OF THE LAKES ECOSYSTEM
CONFERENCE '96
November 6-8,1996
CONFERENCE PROCEEDINGS
SOLEC '96 - The Year of the Nearshore
Janada
-------
COOPERATING TO IMPLEMENT THE GREAT LAKES WATER QUALITY AGREEMENT
MISE EN OEUVRE DE L'ACCORD SUR LA QUALITE DE L'EAU DES GRANDS LACS
March 1997
Dear SOLEC '96 Participant,
Please find enclosed a copy of the Conference Proceedings from SOLEC '96. These
proceedings represent the first step in the information dissemination process following
SOLEC '96. Reactions and comments from participants have been summarized, and
contributions from keynote speakers have been captured.
This is not a scientific document. The intent is to provide the reader an opportunity to
evaluate and discuss the ideas presented at the conference. From here, the authors
will evaluate, discuss, and test the comments against other information and knowledge,
and incorporate the ideas into the conference papers as appropriate. A copy of these
proceedings can also be accessed via the SOLEC website at
.
Although the 1996 State of the Lakes Ecosystem Conference is over, the SOLEC
process continues. We look forward to working with you to continue moving the Great
Lakes agenda forward.
Sincere!
Harvey Shear
SOLEC '06 Co-chair
Paul Horvatin
SOLEC '96 Co-chair
ENVIRONMENT CANADA
4905 Dufferin Street
Downsview (Toronto)
Ontario M3H 5T4
Canada
ENVIRONNEMENT CANADA
4905, rue Dufferin
Downsview (Toronto)
Ontario M3H 5T4
Canada
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Great Lakes National Program Office
77 West Jackson Blvd.
Chicago, Illinois 60604
U.S.A.
-------
FEEDBACK REQUEST
As a follow-up to the 1996 State of the Lakes Ecosystem Conference, the SOLEC '96
steering committee is interested in finding out how/if participants are making use of the
information which was presented. If you could take a moment to forward a brief
response to this question (e.g. detailing how your organization's programs or activities
were influenced by the information from SOLEC '96), it would be greatly appreciated.
* Thanks to those who responded to the e-mail version of this notice. *
PLEASE FORWARD RESPONSES TO
Nicole Swerhun
Environment Canada, Ontario Region
Office of the Regional Science Advisor
E-mail: nicole.swerhun@cciw.ca
Fax: (905) 336-6272
Phone: (905) 336-6271
Address: 867 Lakeshore Rd.
P.O. Box 5050
Burlington, ON
L7R 4A6
-------
STATE OF THE LAKES ECOSYSTEM
CONFERENCE
SOLEC 96 - The Year of the Nearshore
November 6-8,1996
CONFERENCE PROCEEDINGS
PREPARED BY:
Nicole Swerhun and The LURA Group, Toronto
FOR:
Environment Canada
United States Environmental Protection Agency
January 1997
Ce document est aussi disponible en frangals.
-------
1.0 Introduction 1
1.1 Context 1
1.2SOLEC'94 ; 1
1.3SOLEC'96 2
2.0 Participant Profile 4
3.0 Key Themes 5
4.0 Workshops , 8
4.1 Background Papers... 8
4.1.1 Nearshore Waters.... 8
4.1.2 The Coastal Wetlands 10
4.1.3 Nearshore Terrestrial (Land by the Lakes) 12
4.1.4 Land Use 13
4.1.5 Information and Information Management 15
4.1.6 Integration Paper 16
4.2 Lake-by-Lake Workshops , 18
4.3 Priority Issue Workshops 19
5.0 Open Forum on Nearshore Issues 21
5.1 Participant Feedback 23
6.0 Closing Remarks 25
APPENDICES
Appendix A. Conference Agenda 27
Appendix B. List of Background Papers and Lead Authors , 31
Appendix C. Lake-by-Lake Workshops 33
1. Lake Erie........ , 35
2. Lake Ontario 36
3. Lake Superior...... 37
4. Lake Huron 38
5. Lake Michigan 39
6. Lake St. Clair/St. Clair River/Detroit River... 39
Appendix D. Priority Issue Workshops 41
1. Nuisance Exotic Species 43
2. High Quality Areas 44
3. Climate Change and Variability 44
4. Indicators 45
5. Protection and Restoration of the Nearshore Environment 46
6. Great Lakes Research Priorities 47
7. New Approaches to Growth Management 49
Appendix E. Success Stories 51
Appendix F. Speakers notes 55
Appendix G. Participant List 69
ii . ; SOLEC '96 - Proceedings .
-------
DISCLAIMER
THIS IS NOT A SCIENTIFIC DOCUMENT
These proceedings contain a summary of the information exchanged at
the 1996 State of the Lakes Ecosystem Conference. Reactions and
comments from participants have been summarized, and contributions
from keynote speakers have been captured. The intent is to provide the
reader an opportunity to evaluate and discuss the Ideas presented at the
conference. Publication of these proceedings does not imply that the
governments of Canada or the United States endorse their contents.
, SOLEC '96 - Proceedings
-------
From November 6 to 8, 1996, the governments of the United States and Canada hosted
the second, biennial State of the Lakes Ecosystem Conference (SOLEC '96). SOLEC
'96 represents an important component of the ongoing commitment between the
governments of Canada and the United States to report on the progress of their efforts
to protect and restore the quality of the Great Lakes ecosystem.
1.1 CONTEXT
Canada and the United States have worked cooperatively to manage the Great Lakes
basin ecosystem for decades. Commitments which were made under the 1909
Boundary Waters Treaty were intensified in 1972 with the signing of the Great Lakes
Water Quality Agreement (GLWQA). In signing the original GLWQA (and the
subsequent revised Agreement of 1978 and the amending Protocol of 1987), the two
governments committed to restoring and maintaining "the chemical, physical and
biological integrity of the waters of the Great Lakes basin Ecosystem."
Under the GLWQA, Canada and the US also agreed to adopt an ecosystem approach
to management of this important resource. This means that the two governments have
a commitment to improve understanding of the complex ecological relationships that
comprise the Great Lakes basin, and to use that understanding to minimize the negative
impact of human activities on the Great Lakes ecosystem. SOLEC was created as part
of the process by which those commitments would be met
1.2 SOLEC '94
The first SOLEC was held in October, 1994 in Dearborn, Michigan. Setting the purpose
and tone for future conferences, SOLEC '94 brought together leaders and decision
makers from all sectors of society to discuss and exchange information on the Great
Lakes ecosystem in a^n informal, productive, and collaborative manner. At that time it
was concluded that:
• Although the state of the Great Lakes ecosystem had generally improved, full
restoration was still a distant goal;
• Over the previous 30 years, dramatic achievements had been made in a number of
areas, such as: nutrient reduction, improvements in public health, declines in
contaminant levels in fish and wildlife, and a resurgence of some fish and wildlife
populations;
* Habitat loss, species and genetic loss, and exotic species introductions had
impacted the Great Lakes ecosystem;
SOLEC '96 - Proceedings
-------
* Problems persisted in several areas including: degraded aquatic community health,
the continuing loss of wetlands, fish consumption advisories, and effects of
chemicals on fish, wildlife, and possibly humans.
SOLEC '94 also illustrated the importance of examining the nearshore areas of the
basin in greater detail.
1.3 SOLEC'96
Building on the findings of SOLEC '94, SOLEC '96 focused on the nearshore areas of
the Great Lakes basin. The nearshore zone includes the relatively warm and shallow
waters near the shore, coastal wetlands, and the land areas directly affected by lake
processes. These areas represent the most diverse and productive parts of the Great
Lakes ecosystem, and provide support for the most intense human activity. As a result,
the areas that contain the greatest biological resources are subject to the greatest
stress.
The objectives of SOLEC '96 were to:
• Inform local decision-makers of environmental issues that affect nearshore areas of
the Great Lakes basin;
• Provide information on the state of the nearshore ecosystem to help strengthen
decision-making and management within the basin;
• Develop support for an integrated environmental information system to help direct
plans and programs;
• Provide information on existing Great Lakes strategies and build cooperative actions
needed to strengthen and complement them; and
* Provide a forum for improved communication and network building for involved
groups and individuals within the basin.
The SOLEC '96 process began with the development of five binational working papers
addressing the following key subject areas: nearshore waters; coastal wetlands; the
land by the lakes (terrestrial nearshore); changing land use; and information and
information management. An integration paper identified crosscutting issues from each
background paper, synthesized key themes, and introduced major ideas for
consideration during the conference.
The next step in the SOLEC '96 process was the conference itself. Assessing the state
of an ecosystem is a complex task at the smallest scales - attempting to get an accurate
description of the state of the entire Great Lakes ecosystem is an even larger challenge.
The key to successfully meeting that challenge hinges on information exchange
between stakeholders. At SOLEC '96, information was contributed in a number of
SOLEC '96 - Proceedings
-------
different forms, by a number of different Stakeholders (see Appendix A for full SOLEC
'96 agenda):
* The authors of the background papers laid the foundation for discussion by
presenting the key findings from their research regarding the nearshore;
• Keynote speakers shared insight gained through years of dealing with environmental
issues;
• Displays profiled the diversity of efforts currently dedicated to the Great Lakes
ecosystem;
• Three different sets of workshops gave participants the opportunity to share their
experiences and insights regarding issues facing the Great Lakes nearshore; and
• A panel session of individuals from five different sectors reflected on what they had
learned from SOLEC '96, and answered questions from conference participants.
Although the 1996 State of the Lakes Ecosystem Conference is over, the SOLEC
process continues. The information presented at SOLEC is created through ongoing
efforts to prioritize research needs, to allocate resources to meet those needs, and to
disseminate the results. The information available to assess the state of the Great
Lakes is always changing, and the SOLEC process is intended to insure that decision
makers are made aware of those changes.
These Proceedings represent the first step in the information dissemination process
following SOLEC '96. The authors of the five background papers will use information
from the conference to produce final versions of the background papers, and in the
summer of 1997, the Parties to the GLWQA will publish the second State of the Lakes
Report.
Throughout all these years ofbinational cooperation, we have
learned to recognize and to respect each other's differences. And
there can be no denying that these years of open dialogue made
substantial progress in the Great Lakes basin possible.
SOLEC '96 continues that binational dialogue. And it can only enrich
and strengthen our partnership as we approach the 21st century,
searching for common ground and seeking lasting solutions to
problems that continue to plague the Great Lakes ecosystem,
Valdus V, Adamkus
Regional Administrator
U.S. EPA Region 5
SOLgC '96 - Proceedings
-------
Sharing ideas and knowledge between stakeholders strengthens decision-making and
management within the Great Lakes basin. To encourage the involvement of
individuals with a number of different interests, SOLEC '96 targeted participants from
the following sectors: lakeside municipalities, recreation associations, wildlife
conservation groups, commercial fishing businesses, non-government organizations
(health, labour, environment), agriculture organizations, industry, academia and
educators, and professional associations. A total of 482 individuals participated at the
Conference. A breakdown of participation by country and by sector, is presented below.
PARTICIPATION BY COUNTRY
Canada
US
Mexico
Total
Number of
Delegates
216
263
3
482
Percent
45%
55%
0.1%
100%
PARTICIPATION BY SECTOR
Federal Governments
Provincial/State Governments
Municipalities
Quasi-Govemment/UC
Industry
Academia/Research
Wildlife/Conservation
Environmental
Public Advisory
Professional Associations/Societies
Recreation/Commercial Fishing
Foundations
Native/Aboriginal
Health
Agriculture
Other
Total
Number of
Delegates
123
74
45
44
39
30
27
23
11
10
10
8
7
4
3
23
482
Percent
25.6%
15.4%
9.2%
9.1%
8.1%
6.2%
5.6%
4.8%
2.3%
2.1%
2%
1.7%
1.5%
0.8%
0.6%
4.8%
100%
SOLEC '96 - Proceedings
-------
Much valuable information was exchanged at SOLEC '96. Two and a half days of
discussion among hundreds of participants generated many ideas, issues, and priorities
regarding the Great Lakes nearshore. The key themes listed below (in no particular
order) arose repeatedly throughout SOLEC '96.
Dealing with the urgent issues
The decision to focus on the nearshore proved
timely. Nearshore areas represent the most diverse
and productive parts of the Great Lakes ecosystem.
These areas also provide support for the most
intense human activity. As a result, the areas that
contain the greatest biological resources are subject
to the greatest stress.
Urgency for action
Now is the time to act. Immediate action is needed
on two fronts. Where there is agreement on steps
needed to protect and restore the ecosystem, those
steps should be taken now. Action is also needed
to protect areas where restoration efforts have
already yielded successful results. Where existing
information is not sufficient to support decisions and
implementation, immediate action must be taken to
identify information gaps and obtain the information
needed.
Locally based action
It is essential that ecosystem management happen
at the local/community level, with support from all
levels of government. Municipal governments have
a key role to play in this.
Indicators
A common set of Great Lakes ecosystem health
indicators is needed to measure progress.
Indicators currently in use need to be brought
together, and the development of new indicators
needs to be coordinated throughout the basin. The
indicators need to be quantifiable and results
oriented. The rationale used to select the indicators
needs to be transparent, and consideration needs
to be given to the relevance of different indicators at
different scales.
SOLEC '96 - Proceedings
-------
Land use
Current land use practices represent the single largest
threat to the Great Lakes basin ecosystem. Land use
needs to be more efficient and development needs to
be more sustainable.
Resources are declining
Both financial and human resources are in short
supply. Public and private sector budgets are
shrinking, and it is becoming increasingly important to
prioritize where resources are dedicated. Cost
effectiveness based upon environmental results
needs to be incorporated into decision-making
processes.
Cooperation and partnerships Given the complexity of issues challenging the
are key nearshore area, a multidisciplinary approach is needed
if solutions are to be found. The establishment of new
partnerships is essential in bringing new ideas and new
approaches to the problem solving process. Efforts
need to be integrated within a multi-stakeholder
context in pursuit of agreed upon objectives.
Need long term perspective
Need quantifiable information
Need ecosystem goals
Focus on prevention and
preservation
In order to recognize changes in the health of the
Great Lakes nearshore, it is necessary to compare the
current state of the ecosystem with the state of the
ecosystem at earlier dates. Commitments to long term
monitoring and data collection are necessary for
assessing progress and reprioritizing efforts.
Conclusions regarding the state of the Great Lakes
ecosystem need to be based on high quality qualitative
and quantitative information.
Before we can work toward a desirable end state for
the Great Lakes ecosystem, we first have to agree on
what end state would be most desirable. It must also
be recognized that with respect to ecosystem health,
end results are difficult to predict.
Years of reactive measures to ecosystem problems
have provided results. The time has come to build on
the success of restoration efforts, and focus on
preserving and protecting the less impacted areas
which remain.
SOLEC '96 - Proceedings
-------
Need to improve
communication
Communication within agencies and between
agencies needs to be improved. This can be
achieved by using a common vision and common
vocabulary to define and to address key issues.
The public and all other interested parties must be
better informed and more involved in this process.
Importance of decision-
making scale
Ecosystem management must be integrated at a
number of different scales, from local watershed
management to management of whole ecoregions.
Non-point sourees of pollution
Action is well underway to address point sources of
pollution. The time has come to focus more efforts
on non-point sources.
This gathering is targeting on the right issues, and in the right
context..Jfs good to see the broader conservation community in the
Great Lakes turning its collective eyes landward...
...The fact is, the Great Lakes region ranks as. an important global
conservation priority. It supports more than 130 species and
ecological communities that are rare or imperiled, with more than
half of these species endemic to the Great Lakes region..,there can
be no question of the collective significance of these populations,
nor of the region's value as a conservation target.
John Saw/i///
President & CEO
The Nature Conservancy
SOLEC '96 - Proceedings
-------
SOLEC '96 workshops focused on three different perspectives: the background papers,
lake-by-lake issues, and priority issues crosscutting the entire Great Lakes basin. Each
of these three perspectives was further subdivided in order to give participants an
opportunity to interact in smaller groups with others who shared similar interests. A
summary of the discussions from each workshop is presented here.
4.1 BACKGROUND PAPER WORKSHOPS
This section presents highlights from each of the background papers that were prepared
for SOLEC '96. In their entirety, the background papers describe in detail the current
status and major trends in their respective subject areas (see Appendix B for list of
papers and lead authors).
SOLEC participants had an opportunity to comment on the contents of each of the
papers during facilitated workshops dedicated to each paper. A summary of the
discussions which occurred during the workshops immediately follows the highlights
from each background paper. Where participants have been identified as "agreeing",
this refers to activity in individual workshops, as opposed to the overall Conference
itself.
