LAKE SUPERIOR
BINATIONAL PROGRAM
Lite
D.,
o n ii ii \rc
-------
Cover photo: Cypress Bay on Lake Superior's north shore. Photo credit: Tim Leblanc, Ontario
Ministry of Natural Resources.
Printed on recycled paper with soy ink.
-------
Lake Superior Lakewide Management Plan
(LaMP)
2008
Lake Superior Binational Program
-------
-------
Lake Superior LaMP 2008
Acknowledgements
Lake Superior Lakewide Management Plan
The Lake Superior Lakewide Management Plan 2008 was prepared by the Binational Program's
Superior Work Group with input from various other agencies and organizations including the
Lake Superior Binational Forum. We would like to thank the committees of the Superior Work
Group for their efforts in completing this document.
Member agencies of the Lake Superior Binational Program are:
1854 Authority
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
Bad River Band of Lake Superior Chippewa
Chippewa-Ottawa Resource Authority
Environment Canada
Fisheries and Oceans Canada
Fond du Lac Band of Lake Superior Chippewa
Grand Portage Band of Lake Superior Chippewa
Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission
Health Canada
Keweenaw Bay Indian Community
Michigan Department of Environmental Quality
Michigan Department of Natural Resources
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources
Minnesota Department of Health
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources
Ontario Ministry of the Environment
Parks Canada
Red Cliff Band of Lake Superior Chippewa
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
U.S. Forest Service
U.S. Geological Survey
U.S. National Park Service
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
April 2008
-------
-------
Lake Superior LaMP 2008
Lake Superior LaMP 2008 Guide to Changes - New files included in LaMP 2008 are bolded.
File name
LS LaMP 2008
Executive
Summary
LS LaMP 2008
Chapter 1
LS LaMP 2008
Chapter 2
LS LaMP 2008
Chapter 3
LS LaMP 2008
Chapter 4
Update
LS Chapter 4
2000
LS LaMP 2008
Chapter 5
Update
LS Chapter 5
2000
LS LaMP 2008
Chapter 6
Update
LS Chapter 6
2006
LS LaMP 2008
Chapter 7
Update
LS Chapter 7
2004
LS LaMP 2008
Chapter 8
LS LaMP 2008
Chapter 9
LS LaMP 2008
Appendix A
Contents
Executive Summary
Introduction and Purpose of the Lake
Superior Lakewide Management Plan
Public Outreach and Education
Ecosystem Goals, Indicators, and
Monitoring
Lake Superior Critical Pollutants
Progress Report
Lake Superior Critical Pollutants
Human Health Information
Human Health
Habitat, Terrestrial Wildlife, and
Aquatic Communities Progress
Reports
Status of Aquatic and Terrestrial
Communities and Habitat in the Lake
Superior Basin
Developing Sustainability in the Lake
Superior Basin: 2008 Progress Report
Developing Sustainability in the Lake
Superior Basin
Collaborative Efforts
Climate Change
Lake Superior Areas of
Concern/Remedial Action Plan
Summary Matrix and Fact Sheets
How to update
your LaMP 2006 binder
Replaces LaMP 2006 Executive
Summary
Replaces LaMP 2006 Chapter 1
Replaces LaMP 2006 Chapter 2
Replaces LaMP 2006 Chapter 3
Replaces LaMP 2006 update at
beginning of Chapter 4
No change
Replaces LaMP 2006 update at
beginning of Chapter 5
No change
Replaces LaMP 2006 update at
beginning of Chapter 6
No change
Replaces LaMP 2006 update at
beginning of Chapter 7
No change
Replaces LaMP 2006 Chapter 8
New. Insert after LaMP 2008
Chapter 8
Replaces LaMP 2006 Appendix A
April 2008
-------
Lake Superior LaMP 2008
File name
LS Appendix B
2000
LS Appendix C
2006
LS Appendix D
2006
LS LaMP 2008
Appendix E
LS LaMP 2008
Appendix F
LS glossary
2000
LS acronyms
2006
Contents
Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL)
Development Strategy for Lake
Superior
The Lake Superior Zero Discharge
Demonstration Program and
Relationship to
Chemical Contaminants in Lake
Superior
Mercury Reduction for Lake Superior:
A Mercury Reduction Assistance
Project for Lake Superior Region
Facilities
Proceedings from Making a Great
Lake Superior 2007: A Conference
Linking Research, Education and
Management
Making A Great Lake Superior
Conference 2007 Evaluation Findings
Glossary
Acronyms and Abbreviations
How to
your LaMP
update
2006 binder
No change
No change
No change
New. Insert after
New. Insert after
Appendix D
Appendix E
No change
No change
April 2008
111
-------
Lake Superior LaMP 2008
Contents
Lake Superior Lakewide Management Plan
Acknowledgements
Executive Summary
Chapter 1 Introduction and Purpose of the Lake Superior Lakewide Management Plan
Chapter 2 Public Outreach and Education
Chapter 3 Ecosystem Goals, Indicators, and Monitoring
Chapter 4 Lake Superior Critical Pollutants Progress Report
Chapter 5 Human Health Information
Chapter 6 Habitat, Terrestrial Wildlife, and Aquatic Communities Progress Reports
Chapter 7 Developing Sustainability in the Lake Superior Basin: 2008 Progress Report
Chapter 8 Collaborative Efforts
Chapter 9 Climate Change
Appendix A Lake Superior Areas of Concern/Remedial Action Plan Summary Matrix and Fact
Sheets
Appendix E Proceedings from Making a Great Lake Superior 2007: A Conference Linking
Research, Education and Management
Appendix F Making A Great Lake Superior Conference 2007 Evaluation Findings
Note: Appendices B through D are not included in this update - they appear in LaMP 2006.
April 2008
-------
Executive Summary
View of Copper Harbor, Michigan, at sunset, June 2007.
Photo credit: Roger Eberhardt, Michigan Department of Environmental Quality.
Lake Superior Lakewide Management Plan 2008
-------
Lake Superior LaMP 2008
April 2008
-------
Lake Superior LaMP 2008
Executive Summary
BACKGROUND
Since 1991, as called for in the Canada-U.S. Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement, the Lake
Superior Lakewide Management Plan (LaMP) has provided an assessment of the state of the
Lake Superior ecosystem, including its ecological impairments, emerging issues and their
causes, and gaps in knowledge which require further research and monitoring. The LaMP has
also identified additional actions required to achieve LaMP goals and targets. The Lake Superior
Binational Program partners are continuing to develop and implement the LaMP. As will be
documented in this chapter and throughout the entire LaMP 2008 document, the many
accomplishments of both the Zero Discharge Demonstration Program (ZDDP) and the Broader
Program (the two components of the Binational Program) reinforce the concept of the Lake
Superior LaMP as an exemplary model for binational cooperative ecosystem management of the
Great Lakes.
Affirmation of the Lake Superior LaMP as a Model for Ecosystem Management
With the release and publication of LaMP 2008, the U.S., Canada, Michigan, Minnesota,
Wisconsin, Ontario, Tribal/First Nation and other Binational Program partners renew their
commitment to a strong, active, vigorous LaMP document and process, and continue to affirm
that the LaMP is uniquely positioned to serve as the most effective ecosystem management
model for the Lake Superior basin.
The partners affirm that the Lake Superior LaMP should continue to provide, in partnership with
other binational programs, the guiding framework for the management interventions needed to
maintain and restore the "physical, chemical and biological" integrity of the lake, as well as the
place to define and harmonize agency and partner commitments to those actions.
Furthermore, as the Lake Superior and Great Lakes ecosystems face increasingly serious
environmental threats, the LaMP must evolve and adapt to remain the best model to address
these challenges. The LaMP will do so through an "adaptive management" approach. Although
there are several new Great Lakes basinwide restoration and protection initiatives, we must resist
efforts to completely redo the existing successful "governance" structure of the Lake Superior
LaMP. We must coordinate priorities but recognize the comparative advantage of the Lake
Superior LaMP.
The partners that have created and implemented the LaMP have, among other functions,
committed to a process that provides an arena for discussions, recommendations, and decisions
among governments; identifies and addresses current high priority issues; facilitates initiation
and implementation of joint commitments in a way that minimizes the duplication of effort;
identifies funding priorities; pools and leverages resources; documents actions and projects
undertaken by Binational Program partners; provides outreach and education on these projects
April 2008 iii
-------
Lake Superior LaMP 2008
and the ecosystem status of the Lake; facilitates coordinated research and monitoring; provides
opportunities for stakeholder input; and provides a venue for discussion of lake resource issues.
In sum, the governmental partners that have committed to building and sustaining the Binational
Program, and thereby the LaMP 2008, reaffirm their support for, and commitment to, the LaMP
process and the LaMP document itself.
The Lake Superior Binational Program - Background
The LaMP contains ecosystem goals and targets and funded and proposed (non-funded) actions
for restoration and protection of the Lake Superior ecosystem. Actions include commitments by
the government partners as well as suggested voluntary actions that could be taken by non-
governmental partners. The first LaMP document, published in 2000, identified these actions in
six ecosystem themes: critical pollutants, aquatic communities, terrestrial wildlife communities,
habitat, human health and sustainability. Since then, each biennial LaMP update has reported
accomplishments, status toward goals, challenges and next steps.
LaMP 2008
LaMP 2008 builds on the previous LaMP documents although many of the original LaMP 2000
chapters have been revised, replaced, and updated. The LaMP 2008 chapters contain a 2006-
2008 progress report which presents an accomplishment summary of the 1) actions completed or
underway to restore/protect the lake, 2) challenges, and 3) next steps.
Highlights of LaMP 2008 include: Public Outreach and Education projects (Chapter 2); new
draft Ecosystem Goals and Objectives, including climate change and aquatics goals (Chapter 3);
a Chemical Milestones reduction report as well as a Management Strategy for Substances of
Emerging Concern (Chapter 4); a draft Aquatic Invasive Species "Complete Prevention Plan"
(Chapter 6); Community Sustainability projects (Chapter 7); a chapter on coordination with other
Great Lakes programs (Chapter 8), including the Great Lakes Regional Collaboration; a new
chapter on Climate Change (Chapter 9); and highlights from the Making a Great Lake Superior
2007 conference (Chapter 2 Addendum C, Appendix E, and Appendix F). Updates on progress
to restore Areas of Concern are contained in Appendix A.
LaMP 2008 is available on a CD-ROM, and is designed to be printed in a loose-leaf format that
can be inserted into a three-ringed binder. LaMP 2008 will also be available on the web at
www. epa. gov/glnpo.
This LaMP 2008 Report is not intended to be circulated extensively to the public; the agencies
plan to produce a separate public-friendly brochure to inform the public on Binational Program
activities. Citizens of the basin, as partners and stakeholders in the Binational Program, are
strongly encouraged to become actively involved. The Lake Superior Binational Forum can be
reached at 1-888-301-LAKE (1-888-301-5253).
April 2008
-------
Lake Superior LaMP 2008
ACCOMPLISHMENTS AND NEXT STEPS: HIGHLIGHTS 2006 TO 2008
The Lake Superior Binational Program Partners
The activities below represent some of the accomplishments by the various partners represented
on committees of the Lake Superior Binational Program, as well as challenges and next steps.
Additional details can be found in the respective chapters of LaMP 2008.
Critical Pollutants
Accomplishments include:
Production of a Critical Chemical Reduction Milestones report which detailed reductions
in critical pollutants from 1990 to 2005. Highlights include:
o Reduction in mercury releases by 71
percent since 1990;
o Reduction in dioxin releases by 76-79
percent since 1990;
o Continuing phase out of PCBs; and
o Collections of more than 12,700 kg
(28,000 pounds) of waste pesticides
associated with the zero discharge
demonstration program since 1992.
Collection of over 320 tons of electronic waste
comprised of unwanted televisions, computers,
and other waste electronics and of over one ton
of unwanted medicines in the Upper Peninsula of
Michigan. Collection events were sponsored
through a US EPA grant to the Earth Keepers, a
faith-based environmental organization.
Implementation of both ongoing and special
hazardous waste collection events. Special
collections were carried out in the following
locations:
o Thunder Bay region (EcoSuperior ran
collections for mercury in schools,
household hazardous waste, thermostats,
and compact fluorescent bulbs);
o City of Superior (basinwide mercury
reduction project with collections in Two Harbors, Minnesota; Ironwood,
Michigan; and three Wisconsin locations);
o Western Lake Superior Sanitary District (Medicine Cabinet Clean-out Days); and
o Keweenaw Bay Indian Community (mercury thermostats and compact fluorescent
bulbs).
Continuation of burn barrel/backyard trash burning outreach and education. Bad River
Air Quality Department surveys found a 31 percent reduction in the number of burn
barrels by the end of 2006. Red Cliff banned burn barrels in 2007.
Figure ES-1. Despite being banned decades
ago, DDT continues to be received during
Lake Superior basin collections. Photo credit:
Jim Bailey, EcoSuperior.
April 2008
-------
Lake Superior LaMP 2008
Development of a Management Strategy for Substances of Emerging Concern in the
Lake Superior basin.
Planned and moderated the Toxic Contaminants session of the October 2007 Making A
Great Lake Superior 2007 conference. Speakers and posters included new and emerging
chemical threats; water, sediment, fish and eagle toxics monitoring projects; mercury
cycling; atmospheric deposition; pollution prevention; and identifying sources of toxic
contaminants. In addition, Chemical Committee members presented Lake Superior
posters and papers at the Eighth International Conference on Mercury as a Global
Pollutant, Midwest Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (SETAC),
SET AC North America, and the State of the Lakes Ecosystem Conference 2006.
Development of a Chemical Reduction and Inventory Activities matrix for 2010
Milestone Targets.
Continuation of work with other organizations to address critical pollutant sources
outside the basin. Projects that will boost Lake Superior efforts include the Great Lakes
Regional Collaboration's Mercury in Products Phase-Down Strategy, Michigan's
Mercury Strategy, Minnesota's new law that requires a 90 percent reduction of mercury
emissions from the largest coal-fired power plants, Ontario's new waste regulation that
requires the producers of household hazardous and special wastes to develop and fund a
diversion program, and Wisconsin's development of a new emissions rule for coal-fired
power plants.
Next steps include:
Implementing chemical reduction activities that will help reach the 2010 targets;
Participating in the realtor/landowner outreach project, which educates realtors and
landowners on how to protect Lake Superior, with an emphasis on preventing releases of
toxic chemicals by rural landowners; and
Preparing an inventory of critical chemical releases in 2010 in order to monitor progress
against the chemical reduction milestones.
Ecosystem (Habitat, Aquatic Communities, Terrestrial Wildlife)
Accomplishments include:
Updating and redrafting an Ecosystem Goals and Strategic Objectives document. These
draft goals contain Strategic Outcomes, specific Goals and Subgoals that the Lake
Superior Work Group has determined are necessary to achieve and protect a diverse,
healthy and sustainable Lake Superior ecosystem;
Addressing the emerging issue of climate change by incorporating mitigation and
adaptation strategies in the draft Ecosystem Goals and Strategic Objectives, in Lake
Superior Work Group committee workplans and activities and in state LaMP capacity
grants;
Final approval of a National Marine Conservation Area near Thunder Bay, Ontario.
Development of recommendations for herptile monitoring in the Lake Superior basin in
conjunction with a grantee;
Maintaining and updating the "Important Habitat" map for the Lake Superior basin;
April 2008 vi
-------
Lake Superior LaMP 2008
Maintaining and updating a set of touch-
screen kiosks located around the basin that
present information about important habitat
and projects;
Maintaining a j oint Habitat/Terrestrial
Wildlife web site;
Drafting a "Complete Prevention Plan" for
preventing the entry of new aquatic invasive
species to Lake Superior; and
Working with the National Park Service and
other agencies to draft a prevention plan for
Viral Hemorrhagic Septicemia in Lake
Superior.
Next steps include:
Finalizing the Ecosystem Goals and Strategic
Objectives document;
Working with state and external grants to
ensure consistency between climate change
goals and adaptation/mitigation strategies;
Completing the AIS Complete Prevention
Plan;
Working with Parks Canada to ensure the
details in the new Lake Superior National
Marine Conservation Area management plan
support LaMP goals and objectives; and
Participating in the Upper Great Lakes Study
to examine whether the regulation of Lake
Superior outflows can be improved to
address the evolving needs of the upper
Great Lakes.
Human Health
Figure ES-2. Kakabeka Falls, west of Thunder
Bay. Photo credit: Melissa Simon, ORISE/US
EPA-GLNPO.
Accomplishments include:
Meetings of the Great Lakes states in 2007 to discuss Great Lakes fish consumption
advisories, including:
o The 2007 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish, where the Great Lake states
discussed fish consumption advisories and the mercury fish consumption
protocol.
o The State of Lake Michigan Conference 2007, where the Great Lakes states
discussed the use of Decision Support Systems (DSS) to communicate fish
consumption advisories.
o The Making a Great Lake Superior 2007 conference, where presentations focused
on fish consumption advisories in Lake Superior.
April 2008
vn
-------
Lake Superior LaMP 2008
Discussions at the Making a Great Lake Superior 2007 Human Health Session on beach
monitoring, e-coli sources at beaches, and amphibole mineral fiber issues on the Mesabi
Range;
Funding by US EPA of a project to determine whether hair mercury measurement has a
long-term effect on an individual's fish consumption habits and reduces their risk of
exposure to methylmercury;
Funding by US EPA of a Lake Superior project entitled "Mercury Levels in Blood from
Newborns" to determine if newborns have been exposed to mercury from maternal fish
consumption; and
Continuation of the Great Lakes Public Health Network (GLPHN), led by Health
Canada, which has held eleven teleconferences on such issues as transboundary air
pollution, health effects of PBDE (flame retardants), children's health and environment,
health based air quality index, environmental and occupational causes of cancer and
health risks of pesticides.
Next steps include:
Completion of the above projects and reporting the results;
Continuation of the outreach/education of the Great Lakes Public Health Network;
Coordination between Health Canada and the US EPA to establish a Binational Human
Health network; and
Continued outreach/education on Great Lakes fish advisories.
Figure ES-3. Wisconsin Point on Lake Superior at Superior, Wisconsin. Photo Credit: Frank Koshere, Wisconsin
Department of Natural Resources.
April 2008
vin
-------
Lake Superior LaMP 2008
Sustainability
Accomplishments include:
Creating groundwork for better informed future activities with the completion of the
Canadian portion of the Aboriginal Community Awareness Review and Development
Project, which assesses aboriginal attitudes towards environmental issues;
Cataloging and encouraging sustainability initiatives through the development of the
Tracking of Community Sustainability Project;
Increased awareness and knowledge of sustainability challenges and opportunities facing
Lake Superior Binational Program and basin communities by organizing a Sustainability
session at the Making a Great Lake Superior 2007 conference; and
Exploring the effects of mineral mining on Lake Superior's environment and
communities through the establishment of the Ad Hoc Mining Committee.
Next steps include:
Promote the adoption of a sustainable approach to resource management and decision-
making throughout the Lake Superior basin.
Expanding the internal and external network of Lake Superior basin sustainability
partners.
Outreach and Education
Accomplishments include:
Planned and held the Making a Great Lake Superior 2007 conference that attracted over
450 participants. The conference brought together educators, researchers, federal, state,
provincial and tribal managers, the public and scientists for a conference focused on Lake
Superior critical issues;
Engaged students and teachers in Lake Superior environmental action through the
creation and dissemination of an interactive web-based curriculum Connecting the Coast,
which connects people with service projects that support LaMP priorities;
Continuation of the Pathfinders Program, an outreach/education program targeted to
youth and students; and
Completion and issuance of the Chemical Milestones Fact Sheet, in coordination with the
Chemical Committee.
Next steps include:
Writing of the Lake Superior LaMP 2008 public friendly brochure; and
Planning for the next Lake Superior conference.
The Lake Superior Binational Forum
The Lake Superior Binational Forum, the citizen's group associated with the government
agencies responsible for carrying out the Binational Program, has been key to establishing an
effective multi-stakeholder process. The Forum has held many workshops over the years for the
purpose of acquiring necessary background information to help develop recommendations and
April 2008 ix
-------
Lake Superior LaMP 2008
proposals for sustainable development, human health and reducing the Lake Superior nine
critical pollutants. They have also held very successful public input sessions and published
many documents on key issues relating to the LaMP.
Accomplishments include:
Conducted an annual Lake Superior Environmental Stewardship Awards Program that
recognizes outstanding sustainable and best management practices in five categories in
the U.S. and Canada;
Developed and promoted an annual Lake Superior Day celebration held on the third
Sunday in July around the basin; and
Held public input sessions on a variety of topics including land use planning and
management, invasive species, impacts of pharmaceuticals on water quality, and impacts
of the shipping industry on Lake Superior.
Next steps include:
Seek to involve more youth in Lake Superior leadership activities, with a focus on
university and college students;
Work with the Sustainability Committee to develop a database of key communities that
are initiating sustainable projects that protect the lake basin; and
Identify ways to collaborate with citizen groups in Areas of Concern communities to
share resources, staff, and create synergy with their outreach efforts.
Figure ES-4. Freighter on Lake Superior at sunrise. Photo credit: Brenda Jones, US EPA.
April 2008
-------
Lake Superior LaMP 2008
NEXT STEPS AND CHALLENGES OF THE BINATIONAL PROGRAM
In general, the next steps for the Binational Program are to:
Continue to implement projects and priorities identified in the LaMP;
Advocate the benefits of toxic chemical reduction activities to decision makers and the
public to ensure continued support;
Implement the management framework for substances of emerging concern;
Focus project, activities and research on nearshore activities and the connection to water
quality;
Continue communication and outreach activities that will achieve measurable progress
toward the Binational Program goals;
Continue with priority ecosystem monitoring, mapping, research, and restoration efforts;
Prepare various internal and public reports, including the biennial LaMP updates;
Build capacity in the Binational Program by recruiting additional partners;
Continue to coordinate with critical Great Lakes initiatives such as the Great Lakes
Regional Collaboration, the Binational Toxics Strategy, AOCs, COA and the Great
Lakes Legacy Act; and
Seek additional funding for LaMP implementation from a wide variety of sources.
Future accomplishments will be dependent upon commitments by governments, NGOs, and
individuals to support the science, resource management, and activities that will protect and
restore the basin.
Challenges include:
Addressing new emissions of critical pollutants, especially mercury, from new or
expanded mining sources;
Addressing the emerging issue of climate change;
Development of capacity and committees (as necessary) to address mining, coordinated
monitoring and climate change issues;
Protecting critical lake and tributary habitats;
Continuing rehabilitation plans for sturgeon, walleye, lake trout, and brook trout;
Preventing invasion and transport of non-native species within the basin;
Ensuring the maintenance of healthy aquatic communities on rivers with hydropower;
Establishing long-term monitoring programs of biological communities;
Establishing monitoring programs for invasive species and fish community changes and
status;
Ongoing support and maintenance of the geographic database and projects associated
with the Lake Superior Decision Support System;
Closing information gaps on the status and trends of habitat conditions;
Developing land use change models;
Maintaining the capacity of the Lake Superior Binational Program;
Educating the public on important habitat and ecological resources in the Lake Superior
basin by webinars, conferences, workshops, interactive information kiosks and other
web-based informational methods; and
April 2008 xi
-------
Lake Superior LaMP 2008
Implementing the recommendations of the Great Lakes Regional Collaboration in
coordination with other LaMP priorities.
Figure ES-5. Isle Royale, June 2007. Photo credit: John Marsden, Environment Canada.
April 2008
xn
-------
Chapter 1
Introduction and Purpose
of the Lake Superior
Lakewide Management Plan
Isle Royale National Park, Michigan. Photo Credit: Melissa Simon, ORISE/US EPA-GLNPO.
Lake Superior Lakewide Management Plan 2008
-------
-------
Lake Superior LaMP 2008
Chapter 1 Contents
1.0 INTRODUCTION 1-1
1.1 AFFIRMATION OF THE LAKE SUPERIOR LaMP AS A MODEL FOR ECOSYSTEM
MANAGEMENT 1-1
1.2 THE LAKE SUPERIOR BINATIONAL PROGRAM 1-2
1.2.1 LaMP Documents Produced To Date 1-5
1.2.2 Ecosystem Components 1-6
1.3 LaMP ACCELERATION AND THE LaMP DOCUMENT 1-7
1.3.1 What is LaMP 2008? 1-7
1.4 RELATIONSHIP OF THE LaMP TO OTHER INITIATIVES AND EFFORTS 1-8
1.4.1 Remedial Action Plans for Areas of Concern 1-9
1.4.2 Great Lakes Action Plan (Canada) 1-10
1.4.3 Canada-Ontario Agreement Respecting the Great Lakes Basin Ecosystem 1-11
ADDENDUM 1 A: BINATIONAL EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE CONSENSUS POSITION
ON THE ROLE OF LaMPS IN THE LAKE RESTORATION
PROCESS 1A-1
April 2008 1-ii
-------
-------
Lake Superior LaMP 2008
Chapter 1
Introduction and Purpose of the
Lake Superior Lakewide Management Plan
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The Lake Superior basin is one of the most pristine and unique ecosystems in North America.
Containing the largest surface area of any freshwater lake in the world, Lake Superior has some
of the most breathtaking scenery in the Great Lakes and serves as a backdrop to a wide range of
recreational and outdoor activities enjoyed by people from all over the world. Sparsely
populated even today, Lake Superior has not experienced the same level of development,
urbanization, or pollution as the other Great Lakes. Recognizing this unique and invaluable
resource, the federal, state, provincial, and U.S. tribal governments; First Nations; environmental
groups; industry; and the public have taken steps to protect this great legacy for generations to
come. This shared partnership has served as a model the world over for cooperative binational
resource management.
The Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement (GLWQA) between the U.S. and Canada commits
the two countries (the Parties) to address the water quality issues of the Great Lakes in a
coordinated fashion. Annex 2 of the GLWQA provides a framework for the reduction of critical
pollutants as they relate to impaired beneficial uses of open lake waters. In undertaking the
Lakewide Management Plans (LaMP), the Parties agree to build upon cooperative efforts with
state, tribal, and provincial governments and to ensure that the public is consulted. The Parties,
partner agencies, and tribal/First Nations also recognize the need to conduct lakewide adaptive
management using an ecosystem approach which addresses human health, habitat, terrestrial
wildlife communities, aquatic communities, and sustainability.
1.1 AFFIRMATION OF THE LAKE SUPERIOR LaMP AS A MODEL FOR
ECOSYSTEM MANAGEMENT
With the release and publication of LaMP 2008, the U.S., Canada, Michigan, Minnesota,
Wisconsin, Ontario, tribal/First Nation and other Binational Program partners renew their
commitment to a strong, active, vigorous LaMP document and process, and continue to affirm
that the LaMP is uniquely positioned to serve as the most effective ecosystem management
model for the Lake Superior basin.
The partners affirm that the Lake Superior LaMP should continue to provide, in partnership with
other binational programs, the guiding framework for the management interventions needed to
maintain and restore the "physical, chemical and biological" integrity of the lake, as well as the
place to define and harmonize agency and partner commitments to those actions.
Furthermore, as the Lake Superior and Great Lakes ecosystems face increasingly serious
environmental threats, the LaMP must evolve and adapt to remain the best model to address
April 2008 1-1
-------
Lake Superior LaMP 2008
these challenges. The LaMP will do so through an "adaptive management" approach. Although
there are several new Great Lakes basinwide restoration and protection initiatives, we must resist
efforts to completely redo the existing successful "governance" structure of the Lake Superior
LaMP. We must coordinate priorities but recognize the comparative advantage of the LaMP.
The partners that have created and implemented the LaMP have, among other functions,
committed to a process that provides an arena for discussions, recommendations, and decisions
among governments; identifies and addresses current high priority issues; facilitates initiation
and implementation of joint commitments in a way that minimizes the duplication of effort;
identifies funding priorities; pools and leverages resources; documents actions and projects
undertaken by Binational Program partners; provides outreach and education on these projects
and the ecosystem status of the Lake; facilitates coordinated research and monitoring; provides
opportunities for stakeholder input; and provides a venue for discussion of lake resource issues.
In sum, the governmental partners that have committed to building and sustaining the Binational
Program, and thereby the LaMP 2008, reaffirm their support for, and commitment to, both the
LaMP process and the LaMP document itself.
1.2 THE LAKE SUPERIOR BINATIONAL PROGRAM
In 1990, the fifth biennial report of the International Joint Commission (IJC) to the U.S. and
Canadian governments recommended that Lake Superior be designated as a demonstration area
where "no point source discharge of any persistent toxic substance will be permitted." In
response, on September 30, 1991, the federal governments of Canada and the U.S., the Province
of Ontario, and the States of Michigan, Minnesota, and Wisconsin announced a Binational
Program to Restore and Protect Lake Superior. Known as the Lake Superior Binational
Program (LSBP), the Program identifies two major areas of activity:
A Zero Discharge Demonstration Project
The Broader Program
The LSBP also recognizes that public participation is an important part of the program.
The Zero Discharge Demonstration Program (ZDDP) established Lake Superior as a
demonstration project to achieve zero discharge and zero emission of nine toxic, persistent, and
bioaccumulative chemicals: mercury, total polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), dieldrin/aldrin,
chlordane, DDT, toxaphene, 2,3,7,8-TCDD (dioxin), hexachlorobenzene (HCB), and
octachlorostyrene (OCS). Voluntary pollution prevention is the preferred approach to achieving
reduction goals, but enhanced controls and regulations might be necessary to achieve zero
discharge.
The Broader Program recognizes that zero discharge of persistent toxic substances alone will not
be sufficient to restore and protect Lake Superior. The Broader Program focuses on the
coordination needed among the many resource and environmental agencies to protect, restore
April 2008 1-2
-------
Lake Superior LaMP 2008
and maintain the entire Lake Superior ecosystem, including aquatic and terrestrial communities
and habitat.
Public Involvement is critical to the success of the Binational Program. The LSBP highlights the
importance of the partnership approach to achieve specified common goals. The Program
encourages the commitment of all partners to develop new and innovative approaches to
ecosystem management. The citizens of the basin are partners and stakeholders in the Binational
Program.
LSBP Organization
Lake Superior Task Force
The Task Force consists of senior Canadian and U.S. federal, provincial, tribal, and state
representatives who make management decisions related to Lake Superior. The Task Force
serves as a steering committee and is responsible for program direction.
Superior Work Group
The Work Group is comprised of Canadian and U.S. technical experts who represent various
agencies and organizations that manage Lake Superior water and other resources. The Work
Group reports to the Task Force. The Work Group is comprised of a number of committees,
currently including: critical pollutants, habitat, aquatic communities, terrestrial wildlife
communities, developing sustainability, and public involvement. These committees address
pollution prevention and reduction, habitat issues, aquatic and terrestrial community diversity
and sustainability, special designations, ecosystem integrity and monitoring, human use and
health issues, and public communication and involvement.
Lake Superior Binational Forum
The Forum is a group of 24 Lake Superior citizen volunteers who make recommendations to the
governments, consult with the broader public, and carry out joint LaMP implementation projects.
Forum members bring perspectives from a variety of community sectors including business,
environmental groups, academia, and industry. The vision statement endorsed in 1992 by the
Forum is also a philosophical backdrop for the Binational Program.
April 2008 1-3
-------
Lake Superior LaMP 2008
A VISION FOR LAKE SUPERIOR
As citizens of Lake Superior, we believe ...
that water is life and the quality of water determines the quality of life.
We seek a Lake Superior watershed...
that is a clean, safe environment where diverse life forms exist in harmony; where the
environment can support and sustain economic development and where the citizens are committed
to regional cooperation and personal philosophy of stewardship;
that is free of toxic substances that threaten fish, wildlife and human health; where people
can drink the water or eat the fish anywhere in the lake without restrictions;
where wild shorelines and islands are maintained and where development is well planned,
visually pleasing, biologically sound, and conducted in an environmentally benign manner;
which recognizes that environmental integrity provides the foundation for a healthy economy
and that the ingenuity which results from clean, innovative and preventive management and
technology can provide for economic transformation of the region;
where citizens accept the personal responsibility and challenge of pollution prevention in their
own lives and lifestyles and are committed to moving from a consumer society to a conserver society;
and
where there is greater cooperation, leadership and responsibility among citizens of the basin
for defining long-term policies and procedures which will protect the quality and supply of water in
Lake Superior for future generations.
We believe that by effectively addressing the issues of multiple resource management in
Lake Superior, the world's largest lake can serve as a worldwide model for resource management.
Endorsed by the Lake Superior Binational Forum on January 31, 1992
as an expression of the hearts and minds of all of us.
This vision statement expresses the commitment and desire of members of the Lake Superior
community to foster a healthy, clean, and safe Lake Superior ecosystem. It reflects the diverse
pathways and mechanisms by which humans and nature interact within land and water
ecosystems, and challenges the inhabitants of the Lake Superior watershed to accept personal
responsibility for protecting the Lake and the landscape that sustains it. The vision statement
specifies broad, powerful objectives for the Lake Superior ecosystem, in plain language.
April 2008 1-4
-------
Lake Superior LaMP 2008
1.2.1 LaMP Documents Produced To Date
Historically, formal LaMP "stages" were to be submitted to the IJC when a key stage of work
was completed, in accordance with the framework outlined in Annex 2 of the 1987 amendments
to the GLWQA:
Stage 1: When problem definition is complete and critical pollutants are identified;
Stage 2: When chemical load reduction schedules are completed;
Stage 3: When remedial measures have been selected; and
Stage 4: When monitoring indicates that the contribution of critical pollutants to impaired
beneficial uses has been eliminated.
LaMP Stages 1, 2, and 3 have been completed for the chemical portion of the Lake Superior
LaMP.
The Lake Superior Stage 1 LaMP, which was submitted to the IJC in September 1995, used
environmental data to identify 22 critical pollutants that: 1) impaired or were likely to impair
beneficial uses in the Lake, 2) were likely to affect human health or wildlife because they
exceeded chemical yardsticks, or 3) impaired Lake ecosystem objectives. The Stage 1 LaMP
summarizes all known data on critical pollutant loadings from point sources throughout the Lake
Superior basin.
The Stage 2 LaMP, which was submitted to the IJC in July 1999, sets remediation goals or load
reduction schedules for the nine virtual elimination pollutants identified in the Stage 1 LaMP.
The Lake Superior Binational Forum stakeholders group submitted pollutant reduction
recommendations, which were public and agency reviewed, edited, and formed the basis for the
final targets set in the Stage 2 LaMP. In Stage 2, the critical pollutants were placed into
management categories that reflect pollutant impacts, tendency to bioaccumulate, and occurrence
at toxic levels.
The Stage 3 LaMP requirements under the GLWQA, captured in Chapter 4 of LaMP 2000, select
pollutant load reduction strategies and remedial actions with respect to the nine virtual
elimination pollutants: mercury, PCBs, dieldrin/aldrin, chlordane, DDT, toxaphene, dioxin,
HCB, and OCS.
In addition to staged LaMP reporting on the ZDDP, work proceeded in two areas between 1991
and 1998: habitat and non-regulatory special designations. In the program area of habitat,
agencies developed ecological criteria for important Lake Superior habitat, set up a database for
habitat sites, prepared a comprehensive GIS-based map of important habitat sites and areas, and
examined the impact from major dischargers on habitat. In the program area of sustainability,
criteria for non-regulatory special designations were developed.
April 2008 1-5
-------
Lake Superior LaMP 2008
1.2.2 Ecosystem Components
While the initial focus of the LaMP work was on strategies for reducing the critical pollutants
and establishing the ZDDP, as well as a broader program that advanced our understanding of
habitat and landscapes, work has been carried out in other areas as well. The partner agencies
have developed LaMP documents for a number of ecosystem themes, including aquatic
communities, terrestrial wildlife communities, habitat, human health, and developing
sustainability. The work in these themes was released for the first time for public comment and
review in LaMP 2000.
Adopting an ecosystem approach has initiated a shift from a narrow perspective of managing
environmental media (water, air, and soil) or a single resource (e.g., fish or trees) to a broader
perspective that focuses on managing human uses and abuses of watersheds or bioregions and
that comprehensively addresses all environmental media and resources within the context of a
living system. The Lake Superior LaMP is guided by a set of ecosystem objectives and
indicators to judge progress. Published as a discussion paper in 1995, the document Ecosystem
Principles and Objectives, Indicators, and Targets for Lake Superior describes extensive
ecosystem objectives and sub-objectives. These objectives have been refined and updated (see
Chapter 3) since the document's original release and are described in abbreviated form below:
1. General Objective - Human activity in the Lake Superior basin should be consistent with A
Vision for Lake Superior. Future development of the basin should protect and restore the
beneficial uses as described in Annex 2 of the GLWQA.
2. Chemical Contaminants Objective - Levels of persistent, bioaccumulative, and toxic
chemicals should not impair beneficial uses of the natural resources of the Lake Superior
basin. Levels of chemical contaminants which are persistent, bioaccumulative, and toxic
should ultimately be virtually eliminated in the air, water, and sediment in the Lake Superior
basin. A zero discharge demonstration program is the primary means for achieving
reductions of in-basin sources of contaminants.
3. Aquatic Communities Objective - Lake Superior should sustain diverse, healthy,
reproducing and self-regulating aquatic communities closely representative of historical
conditions.
4. Terrestrial Wildlife Objective - The Lake Superior ecosystem should support a diverse,
healthy, and sustainable wildlife community in the Lake Superior basin.
5. Habitat Objective - To protect, maintain, and restore high-quality habitat sites in the Lake
Superior basin and the ecosystem processes that sustain them. Land and water uses should
be designed and located compatible with the protective and productive ecosystem functions
provided by these natural landscape features.
6. Human Health Objective - The goal of the Lake Superior LaMP Human Health Chapter is to
fulfill the human health requirements of the GLWQA, including: defining the threat to
April 2008 1-6
-------
Lake Superior LaMP 2008
human health and describing the potential adverse human health effects arising from
exposure to critical pollutants and other contaminants (including microbial contaminants)
found in the Lake Superior basin, addressing current and emerging human health issues of
relevance to the LaMP, and identifying implementation strategies currently being undertaken
to protect human health and suggesting additional implementation strategies that would
enhance the protection of human health.
7. Sustainability Objective - Human use of the Lake Superior ecosystem should be consistent
with the highest social and scientific standards for sustainable use, and should not degrade it,
nor any adjacent ecosystems. Use of the basin's natural resources should be consistent with
their capability to sustain the ecosystem's identity and functions, should not risk the
socioeconomic and cultural foundations of any citizens, nor deny any generation the benefits
of a healthy, natural Lake Superior ecosystem. The obligation of local communities to
determine their future should be incorporated in any polices directed at the management of
natural and social resources in the basin.
In the LaMP 2002, it was noted that a comprehensive set of ecosystem targets needed to be
developed to guide management actions over the long term. In keeping with the public's
recommendation to integrate the habitat, terrestrial wildlife, and aquatic committees, the three
committees started work on developing a set of ecosystem goals. These ecosystem goals were
developed and distributed for public comment and input, and can now be found, in draft, in
Chapter 3. The goals also contain new climate change mitigation and adaptation goals.
Each biennial LaMP incorporates the latest available scientific and technical information into the
existing LaMP document. The primary audience for these biennial reports is the Parties and
their partners who are charged with lakewide management. This report will also be used to meet
reporting requirements to the IJC. A public-friendly LaMP brochure will be released to the
public later in 2008.
1.3 LaMP ACCELERATION AND THE LaMP DOCUMENT
1.3.1 What is LaMP 2008?
In May 1999, the Great Lakes States Environmental Directors issued a challenge to the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) that all LaMP documents were to be completed by
Earth Day 2000. This challenge was accepted at a meeting of the Binational Executive
Committee (BEC), which is composed of senior managers from the US EPA, Environment
Canada, the Great Lakes states, the Province of Ontario, and several tribes. A resolution was
adopted by the BEC that calls for the completion by April 2000 of a "LaMP 2000 " document
which would reflect the state of the knowledge and progress of the LaMPs at that time (see
Addendum 1A to this chapter).
LaMPs were published in 2000, and progress reports were released biennially after that. Analysis
by various LaMP work groups identified a need to refine the LaMP reporting process,
April 2008 1-7
-------
Lake Superior LaMP 2008
particularly with regard to the time, effort, and resources needed to produce the documents.
Greater emphasis needed to be placed on implementation and partnerships to protect each lake
basin. To that end, the BEC endorsed an approach to reporting in 2003 that strikes a balance
between consistency among LaMPs and individual LaMP needs, while minimizing reporting
efforts. LaMP teams endeavor to spend at least 80 percent of their time on LaMP
implementation, and a maximum of 20 percent on reporting.
The LaMP document serves several purposes. First, it summarizes the technical research and
scientific study of the Lake Superior ecosystem. Second, it represents a framework and road
map for guiding and supporting priority actions and/or additional research in the basin. Third,
the document presents actual pollution prevention, restoration, and other actions that
governments, industries, tribes, and other stakeholders can take to achieve the overall goals and
visions of the LaMP. Finally, the document serves as a strategic plan to help achieve
sustainability in the basin ecosystem.
LaMP 2008 has several notable sections that should be highlighted. Chapter 3 contains draft
ecosystem goals and objectives that the Binational Program and the LaMP have determined are
necessary to achieve and protect a diverse, healthy, and sustainable Lake Superior ecosystem.
Although a draft version of these goals was originally included in the LaMP 2006, revisions
were needed to better organize the goals and to accommodate emerging issues like climate
change. In addition, for the first time, goals related to the aquatic ecosystem have been included.
These aquatic ecosystem goals were coordinated with the Lake Superior Technical Committee of
the Great Lakes Fisheries Commission. They were also distributed for public review and
comment to Lake Superior stakeholders.
The Critical Pollutants section, Chapter 4, contains a Management Strategy for Substances of
Emerging Concern that describes how the Superior Work Group and committee will address
emerging contaminants. In the Habitat Chapter (Chapter 6), a draft Aquatic Invasive Species
"Complete Prevention Plan" sets out a strategy on how to prevent additional aquatic invasive
species from entering Lake Superior. Information on steps to prevent Viral Hemorrhagic
Septicemia (VHS) from entering Lake Superior is also included. An update on the progress of
the Great Lakes basinwide restoration effort, the Great Lakes Regional Collaboration, is
summarized in Chapter 8. A new chapter on climate change (Chapter 9) details the potential
impacts of climate change on the Lake Superior ecosystem, as well as possible mitigation and
adaptation actions. Since substantial progress has been made on a number of Lake Superior
Areas of Concern (AOCs), including Torch Lake, St. Louis River, Thunder Bay, and Nipigon
Bay, we have included narrative AOC progress reports, as well as a summary matrix, in
Appendix A of the LaMP. Appendix E contains a summary of proceedings from the highly
successful Making a Great Lake Superior 2007 conference, held in October 2007
1.4 RELATIONSHIP OF THE LaMP TO OTHER INITIATIVES AND EFFORTS
There are many ongoing collaborative efforts between the LaMP and other Great Lakes efforts,
one of which, Areas of Concern, is highlighted below. A more comprehensive and detailed
description of other collaborative initiatives may be found in Chapter 8.
April 2008 1-8
-------
Lake Superior LaMP 2008
1.4.1 Remedial Action Plans for Areas of Concern
The GLWQA amendments of 1987 also called for the development of Remedial Action Plans
(RAPs) for designated AOCs. The primary goal of the RAPs is to restore impaired "beneficial
uses," both ecological and cultural, as identified in Annex 2 of the GLWQA amendments, in
degraded areas within the basin. The GLWQA amendments directed the two federal
governments to cooperate with state and provincial governments to develop and implement
RAPs for each AOC. In the Great Lakes basin, 43 AOCs have been identified by the U.S. and
Canadian governments, 26 in U.S. waters, and 17 in Canadian waters (five are shared between
the U.S. and Canada on connecting river systems).
Collingwood Harbour and Severn Sound, in Ontario, and Oswego River/Harbor, in New York
State, are the first three of these 43 sites to be de-listed. Additionally, Spanish Harbour in
Ontario and Presque Isle Bay in Pennsylvania have been designated Areas in Recovery. Other
individual beneficial use impairments (BUI) that have been delisted include the removal of the
degradation of benthos BUI from the Manistique River, Michigan, AOC (on November 16,
2006); removal of the restrictions on dredging BUI from the Presque Isle Bay, Pennsylvania,
AOC (on March 16, 2007); and removal of the fish tumor and other deformities BUI from the
Torch Lake, Michigan, AOC (on April 5, 2007).
There are eight AOCs in the Lake Superior basin, four in Canada, three in the U.S., and one
shared between the two countries along the St. Marys River. In particular, much progress has
been made on the St. Marys River AOC in Ontario and Michigan, and the St. Louis River AOC
in Minnesota and Wisconsin, where draft delisting guidelines have been written and are being
circulated for public review and input. The guidelines are scheduled for completion by
December 2008. Narratives and a matrix summarizing the current status of the Lake Superior
RAPs may be found in Appendix A of the LaMP.
The RAPs and LaMPs are similar in that they both use an ecosystem approach to assessing and
remediating environmental degradation, consider the 14 BUIs outlined in Annex 2, and rely on a
structured public involvement process. RAPs, however, encompass a much smaller geographic
area, concentrating on an embayment, a single watershed, or stretch of a river. The main focus
of a RAP is on environmental degradation in that specific area, and remediating the BUIs
locally. Most of the Lake Superior RAPs have had active local Public Advisory Committees
(PACs), with stakeholders in some cases undertaking local remediation projects. In most AOCs,
the BUI (e.g., habitat loss) can be related or connected to local activities. On the other hand,
some fish advisories are attributable to the lakewide concentrations of persistent,
bioaccumulative, and toxic chemicals.
Forging a strong relationship between the LaMPs and the RAPs is important to the success of
both efforts. The AOCs can, in many cases, serve as point source discharges to the lake as a
whole. Improvements in the AOCs will, therefore, eventually help to improve the entire lake.
Much of the expertise about the use impairments and possible remedial efforts reside at the local
level; cooperation between the two efforts is essential in order for the LaMPs to remove
lakewide impairments.
April 2008 1-9
-------
Lake Superior LaMP 2008
Due in part to the passage of the U.S. Great Lakes Legacy Act, described in Chapter 8, AOCs
have taken on added importance and urgency in the U.S. Delisting of the AOCs is a top priority
for the U.S. and Canadian governments; increased funding for the Legacy Act will help
accelerate the delisting process in the U.S. The main federal funding programs for the RAP
program are detailed below.
1.4.2 Great Lakes Action Plan (Canada)
The 2005-2010 Great Lakes Action Plan for Areas of Concern provides $40 million from the
Government of Canada toward its commitment to restore, protect, and conserve the Great Lakes.
Improving the ecological integrity of the Great Lakes ecosystem has been, and continues to be, a
priority for the Government of Canada. This funding, spread over five years, will continue the
environmental restoration of key aquatic areas of concern in Ontario.
The Great Lakes Action Plan program is a coordinated effort of the seven Canadian federal
government departments participating in the federal Great Lakes Program: Environment,
Fisheries and Oceans, Health, Public Works and Government Services, Agriculture and Agri-
Food, Natural Resources, and Transport.
The $40 million is directed towards remediation activities at the 15 remaining AOCs contained
either entirely within Canada (10) or joint Canada-U.S. sites on connecting channels (5). These
remediation activities are identified in RAPs that have been prepared for each AOC.
Remediation activities which are the responsibility of the federal government, as identified in
RAPs, will include:
Working in partnership with other agencies on fish and wildlife rehabilitation projects;
Completing contaminated sediment assessment and remediation strategies for relevant
AOCs;
Undertaking engineering and technical studies to identify cost-effective wastewater
treatment technologies and approaches that will assist municipalities in securing
infrastructure funding; and
Leading the development and implementation of multi-agency monitoring plans essential
to support the design and evaluation of these activities.
Through the Great Lakes Sustainability Fund (GLSF), partners will be engaged to implement
projects related to habitat restoration, sediment assessment, and municipal wastewater
improvements. GLSF provides financial and technical support to projects that aim to
significantly accelerate work to restore the environmental quality of Canada's 15 remaining
AOCs. GLSF projects reflect diverse and dedicated partnerships with local and provincial
governments, community groups, academia, and industry; projects focus on an extensive range
of restoration activities. These include the development and implementation of innovative
strategies for improving municipal wastewater treatment, assessment and remediation of
contaminated sediment, restoration offish and wildlife habitat, non-point source pollution
control and watershed stewardship, and public outreach activities to promote various tools and
April 2008 1-10
-------
Lake Superior LaMP 2008
strategies. By completing these federal actions, progress should be made toward the ecological
restoration of AOCs.
Federal actions have been completed in Severn Sound and Collingwood Harbour, and ecological
restoration has been achieved. These locations have been successfully delisted, or removed from
the list of AOCs. Federal actions have been completed in Spanish Harbour, and monitoring of
its recovery is underway. Federal actions will be completed in Port Hope under another process.
Added to previous funding, this $40 million budget commitment means more than $300 million
of dedicated federal resources have been directed at restoring and protecting the Great Lakes
since the first Great Lakes Action Plan was launched in 1989.
1.4.3 Canada-Ontario Agreement Respecting the Great Lakes Basin Ecosystem
On August 16, 2007, Canada and Ontario announced the official signing of the 2007-2010
Canada-Ontario Agreement Respecting the Great Lakes Basin Ecosystem (COA). This renews
commitment by the governments of Canada and Ontario to work towards restoration, protection,
and maintenance of the Great Lakes basin ecosystem.
The COA focuses on cleaning up 15 severely degraded ecosystems in the Great Lakes (AOCs),
reducing harmful pollutants, improving water quality, conserving fish and wildlife species and
habitats, lessening the threat of aquatic invasive species, and improving land management
practices within the Great Lakes basin. The agreement also contains new areas of cooperation
such as protecting sources of drinking water, understanding the impacts of climate change, and
encouraging sustainable use of land, water, and other natural resources. It ensures that scientific
information is available to support remediation and protection efforts and to measure their
success for the benefit of the growing number of Canadians dependent upon the lakes, and will
contribute to meeting Canada's obligations under the GLWQA, which has recently undergone
review by both countries. A new COA beyond 2010 would consider the recommendations and
results of that review.
April 2008 1-11
-------
-------
Lake Superior LaMP 2008
ADDENDUM 1A:
BINATIONAL EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE CONSENSUS POSITION ON THE ROLE
OF LaMPS IN THE LAKE RESTORATION PROCESS
Binational Executive Committee Consensus Position on the
Role of LAMPS in the Lake Restoration Process
The development and implementation of Lakewide Management Plans (LaMPs) are an essential element of
the process to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Great Lakes
ecosystem. Through the LaMP process, the Parties, with extensive stakeholder involvement, have been
defining the problems, finding solutions, and implementing actions on the Great Lakes for almost a decade.
The process has taken much longer and has been more resource-intensive than expected.
In the interest of advancing the rehabilitation of the Great Lakes, the Binational Executive Committee calls on
the Parties, States, Provinces, Tribes, First Nations, municipal governments, and the involved public to
significantly accelerate the LaMP process. By accelerate, we mean an emphasis on taking action and a
streamlined LaMP review and approval process. Each LaMP should include appropriate actions for
restoration and protection to bring about actual improvement in the Great Lakes ecosystem. Actions should
include commitments by the governments, parties and regulatory programs, as well as suggested and
voluntary actions that could be taken by non-governmental partners. EEC endorses the April 2000 date for
the publication of "LaMP 2000", with updates every two years.
EEC is committed to ensuring a timely review process and will be vigilant in its oversight.
The EEC respects and supports the role of each Lake Management Committee in determining the actions that
can be achieved under each LaMP. EEC expects each Management Committee to reach consensus on those
implementation and future actions. Where differences cannot be resolved, EEC is committed to facilitating a
decision. EEC recognizes the Four-Party Agreement for Lake Ontario and the uniqueness of the agreed upon
binational workplan.
The LaMPs should treat problem identification, selection of remedial and regulatory measures, and
implementation as a concurrent, integrated process rather than a sequential one. The LaMPs should embody
an ecosystem approach, recognizing the interconnectedness of critical pollutants and the ecosystem. EEC
endorses application of the concept of adaptive management to the LaMP process. By that, we adapt an
iterative process with periodic refining of the LaMPs which build upon the lessons, successes, information,
and public input generated pursuant to previous versions. LaMPs will adjust over time to address the most
pertinent issues facing the Lake ecosystems. Each LaMP should be based on the current body of knowledge
and should clearly state what we can do based on current data and information. The LaMPs should identify
gaps that still exist with respect to research and information and actions to close those gaps.
Adopted by EEC on July 22, 1999.
April 2008 1A-1
-------
Chapter 2
Public Outreach and Education
Hartley Nature Center, Duluth, Minnesota.
Photo credit: Carri Lohse-Hanson, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency.
Lake Superior Lakewide Management Plan 2008
-------
-------
Lake Superior LaMP 2008
Chapter 2 Contents
BACKGROUND 2-1
2.0 ABOUT THIS CHAPTER 2-1
2.1 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT 2-1
2.2 PUBLIC OUTREACH/EDUCATION EFFORTS TO DATE 2-2
2.2.1 Lake Superior Binational Forum 2-2
2.2.2 Activities of the Communications/Public Involvement Committee 2-3
2.2.3 Lake Superior Pathfinders Program 2-4
2.2.4 Landowner and Realtor Outreach Project 2-5
2.3 MAKING A GREAT LAKE SUPERIOR 2007 CONFERENCE 2-7
2.4 CONCLUSION 2-10
ADDENDUM 2A: LAKE SUPERIOR BINATIONAL FORUM
ACCOMPLISHMENTS: 2005-2007 2A-1
ADDENDUM 2B: PATHFINDERS PROJECT UPDATE 2B-1
ADDENDUM 2C: MAKING A GREAT LAKE SUPERIOR 2007 2C-1
April 2008 2-ii
-------
-------
Lake Superior LaMP 2008
Chapter 2
Public Outreach and Education
BACKGROUND
The Lake Superior Binational Program has a long history of public involvement in the
development of the Lake Superior Lakewide Management Plan (LaMP). In particular, the Lake
Superior Binational Forum, the primary public group associated with the agencies responsible
for carrying out the Zero Discharge Demonstration Project, has been key to establishing an
effective multi-sector stakeholder process. The Forum has held many workshops over the years
for the purpose of acquiring necessary background information to help develop
recommendations and proposals for reducing the sources of nine critical pollutants to the Lake
Superior basin. The Forum has also published many documents on key issues relating to the
LaMP.
In addition, a separate Lake Superior Work Group Communications/Public Involvement
Committee, comprised of staff from government agencies and their partners, was formed to help
expand the network of stakeholders and outreach activities. This Committee has produced
documents for the purpose of informing the public about all aspects of the LaMP and the
Binational Program.
2.0 ABOUT THIS CHAPTER
All the partners involved in the Lake Superior LaMP (i.e., state, provincial, and federal agencies,
Tribes/First Nations, industry, the public, and others) have long been committed to an open, fair,
and significant public involvement process. One of the main goals of the Lake Superior
Binational Program is, in fact, to promote meaningful public participation and education to
ensure that the needs and concerns of the diverse population in the Lake Superior basin are met.
This section of the LaMP will briefly describe the efforts that have been made to date on public
outreach and involvement initiatives.
2.1 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
A major tenet of ecosystem management is the necessity of continuous involvement of the public
that is respectful of all viewpoints and stakeholders. Public input and support helps to ensure
that the actions recommended in the LaMP are carried out, leading the way to restoring and
protecting the lake ecosystem. The key to public support and the program's success is effective
communication between the government agencies and the diverse population of the Lake
Superior basin.
The LaMP 2008 is presented as a working document, based on existing information. It was the
goal of the Binational Executive Committee to provide a current foundation for discussion of
April 2008 2-1
-------
Lake Superior LaMP 2008
Lake Superior efforts, not necessarily a complete historical one. The LaMP is modified based on
new findings and public input. To that end, public input received on previous LaMP documents
has been addressed in LaMP 2008. This is a necessary step if we are to institute adaptive
management on an ecosystem scale.
A significant project related to public outreach is the Community Awareness Review and
Development (CARD) project carried out in 2004-2005, and extended in Canada from 2006-
2007. Thirteen communities and four First Nations were surveyed to determine community
priorities and awareness of environmental issues. The results of this project will be used to focus
future community outreach efforts and engage communities in implementing projects to achieve
LaMP goals. See Chapter 7, Section 7.1.1 for more information on the CARD project.
2.2 PUBLIC OUTREACH/EDUCATION EFFORTS TO DATE
When the Lake Superior Binational Program first began, public involvement activities were
carried out primarily by the Binational Forum (see Section 2.2.1 below). As the Program
matured, it became apparent that the government agencies and their partners needed their own
separate public outreach mechanism. Therefore, a separate group was formed entitled the
Communications/Public Involvement Committee. Over the years, the two groups have worked
together, complementing each other's efforts to involve the Lake Superior basin population.
2.2.1 Lake Superior Binational Forum
Since 1991, the Lake Superior
Binational Forum has served as the
public body that provides input to
the governments responsible for
carrying out the goals of the
Binational Program. The purpose
of the Forum is to promote
participation among government,
industry, and environmental
stakeholders on the restoration and
protection of Lake Superior. The
Forum is comprised of Canadian
and American stakeholders
representing diverse community
sectors such as environmental,
Tribal/First Nation, industrial,
business, health, faith community,
and academic interests.
The Forum has held technical
workshops on various topics
including mercury reduction,
Figure 2-1. The Lake Superior Binational Forum donated three books
about Lake Superior to five public libraries around the basin, including
the Red Cliff Tribal library in Bayfield, Wisconsin. Red Cliff Librarian
Gina LaGrew and two young patrons read books about the lake on
special display at the library. Photo credit: Lissa Radke, Northland
College.
April 2008
2-2
-------
Lake Superior LaMP 2008
sustainability indicators, PCBs, pesticides, and land use. These workshops provided necessary
background information that led to proposals for chemical phase-out schedules and reduction
recommendations. For example, recommendations related to the nine critical pollutants may be
found in the Stage 2 Lakewide Management Plan (available at
http://www.epa.gov/glnpo/lakesuperior/pubs.html). A more complete list and description of
recent Forum activities may be found in Addendum 2A.
The Forum has focused on a series of projects that are conducted jointly with the Lake Superior
Work Group. These have included a newspaper insert on critical Lake Superior issues, the
CARD project, an annual environmental stewardship awards program, workshops on mercury
and household garbage burning, Lake Superior Day, public input sessions, mercury reduction
mentoring, and updates to the monitoring metadatabase. Forum activities are reviewed annually
during the preparation of a yearly work plan.
2.2.2 Activities of the Communications/Public Involvement Committee
The Communications/Public Involvement Committee (or the Communications Committee) of
the Lake Superior Work Group implements provisions of a strategy reflecting the Lake Superior
Binational Program's long-term commitment to communications, public involvement, outreach,
and education.
The Binational Program has produced various documents and brochures for the purpose of
informing and educating the public. These documents include a general informational brochure
on the Binational Program, as well as a brief introduction piece for each committee on the Lake
Superior Work Group.
Since the LaMP 2006 Report was released, the Communications Committee has produced a
highlights brochure and a 2005 Zero Discharge Demonstration Program and Critical Chemical
Milestones factsheet. The first, "Lake Superior Lakewide Management Program (LaMP)
Highlights 2006", was based on the LaMP 2006 Report and was mailed to Lake Superior
stakeholders and distributed at Lake Superior Day events and various meetings around the basin.
The second factsheet was based on the Zero Discharge Demonstration Program and Critical
Chemical Milestones Report 2005. This was also mailed to Lake Superior stakeholders and
distributed at various meetings around the basin.
In addition, the Communications Committee has coordinated more closely with the US EPA
Great Lakes National Program Office (GLNPO) Communications Team so that many Lake
Superior highlights are reflected in a quarterly activities report that reaches the highest level of
US EPA management.
The Binational Program has developed a traveling display as a tool for outreach and education to
the general public. This display is used to publicize Lake Superior and the Binational Program at
public meetings, seminars, and conferences. The display includes a large photograph of the lake,
with space for fact sheets, brochures, and other documents. The display booth is staffed by
members of the Binational Program. In addition, a table-top display developed by University of
Wisconsin-Extension is in use around the basin.
April 2008 2-3
-------
Lake Superior LaMP 2008
The Communications Committee has moved the main program web site to a joint Canada-U.S.
site (www.binational.net), which is a site devoted to binational programs jointly led by
Environment Canada and US EPA. The committee has also been revising the agency Lake
Superior Binational Program web sites (www.epa.gov/glnpo/lakesuperior/ and
http://www.on.ec.gc.ca/greatlakes/default.asp?lang=En&n=E621AEOA-l), which consist of a
home page and supporting pages. This complements the Forum web site, which can be found at
www.superiorforum.info.
The Communications Committee continues to participate in joint outreach and education projects
with the Forum, such as a Lake Superior Awards program (see Addendum 2A) and Lake
Superior Day. Over the past two years, Lake Superior Day has received support from many local
governments and non-government organizations around the basin, as well as the following
federal and state representatives:
Rona Ambrose, Minister, Department of the Environment, Government of
Canada;
Stephen Johnson, Administrator, US EPA;
Jennifer Granholm, Governor of Michigan;
Tim Pawlenty, Governor of Minnesota; and
Jim Doyle, Governor of Wisconsin.
A mailing list has been compiled to keep the public informed of new developments in the Lake
Superior basin and to provide them with the opportunity to comment. The mailing list includes
both U.S. and Canadian government agencies, tribal organizations and First Nations,
environmental groups, and other public groups.
Assembling material to inform the public on progress toward restoring and protecting Lake
Superior is another role which the committee fulfills. The committee is currently working on
collecting success stories for distribution in various newsletters.
As this LaMP 2008 Report is not intended to be circulated extensively to the public, the agencies
will produce a separate document, a LaMP 2008 Highlights brochure, to inform the public about
activities of the Binational Program.
2.2.3 Lake Superior Pathfinders Program
The Lake Superior Pathfinders program is empowering environmental leadership for its
third year!
Pathfinders began in 2002 when educators at the University of Wisconsin-Extension received a
grant from the Wisconsin Coastal Management Program (WCMP) to create environmental
leadership programs for high school youth and adult audiences. A study group of approximately
12 partner organizations, including Lake Superior Binational Program experts, met over the
course of a year to assist with the development of the programs and then conducted pilot versions
for both audiences. The youth program was piloted with 38 students in August of 2004, and the
adult program was piloted over weekends in September 2004 with 12 participants selected from
59 nominated by UW-Extension educators and partners. In 2005, WCMP provided funding for
April 2008 2^4
-------
Figure 2-2. Students paddle and plant wild rice.
Photo credit: Steve Durocher, Cedar Tree Institute.
Lake Superior LaMP 2008
the development of a statewide model for the youth program, involving 85 participants (59 from
Wisconsin) in three different week-long sessions. Northland College's Sigurd Olson
Environmental Institute also became a partner and supplied funds, educators, and in-kind
contributions. During the summer 2006 program, 120 students were expected to attend,
including 30 Navigators, or returning Pathfinders who focus mostly on service learning. The
adult program is still being pursued, but funding is not yet available.
The goals of Pathfinders include assisting
participants to learn more about their own
leadership styles through the use of tools such as
low and high ropes challenge courses, climbing
walls, and on-the-water kayak experiences.
Educators help participants learn how to better
utilize their skills in their communities and to take
action on critical lake issues. After attending the
program, participants better understand critical
Lake Superior issues, as identified by the
Binational Program. They more effectively
gather, analyze, and evaluate related information,
and have the confidence, knowledge, and desire to
take action to respond to these issues in a more
sustainable way. They recognize their own
personal leadership skills and develop a personal
"action" plan to complete in their community. When addressing an issue, they understand the
Lake Superior basin community and respect different perspectives in seeking a resolution, while
networking and forming relationships and partnerships. Participants also gain a sense of place
for Lake Superior, as well as insight into the lake's cultural significance and the Anishinabe or
Chippewa Tribe's reliance on it as they interact with Tribal elders and educators.
The Pathfinders program is currently considering options to implement the program in Michigan,
Minnesota, and Ontario in an effort to expand lakewide, creating leaders of critical
environmental issues all around Lake Superior.
For more information on this program, please visit www.northland.edu/pathfmders. More
information and details on the Pathfinders program may be found in Addendum 2B of this
chapter and in Chapter 7.
2.2.4 Landowner and Realtor Outreach Project
The Landowner and Realtor Outreach Pilot Project aims to educate realtors and rural residential
property owners about environmental issues. In terms of Lake Superior LaMP initiatives, this
project is unique because it is not being implemented consistently basinwide, but is instead being
piloted on a jurisdictional basis. Property ownership and real estate regulation usually falls
within the jurisdiction of provincial, state, or local governments, and funding opportunities and
schedules are at the federal level or lower. Various LaMP partners are already engaged in
outreach efforts that address some of the same environmental issues addressed in this project,
although these existing efforts target a different audience. The project employs a two-pronged
April 2008
2-5
-------
Lake Superior LaMP 2008
approach that includes a binder
containing both LaMP and locally-
specific information, in addition to
coordinated outreach activities (home
visits, realtor workshops, etc.).
For these reasons, the Landowner and
Realtor Outreach Pilot Project has
adopted an opportunistic,
jurisdictionally-specific approach to
implementation. This allows
implementers to take advantage of
existing resources such as funding
opportunities, organizational capacity,
and ongoing programs. Where gaps
exist, knowledge sharing and
technology transfer can be done across
jurisdictions in order to share
information and best practices. Providing jurisdictionally specific information also increases the
utility and relevance to landowners and realtors.
Binationally, the project team has prepared a prototype binder organized into the following tabs:
Figure 2-3. The Landowner and Realtor Outreach Pilot Project
aims to educate realtors and rural residential property owners
about environmental issues. Photo credit: Frank Koshere,
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources.
Introduction to the Lake Superior Watershed
What Is In This Guide?
Wells
Septic Systems
Waste Disposal
Energy Conservation
Wetlands
Shorelines
Habitat
Stormwater
Landscaping for Wildlife
Other References
Appendix
Each tab includes introductory information outlining the issue and its importance to Lake
Superior and the LaMP. This is followed by jurisdictionally-specific information provided by
local sources relevant to rural homeowners in the Lake Superior basin. This might include
information from federal, provincial, or state agencies; local municipal or county governments;
and non-government organizations. The introductory information for each tab is currently in a
draft stage.
Ontario
In Ontario, an environmental non-government organization called Green Communities Canada is
already implementing an outreach program called Well Aware that is targeted at landowners and
realtors. The program addresses many of the same environmental issues that are a priority for
the Lake Superior LaMP. The program is implemented at the community level through trained
Well Aware service providers who conduct home visits and community forums in their
community. In the Lake Superior basin, the only Well Aware service provider is a non-
government organization called EcoSuperior that serves the Thunder Bay community.
April 2008
2-6
-------
Lake Superior LaMP 2008
In support of the Landowner and Realtor Outreach Project, the Ontario Ministry of the
Environment has provided EcoSuperior with funding to increase the capacity of the existing
Well Aware program. Between September 2007 and March 31, 2008, EcoSuperior will be
conducting additional home visits, hosting a community forum in Kakabeka Falls, and
undertaking research, review, and development of content for three sections of the binder for
completion by March 31, 2008: Shorelines, Burning Garbage, and Household Hazardous Waste.
The latter two topics correlate with the Waste Disposal tab in the prototype binder.
EcoSuperior has recently completed 54 Well Aware visits in the Thunder Bay area. Additional
home visits will resume in the spring when the climate is more reliable. In March 2008,
EcoSuperior held a free information and education night on wells and septic systems in Thunder
Bay. This location was chosen based on overwhelming interest in a similar Realtor's Forum held
there in June 2007.
Both Well Aware and the additional work for this project have been funded by Ontario Ministry
of the Environment. Environment Canada provides in-kind support for the project through the
involvement of two staff on the project team.
Minnesota, Wisconsin and Michigan
All three states have participated in the Landowner and Realtor Outreach Project. The Minnesota
Pollution Control Agency has contacted local governments for input to the concept, and local
government landowner guides have been incorporated in the draft Minnesota version of the
binder. Wisconsin supports both the concept and their Lake Superior partners in the project.
The Superior Watershed Partnership, based in Michigan, has worked with the Landowner and
Realtor Outreach Project team and is seeking to implement the project in all of the Upper
Peninsula counties, not just those in the Lake Superior basin.
2.3 MAKING A GREAT LAKE SUPERIOR 2007 CONFERENCE
From October 28 to 31, 2007, the Making A Great Lake Superior 2007 conference was held at
the Duluth Entertainment and Convention Center in Duluth, Minnesota. Sponsored by US EPA
GLNPO, Environment Canada, and Minnesota Sea Grant, the purpose of this significant
conference, the first of its kind since 1990, was to allow researchers, land and resource
managers, educators, and basin residents to participate in interdisciplinary discussions about the
status and successes of Lake Superior as well as challenges and critical issues of importance
facing Lake Superior.
The conference was co-chaired by Environment Canada and
US EPA, with support from the Lake Superior Task Force, the
Work Group, and the Binational Forum of the Lake Superior
Binational Program. The conference incorporated
presentations from individuals, organizations, governments,
academics, non-profits, and citizen groups involved in
research, educational activities, or management in the Lake
Superior watershed. Conference participants included:
April 2008
For more detailed information
about the Making A Great Lake
Superior 2007 conference,
please see Addendum 2C or
www.seaqrant.umn.edu/superio
r2007/. Please also refer to
Appendix E of LaMP 2008.
-------
Lake Superior LaMP 2008
Researchers;
Educators;
Government agencies;
Tribes and First Nations;
Communities;
Citizen groups;
Business and industry;
Students; and
Local governments.
This conference provided a
significant opportunity to raise
awareness about, and educate and
engage people in, the Lake
Superior Binational Program. The
conference format included plenary
and break-out sessions, a trade
show exhibit and poster area, an
awards banquet, field trips, and
public events on climate change.
Figure 2-4. The Making a Great Lake Superior 2007 conference in
Duluth, Minnesota, included a kite making session (from recycled
materials). Photo credit: Elizabeth LaPlante, US EPA.
The conference attracted over 450 binational participants from around the Lake Superior basin
and beyond. A special effort was made to include teachers. Thirty-three teachers attended, most
of whom received scholarships, with many more on the waiting list. The teachers received
continuing education credits for their participation.
The conference included a facilitated session on Education and Outreach. The session was co-
chaired by Environment Canada and US EPA.
One of the most significant ways the conference engaged participants in the Binational Program
was by adopting an environmental statement to reduce the overall environmental impact of the
conference and respect the spirit of the Lake Superior Zero Discharge Demonstration Program.
Specifically, the misson statement stated:
Making a Great Lake Superior 2007pledges to reduce the impact to the air, water, and land
of the Lake Superior Basin from the transportation, energy demand, and waste created by
planning and attending this conference. To this end, Making a Great Lake Superior 2007
will reduce the overall impact of the conference and respect the spirit of the Lake Superior
Zero Discharge Demonstration Program to eliminate the release of toxic substances in the
basin, through a pollution prevention approach to all aspects of the conference including:
Offsetting all unavoidable carbon emissions through the implementation of a carbon
neutral strategy;
Decreasing the amount of waste produced by the conference;
Reducing energy and water consumption;
Disposing of waste in an environmentally responsible manner; and
Eliminating the use of harmful chemicals at the event.
