State of the Lakes Ecosystem
Conference 1998
Conference Proceedings
These proceedings were assembled by
Maggie Young
and
Nancy Sfadler-Salf
for the SOLEC 98 Steering Committee
February 1999
-------
Table of Contents
1. Introduction 1
1.1 WhySOLEC? 1
1.2 SOLEC 94, 96 and 98 1
1.3 What's Next? 2
2. Key Themes 2
3. Plenary Presentation Summaries 5
4. Workshop Summaries 5
4.1 Indicators 5
4.1.1 Basin-wide Overview 5
4.1.2 Open Waters 8
4.1.3 Nearshore Waters 10
4.1.4 Coastal Wetlands 13
4.1.5 Nearshore Terrestrial 15
4.1.6 Land Use 18
4.1.7 Human Health 21
4.1.8 Stewardship 24
4.2 Biodiversity Investment Area Session Summaries 26
4.2.1 Nearshore Terrestrial Biodiversity Investment Areas 26
4.2.2 Coastal Wetland Biodiversity Investment Areas 28
4.2.3 Aquatic Biodiversity Investment Areas 31
4.3 Lake-by-Lake Session Summaries 34
4.3.1 Lake Superior 34
4.3.2 Lake Michigan 36
4.3.3 Lake Huron 37
4.3.4 Lake Erie 38
4.3.5 Lake Ontario 38
4.3.6 St. Lawrence River 40
4.3.7 Connecting Channels 43
4.4 Cross-Cutting Issues Session Summaries 44
4.4.1 Implementing Indicators 44
4.4.2 Applying Indicators- a RAP Perspective 46
4.4.3 Endocrine Disrupters 48
4.4.4 Citizens Indicators/Great Lakes United 49
4.4.5 Volunteer Monitoring 50
4.4.6 Modelling Summit 52
4.4.7 Next Generation Indicators 53
4.4.8 Environmental Issues forthe Future 55
4.4.9 Binational Toxics Strategy 57
5. SOLEC 98 Success Story Recipients 58
6. Participant Feedback- Surveys & Questionnaires 60
7. Closing Remarks 62
APPENDICES
Appendix A. Conference Agenda A-2
Appendix B. Core Group Leaders and Biodiversity A-4
Appendix C. Participant Profile A-5
Appendix D. Student Presentation/Great Lakes Student Summit A-6
Appendix E. Keynote Speakers A-7
Appendix F. Participants List A-14
SOLEC 98 Conference Proceedings
-------
DISCLAIMER
THIS IS NOT A SCIENTIFIC DOCUMENT
These proceedings contain a summary of the information exchanged at the 1998 State of the
Lakes Ecosystem Conference. Reactions and comments from participants have been summa-
rized, and contributions from keynote speakers have been captured. The intent is to provide the
reader an opportunity to evaluate and discuss the ideas presented at the conference. Publica-
tion of these proceedings does not imply that the governments of Canada or the United States
endorse their contents.
Acknowledgments
The SOLEC 98 executive committee would like to extend its thanks to all the indicator core
group leaders and members, all the Biodiversity Investment Area paper authors and contribu-
tors, and to the SOLEC 98 steering committee. Their dedication and hard work allowed new
ideas and concepts to be put forward for discussion, and made SOLEC 98 and real success.
In addition to the above people, the SOLEC 98 executive committee would like to give special
thanks to: Maggie Young (who never wavered in the face of mountains of work), LURA Consult-
ing, especially Sally Leppard, Dave Dilks and Nicole Swerhun (for their support and also for
their late night work on the SOLEC "Indicator" - the daily conference newsletter), and to John
Hood of Erie County (who joined us on the steep climb up the learning curve and kept smiling).
SOLEC 98 Executive Committee:
Paul Horvatin, United States Environmental Protection Agency
Paul Bertram, United States Environmental Protection Agency
Harvey Shear, Environment Canada
Nancy Stadler-Salt, Environment Canada
SOLEC 98 Conference Proceedings
-------
State of the Lakes Ecosystem Conference
1998 Conference Proceedings
1. Introduction
1.1 WhySOLEC?
The State of the Lakes Ecosystem Conferences (SOLEC) are hosted by the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency and Environment Canada on behalf of the two countries. These conferences
are held every two years in response to one reporting requirement of the binational Great Lakes
Water Quality Agreement (GLWQA). The conferences are intended to report on the state of the
Great Lakes ecosystem and the major factors impacting it, and to provide a forum for exchange
of this information amongst Great Lakes decision-makers. These conferences are not intended
to discuss the status of programs needed for protection and restoration of the Great Lakes
basin, but do evaluate the effectiveness of these programs through analysis of the state of the
ecosystem. Evaluation and redirection of programs are addressed through other means and
conferences. Another goal of the conferences is to provide information to people in all levels of
the government, corporate, and not-for-profit sectors who make decisions that affect the Lakes.
The conferences are the focal points of a process of gathering information from a wide variety of
sources and engaging a variety of organizations. In the year following each conference the
Governments prepare a report on the state of the Lakes based in large part upon the
conference process.
1.2 SOLEC 94, 96 and 98
The first conference, held in 1994, addressed the entire system with particular emphasis on
aquatic community health, human health, aquatic habitat, toxic contaminants and nutrients in
the water, and the changing Great Lakes economy. The 1996 conference focused on the
nearshore lands and waters of the system where biological productivity is greatest and humans
have had maximum impact. Emphasis was placed on nearshore waters, coastal wetlands, land
by the Lakes, the impacts of changing land use, and information availability and management.
For both conferences ad hoc indicators were chosen and, based on expert opinions, subjective
assessments were provided as to the conditions of the Lakes, lands or the stresses on the
ecosystem in terms of good, fair, poor, etc.
In planning for SOLEC 98 the organizers wanted to support further development of easily un-
derstood indicators which objectively represent the condition of the Great Lakes ecosystem
components (as called for in Annex 11 of the GLWQA). These would be used every two years
to inform the public and report progress in achieving the purpose of the GLWQA: to restore and
maintain the chemical, physical and biological integrity of the waters of the Great Lakes Basin
Ecosystem. The SOLEC indicators would reflect conditions of the whole Great Lakes basin and
SOLEC 98 Conference Proceedings
-------
its major components (a general system-wide overview), and they would draw upon and
complement indicators used for more specific purposes such as Lakewide Management Plans
(LaMPs) or Remedial Action Plans (RAPs) for Areas of Concern.
1.3 What's Next?
The draft suite of 87 Great Lakes basin ecosystem indicators prepared for SOLEC 98 will be
revised as necessary based on comments received at the conference and during the period
from November 1998 to January 1999. This revised list will then be distributed for a very broad
stakeholder review early in the spring of 1999. The proposed Indicator List will be released in
the fall of 1999, along with the 1999 State of the Great Lakes report and the Biodiversity
Investment Area papers. The indicator list will not be considered 'final', since work on it will
continue. In some cases there will be data available for use in reporting on an indicator now, in
some cases new data will be necessary before we can report on an indicator, and in other
cases further research and development will be required before we will be able to implement
data collection efforts and report on an indicator. Determining who will do the necessary re-
search, who will collect and maintain the data for these indicators and when they will start will be
a next step. In addition to this process, there will be opportunity at SOLEC 2000 and beyond for
further review of the Indicator List with revisions being made as conditions warrant.
2. Key Themes
Indicators
The purpose needs to be clear
It is essential that clear, up-front goals are developed and
communicated, regarding the purpose of the indicators.
Refining the list and organizing
the indicators
More work is necessary in order to refine the indicators -
each indicator must be easily understood, scientifically
defensible, and objective. With a broad range of scales,
applications, and users/audiences, the long list of SOLEC
indicators needs to be organized in order to help focus
discussion and implementation. Strong support was
expressed for the creation of a tiered or nested list of
indicators, making the list more relevant and manageable.
Identifying endpoints
Indicator endpoints are essential to keeping ecosystem
objectives in focus and ensuring that targets are clear.
Linkages need to be made
It is essential that the linkages within indicator categories,
and between different indicators categories, be identified.
These linkages also need to illustrate the connections and
consistencies between SOLEC, RAP, LaMP, IJC and other
indicators.
SOLEC 98 Conference Proceedings
-------
Indicators con'd
Need buy in
For the indicators to be of any value, agencies throughout
the Great Lakes basin need to commit to the collection of
data and generation of information to support reporting on
indicators.
Biodiversity Investment Areas
The concept is sound
The BIA concept is generally accepted, with support for
moving the concept forward and continuing the nomination
process.
Suggestions for refinement
Continue to refine the information content, quality and
analysis of BIAs. Explore opportunities to use conservation
strategies which integrate ecological, economic, social and
cultural considerations.
Links to decision-making is key
Embedding the BIA concept at multiple levels, from local
communities to binational structures, is essential. It is also
important to provide guidance on how to incorporate the
use of the BIA concept into decision-making processes.
Fostering stewardship
The stewardship of local stakeholders is essential to the
successful implementation of the BIA concept.
Communications should focus on educating stakeholders
about BIAs, and emphasizing the importance of protecting
areas with high biodiversity.
Implementing Indicators And Biodiversity Investment Areas
Resources need to be committed
Continued funding is essential in order to maintain
baseline data collection and to ensure that long-term
monitoring continues.
Communication
The information which is communicated needs to make
sense and be easily understood. Efforts need to be
directed at ensuring that information is packaged so that it
inspires pride and encourages action by both individuals
and organizations.
SOLEC 98 Conference Proceedings
-------
Implementing Indicators And Biodiversity Investment Areas con'd
Consistency in methodology Protocols are necessary in order to initiate basin-wide (bi-
lateral) consistency in data collection methodology. This
methodology also needs to include direction on data
analysis, reporting and sharing so that data are
comparable and useable over time.
Capturing the knowledge Maintenance of a central, easily accessible, GIS compat-
ible database for both indicators and BIAs is important.
The important role of local The public is an important partner and end user of both
involvement BIA and indicator information. Initiatives need to be
responsive to public needs, and opportunities for public
involvement need to be communicated. Support for this
involvement (through financial, staffing, or other means) is
also key.
Volunteer monitoring Volunteer monitoring has a powerful contribution to make
to data collection efforts, and support is required to ensure
the use of this data is maximized.
Future Science And Policy Challenges
Endocrine disruptors Understanding endocrine disrupters depends on the
availability of solid, supportive research. More information
is required on the dose-response linkage, and education
and awareness projects need to continue.
Binational toxic chemical The last 25% of contamination is the most difficult to
reduction reduce. Education is key to attaining virtual elimination of
toxic chemicals from both individuals and industry.
Voluntary programs which strive to go beyond compliance
have a large role to play in reduction of toxic chemicals.
Next generation indicators Suggestions for next generation indicators included:
oxygen concentration at the mud-water interface;
transparency of water; the relative mass of adult benthic
versus adult pelagic fish populations.
Issues for the future Key environmental issues identified for the future included:
the consequences of dropping lake levels; population
growth (ecological footprint); full cost accounting for
development initiatives; assessment of the impacts of
liberalized trade; and the impact of climate change on
agriculture.
SOLEC 98 Conference Proceedings
-------
3. Plenary Presentation Summaries
The proposed SOLEC 98 Indicators and Biodiversity Investment Areas were presented to all
SOLEC participants in plenary sessions on the mornings of Wednesday, October 21 and
Thursday, October 22. Presenters were the leaders of the seven SOLEC Indicators groups and
the authors of the three Biodiversity Investment Area papers.
Other presentations included a retrospective about the development of the 1987 Great Lakes
Water Quality Agreement protocol by Ron Shimizu (Environment Canada, Ontario Region) and
Peter Wise (Illinois EPA), and a look at the Parties commitment to the Great Lakes Water
Quality Agreement by John Mills (Environment Canada, Ontario Region) and David Ullrich (U.S.
EPA, GLNPO).
The majority of these presentations can be viewed, with their speaking notes, at the SOLEC
web-sites: http://www.epa.gov/glnpo/solec or http://www.cciw.ca/solec/.
4. Workshop Summaries
4.1 Indicators
The indicators workshops were developed around several specific questions created by the
SOLEC 98 Indicators Core Group leaders. Some sessions held closely to these questions and
produced indicator specific comments and suggestions. Other sessions evolved beyond the
specific questions into discussions on the roots of SOLEC and the final audiences and uses of
the SOLEC indicators.
4.1.1 Basin-wide Overview
Facilitators: Suzanne Barrett, Adele Freeman, Leslie Demal
Resource People: Nancy Stadler-Salt, Paul Bertram
These sessions were offered so that the participants had a chance to discuss the proposed
indicators as a whole. Some the workshop objectives were:
to look at and address information gaps, overlaps, linkages and integration issues;
to seek feedback on the applicability of SOLEC indicators to organizations' initiatives, plans,
decision processes and communities; and
to receive recommendations on specific, logical next steps for "finalizing" the proposed list of
indicators.
"Tiering" or "Nesting" of the SOLEC Indicators
The most frequently suggested way to improve the indicators list was to develop a nesting or
tiering system to organize the indicators for the various audiences of SOLEC. There were
numerous suggestions as to how to accomplish this, but first it was necessary to actually
identify who is the audience for the SOLEC indicators list? The SOLEC audience includes
SOLEC 98 Conference Proceedings
-------
virtually everyone in the basin. The public, environmental organizations, First Nations, industry,
researchers, managers, and elected officials may all benefit from the information that the list
provides. However, each group may use the list for very different purposes and on entirely
different scales. This is where different methods of "tiering" or "nesting" the indicators will prove
useful.
There were several suggestions to effectively group the indicators:
One would be by scale eg. identifying groups of the SOLEC indicators that would be
applicable on a basin-wide scale, others that would apply to a lake-by-lake structure, and
others that would be applicable at even a smaller geographic scale, such as Areas of
Concern.
Another grouping would be by the level of detail and information that the indicator can
provide. A SOLEC index could begin by identifying indicators that are critical - the key
indicators for letting an individual quickly find out the overall health of the Great Lakes
basin. This grouping would be the level that could be actively marketed to the public.
The subsequent levels would involve increasingly greater detail on more specific aspects
of ecosystem health and would be more useful to the managers, industry
representatives and finally, the researchers and scientists.
A third possibility would be to group the indicators by category or theme. Although the
SOLEC indicators are already grouped in this fashion, the participants suggested
possible alternatives. These categories include water, air, land, sediment,
socio-economics and stewardship, while themes could include fish, toxics, habitat, etc.
Following division into these categories, the indicators could then be divided into further
groupings based on scale as described above.
Other suggestions to improve compatibility and cohesiveness amongst indicator groups
include looking at combining nearshore terrestrial and coastal wetlands and/or combin-
ing stewardship and land use. SOLEC could also consider clustering the indicators by
three primary groups: a) waters, b) nearshore, c) basin landscape and its management.
Additional Participant Perspectives on the Proposed Indicators
Emphasize that the indicators will make something happen. They will be used for
management purposes to demonstrate the value of investment in a particular field and also
to support existing and new approaches to monitoring programs. They can also be used to
help implement standardization of monitoring procedures. In addition, the SOLEC indicators
may be used for educational purposes and to encourage volunteer monitoring programs.
The quality of the indicators, not the quantity, should be the primary criteria for indicator
selection into the SOLEC list.
The indicators are not always clearly defined, are not integrated with one another and are
missing obvious goals, targets and endpoints. The language that the indicators are pre-
sented in should be examined carefully and a process is needed to integrate the indicators,
to monitor and update the suite, and to forecast change and future needs. The indicators
should be phased in slowly, taking the required time to develop the indicators completely.
What is the flow of the dynamics between SOLEC, RAP and LaMP indicators? Which
supports which, or is it both ways?
SOLEC 98 Conference Proceedings
-------
Participants at SOLEC 98 will use the indicators list in a variety of ways. Some will push for
program responses, while other citizens and environmental groups will use the indicators as
an advocacy tool. From agency point of view, they might be used to measure effectiveness
of programs - both to monitor actions and to look at endpoints.
Public motivation is a key ingredient to making the SOLEC indicators list accepted. With the
list in its current format, it is unlikely the public will use or react to it. The public needs to see
clearly how it can make a difference locally. The public reacts based on a sense of place,
how they are tied to their regions makes a difference in terms of what motivates them. If we
bring this process down to a local level (sub-watershed) and use the indicators to help
educate people about their role in the broader scheme of things, this should encourage local
volunteers, groups, and personal action by showing people where they can connect with
their environment.
One of the next large tasks to get this indicators process off the ground is information
management. SOLEC should decide on the appropriate software and systems that could be
used for data management, then all agencies would collect data to fit same format thus
creating truly basin-wide access to data.
The indicators can be used in different ways depending on the quality of the system you are
working in. In a degraded system, the condition indicators would be more useful, while in a
good quality system, monitoring may focus on the stressor indicators because there is a lag
time before you see the symptoms.
Gaps
Indicators reflecting changes in attitudes and behaviours towards the environment. This
could be completed using surveys or keeping track of numbers of volunteers and
memberships in environmental groups;
The indicators should reflect more agricultural and forestry practices. The land use
indicators are skewed towards urban and economics;
Recreational access to natural areas;
Indicators dealing with inland natural areas and tributaries to the lakes;
The indicators are focused on water quality, need to also highlight water quantity issues;
Missing Great Lakes - St. Lawrence River linkages;
Identify indicators that have current monitoring and which ones need it;
Need a thorough rationale explaining how indicators relate to one another.
Highlights
1. The current work is much appreciated and it is a great first start at a large task. SOLEC
needs to recognize that there is still a lot of work to do.
2. Clearly identify the type of indicator (state, pressure, response).
3. Goals and Objectives need to be well defined, as do endpoints. When considering endpoints,
the question of scale becomes very important.
4. There is the need to know your audience and to understand which indicators are relevant to
each audience base. This will lead to the tiering and nesting of the SOLEC indicators.
5. Indicators need to motivate and encourage individual behaviour.
SOLEC 98 Conference Proceedings
-------
4.1.2 Open Waters
Facilitator: Tom Mersey Jr.
Resource Person: John Gannon
For the purposes of SOLEC 98 the nearshore and open waters are defined as in the SOLEC 96
Nearshore Waters background paper:
Nearshore waters are "a band of varying width around the perimeter of each lake
between the land and deeper offshore waters of the lake. The band begins at the
shoreline or at the lakeward edge of the coastal wetlands and extends offshore to the
deepest lake-bed depth contour at which the thermocline typically intersects with the
lake-bed in late summer or early fall. Also included as nearshore waters are the Great
Lakes connecting channels and the reaches of tributaries that are subject to seiche
activity. Offshore Waters, as the name implies, are all of the waters beyond the lakeward
edge of the nearshore waters."
SOLEC 98 Open Waters Indicators
STATE
6 Aquatic Habitat
8 Salmon and Trout
9 Walleye and Hexagenia
17 Preyfish
68 Native Unionid Mussels
93 Lake Trout and Diaporeia hoyi
101 Fish Tumors
104 Degradation of Benthos
109a Degradation of Phytoplankton Populations
109b Degradation of Zooplankton Populations
4502 Fish Community Health
4503 Deformities / Eroded Fins / Lesions / Tumors (DELT) in Fish
PRESSURE
18 Sea Lamprey
72 Fish Entrainment
111 Phosphorus Concentrations
112 Trends in Contaminant Concentrations and Loadings of Priority Chemicals in Abiotic
Media: Water, Air, Soil, and Sediments
113 Contaminants in Recreational Fish
114 Contaminants in Young-of-the-Year Spottail Shiners
115 Contaminants in Colonial Nesting Waterbirds
Suggested Changes to Existing Indicators
Lake Trout and Diaporeia hoyi (93). Link lake trout with Mysis instead of Diaporeia;
Fish Entrainment (72). Fish entrainment does not need to be considered in open waters;
SOLEC 98 Conference Proceedings
-------
Fish Tumors (101) and Deformities/Eroded Fins/Lesions/Tumors (DELT) (4503). Many
delegates pointed out the similarities between these two indicators and suggested that the
two be combined;
Contaminants in Young-of-the-Year Spottail Shiners (114). This indicator is more impor-
tant for the nearshore waters because Spottail shiners are only found in nearshore areas;
Phosphorus Concentrations (111) should continue as an important indicator. Existing
phosphorus endpoints are set for the open waters and were created 20 years ago. The
phosphorus indicator may require separate endpoints for open and nearshore waters, and
that endpoint may also differ depending on the lake. Achieving mid-lake concentrations of
phosphorus was not enough to address the phosphorus problems in nearshore Areas of
Concern. The group should also consider including phosphorus loads, not only
concentrations;
Trends in Contaminant Concentrations and Loadings of Priority Chemicals in Abiotic
Media: Water, Air, Soil, and Sediments (112). This indicator should only include trends as
the measurement of loadings is too costly. Loadings are important in order to get current
information. Surrogates such as spottail shiners or lipid bags could be used;
Salmon and Trout (8). This indicator could be changed to "predator fish" which may or may
not include salmon and trout;
Contaminants in Recreational Fish (113). This might be more appropriate in the Human
Health section. Clarify the catch-weighted average component of the indicator;
There are several indicators that border nearshore and offshore issues. Perhaps we need a
third category that integrates and shows the interactions between open and nearshore
waters.
Suggested Additions of New Indicators
Natural self producing lake trout is a key indicator, not just a count of numbers in the lakes;
Water clarity;
Exotic species and zebra mussels species (nearshore issue) should be considered in open
waters as they coat bottom of lake thus impacting the whole system;
Agal biomass; and
Number of salmon and trout.
Identification of Information Gaps
Why was chlorophyll not included? [Note: this indicator is included in the Coastal Wetland
group, Chlorophyll a Levels (4512)];
There appears to be a disconnect between phosphorus and chlorophyll;
It is not clear what degradation of phytoplankton means;
There is a lack of information and explanation of how the endpoints were arrived at.
SOLEC 98 Conference Proceedings
-------
Suggested Deletions
Fish entrainment (72) is difficult to interpret;
One sub-group suggested removing the following indicators as they may be contributors, but
are not indicators:
72 - Fish Entrainment
114 - Contaminants in Young-of-the-Year Spottail Shiners
4519 (unbounded) - Global Warming: Number of Extreme Storms
4857 (unbounded) - Global Warming: First Emergence of Water Lilies in Coastal Wetlands
4858 (unbounded) - Global Warming: Ice Duration on the Great Lakes.
Participant Reaction to the SOLEC 98 Indicators Process
There is a lack of endpoints for many of the indicators and also a lack of understanding of
the objectives SOLEC is trying to achieve;
Funding must be available for both research and monitoring programs;
The economic feasibility of implementing the indicators is essential to examine. Agencies
may require indicators with multiple uses in order to create a more manageable list of
indicators. It would be impossible to monitor all of the SOLEC indicators presented;
We need to understand the relationship between state/pressure before narrowing down the
list of indicators.
Highlights
1. Keep ecosystem objectives in focus and reduce the list of indicators to a more manageable
number.
2. Must understand the relationships between state indicators and pressure indicators.
3. Agency dollars need to be allocated to accomplish goals.
4. More peer review is required before endpoints are finalized.
4.1.3 Nearshore Waters
Facilitators: Tij'a Luste, Marcia Domato, E. Marie Phillips
Resource People: Tom Edsall, Kent Fuller, Dan Bauer
SOLEC 98 Nearshore Waters Indicators
The definition and indicators presented in Section 4.1.2 for Open Waters Indicators also apply to
this indicator group.
Suggested Changes to Existing Indicators
Fish Entrainment (72). This is more a measure of harvest, not impact on nearshore habitat.
A change to mass balance of harvest vs production, and addition of other types of harvests
including commercial and recreational fishing, would help to improve this indicator. This
indicator could also be expanded to include hydropower;
10 SOLEC 98 Conference Proceedings
-------
Fish Tumours (101) should be included in Deformities, Eroded Fins, Lesions and
Tumours (4503);
Contaminants in Recreational Fish (113) is a duplicate of Chemical Contaminants in
Fish Tissue (4083). These indicators should be combined;
Aquatic Habitat (6). There is a question of what is actually included in terms of habitat. The
indicator appears to have a strong dam orientation and this conflicts with the sea lamprey
control program. Dams can help to block contaminants and non-native species from moving
downstream, thus, their removal would be detrimental to downstream environments and
should not be considered habitat rehabilitation;
Sea Lamprey (18) should be broadened to include exotics in general;
Degradation of benthos (104) and Degradation of algae (109) both refer to "degradation".
Perhaps they should refer to "status" to reflect a more positive situation;
Degradation of benthos (104) needs a broader benthic array.
Suggested Additions of New Indicators
Ratio of exotic : native species (this would address round goby);
Cladophora and other attached algae would be good indicators for both nearshore and open
waters as they are visible and easily understandable;
Dissolved oxygen should be considered, not as a basin-wide indicator, but can be monitored
for other purposes;
C14 uptake in phytoplankton. This is not being done basin-wide, so there is question of
available data. This indicator would require monthly monitoring or there wouldn't be enough
data to show trends;
Add sedimentation to aquatic habitat, or as a specific pressure indicator;
Dredging could be added as a pressure indicator.