4.1.1
NEARSHORE WATERS
Key messages from the Working Paper
Highlights of Participant Feedback
Key steps to developing better measures ofnearshore waters ecosystem health include:
• Better defining of ecosystem health;
• Seeking agreement on what is expected from nearshore waters;
SOLEC '96 - Proceedings
-------
» Varying the scales at which objectives are set (e.g. basinwide, lakewide,
regionwide);
» Developing indicators and measuring them;
» Developing monitoring programs which are linked to management decisions; and
« Improving the "gas gauge" approach to indicators by showing the direction in which
change has occurred relative to a defined endpoint.
Good indicators share the following attributes:
Developed on a scientific basis;
Meaningful to the public and politicians;
Reflect public values, including economics;
"Transparent" development; and
Clear causal relationships to ecosystem stressors.
Potential stressors inadequately addressed in the Working Paper include:
Livestock management;
Forestry practices;
Mineral extraction;
Airborne sources (e.g. deposition of mercury from coal fired power plants);
Natural stressors;
Contaminated sediments;
Loss of root mass; and
Extraction of logs from the lake bottom (e.g. Lake Michigan and Lake Superior).
Key steps needed to address sustainable development in the nearshore include:
• Developing and using a consistent definition of sustainable development;
* Using existing tools (e.g. sewage treatment, low flow toilets, ploughing practices) to
put our knowledge to practice;
» Developing economic incentives to facilitate behaviour change;
• Overcoming our reluctance to make judgment calls without perfect information.
Investments in sewage treatment plants have not prevented beach closings and
drinking water pathogens because:
• Non-point sources such as surface run-off, livestock management, bather density,
gull droppings, combined sewer outflows, contaminated sediments and air toxics
contribute to the problems;
• Bacteria in the natural environment make bacteria-free bathing unrealistic;
• Policies for beach closings can be inconsistent; and
* Natural eutrophication may contribute to the problems.
SOLEC '96 - Proceedings
-------
Key actions:
• Define an overall vision for the Great Lakes ecosystem;
• Define the goal towards which we are working ("pristine" condition may be
unreasonable);
* Develop ecosystem indicators;
* Assess what "ecosystem" would emerge if all jurisdictions fulfilled their commitments
(what future is already on the books?);
* Educate people about what needs to be done to control non-point sources; and
* Look at 20 year trends in ecosystem health data and assess anomalies.
4.1.2
THE COASTAL WETLANDS
Key messages from the Working Paper
Highlights of Participant Feedback
Water levels
Just as fires are necessary in certain terrestrial ecosystems, natural alternations in water
levels are vital to the health of wetlands,
Biodiversity
Loss of biodiversity was recognized as the single largest consequence of water level
regulation on wetlands. Other consequences include:
* Damaging impacts on growth of vegetation;
• Reduction in size/width of wetlands; and
• Reduction in productivity.
10
SOLEC '96 - Proceedings
-------
Human activities which have affected wetlands include:
• draining • diking • jetty construction
« filling • armoring • road construction
» dredging » dam construction • bridge construction
Potential mitigation measures suggested were:
• Incorporating wetlands management concepts into community planning and regional
development;
Increasing education/awareness of wetland values;
Giving people better access in order to increase appreciation of wetlands;
Using volunteer monitoring programs;
Plugging old farm drains, filling ditches, and restoring hydrology;
Establishing stewardship programs;
Improving strength and enforcement of laws;
Learning more about what First Nations and tribes are doing to preserve wetlands;
Providing incentives to preserve wetlands;
Identifying a leader to spearhead preservation of wetlands;
Managing wetlands with respect to the surrounding ecosystem;
Looking at cumulative effects of human activity; and
Having politicians address environmental issues.
Indicators
It will be hard to identify cost-effective indicators of wetland quality. It is easier, but
incomplete, to develop indicators of quantity. Both types of indicators are needed.
The following needs were identified:
• A common and generally accepted definition of "wetlands";
• Early warning indicators of wetlands distress;
• Indicators that address quantity and quality; and
• Community based indicators.
Participants also indicated that:
• There may be a need for different indicators for different decision makers (e.g.
municipal level, federal level);
* Simple standards such as vegetative density, key wetland species, and percentages
can be used to build straightforward monitoring programs;
• Monitoring programs should be standardized;
• It would be useful to designate benchmark sites for comparing wetlands;
• A system for monitoring habitat health needs to be developed; and
* Wetland quantity also has to be addressed.
SOLEC '96 - Proceedings 11
-------
4.1.3
NEARSHORE TERRESTRIAL - LAND BY THE LAKES
Key messages from the Working Paper
Highlights of Participant Feedback
Still need to:
• Address sand transport and deposition;
• Check Illinois assessment of Lake Michigan to ensure a complete report (this is a
missing piece);
• Include air deposition component;
• Address shoreline erosion rate;
• Include traditional knowledge from tribes and First Nations;
• Translate regional threats into a sustainable development plan;
• Clarify/recognize difference between human and natural stresses (e.g. water level
flux); and
• Identify and address "killer stressors" or threshold stress levels beyond which the
system/resource is lost.
12
SOLEC '96- Pmceedings
-------
Indicators
Indicators need to emphasize management decisions. Although some questions where
raised regarding what data was used to determine ratings, the message was clear -
nearshore terrestrial ecosystems are truly degrading.
How do we translate the paper into action?
• Plan at the local/regional level;
• Work with existing community leaders/groups;
• Integrate existing working paper into LaMPs and other existing programs;
• Develop directory of case studies/stewardship examples;
• Inventory and analyze all data from "biodiversity investment areas";
• Celebrate Great Lakes/Great Places Heritage Security Areas;
• Use existing communication tools; and
• Foster partnerships.
4.1.4 LAND USE
Key messages from the Working Paper
5 million acres)between 1
SOLEC '96 - Proceedings
13
-------
Highlights of Participant Feedback
Shifting development from 'greenfields' to 'brownfields'
• Remove barriers to brownfield redevelopment by reducing environmental liabilities
without lowering environmental standards;
* Ensure that the full costs of greenfield development are applied;
* Ensure that tax, development charges and other costs associated with development
are applied fairly among communities and across jurisdictions;
• Promote the adoption and use of purchase of development rights for greenfields
protection;
• Provide incentives for lenders to finance projects that have environmental risks;
* Establish creative tax policies and other financial and lending mechanisms that
encourage and even link brownfields redevelopment and greenfields protection;
• Replace current zoning regulations that promote inefficient land use with those that
promote efficient land use, such as encouraging mixed land uses at the
neighborhood level, multi-family units, narrower streets, and multi-story buildings to
increase the function and compactness of already developed areas;
» Make redevelopment areas more attractive through provision of good transportation,
services, housing, and urban and social planning; and
* Educate developers, planners, politicians and residents (consumers) about the
benefits of redeveloped communities and efficient lifestyles.
Integrating land Use Planning and Water Quality
* Ensure concurrency between water-related infrastructure and new development
(i.e. ensure that new development, including roads and buildings, does not occur
unless water-related infrastructure such as water and sewer lines and treatment
plants are available or are planned for with adequate financing to serve that
development);
14
SOLEC '96 - Proceedings
-------
• Protect water quality standards from rollbacks and strengthen/develop new
standards for riparian corridor and urban stream protection;
• Encourage watershed-based land use planning where development is guided by the
natural features and capacities of the watershed;
• Make development accountable for the full costs it imposes on the watershed;
• Engage in basinwide networking, education and information sharing within and
among all sectors; ,
• Incorporate RAPs into local land use planning process and coordinate local planning
throughout the basin through LaMPS;
• Collect water quality data that can be integrated into the land use process; and
• Design and redesign/retrofit development to meet water quality goals and objectives,
such as reducing the amount of impervious surface, setback standards for wetlands
and waterways, and separating storm and sewer water delivery systems.
Promoting Efficient Urban Form
• Educate residential and industrial/commercial market place, including voters,
politicians and planners about the benefits of efficient development;
• Plan for land use based on preservation of natural systems as criteria;
• Ensure that full costs of new development are applied, including cumulative basin
wide effects and intangibles such as transportation congestion; and
• Remove all subsidies, grants, tax breaks and other incentives that favour greenfield
development.
4.1.5
INFORMATION AND INFORMATION MANAGEMENT
Key messages from the Working Paper
fmSi,
SOLEC '96 - Proceedings
15
-------
Highlights of Participant Feedback
New Data Bases
Some key additions to the list of databases were made.
Major Data Gaps
It is difficult to determine what the gaps are without an assessment of data needs. This
needs to be related to the management goals and the indicators. This assessment
should be an iterative process (i.e. repeated .regularly) involving decision makers and
researchers.
Other gaps which were identified:
• Wetlands, especially on the Canadian side;
• Streams and groundwater;
• Climate and hydrology data; and
• Data chronology (ongoing monitoring needed).
Information and information management needs include:
• Metadata collection (data about the data i.e. the researcher, date, accuracy, method),
and mechanisms for disseminating it.
• Tools to integrate data, and a need for mechanisms to share data.
• Continue and expand data collection, (current trend is to discontinue).
• Establish a consortium/process for dialogue and cooperation on major data issues,
including: data needs assessment; development of common indicators; and a
metadata standardization process.
4.1.6 INTEGRATION PAPER
In addition to summarizing the findings from each of the background papers, the
Integration Paper also identified four management challenges for the Great Lakes
nearshore ecosystem. The four challenges are listed on the following page, followed
immediately by the feedback which was received from the participants.
Management Challenge #1; Bringing together nearshore information in accessible
GIS (geographic information system) based formats. SOLEC '96 participants agreed,
although some caution was expressed relating to how this challenge will be met. Next
steps are:
• Identify demand/incentives to do this;
• Identify who is responsible and what resources and information are needed;
• Agree on vision, management needs for which information is needed;
» Develop standards for information collection;
* Collect and categorize data; and
« Assess quality and usefulness before entering into the GIS.
16 , • SOLEC '96 - Proceedings
-------
Management Challenge #2: Developing easily understood indicators to support
understanding of the state of the system and obtaining widespread agreement on
what needs to be done. SOLEC '96 participants agreed and identified four next steps:
* Establish responsibility, and institutional arrangements to do this;
» Identify desired "end states" and reasonable measures for these;
* Identify "Ievels7categories of indicators needed; and
» Develop indicators through multi-stakeholder processes.
Management Challenge #3: Integrating the concepts of biodiversity and habitat into
existing programs traditionally devoted to pollution control or natural resources
management for harvest SOLEC '96 participants agreed and identified actions needed:
• Define what we mean by biodiversity and habitat;
• Set goals and targets for implementing these concepts;
• Inventory programs which address habitat and biodiversity (programs in the inventory
can act as examples for those programs which currently don't address these issues);
• Identify barriers to integrating these concepts; and
• Define what needs to be done for biodiversity and habitat and modify existing
programs.
Management Challenge #4: Integrating Lakewide Management Plans (LaMPs),
Fisheries Management Plans and Remedial Action Plans (RAPs) for Areas of
Concern so that they become fully viable management mechanisms, useful for
decision makers throughout the great Lakes basin ecosystem in taking action and
assessing results. SOLEC '96 participants agreed and identified actions needed:
• Inventory all processes under way and categorize activities;
» Improve communications and strive to integrate processes where appropriate by:
seeking common ground (goals, objectives, actions); avoiding conflicts; sharing
information; initiating community outreach.
Other Key Management Challenges
• Integrating programs/policies into state of lakes or basinwide assessments;
• Dealing with land use issues;
• Involving Tribes/First Nations in SOLEC process; and
• Integrating information about socio-economic values, trends and their impacts on
programs at all levels.
SOLEC '96 - Proceedings ] , 17
-------
4.2 LAKE - BY - LAKE WORKSHOPS
Never underestimate the power of the conservation movement - it will
leave a legacy for your children.
David Crombie
Chair, Waterfront Regeneration Trust
This section presents an overview of the discussions which took place during the lake-
by-Iake workshops. The three hour session gave SOLEC participants an opportunity to
discuss a number of issues from a lake-by-lake perspective. The goal was to identify
key nearshore issues for each lake, and to determine priorities for action related to
those issues. A more detailed recount of the discussions which took place during the
lake-by-lake workshops is presented in Appendix C.
Key changes since SOLEC '94
Shoreline development has continued and the range of many exotic species has
expanded throughout the Great Lakes since SOLEC '94. Protection and preservation of
nearshore habitat has become a priority in many areas, and as a result, increases in
some fish and wildlife populations have been reported. Increases in algae levels have
led to taste/odour problems in some areas,
Current problems
Development pressures are disrupting shoreline ecosystems of the Great Lakes.
Concerns regarding the ongoing hardening of shoreline, the loss of bluffs and barrier
beaches, the loss of habitat for many fish and wildlife species, the loss of wetlands, and
the degradation of tributary watersheds were widely reported. Problems related to the
presence of contaminated sediments were also identified.
Recommended actions to address nearshore problems
Preservation of high quality areas and improved communication between stakeholders
in the Great Lakes basin were two actions recommended repeatedly by SOLEC '96
participants. Steps can be made toward addressing nearshore problems through
commitments to ecosystem conservation and stewardship. In order to meet those
commitments, communication within and between agencies needs to be improved, and
members of local communities (e.g. landowners, politicians, the public) need to be
educated about the Importance of the Great Lakes ecosystem. Public support through
local efforts must feed into, and be consistent with, basinwide goals.
18 ; SOLEC '96 - Proceedings
-------
4.3 PRIORITY ISSUE WORKSHOPS
This section presents an overview of the discussions which took place during the priority
issue workshops. The three hour session gave SOLEC participants an opportunity to
discuss a number of issues which do not fall into any single Working Paper area, but cut
across several areas or aspects of the Great Lakes Ecosystem.
Each workshop started with a presentation delivered by individuals with expertise on a
particular issue. Although the content of each of the presentations differed, many
presenters provoked discussion by asking participants to respond to a conclusion or
proposition which they put forward. A more detailed recount of the discussion during
these workshops is presented in Appendix D.
Nuisance Exotic Species
in order to focus on preventing the introduction of exotic species (as opposed to
controlling the dispersal of established exotic populations), technological developments
and policy improvements are needed. Similar technological and policy tools are also
necessary in order to improve emergency responses to the dispersal of exotic species.
Risk assessments should be conducted for specific target species that have potential for
accidental introduction.
High Quality Areas
The concept of preserving high quality natural areas around the Great Lakes received
unanimous support from the participants in this workshop. There was a general sense
that data is adequate to identify a first round of sites that might be preserved. Success of
a protection programs would be dependent on the support of both the highest levels of
government and local residents.
Climate Change and Variability
Climate change will have a dramatic effect on water levels, flows, temperatures,
shorelines, and wetlands in the Great Lakes nearshore. Assessing the Impact of climate
change will require additional research on carbon "sinks." Research should also identify
the most likely scenario of change, in order to give the public and policy makers a clearer
understanding of the impact of climate change.
Indicators
Discussion focused on the relationship between ecosystem goals and indicators. Is an
indicator meaningful if it is not viewed in relation to an objective? Workshop participants
agreed that setting ecosystem objectives is at least as important as identifying indicators
of ecosystem health for the Great Lakes nearshore. Identifying a common set of
indicators for the Great Lakes nearshore is practical if the indicators are derived from
comparable measures across nearshore areas.
SOLEC "96 - Proceedings 19
-------
Protection and Restoration of the Nearshore Environment
Since no one organization has a broad enough mission to protect and restore whole
ecosystems, success will depend on coordination and cooperation across agencies and
organizations. SOLEC can assist this process by identifying priority issues,
consequences of action, and options for improving management in the Great Lakes
ecosystem. The sciences of "edge ecology" and ecosystem management should be used
to guide restoration and assess management actions in the nearshore. Research should
be cross disciplinary, and should focus on physical and biological integrity.
Great Lakes Research Priorities
In the face of declining resources, Great Lakes researchers need to seek innovative
funding alternatives. Efforts should be made to improve data integration, mufti-agency
cooperation, and communication with the public. In particular, researchers should market
the value of their research in terms relevant to the general public. Finally, a long term
commitment to research of nearshore processes is fundamental to interpreting spatial and
temporal variability in the Great Lakes nearshore ecosystem.
