PROPOSED CHANGES TO
THE GREAT LAKES
INDICATOR SUITE
DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION AT SOLEC 2002
OCTOBER 2002
-------
Preface
SOLEC 2002
Proposed Changes to the Great Lakes Indicators Suite
October, 2002
This document presents information to SOLEC participants about the development of Great
Lakes indicators since the release of Selection of Indicators for Great Lakes Basin Ecosystem
Health - Version 4. Included are proposed changes to the organizing framework (or Core
Group structure) as well as proposed changes to the indicators - whether that be additions of
new indicators, revisions of current indicators or the deletion of an indicator.
Indicators have been considered, and are being proposed for the ecosystem components of
forests, groundwater, agriculture, societal responsibility, and biological integrity. Several
other changes to the SOLEC indicator list are also proposed and are included in this paper.
SOLEC 2002 - Proposed Changes to the Great Lakes Indicator Suite (Draft for Discussion, October 2002)
-------
SOLEC 2002 - Proposed Changes to the Great Lakes Indicator suite (Draft for Discussion, October 2002)
-------
Table of Contents
SOLEC 2002
Proposed Changes to the Great Lakes Indicators Suite
October, 2002
Table of Contents
1 .Revised Great Lakes Indicator Framework (changes to the SOLEC Core Group
structure) 5
2.Process for Changes to the Great Lakes Indicator Suite (to add, delete and/or
revise indicators) 6
3.Indicators of Biological Integrity 7
4.Societal Response Indicators 8
4a. Societal response indicator project 8
4b. Descriptions of the proposed new indicators (plus sample reports for 2
indicators) 12
5. Agriculture 38
5a. Proposed new agricultural indicators with examples of reporting 39
6. Forestry 50
6a. Proposed new forestry indicator descriptors 5 1
7. Groundwater Indicators 71
7a. Description of groundwater indicators project 71
7b. Proposed new groundwater indicators 75
8.Other Proposed Indicators 98
Contaminants in Whole Fish (description plus sample report) 99
Lake Sturgeon (description plus sample report) 109
Climate Change: Crop Heat Units 113
Climate Change: Extreme Storms 116
9.Proposed Changes to SOLEC Indicators 119
Current indicator #9 Walleye and Hexagenia
Description of Walleye 120
Description of Hexagenia 121
Current indicator #93 Lake Trout and Diporeia
Description of Lake Trout 123
Description of Diporeia 125
Revise indicator #101 DELT to External Anomaly Prevalence Index (EAPI)
Description of EAPI (plus sample report) 127
SOLEC 2002 - Proposed Changes to the Great Lakes Indicator Suite (Draft for Discussion, October 2002)
-------
SOLEC 2002 - Proposed Changes to the Great Lakes Indicator suite (Draft for Discussion, October 2002)
-------
Indicator Framework
1. Revised Great Lakes Indicator Framework
(Changes to the SOLEC Core Group Structure)
Currently the Core Group structure (or organizing framework) is as follows:
3 geographic zones: Open and Nearshore Waters
Coastal Wetlands
Nearshore Terrestrial
3 "issues": Land Use
Human Health
Societal
1 cross-cutting: Unbounded
When potential new indicators are proposed to fill gaps in the Great Lakes indicator suite (ie.
forestry, groundwater, tributaries, inland lakes & wetlands, mining...) it is quickly recognized
that this structure will not work.
The SOLEC Organizing Committee propose the following change to structure:
4 geographic zones: Open and Nearshore Waters
Coastal Wetlands
Nearshore Terrestrial
The Great Lakes Watershed
2 "issues": Human Health
Societal
- Urban Issues
- Socio-economics
- Societal Response
1 cross-cutting: Unbounded
• The "Watershed" group would expand the terrestrial component inland from the
nearshore area. It would incorporate the new geographic components (forestry, tributaries,
groundwater, mining, inland waters and wetlands, as well as better agriculture indicators)
plus some indicators from the old Land Use group (land conversion, sustainable agricultural
practices, habitat adjacent to coastal wetlands, & habitat fragmentation).
• Under Societal, a sub-group called Urban Issues has been created and the other Land
Use indicators will be moved here (urban density, brownfield redevelopment, mass transpor-
tation, green planning process, plus aesthetics, water withdrawal, energy consumption, &
solid waste generation).
• The two other newly created sub-groups in Societal are Socio-Economics (which
would include the indicators economic prosperity, financial resources allocated to Great
Lakes programs, plus indicators on the "effect of the environment on society") and Societal
Response (ie. citizen/community place-based stewardship activities, plus other indicators
proposed later in this report).
The SOLEC Organizing Committee recognizes that incorporating indicators for each of
these new "components" will lead to increasing numbers of indicators in the Great Lakes
indicator suite. They have suggested that the experts also develop indices and linkages with
the current indicators at the same time as proposing new indicators. Further work on link-
ages and indices will take place in the near future.
SOLEC 2002 - Proposed Changes to the Great Lakes Indicator Suite (Draft for Discussion, October 2002)
-------
Process to Revise Indicator Suite |
2. Process for Changes to the Great Lakes Indicator Suite
(To add, delete and/or revise indicators)
The following are the steps to make changes to the current indicator suite:
• The indicator process will be opened for additions, deletions and revisions once per
year - it is suggested that this take place in the spring (March to May). This will be
announced to the Core Group leaders and Steering Committee members.
• The Core Group leader or Steering Committee member proposes new indicator(s),
change(s) or deletion(s) and submits them to the SOLEC Indicator Coordinators.
• The Indicator Coordinators edit, then distribute the proposed changes to the Steering
Committee members, other Core Group leaders and/or expert panels for review.
• Steering Committee members, other Core Group leaders and/or expert panels provide
comments on the proposed changes directly or seek advice of other experts.
• Comments/revisions are incorporated by the Core Group leaders or Indicator Coordi
nators, these plus the proposed indicator(s) and suggested deletion(s) are prepared for
distribution prior to upcoming SOLEC (ie. this paper - Proposed Changes to the Great
Lakes Indicator Suite). The review would include posting to the internet, announce
ments to a broader Great Lakes audience, and leaving the revised/new indicators open
for comments for 2 months following SOLEC.
• Feedback will be requested on the revised/new indicator(s) with emphasis on whether
it meets the general SOLEC criteria of necessary, sufficient and feasible. Other specific
and general comments will be considered.
• Feedback will be sent to the appropriate Core Group leader or expert panels to deal
with - that group may need to write a justification as to why they are keeping indica
tor in the suite if reaction was generally mixed. This would take place in January and
February of a non-SOLEC year.
• The Indicator Coordinators will write a resolution to potential changes for that year
and post to the SOLEC web site. This would take place in the spring of a non-SOLEC
year.
6 SOLEC 2002 - Proposed Changes to the Great Lakes Indicator suite (Draft for Discussion, October 2002)
-------
I Indicators of Biological Integrity
3. Indicators of Biological Integrity
A separate paper has been prepared discussing the use of some of the Great Lakes indicators
in order to determine the state of Biological Integrity in the Great Lakes. In order to begin
this task a workshop was held in December of 2001 to look at the current suite of Great
Lakes indicators from this perspective. Note that the list was never designed to measure
Biological Integrity. The workshop focussed on a major stress to Biological Integrity: non-
native species. The work was continued further in the summer of 2002 by working with the
Lakewide Management Plan Committees to identify and survey a series of experts in order to
broaden the scope of stresses on Biological Integrity and how the current suite of Great Lakes
indicators can be used to determine the state of Biological Integrity.
Some of the current indicators have had revisions proposed, and there are three proposed new
indicators. Please see the draft document called "Evaluating Biological Integrity in the Great
Lakes" for more detail on the process and for a discussion on the proposed revised indicators
and proposed new indicators.
The following is a list of indicators that have been revised and their descriptions are included
in the "Evaluating Biological Integrity in the Great Lakes" draft paper:
Fish Habitat (indicator #6)
Naturalized Salmon and Trout (indicator #8)
Walleye (indicator #9)
Hexagenia (indicator #9a)
Preyfish Populations (indicator #17)
Lake trout (indicator #93)
Diporeia (indicator #93a)
Benthic Biomass: Production Yield, Diversity and Abundance (indicator #104)
Zooplankton Populations (indicator #116)
Land Use (indicator #8132)
The following is a list of proposed new indicators that are described in the "Evaluating
Biological Integrity in the Great Lakes" draft paper:
Health of Terrestrial Plant Communities
Landscape Ecosystem Health
Status and Protection of Special Places and Species
SOLEC 2002 - Proposed Changes to the Great Lakes Indicator Suite (Draft for Discussion, October 2002)
-------
I Societal Response Indicators |
4. Societal Response Indicators
4a. Societal response indicator project
The Great Lakes suite of indicators are designed to assess the progress toward a healthier and
more sustainable Great Lakes ecosystem. A healthy and sustainable ecosystem is one that
achieves a balance between environmental integrity, economic viability and social well-being
and improves the overall quality of life for all living things. To address the economic and
social components of that balance, SOLEC began the development of Societal indicators in
1998. This group of indicators measures human activities and human responses to ecosystem
pressures. The scope and structure of the Societal indicator group has continued to evolve
over the last 4 years.
In 2000, a subset of societal indicators was proposed and is now known as Societal Response
indicators (previously called stewardship indicators). The current set of societal response
indicators is the result of a generous input of ideas, information and time by many
stakeholders representing all areas within the Great Lakes basin. As with all indicators in the
Great lakes suite, the Societal Response indicators will continue to evolve as new ideas are
developed and as new information becomes available.
Societal Indicators and SOLEC
The vision of SOLEC and the related Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement is to "restore
and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity" of the waters of the Great
Lakes Basin Ecosystem. The activities associated with daily life and the normal functions of
society in the Great Lakes region have a significant impact on the health and sustainability of
the ecosystem.
The framework for the Great Lakes indicators contains three main groups: Geographic
Zones, Issues and Crosscutting (see section 1 of this paper). Within the Issues group, the
Societal suite of indicators represents the interconnections between natural environment
systems and socio-economic systems (i.e. economic, institutional, community). This group of
indicators is designed to measure the health of the Great Lakes ecosystem with respect to
pressures imposed on the ecosystem as a result of daily functioning of human environments.
Three categories of indicators comprise the Societal suite, they are: Urban Issues, Socio-
Economics and Societal Response. Societal Response indicators measure the human activities
that affect ecosystem health, from both a human and natural environment perspective.
Collectively, the Societal suite provides integrated, science-based information on the health of
the socio-economic system and the ecosystem as a whole. This information will strengthen
decision-making and facilitate effective management programs with the Great Lakes ecosys-
tem; thereby, improving the health of both socio-economic systems and natural environment
systems.
Indicators related to the First Nations perspective on ecosystem health will help to complete
the Societal Response indicator set. These indicators will be developed in partnership with
First Nations communities in the Great Lakes.
Defining Societal Response within SOLEC
Following the model used for the rest of the Great Lakes indicator suite, the Societal indica-
tor suite is divided into a pressure, state and human activity (response) framework. As
8 SOLEC 2002 - Proposed Changes to the Great Lakes Indicator suite (Draft for Discussion, October 2002)
-------
Societal Response Indicators
already mentioned, Societal Response indicators represent the human response component of
the framework within the Societal group. These indicators measure human response to the
ecosystem pressures defined within the Societal indicator suite as well as human response to
pressures identified in the geographic zones group.
Human activity (response) indicators are measurable and quantifiable values that are de-
signed to represent society's commitment to ecosystem health. Each indicator assesses volun-
tary activities within society that invoke positive change in the health of the Great Lakes
system. These indicators focus on measuring individual actions to mitigate, adapt to or
prevent human induced negative impacts on the environment and to halt or reverse environ-
mental damage already inflicted.
Based on feedback obtained in 2001, the human response indicators are divided into three
sectors of society. These sectors enable targeted evaluation of the unique role of the house-
hold/community, institutional and commercial/industrial sectors within the ecosystem.
Combined with the other Societal pressure and state indicators, the Societal Response
indicators will allow decision-makers and managers to objectively address progress toward
shared governance and community participation, and ultimately, sustainability.
Indicator Selection Process
At the SOLEC 2000 conference, 19 Societal indicator descriptions were presented for review.
Within those 19 indicators, 6 indicators were specifically targeted toward Societal Response.
Considerable feedback from the conference and other activities was incorporated into the
indicators selection process.
Under the Societal group, state/pressure indicators have been modified only slightly since
SOLEC 2000. Due to their relative importance in measuring progress toward an improved
environmental state and a more sustainable Great Lakes ecosystem, more substantial changes
are now being proposed within the Societal Response indicator set. As part of the Societal
Response indicator development process, potential indicators have been reviewed by an
expert panel, by participants in a workshop held in October 2001 and by participants in an
on-line indicator evaluation survey.
More than 55 indicators have been suggested as Societal Response indicators. Recent efforts
to refine the indicator set to a comprehensive, yet more manageable size have occurred in 6
stages, these include:
STAGE 1: Inventory of all the feedback related to the Societal Responsibility
indicators and any additional indicator suggestions.
STAGE 2: Evaluation of indicator feedback to assign status (keep, hold, revise,
combine, delete) based on the indicator criteria of necessary, feasible,
understandable and sufficient. Re-evaluation of the relationship be-
tween Societal Response indicators and other SOLEC indicators.
STAGE 3: Revision of the list of Societal Response indicators and incorporation
of the list into an evaluation matrix. Division of indicators into three
sectors: individual/community, institutional and industrial.
STAGE 4: Collection of additional input/feedback from the Societal indicators
expert panel and other interested parties.
SOLEC 2002 - Proposed Changes to the Great Lakes Indicator Suite (Draft for Discussion, October 2002) 9
-------
I Societal Response Indicators |
STAGE 5: Research on data availability and indicator measures for the indica-
tors with the most potential.
STAGE 6: Draft of potential indicator descriptions. Contact experts related to
each indictor to assist with indicator descriptions.
All stages are iterative and new input will continually refine the indicator suite.
Proposed Societal Response Indicators
Based on the results of the 6-stage indicator selection process, 11 potential indicators and
their descriptions are being proposed at SOLEC 2002. The indicators are categorized into
household/community, industrial/commercial and institutional sectors. Two of these indica-
tors also have a sample report that follow their descriptions. These indicators are: Commer-
cial / Industrial Eco-Efficiency and Cosmetic Pesticide Controls.
Household/Community
Household Stormwater Recycling
This indicator will assess the level of public awareness and concern for the environmental
consequences of Stormwater runoff. Number of households participating in municipal
stormwater recycling programs such as rain barrel, green roof and downspout disconnect
programs. A complementary measure is the number of household stormwater recycling
programs provided by local government.
Community Engagement in Great Lakes Protection and Decision-Making
(revised from indicator #3513)
This indicator will assess the extent of community involvement in Great Lakes activities. It
will be an enumeration of membership in community-based groups that engage Great Lakes
residents and First Nations in the planning, protection and overall decision-making activities
related to the Great Lakes and their tributaries.
Household Solid Waste Minimization
This indicator will assess household participation in solid waste minimization programs (i.e.
proportion of generated waste that is diverted from landfill or incineration).
Commercial/Industrial
Commercial / Industrial Environmental Management Systems (EMS)
This indicator will assess the level of commitment, on the part of industries and businesses in
the Great Lakes ecosystem, to documenting and reducing environmental impacts. It will
track the number of organizations in the Great Lakes ecosystem that have adopted environ-
mental management systems such as ISO 14001.
Commercial / Industrial Eco-Efficiency
This indicator will assess the commercial / industrial sector response to pressures imposed on
the ecosystem as a result of production processes and service delivery. It will measure the
proportion of the 25 largest employers in the basin that report eco-efficiency measures and
implement eco-efficiency strategies.
10 SOLEC 2002 - Proposed Changes to the Great Lakes Indicator suite (Draft for Discussion, October 2002)
-------
I Societal Response Indicators
Institutional
Municipal Wastewater Treatment
This indicator will assess the scale and scope of municipal wastewater treatment. It will
measure the proportion of the population served by municipal sewage treatment facilities,
percent of collected wastewater that is treated and the level of municipal treatment provided
(primary, secondary, tertiary and/or advanced treatment technologies).
Cosmetic Pesticide Controls
This indicator will assess the number of municipalities in the Great Lakes basin that have
banned pesticides from household/community use. It will measure the willingness of local
governments and their constituencies to improve community and ecosystem health by taking
a proactive step to reduce toxic contaminant exposure.
Taxes on Energy / CO2
This indicator will measure the economic incentives (i.e. environmentally related taxes) that
are in place by the state/provincial and federal governments of the Great Lakes basin. As
economic incentives, these taxes serve to curb the use of fossil fuels by energy consumers,
thereby reducing air emissions.
Environmental Education
This indicator will reveal the amount of environmental and sustainability education cur-
rently being incorporated into elementary, secondary and post-secondary curricula, thereby
suggesting a link between education and environmental awareness.
Financial Resources Allocated to Great Lakes Programs
Indicator ID #8140
This indicator will track the total amount of dollars spent on an annual basis by state/
provincial agencies and non-governmental organizations in each of four areas: Great Lakes
research, monitoring, restoration, and protection (including within nearshore lands).
Note: this indicator is not being revised, it's just being moved into this grouping.
Crosscutting
Vehicle use
This indicator will assess the amount and trends in vehicle use in the Great Lakes basin by
measuring number of vehicle miles traveled, number of licensed vehicles and perhaps, fuel
consumed in the Great Lakes basin.
SOLEC 2002 - Proposed Changes to the Great Lakes Indicator Suite (Draft for Discussion, October 2002) \ \
-------
Societal Response Indicators |
4b. Descriptions of the proposed new indicators
Household Stormwater Recycling
New Indicator
Measure
Number of households participating in municipal Stormwater recycling programs such as
rain barrel, green roof and downspout disconnect programs. A complementary measure is the
number of household Stormwater recycling programs provided by local government.
Purpose
To assess the level of public awareness and concern for the environmental consequences of
Stormwater runoff.
Ecosystem Objective
To reduce the pressures induced on the ecosystem as a result of Stormwater surges and urban
runoff to rivers and lakes within the ecosystem.
Endpoint
Thirty percent (or greater) of households participating in Stormwater recycling programs in
all municipalities within the Great Lakes ecosystem.
Features
Stormwater runoff has a significant impact on the water quality of streams, rivers and lakes in
the Great Lakes ecosystem. Ecosystem consequences of Stormwater run off include increased
erosion and flooding, and higher concentrations of contaminants and bacteria. The impact
of Stormwater in urban areas served by combined sewers is especially significant, due to the
effects of combined sewer overflows. This indicator presents trends in community participa-
tion in municipal Stormwater recycling programs, which reduce the pressure that Stormwater
runoff has on the ecosystem. Households alone cannot resolve the issues that arise from
Stormwater runoff; however, this indictor recognizes the significant role that the community
plays in Stormwater management. By monitoring municipal programs, information is also
obtained about the extent of municipal Stormwater recycling programs in the basin.
Illustration
This indicator will be displayed as a graphic of base-year participation in household
Stormwater recycling programs to current participation rates. Comparison tables of partici-
pation rates and number of municipal Stormwater recycling programs amongst urban centers
in the Great Lakes region may also be included.
Limitations
By focusing on municipal programs, this indicator will not measure Stormwater recycling
efforts conducted outside municipal programs. While information is widely available, there
is no aggregated data source for household Stormwater recycling. This indicator is most
relevant to households of single-family homes, since many households in multi-family
buildings would have limited ability to recycle Stormwater.
In terpreta tion
As the number of Stormwater recycling programs increase and more households participate,
the ecosystem stress caused by Stormwater will decrease. Increasing participation rates
12 SOLEC 2002 - Proposed Changes to the Great Lakes Indicator suite (Draft for Discussion, October 2002)
-------
I Societal Response Indicators
indicate a wider public awareness and support for reducing stormwater impacts on the Great
Lakes ecosystem.
Comments
Descriptions of municipal stormwater management programs are widely available on munici-
pal websites. Expansion of this indicator could also examine greywater recycling efforts,
though data in this area are very limited.
Unfinished Business
Relevancies
Indicator type: response
Environmental Compartment: water
Related issues: water quality, human health, contaminants, water use, land use
SOLEC Groupings: societal response - household/community
GLWQA Annex(es): 2: LaMPs/RAPs/BUIs, 12: Persistent toxic substances, 13: Non-point
sources, 17: Res. & Devel.
IJC Desired Outcome(s): 1: Fishability, 2: Swimmability, 3: Drinkability, 4: Healthy Hu-
mans, 6: Biological Integrity and Diversity, 7: Virt. Elim. PTS
GLFC Objectives:
Beneficial Use Impairment(s): 1: F&W Consumption, 9: Drinking Water, 10: Beach Clos-
ings, 11: Aesthetics
Last Revised
July 17, 2002
SOLEC 2002 - Proposed Changes to the Great Lakes Indicator Suite (Draft for Discussion, October 2002) \ 3
-------
I Societal Response Indicators |
Community Engagement in Great Lakes Protection and Decision-Making
(Revised from Indicator #3513)
Measure
An enumeration of membership in community-based groups that engage Great Lakes resi-
dents, including Native (First Nation/Native American) Communities, in the planning,
protection and overall decision-making activities related to the Great Lakes and their tribu-
taries. Specific measures include total number of members, basin location and group type.
An additional component is the number of activities that include Native perspectives.
Enumeration of all community groups in the Great Lakes is a substantial task, but a strong
proxy for measuring community engagement and reducing the resource intensity of this
indicator is to conduct a census of land trust agencies. Progress achieved by land trust
activities is easily quantified by tabulating the number of acres preserved. Watershed councils
are another particularly relevant group to act as an indicator of community engagement,
given their geographic focus. The proportion of Great Lakes basin watersheds and sub-
watersheds covered by watershed groups is a potential measure of the breadth watershed
council.
Purpose
To assess the extent of community involvement in Great Lakes activities and organizations as
a measure of community interest and sense of responsibility toward the health and
sustainability of the Great Lakes.
Ecosystem Objective
Continuing programs supporting protection of the Great Lakes and a sense of community
responsibility toward the sustainability of the Great Lakes ecosystem. A critical mass of local
support for partnerships responsible for setting and maintaining ecosystem health and
integrity in places throughout the Great Lakes basin.
Endpoint
Increasing trends of community engagement, by both Native and Non-native communities,
in Great Lakes protection and decision-making activities over time.
Features
Broad-based community engagement is at the heart of sustainability. In order to ensure a
sustainable Great Lakes ecosystem, active engagement of Great Lakes community members is
required. This indicator measures the trends in citizen involvement and engagement. By
measuring citizen involvement, a sense of community understanding and concern for ecosys-
tem health may also be inferred. Membership in government agency led community-based
groups can help to assess government effort to promote civic engagement.
Illustration
Graphs, charts and narrative description illustrating the number of residents associated with
organizations, programs and projects involved in Great Lakes planning, protection and
overall decision-making activities. Illustrations should be broken down by basin and by type
of group.
Limitations
Some definition and interpretation is required to determine the parameters for organizations
in Great Lakes planning, protection and overall decision-making activities. This indicator
14 SOLEC 2002 - Proposed Changes to the Great Lakes Indicator suite (Draft for Discussion, October 2002)
-------
I Societal Response Indicators
does not necessarily provide information on the diversity of membership within the organiza-
tions nor does it provide information as to extent of participation. Multiple memberships in
different groups involving the same individual prevent calculation of absolute numbers of
participants as a percentage of total basin population, but trends in memberships in Great
Lakes organizations over time is still valid.
Interpretation
The enumeration of community-based groups and their membership by group type will
measure trends in community involvement in ecosystem health activities within the basin.
Enumeration of watershed associations can be interpreted as direct activities to improve
ecosystem health, whereas membership in Federations, Associations and government initia-
tives may be more indirect activities.
Comments
Data for this indicator may be available from environmental directories and other non-
governmental organization directories. Directories are produced by various organizations
throughout the basin, including the Great Lakes Information Network. The Land Trust
Alliance surveys U.S. land trusts every 10 years. The Ontario Nature Trust Alliance also
provides listings of land trusts and Conservancies. Potential groupings for community-based
groups include: Clubs/Federations/Societies, Conservancies/Foundations/Institutions, Mu-
nicipal agency, State/Provincial agency, Federal agency and watershed associations. Alterna-
tively, groupings might also focus on issue areas such as water resources, air quality, land use
and protection, and wildlife.
Relevancies
Indicator type: response
Environmental Compartment: ecosystem
Related issues: ecosystem health,
SOLEC Groupings: societal response - households/community
GLWQAAnnex(es): All
IJC Desired Outcome(s): All
GLFC Objectives: All
Beneficial Use Impairment(s):
Last Revised
July 17, 2002
SOLEC 2002 - Proposed Changes to the Great Lakes Indicator Suite (Draft for Discussion, October 2002) \ 5
-------
Societal Response Indicators |
Household Solid Waste Minimization
New Indicator
Measure
Participation in solid waste minimization programs (i.e. proportion of generated waste that is
diverted from landfill).
Purpose
To infer the level of societal response to ecosystem pressures related to household waste
generation in the community, by measuring waste minimization efforts.
Ecosystem Objective
To reduce the pressures induced on the ecosystem by solid waste and further progression
toward sustainable development in the Great Lakes.
Endpoint
Full participation (100%) in solid waste minimization programs and declining trends in the
proportion of waste landfilled or incinerated.
Features
North Americans are one of the largest producers of solid waste in the world. Solid waste
deposited or incinerated leaves a residue on the land and contaminants can be redistributed
by air and water. Solid waste is also a major source of methane, a strong greenhouse gas and
contributor to global climate change. This indicator is a measure of society's response to the
pressures that solid waste places on the ecosystem and will potentially identify areas where
expansion of waste minimization efforts are needed most. Solid waste minimization activities
goes beyond recycling by including reduce and reuse activities, which generally have a
greater impact on ecosystem health.
Illustration
This indicator will be displayed as a graphic of the proportion of waste that is diverted from
landfill - broken down by material type. A second graphic will display the proportion of
waste that is diverted from landfill, broken down by waste minimization activity. Participa-
tion in solid waste minimization efforts will be measured over time.
Limitations
Though most municipalities produce waste generation and minimization information, it will
require considerable effort to collect all the information, given the number of municipalities
around the Great Lakes. Waste minimization can occur by a variety of means, not all of
which are well documented. Depending on data availability, recycling and composting may
have to be used as a proxy for all waste minimization efforts, however, such a proxy does not
take into account reduce and reuse activities. Waste measurement procedures vary by munici-
pality and therefore caution must be used when aggregating data.
In terpreta tion
By examining all waste minimization activities, this indicator not only looks at participation
in recycling, but also examines efforts to reduce waste generation and to reuse materials.
This indicator provides some insight into the level of responsibility that society feels toward
the impacts of waste deposition.
16 SOLEC 2002 - Proposed Changes to the Great Lakes Indicator suite (Draft for Discussion, October 2002)
-------
I Societal Response Indicators
Comments
This indicator should be examined in conjunction with the solid waste generation indicator
(#7060) that measures the current state of waste generation. With increasing economic
activity, waste generation increases, despite increased recycling activities. Therefore, waste
minimization activities need to be weighed against waste generation indicators.
Relevancies
Indicator type: response
Environmental Compartment: land
Related issues: waste generation; land use, hazardous waste, wastewater treatment, climate
change, contaminants
SOLEC Groupings: societal response
GLWQA Annex(es): 12: Persistent toxic substances
IJC Desired Outcome(s): 7: Virtual elimination of inputs of persistent toxic substances
GLFC Objectives:
Beneficial Use Impairment(s):
Last Revised
July 18, 2002
SOLEC 2002 - Proposed Changes to the Great Lakes Indicator Suite (Draft for Discussion, October 2002) \ J
-------
I Societal Response Indicators |
Commercial / Industrial Environmental Management Systems (EMS)
New Indicator
Measure
Number of organizations in the Great Lakes ecosystem that have adopted environmental
management systems such as ISO 14001.
Purpose
To infer the level of commitment, on the part of industries and businesses in the Great Lakes
ecosystem, to documenting and reducing environmental impacts.
Ecosystem Objective
To reduce the environmental pressures induced on the Great Lakes ecosystem as a result of
materials production and business operations.
Endpoint
All medium to large scale industries within the basin participating in voluntary efforts to
record and reduce their environmental impact.
Features
Environmental Management Systems are a voluntary framework for use by organizations
interested in identifying and addressing the significant environmental aspects and related
impacts of its activities, products and services. ISO 14001 and other environmental manage-
ment systems can help organizations to identify and implement management activities in the
process toward more sustainable materials production and business operations. The number
of environmental management certifications within the basin is a good and easy-to-under-
stand indicator of the region's advancement in voluntary environmental agreements.
Illustration
This indicator will be displayed as a chart of the number of EMS certifications within each
sector of the economy (using census classifications). Categorization of organization size will
also be included where possible. This indicator can be recorded as a time series or as a com-
parison of current number of certifications to a baseline year at some point in the past.
Limitations
While ISO 14001 is one common environmental management system, there are a variety of
other systems on the market that are even more widely used. Significant time would be
required to collect information on all EMS systems and not all systems are comparable. As a
voluntary action in which organizations set their own goals, Environmental Management
Systems do not directly measure the scale and scope of environmental protection or mitiga-
tion on the part of the participating organization.
