Implementing Indicators
Addendum
DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION AT SOLEC 2002
OCTOBER 2002
-------
SOLEC 2oo2 - Implementing Indicatoirs Addendum (Draft for Discussion, October 2oo2)
-------
Table of Contents
Nearshore and Open Water Indicators 1
Salmon and Trout (Indicator ID #8)
Preyfish Populations (Indicator ID #17)
Sea Lamprey (Indcator ID #18)
Contaminants in Young-of-the-Year Spottail Shiners (Indicator ID #114)
Land and Land Use Indicators 20
Brownfield Redevelopment (Indicator ID #7006)
Green Planning Process (Indicator ID #7053)
Human Health Indicators 27
Contaminants in Edible Fish Tissue (Indicator ID #4083)
Societal Indicators 30
Solid Waste Generation (Indicator ID #7060)
Two indicators listed in the Implementing Indicators report were incorrectly categorized.
Water Use (Indicator ID #7056) and Energy Consumption (Indicators ID #7057) indicators
are to be categorized with the Societal suite of indicators, not the Land and Land Use indica-
tors.
Draft Papers for SOLEC 2002 were prepared by:
Biological Integrity - Douglas Dodge & Harvey Shear
Proposed Changes to the Great Lakes Indicator Suite - Nancy Stadler-Salt
Implementing Indicators - Paul Bertram, Stacey Cherwaty & Nancy Stadler-Salt
SOLEC 2oo2 - Implementing1 Indicators Addendum (Draft for Discussion, October 2oo2)
-------
SOLEC 2oo2 - Implementing Indicatoirs Addendum (Draft for Discussion, October 2oo2)
-------
Near-shore & Open Water Indicators
Salmon and Trout
Indicator ID #8
Assessment: Mixed
Purpose
This indicator shows trends in populations of introduced trout and salmon species in the
Great Lakes basin. These trends have been used to evaluate the resulting impact on native
fish populations.
Ecosystem Objective
In order to manage Great Lakes fisheries, a common fish community goal was developed for
all management agencies; "To secure fish communities, based on foundations of stable self-
sustaining stocks, supplemented by judicious plantings of hatchery-reared fish, and provide
from these communities an optimum contribution of fish, fishing opportunities and associ-
ated benefits to meet needs identified by society for: wholesome food, recreation, cultural
heritage, employment and income, and a healthy aquatic ecosystem" (GLFC, 1997).
Each lake has individual Fish Community Goals and Objectives (FCGO) for introduced
trout and salmon species, in order to establish harvest or yield targets consistent with FCGO
for lake trout restoration, and in Lake Ontario, for Atlantic salmon restoration.
Lake Ontario (1999): Salmon and trout catch rates in recreational fisheries continuing at
early-1990s levels.
Lake Erie (1999 draft): Manage the eastern basin to provide sustainable harvests of valued
fish species, including...lake trout, rainbow trout and other salmonines.
Lake Huron (1995): A diverse salmonine community that can sustain an annual harvest of
2.4 million kg with lake trout the dominant species and anadromous (stream-spawning)
species also having a prominent place.
Lake Michigan: A diverse salmonine community capable of sustaining an annual harvest of
2.7 to 6.8 million kg (6 to 15 million Ib), of which 20-25% is lake trout.
Lake Superior (1990): Achieve...an unspecified yield of other salmonine predators, while
maintaining a predator/prey balance that allows normal growth of lake trout.
Non-native salmonines have become a prominent element in the Great Lakes ecosystem and
an important concept in Great Lakes fisheries management objectives. The populations of
introduced salmonine species are managed to keep alewife abundance below levels associated
with the suppression of native fishes, while avoiding wild oscillations in predator-prey ratios
and the undermining of the integrity of the ecosystem. In addition, they are also responsible
for a substantial economic impact, through the creation of recreational fishing opportunities.
State of the Ecosystem
Non-native salmonine species are stocked in the Great Lakes ecosystem for a dual purpose: 1)
to exert a biological control over alewife and rainbow smelt populations (both exotics) and 2)
to develop a new recreational fishery (Rand and Stewart, 1998) after decimation of the native
top predator (lake trout) by the exotic, predaceous sea lamprey.
Non-native salmonines are used as a tool for alewife control. Alewives are viewed as a nui-
SOLEC 2oo2 - Implementing1 Indicators Addendum (Draft for Discussion, October 2oo2)
-------
"Nearshone & Open Water Indicators
sance in the system since they prey on the larvae of a variety of native fishes, including yellow
perch and lake trout, and because when alewife become very abundant massive die-offs can
occur that foul beaches used for recreation. In addition, thiaminase in alewives also has been
suggested to cause Early Mortality Syndrome (EMS) in salmonines that consume alewife,
which is a threat for lake trout rehabilitation prospects in Lakes Michigan, Huron and
Ontario, and Atlantic salmon restoration in Lake Ontario.
A dramatic increase in stocking of non-native salmonines occurred in the 1960s and 1970s,
which is now augmented by natural reproduction. It is estimated from stocking data that
^745 million non-native salmonines have been stocked in the Great Lakes basin between
1966 and 1998 (Crawford, 2001).
Figure 1 shows the total amount of non-native salmonine stocking occurring in the Great
Total Non-native Salmonid Stocking in the Great Lakes (1966-1 998)
18,000,000
16,000,000
^ 14,000,000
il 12,000,000
o 10,000,000
| 8,000,000
| 6,000,000
* 4,000,000
2,000,000
0
Year
Ontario
--Erie
A Huron
- Mchigan
-* Superior
Figure 1. Total non-native salmonine stocking in the Great Lakes (1966-1998).
Lakes basin from 1966-1998. From Figure 1 it is evident that Lake Michigan is the most
heavily stocked lake, with a maximum stocking level in 1984 of 15,578,125 fish. In contrast
Lake Erie has the lowest rates of stocking, with a maximum of 4,815,303 fish in 1977-
Lakes Ontario, Huron and Superior all seem to display a similar trend in stocking, especially
in recent years. Since the late 1980s, the number of non-native salmonines stocked in the
Great Lakes has been leveling off or slightly declining. This trend can be explained by stock-
ing limits implemented in 1993 by fish managers to lower prey consumption by salmonine
species by 50% in Lake Ontario (Schaner et al., 2001) and by the implementation of stock-
ing ceilings in Lakes Michigan and Huron, as alewife populations are vulnerable to excessive
salmonine predation (Kocik and Jones, 1999).
SOLEC 2oo2 - Implementing' Indicators Addendum
for Discussion, October 2oo2)
-------
Nearshore & Open Water Indicators
Non-Native Salmonid Stocking by Species in the Great Lakes (1966-1998)
20,000,000
18,000,000
16,000,000
14,000,000
12,000,000
10,000,000
8,000,000
6,000,000
4,000,000
2,000,000
0
-
Year
D Brown Trout
Chinook Salmon
DCoho Salmon
D Rainbow Trout
Figure 2. Non-native salmonine stocking by species in the Great Lakes (1966-
1998). Source: Crawford (2001)
Figure 2 shows the non-native salmonine stocking by species in the Great Lakes basin from
1966-1998. It is evident from Figure 2 that chinook salmon represents the most heavily
stocked non-native salmonine in the Great Lakes basin over the study period, accounting for
^45% of all salmonine releases (Crawford, 2001). Chinook salmon are the least expensive of
all non-native salmonines to rear, they also prey almost exclusively on alewife and are thus,
the backbone of stocking programs in alewife-infested lakes, such as Lakes Michigan, Huron
and Ontario. Like other salmonines, chinook salmon are also stocked in order to provide an
economically important sport fishery, which is a need, identified by society. While chinook
salmon have the greatest prey demand of all stocked salmonines, an estimated 76, 000 tones
of alewife are consumed annually by all salmonine predators (Kocik and Jones, 1999).
Future Pressures
Many of these introduced species are reproducing successfully in portions of the basin, and
can be considered to be "naturalized" components of the ecosystem. Therefore, the question
is no longer whether non-native salmonines should be introduced, but rather how to deter-
mine the appropriate abundance of salmonine species in this system.
Rand and Stewart (1998), suggest that predatory salmonines have the potential to create a
situation where prey (alewife) is limiting and ultimately predator survival is reduced. For
example, during the 1990s, chinook salmon in Lake Michigan suffered dramatic declines due
to high mortality and high prevalence of Bacterial Kidney Disease (BKD), when alewife was
no longer abundant in the prey fish community (Hansen and Holey, 2002). Therefore it is
evident that chinook salmon are extremely vulnerable to low alewife abundance. In addition,
it is estimated that salmonine predators could have been consuming as much as 53% of
alewife biomass in Lake Michigan annually (Brown et al., 1999). While suppressing alewife
populations, managers must seek to avoid extreme "boom and bust" predator and prey
populations, a condition not conducive to biological integrity. The current adaptive manage-
ment objective is to produce a predator/prey balance by adhering to stocking ceilings estab-
SOLEC 2oo2 - Implementing1 Indicatoins Addendum (Draft for Discussion, October 2oo2)
-------
Nearshore & Open Water Indicators
lished for each lake, based on assessment of forage species and naturally produced
salmonines. Alewife populations in the Great Lakes have now become an object of fisheries
management concern because of their importance as a forage base for salmonine sport fishery,
and to some managers are no longer viewed as a nuisance (Kocik and Jones, 1999)- Conse-
quently, with finite prey and habitat resources for salmonine production, each species will
exist at some expense to others. To date there is no evidence that current levels of non-native
salmonine stocking are an impediment to the restoration of native salmonines; however, there
is no guarantee that this will continue to be the case in the future.
Future Activities
Many of these salmonine species are still being stocked in order to maintain an adequate
population to suppress non-native prey species (alewife) and for recreational fisheries. It still
remains unknown to what extent stocking of these species (where it is still practiced) should
continue in order to avoiding oscillations in the forage base of the ecosystem. More research
needs to be conducted to determine the optimal number of non-native salmonines, to
estimate abundance of naturally produced salmonine species, to assess the abundance of
forage species, and to better understand the role of non-native salmonines and exotic prey
species in the Great Lakes Ecosystem. Fisheries managers also find it difficult to predict
appropriate stocking levels in the Great Lakes basin because there is a delay before stocked
salmon become significant consumers of alewife; meanwhile alewife can suffer severe die offs
in particularly severe winters. Within a natural ecosystem, there will always be limits to the
level of stocking that can be adequately sustained, and this level is based on the balance
between bioenergetic demands of both predator and prey (Kocik and Jones, 1999). Chinook
salmon will probably continue to be the most abundantly stocked salmonine species in the
basin, since they are inexpensive to rear, feed heavily on alewife, and a highly valued by
recreational fishers. Fisheries managers should continue to model, assess, and practice adap-
tive management with the ultimate objective being to meet the "needs identified by society".