New Approaches to Growth Management
In order to manage growth pressures, barriers to growth management must be identified
and removed. Providing information to the public is one way to increase the political
profile given to growth management issues, a step which can lead to positive policy
changes. Increasing the efficiency of urban developments will require municipalities to
consider, among other things, policies that encourage the concentration of industry, and
the removal of subsidies for greenfleld development.
If the business community doesn't champion environmental
progress, then the standards slip for everyone. Taking leadership in
tine environmental arena is both the right thing and the smart thing to
do. We simply cannot be as effective or as productive unless we
continue to take a strategic approach to corporate environmental
responsibilities. This includes sharing resources and knowledge,
and working together to champion the link between environmental
protection and economic prosperity. When the term "sustainable
development" is simply another way of saying "doing business,"
then industry will truly have moved into the 21st century.
David Buzzelli
Vice President and Corporate Director
Environment, Health & Safety
The Dow Chemical Company
20 SOLEC '96 - Proceedings
-------
On the final morning of SOLEC '96, all of the conference participants came together for
an open forum on nearshore issues. A panel of five individuals, representing five
different sectors, began the session by sharing their perspectives on what they had
heard during the conference. The concise manner in which each panelist synthesized
his/her thoughts was extremely effective in highlighting many of the key issues
discussed at SOLEC '96.
Select comments from each of the panelists have been presented below.
Tom Bailey
Executive Director
Little Traverse Conservancy
"...I have heard a lot of frustration on shrinking government budgets, and the problem
with the lack of funding. This is not a new problem. The need for change presents the
need to cultivate creative approaches and perhaps less reliance on formal mechanisms.
We need to start thinking a little more informally and be a little more freewheeling..."
Werner Braun
Dow Chemical Company ,
"... I see a trend to try and get out ahead of issues. In the past we have been saddled
with so many of the things that have been historic, and we have had to go out and do a
lot of firefighting. Today I see us thinking about how we can we can get out ahead and
do fire prevention, to prevent the damage before it occurs..."
"...Clearly the focus of this meeting has been to try to find those places where we agree.
Because in those areas we can move the environmental needle ahead. We need to
stop arguing about the place on the extreme - there's plenty to be done on the things we
agree on, if we utilize our resources there..."
"...There is real strength in diversity of opinion. All of us bring different perspectives,
and in those different perspectives there are strengths because that is the only way that
we're going to get a clear picture of the entire challenge facing us. Not one of us has all
the answers, and our perspectives tend to be narrow from our particular glimpse..."
SOLEC '96 - Proceedings ' 21
-------
Chris Wright
Grand Traverse Bay Watershed Initiative
"...When we begin articulating what the landscape should look like, we have to keep in
mind that there are people who live in subdivisions who are very pleased with what they
have. There is always, in the back of my mind, this concern about equity. When we
decide that we know what we would like the landscape to look like, it is incredibly
important that we always leave people the opportunity to have choices..."
"...The Mexican participants reminded me of the need for technical assistance. So
often we take for granted the incredible resources that are at our disposal. If we can't
figure this out - it's our own fault. When there are countries that have such limited
resources, we have to remind ourselves to have a respect for the fundamental
understanding that we have.
George Francis
Professor, Department of Environment and Resource Studies
University of Waterloo
"...these are examples of what I see as a long-standing Great Lakes tradition - if
anything needs to be done that requires even modest institutional change and
cooperation across different boundaries, then the process of achieving this is decades
long..."
"...please put the box back under your pyramid [economics; social values; institutions;
laws; policies; and programs]. I really think that we have to try and make those
connections. We have to see how programs are having an effect on what is happening
in the lakes..."
Pamela Blais
Metropole Consultants
"...Despite the costs, we still go on building with the same development patterns that we
have used for the last four or five years - and if anything if s probably getting a little more
expansive, a little less dense, and a little more land consumptive. The flipside of this
pattern is that we're not making use of the land development potential that is available
in inner city areas..."
"...The market is the context in which people make decisions. And there's been a lot of
discussion about market oriented approaches. True cost pricing of direct costs
associated with urban development would be one significant step towards changing the
urban pattern we see evolving - and that"s even before we get to pricing externalities
like pollution and so on..."
22 ' r' . : __„ SOLEC '96 - Proceedings
-------
5.1 PARTICIPANT FEEDBACK
Following the panelists' opening remarks, the floor was opened to participants who
wished to pose a question to the panel. Aaron Freeman (WBEZ-FM, Chicago)
moderated the session.
The following issues were raised by participants:
• Concern over the cut backs in both Canadian and American federal government
budgets. Is the provision of technical assistance an important way of showing
stakeholders throughout the basin that there are services for them?
• Concern over the lack of representation from environmental groups at the SOLEC
and the absence of a "sense of urgency" during the conference.
• Questions regarding the ecosystem goals towards which SOLEC is working and
concern over what the next steps are in addressing the state of the Great Lakes
ecosystem.
* Praise regarding the effectiveness with which NGO's use government funds.
* Concern regarding the spreading of IJC listed priority pollutants on roads as dust
suppressants.
• Identification of a need to develop an effective way of communicating the results
from SOLEC in words that any politician would understand. There are many decision
makers who would be eager to listen to the type of information presented at SOLEC.
• Reminder of the valuable Great Lakes ecosystem information which resides with the
aboriginal and tribal people.
• Concern over the reduced profile of the gas gauge as a communication tool
regarding the state of the Great Lakes. A need to continue asking basic questions
like "Can I swim in the lakes? Can I eat the fish in the lakes?" was identified.
• Recognition that in the past 20 years we've come a long way in our efforts to link
environmental and economic concerns. How does the panel see the many
stakeholders at SOLEC addressing environmental and economic issues
symbiotically?
SOLEC "96 - Proceedings , i 23
-------
Panelist responses;
* A "we need more" approach is not going to work when looking for resources from
government. We need look at things we can stop doing and get creative with what
we can do.
» In order to continue with the process of improving the state of the Great Lakes, it
would be helpful to define what it is that we're really trying to work towards. We also
need a forum suitable for finding the answer to that question.
* It is important to prioritize the areas where ecosystem management efforts are
directed, it does not make sense to continue with programs that run at cross-
purposes to other programs. We must avoid reaching the point where we continue
to seek diminishing returns on a particular effort even though there are more
pressing problems that warrant our scarce resources.
* The information from SOLEC '96 will be put into a form understandable to the
general public.
« It is important to recognize the wisdom of traditional knowledge. One panelist has
"been amazed at the insight that their [First Nations and tribes] understanding can
give to the science which other people have."
• Observation that, unlike the environment, economics and markets are a construct of
the human mind. We are very slow to recognize that the economy is a slave to the
human mind - and that we can change it far more quickly then we can change our
natural environment.
* Suggestions on ways to address environmental and economic issues at the same
time included: focusing on creating community value while at the same time
addressing environmental issues (e.g. get community value out of brownflelds); and
showing industry that it is possible to devote capital investment to environmental
improvement and generate a return on that investment.
In spite of budget cuts and fiscal restraint, work under the Agreement
remains a priority.
John Mills
Regional Director General
Environment Canada, Ontario Region
24 \ . SOLEC'96 - Proceedings
-------
Closing remarks for SOLEC '96 were delivered by John Mills, Regional Director General
for Environment Canada - Ontario Region. In his remarks, Mr, Mills shared a few of his
observations from the three day conference, and reflected on a number of issues which
were raised:
High energy level of the participants The high energy level exhibited by the
participants during SOLEC '96 was extremely impressive. That energy speaks to the
commitment which all participants have to Great Lakes issues, and to the creativity and
innovation which was present during the workshops.
Success at identifying gaps We now know that there are some gaps in our
understanding of terrestrial ecosystems, land use practices, and decision-making
processes, in relation to the nearshore.
Local level Participation by a number of municipal decision makers was instrumental
in bringing SOLEC discussions to the local level. This was encouraging to see.
Separating the science from the programs It is important that SOLEC maintain its
role as a science review of the state of the Great Lakes. The information generated
from the SOLEC process can then be used by decision makers to adjust programs as
needed. The need for an appropriate accountability mechanism for programs,
particularly as it relates to binational activities, will be explored.
Indicators A very strong message was heard regarding the need for indicators.
Questions remain regarding indicator complexity, hierarchy, and consistency. Efforts
need to be directed at building on the efforts which have already gone into indicator
development.
Communication Communication within agencies and between agencies needs to be
improved. Information shared with the broader Great Lakes community needs to use
vocabulary which is understandable to the general public.
Action Participants communicated a strong desire to take action on information
presented during the conference. We need to move forward in those areas where we
can succeed, and put to use the creative and useful ideas brought forward at SOLEC.
Another SOLEC? Yes. Canada and the US will continue to use SOLEC as a valuable
exercise to identify where knowledge gaps exist, and where science needs to be
focused.
SO1EC '96 - Proceedings ' , 25
-------
APPENDIX A. Conference Agenda
SOLEC '96 - Proceedings ; 27
-------
SOLEC '96
WHY SOLEC '96?
SOLEC '96 is an important component of the ongoing
commitment between the governments of Canada
and the United States (the Parties to the Great Lakes
Water Quality Agreement) to communicate their
progress on Great Lakes clean up and restoration.
SOLEC '96 continues the successful process initiated
in 1994. The focus of SOLEC '96 is the state of the
nearshore zone including water, wetlands and the
land by the lakes. The impact of changing land use in
this zone as well as the state of information and
information management for the nearshore will also
be examined.
SOLEC '96 OBJECTIVES
• Inform local decision-makers of environmental issues
that affect nearshore areas of the Great Lakes basin;
• Provide information on the state of the nearshore
ecosystem to help strengthen decision making and
management within the basin;
• Develop support for an integrated environmental
information system to help direct plans and programs;
• Provide information on existing Great Lakes strategies
and build cooperative actions needed to strengthen and
complement them;
• Provide a forum for improved communication and
network building for involved groups and individuals
within the basin.
SOLEC '96
STEERING COMMITTEE
Steering Committee members represent a wide variety of
agencies from around the Great Lakes:
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
Council of Great Lakes Industries
Environment Canada
Great Lakes Commission
Great Lakes Fishery Commission
Great Lakes States
(Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, New York, Pennsylvania,
Ohio, Wisconsin)
Health Canada
International Joint Commission
Northeast-Midwest Institute
Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food & Rural Affairs
Ontario Ministry of Environment and Energy
Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources
Sea Grant Network
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
U.S. Geological Survey - Biological Resource Division
*
For additional information please contact:
Office of Regional Science Advisor Great Lakes National
Environment Canada - Ont. Region Program Office - US EPA
867 Lakeshore Rd., 77 West Jackson Blvd.,
Burlington, Ontario L7R4A6 Chicago, IL 60604
ph: 905-336-6270 ph: 312-886-4360
State Of The Lakes
Ecosystem Conference
1996 - Year of the Nearshore
November 6-8,1996
Cleary International Centre
Windsor, Ontario
Distribution of Conference Materials
(for pre-registered participants)
Tuesday, November 5 (5 p.m. -10 p.m.)
Wednesday, November 6 (7 a.m. -12 p.m.)
United States Environmental Protection
Agency
Environment Canada
-------
DAY ONE - Wednesday, November 6,1996
8:30 Welcome / Opening Remarks
Valdas Adamkus, Great Lakes Program
Manager, U.S. EPA
John Mills, Regional Director General, Ontario
Region, Environment Canada
Canadian Club Room "B"
9:00 Presentation of Working Papers and
Integration Paper
* Nearshore Waters
* Coastal Wetlands
* Land by the Lakes
* Impacts of Changing Land Use
* Information & Information Management
• Integration Paper
20-mlnute break is scheduled at 10:30a,m.
12:00 Lunch - Guest Speaker: Dave Buzzelli
Executive V-P, Dow Chemical Co.
Canadian Club Room "A" and "B"
1:30 & Workshops by Working Paper Topics
3:30 including the Integration Paper
Scientific resource people will be available at
each workshop to explain findings in more detail.
Participants may select 2 different workshops,
30-minute break at 3:00p.m. Adjourn at 5:00p.m.
6-8:00 Evening Reception and Success
Stories Recognitions
Presentation at 6:3Qp.m. by the Consuls General
Greg Johnson, Toronto
Don Wismer, Detroit
Hors d'oeuvres provided - Cash bar
Canadian Club Room "B"
DAY TWO - Thursday, November 7,1996
8:30 Plenary Session - Update on Day 1
Canadian Club Room "B"
9:00 Lake-by-Lake Workshop Sessions
To examine what is known about the state of the
nearshore of each lake and suggestions for
improvements. (Separate session for each lake
which will include connecting channels)
• What has happened since SOLEC '94
• The state of the nearshore ecosystem integrity
* What is known about stressors and their
impacts
* Areas of Concern
* Report cards evaluating the state of knowledge
• and gaps, using indicator concept
• Where do we go from here
20-minute break is scheduled at 10:30a.m.
12:00 Lunch - Guest Speaker: John Sawhill
President and CEO, The Nature Conservancy
Canadian Club Room "A" and "B"
1:30 Breakout Sessions on Priority Topic
* Research, assessment and analysis
* New approaches to growth management
• Protection & restoration of the nearshore
environment
* Nuisance exotic species
* Inventory of high quality areas
* Indicators
* Climate change and variability
15 minute break. Adjourn at 4:3Qp,m.
6-8:00 Dinner - Guest Speaker: David Crombie
Chair, Waterfront Regeneration Trust
Canadian Club Rooms "A" and "B"
Wednesday and Thursday
Continuous demonstrations and hands-on training of Internet access and environmental software
programs in Taqtaq Room, Presented by Great Lakes Information Network, Great Lakes
Information Management Resource, and the Great Lakes National Program Office.
State of the Lakes displays and exhibits presented by participating organizations will be featured in the Dieppe Room
DAY THREE - Friday, November 8,1996
8:30 Plenary Session - Update on Day 2
Canadian Club room "B"
9:00 Open Forum on Nearshore Issues
Moderator: Aaron Freeman
Radio commentator (WBEZ-FM, Chicago) and
stage actor.
Panellists
Pamela Blais - MWrapote Consultants
George Francis - University of Waterloo
Rod Willow - Association of First Nations EAGLE Project
Chris Wright - Grand Traverse Bay Watershed Initiative
Werner Braun - Dow North America
Tom Bailey - Little Traverse Conservancy
Visit our web site at http://www.cciw.ca/solec/
-------
APPENDIX B. List of Background Papers and Lead Authors
Nearshore Waters:
Murray Charlton
Tom Edsall
Coastal Wetlands:
Laurie Maynard
Doug Wilcox
Land by the Lakes:
Ron Reid
Karen Holland
Land Use:
Steve Thorp
Ray Rivers
Victoria Pebbles
Information and information
Management:
Wendy Leger
Rich Greenwood
integration Paper:
Kent Fuller
Harvey Shear
SOLEC '96 - Proceedings
31
-------
APPENDIX C. Lake by Lake Workshops
SOLEC '96 - Proceedings ' 33
-------
The following summaries were prepared by the SOLEC facilitators, and reflect their
perspectives on the key session outcomes and highlights. It should be noted that the
summaries provide discussion points from individual sessions, and not the conference as
a whole. The statements provided below have not been subject to peer review or
scientific validation. .
1. LAKE ERIE
Key Changes Since SOLEC '94
* Taste and odour problems associated with blue/green algae increasing in certain
areas;
• Expanded range for round goby;
• Many changes in relationships, mainly among algae, zebra mussels, productivity, water
clarity, phosphorus levels;
• Increase in benthic invertebrates (e.g. mayflies); and
* Wetlands and shoreline changes.
Current Problems
Beach closings;
River mouths/port areas/wetlands/tributary mouths;
Political climate/policy changes/regulations;
Continued introduction of exotic species/decline of native species;
Urban sprawl/changing land use;
Fisheries management/spawning habitat; and
Contaminated sediments.
Where Do We Go From Here?
Pressing Information/Data Needs
Immune system pathology/reproductive and exposure markers;
Fish index that public can understand;
Methods to trace indicator problems back to sources;
Trend analysis/more investment in monitoring;
Consider Natural Step Program as alternative to indicators;
Determine what ecosystem states are possible/feasible/sustainable;
Ensure that human carrying capacity is considered; and
Use models - define their role and how results will be validated.
Recommended Actions to Address Nearshore Problems
• Identify location and composition of contaminated sediments (especially while dredging
for navigational purposes);
• Develop wetlands inventory and preserve remaining habitat;
• Educate/communicate with public on goals, issues, options;
• Need more redevelopment policies (brownfields); and build additional combined
disposal facility capacity.