April 2008
2-8
-------
Lake Superior LaMP 2008
The venue made significant
efforts toward these goals
by providing a food service
plan that emphasized
locally grown, produced,
and when possible, organic
products. Over 60 percent
of all the food products
served at the conference
were locally produced.
Other waste minimization
efforts included recyclable
products, dishware, food
waste minimization, and
composting. The
conference web site was
used to promote group
transportation options,
disseminate conference
information paper-free, and
to broadcast web casts for
those unable or unwilling
to travel. Participants were encouraged to use sustainable transportation to and from the event,
and to bring their own name tag. Awards were provided in both of these categories.
An evaluation survey was conducted by email following the event in order to quantitatively and
qualitatively capture participant feedback and to measure satisfaction. The response rate was 70
percent (281 responded of 402 participants). Below is a summary of the results:
97 percent rated their conference experience as good or excellent;
86 percent have already used or plan to use information from the conference in the future;
66 percent rated the Climate Change session as very useful and were interested in having
it as a topic at the next conference;
85 percent stated the conference was somewhat or very effective at fostering dialogue
and information sharing between researchers, educators, and managers;
71 percent felt that the green aspects were very important (another 22 percent stated that
it was somewhat important);
95 percent recommended a Lake Superior
conference be held on a regular basis, with over 81
percent stating that they would attend; and
Networking was an important part of the conference
experience, and the event facilitated interactions
between researchers, natural resource managers, and
educators.
Figure 2-5. Members of the Lake Superior Task Force learned about habitat
studies on Isle Roy ale National Park, MI, in June 2007. Photo credit: Roger
Eberhardt, Michigan Department of Environmental Quality.
For more detailed conference
evaluation results, please refer to
Appendix F of LaMP 2008.
Conference results are also
available at
http://www.seaqrant.umn.edu/sup
erior2007/.
More information on the conference can be found in Addendum C.
April 2008
2-9
-------
Lake Superior LaMP 2008
2.4 CONCLUSION
The partners involved in the Lake Superior Binational Program have many ongoing outreach,
education, and communication activities. The partners believe that these will meet the objectives
of informing and educating the public about the program, involving the public in the decision-
making process, and educating and motivating stakeholders into action. These agencies are
mindful that involvement by people representing a wide range of interests is essential to the
success of the Lake Superior Binational Program. Public input and support will help ensure that
actions recommended in the program are carried out, leading the way to restoring and protecting
Lake Superior.
April 2008 2-10
-------
Lake Superior LaMP 2008
ADDENDUM 2A:
LAKE SUPERIOR BINATIONAL FORUM ACCOMPLISHMENTS: 2005-2007
The Lake Superior Binational Forum is a citizen stakeholder group comprised of 24 U.S. and
Canadian volunteers working together to provide input and analysis to governments on critical
issues. The members also develop strategies to educate the public about how to protect and
restore the natural environment of Lake Superior.
During 2005-2007, the Forum accomplished the following milestones:
1. The Forum Participated in the Making a Great Lake Superior 2007 Conference
The Binational Forum helped organize and conduct the following programs and sessions at the
Making a Great Lake Superior 2007 conference held on October 29-31, 2007, in Duluth at the
Duluth Entertainment and Convention Center:
Members of Planning Committees
Forum members participated on the Executive, Steering, Sessions, Communications, and
Outreach committees since late 2006 to help define the overall agenda, set goals, recruit
speakers, plan session content, and develop a communications plan.
Moderators and Speakers at Special Sessions
In cooperation with Work Group members, Forum members facilitated or presented at
three special topic sessions: watershed stewardship, environmental and economic
sustainability, and a facilitated workgroup on education and outreach.
Kite Making Workshop
To highlight the main message for Lake
Superior Day 2008, several Forum members
and volunteers from Northland College
(Ashland, Wisconsin) joined Phil Kucera, a
kite maker and artist from Ironwood,
Michigan, to make kites at the Great Lake
Aquarium on the Sunday afternoon before
the 2007 conference. The purpose of the
workshop was to show how clean energy
sources such as the wind contribute to better
waterquality. Approximately ISOkidsand Figure 2.6. Children learned to make kites from
adults made kites at the workshop. recycled materials at the Making a Great Lake
Superior 2007 conference. Photo credit: Elizabeth
Art Gallery LaPlante, US EPA.
A Forum member recruited about 25 artists from around the basin whose visual media
represented the aesthetic, spiritual, historical, and cultural aspects of the lake through
paintings and photographs, sculptures, and movies. Works by the artists were displayed in
April 2008
2A-1
-------
Lake Superior LaMP 2008
an art gallery designed and built for the conference, as was a movie theatre that offered
films about the lake.
Local Elected Officials Lunch
The Forum often partners with local elected officials during its meetings in host
communities around the lake each year. To increase collaboration with these officials, the
Forum partnered with the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Seaway Initiative to host a lunch
and informal meeting to share resources and needs. Mayors, town and county board chairs,
tribal leaders, and local government department chairs met together on the last day of the
conference to learn about lake issues, local concerns and needs, and how to work together
in the future.
2. Environmental Stewardship Awards Program
In collaboration with the Lake Superior Work Group (LSWG) in 2004, the Forum initiated an
annual Environmental Stewardship Awards Program to recognize outstanding contributions that
help restore or protect the basin's natural environment. Recipients in both the U.S. and Canada
were selected from five categories for their innovative or ongoing activities: Youth; Adult
Individual; Business, Industry, and Community; Organization; and Tribe/First Nation.
The winners in the last two years were:
In the U.S.:
Youth - Deb Ganz-
Brown's and Laurie
Schmidt's 2002 6th
grade classes, Pattison
School, Superior,
Wisconsin (2006);
Adult Individual -
Mary Rehwald,
Ashland, Wisconsin
(2006); a tie with Bob
Olsgard, Spooner,
Wisconsin, and Jill
Jacoby, Duluth,
Minnesota (2007);
Business -
Conservation
Technologies, Duluth,
Minnesota (2006);
Septic Pumping,
Ashland, Wisconsin
(2007);
Figure 2-7. Jill Jacoby holds her award for being named a U.S. winner of the
2007 Lake Superior Binational Program Environmental Stewardship award
for outstanding actions taken by an individual to protect Lake Superior. The
"beachscape," handmade artwork with sand and driftwood, was created by
Washburn, Wisconsin, artist Jim Radtke (left), and presented to Jacoby by
U.S. Co-chair of the Lake Superior Binational Forum Bruce Lindgren (right).
Photo credit: Lissa Radke, Northland College.
April 2008
2A-2
-------
Lake Superior LaMP 2008
Industry - A two-way tie between (1) Memorial Medical Center, Ashland, Wisconsin,
and (2) Sappi Cloquet LLC, Cloquet, Minnesota (2006); CG Bretting Manufacturing
Company, Ashland, Wisconsin (2007); and
Community/Organization - A three-way tie among (1) Earth Keepers, Upper Peninsula,
Michigan; (2) "A View from the Lake," a joint Minnesota Sea Grant and University of
Wisconsin-Extension project; and (3) Cities for Climate Protection, Duluth, Minnesota
(2006); Lake Superior Streams (2007).
In Canada:
Youth - Anishnabek of the Gitchi Garni, Thunder Bay, Ontario (2007);
Adult Individual - Jake VanderWal, Thunder Bay, Ontario (2006); Karin Grundt, Wawa,
Ontario (2007);
Business - First Nations Issues (2006); and
Community/Organization - Zero Waste Action Team, Thunder Bay, Ontario (2006).
The winners and honorable mention recipients for each year since 2004 can be found on the
Forum's web site at www.superiorforum.info.
3. Lake Superior Day
The Forum wanted to elevate the visibility
of Lake Superior issues by promoting a
celebration of the lake's importance,
uniqueness, and beauty. An annual Lake
Superior Day is now held throughout the
basin on the third Sunday in July.
The purpose of Lake Superior Day is to
educate residents about their role as
trustees of the lake by encouraging them
to make thoughtful behavioural choices
that eliminate pollution and foster
sustainable lifestyles. Lake Superior Day
encourages people to pledge to care for the
basin's natural resources and to appreciate
the lake's unique ecosystems.
The main messages have been to educate
the public about the LaMP and successful
implementation of LaMP goals and to
promote sustainable activities that reduce
impacts on the lake. Target audiences
Figure 2-8. Barbara Kerkove, a junior majoring in graphic
design and biology at Northern Michigan University,
created this Lake Superior Day logo in 2007 to symbolize
the annual event. Kerkove's design was chosen from almost
30 others entered in a design contest held by the university's
Art and Design Department.
April 2008
2A-3
-------
Lake Superior LaMP 2008
have included local elected officials, libraries, environmental groups, anglers and recreational
boaters, chambers of commerce, and churches.
The Forum developed a web site that describes activities and events that people can organize in
their communities. The day is promoted through special buttons, post cards, placemats, flyers,
newspaper ads, and press releases. About 45 groups have organized events for these annual
celebrations. For example, several churches in the Chequamegon Bay, Wisconsin, area offered
'blessing of the water' services, beach clean ups, special sermons, and potluck meals. A
partnership of the Cedar Tree Institute, Superior Watershed Partnership, and area musical groups
held a free public concert in Marquette that included a dance, new music composed specially for
the event, and a chamber orchestra.
For a list of previous year's events as well as activity ideas, visit the Forum's web site at
www.superiorforum.info.
4. Public Input Sessions
One of the Forum's main functions is to serve as a link between the general public and the
government agencies that are managing the lake. By holding open meetings in at least four host
communities per year and soliciting comments about issues, the Forum can learn what the public
wants and needs. The Forum shares this feedback with members of the Lake Superior Binational
Program, which uses the feedback to help shape policy regarding lake management strategies.
To enhance this role, in 2004 the Forum initiated a public input session to be held at each of its
quarterly meetings. These sessions allow open exchanges between specialists and the public.
Time is spent at each session to collect comments from citizens about concerns regarding
environmental issues in the Lake Superior basin. The following sessions were held around the
lake during 2005-2007:
February 2005 - Stream restoration in the Upper Peninsula (Marquette, Michigan);
May 2005 - Impacts of the shipping industry on the lake (Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario);
September 2005 - Native American/First Nations protection and restoration programs
(Grand Portage, Minnesota);
November 2005 - Citizen Science: Volunteer water quality monitoring opportunities
(Thunder Bay, Ontario);
March 2006 - Mining in the Lake Superior basin: trends and issues (Hibbing,
Minnesota);
May 2006 - Land use in Ontario (Marathon, Ontario);
September 2006 - Successful Lake Superior protections/restorations in Marquette & the
Upper Peninsula (Marquette, Michigan);
April 2008 2A-4
-------
Lake Superior LaMP 2008
November 2006 - Emerging concerns regarding pharmaceuticals and personal care
products in our water (Thunder Bay, Ontario);
January 2007 - Taking Natural Steps into economic and environmental sustainability
(Ashland, Wisconsin);
May 2007 - Sustainability and impacts of waterfront development (Thunder Bay,
Ontario); and
September 2007 - Sustainability in resource industry: best practices (Wawa, Ontario).
5. The Forum continues to provide input and analysis to governments about LaMP
implementation
In addition to holding workshops and public input sessions, the Forum has also written numerous
letters to various government representatives about different environmental issues having the
potential to negatively impact the Lake Superior ecosystem.
The Forum also worked on two other joint projects with the LSWG: a mercury reduction
mentoring program and a monitoring database development project.
Mercury Reduction Mentoring Program
The initial mercury reduction program for Lake Superior was undertaken in Canada between
September 2005 and March 2006 as a result of recommendations from a September 2004 joint
industry-government-Forum meeting which included providing advice to industry on mercury
reduction through industry peers. A contractor, Don Murray, was hired in this capacity.
Of the companies initially contacted by the contractor, three facilities had recently shut down and
one was on strike. Of the 15 operating facilities contacted, 10 consented to host a workshop and
two were interviewed about the extent of their mercury reduction programs. Seven companies
have sent letters to the contractor committing to take part in the mercury reduction program.
Environment Canada will continue to fund this project through 2008.
Objectives for 2007-2008:
1. Fulfill follow-up obligations from the 2005-2006 mercury mentoring project with
companies who made commitments to the project;
2. Extend the mercury mentoring project to include facilities that were unwilling/unable to
participate in the initial project where possible; and
3. Improve on the workshops and program initiated in the 2005/2006 project by building on
the lessons learned from it.
The Forum has played an important role in this joint project with the LSWG by contacting
representatives in the industrial and municipal government sectors to invite them to learn how to
identify mercury-containing equipment and devices in their facilities, how to dispose of them
April 2008 2A-5
-------
Lake Superior LaMP 2008
safely, and how to purchase mercury-free devices. The Forum is helping to serve as the mentor
and motivator to new participants and sectors that have not yet conducted this kind of inventory
and replacement process.
To participate jointly in the LSWG's focus on monitoring since 2006, the Forum has been
conducting a search of Michigan, Minnesota, and Wisconsin to find all private, corporate,
municipal, tribal, and non-profit organizations' natural resource monitoring programs at the
local, regional, and state levels. The Forum is developing an inventory of who is monitoring
which indicators in what region, and will produce a map of these programs.
Based on this list and map, the Forum will conduct a gap analysis of indicators that are missing
and where monitoring is needed. Although the Binational Executive Committee (BEC) has
developed a database of state, federal, and provincial monitoring programs, the Forum's focus
will be on non-governmental efforts. This joint investigation of who is monitoring what
elements in an ecosystem will help produce a comprehensive overview of Lake Superior
monitoring efforts.
6. Involving Youth in Leadership Activities
The Forum's Outreach Committee is seeking greater youth involvement in Forum activities. The
Forum has organized a model monitoring assessment program to involve college and university
students from around the basin, together with their faculty mentors in exploring, evaluating, and
expanding the citizen science movement around the basin. Northern Michigan University
(NMU) in Marquette has expressed support for this program; Forum members are working with
the NMU interdisciplinary Environmental Science Program to develop details and funding
sources.
April 2008 2A-6
-------
Lake Superior LaMP 2008
ADDENDUM 2B:
PATHFINDERS PROJECT UPDATE
Lake Superior Pathfinders launches its 4th year of programming with exciting additions!
The Lake Superior Pathfinders program of the Sigurd Olson Environmental Institute at
Northland College now offers three distinct residential summer experiences for young people to
learn more about Lake Superior. Using the Lake as a living classroom, students learn through
experiential, life-changing experiences!
Making Waves is a new program for students in grades 6-9. Partnering with the Conserve
School in Land O' Lakes, Wisconsin, and Northland College in Ashland, Wisconsin, the
program focuses on aquatics both inland and on Lake Superior, and is designed to assist students
in learning about and discovering aquatics. Making Waves also enhances students' knowledge
through activities that examine real strategies to sustain healthy lake communities, and by
developing skills to become better environmental stewards.
Lake Superior Pathfinders continues to offer an Environmental Leadership and Social Justice
program to students in grades 9-12. The Pathfinders program assists participants in learning
more about their own leadership styles through such tools as low and high ropes challenge
courses, climbing walls, and on-the-water experiences. After attending the program, participants
understand critical Lake Superior issues, as identified by the Binational Program.
The Lake Superior Navigators program is designed for those students who have attended
Pathfinders, or have exceptional leadership experience in grades 9-12. Participants network with
other amazing leaders and develop relationships and build capacity through focused experiential
activities, exceptional speakers, and skill sharing. They explore community sustainability and
leadership concepts by engaging in community service projects in the Ashland area.
All programs are taught by Northland College professors, professional educators, Sigurd Olson
Environmental Institute staff, Chippewa tribal elders and educators, community leaders, and field
counselors.
To date, Pathfinders has had 266 participants, and educated over 7800 students through school
visits and events. Pathfinders serves as a potential model to be instituted around Lake Superior
and the Great Lakes basin.
Information on this program can be found at www.northland.edu/pathfmders.
April 2008 2B-1
-------
-------
ADDENDUM 2C: Making a Great Lake Superior
The "Making a Great Lake Superior 2007" Conference
started with a bang and smoke, or more precisely, the
throb of drumming and an Ojibwe pipe ceremony.
Designed to increase collaboration among people and
organizations that are invested in Lake Superior's well-
being, the conference exceeded organizers'
expectations with 450 attendees. "Making a Great Lake
Superior," which spanned the last three days of October
in Duluth, Minn., attracted scientists, government
officials, natural resource managers, educators, the
media, and citizens from around Lake Superior.
Polar Explorer Will Steger and Minnesota
Governor Tim Pawlenty answer reporters'
questions about global warming at a news
conference during the "Making a Great Lake
Superior 2007" Conference.
"We're incredibly pleased with the momentum this
conference generated," said Jesse Schomberg,
Minnesota Sea Grant's coastal communities educator,
who took a major role in organizing the conference on
behalf of the Great Lakes Sea Grant Network and with the help of the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (Liz LaPlante and Janet Keough), Environment Canada (John Marsden), and
others. "The feedback has been terrific. A lot of important, useful, and diverse information
about Lake Superior was exchanged."
The conference focused on 12 priorities including human health, invasive species, Areas of
Concern, and fisheries. Climate change and the most recent Lake Superior research findings
grabbed headlines due to their emphasis during the conference and two media briefings. During
one briefing, Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty stood beside polar explorer Will Steger to
announce their plans to tour the state together talking about global climate change's impacts and
advocating for solutions.
In the other briefing,
three Lake Superior
experts gave reporters
sweeping overviews
of contaminants,
fisheries, and research
opportunities before
hustling across the
hall to deliver a more
in-depth address to a
full audience of
conference attendees.
Deb Swackhamer,
professor of
environmental
Families fly kites made from homemade materials off the deck of the Great
Lakes Aquarium in Duluth. The event was one of several free pre-conference
opportunities open to the public.
-------
chemistry at the University of Minnesota said, "I'm going to tell a story about the ghosts of
contaminants past." After talking about lingering legacy pollutants like PCBs, DDT, and
toxaphene, she said that the impacts of today's chemicals are harder to see and measure, which
makes studying them more challenging.
Mark Ebener, fishery assessment biologist with the Inter-Tribal Fisheries and Assessment
Program, told reporters that fish, especially whitefish and lake herring (cisco), are thriving in
Lake Superior. He called it a "siscowet lake, not a lean trout lake" despite noting that it probably
contains more lake trout now than it did in the 1920s the heyday of the trout fishery.
Carl Richards, director of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Mid-Continent Ecology
Division, faced the press to describe how advances in technology, like robotic sensors, have
significantly changed the way research is conducted. "We can move beyond educated guesses,"
he commented. "The types of questions we can ask have changed, and how we look at questions
has changed."
Several facets of the three-day conference broke the confines of tradition. One was the
deliberate effort to mix science, management, policy, and education perspectives. Another was
the emphasis put on "greening" the meeting and the venue. Conference organizers sought to
reduce the resources required to transport, feed, and inform participants. The Duluth
Entertainment and Convention Center staff served local and when possible, organic, food;
recycling and composting continued as habit. After calculating the amount of carbon consumed
beyond the daily norm for 450 people, the conference organizers intend to purchase 75 tons of
carbon credits. The credits will go toward alternative energy projects including a solar array,
wind turbines, and methane production from dairy farms and wastewater treatment plants. This
$900 offset should push the conference beyond carbon neutral to carbon negative.
Several participants even won awards for their efforts to attend the conference in a sustainable
manner.
Small Footprint Award (for farthest sustainable
modes of travel)
John Jereczek, Roller-skied 5 miles
Julene Boe, Walked 1 block (judges erred
thinking "1" meant "1 mile")
Matt Hudson, Biked 140 miles round trip
Reuse Award (for inventive reuse of nametags)
Marnie Chauvin
Ann McCammon-Soltis
Gary Gulezian
Carri Lohse-Hanson
During the ceremony, the Lake Superior Binational
Carri Lohse-Hanson snips a sample of Minnesota
Sea Grant Editor Sharon Moen's hair for mercury
testing.
-------
Program also honored Jake Vander Wai from Thunder Bay, Ont, with a Lifetime Achievement
Award and acknowledged their Environmental Stewardship Award recipients.
In addition to an art exhibition, vendor booths, poster and oral presentations, and think-tank
sessions on topics such as research directions and management issues, 30 conference-goers left
with an estimate of their mercury load. In exchange for a chunk of hair and information on the
number offish meals eaten per month, Carri Lohse-Hanson of the Minnesota Pollution Control
Agency showed that people who consume more fish tend to have higher concentrations of
mercury in their hair, which is consistent with more scientific studies.
The consensus of the
presenters and
attendees seems to be
that people need to
remain vigilant about
protecting Lake
Superior from the
consequences of
coastal development,
invasive species, and
climate change.
"I feel that people left
the conference with a
new energy and new
sense of urgency,"
said Schomberg.
"Achieving our
Mercury Content in Hair
Numbur of Fish fVlrals p&r Monlh
The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency reports that 30 conference participants,
who consumed an average of 4.3 fish meals per month, had an average of 0.45
parts per million (ppm) of mercury in their hair. Although the health threshold
for mercury levels is debated, the U.S. EPA sets the bar at 11 ppm.
regional let alone global, environmental, and economic goals requires both."
Visit the conference Web site (www.seagrant.umn.edu/superior2007) in the coming months to
find out what participants had to say about their experience at the "Making a Great Lake
Superior" Conference.
Source: Moen, S. 2007. Making a Great Lake Superior. Minnesota Sea Grant. Available at
http://www.seagrant.umn.edu/newsletter/2007/12/making a great lake superior.html. Reprinted
with permission.
-------
Chapter 3
Ecosystem Goals, Indicators and Monitoring
Monitoring boat on the St. Louis River.
Photo credit: Frank Koshere, Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources.
Lake Superior Lakewide Management Plan 2008
-------
-------
Lake Superior LaMP 2008
Chapter 3 Contents
3.0 ABOUT THIS CHAPTER 3-1
3.1 ECOSYSTEM GOALS, SUBGOALS, AND OUTCOMES 3-1
3.2 INDICATORS AND ASSESSMENT 3-9
3.3 MONITORING PROGRAMS AND INVENTORIES 3-17
3.3.1 Cooperative Monitoring of Lake Superior 3-17
3.3.2 Inventories of Monitoring Programs 3-17
3.4 DECISION SUPPORT SYSTEMS 3-18
3.4.1 Lake Superior Decision Support System 3-18
3.4.2 Lakeviews 3-19
Table 3-1. Goals and Strategic Objectives 3-4
Table 3-2. State of the Great Lakes 2007 Indicator Assessments 3-11
April 2008 3-ii
-------
-------
Lake Superior LaMP 2008
Chapter 3
Ecosystem Goals, Indicators and Monitoring
3.0 ABOUT THIS CHAPTER
The Binational Program is committed to the objectives of zero discharge of targeted critical
pollutants and to a broader program to restore and protect ecosystem integrity in Lake Superior
and its watershed. The Lake Superior vision statement, entitled A Vision for Lake Superior (see
Chapter 1), expresses this commitment to the Lake Superior ecosystem. The vision statement
reflects the diverse pathways and mechanisms by which humans and nature interact within land
and water ecosystems, and challenges the inhabitants of the Lake Superior watershed to accept
personal responsibility for protecting the Lake and the landscape that sustains it.
3.1 ECOSYSTEM GOALS, SUBGOALS, AND OUTCOMES
Background
The Lake Superior LaMP contains critical pollutant goals, namely the targeted reduction goals
for the nine critical pollutants (see Chapters 1 and 4). Until now, the LaMP and the Superior
Work Group have not fully developed similar goals and objectives for the broader ecosystem
program. In this chapter, draft ecosystem goals and objectives are presented, as a complement to
the critical chemicals goals. These draft goals have undergone public review and comment and
are scheduled to be finalized in 2008.
A Vision for Lake Superior expresses the desire for, among other things, a watershed where
diverse life forms exist in harmonythat is, free of toxic substances that threaten fish, wildlife,
and human health, and where wild shorelines and islands are maintained.
The Habitat, Aquatic Communities, and Terrestrial Wildlife Committees, in turn, have put
forward a mission to "support intact, diverse, healthy and sustainable ecosystems and the native
plant and animal communities that depend upon them." The committees have described the
natural processes that must be present and functioning well in order for a healthy ecosystem to
exist, as well as a set of principles that guided, and continue to guide, their work in developing
these Ecosystem Goals. These components can be found in the consolidated ecosystem chapter
of the Lake Superior LaMP, first published in LaMP 2006.
The Strategic Outcomes that the committees have set in order to preserve, protect, and enhance
healthy, sustainable ecosystems, are as follows:
1. Diverse and healthy native plant and animal communities exist in the Lake Superior
basin.
2. A program is in place to monitor the abundance, distribution, and health of plant and
animal populations and communities in the Lake Superior basin.
April 2008 3-1
-------
Lake Superior LaMP 2008
3. Species at risk or species of concern are recovered if populations are too low, or
controlled if populations are too large.
4. No further extirpation of native species occurs in the Lake Superior basin.
5. No new non-native species will be introduced into the Lake Superior basin.
6. Partnerships among natural resources management agencies, environmental agencies, and
non-agency stakeholders are strengthened and broadened.
7. Human activities in the Lake Superior basin mitigate the contribution of greenhouse
gases to the environment. Ongoing climate change adaptive management strategies are
pursued in the Lake Superior basin.
8. An interagency effort to restore and protect critical habitats will be organized and
initiated.
9. Management in the Lake Superior basin is organized and implemented at appropriate
watershed scales.
Lake Superior Draft Ecosystem Goals
In order to achieve the Strategic Outcomes
referenced above, the Habitat, Aquatic
Communities, and Terrestrial Wildlife Committees
worked together over the past two years to refine
and revise a set of ecosystem goals. These goals
contain strategic outcomes, specific goals, and
subgoals that the committees have determined are
necessary to achieve and protect a diverse, healthy,
and sustainable Lake Superior ecosystem.
Although a version of these goals was originally
included in the LaMP 2006, revisions were needed
to better organize the goals and to accommodate
emerging issues like climate change. A public
comment period was held to gather input on the
draft goals.
The draft goals that were released for public
comment can be found in Table 3-1. Once final, the
committees intend to work toward the fulfillment of
the goals and use them as a tool to track progress.
The committees and the Binational Program
anticipate that all agencies and organizations
around the lake can use these goals as a guide to achieving the shared Vision for Lake Superior.
Figure 3-1. Palisade Head from Shovel Point, MN.
Photo credit: Carri Lohse-Hanson, Minnesota
Pollution Control Agency.
April 2008
3-2
-------
Lake Superior LaMP 2008
These goals were also shared and coordinated with the Great Lakes Fisheries Commission's
Lake Superior Technical Committee. The Lake Superior Technical Committee's draft aquatics
Environmental Objectives were integrated in the Habitat and Wildlife Committee's ecosystem
goals. The committees will continue to work together to ensure coordination and achievement of
mutual goals.
April 2008 3-3
-------
Lake Superior LaMP 2008
Table 3-1. Ecosystem Goals
GOAL
SUB-
GOAL
OTHER
STRATEGIC
OUTCOMES
ACHIEVED
GOAL
TYPE*
Strategic Outcome #1: Diverse, healthy and self-sustaining native plant and animal communities exist in the Lake Superior
basin.
1
2
3
4
Subgoal
Subgoal
Subgoal
Subgoal
Subgoal
Subgoal
Subgoal
Subgoal
Identify and restore native communities where they are degraded.
Inventory and assess impacts to degraded habitats and communities.
Develop and distribute CIS information on ecosystem types, conditions and trends,
including coastal wetlands and riparian acres, and identify where restoration can occur.
Develop and put into place a policy that results in zero loss of wetland acres and
function.
Restore 25% of degraded wetland acres in the Lake Superior basin.
Restore or protect 25% of riparian conifer forest acres in the Lake Superior basin.
Identify and protect a system of representative, high quality ecosystems.
Complete comprehensive, systematic biological surveys in the watershed to identify
remaining high-quality natural communities.
Engage landowners as partners in protecting important habitat.
Use special designations to protect important habitat on public lands and waters.
Maintain existing genetic diversity and population integrity.
Manage the harvest of plant and animal resources to ensure diverse, healthy, and self-
sustaining native plant and animal communities.
2
2,8
IG, S
IG, S
Strategic Outcome #2: A program is in place to monitor the abundance, distribution, and health of plant and animal populations
and communities in the Lake Superior basin.
1
Subgoal
Subgoal
Institute a long-term Lake Superior basinwide program to monitor ecosystem health
utilizing standardized methodology.
Explore the development of inventory, monitoring, assessment and reporting tool for the
basin and how it might be implemented.
Develop, test, and implement standardized monitoring protocols, sampling procedures
and data handling for ecological indicators to enable Binational Program agencies to
report on the status of the basin's ecosystem health.
Neotropical Migratory Birds
1,3
M
April 2008
-------
Lake Superior LaMP 2008
GOAL
SUB-
GOAL
Reptiles and Amphibians
Soil Invertebrates
Medium-Sized Carnivores
Fish and aquatic invertebrates
Land Use Change
Exotic and Invasive Species
Rare Resources
Culturally Important Resources
Over Abundant Species
Indicators of Contaminants in the Environment
Indicators of Global Climate Change
OTHER
STRATEGIC
OUTCOMES
ACHIEVED
7
GOAL
TYPE*
Strategic Outcome #3: Species at risk or species of concern are recovered if populations are too low, or controlled if
populations are too large.
Strategic Outcome #4: No further extirpation of native species occurs in the Lake Superior basin.
1
2
3
4
Subgoal
Subgoal
Subgoal
Complete comprehensive, systematic biological surveys in the watershed to identify
locations of rare plants and animals.
Encourage the development and implementation of species recovery plans for species at
risk or species of concern.
Work with partners to develop a common understanding of native species
overabundance, and develop and implement plans to control overabundant species.
Encourage the appropriate use of native species for all projects requiring vegetation
restoration.
Develop sources of native plants and seeds in an ecologically appropriate manner
throughout the Lake Superior basin for use in vegetation restoration.
Establish standards of native species propagation and use as well as definitions of seed
zones.
Develop a list of critical native species that are regionally / habitat specific and
ecologically appropriate.
6
1
IG
P
C
S
April 2008
3-5
-------
Lake Superior LaMP 2008
GOAL
5
SUB-
GOAL
Subgoal
Subgoal
Subgoal
Educate citizens in the Lake Superior basin about the importance and appropriate use of
local native plants in restoration and landscaping projects.
Inventory the extent of exotic, invasive species and implement control measures.
Complete an inventory and control plan for priority exotic species at the scale of the Lake
Superior basin.
Encourage all agencies to develop and implement treatment programs for priority
species.
OTHER
STRATEGIC
OUTCOMES
ACHIEVED
6
GOAL
TYPE*
IG
P
S
Strategic Outcome #5: No new non-native species will be introduced into the Lake Superior basin.
1
2
Establish and implement best management practices for a range of activities (e.g.,
forestry, recreation, intra-lake shipping) to prevent the introduction and spread of exotics.
Develop a guidance document for agencies' vegetation restoration for projects in the
Lake Superior basin.
4
6
P,S
C
Strategic Outcome #6: Partnerships among natural resource management agencies, environmental agencies, and non-agency
stakeholders are strengthened and broadened.
1
2
3
4
Subgoal
Subgoal
Subgoal
Develop information and educational material to assist local land use decision makers in
implementing Binational Program goals through land use planning.
Have a Binational Program educator on staff to present material to local governments
and decision makers highlighting linkages between land use and ecosystem health.
Support appropriate public and technical fora to provide opportunities for researchers,
resource managers and the public to exchange information.
Inform and educate senior decision makers about how their actions move the Lake
Superior basin toward "A Vision for Lake Superior."
Develop a communications plan.
Implement the communications plan.
Complete a film about Lake Superior.
9
8
C
C
C
C
C
Strategic Outcome #7: Human activities in the Lake Superior basin mitigate the contribution of greenhouse gases to the
environment. Ongoing climate change adaptive management strategies are pursued in the Lake Superior basin.
1
Understand the impacts of climate change and the limits to the ability to predict and
model these impacts on specific ecosystems and local regions.
IG
April 2008
3-6
-------
Lake Superior LaMP 2008
GOAL
2
3
4
SUB-
GOAL
Subgoal
Subgoal
Subgoal
Subgoal
Subgoal
Subgoal
Subgoal
Subgoal
Subgoal
Continue to refine climate change models so as to develop specific predictions for the
Lake Superior basin.
Develop model projections of changing water levels for Lake Superior.
Model impacts on wetlands and other habitat types under future water level regimes for
20 years, 50 years, 75 years, and 100 years in the future.
Predict changes to terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems based on climate change
predictions.
Develop predictions of the impacts of climate change on keystone biota in the lake and
the basin as a whole.
Review and revise Conservation and Restoration Plans in the basin as required based
on the climate scenarios developed in the goal above.
Help Lake Superior basin stakeholders adapt to climate change impacts.
Help stakeholders to adapt to climate change impacts by facilitating assessment of
infrastructure vulnerabilities and capacity.
Make Lake Superior a net carbon reduction area that reduces greenhouse gas
emissions.
Facilitate basin collaboration on activities to reduce carbon emissions.
Encourage governments around the basin to set greenhouse gas emission reduction
targets.
Encourage U.S. cities to sign onto the US Mayors' Climate Protection Agreement.
OTHER
STRATEGIC
OUTCOMES
ACHIEVED
1
GOAL
TYPE*
P
S
Strategic Outcome #8: An interagency effort to restore and protect important habitat will be organized and initiated.
Strategic Outcome #9: Management in the Lake Superior basin is organized and implemented at appropriate watershed scales.
1
Subgoal
Subgoal
Subgoal
Subgoal
Support the development and implementation of ecologically based integrated watershed
management plans for priority watersheds within the Lake Superior basin.
Identify watersheds that have existing watershed plans.
Develop a list of watersheds that need a new or revised plan.
Prioritize watershed list.
Work with local governments/groups to develop watershed plans for 25% of the highest
priority watersheds in need of a new or revised plan.
1,2
P, S
April 2008
3-7
-------
Lake Superior LaMP 2008
GOAL
2
SUB-
GOAL
Subgoal
Subgoal
Subgoal
Subgoal
Subgoal
Work with local governments/groups to develop watershed plans for 50% of the highest
priority watersheds in need of a new or revised plan.
Work with local government/groups to develop watershed plans for 75% of the highest
priority watersheds in need of a new or revised plan.
Work with local governments/groups to develop watershed plans for 100% of the highest
priority watersheds in need of a new or revised plan.
Develop and maintain a unified, binational CIS database that includes current basinwide
data and decision support models needed for watershed management at a scale and in a
format that supports Lake Superior basin planning and watershed management.
Develop formal agreements for data sharing, participation and support.
Establish a mechanism to maintain shareable data once collected.
OTHER
STRATEGIC
OUTCOMES
ACHIEVED
6
GOAL
TYPE*
IG, P
Strategic Outcome #10: Air and water quality are restored and protected and soils are conserved.
1
2
3
Restore and maintain natural hydrologic processes, including groundwater.
Eliminate contaminants at levels that impact plants and animals, including humans.
Protect oligotrophic conditions in nearshore and offshore waters and restore and protect
water quality in embayments and tributaries.
3
*Goal types: P-Planning
M - Monitoring
IG - Information Gathering
S - Stewardship
C - Communications
April 2008
3-8
-------
Lake Superior LaMP 2008
3.2 INDICATORS AND ASSESSMENT
State of the Great Lakes Reporting
Since 1998, U.S. EPA and Environment Canada have coordinated a biennial assessment of the
ecological health of the Great Lakes ecosystem using a consistent set of environmental and
human health indicators. The Great Lakes indicator suite has been developed and continues to
be refined by experts as part of the State of the Lakes Ecosystem Conference (SOLEC) process.
The SOLEC process was established by the governments of Canada and the U.S. in response to
requirements of the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement (GLWQA) for regular reporting on
progress toward GLWQA goals and objectives. Since the first conference in 1994, SOLEC has
evolved into a two-year cycle of data collection, assessment, and reporting on conditions and the
major pressures in the Great Lakes basin. The year following each conference, a State of the
Great Lakes report is prepared, based on information presented and discussed at the conference
and post-conference comments.
Each State of the Great Lakes report presents the compilation, scientific analysis, and
interpretation of data about the Great Lakes basin ecosystem. It represents the combined efforts
of many scientists and managers in the Great Lakes community representing federal, tribal/First
Nations, state, provincial and municipal governments, non-government organizations, industry,
academia, and private citizens.
The contents of the State of the Great Lakes reports provide information to decision-makers at
all levels and in all sectors of government, private sector, and the public in order to inform policy
choices and decision-making, as well as to influence personal choices leading to a healthier
Great Lakes basin ecosystem.
The State of the Great Lakes 2007 provides assessments of 61 of approximately 80 ecosystem
indicators and overall assessments of the categories into which the indicators are grouped:
Contamination, Human Health, Biotic Communities, Invasive Species, Coastal Zones and
Aquatic Habitats, Resource Utilization, Land Use-Land Cover, and Climate Change. Within
most of the main categories are sub-categories to further delineate issues or geographic areas.
Authors of the indicator reports assessed the status of ecosystem components in relation to
desired conditions or ecosystem objectives, if available. The SOLEC process focuses on
basinwide assessments, but in order to make the indicator reports more relevant to lake
managers, the authors were asked to assess the indicators on a lake-by-lake basis, where
possible. For many indicators, ecosystem objectives, endpoints, or benchmarks have not been
established, and for these indicators, complete assessments are difficult to determine. Five status
categories were used:
1. GOOD - The state of the ecosystem component is presently meeting ecosystem
objectives or is otherwise in acceptable condition.
2. FAIR - The ecosystem component is currently exhibiting minimally acceptable
conditions, but it is not meeting established ecosystem objectives, criteria, or other
April 2008 3-9
-------
Lake Superior LaMP 2008
characteristics of fully acceptable conditions.
3. POOR- The ecosystem component is severely negatively impacted, and it does not
display even minimally acceptable conditions.
4. MIXED - The ecosystem component displays both good and degraded features.
5. UNDETERMINED - Data are not available or are insufficient to assess the status of the
ecosystem component.
Four categories were also used to denote current trends of the ecosystem component:
1. IMPROVING - Information provided shows the ecosystem component to be changing
toward more acceptable conditions.
2. UNCHANGING - Information provided shows the ecosystem component to be getting
neither better nor worse.
3. DETERIORATING - Information provided shows the ecosystem component to be
departing from acceptable conditions.
4. UNDETERMINED - Data are not available to assess the ecosystem component over
time, so no trend can be identified.
Table 3-2 shows the indicators within the Great Lakes suite, organized by categories, with the
latest assessment in the columns on the right. Lake Superior assessments are highlighted by a
dark, thick border.
Future work between SOLEC organizers and lake managers could see better coordination in the
use of indicators. Since each of the Great Lakes is unique, there will be a requirement for lake
specific indicators; however, for common basinwide issues, SOLEC can provide leadership and
support in indicator development and assessments.
Additional information about SOLEC and the Great Lakes indicators, along with the full
indicator reports, are available at www.binational.net.
April 2008 3-10
-------
Lake Superior LaMP 2008
Table 3-2. State of the Great Lakes 2007 Indicator Assessments
Sfafe of the Great Lakes 2007 Indicator Assessments
CONTAMINATION
ID#
Indicator Name
Nutrients
111
7061
Phosphorus Concentrations and Loadings open lake
nearshore
Nutrient Management Plans
Toxics in Biota
114
115
121
124
4177
4201
4506
8135
8147
Contaminants in Young-of-the-Year Spottail Shiners
2007 Assessment
(Status, Trend)
Lake
SU
?
?
^
MI |HU|E
^ ? n
? ? '.
R ON
> ^^^
2005 Report
? l^h
Contaminants in Colonial Nesting Waterbirds j^^j^^l^^^
Contaminants in Whole Fish l^^l^^l^^r
External Anomaly Prevalence Index for Nearshore Fish ? ? | ? | <
Biologic Markers of Human Exposure to Persistent Chemicals
+ ^
£5
t
?
Contaminants in Sport Fish ^^ ^^|^^^^|^^
Contaminants in Snapping Turtle Eggs
Contaminants Affecting Productivity of Bald Eagles
Contaminants Affecting the American Otter
Toxics in Media
117
118
119
4175
4202
9000
Atmospheric Deposition of Toxic Chemicals PCBs & others
PAHs & mercury
Toxic Chemical Concentrations in Offshore Waters
Concentrations of Contaminants in Sediment Cores
Drinking Water Quality
Air Quality
Acid Rain
Sources and Loadings
117
4202
7065
9000
Atmospheric Deposition of Toxic Chemicals PCBs & others
PAHs & mercury
Air Quality
Wastewater Treatment and Pollution
Acid Rain
?
?
F
^^m
? | ? | ? | ?
t 2005 Report
> 2003 Report
^
& ^
? ? '.
> ?
^ & ?
^
f 2005 Report
^
& ^
^
ogress Report
f 2005 Report
Status
Not Assessed
Good
Fair
Poor
Mixed
Trend
->
Improving
Unchanging
<-
Deteriorating
?
Undetermined
Note: Progress Reports and some Reports from previous years have no assessment of Status or Trend
April 2008
3-11
-------
Lake Superior LaMP 2008
State of the Great Lakes 2007 Indicator Assessments
BIOTIC COMMUNITIES
ID#
Indicator Name
Fish
8
9
17
93
125
4502
Salmon and Trout
Walleye
Preyfish Populations
Lake Trout
Status of Lake Sturgeon in the Great Lakes
Coastal Wetland Fish Community Health
Birds
115
4507
8135
Contaminants in Colonial Nesting Waterbirds
Wetland-Dependent Bird Diversity and Abundance
Contaminants Affecting Productivity of Bald Eagles
Mammals
8147
Contaminants Affecting the American Otter
Amphibians
4504
7103
Wetland-Dependent Amphibian Diversity and Abundance
Groundwater Dependent Plant and Animal Communities
Invertebrates
68
104
116
122
123
4501
Native Freshwater Mussels
Benthos Diversity and Abundance - Aquatic Oligochaete
Communities
Zooplankton Populations
Hexagenia
Abundance of the Benth Amphipod Diporeia spp.
Coastal Wetland Invertebrate Community Health
Plants
109
4862
8500
Phytoplankton Populations
Coastal Wetland Plant Community Health
Forest Lands - Conservation of Biological Diversity
2007 Assessment
(Status, Trend)
i r Lake
su
^
?
^
?^
F
^
?
»
^
+
?
+
200
t
Ml
HU
ER ON
^
?
£
?^
^
^
?^
^
^^
^l^
? |^
rogress Report
^
^
^
R^
^M^
t 2005 Report
2003 Report
2005 Re
^
Dort
2005 Report
*
?
?
^
^
?
?
^
* ^
9 9
E-L
^^
j Progress Report
2003 Report
^
?
' '
Status
Not Assessed
Good
Fair
Poor
Mixed
Trend
->
ImproMng
Unchanging
<-
Deteriorating
?
Undetermined
Note: Progress Reports and some Reports from preMous years ha\e no assessment of Status or Trend
April 2008
3-12
-------
Lake Superior LaMP 2008
State of the Great Lakes 2007 Indicator Assessments
COASTAL ZONES
ID#
Indicator Name
2007 Assessment
(Status, Trend)
SU Ml iHUlERlON
Lake
Nearshore Aquatic
4861 Effect of Water Level Fluctuations
8131
Extent of Hardened Shoreline
Coastal Wetlands
4501 Coastal Wetland Invertebrate Community Health
20( > Progress Report
4502
Coastal Wetland Fish Community Health
4504
Wetland-Dependent Amphibian Diversity and Abundance
4506
Contaminants in Snapping Turtle Eggs
4507
Wetland-Dependent Bird Diversity and Abundance
4510
Abundance of the Benth Amphipod Diporeia spp.
4861
Effect of Water Level Fluctuations
4862
Coastal Wetland Plant Community Health
4863
Land Cover Adjacent to Coastal Wetlands
rogress Report
rogress Report
Te re stria I
4861
Effect of Water Level Fluctuations
8129
Area, Quality and Protection of Special Lakeshore
Communities - Alvars
8129
Area, Quality and Protection of Special Lakeshore
Communities - Cobble Beaches
8129
Area, Quality and Protection of Special Lakeshore
Communities - Islands
8129
Area, Quality and Protection of Special Lakeshore
Communities - Sand Dunes
20( > Progress Report
8131
Extent of Hardened Shoreline
'A Mil
AQUATIC HABITATS
ID#
Indicator Name
Open Lake
111
118
119
8131
Phosphorus Concentrations and Loadings
Toxic Chemical Concentrations in Offshore Waters
Concentrations of Contaminants in Sediment Cores
Extent of Hardened Shoreline
Groundwater
7100
7101
7102
7103
Natural Groundwater Quality and Human-Induced Changes
Groundwater and Land: Use and Intensity
Base Flow Due to Groundwate Discharge
Groundwater Dependent Plant and Animal Communities
2007 Assessment
(Status, Trend)
Lake
SU
?
?
Ill
111
Illl
Ml HU ER
9 "TW
' JailiiillW
ON
ilJi'LEll
lill!
2005 Report
2005 Report
!!:!:!:!:!:!:!:! ^^^: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::!
lllllllfflBH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
2005 Report
Not Assessed
Im proving
Unchanging
Deteriorating
Undetermined
Note: Progress Reports and some Reports from previous years ha\e no assessment of Status or Trend
April 2008
3-13
-------
Lake Superior LaMP 2008
State of the Great Lakes 2007 Indicator Assessments
HUMAN HEALTH
ID#
4175
4177
4200
4201
4202
Indicator Name
Drinking Water Quality
Biological Markers of Human Exposure to Persistent Chemicals
Beach Advisories, Postings and Closures
Contaminants in Sport Fish
Air Quality
2007 Assessment
(Status, Direction)
Lake
SU
?
>
^^a
Ml |HU|ER
ON
?M?
->UU
?
^
INVASIVE SPECIES
ID#
Indicator Name
Aquatic
18
9002
Sea Lamprey
Non-Native Species (Aquatic)
Terrestrial
9002
Non-Native Species (Terrestrial)
2007 Assessment
Lake
SU
1-
_+_
Ml |HU|ER
ON
> 2005 Report
^IfrJfrJ^
1
1 ?
1
Status
Not Assessed
Good
^M
Fair | Poor
Mixed
Trend
->
Improving
Unchanging
<-
Deteriorating
?
Undetermined
Note: Progress Reports and some Reports from previous years have no assessment of Status or Trend
April 2008
3-14
-------
Lake Superior LaMP 2008
State of the Great Lakes 2007 Indicator Assessments
LAND USE - LAND COVER
ID#
Indicator Name
General
4863
7002
7054
7101
Land Cover Adjacent to Coastal Wetlands
Land Cover/Land Conversion
Ground Surface Hardening
Groundwater and Land: Use and Intensity
Forest Lands
8500
8501
8503
Forest Lands - Conservation of Biological Diversity
Maintenance and Productive Capacity of Forest Ecosystems
Forest Lands-Conservation & Maintenance of Soil & Water
Agricultural Lands
7028
7061
7062
Sustainable Agriculture Practices
Nutrient Management Plans
Integrated Pest Management
Urban/Suburban Lands
7000
7006
7054
Urban Density
Brownfields Redevelopment
Ground Surface Hardening
Protected Areas
8129
8129
8129
8129
8164
Area, Quality and Protection of Special Lakeshore
Communities -Alvars
Area, Quality and Protection of Special Lakeshore
Communities - Cobble Beaches
Area, Quality and Protection of Special Lakeshore
Communities - Islands
Area, Quality and Protection of Special Lakeshore
Communities - Sand Dunes
Biodiversity Conservation Sites
2007 Assessment
(Status, Trend)
^^^H
su
I
?
20C
20C
4
20C
P
^^H
Lake
Ml |HU ER ON
rogress Report
? | ? | ? | ?
i Progress Report
2005 Report
?
?
? | ? ? ?
2005 Report
2005 Report
2005 Report
?
^
i Progress Report
> 2001 Report
2005 Report
?
i Progress Report
oposed Indicator
Status
Not Assessed
Good
Fair
I
Poor
Mixed
Trend
->
Improving
Unchanging
<-
Deteriorating
?
Undetermined
Note: Progress Reports and some Reports from previous years have no assessment of Status or Trend
April 2008
3-15
-------
Lake Superior LaMP 2008
Sfafe of the Great Lakes 2007 Indicator Assessments
RESOURCE UTILIZATION
ID#
3514
7043
7056
7057
7060
7064
7065
Indicator Name
Commercial/Industrial Eco-Efficency Measures
Economic Prosperity
Water With drawls
Energy Consumption
Solid Waste Generation
Vehicle Use
Wastewater Treatment and Pollution
2007 Assessment
(Status, Trend)
^^^H
su
4
^^^H
Lake
Ml |HU|ER ON
2003 Report
2003 Report
> 2005 Report
2005 Report
?
rogress Report
CLIMATE CHANGE
ID#
4858
Indicator Name
Ice Duration on the Great Lakes
2007 Assessment
(Status, Trend)
Lake
^UJ| Ml |HU|ER
1 ^m
ON
Note: Progress Reports and some Reports from preuous years nave no assessment of Status or Trend
April 2008
3-16
-------
Lake Superior LaMP 2008
3.3 MONITORING PROGRAMS AND INVENTORIES
3.3.1 Cooperative Monitoring of Lake Superior
The Great Lakes Binational Cooperative Monitoring
Initiative is above and beyond the routine monitoring
programs that agencies normally conduct. It is a
binational effort that focuses on one lake each year,
with the goal of filling key information gaps as
identified through the LaMPs. The program
complements and builds on existing monitoring and
research projects being conducted on the lake in the
same year. Each lake, therefore, goes through a
cooperative monitoring cycle every five years.
Lake Superior Cooperative Monitoring Programs
In 2005 and 2006, Lake Superior was the focus of the
Cooperative Monitoring Initiative, addressing key
information needs identified by the Lake Superior
Work Group. Numerous agency and academic
scientists from both the U.S. and Canada participated
by providing input to the design of the programs, and
by conducting sampling, laboratory analysis, and data
interpretation. Although some of the results of the
Cooperative Monitoring Initiative are available (such
as the Lower Food Web study results, as presented in
Chapter 6) data are still being analyzed and reports
prepared.
3.3.2 Inventories of Monitoring Programs
Figure 3-2. In 2005-2006, Lake Superior was
the focus of the Great Lakes Cooperative
Monitoring Initiative, a binational effort that
targets one lake each year to fill key information
gaps, as identified through the LaMPs. Photo
credit: Frank Koshere, Wisconsin Department
of Natural Resources.
Binational Executive Committee Great Lakes Monitoring Exchange The Great Lakes
Binational Executive Committee (EEC) identified the need for a binational, basinwide inventory
of monitoring programs, to raise awareness of ongoing activities, promote collaboration, and
identify monitoring gaps. The Great Lakes Monitoring Exchange now provides links to nearly
30 monitoring programs that sample in the Lake Superior basin. This inventory contains
programs conducted by organizations in Canada and the U.S. The Great Lakes Monitoring
Exchange can be found at http://binational.on.ec.gc.ca/bec/intro-e.cfm.
Great Lakes Commission Environmental Monitoring Inventory The Great Lakes
Commission web site provides information on a large array of monitoring programs, including
monitoring programs for air, water, and landscapes.1 The Environmental Monitoring Inventory
for the Great Lakes contains over 200 records of environmental monitoring programs pertaining
1 Great Lakes Commission Data and Monitoring web site: www.glc.org/monitoring.
April 2008
3-17
-------
Lake Superior LaMP 2008
to the Lake Superior basin. Both Canadian and American monitoring programs are included in
this inventory.2
3.4 DECISION SUPPORT SYSTEMS
3.4.1 Lake Superior Decision Support System
The Lake Superior Decision Support Project was initiated by the Lake Superior Binational
Program and designed by scientists at the University of Minnesota's Natural Resources Research
Institute (NRRI).3
This system offers a variety of online and downloadable maps of the Lake Superior basin and
links to a number of GIS resources pertinent to Lake Superior. In 2006, GIS resources for
important habitat sites and areas were added to the decision support system.
In 2007, the US EPA Great Lakes National Program Office provided funding to the NRRI to
create a system of fine resolution and nested watersheds across the Lake Superior basin, to add
data layers that describe environmental and human disturbance gradients (both point and non-
point sources) within the watersheds, to provide a tool for using the watershed information in
designing monitoring programs and to identify information on reference (least impacted) and
degraded watersheds and coastal regions. The project will develop tools to allow users to scale
data appropriate to their sampling domain, incorporate stressor information into analyses, and
disseminate information through the Lake Superior Decision Support System. At the time of this
report, this project is ongoing. Thus far, high resolution elevation data have been assembled for
the Lake Superior basin (10 meter resolution for the U.S. and 20 meter for Canada). High
resolution hydrologic data are being assembled for both the U.S. and Canadian sides of the Lake
Superior basin.
Figure 3-3. The Lake
Superior Decision Support
Project offers online maps
displaying a variety of data,
including climate, census, city
lights, land use/cover, habitat
sites/areas, forest types,
Landsat satellite image (at
right), and elevation. Photo
credit: The Lake Superior
Decision Support Project.
Great Lakes Commission Great Lakes Monitoring Inventory and Gap Analysis web site:
www. glc.org/monitoring/greatlakes.
3 Lake Superior Decision Support Project web site: www.nrri.umn.edu/lsgis.
April 2008
3-18
-------
Lake Superior LaMP 2008
3.4.2 Lakeviews
Progress on the Canada-Ontario Agreement Respecting the Great Lakes Basin Ecosystem (COA)
"Coordination of Monitoring, Research and Information Management" Annex has led to the
development of "Lakeviews," a system of distributed databases linked by web services and
mapping technologies that serves as a discovery, access, visualization, and decision support tool
for information regarding trends in environmental quality.
"Lakeviews" is designed to provide easy access to environmental information using an
interactive mapping tool. The system provides a snapshot of environmental programs. The
application employs web services to dynamically pull information from distributed sources
created by various government departments and partner organizations. Because of the flexibility
offered by this design, the application is highly customizable in terms of form, content, and
functionality. With the architecture already in place, the current focus is on content
developmenthelping information custodians and their clients understand what web services
are, how to develop them, how to use them, and why they are so beneficial.
April 2008 3-19
-------
Chapter 4
Lake Superior Critical Pollutants
Progress Report
Cleaning up the Reserve Mining barrel dump site. Photo credit:
Susan Johnson, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
Lake Superior Lakewide Management Plan 2008
-------
-------
Lake Superior LaMP 2008
Chapter 4 Contents
4.0 THE ZERO DISCHARGE DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM 4-1
4.1 POLLUTANT CONCENTRATIONS IN THE ENVIRONMENT 4-2
4.2 LaMP ACCOMPLISHMENTS 2006 TO 2008 4-4
4.2.1 Chemical Reduction Activities in the Lake Superior Basin 4-4
4.2.2 New Regulations and Policies Aligned with LaMP Goals 4-22
4.3 CHALLENGES 4-29
4.3.1 Overall Challenges 4-29
4.3.2 Substances of Emerging Concern 4-30
4.4 NEXT STEPS 4-38
4.5 REFERENCES 4-38
Table 4-1. Jurisdictional Lake Superior water quality yardsticks for some LaMP critical
pollutants (ng/L) 4-3
Table 4-2. Concentrations (ng/L) of some critical pollutants in Lake Superior open lake
water 4-3
Table 4-3. Examples of common classes of substances of emerging concern, specific
chemicals of interest in those groups, and their common uses 4-31
Table 4-4. Existing critical pollutants for Lake Superior 4-34
Table 4-5. Existing prevention pollutants for Lake Superior 4-35
Table 4-6. Explanation of management categories 4-35
ADDENDUM 4A: CHAPTER 4 ACRONYMS 4A-1
ADDENDUM 4B: LAKE SUPERIOR ZERO DISCHARGE DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM
AND CRITICAL CHEMICAL REDUCTION MILESTONES 4B-1
ADDENDUM 4C: CHEMICAL REDUCTION AND INVENTORY ACTIVITIES FOR 2010
LAKE SUPERIOR MILESTONE 4C-1
April 2008 4-ii
-------
-------
Lake Superior LaMP 2008
Chapter 4
Lake Superior Critical Pollutants Progress Report
4.0 THE ZERO DISCHARGE DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM
Reducing toxics loadings to Lake Superior is a key component in the effort to achieve a
sustainable Lake Superior basin. The LaMP Stage 2 document sets a goal of eliminating
discharges and emissions of nine critical pollutants in the Lake Superior basin by 2020, with
interim targets in 2000, 2005, 2010, and 2015. The baseline for the reduction targets is 1990.
The nine chemicals targeted for zero discharge and zero emission include chlordane, DDT,
dieldrin, dioxin, hexachlorobenzene (HCB), mercury, octachlorostyrene (OCS), PCBs, and
toxaphene. The Lake Superior Binational Program's Zero Discharge Demonstration Program
(ZDDP) is a unique experimental program intended to end the use of these nine critical
pollutants in industrial processes or products, and to prevent their release in the Lake Superior
basin.
Chapter 4 updates information on concentrations of critical pollutants in Lake Superior,
accomplishments in the 2006-2007 period, challenges to accomplishing the 2010 critical
pollutant reduction milestones, and provides a strategy for substances of emerging concern.
Acronyms for this chapter are included in Addendum 4A.
Why Zero Discharge for Lake Superior?
Among the Great Lakes, Lake Superior provides the best opportunity to achieve zero discharge
and zero emission. The governments around Lake Superior announced^ Binational Program to
Restore and Protect the Lake Superior Basin in 1991, with an agreement to work together on the
ZDDP and on broader ecosystem issues. The 1991 Agreement stresses voluntary pollution
prevention but acknowledges that enhanced mandatory controls may be necessary.
What Progress Has Been Made toward Zero Discharge?
As noted in the LaMP 2006 Critical Pollutants Progress Report, Lake Superior partners were, at
the time, preparing a report on progress toward the 2005 milestones. This report was released in
October 2006 with a summary fact sheet released in 2007 (presented in Addendum 4B).
Reductions of note include:
Mercury releases have dropped 71 percent since 1990;
Dioxin releases have dropped 76-79 percent since 1990;
PCBs continue to be phased-out; and
More than 12,700 kg (28,000 Ibs) of waste pesticides associated with the zero discharge
demonstration have been collected since 1992.
April 2008 4-1
-------
Lake Superior LaMP 2008
4.1 POLLUTANT CONCENTRATIONS IN THE ENVIRONMENT
Enforcement of environmental regulations, changes in industrial development patterns,
implementation of pollution prevention projects, and the efforts of individual citizens have
significantly reduced pollutant releases to Lake Superior. However, the goal of zero discharge
and zero emission is a challenging one with a significant amount of work remaining to be done.
The ZDDP, and other programs, are aimed at reducing toxic chemicals at their sources, resulting
in the eventual reduction in the ecosystem. Concentrations of toxic organic contaminants,
including the Lake Superior critical and lakewide remediation pollutants such as PCBs and DDT,
have declined over time in many commonly-monitored environmental media including fish,
water, air, and herring gull eggs. Much of the declines occurred immediately following
government action to ban or restrict the use of these "legacy" pollutants in the 1970s and 1980s.
Further declines of these chemicals in the Lake Superior environment have been difficult to
measure for many reasons, including continued atmospheric inputs of pollutants from distant
sources, the unique physical and chemical properties of Lake Superior, food web changes within
the lake, and the inherent variability that occurs in measuring environmental contaminants,
particularly at low concentrations.
Table 4-1 identifies "yardsticks" for water quality in Lake Superior. These are standards from
the four Lake Superior jurisdictions, current as of January 2008. These yardsticks provide a way
to monitor the status of Lake Superior critical chemicals in lake water as the ZDDP moves
forward toward achieving its goals. Table 4-2 shows concentrations of some persistent
bioaccumulative toxic chemicals in Lake Superior water resulting from 2005 US - Canada
coordinated monitoring programs. Concentrations of PCBs, HCB, dieldrin, and toxaphene
remain above one or more Lake Superior jurisdictional yardstick values.
Some chemicals also exceed yardsticks in other media. For example, mercury, PCBs, dioxin,
and some pesticides exceed fish consumption advisory yardsticks in Lake Superior fish. Figure
2 in Addendum 4B demonstrates how mercury, which did not exceed the water quality yardstick
in Table 4-1, does exceed the fish consumption yardstick. The figure also shows that PCBs
exceed the fish consumption advisory yardstick.
While concentrations of many ZDDP and other legacy pollutants have declined in Lake Superior
over time, a new set of chemical threats to the lake and its ecosystem has emerged over the past
several years. "Substances of emerging concern" is a term often used to describe a whole suite
of chemicals that are used in human society and can be detected in the environment. Awareness
of the presence of many of these chemicals and their potential risk to ecosystem and human
health is new and evolving rapidly as scientists investigate the scope of the issue.
April 2008 4-2
-------
Lake Superior LaMP 2008
Table 4-1. Jurisdictional Lake Superior water quality yardsticks for some LaMP
critical pollutants (ng/L).
Pollutant
PCBs
HCB
Dieldrin
Chlordane
DDT
Mercury
Toxaphene
g-BHC (lindane)
Water Quality Yardsticks (ng/L)1
MN2
0.0045
0.074
0.0012
0.04
0.011
1.3
0.011
80
MI2
0.026
0.30
0.0065
0.25
0.011
1.3
0.068
25
WI2
0.003
0.22
0.0027
0.12
0.011
1.3
0.034
18
ON
1.0
6.5
1.0 (+Aldrin)
60
3.0(£DDE, ODD, DDT)
200
8.0
10
1 The purpose of listing available yardsticks from each jurisdiction is not to compare these numbers between
jurisdictions, but to provide a reference for comparing water quality results to available yardsticks and determine if
exceedences are occurring. For instance, Ontario's Provincial Water Quality Objectives (PWQOs) are intended to
protect aquatic organisms based on no adverse effects on growth, reproduction or survival. PWQOs are not
developed based on human health considerations or the protection of wildlife that consume aquatic organisms.
Hence, Water Quality Criteria developed by U.S. jurisdictions tend to be more stringent than PWQOs for substances
that bioaccumulate and, therefore, are not directly comparable (Ontario Ministry of the Environment, 1994).
2 Water quality based standards for the Lake Superior states are based on the Great Lakes Water Quality Initiative.
Table 4-2. Concentrations (ng/L) of some critical pollutants in Lake Superior open lake
water.
Pollutant
PCBs (Values "Blank-Corrected", total of 132 congeners)
HCB
Dieldrin
Chlordane (cis + trans)
DDT (p,p'DDE + p,p'DDD+ p,p'DDT+ o,p'DDT )
Mercury
Toxaphene
g-BHC (lindane)
Open Lake
Concentration
(ng/L)1
0.059 ± 0.022, n= 14
0.013 ± 0.001, n= 14
0.112±0.011,n=14
0.009 ± 0.003, n= 13
0.014 ± 0.004, n= 13
0.42 ± 0.14, n= 12
1.014 ±0.1212
0.283 ± 0.038, n= 14
1 Dove, A, Environment Canada. Personal communication (2005 data).
2 Jantunen L., 2006 (2005 data).
April 2008
4-3
-------
Lake Superior LaMP 2008
Chemicals such as polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs) are increasing in fish tissue and
sediment in Lake Superior (Figures 4-la and 4-lb). On a concentration basis, perfluorinated
alkyl acids (i.e., PFOS and PFOA) are now the predominant halogenated organic contaminants in
Lake Superior waters (Muir, personal communication). Recognizing the importance of this
issue, and in the spirit of the pollution prevention approach used by the ZDDP, the Lake Superior
Binational Program has developed a strategy for addressing "substances of emerging concern."
The strategy folds substances of emerging concern into the LaMP process, creates a mechanism
for identifying monitoring and management priorities for these substances, and calls for a
pollution prevention management strategy. The strategy is described in detail within Section
4.3.2.
10000
.D)
D)
LU
Q
m
CL
E
=3
1000 -
100 -
10 -
(2 = 2.8 ± 0.2 yr
1975
1980
1985
1990
Year
1995
2000
2005
Total PBDE Concentration (ng/g DW)
0 1 2
0
Hi
Q
Figure 4-la. Total PBDE concentrations in Lake
Superior whole lake trout (Zhu and Hites 2004).
Figure 4-lb. Total PBDE concentrations with
depth in a Lake Superior sediment core from
near Thunder Bay, Ontario (Song et al. 2004).
4.2 LaMP ACCOMPLISHMENTS 2006 TO 2008
Actions undertaken or completed since the release of the LaMP 2006 report are summarized
below. Earlier actions not reported in the 2006 update are also presented.
4.2.1 Chemical Reduction Activities in the Lake Superior Basin
The following descriptions of chemical reduction projects have been implemented in the Lake
Superior basin since the LaMP 2006 update. They are either a direct result of the LaMP or are in
alignment with LaMP goals. Items in italics are those that have an especially strong connection
to the LaMP through funding sources, participation by LaMP staff, projects of the Superior Work
Group or Forum Chemical Committees, or previous commitments to the Lake Superior
Binational Program's Zero Discharge Demonstration Program.
April 2008
4-4
-------
Lake Superior LaMP 2008
Collections
Under the Earth Keepers Initiative, the Superior Watershed Partnership coordinated
events on Earth Day 2006 and 2007 using a grant from US EPA 's Great Lakes National
Program Office (GLNPO). Besides the 129 congregations in the Earth Keepers
Coalition, the initiative includes a number of partners in Michigan's Upper Peninsula,
including the Keweenaw Bay Indian Community (KBIC), The Cedar Tree Institute, The
Nature Conservancy, Northern Michigan University, and others. In 2006, Earth Keepers
sponsored an e-waste collection that brought in 320 tons of unwanted televisions,
computers, and other waste electronics. In 2007, the Pharmaceutical Drop-off Day
resulted in over a ton of unwanted medications, including $500,000 worth of controlled
substances.
At the Marquette County Solid Waste Landfill, 28.8 kg of elemental mercury was
collected in 2006 and 2007 as part of the county's Household Hazardous Waste (HHW)
collection program.
In 2006, Smurfit Stone Container Corporation in Ontonagon, Michigan, held a mercury
thermometer exchange event. More than 100 fever thermometers, 13 lab grade
thermometers, and 3 blood pressure units were collected.
A program administered by
EcoSuperior (a non-profit
environmental organization in
Thunder Bay, Ontario) that
focuses on mercury reduction
in schools is now entering its
second year. The program
includes collection of mercury-
containing items and leftover
chemicals from science rooms,
presentations to students about
mercury and use of a Lumex
mercury vapor analyzer.
Almost every school visited
was found to have some
mercury on hand. Over 4 kg of
mercury was collected between
April 2006 and March 2007.
Fluorescent lamp recycling for the residential sector has been in place in Thunder Bay
for several years. This EcoSuperior program has now been expanded to other Lake
Superior basin communities including Red Rock, Wow a, Geraldton andLonglac (now
formally known as Greenstone). In addition to the Ontario Ministry of the Environment,
Ontario Power Generation continues to support this project.
EcoSuperior has been collecting compact fluorescent lamps (CFLs) since the inception of
this program and will continue to collect them. Due to the increased public attention
being given to disposal issues, EcoSuperior has already begun to expand information on
CFL acceptance centers; 5,000 lamps were collected between April 2006 and March
2007.
Figure 4-2. EcoSuperior uses a Lumex instrument to detect
sources of mercury vapor at schools. Photo credit: Jim Bailey,
EcoSuperior.
April 2008
4-5
-------
Lake Superior LaMP 2008
Although all members of the Ontario Automotive Recyclers Association now participate
in the vehicle Mercury Switch Out program, many area recyclers are not members of this
association. EcoSuperior is working with the Clean Air Foundation to identify those
recyclers who are not Switch Out participants and to encourage them to join.
EcoSuperior continues to promote the Thermostat Recycling program while private
sector partners operate the depots. Shipping of collected thermostats is handled and paid
for by Honeywell Inc. Operation by private sector partners makes this program
sustainable over the long term. Approximately 800 thermostats were collected through
this program between April 2006 and March 2007.
EcoSuperior
organized HHW
collections in the
Ontario north
shore towns of
Nipigon, Red
Rock, Schreiber,
and Wawa. This
initiative was
supported by the
Ontario Ministry
of the
Environment,
Environment
Canada, and
participating
municipalities.
Events were well-
publicized with
high rates of
participation.
Mercury reduction programs have been sponsored by the City of Superior including,
exchange programs, e-waste, dental amalgam waste separators, and shipping industry
assistance. The City of Superior continues to accept mercury at the wastewater treatment
facility and recycle it for free for residents. The City also collects fluorescent bulbs at the
wastewater treatment plant and at a local hardware store. Murphy Oil pays for the
recycling of them.
The Northwest Regional Planning Commission (NWRPC) of Wisconsin continues to
operate a ten-county hazardous waste collection program for Ashland, Bayfield, Burnett,
Douglas, Iron, Price, Rusk, Sawyer, Taylor, and Washburn counties. The program has
operated since 1995 and has collected well over one million pounds of hazardous wastes.
The program also collects and recycles electronic waste. The program has highlighted
the collection of mercury and mercury instruments in several of its operational years. In
2007, dental offices and mercury amalgam waste in the region were highlighted through a
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USD A) Rural Development Administration grant. In
2008, residents will be allowed to bring in medications to Saturday collection events in
each county.
Figure 4-3. Despite being banned decades ago, DDT is still turned in at HHW
collections in the Lake Superior basin. As the label on the back of the
container directs, DDT was at one time common "for home garden use only."
Photo credit: Jim Bailey, EcoSuperior.
April 2008
4-6
-------
Lake Superior LaMP 2008
Superior has held several electronic-waste collections funded by grants from local
businesses and foundations, including Best Buy and the Duluth Area Community
Foundation.
The City of Superior hosts an annual hazardous waste Clean Sweep. In addition
industries in town can have a "milk run" sponsored by Northwest Regional Clean Sweep
to pick up hazardous waste based on need.
The Anishinabek of the Gitchi Garni Environmental Programs (AGGEP) has
implemented the first curbside recycling at Fort William First Nation (FWFN). This two
year curbside recycling pilot project, funded by Environment Canada, EcoAction and the
Laidlaw Foundation, commenced in November 2007. Eighty FWFN residences, in a
specific section of the community, are included in the pilot. Each home was provided
with one year's supply of blue recycling bags; residents in the trial area have been
encouraged to participate. The curbside recycling pilot project was developed by
AGGEP to engage FWFN citizens in progressive, solid waste management and education
and to raise awareness of waste being dumped illegally in the community. After two
years of piloting this project AGGEP hopes to expand recycling to other areas of Fort
William First Nation.
KBIC is currently conducting mercury thermometer exchanges for tribal members. In
addition, KBIC is in the process of collecting spent fluorescent light bulbs for proper
disposal.
» Grand Portage, Fond du Lac, Bad River, and Red Cliff either hold annual HFIW
collection events or offer sites where these materials can be brought for proper disposal.
In addition, Fond du Lac runs an e-waste collection program.
KBIC partnered with the Village of Baraga for an annual spring HHW cleanup event.
Western Lake Superior Sanitary District (WLSSD) held the first Medicine Cabinet Clean-
Out Event at their hazardous waste center in Duluth with 166 households participating.
