State of the Lakes Ecosystem
Conference 2004
Conference Proceedings
-------
-------
State of the Lakes Ecosystem
Conference 2004
Conference Proceedings
Proceedings Prepared By
Stacey Cherwaty, Environment Canada
Nancy Stadler-Salt, Environment Canada
Susan Arndt, Environment Canada
February 2005
-------
Table of Contents
1. INTRODUCTION 1
WhatisSOLEC? 1
2. SOLEC 2004 HIGHLIGHTS 3
3. OPENING THANKSGIVING ADDRESS 4
4. SOLEC 2004 CONFERENCE OPENING SUMMARY 8
5. SOLEC 2004 PLENARY PRESENTATION SUMMARIES 9
Plenary Presentations Summary 9
Indicator Bundling and Assessment - SOLEC 2004 - Day 1 9
Ecological Footprint and Human Drivers 9
Human Oriented Issues 9
Natural Resources and Biological Integrity 10
Coastal Wetlands 11
Ecosystem Status Reports - SOLEC 2004 - Day 2 12
Lake Superior 12
Lake Michigan 12
Lake Huron 13
St. Clair River - Detroit River Ecosystem 13
Lake Erie 14
Lake Erie Fishery 14
Lake Ontario 15
Lake Ontario Fishery 15
St. Lawrence River 16
6. SOLEC 2004 BREAKOUT SESSION SUMMARIES - DAY 1 17
Ecological Footprint Question and Answer Session 17
Introduction to Indicators Information Session 17
Contaminants Bundle of Indicators 19
Biotic Communities and Non-Native Species Bundles of Indicators 22
Habitats Bundle of Indicators 25
Human Health Bundle of Indicators 28
Land Use - Land Cover Bundle of Indicators 30
Resource Utilization Bundle of Indicators 34
Great Lakes Coastal Wetlands Bundle of Indicators 35
Groundwater Bundle of Indicators 39
7. SOLEC 2004 BREAKOUT SESSION SUMMARIES - DAY 2 43
Lake Superior 43
Lake M ichigan 44
Lake Huron 47
SOLEC 2004 Proceedings
-------
Lake Erie 48
Lake Ontario 50
8. SOLEC 2004 WORKSHOP SUMMARIES - DAY 3 56
Chemical Integrity 56
Climate Change 59
Great Lakes Beaches 62
Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement Review 63
Human Health in the Great Lakes 66
Monitoring Coordination and Information Management 68
Recent Advances in Monitoring Science and Index Development 72
Reporting Indicators at a Watershed Level 75
Status of Great Lakes Islands Conservation and Development of
Indicators 80
Stormwater Management: New and Emerging Approaches 82
Urbanization Effects on Great Lakes Water Quality 83
9. CONFERENCE KEYNOTE ADDRESS 87
Mayor David Miller, City of Toronto 87
10. SOLEC SUCCESS STORY RECIPIENTS 92
APPENDIX A - CONFERENCE PROGRAM A -1
APPENDIX B - PARTICIPANT FEEDBACK SUMMARY B -1
APPENDIX C - PARTICIPANT PROFILE C -1
APPENDIX D - PARTICIPANT LIST D -1
SOLEC 2004 Proceedings
-------
State of the Lakes Ecosystem Conference 2004
Conference Proceedings
1. Introduction
What is SOLEC?
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 a reporting requirement of the binational Great Lakes Water Quality
Agreement (GLWQA). The goal of SOLEC is to achieve the overall purpose of the GLWQA "to restore
and maintain the physical, chemical and biological integrity of the Great Lakes Basin". 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 to evaluate the effectiveness of these programs through analysis of the state
of the ecosystem. Another goal of the conference is to provide information to people in all levels of
government, corporate, and not-for-profit sectors that make decisions that affect the Great Lakes.
These conferences are a culmination of information gathered from a wide variety of sources and engage
a variety of organizations. In the year following each conference, the Governments prepare a report on
the state of the Great Lakes based in large part upon the conference process.
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. This conference and SOLEC 1996 were based on a series of ad hoc
indicators that were suggested by scientific experts. The 1996 conference focused on the nearshore
lands and waters of the system where biological productivity is greatest and where humans have had
maximum impact. Emphasis was placed on nearshore waters, coastal wetlands, land by the Lakes,
impacts of changing land use, and information availability and management. Following SOLEC 96, those
involved identified a need to develop a comprehensive, basin wide set of indicators that would allow the
Parties to report on the progress under the Agreement in a consistent and standard format.
For SOLEC 98, the indicator development process became more regimented with the development of a
comprehensive suite of easily understood indicators that objectively represented the condition of the
Great Lakes ecosystem components (as called for in Annex 11 of the GLWQA). The goal is to use these
indicators every two years to inform the public and report progress in achieving the purpose of the
GLWQA, thus initiating a regular and comprehensive reporting system. This indicator suite would draw
upon and compliment indicators used for more specific purposes such as Lakewide Management Plans
(LaMPs) or Remedial Action Plans (RAPs) for Areas of Concern (AOCs). During SOLEC 98 and
afterward, the suite was thoroughly reviewed and a general consensus was obtained that the suite of 80
indicators was necessary and sufficient.
Following the general acceptance of the Great Lakes suite of indicators, was the movement to begin
implementing them. At SOLEC 2000, the challenge was to see how many of the 80 indicators could be
reported on. In some cases this was a fairly "easy" task - data were already available for use in reporting
on an indicator (by various agencies). In other cases, this task became more difficult as new data were
required before they could be reported, or further research and development was required before
implementing data collection efforts and then reporting on an indicator. Post SOLEC 2000 and through
the winter of 2001, there was an opportunity for further review of the indicator list and for revisions to be
made to the indicator suite. SOLEC 2000 was the first conference to begin the actual assessment of the
1
SOLEC 2004 Proceedings
-------
state of the Great Lakes using these science-based indicators. SOLEC 2000 featured 33 indicator
assessments.
The focus of SOLEC 2002 was to continue to update and assess the state of the Great Lakes using the
current suite of indicators with an emphasis on biological integrity, the theme for SOLEC 2002. "Integrity"
is not specifically defined in the GLWQA; therefore the following definition was used for SOLEC 2002 and
any corresponding documents.
"Biological integrity is the capacity to support and maintain a balanced integrated
and adaptive biological system, having the full range of elements (the form) and
process (the function) expected in a regions natural habitat."
By James R. Karr, modified by Douglas P. Dodge
SOLEC 2002, presented a candidate set of Biological Integrity indicators that would assist with reporting
on Biological Integrity at SOLEC 2004. In addition, groundbreaking work had been completed on land-
based indicators: forestry and agriculture. Also, a new suite of indicators was proposed for consideration
to assess groundwater health. A new grouping of societal response indicators was also proposed to help
in the assessment of community contribution to improving the health of the basin. SOLEC 2002 also
provided revisions to current indicators in the Great Lakes suite and identified management challenges
and actions. SOLEC 2002 featured 43 indicator assessments.
Since SOLEC 2002, organizers have held two reviews on the Great Lakes indicator processes and
products. The first review included indicator experts from outside the Great Lakes basin. They were
asked to evaluate the overall effectiveness and efficiency of the SOLEC process. In other words, how
does the Great Lakes system of developing and reporting on indicators measure up with indicator
systems in other parts of the world? A report by this group of reviewers concluded that, "SOLEC is not
the world leader in indicator development, but it is a world leader. In particular it is a leader in the
consultation process, which is one of SOLEC's greatest strengths."
The second review by stakeholders and indicator users evaluated the entire suite of current Great Lakes
indicators with suggestions provided to add, remove or modify existing indicators in the suite to assist with
the reporting on the state of the Great Lakes ecosystem and factors impacting it. Changes to the process
for developing and reporting on Great Lakes indicators were made as a result of input from both reviews.
The modifications to existing indicators and new proposed indicators are documented in the report, Great
Lakes Indicators Suite: Changes and Progress 2004 document.
The focus of SOLEC 2004 was to continue to update and assess the state of the Great Lakes using the
current suite of indicators with an emphasis on physical integrity, the theme for SOLEC 2004. Although a
physical integrity paper was not finalized in time for the conference, it will be completed during 2005 so
that an assessment on the state of physical integrity in the Great Lakes basin can be reported at SOLEC
2006.
The State of the Great Lakes 2005: Draft for Discussion was the first attempt by SOLEC organizers to
prepare a draft status report prior to the conference itself. In the past, this report was not completed until
after the conference. SOLEC 2004 also marks the introduction of nine bundles of indicators which
incorporate the 81 Great Lakes indicators in the suite. The bundles include: Contamination, Biotic
Communities, Invasive Species, Coastal Zones, Aquatic Habitats, Human Health, Land Use - Land
Cover, Resource Utilization and Climate Change. Some of these categories are under development and
will require additional indicators and sub categories before being considered complete. Five of the nine
indicator bundles were assessed for SOLEC 2004.
Biological Integrity of the Great Lakes basin, as reported in the biotic communities indicator bundle, was
reported to be IMPROVING for Terrestrial (forestry) components and the Aquatic Open Waters
assessment was MIXED, with no obvious trajectory. For more information on the bundle assessments
SOLEC 2004 Proceedings
-------
refer to the State of the Great Lakes 2005: Draft for Discussion and the Day 1 Plenary Summaries
beginning on page 10 of this document.
Next Steps and Challenges
Finalization of the physical integrity paper which will include an agreed upon definition of physical
integrity. This paper will facilitate the reporting on the state of physical integrity of the Great Lakes
basin at SOLEC 2006.
Sampling of tributaries and inland surface water bodies should be used in assessing the state of the
Great Lakes basin through a "watershed approach".
The MIXED indicator assessment needs to be better explained within the indicator reports.
Need to further develop the land use - land cover indicator bundle including the forestry and
agriculture components.
Need to report on more land-based indicators.
Need to re-evaluate and re-organize the societal response/resource utilization sub set of indicators.
There is a need to incorporate social scientists into the indicator process, especially in terms of
human or societal response indicators.
A continuing challenge is to increase ownership and commitments to indicator reporting - some
agencies have accepted lead roles for the responsibility of preparing biennial indicator reports,
however, many indicators are still awaiting "adoption". More agencies assuming ownership of
indicators will aid in populating and reporting on the state of these indicators.
Endpoints, targets or reference values are required for most indicators.
Need to provide information to various levels of government, including municipalities, in a useful
format (summary information as well as specific details) in order to direct policy and assist with
decision-making.
Need to make State of the Great Lakes information more accessible and available.
Review of the Ecological Footprint analysis and the relevance to reporting an Ecological Footprint
score for the Great Lakes basin.
The theme for SOLEC 2006 is Chemical Integrity. A workshop is proposed for the fall of 2005. This
workshop will further develop the ideas discussed in the Chemical Integrity workshop held on Day 3
of SOLEC 2004. This work will include the development of an agreed upon definition of chemical
integrity and a subset of indicators required to report out on the state of Chemical Integrity in the
Great Lakes basin. SOLEC organizers will be coordinating this workshop in conjunction with the
Great Lakes Binational Toxics Strategy organizers.
2. SOLEC 2004 Highlights
SOLEC 2004 presented the most comprehensive assessment yet of the state of the Great Lakes
basin ecosystem. SOLEC 2000 featured 33 indicator assessments, SOLEC 2002 featured 43 reports
and this year, 56 indicator assessments were presented. This increase in indicator assessments
reflects the increased effort of SOLEC to encourage the reporting process, and thus increase active
participation.
The concept of Indicator Bundles was proposed and reported in the State of the Great Lakes 2005
draft report. The indicator bundles include: Contamination, Biotic Communities, Invasive Species,
Coastal Zones, Aquatic Habitats, Human Health, Land Use - Land Cover, Resource Utilization and
Climate Change. Five of the nine indicator bundles were assessed at SOLEC 2004.
This was the second SOLEC to host a special session attended by managers within the Great Lakes
basin. This managers' session was designed to discuss Great Lakes research and monitoring needs
to assist in future decision-making and management challenges.
The Ecological Footprint for the Great Lakes basin was calculated to be over 4 times that of the
world average and SOLEC attendees were left with an important question to answer, "What
intelligent species would risk destroying its only habitat for more 'stuff?
SOLEC 2004 Proceedings
-------
3. Opening Thanksgiving Address
TATWANAWELATU SHUKWAYATISA,
Opening - Thanksgiving Address '
ShukwayatiSA wahatA'nikuhlisane' tsi ne tyotkut tAtwanuwelatu
It was decided by Our Creator that we should always give thanks
nu' kAke Atwatyataloluk' ahti ohnikalihotu.
whenever we gather for any reason.
Ka'l:ku wahnislate ne kaiku kantyohkwa tAyetinuwelatu akweku aktehsu
This day we greet and thank this group who come from different
Nitho ne nu. Kuh nu Tyolutakel wahyakwatyataloloke
Places. To this place, Toronto, we all gather
Ne lati kahle kuti -sonowanos tsi nu latinuhkwatslunihe
Both male and female leading scientists, for making medicine (research)
A:u sAtakalitate nen kanyutalakesu wisk nikanekowanus.
To heal the five great lakes to a healthier state,
Nen tesskyatyelu nu Skanenkolatunihe wasakolihutu latisonowanuse
Similar to when Peacemaker came and lifted up the Fifty Chiefs to preserve
Kayenlakowa tAhatihsni. Ne tAtwanuhelatu tsi niyolihowanA swayohtusel
The Great Law of Peace, so we give thanks for you delegates and for the
Great work you are doing for State of the Lakes Ecosystem Conference.
Nuwa' kwi aosahutatna:tAs tsi nikanuhkwatsliyo loti su.
SOLEC will share findings and the good medicine made to date.
Ta, ne kati wi tho nu yo tu ha ke ukwanikulha. Skaliwat utwaste.
So we bring our good minds together and work as one mind.
Ne kwi onah yA he' twatknaiyuha.
We turn our voices toward him (Creator).
Ne Atwatloli ohutsyake tyotsyekhtu, ukwa:nulha tsi
We speak first of the Earth, Our Mother that
teyuki'sniheh. Ne e:sA tyukiyahwihe
supports us. From her we obtain many things:
Ne tekyattihu oneklasuha kale kaska:wayutu tsi kayu
The different grasses and bushes that
tyukiyawi onuhkwat
give us medicine,
Ne SA tsi kayu wayunthe'he, kwah okthiku:ne:se'
The many kinds of hanging fruit we use among which are
4
SOLEC 2004 Proceedings
-------
awAhihte' kale tsyohtahkwaka:yu,
the Strawberry and the Raspberry,
Ne SA tsi kalhayutu, ne wahta nikalu:tohtu'
The standing forests, and especially the Maple
tyukiyawihe ne oshes,
that gives us its' sweet juice,
Akweku kutilyo'shu tsi nen o:wahlu Atwatekuni, kale SA
All of the animals that provide our food and
atslunyahkwa', ne oskanu:tu: tho latiyatale,
clothing, and among them the Deer,
Ne SA otsiVha'shu tsi kayu henek latitye'hse kale tsi'
The birds that fly over us and whose
tehatiliwahkwa ne skAnAko kAS u:tu ukwanikula
voices delight us (our minds),
Ne kanyatala:kes, kahyuhatatis, kale tsi' kana:tsli'su
The lakes, the rivers and the streams
tsi tyukiyawi'he ohne:kanus u:tu skAnAko ukwayahta
that provide (water) for our well-being,
Ne SAahSAtekutanutele, tsi' yuki'kwahel - o:nASte,
The Three Sisters, Our Sustenance: Corn,
ohsaheta, kale yonu'slake:tote', nen yukwAhe'khwA.
Beans and Squash, upon whom (food) we live.
Ska:li'wat Atwatste nuh ty\hetwatnAhelatu kontu
We draw our minds together into one and give thanks for that which
Ohutsyake'ka. Ne tho nuh yawA ukwanikAla.
is on earth. And so it will be in our minds.
OnA Atwatloli lu'wayatakenhahs ShukwayatiSA kaluyake nu'kwa.
We speak now of the Creator's Helpers, those above the earth.
Yukwanute tsi ne SAkA lotiyote tsi nahte sakOAhau
We know that each is carrying out his responsibility:
Yu'kisotne'ha, latisakayuntise, tsi' tetwatshAthos nithanes
Our Grandfathers, the Thunderers, who come from the west
latihawi: yukonoles aosakanAhu' kanyatala:kes, kahna'slihsu
carrying rain to replenish the lakes and streams
kale tsi sakotiwAhu ohAtysoku kutnayelho'kowats,
and who keep the monstrous animals he did not make underground
SOLEC 2004 Proceedings
-------
ShukwakA, kwu'teke wehni:tale', nen yowela talihatu
Our Elder brother, the Sun, who warms the wind
tsi sahawi kukwi:te ne,
that brings growth to the land,
Yukisotha, kwa'shute:ke wehni:tale', tyakonAtau kahwistaeks
Our Grandmother, the Moon, who regulates time and the
nuh Ahunaklate latiksasu,
coming of children,
Yu'kisotneha ne otsistohkwa' ha ne lohnanute'kwe
Our Grandparents, the Stars whose meaning our
nahte kAtuhe' yo'tlastune,
ancestors once knew,
Ne owela tyoyakA: tsi nu tyo'setu okuha,
The Wind, that comes from the place hidden by a veil,
Ne tyowe'luto uskanu tyotkut. nA i: ukwaliwa
(and) that blows always moderately for us.
NAkati wi Atsi'yehyatalohloke ShukwayatiSA Laolhaslisuha,
Now we roll together all His Helpers, and
Skali'wat Atwaste ne onA ty\yehi yakwaty\nawelatu.
combine our minds into one to give our thanks for them.
Ne tonayawA tyotkut ukwanikule.
And so it will be in our minds.
NAkati wi onA Atsitwatlohli ne Skanyadali:o, tsi nahi kutho
And now we speak of Sganyadaiyo', Handsome Lake, during whose
ohutsya:ke tehotawuli ne ShukwayatiSA laowana wahoyatolu'ne.
sojourn on earth the Creator's word again alighted.
Ne ne nu uh Atwatloli nA Kaye Niyukwetuk, Yukiniku:lale,
And we mention also the Four Beings, Our Guardians,
Shukwayehnawase, Ne kwi theyetinewelatu tsi SAkA Lotiyote tsi nahte
who protect us, We thank them that they continue to carry out
lonatlihute. Ne tonayawane tyotkut ukwanikule.
their duties. And so it will be in our minds.
Ta nAkatiwi Atwatli wayu t/\hetwanahelatu' ShukwayatiSA, ne
And now we carry our thanks all the way up to the Creator, he who
kaluyake tethotuskwahele. Ne Shukwatahu'satate kale teshukwakonle'
dwells in the Sky World. He is listening to us and watching us
SOLEC 2004 Proceedings
-------
tsi niwahnislateni kale tsi niwa'shuteni. Ne tahetwanuwelatu tsi
day and night. We thank him for
niyot ahkweku lohsoh.
everything.
Ne to nu yawu'.
So be it.1
' For the alphabet used by Oneida - A or A has the nasal sound of'en', u has the nasal sound of on'.
1 Enos Williams, a ceremonial leader of the Six Nations spoke the main part in Cayuga translated in to English by M.K. Foster, and
translated to Oneida by Grafton Antone, and adapted for this presentation.
7
SOLEC 2004 Proceedings
-------
4. SOLEC 2004 Conference Opening Summary
Pradeep Khare - Regional Director General, Environment Canada - Ontario Region
Gary Gulezian - Director, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency - Great Lakes National Program Office
Welcome to the sixth State of the Lakes Ecosystem Conference. This conference has been held every
other year since 1994 and is co-sponsored by Environment Canada and the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency.
It is a welcomed opportunity to participate in this international gathering of decision makers from
government, industry, Tribes, First Nations, academia and environmental groups. SOLEC is a forum
where research and monitoring efforts from throughout the Great Lakes basin are used to build an overall
picture of Great Lakes ecosystem health. This information is critical for good public policy and
environmental policy makeup.
SOLEC is held, and the subsequent State of the Great Lakes reports, are issued, in partial response to
the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement. Canada and the United States have a continued commitment
to this Agreement. This year, the two countries will also begin a review of the Great Lakes Water Quality
Agreement. The assessment of the status of the Great Lakes ecosystem based on indicatorsthe work
leading to today's conferencewill contribute immensely to this review.
Our work on the Great Lakes is an excellent example of effective binational co-operation and co-
ordination in reducing pollution, improving air and water quality and reducing sources of land pollution.
This work, to protect the health of our citizens and enhance the competitiveness of our economies, will
continue to be an important part of Canada-U.S. relations.
However, assessing the health of something as large and complex as the ecosystem of the Great Lakes
basin is a challenge. Protecting the integrity of the Great Lakes basin ecosystem continues to be a top
priority at every level of government in Canada and the U.S. The Great Lakes indicators help us do this.
A consistent system of reporting based on indicators provides science-based information on the state of
the Great Lakes basin ecosystem. Although substantial progress has been made, new and ongoing
threats to the health of the Great Lakes such as invasive alien species, new chemicals and pollution from
out-of-basin pollution sources, need to be addressed.
Knowledge, incentives and partnerships are the keys to our environmental future. And as SOLEC
demonstrates it is important to remember that with the Great Lakes, we not only share problems, but we
also share in the solutions.
The work that you are doing here at SOLEC is at the forefront of such work worldwide. The Great Lakes
region leads the way once again, as it did in the 1970s in developing a strategy to manage phosphorus;
as it did in the 1980s in developing the concept of virtual elimination and zero discharge of persistent toxic
chemicals; as it did with its pioneering concept of the ecosystem approach to management.
This conference has brought to our doorstep an impressive roster of speakers and conference delegates
from both sides of the border with exciting scientific information that will no doubt help us to build an
overall picture of Great Lakes ecosystem health.
Over the next two days you are going to hear and discuss a lot of information about the state of the Great
Lakes basin and the stresses on the ecosystem. Consider the information well and help provide us with
the advice we need to formulate the policies that will lead us towards an ecologically and economically
sustainable Great Lakes basin.
SOLEC 2004 Proceedings
-------
5. SOLEC 2004 Plenary Presentation Summaries
Plenary Presentations Summary
The 13 plenary presentations at SOLEC 2004 covered many topics with the first day focusing on the
concept of indicator bundling and assessments. The state of the Great Lakes, St. Clair River- Detroit
River Ecosystem and the St. Lawrence River were the focus of the presentations on Day 2 of SOLEC.
Presentations from SOLEC 2004 can be found at
http://www.epa.gov/greatlakes/solec/solec 2004/presentations/index.html
Indicator Bundling and Assessment - SOLEC 2004 - Day 1
Ecological Footprint and Human Drivers
The opening presentation on Day One was given by Dr. William Rees, University of British Columbia. The
Ecological Footprint was created as a means of assessing the sustainability of any population. For
SOLEC 2004, the concept of the Ecological Footprint was applied to the Great Lakes basin. Stressing
that a sustainable society lives within the means of nature, Dr. Rees explained that improved 'livability'
does not equate to greater sustainability. The Ecological Footprint of the basin is equivalent to the area of
land and water ecosystems required to produce the resources that the basin population consumes, and to
assimilate the wastes that the population produces, wherever on Earth the relevant land/water may be
located.
The Ecological Footprint for the Great Lakes basin is just over 4 times that of the world average. The per
capita Ecological Footprint of the Great Lakes basin residents is 9.6 hectares, compared to the world
average of 2.3 hectares. At nearly 397 million hectares, the Ecological Footprint of the basin "occupies"
an area equivalent to 43% of the area of North America. However, the basin is home to the equivalent of
only 9% of the North American population. Dr. Rees concluded with the implications of this consumption
for the basin and the technological challenges faced by bringing the Great Lakes basin's eco-footprint
close to regional carrying capacity. Government intervention in the form of "ecological fiscal reform" is
required, as well as the realization that it is time to reconsider our lifestyles. SOLEC participants were left
to answer the question, "What intelligent species would risk destroying its only habitat for more 'stuff?"
Human Oriented Issues
Lori Boughton, Office of the Great Lakes, Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Quality, presented
Human Impact on the Great Lakes as reported on by 40 indicators that have been "bundled" into three
groups: contamination, human health and land use - land cover.
Contaminants Bundle
This bundle looks at contaminants in Great Lakes fish and wildlife as well as concentrations in non-living
media such as air, water, and sediment, and is currently assessed as mixed and improving. This
presentation looked at various indicator reports within this bundle including: phosphorus to represent
nutrient loadings, Spottail Shiner, Lake Trout and Bald Eagle to outline the bioaccumulation of
contaminants in the aquatic food web, and atmospheric deposition as a representation of sources and
loadings. While a number of signs of recovery are evident in the indicator reporting, many ecosystem
objectives are not achieved and there is still much work to b done especially regarding emerging
chemicals in the Great Lakes basin.
Human Health Bundle
This bundle addresses the fundamental questions: Should I drink the water? Should I swim in the water?
Should I eat the fish? And should I breathe the air? This bundle has been assessed as mixed and
improving. Information from indicator reports on beaches, air quality, ozone and fish consumption,
answered these questions with a qualified "yes". Improvement is still needed for consistent monitoring
SOLEC 2004 Proceedings
-------
and data collection, informing the public, and addressing pressures from climate change, population
growth and land use.
Land Use - Land Cover Bundle
Containing many 'new' indicator reports that reflect the ecosystem's physical appearance, there was no
overall assessment for this bundle as the data to link physical factors to specific impacts is not available.
Indicator reports for this bundle include land cover and conversion, urban density, forest lands and
brownfield redevelopment. Urbanization and sprawl and its negative effect on groundwater quality and
quantity were presented. There was also good news as successful brownfield redevelopment efforts are
in place. Finally, emphasis was placed on the importance of protecting two vulnerable areas within the
Great Lakes basin that are currently being threatened and lost by development: islands and cobble
beaches.
Natural Resources and Biological Integrity
Doug Dodge, Stream Benders, spoke of Natural Resources Utilization and Biological Integrity. Six biotic
communities were reviewed based on different trophic levels and represented in the list of Great Lake
indicators, followed by a look at invasive species, coastal zones and aquatic habitats.
The Biotic Community Bundle assessment includes:
Forests - The forest community of the Great Lakes basin was assessed as mixed and improving.
Forests cover 27.8 million hectares, or about half (51%) of the land in the Great Lakes basin. Total
forest area has expanded by 3-11% across the Great Lakes basin in the last quarter century. The
increase in forested areas in recent decades has lead to this assessment and will help to improve
water quality and quantity, as well as increase riparian vegetation providing improved land/water
interfaces for species recovery.
Invertebrates and Fish - Looking at Hexagenia and Diporeia as native benthic indicator species,
native invertebrates are in trouble, with the biggest threats coming form zebra and quagga mussels.
Physical changes in wetland habitats also continue to threaten invertebrates by providing conditions
that are more suitable for the success of non-native species. Indicator reports for salmon and trout
are mixed and improving across the basin. Walleye populations are threatened by habitat loss and
non-native species. The status of other fish populations, including yellow perch, American eels, lake
sturgeon, and prey fish, were also reviewed.
Amphibians, Reptiles and Birds - Indicator reports for all three species indicate a status of mixed and
deteriorating. There has been a general decline in amphibian populations, likely because of the loss
of suitable habitat. Contamination in turtle eggs is still above guidelines with the high levels slowing
the development of turtle embryos. Decreases in wetland birds, and increases in the number of
tolerant species, along with the downward trends in amphibian communities suggest that the quality
and quantity of wetlands continues to decrease.
Invasive Species Bundle
Looking at non-native species, sea lamprey controls are assessed as fair to good and improving, with the
numbers of sea lamprey being considerably lower than levels measured before control programs began
in the 1960s. With regard to other non-native species in the Great Lakes, nearly 10% of all species that
have been introduced into the Great Lakes basin have detrimentally affected ecosystem integrity. Human
activities associated with shipping are responsible for more than half of all introductions. The assessment
for the non-native species indicator is poor and deteriorating. The overall assessment for the Invasive
Species bundle is mixed and the trend is identified as unchanging.
Coastal Zone Bundle
Coastal zones are currently assessed as mixed and deteriorating. The three habitat types, nearshore
aquatic, coastal wetlands (see assessment below) and nearshore terrestrial, are all being detrimentally
affected by the continuing hardening of shoreline, elevated phosphorus levels and land conversion. The
status of toxic chemicals in open water aquatic habitats is mixed and improving, but due to spatial and
10
SOLEC 2004 Proceedings
-------
temporal differences, their status in offshore waters is difficult to summarize. The concentrations of toxic
chemicals in sediments are declining for several heavy medals and their status is mixed and improving.
When looking at aquatic habitats, the value of groundwater and its ecological role in the state of the Great
Lakes ecosystem has been generally ignored, or at best, incompletely assessed. The assessment made
at SOLEC was mixed and deteriorating.
Coastal Wetlands
The coastal wetlands assessment, presented by Joel Ingram, Environment Canada, and Thomas Burton,
Department of Zoology and Fisheries and Wildlife, Michigan State University, is a sub bundle of the
coastal zones bundle. The status of Great Lakes Coastal Wetlands was presented based on work done
by the agencies involved with the Great Lakes Coastal Wetlands Consortium. Looking at coastal
wetlands, biological indicators are assessed using an Index of Biotic Integrity (IBI). IBIs rely on attributes
of biological systems to measure its condition. Based on several metrics which are attributes of the biota
that show a predictable response to human disturbance, IBIs are used across a range of disturbance
types for lacustrine wetlands across all 5 Great Lakes.
Eight indicators were individually considered to provide an overall assessment of coastal wetlands as
mixed and deteriorating. Area by type, birds, amphibians, contaminants, water levels, plants,
invertebrates and fish were assessed as follows:
Area by Type - The hydrology and/or geomorphology of all Great Lakes coastal wetlands have been
impacted to some degree by human activity. Breakdowns of wetland area by type showed that barrier
protected wetlands are a dominant coastal feature and support the largest area of wetland within most of
the Great Lakes.
Birds and Amphibians - Wetland bird and amphibian species in the Great Lakes were assessed as mixed
and deteriorating. There have been significant declines in seven sensitive bird species, and in four
amphibian species. Population indices have been developed for wetland bird and amphibian species and
examples of the decline of various species were presented. Further work needs to be done to develop
basinwide IBI for amphibians.
Contaminants- Contamination in snapping turtle eggs is assessed as mixed and unchanging. Basinwide
estimates or trends of contaminants in snapping turtle eggs are not available. However, monitoring near
several Areas of Concern has established environmental guidelines. Total PCB levels remain above
consumption guidelines.
Water Levels - Periods of water level fluctuation represent a natural disturbance that favours diversity
and native plant species. In lakes such as Ontario and Superior, the controlling of water levels has
resulted in narrowed wetland zones, lower diversity, and increasing dominance of invasive species.
Aquatic invertebrates, fish, and vegetation - Across the 61 lacustrine wetlands investigated basinwide,
invertebrate community health is assessed as mixed, with the trend being undetermined. Similar to
invertebrate communities, fish community health is also assessed as mixed and undetermined. Various
observations were presented with regard to fish species, community composition, and invasives. With the
changes in water levels dramatically affecting the plant communities of the Great Lakes coastal wetlands,
they have been assessed as mixed and deteriorating. Indices have been developed and will soon be
published for these wetlands based on fish, invertebrates and plants.
Future developments including: finalizing work on methods and indicator development (including IBIs),
developing an implementation plan, collecting data broadly across the basin, and reporting regularly to
SOLEC concluded this presentation on the state of coastal wetlands.
11
SOLEC 2004 Proceedings
-------
Ecosystem Status Reports - SOLEC 2004 - Day 2
The plenary presentations on Day Two of SOLEC 2004 provided the state of the five Great Lakes, St.
Clair River - Detroit River Ecosystem and the St. Lawrence River. Presentations on the state of Lake
Ontario and Lake Erie fisheries were also presented.
Lake Superior
Steve Schlobohm, U.S. Forest Service, presented the state of Lake Superior. Assessed as mixed, Lake
Superior is seeing various species recover and some contaminants trends decline, while other issues are
emerging, such as new contaminants and the threat of non-native species.
The issues currently affecting Lake Superior's physical integrity are as follows:
1. Chemical Contaminants
Zero Discharge Demonstration (ZDD) program is unique in scheduling load reductions to achieve
zero discharge of the 9 critical pollutants by the year 2020.
There has been a decline in mercury emissions and the reduction of contaminants such as dieldrin in
herring gull eggs.
There are elevated mercury levels in lamprey from the Lake Superior system compared to the other
Great Lakes.
2. Habitat Alteration
Current threats to wetlands are: draining and filling, water level regulation and site-specific stresses
such as shoreline development.
The majority of impairments to aquatic habitat and water quality are found in embayments and
tributaries.
3. Non-Native Species
Lake Superior has the highest ratio of non-native species to native species in the Great Lakes as the
lake represents a dead-end for shipping.
4. Future Threats
Global warming, climate change, increasing water temperatures, large scale water export and
proposed new mines are other critical issues that need to be explored in Lake Superior.
Lake Michigan
Norm Grannemann, U.S. Geological Survey, presented the state of Lake Michigan as mixed. A number
of issues affecting the physical integrity of the lake were outlined by the presentation. These include:
Development occurring in some of the most ecologically sensitive areas of the watershed including
coastal wetlands.
Low water levels, causing problems for shipping industries and negatively impacting wetlands.
Resurgences of the macroalgae Cladophora resulting in poor water quality and reduced beach use.
Decline of Diporeia, a keystone species in the food web. Due to this decline and other issues, the
Lake Michigan food web is considered threatened.
Threats from an engineered connection between the Mississippi River and Lake Michigan drainage
basins; the most serious threat being the bighead carp.
Pumping from wells for water supply and various forms of drainage, such as tile drains which affect
groundwater flows.
Utilizing shallow glacial-deposit aquifers as sources of water which lead to more potential conflicts
related to wells and depleted streamflow.
12
SOLEC 2004 Proceedings
-------
Lake Huron
Janette Anderson, Environment Canada, presented a report on the physical integrity of Lake Huron.
Major threats to physical integrity include habitat loss, degradation and fragmentation.
1. Habitat Loss
Habitat loss has occurred due to the loss of coastal wetland areas and shoreline alteration via
development.
Land use has changed dramatically from 2 types of wetlands and forests to urban and agricultural
land with most of the remaining wetlands being coastal.
Water levels are currently the lowest in Lake Huron that they have been in over 30 years, resulting in
a number of problems including the colonization by wetland plants on beaches and mudflats,
navigational difficulties and a lack of water exchange.
2. Habitat Degradation
Primarily through sedimentation of coastal wetlands and bays, habitats have been degraded.
Impermeable surfaces and agricultural practices divert water quickly to drains and streams during a
rainfall resulting in high flows that carry sediment and can erode unstable banks.
3. Habitat Fragmentation
This fragmentation has resulted from dam construction in tributaries.
Dams threaten the Lake by blocking fish migration, impairing high gradient habitat, modifying stream
channels, and creating reservoirs that serve as sediment and nutrient sinks.
Lake sturgeon, now listed as endangered or threatened by 5 Great Lakes states, has been greatly
affected by dams.
To provide spawning habitat there is a need to identify potential spawning sites, restore high gradient
habitats and provide fish passage around any dams that lie between the lake and restored habitats.
St. Clair River - Detroit River Ecosystem
Ted Briggs, Ontario Ministry of the Environment, presented SOLEC participants with a report on the
status of the St. Clair River- Detroit River ecosystem. The region, which serves as a shipping link, has
developed into one of the most highly industrialized and environmentally altered areas in the Great Lakes
basin, and is assessed as mixed. Major stressors outlined were:
1. Chemical Contaminants
Long term monitoring programs are in place for contaminants in the corridor.
Results indicate declining or static trends over time for most contaminants sampled.
Progress is being made in the remediation of contaminated sediments in the St. Clair River.
2. Population Pressure
Land use practices associated with increases in population are the largest stressors to this
ecosystem.
On the Canadian side, land use is primarily agricultural with some major industrial centres.
On the U.S. side, where population increase and related effects are much greater, land use is more
variable ranging from heavy industry to high and low density development, agriculture land,
grasslands and deciduous forests.
3. Non-Native Species
Continued introduction of non-native species is one of the greatest threats to the area's biodiversity.
A number of ongoing and future projects are being actively pursued by various government agencies and
stakeholders to address the current stresses to the St. Clair River- Detroit River Ecosystem.
13
SOLEC 2004 Proceedings
-------
Lake Erie
Sandra George, Environment Canada, presented the state of physical integrity of Lake Erie by looking at
the various impacts on tributaries, nearshore habitats and offshore waters.
Tributaries
These waters transport nutrients and sediments to Lake Erie's nearshore habitats and provide
spawning and nursery habitats for migratory fish species.
Nutrient and sediment inputs have been reduced but many of Lake Erie's tributaries are still
overwhelmed with sediment and nutrients by the time they reach Lake Erie.
Dams and other barriers exacerbate this problem by altering river characteristics and preventing fish
and other organisms from accessing upstream spawning and nursery habitats.
Nearshore Habitats
The natural processes that maintain these habitats have been altered by physical changes including:
shoreline hardening and alteration, harbour development, infilling and diking of wetlands, and the
introduction of invasive species.
Invasive species, primarily the colonization of zebra and quagga mussels, have irreversibly impacted
nearshore habitats.
Currently, there are efforts on protecting and rehabilitating nearshore habitats.
Offshore Waters
Regulations of discharges have resulted in improved sediment conditions, which have allowed for the
return of Hexagenia, a key component in the food chain, to the western basin.
Currently, oxygen levels are low in the central basin, which are not suitable for many organisms,
especially fish.
Dreissenid mussels have altered substrates invading soft and hard substrates changing their
character and structure.
Currently, lake-wide loadings are at or below target, while concentrations are increasing, particularly
in the spring and summer. The reasons for this apparent contradiction are unclear.
Lake Erie Fishery
Phil Ryan, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, presented the state of Lake Erie fisheries. The goals
established for Lake Erie's various fish communities and a review of the current status of each fish
community was also presented.
The Cool-Water Community
This community has lost significant biodiversity through the extinction of various species and the
major decline in abundance and distribution of lake sturgeon.
As an example, sauger is regionally extinct in Lake Erie and a well organized attempt to re-introduce
it has failed.
Other species discussed were yellow perch and walleye, believed to be more abundant than historical
records, and burrowing mayflies which are assessed as mixed.
The Coldwater Community
This community has experienced a catastrophic loss of native biodiversity.
On the positive side, a lake trout stocking program was initiated, and their survival improved with the
establishment of sea lamprey control in the 1980s.
The Prey Fish Community
This community is considered poor and unstable.
Winter conditions limit the survival of prey fish such as alewife and shad, causing instability, and this
in turn affects the viability of salmonid eggs.
