of Chippewa Indians
Further Work Necessary
All State and Provincial jurisdictions use different
population assessment methods making comparisons
difficult. Most jurisdictions use survey methods to
determine populations on state or provincial wide
scales. Most coarse population assessment methods
were developed to assure that trapping was not
limiting populations and that otter were simply
surviving and reproducing in their jurisdiction. There
was little work done on finer spatial scales using otter
as an indicator of ecosystem heath.
In summary, all State and Provincial jurisdictions
only marginally index Great Lakes watershed
populations by presence absence surveys, track
surveys, observations, trapper surveys, population
models, aerial surveys, and trapper registration data.
Michigan has the most useful spatial data that could
index the largest extent of Great Lakes coastal
populations due to their registration requirements.
Michigan registers trapped otter to an accuracy of 1
square mile. However, other population measures of
otter health such as reproductive rates, age and
morphological measures are not tied to spatial data in
117
-------
IMPLEMENTING INDICATORS 2003
A TECHNICAL REPORT
any jurisdiction, but are pooled together for entire
jurisdictions. If carcasses are collected for necropsy,
the samples are usually too small to accurately define
health of Great Lakes coastal otter verses interior
populations. Subsequently, there is a large need to
encourage and fund resource management agencies
to streamline data for targeted population and
contaminant research on Great Lakes otter
populations, especially in coastal zones.
Acknowledgments
Thomas C.J. Doolittle, Bad River Band of Lake Superior Tribe of Chippewa
Indians, Odanah, WI.
Sources
Bishop, P., R. Gotie, B. Penrod, and L. Wedge. 1999. Current status of river otter
management in New York. New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation, Otter management team, Delmar, New York. 9pp.
Bluett, R.D., E. A. Anderson, G.F. Hubert, G.W. Kruse and S.E. Lauzon. 1999.
Reintroduction and status of the river otter (Lutra canadensis) in Illinois.
Transactions of the Illinois State Academy of Science. Vol. 921 and 2. pp. 69-78.
Bluett, R.D. 2000. Personal Communication. Illinois Department of Natural
Resources. Springfield, IL
Brunstrom, B., B. Lund, A. Bergman, L. Asplund, I. Athanassiadis, M. Athanasiadou,
S. Jensen, and J. Orberg. 2001. Reproductive toxicity in mink (Mustela vison)
chronically exposed to environmentally relevant polychlorinated biphenyl
concentrations. Environmental Toxicology & Chemistry 20: 2318-2327.
Dawson, N. 2000. Personal Communication. Ontario Ministry of Natural
Resources, Northwest Region. Thunder Bay, ON
Doolittle, T.C.J. 1998. Tribal Ecological Assessment of the County A Sludge Site-
Phase 1 (unpublished). Bad River Reservation, Odanah, Wisconsin. 35pp.
Dwyer, C.R 2000. Population assessment and distribution of river otters following
their reintroduction into Ohio. Crane Creek Wildlife Experiment Station, Ohio
Division of Wildlife, Oak Harbor, OH. 5pp.
Dwyer, C.R 2000. Personal Communication. Ohio Division of Wildlife, Oak
Harbor, OH
Foley F.E., S.J. Jackling, R.J. Sloan and M.K. Brown. 1988. Organochlorine and
mercury residues in wild mink and otter: comparison with fish. Environmental
Toxicology and Chemistry, Vol. 7. 363-374.
Friedrich, PD. 2000. Personal Communication. Michigan Department of Natural
Resources. East Lansing, MI
Halbrook, R.S., J.H. Jenkins, PB. Bushand N.D. Seabolt. 1981. Selected
environmental contaminants in rivers otters (Lutra canadensis} of Georgia and
their relationship to the possible decline of otters in North America. In J. A.
Chap man and D. Pursley eds. Worldwide furbearers Conference Proceedings,
Worldwide Furbearer Conference, Inc. Frostburg, MD, pp.1752-1762.
Hammill, J. 2000. Personal Communication. Michigan Department of Natural
Resources. Crystal Falls, MI
Henny C.J., L.J. Blus, S.V. Gregory and C.J. Stafford. 1981. PCBs and
organochorine pesticides in wild mink and river otters from Oregon. In J. A.
Chap man and D. Pursley, eds. Worldwide furbearers Conference Proceedings,
Worldwide Furbearer Conference, Inc. Frostburg, MD,pp. 1763-1780.
Hochstein, J., S. Bursian and R. Aulerich. 1998. Effects of dietary exposure to
2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin in adult female mink (Mustela vison).
118
Archives of Environmental Contamination & Toxicology 35: 348-353.
Johnson, S. 2000. Personal Communication. Indiana Department of Natural
Resources. Bloomington, Indiana
Johnson, S.A. and R.F. Made], 1994. Reintroduction of the river otter in Indiana -
a feasibility study. Indiana Department of Natural Resources. Bloomington,
Indiana. 30pp.
Johnson, S.A. and K.A. Berkley. 1999. Restoring river otters in Indiana. Wildlife
Society Bull 27(2): 419-427.
Kannan, K., A. Blankenship, P. Jones, and J. Giesy 2000. Toxicity reference values
for the toxic effects of polychlorinated biphenyls to aquatic mammals. Human
Ecological Risk Assessment 6: 181-201.
Kautz, M. 2000. Personal Communication. New York Department of
Environmental Conservation, Delmar, New York
Leonards, P., T de Vries, W. Minnaard, S. Sruijfzand, P. de Voogt, W. Cofino, N. van
Straalen and B. van Hartum. 1995. Assessment of experimental data on PCB-
induced reproduction inhibition in mink, based on an isomer- and congener-
specific approach using 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin toxic equivalency.
Environmental Toxicology & Chemistry 14: 639-652.
Mason, C. and S. Macdonald. 1993. Impact of Organochlorine pesticide residues
and PCBs on otters (Lutra lutra): a study from western Britain. Science of the Total
Environment 138:127-145.
Mason, C. 1989. Water pollution and otter distribution: a review. Lutra 32:97-131.
Mayack, D.T 2000. Personal Communication. New York Department of
Environmental Conservation, Gloversville, New York
Michigan Department of Natural Resources. 2000. River otter reproductive and
harvest data 1995-1999. East Lansing, MI
Michigan Department of Natural Resources. 2000. Distribution of otter harvest by
section 1998-99. East Lansing, MI
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. 1998-99. Furbearer
harvest by county and region. Albany, New York
Ohio Division of Wildlife. 1999-2000. Watersheds with river otter observations.
Oak harbor, OH
Olson, J. 2000. Personal Communication. Furbearer Specialist, Wisconsin
Department of Natural Resources, Park Falls, WI
Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. 2000. Ontario furbearer population ranks
through trapper questionnaires by Wildlife Assessment Unit. Thunder Bay, ON
Roos, A., E. Greyerz, M. Olsson, and F. Sandegren. 2001. The otter (Lutra lutra) in
Sweden? Population trends in relation to 3DDT and total PCB concentrations
during 1968-99. Environmental Pollution 111: 457-469.
Route, W.T. and R.O. Peterson.1988. Distribution and abundance of river otter in
Voyageurs National Park, Minnesota. National Park Service, Resource
Management Report MWR-10, Omaha, NE. 62pp.
Sheffy T.B. and J.R. St. Amant. 1982. Mercury burdens in furbearers in Wisconsin.
/. Wildlife Manage. 46:1117-1120.
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. 1979-1998. Summary of otter
reproductive information. Madison, WI
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. 2000. Otter population model
statewide 1982-2005. Madison, WI
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. 2000. Distribution of otter harvest
by management unit 1998-99. Madison, WI
Wren, C. 1991. Cause-effect linkages between chemicals and populations of mink
(Mustela vison) and otter (Lutra canadensis) in the Great Lakes basin. / Toxicol
Environ Health 33: 549-585.
-------
IMPLEMENTING INDICATORS 2003
A TECHNICAL REPORT
1.3 RESPONSE INDICATOR REPORTS
SUMMARY OF RESPONSE INDICATORS
The overall assessment for the Response indicators is incomplete. Data presented in this section of the report
represent indicators for which information is not available year to year or are not basin-wide across
jurisdictions. Within the Great Lakes indicator suite, 38 have yet to be reported, or require further
development. In a few cases, indicator reports have been included that were prepared for SOLEC 2000, but that
were not updated for SOLEC 2002. The information about those indicators is believed to be still valid, and
therefore appropriate to be considered in the assessment of the Great Lakes. In other cases, the required data
have not been collected. Changes to existing monitoring programs or the initiation of new monitoring
programs are also needed. Several indicators are under development. More research or testing may be needed
before these indicators can be assessed.
Indicator Name
Citizeri/Community Place - Based
Stewardship Activities
Brownfield Redevelopment
Sustainable Agricultural Practices
Green Planning Process
Assessment in 2000
No Report
Mixed, improving
Mixed
No Report
Assessment in 2002
Mixed, improving
Mixed, improving
Not Assessed
Not Assessed
Green represents an improvement of the indicator assessment from 2000.
Red represents deterioration of the indicator assessment from 2000.
Black represents no change in the indicator assessment from 2000, or where no previous
assessment exists.
Citizen/Community Place - Based
Stewardship Activities
SOLEC Indicator #3513 - Indicator Matrix
Assessment: Mixed Improving
Data are not system-wide. Data from multiple
sources are not consistent.
Purpose
To reflect the number, vitality and effectiveness of
citizen and community stewardship activities.
Community activities that focus on local landscapes/
ecosystems provide a fertile context for the growth of
the stewardship ethic and the establishment of a
"sense of place."
Ecosystem Objective
Desired objectives are to continue programs
supporting protection of the Great Lakes and a sense
of community responsibility toward the
sustainability of the Great Lakes ecosystem, and to
maintain a critical mass of local support for
partnerships responsible for setting and maintaining
ecosystem health and integrity in places throughout
the Great Lakes basin.
State of the Ecosystem
Land trusts and conservancies are a particularly
relevant subset of all community-based groups that
engage in activities to promote sustainability within
the Great Lakes basin because of their direct focus on
land and habitat protection. The Land Trust Alliance
(LTA) is a national organization in the U.S. dedicated
to "promoting voluntary land conservation across
the country and providing resources, leadership, and
training to the nation's 1,200-plus nonprofit,
grassroots land trusts, helping them to protect
important open spaces." The LTA's work includes
compilation of data from National Land Trust
Censuses (NLTC) conducted in 1990 and 2000. The
data, organized by state and region, includes number
of land trusts, acres protected, and membership.
Data from the NLTC for land trusts that operate at
least partly within the U.S. Great Lakes basin show
that the number of land trusts increased from 3 in
1930 to 116 in 2000 (Figure 1). Nationwide between
119
-------
IMPLEMENTING INDICATORS 2003
A TECHNICAL REPORT
E 40
Figure 1. Number of land trusts operating in the
U.S. Great Lakes basin, 1930-2000. Data provided
by the Land Trust Alliance and land trust
websites.
Source: GEM Center for Science and Environmental Outreach,
Michigan Technological University
1950 and 2000, the number of land trusts increased
from 53 to 1,263. During the same period in the Great
Lakes basin, the number of land trusts increased
from 8 to 116. The number of land trusts doubled
between 1990 and 2000 in the Great Lakes region,
compared to a 42% increase nationally.
The total area protected by land trusts within the
basin more than doubled between 1990 and 2000
from 177,077 to 397,784 acres (Figure 2). (These
figures do not include acres owned by national
organizations, such as The Nature Conservancy,
which protected 111,725 acres in the Great Lakes
basin as of February 2002.) Nationally, protected
land increased from 1,908,547 acres to 6,479,672
acres, according to the LTA.
The Centre for Land and Water Stewardship at the
University of Guelph reported the results of a
national survey of Canadian land trusts, also known
as nature trusts or conservancies, 30 of which are
located in Ontario (Watkins 2001). The first land
trusts were established in Canada in the 1960s, much
later than in the U.S., in response to the increasing
loss of natural landscapes, pressures of urban
development, and intensifying resource
consumption. Much of the increase in the number of
land trusts occurred in the 1990s. For example,
between 1998 and 2000, the number of land trusts in
Canada increased from 60 to 82. Fifty-eight (70
percent) responded to the summer 2000 survey,
including 24 in Ontario. Most of the Ontario land
trusts are located in southern Ontario and, therefore,
probably in the Great Lakes basin. The 24 Ontario
land trusts own 7,775 acres and protect an additional
794 acres through conservation easements. The survey
excludes land protected by the Nature Conservancy of
Canada, which totals 82,700 acres in 545 Ontario
properties acquired between 1962 and 1999. Of that
total, 19,268 acres are protected through ownership,
505 acres through conservation easements, and 62,927
acres through financial assistance, stewardship
support, or other means. In 1999, 26 more properties
were acquired, adding 11,130 acres.
Since first authorized by the Ontario legislature in
1946, 38 community-based Conservation Authorities
(CAs), 32 of them in the Great Lakes basin, have
played a unique and vital role in managing natural
resources, which includes holding lands in the public
trust. The Conservation Authorities Act of 1946
provided for local communities to establish
watershed-based CAs with projects undertaken in
financial partnership with the Province. Conservation
Ontario, the CA network, reports that as of 2000,
Conservation Authorities owned and managed 352
conservation areas totaling 340,000 acres (138,000
hectares).
Future Pressures
As more land is developed, land trusts will continue to
play an important role in permanently protecting
natural habitat and "open space" through direct
Number of Land Trusts
^__«
s^
^S
s
^—/
/*^~
^-~-4^
1 950 1 965 1 975 1 981 1 985 1 988 1 990 1 994 1 998 2000
Year
Figure 2. Land trusts operating in the Great Lakes
basin, 1950-2000. Data provided by the Land Trust
Alliance and land trust websites.
Source: GEM Center for Science and Environmental Outreach, Michigan
Technological University
120
-------
IMPLEMENTING INDICATORS 2003
A TECHNICAL REPORT
_200
Jl
Location in Great Lakes basin
• 1990 02000
Figure 3. Acres protected by land trusts in the U.S.
Great Lakes basin, 1990-2000. Data provided by
the Land Trust Alliance and land trust websites.
Source: GEM Center for Science and Environmental Outreach, Michigan
Technological University
ownership and/or management, holding of
conservation easements, transfer of lands to
government or other entities, purchase of
development rights, and other means. Other
community organizations, such as watershed
councils and groups focused on trails, conservation
issues, and environmental advocacy, will encourage
more sustainable management of public and private
lands and direct public attention to areas where
critical habitat or other important environmental
values may be lost without safeguards.
Future Activities
Reporting on the activities of community
organizations that promote various aspects of
sustainability within the Great Lakes basin is likely
to encourage more such activity. In addition to
conducting the National Land Trust Census, the LTA
also tracks ballot initiatives across the country to
assess voter support for referenda that encourage
land acquisition to preserve open space, which could
be another useful measure for this indicator. It
appears likely that the LTA will continue this
monitoring, so that SOLEC will not have to obtain
data independently. Data quality can be checked
against websites or by direct inquiries to the land
trusts. The Ontario Land Trust Alliance (OLTA),
formerly the Ontario Nature Trust Alliance, has links
to land trusts and conservancies in the Great Lakes
basin area of the province and appears to be taking
on a similar role to LTA, so they may be able to
provide similar data in the future. Most of the
organizations contacted were quite willing to
provide data, so it would make sense in the future to
work with them to meet SOLEC's needs, as well as
their own. This indicator should be evaluated in
conjunction with preserves, parks, and forests in
public ownership because many privately acquired
and managed sites are eventually transferred to
public entities.