WLSSD collected 229 Ibs of non-controlled medications and 21 Ibs of controlled
substances, in addition to some miscellaneous drugs and drug waste. The total collection
of material was 258 Ibs, filling nearly three 55-gallon drums.
In Minnesota, ongoing hazardous waste collection programs are found in the Lake
Superior basin at WLSSD (both business and household), St. Louis County, Lake
County, and Carlton County. Cook County contracts with WLSSD to conduct
collections.
Outreach/Education
The LaMP Chemical Committee planned and moderated the Toxic Contaminants session
of the October 2007 Making A Great Lake Superior 2007 conference. Speakers and
posters included new and emerging chemical threats; water, sediment, fish and eagle
toxics monitoring projects; mercury cycling, atmospheric deposition; pollution
prevention; and identifying sources of toxic contaminants.
The Chemical Committee prepared and updated four posters for use at workshops and
conferences in the Lake Superior basin. The four updated posters presented at the
Making A Great Lake Superior 2007 conference included Lake Superior 2005 Chemical
Milestones: Meeting the Target of Zero Discharge and Zero Emission in the Lake
Superior Basin; Proposed Management Strategy for Substances of Emerging Concern in
April 2008 4-7
-------
Lake Superior LaMP 2008
the Lake Superior Basin; An Overview of
Mercury Reduction Activities in the Lake Superior
Basin; and Actions to Prevent Open Burning of
Trash in the Lake Superior Watershed.
Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife
Commission (GLIFWC) staff presented
information on critical chemicals in Lake
Superior fish at Red Cliff and KBIC commercial
fishing meetings. Following the presentations,
staff drafted an article based on these
presentations for GLIFWC's quarterly newspaper,
the Mazina 'igan.
GLIFWC staff presented papers on Reducing
health risks to the Anishinaabe from
methylmercury at both the annual Midwest
Society of Environmental Toxicology and
Chemistry (SETAC) Chapter meeting in St.
Cloud, Minnesota, and the Eighth International
Conference on Mercury as a Global Pollutant in
Madison, Wisconsin. GLIFWC staff also
presented its work on mercury trends in walleye
from northern Wisconsin lakes at the 2006 annual
SET AC North America meeting in Montreal,
Quebec, Canada.
GLIFWC presented New and Emerging Chemical
Threats to the Lake Superior Ecosystem and
Tribal Assessment ofPBT Contaminant
Concentrations Across Size Ranges of Four
Commonly Harvested Lake Superior Fish at the
Figure 4-4. The Making A Great Lake
Superior 2007 conference, held in Duluth,
Minnesota, in October 2007, was a great
success, bringing together a wide range of
people, groups, and agencies with an
interest in protecting the Lake Superior
basin environment. Here, at a session
sponsored by the Minnesota Conservancy,
Craig Blacklock signs a copy of his latest
book of Lake Superior photos entitled,
Minnesota's North Shore. Photo credit:
Jim Bailey, EcoSuperior.
Making a Great Lake Superior 2007 conference.
The latter presentation was also given at the 2007 annual SETAC North America meeting
in Milwaukee, Wisconsin.
Grand Portage continues to implement a pesticide use policy on the reservation to help
avoid unnecessary and unscrupulous spraying of pesticides.
The Bad River Air Quality Department initiated a burn barrel buy-back program in the
fall of 2005. Based upon windshield surveys of burn barrels located on the reservation
and surveys completed by tribal members who burn, this collection contributed to the
reduction of approximately 2.5 tons/yr of garbage disposed by backyard burning and a 31
percent reduction of the total burn barrels on the reservation as of the end of 2006. The
program is scheduled to continue in future years.
EcoSuperior summarized the open burning outreach that has been continued in the Lake
Superior basin in Ontario with a view to conducting a follow-up survey to assess the
effectiveness of the programs. The summary report is a good reference for what has
happened and how to repeat it, but the report exposed some gaps in coverage. It will be
used as a reference to develop a survey to assess the impact and effectiveness of outreach
to date.
April 2008
4-8
-------
Lake Superior LaMP 2008
A GLNPO grant to the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MFCA) on burn barrel
abatement included projects in Carlton and St. Louis Counties that involved displays at
county fairs and distribution of open burning materials developed by the counties. In St.
Louis County, a billboard campaign continued, alerting stakeholders to the dangers of
backyard trash burning. The county also developed an open burning video aimed at fire
departments and distributed to fire departments an information kit including the video,
plus brochures, a disk with a PowerPoint presentation, and a poster. Cook County used
MFC A funding to contract with CLIMB, an education theater organization, to prepare
and present open burning abatement mini-dramas in rural schools in all four Lake
Superior counties.
WLSSD served as the agent for an open burning outreach campaign in northeastern
Minnesota counties.
Unhealthy
Unsafe
Against the Law!
St. Louis County Solid Waste Department
Figure 4-5. A billboard in St. Louis County, Minnesota, warns residents of the unhealthy,
unsafe, and illegal nature of open burning. Photo credit: Mary McReynolds, St. Louis
County.
The MFC A included Lake Superior Binational Program information at their display in
the Eighth International Mercury as a Global Pollutant Conference in 2006.
Approximately 500 mercury and 50 PCB use trees posters were distributed. The
complete set of use trees (i.e., mercury, PCBs, dioxin, HCB, OCS, cadmium, polynuclear
aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), andpentachlorophenol (PCP)) were also displayed at
the Making A Great Lake Superior 2007 conference.
The MPCA provided graphics services, editing, and printing for 25,000placematsfor
Lake Superior Day. Placemats included games and trivia to promote a sense of place
April 2008
4-9
-------
Lake Superior LaMP 2008
and also listed 12 Ways You Can Protect the Lake Everyday. The placemats were divvied
up and mailed to Forum and Superior Work Group members for distribution.
The MPCA installed 20 watershed signs on Minnesota state and county roads at the
watershed divide to raise awareness about the impact of human activities in the Lake
Superior watershed and the physical extent of the watershed.
Figure 4-6. Twenty watershed signs were installed in the Minnesota
portion of the Lake Superior basin by the MPCA. Photo credit: Joel
Peterson, MPCA.
The MPCA provided keypad polling technology and technical assistance for the Lake
Superior session at the State of the Lakes Ecosystem Conference 2006 (SOLEC 2006)
and the Toxic Chemical session at the Making A Great Lake Superior 2007 conference.
NWRPC provided burn barrel education through a GLNPO grant that targeted residents
of Douglas, Bay field, Ashland and Iron counties. Three public service announcements
were developed and were broadcast on Duluth - Superior television networks. The
project also surveyed all municipal elected officials in the four-county region to elicit
their answers to questions relating to burn barrel usage and its dangers. A previous
GLNPO grant was used to make a 15-minute video/DVD on burn barrel dangers. It was
distributed to schools, municipalities, and the Northern Great Lakes Visitors Center for
use in their theater.
NWRPC provided solid, hazardous and medical waste audits to nine hospitals in its
region in 2007 to help prepare them for future Wisconsin Department of Natural
Resources (WDNR) environmental audits, and to introduce them to the "Hospitals for a
Healthy Environment" web site, which addresses environmental issues that hospitals are
confronted with. The focus was to ensure that hospital wastes are identified properly and
handled according to state and federal regulations.
The City of Superior has initiated a flore scent light education campaign though local
media to promote proper recycling. This was funded by Superior Light and Power.
April 2008
4-10
-------
Lake Superior LaMP 2008
In 2007, representatives from the City of Superior and WDNR visited six "Tier 1"
industrial businesses within the Superior urban area. Each business was located on the
shores of Lake Superior or contributed stormwater to the lake via storm sewers or
drainage ways. The purpose of the visits was to assess how surface runoff was treated
and otherwise managed prior to releasing the runoff off site. Representatives from the
city educated the industries about mercury and collected 20 Ibsfrom Frazer Shipyards.
Education initiatives in the City of Superior included Earth Week tours of the waste water
plant, Pollution Prevention week presentations to local government officials, and a
poster entitled 'Coming About' on Mercury: The Lake Superior Basin-wide Mercury
Reduction Program presented by the City of Superior at the Eighth International
Conference on Mercury as a Global Pollutant in 2006.
The City of Superior's Environmental Services and Parks and Recreation divisions are
creating an outdoor classroom and developing a curriculum that Superior teachers can use
to take advantage of the nearby habitat and forest. This project was funded by grants
from the Wisconsin Coastal Management Program and Department of Natural Resources.
The plan includes developing grade-specific lessons using the Wisconsin K-8 Forestry
Field Lesson Guide by LEAF (Learning, Experience and Activities in Forestry).
The City of Superior received a grant from the Great Lakes Commission for an erosion
control awareness project; 100 volunteers have assisted city crews in plantings and
restoration in Central Park on Faxon Creek.
Mercury Products
As a follow-up to a joint Work Group-Forum-Industry mercury mentoring program
conducted on the Canadian side of the Lake Superior basin in 2005/2006, a contractor
was hired to extend the program in 2007-2008. The objectives were to follow up with
companies who made commitments to the project. Follow-up actions included assessing
any changes to practices for managing mercury-containing equipment and to their
inventory of mercury-containing equipment. The contractor also offered workshops in
2007-2008 to facilities that were unwilling or unable to participate in the initial project.
The contractor was guided by a steering committee of Work Group and Forum members.
Final results from this project will be available in the spring of 2008.
On the U.S. side of the basin, the joint Work Group-Forum-Industry project is being
implemented by the City of Superior. During 2006-2007, the project focused on three
mercury collections. In Two Harbors, Minnesota, 10 Ibs of mercury-bearing equipment
was collected and 40 thermometers exchanged in five hours. In Ironwood, Michigan, 100
thermometers were exchanged and 35 Ibs of elemental mercury were turned in at a seven
hour event. In Wisconsin, the project coordinator accompanied WDNR inspections at
three facilities and provided information on mercury phase-out.
The MPCA surveyed hardware stores and retailers in the Duluth area in preparation for
mercury thermostat outreach. Of the 12 stores checked, three sold mercury thermostats.
Stores that had pharmacies as well as hardware departments were checked for mercury
thermometers, but none were found to be selling them (this is now illegal in Minnesota).
Six stores also sold fluorescent lamps in bulk, and the individual lamps were not labeled
as containing mercury.
April 2008 4-11
-------
Lake Superior LaMP 2008
In an effort to reduce mercury discharge to the wastewater treatment facility and Lake
Superior, the Superior Water shed Partner ship gave a series of presentations to the
Superior District Dental Society to inform area dentists of the extent of the problem and
provide assistance to develop and implement a mercury reduction plan utilizing amalgam
separators in their dental offices.
The Ishpeming, Michigan, wastewater treatment plant has tracked a reduction in mercury
discharge since late 2005. In June of 2005, dentists in Ishpeming were notified that
Sewer Use Ordinances were changed, requiring installation of 95 percent removal or
better devices. Mercury amalgam separators were online by September 2005.
The City of Superior received a grant from GLNPO titled "City of Superior Basinwide
Mercury Reduction " to work with the shipping industry to increase awareness of mercury
and to recycle
properly. To
date, educational
materials have
been distributed
to the industry
through
waterfront
shipping facilities,
and mercury has
been recycled
from one ship. In
addition, a
portion of this
grant was
dedicated to
contract with
WLSSD and
NWRPC to collect
mercury in
underserved
areas.
The City of Superior is anticipated to sign the Green Tier Charter for Mercury. Superior
was instrumental in crafting the Wisconsin state mercury minimization guidance.
Lake Superior Binational Forum Activities
The Forum Chemical Committee continues to track progress toward the chemical
reduction targets developed by the Forum in 1995 and adopted by Lake Superior
agencies in the LaMP Stage 2.
The Forum Chemical Committee provided valuable input into the Critical Chemical
Reduction Milestones (LSBP 2006) report which was released on Lake Superior Day
2006 for a 60-day consultation period. The final report was released at SOLEC in
October 2006.
Figure 4-7. Mercury reduction efforts have recently involved the shipping industry
through education provided at waterfront shipping facilities. Photo credit: Frank
Koshere, WDNR.
April 2008
4-12
-------
Lake Superior LaMP 2008
The Forum Chemical Committee continued their support and input into the "Basin-Wide
Mercury Reduction Project. " Committee members recommended that the government
continue to fund this work and follow-up on recommendations contained in the March 30,
2006 report compiled by a contractor for Environment Canada.
Committee members reviewed the 2006/200 7 Forum work plan project to integrate
LaMP goals and facilitate connective networks with Area of Concern (AOC)
communities. Forum meeting notices are to be sent out to Remedial Action Plan (RAP)
and Public Advisory Committee (PAC) members in those communities where public input
sessions are to be held, inviting them to attend and discuss ways in which the Forum can
help foster community involvement.
The Committee planned and held a public input session on pharmaceuticals and personal
care products (PPCPs) and their impact on the environment. Recommendations
resulting from this session, held in Thunder Bay in November 2006, have been forwarded
to the governments and various health organizations. The Committee suggested adding
to the Forum work plan a joint Superior Work Group/Lake Superior Binational Forum
project focusing on how best to conduct education and outreach on the proper disposal of
PPCPs.
The Committee provided input to a Superior Work Group proposal on substances of
emerging concern in the Lake Superior basin.
Committee members have provided input on the Realtor's Outreach project, initiated by
the Superior Work Group (see Chapter 2, Section 2.2.4). This project will
inform/improve understanding of realtors, prospective buyers, and current landowners
about environmental concerns associated with rural and residential properties in the
Lake Superior basin, and to help change their attitudes and approaches to activities and
the use of these types of properties.
Emissions Controls
Minnesota Power (MP) announced its Arrowhead Regional Emissions Abatement
(AREA) project. Additional pollution control equipment will be installed at the Laskin
and Taconite Harbor coal-fired power plants. The Taconite Harbor plant is currently
being upgraded, and the new mercury control technology, MinPlus, is expected to capture
up to 90 percent of the mercury emissions. MP has installed equipment designed to
reduce NOx emissions by 66 percent and is exploring the potential to convert the Laskin
boiler from coal to biomass.
Smurfit Stone Container Corporation in Ontonagon, Michigan installed equipment in
response to US EPA's Clean Air Act's regulation 40 CFR 63, Subpart DDDDD, National
Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Industrial, Commercial and
Institutional Boilers and Process Heaters, commonly called the Boiler Maximum
Achievable Control Technology (MACT). The Boiler MACT has since been remanded
by Federal Court and is no longer in effect. The system controls emissions through more
efficient combustion and sorbent injection.
In 2006, Smurfit Stone Container Corporation committed an investment of more than
$4.5 million for pollution control equipment.
April 2008 4-13
-------
Lake Superior LaMP 2008
The City of Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan, has adopted a new ordinance that bans outdoor
wood burning stoves. Existing units are grandfathered but cannot be replaced. The
benefit is a reduction of particulate matter in the atmosphere.
Energy Conservation
In Duluth, St. Mary's Clinic First Street Building received a Leadership in Energy and
Environmental Design (LEED) certification. At 236,000 square feet, it is the largest
green health care facility in the country and one of only ten in the nation to receive LEED
certification. The project achieved a 25 percent reduction in energy and a 30 percent
reduction in water use.
The non-profit organization Women in Construction completed construction of a house at
the Hawk Ridge Estates subdivision in Duluth, Minnesota. The home, which will be on
display into 2009, features solar panels and tubes for heating, reuse of wood building
material, and kitchen countertops made completely of recycled paper.
Bad River designated three members to participate in the Chequamegon Bay Area Green
Team in 2007 as part of its Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Tribal Task Force.
US EPA Region 5 has developed a climate change framework which emphasizes energy
conservation, innovation, and reductions.
Green Energy
The Brookfield Power
Prince Wind Energy
Project northeast of Sault
Ste. Marie, Ontario, was
completed in 2006. The
largest wind farm in
Canada, it has 126
turbines and is capable of
generating 189 megawatts
(MW).
Under the Federation of
Canadian Municipalities
(FCM) Green
Communities Fund, the
Town of Marathon and
Marathon Pulp Inc. (MPI)
have entered into a joint
venture to explore and
research the potential of a
mid-sized (20 to 50 MW) renewable wind energy farm situated along the coast of Lake
Superior, within the town limits. Marathon is interested in the project because it would
offer its residents increased energy independence and savings, environmental
sustainability, improved human health, and the potential for economic development. The
project could ultimately eliminate MPFs high fixed hydro cost and make it a more
Figure 4-8. Brookfield Power completed Prince Wind Energy Project
in 2006. It is the largest wind farm in Canada. Photo credit: Gary
Stewart, OMNR.
April 2008
4-14
-------
Lake Superior LaMP 2008
competitive operation, while gaining recognition as a leader in the use of sustainable
renewable energy technologies. The 12-month on-site wind-monitoring field test will
collect real data to demonstrate the project's economic feasibility. A business case and
engineering design work will follow. It is estimated that the wind farm could provide an
approximate annual reduction of 24,000 to 56,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide, 96 to 224
tonnes of nitrous oxide, and 28 to 64 tonnes of sulphur dioxide per year over the existing
generation mix.
More information about the fund can be found on the FCM Communities web site at
http://www.fcm.ca/english/gmf/gmf.html
A total of 575.18 MW of electrical generation from non-fuel sources has been proposed
and are at various stages of approval and development in the Ontario portion of the Lake
Superior basin. This includes:
o Aguasabon River Hydro Power - 10 MW;
o Coldwell Wind - 200 MW;
o Provedence Bay/Spring Bay wind - 15 MW;
o Greenwich Wind near Ouimet Canyon - 200 MW;
o McGraw Falls Hydro - 2 MW;
o Gitch AnimikBezhig Hydro-8.28 MW;
o Gitchi Amik Nizh Hydro - 9.9 MW;
o Ventus Energy Lakehead Wind Park - 100 MW;
o Sault Ste. Marie Solar Photo Volteic - 20 MW;
o Fort William First Nation Solar Farm Photo Volteic - 10 MW.
MP added 90 MW of wind energy from the Oliver County Wind Energy Project in North
Dakota to its energy portfolio in 2007. MP is also working on the Taconite Ridge wind
energy project in Virginia, Minnesota, with a goal of having a system capable of
producing 25 MW in 2008.
Fond du Lac Band has received funding to pursue a biomass gasification unit which will
be used at the Fond du Lac Ojibway School to reduce energy needs and costs. This unit
will use wood left over from fire reduction work. The order for the unit has been placed
with the manufacturer.
Fond du Lac has installed two anemometers with ongoing data collection. Preliminary
results show promise for the use of wind energy on one area of the reservation.
In response to the need to deal with climate change, the Fond du Lac Environmental
Program is developing a strategy for improvements in energy and fuel efficiency within
their own program as well as reservation-wide.
The Bad River Band has collected 3 years worth of anemometer data from three sites on
the reservation and is working with a certified meteorologist to analyze their data to
assess wind energy alternatives.
KBIC is currently conducting anemometer studies at their Pequaming Hatchery and is
pursuing funding for additional renewable energy projects.
The Red Cliff Band is exploring the possibility of alternative energy sources on its
reservation.
The J.H. Warden Generating Station in L'Anse, Michigan, is being converted by the new
owner, L'Anse Warden Electric Generating Company, from coal to biomass. The intent
is to increase from 60 MW of coal burning to 80 MW using biomass in 2008. The
April 2008 4-15
-------
Lake Superior LaMP 2008
biomass will come in part from waste from the Smurfit-Stone Container paper mill, and
steam from the plant will be used by a neighboring mineral ceilings plant.
Figure 4-9. Western coal is brought by train to Superior, Wisconsin, and shipped to electric generating facilities. In
2008, the port shipped 20.8 million tons of coal, mostly to Detroit. Photo credit: Frank Koshere, WDNR.
Monitoring and Reporting
In 2007, the Ontario Ministry of the Environment carried out an urban stream pesticide
monitoring project to determine the quantities of common pesticides entering urban
streams. Samples were taken twice a month during the summer in 2007 by the Regional
Pesticides Specialists. Me Vicar's Creek and the Mclntyre River were monitored in
Thunder Bay. Final results will be available in 2008.
The National Park Service (NPS) - Great Lakes Inventory and Monitoring Network
sampled bald eagle nestlings in 2006 and 2007 along the length of the St. Croix and
Namekagon Rivers, a portion of the Mississippi River in downtown Minneapolis/St Paul,
and along the south shore of Lake Superior. PCBs and DDT continue to decline from
highs in the 1970s, though concentrations are higher in nestlings sampled on Lake
Superior and in the Greater Twin Cities area. NPS found active DDT in three of 10
nestlings on Lake Superior but only one of 26 nestlings from inland areas. PBDEs were
found in all nestlings sampled, and data suggest a near doubling of the concentrations
over the last five years. Mercury was highest in nestlings along the upper portions of the
St. Croix and Namekagon Rivers where extensive areas of wetlands likely contribute to
the production and availability of mercury.
Red Cliff is taking the lead in the planning and development process for analysis of a
large barrel dump site off the north shore coast of Minnesota. They are working with
MFC A, US EPA, the Corps of Engineers and others to determine next steps. They are
developing a Strategic Project Implementation Plan and hiring a contractor to help with
the analysis and planning.
GLIFWC completed studies of 37 PBT contaminants (including seven of the nine zero
discharge pollutants) in Lake Superior cisco (formerly lake herring). Results from the
studies were presented at various forums including meetings of SET AC and the Making a
Great Lake Superior 2007 conference.
April 2008
4-16
-------
Lake Superior LaMP 2008
Red Cliff continued a Surface Water Quality Monitoring Program that tests 21 different
locations on the reservation for 22 different parameters including mercury, dioxin
(2,3,7,8-TCDD), PCBs, toxaphene, and chlordane. Keweenaw Bay, Grand Portage, Fond
du Lac, and Bad River currently have in place or are developing similar surface water
quality monitoring programs.
Bad River is monitoring and anticipates close out of another old Underground Storage
Tank in 2008.
Grand Portage collected fish in 2007 for contaminant analysis (i.e., mercury, PCBs,
dioxins, etc.) and will be collecting fish again in 2008.
Fond du Lac plans to collect fish for mercury analysis in the summer of 2008.
The MPCA purchased a solid sample analyzer for a Lumex portable mercury vapor
analyzer. The equipment was used to analyze the mercury content of 40 participants of
the Making A Great Lake Superior 2007 conference in 2007 as part of an outreach
project. Additional work is planned to compare the Lumex results to standard cold vapor
atomic absorption results. The MPCA and WLSSD also made arrangements for a Lumex
training refresher course for users in the Duluth-Superior area in 2006.
Sediment and Soil Remediation
At the Torch Lake AOC in Michigan, the fish tumor Beneficial Use Impairment (BUI)
was delisted from this AOC, leaving the fish advisories and restoration of benthos as the
remaining BUIs.
Figure 4-10. The Torch Lake Area of Concern Mason site before and after remediation. Photo credit:
Brenda Jones, US EPA.
In 2007, at the Torch Lake site, US EPA performed an emergency removal of arsenic-
and lead-contaminated soils and sediments. The Superfund program performed an area
assessment afterward and found that further remedial investigation may be warranted.
MDEQ, Torch Lake Public Advisory Committee, and US EPA are working together to
determine if there is a source of PCBs in the lake that is driving the fish consumption
advisory. In August 2007, MDEQ and US EPA, using the R/VMudpuppy, collected
sediment samples to locate any potential sources of PCBs in the lake. Results indicate
there may be a source of low-level PCBs, but the concentrations were not high enough to
April 2008
4-17
-------
Lake Superior LaMP 2008
warrant remedial action. MDEQ, Torch Lake PAC, and US EPA are awaiting the results
of the 2007 Michigan Department of Natural Resources fish sampling to determine if the
fish consumption advisory for PCBs is still appropriate.
Copper mining wastes ("stamp sands") deposited in Michigan's Keweenaw Peninsula
watersheds over 100 years ago result in elevated aqueous copper concentrations, poor
aquatic habitat, and impacted aquatic macroinvertebrate populations. Two stamp sand
deposits were isolated from the streams by stabilizing the stream banks and capping and
revegetating the upland areas; 2.5 acres were stabilized in the Kearsarge Creek watershed
in 1998, and 19 acres were stabilized in the Scales Creek watershed in 2005. These
remedial actions resulted in major improvements to Kearsarge Creek; instream copper
concentrations fell by a factor of 10, and the macroinvertebrate population tripled with
sensitive species such as mayflies, caddisflies, and stoneflies returning. Conditions in
Scales Creek have also improved, instream copper concentrations deceased slightly,
macroinvertebrates increased by 40 percent, and sensitive species doubled.
St. Marys River - Algoma Steel Inc. (AST) completed an assessment of PAH-
contaminated sediment in its boat slip during 2005, and the dredging of 2630 cubic
metres was undertaken in 2006. Sediments were disposed in an AST landfill waste
management facility.
St. Marys River - Assessments of sediment contamination at the Bellevue Marine Park
location were undertaken in 2006, and results are being evaluated to determine the cause
of site-specific toxicity and the need for sediment management.
Peninsula Harbour - Results of assessments of mercury and PCB bioaccumulation and
ecological risk have indicated the need for sediment management. Remedial options are
currently being assessed in consultation with local stakeholders. A preferred option will
be selected in 2008.
Thunder Bay (North Harbour) - Results of assessments of mercury and PCB
bioaccumulation and ecological risk have indicated the need for sediment management.
Remedial options are currently being assessed in consultation with local stakeholders. A
preferred option will be selected in 2008.
Wisconsin helped fund and manage a sediment monitoring and evaluation plan to collect
sediment chemistry and toxicity data within Wisconsin waters of the St. Louis AOC. The
results of the sediment assessment will be reported in 2008.
WDNR has finished the Hog Island cleanup within the St. Louis River (SLR) AOC and is
now working with Douglas County officials in revising and beginning implementation of
the Hog Island Restoration Master Plan.
As part of the federal Superfund process, Northern States Power of Wisconsin (NSPW)
has completed a remedial investigation of the Ashland site, as well as an ecological risk
assessment of the impacted sediment. Cleanup goals for the sediments were based on
this assessment and earlier sediment investigation work. NSPW has submitted a
Feasibility Study (FS) assessing cleanup options for the entire site and contaminated
sediments. WDNR and US EPA are reviewing the FS and will be commenting back to
NSPW shortly. NSPW will then resubmit the FS with changes reflecting the agencies'
comments. The Bad River and Red Cliff Bands have also been involved in the
Ashland/NSP Coal Tar Site (Superfund) Remedial Investigation, as well the natural
resources damage assessment.
April 2008 4-18
-------
Lake Superior LaMP 2008
WDNR is awaiting analysis results from sampling of suspected contamination on the
Superior Water, Power, and Light site.
The owners of Koppers' plant, a wood processing facility near Superior, have submitted a
remedial design study of onsite contamination to the WDNR. The owners have also
begun a field investigation of off-site contamination. Contaminants of concern are PAHs,
PCP, and dioxin.
At the St. Louis River/Interlake/Duluth Tar Site in the St. Louis River AOC in 2006, a
2,000-foot long sheet pile wall was placed around the eastern portion of Stryker Bay, and
a cap of sand sandwiching a geo-textile mat was placed within the enclosed area. A rock
dike with a clay liner was constructed to cut off Slip 6 from the river. In 2007, a water
filtration plant was constructed to treat water from the Contained Aquatic Disposal
(CAD) facility. The CAD received contaminated sediments from Stryker Bay and other
areas where dredged materials contained PAH levels over 13.7 ppb. Activities slated for
2008 include dredging a small segment of the St. Louis River, removing the sheet pile
wall, and capping the remaining area. Restoration activities scheduled for 2009 will
focus on dredging around Tallas Island.
The MPCA will enter into a Memorandum of Agreement with the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, creating a mechanism for sediment assessment and habitat restoration funding
and technical assistance for the Minnesota portion of the lower St. Louis River in 2008.
The MPCA is partnering with University of Minnesota-Duluth Natural Resource
Research Institute and has applied Great Lakes Environmental Indicator (GLEI) data to
the St. Louis River AOC to establish reference sites for six near-shore ecotypes identified
in the SLR Habitat Plan.
The MPCA and partners from the Harbor Technical Advisory Committee (HTAC)
developed the Erie Pier Management Plan converting the harbor's designated Confined
Disposal Facility into a dredge material recycle and recovery area. HTAC is working to
market materials to regional stakeholders.
The MPCA oversaw cleanup of
a Silver Bay, Minnesota, dump
once used by Reserve Mining
Co. to discard 12,500 drums
filled with grease, solvents,
heavy metals, and other
hazardous waste. The three-
year cleanup ended in 2007 and
cost nearly $13 million.
Remaining work includes
removal of 3,500 tires
weighing about a ton each,
monitoring groundwater near
the old dump site, and cleaning
up a pile of coal ash near Lake
Superior.
Remediation work on 16 of the
18 contaminated sites at the
U.S. Steel (USS) Superfund site has been completed at a cost of more than $12 million.
Figure 4-11. Oily debris from the Reserve Mining barrel dump site
in Silver Bay, Minnesota. Photo credit: Susan Johnson, MPCA.
April 2008
4-19
-------
Lake Superior LaMP 2008
The remaining two, with contaminated sediments in waters adjacent to the Wire Mill
Pond and the coke-settling basin, are currently undergoing remedial action. USS has also
conducted additional land and creek investigations. The MFC A and US EPA staff will
carry forward the 2003 report requirements and subsequent remediation work to the 2008
five-year review process this spring.
In 2006, KB 1C completed a cleanup of a tribal property that removed and properly
disposed of twenty-six 55-gallon drums that included hazardous waste, and non-
hazardous waste.
KBIC's Sand Point stamp sand brownfields site soil cap/cleanup project was completed
in 2006. Capping and revegetating the site will reduce heavy metal sediment loading to
Keweenaw Bay by an estimated 340 tons per year.
Solid Waste Management
Red Cliff Tribal Council formally banned the use of burn barrels on the Red Cliff
Reservation in 2007. The Band also drafted a Solid Waste Management Plan, with a goal
of final approval in 2008.
Bad River completed a Solid Waste Management Plan in 2007 and is awaiting final
approval.
Illinois-Indiana Sea Grant (IISG) and US EPA GLNPO collaborated on a project to help
communities initiate unwanted-medicine collection programs. The two agencies
developed Disposal of Unwanted Medicine: A Resource for Action in Your Community in
an effort to address the emerging concern that medications are ending up in lakes, rivers,
and streams (www.iisgcp.org/unwantedmeds). A resource kit was also created for
communities to start take-back programs to collect unwanted medicines. Over 160
resource kits have been distributed, and IISG has held workshops for over 100 local
officials. As a result, a number of communities or counties in the Great Lakes region
have begun collection programs.
Over the past two years, US EPA developed a web-based burn barrel toolkit entitled
Learn Not to Burn, which provides resources for local officials to reduce trash burning in
their communities. The toolkit includes individual fact sheets for each state and case
studies of efforts to reduce household garbage burning in various communities. The
toolkit is available free of charge online, or communities may request CD toolkits via the
Learn Not to Burn web site at http://www.iisgcp.org/learnnot2burn.
Stormwater
KB 1C is working with the local Resource Conservation and Development office to
complete a road crossing and culvert inventory for most or all of nine watersheds on and
around the L'Anse Reservation, to identify areas of significant sediment loading and
prioritize crossings for mitigation.
KBIC staff are in the process of obtaining federal inspector credentials for conducting
Construction Storm Water Discharge Permit compliance inspections on the reservation.
The Grand Portage Band received an EQIP grant (USDA Natural Resource Conservation
Service Environmental Quality Incentive Program) and installed rain gardens and
April 2008 4-20
-------
Lake Superior LaMP 2008
conducted stream channel restoration near the Lodge and Casino in an effort to reduce
non-point source pollution to Lake Superior.
Red Cliff is applying for Section 319 base funding to develop a non-point source
pollution management plan.
MDEQ provided funding to implement several Best Management Practices (BMPs) in
the Iron River watershed. BMPs included livestock exclusion fencing, alternate watering
sources, and livestock crossings. An estimated 270 tons of sediment, 250 tons of
phosphorous, and 500 tons of nitrogen were reduced through use of the BMPs.
The City of Superior is working on their Erosion and Post Construction ordinance. In
support of this ordinance, they have delineated storm drainage patterns and stream sheds.
They maintain a web site for Superior streams, found at:
http://www.ci.superior.wi.us/index.asp?nid=l 17
The City of Superior approved its "Stormwater Utility" ordinance. A variable fee will be
assessed starting in February 2008 based on the area of imperviousness.
The City of Superior
has a stormwater flood
control program aimed
at residents who have
experienced basement
backups. The program
provides money for
televising laterals (up to
$150) and installing
sump pumps and/or
back flow presenters
(100%). Participants
have to pay for cleaning
and repair of laterals if
indicated.
The Wisconsin
Education board
provided a grant to the
City of Superior for a
Neighbors Helping
Neighbors to Become Stormwater Stewards. The project focused on training community
leaders in the Billings park area to promote environmental stewardship in their local
neighborhood.
Superior hosted a very popular workshop on snow and ice. The workshops helped to
minimize the use of salt and deicing chemicals. This was sponsored by the MPCA for
Twin Ports residents.
Figure 4-12. In Superior, Wisconsin, a Neighbors Helping Neighbors to
Become Stormwater Stewards project focused on training community
leaders to promote environmental stewardship in their local neighborhood
Photo credit: Frank Koshere, WDNR.
Wastewater Infrastructure
The City of Marquette is upgrading their wastewater treatment facility with activated
sludge and new secondary clarifiers.
April 2008
4-21
-------
Lake Superior LaMP 2008
Bad River completed the second phase of a long-term, five-phase project, with the
ultimate goal of bringing all failing septic systems up to code. The Tribe established a
Private On-site Wastewater Treatment Systems (POWTS) Inspector position to assist
Tribal members with POWTS and to provide education/outreach on septic systems.
Grand Portage added a new sewer line to its West Village housing development and a
new line for the central village sewer that replaces several septic systems.
KBIC is nearing completion of construction of sewer and water line extensions to serve
lake front properties along the east shore of Keweenaw Bay.
KBIC, in conjunction the Village of Baraga, completed repair of approximately 9,000
linear feet of wastewater service lines and upgraded associated existing sewage lagoons.
Red Cliff removed an obsolete wet well to prevent the potential risk of discharging
sewage to a Lake Superior tributary.
4.2.2 New Regulations and Policies Aligned with LaMP Goals
In addition to the activities described above, some government regulations and policies have
taken place since the LaMP 2006 update that target releases of the nine chemicals slated for zero
discharge or are expected to provide co-benefits for those nine chemicals. Those that are most
closely aligned with contaminant sources in the Lake Superior basin include the following:
Air Quality
Minnesota passed a law requiring 90 percent reduction of mercury emissions from the
three largest coal-fired power plants in the state. The bill also requires installation of
continuous emission monitoring and allows companies to offset reductions at the three
largest plants by reducing mercury emissions in other plants.
In 2006, Michigan Governor Granholm directed the MDEQ to pursue a rule under
Michigan's Clean Air Act to reduce mercury emissions from electric utilities by 90
percent by 2015. A stakeholder workgroup is currently developing rules to comply with
the Governor's directive.
In 2007, the MDEQ was granted $100,000 to perform an innovative wood stove change-
out and outreach program. MDEQ will create a unique partnership with HPBA and
Michigan United Conservation Clubs (MUCC). This partnership will create a campaign
to educate Michigan citizens about the benefits of upgrading to cleaner burning
technologies for hearth appliances, and an incentive program to achieve a goal of
replacing 500 uncertified wood-burning stoves. The MDEQ's role will be to administer
the grant, monitor progress toward meeting the goal, and evaluate the outcomes. The
MUCC's role will be to create and administer the educational campaign and administer
the incentive program. The HPBA will supply the incentives (with assistance from grant
funds) and document change-outs.
The use of Outdoor Wood-fired Boilers (OWBs) is increasing, with about 500,000
expected to be in place nationwide by 2010, primarily in the Northeast and Midwest,
including the Great Lakes area. Although US EPA is not adopting regulations to address
OWBs, it has taken the following steps: (1) completed development of a test method
specific to OWBs; and (2) entered into an agreement with major OWE manufacturers,
based on a previous voluntary incentive program. As a result of this agreement,
April 2008 4-22
-------
Lake Superior LaMP 2008
beginning in April 2007, wood boiler manufacturers are offering for sale at least one
model of wood boiler that will emit 70 percent less emissions, with further reductions in
subsequent years. In addition, a model rule has been developed for states and local
agencies that will include emission limits, zoning, stack height, operation and
maintenance, labels, and notices to buyers.
The Ontario government implemented the Industry Emission Reduction Plan, which
establishes new emissions caps for industrial pollution sources in Ontario starting in
2006; the caps become more strict in 2007, 2010, and 2015.
Under Regulation 419/05, the Air Pollution Regulation - Local Air Quality, in 2007,
Ontario reviewed and updated the limits for 15 substances based on improved scientific
information, updated research on associated health risks and new air dispersion models to
provide greater protection of public health and the environment. The standards for these
substances will be used primarily to assess and manage local impacts from industries on
surrounding neighborhoods and communities. The complete regulation and emissions
standards are available in schedules 2, 3, and 4 on this web site:
http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/regs/english/elaws regs 050419 e.htm.
On August 24, 2007, Ontario implemented Regulation 496/07, which requires the
cessation of coal use at all four currently operating coal-fired generating stations
(Atikokan, Lambton, Nanticoke, and Thunder Bay) by December 31, 2014.
Ontario anticipates finalizing its mercury emission reduction plan for coal-fired power
plants once the Ontario Power Authority's Integrated Power System Plan is reviewed by
the Ontario Energy Board.
The Ontario Ministry of the Environment is in the process of amending the Certificates of
Approval for electric arc furnaces to include the dioxin/furan CWS limits, which will
come into effect on December 31, 2006 (phase 1), and December 31, 2010 (phase 2).
Ontario continues to implement the Canada-wide Standards (CWS) for mercury and
dioxins/furans from municipal waste, sewage sludge, hazardous waste, and medical waste
incinerators.
The Canada-wide Standard for Mercury Emissions from Coal-Fired Electric Power
Generation Plants commits the provinces to reduce mercury emissions from coal-fired
power plants by 60 percent nationally by 2010.
A partnership of Environment Canada and the Hearth, Patio and Barbeque Association
(HPBA) has conducted a study to measure emissions from conventional woodstoves and
verify historical emission factors. The study results are published in the 16th Annual
International Emission Inventory Conference proceedings, available at
http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/conference/eil6/session5/victor.pdf.
Energy
Legislation to implement Minnesota Governor Pawlenty's Next Generation Energy
Initiative was passed in 2007.
o 25x25 Renewable Electricity Requirements established the Nation's strongest
renewable energy standard, which requires energy companies to provide 25
percent of power from renewable sources by 2025.
o Next Generation BioEnergy andBioFuels appropriates over $35 million for
energy projects and research including bioenergy, biomass electricity, biofuels,
April 2008 4-23
-------
Lake Superior LaMP 2008
plug-in hybrid technologies, renewable hydrogen and solar technology projects;
energy research, including funding for the University of Minnesota Initiative for
Renewable Energy and the Environment; and funding to double the number of
E85 stations in Minnesota from the nation-leading 300 stations to 600 stations.
o Next Generation Energy Act of 2007
effectively doubles the amount of energy
saved by Minnesota's utilities and sets a
goal of 1,000 Energy Star Buildings in
Minnesota by 2010 and provides adequate
funding to achieve the goal. It also
expands and strengthens Minnesota's
commitment to the development of
locally-owned renewable energy projects.
It also propels Minnesota along with
California in leading the way towards
reducing greenhouse gas (GHG)
emissions. The bill establishes statewide
GHG reduction goals of 15 percent by
2015, 30 percent by 2025, and 80 percent
by 2050. The bill also endorses a
Minnesota Climate Change Advisory
Group (www. mnclimatechange .us).
Using a grant from the MFC A, a collaboration including the Builders Association of the
Twin Cities, the Minnesota chapter of the National Association of the Remodeling
Industry, and the Minneapolis-based Green Institute created a Minnesota GreenStar
certification program. The program developed a new set of standards aimed at increasing
durability, energy efficiency, and indoor air quality. Training for builders and remodelers
is mandatory, and projects will require inspection and performance testing at various
stages by third-party raters, including the Center for Energy and the Environment and the
Neighborhood Energy Connection (www.mngreenstar.org).
Ontario is extending the retail sales tax credit for installing wind, micro hydro-electric,
and geothermal energy systems installed in residential premises up to January 1, 2010.
Co-Benefits: Greenhouse
Gas and Mercury
Reductions
Reductions in greenhouse gases
may have co-benefits with
reductions in mercury emissions.
Energy conservation is an especially
good example of an activity that has
co-benefits. Some greenhouse gas
control technologies may shift
mercury from one pathway to
another, for example, from a release
to air to a release to a solid waste
byproduct. Such a shift may require
reconsideration of waste disposal
practices.
Great Lakes
In February, the MDEQ released a comprehensive strategy to eliminate the use and
release of mercury to Michigan's environment. The MDEQ's Mercury Strategy Staff
Report contains specific recommendations and a comprehensive approach to controlling
mercury, including environmental monitoring, inventory development, collaborations and
partnerships, education and outreach, and regulatory controls. It also provides an
overview of the mercury problem, identifies current sources that contribute to mercury
releases, and identifies various methods for reducing and eliminating the sources. It
outlines Michigan's rules, regulations, policies, and monitoring activities for mercury,
and chronicles various actions undertaken thus far to prevent the use and release of
mercury.
April 2008
4-24
-------
Lake Superior LaMP 2008
Under a grant from US EPA, EMA Research & Information Center, subcontractor to the
Tellus Institute, developed a spreadsheet tool to determine and compare the costs of
phasing out PCB transformers against the costs of continued use. The tool was
developed with the input of industry representatives and was based on actual case study
information. The software was demonstrated to the Great Lakes Binational Toxics
Strategy (BTS) PCB Workgroup in 2006. Some of the major cost drivers and
considerations included the transformer age, size, type, and rating; the fluid volume and
PCB concentration; the location and accessibility of the equipment; spill containment and
fire prevention; equipment reliability and importance; and regulatory compliance. The
software specifically enables a firm to conduct an itemized financial assessment for the
scenarios of keeping, removing, and retrofilling a PCB transformer, including such
factors as net present value and payback, depreciation, taxes, inflation, and discounting.
US EPA is currently evaluating the spreadsheet tool and will work with other industry
representatives to conduct additional trial case studies on the use of the tool.
A study of PCB emissions from in-service PCB transformers conducted by Dr. William J.
Mills of the University of Illinois was submitted to US EPA. Dr. Mills collected samples
of ambient air around operating PCB Askarel transformers in January and October 2004.
The study showed that PCB levels in rooms with transformers were at least 1 order of
magnitude higher than outside background PCB concentrations collected on-site, and
higher still than a background PCB concentration collected off-site. The draft report was
discussed with the BTS PCB Workgroup in 2006. The workgroup concluded that
additional information specific to any potential source of PCBs at the facility would be
needed to fully understand the relative contribution loading of PCB transformers. The
other potential sources could include past spills, paint, caulk, or other PCB-containing
equipment.
A risk-based decision-making framework for contaminated sediments was completed
under the 2002-2007 Canada-Ontario Agreement Respecting the Great Lakes Basin
Ecosystem (COA). The Ontario Ministry of the Environment is integrating the document
with existing guidance to produce "Guidelines for Identifying, Assessing and Managing
Contaminated Sediments in Ontario: An Integrated Approach." Pending final internal
review, the guidance will be applied throughout the province.
In 2007, a workgroup of state, tribal, and city staff developed a basin-wide Great Lakes
mercury product stewardship strategy to fulfill the Great Lakes Regional Collaboration
Strategy recommendation to phase down mercury in products and waste. The Draft
Mercury in Products Phase-Down Strategy is posted at
http://www.glrc.us/initiatives/toxics/drafthgphasedownstrategy.html.
Products
In Michigan, three acts were passed in 2006 to restrict sales of certain mercury-bearing
products.
o Public Act 492 of 2006 banned the sale of thermostats that contain mercury or a
mercury compound beginning January 1, 2009. It does not apply if the thermostat
is a replacement for an existing thermostat containing mercury or a mercury
compound that is a component of an "appliance." The term "appliance" is
April 2008 4-25
-------
Lake Superior LaMP 2008
precisely defined in Public Act 494. Thermostats that regulate home heating and
cooling do not meet the definition of "appliances."
o Public Act 493 of 2006 prohibits the sale of mercury-added blood pressure
devices by January 1, 2008, and their "use" by January 1, 2009, with two
exceptions: in home use and calibration of mercury-free devices in health care
facilities, if deemed warranted.
o Public Act 494 of 2006 bans the sale of esophageal dilators, bougie tubes, and
gastrointestinal tubes that contain mercury or mercury compounds beginning
January 1, 2009.
Minnesota passed two new laws regarding mercury in products. Both expanded existing
mercury legislation. The first in May 2007 phased out the sale of more mercury-
containing products (including switches, thermostats, medical devices, and sensors),
required recycling of compact fluorescent lamps, set a goal to remove mercury from all
pre-K through 12 schools within two and a half years, and strengthened public outreach
and collection programs for products still in use. The other bans the sale of cosmetics
which are manufactured using mercury.
The National Vehicle Mercury Switch Recovery Program (NVMSRP) was established by
an August 2006 agreement among vehicle manufacturers, steelmakers, vehicle
dismantlers, auto shredders, brokers, the environmental community, state representatives,
and US EPA. Under this program, vehicle manufacturers, auto dismantlers, and
steelmakers promote a voluntary program that facilitates and provides incentives for
removal of mercury switches from automobiles at the end of life. NVMSRP met its first-
year goals of enlisting all U.S. states to take part in the program, and of developing a way
to measure progress toward the goal of collecting at least 80 percent of available mercury
switches in future years.
In 2006, thermostat manufacturers increased collections through the Thermostat
Recycling Corporation (TRC), which seeks to improve recovery of mercury-containing
thermostats for recycling. The TRC enables wholesalers and contractors across the
country to collect and ship mercury thermostats without charge to an industry facility for
disassembly and recycling. In 2006, the TRC recovered nearly 113,600 thermostats and
thereby removed 1,080 Ibs of mercury from the solid waste stream. These figures
represent a 29 percent increase in thermostat collections and a 32 percent increase in
recovered mercury from 2005. The number of mercury thermostats coming out of
service has been estimated at more than 2 million annually. Mercury thermostats that are
not managed by the TRC or by HHW programs are either discarded in the trash or as part
of construction and demolition waste.
The American Dental Association has added the use of dental amalgam separators to the
list of Best Management Practices for Amalgam Waste that it recommends dentists
follow.
The Ontario Ministry of the Environment is moving to ban the cosmetic use of pesticides.
New use restrictions are being planned as part of an overall toxic substance reduction
strategy. The government has committed to introduce legislation in the spring of 2008.
April 2008 4-26
-------
Lake Superior LaMP 2008
Pesticide Use in the Great Lakes States
The use of and exposure to lawn chemicals and herbicides and pesticides have been linked to
human, aquatic, and ecosystem health effects. Pesticides run-off is also contributing to the Gulf of
Mexico dead zone and to deleterious effects in aquatic life and the ecosystem. In alignment with
Great Lakes Regional Collaboration recommendations on the reduction of pesticides to the Great
Lakes, US EPA GLNPO issued a grant to a non-profit organization, "Safer Pest Control Project", to
conduct a workshop entitled "Natural Lawn Care." The grant was matched by the Boeing
Corporation and helped support a two-day workshop in Chicago in February 2008 to help cities,
municipalities, park and school districts, churches, and turf care professionals learn natural and
organic lawn care methods and techniques. More information can be found at
www.spcpweb.org/yards.
Solid and Hazardous Waste
On December 11, 2006, the Minister of the Environment filed Ontario Regulation 542/06
under the Waste Diversion Act (WDA). The regulation identifies wastes that fall within
the municipal hazardous or special wastes class (MHSW). On February 19th, the Minister
of the Environment approved a MHSW program submitted by Waste Diversion Ontario
(WDO). The program requires the producers of household hazardous and special wastes
to develop and fund a diversion program for specific materials. The regulation focuses
on the following key areas: recycling, alternative fuels, and emerging waste
technologies. Following approval, the plan is scheduled to be implemented in phases
beginning July 1, 2008.
o WDO will work with brand owners to look at financial or other incentives to
reuse and recycle these materials, to increase the amount of materials collected, to
promote best practices and encourage innovative diversion techniques, and to
develop an education program.
o Phase one materials will be paints, solvents, oil filters, pressurized containers,
fertilizers, pesticides, antifreeze, and single-use dry cell batteries.
o WDO will be submitting a plan for Phase two materials July 1, 2009. Phase two
materials include: fluorescent lights, pharmaceuticals, aerosol containers, fire
extinguishers, syringes rechargeable batteries, thermostats, thermometers, or other
measuring devices containing mercury. More information may be obtained at
http://www.wdo.ca/files/domain4116/Revised%20Final%20MHSW%20Plan%20
Nov%2026%2007.pdf.
The MDEQ released a stakeholder-driven update to the Michigan Solid Waste Policy in
2007. The Policy provides a framework to guide Michigan citizens, businesses,
government agencies, institutions, universities, and political leaders in making smart
choices for managing Michigan's solid wastes by viewing it as a resource in a global
economy. The policy uses the three principles of sustainability: economic vitality,
ecological integrity, and improved quality of life to guide solid waste management
decisions.
April 2008 4-27
-------
Lake Superior LaMP 2008
Water Quality
Minnesota's statewide mercury Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) was approved by
US EPA in 2007. This TMDL seeks a 93 percent reduction in mercury emissions from
the state using mercury levels in fish from northeastern Minnesota as an endpoint. The
process has moved into the second phase, in which a mercury TMDL stakeholder group
is developing an implementation plan (http://www.mn-ei.org/policy/hgtmdlindex.html).
Four members of a partnership of northeastern Minnesota businesses, WLSSD, and
environmentalists have joined the Minnesota statewide stakeholder process for
implementing the statewide mercury TMDL. Once this group makes its
recommendations, the information gathered from the process will be taken back to the St.
Louis River TMDL Partnership.
In Ontario, the Clean Water Act received Royal
Assent on October 19, 2006, and addresses the
recommendations from the Walkerton Inquiry which
pertain to the protection of drinking water sources.
Justice O'Connor's report recommends that:
"Drinking water sources should be protected by
developing watershed-based source protection plans.
Source protection plans should be required for all
watersheds in Ontario" (D.R. O'Connor 2002). The
report also recommends that "The Ministry of the
Environment should ensure that draft source
protection plans are prepared through an inclusive
process of local consultation. Where appropriate,
this process should be managed by Conservation
Authorities" (D.R. O'Connor 2002).
The province passed the Clean Water Act in October
2006. The Act will better protect the quantity and
quality of water in aquifers, rivers, and lakes,
including the Great Lakes by:
a. Requiring communities to look at the existing
and potential threats to their water and set out
and implement the actions necessary to reduce or eliminate significant threats.
b. Requiring communities to take action to prevent threats from becoming
significant.
c. Requiring public participation on every local source protection plan. This means
everyone in the community gets a chance to contribute to the planning process.
d. Requiring that all plans and actions are based on sound science.
Source Protection Plans are being implemented on Lake Superior by the Lakehead
Region Conservation Authority and the Sault Ste. Marie Region Conservation Authority.
More information may be obtained on the Conservation Ontario web site:
http://conservation-ontario.on.ca/source protection/CWAFundEarlyActions.htm.
Figure 4-13. Lake Superior water -
frozen and unfrozen. Photo credit:
Chris Zadak, MPCA.
April 2008
4-28
-------
Lake Superior LaMP 2008
4.3 Challenges
4.3.1 Overall Challenges
Most of the challenges summarized in the LaMP 2006 update remain today. These include:
1. Chemical inventories must be up-to-date and as accurate as possible. The PCB inventory
has been a challenge, as there is no comprehensive and up-to-date inventory.
2. Outreach and coordination internally and externally are essential and must be
strengthened.
3. More easily achieved reductions have been accomplished, and the remaining sources will
be more difficult to reduce.
4. Out-of-basin sources continue to be a major source of deposition to the Lake Superior
watershed.
The Critical Chemical Reduction Milestones report
(LSBP 2006) provides additional detail on these
challenges. The Milestones report also warns of the
potential for critical pollutant increases due to projected
increases in energy demand and proposed new emission
sources. New developments since the release of the
Milestones report include three new mines that have
received permits to discharge in the Lake Superior basin
and other proposed mines and a coal gasification plant
that are in the planning stages. All three permitted mines
are likely to begin operations before the 2010 mercury
reduction milestone.
The Kennecott Eagle Project in Michigan is
expected to yield 112 million to 135 million kg of
nickel and about 90 million kg of copper.
Mercury emissions are estimated to be quite small
at<0.1 kg/yr.
The Minnesota Steel project in Minnesota would
both mine taconite and produce steel slabs. An
estimated 35 kg/year of mercury would be emitted
from this facility.
Mesabi Nugget, also in Minnesota, is a new kind
of taconite processing plant with an estimated
mercury emission of 35 kg/yr.
Burning Garbage
Although no large open burning
surveys were done in the Lake
Superior basin in 2006 or 2007,
anecdotal evidence points to the
continuing practice of burning
garbage. In the 2006-2007 period,
regional newspapers reported
several wildfires that were started by
burn barrels, a burning dump truck
load that had to be dumped on the
road and hosed down by firefighters,
and an accidental landfill fire. One of
the wildfires killed the elderly man
who started the fire.
F
V*
Photo credit: US EPA
Also, US Steel recently announced their intent to expand the Keewatin taconite mine in
Minnesota. If the project is completed, about 22 kg/year of mercury would be released from the
additional ore being mined.
April 2008
4-29
-------
Lake Superior LaMP 2008
These new and expanded emission sources, particularly of mercury, present the most significant
challenge to Binational Program agencies as the 2010 reduction milestone goals rapidly
approach. In response to a Task Force request, the Chemical Committee prepared a list of broad
potential actions that could be taken by Binational Program agencies to help meet the 2010
reduction milestones given the challenges posed by these new emission sources. The agencies
responded by committing to various specific actions underneath those recommendations.
Addendum 4C describes these specific actions in detail.
4.3.2 Substances of Emerging Concern
The Problem
The phrase "substances of emerging concern" has come to define the universe of newly
detectable chemical substances being discovered in air, water, sediment, and wildlife.
Improvements in instrumentation and analytical methods enable scientists to detect more
substances at lower concentrations than was possible a short time ago. This improved detection
ability brings with it an emerging concern over the risk these substances may pose to human and
ecosystem health and a formidable challenge for environmental scientists, managers, and policy
makers. The sheer number of potential substances for investigation combined with the resources
required to investigate and manage a single substance pose a significant research and
management challenge.
For the purposes of management in the Lake Superior basin, substances of emerging concern are
those substances whose presence in the environment may pose a risk to human and/or ecosystem
health. While this definition could include thousands of substances, the focus of the
management strategy will be limited to those substances that have been identified, categorized,
or prioritized by appropriate technical, research, or management authorities. Table 4-3 lists some
examples of substances of emerging concern.
Figure 4-14. Shovel Point trail, MN. Photo credit: Carri Lohse-Hanson, MPCA.
April 2008
4-30
-------
Table 4-3.
Lake Superior LaMP 2008
Examples of common classes of substances of emerging concern, specific
chemicals of interest in those groups, and their common uses.
CHEMICAL GROUP
Flame Retardants
Polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs)
Polybrominated biphenyls (PBBs)
Tetrabromobisphenol A (TBBPA)
Fluorinated Surfactants
Perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS)
Perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA)
Personal Care Products
Triclosan
Benzalkonium chloride (BAG)
Synthetic musk fragrances
Pharmaceuticals
Steroids
Hormones - estrogens and androgens
Caffeine
Cotinine
Detergents
Alkylphenol ethoxylates (APEs)
Plasticizers
Phthalates
Current-use Pesticides
N,N-diethyltoluamide (DEBT)
Dachtal
Chlorothalonil
Pyrethroid pesticides
Short Chain Chlorinated Paraffins (SCCP)
EXAMPLES OF CHEMICAL USES
Retard flammability of plastics, foams, polymers,
wiring insulation
Fire fighting foams; water, oil, soil, and grease
repellents on surfaces such as carpets, fabrics, and
upholstery; surfactants in chrome plating operations
Anti-microbial soaps, perfumes, disinfectants,
shampoos, etc.
Over the counter, prescription, veterinary drugs
Industrial and institutional cleaning, metal finishing,
textiles
Added to plastic formulations to change rigidity
Insect repellants, fungicides, insecticides, herbicides
Mainly used in extreme pressure lubricants in the
metal processing industry
Source: LSBP2006.
Is There Evidence That Substances of Emerging Concern Are Present in the Lake Superior
Basin?
Emerging contaminants have been detected in the Lake Superior ecosystem. Most studies to
date have focused on brominated flame retardants (PBDEs and polybrominated biphenyls
[PBBs]) as well as perfluorinated chemicals (PFOS and perfluorooctanoic acid [PFOA]). The
following is an overview of some of these studies.
PBDEs have been detected in air at the Lake Superior Integrated Atmospheric Deposition
Network (IADN) station at Eagle Harbor, Michigan (Strandberg et al. 2001). Concentrations of
PBDEs were similar in air above all the Great Lakes and showed a strong urban signal from
Chicago. Similar spatial results have also been found for PCBs.
April 2008
4-31
-------
Lake Superior LaMP 2008
Two classes of brominated flame retardants (total PBDEs and total PBBs) were measured in
composites of six-year-old lake trout captured in 1997 from all the Great Lakes except Lake
Michigan (Lake Michigan samples were not measured) (Luross et al. 2002). Lake Superior lake
trout had the second highest PBDE concentrations (mean of 56 ppb) and the lowest PBB
concentrations (mean of 0.25 ppb).
Archived lake trout tissue collected between 1980 and 2000 was analyzed for PBDEs and one
PBB (#153) (Zhu and Kites 2004). Concentrations of PBB-153, a component of a flame
retardant banned in the 1970s, did not show a significant decreasing trend as many other banned
chemicals have (i.e., PCBs, DDT). PBDEs increased exponentially with a doubling time of
every 3 to 4 years (Figure 4-1 a). Similar results were also found in lake trout and/or walleye
from the other Great Lakes.
Total PBDEs were detected at a mean concentration of 7.9 ppb in bald eagle nestling blood
plasma samples collected from the Wisconsin shores of Lake Superior in 2000-2001 (Dykstra et
al. 2005). This compared to a mean total PCB concentration of 51.5 ppb and a mean DDE
concentration of 13.4 ppb also in samples from 2000-2001 (Dykstra et al. 2005).
Sediment cores from six off-shore locations in Lake Superior were analyzed for ten PBDE
congeners by Song et al. 2004 (Figure 4-lb). In general, and in contrast to concentrations of
PCBs in the same samples, PBDE concentrations were increasing significantly in recent years.
The authors estimated an annual PBDE loading rate for Lake Superior at 80-160 kg/year.
Perfluorinated chemicals have been reported for surface waters and in lake trout from Lake
Superior (Furdui et al. 2006a; Furdui et al. 2006b). Mean PFOS and PFOA concentrations of
less than 1 ng/L were lowest in Lake Superior compared to Lakes Ontario, Erie, and Huron
(Furdui et al. 2006a). In lake trout, the mean PFOS concentration was 5 ng/g and again was
lowest for lake trout from the five Great Lakes. Similarly, total perfluoroalkyl contaminants
(sum of perfluorosulfonates and perfluorocarboxylic acids) were lowest in Lake Superior lake
trout (mean 13 ng/g) (Furdui et al. 2006b).
What Does the Management Strategy for Substances of Emerging Concern in the Lake
Superior Basin Provide?
The Lake Superior LaMP has identified the importance of substances of emerging concern
within the context of "restoring and protecting the Lake Superior Basin." The main goal of the
strategy for emerging substances is to prevent the future designation of additional critical
pollutants. The issue presents a vast challenge for which a management strategy will help to
clarify and facilitate the inclusion of substances of emerging concern in the LaMP process. It
provides a means to develop monitoring priorities for these substances in an organized and
systematic way, encourages pollution prevention activities, funding, and reporting of those
activities in the LaMP updates. For example, collections of unused pharmaceuticals or
electronics by groups with US EPA support have been previously reported in the LaMP, even
though they did not target any of the current critical or prevention pollutants. Finally, a
management strategy for substances of emerging concern will help emphasize pollution
April 2008 4-32
-------
Lake Superior LaMP 2008
prevention as the preferred management approach for both critical pollutants and substances of
emerging concern in the Lake Superior basin.
Management Strategy for Substances of Emerging Concern in the Lake Superior Basin
Overview
The Chemical Committee of the Lake Superior Workgroup has developed a three-part
management strategy for substances of emerging concern in the Lake Superior basin: 1)
Pollution prevention will be the focus and guiding principle for the management effort, 2)
Substances of emerging concern will be added to the critical and prevention pollutant
management categories, after appropriate public and technical consultation, using the decision
path set out by the Revised Management Goal Flow Chart (Figure 4-15), and 3) Substances of
emerging concern will become a new reporting section in the biennial LaMP updates.
Three-Part Strategy
1. Focus on pollution prevention projects in order to:
Look for co-benefits in current reduction programs. Substances of emerging concern
may be produced through processes that generate some of the current critical or
prevention pollutants.
Identify pollution prevention opportunities with stakeholders in the basin or in
collaboration with the BTS or other programs that focus on preventing or reducing
release of a specific substance, a class of substances, specific uses, sectors, modes of
action, or endpoints.
Use pollution prevention as the preferred management approach for all chemicals of
concern including critical pollutants and substances of emerging concern. There will be
no discrete list of substances for pollution prevention activities.
2. Use the Revised Management Goal Flow Chart (Figure 4-15) to:
Identify the five LSBP management categories and the process for assigning substances
to each of them (Tables 4-4, 4-5, and 4-6).
Identify a discrete list of substances for which monitoring or use data is lacking.
Recognize pollutants that are of special concern due to concentrations which exceed
yardsticks (the current critical pollutants).
Identify, in conjunction with stakeholder input, additional critical pollutants.
3. Report on substances of emerging concern:
Adding a new section to the critical pollutants chapter of the LaMP to report on
substances of emerging concern will:
o Highlight monitoring needs and the state of science in the Lake Superior basin;
o Provide a record of relevant pollution prevention activities;
April 2008 4-33
-------
Lake Superior LaMP 2008
o Create awareness about outreach activities for these substances;
o Provide a forum for tracking reductions;
o Promote investigation of alternatives to these substances; and
o Identify sources of substances of emerging concern in the Lake Superior
watershed.
Conclusion
In the LaMP 2000 report, the Chemical Committee identified reduction strategies to address each
of the Zero Discharge critical pollutants. These were updated in the Milestones Report (LSBP
2006). The Committee also devoted a section of the Milestones Report to introducing the issue
of substances of emerging concern as an important management consideration for the Lake
Superior LaMP. The LaMP has a responsibility to evaluate chemical substances that may pose a
risk to the human and ecological health of the Lake Superior basin. Creating a management
strategy for these substances will help to prevent the potential designation of new critical
pollutants. Creating a section for regular reporting in this area will enable tracking of substance
release and reduction inventories. It will also help to promote the development and use of
sustainable chemical management practices. As more information about the risks from
substances of emerging concern becomes available, tolerable background levels will be
established. These will be used to develop "yardsticks" for management in the Lake Superior
LaMP. The LaMP will then be in a good position to refine specific strategies that may be needed
to prevent or reduce concentrations of substances of emerging concern from reaching critical
levels.
Table 4-4. Existing critical pollutants for Lake Superior.
MANAGEMENT
CATEGORY
CRITICAL POLLUTANTS
1. Zero Discharge*
Chlordane
DDT and metabolites
Dieldrin/aldrin
Hexachlorobenzene
PCBs
2,3,7,8 -TCDD dioxin
Toxaphene
Mercury
Octachlorostyrene (OCS)
2. Lakewide Remediation
PAHs (anthracene,
benz(a)anthracene,
benzo(b)fluoranthene,
clinitropyrene,
benzo(a)pyrene, perylene,
benzo(g,h,i)perylene,
phenanthrene)
Alpha-BHC
Cadmium
Heptachlor/heptachlor
epoxide
TCDD(TEQ)3 dioxins and furans
3. Local Remediation
Aluminum
Arsenic
Chromium
Copper
Iron
Lead
Manganese
Nickel
Zinc
a TEQ = Toxicity Equivalent
April 2008
4-34
-------
Lake Superior LaMP 2008
Table 4-5. Existing prevention pollutants for Lake Superior.
MANAGEMENT
CATEGORY
4. Monitor
5. Investigate
PREVENTION POLLUTANTS
1 ,4-dichlorobenzene Pentachlorobenzene
1 ,2,3 ,4-tetrachlorobenzene Pentachlorophenol
Mirex/photo-mirex BHC, gamma congener
1,2,4,5-tetrachlorobenzene BHC, beta and delta
3,3-dichlorobenzidine congeners
2-chloroaniline Hexachlorobutadiene
Tributyl tin
Table 4-6. Explanation of management categories.
MANAGEMENT
CATEGORY
DESCRIPTION
Critical Pollutants
Levels of persistent, bioaccumulative toxic chemicals should not impair beneficial
uses of the natural resources of the Lake Superior basin. Levels of critical
pollutants which are persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic should ultimately be
virtually eliminated in the air, water and sediment in the Lake Superior basing
1. Zero Discharge*
As a management approach, virtual elimination from the environment requires
that zero discharge or emission is applied to the use, generation, and release of
persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic substances originating from human
activities. The effect of these chemicals is found both locally and lakewide.
Sources may be local or outside of the basin.
2. Lakewide Remediation
These pollutants have less potential to bioaccumulate than those in the zero
discharge category. Some of the lakewide remediation pollutants are responsible
for nearshore problems in multiple locations, and some exceed criteria in open
lake waters. The management approach for these pollutants is to coordinate
lakewide reductions in loadings.
3. Local Remediation
Local remediation pollutants consist of metals that impact AOCs or other
nearshore areas. These are mainly metals which have both natural sources and
sources due to human activity. The management approach is concurrent localized
reduction in loads and remediation of hot spots.
Prevention Pollutants
Prevention pollutants have properties that give them potential to impair the lake,
but they have been found below harmful levels or have not been monitored in
Lake Superior. The intention is to manage the prevention pollutants to avoid
impairments in the future.
4. Monitor
Although these pollutants have not been found at harmful levels in the Lake
Superior ecosystem, the ecosystem should be monitored to confirm the continued
absence at levels of concern for these pollutants.
5. Investigate
Substances in this category have been identified as being of concern by Lake
Superior programs such as GLI or COA. Because these pollutants were not
sampled in previous surveys, they should be sampled for in the future.
* This category was previously referred to as Virtual Elimination in the LaMP Stage 2 report.
f Lake Superior Binational Program. 1998. Ecosystem principles and objectives, indicators and targets for Lake
Superior (revision date). Lake Superior Work Group of the Lake Superior Binational Program, Thunder Bay,
Ontario. 110 p.
April 2008
-------
Figure 4-15. Revised management goal flow chart for Lake Superior critical cheniicalspenor
(Replaces Figure B-l in the LaMP Stage 2,1999).
Is this chemical on the
Lake Superior Chemicals
of Concern list?
Yes
Is this chemical on the Zero
Discharge Demonstration list?
Yes
c
No
Has this chemical been identified,
categorized or prioritized by a research or
management program in another jurisdiction?
No
1) Zero Discharge
Yes
Is there a reason for
concern based on potential
for use, release, exposure
or impact in the LS basin?
Yes
Has this chemical been sampled in
Lake Superior air, water, sediment,
fish or non-migratory wildlife?
Yes
No
No
Was it detected?
Yes
f 5) Prevention/Investigate
No
Does the chemical
exceed Lake Superior
yardsticks?
Yes
No
No
/ 6) This chemical is a lower
/ priority for future toxics
I monitoring in Lake Superior but
V should be periodically reassessed.
Are yardsticks exceeded in
open lake water or more than
one Area of Concern?
Yes
C
c
4) Prevention/Monitor
No
2) Lakewide Critical
D C
3) Local Critical
April 2008
4-36
-------
Lake Superior LaMP 2008
Explanation of Decision Points for Figure 4-15:
The Lake Superior Chemicals of Concern list is a list of chemicals
derived by combining the U.S. Great Lakes Water Quality Initiative
(GLI) bioaccumulative chemicals of concern (BCCs - as originally
discussed in the Lake Superior LaMP Stage 2, Appendix B) and the
list of Tier I and Tier II substances that form the baseline commitment
under COA. The Lake Superior Chemicals of Concern are listed in Tables 4-4 and 4-5.
Is this chemical on the
Lake Superior Chemicals
of Concern list?
Is this chemical on the Zero
Discharge Demonstration list?
The goal of the ZDDP is to achieve zero discharge and zero
emission of certain designated persistent bioaccumulative
toxic substances in the Lake Superior basin. In 1999, the
Lake Superior Binational Program mapped out a two-decade
reduction plan for the "Nasty Nine" pollutants. The plan identified targets for staged reductions
of these pollutants, with 1990 as the baseline year and 2020 as the year where virtual elimination
will be achieved.
Has this chemical been identified,
categorized or prioritized by a research or
management program in another jurisdiction?
Examples of a research or management program in
which chemicals may be identified, categorized, or
prioritized include: Annex 1 Supplement of the Great
Lakes Water Quality Agreement, Environment
Canada's CEPA Schedule 1 or Chemical Management Plan, BTS, US EPA Toxic Substances
Control Act (TSCA), US EPA High Production Volume (HPV) program, or otherwise identified
by an International Joint Commission, Commission for Environmental Cooperation, Health
Canada, or US EPA program, COA, BTS, European list, or other respected international list.
Consider whether there is potential for Lake Superior basin effects
based on current or historic use, release, or exposure data in the
basin. Consider whether there is evidence of significant impact in
another geographic location with the same sources and use patterns
as the Lake Superior basin, or that effects would be significant by
the time it was able to be measured through monitoring in the basin.
Is there a reason for
concern based on potential
for use, release, exposure
or impact in the LS basin?
Has this chemical been sampled in
Lake Superior air, water, sediment,
fish or non-migratory wildlife?
Consider whether the substance has been the subject of a
thorough and scientific sampling campaign by a qualified
body or individual.
Does the chemical
exceed Lake Superior
yardsticks?
To identify substances which are "likely to impair" the ecosystem, the
most stringent water, sediment, and biota criteria, standards, or
guidelines (not including those for drinking water) of the jurisdictions
in the basin will be used as the standard for concentrations of concern
in Lake Superior. They are described as yardsticks so as not to imply any action but to strictly
define critical pollutants. Substances for which no yardsticks exist will need to be re-evaluated
should yardsticks be developed by Lake Superior agencies, but for all substances this is a
dynamic process, where new information will cause a substance to be moved to a new category.
April 2008
4-37
-------
Are yardsticks exceeded in
open lake water or more than
one Area of Concern?
Lake Superior LaMP 2008
"A beneficial use is considered impaired on a lake-wide basis only
if it is found in a minimum of two AOCs or one open-lake site."1
4.4 NEXT STEPS
In addition to chemical reduction projects that LaMP Chemical Committee members will track
and coordinate in their own jurisdictions, the Committee will concentrate on a variety of projects
through 2010. A description of the activities that Lake Superior partners will be undertaking to
reduce and inventory the nine designated zero discharge and zero emission chemicals is included
in Addendum 4B.