14
SOLEC 2004 Proceedings
-------
Lake Ontario
Rimi Kalinauskas, Environment Canada, provided a presentation on the state of Lake Ontario. Lake
Ontario was reported as an "ecosystem in transition" with the key factors affecting the physical integrity of
the lake being lake level regulations, zebra and quagga mussels, and urbanization.
1. Lake Level Regulations
Water levels have been regulated by a series of dams on the St. Lawrence River since 1960.
This regulation seeks to balance a number of interests including hydropower, commercial navigation,
and shoreline property owners downstream, and it has worked to reduce the range in fluctuations.
Many scientists believe that this regulation has had serious and lasting impacts on fish and wildlife,
shoreline habitat and dune barrier systems, and the numerous wetland complexes that line the
shoreline.
2. Zebra and Quagga Mussels
Filtering activities have reduced the amounts of material in the water column, thereby increasing light
penetration and allowing re-growth of extensive macrophyte beds in many littoral areas.
Colonization has affected the physical, chemical and biological integrity of the lake including the
decline of native benthic organisms and the emerging issue of Type E Botulism.
Since the impact of non-native species is irreversible, prevention is the key.
3. Urbanization
On the Canadian side, land use and population growth are stresses on the system and this stress is
growing, mostly at the western end of the basin. This pressure is not being felt as strongly on the U.S.
side.
Increased impervious cover in urbanized areas leads to increases in stormwater runoff, more and
higher peak flows and lower base flows, resulting in a drastically altered hydrological regime.
Lake Ontario Fishery
Bruce Morrison, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, continued the focus on Lake Ontario with a
presentation on its fishery. A "bottom up" approach provided a complete picture of the ecosystem.
Benthos and Prey Fish
Diporeia, an important food item for many fish species, have not done well since the colonization by
Dreissena.
Recent surveys on Mysids, another important food item for various species, suggested a declining
trend was occurring, but sampling in 2003 suggested that this decline did not continue.
The main prey fish are young freshwater drum, white perch, suckers and cyprinids and more recently
the round goby which has become well established.
Currently, abundance and biomass indices of alewife and rainbow smelt lead to a mixed status.
Walleye, Salmon and Trout
Current work suggests that the walleye population is stable.
With respect to recreational fishing, both catch per unit effort and harvest per unit effort have recently
increased, although overall effort for walleye fishing has not increased to the catch and harvest
numbers of the 1980s.
The status of the whole salmon and trout fishery is stable; however, there is an undetermined
prognosis on this fishery as many of the fish species are dependant on stocking.
The status of lake trout is uncertain as the main objective of a self sustaining population has not yet
been achieved.
Other species that were not included in the Great Lakes indicator suite but are important to commercial
fisheries and the Lake Ontario ecosystem are the American eel and the lake sturgeon. The American eel
is currently under consideration for listing as a species at risk. The lake sturgeon is caught every year,
although there are no programs directed at assessing the health of this population.
15
SOLEC 2004 Proceedings
-------
Overall Assessment and Consumption Guidelines
The Lake Ontario commercial fishery has been declining for the past 5 years and is assessed as
poor, with an undetermined prognosis.
The recreational fishery has remained relatively stable for several years following a decline in effort in
the early to mid-90s and is assessed as fair, with a stable-improving prognosis.
Many of the large bodied commercial and sport fish species have consumption guidelines associated
with them.
As new contaminants are listed by U.S. Food and Drug Administration and/or Health Canada, such
as those found in fire retardants, guidelines will become more complex.
St. Lawrence River
Serge Villeneuve, Environment Canada, presented an assessment of the St. Lawrence River. Major
structural changes in the St. Lawrence have caused alterations to the hydrodynamics, shoreline and
biological resources.
Structural Changes
The most important structural changes to the St. Lawrence have been the construction of dams for
hydroelectric power, the Seaway and the Shipping Channel.
Over hundreds of years, the Shipping Channel was deepened and widened requiring extensive
dredging of larger segments of the river; most of the dredged sediment was deposited close to the
Channel or shores of the River.
Construction of dams for hydroelectric power generation and the Seaway, with extensive excavation
and dredging, flooded a series of rapids, and displaced thousands of inhabitants.
Shoreline
Shoreline hardening offers only local protection and amplifies the erosion process downstream.
It has resulted in major losses of wetlands and accompanying wildlife populations.
Severe coastal erosion will require social and economical decisions in the near future, since very
costly shore protection structures do not resist winter storms and inhabitants.
Hydrodynamics and Biological Resources
Using Lake St. Pierre as an example, extensive dredging has changed water flow through the lake,
and these changing water levels affect wetlands.
Aquatic plants influence the physics, current, waves and sedimentation of the system. Their absence
causes water to move faster so that slow waters are limited to the shores.
The deepening of the shipping channel has contributed to the amplification of this process.
Trends show that despite the major structural changes to its ecosystem, the St. Lawrence River has
shown a strong resilience and still shelters very productive habitats and diversified fauna and flora.
16
SOLEC 2004 Proceedings
-------
6. SOLEC 2004 Breakout Session Summaries - Day 1
Ecological Footprint Question and Answer Session
Facilitator: Dr. William Rees, Professor and Director, School of Community and Regional Planning,
University of British Columbia
Recorder: Susan Arndt, Environment Canada
With approximately 50 people in attendance, Dr. Rees hosted a lively question and answer period during
the lunch break on Day 1 of SOLEC 2004. Overall, the audience seemed to be in agreement with the
concepts of the Ecological Footprint (EF), but was unsure of its applications and solutions. Some of the
questions raised were related to the impacts of urban versus suburban dwellers, the application of the EF
to various sectors, and the users of this type of information. In response to these questions, Dr. Rees
explained that generally urban dwellers have a smaller footprint. With an influx of people moving out of
cities and into the country or suburbs, they are increasing their footprint with increased land and energy
use. The EF can be used to look at various sectors and is now being used around the world in this way.
For example, the concept has been adopted by Australia to promote policy and targets by finding a way
to personalize the environmental crisis that is occurring so that Australia's ecological footprint can be
reduced.
Further discussion focused on the concepts of peak oil, energy alternatives, and how society can begin to
penetrate these myths and develop reasonable solutions to the problem. In response to this discussion,
Dr. Rees stressed that society needs to become conscious of our own actions and that as globalization
continues; the myths that that society lives by must evolve to become more comparable to that of other
cultural organizations. It is important to realize that energy alternatives are not always clear cut
alternatives, but by using new and existing technology, and coming up with solutions now, as opposed to
when it may be too late to make the adjustment.
Introduction to Indicators Information Session
Facilitator: Paul Bertram, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Recorder: Elizabeth Hinchey Malloy, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
This presentation was originally prepared for SOLEC 2002 to provide a brief overview of the Great
Lakes indicators, and how the suite of indicators was derived. It is important to understand the
relationship between VISION, GOALS, ECOSYSTEM OBJECTIVES and INDICATORS:
VISION
SOCIETY
VALUES
STRESSES
I
MAJOR
GOAL1
MAJOR
GOAL 2
MAJOR
GOAL 3
J
ECOSYSTEM
OBJECTIVE
1
- INDICATOR 1
-INDICATOR 2
ECOSYSTEM
OBJECTIVE
2
ECOSYSTEM
OBJECTIVE
3
-| INDICATOR 1 1
-INDICATOR 2
M INDICATOR 3 1
ECOSYSTEM
OBJECTIVE
I 4
- INDICATOR 2
- INDICATOR 3
-INDICATOR 4
I
L INDICATOR
A VISION is the "big picture" or the overall goal for the Great Lakes. For example, the overall vision
for the Great Lakes taken directly from the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement (GLWQA) is "...to
restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the waters of the Great Lakes
Basin ecosystem".
17
SOLEC 2004 Proceedings
-------
Once the overall VISION has been developed, major, discreet GOALS for various parts of the VISION
can be set. GOALS are influenced by both societal values and by the stresses that are currently
being imposed on the ecosystem, and are entities that might be measurable and achievable.
Societal values tend to dictate the uses to which the Great Lakes are restored (i.e. manage them
for maximum sustained harvest offish for food, or manage them for human health implications).
Often times these uses are not mutually compatible.
In addition, there are many stresses currently imposed on the ecosystem: like too many nutrients,
toxic contaminants, habitat alteration, and invasions of non-native species.
An example of a GOAL or general objective from the GLWQA is that "These waters should be:
Free from nutrients...in amounts that create growths of aquatic life that interfere with beneficial
uses".
Once major GOALS are identified, then the specific measurable ecosystem OBJECTIVES can be
established. The concept is that if all the specific OBJECTIVES are achieved for any given goal, then
the major GOAL can be reached.
An example from a specific, quantified OBJECTIVE from the GLWQA is an established
recommended maximum annual phosphorous loadings for each of the Great Lakes; for Lake Erie
the annual loading objective is not more than 11,000 metric tonnes.
Then once the quantified objectives are established, measure progress towards these objectives can
be measured. INDICATORS are measurable parts of the ecosystem from which information can be
inferred in relation to the objectives. There can be several INDICATORS related to the same
objective.
For example, if the GLWQA sets phosphorus loading OBJECTIVES for the Great Lakes,
specifically 11,000 metric tonnes for Lake Erie, then phosphorus concentrations in the water can
be measured as an indicator of achievement of the objective. And the relationship between
phosphorus in the water and plankton growth allows phosphorus concentrations to be used as an
indicator of trophic status of the water.
There is also another aspect to indicators that needs to be highlighted: A MEASURED value and an
expected TARGET or ENDPOINT are both required. The observed measurement can then be
compared against the desired state to allow for an assessment based on the indicator. Identifying the
end points is the challenging part.
The MEASUREMENT - what is the observed state of the ecosystem component being
measured?
The REFERENCE value - what is the desired state of the ecosystem component being
measured?
It is important to note that not all indicators are created alike; some are more effective than others.
Thus, for SOLEC a set of criteria is used to apply to candidate indicators; the overall criteria are those
of NECESSARY, SUFFICIENT and FEASIBLE. Is each indicator needed, or is there some
redundancy in the set? Are all the indicators, taken as a whole, SUFFICIENT to characterize the
Great Lakes ecosystem components, or are some elements missing? And is the indicator FEASIBLE
to measure and report?
The selection of indicators for SOLEC has been an ongoing process. It began with over 850 proposed
indicators that have since been reduced to approximately 80. The indicator suite was revised and
reviewed at SOLEC in 1998 and 2000 and it continues to evolve with SOLEC 2004 considering such
indicators as: groundwater, forests, and resource utilization. For SOLEC 2004, the indicators have been
arranged into nine bundles.
Questions raised during this session were focused on the frequent use of the term "MIXED" when
assessing the bundles. The feeling was that the bundles are too broad a category for this term to be
useful. Each indicator still needs to be examined separately and it is important to look at each indicator
within the bundles for a more satisfying assessment. Currently, there is only one index, the Index of
Biotic Integrity (IBI), within coastal wetlands sub bundle. The forest lands indicator currently looks at four
elements, but is not a true index.
18
SOLEC 2004 Proceedings
-------
Other discussion items included the idea of developing a relational data base/matrix to allow indicators to
be examined many different ways, the ability to set baselines, and how SOLEC reduces 850 indicators to
80. For Great Lakes basin reporting, the whole basin picture of good, fair, or mixed is reported, but some
indicators need to be applied to each lake, harbour, and /or local Areas of Concern including Remedial
Action Plans. Since indicators are not static, some will be removed from the suite if external reviews
warrant it. Indicators are filtered through criteria of NECESSARY, SUFFICIENT and FEASIBLE, and the
process of reducing the numbers is an incredible challenge since it is very difficult to create a vision that
covers such a large area. For more information on the indicator process see Selection of Indicators,
Version 4 atwww.binational.net.
Contaminants Bundle of Indicators
Discussion Session Summary
Facilitator: Marcia Damato, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Recorder: Veronica Lo, Environment Canada
Participants: 25
Focus Question 1: Are the indicators and assessments correct and useful?
General Comments
Should be able to cross-reference indicators in more than one bundle/sub-bundle (however, might be
more accessible to public if related indicators are placed in only one category; e.g. sport-fishers will
only look at sections on sport fishing and not other bundles).
Need discussion/acknowledgement of uncertainties included in each indicator report.
Some conclusions in indicator reports are not supported (e.g. indicator #117) and are contrary to
government reports.
Breakdown information by lake within indicator report i.e. Indicator #114.
Comments on Specific Indicators
Phosphorus Concentrations and Loadings (Indicator #111)
How are the conclusions drawn when basic loading information is generally not collected? Are they
based on "expert" opinion rather than comprehensive data?
No indication of role of agriculture in phosphorus loadings (Are concentrations higher in Lake Erie
because of agricultural productivity/runoff near the western shore?).
Contaminants in Colonial Nesting Waterbirds (Indicator #115)
Not a good indicator because trends are different for each colony.
Atmospheric Deposition of Toxic Chemicals (Indicator #117)
Figure 5 shows a net loss of PCB from Lake Michigan that is consistent for 1992, 93, and 94.
However, starting in 1995 there is a drastic reduction in this ness loss! Can this be explained?
Suggest comparing Blanchard estimates to Lake Michigan Mass Balance Study modelling estimates.
Contaminants in Whole Fish (Indicator #121)
Need to describe why and which contaminants cause which disorders in fish, in piscivorous animals
and in humans too. Combine sport fish with whole fish with regards to edibility.
Get Lake Ontario mercury levels for walleye into your whole fish and sport fish indicators.
External Anomaly Prevalence Index for Nearshore Fish (Indicator #124)
Should be moved to nearshore bundle.
Science not developed enough to use this as a reliable indicator.
19
SOLEC 2004 Proceedings
-------
Drinking Water Quality (Indicator #4175)
Should belong in human health indicator bundle exclusively (human health should be the main
perspective).
This indicator report gives no indication of microbial contaminants in ambient waters. Current drinking
water treatment approaches do not address majority of human pathogens. With declining water
levels, microbial contaminants in water become increasingly important. Absence of spatial /temporal
qualifiers limits the use and reliability of such indicators.
Tendency to treat E.coli as a uniform population; suggests homogeneity in E.coli. Some text should
be rewritten to give a clear assessment of identifying different strains - can trace origin of strain.
Contaminants in Sport Fish (Indicator #4201)
Should be exclusively in human health bundle.
Some of the chemical measurements for sport fish program, if brought into proper temporal/spatial
perspective, could be used for the contamination bundle.
Needs to be clear whether or not the purpose of fish indicator reports is to protect them as a species
or to assess contaminants in them.
Need to include more Canadian data in sport fish indicator; could be separate report for human health
as consumption advisories.
Get Lake Ontario mercury levels for walleye into your whole fish and sport fish indicators.
Air Quality (Indicator #4202)
Missing current studies being undertaken which would alter status in future.
Improbable to eradicate reactions to ozone; indicators not keeping up with science.
Reference for Canada - U.S. Air Quality Agreement 2002 Program Report is wrong. It was written by
U.S. and Canadian governments, Air Quality Committee.
Acid Rain (Indicator#9000)
NOx and SOx should be separate indicators as opposed to acid rain as a whole.
Reference for Canada - U.S. Air Quality Agreement 2002 Program Report is wrong. It was written by
U.S. and Canadian governments, Air Quality Committee.
Assessment of Indicators
Indicator reports sanitize conditions by assigning "mixed, improving" status. From a management
perspective there is a false sense of success of programs when you see the "mixed and improving"
status.
For "mixed" status, need expert to identify specific top management priorities - What is improving?
What isn't improving?
Focus Question 2: What refinements, simplifications, or enhancements to the assessments and/or
bundles would you propose?
Measurements: the basic concept of observed and reference measurements needs to be reiterated.
There is a lack of integration of spatial and temporal relationships of indicators to get a picture of
whether or not ecosystem is improving (i.e. status of PCBs through different media is needed).
Buffering from sediments and historic loadings make some changes seem small - need to look at all
the media together for an accurate assessment of contaminants. The indicators are "patchy" - there
is little integration among the indicators. Follow a series of contaminants in different media:
sediments, water and biota (at different trophic levels). This kind of dataset will be conducive to
modelling.
Definitions are too loosely used - i.e. Pharmaceuticals vs. by-products of pharmaceutical
manufacturing, or Pharmaceuticals vs. antibiotics.
Need mechanism to identify where to obtain data - too many "islands of data".
Would be helpful to keep index of acronyms and chemical terms.
Can not make generalizations of status of toxic chemicals - need to distinguish between specific
chemicals - status is different for each chemical.
20
SOLEC 2004 Proceedings
-------
Deposition and loading - current studies should be cited. Alternatively, some studies are cited but are
not present in the text.
Each indicator should be peer-reviewed. Response by facilitator: In order to ensure accessibility to
the public, each indicator should not necessarily be peer-reviewed, but a working group can be used
to gather all data.
Broad consensus of group that contaminants bundle is not up-to-date, lacks temporal and spatial
integration.
A 'mixed' status is not useful or interpretable by managers. The bundling approach results in vague
designations.
An eclectic mix of topics selected in this bundle. Is it a case of selecting the best thing to measure or
a case of utilizing what is already measured (so as not to start new programs)?
There is no simple solution to assessment. In Ontario we have routine Ontario Ministry of the
Environment sport fish sampling and are struggling with commercial fish sampling. Inter-jurisdictional
guidelines need to be highlighted. Do not bundle indicators based on contaminants but maybe focus
on habitat or simply aquatic.
There is a big overlap in "Toxics in Media" and "Sources and Loadings" sub-bundles. Could eliminate
the "Sources" sub-bundle as all of its indicators are covered in the "Toxics in Media" sub-bundle. Or
make a better distinct!on between sub-bundles.
Call the bundle "pollutants" to include nutrients, persistent toxic substances (PTS) and
Pharmaceuticals. To most, contaminants are only PTS. Separate out data on presence and trends of
pollutants. A separate category could be "effects" - perhaps in an Ecosystem Health bundle which
would also include ecological community health.
Maybe group the indicators by longevity of their database (0-5 years, 5-10, 10-15 etc.) and/or by how
many lakes or sites are included. Disagreement among breakout participants on presence or absence
of trends. The indicators could also be organized by whether they contain legacy or new compounds.
Emerging Indicators
A large number of indicators are assessed as "mixed and improving," but 95% of them look at legacy
contaminants (PCBs, DDT, etc) that were regulated decades ago -we need to look at contaminants
that are new (e.g. Pharmaceuticals). Either add new indicators or expand current indicators.
Where is monitoring for emerging problems like PBDEs? Governments are not in a position to make
effective management decisions if new contaminants are not being monitored
When phosphorous was banned from detergents, some substitutes were discovered to be endocrine
disrupters (nonophenols) - in this case the solution was worse than the problem - onus is on industry
and government to research solutions before implementing them.
One indicator missing from bundle is pharmaceutical and personal care products (PPCP). This is an
increasingly important and wide variety of contaminants.
Need to also clarify what Pharmaceuticals are being measured (i.e. discharge of original product from
manufacturing or residuals in sewage).
Focus Question 3: What are the key management implications?
Are agencies committing the necessary resources to collecting baseline data for new toxins? I.e.
archive fish samples and design fish consumption advisories to include new contaminants.
All indicators should have a Management Section.
There is no clearing house of available data and reports do not capture everything.
Account for time period in assessments i.e. "mixed and improving" over last 30 years.
Decline in emissions, but no change in assessment of mercury level.
Need to pool data (could identify what may seem to be a large change but it may only be a small
change relative to other data).
Is SOLEC establishing linkages with other organizations?
Should a stronger tie be made to RAP and LaMP programs? However, on the flip side, are some
monitoring programs used, too biased on samples from AOCs which might skew the "lake wide"
trend?
21
SOLEC 2004 Proceedings
-------
Governments should be more transparent in these reports and acknowledge that they are only
reporting on a few of many toxic substances, perhaps to support their own monitoring programs.
Must have long term trends of contaminants in the various media.
Need to know how the contaminants found in fish effect their life history and the condition/quality of
fish food so that we can understand their role in restoration effort, fish reproduction, food web
structure, etc.
Future stressors/unaccounted for stressors will need to be considered on order to have a clearer
picture of the state of the lakes (i.e. climate change, population growth, emerging chemicals of
concern, urban sprawl, etc).
Are we forcing ourselves to use the date that is available to make assessments? Or are there
indicators missing that should be developed in order to answer the questions posed?
Since focusing on legacy chemicals the effectiveness of decisions that were made 20 years ago are
being evaluated.
Based on a limited number of indicator chemicals (PCB/DDT/Hg) the assessments provide a
"sanitized" view of chemical/pollutant conditions in the Great Lakes basin. This may lead to a false
conclusion if trends in emerging chemicals are not included (and would lead to a lack of management
response).
As management tools alone, the indicators are not helpful. It requires a tremendous
explanation/discussion to understand their meaning, limits, or usefulness. While site specific chemical
emissions/loadings across the basin(s) may have been reduced, the total loadings of chemicals are
far greater than is being revealed. Loadings are less, but not without impact to human and ecosystem
health.
The lack of an integrated approach across the various media gives a "stove pipe" perspective of the
ecosystem's condition.
Declining chemical loadings may also be related to loss of industries (steel, coal mining, and metal
processing) both offshore and defunct. The contributions of other socio-economic factors are not
addressed, nor can they adequately be done with available data. Government regulations alone are
not drivers.
Indicators point up, down, and sideways, they simply give an "indications" not a statement of
condition in dynamic systems. Far too many "mixed, improving" to be believable.
Biotic Communities and Non-Native Species Bundles of Indicators
Discussion Session Summary
Facilitator: John Perrecone, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Recorder: Jackie Adams, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Number of Participants: 24
Focus Question 1: Are the indicators and assessments correct and useful?
Non-native species indicators (Indicator #18 and Indicator #9002)
Invasive species other than lamprey are not adequately addressed.
Current non-native species indicators are a measure of discovery rather than introduction. Vector
control measures and risk assessment of species posing a higher risk of invasion need to be
addressed.
If a large impact of non-native species is trophic level/foodweb disruption, then energy transfer
measures would be helpful to monitor the degree to which ecosystem function has changed from
some "baseline" which supports desired fish communities and/or species biomass.
Need indicators (of non-native species) which will illuminate functional changes which should be of
concern to fisheries managers -what management action is appropriate? Can we manipulate the
foodweb disruption to meet fish management objectives or is it time to amend our management
expectations.
Need to expand the non-native species indicator - perhaps with "potential" invasives not currently in
the Great Lakes. Mclsaac/Ricciards postulate a number of species "likely" to invade the Great Lakes.
22
SOLEC 2004 Proceedings
-------
Need to do a better job on the terrestrial component of non-native species.
The missing piece is tracking populations (status and trends) of other non-natives besides sea
lamprey. In the current suite, there are indicators related to a coarse level of risk (i.e. incoming
species which are discovered) and ecosystem response (i.e. biotic indicators like plankton, benthos
etc.), but no indicators related to a more finite level of risk from those species which get a toe hold
(Gobies, ruffe, mussels etc.).
Sea Lamprey description is a good model for how to interpret abundance trends in a way that is
useful for managers (i.e. is the abundance of sea lamprey within a target range? Will the abundance
support meeting lake trout Fish Community Objectives on each lake?).
Without continued funding, seemingly past issues will once again become present and future issues
i.e. sea lamprey. Prevention is the best cure. However, it is easier to look at the impacts of non-native
species. A measure could be the number of research projects targeted at prevention vs. impacts.
Salmon and Trout Indicator (Indicator #8)
Is the use of non-native species that require extensive human intervention (stocking) appropriate as
an indicator i.e. non-native salmons?
Walleye Indicator (Indicator #9)
Trends in yields vs. diversity of stocks?
General comments
Need a way to determine the level of interest for a particular issue otherwise the assessment is an
incomplete picture.
Need to determine baselines, benchmarks and endpoints for the indicators. This will help to improve
the assessments.
There is no sense of what is or is not a stable community (i.e. zooplankton).
Not sure if the indicator information is useful at a regional scale. Are there assessments/indicators
relevant at RAP/AOC levels such as Toronto?
Hard to ignore the subjectivity of the assessments. Are there less subjective assessment methods?
Forage bases are changing - what are the long term consequences?
Contaminants are declining - how far is far enough?
Coastal wetlands are refugia, yet sensitive bird and amphibian species are declining - why?
Indicators are almost universally assessed as "mixed" where known. Trends seem more commonly
"deteriorating". Indicator for non-native aquatic seems "lumped" compared to other indicators.
Individual indicators (i.e. sturgeon) are very helpful for building momentum and resources (i.e.
Congress); however, there are complex relationships with things like sea lamprey - i.e. sturgeon
protocol for lampricide treatment.
Indicators are useful, assessments may be disputed but this is healthy and will lead to the evolution of
more standardized/vigorous assessments.
Benthos Diversity and Abundance (Indicator #104) was discussed at length at SOLEC 2002 and
concluded to be unsuitable in its present form. Participant was surprised to see it still on the list
without qualification. Same for Phytoplankton Populations (Indicator #109).
Additional information sources
Council of Great Lakes Governors for information on non-natives/ballast water exchange. The
exchange of ballast water is done to maintain the security of the people on board, the goods and the
ship.
Focus Question 2: What refinements, simplifications, or enhancements to the assessments and/or
bundles would you propose?
Non-native species indicators (Indicator #18 and Indicator #9002)
Include a level of effort and effectiveness of research (projects targeted at Aquatic Invasive Species
impacts/prevention). Include discussion of potential invaders so public is educated about what to be
23
SOLEC 2004 Proceedings
-------
on the lookout for, possibly facilitating rapid response (i.e. spread of gobies towards salt water;
species is a threat to both fresh and salt water).
Ratio of non-native invasive species biomass to native species biomass.
Should provide status reports on major non-native species.
An indicator of the ecosystem is not only the status and spread of already established non-native
invasive species, but also the risk of new non-native species via vectors (i.e. non-native mussels,
some are established, need a risk assessment of potential invasions). Put money into new invasions
and may get money for prevention.
Use CIS and land cover analyses to look for likely areas of invasion. Use food web to integrate the
bundle.
Need a list of critical non-native species present and an evaluation of status/spread/change.
Should have the 10 'big' aquatic invasive species listed (beside sea lamprey) i.e. ruffe, round goby,
quagga, etc.
Need indicators that identify the spread of existing non-natives (i.e. percent potential habitat already
invaded) and the number of new invaders over time.
Include potential non-native invasive species in this bundle.
General comments
Although indicator suites evolve, it might be worth trying to integrate them (at least the more
longstanding ones). It would help in summarizing and simplifying use by the reader.
Genetic diversity and divergence (stock structure/population structure) measure added for key
species.
There is repetition of indicators in multiple bundles: need better rationale for how the groupings were
made and how they are to work together as a bundle - integration.
Indicators seem wildly disparate in scope ranging from specific fish species to all benthos.
Assessment offish species should include comments regarding "stocks" as appropriate e.g. walleye.
All indicators need refining, definition of endpoints, etc.
Include algae as stressors to Great Lakes ecosystem/human health (including the release of toxins
from cyanobacteria and the importance of physical structures in nearshore areas (impoundments,
breakwaters) in affecting phytoplankton community structure - not just nutrients).
Focus Question 3: What are the key management implications?
Non-native species (#18 and #9002)
Target more funding towards prevention using quantitative targets (model after sea lamprey control
efforts).
Sea lamprey, fish populations and Fish Community Objectives - current trends vs. management
objectives clearly helps managers know where increased control is necessary: Lake Superior,
Michigan, Huron.
Translate what the sea lamprey indicator means to human values and/or uses (i.e. production of
commercially harvested species) and therefore what managers need to do to ensure harvest levels
are sustainable.
"We won't know when we get there." Fish Community Objectives do not provide measurable
benchmarks - this needs investment dollars.
General Comments
Use successful indicators efforts to provide justification for more resources for developing other
indicators (build on success/publicize and generate grass roots support).
Describe a desirable end state that recognizes change/adaptation to change in a productive way.
What ecological function, form needs to be addressed, and can it be addressed? If not, is there a
need to manage user expectations (with new management objectives)?
In order to evaluate an indicator there must be an endpoint.
24
SOLEC 2004 Proceedings
-------
How do we provide information to management that will make them think in terms of management
actions? Scientists do not know how to convey ideas very well to managers to get the importance
through. What senior managers want is not always known.
Some management questions are: What is "restored"? How much equals protection? These are area
specific management decisions. What will this mean to the ecosystem as a whole?
Where should the money be spent? How much effort has to be applied to have some effect? Is
monitoring a particular indicator ever going to lead to any significant political will to change the
underlying problem?
There is a bit of a conundrum that many of the management decisions with regard to land use
operates at a smaller scale (i.e. municipalities) whereas, the indicators show unclear linkages to that
level of spatial organization. For example, how does 20% of land area in the Toronto region lost to
development in 10 years impact lake trout?
Resources are better spent on preventing rather than controlling non-native species. Ability to
"manage" biological systems on a Great Lakes basis seems very limited.
Management implications should be related to existing plans/objectives.
Maybe indicators can be bundled according to pressing issues at the time of SOLEC, along with
reporting them in the established bundles, like a management "vignette".
Resource managers are the best folks to decide how to tackle issues. SOLEC should focus on
assigning priority to issues along with providing associated supporting data.
Long term management - develop an indicator on sustainable development.
Short term management - find a way to tell/indicate the emergencies to the decision makers.
Provide decision makers with advice on what are the most urgent needs - allows for the allocation of
limited resources to get best result for the least spending.
Land use decisions to sustain ecosystem include:
Control/treat urban runoff and agricultural runoff.
Conserve/recharge water tables.
Key management implications include:
Halt invasions by non-native species.
Restore/protect shore wetlands.
Habitats Bundle of Indicators
Discussion Session Summary
(Note: This session did not discuss the climate change bundle as originally planned)
Facilitator: David Nagler, Toronto and Region Conservation Authority
Recorder: Ewa Downarowicz
Focus Question 1: Are the indicators and assessments correct and useful?
Focus Question 2: What refinements, simplifications, or enhancements to the assessments and/or
bundles would you propose?
(Questions 1& 2 were grouped together in this discussion)
The general consensus was that this bundle was not well done.
The open water aquatic habitat indicators are incomplete - there is no mention of biological or
physical habitat indicators - only the chemical. We can not assess habitat without talking about
biology. Three indicators in current bundle are useful -#111, #118 and #119. None of the other
indicators are particularly good habitat indicators. Need to consider zebra mussel colonization,
macrophyte beds, anoxia and primary production. Between "coastal zones" and open lake habitat we
are missing the nearshore zone (spawning beds etc.).
Water mass characteristics, thermal alterations/changes, and seasonal changes need to be
considered.
Groundwater is important but not relevant to aquatic habitat - needs to be its own bundle. The
groundwater indicators need to be expanded to greater breadth and representative of other areas.
25
SOLEC 2004 Proceedings
-------
Currently, there is nothing on surface flows (water quantity, natural flow regime), energy and
estuarine/nearshore processes.
The habitat bundle should include indicators on physical habitat loss and degradation in the Great
Lakes and adjoining watersheds (i.e. aquatic habitats - migration, spawning, nursery habitats,
species at risk habitats, and impact of invasive species).
Propose chemical, physical, biotic bundles for Aquatic Habitats.
Need more physical indicators, need more function and form (process) focus. Examples:
temperature, pH, dissolved oxygen (DO), contamination, thermal changes, heavy-metal deposition,
substrate, water quantity, flow variation/alteration, sedimentation rates, climate information, energy
processes. Also need measure of energy input into the system, i.e. storm effects, ice effects. Need
indicators that measure pathways/barriers, hydrologic conditions, shoreline alterations,
absence/presence of non-native species that alter physical conditions.
Open water habitat is irrelevant. Focus on coastal, wetland, tributaries, estuaries, near-shore, and
connecting waters are more important for assessment and restoration. These areas are more
productive, have unique biodiversity and therefore are more indicative of the degradation of the
physical condition. The coastal zones should be included with this bundle.
Hypoxia is a critical measure of measure of open lake habitat.
Primary productivity (or chlorophyll) needs to be measured again. It can be monitored by satellite.
Suggest using satellite images of suspended solids on lake surfaces to track history of change in
water quality and use historic conditions as a baseline.
Connection between Index of Biotic Integrity (IBI) function and physical habitat:
Need sensitivity analysis of IBI for each lake rather than averaging for all lakes, making it more
relevant. Different habitats need different IBIs (habitats in Lake Superior are much different than
Lake Erie).
IBI may not be useful but shows linkage between certain patterns between disturbance and
species presence/success. Potential habitat vs. suitable habitat - is the IBI really telling us how
the species are doing because of human disturbance or is there variability in natural habitat
patterns? Maybe a better approach would be: habitat utilization for fish and separate for
invertebrate communities. Link to stress, not habitat - disturbance/pressure.
Hard to pinpoint where alteration is coming from - what is causing and in which part of the
watershed? Geographical scale and temporal scale are important.
Scaleable hierarchy for each indicator, to bring it back to the local level.
Environmental signals - disaggregating information is important.
Change approach from political boundaries to ecological boundaries.
Stitch projects together. Ecosystem health and community health are interactive.
Adjacent land use and its impacts, buffer zone - affects thermal state of the water. Degree of
vegetative cover indicator of degree of alteration.
Nutrient management issues.
Physical destruction and flow rate need to be considered.
Nursery habitat for fish important indicator of general health.
Tributaries, wetlands and lakes need separate assessment.
Separation of physical, biotic and chemical or aquatic and terrestrial.
Possible data sources: Conservation authorities have flow data dating back to 1950s; Environment
Canada has data that may be more systematic; Ocean observing systems hydrological and
meteorological parameters. Can build on the network and put into Great Lakes GLEOS, GOOS. Need
metric readings.
Indicators are telling us approximate status but not future trends and what is driving them.
Not predictive enough; not aimed at identifying sources and causes.
Should be measuring levels, sources, and impacts of chemicals that may have impacts at extremely
low concentrations such as endocrine system disrupters.
Should be measuring systems used to control water, levels for those controls and means to predict
future trends and possible social actions (including shoreline management and water body
connectivity).
Should be including barriers (dams, weirs) to fish/biota migration in tributaries.
26
SOLEC 2004 Proceedings
-------
If this is the "short list", it falls short. Need an indicator that captures the impact of dreissenids on
open water habitats.
Focus Question 3: What are the key management implications?
Inter-governmental cooperation is very important.
Water legislation is mostly at municipal level - it needs to be coordinated with provincial and
federal government.
SOLEC is seen to be at the federal and provincial level: how do you take it to the municipal and
NGO (non-government organization) level?
Institutional gaps exist. Policy framework needs to allow integration between three levels of
government. Policy framework - everybody knows their role and overall vision.
Improve linkages to planners and the planning process - different political scales. Link federal,
provincial and state to local, public and private.
Need dialogue between three levels of governments. Need overall guidance and vision. Need
mandate for municipalities so their actions are well guided. Local communities are restoring local
habitat but lack greater vision. NGOs have taken over government's responsibility for greater
vision. At the municipal level people make changes, no provision of resources, community up
rather than top down from provincial and federal governments.
Inter-municipal coordination needed. Need to coordinate communities and have them on the
same system, onboard to same ecosystem approach.
Scale issues; need a whole systems approach, hierarchy of indicators. Scale-ecological and political.
Indicators need to be scaleable to municipality, otherwise do not have much application to local
management initiatives. Natural heritage strategy also needs to be taken into account.
Tie indicators to levels of government and actions.
Ecological footprint needs to be considered.
Regulatory side is strong, but what about the improvement side - what agencies are working on
improvement? There is a difference between restoration and preventative action. Need a change in
approach.
Need indicators of stewardship.
A lot of overlap and therefore, should work together instead and have one system, one approach.
There is extensive overlap between bundles which creates confusion from a program and
management viewpoint. How are the bundles being used? What is the link between the indicators
and management action? This should drive the choice of indicators.
How do we cross over from the science inherent in the indicators to the sociology/social context
driving them? We do the science to influence people; we need socially meaningful indicators that are
functional at the local, public level.
Focus Question 4: Habitat degradation: How can essential habitats be protected and restored to
preserve the species and unique and globally significant character of the Great Lakes ecosystem?
Local standpoint - educating the public. People do not like the top down approach. Environmental
curriculum is needed in schools. Environmental options cost more money.
Need local policy to prevent non-native species from coming in. Home depot, garden stores,
landscaping bring in invasive species. The public should not have the option to buy these non-native
species.
Need consistent legislation and consistent enforcement. No loopholes for developers.
Economic perspective is taking over. Need to consider eco-footprint and fundamental change.
Wellness rating needs to be added to real estate values and overall cost benefit analyses. Indicators
of happiness and well-being, not Gross Domestic Product (GDP), need to be considered. Disconnect
from economic values.
What is being done currently is not working -losing the environmental battle as a society and do not
realize the gravity of the problem. Best management practices are not making a difference.
Need to award environmental champions.
27
SOLEC 2004 Proceedings
-------
Funding issues-there is a general lack of funding.
Need to look at the bigger environmental issues and make environmentally correct options more
available to the general public.
Protect habitat through land acquisition. Mainly NGOs do it but it is expensive and slow. Need to
recognize property potential for restoration and enhance ecosystem value. Manage lands to
maximize ecological potential. Surrounding land use and buffers are also important. Future
development and design planning are needed.
A "department of habitat" is needed.
Linkages between agencies and planning departments are needed. Need linkage between regulators
and land acquisition to further environmental objectives. Need communication between small
community groups and government and regulatory agencies.
Identify overall strategy.
Limited resources available; need synergy for funding. Connection with money not individual grant but
more creative funding options.
Data-sharing needed between agencies: research organizations and policy makers.
Human Health Bundle of Indicators
Discussion Session Summary
Facilitator: Melissa Hulting, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Recorder: Meg Boyar
Number of Participants: 25
The session began with a presentation by Donald Cole of the University of Toronto on Blood Mercury
Levels: methyl mercury and persistent organics.
Summary: The information presented was from the Health Canada studies "Great Lakes fish-eater
studies." The Great Lakes anglers study went through fish license database to identify people who
consume lots of fish - thought these people would potentially have higher levels of contaminants.
Developed questionnaires and did statistical analysis. Used ethnic groupings to help segregate the data -
south Asians eat more fish in general and showed higher rates of contaminants. There were higher levels
of mercury with more Great Lakes fish meals and this survey probably only captures part of the exposure.
There is a correlation of blood mercury with amount of fish consumed. The study did not include First
Nations communities.
Human health indicators are quite diverse and the group chose to look at each indicator separately
following 3 basic focus questions:
1. Are the indicators and assessments correct and useful?
2. What refinements, simplifications, or enhancements to the assessments and/or bundles
would you propose?
3. What are the key management implications?
Drinking water quality (Indicator #4175)
This indicator has a focus on finished/treated water, but needs to encompass the full range of water
consumption in the whole basin region, i.e. bottled water, water from other sources.