SOLEC '96 - Proceedings ___^___ 35
-------
2. LAKE ONTARIO
Key Changes Since SOLEC '94
• Water clarity improved due to zebra mussels;
• Habitat restoration increasing due to implementation of strategies and projects;
* Increase in fish and wildlife as a result of improved habitat (e.g. cormorant populations
increased by 15-20%);
• Increased awareness among municipal politicians;
* Human use and enjoyment increasing due to new projects (e.g. Waterfront Trail in
Greater Toronto Area; U.S. Canal System);
* Impending urban expansion and associated infrastructure;
* Cooperation between agencies improving; and
« Funding and regulatory changes at all levels - redefinition of government
Current Problems
Diversity of coastal wetlands continues to decline due to water level regulation;
Ongoing hardening of shoreline;
Loss of bluffs and barrier beaches;
Barriers (e.g. dams) are stressing streams and tributaries;
River mouth habitat is static; and
Lack of relation between actions taken for the lake and upstream watershed.
Where Do We Go From Here?
Pressing Information/Data Needs
Better understanding of tributary pollutant loadings and tie to management actions;
More bathymetric data;
Lake-by-lake analysis would be helpful;
More information on longshore sediment processes and shore treatment; and
Need historical information mapped and benchmarks developed in order to measure
change.
Recommended Actions to Address Nearshore Problems
• Need to set ecosystem goals in order to direct research efforts;
« Explain meaning and implications of research information to community and local
politicians;
• Support LOWIS (Lower Ontario Watershed Information System) in the US and
Canada;
• Identify species and land forms in imminent risk and develop action plans for
protection; and
» Mobilize public support - need to develop community goals and visions that would be
consistent with lakewide goals.
36 . ' ', SOLEC'96 - Proceedings
-------
3. LAKE SUPERIOR
Key Changes Since SOLEC '94
• Increasing residential growth and development of second homes;
• Expanded range of exotic species;
• Good habitat restoration projects under way;
• Improved practices and discharges in pulp and paper industry;
• Some key areas have been protected and preserved;
« Increased populations of walleye, sturgeon, coaster brook trout, cormorants, bald
eagles; and
• Increased boating/ angling pressure leading to degraded vegetation in specific areas.
Current Problems
Ballast water introductions in ports;
Woodland caribou threatened;
Deformities present in amphibians;
Loss of habitat for colonial birds (piping plover, black tern);
Increase in rusty crayfish (exotic species);
Ruffe displacing perch; and
Sand beaches, dunes, coastal wetlands under development pressure.
Where Do We Go From Here?
Pressing Information/Data Needs
• Sediment contamination, assessment, and effects on biological elements, etc., need to
be dealt with;
* Need information on coastal wetlands and nursery functions (physical processes,
biological functions); and
« Need nearshore wetland inventories.
Recommended Actions to Address Nearshore Problems
Link land use decisions with whole lake, nearshore, and watershed;
Identify key habitats/ecosystems;
Protect and conserve key habitats/ecosystems/features;
Improve and implement ballast water management technology;
Promote landowner education/stewardship; and
Ensure that local efforts feed into basinwide goals - need enhanced communication.
SOLEC '96 - Proceedings _ ; ; 37
-------
4. LAKE HURON
Key Changes Since SQLEC '94
• Invasion and proliferation of exotic species, including river ruffe and more profoundly,
zebra mussels - there are secondary effects on productivity, community composition,
and population shifts;
• Mirex has been detected in lake water (editor's note: scientific data to be confirmed);
and
* increased populations of cormorants and yellow perch a positive sign.
Current Problems
Intensification of shoreline development;
Land use changes from rural and agricultural practices to urban uses;
Second home development;
St. Mary's River fish communities at risk due to navigational practices; and
Lake trout and walleye populations not yet self-sustaining.
Where Do We Go From Here?
\
Pressing Information/Data Needs
• Data on atmospheric inputs of trace contaminants, including mirex (to be confirmed);
* Data on land use changes to assist in predicting and tracking ecosystem impacts;
» Socioeconomic information, costs associated with degradation, benefits associated
with rehabilitation and protection; and
• Water level fluctuations are a priority for research and management.
Recommended Actions to Address Nearshore Problems
• Most important action is to develop a clear commitment to long-term monitoring
programs with associated reporting to the public, regardless of the indicators chosen;
• Protection of and attention to "areas of quality" should complement work on AOCs;
« The public requires a summary of information on the Lake Huron ecosystem to
prioritize actions and effect change;
* Develop specific targets for the quantitative indicators, related to restoration goals;
• Provide policy direction regarding land-use planning, and integrating ecosystem
rehabilitation needs; and
• Initiate a "Lake Huron Alliance" of researchers, implementors, community groups, and
other interested parties in the absence of a Lake Huron LaMP.
38 ;::||,: jv',. SOLEC '06 - Proceedings
-------
5. LAKE MICHIGAN
Key Changes Since SOLEC '94
• Increasing rate of development ("dockominlums", cottages, sprawl, casinos), resulting
in negative impacts on shoreline;
• Increasing rate of change of exotic species (numbers and impacts) - impacts due to
exotics include increased water clarity, community structure quality, along with
decreases in wetlands and nearshore aquatic species;
• Taste and odour problems in drinking water due to algae; and
• Composition of fish community out of balance (e.g. perch population 95% male;
alewives re-emerging).
Current Problems
• Tributary watersheds are degraded from land use, exotics, pollution;
• Nearshore aquatic species (benthic and fish) in trouble due to contaminated
sediments, water level changes, armouring of shorelines, sedimentation throughout the
lake; and
• Coastline ecosystems (sand dunes and bars) are in trouble as a result of sand mining,
urban development, recreation, erosion, and sand transport.
Where Do We Go From Here?
Pressing Information/Data Needs
* Habitat/biodiversity/natural resources inventory;
• Data on landscape level processes and baseline data;
• Data on development trends and impacts; and
• Standardized methods for data collection.
Recommended Actions to Address Nearshore Problems
• More sustainable land-use development;
• Ecosystem conservation and stewardship;
• Creation of information repository (including historical information) to integrate,
coordinate information and disseminate to stakeholders; and
• Establish incentive for consistent data collection through grants (economic incentive).
6. LAKE ST. CLAIR/ST. CLAIR RIVER/DETROIT RIVER
Key Changes Since SOLEC '94
* Fish: improved perch size; declining walleye numbers; increasing bass numbers;
rotifers dying off; changes in abundance of small bottom-feeding fish;
* Beach closings (e.g. at St. Clair Shores in summer of '96 due to E. coli);
* Development: population relatively stable, but sprawl continues;
» Increases in shoreline hardening, surface runoff;
SOLEC '96 - Proceedings ; 39
-------
* Changing fertilization patterns (suburban vs. agricultural patterns); and
• Varying success in dealing with combined sewer overflows in St. Clair, Clinton, Rouge
and Detroit Rivers and Lake St. Clair.
Current Problems
* Loss of native unionid clams in Lake Si Clair and Detroit River due to zebra mussels -
there is a resulting disruption of ecological balance;
• Vegetation: significant loss of natural wetlands along Detroit River; increase in
Eurasian milfoil in Lake St. Clair; loss of prairie savannahs due to fire suppression,
drainage, and economic development;
• Health; problems with fish tumours and drinking water contamination;
» Beach closings; and
* Shoreline development an ongoing concern.
Where Do We Go From Here?
Pressing Information/Data Needs
• More science which specifically addresses large river management;
» There has been too much emphasis on river mouths (e.g. loadings) - we need to look
at the entire watershed, including upland areas;
» How to integrate connecting channel issues within the overall planning framework for
the ecoregion;
• Need to better integrate human health with ecosystem health;
* Need accessible, binational GIS information base; and
• Need to evaluate the impact of chloride.
Recommended Actions to Address Nearshore Problems
RAPs in the area should be used as an umbrella for watershed planning and to implement
as many of the following actions as appropriate:
• Manage the connecting channel area as a binational resource;
• Evaluate and protect high-quality areas;
• Lake St. Clair not included in a RAP or LaMP - need a process to address issues in the
lake;
• Ensure that waterfront redevelopment and habitat restoration are done concurrently
• Educate/involve communities in environmental protection, perhaps through watershed
"report card" development;
* Develop a more coordinated approach to research, and ensure research is focused on
problem-solving and tied to program implementation and monitoring (could do a pilot
project to address this, perhaps in Windsor/Essex and Grassy Island);
• Press for further reductions in loadings;
• Consider new institutional arrangements to facilitate action/implementation (i.e. beyond
planning);
• Deploy students/educational institutions to collect data and do monitoring; and
• Industry would like more binational harmonization of regulatory and voluntary
approaches.
40 ; - ; SOLEC'96 - Proceedings
-------
APPENDIX D. Priority Issue Workshops
SOLEC '96 - Proceedings : 41
-------
The following summaries were prepared by the SOLEC facilitators, and reflect their
perspectives on the key session outcomes and highlights. It should be noted that the
summaries provide results from individual sessions, and not the conference as a whole.
1. NUISANCE EXOTIC SPECIES
Session Conclusion #1: Prevention of species introductions is far better than control,
but we still lack important tools to do the job.
In particular, immediate attention should be directed to:
Technology:
• Develop technological tools to replace ballast exchange as a way to reduce ballast-
mediated transfers of exotic species into and within the Great Lakes system;
• To develop new/better tools, we need political education to allocate funding;
• Current ballast-exchange system is limited; need to improve it and do research to
develop better technology; and
• Need to develop technological tools for other vectors (beyond ballast).
Policy:
• Establish state/provincial and federal policy tools that promote sound decision-making
on planned introductions of exotic species.
• Use fisheries protocol as a model to develop similar approaches for other vectors (e.g.,
food industry, climate change, horticulture).
• Need a policy for accidental introductions (as well as planned ones).
• Authority for planned introductions lies with the states and province, which have agreed
under the 1980 Joint Strategic Plan for Management of Great Lakes Fisheries to
coordinate this management authority via management committees of the Great Lakes
Fishery Commission. One product from these committees are written procedures for
consulting other jurisdictions to achieve consensus before proceeding on planned
introductions.
Session Conclusion #2: Similar technological policy tools should be developed to
improve emergency response to dispersal of nuisance species. More explicitly, we need
to develop a common protocol to examine issues, pros and cons, and assist decision-
making. As well, we need to develop a binational mechanism to provide scientific support
and technical advice to assist local government to make good decisions. We should
provide a "reward" system to ease costs at the local level, e.g., emergency response
systems.
A number of debates emerged relating to policy issues. Some of the discussion elements
are framed below:
• Is eradication possible? Is it worth trying?
• Should we deal with this on a case by case basis or develop a common protocol?
SOLEC '96 - Proceedings 43
-------
• Need to weigh risks, benefits, and assess acceptability of control measures.
» Small window of opportunity (no time for consensus).
• Do we need federal authority? ("Binational Strike Team")
Session Conclusion #3: Risk assessments to identify target source regions, target
species and most susceptible receiving systems are more useful for preventing intentional
introductions of alien species than accidental introductions, for which a blanket
precautionary approach may be most efficient. We also need to do risk assessment for
each vector to decide whether blanket precautions are necessary and how to do them,
and to support political decisions. Risk assessments should be conducted for specific
target species that have potential for accidental introduction.
2. HIGH QUALITY AREAS
SOLEC '96 participants in this workshop unanimously supported the concept of
preserving high-quality natural areas around the Great Lakes. There was a general
sense that data are adequate for at least a first round of sites that might be preserved.
The programs would need support of both the highest levels of government and local
residents to be successful.
Three propositions agreed to by the group:
1. That the International Great Lakes Community initiate a high-profile program on a
scale comparable to the RAP/restoration programs to secure high-quality shoreline
areas that contribute significantly to biodiversity.
2. Redirect and re-energize existing programs and initiate new programs to protect and
restore biodiversity on privately held shoreline lands on the Great Lakes.
3. In the context of a shoreline conservation strategy, we need to direct the highest
priority towards the most threatened and unprotected species and communities on
sites with intact ecological processes.
3. CLIMATE CHANGE AND VARIABILITY
This group responded to four major questions regarding climate change. Their
deliberations are reported below.
What is your perception of climate change with respect to the Great Lakes'
near-shore?
1. Climate change will have a dramatic effect on water levels, flows, temperatures,
shorelines and wetlands.
2, There is an increased variability in temperature and precipitation already happening.
This is experienced in extremes or spikes. A local farmer noted that more energy is
needed to produce the same amount of food as a result of these extremes.
44 - : SOLEC '96 - Proceedings
-------
3. Great Lakes fish will be able to adapt to changes in climate. There will be implications
for fish in some tributaries due to shoreline changes.
4. It is politically difficult to reduce CO2 emissions globally and nationally.
What information do we need in order to be able to assess the impacts of climate
change on the Great Lakes nearshore?
1. There is a need for additional research on carbon "sinks". This is especially true for
wetlands, which are carbon sinks. Much research is being done on ocean "sinks" but
wetlands have not been studied. Canada has the second largest percentage of
wetlands in the world, which makes this need much greater.
2. Research should identify the most likely scenario of change so public and policy
makers have clearer understanding of the impacts of climate change.
What management actions are required to address impacts in the nearshore from
climate change?
1. Take a "no regrets" approach to management actions. That is, do things that make
sense even if climate change doesn't happen. Some examples of this are: water
conservation; conservation tillage; energy conservation; and adaptation strategies.
2. Communicate effectively to the public and indicate a clear sense of urgency.
3. Need to think long-term and shift thinking from dollars to environment as bottom line.
Need to continue to provide funds for environmental protection/monitoring.
4. Experts should play a watchdog role.
4. INDICATORS
The following conclusions were reached by this group:
Setting ecosystem objectives is more important than identifying indicators. Some agreed
with the conclusion and some thought that setting ecosystem objectives and identifying
indicators are equally important.
Collecting too much data can be as unrewarding as collecting too little. Group agreed that
what we do with the date is as important as the data themselves. Group consensus.
A "common" set of indicators for the nearshore environment is not practical. Group
discussion result: a common set of indicators is practical if they are derived from
comparable measures across nearshore areas. Causality will be lost. Cause-effect
relationships will normally be derived from specific areas. Management actions will be
guided by specific nearshore indicators.
SOLEC '96 - Proceedings ~ ; 45
-------
Indicator recommendations for SOLEC '98:
1. Greater focus on indicators.
2. Start task actions right now for bringing together indicators binationally already existing.
Use SOLEC to review and comment on these.
3. Get something going to co-ordinate the development of common indicators.
5. PROTECTION AND RESTORATION OF THE NEARSHORE
ENVIRONMENT
Participants responded to a number of suggested strategies.
Strategy 1: Science of edge ecology and ecosystem management should be used to
guide restoration and assess management actions, cutting across persistent disciplinary
solitudes.
* Increase research on ecotones, transitional zones, connectivity, contiguity to define
attributes of size, diversity, abundance and productivity.
* It is critical to understand the consequences of actions and to define/refine
management strategies (e.g. water level management).
• Dynamics of nearshore environments complicate monitoring, research and
management decisions.
* Research should emphasize physical and biological integrity.
• Cross discipline research (co-ordination and cooperation) is needed.
• Funding will be/is a key constraint.
Strategy 2: Lake Ecosystem Action Plans (LEAPs) should focus on ecotones (land-
stream, land-lake, land-wetland-lake, nearshore-offshore, pelagic-benthic, Httoral-
profundal, forest-pasture, air-water), especially nearshore edges. These logical
successors of the AOC RAPs (Area of Concern Remedial Action Programs) will require
conservation, restoration and recreation actions,
• LaMPs tend to lack an action agenda and focus on toxic substance impacts.
• We don't need a separate planning effort or new initiative.
• Transform LaMPs into true lake ecosystem plans with a nearshore component for
ecosystem integrity that recommends conservation and restoration actions (land-use
planning should logically evolve from LaMPs).
Strategy 3: We should integrate activities across institutions and agencies, and find a
logical government level to consolidate coordinated actions.
• Strategic planning is best done at a lakewide level and action planning/implementation
depends on regional/local involvement.
• Cross-discipline and cross-agency/govemment coordination and cooperation is
essential and depends on forming consensus on goals/objectives.
46 ; SOLEC '96 - Proceedings
-------
« No one organization has a broad enough mission to protect and restore whole
ecosystems (or nearshore systems). We must depend on coordinated actions by
many, including private or non-profit entities.
• Formal and informal mechanisms are needed to share expertise across agencies
(binational too) and organizations.