Further Work Necessary
A new indicator under consideration at SOLEC 2002,
"Community and First Nation Engagement in Great
Lakes Protection and Decision-Making," would
incorporate elements of the current indicator 3513
and others in an attempt to clarify and reduce the
number of societal indicators. Overall, the data
reported here should be reasonably accurate, but
some questions remain. For example, some land
trusts listed in the 1990 NLTC were not listed in 2000;
some were not land trusts, some no longer exist,
while others have merged or changed names. Some
land trusts in the NLTC existed in 1990 but LTA was
not aware of them. In the first case, 1990 land trusts,
acreage, and membership may be overrepresented; in
the latter, they may be underrepresented. The NLTC
also doesn't include The Nature Conservancy and
other similar national organizations, which have
provided data separately for analysis. Some land
trusts have operating areas only partly in the Great
Lakes Basin, so their acreages may be overestimated
(though this is less problematic when comparing
trends over time). Some of those organizations
provided a Great Lakes basin-specific breakdown of
their protected areas, which increase the accuracy of
the acreage reported. Minor discrepancies between
the census data and websites or communications
from land trusts regarding the year the organization
was founded may alter Figure 1 slightly. Directories
of natural resources, environmental, and outdoor
recreation organizations can supply additional data
for this indicator.
Acknowledgments
Author: Kristine Bradof, GEM Center for Science and Environmental Outreach,
Michigan Technological University, in consultation with Laurie Payne of Lura
Consulting regarding the relationship of this indicator to a new indicator
proposed for consideration at SOLEC 2002.
121
-------
IMPLEMENTING INDICATORS 2003
A TECHNICAL REPORT
Sources
Watkins, Melissa. 2001. The Emergence of Land Trusts as a New Conservation
Force in Canada. Centre for Land and Water Stewardship, University of Guelph
(http://www.uoguelph.ca/-claws/conference/LandTrustPaper.htm).
Rob Aldrich of the Land Trust Alliance provided a subset of data from the 1990
and 2000 National Land Trust Censuses for the Great Lakes basin. Renee Kivikko,
Jennifer Adkins, and Geri Angeles of LTA's Midwest, Mid-Atlantic, and Northeast
Programs, respectively, checked the author's listings of land trusts at least partly in
the Great Lakes Basin. Many other individuals provided more detailed
information about their organizations and holdings in the Great Lakes basin that
aided in the interpretation of the reported data.
Christen Mcginnes of The Nature Conservancy national office provided data on
managed areas within counties at least partly in the Great Lakes basin. The
following TNC staff provided assistance in interpreting the data from their
respective states: Doug Lehr (Illinois), Fiona Solkowski (Indiana), Tom Duffus
(Minnesota), Ross Lebold (Ohio), and Nicole VanHelden (Wisconsin).
Melissa Watkins of the Centre for Land and Water Stewardship, University of
Guelph, sent information on Ontario land trusts from their 2002 survey of land
trusts in Canada. Dan Knaus of the Nature Conservancy of Canada provided data on
that organization's Ontario land holdings. Some information about Ontario
Conservation Authorities was found on the Conservation Ontario website (http://
www.conservation-ontario.on.ca/) and websites of individual Conservation
Authorities.
Brownfields Redevelopment
Indicator ID #7006 - Indicator Matrix
Assessment: Mixed Improving
Data from multiple sources are not consistent.
Purpose
To assess the acreage of redeveloped brownfields, and
to evaluate over time the rate at which society
remediates and reuses former developed sites that
have been degraded or abandoned.
Ecosystem Objective
The goal of brownfields redevelopment is to remove
threats of contamination associated with these
properties and to bring them back into productive
use. Remediation and redevelopment of brownfields
results in two types of ecosystem improvements:
1. reduction or elimination of environmental risks
from contamination associated with these
properties; and
2. reduction in pressure for open space
conversion as previously developed properties
are reused.
State of the Ecosystem
All eight Great Lakes states, Ontario and Quebec
have programs to promote remediation or "cleanup"
and redevelopment of brownfields sites. Several of
the brownfields cleanup programs have been in place
since the mid to late 1980s, but establishment of more
comprehensive brownfields programs that focus on
remediation and redevelopment has occurred during
the 1990s. Today, each of the Great Lakes states has a
voluntary cleanup or environmental response
program. These programs offer a range of risk-based,
site-specific background and health cleanup
standards that are applied based on the specifics of
the contaminated property and its intended reuse.
Efforts to track brownfields redevelopment are
uneven among Great Lakes states and provinces. Not
all jurisdictions track brownfields activities and
methods vary where tracking does take place. Most
states track the amount of funding assistance
provided as well as the number of sites that have
been redeveloped. These are indicators of the level of
brownfields redevelopment activity in general, but
they do not necessarily reflect land renewal efforts
(i.e., acres of land redeveloped)-the desired measure
for this SOLEC indicator. Adding up state and
provincial information to come up with a
brownfields figure that represents the collective eight
states and two provinces is challenging at best.
Several issues are prominent. First, state and
provincial cleanup data reflect different types of
cleanups, not all of which are "brownfields" (e.g.
some include leaking underground storage tanks and
others do not). Second, some jurisdictions have more
than one program, and not necessarily all relevant
programs engage in such tracking. Third, program
figures do not include cleanups that have not been
Figure 1. Figure 98. Brownfield site in Detroit,
Michigan, 1998.
Source: Victoria Pebbles, Great Lakes Commission
122
-------
IMPLEMENTING INDICATORS 2003
A TECHNICAL REPORT
part of a state or provincial cleanup program (e.g.
local or private cleanups). That said, several states
and provinces do track acres of brownfields
remediated, although no Great Lakes state or
province tracks acres of brownfields redeveloped.
Information on acres of brownfields remediated from
Illinois, Minnesota, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania
and Quebec indicate that, as of August, 2002, a total
of 32,103 acres have been remediated in these states
and provinces alone, and approximately 4,600 acres
were remediated between 2000-2002. Available data
from eight Great Lakes states and Quebec indicates
that more than 24,000 brownfields sites have
participated in brownfields cleanup programs since
the mid-1990s, although the degree of "remediation"
varies considerably.
Remediation is a necessary precursor to
redevelopment. Remediation is often used
interchangeably with "cleanup," though brownfields
remediation does not always involve removing or
treating contaminants. Many remediation strategies
utilize either engineering or institutional controls
(also known as exposure controls) or adaptive reuse
techniques that are designed to limit the spread of, or
human exposure to, contaminants left in place. In
many cases, the cost of treatment or removal of
contaminants would prohibit reuse of land. All Great
Lakes states and provinces allow some contaminants
to remain on site as long as the risks of being exposed
to those contaminants are eliminated or reduced to
acceptable levels. Capping a site with dean soil or
restricting the use of groundwater are examples of
these "exposure controls" and their use has been a
major factor in advancing brownfields
redevelopment. Several jurisdictions keep track of the
number and location of sites with exposure controls,
but monitoring the effectiveness of such controls
occurs in only three out of the ten jurisdictions.
Redevelopment is a criterion for eligibility under
many state brownfields cleanup programs. Though
there is inconsistent and inadequate data on acres of
brownfields remediated and/or redeveloped,
available data indicate that both brownfields
cleanup and redevelopment efforts have risen
dramatically in the mid 1990s and steadily since
2000. The increase is due to risk-based cleanup
standards and the widespread use of state liability
relief mechanisms that allow private parties to
redevelop, buy or sell properties without being liable
for contamination they did not cause. Data also
indicates that the majority of cleanups in the Great
Lakes states and provinces are occurring in older
urbanized areas, many of which are located on the
shoreline of the Great Lakes and in the basin. Based
on the available information, the state of brownfields
redevelopment is mixed-improving.
Future Pressures
Laws and policies that encourage new development
to occur on undeveloped land instead of on urban
brownfields, are significant and ongoing pressures
that can be expected to continue. Programs to
monitor, verify and enforce effectiveness of exposure
controls are in their infancy, and the potential for
human exposure to contaminants may inhibit the
redevelopment of brownfields.
Several Great Lakes states allow brownfields
redevelopment to proceed without cleaning up
contaminated groundwater as long as no one is going
to use or come into contact with that water.
However, where migrating groundwater plumes
ultimately interface with surface waters, some
surface water quality may continue to be at risk from
brownfields contamination even where brownfields
have been remediated.
Future Activities
Programs to monitor and enforce exposure controls
need to be fully developed and implemented. More
research is needed to determine the relationship
between groundwater supplies and Great Lakes
surface waters and their tributaries. Because
brownfields redevelopment results in both reduction
or elimination of environmental risks from past
contamination and reduction in pressure for open
space conversion, data should be collected that will
enable an evaluation of each of these activities.
Further Work Necessary
Great Lakes states and provinces have begun to track
brownfields remediation and or redevelopment, but
the data is generally inconsistent or not available in
ways that are helpful to assess progress toward
meeting the terms of the Great Lakes Water Quality
Agreement. Though some jurisdictions have begun to
implement web-based searchable applications for
users to query the status of brownfields sites, the
data gathered are not necessary consistent, which
123
-------
IMPLEMENTING INDICATORS 2003
A TECHNICAL REPORT
presents challenges for assessing progress in the
entire basin. States and provinces should develop
common tracking methods and work with local
jurisdictions incorporating local data to an online
data bases that can be searched by: 1) acres
remediated; 2) mass of contamination removed or
treated (i.e., not requiring an exposure control); 3)
type of treatment; 4) geographic location; 5) level of
urbanization; and 6) type of reuse (i.e., commercial,
residential, open, none, etc).
Acknowledgments
Author: Victoria Pebbles, Senior Project Manager, Transportation and Sustainable
Development, Great Lakes Commission, Ann Arbor, MI, phone: 734-971-9135,
ext 130
email: vpebbles@glc.org, web: www.glc.org, with assistance from Becky Lameka
and Kevin Yam, Great Lakes Commission, Ann Arbor, MI.
Sources
Selected Annual Reports of state cleanup programs.
Personal communication with Great Lakes State Brownfield/Voluntary Cleanup
Program Managers.
w
c
Q.|
£1
•i- 3
0 0
fit
^ ^
3
z
14-
10-
>
^
,/**
-X*
.f^
Jf
^/
Year
Figure 1. Ontario Environmental Farm Plans (EFP)
Peer-reviewed (PR) Plans, 1995-August 2002. The
linear trend line indicates a steady increase in the
number of Peer Reviewed Plans per year. EFP RP
plans identify on-farm environmental risks and
develop action to remediate risks.
Source: Ontario Soil and Crop Improvement Association and Ontario
Ministry of Agriculture and Food, 2002
Sustainable Agriculture Practices
SOLEC Indicator #7028 - Indicator Matrix
Assessment: Not assessed
Data from multiple sources are not consistent.
Purpose
To assess the number of Environmental and
Conservation farm plans and environmentally
friendly practices in place such as: integrated pest
management to reduce the potential adverse impacts
of pesticides; conservation tillage and other soil
preservation practices to reduce energy consumption
and sustain natural resources and to prevent ground
and surface water contamination.
Ecosystem Objective
This indicator supports Annex 2, 3,12 and 13 of the
GLWQA. The objective is the sound use and
management of soil, water, air, plant, and animal
resources to prevent environmental degradation. The
process integrates natural resource, economic, and
social considerations to meet private and public
needs. The goals are to create a healthy and
productive land base that sustains food and fiber,
sustains functioning watersheds and natural systems,
enhances the environment and improves the rural
landscape.
State of the Ecosystem
Agriculture accounts for 35% of the land area of the
Great Lakes basin and dominates the southern
portion of the basin. In the past there were higher
amounts of conventional tillage, a lack of crop
rotations and land management practices that were
not environmentally responsible. These practices
resulted in soil erosion and poor water quality. These
practices also lead to high amounts of nutrients/
pesticide losses that contributed to sedimentation of
major tributaries that mouth into the Great Lakes.
A survey of pesticide use in Ontario (1998) estimates
quantities of active ingredient used on all Ontario
crops equivalent to 1/5 of the total for the Great
Lakes Basin (26,000 tons) of pesticide used annually.
Excessive amounts of conventional tillage practices
and application of pesticides without regard for
Integrated Pest Management principles contribute to
declines in soil organic matter and poor water quality.
Recently, increased cooperation with the farm
community in the Basin on Great Lakes water
quality management programs has resulted in a 38%
reduction in U.S. erosion rates over the last several
decades. The overall reduced risk of water erosion on
Canadian Great Lakes cropland also shows a positive
trend resulting primarily from shifts toward
124
-------
IMPLEMENTING INDICATORS 2003
A TECHNICAL REPORT
conservation tillage and more environmentally
responsible cropping and land management practices.
The adoption of more environmentally responsible
practices has helped to replenish carbon in the soils
back to 60% of turn-of-the-20th. Century levels. More
cooperative work is needed, especially for intensive
row crop or horticultural crop production and areas
of vulnerable topography or soil.
Both the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food
(OMAF) and the USDA's Natural Resources
Conservation Service (NRCS) provide conservation
planning advice, technical assistance and incentives
to farm clients and rural landowners. Clients develop
and implement conservation plans to protect,
conserve and enhance natural resources that
harmonize farm productivity, business objectives
and the environment. Successful implementation of
conservation planning depends upon the voluntary
participation of clients.
The Ontario Environmental Farm Plan (EFP)
encourages farmers to develop action plans and
adopt environmentally responsible technologies
through the Ontario Farm Environmental Coalition
(OFEC) workshops delivered in partnership with
OMAF and the Ontario Soil and Crop Improvement
Association. As part of Ontario's Clean Water
Strategy, the recently passed Nutrient Management
Act (June 2002) The Ontario Nutrient Management
Act, passed in June 2002 will provide regulations for
new and expanding large livestock operations to
address key water and environmental protection
objectives. The USDA's Environmental Quality
Incentives Program provides technical, educational,
and financial assistance to landowners that install
conservation systems and the Conservation Reserve
Program allows landowners to convert
environmentally sensitive acreage to vegetation cover.
An Ontario program-Greencover-with similar
objectives to the U.S. Quality Incentives program is
currently under development.
US Great Lakes Watershed
States Boundaries
Figure 2. Annual U.S. conservation systems planned for 2001. Includes total acres and all land uses.
Source: USDA, NRCS, Performance and Results Measurement System
125
-------
IMPLEMENTING INDICATORS 2003
A TECHNICAL REPORT
USDA's voluntary Environmental Quality Incentives
Program provides technical, educational, and
financial assistance to landowners that install
conservation systems. The Conservation Reserve
Program allows landowners to convert
environmentally sensitive acreage to vegetative cover.
States may add funds to target critical areas under the
Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program. The
Wetlands Reserve Program is a voluntary program
to restore wetlands.
Future Pressures
The trend towards increasing farm size and
concentration of livestock will change the face of
agriculture in the basin. Development pressure from
the urban areas may increase the conflict between
rural and urban landowners. This can include
pressures of higher taxes, traffic congestion, flooding
and pollution. By urbanizing farmland, we may limit
future options to deal with social, economic, food
security and environmental problems.
Future Actions
In June 2002 the Canadian Federal government
announced a multi-billion Agricultural Policy
Framework (APF). The goal for this comprehensive
policy is for Canada to be a world leader in food
safety, innovation and environmentally responsible
production. As part of the APF framework the
Canadian Government announced a $100 million
commitment over a 4-year period (starting 2003) for
farmers to help Canadian farmers increase
implementation of Environmental Farm Plans. The
estimated commitment to Ontario represents at least
$20-23 million for these purposes. Ontario is
developing a Best Management Practices (BMP) book
for Buffers. The Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and
Food is undergoing a program evaluation of Food
Systems 2002-a comprehensive program to reduce
pesticides in food production by 50% started in 1987.
Pesticide use surveys, conducted every 5 years since
1983, are scheduled for 2003. Partnerships between
agriculture and municipalities include incentives for
BMP's to reduce phosphorus loading and protect
rural water quality.
The U.S. Clean Water Action Plan of 1998 calls for the
USDA and the USEPA to cooperate further on soil
erosion control, wetland restoration, and reduction of
pollution from farm animal operations. National
goals are to install 2 million miles of buffers along
riparian corridors by 2002 and increase wetlands by
100,000 acres annually by 2005. Under the 1999 EPA/
USDA Unified National Strategy for Animal Feeding
Operation (AFO) all AFOs will have comprehensive
nutrient management plans implemented by 2009.