Interpretation
The number of certified organizations can provide some insight into the level of commitment
to ecosystem health held by industries or businesses in the Great Lakes and can be compared
with national statistics or international certification numbers.
Comments
This indicator should be examined in conjunction with other measures of industrial/com-
mercial performance such as use of product lifecycle measures. Data can be collected from
organizations such as the Canadian Standards Council and trade organizations. The most
18 SOLEC 2002 - Proposed Changes to the Great Lakes Indicator suite (Draft for Discussion, October 2002)
-------
I Societal Response Indicators
feasible approach to data collection is to contact trade associations for each of the economic
sectors used by census agencies. Many trade agencies keep records of companies with envi-
ronmental management systems. Although this would not be a comprehensive list it would
provide a indicator of trends in the use of Environmental Management Systems.
Relevancies
Indicator type: response
Environmental Compartment: crosscutting - air, land, and water
Related issues: industrial pollution, contaminants, toxic substances, human health
SOLEC Groupings: societal responsibility - industrial/commercial
GLWQA Annex(es): 3: Phosphorus, 6: Shipping/Pollution, 12: Persistent toxic substances,
14: Contaminated sediments, 15: Airborne toxic substances
IJC Desired Outcome(s): 7: Virtual elimination of inputs of persistent toxic substances, 8:
Excess Phosphorus, 4: Healthy Humans, 5: Economic viability
GLFC Objectives:
Beneficial Use Impairment(s): All
Last Revised
July 16, 2002
SOLEC 2002 - Proposed Changes to the Great Lakes Indicator Suite (Draft for Discussion, October 2002) \ 9
-------
I Societal Response Indicators |
Commercial / Industrial Eco-Efficiency Measures (description)
New Indicator
Measure
Proportion of the 25 largest employers in the Great Lakes basin that track and report on eco-
efficiency measures (net sales, quantity of goods produced, energy consumption, material
consumption, water consumption, greenhouse gas emissions, ozone depleting substances).
Data will also be collected on eco-efficiency strategies implemented related to each of the
following success factors of eco-efficiency (as developed by the World Business Council on
Sustainable Development): material intensity of goods and services, energy intensity of goods
and services, toxic dispersion, material recyclability, and sustainable use of renewable re-
sources (material durability).
Purpose
To assess the commercial/industrial sector response to pressures imposed on the ecosystem as
a result of production processes and service delivery.
Ecosystem Objective
To foster healthy, sustainable economic productivity, without compromising environmental
and societal health. The first Antwerp Workshop on Eco-efficiency (November, 1993) stated
that eco-efficiency is 'reached by the delivery of competitively priced goods and services that
satisfy human needs and bring quality of life while progressively reducing ecological impacts
and resource intensity throughout the life cycle to a level at least in line with the earth's
estimated carrying capacity'. Reaching this target is consistent with economic, social and
environmental sustainability objectives within the Great Lakes basin.
Endpoint
100% of the 25 largest employers report publicly on eco-efficiency measures and 100% of
the 25 largest employers in the basin have implemented specific eco-efficiency strategies to:
1) reduce the material intensity of goods and services,
2) reduce the energy intensity of goods and services,
3) reduce toxic dispersion,
4) enhance material recyclability; and,
5) maximize sustainable use of renewable resources.
Features
Eco-efficiency is founded in the sustainable development principle of integration of economic
growth and environmental improvement. Activities associated with eco-efficiency not only
reduce stress on the ecosystem, but also emphasize value creation for a stronger economy; the
vision of eco-efficiency is to 'produce more from less'. This indicator has the benefit of cap-
turing a wide range of activities that make goods and services production more sustainable. It
has the additional feature of being applicable to all economic sectors. By tracking commer-
cial and industrial eco-efficiency activities, it is possible to assess the level to which corporate
behavior supports a sustainable Great Lakes ecosystem.
Illustration
This indicator will be displayed as a table of the proportion of the 25 largest employers in
the basin that measure eco-efficiency and have adopted eco-efficiency strategies.
Limitations
There is no single data source for eco-efficiency activities within the basin and, therefore, it is
2 0 SOLEC 2002 - Proposed Changes to the Great Lakes Indicator suite (Draft for Discussion, October 2002)
-------
I Societal Response Indicators
necessary to limit the number of organizations surveyed. The 25 largest employers were
selected as industry leaders and proxy for assessing commercial/industrial eco-efficiency
measures. This indicator should not be considered a comprehensive evaluation of all the
activities of the commercial/industrial sector, particularly small-scale organizations. Typi-
cally, eco-efficiency activities are more widely applied by larger organizations and require
longer time scales before they are widely adopted by smaller-scale operations.
In terpreta tion
This indicator can be used to monitor progress toward more responsible goods and services
production and a stronger, more sustainable Great Lakes economy.
Comments
The World Business Council for Sustainable Development and the World Resources Institute
produce extensive resources related to eco-efficiency. Trade organizations are also a good data
source. Employer lists are available from local chambers of commerce and InfoUSA, Omaha,
Nebraska.
Relevancies
Indicator type: response
Environmental Compartment: cross-cutting
Related issues: waste generation, energy use, water use, vehicle use
SOLEC Groupings: societal responsibility - commercial industrial
GLWQA Annex(es): 3: Phosphorus, 6: Shipping/Pollution, 8: Facilities Discharges, 10:
Hazardous Polluting Substances, 12: Persistent toxic substances, 14: Contaminated
sediments, 15: Airborne toxic substances, 11: Monitoring
IJC Desired Outcome(s): All
GLFC Objectives:
Beneficial Use Impairment(s): All
Last Revised
July 15, 2002
SOLEC 2002 - Proposed Changes to the Great Lakes Indicator Suite (Draft for Discussion, October 2002) 2 1
-------
I Societal Response Indicators |
Commercial / Industrial Eco-Efficiency Measures (sample report)
New Indicator
Assessment: Unable to make an assessment until historical trend data is available. This is the
first time this indicator has been measured.
Purpose
This indicator assesses the institutionalized response of the commercial/industrial sector to
pressures imposed on the ecosystem as a result of production processes and service delivery. It
is based upon the public documents produced by the 25 largest employers in the basin that
report eco-efficiency measures and implement eco-efficiency strategies. The 25 largest
employers were selected as industry leaders and proxy for assessing commercial/industrial
eco-efficiency measures. This indicator should not be considered a comprehensive evaluation
of all the activities of the commercial/industrial sector, particularly small-scale organizations,
though it is presumed that many other industrial/commercial organizations are implement-
ing and reporting on similar strategies.
Ecosystem objective
The goal of eco-efficiency is to deliver competitively priced goods and services that satisfy
human needs and increase quality of life, while progressively reducing ecological impacts and
resource intensity throughout the lifecycle, to a level at least in line with the earth's esti-
mated carrying capacity1. In quantitative terms, the goal is to increase the ratio of the value
of output(s) produced by a firm to the sum of the environmental pressures generated by the
firm2.
State of the Ecosystem
Efforts to track eco-efficiency in the Great Lakes basin and in North America are still in the
infancy stage. This is the first assessment of its kind in the Great Lakes region. It includes
twenty-five of the largest private employers, from a variety of sectors, operating in the basin.
Participation in eco-efficiency was tabulated from publicly available environmental reporting
data from 10 Canadian companies and 14 American companies based in (or with major
operations in) the Great Lakes.
Tracking of eco-efficiency indicators is based on the notion: "what is measured is what gets
done". The evaluation of this indicator is conducted by recording presence/absence of report-
ing related to performance in 7 eco-efficiency reporting categories (net sales, quantity of
goods produced, material consumption, energy consumption, water consumption, green-
house gas emissions, emissions of ozone depleting substances)3. In addition, the evaluation
includes an enumeration of specific initiatives that are targeted toward one or more of the
elements of eco-efficiency success (material intensity, energy intensity, toxic dispersion,
recyclability and product durability)4.
Of the 24 companies surveyed, 10 reported publicly (available online or through customer
service inquiry) on at least some measures of eco-efficiency. Energy consumption and, to
some extent, material consumption were the most commonly reported measures. Of the 10
firms that reported on some elements of eco-efficiency, 3 reported on all 5 measures.
More companies, 19 (76%) of the 25 companies surveyed, reported on implementation of
specific eco-efficiency related initiatives. 2 companies reported activities related to all 5
success areas. Reported initiatives were most commonly targeted toward improved recycling
and improved energy efficiency.
2 2 SOLEC 2002 - Proposed Changes to the Great Lakes Indicator suite (Draft for Discussion, October 2002)
-------
Societal Response Indicators
Overall, companies in the manufacturing sector tended to provide more public information
on environmental performance than the retail or financial sectors. At the same time, nearly
all firms expressed a commitment to reducing the environmental impact of their operations.
A select number of companies, such as Steelcase Inc. and General Motors in the U.S.A. and
Nortel Networks in Canada, have shown strong leadership in comprehensive, easily accessed,
public reporting on environmental performance. Others, such as Haworth Inc. and Quad/
Graphics, have shown distinct creativity and innovation in implementing measures to reduce
their environmental impact.
10-1
" 9 •
E 6.
° l\
1 \
1 n
3 2
Number of the 25 Largest Employers in the Great
Lakes Basin that Publicly Report Eco-efficency
Measures
1
I
1
1
1
1
1
II 1 r— H
Energy Materials Water GHG Ozone
Consumption Consumption Consumption Emissions depleting
emissions
Eco-Effic ency Measure (based on WBCSD measures
Number of the 25 Largest Employers in the Great Lakes
Basin that Publicly Report Initiatives Related to Eco-
efficiency Success Criteria
MateriE
Intensi
Energy
y intensity d
Sucess Criteria
Toxic Recyclab
spersion
as defined by WBCS
lity Product
durability
D)
The concept of eco-efficiency was defined in 1990 and was not widely known until several
years later. Specific data on commercial/industrial measures are only just being imple-
mented; therefore, it is not yet possible to determine trends in eco-efficiency reporting. In
general, firms appear to be working to improve the efficiency of their goods and service
delivery. This is an important trend as it indicates the growing ability of firms to increase
the quantity number of goods and services produced for the same or a lesser quantity of
resources per unit of output.
While one or more eco-efficiency measures are often included in environmental reporting,
only a few firms recognize the complete eco-efficiency concept. Many firms recognize the
need for more environmentally sensitive goods and services delivery; however, the implemen-
tation of more environmentally efficient processes appears narrow in scope. These observa-
tions indicate that more could be done toward more sustainable goods and services delivery.
Future Pressures
Eco-efficiency per unit of production will undoubtedly increase over time, given the eco-
nomic, environmental and public relations incentives for doing so. However, as Great Lakes
populations and economies grow, quantity of goods and services produced will likely in-
crease. If production increases by a greater margin than eco-efficiency improvements, then
the overall commercial/industrial environmental impact will continue to rise. Absolute
reductions in the sum of environmental pressures are necessary to deliver goods and services
within the earth's carrying capacity.
Future Action
The potential for improving the environmental and economic efficiency of goods and services
delivery is unlimited. To meet the ecosystem objective, more firms in the commercial/
industrial sector need to recognize the value of eco-efficiency and need to monitor and reduce
the environmental impacts of production.
SOLEC 2002 - Proposed Changes to the Great Lakes Indicator Suite (Draft for Discussion, October 2002)
23
-------
Societal Response Indicators |
Further Work Necessary
By repeating this evaluation at a regular interval (2 or 4 years) trends in industrial/commer-
cial eco-efficiency can be determined. The sustainability of goods and service delivery in the
Great Lakes basin can only be determined if social justice measures are also included in
commercial/industrial sector assessments. The difficulty in assessing the impacts of social
justice issues precludes them from being included in this report, however, such social welfare
impacts should be included in future indicator assessment.
Sources
InfoUSA®, Omaha, NE. Largest Employers Database. 2001 www.acinet.org,
employers.database@infoUSA.com.
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), Environment Policy
Committee, Environment Directorate, Eco-Efficiency: Environment Ministerial Steering Group
Report, (Paris, March 1998).
Report on Business Magazine. The TOP 1000 2002: 50 Largest Employers, http://
toplOOO.robmagazine.com/July 2002. Canada.
Stratos: Strategies to Sustainability in collaboration with Alan Willis and Associates and
SustainAbility. Stepping Forward: Corporate Sustainability Reporting in Canada. November
2001. Canada.
Vrooman Environmental Inc.and Legwork Environmental Inc for Industry Canada. The
Status of Eco-Efficiency and Indicator Development in Canadian Industry. A Report on Industry
Perceptions and Practices. February 2001.
World Business Council on Sustainable Development. Eco-efficiency: creating more value
with less impact. August 2000.
World Business Council on Sustainable Development. Measuring eco-efficiency a guide to
reporting company performance. June 2000.
National Round Table on Environment and Economy. Measuring eco-efficiency in business:
feasibility of a core set of indicators. 1999. Ottawa, Canada.
Acknowledgments
Author: Laurie Payne, LURA Consulting. Contributors: Christina Forst, US EPA, and Dale
Phenicie & George Kuper, Council of Great Lakes Industries. Tom Van Camp and Nicolas
Dion of Industry Canada provided several data resources. Many of the firms surveyed in this
report also contributed environmental reports and other corporate information. Chambers of
commerce in many states and provinces around the Great Lakes provided employment data.
1 World Business Council for Sustainable Development, Eco-efficient Leadership for Improved Economic and Environmental
Performance (Geneva, 1996), p. 4.
" Adapted from Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), Environment Policy Committee,
Environment Directorate, Eco-Efficiency: Environment Ministerial Steering Group Report, (Paris, March 1998), p. 3.
111 World Business Council for Sustainable Development, Eco-efficiency. Creating more value with less impact. (2002).
'" World Business Council for Sustainable Development, Eco-efficiency. Creating more value with less impact. (2002) p. 15.
2 4 SOLEC 2002 - Proposed Changes to the Great Lakes Indicator suite (Draft for Discussion, October 2002)
-------
I Societal Response Indicators |
Municipal Wastewater Treatment
New indicator
Measure
Proportion of the population served by municipal sewage treatment facilities, percent of
collected wastewater that is treated and level of municipal treatment provided (primary,
secondary, tertiary and/or advanced treatment technologies).
Purpose
To assess the scale and scope of wastewater treatment as a measure of the relative amount of
wastewater contaminants that are entering the waste stream and a measure of municipal
commitment to protecting freshwater quality.
Ecosystem Objective
To reduce the pressures induced on the ecosystem by insufficiently treated wastewater and
further progression toward sustainable development in the Great Lakes.
Endpoint
To treat all wastewater to a quality whereby water released back into the ecosystem is cleaner
than the background quality of the water body.
Features
Chemicals and disease-causing organisms found in insufficiently treated wastewater can
threaten public health and the health of other organisms living in the Great Lakes ecosystem.
This indicator measures progress toward safe and innocuous wastewater releases to the
environment. In particular, this indicator provides information on how well local govern-
ments are managing wastewater generated in their communities. Measuring the level of
treatment used provides additional information on the quality of water returned to the
environment. Measures of percent of population connected to municipal treatment facilities
has also been used as an indicator of urban sprawl, since developments in greenfield areas
may not be supported by municipal infrastructure services.
Illustration
This indicator will be displayed as two time-series of graphs: percent of wastewater treatment
vs. wastewater collected and percent of population connected to sewage treatment systems.
The level of treatment will be shown in a pie chart representing each treatment type.
Limitations
Though most municipalities produce wastewater treatment data, it may require considerable
effort to collect all the information, particularly in smaller or more rural communities.
Wastewater treatment technologies vary by municipality and, in some cases, may be difficult
to classify.
Interpretation
This indicator can be used to monitor progress toward more comprehensive wastewater
treatment over time. Data collected can also used to make comparisons between regions
within the Great Lakes ecosystem.
Comments
This indicator should be examined in conjunction with the percent of greywater recycled
indicator, that measures the current state wastewater reuse and efficiency of treatment.
SOLEC 2002 - Proposed Changes to the Great Lakes Indicator Suite (Draft for Discussion, October 2002) 2 5
-------
Societal Response Indicators |
Further research related to this indicator may include examination of industrial wastewater
treatment, programs to measure the efficiency of wastewater treatment facilities and pricing
of wastewater treatment services.
Relevancies
Indicator type: response
Environmental Compartment: water
Related issues: waste generation, water quality, human health contaminants
SOLEC Groupings: societal responsibility - institutional
GLWQA Annex(es): 3: Phosphorus, 8: Facilities, 10: Hazardous Pollutants, 12: Persistent
toxic substances, 14: Contaminated Sediments
IJC Desired Outcome(s): 1: Fishability, 2: Swimmability, 3: Drinkability, 4: Healthy Hu-
mans, 7: Virtual elimination of inputs of persistent toxic substances, 8: Excess phosphorus
GLFC Objectives:
Beneficial Use Impairment (s): 1: F&W Consumption, 2: Tainting, 3: F & W Populations,
4: Tumours, 5: Deformities, 8: Eutrophication, 9: Drinking water, 10: Beach Closings, 11:
Aesthetics
Last Revised
July 15, 2002
2 6 SOLEC 2002 - Proposed Changes to the Great Lakes Indicator suite (Draft for Discussion, October 2002)
-------
I Societal Response Indicators |
Cosmetic Pesticide Controls (description)
New Indicator
Measure
In the wake of the Canadian Supreme Court ruling upholding the right of municipalities to
ban certain chemicals from residential lawns and community use, this indicator seeks to
measure the number of municipalities invoking such a ban. This, in turn, measures the
willingness of local governments to proactively improve community and ecosystem health by
reducing contaminant exposure.
Purpose
To identify the communities that are invoking a ban on harmful pesticides, to explore the
reasons for their decision and to raise awareness of this new policy in other communities in
Canada as well the US that have not yet imposed such restrictions.
Ecosystem Objective
To reduce the amount of contaminants in the ecosystem. To prevent further contamination
of land, waterways and degradation of human health.
Endpoint
We look towards an endpoint of full bi-national participation in the control of cosmetic
pesticides by all municipalities in the basin, although this may take a long period of time.
Until then, this indicator may be more useful to reflect a positive trend whose endpoint may
sharpen when revisited in 4 or 8 years.
Features
The effects of pesticide exposure include poisoning, eye damage, disruption of the endocrine
system and respiratory ailments. These effects are exacerbated in children. Exposure to
pesticides may occur via direct contact through improper use, consumption through the
residual pesticide on food, and release into the environment from improper storage or dis-
posal. It was for these and other reasons that several municipalities in Canada banned the
use of pesticides on public land and private property. The time scale of this policy has been
relatively short, as the policy is a new enactment, and the geographic scale is increasing from
Quebec, to Ontario and the United States.
Illustration
This indicator will be a numerical ratio of municipalities that do have bans in place out of
the total number of municipalities in the basin. In addition to ratios, maps may be used. A
chart for each country may display the municipalities that have banned the use of pesticides
as of 2002.
Limitations
The utility of this indicator at this time may be slightly compromised by the fact that since
June 2001, only a select number of municipalities in Canada have begun to enact pesticide
bans and even fewer in the U.S. This concept represents relatively new environmental policy
that is becoming more widely implemented as more municipalities consider it.
In terpreta tion
To place this indicator in better context, it is helpful to refer to the total amounts of non-
agricultural pesticides or fertilizers used on Great Lakes basin household lawns and public
community areas each year. US and Canadian data for this give an idea as to the millions of
SOLEC 2002 - Proposed Changes to the Great Lakes Indicator Suite (Draft for Discussion, October 2002) 2 7
-------
Societal Response Indicators |
pounds/kilograms in question, and are available as a supplement to the "Illustration" section
of this indicator description.
Comments
A further measurement of the extent to which alternatives to chemical pesticides (Integrated
Pest Management) are used in all urban centers and municipalities could be incorporated
into this study.
Unfinished Business
Comprehensive research is needed in order to get accurate updated pesticide usage and
policy information for every municipality in the Great Lakes basin.
Relevancies
Indicator type: Response
Environmental Compartment: Land, water
Related Issues: Green planning process, indicator #7053, pest management, agriculture
SOLEC Groupings: societal responsibility-institutional
GLWQA Annex(es): 12: Persistent Toxic Substances, 13: Pollution from non-point
sources, 16: Pollution from Contaminated Groundwater
IJC Desired Outcome(s): 4: Healthy human populations, 7: Virtual elimination of inputs of
persistent toxic substances, 9: Physical environmental integrity
GLFC Objective:
Beneficial Use Impairment(s):
Last Revised
August 13, 2002
2 8 SOLEC 2002 - Proposed Changes to the Great Lakes Indicator suite (Draft for Discussion, October 2002)
-------
I Societal Response Indicators |
Cosmetic Pesticide Controls (sample report)
New Indicator
Assessment: Unable to make an assessment until historical trend data is available. This is the
first time this indicator has been measured.
Purpose
This indicator will track the number of and trend among municipalities in the Great Lakes
Basin that have implemented by-laws or ordinances restricting the cosmetic use of pesticides.
It will indirectly measure and identify the willingness of local governments to proactively
improve community and ecosystem health by reducing contaminant exposure to residents
and the ecosystem.
Ecosystem Objective
The objective is to reduce the amount of contaminants in the Great Lakes ecosystem, par-
ticularly since pesticide contamination in drinking water can post a threat to human health.
Ultimately, the objective is to prevent further contamination of land, waterways and degrada-
tion of human health and wildlife.
State of the Ecosystem
The effects of pesticide exposure may include disruption of the endocrine, reproductive,
neurological and immune systems, carcinogenic effects, eye damage, poisoning and respira-
tory ailments. Children are even more susceptible to dangerous effects of exposure, which
may occur via direct contact through improper use, consumption through the residual
pesticide on food, and release into the environment from improper storage or disposal. Once
applied to lawns, pesticides may migrate to air, soil, groundwater and surface water thereby
contaminating the ecosystem and its dependents. For the Great Lakes Basin, this migration
effect could cause significant degradations in the quality of drinking water and health of the
overall ecosystem.
The municipality of Hudson, Quebec, was the first municipality to pass a by-law in 1991
prohibiting the use of cosmetic (purely aesthetic) use of pesticides. When challenged by a
lawsuit, the case ultimately went to the Supreme Court of Canada, whose landmark decision
in June 2001 ruled that municipalities did have the right to restrict pesticide use on public
and/or private property, since "Law-making [is] often best achieved at a level of government
that is...closest to the citizens affected..."5 Following Hudson's example, 45 additional
municipalities out of a total of 1,556 in Quebec passed similar by-laws restricting the use of
pesticides on public lands, private lands, or both. An additional 6 municipalities' pesticide
bylaws will be effective as of January 2003. Recently, however, the provincial government of
Quebec introduced stringent pesticide regulations that all municipalities will now be subject
to. As of September 2002, pesticides on the market were banned from all public,
semipublic, and municipal green areas in the province. This decision also marked the
beginning of a three-year plan to extend the prohibition to the entirety of private and com-
mercial green spaces in the province as well, excluding agricultural lands.
In the province of Ontario, Cobalt was the first and at this time remains the only municipal-
ity in Ontario that has definitively passed a bylaw banning the non-essential use of pesticides
on all properties within the municipality. The Canadian capital, the City of Ottawa, how-
ever, has banned the use of pesticides on public municipal property and will begin the
public consultation process in fall 2002 to enact a bylaw that would restrict all cosmetic use
of pesticides within the city. Additionally, there are 22 (including Ottawa) out of 628 total
SOLEC 2002 - Proposed Changes to the Great Lakes Indicator Suite (Draft for Discussion, October 2002) 2 9
-------
Ontario and Quebec Municipalities in the
Pesticide Reduction Process
Total Number of Municipalities: 2,184
2%
28%
D By-Laws Adopted
• Implementing/Considering
By-Law
D No By-Law
70%
Societal Response Indicators |
municipalities in Ontario that are phasing out pesticide use, and in various stages of public
and/or Council deliberation on the passage of a pesticide by-law.
At present, few municipalities in the
U.S. Great Lakes Basin have formally
enacted restrictions similar to those in
the above-described Canadian munici-
palities; although it is reasonable to
expect similar regulations in the U.S. in
the near future. A related effort may be
seen in the fact that all eight Great
Lakes Basin states have adopted some
form of legislation to restrict the use of
pesticides in schools, from notifying
parents when pesticides are being
sprayed in public schools to requiring Integrated Pest Management for structural pest con-
trol. On a national level, the U.S. EPA has banned certain individual pesticides such as
chlorpyrifos, an insecticide sold under the trade name "Dursban", and continues with many
initiatives to phase-out use of harmful pesticides.
Future Pressures
Increased and sustained use of pesticides will cause further pressure on the ecosystems and
potentially cause increased health concerns and contaminated drinking water for residents in
the Great Lakes Basin.
Future Activities
As a province, Ontario is now also feeling pressure by activists to pass a provincial law as
Quebec did, to eliminate first the public and then private cosmetic use of pesticides. This
initiative should continue to be monitored for updates. Both in the U.S. Congress, as well as
the and state and local government levels, initiatives and proposed bills/ordinances for
pesticide reductions should continue to be monitored for future adoptions.
Future Work Necessary
Because this concept represents relatively new environmental policy, work will need to be
done in the future to re-assess current numbers of municipalities that have passed by-laws/
ordinances restricting the commercial, cosmetic use of pesticides. Cosmetic pesticide control
is gaining significant attention in local environmental policy, and this indicator will likely
serve as a reflective trend indicator when revisited in four or eight years. For Canadian
communities currently in deliberation or consideration stages of by-law enactment, follow-
up will be needed in several years to confirm if a law has passed. Finally, it will be interest-
ing to document if and when the United States adopts similar laws in regards to municipal-
ity restrictions. Though yet to be developed, the endpoint of this indicator includes having
bi-national participation in pesticide reduction efforts, so that a significant decrease in
contaminant levels within the ecosystem is evident.
Sources
Federation of Canadian Municipalities (FCM), www.fcm.ca
"New Stricter Laws Will Regulate the Use and Sale of Pesticides, "Press Release, Quebec Ministry
of the Environment; www.gouv.qc.ca/Index_en.html and personal communication
30
SOLEC 2002 - Proposed Changes to the Great Lakes Indicator suite (Draft for Discussion, October 2002)
-------
I Societal Response Indicators
"PesticideFree Canada"report, Canadian Centre for Pollution Prevention, http://pestinfo.ca/
documents/PesticideFreeCanada.doc
"Playing it Safe: Healthy Choices About Lawn Care Pesticides "report, City of Toronto, http://
www.city.toronto.on.ca/health/hphe/pdf/playingitsafe.pdf
"The Schooling of State Pesticide Laws 2000, "National Coalition Against the Misuse of Pesti-
cides, http:// www. beyondpesticides.org/schools/publications/School_report_2000.pdf
US EPA, Office of Pesticide Programs, http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/
Acknowledgments
Author: Christina Forst, U.S. EPA. Contributors: Laurie Payne, LURA Consulting/ Environ-
ment Canada.
5 114957 Canada Letee (Spraytech, Societe d'arrosage) v. Hudson (Town), 2001 SCC 40.File No.: 26937
SOLEC 2002 - Proposed Changes to the Great Lakes Indicator Suite (Draft for Discussion, October 2002) 31
-------
I Societal Response Indicators |
Taxes on Energy and CO2
New Indicator
Measure
The number of economic incentives to reduce energy and fossil fuel consumption that are in
place by the state/provincial and federal governments of the Great Lakes basin. This will be
measured by the amount of tax revenues raised by said governments.
Purpose
To determine the effect that economic incentives have on consumption rates of fossil fuels.
Ecosystem Objective
To reduce total air emissions, increase air quality and reduce the pressure caused by green-
house gases such as COr
Endpoint
A significant increase in the uptake of alternatives (thereby reducing air emissions and other
pollution levels) due to the implementation of economic incentives or environmentally
related taxes. It is impossible to state an endpoint that reflects unrealistic taxation amounts,
though this indicator may serve to reflect a positive trend when revisited again in several
years.
Features
The economic incentives referred to here are in the form of environmentally related taxes,
which are defined by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development
(OECD) as "any compulsory, unrequited payment to general government levied on tax-bases
deemed to be of particular environmental relevance". Taxes are "unrequited" in the sense that
benefits provided by government to taxpayers are not normally in proportion to their pay-
ments. The environmental impact of a tax or levy comes primarily through the impact it has
on relative consumer and producer prices of environmentally related goods and services, in
conjunction with the relevant price elasticities. The OECD keeps an "Environmentally
Related Taxes Database" for the taxes, fees and charges levied in OECD member countries,
including the U.S. and Canada, which, for the purposes of developing this topic as an
indicator, will be a very useful starting point to this study.
Illustration
The OECD has several relevant graphs on their website which can be used as a model to
display data from the U.S. and Canada. Revenues raised from some environmentally related
tax-bases (including energy, fuel consumption and air emissions) can be displayed in a bar
graph. Exact illustrations are to be determined, based on amount of data obtained.
Limitations
The information to compile OECD's database was collected in 1998 and while much of the
information was collected directly from the ministries/departments of finance in the respec-
tive countries, in some cases information is still lacking. Therefore, the OECD may be a
helpful starting place, however more research would need to be done in order to obtain
current data. Also, the OECD warns those observing their graphs to review them with
caution, as the figures do not (on their own) provide sufficient information to judge the
"environmental friendliness" of the tax systems in the countries concerned. For such analyses,
a careful examination of the actual data and of additional information describing the eco-
nomic and taxation structure of each country is required. This same issue would need to be
3 2 SOLEC 2002 - Proposed Changes to the Great Lakes Indicator suite (Draft for Discussion, October 2002)
-------
I Societal Response Indicators
cautioned against this indicator in our study as well.