• Binational Executive Committee (BEG) or another forum is needed to promote
coordinated program planning and budget requests that address priorities, reduce
duplication, and lead to more efficient/effective environmental results.
Strategy 4: We should transform the SOLEC process by shifting from passive,
underfunded reporting to active, resourced problem-solving, producing the catalysts for
change.
Role of SOLEC should be to:
1. Report on state of Great Lakes ecosystem;
2. Identify priority issues, consequences of actions, and options for improving
management; and,
3. Communicate above to decision makers.
Results of SOLEC (priorities and strategies) must be communicated from scientists and
resource managers to top administrative levels.
6. GREAT LAKES RESEARCH PRIORITIES
The following themes emerged from foe session:
• The research community should market the value of their research in terms relevant to
the general public.
• In face of declining resources, innovative funding alternatives should be sought.
Improved data integration and multi-agency cooperation was advocated.
• Finally, a long-term commitment to research nearshore processes is fundamental to
interpreting spatial and temporal variability in the nearshore Great Lakes environment.
1. Cost saving strategies. In many areas, researchers have already pursued integration
and cost saving strategies and there is no further room for cuts. However, we can:
• Systematically improve data intercompatibility including complete inventory and
consolidation;
• Quantify the value of research and data;
• Involve the lake committees of the Great Lakes Fishery Commission (GLFC) in
LaMPs and other activities;
• Advertise plans for research vessels;
• Link with student training and volunteer monitoring;
• Seek untapped and alternative funding mechanisms; and
• Seek partnership opportunities which emerge from areas undergoing change
(e.g. redevelopment).
SOLEC '96 - Proceedings ; ; 1 47
-------
2. Research Needed. We need to realize that nearshore technology and scale is very
different from open lake. Given this we need:
• Improved understanding of watershed dynamics/processes including socio-
economic processes;
• Better understanding of nearshore dynamics;
* Indicator endpoints linked to ecosystem goals;
* Better monitoring guided by modelling; and
• Integration among laboratories and across media,
3. RAP/LaMP Research Needs. At present, RAP/LaMP research needs are poorly
defined. However, we need:
Contaminated sediment clean-up technology;
Methods of habitat restoration;
Common loading protocols;
Tools to connect cause of use impairment and of effect;
Quantitative targets to serve as indicators of restoration;
RAP endowment for research and implementation;
Improved RAP/LaMP coordination e.g., loadings; and
Expert system to identify research needs.
4. Complex Research Topics. Realizing that not all research topics require a
multidisciplinary approach, we should:
• Define research questions for combined approaches such as "nearshore
physical/ecological processes";
* Establish a mechanism to form specific groups to address specific problems;
» Establish basinwide, geo-referenced data base to help coordinate projects;
« Coordinate among agencies in advance of a project;
* Organize a biennial, binational research coordination workshop;
• Foster trust for more effective data sharing; and
» Put the onus on research managers to focus research topics.
5. Research Funding Reductions. Academic institutions need to be included in these
decisions. We need:
* To protect human resources and institutional knowledge above all else;
• A culture and paradigm shift must occur to: recognize science as part of policy,
and incorporate advice from the result of scientific study into decision-making
process;
• A regular review of recommendations should be done (e.g. IAGLR);
• To inventory the research community and identify critical mass; and
» To quantify the value of research.
48 .. • ' SOLEC'96 - Proceedings
-------
7. NEW APPROACHES TO GROWTH MANAGEMENT
To Manage Growth pressures, we need to:
* Educate, inform and raise awareness among local officials, businesses and citizens
about the negative impacts of uncontrolled growth and about the need for and
benefits of growth management;
* Manage where people can live based on a community-inspired vision of land use
that considers current and projected growth pressures;
• Show what the future holds-what urban areas, neighborhoods, recreation areas,
etc.— if current trends continue unabated;
» Pinpoint barriers to growth management and remove them;
* Create plans and regulations that encourage more efficient use of land and other
natural resources and human and financial capital; and
» Share success stories from other areas with planned growth experiences.
To curtail the outflow of jobs to the suburbs and redevelop inner city areas,
municipalities should:
* Reinvest/reinvest in neighborhoods that provide access to jobs and housing and
social and recreational opportunities;
* Provide incentives for businesses to remain in inner city areas where workforces
exist;
* Discourage industrial urban sprawl and encourage higher-density industrial
development in the inner city;
• Improve and maintain old and outdated inner city infrastructure;
• Correct inequities in funding to ensure quality inner city schools;
• Eliminate subsidies and other incentives for greenfield development; and
• Raise about awareness about the continued drawbacks of the outflow of jobs.
To better manage development, urban planning should:
• Be based on watersheds and ecoregions rather than political boundaries;
» Recognize the regional nature of many growth issues and share responsibilities
accordingly between local and regional planning entities;
» Plan for the longer term;
» Encourage public participation in the planning process;
• Make environmental issues a priority and constraint for development;
• Allow flexibility of zoning to encourage more sustainable and efficient development;
« Reward efficient and sustainable development; and
» Regulate use of cars and parking in urban areas.
SOLEC '96 - Proceedings : , 49
-------
APPENDIX E. Success Stories
SOLEC '96 - Proceedings ; ; 51
-------
The SOLEC '96 Steering Committee recognized some of the exceptional achievements jn Great Lakes
ecosystem improvement.
Successful projects were chosen because their they encompassed all or most of the following elements:
Showed improvement in the Great Lakes ecosystem and a net gain for the nearshore;
Forged linkages among the economy, the environment, and the community-
Created a "win-win" solution;
Formed strong partnerships;
Implemented sustainable plans; and
Encouraged community involvement.
The following projects were chosen for recognition:
Grand Traverse Bay Watershed Initiative
The Grand Traverse Bay Watershed Initiative is a community sponsored watershed protection
program. The Initiative was established to protect the water quality of Grand Traverse Bay, Michigan,
and the surrounding water resources. Using a partnership approach with more than ninety
organisations, the Initiative is protecting water resources based on watersheds.
Among the many activities of the Initiative, teachers and students participate in a school-based water-
quality monitoring program, twenty hotels participate in a guest room signage program to promote
water conservation practices, and three regional land conservancies have protected more than
seventeen miles of combined shoreline.
A second closely related organisation is New Designs for Growth. This novel coalition of twenty
businesses and business associations, education and environmental.organisations and local units of
government is responding to surging growth in the area. The group is a strong user and supporter of
The Grand Traverse Bay Region Development Guidebook. The Guidebook, developed with support
from the Grand Traverse Bay Chamber of Commerce, provides model ordinances and guidelines for
growth management.
Together, the two organisations provide new and exciting approaches to dealing with changing land
use.
Ojibway Park and Nature Centre
The City of Windsor, with the help of numerous partners, has set aside 66 hectares (162 acres) of
protected land. Ojibway Park consists of Pin Oak forest, savannah and tallgrass prairie habitats, all of
which provide a rich diversity of plant and animal life. Cultivated prairie wildflower gardens enhance the
grounds near the Nature Centre.
The unique and rare qualities of the Ojibway Park and Nature Centre attract visitors from all over the
world. Exhibits, special programs for schools, and pedestrian trails provide an opportunity to leam
more about the local ecology.
Nothern Indiana Public Service Company (NIPSCO)
As one of the largest industrial landowners in Indiana, NIPSCO is an outstanding example of industry
adopting an active role in local environmental initiatives.
With its various partners, NIPSCO assists in the environmental management of the Grand Calumet
River Corridor and Area of Concern. NIPSCO facilitated the preservation of four environmentally
significant sites along the nearshore and has made multiple donations of land. The company
participates in the Indiana Biodiversity Initiative, and works closely with The Nature Conservancy to
restore prairie and wetland habitat on its land. It also works with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and
the Indiana Department of Natural Resources to manage its lands to support two federally endangered
species - the Karner blue butterfly and the peregrine falcon.
SOLEC '96 - Proceedings 53
-------
In addition, NIPSGO has voluntarily committed to undertake twenty-one specific projects to reduce
greenhouse emissions.
The Friends of Second Marsh
Second Marsh is one of the few remaining Lake Ontario Shoreline Wetlands adjacent to a sizable
urban centre with special features including its ranking as a provincially Significant Wetland, and its
status as an Area of Natural and Scientific Interest (ANSI). The marsh is home to a tremendous
diversity of flora and fauna, including 361 plant species and 265 bird species. In the spring and fall the
marsh is an important migratory stopover and staging area for waterfowl marsh and land birds.
Second marsh began as a restoration plan whose support grew to encompass the community and
beyond. The Friends of Second Marsh, an active volunteer corps, continues to grow as members of
the community step forward to demand an opportunity to be effective stewards in their community.
Cleveland: the city, the county and the RAP
Working together, the City of Cleveland, Cuyahoga County, and the State of Ohio have brought about
the rebirth of the Cleveland Waterfront The result is the creative re-use of old lakeshore port and
industrial areas for parks, a Great Lakes Science Centre, museums, and a dynamic riverside
restaurant zone. During the past three years the redevelopment of old sites has been strengthened by
the Cuyahoga County Brownfields Redevelopment Project, a collaboration of public, private, and civic
entities.
Beyond the immediate redevelopment area, the Cuyahoga Coordinating Committee (CCC) and others
in the Remedial Action Plan (RAP) program are working to improve water quality in the Cuyahoga
River Watershed. The CCC is a not-for-profit corporation witii a thirty-three member stakeholder
committee appointed by the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency to support the RAP. It is involved
in many aspects of water quality, public involvement, and stewardship.
This has led to a broadly based revitalization of the downtown lakefront by redevelopment of
brownfields and building widespread support for clean-up of the Cuyhoga River. The lakefront has
become a popular destination and the groundwork has been laid for a better sense of community.
Task Force to Bring Back the Don
The Task Force to Bring Back the Don is a twenty-three member citizens group sponsored by the City
of Toronto. Together, these partners are working towards "bringing back" a clean, green, and
accessible Don River Watershed. The Task Force is committed to a citizen-driven process while
working in co-operation with government agencies and non-governmental organisations on the
restoration of the Don.
Since 1989, the Task Force has spearheaded the planting of over 24,000 trees and shrubs along with
thousands of wiidflowers in the Lower Don Watershed. The Task Force initiated the Chester Springs
Marsh, a wetland that will provide habitat for water-based wildlife. Along with initiating community
education and involvement projects, the Task Force has worked to make the Lower Don safe and
accessible for all to enjoy.
The Ontario Dune Coalition
The Ontario Dune Coalition is an alliance of twenty-nine private property owners' Associations, non-
profit organizations, local governments, and state and federal agencies. The freshwater dune system
extends along seventeen miles of Lake Ontario»shoreline in northern New York State, spanning two
counties and three towns. The Coalition promotes and supports the protection, stabilisation,
restoration, and optimum public use in keeping with private property rights of the Eastern Lake Ontario
dunes and related water resources. By focusing on heightened awareness, partnerships, and
educational and technical assistance, the Coalition has fostered tremendous progress in dune
conservation in the Eastern Lake Ontario region.
54 ; . SOLEC '96 - Proceedings
-------
APPENDIX F. Speakers Notes
SOLEC '96 - Proceedings , 55
-------
Sustainable Development and the Bottom Line:
A Business Perspective on Environmental Protection
Good afternoon. I am happy to be here with you today, and honored to be asked to speak at SOLEC.
This conference represents a continuation of a process that began in 1994. It demonstrates the ongoing
commitment between our two countries to address the environmental needs of the Great Lakes region.
And, most powerfully, it fosters information exchange and active participation among local, state, provincial
and non-governmental groups involved in environmental preservation.
I say "most powerfully" because over the years that I have been involved in environmental stewardship
issues, I have seen that local input and the participation of all responsible stakeholders are key success
factors for achieving real and lasting environmental protection. Nowhere has that been more clearly
demonstrated than in the work of the President's Council on Sustainable Development, on which I have the
honor to serve as co-chair.
Three years ago, President Clinton brought together 25 leaders chosen from government and business,
environmental and civil rights organizations. Our charge was to develop a strategy for incorporating
economic, environmental and social equity concerns into national environmental policy. Many observers,
and participants too, were skeptical. Could a group of such historically opposed forces actually yield
recommendations acceptable to business interests and environmentalists alike? I must confess, I
wondered too.
The Council's report to the President was released last March with some surprising recommendations.
Perhaps most surprising was the degree to which we agreed. One of the most powerful experiences for
me was how three years of meetings, task forces, public hearings and sometimes heated discussion kept
leading all of us in a new direction. What emerged is an approach that has been too long and too often
overlooked: a "consensus" ideology based on economic prosperity, environmental protection and greater
community involvement.
That was the true impact of the Council's report: this coalescence of a new political force around a set of
shared values. What the Council offered is less like a blueprint for environmental regulatory policy than it
is a vision for the Council's future. Someone once said, 'Vision is the ability to see what's not there." In
our case, the vision was all around us, in the work being done by individuals, by community groups, by
local businesses and by agencies like those represented today.
What's next? The President has asked the Council to continue to work to find ways of putting some of our
recommendations into practice. Vice President Gore is leading these efforts within the Administration.
The White House and federal agencies are lending support to the U.S. Conference of Mayors and the
National Association of Counties in establishing a new Joint Center on Sustainable Communities. This new
partnership is working to implement one of the report's recommendations in communities around the
nation.
So what is sustainable development? Admittedly, it's one of those concepts that is easier to grasp
intuitively than it is to define. The definition the Council tried to keep before us was that of the World
Commission on Environment and Development: to meet the needs of the present without compromising
the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.
SOLEC '96 - Proceedings
57
-------
As an illustration, I will cite an example important to me, both as a member of the Council of Great Lakes
Industries and as a proud resident of the Great Lakes areas. Over the last year, The Great Lakes
Commission and the Council of Great Lakes Industries have been working cooperatively with the National
Wildlife Federation on the proposal to identify obstacles to the redevelopment of brownflelds. The Great
Lakes basin contains thousands of these former industrial sites, where once-thriving manufacturing
operations have become areas of neglect and, in many cases, sources of continuing pollution. For
example;
• Cuyahoga County in Ohio has more that 10 percent of its land area - roughly 50,000 acres -
categorized as brownflelds.
* In Cook County, Illinois, officials have identified more than 300 polluted industrial sites, many of which
are abandoned.
* In Toledo, Ohio, more than half of all commercial and industrial real estate transactions are reportedly
encumbered by environmental problems.
In problem sites like these, new development is deferred, or shifted to outlying agricultural or open-space
greenfields because of clean-up costs and lingering uncertainty over liability issues. The proposal seeks to
make brownfields redevelopment more attractive by providing regulatory flexibility, reducing process
barriers and making sure that greenfields development accurately reflects necessary infrastructure costs.
When completed the project will yield:
• an inventory and analysis of brownfields policies, practices and innovative programs in the Great
Lakes basin,
• a case-study analysis of success stories,
• development of strategic actions for government and private-sector interests, and
• an on-line brownfields information network
The project will also strengthen and expand the existing network of brownfields interests, and provide
educational and outreach programs. I thought this example was fitting for several reasons. First, it's a
Great Lakes project, and that's an interest we all share. Secondly, the project emphasizes aspects of
environmental problem solving that dovetail nicely with SOLEC's perspectives:
• the involvement of local decision makers and a wide range of constituents,
• an emphasis on information-sharing and network-building, and
* a search for cooperative, positive solutions that incorporate economic and social goals, along with
environmental concerns. '
All of these points, by the way, are key elements of sustainable development as articulated by the
President's Council. Local, inclusive, voluntary, flexible, cost-effective: these are words that occur again
and again throughout our final report. The Great Lakes brownfields project strives to implement the
recommendations for national policy on a regional basis. Most of all, this project demonstrates a
willingness to work together to find consensus on tough issues. This has been the toughest barrier of all to
break: asking diverse groups of people to sit down together and work out common strategies and goals.
Arriving at those common strategies and goals, 1 submit, can be accomplished more effectively by keeping
four guidelines in mind:
1. Set priorities based on scientific findings.
No one will deny that it's virtually impossible to make any sound environmental decision without a scientific
basis. But too often in our historically adversarial approach, science has been either compromised or
brushed aside. We can't afford to let this "us vs. them" mentality persist. The scientific community
operates by consensus: there's a lot of give-and-take, occasionally some name-calling and cries of foul,
but finally a consensus does emerge. This process can and should be a key component of the new
consensus ideology I referred to earlier in our search for sustainability. SOLEC's Integration Paper and the
58 SOLEC '96 - Proceedings
-------
Working Papers on which it is based cite numerous areas in which basic research and data collection are
needed.