Further Work Necessary
Data of both the number of stocked and naturally produced salmonines and of prey fish
abundance (alewife) needs to be continually maintained in order for fisheries managers to
stock judiciously in implementing adaptive management for predator/prey balance, for
recreational fisheries, and for a healthy aquatic ecosystem. This indicator should be reported
frequently as salmonine stocking is a complex and dynamic management intervention in the
Great Lakes Ecosystem.
Acknowledgments
Author: Melissa Greenwood, Environment Canada, Downsview, ON.
Stocking Data: Adapted from Crawford (2001). Primary source from the Great Lakes Fishery
Commission fish stocking database (1966-1998) received from Mark Holey (U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service), March 2000. Also with the inclusion of other additional sources.
Sources
Brown Jr., E.H., Busiahn, T.R., Jones, M.L., and Argyle, R.L. (1999). Allocating Great Lakes
Forage Bases in Response to Multiple Demand. Great Lakes Fisheries Policy and Manage-
ment: a Binational Perspective. Taylor, WW and Ferreri C.P (eds). East Lansing, MI, Michi-
gan State University Press (www.msu.edu/unit/msupress): pp. 355-394
Crawford, S.S. (2001). Salmonine Introductions to the Laurentian Great Lakes: An Historical
SOLEC 2oo2 - Implementing' Indicators Addendum (Draft for Discussion, October 2oo2)
-------
"Nearshore & Open Water Indicators
Review and Evaluation of Ecological Effects. Canadian Special Publication of Fisheries and
Aquatic Sciences. 132: 205 pp.
GLFC - Great Lakes Fishery Commission (2001). Strategic Vision of the Great Lakes Fishery
Commission for the First Decade of the New Millennium. Available [online] www.glfc.org.
[Accessed 2002, 08, 02]
GLFC - Great Lakes Fishery Commission. (1997). A Joint Strategic Plan for Management of
Great Lakes Fisheries, Ann Arbor, MI.
Hansen, M.J. and M.E. Holey. 2002. Ecological factors affecting the sustainability of
chinook and coho salmon populations in the Great Lakes, especially Lake Michigan, pp.
155-179 in Lynch, K.D., Jones, M.L. and Taylor, WW Sustaining North American salmon:
Perspectives across regions and disciplines. American Fisheries Society Press, Bethesda, MD.
Kocik, J.F., and Jones, M.L. (1999). Pacific Salmonines in the Great Lakes Basin. Great Lakes
Fisheries Policy and Management: a Binational Perspective. Taylor, W.W. and Ferreri C.P
(eds). East Lansing, MI, Michigan State University Press (www.msu.edu/unit/msupress): pp
455-489-
Rand, PS. and Steward D.J. (1998). Prey fish exploitation, salmonine production, and
pelagic food web efficiency in Lake Ontario. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 55: 318-327-
Schaner, T, Bowlby, J.N., Daniels, M., Lantry, B.F. (2001). Lake Ontario Offshore Pelagic
Fish Community. Lake Ontario Fish Communities and Fisheries: 2000 Annual Report of the
Lake Ontario Management Unit, pp 1.1-1.10.
SO LEG 2oo2 - Implementing1 Indicators Addendum (Draft for Discussion, October 2oo2)
-------
"Nearshore & Open Water Indicators
Preyfish Populations
Indicator ID #17
Assessment: Mixed Deteriorating
Purpose
To directly measure abundance and diversity of preyfish populations, especially in relation to
the stability of predator species necessary to maintain the biological integrity of each lake.
Ecosystem Objective
The importance of preyfish populations to support healthy, productive populations of
predator fishes is recognized in the FCGOs for each lake. For example, the fish community
objectives for Lake Michigan specify that in order to restore an ecologically balanced fish
community, a diversity of prey species at population levels matched to primary production
and predator demands must be maintained. This indicator also relates to the 1997 Strategic
Great Lakes Fisheries Management Plan Common Goal Statement for Great Lakes fisheries
agencies.
The preyfish assemblage forms important trophic links in the aquatic ecosystem and consti-
tute the majority of the fish production in the Great Lakes. Preyfish populations in each of
the lakes are currently monitored on an annual basis in order to quantify the population
dynamics of these important fish stocks leading to a better understanding of the processes
that shape the fish community and to identify those characteristics critical to each species.
Populations of lake trout, Pacific salmon, and other salmonids in have been established as
part of intensive programs designed to rehabilitate (or develop new) game fish populations
and commercial fisheries. These economically valuable predator species sustain an increas-
ingly demanding and highly valued fisheries and information on their status is crucial. In
turn, these apex predators are sustained by forage fish populations. In addition, the bloater
and the lake herring, which are native species, and the rainbow smelt are also directly impor-
tant to the commercial fishing industry. Therefore, it is very important that the current
status and estimated carrying capacity of the preyfish populations be fully understood in
order to fully address (1) lake trout restoration goals, (2) stocking projections, (3), present
levels of salmonid abundance and (4) commercial fishing interests.
Features
The segment of the Great Lakes' fish communities that we classify as preyfish comprises
species including both pelagic and benthic species that prey on invertebrates for their
entire life history. As adults, preyfish depend on diets of crustacean zooplankton and
macroinvertebrates Diporeia and Mysis. This convention also supports the recognition of
particle-size distribution theory and size-dependent ecological processes. Based on size-
spectra theory, body size is an indicator of trophic level and the smaller, short-lived fish that
constitute the planktivorous fish assemblage discussed here are a discernable trophic group of
the food web. At present, bloaters (Coregonus hoyi), lake herring (Coregonus artedi), rainbow
smelt (Osmerus mordax), alewife (Alosa pseudoharengus), and deepwater sculpins
(Myoxocephalus thompsoni), and to a lesser degree species like lake whitefish (Coregonus
clupeaformis), ninespine stickleback (Pungitius pungitius) and slimy sculpin (Cottus cognatus)
constitute the bulk of the preyfish communities.
SOLEC 2oo2 - Implementing' Indicators Addendum (Draft for Discussion, October 2oo2)
-------
Nearshore & Open Water Indicators
In Lake Erie, the prey fish community is unique among the Great Lakes in that it is charac-
terized by relatively high species diversity. The prey fish community comprises primarily
gizzard shad (Dorosoma cepedianum) and alewife (grouped as clupeids), emerald (Notropis
atherinoides) and spottail shiners (TV. hudsonius), silver chubs (Hybopsis storeriana), trout-perch
(Percopsis omiscomaycus), round gobies (Neogobius melanostomus), and rainbow smelt (grouped
as soft-rayed), and age-0 yellow (Perca flavescens) and white perch (Morone americana), and
white bass (M. chrysops) (grouped as spiny-rayed).
State of the Ecosystem
Lake Ontario: Alewives and to a lesser degree rainbow smelt dominate the preyfish popula-
tion. Alewives declined to a low level in 2002 after being driven to intermediate levels in
2000-2001 by an exceptionally strong 1998 year class and a strong 1999 year class; al-
though alewives produced a weak year class in 2000, they produced a strong year class in
2001. Rainbow smelt were at record low levels in 2000-2002; a paucity of large individuals
indicates heavy predation pressure. Alewife and rainbow smelt moved to deeper water in the
early 1990s when zebra and quagga mussels colonized the lake and they remain in deeper
water to this day. Slimy sculpin populations declined coincident with the collapse of
Diporeia and show no signs of returning to former levels of abundance. No deepwater
sculpins were caught in 2000-2001. Assessment for Lake Ontario: Mixed, deteriorating.
Lake Erie: The prey fish community in all three basins of Lake Erie has shown declining
trends. In the eastern basin, rainbow smelt have shown declines in abundance over the past
two decades, although slight increases have occurred in the past couple years. The declines
have been attributed to lack of recruitment associated with expanding Driessenid coloniza-
tion and reductions in productivity. The western and central basins also have shown declines
in forage fish abundance associated with declines in abundance of age-0 white perch and
rainbow smelt, respectively. The clupeid component of the forage fish community has
shown no overall trend in the past decade, although gizzard shad and alewife abundance has
been quite variable across the survey period. The biomass estimates for western Lake Erie
were based on data from bottom trawl catches, data from acoustic trawl mensuration gear,
and depth strata extrapolations (0-6 m, and >6 m). Assessment for Lake Erie: Mixed, deterio-
rating.
Lake Michigan: In recent years, alewife biomass has remained at consistently lower levels
compared to the 1970-1980s. Some increase in abundance is noted with strong 1995 and
1998 year classes, but the current low population levels appear to be driven in large part by
predation pressure. Rainbow smelt have declined and remain at lower levels, possibly due to
predation. Bloater biomass has declined steadily since 1990 and is attributed to a lack of
recruitment and slow growth. Bloaters are expected to decline further, but may rebound as
part of an anticipated natural cycle in abundance. Sculpins remain at the same level of
abundance and continue to contribute a significant portion of the preyfish biomass. No age-
0 yellow perch were caught in 2001, indicating another failed year class in a series since
1989- Lake-wide biomass of Dreissenid mussels increased between 1999 and 2001 (with
the quagga mussel invasion just beginning) while Diporeia populations continue to decline.
Assessment for Lake Michigan: Mixed, deteriorating.
Lake Huron: Similar to Lake Michigan, the decline in bloater abundance has resulted in shift
in an increased proportion of alewives in the preyfish community. The changes in the
SO LEG 2oo2 - Implementing1 Indicators Addendum (Draft for Discussion, October 2oo2)
-------
"Nearshore & Open Water Indicators
abundance and age structure of the prey for salmon and trout to predominantly younger,
smaller fish suggests that predation pressure is an important force in both alewife and rain-
bow smelt populations. Sculpin populations have varied, but have been at lower levels in
recent years. No sampling was conducted in L. Huron in 2000 but was resumed in 2001.
In 2001 bloater and rainbow smelt continued to decline in importance while alewife contin-
ued to increase due in part to a particularly strong 2001 year class. Alewife regained their
position as the dominant preyfish species in Lake Huron, largely as a result of a series of
strong year classes since 1998. Whitefish continue to decline from peak levels in the mid
1990s. Overall, the L. Huron fish community is dominated by non-native species, notably
alewife. Round gobies and Driessenid mussels are proliferating throughout the lake and
increasing in abundance. Assessment for Lake Huron: Mixed, deteriorating.
Lake Superior: Over the past 10-15 years, prey fish populations declined in total biomass
when compared to the peak years in 1986, 1990, and 1994, a period when lake herring was
the dominant prey fish species and wild lake trout populations were starting to recover.