Identification of Information Gaps
There are too few indicators dealing with habitat issues;
Missing non-game, non-prey species indicators including gobies and yellow perch;
Trophic indicators need to be customized to each lake;
Musky and lake sturgeon are missing from the indicators;
Incidence of EMS and other fish health measures;
The relationship between chlorophyll a and phosphorus should be explored;
Incidence of early mortality in fish species;
An indicator of overall fish health;
Basin-wide productivity;
Chironomids might be better than algae as an indicator;
Exotic benthic and plankton communities;
Genetic diversity of fish populations.
Suggested Deletions
Native Unionid Mussels (68);
Contaminants in Recreational Fish (113) should be addressed in the human health group
(one group for/one against this suggestion);
SOLEC 98 Conference Proceedings \ \
-------
Deformities/Eroded Fins/Lesions/Tumors (DELT) (4503) should be combined with Fish
Tumors (101), therefore one of the two indicators will be deleted;
Fish entrainment (72) demonstrates more local than basin-wide effects.
Participant Reaction to the SOLEC 98 Indicators Process
The development of a tiered system or nesting of the indicators will help focus monitoring
efforts and bring people together to discuss and exchange data;
There are not always clear targets for the indicators;
Participants are worried about the feasibility of data collection in general and across the
federal, state and provincial borders of the Great Lakes region. It is a very large leap from
research to monitoring;
How will the SOLEC indicators be used and for what purpose? eg. set monitoring direction
and focus, assess GLWQA objectives;
Need to be careful of an over emphasis on the total number of indicators and avoid picking
too few and sacrificing others for the sake of achieving a particular number of indicators;
Current data availability is an important aspect, but not the only criterion for selecting
indicators;
Will choosing these indicators mean that monitoring of everything else is cut?
Municipal interests could become possible partnerships in habitat monitoring. This may be a
powerful indicator to influence elected officials;
The Ohio State of Lake Erie Report 1998 could be used as a model to report on the SOLEC
Indicators;
Monitoring and research serves a public education function. It is important to promote
working together by sharing and making use of data sets collected by others;
Having publicized indicators will make agencies more accountable to provide data,
especially to the public. We need to take appropriate steps now to market the indicators and
get buy-in from the public and partners.
Highlights
1. There is a need for a marketing plan for the SOLEC indicators. For example, fewer indicators
will be easier to sell to the public and other interested parties. We must begin now to create an
effective marketing strategy.
2. A tiering/nesting approach would be helpful to set priorities, avoid duplication and overlap of
indicators, and tie things logically together. The list should begin with a few general, important
indicators, and then nest the others beneath these making the list more publically digestible.
3. The indicators need to be complementary and not competing, eg. dams and sea lamprey -
removing dams vs contaminant spread.
4. There is concern that basin-wide indicators will displace other established monitoring
programs.
5. Data availability and feasibility of data collection must be discussed before proceeding with
indicator selection.
6. Indicators do not always have clear targets, they need continued refinement and increased
specificity.
7. We must keep in mind the goal of SOLEC, we should be looking for basin-wide indicators
and not site-specific, eg. fish entrainment.
12 SOLEC 98 Conference Proceedings
-------
4.1.4 Coastal Wetlands
Facilitator: Sheila Greene, Eric Carlson
Resource People: Duane Heaton, Nancy Patterson
The extent of Great Lakes coastal wetlands fluctuates greatly with natural lake processes which
can particularly affect the lake-side boundary. For SOLEC, the inland boundary is the extent of
wetlands as far as the 100-year floodline of the Lakes as described in the SOLEC 96
background paper Coastal Wetlands of the Great Lakes.
SOLEC 98 Coastal Wetlands Indicators
STATE
4501 Invertebrate Community Health
4504 Amphibian Diversity and Abundance
4505 Reptile Diversity and Abundance
4507 Wetland-Dependent Bird Diversity and Abundance
4510 Wetland Area
4511 Gain in Restored Wetland Area
4512 Chlorophyll a Levels
4513 Presence, Abundance and Expansion of Invasive Plants
4859 Reproductive Output of Mink
PRESSURE
4506 Contaminants in Snapping Turtle Eggs
4516 Water Quality: Sediment Flowing into Coastal Wetlands
4518 Water Level Fluctuations
4854 Water Quality: Chlorides Flowing into Coastal Wetlands
4855 Water Quality: Nitrates into Coastal Wetlands
4856 Water Quality: Total Phosphorus Flowing into Coastal Wetlands
Suggested Changes to Existing Indicators
Wetland Dependant Fish Community (4502). Take this indicator back from the nearshore
waters and make it wetland specific;
Wetland Area (4510) and Gain in Restored Wetland Area (4511). These indicators could
be combined with a sub-category for restored wetlands within the new indicator.
Differentiate between wetlands that have been newly constructed and wetlands created by
changing water levels. Also, try to include shoreline modification more explicitly;
Wetland Area (4510). Standardize the measurements between U.S. & Canada;
Water Level Fluctuations (4518). Clarify the nature of the shoreline with the nearshore
group;
Nitrates into Coastal Wetlands (4855) and Total Phosphorus Flowing into Coastal
Wetlands (4856) could be combined as one nutrients indicator;
Reproductive Output of Mink (4859). Change to another top carnivore instead of mink;
Presence, Absence and Expansion of Invasive Plants (4513). More emphasis should be
placed on indigenous species as they could also indicate quality of wetlands.
SOLEC 98 Conference Proceedings 13
-------
Suggested Additions of New Indicators
Percentage native plant communities (most supported amongst sub-groups);
Percentage of plant community, including endangered, natives and exotics;
A different measure of primary productivity;
Shoreline modification - percentage of shoreline dyked/hardened/modified. [Note: this is
included in Nearshore Terrestrial group, Hardened Shoreline (8131)]
The following three suggestions were eventually rejected for various reasons:
Presence/absence of waterfowl, migratory species. These are easy to see in the spring, but
too many other variables impact their populations;
Biodiversity of actual habitat itself (too variable and expensive to monitor);
Pressure indicator for the use of wetlands eg. number of duck blinds, level of protection,
lead shot being added to the wetland; existing use as opposed to future use (controversial,
subject of much discussion, maybe the wetlands in question never did support waterfowl).
Identification of Information Gaps
Buffer zones should be included as a wetland indicator;
Wetland Dependant Fish Species (4502) (retrieve from nearshore group).
Suggested Deletions
Reproductive Output of Mink (4859) (most participants agreed with this deletion);
Chlorophyll a Levels (4512). This might be better addressed by the nearshore group, or
more representative of the open water algal community;
Chlorides Flowing into Coastal Wetlands (4854). This would best be included with the
nitrogen and phosphorus indicators as one common nutrients indicator;
Contaminants in Snapping Turtle Eggs (4506). Some want this kept as this species is a
surrogate for contaminants and is found in all coastal wetlands;
Reptile Diversity and Abundance (4505). Either drop it or include in a special Research
and Development section.
Participant Reaction to the SOLEC 98 Indicators Process
A tiered system of looking at the wetland indicators was suggested. We should tier
indicators from the grossest to the finest detail. Tier One would include an indicator of
structure of the wetland, an indicator of faunal diversity, and an indicator of abiotic effects.
Would start at tier one and if you see problems, then you would go to the next tier;
Need to avoid programmatic indicators;
Endpoint conditions are critical, they are our real goals. We need to identify clear goals and
objectives and ask "Does your indicator answer that question?";
One-half to two-thirds of the coastal wetlands indicators are based on existing data sets, we
should try and keep these if possible;
Some of the indicators identified already have ongoing monitoring while others don't. There
needs to be a way to ensure that you've got the monitoring capability to support the
14 SOLEC 98 Conference Proceedings
-------
indicators. But if an indicator is not being monitored for already, that doesn't mean it isn't a
great indicator; maybe it just needs to have more monitoring devoted to it. And conversely,
just because there are programs currently in place for monitoring some of these indicators,
doesn't mean that they are the right indicators;
We can't assume that funding for monitoring will continue indefinitely.
Highlights
1. Group proposed a tiered approach to organizing the indicators (basin-wide to site specific);
2. Group agreed wetland area by type is a critical binational and basin-wide indicator (accounts
for changes due to natural processes and human activities);
3. It is essential to have coordination between other indicator groups on following topics:
wetland buffers, wetland dependant fish species, hardened shoreline.
4. We need comparable methodologies for basin-wide monitoring and data collection.
5. Work needs to be done at the extensive and intensive levels.
4.1.5 Nearshore Terrestrial
Facilitator: Vicki Barren
Resource People: Ron Reid, Karen Rodriguez
As described in the SOLEC 96 The Land by the Lakes background paper, the nearshore
terrestrial ecosystems along the Great Lakes shoreline are defined by the lakes themselves.
The physical structure and living communities of the land along the lake's edge are as much a
function of the lake's ecosystem as the fish in its depths. The actions of wave and wind shape
the beaches, dunes and shore bluffs. These land-forms and the local climatic effects of large
water bodies determine the biological communities. These communities, in turn, sustain the
amazing diversity of wildlife that enriches the Great Lakes basin. From narrow beaches
weathered by wind and waves to inland contiguous forests or dune fields, nearshore terrestrial
ecosystems are products of the lakes.
SOLEC 98 Nearshore Terrestrial Indicators
STATE
8136 Nearshore Natural Land Cover
8128 Nearshore Threatened Species
8129 Special Lakeshore Communities
8137 Nearshore Species Stability
8148 Nearshore Endemic Species
PRESSURE
8131 Hardened Shoreline
8132 Nearshore Land Use Intensity
8133 Lake Level Fluctuations
8146 Artificial Coastal Structures
8134 Nearshore Problem Species
8135 Contaminants Affecting Productivity of Bald Eagles
8147 Contaminants Affecting the American Otter
SOLEC 98 Conference Proceedings 15
-------
HUMAN ACTIVITIES (RESPONSE)
8139 Community / Species Plans
8140 Agency Dollars Allocated
8141 Shoreline Management Plans Adopted
8149 Nearshore Protected Areas
BASIN-WIDE INDICATORS (includes the entire land area of the Great Lakes basin)
8150 Breeding Birds
8151 Number, Extent and Viability of Endemic Species
8152 Threatened Species
Changes, Questions and Comments on Existing Indicators
Nearshore Endemic Species (8148). This is a good indicator to keep. Blend this indicator
with Nearshore Threatened Species (8128), but report out separately;
Natural Land Cover (8136). Need to define natural land cover and add impervious surfaces
including parking lots, buildings etc... What other values could it be surrogate for? eg. insect
habitat;
Hardened Shoreline (8131). Break down this indicator by shoreline types eg. clay banks vs.
sand shores and modify the language to incorporate wetland information from wetlands
indicator. This needs to be tracked over time and correlated to show shoreline types;
Contaminants Affecting the American Otter (8147). The otter is not a basin-wide species.
Regardless, the indicators need mammals represented somewhere and otters are easier to
locate and capture for monitoring. The otter is not as sensitive as mink, but it is a good idea
to keep both mink and otter with a better justification for using them;
Community/Species Plans (8139). It could be difficult to measure whether the plans are
acted upon. It might be better to incorporate with the Stewardship group;
Agency Dollars Allocated (8140). Need to include money from other organizations -
private, non-profit and human investment, not just government. It is difficult to determine
exactly where the money is spent as there are many cross-overs. The main problem with
this indicator is that it could be used to target cuts in government spending. It is an important
indicator, but needs refining and may better fit with the Stewardship Group;
Lake Level Fluctuations (8133). There are so many conflicting interests in lake levels
(property owners, shipping, commerce...). It is a very important issue for wetland and
terrestrial ecosystems for functioning and sediment movement, but what is the actual
indicator? What do you measure and how can it be interpreted? This indicator could be
related to Hardened Shoreline (8131);
Artificial Coastal Structures (8146). What is the difference between this indicator and
Hardened Shoreline (8183)? The differences should be clearly defined, or else the two
indicators should be merged into one. [Note: This indicator deals with projections from the
shore eg. artificial structures not hardened shoreline];
Special Lakeshore Communities (8129). What is the relationship and overlap with
Nearshore Threatened Species (8128)? There is some overlap, but it is necessary. 8129 is
more specific to community types, 8128/8136 are more basin-wide. The indicator will look at
overall threats to community types across basin, eg. what's threatening dune systems
across the basin. The communities need to be prioritized based on impending threats;
Nearshore Species Stability (8137). This is a difficult indicator to use and requires
intensive data collection, therefore need to focus on particular species. We could
incorporate breeding bird data which is extensive and can be used regionally to track over
16 SOLEC 98 Conference Proceedings
-------
time. Non-migratory species should be used to minimize outside influences and provide
better indication of local conditions. A complementary indicator could be created to
represent conditions that may not be evident with birds;
Nearshore Problem Species (8134). This is a basin-wide problem, what can be done about
it, what does it indicate, and how do you measure it? Could it be incorporated with
Nearshore Species Stability? The indicator is vague and covers too much ground, needs to
be narrowed down to focus on select species that need to be determined. Problem species
are controversial with many competing interests;
Nearshore Land Use Intensity (8132). Could this indicator be combined with other
indicators eg. community health? Might want to consider indicators by types, ie. marinas,
homes, directional drilling, density of structures. Mapping of the nearshore land uses would
be good to help identify long term changes. It might be simpler to choose representative
areas rather than the whole basin;
Threatened species (8128). This should be included as an unbounded indicator, but also
important species specifically for nearshore terrestrial. The objective and measure are
inconsistent and need better definition and clarification. How do you interpret data? What
does "number or proportion" mean? We should consider taking a more preventative
approach by not only focusing on rarity and ranking species to focus on. A historical
comparison will be helpful.
Suggested Additions of New Indicators
Need something to cover the impact on plants from air toxics;
Species Abundance;
Severity of threats to special lakeshore communities, eg. sand dune mining;
Level of protection of nearshore areas.
Identification of Information Gaps
Soil quality information, although found in land use, Agricultural Intensity (8111) is not
adequate;
Tributary level indicators are missing.
Suggested Deletions
Contaminants Affecting the American Otter (8147). Either delete or provide a better
justification for using it;
Lake Level Fluctuations (8133) (one vote) - doesn't see its usefulness;
Agency Dollars Allocated (8140) should be included under Stewardship (if at all) and
incorporate comments above.
Participant Reaction to the SOLEC 98 Indicators Process
Indicators require further development before they are finalized;
SOLEC needs to look at the implementation and feasibility of the indicators and of partners
who can help with data sharing and collection;
SOLEC 98 Conference Proceedings 17
-------
Hardened shoreline is an important issue, we need to do something about it: education, rally
support to prevent hardening, push for more sensitive techniques for hardening.
Highlights
1. The proposed indicators represent a good start.
2. The indicators need to be focused (selecting species, etc.) and cross referencing needs to
take place both within the terrestrial indicators as well as between indicator groups.
3. The indicators could next be divided by topics and fine tuned with agencies that are active in
the topic to test pilot the implementation.
4. We lack a comprehensive and systematic inventory of the nearshore terrestrial environment.
5. The indicators are not, and are not meant to be, pro-active and responsive. However, some
prioritization should take place in recognition of impending change. Management programs are
not stemming the loss of the nearshore terrestrial environment.
4.1.6 Land Use
Facilitator: Cathy Keenan
Resource Person: Ray Rivers
The SOLEC 98 project work on indicators for land use is oriented in the recognition that human
use of land is the predominant cause of environmental problems in the ecosystems of the Great
Lakes basin. SOLEC 96 built on the early work of environmental scientists in highlighting that
land use is the major source of environmental stress in the ecosystem of the Great Lakes basin.
Unlike previous studies, however, SOLEC 96 focused on the harm that follows urban sprawl,
the development form most prevalent in North America.
In spite of considerable evidence of the significant disadvantages of urban sprawl, this
development form continues to be the most commonly applied approach to new development.
Clearly, as was concluded in SOLEC 96, there is a need for better ways of influencing decision-
makers in the Great Lakes basin to make environmentally informed development decisions.
These land use indicators are intended to meet that need.
SOLEC 98 Land Use Indicators
STATE
7027 Loss of Natural Features
7042 Quality of Social Aesthetics
7043 Economic Activity
7055 Stream and Wetland Water Quality
PRESSURE
7000 Efficient Urban Density
7002 Land Conversion
7007 Resource Use
7012 Transportation Efficiency
7017 Pollution Levels
7054 Ground Surface Hardening
18
SOLEC 98 Conference Proceedings
-------
8111 Agricultural Intensity
8114 Habitat Fragmentation
8142 Streamflow and Sediment Discharge
HUMAN ACTIVITIES (Response)
7006 Brownfield Redevelopment
7028 Sustainable Agriculture
7053 Green Planning Process
Suggested Changes to Existing Indicators
Efficient Urban Density (7000). Using the concept of efficiency is misleading, in the
definition, efficiency is more equal to density. There is a conflict between efficient urban
development versus available green space. This type of conflict should be avoided in order
to create a compatible and complementary suite of indicators;
Land Conversion (7002). The use of "net conversion of land back to natural" might be a
more positive measure to consider;
Brownfield Redevelopment (7006). Recovery of buried streams could be included;
Resource Use (7007). Resource extraction might be a more appropriate indicator and
should include forestry and mining practices, and establish bad vs. good practices;
Transportation Efficiency (7012). A better measure might be the ratio of people using
public transportation: using own vehicle;
Loss of Natural Features (7027). This indicator is too general and overlaps with other
areas. It is a quality indicator without defining what quality really is. Should it be a "state"
indicator?;
Sustainable Agriculture (7028). The definition of Sustainable Agriculture needs clarifica-
tion. The group might consider using the definition from the Great Lakes Commission. The
indicator should also include hedge rows, tree rows, and pest management and might
include measures such as integrated pest management and lands under one hectare;
Quality of Social Aesthetics (7042). This indicator needs some clarification and
simplification before it can be finalized. Many of the specific items within the indicator are
very complicated. There is conflict between percent greenspace and high urban density.
The two are not necessarily mutually inclusive, there could be a way to combine them.
Percentage greenspace per unit of urban density could be a measure. Consider public and
private green space, and the addition of bike and peddle friendly streets as a measure;
Economic Activity (7043). There was a great deal of discussion regarding the location of
this indicator within the other indicator groups, and if GDP is really the best measure of
economic activity. Some believed that it might be more suited to the human health group as
an indicator of human well-being, or as an unbounded indicator that shows impacts on all
parts of the basin;
Green Planning Process (7053). Green planning process should include reclaimed streets
including reserved bike paths, and areas where priority is given to pedestrians;
Stream and Wetland Water Quality (7055). Many in the group liked this indicator and
believe that it should stay in the suite, although the measures may not be appropriate as it
presupposes that water gets to streams over land. It may be better as a pressure indicator;
Habitat Fragmentation (8114). There was debate over the use of a one kilometre zone.
Some believe that this is too large, and some think it is too small.
SOLEC98 Conference Proceedings 19
-------
Suggested Additions of New Indicators
The creation and use of a "land use pie" and its rate of change. This would be easily
measured using GIS;
Number of miles of storm drains and number of sanitary sewers;
Urban density;
Measure of urban expansion, urban envelope, expansion of urban infrastructure;
Total economic disposable income per hectare of urban land;
Land use policy indicators needed - eg. zoning;
An index of land value;
Total economic activity per ha;
Number of multiple jurisdictions working together, including NGOs and industry.
Identification of Information Gaps
Most indicators need more definition;
Resource extraction and resource use other than air and water;
Forestry land use and practices - land conversion;
Increase in natural area cover in urban areas should be captured;
Public access to lakes;
Area of sub-watershed "un-urbanized".
Suggested Deletions
There needs to be additional clarification of many of the indicators before final decisions
could be made to combine or drop indicators;
In order to avoid overlapping priorities, the number of indicators needs to be reduced;
Resource Use (7007) and Pollution Levels (7017) may not belong in land use;
Economic Activity (7043) should either be dropped or moved into another group. Others
strongly feel that the indicator "economic activity" should stay, but drop GDP use as the
measure replacing it with real per capita disposable income adjusted to inflation, or a
distribution of income;
Some indicators can be combined eg. ground hardening and land conversion;
Pollution Levels (7017).
Participant Reaction to the SOLEC 98 Indicators Process
The indicators should not be bounded by surface hydrology. This is not appropriate for some
types of planning and should suit the purpose of the individual indicator;
The indicators are "too many and too generic";
SOLEC should consider arranging the indicators in tiers. Some simple key indicators may
be more useful, doable and efficient to indicate the state of land use in the basin eg.
hardening, land use conversion, and forest cover;
Many of the indicators are quite conventional in formulation and might be improved by
considering the incorporation of sustainable development and Ecological Footprinting;
Has any effort been made to compare U.S. and Canada federal objectives with indicators
currently in development? The U.S. already has set of binational goals (U.S. NEPA). It was
20 SOLEC 98 Conference Proceedings
-------
discussed that NEPA does not incorporate the ecosystem approach as outlined in the
GLWQA.
Highlights
1. Need to simplify the indicators and measures of basin land use.
2. The creation of links across indicator categories (Stewardship, Nearshore Terrestrial) will
clarify many of the indicators and expose them to maximum usefulness.
3. What are the cumulative impacts of land use change and population increase in the future?
4. Make land use indicators relevant, measurable, digestible and credible to attract the attention
of local level decision makers.
4.1.7 Human Health
Facilitators: Sandra Owens, Marcia Damato
Resource People: Doug Haines and Mark Johnson
For practical purposes, this effort to develop health indicators for SOLEC has focused primarily
on indicators of human exposure to environmental contaminants, plus an indicator of geo-
graphic patterns and trends in disease incidence. Health effects indicators are also desirable,
but will be more challenging to develop because of the difficulty in making cause-effect linkages.
SOLEC 98 Human Health Indicators
STATE
4179 Geographic Patterns and Trends in Disease Incidence
PRESSURE (Indicators of Exposure)
4081 Recreational Water Quality
4083 Chemical Contaminants in Fish Tissue
4088 Chemical Contaminant Intake From All Sources
4175 Drinking Water Quality - chemical and microbial
4176 Air Quality
4177 Chemical Contaminants in Human Tissue
4178 Radionuclides
Comments and Suggested Changes to Existing Indicators
Recreational Water Quality (4081). Comments were mixed. One participant expressed
concern that the indicator is too vague, that E. coli and fecal coliforms are very broad
indicators, and that we need more specific human health markers. Beach closings is not a
useful indicator on its own. Frequency of monitoring needs to be clearly identified to give
perspective to the numbers;
Chemical Contaminants in Fish (4083). This indicator has not yet been developed. One
participant suggested that a good indicator would be the number of consumption restrictions
in basin;
SOLEC 98 Conference Proceedings 21
-------
Chemical Contaminant Intake from all Sources (4088). Food Market basket surveys,
which provide the basis for these assessments, may not pick sub-populations, eg. First
Nations. Therefore, it is important to also assess sub-sets of the population based on their
specific diets;
4083, 4088, 4177 - We need to also look at new chemicals as they arise, and not just
banned chemicals. We should start including biomonitors and biomarkers and identifying
new chemicals;
Drinking Water Quality (4175). There is a need for some sort of comparison (eg. between
Canada and the U.S.) in order to have a context for indicators (look at spikes, not averages
of chemical and microbial concentrations). We should be able to put Great Lakes into broad
context. This indicator looks at finished water quality after treatment which is more reflective
of treatment than state - perhaps add one to reflect raw water quality. There should be an
indicator of private groundwater sources as well;
Air Quality (4176). This indicator does not resolve issues, it is primarily outlining data
collection and is not yet an indicator. There is no causal connection and it is too general to
deal with air quality;
Chemical Contaminants in Human Tissue (4177). Look at specific groups such as sport
fisherman. There is not yet adequate work on endocrine disrupters and biomarkers;
Geographic Patterns and Trends in Disease Incidence (4179). Want to see maps put
back into whole Canadian context in order to see basin in perspective to other geographic
areas. Should include neurobehavioural effects, socio-economic well-being, some positive
outcomes, public perceptions, diversity of use.
Suggested Additions of New Indicators
Incidence of cardiovascular/respiratory disease should be included as a SOLEC indicator;
Bees can be used as an indicator of air pollution deposition;
Dose response one hour ozone level would be a good indicator, yet it is buried in Air
Quality (4176) - perhaps this should be on its own;
Indicator of raw water quality to back up Drinking Water Quality (4175). [Note: It was identi-
fied in that session that the current drinking water indicator does address raw water quality.]
Identification of Information Gaps
Need a statement about use, true dose and what people are doing to be exposed to con-
taminants;
Cardiorespiratory disease appears to be missing in the suite of indicators;
Exposure indicators do not indicate the STATE OF HEALTH in the Great Lakes basin;
Difficult to find cause-effect linkages; what is within our scope is to identify current exposure;
Air toxics appears to be a gap;
Need to focus on specific populations eg. high risk groups;
Expectation gaps Are we creating expectations that we won't be able to fulfill?