This is based on an analysis of treated drinking water; source water quality also needs to be
considered to make this a better indicator. However, the U.S. does not gather information on source
water.
Why is TREATED drinking water being measured? This is an indicator of treatment technologies.
Do not see how this indicator analysis relates to the analysis of the past 2 years... how do you track
trends overtime if the methodologies change? Also, the description of this indicator has changed
dramatically in the past year. An explanation of the changes (overtime) and how it impacts the
analysis is needed.
28
SOLEC 2004 Proceedings
-------
Need to review the indicator periodically, replace some parameters with more relevant ones, and
review the endpoints. When a certain chemical has declined and become less of an issue, replace
with current concern.
Total organic carbon and dissolved carbon are not very useful from the human perspective...more
relevant to include/focus on trihalomethanes, Pharmaceuticals, personal care products, groundwater,
source water, bladder cancer.
The assessment of "good" is misleading because the indicator does not assess the ecosystem
objective of protecting the water at its source.
This indicator has been evaluated as "good/unchanging" however; it needs to include something on
the gaps (i.e. in local settings). How can an assessment of "okay" be given basin wide?
There is a huge communication gap between the SOLEC process and the amount of data and
research available to tap into. For example, there is plenty of research on endocrine disrupters, raw
water data, Giardia and Cryptosporidium. Different sources of information need to be obtained to get
a better package on drinking water quality.
This indicator should be linked to land use indicators.
Need to include information of drinking water supplies from First Nations/Tribal communities - a
number have boil water advisories.
Biological Markers of Human Exposure to Persistent Chemicals (Indicator #4177)
Need to include Canadian information, discuss with Doug Haines of Health Canada. Need a
Canadian equivalent to the U.S. National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES), also
need a regional NHANE.
Need greater clarity on how to use the indicator, who will use the indicator and who will benefit from
the information? How do we present the information and better develop the indicator to help the
managers to make decisions?
Studies are nice to read, but directly comparable data is needed, need the same thing to be
measured in the same way on a regular basis. Indicator information needs to be broken down by
region, averages or non-regional data presentations do not work.
Need an ongoing monitoring program that supports this indicator, random studies are not enough.
Markers of exposure don't tell you about the potential health consequences.
Need to more generally track what is getting into humans.
Management implications
Are the human health indicators changing the management actions around the Great Lakes?
Fish consumption management implications: how effectively are people influences? Improvement of
fish advisories.
Teach/educate in elementary schools, kids will become the teachers of the parents.
Need more collaboration on these issues between managers.
Need to consider PBDE chemicals, and other new chemicals, similar to PCBs, disruptions normal
functioning of the thyroid in the human being. Which bioaccumulate in humans? In ecosystems?
Need some kind of criteria regarding what chemicals to look at (i.e. PFO's, Perchlorates, etc) - narrow
it down to chemical of concern.
Make the documentation of indicators part of teaching the sciences in a school curriculum - a
practical application of the scientific method.
Beach Postings, Advisories and Closures (Indicator #4200)
What are the impacts of constant exposure over time?
The parameters of this indicator are very difficult to compare because so much depends on weather
conditions and water currents. Weather is taken into account in sampling but not in overall reporting.
These are important things to know if you want to fix the problem.
Criteria of this indicator are black and white; however different jurisdictions measure things differently.
What protocols are used? This is an inconsistent way finding out about the health effects, no human
surveillance component, need to survey groups like windsurfers or other regular water activity groups.
29
SOLEC 2004 Proceedings
-------
There is much new information about the ecology of E.coli, including persistence in sand. This is
important in terms of management decisions. Need to know where exactly the E.coli are coming from.
Can other bacterial indicators be used? Can we measure E.coli faster?
The diagram for this indicator is quite useful - commend the authors, it is the best trend diagram in
the entire set of indicators.
Improved microbial source tracking will lead to additional information on where E.coli area coming
from - this needs to be added to "Future Actions."
Seems to be much easier to get data from the U.S. side of the lakes.
Monitor 20 beaches (high profile beaches) consistently over a couple of swimming seasons, to help
define real trends and be able to compare data.
It would be useful to distinguish between beaches in urban areas and non-urban areas (do not lump
together). Additionally, monitor the number of people using the beaches.
Contaminants in Sport Fish (Indicator #4201)
Need Canadian data - from Environment Canada, Health Canada or Ontario Ministry of Environment.
Also need individual state data.
Data presented ends at 2000, need more recent data.
Should PBDE's be a concern?
Need to include other fish species such as walleye and perch (or change title of indicator). We should
be looking at the fish that are the most often caught/sought after and consumed.
Should include consumption of waterfowl and game, either in this indicator or in a separate indicator.
Are the hunters in the Great Lakes basin getting the information that they need? Create a similar
guide to the guide to eating sport fish. Canadian geese, ducks, mallards, black ducks, 'dabbling
ducks', eat the sediments and ingest PCBs, mercury, etc. In Canada, some of this data may be
available from Bridget Braun of Canadian Wildlife Service and Ducks Unlimited.
General Comment
The above 3 bullets illustrate the lack of thinking about integration of the indicators - is the focus on
what is important for sport hunting, market niche or about the true integrity of all species
interconnected on the lakes. These indicators must be brought back to the Great Lakes ecosystem;
should not divert as much and keep the whole picture in mind. Need systems analysis, flow charts of
entire ecosystem sets of indicators, from source, to human encounters, to other forms of
contamination, to ecosystem self-cleansing.
Air Quality (Indicator #4202)
This is the best indicator in the human health suite because it uses the best dataset (includes long
term trends as well as recent short term trends - last 5 years).
General Human Health Indicator Comments
How do we focus on awareness of all these indicators as a public health issue?
SOLEC has focused on developing the indicators and getting the indicators right, however, in the
future should shift the focus to pubic action, recommendations, etc.
Human health indicator bundle does not include an indicator about emotional and/or spiritual health
associated with simple access to the lakes and related issues.
Correlations between indicators and health effects support hypothesis and show trends. However,
can not use the indicators for direct cause and effect when there are other risk factors for the health
outcomes that have not been included or considered.
Many of these indicators need more contemporary endpoints (remove obsolete endpoints for
problems already solved).
Land Use - Land Cover Bundle of Indicators
Discussion Session Summary
Facilitator: Susan Howard
Recorder: Julie Sims
30
SOLEC 2004 Proceedings
-------
Number of Participants: 38
Focus Question 1: Are the indicators and assessments correct and useful?
General Discussion
The indicators need clear endpoints to be meaningful.
Information from these indicators can be easily misinterpreted when the information is removed from
specific context. For example, none of the indicators capture when the land use remains the same but
the character of its use changes (i.e. there are many regions where shoreline residences used to be
predominantly seasonal but are now being converted into functional year-round residences). How is
this change measured for use and the effect that it may have?
Need consistency in the measuring unit and weighting of the indicators. Suggestion to use a ratio
such as an urban versus agriculture versus natural ratio in order to avoid this issue and this could
also help circumvent the scale issue within different jurisdictions.
Another approach - keep the basin-wide perspective, but look at sub-basins/watersheds so that it
may be possible to see a change occur. In the case of urban density, the Ontario CMA's (Consensus
Metropolitan Area) do not show urbanized areas the same as in the United States. One suggestion
was to use population data and an accurate delineation of the area to give an indication of growth
rates. Could even look at the number of building permits. Regardless, the parameters must be clearly
identified.
There are indicators that are relevant to land use-land cover but are missing from this bundle. For
example, wetlands -the only inclusion in this bundle is Indicator #4863 Land Use Adjacent to
Wetlands (Coastal Wetlands) and it is inadequate because it alludes to only coastal wetlands.
The indicators in this bundle are more like an inventory.
The indicators in the bundle are all risk indicators.
Is the appropriate data being collected for this bundle? Are all available resources being tapped
including experts in particular fields? For example, property tax assessments in Ontario may give
information on how the land is currently being used.
Could develop layers of data/information and overlay them, then determine what the effect that that
land use has on the basin. Another interpretation would be to look at the layers and determine what
risk is associated with a particular land use.
Indicator #7062 Integrated Pest Management does not address many forest/wetland invasive
species. These need to be included here or put in a separate indicator.
Ground surface hardening is a very important indicator, but needs further development. An alternative
could be "Length of Journey to Work."
Need to capture rural residential estates - could look at rural non-farm population within 50 km of a
city centre.
Need a measure of urban dispersion - could look at the difference in density/growth across the CMA
(Census Metropolitan Area)/SMSA.
The urban density indicator has used the CMAs incorrectly.
The urban density indicator is too ambiguous. While an increase in density can be an indicator of
better utilization, it can also indicate sprawl.
Authors of land use indicators should consult with Association of Municipalities of Ontario (AMO),
Federation of Canadian Municipalities and U.S. counterparts.
Contact the Brownfield Institute for information on the Brownfield indicator (#7006).
Land Cover-Land Conversion Indicator (Indicator #7002)
Data have to be standardized in order for the indicator to be meaningful. Also, trend data are missing.
There is a gap in data collection in Canada - further work needed. Cost is an issue but cost sharing
may be possible with advances in the use of satellite imagery.
A simple classification system needs to be established - urban developer, agriculture and forest
specialists must agree on common "large" land classes in order to integrate information coming from
all these practitioners.
31
SOLEC 2004 Proceedings
-------
A standard classification system of land use (see how it compares to the U.S. NLCD protocol at 30
metre grids for the entire basin). This data can then be summarized by watersheds or sub-
watersheds and combined with slope classes and ecoregions.
Could develop an indicator for land use that draws on property assessment databases.
This is possibly the most important (pressure) indicator. Land cover ratio is one of the most influential
factors on condition at the watershed scale. It is more important to monitor the cover ratio than the
conversion rate.
Agriculture indicators
These indicators seem to be segregated from context. It is hard to interpret an indicator about
sustainable agriculture practices without considering simultaneously the other issues (pesticides,
nutrients, etc).
There was a similar discussion regarding misinterpretation of the indicators and difficulties measuring
the change in character of agriculture land (i.e. rural non-farm area data).
These indicators lack an assessment and need endpoints.
These indicators simply present current status of a condition but are not related to a desired state or
condition. These indicators are not useful.
Nutrient Management (#7061) should measure the number of acres rather than the number of plans
or percent of total farm area.
Forest Land Indicator (Indicator* 8500) and Bundle
Need to measure trends in forest land protection (i.e. sustainable forest management programs such
as Sustainable Forestry Initiative (SFI), National Forests, Canadian Standards Forest Certification
and Forest Stewardship Council). Although these lands do not fit within the IUCN "protected"
categories, they do and will continue to provide significant contributions to the conservation of
biological diversity. The aggregate number of acres of land in each program adds to the knowledge of
the state of the forests. Data source for SFI: Brad Williams of the American Forest and Paper
Association.
Focus Question 2: What refinements, simplifications, or enhancements to the assessments and/or
bundles would you propose?
The concept of a bundle is an improvement to looking at 83 indicators. However, there are
redundancies in this bundle and there should be ways to find commonalities (i.e. a measure of
imperviousness would include rooftops, roads, car habitat, etc.). Enlist land use planning expertise.
A coherent story or framework is needed to describe what this information means and how it may be
used. Could focus on land use-land cover and its relationship to water quality.
Another suggested framework for the bundle is: water quality; biodiversity; energy use.
Although grouping indicators into a bundle may be a better way to manage the indicators, SOLEC is
missing the mark with this bundle. Few of the indicators in this bundle are currently reported and they
do not reflect known information.
Need to make it clearer (more obvious) how the indicators within the bundle are combined and how
the overall assessment is determined.
An index may work better than a bundle as it would give a simple message and would need scientific
data to support it. One way to achieve an index would be to make a watershed assessment.
Characteristics would have to be selected for the overall assessment once an objective was
determined with a desired future. Then, the index would be providing a value against a threshold.
A concern with bundling the indicators is the possibility of missing or covering up specific basin
issues. Bundling may be good to prevent information overload but each basin has unique issues. It
was recommended that each basin be considered separately.
Need to include nutrient concentration; soil loss (sediment concentration); toxic seepage from
contaminated sites; pesticide concentration in water and sediment.
32
SOLEC 2004 Proceedings
-------
Focus Question 3: What are the key management implications?
It is unclear how local decision-makers would use this information and whether the suggested
indicators would provide any relevant information at the local level. Need to clarify the targeted
stakeholders. SOLEC information is best used at the senior policy level and may not, in its current
form, be usable at the local or municipal level where different jurisdictions and methodologies are an
issue.
Develop a scaled approach to indicator identification based on the decisions to be made. Have fewer
indicators for broad scale analyses and decisions, need more indicators close to the action. How do
you translate basin-wide data into action on a state or local basis?
The key challenge is to identify desired future conditions (DFCs) for each bundle or indicator and
develop incentives to encourage programs towards the DFCs.
Need to develop clear endpoints. Managers may find it hard to use SOLEC analysis of "mixed,
deteriorating" without any recommendations on what to improve. Managers may need more clear
information regarding what the stress is and how to improve conditions in order to move towards a
"good" state.
The scope of SOLEC should be Great Lakes basin-wide and among basins - what is the same and
what is different amongst the basins? Each basin is different with varying populations and
community/city needs.
Management challenges include:
Identifying shifts in the location and viability of biodiversity across the landscape as the forest
landscape changes.
Identification/realization and decision - how do we know when there is enough biodiversity
present on a unit of land?
Need greater buy-in from all land-owners to provide a complete picture of the current state of
biodiversity, use this info to determine the management needs and work with the stakeholders to
implement the needs.
Management indicators may include: sediment, riparian health (% streams and shoreline that is
forested), hydrologic modification (dam density, road density and number of stream crossings), point
sources and introduced species.
Hard to manage land uses that are driven by market pressures - difficult to monitor these pressures.
Great Lakes managers have been rooted in resource management and water quality disciplines.
Need to draw in urban experts - especially those involved in urban indicator development.
Need to keep the separation between the "land cover-land conversion" indicator and the "area, quality
and protection" indicator. The latter is focused on specific areas that require individual assessments
while land cover focuses on a larger scale.
Needs of different levels:
Senior managers need a clear framework/vision that they will quickly understand and use.
Program managers need to be able to disaggregate data/drill down to use information for a
particular area whether it's basin-wide, ecosystem or lake-basin.
Decision makers need rate of change information able to be applied at a local level.
Suggested Indicator for Land Use-Land Cover Bundle
Change in Urbanization
Rate of urban population change divided by rate of rural/urban land use-land cover change over 5
years for Canada's CMAs and the U.S.'s SMSAs.
Greater sensitivity to change.
There were discussions about SOLEC not tapping into all resources. There were a few suggestions of
organizations to contact The Council of Great Lakes Mayors, Great Lakes City Initiatives, Smart Growth,
etc.
33
SOLEC 2004 Proceedings
-------
Resource Utilization Bundle of Indicators
Discussion Session Summary
Facilitator: Carolyn O'Neill, Environment Canada
Recorder: Chrissy McConaghy, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Number of Participants: 10
Focus Question 1: Are the indicators and assessments correct and useful?
General discussion
Need a highly integrated indicator of Great Lakes basin sustainability, such as an ecological footprint
analysis.
The assessment of mixed is difficult to interpret from the management standpoint.
Disaggregating some of the indicators would be very helpful.
These indicators are a great start but need to focus on what exactly they will be used for - economic
efficiency or environmental conservation.
Commercial / Industrial Eco-Efficiency (Indicator #3514)
Tracking the 25 largest employers is a good start, but a greater number and variety of businesses
need to be included (i.e. small and medium enterprises).
Explore ways to capture large employers that are not yet reporting eco-efficiency.
An assessment of eco-efficiency across different economic sectors could also be illustrative.
Efficiency is important, but also need to consider overall production/productivity.
Efficiency may lead to greater consumption. Measure total resources used per capita.
Economic Prosperity (Indicator #7043)
This indicator as currently defined was seen as valuable by some participants, but many felt that it
needed broadening and further refinement.
This indicator needs to be reworked, with a more robust definition and data for the entire basin. The
group debated the relevance of unemployment data to economic prosperity. If the economy is
prosperous and at full employment, does that create greater impacts on the environment? Economic
prosperity is a false objective unless full employment leads to sustainability.
Should this indicator address sustainability, i.e. go beyond prosperity (hence, the need for a high-
level, integrated indicator, such as ecological footprint analysis).
Measuring economic health is an endpoint in itself, so the key for this indicator is the ecosystem
context.
Make indicator meaningful to all stakeholders: employment, per capita income, and job satisfaction.
Each of these is easy to understand, meaningful to the whole community and can be quantified.
The economic prosperity indicator doesn't fit very well in this bundle. Either make it a bundle and give
it a set of meaningful indicators or place it within a different bundle (and it would still need to be more
than merely "unemployment").
Water Withdrawal (Indicator #7056)
Withdrawal is not the issue, consumptive use and diversion are.
Change the indicator title to Water Consumption (to reflect exports of water out of the basin by baby
food manufacturers, breweries, bottled water companies, etc.).
Split the indicator up, and include water consumption as a metric.
Energy Consumption (Indicator #7057)
Revise the purpose statement.
Consider using several indicators within an energy consumption category (to address consumption,
renewable vs. non-renewable sources, and conservation).
Focus on the heavy cost of depletion of non-renewable energy sources.
34
SOLEC 2004 Proceedings
-------
Create an indicator of total carbon release.
Reduction per capita is a good indicator unless efficiency leads to great consumption elsewhere;
measure reduction in carbon releases.
Solid Waste Generation (Indicator #7060)
This indicator lacks data on the amount of material recycled, reused, and regenerated.
It might be relevant to mention hazardous waste with this indicator, and refer to other pertinent Great
Lakes indicators (possibly the contaminants bundle).
Focus Question 2: What refinements, simplifications, or enhancements to the assessments and/or
bundles would you propose?
Use the metabolism model for this analysis.
It is vital to make the concept of 'ethics' explicit in this suite of indicators. It is implicit in most of the
process but it needs to be/must be articulated.
All of these indicators need to add resource use and waste production. Per capita employment per
hectare would indicate employment as a proportion of the footprint.
Focus Question 3: What are the key management implications?
Need to consult those with economic expertise, such as statistics professionals, industry
representatives from the full range (small to international), sociologists, etc.
Need to continue working on capturing energy issues: i.e. the need to reduce dependence on fossil
fuels, increase reliance on renewables, etc.
Given the possibilities for reducing our ecosystem stresses by focusing on these types of indicators,
this bundle of indicators merits more attention.
It is a major effort to reduce energy consumption and increase the proportion of energy produced by
solar and wind - this would create a reduction of the footprint. The Great Lakes region should strive
to be a leader in energy research and development. Use reduction of footprint as a measure of
ecosystem ethics or ethical management.
Great Lakes Coastal Wetlands Bundle of Indicators
Discussion Session
Facilitator: Ric Lawson, Great Lakes Commission
Recorder: Susan Arndt, Environment Canada
Seven presentations were given during this session each followed by a short question and answer period.
A general discussion was held during the last part of the session.
1. Great Lakes Coastal Wetlands Inventory
Presented by: Krista Holmes, Environment Canada
The Inventory provides the first ever seamless database of classified coastal wetlands.
Baseline information 216,000 hectares of coastal wetlands, most found in Lakes Huron and
Michigan.
Uses of the database include a baseline for long term monitoring and comparative analyses.
Limitations include completeness, limited air photo coverage, missed submergent vegetation, and
data from the 1980s.
Conclusions: the database is complete for Great Lakes and can be built upon.
2. Evaluation of Remote Techniques for Landscape Indicators
Presented by: Laura Bourgeau-Chavaz, General Dynamics
Use radar data to detect changes in wetlands. Use Landsat data to monitor change.
Explored techniques to map with in situ data.
35
SOLEC 2004 Proceedings
-------
Monitor extent of inundation.
Pilot sites include: northern Lake Michigan (Upper Peninsula, Mackinac, Leelanau), Lake St. Clair,
eastern Lake Ontario.
Ric Lopez, of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency - Las Vegas Lab, is conducting preliminary
assessments of coastal wetland metrics and indicators.
Currently analyzed U.S. data onlystill working on the Canadian data.
Conclusions: the two methods complement each other. Results from SAR-Landsat may be used as
validation of the landscape metrics/indicators on a larger area than when using fine scale data and
field analysis.
3. Contaminants in Snapping Turtle Eggs
Presented by: Kim Fernie, Environment Canada
The snapping turtle is not migratory so it will reflect what is in that wetland. Turtle eggs are an
excellent indicator of contaminants in coastal wetlands and can be used to differentiate different
sources of contaminants.
Contaminants measured: organohalogens (because they stay in environment for a long time, they
magnify and bioaccumulate), flame retardants such as PBDEs and PCBs.
Sites from St. Clair to Cornwall, especially in AOCs.
Need multi-agency cooperation.
Goal is to determine spatial and temporal trends of contaminant concentrations.
4. Assessment of Coastal Wetlands Indicators - An Introduction
Presented by: Marci Meixler, Cornell University
The project goals were to evaluate methods, define Standard Operating Procedures, compile results,
and make recommendations. Draft final report updated fall 2004.
Assessing
Cost: median expenses, effort (per person hours), labor (number of people) score.
Measurability: level of technical expertise.
Basinwide applicability of sampling by wetland type.
Availability of complementary data: how many identified data sources, in U.S. and Canada.
Indicator sensitivity of wetland condition changes: indicator response to degradation, use in
various wetland types.
Ability to set endpoints or attainment levels: Do endpoints exist? What is the length of the
sampling period?
Overall indicators that worked well (preliminary recommendations) include:
Water chemistry
Fish
Macroinvertebrates
Landscape attributes.
Optimization schemes include: Decreased cost, time, best indicator sensitivity.
Indicators optimized for cost are: amphibians, vegetation, landscape attributes.
Conclusions: Monitoring programs should include water chemistry, fish, landscape attributes, and
macroinvertebrates.
5. Plant Community Health
Presented by: Dennis Albert, Michigan Natural Features Inventory, Michigan State University Extension
Objective was to identify plant indicators of biotic integrity that reflect land use and water chemistry.
Lake Superior- acid, barrier protected, bog vegetation.
Northern Lake Huron - basic, open bay, calciphiles.
Lake Michigan - basic, drowned river mouth.
May have to develop different indicators for each vegetative type of wetland.
Land use variables taken from aerial photography. Surrounding land uses: upland forest, farming,
urban.
Vegetation variables
36
SOLEC 2004 Proceedings
-------
Mean cover by taxonomic group.
Number mean cover of species (native or non-native).
Number cover of species by plant zone.
Floristic quality index (FQI).
Conservatism coefficient.
Wetland coefficient for site or plant zone.
Water quality variables
Many variables but specific conductivity, chloride and sulfate are best. However, not much data
on them.
Potential plant indicators.
Coverage and number of exotic species.
Nutrient loadingssome plants are tolerant of high nutrient loadings. During sampling none of the
sites had submergents. No good data because of low water levels.
Site based indices are strongest indicators (FQI).
Taxonomic based metrics and ecological species groups were weak indicators.
Land use variables identified six factors that accounted for 70% of the variability.
Test plant indicators against water chemistry differences. For example, northern Lake Huron
chloride levels low but high numbers of conservative plants. Disturbed sites have more chloride,
low number of conservative plants.
Regional chemical differences are significant.
Regional relationships between site-based indicators and water chemistry.
No strong relationships between species-based metrics and chemistry.
Floristic quality indices or conservatism index most effective for rapid inventory of sites or zones.
Exotics species identification of extremely disturbed sites.
Many plant metrics only effective within specific regions.
Water level changes reduce effectiveness of plant metrics.
6. Invertebrate and Fish Community Health
Presented by: Don Uzarski, Grand Valley State University
Want to determine the importance of variables in structuring fish and invertebrate communities.
What's more important: lake, ecoregion, or wetland type? Or is it based on vegetation type? How
should the IBIs (Index of Biotic Integrity) be stratified?
In 2002 data was collected on numerous parameters:
Fish61 sites. Found 15,000 fish in 51 taxa.
104 plant zones from all the sites.
62 invertebrate sites. Found 56,000 invertebrates in 237 taxa.
Sampled all major inundated plant zones.
3 invertebrate replicate samples taken from each inundated vegetation zone. 150 organisms per
replicate.
Timed the picking, tallied, set goals. Identified to genus, species. Ran principle components analysis.
Chemistry and land use analysis
Scirpus and bulrush, high dissolved oxygen (low respiration), adjacent forests.
High runoff and urbanization group.
High nutrients and agriculture group.
Biology analysis
Fish data and vegetation typesimilar to chemistry and land use analysis.
Does the biology correlate with the chemistry and the land use? There is a good linear
correlation.
Fish community composition shifts with anthropogenic disturbance to bullrush. As disturbance
increases, it affects every community.
Correlation offish with invertebrate data. Most variability in scirpus community.
Specific metrics developed to indicate certain things.
37
SOLEC 2004 Proceedings
-------
Adjacent to agriculture the chances are good that measuring wetland chemistry/physical parameters
will indicate disturbance.
7. Amphibian and Wetland Bird Diversity and Abundance
Presented by: Steve Timmermans and Tara Crewe, Bird Studies Canada
Developing IBIs (Index of Biotic Integrity) for birds.
Goals: to quantify stress, identify biotic attributes, analyze data.
Wetlands selected around the basin where there are Marsh Monitoring Program (MMP) volunteers.
Birds88 wetlands.
Amphibians87 sites.
Stressors include: land and road cover, percent of agriculture, urban, etc.
Richness relative percent, total richness, abundance, analyzed by year.
Water levels need to be taken into accountdata divided into high and low water level years.
Bird wetland IBIs tested with wetland disturbance. IBIs decreased with an increase in disturbance.
Wetlands will be ranked and categorized into quality (excellent to poor).
General Discussion
Opening questions: Broad-scale application across the basinwhat will work based on the information
presented today? What should we focus more attention on? How should the Great Lakes Coastal
Wetlands Consortium (GLCWC) proceed?
Comment: Please clarify the wetland vegetation analysis. Are substrate soil types considered and, if not,
why not?
Response: It was collected and analyzed but not a major focus of the analysis. Just the biota is not
adequate. This is a good point. The fact that data was collected in a low water period was significant.
Comment: Two extremesmapping broad-scale and individual indicators. If wetlands are not conserved
there is not anything to consider. Land use is easy to measure and people can understand it. Restoration
can cost 10 times more than protection.
Response: Consortium has developed a baseline and will get a start on developing techniques to allow
the improvement of the inventory and to get an idea of the change. Rates of change are not easily
measured right now. Land use is used strongly as an indicator of disturbance. Individual biotic measures
are used to correlate against those land use characteristics. Consortium has been looking into this but it
has not been put together yet. Also, there is not enough information to give long term trends.
Comment: There is a strong climatic, land form and land use gradient between northern parts and
southern parts of the basin. GLEI (Great Lakes Environmental Indicators -another group working on
coastal wetland indicators) separates the north and south. Recommend assessing the performance of IBI
between these eco-provinces because scaling and reference conditions may be very different and will
end up with different scales.
Response: GLCWC addressed that last yearthere are differences that exist but ecoregional taxa were
removed. What was left did show a response to disturbance.
Comment: If you can not set a bar that is attainable then how can managers respond? Disturbance has
been going on for so long that the goals may be unattainable in southern sections.
Response: When you look at land cover attributes there are differences between Lake Superior and the
southern lakes. There is merit in stratification between north and south. With biology there is an attempt
to account for species variance. This was corrected for at each site. The richness was divided by species.
This does not take into account everything. Marsh Monitoring Program data is sparse in the northern
regions. What the Consortium is aiming to do is to develop cost effective, rapid monitoring so that sites
can be quickly monitored. Those sites that score lower on monitoring, need to receive greater help and
will require policy changes.
Comment: The impression is that these indicators are developed to document habitat changes. It is
difficult to document wetlands that have undergone restoration. What are the differences between a
38
SOLEC 2004 Proceedings
-------
natural or restored wetland? The goals are the same. Can you show improvement overtime, will an IBI
do that? There is a high correlation between rare species and quality overtime. There may be a need to
have different end points overtime.
Response: The goal is to achieve a long term monitoring program. Lake based IBIs are needed but the
charge was to develop a basinwide IBI. Trying to get basinwide indicators but they may be useful in lake
basins as well. Ultimately to be more effective, scales changes may be needed. More intensive work on
the monitoring and analytical end is needed.
Other General Comments
Initiative to do wetland mapping in Canada. On Earth Day 2005 there is a U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service wetland program/initiative to re-measure plots nationwide. U.S. has never had synoptic
coastline mapping. Need a picture of the coastline so we are not stitching together maps. This costs
dollars.
Data layer needed to record where the wetlands are and prioritize them for restoration.
Need to see the large scale edge effects.
Is there a way to combine across taxa and come up with a scoring scheme? Not sure if this is
feasible.
Groundwater Bundle of Indicators
Discussion Session Summary
Facilitator/Moderator: Doug Alley, International Joint Commission and Nancy Gaffney, Toronto and
Region Conservation Authority
Recorder: Glen Warren, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Participants: 20
Introduction
Description of the history of groundwater concerns in the Great Lakes basin and the addition of Annex 16
(the Groundwater Annex) to the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement in 1987 under which the two
Federal governments (the "Parties") agreed to map hydrogeological conditions and determine
contamination of surface water from groundwater in the Great Lakes basin. Not much work was done on
Annex 16 until 1994 when the IJC created an Indicators for Evaluation Task Force -groundwater
indicators where included in the deliberations. A SOLEC Groundwater Subcommittee, composed of
binational groundwater experts and policy makers, was established and a workshop was held at SOLEC
2002. The subcommittee continued its activities, submitted proposed indicators to the SOLEC peer
review process and developed four indicators of groundwater quality and quantity (#7100-7103). Expert
speakers will outline issues related to groundwater monitoring in their jurisdiction, describe the results of
the groundwater indicator pilot study, and an interesting case study being undertaken in the Lake Erie
basin.
1. Ontario Provincial Groundwater Monitoring Network (PGMN)
Presented by: Dr. Vasily Rogojin, Ontario Ministry of the Environment (MOE)
PGMN - implemented in partnership with Conservation Authorities (CA) and municipalities.
PGMN is designed to provide information on ambient groundwater levels and quality and is
implemented on a watershed basis (coverage mainly in southern Ontario).
380 monitoring wells currently in place. First round of water quality sampling and analyses completed.
Physical parameters measured are pressure and temperature.
Water quality parameters measured are major ions, nutrients, physical parameters, metals, volatile
organics and pesticides.
QA/QC - wells constructed in accordance to guideline, water quality sampling collection and handling
protocol, accredited labs, data review. On-site data collection field guidelines are followed.
Products of the program include: access by program partners to continuous groundwater level data,
water quality data, and understanding of variability-access via website.
39
SOLEC 2004 Proceedings
-------
Linkages with other MOE programs include - water budgets, drought response plans, permits to take
water, understanding of cumulative impacts, interference complaints, environmental assessment
processes, source protection plans, potential land uses, etc.
Only water budgets for parts of the Grand River have been completed so far.
Next steps for the program include: network refinement/rain gauge network, information system
enhancement, water quality- phase 2, selection of wells for on-going water quality sampling, special
studies, analyses and reporting (annual report).
2. Groundwater Issues and Monitoring in Wisconsin and Michigan
Presented by: Dr. Norm Grannemann, U.S. Geologic Survey
There are two driving forces for Wisconsin work: 1) the interaction of groundwaterand surface water,
and how withdrawals are impacting surface water quality and quantity, and 2) drawdown in sandstone
aquifer- draw down of 336 and 458 feet reported in Milwaukee and Green Bay areas respectively.
Groundwater flow toward Lake Michigan has been reversed.
Groundwater management areas - Waukesha and Brown County - significant drawdowns have led
to arsenic, radium and salinity problems.
One goal for groundwater monitoring is to provide enough data to determine how much water is being
used.
Michigan - legislation is not in place, evaluating existing resources, has a database of well drilling
activity.
Legislators want info on the impact of withdrawing groundwater on neighboring land owners.
Moderator note - Recent U.S. Geological Survey report shows that Michigan, Ohio and New York have "1
or fewer" long-term groundwater observation wells per 100 square miles, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin
have "2-5 wells" and Illinois and Indiana have "6 to 10" wells for the same unit area.
3. Base Flow Due to Groundwater Discharge in the Great Lakes Basin (Indicator #7102)
Presented by: Dr. Andrew Piggott, National Water Resource Institute
Overall assessment of indicator is "mixed and deteriorating." Additional analyses and interpretation
are required to validate this tentative assessment but data currently available support this
assessment.
Base flow may be of major importance for ecology. Base flow contribution is determined by analysis
of flow separation using hydrographs. The base flow index is a simple physical metric of the
contribution of base flow to the stream. Values of the base flow index calculated for stream gauges
can be reported on a watershed basis.
Base flow info can be used to detect changes in stream flow regimes and to assess the impacts of
human and climatic factors.
Pressures: human activities impact groundwater discharge by modifying process of groundwater
recharge, flow and discharge.
4. Reporting on Groundwater Indicators in the Grand River Watershed
Presented by: Sandra Cooke, Grand River Conservation Authority
Grand River watershed - almost 7000 km2. Part of the greater Toronto 'Golden Horseshoe' which is
designated as part of future urban development zone in Ontario.
Grand River Conservation Authority mission - watershed management, reducing flood damage,
improving water quality, etc.
Geology is sandy and silty tills, sand plain, moraines and sand and gravel deposits, some clay plain.
Bedrock geology-60% of wells in bedrock aquifer.
70% of municipal (includes major cities) water supply from groundwater, private wells provide 100%
of rural supply.
Natural Groundwater Quality and Human Induced Changes (Indicator #7100)
Purpose - report on ambient and natural groundwater quality-qualitative assessment.
<1 % of wells in the watershed have water quality issues, generally good water quality.
40
SOLEC 2004 Proceedings
-------
Human induced groundwater quality changes include increasing chloride concentrations due to
increased urban development and denser road networks. Municipalities are working at reducing road
salt use.
Some volatile organic compounds are threatening the water supply (i.e. dioxane).
Agricultural impacts: Whitemans Creek (a coldwater stream) shows nitrate impact of agricultural
nutrient use.
Pressures in watershed include urbanization, population growth, agricultural impacts, rural impacts
(septic systems).
Management implications include land use planning, beneficial management practices, water
resources management, education and awareness.
Groundwater and Land: Use and Intensity (lndictor#7101)
Land use in the Grand River watershed is largely agriculture and some forest. Maps of land use types
in significant recharge areas show less agriculture but more urban development - recommend smart
growth.
Groundwater use and intensity-look at primary uses of existing wells - 79% are for domestic uses.
Groundwater use and intensity can be influenced by climatic factors-when stream flow is below
average then there is a corresponding increase in well use.
Management implications -need better monitoring.
Groundwater Dependent Plant and Animal Communities (Indicator #7103)
Tried using stream habitat classification (i.e. coldwater, warm water, sportfish, etc.) - but data
coverage in watershed is sparse. Used brook trout spawning locations instead.
Groundwater dependent ecosystems - sampled in 1989 and revisited in 2003 - generally brook trout
are spawning in similar locations, but need to consider the chemical, physical attributes of
groundwater.
Pressures include urbanization, aggregate mining, population growth (salt, septics, stormwater,
pesticides, etc.) and climatic factors.
Management implications include land use planning (smart growth), beneficial management
practices, and water resources management (i.e. water budgets).
State of ecosystem reporting - need further work including more targeted and improved monitoring,
consistent monitoring, quality control/quality assurance, evaluating issues at different scales, and
integrated watershed resource assessments.
5. Case Study: The Influence of Groundwater on Great Lakes Nearshore Habitat and Water Quality
Presented by: Dr. Norm Grannemann, U.S. Geological Survey (for Dr. Sheridan Haack, U.S. Geologic
Survey)
Total amount of groundwater discharging directly to the Great Lakes is probably not significant, but
what there is may be important in an ecosystem context. Huge volumes are discharged via tributary
base flow especially to Lakes Erie and Michigan.
Focus of this case study is the western shoreline of Lake Erie. Issues with groundwater withdrawals
in Michigan and Ohio. Regional decline in groundwater levels - historically had flowing (artesian)
wells, now there is evidence of reverse flow from the lake.
General Discussion
Are these 4 groundwater indicators enough?
Is the volume of road salt being used in the Great Lakes basin a good indicator? The impact on
groundwater quality is the indicator.
Should groundwater data be applied to the watershed or to the ground-watershed? Surface
watersheds but not ground-watersheds - these need to be mapped.
Are water budgets or amounts withdrawn from groundwater known? What is the effect of the
cumulative withdrawals? Is it sustainable? Monitoring withdrawals will become be important as more
development due to growth changes water levels. Need a "baseline" now.
41
SOLEC 2004 Proceedings
-------
At SOLEC 2002 the indicator "Managing Groundwater Resources" was suggested but has since been
removed from the suite. The management aspect has been put aside. Great Lakes indicators have
been, largely biological, chemical, and physical. This is a policy indicator which may be difficult to
report.
Suggest a flow regime indicator- natural flow regimes - use stream gauge data.
Suggest an indicator that looks at percent of urban area in the significant recharge areas as it relates
to total watershed. This would capture the fact that we are paving over areas that we should not be
paving.
Should groundwater be added to 'Water Withdrawal' (Indicator #7056) ? This is an existing indicator
but currently only includes surface water withdrawals. It is already reported on in Groundwater and
Land: Use and Intensity indicator. Proposed legislation in Ontario will require actual reporting of
takings of water from the Great Lakes basin (anything over 50,OOOL/day) so data will be available.
Specific comments on Base Flow due to Groundwater Discharge (Indicator #7102)
Biggest changes in base flow may have been when forests were lost.
Base flow changes may be slow - function of flow system and hydrology of system.
Long residence time makes determination of change difficult - i.e. contaminants may take many
years (centuries) to cycle through vs. simple level changes due to precipitation.
42
SOLEC 2004 Proceedings
-------
7. SOLEC 2004 Breakout Session Summaries - Day 2
Lake Superior
Organizer: Elizabeth LaPlante, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Recorders: Christina Forst, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and Ann McCammon Soltis, Great
Lakes Indian Fishery and Wildlife Commission
Presentations
Future Monitoring Challenges - Land Use Metrics For the Next 50 Years - Mark Hudy, U.S.