Since the early 1980s, dynamics in the total biomass of prey fish has been driven largely by
variation in recruitment of age-1 lake herring. Strong year classes in 1984, 1989, and 1998
were largely responsible for peak lake herring biomass in 1986, 1990-1994, and 1999-
Biomass of rainbow smelt, the dominant prey fish during 1978-1984, has declined but has
been relatively constant over the past 10 years. Bloater biomass has nearly doubled since the
early 1980s but like smelt, has been more constant than lake herring. The rise and fall of
total prey fish biomass over the period 1984-2001 reflects the recovery of wild lake trout
stocks and resumption of commercial harvest of lake herring in Lake Superior. Increases in
prey fish populations are not likely without reductions in harvest by predators and commer-
cial fisherman. Other species, notably sculpins, burbot, and stickleback have declined in
abundance since the recovery of wild lake trout populations in the mid-1980s. Thus, the
current state of the Lake Superior fish community appears to be largely the result of the
recovery of wild lake trout stocks coupled with the resumption of human harvest of key prey
species. Assessment for Lake Superior: Mixed, improving.
Future Pressures
The influences of predation by salmon and trout on preyfish populations appear to be
common across all lakes. Additional pressures from Dreissena populations are apparent in
Lakes Ontario, Erie, and Michigan. "Bottom-up" effects on the prey fishes have already
been observed in Lake Ontario following the dreissenid-linked collapse of Diporeia and are
likely to become apparent in lakes Michigan and Huron as Dreissenids expand and Diporeia
decline. Furthermore, anecdotal observations in Lake Ontario indicate that Mysis are declin-
ing as Dreissenids proliferate in profundal waters, suggesting that dynamics of prey fish
populations in future years could be driven by bottom-up rather than top-down effects in
lakes Michigan, Huron, and Ontario.
Future Activities
Recognition of significant predation effects on preyfish populations has resulted in recent
salmon stocking cutbacks in Lakes Michigan, Huron, and Ontario. However, even with a
reduced population, alewives have exhibited the ability to produce strong year classes such
that the continued judicious use of artificially propagated predators seems necessary to avoid
domination by alewife. It should be noted that this is not an option in Lake Superior since
lake trout and salmon are largely lake-produced. Potential "bottom-up" effects on prey fishes
8 SOLEC 2oo2 - Implementing' Indicators Addendum (Draft for Discussion, October 2oo2)
-------
"Nearshore & Open Water Indicators
would be difficult in any attempt to mitigate owing to our inability to affect changes this
scenario only reinforces the need to avoid further introductions of exotics into the Great Lake
ecosystems.
Further Work Necessary
It has been advanced that in order to restore an ecologically balanced fish community, a
diversity of prey species at population levels matched to primary production and predator
demands must be maintained. However, the current mix of native and naturalized prey and
predator species, and the contributions of artificially propagated predator species into the
system confound any sense of balance in lakes other than Superior. The metrics of ecological
balance as the consequence of fish community structure are best defined through food-web
interactions. It is through understanding the exchanges of trophic supply and demand that
the fish community can be described quantitatively and ecological attributes such as balance
can be better defined and the limits inherent to the ecosystem realized.
Continued monitoring of the fish communities and regular assessments of food habits of
predators and prey fishes will be required to quantify the food-web dynamics in the Great
Lakes. This recommendation is especially supported by continued changes that are occur-
ring not only in the upper but also in the lower trophic levels. Recognized sampling limita-
tions of traditional capture techniques (bottom trawling) has prompted the application of
acoustic techniques as another means to estimate absolute abundance of prey fishes in the
Great Lakes. Though not an assessment panacea, hydro-acoustics has provided additional
insights and has demonstrated utility in the estimates of preyfish biomass.
It is obvious that protecting or reestablishing rare or extirpated members of the once promi-
nent native prey fishes, most notably the various members of the whitefish family (Coregonus
spp), should be a priority in all the Great Lakes. This recommendation would include the
deepwater cisco species and should be reflected in future indicator reports. Lake Superior,
whose preyfish assemblage is dominated by indigenous species and retains a full complement
of ciscos, should be examined more closely to better understand the trophic ecology of a
more natural system.
With the continuous nature of changes that seems to characterize the prey fishes, the appro-
priate frequency to review this indicator is on a 5-year basis.
Acknowledgments
This report was compiled by Owen T Gorman, USGS Great Lakes Science Center, Lake
Superior Biological Station, Ashland, WI; with contributions from Robert O'Gorman and
Randy W Owens, USGS Great Lakes Science Center, Lake Ontario Biological Station,
Oswego NY; Jean Adams, Charles Madenjian and Jeff Schaeffer, USGS Great Lakes Science
Center, Ann Arbor, ML; Mike Bur USGS Great Lakes Science Center, Lake Erie Biological
Station, Sandusky, OH; and Jeffrey Tyson, Ohio Div. of Wildlife Sandusky Fish Research
Unit, Sandusky, OH.
All preyfish trend figures are based on annual bottom trawl surveys performed by USGS
Great Lakes Science Center, except the Lake Erie figure, which is from surveys conducted by
the Ohio Division of Wildlife and the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources.
SO LEG 2oo2 - Implementing1 Indicators Addendum (Draft for Discussion, October 2oo2) o
-------
"Nearshore & Open Water Indicators
]L. herring BR. smelt DL. whitefish Bloater
Figure 1. Preyfish population trends in the Great Lakes
10
SOLEC 2oo2 - Implementing' Indicatoirs Addendmoni
for Discussion, October 2oo2)
-------
"Nearshore & Open Water Indicators
Sea Lamprey
Indicator ID #18
Assessment: Mixed Improving
Purpose
Estimates of the abundance of sea lampreys are presented as an indicator of the status of this
invasive species and of the damage it causes to the fish communities and aquatic ecosystems
of the Great Lakes. Populations of native top predator, lake trout, and other fishes are nega-
tively affected by mortality caused by sea lampreys.
Ecosystem Objective
The 1955 Convention of Great Lakes Fisheries created the Great Lakes Fishery Commission
(GLFC) "to formulate and implement a comprehensive program for the purpose of eradicating or
minimizing the sea lamprey populations in the Convention area". Under the Joint Strategic Plan
for Great Lakes Fisheries, lake committees, consisting of all fishery management agencies,
have established Fish Community Objectives (FCOs) for each of the lakes. These FCOs cite
the need for sea lamprey control to support objectives for the fish community, in particular,
objectives for lake trout, the native top predator. The FCOs include endpoints for sea
lampreys of varying specificity:
Superior (1990) - 50% reduction in parasitic-phase sea lamprey abundance by 2000, and a
90% reduction by 2010;
Michigan (1995) - Suppress the sea lamprey to allow the achievement of other fish-community
objectives;
Huron (1995) - 75% reduction in parasitic sea lamprey by the year 2000 and a 90% reduction
by the year 2010 from present levels;
Erie (1999 draft) - sea lamprey are a pest species requiring control;
Ontario (1999) - Suppress sea lamprey to early-1990s levels, and maintaining marking rates at
<0.02 marks/lake trout.
State of the Ecosystem
The first complete round of stream treatments with the lampricide TFM, as early as I960 in
Lake Superior, successfully suppressed sea lampreys to less than 10% of their pre-control
abundance all of the Great Lakes.
Mark and recapture estimates of the size of runs of sea lampreys migrating up rivers to spawn
is used as a surrogate of the abundance of parasites feeding in the lakes during the previous
year. Estimates of individual spawning runs in trappable streams are combined to estimate
lake-wide abundance using a new regression model that relates run size to stream characteris-
tics. Sea lamprey spend one year in the lake after metamorphosing, so this indicator has a
two-year lag in demonstrating the effects of control efforts. Figure 1 presents these lake-wide
estimates since 1980.
Lake Superior: During the past 20 years, populations have fluctuated but remain at levels
less than 10% of peak abundance. The FCO for sea lampreys was met in 1994 and 1995,
but abundance has increased since 1995- Recent increased abundance estimates have raised
concern in all waters. Marking rates have shown the same pattern of increase especially in
SO LEG 2oo2 - Implementing1 Indicators Addendum (Draft for Discussion, October 2oo2) \\
-------
"Nearshore & Open Water Indicators
some areas of Canadian waters. Survival objectives for lake trout continue to be met but
could be threatened if increases where to continue. Abundance estimates for 2000 and 2001
show a pattern of decline. Stream treatments were increased during 2001 in response to
the observed trends.
CD
Q.
E
JD
03
CD
to
CD
CO
CD
Q.
O)
CD
Q.
CO
"5
CD
O
CD
T3
500,000
400,000
300,000
200,000
100,000
0
Superior
500,000
400,000
300,000
200,000
100,000
Michigan
OCMTtCOOOOCMTtCDOOO
00 00 00 00 00 O) O) O) O) O) O
O) O) O) O) O) O) O) O) O) O) O
500,000 n
400,000
300,000
200,000
100,000
0
Huron/
100,000
80,000
60,000
40,000
20,000
0
Erie
OCMTtCO
00 00 00 00
OCMTtCDOOO
500,000
400,000
300,000
200,000
100,000
Ontario
OtMTftOOOOeMTl-tOOO
00 00 00 00 00 O) O) O) O) O)
O) O) O) O) O) O) O) O) O) O)
Figure 1. Total annual abundance of sea
lamprey estimated during the spawning
migration. Note the scale for Lake Erie is
1/5 larger than the other lakes.
Lake Michigan: Over the majority of the
lake, populations have been relatively
stable. Marking rates on lake trout have
remained low for the period and the
general FCOs are being met. However, a
gradual increase in the lake population is
continuing through 1999 and to the
present. This continuing trend suggests
sources of sea lampreys in Lake Michigan
itself rather than from Lake Huron as
previously believed. Stream treatments
were increased in 2001 including treat-
ment of previously untreated lentic areas.
Lake Huron: Following the success of the
first full round of stream treatments
during the late 1960s, sea lamprey
populations were suppressed to low levels
(<10%) through the 1970s. During the
early 1980s, populations increased in Lake
Huron, particularly the north. This
increase continued through to a peak in
abundance during 1993- Through the
1990s Lake Huron contained more sea
lamprey than all the other lakes com-
bined. FCOs were not being achieved.
The Lake Huron Committee had to
abandon its lake trout restoration objective
in the northern portion of the lake during
1995 because so few lake trout were
surviving attacks by sea lamprey to survive
to maturity. The St. Marys River was
identified as the source of this increase.