Interpretation
In order to place this indicator in context, it would be helpful to know what alternatives, if
any, the taxpayers have reverted to in the wake of such taxation/incentive. This indicator
does support the higher ecosystem objective of reducing air emissions, though sometimes,
inadvertently. For example, a tax on fuel oil introduced for purely fiscal reasons may have the
same environmental impact as a tax on fuel oil introduced to combat CO2 emissions, to the
extent that the tax leads to similar changes in the prices of relevant tax-bases.
Unfinished Business
Current and relevant data need to be obtained based on the model that the OECD used.
Relevancies
Indicator type: Response
Environmental Compartment: air, land
Related Issues: Mass Transportation #7012, and Vehicle Use (proposed), air quality
SOLEC Groupings: societal responsibility-institutional
GLWQAAnnex(es):
IJC Desired Outcome(s): 5: Economic viability
GLFC Objective:
Beneficial Use Impairment(s):
Last Revised
August 13, 2002
SOLEC 2002 - Proposed Changes to the Great Lakes Indicator Suite (Draft for Discussion, October 2002) 3 3
-------
Societal Response Indicators |
Environmental Education
New Indicator
Measure
The number of elementary schools and secondary schools that incorporate environmental
education issues into standard science curricula, as well as a measure of the aptitude/aware-
ness that elementary and secondary students have of environmental issues, based on scores of
science achievement tests.
Purpose
To explore the relationship between education and the level of commitment to and awareness
of environmental issues.
Ecosystem Objective
As consumers and therefore producers of waste, living in and among many disrupted, com-
plex ecosystems, members of society should use education and awareness as tools to increase
their understanding of all ecosystems in order to improve them by making better and in-
formed decisions.
Endpoint
To integrate environmental education into the mainstream of traditional science education
curricula in all elementary and secondary schools in the hopes that such efforts will foster an
environmentally literate citizenry/society that is well equipped to make conscious decisions
and informed choices, as well as be contributory, responsible members of the community.
Features
In reality, this indicator's potential scope could go far beyond the formal classroom, as there
are many professionals, volunteers and organizations involved in promoting environmental
education in a variety of ways including workshops, extracurricular activities, field studies,
nature camps/hikes, summer programs and museum classes. News media also play a role in
"educating" the public. However, on an academic level, environmental education should not
only seek to raise consciousness of important issues, but ask students to consider ways to
work together to improve and solve environmental problems. Such awareness helps to
develop environmental leaders.
Illustration
The level of scholastic achievement in environmental issue areas will be graphically repre-
sented in a line or bar graph depending on the data gathered.
Limitations
The vast number of schools across two countries that are included under the umbrella of this
study make input of data for each individual school difficult to attain. At this stage, only a
broader look at science curricula is possible, through available data sources.
In terpreta tion
Though education is one of the most effective vehicles towards greater awareness, in terms of
the larger ecosystem goal, it would be difficult to quantitatively correlate the public's specific
environmental decisions to concepts or lessons they learned in school. It should be taken
into account that other influential factors such as newspaper articles or economic incentives
could potentially skew the data.
3 4 SOLEC 2002 - Proposed Changes to the Great Lakes Indicator suite (Draft for Discussion, October 2002)
-------
I Societal Response Indicators
Comments
According to a Roper poll cited on the website of the North American Association for Envi-
ronmental Education (NAAEE), ninety-five percent of U.S. residents believe environmental
education should be taught in schools.
Unfinished Business
Further research about the curricula of elementary and secondary level education is needed in
order to obtain a complete picture of environmental education as a whole. The study might
be expanded to include a measure of university level environmental education as well. Al-
though at this level of education a student chooses to pursue environmental studies and is
not required to study them as part of a core curriculum, measuring this would be beneficial
because graduates often become environmental leaders. Finally, the NAAEE is currently
working with states and provinces to develop an environmental education certification
process for primary and secondary teachers, representing a possible future measurement that
would be beneficial for more fully implementing this indicator.
Relevancies
Indicator type: Response
Environmental Compartment: Cross-cutting: air, land, water
Related Issues: education
SOLEC Groupings: societal responsibility - institutional
GLWQA Annex(es): 17: Research and Development
IJC Desired Outcome(s): 4: Healthy human populations
GLFC Objective:
Beneficial Use Impairment(s):
Last Revised
August 13, 2002
SOLEC 2002 - Proposed Changes to the Great Lakes Indicator Suite (Draft for Discussion, October 2002) 3 5
-------
I Societal Response Indicators |
Vehicle Use
New Indicator
Measure
Amount of vehicle miles traveled. Number of licensed vehicles in the Great Lakes basin.
Amount of fuel consumed.
Purpose
To assess the amount and trends in vehicle use in the Great Lakes basin and to infer the
societal response to the ecosystem stressed caused by vehicle use.
Ecosystem Objective
This indicator supports Annex 15 of the Great Lakes Water Qualilty Agreement. An alterna-
tive objective is to reduce stress on the environmental integrity of the Great Lakes region
caused by vehicle use.
Endpoint
Declining trends in automobile dependence and vehicle emissions.
Features
Automobiles are the primary contributor to the level of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.
Emissions from vehicle use also contribute contaminants to air and water systems. Automo-
bile oriented development degrades the liveability of urban environments. This indicator
assesses the societal response to the well-known consequences of automobile use by measur-
ing trends in vehicle use. This indicator is reported by measuring vehicle miles travelled,
amount of fuel consumed, car ownership numbers. Vehicle use measures provide data that is
not available from modal split measures including possible trends in trip distance (a proxy
for sprawl development) and trends in number of trips taken.
Illustration
A chart showing vehicle miles travelled in the basin or amount of fuel consumed over time
will best represent this indicator. Graphic representation of this indicator also involves a
ratio of vehicle miles travelled to number of licensed vehicles to infer individual automobile
use trends.
Limitations
This indicator is limited by details such as different sized cars and trucks will emit different
levels of emissions. Daily vehicle miles travelled rates may not take into account a lower
number of weekend trips. This measure does not separate miles travelled by trip type, such
as commercial goods movement, travel to work and home based trips.
In terpreta tion
This indicator can be used as a reference, indicating an improvement in the state of the
ecosystem, as well as a community's commitment towards ecosystem health. Results for this
indicator should be interpreted in conjunction with urban development patterns in the basin
and indicators in the Urban Issues suite of indicators. Those collected can also be used to
compare areas within the Great Lakes region.
Comments
This indicator should be measured in conjunction with trends in mass transportation
(#7012), which is an alternative to vehicle use. Focusing on automobile use and the current
3 6 SOLEC 2002 - Proposed Changes to the Great Lakes Indicator suite (Draft for Discussion, October 2002)
-------
I Societal Response Indicators
transportation trends will lead to the establishment of higher levels of air quality and in turn
improved human health. Data for this indicator is produced by census agencies and local
transportation planning departments.
Relevancies
Indicator type: response
Environmental Compartment: crosscutting - air, land, and water
Related issues: mass transit, air quality, urban sprawl, smog
SOLEC Groupings: societal responsibility - household/community
GLWQA Annex(es): 10: Hazardous Pollutants, 13: Non-point sources, 15: Airborne Toxic
Substances, 17: Research & Development
IJC Desired Outcome(s): 4: Healthy humans, 5: Economic Viability, 6: Biological Integrity
and Diversity, 9: Physical Environmental Integrity
GLFC Objectives:
Beneficial Use Impairment(s): 3: F & W Populations, 9: Drinking water, 14: F&W Habitat
SOLEC 2002 - Proposed Changes to the Great Lakes Indicator Suite (Draft for Discussion, October 2002) 3 7
-------
Agriculture Indicators
5. Agriculture Indicators
Based on feedback received at SOLEC 98 and SOLEC 2000 it has been concluded that one
agricultural indicator is insufficient to determine the impact of agriculture on other ecosys-
tem components in the Great Lakes basin. Due to this, two new agriculture indicators are
being proposed at SOLEC 2002: Nutrient Management Plans and Integrated Pesticide
Management. They both are human activity (response) type indicators as they look at the
management of contaminants that can (and have) cause serious problems to the ecosystem.
There is a description for each indicator followed by a sample report. This has been done to
help the discussions on the usefulness of each indicator.
3 8 SOLEC 2002 - Proposed Changes to the Great Lakes Indicator suite (Draft for Discussion, October 2002)
-------
Agriculture Indicators
5b. Proposed New Agricultural Indicators with Examples of Reporting
Nutrient Management (description)
New Indicator
Measure
Number of Nutrient Management Plans (NMP) in place. Percentage of Municipalities with
Nutrient Management By-law's containing standards for intensive livestock operations.
Purpose
To determine the number of Nutrient Management plans and to infer environmentally
friendly practices in place, to prevent ground and surface water contamination.
Ecosystem Objective
This indicator supports Annexes 2, 3, 11,12 and 13 of the GLWQA.
Endpoint
Sustainable agriculture through non-polluting, energy efficient technology and best manage-
ment practices for efficient and high quality food production.
Features
Given the key role of agriculture in the Great Lakes ecosystem, it is important to track
changes in agricultural practices that can lead to protection of water quality as well as the
sustainable future of agriculture and rural development and better ecological integrity in the
basin. The indicator identifies the degree to which agriculture is becoming more sustainable
and has less potential to adversely impact the Great Lakes ecosystem. Nutrient management
is managing the amount, form, placement and timing of applications of nutrients for crop
uptake and is typically part of an environmental farm management plan. It is expected that
more farmers will embrace environmental planning over time.
The Ontario Environmental Farm Plans (EFP) identifies the need for best nutrient manage-
ment practices. Over the past 5 years significant progress has been made by Ontario farmers,
municipalities and governments and their agencies to implement nutrient management
planning. Ontario farmers and consultants are attending workshops to assist with the
development of nutrient management plans. Each farmer in their EFP may list environmen-
tal actions such as these that they intend to take as a result of completing their EFP. These
actions however are currently not tracked by any government agency. The EFP was intended
to be an education awareness evaluation tool and not to be used to track environmental
actions taken. As part of Ontario's Clean Water Strategy, the recently passed Nutrient Man-
agement Act (June 2002) will provide for province-wide standards to address the effects of
agricultural practices on the environment, especially as they related to land-applied materials
containing nutrients. An anticipated requirement of this act will be the tracking of land-
applied nutrients by farms and municipalities alike.
Two U.S. programs dealing with agriculture nutrient management are the Comprehensive
Nutrient Management Plans (CNMP) developed by USDA and the proposed Permit Nutri-
ent Plans (PNP) under the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) National Pollution
Discharge Elimination System permit requirements. State's in the U.S. also have additional
nutrient management programs.
SOLEC 2002 - Proposed Changes to the Great Lakes Indicator Suite (Draft for Discussion, October 2002) 3 9
-------
Agriculture Indicators
Illustration
for the U.S. portion of the basin the graphic will show the total number of nutrient manage-
ment plans that are developed expressed as a percentage of the total number of farms in the
basin. In Canada the graphic will show the percentage of municipalities with nutrient
management by-law's containing standards for intensive livestock operations.
Limitations
Presently on the Canadian side (Ontario) Nutrient Management Plans (NMP) are done on a
voluntary basis and where municipal by-laws require them to be completed. Due to the fact
that NMP's are voluntarily done every plan developed/put into place is not tracked. There
are similarities and differences between nutrient management by-laws that reflect local
concerns yet highlight the need for standardisation. Such standardisation is proposed in
Ontario in the form of province-wide legislation regarding the management of nutrients.
In the United States basin the CNMP's are currently tracked on an annual basis due to the
rapid changes in farming operations. This does not allow for an estimate of the total number
of CNMP's. EPA will be tracking PNP as part of the State's NPDES program.
In terpreta tion
Having a completed a NMP provides assurance farmers are considering the environmental
implications of their management decisions. The more plans in place the better. In the
future there may be a way to grade plans by impacts on the ecosystem. The first year in
which this information is collected will serve as the base line year.
Comments
In 1998 Ontario provincial staff of the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs
(OMAFRA) assisted with the development of a model by-law for municipalities to use. The
intent of the model by-law is to promote consistency in by-law development across the
province. In many instances these by-laws require that OMAFRA, consultants, or profes-
sionals certified by OMAFRA complete third-party review of NMP submitted to support a
building permit application. At this time OMAFRA also developed Nutrient Management
Plan software (NMAN). This allowed for the consistent preparation of nutrient management
plans and conformed to the Ministry's 1998 Nutrient Management Planning Strategy.
Some municipalities enforce each nutrient management by-law by inspections performed by
employees of the municipality or others under authority of the municipality. Presently in
Ontario provincial legislation A Proposed Nutrient Management Act (Bill 81) is before the
legislature. If proclaimed, provincial regulations under it would supersede municipal by-
laws and make Nutrient Management Plans a legal requirement for all farms. This proposed
legislation stipulates the establishment of a computerised NMP registry that would act as a
tracking method for nutrient management plans.
In 1997 the USDA's Natural Resources Conservation Service formed a team to revise its
Nutrient Management Policy. The final policy was issued in the Federal Register in 1999. In
December 2000, USDA published its Comprehensive Nutrient Management Planning
Technical Guidance (CNMP Guidance) to identify management activities and conservation
practices that will minimize the adverse impacts of animal feeding operations on water
quality. The CNMP Guidance is a technical guidance document only; it does not establish
regulatory requirements for local, tribal, State, or Federal programs. PNPs are complemen-
tary to and leverage the technical expertise of USDA with its CNMP Guidance. EPA is
proposing that CAFOs, covered by the effluent guideline, develop and implement a PNP.
4 0 SOLEC 2002 - Proposed Changes to the Great Lakes Indicator suite (Draft for Discussion, October 2002)
-------
I Agriculture Indicators"
Relevancies
Indicator Type: human activity
Environmental Compartment(s): land
Related Issue(s): stewardship
SOLEC Grouping(s): land use
GLWQA Annex (es): 2: Remedial Action Plans and Lakewide Management Plans, 3: Control
of phosphorus, 11: Surveillance and monitoring, 12: Persistent toxic substances, 13: Pollu-
tion from non-point sources
IJC Desired Outcome(s): 8: Absence of excess phosphorus, 9: Physical environmental integ-
rity
GLFC Objective(s):
Beneficial Use Impairment(s): 8: Eutrophication or undesirable algae, 14: Loss offish and
wildlife habitat
Last Revised
Aug 17, 2002
SOLEC 2002 - Proposed Changes to the Great Lakes Indicator Suite (Draft for Discussion, October 2002) 41
-------
Agriculture Indicators
Nutrient Management Plans (sample report)
New Indicator
Purpose
To determine the number of Nutrient Management plans and to infer environmentally
friendly practices that help to prevent ground and surface water contamination.
Ecosystem Objective
This indicator supports Annexes 2, 3, 11,12 and 13 of the GLWQA. The objective is sound
use and management of soil, water, air, plants and animal resources to prevent degradation of
the environment. The objective of Nutrient Management Planning is to mange the amount,
form, placement and timing of applications of nutrients for uptake by crops as part of an
environmental farm plan. It is expected that more farmers will embrace environmental
planning over time. This results in sustainable agriculture through non-polluting, energy
efficient technology and best management practices for efficient and high quality food
production.
State of the Ecosystem
Given the key role of agriculture in the Great Lakes ecosystem, it is important to track
changes in agricultural practices that can lead to protection of water quality as well as the
sustainable future of agriculture and rural development and better ecological integrity in the
basin. The indicator identifies the degree to which agriculture is becoming more sustainable
and has less potential to adversely impact the Great Lakes ecosystem. The Ontario Environ-
mental Farm Plans (EFP) identifies the need for best nutrient management practices. Over
the past 5 years farmers, municipalities and governments and their agencies have made
significant progress. Ontario Nutrient Management Planning (NMP) software (NMAN) is
available to farmers and consultants wishing to develop/assist with the development of
nutrient management plans.
In June 2002 Ontario introduced legislation for (Nutrient Management Act (NM Act) to
establish province-wide standards (currently under development) to ensure that all land-
applied materials will be managed in a sustainable manner resulting in environmental and
water quality protection. It will supercede existing regulatory provisions (municipal by-
laws), guidelines and voluntary best management practices. It is anticipated that the NM
Act will require standardization, reporting and updating of nutrient management plans
through a nutrient management plan registry. To promote a greater degree of consistency in
by-law development Ontario developed a model nutrient management by-law for munici-
palities. Prior to the NM Act, municipalities enforced each nutrient management by-law by
inspections performed by employees of the municipality or others under authority of the
municipality.
Two U.S. programs dealing with agriculture nutrient management are the Environmental
Quality Incentive Program's (EQIP) Comprehensive Nutrient Management Plans (CNMP)
developed by USDA and the proposed Permit Nutrient Plans (PNP) under the Environmen-
tal Protection Agency's (EPA) National Pollution Discharge Elimination System permit
requirements. State's in the US also have additional nutrient management programs. An
agreement between the US EPA and USDA under the Clean Water Action plan called for a
Unified National Strategy for Animal Feeding Operations.
The total number of nutrient management plans that are developed annually is shown in
4 2 SOLEC 2002 - Proposed Changes to the Great Lakes Indicator suite (Draft for Discussion, October 2002)
-------
Agriculture Indicators
Figure 1 for the US portion of the Basin. Figure 2 shows the number of Nutrient Manage-
ment Plans by Ontario County for the years 1998 - 2000. Until Nutrient Management
regulations are put into place in Ontario Nutrient Management Plans (NMP) continue to be
done on a voluntary basis except where municipal by-laws require them to be completed.
Nutrient Management Plans are not currently tracked except where required by the munici-
pality. There are similarities and differences between municipal nutrient management by-
laws that reflect local concerns yet highlight the need for standardisation. Such standardisa-
tion will be a part of the regulation development process in Ontario's Nutrient Management
Act.
Nutrient Management Systems Planned
Total Acres - Cropland
Fiscal Year20Q1
.
Fu it.j
imn -r::n
Figure 1. Annual U.S. Nutrient Management Systems
Planned for FY 01
(Source: USDA, NRCS, Performance and Results
Measurement System)
Nutrient Management Plans by Ontario County -1998 - 2000
nn 1
B0
TJP
^
4
Mn_
rf 1
e°-
Hi.
Kruoe
DHuron
•Middlesex
•Dundas
D'Jiagara
•^orthumbeiland
•^eterborough
•^rescott
B3RAMD TOTALS
In the United States basin the
CNMP's are tracked on an annual
basis due to the rapid changes in
farming operations. This does not
allow for an estimate of the total
number of CNMP's. EPA will be
tracking PNP as part of the
Status's NPDES program.
Having a completed a NMP
provides assurance farmers are
considering the environmental
implications of their management
decisions. The more plans in place
the better. In the future there
may be a way to grade plans by
impacts on the ecosystem. The
first year in which this informa-
tion is collected will serve as the
base line year.
Future Pressures
As livestock operations consolidate
in number and increase in
size in the basin planning
efforts will need to keep
pace with the planning
workload and changes in
water and air quality stand-
ards and technology. Con-
sultations regarding the
provincial and U.S. stand-
ards and regulations will
continue into the near
future.
Figure 2. Nutrient Management Plans by Ontario County
Future Actions
The new Nutrient Manage-
ment Act authorizes the
establishment and phasing
in of province-wide stand-
SOLEC 2002 - Proposed Changes to the Great Lakes Indicator Suite (Draft for Discussion, October 2002)
43
-------
Agriculture Indicators
ards for the management of materials containing nutrients and sets out requirements and
responsibilities for farmers, municipalities and others in the business of managing nutrients.
It is anticipated that the regulations under this act will establish a computerized NMP
registry; a tool that will track nutrient management plans put into place. This tool could
form a part of the future "evaluation tool box" for nutrient management plans in place in
Ontario. The phasing in requirements of province-wide standards for nutrient management
planing in Ontario and the eventual adoption over time of more sustainable farm practices
should allow for ecosystem recovery with time.
In the U.S. USDA's Natural Resources Conservation Service formed a team to revise its
Nutrient Management Policy. The final policy was issued in the Federal Register in 1999. In
December 2000, USDA published its Comprehensive Nutrient Management Planning
Technical Guidance (CNMP Guidance) to identify management activities and conservation
practices that will minimise the adverse impacts of animal feeding operations on water
quality. The CNMP Guidance is a technical guidance document and does not establish
regulatory requirements for local, tribal, State, or Federal programs. PNPs are complemen-
tary to and leverage the technical expertise of USDA with its CNMP Guidance. EPA is
proposing that CAFOs, covered by the effluent guideline, develop and implement a PNP.
Acknowledgments
Authors: Ruth Shaffer, and Roger Nanney, USDA, NRCS, Peter Roberts and Jean Rudichuk,
OMAF, Guelph, Ontario.
4 4 SOLEC 2002 - Proposed Changes to the Great Lakes Indicator suite (Draft for Discussion, October 2002)
-------
I Agriculture Indicators |
Integrated Pest Management (description)
New Indicator
Measure
The acres of USDA recorded Pest Management Plans developed and applied in the U. S.
Great Lakes basin. Report the numbers of farmer Attending and Certified under the Ontario
Pesticide Education Program Grower Pesticide Safety Course. Evaluate Training Session
Questionnaire Surveys administered to farmers by the University of Guelph (Ridgetown
College) who have attended the Ontario Pesticide Education Program Grower Pesticide
Safety Course. USDA tracks the amount of pesticides used by weight by farmers within the
Great Lakes Basin to indicate reductions of use by farmers through pesticide user surveys as
an indicator of the adoption of more sustainable agricultural practices.
Background
Research has found that reliance on pesticides in agriculture is overwhelming and that it
would be impossible to abandon their use in the short term. Most consumers want to be
able to purchase inexpensive yet wholesome food. Currently, other than organic production,
there is no replacement system readily available at a reasonable price for consumers, and at a
lesser cost to farmers that can be brought to market without pesticides.
Purpose
To assess the adoption and uptake of Integrated Pest Management practices by farmers and
to infer environmentally friendly practices in place, to prevent ground and surface water
contamination.
Ecosystem Objective
This indicator supports Article, VI (e (I, viii) - Programs and other Measures (Pollution for
Agriculture), Annexes 1,2, 3, 11,12 and 13 of the GLWQA.
Endpoint
Sustainable agriculture through non-polluting, energy efficient technology and best manage-
ment practices for efficient and high quality food production.
Features
Given the key role of agriculture in the Great Lakes ecosystem, it is important to track
changes in agricultural practices that affect bio diversity, lead to protection of soil, water
quality as well as the sustainable future of agriculture and rural development and better
ecological integrity in the basin. To produce effective results this indicator relies on opti-
mum combinations of chemical, biological and cultural methods (such as crop rotation,
tillage, weeding techniques, intensive monitoring and insect mating disruption. The indica-
tor identifies the degree to which agriculture is becoming more sustainable and has less
potential to adversely impact the Great Lakes ecosystem.
Illustration
The number/acres of Integrated Pest Management plans being practiced on cropland in the
basin compared to the acres needed. This could be an illustrated on a percentage or acre
basis. The growth or decline of crop protection chemicals on a long term trend basis.
Limitations
USDA only records the IPM plan data on an annual basis currently. It is assumed that these
plans, which are voluntary, will be continue to be carried out. A violation of farm chemical
SOLEC 2002 - Proposed Changes to the Great Lakes Indicator Suite (Draft for Discussion, October 2002) 4 5
-------
Agriculture Indicators
use would be a violation of state and federal laws. USDA does track the amount of chemicals
applied but with rapid chemical and technology changes it would be difficult to develop
accurate trends.
In terpreta tion
Having complete records of IMF's developed and/or chemicals used would provide a better
indication of operator's acceptance of environmentally sustainable practices. This data will
serve as a baseline for future trends.
Comments
Chemicals, technology and legislation are continually changing so the indicator will need to
be updated and revised as needed.
Relevancies
Indicator Type: human activity
Environmental Compartment(s): land
Related Issue(s): stewardship
SOLEC Grouping(s): land use
GLWQA Annex (es): 2: Remedial Action Plans and Lakewide Management Plans, 11: Sur-
veillance and monitoring, 12: Persistent toxic substances, 13: Pollution from non-point
sources
IJC Desired Outcome(s): 9: Physical environmental integrity
GLFC Objective(s):
Beneficial Use Impairment(s):
Last Revised
Aug 17, 2002
4 6 SOLEC 2002 - Proposed Changes to the Great Lakes Indicator suite (Draft for Discussion, October 2002)
-------
I Agriculture Indicators |
Integrated Pest Management (sample report)
New Indicator
Purpose
A goal for agriculture is to become more sustainable through the adoption of more non-
polluting, energy efficient technologies and best management practices for efficient and high
quality food production. This indicator reports the adoption of Integrated Pest Management
(IPM) practices and the effects IPM has toward preventing surface and groundwater con-
tamination in the Great Lakes Basin. This indicator reports at least 2 basic things:
1. Measurement of the acres of agricultural pest management planned for field crops, to
reduce adverse impacts on plant growth, crop production and environmental resources.
2. Reporting the results of a questionnaire/course evaluation administered to farmers in
Ontario by the University of Guelph (Ridgetown College) / Ministry's of Environment and
Energy who have attended the Ontario Pesticide Training and Education Program Grower
Pesticide Safety Course.
Ecosystem Objective
This indicator supports Article VI (e (l.viii) Programs and other Measures (Pollution from
Agriculture) Annex 1, 2, 3, 11, 12 and 13 of the GLWQA. The objective is the sound use
and management of soil, water air, plants and animal resources to prevent degradation. Pest
Management is controlling organisms that cause damage or annoyance. Integrated pest
management is utilizing environmentally sensitive prevention, avoidance, monitoring and
suppression strategies to manage weeds, insects, diseases, animals and other organisms
(including invasive and non-invasive species) that directly or indirectly cause damage or
annoyance. Environmental risks of pest management must be evaluated for all resource
concerns identified in the conservation planning process, including the negative impacts of
pesticides in ground and surface water on humans and non-target plants and animals. The
pest management component of the conservation plan must be designed to minimize nega-
tive impacts of pest control on all identified resource concerns.
State of the Ecosystem
Agriculture accounts for approximately 35% of the land area of the Great Lakes basin for
example, and dominates the southern portion of the basin. Although field crops such as corn
and soybeans comprise the most crop acreage, the basin also supports a wide diversity of
specialty crops. The mild climate created by the Great Lakes allows production of a variety
of vegetable and fruit crops. These include tomatoes (for both the fresh and canning mar-
kets), cucumbers, onions and pumpkins. Orchard crops such as cherries, peaches and apples
are economically important commodities in the region, along with grape production for juice
or wine. These agricultural commodities are major users of pesticides.
Research has found that reliance on pesticides in agriculture is significant and that it would
be impossible to abandon their use in the short term. Most consumers want to be able to
purchase inexpensive yet wholesome food. Currently, other than organic production, there is
no replacement system readily available at a reasonable price for consumers, and at a lesser
cost to farmers that can be brought to market without pesticides.
With continued application of pesticides in the Great Lakes basin, non-point source pollu-
tion of nearshore wetlands and the effects on fish and wildlife is a concern. Unlike point
sources of contamination such as at the outlet of an effluent pipe, nonpoint sources are more
SOLEC 2002 - Proposed Changes to the Great Lakes Indicator Suite (Draft for Discussion, October 2002) 4 7
-------
Agriculture Indicators
difficult to define. An estimated 21 million kg of pesticides are used annually on agricultural
crops in the Canadian and American Great Lakes Watershed (GAO 1993). Herbicides
account for about 75% of this. These pesticides are frequently transported via sediment,
ground or surface water flow from agricultural land into the aquatic ecosystem. With mount-
ing concerns and evidence of the effects of certain pesticides on wildlife and human health it
is crucial that we determine the occurrence and fate of agricultural pesticides in sediments,
aquatic and terrestrial life found in the Great Lakes. Atrazine and metolachlor were measured
in precipitation at nine sites in the Canadian Great Lakes Basin in 1995. Both were detected
regularly at all nine sites. The detection of some pesticides at sites where they were not used
provides evidence of atmospheric transport of pesticides in this region.
Cultural controls (such as crop rotation and sanitation of infested crop residues), biological
controls, and plant selection and breeding for resistant crop cultivars have always been an
integral part of agricultural IPM. Such practices were very important and widely used prior
to the advent of synthetic organic pesticides; indeed, many of these practices are still used
today as components of pest management programs. However, the great success of modern
pesticides has resulted in their use as the dominant pest control practice for the past several
decades, especially since the 1950s. Newer pesticides are generally more water soluble, less
strongly adsorbed to particulate matter, and less persistent in both the terrestrial and aquatic
environments than the older contaminants but have still been found in precipitation at many
sites.
Grower Pesticide Safety Course Evaluation Results - 2000-2001
Readpesticide Calibrate Store pesticides Develop & use Identifypests Repair&clean Triple rinse or Manage
label application according to spill clean up before app^ing equipment pressire rinse pesticide drift
equipment label procedures pesticide emptypesticide according to
containers label directions
or regulations
Figure 1. Grower Pesticide Safety Course Evaluation Results 2000-
01
(Source: Ontario Ministry of Agriculture & Food and the University
of Guelph)
The Ontario Pesti-
cides Education
Program provides
farmers with training
and certification
through a pesticide
safety course (Fig. 1).