Acknowledgments
Authors Roger Nanney Resource Conservationist, USDA, NRCS,
Roger.Nanney@in.usda.gov
Ruth Shaffer, Water Quality Specialist, USDA-Natural Resources
Conservation Service, ruth.shaffer@mi.usda.gov.
Peter A. Roberts, Agriculture and Rural Division, Environmental
Management Specialist-Water Management, peter.roberts@omaf.gov.on.ca, in
cooperation with Dr. Stewart Sweeny and Jean Rudichuk, OMAF, Guelph,
Ontario.
Sources
Ontario Ministry of Agriculture & Food. 2002.
Ontario Soil and Crop Improvement Association. 2002.
USDA, NRCS. Performance and Results Measurement System (PRMS). Available
at: http://prms.nrcs.usda.gov/prms/Index.hrml
Green Planning Process
SOLEC Indicator #7053 - Indicator Matrix
Assessment: Not Assessed.
Data are not consistent, not long-term, not system-
wide.
Purpose
To assess the number of municipalities with
environmental and resource conservation
management plans in place, and to infer the extent to
which municipalities utilize environmental
standards to guide their management decisions with
respect to land planning, resource conservation, and
natural area preservation. Given that not all
municipalities have planning departments, planning
commissions, or zoning ordinances—much less
"green" management plans—the number and
percentage of municipalities with those features will
also be documented, as will planning programs and
statutes at the state and provincial level.
Ecosystem Objective
Planning processes to support sustainable
development should be adopted by all governmental
units in the Great Lakes basin to minimize adverse
ecosystem impacts. This indicator supports Annex 13
of the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement.
126
-------
IMPLEMENTING INDICATORS 2003
A TECHNICAL REPORT
Progress toward this ecosystem objective falls into
the "Mixed" assessment category, as discussed
further under Future Pressures.
State of the Ecosystem
An American Planning Association (APA) survey,
known as Planning for Smart Growth: 2002 State of the
States, confirms that state planning reforms and
"smart growth" measures were top state concerns
between 1999 and 2001 (http://www.planning.org/
growingsmart/states2002.htm). The APA divides
states into four categories reflecting the status of
smart growth planning reforms. Twelve U.S. states,
including Wisconsin and Pennsylvania, are credited
with implementing moderate to substantial statewide
comprehensive planning reforms. New York is the
only Great Lakes state among the ten states that are
strengthening local planning requirements or
improving regional or local planning reforms already
adopted. Illinois, Michigan, and Minnesota are
among the fifteen states actively pursuing their first
major statewide smart growth planning reforms. Ohio
and Indiana are among the thirteen states that have
not yet begun to pursue significant statewide
planning reforms.
The report identifies eight consistent trends in
statewide planning reform. (1) Implementation of
planning reforms is challenging. (2) Most successful
reforms have a governor or legislator as a political
champion. (3) Linking reforms to quality-of-life issues
is key. (4) Coalitions and consensus promote planning
reforms. (5) Reforms sometimes lead to backlash. (6)
Task forces are often the starting point for planning
reforms. (7) Some areas, particularly in the West, use
ballot initiatives to initiate reforms. (8) Piecemeal
reforms are politically more popular than
comprehensive ones. While recognition of the hidden
costs of unmanaged growth has spurred the revision
of outdated planning and zoning laws, funding for
implementation remains a problem.
The Province of Ontario is conducting a five-year
review of the 1996 Provincial Policy Statement (PPS)
on land use planning to "determine whether
Ontario's land use planning policies are consistent
with Smart Growth: the government's strategy for
promoting and managing growth in ways that
sustain a strong economy; build strong communities;
and promote a healthy environment" The PPS's three
major policy areas are (1) managing change and
promoting efficient, cost-effective development and
land-use patterns that stimulate economic growth and
protect the environment and public health, (2)
protecting resources for their economic use and/or
environmental benefits, and (3) reducing the potential
for public cost or risk to Ontario's residents by
directing development away from areas where there
is a risk to public health or safety, or of property
damage. Public comments on the PPS indicate that it
is generally sound, but suggest that some revisions be
considered (www.mah.gov.on.ca/userfiles/
page_attachments/1830857_Five-Year-e.pdf).
However, the Canadian Environmental Law
Association (CELA) and Federation of Ontario
Naturalists criticize both the Ontario Provincial Policy
Statement and the five-year review process
(www. cela. ca/Intervenor/26_4/26_4pps .htm).
Among the problems with the PPS is the lack of
comprehensive data or performance indicators to
assess the effectiveness of the policy.
The Conservation Council of Ontario (CCO) has
produced its own "GreenOntario" vision statement
(www.greenontario.org/smartgrowth/index.html)
and a comparison chart with the government's
vision for Smart Growth
(www.smartgrowth.gov.on.ca), which the CCO feels
places much more emphasis on economic growth
than on healthy communities and environment. The
CCO cites the Ontario Professional Planners Institute
(OPPI) policy paper, Exploring Growth Management Roles
in Ontario: Learning From "Who Does What Elsewhere"
(September 2001) as providing excellent guidelines
and case studies (www.ontarioplanners.on.ca/
policy.html).
A positive trend in recent years is planning based on
regional-scale natural features, such as the Niagara
Escarpment and Oak Ridges Moraine in Ontario.
University of Waterloo's Assessment and Planning
Project evaluates the usefulness of the 1985 Niagara
Escarpment Plan (NEP), the first large-scale
environmental land use plan in Ontario and in
Canada, as a model for future environmentally
sensitive land-use planning. The NEP's main purpose
is to preserve and protect environmental features
while allowing compatible development (http://
ersserver.uwaterloo.ca/ asmtplan/ontariomain.html).
The NEP has received two five-year reviews, the most
recent in 2001, at which time CELA noted "the
growing consensus that the NEP is sound as it is, so
127
-------
IMPLEMENTING INDICATORS 2003
A TECHNICAL REPORT
'if it ain't broke, don't fix it.'" (www.cela.ca/
Intervenor/26_l/26_Icone.htm). The purpose of the
Niagara Escarpment Commission (NEC), established
in 1973 under the Niagara Escarpment Planning and
Development Act, is to "provide for the maintenance
of the Niagara Escarpment and land in its vicinity
substantially as a continuous natural environment
and ensure only such development occurs as is
compatible with that natural environment"
(www.escarpment.org/Commission/
comission_about.htm). In addition to the NEC, the
Coalition on the Niagara Escarpment (CONE), an
umbrella group of 30 environmental organizations
formed in 1978, monitors development on the
Escarpment in coordination with local communities
(www.niagaraescarpment.org/
page_about_cone.html). Twelve local municipalities
and the Regional Municipality of Niagara also
collaborated on a 2001 report, "Smart Growth in
Niagara" to guide development in the region (http://
www.regional.niagara.on.ca/admin/smartgrowth/
pdf/Smart_Growth_in_Niagara.pdf).
The Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Act, passed in
December 2001, and the subsequent Oak Ridges
Moraine Conservation Plan are ecologically based
measures "established by the Ontario Government to
provide guidance and direction for the 190,000
hectares of land and water within the Moraine"
north of Toronto (www.mah.gov.on.ca/
oakridgesmoraine/ormplannovl2001-e.pdf). Rivers
that flow south to Lake Ontario have their
headwaters on the Moraine. "A continuous band of
green rolling hills that provides form and structure
to south-central Ontario, while protecting the
ecological and hydrological features and functions
that support the health and well-being of the region's
residents and ecosystems" is the official vision for the
Moraine. That vision is shared by a number of
grassroots organizations concerned about the
implementation of the plan, given the intense
development pressure in the region
(www.greenontario.org/strategy/orm.html).
Conservation Authorities (CAs), community-based
environmental protection and resource planning
agencies that function within watershed boundaries,
are another example of planning and resource
management based on ecosystem features. First
authorized by the Conservation Authorities Act in
1946, the 38 Ontario CAs today manage watersheds
Figure 1. Percentage of governmental units,
within selected areas of the Great Lakes basin,
that have any of the following features: a
comprehensive plan, a professional planner or
planning department, a citizen planning board or
commission, and a zoning ordinance.
Source: Western New York Regional Information Network of the
University at Buffalo, Michigan Sea Grant, Nathan Zieziula of the
Crawford County (Pennsylvania) Planning, Eric Randall of the Erie
County (Pennsylvania) Department of Planning, Don Reitz of Allen
County (Indiana) Department of Planning
that are home to 90 percent of the provincial
population. Project costs are shared by member
municipalities and the provincial government. A CA
is established by request of local communities that
agree to run the organization.
The following are some examples of data obtained
from municipalities in parts of the U.S. Great Lakes
basin for this project. Crawford County,
Pennsylvania, has a professional planning office and
planning commission but no county wide zoning. Its
2000 comprehensive plan, which replaces the 1973
version, reflects Pennsylvania's new "Growing
Greener" policy. The plan addresses a variety of green
features, such as developing greenways and
concentrating development near existing services and
in clusters to preserve open space. Of the seven
townships and boroughs within the county that are at
least partly within the Great Lakes basin, none have
planning departments or staff, four have planning
commissions, but all have land use or comprehensive
plans (most adopted between 1970 and 1981). Five
have zoning ordinances and enforcement officers and
all have floodplain ordinances. Neighboring Erie
County is served by the Erie Area Council of
Governments, which coordinates planning among
the county, the City of Erie and 6 of the 26 townships
128
-------
IMPLEMENTING INDICATORS 2003
A TECHNICAL REPORT
and boroughs that are at least partly in the basin.
Only the City and County of Erie have planning
departments but all jurisdictions except one have
planning commissions and all but four have zoning
and floodplain ordinances. All have land use or
comprehensive plans, 13 of which have been adopted
or revised in the last five years. Details on the green
features of the plans are limited, but 7 address open
space and growth focused near existing services,
while 14 have provisions for farmland protection
and 23 address stormwater and erosion control.
Basic planning and zoning data from these counties
plus areas of three other states are summarized in
Figure 1.
Cities
Villages
Townships
Counties
State
1994
69.8%
66.7%
49.6%
53.3%
55.7%
2002
95.3%
86.7%
76.1%
73.3%
80.6%
Figure 2. Michigan coastal jurisdictions that have
adopted master plans, 1978-2002.
Source: Western New York Regional Information Network of the
University at Buffalo, Michigan Sea Grant, Nathan Zieziula of the
Crawford County (Pennsylvania) Planning, Eric Randall of the Erie
County (Pennsylvania) Department of Planning, Don Reitz of Allen
County (Indiana) Department of Planning
A December 2002 report from Michigan Sea Grant,
Status of Planning and Zoning in Michigan's Great Lakes
Shoreline Communities, documents an increasing
number of governmental units with master plans
(Figure 2). However, the survey of 338 counties and
sub-county jurisdictions "does not provide details
about the quality of local land management efforts."
The report notes regional variations in the amount of
shoreline that is covered by master plans or zoning
ordinances. For example, only about 40 percent of
Lake Superior's shoreline is covered by some sort of
county-level master plan, and sub-county
jurisdictions provide minimal additional coverage. In
the Northern Lake Huron and Lake Superior regions,
less than 25 percent of coastal communities have
professional planning staff, below the statewide
average of about 36 percent.
Future Pressures
Sprawl is no longer a problem limited to urban and
suburban areas, so the increased emphasis on
planning even in rural areas, where it has often been
nearly nonexistent until recently, is encouraging.
Planning and zoning officials are certainly taking into
account a variety of Best Management Practices and
regulatory issues. Nonetheless, this indicator receives
a "Mixed" assessment because of the following
limitations on progress, among others: too little
emphasis on implementation of agreed-upon
planning goals, lax enforcement, too few resources,
and too great a willingness to make exemptions in
the name of development. For example, most
watershed initiatives still struggle to influence local
governmental planning processes and often don't
receive line-item financing (though the soft money
seems to keep coming along).
Future Activities
The efforts of groups such as the American Planning
Association, its state affiliates, and a variety of
nonprofit organizations and educational institutions
to provide resources and training for "smart growth"
and sustainable development are positive signs. The
APA compiled summaries of state planning laws in
1996 and 2002, so similar future assessments are
likely. State governments are also enacting laws and
developing programs in these areas. Some states, such
as Wisconsin, now mandate comprehensive planning
at the local level and encourage coordinated planning
among neighboring communities through enabling
legislation and grant programs.
Many communities now encourage local residents,
not just appointed planning commissioners, to
participate in land use visioning sessions and reviews
of planning documents. Increasingly, local units of
government have websites with links to planning and
zoning departments or boards and sometimes to
public documents, such as comprehensive plans (or
drafts for public review) and zoning ordinances, that
are available online. Some counties, such as Cayuga
in New York, have encouraged this trend by hosting
websites for cities, towns, and villages.
Further Work Necessary
The information presented here is from a preliminary
analysis of parts of the Great Lakes basin for which
some planning and zoning information was either
available on the Internet or provided by regional or
129
-------
IMPLEMENTING INDICATORS 2003
A TECHNICAL REPORT
county planning staff. The most significant limitation
on obtaining data for this indicator in many areas of
the basin is the lack of regional or statewide attempts
to gather information on the extent and quality of
planning and zoning processes at the local level. Such
information would also be a first step toward
coordinating efforts among jurisdictions, essential to
achieving ecosystem-sensitive planning. Most
regional planning agencies contacted for this project
to date expressed interest in having such data but
did not have the staff time or funding required to
compile it. Others are limited to transportation
planning activities only.
This project developed spreadsheets to gather basic
information about planning departments and
commissions or boards, zoning ordinances and
officials or boards to administer them, and
comprehensive or master plans in place. Additional
columns addressed particular "green" features of
plans, programs, or ordinances, such as cluster
development, wellhead protection, mixed-use zoning,
and environmental corridors, and purchase or
transfer of development rights. The spreadsheets
were organized by state, regional planning agency (if
applicable), county, and local unit of government. It
was hoped that regional planning agencies could
either fill out the surveys themselves or refer them to
the local units of government, but the response was
discouraging because most of them did not have the
information. Some forwarded the survey forms, but
only one was filled out and returned.
The most reliable means of obtaining data relevant to
the green planning indicator, though a time-intensive
one, appears to be searching websites and following
up for details as needed with the contact persons
listed. However, that method does not address
municipalities that lack websites. No mention of
planning and zoning on a website also doesn't mean
that they don't exist within the community. Another
approach to data acquisition, also time intensive, is to
survey a random sample of the local governments
within the basin and follow up as necessary to obtain
the information. Although these limitations are likely
to persist to some degree, more information in
electronic form should be available in the future as its
value and the need for access to it become more
apparent.
Acknowledgments
Authors: Kristine Bradof, GEM Center for Science and Environmental
Outreach, Michigan Technological University; and James Cantrill, Professor
of Communication and Performance Studies at Northern Michigan
University and U.S. co-chair, Developing Sustainability Committee, Lake
Superior Work Group, Lake Superior Binational Program.
Sources
Western New York Regional Information Network of the University at Buffalo
(State University of New York, http://rin.buffalo.edu/s_envi/envi.html). New
York data reflects 6 city, 37 town, 22 village, and 3 tribal governments in Erie and
Niagara Counties.
Michigan Sea Grant, 2002. Status of Planning and Zoning in Michigan's Great
Lakes Shoreline Communities (www.miseagrant.umich.edu/pubs/pdf/
Klep_survey.pdf). Michigan data is from the 72 cities, 190 townships, 25 villages,
and 50 counties that border the Great Lakes.
Nathan Zieziula of the Crawford County (Pennsylvania) Planning Commission
added details to the survey form, supplementing information from the
Comprehensive Plan Phase II: Plan Elements for Crawford County, Pennsylvania
1997-2000 (http://www.co.crawford.pa.us/Planning/ftp/comprehensiveplan.pdf)
and other pages on www.co.crawford.pa.us.