At this point, the following projects are anticipated for the Chemical Committee:
Implement the activities described in Addendum 4B;
Participate in the realtor/landowner outreach project with an emphasis on preventing
releases of toxic chemicals by rural landowners;
Prepare a LaMP update in 2010; and
Estimate inventory releases in 2010 in order to monitor progress under the Stage 2 LaMP
reduction milestones.
4.5 REFERENCES
Dove, Alice, Environment Canada. Personal communication, 2005 data. Great Lakes
Surveillance Program, Water Quality Monitoring & Surveillance, Ontario, Environment Canada.
Dykstra C.R., M.W. Meyer, P.W. Rasmussen, and D.K. Warnke. 2005. Contaminant
Concentrations and Reproductive Rate of Lake Superior Bald Eagles, 1989-2001. Journal of
Great Lakes Research. 31:227-235.
Furdui, V.I., Crozier, P.W., Reiner, E.J., Mabury, S.A. 2006a. Optimized trace level analysis of
perfluorinated acids in the Great Lakes watershed. Environ. Sci. Technol., submitted.
Furdui, V.I., Stock, N., Whittle, D.M., Crozier, P.W., Reiner, E.J., Muir, D.C.G, Mabury, S.A.
2006b. Perfluoroalkyl contaminants in lake trout from the Great Lakes. Presented at the 41st
Central Canadian Symposium on Water Quality Research, February 13 &14, 2006, in
Burlington, Ontario, Canada.
1 Source: Lake Superior Stage 1 LaMP, Section 2.1, page 17.
April 2008 4-38
-------
Lake Superior LaMP 2008
Jantunen, L.M. and T.F. Bidleman. Henry's law constants of toxaphene congeners and estimates
of gas exchange in Lake Superior. International Association of Great Lakes Research, May 2006,
Windsor, ON, CA.
Lake Superior Binational Program (LSBP). 2006. Lake Superior Lakewide Management Plan:
1990-2005 Critical Chemical Reduction Milestones. Prepared by the Superior Work Group -
Chemical Committee. 209 pages. Toronto and Chicago.
LaMP Stage 1. 1995. Current Status of Critical Pollutants: Stage 1 Problem Identification.
Prepared by the Superior Work Group - Chemical Committee. 99 pages. Thunder Bay and
Chicago.
LaMP Stage 2. 1999. Protecting Lake Superior - Lakewide Management Plan: Stage 2 - Load
Reduction Targets for Critical Pollutants. Prepared by the Superior Work Group - Chemical
Committee. 162 pages. Thunder Bay and Chicago.
Luross, J.M., M. Alaee, D.B. Sergeant, C.M. Cannon, D.M. Whittle, K.R. Solomon, and
D.C.G. Muir. 2002. Spatial distribution of polybrominated diphenyl ethers and
polybrominated biphenyls in lake trout from the Laurentian Great Lakes. Chemosphere. 46:665-
672.
Muir, D. 2007. Aquatic Ecosystem Division, Environment Canada. Personal communication.
Song, W., J.C. Ford, A. Li, W.J. Mills, D. Buckley, and KJ. Rockne. 2004. Polybrominated
Diphenyl Ethers in the Sediments of the Great Lakes. 1. Lake Superior. Environmental Science
and Technology. 38:3286-3293.
Strandberg, B., N. G. Dodder, I. Basu and R.A. Kites. 2001. Concentrations and Spatial
Variations of Polybrominated Diphenyl Ethers and Other Organohalogen Compounds in Great
Lakes Air. Environmental Science and Technology. 35:1078-1083.
Zhu, L.Y. and R.A. Kites. 2004. Temporal Trends and Spatial Distributions of Brominated
Flame Retardants in Archived Fishes from the Great Lakes. Environmental Science and
Technology. 38:2779-2784.
April 2008 4-39
-------
-------
Lake Superior LaMP 2008
ADDENDUM 4A: CHAPTER 4 ACRONYMS
AGGEP
AOC
APEs
AREA
BAC
BCCs
BHC
BMPs
BTS
BUI
CAD
CEC
CEPA
CFLs
COA
CWS
DDT
DEBT
DW
EC
e-waste
FCM
FS
FWFN
GHG
GLEI
GLI
GLIFWC
GLNPO
GLWQA
HC
HCB
HPBA
HPV
HTAC
Anishinabek of the Gitchi Garni
Environmental Programs
Area of Concern
alkylphenol ethoxylates
Arrowhead Regional Emissions
Abatement
benzalkonium chloride
bioaccumulative chemicals of concern
benzene hexachloride
Best Management Practices
Great Lakes Binational Toxics Strategy
Beneficial Use Impairment
Contained Aquatic Disposal
Commission for Environmental
Cooperation
Canadian Environmental Protection Act
compact fluorescent lamps
Canada-Ontario Agreement Respecting
the Great Lakes System
Canada-wide Standards
dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane
N,N-diethyltoluamide
dry weight
Environment Canada
electronic waste
Federation of Canadian Municipalities
Feasibility Study
Fort William First Nation
greenhouse gas
Great Lakes Environmental Indicator
Great Lakes Water Quality Initiative
Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife
Commission
Great Lakes National Program Office
Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement
Health Canada
hexachlorobenzene
Hearth, Patio, and Barbeque Association
High Production Volume
Harbor Technical Advisory Committee
IADN
IISG
IJC
KBIC
LaMP
LEAF
LEED
LSBP
MACT
MDEQ
MHSW
MI
MN
MOE
MP
MPCA
MPI
MUCC
MW
NOx
NFS
NSPW
NVMSRP
NWRPC
OCS
ON
OWBs
PAH
PBBs
PBDE
PBT
PCBs
PCP
Integrated Atmospheric Deposition
Network
Illinois-Indiana Sea Grant
International Joint Commission
Keweenaw Bay Indian Community
Lakewide Management Plan
Learning, Experience and Activities in
Forestry
Leadership in Energy and Environmental
Design
Lake Superior Binational Program
Maximum Achievable Control
Technology
Michigan Department of Environmental
Quality
municipal hazardous or special wastes
class
Michigan
Minnesota
Ontario Ministry of Environment
Minnesota Power
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
Marathon Pulp Inc.
Michigan United Conservation Clubs
megawatt
nitrogen oxides
National Park Service
Northern States Power of Wisconsin
National Vehicle Mercury Switch
Recovery Program
Northwest Regional Planning
Commission
octachlorostyrene
Ontario
Outdoor Wood-fired Boilers
polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon
polybrominated biphenyls
polybrominated diphenyl ether
Persistent Bioaccumulative Toxic
chemical
polychlorinated biphenyls
pentachlorophenol
April 2008
4A-1
-------
Lake Superior LaMP 2008
PFOA
PFOS
POWTS
PPCPs
PWQOs
SCCP
SETAC
SOLEC
TBBPA
TCDD
TEQ
perfluorooctanoic acid
perfluorooctanesulfonate
Private On-site Wastewater Treatment
Systems
Pharmaceuticals and personal care
products
Provincial Water Quality Objectives
short chain chlorinated paraffins
Society of Environmental Toxicology and
Chemistry
State of the Lakes Ecosystem Conference
tetrabromobisphenol A
tetrachlorodibenzodioxin
toxicity equivalent
TMDL
TRC
TSCA
USDA
US EPA
uss
WDNR
WDO
WI
ZDDP
Total Maximum Daily Load
Thermostat Recycling Corporation
Toxic Substances Control Act
United States Department of Agriculture
United States Environmental Protection
Agency
U.S. Steel
Wisconsin Department of Natural
Resources
Waste Diversion Ontario
Wisconsin
Zero Discharge Demonstration Program
April 2008
4A-2
-------
Lake Superior LaMP 2008
ADDENDUM 4B: LAKE SUPERIOR ZERO DISCHARGE DEMONSTRATION
PROGRAM AND CRITICAL CHEMICAL REDUCTION MILESTONES
LAKE
SUPERIOR
BlNATIONAL
PROGRAM
Contents
What is the Lake
Superior Zero Discharge
Demonstration Program?.-1
Fate of The Nine
Militants in the Lake
Superior Ecosystem.... .2
Zero Discharge At
Worfc Tracking the
Release of The Nine
Pollutants.... .................3
^m,,^t*!r ,. i
and
Critical Chemical Reduction
*""f
What is the Lake Superior Zero Discharge Demonstration
Program?
2005 Reduction
Milestone for Mercury _5
2005 Reduction
Milestones for Diaxin,
Hexachlorobenzeae and
Qctachiorostyrene ............6
2005 Reduction
Milestones for PCBs ..........7
2005 Reduction
Milestones for
Pesticides: Dieldrin,
CMorfane, DDT and
Toxaphene............._.......... 7
The Future of the Lake
Superior Zero Discharge
Demonstration Program...., 8
Photo: Matt Hudson, Great
Idles Indian Fish and
Cammission.
The goal of the Zero Discharge Demon-
stration Program (ZDDP} is to achieve
zero release of certain designated persis-
tent bioaccumulative toxic substances in
the Lake Superior basin. In 1990, the
International Joint Commission chal-
lenged the governments of Canada and
the United States to develop a program
to virtually eliminate a group of "The
Nine" persistent, bioaccumulative and
toxic pollutants. The governments
responded to this challenge by creating
the Lake Superior " Binational Program
to Restore and Protect the Lake Superior
Basin." This program guides the Zero
Discharge Demonstration Program
(ZDDP) targeted at The Nine pollutants.
The Lake Superior Binational Program
is administered by federal, provincial,
state and tribal agencies through the
Superior Work Group and Task Force
with the assistance of a public involve-
ment and outreach group known as the
Lake Superior Binational Forum The
Lake Superior Lakewide Management
Plan (LaMP) was developed by the Lake
Superior Binational Program as a man-
agement strategy for Lake Superior and
currently guides the implementation of
the ZDDP.
The Nine pollutants are mercury, PCBs,
dioxin, hexachlorobenzene, octa-
chlorastyrene and 4 pesticides - dieldrin,
chlordane, DDT and toxaphene. The
ZDDP targets only Lake Superior basin
sources of The Nine. While out-of-basin
sources may contribute significantly to
the presence of these substances in the
lake, these are beyond the ability of the
Lake Superior Binational Program to
directly influence. These out of basin
sources make it difficult to be sure of
the effect of local toxic reductions on
environmental concentrations in Lake
Superior. Despite this, the ZDDP is an
important step in taking local action
to "clean up our own backyard" with
respect to The Nine and other pollut-
ants of concern. As its name implies,
the ZDDP is also a model that dem-
onstrates the progress and benefits of
multi-sector cooperation to address a
global problem.
April 2008
4B-1
-------
Lake Superior LaMP 2008
LAKE SUPERIOR LaMP ZERO DISCHARGE DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM
In 1999, the Lake Superior Binational Program mapped
out a two-decade release reduction plan for The Nine
pollutants. The plan identified targets for staged reduc-
tions of these pollutants, with 1990 as the baseline year
and 2020 as the year where virtual elimination will be
achieved. Table 1 shows the reduction schedules and
targets set out in the release reduction plan.
Table 1 - Summary of Release Reduction Targets for Lake Superior ZDDP
Summary of Release Reduction Targets for Lake Superior ZDDP
Pollutant 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020
Mercury 60%
PCBs .Wo 60%
Pesticides2 100%
Dioxin1, HCB, OCS 80%
80% 100%
95% 100%
90% 100%
1 The Binational Program lists 2,3,7,8-TCDD (dioxin) for the Zero Discharge Demonstration Program. By con-
vention, dioxin is measured and reported as toxic equivalents (TEQ).
2 The 4 pesticides included in the ZDDP are Dieldrin, Chlordane, DDT and Toxaphene.
Fate of The Nine Pollutants in the Lake Superior Ecosystem
In general, the presence of The Nine pollutants has
declined in the Lake Superior ecosystem over the past
30 years. Figure 1 shows an example of this decline,
using concentrations of several chlorinated substances
found in Lake Superior herring gull eggs over the time
period that the Canadian Wildlife Service has been
measuring them regularly. However, the rate of environ-
mental decline of these pollutants has slowed in recent
years. In addition, The Nine continue to impair lake use
locally and lake-wide in the form offish consumption
advisories and loss of fish and wildlife habitat, among
others. For example, PCBs, mercury, dioxin and some
pesticides remain above levels that limit consumption
ot fish from Lake Superior. Figure 2 shows total mercury
and total PCB concentrations in fillet tissue compared
to fish length for some species of Lake Superior fish.
Figure 1 - Percent Decline In Mean Concentrations of a Set of
Chlorinated PUT Chemicals In Herring Gull Eggs Collected from
Two Sites on Lake Superior Between 1974 or 1984 and 2004*
Percent Decline;
VR-f
1 *
SO
»
t
&
95*
m
«2.8
15.7
O.BZ
0.25
DDE Dksldrin HCB 2,1,7,8-
F>CB
Source: Weseloh and Havelka, Environment
Canada.
"Dioxin monitoring began in 1984 and all other
listed contaminants have been monitored since 1974.
Dioxin concentrations are reported in parts per tril-
lion (pg/g) and all other pollutants are reported in
parts per million (ug/g).
April 2008
4B-2
-------
Lake Superior LaMP 2008
LAKE SUPERIOR LaMP ZERO DISCHARGE DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM
Figure 2 - Total Mercury and Total PCB Concentrations In Fillet Tissue of Lake Superior Slscowet Trout (SaAelffl/smmwyct/s/? slxowet),
Lake Trout (Salveflrw namajKusli mmaycash), and Whltefksh (Coregonus dupeafomk).**
Siscowet Trout
Lake Trout
Whitefish
55
60 65
4S SO 55 50 65 7» 75 « «
Length (cm)
S Mercury Total PCBs
Source: Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission 1999-2005, unpublished data.
"Lines represent the most restrictive fish tissue concentrations (50 ppb) tor total mercury and PCBs currently
used by one or more jurisdictions around Lake Superior to trigger fish consumption advice and limits on the
consumption of fish.
ZERO DISCHARGE AT WORK
Tracking the Release of The Nine Pollutants
In the Lake Superior basin, the year 2005 marked the
midpoint between the ZDDP baseline year of 1990 and
the 2020 goal for virtual elimination of The Nine pol-
lutants. The 2005 Chemical Reduction Milestones
Report details the release reduction successes achieved
since 1990 and identifies the challenges that lie ahead
for reaching the next reduction target in 2010. The suc-
cesses are the result of collaboration and commitment
by the wide range of stakeholders including business
and industry, non-governmental organizations, and
municipal, state, tribal, First Nation, provincial and
federal agencies actively engaged in the Lake Superior
Binational Program. The importance of the involve-
ment of the citizens of the Lake Superior basin cannot
be overstated.
A seed disinfectant containing mercury; Credit Minnesota Department of
Agriculture
April 2008
4B-3
-------
Lake Superior LaMP 2008
LAKE SUPERIOR LaMP ZERO DISCHARGE DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM
In 20(b, emission inventories for The Nine pollutants
were updated for both the United States and Canadian
portions of the Lake Superior basin. These inventories
allow the Lake Superior Binational Program to calculate
the change in release of The Nine pollutants since 199Q.
Figure 3 shows actual release along with the release
reduction targets for mercury and dioxin in the Lake
Superior basin over the timeframe of the program.
Notable achievements include:
. 71% reduction in mercury releases basin-wide;
. 76-79% reduction in dioxin releases basin-wide;
« Significant reductions of PCB materials basin-
wide;
. The ongoing collection and safe disposal of waste
pesticides around the basin, with more than 12,700
kg (28,000 pounds) collected between 1992 and
2004 in Minnesota and Wisconsin alone.
Figure 3 - Actual release and release reduction targets for
mercury and dioxin In Lake Superior Basin from 1990 to 2020
Top 12 Ways You Can Protect Lake Superior Ever/
Create an energy efficient home.
Install water saving devices.
Never burn garbage.
Try to reduce, reuse, recycle and repair.
» Take household hazardous materials to hazard-
ous waste collections.
. Never pour oil or other used liquids into a storm
drain.
Put your lawn on a chemical-free diet.
Inspect your boat and trailer and remove any
plants and animals before leaving a boat access.
Landscape with plants that are native to the
region.
Plant trees to capture carbon dioxide and prevent
erosion.
Use a rain barrel for gardening and washing the
car.
And most importantly, love Lake Superior!
A Lake Superior tributary. Credit: Ron Leanftti.
April 2008
4B-4
-------
ZERO DISCHARGE POLLUTANTS
2005 Reduction Milestone for Mercury
Lake Superior LaMP 2008
In a year 2000 report it was estimated that mercury dis-
charges and emissions declined 69% in the Lake
Superior basin between 1990 and 2000, By 2005, the
total reduction since 1990 had increased to 71%, The
greatest reduction as a result of the ZDDP was a 96%
reduction in the release of mercury from products. The
largest overall reductions have been due to the closures
of the White Pine copper smelter in Michigan and the
Algoma sintering plant in Wawa, Ontario, which were
not related to the ZDDP.
In order to meet the next mercury reduction milestone
of 80% by 2010, 2005 loads must be reduced by an
additional 200-207 kg/yr. While emissions continued
to decline between 2000 and 2005, the rate of decline
appears to have slowed (see Figure 3), The largest
remaining sectors for mercury emissions are mining
and fuel combustion, which together account for greater
than 85% of the mercury emissions within the basin.
Figure 4 shows the main sources of mercury in 2005,
Currently, taconite mines in the Minnesota portion of
the basin are the largest single sector for mercury emis-
sions,
Q Mining Cthpf
D fuel G>m busdon
n In ilt n Ha I
Dlf'tuneici^co
W,s wHwrtling. 1. anrtltli ;
I JMunicpal, InKitul
fr-xJucts
v.- /i:T,l?i
. Credit
u" Har iv y u S
: D. Hansen.
Lumcx uwtto te s* tor mercury
-------
Lake Superior LaMP 2008
LAKE SUPERIOR LaMP ZERO DISCHARGE DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM
ZERO DISCHARGE POLLUTANTS
2005 Reduction Milestones for Dioxin, Hexachlorobenzene and
Octachloiostyrene
Dioxin
Release of dioxin is estimated to have declined 75-78%
between the ZDDP baseline year of 1990 and year 2000.
However, the bulk of these reductions were due to the
closure of the Algoma sintering plant, an event which
was not related to the ZDDP. Little change, if any, has
occurred in dioxin releases since 2000, with current
estimates of total release reduction since 1990 at 76-
79%. Currently residential open burning of garbage is
the largest source of dioxin on both sides of the border.
Fuel combustion is the second largest source of in-basin
dioxin. Projected trends for dioxin emission from 2005-
2010 are unknown due to changing control technology
at coal-fired utilities and demand for electricity. Figure
5 shows the contribution of various sectors to dioxin
release.
In order to meet the 90% reduction goal by 2015, an
additional 4.32 to 4.46 g I-TEQ/yr of dioxin must be
reduced from the 2005 load; this can be seen in Figure 3
above. Open burning is a completely preventable source
ot dioxin, and if all other sources remain unchanged,
elimination of open burning by 2015 would achieve the
90% reduction goal.
Hexachlorobensne
Completion of the hexachlorobenzene (HCB) inventory
has been challenging. Utility poles and in-use railway
ties treated with PCP, were the largest identified HCB
sources on the Canadian side, this was followed by resi-
dential wood combustion. On the US side, the largest
sources were open burning of trash, followed by motor
vehicles. Since 1990, the pulp and paper industry has
been responsible for significant reductions in release
of HCB (about 32% of the total) because of their con-
version of the bleaching process to chlorine dioxide in
place of elemental chlorine.
Billboard nearfloodwood, MNiKiciniragtipseplsjrem burninggarhagf,
the largest lource of dioxin in the Lake Superior basin. Credit: Mary
McReyaolds, St. Lowis County Solid Waste Department.
Octachlorostyrene
Environmental monitoring data in the Great Lakes have
shown a decline in levels of octachlorostyrene (DCS)
and no large source of OCS is believed to exist within
the Lake Superior basin. However, since OCS may form
under similar conditions as dioxin and HCB, LSBP may
get better information about the release of OCS in the
basin by improving the basin inventories for dioxin and
HCB.
Figure 5-Contribution of Dioxin Releases from Different
Sectors In the Lake Superior Basin, 2005.
I IS Open Burning
n Remaining Incineration11
1 Fuel Combustion
C Municipal
D Industrial
I By-product
"Remaining Incineration includes Canadian open
burning, Canadian landfill tires and U.S. small incin-
erators.
BURNING GARBAGI
Unhealthy
Unsafe
Against the Law!
April 2008
4B-6
-------
Lake Superior LaMP 2008
LAKE SUPERIOR LaMP ZERO DISCHARGE DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM
ZERO DISCHARGE POLLUTANTS
2005 Reduction Milestones for PCBs
Tracking PCB reductions over time has not been pos-
sible because data on in-use PCBs in the Lake Superior
basin are not available or difficult to access. As an
alternative, the LSBP has proposed to track PCB dis-
posal and storage via the Ontario database for PCB
storage, the Environment Canada database for PCB
disposal and the Minnesota hazardous waste database
for PCB disposal. To date the resources have not been
available to assess the Wisconsin and Michigan PCB
disposal records from facilities in the Lakes Superior
Basin in the same way. Storage, disposal, and/or destruc-
tion of PCB capacitors, transformers and oil will be
analyzed every 5 years for trends and cumulative
progress.
A PCS transformer. Photo Credit! Scott Bohling, Minnesota Pollution
Control Agency.
ZERO DISCHARGE POLLUTANTS
2005 Reduction Milestones for Pesticides: Dieldrin, Chlordane, DDT and
Toxaphene
Although the Lake Superior basin is mostly non-agri-
cultural, a significant amount of banned pesticides have
been collected in or near the basin since 1992. Although
the initial reduction goal was to collect all remaining
stores of these pesticides by 2000, it is obvious that these
pesticides are still present in the basin and that collec-
tions need to continue, even in non-agricultural areas.
Figure 6 shows the amounts of pesticides of interest (i.e.
those targeted by the ZDDP and those that may be con-
taminated by dioxin) that have been collected in Min-
nesota and Wisconsin counties in the Lake Superior
basin.
F Igure 6 - Cumulative Amount of Pesticides Collected In
Minnesota and Wisconsin Counties In the Late Superior Basin,
1992*2004 (kg).
I4OOO
fear
April 2008
4B-7
-------
Lake Superior LaMP 2008
The Future of the Lake Superior Zero Discharge Demonstration Program
Identified challenges include improving our ability to
accurately quantity inventories of The Nine pollutants,
such as PCBs, and banned pesticides. Chapter 5 of the
full report presents a range ot comprehensive strategies
to encourage progress towards ZDDP targets. Current
trends, particularly increasing mining operations and
energy use within the basin, provide a challenge for all
partners in the Lake Superior Binational Program to
meet the next set of reduction targets.
Recent discoveries of chemicals of emerging concern in
the Lake Superior ecosystem also pose a new challenge
for the ZDDP. Chemicals of emerging concern include
many substances that have common, everyday uses
and are being detected in water, fish, and sediments.
The potential ecosystem impacts of these chemicals
are largely unknown. Polybrominated diphenyl ethers
(PBDEs) are one example group of chemicalsof emerging
concern that has been increasing in Lake Superior lake
trout (Figure 5). PBDEs are commonly used as flame
retardants in products such as furniture and computers.
Other groups of chemicals of emerging concern include
Pharmaceuticals, personal care products and household
pesticides. As a first step in addressing these chemicals,
a watch-list has been proposed for those that have been
detected in Lake Superior and are under evaluation
for potential persistent, bioaccumulative and/or toxic
effects. As more becomes known, management strategies
will be developed by the Lake Superior Binational
Program, In the meantime, the Binational Program
will encourage monitoring and pollution prevention of
these chemicals.
Although significant pollutant reductions have been
made over the past 15 years, predicted future increases
in industrial activity, energy demand and increased
human population may result in corresponding
increases in the release of toxic pollutants in the basin.
Since pollution prevention is more cost-effective than
degradation followed by restoration, it is preferable to
limit the release of toxic pollutants to Lake Superior.
Recognizing the evolving nature of the interactions
between persistent toxic chemicals and the ecosystem,
the Lake Superior Binational Program remains
committed to achieving the goals of the ZDDP as part
of the larger goal to restore and maintain the health ot
the Lake Superior basin ecosystem.
!p>10000
!S
CL
= 1000
TO
LU 1W
Q
CO
a
I
VI
U)
o
1
= 2.8±0,2yr
1C 4
107S 1980
1985 1S90 1995
Year
2000 2005
For more information about the Zero Discharge Demonstration Program, please view the Lake Superior
Binational Program website at www.binational.net. As the Program has many partners, additional reports and
documents relevant to the Program may be found on Partner Agency Sites, Links to those sites can also be
found on binational.net or contact:
In Canada; Pamela Finlayson
Environment Canada
Phone; (416) 739-5996
pa mela.fmlayson@ec.gc ,ca
In the U.S.: E. Marie Wines
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Phone;{312)886-6034
wines, e-ma rieepa .gov
April 2008
4B-8
-------
Lake Superior LaMP 2008
ADDENDUM 4C: CHEMICAL REDUCTION AND INVENTORY ACTIVITIES FOR
2010 LAKE SUPERIOR MILESTONE
ID
Jurisdiction
Chemical
(primary)
Chemical
(secondary)
Action
R/I1
2005 Load of
Primary
Chemical2
2005 % of
Primary
Chemical3
Overall Reductions
1
2
All
MI
MN
WI
ON
All
EC
US EPA
MI
Mercury
Develop policy or regulation that caps mercury emissions so
that new or expanded sources would be allowed only if overall
emissions did not increase.
R
653
100%
The Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) has released a comprehensive strategy to eliminate the use and release of
mercury to Michigan's environment. The MDEQ's Mercury Strategy Staff Report contains specific recommendations and a
comprehensive approach to controlling mercury, including environmental monitoring, inventory development, collaborations and
partnerships, information and outreach, and regulatory controls. It also provides an overview of the mercury problem, identifies current
sources that contribute to mercury releases, and identifies various methods for reducing and eliminating the sources. It also outlines
Michigan's rules, regulations, policies, and monitoring activities for mercury, and chronicles various actions undertaken thus far to
prevent the use and release of mercury.
The Minnesota statewide mercury Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) is the best program for attempting to implement this action. The
TMDL calls for a 93% reduction of mercury emissions from all Minnesota sources. The Minnesota LaMP program will seek
opportunities for information sharing and input into the TMDL implementation process. The implementation phase is currently being
scoped out by a stakeholder group: www.mn-ei.ors/Dolicv/hstmdlindex.html.
The Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) is proposing revisions to the state's air mercury rule in response to three
separate but related actions. They include promulgation of the federal Clean Air Mercury Rule (CAMR) in May 2005, a directive from
Governor Doyle in August 2006 to further reduce mercury emissions, and a January 2007 Citizens' Petition requesting revision to Chapter
NR 446 (state mercury rule).
Ontario continues to follow the Canada Wide Standard for Mercury Emissions from Coal Fired Generating Stations, which commits the
province to reducing mercury emissions from coal-fired generating stations by 60% nationally by 2010. On August 27, 2007, Ontario
implemented Regulation 496/07 that requires cessation of coal use at the remaining four coal-fired plants, including Thunder Bay, by
2014.
Pesticides
[Encourage, support, assist, and provide funding for collections.
R
unknown
100%
EC has funded Household Hazardous Waste collections in the Lake Superior basin. These collections have yielded a quantity of
pesticides. EC will continue to work with its partners and pursue funding opportunities in the future.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) will consult with states on pesticides collections; will continue to provide
outreach/education on both legacy and current use pesticides. Will continue to support workshops and trainings to educate public,
municipalities, schools, and park districts on reducing use of and alternatives to pesticides.
The MDEQ will consult with the MI Department of Agriculture on pesticide collections.
April 2008
4C-1
-------
Lake Superior LaMP 2008
ID
3
4
5
Jurisdiction
MN
WI
ON
All
EC
US EPA
MI
MN
WI
All
EC
US EPA
MI
MN
WI
All
EC
US EPA
Chemical
(primary)
Chemical
(secondary)
Action
R/I1
2005 Load of
Primary
Chemical2
2005 % of
Primary
Chemical3
The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) will consult with Minnesota Department of Agriculture, counties, and Western Lake
Superior Sanitary District (WLSSD) on how they are doing under the new waste pesticide funding regime.
Support mercury /toxics/pesticides/e-waste/clean sweeps. Support efforts that make hazardous waste collections more affordable in rural
areas such as Northwest Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission's mobile clean sweep program for households, farmers, and small
businesses.
Ontario has provided financial support for Eco Superior to undertake a collection and education program in Canadian Lake Superior basin
communities. Some communities have gone on to carry out subsequent collections, at their own expense. Ontario will introduce draft
legislation to ban the cosmetic use of pesticides in urban areas in the spring of 2008.
PCBs
[Encourage, support, assist, and provide incentives for phase-out.
R
100%
EC has proposed revisions to the existing Chlorobiphenyl Regulations and the Storage ofPCB Material Regulations of the Canadian
Environmental Protection Act 1999 (CEPA 1999) that would set specific dates for the complete destruction of all PCBs in service and in
storage.
US EPA encourages, supports, assists, and provides incentives for PCB phase-out where possible. Will work with MN,
well as the BTS program, to explore state PCB utility reductions.
WI, and MI as
MDEQ encourages, supports, assists, and provides incentives for PCB phase-out where possible.
The LaMP program will work with Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) staff to follow-up on progress on Minnesota Power's 1994
phase-down plan. We are especially interested in an update on PCB equipment at the Arrowhead Terminal.
Through the Green Tier program, WDNR collaborates with businesses to ensure proper management and phase-out of PCBs by providing
technical assistance with PCB management and phase-out.
All
| Work with other programs to improve LaMP inventory
I
100%
EC will continue to work with our partners to improve the LaMP inventory.
Will work through the LaMP chemical committee to provide support on updated emission factors as needed.
MDEQ works with other programs and agencies to improve the LaMP inventory.
This action is already incorporated in the LaMP coordinator's workplan. Work will include seeking updated emission factors and
throughputs as well as compiling hazardous waste and pesticide collection data.
This action is already incorporated in the LaMP coordinator's workplan. Work will include seeking updated emission factors and
throughputs as well as compiling hazardous waste and pesticide data.
Dioxin
Mercury
Encourage, support, assist, and provide funding for open
burning abatement programs.
R
4.2
65%
EC will continue to support public education on open burning education and work with its partners to support open burning abatement
programs.
US EPA will continue to support open burning abatement actions, programs, and projects, in coordination with the BTS
outreach. Such support may include staff, technical, and financial resources.
and Sea Grant
April 2008
4C-2
-------
Lake Superior LaMP 2008
ID
6
7
Jurisdiction
MI
MN
WI
U.S. Tribes
All
EC
US EPA
MI
MN
WI
All
EC
US EPA
Chemical
(primary)
Chemical
(secondary)
Action
R/I1
2005 Load of
Primary
Chemical2
2005 % of
Primary
Chemical3
In Michigan, the practice of open burning may be regulated at both the state and local level. At the state level, open burning is regulated
under Parts 55, 115, and 5 15 of the Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act, Public Act 451 of 1994, as amended, and
associated administrative rules. There are two state agencies responsible for administering these open burning regulations: MDEQ and
Michigan Department of Natural Resources; however, these regulations may be enforced by local units of government. The MDEQ has
also developed a document for local officials which is a "Model Open and Outdoor Burning Ordinance." This publication is designed to
help local officials craft their own burning ordinance. The ordinance provides options to be more restrictive than the state regulations if
they choose. Another outreach tool MDEQ has developed is a burn barrel display. MDEQ has also developed instructions for making a
display.
The MPCA will use a federal grant extension to carry out an outreach project that involves radio spots, magazine advertising, and written
materials. The open burning abatement message is also included in the landowner-realtor outreach project that the MPCA is seeking
funding to implement.
Support programs for burn barrel reduction, one of the most preventable sources of dioxin and other PBT release to the atmosphere.
WDNR will look to expand its education partner base through the involvement of WDNR's forestry concern over burn barrels as a cause
of forest fires. WDNR will continue to investigate burn barrel outreach projects through partners such as the Waste Management
Program. The WDNR will also encourage adoption of burn barrel ordinances by local units of government.
Lake Superior Tribes will continue to conduct open burning outreach, education, and abatement programs, along with continuing
household hazardous waste and other collections to provide alternatives to open burning of garbage.
Dioxin
Work on common backyard burning inventory method.
I
4.2
65%
EC will continue to support and work with its partners to improve the backyard burning inventory, including working toward a common
method.
US EPA will work with MPCA and EC staff to clarify the original methods and work toward a common method.
Assist LaMP partners is finding a common method.
Per Minnesota's commitment to Action 4, the LaMP coordinator will work with MPCA, US EPA, and
methods and work toward a common method.
EC staff to clarify
the original
Wisconsin will continue to work with the Binational Program toward a common method.
Mercury
Dioxin
Encourage, support, assist, and provide funding for energy
conservation programs.
R
229
35%
EC will ensure that existing federal programs (such as Natural Resource Canada's ecoENERGY Efficiency Initiative and the
ecoENERGY Retrofit program) are promoted through existing communications channels. Environment Canada will also work with its
partners to support other energy conservation programs.
US EPA Region 5 recently released a climate change framework that calls for energy conservation, reduction, and outreach on
alternatives. US EPA will work with states, businesses, and municipalities to help reduce energy usage to mitigate the effects of climate
change. US EPA has recently provided support to MPCA and the Will Steger Foundation to pursue climate change
mitigation/greenhouse gas reductions and will partner with them to implement on-the-ground actions.
April 2008
4C-3
-------
Lake Superior LaMP 2008
ID
Jurisdiction
Chemical
(primary)
Chemical
(secondary)
Action
R/I1
2005 Load of
Primary
Chemical2
2005 % of
Primary
Chemical3
MI
The MDEQ has partnered with the Department of Labor and Economic Growth Energy Office, Michigan Public Services Commission
and Department of Transportation to identify various energy efficiency and energy conservation programs and resources available to the
public, private business, and municipal government.
MN
Minnesota recently passed laws that set goals for renewable energy and energy conservation as part of the state's contribution towards
reducing the impact of climate change. It is likely that mercury reduction co-benefits will result. The LaMP program will seek
opportunities to pilot projects in the Lake Superior watershed. In addition, Minnesota's Governor Tim Pawlenty is the 2008 chair of the
National Governors Association and plans to focus the organization on clean energy.
WI
In November 2007, Governor Jim Doyle signed the historic Midwest Governors Association Energy Security and Climate Stewardship
Platform and the Midwestern Greenhouse Gas Accord to work on a regional strategy to achieve energy security and reduce greenhouse
gas emissions. Governor Doyle and Governor Pawlenty [Minnesota] met in early January to discuss the next steps that Minnesota and
Wisconsin will take to make the Midwest a renewable energy leader. Governor Doyle has proposed a Governor's Office of Energy
Independence and proposed $40 million in his budget for renewable energy like solar, wind, hydrogen, biodiesel, and ethanol.
U.S. Tribes
Lake Superior Tribes will continue to actively pursue alternative energy sources and seek to maximize energy efficiency.
ON
Ontario, through the Ontario Power Authority, will continue the Every Kilowatt Counts initiative. Consumer incentives are available for
purchasing energy efficient appliances, cycling down air conditioners during periods of high demand, and free pick up and disposal of old
refrigerators. Commercial and industrial users are eligible for the Electricity Retrofit Incentive Program and the Load Management
Program.
All
Mercury
Encourage, support, assist, and provide funding for collections
and product alternatives.
R
45.3
7%
EC
EC will continue to work with its partners to support Household Hazardous Waste collections.
US EPA
US EPA is provided financial support to cities, non-profit groups, and other entities for continued hazardous and e-waste collections as
well as unwanted medicine collections.
MI
See Michigan's Solid Waste Policy, action #13
MN
While messages about mercury products are included in the realtor/landowner outreach project that the MPCA is seeking funding to
implement, the agency will not actively seek projects specifically for the basin since products are a relatively small portion of the
inventory, and infrastructure and outreach in the basin are already well established.
WI
Adopt the Great Lakes Regional Collaboration's Mercury in Products Phase Down Strategy as Wisconsin's guideline for reducing
mercury in products. Continue to work with the City of Superior mercury reduction initiatives. Continue to support and seek ways to
expand mercury initiatives to other communities in the basin.
Fuel Combustion
9
MI
Mercury
Support Wisconsin Energy's Presque Isle mercury control
technology.
R
45.7
7%
Michigan supports reduction of mercury emissions from coal-fired powered plants.
April 2008
4C-4
-------
Lake Superior LaMP 2008
ID
10
11
Jurisdiction
ON
MN
Chemical
(primary)
Mercury
Mercury
Chemical
(secondary)
Action
Support efforts to explore viability of a low mercury emissions
process at the Thunder Bay Generating Station; encourage
public education and informed discussion.
Support Minnesota Power's Taconite Harbor mercury control
technology.
R/I1
R
R
2005 Load of
Primary
Chemical2
37
31.9
2005 % of
Primary
Chemical3
6%
5%
The MPCA will approach Minnesota Power and MDEQ to participate in an informal group to examine mercury cycling at the two
facilities in the Lake Superior basin that have mercury control technology or are installing it (i.e., the Presque Isle coal-fired power plant
in Marquette and Minnesota Power's Taconite Harbor facility).
Trash Burning
12
13
14
15
16
MN
MI
WI
All U.S.
US EPA
MI
MN
WI
ON
Dioxin
Mercury
Encourage, support, assist, and provide funding to improve
solid waste infrastructure in rural areas.
R
1.76
27%
Solid waste infrastructure in the northeastern Minnesota is already fairly well established, but the MPCA will seek opportunities for
improvement through the Northeast Waste Advisory Council (NEW AC) and the Solid Waste Officers of the Northeast Region
(SWONERs).
Dioxin
Mercury
Encourage, support, assist, and provide funding for solid waste
infrastructure in rural areas.
R
1.59
25%
The MDEQ released a stakeholder-driven update to the Michigan Solid Waste Policy in 2007. The Policy provides a framework to guide
Michigan citizens, businesses, government agencies, institutions, universities, and political leaders in making smart choices for managing
Michigan's solid wastes by viewing it as a resource in a global economy. The Policy uses the three principles of sustainability: economic
vitality, ecological integrity, and improved quality of life to guide solid waste management decisions.
Dioxin
Dioxin
Mercury
Mercury
Encourage, support, assist, and provide funding to improve
solid waste infrastructure in rural areas.
Work with US EPA to improve estimate of emissions from
landfill fires.
R
I
0.59
unknown
9%
unknown
US EPA will continue to work with experts on landfill emission factors and throughput measurements. We will continue to seek
information on wildfire emissions. We will support states' efforts in this endeavor.
MDEQ will work with partners to estimate emissions from landfill fires where appropriate.
Per Minnesota's commitment to Action 4, the MPCA will work with experts on landfill emission factors and throughput measurements.
We will also seek additional information on wildfire emissions.
WDNR will cooperate with MPCA and US EPA experts on landfill emission factors and throughput measurements.
Dioxin
Mercury
Encourage, support, assist, and provide funding for solid waste
infrastructure in rural areas
R
0.21
3%
April 2008
4C-5
-------
Lake Superior LaMP 2008
ID
17
Jurisdiction
ON
Chemical
(primary)
Chemical
(secondary)
Action
R/I1
2005 Load of
Primary
Chemical2
2005 % of
Primary
Chemical3
Ontario continues to improve collection of Municipal Household and Special Wastes (MHSW). A plan has been developed by Waste
Diversion Ontario and submitted to the Minister of the Environment that would improve access to hazardous waste collection. Under this
program the costs of recovering and disposing of MHSW will be borne by industry. Wastes such as paints, solvents, oil filters and
containers, single-use batteries, antifreeze, pressurized containers, fertilizers, and pesticides will be included in the program. Early
objectives will be to increase the number of collection events and to expand collections to areas without existing service.
Dioxin
Mercury
Work with landfill owners and operators to decrease landfill
fires.
R
0.05
1%
Mining
18
19
20
MN
US EPA
MI&WI
MI
WI
Mercury
Incorporate reductions in mercury from taconite into statewide
mercury TMDL that are also part of the LaMP inventory.
R
303
46%
Given the size of this source in the mercury inventory, the Minnesota LaMP program will seek opportunities for LaMP reductions
through other agency programs. The best fit will be the mercury TMDL as mentioned in Item 1. The 93% statewide TMDL reduction
cannot be met without reductions from the mining sector.
Mercury
Evaluate mercury as part of taconite residual risk
I
303
46%
US EPA will continue to pursue this through the BTS.
Mercury
Develop estimate of mercury that would be released from
proposed mine projects
I
unknown
unknown
MDEQ will work with other programs and agencies to estimate mercury releases from proposed mine projects.
Currently no mining is proposed in Wisconsin; however, there is speculation of mining interests. In the event of a mining proposal, the
state will promote the reformation of the State Mining Team.
Pesticide Inventory
21
MI
Pesticides
Analyze waste pesticide collections to make consistent with rest
of U.S. inventory
I
unknown
unknown
MDEQ will work with the Michigan Department of Agriculture to analyze waste pesticides collected and will use consistent reporting
where possible.
PCB Inventory
22
23
ON
EC
PCBs
PCBs
Develop cumulative tracking of inventory from 1990
Assist Ontario with cumulative tracking
I
I
unknown
unknown
100% of
Canadian PCBs
100% of
Canadian PCBs
April 2008
4C-6
-------
Lake Superior LaMP 2008
ID
24
25
26
27
Jurisdiction
MN
WI
MI
US EPA
Chemical
(primary)
PCBs
Chemical
(secondary)
Action
|Develop cumulative tracking of inventory from 1990
R/I1
I
2005 Load of
Primary
Chemical2
unknown
2005 % of
Primary
Chemical3
unknown
Because of state TSCA delegation, the MPCA has direct access to records, but computerized records only go back to 1998. LaMP staff
will work with the hazardous waste database staff to see if a student worker can compile 1990 to 1997 PCB records. The agency will
work with Ontario, EC, and US EPA to keep methods as consistent as possible.
PCBs
PCBs
Report to extent possible on PCBs disposed since 1990
Report to extent possible on PCBs disposed since 1990
I
I
unknown
unknown
unknown
unknown
Report to extent possible on PCBs disposed since 1990
PCBs
Assist WI and MI with cumulative tracking
I
unknown
100% of U.S.
PCBs
US EPA will continue to support WI and MI with cumulative tracking of PCB disposal to the extent possible.
R = Reduction or I = Inventory.
2 The estimated load from the 2005 milestones inventory that can be associated with the action is reported as kg/yr except for dioxin, which is g I-TEQ/yr.
3 The fraction of the 2005 milestones inventory estimated load that can be associated with the action is reported as percent. For example, in Action 9, 45.7 kg/yr
is associated with the Presque Isle coal-fired power plant, and this is 7% of the 2005 milestone inventory. Some actions can be associated with 100% of the
inventory.
April 2008
4C-7
-------
Chapter 5
Human Health Information
r
',1!..
Children at the beach.
Photo Credit: Elizabeth LaPlante, US EPA.
Lake Superior Lakewide Management Plan 2008
-------
-------
Lake Superior LaMP 2008
Chapter 5 Contents
5.0 INTRODUCTION 5-1
5.1 LAMP 2006-2008 ACCOMPLISHMENTS/ACTIVITIES 5-1
5.1.1 Great Lakes Public Health Network 5-1
5.1.2 Children's Health Activities 5-3
5.1.3 Beaches Safe to Swim 5-5
5.1.4 Fish Consumption Advisory Programs Outreach Efforts and Meetings 5-14
5.1.5 Research Projects in the Great Lakes 5-15
5.1.6 Opportunities for Future Collaboration - Healthcare Professionals 5-16
5.1.7 Pollution Prevention 5-17
5.1.8 Pharmaceuticals and Personal Care Products in the Canadian Environment.... 5-18
5.2 CHALLENGES 5-18
5.2.1 Fish Contaminant Levels in Lake Superior 5-18
5.3 HUMAN HEALTH AND CHEMICAL RISKS 5-23
5.3.1 Process by which US EPA Evaluates Chemicals for Human Risk 5-23
5.3.2 Sources of Exposure to PBDEs 5-23
5.4 IS THERE A HUMAN HELATH RISK? 5-24
5.4.1 Viral Hemorrhagic Septicemia 5-24
5.4.2 Botulism 5-24
5.5 NEXT STEPS 5-25
5.6 INFORMATION 5-25
Table 5-1. Number of public beaches listed in the Lake Superior basin 5-6
Table 5-2. Consumption limits for sensitive populations created for the Protocol for a Uniform
Great Lakes Sport Fish Consumption Advisory 5-22
April 2008 5-ii
-------
-------
Lake Superior LaMP 2008
Chapter 5
Human Health Information
5.0 INTRODUCTION
The Lake Superior Lakewide Management Plan (LaMP) seeks to restore and protect the
beneficial uses of Lake Superior, including safe beaches, clean drinking water, and healthy fish
and wildlife populations. Awareness of the underlying causes of these beneficial use restrictions
from chemical and microbial contaminants and the associated health consequences will allow
public health agencies to develop societal responses protective of public health.
These beneficial uses include
"Swimmability," "Fishability,"
and "Drinkability." Swimmability
means that all beaches are open
and available for public
swimming. Fishability means that
all fish are safe for human
consumption. Drinkability means
that treated drinking water is safe
for human consumption.
Chemical and microbial pollutants
enter the human body through
three major routes: ingestion
(water, food, soil), inhalation
(airborne), and dermal contact
(skin exposure). Within the scope
of the LaMP update, exposure to
pollutants through water contact will be highlighted. The major areas of health concern directly
related to Great Lakes water quality are pollutant exposure from ingestion of contaminated fish,
incidental ingestion of water while swimming along beaches, and ingestion of contaminated
water.
Figure 5-1. The LaMP seeks to restore and protect the beneficial uses
of the Great Lakes, such as safe beaches. Photo credit: Frank
Koshere, Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources.
5.1 LAMP 2006-2008 ACCOMPLISHMENTS AND ACTIVITIES
5.1.1 Great Lakes Public Health Network
In May 2002, the Great Lakes Binational Executive Committee (EEC) endorsed a
recommendation to establish a Great Lakes Human Health Network as a forum or mechanism to
discuss human health issues directly related to Great Lakes water quality. The U.S. and Canada
then proceeded to develop their own domestic networks, to be joined together once established,
April 2008
5-1
-------
Lake Superior LaMP 2008
to form the binational forum endorsed by EEC. Both countries have proceeded with different
approaches based on their different institutional structures and capacities.
In Canada, Health Canada has led the development of the Canadian network. Under the
Canada-Ontario Agreement Respecting the Great Lakes Basin Ecosystem (COA), Health Canada
committed to undertake this work. The 2002 COA commitment 3.4.2 stated "Establish and
facilitate the work for a Public Health Network in the Great Lakes Basin." The current 2007
COA commitment 3.2.a states "Support and facilitate the activities of environmental public
health networks in the Great Lakes Basin."
The Canadian network, called the Great Lakes Public Health Network (GLPHN), was formally
established on November 16, 2005. It took three years to establish the network, which involved
working closely with the Ontario Ministry of Health and Long Term Care (not signatories of
COA) to build trust and a grassroots development process for the GLPHN through the 37
Ontario Public Health Units and their respective Medical Officers of Health.
Today, the GLPHN consists of 183 voluntary representatives of governments and their agencies,
including Ontario Public Health Units. The network assists in the provision of members'
respective environmental health programs and facilitates participation in other related networks
by:
Exchanging high-quality, peer-reviewed human health information related to drinking
water and recreational water quality, fish consumption, air quality, sediment, soil, and
other ecosystem issues in the Great Lakes basin, in support of the Great Lakes Water
Quality Agreement and in turn, COA;
Identifying and documenting health issues related to chemical and biological
contaminants in the ecosystem and establishing priorities of concern, and to bring these
priorities back to their respective organizations and to the attention of the COA
management committees;
Communicating human health information and advice (technical, policy, or other) related
to the ecosystem of the Great Lakes basin among federal and provincial governments and
their agencies, and local health units, that are mandated to protect public health in the
Ontario Great Lakes basin to stakeholders (including the public) through member
organizations, as required; and
Creating a forum for discussion to support the coordination of public health and
environmental management decisions regarding health matters related to water, air, and
soil quality in the basin ecosystem.
The GLPHN is primarily designed to facilitate information sharing of environmental health
issues between federal and provincial governments and Ontario Public Health Units. Members
are able to use the information in their respective organizations and relay it to the communities
they serve. The network facilitates better coordination and communication among governments,
researchers, health officers, and the Great Lakes community on health issues related to the
ecosystem of the basin.
April 2008 5-2
-------
Lake Superior LaMP 2008
A Steering Committee was formed on September 22, 2005, consisting of representatives from
Environment Canada, Ontario Ministry of Environment, and seven representatives from the
Public Health Units around the Great Lakes. The committee is co-chaired by Health Canada and
Ontario Ministry of Health and Long Term Care. Secretariat support is provided by Health
Canada Safe Environments Programme B Ontario Region (SEP-ONR.). The Steering
Committee approved the GLPHN Terms of Reference, which are currently under its biennial
review; review considerations include such topics as broadening membership, binational re-
structuring, and expanding information-sharing mechanisms. The Steering Committee meets
four times a year to provide direction and set priorities for the GLPHN, the committee meets as
needed to establish working groups to address specific issues or projects.
Eleven teleconferences have been held to date on topics that have included transboundary air
pollution, health effects of PBDEs (flame retardants), children's health and environment, health-
based air quality index, environmental and occupational causes of cancer, health risks of
pesticides and best practices to reduce exposure, bluegreen algae and microtoxins, climate
change, wood smoke, radon, pharmaceuticals, and mercury in fish.
Currently the GLPHN Steering Committee is considering alternative methods of information-
sharing such as web site portals, listservs, and workshops. The success of the GLPHN over the
last two years has been the caliber of its speakers and material packages that members receive on
each teleconference topic. Medical doctors that join the call are able to earn Continuing Medical
Education credits.
The approach taken by Canada in establishing the GLPHN has been to create a network that
meets the environmental health information needs of the public health users. Care was taken to
ensure that users of the network had a hand in creating and maintaining it, thereby valuing it.
Years of establishing trust and developing a system that meets the needs of the user have resulted
in a highly valued network that public health units depend on for credible and reliable
environmental health information in a format that is not overbearing or inaccessible.
Health Canada is working together with US EPA to establish ways to join each country's
respective networks to establish a binational network. The GLPHN has expressed strong interest
in this collaboration and wants to work toward developing the Binational Network in 2008.
5.1.2 Children's Health Activities
Children are different from adults and may be more vulnerable to environmental exposures.
Consider that:
Children's neurological, immunological, digestive, and other bodily systems are still
developing and are more easily harmed;
Children eat more food, drink more fluids, and breathe more air than adults in proportion
to their body masstheir food, fluids, and air therefore must be safe; and
Children's behavior patternssuch as crawling and placing objects in their mouths
often result in greater exposure to environmental contaminants.
April 2008 5-3
-------
Lake Superior LaMP 2008
US EPA has forged partnerships and taken increasingly more steps to protect children's health
from the variety of contaminants and pollutants that may affect them in the air they breathe, the
water they drink, and the food that they eat. US EPA directs its efforts toward ensuring that
children's homes and schools are healthy and safe places where they can live and learn. The
goal is to ensure that state, local, and tribal governments; communities; school districts; and
caregivers in the Great Lakes region understand the relationship between the environment and
the health of children and will take action to improve the health of children by reducing risks and
exposures to environmental hazards where they live and learn.
More information on children's environmental health can be found at www.epa.gov/children.
Toxicity and Exposure Assessment for Children's Health (TEACH)1 contains information
pertaining to scientific literature in the field of children's environmental health for 18 chemicals
or chemical groups of concern to children, which may potentially impact children's health. The
goal of the TEACH project is to complement existing children's health information resources by
providing a listing and summary of scientific literature applicable to children's health risks due
to chemical exposure.
Green Cleaning in Schools Act. Many schools and states are recognizing the vulnerabilities of
children to toxic substance exposures, including those in cleaning agents, and have taken
innovative steps to reduce this exposure. One such innovative program is the "Green Cleaning in
Schools." Illinois and New York became the first two states in the country to require that all
elementary and secondary schools purchase only environmentally-sensitive cleaning supplies.
More information can be found at www.ilga.gov/legislation/publicacts/fulltext.asp7Nam e=095-
0084 and www.healthyschoolscampaign.org/campaign/green clean act 2007.
Environmental Health Issues during Pregnancy Awards. US EPA recently awarded more
than $500,000 in federal grant funds to educate healthcare providers and women of child-bearing
age on environmental health risks. The EPA grants focus on environmental health issues that
include exposure to mercury, lead, environmental tobacco smoke, chemicals, pesticides, drinking
water contaminants, and indoor and outdoor air contaminants. Much peer-reviewed research has
documented the relationship between a mother's environment and the health of her developing
fetus. Various behaviors and experiences are associated with adverse health outcomes for both
the mother and infant. These experiences can occur before, during, and after pregnancy.
An award was given to the Michigan Inter-Tribal Council, Sault St. Marie, Michigan, to deliver
the message of the environmental risks of tobacco smoke, mercury, lead, and drinking water
contaminants directly to Native American women of child-bearing age. The project includes two
phases:
Provide outreach and education on environmental health issues to pregnant women and
healthcare providers; and
Evaluate the effectiveness of the outreach and education to both audiences.
1 US EPA Toxicity and Exposure Assessment for Children's Health (TEACH) web site: www.epa.gov/teach.
April 2008 5-4
-------
Lake Superior LaMP 2008
More information can be found at
http://yosemite.epa.gov/ochp/ochpweb.nsf/content/prenatalgrants.htm.
Natural Lawn Care Workshop
Many peer-reviewed research studies have linked pesticide exposures to a variety of adverse human,
aquatic, and ecosystem effects. To reduce pesticide use, exposure, and run off, the US EPA Great
Lakes National Program Office (GLNPO) awarded a grant to a non-profit organization, Safer Pest
Control Project, to hold a Natural Lawn Care workshop. The sold-out workshop was held in Chicago
on February 20-21, 2008, and educated lawn care professionals, schools, cities, park districts,
nurseries, and businesses on how to reduce reliance on lawn pesticides and chemicals. The
workshop taught the fundamentals of organic and natural lawn care in addition to providing
information on the possible human and ecosystem health risks of pesticides. The workshop was
consistent with both the Lake Superior LaMP pollution prevention goals and the pesticides/non-point
source reduction goals of the Great Lakes Regional Collaboration. A similar workshop will be held in
the Lake Superior basin and will provide valuable information to cities and towns, including cities and
towns in Ontario where they have banned the cosmetic use of pesticides. Information on the
workshop, including access to summary materials, can be found at www.spcpweb.org/yards/.
Safer Pest Control Project
Executive Director Rachel
Rosenberg speaks at the Natural
Lawn Care Workshop held in
Chicago, February 2008. Photo
credit: Mark DeMeulenaere.
5.1.3 Beaches Safe to Swim
Background. The Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement calls for recreational waters to be
substantially free from bacteria, fungi, and viruses.2 These microbial organisms of fecal origin
have the potential to cause relatively mild illnesses (e.g., gastroenteritis) to more serious illnesses
(e.g., hepatitis, typhoid fever) from a single exposure.
Lake Superior's myriad recreational activities do present risks for contamination to occur (i.e.,
swimming, water-skiing, sail-boarding, and wading). Apart from the risks of accidental injuries,
2 International Joint Commission. 1994. Revised Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement of 1978 as Amended by
Protocol Signed November 18, 1987. Reprint February 1994.
April 2008
5-5
-------
Lake Superior LaMP 2008
the major human health concern for Lake Superior recreational waters is microbial
contamination by bacteria, viruses, and protozoa.3'4
To improve water quality testing at the beach and to help beach managers better inform the
public when there are water quality problems, Congress passed the Beaches Environmental
Assessment and Coastal Health (BEACH) Act in October 2000. One of the provisions of the
BEACH Act authorizes US EPA to award grants to eligible states, tribes, and territories to
develop and implement beach monitoring and public notification programs at coastal beaches,
including the Great Lakes.
Progress on Developing and Implementing Beach Monitoring and Notification Plans. Since
passage of the BEACH Act, approximately $11.7 million in BEACH grants have been issued to
Great Lakes states to implement beach programs, which has resulted in a significant increase in
the number of monitoring and notification programs at Great Lakes beaches. All of the Lake
Superior states have beach monitoring and public notification programs in place at most of their
coastal beaches and at all of their high-priority coastal beaches.
During the years 2004 to 2006, the States of Michigan, Wisconsin, and Minnesota significantly
expanded the number of beaches reported within each state (Table 5-1) and the number of
bacterial samples analyzed.5 As a consequence, the number of Lake Superior beaches monitored
increased from 11 in 2000 to 305 in 2006. The additional resources available from the Beach
Act resulted in more frequent monitoring at beaches where problems were detected. Sampling
frequency was increased from once a month to a sampling frequency of one to two times per
week. However, many Lake Superior beaches are not monitored unless the public reports a
problem. Monitoring resources expended at beaches where no bacterial pollution sources exist
and pristine conditions are found would not be a wise use of these resources.
However, beach managers have directed their monitoring resources to priority beaches to protect
the public. The beaches selected for more frequent monitoring are the beaches where
contamination problems have been detected and risk to human health requires more information.
Thus, the increase in postings during the years 2004 to 2006 at some Lake Superior beaches
resulted when samples were directed to areas where known problems existed.
Table 5-1. Number of Great Lakes beaches reported per state
State
Michigan
Minnesota
Wisconsin
Number of Beaches 2000-2002
Average
137
o
J
45
Minimum -
Maximum
125-157
1-5
39-54
Number of Beaches 2004-2006
Average
577
79
192
Minimum -
Maximum
337-971
79-79
192-192
3 Health Canada. 1998. Summary: State of Knowledge Report on Environmental Contaminants and Human Health
in the Great Lakes Basin. Great Lakes Health Effects Program, Ottawa, Canada.
4 World Health Organization. 1998. Guidelines for safe recreational water environments: Coastal and fresh-water.
5 Rockwell, Wirick, and Kovatch, 2006. Bacteria, beaches and swimmable waters: has bacterial contamination
increased? MWWD-IEMES Antalya, November 6-10.
April 2008
5-6
-------
Lake Superior LaMP 2008
During 2006, 97 percent of Lake Superior beaches were open more than 95 percent of the time in
the U.S. This meets the key objective of the 2002 U.S. Great Lakes Strategy goal: "By 2010,
90% of monitored, high priority Great Lakes beaches will meet bacteria standards more than
95% of the swimming season." Figure 5-2 shows the percentage of Lake Superior beaches with
postings from 1998 to 2006. The red and yellow segments, representing greater than 5 percent of
beaches with postings, range from 3 to 10 percent of each year's total number of beaches.
Lake Superior Percentage
Beach Posting 1998-2006
0% posted
1 % - 4% posted
D5% < 10% posted
> or= 10% posted
Year
2006
2005
2004
2002
2001
2000
1999
1998
Beaches
305
194
168
14
10
9
9
7
Figure 5-2. Lake Superior Percentage Beach Posting 1998-2006.
Beach program summaries for Michigan, Minnesota, and Wisconsin are presented below.
Michigan's Beach Program. The Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) has
received a total of $1,708,572 in BEACH Act funding since 2002 to support beach monitoring
and notification programs. Along Lake Superior:
There are 115 public Michigan beaches in 9 counties, 21 of which are monitored; and
» An estimated $33,414 (an estimated 12 percent of BEACH Act funds for 2007) was
distributed to monitor 21 beaches in 7 counties on Lake Superior in 2007.
The monitoring of beaches in Michigan is voluntary and is conducted by local health
departments, which are required to notify various entities of the test results within 36 hours, and
April 2008
5-7
-------
Lake Superior LaMP 2008
may petition the Circuit Court for an injunction ordering the owners of a beach to close the
beach. The MDEQ provides Clean Michigan Initiative-Clean Water Fund (CMI-CWF) and
BEACH Act grants to local health departments to aid in the implementation or enhancement of
their beach monitoring programs. The CMI-CWF and BEACH Act grants are designed to fund
proposals that determine and report levels of E. coli in the swimming areas of public beaches.
The objectives of MDEQ's beach program are to:
Assist local health departments to implement and strengthen beach monitoring programs;
Determine whether waters of the state are safe for total body contact recreation;
Create and maintain a statewide database;
Compile data to determine overall water quality; and
Evaluate the effectiveness of MDEQ programs in attaining water quality standards for
pathogen indicators.
Local health departments request an average of $380,000 of BEACH Act funds per year from the
MDEQ for local beach monitoring programs for approximately 200 high-priority beaches. The
BEACH Act allocation for Michigan provides funding to support monitoring once per week at
80 beaches for part of the summer and 100 beaches for most of the summer. In 1998, only 20
counties monitored their beaches. Since the MDEQ has been providing grants for beach
monitoring, the number of counties with a beach monitoring program has risen steadily: 24
counties monitored at least one of their beaches in 2000, 36 counties monitored in 2001, 26
counties monitored in 2002, and 38 counties monitored in 2003, 53 in 2004, and 52 in 2005.
In 2006, monitoring was conducted at 207 Great Lakes public beaches in 37 counties in
Michigan. Out of 2,422 daily samples collected, 85 (3.5 percent) exceeded Michigan's water
quality standards for E. coli. The exceedances were reported from 50 beaches (24 percent of
monitored Great Lakes beaches), 41 of which reported beach closures or advisories (52 incidents
lasting a total of 333 days).
All beach monitoring data are reported to and evaluated by the MDEQ. The MDEQ incorporates
beach monitoring data into other water pollution prevention programs to encourage strategic
improvements in water quality. Michigan's Beach Monitoring web site immediately provides
current and historical test results for E. coli and beach closings/advisories as they are reported
from health departments for all public beaches in Michigan.6 All public beaches are required to
post a sign indicating whether the beach is monitored and where the results can be found.7
Minnesota's Beach Program. The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MFCA) administers
Minnesota's Beach Monitoring Program. The purpose of the program is to implement a
consistent coastal beach water monitoring program to reduce the risk of beach users' exposure to
disease-causing microorganisms in water. Approximately 58 miles of public beaches and a total
of 79 coastal beaches were identified along Lake Superior. Selected beaches along Lake
Superior are monitored in accordance with BEACH Act requirements with prompt notification to
the public whenever bacteria levels exceed US EPA-established standards.
6 Michigan's Beach Monitoring web site: www.michigan.gov/deq/1.1607.7-135-3313 3686 3730CI.OO.html.
7 Michigan House Bill 4719 (Act 507). 2001. Available at: www.deq.state.mi.us^each/public/default.aspx.
April 2008 5-8
-------
Lake Superior LaMP 2008
The state has received $1,488,365 in BEACH Act grants since 2001 to develop and implement
beach monitoring and notification programs. A Beach Team comprised of state and local-level
environmental and public health officials, and other interested parties, was formed to design
MPCA's Beach Program. A standard sampling protocol was developed, and standard advisory
signs were designed based on feedback from Beach Team members and public meetings held in
coastal communities. The 2007 beach season was the fifth full season that a consistently
implemented beach-monitoring program was conducted in the coastal area of Minnesota. Other
facts about the 2007 beach season include:
There were 913 monitoring visits during the 2007 beach season;
39 sites were monitored once a week from May to October for both E. coli and fecal
coliform;
66 of the samples collected exceeded the water quality limit of 235 cfu/100 mL for E.
coli;
33 advisories were posted during the monitoring season;
Two of the monitored beaches were under advisory for most of July and August; and
93 percent of Minnesota's Lake Superior beaches met bacteria standards more than 95
percent of the time.
MPCA has improved
many aspects of its
public notification
process. The state has
developed an
exceptional interactive
and informative web
site that summarizes
key information about
beach advisories and
closings.8 This site also
provides information on
beach logistics,
amenities, and local
weather. E-mail
notices are
automatically sent to
interested parties. A
local phone message is
continually updated
with the latest
advisories (218-725-7724).
CONTACT NOT RECOMMENDED
v AT THIS TIME
nee of Colllwm Baetena
Figure 5-3. Minnesota's Beach Monitoring Program provides prompt notification to
the public whenever bacteria levels exceed US EPA-established standards. Photo
credit: Frank Koshere, Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources.
Minnesota Success Stories and Current Research Projects. The principal success of MPCA's
Beach Monitoring Program is the continued public awareness the advisories bring to ongoing
' Minnesota Lake Superior Beach Monitoring Program web site: www.MNBeaches.org.
April 2008
5-9
-------
Lake Superior LaMP 2008
water pollution issues. Since the MPCA started monitoring 35 beaches in 2002 (39 since 2005),
the level of awareness of bacterial pollution of recreational waters in the region, as well as in the
state, has risen dramatically. The understanding that wastewater overflows and by-passes can
have an effect on beach water quality, even a short-lived one, has led to the demand for solutions
to the inflow and infiltration problems in the region. Residents and tourists are starting to realize
that bacteria problems can occur in any part of the Lake Superior basin, but that they occur with
more frequency in the most urban areas and during storm events. Residents and visitors are
picking up after their dogs on a more regular basis. They continue to be vocal about sewage
overflows and demand that they be corrected. The coastal cities are installing large holding
tanks, backup generators, and home sump pumps to slow and/or stop storm-related sewage
overflows.
At all 39 monitored Lake Superior beaches, potential sources of pollution either on the beach or
nearby have been identified. These sources include stormwater discharges or streams with
stormwater discharges into them. The City of Duluth and the Western Lake Superior Sanitary
District (WLSSD) have conducted dye testing in the sewer lines and stormwater pipe tanks to
eliminate them as potential sources of bacteria at the New Duluth Boat Club (DEC) site on Park
Point. They have also conducted a limited amount of spatial testing to determine if there is one
specific point of discharge.
The University of Minnesota - Duluth, in
collaboration with WLSSD and the MPCA's Lake
Superior Beach Program, received a grant from Sea
Grant to research DNA fingerprinting at two of the
more polluted beaches, including the New DEC
Beach. The project, entitled "Beach sand and
sediments are temporal sinks and sources of
Escherichia coli in Lake Superior," will investigate
sources of E. coli bacteria contributing to beach
closures in the Duluth-Superior Harbor. This study
investigated potential sources of E. coli
contaminating DEC Beach by using DNA
fingerprinting. Over 3,600 E. coli strains were
obtained from 55 lake water, 25 sediment, and 135
sand samples taken from five transects at the DEC
Beach at 11 different times during the summer
through fall months of 2004 and 2005. Potential
sources of E. coli at this beach were determined by
using a known-source DNA fingerprint library
containing unique E. coli isolates from wildlife,
waterfowl, and treated wastewater obtained near
Duluth. Amounts of E. coli in the samples were
enumerated by membrane filtration counting, and
the presence of potentially pathogenic E. coli was ^igme 5-4. Stormwater runoff was identified as
determined. E. coli counts in all samples increased one of the primary sources of bacteria at Lakewalk
during the summer and early fall (July to Beach in Minnesota. Photo credit: Frank Koshere,
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources.
April 2008
5-10
-------
Lake Superior LaMP 2008
September). While E. coll in spring samples originated mainly from treated wastewater effluent,
the percentage of E. coli from waterfowl increased from summer to fall. DNA fingerprint
analyses indicated that some E. coli strains may be naturalized, and autochthonous members of
the microbial community in the beach sand and sediments were examined. However, results
indicated that <1 percent of the E. coli strains at the DEC Beach were potentially pathogenic.
These results also suggest that wave action may influence the early colonization and
homogeneous distribution of E. coli in beach sand and the subsequent release of sand or
sediment-borne E. coli into lake water. Taken together, these results indicate that sand and
sediment serve as temporal sources and sinks of human and waterfowl-derived E. coli that
contribute to beach closures.
Source identification work is also being conducted by MPCA, which received a grant from US
EPA to pilot a beach sanitary survey tool to identify pollution sources at two Great Lakes
beaches: Lakewalk Beach and New DEC Beach. At the New DEC Beach, the primary source
of bacteria was suspected to be the waterfowl population that lives and travels through the area.
At Lakewalk Beach, stormwater runoff and sanitary sewer overflow were identified as the
primary sources of bacteria.
Wisconsin's Beach Program. The Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR)
operates Wisconsin's Beach Monitoring and Notification Program. Since 2001, WDNR has
received $1,460,130 in BEACH Act grants to develop and implement monitoring and
notification programs at beaches along Lake Michigan and Lake Superior. Passage of the
BEACH Act has enabled WDNR to substantially increase the number of beaches it monitors.
Along the Lake Superior shoreline, Ashland, Bayfield, Douglas, and Iron Counties have 15.35
miles of beaches. Among these counties, 40 beaches are monitored.
To design its state beach
monitoring and notification
program, the WDNR formed a
workgroup composed of state-level
environmental and public health
officials, local health departments,
and academic researchers. Using
GPS technologies, 192 beaches
were identified along Lake
Michigan and Lake Superior.
Additional GPS data layers were
added to include the location of all
wastewater treatment plant outfalls
along with their proximity to the
beaches. Additional information
was collected for each beach,
evaluating the potential for impacts
from stormwater runoff, bather and
Figure 5-5. Many beaches on Lake Superior are monitored to ensure
that water quality conditions are safe for swimming. Photo credit:
Frank Koshere, WDNR.
April 2008
5-11
-------
Lake Superior LaMP 2008
waterfowl loads, and the location of outfalls and farms. This information was used to rank and
classify beaches as high, medium, or low priority. These rankings indicate how often the
beaches should be monitored to ensure that water quality conditions are safe for swimming.
The WDNR's public notification and risk communication measures were developed in
collaboration with the workgroup and other stakeholders, including the public. These efforts
included development of signs at beaches to give notice to the public that the coastal recreational
waters are not meeting, or are not expected to meet, water quality standards. These signs, which
are also in Spanish and Hmong, were designed based on feedback from a beach user survey and
public meetings held around the state.
Other products that were developed include: an automatic e-mail service to which the public can
subscribe to receive daily updates on beach conditions; a statewide informational brochure,
approximately 100,000 copies of which were distributed at local beaches, parks, and health
departments; a statewide Beach Health web page (www.wibeaches.us) for collecting monitoring
and advisory data and reporting up-to-date as well as historical conditions at all Wisconsin
coastal beaches; and an internal web site for local health departments to report their daily
advisory and monitoring data in the format required for US EPA reporting at the end of the
beach season.
Current Research Projects. The BEACH Act funding was inadequate for a comprehensive
monitoring program, so other funding was sought. Several groups have been brought together to
create a comprehensive monitoring and source-tracking program. The groups include: local
health departments, Northland College, the University of Wisconsin-Oshkosh, and the Lake
Superior Alliance. The following objectives have been completed by this collaboration:
Investigation of high levels of E. coli with additional spatial sampling to assist in
identifying the source of contamination. This includes investigation of tributaries,
outfalls, and other inputs to Lake Superior in proximity to the beaches. This included
vertical and horizontal sampling at several beach locations.