Department of Agriculture Forest Service
Spatial Data Compilation: Great Lakes Databases - Lucinda Johnson, Natural Resources Research
Institute
Pinnacles and Pitfalls of Watershed Assessments - Alan Clingenpeel, U.S. Forest Service
Wall Street, Forest Land Loss and Large-Scale Forest Conservation in the Upper Great Lakes - Tom
Duffus, The Nature Conservancy
CCRS Activities in Land-Cover/Land-Use Mapping of the Great Lakes Watershed - Bert Guindon,
Canada Centre for Remote Sensing
Session Overview
The breakout session was organized by the Binational Program to Restore and Protect Lake Superior,
specifically the Binational Workgroup's Terrestrial Wildlife and Habitat Committees. The committees
decided to use the opportunity that SOLEC provided to bring together experts on land use monitoring to
discuss their work and to begin the process of developing of set of parameters and a method to monitor
land use change. The breakout session was intended to help the committees take the first step in
developing that monitoring program. The participants heard from five speakers about not only what they
monitor, where they get their data and how they track changes, but also why they chose to monitor the
parameters that do.
Future Monitoring Challenges - Land Use Metrics For the Next 50 Years
Mark Hudy has been instrumental in the development of a comprehensive set of land use indicators for
large-scale areas using remote sensing. In his presentation, he described the Forest Service's
Watershed Integrity Rating, a watershed index of biotic integrity intended to characterize the water
corridor.
In terms of recommendations for monitoring, the following metrics were emphasized as ideal:
Measurable.
Have no data gaps.
Repeatable.
Responsive to management action.
Cost effective.
Have low variance in a large range.
Spatial Data Compilation: Great Lakes Databases
Lucinda Johnson presented information on the GLEI (Great Lakes Environmental Indicators) project,
whose objectives are to identify environmental indicators of the coastal ecosystems of the Great Lakes
basin, to link stressors with environmental responses and recommend and deliver a suite of indicators.
Pinnacles and Pitfalls of Watershed Assessments
Alan Clingenpeel discussed the Eastwide Watershed Assessment Protocol (EWAP) that was applied to
the Lake Superior portion of Minnesota and across 25 states between 1999 and 2002. This protocol used
land use and other metrics to give a snapshot of watershed conditions using both condition and stressor
parameters.
43
SOLEC 2004 Proceedings
-------
Wall Street, Forest Land Loss and Large-Scale Forest Conservation in the Upper Great Lakes
Tom Duffus spoke about the need to understand the socioeconomic system that is driving land use
change. He is studying recent shifts in forest ownership from single owners in the forest products
industry to Timber Investment Management Organizations. These organizations are now subdividing and
selling these lands, with significant consequences to patterns of land use.
Canada Centre for Remote Sensing (CCRS) Activities in Land-Cover/Land-Use Mapping of the
Great Lakes Watershed
Bert Guindon spoke about his work on several projects related to land use, including production of a base
land cover map, and a recent project related to sustainability in urban areas. He emphasized that
landscape analyses must be specifically geared toward the question that needs to be answered.
After the presentations, panelists and participants in the discussion portion of the breakout session were
asked to address two questions:
1. What are the questions that are required when monitoring land use?
One point that was emphasized throughout this discussion was that the answer to this question will drive
the data used and the level of detail in the analysis.
Suggested questions include:
What are the trends in population and land ownership in the basin?
What areas of the basin are most vulnerable to negative changes that may be brought about by
various land uses?
How is critical habitat being affected by land uses?
What are the risk factors that can lead to negative environmental consequences? Can the vulnerable
locations be identified in the basin where negative changes in water quality or some other parameter
due to certain land uses would be seen?
What socioeconomic pressures drive land use change? It was noted that information is needed on
what is happening with land conversion as well as the mechanisms that may prevent conversion in
places where it is not wanted.
To what extent is fragmentation by road building and residential development occurring?
Where and how fast are land uses changing? The argument has been made that plans should only
be for 2-4 years in advance because "ten year plans are worthless." If true, a position such as this for
10-year plans has major implications for monitoring.
2. What parameters might be useful in answering those questions?
Discussion followed about setting land use thresholds beyond which a particular parameter would be
affected. Unfortunately, setting these thresholds can be very costly and difficult. A representative from
the Canadian Wildlife Service informed the group that they have done some work in this area.
Issues of scale were also discussed; very detailed mapping is expensive but may be important for local
land use decisions. On the other hand, tracking trends at a basin-wide scale may not require such
specificity.
On the scale of Lake Superior it will also be important to evaluate the compatibility of the various data so
that a basin-wide picture can be generated. It was noted that for a level of consistency, one can use
topographic information layers. However, a question was raised regarding whether a wetland is defined
the same way in the U.S. and Canada.
Lake Michigan
Organizer and Facilitator: Judy Beck, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Recorder: Ewa Downarowicz
44
SOLEC 2004 Proceedings
-------
Session Overview
Lake Michigan differs from the coastal areas to the open water. Of the 33 watersheds that feed the lake,
all but 3 are listed for some beneficial use impairment. While the open water quality is good, the aquatic
food web shows signs of the impairments found in the coastal areas and tributaries. This session
explored these complex interactions and origins of stress, planned for the upcoming 2005 intensive
monitoring and discussed the results of the Great Lakes Coastal Wetlands Consortium work on Lake
Michigan's coastal wetlands.
Great Lakes Coastal Wetland Consortium Discussion Summary
Estimates show that half of the coastal wetlands in the Great Lakes basin are located in Lake Huron
and Lake Michigan; the majority are barrier protected and river-mouth type wetlands.
Barrier wetlands are predominantly located along the northern shore of the lake, Upper and Southern
Green Bay.
Potential plant metrics - Floristic Quality Index (FQI) or Conservatism Index are most effective;
percent cover of exotic species provides a good picture of disturbed wetlands; many metrics are only
effective in specific regions; water level changes reduce effectiveness of many plant metrics.
Index of Biological Integrity (IBI) scores for Drowned River plant communities show that the degree of
disturbance of plant communities is not grouped according to size but show patterns of disturbance
and land use.
Invertebrate and fish based IBIs for coastal wetlands: disturbance gradient shows that the southern
part of Lake Michigan is more disturbed and the north is being less disturbed.
What metrics match up with the observed gradient? Manistee shows good results. Kalamazoo shows
certain types of invertebrates illustrating its relative disturbance and relative abundance of certain
types of invertebrates and habitat preferences. Potential indicator fish species include: spottail
shiner, black bullhead, green sunfish. Bird and amphibian indicator species include: foraging, nesting,
species, etc.
Possible stressors on these systems include: hydrological alteration, sedimentation, chemical inputs,
shoreline alteration, diking, dams, and invasive species. In healthier systems, not many invasive
species exist.
Residential stressor shows that a high percent of coastal wetland area is affected. Roads affect 96%
of all wetlands. Dredging is also impacting wetlands. Even northern wetlands are being affected by
these stressors.
Agricultural urban systems drive the biology in wetlands. Chemical inputs have significant negative
relationship with the biological state of the wetlands.
Monitoring is the next step after preliminary results.
Great Lakes Coastal Program Discussion Summary
Emphasizing partnerships
Different ecotypes
Provide Grant money for projects
Examples of projects:
St. Louis river habitat plan - focuses on restoration, invasive species and education (locally led
leveraging project).
Kakogon Slough Rail survey - recapture and mark.
Graveyard Creek Restoration - fish passage restored and stream rehabilitated.
Belle Isle Restorations - coastal wetland restoration, native plant census, soft shoreline
engineering demo.
Grand Sable Dune exotic plant management - mapping and removal of exotic plants.
Lakeplain Prairie restoration - fringed orchid reestablishment and 10 year monitoring plan.
Summary:
Developed non-regulatory partnership approach.
Great benefit to coastal communities and nearshore, shoreline, riparian and in-stream and
removed fish barriers.
45
SOLEC 2004 Proceedings
-------
Many project successes.
Granting issues - compilation of granting opportunities needed.
Track/monitoring success of projects on long-term changes over time.
Database of projects is available.
Lake Michigan Mass Balance Modelling Project Discussion Summary
Monitoring for atrazine, mercury, and PCBs.
Low to high resolution models.
Atrazine shows little degradation and the model predicts that levels will increase.
The model predicts that PCBs will increase in water; while PCBs in sediment will decline.
Mercury - low screen model shows little methylation occurring in Lake Michigan; the methyl
mercury is coming from the tributaries.
1994, 1995 and 2005: Plan on revisiting sampling sites and gathering more data. 2005 sampling
will provide an opportunity to check the reality of the model forecast and fine tune the models.
Vision for Lake Michigan
NOAA Coastal Zone Management Program in Indiana offers $1 million per year in grants for research
projects.
Coastal Estuarine Land Conservation Program (CELCP) should be preserved in each state as a
planning document.
Each state will develop a plan for areas that are unique to that state.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service will identify critical habitat types to create a model for Indiana and a
transportation plan.
Public access component - public property for land acquisition.
Rare for federal government to acquire land but can be acquired through this program.
Proposition: Conservation Fund should acquire more Great Lakes islands.
Need more money from federal government for Lake Michigan and land acquisition -
Proposal has been submitted to the federal government for funding for the Great Lakes similar to
the funding for the everglades.
Need to pull together the Great Lakes Coastal Wetlands Consortium data, CELCP plans and
other information to create a better overarching vision and strategy.
Tribes have outlined and prioritized coastal wetland areas.
Current Situation and Research and Development
Significant groundwater and recharge areas exist in Lake Michigan. Groundwater basins and aquifer
explanation requires more work. Some significant recharge areas have been delineated by U.S.
Geologic Survey in Great Lakes area: estimate of recharge vary from 0-23 inches; presently working
on extrapolating this data to the entire basin.
Is the recharge being impacted? There is not enough trend data but in the near future, recharge
trend information will be available.
Land use is not yet being considered.
Withdrawal rate data is needed and is very important.
Recharge does not equal sustainability. Need social consensus on sustainability. Scientific data
can only provide information for decision-making. Quality and quantity need to be discussed.
Water use data needs to be summarized by state and completed for Lake Michigan basin.
Need to focus on preventative measures; not remedial actions. More information exists on damaged
systems than natural systems.
Need for recent and consistent collection of aerial imagery of the Great Lakes basin.
Agencies capable of providing data: NASA, NOAA, Great Lakes Observation System (GLOS).
Coast Watch can provide remote sensing data.
Michigan Sea Grant water temperature data can be used to make contour maps for lake.
Landsat satellite project can provide land characterization of the Earth's surface, but is not really
useful for coastal areas.
Orthophotographs are needed for the entire coastline.
46
SOLEC 2004 Proceedings
-------
Need to create specific grant program for project.
Lidar laser technology provides a high resolution for elevation information. The information can be
difficult to analyse but could be very useful.
NOAA is suggesting Great Lakes survey services- technical assistance for local projects.
Data exchange:
Need to be synchronized for all existing data.
Need to optimize existing data.
Bring data together from different states and then relate it to watershed and local levels.
Information needs to be reformatted and user-friendly.
Be available as metadata.
Local groups do not have funds for data collection/exchange.
Need appropriate funding mechanism.
What needs to be preserved and restored? What needs to be prioritized?
Numbers may be misleading about the actual ecological state and health of Lake Michigan.
Accuracy of data - systems are dynamic and change and this change needs to be monitored.
Time for monitoring is very relevant.
Need to distinguish between native and invasive (non-native) species.
Establish baselines of quality and quantity and relate it to stress and degradation. Overtime check
on restoration areas to see how the system has changed.
Lake Huron
Organizers and Facilitators: Janette Anderson, Environment Canada and Jamie Schardt, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency
Recorder: Christine McConaghy, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Session Overview
Participants engaged in a discussion on the value and uniqueness of Lake Huron, pressures in its
watershed, and priorities for managers and stakeholders in light of the upcoming 2007 intensified
monitoring effort for Lake Huron. The comments provided in this session will ultimately help to shape the
Partnership's monitoring effort.
Discussion Summary
1. Recent data was presented that indicate changes in the forage fish community and impacts on
Chinook salmon. Despite a huge alewife year class in 2003, two cold winters in a row led to the lowest
alewife abundance on record. Tagging data indicates that some Chinook salmon are moving from Lake
Huron to Lake Michigan perhaps as a consequence of limited prey availability. Also in 2003, a strong
year class of yellow perch was observed, and high numbers of walleye were seen in Saginaw Bay. A
final draft report, "Fish Community Objectives for Lake Huron," may be found on the Great Lakes Fishery
Commission website www.qlfc.orq/pubs/SpecialPubs/Sp95 1 .pdf
2. The future of Lake Huron: "What will Lake Huron look like in 25 years?" and "What do you want Lake
Huron to look like in 25 years?"
Concerns that were discussed included:
Development pressures - more intensive use of cottages, second homes, population increase,
impact on Lake Huron and its 30,000 islands.
Water quantity and outflows.
Climate change - lake level changes, terrestrial vegetative responses.
Need for integrated, coordinated management and planned development.
Stormwater runoff.
Air pollution, acid rain, ozone.
47
SOLEC 2004 Proceedings
-------
Human health in First Nations/Tribal communities living within Areas of Concern (AOCs).
Health effects of contaminants in fish tissue.
Continued monitoring to determine endpoints and fill data gaps.
Recognition of Georgian Bay, the "forgotten lake".
3. Data gaps and information needs
The group reached a consensus that there is a need to not only collect new data and fill data gaps, but
also to look at and integrate existing data. The following data needs were identified:
Land use indicators - forest canopy, riparian buffer, wetlands, and rate of urbanization.
Variability within and between watersheds (use for setting targets).
Climate change (including rate - gradual versus sudden).
Water levels and outflows/water quantity.
Demographic information - develop indicators and plan for impacts.
Monitoring - air quality (pristine and urbanized areas), tributaries and nutrients, contaminant, and
pathogens.
Work with agriculture sector land use, tile drainage impacts.
Highlights and Management Implications
Integration and coordination are needed among management, including watershed planning,
cooperation across traditional agency/sector divides, and technology transfer.
Land use planning and strategies to address development pressures in Lake Huron and Georgian
Bay are critical needs.
More integration and sharing of existing data are needed.
Political support is necessary to fund cleanups and recognize scientific findings.
Communication of environmental information to Tribes/First Nations, as well as attention to human
health and fisheries impacts on these communities.
General Comments
The Great Lakes are spectacular. How has this society polluted some of these areas to the point where
fish cannot be eaten? In 25-50 years, the lake may still be enjoyed aesthetically, but what will the water
quality be like? There is a need to work together with all involved sectors (i.e. industry, government, etc).
How can the Great Lakes be improved currently and in the future?
For over 500 years, native herbal medicine has been practiced. The medicines (herbs) provided are
affected by acid rain, air pollution, ozone depletion and other environmental stressors. There is a need for
more/better communication from professionals to educate people on environmental issues.
Monitoring and treaties are excellent things to do, but at end of the day what has really changed in Lake
Huron? As a society, there is no umbrella group to share technology and facilitate reducing the impacts
on the lake.
Lake Erie
Organizers: Sandra George, Environment Canada and Dan O'riordan, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency
Facilitator: Scudder Mackey, S.D. Mackey and Associates
Recorder: Lillian Hopkins
Presentation:
Physical Integrity of Lake Erie Landscapes, Watersheds and Hydrology - Scudder Mackey, S.D.
Mackey and Associates
48
SOLEC 2004 Proceedings
-------
Overview of Session
Stressors to Lake Erie's natural ecosystem include the impacts of changing land use, shoreline alteration,
nutrient loading, chemical contamination and exotic invasive species. These factors have direct impacts
on habitat quality and food web dynamics. This session addressed these issues and other stressors with
particular emphasis on land use and the potentially detrimental effects of land use change.
Definition
Physical Integrity - Physical structure, connectivity, and processes that "...maintain a balanced,
integrated, and adaptive system capable of sustaining all components and interactions (structure and
function) in an organized manner."
The paths (connections) taken by water through the landscapes are important:
Watershed to Tributary (effects of interruptions between the two is a stressor).
Watershed to Lake (connectivity).
Tributary to Lake (dams and shoreline alterations are stressors).
Ecological benefits provided as water moves through the system.
How has the physical integrity of Lake Erie been impaired?
Watersheds - reduced forest cover, restructuring of subsurface flows, altered flows, ground and
surface water withdrawals, altered pathways.
Tributaries - sedimentation, accelerated erosion, increased flows, temperature change/thermal effect,
habitat alteration, channel morphology (instability, width/depth ratios), loss of connectivity (absolute
and temporary), altered base flows, alter thermal regime, and alter chemical regime.
Estuaries/River Mouths - altered substrate, raised temperatures, increased stratification (thermal),
increased turbidity (from channel dredging), changes in light regiment (transparency: from turbidity),
altered physical structure (substrate), altered lateral flow/connectivity, littoral sediment transport,
deposition and erosion, and altered substrates.
Coastal Wetlands - filtering, sediment trapping, inability to migrate landward (during higher water
levels).
Nearshore (<10 m water depth, <5 m in Western Basin) - littoral sediment transport, deposition and
erosion, altered substrates, changes in water depth and changes in energy (wave energy), shoreline
hardening (parallel), change in light regiment (increased transparency), loss of barrier systems
(beaches, nearshore substrates and wetland implications), loss of sediment supply (coarser grain
sediment).
Open Lake - plumes, change in substrate, delivery of water (time and flow rate) from tributaries/flow
characteristics (which changes nutrient and contaminants loadings), physical dispersion, re-
suspension, hypoxia, thermal stratification effects.
What are the stressors causing these impairments?
1. Landscape/Watersheds
2. Hydrology
3. Other
Watershed - urban sprawl, land use change, agricultural activities, impervious surfaces, ground and
surface water, withdrawals/water use.
Tributaries - dams and barriers, hydro-geomorphic alterations (e.g. channel straightening), levies
and dikes, filling of flood plain, altered connectivity between groundwater and surface water
(interactions), mining (sand extraction).
Estuaries/river mouths - dredging of navigation channels (contaminant issues for dredging), faster
and warmer water, invasive exotic plant species (and other organisms e.g. zebra mussels), dredging,
shoreline hardening and alteration, navigation structures.
Coastal wetlands - exotics (especially macrophytes), land use (especially hardening, roads etc.)
Nearshore - zebra mussels, re-suspended sediment, dams, shoreline altering, mining (sand
extraction).
49
SOLEC 2004 Proceedings
-------
Open lake - zebra mussels, sediment deposition (increased sediment loads), atmospheric
deposition, respiration (zebra mussels), increased transparency in the open lake.
Over what spatial and temporal scales do these stressors act?
Agriculture (decade) - urban.
Climate change (decade or longer) - global.
Navigation (seasonal or annual) - tributary.
Algal bloom (seasonal/annual) - tributary.
Storm events (broad or isolated) - basin.
Focus on local/watershed scales for effective management and the need for better integration across all
scales. Need to look at all scales and evaluate the situation. For example, local stressors may be very
significant but at a watershed scale, they are not as important, i.e. irrigation withdrawals.
What key indicators describe the physical integrity of Lake Erie and its condition?
Shoreline hardening (sediment transport, habitat loss, extent of development, coastal processes,
connectivity). Watershed level, including river banks, tributary, river mouth, shoreline.
Altered flow regime (capturing channel stability).
Kilometres of regulated river (and where located).
Availability of spawning substrate and for rearing (nursery habitat).
Fragmentation index (wetland and forest habitats-terrestrial; pathway corridor).
Community infrastructure assessment (indicative of biological condition).
Percentage of type of cover (degree of hardness and softness).
Water consumption, withdrawals, diversions, agriculture, industrial evaporation (expressed as for
example: tiles/km (or as a percentage), number of pipes, drainage ditches, open water: dry land).
Channel alteration.
Soil type - filtration capacity to determine infiltration rate (time scale).
Secchi disk readings/water transparency.
Habitat supply - product of quantity and quality (for a range of indicator species).
Aquatic substrate size.
Mixing offshore of a river mouth.
Beach erosion (measurement of sediment availability).
Social indicators (users).
Surface temperature.
Sedimentation rates (coring).
How can physical integrity be integrated into landscape/watershed assessments (tool
availability/development)?
Satellite imagery is becoming less expensive with time/orthophotograpy/remote sensing/assessments of
land cover. Part of the "state" reporting processes is available.
What are the data/information needs that are necessary to develop and implement these
indicators?
Need long-term comprehensive monitoring programs.
Real commitment of government funds; long-term input compared to one-time funding inputs.
Better database integration across disciplines and agencies.
Database quality control and the development of better remote sensing technologies are needed.
Lake Ontario
Organizer and Facilitator: Fred Luckey, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Recorder: Veronica Lo, Environment Canada
50
SOLEC 2004 Proceedings
-------
Session Overview
This break out session focused on the issue of non-native species, which have severely disrupted Lake
Ontario's aquatic foodweb since the LaMP made its initial beneficial use impairment determination a
decade ago. Lake Ontario fishery managers discussed the stressors impacting Lake Ontario's fisheries
and proposed changes to the LaMP's list of beneficial use impairments. This session also focused on
minimizing impacts of lake level controls on nearshore habitats, including coastal wetlands. The
International Lake Ontario - St. Lawrence River Water Level Study is currently in year 4 of a major 5 year
study evaluating the possibility of changing the current water level control plan in order to consider a
broader range of factors including environment and recreation. Members of the International Joint
Commission Reference Study and LaMP staff discussed the work underway to evaluate a variety of
potential changes to the current lake level control plan and how to best monitor the ecosystem's response
to any future changes.
The 2002 reassessment of the 1998 Problem Definition
Benthic and nearshore phytoplankton populations were determined to be degraded.
Conservative approach.
Diporeia hoyi: decline has negatively impacted fisheries.
Zebra mussels negatively impact phytoplankton populations.
Lake Ontario Lower Aquatic Foodweb Assessment (LOLA)
Focus sampling to compare survey information to pre-zebra mussel conditions.
Evaluating changes in the lake's lower food web and its ability to support fish populations.
2004-2005
LaMP is reassessing fisheries
Overview of Lake Ontario with a focus on open water area
Lake Ontario Food Web pre-1850
Only lake trout, ciscoe, burbot, and other native species existed.
Post Dreissena, phosphorous abatement
Presence of alewife, smelt.
Most native fish species in offshore are stocked fish.
Decline of Diporeia.
Currently
Diporeia found only in deepest waters; mysis future uncertain.
Presence of the three-spined stickleback (non-native preyfish) in offshore waters.
Round goby (non-native) distribution is expanding.
LaMP Indicators
1. Prey Fish
Offshore - diverse array of preyfish populations should be sufficient to support healthy productive
predator fishes.
No target has yet been set due to dynamics of prey fish.
2. Lake Trout
Population should be sustained through natural reproduction.
Great Lakes Indicators and Fisheries
Organized by habitat:
Mesotrophic shallow nearshore areas.
Oligotrophic and very deep offshore areas.
51
SOLEC 2004 Proceedings
-------
Bottom up drivers and linkages: lake whitefish - concurrent declines of Diporeia and lake whitefish;
reproductive failure or low young-of-the-year survival; and Dreissena colonization.
Degraded Fish and Wildlife Populations in Areas of Concern
Evidence of impairment includes:
Benthos and habitat is impaired (due to non-native species).
Predators have high levels of contaminants warranting consumption advisories.
Contaminants linked to lake trout reproductive failure.
All native open-water species (lake trout, Atlantic salmon, blue walleye, deep water ciscoes, deep
water sculpin, American eel and lake sturgeon) are in decline except those that are stocked or that
have diverse diets.
Non-native prey fish are sources of thiaminase.
Round goby still colonizing, displacing benthic fish, and eating lake trout, eggs, or dreissena.
Most salmonids showed low natural reproduction, attributed to tributary health.
Non-native species new diet items do not provide levels of the types of essential fatty acids that are
contained in native foods.
- How can the degradation of open water fish populations be addressed?
- How should the Lake Ontario LaMP define goals and objectives to address the degradation of
fish populations and provide a broad array of ecological, social and economic benefits?
Fish populations
Reduction in stocking because forage fish populations are in decline and/or because the population is
not balanced.
The reduction in fish populations in the early 1990s was due to increasing biomass of top predators
such as salmon and trout but with no change in prey fish biomass. A decline in prey fish is evident
now.
Evidence of global climate change, e.g. lake whitefish, therefore, not entirely attributed to non-native
species.
Native fish populations are degraded because the system still relies on stocking.
Will not reach equilibrium because this balance depends on sea lamprey control and re-stocking; but
can still improve populations of native species.
The greatest biomass offish was from 1988 - 1992. Large-bodied fish declines are not surprising
because they were already in decline in 1998, despite the claim that the status was improving. LaMP
Stage 1 document published in 1998 was prepared with the latest data available (date from 1995). In
the 1995 data, this decline was not evident.
Should consider geographic distribution of fish population when discussing health of fisheries. There
have been major geographic shifts i.e. dead zones in lakes due to a decline in Diporeia, uncertainty
about mysis. There are no large benthic invertebrates remaining.
Many species are forced into environments that are not thermally appropriate.
Climate Change
Climate change: global warming will cause a warmer-water fishery management strategy to be
considered. Cold-water species will still be considered in the Great Lakes because of the depth of
waters in the lakes.
What is natural reproduction of lake trout? Lake trout still spawning on shoals and new substrates,
but not many are surviving.
A change in temperature and phosphorous loading affects fisheries.
Invasive Species
Prediction is that carnivorous amphipod populations will increase. A focus on prevention will be
required.
Australia and New Zealand have a green list of allowed species - precautionary principle.
52
SOLEC 2004 Proceedings
-------
Zebra mussels are efficient filter-feeders. What analysis has been done on their biomass material?
Zebra Mussels are recycled into sediments and contaminants tend not to bioaccumulate in mussels.
What has been the net effect of ecosystem balance shift after introduction of zebra mussels?
Management Perspective
Major focus of LaMPs has been drinking water quality. Need to know what targets are realistically
achievable.
Who are the investigators for the LaMP data? Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, U.S. Geological
Survey, Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Ontario Ministry of the Environment and Canadian
Food and Inspection Agency.
How can Fish Community Goals and Objectives (FCOs) be created to address safe development?
The best thing is prevention. Consultations with waste water treatment plants, nuclear plants and the
public are also very important as well as changes in legislation and good public relations. It takes a
long time to collect data as well as to strengthen lake monitoring cooperation.
Presence of nearshore sewage plants, water collection plants, nuclear power plants impact fish
populations, but their exact role is unclear. Sewage effluents, cooling waters, cleaning contaminants
and that create plumes all affect fish populations. Nuclear power plants monitor populations on a
local scale, but not at a larger scale.
What analyses of phytoplankton and zooplankton have been done? This analysis is needed as new
data is required.
Minimizing Impacts of Lake Level Controls on Nearshore Habitats
Study team comprised of agencies, academia, and interest groups.
Eight technical groups addressing environmental issues.
Final report due October 2005.
Shared Vision Model - Bill Werick, International Joint Commission
Plan Formulation: simulate regulation of Lake Ontario with potential water supplies with the ability to
evaluate based on these different parameters.
Provides greater accessibility.
Four strategies to developing a regulation plan.
Once plan formulated, can run through model to measure different aspects, e.g. water levels.
Post-processor interprets data and creates a plan evaluation, e.g. economic analysis/ranks plans
according to economic benefit.
Overall judgement performed.
Model goes through data, selects a specific focus, and analyzes data based on that focus.
Shared vision process demands an early decision.
This approach only looks at water level.
Coastal Wetlands
Focus on developing evaluation criteria for study.
Wetlands one of the most sensitive to changing water levels.
Large shrub and tree areas moving up from shore.
Hydrologic linkage: habitat compressed as water level increases - dynamic response.
Reduce potential elevation level of plants as water level decreases.
Cattails moving upslope into meadow communities.
How can a plant community response be quantified? Predict using water level cycles.
Four geomorphic types of coastal wetlands.
Quantification
Plants sampled on different elevation levels.
Site-specific digital elevation models created - combined to create generalized geometric model
Plants categorized according to structure - e.g. broad-leaf, thin-stem, etc.
Binational coastal database created.
53
SOLEC 2004 Proceedings
-------
Wetland bird communities - oriented along a hydrological gradient, e.g. shrub community versus
shallow water bird communities.
Variabilities tested: water level fluctuations, plant community and water depth.
Bird and Habitat surveys conducted using 475 survey plots to estimate species density.
Environmental Performance Indicators narrowed down to approximately 15 essential indicators that
are different for the upper and lower St. Lawrence River.
Questions
Do climate change models exist? Yes, they are a part of a mandate where 4 different projections are
used. A sensitivity test will determine the most suitable approach.
Are bird species used as indicators? Certain species benefit from degraded habitat, but wetland-
nesting birds are very sensitive to disturbance. Reproductive parameters to measure health of
wetlands are required.
Principle component analysis - is this appropriate for habitat indicators?
Great Lakes indicators provide a current status perspective on wetlands.
Have seasonal variations been taken into account? Water depth variations inclusive of breeding
parameters have been included.
IJC model provides a prediction perspective. Can both perspectives together be brought together?
Adaptive Management as a Component of a New Regulation Plan
IJC Lake Ontario - St. Lawrence Study Guiding Principles
Environmental sustainability - what is it and how do is it achieved?
Ability to respond to unusual conditions.
Adaptability to changes in water supply.
Flexibility to adapt to advances in knowledge.
Adaptive management is a systematic process for continually improving management policies and
practices by learning from the outcomes of operational programs.
Adaptive Management Process
1. Assess problem.
2. Design a plan.
3. Implementation of this plan.
4. Monitoring outcomes.
5. Evaluating outcomes.
6. Adjusting implementation of plan overtime.
Necessary Elements
1. Sound Science.
Predictive models of ecosystem function.
Recognition of uncertainty.
Monitoring - test hypotheses in models.
Data management.
2. Management Commitment and Flexibility
Management objectives.
Feedback to system managers.
Clear responsibilities.
3. Public participation
4. Long-term funding
Successful Applications of Adaptive Management
B.C. Forest Service, Glen Canyon Dam/Colorado River, San Pedro River, Everglades.
Need consensus of management goals.
54
SOLEC 2004 Proceedings
-------
Priority targets for modelling - Lake Ontario and Upper River
Great Lakes Marshes - meadow marsh, open water, area not dominated by cattails.
Temperature regimes - northern pike, largemouth bass.
Wetland diversity and condition - swamp sparrow.
Species at risk- blandings turtle, bridle shiner, pugnose shiner, American eel.
Habitat shaper - muskrat.
Present Operating Structure
International Joint Commission - Board of Control.
Adaptive Management Working Group.
Regulation Representatives.
Operations Advisory.
Operators of dams.
What monitoring programs exist?
How could the feedback function to the board of control be organized to be most effective?
Building on the International Joint Commission Water Level Study
No plans to continue work after study concludes.
Information and data transfer.
Assessment of coastal habitat impairments.
Coastal habitat indicators.
Indicator monitoring.
Use of IJC models to assist future decision-making.
Who will maintain model when group disbands?
LaMPs play a role by addressing monitoring needs.
Next Steps
Move study forward.
Habitat workshop in November 2004. A report on habitat issues will be produced from this workshop.
Discussion
Quality aspect of lake water and source waters needed for certain regulation parameters e.g. effluent
level limits.
U.S. does assessments of parameters, e.g. water quality standards based on health and ecological
parameters. Numbers based on science.
Coastal wetland quality indicators. Working with the conservation authorities, getting stakeholders to
define what is acceptable and addressing issues at a community level.
Once regulation regime is established, what flexibility is there to deal with catastrophic events or
items that do not fit within model?
Habitat protection versus personal property protection. The challenge is to develop these guidelines.
Levels vary widely, in terms of data collection, and how proximate it is to the wetlands under study.
Focus is on long-term and weekly studies.
55
SOLEC 2004 Proceedings
-------
8. SOLEC 2004 Workshop Summaries - Day 3
Chemical Integrity
Organizers: Dale Phenicie, Council of Great Lakes Industries, Jim Smith, Environment Canada and Ted
Smith, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Facilitator: Dale Phenicie, Council of Great Lakes Industries
Recorder: Veronica Lo, Environment Canada
Presentations
Chemical Integrity Summary- Dale Phenicie, Council of Great Lakes Industries
What Elements Define the 'Chemical Integrity' of the Great Lakes? - Gerald Matisoff,
Case Western Reserve University
Research on the Chemical Integrity of the Great Lakes - Brian Eadie, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
Chemical Integrity: Moving into the Future - Miriam Diamond, University of Toronto
Session overview
The purpose of this session was to facilitate planning for SOLEC 2006, which will focus on the chemical
integrity of the Great Lakes. This session considered the state of science on chemical integrity, the
relationship between chemical, physical and biological integrity, and the research that is currently being
performed or planned for the future.
What Elements Define the Chemical Integrity of the Great Lakes?
Maintaining chemical integrity is one of the mandates of the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement
(GLWQA).
The GLWQA sets Specific Objectives for several chemicals, but others may be of concern as well
that are not included in Annex 1.
Chemicals are important because of their interactions with biological functions.
All factors and interactions between biology and physical habitats must be considered, not just
chemical properties.
The SOLEC 2002 definition of biological integrity may also serve as a definition of chemical integrity,
especially if one includes links to physical integrity and human uses, i.e. "Chemical Integrity is the
capacity to support and maintain a balanced, integrated and adaptive biological system having the full
range of elements and processed expected in a region's natural habitat." James R. Karr, 1991
(modified).
Examples of stressors on the system include non-native species (and the resultant changes in trophic
dynamics, nutrient availability, habitats, flow, and sequestering of contaminants) and climate change.
What is a chemical? Not just "toxics." All chemicals can be toxic. The relationship with exposure is
important.
Other physical and biological factors are important such as the sources and loadings of the chemicals
and habitat issues and the combined effects on the biological integrity. Other important factors are:
temperatures, water levels and flows, wind, ice cover, solar radiation, contaminant and nutrient
cycling, and the relationships between all of these factors.
To make judgments regarding integrity, they must ultimately be accounted for through modeling,
forecasting, and risk assessment.
When defining Chemical Integrity, the following must be considered:
Rates of change.
Natural conditions or concentrations.
Biological conditions and freedom from manmade chemicals.
Ecosystem form and function in light of human uses and presence.
Sustainability of human uses.
56
SOLEC 2004 Proceedings
-------
Great Lakes indicators missing from the list regarding chemical integrity are:
Oxygen - What is the state of oxygenation of the ecosystem? Depletion rates? Sediment
oxygen demand (SOD)? Presence of a hypoxic area?
Legacy contamination - Perhaps rate of progress at Areas of Concern (AOCs) is a chemical
integrity indicator.
Pathogens - presence can be confused with chemical toxicity.
New technology monitoring system deployment - need to track chemical integrity and identify
problems at the source.
Better use of models, risk assessment, and ecosystem forecasting.
The current chemicals that are monitored such as PCBs, dioxins and DDT, may not be the correct
chemicals to be screening. The concentrations of these substances are decreasing and will continue
to do so. "How clean is clean?" How will the decomposition of all chemicals be handled? Will
monitoring continue for these chemicals once it is confirmed that they are decomposing?
Modeling, risk assessment, and ecosystem forecasting to predict the effects of biological, chemical,
physical and human-induced changes on ecosystems and their components may help. If such
models do not exist, should they be developed?
To track chemical integrity the following need to be addressed:
Identify what is to be assessed. What is the real goal of maintaining "chemical integrity?"
Remember that the goal is assessment, not monitoring.
Once on this track, the selection of indicators of chemical integrity will readily follow.
Comments on Defining Chemical Integrity
Chemical detectability has increased dramatically such that very smaller amounts of chemicals can
be detected in the environment. "What is the threshold of concern for these compounds?" It is
important to understand the significance, not just be concerned about the presence of these
chemicals in the environment.
The awareness of false negatives from modeling needs to be addressed. Validation and the testing
of these models are needed, so there is a response to changing inputs.
Mixtures of chemicals are a reality, but the toxicity of each chemical does not always have additive
effects. However, the additive effects need to be considered as well as how the chemistry of the
system is impacted. Calcium and magnesium ratios are an example.
All interested parties need to be involved with this work in order to solve this situation.
It is difficult to deal with chemicals that appear benign, such as chlorides. They are not highly toxic,
but levels are elevated. Maybe there is a need for some guiding principles. Should monitoring
continue for fish contaminate levels that are decreasing? Monitoring in watersheds, where changes
can be detected, is required. The presence of a chemical may be a threat but by the time it is seen in
a fish, it is too late.
For SOLEC 2006, an assessment of the chemicals in each Lake and the source of the chemical are
needed.
The GLWQA identifies an ecosystem approach to defining integrity. Chemical integrity cannot be
reviewed in isolation from biological or physical factors.
The Great Lakes are a system of habitats. The chemical and biological integrity of the system
defines these habitats. Chemicals can affect habitats.
Models are needed that include all of these factors.
Chemical Integrity is not just an ecosystem problem but a multimedia problem. Water issues and the
status of the air and land must also be coupled in the assessment.
New analytical techniques can be applied to old (archived) samples to provide data for running
various models.
Chemical integrity affects biological integrity and biological integrity affects chemical integrity.
Some key materials need to be added to the common monitoring lists in order to provide the broader
chemistry information that is needed. Carbon dioxide and organic carbon are two examples.
Natural substances are always present and enter the "how clean is clean" debate.
Synergistic effects should be considered. An ecosystem toxic burden indicator is needed.
Toxicology information is needed to make assessments on chemical integrity.
57
SOLEC 2004 Proceedings
-------
Management efforts and the tracking of results need to be considered.
Monitoring for substances other than PCBs, DDT, and mercury is needed.
Monitoring Systems for Chemical Integrity
Many elements must be integrated into an ecosystem forecast to predict effects of biological,
chemical, physical and human induced changes on ecosystems and their components.
Climate change.
Aging infrastructure.
Areas of Concern (AOCs).
Fundamental process rates.
Persistent Bioaccumulative Toxics (PBTs) and Nutrients.
Pharmaceuticals.
PBTs have declined in the Great Lakes, but restrictions still exist, internal reservoirs and recycling
may be dominant factors, and some controls are needed beyond the Great Lakes basin.
Nutrients have declined but phosphorus is increasing in the Lake Erie Central Basin, likely caused by
the activities of dreissenids, which may be altering the size structure and dynamics of particles in
Lake Erie. Nitrogen is increasing elsewhere.
In order to apply models for forecasting purposes, monitoring and the understanding of Lake
dynamics and conditions are needed.
Better measures of concentrations, loads, rates and modeling are needed.
Understanding factors like sedimentation rates and temperature stratification are critical.
Wireless environmental observatories are examples of the technology needed to collect this
information. Three dimensional models are ready to make use of this information.
Studies like the Lake Michigan Mass Balance have provided critical process rates unavailable at the
same fine-scale for the other Great Lakes.
Surveys are needed that identify "new" chemicals such as Pharmaceuticals and risk assessments for
these substances are necessary.
Comments on Monitoring Systems for Chemical Integrity
A blend of research, modeling, and monitoring is needed.
Annex 1 in the GLWQA is out dated. It may not make sense to include new numbers in revisions to
the agreement. More information on chemical impacts is available since the original specific
objectives were set. It may be better to go to a narrative statement about chemical integrity.