Eric Randall of the Erie County (Pennsylvania) Department of Planning filled out
the planning survey and provided a listing of "Municipal Planning and
Development Controls, Updated April 2002," which contains dates of
comprehensive plans and zoning and stormwater management ordinances. The
Pennsylvania data represent Crawford and Erie Counties and the 1 city, 22 towns,
and 10 boroughs in the Great Lakes basin portion of those counties.
Don Reitz of Allen County (Indiana) Department of Planning Services filled out
the survey for the 25 local units of government in the Great Lakes basin part of
the county (3 cities, 17 townships, and 4 towns).
130
-------
IMPLEMENTING INDICATORS 2003
A TECHNICAL REPORT
Section 2
Proposed Changes to the
Great Lakes Indicator Suite
The list of Great Lakes indicators that are reported through the SOLEC process is open to improvement. Some
indicators may be found to be not as useful as anticipated and therefore dropped from the list. Some may be
changed to reflect better metrics or data availability. Still others may be added to assess ecosystem
components that had not been previously included. For example, efforts are continuing to define and refine
indicators to assess the condition of Great Lakes forests and ground water.
The indicator reports that follow in this section were prepared to accompany descriptions for proposed
indicators presented at the State of the Great Lakes Conference in October, 2002. These reports have been
prepared and formatted according to the same guidelines used for the other indicators, except no Assessment
was made. The indicators themselves, however, have not yet been fully vetted through the SOLEC indicator
selection process.
Reports are included for the following proposed indicators:
2.1 Societal Response Indicators
Commercial / Industrial Eco-Efficiency Measures
Cosmetic Pesticide Controls
2.2 Agriculture Indicators
Nutrient Management Plans
Integrated Pest Management
2.3 Groundwater Indicators
Base Flow Due to Groundwater Discharge
Natural Groundwater Quality and Human-Induced Changes
Water Use and Intensity
2.4 Other Indicators
Contaminants in Whole Fish
Status of Sturgeon in the Great Lakes
External Anomaly Prevalence Index (EAPI) for Nearshore Fish
131
-------
IMPLEMENTING INDICATORS 2003
A TECHNICAL REPORT
2.1 SOCIETAL RESPONSE INDICATORS
Commercial / Industrial Eco-Efficiency
Measures (sample report)
New Indicator
Assessment: Unable to make an assessment
until historical trend data is available. This is
the first time this indicator has been measured.
Purpose
This indicator assesses the institutionalized response
of the commercial/industrial sector to pressures
imposed on the ecosystem as a result of production
processes and service delivery. It is based upon the
public documents produced by the 25 largest
employers in the basin which report eco-effitiency
measures and implement eco-effitiency strategies.
The 25 largest employers were selected as industry
leaders and proxy for assessing commercial/
industrial eco-effitiency measures. This indicator
should not be considered a comprehensive evaluation
of all the activities of the commercial/industrial
sector, particularly small-scale organizations, though
it is presumed that many other industrial/commercial
organizations are implementing and reporting on
similar strategies.
Ecosystem objective
The goal of eco-efficiency is to deliver competitively
priced goods and services that satisfy human needs
and increase quality of life, while progressively
reducing ecological impacts and resource intensity
throughout the lifecycle, to a level at least in line with
the earth's estimated carrying capacity1. In
quantitative terms, the goal is to increase the ratio of
the value of output(s) produced by a firm to the sum
of the environmental pressures generated by the
firm2.
State of the Ecosystem
Efforts to track eco-efficiency in the Great Lakes basin
and in North America are still in the infancy stage.
This is the first assessment of its kind in the Great
Lakes region. It includes twenty-five of the largest
private employers, from a variety of sectors,
operating in the basin. Participation in eco-efficiency
was tabulated from publicly available environmental
reporting data from 10 Canadian companies and 14
American companies based in (or with major
operations in) the Great Lakes.
Tracking of eco-efficiency indicators is based on the
notion: "what is measured is what gets done". The
evaluation of this indicator is conducted by recording
presence/absence of reporting related to performance
in 7 eco-efficiency reporting categories (net sales,
quantity of goods produced, material consumption,
energy consumption, water consumption, greenhouse
gas emissions, emissions of ozone depleting
substances)3. In addition, the evaluation includes an
enumeration of specific initiatives that are targeted
toward one or more of the elements of eco-efficiency
success (material intensity, energy intensity, toxic
dispersion, recyclability and product durability)4.
Of the 24 companies surveyed, 10 reported publicly
(available online or through customer service inquiry)
on at least some measures of eco-efficiency. Energy
consumption and, to some extent, material
consumption were the most commonly reported
measures. Of the 10 firms that reported on some
elements of eco-efficiency, 3 reported on all 5
measures.
More companies, 19 (76%) of the 25 companies
surveyed, reported on implementation of specific eco-
efficiency related initiatives. 2 companies reported
activities related to all 5 success areas. Reported
initiatives were most commonly targeted toward
improved recycling and improved energy efficiency.
Overall, companies in the manufacturing sector
tended to provide more public information on
environmental performance than the retail or
financial sectors. At the same time, nearly all firms
expressed a commitment to reducing the
environmental impact of their operations. A select
number of companies, such as Steelcase Inc. and
General Motors in the U.S.A. and Nortel Networks in
Canada, have shown strong leadership in
comprehensive, easily accessed, public reporting on
environmental performance. Others, such as
Haworth Inc. and Quad/Graphics, have shown
distinct creativity and innovation in implementing
measures to reduce their environmental impact.
132
-------
IMPLEMENTING INDICATORS 2003
A TECHNICAL REPORT
Energy Consumption Materials Water Consumption GHG Emissions Ozone depleting
Eco-Efficiency Measure (based on WBCSD measures)
Figure 1. Number of the 25 largest employers in the
Great Lakes basin that publicly report eco-
efficiency measures. WBCSD = World Business
Council for Sustainable Development GHG =
green house gas.
Source:
Material intensity Energy intensfty Toxic cispersion Recyclability
Sucess Criteria (as defined by WBCSD)
Product durabilfty
Figure 2. Number of the 25 largest employers in the
Great Lakes basin that publicly report initiatives
related to eco-efficiency success criteria. WBCSD -
World Business Council for Sustainable
Development.
Source:
The concept of eco-efficiency was defined in 1990 and
was not widely known until several years later.
Specific data on commercial/industrial measures are
only just being implemented; therefore, it is not yet
possible to determine trends in eco-efficiency
reporting. In general, firms appear to be working to
improve the efficiency of their goods and service
delivery. This is an important trend as it indicates
the growing ability of firms to increase the quantity
number of goods and services produced for the same
or a lesser quantity of resources per unit of output.
While one or more eco-efficiency measures are often
included in environmental reporting, only a few
firms recognize the complete eco-efficiency concept.
Many firms recognize the need for more
environmentally sensitive goods and services
delivery; however, the implementation of more
environmentally efficient processes appears narrow
in scope. These observations indicate that more could
be done toward more sustainable goods and services
delivery.
Future Pressures
Eco-efficiency per unit of production will
undoubtedly increase over time, given the economic,
environmental and public relations incentives for
doing so. However, as Great Lakes populations and
economies grow, quantity of goods and services
produced will likely increase. If production increases
by a greater margin than eco-efficiency
Improvements, then the overall commercial/
industrial environmental impact will continue to rise.
Absolute reductions in the sum of environmental
pressures are necessary to deliver goods and services
within the earth's carrying capacity.
Future Action
The potential for improving the environmental and
economic efficiency of goods and services delivery is
unlimited. To meet the ecosystem objective, more
firms in the commercial/ industrial sector need to
recognize the value of eco-efficiency and need to
monitor and reduce the environmental impacts of
production.
Further Work Necessary
By repeating this evaluation at a regular interval (2 or
4 years) trends in industrial/commercial eco-
efficiency can be determined. The sustainability of
goods and service delivery in the Great Lakes basin
can only be determined if social justice measures are
also included in commercial/industrial sector
assessments. The difficulty in assessing the impacts
of social justice issues precludes them from being
included in this report, however, such social welfare
impacts should be included in future indicator
assessment.
133
-------
IMPLEMENTING INDICATORS 2003
A TECHNICAL REPORT
Acknowledgments
Author: Laurie Payne, LURA Consulting. Contributors: Christina Forst, Oak Ridge
Institute for Science and Education, on appointment to U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Great Lakes National Program Office, and Dale Phenide &
George Kuper, Council of Great Lakes Industries. Tom Van Camp and Nicolas
Dion of Industry Canadaprovided several data resources. Many of the firms
surveyed in this report also contributed environmental reports and other
corporate information. Chambers of commerce in many states and provinces
around the Great Lakes provided employment data.
Sources
InfoUSA®, Omaha, NE. Largest Employers Database. 2001 www.acinet.org,
employers.database@infoUSA.com.
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), Environment
Policy Committee, Environment Directorate, Eco-Efficiency: Environment
Ministerial Steering Group Report, (Paris, March 1998).
Report onBusiness Magazine. The TOP 1000 2002:50 Largest Employers, http://
toplOOO.robmagazine.com/July2002.Canada.
Stratos: Strategies to Sustainability in collaboration with Alan Willis and
Associates and SustainAbility. Stepping Forward: Corporate Sustainability
Reporting in Canada. November 2001. Canada.
Vrooman Environmental Inc. and Legwork Environmental Inc for Industry
Canada. The Status of Eco-Efficiency and Indicator Development in Canadian
Industry. A Report on Industry Perceptions and Practices. February 2001.
World Business Council on Sustainable Development. Eco-efficiency: creating
more value with less impact. August 2000.
World Business Council on Sustainable Development. Measuring eco-efficiency a
guide to reporting company performance. June 2000.
National Round Table on Environment and Economy. Measuring eco-efficiency
in business: feasibility of a core set of indicators. 1999. Ottawa, Canada.
1 World Business Council for Sustainable Development, Eco-efficient Leadership
for Improved Economic and Environmental Performance (Geneva, 1996), p. 4.
2 Adapted from Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development
(OECD), Environment Policy Committee, Environment Directorate, Eco-
Efficiency: Environment Ministerial SteeringGroup Report, (Paris, March 1998),
p. 3.
3 World Business Council for Sustainable Development, Eco-efficiency. Creating
more value withless impact. (2002).
4 World Business Council for Sustainable Development, Eco-efficiency. Creating
more value with less impact. (2002) p. 15.
Cosmetic Pesticide Controls (sample
report)
New Indicator
Assessment
Unable to make an assessment until historical trend
data is available. This is the first time this indicator
has been measured.
Purpose
This indicator will track the number of and trend
among municipalities in the Great Lakes basin that
have implemented by-laws or ordinances restricting
the cosmetic use of pesticides. It will indirectly
measure and identify the willingness of local
governments to proactively improve community and
ecosystem health by reducing contaminant exposure
to residents and the ecosystem.
Ecosystem Objective
The objective is to reduce the amount of contaminants
in the Great Lakes ecosystem, particularly since
pesticide contamination in drinking water can post a
threat to human health. Ultimately, the objective is to
prevent further contamination of land, waterways
and degradation of human health and wildlife.
State of the Ecosystem
The effects of pesticide exposure may include
disruption of the endocrine, reproductive,
neurological and immune systems, carcinogenic
effects, eye damage, poisoning and respiratory
ailments. Children are even more susceptible to
dangerous effects of exposure, which may occur via
direct contact through improper use, consumption
through the residual pesticide on food, and release
into the environment from improper storage or
disposal. Once applied to lawns, pesticides may
migrate to air, soil, groundwater and surface water
thereby contaminating the ecosystem and its
dependents. For the Great Lakes Basin, this migration
effect could cause significant degradations in the
quality of drinking water and health of the overall
ecosystem.
The municipality of Hudson, Quebec, was the first
municipality to pass a by-law in 1991 prohibiting the
use of cosmetic (purely aesthetic) use of pesticides.
When challenged by a lawsuit, the case ultimately
went to the Supreme Court of Canada, whose
134
-------
IMPLEMENTING INDICATORS 2003
A TECHNICAL REPORT
landmark decision in June 2001 ruled that
municipalities did have the right to restrict pesticide
use on public and/or private property, since "Law-
making [is] often best achieved at a level of
government that is.. .closest to the citizens
affected..."1 Following Hudson's example, 45
additional municipalities out of a total of 1,556 in
Quebec passed similar by-laws restricting the use of
pesticides on public lands, private lands, or both. An
additional 6 municipalities' pesticide bylaws will be
effective as of January 2003. Recently, however, the
provincial government of Quebec introduced
stringent pesticide regulations that all municipalities
will now be subject to. As of September 2002,
pesticides on the market were banned from all
public, semipublic, and municipal green areas in the
province. This decision also marked the beginning of
a three-year plan to extend the prohibition to the
entirety of private and commercial green spaces in the
province as well, excluding agricultural lands.
In the province of Ontario, Cobalt was the first and at
this time remains the only municipality in Ontario
that has definitively passed a bylaw banning the non-
essential use of pesticides on all properties within the
municipality. The Canadian capital, the City of
Ottawa, however, has banned the use of pesticides on
public municipal property and will begin the public
consultation process in fall 2002 to enact a bylaw that
would restrict all cosmetic use of pesticides within the
city. Additionally, there are 22 (including Ottawa) out
of 628 total municipalities in Ontario that are
phasing out pesticide use, and in various stages of
public and/or Council deliberation on the passage of
a pesticide by-law.
At present, few municipalities in the U.S. Great Lakes
Basin have formally enacted restrictions similar to
those in the above-described Canadian municipalities;
although it is reasonable to expect more regulations in
the U.S. in the near future. Cleveland Heights, Ohio is
one municipality that has banned the use of pesticides
on publicly owned lands and on private property in
the city.2 A related effort may be seen in the fact that
all eight Great Lakes Basin states have adopted some
form of legislation to restrict the use of pesticides in
schools, from notifying parents when pesticides are
being sprayed in public schools to requiring
Integrated Pest Management for structural pest
control. On a national level, the U.S. EPA has banned
28%
70%
I By-Laws Adopted • Implementing/Considering By-Law DNoBy-Law
Figure 1. Ontario and Quebec municipalities in the
pesticide reduction process. The total number of
municipalities: 2,184.
Source
certain individual pesticides such as chlorpyrifos, an
insecticide sold under the trade name "Dursban",
and continues with many initiatives to phase-out use
of harmful pesticides.
Future Pressures
Increased and sustained use of pesticides will cause
further pressure on the ecosystems and potentially
cause increased health concerns and contaminated
drinking water for residents in the Great Lakes Basin.
Future Activities
As a province, Ontario is now also feeling pressure by
activists to pass a provincial law as Quebec did, to
eliminate first the public and then private cosmetic
use of pesticides. This initiative should continue to be
monitored for updates. Both in the U.S. Congress, as
well as the and state and local government levels,
initiatives and proposed bills/ordinances for
pesticide reductions should continue to be monitored
for future adoptions.
Further Work Necessary
Because this concept represents relatively new
135
-------
IMPLEMENTING INDICATORS 2003
A TECHNICAL REPORT
environmental policy, work will need to be done in
the future to re-assess current numbers of
municipalities that have passed by-laws or
ordinances restricting the commercial, cosmetic use of
pesticides. Cosmetic pesticide control is gaining
significant attention in local environmental policy,
and this indicator will likely serve as a reflective trend
indicator when revisited in four or eight years. For
Canadian communities currently in deliberation or
consideration stages of by-law enactment, follow-up
will be needed in several years to confirm if a law has
passed. Finally, it will be interesting to document if
and when the United States adopts similar laws in
regards to municipality restrictions. Though yet to
be developed, the endpoint of this indicator includes
having bi-national participation in pesticide
reduction efforts, so that a significant decrease in
contaminant levels within the ecosystem is evident.
Acknowledgments
Author: Christina Forst, Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education, on
appointment to U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Great Lakes National
Program Office, forst.christina@epa.gov, Contributors: Laurie Payne, LURA
Consulting/ Environment Canada.