Recovery of E. coli isolates from a variety of sources so that a database could be
constructed to help determine the source of E. coli recovered from beach water
samples. Over 2,000 E. coli isolates have been recovered from sources such as dogs,
cattle, sheep, deer, gulls, geese, human sources, and from the beaches (beach water)
under study.
Investigated the implications of sampling at different water depths - 12, 24, 36, and
48 inches.
Utilized genetic fingerprinting techniques (rep PCR), antibiotic resistance patterns,
and spatial sampling to determine the source of beach water E. coli isolates.
Conducted watershed investigations at select locations to determine impacts on beach
water quality.
Worked with local health officials to mitigate any source ofE. coli; and beach
contamination so that beaches can remain open and public health is protected.
* In 2007, the WDNR received funding from US EPA to conduct sanitary surveys at 18
Wisconsin Great Lakes beaches, including seven along Lake Superior. The project
has allowed researchers to identify sources of microbial contamination at numerous
April 2008 5-12
-------
Lake Superior LaMP 2008
Figure 5-6. The BEACH Act has helped to protect public health at local
beaches in Wisconsin. Photo credit: Frank Koshere, WDNR.
beaches around Wisconsin and initiate the process of planning for mitigation of some
of the sources.
Many other successes have resulted from the beach program in northern Wisconsin:
* A State of Wisconsin
Certified Lab was set
up in an area that had
no previous capability
for beach testing.
This lab also allows
other local health
departments and
citizens to have
samples collected and
analyzed when they
believe there is a
problem with either a
beach or another
location in the area.
» Utilizing the
Wisconsin Beach
Monitoring and Notification Program as an example, the State of Wisconsin Health
and Hygiene Laboratory and the WDNR have teamed up to provide a similar service
for high-use inland beaches located at many Wisconsin State Parks. Up-to-date
information is also provided on the Wisconsin Beach Health web site.9
» Testing Lake Superior's public beaches has spurred counties to test their local inland
beaches as well. Vilas and Oneida Counties in northern Wisconsin modeled their
inland beach programs after the Wisconsin Coastal Beach Program and sampled 16
beaches in the summer of 2005.
* Twenty-seven Lake Superior beaches now have baseline E. coli data, and beach
management decisions can be based on good scientific data.
» The use of genetic testing, antibiotic resistance patterns, and spatial sampling has
identified several likely sources of E. coli.
* Having identified potential sources of contamination, the process of source mitigation
can begin.
There have been several public meetings at several locations in the Lake Superior
region to bring all interested parties together to discuss water quality and beach
"health" issues.
The BEACH Act has established a foundation in an economically disadvantaged area so that it
can acquire high-quality scientific data, protect public health at local beaches, help local officials
acquire data to respond to questions from citizens regarding beach water quality and help
mitigate any issues that may pose a risk to human health.
' Wisconsin Beach Health web site: www.wibeaches.us.
April 2008
5-13
-------
Lake Superior LaMP 2008
Accomplishments Related to Communication to the Public. Because it has been shown that
people who engage in recreational water sports have a higher incidence of symptomatic illnesses,
it has become increasingly more important to make the public aware of the potential health
hazards that are associated with recreational waters. Recent progress has been made on the
national and local levels to provide the public with useful tools that can provide needed
information regarding the use of recreational waters. At the national level, the following public
communication tools are available:
BEACH Watch10 This web site contains information about US EPA's BEACH Program,
including grants, US EPA's reference and technical documents including US EPA's Before You
Go to the Beach brochure, upcoming meetings and events, conference proceedings, and links to
local beach programs. The web site also provides access to BEACON (Beach Advisory and
Closing On-line Notification), US EPA's national beach water quality database.
Annual Great Lakes Beach Association (GLBA) Conference11 The GLBA is comprised of
members from U.S. states, Environment Canada, local environmental and public health agencies,
and several universities and non-governmental organizations (NGOs). The GLBA's mission is
the pursuit of healthy beach water conditions in the Great Lakes area. Since 2001, the GLBA
has held beach conferences annually to bring together beach managers, scientists, and agency
officials to exchange information on improving recreational water quality. The next conference
is planned for September 2008, in northwest Indiana.
BEACHNET12 BEACHNET is an email discussion list that seeks to facilitate communication
among people interested in the improvement of recreational beach water quality in the Great
Lakes basin. The listserv is sponsored by the GLBA and is hosted by the Great Lakes
Information Network (GLIN). Both the GLBA and the listserv are open to anyone interested in
improving beach water quality, understanding bacterial contamination, developing better ways to
detect and monitor pollution, or monitoring and assuring beach visitors' health. There are
currently several hundred subscribers to BEACHNET.
BeachCast13 This web site provides Great Lakes beach goers with access to information on
Great Lakes beach conditions, including health advisories, water temperature, wave heights,
monitoring data, and more. BeachCast is a service of the Great Lakes Commission and its
GLIN.
5.1.4 Fish Consumption Advisory Programs Outreach Efforts and Meetings
The Great Lakes states met in 2007 to discuss fish consumption advisories across the Great
Lakes basin:
10 US EPA BEACH Watch web site: www.epa.gov/OSI7beaches.
11 Great Lakes Beach Association web site: www.great-lakes.net/glba/.
12 BEACHNET Discussion web site: http://www.great-lakes.net/glba/beachnet.html.
13 Great Lakes Commission BeachCast web site: http://www.glc.org/announce/03/07beachcast.html.
April 2008 5-14
-------
Lake Superior LaMP 2008
As part of the 2007 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish - Great Lakes Basin Break-
out Session, held in Portland, Maine, in July 2007, the Great Lake states met for a two-
day session to discuss fish consumption advisories, the mercury fish consumption
protocol, and the development and implementation of a basinwide fish consumption
message.
During the Lake Michigan: State of the Lake 2007 Conference on October 2-3, 2007, the
Great Lakes Environmental and Molecular Science Center (GLEAMS) brought the Great
Lakes states together to discuss the potential for using Decision Support Systems (DSS)
to communicate fish consumption advisories by making greater use of tools such as
online mapping applications and new genomics tools. The second day of the meeting
focused on having fish consumption experts discuss their communication outreach plans.
During the Making a Great Lake Superior 2007 conference, three presentations focused
on contaminants in fish, including an overview offish consumption advisory topics, a
presentation on tribal assessment of PBT contaminant concentrations in four commonly
harvested Lake Superior fish, and a presentation on fish advisory outreach to vulnerable
populations in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan. Following these presentations, there
was good discussion on promoting consumption of low-contaminant fish species.
o The Lake Superior Human Health Session also included presentations on a variety
of topics, including: beach monitoring, identifying seasonal sources of E. coli at
beaches, amphibole mineral fiber issues on the Mesabi Range, and rip currents.
Further information and the Human Health Conference abstracts can be found at
www.seagrant.umn.edu/superior2007.
5.1.5 Research Projects in the Great Lakes
New Projects
Advisory Awareness among Volunteers in a 2004 Mercury Exposure Study. This project with
the Wisconsin Department of Health and Family Services will help determine whether hair
mercury measurement has a long-term effect on an individual's fish consumption habits and
reduces their risk of exposure to methylmercury.
In 2004, two thousand and thirty-one Wisconsin volunteers completed a fish consumption
questionnaire and provided hair for mercury analysis. Each volunteer received a result letter that
provided individualized fish consumption advice.
In order to evaluate the effectiveness of the 2004 project as an educational tool, the State of
Wisconsin plans to conduct a follow-up survey of these individuals and invite them to have their
hair re-analyzed for mercury. All data from the surveys and laboratory hair analyses will be
entered into an electronic database and merged with 2004 records for each participant in the
follow-up study.
Mercury Levels in Blood from Newbornsfrom the Lake Superior Basin. US EPA GLNPO has
funded a project to measure levels of mercury in the blood of newborns from the Lake Superior
April 2008 5-15
-------
Lake Superior LaMP 2008
basin to determine if newborns have been exposed to mercury from maternal fish consumption.
The project will help characterize this population's exposure to mercury and assist health
departments in targeting health protective outreach and advice on fish consumption.
This project is proposed to prospectively measure levels of mercury in the blood of newborns
from the Lake Superior basin. People are exposed to mercury through consumption offish.
Measuring mercury exposure in newborns within the Lake Superior basin will help characterize
this population's exposure to mercury. The data collected will assist public health departments
in targeting health protective outreach and advice on fish consumption, which is the major source
of methylmercury exposure. Public health agencies will also use these data to provide primary
care providers with direction on targeting subpopulations for services (such as screening
questions and blood tests) similar to the services that have been used for lead poisoning
prevention.
Ongoing Projects
Great Lakes Sportfish Consumption
Advisory Consortium - Outreach
Toolkit. The Great Lakes Sportfish
Consumption Advisory Consortium is
in the process of developing a
basinwide outreach toolkit, including
printing educational materials related
to mercury-contaminated fish. This
toolkit will include several educational
and outreach components focusing on
the following groups: children, Area
of Concern (AOC) residents,
healthcare professionals, and
restaurant and culinary school
professionals. Each component of the
toolkit will be implemented and
evaluated for its effectiveness. The
toolkit will be available for all of the states to use and implement. The consortium would like to
expand and improve the most successful components of the toolkit.
Figure 5-7. A Great Lakes basinwide outreach toolkit that
includes educational materials related to mercury-contaminated
fish will focus on children, among other targeted groups. Photo
credit: Frank Koshere, WDNR.
5.1.6 Opportunities for Future Collaboration - Healthcare Professionals
According to experts in the field offish consumption advice, healthcare professionals are the
primary and most trusted source of information regarding fish consumption advisories. At the
present, there is limited environmental health training in the healthcare community, inconsistent
evaluation of environmental health by healthcare accreditation boards, and no uniform approach
used by healthcare professionals to assess whether patients are aware of the benefits and risks of
eating fish.
April 2008
5-16
-------
Lake Superior LaMP 2008
The Great Lakes states and US EPA are interested in working with the healthcare professional
sector (associations of physicians, nurses, and midwives) to evaluate opportunities to improve
effective communication offish consumption benefits and risks to patients, especially those
patients who are most susceptible to the risks of exposure from contaminants in fish (women of
child-bearing age and children).
5.1.7 Pollution Prevention
IL-IN Sea Grant Unwanted Medicine Disposal Community Toolkit. In the U.S., the use of
prescription medicine increases every year. Often when prescriptions expire or are no longer
needed, they are flushed or discarded. However, pharmaceuticals can pass through sewage
plants and contaminate waterways.
With funding from US EPA GLNPO, Illinois-Indiana Sea Grant created a toolkit entitled
Disposal of Unwanted Medicines: A Resource for Action in Your Community.14 Over 160
resource kits have been distributed, and Sea Grant has held workshops for over 100 local
officials. As a result, a number of communities or counties in the Great Lakes region have begun
collection programs.
The collection of resources in the toolkit is intended for waste management officials and others
who are interested in addressing the problem of unwanted medicines in the environment. A
panel of expert reviewers, including solid waste managers, pharmaceutical and personal care
product researchers, pharmacists, doctors, and communication specialists, reviewed this resource
kit, and their comments and suggestions were incorporated into the final version.
Illinois-Indiana Sea Grant focuses on collection events for the public as a partial solution to the
problem on unwanted medicines in the environment. To assist event organizers, the kit provides
a set of case studies and sample educational materials along with the Northeast Recycling
Council's step-by-step advice for running a collection. Background information on the science
behind the issue and a bibliography of news stories and articles from scientific journals are also
featured.
Illinois-Indiana Sea Grant continues to post updated materials to the toolkit web site in an effort
to provide users with the most current content available on this issue.
EarthKeepers Pharmaceutical and Personal Care Products Collection Event. In 2007, US
EPA Headquarters and GLNPO funded an Earth Day Pharmaceutical and personal care product
collection event in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan. Held by EarthKeepers, an environmental
faith-based organization, the one-day event collected over one ton of unwanted medicines and
personal care products, including a number of illegal, controlled drugs.
Prescription medication and over-the-counter medicines were collected across a 400-mile area at
about two dozen free drop-off sites across northern Michigan during this third annual
EarthKeeper Clean Sweep on Earth Day 2007. Volunteers collected tens of thousands of drugs,
14 IL-IN Sea Grant. Disposal of Unwanted Medicines: A Resource for Action in Your Community. Available at
http://www.iisgcp.org/unwantedmeds/.
April 2008 5-17
-------
Lake Superior LaMP 2008
pills, and personal care products, and pulled off what US EPA called "the largest geographical
pharmaceutical collection in U.S. history." The collections prevented these medicines from
being released into rivers, tributaries, lakes, and other waterways where they have been shown to
cause harm to aquatic and ecosystem health. Recent nationwide studies found that 80 percent of
rivers sampled tested positive for a range of Pharmaceuticals, including antibiotics, birth control
hormones, antidepressants, veterinary drugs, and other medications.
5.1.8 Pharmaceuticals and Personal Care Products in the Canadian Environment
A national workshop called "Pharmaceuticals and Personal Care Products (PPCP) in the
Canadian Environment: Research and Policy Directions" took place March 5th to 7th, 2007, in
Niagara-on-the-Lake, Ontario. This workshop assessed the current state of Canada's research on
PPCPs in the environment in government, academia, and industry sectors. Invited speakers
provided overviews on environmental exposure and monitoring, effects of PPCPs on aquatic
ecosystems, alternatives for reduction of human and environmental exposure to PPCPs, risk
assessment process and needs, international, industry activities, provincial, and municipal
activities. A principal focus of the workshop was setting priorities for research, monitoring, and
regulation of PPCPs. A workshop report was produced and can be found at:
http://www.nwri.ca/ppcp-ppsp/i-cover-e.html. The report also provides an overview of policy
and management issues.
5.2 CHALLENGES
Although there continues to be a decline in fish contaminant levels, this decline has slowed in
recent years and at levels still high enough to warrant fish consumption advisories. In addition,
new pathogens and viruses have appeared in the Great Lakes with the potential to cause
ecosystem harm. Chemicals of emerging concern, personal care products, and pharmaceuticals
are coming under increased scrutiny for their presence in the Great Lakes and potential to cause
harm to aquatics, and human and ecosystem health.
5.2.1 Fish Contaminant Levels in Lake Superior
US EPA GLNPO collects data under the Great Lakes Fish Monitoring Program (GLFMP). This
program annually collects and composites 15 salmon filets into three composites in the small,
medium, and large size categories from a variety of sites on each of the Great Lakes. Figures 5-8
through 5-13 below represent general contaminant trends in Great Lakes sport fish. Data shown
in the figures reflect the changing nature of the Sport Fish Fillet Monitoring piece of the fish
monitoring program. Sites have been continuously added and removed over the life of the
program, and samples themselves have varied from year to year according to collection, location,
and size. For that reason, only general trends can be gathered from these data.
Without remediation of contaminated sediments or restriction of contaminated atmospheric
deposition, fish tissue concentrations will continue to warrant fish consumption advisories. US
EPA does not issue fish consumption advicethe Great Lakes states and tribes are responsible
for this task. However, concentrations measured in GLFMP sport fish can be compared to
April 2008 5-18
-------
Lake Superior LaMP 2008
categories in the Protocol for a Uniform Great Lakes Sport Fish Consumption Advisory.15 Table
5-2 presents PCB, mercury, and chlordane consumption limits for sensitive populations created
for the Protocol for a Uniform Great Lakes Sport Fish Consumption Advisory.
Current concentrations of total PCBs in Lake Superior coho and chinook salmon fillets fall into
the one meal per month consumption advice categories (see Figures 5-8 and 5-11). Total PCBs
are a summation of all PCB congeners analyzed.
No DDT protocols exist to compare Lake Superior coho and chinook salmon fillet
concentrations (see Figures 5-9 and 5-12).
Current concentrations of total chlordane in Lake Superior coho and chinook salmon fillets fall
into the unlimited consumption category of the draft chlordane addendum to the protocol (see
Figures 5-10 and 5-13). Total chlordane is a summation of cis and trans chlordane, cis and trans
nonachlor, and oxychlordane.
Total PCBs in Coho Salmon Fillet Composites
from Lake Superior Harbors
n -M _,
0 1?
5* n in -
0) U' IU
n os
m U-U8
O n nc
Q_ U-UD
"n 0 04
o
i n n?
0 00 -
^^^^
^*^"^-^^^
^^^^^
^^"^-^.
^^*^
1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005
Year
Figure 5-8. Total PCBs in Coho Salmon Fillet Composites from Lake Superior
Harbors
16
15 Great Lakes Sport Fish Advisory Task Force. The PCB Protocol is available at
http://fn.cfs.purdue.edu/anglingindiana/HealthRisks/TaskForce.pdf (1993). The Mercury Protocol is available at
http://dhfs.wisconsin.gov/eh/Fish/FishFS/2007Hg Add Final 05 07.pdf (2007).
16 Source: US EPA Great Lakes National Program Office - Great Lakes Fish Monitoring Program, 2008.
April 2008
5-19
-------
Lake Superior LaMP 2008
Total DDT in Coho Salmon Fillet Composites
from Lake Superior Harbors
n 04 -t
o m
5* n m -
o>
n o?
Q o o?
Q U.U^
"n n 01
o
I 0 01
0 00
''^^^*^^
^^*"^^^^
^^^^fcfc_ A
1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000
Year
Figure 5-9. Total DDT in Coho Salmon Fillet Composites from Lake Superior
Harbors17
0 0? -,
0 0? -
~ 0 01
o, u.u I
"5> o 01 -
~" 0 01 -
Q 0 01 -
o
0 01
n U-UI
"o 0 00 -
"~ 0 00
0 00 -
19
Total Chlordane in Coho Salmon Fillet
Composites from Lake Superior Harbors
.
_^
» » »
75 1980 1985 1990 1995 20
Year
00
Figure 5-10. Total Chlordane in Coho Salmon Fillet Composites from Lake
Superior Harbors
18
17 Source: US EPA Great Lakes National Program Office - Great Lakes Fish Monitoring Program, 2008.
18 Source: US EPA Great Lakes National Program Office - Great Lakes Fish Monitoring Program, 2008.
April 2008
5-20
-------
Lake Superior LaMP 2008
To
0.80 -,
0 70 -
'S n fin
3 0 50
g 0.40 -
o_ n ^o
S 0 70
O UlZU
~ n 10 -
n nn
tal PCBs in Chinook Salmon Fillet Composites
from Lake Superior Harbors
* . *
+
*
1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002
Year
Figure 5-11. Total PCBs in Chinook Salmon Fillet Composites from Lake Superior
Harbors
19
Total DDT in Chinook Salmon Fillet Composites
from Lake Superior Harbors
0.00
1988
1990
1992
1994
Year
1996
1998
2000
Figure 5-12. Total DDT in Chinook Salmon Fillet Composites from Lake Superior
Harbors
20
19 Source: US EPA Great Lakes National Program Office - Great Lakes Fish Monitoring Program, 2008.
20 Source: US EPA Great Lakes National Program Office - Great Lakes Fish Monitoring Program, 2008.
April 2008
5-21
-------
Lake Superior LaMP 2008
0 16 -,
0 14
_O)
o n 19
o n m
§ 0 08
- 0 06
° 004-
S
o 0 09
0 00
19
Total Chlordane in Chinook Salmon Fillet
Composites from Lake Superior Harbors
*
* ^>>1111111^^
-^^^
*^^^J
88 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000
Year
Figure 5-13. Total Chlordane in Chinook Salmon Fillet Composites from Lake
Superior Harbors
21
Table 5-2. Consumption limits for sensitive populations created for the Protocol for a
Uniform Great Lakes Sport Fish Consumption Advisory**
Consumption Advice
Consumption
Advice Groups*
Unrestricted
Consumption
Concentration of PCBs
(ppm)
0-0.05
Concentration of
Mercury (ppm)*
0<0.05
*Women of childbearing age and children underage 15.
**The Chlordane protocol is draft.
Concentration of
Chlordane
(ppm)**
0-0.15
21 Source: US EPA Great Lakes National Program Office - Great Lakes Fish Monitoring Program, 2008.
April 2008
5-22
-------
Lake Superior LaMP 2008
5.3 HUMAN HEALTH AND CHEMICAL RISKS
5.3.1 Process by which US EPA Evaluates Chemicals for Human Risk
US EPA utilizes the Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) to evaluate the health effects of
individual substances. IRIS provides hazard identification and dose-response assessment
information. The information in IRIS can be used in combination with exposure information to
characterize the public health risks of a given substance in a given situation. These risk
characterizations can form the basis for risk-based decision-making, regulatory activities, and
other risk management decisions designed to characterize and protect public health.
US EPA's process for developing IRIS assessments consists of: (1) an annual Federal Register
announcement of US EPA's IRIS agenda and call for scientific information from the public on
the selected substances, (2) a search of the current literature, (3) development of a draft
Toxicological Review (other support document) and IRIS Summary, (4) internal peer
consultation, (5) Agency Review, (6) Interagency Review, (7) external peer review and public
comment, (8) final Agency Review, Interagency Review, and US EPA Office of Research and
Development management approval, and (9) posting on the IRIS database.
For more information on the chemicals currently being evaluated by IRIS, go to
http ://cfpub. epa. gov/ncea/iris/index. cfm.
5.3.2 Sources of Exposure to PBDEs
Although the use of flame retardants saves lives and property, there have been unintended
consequences of the use of polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs). There is growing evidence
that PBDEs persist in the environment and accumulate in living organisms, as well as
lexicological testing that indicates these chemicals may cause liver toxicity, thyroid toxicity, and
neurodevelopmental toxicity. Environmental monitoring programs in Europe, Asia, North
America, and the Arctic have found traces of several PBDEs in human breast milk, fish, aquatic
birds, and elsewhere in the environment. Particular congeners, tetra- to hexabrominated
diphenyl ethers, are the forms most frequently detected in wildlife and humans.
The mechanisms or pathways through which PBDEs get into the environment and humans are
not known yet, but could include releases from manufacturing or processing of the chemicals
into products like plastics or textiles, aging and wear of the end consumer products, and direct
exposure during use (e.g., from furniture). Some research has evaluated PBDE levels in market
basket foods.22 This research suggests that dietary exposure does not account for the high body
burdens that have been observed in people. The latest research suggests that household dust and
air from the indoor environment may play a significant role in PBDE body burden levels.23
Schecter A, Papke O, Harris TR, Tung KC, Musumba A , Olson J, and Birnbaum L. 2006. Polybrominated
Diphenyl Ether (PBDE) Levels in an Expanded Market Basket Survey of U.S. Food and Estimated PBDE Dietary
Intake by Age and Sex. Environmental Health Perspectives, Volume 114, Number 10.
23 US EPA.Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, Polybrominated diphenylethers (PBDEs) web site:
http://www.epa.gov/oppt/pbde/.
April 2008 5-23
-------
Lake Superior LaMP 2008
5.4 IS THERE A HUMAN HEALTH RISK?
5.4.1 Viral Hemorrhagic Septicemia
Viral Hemorrhagic Septicemia (VHS) virus is a serious fresh and saltwater fish pathogen that is
increasingly observed in the Great Lakes region of the U.S. and Canada.24 VHS virus is a
rhabdovirus that affects fish of all size and age ranges but does not pose any threat to human
health. VHS cannot infect humans if they eat fish that have the pathogen.25
VHS, known for its damaging effects in Europe and the Pacific Northwest, was first detected in
the Great Lakes in 2005 and was later confirmed in fish captured in 2003. Since its arrival, VHS
has caused widespread mortality offish in the lower Great Lakes, affecting thousands, perhaps
hundreds of thousands offish in a single event. VHS has proven to be broadly pathogenic in the
Great Lakes, affecting dozens offish species across several families. Recent genetic work
indicates that Great Lakes VHS isolates are most closely related to isolates from the Atlantic
seaboard of North America, and that the introduction of VHS to the Great Lakes likely occurred
within the past 5-10 years. Despite the rapid spread of VHS through the lower Great Lakes,
VHS has not yet been reported from Lake Superior or its watershed.
In 2007, the U.S. National Park Service prohibited all ballast water from being released in the
boundaries of Isle Royale National Park to prevent possible VHS contamination of its waters.
The National Park Service, in conjunction with other state and federal agencies, has drafted a
VHS prevention, containment, and response plan. For more information, please see:
www.dec.ny.gov/animals/25328.html or
www.aphis.usda.gov/publications/animal_health/content/printable_version/sa_vhsfo_vs.pdf.
5.4.2 Botulism
Type E botulism poisoning offish and wildlife has recently increased in the Great Lakes with the
most recent example in Michigan near the Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore. Many
people are concerned not only of the ecological impacts of this type of botulism but also of the
human health impacts.
In the past, a few Type E botulism cases were reported in humans. However, this was due to
improperly prepared smoked or cooked fish, and these cases were rare. Most media reports of
botulism issues in humans are from Type A and B botulism. These types of botulism occur in
food as a result of improperly canned or jarred food. Cooking food to proper temperatures will
destroy bacteria, including botulism.
24 U.S. Department of Agriculture Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service. 2007. Stakeholders Announcement:
USDA Amends Viral Hemorrhagic Septicemia-Susceptible Species List. Available at:
http://www.aphis.usda.gov/publications/animal health/content/printable version/sa vhsfo vs.pdf.
25 New York State Department of Environmental Conservation website:
http://www.dec.nv.gov/animals/25328.html.
April 2008 5-24
-------
Lake Superior LaMP 2008
When fishing or hunting water fowl in the Great Lakes, it is important to choose healthy fish and
to discard fish or waterfowl that are sick or act abnormally. Improper cooking may not destroy
the botulism Type E toxin.
5.5 NEXT STEPS
Challenges and next steps related to improving human health include:
Continue to implement actions outlined in the Great Lakes Regional Collaboration's
Coastal Health Strategy;
Continue to improve beach monitoring and public notification;
Promote measures that will reduce or eliminate pollution sources at Great Lakes
beaches;
Develop and disseminate a standardized sanitary survey tool to identify
contamination sources at Great Lakes beaches;
Continue pharmaceutical outreach and education to collect unwanted medications;
Continue pollution prevention actions to prevent chemicals of emerging concern from
entering waterways;
Disseminate information and training tools on the use of forecast models at Great
Lakes beaches; and
Work with the International Joint Commission to evaluate standardization of criteria
for posting beaches in the U.S. and Canada.
5.6 INFORMATION
Web links listed below provide reference material for information cited in beach LaMP updates.
In addition, a collection of useful resources (journal articles, publications, published abstracts,
and technical reports) has been compiled for future use.
Lake Superior States' Beach Web Pages
Michigan: www.michigan.gov/deq/L1607J-135-3313 3686 3730C1.00.html
Minnesota: www.pca.state.mn.us/water/beaches/
Wisconsin: www.dnr.state.wi.us/org/water/wm/wqs/beaches/
Great Lakes Sea Grant
Great Lakes Sea Grant Network: http://www.greatlakesseagrant.org/
Michigan Sea Grant: http://www.seagrant.umich.edu/
Minnesota Sea Grant: http://www.seagrant.umn.edu/
Wisconsin Sea Grant: http://www.seagrant.wisc.edu/
April 2008 5-25
-------
Lake Superior LaMP 2008
US EPA
US EPA's BEACH Watch home page, including links to the BEACH Act, the National Beach
Guidance and Required Performance Criteria for Grants, US EPA's national beach water
quality database, and technical and reference documents:
http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/beaches/
US EPA Great Lakes National Program Office: http://www.epa.gov/glnpo/
US EPA's Report to Congress: Impacts and Control ofCSOs andSSOs (delivered August 26,
2004): http://cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/cso/cpolicy_report2004.cfm
Great Lakes Monitoring - The Swimmability Index:
http://www.epa.gov/glnpo/glindicators/water/beachb.html
Great Lakes Strategy 2002 - A Plan for the New Millennium:
http://www.epa.gov/grtlakes/gls/gls04.html
BEACON - Beach Advisory and Closing On-line Notification:
http://oaspub.epa.gov/beacon/beacon national_page.main
Other Web Sites
Alliance for the Great Lakes Citizen's Center for Beach Health:
http ://www.greatlakes. org/conservation/beach_health_index. asp
Great Lakes Water Institute - Bacterial Genetics Research Lab:
http ://www.uwm. edu/Dept/GLWI/ecoli/
Great Lakes Beach Association: http: //www. great-1 ake s. net/gib a/
Great Lakes Information Network (GLIN): http://www.great-lakes.net/
Beaches in the Great Lakes Region: http://www.great-lakes.net/tourism/rec/beach.htmltfnew
Center for Disease Control - Healthy Swimming: http://www.cdc.gov/healthyswimming/
Great Lakes BeachCast - Great Lakes Beach Information (many links from this site):
http://www.great-lakes.net/beachcast/nr_moreinfo.html
Great Lakes Research Consortium: http://www.esf.edu/glrc/
NOAA Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory (GLERL)
Center of Excellence for Great Lakes and Human Health:
http://www.glerl.noaa.gov/res/Centers/HumanHealth/
April 2008 5-26
-------
Lake Superior LaMP 2008
USGS Great Lakes Science Center: http://www.glsc.usgs.gov/
Great Lakes Commission: http://www.glc.org/
International Joint Commission: http://www.ijc.org/
Council of Great Lakes Research Managers - Great Lakes-St. Lawrence Research Inventory:
http://ri.ijc.org
Great Lakes Protection Fund: http://www.glpf.org/
International Association for Great Lakes Research: http://www.iaglr.org/
Lake Superior Duluth Streams: www.DuluthStreams.org
Wisconsin Beach Health Web site: www.wibeaches.us
April 2008 5-27
-------
Chapter 6
Habitat, Terrestrial Wildlife, and Aquatic
Communities Progress Reports
Wild rice at Kakagon Slough. Photo credit: Janet Keough, US EPA.
Lake Superior Lakewide Management Plan 2008
-------
-------
Lake Superior LaMP 2008
Chapter 6 Contents
6.0 ABOUT THE CHAPTER 6-1
6.1 ACCOMPLISHMENTS/PROGRESS 6-2
6.1.1 Watershed Initiatives/Protection/Restoration 6-2
6.1.2 Native Species Rehabilitation/Protection 6-15
6.1.3 Nuisance Species Developments/Efforts 6-30
6.1.4 Education/Outreach Initiatives 6-39
6.2 CHALLENGES AND NEXT STEPS 6-41
6.2.1 Information Gathering 6-42
6.2.2 Monitoring 6-43
6.2.3 Communication 6-43
6.2.4 Planning 6-43
6.2.5 Active Stewardship 6-46
6.3 REFERENCES 6-46
April 2008 6-ii
-------
-------
Lake Superior LaMP 2008
Chapter 6
Habitat, Terrestrial Wildlife, and Aquatic Communities
Progress Reports
6.0 ABOUT THE CHAPTER
The Habitat, Aquatic Communities, and Terrestrial Wildlife Committees of the Binational
Program have cooperated to compile this chapter of the LaMP 2008. This chapter highlights
actions taken to restore and protect fish, wildlife, and their habitats in the Lake Superior basin
since the release of the LaMP 2006 Report. These committees are part of a historic and unique
collaborative endeavor by Lake Superior resource managers to protect, maintain, and restore
aquatic and terrestrial wildlife and high-quality habitat sites in Lake Superior basin and the
ecological processes that sustain them. The committees are comprised of technical personnel
from federal, state, provincial, and tribal natural resource agencies.
Over the past two years, the three
committees have worked together to refine
and revise a set of "Ecosystem Goals" that
contain Strategic Outcomes, specific Goals,
and Subgoals that the committees have
determined are necessary to achieve and
protect a diverse, healthy, and sustainable
Lake Superior ecosystem. Although a
version of these goals was originally
included in the LaMP 2006, revisions were
needed to better organize the goals and to
accommodate emerging issues like climate
change (see sidebar). In addition, the goals
were expanded to include issues related to
the aquatic ecosystem. A public comment
period was held to gather input on the draft
goals. The Ecosystem Goals are scheduled
to be finalized in 2008.
The draft goals that were released for
public comment can be found in Chapter 3
of this LaMP (see Section 3.1). Once final,
the committees intend to work toward the
fulfillment of the goals and subgoals, and
plan to use the goals as a tool to track
progress. The committees and the
Binational Program as a whole hope that, when final, all agencies and organizations around the
Lake can use these goals as a guide to achieve our shared vision for Lake Superior.
Draft Ecosystem Goals Acknowledge
the Need to Plan for Climate Change
During the recent revision of the Ecosystem Goals
(see adjacent text), it became clear that unless
agencies understand and plan for predicted climate
change, a great deal of money and time could be
spent on projects with little likelihood of success.
In addition, the committees recognized that the
Lake Superior basin should do its part to try and
reduce emissions of greenhouse gases. These
realizations prompted the development of four
goals related to climate change under the umbrella
of a Strategic Outcome that states "Human
activities in the Lake Superior basin mitigate
the contribution of greenhouse gases to the
environment. Ongoing climate change adaptive
management strategies are pursued in the Lake
Superior basin." The four goals are to: 1)
understand the impacts of climate change and the
limits to the ability to predict and model these
impacts on specific ecosystems and local regions,
2) review and revise Conservation and Restoration
Plans in the basin as required based on the climate
scenarios developed in the goal above, 3) help the
Lake Superior Basin stakeholders adapt to climate
change impacts, and 4) make Lake Superior a net
carbon reduction area that reduces greenhouse
gas emissions.
April 2008
6-1
-------
Lake Superior LaMP 2008
6.1 ACCOMPLISHMENTS/PROGRESS
The following chapter recognizes many accomplishments over the past two years; however,
readers should note that these are not all of the actions that have been taken to restore and protect
the basin. The committees are tracking projects completed in furtherance of the LaMP; these
represent a sample of projects initiated and/or completed in the past two years. The format of
this chapter contains sections discussing broad, water shed-scale projects, updates on native and
non-native species efforts, and outreach and education initiatives (see Chapter 2 for additional
outreach efforts).
6.1.1 Watershed Initiatives/Protection/Restoration
This section presents updates on initiatives to protect or restore the ecological health of the Lake
Superior watershed.
Important Habitat in the Lake Superior Basin. The Lake Superior Binational Program
emphasizes protective measures for fish, plant, and other wildlife habitat over costly restoration
once damage has occurred. Nonetheless, restoration is critical in areas where ecological
functions are impaired. In 1991, the governments of Michigan, Minnesota, Wisconsin, and
Ontario agreed to identify critical habitats and continue habitat reclamation projects already
under way to restore fisheries, wildlife, and wetlands in the basin. As a result, the Habitat
Committee produced a map showing important habitat in the Lake Superior basin and the
ecological features of each site. In 2006, the map was revised to include additional information
about the sites already listed, and to identify other important habitat areas within the Lake
Superior basin. Copies of the map are availablesimply contact one of the Habitat Committee
co-chairs listed at the end of this chapter.
Canadian Watercourse Stewardship Project Update. Benthic macro-invertebrates are
indicator species that respond to ecosystem changes faster than other members of the aquatic
community. Trends and changes in aquatic invertebrate populations and community structure
can serve as indicators of short-term, action-required stresses that may ultimately influence the
aquatic community of Lake Superior. These organisms are the focus of the Watercourse
Stewardship Project, a joint endeavour between the Superior Work Group and the Binational
Forum. The benthic community composition in a number of Lake Superior tributary streams that
are considered to be "healthy" is being compared to that found at selected sites in areas that are
believed to be impaired in order to determine the biological health of these waterways. The
stewardship component of this project involves public education and the creation of a "Citizen's
Guide to Monitoring Water Quality" that allows the general public to sample stream
communities and determine local water quality conditions. Bug Trading Cards were also
produced to encourage youth to take an interest in the region's waterways and the organisms that
live in them.
Monitoring Forest Management Impacts on the Headwaters of Lake Superior Migratory
Brook Trout Rivers - Lake Superior's Forest Fish. Planned forest management activities
within Lake Superior tributaries that support coaster brook trout have raised concerns about the
April 2008 6-2
-------
Lake Superior LaMP 2008
potential impacts of changes in flow regimes and stream temperature. Increases in peak flow and
stream temperatures, as well as alterations to groundwater inputs, that may result from forest
management activities have the potential to alter in-stream habitat structure and thermal regimes
and adversely affect the spawning and rearing habitat that is critical to brook trout. Researchers
with Ontario's Centre for Northern Forest Ecosystem Research in Thunder Bay are evaluating
forest landscape characteristics (e.g., geology, forest type, topography) and have established
monitoring reaches to measure stream flow, temperature, and biological characteristics (e.g.,
water chemistry, aquatic invertebrates, fish communities) in Lake Superior watershed streams
catchments. The study uses a before/after, control/impact design to evaluate the influence of
different levels of watershed timber harvest on stream flows, water temperature, and biological
characteristics of small streams that contribute directly and indirectly to brook trout habitat. The
study will help quantify the risks posed by forest management activities to brook trout habitat
and will provide recommendations to mitigate risks during forest management planning.
Hog Island and Newton Creek Habitat Master Plan. The Hog Island and Newton Creek
Ecological Restoration Master Plan provides a blueprint for the restoration of natural
communities and ecosystem processes for Newton Creek, the Hog Island Inlet, and Hog Island in
Superior, Wisconsin. Historically, this area has been contaminated by industrial discharges and a
former municipal combined sewer overflow. From 1997 to 2005, multiple partners remediated
the contaminated sediments in Newton Creek and Hog Island Inlet. Through a process of
stakeholder engagement and collaboration, the Ecological Restoration Master Plan intends to
build upon the success of these remediation efforts by proposing a guiding vision as well as
specific goals, objectives, and actions that will help to restore terrestrial, riparian, wetlands, and
aquatic habitats; increase ecosystem biodiversity and resilience; and reduce threats to the natural
communities in the area. The plan also intends to increase environmental awareness, community
enjoyment, and economic vitality through passive recreational, educational, and stewardship
opportunities. Because the area is part of the St. Louis River Area of Concern (AOC), the
restoration of Hog Island, Hog Island Inlet, and Newton Creek is a critical link in a much larger
process to preserve the Great Lakes.
Watershed Plans Spreading Across Michigan's Upper Peninsula. Since 2006, several more
watershed plans have been approved by the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality
(MDEQ) including the Sault Ste. Marie Watershed Plan and the Salmon Trout River Watershed
Plan. Watershed plans in Michigan are approved by the MDEQ as meeting requirements under
either Section 319 of the Clean Water Act or for accessing state funding through the Clean
Michigan Initiative (CMI). Encouragement of watershed plan development throughout the Lake
Superior basin is one of the objectives of the Habitat Committee. Each of the watershed plans
shares the objectives of promoting coordinated and collaborative actions amongst stakeholders
and providing guidance for implementation of actions that will reduce existing water quality
impacts and provide a basis for protection from future impacts. The following watershed plans
have been approved by MDEQ in the Lake Superior basin:
Whetstone Brook and Orianna Creek Watersheds - City of Marquette;
Chocolay River Watershed - Marquette County;
Munising Bay Watershed - City of Munising and Alger County;
Lower Dead River Watershed - City of Marquette;
April 2008 6-3
-------
Lake Superior LaMP 2008
Trap Rock River Watershed - Keweenaw and Houghton Counties;
Otter River Watershed - Houghton, Baraga and Ontonagon Counties;
Sault Ste. Marie Watershed - City of Sault Ste. Marie; and
Salmon Trout River - Marquette County.
Figure 6-1. Watershed management plans lead to restoration actions. The Whetstone and Orianna Creek
Watershed Management Plan for Marquette, Michigan, identified this old abandoned culvert on the
Orianna Creek as causing erosion and sedimentation to the stream, as well as being a barrier to fish
passage. Photo credit: Superior Watershed Partnership.
April 2008
6-4
-------
Lake Superior LaMP 2008
Figure 6-2. In 2007, a grant from US EPA Great Lakes National Program Office allowed the Superior
Watershed Partnership, Upper Peninsula Resource Conservation and Development Council, and Michigan
Waterfowl Association to remove the culvert and stabilize the banks of Orianna Creek.
Photo credit: Superior Watershed Partnership.
Field Evaluation of Water Crossings in the Lake Superior Basin. Roads and water crossings
constructed during forest management operations are widely considered to pose a significant risk
to fish and fish habitat. The Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (OMNR) and the Canada
Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) have jointly developed The Protocol for the Review
of Water Crossings Proposed Through the Forest Management Planning Process. The protocol
includes a "Risk Evaluation Procedure" to evaluate the potential risk posed by planned water
crossings. The goal of this study is to conduct a field-based evaluation of water crossings
installed following the review and risk evaluation to determine the effectiveness of the protocol
at mitigating risk. The field survey will focus on Lake Superior tributary river systems, some of
which are used by migratory fishes in Lake Superior, including coaster brook trout. These
systems are particularly sensitive to habitat fragmentation resulting from improperly constructed
crossings. The project will develop an efficient field monitoring protocol, quantify risk factors
associated with water crossings, and contribute to the validation and revision of the review
protocol.
Habitat Manipulation Study Attempts to Improve Habitat for Brook Trout. The lack of
quality spawning and early fry stage rearing habitat is severely limiting brook trout population
abundance on the Little Sioux River. Rehabilitation of Lake Superior brook trout is a top
April 2008
6-5
-------
Lake Superior LaMP 2008
priority of Wisconsin's Lake Superior Basin Brook Trout Management Plan, the Lake Superior
Fisheries Management Plan, and the Lake Superior LaMP.
A graduate student from the University of Minnesota-Duluth is conducting a habitat
improvement project on the Little Sioux River that will re-expose natural habitat features critical
to brook trout that are buried under excessive sand. The objectives of this project are to measure
changes in physical habitat, invertebrates, and fisheries before and after a habitat improvement
project. Sand movement will be restored and critical spawning features re-exposed by manually
removing the footprints of old beaver dams, small woody debris, and overhanging speckled
alder.
Michipicoten River Hydroacoustic Assessment of Fish Passage Relative to Regulated
Flows. Lake Superior fish access up the Michipicoten River is limited by a hydroelectric power
development several kilometres up river from the lake. Excellent spawning habitat exists below
the dam; however, these areas are subject to dewatering and flushing on a regular basis as the
hydro facility holds or releases water. The OMNR is presently undertaking acoustic enumeration
of both spring and fall spawning runs in relation to flow over a three-year period. The findings
will highlight the effects on native species and ecosystem function. This information will be
used to support decision-making in the river management planning process.
The Paradise Island Nature Reserve. The Thunder Bay Field Naturalists Club, a non-profit
organization, purchased Paradise Island, which is located in the Lake Superior National Marine
Conservation Area and the Lake Superior Archipelago on the south side of St. Ignace Island,
south of Nipigon. The island is about 28 hectares (60 acres) and is exposed to the open waters of
Lake Superior. Paradise Island is recognized by the OMNR as an Area of Natural and Scientific
Interest (ANSI) because of its extensive raised cobble beaches, unusual stunted windswept
vegetation, and arctic disjunct plants. The majority of the island was privately owned and slated
for cottage development. The Thunder Bay Field Naturalists have added this property to its 385
hectares (950 acres) of ecologically-significant land holdings in the region. This project was
supported by the Greenlands Program, an OMNR-Nature Conservancy of Canada initiative.
Additional support for this purchase was provided by two Canadian conservancy organizations:
the EJLB Foundation and the McLean Foundation.
April 2008 6-6
-------
Lake Superior LaMP 2008
Nipigon River Land Acquisition: Gapen's Pool
Gapen's Pool.
Photo credit:
OMNR.
Brook trout have very specific habitat needs, requiring sites with substantial groundwater springs for
successful spawning and incubation. While such locations are relatively rare in Lake Superior, there
are three known spawning sites on the lower Nipigon River, attracting lake-dwelling brook trout from
across Nipigon Bay and beyond. The major spawning area is in Gapen's Pool, where massive
springs fed by groundwater create perfect opportunities for spawning. This area is currently in a
relatively undisturbed condition, although much of the surrounding landscape is developed. In the
LaMP 2006, the protection of Gapen's Pool was identified as a "Next Step" that needed to occur in
order to protect critical lake and tributary habitat.
The property adjacent to this critical spawning area consists of 24 hectares (60 acres) of vacant land
positioned along the east bank of the Nipigon River south of Lake Helen and is the major recharge
area for groundwater discharging into the northeast corner of Gapen's Pool. In March 2007, Trout
Unlimited Canada successfully purchased this property with the support of the OMNR and its
partner the Lake Superior Advisory Committee, Parks Canada, Trout Unlimited U.S., and through
the generous donations of individuals, corporations, and foundations. A conservation plan will be
developed to protect and conserve the critical functions that this property provides to brook trout in
the Nipigon River specifically, and to the restoration efforts in Lake Superior.
Graphic depiction of Nipigon River
area. Photo credit: OMNR.
April 2008
6-7
-------
Lake Superior LaMP 2008
Great Lakes Environmental Indicators (GLEI) Project Update. The US EPA funded a five-
year major competitive research grant (2001-2006) to the University of Minnesota-Duluth to
develop a new generation of environmental indicators for coastal regions of the U.S. Great
Lakes. The project focused on the coastal and nearshore zone for the entire U.S. portion of the
Great Lakes from Lake Ontario to Lake Superior. The project included over 27 scientists in a
consortium of 10 universities and was a cooperative agreement with US EPA's Mid-Continent
Ecology (MED) Division in Duluth.
The final report for the project was completed in the spring of 2006, and a special issue of the
Journal of Great Lakes Research [Vol. 33 (Special Issue 3), 2007] that primarily focuses on
results from the GLEI effort will be released in 2008. A full copy of the report can be found at
the following website: http://glei.nrri.umn.edu/default/documents/GLEI final VersionVIII.pdf
Overall, the GLEI effort measured eight major responses, each with different sampling
methodologies and sample size requirements. These indicators included populations of
amphibians, birds, diatoms, fish, macroinvertebrates, and wetland plant communities. In
addition, contamination due to polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) and land cover in the
U.S. Lake Superior basin was characterized. Field sampling was completed with a random
stratified design that incorporated over 200 stressor variables among six major categories:
agriculture, atmospheric deposition, land cover-land use, human population densities, point
source pollution, and shoreline modification. Field sampling was completed primarily in 2002
and 2003, while the landscape characterization was completed for 1992 and compared with the
characterization for 2001 to determine land use change. The number of sites sampled in the
Lake Superior coastal region for the various components were the following: 110 sites for birds,
12 sites for PAH contamination, 40 sites for diatoms, 32 sites for fish and macroinvertebrates,
and 25 sites for wetland vegetation. In addition, US EPA-MED sampled more than 15 sites as
well as extensive regions of the nearshore zone in the western portion of Lake Superior.
The results indicated that agriculture and population density had major influences on the
indicator responses for all of the components studied. Strong signals in birds, diatoms, fish, and
macroinvertebrates were observed in areas where either agriculture was predominant in the
landscape or where human population densities were greatest. Considerable variation in
responses was exemplified at different spatial scales and many at surprisingly large scales. PAH
contamination was found in several of the major areas of industrial activity such as in the St.
Louis River of Minnesota and Wisconsin. Land use change in the Lake Superior basin was not
as extensive as found in the southern and eastern portions of the U.S. Great Lakes basin;
however, there was some conversion of forested areas to urbanized, residential, or ex-
urbanization areas within the basin. In general, the Lake Superior basin and nearshore areas, as
indicated from the biological responses measured, were in relatively good condition compared to
many portions of the southern and eastern U.S. Great Lakes coast. However, many wetland and
high-energy shores had conditions that were approaching the highly degraded regions of the
southern and eastern U.S. Great Lakes areas. These data provide some of the most extensive and
comprehensive sampling ever completed for a substantial portion of the U.S. Lake Superior
coastal region. These data also provide a solid baseline that will allow comparisons to be made
with future changes in coastal resources, and will potentially provide a mechanism to track
further degradation or improvements in health of the coastal region of Lake Superior.
April 2008 6-8
-------
Lake Superior LaMP 2008
The special issue of the Journal of 'Great Lakes Research referenced above will include 22 peer-
reviewed papers. These papers are listed in the reference section at the end of this chapter.
Great Lakes Wetlands and Habitat Initiative. The Great Lakes Regional Collaboration's
(GLRC) December 2005 Strategy to Protect and Restore the Great Lakes identifies habitat and
wetlands degradation as a key threat and provides recommendations for protection and
restoration. The GLRC's Wetlands and Habitat Initiative is working to address these
recommendations. As a first step, the initiative is focused on protecting and restoring 200,000
acres of wetlands in the Great Lakes basin. Efforts to date include:
Establishment of a Steering Committee with members from federal agencies; state, local,
and tribal governments; and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) to help guide the
initiative.
Development of a habitat project and funding database to link projects with funding
sources for restoration projects.
Request for data in order to provide an estimate of the number of wetland acres protected,
restored and improved by federal agencies and their partners since the release of the
December 2005 GLRC Strategy.
Production of a report that describes progress, the habitat project and funding database,
key issues, and next steps. The report is under final review for release to the public.
Whittlesey Creek National Wildlife Refuge Update. The Whittlesey Creek National Wildlife
Refuge was established along Lake Superior near Ashland, Wisconsin, in 1999 by the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service (USFWS). Whittlesey Creek is a small refuge with a big impact on the lake
and local communities. Acquisition includes the coastal wetland at the head of Chequamegon
Bay, three tributary streams, and their floodplains. Habitats were altered since early European
settlement by logging, farming, road and railroad building, and stream dredging. Native brook
trout were almost extirpated from the
Whittlesey Creek watershed. The USFWS
has been acquiring lands, restoring habitats,
and rehabilitating brook trout populations
over the past eight years.
During 2006 and 2007, activities at the
refuge included projects in four areas. First,
almost 5,000 trees were planted in the
floodplains of Whittlesey Creek and Little
Whittlesey Creek, where land had been
cleared and farmed in the late 1800s and
early 1900s. Second, a stream restoration
project involved replacing a culvert that was
a barrier to fish within the refuge with one
that is now passable for fish and other
aquatic life. The project opened four miles of stream to fish passage above the former barrier,
providing important habitat for brook trout. Third, 10 acres of wetland in the refuge was
Figure 6-3. White pine planted in Whittlesey creek
refuge. Photo credit: Darienne McNamara, USFWS.
April 2008
6-9
-------
Lake Superior LaMP 2008
hydrologically restored in 2006. This restoration allowed sheet-flow on the floodplain and
created several shallow pools for migratory birds. Native sedges, grasses, and forbs were planted
on about two acres of the site in 2007. Finally, the USFWS and Wisconsin Department of
Natural Resources (WDNR) are conducting an experiment to examine whether a self-sustaining
migratory brook trout population can be established in Whittlesey Creek by stocking, enacting
protective regulations, and improving habitat improvement. The stocking component involves
paired stocking of multiple life stages of two Isle Royale strains with known lake-dwelling life
history.
These activities advance goals and objectives that are part of the Refuge's Habitat Management
Plan and the Brook Trout Plan for Wisconsin's Lake Superior basin. In addition, they advance
the restoration of an important habitat site as identified on the Binational Program's map of
important habitat conditions in the Lake Superior basin.
Fond du Lac Band of Lake Superior Chippewa is Restoring an Important On-Reservation
Watershed. The Fond du Lac Resource Management Division (RMD) is engaged in a
comprehensive hydrologic study and restoration activities in the Stoney Brook watershed, which
encompasses over half of the reservation at 59,248 acres. Its headwaters include the
reservation's premier wild rice lakes, designated as "Outstanding Reservation Resource Waters"
in the Band's federally-approved Water Quality Standards. The Stoney Brook watershed was
extensively ditched under judicial order in the early 1900s to drain wetlands and open up acreage
for crop agriculture, which was generally unsuccessful. The substantial hydromodification of
this ditch system persists and has resulted in detrimental fluctuating water levels in the wild rice
lakes, significant stream and riparian habitat impairment, and disconnected wetlands throughout
the watershed.
Recent activities in the watershed include:
The development of a continuous hydrologic model using extensive field data;
The development of a comprehensive Stoney Brook Watershed Management Plan that
will incorporate management objectives including water level management in wild rice
lakes, identifying stream and ditch reaches for habitat restoration, improving wetland
function and forest management, and providing a road map for future implementation
projects; and
The construction of control structures to assist in water level management of wild rice
lakes, and use of mechanical cutters and harvesters to remove several hundred acres of
aquatic plants that have succeeded in the areas that once supported wild rice. Coupled
with aggressive re-seeding efforts, these management activities will help restore much of
the lost wild rice resource within the reservation.
Watershed Health Initiative Aimed at Reducing Runoff. Many groups throughout the Lake
Superior basin are taking a keen interest in their watershed. A group of government, nonprofit,
industry representatives, and citizens called the Wisconsin Lake Superior Basin Partner Team
developed a watershed health initiative aimed at slowing the flow of water runoff from the land
in the Lake Superior basin. Land use changes over the last century have increased the volumes
and rate that water runs off the land, resulting in flooding, erosion, and sedimentation in streams.
April 2008 6-10
-------
Lake Superior LaMP 2008
As a result, Lake Superior tributaries in Wisconsin have changed shape and character and carry a
heavy load of sand and sediment.
The Partner Team obtained funding from the
Great Lakes Commission and U.S. Forest
Service to develop guidance for hydrologic
assessment as the first step in watershed
planning. The group applied the U.S. Forest
Service and U.S. Department of Interior
"Framework for Analyzing the Hydrologic
Condition of Watersheds" to the Marengo River
watershed as a test case. Based on that
experience, the group developed a guide adapted
to the unique needs of the Lake Superior basin.
The guide provides a step-by-step process that
describes how to assemble a review team, find
mapping information, find information for Lake
Superior basin watersheds, and how to evaluate
watershed features. The hydrologic condition
assessment identifies the most important factors
or activities that affect the timing, volume, and
velocity of water runoff. The guide and the
Marengo River Watershed Test Case were
completed in 2007. Partner Team members will
present the guide to groups interested in watershed planning. The guide and Marengo test case
documents are available from the University of Wisconsin-Extension Lake Superior Basin
Educator and at http://basineducation.uwex.edu/lakesuperior/watershedmgmt.htm.
Figure 6-4. Ashland County (Wisconsin) Land
Conservation Committee Chairman George Mika
discusses agriculture's role in the Marengo River
Watershed at an information meeting.
Photo credit: S. Schultz, Stable Solutions LLC.
April 2008
6-11
-------
Lake Superior LaMP 2008
Figure 6-5. Silver Creek culvert failure in 2003. Photo credit: S. Schultz, Stable Solutions LLC.
6.1.1.1 Special Designations
National Marine Conservation Area Established on Lake Superior. In October 2007, the
Government of Canada announced the creation of the country's newest National Marine
Conservation Area (NMCA). More than 10,000 square kilometres of Lake Superior, including
the lakebed, islands, and north shorelands within the NMCA boundaries, make up the largest
freshwater marine protected area in the world. NMCAs are part of the Parks Canada family of
protected areas. They consist of protected zones and cooperatively managed multiple-use areas
where activities such as commercial fishing and shipping continue. Dumping, mining, oil and
gas exploration and extraction are prohibited within the park boundaries.
April 2008
6-12
-------
Lake Superior LaMP 2008
Lake Superior National Marine Conservation Area
L'aire marine nationale fie conservation tlu Lac Superieur
, ...
x'._ Canada
Figure 6-6. The National Marine Conservation Area in Lake Superior, established by the Government of Canada
in 2007, represents the largest freshwater marine protected area in the world. Photo credit: Parks Canada.
Outstanding Resource Water Protection in Wisconsin. New rules relating to Lake Superior
basin waters to better protect Lake Superior from wastewater pollution were adopted by the
Wisconsin Natural Resources Board on April 26, 2006. The new rules will create a consistent
approach across Minnesota, Michigan, and Wisconsin in implementing the Governors'
agreement to manage Lake Superior as a zero discharge demonstration zone. Under revisions to
Wisconsin's administrative code, the designation of Lake Superior tributaries currently classified
as Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW) is expanded to trigger additional levels of protection.
These proposals modify the existing ORW designation for selected tributaries to include a one-
quarter-mile arc within Lake Superior at the mouth of each of those tributaries. In addition,
waters within one-quarter mile of the islands of the Apostle Islands National Lakeshore would
also be classified as ORW. A third part would prohibit any new or increased discharges of the
targeted pollutants to waters of the basin unless the discharge was the result of utilization of best
technology in process or control.
NERR Site Selection Process Underway in Wisconsin. The National Estuarine Research
Reserve (NERR) System is a nationwide network of protected coastal estuaries that are
designated and supported through the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
(NOAA). The NERR program integrates research, outreach, and stewardship activities related to
estuary resources, including Great Lakes freshwater estuaries. NERR sites represent a formal
April 2008
6-13
-------
Lake Superior LaMP 2008
partnership between federal and state governments, but they also often include a variety of other
partners and resources. There is local, statewide, and national interest in designating a
Wisconsin Lake Superior NERR site, which would represent only the second freshwater estuary
site in the nationwide NERR system.
In September of 2006, Wisconsin initiated the process of selecting a Lake Superior site to
nominate for NERR designation. The process built upon previous and ongoing grassroots efforts
to raise awareness and appreciation of Lake Superior's freshwater estuaries. The University of
Wisconsin-Extension, Wisconsin Department of Administration-Coastal Management Program,
and WDNR are leading this process for the State of Wisconsin. Representatives from over 25
organizations assisted by participating in two project teams. The process evaluated 35 sites
located on Lake Superior's southern shore for their suitability as a NERR site, and evaluation
criteria were used to narrow the list of potential sites to three options. Community input was
then gathered regarding the remaining candidate NERR sites. In early 2008, state agency
representatives will use the gathered information to recommend a Lake Superior site to
Wisconsin's governor for nomination to NOAA as a Wisconsin NERR site.
National Forests Consider Special Designations. All four national forests within the Lake
Superior basin (Hiawatha, Ottawa, Chequamegon-Nicolet, and Superior) have had forest plan
revisions since 2004. These plans help address many of the LaMP watershed, habitat, terrestrial
wildlife, and fisheries issues, and all are available online through http://www.fs.fed.us/r9/.
Research Natural Areas (RNA's) are part of a national network of natural areas designated in
perpetuity for research and education and/or to maintain biological diversity on National Forest
Service lands. RNA's are designed for non-manipulative research, observation, and study. The
National Forest Service has identified 69 candidate RNA's (forestwide datanot all are in the
Lake Superior basin). These will be evaluated further for possible designation as RNA's.
Salmon Trout Designated as "Endangered River." In their 2006 report America's Most
Endangered Rivers, the conservation group American Rivers has designated the Salmon Trout
River in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan as the fourth most endangered river in the U.S. This is
not a formal governmental designation but a local designation by a private group.
A proposed nickel/copper sulfide mine will be constructed directly beneath the river, if mining
permits are approved. The Salmon Trout River flows into Lake Superior west of Marquette,
Michigan, and has the only known remaining breeding population of coaster brook trout on the
southern shore of Lake Superior. Significant efforts to restore and enhance this brook trout
population are ongoing, and a Management Plan was recently approved for the watershed.
According to the American Rivers report, "The threat of contamination from acid mine drainage
is a concern in any sulfide mining operation, and the proposed Eagle Mine project is no
exception. Because the ore body is located directly under the river, and the mining site will be
directly adjacent to this, any acid mine drainage that occurs would have a direct impact on river
and groundwater quality. Such contamination in the river could bring serious harm to water
quality potentially contaminating the drinking water supply, and seriously harming the natural
habitat of the unique native species. Even minute quantities of these toxins are deadly to
juvenile coaster brook trout."
April 2008 6-14
-------
Lake Superior LaMP 2008
6.1.2 Native Species Rehabilitation/Protection
The following section describes progress in efforts to rehabilitate or protect native species in the
Lake Superior basin.
Herptile Work Update. As discussed in the LaMP 2006, reptiles and amphibians have been
identified as a critical group of species to be monitored by the State of the Lake Ecosystem
Conference (SOLEC) and the LaMP 2000, as they are sensitive to human-caused perturbations
and chemical contaminants, and many species are in decline worldwide. Dr. Steve Hecnar
(Lakehead University, Ontario), and Dr. Gary Casper (Great Lakes Ecological Services and
Casper Consulting) have developed and field-tested a basinwide amphibian and reptile
monitoring program during 2006 and 2007. Representative sampling sites on both the Canadian
(Thunder Bay and Lake Superior Provincial Park) and U.S. (Pictured Rocks National Lakeshore,
Michigan, and Moquah Barrens, Wisconsin) portions of the Lake Superior basin were sampled.
Project components include monitoring site selection, intensive multi-species surveys, database
and data repository development, and statistical analyses. Statistical analyses will utilize a
proportion of area occupied (PAO) model that is capable of incorporating data from existing
monitoring programs for basinwide analysis.
While data analysis is still underway, preliminary results suggest that detection probabilities vary
among species, sites, sampling sessions, and methods. Most species expected at sampling sites
were detected, and it is believed that some highly effective sampling techniques have been
documented. The final report is due in the spring of 2008.
Results should be applicable throughout the Lake Superior basin for use in amphibian and reptile
habitat protection and restoration. The ability will be established to monitor up to 21 species and
determine trends in species occupancy. The ability to detect species declines or increases will
have direct bearing on both aquatic and terrestrial habitat management for these species within
the basin's forests, grasslands, wetlands, lakes, and streams.
Mapping of Important Fish Habitat. Efforts continue to develop a relationship between
habitat quantity and quality and fish production in Lake Superior (LaMP 2006). Our knowledge
of what substrates are present (sand, clay, gravel, cobble), in what surficial quantity, at what
depth, and exactly where they are relative to other substrates or bottom features is slowly
increasing.
Since 2006, several new substrate mapping projects were completed that target habitat for native
lake sturgeon, brook trout, walleye, and lake trout in nearshore waters and tributary sites. Recent
projects include Buffalo Reef (see next article below), Gull Island, and Sand Cut shoals in
Wisconsin waters. Between 2005 and 2007, seventeen lentic areas encompassing 1,718 hectares
have been mapped, and a total of 196 hectares have been treated for sea lamprey larvae. Future
developments include the incorporation of remote-sensing data to improve the classification of
sea lamprey habitats.
Wave Energy and Water Currents Move Stamp Sands Toward Buffalo Reef Mining
wastes, such as the stamp sands (the crushed ore from copper mining), leach concentrations of
metals in water that have been found above toxicity thresholds for many animal and plant
April 2008 6-15
-------
Lake Superior LaMP 2008
species. Mining wastes have been identified in the Lake Superior LaMP 2000 as a principal
stress to aquatic habitat in Lake Superior.1
The Gay Peninsula, located along the eastern shore of the Keweenaw Peninsula immediately
south of the town of Gay, Michigan (and its copper smelter), is composed almost entirely of
stamp sands. Tribal fish harvesters have become increasingly concerned about the movement of
stamp sands and effects that the deposits may have on Buffalo Reef, an important spawning reef
for lake trout and lake whitefish located south of the Gay Peninsula. The impairment of this reef
could lead to a decline in important species and impact the tribal population that depends on this
resource. Buffalo Reef is an important spawning area in Lake Superior (Goodyear et al. 1982).
The lakebed was classified into seven categories, and four of those were acoustically distinct
types of sand substrate. As indicated in the Canadian National Water Research Institute's
(NWRI's) report, the acoustic classification method was not able to distinguish areas of stamp
sand from areas of native sands. This may be due to mixing of sands that has occurred since the
stamp sands were deposited. Further work should be done to ascertain whether a clear boundary
exists between native sands and stamp sands. A visual inspection of samples collected in the
field by the NWRI indicates that the area of sands immediately north of Buffalo Reef appears to
be stamp sands regardless of its acoustic signature. Field staff also observed transport and
mixing of sands due to wave action. Therefore, despite the uncertainty regarding the precise
nature of the sands, it is reasonable to assume that stamp sands continue to be transported from
the areas immediately surrounding the Town of Gay into areas of Lake Superior immediately
north of Buffalo Reef.
Differences between Deep and Shallow Forms of Lake Trout. Deepwater forms of lake trout,
abundant in Lake Superior, were once present in Lakes Michigan and Huron. The effort to
restore self-sustaining populations of lake trout to the Great Lakes has been ongoing for over 50
years. These efforts have focused nearly exclusively on the lean (shallow-water) form and have
been successful only in Lake Superior. Researchers have estimated that approximately 50
percent of the volume of Lakes Michigan, Huron, and Ontario are unpopulated due to lost
deepwater forms offish, including lake trout (Eshenroder and Burnham-Curtis 1999). This
estimate reinforces the idea that rehabilitation of lake trout in the Great Lakes will not be
complete until a diversity of body forms is restored (Krueger and Ihssen 1995; Eshenroder and
Krueger 2002).
Rehabilitation of deepwater lake trout will require a scientific basis for understanding deepwater
forms and how they differ from those found in shallow water. In 2006 and 2007, researchers
from the Great Lakes Fishery Commission (GLFC), USFWS, and National Park Service (NFS)
sampled all forms of lake trout around Isle Royale, Michigan. The GLFC research team will
examine phenotypic and genetic diversity of lake trout in the Isle Royale region of Lake Superior
and compare that with fish from Great Slave Lake, Great Bear Lake, Lake Mistassini, and the
Klondike Reef area of Lake Superior. This work will help determine whether lake trout morphs
in Lake Superior and Great Slave Lake represent biologically discrete groups or a continuum of
body shapes. The relation of body shape to body size, lake, depth at capture, and diet will also
be determined.
1 Lake Superior LaMP 2000, pp. 8-10.
April 2008 6-16
-------
Lake Superior LaMP 2008
Figure 6-7. Siscowet have a high fat content, unlike nearshore lean
lake trout. Photo credit: Michigan Department of Natural
Resources, Marquette, Michigan.
Siscowet Surplus Production
Dynamics. Fisheries management
agencies around Lake Superior are
jointly assessing siscowet (a deepwater
lake water variety) populations to gain
a broader understanding of their
ecological role in Lake Superior.
Information on relative abundance,
food habits, and age and size
composition are needed. These fish
have a high fat content (unlike
nearshore lean lake trout), and interest has been expressed in developing a siscowet commercial
fishery to harvest them for their omega-3 oil content. In anticipation of a new fishery, agencies
are working to determine the annual sustainable yield of siscowet that could be expected. It is
from this type of information that interested parties will determine whether rendering siscowet
for their oil is economically feasible.
Important Prey Fish in Lake Superior - Learning About Cisco Survival at Various Life
Stages. The two largest remaining lake herring or cisco commercial fisheries on the Great Lakes
are supported by the Thunder Bay and Black Bay,
Lake Superior, stocks. Lake herring are also an
integral component of the Lake Superior pelagic
fish community and a forage base for top predator
fish species in Lake Superior. The sustainability
of these fisheries relies on controlling the harvest
in relation to the size of the populations. With
support from the OMNR, the United States
Geological Survey-Biological Resources Division
(USGS) research ship the Kiyi is conducting fall
acoustic surveys in these waters. These surveys,
to estimate the abundance of pre-spawning cisco,
in conjunction with commercial monitoring of the
harvest, will provide biomass estimates of the
spawning stocks and, ultimately, exploitation
rates.
Figure 6-8. Acoustic surveys are being conducted in
Lake Superior to determine the sustainability of cisco
commercial fisheries. Photo credit: USGS.
Wolf Delisted in Upper Great Lakes. The U.S. removed the western Great Lakes population
of gray wolves from the federal list of threatened and endangered species in 2007. The action
was taken by the USFWS in recognition of the success of gray wolf recovery efforts under the
Endangered Species Act.
Gray wolves were previously listed as endangered in the lower 48 states, except in Minnesota,
where they were listed as threatened. The USFWS's removal of the gray wolf from the
endangered and threatened species list applied only to the Western Great Lakes Distinct
Population Segment (DPS), which includes all the areas currently occupied by wolf packs in
April 2008
6-17
-------
Lake Superior LaMP 2008
Minnesota, Michigan, and Wisconsin, as well as areas in these states in which wolf packs may
become established in the future. A portion of this population is found in the Lake Superior
basin.
When the wolf was first listed as endangered in the 1970s, only a few hundred wolves remained
in Minnesota. Recovery criteria outlined in the Eastern Timber Wolf Recovery Plan include the
assured survival of the gray wolf in Minnesota and a population of 100 or more wolves in
Wisconsin and Michigan for a minimum of five consecutive years. The recovery plan identified
1,250 to 1,400 as a population goal for Minnesota. The region's late winter gray wolf population
now numbers approximately 4,000 and occupies portions of Wisconsin, Michigan, and
Minnesota. Wolf numbers in the three states have exceeded the numerical recovery criteria
established in the species' recovery plan.
The Michigan, Minnesota, and
Wisconsin Departments of
Natural Resources (DNRs) have
developed plans to guide future
wolf management actions.
Protection of wolves, control of
problem animals, consideration
of hunting and trapping, as well
as maintenance of the long-term
health of the wolf population will
be governed by the appropriate
state or tribe.
Once a species is removed from
Endangered Species Act
protection, there are several
safeguards to help ensure it
continues to thrive, including a
Figure 6-9. In 2007, the western Great Lakes population of gray
wolves was removed from the federal list of threatened and endangered
species. Photo credit: National Park Service.
mandatory five-year monitoring period. The USFWS also has the ability to immediately relist a
species on an emergency basis, if monitoring or other data show that is necessary.
Who's Eating Whom in the Western Arm of Lake Superior. Lake Superior's fish
community continues to change due to recovering lake trout populations, naturalization of
introduced salmonids, declines in rainbow smelt populations, and fluctuating cisco year classes.
One recently completed study used bioenergetics modeling of predator fish in the western arm of
Lake Superior, including Minnesota and Wisconsin waters, to provide a comprehensive picture
of community dynamics. Simulations of consumption by predators in 2000 and 2004 revealed
current trends, and enabled comparisons to previous studies in the late 1980s and early 1990s.
Modeling results were completed in 2007 for nearshore and offshore areas, for three ecoregions
representing geographically distinct areas, and for Minnesota and Wisconsin waters within the
western arm. Results indicate that the western arm of Lake Superior is at or near carrying
capacity for predators. Lean lake trout are responsible for most consumption of rainbow smelt
and coregonines, while the deepwater form of lake trout known as siscowet ranks second in
April 2008
6-18
-------
Lake Superior LaMP 2008
predatory consumption. Although individual Chinook salmon consumed more prey fish per unit
time than did any other species, they along with other potadromous species played minor roles in
total consumption. Because most predators in the western arm are wild fish, and survival of
stocked predators has declined dramatically, managers no longer have the ability to control prey
populations through stocking. Periodic hydroacoustic assessments of forage fish populations,
predator diet monitoring, and bioenergetics analyses of predator consumption are warranted to
track predator-prey dynamics, provide data for management of the fisheries, and quantify the
allocation of prey species for the commercial fishery in the western arm of Lake Superior.
Efforts to Monitor and Report on the
Status of Shortjaw Cisco in Lake
Superior. The shortjaw cisco is one of
four forms of deepwater ciscoes known in
Lake Superior and is designated as
threatened across Canada. Since the
1800s, ciscoes have been extensively
fished commercially in the Great Lakes.
Shortjaw cisco were preferred due to their
large size and relative ease of capture.
Over exploitation, invasive species, and
habitat impairment have been responsible
for the dramatic decline of this once abundant species. Little is known about the biology of this
species, and the setting of recovery targets, critical habitat, and allowable harm all hinge on
knowledge of biology, taxonomy, and population parameters such as population size, growth,
and mortality. Initial investigations on Lake Superior have determined that shortjaw cisco are
sparsely distributed and occur at historically low densities. For the past two years, OMNR and
DFO have partnered in sampling efforts to determine the distribution, abundance, and life history
of this species. This work will contribute to recovery planning for this species.