In situ testing has slowly matured and should become part of the future monitoring landscape.
Monitoring of storm water loads is needed, especially those that result in wastewater treatment plant
by-passes.
Monitoring for the presence and loadings of chemicals is needed, but so is monitoring for ecosystem
effects.
Management actions need to be driven by risk assessments.
Ecosystem responses need to be considered on the basis of communities not just single organism
responses.
Chemical Integrity: Moving into the Future
Recruitment of young people into the field of Great Lakes Science is imperative.
When seeking the "wholeness" of integrity, societal and political complexities need to be included. A
strong political will is required to maintain scientific resources and make use of the information that
these resources produce.
Currently, all resources are being put into maintaining existing programs and institutions and not
funding or planning for future needs.
As the research culture ages there is less of an ability to meet multifaceted challenges. The trend
indicates the need to respond to increasingly complex issues. Single mediums issues like
eutrophication and the need for phosphorus controls, or even multi-media issues like PBTs and the
need for both national and international controls are not the only issues at hand. Multi-media AND
multi-issue situations, where several things are happening at once, are now more common. Climate
58
SOLEC 2004 Proceedings
-------
change, exotic species, nutrient issues, PBTs and Pharmaceuticals are all current issues that need to
be addressed.
The issues are not only complex, but the political restraints are not always allowing the information
generated, to be used. Data does not get included in regulations and the 'best' data does not always
get used. The public is not interested in data produced by scientists. There is a need to produce
information that cannot be ignored politically.
Much of the environmental progress in the Great Lakes has come by shifting resource extraction and
manufacturing offshore. Resource use, no mater where it occurs, is a driver of the degradation of the
Great Lakes. Population growth is a serious issue for the basin. Increases in transportation related
energy have been tremendous, especially those related to truck transportation. While nitrogen oxides
have decreased, ozone and particulate trends are increasing which is a dangerous trend.
Risk assessment, while a helpful tool, does not deal with these realities. It does not connect subtitle
toxicological impacts with exposure. The precautionary principle must be relied on for guidance.
Comments on Chemical Integrity in the Future
Data availability, including raw data, is essential. This data needs to be made freely available by
government agencies. Recent trends to charge for the data, means that the best information may not
be used.
Political realities are a problem. Regulatory agencies need to be more proactive.
A new paradigm for how science interacts with politics is required. Currently, policy makers ask for
research, researchers act in a policy vacuum and report final results. Policy makers then act, often
without a full understanding of the science and its relationship to the decision making process.
Researchers and politicians need to work together throughout the entire process.
The municipal aspect of chemical issues needs to be incorporated.
Policy may need to be directed at the municipal level to deal with urban use issues.
There is a need for a revised Water Quality Agreement Annex 1 list that does not become dated. Any
new/revised Annex 1 standard will be instantly out of date. The Great Lakes Initiative (GLI) process
should be used to update the GLWQA.
An item to consider is whether the tributaries meet the GLI lake standards?
Scientists are policy makers. It is the transmission of this information that is important. The media
only report out on interesting stories.
Education and having the public involved is important. Why was the education indicator removed
from the suite?
The "mixed" assessment for Great Lakes indicators is not useful.
Great Lakes indicators need to report on nearshore and tributary data.
Scientists must build consensus with the public.
Climate Change
Organizers: Marg Dochoda, Great Lakes Fishery Commission, Bill Meades, Natural Resources Canada,
Rochelle Sturtevant, Great Lakes Sea Grant
Presentations
Great Lakes Climate Change Forecasting: A Preliminary Needs Assessment - Rochelle Sturtevant,
Great Lakes Sea Grant
Confronting Climate Change in the Great Lakes Region - Brian Shuter, University of Toronto
Indicators of Climate Change Impacts on Terrestrial - Aquatic Interactions - Fred Beall, Natural
Resources Canada and Jim Buttle, Trent University
Discrepancies in Greenhouse Lake Level Predictions: Reasons for Uncertainty - Brent M. Lofgren,
Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory
Session Overview
This workshop consisted of a participatory discussion on potential roles for SOLEC relating to regional
climate change scenarios and identifying key physical indicators to assess regional impacts of climate
59
SOLEC 2004 Proceedings
-------
change. Topics discussed included potential impacts of climate change on the open lake and on
terrestrial aquatic interactions.
Findings and Predictions
Human-produced, heat-trapping gas emissions cause climate change.
Early signs of climate change are being recorded in the Great Lakes, i.e. warmer temperatures,
extreme rainfall events, shorter winters, and reduced periods of ice cover.
By 2100, winters will warm by 3-7 degrees Celsius and summers by 3-11 degrees Celsius. There will
be:
More heat waves.
Growing seasons will be several weeks longer.
More precipitation in spring and winter, and less in summer and fall (10-20% increase overall)
Drier soils and more droughts.
Storms and floods will be 50-100% more frequent with a 12% chance of 100-year floods each
year.
Excessive low-level clouds.
Reduced ice cover.
Lake levels may or may not decrease depending on the balance of precipitation, runoff and
evaporation, with the latter being impacted by temperature, humidity and ice cover. A 10% increase
in rainfall is needed for each 1 degree Celsius of warming in order to maintain existing water levels.
Productivity of coldwater fish populations such as salmonids may decline dramatically as coldwater
species will be replaced by cool water species (e.g. walleye) and cool water species will be replaced
by warm water species (e.g. smallmouth bass). There are limits in ability of fishes to shift their ranges
northward, i.e., the most northerly coastline.
Non-native species may find conditions conducive for invasion.
Lake stratification will be longer, with more dead zones and fish kills are possible.
Mercury and other contaminants in sediments may be mobilized by warmer, low-oxygen conditions.
Wetlands, amphibians, shorebirds, and waterfowl may be stressed by total runoff, base flows timing
and magnitude of peak flow such as earlier spring runoff, more intense flooding, and lower water
levels in summer. The number of ephemeral streams may increase along with erosion and
sedimentation. Export rates for chemicals may change (e.g., nutrients, acidification, and mercury).
Sixty eight percent (68%) of the Great Lakes' drainage basin is terrestrial. The ratio of land to lake will
increase with climate change. By 2100, prairies may move eastward; hardwood forests may move
north, and boreal forests may retreat out of the basin. In the near-term, productivity will increase due
to increases in carbon dioxide (CO2)and nitrogen. Forest health could be damaged by elevated
ozone levels, more frequent droughts and forest fires, and insect pests surviving milder winters.
Birds migrating in the spring (governed by length of day) may arrive after insect hatches which are
governed by temperature. Resident birds, raccoons, skunks, and white-tailed deer may benefit. With
the boreal forest, moose may be forced out of the Great Lakes region.
Forces interacting with climate change include growing population, increasing urbanization and
sprawl, fragmentation of the landscape, industrial pollution of air and water, social challenges,
invasive species, and geographic variability and limits (e.g. Great Lakes, Canadian Shield).
There will be more demand for scarcer water resources in streams, lakes, and groundwater.
Farmers will need to contend with higher ozone levels, less soil moisture in summer, storms and
flooding in spring, extreme summer heat, abundant pests and pathogens, and farmers will not be able
to simply shift operations northward (due to Canadian Shield).
Heat-related health problems will likely increase in vulnerable populations, more ground-level ozone
will be produced, and pathogens, parasites, and vectors (mosquitoes) may survive and reproduce
more readily under warmer conditions.
Minimizing Climate Change and its Impacts on the Great Lakes Region
To deal with climate change, a three-pronged approach can be used:
60
SOLEC 2004 Proceedings
-------
Reduce emissions - energy solutions, transportation, agricultural, forestry and integrated
strategies.
Minimize pressure on the environment - air quality improvements, water resource protection,
habitat protection, urban and land use planning.
Plan and prepare to manage the impacts of a changing environment - emergency preparedness,
agricultural and forestry adaptations, public health improvements, infrastructure adjustments and
education.
To manage the impacts of a changing environment, climate change will need to be considered in long -
term planning and construction, especially investments in infrastructure such as:
Land and water use planning.
Water intake and well construction.
Sewage treatment system construction.
Coastal development.
Shipbuilding and Seaway development.
Reducing/redirecting pressure on natural resources.
Flexible management is required to accommodate extremes; unpredictability and uncertainties such as
anticipating ski seasons, fish year classes, ship loading conditions and flood plain construction will exist.
Indicator Needs
Soundness of today's decisions will likely be tested by climate change. Indicators are needed that are:
Predictive.
Accurate.
Dynamic (incorporate new information and a range of scenarios).
Focused on vulnerable or representative sites.
Rooted in long historical databases.
Relative to a target or end-point.
Rooted in global models, and in particular.
Local (regional and sub-basin scale).
Reflective of new extremes (e.g., temperature extremes, storms, waves, water levels).
Specifically, the following Great Lakes indicators may be useful for purposes of tracking and predicting
climate change:
#6 Fish Habitat
#120 Contaminant exchanges between media (air to water to sediment)
#4202 Air quality
#4510 Coastal wetland area by type
#4519 Number of extreme storms
#4858 Climate change (Ice Duration on the Great Lakes)
#4860 Phosphorus and nitrate levels
#7055 Habitat adjacent to coastal wetlands
#8137 Nearshore species diversity and stability
#8150 Breeding bird diversity and abundance
#8161 Threatened species
#9002 Non-native species
New Indicator: #9003 Climate change (effect on crop heat units)
New Indicator: #7102 Base flow due to groundwater discharge
New Indicator: #7061 Nutrient management
New Indicator: Sediment flow and availability (plus transport, deposition, re-suspension),
New Indicator: Water levels
Proposed Indicator: #8164 Landscape ecosystem health
61
SOLEC 2004 Proceedings
-------
Some new indicators may need to be developed that involve reporting on:
Precipitation patterns and storms.
Runoff.
Waves.
Water levels.
Timing and magnitude of river and stream flows.
Amount and timing of sediment and chemical loadings.
Erosion.
Key species or habitats, especially ranges.
Global temperature trends.
Wind.
Consultation for agencies proposing to cease data collection is needed. Historical databases can be
extremely important for predicting impacts of climate change in the Great Lakes region; likewise, existing
datasets, such as the extensive network of stream gauges, should be analyzed for utility in tracking and
predicting impacts of climate change. New strategies may be needed to reconstruct historical conditions,
i.e. analysis of materials in sediment cores, bubbles in ice, etc.
The Impacts of Climate Change on Other Great Lakes Indicators
Many Great Lakes indicators may be influenced by changing climate. Careful consideration will be
needed to determine the extent to which indicators may be disrupted or biased by changing climate. For
example, increased hypoxia or duration of anoxia may increase due to climate change, even though
progress continues to be made with phosphorus reductions. Species invasions due to range expansions
may increase even though progress towards closing the door on trade-related vectors is evident.
Great Lakes Beaches
Organizers: Doug Alley, International Joint Commission and Michael D'Andrea, City of Toronto
Presentations
Microbial Source Tracking of Fecal Pollution - Tom Edge, National Water Research Institute
Advances in Rapid Biodetection and Review of Beach Water Quality Standards - Cassandra
Lofranco, Ontario Ministry of the Environment
U.S. Great Lakes Beach Regulatory Management and Research Activities - Norman Grannemann for
Sheridan Haack, U.S. Geological Survey
Frequency of Sampling Effects on Beach Postings - Ted Bowering, City of Toronto
Workshop Overview
The Great Lakes shoreline provides some of the most beautiful beaches in the world, yet many continue
to be posted as unsafe for swimming for significant periods during the bathing season. These postings
represent a diminished quality of life, as well as disincentive to tourism and are a detriment to local
economies. This session addressed the multi-faceted "Swimability" issue, discussed the new Great
Lakes Beach Advisory indicator, updated participants on the U.S. Canadian programs to mitigate
recreational water quality impairments as noted in the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement and
provided information on rapid detection methods under development in both countries.
The participants in this session considered the following subset from the existing Great Lakes indicators
suite, which relate to tracking progress made on improving beach water quality conditions within the
basin:
#111 Phosphorus Concentrations and Loadings
#4200 Beach Advisories, Postings and Closings
62
SOLEC 2004 Proceedings
-------
General conclusions were reached and the recommendations provided are summarized under the
following questions which were related to how the Beach Advisories, Postings and Closings indicator is
being used throughout the Great Lakes basin.
1. Is a common beach water quality assessment protocol needed?
Given the disparity in existing beach posting criteria (Canada versus U.S.), sampling frequencies
and protocols (among locations even within a given jurisdiction), there is a genuine need for a
standardized basin-wide, beach water quality assessment protocol including the development of
criteria respecting epidemiological risk and sampling regime.
This protocol would allow for a more objective assessment of beach water quality conditions at a
given beach area and provide fora more direct comparison of conditions across the basin.
This standardization should lead to a regulatory requirement (basin-wide) rather than a guideline
which is subject to interpretation by local officials, which could bias the interpretation of beach
water quality conditions at a given location.
A public education component should be included with the protocol development including
education on health risks.
2. Is the existing "Beach Advisories, Postings and Closings" indicator acceptable for reporting?
If this indicator's purpose is to compare and track conditions across the basin, the indicator
should reflect this need and therefore a standardized approach is required.
Beach postings in some jurisdictions is not reflective of actual water quality monitoring data, but
may be biased by "rainfall" rules established at the local level (e.g. beach considered unsafe for
swimming for a set period of time after a rainfall event, irrespective of water quality data).
Need to recognize that the need for an indicator to assess basin-wide comparisons is different
than the needs of local health units assessing local health risks.
The present system does not allow for the appropriate compilation of trend statistics i.e. cannot
adequately assess whether conditions are improving.
Should consider focussing assessment on those beach areas with good data (quality of data and
historical records) and track changes at these locations overtime, as indicators of general
conditions across the basin.
3. Is there another indicator better suited for assessing beach water quality conditions?
Rapid biodetection techniques should be pursued i.e. day of sampling/analysis is preferred rather
than relying on antecedent conditions (typically for samples collected days earlier) to determine
whether beach water quality conditions are acceptable for swimming, especially for those beach
areas impacted by local pollution sources. Pilot testing of this approach should be actively
pursued and compared to conventional/existing approaches.
E.coli appears to be the internationally recognized standard and therefore should be used until a
new protocol or standard is developed but there is a need to establish a common sampling and
standardized assessment protocol across the basin.
Should pursue the development of a more integrated "ecosystem" health indicator for ecological
assessment, in addition to "recreational" or microbiological assessment.
Recognize the need for a standardized reporting protocol.
Recognize the linkage between beach water quality and progress made on the implementation of
stormwater management controls (urban and rural).
Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement Review
Organizers and Facilitators: Harvey Shear, Environment Canada and Vicki Thomas, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency
Recorder: Christina Forst, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
63
SOLEC 2004 Proceedings
-------
Workshop Overview
The Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement (GLWQA) between Canada and the United States is reviewed
by the two governments every 6 years. The next comprehensive review of the operations and
effectiveness of the Agreement was scheduled to start in the fall of 2004. As part of the review of the
Agreement, the monitoring components and the development and implementation of ecosystem health
indicators will be examined. This workshop discussed the adequacy of present monitoring and indicator
development, and sought advice on improvements that can be made to both aspects of the Agreement.
The output from this workshop will be used as input to the broader review by the governments.
Opportunities
There is an opportunity to use data from SOLEC to assess the "operation and effectiveness" of the
Agreement.
Science based information in the Agreement is 17-28 years old and outdated.
Opportunities to include or update management actions or processes for indicators, monitoring, or
other science based provisions in the Agreement.
Actions to Date
The Binational Executive Committee (BEC) has formed an Agreement Review Scoping Committee,
comprised of staff from U.S. Environmental Protection Agency - Great Lakes National Program Office
and Environment Canada's Great Lakes and Corporate Affairs Branch, tasked with developing an
open, transparent and inclusive review process.
The Committee has developed a draft recommended review process. This will be going out for public
comment soon.
Features of the process to include:
Focus on operation and effectiveness.
Create review groups.
Set of detailed and overarching questions developed.
Emphasis on public involvement.
Review will not rewrite or suggest changes to Agreement, the decision on whether and how to
update Agreement will come later.
Draft GLWQA Review Timeline
Stage 1: Design and Scope of the Review Process: March - September 2004
Stage 2: Stage Two: Review and Analysis: Late 2004 through - August 2005
Stage 3: Development of new Agreement: 2006 - 2007
Key Questions for Discussion:
How can the information for SOLEC be used in the Agreement review?
How can the need for an ongoing set of indicators and appropriate surveillance and monitoring be
included in the Agreement?
What the Current Agreement States?
Annex 1 - Specific Chemical Objectives.
Supplement to Annex 1 - Lake Ecosystem Objectives.
Annex 11 - Surveillance and Monitoring including the call for the development of ecosystem
health indicators.
Annex 11: Some Thoughts on Surveillance and Monitoring
Relevance - some parts no longer relevant (e.g. GLISP); narrow focus on water quality.
Clarity of Purpose - clear, but inclusion of surveillance and monitoring from other annexes will make it
clearer; narrow focus on water quality.
Science - does not reflect current science; ecosystem approach not reflected.
Consistency - not all applicable laws and policies are reflected (e.g. habitat protection and non-
indigenous species).
64
SOLEC 2004 Proceedings
-------
Possible Approach
Add a preamble on general principles for surveillance and monitoring.
Change water quality to environmental quality.
Combine monitoring and surveillance requirements from Annexes 2, 3, 12, 13, 14, 15 and 16.
Include a commitment to joint planning/co-ordination.
Commitment to an assessment of the state of, and trends in, health of biological communities
including people, and an assessment of state and trends in habitat.
Commitment to establish and maintain a list of indicators (including lake trout and Diporeia for Lake
Superior) for use in reporting on the state of the Lakes.
Commitment to meet biennially starting in 2008 to report on the state of the Lakes, and to update the
indicator list.
Establishment under the Parties of a binational surveillance and monitoring work group to coordinate
surveillance and monitoring.
Comments
Repetition and outdated science in the current Agreement.
Need a rationale for monitoring and surveillance in the scope of what SOLEC is producing.
Agreement needs to focus on habitat, non-native species, and not just water quality issues.
Ecosystem approach is not reflected in the Agreement. The GLWQA is based on a physical
watershed and then it is divided into political entities. The watershed concept needs to be engrained
in the Agreement so that indicators do not get compromised by political divisions.
Need a call for ecosystem objectives versus lake by lake objectives.
Temperature and impacts on fish populations needs to be included.
Need a way for the states to be held accountable for actions. States have different priorities which
are not always environmental.
SOLEC is not embedded in the Agreement. SOLEC has scientific information that needs to be
considered when the Parties review the Agreement. SOLEC was established to assess how well the
Parties were doing in reaching the goals of the GLWQA.
Does the Agreement need to be revised? Some argue that revisions are not required.
The Agreement needs to have an explicit recognition of a declaration of principles similar to those
expressed in the Ecological Footprint presentation. Need to include ethics in the Agreement.
Need to exclude numeric values in the revised Agreement so that it is not dated.
Agreement requires numbers which serve as guidelines.
Agreement needs to be flexible and less specific.
A definition of 'sustainability' needs to be agreed upon and then defined in the Agreement.
Monitoring needs to be better defined.
Need to tie information together better in the revised Agreement, i.e. surface water and groundwater
need to be discussed together.
Provincial/State and municipal governments need to be included in this review.
Need to tie scientific data with budgeting information.
The Executive Order may engage higher level officials in the GLWQA review.
There is much monitoring around the Great Lakes that support the Agreement however, there is so
much data that it needs to be simplified and better defined so that everything is reported under one
agreement, that being the GLWQA. This process will assist in engaging provinces, states, etc.
Agreement needs to include economic indicators (Resource Utilization indicators).
Some of the reductions listed in the Agreement are being achieved, however other threats need to be
included, i.e. biodiversity, land use, habitat protection, etc.
Endpoints are needed.
Issues around the science, policy and emotion and how they are connected.
Science tells us the information, policy determines what to do with the information, and/or decision
making but the emotion comes from the public. Messages need to be better communicated to the
public as policy makers listen to the reaction/emotion of the public.
Role is to provide the best scientific information available.
65
SOLEC 2004 Proceedings
-------
Communicating this information to assist with policy and decision making requires some work. For
example, indicators/indicator bundle assessments are "MIXED".
Need to review the formal documents from the 1980 review of the GLWQA.
Results from the Science Advisory Board meeting in February 2004 regarding the GLWQA need to
be considered.
The current Agreement is treaty-like in nature. The Agreement needs to be changed in order to
include local level understanding, including Traditional Ecological Knowledge.
Water quantity should be included as a habitat/ecosystem issue which can be regulated through the
Annex. The Fishery Objectives can be referenced within the Agreement as everything does not need
to be included in one document.
The information included in the Agreement cannot conflict with the Boundary Waters Treaty.
Human Health in the Great Lakes
Organizers: Adele lannantuono, Health Canada and Heraline Hicks, Agency for Toxic Substances and
Disease Registry
Recorder: Elizabeth Murphy, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Presentations
Overview of ATSDR's Great Lakes Human Health Effects Research - Heraline Hicks, Agency for
Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
Public Health Implications of Hazardous Substances in the 26 U.S. Great Lakes Areas of Concern -
Annette E. Ashizawa, Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
Population Health Implications of Climate Change in the Great Lakes - St. Lawrence Region - Dieter
Riedel, Health Canada
Polybrominated Diphenyl Ethers Flame Retardants: An Emerging Persistent Organic Pollutant - John
Jake Ryan, Health Canada
Great Lakes Public Health Network: An Overview - Adele lannantuono, Health Canada
Overview of Great Lakes Human Health Network- Elizabeth Murphy, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency
Workshop Overview
Current research and networking efforts were presented and discussed by representatives of the Agency
for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR), Great Lakes Human Health Effects Research
Program and Health Canada. ATSDR is characterizing exposure to persistent toxic substances and
investigating the potential for adverse health outcomes from that exposure via fish consumption in
vulnerable populations. Health Canada presented information on the development of its public health
network. The Great Lakes Human Health Network discussed the future directions of calls and actions,
membership expansion and recent efforts in the organization of members.
Current Human Health Research Findings
A Great Lakes Health Effects Program (GLHEP) no longer exists in Canada.
There are several outreach programs in existence to educate the public regarding contaminants of
concern, i.e. cooking classes, public health fairs, etc.
Even with lower pollution levels, ATSDR is still seeing many of the same health outcomes that were
observed in the epidemiological studies from the early 1980s.
Associations between Areas of Concern (AOCs) were difficult to attain because the specifics of each
AOC were not teased out in the report, but rather a general overview was provided.
Emerging Issues in the Great Lakes Basin
Direct or indirect effects of global warming and climate variability, e.g. extreme weather and
ecosystem shifts.
A warmer, more variable and more extreme climate would change regional and local environments
and resources, on which community health and well-being depend.
66
SOLEC 2004 Proceedings
-------
Location will determine the types of environmental and health risks in different regions and
communities.
Effects will depend on extent and speed of changes, and on the extent of community coping capacity.
Need to look at population demographics, mobility, obesity, disabilities, social capital, etc and then
look at how climate change affects people, especially those that are vulnerable.
Need to look at the predictability of weather and mitigation actions to determine the health
implications for those who are vulnerable, i.e. in severe heat/cold conditions, older and/or less
fortunate individuals.
Other environmental issues to consider are: an increase in lightening (increase in droughts/fires),
increase in UV radiation (cancer rates, plant and fungal composition changes), and increases in
insect, tick and rodent borne diseases (climate changes forests and woodlands; diseases and vectors
shift northwards).
Climate change vulnerability assessments, and adaptation and mitigation planning are necessary.
Side effect of mitigation planning include: biofuels and byproducts, tight buildings, carbon storage.
Health implications exist for some of the greenhouse gas mitigation technologies.
Poly brominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs) are a global occurring issue.
Different classes of PBDEs exist however; the focus is on the "penta" class of PBDEs since they are
the most diffused and significant to environmental issues.
PBDE flame retardants make increase safety with respect to fire, however, the bioaccumulation of
these substances cause endocrine disruption through thyroid and estrogenic effects,
neurodevelopmental effects in rodents, etc.
Concentrations of PBDEs appear to be increasing contrary to most other Persistent Organic
Pollutants (POPs).
PBDE levels in Lake trout and herring gull eggs have increased since the 1980s.
Traditionally for POPs/PBDEs, the major vector for human exposure is food consumption; however
other unidentified sources are probable.
From the analyses of more than 100 commercial foods, PBDEs are present in most animal based
foods.
PBDE levels in individual Canadian human milk show increases in median values for 1992 from about
3 ug/kg (ppb) milk fat to more than 25 ug/kg (ppb) in 2002, i.e. a factor of 10.
Present human exposure world - wide to PBDEs ("penta" class) is highest in North America with
lesser amounts in Europe and Asia.
Translating Science into Service - The Great Lakes Human Health Network (GLHHN)
The Binational Executive Committee (BEC) in 2001 recognized that a mechanism to improve
environmental health communication tied to Great Lake waters was needed. It was recommended
that a Binational Great Lakes Human Health Network be formed.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Health Canada, ATSDR and several States and Tribes
developed a charter for the Network which was approved by the BEC in 2002.
U.S. and Canada each developed domestic Networks, to be merged at a later date.
The GLHHN will address health issues related to the ecosystem of the Great Lakes basin, which
include: drinking water, recreational water quality, fish consumption, or other health issues identified
by the Lakewide Management Plans (LaMPs) and Remedial Action Plans (RAPs). While air and
water are issues of concern, many of these problems can not be limited to the basin.
Currently, First Nations are not involved in the planning of Health Canada's Great Lakes Public
Health Network. Health Canada is coordinating the formation of the Public Health Network and
membership issues are being addressed by the network's steering committee. There is Tribal
representation on the U.S. Great Lakes Human Health Network.
Neither of the networks can currently offer funding. However, there is hope that after the two
networks are combined to form a binational network, funding needs could be identified and elevated
to respective management.
The Canadian Great Lakes Public Health Network was not involved in the drafting and review of the
Great Lakes indicators because it is still in the preliminary stages of planning. Both the Public Health
Network and the Human Health Network will be relied upon for future SOLEC work and reports.
67
SOLEC 2004 Proceedings
-------
Monitoring Coordination and Information Management
Organizers: Mark Burrows, International Joint Commission and Melanie Neilson, Environment Canada
Recorder: Elizabeth Hinchey Malloy, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Presentations
EEC Cooperative Monitoring and Inventory - Melanie Neilson, Environment Canada
Great Lakes Observing System (GLOS) - Roger Gauthier, Great Lakes Commission
Canada - Ontario Agreement (COA) Annex 4 - Ian Parrish, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources
and Brad Hill, Environment Canada
Addressing Compatibility Issues with Existing Provincial Systems Such as Land Information Ontario
(LIO) Under the COA - Mike Robertson, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources
GLENDA, Great Lakes Environmental Database System - Ken Klewin, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency
How Do We Put It All Together? Integrating Information Management Systems - Ian Gillespie,
Environment Canada
Workshop Overview
Monitoring and reporting on the integrity of the Great Lakes ecosystem requires the involvement of
multiple agencies and other organizations on both sides of the border. This involvement necessitates
binational coordination of monitoring activities and integration of the resultant information. The Binational
Executive Committee (BEC) has launched the Great Lakes Monitoring Inventory on www.binational.net,
and has adopted a basin-wide rotational cycle for cooperative monitoring to address key information
needs identified by the Lakewide Management Plans (LaMPs) and SOLEC. As well, various information
management initiatives (e.g., GLOS, COA Annex 4, GLENDA) are underway in Canada and the United
States to facilitate access and sharing of Great Lakes data.
Goals of the workshop included discussing the status and possible means of integrating the array of
current information management initiatives, highlighting progress that has been made in coordinating
monitoring and reporting, as well as new information management initiatives currently underway in
Canada and the United States. It also provided an excellent forum to discuss the challenges of
integrating information systems to create a "system of systems" to satisfy key information needs identified
by the LaMPs and SOLEC.
BEC Cooperative Monitoring and Inventory
Needed to coordinate monitoring on Great Lakes.
Developed basin-wide inventory (www. binational.net).
Cooperative monitoring approach.
Basin-wide rotational cycle for focusing monitoring efforts.
Inventory
Is not a data repository.
Metadata = only who is doing what and where.
Searchable.
Cooperative Monitoring
LaMPs identify key information needs.
Then steering committee coordinates a proposal and looks for funding or tries to 'piggy back'
additional collection needs on top of current activities.
Establishes data sharing/equipment sharing protocols.
Schedule exists through 2009 (one lake each year).
Benefits.
2003 Lake Ontario
LOADS study (atmospheric deposition.
68
SOLEC 2004 Proceedings
-------
Trace organics for mass balance modellers.
LOLA (lower aquatic food web study) - changes post zebra mussel invasion.
2004 Lake Erie
Inter-basin transport and lake physics.
Zebra mussel density and spatial distribution.
2005-2006 Lake Superior
Toxics in air, precipitation, open lakes (also sediment and fish).
Lower food web monitoring.
Fish contaminants.
Land use change in basin.
Herp/reptile monitoring pilot study.
Tributary screening for toxics.
Questions and Comments
Q: What is the Steering Committee?
A: Cooperative monitoring steering committee (not the same as a LaMP steering committee).
Q: Cross-lake comparisons are ok for some metrics, but what about cross-basins?
A: LOLA is a good example. The same experts are on all panels, but of course the design (number of
stations, etc) will be different due to differences in each lake.
C: All 5 lakes can not be focussed upon at once. LaMP needs are all different, so design needs to
change. Academics are relied upon to help with the design.
Great Lakes Observing System (GLOS)
Monitoring versus observing:
These are confusing terms and are not interchangeable!
They have different client bases.
Monitoring Inventory Database
Target programs for monitoring include ecological monitoring (water, air, biota, sediments and land)
which is not the same as the GLOS.
Database elements = metadata (contact information, program description, parameters, methods,
funding, etc).
Also, links to on-line data references.
Target audiences = resource managers, general public.
Uses Great Lakes indicators to define monitoring needs.
Looking for gaps or overlaps in monitoring.
GLOS is a U.S. initiative with 7 Societal Goals
1. Facilitate safe and effective marine operations.
2. Mitigate effects of natural hazards.
3. Improve prediction of climate variability.
4. Reduce public health risk.
5. Improve national security.
6. Sustain and restore living resources.
7. Preserve and restore healthy ecosystems.
Two Major Components:
1. National system (i.e. National Weather Service, U.S. Geological Survey gauging system, etc)
Technology in existence already.
Federal agency programs.
Satellites, etc
69
SOLEC 2004 Proceedings
-------
2. Regional systems (Caribbean, Great Lakes, Atlantic, Pacific, Hawaii, etc)
Land based inputs.
Regional priorities.
Greater resolution.
More variables.
2004-2005 Major Tasks
Develop business plan.
Develop regional association.
Goals
Meteorologic, hydrologic, hydraulic, chemical and biologic data.
Education is another important component.
Modeling, ecological forecasting, and governance.
Focus on automating and upgrading buoys, more instrumentation, more gauging systems.
Canada - Ontario Agreement (COA) Annex 4
Monitoring and Information Management
Goals
Identify key contracts.
Ensure federal and provincial information management systems are compatible.
Public access to information.
Provide a decision support system for activities impacting the Great Lakes.
Optimize existing information management. Identify gaps in monitoring activities as well as emerging
needs.
Data already exists on the web (CIS) - geospatial and tabular.
Addressing Compatibility Issues with Existing Provincial Systems Such as Land Information
Ontario (LIO) Under the COA
Data
Ontario Road Network
Ontario Parcel Network
Residential Boundaries
Township Improvements
LANDSAT 7
Themes (thematic data)
Nesting sites (deer, etc).
Climate/weather monitoring stations.
Abandoned mines and hazards.
Forest cover.
WRIP - Water Resource Information Project
SOLRIS - Southern Ontario Land Resource Information System
Mapping project of southern Ontario's natural resource.
Ontario Geospatial Data Exchange
Approximately 130 members (agencies) currently.
70
SOLEC 2004 Proceedings
-------
Land Information Ontario (LIO) web site: www.lio.mnr.qov.on.ca
Questions and Comments:
Q: Is there a security threat to have all of this information available to the public?
A: Security is definitely something that is considered. Access will be controlled for certain data layers.
GLENDA - Great Lakes Environmental Database System
Normalized, relational database of over 300 tables.
Purpose and scope: to be a data warehouse for multi-media, cross program data of documented
quality.
Water and atmospheric chemicals, biota, sediment.
Data input. There is a remote database on the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's research
vessel, the Lake Guardian.
Current Status
Lake Michigan mass balance data.
Water Quality monitoring data (1996-2004).
Fish monitoring data (1970-current) (in progress).
Availability
By request to Ken Klewin.
Mass balance data is on the web now.
Next: live database access (in preparation).
No CIS data yet, maybe in future.
Questions and Comments:
Q: What data is on GLENDA?
A: Only Great Lakes National Program Office data.
Q: When will data be on-line?
A: Hopefully within a year.
Q: Is there going to be a link to the scientific Environmental Information Management System (EIMS) web
site at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Office of Research and Development? Will this data
be on GLENDA?
A: Yes, this information will be on this site.
How Do We Put It All Together? Integrating Information Management Systems
Need to get the right information to the right people at the right time.
The goal should be to get the information management people working with the information
technology people to deliver usable data to the non-technical user (goal audience).
The data must meet standards and compliance criteria in order to be put on the Geobase server.
Web map services are going to change how decisions are made.
Discussion
1. What are the most challenging barriers to effective data exchange?
2. How can these challenges be overcome, so that the most from government investments can be
achieved?
3. What should be the priorities?
It is important to capture responses from the users as well.
Within Environment Canada, more than 50% of research community will retire soon, loss of
'corporate knowledge', 'legacy data' and un-entered data. This work must be accessible to next
generation of employees.
71
SOLEC 2004 Proceedings
-------
Metadata must be consistent, compliant and complete. Perhaps some researchers do not want to
provide it without incentives. There is too much institutional and jurisdictional close-mindedness.
There is a misperception that metadata tools are well developed. People want them to be automated.
Expectations are not in line with reality.
The metadata plan must be an essential part of the grant process. Strong incentive for cooperation.
No metadata = no funding.
There must be some better dialogue between information technology and information management
people. This will help make their tasks easier. They must make metadata collection less painful.
Agreed that metadata should be part of the grant award process.
What steps do you take to get data products on-line? A 'how-to' manual may be needed. A 'how-to'
document/manual for project managers is being developed by Ian Gillespie, Environment Canada.
Project managers need education. Data collectors need education to know why metadata is
important.
The differences in legal and political context across the two countries (Canada & U.S.) are perhaps
the reason why Canada is taking the lead on this issue in the Great Lakes, not the U.S.
Legal and policy issues are the big hindrance to this technical sharing, and they are expensive to
overcome.
The governments need to invest in the Binational Executive Committee, the Great Lakes Interagency
Task Force, and the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement.
What should be done with data that does not meet Quality Assurance standards? Check spatial
integrity. Need senior level support for International Organization for Standardization (ISO standards).
Is operating system/software or data collection compatibility still an issue?
Some say 'yes' (spatial scale, etc. still unresolved), some say 'no'.
Quality Assurance (QA) and Quality Control (QC) of data is not good - especially Legacy Act data.
Maybe this is why data is not being exchanged! Government cutbacks are diverting time that used to
be spent on QA/QC.
Need for a clearinghouse for the data; "ask once, used by many" concept would be much
appreciated. Multiple requests for the same data are not appreciated.
Data rescue is needed!
The priority should be to meet more regularly to discuss data exchange issues - more than once
every 2 years. Regional data exchange conferences are important!
Ended session by providing information on the Great Lakes Regional Data Exchange Conference
held at the Detroit Marriot Renaissance Center on October 26-28, 2004. (www.rdx.glc.org).
Recent Advances in Monitoring Science and Index Development
Organizers: Wayne Bond, Environment Canada, Janet Keough, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
and Risa Smith, Environment Canada
Recorders: Wayne Bond, Environment Canada and Karen Rodriguez, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency
Presentations
Current Results from the Great Lakes Coastal Wetlands Consortium - Ric Lawson, Great Lakes
Commission Wetland Consortium
Great Lakes Environmental Indicators: Development of Indicators for the U.S. Great Lakes Coastal
Zone - Gerald Niemi, Center for Water and the Environment, University of Minnesota
CCME Water Quality Index - Scott Painter, Environment Canada
Canadian Biodiversity Index - Wayne Bond on behalf of Risa Smith, Environment Canada
Workshop Overview
This workshop provided an opportunity for managers and practitioners to discuss emerging research
results that will substantially forward ecosystem assessment and state of the environment reporting. The
speakers presented new sampling designs and indicators for coastal ecosystems from the Great Lakes
Wetland Consortium, the Great Lakes Environmental Indicators Program, the Water Quality Index of the
72
SOLEC 2004 Proceedings
-------
Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME), and the Canadian Biodiversity Index,
Framework and Proof of Concept Testing.
Current Results from the Great Lakes Coastal Wetlands Consortium (GLCWC)
The Consortium has been funded by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Great Lakes National
Program Office for a multi-phase effort to develop tools for long term monitoring of wetlands. The
inventory of Canadian and U.S. coastal wetlands has classified sites into 10 hydrogeomorphic classes.
Indicators under evaluation include: snapping turtle as a contaminants indicator, plant Index of Biotic
Integrity and Floristic Quality Index, fish and invertebrate indicators, and the Marsh Monitoring Program
for bird and amphibian indicators. A gradient approach is being taken by sampling wetlands across a
range of disturbance.
Great Lakes Environmental Indicators (GLEI): Development of Indicators for the U.S. Great Lakes
Coastal Zone
Ten academic institutions formed this consortium which was funded by U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency's Science to Affect Results (STAR) program. Research is aimed at developing indicators that
point to causes of impairment. The project classified 762 shoreline segments around tributaries across
the U.S. shoreline, based on watershed stressordata, including data on agriculture, atmospheric
deposition, land cover, human population, point and non-point sources, and soils. Indicators for
contaminants, nearshore diatoms, birds, amphibians, wetland vegetation, fish and invertebrates are being
evaluated. Associated projects include a NASA-funded project on land cover change detection, shoreline
morphology, and submerged aquatic vegetation detection.
Audience questions associated with these presentations included:
How the gradients were developed (from field data or watershed data)?
Will variability/uncertainty be addressed?
How human-induced effects will be separated from natural variation?
How reference conditions will be addressed?