The size of this connecting channel made
traditional treatment with the lampricide
TFM impractical. A new integrated
control strategy including targeted appli-
cation of a new bottom-release lampricide,
enhanced trapping of spawning animals,
and sterile-male release was initiated in
1997- A decline in spawning-phase
abundance is predicted for 2001 as a
result of the completion of the first full
SOLEC 2oo2 - Implementing' Indicators Addendum
for Discussion, October 2oo2)
-------
"Nearshore & Open Water Indicators
round of lampricide spot treatments during 1999- While a decline was observed in 2001,
the population shows considerable variation and the full effect of the control program will
not be observed for another 2-4 years.
Lake Erie: Following the completion of the first full round of stream treatments in 1987, sea
lamprey populations collapsed. Lake trout survival wounding rates declined and survival
increased to levels sufficient to meet the rehabilitation objectives in the eastern basin. How-
ever lamprey abundance has increased since the early 1990's to levels that threaten the lake
trout success. A major assessment effort during 1998 indicated that the source of this
increase were several streams in which treatments had been deferred due to low water flows
or concerns for non-target organisms. These critical streams have been treated during 1999
and 2000 and sea lamprey abundance is predicted to decline by 2002. The decline observed
in 2001 might be a preliminary indication of success.
Lake Ontario: Abundance of spawning-phase sea lampreys has continued to decline to low
levels through the 1990s. The abundance of sea lampreys has remained stable during 2000-
2001. The FCOs for sea lamprey abundance continues to be achieved, but lake trout mark-
ing rates have exceeded the target if only slightly during the last two years.
Future Pressures
Since parasitic-phase sea lampreys are at the top of the aquatic food chain and inflict high
mortality on large piscivores, population control is essential for healthy fish communities.
The potential for sea lampreys to colonize new locations is increased with improved water
quality and removal of dams. Increasing abundance in Lake Erie demonstrates how short
lapses in control can result in rapid increases of abundance and that continued effective
stream treatments are necessary to overcome the reproductive potential of this invading
species.
As fish communities recover from the effects of lamprey predation or overfishing, there is
evidence that the survival of parasitic sea lampreys increases due to prey availability. Better
survival means that there are more residual sea lamprey to cause harm. Significant additional
control efforts, like those on the St. Marys River, may be necessary to maintain suppression.
The GLFC has a goal of reducing reliance on lampricides and increasing efforts to integrate
other control techniques, such as the sterile-male-release-technique or the installation of
barriers to stop the upstream migration of adults. Pheromones that affect migration and
mating have been discovered an offer exciting potential as new alternative controls. The use
of alternative controls is consistent with sound practices of integrated pest management, but
can put additional pressures on the ecosystem such as limiting the passage of fish upstream
of barriers. Care must be taken in applying new alternatives or in reducing lampricide use to
not allow sea lamprey abundance to increase.
Future Actions
The GLFC has increased stream treatments and lampricide applications in response to
increasing abundances. The GLFC continues to focus on research and development of
alternative control strategies. Computer models, driven by empirical data, are being used to
best allocate treatment resources, and research is being conducted to better understand and
manage in the variability in sea lamprey populations.
SO LEG 2oo2 - Implementing1 Indicators Addendum (Draft for Discussion, October 2oo2) j =f
-------
"Nearshore & Open Water Indicators
Further Work Necessary
Targeted increases in lampricide treatments are predicted to reduce sea lampreys to accept-
able levels. The effects of increased treatments will be observed in this indicator beginning in
2003- Discrepancies among estimates of different life-history stages need to be resolved.
Efforts to identify all sources of sea lampreys need to continue. In addition, research to
better understand lamprey/prey interactions, the population dynamics of lampreys that
survive control actions, and refinement alternative methods are all key to maintaining sea
lamprey at tolerable levels.
Acknowledgments
Author: Gavin Christie, Great Lakes Fishery Commission, Ann Arbor, MI.
1 A SOLEC 2oo2 - Implementing' Indicators Addendum (Draft for Discussion, October 2oo2)
-------
Nearshore & Open "Water Indicators
Contaminants in Young-of-the-Year Spottail Shiners
Indicator ID #114
Assessment: Mixed Improving
Purpose
Fish are an important indicator of contaminant levels in a system because of the
bioaccumulation of organochlorine chemicals and metals in their tissues. Contaminants that
are often undetectable in water may be detected in juvenile fish. Juvenile spottail shiner
(Notropis hudsonius) was selected by Suns and Rees (1978) as the principal biomonitor for
assessing trends in contaminant levels in nearshore waters. It is the preferred species for the
following reasons: it has limited range in the first year of life; undifferentiated feeding habits
in early stages; is important as a forage fish; and is present throughout the Great Lakes. The
position it holds in the food chain also creates an important link for contaminant transfer to
higher trophic levels.
Ecosystem Objective
To identify areas of concern and monitor contaminant trends over time for the near shore
waters of the Great Lakes.
Concentrations of toxic contaminants in juvenile forage fish should not pose a risk to fish-
eating wildlife. The International Joint Commission's Aquatic Life Guideline (GLWQA
1978) and the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) Fish
Flesh Criteria (Newell et al. 1987) for the protection of piscivorous wildlife are used as
acceptable guidelines for this indicator. Contaminants detected in forage fish and their
respective guidelines are: poly chlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), lOOng/g; dichlorodiphenyl
trichloroethane and breakdown products (total DDT), 200ng/g; hexachlorocyclohexane,
lOOng/g; hexachlorobenzene (HCB), 330ng/g; octachlorostyrene, 20ng/g; chlordane
(500ng/g); and mirex (5ng/g). Since the mirex guideline is equal to the detection limit, if
mirex is detected, the guideline is exceeded.
State of the Ecosystem
In each of the Great Lakes, PCB is the contaminant most frequently exceeding the guideline.
Total DDT is often detected and although the guideline was exceeded in the past, currently
concentrations are well below the guideline. Mirex is detected and exceeds the guideline
only at Lake Ontario locations. Other contaminants listed above are not frequently detected,
and at concentrations well below guidelines.
Lake Erie: Trends were examined for four locations in Lake Erie: Big Creek, Leamington,
Grand Pviver and Thunder Bay Beach. Overall, the trends show higher concentrations of
PCBs in the early years with a steady decline over time. At Big Creek PCB concentrations
were high until 1986, usually exceeding 300ng/g. After 1987, PCB concentrations have
remained near the guideline of 100 ng/g. At the Grand River, PCBs declined from a high of
I46ng/g in 1976 to less than the detection limit (20n/g) in 1990. At Thunder Bay Beach
the highest concentration of PCBs was in 1978 (l46ng/g). After 1978, PCB concentrations
have been less than the lOOng/g guideline.
Total DDT concentrations at Lake Erie sites have been well below the guideline except at
SO LEG 2oo2 - Implementing1 Indicators Addendum (Draft for Discussion, October 2oo2) \ t
-------
"Nearshore & Open Water Indicators
Leamington where 183ng/g were reported in 1986. Maximum concentrations at other Lake
Erie sites were found in the 1970s and ranged from 38ng/g at Thunder Bay Beach to 75ng/g
at Big Creek.
PCB in Spottail Shiners from
Leamington
Year
PCB in Spottail Shiners from Big
Creek
Year
PCB in Spottail Shiners from the
Grand PJver
200 T-
5 150
ut
I 100-H
0 50
0
~n~
T
fl n rn rn rn rn
Year
PCB in Spottail Shiners from
Thunder Bay Beach
Year
DDT in Spottail Shiners from
Leamington
Year
Figure 1. PCB and Total DDT
Levels in Juvenile Spottail
Shiners from Four Locations in
Lake Erie. (The figures show
mean concentrations plus
standard deviations. The red
line indicates the wildlife
protection guideline. When
not detected, one half of the
detection limit was used to
calculate the mean concentra-
tion.)
Lake Huron: Trend data are available for two locations in Lake Huron: Collingwood Harbour
and Nottawasaga River. At Collingwood Harbour the highest PCB concentrations were
found when sampling commenced in 1987 (206ng/g). Since then, PCB concentrations have
either exceeded or fallen just below the guideline. At the Nottawasaga River the highest
concentration of PCBs was in 1977 (90ng/g). Concentrations declined to less than the
detection limit by 1987- The highest concentration of total DDT at Collingwood Harbour
was found in 1987 (24ng/g). At the Nottawasaga River, there has been a steady decline in
total DDT since 1977 when concentrations were!06ng/g.
16
SOLEC 2oo2 - Implementing' Indicators Addendum
for Discussion, October 2oo2)
-------
"Nearshore & Open "Water Indicators
PCB in Spottail Shiners from the
Nottawasaga River
~ 100 -
v 60 -
u "
Q- 20 -
T
H^
1977 1982
I
PI I I I I
1986 1987 1989 1990
Year
PCB in Spottail Shiners from
Collingwood Harbour
c
= 200 -
3 100 -
Q.
I
Q:n n n -
rnh
Year
- * fi
n n
Figure 2. PCB Levels in Juvenile Spottail Shiners from Two Locations in
Lake Huron. (The figures show mean concentrations plus standard devia-
tions of PCBs. When not detected, one half of the detection limit was
PC
200 -,
m
0
3 in Spottail Shiners from Mission
River
,
I I
1979 1980 1983 1984
Year
PCB in Spottail Shiners from Nipigon
Bay
I 5°
^ n ^ HH
1979 1983 1984 1986 1990
PCB in Spottail Shiners from Jackfish
Bay
PCBs (ngfg))
200
S 150
^100
£ 50
r i r^ , , ^
1979 983 1984 1986 1987
Year
PCB in Spottail Shiners from
Batchewana Bay
t:
-
Year
PCB in Spottail Shiners from Kam
River
100 -i
& 60
u 4°
1^ i f
ill
. .
1979 1983 1984 1986 1988 1990 1999
Year
Total DDT (ppb)
DT n Spottail Shiners from Mission
River
J_
- f^l rV
1979 1980 1983 1984
DDT in Spottail Shiners fromNipigon
Bay
~ Rn
i: so
1- 40-
8 30-
£ 10-
i i i
-i i i i i i -
1979 1983 1984 1986 990
Year
DDT in Spottail Shiners from Jackfish
Bay
15
i =
| ' | ^ ! ! .
TR FIR rTT
1979 1983 1984 1986 1987
DDT in Spottail Shiners from
Batchewana Bay
1,0
fc
£
n i^~\
\
1979 1983 1987 1989
Year
DDT in Spottail Shiners from Kam
River
s50'
fc 30
a 10.