2. Set priorities from an ecosystem perspective.
Repeated consumer surveys over the last 10 years show that support for environmental protection is now
a widely accepted value. Hopefully, this should mean that we can move away from the toxic-of-the-week
scare tactics to ongoing efforts like the brownfields project I cited that seeks the "big picture" solutions.
These solutions will have to take into account the intricate and delicate relationships within ecosystems
and with human communities. SOLEC's Integration Paper identifies several challenges connected with the
ecosystem approach, not the least of them being the need to move beyond the linear and turf battle
tendencies of traditional policy- and decision-making.
3. Set public policy based on cost/benefit and risk/benefit analysis,
This has been resisted because such analyses have been seen as taking too long or being difficult to do,
or as attempts to evade environmental responsibility or de-value natural resources. But we have seen the
results of hasty or not fully thought-out environmental policies: they can do as much harm as good to
communities and to ecosystems. We must keep in mind that the resources available to provide
environmental protection are also limited and must be husbanded to get us the most environmental
protection for our money. If the cost/benefit of an environmental policy or technology is clear - as it often is
in pollution reduction, for example, or in resource recovery - smart companies will embrace it as part of
their efforts to stay competitive.
A major issue we all must face is getting the costs right in order for risk/benefit to work properly. I have
been a longtime proponent of full-cost pricing, which needs to be developed further. This approach means
that we include all of the environmental costs in an analysis.
4. Set public policy by using the multi-stakeholder approach.
In SOLEC's words, the ecosystem approach requires round-table, interdisciplinary, interjurisdictional and
intersectoral approaches to decision-making - approaches that aim for consensus among stakeholders.
This point is perhaps the crux of the new environmental paradigm, the shift from adversarial to consensual
environmental policy-making. In this approach all parties come to the table. Full participation is difficult,
it's messy, it's time-consuming: but the ultimate results are strategies and policies that have buy-in from
the start. That's the best prescription for effective and long-lasting environmental protection. I believe it is
also the basis for a fundamental and inevitable evolution in how individuals live, in how communities
govern, and in how companies do business.
Many of you know about the chemical industry's Responsible Care initiative. It started in Canada and has
spread to nearly 30 countries. Let me repeat to you what I told a gathering of business leaders from
around the world at a Responsible Care conference in Beijing six weeks ago. My message to my
colleagues and competitors: sustainable development is an idea whose time has come, precisely because
if s a global approach. Looking at the opportunities for development in China and other emerging
economies, business has the opportunity to do it right from the ground up. This time, based on hard-won
knowledge, we can avoid many of the problems that industrial development caused in the past. And while
we are doing the environment good, we are also providing our companies the strongest competitive
position for the next century. Believe me, the business environment will be increasingly competitive on
service, on quality, on price and on reputation for corporate social and environmental stewardship.
Environmental progress yields economic benefits. Look at the best-selling management books; they focus
on maximizing productivity and efficiency, eliminating structural and process waste. At Dow, our Waste
Reduction Always Pays program was successfully built on two assumptions: first, that pollution costs
money; and second, that cutting pollution - whether by process changes, better storage, recycling of
wastes or recapturing of energy - cuts costs.
SOLEC '96 - Proceedings \ : : • 59
-------
Recently, we announced a very demanding set of environmental health and safety goals to be
accomplished by 2005. These goals are different in that they demand large improvements and will save
us money. For example, we have a goal to reduce our workplace injuries by a factor of 10. This will also
save us $50 million dollars over the next 10 years. We have set a goal to reduce primary containment
spills by 90 percent and expect this to save us $34 million dollars over 10 years. The total we expect to
spend is $1 billion dollars to reach these goals, but we will get a return of at least 30 percent on that
investment.
If the business community doesn't champion environmental progress, then the standards slip for everyone.
Taking leadership in the environmental arena is both the right thing and the smart thing to do. We simply
cannot be as effective or as productive unless we continue to take a strategic approach to corporate
environmental responsibilities. This includes sharing resources and knowledge, and working together to
champion the link between environmental protection and economic prosperity. When the term sustainable
development is simply another way of saying doing business, then industry will truly have moved into the
21st century.
Those who harbor suspicion of industry's increasing interest in sustainable development say it's an excuse
to slow down or thwart environmental protection. In fact, the opposite is true. Companies who want to
survive and thrive in the 21st century will have to manage for global competitiveness by cutting waste,
reducing emissions, preventing spills and incidents, and by supporting forward-thinking environmental
policy-making. Hopefully, we have learned enough over the last few decades about the staggering cost of
prescriptive, command-and-control regulation and remediation - the kind of legal and regulatory tangle
exemplified by Superfund. We have a huge economic incentive to perform responsibly, while building the
industrial infrastructure that globalization requires.
That's the emerging consensus that the President's Council both crystallized and will help shape. Some
things must grow - jobs, productivity, wages, capital, savings, profits, information, knowledge and social
equity. Other things - pollution, waste and poverty - must decline. Sustainable growth is essential to
create the economic resources we need to protect and restore the environment.
Those of us who live and work in the Great Lakes basin see all around us the glories of a rich and bountiful
natural environment. We also see the damage that has been done in the name of growth by ignorant or
irresponsible use of those resources. There has to be a better way. I consider myself - as vice president
of Dow, as co-chair of the President's Council for Sustainable Development, as a member of the Council of
Great Lakes Industries - privileged to be part of this evolution.
And all of you, as participants in SOLEC, are also critical players in this effort to find solutions. We must
develop a way to incorporate science into policy... to balance costs and risks against needs and benefits
... and to make room at the table for all those with a stake in the issue. That will be, by far, our best and
most lasting contribution to the future.
Thank you.
60 SOLEC '96 - Proceedings
-------
» ,
Thank you, I'm glad to be here in Windsor today, and let me begin by expressing my thanks both to our
Canadian hosts and to ttie U.S. EPA's Great Lakes Office for inviting me to join you this afternoon. I was
delighted to accept. I had heard a lot of favorable things about your meeting in 1994, especially in regard
to controlling exotic species, and I also remember being impressed by the remarkable diversity of
organizations that attended that first SOLEC conference. It struck me as absolutely the best approach for
addressing the environmental challenges of the Great Lakes region: bring together representatives of
government, business, academia, and non-profits, from both sides of the border, and focus the^m on a
common set of issues.
Of course, SOLEC brings more than simply the right cross-section of interests to the table. This gathering
is targeting on the right issues, and in the right context The issues are the fundamental questions that
govern conservation everywhere: the interplay of land-use patterns, economic development, and
environmental protection. The context is the entire Great Lakes region: the ecologically integrated basin
that stretches from Duluth to Montreal. I find this really encouraging. Over the past several years, The
Nature Conservancy has also been expanding our focus, working at larger scales and trying to harness
market forces for conservation. It's reassuring to see that we're on the same track.
Let me also mention two other factors that make this session important for The Nature Conservancy. First,
the SOLEC process represents a pioneering effort to address conservation on a truly regional scale and
with a wide array of public and private partners. In part out of necessity, but also out of foresight, the Great
Lakes region was "thinking like an ecosystem" long before "ecosystem management" became fashionable
in conservation circles. Having recently embarked on a region-wide initiative of our own to conserve
biodiversity in and around the Great Lakes, the Conservancy is eager to learn from your experiences and
to engage in a discussion about our goals and objectives.
Second, by choosing to focus this meeting on nearshore issues, you are drawing the attention of land
managers and decision-makers from across the basin to the Conservancy's core business: habitat
protection and biodiversity. In a moment, I will expand on the importance of terrestrial systems to the
diversity of the Great Lakes, but these special places and the rare species that live there have long been
targets for Conservancy action. Such biologically significant areas as the Door Peninsula on Lake
Michigan, the freshwater dunes and marshes of eastern Lake Ontario, the shoreline of northern Lake
Huron, and Kakagon Sloughs on Lake Superior are irreplaceable parts of our natural heritage. It's good to
see the broader conservation community in the Great Lakes turning its collective eyes landward.
As we all know, of course, there was a time not very long ago when many people would have scoffed at a
conference dedicated to conserving biodiversity in the Great Lakes. All the media attention in the late
1960s and early 1970s on water pollution in the Great Lakes left a seemingly indelible impression in the
mind of the public about the environmental health of this region. People remember fires catching on the
surface of Lake Erie; they forget that those events happened almost thirty years ago and that things have
changed drastically, and for the better.
Now, Ms optimistic attitude may sound a bit unusual coming from the leader of the world's largest private
conservation organization. After all, they say that environmentalists are professional pessimists - people
who can find the dark lining in a silver cloud. But personally, I find the environmental tendency toward
doom and gloom counterproductive, it reminds me of Woody Allen's famous Speech to the Graduates.
"More than at any time in our history," he said, "mankind stands at a crossroads. One path leads to despair
and utter hopelessness. The other, to total extinction. Let us hope that we have the wisdom to choose
wisely."
SOLEC '96 - Proceedings ; ; 61
-------
I am here to argue that when it comes to conserving the environment, and particularly the Great Lakes
region, we do not face this Hobson's Choice. Rat'her, we have real choices, with real consequences. If we
continue to work together, we can ensure that this region enjoys the twin benefits of economic prosperity
and environmental protection over the long run. In this regard, local governments and other stakeholders
in the Great Lakes region deserve great credit for embracing this powerful vision of the future. *
Turning this cooperative vision into reality, however, will likely prove a different matter. We still have much
to leam about the Great Lakes ecosystem, about conservation on these scales, and about each other. So
in my remarks, I want to start by explaining why The Nature Conservancy believes that the Great Lakes
are a biodiversity conservation priority. Then I want to outline what we believe comes next - what the
Conservancy hopes to contribute through its work in the region, and how we hope to integrate our efforts
with other initiatives. But first, because many of you may not be familiar with The Nature Conservancy, I
want to begin with a brief introduction to our organization.
For 45 years, The Nature Conservancy has been taking direct action to conserve the Earth's rarest and
most threatened plants, animals, and natural communities. We are a large, international organization, but I
believe that the secret to our effectiveness can be captured in a single statistic. The Conservancy
operates out of more than 250 offices around the world. This is unprecedented for a conservation
nonprofit. In practice, it means that we maintain an on-the-ground presence in the communities where we
work. I cannot overemphasize how important this is to long-term success. When The Nature
Conservancy sets up shop in a community, our goal is to become a trusted neighbor and to work in
partnership with local people to achieve lasting, meaningful conservation results.
Just here in the Great Lakes region, for example, we have staff not only in the state capitals but also on
the ground, in places from Fish Creek, Indiana to Cedarville, Michigan. Our Great Lakes regional program
may be based in Chicago, but Helen Taylor, Sue Crispin, and the rest of the staff can draw on our
resources in the crescent of states from Minnesota to New York.
We are nonetheless an international organization, and our "multi-local" structure is buttressed by a
coherent, consistent set of principles. In essence, three basic principles define the Conservancy's
approach to conservation.
First, we are science-driven. This means that we base our conservation actions on the best available
science and not simply because an opportunity exists or for scenic values. To this end, the Conservancy
has assembled the most comprehensive database in the Western Hemisphere of the locations and status
of rare species. Administered by the state Heritage programs in the U.S. and provincial Conservation Data
Centres in Canada, this information ensures that we work on the most ecologically important areas.
Further, we constantly reevaluate and adapt our on-the-ground actions to new information. As you
probably know, conservation science is a rapidly developing field, and the Conservancy is at the forefront
of applying these advances to meet the practical challenges of carrying out on-the-ground conservation
projects. With expertise in such fields as fire ecology, invasive species, and biohydrology, the
Conservancy is constantly testing new approaches to managing, restoring, and conserving land and water.
The Conservancy's second key principle is non-confrontation. A long time ago we made the strategic
decision that we could be most effective by developing mutually beneficial partnerships with anyone who
shared our goals. As a result, today we work in partnership with people and organizations ranging from
multinational oil companies to individual farmers and ranchers. And in general, we prefer market-based
solutions to regulation. After all, buying land for conservation - what we do best - is about as market-
oriented as you can get. In the Great Lakes basin alone, for example, we have helped conserve more
than 100,000 acres of ecologically sensitive land. In fact, just a couple of weeks ago I was in the Upper
Peninsula of Michigan with our very able Michigan state director, Tom Woiwode, to dedicate a preserve
that protects more than three miles of shoreline along Lake Huron.
62 ; \ \ SOLEC '96 - Proceedings
-------
Now, although buying land is certainly effective, it is not the only solution and in many cases not
necessarily the best solution. This brings me to the third basic principle about the Conservancy. We are
entrepreneurial. The word "entrepreneurial" gets misused a lot these days, but I cannot think of a better
way of expressing the Conservancy's emphasis on creative approaches to conservation problems.
Perhaps the best thing to do is to relate a quick story about the how the Conservancy gets things done.
This example concerns our Fish Creek project in Indiana, where the Conservancy is working to protect a
number of globally imperilled fish and mussels that live in this creek. It turns out that the biggest threat to
these species is soil erosion from nearby farm fields. Every time it rains, the creek turns chocolate-brown
from the runoff, which smothers the mussels and drives away the fish.
But what to do? You can't "buy" a creek, and even an organization with our resources cannot afford to
acquire all the farms that line this waterway. So instead, we set up our own little incentive program. If
local farmers agree to switch to "no-till" planting techniques, which cause far less erosion than traditional
plowing, then we will agree to subsidize the additional cost for new equipment. The farmers love this idea,
and as a result we have been able to affect land-use patterns over thousands of acres throughout the
watershed.
In addition to illustrating our creative side, the Fish Creek project also serves as a good example of how
our work has evolved in recent years. In the past, the Conservancy was known for acquiring land and
setting it aside in preserves. Today, we still acquire land, but our goals, strategies, and programs reach far
beyond the boundaries of our preserves. Instead, in places like Fish Creek, we seeking to conserve whole
watersheds — intact landscapes where people and nature coexist in productive harmony. This represents
a sea-change for the Conservancy, and has compelled us to reach out aggressively to local communities
and to form new partnerships.
Our conservation goals have evolved over time as well. As a first step, the Conservancy decided to ignore
geopolitical boundaries in our conservation planning and instead to organize our conservation programs
around ecologically derived regions. And second, instead of focusing exclusively on rarity, we are now
seeking to conserve viable populations of all native species and communities within each of the ecoregions
where we work. Those of you familiar with our Great Lakes Initiative will not be surprised to leam that its
success played a key role in persuading us to adopt an ecoregional approach organization-wide.
Now, 1 think that the Conservancy's Great Lakes Initiative has performed another valuable service —
highlighting the distribution of biodiversity in the region. With so much emphasis on the Lakes themselves,
some people have lost sight of remarkable diversity of life in the surrounding watersheds. In the second
part of my talk, let me spend a few moments expanding on this.
The fact is, the Great Lakes region ranks as an important global conservation priority. It supports more
than 130 species and ecological communities that are rare or imperilled, with more than half of these
species endemic to the Great Lakes region. There are a lot of different reasons to account for this high
concentration of rare species — fluctuations in water level, microhabitats left over from the Ice Age, and so
forth. But there can be no question of the collective significance of these populations, nor of the region's
value as a conservation target.
These findings are drawn from a Conservancy project that began in tiie early 1990s to inventory the
biodiversity of the Great Lakes. We assembled detailed data from eight states and from Ontario, making it
one of the largest-scale assemblages of biodiversity information ever attempted. And even we were
surprised by the results - not only by the volume of rare species and communities, but also by the
tremendous potential for conservation that we perceived for this region.
In retrospect, I realize that our surprise was largely a function of our own preconceptions that the Lakes
were irretrievably damaged. But when we mapped out the biodiversity data and looked at the system as a
whole, it became clear that the battle to conserve the natural heritage of the region was far from lost. We
SOLEC '96 - Proceedings , 63
-------
could see that excellent opportunities remained to conserve key coastal areas, such as sand dunes, as
well as biologically rich marshes, estuaries, and lakeplain areas.
This is not to say, of course, ttiat the Great Lakes region is in pristine environmental condition. The
Conservancy's analysis also began identifying the critical threats to the biodiversity of the Great Lakes,
and we came up with many of the issues that you would expect: unsustainable land-management
practices; impacts from agriculture, primarily non-point source runoff, and of course the invasion of exotic
species, such as the zebra mussel. I know that ttie 1994 SOLEC meeting concentrated on this last issue,
and I think that we have seen some progress in slowing the spread of these pernicious species. For
example, I take heart from the collaborative efforts of ship owners, engineers, state government officials,
and biologists to test new shipboard ballast systems that would screen out mussels before a ship moves
from port to port.