CCME Canadian Water Quality Index (WQI)
This tool was developed and tested over a ten-year period by various provinces and regions across
Canada. It translates the number, frequency and magnitude of exceedances of water quality objectives
by a range of complex water quality parameters into an overall integrated score of water quality fora
monitoring site. The WQI is one of six natural capital indicators for Canada recommended by the national
Round Table on the Environment and the Economy. As a pilot study, the index has been implemented at
the national level for over 300 sites across the country. For stability in the presentation of this index, it is
recommended that a three-year rolling average be used, with a monitoring frequency of 4 to 6 times per
year. A sensitivity analysis of index results for Ontario suggests that approximately 10 parameters be
used in the calculation of the Index in order to enhance the validity of the results. The Sediment Quality
Index is constructed in a similar way, and has been applied to the sediments of Lake Erie and Ontario.
This Index can be computed for an area or for a number of clustered sites.
Outline of the Framework and Proof of Concept Testing: Summary of the Canadian Biodiversity
Index
This unique index is based on the structure of the Water Quality Index and is designed as a
communication tool for senior managers and policy-makers, to help them understand the status of
biodiversity. The goal is to capture complexity in a non-technical communication tool. The National
Roundtable on Environment and Economy recommended this tool for further development. The index
would rate sites as healthy, moderately impaired, impaired, and critically impaired based on a summation
of 3-6 indicators over each of the four theme areas. The framework for the index has been developed,
and proof-of-concept testing of aggregation methods and scoring is underway. A database structure and
a manual for proof of concept testing have been developed.
Workshop Discussion
The four presentations were followed by a facilitated plenary discussion involving the presenters and the
workshop participants. Questions suggested for the plenary discussion in this workshop included:
73
SOLEC 2004 Proceedings
-------
What are the strengths of these programs and which areas need further development?
What are the prospects for implementation in the Great Lakes Region?
How are targets or objectives determined, since both the Water Quality Index (WQI) and the
Canadian Biodiversity Index (CBI), are to be calculated based on the number, frequency and
magnitude by which parameters or individual indicators exceed a target value or guideline?
Who determines the targets, scientists, policy-makers, or politicians?
How long are the targets set for and can they be easily changed in a political context?
Targets/guidelines for water quality parameters (on which the WQI is based) have been set by
scientists through a federal-provincial guidelines development process and protocol under the CCME.
The overall set of water quality guidelines are approved by senior federal-provincial environment
officials. The national guidelines can be studied and modified to reflect site specific conditions.
Targets or guidelines can be set by reference to (1) a baseline such as pre-settlement wetland
conditions; (2) a reference site or reference condition such as a natural or pristine state, or a feasible
modified state reflecting best management practices for conservation.
Guidelines could be set through a political process which takes scientific advice into account as one
input - the art of the feasible.
Targets should be reasonably stable to provide for long-term trends in measurement and reporting.
The framework for the CBI suggests that targets/objectives established for an indicator should be for
at least 10 years.
Water quality guidelines and targets vary by use, being most stringent for drinking water, the
protection of aquatic life, and recreation, and somewhat less stringent for irrigation and livestock
watering. Therefore, the WQI has to be calculated by individual water use.
The WQI is first and foremost a communications tool, designed to enhance awareness and cause
change where needed. Therefore in a local area, site specific guidelines or targets are more likely to
be needed to take the local context into account and identify problem areas most in need of remedial
action. For example, in the Grand River watershed in Ontario, which is intensely agricultural
throughout, the nitrogen guideline was modified by the local Conservation Authority to allow the WQI
to distinguish streams most subject to pollution from municipal sewage, and thus flag the opportunity
for municipal action.
One of the biggest challenges facing Canadian Biodiversity Index (CBI) during proof of concept
testing is the development of targets/guidelines for each of the indicators under the four themes that
comprise the index.
How does one deal with uncertainty and the risk of error or significant variability in the
development and calculation of indicators and indices?
Built in redundancy is one approach to use at the beginning of an investigation. Study the correlation
between the wide range of variables collected and then determine the key patterns and identify the
select, relatively few variables or measures required to explain most of the variation, and use these
for long-term monitoring.
"Lump" observations together to deal with natural fluctuations and identify real long-term trends. For
example, through sensitivity analysis, it has been determined that a three-year running average
provides the most stable, long-term trends for the WQI.
Be conservative. For example, the Framework for the CBI suggests that the indicator with the
"lowest/worst" value should be selected in each case to represent the four themes in the index.
The significant water level fluctuations in the Great Lakes, which have occurred naturally overtime,
were identified as major confounding factor or uncertainty in some of the Great Lakes indicator work.
There is a need to distinguish between natural fluctuations or background levels and human induced
disturbance (which can be influenced by policy). The availability of long-term data sets can greatly
assist with providing this information. For the WQI, as an example, the development of site specific
guidelines or reference points (versus using national level guidelines) can assist in removing natural
background levels from the calculation, and pinpointing water quality problems caused by human
activity.
74
SOLEC 2004 Proceedings
-------
How can basin wide reporting take into account the large scale differences in geography across
the Great Lakes basin?
There is a need to use comparable methodologies across the entire basin (e.g., the WQI
methodology), but adapt it to local circumstances by using site specific guidelines and calculating the
index for the water uses relevant to the local area.
There are vastly different geomorphological conditions across the basin; therefore, one needs to
sample on the basis of the different geomorphological strata.
Biogeographical patterns need to be considered. The herring gull, for example, is a useful indicator
species in the Great Lakes, since its range is basin-wide.
The scalability of indices and indicator methodologies must be considered. For example, the WQI
methodology (and the CBI when fully developed) can be applied at the local watershed scale (e.g.,
one monitoring station), but can also be reported in valid way at the basin-wide or national scale.
Reporting Indicators at a Watershed Level
Organizer: Wendy Leger, Environment Canada
Presentations
Another Approach to Indicators - Wendy Leger, Environment Canada
Pathways of Influence from Tributaries to the Great Lakes - Les Stanfied, Ontario Ministry of Natural
Resources
Existing Great Lakes Indicators that Link to Pathways and Watershed Contribution - Wendy Leger,
Environment Canada and Victoria Pebbles, Great Lakes Commission
Workshops Overview
Watershed-based resource management has been identified by the International Joint Commission and
by federal and provincial levels of governments as a means of ensuring the protection of water resources
for both human and ecological health. This workshop examined the potential for using watersheds as a
basis for understanding the relationship between tributaries and their contribution to the chemical,
physical and biological conditions of the lakes. The initial focus will be to develop Great Lakes indicators
that can be measured at the outlet of the tributaries to determine the contribution of their pathways to the
overall state of the Great Lakes.
The specific charge to the groups was as follows:
Identify the best bet suites of indicators that reflect on the State of the Lakes (e.g. nutrients,
pathogens, heavy metals, etc.)
Discuss the best indicator or composite measure for this suite.
Can the indicator be monitored at the tributary mouth?
Does it reflect an activity or condition happening in the entire watershed?
Does it monitor a physical, biological or chemical pathway?
What does it tell us about the physical, biological or chemical integrity of the Great Lakes?
Does it meet SOLEC criteria of being necessary, sufficient and feasible?
Can it be extrapolated around the Great Lakes, and what is the minimum monitoring requirement
to support that extrapolation?
Identify a measurement unit for the indicator (e.g. parts per million).
Suggest the sampling frequency required (e.g. annual).
Suggest the spatial extent required to adequately monitor the indicator (e.g. all 4th order tributary
outlets).
Provide a reference for any existing collection protocol.
If the indicator is currently being collected, identify the collection agency.
If not, suggest what it would take to collect it.
75
SOLEC 2004 Proceedings
-------
Physical Indicators
Group discussion focused on tributary water flow as an important physical indicator of watershed
characteristics.
It was agreed that a watershed approach is appropriate and measurements of water flow conditions
at tributary outlets can provide a good indication of inland conditions and potential impacts on the
state of the lakes.
Watersheds are a good way of quantifying contributions (logical unit).
Water flow conditions indicate the state of a particular watershed but are also critical for proper
quantification of nutrient, chemical, and sediment loading to the Great Lakes.
In general, the group members thought that existing Great Lakes indicators were limited in regards to
the physical contributions of tributaries to the lake.
Possible Flow Indicators
As a means of measuring the conditions and contributions of individual watersheds, it is felt that the
water flow regime is the most useful way of describing and evaluating hydrological conditions in a
broad sense.
One particular measure of the flow regime is the deviation of flow from the mean.
It may also be possible to evaluate the deviation of the flow regime from a natural flow regime;
however, questions remain regarding how to quantify/identify a "natural" flow regime. Some work is
ongoing with Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources to assess this question.
Of particular interest for general measurement of a flow regime are minimal flow requirements over a
specific period of time.
Low flow conditions can be assessed by comparing 7Q10 to a reference state (the reference would
need to be determined) Note: 7Q10 is the lowest 7 days of measured flow you have over a 10 year
period.
Base Flow Index (BFI) is another measure of the watershed baseflow conditions. This indicator is
new to the Great Lakes indicator suite, (Indicator* 7102) and attempts to measure deviations from
normal conditions.
The flashiness of flow response to precipitation events can be an indication of changes in a
watershed conditions (i.e. increased imperviousness); however, watersheds will naturally vary in their
response based purely on geologic factors so an appropriate reference state is required.
Related Indicators
Certain features of a watershed will provide useful information on the condition of the tributary itself.
The degree of regulation is a useful characteristic of a watershed that affects flow response. It may be
helpful to have a Great Lakes indicator for this condition.
Consumptive water use vs. return flow for individual watersheds.
Land uses (urban, agricultural, etc.) and their related densities.
Challenges
Most of the flow indicators discussed above need to be assessed relative to a reference state as
further work is required to define such a condition for each watershed.
The baseline condition of a watershed is a function of its physical characteristics (e.g. geology,
topography, etc.). Therefore not all watersheds should be expected to respond in a similar fashion.
It is complicated to take flow measurements directly at the river/lake interface due to mixing effects
and therefore, you need to measure somewhere just upstream of this interface.
While tributary flow conditions are well monitored on both the Canadian and U.S. sides of the Great
Lakes under existing programs, the main challenge to effective application would be due to staffing
limitations with regards to data synthesis and analysis.
While tributary flow contributions to the Great Lakes are generally well monitored, there are small,
unmonitored tributaries that drain directly into the lakes that are not monitored. Individually, these
tributaries are not important but the cumulative contribution needs to be evaluated.
Even if these small contributing watersheds cannot be monitored, it may be possible to extrapolate
their contributions from adjacent larger tributaries where monitoring does take place.
76
SOLEC 2004 Proceedings
-------
Brainstorming of Biological Indicators
Benthic communities - include mussels
Stationary/summary of upstream impacts.
Absence of benthic organisms would indicate high/low chemical, relationship between chemical
to biota already established.
Migrating Fish - type and numbers.
Rainbow trout.
Migratory birds - riparian breeders/those that utilize corridors.
Reproductive success.
Algae.
Food web structure/complexity or integrity - energy flow/connectivity.
Some measure of strength of structure.
Primary production structure - i.e. ratio of phytoplankton to emergent, emergent to submergent, algae
to plants, etc.
Fish Health - D(eformities) E(roded fins) L(esions) T(umours).
Exotics - presence/absence of exotics established.
Distance of upstream distribution of exotics.
Terrestrial predators, example: Muskrats.
Amphibians.
Group Identification of the Best Indicators from the List (in order)
Benthic communities
Migrating Fish
Amphibians
Discussion of Benthic Indicator
A benthic indicator may not measure the direct contribution to the lakes per se, but it is an integrator of
many other indicators, such as water quality, sediments, contaminants, and potentially physical impacts.
For example, you can use clams as an indicator for contaminants, worms as an indicator for nutrients. As
well, the biomass of benthics provides a food source for fish and could be an indicator of site suitability for
fish.
This indicator can be monitored at tributary mouths, reflects activities/conditions in the watershed, and
responds to components of all three pathways (hydrologic, sediment and chemical) and a measure of the
biological pathways. Components of the benthic community provide opportunities to evaluate the
pathways individually, that is, a coarse or flagging process that could be used to identify where more
rigorous sampling for disruptions in the chemical, physical and biological pathways should occur. For
example, an absence of mayflies might indicate nutrient loading. Finally, they provide an opportunity to
link to more rigorous sampling; bivalves provide a good source for assessing contaminants.
According to SOLEC criteria, this indicator is not necessary on a lake scale (e.g. Lake Ontario) but it is
necessary on a geospatial scale because of local distribution. It is not sufficient as it is an integrator but it
is feasible as there is a lot of work going on at federal, provincial/state, and Conservation Authority levels.
This feasibility gives the opportunity to build on existing work and to help guide site selection for
monitoring. This indicator could also be extrapolated based on ecozone and habitat type (e.g. marsh,
stream).
Measurement unit for this indicator could be one of several methods such as IBI (Index of Biological
Integrity), Hilsenhoff and % EPT (Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, and Trichoptera) for richness or
abundance. Hilsenhoff or % EPT would be preferred over IBI as there is consensus needed on the
method of IBI which could become problematic. Whatever metrics are selected for reporting it is
recommended that they be evaluated relative to the expected condition for that ecozone. This method
could be done initially at the order level, due to its ease of monitoring; however, more detailed information
could be gained by eventually monitoring at the family or species level, which is more time/cost intensive.
77
SOLEC 2004 Proceedings
-------
It is suggested that this indicator be sampled on a yearly basis (minimum) with the spatial extent to
include populated and unpopulated areas in close proximity to tributary mouths.
Data that is currently being collected by U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and OSAP are
comparable for 1st level assessment. Also, sampling by Environment Canada, Ontario Ministry of Natural
Resources and Ontario Ministry of the Environment are also comparable at more detailed sampling.
Conservation Authorities are also collecting data.
Discussion of Fish Indicator
During the initial discussion of the fish indicator, it was suggested that the indicator be measured as the
number and types of spawning fish going into tributaries and the number and types of young fish coming
out of the tributaries and into the lakes. The group then agreed that this was probably unrealistic and not
feasible. As such, the group decided that it would be best to measure one or more keystone species that
were:
Ubiquitous for various habitat types.
Were sensitive to disturbances.
Provided a measure of overall contribution offish from one system.
The group suggested that rainbow trout could represent the groundwater based catchments and that lake
sturgeon could provide the surface water catchments. The group acknowledged that other classifications
based on thermal, ecozone and habitat types (e.g. large vs. small rivers, cold vs. warm waters) could also
be used. From this, a hierarchy offish indicators was created in which the easiest to measure would be
the sentinel species, followed by spawners and juveniles. For the sentinel species, absence/presence
would be used as the form of measurement at a frequency of twice a year (once in and once out).
Measurement would be made over the entire basin at the tributary outlets which are 3rd order or larger.
Data is of good coverage around the basin and there are existing protocols for sentinel species for both
Ontario (OMNR) and the U.S. (State agencies), however these protocols differ. The information from
these agencies is compiled by the Great Lakes Commission for sentinel species.
Measurement of spawning fish/juveniles is based on the numbers going in and out of the tributary. For
spawning fish, this would be twice per year, once in and once out, but is species specific and seasonally
driven. Juveniles would only need to be sampled once per year. Data is available for salmonid spawning
fish entering tributaries at some locations where there are fishways, however this data is sporadic.
Electrofishing surveys of wadable streams could be conducted for long resident juveniles but may be
limited due to fiscal constraints. However, biomass data around the Great Lakes could be used as a
surrogate for spawning fish/juvenile numbers.
Spawning fish currently can only be monitored at a very small spatial extent, i.e. only where there are
fishways present. As such, this indicator would not be adequately monitored. Conversely, monitoring of
juveniles needs to be spatially extensive in order to capture all of the juveniles. Ongoing programs could
be used (at least in Canada) to provide a statistical description of the abundance and distribution of
production from tributaries. Effort would be required to compile datasets for both sides of the lakes.
Development of a spawning program would be very time and volunteer intensive, and thus difficult to
implement.
Currently, there are no protocols in place for measuring numbers of spawning fish while protocols for
juveniles exist only for wadable streams and is not necessarily the same between the U.S. and Canada.
Agencies that are currently responsible for this information are State agencies and Ontario Lake units for
spawning fish and provincial and state agencies, along with Conservation Authorities for juveniles.
Discussion of Amphibian Indicator
There was insufficient time in this workshop to complete the review of this indicator.
Structure and Complexity
1. Ecosystem Structure and Complexity Issues:
78
SOLEC 2004 Proceedings
-------
The following were identified as issues that might be taking place up in the watershed that would
influence the structure and complexity of the ecosystem:
Channelized Streams.
Artificial structures (dams, regulation).
Drained wetlands.
No riparian zones.
Natural heritage features (some measure of these, i.e. % of area still covered by wetlands).
Imperviousness (landuse).
Development upstream.
Tile drainage.
2. How can these be addressed?
Channelized stream - look at increase in flow velocity.
Artificial structures - Flow (hydrograph) and temperature.
No riparian zones - temperature, fish species and benthic invertebrate diversity, contaminants,
nutrients, steep banks.
Imperviousness - contaminants in fish, fish species & benthic invertebrate diversity, road salt
(conductivity, chloride).
Sewage - E-coli, pathogens, beach closings.
Quality of stormwater-dissolved solids, quantify quantity of treated water (number of Combined
Sewer Overflows), measuring improvements to water quality (need to standardize according to
the type of storm).
Area of plume at tributaries - remote sensing techniques.
Percentage of area without stormwater treatment plants - What are the effects? How can these
be improved? Look at retrofit measures.
Condition at mouth i.e. vegetation type, land surface type, sediment build up.
3. Need to look at Cause and Effect as part of the "Next Steps"
Causes:
Need to characterize these and identify the cause of problems.
Need to measure them against some type of standard.
Natural Heritage Features (current & historical) - hydrograph that shows how flashy the system is -
use 2 hydrographs, one where heritage features were lost and one where they still exist (system will
be less responsive to a rain event).
Drained wetlands - look at historical records, nitrogen & phosphorus sinks.
Development upstream (Agricultural, Forestry, Urban, Mining) - forestry management, agricultural
practices, areas of forest sustainability.
Percentage tile drainage (subset of Agriculture) - flashiness (hydrograph), water quality measures
(nutrients/contaminants). Step 2: Look at the area where water is tile drained
Barriers - what impact are barriers having on the natural flow?
Stream channelization.
Solutions and Implementation:
Enforcement.
Best Management Practices.
Regulations.
Education.
Stewardship initiatives.
Pollution prevention.
Voluntary participation.
79
SOLEC 2004 Proceedings
-------
Evaluation
4. General Comments:
Flow reversal - hydro dam causing flow reversal in Welland River (not the natural flow). Is there a
clear understanding of what this is doing? How often does this happen (frequency)?
Unmitigated hard surface runoff has higher correlation with tributary indicator to lake.
Hard to say what is causing these issues without knowing the parameters.
If the collection agencies are missing important programs, look at funding, potential volunteer work
Need to select monitoring stations away from any lake effects.
Look at water budgets.
What is the reference condition? Historical perspective.
Are there existing U.S. collection protocols?
Once you have measured indicators at the mouths of tributaries, one method to get at the cause
would be to move the monitoring up the stream to isolate the disturbance.
Status of Great Lakes Islands Conservation and Development of Indicators
Organizer and Facilitator: Karen Vigmostad, Northeast Midwest Institute
Recorder: Christine McConaghy, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Presentations
Islands Collaborative - Daniel Kraus, The Nature Conservancy
Key Islands for Biodiversity Investment - Dave Ewert, The Nature Conservancy
Review of Three Suites of Islands Indicators - Linda Wires, University of Minnesota
Workshop Overview
The 30,000 Great Lakes islands form the world's largest collection of fresh water islands and their
biological diversity is globally significant. In this workshop, efforts to identify priority island areas were
presented including the island assessment and ranking system, conservation targets, and freshwater
island classification system. Participants were asked to assess draft island indicators that will be used to
determine the state of island biodiversity. This workshop was an opportunity to provide feedback and
input into this important conservation effort.
Workshop Highlights
Work achieved by the Islands Collaborative includes:
Building the Great Lakes Islands Database; and
Developing the Freshwater Island Classification System.
The system provides a flexible decision tool to managers that can be used to look at islands at
multiple scales, from individually to collectively.
In year two, the project team will identify threats to island biodiversity on a basin-wide scale, and
specific threats to the priority island areas. Another goal is the publication of an atlas or summary of
Great Lakes island biodiversity. The group will also continue to refine and share the project database
and maps.
Year three will focus on policy communication and outreach, building upon the efforts of years one
and two.
The paper "Key Islands for Biodiversity Investment" was presented. Peer review of the paper is
nearing completion. Further refinements are expected based on the results of field testing in several
of the Great Lakes.
Rankings were based a number of criteria:
Species richness of colonial nesting waterbirds.
Shorebirds, based on the Important Bird Areas program.
Land bird migratory stopover sites.
Native fish species in near shore waters, fish habitat.
80
SOLEC 2004 Proceedings
-------
Threatened and endangered species.
Species and communities of significance, i.e. alvars, dune and swale systems.
High quality island characteristics, i.e. size, condition, global importance.
Aquatic resources associated with islands were considered in the classification in order to capture the
importance of corridors, water quality and water quantity.
In year two, the biodiversity approach and threat analyses will be integrated while considering
opportunities and feasibility.
The island indicator development process was reviewed. This was the first unveiling of these three suites
of island indicators.
1. Extent, Condition, and Conservation Management of Great Lakes Islands
2. Focal Species and Communities Dependent on Great Lakes Islands
3. Near-Island Landscape Composition and Condition
The indicator suites were selected based on a literature review and an examination of other existing
indicator frameworks. The proposed island indicators were then compared to existing Great Lakes
indicators. Three suites were selected and developed without respect to data status or availability. Each
suite incorporates pressure-state-response indicators.
Workshop participants considered the question: "Are the indicators sufficient for conservation of island
biodiversity into perpetuity?" Comments included:
Consider pressure indicators reflecting socioeconomic change (i.e. number of boat slips, new
roads, new airstrips, and other measures of development pressure).
Consult municipalities and smaller organizations to explore opportunities and needs for using the
indicators.
Other areas (i.e. groundwater; usage of septic systems; and local policies; such as conservation
easements, stewardship agreements, privately held islands managed by forest clubs, etc).
Highlights of Management Implications
Classifying thousands of islands in geographic proximity presents a challenge, especially in the Georgian
Bay area. Data show that some snakes disperse on these islands in similar patterns to their dispersal on
land, indicating that groups of islands are of higher conservation value. There could be various ways to
define groups or complexes of islands based on these data.
Another major theme was the need to monitor the changing residential and recreational uses of islands,
and to find indicators of development pressure.
Areas requiring more investment and more data need to be identified. To address these challenges, the
Islands Collaborative is using remote sensing data, working with other programs (i.e. Great Lakes Coastal
Wetland Consortium), and looking to coordinate new data collection where it is most needed. An
advantage of the ranking system is that it can provide a more standardized approach to collecting
inventory data.
Participants suggested that a website and a newsletter would be useful for communicating best practices
and building networks. Contents could include:
An ongoing list of island projects/clearing house of current events.
Laws, policies, and examples of island ordinances.
Researcher websites.
Effective, proven mechanisms to manage islands and abate threats.
At the local level, funding is needed to develop strategies that fit community issues. Some specific needs
mentioned were funding for participation in meetings and round tables, data collection, property
purchases for conservation, support for conservation easement negotiation processes, and connecting to
other initiatives (i.e. LaMPs, Fishery Commissions, and SOLEC).
81
SOLEC 2004 Proceedings
-------
The island collaborative solidified its year-two work plan following this workshop. Also, they are working
to fund a conference of island experts to create science-based guidelines for island managers.
Stormwater Management: New and Emerging Approaches
Organizer: Michael D'Andrea, City of Toronto
Facilitator: Vicky Barren, Waterfront Regeneration Trust
Presentations
Low Impact Development - Anne Guillette, Low Impact Development Center
Optimization of Stormwater/Wastewater Treatment Systems for Wet Weather Flow Control and
Experiences with Low Impact Development- Renante Marante, City of Chicago
Evolution of Natural Channel Design in Ontario - Jack Imhof, Trout Unlimited/Ontario Ministry of
Natural Resources
Developing and Applying Report Card Indicators for Watersheds - Gary Wilkins, Toronto and Region
Conservation Authority
Development of a Master Plan for Stormwater and Combined Sewer Overflow Discharges - William
Snodgrass, City of Toronto
These presentations were followed with a round table discussion on existing and proposed Great Lakes
indicators related to Stormwater Management. The participants considered the following suite of existing
Great Lakes indicators, which relate to tracking progress made on the implementation of Stormwater
management measures and controls to address the impacts of non-point source pollution within the
basin:
Contamination
#111 Phosphorus Concentrations and Loadings
#7061 Nutrient Management Plans
Biotic Communities
#104 Benthos Diversity and Abundance
#8500 Forest Lands - Conservation of Biological Diversity
Aquatic Habitats
#118 Toxic Chemical Concentration in Offshore Waters
#119 Concentrations in Contaminants in Sediment Cores
#7100 Natural Groundwater Quality and Human-Induced Changes
#7101 Groundwater and Land: Use and Intensity
#7102 Base Flow Due to Groundwater Discharge
Land Use - Land Cover
#7002 Land Cover - Land Conversion
#7101 Groundwater and Land: Use and Intensity
#7000 Urban Density
#7006 Brownfield Redevelopment
General conclusions and recommendations captured in the workshop discussions are summarized under
the indicator bundle headings below:
Contamination
General focus should be on contaminant loadings from watersheds.
Chlorides and nitrates should be added to the list of indicators for contaminants.
With respect to Indicator #111 Phosphorus Concentration and Loading:
Indicator should be modified to ensure that both total phosphorus mass loading and concentration
are included as separate indicators.
82
SOLEC 2004 Proceedings
-------
Ensure that this data is being tracked and available e.g. not many municipalities are collecting
this type of data.
Phosphorus Concentration and Loadings is an important indicator.
With respect to Indicator #7061 Nutrient Management Plans:
This indicator should be modified to include Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD) or Biological
Oxygen Demand (BOD) information.
Number of Management Plans implemented and total basin area addressed by these plans
should also be tracked.
Biotic Communities
An Index of Biological Integrity (IBI) or similar indicator should be added to the indicator suite.
Aquatic Habitats
An indicator of structure of channels within each watershed should be added e.g. percentage of
natural channels.
Land Use - Land Cover
The following indicators should be added to suite:
Area covered by stormwater controls: separated to identify the area for which stormwater quantity
(flow) controls are provided and the area for which stormwater quality controls are provided as
well as the resulting change in flow.
Area covered by Low Impact Development methods, "green" infrastructure, or other innovative
approaches.
Other
The following indicator should be added as a "Stormwater Management Indicator": Volume of
Combined Sewer Overflows and Sanitary Sewer Overflows.
Urbanization Effects on Great Lakes Water Quality
Organizer: Doug Alley, International Joint Commission
Facilitator: Jay Unwin, National Council for Air and Stream Improvement, Inc.
Recorder: Kelly Montgomery, International Joint Commission
Presentations
Review of Past International Joint Commission Activities (IJC) - Isobel Heathcote, University of
Guelph
IJC Science Advisory Board (SAB): Current Work - David Stonehouse, Evergreen Foundation
Urban Development in the Great Lakes Basin: Land Use and Sustainable Development Planning in
the United States - Peter Boyer, International Joint Commission for Elizabeth Brabec, Utah State
University
Policies, Laws and Institutions to Address Impacts of Urbanization in Ontario - Marcia Valiante,
University of Guelph
Workshop Overview
Extensive urbanization in the Great Lakes basin is degrading surface and ground water quality and
requires the application of new principles, practices and technologies to address the challenges of urban
land and water management. The challenges include such obstacles as inadequate and/or improperly
sited infrastructure, institutional limitations, and behavioural barriers. Workshop participants discussed
the Great Lakes land use indicators and others, as well as binational policy and program implications of
water quality impacts of urbanization in the basin. An overview of the IJC 2003-05 Priority on the impact
83
SOLEC 2004 Proceedings
-------
of urbanization on Great Lakes water quality as well as recent IJC SAB findings, recommendations,
innovative ideas and new opportunities were presented.
General Discussion and Presentations
It was noted that SOLEC has put societal indicators (i.e. crime rate) on the backburner. These
indicators have indirect implications to urbanization and thus to water quality.
Could use releases from Combined Sewer Overflows (CSOs) as an indicator of urbanization and
develop a state of the infrastructure indicator.
There is a need to develop indicators which tell us something about the human health aspect of
urbanization.
An IJC workshop in 1998 revealed that the limited amount of data being collected that would be
relevant to measuring urbanization, is being held at the local level and not being shared. In the U.S.,
this is often due to 'Home Rule'.
Research still needs to determine if smart growth is really "smart"?
Need to figure out how to measure and quantify the impacts of urbanization.
Need to better evaluate the economics of best management practices, for example, stormwater
ponds and how well they are working.
Need to quantify loadings into the stormwater systems and their overall impact on the lakes.
Need to determine the "best urban form".
A 2003 IJC study, completed by GHK Ltd. in cooperation with Miriam Diamond and Rodney White
involved six cities in Canada and the U.S. The study found that:
During 1990s, population growth in the communities was profound, and they continue to grow.
Not just residential growth, but also industrial and commercial growth. For example, Chicago
urbanized by 25.2% from 1982 to 1997.
Projected and mapped growth to 2031.
Sewage treatment plants and stormwater are two of the major concerns resulting from increasing
urbanization.
Sewage Treatment Plants (STPs) - Despite improvements, STPs are still significant contributors of
Total Suspended Solids (TSS), Phosphorus, Nitrogen, metals, and Pharmaceuticals to receiving
waters and the Great Lakes.
New facilities are needed to accommodate growing populations.
Maintenance and operation of existing STPs and related infrastructure is an on-going and growing
concern, especially as the maintenance of such infrastructure has been deferred for many years.
Stormwater is becoming increasingly problematic. There are two culprits which significantly
contribute to this problem:
1. Increasing impervious cover, i.e. larger buildings and auto habitat. Water quality is significantly
degraded at great than 25% impervious cover.
2. Increasing auto emissions, for example, in Chicago where vehicle distance traveled is up 70%
from 1990 to 1996.
Currently, the IJC's Working Group on Parties Implementation has two projects regarding land use in
development:
Scientific modeling to measure water quality and impacts of different growth scenarios. This project
will work under the notion that the rate of growth cannot be restricted, but where the growth occurs
can be controlled i.e. avoid groundwater recharge areas. Therefore, modeling the impacts and results
of applied Best Manufacturing Practices (BMP) will guide where and what type of development should
be permitted to occur.
An ongoing survey of laws, institutions, policies, programs, etc., that pertain to land use is to be
completed on both the U.S. and Canadian side of the Great Lakes.
The Working Group evaluation of existing land use studies found that many studies are being
undertaken, but few are completed on a binational level. Marcia Valiante, of the University of
Windsor, and Elizabeth Brabec, of Utah State University have been contacted to complete
evaluations of the polices, laws and institutions that influence urbanization.
Preliminary thoughts include:
84
SOLEC 2004 Proceedings
-------
All levels of government have an impact on urbanization and are currently interested in the issue.
(A planning act is currently being reformed at a provincial level).
Governments are not consistent (i.e. planning versus economic incentives).
Federal government has a very important leadership role as it owns a large amount of land.
The role of lending institutions i.e. developers often run into road blocks as lending institutions
want to be sure that their money is in a safe investment. They do not encourage
alternative/innovative types of development, but prefer the "tried and true" formula especially in
the U.S.
Many consider urbanization a local issue, but there are benefits to be gained by having additional
levels of government involved with the issue, particularly in regards to the research and funding
which can be provided. There is recognition that the planning and land use policies of the
federal, provincial/state governments need to be strengthened, but also that each level of
government has a different tool kit to deal with land use. For example, when dealing with
transportation issues, depending on what type of transportation and the type of road (i.e.
highways, streets, etc.), federal, state or municipal government (s) may have the responsibility of
dealing with this issue.
Need to identify the "human drivers" of urbanization and recognize that people have a desire for
low-density housing.
General Discussion
Has research been undertaken to link Great Lakes indictors to other organizations conducting
indicator research work?
When looking at the Great Lakes indicators, is the need to capture broad thinking or specific details
about water quality?
Urban Density - Indicator #7000
Easy to measure and get population data (population/km2) for this indicator. The urban density
indicator is actually difficult to measure accurately, as it is based on Census Metropolitan Area
(CMA). The land within the CMA is often larger than the urban area.
How will this indicator capture situations such as Detroit, which is heavily urbanized but is losing
population?
This indicator does not capture industrialized lands which often lie on the fringes of cities.
Need to define an urban area and this definition needs to be consistent. For example, is an airport
considered urban land?
As the boundaries of urban centres change over time, i.e. cities become amalgamated, the suite of
Great Lakes indicators will need to address these changing boundaries. There may be a need to set
arbitrary boundaries around certain areas and evaluate the density and fluctuation in those specific
area(s).
Difficult to predict in the future.
Consideration of whether or not the "sprawl" word should betaken out of the definition for this
indicator. The word "sprawl" has negative connotations, implies that any development outside of the
urban centre has a negative impact on the environment. Such development, if done appropriately
can have less of an impact on the environment than intensifying the population in an urban centre on
aging infrastructure. Need to include design elements of development. For example, the "sprawl' can
be developed using low impact design elements. It would be helpful to be able to incorporate or
account for the use of these favourable design elements when evaluating this indicator.
Need to consider how "green" development can be factored into the indicator. For example, when
new greenfield development occurs, state of the art infrastructure and best management practices will
be adopted, as compared to the intensification of existing urban areas which relies on aging
infrastructure and no stormwater management practices.
Is there an indicator for patterns of distribution? Is it known which type of development has less of a
negative impact on environmental quality, specifically water quality? Is more intensification, i.e. a
megalopolis, been developed according to best management practices?
This indicator includes commercial and industrial areas which are not zoned to permit residential
areas which could skew the results.
85
SOLEC 2004 Proceedings
-------
Need to specify what scale to assess this indicator? For example, 85% of Ontario is Crown Land, but
this is not obvious in the Greater Toronto Area.
Brownfield Redevelopment - Indicator #7006
Ownership of Brownfields needs to be changed in terms of liability. Previously in Ontario, if a
developer purchased a Brownfield, the developer became responsible for cleanup of any
contamination on site. The province and municipalities are recognizing their roles in this process.
Redevelopment within Toronto's boundaries is occurring; while brownfield redevelopment outside of
Toronto is still difficult.
Ground Surface Hardening - Indicator #7054
A revised description is needed.
Studies and research has shown that more than 25% of ground surface hardening is a result of the
degradation of the environment. Therefore, this is a good indicator as there is a clear linkage to water
quality.
This indicator does capture residential and industrial use.
It is a difficult indicator to measure. It was noted that air photo and satellite technology is making this
measurement easier. Some information could be provided by satellite sampling at high resolutions
and then extrapolating this information.
Indicator does not capture whether or not best management practices have been utilized (i.e. if
grease and oil traps or porous pavements have been installed in parking lots or whether storm water
management ponds have been constructed). It makes an assumption that nothing is being done.
People can relate well to this indicator as it is easy to visualize what this indicator represents.
Must provide the scale at which one is measuring the ground hardening percentage i.e. watershed,
sub-watershed level, etc.
Vehicle Use - Indicator #7064
This indicator measures how much time (distance) people are traveling in their car and/or the amount
of fuel consumed.
Amount of vehicle miles traveled, i.e. data on distance commuted to work. The measurement of this
distance can be difficult to determine as the stop and start boundaries are hard to set. As many
people are commuting greater distances and people are commuting between suburb to suburb for
work purposes, it is no longer a set route from the suburbs into the city for work.
It was suggested that travel data may be available though the Ontario Ministry of Transportation
(MTO) and some municipalities. The MTO collects information on road uses, time of day usage, etc,
but the data needs to be analyzed.
This indicator has no way to incorporate whether or not vehicles are being used by one, two, or more
passengers.
Suggested monitoring the volume of road salt used (corrected for climate variability) as an additional
indicator.
86
SOLEC 2004 Proceedings
-------
9. Conference Keynote Address
Mayor David Miller, City of Toronto
Good evening.
I am delighted to be your keynote speaker here, at the 6th biennial SOLEC conference.
I recognize some friendly and familiar faces in the audience - it's wonderful to see you all here in the
same room.
Let me say what a wonderful opportunity I think it is to attend a conference of engineers and scientists,
policy makers and decision makers, all three orders of government - municipal, state, provincial and
federal and non-governmental agencies - and know that everyone here is concerned with the health and
future of the largest freshwater system in the world.
As I read your agenda, I was truly impressed by the depth of science and expertise attending over the
next two days.
As the people in this room know better than anyone else, cleaning up the Great Lakes is not a small job.
Decades of neglect and environmental abuse have taken a toll on the Great Lakes. The environmental
strain can't be reversed quickly. Or easily. Or cheaply.
Our task - to restore and improve the Great Lakes - is a collective challenge. But those successes we
have had over the past 30 years have resulted, and will continue to result, in cleaner Great Lakes for
future generations.
It is clear that it is only by working together and combining resources and expertise that we will continue
to make progress.
I understand that this is the first year that municipalities have played a key role in the State of the Lakes
Ecosystem Conference. That is a most important breakthrough, and one that I take a very personal
interest in.
Since becoming Mayor of Toronto, I have been working with other municipalities on a New Deal for cities
with the governments of Ontario and Canada. A cornerstone of the New Deal is "a seat at the table" on
issues important to Toronto.
By that I mean that the City government must be at the same table with the governments of Ontario and
Canada to provide the City's perspective, experience, and to articulate our needs. It is only through a seat
at the table for municipalities that we can ensure that the policies and programs developed by the other
orders of government can attain the desired results at the municipal level.
I see the "seat at the table" campaign as completely linked to the Great Lakes Cities Initiative.
This innovative initiative was started by Mayor Richard Daley of Chicago to provide a forum for municipal
leaders in the Great Lakes basin to learn from each other and to speak with a collective voice to the U.S.
and Canadian Federal, State and Provincial governments.
The Initiative has been in existence for less than two years but it has achieved a tremendous amount. It
has focused the municipal interests and role in the Great Lakes and ensured that the municipal voice is
heard in the right forums. It has also successfully lobbied the U.S. government for significant new funding
dedicated to Great Lakes clean-up.
87
SOLEC 2004 Proceedings
-------
The Great Lakes Cities Initiative has captured the attention of the other orders of government and clearly
sent the message that municipalities need to be at the table, identifying problems, collecting the evidence
and data, and determining solutions.
It is also a means for mayors to talk to each other, learn from each other and share best practices.
I value this opportunity to develop relationships with the other Great Lakes mayors in Canada and in the
U.S.
As result of this collaboration the mayors in the Great Lakes Cities Initiative have identified six key
priorities for municipalities:
Storm Water Run-off and Sewer Overflows
Invasive Species
Waterfront Revitalization
Beaches
Contaminated Sediment and
Water Management
I have only recently had the honour of becoming the Canadian Co-chair of the Great Lakes Cities
Initiative and look forward to continuing the work that Mayor Daley and a dedicated group of mayors
started on these key issues.