Coaster Brook Trout Subject of Federal Review. On March 20, 2008, the USFWS announced
in the Federal Register the 90-day finding on a petition to list the U.S. population of coaster
brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis) as endangered. The USFWS found that the petition contained
substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that listing the U.S. population of
coaster brook trout may be warranted. With the publication of the notice, the USFWS began a
status review of the coaster brook trout. At the conclusion of the status review, the USFWS will
issue a 12-month finding on the petition. To ensure that the status review of the coaster brook
trout is comprehensive, the USFWS is soliciting scientific and commercial information regarding
the coaster brook trout throughout its range. More information is available at
http://www.fws.gov/midwest/eco serv/soc/fish/cobr/index.html.
Figure 6-10. Shortjaw cisco. Photo credit: K. Schmitt,
OMNR.
April 2008
6-19
-------
Lake Superior LaMP 2008
On the Brook Trout Restoration Trail
Around Lake Superior, agencies and research
continue to address knowledge gaps related to
rehabilitation/restoration needs of brook trout in
Lake Superior and its tributary streams. In Nipigon
Bay, Ontario, and at Pictured Rocks National
Lakeshore, Michigan, researchers with OMNR,
DFO Canada, and Northern Michigan University
are engaged in a multi-year tagging and stationary
fish logging station study to investigate what
causes some brook trout to remain in their native
streams for life, while others leave the streams to
inhabit the Lake Superior environment. The
projects are also attempting to identify at what
stage some young brook trout leave their native
streams and what environmental conditions might
trigger their emigration.
Factors Limiting Brook Trout
Abundance Examined. Factors limiting
brook trout abundance in tributary streams
along the Wisconsin shore of Lake Superior
are not well defined but are important for
developing strategies to rehabilitate the
fishery for migratory coaster brook trout.
Salmonid abundance in 38 stream reaches
within 22 streams in 12 watersheds was
measured to evaluate associations between
salmonid abundance and stream habitat.
Brook trout are more abundant in
headwaters but are present in downstream
reaches. Although brook trout abundance
differs between upstream and downstream
reaches, size structure appears similar. The
downstream reaches differ in some of the
habitat variables measured (flow, depth,
width) but are also warmer. Both the brook
trout distribution and the assemblage
composition suggest that brook trout
distributions are influenced by temperature.
Brown trout abundance is not different
between stream reaches, nor is coho
abundance, and no consistent relation
between abundance of brook trout and other
salmonids was observed. Based on this
observation and the explanatory power of
the temperature and community data, we
would not recommend pursuing competition
studies. The most meaningful approach to
brook trout conservation in these systems is
to protect the groundwater and vegetation
that maintain cold water.
Lake Superior Shoreline Waters Surveyed for Coasters. Tribal and federal agencies involved
with coaster brook trout rehabilitation and stocking conducted surveys of coasters along over 100
km of shoreline waters in Lake Superior in 2006 and 2007. Coaster surveys occurred along the
Grand Portage Indian Reservation in Minnesota; Red Cliff Reservation and Chequamegon Bay,
Wisconsin; Keweenaw and Huron Bays, and Isle Royale, Michigan.
Walleye Rehabilitation and the Black Sturgeon River Dam. Restoration efforts for walleye
in Black Bay have progressed from that reported in the LaMP 2006 report. Recent work has led
to the conclusion that the construction of the Black Sturgeon Dam in the 1960s was the primary
cause for the collapse and subsequent failure of the population to recover due to loss of access to
spawning habitat. Radio tracking by OMNR and DFO has demonstrated that both walleye and
Cross stream antennas at the logging station record movement
offish tagged with internal transponders. Photo credit: OMNR.
April 2008
6-20
-------
Lake Superior LaMP 2008
lampreys are present at the base of the dam in the
spring. The dam benefits the Lake Superior
ecosystem as a barrier to sea lamprey spawning
but also prevents recovery of walleye by denying
access to historic spawning areas. With this
conflict revealed, work has begun with the Great
Lakes Fishery Commission barrier task team to
develop options for fish passage at the Black
Sturgeon Dam. The OMNR and its agency and
public partners are approaching the process with a
number of objectives: (1) restore the natural
ecological function of the Black Sturgeon River,
(2) re-establish historical migration routes for
native fish species (e.g., walleye, lake sturgeon),
and (3) limit movement of non-native species (sea
lamprey, Pacific salmon) into the Black Sturgeon
watershed.
Figure 6-11. The Black Sturgeon Dam blocks
walleye access to historic spawning areas, preventing
walleye recovery in Black Bay. Photo credit:
OMNR.
Walleye Rehabilitation in the Lower Nipigon River and Nipigon Bay. Restoration efforts of
walleye in the Nipigon River system have been underway for many decades via transfer stocking
of adults, zero harvest regulations, and habitat rehabilitation. With indications that walleye
stocks may be responding, OMNR has undertaken a synthesis of all the data collected to date to
determine the population trajectory. Moving forward, the historic walleye spawning area in the
river is being assessed for its present condition and potential for future use by spawning fish.
This area is thought to comprise the main spawning areas for the Nipigon Bay walleye
population. A trap netting and telemetry study in partnership with the Red Rock Indian Band
and Ontario Power Generation is also underway to determine the status of walleye in Nipigon
Bay and identify important habitat.
Levels of Persistent Toxics in Nestling Bald Eagles in Lake Superior and in Adjacent
Inland Waters. In 2006, the U.S. NPS's Great Lakes Inventory and Monitoring Network
(GLKN) began long-term monitoring of persistent, bioaccumulative toxics (PBTs) using bald
eagle nestlings as sentinels. Sampling was conducted at Apostle Islands National Lakeshore, St.
Croix National Scenic Riverway, and Mississippi National River and Recreation Area in 2006
and 2007. Blood and feather samples were collected and analysis performed for PCBs, DDT
(including breakdown products DDE and ODD), mercury, lead, and three emerging
contaminants (PBDE, PFOS, and PFOA). The latter three contaminants are widely used as
flame retardants (PBDE) and water/stain repellents (PFOS and PFOA) and have come under
increasing scientific and regulatory scrutiny.
Preliminary results of the 2006 data indicate that, when compared to the past work of others,
PCBs and DDE concentrations in Lake Superior eaglets continue to decline from highs in the
1970s. However, active DDT was found in three often nestlings sampled on Lake Superior, but
only one of 26 nestlings from inland areas. Mercury concentrations were lowest in nestlings
from Lake Superior and the Greater Twin Cities and highest in nestlings along the upper portions
of the St. Croix and Namekagon Rivers where extensive wetlands likely contribute to its
April 2008
6-21
-------
Lake Superior LaMP 2008
production and availability. Lead concentrations were highest in nestlings from the Twin Cities
but were generally low elsewhere. Patterns of occurrence for PBDEs mirrored those of PCBs,
highlighting the similarity in transfer pathways and the persistence of the two chemical groups.
PBDEs were found in all nestlings sampled, and the data suggest a near doubling of the
concentrations in nestlings along the south shore of Lake Superior over the last five years.
Levels of PFOS were highest in the Greater Twin Cities, followed by the Lake Superior nests,
and levels were lowest in the upper St. Croix and Namekagon River system.
The GLKN plans to sample the three parks on a two-years-on and two-years-off basis. The next
sampling is planned for 2010 and 2011.
White River Fish Passage Concern. Two extensive logjams are present in the White River,
Wisconsin, as a result of poor logging practices and an emergency release of water from a dam
malfunction. These logjams may prevent lake sturgeon passage upstream to historic spawning
habitat. In 2006, the USFWS and Bad River Band of Lake Superior Chippewa began a two-year
project to determine whether lake sturgeon are able to swim upstream past the logjams during
spring flows regulated by the dam.
Lake sturgeon adults were captured, tagged, and released in the lower river, downstream of the
logjams. Sampling was also conducted upstream of the logjams to determine if tagged lake
sturgeon could move past the logjams. A second means to determine if spawning run fish were
able to access upstream spawning habitat was to capture larval sturgeon during their downstream
drift, which occurs shortly after hatching.
Adult spawning run lake sturgeons were
captured each year in the lower river
downstream of the logjams. Flow in 2006 was
about 150 cubic feet per second (cfs) below the
long-term average, which ranged from about
300 to 500 cfs during the spawning period.
Only a single lake sturgeon was captured
upstream of the logjam, and no larval sturgeon
were encountered. In 2007, flow was again low
and averaged about 200 cfs during the spawning
period. However, seven adults were captured
upstream of the logjams, and successful
reproduction was confirmed by the capture of a
larval lake sturgeon.
Figure 6-12. Larval lake sturgeon. Photo credit:
USFWS Ashland, Wisconsin.
2006 Great Lakes Lake Sturgeon Coordination Meeting. In November 2006, the third Great
Lakes Lake Sturgeon Coordination Meeting was held in Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan. The
purpose of these meetings is to provide a forum to foster communication and exchange of
information relating to the study, management, and restoration of lake sturgeon in the Great
Lakes basin, to address priority research and assessment needs, and to address selected emerging
issues. Over 120 individuals attended the meeting, representing more than 40 different entities
April 2008
6-22
-------
Lake Superior LaMP 2008
including state, tribal/First Nation, federal and provincial governments, academic, private, and
other NGOs.
As with previous meetings, the 2006 Coordination Meeting addressed several focus areas and
emerging topics. The four focus areas covered were habitat use and juvenile ecology, genetics
and management implications, streamside rearing, and assessment technologies. The emerging
issue theme addressed sturgeon legal issues such as illegal harvest, increased market interest for
caviar as world sturgeon stocks decline, and the proposed listing of the lake sturgeon as an
endangered or threatened species in parts of Canada.
Streamside Lake Sturgeon Culture for the Ontonagon River. Lake sturgeon were once
abundant in the Ontonagon River, Michigan, but adults were not recovered during several survey
attempts in the 1980-1990s by the Michigan DNR and USFWS. Stocking began in 1998 and
continued until 2004 from eggs collected from a local, wild fish stock but reared in a traditional
hatchery. To increase the likelihood for imprinting, which takes place in very newly hatched
fish, a streamside rearing facility that utilizes water from the Ontonagon River was established.
In 2007, young lake sturgeon were raised from approximately 85,000 eggs taken from a
population in a nearby river. Eggs were fertilized, incubated, and hatched. Approximately 1,000
young were successfully reared to 6 inches in length and were released into the Ontonagon River
in the fall of 2007. Streamside rearing will again take place in 2008 at the facility, and some
individual fish remaining from the 2007 effort will be tracked using radio telemetry.
Assessment of Lake Sturgeon Stocking and Rehabilitation Progress. Assessments of the
rehabilitation stocking effort in the Ontonagon River have been limited in scope and conducted
primarily in the river. To evaluate stocking progress and to describe the status of lake sturgeon
in Lake Superior near the Ontonagon River, the USFWS, Keweenaw Bay Indian Community,
Michigan DNR, and Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission initiated a pilot project to
assess juvenile lake sturgeon. The project utilized the fall walleye index netting (FWIN)
protocol developed in Ontario (Morgan 2002).
Prior to being stocked, a microscopic coded wire tag is inserted in the snout of each fish. During
surveys, each juvenile lake sturgeon captured is checked for the presence of a coded wire tag to
determine if it is a stocked or naturally produced fish. In 2006 and 2007, ninety-seven juvenile
lake sturgeon ranging from 401 mm to 986 mm were captured. Coded wire tags were detected in
84 fish, positively identifying them as stocked fish. In addition, a thumb-nail-size piece of tissue
was collected from the fins of all fish without a coded wire tag. Fin clips will be genetically
analyzed to determine the parental stock of these fish. The sturgeon captured were tagged and
released. If these fish are captured during future Lake Superior survey work, agencies will
obtain data on the growth and movement of these fish.
Flow Manipulation Study for Lake Sturgeon Rehabilitation. On the Kaministiquia River in
Thunder Bay, OMNR and Ontario Power Generation continue to partner in a detailed radio
telemetry study aimed at documenting the migratory response of spawning lake sturgeon to
controlled flow conditions over Kakabeka Falls. The movement of adult sturgeon up to the
historic spawning area at the falls is being monitored and is followed by a detailed larval drift
netting assessment to document spawning success under the different annual spring flow
April 2008 6-23
-------
Lake Superior LaMP 2008
conditions set out by the study plan. Work also continues to monitor the movements of radio-
tagged adult sturgeon on the Black Sturgeon River via remote data loggers. These fish are also
barred from accessing historic spawning areas by the Black Sturgeon Dam. In Nipigon Bay,
preliminary investigations on the Gravel River are underway to determine if reproduction is
occurring (drift netting for larvae).
6.1.2.1
Figure 6-13. OMNR and Ontario Power Generation are partnering in a flow
manipulation study for lake sturgeon rehabilitation. Photo credit: OMNR.
Lower Trophic Level Research and Monitoring
LaMP 2006 reported on multi-agency cooperative efforts to sample the lower trophic levels of
the Lake Superior food web.2 Sampling and analysis of previously collected data continued in
2006 and 2007 by researchers from Environment Canada, DFO, OMNR, University of
Minnesota-Duluth, Michigan Technological University, University of Wisconsin-Superior,
WDNR, US EPA Great Lakes National Program Office and Mid-Continent Ecology Division,
and USGS. Objectives are to assess the density and biomass of lower trophic level invertebrates,
as well as spatial and temporal variations in nearshore and offshore areas of Lake Superior.
Organisms comprising the lower trophic levels include phytoplankton, zooplankton, Mysis (tiny
free-swimming crustaceans), and Diporeia (tiny bottom-dwelling amphipods) across the lake. A
summary of the activities, progress, and select findings of these agencies are described below.
Numerous publications and reports will be generated by this research.
2 LaMP 2006. Chapter 6, pp. 13-16. Available at: http://www.epa.gov/glnpo/lakesuperior/.
April 2008
6-24
-------
Lake Superior LaMP 2008
Zooplankton
As described in detail in LaMP 2006, the offshore summer crustacean communities in Lake
Superior are dominated by calanoid copepods, particularly the large, deep-living species
Limnocalanus macrurus and Leptodiaptomus sicilis. Cladocerans make up a relatively small
proportion of summer biomass, with the cladoceran community dominated by the large non-
daphnid species Holopedium gibberum, a taxon typically associated with oligotrophic (cold, low
nutrient) waters. Both total biomass levels and community composition have remained relatively
consistent over the last decade.
Diporeia
Researchers have documented dramatic declines in Diporeia abundance and distribution in the
lower Great Lakes. This has generated concerns that fish, particularly lake whitefish that rely
heavily on these organisms for food, will be affected. In Lake Superior, Diporeia are most
abundant in waters less than 100 m and tend to increase with depth from inshore to offshore
(Figure 6-14). Within this depth zone, densities have remained relatively stable over time
(Figure 6-15). At most sites deeper than 100 m, Diporeia densities have shown an overall
downward trend during the monitoring period, although there has also been substantial variation.
One project, sponsored by the Michigan Great Lakes Protection Fund, has resulted in a
description of the natural history of Lake Superior Diporeia, including nutrition (lipid content,
gut fullness) and production (length-weight relationships, production to biomass ratios and year
class structure). Progress has also been made in relating the distribution of amphipods to the
deposition of organic carbon in Lake Superior and to the primary production in nearshore
regions.
Scientists used the results of their Diporeia studies to develop a depth-based sampling scheme
with coverage across Lake Superior. This design includes nearly 50 sites including many that
have been monitored for up to 10 years.
April 2008 6-25
-------
Lake Superior LaMP 2008
(2005) Nearshore (0-100 m) has -30% of lake area
but -80%of lake Diporeia biomass
Depth range, m
-Area - Diporeia Biomass
Figure 6-14. Abundance of Diporeia in Lake Superior at varying depths.
Source: US EPA.
3000
2500 -
D2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
<27 27-46 46-64 64-82
Depth Strata (m)
>82
117
Figure 6-15. Diporeia abundance related to depth strata in Wisconsin waters of
Lake Superior. Source: Steve Schram, WDNR.
April 2008
6-26
-------
Lake Superior LaMP 2008
My sis
Mysis, commonly known as the opossum shrimp, is the largest invertebrate in Lake Superior. It
occupies primarily hypolimnetic waters and has a simple lifecycle of approximately 2 years in
Lake Superior. Mysis exhibits diel vertical migration, migrating up in the water column at dusk
and descending to deeper water at dawn. Mysis eat detritus, phytoplankton, zooplankton, and
benthos and are an important prey item for most species offish at one life-stage or another.
Mysis were sampled during spring, summer, and
fall in 2005. In 2006, a subset of sites from 2005
was sampled in each of the three seasons; while a
number of new sites were sampled once during
summer. The total number of sampling events in
2005 was 60, with 10, 18, and 32 stations visited in
spring, summer, and fall. Slightly more stations
were sampled in offshore waters than in nearshore
waters, with the demarcation at 80 m. In 2006,
fewer sites were sampled, but these will provide
information on inter-annual variability.
Mysis density on a per-square-meter basis was
greater in offshore than in nearshore waters across
all three seasons (Figure 6-17). Mean density
ranged from about 140 to 165 individuals/m2 in
offshore waters. Mean density in nearshore waters
was about 30 individuals/m2 in spring and fall but
was higher in summer at about 80/m2. The higher
estimate in summer was due to one station with
density estimates around 285/m2. Mean density at
each station increased with depth, similar to
findings from other Great Lakes. A comparison of
density estimates in Lake Superior compared to the
other Great Lakes both historically and today is
shown in Figures 6-18 and 6-19.
Figure 6-16. Mysis were sampled in offshore and
nearshore Lake Superior waters in both 2005 and
2006 to assess variations on density with depth.
Photo credit: USGS.
April 2008
6-27
-------
Lake Superior LaMP 2008
Figure 6-17. Mean density averaged among seasons for each station in 2005. Circle size
is representative ofMysis density, with blue water showing bathymetry. Source: USGS.
Superior
Michigan
Huron
Ontario
Figure 6-18. Mysis density in the Great Lakes at nearshore depths, 1971-1976 and 1996-2005.
Source: USGS and US EPA.
April 2008
6-28
-------
Lake Superior LaMP 2008
Superior
Michigan
n Huron
Ontario
Figure 6-19. Mysis density in the Great Lakes at offshore depths, 1971-1976 and 1996-2005. Source:
USGS and US EPA.
Putting the Pieces Together in Lake Superior. Lower trophic level samples collected in 2005
and 2006 are part of a larger study that also involves fish. These data will be used to examine
food web relations in both nearshore and offshore waters, with particular emphasis on the
importance of Mysis and Diporeia to the entire fish community. To understand Lake Superior
dynamics, and to manage the fisheries as effectively as possible, it is important to integrate "top-
down" (focus on fisheries) and "bottom-up" (focus on the physical/chemical environment, and
the lower trophic levels) approaches, since abiotic and physical features provide the hydrologic
and geochemical context in which all biologic interactions occur. One method of achieving this
integration is through the use of ecological models, which are capable of integrating across
multiple trophic levels and provide a statistically testable means for ecosystem assessment.
An upcoming study will use biomass size spectrum modeling to examine variability in trophic
transfer resulting from differing food chain lengths, nearshore versus offshore environments, and
anthropogenic development along the Lake Superior shoreline. In addition to the biomass size
spectrum modeling, a detailed diet analysis of the gut contents of the predominant planktivorous
and piscivorous fish species in the lake will be conducted. Overall, this research will provide
comprehensive information on diet preferences in economically valuable fish communities, the
identification of functional groups in the Lake Superior ecosystem, new information for fisheries
April 2008
6-29
-------
Lake Superior LaMP 2008
modeling, and multiple evaluations of the similarities and differences between the nearshore and
offshore communities in this large lake.
The detailed diet analysis of the offshore communities will provide insight into the food
preferences of the offshore community and allow comparisons of prey consumption with trawl
and hydroacoustic estimates of prey availability, and thus identification of whether prey
availability might be limiting offshore populations. Diet analyses of the nearshore food webs
will provide a more comprehensive understanding of nearshore diet preferences, and findings
can be extrapolated to apply to the other Great Lakes, indicating a set of reference conditions for
some of the threatened or extirpated native species in the other Great Lakes (e.g., lake trout, all
sculpin species, and siscowets lake trout).
One of the most significant findings to date is that 90 percent of all kiyi (deepwater chub)
stomachs contained solely Mysis, as opposed to cisco (lake herring), which contained a mixture
of zooplankton species. This result shows a potentially important difference in food sources in
the two most abundant prey fish species in the lake.
6.1.3 Nuisance Species Developments/Efforts
Emerald Ash Borer (EAB) Update. This insect was introduced into North America sometime
in the 1990s. It was first reported killing ash (genus Fraxinus) trees in the Detroit and Windsor
areas in 2002. It continues to spread, and infestations have been found in the eastern Upper
Peninsula and throughout lower Michigan, Ohio, northern Indiana, northern Illinois, Maryland,
and recently in Pennsylvania and Toronto, Ontario (Figure 6-20).
Within the Upper Peninsula, EAB was first detected at Brimley State Park in Chippewa County
in September 2005 and more recently was found at Straits State Park in Mackinac County in
November 2007. Quarantines are in place prohibiting the transport of ash wood from either
county. At Brimley State Park, all ash trees greater than one inch in diameter were removed
within a half mile of the detection site. As yet, no additional EAB have been detected within this
area. At Straits State Park, officials are determining the extent of the infestation before
prescribing control or eradication strategies. To date, over two thousand trap trees have been
established throughout the Upper Peninsula to facilitate EAB detection.
April 2008 6-30
-------
Lake Superior LaMP 2008
Cooperative Emerald Ash Borer Project
EAB loca: n, Indiana, Michigan,
Maryland, Ohio, Pennsylvania, West Virginia
and southwest Ontario, Canada
January 2,2008
-:* > -
-- "-- 1
Figure 6-20. The Emerald Ask Borer continues to spread, with infestations in the eastern Upper Peninsula and
throughout lower Michigan, Ohio, northern Indiana, northern Illinois, Maryland, Pennsylvania, and Ontario.
Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture.
Invasive Free Zone Update. The goal of this long-term project, initiated in 2005, is to create an
invasive free zone (IFZ) by eradicating invasive plants and restoring wildlife habitat on the
Whittlesey Creek National Wildlife Refuge, associated private lands, and adjacent U.S. Forest
Service property at the Northern Great Lakes Visitor Center (720 acres total). The project
applies a systematic approach to control invasive species and restore wildlife habitat on a
landscape scale. The first phase involved mapping to determine the extent of invasive species
within the project boundary. In 2006, the focus shifted to treatment, and the restoration of
infested areas began in 2007. After two years of refining mapping and treatment methods,
project staff wrote a long-term management plan that can be found online at
www.fws.gov/midwestAVhittleseyCreek/.
Another document developed as part of this project is the Invasive Free Zone Guidebook. It
provides a resource for those who would like to establish an IFZ elsewhere and provides
information to allow any interested agency, organization, or individual to create a new IFZ based
on the original demonstration project. The guidebook can be found at
April 2008
6-31
-------
Lake Superior LaMP 2008
http://www.fws.gov/tnidwestAVhittleseyCreek/docutnents/IFZGuidebook.pdf. In addition to the
guidebook, project staff are available to provide technical assistance. The Eastern Region of the
U.S. Forest Service (a member of the Binational Program) has issued a challenge to national
forests to create new IFZs, and other agencies are showing interest as well. Project staff hope to
leverage existing support to continue the IFZ project and ultimately expand the existing
boundaries of the IFZ to eradicate invasive species on a larger scale.
Figure 6-21. Members of the 2007 Youth Conservation Corps and IFZ staff at the
Chequamegon Bay Invasive Free Zone. Photo credit: USFWS.
VHS - New Aquatic Invasive Species Cause for Concern in Great Lakes. Viral Hemorrhagic
Septicemia (VHS) is a deadly fish virus that has been recently detected in lower Great Lakes
freshwater fish. It has NOT yet (as of March 2008) been found in Lake Superior. VHS can
infect a wide range offish species and has been the cause of large fish kills in other parts of the
Great Lakes. The VHS found within the Great Lakes is closely related to the VHS strain
detected within Atlantic and eastern Gulf of St. Lawrence waters. VHS is considered an invasive
species (not native to the Great Lakes), but scientists are not sure how it arrived. It may have
come in with migrating fish from the Atlantic Coast, it may have hitch-hiked in ballast water
from ships, or it may have been introduced by infected fish being imported, stocked, or used for
bait. Other potential ways of spreading the virus are recreational boating/angling or waterfowl
movements.
We now know that VHS was the cause of Great Lakes fish kills as early as 2003. This virus was
diagnosed for the first time in the Great Lakes as the cause of large fish kills in Lake Huron,
Lake St. Clair, Lake Erie, Lake Ontario, and the St. Lawrence River in 2005 and 2006.
April 2008
6-32
-------
Lake Superior LaMP 2008
Thousands of muskies, walleye, lake
whitefish, freshwater drum
(sheepshead), yellow perch, gizzard
shad, redhorse, and round gobies died.
Many chinook, white bass, emerald
shiners, smallmouth bass, bluegill,
black crappie, burbot, and northern
pike were diseased but did not die in
large numbers. This is the first time a
virus has affected so many different
fish species from so many fish families
in the Great Lakes. VHS has no
impact on human health.
Figure 6-22. While VHS has no impact on human health, the virus
can kill infected fish. Photo credit: Dr. Jim Winton, USGS.
VHS is transmitted when infected fish shed the virus in their urine and reproductive fluids. VHS
particles in the water infect gill tissue first, and then move to the internal organs and the blood
vessels. The blood vessels become weak, causing hemorrhages in the internal organs, muscle,
and skin. Fish can also be infected when they eat an infected fish. Fish that survive the infection
will develop antibodies to the virus. Antibodies will protect the fish against new VHS infections
for some time. However, the concentration of antibodies in the fish will drop over time, and the
fish may start shedding virus again. This may create a cycle offish kills that occurs on a
regular basis.
Lake Superior features unique fishery resources, and several tribal entities, state agencies, and
national parks are charged with their management and protection. In the fall of 2007, the NFS
organized a meeting in conjunction with the Making a Great Lake Superior 2007 conference in
Duluth, Minnesota, to discuss the VHS threat and potential prevention and response strategies.
In January 2008, a workshop was held at US EPA's Great Lakes National Program Office in
Chicago that included representatives of the NFS, Grand Portage Band, and other tribal, federal,
state, and academic entities to draft a VHS prevention, containment, and response plan.
The plan is focused on (1) preventing contamination of the waters of the four units of the
National Park System located in the Lake Superior basin and the Grand Portage Indian
Reservation, (2) detecting the introduction of VHS, and (3) responding to VHS detection and
outbreaks. The plan will assist park and tribal managers, staff, and cooperators in assessing the
risk of VHS introduction and, subsequently, planning and implementing the appropriate levels of
prevention and monitoring actions for their area based upon that risk. The plan also provides a
framework for response. The plan includes an analysis of the risks posed by the various
pathways, or vectors, for transmission of the virus; a listing of known measures to prevent or
contain the virus; an overall plan for the prevention of or response to the virus in the four
National Park System units and the Grand Portage Indian Reservation and recommendations for
enhancing cooperation with tribes, agencies, and other organizations. Emergency
recommendations for the parks and the Grand Portage Band include an outreach campaign; boat
decontamination; restrictions on the use of bait; and ensuring that agency operations and
practices do not spread the virus, including agency-controlled vessel ballast water. The plan can
April 2008
6-33
-------
Lake Superior LaMP 2008
be viewed at http://www.nps.gov/piro/naturescience/upload/VHS%20Plan%20-
%20Final%202008Marl4.pdf.
How Can You Help?
Drain all water from your boat, motor, bilge, live wells, trailer, containers, bait buckets,
coolers, and fishing equipment before leaving the lake or shoreline.
Clean and disinfect all recreational equipment with a 10 percent household bleach/water
solution. Chlorine is known to kill VHS.
Do not move live or dead fish (including unused minnows), fish eggs, or fish parts
between waters. All fish must be dead before leaving the landing or shoreline. Ice your
catch, and discard your minnows in secure trash.
Do not use minnows unless they were purchased from a certified bait dealer.
Do not release live fish into wild waters (i.e., unused bait minnows, exotic ornamental
fish).
Remove all visible plants, animals, and mud from your boat and trailer before leaving
shoreline.
Know and follow state, tribal, and federal regulations on VHS prevention actions.
April 2008 6-34
-------
Lake Superior LaMP 2008
Aquatic Invasive Species
Complete Prevention Plan Under Development
Background and Purpose
Lake Superior has been the focus of special protection and
restoration iritidives for many years in recognition of its unique
status among freshwater lakes inthe world. Its ecosystem and
economy have been severely impacted by aquatic irvasive
species and it remains at serious risk for introduction of new
aquatic spedes through a number of open pathways those
species use to erterthe lake. To address this risk, the Lake
Superior Workgroup initiated development of a prevention plan
for aquatic invasive species in 2006 The purpose of the plan is
to de/elcp a Lake Superior Aquatic Irvasive Spedes Complete
Prevention Plan to close pathways for new invasions based
primarily on:
The U.S. Great Lakes Regonal Collaboration AIS
prevention recommendations
U.S. and Canadian federal prevention programs and
regulations
State and Provincial prevention programs and regulations
Lake Superior Lakewide Management Han
Other key available documents and information
The prevention dan will indude:
A focus on prevention of newspecies introductions to Lake
Superior
Closure of pathways used by aquatic invasive spedes
Coordination of programs and actions between the U.S. and
Canada
Monitoring/rapid response capacity for newinvasicns
Progress
The projed orignated wth the Habtat and Aquatic Communities
Committees of the Lake Superior Workgroupin 2003. A Project
Team was established in 2007and a concept map for identifying
vectors and the associated pathways by which aquatic irvasive
spedes enter Lake Superior was drafted. The draft concept map with
the outline of vectors/pathways is at the end ofthis chapter. The
concept map and dan outline was presented at the Makinga Great
Lake Superior conference inOdober, 2007 and ideas for
stakeholder input to the pi an were solicited. A daft plan is nowunder
development. For an outline of upcoming actions with regard to the
development of the plan, see Section 6.24.
Aquatic Irvasive Species
Prevention in
Lake S uperior
April 2008
6-35
-------
Lake Superior LaMP 2008
Current Status of Sea Lampreys. The estimated abundance (with 95 percent confidence
interval) of spawning-phase sea lampreys in Lake Superior in 2007 was 65,500 (51,300-97,400)
(Figure 6-23). Spawning-phase sea lamprey abundance has been 94,000 on average since 2000,
which is equivalent to the average population found in Lake Superior in the early 1980s.
Although this is approximately 10 percent of pre-control spawning-phase sea lamprey
abundance, it remains above the estimated target levels of 35,000 spawners required to achieve
the fish community objective of 5 marks per 100 fish. Wounding rates also continue to show an
upward trend since 2000.
Superior
400
1980 1985 1990 1995 2000
Spawning Year
2005
Figure 6-23. Abundance of spawning-phase sea lampreys with 95 percent confidence intervals from
1980 to 2007. The solid red line represents the suppression target of 35,000 spawning-phase sea
lampreys; the dashed red lines are the 95 percent confidence intervals for the target. Source: DFO-Sea
Lamprey Control.
To date, sea lampreys have been collected from 137 of the 1,915 tributaries to Lake Superior. Of
these, 52 receive regular treatment on a 3- to 5-year cycle, and an additional 19 have been treated
at least once in the last 10 years. Barriers are in place in 15 tributaries and block access to
spawning and nursery habitats, reducing sea lamprey production from these rivers.
During 2006 and 2007, a total of 62 treatments took place, comprised of 53 streams and 9 lentic
areas (shallow nearshore waters at tributary mouths). This increased control effort compares to
an average of 18 streams and one lentic area treated annually during the period 2000 to 2005.
The effects of the increased treatment effort should be observed beginning in 2008.
April 2008
6-36
-------
Lake Superior LaMP 2008
Assessment of larval sea lamprey populations
in support of control has remained constant
since 2000 at approximately 105 streams per
year. However, since 2004, greater effort has
been expended in evaluating streams
immediately following treatment to detect
populations of sea lampreys that may have
survived the lampricide application. If
significant survival is suspected, the stream
may be prioritized for re-treatment within the
same year or one year later.
Assessment of spawning-phase populations
continues in 19 tributaries to Lake Superior.
Mark-recapture estimates of abundance within
these tributaries are used within multiple
regression models, along with other stream-
specific biotic and abiotic factors, to estimate
lakewide abundance of spawning-phase sea
lampreys (Figure 6-23). This estimate is the
primary method used to evaluate the long-
term effectiveness of the sea lamprey
management program in Lake Superior.
Nearshore Fish Community Assessment
and Aquatic Invasive Species Monitoring.
Nearshore embayments represent some of the
habitat most heavily impacted by human
activity in Lake Superior. In eastern Lake
Superior, Batchawana Bay and Goulais Bay
are areas with high shoreline development
associated with both cottages and year-round
homes. A three-year project is underway in
these locations to monitor the health of the
fish community and detect the appearance of
aquatic invasive species (AIS). AIS represent
a significant threat to the health offish
communities in the Great Lakes, including
Lake Superior. Early detection of AIS and
assessing their extent will provide valuable
information for research and planning
strategies to mitigate their impacts on native
fish communities.
Rainbow Smelt - A Bottleneck to
Native Fish Recovery?
Researchers from Michigan State University
joined the USGS and OMNR in 2006 to assess
impediments to ciscoe larval survival to age 1.
Researchers were particularly interested in the
impact of the non-native, predatory rainbow
smelt. It was felt that, despite their small size,
rainbow smelt may impose a big effect on the
survival of newly hatched native Cisco. Field
investigations of this relationship demonstrated
that individual rainbow smelt consumed very few
larval Cisco. However, because of the sheer
abundance of rainbow smelt, it was estimated
that rainbow smelt predation may have a
profound effect on larval Cisco survival and
recruitment into the population. This knowledge
of impacts in Lake Superior is important in
planning for restoration in other areas of the lake
and in the lower Great Lakes where smelt are
also abundant. Finding means of releasing Cisco
from probable bottlenecks, like that imposed by
rainbow smelt predation, could aid in Cisco
recovery in the Great Lakes.
Larval Cisco
Photo credit: Great Lakes Fishery Commission.
April 2008
6-37
-------
Lake Superior LaMP 2008
Tracking AIS along the South Shore of Lake Superior. The USFWS Ashland, Wisconsin,
fishery office conducted ruffe and other AIS surveillance with bottom trawl, trap, and fyke net
surveys at 18 locations along the south shore of Lake Superior in the spring and fall of 2006 and
2007. This survey has been conducted since 1998, as called for in the Ruffe Control Plan. Other
AIS species collected and monitored during these surveys include round goby, white perch,
three-spine stickleback, and common carp. Additionally, information and outreach are provided
to boaters, anglers, harbor masters, elementary schools, and sport fishing organizations.
Surveys are conducted on the periphery of the ruffe range and eastward where ruffe have not yet
been detected to search for new infestations. In 2006, the ruffe range expanded eastward 226 km
from Marquette, Michigan, to Whitefish Bay, Michigan. Ruffe were detected by USFWS field
crew in Grand Marais, Michigan, and by anglers in Little Lake Harbor and Tahquamenon River.
Anglers familiar with outreach materials contacted state and federal fishery offices, and
specimens were identified as ruffe. No range expansion was detected in 2007. In Lake Superior,
the ruffe range currently spans the entire south shore from the Duluth-Superior Harbor,
Minnesota/Wisconsin, to Whitefish Bay, Michigan; and along the north shore from the Duluth-
Superior Harbor to Thunder Bay, Ontario.
Preventing the Spread of AIS from Bait Buckets and Aquaculture. The potential exists for
AIS to spread to uninfested waters through the transport of wild harvested baitfish and
aquacultured fish. Baitfish and aquaculture industries are diverse and complex, as are their risks
of spreading AIS. To deal effectively and fairly with this potential vector, it is important to
characterize the industry according to its risks of spreading AIS. One approach to this problem
is to apply the Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point (HACCP) concept similar to that used
by the seafood industry to minimize seafood consumption health risks. The HACCP approach
concentrates on the points in the process that are critical to the safety of the product, minimizes
risks, and stresses communication between regulators and the industry.
To address the potential for AIS, including some fish pathogens and parasitesoften referred to
as biological pollutionto spread to uninfested waters through: 1) the movement of equipment
(i.e., boats, trailers, nets, waders, water collection devices, etc.) used by federal, state, tribal, and
private resource researchers, managers, consultants, and enforcement personnel; and 2) the
transfer of baitfish and fish raised for stocking into public and private waters, the Great Lakes
Network Sea Grant offices conducted outreach and educational activities from 2004 to 2007.
Twenty-seven AIS-HACCP workshops were conducted within the Great Lakes basin, and
approximately 540 individuals participated from state, federal, and tribal resource management
agencies, private aquaculture, wild baitfish harvest, environmental consultants, public fish
hatcheries, extension education, law enforcement, environmental consultants, and researchers.
Workshops were designed with the "train the trainer" approach in mind. The AIS-HACCP video
From Net to Sale was duplicated, and 1000 copies were allocated to project personnel for use
and distribution in their training workshops. Twenty-one percent of workshop respondents to the
survey reported conducting over 100 additional workshops reaching approximately 2000
individuals.
April 2008 6-38
-------
Lake Superior LaMP 2008
Michigan's Ballast Water Control Permit. Under its new ballast water control permit to
regulate AIS discharge, the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality issued 92 permits to
individual ocean-going ships in 2007. These represented 37 different companies. All ocean-
going ships must obtain a permit from MDEQ for port operations and either not discharge ballast
water or treat the ballast water before discharge with an approved treatment technology. All
permits issued in 2007 were for no discharge of ballast water; no ships installed approved
treatment to allow discharge. None of the permitted ships conducted port operations in
Michigan's Lake Superior ports.
6.1.4 Education/Outreach Initiatives
The following section discusses initiatives related to outreach and education efforts.
Connecting The Coast - A New Service Learning Web Site Empowering Students to Solve
Lake Superior Issues. Complex environmental issues face the Lake Superior region, its
communities, and citizens. A new service learning web-based curriculum, called "Connecting
the Coast" (CTC), challenges students to help solve these issues.
CTC is targeted to high school students, as future Lake Superior community leaders. It guides
students through an investigation of research compiled by the Lake Superior Binational Program
on critical environmental issues as identified in the Lake Superior LaMP.
The CTC curriculum uses a "systems" approach, stressing the interaction of social, economic,
and natural resource forces in an investigation of critical issues. The CTC moves students from
discovery to action as they design their own projects that result in personal or community change
to address a critical issue. The curriculum incorporates reflection as a way students can examine
the outcomes of their service learning experience through self-directed evaluation and sharing.
The CTC web site (http://connectingthecoast.uwex.edu) includes hundreds of photos, interactive
links, references, and fun activities students can use to explore issues, project ideas, and ways to
reflect on their experience. Historic and cultural viewpoints are integrated into the curriculum to
broaden perspectives on each issue. (See also Chapter 8, section 8.1 of LaMP 2008.)
Two Outreach Videos on Invasive Species Produced. The Great Lakes Indian Fish and
Wildlife Commission received funding from state and federal agencies to produce two episodes
of the television program Discover Wisconsin. One episode focused on AIS and featured a
variety of lake user groups including fishermen, resort owners, tribal members, and scuba divers.
It highlighted the fact that AIS affect nearly everyone, and everyone shares the responsibility to
prevent their spread. The cooperative efforts of various government agencies, tribes, and non-
governmental groups were also highlighted. The episode aired in June of 2006 and will be
rebroadcast twice.
The other episode focused on terrestrial invasives and featured a variety of user groups impacted
by terrestrial invasive species including private woodland owners and tribal members. A variety
of cooperative efforts around the State of Wisconsin were featured to shed light on current
April 2008 6-39
-------
Lake Superior LaMP 2008
education outreach and control efforts. The episode aired in June of 2007 and will be
rebroadcast twice.
Lake Superior Education and Outreach Programs Get Basin Students and Residents on
the Water. Lake Superior Research Institute (LSRI) and University of Wisconsin-Extension
(UW-Extension) Partnership at University of Wisconsin-Superior (UW-Superior) have
developed a partnership over the past 10 years to develop and implement watershed education
programs in the basin. A number of programs have been implemented with the support of a
network of educators in the region, as well as external grant funds. Several of the programs
utilize the UW-Superior research vessel, the LL Smith, Jr., to provide on-the-water programs for
a variety of audiences that include citizens, children in grades K through 12, college students,
and teachers. A program that targets local government officials, A View From the Lake, was
developed through a partnership with Minnesota Sea Grant and is an extension of a Lake
Superior Non-point Education for Municipal Officials (NEMO) program. This initiative has
brought information on the connection between land use and water quality to communities at
eight ports in western Lake Superior and reaches over 400 people per season. In addition to A
View From the Lake program, other groups that use the vessel each season include ten to twelve
5th grade classes for their Lake Superior unit, Elderhostel programs, teacher training, and
university programs. Approximately 900-1,100 people participate in programs on the lake each
year.
Other programs at UW-Superior include a citizen stream volunteer monitoring program, teacher
training and assistance with Lake Superior-based curriculum development, coastal wetland
research, and assistance to local planning committees who want to incorporate protection of
water resources into their comprehensive plan. A watershed education resource center that loans
a variety of sampling equipment as well as microscopes and other resources is maintained on
campus. As a result of these programs, citizen volunteers are monitoring 15 streams in the Lake
Superior basin (Wisconsin and Minnesota), the school district of Superior has incorporated Lake
Superior-based units into the 6th and 7th grade curricula, staff are working with Douglas County,
Wisconsin, on their comprehensive plan, and three coastal wetlands are being monitored by
researchers, students, and volunteers in order to evaluate the health of these estuaries.
Managing Woodlands in the Clay Plain of Lake Superior. There are nearly 3 million acres of
forest land along Wisconsin's Great Lakes coasts. As resource managers, loggers, and
landowners have become familiar with the basic concepts and principles of forestry, including
the implementation of Forestry Best Management Practices (BMPs) for Water Quality, they are
asking more sophisticated questions on forest management that reflect regional or site specific
concerns. In order to address management questions that are specific to the Lake Superior
watershed, the WDNR Division of Forestry compiled forest management recommendations for
lands in Lake Superior's red clay region and for lands with trout streams draining to Lake
Superior.
Managing Woodlands for Wisconsin's Coastal Trout Streams (WDNR, PUB-FR-386 2007)
provides an overview of trout ecology and how the health of trout streams can be impacted by
the condition of forests. Considerations for landowners on how to control runoff and
April 2008 6-40
-------
Lake Superior LaMP 2008
sedimentation and protect trout streams during forest management activities are included in the
guide.
Managing Woodlands on Lake Superior's Red Clay Plain (WDNR, PUB-FR-385 2007)
describes the high potential for erosion and the unstable slopes common along Lake Superior's
southern shore. Information is provided on how landowners can conduct sustainable forestry
activities by slowing the flow of water runoff.
Technical reports, table-top displays, and information and training workbooks were also created
as part of this grant project. The technical reports contain much more detailed information and
are intended for someone with a background in forestry, fisheries, or soils. The displays are
available for use at conferences, fairs, workshops, or other events. Information and training
workbooks contain all of the materials discussed above for each subject area, along with full-day
and hour-long PowerPoint presentations.
6.2 CHALLENGES AND NEXT STEPS
The Habitat, Terrestrial Wildlife, and Aquatic Communities Committees have identified a
number of challenges as we move forward in the implementation of the LaMP for Lake Superior.
In general, all committees will continue to encourage projects by partner agencies and
governments that further the objectives of the LaMP. All the agency partners are acting within
their areas of jurisdiction with the good of the Lake Superior basin in mind. Many of the
committees' and partners' accomplishments are highlighted in this report. The committees will
remain focused on forwarding the message, "complete all projects with the big lake in mind."
The committees have identified five broad action areas: Information Gathering, Monitoring,
Communication, Planning, and Stewardship. Taking effective actions in these areas can be said
to represent the overall challenges to achieving a sustainable Lake Superior ecosystem that is a
global model for resource management.
More specifically, active and continuous information gathering is required to help us understand
and piece together the intricacies of the complex relationship between living organisms and their
physical environment. Monitoring may take many forms and is ultimately designed to direct
management activities and policy development. Monitoring of population trends (change,
stability), or research-oriented monitoring to gain an understanding of the cause and effect of
specific actions on species or habitats, or why a project was a success or failure, will provide
sign posts to improve future management within the lake basin. Together, these actions will
provide insight and knowledge that can be communicated to governments, policy makers,
planners, managers, and citizens of the basin. This will enable informed and effective
communication about the links between land and resource use and ecosystem health with
industry, business, landowners, and the public. Moving toward actively planning at a basinwide
scale will assist in addressing the gaps in, and impediments to, sustainable resource management
of land and water resources, help speak to the needs of today, and prepare us for future
challenges. Finally, addressing stewardship needs will help foster the development of a healthy
basin ecosystem that is resilient to perturbations from human activities and provides a broad
April 2008 6-41
-------
Lake Superior LaMP 2008
range of sustainable benefits to its citizens. This category of active stewardship actions includes
those "on-the-ground" activities that most directly impact the ecosystems that make up the basin.
The challenge of protecting and preserving Lake Superior and its basin require a long-term
approach by governments, industry, NGOs, and individuals. In 2006, the committees noted a
number of significant needs that, if successfully addressed, would make important contributions
to the LaMP goals related to the Lake Superior ecosystem and, ultimately, human health. While
these needs remain, progress has been made on many of them.
The committees and partner agencies have identified a number of steps that will help us begin to
meet the needs and challenges described above, over the next two years. Future
accomplishments continue to be dependent upon commitments by governments and other
organizations, including individuals, to support the science, resource management, and
legislative activities that will protect and restore the basin. During the 2008-2010 reporting
period, the committees will continue to support, resource, and seek funds and partners for
presently occurring projects and issues, new projects, and emerging issues.
6.2.1 Information Gathering
Challenge: Provide ongoing support and maintenance of geographic information.
Next Steps: This information is essential to the effective implementation of the LaMP, as it
provides natural resource information to decision makers. One of the databases associated with
the Lake Superior Decision Support System contains information on important habitat conditions
in the Lake Superior basin. An updated version of the database and the corresponding important
habitat conditions map is available from the following web site:
http://www.nrri.umn.edu/lsgis/index.htm. The important habitat sites database has also been
included in the newly created Great Lakes Basin GIS-Decision Support System produced by the
Institute for Fisheries Research at the University of Michigan-Ann Arbor. Long-term
maintenance of the Lake Superior GIS databases is still required. This will assist the Habitat
Committee in meeting an ongoing challenge to fill information gaps on the status and trends of
habitat conditions in the Lake Superior basin and develop management recommendations to
protect and restore important habitat sites.
In another effort related to gathering geographic information, the Superior Work Group recently
formed an Ad Hoc Mining Committee. The committee is working to develop a GIS-based tool
which would be useful to decision-makers and may help to avoid damage to environmentally
sensitive areas identified through the Binational Program's Important Habitat mapping effort.
The Province of Ontario already publishes information in map form, locating geology and
current mine workings. The Ad Hoc Mining Committee has discussed the need to find funding
to compile and extend that information to the U.S. side of the basin in the coming year. For
additional information on the Ad Hoc Mining Committee, see Chapter 7, section 7.1.8.
April 2008 6-42
-------
Lake Superior LaMP 2008
6.2.2 Monitoring
Challenge: Put in place biological, community-based monitoring programs on which
to base species status and trends reports.
Next Steps: Using the GLEI project results as a baseline, continue to collect data that will allow
comparisons to be made with future changes in coastal resources and provide a mechanism to
track further degradation or improvements in health of the coastal region of Lake Superior.
6.2.3 Communication
Challenge: Educate the public on important habitat and ecological resources in the
Lake Superior basin by expanding the use of interactive information kiosks.
Next Steps: The Habitat Committee will continue to maintain the current kiosk network and
update information in the databases that support the kiosks.
Challenge: Develop communication tools to present information, issues, and solutions
related to the Lake Superior basin ecosystem.
Next Steps: Continue to promote the Connecting the Coast curriculum by presenting
information about its availability and use to high school and state science teachers.
Next Steps: The Habitat and Terrestrial Wildlife Committees will maintain and update their
joint web site. In addition, the committees will work with the Communications Committee as
appropriate to develop communication tools.
6.2.4 Planning
Challenge: Develop ecologically based integrated management plans for all
watersheds within the Lake Superior basin.
Next Steps: The Superior Watershed Partnership is teaming with the Nature Conservancy to
develop a watershed management plan for the Two-Hearted River in Luce County. The Two-
Hearted River watershed is considered one of the most pristine wilderness watersheds on the
south shore of Lake Superior. The river is a cold water trout fishery that has been designated a
Michigan Natural River (Part 305, P. A. 451) and an Outstanding State Resource Water. The
watershed itself is listed as an important habitat site by the Habitat Committee and contains
Beavertown Lakes, McMahon Lake, and Swamp Lakes, which are also listed because of globally
rare plant communities. In 2007, the Nature Conservancy completed a riparian analysis of the
watershed using GIS maps and verification by field visits. The overarching goal of this analysis
was to identify the functional riparian area of the Two-Hearted River system and to assess its
sensitivity to further development and forest management activities based on the characteristics.
The results of the analysis are being used to develop the watershed management plan and
eventually, to assist Luce County in revising zoning ordinances to better protect the river.
April 2008 6-43
-------
Lake Superior LaMP 2008
Figure 6-24. The Two-Hearted River in Michigan's Upper Peninsula was a favorite fishing spot of author
Ernest Hemingway and had a prominent place in his "Nick Adams" stories. Photo credit: Superior
Watershed Partnership.
Challenge: Address preventative measures related to aquatic species transport in
ballast water in Lake Superior.
Aquatic Invasive Species Complete Prevention Plan - Next Steps. There remains much to be
done to protect Lake Superior from new introductions of AIS from around the world and from
within the Great Lakes. Development of a complete prevention plan is proposed as a timely tool
to integrate and augment all the disparate pieces of regulation and education to accomplish that
protection. Canada and the U.S. share this responsibility and the Lake Superior LaMP process is
uniquely positioned to establish this protection. The LaMP is the primary delivery tool for a
number of binational processes dedicated to protecting the lake and also for implementing many
recommendations of the U.S. Great Lakes Regional Collaboration.
When completed, the draft plan will be reviewed by the Superior Work Group, and a stakeholder
comment process will be initiated. Following stakeholder input, the draft will be reviewed by
the Lake Superior Task Force, and final review and approval steps will be determined.
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Ballast Water Permit Development - Next Steps. The
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) continues to promote additional federal efforts to
control the ship-mediated spread of AIS. Given the uncertain timeline for federal action, the
April 2008
6-44
-------
Lake Superior LaMP 2008
MPCA is moving forward with the development of a general National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System / State Disposal System (NPDES/SDS) permit for ballast water. The permit
is initially planned to cover ballast water discharges from commercial vessels on Minnesota
waters of Lake Superior and associated harbors. The permit could include best management
practices, monitoring requirements, specific discharge performance standards, and other
requirementsall of which will combine to assure protection of Minnesota waters from AIS. A
final permit is expected to be available by September 30, 2008.
Challenge: Plan for sustainable land, shoreline, and water development.
Upper Great Lakes Study Underway. The International Joint Commission appointed the
International Upper Great Lakes Study Board in February 2007 to examine whether the
regulation of Lake Superior outflows can be improved to address the evolving needs of the upper
Great Lakes. The study area includes Lakes Superior, Michigan, Huron, and Erie, and their
interconnecting channels (St. Marys River, St. Clair River, Lake St. Clair, Detroit River, and
Niagara River), up to Niagara Falls.
Major topics for investigation include determining the factors that affect water levels and flows,
developing and testing potential new regulation plans, and assessing the impacts of these
potential plans on the ecosystem and human interests. Staff from the WDNR Office of the Great
Lakes will co-chair the Ecosystem Technical Work Group.
Physical changes in the St. Clair River will be investigated early in the study as one factor that
might be affecting water levels and flows. Depending on the nature and extent of the physical
changes, and their potential impact on water levels and flows, the study may also explore
potential remediation options.
Challenge: Ensure the maintenance of healthy aquatic communities on rivers with,
and those identified for, hydro power development.
Next Steps: OMNR is working with Ontario Power Generation on a long-term study to
determine the impacts of fluctuating water flows and levels on sturgeon populations in the
Kaministiquia River in Thunder Bay.
Challenge: Maintain continued support for LaMP projects in order to accomplish
LaMP goals by continuing efforts by the LaMP to ensure governments keep the LaMP
in the top priority of their funding targets.
Next Steps: 1) Communicate to senior-level managers in the Canadian federal and Ontario
provincial government the importance of the Canada-Ontario Agreement as a funding
mechanism to achieve LaMP objectives; 2) List the important U.S. funding sources and means to
keep LaMP priorities at the top of grant lists.
April 2008 6-45
-------
Lake Superior LaMP 2008
6.2.5 Active Stewardship
Challenge: Protect critical lake and tributary habitats.
Next Steps in Ontario: 1) Ontario will continue to work with Parks Canada to ensure the details
in the new Lake Superior National Marine Conservation Area management plan support LaMP
goals and objectives.
Challenge: Cooper ate with Great Lakes Regional Collaboration's Wetlands and
Habitat Initiative to restore and enhance important Lake Superior upland, wetland,
riparian, and tributary habitats.
Next Steps for U.S.: Assist the U.S. Interagency Task Force in utilizing Lake Superior
important habitats in setting priorities for the Wetlands and Habitat Initiative. Work with the
Wetlands and Habitat Initiative to link GLRC goals with Lake Superior habitat actions and
needs.
6.3 REFERENCES
Eschenroder, R. L. and C. C. Krueger 2002. Reintroduction of native fishes to the Great Lakes
proper: A research theme area. Great Lakes Fishery Commission.
Eshenroder, R. L., and Burnham-Curtis, M. K. 1999. Species succession and sustainability of the
Great Lakes fish community. In Great Lakes fishery policy and management: a binational
perspective. Edited by W. W. Taylor and C. P. Ferreri. Michigan State University Press, E.
Lansing, Mich. pp. 145-184.
Goodyear, C.S., Edsall, T.A., Ormsby Dempsey, D.M., Moss, G.D. and Polanski, P.E. 1982.
Atlas of the spawning and nursery areas of Great Lakes fishes. Volume two: Lake Superior.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, DC FWS/OBS-82/52.
Krueger, C.C. and P.E. Ihssen. 1995. Review of genetics of lake trout in the Great Lakes: history,
molecular genetics, physiography, strain comparisons, and restoration management. J. Great
Lakes Res. 21 (Supple. l):348-363.
Morgan, G.E. 2002. Manual of instructions: fall walleye index netting (FWIN). Percid
Community Synthesis Work Group - Diagnostics and Sampling Standards Working Group.
Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Fish and Wildlife Branch. Peterborough, Ontario.
The following is a list of the 22 peer-reviewed papers that will appear in the Journal of Great
Lakes Research (JGLR) in early 2008. Papers focused exclusively on Lake Superior are
highlighted in bold; however, most of the papers include data and analysis of indicators for Lake
Superior.
April 2008 6-46
-------
Lake Superior LaMP 2008
JGLR Special Issue (Vol. 33, Special Issue 3): Coastal Indicators
1. Niemi, G.J., Kelly, J.R., and Danz, N.P. 2007. Foreword: Environmental indicators for
the coastal region of the North American Great Lakes: Introduction and prospectus. J.
Great Lakes Res. 33 (Special Issue 3).
2. Bhagat, Y., Ciborowski, J.J.H., Johnson, L.B., Uzarski, D.G., Burton, T.M.,
Timmermans, S.T.A., and Cooper, MJ. 2007. Testing a fish index of biotic integrity for
responses to different stressors in Great Lakes coastal wetlands. J. Great Lakes Res. 33
(Special Issue 3).
3. Brady, V.J., Ciborowski, J.J.H., Johnson, L.B., Danz, N.P., Holland, J.D., Breneman,
D.H., and Gathman, J.P. 2007. Optimizing fishing time: one vs. two-night fyke net sets in
Great Lakes coastal systems. J. Great Lakes Res. 33 (Special Issue 3).
4. Brazner, J.C., Danz,'N.P., Trebitz, A.S., Niemi, G.J., Regal, R.R., Hollenhorst, T.P.,
Host, G.E., Reavie, E.D., Brown, T.N., Hanowski, J.M., Johnston, C.A., Johnson, L.B.,
Howe, R.W., and Ciborowski, J.J.H. 2007. Responsiveness of Great Lakes wetland
indicators to human disturbances at multiple spatial scales: a multi-assemblage
assessment. J. Great Lakes Res. 33 (Special Issue 3).
5. Croft, M., and Chow-Fraser, P. 2007. Development of the wetland macrophyte index to
detect degree of water-quality impairment in Great Lakes coastal marshes. J. Great Lakes
Res. 33 (Special Issue).
6. Frieswyk, C.B., Johnston, C.A., and Zedler, J.B. 2007. Identifying and characterizing
dominant plants as an indicator of community condition. J. Great Lakes Res. 33 (Special
Issue 3).
7. Grandmaison, D.D., and Niemi, G.J. 2007. Local and landscape influence on red-
winged blackbird (Agelaius Phoeniceus) nest success in Great Lakes coastal
wetlands. J. Great Lakes Res. 33 (Special Issue 3).
8. Hanowski, J.M., Danz, N.P. Howe, R.W., Regal, R.R., and Niemi, G.J. 2007.
Considerations for monitoring breeding birds in Great Lakes coastal wetlands. J. Great
Lakes Res. 33 (Special Issue 3).
9. Hollenhorst, T.P., Brown, T.N., Johnson, L.B., Ciborowski, J.J.H., and Host, G.E. 2007.
Methods for generating multi-scale watershed delineations for indicator development in
Great Lake Coastal ecosystems. J. Great Lakes Res. 33 (Special Issue 3).
10. Howe, R.W., Regal, R.R., Hanowski, J.M., Niemi, G.J., Danz, N.P., and Smith, C.R.
2007. An index of ecological condition based on bird assemblages in Great Lakes coastal
wetlands. J. Great Lakes Res. 33 (Special Issue 3).
11. Johnston, C.A., Watson, T., and Wolter, P.T. 2007. Sixty-three years of land alteration in
Erie Township. J. Great Lakes Res. 33 (Special Issue 3).
12. Johnston, C.A., Bedford, B., Bourdaghs, M., Brown, T.N., Frieswyk, C., Tulbure, M.,
Vaccaro, L., and Zedler, J.B. 2007. Plant species indicators of physical environment in
Great Lakes coastal wetlands. J. Great Lakes Res. 33 (Special Issue 3).
13. Kang, M., Ciborowski, J.J.H., and Johnson, L.B. 2007. The influence of anthropogenic
disturbance and environmental suitability on the distribution of the nonindigenous
amphipod Echinogammarus ischnus at Laurential Great Lakes coastal margins. J. Great
Lakes Res. 33 (Special Issue 3).
14. Kireta, A.R., Reavie, E.D., Danz, N.P., Axler, R.P., Sgro, G.V., Kingston, J.C., Brown,
T.N., and Hollenhorst, T.P. 2007. Coastal geomorphic and lake variability in the
April 2008 6-47
-------
Lake Superior LaMP 2008
Laurentian Great Lakes: implications for a diatom-based monitoring tool. J. Great Lakes
Res. 33 (Special Issue 3).
15 Miller, C., Niemi, G.J., Hanowski, J.M., and Regal, R.R. 2007. Breeding bird
communities across an upland disturbance gradient in the western Lake Superior
region. J. Great Lakes Res. 33 (Special Issue 3).
16. Peterson, A.C., and Niemi, G.J. 2007. Evaluation of the Ohio Rapid Assessment
Method for wetlands in the western Great Lakes: an analysis using bird
communities. J. Great Lakes Res. 33 (Special Issue 3).
17. Peterson, G.S., Sierszen, M.E., Yurista, P.M., and Kelly, J.R. 2007. Stable nitrogen
isotopes of plankton and benthos reflect a landscape-level influence on Great Lakes
coastal ecosystems. J. Great Lakes Res. 33 (Special Issue 3).
18. Price, S.J., Howe, R.W., Hanowski, J.M., Regal, R.R., Niemi, G.J., and Smith, C.R.
2007. Are anurans of Great Lakes coastal wetlands reliable indicators of ecological
condition? JV. Great Lakes Res. 33 (Special Issue 3).
19. Reavie, E.D. 2007. A diatom-based water quality index for Great Lakes coastlines. J.
Great Lakes Res. 33 (Special Issue 3).
20. Seilheimer, T.S., and Chow-Fraser, P. 2007. Application of the wetland fish index to
northern Great Lakes marshes with an emphasis on Georgian Bay coastal wetlands. J.
Great Lakes Res. 33 (Special Issue 3).
21. Trebitz, A.S., Brazner, J.C., Cotter, A.M., Knuth, M.L., Morrice, J.A., Peterson, G.S.,
Sierszen, M.A., Thompson, J. A., and Kelly, J.R. 2006. Water quality in Great Lakes
coastal wetlands: basin-wide patterns and responses to an anthropogenic disturbance
gradient. J. Great Lakes Res. 33 (Special Issue 3).
22. Tulbure, M.G., Johnston, C.A., and Auger, D.L. 2007. Rapid invasion of a Great Lakes
coastal wetland by Phragmites australis and non-native Typha. J. Great Lakes Res. 33
(Special Issue 3).
April 2008 6-48
-------
Chapter 7
Developing Sustainability
in the Lake Superior Basin:
2008 Progress Report
Ice ridge mirage at sunset. Photo credit: Frank Koshere,
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources.
Lake Superior Lakewide Management Plan 2008
-------
-------
Lake Superior LaMP 2008
Chapter 7 Contents
7.0 INTRODUCTION 7-1
7.1 SELECTED ACTIVITIES 7-1
7.1.1 Aboriginal Community Awareness Review and Development 7-1
7.1.2 TRAcking of Community Sustainability 7-2
7.1.3 Sustainability Session at the Lake Superior Conference 7-3
7.1.4 Toward A Sustainable Community: A Toolkit for Local Government 7-4
7.1.5 Lake Superior Stewardship/Leadership School Project 7-4
7.1.6 Aboriginal/Tribal Cooperation 7-5
7.1.7 Ad Hoc Monitoring Committee 7-6
7.1.8 Ad Hoc Mining Committee 7-6
7.2 CHALLENGES 7-7
7.2.1 Building Capacity 7-7
7.2.2 Adapting To a Fluid Political Landscape 7-7
7.2.3 Defining, Promoting, and Implementing Sustainability 7-7
7.3 NEXT STEPS 7-11
7.3.1 Encouraging Societal Involvement in LaMP 7-11
7.3.2 Draft LSBP Green Meeting Strategy 7-11
7.3.3 TRAcking of Community Sustainability Plus 7-11
7.3.4 Keepers of Sustainability Map Series 7-12
7.3.5 Landowner and Realtor Outreach Project 7-12
7.3.6 Aboriginal/Tribal Cooperation 7-13
7.3.7 Climate Change Action at Fond Du Lac Reservation 7-13
7.3.8 Sustainability Resource Mobilization 7-14
7.3.9 Baseline Sustainability Indicators - Phase 2 7-14
April 2008 7-ii
-------
-------
Lake Superior LaMP 2008
Chapter 7
Developing Sustainability in the Lake Superior Basin
7.0 INTRODUCTION
Through its Lakewide Management Plan (LaMP), the Lake Superior Binational Program (LSBP)
is seeking, promoting, and implementing sustainable development approaches that work toward
a restorative Vision for Lake Superiorapproaches that will ensure the sustainability, or the
capacity for continuance into the long-term future, of the basin's natural and human systems and
institutions.
This chapter update:
Reviews sustainability initiatives and activities conducted by the Sustainability
Committee between April 1, 2006, and March 31, 2008;
Highlights some of the challenges; and
Ties current initiatives and challenges to future initiatives for sustainability in the Lake
Superior basin.
7.1 SELECTED ACTIVITIES
The projects highlighted below represent a sample of sustainability activities recently pursued by
the committee, as well as independent community-based initiatives that complement Superior
Work Group efforts regarding regional sustainability.
7.1.1 Aboriginal Community Awareness Review and Development
One significant success is the completion of the Aboriginal Community Awareness Review and
Development Project (CARD) in the Canadian portion of the Lake Superior basin. The goal of
the project was to better understand the attitudes and awareness of basin residents regarding local
sustainability and environmental issues. Thirteen non-Aboriginal communities in both the U.S.
and Canada were surveyed in 2005, and since then the Sustainability Committee has surveyed
the Canadian Aboriginal communities of Fort William, Pays Plat, Biinjitiwabik Zaaging
Anishnabek (Rocky Bay), and Pic River First Nations. Results of the Aboriginal CARD survey
indicated that environmental issues ranked behind the top priorities of housing, employment,
health, and education. However, most communities ranked water among their top three most
important environmental issues. They expressed high levels of concern regarding the impact of
industrial activities, tourism, and other development on traditional activities, habitat and wildlife,
burial grounds, sacred sites, artifacts, and medicinal and traditional plants. They also identified
the lack of recycling opportunities and the burning of garbage as concerns. Future initiatives
targeted at Canadian Aboriginal communities will have to include multiple, diverse community
benefits; take a holistic approach to addressing environmental, social, and cultural issues using
water and land use as priority areas for action; and more personally engage the communities.
April 2008 7-1
-------
Lake Superior LaMP 2008
Figure 7-1. Water was ranked among communities' top three most important
environmental issues in the Aboriginal CARD survey. Photo credit: Frank Koshere,
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources.
The information found in the Aboriginal CARD, like the information gathered as part of the two
non-Aboriginal CARD projects conducted in 2005 in Canadian and American municipalities,
towns, and cities, is meant to inform and influence the design and implementation of future
Superior Work Group initiatives.
7.1.2 TRAcking of Community Sustainability
The TRAcking of Community Sustainability (TRACS) project is a joint initiative between the
Lake Superior Binational Forum (the Forum) and the Sustainability Committee. The Forum is
compiling community-based Sustainability initiatives in five target communities around the lake,
including: Ashland area in Wisconsin; Duluth, Minnesota; Marquette, Michigan; Thunder Bay,
Ontario; and Wawa, Ontario. The TRACS inventory will assist the LSBP in determining the
extent to which LaMP goals and objectives are met and, ultimately, whether Lake Superior
residents are moving towards, or away from, Sustainability.
In addition to allowing for the tracking of overall Sustainability efforts in the Lake Superior
basin, the TRACS project:
Acts as a corporate memory for the Superior Work Group and the Forum's Sustainability
efforts;
Assists the Superior Work Group and the Forum in communicating Sustainability
initiatives and contacts to interested organizations and citizens around the basin;
April 2008
7-2
-------
Lake Superior LaMP 2008
Cultivates awareness of the benefits of sustainable living among citizens, organizations,
and communities;
Catalyzes civic action toward sustainability;
Promotes partnerships for sustainability;
Serves as a repository of success stories available to the media;
Demonstrates how various initiatives can function within and in parallel to the regulatory
system; and
Forms the basis for future "Keepers of Sustainability" Map series (see Section 7.3, Next
Steps).
To date, the Sustainability Committee has defined criteria for identifying appropriate actions and
programs, and data has begun to be entered into the TRACS database. The database will be
completed in 2008.
7.1.3 Sustainability Session at the Lake Superior Conference
In collaboration with the Forum, the Sustainability Committee shepherded a one-day
sustainability session at the Making a Great Lake Superior 2007 conference held in Duluth,
Minnesota, in October 2007. Titled Sustainability: A Superior Paradigm for Refraining
Knowledge (SPaRK), the session achieved the following outcomes:
Increased awareness and knowledge of sustainability challenges and opportunities facing
Lake Superior and basin communities. Some identified needs include:
o Marked improvement and creativity in the arts of citizenship and governance. In
other words, sustainability requires effective institutions of governance and a
well-informed, democratically engaged citizenry.
o More accurate models and descriptions to describe the human enterprise in
relation to the earth.
o Enhanced awareness and education for sustainability. This means a society which
not only understands its place within larger cycles and trends, but one with the
education and skills appropriate to make sustainable living a reality.
o To learn how to recognize and solve divergent problems, or problems that cannot
be solved by logic and method alone.
Broadened understanding of plans and ideas to track community and basin sustainability.
o Awareness that any sustainability approach should consider adopting a systems
approach to sustainable development.
Enhanced awareness and understanding of proven and effective approaches to
successfully move communities toward sustainability.
o The next wave of community economic development will, hopefully, have
sustainability as its ultimate goal, and will be driven by sustainable development
and systems thinking. It will employ a number of strategies, including eco-
municipalities, localization, ecosystem services valuation, sustainable agriculture
and local food systems, sustainable tourism, and eco-industrial developments.
April 2008 7-3
-------
Lake Superior LaMP 2008
7.1.4 Toward A Sustainable Community: A Toolkit for Local Government
In conjunction with "1000 Friends of Wisconsin" and with the help of "Focus on Energy," the
University of Wisconsin Extension faculty (educators and specialists agents) in Madison,
Stevens Point, Superior, Ashland, Barren, and Shawano County co-authored Toward A
Sustainable Community: A Toolkit for Local Government. The purpose of this toolkit is to
provide ideas and descriptions of specific actions that a local government can take to transform
itself into a model of sustainable practices. These practices can result in cost savings and
increased employment, and can enhance environmental quality and community well-being. The
message of this toolkit is simple: local governments can lead by example. The toolkit is
intended to address only the internal workings of local government. Specifically, it addresses
sustainable approaches to energy, building, transportation, purchasing, investment, and hiring. It
provides practical tools for making these functions of local government more supportive of long-
term human and environmental health and well-being. It provides strategies that can be
implemented through traditional means of policy development, fiscal administration, local
government programs, and education.
The toolkit was distributed to all 72 University of Wisconsin Extension county educators
(agents). Presentations were also given to different associations, for example the Wisconsin
Chapter of the American Planning Association.
The toolkit is available at www.shwec.uwm.edu/sustk, and the live links in the document are
available on the University of Wisconsin Extension, Solid and Hazardous Waste Education
Center (SHWEC) web site as well, under publications.
7.1.5 Lake Superior Stewardship/Leadership School Project
The Sigurd Olson Environmental Institute at Northland College and the University of Wisconsin
Extension, with help from the Otto Bremer Foundation, operates the Lake Superior Pathfinders
program. This experiential learning program aims to develop local leadership skills among
adults and youth in the context of
Lake Superior basin issues, using
sustainability as the overarching theme
and a web-based curriculum that
supports the needs of the Binational
Program.
Through the Pathfinders program,
students in grades 9-12 build
leadership skills and confidence on
low and high ropes courses and
climbing towers, immerse themselves
in the Lake Superior environment,
explore estuaries, kayak to sea caves,
and investigate the lake's critical Figure 7.2 Kayaking in the rain. Photo credit: Frank Koshere,
issues from social, environmental, and Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources.