But although exotic species are certainly a pressing issue for the Great Lakes system, the two biggest
threats to biodiversity we found regionwide were habitat conversion and altered hydrology.
Habitat conversion - the permanent loss of natural areas for commercial, residential, and second-home
development - is an obvious enough source of stress on biodiversity. Eliminate habitat and you eliminate
species; in many cases, simply fragmenting an otherwise contiguous expanse of habitat accomplishes the
same effect. The altered hydrology of both the surface and ground waters across the region is more
complicated. But as people all across the Great Lakes basin have dug wells, built diversion or irrigation
dams, filled in wetlands, and constructed canals, the natural hydrology of the system has changed
dramatically. In turn, these shifts have imperilled several species and communities that depend on certain
water levels at certain times of year.
It would be foolish to assume that any of these threats are going to magically disappear any time soon.
Indeed, it is safe to assume that the pressures on the native plants and animals of the Great Lakes will
only increase. After all, 10 percent of the U.S. population and 30 percent of the Canadian population live in
the Great Lakes basin, and the region remains one of the world's major industrial powerhouses. Economic
development in the Great Lakes is not a question of if, but when.
But the good news is that we still have an excellent opportunity to conserve and restore the ecological
integrity of the Great Lakes system. In certain densely developed places, things may not look too
promising, but region-wide, enough of the natural processes and native habitat remain intact to justify
taking concerted action to preserve the ecological fabric of this landscape. Time may be short, but there is
still time.
Even more important, we also seem to have the public and private will required to pursue this goal region-
wide. Much of the credit for this must go to the business community. Instead of resisting regional
conservation efforts, the industries of the Great Lakes have really taken a leadership position in many
instances. They recognize that a healthy economy depends on a healthy environment, and that what is
good for the environment is also good for the bottom line. Your speaker yesterday, my good friend David
Buzzelli of Dow Chemical, undoubtedly went into greater detail about the movement toward what he calls
"eco-efficiency." My point is that active cooperation of the private sector adds whole dimensions to the
conservation opportunities available in the Great Lakes.
And finally, opportunity rests in the region's strong existing environmental infrastructure, which was set up
originally to address water-quality issues. Because the Lakes are a connected system - because what
happens in one part of the system will eventually affect all others "downstream" — you have been forced to
take an ecosystem approach from ttie beginning. In many places, we find ourselves spending a lot of time
persuading stakeholders that it is in their interest to address environmental issues on a broad scale. Here
in the Great Lakes, that is just the starting point.
64 SOLEC '96 - Proceedings
-------
I should add that an essential part of that environmental infrastructure are the network of strong regional
non-governmental organizations, many of them represented here today. The ndn-profit sector has a
central role to play to meet conservation challenges on this scale, and we took forward to working with
them as we move forward. In that regard, I want to single out the efforts of one of the Conservancy's key
partners in our eastern Lake Ontario project, the Ontario Dune Coalition. Recognized last night as an
outstanding example of effective grassroots conservation, this coalition has been a powerful and
persuasive voice for protecting the ecological integrity of these dunes for the past 11 years. Along with the
other groups honored yesterday, the Ontario Dune Coalition represents the best traditions of local
activism, and any successful region-wide conservation initiative will need to draw on the resources and
talents of these nonprofits.
Let me also say a word on behalf of my old Conservancy colleague Russ van Herik, now of the Great
Lakes Protection Fund. An $80 million endowment established by seven governors from states bordering
on the Lakes, the Fund has as its mission promoting regional action to protect the health of the Great
Lakes ecosystem. Not only is this an innovative approach to funding conservation projects, but it also
serves as a fine model for addressing conservation issues on a regional basis.
This combination of factors gives me hope for the future. We have most of the necessary ingredients to
make good conservation happen across a meaningful piece of the landscape. We have good scientific
information and a trusting relationship between governments, business, and non-profit groups. We have
public support and enough time to act. With so much opportunity, the question is, what next?
In the final part of my remarks, I have a few thoughts along these lines. Let me concentrate first on what
The Nature Conservancy intends to do.
For one, we have made an institutional commitment to the protection of biodiversity in the Great Lakes
region by establishing our Great Lakes program. As I mentioned, this program is one of the first
Conservancy initiatives that seeks to plan and carry out conservation on a regional scale. We will look to
this program as a learning laboratory for how this type of work should be done.
Second, we are working to upgrade the information we collected about the distribution and status of
biodiversity in the region. As comprehensive as our first analysis was, the information was still incomplete
and we have been working since then to fill the gaps. Some of the results of this work have been
discussed during this meeting, and I can report now that an important outcome of this work has been to
focus institutional attention and efforts on a little-known but unique ecosystem, the coastal habitat called
"alvar."
Third, the Conservancy and our partners are in the process of implementing a series of landscape-scale
conservation projects across the region. These projects focus on areas of unarguable biological
importance and include many of the region's richest ecosystems - coastal dunes, marshes and
rockshores, lakeplain prairies and savannas, tributaries and forests.
At a local level, these on-the-ground conservation projects address the same issues that are relevant
basinwide. For example, each of these projects seeks to demonstrate how to balance economic and
environmental concerns. Consequently, in these places we have a wide array of compatible economic
development programs involving such industries as agriculture, timber, and tourism. In addition, at each of
these sites we are working with partners to build a powerful local consensus supporting conservation. And
with each project we understand the ecology of the entire system a little bit better.
And last, we are working to stimulate cooperation and coordination of conservation efforts across the
basin. Building partnerships is something that the Conservancy has always concentrated on, but here in
the Great Lakes we want to take this time-tested strategy to new heights. Simply put, conserving the
native species and habitats of this region is far too ambitious a task for any one group, or government
SOLEC '96 - Proceedings ; 65
-------
agency, or corporation. To the contrary: preserving the natural heritage of this sprawling, wonderful, and
complex system will require that all of us step up to the plate.
Indeed, I think that this question of scale represents the single biggest challenge that we face in
conserving the Great Lakes system. How do we design a network of conservation areas that will
collectively conserve the full range of species and communities found in the Great Lakes? No one has
ever really tried on this scale. Even if we develop a good design, how do we implement it? What will it
cost and who will pay? And how should we set priorities for action among the many deserving places in
and around the region?
I realize that 1 just asked a bunch of questions in a row, none of them with easy answers. But that should
not be a cause for despair. In fact, I take it as a positive sign that we can even ask these questions about
a region as large and developed as the Great Lakes. It means we are making progress. Progress, too,
will come from meetings like this gathering of SOLEC. After all, in your deliberations here this week, you
can help chart a course for conserving the biological legacy of the Great Lakes region.
Ultimately, of course, the task of protecting our natural heritage comes down to individuals — you and me.
Every day we make decisions that affect the environment, and every day we must take responsibility for
our actions. And we are also the people who will be held accountable by future generations for the quality
of our decisions and the effectiveness of our actions.
So how will our generation be judged by our descendants? Will we make good choices and pass down a
natural heritage as robust as the one that we inherited? The answer, 1 think, is yes. If people work
together, if they seek compromise and not division, then we can conserve the rich diversity of life on Earth.
We have an obligation to ourselves - and those who follow - to do no less. For in the long run, our
society will be defined run not only by what we create, but by what we refuse to destroy. Thank you.
66 ' ' SOLEC'96 - Proceedings
-------
Ctiair . .:"' '>:v -,, •/„• „,•".• '""••" • " .-•.,"'••"$ > r ""--,. • • • "'X-T!|~V~;v,-"-•
Significant historical forces are acting on large urban areas and waterfronts
across North America, Changes are occurring in four major ways:
Change in economics:
» There is a fundamental shift in the economic basis of Greater Toronto in the way they create wealth
and make a living.
• The trick is to figure out how much of the old way we should keep (e.g. what elements of traditional
manufacturing) and how much of the new way we should learn and use.
Change in demographics:
• There have been 75,000 new people added to Toronto every year for the past 50 years, including
people of all shapes, sizes, colours and creeds.
• We now have 110 weekly newspapers which are published in a language other than English. A multi-
cultural framework is not a policy, it is a reality.
• We live in a time of significant movement of peoples around the globe.
• The baby boomer generation has marched through society, determining many changes and claiming
many conditions for themselves (see David Foote's Boom, Bust or Echo).
• There is also a gender revolution and we must face this reality; it is changing home/work relationships.
Change in attitudes towards the environment:
• In 1961, Rachel Carson wrote Silent Spring, and it started the conservation movement of our time; it
was written 35 years ago, and it still makes sense.
• We have absolutely changed our attitude towards the environment; and this has changed government,
industry, business and personal attitudes.
• Never underestimate the power of the conservation movement: it will leave a legacy for your children.
* Canadians have a unique relationship with the environment; we are the only country in the world with a
leaf on our flag, not symbols of our history or our ideology - just nature. Think about that.
Change in the role of government:
• It is hard for governments to cope with these changes; it is impossible to do the new jobs that are
required, in the old way.
• No one knows who does what; one thing we do know is that slowly responsibilities are being pushed
down to municipalities.
• The Remedial Action Plans that work are the ones that have community and agency staff support at
the local level, and buy-in at the senior levels of government.
* Governments are based on maps and boundaries, but the borders and boundaries have fundamentally
changed in our generation. We are trying to figure out what our new maps are, bringing together
ecology, economy and community.
At the Waterfront Regeneration Trust, we try to use an ecosystem approach in all of our work. When we
were the Royal Commission on the Future of the Toronto Waterfront, we developed an understanding of
what we meant by an ecosystem approach. The knuckles of an ecosystem approach are:
• Everything is connected to everything else.
* Human beings are a part of nature and can not be separated from it.
* We are responsible for the consequences of our actions.
Therefore, the concept of moving in, using up, throwing away, and moving on is unacceptable.
One last thought on how to get there: We're not really good at learning without doing; we can't separate the
projects from the learning. And learning new ways of doing things is the only way to deal with historical
change. *
SOLEC '96 - Proceedings ', 67
-------
APPENDIX G. Participant's List
SOLEC '96 - Proceedings ; \ 69
-------
Alan Abelsohn Ontario College of Family Physicians
Valdus Adamkus US Environmental Protection Agency
Dennis Albert - Michigan National Features Inventory
Kathy Allan Green Saver
Rod Allan National Water Research Institute
Paul Alsenas Cuyahoga County Planning Commission
Janet Amos Region of Halton
Janette Anderson Environment Canada
Jim Atkinson Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources
Vtriginia Aveni Cuyahoga County Planning Commission
Milena Avramovic Ontario Ministry of Municipal Affairs
Ron Baba Oneida Planning Dept
Lois De Backer CS Mott Foundation
Edward Bailey International Joint Commission
Tom Bailey Little Traverse Conservancy
Bruce Baker Wisconsin Dept of Natural Resources
Thomas Baldini International Joint Commission
Helen Ball Pisces Consultants
Bruce Bandurski International Joint Committee
Linda Barbetti Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources &
Lincoln Waterways
Anne Barnes Bad Band River of Lake Superior
Chippewa
Suzanne Barrett Waterfront Regeneration Trust
Vicki Barren Credit Valley Conservation Auth
Jon Bart ho lie Michigan State University
Dan Bauer US Dept of the Interior
Paul Baumann The Ohio State University
Susan Bayh International Joint Commission
Judy Beck US Environmental Protection Agency
Laura Beer Great Lakes Commission
Pierre BJIand International Joint Commission
Tim Bendig Windsor-Essex County Health Unit
Mike Berman US Environmental Protection Agency
Paul Bertram US Environmental Protection Agency
Victor Bierman LTI-Limnotech Ltd, Inc.
Marcel Blais Town of Tecumseh
Pamela Blais Metropote Consultants
Meritee Biowers
William Booty Environment Canada
Lee Botts Inst. for Intemaf I Env. Governance
Michael Boyce Michigan Environmental Council
Peter Boyer International Joint Commission
Stephen Brandt SUNY College at Buffalo
M.P. Bratzel International Joint Commission
Werner Braun The Dow Chemical
Jim Bredin Michigan Office of the Great Lakes
Mark Breedertand SE Michigan District Agent
Lee Bridges Indian Dept of Environmental
Management
Timothy Brown Clean Sites
Bob Budd County of Huron
telly Burch Pennsylvania Dept of Environment
Protection
Thomas Burnett INCO Ltd
Robert Bums US Dept of Agriculture
Tom Burton Town of Tecumseh
Dieter Busch US Fish & Wildlife Service
JeffBusch Ohio Lake Erie Office
Jeffrey Busch Ohio Lake Erie Office & Ohio Lake Erie
Commission
Thomas Busiahn US Fish & Wildlife Service
Frank Butterworth Institute for River Research Internationa!
David Buzzelli Dow Chemical Co,
Mary-Lou Byrne Wilfrid Laurier University
Tanya Cabala Lake Michigan Federation
Vic Cairns Great Lakes Lab for Fisheries and
Aquatic Sciences
Daniel Campbell
Allegra Cangelosi Northeast-Midwest Institute
Kristtne Carre
Robert Carson
Karen Cedar
Alice Chambenln
Murray Chariton
Peter Chariton
Michael Chrzastowski
Murray Clamen
Renata Claudi
Lynn deary
Catherine Cobden
Pat Collins
John Cooley
DiekCoote
Rick Coronado
George Costaris
Rick Cowan
David Cowgil
Susan Crispin
David Crombie
Peter Croskery
Ken Cullis
Nancy Cunningham
Shannon Daher
Thomas Dahl
Charles Daniels
Myfanwy Davies
Jennifer Day
Laura Rose Day
C. JosedeAnda
Don DeBlasio
Leo DeLoyde
Leslie Demal
Michelle Dempsey
Diane Dennis-Flagler
Joseph DePinto
Ron Desjardine
Dave Dilks
David Dilks
Marg Dochoda
Douglas Dodge
David Do Ian
Helen Domske
Michael Donahue
Patrick Donnelly
Matt Doss
Mary Beth Doyle
Victor Doyle
Dennis Draper
James Drummond
W.R. Drynan
Lesley Dunn
Tracey Easthope
Roger Ebertiardt
Tim Eder
Donald Edmunds
A. Forester Einarsen
Hugh Eisler
Mary Elder
Ron Emaus
Danny Epstein
Kathy Evans
David Ewert
Amie Fausto
Jared Fein
Michael Finney
Grand Portage Band of Chippewa
Medical Officer of Health
Windsor Parks and Recreation
International Joint Commission
Canada Centre for Inland Waters
Lake Erie Lamp Binational Public Forum
Illinois State Geological Survey
International Joint Commission
Ontario Hydro
Environment Canada
Avenor Inc.
Minnesota Dept of Natural Resources
Fisheries and Oceans Canada
Citizens Alliance
Canadian Consulate General
Ontario Fruit & Vegetable Growers'
Association
US Environmental Protection Agency
The Nature Conservancy
Waterfront Regeneration Trust ,
Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources
Town of Parry Sound
Environment Canada
US Fish & Wildlife Service
Geon Company
CBC Radio
Ohio Environmental Protection Agency
National Wildlife Federation
CIATEJ
US Environmental Protection Agency
City of Burlington
Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources
Environment Canada
US Environmental Protection Agency
University of Buffalo
Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources
LURA Group
LTI Limno-Tech Inc.
Great Lakes Fisheries Commission
Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources
International Joint Commission
New York Sea Grant
Great Lakes Commission
Lambton County Planning
Great Lakes Commission
Ecology Center
Ministry of Municipal Affair and Housing
D.W. Draper & Associates Ltd
Ontario Ministry of Environment &
Energy
City of Windsor
Environment Canada
Ecology Centre
Michigan Dept of Environmental Quality
National Wildlife Federation
American Automobile Manufacturers
Assoc.