Sources
Federation of Canadian Municipalities (FCM), www.fcm.ca
"New Stricter Laws Will Regulate the Use and Sale of Pesticides," Press Release,
Quebec Ministry of the Environment; www.gouvqc.ca/Index_en.html and
personal communication.
"Pesticide Free Canada" report, Canadian Centre for Pollution Prevention, http://
pestinfo.ca/documents/Pes ticideFreeCanada.doc
"Playing it Safe: Healthy Choices About Lawn Care Pesticides" report, City of
Toronto, http://www.city.toronto.on.ca/health/hphe/pdf/playingitsafe.pdf
"The Schooling of State Pesticide Laws 2000," National Coalition Against the
Misuse of Pesticides, http://www.beyondpesticides.org/schools/publications/
School_report_2000.pdf
U.S. EPA, Office of Pesticide Programs, http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/
1114957 Canada Letee (Spraytech, Societe d'arrosage) v. Hudson (Town), 2001
SCC 40.File No.: 26937
2 City of Cleveland Heights, Chapter 1785, Application of Pesticides, Ord. 131-
1995, Passed 9-18-1995
136
-------
IMPLEMENTING INDICATORS 2003
A TECHNICAL REPORT
2.2 AGRICULTURAL INDICATORS
Nutrient Management Plans (sample
report)
New Indicator
Purpose
To determine the number of Nutrient Management
plans and to infer environmentally
friendly practices that help to prevent ground and
surface water contamination.
Ecosystem Objective
This indicator supports Annexes 2, 3,11,12 and 13 of
the GLWQA. The objective is sound use and
management of soil, water, air, plants and animal
resources to prevent degradation of the environment.
The objective of Nutrient Management Planning is to
mange the amount, form, placement and timing of
applications of nutrients for uptake by crops as part
of an environmental farm plan. It is expected that
more farmers will embrace environmental planning
over time. This results in sustainable agriculture
through non-polluting, energy efficient technology
and best management practices for efficient and high
quality food production.
State of the Ecosystem
Given the key role of agriculture in the Great Lakes
ecosystem, it is important to track
changes in agricultural practices that can lead to
protection of water quality as well as the sustainable
future of agriculture and rural development and
better ecological integrity in the basin. The indicator
identifies the degree to which agriculture is becoming
more sustainable and has less potential to adversely
impact the Great Lakes ecosystem. The Ontario
Environmental Farm Plans (EFP) identifies the need
for best nutrient management practices. Over the past
5 years farmers, municipalities and governments and
their agencies have made significant progress.
Ontario Nutrient Management Planning (NMP)
software (NMAN) is available to farmers and
consultants wishing to develop/assist with the
development of nutrient management plans.
In June 2002 Ontario introduced legislation for
(Nutrient Management Act (NM Act) to
establish province-wide standards (currently under
development) to ensure that all land applied
materials will be managed in a sustainable manner
resulting in environmental and water quality
protection. It will supercede existing regulatory
provisions (municipal bylaws), guidelines and
voluntary best management practices. It is anticipated
that the NM Act will require standardization,
reporting and updating of nutrient management
plans through a nutrient management plan registry.
To promote a greater degree of consistency in by-law
development Ontario developed a model nutrient
management by-law for municipalities. Prior to the
NM Act, municipalities enforced each nutrient
management by-law by inspections performed by
employees of the municipality or others under
authority of the municipality.
Two U.S. programs dealing with agriculture nutrient
management are the Environmental
Quality Incentive Program's (EQIP) Comprehensive
Nutrient Management Plans (CNMP) developed by
USDA and the proposed Permit Nutrient Plans (PNP)
under the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA)
National Pollution Discharge Elimination System
permit requirements. State's in the US also have
additional nutrient management programs. An
agreement between the US EPA and USDA under the
Clean Water Action plan called for a Unified National
Strategy for Animal Feeding Operations.
The total number of nutrient management plans that
are developed annually is shown in Figure 1 for the
U.S. portion of the Basin. Figure 2 shows the number
of Nutrient Management Plans by Ontario County
for the years 1998 - 2000. Until Nutrient
Management regulations are put into place in
Ontario Nutrient Management Plans (NMP) continue
to be done on a voluntary basis except where
municipal by-laws require them to be completed.
Nutrient Management Plans are not currently
tracked except where required by the municipality.
There are similarities and differences between
municipal nutrient management bylaws that reflect
local concerns yet highlight the need for
standardization. Such standardization will be a part
of the regulation development process in Ontario's
Nutrient Management Act.
137
-------
IMPLEMENTING INDICATORS 2003
A TECHNICAL REPORT
CH US Great Lakes Watershed
I | States
Acres of Systems
I 1 0-1,500
I I 1,00-5,000
I I 5,000-10,000
EH 12,000-25,000
Figure 1. Annual U.S. nutrient management systems planned forthe 2001 fiscal year.
Source: USDA, NRCS, Performance and Results Measurement System
In the United States basin the CNMP's are tracked on
an annual basis due to the rapid changes in farming
operations. This does not allow for an estimate of the
total number of CNMP's. EPA will be tracking PNP as
part of the Status's NPDES program.
Having a completed a NMP provides assurance
farmers are considering the environmental
implications of their management decisions. The
more plans in place the better. In the future there may
be a way to grade plans by impacts on the ecosystem.
The first year in which this information is collected
will serve as the base line year.
Future Pressures
As livestock operations consolidate in number and
increase in size in the basin planning efforts will need
to keep pace with the planning workload and
changes in water and air quality standards and
technology. Consultations regarding the provincial
and U.S. standards and regulations will continue into
the near future.
Future Actions
The new Nutrient Management Act authorizes the
establishment and phasing in of province-wide
standards for the management of materials containing
nutrients and sets out requirements and
responsibilities for farmers, municipalities and
others in the business of managing nutrients. It is
anticipated that the regulations under this act will
establish a computerized NMP registry; a tool that
will track nutrient management plans put into place.
This tool could form a part of the future "evaluation
138
-------
IMPLEMENTING INDICATORS 2003
A TECHNICAL REPORT
CO.
•
f ,-
£
"5
1 20
10
.• 1
1998
1999
^S
j*fL _n
200C
rjJl S^_
Total
Year
• Bruce • Elgin •Huron •Lambton • Middlesex
HOxford •Perth HDundas DLennox SAddmgton ONiagara
: Northumberland D Peterborough BPrescott • GRAND TOTALS
Figure2. Nutrient management plans by Ontario
Counties, 1998-2000.
Source:
tool box" for nutrient management plans in place in
Ontario. The phasing in requirements of province-
wide standards for nutrient management planning
in Ontario and the eventual adoption over time of
more sustainable farm practices should allow for
ecosystem recovery with time.
In the U.S. USDA's Natural Resources Conservation
Service formed a team to revise its Nutrient
Management Policy. The final policy was issued in
the Federal Register in 1999. In December 2000, USDA
published its Comprehensive Nutrient Management
Planning Technical Guidance (CNMP Guidance) to
identify management activities and conservation
practices that will minimize the adverse impacts of
animal feeding operations on water quality. The
CNMP Guidance is a technical guidance document
and does not establish regulatory requirements for
local, tribal, State, or Federal programs. PNPs are
complementary to and leverage the technical
expertise of USDA with its CNMP Guidance. EPA is
proposing that CAFOs, covered by the effluent
guideline, develop and implement a PNP.
Acknowledgments
Authors: Ruth Shaffer, Water Quality Specialist, USDA-Natural Resources
Conservation Service, ruth.shaffer@mi.usda.gov, and Roger Nanney,
Resource Conservationist, USDA, NRCS, Roger.Nanney@in.usda.gov, Peter A.
Roberts, Agriculture and Rural Division, Environmental Management Specialist-
Water Management, peter.roberts@omaf.gov.on.caand Jean Rudichuk, OM AF,
Guelph, Ontario.
Integrated Pest Management (sample
report)
New Indicator
Purpose
A goal for agriculture is to become more sustainable
through the adoption of more nonpolluting, energy
efficient technologies and best management practices
for efficient and high quality food production. This
indicator reports the adoption of Integrated Pest
Management (IPM) practices and the effects IPM has
toward preventing surface and groundwater
contamination in the Great Lakes Basin. This
indicator reports at least 2 basic things:
1. Measurement of the acres of agricultural pest
management planned for field crops, to reduce
adverse impacts on plant growth, crop
production and environmental resources.
2. Reporting the results of a questionnaire/course
evaluation administered to farmers in Ontario
by the University of Guelph (Ridgetown
College) / Ministry's of Environment and
Energy who have attended the Ontario
Pesticide Training and Education Program
Grower Pesticide Safety Course.
Ecosystem Objective
This indicator supports Article VI (e (l,viii) Programs
and other Measures (Pollution from Agriculture)
Annex 1, 2, 3,11,12 and 13 of the GLWQA. The
objective is the sound use and management of soil,
water air, plants and animal resources to prevent
degradation. Pest Management is controlling
organisms that cause damage or annoyance.
Integrated pest management is utilizing
environmentally sensitive prevention, avoidance,
monitoring and suppression strategies to manage
weeds, insects, diseases, animals and other organisms
(including invasive and non-invasive species) that
directly or indirectly cause damage or annoyance.
Environmental risks of pest management must be
evaluated for all resource concerns identified in the
conservation planning process, including the negative
impacts of pesticides in ground and surface water on
humans and non-target plants and animals. The pest
management component of the conservation plan
must be designed to minimize negative impacts of
pest control on all identified resource concerns.
139
-------
IMPLEMENTING INDICATORS 2003
A TECHNICAL REPORT
State of the Ecosystem
Agriculture accounts for approximately 35% of the
land area of the Great Lakes basin for example, and
dominates the southern portion of the basin.
Although field crops such as corn and soybeans
comprise the most crop acreage, the basin also
supports a wide diversity of specialty crops. The mild
climate created by the Great Lakes allows production
of a variety of vegetable and fruit crops. These
include tomatoes (for both the fresh and canning
markets), cucumbers, onions and pumpkins. Orchard
crops such as cherries, peaches and apples are
economically important commodities in the region,
along with grape production for juice or wine. These
agricultural commodities are major users of
pesticides.
Research has found that reliance on pesticides in
agriculture is significant and that it would be
impossible to abandon their use in the short term.
Most consumers want to be able to purchase
inexpensive yet wholesome food. Currently, other
than organic production, there is no replacement
system readily available at a reasonable price for
consumers, and at a lesser cost to farmers that can be
brought to market without pesticides.
With continued application of pesticides in the Great
Lakes basin, non-point source pollution of nearshore
wetlands and the effects on fish and wildlife is a
concern. Unlike point sources of contamination such
as at the outlet of an effluent pipe, nonpoint sources
are more difficult to define. An estimated 21 million
kg of pesticides are used annually on agricultural
crops in the Canadian and American Great Lakes
Watershed (GAO 1993). Herbicides account for about
75% of this. These pesticides are frequently
transported via sediment, ground or surface water
flow from agricultural land into the aquatic
ecosystem. With mounting concerns and evidence of
the effects of certain pesticides on wildlife and human
health it is crucial that we determine the occurrence
and fate of agricultural pesticides in sediments,
aquatic and terrestrial life found in the Great Lakes.
Atrazine and metolachlor were measured in
precipitation at nine sites in the Canadian Great Lakes
Basin in 1995. Both were detected regularly at all nine
sites. The detection of some pesticides at sites where
they were not used provides evidence of atmospheric
transport of pesticides in this region.
Cultural controls (such as crop rotation and
sanitation of infested crop residues), biological
controls, and plant selection and breeding for
resistant crop cultivars have always been an integral
part of agricultural IPM. Such practices were very
important and widely used prior to the advent of
synthetic organic pesticides; indeed, many of these
practices are still used today as components of pest
management programs. However, the great success
of modern pesticides has resulted in their use as the
dominant pest control practice for the past several
decades, especially since the 1950s. Newer pesticides
are generally more water soluble, less strongly
adsorbed to particulate matter, and less persistent in
both the terrestrial and aquatic environments than
the older contaminants but have still been found in
precipitation at many sites.
The Ontario Pesticides Education Program provides
farmers with training and certification through a
pesticide safety course (Fig. 1). The USDA Natural
Resources Conservation Service reported that pest
management practices were planned for 201,042 acres
of cropland in the U.S. Great Lakes basin for Fiscal
Year 2001 (Fig.2).
Future Pressures
Pest management practices may be compromised by
changing land use and development pressures
(including higher taxes); flooding or seasonal
drought; and lack of long-term financial incentives for
adoption of environmentally friendly practices. In
order for pest management to be successful, pest
managers must shift from practices focusing on
II do this now a I pi an to do this now •! would do anyway •! do not plan to do this a No Comment
Figure 1. Grower pesticide safety course evaluation
results, 2000-2001.
Source: Ontario Ministry of Agriculture & Food and the University of
Guelph
140
-------
IMPLEMENTING INDICATORS 2003
A TECHNICAL REPORT
I ] US Great Lakes Watershed
I—'. States
Acres of Systems
BO-1,500
1,00-5,000
5,000-10,000
12,000-25,000
Figure 2. Annual U.S. nutrient management
systems planned for the 2001 fiscal year.
Source: USDA, NRCS, Performance and Results Measurement System
purchased inputs and broad-spectrum pesticides to
those using knowledge about ecological processes.
Future pest management will be more knowledge
intensive and focus on more than the use of
pesticides. The public sector, university Cooperative
Extension programs and partnerships with grower
organizations are an important source for pest
management information, and dissemination,
especially considering that the public sector is more
likely to do the underlying research. However, there
is significant need for private independent pest
management consultants to provide technical
assistance to the farmer.
Future Actions
All phases of agricultural pest management, from
research to field implementation, are evolving from
its current product-based orientation to one that is
based on ecological principles and processes. Such
pest management practices will rely more on an
understanding of the biological interactions that
occur within every crop environment, and the
knowledge of how to manage the cropping systems to
the detriment of pests. The optimum results would
include fewer purchased inputs (and therefore a more
sustainable agriculture), as well as fewer of the
human and environmental hazards posed by the
broad spectrum pesticides so widely used today.
Although pesticides will continue to be a component
of pest management, the following are significant
obstacles to the continued use of broad-spectrum
pesticides: pest resistance to pesticides; fewer new
pesticides; pesticide-induced pest problems; lack of
effective pesticides; and human and environmental
health concerns.
Based upon these issues facing pesticide use, it is
necessary to start planning now in order to be less
reliant on broad-spectrum pesticides in the future.
Society is requiring that agriculture become more
environmentally responsible through such things as
the adoption of Integrated Pest Management. This
will require effective evaluations of existing policies
and implementing programs for areas such as
Integrated Pest Management. To reflect these
demands there is a need to further develop this
indicator. These types of future activities could assist
with this process.
• Indicate and track future adoption trends of
IPM best management practices
• Further evaluate the success of the Ontario
Pesticide Training Course by such as adding
survey questions regarding IPM principles/
practices to course evaluation materials.
• Evaluate the number of farmers/vendors
certified, attending and failing the Ontario Pest
Education Program.
• Analyze rural water quality data for levels of
pesticide residues.
Note: Grower pesticide certification is mandatory by
Ontario law and applies to individual
farms as well as custom applicators.
Acknowledgments
Authors: Ruth Shaffer, Water Quality Specialist, USDA-Natural Resources
Conservation Service, ruth.shaffer@mi.usda.gov, and Roger Nanney,
Resource Conservationist, USDA, NRCS, Roger.Nanney@in.usda.gov, Peter
A. Roberts, Agriculture and Rural Division, Environmental Management
Specialist-Water Management, peter.roberts@omaf.gov.on.ca and Jean
Rudichuk, OMAF, Guelph, Ontario.