The USDA Natural
Resources Conserva-
tion Service reported
that pest manage-
ment practices were
planned for 201,042
acres of cropland in
the US Great Lakes
Basin for Fiscal Year
2001 (Fig. 2).
Future Pressures
Pest management practices may be compromised by changing land use and development
pressures (including higher taxes); flooding or seasonal drought; and lack of long-term
financial incentives for adoption of environmentally friendly practices. In order for pest
management to be successful, pest managers must shift from practices focusing on purchased
inputs and broad-spectrum pesticides to those using knowledge about ecological processes.
Future pest management will be more knowledge intensive and focus on more than the use
of pesticides. The public sector, university Cooperative Extension programs and partnerships
with grower organizations are an important source for pest management information, and
dissemination, especially considering that the public sector is more likely to do the underly-
ing research. However, there is significant need for private independent pest management
48
SOLEC 2002 - Proposed Changes to the Great Lakes Indicator suite (Draft for Discussion, October 2002)
-------
Agriculture Indicators
Pesticide Management Systems Planned
Total Acres - Cropland
Fiscal Year 2001
I I US Oita: Lsta
Figure 2. Annual U.S. Pesticide Management Systems Planned
for FY 2001.
(Source: USDA, NRCS, Performance and Results Measurement
System)
consultants to provide
technical assistance to the
farmer.
Future Actions
All phases of agricultural
pest management, from
research to field imple-
mentation, are evolving
from its current product-
based orientation to one
that is based on ecological
principles and processes.
Such pest management
practices will rely more on
an understanding of the
biological interactions that
occur within every crop
environment, and the
knowledge of how to
manage the cropping
systems to the detriment
of pests. The optimum
results would include
fewer purchased inputs (and therefore a more sustainable agriculture), as well as fewer of the
human and environmental hazards posed by the broad spectrum pesticides so widely used
today. Although pesticides will continue to be a component of pest management, the
following are significant obstacles to the continued use of broad- spectrum pesticides: pest
resistance to pesticides; fewer new pesticides; pesticide-induced pest problems; lack of
effective pesticides; and human and environmental health concerns.
Based upon these issues facing pesticide use, it is necessary to start planning now in order to
be less reliant on broad-spectrum pesticides in the future. Society is requiring that agricul-
ture become more environmentally responsible through such things as the adoption of
Integrated Pest Management. This will require effective evaluations of existing policies and
implementing programs for areas such as Integrated Pest Management. To reflect these
demands there is a need to further develop this indicator. These types of future activities
could assist with this process.
• Indicate and track future adoption trends of IPM best management practices
• Further evaluate the success of the Ontario Pesticide Training Course by such as
adding survey questions regarding IPM principles/practices to course evaluation
materials.
• Evaluate the number of farmers/vendors certified, attending and failing the Ontario
Pest Education Program.
• Analyze rural water quality data for levels of pesticide residues.
Note: Grower pesticide certification is mandatory by Ontario law and applies to individual
farms as well as custom applicators.
Acknowledgments
Authors: Ruth Shaffer and Roger Nanney, USDA-Natural Resources Conservation Service,
and Peter Roberts and Jean Rudichuk, Resources Management, OMAF, Guelph, Ontario.
SOLEC 2002 - Proposed Changes to the Great Lakes Indicator Suite (Draft for Discussion, October 2002)
49
-------
Forestry Indicators
6. Forestry Indicators
Since 1998 it has been recognized that the suite of Great Lakes indicators was lacking in a
vital inland component of the ecosystem - forestry. The following list of 12 proposed indica-
tors look at the state of forestry in the Great Lakes basin, pressures on forestry, the impacts of
forestry on water quality and some of the human activities to mitigate the pressures on the
forestry component.
Listing of proposed forestry indicators:
1. Area of Forest Cover Types - looks at the proportion of forest area in each cover type
and age-class (or successional stage).
2. Forest Species at Risk - looks at the abundance of and trends in rare, threatened and
endangered forest-based species.
3. Featured Species - looks at the amount of habitat for selected forest species.
4. Forest Land Base - looks at trends in the area of forest land due to land use change,
including, deforestation and afforestation.
5. Forest Fragmentation - looks at fragmentation of forest types.
6. Best Management Practices for Water Quality - looks at compliance with and effective
ness of water quality Best Management Practices.
7. Non-native Forest Species - looks at the area and severity of occurrence of non-native
(invasive species) species detrimental to forest condition.
8. Forest land ownership and utilization, (to be defined)
9. Forest Useage - looks at ranges of uses of the forest and meanings for those uses.
10. Forest based employment picture by sector.
11. Public Participation in Forestry Decisions - looks at the representativeness of all
publics in the public participation process.
12. Sustainable Forest Management - looks at the capacity to measure and monitor
changes in the conservation and sustainable management of forests.
In the following section there is a description for each indicator to help generate discussion
about how appropriate and useful each indicator is and also to allow participants to screen
the indicators against the criteria of necessary, sufficient and feasible.
Other forestry indicators proposed for future consideration (but descriptors have not been
included at this time):
13. Area and percent of forest affected by damaging agents - possibly including forest fire
acreage/hectares.
14. Recreational use of forests.
15. Wood product shipments/imports - perhaps related to Great Lakes shipping.
16 The rate of consumption as compared to wood products production as compared to
imports.
5 0 SOLEC 2002 - Proposed Changes to the Great Lakes Indicator suite (Draft for Discussion, October 2002)
-------
I Forestry Indicators |
Area of Forest Cover Types
New Indicator
Measure
Proportion of forest area in each forest cover type and age class (or successional stage)
Purpose
The area of each forest cover type based on dominant tree species and supplementary infor-
mation related to canopy cover, height and age, provide the best spatial surrogate of forest
habitat available with current forest inventory data bases in the Great Lakes basin. While
trees in themselves do not constitute the sole source of biodiversity in a forest ecosystem, at a
coarse level of resolution, they do have a strong influence on understory composition, struc-
ture and successional development that in turn influences the survival of forest dependent
animals. In general this indicator provides a benchmark of how much component forest
habitats in the landscape have deviated through time and to what extent biodiversity at the
ecosystem, species and genetic level may be placed at risk relative to background historical
conditions.
Ecosystem Objective
The maintenance of existing forest biodiversity in the Great Lakes basin.
Endpoint
To identify where trends in the proportion of forest cover types represent a risk to constituent
biodiversity and develop remedial actions to reverse the trend.
Features
Issues of forest biodiversity are very complex because forest ecosystems by their nature are
dynamic, responding to spatial variation in climate and soil moisture and nutrient regimes
and temporal variation due to varying rates of natural senescence or different types or fre-
quencies of disturbances. Where there is a relative consensus on the historical extent of forest
types and their natural successional trends, comparison of historical and extant conditions
may provide a relative measure of how successful current management is emulating natural
trends and thereby protecting biodiversity.
Illustration
Data is tabulated by forest cover types by species and age classes as a proportion of total
forest area. Individual graphs can be constructed for each cover type to show trends through
time.
Limitations
This approach is problematic in areas where there have been extensive conversions of forests
to other cover types such as agricultural or urban landscapes. Although the data is expensive
to collect most jurisdictions in the Great Lake basin routinely collect this data in support of
forest management planning.
Interpretations
Where the proportion of forest cover types is near that of historical conditions and the age
class distribution suggests a sustainable trend, we can assume that biodiversity should not be
impacted by habitat loss due to management decisions. Where particular cover types form a
small proportion of the total forest or the age classes suggest gaps in successional stages, this
would indicate potential risks to biodiversity objectives.
SOLEC 2002 - Proposed Changes to the Great Lakes Indicator Suite (Draft for Discussion, October 2002) 5 1
-------
Forestry Indicators
Comments
This indicator is based on proportion of total forest area but needs to be used in conjunction
with other indicators that take into account other factors such as absolute area and fragmen-
tation. This indicator is equivalent to the Great Lakes Forest Alliance indicators #1 & #2 and
Montreal Process indicators 3.1 a & b.
Unfinished Business
Indicator has to be vetted through the SOLEC evaluation criteria.
Relevancies
Indicator Type: state
Environmental Compartment(s): land
Related Issues: habitat
SOLEC Groupings: land use
GLWQAAnnex(es):
IJC Desired Outcome(es): 6. Biological Community Integrity and Diversity
Beneficial Use Impairment(s): Loss of Forest Habitat
Last Revised
August 15, 2002
5 2 SOLEC 2002 - Proposed Changes to the Great Lakes Indicator suite (Draft for Discussion, October 2002)
-------
I Forestry Indicators |
Forest Species at Risk
New Indicator
Measure
Abundance of rare, threatened and endangered forest-based species.
Purpose
To determine if trends in populations of forest dependent species at risk in the Great Lakes
basin are improving or getting worse.
Ecosystem Objective
To maintain the species diversity of Forest Ecosystems in the Great Lakes basin.
Endpoint
Population trends for rare, threatened and endangered forest dependent species are not
decreasing through time.
Features
This indicator is a simple measure of the population dynamics expressed as density or fre-
quency at selected time steps of 1-5 years depending on the species and availability of data.
This indicator can be used in conjunction with other proposed forest indicators (see indica-
tors 1, 3, 4, & 5 listed in section 6) to interpret possible causes for observed trends.
Illustration
This indicator will be plotted as the change in density and / or frequency of selected rare,
threatened and endangered forest species through time.
Limitations
The terms rare, threatened and endangered are well defined and lists are well established in
U.S. and Canada. However, the type and extent of forest habitats needed to maintain
populations is not always well established and it is sometimes difficult to separate habitat
availability from other factors, such as hunting, as causal agents in the species demise.
Interpretation
Generally, further declines in the populations of rare, threatened and endangered species has
to be interpreted as a negative trend. However, establishing the cause for negative trends
depends on intimate knowledge on a case by case basis of population interactions with
habitat quality opposed other factors such as predator interactions, disease, pollution etc.
Comments
In the comparison of trend over time data, particularly for rare species, it is critical that
consistent methodology be applied to ensure that trends are real and not artifacts of sam-
pling. This indicator is equivalent to the Great Lakes Forest Alliance indicator #3 and Mon-
treal Process indicator 3.1.2b.
Unfinished Business
The indicator still has to be vetted through the SOLEC evaluation criteria.
Relevancies
Indicator Type:
Environmental Component(s):
SOLEC 2002 - Proposed Changes to the Great Lakes Indicator Suite (Draft for Discussion, October 2002) 5 3
-------
Forestry Indicators
Related Issues:
SOLEC Grouping(s):
IJC Desired Outcome (s):
GLFC Objective(s):
Beneficial Use Impairment(s):
Last Revised
August 15, 2002
5 4 SOLEC 2002 - Proposed Changes to the Great Lakes Indicator suite (Draft for Discussion, October 2002)
-------
I Forestry Indicators |
Featured Species
New Indicator
Measure
Abundance of selected forest-based species.
Purpose
This indicator will be used to assess the abundance of featured species other than rare,
threatened and endangered species to provide some synoptic measure of biological integrity.
Ecosystem Objective
To maintain populations of species considered to be indicators of biological integrity.
Endpoint
Forest ecosystems showing declining trends in populations of selected indicator species will
be considered to have reduced biological integrity.
Features
This indicator will overlap with the Biological Integrity indicators. Ideally there needs to be
some consensus on species that occur throughout forests of the Great Lakes basin whose
populations are monitored using consistent methodology on a 1-5 year time frame. Game
species generally have good statistics but these are not necessarily the best indicators since
fluctuations are due to complex relationship between hunting success and ecosystem condi-
tion.
Illustration
Population estimates for selected forest indicator species expressed as density or frequency
over time.
Limitations
This indicator is problematic with respect to the selection of appropriate species and estab-
lishing the linkage between population trends of the species and integrity of the forest
ecosystem. Ideally, the indicator species should be basin wide, from similar habitats and
selected by expert consensus based on sensitivity to changes forest habitat condition.
In terpreta tion
The interpretation will be increasing complex the more variables are introduced (i.e. sam-
pling, habitat, prey-predator relations, hunting etc). A few good indicator species with
consistent occurrence across similar habitats in the Great Lakes basin will provide better
quality of interpretation.
Comments
The selection of indicator species is subjective but technically complex requiring the develop-
ment of expert consensus. This indicator is equivalent to the Great Lakes Forest Alliance
indicator #5.
Unfinished Business
The selection of forest indicator species that can be synoptic of forest ecosystem integrity.
Relevancies
Indicator Type: state
SOLEC 2002 - Proposed Changes to the Great Lakes Indicator Suite (Draft for Discussion, October 2002) 5 5
-------
Forestry Indicators
Environmental Compartment(s): land
Related Issues: habitat
SOLEC Groupings: land use
GLWQAAnnex(es):
IJC Desired Outcome(es): 6. Biological Community Integrity and Diversity
Beneficial Use Impairment(s): Loss of Forest Habitat
Last Revised
August 15, 2002
5 6 SOLEC 2002 - Proposed Changes to the Great Lakes Indicator suite (Draft for Discussion, October 2002)
-------
I Forestry Indicators |
Forest Land Base
New Indicator
Measure
Trends in the total area of forest land base.
Purpose
This indicator is intended to track trends in the expansion or contraction of land covered by
forests or successional stages of forest through time.
Ecosystem Objective
To maintain forests as a critical component of the Great Lakes basin ecosystem.
Endpoint
The current total area covered by forests should be maintained or increased to compensate
for widespread historical losses.
Features
This indicator is closely linked to other land use indicators since in a fixed area of land,
increases in land use for one purpose usually lead to losses for another. In the application of
this indicator relative success or failure in meeting ecosystem objectives can be judged by
comparison to a long-term retrospective estimate of the historical cover of forests. In some
parts of the basin historical losses may never be recovered and maintenance of extant forest
cover may be a more realistic measure of success.
Illustration
Trend in total area of forest cover (including successional stages) by decade. Ideally, it should
be possible to illustrate trends through at least 3 decades using satellite images but extant
values as a baseline are readily available.
Limitations
This indicator could be costly, however there are very few technological limitations in provid-
ing estimates provided a standard definition of "forest" can be established across political
jurisdictions. The separation of young successional stages that are adequately stocked from
those where regeneration has failed will be problematic at a coarse level of resolution.
Interpretation
Generally the maintenance of extant proportions of forest cover through time should be
judged as some measure of success. The assumption would be that deforestation losses in
some areas due to agricultural expansion, urbanization etc. can be compensated by equal
gains in afforestation in other areas.
Comments
Estimates of extant forest cover have already been developed by the Great Lakes Forest
Alliance for jurisdictions in the Great Lakes basin with the exception of New York state.
These estimates would need to be revised to exclude areas outside the basin. This indicator is
equivalent to the Great Lakes Forest Alliance indicators #3 & #8.
Relevancies
Indicator Type:
Environmental Component(s):
SOLEC 2002 - Proposed Changes to the Great Lakes Indicator Suite (Draft for Discussion, October 2002) 5 7
-------
Forestry Indicators
Related Issues:
SOLEC Grouping(s):
IJC Desired Outcome (s):
GLFC Objective(s):
Beneficial Use Impairment(s):
Unfinished Business
The indicator must be evaluated using SOLEC criteria.
Last Revised
August 15, 2002
5 8 SOLEC 2002 - Proposed Changes to the Great Lakes Indicator suite (Draft for Discussion, October 2002)
-------
I Forestry Indicators
Forest Fragmentation
New Indicator
Measure
Proportion of forest landscape in mean patch size classes.
Purpose
The fragmentation of forests can disrupt important ecological processes and habitat structure
for certain forest dependent species. A measure of fragmentation is needed to ensure that
components of forest biodiversity are not negatively impacted.
Ecosystem Objective
To maintain genetic, species and forest ecosystem diversity in the Great Lakes basin.
Endpoint
Generally, fragmentation would be considered to be an increasing problem as the proportion
of large patches (100+ hectares) of mature and old growth successional stages decreased.
Features
Indicators of forest fragmentation are identified by the Great Lakes Forest Alliance, the
Montreal Process and CCMD criteria and indicator frame works for sustainable forest man-
agement. The Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources 2002 State of the Forest Report pro-
vides an example of 5 patch size classes applied to the province of Ontario (Fig 1.1.4a).
Illustration
The indicator could be presented as a simple histogram of patch size class as a proportion of
total forest area or spatially as a map showing the distribution patch size classes throughout
the Great Lakes basin.
Limitations
This indicator would be resource demanding requiring a specialized analysis of satellite
imagery using spatial statistics.
Interpretation
The interpretation of this indicator is very complex, especially where the differences in
proportion of patch sizes is not pronounced. Different forest species require different succes-
sional stages, many use several stages on a daily or annual basis. Generally "forest interior" are
the most highly impacted by fragmentation. Also, not all fragmentation is a result of human
activities, some landscapes are natural mosaics of different habitats to which the local flora
and fauna are fully adapted.
Comments
The basin wide application of this indicator would require the development of consensus on
critical patch size classes and appropriate protocols for analysis by participating jurisdictions.
This indicator is equivalent to the Great Lakes Forest Alliance indicator #9 and Montreal
Process indicator 3.Lie.
Unfinished Business
The indicator needs to be screened using SOLEC evaluation criteria.
SOLEC 2002 - Proposed Changes to the Great Lakes Indicator Suite (Draft for Discussion, October 2002) 5 9
-------
Forestry Indicators
Relevancies
Indicator Type:
Environmental Component(s):
Related Issues:
SOLEC Grouping(s):
IJC Desired Outcome (s):
GLFC Objective(s):
Beneficial Use Impairment(s):
Last Revised
August 15, 2002
6 0 SOLEC 2002 - Proposed Changes to the Great Lakes Indicator suite (Draft for Discussion, October 2002)
-------
I Forestry Indicators |
Best Management Practices for Water Quality
New Indicator
Measure
Compliance with Best Management Practices guidelines for the protection of water quality.
Purpose
To ensure water quality of forest tributaries in the Great Lakes basin is not compromised by
forestry practices.
Ecosystem Objective
To maintain water quality and aquatic habitats in forest tributaries entering the Great Lakes.
Endpoint
Full compliance with Best Management Practices guidelines for water quality throughout the
Great Lakes basin.
Features
Government and industrial agencies responsible for forest management in jurisdictions
throughout the Great Lakes basin have developed guidelines to mitigate impacts of forest
practices on water quality and aquatic habitats. These guidelines generally require the main-
tenance of riparian forest buffers around water bodies and strict specifications for road stream
crossings.
Illustration
Compliance can be expressed as the percent of observations free of infractions over total
observations.
Limitations
The measure is only reliable if there is some level of consistency in the frequency and inten-
sity of inspections among jurisdictions. However, cost should not be a significant factor since
most jurisdictions are already undertaking some level of compliance inspections.
Interpretation
Since there is some level of variation in the number, type and terminology surrounding Best
Management Practices guidelines across jurisdiction, there is a need to find some common
denominators for cross-basin reporting.
Comments
The computation and interpretation of compliance is relatively straight forward if consensus
can be developed on specific guidelines and terminology to use. This indicator is equivalent
to the Great Lakes Forest Alliance indicator #10.
Unfinished Business
Evaluation of the indicator using SOLEC criteria.
Relevancies
Indicator Type:
Environmental Component(s):
Related Issues:
SOLEC Grouping(s):
SOLEC 2002 - Proposed Changes to the Great Lakes Indicator Suite (Draft for Discussion, October 2002) 61
-------
Forestry Indicators
IJC Desired Outcome (s):
GLFC Objective(s):
Beneficial Use Impairment(s):
Last Revised
August 15, 2002
6 2 SOLEC 2002 - Proposed Changes to the Great Lakes Indicator suite (Draft for Discussion, October 2002)
-------
I Forestry Indicators |
Non-native Forest Species
New Indicator
Measure
Area and severity of occurrence of invasive species detrimental to forest condition.
Purpose
To ensure adequate forest health monitoring is done in the Great Lakes basin for the timely
detection and control of invasive species detrimental natural forest ecosystems.
Ecosystem Objective
To protect the biological integrity of forests in the Great Lakes basin from invasive species.
Endpoint
The maintenance of detrimental invasive species populations in the basin forests at zero.
Features
Threats of invasive species to forest biological integrity are well documented in cases such as
White Pine Blister Rust, Chestnut Blight and Dutch Elm Disease that have devastated
populations of native tree species. Although surveillance has generally increased due to
historical attacks , increased globalization in trade has increased the risk of introductions.
This indicator has a lot in common with the proposed non-native species indicator (#9002)
in terms of vectors.
Illustration
The indicator should be expressed graphically as trend over time area of forest impacted by
detrimental invasive species.
Limitations
The indicator may be limited by variations in the intensity and frequency of forest health
surveillance.
Interpretation
The separation of invasive species that are "detrimental" from "not detrimental" requires
some expert assessment of the relative threat of invasive species to the biological integrity of
forests.
Comments
The frequency and intensity of surveillance should be provided as background information
for the interpretation. This indicator is equivalent to the Montreal Process indicator #3.3a.
Unfinished Business
Evalauation of the indicator using SOLEC criteria.
Relevancies
Indicator Type:
Environmental Component(s):
Related Issues:
SOLEC Grouping(s):
IJC Desired Outcome (s):
GLFC Objective(s):
SOLEC 2002 - Proposed Changes to the Great Lakes Indicator Suite (Draft for Discussion, October 2002) 6 3
-------
Forestry Indicators
Beneficial Use Impairment(s):
Last Revised
August 15,2002
6 4 SOLEC 2002 - Proposed Changes to the Great Lakes Indicator suite (Draft for Discussion, October 2002)
-------
I Forestry Indicators
Forest Useage
New Indicator
Measure
Change in uses over time; acceptability of those changes in relation to fishing, hunting,
wildlife watching, snowmobile licenses, snowmobile trails, off-road vehicle licenses and trails,
hiking pathways, cross-country ski trails, in-line skating trails, horseback riding trails,
campgrounds and campsites, outfitters and rental rates.
Purpose
People use forests in many ways including consumptive activities like timber harvest, hunting
and gathering as well as a wide range of non-consumptive recreation activities. These activi-
ties often have meanings for people above and beyond participation in the activity itself. For
example, gathering and exchange of forest products such as berries or mushrooms can be very
important to people not only for economic and recreational reasons but also because the
activity maintains both social ties in the community and community values (e.g. self-suffi-
ciency and independence). The identification of the complete range of uses is not always easy
or obvious. Sustainable forest management maintains the range of uses that are important
locally as well as regionally.
Ecosystem Objective
The more people are involved in forest-related activities, from bird watching to timber
harvesting, the greater will be their investment to monitor, conserve and sustain the forested
land of the Great Lakes watershed. Carrying capacity will need to be targeted for each
recreational activity.
Endpoint
The range and frequency of people who directly interact with the forest resource will be
stable or increasing though not exceed the identified carrying capacity.
Features
This indicator has data of value to and can be measured at state/provincial, county/forest
management unit, community and woodlot scales.
Illustration
The trends in usage will be charted collectively to illustrate an increase or decrease in various
recreational, gathering, forest non-timber products as well as timber harvesting as an overlay.
Limitations
The data collection will be relatively costly but can utilize the existing resource capacities of
groups such as Extension Services in the United States or tourism departments who county-
by-county could collect quantitative data. Quantitative data could also be collected through
special project efforts if the commitment of people to the forest resource is a desirable meas-
ure.
In terpreta tion
If the number of individuals engaged in forest-related activities drops, if the range of one
kind of recreational activity increases as another decreases, or if the number of user days
spiked, the trends might all signal the need for further market studies or educational efforts.
SOLEC 2002 - Proposed Changes to the Great Lakes Indicator Suite (Draft for Discussion, October 2002) 6 5
-------
Forestry Indicators
Comments
Many Extension Service and tourism bureaus are collecting post-visitor experiences and could
add these data sets to their collections. This indicator is equivalent to the Great Lakes Forest
Alliance indicator #25 and Montreal Process indicator 6.0.
Unfinished Business
Forest-based visitor days research are complex. Licensed recreational use can give trend
information but are ineffective to define the level of silent, passive or unlicensed sports.
Further complexity is the conversion of visitor days vs. recreational use by local residents.
While some communities have conversion studies, research is needed as well as partnership
with tourism agencies to identify an index of the recreational days to aggregate to the water-
shed level.
Relevancies
Indicator Type:
Environmental Compartment(s):
Related Issue(s):
SOLEC Grouping(s):
Last Revised
August 8, 2002
6 6 SOLEC 2002 - Proposed Changes to the Great Lakes Indicator suite (Draft for Discussion, October 2002)
-------
Forestry Indicators
Public Participation in Forestry Decisions
New Indicator
Measure
The levels at which people attend, participate, volunteer and help make decisions. Numbers
of people participating are representative of the relevant level of analysis (community, state/
province, region). The types of people participating are representative of the relevant level of
analysis (community, state, region). Ratings of fairness principles by people who have
participated and ratings of perceived fairness by people who have not participated - both can
be gathered through careful surveys of people who participate in public processes.
Purpose
Citizen support for sustainable forest management will occur if citizens have meaningful
opportunities to participate in decisions about the forests. Citizens will enhance the quality
of forest management activities using their indigenous knowledge, historical perspective and
value diversity. There is widespread agreement in the literature that citizen support for
sustainable forestry will only occur if citizens have meaningful opportunities to participate in
decisions about the forest resource. In addition, all citizens are dependent on forest resources
in multiple ways. Therefore, an indicator of sustainable forest management is whether all
publics are included in the process. Sustainable forest management will not occur if people
do not participate and people will not participate if they perceive that the processes are not
fair and just. Therefore, an indicator of sustainable forest management is whether public
participation processes in SFM are perceived as fair and just (voice, broad representation, lack
of bias, accurate information, control over processes and outcomes, respect, listening, trust).
Ecosystem Objective
An increasing number and diversity of people will be involved in an increasing level of
involvement in the forest resource management and will perceive decisions are just.
Endpoint
The forest resource of the watershed will be managed to sustain the forested regions of the
watershed and provide the ecological benefits.
Features
This indicator can be monitored at the county or forest management unit, state or provincial
and/or national forest levels. Tools to educate the public in non-biased manner of the com-
plexities of sustainable forest management must be developed and used to ensure citizens can
participate meaningfully.
Illustration
Quantitative data will be graphed depicting the numbers and types of people involved in
forest management planning. A spiral, indicating depth of participation will be used to
show the depth of their levels of participation (from an open house, participation in wood-
land owner or Model Forest programmes, to volunteering in a monitoring project or forest
management activity such as loosestrife eradication and decision-making processes).
Limitations
The data collection will be relatively costly but efforts from other organizations, such as the
Communities Committee and the Model Forest Programme can be utilized to maximize data
collection efforts.
SOLEC 2002 - Proposed Changes to the Great Lakes Indicator Suite (Draft for Discussion, October 2002) 6 7
-------
Forestry Indicators
Interpretation
The enhanced diversity of an increasing number of people involved in increasingly complex
opportunities should be evident. Decreases in any of those three areas should signal concern
and a need to adjust forest management planning decision-making and educational outreach
efforts.
Comments
The region has the social science research capacity at university and research stations as well
as in forest community research facilities. This indicator is equivalent to the Great Lakes
Forest Alliance indicator #32 and Montreal Process indicator 4.1c.
Unfinished Business
A protocol for data collection must be developed and accepted across forest management
ownerships.
Relevancies
Indicator Type:
Environmental Compartment(s):
Related Issue(s):
SOLEC Grouping(s):
Last Revised
August 8, 2002
6 8 SOLEC 2002 - Proposed Changes to the Great Lakes Indicator suite (Draft for Discussion, October 2002)
-------
I Forestry Indicators
Sustainable Forest Management
New Indicator
Measure
Some potential measures include: number and diversity of available incentives; profitability
incentives; tax incentives; conservation easements; technical assistance; landowner education
opportunities; tax deferral programs; private forest legislation; land use planning legislation
and policy; existence of plans for forest lands; integration of plans (e.g. across region using
FIA process); quality of data; and monitoring and auditing activities.
Purpose
In order to have sustainable forest management, it is necessary to have laws and policies in
place that facilitate rather than constrain these activities and practices which help citizens
participate in the monitoring processes. The existence of laws, policies, practices and regula-
tions is an indicator of whether sustainable forest management is possible. This indicator also
includes policies and regulations that facilitate planning for forest lands. In order to have
sustainable forest management, there need to be incentives. The availability of such incen-
tives is therefore an indicator of whether sustainable forest management is possible. Incen-
tives can be public or private.
Ecosystem Objective
An increasing number of people will be involved in an increasing level of participation in
measuring and monitoring changes in the conservation and management of forests in the
watershed. An array of incentives exist to encourage forest lands to remain forested.
Endpoint
Participatory research will exist throughout the watershed for monitoring the SOLEC indica-
tors. People will urge response to threatening conditions and celebrate enhancements.
Forested lands will remain forested.
Features
Participation in open and transparent processes for indicator monitoring, regardless of the
measurement scheme, can be tracked. Natural resource agency Best Management Practices,
certification schemes, local community forestry groups, model forest programmes, industry
certification and third party monitoring systems can be tracked.
Illustration
A map of the Great Lakes watershed can be developed with a key to indicate the array of
monitoring systems and their geographic location, color coded by scheme.
Limitations
It is possible that not all geographic areas will be covered but should expand continuously.
Participatory research has validity and reliability and needs recognition by the scientific
community but is not always respected at this time.