12 o
A
zLt
1979 1983 1984 1986 1988 1990 1999
Year
Lake Superior: Trend data were exam-
ined for four locations in Lake Supe-
rior: Mission River, Nipigon Bay,
Jackfish Bay and Kam Pviver. Generally
contaminant concentrations were low
in all years and at all locations. The
highest PCB concentrations in Lake
Superior were found at the Mission
River in 1983 (139ng/g). All other
analytical results were less than the
guideline. Maximum concentrations
for PCBs at the Lake Superior sites
were from 1983 and ranged from
51ng/g at Nipigon Bay to 89ng/g at
Jackfish Bay. The highest concentra-
tions of DDT were found in 1990 at
Nipigon Bay (66ng/g) and Kam River
(37ng/g).
Lake Ontario: Contaminant concen-
trations from five locations were
examined for trend analysis for Lake
Ontario: Twelve Mile Creek,
Burlington Beach, Bronte Creek,
Credit River and the Humber River.
PCBs, total DDT and mirex are
generally higher at these (and other
Lake Ontario) locations than elsewhere
in the Great Lakes. Overall, PCBs at all Figure 3- PCB and Total DDT Levels in Juvenile
locations tended to be higher in the Spottail Shiners from Five Locations in Lake
early years, ranging from 3 to 30 times Superior. (The figures show mean concentra-
the guideline. The highest concentra-
SOLEC 2oo2 - Implementing' Indicatoins Addendum (Draft for Discussion, October 2oo2)
-------
"Nearshore & Open Water Indicators
tions of PCBs were found at the Humber River in 1978 (2938ng/g). In recent years PCBs
have generally ranged from lOOng/g to 200ng/g.
Mirex has exceeded the guideline intermittently at all five locations. The maximum concen-
tration was 37ng/g at the Credit River in 1992. Since 1992, mirex has not been detected at
any of these locations.
Total DDT concentrations approached or exceeded the guideline at all five locations in the
1970s and on occasion in the 1980s. The maximum reported concentration was at the
Humber River in 1978 when total DDT was 443ng/g. The typical concentration of total
DDT at all five locations is currently near 50 ng/g.
PCB in Spottail Shiners from
Twelve Mile Creek
~°> 1000 -
A*3
IffinTTlMfilfirllirrTlT w.
sf ,.<# ,<# .# .<#
Year
PCB in Spottail Shiners from Credit
River
~ 1000 J
8 500
" o J
L
1 1 1 n n n n n fi _ n n n _
<#" ^ <# <# <$? <# <#
Year
PCBin Spottail Shiners from
Burlington Beach
1000 -, ,
n 800-
? 600-
S 400-
£ 200-
i li
T; \\-r-m fT
fi nfflnHn
Year
PCB in Spottail Shiners from Bronte
Creek
c _
" o-
I
1 T
lUlT JU-Pj-fi-
\ \ \ \ "V
Year
PCE
4000 -,
~ 2000
g 1000-
iin Spottail Shiners from the
Humber River
T
T
flllflTTffn-fT TTw
Year
Mirex in Spottail Shiners from
Twe ve Mile Creek
ra
Year
Mirex n Spottail Shiners from the
Credit River
x ~ so 1 n
| !> 20 1 L
Year
Mirex in Spottail Shiners from
Burlington Beach
10 IT
° n T
6 ft yH
s^JHHE fttrnnrmj
Year
DDT in Spottail Shiners from
Twelve Mile Creek
200 i 1
<#> <*? <$? <#> #° <$>
Year
DDT in Spottail Shiners from the
Credit River
400 lT
300 T
H :.. n
a °>
« g 1 ntnwi'i fffi n
Year
Figure 4. PCB, Mirex and Total DDT Levels
in Juvenile Spottail Shiners from Five Loca-
tions in Lake Ontario. (The figures show
mean concentrations plus standard deviations
of PCBs, total DDT and mirex. When not
detected, one half of the detection limit was
18
SOLEC 2oo2 - llnnpilenneinutuniig' llmudicautoirs AddendiunDn
for IDisciuissiomi, October 2oo2)
-------
"Nearshore & O|pemi Water htdtcators
Future Activities
Organochlorine contaminants have declined in juvenile fish throughout the Great Lakes.
Regular monitoring should continue for all of these areas to determine if levels are below
wildlife protection guidelines. Analytical methods should be improved to accommodate
revised guidelines and to include additional contaminants such as dioxins and furans, dioxin-
like PCBs and poly-brominanted diphenyl ethers. For Lake Superior, the historical data do
not include toxaphene concentrations. Since this contaminant is responsible for most of the
consumption advisories and restrictions on sport fish from this lake (Scheider et al., 1998), it
is recommended that analysis of this contaminant be included in any future biomonitoring
studies in Lake Superior.
Acknowledgments
Author: Emily Awad and Alan Hayton, Sport Fish Contaminant Monitoring Program,
Ontario Ministry of Environment, Etobicoke, ON.
Data: Sport Fish Contaminant Monitoring Program, Ontario Ministry of Environment.
Sources
Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement (GLWQA). 1978. Revised Great Lakes Water Qual-
ity Agreement of 1978. As amended by Protocol November 18, 1987- International Joint
Commission, Windsor, Ontario.
Newell, A.J., D.W Johnson and L.K. Allen. 1987- Niagara River Biota Contamination
Project: Fish Flesh criteria for Piscivorous Wildlife. Technical Report 87-3- New York State
Department of Environmental Conservation, Albany, New York.
Scheider, WA., C. Cox, A. Hayton, G. Hitchin, A. Vaillancourt. 1998. 'Current Status and
Temporal Trends in Concentrations of Persistent Toxic Substances in Sport Fish and Juvenile
Forage Fish in the Canadian Waters of the Great Lakes'. Environmental Monitoring and
Assessment. 53: 57-76.
Suns, K. and Rees, G. 1978. 'Organochlorine Contaminant Residues in Young-of-the-Year
Spottail Shiners from Lakes Ontario, Erie, and St. Clair'. /. Great Lakes Res. 4: 230-233-
SO LEG 2oo2 - Implementing1 Indicators Addendum (Draft for Discussion, October 2oo2)
-------
Land and Land Use Indicators
Brownfields Redevelopment
Indicator ID #7006
Assessment: Mixed Improving
Purpose
To assess the acreage of redeveloped brownfields, and to evaluate over time the rate at which
society remediates and reuses former developed sites that have been degraded or abandoned.
Ecosystem Objective
The goal of brownfields redevelopment is to remove threats of contamination associated with
these properties and to bring them back into productive use. Remediation and redevelop-
ment of brownfields results in two types of ecosystem improvements: 1) reduction or elimi-
nation of environmental risks from contamination associated with these properties; and 2)
reduction in pressure for open space conversion as previously developed properties are reused.
State of the Ecosystem
All eight Great Lakes states, Ontario and Quebec have programs to promote remediation or
"cleanup" and redevelopment of brownfields sites. Several of the brownfields cleanup
programs have been in place since the mid to late 1980s, but establishment of more compre-
hensive brownfields programs that focus on remediation and redevelopment has occurred
during the 1990s. Today, each of the Great Lakes states has a voluntary cleanup or environ-
mental response program. These programs offer a range of risk-based, site-specific back-
ground and health cleanup standards that are applied based on the specifics of the contami-
nated property and its intended reuse.
Efforts to track brownfields redevelopment are uneven among Great Lakes states and prov-
inces. Not all jurisdictions track brownfields activities and methods vary where tracking does
take place. Most states track the amount of funding granted to voluntary remediated pro-
grams or state brownfields cleanup programs, while some track the number of sites that have
been redeveloped. The overall number of sites being addressed reflects the level of cleanup
activity or amount of financial support from each state, but does not necessary reflect land
renewal efforts (i.e., acres of land redeveloped). Furthermore, states and provincial cleanup
figures do not necessarily reflect local brownfields remediation efforts and may include
revitalization of underutilized sites that are not considered brownfields. Where cleanups do
not have formal reporting requirements, there is no information base for tracking brownfield
cleanups or redevelopment. No Great Lakes state or province tracks acres of brownfields
redeveloped, though several are beginning to track acres of brownfields remediated.
Remediation is a necessary precursor to redevelopment. Remediation is often used inter-
changeably with "cleanup," though brownfields remediation does not always involve remov-
ing or treating contaminants. Many remediation strategies utilize either engineering or
institutional controls (also known as exposure controls) or adaptive reuses techniques that are
designed to limit the spread of, or human exposure to, contaminants left in place. In many
cases, the cost of treatment or removal of contaminants would prohibit reuse of land. To
address to brownfields reuse, all Great Lakes states and provinces allow some contaminants to
remain on site as long as the risks of being exposed to those contaminants are eliminated or
reduced to acceptable levels. Capping a site with clean soil or restricting the use of
2 O SOLEC 2oo2 - Implementing' Indicators Addendum (Draft for Discussion, October 2oo2)
-------
Land and Land Use Indicators
groundwater are examples of these "exposure controls" and their use has been a major factor
in advancing brownfields redevelopment.
Information on acres of brownfields remediated from Illinois, Minnesota, New York, Ohio,
Pennsylvania and Quebec indicate that a total of 33,389 acres have been remediated in these
states and provinces alone, and approximately 4,600 acres have been remediated between
2000-2002. Available data from eight Great Lakes states and Quebec indicates that more
than 16,714 brownfields sites have participated in brownfields cleanup programs. Redevel-
opment is a criteria for eligibility under many state brownfields cleanup programs. Though
there is inconsistent and inadequate data on acres of brownfields remediated and/or redevel-
oped, available data indicate that both brownfields cleanup and redevelopment efforts have
risen dramatically in the mid 1990s and steadily since 2000. The increase is due to risk-
based cleanup standards and the widespread use of state liability relief mechanisms that
allow private parties to redevelopment, buy or sell properties without being liable for con-
tamination they did not cause. Data also indicates that the majority of cleanups in the Great
Lakes states and provinces are occurring in older urbanized areas, many of which are located
on the shoreline of the Great Lakes and in the basin. Based on the available information, the
state of brownfields redevelopment is mixed-improving.
Future Pressures
Poor land use planning and a market economy that encourages new development to occur on
undeveloped land over urban brownfields is a significant and ongoing pressure that can be
expected to continue.
Programs to monitor and enforce of exposure controls are in their infancy. The lack of a
means of tracking and verifying the effectiveness of exposure controls present an ongoing
pressure.
Several Great Lakes states allow brownfields redevelopment to proceed without cleaning up
contaminated groundwater as long as no one is going to use or come into contact with that
water. However, where migrating groundwater plumes ultimately interface with surface
waters, some surface water quality many continue to be at risk from brownfields contamina-
tion even where brownfields have been pronounced "clean".
Future Activities
Programs to monitor and enforce controls need to be fully developed and implemented.