And let me take this opportunity to thank the many mayors who have been involved in the Great Lakes
Cities Initiative from its inception.
In particular, Mayor Tim Rigby of St. Catherine's has been instrumental in providing leadership for the
Canadian cities and I look forward to working with Tim on the Steering Committee. Mayor Terry Geddes
of Collingwood has been a very active participant bringing his energy and enthusiasm to the Initiative.
Thank you to you, and to all the other mayors that have been involved.
When I speak of partnerships in the Great Lakes, the Government of Canada is key. The Canadian
Federal Great Lakes Program is itself a partnership of eight federal departments and agencies led by
Environment Canada.
I was pleased, as I am sure you were, to hear in the Throne Speech yesterday that the Government of
Canada is committing to bring forward the next generation of programs to protect and preserve the Great
Lakes and St. Lawrence. This is the opportunity for the Canadian government to involve municipalities in
the design of these programs from their inception. And I will be working with other mayors to ensure the
federal government knows we want to be involved.
Through the Canada - U.S. Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement, the Government of Canada leads
restoration efforts through the provision of technical expertise, policy and operational guidelines.
Funding provided through the Great Lakes Sustainability fund for projects in the Toronto area such as fish
barrier mitigation, stream naturalization, installation of habitat structures, involvement in municipal
stormwater management and wastewater treatment projects and the Remedial Action Plans are
demonstrations of municipal federal collaboration and are just a few of the initiatives of the Canadian
government.
Now I would like to demonstrate why it is so important that municipalities are involved in the Great Lakes.
Municipalities are on the front lines of the Great Lakes. It is critical that provincial and state governments
not only recognize that cities are key to the implementation and success of restoration efforts but that the
public's major interaction with the Great Lakes is through municipal services such as drinking water,
wastewater collection and treatment, beaches for swimming, and waterfront amenities.
SOLEC 2004 Proceedings
-------
When there are problems with the Great Lakes, those problems are identified first at the municipal level. It
is city leaders who are called when the algae blooms appear, when the beaches are closed and when the
drinking water smells off.
Restoration, improvement of water quality and shoreline conditions are essential for the vitality of
municipalities. Waterfront activity can drive local economies by supporting recreational, commercial,
tourism, and cultural activities for residents and visitors and enhance the natural environment by
supporting animal and fish habitat.
And most importantly the Great Lakes provide drinking water. In Ontario, 75% of Ontario residents get
their drinking water from the Great Lakes.
It is also the municipal involvement and commitment that can ensure a positive result for all involved.
To illustrate a few examples:
St. Catharines' Henley Rowing Course and Martindale Pond is a tremendous waterfront development
resulting from municipal initiative and partnerships with the federal and provincial governments and
recreation and sporting interests. St. Catharines continues to improve its waterfront and the Great Lakes
through its stormwater management program and Pollution Control Plan.
Collingwood Harbour and Severn Sound are great successes with beautiful waterfronts that tell the story.
The de-listing of these municipalities as areas of concern is not only encouraging for other municipalities
that have waterfronts listed as areas of concern, including Toronto, but are also testament to the results
that can be achieved with concerted action through the federal remedial action plans, focused resources,
and a commitment to action by all levels of government.
On the other side of the border Erie, Pennsylvania has been a huge success story. Erie has evolved from
a hard working industrial port to clean, green and beautiful waterfront attracting recreation amenities and
increasing season population.
These are a few examples of the restoration of the Great Lakes from the municipal perspective. When
you look into any one of these they are the result of strong relationships.
I would now like to share with you the Toronto perspective. Our City Council and I have made the
environment one of our top priorities. I want Toronto to be a champion of the environment, and I am going
to illustrate how Toronto is setting and achieving environmental goals.
Last year, through a series of budget consultations we held, called "Listening to Toronto", residents
clearly indicated that the environment is a top priority.
To respond, Toronto Council has established the Environmental Roundtable with 18 members of the
public to advise the Mayor and City Council on current and emerging environmental sustainability issues
affecting the City of Toronto and its goals of a clean, green and healthy City. The chair of the
Environmental Roundtable, Deputy Mayor Joe Pantalone, has a deep commitment to the environment
and the City.
Toronto is pursuing several environmental initiatives that have a direct and indirect influence on improving
Great Lakes water quality.
Natural Heritage System
Starting at the policy level - In Ontario, cities are required to pass an Official Plan, a policy document
guiding the physical development of the City. It is a powerful policy instrument, not only because of its
legislative basis, and the fact that it is binding on Council, but also because of the extensive public
process involved to help formulate it.
89
SOLEC 2004 Proceedings
-------
The City also adopts other policies and plans such as the Environmental Plan and the Wet Weather Flow
Management Master Plan to achieve the Official plan's vision. A foundation of the Official Plan is the
Natural Heritage System developed through an ecosystem approach.
The Waterfront
A related priority is the revitalization of the Toronto waterfront. Through a partnership of Toronto, Ontario
and Canada we are working with the Toronto Waterfront Revitalization Corporation to create waterfront
parks, public spaces, cultural institutions and diverse and sustainable commercial and residential
communities.
If Toronto's waterfront is to achieve the vision, it will take renewed energy and commitment from all the
partners involved.
Making Connections
The Wet Weather Flow Management Master Plan addresses the problems of stormwater picking up
contaminants and polluting watercourses and shorelines and it addresses overflows from the City's
combined sewer system during severe weather.
The watershed based plan uses a hierarchical approach to manage wet weather flows: beginning with "at
source controls" where the rainwater falls - followed by "conveyance system measures" as the flow
moves through the sewer network - and finally "end of pipe facilities" before the flow enters our rivers or
lake.
The plan takes a system approach to managing wet weather flow. The goal is to achieve, in a timely and
sustainable manner, measurable improvement in ecosystem health of the watersheds, and to reduce and
ultimately eliminate the adverse effects of wet weather flow on the built and natural environments.
The approach taken by our Plan is a significant cultural shift in engineering philosophy and practice. We
haven't abandoned "engineering", but we have learned the value of harnessing nature's own engineering
systems.
Toronto has also adopted a number of new by-laws that are important steps to making our environmental
goals a reality.
Posters for the Sewer Use Bylaw and Pesticide Bylaw
The new Sewer Use By-law passed in 2000 makes Toronto the first Canadian municipality to have
passed a by-law with pollution prevention requirements. It has stringent concentration limits for pollutants
and requires any industry discharging such pollutants in any amount to prepare pollution prevention plans
which have to be updated every two years. It also prohibits the discharge of swimming pool water into our
ravines. This by-law has won a number of awards including the 2000 MOE Toronto and Region Remedial
Action Plan Award of Excellence.
Trees
We all know how important trees are to the urban environment, and how trees mitigate airborne pollution
of the Great Lakes. Last week Toronto Council approved the Private Tree By-law to protect trees over 30
centimeters to complement the City Street Tree By-law. These are important steps to reversing the
decline of the City's tree canopy.
The new Pesticide By-law restricts the use of pesticides for cosmetic purposes to reduce contamination of
storm water.
Water Efficiency Plan
We are also looking at doing things differently. Our Water Efficiency Plan is aimed a deferring the cost of
infrastructure expansion to support growth by targeting reductions in wastewater and water treatment
flows. The plan implementation is $74 million about 1/3 of the equivalent infrastructure cost.
90
SOLEC 2004 Proceedings
-------
Salt Truck and Stream
Our Road Salt Management Plan to reduce salt in storm and snow-melt run-off will change salt storage
and minimize use of road salt through innovative spreading and controlled applications.
While municipalities are doing what they can, we do look to the Federal and Provincial governments to
also take a leadership role in the Great Lakes basin on source water protection, nutrient enrichment and
ecosystem imbalance and mitigating the impact of urbanization.
In order to make progress we need to make sure that implementation by municipalities is provided the
necessary funding to meet the commitments and as implementers, municipalities must be engaged in
negotiation of agreements - again a seat at the table.
In addition I would ask that at this SOLEC you ask yourself and your colleagues the question - is the
science meeting the policy? Is the monitoring data being used to the fullest advantage and value to inform
the public, policy and decision making, to assess the effectiveness of existing policies and to determine if
new policies and legislation is necessary so the public understands they are our ally?
We know how many demands there are on scarce dollars in every government. That is why it is
imperative that we work together and work wisely to ensure that those dollars are well spent on
implementable solutions directed at achieving the greatest benefit to the Great Lakes.
Thank you for the opportunity to speak to you this evening. I look forward to our work on the Great Lakes
and I wish you a good conference.
91
SOLEC 2004 Proceedings
-------
10. SOLEC Success Story Recipients
SOLEC 2004 Success Story recipients are examples of work that exemplify a strong commitment to
improving the environment within the Great Lakes basin. The recipients have demonstrated all or most of
the following criteria:
Showed improvement in the "integrity" of the Great Lakes or local ecosystem
Forged linkages among economy, environment, and community
Created a "win-win" situation
Formed strong partnerships
Established sustainability as a goal
Fostered broad stakeholder involvement
Demonstrated adequate monitoring of effectiveness
Each recipient received a SOLEC Success Story recognition plaque signed by the U.S. and Canadian
Consuls General. A special thank you is extended to Phil Chadwick, a talented artist, whose painting
adorned the plaque. To see more of Phil's paintings, visit www.philipchadwick.homestead.com.
The SOLEC 2004 Success Story recipients are:
DTE Energy Monroe Power Plant Lake Sturgeon Habitat and Education Project
Lake sturgeon are an important yet threatened Great Lakes fish species whose declining population
numbers are a significant cause of concern. Over the past several years, DTE Energy has demonstrated
considerable commitment to the rehabilitation of lake sturgeon in the waterways connecting lakes Huron
and Erie. From 1997-2000, DTE Energy provided funding for several graduate students to research lake
sturgeon movement, patterns and spawning habitat in the Detroit and St. Clair rivers. These studies
provided the basis for the design and location of a multi-partner initiative, called the "Sturgeon Habitat and
Education Project," implemented earlier this year. The project entailed depositing three artificial spawning
"reefs" into the Detroit River. Hopefully, sturgeon will utilize these reefs in their upcoming mating season,
spring 2005. As one of the key partners, DTE Energy committed money, materials and logistical support
to this effort. Moreover, the Monroe Power Plant provided one of the materials used as a reef: coal
cinders (or bottom ash), a byproduct of the coal combustion process used in electrical generation. DTE
Energy has also supported governmental and non-governmental stakeholders in monitoring the reefs,
and in outreach programs including the distribution of lake sturgeon brochures and the development of
educational exhibits. DTE Energy remains a committed partner in this effort, and the Monroe Power Plant
stands ready to contribute future "reef material for this important Great Lakes species.
The Junction Creek Stewardship Committee
Junction Creek is part of the Spanish River watershed in Sudbury, Ontario. In response to detrimental
environmental effects that were degrading the watershed, including urban discharge and the effects of
over 100 years of mining in the Sudbury area, the Junction Creek Stewardship Committee was formed in
1999. It is an independent body comprised of concerned citizens, individuals from local, regional and
provincial government agencies, academia, businesses, industries and community groups. The
committee meets monthly to coordinate citizen participation in Junction Creek restoration activities related
to reducing soil erosion, re-engineering creek beds and banks, and improving water quality. For example,
between 1999 and 2004, approximately 35,000 kilograms of garbage were removed from the creek and
thousands of trees were planted, resulting in a tremendous improvement in water quality. With the
assistance of the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, six thousand brook trout were reintroduced into
the upper areas of Junction Creek in 2000 and 2001. Research and monitoring are ongoing to determine
the success of this release but current indications show that brook trout are surviving there once again.
The Junction Creek Stewardship Committee continues to work on initiatives for further revegetation of the
watershed as well as including even more members of the community in its endeavours.
92
SOLEC 2004 Proceedings
-------
The Lake Huron Centre for Coastal Conservation of Ontario
The Lake Huron Centre for Coastal Conservation, a non-profit environmental organization, provides
technical expertise and coastal management for beaches, dunes and other ecosystems. Areas of focus
include water quality, coastal processes, climate change and biodiversity. Improvements to the Lake
Huron coastal ecosystem were achieved by the completion of a number of coastal stewardship projects
focused on an improved understanding of sand dune coastal processes, the important role of vegetation
and the fragile nature of the dune systems. The Centre has developed several stewardship manuals,
which have provided the needed direction and information to foster behavioral change such as signage
changes, pedestrian re-routing, beach cleaning procedures and vehicular parking adjustments. Specific
examples include a Dune Guidance Manual for Saugeen Shores and a Beach Management Plan for
Friends of Sauble Beach. In all cases, stakeholder involvement and substantial grass roots support from
cottage associations, municipal staff and politicians have been the keys to the success of these initiatives.
Continued monitoring of dune management by community groups and municipal staff will ensure
continued future success and improved dune ecosystems.
Mercury Pollution Prevention Initiative, a joint project by: International Steel Group Burns Harbor, LLC,
Ispat Inland Inc., Indiana Harbor Works, and United States Steel, Gary Works
Since 1998, these three Gary, Indiana steel mills have worked through the Lake Michigan Forum and
cooperated with the Indiana Department of Environmental Management (IDEM) to inventory mercury
uses/sources within these mills and develop a clean sweep/pollution prevention initiative to inventory,
recycle, and substitute mercury at their facilities to the greatest extent practical. The initial plan was
designed to obtain a 33 percent reduction in mercury usage within two years, a further 33 percent
reduction over the next five years, followed by putting a program in place for continued reductions setting
a goal of 90 percent-plus reductions within ten years of the project initialization. To date, of the 4,660
pounds of mercury inventoried at the three mills, 3,751 pounds, (approximately 80%), have been
removed, recycled, or substituted, removing their potential for release into the local and Great Lakes
ecosystem. Just five years into the program, the three companies have jointly surpassed the originally
stated goals and additional opportunities to remove even more mercury are actively being sought. The
initiative is being managed by the individual participating companies, but supports the sustainability goals
of the Lakewide Management Plan for Lake Michigan, the Great Lakes Binational Toxic Strategy, and
Indiana's Mercury Program launched by IDEM.
The Michigan Dunes Alliance
The Michigan Dunes Alliance was formed in 1999 with the overall objective of protecting dune and
aquatic ecosystems on the east shore of Lake Michigan. Over the past three years, the Alliance has
focused on protecting aquatic sites, coastal marshes, dunes and forests along eastern Lake Michigan by
increasing the organizational capacity of nine land trust partners, producing twelve site conservation
plans and expanding the partners' knowledge of these important coastal systems. Land trust networking
has become a valuable part of the Michigan Dunes Alliance. In addition, the Michigan Dune Alliance has
developed The Eastern Lake Michigan Shoreline Plan, which identifies and ranks 42 sites based on total
biodiversity, landscape context, scenic, recreational and value, and conservation value. This allows land
trusts to prioritize land protection and stewardship activities. The current full partners of the Michigan
Dunes Alliance include: Chickaming Open Lands, Grand Traverse Regional Land Conservancy, Land
Conservancy of West Michigan, Leelanau Conservancy, Southwest Michigan Land Conservancy, and
The Nature Conservancy. Advisory partners include: Land Trust Association - Midwest Office, Little
Traverse Conservancy, Michigan Department of Environmental Quality and Tip of the Mitt Watershed
Council.
93
SOLEC 2004 Proceedings
-------
Appendix A - Conference Program
6th Biennial
State of the Lakes Ecosystem
Conference
October 6th - 8th, 2004
Toronto, Ontario
CONFERENCE PROGRAM
A- 1
SOLEC 2004 Proceedings
-------
Greetings from the SOLEC 2004 Conference Co-Chairs
Paul Horvatin and Harvey Shear
Welcome to the 6th Biennial State of the Great Lakes Ecosystem Conference (SOLEC), sponsored by the
Governments of Canada and the United States. Our conferences are designed to be interactive, to
maximize delegate discussion and scientific feedback, and to provide insight into emerging trends.
This year, SOLEC will present a comprehensive assessment on the state of health of the Great Lakes
basin ecosystem based on the assessments provided from 56 indicators. The assessments are now
based on "bundles" of indicators. This new approach is the result of two Peer Reviews held over the past
two years and should help to further refine our reporting format and content.
Based on recommendations from SOLEC attendees in 2002, we are presenting you with the DRAFT
State of the Great Lakes 2005 report, some 10 months ahead of when we have usually released it. This
has meant a lot of extra work for authors and for the SOLEC team, but we hope that this draft aids you in
your deliberations. After listening to all the presentations, we invite you to review this work, and enhance
the findings with your insight and knowledge. We welcome your input to the draft after SOLEC, and
expect to have a final State of the Great Lakes 2005 report available in early 2005.
Following the work presented at SOLEC 2002 on Biological Integrity, we are providing an assessment of
the indicator bundles related to Biological Integrity. The theme of SOLEC 2004 is Physical Integrity, and
most of the Lake and River presentations on the second day of SOLEC will focus on the physical
component of the ecosystem.
An intriguing and though-provoking presentation on the Ecological Footprint of the Great Lakes basin will
kick start the conference and we are looking forward to your response to this way of presenting the Great
Lakes information. You will also find indicator reports on forestry and groundwater, something that was
proposed at the last SOLEC.
Your participation in SOLEC 2004 represents an important contribution to our efforts to meet the goals of
the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement. We look forward to working with you over the next two and a
half days.
Sincerely,
zy^--
Harvey Shear
Co-Chair
Environment Canada
Paul Horvatin
Co-Chair
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Definition of Physical Integrity:
Physical Integrity is the ability to maintain a balanced, integrated, and adaptive system capable
of sustaining all components and interactions (structure and function) in an organized manner.
A-2
SOLEC 2004 Proceedings
-------
EXTRA! EXTRA!
TORONTO HARBOUR BOAT TOUR
On Tuesday, October 5th, 2004, we were pleased to offer SOLEC 2004 delegates a boat tour of
Toronto Harbour including visits to restoration sites and spectacular views of Toronto. We thank
the City of Toronto and the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority for their assistance in
organizing this tour.
JOINT GREAT LAKES CoMMissiON-SOLEC RECEPTION
As has become a SOLEC tradition, on Tuesday evening, October 5th, we held a joint reception
with the Great Lakes Commission, as they concluded their annual general meeting. Thanks to
GLC for providing the liquid refreshments.
DISPLAYS
Be sure to visit Mountbatten Lane and the Baker Room to see the selection of displays related
to Great Lakes issues and programs. Displays can be viewed any time between 7:30 am and
5:30 pm October 6th and 7th, and from 7:30 am to 12:00 pm October 8th.
THANK You TO THE CITY OF TORONTO AND TORONTO AND REGION
CONSERVATION AUTHORITY (TRCA)
A special thank you is extended to the staff from the City of Toronto and the TRCA who have
been so very helpful in planning and delivering SOLEC 2004. Please be sure to have a look at
their displays and materials available for you in our display area.
Ihi TnRnniin
mui lunuiiiu
f~* 'TORONTO AND RFC/ON TV-
Conservation
for The Living City
WE WANT TO HEAR FROM YouTT
Please complete your evaluation form and return it to the registration desk. Your input is
valuable to us - it allows the SOLEC organizers to continually improve the conference and the
products.
A-3
SOLEC 2004 Proceedings
-------
DAY 1: WEDNESDAY OCTOBER 6,2004
7:30 am CONTINENTAL BREAKFAST - Mountbatten Salon
9 am - 12 pm MORNING PLENARY - Churchill Ballroom
9:00 am
9:10 am
9:30 am
9:50 am
10:20 am
10:50 am
11:20 am
11:50 am
12 pm
Native Greetings
Grafton Antone, Elder, Oneida Nation of the Thames
Welcome and Introductions
MC: John Andersen, Great Lakes Program Director, The Nature Conservancy
Pradeep Khare, Regional Director General, Environment Canada - Ontario Region
Joe Pantalone, Deputy Mayor, City of Toronto
Overview of SOLEC 2004
Gary Gulezian, Director, Great Lakes National Program Office, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency
Ecological Footprint and Human Drivers
William E. Rees, Professor and Director, School of Community and Regional Planning, University of
British Columbia
Human Oriented Issues
Lori Boughton, Chief, Office of the Great Lakes, Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Quality
BREAK
Natural Resources and Biological Integrity
Douglas Dodge, CEO, Stream Benders
Coastal Wetlands
Joel Ingram, Wetland Biologist, Environment Canada
Tom Burton, Professor, Departments of Zoology and Fisheries and Wildlife, Michigan State University
Summary and Charge to Participants - John Andersen
LUNCH - Mountbatten Salon
INFORMATIONAL SESSIONS (optional) - both sessions end at 1:50 pm
12:45 pm
1:00 pm
Q & A Session on the Ecological Footprint with William Rees - Churchill Ballroom
Introduction to Indicators - a primer on indicators- Rosetti B Room
Paul Bertram, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
2 - 5 pm AFTERNOON DISCUSSION SESSIONS - Rooms to be Announced
5:00 pm
Contaminants
Biotic Communities (including Invasive Species)
Habitats (including Climate Change)
Coastal Wetlands
Groundwater
Land Use - Land Cover
Human Health
Resource Utilization
Adjourn
RECEPTION & DINNER -Churchill Ballroom
6:00 pm
7:00 pm
Cash Bar Opens - Churchill Court
Dinner
MC: Dale Phenicie, representing the Council of Great Lakes Industries
Success Stories Awarded by:
Roger Marsham, Consul General, Canadian Consulate General in Buffalo
Janice Weiner, representative from the Consul General of the United States of America
Keynote Speaker- Mayor David Miller, City of Toronto
A-4
SOLEC 2004 Proceedings
-------
DAY 2: THURSDAY OCTOBER 7,2004
7:30 am
CONTINENTAL BREAKFAST- Mountbatten Salon
1 im L..-1 2 MI,-"" MORNlNG'FLE'NAIW-^hurWllBillrOom
9:00 am
9:10 am
9:25 am
9:40 am
9:55 am
10:10 am
10:40 am
10:55 am
11:10am
11:25 am
11:40 am
11:55 am
12pm
Welcome and Introductions plus Highlights from Day 1
MC: Chris Goddard, Executive Secretary, Great Lakes Fishery Commission
Ecosystem Status Reports: Lakes and Connecting Channels Presentations
Lake Superior
Lake Michigan
Lake Huron
St. Clair River-Lake
St. Clair-Detroit
River Ecosystem
BREAK
Lake Erie
Lake Erie Fishery
Lake Ontario
Lake Ontario
Fishery
St. Lawrence River
Native Ceremony
Stephen Schlobohm, U.S. Forest Service
Norman Grannemann, U.S. Geological Survey
Janette Anderson, Environment Canada
Ted Briggs, Ontario Ministry of the Environment
Sandra George, Environment Canada
Phil Ryan, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources
Rimi Kalinauskas, Environment Canada
Bruce Morrison, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources
Serge Villeneuve, Environment Canada
Grafton Antone, Oneida Nation of the Thames
LUNCH - Mountbatten Salon
.'.2 -'5..|irto "-AiPT EMNQQtJ'- WORKSHOPS' ^ftoririfto'itf be=anHittyiicrtl
5:00 pm
Lake Superior
Lake Michigan
Lake Huron
Lake Erie
Lake Ontario
Adjourn
7:30 am
DAY 3: FRIDAY OCTOBER 8,2004
CONTINENTAL BREAKFAST- Mountbatten Salon
.'"fr'iuri" .fibftj' MORN IN©' WORKSHOPS ~'Rooriw!to bfe innduhcW
12 pm
Concurrent Workshops
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10
11
The Chemical Integrity of the Great Lakes
Recent Advances in Monitoring Science and Index Development
Monitoring Coordination and Information Management
Impact of Urbanization on Great Lakes Water Quality
Review of the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement (GLWQA)
Stormwater Management - New and Emerging Approaches
Great Lakes Beaches
Reporting Indicators at a Watershed Level
Status of Great Lakes Islands Conservation and Development of Indicators
. Human Health in the Great Lakes
. Climate Change
Adjourn
A-5
SOLEC 2004 Proceedings
-------
Day 1 Highlights
Day 1 of SOLEC 2004 begins with a presentation by Prof. William Rees of the University of British
Columbia. He is one of the originators of the Ecological Footprint analysis. This tool allows us to calculate
the impact that we are having on the planet.
Then we will present assessments of the 56 indicators for which we were able to prepare reports. These
indicators have been arranged into 9 "bundles" and the assessments are based on those bundles. This is
a major component of the draft State of the Great Lakes 2005 report.
Following lunch, there will be an opportunity for attendees to discuss the Ecological Footprint with Prof.
Rees before the afternoon discussion sessions begin. Also, at the same time, Dr. Paul Bertram will
discuss indicators and the process that lead to the development of the Great Lakes suite of indicators.
Come and participate in the Discussion Sessions that begin at 2 pm. The Contaminants, Biotic
Communities (with Invasive Species), Habitats (with Climate Change), Land Use-Land Cover and
Resource Utilization sessions will look at the indicator assessments, the overall bundle assessments
(where applicable) and management implications arising from the indicator information. The following
three sessions will focus more specifically on indicators:
Groundwater - there are four indicators of groundwater quantity and quality. During this session,
hydrogeological issues related to these indicators will be addressed by binational experts and will be
illustrated by recent case studies and monitoring programs from throughout the basin.
Coastal Wetlands - the Great Lakes Coastal Wetlands Consortium will take the opportunity to present
and discuss the progress being made on reporting on the wetlands indicators.
Human Health - in addition to the facilitated discussion topics listed above, this session will include a
presentation by Dr. Donald Cole, Dept. of Public Health Sciences, Faculty of Medicine, University of
Toronto, on a sport-fish eaters mercury study.
SOLEC SUCCESS STORY AWARDS DINNER WITH GUEST SPEAKER
Join us Wednesday evening October 6 for a celebration of the SOLEC 2004 Success Story
Awards in the Churchill Room. A cash bar will be available at 6:00 pm. Dinner will be served at
7:00 pm followed by the Awards presentations.
Congratulations to this year's recipients:
Junction Creek Stewardship Committee - for their citizen participation work in environmental
restoration activities
DTE Energy, Monroe Power Plant - for their work on Lake Sturgeon habitat and education
project
Michigan Dune Alliance - for their work on protection of dune and aquatic ecosystems on the
east shore of Lake Michigan
The Lake Huron Centre for Coastal Conservation - for their work on Dune Ecosystem
Stewardship / Management along the Lake Huron shoreline
ISG-Burns Harbor; Ispat Inland Inc. Indiana Harbor Works; and U.S. Steel Gary Works -
for their work on the Mercury Pollution Prevention Initiative
Don't miss the Success Story displays in Mountbatten Court
Our special guest speaker following the Awards presentations will be
the Honourable David Miller, Mayor of Toronto
A-6
SOLEC 2004 Proceedings
-------
Day 2 Workshops: Focus on Individual Lakes
* Lake Superior: Land Use Change
Changes in land use can precede deleterious changes in water quality, air quality, and the status
offish and wildlife populations and their habitats. This breakout session will discuss the need for
the tracking and monitoring of land use change, appropriate land use indicators for the Lake
Superior basin, discussion of methods, and available data. It will include a panel discussion led
by a group of land use experts including representatives from the U.S. Forest Service, the
Canadian Centre for Remote Sensing, The Nature Conservancy and the Natural Resources
Research Institute.
*- Lake Michigan: Stresses to the Ecosystem
Lake Michigan differs from the coastal areas to the open water. Of the 33 watersheds that feed
the lake, all but 3 are listed for some impairment. While the open water quality is good, the
aquatic food web shows signs of the impairments found in the coastal areas and tributaries. This
session will explore these complex interactions and origins of the stress, plans for year 2005
intensive monitoring and the results of recent Wetland Consortium work on the lake's coastal
wetlands
4> Lake Huron: Intensive Monitoring in 2007
The Lake Huron Binational Partnership will host this breakout session on "Intensive Monitoring in
2007". The session will begin with an overview of the unique resources and places in the Lake
Huron watershed. A kick-off discussion on monitoring and research priorities to pursue in 2007
will follow. This discussion will ultimately help to shape the Partnership's monitoring effort.
Agency professionals, researchers, Lake Huron enthusiasts and others interested in the
protection and management of Lake Huron are encouraged to participate.
* Lake Erie: Linking Land and Lake
Stressors to Lake Erie's natural ecosystem include the impacts of changing land use, shoreline
alteration, nutrient loading, chemical contamination and exotic invasive species. These factors
have direct impacts on habitat quality and food web dynamics. This breakout session will
address these and other stressors, with a particular emphasis on land use and the potentially
detrimental effects of land use change.
f* Lake Ontario
Part 1: Re-evaluating the impairment status of Fisheries (2:00-3:00)
In the first part of this breakout session, discussion will focus on non-native species, which have
severely disrupted Lake Ontario's aquatic foodweb since the LaMP made its initial beneficial use
impairment determination a decade ago. Lake Ontario fishery managers and LaMP staff will
lead the discussion about this and other stressors impacting Lake Ontario's fisheries and
proposed changes to the LaMP's list of beneficial use impairments.
Part 2: Minimizing Impacts of Lake Level Controls on Nearshore Habitats (3:15 - 4:45)
In the second part of this breakout session, discussion will focus on minimizing impacts of lake
level controls on nearshore habitats, including coastal wetlands. The International Lake Ontario-
St. Lawrence River Water Level Study is currently in year 4 of a major 5 year study evaluating
the possibility of changing the current water level control plan in order to consider a broader
range of factors including environmental and recreational factors. Members of the IJC Reference
Study and LaMP staff will lead a discussion on the work underway to evaluate a variety of
potential changes to the current lake level control plan and how to best monitor the ecosystem's
response to any future changes.
A-7
SOLEC 2004 Proceedings
-------
Day 3 Workshops: Cross-Cutting Issues
1. Planning For SOLEC 2006 - The Chemical Integrity of the Great Lakes
(An Interactive Panel Discussion)
The purpose of this session is to facilitate planning for SOLEC 2006, which will focus on the
chemical integrity of the Great Lakes. This will consider the state of the science on chemical
integrity, the relationship between chemical, biological and physical integrity, and what research is
being done or is planned.
2. Recent Advances in Monitoring Science and Index Development
(Four 20-min presentations, followed by a one-hour facilitated plenary discussion)
This workshop is for managers and practitioners to discuss emerging research results that will
substantially forward ecosystem assessment and environmental reporting. Experts will present new
sampling designs and indicators for coastal ecosystems from the Great Lakes Wetland Consortium, the
Great Lakes Environmental Indicators Program, the CCME Water Quality Index, and the Canadian
Biodiversity Index.
3. Monitoring Coordination and Information Management
Monitoring and reporting on the integrity of the Great Lakes ecosystem require the involvement of
multiple agencies/organizations on both sides of the border. This, in turn, necessitates binational
coordination of monitoring activities and integration of the resultant information. To this end, the
Binational Executive Committee has launched the Great Lakes Monitoring Inventory on
www.binational.net,, and has adopted a basinwide rotational cycle for cooperative monitoring to
address key information needs identified by the Lakewide Management Plans and SOLEC. As well,
various information management initiatives (e.g., GLOS, COA Annex 4, GLENDA) are underway in
Canada and the United States to facilitate access and sharing of Great Lakes data. This workshop
will discuss the status and possible means of integrating these initiatives.
4. Impact of Urbanization on Great Lakes Water Quality
Extensive urbanization in the Great Lakes basin is degrading surface and ground water quality, and
requires the application of new principles, practices and technologies to address the challenges of
urban land and water management. The challenges include such obstacles as inadequate and/or
improperly sited infrastructure, institutional limitations, and behavioral barriers. The workshop
participants will discuss SOLEC land use indicators as well as, binational policy and program
implications of water quality impacts of urbanization in the basin. An overview of the IJC 2003-05
Priority on the impact of urbanization on Great Lakes water quality as well as recent IJC SAB
findings, recommendations, innovative ideas and new opportunities will be provided.
5. Review of the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement (GLWQA)
The GLWQA between Canada and the United States is reviewed by the two governments every 6
years. The next review is scheduled for this fall (2004). As part of a review of the Agreement, the
monitoring components and the development and implementation of ecosystem health indicators will
be examined. This workshop will discuss the adequacy of present monitoring and indicator
development, and will seek advice on improvements that can be made to both aspects of the
Agreement. The output of this workshop will be used as input to the broader review by the
governments.
6. Stormwater Management - New and Emerging Approaches
Urban development within the Great Lakes basin and the corresponding changes to the hydrologic
cycle has resulted in intense pressures on the ecosystem. Increases in impervious area coupled with
land-use practices have contributed to degraded water quality conditions in area surface waters and
A-8
SOLEC 2004 Proceedings
-------
the Great Lakes nearshore from increased stormwater runoff and discharges from combined sewer
overflows. Binational municipal representatives will present "state of the practice" approaches for
planning and mitigating the impacts of these discharges including watershed based computer
simulation modelling, "Low Impact Development" and ecologically friendly approaches for
stormwater management for new and in-fill developments; and new and emerging technologies for
stormwater management retrofits and combined sewer overflow control and treatment The workshop
participants will discuss and propose Great Lakes indicators for the mitigation of non-point sources
7. Great Lakes Beaches
The Great Lakes shoreline provides some of the most beautiful beaches in the world, yet many
continue to be posted as unsafe for swimming for significant periods during the bathing season.
These postings represent a diminished quality of life, as well as a disincentive to tourism and are a
detriment to local economies. During this session binational experts will address the multi-faceted
"Swimmability" issue, discuss the new SOLEC Beach Advisory indicator, update participants on U.S.
and Canadian programs to mitigate recreational water quality impairments as noted in the Great
Lakes Water Quality Agreement and provide information on rapid detection methods under
development in both countries.
8. Reporting Indicators at a Watershed Level
Watershed-based resource management has been identified by the International Joint Commission
and by federal and provincial levels as a means of ensuring protection of water resources for both
human and ecological health. In keeping with this theme, this workshop will examine the potential for
using watersheds as a basis for understanding the relationship between tributaries and their
contribution to the chemical, physical and biological condition of the lakes. The initial focus will be to
develop Great Lakes indicators that can be measured at the outlet of the tributaries to determine the
contribution of their pathways to the overall state of the Great Lakes.
9. Status of Great Lakes Islands Conservation and Development of Indicators
The 30,000 Great Lakes islands form the world's largest collection of fresh water islands and their
biological diversity is globally significant. In this workshop, efforts to identify priority island areas will
be presented including the island assessment and ranking system, conservation targets, and
freshwater island classification system. Participants will be asked to assess draft island indicators
that will be used to ascertain the state of island biodiversity. This will be an opportunity to provide
feedback and input in this important conservation effort.
10. Human Health in the Great Lakes
Current research and networking efforts will be presented and discussed by representatives of the
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR), Great Lakes Human Health Effects
Research Program and Health Canada. ATSDR is characterizing exposure to persistent toxic
substances and investigating the potential for adverse health outcomes from that exposure via fish
consumption in vulnerable populations. Health Canada will be presenting information on the
development of its public health network. The Great Lakes Human Health Network will also be
present to discuss future directions of calls and actions, membership expansion, and to outline
recent efforts in member organizations.
11. Climate Change
This workshop will consist of a participatory discussion on potential roles for SOLEC relating to
regional climate change scenarios and identifying key physical indicators to assess regional impacts
of climate change. Topics to discuss will include potential impacts of climate change on the open
lake and on terrestrial-aquatic interactions. A facilitated discussion will follow.
A-9
SOLEC 2004 Proceedings
-------
SOLEC 2004 Background/Conference Reports
All of the following reports can be found on the CD provided to each conference registrant:
State of the Great Lakes 2005: Draft for Discussion
Forestry Paper
Ecological Footprint Paper
The Great Lakes Indicator Suite: Changes and Progress 2004
Please visit the SOLEC display (near the registration desk) to pick up copies of reports from
previous SOLECs. After October 8th they will only be available electronically.
SOLEC 2004 Steering Committee
SOLEC Steering Committee members represent a wide variety of agencies and organization
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
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
International Joint Commission
Michigan Department of Environmental Quality
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
Natural Resources Canada
NY State Department of Environmental Conservation
Northeast Midwest Institute
Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food
Ontario Ministry of Environment
Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources
Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection
Quebec Ministry of the Environment
The Nature Conservancy
Tribes/First Nations
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
U.S. Forest Service
U.S. Geological Survey
U.S. National Park Service
University of Windsor
There are many other individuals and representatives from environmental groups, academia
and all levels of government who have participated in the work necessary to develop this
conference.
A-10
SOLEC 2004 Proceedings
-------
Appendix B - Participant Feedback Summary
The following information is based on the 75 participant responses to the SOLEC 2004 Evaluation Form
with the information being broken down into four main categories.
Key Conference Feedback
Participants were asked the question, "Did the information you received at SOLEC 2004 enhance your
ability to preserve, protect and restore the Great Lakes?" Only 33% percent of the respondents felt that
SOLEC 2004 "much to very much" provided information to enhance their ability to preserve, protect and
restore the Great Lakes. Sixteen percent of respondents felt that the conference had not enhanced their
ability to improve the ecosystem. The remaining respondents felt the information would "somewhat"
enhance their ability to improve the ecosystem. Some comments received from participants regarding the
information presented at SOLEC include "the overall knowledge presented at SOLEC is tremendous, but
without extensive background in many of the areas covered and with too many indicators, politicians and
some managers may feel excluded from the discussions and yet are a significant factor in the
implementation of policy that will improve the health of the Great Lakes for future generations", "the
conferences need to broaden their scope to cover more emerging issues", "SOLEC has a lot of excellent
data but to whom and where is this data and information going?"; and "future conferences should focus
on using SOLEC information and taking action".
Plenary
For both days, over 70% of the respondents felt that the plenary sessions covered the topics "well or very
well", and provided new information. In addition, 77% of respondents felt that the plenary sessions were
"useful or very useful", with respondents commenting that the plenary sessions were informative, data
rich, well presented as well as very interesting, especially the information presented on the status of each
Great Lake on Day 2. In contrast, some comments received regarding SOLEC 2004 plenary sessions
were constructive in that they suggest improvements for future conferences. Comments received
included: "too much repetition in some plenary sessions", "need speakers with stronger public speaking
skills" and "given that SOLEC is every two years, the presentations should focus on changes, challenges
and achievements over the past two years".
Sixty eight percent of respondents also found the Ecological Footprint presentation by William Rees to
be a useful way to present Great Lakes information. Comments received included, "it provided a whole
new perspective of thinking about the impact of the Great Lakes basin on the rest of North America or
globally" but some also felt that the information presented was not useful or practical for SOLEC-related
work.
Breakout Sessions
Over 65% of the respondents felt that the breakout sessions covered their topics "well or very well" and
were useful. Comments included, "great opportunity for discussion in the breakout sessions, technically
and logistically, the sessions were really well planned and executed, great slides and graphics".