Missing many endpoints such as low level, long-term exposures and effects;
Pick-up new chemicals to be monitored in place of banned chemicals that are typically
monitored for many of the indicators.
22 SOLEC 98 Conference Proceedings
-------
Suggested Deletions
The feeling of many of the participants is that the indicators are not well defined enough to
assess if any should be dropped.
Participant Reaction to the SOLEC 98 Indicators Process
There is a great deal of uncertainty regarding the Human Health indicators, targets and what
they will tell us about Human Health in the Great Lakes basin. The purposes of the SOLEC
indicators need to be clarified. We should be able to look at the indicators to see how well
we are doing;
Some of the indicators are not actually indicators themselves, but more plans of data
collection;
The indicators need a lot more work before we are at a point where we can have a short list;
The gathering of data is a huge, expensive, and time consuming effort. The basin was
information rich from 70s and 80s, but it is becoming increasingly difficult to access data
from individual states, due to legal constraints. The two countries' monitoring efforts need to
be coordinated;
Need to focus on key activities given scarce resources;
Need public dialogue on what we're measuring;
Need to move up to level of biomarkers, away from concentrations in the environment;
Should look at possible synergistic effects; effects of mixtures;
It is important to look at health consequences of causing public fear by creating dramatic
indicators. Risk/benefit analysis eg. benefits of breast feeding vs. contaminant exposure of
infant; not eating fish vs. alternative diet (does it replace the nutritional value of fish?);
Express limitations of indicators and give clear rationales for which ones were chosen.
Highlights
1. Look at all indicators in context of North America, and not just the basin. This will help
improve the understandability of the indicators.
2. Choose resilient indicators which are independent of management decisions, eg. The
decision of how often to monitor has a direct impact on number of beach closings. We need to
adopt indicators that have applicability across borders, sectors, populations. This requires
consistent data collection methods so that data area "shareable", comparable, usable over time,
space and social structures.
3. We need indicators which treat the public as a partner, and which lead to outreach, buy-in,
and partnerships. We need to be aware of the communications opportunities and the messages
passed on through indicators. We must not mislead people, and need to be sensitive to the
impact that communication of the indicators will have.
4. Not enough time was allowed to answer the questions about the indicators adequately. There
needs to be a process set up to assess human health indicators in a systematic, detailed way.
SOLEC 98 Conference Proceedings 23
-------
4.1.8 Stewardship
Facilitator: Joanna Kidd,
Resource People: Ron Baba, Mike Finney
A "steward" is someone who manages the affairs of a household or estate on behalf of an
employer, owner, or beneficiary. "Stewardship" is a process requiring competence, vigilance,
and an ethic of responsibility for the condition of that which is being looked after. In the context
of the three categories of indicators that have been defined for the purposes of SOLEC 98 (eg.
state of the ecosystem, pressures, and human activities (or response)), stewardship is
equivalent to or strongly associated with societal responses, eg. individual and collective actions
to halt, mitigate, adapt to, or prevent damage to the environment.
SOLEC 98 Stewardship Indicators (not reviewed prior to the conference)
3509 Capacities of Sustainable Landscape Partnerships
3510 Organizational Richness of Sustainable Landscape Partnerships
3511 Integration of Ecosystem Management Principles Across Landscapes
3512 Integration of Sustainability Principles Across Landscapes
3513 Citizen/Community Place-Based Stewardship Activities
Comments and Suggested Changes to Existing Indicators
In order to communicate these indicators to a wider audience, the language used needs to
be clarified, including further description and definition of some new terms used. The public
must be able to understand the indicators;
The indicators are written in a manner that appears top down. They should be re-expressed
to show them as bottom-up indicators;
Need indicators that range from individual efforts all the way to government programs;
Think of stewardship indicators as the great integrators of everything else (use measures
from other groups).
Suggested Additions of New Indicators
Turnover in partnerships;
Indicator of individual land owners and managers and their ethics;
Public acceptance of government policies;
Use of environment (e.g. angler clubs);
Land area in local trust or easements;
Look at ecological footprint (e.g. local trading currency);
Reinvestment in natural capital eg. acres reforested;
Need improved measures, eg. number of schools with yard naturalization, companies
registered with ISO 14 000;
An indicator of changed behaviours, attitudes towards the environment and individual values
would be valuable. This is measurable by looking at things such as recycling numbers and
using polls to ask specific questions;
Need to consider not only how many people are recycling, but how many people are making
money recycling. This addresses economics - one of the multiple dimensions of
sustainability.
24 SOLEC 98 Conference Proceedings
-------
Identification of Information Gaps
Define "partnerships" between industry, government, other stakeholders and recognize the
broad participation of each;
Are we reaching our goal? Indices are required to help measure the success of the efforts.
Participant Reaction to the SOLEC 98 Indicators Process
SOLEC has made a significant step by including a stewardship section and attempting to
measure ethics;
Must ensure that action-based measures are included;
The public should be inspired by these indicators and use them;
Indicators should be nested by scale eg. "community", "landscape", "ecosystem";
Should look at how stewardship meshes with the other indicator groups;
Stewardship is a tool, not an endpoint, therefore challenging to create indicators.
Highlights
1. There is a need to develop a clear definition of the partnerships we are talking about they
are focused on achieving sustainability and ecosystem integrity in a particular ecosystem based
geographic location (eg. a watershed).
2. Stewardship indicators need to operate at varying scales, and for both the horizontal and
vertical axis (across landscapes and upwards to government agencies).
3. There is an opportunity to integrate stewardship indicators with those developed by the
indicator core groups.
4. Effective partnership organizations are those that: provide individuals with an opportunity to
be involved, encourage individuals to take responsibility for their actions, and foster the respect
of other participants.
5. The stewardship indicators need to be packaged in a way to inspire pride and encourage
action by individuals and organizations.
6. Indicators that measure place-based partnerships are necessary, but not sufficient to capture
all aspects of sustainability.
SOLEC 98 Conference Proceedings 25
-------
4.2 Biodiversity Investment Area Session Summaries
4.2.1 Nearshore Terrestrial Biodiversity Investment Areas
Facilitators: Sandra Owens, Cathy Keenan
Resource People: Karen Rodriguez, Ron Reid
The SOLEC 96 Land by the Lakes background paper introduced another idea to the Great
Lakes Water Quality Agreement process - the idea that some sections of shoreline have
exceptionally high ecological values which warrant exceptional attention to protect them from
degradation. These areas, mapped at a coarse scale, were coined "Biodiversity Investment
Areas" - or BIAs in short form.
Like most ideas, this one is not really new, but rather an extension of previous work and
previous thinking in many quarters. But it did garner considerable attention and discussion, and
a considerable degree of support. And the concept raised an intriguing question: since the
community of agencies with responsibility for managing the Great Lakes has highlighted areas
of concern where environmental restoration is a priority, should it also be highlighting areas of
special quality - BIAs - where prevention of environmental loss is a common priority?
This report sought to take the discussion of Biodiversity Investment Areas to the next logical
step by looking at each of the 20 shoreline BIAs in more detail, summarizing their values, the
individual threats to their security, and their current degree of protection. The authors also
provide a brief assessment of each area, and initial thoughts on key protection needs. The
tentative boundaries of each BIA are also reviewed and adjusted where appropriate. Vignettes
of related local and regional conservation activities are also included, as examples of efforts
already underway to protect the values of these areas.
Perspectives on the Concept of Terrestrial Biodiversity Investment Areas
BIAs are a great idea especially since the concept has room to change and incorporate
other ideas, and were identified at an appropriate scale (basin level);.
It is important to recognize that there are significant areas and significant sites.
SOLEC should consider combining the three BIA groupings.
Include areas up into the watershed.
Consider using indicators to identify and refine the BIA functions, stressors and to establish
system of natural heritage linkages.
The full range of biodiversity in the Great Lakes basin should be included in the BIAs. [Note:
The group looked at rarity: G1-G3 species (global rarity classification system: G1=extremely
rare, G2=veryrare, G3=rare-uncommon), S1-S3 species (rarity classification in province of
Ontario: S1=extremely rare in Ontario, S2=very rare in Ontario, S3=rare-uncommon in
Ontario) and Great Lakes endemics]
Include how the BIAs will deal with change over time, eg. climate change.
26 SOLEC 98 Conference Proceedings
-------
Implementing the BIA concept is no one organizations' responsibility. It will require
orchestration between agencies and individuals.
The criteria used for selection and a rationale for each area should be better defined so the
average person can understand.
Are BIAs zoos? BIA is not a zoo per se, but are highly involved with protection of gene pool.
Zoos could be surveyed and somehow incorporated in this process of biodiversity
protection.
Specific Comments
A number of specific areas were mentioned for consideration of BIA status:
South shore of Lake Ontario, West of Rochester to Oswego - two significant areas
of clay bluffs and eight areas of coastal wetlands (TNC has info);
Niagara Escarpment- the escarpment area is designated as an International Biosphere
Reserve. The Lakes' connectivity to this area will influence the nearshore environment;
Southern shore of Georgian Bay,
Western Lake Ontario - several areas should be considered in this area, including
Lynde Marshes, Scarborough Bluffs, Rouge River Valley (mouth), Rattray Marsh;
Golden Crescent - Northern part of Michigan's lower Peninsula needs more
consideration;
Whitefish Point, Michigan - inland dunes, ponds, migratory birds, nesting piping
plovers - there already exists efforts for preservation;
Pinery Provincial Park Region/Kettle Point - beach, 30 kilometres of sand dunes and
oak savanna, geologic feat, old embayment;
Door County Area - include Garden Peninsula and islands in the northern regions;
Niagara Corridor- this area should fit in to one of the three BIA categories. There are a
large number of species of birds that use this area;
Islands in the St. Lawrence,
Haliburton Highlands - lakes, unique strains of brook and lake trout.
The term geoecodiversity should be expressed differently;
It isn't clear if "Biodiversity" includes only plants and animals, or are small and very old
organisms included? Should consider lichen, protists, other tiny organisms.
Next Steps
There is no structure in place to follow through on next steps;
It is key that SOLEC work with stakeholders. Scientists need to influence the public, who will
then influence government decision-makers. To do this effectively the information needs to
be packaged effectively to be applicable to the decision-makers process;
Use RAPs as examples or models for building public support;
It is important to highlight successes where planning has been successfully implemented as
a way of increasing public awareness. Tell people why BIAs are important by providing
examples that combine ecology, economics and conservation;
Using the missing, lost etc. system from the Aquatics BIA paper, would create a
classification system that would be valuable for all BIAs;
Each area has different needs and priorities. It is important to identify what needs to be done
SOLEC 98 Conference Proceedings 27
-------
in each area individually;
More work is needed on identifying the impact of land use on these areas. Land use
authorities must work with the scientific community towards a common goal to protect that
area through land use planning and protection plans. Concern exists that the decision-
makers are the land owners;
Each BIA should have a local contact person, a science contact, and a display
(Environmental Education kiosks);
A possible resource would be: "Engaging the public on biodiversity" produced by the
Biodiversity Project Madison Wl.
Highlights
1. Participants liked the concept and scale at which the BIAs were developed.
2. There still needs to be a lot of work done on local level.
3. There needs to be integration with other BIAs.
4. Indicators can be used to characterize the natural systems and refine the identification of
BIAs.
5. Participants must recognize the need for adaptive management and refine the identification
process through other groups such as local stakeholders. Conservation strategy needs to
integrate economic, social, ecological, and cultural considerations.
6. Strive to embed the concept of BIAs at multiple levels, including within local communities and
binational structures.
4.2.2 Coastal Wetland Biodiversity Investment Areas
Facilitators: Eric Carlson, Joanna Kidd
Resource People: Pat Chow-Fraser, Dennis Albert
The initial draft of the Coastal Wetlands Biodiversity Investment Area paper builds on the work
begun in SOLEC 96. The ultimate objective of the SOLEC 96 The Land by the Lakes paper was
to identify areas of the Great Lakes shoreline that contain high quality faunal habitat that could
be identified as "Biodiveristy Investment Areas". To achieve this objective, the authors of the
Coastal Wetlands BIA paper attempted the following:
To create a GIS-based inventory of all coastal Great Lakes wetlands.
To develop a consistent terminology for classifying and describing coastal Great Lakes
wetland types, based on both geomorphic context and floristic relationships, for both
Canadian and U.S. wetlands.
To utilize existing U.S. and Canadian data to describe the wetland types for each shoreline
reach.
To delineate coastal reaches of the Great Lakes that support significant wetland types that
are ecologically distinctive ("eco-reaches").
To summarize and compare avi-faunal use of littoral and nearshore areas within all Great
Lakes eco-reaches.
To identify eco-reaches that are known to be exceptionally important habitat for a large
number of fish and bird species.
28 SOLEC 98 Conference Proceedings
-------
Perspectives on the Concept of "Eco-reaches of high biodiversity"
The goal of identifying eco-reaches is to provide a useful framework for scientists. The
authors want the scientific community to use "wetland eco-reaches as a tool to hang your
data on", to describe wetland character, and focus inventories and management. If shared
characteristics between reaches can be recognized, time can be saved developing
management plans. To address one of the main concerns, this is a classification system -
not a prioritization system.
The Coastal Wetlands eco-reaches were defined based on a number of criteria. They were
not delineated based on management jurisdictions or land ownership. The boundaries are
related primarily to the underlying geomorphology and geology of the areas, and the
associated floral and faunal information. This creates reaches that will be different in area,
but should contain wetland types that are similar and can be grouped together. Thus the
size of reach does not determine importance of diversity in one area.
Most participants believe this to be an excellent approach to identifying areas, the lines are
right where they should be on the U.S. side, the Canadian side may need a second look in
some areas.
There should be separate cut-off levels (p values) for Lake Superior wetlands. The wetlands
may not be as diverse, but provide excellent habitat for many species.
One of the biggest obstacles to completing this project is lack of available and accessible
data. There are often several groups working on similar goals with little connection.
Fish and breeding bird data were the primary sources of information used to determine
biodiversity of the eco-reaches. Are the fish and bird species used in the analysis wetland
dependant? Only the fish species residing primarily in the littoral part of fish atlas were
included in this project based on a presence/absence categorization. The breeding birds
information is geographically based, all species that utilize the nearshore were included, not
necessarily wetlands. One could go now to these tables and extract specific species known
to be wetland dependant. It would be useful to get additional detailed information into
accessible database format.
One of the greatest concerns during the discussions was that areas that don't have high
biodiversity value based on fish and bird data, may be just as important for biodiversity, but
are not included in this study. Further, lower diversity areas also have important values for
habitat and this needs to be captured in the report.
There is a danger of labelling eco-reaches as very high, or high biodiversity. Other
individual, important wetlands might be overlooked and it is likely that bureaucracies will
adopt this type of framework as a "fait a compli" and will allocate resources only to top
areas. We need to remember that data are incomplete and a lack of information should not
be interpreted as "no wetlands of high biodiversity."
There is a need to instill a sense of stewardship into the local residents and governments. In
1996 when the concept of BIAs was introduced, stewardship was the objective behind the
idea. Education is a vital intermediate step for stewardship.
SOLEC98 Conference Proceedings 29
-------
Although a scientifically based approach is beneficial in many ways, there is a need to
include the political agenda. Politicians want to allocate money somewhere and therefore we
may need to identify some specific areas for wetland "investment". In order to move forward,
we need to keep sight of this political need for conservation of important areas as a place to
spend money or focus efforts.
Special attributes such as high snow or rainfall are important characteristics of an eco-reach
that should be captured.
Specific Comments on Proposed Eco-reaches
Reach E6A/E7 should be moved a bit west;
The granite/limestone join on Georgian Bay could be broken down into finer detail;
S7 (south shore of Lake Superior) could be broken down finer;
E7 is really one geophysical unit;
The labelling scheme used should be changed to make it more user friendly. The sub-letters
a,b,c could be used for reaches that have the same characteristics even in different lakes;
The Niagara River isn't captured in any of the three BIA groups;
The entire basin should be included in the delineations.
Next Steps
Most importantly, the eco-reach delineations need to be finalized by getting feedback on the
boundaries as they currently stand. The reaches need to be looked at more closely on a
lake by lake basis, possibly by the LaMPs workgroups;
There needs to be a written description of each eco-reach;
Identification of wetlands that are representative from each eco-reach;
More faunal studies need to be incorporated into this paper. The amphibian study done by
the Long Point Bird Observatory includes vegetation and breeding bird information. There
are also other breeding birds atlases under development that were not available at the time
for use in this study, that might be included;
The Canadian data need some refinement;
A main concern is how will this information get out to the managers, researchers and
scientists who will benefit from this framework? First of all, we need people to identify
themselves as having valuable information and bring forward their data. The most
accessible way is on the Internet, in a GIS querriable format. WIRENET, a consortium of
research and educational people housed at McMaster University could be a start for
collection of data (http://www.cciw.ca/glimr/wirenet). It is already equipped with a GIS based
database of wetland information that could be easily added to. Unfortunately, it has lost
funding and GIS technician time would be desperately needed to keep the database. Thus
our database needs a good home. Suggestions of CCIW and GLNPO were volunteered;
One challenge is to keep any and all databases updated. Keeping up to date on every
species is simply not possible. In order to be successful, there needs to be simplification of
the database and it would only be updated every 5 or 10 years;
All interested parties need to agree on what is important for basin-wide management;
Several participants agreed that it would be beneficial to integrate the three Biodiversity
Investment Area geographical areas (Coastal Wetlands, Nearshore Terrestrial, Aquatics).
This would allow more general data to be used and would avoid some overlap in data
30 SOLEC 98 Conference Proceedings
-------
collection and organization. In the long run, if this concept is implemented, it will be simpler
to implement one program as opposed to three separate components of the program. One
participant believe that more time should be spent on developing the connectivity between
the three groups, not on the lines of the reaches;
Could the focus of the next SOLEC be to carry this on? If so integration of the three
geographical units should be highlighted as well as the inclusion of head water wetland
biodiversity which makes an impact on the lakeshore wetlands.
Uses of Eco-reaches
The classification of eco-reaches by wetland type will be useful for further development of
key wetland indicators such as wetland type and areal extent of wetlands;
This framework will help managers focus research management. Eventually BIAs will
suggest areas where wetlands should be protected, thus helping focus regulation and
restoration and identification of base-line areas;
Use "wetland eco-reaches as a tool to hang your data on", to describe wetland character,
and to focus your inventories and management. If you can recognize shared characteristics
between reaches, you can save time developing management plans;
Biodiversity Investment Areas will help encourage local stewardship activities. People living
in the area need to know about the biodiversity where they are living and working. Public
education is very important so that the public will understand the importance of biodiversity
and convey their concerns to their elected officials and government agencies.
Highlights
1. Participants support the approach and understand need for refinement at a local level.
2. The eco-reaches are a classification systems, not a priority system.
3. The value of this initial draft is in the informational framework rather than the identification of
BIAs.
4. Data collected for this project should belong to the community, not an agency.
5. It is very important that the data be easily accessible basin-wide in a GIS format.
4.2.3 Aquatic Biodiversity Investment Areas
Facilitator: Suzanne Barrett
Resource People: Joe Koonce, Ken Minns, Heather Morrison
In the draft report the authors reported on initial efforts to identify and validate candidate Aquatic
Biodiversity Investment Areas (ABIAs) across the Great Lakes basin ecosystems. The ABIA
concept is linked to its terrestrial shorelands counterpart, Lands by the Lakes, reported at
SOLEC 96 and placed in context with other national and international biodiversity initiatives. The
working definition of an ABIA used in this study is: a specific location or area within a larger
ecosystem that is especially productive, supports exceptionally high biodiversity and/or
endemism and contributes significantly to the integrity of the whole ecosystem.
SOLEC 98 Conference Proceedings 31
-------
Perspectives on the Concept of Aquatic Biodiversity Investment Areas
The Aquatic Biodiversity Investment Area approach is early in development. In order to
continue, it will be important to find out what the ultimate purpose of the "ABIA list" is.
Some of the participants prefer the approach of the Aquatic BIAs to the other groups.
There are pros and cons of using a survey to obtain information. Some of the limitations
include a lack of communication between experts, incomplete survey results and
comparisons of results between lakes. The survey nominations need investigation and
validation in order to bring objectivity in to the identification process. If the survey approach
is expanded, amend it to deal more explicitly with other biota in addition to fish. Contact
each of the technical committees (GLFC, LaMPs) in order to get some consolidated
information.
What are the implications of not being on the BIA list? There is concern that if a candidate
were not selected, that area might lose any potential to be protected. Those areas that were
identified are special places, but there are many others that need protection.
The BIAs are a good counter to balance RAPs and AOCs by creating positive public
communication about the resources at our doorstep.
The term investment implies that money will be allocated in ABIAs instead of other important
locations. It is important to clarify what this designation really means in terms of resources
and government intent. Perhaps the use of "investment" should be reconsidered.
SOLEC should re-think whether this approach will be really useful in protecting habitat.
There may be a need for a suite of tools to protect habitat, not just BIAs.
Specific Comments
Consider whether parasites are an important component of biodiversity. Parasites in fish can
tell us about ecosystem health and balance.
Next Steps
There are three important next steps in identifying ABIAs:
identify places (nomination process started this)
complete habitat supply analysis to indicate "hot spots" in a scientifically defensible
manner
compare the survey results with the habitat supply analysis;
Agencies should be formally solicited to recommend potential ABIAs;
Consider including the entire system (tributaries, etc.) when completing the habitat supply
analysis;
A letter to all conference participants, fishery commission, LaMP people, seeking individuals
with expertise (State wildlife people and agencies, endangered species folks, nature
conservancy, land trust);
32 SOLEC 98 Conference Proceedings
-------
Refine information gathering to include more than fish;
Refine criteria for the process and outline how nominees will be screened;
Examine whether ABIA designation exposes non-ABIAs to ongoing destruction;
Use the ABIA website to convey information (http://129.22.156.152/ABIA/index.htm);
Local involvement it needed to move forward with important land use decisions and
management;
Education is essential to let people know the value of these areas. First, build strong
advocacy, and then these advocates will take on the cause.
Highlights
1. Complete the habitat supply analysis focusing on the entire system, including tributaries.
2. Identify how the information will be used for decision making and what the relationship is
between BIAs and non-BIAs.
3. The identification of ABIAs should not be entirely based on fish species, but should be
expanded to include other important residents of the aquatic ecosystem [Note: it was
recognized that the focus on fish emerged because i) information on fish is available; and ii)
often when you protect fish, you protect other species.]
4. Need to develop specific criteria for selecting the BIAs.
5. Aquatic BIAs should be designated and conveyed to influence local decision-makers, and
build local support.
SOLEC 98 Conference Proceedings 33
-------
4.3 Lake-by-Lake Session Summaries
These sessions were organized and unfolded differently for each individual lake. In addition to
discussions on each of the five lakes, sessions on the St. Lawrence River and the Connecting
Channels ensured that people from the entire basin had a chance to discuss issues regarding
indicator development, implementation, and most importantly, the applicability of the SOLEC
indicators to their region.
4.3.1 Lake Superior
Facilitator: Adele Freeman
Organizer: Darrell Piekarz and Jake Vander Wai
The Lake Superior session was designed to discuss the compatibility between the SOLEC
Indicators and the 1995 discussion paper, Ecosystem Principles and Objectives, Indicators and
Targets for Lake Superior (EPO). The reason for completing this work was twofold:
Assess the extent to which ecosystemic indicators that are potentially applicable to the
entire Great Lakes watershed also can be used in the Lake Superior basin; and
Provide feedback to SOLEC regarding the potential utility of the general, Great Lakes-wide
indicator list.
The two documents were compared and contrasted in six different categories: Habitat,
Terrestrial Wildlife, Aquatics, Chemical Contaminants, Human Health, and Sustainability. All
groups looked for correspondence between the indicators, gaps in the SOLEC indicators, and
the applicability of the SOLEC indicators to the Lake Superior basin. Handouts comparing four
of the groups were distributed (these are available from the Lake Superior Binational Program
Office).
Summary results from each group discussion are below:
Aquatics
Two of the SOLEC Nearshore and Open Water indicators were found to be highly applicable
to three of the Lake Superior indicators.
The Lake Superior Aquatics Community Committee was not formally assembled at the time
of SOLEC. The committee will do a more formal evaluation of the SOLEC indicators in the
future.
Terrestrial Wildlife
This group evaluated 16 of the October 1998 SOLEC indicators from the Coastal Wetlands
and Nearshore Terrestrial Core Indicator groups.
Each of the SOLEC indicators was designated an applicability measure of "high", "medium",
or "low" (some with modifications) with respect to the Lake Superior basin.
9 of the 16 indicators were designated "high" or "medium" (4 with modifications), while the
remaining seven had "low" applicability to Lake Superior.
Habitat
SOLEC indicators from the Nearshore and Open Waters, Coastal Wetlands, and Nearshore
Terrestrial groups were compared against 10 corresponding Lake Superior habitat
indicators.