More research is needed to determine the relationship between groundwater supplies and
Great Lakes surface waters and their tributaries. Because brownfields redevelopment results
in both elimination of environmental risks from past contamination and reduction in pres-
sure for open space conversion, data should be collected that will enable an evaluation of each
of these activities.
Future Work Necessary
Great Lakes states and provinces have begun to track brownfields remediation and or redevel-
opment, but the data is generally inconsistent or not available in ways that are helpful to
assess progress toward meeting the terms of the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement.
Though some jurisdictions have begun to implement web-based searchable applications for
users to query the status of brownfields sites, consistency in data gathering also presents
SO LEG 2oo2 - Implementing1 Indicators Addendum (Draft for Discussion, October 2oo2)
-------
Land and Land Use Indicators
challenges for assessing progress in the entire basin. States and provinces should develop
common tracking methods and work with local jurisdictions incorporating local data to an
online data bases that can be searched by: 1) acres remediated; 2) mass of contamination
removed or treated (i.e., not requiring an exposure control); 3) geographic location; 4) level
of urbanization; and 5) type of reuse (i.e., commercial, residential, open, none, etc).
Acknowledgment
Author: Victor Pebbles and Kevin Yam, Great Lakes Commission, Ann Arbor, MI.
Sources: personal communication with Great Lakes State Brownfield/Voluntary Cleanup
Program Managers.
2 2 SOLEC 2oo2 - Implementing' Indicators Addendum (Draft for Discussion, October 2oo2)
-------
Land and Land Use Indicators
Green Planning Process
Indicator ID #7053
Assessment:
Purpose
To assess the number of municipalities with environmental and resource conservation man-
agement plans in place, and to infer the extent to which municipalities utilize environmental
standards to guide their management decisions with respect to land planning, resource
conservation, and natural area preservation. Given that not all municipalities have planning
departments, planning commissions, or zoning ordinancesmuch less "green" management
plansthe number and percentage of municipalities with those features will also be docu-
mented, as will planning programs and statutes at the state and provincial level.
Ecosystem Objective
Planning processes to support sustainable development should be adopted by all governmen-
tal units in the Great Lakes Basin to minimize adverse ecosystem impacts. This indicator
supports Annex 13 of the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement. Progress toward this
ecosystem objective falls into the "Mixed" assessment category, as discussed further under
Future Pressures.
State of the Ecosystem
An American Planning Association survey, known as Planning for Smart Growth: 2002 State
of the States, confirms that state planning reforms and smart growth measures were top state
concerns between 1999 and 2001 (http://www.planning.org/growingsmart/
states2002.htm). Twelve U.S. states, including Wisconsin and Pennsylvania, are credited
with implementing moderate to substantial statewide comprehensive planning reforms. New
York is the only Great Lakes state among the ten states that are strengthening local planning
requirements or improving regional or local planning reforms already adopted. Illinois,
Michigan, and Minnesota are among the fifteen states actively pursuing their first major
statewide smart growth planning reforms. Ohio and Indiana are among the thirteen states
that have not yet begun to pursue significant statewide planning reforms.
The report identifies eight consistent trends in statewide planning reform. (1) Implementa-
tion of planning reforms has been challenging. (2) Most successful reforms have had a
governor or legislator as a political champion. (3) Linking reforms to quality-of-life issues has
been key. (4) Coalitions and consensus have promoted planning reforms. (5) Reforms have
sometimes lead to backlash. (6) Task forces are often the starting point for planning reforms.
(7) Some areas, particularly in the West, have used ballot initiatives to initiate reforms. (8)
Piecemeal reforms are politically more popular than comprehensive ones. While recognizing
the hidden costs of unmanaged growth has spurred the revision of outdated planning and
zoning laws, funding for implementation remains a problem.
The following are some examples of data obtained from municipalities in parts of the U.S.
Great Lakes Basin for this project. Summary data and graphs for larger portions of the Basin
will be added to this indicator report after it is analyzed. Crawford County, Pennsylvania, has
a professional planning office and planning commission but no countywide zoning. Its 2000
comprehensive plan, which replaces the 1973 version, reflects Pennsylvania's new "Growing
SO LEG 2oo2 - Implementing1 Indicators Addendum (Draft for Discussion, October 2oo2) 2 >r
-------
Land and Land Use Indicators
Greener" policy. The plan addresses a variety of green features, such as developing greenways
and concentrating development near existing services and in clusters to preserve open space.
Of the seven townships and boroughs within the county that are at least partly within the
Great Lakes Basin, none have planning departments or staff, four have planning commis-
sions, but all have land use or comprehensive plans (most adopted between 1970 and 1981).
Five have zoning ordinances and enforcement officers and all have floodplain ordinances.
Neighboring Erie County is served by the Erie Area Council of Governments, which coordi-
nates planning among the county, the City of Erie and 6 of the 26 townships and boroughs
that are at least partly in the Basin. Only the City and County of Erie have planning depart-
ments but all jurisdictions but one have planning commissions and all but four have zoning
and floodplain ordinances. All have land use or comprehensive plans, 13 of which have been
adopted or revised in the last five years. Details on the green features of the plans are limited,
but 7 address open space and growth focused near existing services, while 14 have provisions
for farmland protection and 23 address stormwater and erosion control.
In the rural western Upper Peninsula (U.P.) of Michigan, the Western U.P. Planning and
Development Regional Commission recently surveyed the 72 local units of government in its
6-county region regarding basic planning and zoning information. Of the 64 municipalities
that responded, only 29 have planning commissions, 20 have land use or comprehensive
plans, and 44 have zoning (49 counting the townships covered by the Keweenaw County
ordinance).
Future Pressures
Sprawl is no longer a problem limited to urban and suburban areas, so the increased empha-
sis on planning even in rural areas, where it has often been nearly nonexistent until recently,
is encouraging. Planning and zoning officials are certainly taking into account a variety of
Best Management Practices and regulatory issues. Nonetheless, this indicator receives a
"Mixed" assessment because of the following limitations on progress, among others: too
much lip service, too little a priori enforcement, too few resources, and too great a willingness
to make exemptions in the name of development. For example, most watershed initiatives
still struggle to influence local governmental planning processes and often don't receive line-
item financing (though the soft money seems to keep coming along).
Future Activities
The efforts of groups such as the American Planning Association and its state affiliates and a
variety of nonprofit organizations and educational institutions to provide resources and
training for "smart growth" and sustainable development are positive signs. State govern-
ments are enacting laws and developing programs in these areas, as well. Some states, such as
Wisconsin, now mandate comprehensive planning at the local level and encourage coordi-
nated planning among neighboring communities through enabling legislation and grant
programs.
Many communities now encourage local residents, not just appointed planning commission-
ers, to participate in land use visioning sessions and reviews of planning documents. Increas-
ingly, local units of government have websites with links to planning and zoning depart-
ments and boards and sometimes with links to public documents, such as comprehensive
plans (or drafts for public review) and zoning ordinances, that are available online. Some
counties, such as Cayuga in New York, have encouraged this trend by hosting websites for
2 A SOLEC 2oo2 - Implementing' Indicators Addendum (Draft for Discussion, October 2oo2)
-------
Land and Land Use Indicators
cities, towns, and villages.
Further Work Necessary
The information presented here is from a preliminary analysis of parts of the Great Lakes
Basin for which some planning and zoning information was either available on the Internet
or provided by regional or county planning staff. A revised report will be available in Novem-
ber 2002. The most significant limitation on obtaining data for this indicator in many areas
of the Basin is the lack of regional or statewide attempts to gather information on the extent
and quality of planning and zoning processes at the local level. Such information would also
be a first step toward coordinating efforts among jurisdictions, essential to achieving ecosys-
tem-sensitive planning. Most regional planning agencies contacted for this project to date
expressed interest in having such data but did not have the staff time or funding required to
compile it. Others are limited to transportation planning activities only.
This project developed spreadsheets to gather basic information about planning departments
and commissions or boards, zoning ordinances and officials or boards to administer them,
and comprehensive or master plans in place. Additional columns addressed particular "green"
features of plans, programs, or ordinances, such as cluster development, wellhead protection,
mixed-use zoning, and environmental corridors, and purchase or transfer of development
rights. The spreadsheets were organized by state, regional planning agency (if applicable),
county, and local unit of government. It was hoped that regional planning agencies could
either fill out the surveys themselves or refer them to the local units of government, but the
response was discouraging because most of them did not have the information. Some for-
warded the survey forms, but only one was filled out and returned.
The most reliable means of obtaining data relevant to the green planning indicator, though a
time-intensive one, appears to be searching websites and following up for details as needed
with the contact persons listed. However, that method does not address municipalities that
lack websites. No mention of planning and zoning on a website also doesn't mean that they
don't exist within the community. Another approach to data acquisition, also time intensive,
is to survey a random sample of the local governments within the Basin and follow up as
necessary to obtain the information. Although these limitations are likely to persist to some
degree, more information in electronic form should be available in the future as its value and
the need for access to it become more apparent.
Acknowledgments
Author: Kristine Bradof, GEM Center for Science and Environmental Outreach, Michigan
Technological University; and James Cantrill, Professor of Communication and Performance
Studies at Northern Michigan University and U.S. co-chair, Developing Sustainability
Committee, Lake Superior Work Group, Lake Superior Binational Program.
Sources
The following websites contain useful information on planning and "smart growth": Ameri-
can Planning Association (http://www.planning.org/growingsmart/states2002.htm and
http://www.planning.org/growingsmart/states.htm); Western New York Regional Informa-
tion Network of the University at Buffalo (State University of New York, http://
rin.buffalo.edu/s_envi/envi.html). Nathan Zieziula of the Crawford County (Pennsylvania)
Planing Commission added details to the survey form, supplementing information from the
Comprehensive Plan Phase II: Plan Elements for Crawford County, Pennsylvania 1997-2000
SO LEG 2oo2 - Implementing1 Indicators Addendum (Draft for Discussion, October 2oo2) 2 K
-------
Land and Land Use Indicators
(http://www.co.crawford.pa.us/Planning/ftp/comprehensiveplan.pdf) and other pages on
www.co.crawford.pa.us. Eric Randall of the Erie County (Pennsylvania) Department of
Planning filled out the planning survey and provided a listing of "Municipal Planning and
Development Controls, Updated April 2002," which contains dates of comprehensive plans
and zoning and stormwater management ordinances. Don Reitz of Allen County (Indiana)
Department of Planning Services filled out the survey for the 25 local units of government in
the Great Lakes Basin within the county. Mary Taddeucci provided information for the 6-
counties served by the Western Upper Peninsula Planning and Development Regional
Commission in Michigan.