However, some of the respondents still felt that the breakout sessions were useful but often too technical
and lacked direction and purpose. Some felt that the breakout sessions provided the adequate amount of
time for discussion but there was too much time spent on presentations within the session.
Some areas for improvement as identified by respondents to this survey include:
Facilitators with more knowledge on discussion topics.
Session separation to accommodate the different audiences and their information needs.
Shortening of Day 3 Workshops so that participants could attend more sessions.
More structured exercises for conference participants.
General
Over 70% of the respondents "agree or strongly agree" that SOLEC provides valuable information and
continues to serve a vital function. Eighty seven percent of respondents "agreed or strongly agreed" that
B- 1
SOLEC 2004 Proceedings
-------
the conference was well organized and well done. Many respondents requested that the detailed agenda
be posted on the registration website in advance of the conference.
With regards to the printed materials being provided to conference participants, 76% of respondents
"agreed or strongly agreed" that this material was useful and informative and it was especially useful to
have the draft indicator reports in advance of the conference. Although, some felt that more time to
review these draft materials is still needed prior to the conference. The draft materials also need to be
more easily accessible from the conference website.
Overall, the display/poster session was "useful" with 64% of respondents agreeing or strongly agreeing
that displays are a good opportunity to share in-depth knowledge, ask questions and make new contacts.
Some areas of improvement for future SOLEC display sessions include: having the display area in a
more central location and having more signage to advertise the display and poster session.
B-2
SOLEC 2004 Proceedings
-------
Appendix C - Participant Profile
Country
Canada
United States of America
Mexico
Total
Number of Delegates Attending
294
149
1
444
Percent
66.2
33.6
0.2
100
Sector
Federal Government
Provincial/State Government
Municipal Government
Academia/Research
Commissions
Environmental Groups
Industry
Conservation Authorities
Tribal/First Nations
Consulting
Media
Other (Support/Foundation/Professional
Association/Societies)
Total
Number of Delegates Attending
162
57
55
36
26
23
20
19
16
10
3
17
444
Percent
36.50
12.84
12.39
8.11
5.85
5.18
4.50
4.28
3.60
2.25
0.67
3.83
100
C-l
SOLEC 2004 Proceedings
-------
Appendix D - Participant List
First Name Last Name Affiliation
Robin Abshire City of South Haven
Robert Adair U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Jacqueline Adams U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Dennis Albert Michigan Natural Features Inventory
Jon Allan Consumers Energy Company
Stephanie Allen Saulteaux Enterprises (Sagamok First Nation)
Doug Alley International Joint Commission
John Andersen The Nature Conservancy
Ellen Anderson Town of The Blue Mountains
Janette Anderson Environment Canada
David Anderson Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources
llze Andzans City of Toronto
Roy Angelow Environment Canada
Frank Anscombe U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Grafton Antone Oneida Nation of the Thames
Joseph Arbour Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada
Susan Arndt Environment Canada
Steve Arnold St. Clair Township
Kay Austin International Joint Commission
Emily Awad Ontario Ministry of Environment
Bob Bailey Bailey Associates
Edward Bailey International Joint Commission
Tom Barnett Ispat Island Inc. 8130
Kate Barrett Dept. Natural Resources
Ashley Barrie Region of Peel
Vicki Barren Waterfront Regeneration Trust
Alex Basiji Health Canada
Marilyn Baxter Bay Area Restoration Council
Judy Beck U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Peter Beckett Junction Street Stewardship Committee
Barbara Belasco U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Paul Bertram U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Ron Bodner City of Port Colborne
Dora Boersma Health Canada
Wayne Bond Environment Canada
Jeff Borisko Toronto and Region Conservation Authority
Jason Berwick Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources
Teresa Bosco City of Toronto
Lori Boughton Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection
Laura Bourgeau-Chavez General Dynamics Advanced Information Systems
Ted Bowering Toronto Water
D- 1
SOLEC 2004 Proceedings
Email Address
rabshire@south-haven.com
bob_adair@fws.gov
adams.jacqueline@epa.gov
albertd@michigan.gov
jwallan@cmsenergy.com
anowara@sympatico.ca
alleyd@windsor.ijc.org
jandersen@tnc.org
mayor@town.thebluemountains.on.ca
Janette.anderson@ec.gc.ca
dave. m.anderson@mnr.gov. on .ca
iandzan @toronto .ca
roy.angelow@ec.gc.ca
anscombe.frank@epa.gov
grafton.antone@primus.ca
arbourj@mar.dfo-mpo.gc.ca
susan.arndt@ec.gc.ca
arnoldsg@novachem.com
austink@washington.ijc.org
emily.awad@ene.gov.on.ca
bob.bailey@tm.net
baileyt@ottawa.ijc.org
thomas.barnett@ispat.com
kate.barrett@dnr.state.wi.us
ashley.barrie@peelregion.ca
vb@wrtrust.com
alex_basiji@hc-sc.gc.ca
mbaxter@hamiltonharbour.ca
beck.judy@epa.gov
pbeckett@nickel.laurentian.ca
belasco.barbara@epa.gov
bertram.paul@epa.gov
ronbodner@portcolborne.com
dora_boersma@hc-sc.gc.ca
wayne.bond@ec.gc.ca
jborisko@trca.on .ca
Jason.borwick@mnr.gov.on.ca
tbosco@toronto.ca
lboughton@state.pa.us
laura.chavez@gd-ais.com
tbowerin@toronto.ca
-------
First Name
Sarah
Duncan
Peter
Stephen
Chado
Mark
Mimi
Ted
Irene
Judi
Theodore
Kelly
Mark
Thomas
Jim
Connie
Michelle
Howard
Meredith
Alice
John
Kate
Lise
Mark
Murray
Marl lee
Oscar
Stacey
Sue
Matthew
Tamara
Scott
Jan
Yamille
Murray
J.
Donald
Mark
Sandra
Wendy
Matthew
Melanie
David
Last Name
Boyar
Boyd
Boyer
Brandt
Brcic
Breederland
Breton
Briggs
Brooks
Brouse
Brown
Burch
Burrows
Burton
Cantrill
Carpenter
Carruthers
Carter
Carter
Casselman
Casselman
Cave
Chabot
Chambers
Charlton
Chase
Chen-See
Cherwaty
Chiblow
Child
Chipperfield
Christilaw
Ciborowski
Cirino
Clamen
Clingenpeel
Cole
Colosimo
Cooke
Cooper
Cooper
Coulter
Cowgill
Affiliation
Riverbank
Ontario Ministry of the Environment
International Joint Commission
Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory
Water and Wastewater Services
Michigan Sea Grant Extension
Environment Canada
Ontario Ministry of the Environment
International Joint Commission
Muskoka Watershed Council
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection
International Joint Commission
Michigan State University
Lake Superior Binational Program
U.S. Department of Agriculture
City of Toronto
Imperial Oil
Otonabee Region Conservation Authority
Association for Canadian Educational Resources
Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources
Environment Canada
Environment Canada
Environment Canada
National Water Research Institute
Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources
Environment Canada
Environment Canada
Chiefs of Ontario
Essex Region Conservation Authority
Toronto and Region Conservation Authority
Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources
University of Windsor
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
International Joint Commission
U.S. Department of Agriculture
University of Toronto
International Joint Commission
Grand River Conservation Authority
Georgian Bay Land Trust
Grand Valley State University
Detroit River Canadian Cleanup
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
D- 2
SOLEC 2004 Proceedings
Email Address
megg@alum.dartmouth.org
duncan.boyd@ene.gov.on .ca
boyerp@windsor.ijc.org
stephen.b.brandt@noaa.gov
chado.brcic@regional.niagara.on.ca
breederl@msu.edu
mimi.breton@ec.gc.ca
briggste@ene.gov.on .ca
brooksi@washington.ijc.org
jbrouse@muskokaheritage.org
theodore.a.brown@usace.army.mil
keburch@state.pa.us
burrowsm@windsor.ijc.org
burtont@msu.edu
jcantril@nmu.edu
conniecarpenter@fs.fed.us
mcarrut@toronto.ca
howard.j.carter@esso.ca
mcarter@otonabee.com
acerinfo@rogers.com
John.casselman@mnr.gov.on.ca
kate.cave@sympatico.ca
chaham@pathcom.com
mark.chambers@ec.gc.ca
murray.charlton@ec.gc.ca
marilee.chase@mnr.gov.on.ca
oscar.chen-see@ec.gc.ca
stacey .cherwaty@ec.gc.ca
sue@coo.org
mchild@erca.org
tchipperfield@trca.on.ca
scott.christilaw@mnr.gov.on .ca
cibor@uwindsor.ca
cirino.yamille@epa.gov
clamenm@ottawa.ijc.org
aclingenpeel@fs.fed.us
donald.cole@utoronto.ca
colosimom@washington.ijc.org
scooke@grandriver.ca
wendy.cooper@gblt.org
coopmat@gvsu.edu
mcoulter@erca.org
cowgill.david@epa.gov
-------
First Name
Tara
Valerie
Ken
Jason
Francesca
Craig
Marcia
Michael
Sarah
Kanai
Jose
David
Ken
Mario
Joseph
Ron
Miriam
William
Margaret
Douglas
Stephanie
Patrick
Ewa
Marie-Claire
Paul
Fiona
Tom
Peter
Lesley
Beverly
Brian
Anthony
Tom
Patricia
Paul
Danny
Badrane
David
Kim
Fred
Christina
Adele
Patrick
Last Name
Crewe
Cromie
Cullis
Gulp
Cuthbert
Czarnecki
Damato
D'Andrea
Day
De
de Anda
de Launay
DeBeassaert
Del Vicario
DePinto
Dermott
Diamond
Dickinson
Dochoda
Dodge
Donaldson
Donnelly
Downarowicz
Doyle
Drca
Duckett
Duffus
Dunbar
Dunn
Dutoff
Eadie
Eberhardt
Edge
Edwards
Emerson
Epstein
Erhioui
Ewert
Fernie
Fleischer
Forst
Freeman
Furlong
Affiliation
Bird Studies Canada
Niagara Peninsula Conservation Authority
Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources
City of St. Catharines
University of Minnesota
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
City of Toronto
Environment Canada
Environmental Protection Branch
CIATEJ, A. C.
Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources
Michigan Department of Environmental Quality
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Limno-Tech, Inc.
Department of Fisheries and Oceans
University of Toronto
Muskoka Heritage Foundation
Great Lakes Fishery Commission
Stream Benders
Lake Huron Centre for Coastal Conservation
Lake Huron Centre for Coastal Conservation
Environment Canada
City of Windsor
Baird and Associates
The Nature Conservancy
Town of Collingwood
Environment Canada
Ontario Ministry of the Environment
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
International Joint Commission
Environment Canada
Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources
Grand River Conservation Authority
Environment Canada
Environment Canada
The Nature Conservancy
Canadian Wildlife Service
Ontario Ministry of the Environment
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Toronto and Region Conservation Authority
Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources
D- 3
SOLEC 2004 Proceedings
Email Address
tcrewe@bsc-eoc.org
vcromie@conservation-niagara.on.ca
ken.cullis@mnr.gov.on .ca
jculp@stcatharines.ca
cuthbOO! @umn.edu
era ig_cza rnecki@fws.gov
damato.marcia@epa.gov
mdandre@toronto.ca
sarah.day@ec.gc.ca
ken.de@ec.gc.ca
janda@ciatej.net.mx
david .delaunay@mnr.gov.on .ca
pohl@michigan.gov
delvicario.mario@epa.gov
jdepinto@Limno.com
dermottr@dfo-mpogc.ca
miriam.diamond@utoronto.ca
muskox@muskoka.com
mdochoda@glfc.org
douglasdodge@rogers.com
juniper@hay.net
pat.donnelly@lakehuron.on.ca
ewadownarowicz@yahoo.com
marie-claire.doyle@ec.gc.ca
pdrca@city.windsor.on.ca
duckett@baird.com
tduffus@tnc.org
pdunbar@collingwood.ca
lesley.dunn@ec.gc.ca
beverly.dutoff@ene.gov.on .ca
brian.eadie@noaa.gov
anthony.j.eberhardt@lrb01.usace.army.mil
thomas.edge@ec.gc.ca
patricia.edwards@mnr.gov.on.ca
pemerson@grandriver.ca
danny.epstein@ec.gc.ca
badrane.erhioui@ec.gc.ca
dewert@tnc.org
kim.fernie@ec.gc.ca
fred .fleischer@ene .gov .on .ca
forst.christina@epa.gov
afreeman@trca.on.ca
pat.furlong@mnr.gov.on.ca
-------
First Name
Kofi
Nancy
Maggie
John
Roger
Theresa
Ed
Terry
Sandra
Ian
Chris
Michael
Mary
Adriana
John
Greg
Norman
Herb
Mark
Richard
Dajana
Anneliese
Nancy
Anne
Bert
Gary
Alan
Keith
Clemmie
Chris
Victoria
Isobel
Paul
Nick
Randy
Paul
Barbara
Robert
James
Heraline
Brad
Elizabeth
Richard
Last Name
Fynn-Aikins
Gaffney
Galloway
Gannon
Gauthier
Gavin
Gazendam
Geddes
George
Gillespie
Goddard
Coffin
Goldstein
Gomez
Gosek
Grabas
Grannemann
Gray
Green
Greenwood
Grgic
Grieve
Gulden
Guillette
Guindon
Gulezian
Halberstadt
Hanson
Hardy
Harrington
Harris
Heathcote
Heighington
Heisler
Helland
Helm
Henderson
Hester
Hickey
Hicks
Hill
Hinchey
Hobrla
Affiliation
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Toronto and Region Conservation Authority
Environment Canada
International Joint Commission
Great Lakes Commission
Ontario Ministry of the Environment
Water's Edge
Town of Collingwood
Environment Canada
Environment Canada
Great Lakes Fishery Commission
Environment Canada
Environment Canada
City of Toronto
City of Oswego
Environment Canada
U.S. Geological Survey
International Joint Commission
City of St. Catharines
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Ontario Ministry of the Environment
SENES Consultants Ltd.
U.S. Enviromental Protection Agency
Low Impact Development Center
Natural Resources Canada
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
City of Windsor
Minnesota Power
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Upper Thames River Conservation Authority
University of Wisconsin Sea Grant Institute
University of Guelph
Metis Nation of Ontario
International Joint Commission
U.S. Coast Guard
Ontario Ministry of the Environment
Township of Wainfleet
Ontario Power Generation
U.S. Geological Survey
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
Environment Canada
Illinois-Indiana Sea Grant
Michigan Department of Environmental Quality
D- 4
SOLEC 2004 Proceedings
Email Address
kofi_fynnaikins@fws.gov
ngaffney@trca.on.ca
maggie.galloway@ec.gc.ca
gannonj@windsor.ijc.org
gauthier@glc.org
theresa.gavin@ene.gov.on.ca
egazendam@watersedge-est.ca
tgeddes@collingwood .ca
sandra.e.george@ec.gc.ca
ian.gillespie@ec.gc.ca
cgoddard@glfc.org
michael.goffin@ec.gc.ca
mary.goldstein@ec.gc.ca
agomez@toronto.ca
jgosek@oswegony.org
greg.grabas@ec.gc.ca
nggranne@usgs.gov
grayh@ottawa.ijc.org
mgreen@st Catharines.ca
rich_greenwood@fws.gov
dajana.grgic@ene.gov.on.ca
agrieve@senes.ca
guiden.nancy@epa.gov
akguillette@lowimpactdevelopment.org
guindon@nrcan.gc.ca
gulezian.gary@epa.gov
ahalberstadt@city.Windsor.on.ca
khanson@mnpower.com
hardy.clemmie@epa.gov
harringtonc@thamesriver.on .ca
harrisv@uwgb.edu
iheathco@uoguelph.ca
paulh@metisnation.org
heislern@ottawa.ijc.org
rcollinsburrows@d9.uscg.mil
paul.helm@ene.gov.on.ca
bhenderson@township.wainfleet.on.ca
robert.hester@opg.com
jhickey@usgs.gov
heh2@cdc.gov
brad.hill@ec.gc.ca
hinchey.elizabeth@epa.gov
hobrlar@michigan .gov
-------
First Name
Krista
Lillian
Paul
Susan
Brian
Mark
Melissa
Susan
Ken
Rob
Christine
Adele
Jack
Joel
Dean
Al
Wayne
Stephanie
Kira
Ralph
Lucinda
Kathy
Allan
Rimi
Derrick
Robert
Roger
David
Mike
Janet
Pradeep
Bruce
Anthony
Paul
David
Michael
Ken
Margaret
Jennifer
Gail
Dan
Ralph
George
Last Name
Holmes
Hopkins
Horvatin
Howard
Huberty
Hudy
Hulling
Humphrey
Hunter
Hyde
lamonaco
lannantuono
Imhof
Ingram
Jacobs
Jamal
Jamieson
Janetos
Jensen
Jessup
Johnson
Jones
Jones
Kalinauskas
Kamanga
Kavetsky
Keefe
Keeley
Kennedy
Keough
Khare
Kirschner
Kizlauskas
Klawunn
Klein
Klepinger
Klewin
Kohring
Kovecses
Krantzberg
Kraus
Kreutzwiser
Kuper
Affiliation
Environment Canada
York University
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
U.S. Department of Agriculture
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Environment Canada
Town of Goderich
Environment Canada
City of Toronto
Health Canada
Trout Unlimited
Environment Canada
Bkejwanong Territory
Environment Canada
County of Bruce
Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources
Little Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa Indians
Environment Canada
University of Minnesota Duluth
Bird Studies Canada
Canadian Chlorine Chemistry Council
Environment Canada
Ontario First Nations Technical Services Corporation
U.S Fish and Wildlife Service
Imperial Oil
Maine State Planning Office
Township of Georgian Bay
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Environment Canada
International Joint Commission
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Environment Canada
The Nature Conservancy
Michigan Sea Grant
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
The Conservation Fund
Royal Botanical Gardens
International Joint Commission
Nature Conservancy of Canada
County of Bruce
Council of Great Lakes Industries
D- 5
SOLEC 2004 Proceedings
Email Address
krista.holmes@ec.gc.ca
hopkinsl@yorku .ca
horvatin.paul@epa.gov
showard@bbsr.edu
brian_huberty@fws.gov
hudymx@csm.jmu.edu
hulting.melissa@epa.gov
susan.humphrey@ec.gc.ca
khunter@town.goderich.on.ca
rob.hyde@ec.gc.ca
ciamona@toronto.ca
adele_iannantuono@hc-sc.gc.ca
jimhof@tucanada.org
joel.ingram@ec.gc.ca
dean .jacobs@wifn.org
al-noor.jamal@ec.gc.ca
bccsjamieson@brucecounty.on .ca
stephanie.janetos@mnr.gov.on .ca
kjensen@ltbbodawa-nsn.gov
ralph.jessup@ec.gc.ca
ljohnson@d.umn.edu
aqsurvey@bsc-eoc.org
allan.g.jones@sympatico.ca
rimi.kalinauskas@ec.gc.ca
dkamanga@ofntsc.org
bob_kavetsky@fws.gov
roger.t.keefe@esso.ca
david .keeley@maine.gov
mkennedy@township.georgianbay.on.ca
keough.janet@epa.gov
pradeep.khare@ec.gc.ca
kirschnerb@windsor.ijc.org
kizlauskas.anthony@epa.gov
paul.klawunn@ec.gc.ca
dklein@tnc.org
klep@msu.edu
klewin.kenneth@epa.gov
pkohring@aol.com
jkovecses@rbg .ca
krantzbergg@windsor.ijc.org
daniel.kraus@natureconservancy.ca
bccs@brucecou nty .on .ca
ghk@cgli.org
-------
First Name
Claude-Andre
Chris
Charles
Cathy
Jennifer
Elizabeth
At is
Ted
Ric
Harold
Alexandre
Wendy
Dennis
Suzanne
Arunas
Simon
Veronica
Brent
Cassandra
Gary
David
Frederick
Ashok
Robert
Cameron
Scott
Ann
Dave
Scudder
Brianne
Gord
Evan
Christine
Jack
Dave
Renante
John
Roger
Maureen
Chris
Greg
Catherine
Alastair
Last Name
Lachance
LaForest
Lalonde
Lanni
Lanthier
LaPlante
Lasis
Lawrence
Lawson
Leadlay
Lefebvre
Leger
Leonard
Leonard Feliz
Liskauskas
Llewellyn
Lo
Lofgren
Lofranco
Loftus
Lowrie
Luckey
Lumb
MacGregor
Mack
Mackay
MacKenzie
Mackey
Mackey
MacLaurin
MacPherson
Main
Manninen
Manno
Maraldo
Marante
Marsden
Marsham
Martinuk
Marvin
Mason
Masson
Mathers
Affiliation
Dow Canada
County of Bruce
Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food
Haldimand-Norfolk Health Unit
Region of Peel
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Health Canada
Great Lakes Commission
Great Lakes Commission
Environment Canada
National Agri-Environmental Health Program
Environment Canada
DTE Energy
The Weather Network
Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources
Environment Canada
Environment Canada
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Ontario Ministry of the Environment
Environment Canada
Toronto and Region Conservation Authority
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Ecological Monitoring and Assessment Network
Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources
Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources
Environment Canada
International Joint Commission
Ohio Department of Natural Resources
Habitat Solutions
Niagara Peninsula Conservation Authority
Toronto and Region Conservation Authority
Township of Wainfleet
Great Lakes Commission
SUNY College of Environmental Science and Forestry
Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources
City Chicago
Environment Canada
Consulate General of Canada
Environment Canada
Environment Canada
Township of The Archipelago
York University
Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources
D- 6
SOLEC 2004 Proceedings
Email Address
calachance@dow.com
bcpllaforest@brucecounty.on.ca
Charles.lalonde@omaf.gov.on.ca
glen.steen@haldimand-norfolk.org
Jennifer.lanthier@peelreg ion .ca
laplante.elizabeth@epa.gov
atis_lasis@hc-sc.gc.ca
tlawrenz@glc.org
rlawson@glc.org
harold.leadlay2@ec.gc.ca
lefebvrea@agr.gc.ca
wendy.leger@ec.gc.ca
leonardd@dteenergy.com
slfeliz@on.pelmorex.com
arunas.liskauskas@mnr.gov.on.ca
simon .llewellyn@ec.gc.ca
veronica.lo@ec.gc.ca
brent.lofgren@noaa.gov
cassandra.lofranco@ene.gov.on.ca
gary.loftus@ec.gc.ca
khayes@trca.on.ca
luckey.frederick@epa.gov
ashok.lumb@ec.gc.ca
rob.macgregor@mnr.gov.on.ca
cameron.mack@mnr.gov.on.ca
scott.mackay@ec.gc.ca
mackenziea@ottawa.ijc.org
david.mackey@dnr.state.oh.us
scudder@sdmackey.com
briannem@conservation-niagara.on.ca
gmacpherson@trca.on.ca
emain@township.wainfleet.on.ca
manninen@glc.org
jpmanno@mailbox.syr.edu
dave.maraldo@mnr.gov.on.ca
en00114@cityofchicago.org
john.marsden@ec.gc.ca
bfalo-td@international.gc.ca
maureen.martinuk@ec.gc.ca
chris.marvin@ec.gc.ca
mason@thearchipelago.on.ca
masscat@yorku.ca
alastair.mathers@mnr.gov.on.ca
-------
First Name Last Name Affiliation
Gerald Matisoff Case Western Reserve University
Greg Mayne Canadian Wildlife Service
Tom McAuley International Joint Commission
Ann McCammon Soltis Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission
Christine McConaghy U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
John McDonald International Joint Commission
Bruce McGregor Sagamok Anishnawbek
Fiona McGuiness Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources
Jennifer McKay Environment Canada
Donald Mclennan Parks Canada
Bill Meades Great Lakes Forestry Centre, Canadian Forestry Service
Marci Meixler Cornell University
Frank Merritt Legal Institute of the Great Lakes
Steve Miazga Haldimand County
Jan Miller U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
David Miller City of Toronto
John Mills Environment Canada
Elizabeth Mills National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Jack Miskeiwicz
Kerry Mitchell Consulate General of Canada
James Mlotshwa North Bay District Unit
Mike Molnar Indiana Department of Natural Resources
Kelly Montgomery International Joint Commission
Bruce Morrison Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources
Sandra Morrison U.S. Geological Survey
Lois Morrison The Nature Conservancy
Wendy Mortimer Ontario First Nations Technical Services Corporation
Matt Moxham Huron County Health Unit
Mary Beth Murphy State of Illinois
Elizabeth Murphy U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Mary Muter Georgian Bay Association
David Nagler City of Toronto
Susan Nameth Meteorological Service of Canada
Melanie Neilson Environment Canada
Nancy Nelson U.S. Department of State
John Nemeth Town of Richmond Hill
Michael Nepinak Ontario First Nations Technical Services Corporation
Jim Nicholas U.S. Geological Survey
Gerald Niemi University of Minnesota
Angus Norman Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources
Lionel Normand Toronto and Region Conservation Authority
Kristin O'Connor Hamilton Harbour Remedial Action Plan
Joseph Odhiambo Privy Council Office
D- 7
SOLEC 2004 Proceedings
Email Address
gerald.matisoff@case.edu
greg.mayne@sympatico.ca
lepoutree@ottawa.ijc.org
amsoltis@glifwc.org
mcconaghy.christine@epa.gov
mcdonaldj@windsor.ijc.org
bruce@saulteauxenterprises.ca
fiona.mcguiness@mnr.gov.on.ca
jennifer.mckay@ec.gc.ca
donald.mclennan@pc.gc.ca
bmeades@nrcan.gc.ca
msm10@cornell.edu
fmerrit@utnet.utoledo.edu
smiaizg@haldimandcounty.on.ca
jan.a.miller@usace.army.mil
dmiller@toronto.ca
john.mills@ec.gc.ca
elizabeth.mills@noaa.gov
jmiskiewicz@hotmail.com
kerry.mitchell@international.gc.ca
mlotshwa@nbdhu.on.ca
mmolnar@dnr.in.gov
montgomeryk@windsor.ijc.org
bruce.morrison@mnr.gov.on.ca
smorrison@usgs.gov
lmorrison@tnc.org
wmortimer@ofntsc.org
mmoxham@huroncounty.ca
marybeth_murphy@ltgov.state.il.us
murphy.elizabeth@epa.gov
mmuter@sympatico.ca
dnagler@toronto.ca
susan.nameth@ec.gc.ca
melanie.neilson@ec.gc.ca
nelsonnj@state.gov
bmacgregor@richmondhill.ca
mnepinak@ofntsc.org
jrnichol@usgs.gov
gniemi@d. umn.edu
angus.norman@mnr.gov.on.ca
lnormand@trca.on.ca
kristin .o'connor@ec.gc.ca
j.odhiambo@prs-srp.gc.ca
-------
First Name
brian
Carey
Gary
Diana
Allen
Carolyn
Judi
Daniel
Dwayne
Chantal
Anna
Scott
Ed
Joseph
Ian
Nancy
Geoff
Victoria
Rob
John
Dale
Andrew
Derrick
Rick
Pranas
Michael
John
Christian
Michael
Leah
William
Saleha
Andrew
Kevin
David
Ann
Vi
Dieter
Timothy
Mike
Beverley
Kamil
Peter
Last Name
ODonoghue
Ogilvie
O'Keefe
Olinger
Olson
O'Neill
Orendorff
O'Riordan
Oud
Ouellet
Pace
Painter
Paleczny
Pantalone
Parrish
Patterson
Peach
Pebbles
Pepin
Perrecone
Phenicie
Piggott
Pitawanakwat
Portiss
Pranckevicius
Price
Prill
Pupp
Quigley
Quiring
Rees
Rehman
Reid
Reid
Reid
Rexe
Richardson
Riedel
Rig by
Ripley
Ritchie
Rizvi
Roberts
Affiliation
Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources
Environment Canada
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
International Joint Commission
Environment Canada
Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
The Weather Network
Quebec Ministry of Transportation
City of Toronto
Environment Canada
Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources
City of Toronto
Ontario Ministry of the Environment
Environment Canada
The Lake Huron Centre for Coastal Conservation
Great Lakes Commission
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Council of Great Lakes Industries
Environment Canada - National Water Research Institute
Traditional Holistic Healing
Toronto and Region Conservation Authority
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
City of Toronto
Constellation
Environmental Data and Reporting
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Transport Canada
University of British Columbia
Region of Peel
Ontario Federation of Agriculture
Ontario Commercial Fisheries' Association
Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources
City of Toronto
Environment Canada
Health Canada
City of St. Catharines
Chippewa Ottawa Resource Authority
Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources
Environmental Health Clinic
Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food
D- 8
SOLEC 2004 Proceedings
Email Address
brian.odonoghue@mnr.gov.on.ca
carey.ogilvie@ec.gc.ca
gary.a.okeefe@us.army.mil
diana.olinger@noaa.gov
olsona@washington.ijc.org
carolyn.o'neill@ec.gc.ca
judi.orendorff@mnr.gov.on .ca
oriordan.daniel@epa.gov
doud@on.pelmorex.com
chouellet@mtq.gouv.qc.ca
apace@toronto.ca
scott.painter@ec.gc.ca
ed .paleczny@mnr.gov.on .ca
jpantal@toronto.ca
ian.parrish@ene.gov.on.ca
nancy.patterson@ec.gc.ca
geoff.peach@lakehuron.on.ca
vpebbles@glc.org
pepin.robert@epa.gov
perrecone.john@epa.gov
dkphenicie@mindspring.com
andrew.piggott@ec.gc.ca
rportiss@trca.on.ca
pranckevicius.pranas@epa.gov
mprice@toronto.ca
john.prill@constellation.com
pupp.darcy@sympatico.ca
michael.a.quigley@noaa.gov
quirinl@tc.gc.ca
wrees@interchange.ubc.ca
saleha.abdurrehman@peelregion.ca
andrew.reid@ofa.on.ca
kevin.reid@ocfa.on.ca
david. m.reid@mnr.gov. on. ca
rexe@toronto.ca
violeta.richardson@ec.gc.ca
dieter_riedel@hc-sc.gc.ca
trigby@stcatharines.ca
mripley@sault.com
bev.ritchie@mnr.gov.on.ca
kamil_rizvi@hotmail.com
peter.roberts@omaf.gov.on .ca
-------
First Name
Mike
Karen
Bob
Vasily
Ronald
Phil
John Jake
Kenneth
Mary
Jennifer
Jack
Alan
Mary Ellen
Christina
Tina
James
Pamela
Roy
Stephen
Dennis
Henri
Betty
John
Megan
Mike
Harvey
Delbert
Lindsay
Douglas
Julie
Matt
Heather
Stephen
Jim
Edwin (Ted)
William
Keith
Ashley
Samuel
Derek
Nancy
Les
Carol
Last Name
Robertson
Rodriguez
Rogers
Rogojin
Rossmann
Ryan
Ryan
Rygwelski
Salmena
Sanders
Saunders
Sawyer
Scanlon
Schallenberg
Schankula
Schardt
Scharfe
Schatz
Schlobohm
Schornack
Selles
Semeniuk
Seyler
Seymour
Shantz
Shear
Shewfelt
Silk
Simpson
Sims
Smar
Smith
Smith
Smith
Smith
Snodgrass
Solomon
Spearin
Speck
Stack
Stadler-Salt
Stanfield
Stepien
Affiliation
Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Nickel District Conservation Authority
Ontario Ministry of the Environment
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources
Health Canada
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Health Canada
Environment Canada
Environment Canada
Grand River Conservation Authority
Ontario Ministry of the Environment
Ontario Federation of Agriculture
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Huron County Health Unit
GBA Foundation
U.S. Department of Agriculture
International Joint Commission
Ontario Ministry of the Environment
Ontario Federation of Agriculture
Anishinabek/Ontario Fisheries Resource Centre
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Environment Canada
Environment Canada
Town of Goderich
University of Waterloo
Environment Canada
Michigan Department of Environmental Quality
Michigan Department of Environmental Quality
Environmental Defence
U.S. Geological Survey
Environment Canada
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
City of Toronto
University of Guelph
Town of Richmond Hill
Ohio Department of Natural Resources
Great Lakes United
Environment Canada
Ontario Ministry of Natural Resouces
University of Toledo
D- 9
SOLEC 2004 Proceedings
Email Address
mike, robe rtson@mnr.gov. on. ca
rodriguez.karen@epa.gov
bobrogers@sympatico.ca
vasily.rogojin@ene.gov.on.ca
rossmann.ronald@epa.gov
phil.ryan@mnr.gov.on.ca
jake_ryan@hc-sc.gc.ca
rygwelski.kenneth@epa.gov
mary_salmena@hc-sc.gc.ca
Jennifer.sanders@ec.gc.ca
jack.saunders@ec.gc.ca
asawyer@grandriver.ca
mary. ellen.scanlon@ene.gov. on. ca
cschalle@dal.ca
tina.schankula@ofa.on.ca
schardt.james@epa.gov
pscharfe@huroncounty.ca
royschatz@sympatico .ca
sschlobohm@fs.fed.us
schornackd@washington.ijc.org
henri.selles@ene.gov.on.ca
semeniuk@skynet.ca
jseyler@aofrc.org
megan_seymour@fws.gov
mike.shantz@ec.gc.ca
harvey.shear@ec.gc.ca
nmathieu@town.goderich.on.ca
ljsilk@fes.uwaterloo.ca
douglas.simpson@ec.gc.ca
simsj@michigan.gov
smarm@michigan.gov
rsmith@environmentaldefence.ca
sbsmith@usgs.gov
jim.smith@ec.gc.ca
smith.edwin@epa.gov
william_snodgrass@toronto.ca
aspearin@richmondhill.ca
susan.banks@dnr.state.oh.us
drstack@glu.org
nancy.stadler-salt@ec.gc.ca
les.stanfield@mnr.gov.on.ca
patricia.uzmann@utoledo.edu
-------
First Name
David
David
Evelyn
Rochelle
Mark
Peter
Tom
Vicki
karen
Robert
Barry
Robyn
Steve
Peter
Gildo
Anita
Lisa
Michael
David
Jay
Don
Marcia
Emma
Josh
Jeff
Charlotte
Gary
Marielou
Karen
Serge
Anne Marie
Donn
Alan
Rebecca
Ruth
Brian
Rudy
Glenn
Rosemary
Janice
Chip
Michael
Rod
Last Name
Stilwell
Stonehouse
Strader
Sturtevant
Taylor
Taylor
Tesoriero
Thomas
Thompson
Thompson
Thompson
Thorson
Timmermans
Tollefsen
Tori
Toth
Turnbull
Twiss
Ullrich
Unwin
Uzarski
Valiante
Valliant
Van Wieren
Vandenberg
Vasarhelyi
Vequist
Verge
Vigmostad
Villeneuve
Vincent
Waage
Waffle
Wagner
Waldick
Ward
Warkentin
Warren
Warren
Weiner
Weseloh
White
Whitlow
Affiliation
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Evergreen Canada
Council of Great Lakes Industries
Great Lakes Sea Grant
Amec Earth and Environmental
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
City of Oswego
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Wellington Dufferin Guelph Health Unit
City of Barrie
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Bird Studies Canada
Town of The Blue Mountains
Ducks Unlimited, Inc.
McMaster University
Toronto and Region Conservation Authority
Clarkson University
Great Lakes Cities Initiative
National Council for Stream and Air Improvement, Inc.
Grand Valley State University
University of Windsor
Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources
Parks Canada
Toronto and Region Conservation Authority
Nature Conservancy of Canada
U.S. National Park Service
Health Canada
Northeast-Midwest Institute
Environment Canada
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
National Fish and Wildlife Foundation
Environment Canada
Environment Canada
Environment Canada
Ontario Ministry of the Environment
Township of Wainfleet
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Environment Canada
U.S. Consulate General Office
Canadian Wildlife Service
PC GES Education Software Inc.
Environment Canada
D- 10
SOLEC 2004 Proceedings
Email Address
david_stilwell@fws.gov
dstonehouse ©evergreen.ca
straderco@aol.com
rochelle.sturtevant@noaa.gov
mark.e.taylor@amec.com
taylor.peter@epa.gov
tomt@oswegony.org
thomas.vicki@epa.gov
thompson.karen@epa.gov
rob.thompson@wdghu.org
bathompson@city.barrie.on.ca
robyn_thorson@fws.gov
stimmermans@bsc-eoc.org
ptollefsen@town.thebluemountains.on.ca
gtori@ducks.org
totham@mcmaster.ca
lturnbull@trca.on.ca
mtwiss@clarkson.edu
david .ullrich@nemw.org
jay.unwin@wmich.edu
uzarskid@gvsu.edu
mvalian@uwindsor.ca
emma.valliant@mnr.gov.on.ca
josh.vanwieren@pc.gc.ca
jvandenberg@trca.on.ca
charlottevasarhelyi33@hotmail.com
gary_vequist@nps.gov
marie lou_verge@hc-sc.gc.ca
kvigmostad@nemw.org
serge.villeneuve@ec.gc.ca
vincent.annemarie@epa.gov
waage@nfwf.org
alan .waffle@ec.gc.ca
rebecca.wagner@ec.gc.ca
ruth .waldick@ec.gc.ca
brian.ward@ene.gov.on .ca
rwarkentin@township.wainfleet.on.ca
warren.glenn@epa.gov
rosemary .warren@ec.gc.ca
jwiner@polics.ca
chip.weseloh@ec.gc.ca
michael.white@sympatico.ca
rod.whitlow@ec.gc.ca
-------
First Name
Michael
Scott
Ben
Chris
Gary
Brad
Derek
Frank
Linda
Tony
Karen
Terry
David
Connie
Paul
Mike
Last Name
Whittle
Wieting
Wigley
Wiley
Wilkins
Williams
Williamson
Wilson
Wires
Wong
Yang
Yonker
Young
Zehr
Zorn
Zosimadis
Affiliation
Department of Fisheries and Oceans
Hannahville Indian Community
National Council for Air and Stream Improvements, Inc.
Department of Fisheries and Oceans
Toronto and Region Conservation Authority
American Forest and Paper Association
Ontario Clean Water Agency
Ontario Ministry of the Environment
University of Minnesota
Durham Region
Environment Canada
Buffalo Ornithological Society
District of Muskoka
Centennial College
Parks Canada
Streampoint
Email Address
whittlem@dfo-mpo.gc.ca
swieting@hannahville.org
wigley@clemson.edu
wileyc@dfo-mpo.gc.ca
gwilkins@trca.on .ca
brad_williams@afandpa.org
dwilliamson@ocwa.com
frank.wilson@ene.gov.on.ca
wiresOO! @umn.edu
tony.wong@region.durham.on.ca
karen.yang@ec.gc.ca
terryyonker@cs.com
dsy4@vianet.ca
czehr@centennialcollege.ca
paul.zorn@pc.gc.ca
mike@streampoint.biz
D- 11
SOLEC 2004 Proceedings
------- |