In terpreta tion
Gaps in geographic areas or a limit to the diversity of monitoring schemes might signal a
need for greater public outreach. A limit in the diversity of ages, ethnicity, gender may also
signal concern and a need for education.
SOLEC 2002 - Proposed Changes to the Great Lakes Indicator Suite (Draft for Discussion, October 2002) 6 9
-------
Forestry Indicators
Comments
Natural resource agencies, certification schemes and community groups can be involved in
the monitoring processes. This indicator is equivalent to the Great Lakes Forest Alliance
indicator #32 and Montreal Process indicator 7.3.
Unfinished Business
Conceptual aggregation of the data is possible and protocol should be developed to make this
qualitative data meaningful. Development of community forestry groups, such as the Model
Forest Programme will enhance the replicability of the monitoring efforts.
Relevancies
Indicator Type:
Environmental Compartment(s):
Related Issue(s):
SOLEC Grouping(s)
Last Revised
August 8, 2002
7 0 SOLEC 2002 - Proposed Changes to the Great Lakes Indicator suite (Draft for Discussion, October 2002)
-------
I Groundwater Indicators |
7. Groundwater Indicators
7a. Description of Groundwater the Indicators Project
The inclusion of indicators of groundwater quality and quantity in the SOLEC process arose
out of the need for action on Annex 16 of the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement
(GLWQA). Since the signing of the Agreement there has been a lack of work involving the
study of groundwater. The IJC'slOth Biennial Report on Great Lakes Water Quality sug-
gested that an indicator for stream base flow would serve as an evaluation of groundwater
supply, as well as meet the requirements of Annex 16: Pollution from Contaminated
Groundwater. Following these recommendations by the Indicators Implementation Task
Force (IITF), the SOLEC Steering Committee initiated a groundwater workgroup to develop
the groundwater indicators.
Indicators to groundwater quality and quantity were suggested over the course of several
meetings with members from Environment Canada, the International Joint Commission,
U.S. Geological Survey, and the Ontario Ministries of Natural Resources and the Environ-
ment. Discussions proceeded to determine which indicators could currently provide usable
information based on available data, and those, which could be initiated and data collection
begun quickly and easily.
With the purpose of evaluating the effectiveness of the suggested groundwater indicators, a
set of six sample watersheds was nominated. Current data and monitoring programs will be
considered, to determine if there is a sufficient amount of information available at present,
and if the data available will support the use of the indicators that are proposed. Summaries
of this process will be presented at SOLEC 2002.
Scope
Living in the Great Lakes basin has given us an "abundance mentality" regarding water
supply, however the fact is that both pumping and contamination are stressing many of our
aquifers. Groundwater levels have declined over large areas, such as the aquifers outside
Chicago, Illinois, near Toledo, Ohio and near Milwaukee and Fox River-Green Bay, Wiscon-
sin (Grannemann et al, 2000). Groundwater withdrawal in 1995 for the Great Lakes region
was estimated to be 1,510 Mgal/day (million gallons per day) (Solely et al, 1998). With
populations growing at exponential levels, this rate of withdrawal may soon deplete our
groundwater supplies past rechargeable levels.
Contamination of groundwater also continues, as more and more people become reliant on
the source. New wells are bored each year, sometimes in areas that are extremely vulnerable
to contamination. Our demand for better quality crops has increased our withdrawals for
irrigation water, and at the same time increased the chances of contaminating our aquifers
with agricultural chemicals. Leaking underground storage tanks and road salting also con-
tribute to the brew mixing in our groundwater supply. Prevention from contamination and
the protection of our groundwater sources is necessary, as groundwater, once contaminated,
will rarely be fit for human consumption again.
THE IMPORTANCE OF GROUNDWATER TO SOLEC
An Essential Component of the Hydrologic Cycle
Groundwater is an important component of the cycling of water on our planet. Water
released as precipitation from the atmosphere infiltrates through the soil where it can be
taken up by plants or continues to soak into the ground, and becomes part of the
SOLEC 2002 - Proposed Changes to the Great Lakes Indicator Suite (Draft for Discussion, October 2002) 71
-------
Groundwater Indicators
groundwater. During this process the soil acts as a filter, removing bacteria, sediment and
other insoluble forms of contamination that become trapped within the soil pores. Some
chemicals become adsorbed (attached) to the soil particles, thereby preventing or slowing the
movement of these pollutants into the groundwater, while other, more soluble pollutants
remain in the water.
Groundwater also discharges into lakes, streams and wetlands, replenishing or maintaining
water levels. Where the water table reaches the bottom of a surface water body, groundwater
may seep or flow into the surface water, recharging the supply. Estimates have suggested that
groundwater contributes approximately 48 percent to the stream flow of tributaries of Lake
Erie, and 79 percent to the tributaries of Lake Michigan (Holtschlag and Nicholas 1998). In
headwater streams, groundwater is often the largest source of recharge. During late summer
months, when precipitation is low and evaporation high, groundwater may contribute up to
100 percent of the stream flow, forming the majority of the base flow. Thus, the quality of
groundwater and surface water is closely related, and efforts to protect one or the other
require efforts to protect both.
Provides Habitat for Aquatic Life
The discharge of groundwater to wetlands, lakes and rivers is an essential component of
habitat, and is necessary for the reproduction and survival of many animals. Some wetlands,
like those on higher ground, serve as essential groundwater recharge areas, while others may
receive the majority of their waters from groundwater discharge. Consequently, a change in
volume or quality of the groundwater entering these wetlands may have detrimental effects
on the wildlife population. Brook trout spawn in the fall in shallow areas where there is cold,
clear spring water upwelling through gravel (Hedley's Trout Farm, 2002). The presence of
watercress often indicates suitable habitat for brook trout. Cedar trees and some aquatic
insects are also found only in streams with large groundwater contributions (Hedley's Trout
Farm, 2002). Furthermore, groundwater discharge often affects the temperatures of the
stream, stabilizing the temperatures and thus lessening the stress on the aquatic life.
Threats to Groundwater Quality: Contamination
Groundwater in selected areas of the Great Lakes is vulnerable to broad-scale contamination
by nitrates, chloride, pesticides, and volatile organic compounds from land-use activities such
as agriculture and urban development (Thomas, 2000b; Saad, 1996, 1997). The closer the
water table or aquifer is to the surface of the land; the greater is the vulnerability of this
resource to contamination. Wells in rural areas are most often contaminated with fertilizers
and pesticides leaching off cropland, especially where irrigation is practiced (NAWQA).
Owners of new homes built on old farmland may be exposing themselves unknowingly to a
mixture of chemicals if they rely on groundwater for drinking water.
Seepage from sewage tanks and underground storage tanks for petroleum products have also
been found to contaminate groundwater in the Great Lakes region. Industrial spills and
improperly constructed and maintained landfills can contaminate groundwater in urban
areas. Locations such as the infamous Hyde Park, Love Canal, and 102nd Street landfills
located within miles of the Niagara River have contributed not only in the contamination of
the river and groundwater, but also the contamination of Lake Ontario.
Threats to Groundwater Quantity: Overdraw
As populations continue to expand, the need for clean drinking water often overrides the
concern for a healthy water ecosystem. Thus, aquifers become stressed with the increase in
withdrawals. This can lead to a lowering of the water table, and consequently, shallow wells
7 2 SOLEC 2002 - Proposed Changes to the Great Lakes Indicator suite (Draft for Discussion, October 2002)
-------
Groundwater Indicators
become susceptible to drought and may run dry. Residential wells that tap the same aquifers
as irrigation wells may also be affected by substantial declines in water level due to the effect
of the cone of depression (Hoard and Westjohn, 2001). Currently, residents of Monroe
County, Michigan are experiencing dry wells resulting from large groundwater withdrawals
by local quarries. In some cases new wells have been drilled more than 200 feet down,
without encountering water (Shine, 2002).
The Impact on Human and Ecosystem Health
The contamination of our groundwater may leave us with water that is unfit and sometimes
dangerous to drink. Levels of contaminants can sometimes exceed the health advisories set to
protect human health. Nitrate concentrations over 10 mg/1 have caused blue baby syndrome
in infants, restricting their ability to breathe and sometimes causing death. The effects of
contaminants such as pesticides and other chemicals may not be known explicitly, however,
there is evidence of damage resulting from higher concentrations. Even low concentrations,
which still exceed aquatic life advisory levels, can have effects. Fish and aquatic life in
headwater streams may suffer reproductive or neurological effects, or sometimes mortality.
The consumption of these effected fish may even affect our own health.
Large groundwater withdrawals may cause a decline in the natural groundwater discharge
from springs. This discharge is crucial to maintaining stream flow and wetland hydrology,
and to sustaining the quality and quantity of both aquatic and terrestrial ecosystem integrity
and health. Without the input of groundwater, many streams will see an increase in tempera-
ture, which may have detrimental impacts on species such as brook trout and sculpin, that
require cool waters for survival. At worst, groundwater fed streams may dry up during peri-
ods of low precipitation, killing whole communities that are dependant on groundwater
discharge.
There are 7 proposed groundwater indicators. They are listed here with a brief description. A
full description of each can be found in the following section with sample reports for three
indicators: Base Flow due to Groundwater Discharge; Water Use and Intensity; and Natural
Groundwater Quality and Human-Induced Changes.
STATE INDICATORS
Base Flow due to Groundwater Discharge
This indicator will establish the percentage of stream flow that originates as
groundwater, and will be used to determine areas that are important and
sensitive groundwater-fed ecosystems.
Groundwater Dependant Plant and Animal Communities
This indicator will assess the status of plant and animal communities dependant
on groundwater discharge into headwater streams, and it will be used to deter-
mine if the quality and quantity of groundwater discharge is sufficient to
maintain a balanced ecosystem.
Groundwater and Amphibian Communities
This indicator will indicate the presence or absence of a set of groundwater
dependant amphibian species, and will be used to determine the locations of
groundwater-fed habitats.
SOLEC 2002 - Proposed Changes to the Great Lakes Indicator Suite (Draft for Discussion, October 2002) 7 3
-------
Groundwater Indicators
PRESSURE INDICATORS
Water Use and Intensity
This indicator will show both percentage of wells used for each sector of the
population and the intensity of the water use by that sector. It will also illus-
trate changes in supply and demand, through the records for new wells and
those that have been deepened. The indicator will be used to infer the potential
impacts of these water uses on the quality and quantity of groundwater.
Land Use and Intensity
This indicator will illustrate land use designation and the intensity of that land
use, to infer the potential impacts on groundwater quality and quantity.
Natural Groundwater Quality and Human-Induced Changes
This indicator will assess groundwater quality based on the natural quality as
determined by aquifer material and local features, and through water quality
changes due to human activity. It will be used to determine quality of water for
consumption and ecosystem functions, and to decide where protection pro-
grams should be employed.
RESPONSE INDICATORS
Managing the Groundwater Resource
This indicator will illustrate the progress made in groundwater management
and protection and will be used to identify areas that are in need of further
study and/ or protection.
7 4 SOLEC 2002 - Proposed Changes to the Great Lakes Indicator suite (Draft for Discussion, October 2002)
-------
Groundwater Indicators
7b. Proposed Groundwater Indicator Descriptions
This section includes a full description of each of the seven proposed Groundwater indica-
tors. In addition there are sample reports for three of the indicators: Base Flow due to
Groundwater Discharge; Water Use and Intensity; and Natural Groundwater Quality and
Human-Induced Changes.
Base Flow Due to Groundwater Discharge (description)
New Indicator
Measure
Base flow as a percent of stream flow (base flow index).
Purpose
This indicator measures the contribution of base flow due to groundwater discharge to total
stream flow by sub-watershed and is used to detect the impacts of anthropogenic factors on
the quantity of the groundwater resource.
Ecosystem Objective
The capacity of groundwater discharge to maintain in-stream conditions and aquatic habitat
at, or near potential is not compromised by anthropogenic factors.
Endpoint
Deviations in the base flow characteristics of sub-watersheds are not attributable to anthro-
pogenic factors.
Features
Base flow is the more slowly varying component of total stream flow and is often attributed
to groundwater discharge to wetlands, lakes, and rivers. Base flow is determined from total
stream flow data using mathematical algorithms. Unlike point measurements of groundwater
levels, base flow is an integrated measure of groundwater conditions and impacts upstream of
the stream flow gauge. Various anthropogenic factors can impact the base flow characteristics
of a sub-watershed. For example, increasing extents of paved and other impermeable surfaces
due to urban development can reduce recharge and therefore decrease base flow. In contrast,
conveyance losses in municipal water and wastewater systems can increase base flow. Anthro-
pogenic factors in rural settings such as tile drainage and changes in vegetation coverage can
impact base flow. The withdrawal of groundwater by pumping or through the drainage of
quarries and other excavations can also impact base flow. Natural factors such as climate
variability modify both average rates of base flow and the annual distribution of flow.
Illustration
Base flow indices are mapped by sub-watershed and plotted as time series. Temporal trends,
where discernable, are mapped by sub-watershed.
Limitations
Stream flow monitoring of the full land mass is neither technologically nor economically
feasible. Methods of determining base flow from total stream flow data are not standardized
and the use of differing methods may produce inconsistent results. Differing summary
statistics of base flow may also yield inconsistent results. Base flow is a delayed measure of
changes in net infiltration (i.e., recharge due to precipitation less water withdrawal by
SOLEC 2002 - Proposed Changes to the Great Lakes Indicator Suite (Draft for Discussion, October 2002) 7 5
-------
Groundwater Indicators
pumping) and, in some settings, changes in this net rate due to anthropogenic factors may
not be evident for extended periods of time. Water management practices such as flow
regulation replicate base flow characteristics and disable the calculation of natural base flow
in sub-watersheds where these practices are significant. Wastewater discharge similarly
disables the calculation of natural base flow in sub-watersheds where this discharge is signifi-
cant.
In terpreta tion
Statistical methods are used to detect changes in indices of base flow with respect to time.
These methods are also used to differentiate natural (e.g., climatic) factors from anthropo-
genic factors as the cause of these changes.
Comments
None
Relevancies
Indicator Type: State
Environmental Compartment(s): water, land, biota
Related Issue(s): groundwater dependant ecosystems, climate change, land use
SOLEC Grouping(s): groundwater
Last Revised
July 18, 2002
7 6 SOLEC 2002 - Proposed Changes to the Great Lakes Indicator suite (Draft for Discussion, October 2002)
-------
Groundwater Indicators
A
Base Flow Due to Groundwater Discharge (sample report)
New Indicator
Purpose
This indicator measures the contribution of base flow due to groundwater discharge to total
stream flow by sub-watershed and is used to detect the impacts of anthropogenic factors on
the quantity of the groundwater resource. Through most of the year, base flow forms only a
proportion of streamflow, but in periods of drought it may represent nearly 100%, allowing
the stream to continue to flow when precipitation recharge is insufficient.
Ecosystem Objective
The goal for the base flow indicator is to be able to maintain in-stream conditions and
aquatic habitat with natural base flow rates, without being compromised by human actions.
Increasing withdrawals of groundwater due to population and industry expansion affect the
amount of discharge entering streams, as water is diverted away from its natural course.
Groundwater recharge may also be reduced due to hardening and compaction of the ground
surface as paved surfaces are extended.
State of the Ecosystem
The Base Flow Index (BFI), a measure of the
rate of groundwater discharge relative to
streamflow, may be calculated from stream
hydrographs. The BFI indicates the percent-
age of streamflow that originated as
groundwater. The groundwater contribution
is dependant on several factors, including
overburden and bedrock composition, and
slope of the land surface.
The contribution of groundwater as base flow
to the streamflow of rivers has been estimated
to be about 40% across the Great Lakes basin.
Calculations for base flow in Southern On-
tario have estimated that groundwater
contributes between 12 and 77 % to the
streamflow in local watersheds. Figure 1
illustrates the distribution of base flow index,
due mainly to local geologic influences.
Other estimates, taken from actual
streamflow gauges show similar predictions
in Figure 2.
In the U.S., estimates have placed direct
groundwater contributions highest in the
Lake Michigan drainage area, at about
2,700ft3/s. This is due mainly to the large
number of sand and gravel aquifers located
on, or close to the shoreline. Lake Michigan's
streams also contribute the highest percent-
age of groundwater to the lakes, making up
Figure 1. Base Flow Index based on geology
Source: Pigott et al, 2002
High
Moderate
Low
Figure 2. Base Flow Index calculated from
stream gauge measurements
Source: Piggott et al, 2001
SOLEC 2002 - Proposed Changes to the Great Lakes Indicator Suite (Draft for Discussion, October 2002)
77
-------
Groundwater Indicators
EXPIANAHON
Awrafe flreun4-¥ijater cofl^tmefii^l
sttwwilfcw, |in p»«wsrt|
| |
| | ffltoES
83:039
A¥« afle grMrad-wtw *ml surfaee-
nuiolf eoffip BBBIltS ?»f I«W,
in piwcsnt
Surlsce sunofl
6'Wind water
i lake f 3Sj
±i Ontario \/ w J
:l \H
'. Lake V
Erie "'
Figure 3. Base flow component of streamflow
Source: Grannemann et al, 2000
almost 80% of the streamflow. Figure 3 illustrates the base flow contribution for the entire
basin, from the lowest to Lake Erie, at 48%, and highest to Lake Michigan, at 79%.
Future Pressures
Recent predictions have suggested that climate change could significantly impact
groundwater resources of the Great Lakes. Changes in temperature and precipitation may
impact total annual base flow and the distribution of this flow. For example, two different
scenarios describing the climate of western southern Ontario at the end of this century result
in a projected decrease in total annual base flow of 19 percent for the first scenario versus an
increase of 3 percent for the second scenario. Projections based on the two scenarios suggest a
consistent change in the annual distribution of this flow, with increased flow during the
winter and decreased flow during the spring and early summer.
Further Action
Environment Canada and the Michigan District of the USGS are currently conducting an
assessment of the contribution of groundwater discharge to stream flow within the Great
Lakes basin. The study will involve the selection of a single method for the calculation of base
flow due to groundwater discharge from stream flow information and the application of this
method to data for gauged, near-natural United States and Canadian tributaries to the Great
Lakes. Relations of the findings for these watersheds to characteristics of the landscape will
enable discharge to be estimated for ungauged portions of the basin. Results of the assess-
ment will provide a more complete description of the contribution of groundwater to the
Great Lakes ecosystem and will be used by numerous agencies and stakeholder groups as a
basis for land and water use planning.
Further Work Necessary
Research on the interactions of groundwater and surface water is sorely lacking at the mo-
ment. The 1999-2001 Priorities report to the IJC recommended further research on
78
SOLEC 2002 - Proposed Changes to the Great Lakes Indicator suite (Draft for Discussion, October 2002)
-------
Groundwater Indicators
groundwater discharge to surface water streams, and the estimation of natural recharge areas.
In addition, research into the effects of climate change on groundwater and base flow contri-
bution needs to be addressed, as the effects of climate change on the hydrology of the Great
Lakes basin are uncertain. Although the Canadian and U.S. governments are starting to look
at these areas, contributions from academia and the private sector could help address this
priority.
Sources
This indicator was prepared using information from:
Piggott, A., D. Brown and S. Moin. 2002. Calculating a groundwater legend for existing
geological mapping data, NWRI Contribution Number 02-016 and accepted for publica-
tion in Proceedings of the 55th Canadian Geotechnical and 3rd Joint IAH-CNC and CGS
Groundwater Specialty Conferences, Canadian Geotechnical Society and the Canadian
National Chapter of the International Association of Hydrogeologists.
Piggott, A., D. Brown, B. Mills and S. Moin. 2001. Exploring the dynamics of
groundwater and climate interaction, in Proceedings of the 54th Canadian Geotechnical and
2nd Joint IAH-CNC and CGS Groundwater Specialty Conferences, pp. 401-408, Canadian
Geotechnical Society and the Canadian National Chapter of the International Association of
Hydrogeologists.
Grannemann, N.G., Hunt, R.J., Nicholas, J.R., Reilly, T.E. and T.C. Winter. 2000. The
Importance of Groundwater in the Great Lakes Region. USGS Water-Resources Investiga-
tions Report 00-4008.
Acknowledgments
Authors: Cheryl Martin, International Joint Commission, Windsor, ON and Andrew
Piggott, Canadian Centre for Inland Waters, Burlington, ON.
SOLEC 2002 - Proposed Changes to the Great Lakes Indicator Suite (Draft for Discussion, October 2002) 7 9
-------
Groundwater Indicators
Groundwater and Amphibian Communities
New Indicator
Measure
Presence of native cool water adapted frogs (mink frog and pickerel frog) and four salamander
species (spring salamander, red salamander, two-lined salamander, four-toed salamander)
from the lungless family Plethodontidae that have long-lived larval periods adapted to
perennial flowing cool-cold groundwater springs and headwater streams.
Purpose
This bio-indicator metric will identify specific locations in a watershed where groundwater-
fed habitats may be present. Where groundwater emerges to the land surface from a cold
water table aquifer, a "spring" type aquatic habitat is formed. There are three general types of
cold water-spring habitats:
(1) those that form a well-defined channel (rheocrene);
(2) those that form small pools or basins (limnocrene); and
(3) those that form a vegetated marsh, or swamp (heliocrene).
Cold water springs are unique freshwater ecosystems because their physical and chemical
environments are relatively "stable" (low daily variance), although seasonal amplitude is
present. The defining characteristics of spring-fed habitats are: (1) water is constantly
present, and (2) the thermal environment is relatively cooler in summer months, and warmer
in winter, compared to other aquatic habitats across the landscape that are not hydraulically
connected to groundwater discharge. Loss of cold spring-fed groundwater habitats can
threaten those species with stenothermic (narrow) temperature adaptations.
Two frog species (mink frog and pickerel frog), and the four-toed salamander, are associated
with limnocrene and heliocrene types of cold water spring-fed wetland habitats in the Great
Lakes basin. The three other salamander species (spring salamander, red salamander, two-
lined salamander) are found in very small primary headwater streams that are the origin of
larger cold water streams with native fish species (i.e., trout and sculpin type streams).
Salamander species move higher into the headwater stream network than fish, forming what
can be viewed as a 'salamander region' within the headwater streams of nature. The presence
of salamander species with long-lived larval periods (2-5 years) can be used to provide a rapid
assessment that cold groundwater flow is present. All four of the proposed salamander bio-
indicators have extended larval periods, lasting from 2 to 4 years in duration.
Ecosystem Objective
The "river continuum concept" proposes that the trophic dynamics and integrity of larger
streams is based on biological, chemical, and hydrological processes that occur in the smaller
headwater streams that feed them. Cold groundwater is the primary source of flowing water
found in most perennial flowing streams that have a healthy population of cold water
adapted fish. However, not all headwater streams in a watershed are fed by groundwater,
many become intermittent or ephemeral in summer months. The identification of cold
groundwater-fed headwater streams would provide useful information for the development of
watershed management plans that seek to protect groundwater sources, and the integrity of
the downstream cold water ecosystems.
The newly emerging ecological concept of the "landscape" identifies two operational units,
the "patch" and the "corridor", which are imbedded within a background "matrix" of physi-
8 0 SOLEC 2002 - Proposed Changes to the Great Lakes Indicator suite (Draft for Discussion, October 2002)
-------
Groundwater Indicators
cal-biological structure. Cold spring-fed habitats that emerge at the surface are called
rheocrenes, limnocrenes, and heliocrenes and are unique types of groundwater dominated
landscape patches and corridors.
Endpoint
To be established
Features
The presence of frogs will be determined based on either visual observation of adults, collec-
tions of tadpoles, or vocal calls. For salamanders, efforts will focus on field documentation of
salamander "reproductive potential" such as larvae, egg clutches, or a good mix of juveniles
and adults. A table listing specific frog and salamander species found in the Great Lakes
basin that can be used as bio-indicators of cold groundwater-fed headwater streams will be
provided.
Illustrations
A map of the Great Lakes basin with the geographic distribution of the 2 frog species and 4
salamander species will be provided. Together, the six amphibian bio-indicator species will
be shown to cover the entire watershed for the Great Lakes basin.
Limitations
Use of this indicator depends on experience collecting frogs and stream salamanders, espe-
cially larvae. Thus it will be recommended that a combination of qualitative (visual search,
vocal calls) and quantitative (leaf bags for salamander larvae, funnel traps for frog tadpoles)
sampling methods be used to assess each habitat.
Interpretation
None identified at this time. However, it may be possible to overlap field information
gained from biological sampling with GIS based mapping of geologic features such as depth
to bedrock to predict the potential location of groundwater-fed headwater streams.
This amphibian indicator could be combined with other bio-indicators (cold water fish,
plants such as mosses, diatoms, benthic macroinvertebrates, crayfish, etc.) to identify the
presence of cool-cold water groundwater-fed habitats types. In addition, the various biologi-
cal taxa could be combined to form an "Index of Ecological Integrity" of cold water habitats
with groundwater intrusions for the Great Lakes.
Relevancies
Indicator type: State
Environmental Compartment(s): water, land, biota
Related Issue(s): land use, fish habitat
SOLEC Group: groundwater
GLWQA Annexes: 1, 11, 13, 16
Last Revised
July 18, 2002
SOLEC 2002 - Proposed Changes to the Great Lakes Indicator Suite (Draft for Discussion, October 2002) 81
-------
Groundwater Indicators
Groundwater Dependant Animal and Plant Communities
New Indicator
Measure
Numbers and diversity of native invertebrates, fish, wildlife and plant communities depend-
ent on groundwater discharges in tributaries and near shore areas of the Great Lakes.
Purpose
Indicator will assess locations of groundwater intrusions, support measuring of the contribu-
tion of groundwater to stream and near shore flows, and contribute to evaluation of trophic
status, food web dynamics, and location of fish, wildlife and plant communities at risk in the
Great Lakes basin. By inference, this indicator will also describe certain chemical and physi-
cal parameters of groundwater, including changes in patterns of seasonal flows.
Ecosystem Objective
Purpose of the GLWQA is 'to restore and maintain the chemical, physical and biological
integrity of the Great Lakes'. Loss of quality and quantity of groundwater in Basin threatens
sustained use, and may cause deterioration of drinking water quality for animals and humans
and productive capacity of fauna and flora dependent on groundwater resources. Indicator
supports Annexes 1, 2, 10, 11, 12, 16 of the GLWQA and Fish Community Goals and
Objectives by Great Lakes Fishery Commission.
Endpoint
[DRAFT: pre-selected reference species occur at a test site OR pre-selected species composi-
tion occurs at test site OR biomass/production of the selected species/composition is within
normal range [mean plus two SD] of same parameter measured at selected reference sites.]
Features
The diversity be reported by indices, &/or by biomass, &/or presence/absence of selected
species or compositions e.g. brook trout, mottled and slimey sculpins, brook lamprey,
selected aquatic insects [e.g. mayflies, stoneflies, caddis flies], cedar groves, watercress.
Illustration
For selected watersheds and sub-watersheds, and selected years, changes in species diversity,
relative abundance, biomasses, and distribution would be graphed as surrogate for changes in
groundwater quantity, quality and special distribution.
Limitation
Selection of other species to complete description of aquatic community in coldwater and to
assess cool water environments may be necessary. Invertebrate and amphibian species need to
be selected basin-wide.
Interpretation
More data analyses after modeling of different monitoring networks e.g. well water and fish
distributions, plus research, are essential to using existing databases, and making monitoring
programs efficient.
Relevancies
Indicator type: State
Environmental Compartment(s): water, land, biota
Related Issue(s): habitat, drinking water, land-use
8 2 SOLEC 2002 - Proposed Changes to the Great Lakes Indicator suite (Draft for Discussion, October 2002)
-------
Groundwater Indicators
SOLEC Groupings
GLWQA Annexes: 1, 2, 10, 11, 12, 16
IJC Desired Outcome(s): 6:Biological integrity and diversity; 9:Physical environment integ-
rity groundwater
Beneficial Use Impairments: Restrictions on drinking water consumption; loss of fish and
wildlife habitat
Last Revised
July 1, 2002
SOLEC 2002 - Proposed Changes to the Great Lakes Indicator Suite (Draft for Discussion, October 2002) 8 3
-------
Groundwater Indicators
Land Use and Intensity
New Indicator
Measure
Land use and land use intensity.
Purpose
This indicator measures land use and intensity within political sub-divisions (e.g. county,
municipality...) and is used to infer the potential impacts of these practices on the quantity
and quality of the groundwater resource.
Ecosystem Objective
Groundwater quantity and quality remain at, or near, natural conditions.
Endpoint
Monitoring of groundwater quantity and quality in the most stressed of the sub-divisions
does not detect the deterioration of these conditions.
Features
Land use is a measure of the primary use of the land (e.g., percentage of a sub-division
occupied by livestock feedlot operations) and land use intensity is the intensity of this use
(e.g., head of feedlot cattle per hectare). The reference political sub-divisions should be
sufficiently large to ensure the availability of data and sufficiently small to ensure that con-
trasts in the potential impacts are not masked by averaging.
Illustration
Land use and intensity, and changes in these practices over time, are mapped by sub-divi-
sion.
Limitations
Methodologies for the determination of land use and intensity using remotely sensed and
census data are presently under development and testing. Changes in these indicators can be
determined with no greater frequency than that of the collection of the required data and it
is unlikely that extensive historical information can be derived. The sustainability of prevail-
ing land use and intensity relative to the groundwater resource is not currently known with
certainty in all settings.