34 SOLEC 98 Conference Proceedings
-------
9 of the 10 were found to be "highly" applicable to the Lake Superior indicators, while one
was designated "medium/low".
For the three groups above, there are several SOLEC indicators from the Nearshore and Open
Waters, Coastal Wetlands, and Nearshore Terrestrial groups that do not fit directly with the
Lake Superior indicators, but were also given an applicability designation. The majority of these
designations were "high or high/medium".
Human Health
The Lake Superior Human Health Committee provided a comparison of the eight SOLEC
Human Health indicators against the LaMP indicators.
The indicators proposed by SOLEC match those identified by the Lake Superior Binational
Program (LSBP).
After this analysis, the LSBP endorsed the human health SOLEC indicators.
Chemical Contaminants
The SOLEC indicator 112 - Trends in Contaminant Concentrations and Loadings of Priority
Chemicals in Abiotic Media: Air, Soil and Sediment - relates very well to several of the Lake
Superior indicators and monitoring recommendations for water and sediments. The example
given for fish should be deleted form this abiotic indicator.
There does not appear to be any SOLEC indicators that reflect the Lake Superior sub-
objective indicators for Zero Discharge.
Sustcrinability
The Lake Superior Developing Sustainability Committee initially looked at the June 1998
draft of the SOLEC indicators to compare to the Lake Superior EPO document.
They found a high level of applicability in the June draft. Unfortunately, in the October draft,
a number of changes to the list created some incompatibility between the two sets.
This group also noted a number of inconsistencies within the SOLEC document that need to
be addressed before the SOLEC list is finalized.
During each of the group discussions, SOLEC participants offered relevant and important
advice to consider while continuing with the SOLEC indicators process:
An identifiable ecosystem is required. This can be identified by the people that live in it;
Ecosystem objectives are required before indicators are written;
It is important to partner with existing projects and efforts;
Discussion drafts are a valuable tool for receiving feedback from the community;
Indicator development and selection is a lengthy and on-going process;
SOLEC should endorse other groups of indicators that are not basin-wide;
The SOLEC endpoints and objectives need to be defined more clearly and consistently with
separate endpoints for different lakes;
The SOLEC indicators need much more development and fine-tuning before monitoring
programs can be developed based on the indicators;
The Great Lakes community needs an accessible compendium of current monitoring efforts
throughout the basin [Note: this is being worked on by the IJC]. The information made
available through this IJC work and that already available through the Council of Great
Lakes Research Managers, an inventory of monitoring and research for the Great Lakes
SOLEC 98 Conference Proceedings 35
-------
(http://www.ijc.org/cgi-bin/w3-msql/boards/cglr/ri98.html) should be referenced in SOLEC
materials.
Highlights
1. Selecting basin-wide indicators does not mean that the lake-specific indicators are
unimportant.
2. There is a key gap - SOLEC doesn't have indicators for tributary watersheds. Taking this
point further, SOLEC indicators are not cross-cutting for the whole basin.
3. SOLEC needs to clarify its role in the nesting of indicators: SOLEC/LaMPs/RAPs.
4. We need to recognize that there will be different endpoints for each lake.
5. Need to clarify who is the audience for the SOLEC indicators.
6. We need a process for finalization of the indicators. SOLEC is just a beginning, not an end.
7. Indicators will need to be peer reviewed as well as additional collaboration with stakeholders.
4.3.2 Lake Michigan
Facilitator: Sheila Greene
Organizer: Judy Beck
Participants in this session discussed and provided specific feedback on the Lake Michigan
LaMP's matrix approach to indicators and objectives which involves six goals:
Fish
Drinking the Water
Beach Closings
Habitat
Public Access
Land Use/Recreation
Participants discussed ways of incorporating the SOLEC indicators into indicators for the LaMP
goals while realizing that the two will be different.
Highlights
1. We need an accurate link between the current LaMP activity and condition indicators. The
stressor is the link.
2. Taste and odour problems in water and fish should be added as indicators.
3. More specificity is needed for the condition indicators.
4. Consistency of measures by indicator will enhance uniformity.
5. Use the SOLEC indicators where appropriate, and also draw on the work done by the IJCs'
Indicators Implementation Task Force.
6. There is a need for standardization between local/state/tribes on: fish advisories, beach
closing criteria, and analytical methods for fish contaminant monitoring.
7. Need creative ideas on indicators for drinking water and beach closures.
36 SOLEC 98 Conference Proceedings
-------
4.3.3 Lake Huron
Facilitator: Leslie Demal
Organizer: Jim Bredin
The Lake Huron breakout session attendees were provided a summary report regarding Lake
Huron. This report included information on background conditions, water quality, fish, birds and
exotic species. It also included a preliminary review of potential critical pollutants and beneficial
use impairments, and identified potential indicators. Most of the information provided in the
summary report was derived from previous SOLEC reports.
The breakout session attendees were asked to respond to two questions:
Do you feel that the suite of indicators proposed in the paper is useful for Lake Huron?
How should we proceed to address Lake Huron issues?
The attendees of the session were informed that the suite of indicators proposed in the
summary report were derived directly from previous SOLEC reports and were not specifically
developed for the purposes of SOLEC 98.
In responding to the question of the usefulness of the indicators identified in the summary
report, the following responses represent the issues identified by the groups:
Even though we have general goals and objectives from the GLWQA, indicator identification
is inappropriate and premature prior to identifying lake goals and objectives;
Indicators presented are not adequate - they do not respond directly to impaired beneficial
uses, lack linkage and specificity, and do not address all stressors/dynamics covering the
full range of Lake Huron issues;
It would be appropriate to consider regional indicators - Georgian Bay, Saginaw Bay, North
Channel, Main Basin; and
Recommended indicator additions: water diversion, shoreline cottage and residential
development, island development, waterfowl nesting, and others.
In responding to the question of how should we proceed to address Lake Huron issues, the
following responses represent the recommendations from the groups:
Establish a forum to discuss Lake Huron issues;
Fish community objectives for Lake Huron have already been developed by the Great Lakes
Fisheries Commission, potential use of the Commission's Lake Huron Technical Committee
for advancing future efforts;
Real problem - interest may be around the table, but agencies are hesitant because of the
very limited resources (money, staff, expertise);
May be another way of undertaking a LaMP (to address the overwhelming resource issues):
look at partnerships, NGOs, others and use a combination approach - top down, bottom up;
Need to include stakeholders early in the process to identify agency/public concerns and
interests with respect to Lake Huron;
It would be appropriate to consider regional efforts - Georgian Bay, Saginaw Bay, North
Channel, Main Basin.
Quote of the Day (regarding a LaMP-type process for Lake Huron) "the bus is in the
station and ready to go"
SOLEC 98 Conference Proceedings 37
-------
4.3.4 Lake Erie
Facilitators: Helen Domske and Tom Mersey
Organizers: Sandra George and Francine Norling
Introduction:
The Lake Erie Lakewide Management Plan (LaMP) is in the process of developing ecosystem
objectives to guide future management actions for Lake Erie. It is expected that indicators of
progress will be derived from these objectives, once the objectives are finalized. However, for
the purposes of SOLEC, the goal of the workshops was to discuss the SOLEC indicators that
may be applicable to Lake Erie, given current knowledge about environmental conditions in
Lake Erie.
Key Questions for workshop participants:
To orient the participants to the workshop topic, the LaMP Workgroup co-chairs gave an
overview of the current status and future direction for the LaMP. In addition, an overview of the
ecosystems objectives process was provided, including a discussion of a modeling process
using a fuzzy logic cognitive map. After these presentations, the workshop participants were
provided with a list of preliminary LaMP indicators, and asked the following questions:
What criteria should be used to integrate SOLEC indicators with Lake Erie LaMP ecosystem
objectives?
What changes could be made to improve the preliminary LaMP list of indicators?
Specifically, are there any obvious gaps in the indicators list? Should any be dropped or
added?
Highlights:
1. Land use is a major factor influencing the Lake Erie ecosystem, and indicators need to be
developed for this factor (such as rate of conversion, total amount of conversion, percent of
impervious surfaces).
2. Different types of indicators are needed for the government agencies than for the public,
keeping in mind the pressure-state-condition categories of indicators (public prefers "state-
condition" information, while agencies need all three categories to manage programs). Those
indicators developed for the public need to be easily understood by the public (such as the
presentation of indicators in the Ohio Lake Erie Report).
3. Ecosystem objectives need to be established before a detailed discussion of Lake Erie
indicators can occur.
4. While the ecosystem objectives and indicators are being established, progress to correct
known problems should continue (exotics pollution prevention, habitat preservation).
5. The SOLEC Committee needs a mechanism for achieving consistency between SOLEC
objectives/indicators and LaMP objectives/indicators.
4.3.5 Lake Ontario
Facilitators: Vicki Barron and Tij'a Luste
Organizers: Barbara Spinweber and Janette Anderson
The breakout sessions for the Lake Ontario LaMP was made up of two major elements:
presentations on the current status of a number of potential ecosystem indicators and a
38 SOLEC 98 Conference Proceedings
-------
presentation on the Ecosystem Goals and proposed Ecosystem Objectives included in the
Stage 1 LaMP. The purpose of the breakout session was to present information on the current
status in the following subject areas: Benthic Communities; Fish Communities; Wildlife
Communities; Water Quality; and Wetland Habitat. The presentations were given by State,
Federal and Provincial agency representatives with expertise in the respective subject area.
Short descriptions of these presentations are summarized below:
Lake Ontario Benthos: Disturbance in the System (Steve Lozano, EPA)
Benthic invertebrates play a critical role in the Lake Ontario ecosystem including carbon transfer
up the food chain and cycling of nutrients between the sediments and water. The recent
invasion of Dreissena polymorpha and D. bugensis into Lake Ontario has brought about
dramatic changes in abundance and distribution of important benthic species. One of the key
indicator organism for the Great Lakes, Diporeia spp., has shown the most dramatic decline.
Based on recent findings, populations of native species have been extirpated from a contiguous
zone around the lake. This zone extends as far as 26 kilometers offshore and as deep as 200
meters, encompassing over 40% of the total surface area of soft sediments in Lake Ontario.
The cause of the above situation is unresolved but it has been shown that Dreissena and
Diporeia do not co-exist in most areas of the lake. It appears that Dreissena has disrupted the
Lake Ontario food chain with major consequences on benthic invertebrate species and forage
fish that depend upon Diporeia for food. The decline of Diporeia in the nearshore waters of Lake
Ontario coincided with the declines in prey and sport fish populations.
Fish Communities (Bob Lange, NYSDEC)
The Lake Ontario fish community has changed significantly this century. Historic habitats of
forested watersheds, undisturbed wetlands, free-flowing rivers, variable water levels, and low
nutrient loading provided habitat for numerous Lake Ontario fish species that are no longer
found in the Lake including Lake Trout, Atlantic Salmon and Blue Pike. As a result of community
stressors such as dams, deforestation, overfishing, wetland destruction and non-native
organisms, the Lake Ontario fish community has been significantly altered. Today, common
lake species include alewife, smelt, carp, round goby, and sea lamprey. Even the once
abundant alewife are decreasing. On the positive side, a few species, like wild trout, are
showing signs of a comeback since 1994 and there are other species including lake whitefish,
lake herring, and deepwater sculpin, that do have the potential to rehabilitate in Lake Ontario.
Wildlife Communities (Chip Weseloh, Env. Canada) - summary not available at time
of printing.
Water Quality, Including Niagara River (Don Williams) - summary not available at
time of printing.
Assessment of Habitat Impairments in the Lake Ontario Ecosystem (Kofi
Flynn-Aikins on behalf of D. Busch, USFWS)
A habitat classification system was used to describe aquatic habitats and evaluate the habitat
degradation in Lake Ontario. Computer databases and a Geographic Information System were
used to quantify stream habitats currently available to migratory fish in the Lake Ontario
watershed.
Because data on biological, chemical, and physical anthropogenic changes to Lake Ontario
were scattered, patchy, and disjointed, the Delphi technique was used to evaluate the degree of
SOLEC98 Conference Proceedings 39
-------
functional habitat impairment for 29 habitats in the Lake Ontario ecosystem. The criteria for the
impairments were the severity of the ecological impact and its permanence. The amounts of
functional degradation were averaged by habitat categories for each habitat and multiplied by
the estimated areal proportion of that habitat in the ecosystem. It was estimated that during
1970-1990, Lake Ontario's ecosystem health was degraded by 58%. Impairments were caused
almost equally by anthropogenic stresses from biological, chemical and physical sources.
Spatial tributary length data from the U.S. side of Lake Ontario watershed were obtained from
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Reach File database. The tributary length data
were combined with a matching map projection database containing dam locations obtained
from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineer's National Inventory of Dams to assess and quantify
historic and currently accessible stream habitats. Historically, there were 30,085 km of stream
habitat, which have been currently reduced to only 5,392 km by the presence of 328 dams in
the watershed. These dams have reduced the accessibility of migratory fish to important
spawning habitats. The loss of habitats would ultimately lead to reduction in fish populations in
the Lake Ontario basin.
Ecosystem Goals & Objectives (Dick Draper, NYSDEC)
This overview included a presentation of the Lake Ontario LaMP Stage 1 Process, the LaMP
Goals, the proposed Ecosystem Objectives and Indicators. One of the objectives of the session
was to have discussion and comments on the proposed Objectives, and the Potential Indicators
in light of the SOLEC theme.
The Proposed Ecosystem Objectives (focusing on Aquatic Communities, Wildlife, Human
Health, Habitat and Stewardship) were presented for discussion and comments on whether the
objectives were complete and appropriate and if the potential indicators would be appropriate
for measuring progress towards achieving the Objectives.
Highlights
1. More effort is needed to involve local residents and share the lessons learned from the other
LaMPs that are further along.
2. The limited workshop discussion focused on the completeness of the LaMP objectives. There
was general agreement with the objectives however, it was felt that effort will be required to
develop the indicators that will be used to measure the LaMP objectives.
4.3.6 St. Lawrence River
Facilitator: Anne Kerr
Organizer: Jean Burton
Please note: In section 4.3.6 "basin-wide" refers to the Great Lakes/St. Lawrence basin.
The St. Lawrence River system is an integral part of the Great Lakes ecosystem. The Great
Lakes basin accounts for only 55% of the combined Great Lakes/St. Lawrence basin, with the
St. Lawrence River extending over 1000 km beyond the international border at Cornwall. The
following topics were proposed for discussion during the breakout sessions:
1. To identify the issues that could be better understood and addressed through a basin-
wide approach, and specifically the three most important ones;
40 SOLEC 98 Conference Proceedings
-------
2. To identify mechanisms, processes and the appropriate organizations needed for a basin-
wide approach;
3. To answer the question whether basin-wide sets of indicators would be useful for these
issues and what changes or improvements, if any, should be made to the proposed
indicators to make them applicable basin-wide.
Three major basin-wide issues were identified are outlined below from the point of view of the
St. Lawrence River system.
Water Levels and Flows
The overview included issues such as the influence of water level regulation in Lake Ontario on
flow in the St. Lawrence, the conflicting interests both upstream and downstream, and on
different stakeholders (hydro generation, shipping, pleasure boating, shoreline properties,
domestic water supplies, aquatic and wetlands ecosystems). "Balancing the needs of the same
stakeholders in different parts of the Great Lakes/St. Lawrence system, of different stakeholders
in the same or different parts is very difficult. The situation would be even more difficult with the
effects of climate change." (Paraphrased). The role of the International Joint Commission could
be expanded in this area. Participants were asked to consider whether common goals and
objectives for the whole Great Lakes/St. Lawrence basin would be useful?
Toxic Contaminants
PCBs and mercury originate from the St. Lawrence system (much of it from the Cornwall/
Messina area), while pesticides like atrazine largely come from upstream. There have been
significant reductions in loadings and levels of contaminants in recent years (PCBs, mercury,
other metals). The question posed for toxics, in view of their transport through the whole system
of the Great Lakes/St. Lawrence, is whether a common approach, goals, and indicators would
be most appropriate.
Exotic Species
Control of ship ballast water and how to deal with zebra mussels is seen as the main concern. A
common approach was suggested for the control of ballast water as an example for basin-wide
cooperation. Participants were asked whether basin-wide objectives and indicators for the
control of exotics would be useful.
The participants of the two breakout sessions identified the following issues, approaches and
organizations:
1. Issues that could be better understood and addressed through a basin-wide approach:
Water levels and flows (use conflicts, local impacts on wetlands and other ecosystems,
impacts of climate change);
Exotics (particularly tracking);
Toxic contaminants (particularly fluxes, air transport and air loadings, effects on human
health);
Impacts of climate change;
Develop mechanisms to resolve conflicts over water levels and flows (particularly in
anticipation of the impact of climate change);
Impacts of turbidity on fish productivity; and
Environmental impacts of the use of the Seaway (e.g. opening and closing dates).
SOLEC 98 Conference Proceedings 41
-------
2. Mechanisms or processes needed and organizations to be involved in a basin-wide
approach:
The geographic boundary for a basin-wide approach should include the Gulf of St.
Lawrence (although the boundaries might differ for different issues);
Extension of the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement to the Quebec and maritime
portion of the St. Lawrence was seen as politically difficult, probably not feasible. A less
formal agreement was suggested;
SOLEC was suggested as an appropriate organization to approach the larger basin;
There was a role for the IJC Science Advisory Board and Great Lakes Research
Managers Council;
Representatives from Atlantic Canada may have a role to play;
Involvement of Great Lakes United, and the Great Lakes Fisheries commission (to
consider the continuity of the ecosystem) was suggested;
Expansion of the terms of reference of the St. Lawrence Board of Control to include
ecological considerations;
Development of a management plan for the whole St. Lawrence River equivalent to the
LaMP; and
Development of consistent and comparable monitoring, measuring methods and data
treatment for the whole of the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence (particularly for toxic
chemicals; seen as Environment Canada's responsibility).
3. Usefulness of indicator sets common to Great Lakes and St. Lawrence and suggested
changes as a result:
Some may be useful, others may not apply to river systems;
Areas for potentially useful common indicators: contaminants (water quality, loadings
and mass balances, effects), wetlands, biodiversity, exotics, fish consumption and
human health;
Indicators to monitor and understand local impacts;
Common or consistent targets or endpoints;
Biodiversity Investment Areas for the St. Lawrence (maybe);
Recommendation that indicators should be compatible, to move towards common
indicators, recognizing differences where they are basic.
Highlights
1. The whole St. Lawrence River should be considered as an integral part of the Great Lakes/
St. Lawrence system.
2. SOLEC indicators should be extended where appropriate.
3. The key issues are: (a) water levels and flows, (b) toxics, (c) exotic species, (d) climate
change.
4. SOLEC itself may be well placed to coordinate extension and to develop joint indicators;
other bodies may be Environment Canada, a joint Research Council, or an IJC with expanded
terms of reference.
5. River Management Plans, analogous to LaMPs should be developed for the St. Lawrence.
6. The impact of climate change on the whole Great Lakes/St. Lawrence system should be
investigated, signals of change monitored, and responses planned.
42 SOLEC 98 Conference Proceedings
-------
4.3.7 Connecting Channels
Facilitator: E. Marie Phillips
Organizers: John Gannon and Gary Johnson
Introduction
The Great Lakes connecting channels include the St. Marys River, St. Clair River, Lake St.
Clair, Detroit River, Niagara River, and St. Lawrence River. All of these areas continue to play
important roles in the economy and ecology of the Great Lakes. In spite of their prominence in
transportation and municipal and industrial development, these large rivers and Lake St. Clair
generally have not received as much attention by governmental and non-governmental
agencies, politicians, scientists, and the public as the Great Lakes proper. Similarly, insufficient
attention is given to the unique ecological attributes in these areas and the threats to them from
human perturbations.
Are More Specific Indicators Needed?
There was broad consensus that the answer to this question is "yes". Most of the SOLEC
indicators were developed for the Great Lakes proper; many do not apply to the connecting
channels (e.g., plankton) and others would require modification (e.g., benthos). The strong
influences of hydrodynamics, sediment transport, and the transient nature of water, suspended
sediment, and much of the biota require a rethinking of indicators specific for the connecting
channels. It was also noted that each of the connecting channels possesses unique ecological
characteristics and environmental problems. Consequently, a "cookie cutter" approach to
indicator development was not recommended.
Will the Indicators be Useful in Implementing RAP Goals?
In general, there was concern that there is a disconnect between the SOLEC indicator process,
environmental regulatory programs, and RAP activities. To be truly useful, indicators in the
connecting channels should be able to assess environmental conditions as well as measure
progress towards achieving goals (e.g., restoration of beneficial uses, delisting Area of Concern
status, etc.). Because of the dynamic nature of the connecting channels, these indicators must
be sensitive to rapidly occurring changes. In general, biological and sediment indices which
integrate effects over time will be more effective than traditional water quality indices. Moreover,
indicators must be linked to the institutions with regulatory and natural resource management
responsibilities or they may never be implemented. Binational cooperation and coordination in
indicator development and implementation is especially important in the connecting channels
where the international border is so close to U.S. and Canadian shorelines.
Are New Mechanisms Needed to Obtain the Necessary Monitoring Data for
SOLEC Indicators?
The strong currents and short residence time of water in the connecting channels pose special
scientific challenges in designing a monitoring program for indicators. High spatial and temporal
variability may mask long-term trends. It was recommended that attention be given to these
scientific challenges as well as overcoming the political barriers for developing a mutually
agreed upon binational suite of indicators and their measurement.
Highlights
1. Connecting channels are so ecologically different from the Great Lakes that they require their
own research and development on indicators.
SOLEC 98 Conference Proceedings 43
-------
2. Binational agreement is required on the protocols for monitoring (data collection, sharing,
analysis, and reporting) the indicators in the connecting channels.
3. Linking the SOLEC indicators to RAPS and regulatory and natural resource management
programs is necessary to maximize implementation of indicators and associated monitoring
programs in the connecting channels.
4.4 Cross-Cutting Issues Session Summaries
4.4.1 Implementing Indicators
Facilitator: Gail Krantzberg
Organizers: Doug Dodge, Doug Alley
Session Format
Four sub-groups within this session deliberated one of two issues:
Process for Adopting the Indicators; or
Process for Tabulating and Reporting on the Indicators (data considerations)
for one of two indicators:
PCBs in Lake Trout, (an indicator which supports both the "biotic integrity and ecological
diversity" and "virtual elimination of toxic substances" desired outcomes); or
Boil Water Orders as an indicator of the desired outcome of "drinkability".
The central challenge to participants was to delineate the steps that need to be taken to make a
particular indicator applicable and work. The products anticipated of the session were:
A heightened awareness by the stakeholders of the complexity, resource demands, and
required level of cooperation necessary to implement indicators in the Great Lakes
basin; and
A draft "critical path analysis" for at least one potential indicator.
The first product was clearly achieved among the participants, and several steps towards
producing the second product were identified.
General Observations from Both Indicators:
1. Any indicators exercise, including that of IITF (Indicators Implementation Task Force), must
be responsive to public needs.
2. IITF should examine ways to articulate the desired outcomes to turn them into good
communication tools.
3. For both "test" indicators, the matter of scale in reporting is important. Loss of information in
reporting basin-wide obscures real challenges. For example, drinkability of water from a
basin-wide perspective may indicate general conditions, however, advisories tend to be local
in nature and are highly relevant to local populations. Similar findings were pointed out by
groups examining PCBs in Lake Trout.
4. As a corollary of the above, the "top-down/bottom-up" tension surrounding indicator
selection and reporting was echoed in this session, as in other SOLEC break-out groups.
5. Experts within the Parties (and jurisdictions) presently have ownership of the data.
Leadership is sought jointly with the IJC and the Parties (through EEC) to focus on priority
44 SOLEC 98 Conference Proceedings
-------
outcomes of the GLWQA. Motivating factors that encourage lateral and vertical information
transfer need to be identified and activated.
6. It is critical to develop and demonstrate compatibility between the IJC indicators for the
desired outcomes and the SOLEC products.
7. Specific task teams that have the relevant expertise in the measurements and interpretation
of the indicators should be assembled for each indicator to analyze and report on the two
key questions discussed in this workshop.
INDICATOR 1: PCBs IN LAKE TROUT
Data considerations
Whole fish: applicable to track virtual elimination/biodiversity. Recommend a coordinated federal
approach that measures individual fish, rather than relying on composite samples. Since within-
lake levels are variable, sample and report by sub-basin. Relate tissue residues to effects on
individuals/populations in order to use the whole-body data to examine implications for
biodiversity.
Fillet data: applicable to "edibility". Data can be normalized to account for differences among
methodologies across jurisdictions. Reporting should be according to percent frequency of
occurrence of an advisory as a proportion of stations sampled. Improve speed of reporting,
following analysis.
Process for adopting the indicator
Use SOLEC to report on the indicators. Federal coordination of methodology and reporting
could be enhanced, as could provincial/state coordination through SOLEC.