141
-------
IMPLEMENTING INDICATORS 2003
A TECHNICAL REPORT
2.3 GROUNDWATER INIDCATORS
Base Flow Due to Groundwater Discharge
(sample report)
New Indicator
Purpose
This indicator measures the contribution of base flow
due to groundwater discharge to total stream flow by
sub-watershed and is used to detect the impacts of
anthropogenic factors on the quantity of the
groundwater resource. Through most of the year, base
flow forms only a proportion of streamflow, but in
periods of drought it may represent nearly 100%,
allowing the stream to continue to flow when
precipitation recharge is insufficient.
Ecosystem Objective
The goal for the base flow indicator is to be able to
maintain in-stream conditions and aquatic habitat
with natural base flow rates, without being
compromised by human actions. Increasing
withdrawals of groundwater due to population and
industry expansion affect the amount of discharge
entering streams, as water is diverted away from its
natural course. Groundwater recharge may also be
reduced due to hardening and compaction of the
ground surface as paved surfaces are extended.
Figure 1. Base flow index based on geology.
Source: Piggott ef al., 2002
State of the Ecosystem
The Base Flow Index (BFI), a measure of the rate of
groundwater discharge relative to streamflow, may be
calculated from stream hydrographs. The BFI
indicates the percentage of streamflow that originated
as groundwater. The groundwater contribution is
dependant on several factors, including overburden
and bedrock composition, and slope of the land
surface.
The contribution of groundwater as base flow to the
streamflow of rivers has been estimated to be about
40% across the Great Lakes basin. Calculations for
base flow in Southern Ontario have estimated that
groundwater contributes between 12 and 77% to the
streamflow in local watersheds. Figure 1 illustrates
the distribution of base flow index, due mainly to
local geologic influences. Other estimates, taken from
actual streamflow gauges show similar predictions in
Figure 2.
In the U.S., estimates have placed direct groundwater
contributions highest in the Lake Michigan drainage
area, at about 2,700ft3/s. This is due mainly to the
large number of sand and gravel aquifers located on,
or close to the shoreline. Lake Michigan's streams also
contribute the highest percentage of groundwater to
the lakes, making up almost 80% of the streamflow.
Figure 3 illustrates the base flow contribution for the
entire basin, from the lowest to Lake Erie, at 48%, and
highest to Lake Michigan, at 79%.
Future Pressures
Recent predictions have suggested that climate
change could significantly impact groundwater
resources of the Great Lakes. Changes in temperature
and precipitation may impact total annual base flow
and the distribution of this flow. For example, two
different scenarios describing the climate of western
southern Ontario at the end of this century result in a
projected decrease in total annual base flow of 19
percent for the first scenario versus an increase of 3
percent for the second scenario. Projections based on
the two scenarios suggest a consistent change in the
annual distribution of this flow, with increased flow
during the winter and decreased flow during the
spring and early summer.
142
-------
IMPLEMENTING INDICATORS 2003
A TECHNICAL REPORT
EXPLANATION
Average groundwater component of
streamflow, in percent
1 20 to 39
40 to 59
60 to 79
80 to 99
M ' ',tfW
*
Average groundwater and surface runoff
components of streamflow, in percent
Figure 3. Base flow component of streamflow.
Source: Grannemann etal., 2000
Figure 2. Base flow index calculated from stream
gauge measurements.
Source: Piggott et al., 2001
Future Action
Environment Canada and the Michigan District of the
USGS are currently conducting an assessment of the
contribution of groundwater discharge to stream flow
within the Great Lakes basin. The study will involve
the selection of a single method for the calculation of
base flow due to groundwater discharge from stream
flow information and the application of this method
to data for gauged, near-natural United States and
Canadian tributaries to the Great Lakes. Relations of
the findings for these watersheds to characteristics of
the landscape will enable discharge to be estimated
for ungauged portions of the basin. Results of the
assessment will provide a more complete description
of the contribution of groundwater to the Great Lakes
ecosystem and will be used by numerous agencies
and stakeholder groups as a basis for land and water
use planning.
Further Work Necessary
Research on the interactions of groundwater and
surface water is sorely lacking at the moment. The
1999-2001 Priorities report to the IJC recommended
further research on groundwater discharge to surface
143
-------
IMPLEMENTING INDICATORS 2003
A TECHNICAL REPORT
water streams, and the estimation of natural
recharge areas. In addition, research into the effects of
climate change on groundwater and base flow
contribution needs to be addressed, as the effects of
climate change on the hydrology of the Great Lakes
basin are uncertain. Although the Canadian and U.S.
governments are starting to look at these areas,
contributions from academia and the private sector
could help address this priority.
Acknowledgments
Authors: Cheryl Martin, International Joint Commission, Windsor, ON and
Andrew
Piggott, Canadian Centre for Inland Waters, Burlington, ON.
Sources
This indicator was prepared using information from:
Piggott, A., D. Brown and S. Moin. 2002. Calculating a groundwater legend for
existing geological mapping data, N WRI Contribution Number 02-016 and
accepted for publication in Proceedings of the 55th Canadian Geotechnical and
3rd Joint IAH-CNC and CGS Groundwater Specialty Conferences, Canadian
Geotechnical Society and the Canadian National Chapter of the International
Association of Hydrogeologists.
Piggott, A., D. Brown, B. Mills and S. Moin. 2001. Exploring the dynamics of
groundwater and climate interaction, in Proceedings of the 54th Canadian
Geotechnical and 2nd Joint IAH-CNC and CGS Groundwater Specialty
Conferences, pp. 401-408, Canadian Geotechnical Society and the Canadian
National Chapter of the International Association of Hydrogeologists.
Grannemann, N.G., Hunt, R.J., Nicholas, J.R., Reilly I.E. and T.C. Winter. 2000. The
Importance of Groundwater in the Great Lakes Region. USGS Water-Resources
Investigations Report 00-4008.
Natural Groundwater Quality and
Human-Induced Changes (sample report)
New Indicator
Purpose
This indicator will assess the quality of groundwater
for drinking water and agricultural purposes, and for
ecosystem functions. The consumption of
Groundwater that is degraded in quality may lead to
both animal and human health effects. This indicator
may also reveal areas where contamination is
occurring, and where programs for remediation and
prevention of non-point contamination should be
focused.
Ecosystem Objective
Protection and maintenance of groundwater sources
to meet Canadian and U.S. drinking water standards
is necessary to ensure a safe supply for all. Although
some groundwater supplies within the basin are
already contaminated, either by human activities or
through natural processes, it is hoped the quality will
remain at, or approach, natural conditions.
State of the Ecosystem
The quality of groundwater in the Great Lakes basin
is varied, ranging from excellent to poor quality and
unfit for consumption. Differences may be dependant
on natural factors, such as bedrock, or overburden
composition, or influenced by human activities. Land-
use practices such as agriculture, urban living and
industry have unique imprints on local groundwater
supplies, such that water quality testing should reflect
those activities taking place locally.
Several areas in the Great Lakes basin contain
groundwater that naturally exceeds drinking water
guidelines for substances such as arsenic and radon.
Figurel illustrates areas in the U.S. that have arsenic-
contaminated groundwater. Areas of the Great Lakes
such as the western sides of Lake Michigan and Lake
St Clair contain groundwater that exceeds the current
EPA limit of 50ug/L. It is expected that the number of
exceedances will rise considerably once the new
arsenic guideline of lOmg/L becomes effective
January 23, 2006.
Groundwater contamination has been shown to be
most prevalent in shallow groundwater less than
100 feet below agricultural and urban areas. In a
144
-------
IMPLEMENTING INDICATORS 2003
A TECHNICAL REPORT
Concentration of arsenic
* At least 50 ng/L
A10-50
5-10
Hawaii£>
Figure 1. Concentrations of arsenic found in groundwaterof the United States.
Source: USGS
survey of Ontario's rural groundwater quality in
1992, 36% of the 1292 wells tested exceeded the
Maximum Allowable Concentration for coliform
bacteria. In May 2000, an episode of groundwater
contamination with coliform bacteria, specifically
E.coli from a feedlot, resulted in the deaths of 7
Walkerton, Ontario residents and illness in over 2000
others. In the same Ontario survey, 14% of the farm
wells had samples that exceeded the drinking water
objective for nitrates. Contamination of drinking
water with levels of nitrates above the objective of
lOmg/L can lead to methemoglobinemia, or "blue
baby syndrome" in infants under six months of age.
Although not as common, pesticides may also leach
into soil, causing groundwater contamination. Figure
2 shows atrazine contamination of groundwaters in
Wisconsin, in relation to bedrock composition. The
biggest concern with estitide contamination is that
the majority of pesticides and their breakdown
products do not have a determined MACL or limit
above which human life is threatened by
consumption of contaminated waters. Trends in
rural and agriculturally influenced groundwater
indicate that nitrate levels are stable, but that
bacterial contamination is increasing. Relative to
bacterial levels determined in 1950 to 1954, the 1992
Ontario survey indicated a 45% increase in
contaminated rural groundwater. Urban areas are
subject to different types of groundwater
contamination. Salts used for de-icing roads,
airplanes and runways have been found at extremely
high levels in the groundwater of the Greater Toronto
Area, in the range of 10 to 60 times as high as natural
concentration. More than 11 million tons of salt are
applied to roads in the Unites States annually, while,
approximately 25-50% of this salt is leached into
groundwater. Other sources of contamination include
leaking underground storage tanks, chemical spills,
lawn fertilizers and improperly disposed waste
products.
Future Pressures on the Ecosystem
As population grows and urban areas continue to
expand into agricultural lands, pressure on the
groundwater supply will increase. Intensification of
agriculture will only amplify this pressure, and
increasing the chance of contamination. Additionally,
the effects of climate change on groundwater
145
-------
IMPLEMENTING INDICATORS 2003
A TECHNICAL REPORT
45'
44
25 50 miles f. •
—•-i ' \T
0 25 50 kilometers
EXPLANATION
Atrazine plus
deethylatrazine,
in iig/L
< Detection limit
>Detection limit
and <0.30
- 0.03-3.0
• >3.0
Surficial depost/
bedrock deposit
n Sand and clay
5 surficial deposits
- Sand and Gravel
surficial deposits
Figure 2. Atrazine concentrations found in shallow
groundwater. Highest concentrations found in
areas with the most permeable surficial deposits.
Source: USGS Circular 1156,1998.
resources in the Great Lakes basin are presently
unknown, but it is suggested that resources will
decrease, and thus concentrating any contamination
already present.
Future Action
The implementation of Best Management Practices
and other nutrient and pesticide control plans in
farms will help to educate farmers about the potential
health hazards and economic benefits to be gained
from groundwater protection. Groundwater
protection plans should be required for all municipal
groundwater users.
Further Work Necessary
Studies on groundwater in the Great Lakes are not
adequate to determine the quality of our
Groundwater. Study and research is needed to
determine the current state of the supply, and to
estimate future impacts related to growth and climate
change. Also, drinking water standards and water
quality data must be standardized across the two
countries.
Acknowledgments
Author: Cheryl Martin, International Joint Commission, Windsor.
Sources
This indicator was prepared using information from:
Rudolph, D and M. Goss, 1993. Ontario Farm Groundwater Quality Survey. For
Agriculture Canada.
USGS Circular 1156.1998. Water Quality in the Western Lake Michigan
Drainages, Wisconsin and Michigan, 1992-1995.
USGS and National Water Quality Assessment publication, Arsenic in
Groundwater of the U.S.
Water Use and Intensity (sample report)
New Indicator
Purpose
This indicator measures water use and intensity
within political sub-divisions and is used to infer the
potential impacts of these practices on the quantity
and quality of the groundwater resource. The
indicator also measures supply versus demand issues
by assessing the reconstruction of water wells.
Ecosystem Objective
Some areas of the Great Lakes basin are experiencing
population growth, and while increasing their
groundwater withdrawals, are stressing the supply.
Use of the groundwater resource should not lessen
the supply of groundwater, and be managed
effectively within the available sustainable supply.
State of the Ecosystem
Water use is measured for the primary use of
groundwater withdrawals from all constructed water
wells, and water use intensity as the quantity of
withdrawals from these wells in a specified time
interval (e.g. m3/day). During the period from 1950 to
1980, the total withdrawal of surface water and
ground water in the U.S. continually increased,
however, after 1980 water withdrawals declined and
have remained fairly constant. In 1995, total
groundwater withdrawals for the United States were
77,500 Mgal/day.
As shown in Figure 1, water use along the shorelines
of the Great Lakes is mainly from surface water.
Groundwater use becomes more important the
farther away the community is from the Great Lakes.
Urban areas such as Kitchener and Waterloo, Ontario
rely on groundwater to supplement the limited
146
-------
IMPLEMENTING INDICATORS 2003
A TECHNICAL REPORT
h
*te /,-V
-fc ; .) k , .' 1l -'. . . S ^Sfc,
, o. • r- •.,- -» &/, i »//, ^
•:. \> <•'•' * ? J%i 'JyatfSf
'
Figure *\. Percentage of surface and groundwater
use in Southern Ontario watersheds.
Source: Environment Canada, Water Use and Supply Project
I Public Supply D Commercial n Irrigation
I Industrial D Mining • Domestic
D Livestock
D Thermoelectric
Figure 2. Percentage of groundwater use by sector
for Michigan, 1995.
Adapted from: Solley ef al., 1998
amount of water they can remove from surface water
sources like the Grand River. Some States within the
Great Lakes basin rely heavily on groundwater, with
about half of all Michigan cities and townships
relying on private and city wells for their supply.
Water Use is divided into different sectors, such as
domestic, industrial and commercial, to show how
much water, especially groundwater, is used in each.
Significant differences in water use between Michigan
(Figure 2) and Wisconsin (Figure 3) are seen in the
areas of domestic, irrigational and industrial supply.
These differences result from differences in land use,
as Michigan has a greater industrial sector and
several densely populated areas, while Wisconsin
relies more on agricultural practices. Rural areas
often use more groundwater per capita than urban
areas, as they are often farther from surface water
sources and lack the necessary water distribution
networks.
Other differences in groundwater use may result from
changing seasons. For example, municipal water use
is relatively constant, while the use of water for
irrigation is episodic. Consumptive water use, such as
irrigation, can result in diminished base flows and
impacts on downstream water supplies and aquatic
habitat.
Recent summers in the Great Lakes region have seen
lower than average amounts of rainfall and record
temperatures, resulting in a sharp decline in the
amount of water replenishing some underground
wells. Consequently, some well owners have had to
dig deeper to restore well yield and/or quality, while
others have had to dig entirely new wells. Wells
showing a decrease in supply may be affected by
climatic factors or adjacent land or water use, an
increased demand at the well, and variations in the
quality of the supply or the quality requirements of
the demand. Figure 4 illustrates how groundwater
supply and recharge may be changed when demand
exceeds supply. Withdrawals in the Chicago area
have reduced the water level and moved the
groundwater divide over 50 miles in some areas,
drastically changing flow patterns.
Future Pressures
Population growth and urban sprawl continue to
place pressure on the groundwater supply. Water
distribution networks do not exist in new
developments, and they are expensive to build, so
new residents often tap into the groundwater, which
may affect current users of the supply. It has been
predicted that climate change will affect the recharge
of groundwater, with increases in winter recharge and
decreases in summer. It is not known how these
changes will affect the available supply.
Further Action
The effects of groundwater withdrawals on the
hydrologic cycle can only be examined if
there is an understanding about the interaction of
groundwater and surface water. Thus, studies are
needed to quantify and describe this relationship,
especially in the Great Lakes basin. Additionally,
147
-------
IMPLEMENTING INDICATORS 2003
A TECHNICAL REPORT
I Public Supply Uncommercial D Irrigation • Livestock
• Industrial DMining •Domestic D Thermoelectric
Figure 3. Percentage of groundwater use by sector
forWisconsin, 1995.
Adapted from: Solley ef al., 1998
Figure 4. Changes to groundwater in the Chicago
area, 1864-1980.
Source: Grannemann ef al., 2000
public supply systems need to realize the value of
demand management of groundwater resources,
rather that the old standard of supply management.