In terpreta tion
Statistical methods are used to detect changes in land use and intensity over time.
Comments
Land use and intensity, water use and intensity, and the characteristics of the groundwater
resource are interrelated. Water use within a sub-division is dependent on the distribution of
land uses within the sub-division. Likewise, the intensity of water use is dependent on land
use and intensity. Land uses associated with high water use intensities, or with more strin-
gent water quality requirements, are likely to be restricted in areas where the natural quantity
or quality of the groundwater resource are limited.
Relevancies
Indicator Type: pressure
Environmental Compartment(s): water, land
8 4 SOLEC 2002 - Proposed Changes to the Great Lakes Indicator suite (Draft for Discussion, October 2002)
-------
Groundwater Indicators
Related Issue(s): land use, agriculture, forestry
SOLEC Grouping(s): groundwater, land use
Last Revised
July 18, 2002
SOLEC 2002 - Proposed Changes to the Great Lakes Indicator Suite (Draft for Discussion, October 2002)
85
-------
Groundwater Indicators
Managing the Groundwater Resource
New Indicator
Measure
There is progress toward developing the background information that is required to manage
groundwater resources.
Purpose
This indicator is a measure of the availability of the information that is required for the
sound management of the groundwater resource and an accounting of the number of new
and existing groundwater programs that are in place.
Ecosystem Objective
The capacity of the groundwater resource to function societally as a water supply and eco-
logically in the maintenance of aquatic habitat is protected through the application of sound
management practices.
Endpoint
Land and water management agencies respond to issues in a manner that is not restricted by
the availability of groundwater related information.
Features
The results of groundwater related studies conducted using public funding are adequate;
maintained; indexed by location, time frame, and issue; and are broadly available but sub-
ject, where required, to licensing and cost recovery. Basic and applied groundwater related
research performed using public funding is adequate and relevant, both geographically and
by issue. Groundwater related monitoring programs are adequate and are routinely assessed
and revised to resolve gaps in data collection and to respond to emerging issues. Land and
water management agencies are aware of the importance of including groundwater as a
central component of their practice. Policy makers and the public understand the nature of
the resource, the societal and ecological functions of groundwater, and their role in protect-
ing the resource.
Illustration
A survey of land and water managers could pose a true or false statement such as "There is
obvious progress toward developing the background information required to manage our
groundwater resource."
Limitations
Certain tasks associated with the creation of groundwater related information (e.g., baseline
monitoring and hydrogeological mapping) require extended periods of time for completion.
Tangible progress toward the creation of this information is adequate for the purpose of this
indicator. Programs that are already in place may not adequately protect or manage
groundwater resources.
In terpreta tion
Land and water management agencies achieve a consensus that either adequate groundwater
related information is available or that a feasible plan is in place for the generation of this
information.
8 6 SOLEC 2002 - Proposed Changes to the Great Lakes Indicator suite (Draft for Discussion, October 2002)
-------
j Groundwater Indicators
Comments
None.
Relevancies
Indicator Type: Response
Environmental Compartment(s): water
SOLEC Grouping(s): groundwater, societal response
Last Revised
July 18, 2002
SOLEC 2002 - Proposed Changes to the Great Lakes Indicator Suite (Draft for Discussion, October 2002) 8 7
-------
Groundwater Indicators
Natural Groundwater Quality and Human-Induced Changes (description)
New Indicator
Measure
Groundwater quality as determined by the natural chemistry of the bedrock or overburden,
and the concentrations of anthropogenic contaminants such as pesticides, nitrates, pathogens
and urban pollutants.
Purpose
This indicator will assess the quality of groundwater for both drinking water and agricultural
purposes, and for ecosystem functions. The consumption of groundwater that is degraded in
quality may lead to both animal and human health effects. It may also indicate where con-
tamination is occurring, and where programs for remediation and prevention of non-point
contamination should be focused.
Ecosystem Objective
The quality of groundwater will remain at, or approach, natural conditions.
Endpoint
To be established.
Features
Significant variability of natural groundwater chemistry occurs throughout the basin, how-
ever, little variability should occur within hydrogeologic units. Changes in groundwater
quality due to anthropogenic activity will indicate the quality of groundwater for human
consumption. This indicator should work in conjunction with the Drinking Water Quality
Indicator, #4175.
Illustration
Maps showing the natural base chemistry of the U.S. states and province of Ontario could be
produced. Additional maps could show the locations of contaminated wells, either in total or
for specific types of contamination or areas that are vulnerable to contamination
Limitations
Programs to sample both the natural and contaminated quality of groundwater are already
present in all eight states and Ontario; however, they are not currently comparable on all
levels. Collaboration between federal, state and provincial agencies could produce a sampling
protocol that would make all programs comparable. Several national programs exist in the
U.S. that are implemented in all the eight states, but sampling sites are too few to be ad-
equate.
Also, groundwater quality sampling of ambient wells unaffected by human activities is
necessary to evaluate the natural chemistry. In some areas ambient sampling has not been
done, and if contamination has occurred, natural chemistry may not be evaluated effectively.
In terpreta tion
Information relating water use rates may be required to evaluate whether the contamination
of groundwater supplies will affect human health. Groundwater in areas of low to non-
existent consumption may remain contaminated with little harm to humans. Still, the
sensitivity of aquatic ecosystems to groundwater contamination should not be overlooked, as
the effects will increase significantly in areas where groundwater discharge is a large compo-
SOLEC 2002 - Proposed Changes to the Great Lakes Indicator suite (Draft for Discussion, October 2002)
-------
Groundwater Indicators
nent of stream flow.
Comments
None.
Relevancies
Indicator Type: Pressure
Environmental Compartment(s): water, land
Related Issue(s): drinking water, land-use, fish habitat
SOLEC Groupings:
GLWQA Annexes: 1, 11, 13, 16
Last Revised
July 11, 2002
SOLEC 2002 - Proposed Changes to the Great Lakes Indicator Suite (Draft for Discussion, October 2002)
89
-------
Groundwater Indicators
Natural Groundwater Quality and Human-Induced Changes (sample report)
New Indicator
Purpose
This indicator will assess the quality of groundwater for drinking water and agricultural
purposes, and for ecosystem functions. The consumption of groundwater that is degraded in
quality may lead to both animal and human health effects. This indicator may also reveal
areas where contamination is occurring, and where programs for remediation and prevention
of non-point contamination should be focused.
Ecosystem Objective
Protection and maintenance of groundwater sources to meet Canadian and U.S. drinking
water standards is necessary to ensure a safe supply for all. Although some groundwater
supplies within the basin are already contaminated, either by human activities or through
natural processes, it is hoped the quality will remain at, or approach, natural conditions.
State of the Ecosystem
The quality of groundwater in the Great Lakes basin is varied, ranging from excellent to poor
quality and unfit for consumption. Differences may be dependant on natural factors, such as
bedrock, or overburden composition, or influenced by human activities. Land-use practices
such as agriculture, urban living and industry have unique imprints on local groundwater
supplies, such that water quality testing should reflect those activities taking place locally.
Several areas in the Great Lakes basin contain groundwater that naturally exceeds drinking
water guidelines for substances such as arsenic and radon. Figure 1 illustrates areas in the U.S.
that have arsenic-contaminated groundwater. Areas of the Great Lakes such as the western
sides of Lake Michigan and Lake St Clair contain groundwater that exceeds the current EPA
limit of 50ug/L. It is expected that the number of exceedances will rise considerably once the
new arsenic guideline of lOmg/L becomes effective January 23, 2006.
'$ *• -:^^f ^1^7* :#J|
!%\ ; ^ ^-^\_^J ;>:^W
^^^5%^^" ^^^"^
^^^A
"-i_ r\
»iS
"•":!
Figure 1. Arsenic in Groundwater of the U.S.
Groundwater
contamination
has been shown
to be most
prevalent in
shallow
groundwater less
than 100 feet
below agricul-
tural and urban
areas. In a survey
of Ontario's rural
groundwater
quality in 1992,
36 % of the
1292 wells tested
exceeded the
Maximum
Allowable Con-
centration for
coliform bacteria.
90
SOLEC 2002 - Proposed Changes to the Great Lakes Indicator suite (Draft for Discussion, October 2002)
-------
Groundwater Indicators
In May 2000, an episode of groundwater contamination with coliform bacteria, specifically
E.coli from a feedlot, resulted in the deaths of 7 Walkerton, Ontario residents and illness in
over 2000 others.
In the same Ontario survey, 14% of the farm wells had samples that exceeded the drinking
water objective for nitrates. Contamination of drinking water with levels of nitrates above the
objective of lOmg/L can lead to methemoglobinemia, or "blue baby syndrome" in infants
under six months of age.
Although not as common, pesticides may
also leach into soil, causing groundwater
contamination. Figure 2 shows atrazine
contamination of groundwaters in Wiscon-
sin, in relation to bedrock composition. The
biggest concern with pesticide contamina-
tion is that the majority of pesticides and
their breakdown products do not have a
determined MACL or limit above which
human life is threatened by consumption of
contaminated waters.
Trends in rural and agriculturally influ-
enced groundwater indicate that nitrate
levels are stable, but that bacterial contami-
nation is increasing. Relative to bacterial
levels determined in 1950 to 1954, the
1992 Ontario survey indicated a 45%
increase in contaminated rural groundwater.
/
4V
f&
-
EXPLANATION
,' Atrazine plus
i d»«thylstraz1n«,
in micrngrams
| p*rllt*r
'•' < I taliHuJmii I in if!
,- :> Detection limit
" and •:: 0.30
O 0.5D 3.0
;::•> so
SurficiB! deposit'
bedrccK ctescrip;!or
n Sand and day
LJ Sciiicl and ortivcl
anrlf:l?il dmoalfit
Figure 2. Atrazine concentrations in shallow
groundwater were highest in areas with the most
permeable surficial deposits.
Source: USGS Circular 1156, 1998.
Urban areas are subject to different types of
groundwater contamination. Salts used for
de-icing roads, airplanes and runways have
been found at extremely high levels in the groundwater of the Greater Toronto Area, in the
range of 10 to 60 times as high as natural concentration. More than 11 million tons of salt
are applied to roads in the Unites States annually, while, approximately 25-50% of this salt
is leached into groundwater. Other sources of contamination include leaking underground
storage tanks, chemical spills, lawn fertilizers and improperly disposed waste products.
Future Pressures on the Ecosystem
As population grows and urban areas continue to expand into agricultural lands, pressure on
the groundwater supply will increase. Intensification of agriculture will only amplify this
pressure, and increasing the chance of contamination. Additionally, the effects of climate
change on groundwater resources in the Great Lakes basin are presently unknown, but it is
suggested that resources will decrease, and thus concentrating any contamination already
present.
Future Action
The implementation of Best Management Practices and other nutrient and pesticide control
plans in farms will help to educate farmers about the potential health hazards and economic
benefits to be gained from groundwater protection. Groundwater protection plans should be
required for all municipal groundwater users.
SOLEC 2002 - Proposed Changes to the Great Lakes Indicator Suite (Draft for Discussion, October 2002)
91
-------
Groundwater Indicators
Further Work Necessary
Studies on groundwater in the Great Lakes are not adequate to determine the quality of our
groundwater. Study and research is needed to determine the current state of the supply, and
to estimate future impacts related to growth and climate change. Also, drinking water
standards and water quality data must be standardized across the two countries.
Sources
This indicator was prepared using information from:
Rudolph, D and M. Goss, 1993. Ontario Farm Groundwater Quality Survey. For Agricul-
ture Canada.
USGS Circular 1156. 1998. Water Quality in the Western Lake Michigan Drainages,
Wisconsin and Michigan, 1992-1995.
USGS and National Water Quality Assessment publication, Arsenic in Groundwater of the
U.S.
Acknowledgments
Author: Cheryl Martin, International Joint Commission, Windsor.
9 2 SOLEC 2002 - Proposed Changes to the Great Lakes Indicator suite (Draft for Discussion, October 2002)
-------
Groundwater Indicators
Water Use and Intensity (description)
New Indicator
Measure
Water use and water use intensity.
Purpose
This indicator measures water use and intensity within political sub-divisions (e.g. county,
municipality...) and is used to infer the potential impacts of these practices on the quantity
and quality of the groundwater resource. The indicator also measures supply versus demand
issues by assessing the reconstruction of water wells.
Ecosystem Objective
Groundwater quantity and quality remain at, or near, natural conditions.
Endpoint
Monitoring of groundwater quantity and quality in the most stressed of the sub-divisions
does not detect the deterioration of these conditions.
Features
Water use is a measure of the primary use of all constructed water wells (e.g., the percentage
of all wells that are constructed for livestock watering) and water use intensity is the intensity
of withdrawals from these wells (e.g., the equivalent annual depth of water use for livestock
watering). The intra-annual variability of water use intensity is also significant. For example,
municipal water use is modestly variable during the year while the use of water for livestock
is more temperature dependent and the use of water for irrigation is episodic. The reference
political sub-divisions should be sufficiently large to ensure the availability of data and
sufficiently small to ensure that contrasts in the potential impacts are not masked by averag-
ing. Water use that is consumptive (e.g., irrigation) can result in diminished base flows and
impacts on downstream water supplies and aquatic habitat. Water use that is not consump-
tive (e.g., the drainage of quarries) can result in the degradation of water quality. Supply
versus demand issues are expressed in the reconstruction of water wells; for example, in the
deepening of existing wells or replacement of existing wells with a larger capacity wells.
Patterns in this practice may indicate a diminished supply due to climatic factors or adjacent
land or water use, an increased demand at the well, and variations in the quality of the
supply or the quality requirements of the demand. All of these causes may be evidence of
changes in the sustainability of the groundwater resource.
Illustration
Water use and intensity, changes in these practices over time, and supply versus demand
issues are mapped by sub-division.
Limitations
Water use can be measured using data such as water well construction records and permits to
take water. These data may be adequate to measure both current and historical practices and
therefore changes over time. However, not all uses and users of water are captured in these
data sets. The sustainability of prevailing water use and intensity relative to the groundwater
resource is not currently known with certainty in all settings. Water well construction infor-
mation does not include the reason for the reconstruction of a well, which therefore must be
determined from other supporting data.
SOLEC 2002 - Proposed Changes to the Great Lakes Indicator Suite (Draft for Discussion, October 2002) 9 3
-------
Groundwater Indicators
Interpretation
Statistical methods are used to detect changes in water use and intensity over time and to
identify patterns in supply versus demand issues.
Comments
Land use and intensity, water use and intensity, and the characteristics of the groundwater
resource are interrelated. Water use within a sub-division is dependent on the distribution of
land uses within the sub-division. Likewise, the intensity of water use is dependent on land
use and intensity. Land uses associated with high water use intensities, or with more strin-
gent water quality requirements, are likely to be restricted in areas where the natural quantity
or quality of the groundwater resource are limited.
Relevancies
Indicator Type: Pressure
Environmental Compartment(s): water, land
Related Issue(s): drinking water, land use
SOLEC Group: groundwater
Last Revised
August 20, 2002
9 4 SOLEC 2002 - Proposed Changes to the Great Lakes Indicator suite (Draft for Discussion, October 2002)
-------
Groundwater Indicators
Water Use and Intensity (sample report)
New Indicator
Purpose
This indicator measures water use and intensity within political sub-divisions and is used to
infer the potential impacts of these practices on the quantity and quality of the groundwater
resource. The indicator also measures supply versus demand issues by assessing the recon-
struction of water wells.
Ecosystem Objective
Some areas of the Great Lakes basin are experiencing population growth, and while increas-
ing their groundwater withdrawals, are stressing the supply. Use of the groundwater resource
should not lessen the supply of groundwater, and be managed effectively within the available
sustainable supply.
State of the Ecosystem
Water use is measured for the primary use of groundwater withdrawals from all constructed
water wells, and water use intensity as the quantity of withdrawals from these wells in a
specified time interval (e.g. mVday). During the period from 1950 to 1980, the total
withdrawal of surface water and ground water in the U.S. continually increased, however,
after 1980 water withdrawals declined and have remained fairly constant. In 1995, total
groundwater withdrawals for the United States were 77,500 Mgal/day.
As shown in Figure 1, water use along the shorelines of the Great Lakes is mainly from
surface water.
•-.<"••'' Groundwater use be-
comes more important
the farther away the
community is from the
Great Lakes. Urban areas
such as Kitchener and
Waterloo, Ontario rely on
groundwater to supple-
ment the limited amount
of water they can remove
from surface water sources
like the Grand River.
Some States within the
Great Lakes basin rely
heavily on groundwater,
with about half of all
Michigan cities and
townships relying on
private and city wells for
their supply.
Figure 1. Percentage of surface and groundwater use in Southern
Ontario watersheds
Source: Environment Canada, Water Use and Supply Project
Water Use is divided into different sectors, such as domestic, industrial and commercial, to
show how much water, especially groundwater, is used in each. Significant differences in
water use between Michigan (Figure 2) and Wisconsin (Figure 3) are seen in the areas of
domestic, irrigational and industrial supply. These differences result from differences in land
SOLEC 2002 - Proposed Changes to the Great Lakes Indicator Suite (Draft for Discussion, October 2002)
95
-------
Groundwater Indicators
use, as Michigan has a greater industrial sector and several densely populated areas, while
Wisconsin relies more on agricultural practices. Rural areas often use more groundwater per
capita than urban areas, as they are often farther from surface water sources and lack the
necessary water distribution networks.
Groundwater Use in Michigan, 1995
a Public Supply
• Commercisl
mitigation
•|-dustrial
EI Mining
• Domestic
n "Theim oelectric
22%
1%
,40%
2% 12% 2%
Figure 2. Percentage of groundwater use by
sector for Michigan, 1995
Adapted from: Solley et al, 1998
10%
10%
Groundwater Use in Wisconsin, 1995
EPublic Simply
• Commercial
Dliririatinn
n Live stock
• Industrial
BMii iiy
•Domestic
n Thermoelectric
42S,
'gffft
2%
Figure 3. Percentage of groundwater use by
sector for Wisconsin, 1995
Adapted from: Solley et al, 1998
Other differences in groundwater use may result from changing seasons. For example, mu-
nicipal water use is relatively constant, while the use of water for irrigation is episodic.
Consumptive water use, such as irrigation, can result in diminished base flows and impacts
on downstream water supplies and aquatic habitat.
Recent summers in the Great Lakes
region have seen lower than average
amounts of rainfall and record tempera-
tures, resulting in a sharp decline in the
amount of water replenishing some
underground wells. Consequently, some
well owners have had to dig deeper to
restore well yield and/or quality, while
others have had to dig entirely new
wells. Wells showing a decrease in
supply may be affected by climatic
factors or adjacent land or water use, an
increased demand at the well, and
variations in the quality of the supply or
the quality requirements of the de-
mand. Figure 4 illustrates how
groundwater supply and recharge may
be changed when demand exceeds
supply. Withdrawals in the Chicago
area have reduced the water level and
moved the groundwater divide over 50
miles in some areas, drastically chang-
ing flow patterns.
*t e 11 ifjr*ji • 41. ha rd
i llht. JU iiii
Figure 4. Changes to groundwater in the Chicago area,
1864-1980.
Source: Grannemann et al, 2000
96
SOLEC 2002 - Proposed Changes to the Great Lakes Indicator suite (Draft for Discussion, October 2002)
-------
I Groundwater Indicators
Future Pressures
Population growth and urban sprawl continue to place pressure on the groundwater supply.
Water distribution networks do not exist in new developments, and they are expensive to
build, so new residents often tap into the groundwater, which may affect current users of the
supply. It has been predicted that climate change will affect the recharge of groundwater,
with increases in winter recharge and decreases in summer. It is not known how these
changes will affect the available supply.
Further Action
The effects of groundwater withdrawals on the hydrologic cycle can only be examined if
there is an understanding about the interaction of groundwater and surface water. Thus,
studies are needed to quantify and describe this relationship, especially in the Great Lakes
basin. Additionally, public supply systems need to realize the value of demand management
of groundwater resources, rather that the old standard of supply management. Because our
supplies are limited, it only makes sense to control our water use by reducing our withdraw-
als and lessening the impacts. By using water saving devices and charging less for water used
during non-peak time periods, we can reduce or water use by up to 35 percent.
Sources
This indicator was prepared using information from:
Environment Canada, Water Use and Supply Project. Communication with Wendy Leger.
Grannemann, N.G., Hunt, R.J., Nicholas, J.R., Reilly, T.E. and T.C. Winter. 2000. The
Importance of Groundwater in the Great Lakes Region. USGS Water-Resources Investiga-
tions Report 00-4008.
Solley, W.B., Pierce, R.R. and H.A. Perlman. 1998. Estimated use of water in the United
States in 1995. USGS Circular 1200.
Acknowledgments
Authors: Cheryl Martin, International Joint Commission, Windsor, ON and Andrew
Piggott, Canadian Centre for Inland Waters, Burlington, ON.
SOLEC 2002 - Proposed Changes to the Great Lakes Indicator Suite (Draft for Discussion, October 2002) 9 7
-------
Other Proposed Indicators |
8. Other Proposed Indicators
A few other indicators have been proposed for inclusion in the Great Lakes indicator suite.
These are: Contaminants in Whole Fish, Lake Sturgeon, Non-native Species and Crop Heat
Units. They have been proposed to fill smaller gaps in the suite of indicators.
Contaminants in Whole Fish was overlooked during the first iteration of the Great Lakes
indicator suite. However, it has been deemed to be necessary for inclusion in the suite. This
proposed indicator also has a sample indicator report.
Lake Sturgeon is proposed as an indicator of the health of the ecosystem. It is a long-lived
fish species that was abundant in the Great Lakes at the time of European settlement.
Unfortunately the indicator description for Non-native Species is unavailable at this time,
but will be prepared and available for comment shortly after SOLEC 2002.
Crop Heat Units is being proposed to replace the current indicator Extreme Storms. They are
both indicators of Climate Change and the descriptions for each have been included in this
section for ease of comparison and discussion.
9 8 SOLEC 2002 - Proposed Changes to the Great Lakes Indicator suite (Draft for Discussion, October 2002)
-------
I Other Proposed Indicators |
Contaminants in Whole Fish (description)
Indicator ID: #121
Measure
Concentration of persistent, bioaccumulating, toxic (PBT) chemicals in Great Lakes whole
lake trout and walleye (and major prey species).
Purpose
To assess trends in the concentration of PBT chemicals in the open waters of the Great Lakes
using fish as biomonitors, as a measure of the success of remedial actions and to infer real or
potential effects of contaminants on fish, fish-consuming wildlife and human consumers of
sport fish species.
Ecosystem Objective
Great Lakes waters should be free from materials will produce conditions that are toxic or
harmful to human, animal or aquatic life (GLWQA General Objective). This indicator
supports Annexes 1,2, 11 and 12 of the GLWQA.
Endpoint
Reduction in concentration of PBT chemicals in whole fish to levels that do not pose a risk
to the health of Great Lakes fish populations or to fish-eating wildlife populations or poten-
tial effects to human consumers of sport fish species.
Features
The temporal and geographic trends in the chemical contaminant levels in lake trout from
Lakes Ontario, Huron, Michigan and Superior, and walleye from Lake Erie will be used as an
indicator of exposure to PBT chemicals in the water and food web. Fish will be collected in
the fall of the year, not less frequent than every other year. Using fish of similar size reduces
the impact of size variation on contaminant trend data. Individual whole fish are analysed to
provide data on the spectrum of bioavailable contaminants present in Great Lakes aquatic
ecosystems. Organochlorine contaminants to be measured include PCBs, DDT and
metabolites, dieldrin, toxaphene, chlordanes, nonachlors, and other recently detected com-
pounds that may be of concern. Trace metals chosen for monitoring will include Hg, Pb, Cu,
Ni, Zn, Cd, Cr, As, and Se. Selection will depend on local environmental conditions. Data
will be statistically analysed (by age or size cohort) to determine mean and variance for each
species, chemical, lake and year.
Illustration
Bar graphs, line graphs and/or scatter plots may be used to show trends over time for each
species (by age or size cohort), chemical and lake.
Limitations
Consistency is very important to conduct trend analyses. Over time, fish of similar size/age
should be collected, contaminants monitored should be consistent, and specific analytical
techniques used must be comparable to those used in the past. Caution is warrented if data
from more than one jurisdiction or monitoring program are used to evaluate temporal or
spatial trends. Data collected under different sample treatment or chemical analyses
protocols may be incompatible in some cases. Contaminant concentrations in whole fish are
routinely higher than in the edible portions. Therefore, the data may not be directly appro-
priate for assessing the need for fish consumption advisories to protect human health. The
utility of these whole fish data are that they provide a more sensitive indicator of emerging
SOLEC 2002 - Proposed Changes to the Great Lakes Indicator Suite (Draft for Discussion, October 2002) 9 9
-------
Other Proposed Indicators |
contaminant issues such as the detection of recently identified contaminants or the increase
in concentrations of a previously regulated contaminant.
Interpretation
Reductions in contaminant levels in whole fish will reflect environmental change, i.e. reduc-
tions in contaminant loading with subsequent reductions in the concentration of contami-
nants in the water or changes in the food web composition, and will pose less risk of harm to
fish communities, fish-eating wildlife and human consumers of Great Lakes fish.
Comments
Unfinished Business
Should identify quantitative endpoints for each contaminant to be protective of aquatic life
and fish-consuming wildlife.
Relevancies
Indicator Type: pressure
Environmental Compartment(s): fish
Related Issue(s): contaminants & pathogens
SOLEC Grouping(s): open waters
GLWQA Annex(es): 1: Specific objectives, 2: Remedial Action Plans and Lakewide Manage-
ment Plans, 11: Surveillance and monitoring, 12: Persistent toxic substances
IJC Desired Outcome(s): 6: Biological community integrity and diversity, 7: Virtual elimi-
nation of inputs of persistent toxic substances
GLFC Objective(s): Ontario, Erie, Huron, Michigan, Superior
Beneficial Use Impairment(s): 3.Degradation offish and wildlife populations
Last Revised
May 1, 2002
100 SOLEC 2002 - Proposed Changes to the Great Lakes Indicator suite (Draft for Discussion, October 2002)
-------
I Other Proposed Indicators
Contaminants in Whole Fish (sample report)
Indicator ID: #121
Purpose
Annual or biennial analysis of contaminant burdens in representative fish species from
throughout the Great Lakes provides data to describe temporal and spatial trends of
bioavailable contaminants which is a measure of both the effectiveness of remedial actions
related to the management of critical pollutants and an indicator of emerging problems.
Ecosystem Objective
Great Lakes waters should be free of toxic substances that are harmful to fish and wildlife
populations and the consumers of these biota. Data on status and trends of contaminant
conditions, using fish as biological indicators, supports the requirements of GLWQA Annexes
1, (Specific Objectives) 2, (Lakewide Management Plans/Remedial Action Plans) 11, Surveil-
lance & Monitoring and Annex 12, Persistent Toxic Substances.
State of the Ecosystem
Long-term (>25 yrs), basin wide monitoring programs measuring whole body levels of a
variety of contaminants in top predator lake trout or walleye and forage fish species (i.e.
smelt) have provided temporal and spatial trend data on bioavailable toxic substances in the
Great Lakes aquatic ecosystem. The Canadian Department of Fisheries and Oceans measures
contaminant burdens annually in similarly aged fish, and the U.S.Environmental Protection
Agency measures contaminant burdens biennially in similarly sized fish. Since the late
1970's levels of historically regulated contaminants such as PCBs, DDT and Hg have gener-
ally declined in most fish species monitored. Some other contaminants, both currently
regulated and unregulated, have demonstrated either slowing declines or, in some cases,
increases in selected fish communities. The changes are often lake specific and relate both to
the specific characteristics of the substances involved and the biological condition of the fish
community surveyed.
Trends:
Lake Ontario - PCB and ZDDT levels in lake trout have declined consistently through 2001
(Fig 1, 1A, 2, 2A). Levels of both PCBs and ZDDT in smelt samples have declined signifi-
cantly through 2001 since the most recent peak in 1997 (Figs 3 & 4). Concentrations of Hg
in smelt populations have remained virtually unchanged since 1985 (Fig. 5).
Lake Erie - PCB levels in lake trout (4+ - 6+ age class) have declined consistently with levels
measured in 2001 approximately 16% of those concentrations found in the same age class
from 1993 (Fig 1). Modest increases in EDDT levels were observed in 2001 lake trout
samples (4+ - 6+) (Fig 2). PCB concentrations in walleye, have continued to increase over the
period 1995 to 2001, but recent levels are still ~ 60% of those measured in similarly aged
and/or sized fish in 1992 (Fig 1A, Fig 6). The Canadian data shows that SDDT levels in
2001 samples of walleye (4+ - 6+) are 15% of maximum levels recorded in 1989 soon after
the arrival of zebra mussels in Lake Erie (Fig. 7). U.S. data shows a similar trend for similarly
sized walleye with 2000 SDDT levels approximately 23% of levels recorded in 1988 (Fig
2A). Total PCB and SDDT levels in smelt peaked in 1990 and 1989 respectively (Figs 3 &
4). Since then concentrations of both contaminants have steadily declined through 2001. Hg
concentrations in smelt samples have seen a modest increase in the past 2 years; 2000 and
2001 (Fig 5).