Examine current Strategic Planning Processes in the U.S., which include Memoranda of
Agreement Authorities, Environmental Round Tables. In Canada, coordinate through the
Canada/Ontario Agreement process. Consider as a model Performance Partnership
Agreements, and existing Acts.
Use expert, technical staff through a bottom-up process that builds on existing protocols and
maintains flexibility while gradually moving to standardization.
A value-added role for the IJC is to build a common understanding of the indicator, help
establish the "preferred" protocols, demonstrate the savings possible through sampling and
reporting efficiencies, encourage the strengthening of existing program linkages.
INDICATOR 2: BOIL WATER ORDERS
Data considerations
Although one "mock" indicator was put forward, ensure the suite of indicators is broad enough
to track the desired outcome.
"Boil water orders" are easily accessed in the U.S., not in Canada. The Canadian Council of
Ministers of Environment (CCME) Subcommittee on Drinking Water could be used to coordinate
a repository for the information.
Details on the specifics surrounding "boil water orders" is required. Discussion surrounded the
SOLEC 98 Conference Proceedings 45
-------
different events that would be tracked when reporting "boil water orders" for water that is
derived from surface as compared to groundwater sources in the basin.
To track "drinkability", rapidly report on status of drinking water using current methods, while
designing a process to improve the quality of the data within and across jurisdictions
Process for adopting the indicator
Identify the variety of agencies involved, including representatives at the local level.
Demonstrate the benefit for larger scale reporting so that local data will be made more readily
available at higher levels of organization (eg.: need a motivator for vertical reporting)
A value added role for the IJC would be to convene a symposium that scopes out the "big
picture", defines the goals through a discussion of the desired outcome, thereby improving
collective ownership of the indicators and encouraging data sharing and complementarity.
IITF should provide their analysis and advice to SOLEC. SOLEC provides the opportunity for a
team of agencies and stakeholders to nail down what indicators can be used now, those for
future development, and how to interpret the data trends. SOLEC can also identify the benefit to
the participants and the public for reporting beyond the local scale.
Conclusion
As described in the General Observations: this was a starting point for discussion. The
complexity of the matters were readily apparent. To fully address each of the two questions for
any indicator, an expert-lead panel with hand-picked participants is recommended. The venue is
secondary, but has some logical overlaps with SOLEC, and existing Agreements, Committees,
and Authorities.
4.4.2 Applying Indicators - a RAP Perspective
Facilitator: Jim Bredin
Organizer: John Hartig
The primary purpose of Remedial Action Plans (RAPs) is to restore beneficial uses in Great
Lakes Areas of Concern. The Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement outlines 14 specific use
impairments. These use impairments have provided a template to help RAP teams and public
advisory councils reach agreement on a comprehensive problem definition and report out on
status, quality, and trends of key indicators.
Because many RAPs have been involved in indicator development, collection of data, and
reporting on trends for over 12 years, this provides a good opportunity to share successes and
lessons learned. This SOLEC breakout session focused on indicator trends and lessons from
RAPs. Four data rich presentations were given to demonstrate application of the indicator
concept in RAPs:
macrobenthic invertebrate indicator trends in the St. Clair River (Gary Johnson, Ontario
Ministry of Environment);
liver tumor trends in bullheads from the Black River, Lorain, Ohio (Paul Baumann, U.S.
Geological Survey);
fish community indicator trends in Hamilton Harbour, Ontario (Bob Randall, Fisheries and
Oceans Canada); and
46 SOLEC 98 Conference Proceedings
-------
aesthetic indicator trends in the Rouge River, Michigan (Noel Mullett, Wayne County Depart-
ment of Environment).
The presentations were very well received. A facilitated discussion was held around two ques-
tions.
What are the current obstacles to more effective use and broad-based
application of indicators?
Participants identified the following obstacles: lack of watershed and whole system studies; lack
of an integrated approach; limited acceptance of indicators concept; limited acceptance of the
use of community, as well as population level indicators; lack of acceptance of the use of Index
of Biological Integrity (IBI) for littoral habitats; inconsistent use of indicators; cost of monitoring;
inconsistent resource support for monitoring; applicability at local community level; evolving
nature of indicators; and fragmented responsibility for monitoring.
What are the critical factors for successful application of the indicators
concept in RAPs?
Participants identified the following success factors: scientifically-defensible, objective, and
measurable; validated; a high priority must be placed on monitoring; local involvement and
support; indicators must make sense and be easily understood; site-specific; clearly
communicated; consistency with beneficial uses in Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement;
flexibility; and must be cost effective.
Participants recommended the following as advice to SOLEC, LaMPs, and
others:
share successful experiences more frequently, including information on value and benefits;
LaMPs and RAPs (and BIAs) should be asked to report out on indicators at SOLEC 2000;
there is a need to focus on a relatively short list of indicators that can be easily understood
and communicated;
SOLEC indicators should be built upon the work of LaMPs and RAPs;
develop community and stakeholder support;
ensure that indicator data are used to make management decisions;
much greater attention must be given to the resource implications of SOLEC indicators.
Make a recommendation in the SOLEC 98 report for adequate government resources to be
able to implement fully the indicator concept;
a lakewide scale may be the best one for integrating and reporting out on indicators (LaMPs
should be empowered to lead in this area);
GLIN and GLIMR should be used to share experiences on application of indicators;
there is a need to continue to fund basic research on indicators;
volunteer monitoring is no substitute for scientific monitoring; and
ensure that all future SOLECs present state of the Lakes based on agreed upon indicators.
SOLEC 98 Conference Proceedings 47
-------
4.4.3 Endocrine Disrupters
Facilitator: Anne Kerr
Organizers: John Goldsmith, Mark Johnson, Heraline Hicks, Paul Horvatin
The following is the session closing presented by Dr. Heraline Hicks from the Association of
Toxic Substances and Disease Registry in Atlanta, GA.
A hypothesis has been proposed that certain chemicals may disrupt the endocrine system.
These chemicals have been called "endocrine disrupters" because they are thought to mimic
natural hormones, inhibit the action of hormones, or alter the normal regulatory function of the
immune, nervous, and endocrine systems.
Evidence has been presented that a number of environmental chemicals, both synthetic and
natural, have the potential of disrupting endocrine systems in aquatic life and wildlife. The
problem is characterized by varied adverse effects on the endocrine system in a wide range of
species. These adverse effects include abnormal thyroid function, sex alteration, decreased
fertility, alterations in behavioral functions, and reduced growth, to name a few. The evidence
that has accumulated in the scientific literature is compelling - endocrine systems of aquatic life
and wildlife have indeed been disturbed by chemicals that contaminate their habitats.
We have learned over time that animals are sentinels of human and environmental health.
Animals provide insights to human health events that could occur from exposure to chemical
contamination. Based on what we have learned from animal studies, the recent data emerging
from human health studies also indicate adverse effects on the human endocrine system from
exposure to chemical contamination in our environment. For example, data from the Agency for
Toxic Substances and Disease Registry's Great Lakes Human Health Effects Research
Program indicates that exposure to persistent toxic substances (PTSs) can cause disturbances
in reproductive parameters and demonstrate neurobehavioral and developmental deficits in
newborns between 12-24 hours and 25-48 hours after birth. Research findings indicate that a
specific set of PCB congeners are the agents responsible for at least part of the observed
neurodevelopmental outcomes. Other human studies outside the Great Lakes basin and in
other countries have observed similar adverse effects in newborns, young children, and adults.
The story of lead in children that demonstrated the consequences of in-utero exposure to lead
through the work of a host of investigators indicated both neurobehavioral and the increasingly
significant social consequences of that in-utero exposure. Is there a similar scenario occurring
from exposure to persistent toxic substances that disrupt the endocrine system?
As a public health agency we feel enough information is available, based on the weight of
evidence, to call for new health promotion strategies and risk communication methods to ensure
that citizens are able to make informed decisions about the potential health risks and potential
benefits from exposure to PTSs, eg. breast feeding children of mothers who consume
contaminated fish. Additionally, pollution prevention strategies remain the key to reducing toxic
chemical loading to the environment.
Lastly, we need more research to help identify the chemical specific etiology of adverse effect(s)
from endocrine disrupting chemicals. Therefore, we applaud the EDSTAC process by the U.S.
EPA, which brought all parties together, eg. private sector, industry, federal agencies,
academicians, and environmental groups to help clarify this issue of endocrine disruption.
48 SOLEC 98 Conference Proceedings
-------
4.4.4 Citizens Indicators/Great Lakes United
Organizer: Margaret Wooster
Great Lakes United presented a session on "citizen indicators" of Great Lakes ecosystem health
based on a preliminary analysis of over 300 testimonies and 50 hours of tape from 10 citizen
hearings across the U.S. and Canadian Great Lakes basin during the summer and fall of 1998.
Indicators ranged from impacts to health and local economies due to environmental
contaminants to budget cuts in state and provincial programs for research, monitoring and
enforcement of existing regulations. Unanimous support was found for implementation, not
renegotiation of the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement.
The session had two components: 1) a panel discussion of several of the major themes raised
across the 10 hearings; and 2) break out sessions to discuss how to move forward on zero-
discharge, RAP clean-up, and full implementation of the GLWQA.
The panel discussion included presentations by four citizen activists each presenting a
summary of a different major theme recurring throughout the hearings:
Diane Heminway, Assistant Director of Citizens' Environmental Coalition, New York reported
on testimony from citizens and scientists, including Dr. Theo Colborn and Pierre Beland, on
human and wildlife health effects associated with toxics in the Great Lakes environment,
including endocrine disruption and childhood cancer clusters.
Elaine Kennedy, Chair of the Ontario Public Advisory Council, reported on failures and
frustrations in implementing RAPs in AOCs particularly on issues of contaminated
sediments and combined sewer overflows.
John Jackson of the Ontario Toxic Waste Research Coalition related citizens' views on the
importance of the language of the GLWQA as it stands and concerns that renegotiation
would only weaken the Agreement. The perceived problem is the failure to implement.
Margaret Wooster of Great Lakes United summarized testimony on the lack of progress
towards the Agreement's goal of zero discharge of persistent toxic substances, including, in
some communities, significant increases in toxic releases since 1993, permit review
backlogs, and major cuts in programs and staff for monitoring and enforcement.
After a Q&A period, attendees broke into three groups to discuss obstacles and opportunities
for 1) zero-discharge, 2) RAP implementation, and 3) full implementation of GLWQA.
Common obstacles cited in all three sessions: a lack of governmental commitment to
confronting and resolving toxics issues; deregulation and downsizing of needed programs and
staff; and the need for funding clean production, remediation and disposal technologies. Also
raised were issues pertaining to labor in a free trade environment ("job blackmail"); political
lobbying interference/inequities; and lack of multi-jurisdictional coordination.
The opportunities and recommendations to move forward included: improve leadership
("agencies should use SOLEC to feedback their knowledge in ways that political leaders can
understand"); improve dialogue with influential constituents like labor; establish penalty/reward
systems as incentives to clean production ("make it economical not to use toxics"); improve
understanding of the economic benefits of healthy environments; improve quality of and public
access to information; and shift burden of proof to polluters and risk assessments to a weight of
evidence approach. Citizens need to get their messages to political leaders; agencies and
scientists need to advocate on the policy implications of their findings.
SOLEC 98 Conference Proceedings 49
-------
4.4.5 Volunteer Monitoring
Organizers: Dan Bauer and Bill Clemens
Introduction
Across the Great Lakes basin, volunteers are extensively monitoring the condition of streams,
rivers, lakes, reservoirs, coastal waters, wetlands, and wells. The number and variety of these
projects are continually on the rise as well as the complexity of the monitoring volunteers
conduct and the uses of the data they collect. However, at the current time, the use of volunteer
monitor data varies widely with agency and individual from no use to extensive use of the data.
A major challenge, therefore, to this session was to initially evaluate and discuss the existing
Great Lakes volunteer monitoring programs and then to describe methods to more effectively
utilize the volunteer monitor data with the Federal, State, and Provincial data.
A major issue confronting volunteer monitoring programs today is data credibility. Potential data
users are often skeptical about data collected by volunteers - they may have doubts about the
goals and objectives of the volunteer project, about how volunteers were trained, about how
samples were collected, handled and stored, and how the data were analyzed and reports
written.
This session discussed and evaluated our existing volunteer monitor programs in the United
States and Canada and looked forward to our next important steps.
Brief History of Volunteer Monitor Movement U.S. and Canada
The talk depicted an extensive history of volunteer monitor programs in the Great Lakes region
with several selected examples of the various programs noted below. Primary elements of
ecological volunteer monitoring programs include:
teach inter-relationships and patterns;
view that humans are part of the system;
demonstrate that ecosystem are not static, but change over time;
introduce concepts of carrying capacity and sustainability;
use natural organization units such as watersheds or ecoregions;
illustrate the links between community, local, regional and national systems;
promote an ethic or behaviour that encourages quality of health and well being;
include the study of human and ecosystem health;
promote long term study and understanding;
use a strong experiential component;
encourage a strong partnership and collaboration with agencies, institutes and volunteers;
develop a strong alliance with other youth; and
use technology tools like computers to assist in data management and links to others.
Example Volunteer Programs
Stream and Rivers Program - State of Michigan
Multi-level program approach used for teachers, students, and adults.
Student Monitoring Program - Lake Michigan Area
Lake Michigan river mouth with data being collected from 1986.
Fishery Monitoring Programs - Georgian Bay, Canada
Program consists of all volunteers looking at fish species, size, community index population,
etc. The effort is completed on annual basis and has been ongoing for 5-10 years.
50 SOLEC 98 Conference Proceedings
-------
Fish Way Monitoring, Ontario, Canada
- Dams / Fish Ladders - evaluate fish as they move through dams eg. how healthy, etc.
- Report back on annual basis with an extensive program in Province of Ontario.
- Program extensively uses volunteers and has been active for 3-4 years.
Buffalo State College - Great Lakes Center
College students visit local schools volunteer monitoring sites to interact with local kids and
help with overall QC (quality control) for the site.
Marsh Monitoring Program
- Across Great Lakes, binational, covering 36 of 42 AOC's, and conducted since 1995.
- Other item included in program: newsletter, WEB page, scientific reports, membership
mailing list, and participant training kit.
Buffalo Creek, NY Studies
- Area of study is a nature preserve (wetland) in Buffalo, NY area.
- Elements of program: insects, aquatic invertebrates, fish population, turtle traps, field
chemistry, and trees.
ECOWATCH - the volunteer and school environmental monitoring component of EMAN
(Ecological Monitoring and Assessment Network of Environment Canada) in partnership
with the Canadian Biodiversity Educational Alliance.
This program is designed to:
- provide hands-on experience of collecting environmental data, in order to educate youth to
understand and appreciate the environment, how it relates to our health, and create the
future generation of responsible stewards of the Earth;
- provide extensive environmental data that can be used by scientists to further their
investigations about Canadian ecosystems;
- provide youth with an appreciation of the capabilities and necessity for technology (com-
munications and science) in addressing environmental challenges, and the connection with
the use of these technologies in future careers;
- provide information to communities for better decision making on social and environmental
issues.
Ensuring Quality in Volunteer Monitoring Programs
Volunteer program efforts need to be internally consistent (ie. use the same methodology).
Some variations can be expected between volunteer programs.
Concern expressed by attendees of lack of overall support for staff to coordinate and run
volunteer program efforts. Good example is the MARSH program which has only two
permanent staff members for 2000 volunteers.
Michigan Prototype Effort
Effort just underway stressing benthic and aquatic habitat areas;
Prototype includes: source variability, sample collection/identification conducted at each site
before sampling initiated;
Field Strategy: Volunteers as a group assess a site while professional staff also do an
assessment of the same site, then the results/assessments are compared;
Some consideration given to the timing of sample effort and consideration of weather
conditions;
Sampling return period - return on at least an annual basis or in the same season;
Volunteer identification "JAR" - individual jars to spot-check training needs, etc;
Quality checks are not grading individuals doing "bad" job but rather to make corrections,
etc.
SOLEC 98 Conference Proceedings 51
-------
Where Do We Go from Here? Our next Steps and Goals
Government Commitment - Support needed for volunteer monitor efforts, eg. funding,
support staff, inkind amounts, etc.
Coordination Support - Volunteer programs need to be centralized and there needs to be
a data repository of volunteer information.
Data Repository - Majority of volunteer monitoring groups in Great Lakes region need to
place information in computer using compatible format. We therefore need to plan, develop
and implement a master data repository for the majority of volunteer monitoring data.
Website Linkage of Great Lakes Programs - Linkage via WEB of majority of volunteer
monitoring programs in Great Lakes region.
QA/QC - The majority of volunteer programs need to use approved QA/QC procedures for
field, analysis, and storage of information. There needs to be certification acceptance of
data similar to what is currently used in the "GREEN" program. There also needs to be
expanded trust of volunteer data and continued testing of volunteer data for overall quality.
Education Programs - Accelerate use of volunteer monitoring courses by schools in U.S.
and Canada.
Volunteer Data Usage - Strive for volunteer data to be jointly used with Federal, State, and
Provincial Data.
Indicators - Determine indicators that can be emphasized for volunteer efforts.
Procedures/ Methods - Stress consistency and ensure a good review process is used
along with more overall "BINATIONAL" volunteer efforts.
4.4.6 Modelling Summit
Connecting Ecosystem Objectives and Indicators Through Modelling
Organizers: Joe DePinto, Gary Sprules, Dave Do/an
Introduction
The achievement of an ecosystem objective is tracked by the selection and reporting of one or
more indicators that quantitatively monitor ecosystem response. A good indicator of ecosystem
health and integrity integrates a wide range of environmental factors (or stressors) into a single
attribute that reflects the response of the system to those stressors. Ecosystem models that
relate the response of an ecosystem to the cumulative impact of multiple stressors can provide
the theoretical basis for indicator selection and application.
Key Questions
1) What ecosystem objectives are you interested in addressing? 2) For each ecosystem
objective identified in 1) above, suggest an indicator. What data would need to be collected to
allow reporting of that indicator? 3) Have you heard of a model or modelling approach that you
wish to know more about? 4) What case studies can be described which have ecosystem
objectives, indicators and models already in place?
Participant Perspectives
The participants were interested in knowing why models were needed to interpret indicators.
Two examples were presented to show that indicators cannot be used in the absence of
understanding. Models are successful in providing that understanding when the response
variables are selected to coincide with the desired outcomes.
52 SOLEC 98 Conference Proceedings
-------
Session Outcomes
Models should be constructed in a way that allows new species to be handled.
We have good models of various parts of the ecosystem, but we need to work on the
linkages. For example, we need better linkages 1) amongst air, land and water; 2) between
nearshore and offshore; and 3) between the upper and lower food chains in lakes. If these
linkages can be achieved, models can help sort out competing multiple outcomes.
Next Steps
Models cost only 1 to 1.5% of what control actions cost. We need to sell modelling as part of
Great Lakes management. The suggested approach is to:
1. Provide examples of successful modelling in support of indicators
2. Show how indicators can be misinterpreted in the absence of models
3. Show how models can resolve conflicts among indicators
4. Show how models can predict when indicators are likely to respond
5. Show how managers can be involved in defining desired outcomes for lakes
4.4.7 Next Generation Indicators
Facilitator: JoAnna Kidd
Organizer: Henry Regier
The following is a summary from the organizers of this session regarding the topics that were
presented to, and discussed by, the SOLEC participants during the Next Generation Indicators
session at SOLEC 98:
Great Lakes ecosystems are subject to stresses with interacting local, bioregional and global
dynamics, and especially turbulent dynamics, that are poorly understood. These stresses
include contamination by organohalides, introduction of exotic species, climate change and
urbanization. The stresses tend to impinge on our basin ecosystems most forcefully and in
highly unnatural ways during episodic events, notably storms. Ecological effects of different
stresses interact, sometimes synergistically. The more severe impacts cannot be
accommodated by these ecosystems without major disruptions of ecosystemic organization and
adaptive phase shifts to more tolerant but less desirable kinds of ecosystems. The relevant
science is primitive and available indicators are insufficient to monitor these phenomena.
An important policy issue relates to the mobility (or fugacity) of contaminants, both within and
between ecosystems. Contaminants both enter and leave these ecosystems en masse, as well
as being re-activated strongly within them, during particular kinds of storm episodes. In the
context of regional and global dynamics, are the basin ecosystems inactivating and losing
contaminants at net rates and to asymptotic endpoints that are politically acceptable? Data on
the concentrations of particular contaminants in particular indicator species or selected physical
media have long been used to address this question. Such data are related to the practical
issue stated above in complex and poorly understood ways. In particular, the fugacity
coefficients and episodic aspects of contaminant dynamics have seldom been considered. Also
an ecosystemic phase shift (see below), from pelagic dominance with short food chains to
benthic dominance with long food chains, may lead to temporary trends in contaminant
concentrations different in sign from the overall long-term trend in amounts of contaminants in a
lake.
SOLEC 98 Conference Proceedings 53
-------
Speakers Ray Hoff, Brendan Hickie and Dan Smith used different, though compatible, models
to examine whether the total amounts of various contaminants in these ecosystems were
changing. They agreed that the amounts were falling at rates that could be quantified
approximately. A century from now the contaminant problem may have "gone away." Perhaps
climate change might increase both water temperatures and storm intensities and thus expedite
the export of contaminants northward.
In the second part of the session the emphasis was on complex ecosystemic responses to
some stresses other than chemical contamination. James Kay sketched relevant theory from
the fields of complex systems and thermodynamics. Using long time series of monitored data,
Bill Schertzer and Brian Shuter identified some key variables and traced some sequential
relationships between meteorological, hydrological and biological phenomena with respect to
climate change, teleconnections to the El Nino/La Nina Southern Oscillation and volcanic
eruptions like Mt. Pinatubo.
"Whole system" ecosystemic responses to certain exotic species were demonstrated: for carp in
Cootes Paradise by Vic Cairns, for zebra mussels in Lake Erie by Mohi Munawar and for sea
lamprey in oligotrophic lakes by Randy Eshenroder. Long-term ecosystemic phase shifts due to
a particular cultural stress such as eutrophication, and to an interacting set of intense cultural
stresses, were sketched by Henry Regier. In all of these cases there is a search for appropriate
integrative indicators with diagnostic and prognostic capabilities, in the face of inadequate
scientific understanding and lack of clarity of political objectives.
According to the Kay and Regier biphasal heuristic model, an aquatic ecosystem may be
perceived to be dominated either by a benthic attractor or by a pelagic attractor. Pristine Great
Lakes ecosystems - terrestrial, wetland and aquatic - were mostly in an "old growth" state.
Pristine aquatic ecosystems were dominated by the native benthos while the severely degraded
ecosystems of the 1960s and 1970s were dominated by the pelagos. The latter was quite
artificial with numerous exotic species. The phase shifts in numerous shallower parts of the
basin from benthic to pelagic dominance were due to combinations of interacting stresses:
over-exploitation, enrichment, chemical contamination, biological contamination by exotics,
physical restructuring, etc. Following partial remediation, the degraded aquatic ecosystems are
now rehabilitating toward dominance by a quite artificial benthic association.
Our Great Lakes basin culture is contributing to biospheric degradation and is in turn impacted
by global debasement. Future scientific and monitoring capabilities should strongly emphasize
large scale, episodic and complex phenomena. Stress-specific, ecosystemic and biospheric
studies should all be inter-related explicitly. The environmental challenges are now greater than
they were in 1972 and 1978 when the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreements were signed.
Some implications of the 1987 Protocol to the GLWQA, and of IJC's report on the reference on
levels and flows relate to what is advocated here. With at least a century of environmental
travails and disasters before us, we should try to forecast at least some of those coming in order
to limit their bad effects.
54 SOLEC 98 Conference Proceedings
-------
4.4.8 Environmental Issues for the Future
Chairperson: Michael J. Donahue
Organizer: Carolyn O'Neill
Resource People: Doug Cuthbert (Water Quantity), Steve Thorp (Land Use), Heather Auld
(Climate Change)
In addition to the participants listed above, approximately 25 individuals from government,
industry and NGOs participated in this session.
Environmental issues of the future were defined as either newly emergent issues or long
standing issues that are changing in nature and character. Water quantity, land use and climate
change were pre-selected for presentation during the first part of the session given the
integrative and integrated nature of these issues:
We have tremendous effects on Great Lakes water levels through our own activities. For
example, dredging the shipping channel through the St. Clair system reduces Upper Lake levels
by 11 inches. At the same time our intentional Lake level regulation dams provide a much
smaller degree of control than is usually assumed - not enough to compensate, from a shipping
perspective, for this year's 30 to 45 cm reduction in water levels due to lower precipitation and
higher evaporation in the Great Lakes system.
Climate change and variability scenarios, and predicted increases in demand for Great Lakes
water indicate that we will need to become better at evaluating impacts and trade-offs, and in
managing land use practices on the shores of the Lakes rather than relying on our limited ability
to manage water levels.
