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

-------