SOLEC 2002 - Proposed Changes to the Great Lakes Indicator Suite (Draft for Discussion, October 2002) 101
-------
I Other Proposed Indicators |
Lake Huron - The U.S. data shows that PCBs in similarly sized fish have steadily declined
through 2001 (Fig. 1A). ZDDT in similarly sized fish showed large declines in the 1970s
and 1980s with levels in the 1990s staying level at concentrations approximately 18% of
1979 levels (Fig. 2A). The Canadian data shows that for both PCBs and ZDDT, as measured
in lake trout (4+ - 6+), concentrations have declined steadily through 2001 from the most
recent peaks measured in 1993 similarly aged fish (Figs. 1 & 2). Similarly, most recent peak
concentrations of PCB and ZDDT, measured in 1994 and 1993 samples of smelt were
followed by a period of steady decline in concentrations with 2001 levels the lowest in the
past decade (Figs 3 & 4). Mercury levels in Lake Huron smelt populations have remained
virtually unchanged since 1985 with 2001 concentrations <50% of maximum levels meas-
ured throughout a 24- year period (Fig. 5).
Lake Michigan - PCB and ZDDT levels in lake trout have declined consistently through
2000 (Fig 1A & 2A). PCB levels in 2000 lake trout are approximately 8% of those found in
similarly sized fish in 1974. Current ZDDT levels are approximately 5% of concentrations
found in similarly sized lake trout in 1970.
Lake Superior - Total PCB levels in Lake Superior lake trout are currently fluctuating from
year to year and appear to be leveling off (Figs. 1& 1A). The U.S. lake trout data demon-
strates initial declines in concentration from the 1970s with a leveling off starting in the late
1980s with current levels approximately 30% of maximum levels (Fig.lA). The Canadian
data shows that PCB levels measured in a specific lake trout age class (4+ - 6+), have fluctu-
ated significantly over the past 6 years, but 2001 concentrations were ~ 20% of 1993 levels
and 10% of 1988 maximum concentrations measured in this same age class of fish (Fig 1).
The U.S. data for ZDDT shows a similar pattern to its PCB data, with initial declines in the
late 1970s and early 1980s and then a leveling off in the late 1980s to about 15% of maxi-
mum levels (Fig.2A). The Canadian data shows that ZDDT levels for the 4+ - 6+ age class of
lake trout have declined relatively constantly to a concentration in 2001 samples, which was
< 20% of a recent maximum observed in 1993 samples (Fig 2). Apart from an anomalously
high peak (> 1.0 |lg/g) measured in smelt collections from 1988, total PCB levels have
remained virtually unchanged through 2000 at levels of near 0.02 |lg/g (Fig 3). Over the
period 1981 to 2000, ZDDT concentrations observed in smelt populations have remained
unchanged since a significant decline occurred in 1984 (Fig. 4). An exception was a single
year modest increase seen in 1998 samples. Mercury concentrations in Lake Superior smelt
populations have exhibited a reasonably steady decline over the period 1981 through 1999
(Fig 5). There was a 6-year period, from 1988 through 1993, of increasing concentrations of
Hg but levels measured from 1995 through 1999 were consistently lower.
Toxaphene levels measured in the Lake Superior lake trout community have either increased
slightly or ceased to decline despite the fact that use of the compound has either been
banned or its use severely restricted within the Great Lakes basin since the early 1980's
(Whittle et al. 2000). Evidence suggests that declines in the abundance of smelt
populations, subsequent diet shifts by lake trout to more contaminated lake herring and the
increase in atmospheric deposition may have accounted for the trend in toxaphene burdens
measured in Lake Superior. Similarly, in Lake Erie after the late 1980's invasion and prolif-
eration of zebra and quagga mussels, contaminant levels measured in top predator walleye
did increase for a short period of time. The influence of exotic dreissenid invaders such as
zebra and quagga mussels, round gobys, Eurasian ruffe or invertebrate species such
Echinogamarus or Cercopagis is to change the form and function of existing food webs
(Morrison et al 1998, 2002). This change alters the food web energy dynamics plus path-
ways and fate of contaminants, which in turn can result in shifts in bioaccumulation pat-
terns.
102 SOLEC 2002 - Proposed Changes to the Great Lakes Indicator suite (Draft for Discussion, October 2002)
-------
10
9
8
3 7
W 6
i. 5
ra 4
i1 3
2
1
PCBs in Lake Ontario Lake Trout
nnnn
77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01
Year
10
9
8
3 7
ui 6
t 5
PCBs in Lake Ontario Lake Trout
Aft
nnnn
77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01
Year
PCBs in Lake Huron Lake Trout
90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01
Year
2.5
2
uj
w 1.5
J^
O) 1
I1
0.5
PCBs in Lake Superior Lake Trout
D
n
81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01
Year
Figure 1. Total PCB Levels in Whole Lake Trout
(1977-2001). (Canadian data ug/g wet weight +/-
S.E., age 4+ - 6+ yrs)
Note the different scales between lakes.
Source: Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada
Other Proposed Indicators
PCBs in Lake Ontario Whole Lake Trout
ffTlffflTTiii
r^r^cocococococncna) en en
CnCnCnCnCn Cn Cn
Year
PCBs in Lake Erie Whole Walleye
4
o, 3-
O)
3 2 -
m
£ 1
ft IT
r^r^cocococococncncncncn
Year
PCBs in Lake Huron Whole Lake Trout
II ff I TT n n fl n
cncncncncncn cncncncncno
T-T-T-T-T-T- T-T-T-T-T-CN
Year
PCBs in Lake Superior Whole Lake Trout
Si
g « fi II
FT ff
PCBs in Lake Michigan Whole Lake Trout
Year
Figure la. PCB Levels in Whole Lake Trout (1977-
2001). (ug/g wet weight +/- 95% C.I., composite
samples, 600-700 mm size range. Lake Erie data are
for walleye in the 400-500 mm size range)
Note the different scales between lakes.
Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
SOLEC 2002 - Proposed Changes to the Great Lakes Indicator Suite (Draft for Discussion, October 2002)
103
-------
Other Proposed Indicators
5
4.5
4
3 3-5
« 3
i 2.5
« 2
= 1.5
1
0.5
DDT in Lake Ontario Lake Trout
llllllllllllllllll
iiiiii
77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87
93 M 95 96 97 98 99 00 01
ui 1
a>o>a>a>
Year
25
20
15
10
5
DDT in Lake Michigan Whole Lake Trout
OCOCD CnCNLOCOT-'^ri^O
i^i^i^ i^cocococncncno
cncncn cncncncncncncno
Year
Figure 2a. DDT found in Whole Lake Trout (1977-
2001). (ug/g wet weight +/- 95% C.I., composite
samples, 600-700 mm size range. Lake Erie data are
for walleye in the 400-500 mm size range)
Note the different scales between lakes.
Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
104
SOLEC 2002 - Proposed Changes to the Great Lakes Indicator suite (Draft for Discussion, October 2002)
-------
uf 2
CO
PCB in Lake Ontario Smelt
77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01
Year
PCBJn Lake Erie Smelt
llllll ..Il In.
77 78 7980 81 82 83 84 8586 87 88 89 9091 92 93 94 95 9697 98 99 00 01
Year
_ 0.3
Hi
PCB in Lake Huron Smelt
hlll.l ll n l,l.
-111.
79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01
Year
PCB in Lake Superior Smelt
81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01
Year
Other Proposed Indicators
DDT in Lake Ontario Smelt
lllllll.Mllh
inlil
illj
77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 8788 8990 91 92 9394 9596 97 98 9900 01
Year
ui 0.1
co
j.
DDT in Lake Erie Smelt
HlLA.
lilt
77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01
Year
ui 0.1
co
DDT in Lake Huron Smelt
IlllllLlilllill „,
79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01
Year
DDT in Lake Superior Smelt
Illllllll ,,l
I0 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01
Year
Figure 3. Total PCB Levels in Great Lakes Rainbow
Smelt (1977-2001). (Canadian data ug/g wet weight
+/- S.E., whole fish)
Note the different scales between lakes.
Source: Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada
Figure 4. Total DDT Levels in Great Lakes Rainbow
Smelt (1977-2001). (Canadian data ug/g wet weight
+/- S.E., whole fish)
Note the different scales between lakes.
Source: Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada
SOLEC 2002 - Proposed Changes to the Great Lakes Indicator Suite (Draft for Discussion, October 2002)
105
-------
Other Proposed Indicators
Mercury in Lake Ontario Smelt
w 0.1
«
Ilim
•iini
77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01
Year
Mercury in Lake Erie Smelt
I
nL ii iii
77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01
Year
Mercury in Lake Huron Smelt
Li 0.1
Mercury in Lake Superior Smelt
79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01
Year
81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01
Year
Figure 5. Total Mercury Levels in Great Lakes Rainbow Smelt (1977-2001). (Canadian data
ug/g wet weight +/- S.E., whole fish)
Note the different scales between lakes.
Source: Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada
4
3.5
3
2.5
I 1.5
1
0.5
PCBs in Lake Erie Walleye
IllLlllhlll Inhlll
77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01
Year
Figure 6. Total PCB Levels in Lake Erie Walleye (1977-
2001). (Canadian data ug/g wet weight +/- S.E., ages 4+
6+)
Source: Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada
1.5
£ 1
I1 0.5
DDT in Lake Erie Walleye
iil.ii id. ii
77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01
Year
Figure 7. Total DDT Levels in Lake Erie Walleye (1977-
2001). (Canadian data ug/g wet weight +/- S.E., ages 4+
6+)
Source: Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada
106
SOLEC 2002 - Proposed Changes to the Great Lakes Indicator suite (Draft for Discussion, October 2002)
-------
I Other Proposed Indicators
Most recently polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs) have been detected in Great Lakes
fish at increasing concentrations (Luross, 2002) (Fig. 8). PBDEs are used in brominated
flame retardants, which are often applied to textiles. Samples of archived Lake Ontario whole
lake trout samples representing the 2-decade time period from 1978 through 1998 were
analysed for PBDEs. Levels increased from 3 ng/g lipid in 1978 to a maximum concentration
of 945 ng/g lipid weight in 1998. The spatial trend of PBDEs as measured in lake trout
across the Great Lakes basin, indicates that while Lake Ontario fish have the highest concen-
trations (Fig 9), Lake Superior lake trout of the same age class, (6+), have the next highest
concentration (DFO - unpublished data).
945
Figure 8. PBDE Trends in Lake Ontario Lake
Trout (ng/g lipid weight +/- S.E., whole fish,
age 6+ yrs)
Source: Department of Fisheries and Oceans
Canada
600
500
£ 400
V)
£ 30°
0
o> 200
100
0
PBDE in Lake Trout
Figure 9. PBDE Levels in Great Lakes Lake
Trout (1997) (ng/g per lipid weight +/- S.E.,
whole fish, age 6+ yrs)
Source: Department of Fisheries and Oceans
Canada
Future Pressures
Probably one of the most immediate pressures impacting on contaminant dynamics in the
Great Lakes relates to the increasing proliferation of exotic nuisance species. Their increasing
presence has altered both fish community composition and food web energy flows. Thus
subsequent changes to pathways and fate of contaminants has resulted in altered
bioaccumulation rates in portions of fish communities as evidenced by recent spikes in
contaminant burdens. Alterations to the forage base of fish communities have resulted in diet
shifts and in some cases, the consumption of a more contaminated prey, which produces
elevated body burdens of contaminants. Other pressures relate to the issue of climate change,
which includes a warming trend. This change in the thermal regime of the Great Lakes will
directly influence the thermodynamics of contaminants and alter bioaccumulation rates.
Associated changes in water levels, critical habitat availability and aquatic ecosystem repro-
ductive success will all be future factors influencing contaminant trends in the Great Lakes.
Further Work Necessary
Future contaminant monitoring studies on the Great Lakes should include more detailed
examination of contaminant levels and dynamics in aquatic food webs. These data could be
utilized to further develop predictive models to understand the potential changes to con-
taminant fate and pathways together with alterations in energy flow. If there is a more
complete comprehension of possible future scenarios related to changes in environmental
conditions and contaminant impacts, there is the potential to develop compensatory man-
agement strategies for both remediation of contaminated ecosystems plus the utilization of
existing fish stocks for both recreational and commercial harvest.
SOLEC 2002 - Proposed Changes to the Great Lakes Indicator Suite (Draft for Discussion, October 2002)
107
-------
Other Proposed Indicators |
Sources
Department of Fisheries & Oceans, 2002. Great Lakes Laboratory for Fisheries and Aquatic
Sciences, Ultra-trace Analytical Laboratory. (UnpublishedData)
DeVault, D.S., R. Hesselberg, P.W. Rodgers and T.J. Feist. 1996. Contaminant Trends in
Lake Trout and Walleye From the Laurentian Great Lakes. J. Great Lakes Res. 22(4) 884-
895.
Luross, J.M., A. Alaee, D.B. Sergeant, C.M. Cannon, D.M. Whittle, K.R. Solomon, D.C.G.
Muir. 2002. Spatial distribution of polybrominated diphenyl ethers and polybrominated
biphenyls in lake trout from the Laurentian Great Lakes. Chemosphere 46 (665-672).
Morrison, HA, F.A.P.C. Gobas, R. Lazar, D.M. Whittle and G.D. Haffner. 1998. Projected
Changes to the Trophodynamics of PCBs in the Western Lake Erie Ecosystem Attributed to
the Presence of Zebra Mussels (Dreisennia polymorpha). Environ. Sci. Tech. 32, 3862-3867.
Morrison, H.A., D.M. Whittle, and G.D. Haffner. 2002. A comparison of the transport and
fate of PCBs in three Great Lakes food webs. Environ. Toxicol. and Chem. 21:683-692.
Morrison, H.A., D.M. Whittle and G.D. Haffner. 2000. The Relative Importance of Species
Invasions and Sediment Disturbance in Regulating Chemical Dynamics in Western Lake
Erie. Ecological Modelling 125: 279-294.
Whittle, D.M., R.M. Kiriluk, A.A. Carswell, M.J. Keir and D.C. MacEachen. 2000. Toxa-
phene Congeners in the Canadian Great Lakes basin: Temporal and Spatial Food Web Dy-
namics. Chemosphere (40) 1221-1226.
Acknowledgments
D. Mike Whittle, M.J. Keir, and A.A. Carswell, Department of Fisheries & Oceans, Great
Lakes Laboratory for Fisheries & Aquatic Sciences, Burlington, ON and Sandra Hellman,
USEPA-Great Lakes National Program Office, Chicago, IL.
108 SOLEC 2002 - Proposed Changes to the Great Lakes Indicator suite (Draft for Discussion, October 2002)
-------
I Other Proposed Indicators |
Status of Lake Sturgeon in the Great Lakes (description)
New Indicator
Measure
Population numbers of lake sturgeon in the Great Lakes and their connecting waterways and
tributaries.
Purpose
Presence of lake sturgeon in abundance in the Great Lakes will indicate a healthy ecosystem.
When the Great Lakes were still in pristine conditions (prior to European settlement) lake
sturgeon were extremely abundant in the lakes. If the condition of the lakes were improved
to the point where lake sturgeon numbers were able to increase, it would indicate a healthy
improving ecosystem.
Ecosystem Objective
Lake sturgeon are identified by all the Great Lakes in their Fish Community Objectives. Lake
Superior has a lake sturgeon management plan, many of the Great Lakes States have lake
sturgeon recovery/rehabilitation plans which call for increasing numbers of lake sturgeon
beyond current levels. Because lake sturgeon are a native species to the Great Lakes efforts
should be put forth to restore their numbers.
Endpoint
Lake sturgeon populations increase to the point that they can be removed from state threat-
ened or endangered lists.
Features of the Indicator
Efforts are underway to determine the number of active spawning sites for lake sturgeon in
the Great Lakes. In addition, work is currently being carried out to genetically determine the
status of lake sturgeon in the Great Lakes.
Illustration
Graphs for each lake will be displayed depicting the spawning locations and the genetic
variability of lake sturgeon collected from that lake.
Limitations
This is a relatively costly indicator that requires coordination between federal, state, tribal
and provincial agencies. The indicator is linked to the overall health of the Great Lakes
ecosystem.
Interpretation
Variations in spawning periodicity of lake sturgeon and the effect that river flow rates have on
spawning could affect annual results and complicate interpretation of long-term trends.
Comments
Increasing passage for lake sturgeon at hydroelectric facilities is needed to allow fish access to
historic spawning sites. In addition to this, creation of artificial spawning sites might aid the
recovery process.
Unfinished Business
More information is needed on the current status of lake sturgeon populations. Standardized
protocols and continued sampling of existing populations. The largest source of unknown
SOLEC 2002 - Proposed Changes to the Great Lakes Indicator Suite (Draft for Discussion, October 2002) 109
-------
Other Proposed Indicators |
information is related to juvenile lake sturgeon (age 0-2). Considerable research needs to be
conducted to determine the habitat preferences and location of this age group of lake stur-
geon.
Relevancies
Indicator Type:
Environmental Compartment(s):
Related Issue(s):
SOLEC Grouping(s):
GLWQA Annex(es):
IJC Desired Outcome(s):
GLFC Objective(s):
Beneficial Use Impairment(s):
Last Revised
July 16, 2002
110 SOLEC 2002 - Proposed Changes to the Great Lakes Indicator suite (Draft for Discussion, October 2002)
-------
I Other Proposed Indicators
Status of Lake Sturgeon in the Great Lakes (sample report)
New Indicator
Purpose
Historically, lake sturgeon were abundant in the Great Lakes and the waterways that connect
them (St. Mary's, St. Clair, Detroit and St. Lawrence Rivers). Although once extremely
abundant these huge fish suffered serious population declines in the late 1800s due to a
combination of overexploitation and habitat degradation. Lake sturgeon numbers declined to
levels requiring state listing as threatened or endangered in 19 or 20 states in their original
range (Wisconsin is the one exception). Lake sturgeon are benthic feeding fish that hold a
low, but essential, position in the trophic food web of the Great Lakes. Lake sturgeon are an
important native species that are listed in the fish community objectives for all Great Lakes.
Many of the Great Lakes states and provinces are developing lake sturgeon management
plans calling for the need to inventory, protect and restore the species to greater levels of
abundance.
Ecosystem Objective
While overexploitation removed millions of adult fish, habitat degradation and alteration
eliminated traditional spawning grounds. Currently work is underway by state, federal,
tribal, provincial and private groups to document active spawning sites and determine the
genetics of remnant Great Lakes lake sturgeon populations.
State of the Ecosystem
Lake sturgeon populations are known to be abundant in the connecting waterways of the
Great Lakes. Efforts are underway by many groups to gather information on remnant spawn-
ing population in the Great Lakes. Unfortunately, much information is lacking on the
current status of lake sturgeon in the Great Lakes. Essentially no information exists on
juvenile lake sturgeon (ages 0-2). This is the largest knowledge gap and possible the biggest
impediment to rehabilitating lake sturgeon population in the Great Lakes.
Future Pressures
Barriers that prevent lake sturgeon from moving into tributaries to spawn are a major prob-
lem. Predation on eggs and newly hatched lake sturgeon by non-native predators may also be
a problem. Lack of knowledge of the genetics of current populations needs to be addressed.
With the collapse of the Caspian Sea sturgeon populations black market demand for sturgeon
caviar could put tremendous pressure on Great Lakes lake sturgeon populations.
Future Activities
Work is underway to develop a spiral-stairway passage device that would pass lake sturgeon
around dams. Work is also being conducted to gather genetic information on lake sturgeon
stocks in the Great Lakes. Many groups are working to identify current lake sturgeon spawn-
ing locations in the Great Lakes. Studies are also being initiated to identify habitat prefer-
ences for juvenile lake sturgeon (ages 0-2).
Further Work Necessary
More information is needed to determine ways to get lake sturgeon past barriers on rivers.
More monitoring is needed to determine the current status of Great Lakes lake sturgeon
populations. More information is also needed on juvenile lake sturgeon. More law enforce-
ment is needed to protect large adult lake sturgeon.
SOLEC 2002 - Proposed Changes to the Great Lakes Indicator Suite (Draft for Discussion, October 2002) 111
-------
Other Proposed Indicators |
Sources
Auer, Nancy. Lake Sturgeon: A Unique and Imperiled Species in the Great Lakes. Chapter
17 in Great Lakes Fisheries Policy and Management: A Binational Perspective.
Acknowledgments
Author: Tracy D. Hill, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Alpena FRO, Alpena, ML
112 SOLEC 2002 - Proposed Changes to the Great Lakes Indicator suite (Draft for Discussion, October 2002)
-------
I Other Proposed Indicators |
Climate Change: Effect on Crop Heat Units
New Indicator
Measure
The temporal change in seasonal Crop Heat Units (CHU) in the Great Lakes basin. Crop
Heat Units are indicators of crop suitability, used to assist farmers in selecting the most
appropriate varieties or hybrids of crops specifically corn and soybeans suitable for their area.
They represent the total accumulated CHU for the frost-free growing seasons in each area.
Purpose
To assess the trends in Crop Heat Units in the Great Lakes basin as an indicator of climate
change. A change in atmospheric temperature due to climate change has the potential to
increase Crop Heat Units. This indicator may also aid to infer the potential impact climate
change has on species diversity and crop productivity.
Ecosystem Objective
GLWQA General Objective: "These waters should be free from materials and heat directly or
indirectly entering the waters as result of human activity that . . . produce conditions that
are toxic or harmful to human, animal or aquatic life." Change in atmospheric temperature
will potentially affect the CHU in the Great Lakes basin. Changes in Crop Heat Units will
affect the spatial variability, species diversity and productivity of crops in the Great Lakes
basin.
Endpoint
An endpoint will need to be established, based on a literature search of historical data, to
determine the average Crop Heat Units in the Great Lakes basin prior to when the effects of
climate change are evident.
Features
Crop Heat Units are essentially crop development units, they are used to predict how cli-
mate, affects the growth and development of crops from planting to maturity. Temperature is
the most important among all environmental factors that influence rate of plant develop-
ment.
Daily temperatures are influenced by latitude, elevation and location (such as the proximity
to large water bodies). Lower overall temperatures tend to impede crop growth where as
warmer temperatures support crop growth. It is predicted that increases in temperature and
subsequent increases in CHU due to climate change will eliminate many natural habitats
and change their potential productivity making them more suitable to human economic
activities such as farming. It is predicted that climate change will produce a positive change
in agricultural productivity such as increased yields in corn and soybeans in the Upper Great
Lakes region.
According to Rochefort and Woodward (1992), climate is often hypothesized to be the
primary factor in determining species composition and defining plant distribution. It is
predicted that a 3°C increase in temperature as determined from General Circulation Models
(GCM's) will increase the diversity of approximately one third of the worlds floristic regions.
Bootsma (2002), also predicts using Canadian General Circulation Model (CGM1) scenarios
that CHU in Ontario, near the Great Lakes would increase by over 400 for the period 2010
- 2039 and between 800 for the period 2049 - 2069. It is also predicted that areas on the
US side of the basin that presently have CHU -2800 will display increases in crop yield of
SOLEC 2002 - Proposed Changes to the Great Lakes Indicator Suite (Draft for Discussion, October 2002) 113
-------
Other Proposed Indicators |
up to 2025. For grain corn and soybeans, the earliest available hybrids/varieties require ~
2300 CHU.
These GCM also predict that the mean surface temperature will warm by 3°C, and the
global mean precipitation will increase by 10%. However, it must be noted that GCM's are
essentially mathematical formulations of atmosphere, ocean and land surface processes, they
do not include vegetation. According to Rochefort and Woodward (1992), the exclusion of
vegetation leads to significant errors in surface energy balance and hydrological calculations.
Illustration
A graph showing the Seasonal Crop Heat Units for different regions in the Great Lakes basin
on the y-axis and years on the x-axis, beginning with the cutoff date for the historical data.
The graph will indicate the overall trend and also will display extreme events. Time series
maps showing the contours of CHU in the Great Lakes basin and how these contours have
migrated or changed would also provide useful information.
Limitations
A limitation of the CHU method is that it assumes temperature will have the same response
on a crop regardless of its developmental stage. However, corn responds more sensitively to
temperature in the vegetative to silking stage as opposed to the stage from silking to matu-
rity.
In addition, CHU assumes that plant growth is directly related to temperature only, however
other environmental factors such as photoperiod (the daily period from sunrise to sunset),
soil fertility, soil moisture, slope and location also affect plant growth.
Interpretations
Information on changes in species diversity and crop yield from vegetation surveys and
harvest data collected over time in the Great Lakes basin will help to strengthen the link
between CHU, species diversity and productivity. It also should be noted that past and
future changes in species diversity and crop yields may be attributed to development of
higher yielding hybrids and to changes in input costs of production.
Increased temperature and subsequent increases in CHU could expand areas where corn and
soybeans can be economically produced, allowing longer season hybrids to be grown pro-
vided that increased temperature does not lead to increased water deficits. Thus producers in
the Great Lakes basin will likely shift to corn and soybeans as the climate warms.
Comments
To interpret this indicator, climatological data including daily maximum and minimum
temperature will need to be collected. Separate calculations need to be conducted for both
day and night, as the daily CHU is the average of the two. According to Brown and Bootsma
(1993), the daytime relationship uses 10°C (50°F) as a base temperature and 30°C (86°F) as
an optimum, because warm season crops do not develop when daytime temperatures fall
below 10°C and they develop fastest at 30°C. The nighttime relationship uses 4.4°C (40°F)
as the base temperature and does not specify an optimum temperature because nighttime
minimum temperature seldom exceeds 25°C in Ontario. The seasonal CHU are obtained by
adding all the daily CHU values between the start and the end date.
114 SOLEC 2002 - Proposed Changes to the Great Lakes Indicator suite (Draft for Discussion, October 2002)
-------
Other Proposed Indicators
CHU = 3.33 (T - 10.0°C)) -0.084 (T -10.0°C)2
day v max * * v max *
CHU h = 9/5 (T - 4.4°C)
night v mm '
CHU = (CHUri +CHU.J/2
v day night'
When doing calculations the start and end date of the daily accumulations need to be
determined to get annual sums. According to Brown and Bootsma (1993) the date to start
accumulating CHU is estimated as: 1) The last day of 3 consecutive days with daily mean air
temperature less than 12.8°C (55°F) and 2) The starting date for this 3-day period each year
occurred after the date the 30 year average daily mean temperature reached 10°C (50°F) in
spring for each weather station site. The end date which CHU stop accumulating is either 1)
the first occurrence of -2°C (28°F) or 2) the date when the 30 year daily mean air tempera-
ture dropped to 12°C or lower.
Climatological data is easily accessible from meteorological stations in Canada from Environ-
ment Canada's, Meteorological Service of Canada and in the U.S. from the National Climatic
Data Center.
CHU is recognized around the U.S. and Canada as one of the best methods to quantify the
effect of temperature on corn development.
Unfinished Business
Relevancies
Indicator Type: pressure
Environmental Compartment(s): biota
Related issue(s): climate change, species diversity
SOLEC Grouping(s): unbounded
GLWQAAnnex(es):
IJC Desired Outcome(s):
GLFC Objective(s):
Beneficial Use Impairment(s):
Last Revised
August 9, 2002
SOLEC 2002 - Proposed Changes to the Great Lakes Indicator Suite (Draft for Discussion, October 2002) 115
-------
Other Proposed Indicators |
Climate Change: Number of Extreme Storms
Indicator ID: #4519 (revised to add definition of Extreme Storm)
Measure
For land areas adjacent to the Great Lakes, total number of "extreme storms", per year during
ice-free and ice-break-up periods on the Great Lakes, using the defined parameters of central
pressure, maximum wind gusts, and total precipitation.
Purpose
To assess the number of "extreme storms" each year, and to infer the potential impact on
ecological components of the Great Lakes of increased numbers of severe storms due to
climate change.
"Extreme Storm"'. Any storm occurring during ice-free and ice-breakup periods, which meets
two of the following three criteria:
- a central atmospheric pressure less than 990mb
- the recorded maximum wind gusts in a 24hr period, with wind speeds greater than
48 knots
- total precipitation over the storms duration with amounts of 75 mm for summer and
25 mm for winter
Ecosystem Objective
GLWQA General Objective: "These waters should be free from materials and heat directly or
indirectly entering the water as result of human activity that . . . produce conditions that are
toxic or harmful to human, animal or aquatic life." Change in atmospheric temperature will
potentially affect the number of extreme storms in the Great Lakes region which will, in
turn, affect coastal wetlands. Awareness of occurrence will encourage human response to
reduce the stressor and minimize biological disruption.
Endpoint
An endpoint will need to be established, based on a literature search of historical data, if
available, to determine the average number of extreme storms on the Great Lakes prior to a
particular date.
Features
Extreme storm events are a natural stressor than can occur anywhere in the basin and can
potentially alter coastal wetlands and indicators of wetland health. There is natural variability
in occurrences of extreme storm events, but the interpretation method tries to account for
this, so the final score should have lower variability over time.
This indicator may show similar trends to other indicators of climate change (ie. 4857, First
Emergence of Water Lily Blossoms in Coastal Wetlands and 4858, Ice Duration on the Great
Lakes). It is indirectly linked to any other indicator that track trends in wetland area/habitat
change.
Illustration
A graph with the total number of extreme storm events (not ice-bound) on the y axis and
years on the x axis, beginning with the cut-off date for historical data. The graph will also
indicate the historical median and extremes.