2 6 SOLEC 2oo2 - Implementing' Indicators Addendum (Draft for Discussion, October 2oo2)
-------
Human Health Indicators
Contaminants in Edible Fish Tissue
Indicator ID # 4083
Assessment: Mixed Improving
Purpose
Assess the historical trends of the edibility of fish in the Great Lakes using fish contaminant
data and a standardized fish advisory protocol. The approach is illustrated using the Great
Lakes protocol for PCBs as the standardized fish advisory benchmark applied to historical
data to track trends in fish consumption advice. US EPA GLNPO salmon fillet data (Minne-
sota DNR salmon fillet data for Lake Superior) are used as a starting point to demonstrate
the approach. Unfortunately data gaps and data variability with the GLNPO salmon fillet
data do not allow us to discern statistically significant trends.
Ecosystem Objective
Overall Human Health Objective: The health of humans in the Great Lakes ecosystem
should not be at risk from contaminants of human origin. Fish and wildlife in the Great
Lakes ecosystem should be safe to eat; consumption should not be limited by contaminants
of human origin.
Annex 2 of the GLWQA requires LaMPs to define "...the threat to human health posed by
critical pollutants... including beneficial use impairments."
State of the Ecosystem
Since the 1970's, there have been declines in many persistent bioaccumulative toxic (PBT)
chemicals in the Great Lakes basin. However, PBT chemicals, because of their ability to
bioaccumulate and persist in the environment, continue to be a significant concern.
Fish Consumption Programs are well established in the Great Lakes. States, tribes, and the
province of Ontario have extensive fish contaminant monitoring programs and issue advice to
their residents about how much fish and which fish are safe to eat. This advice ranges from
recommendations to not eat any of a particular size of certain species from some water
bodies, to recommending that people can eat unlimited quantities of other species and sizes.
Advice from these agencies to limit consumption of fish is mainly due to levels of PCBs,
mercury, chlordane, dioxin, and toxaphene in the fish. The contaminants are listed by lake,
in the following table.
Lake Contaminants that Fish Advisories are based on in Canada and United States
Superior PCBs, mercury, toxaphene, chlordane, dioxin
Huron PCBs, mercury, dioxin, chlordane
Michigan PCBs, mercury, chlordane, dioxin
Erie PCBs, dioxin
Ontario PCBs, mercury, mirex
SO LEG 2oo2 - Implementing1 Indicators Addendum (Draft for Discussion, October 2oo2)
-------
Human Health Indicators
PCBs in Lake Superior Coho Salmon
2-
I"
0.5-
Do not eat
One meal every two months
One meal per month
1.9
1.0
86 88 90 92
Year
96 98 00
PCBs in Lake Michigan Coho Salmon
2
I','
CO '
Do not eat
IOne meal every two months
I
nil
1
1
Cmeal mr month
\ 1 1
1.9
1.0
Year
PCBs in Lake Huron Coho Salmon
2
1.5-
0.5-
Do not eat
One meal every two months
ill
One meal per month
ll
81 83 85 87 89 91 93 95 97
Year
1.9
1.0
PCBs in Lake Ontario Coho Salmon
2.5
2 .
I'-5-!
0.5 -
Do not eat
One meal every
two months
One meal per \
month I
7.9
1.0
82 84 86 88 90 92 94 96 98
Year
2
|
a
0.5-
Do not eat
One meal every two months
Mill
_ One meal per month
M...I
1.9
1.0
81 83 85 87 89 91 93 95 97 99
Year
PCBs in Lake Erie Coho Salmon State, tribal and provincial governments
provide information to consumers regarding
consumption of sport-caught fish. This
information is not regulatory - its guidance,
or advice. Although some states use the
Federal commercial-fish guidelines for the
acceptable level of contaminants when
giving advice for eating sport caught fish,
consumption advice offered by most agen-
cies is based on human health risk. This
approach involves interpretation of studies
on health effects from exposure to contaminants. Each state or province is responsible for
developing fish advisories for protecting the public from pollutants in fish and tailoring this
advice to meet the health needs of its citizens. As a result, the advice from state and provin-
cial programs is sometimes different for the same lake and species within that lake.
Future Pressures
Organochlorine contaminants in fish in the Great Lakes are generally decreasing. As these
contaminants decline mercury will become a more important contaminant of concern regard-
ing the edibility of fish. Emerging contaminants, such as certain brominated flame retard-
ants, are increasing in the environment and causing concern.
SOLEC 2oo2 - Implementing' Indicators Addendum
for Discussion, October 2oo2)
-------
Human Health Indicators
Screening studies on a larger suite of chemicals is needed. The health effects of multiple
contaminants, including endocrine disrupters, need to be addressed.
Future Actions
To protect human health, actions must continue to be implemented on a number of levels.
Reductions and monitoring of contaminant levels in environmental media and in human
tissues is an activity in particular need of support. Health risk communication is also a
crucial component to protecting and promoting human health in the Great Lakes.
There is a need for surveillance to evaluate how much fish people eat and carry out
biomonitoring to determine actual tissue levels, particularly within sensitive populations.
Further Work Necessary
1) Evaluation of historical data: the long-term fish contaminant monitoring data sets that
have been assembled by several jurisdictions for different purposes need to be more effectively
utilized. Relationships need to be developed that allow for comparison and combined use of
existing data from the various sampling programs. These data could be used in expanding
this indicator to other contaminants and species and for supplementing the data used in this
illustration.
2) Coordination of future monitoring.
3) Agreement on fish advisory health benchmarks for the contaminants that cause fish
advisories in the Great Lakes. Suggested starting points are: The Great Lakes Protocol for
PCBs, US EPA IRIS RfD for mercury, and Health Canada's TDI for toxaphene.
Acknowledgments
Authors: Sandy Hellman, USEPA Great Lakes National Program Office, Chicago, IL and
Patricia McCann, Minnesota Department of Health.
Figure xx. Historical levels of PCBs in salmon from the Great Lakes shown with correspond-
ing meal advice per the "Protocol for a Uniform Great Lakes Sport Fish Consumption Advi-
sory" (Blank indicates No Sampling).
Source: Great Lakes National Program Office, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
SO LEG 2oo2 - Implementing1 Indicators Addendum (Draft for Discussion, October 2oo2)
-------
Societal Indicators
Solid Waste Generation
Indicator ID #7060
Assessment: Mixed
Purpose
To assess the amount of solid waste generated per capita in the Great Lakes basin (GLB), and
to infer inefficiencies in human economic activity (i.e. wasted resources) and the potential
adverse impacts to human and ecosystem health.
Ecosystem Objective
Solid waste provides a measure of the inefficiency of human land based activities and the
degree to which resources are wasted. In order to promote sustainable development, the
amount of solid waste generated in the basin needs to be assessed and ultimately reduced.
Reducing volumes of solid waste are indicative of a more efficient industrial ecology and a
more conserving society. Reduced waste volumes are also indicative of a reduction in con-
tamination of land through landfilling and incineration and thus reduced stress on the
ecosystem.
This indicator supports Annex 12 of the Great Lake Water Quality Agreement (GLWQA)
State of the Ecosystem
Canada and the United States
are among the highest waste
producers on Earth. How-
ever, both countries are
working towards improve-
ments in waste management
by developing efficient
strategies to reduce, prevent,
reuse and recycle waste
generation.
Tonnes/person
OOOOO-*-* ->->-> CO "b
-»-(
verage Per Capita Solid Waste Generation and Disposal in
Ontario, Indiana and Minnesota in the Great Lakes Basin
(Tonnes/person)
600 __ A * '*' * *
200
800-) 5
400 ^ t t 1 t « ^t__»_ »^ -*-- ^»^
1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001
Year
Dntario MSW * Indiana Disposal Facilities » Minnesota MSWG
Figure 1. Average Per Capita Solid Waste Generation and Disposal from a selection of
municipalities in the Ontario, Indiana and Minnesota portion of the Great Lakes basin
(1991-2001).
Source: IDEM Indiana Department of Environmental Management. 2000 Summary of
Indiana Solid Waste Facility Data Report. MOEA - Minnesota Office of Environmental
Assistance. Report on 2000 SCORE Programs report.
Figure 1 displays the average per capita municipal solid waste generation in a selection of
some of the most populated municipalities in the Ontario portion of the Great Lakes basin
during 1991-2001. From this data, it is evident that there is a continual decline of munici-
pal solid waste generation from 1991 to present. 1991 had the highest per capita generation
at a value of 0.681. Per capita solid waste generation declined ^45% in 2001 to a value of
0.373- The rate of per capita municipal solid waste generation appears to have leveled off in
the late 1990's. And it must be noted that the apparent increase in per capita generation in
3°
SOLEC 2oo2 - Implementing' Indicators Addendum
for Discussion, October 2oo2)
-------
Societal Indicators
2000 may not be completely accurate since there was less data collected to obtain the average
for 2000 as compared to 1999 and 2001. The decline in per capita solid waste generation in
the early 1990's can be attributed to the increased access to municipal curbside recycling,
backyard and centralized composting programs in most Ontario municipalities.
In addition, Figure 1 displays the average per capita municipal solid waste generation
(MSWG) disposed in Minnesota's counties of the Great Lakes basin during 1991-2000. The
data shows the amount of MSWG disposed declined slightly from 1991 to 1993, and then
increased from 0.386 tonnes per capita in 1994 to 0.436 tonnes per capita in 2000. The
data suggests that these trends in MSWG are not significant despite growth in population
over the same time period. The counties of Cook, Lake and Pine represent the highest in-
crease of per capita SWG during 1993 to 2000. For example, Cook County in 1993 in-
creased 45% of the municipal SWG.
Figure 1, also displays the average trends of the waste disposed per capita (in tons) in Indiana
by estimated county of origin in a final disposal facility. The graphic shows a 21% increase in
the per capita of non-hazardous waste disposed between 1992 and 1998. From 1998 to
2000 there was a 4 % decrease of the amount disposed.
The Illinois Environmental Protection Agency, Bureau of Land, reported the projected
disposal capacity of the solid waste in sanitary landfills for 2000. The regional waste disposed
and landfill capacity (in tons) for the Great Lake basin counties was 1.7 percent cubic yards.
This area has a per capita capacity below of the state average. The municipal wastes generated
and recycled was 7-4 cubic yards.
The Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) reports on data of total waste
disposed in Michigan landfills in per capita cubic yards from 1996 to 2001. In 1996 the
solid waste landfilled per capita was 3-76 cubic yards and in 2001 the value increased to
4.84, showing a 32% increase of solid waste disposed in landfills.
New York Department of Environmental Conservation provided the State SWG data from
1990 to 1998. The data reflects that the average of SWG in per capita from 1990 to 1998
increased a 20% and decreased a 3% from 1995 to 1996. The New York statewide of reus-
able tons increased approximately 30% of the waste disposed.