Because our supplies are limited, it only makes sense
to control our water use by reducing our withdrawals
and lessening the impacts. By using water saving
devices and charging less for water used during non-
peak time periods, we can reduce or water use by up
to 35 percent.
Acknowledgments
Authors: Cheryl Martin, International Joint Commission, Windsor, ON and
Andrew
Piggott, Canadian Centre for Inland Waters, Burlington, ON.
Sources
This indicator was prepared using information from:
Environment Canada, Water Use and Supply Project. Communication with Wendy
Leger.
Grannemann, N.G., Hunt, R.J., Nicholas, J.R., Reilly T.E. and T.C. Winter. 2000. The
Importance of Groundwater in the Great Lakes Region. USGS Water-Resources
Investigations
Report 00-4008.
Solley, W.B., Pierce, R.R. and H.A. Perlman. 1998. Estimated use of water in the
United States in 1995. USGS Circular 1200.
148
-------
IMPLEMENTING INDICATORS 2003
A TECHNICAL REPORT
2.4 OTHER PROPOSED INDICATORS
Contaminants in Whole Fish (sample
report)
Indicator ID: #121
Purpose
Annual or biennial analysis of contaminant burdens
in representative fish species from throughout the
Great Lakes provides data to describe temporal and
spatial trends of bioavailable contaminants which
are a measure of both the effectiveness of remedial
actions related to the management of critical
pollutants and an indicator of emerging problems.
Ecosystem Objective
Great Lakes waters should be free of toxic substances
that are harmful to fish and wildlife populations and
the consumers of these biota. Data on status and
trends of contaminant conditions, using fish as
biological indicators, supports the requirements of
GLWQA Annexes 1, (Specific Objectives) 2,
(Lakewide Management Plans/Remedial Action
Plans) 11, Surveillance & Monitoring and Annex 12,
Persistent Toxic Substances.
State of the Ecosystem
Long-term (>25 yrs), basin wide monitoring programs
measuring whole body levels of a variety of
contaminants in top predator lake trout or walleye
and forage fish species (i.e. smelt) have provided
temporal and spatial trend data on bioavailable toxic
substances in the Great Lakes aquatic ecosystem. The
Canadian Department of Fisheries and Oceans
measures contaminant burdens annually in similarly
aged fish, and the U.S.Environmental Protection
Agency measures contaminant burdens annually in
similarly sized fish. Since the late 1970's levels of
historically regulated contaminants such as PCBs,
DDT and Hg have generally declined in most fish
species monitored. Some other contaminants, both
currently regulated and unregulated, have
demonstrated either slowing declines or, in some
cases, increases in selected fish communities. The
changes are often lake specific and relate both to the
specific characteristics of the substances involved and
the biological condition of the fish community
surveyed.
Trends:
Lake Ontario: PCB and EDDT levels in lake trout have
declined consistently through 2001 (Fig. 1, 2, 3, 4).
Levels of both PCBs and EDDT in smelt samples have
declined significantly through 2001 since the most
recent peak in 1997 (Figs. 5 & 6). Concentrations of Hg
in smelt populations have remained virtually
unchanged since 1985 (Fig. 7).
Lake Erie: PCB levels in lake trout (4+ - 6+ age class)
have declined consistently with levels measured in
2001 approximately 16% of those concentrations
found in the same age class from 1993 (Fig. 1). Modest
increases in EDDT levels were observed in 2001 lake
trout samples (4+ - 6+) (Fig. 3). PCB concentrations in
walleye, have continued to increase over the period
1995 to 2001, but recent levels are still ~ 60% of those
measured in similarly aged and/or sized fish in 1992
(Fig. 2, Fig. 8). The Canadian data shows that EDDT
levels in 2001 samples of walleye (4+ - 6+) are 15% of
maximum levels recorded in 1989 soon after the
arrival of zebra mussels in Lake Erie (Fig. 7). U.S. data
shows a similar trend for similarly sized walleye
with 2000 EDDT levels approximately 23% of levels
recorded in 1988 (Fig. 4). Total PCB and EDDT levels
in smelt peaked in 1990 and 1989 respectively (Figs. 5
& 6). Since then concentrations of both contaminants
have steadily declined through 2001. Hg
concentrations in smelt samples have seen a modest
increase in the past 2 years; 2000 and 2001 (Fig. 7).
Lake Huron: The U.S. data shows that PCBs in
similarly sized fish have steadily declined through
2001 (Fig. 2). EDDT in similarly sized fish showed
large declines in the 1970s and 1980s with levels in
the 1990s staying level at concentrations
approximately 18% of 1979 levels (Fig. 4). The
Canadian data shows that for both PCBs and EDDT,
as measured in lake trout (4+ - 6+), concentrations
have declined steadily through 2001 from the most
recent peaks measured in 1993 similarly aged fish
(Figs. 1 & 3). Similarly, most recent peak
concentrations of PCB and EDDT, measured in 1994
and 1993 samples of smelt were followed by a period
of steady decline in concentrations with 2001 levels
the lowest in the past decade (Figs. 5 & 6). Mercury
levels in Lake Huron smelt populations have
remained virtually unchanged since 1985 with 2001
149
-------
IMPLEMENTING INDICATORS 2003
A TECHNICAL REPORT
concentrations <50% of maximum levels measured
throughout a 24-year period (Fig. 7).
Lake Michigan: PCB and EDDT levels in lake trout
have declined consistently through
2000 (Figs. 2 & 4). PCB levels in 2000 lake trout are
approximately 8% of those found in similarly sized
fish in 1974. Current EDDT levels are approximately
5% of concentrations found in similarly sized lake
trout in 1970.
Lake Superior. Total PCB levels in Lake Superior lake
trout are currently fluctuating from year to year and
appear to be leveling off (Figs. 1 & 2). The U.S. lake
trout data demonstrates initial declines in
concentration from the 1970s with a leveling off
starting in the late 1980s with current levels
approximately 30% of maximum levels (Fig. 2). The
Canadian data shows that PCB levels measured in a
specific lake trout age class (4+ - 6+), have fluctuated
significantly over the past 6 years, but 2001
concentrations were ~ 20% of 1993 levels and 10% of
1988 maximum concentrations measured in this same
age class of fish (Fig. 1). The U.S. data for EDDT shows
a similar pattern to its PCB data, with initial declines
in the late 1970s and early 1980s and then a leveling
off in the late 1980s to about 15% of maximum levels
(Fig. 4). The Canadian data shows that EDDT levels
for the 4+ - 6+ age class of lake trout have declined
relatively constantly to a concentration in 2001
samples, which was <20% of a recent maximum
observed in 1993 samples (Fig 3). Apart from an
anomalously high peak (>1.0 Lig/g) measured in
smelt collections from 1988, total PCB levels have
remained virtually unchanged through 2000 at levels
of near 0.02 |jg/g (Fig 5). Over the period 1981 to 2000,
EDDT concentrations observed in smelt populations
have remained unchanged since a significant decline
occurred in 1984 (Fig. 6). An exception was a single
year modest increase seen in 1998 samples. Mercury
concentrations in Lake Superior smelt populations
have exhibited a reasonably steady decline over the
period 1981 through 1999 (Fig 7). There was a 6-year
period, from 1988 through 1993, of increasing
concentrations of Hg but levels measured from 1995
through 1999 were consistently lower.
Toxaphene levels measured in the Lake Superior lake
trout community have either increased slightly or
ceased to decline despite the fact that use of the
compound has either been banned or its use severely
m
2.5
2.0
1.5
PCBs in Lake Superior Lake Trout
n
n
Year
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
fit
PCBs in Lake Huron Lake Trout
On Ik
Year
PCBs in Lake Erie Lake Trout
Year
PCBs in Lake Ontario Lake Trout
Year
Figure 1. Total PCB levels in whole Lake Trout,
1977-2001. Canadian data ug/g wet weight +/- S.E.
age 4+ - 6+ years. Note the different scales between
lakes.
Source: Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada
150
-------
IMPLEMENTING INDICATORS 2003
A TECHNICAL REPORT
PCBs in Lake Superior Lake Trout
Year
PCBs in Lake Huron Lake Trout
1 1 i i I 1
i i i .
Yer
PCBs in Lake Michigan Lake Trout
iii
Year
PCBs in Lake Ontario Lake Trout
PCBs in Lake Erie Walleye
Year
Figure 2. PCB levels in whole Lake Trout, 1977-
2001. ug/g wet weight +/- 95% C.I., composite
samples, 600-700mm size range. Lake Erie data
are for walleye in the 400-500mm size range. Note
the different scales between lakes.
Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
0.5
ul 0.4 T
05 X FT
i L
O)
§ 0.2
0.1
^ N<
DDT in Lake Superior Lake Trout
T
^ , nfip
M
t
* r1!
[*1 [*1 t1!^
1 Illlnlllln
Year
1.5
^10 [*
O)
1 °'5 I1]
o
DDT in Lake Huron Lake Trout
ill1] [*
If
fi
1X1 [^
1*1 fl
UL fln
Year
-'ft
uJ
" 3
5> 2
;l
DDT in Lake Ontario Lake Trout
ft
E
nn
nlnl
i£
Onn nnnnnnn
Year
1.5
^ 1.0
+
f °-5
obi
DDT in Lake Erire Lake Trout
1*1
in
f-, r*i
Year
Figure 3. Total DDT levels in whole Lake Trout,
1977-2001. Canadian data ug/g wet weight +/- S.E.,
age 4* - 6* years. Note the different scales between
lakes.
Source: Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada
151
-------
2.0
3 1-5-1
1 1.0-
| °5
0
3-
1
i 2
Q 1
0
0.7
O) 0.5-
.5 0.4-
Q °3
Q 0.2-
0.1-
0
2.5
5 2.0-
D)
•S 1.5-
g 1°
0.5-
0
IMPLEMENTING INDICATORS 2003
A TECHNICAL REPORT
DDT in Lake Superior Lake Trout
Year
DDT in Lake Huron Lake Trout
n fi n n n n n
Year
DDT in Lake Michigan Lake Trout
Year
DDT in Lake Erie Walleye
Year
DDT in Lake Ontario Lake Trout
Year
Figure 4. DDT found in whole Lake Trout, 1977-2001.
ug/g wet weight +/- 95% C.I., composite samples,
600-700mm size range. Lake Erie data are for
walleye in the 400-500mm size range. Note the
different scales between lakes.
Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
1.5
w
•S>0.5
PCB in Lake Superior Smelt
Year
0.4
.0.3
0.2
PCB in Lake Huron Smelt
n
nn
nUUnU •• rnn
Year
PCB in Lake Ontario Smelt
Year
LLJ
PCB in Lake Erie Smelt
nnnfl
fliiJ
lnnn_
flnn
Year
Figure 5.Total PCB levels in Great Lakes Rainbow
Smelt, 1977-2001. Canadian data ug/g wet weight
+/- S.E., whole fish. Note the different scales
between lakes.
Source: Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada
152
-------
IMPLEMENTING INDICATORS 2003
A TECHNICAL REPORT
1
'"^ 1 — 1
LU
^ 0.05
D)
D)
DDT in Lake Superior Smelt
T
I I 1 _ _
111
n n
nn nn
Year
0.15
n*[
0 05 ^
D)
^ ^
DDT in Lake Huron Smelt
T
Ifc
* i
Ifti rti
n
Year
1.0
CO 0.5
i. £
D)
D)
0
DDT in Lake Ontario Smelt
r if,
\f\
f\ i*
J, r - pi
i£i
,
ft
1 _ J. rE _
Infinpi
Year
0.15
W 0.1 r
CO '
±,
1 0.0= nm
0 ...
DDT in Lake Erie Smelt
ft
nfi if
1 (wi™
Year
0.15
Iri 01° 1
CO
ra
^0.05
111
Mercury in Lake Superior Smelt
fifi
i oLU nn ii
^ / ^ ^ ^ N^ / N^ ^
Year
0.1
LU IT
CO
D)
=1
Mercury in Lake Huron Smelt
n nn r nron
<& <& <$> N
Year
0.15
LlT 0.10
W T
D) 0.05 1
D)
=^-
Mercury in Lake Ontario Smelt
E i
r-i
nnnn nnnn nnn
iinnnn nnnnnn nnnn
Year
0.1
LU
CO
7j>
Mercury in Lake Erie Smelt
}\\ Pfl nn nnnnftn in
Year
Figure 6.Total DDT levels in Great Lakes Rainbow
Smelt, 1977-2001. Canadian data ug/g wet weight
+/- S.E., whole fish. Note the different scales
between lakes.
Source: Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada
Figure 7.Total mercury levels in Great Lakes
Rainbow Smelt, 1977-2001. Canadian data ug/g
wet weight +/- S.E., whole fish. Note the different
scales between lakes.
Source: Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada
153
-------
IMPLEMENTING INDICATORS 2003
A TECHNICAL REPORT
4.0
3.5
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0
PDBs in Lake Erie Walleye
c??
Year
Figure 8. Total PCB levels in Lake Erie Walleye,
1977-2001. Canadian data ug/g wet weight +/- S.E.,
age 4+ - 6+ years.
Source: Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada
1 000
TJ
= 500
945
484
171
1978 1983 1988 1993 1998
Year
Figure 10. PBDE trends in Lake Ontario Lake Trout,
1978-1998. ng/g lipid weight +/- S.E., whole fish,
age 6+ years.
Source: Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada
1.5
DDT in Lake Erie Walleye
1
ft
i
frMllMnll
i
*
fi ^fi
Year
Figure 9. Total DDT levels in Lake Erie Walleye,
1977-2001. Canadian data ug/g wet weight +/- S.E.,
age 4+ - 6+ years.
Source: Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada
restricted within the Great Lakes basin since the
early 1980's (Whittle et al. 2000). Evidence suggests
that declines in the abundance of smelt populations,
subsequent diet shifts by lake trout to more
contaminated lake herring and the increase in
atmospheric deposition may have accounted for the
trend in toxaphene burdens measured in Lake
Superior. Similarly, in Lake Erie after the late 1980's
invasion and proliferation of zebra and quagga
mussels, contaminant levels measured in top predator
walleye did increase for a short period of time. The
influence of exotic dreissenid invaders such as zebra
and quagga mussels, round gobys, Eurasian ruffe or
invertebrate species such Echinogamarus or Cercopagis
is to change the form and function of existing food
webs (Morrison et al, 1998, 2002). This change alters
the food web energy dynamics plus pathways and
fate of contaminants, which in turn can result in shifts
600
500
400
30°
200
100
ERIE HURON
Lake
Figure 11. PBDE levels in Great Lakes Lake Trout,
1997. ng/g lipid weight +/- S.E., whole fish, age 6*
years.
Source: Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada
in bioaccumulation patterns.
Most recently polybrominated diphenyl ethers
(PBDEs) have been detected in Great Lakes fish at
increasing concentrations (Luross, 2002) (Fig. 10).
PBDEs are used in brominated flame retardants,
which are often applied to textiles. Samples of
archived Lake Ontario whole lake trout samples
representing the 2-decade time period from 1978
through 1998 were analysed for PBDEs. Levels
increased from 3 ng/g lipid in 1978 to a maximum
concentration of 945 ng/g lipid weight in 1998. The
spatial trend of PBDEs as measured in lake trout
across the Great Lakes basin, indicates that while
Lake Ontario fish have the highest concentrations
(Fig. 11), Lake Superior lake trout of the same age
class, (6+), have the next highest concentration (DFO-
unpublished data).
154
-------
IMPLEMENTING INDICATORS 2003
A TECHNICAL REPORT
Future Pressures
Probably one of the most immediate pressures
impacting on contaminant dynamics in the Great
Lakes relates to the increasing proliferation of exotic
nuisance species. Their increasing presence has
altered both fish community composition and food
web energy flows. Thus subsequent changes to
pathways and fate of contaminants has resulted in
altered bioaccumulation rates in portions of fish
communities as evidenced by recent spikes in
contaminant burdens. Alterations to the forage base
of fish communities have resulted in diet shifts and in
some cases, the consumption of a more contaminated
prey, which produces elevated body burdens of
contaminants. Other pressures relate to the issue of
climate change, which includes a warming trend. This
change in the thermal regime of the Great Lakes will
directly influence the thermodynamics of
contaminants and alter bioaccumulation rates.