April 2008
7-4
-------
Lake Superior LaMP 2008
economic perspectives. They help haul fish nets and fish aboard the Wolverine II, a commercial
fishing boat that trolls around the Apostle Islands, as well as interact with Chippewa tribal elders
and educators as they share their culture along the lake and in sacred fishing and ricing waters.
Through the Lake Superior Navigators, students in grades 9-12 students learn about the role
research plays in Lake Superior by conducting research with the USGS Lake Superior Biological
Station crew aboard the Kiyi, a 107 ft research vessel. They explore community sustainability
and challenge leadership concepts by engaging in service learning projects in the Ashland area.
Past projects have included working with Habitat for Humanity, gardening for a local domestic
abuse shelter, creating a Lake Superior mural, and designing and airing a local radio show about
critical Lake Superior issues.
Meanwhile, students in grades 6-9
become better environmental
stewards by immersing themselves
in the intriguing world of life in
wetlands, marshes, ponds, and
lakes through the Making Waves
program. They explore unique
lake environments, including Lake
Superior's, each day through
hands-on experiments and outdoor
endeavors. Making Waves
connects their experiences through
activities that examine real
strategies to sustain healthy lake
communities. Students sleep
under the stars on the shores of
Lake Superior, meet new and
exciting people, and wade the
shallows of the wetlands.
Figure 7-3. Wading in the Amnicon River, Douglas County,
Wisconsin. Photo credit: Frank Koshere, Wisconsin Department of
Natural Resources.
A medium-term goal is to expand the Wisconsin Pathfinders program to other jurisdictions of the
Lake Superior basin. For more information, please see Chapter 2 or visit
www.northland.edu/pathfinders.
7.1.6 Aboriginal/Tribal Cooperation
The Sustainability Committee supports environmental management/sustainability capacity for
and between Tribes and First Nations through the building of relationships, sharing of
information, and exploration of opportunities for Tribal/First Nations collaboration.
Completion of the Aboriginal CARD project represents an important first step toward developing
sustainability in First Nations communities. The building of relationships, increased
collaboration, and transfer of environmental skills and knowledge among the Grand Portage
Reservation, Fond Du Lac Reservation, and the Anishinabek of the Gichi Garni, a citizen-based
April 2008
7-5
-------
Lake Superior LaMP 2008
environmental organization from Fort William First Nation, also represent a small but significant
development.
Grand Portage Environmental staff have been working with Grand Portage Education and
Information Technology staff (from Fort William) who are fluent in Ojibwe mowin to translate
information for signs and a web page that are being designed to notify residents and visitors
about the beach water quality in Grand Portage. Students from Grand Portage are designing the
signs and developing the wording for the web page. A goal of this partnership is to develop a
bilingual format for both the web page and signs to ensure that Grand Portage youth will see
their work in both languages.
7.1.7 Ad Hoc Monitoring Committee
In August 2006, a Lake Superior Monitoring and Decision White Paper explored options for
ensuring that Lake Superior waters and watershed monitoring and research efforts are
coordinated, integrated, readily available, and consistent with LaMP priorities and goals. In the
fall of 2006, Terms of Reference for an Ad Hoc Monitoring Committee were drafted. The
original purpose of the committee is stated below:
To be a "champion" for monitoring, assessment and reporting the status and trends of Lake
Superior ecosystems and integrating information on stressors, socioeconomic factors, climate
change, and other drivers with ecosystem information. This committee will coordinate with
existing standing committees to cross-walk interests in monitoring and reporting on various
aspects of the Lake Superior basin ecosystem.
The acquisition and integration of socio-economic data to ecosystem data will remain the
Sustainability Committee's primary interest in this committee.
7.1.8 Ad Hoc Mining Committee
For the past number of years Sustainability Committee members have expressed an interest and
concern in the increased level of exploration and mining activity witnessed throughout the Lake
Superior basin. Sustainability Committee members have been involved, for example, in
numerous environmental assessments, permit applications reviews, and toxics reduction efforts.
In June 2006, a memorandum to the Superior Work Group by the Chippewa-Ottawa Resource
Authority suggested that the ability of the LSBP and basin resource agencies to quickly link
ecologically sensitive data to old, current, or potential ore bodies would protect critical habitat in
the Lake Superior basin by enabling decision-makers to make wise decisions.
At the April 2007 meeting of the Superior Work Group held at Old Fort William Historical Park
in Thunder Bay, Ontario, an Ad Hoc Mining Committee was charged with exploring proactive
options to educate the public, agencies, and mineral exploration companies in general on the
importance of protecting environmentally sensitive habitats. The Sustainability Committee
decided that further discussion related to mining in the Lake Superior basin would best be
addressed as part of the Ad Hoc Mining Committee.
April 2008 7-6
-------
Lake Superior LaMP 2008
The Ad Hoc Mining Committee
held several conference calls
during 2007, the last of which
was well attended by
representatives of the United
States Geological Survey and
Ontario Ministry of Northern
Development and Mines. There
is consensus that a GIS-based
tool would be useful to decision-
makers and may help to avoid
damage to environmentally
sensitive areas identified through
theLSBP. The Province of
Ontario already publishes
information in map form,
locating geology and current
mine workings. The Ad Hoc
Mining Committee has discussed
the need to find funding to compile and extend that information to the U.S. side of the basin in
the coming year. For additional details on the Ad Hoc Mining Committee, see Chapter 6,
Section 6.2.1.
Figure 7-4. Hemlock needles surround an oak leaf in Lake Superior
waters. Photo credit: Frank Koshere, Wisconsin Department of
Natural Resources.
7.2 CHALLENGES
There are many sustainability challenges facing the Superior Work Group. Much work remains
to be done to effectively protect and restore the Lake Superior ecosystem as well as to support
the process of developing sustainability in the basin.
7.2.1 Building Capacity
Additional members, including their skill sets, are necessary to the committee's operations. For
example, economic development councils/corporations can become real partners in
demonstrating sustainability in the basin.
7.2.2 Adapting to a Fluid Political Landscape
Efforts to promote sustainability must deal with the constantly changing social and political
landscapes within and outside the Lake Superior basin. Seizing upon opportunities in this
landscape will be critical to success; for example, an economic recovery program could be the
platform for sustainable jobs.
7.2.3 Defining, Promoting, and Implementing Sustainability
Sharing the concept of sustainability across the Lake Superior basin, and incorporating it into
management decision-making by basin stakeholders, as well as increasing the number and
diversity of stakeholders involved in sustainability discussions, remain significant challenges for
the Sustainability Committee and the Binational Program.
April 2008
7-7
-------
Lake Superior LaMP 2008
The development and incorporation of sustainability principles into the daily decision-making
processes and operations of organizations throughout the basin is progressing. This is illustrated,
for example, by the emerging U.S. south shore eco-municipality movement (see Alliance for
Sustainability box), the City of Thunder Bay's adoption of Environmental Principles to guide its
corporate decisions impacting the environment, its development of a Community Environmental
Action Plan through Earth Wise Thunder Bay (see Earth Wise Thunder Bay box), and the
development of toolkits that provide local governments with ideas and descriptions of specific
actions that they can take to transform themselves into models of sustainable practices.1
Figure 7-5. Lake Superior wave. Photo credit: Frank Koshere, Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources.
The toolkit is available at www. shwec.uwm.edu/sustk.
April 2008
7-8
-------
Lake Superior LaMP 2008
Alliance for Sustainability - Sustainable Chequamegon Initiative
The Alliance for Sustainability (AFS) continued to strengthen and build support for its Sustainable
Chequamegon Initiative (SCI) along the south shore of Lake Superior in Wisconsin. The SCI is the
result of the efforts of many local residents who have embraced the principles of Sustainability and see
a bright future for the communities in which they live. AFS drafted an ambitious strategic plan in 2006
with support from many local community members. The plan outlines AFS' goals, objectives, and
actions for achieving its Sustainability vision. The plan gives AFS a strong document to help guide its
activities over the next five years as it strives to develop a model for rural sustainable development. In
addition to adopting a strategic plan, some of the many accomplishments of the SCI over the past two
years include:
The City of Bayfield and the Town of Bayfield joined the Cities of Ashland and Washburn in
adopting eco-municipality resolutions based on the Natural Step framework. The resolutions
commit the governments to implement practices of sustainable community development
whenever possible in their planning, policy making, and municipal practices.
AFS hired a full-time staff person to coordinate its efforts in the Chequamegon Bay region,
and the City of Ashland donated space at its Vaughn Public Library for AFS to have an office.
AFS received a three-year grant from the Bremer Foundation to start a Green Team Network
of Early Adopters of Sustainability. The Network provides local businesses, schools,
industries, tribes, governments, and institutions a time and a place to develop and implement
action plans to become more energy efficient. It provides a way to connect these entities to
each other and to services available to them to reduce their carbon footprints and ultimately
improve their bottom lines. The Network began in 2007 with 10 members, and as of early
2008, it includes 17 businesses, municipalities, institutions, and local governments.
AFS conducted "Campaign Sustain" during the summer of 2007 with donations from several
foundations, individuals and businesses. The theme of the project was "what one household
can do." Four interns knocked on over 4,000 doors in six local communities, handing out
compact fluorescent lightbulbs (CFLs) to any resident who unscrewed and handed over their
most frequently used incandescent bulb. They also handed out free bus passes, rebate
coupons for additional CFLs, and refrigerator magnets with 10 tips to save money by reducing
energy usage. The impact of Campaign Sustain was estimated at a $7200 savings to local
residents through reduced energy demand, 40 tons of coal saved, and a reduction of 960,000
kilowatt hours of electricity demand per year.
AFS is sponsoring a Wisconsin Sustainable Business Conference in April 2008 in Ashland,
Wl.
Alliance for Sustainability presentation (left) and member discussions (right). Photo credit: Alliance for Sustainability.
April 2008
7-9
-------
Lake Superior LaMP 2008
EarthWise Thunder Bay
EarthWise Thunder Bay (www.earthwisethunderbay.com') began in the summer of 2004, when the
City of Thunder Bay committed to develop a Community Environmental Action Plan (CEAP) to
promote a sustainable, healthy environmental community. The CEAP supports a number of
resolutions already passed by City Council with the end goal of reducing greenhouse gas (GHG)
emissions within the City of Thunder Bay.
The first step toward a sustainable community was the development of an Environmental Policy,
which was developed in 2005 through the collaboration of community partners, citizens, and the
EarthWise Steering Committee. This Environmental Policy established a foundation of 10
Environmental Principles that offer general guidance for corporate decisions affecting the
environment, including: energy conservation; meeting applicable environmental legislation and
regulations; using the best available technology economically feasible; re-use and recycling of
resources; communicating with stakeholders; supporting environmental education; participating in
community initiatives; community environmental action planning; applying the precautionary principle;
and strengthening green procurement commitments. The policy requires the city to produce, on an
annual basis, an Environmental Progress Report highlighting its progress towards sustainability.
In February 2008, in conjunction with the City of Thunder Bay and ICLEI Energy Services (IES),
EarthWise completed its GHG emissions inventory and forecast for the city's operations and for the
Thunder Bay community as a whole. EarthWise will integrate this report into its planning for the
CEAP, and will present both to the City Council in 2008.
Currently, EarthWise is looking for public input and involvement in a number of working groupseach
of which are focusing on specific issue sections of the CEAP. The CEAP will be instrumental in
delivering a healthy biophysical and socioeconomic environment to the citizens of Thunder Bay and in
creating a more comprehensive, systems-oriented framework for municipal operations.
April 2008 7-10
-------
Lake Superior LaMP 2008
7.3 NEXT STEPS
In conjunction with the Superior Work Group, the Sustainability Committee will be discussing a
more comprehensive Sustainability framework for the next major LaMP review and revision.
7.3.1 Encouraging Societal Involvement in LaMP
To promote a systemic approach to change in the
basin, the LSBP must reach out to businesses,
industries, municipalities, educational institutions,
not-for-profit organizations, and youth. We will
encourage the creation of physical and/or virtual
spaces for residents to assemble
(videoconferencing, webinars, mini Lake Superior
learning events, social virtual networks such as
Facebook or My Space, etc.) are other ideas that
should be explored by the Superior Work Group
and the Forum.
7.3.2 Draft LSBP Green Meeting Strategy
To reduce impacts to the air, water, and land of the
Lake Superior basin from the transportation, energy
demand, and waste created by planning and
attending face-to-face meetings of the LSBP, the
Sustainability Committee and the Making a Great
Lake Superior 2007 Green Team
(http://www.seagrant.umn.edu/superior2007/statem
ent/) plan to draft a Green Meeting Strategy. The
intent is that organizers of Forum, Superior Work
Group, and Task Force meetings will make every
effort to reduce the footprints of each event as per the Green Meeting Strategy. Tools and
templates will be developed collaboratively to help implement the strategy.
7.3.3 TRAcking of Community Sustainability Plus
In collaboration with the Forum, the Sustainability Committee will continue adding community-
based Sustainability initiatives throughout the basin to the TRACS database. The TRAcking of
Community Sustainability Plus (TRACS+) inventory will be an ongoing initiative to assist the
LSBP in determining the extent to which LaMP goals and objectives are met and, ultimately,
whether Lake Superior residents are moving towards, or away from, Sustainability. Potential use
of the WiserEarth community directory and networking forum (www. wi serearth. org) to map and
network non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and individuals addressing Sustainability
issues should be investigated.
Figure 7-6. Top of Shovel Point. Photo credit:
Carri Lohse-Hanson, Minnesota Pollution
Control Agency.
April 2008
7-11
-------
Lake Superior LaMP 2008
7.3.4 Keepers of Sustainability Map Series
Using the TRACS database as a starting point, a "Keepers of Sustainability Map Series" for the
Lake Superior basin could be created. It would include, for example, sectoral maps
(institutional, educational, business/commercial, etc.) which depict the location and contact
information of basin organizations working on Sustainability initiatives. Another option would
be to create one map only, with different icons representing different sectors. The main purpose
of the Map Series would be to inform citizens of the positive events occurring in the basin, as
well as to facilitate networking and information exchange. The creation of an online version
should be explored as well. Lastly, this project should be coordinated with another idea
discussed by the Superior Work Groupwatershed fact sheets that provide basin residents with
basic information about the place they live.
7.3.5 Landowner and Realtor Outreach Project
In collaboration with the
Superior Work Group, Well
Aware, EcoSuperior, Green
Communities Canada, and
the Lake Superior
Partnership, the
Sustainability Committee is
contributing to the
development of education
and outreach materials for
realtors and homeowners.
The materials are aimed at
improving realtors' and
homeowners' understanding
of environmental concerns
related to rural, residential
properties. It is hoped that,
through the project
deliverableswhich include
a Lake Superior Best
Figure 7-7. Outreach and education materials are being developed to help
improve realtors' and homeowners' understanding of environmental concerns
related to rural, residential properties. Photo credit: Frank Koshere,
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources.
Management Practices (BMP) manual, professional and community outreach sessions, and home
visitsthe target audience will begin to change its attitudes and approaches to activities, as well
as the use of these types of properties.
Due to property ownership and real estate regulation that usually falls within the jurisdiction of
provincial, state, or local governments; uncoordinated funding opportunities at all levels of
governments; and varying local and regional organizational capacities and programs, this unique
project is being implemented differently across the basin's various jurisdictions. However,
cross-jurisdictional knowledge transfer and collaboration occur when appropriate.
April 2008
7-12
-------
Lake Superior LaMP 2008
To date, the binational project team has prepared the common elements of the BMP manual. In
the spring of 2008, all jurisdictions will be researching, reviewing, and developing content and
artwork for their portion of the BMP manual. Completion of the manual is targeted for the
summer of 2008. In Ontario, EcoSuperior conducted 54 Well Aware visits in the Thunder Bay
area in the summer of 2007. EcoSuperior is also planning a Community Forum in Kakabeka
Falls to promote proper management of rural properties. In all jurisdictions, further work on the
development, printing, and distribution of the BMP manual, as well as promotional events such
as community fora, will depend on the availability of funds.
The design of this project was influenced by the CARD Project that the Sustainability Committee
conducted in 2005. The LaMP Chemical Committee has also contributed to the landowner and
realtor outreach project (see Chapter 2, section 2.2.4 and Chapter 4).
7.3.6 Aboriginal/Tribal Cooperation
Grand Portage Reservation, Fond Du Lac Reservation, Fort William First Nation, and the
Anishinabek of the Gichi Garni, a citizen-based environmental organization based on Fort
William First Nation, hope to build on their growing relationship and will seek to pursue
collaborative activities.
7.3.7 Climate Change Action at Fond du Lac Reservation
The Fond du Lac Reservation
has recently convened a
climate change work group
comprised of Resource
Management Division staff.
This group is gathering
information about reservation-
wide and building-specific
energy efficiency, fleet fuel
efficiency, and other
opportunities to reduce carbon
emissions.
Fond du Lac has also invested
in research on renewable
energy, primarily wind and
biofuels, and plans to install a
biomass generator in 2009.
The tribal council passed a resolution in 2007 signing on to the Kyoto protocols and will seek to
reduce GHG emissions 25 percent by 2020. The climate change work group will bring
recommendations to the tribal council on purchasing policies, energy efficiency improvements,
and other tools for reaching the reduction goals. The work group will continue to reach out to
the tribal community to solicit residents' concerns and ideas for mitigating the effects of climate
change on tribal resources.
Figure 7-8. Fond du Lac Reservation is considering ways to reduce carbon
emissions and mitigate the effects of climate change on tribal resources.
Photo credit: Frank Koshere, Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources.
April 2008
7-13
-------
Lake Superior LaMP 2008
7.3.8 Sustainability Resource Mobilization
The Sustainability Committee will endeavor to stabilize and expand its membership, and will be
looking for additional partners both within and outside the LSBP. This should make it easier to
leverage a variety of resources, thus helping develop and implement Sustainability initiatives.
Particular focus will include recruiting university expertise as well as economic development
councils/corporations to demonstrate sustainable economies.
7.3.9 Baseline Sustainability Indicators - Phase 2
The Sustainability Committee will analyze previously conducted CARD projects to look for
common themes to be pursued. Using the resources mobilized in the above action, the
committee will build a work plan and project sets to address what we have learned.
Lifelong Ecological Consciousness Community Learning Program
As ecological systems are continually being degraded, humanity is facing very serious challenges.
Solutions exist, but they are complex and often muddled by a great deal of misinformation, myth, and
ignorance about ecological systems. The Lifelong Ecological Consciousness Community Learning
Program (LECCLP), a program of the Forum for Ecological Education and Action (www.feea.ca')
based at Thunder Bay's Lakehead University, assists citizens in becoming ecologically literate and
ecologically conscious. By building the knowledge and skills they need to make ecological changes in
their own behaviors and those of their family, and by empowering them to influence broader
community systems through action and leadership committed to sustainable policies and practices,
LECCLP protects and preserves life for future generations.
LECCLP consists of a four-part course in which citizens develop the skills of anticipatory learning, self-
directed learning, co-learning, and life-cycle systems-based thinking. The inaugural Part 1:
Introduction to Ecological Literacy was successfully completed from May to June 2007 and in
November 2007. The next course is scheduled to begin May 1, 2008. Part 2: Extending Our
Ecological Literacy is scheduled to begin April 16, 2008. Part 3: Ecological Location-based Systems
Learning was completed in November 2007. Part 4: Ecological Leadership is slated for either
September 2008 or the spring of 2009.
April 2008 7-14
-------
Chapter 8
Collaborative Efforts
Duluth Harbor skyline at night. Photo credit: Frank Koshere,
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources.
Lake Superior Lakewide Management Plan 2008
-------
-------
Lake Superior LaMP 2008
Chapter 8 Contents
8.0 INTRODUCTION 8-1
8.1 CONNECTING THE COAST CURRICULUM 8-1
8.2 THE GREAT LAKES LEGACY ACT (U.S.) 8-1
8.3 DECISION-MAKING FRAMEWORK FOR CONTAMINATED
SEDIMENTS IN ONTARIO 8-5
8.4 GREAT LAKES REGIONAL COLLABORATION 8-5
8.5 CANADA-ONTARIO AGREEMENT RESPECTING THE
GREAT LAKES BASIN ECOSYSTEM 8-11
8.6 GREAT LAKES BINATIONAL TOXICS STRATEGY 8-12
Table 8-1. GLLA remediation projects completed or substantially completed
as of Dec. 7, 2007 8-3
April 2008
-------
-------
Lake Superior LaMP 2008
Chapter 8
Collaborative Efforts
8.0 INTRODUCTION
Chapter 1 describes the relationship of the LaMP to other initiatives and efforts, including the
Areas of Concern (AOC)/Remedial Action Plan program.
In this chapter, other collaborative efforts will be elaborated on and described.
8.1 CONNECTING THE COAST CURRICULUM
"Connecting the Coast" is a unique, interactive web-based curriculum based on the information,
research, critical issues, and priorities of the Lake Superior Lakewide Management Plan (LaMP).
The curriculum uses LaMP-critical priorities to engage students in connecting learning to action
through self-directed service learning projects. The objective is to positively affect the
stewardship of the Lake Superior ecosystem.
Connecting the Coast uses a systems approach to understanding environmental issues while
applying a service-learning curriculum that engages learners to: 1) investigate critical
environmental issues impacting Lake Superior; 2) create a service learning project to apply what
has been discovered through investigation to a self-initiated service learning project that will
result in making personal or community change to positively address critical issues; 3) act to
complete the service learning experience; and 4) reflect on the outcomes of the service learning
experience through student-directed examination. The curriculum involves high school students,
as citizens and future Lake Superior community leaders, applying a service-learning curriculum
to address the most important Lake Superior Binational Program issues. Students will act as
"learner-doers" and will become the catalysts for personal and community change. The
Connecting the Coast web site is accessible to anyone interested in learning more about Lake
Superior stewardship and environmental issues specific to and within their community.
The issues addressed as curriculum elements are focused on those identified in the LaMP
including: 1) building a sustainable Lake Superior environment; 2) reducing critical Lake
Superior pollutants; 3) restoring critical habitats and native species; 4) controlling invasives; and
5) understanding the relationship between the Lake Superior ecosystem and human health.
Further information on Connecting the Coast can be found in Chapter 6, section 6.1.4. The web
site for the curriculum is http://connectingthecoast.uwex.edu/.
8.2 GREAT LAKES LEGACY ACT (U.S.)
Contaminated sediments at the bottom of rivers and lakes are a significant problem in the Great
Lakes basin. For decades, industrial sources contributed substantial amounts of harmful
April 2008 8-1
-------
Lake Superior LaMP 2008
pollutants to the Great Lakes, including organic molecules like polychlorinated biphenyls
(PCBs), polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) oil and grease, and heavy metals like mercury
and cadmium. Recent improvements in controlling these discharges have greatly reduced the
amount of contaminants being released into the environment, but high levels of contamination
still remain in the sediment as a "legacy" of the historical contamination. These contaminants
continue to enter the food chain where they can cause adverse effects to human health and the
environment.
To help address the contaminated sediment problem, the Great Lakes Legacy Act (GLLA) was
enacted in 2002, and funding for the program began in 2004. The Act authorized $270 million in
funding over five years,1 to assist with the remediation of contaminated sediment in the 31
designated U.S. AOCs. The goal of the US EPA Great Lakes National Program Office, which
administers the GLLA, is to identify all eligible remediation projects within the 31 U.S. AOCs
and develop remediation projects for these sites. GLLA remediation projects must lie within a
U.S. AOC and may be funded up to $50 million per year. Priority is given to:
Remedial action for contaminated sediment;
Projects identified in a Remedial Action Plan;
Projects that will use an innovative approach that may provide greater environmental
benefits, or equivalent environmental benefits at a reduced cost; and
Projects that can begin within a year of funding.
Table 8-1 lists GLLA remediation projects completed or substantially completed as of December
7, 2007. The cumulative volume of sediment remediated in the U.S. since 1997 is depicted in
Figure 8-1. The map on the following page (Figure 8-2) illustrates the progress and
achievements made in sediment remediation activities in the Great Lakes during 2006. Both
Figure 8-1 and Figure 8-2 include quantitative estimates as reported by project managers. Data
collection and reporting efforts are described in the Great Lakes Sediment Remediation Project
Summary Support, Quality Assurance Project Plan2 Detailed project information is available
upon request from project managers.
1 To date, $91.5 million has been appropriated over 4 years as follows: $9.9 million in FY2004, $22.3 million in
FY2005, $29.3 million in FY2006, and $30 million in FY2007.
2 US EPA. (2006). Quality Assurance Project Plan for Great Lakes Sediment Remediation Project Summary
Support. Unpublished GLNPO document available from Mary Beth G. Ross (ross.marybeth@epa.gov).
April 2008 !
-------
Lake Superior LaMP 2008
Table 8-1. GLLA remediation projects completed or substantially completed as of Dec. 7,
2007.
Cubic Pounds of
Total Cost Yards Major Contaminants
Project Action ($Million) Removed Contaminants Removed
Black Lagoon
Hog Island
Ruddiman Creek
Tannery Bay*
Ashtabula*
Removal/Residual
Cover
Removal
Removal/Residual
Cover
Removal
Removal/Residual
Cover
$8.7
$5.7
$14.2
$8.0
$60.0
115,000
46,000
90,000
41,000
496,000
PCBs,
Mercury, Oil &
Grease
PAHs, Lead
PCBs, Lead,
Chromium
Mercury,
Chromium
PCBs
338,000
7,500
333,000
882,000
25,000
' Costs for Ashtabula and Tannery Bay are estimates, as are the cubic yards and pounds removed for Ashtabula.
5,000,000
(Xi
"2 4,000,000
OS
g 3,000,000
* 2,000,000
o
1,000,000
1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
Year
Figure 8-1. Cumulative volume of sediment remediated in the U.S. since 1997. Source:
US EPA Great Lakes National Program Office
April 2008
8-3
-------
Lake Superior LaMP 2008
Great Lakes Sediment Remediations in 2006*
*Information included in the pie charts ;
Remediation Reject Summary Support'
,re quantitative estimates as reportedly proj ect managers. Dia collection and reporting efforts are described in the "Great Lakes Sediment
Quality Assurance RojectPlan (GLNPO, March 2006). Detailed project information is available up onrequest from project managers.
1. St. Louis River/
Interlake/DuluthTar
Du lut h, M inne so ta
48,500cy
69,000 cy
361,000 cy
2. Tannery Bay - Sault
Ste. Marie, Michigan
8,900 cy
3 l,000cy
3. Lower Fox River, OU1
Neenah, Wisconsin
102,487cy
(467.4kg ' y
500,000 cy
# Action taken in 2006
Sites remediated or natural
recovery decided
Sites where some remediation
has occurred
Sites awaiting remediation
.decision
4. Upper Sheboygan River
Sheboygan, Wisconsin
!,723 cy
26,615 cy
5. Ruddiman Creek
Musk eg on, Michigan
54,100cy
35,900 cy
I Volume removed in 2006
Volume capped in 2006
I Volume undergoing natural
^^ recovery in 2006
I Volume remediated prior to 2006
I Volume awaiting remediation
6. Velsicol Chemical
St. Louis,Michigan
641,975 cy
10. St. Marys River-
AlgomaBoat Slip
2,630m3 __
9. AshtabulaRiver
Ashtabula, Ohio
6U03cy
460,000 cy
8. BASFRiverview
Riverview, Michigan
26,500 cy
7. Saginaw River/Lake
L into n - S agi naw, M ch igan
7000 cy ^
~ -^ 17,000 cy
Figure 8-2. Progress in U.S. sediment remediation in the Great Lakes during 2006. Source: US EPA
Great Lakes National Program Office
(OU = Operable Unit; cy = cubic yards; m3 = cubic meters)
April 2008
-------
Lake Superior LaMP 2008
8.3 DECISION-MAKING FRAMEWORK FOR CONTAMINATED SEDIMENTS IN
ONTARIO
A risk-based decision-making framework for contaminated sediments was completed under the
2002-2007 Canada-Ontario Agreement Respecting the Great Lakes Basin Ecosystem (CO A) and
placed on the Province of Ontario Environmental Registry for a public comment period
(November 21, 2006, to January 20, 2007). The Ontario Ministry of Environment (MOE) is
integrating the document with existing guidance to produce "Guidelines for Identifying,
Assessing and Managing Contaminated Sediments in Ontario: An Integrated Approach".
Pending final internal MOE review, the guidance will be applied throughout the province.
The COA framework is being applied to evaluate the need for management actions in a number
of the project sites in the Areas of Concern.
8.4 GREAT LAKES REGIONAL COLLABORATION
In May 2004, President Bush signed Executive Order 13340 to create a cabinet-level interagency
task force and to call for a "regional collaboration of national significance." After extensive
discussions, the federal Great Lakes Interagency Task Force (IATF), the Council of Great Lakes
Governors, the Great Lakes Cities Initiative, Great Lakes tribes, and the Great Lakes
Congressional Task Force moved to convene a group now known as the Great Lakes Regional
Collaboration (GLRC or Collaboration).
The Collaboration includes the US EPA-led federal agency task force, the Great Lakes states,
local communities, tribes, non-governmental organizations, and other interests in the Great
Lakes region. In December 2005, the Collaboration released recommendations for the following
areas: aquatic invasive species, habitat conservation and species management, near-shore waters
and coastal areas, areas of concern, non-point sources, toxic pollutants, sound information base
and representative indicators, and sustainability. The full set of recommendations can be found
in the Great Lakes Regional Collaboration Strategy to Restore and Protect the Great Lakes.3
The GLRC has encouraged and supported the initiation of several projects to restore and protect
the Great Lakes basin, including the Lake Superior ecosystem. Actions taken to date to
implement these recommendations are presented below.
Federal Great Lakes Interagency Task Force Near-Term Actions
On December 12, 2005, US EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson announced a federal
commitment to further the recommendations contained in the Great Lakes Regional
Collaboration Strategy to Restore and Protect the Great Lakes through implementation of a
series of near-term actions. The list included 48 specific actions consisting of one or more
activities to be accomplished. The IATF is making progress both in terms of implementing
projects to restore and protect the Great Lakes and in improving coordination and
communication among the Task Force members. Highlights of progress include:
3 Great Lakes Regional Collaboration. 2005. Strategy to Restore and Protect the Great Lakes. Available at
http://www.glrc.us/strategv.html.
April 2008 8-5
-------
Lake Superior LaMP 2008
Twelve of the 48 original near-terms actions are completed; three have been moved to
long-term status; the other 33 are on track.
US EPA, working with state and local partners, has developed a standardized beach
sanitary survey form for state and local governments to use in assessing their beaches.
US EPA is supporting implementation pilots using the new survey.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has listed the Asian Silver Carp, Largescale Silver
Carp, and Black Carp as injurious under the Lacey Act.
In its fiscal year 2008 budget, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
(NOAA) requested funding to establish habitat restoration partnerships focused on Areas
of Concern in the Great Lakes, and to create a special NOAA Office on Great Lakes
Habitat Restoration that would provide a focal point for all of NOAA's restoration efforts
in the Great Lakes.
Twenty-two environmental restoration projects around the Great Lakes, including the
Lake Superior basin, are being funded this year under the Great Lakes Watershed
Restoration Grant program. The program is providing $1.1 million in federal money and
leveraging an additional $1.9 million in contributions by non-federal partners. Partner
agencies are US EPA, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, NOAA, Forest Service, and the
Natural Resources Conservation Service.
US EPA has completed five Legacy Act projects (four remediation/one monitor and
evaluate), and has six additional projects underway (all monitor and evaluate).
The lATF's Regional Working Group has been meeting weekly for over a year to
oversee implementation of the list of near-term actions, as well as other provisions of the
President's Executive Order on the Great Lakes. The meetings have also become an
important forum to share information about new programs/initiatives and funding
opportunities among members.
The IATF created the Wetlands Subcommittee and the Aquatic Invasive Species Rapid
Response Subcommittee to improve interagency coordination on two high-priority areas
for the Great Lakes. Both subcommittees are also bringing in non-federal partners
through joint projects in cooperation with the GLRC.
Figure 8-3. Bark Bay wetlands. Photo credit: Janet Keough, US EPA.
April 2008
-------
Lake Superior LaMP 2008
Great Lakes Regional Collaboration Strategy - Collaboration Efforts
The Collaboration partners have begun a series of joint initiatives to address issues in the GLRC
Strategy, including invasive species, toxic reductions, habitat protection and restoration, and
clean beaches. These initiatives are described below.
Aquatic Invasive Species
Aquatic Invasive Species Rapid Response Initiative
While preventing the introduction of aquatic invasive species (AIS) is the first line of defense
against invasions, even the best prevention efforts may not stop all AIS introductions. In 2007,
the GLRC Executive Committee endorsed the formation of an Aquatic Invasive Species Rapid
Response Initiative to increase the likelihood that invasions will be addressed successfully
through early detection and rapid response efforts, while populations are still localized and can
be contained and eradicated. In the summer of 2007, a Communication Protocol was developed
at the direction of the GLRC Executive Committee, and Points of Contact were identified by
participating GLRC agencies. In December 2007, a compendium of the Points of Contact and
Communication Protocol was finalized and distributed to GLRC agencies. GLRC agencies are
now developing plans for a mock exercise to test the Communication Protocol in early summer
2008.
Great Lakes Clean Boat Initiative
GLRC partners and the media will promote a "Great Lakes Clean Boat Day" early in the 2008
boating season. This effort will celebrate recreational boating in the Great Lakes and promote
practices which will reduce the spread of aquatic invasive species. The Great Lakes are one of
the top recreational boating destinations in the nation. Nearly 4.3 million boats are registered in
the eight Great Lakes stateswith approximately $16 billion spent on boats and boating
activities in a single year,
directly supporting 107,000
jobs. Outreach efforts to this
user group can help ensure a
healthy Great Lakes
ecosystem, as well as help
support a strong and
sustainable recreational
economy. Agencies are
compiling educational
material over the winter of
2008. At the same time, the
Great Lakes states are
determining the preferred day
or days for holding "Great
Lakes Clean Boat Day."
Figure 8-4. Bayfield, Wisconsin, Madeline Island Ferry leaves the dock.
Photo credit: Frank Koshere, WDNR.
April 2008
8-7
-------
Lake Superior LaMP 2008
Toxic Pollutants
Toxic Pollutants Initiative
The Toxic Pollutants Initiative sets forth a series of near-term activities undertaken by members
of the Collaboration to reduce or virtually eliminate persistent toxic substances such as mercury
and PCBs in the basin, as well as prevent new toxic threats to the basin through pollution
prevention and enhanced surveillance, protect public health through education and outreach, and
work with international forums to address sources outside the basin. Initiative activities include:
1. Mercury Phase-down Strategy - In 2007, a workgroup of state, tribal, and city staff
developed a basinwide Great Lakes mercury product stewardship strategy to fulfill the
GLRC Strategy recommendation to phase down mercury in products and waste. The
draft Mercury in Products Phase-Down Strategy is posted at
http ://www. glrc.us/initiatives/toxics/drafthgphasedownstrategy .html.
2. Burn Barrel Education and Outreach Campaign - US EPA and Great Lakes states,
tribes, and cities are jointly developing an education and outreach program to address
open burning across the Great Lakes basin. Targeted at local and tribal waste
management officials, this project provides information on infrastructure and alternatives
to burning in communities, as well as tools to strengthen burning ordinances and support
greater compliance with current regulations. This program is being presented at meetings
in all Great Lakes states.
3 Pharmaceutical and Electronic Waste Disposal Education and Outreach - US EPA,
Great Lakes states, tribes, and cities are developing an education and outreach effort to
address pharmaceutical and electronic wastes in the Great Lakes basin. This effort,
targeting waste management officials, provides information about disposal and recycling
policies and options. Illinois/Indiana Sea Grant, Great Lakes states, and US EPA staff
have presented information to local solid waste management officials and others on
pharmaceutical waste at numerous conferences throughout the basin.
4. Great Lakes Sport Fish Consortium Project - The Great Lakes Sport Fish
Consortium, the Wisconsin Department of Health and Family Services, and
representatives of Great Lakes states and tribes finalized the Protocol for Mercury-based
Fish Consumption Advice: An addendum to the 1993 Protocol for a Uniform Great Lakes
Sport Fish Consumption Advisory, with funding from US EPA. Basinwide fish
consumption outreach materials related to mercury will be produced by the end of 2008.
Mercury Emission Reduction Initiative
In 2007, the GLRC decided, under its Toxic Pollutants Initiative, to develop a strategy for
reducing mercury emissions across the Great Lakes region. This effort should produce
institutionalized activities to sustain mercury emissions reduction from new and existing sources
whose mercury emissions have not been regulated, and from sources where regulations have
been implemented but additional reductions are technically feasible and economically
reasonable. Examples of potential sources include manufacturing processes that produce
April 2008
-------
Lake Superior LaMP 2008
mercury emissions, and the disposal of mercury-containing products. A strategy will be drafted
in 2008, including an evaluation of the major sources of mercury deposition in the Great Lakes
region, identification of priority sectors, and reduction approaches.
Habitat/Species
Habitat/Wetlands Initiative
The GLRC Strategy outlined the problems
associated with habitat loss and degradation
and provided recommendations for
protecting and restoring Great Lakes
habitat. To address the strategy's key
habitat and wetland issues, the
Collaboration launched a Wetlands
Initiative with two near-term goals: 1) a
wetlands challenge to federal and non-
federal partners to protect and restore
200,000 acres of wetlands in the Great
Lakes basin; and 2) improving coordination
of federal wetlands management programs.
Figure 8-5. A Habitat/Wetlands Initiative will seek to
address the key problems identified in the GLRC Strategy.
Photo Credit: Steve Durocher. Cedar Tree Institute.
At the same time, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers launched a $1 million Great Lakes Habitat
Initiative that builds upon the recommendations of the GLRC Strategy. The initiative will help
partners advance habitat and wetland restoration projects by connecting partners with the
information and resources they need to make projects happen. This effort includes developing a
database and detailed inventory of potential habitat and wetlands restoration projects.
The two initiatives share similar goals and have been merged into one overarching
Habitat/Wetlands Initiative, focusing initially on coordination to accomplish the wetlands
challenge to federal and non-federal partners to protect and restore 200,000 acres in the Great
Lakes basin.
Beach Project Initiative
The GLRC identified coastal health as a challenge, recognizing the significance of beaches to the
economic well-being, health, and quality of life of the region's citizens. Because contamination
leading to beach advisories continues to be a concern in the basin, the GLRC called for the
identification of sources of contamination and remediation. Several federal, state, local, and
tribal partners who work together with the Great Lakes Beach Association are creating and
improving the use of sanitary surveys and beach forecasting models. The GLRC will increase
this cooperation by supporting and encouraging the use of sanitary surveys and predictive
modeling. Ultimately, the GLRC hopes to recognize and integrate sanitary survey tools and
predictive modeling as a coastal health initiative to enhance the health of beaches along the
Great Lakes to promote recreational activity and reduce risk to human health. In 2008, the
partners are developing outreach materials for distribution and utilization of the sanitary survey
tools and predictive models.
April 2008
-------
Lake Superior LaMP 2008
Figure 8-6. A man plays catch with his dog at Wisconsin Point on Lake Superior. Photo credit: Frank
Koshere, WDNR.
Great Lakes Watershed Restoration Grant Program
For the past three years, the Great Lakes Watershed Restoration Grant Program (Program) has
funded projects to develop and implement local watershed plans that: address water quality and
living resources in Great Lakes watersheds; help restore critical sand dune, wetland, forest, and
stream habitats for fish and wildlife; and control invasive plant species. In response to a
September 1, 2007, request for proposals, 54 proposals were received and are now being
reviewed by Program partners. Decisions on grant awards will be announced in late March
2008.
Funding for the Program has come from five federal agencies: US EPA, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, Forest Service, NOAA, and Natural Resource Conservation Service. For the last three
years, the five agencies have contributed discretionary money for the Program through
agreements with the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation (NFWF). NFWF coordinates the
Program, including issuing yearly requests for proposals, conducting proposal reviews, and
administrating grants.
In fiscal year 2006, 14 projects were funded with $827,000 in federal funds and more than $1.3
million in non-federal contributions. In fiscal year 2007, 22 projects were funded with $1.1
million in federal funds and more than $1.8 million in non-federal contributions from partners.
This year, more than $1 million in federal funds will be available. In addition, NFWF has
April 2008
8-10
-------
Lake Superior LaMP 2008
secured funding in the amount of $700,000 for each of the next three years from ArcelorMittal
Steel to supplement the Program.
Figure 8-7. Boaters explore Huron Island National Wildlife Refuge. Photo credit: Frank Koshere, WDNR.
8.5 CANADA-ONTARIO AGREEMENT RESPECTING THE GREAT LAKES
BASIN ECOSYSTEM
On August 16, 2007, Canada and Ontario announced the official signing of the 2007-2010
Canada-Ontario Agreement Respecting the Great Lakes Basin Ecosystem (COA). This renews a
commitment by the governments of Canada and Ontario to work towards restoration, protection,
and maintenance of the Great Lakes basin ecosystem.
The COA includes collaborative actions between six federal and three provincial agencies
focused on achieving specific results towards the agreement's long-term vision of a healthy,
prosperous, and sustainable Great Lakes ecosystem. It contains over 180 commitments that are
supported by hundreds of individual projects. The agreement focuses on cleaning up 15 severely
degraded ecosystems in the Great Lakes (Areas of Concern), reducing harmful pollutants,
improving water quality, conserving fish and wildlife species and habitats, lessening the threat of
aquatic invasive species, and improving land management practices within the Great Lakes
basin. The COA also contains new areas of cooperation such as protecting sources of drinking
April 2008
8-11
-------
Lake Superior LaMP 2008
water, understanding the impacts of climate change, and encouraging sustainable use of land,
water, and other natural resources. It ensures that scientific information is available to support
remediation and protection efforts and to measure their success for the benefit of the growing
number of Canadians dependent upon the lakes. The COA will also contribute to meeting
Canada's obligations under the Canada-U.S. Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement, which has
recently undergone review by both countries. A new COA beyond 2010 would consider the
recommendations and results of that review.
Annex 3 of COA focuses on Lake and Basin Sustainability. The approach for Annex 3 is to
continue to work via binational lakewide and basinwide programs to respond to the interrelated
and cumulative challenges facing the long-term prosperity of the Great Lakes. There are six
goals in Annex 3:
1. Encourage and enhance Great Lakes sustainability;
2. Improve water quality in each Great Lake by making progress on virtual elimination of
persistent bioaccumulative toxic substances and the reduction of harmful pollutants;
3. Conserve and protect aquatic ecosystems, species and genetic diversity;
4. Reduce the threat of aquatic invasive species in the Great Lakes Areas of Special Focus;
5. Understand the impact of climate change on the Great Lakes ecosystem; and
6. Develop and implement locally-created, science-based source protection plans to identify
and mitigate risks to drinking water sources in the basin.
8.6 GREAT LAKES BINATIONAL TOXICS STRATEGY
The Great Lakes Binational Toxics Strategy (GLBTS or Strategy) marked its 10-year
anniversary in May 2007. Over the past 10 years, the governments of Canada and the U.S.,
along with stakeholders from industry, academia, state/provincial and local governments, Tribes,
First Nations, and environmental and community groups, have worked together toward the
achievement of the Strategy's challenge goals for 12 Level 1 persistent toxic substances. Of the
Strategy's 17 challenge goals that were established in 1997, 12 have been achieved and one more
is expected in the near future; significant progress has been made toward the remaining four
challenge goals.
While the substance-specific workgroups for mercury, PCBs, dioxins/furans, and
hexachlorobenzene (HCB) and benzo(a)pyrene (B(a)P) continued to work toward meeting their
challenge goals, the highlight of 2007 for the GLBTS Integration Workgroup was a series of 10-
year anniversary events held in Chicago in May. The events began with a Stakeholder Forum
followed by an evening reception and dinner. A GLBTS Future Focus Workshop to consider
broadening the GLBTS to address emerging chemical threats to the Great Lakes basin was also
held in conjunction with the 10-year anniversary events.
April 2008 8-12
-------
Lake Superior LaMP 2008
Considering stakeholders' ideas about
future directions for the GLBTS,
including emerging substances of
interest in the Great Lakes, US EPA and
Environment Canada proposed a new
path forward for the GLBTS that aligns
with work being undertaken by other
existing Great Lakes programs, such as
the Great Lakes Water Quality
Agreement, and is consistent with
domestic and international chemical
management programs, including the
Canada-Ontario Agreement Respecting
the Great Lakes Basin, Canada's
Chemicals Management Plan, U.S.
High Production Volume program, and
the tri-lateral U.S./Canada/Mexico
Security and Prosperity Partnership.
Figure 8-8. In May 2007, the GLBTS marked its 10-year
anniversary with a series of events in Chicago, Illinois. Photo
credit: Kelly Phillips, Environment Canada.
The new path forward for the GLBTS includes the creation of two new groups focused on
emerging substances and their associated sectors: a new Substance Group and Sector Group.
The Substance Group will focus on information gathering and integration of data on potential
toxic substances in the Great Lakes basin. The Sector Group will review information on
industrial sectors within the basin and explore potential opportunities for the GLBTS process to
enhance the environmental management activities of select industries. These groups will work
together to identify potential opportunities for action that may be accomplished through the
GLBTS.
April 2008
8-13
-------
Chapter 9
Climate Change and its Impact on
the Lake Superior Basin
Ice caves at Meyers Beach, Bayfield, Wisconsin. Photo credit: Frank Koshere,
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources.
Lake Superior Lakewide Management Plan 2008
-------
-------
Lake Superior LaMP 2008
Chapter 9 Contents
9.0 BACKGROUND 9-1
9.1 OBSERVED AND ANTICIPATED EFFECTS ON THE GREAT LAKES BASIN
ECOSYSTEM 9-1
9.2 ACTIVITIES 9-3
9.2.1 LAMP ACTIVITIES 9-3
9.2.2 OTHER ACTIVITIES 9-3
9.3 OUTREACH 9-9
9.4 CHALLENGES 9-9
9.5 NEXT STEPS 9-10
9.6 REFERENCES 9-11
ADDENDUM 9A: US EPA REGION 5 FRAMEWORK FOR ADDRESSING
CLIMATE CHANGE AND CLEAN ENERGY 9A-1
ADDENDUM 9B: CANADA'S REGULATORY FRAMEWORK FOR
AIR EMISSIONS 9B-1
April 2008 9-i
-------
-------
Lake Superior LaMP 2008
Chapter 9
Climate Change and its Impact on the Lake Superior Basin
9.0 BACKGROUND
The United Nations recently released the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's (IPCC)
Fourth Assessment Report Climate Change 2007 (or Synthesis Report). This report summarizes
the most important findings, which include:
1. Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident from observations of
increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and
ice, and a rising global average sea level.
2. Observational evidence from all continents and most oceans shows that many natural
systems are being affected by regional climate changes, particularly temperature
increases.
a. In terrestrial ecosystems, earlier timing of spring events and poleward shifts in
plant and animal ranges are with very high confidence linked to recent warming.
In some marine and freshwater systems, shifts in ranges and changes in algal,
plankton, and fish abundance are with high confidence associated with rising
water temperatures, as well as related changes in ice cover, salinity, oxygen
levels, and circulation.
3. Global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions due to human activities have grown since pre-
industrial times, with an increase of 70 percent between 1970 and 2004.
a. Changes in atmospheric concentrations of GHGs and aerosols, land-cover, and
solar radiation have altered the energy balance of the climate system.
b. Global atmospheric concentrations of CO2, methane (CH4), and nitrous oxide
(N2O) have increased markedly as a result of human activities since 1750 and
now far exceed pre-industrial values determined from ice cores spanning many
thousands of years.
4. Most of the observed increase in globally-averaged temperatures since the mid-20th
century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic GHG concentrations.
It is likely that there has been significant warming from anthropogenic sources over the
past 50 years averaged over each continent (except Antarctica).
9.1 OBSERVED AND ANTICIPATED EFFECTS ON THE GREAT LAKES BASIN
ECOSYSTEM
The effects of a changing climate are now and continuing to be experienced in the Great Lakes
and the Lake Superior basin over the next century. In a report prepared for the International
Joint Commission (DC) by the Great Lakes Water Quality Board in 2003, Environment Canada
April 2008 9-1
-------
Lake Superior LaMP 2008
and US EPA scientists extensively detailed documented and anticipated effects to the Great
Lakes ecosystem due to climate change. The Union of Concerned Scientists also issued a report
detailing similar changes. These include the following:
Winters are getting shorter;
Annual average temperatures are growing warmer, in fact increases are projected to be
anywhere from 2°C to almost 4°C (Kling et al. 2003);
Extreme heat events are occurring more frequently;
The duration of lake ice cover is decreasing as air and water temperatures rise; and
Heavy precipitation events, both rain and snow, are becoming more common.
In addition, anticipated changes include the following:
Future lake levels are expected to decline as
winter ice coverage decreases;
Declines in the duration of winter ice cover
are expected to continue;
Earlier ice breakup and earlier peaks in
spring runoff will change the timing of
stream flows;
The distributions offish and other organisms
in lakes and streams will change. Coldwater
species such as lake trout, brook trout, and
white fish are likely to decline in the
southern parts of the Great Lakes region,
while warm water species are likely to
expand northward;
Invasions by non-native species will likely be
more common, increasing the stress on native
plant and animal populations;
Lower water levels coupled with warmer
water temperatures may accelerate the
accumulation of mercury in the aquatic food
chain;
Increased incidence of extreme events such
as severe storms and floods;
More forest fires will result from hotter and
drier conditions; and
Increases in the number and severity of
summertime pollution episodes.
Figure 9-1. One of the expected effects of
climate change is more frequent invasions of
non-native species such as this Eurasian
water milfoil. Photo credit: Frank Koshere,
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources.
In short, the Great Lakes basin is already seeing significant impacts associated with global
warming, and scenarios project far greater warming in the 21st century. Both adaptation and
mitigation activities are necessary to begin to address climate change impacts.
April 2008
9-2
-------
Lake Superior LaMP 2008
9.2 ACTIVITIES
The Lake Superior LaMP is beginning to address the potential problems and effects of climate
change on the basin, through outreach and education, mitigation activities, and adaptation
projects. Some of these activities are detailed below.
9.2.1 LAMP ACTIVITIES
Climate change was a primary focus of the Making a Great Lake Superior 2007 conference, held
in Duluth, Minnesota, on October 29-31, 2007. Both a plenary session and a focused breakout
session on climate change were included, with presentations by members of the United Nations
IPCC (see text box on page 9-5).
Goals to address the issue of climate change have been incorporated into the revised LaMP
Ecosystem Goals, including climate change mitigation and adaptation actions.
A US EPA grant to the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency and the Will Steger Foundation will
focus on climate change outreach/education and adaptation and mitigation actions, consistent
with the LaMP climate change Ecosystem Goals.
9.2.2 OTHER ACTIVITIES
The following are Lake Superior and Great Lakes basin activities
related to climate change that support LaMP goals.
The towns of Ashland and Washburn, Wisconsin, passed
Eco-Municipality Designation Resolutions calling for
reducing dependence on fossil fuels, the primary
contributor to GHG emissions and ozone depletion.1
The Town of Bayfield unanimously passed a resolution
on October 16, 2006, to follow the Natural Step
framework and join Washburn and Ashland as eco-
municipalities.
The Sustainable Chequamegon Initiative, a project of the
Alliance for Sustainability, has drafted a Sustainable
Chequamegon Initiative Strategic Plan for 2006-2011
that incorporates the Natural Step framework and climate
change mitigation actions and activities.
Apostle Islands National Lakeshore is educating the
public on climate change as well as pursuing carbon
mitigation strategies. The National Park Service
provides a comprehensive list of climate change talking
Figure 9-2. Apostle Islands
National Lakeshore is educating
the public on climate change and is
pursuing carbon mitigation
strategies. Photo credit: Frank
Koshere, Wisconsin Department of
Natural Resources.
1 North American EcoMunicipality Network Update. 2007. Available at www. lkfriends.org/documents/NAEco-
MunicipalitvNerworkUpdateforTNSIMeeting-Januarv2007.pdf.
April 2008
9-3
-------
Lake Superior LaMP 2008
points and a brochure detailing the anticipated effects on the Great Lakes region. Apostle
Islands National Lakeshore has also established a sustainability policy and a list of best
management practices for climate change mitigation and adaptation. The park also
participates in the national Climate Friendly Parks program.2
Researchers at the Large Lakes Observatory at the University of Minnesota at Duluth
spoke at the Making a Great Lake Superior 2007 conference on the effects of
temperature change on the lake. They have concluded that Lake Superior is responding
more quickly to climate change than previously expected and that the surface water
temperatures of Lake Superior are rising rapidly while annual ice coverage of the lake is
simultaneously declining. The study looked at air temperatures, ice cover, and water
temperature data collected at buoy sites since 1906.3
Figure 9-3. Research indicates that annual ice coverage on Lake Superior is declining.
Photo Credit: Frank Koshere, Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources.
Minnesota, under the leadership of Governor Tim Pawlenty, has been a leader in
pursuing reductions in GHG emissions. The Governor recently proposed, and the
legislature passed, an energy plan that puts Minnesota squarely at the front of states
leading the way toward increasing energy efficiency, expanding community-based
energy development, and establishing a statewide goal to reduce GHG emissions. The
Plan also requires Minnesota's electric utilities to provide 25 percent renewable
electricity by 2025.
National Park Service Climate Change and Sustainability website. Available at
http://www.nps.gov/apis/naturescience/climate-change-and-sustainabilitv.htm.
3 Austin, J. 2007. Rapid warming of Lake Superior. Available at http://www.d.umn.edu/~jaustin/ICE.html.
April 2008
9-4
-------
Lake Superior LaMP 2008
Making a Great Lake Superior 2007 Conference
The main message from the climate change experts at the Lake Superior conference could be
summarized as:
Solutions to climate change are available to us, and the time to act is now.
This message was delivered by both elected officials and US EPA and Environment Canada climate
change experts among the 500 people who participated in the Lake Superior conference in Duluth in
October of 2007. Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty voiced his commitment to pursuing climate
change actions, citing the creation of his own Climate Change Advisory Group as an example. Top
officials from the US EPA and Environment Canada joined a keynote panel to detail the global causes
and local effects of a changing climate on the environment. Dr. Joel Scheraga (US EPA) and Dr.
Linda Mortsch (Environment Canada), both members of the 2007 Nobel Prize-winning
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, joined Environment Canada climatologist David Phillips
in demonstrating that unprecedented weather conditions, such as extreme storm events and droughts,
are expected and that communities must adapt their infrastructure to endure. Their message was
backed by a full day of presentations and dialogue among scientists, natural resource managers,
outreach specialists, and government officials.
Mitigation and adaptation actions were cited as the most important strategies by the keynote panel.
Following the panel, participants had the chance to learn how the global phenomenon of a changing
climate is expected to affect the Lake Superior ecosystem. During the climate change breakout
session, presentations from university researchers from Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Ontario shared
information with a captivated audience on the warming of surface waters, the decrease of ice
coverage, and the decline in amphibian communities. Managers from the National Park Service and
the City of Thunder Bay spoke to the ongoing challenges caused by changing ecological conditions
and their methods of promoting sustainability as a means of mitigating the problem. After hearing the
experts, plans for mitigation and adaptation actions varied, yet one component was agreed upon: the
timeline for action is today.
Dr. Joel Scherega and Dr. Linda Mortsch discuss climate change at the Making a Great Lake Superior 2007
conference. Photo credit: Elizabeth LaPlante, US EPA.
April 2008
9-5
-------
Lake Superior LaMP 2008
Environment Canada and Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources have contributed to a
publication released by Natural Resources Canada called Coastal Zone and Climate
Change on the Great Lakes4 The report details on a lake-by-lake basis expected climate
change variables, impacts, and adaptation strategies based upon a series of community-
based workshops held in the Great Lakes basin, plus the review of scientific, peer-
reviewed literature, scientific assessment of changes in climatic variables (e.g.,
temperature and precipitation) and evaluation of GCM (global climate models) climate
change scenario data. The impacts to the coastal region of Lake Superior are expected to
be less than those associated with the other Great Lakes. This is because of the low level
of human settlement in the Ontario portion of the Lake Superior basin and the great size
and depth of the lake, which will moderate warming trends. Monitoring these impacts
and the adaptation strategies are key to moving forward with the LaMP.
In 2003, the Water Quality Board issued a report to the International Joint Commission
on the projected effects of climate change on the Great Lakes basin and recommended
management strategies.5
Lake Superior Work Group members participated in the "Pileus Project," coordinated by
Michigan State University (MSU) and US EPA's Office of Research and Development.
This project provides useful climate information to assist decision makers. The current
focus is on two leading industries in the Great Lakes region: agriculture and tourism.
Through the use of climate models and participatory workshops, Pileus seeks to: provide
a better understanding of historical climate trends, variability, and their past impacts on
people and industry; evaluate how future climate trends and variability may impact
people and industry, using newly developed, climate-related models; and create an
economic framework which explicitly incorporates climate into the decision-making
process. Stakeholders and researchers from the Pileus Project are building on each
other's experiences, pooling expertise, and expanding knowledge about climate impacts
on industry. The core research team is located at MSU and consists of scientists from
diverse disciplines. For more information about the Pileus Project, see
http://pileus.msu.edu.
US EPA Region 5 recently released its climate change strategy, entitled USEPA Region 5
Framework for Addressing Climate Change and Clean Energy (presented in Addendum
9A to this chapter).6 The framework focuses on:
o Changing how our energy is produced;
o Changing how our energy is used;
o Changing how materials, products, and waste are managed; and
o Integrating climate change considerations into US EPA operations and core
programs.
4 Coastal Zone and Climate Change on the Great Lakes. 2006. Available at
http://adaptation.nrcan.gc.ca/projdb/pdf/85a e.pdf.
5 Climate Change and Water Quality in the Great Lakes Basin; Report of the Great Lakes Water Quality Board to
the International Joint Commission, ISBN 1-894280-42-3. 2003. Available at
http ://www. ij c .org/php/publications/html/climate/index. html.
6 US EPA Region 5 Framework for Addressing Climate Change and Clean Energy. 2008. Available at
http://www.epa.gov/region5/aboutr5/index.htm.
April 2008 9-6
-------
Lake Superior LaMP 2008
Annex 3 (Lake and Basin Sustainability) of the Canada-Ontario Agreement Respecting
the Great Lakes Basin Ecosystem (COA) addresses ecosystem sustainability, including
climate change. It is agreed that climate change will affect the Great Lakes basin
ecosystem. Understanding the impacts of climate change on the Great Lakes basin
ecosystem in support of the development of adaptation strategies is one goal of COA.
Over the next three years, Canada and Ontario will work together to develop a
comprehensive management framework that considers the full range of impacts that can
be expected for the Great Lakes basin from present and future climatic changes. The
framework will incorporate four elements:
1. Identifying and projecting changes to climate and ecosystems:
2. Assessing impacts and vulnerabilities;
3. Adapting to change; and
4. Learning from impacts and adaptation research internationally and
domestically.
In order to achieve the goal of understanding the impacts of climate change on the Great
Lakes basin ecosystem in support of the development of adaptation strategies, two results
have been identified. Canada and Ontario have made commitments in order to achieve
these results.
Result 1: The impacts of climate change on ecosystem composition, structure, and
function, including biodiversity (organisms and their habitat), water quality and quantity,
human health and safety (including access to clean drinking water), social well-being and
economic prosperity are understood in support of the development of adaptation
strategies. Canada and Ontario commitments:
a) Support the development of evidence, indicators, and model projections of climate
and ecosystem change in the Great Lakes basin;
b) Increase understanding of the impacts on and vulnerabilities of the Great Lakes,
including biodiversity, natural resources, water assets, human health and safety, the
economy and infrastructure in support of the development of adaptation strategies; and
c) Facilitate linkages to climate change science, impacts, adaptation, and policy work
of international, national, provincial and municipal governments, non-governmental
organizations, industry, and academia.
Result 2: The capacity of Great Lakes communities to adapt to a changing climate is
increased. Canada commitment:
a) Provide information to decision-makers and the public on scientific studies of
atmospheric hazards and regional atmospheric change impacts.
Ontario commitment:
b) Continue working with other agencies and organizations to help communities
around the Great Lakes ensure that foundation work is begun on managing the impacts
of climate change.
As of February 2008, four of the larger cities in the Lake Superior basin, Marquette,
Ashland, Superior, and Duluth, had signed on to the U.S. Mayors' Climate Protection
Agreement. Under the Agreement, participating cities commit to take the following three
actions:
April 2008 9-7
-------
Lake Superior LaMP 2008
o Strive to meet or beat the Kyoto Protocol targets in their own communities,
through actions ranging from anti-sprawl land-use policies to urban forest
restoration projects to public information campaigns;
o Urge their state governments, and the federal government, to enact policies and
programs to meet or beat the GHG emission reduction target suggested for the
U.S. in the Kyoto Protocola 7 percent reduction from 1990 levels by 2012; and
o Urge the U.S. Congress to pass bipartisan GHG reduction legislation, which would
establish a national emission trading system.
The National Summit on Coping with Climate Change took place on May 8-10, 2007, in
Ann Arbor, Michigan, and included participants from the Binational Program. The
summit brought together leading scientists and scholars with key decision makers in a
structured discussion that addressed the options available to institutions, firms, and
societies in the U.S. for adapting and responding to climate change. The summit focused
on four specific sectors that represent illustrative examples of the social, economic,
environmental, and natural resource issues that need to be addressed. The chosen areas
of focus were public health, the energy industry, water quality, and fisheries. The
summit then turned its attention to general models for how different kinds of
organizations, within these sectors and more generally, can put into place structures or
processes that help them to anticipate and adapt to near- and long-term change.7
The National Governor's Association (NGA), chaired by Governor Tim Pawlenty of
Minnesota, has developed a publication entitled Securing a Clean Energy Future: A Call
to Action, which outlines a strategy for reducing dependence on oil and reducing
emissions of GHGs.8
In October 2006, Canada announced The Action Plan to Reduce Greenhouse Gases and
Air Pollution - including the intention to regulate GHGs that cause climate change. The
Action Plan to Reduce Greenhouse Gases and Air Pollution will:
o Impose mandatory targets on industry to achieve a goal of an absolute reduction
of 150 megatonnes in GHG emissions by 2020;
o Impose targets on industry so that air pollution from industry is cut in half by
2015;
o Regulate the fuel efficiency of cars and light duty trucks, beginning with the 2011
model year; and
o Strengthen energy efficiency standards for a number of energy-using products,
including light bulbs.
As part of the action plan, the Regulatory Framework for Air Emissions presents
mandatory and enforceable reductions in emissions of GHGs and air pollutants from
industrial sectors and other sources. This regulatory system will place Canada on the
path to achieving sustained absolute reductions in industrial GHG emissions.
More information about The Regulatory Framework for Air Emissions can be found in
Addendum 9B to this chapter and at: http://www.ecoaction.gc.ca/turning-virage/index-
eng.cfm.
7 Background papers and other information about the summit are available on the internet at
http://www.snre.umich.edu/climate change/sector_papers.
8 Securing a Clean Energy Future: A Call to Action. 2008. Available at http://www.subnet.nga.org/ci/scef/.
April 2008 9-8
-------
Lake Superior LaMP 2008
9.3 OUTREACH
Minnesota Sea Grant provides education and outreach on climate change through its
award-winning program "View From the Lake." Since 2004, this program has brought
over 1,800 people from 150 communities out onto Lake Superior to see their community
from the water and discuss issues related to protecting local natural resources and Lake
Superior. The program takes place on the University of Wisconsin's L.L. Smith, Jr.
Research Vessel and sails to eight ports in Minnesota and Wisconsin, bringing local
government officials, residents, teachers, and others out to learn about the newest
research on climate change, water quality, and a variety of other issues. The program
gives the public options and resources for taking action in their community and at their
own homes.9
Earth Wise Thunder Bay is a partnership between the City of Thunder Bay and a network
of volunteers who have agreed to work together on the issues of climate change and
community sustainability.10 The main priority of Earth Wise is to create a Community
Environmental Action Plan. In March 2003, the City of Thunder Bay unanimously
passed a resolution to participate in the Partners for Climate Protection (PCP) program.
With this resolution, Thunder Bay made a commitment to work towards reducing GHG
emissions in municipal operations by 20 percent below 1990 levels, and at least 6 percent
throughout the municipal area, joining a network of more than 150 Canadian municipal
governments who have committed to taking action on climate change by reducing GHG
emissions. The mission of Earth Wise Thunder Bay is to focus the energy, involvement,
and collective wisdom of the community to secure the environmental health of our
region, and thereby improve the social and economic well-being of future generations.
9.4 CHALLENGES
The issue of climate change raises many
challenges, which the Binational Program must
seek to address, including:
Communicating climate change information
(especially climate change information
specific to the Lake Superior basin),
impacts, and priority actions from the
scientific community to decision/
policymakers and the broader public;
Preparing for potentially dramatic changes
in the Lake Superior climateand the
ability of the Binational Program to help
Lake Superior stakeholders adapt to these
changes;
Figure 9-4. Lake Superior stakeholders will need
to adapt to potential climate change impacts, such
as more frequent and severe storm events. Photo
credit: Frank Koshere, Wisconsin Department of
Natural Resources.
9 Minnesota Sea Grant. A View From the Lake program website: http://www.seagrant.umn.edu/vfl/.
10 EarthWise Thunder Bay website: www.earthwisethunderbav.com.
April 2008
9-9
-------
Lake Superior LaMP 2008
Assisting Lake Superior stakeholders in both understanding and mitigating the potential
impacts of climate change; and
Obtaining sufficient resources to help stakeholders adapt to climate change impacts, such
as more frequent and severe storm events.
9.5 NEXT STEPS
Next steps for the Lake Superior Binational Program and Work Group include the following:
Determine climate change adaptation and mitigation actions and projects that can be
undertaken by the LaMP and the Binational Program, and seek support as feasible;
Incorporate these climate change mitigation and adaptation actions into Lake Superior
Binational Program and Work Group workplans, grants, and priorities;
Distribute important reports such as the "Climate Change and Water Quality in the Great
Lakes Basin" paper, written by the Great Lakes Water Quality Board to the IJC, to Lake
Superior stakeholders;
Collate all Lake Superior-related climate change research and studies for use by the Lake
Superior Binational Program and stakeholders; and
Coordinate with state, provincial, regional, and federal climate change strategies,
frameworks, and priorities as much as possible.
Figure 9-5. Next steps include determining mitigation actions for climate change impacts, such as
anticipated declines in future lake levels. Photo credit: John Marsden, Environment Canada.
April 2008
9-10
-------
Lake Superior LaMP 2008
9.6 REFERENCES
Austin, J.A. and S. Colman. 2007. Lake Superior summer water temperatures are increasing
more rapidly than regional air temperatures: a positive ice-albedo feedback. Geophys. Res. Lett.,
34, L06604, doi:10.1029/2006GL029021. Available at
http ://www. agu.org/pubs/crossref/2007/2006GL029021. shtml.
Climate Change and Water Quality in the Great Lakes Basin; Report of the Great Lakes Water
Quality Board to the International Joint Commission, ISBN 1-894280-42-3. 2003. Available at
http://www.ijc.org/php/publications/html/climate/index.html.
IPCC, 2007: Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and
III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Core
Writing Team, Pachauri, R.K and Reisinger, A. (eds.)]. IPCC, Geneva, Switzerland, 104 pp.
Kling, G.W., Hayhoe, K., Johnson, L.B., Magnuson, J., Polassky, S., Robinson, S., Shuter, B.,
Wander, M., Wubbles, D., Zak, D. 2003. Confronting Climate Change in the Great Lakes
Region: Impacts on Our Communities and Ecosystems. Union of Concerned Scientists, pp. 1-92.
Available at http://www.ucsusa.org/greatlakes/.
Magnuson, J.J., Robertson, D.M., Benson, B.J., Wynne, R.H., Livingstone, D.M., Arai, T.,
Assel, R.A., Barry, R.G., Card, V., Kuusisto, E., Granin, N.G., Prowse, T.D., Stewart, K.M.,
Vuglinski, V.S. 2000. Historical Trends in Lake and River Ice Cover in the Northern
Hemisphere. Science, 8 September 2000, 289: 1743-1746.
April 2008 9-11
-------
-------
Lake Superior LaMP 2008
ADDENDUM 9A:
U.S. EPA Region 5 Framework for Addressing
Climate Change and Clean Energy
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 5 recognizes the need to address climate change
and reduce greenhouse gas emissions in our six states. Climate models predict increased
variability in precipitation, with longer droughts and larger storms, boosting the need for water
conservation and prevention of sewer overflows. With our public and private partners, we will
evaluate our programs and policies for opportunities to address the effects of climate change on
the environment and to promote energy efficiency, clean energy, cleaner transportation practices
and sustainable development. Many governments and organizations in the region are working to
reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Region 5 will use its leadership role to add value to these
efforts by focusing on:
Changing how our energy is produced
Changing how our energy is used
Changing how materials, products and waste are managed
Integrating climate change considerations into Agency operations and core
programs
We will engage and promote environmental stewardship among key stakeholders in Region 5
including the public; federal, state, tribal and local governments; and electric power utilities and
other large companies.
Changing How Our Energy Is Produced
One-third of greenhouse gas emissions in the U.S. come from electric power generation.
Seventy percent of the region's electricity is generated from coal, which produces more
greenhouse gas emissions per kilowatt produced than other fossil fuels. We will:
Challenge electric utilities in the region to reduce their greenhouse
gas emissions through measures such as increased renewable energy
production and energy efficiency programs to decrease costs to
households and businesses
Encourage governments and corporations to purchase renewable
energy through EPA's Green Power Partnership
Promote the use of combined heat and power systems, focusing initially on wastewater
treatment plants, ethanol facilities and large hotels and casinos
Collaborate with Region 5 states to promote combined heat and power and energy
efficiency through state regulations
April 2008
9A-1
-------
Lake Superior LaMP 2008
Changing How Our Energy Is Used
Electricity and fuel use in homes, commercial buildings and industries result in 62 percent of
U.S. greenhouse gas emissions (17, 17, and 28 percent, respectively). Transportation contributes
much of the rest28 percent. We will:
Provide information to the public to help them green their
homes, schools, workplaces and cars through measures such
as energy conservation, recycling and fuel-efficient
transportation
Reduce energy use in communities by:
> Recruiting local governments to take the ENERGY STAR Challenge and
assisting them in improving energy efficiency in government, residential and
commercial buildings in their communities
> Promoting green building and sustainable development on the state, local and
developer level to address the engineering and market barriers that limit such
development
> Training wastewater and drinking water utilities to conduct energy audits at their
facilities to reduce energy use and encourage on-site energy production
Call on large companies in Region 5 to join the Climate Leaders and Performance Track
programs; Climate Leaders works with companies to inventory their greenhouse gas
emissions, develop a plan to reduce those emissions and set a public reduction goal
Recruit new partners to the SmartWay Transport Partnership, a voluntary program that
reduces greenhouse gas emissions from the freight industry
Work with other federal agencies, states and industry to expand the use of agricultural
waste digesters through innovative permitting and funding mechanisms
Changing How Materials, Products and Waste Are Managed
Reducing waste and increasing recycling and reuse of materials saves energy and reduces
greenhouse gas emissions by avoiding effects associated with resource extraction and waste
disposal. We will:
Promote reduction of municipal, industrial and construction
waste in the region
Recruit governments and companies to become partners in
the Waste Wise program; Waste Wise works with Region 5's
partners to reduce nonhazardous waste through measures
such as use of recycled materials
1
April 2008
9A-2
-------
Lake Superior LaMP 2008
Collaborate with large public venues such as stadiums and convention centers to make
them Green Venues, using practices such as energy efficient heating and cooling systems,
increased recycling, use of local food in concessions, and environmental outreach to the
millions of people who visit these venues
Integrating Climate Change Considerations into Agency Operations and Core Programs
We will:
Seek to include greenhouse gas reductions in Supplemental Environmental Projects that
result from enforcement settlements within Region 5 and incorporate climate change
considerations into reviews of Environmental Impact Statements
Educate our employees so they can reduce their carbon
footprint at home, at work and in their communities; for
example, we will encourage employees to switch to compact
fluorescent lamps (CFLs) and recruit organizations in their
community to become Change-a-Light Pledge Drivers
Review and revise policies to improve environmental
performance of Region 5 operations in areas such as energy efficiency, use of alternative
fuels, reduction of paper use and fleet fuel economy
April 2008
9A-3
-------
-------
Lake Superior LaMP 2008
ADDENDUM 9B: CANADA'S REGULATORY FRAMEWORK FOR AIR EMISSIONS
In October 2006, Canada's new government made clear its intention to regulate greenhouse
gases that cause climate change, as well as air pollutants that cause smog and acid rain.