The Great Lakes basin generally experiences changeable weather - storms blow at us from all
directions. How are we going to react to the anticipated changes in this changeable weather -
the higher temperatures, less persistent winter ice cover; changing storm tracks, etc.? Humans
will have to adjust through changed building codes and altered agricultural practices, etc.
Although very little is really known about them, there appear to be particularly significant
impacts for the Great Lakes basin ecosystem under climate change scenarios.
Overall, climate change will add to other human made stresses. Strategies to help natural
ecosystems adapt to future climate change need to move beyond single-issue management
and consider in an integrated fashion the changing suite of atmospheric and hydrologic
stresses. It will be important that all indicators we choose to work with carry an appropriate
climate change signal.
The 17 large metropolitan areas in the basin now account for four-fifths of the population.
Urban/suburban sprawl, and its associated environmental impact, has been described by many
as the leading environmental stressor in the Great Lakes basin. At present there is no indication
that this land use trend is moderating, although efforts at brownfields redevelopment and
associated greenfields preservation are accelerating.
Break out groups built on the themes above and discussed other issues they felt warranted
attention, and indicators development and use. A complete list of all the issues raised in the
break out sessions is given below.
SOLEC 98 Conference Proceedings 55
-------
STRESSES
exotic species
chemical substitution
nuclear energy
water diversions
increasing water consumption
increased irrigation
salination
aquifer depletion
increase in pathogens
land use
climate change and variability
stratospheric ozone depletion
increasing complexity of issues
difficulties in involving society in decisions
loss of social cohesion
a rise in environmentally rooted conflicts
subsidized urban and economic growth
liberalized trade and globalization
all issues driven by population growth
RESPONSES
environmental education
expertise in conflict resolution
adaptive management
re-engineered planning
full cost accounting
zero population growth strategies
new housing forms
segmented land market
binational debate on growth issues
public policy on growth
behaviour shift to environmental/land ethic
STRESS & RESPONSE INDICATORS
social progress
environmental conflict
ecological footprint
green GDP
birth and immigration rates
climate change factored in to all indicators
A group by group analysis reveals that each group took a unique perspective in looking at the
stresses, responses and indicators. The first group looked at our current economic system; the
second group focused at the societal level and the third focused more at the level of the
individual and changing behaviour.
56 SOLEC 98 Conference Proceedings
-------
Participants in the session on 'Environmental Issues of the Future' agreed that researchers and
policymakers must be aware of, and prepared to respond to emerging issues as well as
established ones. Such issues are complex and multidimensional, requiring attention from
economic, public policy and social science perspectives as well as the physical, chemical and
biological perspectives. The use of indicators in the identification, assessment and resolution of
such issues has great merit.
4.4.9 Binational Toxics Strategy
Organizers: Susan Nameth, Liz LaPlante
The Canada-U.S. Binational Toxics Strategy was signed by EPA Administrator Carol Browner
and then Minister of the Environment Sergio Marchi on April 7, 1997. The Strategy calls for the
reduction and virtual elimination of persistent, toxic and bioaccumulative substances from the
Great Lakes basin, within set time frames. Since the time of signing, the U.S. and Canada have
focused developing and initiating an implementation plan for the Strategy. The SOLEC session
focused on the implementation process and structure of the Strategy, as well as some of the
obstacles and barriers to implementation that the two countries are facing.
The Implementation Plan of the Binational Strategy calls for substance-specific workgroups,
with U.S. and Canadian co-leads, for the Level I "virtual elimination" substances. These
workgroups are comprised of stakeholders from all sectors ~ local, state and federal
governments, industry, environmental groups, Tribes/First Nations, Provinces, and the general
public. Some of their responsibilities and tasks include tracking the challenge goals, helping to
establish and track baselines, developing activities and actions that move toward reductions of
these targeted substances, and bringing critical industry partners to the table.
Each of the workgroups will be working toward fulfilling the "Four-Step" Analytical Framework
found in the Strategy - gathering and analyzing information, assessing regulatory gaps and
barriers, developing options and recommendations for reductions. Three Reports in support of
the reduction challenges will be issued by December 31, 1998: The Alkyl-Lead "no use" in
Gasoline Report, the Pesticides "confirm no more use and release" Report, and the
Octachlorostyrene "no-use or release" Report.
Some of the barriers to implementation include lack of general knowledge about the Strategy
and its components, allocation of scarce resources on the part of both industry and
governments, budgetary constraints such as severe budgetary cutbacks, lack of participation on
the part of critical industrial sectors and environmental partners and competing initiatives and
priorities.
SOLEC 98 Conference Proceedings 57
-------
5. SOLEC 98 Success Story Recipients
Prior to SOLEC 96, the SOLEC Steering Committee agreed on the importance of recognizing
organizations from around the Great Lakes basin that have demonstrated a strong commitment
to the environment. In 1996, seven projects ranging from responsible industrial land-owners to
active local citizens groups, were chosen as SOLEC Success Story recipients. For SOLEC 98,
the following criteria were used to select award recipients. The project must encompass all or
most of the following:
Showed improvement in the Great Lakes Ecosystem;
Forged linkages among economy, environment, and community;
Created a "win-win" solution;
Formed strong partnerships;
Established sustainability as a goal;
Fostered broad stakeholder involvement; and
Demonstrated adequate monitoring of effectiveness.
Based on the criteria, the following five projects were selected for SOLEC 98 recognition:
Brantford Division of Union Gas Limited
When it came time for a new customer service building in Brantford, Ontario, the management
at Union Gas felt it was important to implement a philosophy of sustainable development into
the building design and the surrounding landscape. Lands around the property, known as the
Brant Prairie, were restored to their natural state, including Tall Grass Prairie, an oak-maple
forest and sedge marsh. Rare indigenous plant species were identified during the naturalization
process, including the Fringed Gentian and the Partridge Pea. The latter had been recorded in
Ontario but not seen for 80 years.
Because it is a naturalized landscape, the Brantford customer service centre requires no
mowing, watering, spraying or fertilizing. The local marsh provides habitat for various species of
plans, birds, butterflies, frogs and wildlife. School groups and other visitors can explore trails on
the site, and learn about natural heritage, biodiversity and sensitive ecosystems through the
outdoor classroom.
The City of Buffalo
Industrial decline and restructuring have been particularly pronounced in Great Lakes cities like
Buffalo where industrial activities have been concentrated on the waterfront. Buffalo faces
enormous economic, social and environmental challenges and many of these challenges are
tied directly to brownfields. More than 10,000 acres are vacant and/or under-utilized. The City of
Buffalo is a notable success in overcoming formidable obstacles to improve the Great Lakes
ecosystem by removing threats to human health and the environment and returning
contaminated lands to productive use.
A series of successful brownfields redevelopment projects have resulted in the excavation and
bio-remediation of over 17,000 cubic yards of petroleum soaked oil. The site now houses 18
acres of high-tech hydroponic tomato greenhouses and exemplifies the efforts underway to help
the community make a transition from a heavy-industry based economy to a more diverse and
sustainable economic base.
58 SOLEC 98 Conference Proceedings
-------
The city of Buffalo does not and cannot separate its brownfields strategy from its overall long
range development strategy for sustainability. Several long-term plans are currently being
developed and implemented to promote job creation, provide long-term environmental
protection, improve ecological conditions and provide the region with a strong economic base.
These include a Northeast Parkway/Industrial Corridor Plan; the South Buffalo Brownfields
Redevelopment Plan; the Main LaSalle Redevelopment Plan; and the Amherst Buffalo Corridor
Initiative.
Buffalo River Habitat Restoration Sites
The Buffalo Fish and Wildlife Habitat Restoration Demonstration Project, initiated by Erie
County with a grant from the Great Lakes National Program Office of the U.S. EPA, has trans-
formed over 10 acres of former brownfield property into a string of three pocket parks along the
river. This collaborative effort brought together not only Erie County and the EPA, but also the
City of Buffalo and New York State agencies, local community organizations and industry.
In line with EPA Environmental Justice initiatives, the Buffalo River Habitat Restoration
Demonstration Project sites are designed to benefit urban neighbourhoods as well as wildlife.
The Buffalo River waterway can develop into an unexpected jewel that could become a major
part of Buffalo's urban heritage. The River awaits boaters, canoeists, fishermen, naturalists,
picnickers and folks who just want to get away from it all.
Rondeau Bay Rehabilitation Program
In response to the ban on lead, this Chatham based environmental group mounted its first "take
a little lead out" project last summer to encourage fishers to exchange their lead jigs and sinkers
for non-toxic alternatives. The Rondeau Bay group collected just over 100 kilograms of lead
sinkers, jigs, and slip shot. With a supply of alternative materials left over, the group hopes to
continue the exchange program through the coming summer and winter.
The Watershed Rehabilitation Program has teamed up with local bait shops and sporting good
stores to offer the alternative materials free of charge. Meanwhile, two students hired to survey
fishers' catches took time to point out the benefits of using alternative metals. Local radio
stations helped out with public service announcements and reduced-rate advertising, while a
number of fishing and wildlife organizations spread the word to their members. Besides offering
the new sinkers and jigs in stores, the Watershed Rehabilitation group attended outdoor
community events.
The Waukegan Harbour Citizens Advisory Group
The Waukegan Harbor Citizens Advisory Group was recognized for its progress in the
Waukegan Harbor Area of Concern. Support for the nomination as a SOLEC 98 Success Story
is exemplified in its broad stakeholder involvement and progress in recently completing its Stage
3 report documenting follow-up monitoring efforts. Monitoring efforts have documented reduced
contaminant levels in harbour fish which allowed the removal of fish consumption advisory signs
at Waukegan Harbor in February, 1997. Sign removal was a major milestone showing
environmental improvement following remediation of harbor sediments in 1993.
Strong public participation and cooperation of many stakeholders has continued since the
advisory group was formed in 1990. A brownfield pilot was initiated through efforts of the
advisory group and the City of Waukegan has recently applied for a U.S. EPA brownfield grant
to further this effort. Additional dredging of the harbour for navigational purposes is being pur-
sued with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
SOLEC 98 Conference Proceedings 59
-------
6. Participant Feedback - Surveys &
Questionnaires
In total there were 102 surveys / questionnaires returned to the SOLEC 98 conference
organizers. The largest number came from the Indicator Workshops (44 returned).
The SOLEC 98 Delegate Survey related to the objectives of SOLEC and to the overall
conference. Delegates felt that the best met objective was "providing a forum for improved
communications and networking regarding Great Lakes issues and opportunities for change"
while the least met objective was "contributing to the development of a consistent, easily
understood set of indicators that will enable effective reporting on the state of Great Lakes and
on progress toward the goals of the GLWQA at the basin-wide scale." Although the
development of a basin-wide set of indicators was one of the least met objectives, some
respondents added that SOLEC 98 had taken an important first step towards this objective, but
more work was needed.
There were many positive comments regarding the organization and content of the conference.
The overall themes of indicators and BIAs were well received. They liked the basin-wide scope,
the balanced approach between themes / issues and attendees, and the wide stakeholder
participation. In fact "this was the best SOLEC conference yet" was a common response. Some
of the highlights of the conference included the plenary presentations, Bill Rees's talk,
networking with others and the conference organization.
The Indicator Workshop surveys related to both the individual core groups of indicators and to
the whole suite of indicators. Although responses were varied, most suggested that after
revamping some of the indicators (eg. determining the objectives and endpoints as well as
removing the duplication) then a reorganization was necessary and important so that the
indicators could be tiered or nested in many different ways. These responses have been sent to
the individual core group leaders and have also been discussed at a core group meeting held
mid January 1999. The SOLEC 98 Indicators list will be revised based on these comments and
those discussed at the breakout sessions.
The Biodiversity Investment Area surveys showed a favourable response to the concept but
indicated that some adjustments were necessary to the process and to the selected sites. In
addition buy-in from stakeholders was extremely important. These responses have been sent to
the authors of the BIA papers. The papers will be revised based on these comments and those
discussed at the breakout sessions.
The lake by lake sessions varied widely in their content and in the questions asked in the Lake
by Lake surveys. One comment was about "promoting a 'core set of indicators' which are
common to each of the lakewide management plans and the SOLEC indicators for the basin".
Another comment discussed the "disconnect between Lake Erie LaMP and SOLEC indicator
development. The SOLEC indicators are a good start but they need to be made consistent with
the process of developing indicators for the La/WPs."The participants in the connecting
channels workshop and the St. Lawrence River workshop felt that an integrated suite of
indicators would be quite useful, however, it must be recognized that these features are quite
different from the Lakes and would require some unique indicators. The comments have been
sent to the organizers of these breakout sessions.
60 SOLEC 98 Conference Proceedings
-------
SOLEC 98 Survey/Questionnaire Number Returned
SOLEC 98 Delegate Survey 32
Indicator Workshop Questionnaires 44
Open Waters Indicator Workshop (3)
Nearshore Water Indicator Workshop (3)
Coastal Wetlands Indicator Workshop (2)
Land Use Indicator Workshop (8)
Human Health Indicator Workshop (5)
Stewardship Indicator Workshop (4)
Basin-wide Overview Indicator Workshop (9)
Biodiversity Investment Area Questionnaires 8
Open Water BIA Workshop (1)
Coastal Wetlands BIA Workshop (4)
Nearshore Terrestrial BIA Workshop (3)
Lake-by-Lake Questionnaires 17
Lake Michigan Workshop (3)
Lake Huron Workshop (2)
Lake Erie Workshop (3)
Lake Ontario Workshop (5)
St. Lawrence River Workshop (3)
Connecting Channels Workshop (1)
Cross-Cutting Issues Questionnaires* 1
Implementing Indicators Workshop (1)
Total Number of Questionnaires Returned 102
* Note - some of the questionnaires for the cross-cutting issues
workshops may have been taken by the session organizers,
other cross-cutting issue sessions did not have questionnaires
SOLEC 98 Conference Proceedings 61
-------
7. Closing Remarks
John Mills
Regional Director General
Environment Canada, Ontario Region
Delivered on Friday October 23, 1998.
Good Morning. Even after working you hard over two days, I see there is still energy in this
room. I want to take a few minutes to talk with you about commitment, some impressions of this
session, and indicators - particularly SOLEC indicators. My comments are those of both Parties.
Dave Ullrich (U.S. EPA) is aware of them.
Firstly, commitment. I want to reiterate quite strongly that the governments of Canada and the
United States are fully committed to the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement.
Commitment. We are committed to SOLEC as part of the Great Lakes reporting process. It
helps identify the science base for emerging issues and it helps us adjust our programs accord-
ingly. This is the third SOLEC. Each one has been an improvement on the last. It is appropriate
at this stage to do a third party review of how well SOLEC is meeting its objectives and how it
fits in to the great mosaic of Great Lakes activities. We need to look at how SOLEC fits in with
the International Joint Commission's biennial meetings and make sure they are compatible and
work together. We must take a closer look at our engagement with the citizens of the basin,
from citizen groups and individual citizens to industries and agencies. All of the people of the
basin share in the responsibility of cleaning up and restoring the Great Lakes and must be
engaged in this process.
Now to my impressions of this session. Clearly, there is a need for indicators, however, it is
difficult to come up with an agreed upon suite of indicators. There is also a desire to get on with
it: to make it happen. My other impression relates to the issue of new science. We are doing
world class science in the basin and the content of this SOLEC confirms this impression. Devel-
oping the concept of Biological Investment Areas (BIAs) is new and challenging, pushing the
boundaries of these scientific investigations.
And now a few words on indicators. The first day we had the image of the Great Lakes as seen
from the shuttle, the plane, and the canoe. This gave us a sense of the differing perspectives on
the Great Lakes. We also have to recognize that we have two audiences, the first, and most
important, is the citizens of the basin. They need indicators which speak to the fishability,
drinkability and swimmability of the Great Lakes. Managers from the different agencies in this
room need more specific indicators, so that they can make decisions and adjust their work
accordingly. The existing work of LaMPs, and RAPs provides us with an excellent starting point.
We are trying to move from the indicators that were created using the expert judgement of
participants at previous SOLECs, to something that is more robust, measured in science and
understandable.
Where to from here? To be useful the indicators have to be owned and used by the people,
groups and agencies who are doing the monitoring in the basin. Because of our bottom up
approach, we realize that we are going to have to take the work done here, "on the road". We
need to dialogue with the agencies to ensure that there is coherence and buy-in to a suite of
62 SOLEC 98 Conference Proceedings
-------
indicators that makes sense. It will help us to identify where the ambiguities are; where we don't
have it quite right yet. I expect by SOLEC 2000, we will have the first report against that prelimi-
nary set of indicators.
I used to be a weather forecaster so let me predict the future. I would predict that in 10 to 15
years, when we look back at SOLEC 98, we will recognize that we made a significant move
forward in how we look at and deal with the issues of the Great Lakes basin ecosystems.
Finally, SOLEC is about the "State of the Lakes". So how are they? They are in better shape
now than they have been in the past 50 years. We have addressed some of the easier issues -
as David Ulrich says when he uses the analogy of the human body - we have stopped some of
the bleeding, bound some of the lacerations, and repaired some of the bones. But the body is
still not healthy. Toxics, including the long range transport of toxics and their impact on wildlife
are major concerns. The impacts of exotic species, urbanization and land use and how it is
affecting the nearshore in particular are three major areas of concern.
We have a lot of work to do to return this body to a healthy state. The dedication shown by all of
you in terms of your individual work and collective work shows that this is attainable. Together
we can make it happen. I want to end by saying thank you very much for your participation, for
your engagement, for your ideas, and for your hard work.
SOLEC 98 Conference Proceedings 63
-------
APPENDICES
to the SOLEC 98 Conference Proceedings
SOLEC 98 Conference Proceedings - Appendices A-l
-------
SOLEC '98
What's it all about?
The Parties to the Great Lakes Water Quality
Agreement (the governments of Canada and
the United States), want to establish a
consistent, easily understood suite of indica-
tors that will objectively represent the state
of major ecosystem components across all
Great Lakes basins and on which they can
report progress every two years. This suite of
indicators should also be used to assess the
Parties regarding achievement of the purpose
of the Agreement. The acceptance and use of
a core set of indicators will also drive data
collection activities throughout the basin.
The first two SOLEC conferences reviewed
the state of various components of the Great
Lakes ecosystem through the use of indica-
tors and subjective assessments. These
indicators were developed through the best
judgement of the scientists involved. SOLEC
'98 is taking this work a step further and has
pulled together a list of ecosystem indicators
for discussion at the conference.
In addition to the indicator work, SOLEC '98
is also suggesting areas of high biodiversity -
worthy of protection, preservation and/or
restoration. These biodiversity investment
areas include aquatics, coastal wetlands and
the lands by the Lakes.
SOLEC '98
Steering Committee
Steering Committee members represent a wide variety of
agencies from around the Great Lakes:
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
Council of Great Lakes Industries
Environment Canada
Great Lakes Commission
Great Lakes Fishery Commission
Great Lakes States
(Michigan, Minnesota, New York, Pennsylvania)
Great Lakes United
Health Canada
International Joint Commission
Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food & Rural Affairs
Ontario Ministry of Environment
Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
U.S. Geological Survey
There are many other individuals, and representatives from
environmental groups, academia and the local level of
government who have participated in the work
necessary to develop this conference.
For additional information please contact:
Office of Regional Science Advisor
Environment Canada - Ont. Region
867LakeshoreRd.,
Burlington, Ontario L7R 4A6
ph: 905-336-6270
Great Lakes National Program
Office-US EPA
77 West Jackson Blvd.,
Chicago, IL 60604
ph: 312-886-4360
SOLEC '98
State of the Lakes
Ecosystem Conference
Great Lakes Indicators and
Biodiversity Investment Areas
o
o
-------
Tuesday October 20, 1998
An evening reception will take place in the lobby of the
Buffalo Convention Center
Hor d'oeuvres provided - Cash bar
Sponsored by Great Lakes Commission
DAY ONE - Wednesday October 21, 1998
8:30 Welcome / Opening Remarks
9:00 Presentation of Indicators List by
Subject Groups:
Nearshore & Open Waters
Coastal Wetlands
Land by the Lakes
Socio-Economics / Land Use
Stewardship
Human Health
30 minute break is scheduled at 10 am.
12:00 Lunch
Guest Speaker: William Rees, Univ. of B.C.,
"Our Ecological Footprint"
2:00 Workshops: I ndlcatorSubJectGroups
& Resource people will be available at each
4:00 workshop to explain the SOLEC Indicator
List in more detail. Participants may select
two different workshops.
30 minute break at 3:30 pm. Adjourn at 5:30 pm.
6:30 Evening Reception
In amongst the displays.
Hot hors d'oeuvres provided. Cash Bar
Ul
DAY TWO -Thursday October 22, 199S
8:30 Plenary Session: State of the Lakes
This session will update the information
presented at SOLEC '94 and SOLEC '96 and
in the corresponding States of the Great
Lakes reports.
9:00 BIA Presentations:
Highlights of the papers will be presented for
Aquatic
Coastal Wetlands
Land by the Lakes
30 minute break is scheduled at 10 am.
10:30 Workshops: Lake-by Lake Sessions
The intent of these sessions is to discuss the
applicability of the SOLEC Indicators to each
lake. These sessions are being run in
conjunction with the LaMPs (where
applicable). There will also be a
session for the St. Lawrence River.
12:00 Lunch
Guest Speaker: Dave Bennett, Canadian
Labour Congress, "Just Transition"
1:30 Workshops: Lake-by-Lake and BIAs:
These sessions will discuss the lakes (see
10:30 timeslot) and will also discuss the
findings of the Biodiversity Investment Area
papers. Where the right areas selected? Did
we miss a special area? What are the
implications of selecting an area?
3:30 Field Trip or SOLEC 5 km Fun Run
Visit some of Buffalo's restoration sites or be
really active and participate in the SOLEC 5
km Fun Run!
7:00 Dinner
Guest Speaker: Hays Bell, Eastman Kodak,
"Environmental Responsibility"
Success Story Recognitions
DAY THREE - Friday October 23, 1998
8:30 Plenary Session
8:45 Workshops: Cross-Cutting Issues
These sessions will discuss the cross-
cutting issues. These include:
IJC indicators work
Citizen's indicators
Modelling summit
Endocrine disrupters
Volunteer monitoring
Applying indicatorsRAP perspective
Next generation indicators
Fish community objectives
11:45 Feedback for the Future - Students
Perspective of SOLEC 98
12:15 Closing Plenary
from here?
Where do we go
12:30 Conference adjourns
Please note:
The display area will be open for viewing throughout
the day on Wednesday and Thursday.
Registration Tuesday October 20, 6:30pm-9:00pm
or
Wednesday October 21, 7:30am-12noon
For further information on SOLEC visit our
web site at http://www.cciw.ca/solec/
-------
Appendix B. Core Group Leaders and Biodiversity
Investment Area Paper Authors
Indicators Core Group
Co-Chairs:
Paul Bertram (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency)
Nancy Stadler-Salt (Environment Canada)
Nearshore & Open Waters: Tom Edsall (U.S. Geological Survey)
Coastal Wetlands:
Nearshore Terrestrial:
Land Use:
Human Health:
Stewardship:
Lesley Dunn (Environment Canada)
Duane Heaton (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency)
Nancy Patterson (Environment Canada)
Ron Reid (Bobolink Enterprises)
Karen Rodriguez (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency)
Ray Rivers (Rivers Consulting)
Doug Haines (Health Canada)
Mark Johnson (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency)
Ron Baba (Oneida Nation)
Biodiversity Investment Area Paper Authors
Nearshore Terrestrial:
Coastal Wetlands:
Aquatics:
Ron Reid (Bobolink Enterprises)
Karen Rodriguez (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency)
Dennis Albert (Michigan Natural Features Inventory)
Pat Chow-Fraser (McMaster University)
Joe Koonce (Case Western Reserve University)
Ken Minns (Fisheries and Oceans Canada)
Heather Morrison (Fisheries and Oceans Canada)
A-4
SOLEC 98 Conference Proceedings - Appendices
-------
Appendix C. Participant Profile
Participation by Country
Country
United States
Canada
Mexico
Sweden
Lithuania
Total
Participation by Sector
Sector
Federal Government
Provincial / State Governments
Academia / Research
IJC
Industry
Environmental Groups
Municipal / Regional Governments
Recreation / Wildlife / Conservation / Fishing
Native / Aboriginal Groups
Public Advisory
Health
Media
Agriculture
Other
Total
Number of Registered Delegates
253
171
1
1
1
427
Number of Registered Delegates
154
60
38
32
30
20
19
18
10
10
5
4
2
26
427
Percent
59.25
40
0.25
0.25
0.25
100
Percent
36.07
14.05
8.9
7.5
7.0
4.68
4.45
4.2
2.34
2.34
1.17
.94
.47
5.85
100
SOLEC 98 Conference Proceedings - Appendices
A-5
-------
Appendix D. Student Presentation/Great Lakes
Student Summit
Student Presentation
Students and teachers from local area schools were invited to SOLEC 98 to participate in the
plenary sessions and workshops, and were asked to present their perspective to the SOLEC
delegates at the closing plenary session. The students read from a vision statement that had
been presented at the IJC Biennial Public Forum. Student involvement evolved from their
participation in the Great Lakes Student Summit - a program of the Erie County Department of
Environment and Planning.