Associated changes in water levels, critical habitat
availability and aquatic ecosystem reproductive
success will all be future factors influencing
contaminant trends in the Great Lakes.
Luross, J.M., A. Alaee, D.B. Sergeant, CM. Cannon, D.M. Whittle, K.R. Solomon,
D.C.G.Muir. 2002. Spatial distribution of polybrominated diphenyl ethers and
polybrominated biphenyls in lake trout from the Laurentian Great Lakes.
Chemosphere 46 (665-672).
Morrison, H.A., F.A.P.C. Gobas, R. Lazar, D.M. Whittle and G.D. Haffner. 1998.
Projected Changes to the Trophodynamics of PCBs in the Western Lake Erie
Ecosystem Attributed to the Presence of Zebra Mussels (Dreissena polymorpha).
Environ. Sci. Tech. 32, 3862-3867.
Morrison, H.A., D.M. Whittle, and G.D. Haffner. 2002. Acomparison of the
transport and
fate of PCBs in three Great Lakes food webs. Environ. Toxicol and Chem. 21:683-
692.
Morrison, H.A., D.M. Whittle and G.D. Haffner. 2000. The Relative Importance of
Species Invasions and Sediment Disturbance in Regulating Chemical Dynamics in
Western Lake Erie. Ecological Modelling 125: 279-294.
Whittle, D.M., R.M. Kiriluk, A.A. Carswell, M.J. Keir and D.C. MacEachen. 2000.
Toxaphene Congeners in the Canadian Great Lakes basin: Temporal and Spatial
Food Web Dynamics. Chemosphere (40) 1221-1226.
Further Work Necessary
Future contaminant monitoring studies on the Great
Lakes should include more detailed examination of
contaminant levels and dynamics in aquatic food
webs. These data could be utilized to further develop
predictive models to understand the potential
changes to contaminant fate and pathways together
with alterations in energy flow. If there is a more
complete comprehension of possible future scenarios
related to changes in environmental conditions and
contaminant impacts, there is the potential to develop
compensatory management strategies for both
remediation of contaminated ecosystems plus the
utilization of existing fish stocks for both recreational
and commercial harvest.
Acknowledgments
D. Mike Whittle, M.J. Keir, and A.A. Carswell, Department of Fisheries &
Oceans, Great Lakes Laboratory for Fisheries & Aquatic Sciences, Burlington,
ON and Sandra Hellman, USEPA-Great Lakes National Program Office,
Chicago, IL, hellman.sandra@epa.gov.
Sources
Department of Fisheries & Oceans, 2002. Great Lakes Laboratory for Fisheries and
Aquatic Sciences, Ultra-trace Analytical Laboratory, (unpublished data)
DeVault, D.S., R. Hesselberg, P.W. Rodgers and T.J. Feist. 1996. Contaminant
Trends in Lake Trout and Walleye From the Laurentian Great Lakes. /. Great Lakes
Res. 22(4) 884-895.
155
-------
IMPLEMENTING INDICATORS 2003
A TECHNICAL REPORT
Status of Lake Sturgeon in the Great
Lakes (sample report)
New Indicator
Purpose
Historically, lake sturgeon were abundant in the Great
Lakes and the waterways that connect them (St.
Mary's, St. Clair, Detroit and St. Lawrence Rivers).
Although once extremely abundant these huge fish
suffered serious population declines in the late 1800s
due to a combination of overexploitation and habitat
degradation. Lake sturgeon numbers declined to
levels requiring state listing as threatened or
endangered in 19 or 20 states in their original range
(Wisconsin is the one exception). Lake sturgeon are
benthic feeding fish that hold a low, but essential,
position in the trophic food web of the Great Lakes.
Lake sturgeon are an important native species that are
listed in the fish community objectives for all Great
Lakes. Many of the Great Lakes states and provinces
are developing lake sturgeon management plans
calling for the need to inventory, protect and restore
the species to greater levels of abundance.
Ecosystem Objective
While overexploitation removed millions of adult
fish, habitat degradation and alteration eliminated
traditional spawning grounds. Currently work is
underway by state, federal, tribal, provincial and
private groups to document active spawning sites
and determine the genetics of remnant Great Lakes
lake sturgeon populations.
State of the Ecosystem
Lake sturgeon populations are known to be abundant
in the connecting waterways of the Great Lakes.
Efforts are underway by many groups to gather
information on remnant spawning population in the
Great Lakes. Unfortunately, much information is
lacking on the current status of lake sturgeon in the
Great Lakes. Essentially no information exists on
juvenile lake sturgeon (ages 0-2). This is the largest
knowledge gap and possible the biggest impediment
to rehabilitating lake sturgeon population in the Great
Lakes.
on eggs and newly hatched lake sturgeon by non-
native predators may also be a problem. Lack of
knowledge of the genetics of current populations
needs to be addressed. With the collapse of the
Caspian Sea sturgeon populations black market
demand for sturgeon caviar could put tremendous
pressure on Great Lakes lake sturgeon populations.
Future Activities
Work is underway to develop a spiral-stairway
passage device that would pass lake sturgeon around
dams. Work is also being conducted to gather genetic
information on lake sturgeon stocks in the Great
Lakes. Many groups are working to identify current
lake sturgeon spawning locations in the Great Lakes.
Studies are also being initiated to identify habitat
preferences for juvenile lake sturgeon (ages 0-2).
Further Work Necessary
More information is needed to determine ways to get
lake sturgeon past barriers on rivers. More
monitoring is needed to determine the current status
of Great Lakes lake sturgeon populations. More
information is also needed on juvenile lake sturgeon.
More law enforcement is needed to protect large adult
lake sturgeon.
Acknowledgments
Author: Tracy D. Hill, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Alpena FRO, Alpena,
ML
Sources
Auer, Nancy. Lake Sturgeon: A Unique and Imperiled Species in the Great Lakes.
Chapter 17 in Great Lakes Fisheries Policy and Management: ABinational
Perspective.
Future Pressures
Barriers that prevent lake sturgeon from moving into
tributaries to spawn are a major problem. Predation
156
-------
IMPLEMENTING INDICATORS 2003
A TECHNICAL REPORT
External Anomaly Prevalence Index
(EAPI) for Nearshore Fish (sample report)
Indicator ID: #101 (revised)
Purpose
This indicator will assess external anomalies in
nearshore fish. An index will be used to identify areas
where fish are exposed to contaminated sediments
within the Great Lakes. The presence of contaminated
sediments at Areas of Concern (AOCs) has been
correlated with an increase incidence of anomalies in
benthic fish species (brown bullhead and white
suckers), that may be associated with specific groups
of chemicals.
Ecosystem Objective
As a result of clean-up efforts, AOCs that historically
have had a high incidence of fish with external
anomalies currently show fewer abnormalities. Use of
an External Anomaly Prevalence Index (EAPI) based
on prevalent external anomalies will help identify
nearshore areas that have populations of benthic fish
exposed to contaminated sediments and will help
assess the recovery of AOCs following remedial
activities. The objective is to help restoration and
protection of beneficial uses in Areas of Concern or in
open Great Lakes waters, including beneficial use (iv)
Fish tumors or other deformities (GLWQA, Annex 2).
This indicator also supports Annex 12 of the GLWQA.
State of the Ecosystem
Elevated incidence of liver tumors
(histopathologically verified pre-neoplastic or
neoplastic growths) were frequently identified during
the past two decades. These elevated frequencies of
liver tumors have been shown to be useful indicators
of beneficial use impairment of Great Lakes aquatic
habitat. External raised growths (sometimes as
histopatholigically verified tumors on the body and
lips), such as lip papillomas have been a useful
indicator. Raised growths may not have a single
etiology; however, they have been produced
experimentally by direct application of PAH
carcinogens to brown bullhead skin. Field and
laboratory studies have correlated chemical
contaminants found in sediments at some AOCs in
Lake Erie, Michigan, Ontario and Huron with verified
liver and external raised growths. Other external
anomalies may also be used to assess beneficial use
impairment; however, they must be carefully
evaluated. The external anomaly prevalence index
(EAPI) will provide a tool for following trends in fish
population health that can be used by resource
managers and community-based monitoring
programs.
EAP Index - The external anomaly prevalence index
(EAPI) is being developed for mature (>3 years of
age) fish as a marker of both contaminant exposure
and of internal pathology. Brown bullhead has been
used to develop the index. They are the most
frequently used benthic indicator species in the
southern Great Lakes and are been recommended by
the International Joint Commission (IJC) as the key
indicator species (IJC 1989). The most common
external anomalies found in brown bullhead over the
last twenty years from Lake Erie (Figure 1) are:
Gill Fin
2% 3%
Figure 1. External anomalies on brown bullhead
collected from Lake Erie from 1980s through 2000.
BA - barbell abnormality, RG - raised growth
(body and lip), FD - focal discoloration, LE -
lesion (total 4439 fish).
Source:
157
-------
IMPLEMENTING INDICATORS 2003
A TECHNICAL REPORT
180-
160-
140-
120-
100-
80-
60-
40-
20-
0
Detroit River Ottawa River Huron River Old Woman's Black River Cuyahoga Ashtabula Presque Isle
Creek River River Bay
Areas of Concern
I Barbel Abnormality D Raised Growth Body/Lip • Focal Discoloration • Eye Abnormality
Figure 2. Prevalence of four most common external anomalies at Lake Erie areas of concern (AOCs). Huron
River, OH and Old Woman's Creek, OH were used as reference sites.
Source:
1. Abnormal barbels (BA)
2. Focal discoloration (FD)
3. Raised growths (RG)-on the body and/or lips (L)
4. Eye Abnormalities (EYE)-blind in one or both
eyes.
Initial statistical analysis of sediments and external
anomalies at different locations indicates that
alterations in the ratio of the chemical mixtures (PAH,
PCB, OC, metals) are reflected in an alteration of the
comparative prevalence of individual external
anomalies. Impairment determinations should be
based on comparing the prevalence of external
anomalies at potentially contaminated sites with the
prevalence at "reference" (least impacted) sites.
Preliminary data indicates that the prevalence of lip
raised growths (lip papillomas) is >10%, or of overall
external raised growth (body and Lip) >15% in brown
bullhead, that the population should be considered
impaired. The additional use of barbel abnormalities
and focal discoloration (melanistic alterations) will
help to differentiate degrees of impairment of fish
population health. Figure 2 illustrates the
comparison of AOCs with contaminated sediments
to reference conditions at HUR (Huron River) and
OWC (Old Woman Creek) from brown bullhead
collected in 1998-2000.
Future Pressures
As the Great Lakes AOCs and the tributaries continue
to remain in a degraded condition, exposure of the
fish populations to contaminated sediments will
continue to cause elevated incidence of external
anomalies. Human population expansion and
industrialization of Great Lakes tributaries and
shorelines will certainly increase even as control
158
-------
IMPLEMENTING INDICATORS 2003
A TECHNICAL REPORT
measures and remediation of old contaminated sites
are implemented. Fish populations at many of these
sites may continue to be exposed to contaminants
capable of causing external anomalies.
Future Activities
Additional remediation to clean-up contaminated
sediments at Great Lakes AOCs will help to reduce
rates of external anomalies. The EAPI, particularly for
brown bullheads and white suckers, will help follow
trends in fish population health and will help
determine the status of AOCs that may be considered
for delisting (IJC Delisting Criteria, see IJC1996).
Further Work Necessary
This external anomaly indicator for benthic species
has potential for defining habitats that are
contaminated. Collaborative U.S.-Canadian studies
investigating the etiology and prevalence of external
anomalies in benthic fishes over a gradient of
polluted to pristine Great Lakes habitats are needed.
These studies would create a common index that
could be used as an indicator of ecosystem health.
Acknowledgments
Authors: Stephen B. Smith, U.S. Geological Survey, Biological Resources,
Reston, VA and Paul C. Baumann, U.S. Geological Survey, Biological
Resources, Columbus, OH.
Sources
International Joint Commission. 1989. Guidance on characterization of toxic
substances problems in areas of concern in the Great Lakes Basin. Report of the
Great Lakes Water Quality Board. Windsor, ON, Canada.
International Joint Commission. 1996. Indicators to evaluate progress under the
Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement. Indicators for Evaluation Task Force. ISBN
1-895058-85-3.
Smith, S.B., D.R.P Reader, P.C. Baumann, S. R. Nelson, J. A. Adams, K. A. Smith,
M.M. Powers, PL. Hudson, A.J. Rosolofson, M. Rowan, D. Peterson, V. S. Blazer,
J.T. Hickey K. Karwowski. 2003. Lake Erie Ecological Investigation; Summary of
findings: Part 1; Sediments, Invertebrate Communities, and Fish Communities: Part
2; Indicators anomalies, Histopathology and Ecological Risk Assessment. U.S.
Gological Survey Mimeo.
159
-------
IMPLEMENTING INDICATORS 2003
A TECHNICAL REPORT
Section 3
Acknowledgments
Implementing Indicators 2003-A Technical Report preparation team included:
Environment Canada
Nancy Stadler-Salt, lead
Harvey Shear
Stacey Cherwaty
Hal Leadlay
Jennifer Etherington
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Paul Bertram, lead
Paul Horvatin
Karen Rodriguez
Christina Forst
Martha Aviles-Quintero
This report contains contributions from over 100 authors, contributors, reviewers and editors. Many of the
individuals participated in the preparation of one or more reports assembled in the document Implementing
Indicators, October 2002. Others provided advice, guidance or reviews. Their dedication, enthusiasm and
collaboration are gratefully acknowledged. Individual authors or contributors are recognized after their
respective report component.
Over 50 governmental and non-governmental sectors were represented by the contributions. We recognize the
participation of the following organizations. While we have tried to be thorough, any misrepresentation or
oversight is entirely unintentional, and we sincerely regret any omissions.
Federal
Environment Canada
Canadian Wildlife Service
Environmental Conservation Branch
Environmental Emergencies Section
Meteorological Service of Canada
National Water Research Institute
Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
U.S. Department of Agriculture - Natural Resources
Conservation Service
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Great Lakes National Program Office
Region 5
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Green Bay Fishery Resources Office
U.S. Geological Survey
Biological Resources Division
Great Lakes Science Center
Lake Ontario Biological Station
Lake Erie Biological Station
Lake Superior Biological Station
160
-------
IMPLEMENTING INDICATORS 2003
A TECHNICAL REPORT
Provincial and State
Indiana Geological Survey
Michigan Department of Natural Resources
Minnesota Department of Health
New York Department of Environmental
Conservation
Ontario Ministry of Environment
Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources
Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food
Ohio Division of Wildlife
Ohio Department of Natural Resources
Pennsylvania Department of Environmental
Protection
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
Municipal
City of Chicago
Aboriginal
Bad River Band of Lake Superior Tribe of Chippewa
Indians
Chippewa Ottawa Treaty Fishery Management
Authority
Mohawk Council of Akwesasne
Academic
Clemson University, SC
Cornell University, NY
Indiana University, IN
James Madison University, VA
Michigan State University, MI
Michigan Technological University, MI
Northern Michigan University, MI
Coalitions
Lake Superior Binational Program
U.S.- Canada Great Lakes Islands Project
Commissions
Great Lakes Commission
Great Lakes Fishery Commission
International Joint Commission
Environmental Non-Government Organizations
Bird Studies Canada
Michigan Natural Features Inventory
The Nature Conservancy
Industry
Council of Great Lakes Industries
Private Organizations
Bobolink Enterprises
DynCorp, A CSC company
Environmental Careers Organization
Private Citizens
161
-------
Ml
IU
Canad'a1
------- |