116 SOLEC 2002 - Proposed Changes to the Great Lakes Indicator suite (Draft for Discussion, October 2002)
-------
I Other Proposed Indicators |
Limitations
This indicator assumes that: 1) of all storms, "extreme storms" alter coastal wetlands the most
(due to the combined effects of wind and waves); 2) storms throughout the basin represent
storm effects on wetlands throughout the basin; and 3) historical data is available. It may
take some time to collect data and to define historical reference levels.
Aside from these general assumptions there are other limitations which may directly impair
the results of this indicator:
1) The number of storms that occur would have to be separated based on
which season they develop.
2) Sufficient historical records are not easily obtained. Most basin wide reports
only date back a few years, not long enough to develop any trends in the out-
put.
3) With different individuals working on this project, the ability to successfully
transfer data from one person to the next becomes difficult.
4) The defined parameters are subjective when describing when the spatial
distribution of a storm system, i.e. does a continually regenerating storm cell
from the same system get counted multiple times. This leads into the concept
of storm duration. What if a storm fits two of the parameters in one region,
falls out of the limits as it moves out of the region, but then re-surges at a later
date? Will it be considered two separate storms.
5) Will marine based storms still be counted as "Extreme" if they fit the
definition but don't strike land?
Interpretation
To interpret this indicator, data for "extreme storms" need to be gathered each year. From
the recorded data of "extreme storms", the pre-1980 median, maximum and minimum will
be determined. The historic range will be divided into 3 equally occurring ranges: below
average, average, and above average (i.e., the number of extreme storms/year exceeded 0-
33.3%, 33.3% to 66.7%, 66.7% to 100% of the years of record before 1980). The indica-
tor will score high if the annual numbers of extreme storms for the previous 10 years are
within the maximum and minimum historical extremes and they are distributed fairly evenly
among the 3 historical ranges. Low scores will be obtained if any annual Extreme storm
numbers of the previous 10 years lie beyond the maximum or minimum extremes or they are
becoming highly skewed away from a fairly even distribution among the 3 ranges.
Water levels, fetch and direction of storms may affect how storms influence individual
wetlands.
Comments
The concept of storm damage is very understandable to public. An endpoint could be
reached when the previous 10 years' values of numbers of extreme storms are evenly distrib-
uted within the pre-1980 historic range of number of extreme storms.
A technical report written by P.J. Lewis will provide a good starting point for historical data
and assessment. The report was published by the Canadian Climate Centre, Technical
Report #87-13, Severe Storms Over the Great Lakes: A Catalogue and Summary. 1957-
1985. This report gives a fair amount of detail about each storm that had a least two reports
of storm force winds (>48 knots) or greater.
As stated above the concept of "Extreme Storms" is very subjective. Many storms that occur
do not fit the definition of extreme, however they are still considered extreme by public
SOLEC 2002 - Proposed Changes to the Great Lakes Indicator Suite (Draft for Discussion, October 2002) 117
-------
Other Proposed Indicators |
standards. As an example, if the definition were applied to the ice storm of 1997, it would
not have met the specified parameters. Yet this storm was still considered extreme.
Due to the number of limitations on this indicator, another route has been suggested, one
that can be directly linked to almost all of the other climate indicators: heat unit observa-
tions.
Unfinished Business
Relevancies
Indicator Type: pressure
Environmental Compartment(s): air
Related Issue(s): climate change
SOLEC Grouping(s): coastal wetlands, nearshore terrestrial, unbounded
GLWQAAnnex(es):
IJC Desired Outcome(s): 9: Physical environmental integrity
GLFC Objective(s):
Beneficial Use Impairment(s):
Last Revised
April 8, 2002
118 SOLEC 2002 - Proposed Changes to the Great Lakes Indicator suite (Draft for Discussion, October 2002)
-------
[Proposed Changes to Current Indicators |
9. Proposed Changes to Indicators in the Current Great Lakes Suite of
Indicators
Two indicators in the current Great Lakes suite are combined indicators - that is they have
combined two different measures into one indicator. These are Walleye and Hexagenia (#9)
and Lake Trout and Scud (Diporeia) (#93). Even though they were developed to determine
the state of warm-cool water ecosystems and cold water ecosystems respectively, they are each
reported separately. It was felt that the descriptions should also be separated - however the
Walleye description is unavailable at this time.
The indicator DELT (Deformities, Erosed Fins, Lesions and Tumors) in Nearshore Fish is
proposed to be changed to an index of external anomalies called External Anomaly Prevalence
Index (EAPI) in Nearshore Fish.
All of these indicators have had an indicator report prepared. The Walleye, Hexagenia, Lake
Trout and Diporeia indicator reports can be found in the Implementing Indicatorsdraft report,
while the EAPI indicator report follows the indicator description in this paper.
SOLEC 2002 - Proposed Changes to the Great Lakes Indicator Suite (Draft for Discussion, October 2002) 119
-------
I Proposed Changes to Current Indicators!
Walleye (description)
Indicator ID: #9
Revised description coming soon...
120 SOLEC 2002 - Proposed Changes to the Great Lakes Indicator suite (Draft for Discussion, October 2002)
-------
[Proposed Changes to Current Indicators|
Hexagenia
Indicator ID: #9a (revised description)
Measure
Abundance, biomass, or annual production of burrowing mayfly (Hexagenia spp.)
populations in historical, warm-coolwater, mesotrophic habitats of the Great Lakes. Presence
or absence of a Hexagenia mating flight (emergence) in late June-early July in areas of histori-
cal abundance.
Purpose
This indicator will show the status and trends in Hexagenia populations, and will be used to
infer the health of the Hexagenia populations and the Great Lakes ecosystem.
Ecosystem Objective
Historical mesotrophic habitats should be maintained as balanced, stable, and productive
elements of the Great Lakes ecosystem with Hexagenia as the key benthic invertebrate organ-
ism in the food chain. (Paraphrased from Final Report of the Ecosystem Objectives Subcom-
mittee, 1990, to the IJC Great Lakes Science Advisory Board.) In addition, this indicator
supports Annex 2 of the GLWQA.
Endpoint
Appropriate quantitative measures of abundance, biomass, or production should be estab-
lished as reference values for self-sustaining populations of Hexagenia in mesotrophic habitats
in each lake.
Features
The historical dominance of Hexagenia in mesotrophic habitats in the Great Lakes provides a
good basis for a basin-wide evaluation of ecosystem health. Maintaining or reestablishing
historical levels of abundance, biomass, or production of Hexagenia throughout their native
range in the basin will help ensure their dominance in the ecosystem and the maintenance of
a desirable and balanced aquatic community in warm-coolwater mesotrophic habitats.
Hexagenia are a major integrator between detrital and higher levels in food web. Hexagenia
are highly visible during emergence in June- July and the public can easily use the species as
an indicator to judge ecosystem health in areas where it is now abundant or was historically
abundant but now is absent. Historical data can be used to develop status and trend infor-
mation on Hexagenia populations. Sediment cores from Lake Erie show major trends in
abundance of Hexagenia extending back to about 1740 and other data are available to docu-
ment more recent and present levels of abundance in Lake Erie and other parts of the basin.
Illustration
Limitations
Hexagenia are extirpated at moderate levels of pollution, and more research is needed to
develop data needed to show a graded response to pollution. Target reference values for the
indicator are being developed for all major Great Lakes mesotrophic habitats.
Interpretation
The desired trend is increasing dominance to historical levels of the indicator species in
mesotrophic habitats throughout the basin. If the target values are met, the system can be
assumed to be healthy; if the values are not met there is health impairment. The presence of
an annual Hexagenia mating flight (emergence) in late June-early July can also be used by the
SOLEC 2002 - Proposed Changes to the Great Lakes Indicator Suite (Draft for Discussion, October 2002) 121
-------
I Proposed Changes to Current Indicators!
public and other non-technical observers as a specific indicator of good habitat quality,
whereas the lack of a mating flight in areas where the species was historically abundant can
be used as an indicator of degraded habitat. High Hexagenia abundance is strongly indica-
tive of uncontaminated surficial sediments with adequate levels of dissolved oxygen in the
overlying water columns. Probable causative agents of impairment for Hexagenia include
excess nutrients and pollution of surficial sediments with metals and oil.
Comments
Hexagenia were abundant in major mesotrophic Great Lakes habitats including Green Bay
(Lake Michigan), Saginaw Bay (Lake Huron), Lake St. Clair, western and central basins of
Lake Erie, Bay of Quinte (Lake Ontario), and portions of the Great Lakes connecting chan-
nels. Eutrophication and pollution with persistent toxic contaminants virtually extinguished
Hexagenia populations throughout much of this habitat by the 1950s. Controls on phospho-
rus loadings resulted in a major recovery of Hexagenia in western Lake Erie in the 1990s.
Reduction in pollutant loadings to Saginaw Bay has resulted in limited recovery of Hexagenia
in portions of the Bay. Hexagenia production in upper Great Lakes connecting channels
shows a graded response to heavy metals and oil pollution of surficial sediments.
Hexagenia should be used as a benthic indicator in all mesotrophic habitats with percid
communities and percid FCGOs. Contaminant levels in sediment that meet USEPA and
OMOE guidelines for "clean dredged sediment" and IJC criterion for sediment not polluted
by oil and petrocarbons will not impair Hexagenia populations. There will be a graded
response to concentrations of metals and oil in sediment exceeding these guidelines for clean
sediment. Reductions in phosphorus levels in formerly eutrophic habitats are usually accom-
panied by recolonisation by Hexagenia, if surficial sediments are otherwise uncontaminated.
Unfinished Business
• Has a quantitative endpoint for Hexagenia populations been developed? If not, then
further development work is necessary for this indicator.
• The method of graphically displaying this indicator needs to be determined. For
example, will bar graphs or maps be used to depict trends in Hexagenia
populations over time?
Relevancies
Indicator Type: state
Environmental Compartment(s): biota, fish
Related Issue(s): contaminants & pathogens, nutrients, exotics, habitat
SOLEC Grouping(s): open waters, nearshore waters
GLWQA Annex(es): 2: Remedial Action Plans and Lakewide Management Plans, 11: Surveil-
lance and monitoring
IJC Desired Outcome(s): 6: Biological community integrity and diversity
GLFC Objective(s): Ontario, Erie, Huron
Beneficial Use Impairment(s): 3: Degraded fish and wildlife populations, 6: Degradation of
benthos
Last Revised
March 7, 2000
122 SOLEC 2002 - Proposed Changes to the Great Lakes Indicator suite (Draft for Discussion, October 2002)
-------
[Proposed Changes to Current Indicators|
Lake Trout
Indicator ID: #93 (revised description)
Measure
Absolute abundance, relative abundance, yield, or biomass, and self-sustainability through
natural reproduction of lake trout in coldwater habitats of the Great Lakes.
Purpose
To show the status and trends in lake trout populations, a major coldwater predator and
subject of an international effort to rehabilitate populations to near historic levels of abun-
dance.
Ecosystem Objective
The coldwater regions of the Great Lakes should be maintained as a balanced, stable, and
productive ecosystem with self-sustaining lake trout populations as a major top predator.
Endpoint
Self-sustaining, naturally reproducing populations that support target yields to fisheries is
the goal of the lake trout rehabilitation as established by the Fish Community Objectives
drafted by the Great Lakes Fishery Commission. Target yields approximate historical levels of
lake trout harvest or adjusted to accommodate stocked exotic predators such as Pacific
salmon. These targets are 4 million pounds from Lake Superior, 2.5 million pounds from
Lake Michigan, 2.0 million pounds from Lake Huron and 0.1 million pounds from Lake
Erie. Lake Ontario has no specific yield objective but has a population objective of 0.5-1.0
million adult fish that produce 100,000 yearling recruits annually through natural repro-
duction. The lake trout is a highly valued species that is exploited by recreational and
(where permitted) commercial fisheries, and harvest or yield reference values established for
self-sustaining populations probably represent an attempt to fully utilize annual production;
as a result, harvest or yield reference values for these populations can be taken as surrogates
for production reference values.
Features
Self-sustainability of lake trout is measured in lakewide assessment programs carried out
annually in each lake. The historical dominance of lake trout in oligotrophic waters in all of
the Great Lakes provides a good basis for a basin-wide evaluation of ecosystem health. Main-
taining or reestablishing historical levels of abundance, biomass, or production and reestab-
lishing self-sustaining populations of lake trout throughout their native range in the basin
will help ensure dominance in the ecosystem and the maintenance of a desirable aquatic
community in oligotrophic, coldwater habitats. The desired trend is increasing dominance
of the indicator species to historical levels in coldwater, oligotrophic habitats throughout the
basin.
Illustration
For each lake, a graph with lake trout metrics including natural reproduction on the x-axis
and year on the y-axis will be presented.
Limitations
The indicator is of greatest value in assessing ecosystem health in the oligotrophic, open-
water portions of Lake Superior; it may be less useful in nearshore areas of the lake. Because
the indicator includes only a single species, it may not reliably diagnose ecosystem health.
Also, because lake trout abundance can be easily reduced by overfishing and sea lamprey
SOLEC 2002 - Proposed Changes to the Great Lakes Indicator Suite (Draft for Discussion, October 2002) 123
-------
I Proposed Changes to Current Indicators!
predation, harvest restrictions designed to promote sustained use and enhanced sea lamprey
control are required if the species is to be used as an indicator of ecosystem health. Annual
interagency stock assessments measure changes in relative abundance, size and age structure,
survival, and extent of natural reproduction but do not provide direct feedback to yield goals.
In terpreta tion
Interpretation is direct and simple. If natural reproduction is observed and contributing
significantly to the target values, the system can be assumed to be healthy; if the values are
not met then causative agents of impairment are implicated and need to be addressed.
Unfinished Business
Relevancies
Indicator Type: state
Environmental Compartment(s): biota, fish
Related Issue(s): toxics, nutrients, exotics, habitat
SOLEC Grouping(s): open waters
GLWQA Annex(es): 2: Remedial Action Plans and Lakewide Management Plans, 11: Surveil-
lance and monitoring
IJC Desired Outcome(s): 6: Biological community integrity and diversity
GLFC Objective(s): Ontario, Erie, Huron, Michigan, Superior, Erie
Beneficial Use Impairment(s): 3: Degraded fish and wildlife populations
Last Revised
August 2002
124 SOLEC 2002 - Proposed Changes to the Great Lakes Indicator suite (Draft for Discussion, October 2002)
-------
[Proposed Changes to Current Indicators |
Benthic Amphipod (Diporeia spp.)
Indicator ID: #93a (revised description)
Measure
Abundance or biomass, and self-sustainability of Diporeia spp. in cold, deepwater habitats of
the Great Lakes.
Purpose
To show the status and trends in Diporeia populations, and to infer the basic structure of
coldwater benthic communities and the general health of the ecosystem.
Ecosystem Objective
The cold, deepwater regions of the Great Lakes should be maintained as a balanced, stable,
and productive oligotrophic ecosystem with Diporeia as one of the key organisms in the food
chain. Relates to Annex 1 of the GLWQA.
Endpoint
In Lake Superior, Diporeia should be maintained throughout the lake at abundances of
>200/m2 at depths <100m and >30/m2 at depths >100m. In the open waters of the other
lakes, Diporeia should be maintained at abundances of > 1,000/m2 at depths 30-100m and
>200/m2 at depths > 100m. These are conservative density estimates for these depths.
Density estimates at depths < 30 m in all the lakes can be highly variable and subject to
local conditions. Thus, densities at these shallower depths may not be a good indicator of
lake-wide trends.
Features
Diporeia abundances are measured in assessment programs carried out annually in each lake.
Other, more regional assessments occur less frequently. The historical dominance of Diporeia
in cold, deepwater habitats in all of the Great Lakes provides a good basis for a basin-wide
evaluation of ecosystem health.
Illustration
For each lake, a figure with Diporeia metrics on the y-axis and year on the x-axis will be
presented. For less frequent but more spatially-intense regional assessments, a figure giving
metric contours or isopleths will be presented.
Limitations
The indicator is of greatest value in assessing ecosystem health in the cold, open-water
portions of the Great Lakes. It may also be useful when assessing long term trends within a
specific lake region in the nearshore (< 30 m), but its value is questionable if widely applied
to nearshore areas over all the lakes. Because this indicator consists of only one taxa, it may
not reliably diagnose causes of degraded ecosystem health. A number of lakewide surveys
and assessments of benthic invertebrate communities have been made over the past several
decades in the Great Lakes and the current status of Diporeia populations is generally known,
and an understanding of the changes related to the Dreissenid mussel invasion is emerging.
Interpretation
Target values are provided to evaluate abundances on a historic basis. Trends over time
provide a means to assess indicator direction. On a more direct basis, if target values are met,
the system can be assumed to be healthy; if the values are not met there is health impair-
ment. Causative agents of impairment are not addressed by the indicator.
SOLEC 2002 - Proposed Changes to the Great Lakes Indicator Suite (Draft for Discussion, October 2002) 125
-------
[Proposed Changes to Current Indicators|
Comments
Diporeia is the dominant benthic macroinvertebrate in the cold, deepwater habitats of all the
Great Lakes, comprising over 70% of benthic biomass in these regions. It feeds on material
settled from the water column and, in turn, is fed upon by many species of fish. As such, it
plays a key role in the food web of deepwater habitats. Among the fish species that are
energetically linked to Diporeia is the lake trout. Young lake trout feed on Diporeia directly,
while adult lake trout feed on sculpin, and sculpin feed heavily on Diporeia. Lake trout are a
top predator in the deepwater habitat and abundances are another SOLEC Indicator. There-
fore assessments of both Diporeia and lake trout provide an evaluation of lower and upper
trophic levels in the cold, deepwater habitat.
Unfinished Business
Relevancies
Indicator Type: state
Environmental Compartment(s): biota, fish
Related Issue(s): toxics, nutrients, exotics, habitat
SOLEC Grouping(s): open waters
GLWQA Annex(es): 2: Remedial Action Plans and Lakewide Management Plans, 11: Surveil-
lance and monitoring
IJC Desired Outcome(s): 6: Biological community integrity and diversity
GLFC Objective(s): Ontario, Erie, Huron, Michigan, Superior
Beneficial Use Impairment(s): 3: Degraded fish and wildlife populations, 6: Degradation of
benthos
Last Revised
October 20, 1999
126 SOLEC 2002 - Proposed Changes to the Great Lakes Indicator suite (Draft for Discussion, October 2002)
-------
[Proposed Changes to Current Indicators|
External Anomaly Prevalence Index (EAPI) for Nearshore Fish
Indicator ID: #101 (revised description)
Measure
An index of external anomalies in nearshore fish that will include the prevalence of external
raised lesions and the prevalence of barbel abnormalities for brown bullhead.
Purpose
This indicator will assess the combination of external anomalies in nearshore fish that will be
used as an estimate of ecosystem health within the Great Lakes.
Ecosystem Objective
To restore and protect beneficial uses in Areas of Concern or in open lake waters, including
beneficial use (iv) Fish tumors or other deformities (GLWQA, Annex 2). This indicator also
supports Annex 12 of the GLWQA
Endpoint
When the incidence rate of external anomalies does not exceed rates at unimpacted reference
sites (IJC Delisting criteria, see IJC 1996)
Features
Epizootics outbreaks or elevated frequencies of internal tumors (neoplasms, including cancer)
have become more frequent in the past three decades. The neoplasms and have gained
profile as indicators of beneficial use impairment of Great Lakes aquatic habitat and also as
"early warnings" of potential impact on humans.
While some tumors are genetically induced and others are virally induced, there is a substan-
tial body of evidence from field and laboratory studies showing that chemical carcinogens
cause neoplasia of the types seen in Great Lakes fishes.
Recent research demonstrates that external anomalies might also be useful in assessing
beneficial use impairment. The External Anomaly Prevalence index (EAPI) provides useful
method of quantitatively comparing external anomalies. Historically, a decline in PAHs in
river sediment in a Great Lakes tributary was accompanied with a decline in liver tumors in
brown bullhead. Evidence also shows that external anomaly prevalence in fish from Great
Lakes tributaries is positively associated with both chemical contaminants in sediment and
with genetic damage.
Restoration of Great Lakes aquatic habitats polluted with chemical carcinogens is now
underway. The success of this restoration may be best demonstrated by using the EAP index
for nearshore fish such as brown bullhead or white suckers. This indicator is similar to 4503,
but applied to nearshore fish species rather than to coastal wetland species.
Illustration
For selected Areas of Concern, a graph will be presented showing the EAPI in brown
bullhead over time.
Limitations
The indicator is most useful in defining habitats that are heavily polluted and largely occu-
pied by pollution tolerant fishes. Joint U.S.-Canada studies of benthic fishes in a gradient of
polluted to pristine Great Lakes habitats using standardized methodology would greatly
SOLEC 2002 - Proposed Changes to the Great Lakes Indicator Suite (Draft for Discussion, October 2002) 127
-------
Proposed Changes to Current Indicators |
enhance our knowledge of relation of contaminated harbor sediments and external anomalies
and their usefulness as indicators of ecosystem health.
Interpretation
Internal tumors are generally believed to be a response to a degraded habitat and toxic
exposure to carcinogens, but may also be due to immune suppression and exposure to viral
agents. Prevalence of internal tumors should be cross-correlated with location to determine
trends. Impairment determinations will be based on a comparison of rates of occurrence of
internal tumors or related external anomalies at sites of interest with rates at unimpacted or
least-impacted (reference) sites. Impairment is defined by:
1. An internal tumor prevalence of >5% occurs in mature native near-shore species of benthic
fishes ( e.g., brown bullhead, black bullhead, white sucker, and several species of redhorse).
Tumors are histopathologically verified neoplasms of intestinal, bile duct, or liver cells only.
2. A prevalence of raised growth on lips >10%, or of overall external raised growth on body
and lips >15% in any of the mature benthic species listed in 1 above.
3. A prevalence of barbel abnormalities (missing or deformed barbels) of >20% occurs in
mature brown or black bullhead.
Comments
This indicator was prepared using information from:
IJC. 1996. Indicators to evaluate progress under the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement.
Indicators for Evaluation Task Force. ISBN 1-895058-85-3.
Unfinished Business
Canadian and US investigators need to combine available pathology data on Great Lakes
near-shore benthic species into a single data base. A collaborative study using standardized
methodology over a series of locations representing a contamination gradient would further
allow the index to be fine tuned and correlated with other aspects of environmental health at
Great Lakes Areas of Concern.
Relevancies
Indicator Type: state
Environmental Compartment(s): fish
Related Issue(s): contaminants & pathogens
SOLEC Grouping(s): open waters, nearshore waters
GLWQA Annex(es): 2: Remedial Action Plans and Lakewide Management Plans, 11: Surveil-
lance and monitoring, 12: Persistent toxic substances IJC Desired Outcome(s): 6: Biological
community integrity and diversity, 7: Virtual elimination of inputs of persistent toxic sub-
stances GLFC Objective(s): Beneficial Use Impairment (s): 4: Fish tumors and other deformi-
ties
Last Revised
August 5, 2002
128 SOLEC 2002 - Proposed Changes to the Great Lakes Indicator suite (Draft for Discussion, October 2002)
-------
[Proposed Changes to Current Indicators|
External Anomaly Prevalence Index (EAPI) for Nearshore Fish (sample report)
Indicator ID: #101 (revised)
Purpose
This indicator will assess external anomalies in nearshore fish. An index will be used to
identify areas where fish are exposed to contaminated sediments within the Great Lakes. The
presence of contaminated sediments at Areas of Concern (AOCs) has been correlated with an
increase incidence of anomalies in benthic fish species (brown bullhead and white suckers),
that may be associated with specific groups of chemicals.
Ecosystem Objective
As a result of clean-up efforts, AOCs that historically have had a high incidence of fish with
external anomalies currently show fewer abnormalities. Use of an External Anomaly Preva-
lence Index (EAPI) based on prevalent external anomalies will help identify nearshore areas
that have populations of benthic fish exposed to contaminated sediments and will help assess
the recovery of AOCs following remedial activities. The objective is to help restoration and
protection of beneficial uses in Areas of Concern or in open Great Lakes waters, including
beneficial use (iv) Fish tumors or other deformities (GLWQA, Annex 2). This indicator also
supports Annex 12 of the GLWQA.
State of the Ecosystem
Elevated incidence of liver tumors (histopathologically verified pre-neoplastic or neoplastic
growths) were frequently identified during the past two decades. These elevated frequencies
of liver tumors have been shown to be useful indicators of beneficial use impairment of Great
Lakes aquatic habitat. External raised growths (sometimes as histopatholigically verified
tumors on the body and lips), such as papillomas have been a useful indicator. Raised
growths may not have a single etiology; however, they have been produced experimentally by
direct application of PAH carcinogens to brown bullhead skin. Field and laboratory studies
have correlated chemical contaminants found in sediments at some AOCs in Lake Erie,
Michigan, Ontario and Huron with verified liver and external raised growths. Other external
anomalies may also be used to assess beneficial use impairment; however, they must be
carefully evaluated. The external anomaly prevalence index (EAPI) will provide a tool for
following trends in fish population health that can be used by resource managers and com-
munity-based monitoring programs.
EAP Index — The external anomaly prevalence index (EAPI) is being developed for mature
(> 3 years of age) fish as a marker of both contaminant exposure and of internal pathology.
Brown bullhead has been used to develop the index. They are the most frequently used
benthic indicator species in the southern Great Lakes and are been recommended by the
International Joint Commission (IJC) as the key indicator species (IJC 1989). The most
common external anomalies found in brown bullhead over the last twenty years from Lake
Erie (Figure 1) are:
1) Abnormal barbels (BA);
2) Focal discoloration (FD);
3) Raised growths (RG) - on the body and/or lips (L); and
4) Eye Abnormality (EYE)- blind in one or both eyes.
SOLEC 2002 - Proposed Changes to the Great Lakes Indicator Suite (Draft for Discussion, October 2002) 129
-------
Proposed Changes to Current Indicators!
External Anomalies - Lake Erie; 1980s - 2000
Initial statistical analysis of
sediments and external anomalies at
different locations indicates that
alterations in the ratio of the chemi-
cal mixtures (PAH, PCB, OC,
metals) are reflected in an alteration
of the comparative prevalence of
individual external anomalies.
Impairment determinations should
be based on comparing the preva-
lence of external anomalies at poten-
tially contaminated sites with the
prevalence at "reference" (least
impacted) sites. Preliminary data
indicates that the prevalence of lip
raised growths (lip papillomas) is
>10%, or of overall external raised
growth (body and Lip) >15% in
brown bullhead, that the population
should be considered impaired. The
additional use of barbel abnormali-
ties and focal discoloration (melanis-
tic alterations) will help to differen-
tiate degrees of impairment of fish
population health. Figure 2 illus-
trates the comparison of AOCs with contaminated sediments to reference conditions at HUR
(Huron River) and OWC (Old Woman Creek).
Figure 1. External Anomalies on brown bullhead
collected from Lake Erie from 1980s through 2000.
BA - barbel abnormality, RG- raised growth (body
and lip), FD-focal discoloration, LE - lesion (total
4439 fish).
Total Anomaly Prevalence
100-
80-
Cuy
D Barbel Abnormality • Raised Growth Body/Lip D Focal Discoloration DEye Abnormality
Figure 2. Prevalence of four most common external anomalies at Lake Erie AOCs. [Det -
Detroit River, MI; OTT - Ottawa River, OH; Hur - Huron River, OH (Reference); OWC -
Old Woman's Creek, OH (Reference); Black River, OH; Cuy - Cuyahoga River, OH -
Cleveland Harbor and upstream combined; Ash - Ashtabula River, OH; PIB - Presque Isle
Bay, PA]
130
SOLEC 2002 - Proposed Changes to the Great Lakes Indicator suite (Draft for Discussion, October 2002)
-------
I Proposed Changes to Current Indicators!
Future Pressures
As the Great Lakes AOCs and the tributaries continue to remain in a degraded condition,
exposure of the fish populations to contaminated sediments will continue to cause elevated
incidence of external anomalies. Population expansion and industrialization of Great Lakes
tributaries and shorelines will certainly increase even as control measures and remediation of
old contaminated sites are implemented. Fish populations at many of these sites may con-
tinue to be exposed to contaminants capable of causing external anomalies.
Future Activities
Additional remediation to clean-up contaminated sediments will help to reduce rates of
external anomalies. The EAPI, particularly for brown bullheads and white suckers, will help
follow trends in fish population health and will help determine the status of AOCs that may
be considered for delisting (IJC Delisting Criteria, see IJC 1996).
Future Work Necessary
This external anomaly indicator for benthic species has potential for defining habitats that
are contaminated. Collaborative U.S.-Canadian studies investigating the etiology and preva-
lence of external anomalies in benthic fishes over a gradient of polluted to pristine Great
Lakes habitats are needed. These studies would create a common index that could be used as
an indicator of ecosystem health.
Sources
International Joint Commission. 1989. Guidance on characterization of toxic substances
problems in areas of concern in the Great Lakes Basin. Report of the Great Lakes Water
Quality Board. Windsor, ON, Canada.
International Joint Commission. 1996. Indicators to evaluate progress under the Great
Lakes Water Quality Agreement. Indicators for Evaluation Task Force. ISBN 1-895058-85-
3.
Acknowledgments
Authors: Stephen B. Smith, U.S. Geological Survey, Biological Resources, Reston, VA and
Paul C. Baumann, U.S. Geological Survey, Biological Resources, Columbus, OH.
SOLEC 2002 - Proposed Changes to the Great Lakes Indicator Suite (Draft for Discussion, October 2002) 131
------- |