Participation from the East Aurora School District included: John Newton (teacher), James
Ricci (5th grade), Cindy Cicarell (5th grade), Nathan Newton (5th grade), Angela Barranello
(5th grade), and Aren Hall (11th grade). Participation from the West Seneca School District
included: Gail Hall (teacher), David Walter (5th grade) and Kristina Czechowski (5th grade).
About the Great Lakes Student Summit
The Great Lakes Student Summit (GLSS) began in 1995 as an opportunity for students in
grades 5-9 from throughout the Great Lakes basin to learn about environmental issues affecting
their communities (and have fun at the same time!). Over 250 students and teachers
participated.
The second GLSS, held in 1997 involved more than 275 students and teachers from the US
and Canada. Project exhibition ranged from posters outlining pollution prevention strategies, to
skits detailing environmental awareness and even a full-scale functional watershed model!
The highlight of the 1997 event was the development and presentation of a vision statement for
2022. This vision statement was then officially presented at the IJC Biennial Public Forum held
in Ontario, Canada.
The theme for the 1999 summit, "Your Concerns, Our Concerns, Areas of Concern", focuses on
environmental issues facing the Great Lakes states and provinces and is designed to motivate
student interest and involvement in their local communities. As with the past two Summits,
students will have an opportunity to showcase research and environmental projects they are
involved with in their areas of the Great Lakes basin.
The Summit will feature several field trips that are designed to educate the students about the
geological, biological and chemical make-up of the Great Lakes ecosystem.
The ultimate goal of the 1999 GLSS is to encourage students to utilize their education and
experiences gained at the Summit and apply these new-found skills and knowledge back home.
By teaching children to take "ownership" and promote stewardship of their watersheds in their
communities, we are giving them the personal responsibility of protecting the Great Lakes
resource and almost guaranteeing Great Lakes protection into the future.
A-6 SOLEC 98 Conference Proceedings - Appendices
-------
Appendix E. Keynote Speakers
Welcoming remarks - Wednesday October 21, 1998
Paddy Torsney, Government of Canada
William Muszynski, Deputy Regional Administrator, EPA Region 2
Lunch Speaker - Wednesday October 21, 1998
William E. Rees, PhD
University of British Columbia
"Where On Earth is The Great Lakes Basin?"
Abstract
Ecosystems management in the Great Lakes Basin (GLB) should begin by recognizing that
human beings are the region's dominant consumer organism and that they greatly affect the
structure and function of their supportive ecosystems. This paper estimates the total load
imposed on these ecosystems by the human population of the GLB using 'ecological footprint
(EF) analysis.'
EF-analysis is an extended form of trophic analysis. It assesses not only total metabolic
requirements of the region's human population, but also its 'industrial metabolism' and converts
relevant material and energy flows to a corresponding ecosystems area. Thus, the ecological
footprint of the GLB human population is the total area of terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems
required to produce the resources consumed and to assimilate the wastes produced by that
population.
This approach shows that the average per capita eco-footprint of GLB residents is between
seven and ten hectares. Assuming a population approaching 40 million, the total eco-footprint of
the region may therefore be as high as four million square kilometres. This is five times larger
than the geographic area of the basin itself, or approximately half the area of the lower 48
states. In terms of their ecological impacts, the residents of the GLB thus 'live' mostly outside
the region. The sustainability of the region's human population and lifestyles therefore depends
more on sound management of ecosystems outside the basin than on the internal management
regime. Similarly, exemplary management efforts to improve GLB regional environmental
quality may actually reduce global sustainability if the effect is to further off-load the impacts of
local consumption (eg. further extend the region's ecological footprint) onto ecosystems
elsewhere in the world.
For further information on Ecological Footprint Analysis, Dr. Rees has published several articles
on the subject, as well as the following book:
Mathis Wackernagel and William Rees. 1996. Our Ecological Footprint: Reducing Human
Impact on the Earth. New Society Publishers. 176 pp.
SOLEC 98 Conference Proceedings -Appendices A-7
-------
Lunch Speaker - Thursday October 11, 1998
Dave Bennett
Director, Health and Safety, Canadian Labour Congress
"Just Transition"
The Canadian Labour Congress (CLC) represents 2.3 million workers in both public and private
sectors across Canada. The CLC as a national organization has been on the fringes of
consultations over Great Lakes water quality, so this is very much an outsider's view of the drive
to clean up the Great Lakes.
The CLC is, however, a regional as well as a national organization. Local unions and Labour
Councils have been instrumental in environmental control and remediation measures and they
have, above all, taken the lead within workplaces to institute pollution prevention and toxics use
reduction measures.
Some of the characteristics of the efforts to improve Great Lakes air and water quality are 1)
bold and ambitious aims on the part of the International Joint Commission and its scientific
advisory bodies; 2) a long history of the failure of implementation moves on the part of
governments at all levels; 3) a focus on zero discharge and the sunsetting of selected chemicals
as the key to pollution abatement moves; and 4) labour as very much a junior partner among
stakeholders.
The "Just Transition" movement arose because of the profound changes in industrial structure
that would arise out of a true sunsetting program. The status of sunsetting programs is less
prominent than it was, except that tangible programs are being replaced by chlorine campaigns
and the like. Any moves to eliminate chlorine from industrial production would require a very,
very strong and comprehensive transition program.
Labour's aim is to make "Just Transition" an integral part of sunsetting campaigns and
programs. But first some background on transition itself.
Workers have a history of dealing with transition measures through economic conversion
schemes that have, among other things, tried to provide compensation, retraining and
reemployment for workers displaced from "sunset" industries. These projects and measures had
little to do with sustainability, environmental protection or the impact of environmental change on
the different industrial sectors.
In North America, transition issues became a reality with proposals to ban, phase out, eliminate
or "sunset" specific toxic chemicals or classes of chemicals, such as the ozone depletors,
chlorinated chemicals, heavy metals, asbestos, or lists of chemicals such as the "Dirty Dozen"
pesticides, all in the name of sustainability, sustainable development, or the protection of
ecosystems. Unions developed, and are still developing, an ideology and a program of "Just
Transition" to deal with the industrial disruptions caused by the banning of major feedstock or
other industrial chemicals. The disruptions would be major and the transition measures to deal
with them, ambitious and comprehensive.
Among the options for transition programs are: 1) an equitable program of industrial
restructuring and retraining to recruit laid-off workers from the affected industries to the new
alternative industries or ventures; 2) a program of retraining and reemployment in the affected
A-8 SOLEC 98 Conference Proceedings - Appendices
-------
industries, and 3) a placement system inside and outside the affected industries, which may
include severance pay, counselling, retraining, adjustment programs, and a placement service.
A placement service for laid-off Canadian Steelworkers, for instance, has had a very high
placement rate of 85 to 90 percent, the record over income maintenance being somewhat less
impressive.
Among the problems associated with the program are that the changes are deep and "societal,"
placing a very heavy responsibility on the state for inaugurating and implementing or overseeing
the program all this in a time when the planning functions of governments are under siege.
This has led for calls, including from some segments of labour, for modesty in the environmental
change program and a corresponding modesty in the transition program needed. There is, for
instance, a problem of increasing complexity and difficulty, where the program deals with (i) a
single employer; or (ii) an industry with multiple employers, all having a responsibility for
transition measures but with uneven responsibilities for implementing the environmental change
concerned; or (iii) a whole range of different industries, such as energy producers, some of
which gain and others of which lose in the event of major industrial change.
To finance a transition program, a lot of revenue is needed, going into billions of Canadian
dollars annually. Among the proposals for revenue raising, to finance transition, advanced by
Canadian labour are 1) green taxes, including a carbon tax; 2) the budgeting of all major
environmental programs to include a transition scheme and revenue for transition purposes;
and 3) investments from labour's own investment funds ("Solidarity Funds").
Pollution Prevention
I now want to step back a bit. It strikes this outsider that the sunsetting program is not the prime
key to Great Lakes water quality. The first stage should be a concerted and coordinated toxics
use reduction program on the part of all jurisdictions that have an authority over Great Lakes
water quality. Toxics use reduction programs such as those in Massachusetts, New Jersey, and
Oregon have a proven track record in reducing emissions by sound pollution prevention
methods. They, more than any other venture, have put us firmly on the path towards zero
discharge. It is lamentable, therefore, that none of the jurisdictions surrounding the Great Lakes
are at the top of the league table of toxics use reduction programs. Some have no legislated
program at all. Why not ?
The situation in the United States is puzzling. The EPA has the clear constitutional power to
make environmental laws for the whole country, allowing lower jurisdictions to make their own
rules under conditions laid down by the federal government. But the Pollution Prevention Act, in
a rare exception to the rule, does not do this. The result is a patchwork of state pollution
prevention and toxics use reduction laws, some very good, most mediocre and a few terrible. I
can only conclude that business pressure forced the United States into a weak and timid federal
pollution prevention law.
The case of Canada is less clear and more complex, because the environmental powers of the
federal government are weaker than in the United States. The result has been a pretense that
the federal government is doing anything serious to make pollution prevention into a practical
national goal. The CLC has proposed a division of federal and provincial responsibility over
pollution prevention, which reflects political reality while urging the federal governments to
institute economic instruments to promote a national standard of pollution prevention in the form
of a uniform toxics use reduction program. Such a program would:
SOLEC 98 Conference Proceedings - Appendices A-9
-------
Protect both the work environment - workers' health and safety - and the external
environment at the same time ;
Promote industrial efficiency as well as environmental protection: all toxics use reduction
moves are cost-effective; they differ only in the payback time for the toxics use reduction
investment;
Be flexible and performance-based; unlike sunsetting, it does not impose rigid and specific
requirements on employers;
Not be an all-or-nothing proposition; it mandates progressive changes instead of requiring a
big initial step, and is therefore unlikely to leave us at square one after the program has
been launched; and
Enable workers to play a full part in the design and implementation of the program at the
workplace level.
Dinner Speaker - Thursday October 23, 1998
Dr. Hays Bell
Vice President, Environment, Health and Safety, Eastman Kodak
"Environmental Responsibility in the New Millennium"
Good evening ladies and gentlemen. I'm pleased to address this important audience attending
the 3rd State of the Lakes Ecosystem Conference. The Great Lakes are a valuable natural
resource. As a member of the Council of Great Lakes Industries, Eastman Kodak Company (in
particular, Kodak Park in Rochester, NY and Kodak Canada, in Toronto) are pleased to
participate as stakeholders within the Great Lakes States and Provinces. We support the
protection and responsible use of the natural environment of our Great Lakes Region knowing
that a healthy and competitive regional economy is dependent on this environmental
responsibility.
I am going to speak about Environmental Responsibility. First...how is it defined? I define
"Environmental" in the broadest sense with a capital "E" to include health, safety, and
environment. "Responsibility" is a duty and obligation that no one company, government, or
organization can do alone, hence, it is a shared responsibility.
Today, the best way for a company to be environmentally responsible is to have an effective
environment, health, & safety (EHS) management system in place. Many companies have
effective EHS management systems; since I am from Kodak, I'll share Kodak's system with you.
Our EHS Management System at Kodak is one we're proud of. We have senior management
support and we are structured to proactivelv address regulatory conformance worldwide and to
quickly react to issues both at the Business Unit and Regional level. Additionally, our internal
standards and procedures are utilized worldwide because it is not just complying with the law
that matters - we realize this is a way to be successful at doing business.
As an industry, we have learned that the way we manage our health, safety, and environmental
issues actually enables our business activities. The Business Value Chain is a traditional way of
illustrating how a company adds value in the various stages of product and service delivery.
Stop and think about some obvious examples of how EHS fits into the everyday routine of
carrying out business activities...from procurement, manufacturing, and distribution, to
A-10 SOLEC 98 Conference Proceedings - Appendices
-------
marketing, sales, and service. The bottom line is that EHS enhances the way we look at
and the way we do our business.
Also, maintaining the vision is key to a company making responsible decisions. What is Kodak's
"vision" of Environmental Responsibility? As a "photographic and imaging" company, it is
especially important to us to project a world class "Environmental Image". Our obligation to the
Environment not only impacts the sales of our products and perception by our customers, but
also has a direct influence on costs associated with production and distribution of these
products. So, we strive for continual improvement... every day... every month... every year. As
we track our performance, we measure our progress - please review our annual EHS report for
1997 to see the progress for yourself.
When we think of how environmental responsibility is evolving, we think of pollution prevention
versus pollution control. Today, the effective EHS management system is evolving beyond the
"operations control" stage to one that is more "system" oriented - one that looks at the entire
product life-cycle - from invention to end-of-life. A "product focus" versus "operations focus"
approach.
The best way to learn this approach is to partner and learn from each other. Kodak has done
just that:
We were very pleased to participate in EPA's Technology Transfer Project. This was a two-year
voluntary project to evaluate a new EPA-developed test methodology and accompanying
computerized software "tool kit." The result - potential hazards and waste can be avoided at the
R&D stage of product development - pollution prevention in lieu of pollution control.
Kodak also participated in the development of the Green Chemistry Challenge, a program that
is part of the U.S. EPA's Design for Environment initiative. The program promotes fundamental
research in the development of chemistry and chemical synthetic processes that are safer and
more environmentally responsible.
Environment Canada also offered some opportunities to industry. ARET stands for Accelerated
Reduction and Elimination of Toxics and is a voluntary, non-regulatory program that targets 117
toxic substances including 30 that persist in the environment and may accumulate in developing
organisms. ARET has long- and short-term goals and Kodak Canada has volunteered
reductions in two categories. ARET is an important program because it is the precursor to the
present Binational Toxics Strategy.
Partnering with Environmental Groups is also important. The World Wildlife Fund is one
example. WWF increases the understanding of biodiversity issues through an education
program called Windows on the Wild (WOW). WOW is a partnership among WWF, Kodak,
schools, and the nation's nonformal educational institutions (including zoos, aquariums, nature
centers, botanical gardens and museums). Since initiated, more than one million students,
teachers, and members of the public have been exposed to this unique program. This program
is unique not only in topic, but because it is an excellent example of an environmental group
sharing expertise by forming a funding partnership with industry.
International Standards for environmental management are now available. These ISO 14000
standards are intended to provide organizations with the elements of an effective environmental
management system and can be integrated with other existing management requirements. The
SOLEC 98 Conference Proceedings - Appendices A-11
-------
overall aim of the standards is to "support environmental protection and prevention of pollution
in balance with socio-economic needs." Consequently, many companies, including Kodak, have
ISO 14001 registration goals.
And that brings us to another example of evolution - the "new" versus "traditional" business
value chain.
The new Business Value Chain includes an "R&D" and "end of life" phase, in addition to pro-
curement, manufacturing, distribution, marketing, and sales/service. Environment, Health, and
Safety is an integral part of Kodak's business value chain in that EHS functions enable these
business activities and therefore contribute to our company's success. I'll use an example of
Product Stewardship to illustrate how effective Environment, Health, and Safety Management
can help a company achieve it business goals while being "environmentally responsible."
Kodak's single-use cameras (SUCs) were introduced in 1987 to meet the needs of a specific
customer base - those who wanted an inexpensive camera to take pictures that might otherwise
be missed. The quality of the pictures was outstanding and the cameras were an immediate
success. Customers needed to return the entire product (containing the film) to the photofinisher
in order to get their prints. Essentially, they used the camera a single time and "disposed" of it.
Popular Science Magazine selected one of our single-use cameras for a "Best of What's New"
award for science and technology. Environmental groups however were calling the Kodak Fling
camera "ecologically offensive." While our new product was hugely successful, it did not
measure up to Kodak's own environmental benchmark - so it went back to the drawing board to
begin one of the most successful worldwide efforts for redesign of a consumer product.
A Design for Environment activity occurred during the R&D stage that included elimination of the
sonically welded camera to a redesign for easy disassembly - where the camera could be taken
apart and the parts re-used to make new cameras. Procurement was engaged during the
redesign of the camera body to include selection of a plastic that could be recycled to make new
cameras or other products. Special labels were purchased - made from a material that has a
high-quality printing and adhesion characteristic but that could also be reground and pelletized
along with the front and back covers of the camera for recycling. Manufacturing adjusted their
procedures so many small parts and the camera frame could be reused. Distribution channels
were utilized to enable industry-level exchange partnerships and to enable our recycling
programs worldwide. Additionally, the camera was and still is marketed with an eco-label, the
Kodak e-mark, to bring attention to the product recycling program. Finally, the camera has
significant end of life opportunities that include the intent that these cameras are designed to be
recycled up to ten times.
Overall, the SUC program clearly enhanced Kodak's sustainable development efforts, because
it led to a formal "Design for Health, Safety & Environment" program to investigate the recycling
and remanufacturing opportunities of all new products.
I mentioned earlier that environmental responsibility is a duty and obligation that no one com-
pany, government, or organization can do alone. This is evidenced by reviewing those activities
that move us towards the future - a future with a product stewardship focus. Some activities that
move us toward the future are:
academic research
provides the innovation for industry and business to invent new products
substance substitution
A-12 SOLEC 98 Conference Proceedings - Appendices
-------
eliminating less friendly substances in new and existing product formulations
design for environment
a pollution prevention practice that ultimately reduces the need for pollution control
sustainable development practices
making certain we address the needs of the future generations
leadership in EHS management
the mechanism that not only enables regulatory compliance, but improvements in EHS
performance as well
and an open dialog among all publics
the only way to achieve this task is to work together and the best way to work together is to
share information.
In summary, environmental responsibility today is a shared responsibility; one that is shared by
business, government, academia, and other publics. We'll move environmental responsibility
into the new millennium by taking steps together. For industry, it is not our satisfaction in
performance that moves us to the future state. Rather, it is the progression of steps through
good EHS management systems, partnerships, product stewardship programs, and acting on
opportunities for continual improvement that moves us forward.
Speaking for members of the Council of Great Lakes Industries, I challenge all of us to work
together to move toward the future, by getting better at Environmental Responsibility... every
day... every month... every year.
Thank you.
Contributors: Linda J. Liszewski, HSE Issues Manager, Eastman Kodak Company;
Sandra P. Walsh, Environmental Specialist, Kodak Canada, Inc.
SOLEC 98 Conference Proceedings - Appendices A-13
-------
Appendix F. Participants List
Name
Agency
E-mail address
Dennis Albert
Rod Allan
Douglas W. Alley
Janette Anderson
Annette E. Ashizawa
Christopher Attema
Heather Auld
Seth Ausubel
Ron Baba
Bruce Baker
Thomas Baldini
Bruce L. Bandurski
Anne Barnes
Jane Barr
Suzanne Barrett
Vicki Barren
Charlotte Bastien
Daniel P. Bauer
Paul C. Baumann
Carole Beal
Judy (Sharon) Beck
Thomas P. Behlen
R. Hays Bell
Jacob Bellinsky
Robert Beltran
David Bennett
Ellen Bentzen
Pierre BergeronBiorex Inc.
James R. Bernard
Paul Bertram
Hans Biberhofer
John P. Bleech
Sandy Bonanno
Lee Bolts
Francois Boulanger
Wayne Bowers
Barry Boyer
Peter Boyer
Marty Bratzel
Werner Braun
Margit Brazda
Jim Bredin
Mark A. Breederland
Thomas M. Brody
Timothy H. Brown
Graham Bryant
Marcy Burchfield
Jean Burton
Thomas M. Burton
Jeffrey L. Busch
Tanya Cabala
Allegra Cangelosi
Jim Cantrill
Eric W. Carlson
Howard Carter
Alice Chamberlin
Murray N. Charlton
Matthew Child
Pat Chow-Fraser
Jan Ciborowski
Murray Clamen
Michigan Natural Features Inventory
National Water Research Institute
International Joint Commission
Environment Canada
Agency for Toxic Substances & Disease Registry
Niagara Peninsula Conservation Authority
Environment Canada
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Oneida Tribe of Indians of Wisconsin
Wisconsin Dept. of Natural Resources
International Joint Commission
International Joint Commission
Bad River Band of Lake Superior Chippewa
Commission for Environmental Organization
Waterfront Regeneration Trust
Credit Valley Conservation
Environment Canada
U.S. Geological Survey
U.S. Geological Survey
Monroe County Health Dept.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
International Joint Commission
Eastman Kodak Company
Tip of the Mitt Watershed Council
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Canadian Labour Congress
Trent University
info@borex.com
Green Mountain Institute for Environmental Democracy
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Environment Canada
West Valley Nuclear Services
The Nature Conservancy
Northwest Indiana Forum
Environment Canada
Health Canada
Friends of the Buffalo River, Inc.
International Joint Commission
International Joint Commission
Council of Great Lakes Industries
Monroe County Health Dept.
Michigan Office of the Great Lakes
Michigan State University
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Delta Institute
Stormceptor Canada Inc.
University of Toronto
Environment Canada
Michigan State University
Ohio Environmental Protection Agency
Lake Michigan Federation
Northeast-Midwest Institute
Northern Michigan University
U. S. Department of Agriculture
Imperial Oil
International Joint Commission
Environment Canada
Essex Region Conservation Authority
McMaster University
University of Windsor
International Joint Commission
albertd@state.mi.us
rod.allan@ec.gc.ca
alleyd@windsor.ijc.org
Janette.anderson@ec.gc.ca
ADA8@CDC.GOV
cpatterna@conservation_niagara.on.ca
heather.auld@ec.gc.ca
ausubel.seth@epamail.epa.gov
bakerb@dnr.state.wi.us
baldinit@washington.ijc.org
bandurski@washington.ijc.org
brnrd@win.bright.net
jbarr@ccemtl.org
charlotte.bastien@ec.gc.ca
bauer.daniel@epamail.epa.gov
baumann.l@osu.edu
cbeal@ro Chester.lib. ny.us
beck.judy@epamail.epa.gov
BehlenT@Windsor.IJC.ORG
jacob@nature.org
beltran.robert@epamail.epa.gov
ebentzen@trentu.ca
jbernard@grnicd.org
bertram.paul@epamail.epa.gov
Hans.Biberhofer@ec.gc.ca
sbonanno@tnc.org
102042.1612@compuserve.com
francois.boulanger@ec.gc.ca
bowers@echo-om.net
boyer@acsu.buffalo.edu
boyerp@windsor.ijc.org
bratzelm@windsor.ijc.org
BRAUNW@DOW.COM
mbrazda@mcls.rochester.lib.ny.us
bredinj@state.mi.us
breederm@msue.msu.edu
brody.tom@epa.gov
thbrown@delta-institute.org
gbryant@stormceptor.com
jjwmlb@sprint.ca
jeanburton@ec.gc.ca
burtont@pilot.msu.edu
jeff.busch@www.epa.state.oh.us
lkmf@novagate.com
acangelo@nemw.org
jcantril@nmu.edu
headwatr@penn.com
murray.charlton@cciw.ca
erca@wincom.net
chowfras@mcmaster.ca
cibor@server.uwindsor.ca
A-14
SOLEC 98 Conference Proceedings - Appendices
-------
Bob Clapp
Lynn Cleary
Donald Cole
Pat Collins
James R. Colquhoun
Michael Connerton
Lori Cook
Jason E. Cornelia
Nancy Costa
David C. Cowgill
Robin Craig
William J. Culligan
Ken Cullis
Shannon Daher
Marcia Damato
Marion Daniels
Chester Dann
Jennifer Dawson
Jose de Anda
Mario Del Vicario
Leslie Demal
Diane Dennis-Flagler
Joseph V. Depinto
Thomas P. Diggins
David Dilks
Margaret Dochoda
Douglas P. Dodge
David M. Dolan
Helen M. Domske
Patrick Donnelly
Leslie Dorworth
Victor Doyle
Richard Draper
Eial Dujovny
Drumea Dumitru
Lesley Dunn
Dr. Roger Eberhardt
Thomas A. Edsall
Hugh Eisler
Heather Enterline
Randy Eshenroder
Richard Fawcett
Michael Finney
Fred Fleischer
Kofi Flynn-Aikins
George Francis
Paul L. Freedman
Adele Freeman
Kent Fuller
Darlene Funches
Douglas Forder
Jeff Gagler
Maureen Gallagher
Gerry Galloway
John E. Gannon
Rita A. Garner
Alain Gaudreault
Sandra George
Patrick G. Gerrity
Samantha Gibbon
Chris Goddard
Michael Coffin
John C. Goldsmith
Stephen K. Goranson
Dennis T. Gorski
Joseph Gorsuch
Robert Gourd
Lester Graham
Emily Green
Canadian Petroleum Products Institute
Environment Canada
Institute for Work & Health
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources
NYS-Department of Environmental Conservation
Great Lakes Research Consortium
Environment Canada
Niagara County Soil & Water Conservation District
Fon du Lac Reservation
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources
NYS-Department of Environmental Conservation
Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources
Environment Canada
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources
Fish & Wildlife Nutrition Project
Guadalajara, Mexico
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources
Agency for Toxic Substances & Disease Registry
State University at Buffalo-Great Lakes Program
State University at Buffalo
LURA Group
Great Lakes Fishery Commission
Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources
International Joint Commission
Great Lakes Program/NY Sea Grant
Lake Huron Centre for Coastal Conservation
Illinois-Indiana Sea Grant
Ontario Ministry of Municipal Affairs & Housing
NYS-Department of Environmental Conservation
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Environment Canada
Michigan Dept. of Environmental Quality
U.S. Geological Survey
Canadian Chlorine Coordinating Committee
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Great Lakes Fishery Commission
Fawcett Consulting
Oneida Tribe of Indians of Wisconsin
Ontario Ministry of Environment
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
University of Waterloo
Limno-Tech, Inc.