US Army Corps of Engineers
Canadian Chlorine Coordinating Council
Regional Municipality of
Hatdimand-Norfolk
Great Lakes Commission
Environment Canada
Muskegon Conservation District
The Nature Conservancy
CH2M Gore and Stone Ltd
E.B, Eddy Forest Products Ltd
Oneida Planning Dept
SOLEC '96-Proceedings
71
-------
F.C. Fleischer
Eileen Foley
Stewart Forbes
Pat Fowler
George Francis
Brian Fredrickson
Paul Freedman
Aaron Freeman
Adele Freeman
Jeffrey Freeman
Rosaline Frith
Kent Fuller
Mark Gaden
John Gannon
Roger Gauthier
Sandra George
Rhae Giacoma
Kyle Gifford
Michael Gilbertson
Kent Gilges
Ian Gillespie
Mary Ginnebaugh
Ron Glenn
Chris Goddard
Alice Godsey
Herman Goertz
Michael Goffin
Cheryl Gonsatves
Rob Graham
Emily Green
Larry Green
Richard Greenwood
Barry Greer
Donald Greer
Margaret Guemero
Gary Gutezian
Basil Gurusinghe
Sheridan Kidd Haack
Andy Hagen
Doug Haines
Kenneth Hall
Larry Halyk
DA Names
Jim Hamilton
Moyra Haney
Howard Hankin
Vicky Harris
John Harfig
Richard Hassinger
Gordon Hayward
Robert Heath
Duane Heaton
Carl Held
Daniel Helwig
Dale Henry
Tom Henry
Heraline Hicks
Jonathan Higgins
Gregory Hill
Harry Hiivonen
Walter Hoagman
Raymond Hoff
Robert Hoffman
JefFHotec
Ontario Ministry of Environment &
Energy
Environment Canada
Great Lakes Pollution Prevention Centre
US Department of Agriculture
University of Waterloo
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
LT1 Limno-Tech Inc
Metro. Toronto Regional Conservation
Auth.
Hey and Associates, Inc.
Environment Canada
US Environmental Protection Agency
Great Lakes Fisheries Commission
National Biological Survey
US Army Corps of Engineers
Environment Canada
US Coast Guard
Canadian Coast Guard
International Joint Commission
The Nature Conservancy
Environment Canada
International Association for Great
Lakes Research
Grey County Planning Dept
Great Lakes Fishery Commission
City of Lima
Environment Canada
Environment Canada
Emergy Creek Environmental Assoc
Ontario Fish Producers Assoc
Sierra Club Midwest Office
Kodak Canada Inc
US Environmental Protection Agency
Environment Canada
Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources
US Environmental Protection Agency
US Environmental Protection Agency
Ministry of Municipal Affairs and
Housing
US Geological Survey
Canadian Wildlife Service
Health Canada
Bay Area Restoration Council
Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources
Dow Chemical Canada Inc.
Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources
Metro Toronto Remedial Action Plan
US Dept of Agriculture
Wisconsin Dept of Natural Resources
International Joint Commission
Minnesota Dept of Natural Resources
Peninsula Township
Kent State University
US Environmental Protection Agency
Town of Lincoln
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
Ontario Ministry of Environment &
Energy
Toledo Blade
Agency for Toxic Substances & Disease
Registry
The Nature Conservancy
Wisconsin Dept of Natural Resources
Environment Canada
Michigan Sea Grant
Environment Canada
Ducks Unlimited
LURA Group
Karen Holland
William Horns
Eric Horvath
Paul Horvatin
Robbin Hough
Maureen Houghton
Andrew Houser
Jim Houston
Todd Howell
Michael Hurst
Noel Hutchinson
Timothy Huxley
Charles Isely
Ed iwachewski
Julie Jack
Edith Jacobson
Wade Jacobson
Ian Jarvis
Jon Jensen
Douglas Jester
Joe St. John
Gary Johnson
Gregory Johnson
Peggy Johnson
Mike Joma
L. Raymond Tuttle
James Justice
Rimas Kafinauskas
Patricia Katies
Peter Kauss
Bob Ka vets ky
Kelly Kelly
John Kelso
Joanna Kidd
Mary Kirby
Chris Kirchner
Bruce Kirschner
Michael KJedinger
Mike KJepinger
Steven Klose
Neil Kmiecik
Joe Knapper
Roger Knight
Louise Knox
Stuart Kogge
Linda Kohler
Rudy Koop'
Mike Koutnik
Gail Krantzberg
Russel Kreis
Robert Krska
George Kuper
Joel Kurtz
Bonnie LaFontaine
Peter Landrum
Robert Lange
Nicole Lavigne
John Lawrence
US Environmental Protection Agency
Great Lakes
Wisconsin Dept of Natural Resources
CityofElkhart
US Environmental Protection Agency
Oakland University
Michigan Dept of Environmental Quality
Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources
International Joint Commission
Ontario Ministry of Environment and
Energy
City of Windsor
City of Oshawa
Stelco Inc.
Waukegan Citizens Advisory Grp.
Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources
American Forest and Paper Assoc.
US Environmental Protection Agency
Agriculture and Agri-Foods Canada
The George Gund Foundation
Michigan Dept Natural Resources
St. Clair Shores Waterfront Advisory
Committee
Ontario Ministry of Environment &
Energy
Lake Erie LAMP Forum Clinton River
RAPPAC
City of Stratford
New York State Electric & Gas
Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer District
Environment Canada
Waterloo Regional Health Unit
Ontario Ministry of Environment &
Energy
US Fish & Wildlife Service
Canton Township
Fisheries and Oceans Canada
LURA Group
Ontario Ministry of Environment &
Energy
Clean Water Alliance
International Joint Commission
Michigan Sea Grant
Michigan State University
Ontario Ministry of Environment &
Energy
Great Lakes Indian Fish & Wildlife
Commission
Environment Canada
Ohio Division of Wildlife
Environment Canada
Michigan Dept of Environmental Quality
Environment Canada
International Joint Commission
Minnesota Dept of Natural Resources
Ontario Ministry of Environment &
Energy
US Environmental Protection Agency
US Fish & Wildlife Service
Council of Great Lakes Industries
Environmental Commissioner of Ontario
Township of Colbome
NOAA Great Lakes Environmental
Research Lab
New York State Dept Environmental
Conservation
Environment Canada
Environment Canada
72
SOLEC '96 - Proceedings
-------
Chuck Ledin
David Lee
Kris Lee
Wendy Leger
Dennis Leonard
Sally Leppard
Sally Lemer
Julie Letterhos
Simon Llewellyn
Stephen Lozano
Tija Luste
Jeffrey S. Lynn
Bruce MacDonald
Rob MacGregor
David Mahony
Jack Manno
Onalee Marsh*
W. Keith Marshall
Terry Martin
Alastair Mathers
Laurie Maynard
Brian McAndrews
LS, McCarty
John'McDonald
Scott McEwen
Craig McGinlay
Kevin McGunagle
Paula Mel ntyre
Ted McKinney
David McLeish
Doug McTavish
G, Tracy Mehan
Kathy Menyes
Kevin Mercer
David Meredith
Edward Michael
Jan Miller
Phyllis Miller
Terence Miller
Ed Mills
John Mills
Charles Minns
Carol MissekJine
Syed Moin
Scott Monds
Lois Morrison
Linda Mortsch
Ralph Moutton
Tom Muir
PauIMuWoon
Frank Murphy
Susan Nameth
Gary Neale
Bemie Neary
Chris Newell-Boum
Lynn Newvine
Cindy Nolan
Francine Norfing
Anne OToote
Jim Oliver
Betsy Otto
Wisconsin Dept of Natural Resources
Wisconsin Electric Power Company
BPAC - St. Clair River
Environment Canada
Detroit Edison
LURA Group
University of Waterloo
Ohio Environmental Protection Agency
Environment Canada
US Environmental Protection Agency
Waterfront Regeneration Trust
International Paper Company
Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada
Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources
Great Lakes United
Great Lakes Research Consortium
Grand Traverse Bay Watershed
Initiative
Environment Canada
Lake Erie Lamp Binational Public Forum
Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources
Environment Canada
The Toronto Star
Canadian Chlorine Coordinating
Committee
International Joint Commission
Tip of the Mitt Watershed Council
Dofasco
International Joint Commission
Great Lakes Commission
DowElanco
Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources
International Joint Commission
Michigan Dept of Environmental Quality
Niagara Peninsula Conservation
Authority
Watershed Infrastructure Ecology
Program
LURA Group
Trout Unlimited
US Corps of Engineers
Ontario Ministry of Environment &
Energy
US Fish & Wildlife Service
Cornell University
Environment Canada
Fisheries and Oceans Canada
The Natural Step
Environment Canada
Environment Canada
Council of Great Lakes Governors
Environment Canada
Environment Canada
Environment Canada
Canadian Environmental Law Assoc
International Joint Commission
Environment Canada
NIPSCO (Northern Indiana Public
Service Co.)
Ontario Ministry of Environment &
Energy
NIPSCO (Northern Indiana Public
Service Co.)
CityofBkhart
US Environmental Protection Agency
US Environmental Protection Agency
Environment Canada
Long Point Region Conservation
Authority
Conservation Fund
Bob Overly
Scott Painter
Jeanna Paluzzi
Martin Parker
Nancy Patterson
Kenneth Paxton
George Peace
Geoff Peach
Victoria Pebbles
Margaret Peet
Dale Phenicie
(Catherine Pigott
Karen Plass
Heather Potter
Patricia Potter
Mary Powers
Pranas Pranckevicius
Paul Pratt
Rick Pratt
Tina Preston
Jane Prohaska
Kathy Prosser
Doug Pryke
Christian Pupp
Barry Putt
Terry Quinney
James River Corporation
Environment Canada
Town of Port Elgin
Canadian Wildlife Service
Ohio Dept of Natural Resources
ERIM
Saugeen Valley Conservation Auth
Great Lakes Commission
City of Munroe
Georgia-Pacific Corp.
Ontario Healthy Communities Coalition
Wisconsin Dept of Natural Resources
The Nature Conservancy
Lake Erie Alliance
Lake Michigan Forum/Kalamazoo River
US Environmental Protection Agency
Windsor Parks and Recreation
Environment Canada
Erie County Dept of the Environmental
Planning
The Nature Conservancy
International Joint Commission
Alliance for Environmental Technology
Environment Canada
Canadian Coast Guard
Ontario Federation of Anglers and
Hunters
Sergio Quinones-Cisneros Institute de Geoflsica - U.N.A.M.
Rebeca Quinonez-Pinon University of Texas at El Paso - CERM
Michael Raab
Jan Rabantek
Thomas Rahn
David Rankin
Carol Ratza
Eric Reeves
Henry Regier
David Reid
Ron Reid
Eli Reinharz
MarkRsshkin
OskarResler
Roy Richardson
Mike Ripley
Ray Rivers
Peter Roberts
Guy Rochon
Eleanor Roemer
Simone Rose
Zemoria Rosemond
Jim Rozakis
Frank Ruddock
Mike Ruszczyk
Phil Ryan
Edward Sado
Jeff Sanders
Fatuma Sanneh
Kim Santos
Charles Sapp
John Sawhill
Bob Schacht
Erie County Dept of the Environmental
Planning
Canadian Institute for Environmental
Law & Policy
LURA Group
Great Lakes Protection Fund
Great Lakes Commission
US Coast Guard
University of Toronto
NOAA Great Lakes Environmental
Research Lab
Bobolink Enterprises
NOAA Damage Assessment Centre
Indiana University Northwest
Environment Canada
Applied Science, Inc.
Chippewa/Ottawa Treaty Fishery
Management Authority
Environment Canada
Ont Ministry of Agriculture, Food &
Rural Affairs
Environment Canada
Lake Michigan Federation
Environment Canada
Agency for Toxic Substances & Disease
Registry
Pennsylvania Dept of Environmental
Protection
Dept of Foreign Affairs
Eastman Kodak
Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources
Ontario Ministry of Environment &
Energy
Oneida Planning Dept
Canadian Consul General, Detroit
US Fish & Wildlife Service
US Environmental Protection Agency
The Nature Conservancy
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
SOLEC '96 - Proceedings
73
-------
WotfScheider
Doug Schmidt
Ken Schmidt
Rob Schmidt
Wayne Schmidt
John Schneider
Hy Schwartz
Jerry Schwartz
Claire Scrivens
Scott Sederstrom
Henri Selles
Harvey Shear
Ron Shimizu
Saulius Simoliunas
Therisa Singh
Steve Skavroneck
William Slade
Theodore Slawecki
James Slosnerick
Barry Smith
Brent Smith
Gregory Smith
James Smith
Judith Smith
Phil Smith
Ron Smith
William Smith
Michael Smrther
Elizabeth Snell
Spencer Snowling
Ann McCammon Sottis
Laura Sondag
Mary Sonntag
Patricia Speth
Barbara Spinweber
Scott Staelgraeve
Mite Stead
Bill Stephenson
Joel Stemstein
Robert Stevenson
Don Stewart
Donna Stewart
Tom Stewart
Evelyn Strader
Philip Strobel
Neil Strong
Michael Sudbury
Tiffany Svensson
Richard Swacen
Nicole Swerhun
Linda Tarn
Helen Taylor
Peter Teltbrd
Dan Thomas
Nelson Thomas
Richard Thomas
Vicki Thomas
Bob Thomson
Steve Thorp
Jenny Tiell
Sheila Tooze
Ontario Ministry of Environment &
Energy
The Windsor Star
Essex Region Conservation Auth
Essex County
National Wildlife Federation
US Environmental Protection Agency
Hytorcan Ltd.
American Forest & Paper Assoc
Environment Canada
Great Lakes United
Ontario Ministry of Environment and
Energy
Environment Canada
Environment Canada
Detroit River Remedial Action Council
Ministry of Municipal Affairs and
Housing
Lake Michigan Forum
New York Power Authority
LJmno-Teeh Inc.
PPG Canada Inc.
Environment Canada
Sandusky Engineering Service
Great Lakes Science Centre
Indiana Dept of Environmental
Management
Environment Canada
Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources
Town of Port Hope
Clinton River RAP PAC
Municipal World Inc.
Snell and Cecile Environmental
Research
McMaster University
Great Lakes Indian Fish & Wildlife
Commission
Erie County Dept of the Environmental
Planning
Erie County Dept of the Environmental
Planning
Great Lakes Water Quality Coalition
US Environmental Protection Agency
Ducks Unlimited
Environment Canada
Parks Canada
Clean Sites
City of Toledo
State University of New York
Environmental Conservation Branch
Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources
Strader & Company
US Environmental Protection Agency
Ciba-Geigy Crop Protection
Falconbridge Ltd
Ontario Federation of Agriculture
Maritime Centre for Rochester
Environment Canada
LURA Group
The Nature Conservancy
Ontario Ministry of Environment &
Energy
Great Lakes Sport Fishing Council
US Environmental Protection Agency
MDA Environmental
US Environmental Protection Agency
Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources
Great Lakes Commission
Ohio Environmental Protection Agency
The Canadian Embassy
Scott Tousaw
Robert Townsend
Marg Troyak
Thomas Trudeau
Tom Tseng
LJsaTulen
Mary-Pat Tyson
Jay Unwin
Janet Vail
Marcia Valiante
Russ Van Herik
Martin Visnosky
MelVisser
MikeVogel
Tony Wagner
Tony Wagner
Jake Vander Wai
Mary Water
Robert Walker
Kevin Walsh
Michael Ward
Barry Warner
Les Weigum
Jack Weinberg
ChipWesetoh
John Westendorf
D.M. Whittle
LymanWibto
DougWilcox
Chris Wiley
Jeff Wilson
Donald Wismer
Thomas Woiwode
MarkWollenweber
Leslie Woo
Margaret Wooster
Chris Wright
Darren Wrightrnan
Alice Yeh
Terry Yonker
John Young
Richard Young
James Zom
Huron County
New York State Dept Environmental
Conservation
Environment Canada
Illinois Dept of Conservation
Environment Canada
Wildlife Habitat Council
US Environmental Protection Agency
Western Michigan University
Grand Valley State University
University of Windsor
Great Lakes Protection Fund
Erie County Environmental Coalition
The Buffalo News
Chemical Manufacturers Assoc.
Waterfront Regeneration Trust
Lake Superior Programs Office
Waukegan Citizens Advisory Group
(RAP)
Beak International Inc.
Greater Grand Bend Economic
Development Office
Canadian Consulate General
University of Waterloo
US Army Corps of Engineers
Greenpeace
Environment Canada
Occidental Chemical Company
Great Lakes Lab for Fisheries & Aquatic
Sciences
RMT Inc.
National Biologic Service
Transport Canada
Canadian Consulate General
The Nature Conservancy
City of St. Clair Shores
University of Waterloo
Great Lakes United
Grand Traverse Bay Watershed
Initiative
Walpote Island First Nation
US Environmental Protection Agency
Lake Erie Alliance
Wildlife Habitat Council
US Fish & Wildlife Service
Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife
Commission
74
SOLEC '96 - Proceedings
------- |