The Region 3 of the Environmental Protection Agency in Pennsylvania provided the daily
per capita amount of Pennsylvania counties in the GLB of MSW generated. In 1998 the
MSW generated for Crawford was 2.4 (pounds/person/day), 3-8 for Erie and 1.4 for Potter.
The amount of MSW per capita in 1999 for those counties increased, Crawford had 2.59,
Erie 3-73 and Potter 2.64 daily per capita generations. The Department of Environmental
Protection (DEP) provided the statewide MSW generation during 1988 to 2000 that
increased 30% of the waste disposed.
The calculated average per capita municipal waste landfilled in Wisconsin in 2001 was 1.85
tons, as reported by the Department of Natural Resources. The counties with the larger
average values are those located closer to the Lake Michigan. For example, Calumet average
value is 4.87 tons per person, Dodge is 4.20, Green Lake is 12.11, Kenosha is 3-80 and
Manitowoc 4.35 tons per person.
SO LEG 2oo2 - Implementing1 Indicators Addendum (Draft for Discussion, October 2oo2) rr I
-------
Societal Indicators
The Ohio Environmental Protection Agency provided the residential and commercial solid
waste management district landfill generated, disposed and recycling data according to the
88 counties, which are grouped into 52 single and multi-county districts. The Northeast
District Office (NEDO) and the Northwest District Office (NWDO) are districts that
include the counties in the Great Lakes basin. Figure 2, presents the average amount of the
NEDO and NWDO residential and commercial solid waste management district (SWMD)
generated, disposed and recycled for 1999 and 2000. The disposal value of solid waste for
NEDO increased 2%. The amount of GSW increased 3% for NWDO over the same time
period. The recycled amount increased 5% for NEWO and 17% for NWDO from 1999 to
2000.
Figure 2. Ohio Counties
Average Per Capita Solid
Waste Landfill facilities
Generated, Disposed and
Recycled in the Great
Lakes Basin (1999-
2000).
Source: Ohio Environ-
mental Protection
Agency, Division of Solid
and Infectious Waste
Management.
c
1 15°
g. 1.00
ol 0.50
0 0.00
)hio Average Per Capita Residential and Commercial Solid Waste
.andfill Facilities Generated, Disposed and Recycled in the Great
Lakes Basin (1999-2000)
tan
I I U^
1999
Year
1 1
2000
D NEDO WC Generated n NWDO R/C Generated NEDO RIC Disposed
D NWDO R/C Disposed n NEDO R/C Recycled n NWDO R/C Recycled
Reuse and recycling are opportunities to reduce solid waste levels. By looking at recycling
and waste diversion in Ontario, both the tonnage of municipal solid waste diverted from
disposal and the number of households with access to recycling have increased in recent years
(WDO, 2001c). Figure 3 shows the trends in residential recycling tonnages in all of Ontario
from 1992-2000 (WDO, 2001). From this figure it is evident that there has been a 41%
increase in the amount of residential recycling from 1992-2000, which may be accounting
for the reduced per capita solid waste generation displayed in recent years in Ontario mu-
nicipalities.
Figure 3. Residential
Recycling Tonnages in
Ontario (1992-2000).
Source: WDO - Ontario
Waste Diversion Organi-
zation (200Ic). Munici-
pal 3Rs in Ontario: 2000
Fact Sheet.
800-
§600-
Tonnes
o o c
Residential Recycling Tonnages in Ontario (1992-2000)
1992 1994 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000
Year
SOLEC 2oo2 - Implementing' Indicators Addendum
for Discussion, October 2oo2)
-------
Societal Indicators
Future Pressures
The generation and management of solid waste raise important environmental, economic and
social issues for North Americans. It costs billions of dollars per year to dispose of such wastes
and existing landfills are filling up fast. In addition, the generation of municipal solid waste
contributes to soil and water contamination and even air pollution etc. It is estimated that
far more residential solid waste is being generated each year, but a greater proportion is being
recovered for recycling and reuse.
The state of the economy has a strong impact on consumption and waste generation. Waste
generation continued to increase through the 1990's as economic growth continued to be
strong (US EPA, 2002). Much of this increase in waste generation in the 1990's was due to
the booming economy and many people found themselves with a large disposable income
(US EPA, 2002). An economic growth results in more products and materials being gener-
ated. This growth should send a message for a larger investment in source reduction activi-
ties. Source reduction activities will help to save natural resources, it will reduce the toxicity
of wastes and it will also reduce costs in waste handling and will make businesses more
efficient.
Future Activities
There is a need to assess and determine which material makes up the majority of the munici-
pal solid waste that is generated each year. This will help managers target waste reduction
efforts towards limiting the amount of these products that make it through the waste stream.
It would also be interesting to research how different waste reduction techniques can produce
differing trends in solid waste reduction. For example, user pay, "PAYT" (pay as you throw
away) unit-based pricing, is becoming a more acceptable method for financing residential
waste management services and making households more directly responsible for their waste
generation and disposal habits (WDO, 2001a). Bag limits on waste are usually a first step
many municipalities take in order to make the transition to user pay systems easier. User pay
programs have gained momentum across most of Canada with most growth occurring in the
mid to late 1990's. Imposing these limits encourages homeowners to be more conscious of
the amount and type of waste generated as they now associate a financial cost with their
consumptive behavior. It makes a homeowner personally responsible and encourages alterna-
tive waste diversion activities.
Other examples are an ambitious statewide education campaign dedicated to educate the
residents on the benefits of waste reduction and to show them how solid waste can affect
their own health and the health of their environment. A local government waste prevention
program consisting of a network of counties and cities was organized to discuss and create
methods to help in waste reduction activities that would better protect the state's environ-
ment and public health. Developing methods for standardizing information and for tracking
waste will aid in improving the sharing of information and data statewide.
Further Work Necessary
The province of Ontario has set a challenging task for the WDO to reach a 50% waste
diversion. Ontario residents diverted at total of 29% of 1.23 million tones of their residential
waste from disposal in 1998. In order to achieve a 50% reduction in waste the following
practices need to be encouraged: increased financial support, expand provincial 3R regula-
tions, need to change societal habits and behavior towards waste generation, need to invest
more into infrastructure and lastly, the adoption of waste management user fees (WDO,
SO LEG 2oo2 - Implementing1 Indicators Addendum (Draft for Discussion, October 2oo2) =f =f
-------
Societal Indicators
2001B).
To report on this indicator in the future, data on waste diversion should be incorporated as
well as waste generation. Looking at the changes in the amount of waste that is removed from
the waste stream can be used to infer how the behavior of society is changing with regards to
wasting resources and sustainable development.
During the process of collecting data from this indicator, it was found that most U.S. states
and Ontario municipalities compile and report on solid waste information in different
formats. Future work to organize a standardized method of collecting, reporting and access-
ing data for both the Canadian and U.S. portions of the Great Lakes basin will aid in the
future reporting of this indicator.
Acknowledgments
Authors: Martha I. Aviles-Quintero, USEPA - GLNPO, Chicago, IL and Melissa Green-
wood, Environment Canada, Downsview ON.
Ontario data for the disposal of waste by province was obtained from Statistics Canada,
Environmental Account and Statistics Division, and Demography Division (http://
www.statcan.ca/start.html).
Data collected are based on the values obtained by contacting the waste management depart-
ments of Ontario municipalities around the Great Lakes Basin. For any further details
regarding specific municipalities, please contact Melissa Greenwood.
The recycling data collected from the province of Ontario, were adapted from the Municipal
3Rs in Ontario: 2000 Fact Sheet, published by the WDO - Ontario Waste Diversion
Organization (http:///www.wdo.on.ca).
The United States data of municipal waste generated per capita, average, landfill capacity,
disposed and recycled waste were collected by contacting the different State and Federal
Agencies managements departments and searching there websites. Environmental Protection
Agency Region 5 in Chicago, Pollution Prevention & Program Initiatives Section provided
the contact list for the searching values. Some data were adapted using the counties on the
Great Lakes basin and using the census-estimate populations to calculate the per capita
generation, disposed and recycled.
Illinois data of the Waste Disposed and Landfill Capacity per capita in cubic yards by Region
for 2000, was provided by the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (IEPA), Bureau of
Land. The Region 2 is the Chicago Metropolitan basin that included counties on the Great
Lakes Basin.
(http://www.epa.state.il.us)
Indiana data of the Municipal solid waste per capita for 2001, was offered from Indiana
Department of Environmental Management (IDEM). Also, we used the 2000 Summary of
Indiana Solid Waste Facility Data Report to calculate the waste disposed per capita. We used
the census-estimate population for 1992-2000 by counties on the Great Lakes Basin to
obtain those values, (http://www.in.gov.idem/land/sw/index.html)
Michigan data of the total solid waste disposed in Michigan Landfills per capita in cubic
yards for 1996-2001, was provided by Michigan Department of Environmental Quality,
=T A SOLEC 2oo2 - Implementing' Indicators Addendum (Draft for Discussion, October 2oo2)
-------
Societal Indicators
Waste Management Division. The report was used and adapted to calculate the per capita
amount using the census-estimated population 1996-2001. (http://www.deq.state.mi.us)
Minnesota data of the Municipal solid waste generation per capita for 1991-2000, was
provided by Minnesota Office of Environmental Assistance (MOEA). The SCORE report is a
full report to the Legislature that the main components is to identify and targeting source
reduction, recycling, waste management and waste generation collected from all 87 counties
in Minnesota, (http://www.moea.state.mn.us)
New York data of the Solid waste generated and recycled in tones for 1990-1998, was
provided by New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, Division of Solid
and Hazardous Materials. The data was adapted to obtain the per capita generation with the
census-estimate population per year, (http://www.dec.state.ny.us)
Ohio data of Disposed and recycled generated solid waste per capita in landfills for each solid
waste management district for 1999-2000, was provided by Ohio Environmental Protection
Agency, Division of Solid Waste and Infectious Waste Management. The data of Northeast
and Northwest district office was adapted by counties on the Great Lakes basins and census-
estimate data population per year, (http://www.epa.state.oh.us)
Pennsylvania data of the Average per capita recycled generation rates was provided by Penn-
sylvania Department of Environmental Protection, Bureau of Land Recycling and Waste
Management, (http://www.dep.state.pa.us)
Wisconsin data of municipal waste landfill tones capacity for 2001, was provided by Wisconsin Depart-
ment of Natural Resources (DNR), Bureau of Waste Management, (http://www.dnr.state.wi.us)
SO LEG 2oo2 - Implementing1 Indicators Addendum (Draft for Discussion, October 2oo2) =f e
------- |