The Toronto & Region Conservation Authority
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Environment Canada
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
International Joint Commission
U.S. Geological Survey
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Environment Canada
Environment Canada
U.S. Coast Guard
Wilfrid Laurier University
Great Lakes Fishery Commission
Environment Canada
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Erie County
Eastman Kodak Company
International Joint Commission
Great Lakes Radio Consortium-University of Michigan
Sierra Club-Great Lakes Program
bobclapp@cppi.ca
lynn.cleary@ec.gc.ca
coledon@fhs.csu.mcmaster.ca
pat.collins@dnr.state.mn.us
jxcolquh@gw.dec.state.ny.us
mjconner@mailbox.syr.edu
cook@airquality.tor.ec.gc.ca
jcornetta@hotmail.com
ncosta@servnt.fdl.cc.mn.us
era igr3@epo.gov.on. ca
nysdecdk@netsync.net
kcullis@baynet.net
shannon.daher@ec.gc.ca
danielsm@gov.on.ca
jdawson@mcmail.cis.mcmaster.ca
demall@gov.on.ca
dbd8@cdc.gov
depinto@eng.buffalo.edu
diggins@acsu.buffalo.edu
ddilks@lura.ca
mdochoda@glfc.org
dodged2@gov.on.ca
Dolan.D@windsor.ijc.org
hdomske@cce.cornell.edu
p2donnelly@orc.ca
dorwod@calumet.purdue.edu
R ED RAPER@G W.DEC. STATE. NY. US
dujovny.eial@epamail.epa.gov
lesley.dunn@ec.gc.ca
eberharr@state.mi.us
thomas_edsall@usgs.gov
hheis@ibm.net
heather_e nterline@mail.fws.gov
randye@glfc.org
rfawcett@pcpartner.net
fleisefr@ene.gov.ca
kofi_flyn naikins@fws.gov
pfreedman@limno.com
afreeman@trca.on.ca
fuller.kent@epamail.epa.gov
funches.darlene@epamail.epa.gov
mau re en_gallagher@mail. fws.gov
galloway@washington.ijc.org
John_e_gannon@USGS.gov
garner.rita@epamail.epa.gov
alain.gaudreault@ec.gc.ca
sandra.e.george@ec.gc.ca
wiugibbo@fes.uwaterloo.ca
cgoddard@glfc.org
michael.Goffin@ec.gc.ca
goldsmith.john@epamail.epa.gov
goranson.stephen@epa.gov
graham@gtec.com
sierra@execpc.com
SOLEC 98 Conference Proceedings - Appendices
A-15
-------
Larry Green
Sheila W. Greene
Richard H. Greenwood
Donald E. Greer
Joan Guilfoyle
Gary V. Gulezian
Douglas Haines
Larry Halyk
Ernest Hanna
Sharon L. Hanshue
John H. Hartig
Richard Hassinger
Robert T. Heath
Duane Heaton
Hans Herrmann
Tom Hersey
Brendan Hickie
Heraline E. Hicks
Jonathan Higgins
Richard Ho
Raymond M. Hoff
Mark E. Holey
Karen Holland
John Hood
Dan Hopkins
Randy Hopkins
Paul J. Horvatin
James Houston
Tim Huxley
Adele lannantuono
Quinn Jack
Laura Jacobson
Wade Jacobson
Jim Janse
Ian Jarvis
Eileen Johnson
Gary Johnson
Mark Johnson
Peggy B. Johnson
Tim Johnson
Peter Jones
Daland R. Juberg
Rimi Kalinauskas
Janet Kasper
Bob Kavetsky
James Kay
Michael Keating
Cathy Keenan
Denis J. Kemp
Elaine Kennedy
Anne Kerr
Robert D. Kesicki
Humaira Khan
Joanna Kidd
David M. Kiser
Anthony G. Kizlauskas
Peter Klaich
Frank Kohlasch
Gary Kohlhepp
Joseph F. Koonce
Rudy Koop
Gail Krantzberg
Paul Kranz
Robert Krska
George Kuper
Theresa Lalonde
Lauren Lambert
Deborah Lamberty
Michel Lamontagne
Kodak Canada
U.S. Department of Agriculture
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Health Canada
Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources
GZA GeoEnvironmental Of New York
Michigan Department of Natural Resources
International Joint Commission
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources
Kent State University
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Commission for Environmental Cooperation
Erie County
Trent University
Agency for Toxic Substances & Disease Registry
The Nature Conservancy-Great Lakes Program
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Environment Canada
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Erie County
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Canadian Consulate General
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
International Joint Commission
Stelco Inc.
McMaster University-Environmental Health Program
International Joint Commission
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Ontario Ministry of the Environment
Agriculture & Agri-Food Canada
Environment Canada
Ontario Ministry of the Environment
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Clinton River Watershed Council (retired)
Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources
NYS-Department of Environmental Conservation
Eastman Kodak Company
Environment Canada
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
University of Waterloo
The State of Canada Report
U.S. Department of Agriculture
Falconbridge Limited
Ontario Public Advisory Committee
Environment Canada
City of Dunkirk
McMaster University
LURA Group
Eastman Kodak Company
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Biocorp Inc.
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
Michigan Deptartment of Environmental Quality
Case Western Reserve University, Dept. of Biology
International Joint Commission
Environment Ontario
Erie County
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Council of Great Lakes Industries
CBC Radio
Ohio Environmental Protection Agency
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Environnement Canada
sheila.greene@usda.gov
rich_greenwood@ ma il.fws.gov
gree rdo@epo.gov.on.ca
Doug_Haines@HC-SC.GC.CA
halykl@gov.on.ca
ehanna@gza.com
hanshus1@state.mi.us
hartigj@windsor.ijc.org
rheath@kent.edu
heaton.duane@epa.gov
hherrman@ccemtl.org
hersey@cdbg.co.erie.ny.us
bhickie@trentu.ca
HEH2@cdc.gov
jhigg@neutral.com
ray.hoff@ec.gc.ca
mar k_ holey@mail.fws.gov
holland.karen@epa.gov
hoodj@cdbg.co.erie.ny.us
hopkins.dan@epamail.epa.gov
horvatin.paul@epa.gov
thuxley@ibm.net
iannana@@mcmail.cis.mcmaster.ca
jacobson@netonecom.net
jacobson.wade@epamail.epa.gov
JANSEJI@ene.gov.on.ca
jarvisi@em.agr.ca
eileen.johnson@ec.gc.ca
johnsoga@ene.gov.on.ca
johnson.mark@epamail.epa.gov
johnsot@gov.on.ca
P AJ ON ES@G W.DEC. STATE. NY. US
djuberg@kodak.com
rimi.kalinauskas@ec.gc.ca
bob_ka vets ky@mail.fws.gov
mkeating@compuserve.com
ckeenan@mi.nrcs.usda.gov
anne.kerr@ec.gc.ca
khanh@fhs.csu.mcmaster.ca
jkidd@lura.ca
kizlauska.anthony@epa.gov
info@biocorpusa.com
frank.kohlasch@pca.state.mn.us
kohlhepg@state.mi.us
jfk@po.cwru.edu
koopr@ottawa.ijc.org
kra ntzga@ene.gov.on.ca
robert_krska@ ma il.fws.gov
ghk@cgli.org
lau re n.lambert@epa.state.ohio.us
lamberty.deborah@epamail.epa.gov
A-16
SOLEC 98 Conference Proceedings - Appendices
-------
Robert E. Lange
Fred Langley
Elizabeth LaPlante
Nicole Lavigne
Dennis S. Lavis
Joseph E. LeBeau
Janice LeBoeuf
Jacinthe Leclerc
Leonard Legault
Sally Leppard
Sally Lerner
Julie Letterhos
Catherine Linder-Spencer
Katherine Lins
Russell Lis
Arunas Liskauskas
Linda J. Liszewski
Simon Llewellyn
Laura Lodisio
Nataly Longpre
John B. Love
Stephen Lozano
Brian Lubinski
Frederick Luckey
Ashok Lumb
Tija Luste
Kathy Luther
Jeffrey S. Lynn
David P. Macarus
Rob MacGregor
Gord MacPherson
Percy Magee
Joseph Makarewicz
Lauren Makeyenko
T.S. Manickam
Barry Manne
Shawn Martin
Terry H. Martin
Ann McCammon
L.S. McCarty
Bridget McGuiness
Kevin McGunagle
Bernie Mclntyre
Vicki McKay
Barbara McLeod
John C. McMahon
Allen Melcer
Jack Messmer
Edward L. Michael
T.J. Miller
John Mills
Nancy M. Milton
Christine Mitchell
Kerry Mitchell
Shirley Morgan
Heather Morrison
Karen Morrison
Joyce Mortimer
Tom Muir
Noel Mullett Jr.
Greg Mund
Peter Murchie
Elaine Murkin
C. Francis Murphy
Denise Murray
William Musznski
Donna N. Myers
Sonny Myers
Amy Mysz
NYS-Department of Environmental Conservation
langleyf@ix.netcom.com
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
La Biosphere, Environment Canada
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Consultant to Chlorine Chemistry Council
Essex Region Conservation Authority
Environment Canada
International Joint Commission
LURA Group
University of Waterloo
Ohio Environmental Protection Agency
Center for Great Lakes Education
U.S. Geological Survey
Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources
Eastman Kodak Company
Environment Canda
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Environment Canada
U.S. ACR - Detroit
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Environment Canada
Waterfront Regeneration Trust
Indiana Dept. of Environmental Management
International Paper
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources
The Toronto & Region Conservation Authority
U.S. Department of Agriculture
State University of New York at Brockport
Erie County
NYS-Department of Environmental Conservation
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
St. Regis Mohawk Tribe
Cattaraugus County
Great Lakes Indian Fish & Wildlife Commission
Canadian Chlorine Coordinating Committee
Dept. of Social & Preventive Medicine - SUNY @ Buffalo
International Joint Commission
The Toronto & Region Conservation Authority
Rondeau Bay Watershed Rehabilitation Program
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
NYS-Department of Environmental Conservation
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
McKinley High School
IL Council of Trout Unlimited
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Environment Canada
U.S. Geological Survey
Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa & Chippewa Indians
Canadian Consulate General
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Aqualink Environmental Consulting
International Joint Commission
Health Canada
Environment Canada
Wayne County Department of Environment
Muskegon/White Lake's PACs and USDA-NRCS
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
University of Guelph - Fish & Wildlife Nutrition Project
International Joint Commission
U.S. Department of Agriculture
U.S. Department of Agriculture
U.S. Geological Survey
1854 Authority
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
bxlange@gw.dec.state.ny.us
LaPlante.Elizabeth@epa.gov
melraccoon@aol.com
erca@wincom.net
Jacinthe.leclerc@ec.gc.ca
sleppard@lura.ca
Julie.letterhos@epa.state.oh.us
klins@usgs.gov
liskaua@gov.on.ca
LJL@Kodak.com
simon.Newel lyn@ec.gc.ca
lodisio.laura@epamail.epa.gov
nataly.longpre@ec.gc.ca
jlove@superior.
lozano.stephen@epa.gov
luckey.frederick@epamail.epa.gov
ashok.lumb@cciw.ca
tl@wrtrust.com
kbaird@dem.state.in.us
jeffrey.lynn@ipaper.com
macarus.david@epa.gov
macgrer@epo.gov.on.ca
gmacpherson@trca.on.ca
percy.magee@oh.nrcs.usda.gov
cfglee@localnet.com
tsmanick@gw. dec. state, ny. us
bmanne@glnts.r5exp.epa.gov
earthz_shawn@no rthnet.com
Terrma@LV. CO. CATTARAUGUS. NY. US
lmccarty@interlog.com
mcgunaglek@windsor.ijc.org
bmcintyre@trca.on.ca
rbwrp@ciaccess.com
melcer.allen@epa.gov
jmess@buffnet.net
johnmills@ec.gc.ca
nancy_m_m ilton@usgs.gov
gtbbio@netonecom.netone.net
morrisonh@dfo-mpo.gc.ca
joyce_mortimer@hc-sc.gc.ca
tom.muir@ec.gc.ca
nmullett@co.wayne.mi.us
greg@mitremont.fsc.usda.gov
pmurchie@glc.org
murkweeb@kwic.com
dnmyers@usgs.gov
roadwolf@computerpro.com
mysz.amy@epa.gov
SOLEC 98 Conference Proceedings - Appendices
A-17
-------
Susan Nameth
Carter G. Naylor
Melanie Neilson
Todd Nettesheim
Chris Newell
Jim Nicholas
Francine Norling
Lionel Normand
Margaret H. O'Dell
Patty O'Donnell
Marc Olender
Carolyn S. O'Neill
Charles R. O'Neill
Sandra Owens
Jean Painchaud
Scott Painter
Nancy Patterson
Geoff Peach
Victoria Pebbles
Janet Pellegrini
Denis Perrault
Dale K. Phenicie
Francis Philbert
E. Marie Phillips
Darrell Piekarz
Bruce Pond
Heather Potter
Pranas Pranckevicius
Tina Preston
Christian Pupp
Terry Quinney
Michael Raab
Max Rao
Paul Raun
Jennifer Read
William E. Rees
David Reid
Ron Reid
Karen M. Reshkin
Mark Reshkin
Ann Richardson
William L. Richardson
Mike Ripley
Ray Rivers
Peter Roberts
Linda Robertson
David Rockwell
Harold Rudy
Matthew Rueff
Michael Russ
Michael A. Ruszczyk
Ruta Baskyte
Phil Ryan
Jeff Sanders
Steve Sandstrom
Charles W. Sapp
Robert Schacht
James Schardt
Denise Scheberle
Wolfgang Scheider
John Schneider
Jean "Susie" Schreiber
John D. Schrouder
Hy Schwartz
Jerry Schwartz
Fran Scott
Jacob Secor
Henri Selles
Susan Senecah
Environment Canada
Huntsman Corp.
Environment Canada
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Great Lakes Protection Fund
U.S. Geological Survey
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Toronto & Region Conservation Authority
The Joyce Foundation
Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa & Chippewa
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Environment Canada
NY Sea Grant Extension
Health Canada
Quebec Ministry of Environment
Environment Canada
Environment Canada
Lake Huron Centre for Coastal Conservation
Great Lakes Commission
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Ontario Soil and Crop Improvement Association
Council of Great Lakes Industries
Environment Canada
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Environment Canada
Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources
The Nature Conservancy-Great Lakes Program
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Erie County
Environment Canada-retired
Ontario Federation of Anglers & Hunters
Erie County
Stormceptor Canada Inc.
Greening of O.I.S.E. Int.
Great Lakes Commission
University of British Columbia
Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources
Bobolink Enterprises
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Lake Michigan Forum
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Inter-Tribal Fisheries and Assessment Program
Rivers Consulting
Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs
Environment Canada
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Ontario Soil and Crop Improvement Association
Indiana Dept. of Environmental Management
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
U.S. Coast Guard
Lithuanian Ministry of Environment
Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources
Oneida Tribe of Indians of Wisconsin
Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
University of Wisconsin-Green Bay
Ontario Ministry of Environment
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Waukegan Harbor Citizens Advisory Group
Michigan Department of Natural Resources
HYTORCAN LTD. For Sierra Club of Canada
American Forest & Paper Association
McMaster University Environmental Health Program
Dow AgroSciences
Ontario Ministry of Environment
The NYS Coalition of Great Lakes Legislators
susan.nameth@ec.gc.ca
carter_naylor@hun tsman.com
melanie.neilson@cciw.ca
nettesheim.todd@epamail.epa.gov
newell@glpf.org
jrnichol@usgs.gov
norling.francine@epa.gov
modell@joycefdn.org
pattyo@freeway.net
carolyn.oneill@ec.gc.ca
coneill@cce.cornell.edu
sandra.owens@hc-sd.gc.ca
jean.painchaud@mef.gouv.gc.ca
scottpainter@cciw.ca
nancy.pa tterson@ec.gc.ca
geoff. peach@odyssey.on.ca
vpebbles@glc.org
pellegrini.janet@epa.gov
oscia@netcom.ca
dkphenicie@mindspring.com
francis.philbert@ec.gc.ca
phillips.emarie@epamail.epa.gov
darrell.piekarz@ec.gc.ca
pondb@gov.on.ca
potter@netural.com
pranckevicius.pranas@epa.gov
tina@cdbg.co.erie.ny.us
pupp.darcy@sympatico.ca
mrao@stormceptor.com
jread@glc.org
reidd@gov.on.ca
bobolinkฎ
reshkin.karen@epa.gov
mreshkin@netnitco.net
qitfap@northernway.net
ray.rivers@sympatico.ca
proberts@omafra.gov. on. ca
linda.ro bertson@ec.gc.ca
rockwell.david@epa.gov
oscia@netcom.ca
mrueff@dem.state.in.us
russ.michael@epa.gov
vuszczyk@javanet.com
RyanP@gov.on.ca
sandsts@gov.on.ca
sapp.charles@epamail.epa.gov
IEPAGL1701@aol.com
schardt.james@epamail.epa.gov
scheberd@uwgb.edu
schei dwo@ene.gov.on.ca
schneide.john@epa.gov
jschreiber@amentech.net
schroudj@state.mi.us
jerry_schwartz@a fa ndpa.org
scottf@fhs.csu.mcmaster.ca
jsecor@dowagro.com
SELLESHE@ENE.GOV.ON.CA
ssenecah@mailbox.syr.edu
A-18
SOLEC 98 Conference Proceedings - Appendices
-------
Margaret A. Shannon
Vic Shantora
Harvey Shear
Keith Sherman
Ron Shimizu
Brian Shuter
Deborah L. Siebers
Jill Singer
William V. Slade
Daniel Smith
Jim Smith
Kelley D. Smith
Mark Smith
William E. Smith
James R. Smith
Elizabeth Snell
Laura Sondag-Braun
Barbara Spinweber
Jill Spisiak
Nancy Stadler-Salt
Brian Stage
Mary Ann Starr
Robert C. Stempel
Donna Stewart
Tom Stewart
Mark Stirrup
Madeline Stone
Mary Ann Storr
Nancy Strole
Nicole Swerhun
Jean Swygert
John Temple
Sue Thomas
Vicki Thomas
Karen Thompson
Bob Thomson
Geoffrey Thornburn
Steve Thorp
Jan E. Thulin
Ralph Tiner
Richard M. Tobe
Edward Tompkins
Gildo M. Tori
Paddy Torsney
Cindy Toth
Jo Lynn Traub
Thomas Trudeau
Marc Tuchman
Nathalie Turgeon
David A. Ullrich
Margaret Wooster
Jay Unwin
Janet Vail
Charlie Valeska
Russell Van Herik
Jake Vander Wai
John E. Vena
Mike Vogel
David Wachtel
Alan Waffle
Julie Wagemakers
Tony Wagner
Chris Walbrecht
Brian R. Ward
Mike Ward
Glenn Warren
Russ Weeber
Les E. Weigum
Chip Weseloh
SUNY at Buffalo - Environment & Society Institute
Environment Canada
Environment Canada
MOE/Severn Sound RAP
Environment Canada
Ontario Ministry Natural Resources
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Buffalo State College
New York Power Authority
CRA Assoc.
City of Buffalo
Michigan Department of Natural Resources
Stormceptor Canada Inc.
Clinton River AOC PAC
Indiana Dept. of Environmental Management
Snell and Cecile Environmental Research
Erie County
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Erie County
Environment Canada
Northern Indiana Public Service Company
Ecology & Environment, Inc.
Council of Great Lakes Industries
Environment Canada
Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources
Regional Municipality of Hamilton-Wentworth
Delta Institute
Ecology & Environment, Inc.
Springfield Township
LURA Group
U.S. Department of Agriculture
Environment Canada
Green Mountain Institute for Environmental Democracy
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources
International Joint Commission
Great Lakes Commission
National Board of Fisheries
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Erie County
Environment Canada
Ducks Unlimited
Parliament of Canada
City of St. Catharines
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Illinois Department of Natural Resources
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Environment Canada
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Great Lakes United
NCASI
Grand Valley State University
Eastman Kodak Company
Great Lakes Protection Fund
Lake Superior Programs Office
Dept. of Social & Preventive Medicine - SUNY @ Buffalo
The Buffalo News
Chicago Wilderness
Environment Canada
Great Lakes Commission
twagner@sentex.net
Citizens Campaign for the Environment
Ontario Ministry of the Environment
Canadian Consulate General
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Bird Studies Canada (Long Point Bird Observatory)
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers - Detroit District
Canadian Wildlife Service
mshannon@acsu.buffalo.edu
vic.shantora@ec.gc.ca
harvey.sheer@ec.gc.ca
ssrap@csolve.net
ron.shimizu@ec.gc.ca
shuter@zooatoronto.ca
siebers.deborah@epa.gov
singerjk@buffalostate.edu
slade.w@nypa.gov
dsmith@phi.rovers.com
smithk@state.mi.us
Jsmith@DEM.STATE.IN.US
esnell@uoguelph.ca
braunl@cdbg.co.erie.ny.us
nancy.stadler-salt@ec.gc.ca
bstage@nipsco.com
infoio@epa.com
rcstempel@ovonic.com
donna.stewart@ec.gc.ca
stewartt@gov.on.ca
mstirrup@hamilton-went.on.ca
nfpio@ene.com
nswerhun@lura.ca
john.temple2@ec.gc.ca
sthomas@grnied.org
thornburg@ottawa.ijc.org
sthorp@glc.org
edward.tomkins@ec.gc.ca
gtori@ducks.org
Traub.Lo-Lynn@epa.gov
tuchman.marc@epamail.epa.gov
nathalie.turgeon@ec.gc.ca
Ullrich.David@epamail.epa.gov
wooster@glu.org
unwin@wmich.edu
vailj@gvsu.edu
cvaleska@kodak.com
jvena@buffalo.edu
dwachtel@mcs.com
alan.waffle@ec.gc.ca
ccebuff@ik.netcom.com
WARDBR@ENE.GOV.ON.CA
warren.glenn@epa.gov
rweeber@bsc-eoc.org
chip.weseloh@ec.gc.ca
SOLEC 98 Conference Proceedings - Appendices
A-19
-------
John R. Westendorf OccdentalChemical Corporation john_westendorf@oxy.com
Laura Westra Philosophy Dept. University of Windsor
Peter Westra
Mary White U.S. Environmental Protection Agency white.mary@epamail.epa.gov
Gary H. Whitfield Agriculture & Agri-Food Canada WHITFIELD@EM.AGR.CA
Douglas A. Wilcox U.S. Geological Survey douglas_wilcox@usgs.gov
Chris Wiley Department of Fisheries & Oceans wileyc@ec.gc.ca
James B. Williams Union Carbide Corporation williajb@ucarb.com
Frank Wilson Ontario Ministry of the Environment wilsonfr@ene.gov.on.ca
Peter Wise Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
Nathan Wiser U.S. Environmental Protection Agency wiser.nathan@epa.gov
Lynne M. Witty International Joint Commission
Hardy Wong Ontario Ministry of the Environment
Terry L. Yonker Lake Erie Alliance tyonker@compuserve.com
Maggie Young Environment Canada maggie.young@ec.gc.ca
Candi Zell Environment Canada
James E. Zorn Great Lakes Indian Fish & Wildlife Commission
A-20 SOLEC 98 Conference Proceedings - Appendices
-------
Acknowledgments
The SOLEC 98 executive committee would like to extend its thanks to all the indicator
core group leaders and members, all the Biodiversity Investment Area paper authors and
contributors, and to the SOLEC 98 steering committee. Their dedication and hard work
allowed new ideas and concepts to be put forward for discussion, and made SOLEC 98
and real success.
In addition to the above people, the SOLEC 98 executive committee would like to give
special thanks to: Maggie Young (who never wavered in the face of mountains of work),
LURA Consulting, especially Sally Leppard, Dave Dilks and Nicole Swerhun (for their
support and also for their late night work on the SOLEC "Indicator" - the daily
conference newsletter), and to John Hood of Erie County (who joined us on the steep
climb up the learning curve and kept smiling).
SOLEC 98 Executive Committee:
Paul Horvatin, United States Environmental Protection Agency
Paul Bertram, United States Environmental Protection Agency
Harvey Shear, Environment Canada
Nancy Stadler-Salt, Environment Canada
------- |