The Regulatory Framework for Air Emissions is one of the main features of our ambitious
agenda to tackle climate change and clean up the air we breathe. Consistent with the polluter-
pays principle, our Regulatory Framework includes strong short-term regulatory targets to
reduce air emissions from major industries, including the following sectors:
electricity produced by combustion,
oil and gas,
forest products,
smelting and refining,
iron and steel,
cement, lime, and chemicals production,
some mining sectors.
Action on Greenhouse Gases
Industry accounts for about half of Canada's greenhouse gas emissions that cause climate
change. The Government is mandating the reduction of industrial greenhouse gas emissions
through the introduction of a robust regulatory regime that includes access to domestic emissions
trading, the Kyoto Protocol's Clean Development Mechanism and a technology fund.
This regulatory system will place Canada on the path to achieving sustained absolute reductions
in industrial greenhouse gas emissions. More specifically, it will ensure that as early as 2010
total greenhouse gases stop rising, and that by 2020 we achieve absolute reductions of 150
megatonnes compared to this year's levels.
Action on Air Pollutants
About half of Canada's air pollution is produced by industry. The Regulatory Framework for
Air Emissions sets overall national fixed emissions caps for air pollutants. This will lead to
reductions in air pollutant emissions that cause smog and acid rain by up to 55% as early as 2012
compared to 2006 levels. These targets will specify the maximum level of pollutant that can be
emitted from a given sector in a given year.
Regulations will place caps on total emissions of four acid rain and smog -causing air pollutants:
Nitrogen oxides (NOx),
Sulphur oxides (SOx),
Volatile organic compounds (VOCs), and
Particulate matter (PM).
Sector specific caps on these and other pollutants, such as mercury, will also be included.
April 2008 9B-1
-------
Lake Superior LaMP 2008
Other Emission Reduction Initiatives
In addition to measures to reduce air emissions from industry, the Government is committed to
addressing emissions from transportation, strengthening energy efficiency standards for a
number of energy-using products, and for the first time, the Government has recognized the
urgent need to take action to improve indoor air quality and committed to implement measures to
do so.
Cooperation with Provinces and Territories
We will continue to work in partnership with provinces and territories to promote approaches
that avoid unnecessary duplication of effort so that we get the maximum amount of
environmental benefits with the least amount of administrative and cost burden for industry.
Benefits & Costs
These actions will reduce the impact of greenhouse gases and air pollution on the environment
and the health of Canadians. These regulations will have real, tangible health and environmental
benefits for everyone, as well as positive economic effects. The estimated benefits as of 2015
from the reduced risk of death and illness associated with our air quality improvements are over
$6 billion annually.
The Government's regulatory approach will promote investment in technology and innovation in
Canada, yielding long-term economic benefits from enhanced productivity, improved energy
efficiency, greater competitiveness, more opportunity to sell Canadian environmental products
and know-how abroad and more jobs for Canadians.
A reduction in air emissions will also raise the productivity of some sectors. For example,
reduced pollution is expected to lead to an increase in production of up to $150 million for key
agricultural crops. Other industries will also benefit, including tourism, forestry and in-land
fishing.
The health benefits will include reductions in the number of premature deaths related to air
pollution, strokes, heart attacks, hospital admissions and emergency room visits, cases of child
acute bronchitis, and the number of days where asthma symptoms occur. There will be many
environmental benefits as well, including improved conditions for nature and wildlife.
Strong actions inevitably come at a cost, and those costs will be borne, at least in part, by
individual Canadians and their families. The costs associated with this initiative are real but
manageable. This can include increased prices for consumer products such as vehicles, natural
gas, electricity, and household appliances.
April 2008 9B-2
-------
Appendix A:
Lake Superior Areas of Concern/
Remedial Action Plan Summary Matrix and
Fact Sheets
Waterfall on the Cypress River, Ontario.
Photo Credit: Tim Leblanc, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources.
Lake Superior Lakewide Management Plan 2008
-------
-------
Lake Superior LaMP 2008
Appendix A Contents
A.O INTRODUCTION A-l
A.I AREAS OF CONCERN SUMMARY MATRIX A-l
A.2 AREAS OF CONCERN FACT SHEETS A-7
A.2.1 Canadian Fact Sheets A-7
A.2.1.A Thunder Bay A-7
A.2.1.B NipigonBay A-ll
A.2.1.C JackfishBay A-14
A.2.1.D Peninsula Harbour A-17
A.2.1.E St. Marys River A-20
A.2.2 U.S. Fact Sheets A-26
A.2.2.A Torch Lake A-26
A.2.2.B St. Louis River A-33
A.2.2.C Deer Lake A-41
April 2008 A-ii
-------
-------
Lake Superior LaMP 2008
Appendix A
Lake Superior Areas of Concern/Remedial Action Plan
Summary Matrix and Fact Sheets
A.O INTRODUCTION
As noted in Chapter 1, Section 1.3.1, entitled Remedial Action Plans for Areas of Concern, the
Remedial Action Plans (RAPs) and LaMPs are similar in that they both: use an ecosystem
approach to assessing and remediating environmental degradation, consider the 14 beneficial use
impairments outlined in Annex 2 of the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement, and rely on a
structured public involvement process. Forging a strong relationship between the LaMPs and the
RAPs is important to the success of both efforts. The Areas of Concern (AOCs) can, in many
cases, serve as point source discharges to the lake as a whole. Improvements in the AOCs will,
therefore, eventually help to improve the entire lake. Much of the expertise related to the use
impairments and possible remedial efforts resides at the local level; cooperation between the two
efforts is essential in order for the LaMPs to remove lakewide impairments. Information on the
progress of RAPs for the eight AOCs in Lake Superior is presented in both a summary matrix
and individual AOC information sheets in this Appendix.
A.1 AREAS OF CONCERN SUMMARY MATRIX
April 2008 A-l
-------
Appendix A - Areas of Concern Summary Matrix
Lake Superior LaMP 2008
For more information, see http://www.epa.gov/glnpo/aoc/index.htmh
http://www.on.ec.gc.ca/water/raps/intro e.html
AOC Name
St Marys
River
Michigan/
Onfjirin
Wllldl lu
Deer Lake
Michigan
Primary
Contaminants
PAHs
Oil and grease
Bacteria
Mercury
Historic
Nutrient
Loadings
Geographic Area
From the head of
the river at
Whitefish Bay
(Point Iroquois -
Gros Cap),
downstream
through the St.
Joseph Channel to
Humburg Point on
the Ontario side,
and to the straits of
Detour on the
Michigan side.
Approximately
1,000-acre
impoundment in
central Marquette
County, Michigan.
The AOC includes
Carp Creek, Deer
Lake, and the Carp
River downstream
20 miles to Lake
Superior at
Marquette.
Stressors
Combined sewer
overflows/storm
sewer overflows
Loss of wetlands
Point and nonpoint
source pollution
Wastewater
discharges
Urban/industrial
development
Navigational
structures
Contaminated
sediment
Contaminated
sediments from
waste materials
associated with
historic iron, gold
and silver mining
practices
Beneficial Use
Impairments
Fish and wildlife
consumption
restrictions
Fish and wildlife
degradation
Fish tumors or other
deformities
Degradation of
benthos
Dredging activities
restrictions
Eutrophication or
undesirable algae
Beach closings
Aesthetics
degradation
Loss offish and
wildlife habitat
Bird or animal
deformities or
reproductive
problems (Michigan
only)
Fish consumption
restrictions
Eutrophication
Degradation of eagle
populations
Funding Programs
and Partners
Superfund
Clean Water Act
Navigational
dredging
Canada Ontario
Infrastructure
Program
Great Lakes
Sustainability Fund
Canada-Ontario
Agreement
Great Lakes Legacy
Act
EC Sediment Fund
Michigan DEQ
Water Bureau
CCIC
Federal
City of Ishpeming
Clean-Up Actions
Completed
Upgrade East End
STP to secondary
treatment
Tannery Bay Clean
Up: Legacy Act
project- mercury
and chromium
contaminated
sediment. Shoreline
restoration and
reseeding
Sewer separation;
primary treatment
plants replaced by
advanced secondary
wastewater
treatment
Deer Lake was
drawn down and
refilled to allow
methylation of
mercury from
exposed sediments
Key Activity
Needed
Complete
contaminated
sediment
assessment
Monitor key fish
and wildlife
populations
Continued water
quality monitoring
Beneficial Use
Impairment
restoration criteria
Identify and restore
beneficial uses of
the Carp River
watershed
Source Control-
Remove -30% of
mercury loadings
to Deer Lake by
reducing or
eliminating
Partridge Creek's
flow through Cliffs
Mine Shaft via
Ishpeming's storm
sewers to Carp
Creek
Complete removal
Barriers
Resource
limitations
Sediment
remediation
Michigan DEQ
Water Bureau
completed
negotiations with
PRP in Nov.
2006. Consent
Judgment
available from
Sharon Baker at
MDEQ
(Bakers9(5)michi
gan.govl
Resource
limitations
Fish Tissue
Next Steps
Monitoring to
confirm restoration
at cleaned
contaminated
sediment sites.
Development and
implementation of
sediment
management plan
Update delisting
criteria (underway
in Ml)
Development of a
F&W Restoration
Plan for Michigan's
portion of the AOC
(underway in Ml)
Sediment
remediation
Complete analysis
of beneficial use
impairments
Have begun
Delisting
Determination
Document using
state developed
delisting guidance
to determine which
BUIs are eligible for
delisting.
Complete BUI
removals
Remove the
April 2008
A-2
-------
Appendix A - Areas of Concern Summary Matrix
Lake Superior LaMP 2008
For more information, see http://www.epa.gov/glnpo/aoc/index.htmh
http://www.on.ec.gc.ca/water/raps/intro e.html
AOC Name
Torch Lake
Michigan
Primary
Contaminants
Copper
Mercury
Arsenic
Lead
Chromium
Heavy metals
Geographic Area
Torch Lake and
immediate
environs.
Stressors
Contaminated
sediments from
mine tailings
associated with
historic copper
mining and milling
practices
Upland mine
tailings deposits
from historic
copper mining
activities which
have been
deposited into area
lakes and streams
Beneficial Use
Impairments
Fish and wildlife
consumption
restrictions
Degradation of
benthos
Fish Tumors BUI has
been removed
Funding Programs
and Partners
Superfund
MDEQ, AOC and
District
GLNPO
Clean-Up Actions
Completed
Superfund -
recommended
remedial actions in
1992 and 1994
RODS have been
completed -
coverage of exposed
mine tailings and
stamp sands
In 2007, EPA
Superfund
completed
emergency removals
of arsenic, lead, and
PCB contaminated
soils and sediments
at the Village of Lake
Linden Recreation
Park beach and
marina areas, which
were of immediate
risk to human and
environmental
health. These
actions resulted in
the EPA Superfund -
RB performing
Key Activity
Needed
process for
Reproduction and
Eutrophication
BUIs.
Further fish tissue
analysis to
document current
status of Fish
Consumption BUI.
We suspect that
this BUI might also
be close to
removal.
Identification of
potential PCB
source related to
fish consumption
advisories
EPA and MDEQ
performed
sediment sampling
to determine if
there was a
discrete PCB
source. Data
showed PCB
concentrations in
sediments below
actionable levels.
The levels did
follow the same
trends as earlier
sampling with
SPMDsand
sediment
sampling, which
indicated higher
levels near the
Hubbell/Tamarack
City area.
Barriers
analysis
Monitoring of the
remedial action
City of Ishpeming
needs to
determine which
option they wish
to pursue related
to meeting their
agreement with
CCIC, and
funding for this
option needs to
be found.
PCB source
remediation, if
necessary
Cannot begin
removal
documents for
remaining BUIs
until Superfund
determines if they
will perform further
remedial actions
Next Steps
mercury source for
the identified
mercury loadings.
Have reviewed the
status of the Fish
Consumption BUI
and degraded
Benthos BUI and
are awaiting further
analysis of data or
determination of
additional actions
by Superfund
Have removed the
Fish Tumor BUI
April 2008
A-3
-------
Appendix A - Areas of Concern Summary Matrix
Lake Superior LaMP 2008
For more information, see http://www.epa.gov/glnpo/aoc/index.htmh
http://www.on.ec.gc.ca/water/raps/intro e.html
AOC Name
St. Louis
River
Minnesota/
VWiQpnnci n
VVIoUUIIolll
Primary
Contaminants
PAHs
Mercury
Suspended
sediment
RGBs
Other metals
Oil and grease
Pathogens
Nutrients
DDT
Dieldren
Dioxin2378
TCDD
Toxaphene
£ Co//
PCP
Geographic Area
St. Louis Bay, the
Nemaji River basin
and the St. Louis
River basin to
Cloquet, MN,
including urban
areas of Duluth,
MN, and Superior,
Wl- extending 10
miles into Lake
Superior
Stressors
Contaminated
sediments
Abandoned
hazardous waste
sites
Poorly designed or
leaky landfills
Industrial
discharges and
chemical spills
Infiltration and
inflow
Point and nonpoint
sources
Municipal and
industrial runoff
Turbidity
Sedimentation
Exotics
Loss of
habitat/wetland fills
Sediment runoff,
particularly from
urban or
construction
Beneficial Use
Impairments
Fish and wildlife
consumption
restrictions
Fish and wildlife
degradation
Fish tumors or
other deformities
Degradation of
benthos
Dredging activities
restrictions
Excess loadings of
nutrients and
sediment to Lake
Superior
Beach closings
Aesthetics
degradation
Loss of fish and
wildlife habitat
Funding Programs
and Partners
Superfund
Navigational
dredging
GLNPO
States
Great Lakes
Legacy Act
Cities
WlandMN
Coastal
Management
Great Lakes
Commission
Other
miscellaneous
grant funding
sources
USAGE Detroit
(WRDA)
Fond du Lac Tribe
SLR Citizens
Action Committee
Clean-Up Actions
Completed
further analysis
around Torch Lake.
This work identified
additional areas that
may need further
remedial
investigations or
remedial actions.
Wastewater
treatment
Sediment
contamination
studies to identify
hotspots
Evaluation of
cleanup options at
two Superfund sites
Contaminated
sediment database
Habitat Management
Plan
Key habitat area
acquisition
Newton Creek/Hog
Island Cleanup
Grassy Point
Wetland Restoration
project
Stryker Bay
Remediation -
Phase III
Hog Island
Restoration Plan
Key Activity
Needed
In 2007, MDEQ
and MDNR
sampled fish as
part of the Fish
Contaminant
Monitoring
Program. Results
are expected in
April 2008. The
fish residue results
will determine
whether the BUI
can be delisted or
if further work is
needed.
Assessment of fish
and wildlife health
(body burden and
health
implications)
Assessment of
nonpoint sources
of pollution to AOC
and stormwater
controls
AOC specific
wetlands
protection and
restoration
program
Selective clean up
of contaminated
sediments
Cost-benefit
analyses of clean
up and habitat
restoration
alternatives
Control of vessel
discharges (ballast
Barriers
Lack of dedicated
resources for
projects and
staffing
Lack of funding
source to
manage
sediment
contamination
issues on an
AOC-wide, bi-
state basis
Greater financial
support from the
federal
government is
needed
Lack of cost
estimates for
protection,
restoration, or
clean up
activities
Lack of long term
horizon - policies
Next Steps
Contaminated site
remediation
Mercury reduction
Water quality
protection
Habitat restoration
and protection
Stormwater and
infiltration and
inflow control
Update AOC-wide
contaminated
sediment strategy
Develop "delisting
roadmap" to identify
ultimate goals and
steps needed
Outreach and
education
campaign
Prioritize
remediation, habitat
restoration and
protection
strategies
April 2008
A-4
-------
Appendix A - Areas of Concern Summary Matrix
Lake Superior LaMP 2008
For more information, see http://www.epa.gov/glnpo/aoc/index.htmh
http://www.on.ec.gc.ca/water/raps/intro e.html
AOC Name
Thunder
Bay
Ontario
Nipigon Bay
Ontario
Primary
Contaminants
Mercury
None
Geographic Area
About 28 km along
the shoreline and up
to 9 km offshore,
including the
watershed
A large portion of
Nipigon Bay and the
Nipigon River
downstream of
Alexander Dam.
Stressors
sources
Transportation
sources and
dredging
Sewage overflows
Forest
fragmentation
Riparian
development
Exotics/I nvasives
Contaminated
sediments
Industrial and
municipal effluent
Industrial
development
Water level and flow
fluctuations
Wastewater
discharges
Beneficial Use
Impairments
Fish and wildlife
consumption
restrictions
Fish and wildlife
degradation
Degradation of
benthos
Dredging activities
restrictions
Beach closings
Aesthetics
degradation
Phytoplankton and
zooplankton pops.
degradation
Loss of fish and
wildlife habitat
Fish and wildlife
degradation
Eutrophication or
undesirable algae
Loss of fish and
Funding Programs
and Partners
Great Lakes
Sustainability Fund
Canada Ontario
Infrastructure
Programs
Canada-Ontario
Agreement (MOE)
EC Sediment Fund
Great Lakes
Sustainability Fund
Canada Ontario
Infrastructure
Programs
Clean-Up Actions
Completed
Completed
Near Shore
reference ecotypes
identified - NRRI
GLEI
Wastewater
treatment-Surge
tank Installation
(SSO)
Remedial design of
Kopper's Wood
Processing complete
Sampling completed
at Superior Water,
Power and Light site
Habitat Management
Plan implementation
Secondary treatment
installed for a
number of pulp and
paper mills
Clean up and
rehabilitation of
contaminated
sediment at Northern
Wood site
Various habitat
creation and
enhancement
projects
Chippewa Beach
restoration
STP upgraded to
secondary treatment
Created water
management plan for
Nipigon River to
regulate hydroelectric
facilities' water use to
Key Activity
Needed
and bilge water)
Updating of RAP
documents -
delisting goal
development
Reduction of
invasive species
Develop
monitoring
strategies
Write PBT
Contaminant
TMDLby2011
Establish SLR
AOC-Wide
Delisting Targets
by end of 2008
Monitor fish and
wildlife populations
to confirm
progress (e.g.
Kam River
sturgeon)
Upgrade primary
STP in Nipigon
(planning
completed)
Monitor fish and
Barriers
and funding
Organizations
focused on short
term
Difficulty in
maintaining
public support
over the long
term
Atmospheric
deposition
uncontrollable
Resource
limitations
Resource
limitations
Next Steps
Secure long-term
funding at federal
and state levels
Complete sediment
assessment at
north end of
harbour to
determine preferred
management option
Update delisting
criteria
Draft monitoring
plan
Assist community to
obtain funding
and/or undertake
STP upgrade
Update delisting
April 2008
A-5
-------
Appendix A - Areas of Concern Summary Matrix
Lake Superior LaMP 2008
For more information, see http://www.epa.gov/glnpo/aoc/index.htmh
http://www.on.ec.gc.ca/water/raps/intro e.html
AOC Name
Jackfish
Bay
Ontario
Peninsula
Harhnnr
nai uuui
Ontario
Primary
Contaminants
Solids (i.e.
wood fiber)
Dioxin
Mercury
PCB
Geographic Area
Two communities
are located in the
vicinity of the Bay:
Red Rock
(population: 1,300)
and Nipigon
(population: 1,900).
The 14km reach of
Blackbird Creek
between Terrace
Bay Pulp Inc. pulp
mill and Jackfish
Bay, including Lake
A, Moberly Lake
and Jackfish Bay
itself.
Peninsula Harbour
proper, and a
portion of open
Lake Superior
immediately south
of the peninsula.
Stressors
Industrial discharge
Contaminated
sediments
Contaminated
sediments
Beneficial Use
Impairments
wildlife habitat
Fish and wildlife
consumption
restrictions
Fish and wildlife
degradation
Fish tumors or other
deformities
Bird or animal
deformities or
reproductive
problems
Aesthetics
degradation
Loss of fish and
wildlife habitat
Fish and wildlife
consumption
restrictions
Fish and wildlife
degradation
Degradation of
benthos
Dredging activities
restrictions
Loss of fish and
wildlife habitat
Funding Programs
and Partners
Canada-Ontario
Agreement
Great Lakes
Sustainability Fund
Canada-Ontario
Agreement
National Sciences
and Engineering
Research Council
of Canada
(NSERC)
Great Lakes
Sustainability Fund
Canada-Ontario
Agreement (MOE)
Marathon Pulp Inc.
EC Sediment Fund
Clean-Up Actions
Completed
help restore brook
trout
Various habitat
restoration projects
Secondary treatment
installed at
Norampac
Effluent quality from
paper mill improved
Chlorine dioxide
bleaching plant
upgraded resulting in
lower AOX levels
Pulp kraft mill
installed secondary
treatment for effluent;
discharge moved out
of AOC
Ecological risk
assessment
completed
Key Activity
Needed
wildlife populations
to confirm
progress (coaster
brook trout)
Assess status of
natural recovery
Update Ecological
Risk Assessment
and complete
Sediment
Management
Options
assessment
Barriers
Time for natural
recovery
Best available
technology needs
to be utilized at
all times
Next Steps
criteria
Draft monitoring
plan
Area in Recovery
Report
Continued natural
recovery and
monitoring
Update sediment
monitoring data
Update delisting
criteria
Update long term
monitoring plan
Area in Recovery
Report
Update delisting
criteria
Create long term
monitoring plan
Detailed design for
sediment strategy
April 2008
A-6
-------
Lake Superior LaMP 2008
A.2 AREAS OF CONCERN FACT SHEETS
A.2.1 Canadian Fact Sheets
A.2.1.A Thunder Bay
Thunder Bay Area of Concern
General Information
Where?
The Thunder Bay Area of Concern (AOC) extends approximately 28 kilometres (17 miles) along the shoreline
of Lake Superior and up to 9 kilometres (5.5 miles) offshore from the City of Thunder Bay. The Thunder Bay
watershed is drained by the Kaministiquia River system and a number of smaller rivers and creeks.
Why was this area listed?
Major environmental issues of concern (or beneficial use impairments) in the area included:
fish consumption restrictions
negative pressures on fish populations
degradation of phytoplankton and zooplankton populations
degradation of benthos
dredging restrictions
loss of species abundance and diversity
reduced recreational opportunities
decline in aesthetic values
loss of fish and wildlife habitat
What is being done? How is it being done?
In order to improve the environmental conditions noted above, a Remedial Action Plan (RAP) has been
developed for Thunder Bay. The Thunder Bay RAP is a partnership between the federal and provincial
governments. Public involvement and participation in the RAP to date has been coordinated by a Public
Advisory Committee (PAC) which represents a variety of interests in the Thunder Bay community (e.g. private
citizens, academia, industry, labour, recreational groups and property owners). The PAC has provided public
input and advice throughout the RAP process, in addition to endorsing both the Stage 1 and 2 documents.
This plan involves the following steps:
defining the problem (Stage 1 - completed in 1991)
planning for implementation (Stage 2a - completed in 2004)
implementing the actions (Stage 2 - underway)
monitoring the restoration of the environment and eventual delisting (Stage 3)
April 2008 A-7
-------
Lake Superior LaMP 2008
The Stage 2 Report contains a list of recommended remedial actions to restore the above environmental
conditions. It was developed through the RAP process, which included consultation with the public. Many of
the actions have already been implemented.
Contaminated sediments are recognized as significant contributors to impaired water quality in the Great
Lakes. Thunder Bay Harbour sediment contamination from polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs),
chlorophenols, dioxins and furans around Northern Wood Preservers (NWP) contributed to the International
Joint Commission 's (IJC) identification of the Harbour as an AOC. A biological assessment study was
conducted to establish site specific clean up criteria. Based on measured biological effects related to PAHs,
three cleanup zones were identified corresponding to areas of acute toxicity, chronic toxicity and no
measurable toxicity.
Abitibi Consolidated Inc., Northern Wood Preservers Inc., Canadian National Railway Co., Environment
Canada and the Ontario Ministry of the Environment worked together to remediate the area around the
Northern Wood Preservers site. The project, referred to as the Northern Wood Preservers Alternative
Remediation Concept (NOWPARC), was a plan to isolate the contaminant source, clean-up the contaminated
sediment, and enhance fish habitat. Extensive public consultation was undertaken to ensure public acceptance
of the plan.
The primary components of the project have been completed. These improvements in the "integrity" of the
local ecosystem were:
A 1,000 meter long rockfill containment berm to contain a portion of the contaminated sediment
Environmental dredging to remove 11,000 m3 (14,400 yd3) of contaminated sediment from the Harbour
Thermal treatment and off site disposal of 17,000 tonnes (18,700 tons) of contaminated sediment
A Waterloo steel wall and environmental clay barrier were constructed around the NWP pier to prevent
the movement of on-site contaminants back into the harbour
A buffer zone of clean fill within the containment berm
Stormwater controls to collect drainage and channel it through a settling pond prior to discharge into
Thunder Bay Harbour
48,000 m2 (approximately 12 acres) of fish habitat were created as compensation for the infilling
activities
A groundwater treatment plant to treat contaminated groundwater that accumulates behind the clay
barrier
NOWPARC was a significant project for the RAP. As such, it contributes to the objectives of the Lake Superior
Binational Program's Lakewide Management Plan (LaMP), which includes the Zero Discharge Demonstration
Program.
Through this project, the areas of highest sediment contamination were removed and treated, and additional
fish habitat was created. Project implementation, including public consultation, took seven years to complete at
a cost of $20 million (CDN), forging linkages between the economy, the environment, and the community. Now
that implementation is complete, the site has been decommissioned and a post-remediation monitoring plan is
in place. To demonstrate adequate monitoring of effectiveness, the focus has now shifted to long-term
monitoring of the isolation barriers, natural recovery of sediments outside the berm and fish habitat
development.
April 2008 A-8
-------
Lake Superior LaMP 2008
This is a major achievement in the restoration and remediation of this once highly contaminated sediment site.
This project, in concert with other RAP initiatives, will help to improve water quality and sediment conditions in
the Harbour, and will provide a more hospitable environment for plants, animals, and people.
The Thunder Bay Remedial Action Plan (RAP) was developed by Environment Canada and the Ontario
Ministry of the Environment, with support from the general public.
The RAP adopted an ecosystem approach to address environmental problems which incorporated land, water,
air, plants, animals and ultimately people. Therefore, the cooperation and involvement of other federal and
provincial government agencies has been key to the RAP progress.
Members of the public, including individuals and organizations, participated in the RAP process as members of
the PAC. The PAC provided a forum for community stakeholders and included private citizens, academia,
industry, labour, recreational groups and property owners.
The Thunder Bay RAP was developed to identify use impairments, define specific goals for the region and
describe appropriate remedial and regulatory measures to rehabilitate the AOC. Incorporating the needs
identified by the PAC will ensure that the plan responds to the community needs and enjoys a high level of
public support and implementation.
Strategies to address beneficial use impairments have been designed to increase aquatic and terrestrial
habitat, enhance recreational opportunities, and to improve the aesthetic value of the Harbour and its
tributaries. The highest profile remediation project has been the NOWPARC project. A post-remediation
monitoring plan is being implemented to evaluate the success of the project and to track the progress of natural
recovery over time.
Many water quality issues have been addressed as a result of process changes and improved effluent
treatment at local pulp and paper mills. Secondary treatment and 100 percent chlorine dioxide substitution at
the Bowater pulp and paper mill have resulted in dramatic improvements in effluent quality. Likewise, the
installation of secondary treatment at Abitibi Consolidated has resulted in the effluent being non-toxic since
1999. These improvements are expected to enhance sediment and water quality conditions and encourage the
return of healthy biotic communities.
Various fish and wildlife habitat rehabilitation projects have been completed along the waterfront and on
tributary streams. These have included improving walleye spawning habitat, restoring habitat diversity along
floodways, creating nearshore nursery habitat and wetland sites, alleviating water quality barriers to fish
migration, and enhancing habitat diversity within dredged navigation channels. These efforts will increase the
extent of productive aquatic and terrestrial habitat by rehabilitating and protecting wetland and riparian
environments.
The involvement of the public and their commitment to both rehabilitation and continued vigilance of the
ecosystem are important to the success of the Thunder Bay RAP. Community involvement in the Thunder Bay
RAP has been evident in such projects as organized cleanups of the Thunder Bay waterfront and participation
in Lake Superior Day celebrations and waterfront development workshops. The PAC played a lead role in this
process, making the public aware of progress towards the final goal of a healthy, balanced ecosystem and the
ways in which this can be accomplished.
April 2008 A-9
-------
Lake Superior LaMP 2008
RAP Implementation
The Thunder Bay RAP Stage 2 Report contains a complete list of recommended remedial actions for the AOC,
many of which are in progress or completed. A monitoring strategy will be developed to measure progress
towards delisting. With the support of federal and provincial governments and the community, the remaining
recommended actions will be completed and the monitoring strategy will be implemented.
Although total mercury in surficial sediment (0-3 cm or 0-1 in) in the area adjacent to Cascades Fine Paper Inc.
is lower than that observed in the early 1970's, results of the 2004 Environment Canada sediment assessment
indicated that some sediment is toxic, although the causes do not appear solely related to mercury, and that
benthic communities are altered compared to reference. Methyl mercury is transferred from sediment to
benthic invertebrates, and under generally "intermediate and maximum" exposure and trophic transfer
scenarios methyl mercury could bioaccumulate in receptors to levels that are not protective of adverse effects
at some of the sites. These sediment studies agree with the conclusions from the Environmental Effects
Monitoring program for the Cascades Fine Paper mill that the sediment is toxic and the benthic community is
impaired in the vicinity of the mill outlet. A primary zone of contamination has been delineated and sediment
management options have been screened. Capping and dredging are being carried forward as possible
remediation options. Geotechnical studies and wind/wave effect studies are currently being conducted to
determine the feasibility of capping the sediment in this zone. If capping is not feasible, the data from these
studies will be used to assess the feasibility of dredging. This information is critical to the identification of any
appropriate remedial actions to address contaminated sediment in the AOC.
Sediment at a site in the centre of the inner Thunder Bay Harbour, informally referred to as the Cascades
Triangle, was found to be toxic to benthic organisms. Because chemicals of concern were not found to be
elevated in this sediment, studies are currently underway to determine the cause of the toxicity.
A strategy has been implemented to address beach closures at Chippewa Beach, and as a result of this, the
number of closures has been considerably reduced.
There is a commitment to ensure the gains realized through RAP implementation are maintained and progress
towards restoration and ultimate delisting of Thunder Bay as an AOC continues.
RAP Accomplishments
Many projects have built on the notable successes in the Thunder Bay AOC. Several fish and wildlife habitat
rehabilitation projects have been completed in wetlands, riverine shorelines, along the Thunder Bay waterfront,
and within the river mouths draining into Thunder Bay. Contaminated sediments have been removed at the
Northern Wood Preservers site and have undergone treatment and disposal. In 2005, the City of Thunder Bay,
with assistance from the Canada Strategic Infrastructure Fund, completed construction of the Secondary
Sewage Treatment facility at the Water Pollution Control Plant. In addition to secondary sewage treatment, the
new facility includes nitrification to eliminate ammonia from the wastewater.
RAP Participants
Cooperation is critical to the RAP process. Undertaking environmental restoration requires a large amount of
local knowledge, scientific expertise, and hard work. One agency or group cannot undertake such a large task
on their own, without the help of others. Listed below are participants that contribute to the RAP program.
City of Thunder Bay
Environment Canada
Fisheries and Oceans Canada
Great Lakes Sustainability Fund
Lakehead Region Conservation Authority
Lakehead University
Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources
Ontario Ministry of the Environment
Public Advisory Committee
April 2008
A-10
-------
Lake Superior LaMP 2008
A.2.1.B Nipigon Bay
Nipigon Bay Area of Concern
General Information
Where?
The Nipigon Bay Area of Concern (AOC) is in the most northerly area of Lake Superior. The AOC
encompasses a large portion of Nipigon Bay and, the largest tributary to Lake Superior, the Nipigon River.
Why was this area listed?
When listed in the late 1980s, the major environmental issues of concern (or beneficial use impairments) in the
area included:
degradation of fish and wildlife populations - particularly the loss of walleye and yellow perch fisheries
and decline in the brook trout and lake trout stocks
degradation of benthos (bottom dwelling organisms)
restrictions on dredging activities
undesirable algal growth on substrates in the lower Nipigon River
degradation of aesthetics on the waterfront
loss of fish and wildlife habitat in the Nipigon River
water level fluctuations from the generation of electricity continue to affect streambank erosion and
sediment load
What is being done? How is it being done?
In order to improve the environmental conditions noted above, a Remedial Action Plan (RAP) was developed
for the Nipigon Bay Area of Concern (AOC). Implementation of the Nipigon Bay RAP is being achieved
through a partnership between the Government of Canada and the Province of Ontario, with support from a
Public Advisory Committee (PAC). Many linkages and alliances have been developed as part of the RAP
process between the RAP team and various other groups in the community including recreational groups,
industry, municipalities and citizens.
This plan, which was initiated in 1987, involves the following three stages:
1. defining and documenting the problem (Stage 1 Report completed in 1991)
2. developing and documenting a strategy of action to rehabilitate and protect the ecosystem (Stage 2
Report completed in 1995)
3. implementing the strategy of remedial and preventive actions and monitoring and confirming the
eventual restoration of the impaired beneficial uses (Stage 3)
Thirty-five recommended remedial actions to restore the above environmental conditions were selected through
the RAP process, which includes consultation with the public. Most actions have already been implemented.
April 2008 A-ll
-------
Lake Superior LaMP 2008
HIGHLIGHTS of the RAP
Since 1990, the Government of Canada's Great Lakes Sustainability Fund has made significant contributions
towards restoring environmental impairments in the Nipigon Bay AOC. A number of projects have been
completed to enhance fish and wildlife communities and to rehabilitate degraded aquatic and terrestrial habitat.
Logs and debris were removed from historic spawning areas in the lower Nipigon River. The clean up of a
former wetland site has resulted in natural regeneration of wetland features. A fish-stocking program was used
to increase adult spawning potential in Nipigon Bay with more than 12,000 adult fish stocked over 3 years. A
community-based effort was used to clean up and restore habitat in and around a once productive and
aesthetic brook trout stream. These efforts are a step towards enhancing fish and wildlife populations in the
AOC.
RAP Development/History
Early in the RAP process, the PAC evaluated and identified environmental impairments and developed a list of
objectives for the remediation of the area. These objectives were incorporated into the Stage One document:
Environmental Conditions and Problem Definition. An Options Discussion Paper then developed a list of
remedial measures to address the identified environmental problems, carefully weighing each option and
identifying preferences. The discussion paper went out for public comment, to assist in the selection of a
preferred course of action.
The Stage Two document, Remedial Strategies for Ecosystem Restoration, used the selected options to outline
stakeholder commitment and implementation timetables necessary to restore impaired beneficial uses.
PAC involvement in the Nipigon Bay RAP has been extensive and integral to the success of the process. The
combination of local knowledge and community-based goals with scientific data and expertise has resulted in a
pragmatic and defensible strategy to rehabilitate the environmental impairments in the AOC ecosystem.
RAP Status
Most recommended specific remedial actions have been implemented in Nipigon Bay. The Town of Nipigon
has undertaken an environmental study report which identifies options for upgrading its primary municipal
wastewater treatment plant and has been successful in obtaining funding under phase one of the Canada-
Ontario Municipal Rural Infrastructure Fund (COMRIF). Similarly, the Township of Red Rock completed a class
environmental assessment for its wastewater treatment plant and has applied for funding in the next phase of
COMRIF. Full implementation is contingent on funding availability.
RAP Implementation
Most of the recommended remedial actions have been completed, but until the municipal point source
discharges have been addressed, Nipigon Bay will continue to be an Area of Concern. Upgrading the Nipigon
and Red Rock Wastewater Treatment Plants is a key recommended action in the Stage 2 Report. Once this
action has been implemented, the AOC will be able to move ahead to the formal delisting procedures of Stage
Three.
On April 25, 2005, the Government of Canada, the Government of Ontario and the Township of Nipigon
announced funding to upgrade the Nipigon sewage treatment plant. The governments of Canada and Ontario
will each invest up to $1.9 million (CDN) in the project. The Township of Nipigon will contribute the balance of
the total eligible project cost of up to $4 million (CDN). The Government of Canada's contribution is contingent
on the successful completion of an environmental assessment of the proposed project under the Canadian
Environmental Assessment Act. This investment, made under the first phase of the Canada-Ontario Municipal
Rural Infrastructure Fund (COMRIF), will improve the quality of life for local residents. Work includes designing
and constructing a rotating biological contractor secondary treatment system and a six-month sludge storage
capacity lagoon. Additional funding is required and is being sought to implement this upgrade.
April 2008 A-12
-------
Lake Superior LaMP 2008
The township of Red Rock has submitted a application for funding in the second phase of COMRIF and is
prepared to proceed with the upgrade of their treatment plant if the application is successful.
Once this infrastructure project has been completed, the status of the environmental impairments will be
reviewed in order to determine if the delisting targets have been met. Some of this review has already been
completed. For example, scientists at Environment Canada have completed an assessment of sediment and
bottom-dwelling organisms in the AOC. The results of all these assessments will form the basis of the Stage 3
delisting process.
RAP Accomplishments
The Nipigon River Water Management Plan was established, through public involvement, to reduce the
impacts of the operation of hydroelectric dams on the Lake Nipigon/Nipigon River watershed and particularly on
the Nipigon River fishery. The plan was in response to water level fluctuations that resulted in the exposure of
brook trout spawning beds and affected the groundwater supply critical to the survival of brook trout embryos.
The plan expands on an interim agreement between the Ministry of Natural Resources and Ontario Power
Generation to maintain minimum flows. These actions directed at brook trout will benefit other fish, wildlife, and
benthic populations in the ecosystem with a more natural cycle of river flow.
Notable successes have included the development of a bioengineered marina at Red Rock that features
armour stone breakwalls that incorporate public access and fish and wildlife habitat; the Nipigon River Water
Management Plan has provided a workable solution to water use conflicts arising from regulated flows; and
improvements to brook trout habitat at Clearwater Creek.
There is a commitment to ensure the gains realized to date are maintained and progress towards restoration
and ultimate delisting of Nipigon Bay as an AOC continues.
RAP Participants
Cooperation is critical to the RAP process. Undertaking environmental restoration requires a large amount of
local knowledge, scientific expertise and hard work. One agency or group cannot undertake such a large task
on their own, without the help of others. Listed below are participants that contribute to the RAP program.
Canada-Ontario Municipal Rural Infrastructure Fund (COMRIF)
Domtar Packaging
Environment Canada
Ministry of Northern Development and Mines
Ontario Hydro
Ontario Ministry of Education
Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources
Ontario Ministry of the Environment
Public Advisory Committee
Township of Nipigon
Township of Red Rock
April 2008 A-13
-------
Lake Superior LaMP 2008
A.2.1.C Jackfish Bay
Jackfish Bay Area of Concern
General Information
Where?
The Jackfish Bay Area of Concern (AOC) is located on the north shore of Lake Superior approximately 250
kilometres (155 miles) northeast of Thunder Bay. The AOC consists of a 14-kilometre (9 mile) stretch of
Blackbird Creek between Terrace Bay Pulp Inc. (formerly Kimberly-Clark) pulp mill and Jackfish Bay, and
includes Lake "A", Moberly Lake, and Jackfish Bay. The town of Terrace Bay is the closest community.
Why was this area listed?
Major environmental concerns (or beneficial use impairments) in the area included:
restrictions on fish consumption
degradation offish populations and fish habitat
fish tumours and other deformities
degraded aesthetics
condition of the sediments and the aquatic communities which utilize them
What is being done? How is it being done?
In order to improve the environmental conditions noted above, a Remedial Action Plan (RAP) has been
developed for Jackfish Bay. The Jackfish Bay RAP was developed through a partnership between the
Government of Canada and the Province of Ontario, with support from the Jackfish Bay Public Advisory
Committee (PAC). Many linkages and alliances have been developed as part of the RAP process between the
RAP team and various other groups in the community including private citizens, recreational groups, industry
and municipalities.
This plan, which was initiated in 1988, involves the following three stages, each of which, when completed,
results in a corresponding report:
1. defining the problem (Stage 1 Report completed in 1991)
2. developing a strategy of action to rehabilitate and protect ecosystem quality (Stage 2 RAP Report
completed in 1997)
3. implementing the strategy of remedial and preventive actions (i.e., the RAP), and monitoring and
confirming the eventual restoration of the impaired beneficial uses (Stage 3 Report)
In order to determine the actions required for remediation of the AOC, both the identification of the beneficial
use impairments and the water use goals, developed by the PAC, were utilized. A number of potential
solutions were developed and assessed. Natural recovery, where the ecosystem is allowed to recover on its
own, was selected as the preferred strategy in the Stage 2 RAP report.
April 2008 A-14
-------
Lake Superior LaMP 2008
This was decided due in large part to achievement of higher standards of effluent quality at the Terrace Bay
Pulp mill resulting from improved treatment of effluent and changes in mill processes between 1987 and 1997.
Acceptance of this plan is based on the fact that recovery is already occurring in many areas.
The Jackfish Bay Remedial Action Plan (RAP) was developed by Environment Canada and the Ontario
Ministry of the Environment between 1988 and 1997, with support from the general public.
The RAP adopted an ecosystem approach to environmental problems that incorporated land, water, air, plants,
animals and ultimately people. Therefore, the cooperation and involvement of many other federal and
provincial government agencies has been key to RAP progress.
The general public (both individuals and organizations) participated in the RAP process as members of the
PAC, providing a forum for the spectrum of interests existing within a community. The Jackfish Bay PAC
encompassed the interests of private citizens, industry, labour, tourism operators and property owners.
Within the Stage One document, beneficial use impairments and objectives for the remediation of the AOC
were identified. Upon completion, federal and provincial agencies and the International Joint Commission
reviewed the document. An Options Discussion Paper then presented a list of remedial measures to address
the identified environmental problems, carefully weighing each option and identifying preferences.
The Stage Two document was completed in 1997. This document recommends a "natural recovery" plan to
address most of the impaired beneficial uses in the Area of Concern.
The natural recovery plan does not require the removal of contaminated sediment from the environment. This
plan relies on natural processes to bury contaminants in the sediment, effectively isolating them from the water
column and food web.
Essential to the natural recovery plan is the maintenance of higher standards of effluent quality by the Terrace
Bay Pulp mill, and continued monitoring of the effects of contaminated sediments on the ecosystem. In this
way, progressive changes in the ecosystem can be evaluated, and delisting of the AOC can occur at the
earliest opportunity.
Additional remediation actions for the Jackfish Bay RAP are not feasible or recommended at this time, and it is
recognized that the environmental recovery within the AOC will take some time.
Assessment of the recovery will continue to take place through long-term monitoring. The agencies propose to
recognize the Jackfish Bay AOC as an Area in Recovery which will require a detailed long-term monitoring plan
that will track the environmental recovery of the AOC. This decision is strongly supported by technical analysis
and follows the direction given by PAC in the Stage 2 report.
Environment Canada (EC) revisited the area in September 2007 as part of a sediment/benthos recovery study,
and it will be determined if additional toxicity work is required. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources will be
conducting a sport fish collection in the AOC (along with other Lake Superior AOCs). A full EC Benthic
Assessment of Sediment (BEAST) assessment will be repeated in 2008. Cycle 4 (April 2007) Environmental
Effects Monitoring results are being reviewed. A short- and long-term monitoring strategy to assess water
quality, sediment quality, benthos, fish, and other biological indicators (i.e., wildlife) will be developed.
April 2008 A-15
-------
Lake Superior LaMP 2008
RAP Implementation
Ongoing monitoring and reporting are needed to evaluate the progress of natural recovery. It is recommended
that changes in sediment and benthos be evaluated at least once every ten years. Environmental impacts of
the pulp and paper industry are evaluated every four years to determine the effectiveness of mitigative
measures. Contaminant levels in sport fish are evaluated at least every five years until consumption advisories
can be removed. Sediment contamination and aquatic communities in Moberly Lake require regular evaluation
to assess progress towards recovery.
Environment Canada and the Ontario Ministry of the Environment and the Ontario Ministry of Natural
Resources cooperate to lead implementation actions.
RAP Accomplishments
Contaminant levels in effluent and receiving waters have decreased since the installation of secondary
treatment and changes in mill processes to chlorine dioxide bleaching. Mill effluent presently tested has
significantly reduced biological effects and is characterized as non-acutely toxic. Previously, Lake A was
clogged with extensive accumulation of organic material. Ten years ago effluent flow was diverted away from
the lake, recovery has occurred and the lake is now a productive wetland.
RAP Participants
Cooperation is critical to the RAP process. Undertaking environmental restoration requires a large amount of
local knowledge, scientific expertise and hard work. One agency or group cannot undertake such a large task
on their own, without the help of others. Listed below are participants that contribute to the RAP program.
Environment Canada
Great Lakes Sustainability Fund
Municipality of Terrace Bay
Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources
Ontario Ministry of the Environment
Public Advisory Committee
Terrace Bay Pulp Inc. (formerly Kimberly-Clark)
April 2008 A-16
-------
Lake Superior LaMP 2008
A.2.1.D Peninsula Harbour
Peninsula Harbour Area of Concern
General Information
Where?
Peninsula Harbour is located on the northeastern shore of Lake Superior midway between Sault Ste. Marie and
Thunder Bay. The Area of Concern (AOC) extends approximately four kilometres (2.5 miles) from the
Peninsula into Lake Superior.
Why was this area listed?
Major environmental issues of concern (or beneficial use impairments) in the area included:
fish consumption advisories due to high levels of toxic contaminants
degraded fish communities
fish habitat destruction
degraded lake bottom communities
dredging restrictions due to contamination of the bottom sediments
The environmental impairments in Peninsula Harbour result, almost exclusively, from the presence of a
substantial area of mercury contaminated sediments. This sediment contamination is particularly severe in
Jellico Cove and is the result of historic discharges from the James River-Marathon chlor-alkali plant which
closed in 1977. Other contaminants such as PCBs, as well as wood fibre, are found in the sediments, and are
also of concern, although a lower priority compared to the mercury.
What is being done? How is it being done?
In order to improve the environmental conditions noted above, a Remedial Action Plan (RAP) is being
developed for Peninsula Harbour. The Peninsula Harbour RAP is a partnership between the federal and
provincial governments with cooperation from a Public Advisory Committee (PAC). Linkages and alliances
have been made between the RAP team and various other groups in the community, including environmental
groups, recreational groups, industry and municipalities.
This plan, which was initiated in 1987, involves the following steps:
defining the problems (Stage 1 - completed in 1991)
identifying and planning the required remedial actions (Stage 2 draft completed)
implementing the actions (Stage 2)
monitoring the restoration of the environment and eventual delisting (Stage 3)
Currently, the RAP is planning for implementation, and a list of remedial actions is being developed to address
the environmental problems in the AOC. The most important of these problems is the mercury-contaminated
sediment in Jellicoe Cove.
April 2008 A-17
-------
Lake Superior LaMP 2008
In 2007, an ecological risk assessment (ERA) was conducted and potential risks to four types of receptors were
evaluated: benthic invertebrates (sediment dwelling organisms), fish, piscivorous (fish-eating) birds, and
piscivorous mammals. Human health risks were also identified in 2007.
A list of potentially feasible remediation options to solve this problem were previously identified in the draft
Stage 2 report, but in 2007, a draft Sediment Management Options Assessment report has identified the
following options for future consideration:
1. Removal and capping of the contaminated sediments
2. Capping of contaminated sediments
3. A combination of the above
When the preferred sediment management option has been identified, the RAP for Peninsula Harbour will be
published in the final RAP Stage 2 Report. This report will guide the restoration and monitoring efforts until
Peninsula Harbour is no longer considered an AOC.
The Peninsula Harbour Remedial Action Plan (RAP) is being developed by Environment Canada and the
Ontario Ministry of the Environment, with support from Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Ontario Ministry of
Natural Resources, and the general public.
The RAP adopted an ecosystem approach to environmental problems that incorporates land, water, air, plants,
animals and ultimately people. Therefore, the cooperation and involvement of other federal and provincial
government agencies has been key to RAP progress.
The general public (both individuals and organizations) participated in the RAP process as members of the
PAC, providing a forum for the spectrum of interests existing within a community. The Peninsula Harbour PAC
encompassed the interests of environmental groups, recreational groups, industry and municipalities.
The Stage One RAP Report provided a definition and detailed description of the environmental problems with
the AOC and identified the beneficial use impairments for the Harbour. The PAC evaluated the use
impairments and developed specific water use goals and objectives designed to assist in the restoration and
protection of the AOC. These goals provided community-based guidelines for the remediation of impairments
in Peninsula Harbour.
The Stage One document was reviewed by federal and provincial agencies and was submitted to the
International Joint Commission (IJC) in 1991. The IJC concluded that there was sufficient information to
proceed with Stage Two.
When completed, the Stage Two RAP Report will present the remedial options to address the environmental
problems within the Harbour. In the report, each option will be evaluated and the preferred course of action for
the AOC will be identified.
Remedial strategies for Peninsula Harbour focus on the shallow water areas of the Harbour, while leaving
remediation of the deeper areas to natural sedimentation processes. Recent studies have confirmed the
severity of the mercury contamination problem. A 2002 biomagnification study completed by Environment
Canada concluded that there was biotic uptake of mercury from the sediments, and an Ontario Ministry of the
Environment sport fish collection in 2002 found elevated PCB and mercury levels in white suckers.
April 2008 A-18
-------
Lake Superior LaMP 2008
Currently, a detailed ecological risk assessment (ERA) is being updated to address mercury-contaminated
sediment in the vicinity of Jellicoe Cove. The ERA has shown that current mercury levels may reduce
reproductive success in longnose suckers and other bottom feeding species, although other fish species do not
appear to be adversely affected by current levels of mercury or PCBs. Current concentrations of mercury in
fish may reduce reproductive success in individual osprey and other piscivorous raptors foraging primarily
within Jellicoe Cove, but any adverse effects on osprey or other piscivorous raptors are unlikely to have
population-level consequences. Current concentrations of PCBs in fish may reduce reproductive success in
mink and other piscivorous mammals foraging within Jellicoe Cove, the rest of Peninsula Harbour, or both
areas in any proportion.
Human health risks were identified in 2007. Adult sport anglers who target lake trout are not predicted to be at
risk from methylmercury in fish tissue but may be adversely affected by PCBs in fish. Adult subsistence
anglers who consume longnose sucker, lake trout, and lake whitefish are predicted to be at risk from
methylmercury in fish tissue if they derive 100% of the fish they consume from the AOC. Subsistence anglers
may be adversely affected by PCBs in fish even if as little as 5% of the fish they consume is derived from the
AOC.
Remediating sediments in the area of highest contamination may prevent further migration of nearshore
mercury to offshore areas. For this reason, a sediment management strategy is being developed. The
assessment and management of contaminated sediment is an intensive process. All participants will continue
to work together to ensure that an acceptable outcome is achieved.
Additional work has been completed to analyze results from 2003 field work on sport fish, caged clams, and
sediment sampling conducted by Ontario Ministry of the Environment. Additional sediment studies of core
chemistry and sediment stability have been carried out by the National Water Research Institute of
Environment Canada.
The former chlor-alkali plant, which operated adjacent to the pulp mill from 1952 to 1977, was the main source
of mercury contamination to the Harbour. Mercury-contaminated material has since been removed from the
plant itself and safely deposited at the facility's own mercury disposal site. Effluent from the Marathon kraft
pulp mill is now treated to remove organic pollutants. Process improvements at the mill in 1991 greatly
reduced organic enrichment of the AOC. The mill was recognized for this pollution prevention approach in
1995 with an award from the Lake Superior Binational Program. In that same year, the mill constructed a
secondary treatment basin (Aerated Stabilization Basin) to further improve effluent quality.
Cooperation is critical to the RAP process. Undertaking environmental restoration requires a large amount of
local knowledge, scientific expertise and hard work. One agency or group cannot undertake such a large task
on their own, without the help of others. Listed below are the participants that have contributed to the RAP
program.
Environment Canada
Great Lakes Sustainability Fund
Marathon Pulp Inc.
Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources
Ontario Ministry of the Environment
Public Advisory Committee
Town of Marathon
April 2008 A-19
-------
Lake Superior LaMP 2008
A.2.1.E
St. Marys River
St. Marys River Area of Concern
General Information
Where?
The St. Marys River is the 112 kilometre (70 mile) connecting channel from Lake Superior to Lake Huron. The
Area of Concern (AOC) boundary includes the entire river which extends from Whitefish Bay between Point
Iroquois, Michigan and Gros Cap, Ontario; east and downstream between Quebec Bay and Humbug Point,
Ontario in the St. Joseph Channel; between the Michigan side of the river and St. Joseph Island, downstream
to the De Tour Passage, Michigan.
Why was this area listed?
Major environmental issues of concern (or beneficial use impairments) in the area included:
restrictions on fish and wildlife consumption
unhealthy fish and wildlife populations
fish tumours and other deformities
unhealthy populations of bottom-dwelling organisms
April 2008
A-20
-------
Lake Superior LaMP 2008
restrictions on dredging
undesirable algae due to excess nutrients in the water
beach closures
poor aesthetics
loss of fish and wildlife habitat
bird or animal deformities or reproductive problems (michigan)
What is being done? How is it being done?
In order to improve the environmental conditions noted above, a Remedial Action Plan (RAP) process was
initiated for the St. Marys River. The St. Marys River RAP is a partnership between Canadian and U.S. federal
governments, provincial (Ontario) and state (Michigan) governments, with cooperation from the local Binational
Public Advisory Council (BPAC).
The Remedial Action Planning process, which was initiated in 1988, involves the following three stages:
defining the problem (Stage 1, completed in 1992)
determining what remedial actions are needed to rectify the impairments (Stage 2a, completed in
2003)
implementing the actions (Stage 2)
monitoring the restoration of the environment and eventual delisting of the AOC (Stage 3)
The final Stage 2a RAP report was released in 2003. More than 60 recommended actions, including a number
of restoration and protection measures already completed or in progress, were included in the report. A
technical annex to the Stage 2a document has not been developed. The annex, once complete, will identify
priorities for action, responsibilities, and a timeline for RAP accomplishments.
HIGHLIGHT of the RAP
The Cannelton Industries site is a former tannery located adjacent to Tannery Bay on the south shore of the St.
Marys River, upstream from the city of Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan. Remedial investigation in the 1990's at the
tannery site and bay indicated that sediments and wetland areas contained organic material contaminated with
chromium and mercury. As a result, these areas were designated as a U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(US EPA) Superfund site under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act.
The remedial action plan for the bay area called for natural recovery, allowing clean silt from St. Marys River to
gradually cover the contaminated sediment. All remedial work under the Superfund program was completed in
1999. Remedial work completed included the excavation of 33,000 tons (of tannery waste materials and
contaminated soils to off-site solid waste disposal facilities), construction of surface drainage works, a shoreline
berm to prevent erosion, and seeding and mulching to revegetate the site. Environmental monitoring was to be
performed indefinitely to monitor the natural recovery process.
However, after purchasing the tannery site, Phelps Dodge Corporation along with the city of Sault Ste. Marie,
the BPAC, and the State of Michigan, expressed a preference for sediment removal instead of waiting for
natural recovery. An application was submitted in 2004, and subsequently accepted for Great Lakes Legacy
Act funding. In September 2006, US EPA, Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ), and
Phelps Dodge Corporation began a project to dredge approximately 40,000 cubic yards (30,600 m3) of
contaminated sediment from the bay and soil from two small mercury-impacted wetland areas. Dredging was
completed in 2007 and eliminated approximately 500,000 pounds (227,000 kg) of chromium and 25 pounds (11
kg) of mercury from the St. Marys River.
April 2008 A-21
-------
Lake Superior LaMP 2008
Significant improvements to the Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario, East End Wastewater Treatment Plant were
completed in support of the St. Marys River RAP in 2006. These improvements were completed at a cost of
$73 million (CDN), with over $21 million (CDN) provided by the Government of Canada and $25.8 million
(CDN) from the Government of Ontario. The upgraded plant has state-of-the-art wastewater treatment
technology, and it is expected that significant improvements at the plant will result in improvements to water
quality in the St. Marys River.
In response to concern from residents about beach closings and water quality in the Sugar Island area in the
summer of 2006, the RAP team agencies partnered with representatives from local, tribal, state/provincial, and
federal agencies in Canada and the U.S. to form the Sugar Island Monitoring Work Group (SIMWG) in 2007.
The agencies involved in the SIMWG include: Algoma Public Health, Chippewa County Health Department,
Ontario Ministry of Environment (OMOE), MDEQ, EC, Health Canada, US EPA, Bay Mills Indian Community,
and Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians (Sault Tribe). The purpose of the SIMWG was to develop and
carry out a coordinated monitoring plan for the St. Marys River along the north shore of Sugar Island. The
workgroup's task was to conduct water quality monitoring, characterize the severity of water quality impairment,
and identify potential sources of bacteria and floating solids.
The SIMWG worked with the RAP team to hold the Sugar Island and Lake George Channel Symposium on
May 15, 2007, at the Cisler Center, Lake Superior State University (LSSU) in Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan. The
purpose of the symposium was to provide the public with information about water quality impairments observed
in 2006 on the north shore of Sugar Island and in the Lake George Channel, and to discuss the coordinated
monitoring and event response procedures planned by the SIMWG for 2007.
After over 17 weeks of monitoring in 2007, the SIMWG ceased monitoring operations in October for the winter
(though regulatory monitoring continues year-round). In total, over 800 samples were collected. The group is
now in the process of preparing a report and developing recommendations for 2008.
Since the AOC includes an international waterway, the St. Marys River RAP requires a cooperative effort
between Canadian and U.S. governments. EC, US EPA, OMOE, and MDEQ have worked in partnership to
further clarify areas of joint leadership and responsibility.
The cooperation and involvement of the four agencies, along with the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources
(OMNR), Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO), and Michigan Department of Natural Resources
(MDNR), has been fundamental to the St. Marys River RAP program.
The BPAC was formed in 1988 to provide informed and continuous public participation in the St. Marys River
RAP. The citizen-based group represents interests from both Ontario and Michigan. Members work with and
advise RAP participants on key aspects of the planning process. Members have included representatives from
industry, academia, First Nations, and elected officials. It is important to acknowledge the contributions of the
BPAC, which has played a crucial role in the development of the RAP during its 10-year history. These
accomplishments include:
identification of impairments and conditions
development of water use goals
identification of remediation needs and options
assessment of community programs and projects
development of use goals and general delisting criteria
establishment of BPAC office and library
April 2008 A-22
-------
Lake Superior LaMP 2008
The 1992 Stage 1 RAP report described the environmental conditions and identified the use impairments in the
AOC. The Stage 2 RAP report was completed in 2003. There were a number of workshops within the Stage 2
process of the RAP, to ensure there was broad based public involvement. These workshops were the basis for
developing the strategic plans and water use goals outlined in the RAP for restoring the impaired beneficial
uses of the AOC.
The four agency managers have recently made some important decisions for the three upper connecting
channel AOCs, including the St. Marys River, regarding development and application of specific, measurable
criteria for removing Beneficial Use Impairments (BUIs). As outlined in the Stage 2 RAP, the four agencies and
the BPAC developed water use goals and general criteria for removing BUIs for the entire AOC. The next step
is to take those general criteria and from them determine specific, measurable criteria that can be applied to
relevant remedial actions in both the U.S. and Canadian waters. The process is guided by the Four Agency
Letter of Commitment (1998) and the Compendium of Positions Papers (revised in 2007).
In the spring of 2007, the BPAC received a PAC support grant from the MDEQ to develop the fish and wildlife
restoration criteria and Restoration Plan. The project is expected to be completed by the end of June 2008. In
addition to the fish and wildlife BUIs, the MDEQ is offering the BPAC the opportunity to review the Michigan's
statewide criteria outlined in the MDEQ's Guidance for Delisting Michigan's Great Lakes Areas of Concern
document for the other eight BUIs listed for the AOC, and either accept the statewide criteria or develop local
criteria. The BPAC is currently in the process of comparing criteria outlined in the Stage 2 RAP with the
statewide criteria. Determination of the final suite of criteria for Michigan's portion of the AOC is also expected
to be complete by the end of June 2008. Binational consultation will occur throughout the entire process. The
MDEQ will proceed with approving BUI removal criteria for the St. Marys River AOC, as it has with other
Michigan AOCs, by the end of 2008.
The bottom sediments of the river including the Algoma Steel boat slip are contaminated. Algoma Steel
removed 3,200 cubic metres (4,200 cubic yards) of contaminated sediment in 2006 and had plans to remove
residual contamination in 2007.
Bellevue Marine Park is the first depositional zone downstream from the major industries located in Sault Ste.
Marie, and as a result, there is significant contamination of the existing sediment. Elevated levels of
contaminants such as PAHs and TPHs have caused impairment of benthic communities and residual toxicity.
In 1995, the chemical characteristics of sediment in Bellevue Marine Park were investigated by the OMOE. In
2005, OMOE/EC deployed sediment traps, and samples were sent for analyses. At sampling sites in George
Lake and Little Lake George, OMOE found chironomids, mayflies, and clams, indicating there is a healthy
benthic environment. Further sediment assessment is required.
On April 17, 1998, EC, US EPA, OMOE, and the MDEQ signed a Four Agency Letter of Commitment. The
Letter outlined agency roles and responsibilities during implementation of the RAPs for the St. Clair River,
Detroit River, and St. Marys River binational AOCs.
The Agencies have worked in partnership to further clarify areas of joint leadership and responsibility. A
Compendium of Position Papers has been written and describes how the agencies work together to provide
leadership for the RAPs, by involving the public, monitoring and reporting on progress, with the ultimate goal of
delisting the AOC. The Compendium was signed on February 2, 2000, and was revised in 2007.
A RAP Coordinator for the St. Marys River has been hired in support of the current Canada-Ontario Agreement
(COA) commitments (2007-2010). The RAP coordinator will assist in implementing the St. Marys River RAP,
and will provide leadership on consultation with community participants. This position is funded by OMOE
through COA and is the result of a unique partnership between the Sault Ste. Marie Region Conservation
Authority, OMOE, and EC.
April 2008 A-23
-------
Lake Superior LaMP 2008
Implementation of the actions recommended in the Stage 2 Report have not all proceeded at the same pace.
Some actions are still in the early stages, while others are either complete or have been ongoing for some time.
The following are examples of the projects currently being implemented by various stakeholders:
Process improvements, water treatment improvements and air quality monitoring at Algoma Steel
Improvements to water treatment and air emissions at St. Marys Paper
Land-based investigations and remedial actions are ongoing at the site of a decommissioned
manufactured gas plant downstream of the Sault Edison power plant beside MCM Marine. Consumers
Energy has removed a total of 11,503 tons (10 435 tonnes) of contaminated soil and 7,519 tons (6 821
tonnes) of contaminated sediment from the site. Following removal, the upland areas, shoreline, and
nearshore river bottom were stabilized and improved. The need for removal of additional river-based
sediments is currently being investigated.
The Sault Ste. Marie Area Watershed Management Plan (Michigan) has been approved by the MDEQ.
A steering committee meeting was held in late 2007 to prioritize tasks and implement the plan. Many
restoration and protection recommendations from the Stage 2a RAP related to Sault, Michigan, were
incorporated into the Sault Ste. Marie Area Watershed Management Plan along with many more,
detailed recommendations to improve water quality and habitat for the St. Marys River. In the near
future, partners including BPAC, LSSU, the City of Sault Ste. Marie, and others will be seeking funding
to implement the recommendations of the watershed plan.
Since 2004, LSSU has been involved in a three-year project to determine the ecosystem health of the
St. Marys River. The LSSU researchers are investigating coastal marshes to determine the status of
habitat and the wildlife by collecting biological, sediment, and water samples and performing various
types of chemical analyses. All field studies have been completed and indices of biotic integrity are
being developed. Further refinement and development of biotic and chemical integrity models is
ongoing. A final report is to be submitted to the USEPA in the summer of 2008.
Bellevue Marina Sediment Management Strategy completed.
The St. Marys River Fishery Task Group's St. Marys River Fisheries Assessment Plan outlines
assessments and knowledge needs for the river to address stakeholder identified issues and
concerns. In response, Task Group members from Ontario and Michigan have partnered to conduct
sport fish harvest, fish population and annual young of the year walleye surveys on the river since
1999. Other assessment and monitoring projects are conducted individually by agencies in support of
agency specific programs. Projects completed since the 2006 LaMP Update are highlighted below.
Reports published by the Task Group may be viewed at
http://www.glfc.org/lakecom/lhc/lhchome.php#pub
o In 2005 and 2007, OMNR and MIDNR carried out an angler caught sport fish harvest survey
of the lower St. Marys River.
o Annual "young of the year" walleye electrofishing surveys to look at annual recruitment and
stocking survival are conducted by members of the St. Marys River Fisheries Task Group
which include OMNR and DFO. Established survey sites are covered each year along the
east side of Lake George by OMNR and DFO. New sites in the St. Joseph Channel were
surveyed in 2007 in an attempt to discover critical habitat locations for young of the year
walleye.
o The Task Group conducted a fish population gillnet survey in 2006. The survey covered 42
sites from Whiskai Bay in the upper river to Potagannissing Bay in the lower river. Ten of
these sites were in Ontario waters. The report has been drafted and will be posted on the
Great Lakes Fishery Commission web site when complete.
o The United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) conducts annual exotic species trawls
in the river. In 2006 and 2007, the USFWS trawled the Algoma Steel slip in the upper river
and the shipping channel to Purvis Marine dock in the lower river specifically looking for the
invasive fish Eurasian ruffe, which is slowly expanding its range eastward along the south
shore of Lake Superior.
o In 2006 and 2007, OMNR conducted a spring rainbow trout creel survey in the St. Marys
River.
April 2008 A-24
-------
Lake Superior LaMP 2008
o In 2007, a short-duration lake herring creel survey was conducted in Potagannissing Bay by
the OMNR. Tissue was also collected and sent to OMOE for contaminant analysis.
o LSSU conducted Atlantic salmon spawning success surveys in the St. Marys Rapids in 2007.
RAP Accomplishments
Although implementation of some remedial actions is just beginning, important steps forward have already
been made in the St. Marys River AOC. A great deal of monitoring in the St. Marys River has occurred over
the last 20 years, primarily in response to the St. Marys River being designated as an AOC. These activities
are described in more detail in the 1992 and 2003 RAP documents. Examples of projects that have been
completed since the 2006 LaMP Update are highlighted below.
East End Wastewater Treatment plant was upgraded to secondary treatment, and the outfall pipe was
relocated to deeper water.
Cannelton Industries site dredging was completed in 2007 and eliminated approximately 500,000
pounds (227,000 kg) of chromium and 25 pounds (11 kg) of mercury from the St. Marys River.
RAP Participants
Cooperation is critical to the RAP process. Undertaking environmental restoration requires a large amount of
local knowledge, scientific expertise and hard work. One agency or group cannot undertake such a large task
on their own, without the help of others. Listed below are participants that contribute to the RAP program.
Algoma Steel
Anishinaabeg Joint Commission
Bay Mills Indian Community
Binational Public Advisory Council
Chippewa Ottawa Resource Authority
City of Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan
City of Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario
Environment Canada
Fisheries and Oceans Canada
Great Lakes Sustainability Fund
Health Canada
Lake Superior State University
Local First Nations and Native American
communities
Michigan Department of Environmental
Quality
Michigan Department of Natural
Resources
Ontario Ministry of the Environment
Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources
Sault Ste. Marie Region Conservation
Authority
Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa
Indians
St. Marys Paper
April 2008
A-25
-------
Lake Superior LaMP 2008
A.2.2 U.S. Fact Sheets
A.2.2.A Torch Lake
Torch Lake Area of Concern
Torch Lake AOC Boundary Map
(click on map to view in separate window)
Torch Lake shape file
Background
Torch Lake became an Area of Concern
(AOC) due to fish tumors of unknown origin
which resulted in fish consumption
advisories. The 1987 RAP document
identified three Beneficial Use Impairments
(BUIs) for the Torch Lake AOC. Fish Tumors;
Degraded Benthos; Fish Consumption
Advisories.
The Torch Lake Area of Concern is located
on the Keweenaw Peninsula within Houghton
County on the northwestern shore of
Michigan's Upper Peninsula and on Lake
Superior's southern shore. The region is
locally known as the Copper Country.
Deposits of native (elemental) copper are
found in the Portage Lakes Lava Series, a
long narrow bedrock formation which extends
from the tip of the Keweenaw Peninsula
southwest to the Michigan-Wisconsin border
covering a distance of over one hundred miles.
Mason Stamp Sand Parcel of Torch Lake AOC after remediation
April 2008
A-26
-------
Lake Superior LaMP 2008
Copper-bearing ore on the Keweenaw
Peninsula contains copper in its native or
natural metallic form. For this reason, it has
been a source of copper for people for
thousands of years. More recently, it is the
waste products from the industrial milling,
smelting, and leaching operations of the mined
copper bearing ore that have created the
present environmental concern. These industrial
processes began during the 1840s and
continued for more than a century until all
mining and related operations ceased in 1968.
Those processes left stamp sands and slags
deposited either on the surface of the
surrounding landscape or in adjacent lakes and
streams. Portions of the surficial materials
eroded into nearby waterbodies.
Mason Stamp Sand Parcel of Torch Lake AOC before
remediation
It is estimated that more than 10.5 billion
pounds of copper were produced in the Copper
Country between the mid-1 840s and 1 968. Half of this output was processed at sites scattered across the
Copper Country landscape. The remainder was processed along the western shoreline of Torch Lake, a 2,700
acre body of water in Houghton County. About 200 million tons of copper ore tailings were deposited in Torch
Lake, displacing about 20 percent of the lake's original volume (MDNR 1 987).
The Torch Lake Area of Concern Boundary was described in the 1987 Torch Lake Remedial Action Plan (RAP)
document " ..... Torch Lake and its immediate environs." Immediate environs can be described as those areas
along the shore of Torch Lake proper where wastes from the production of copper contributed directly to the
contaminate loadings of Torch Lake. These areas had stamp sands and water quenched slags dumped on the
shore and into the lake during the copper production process. The AOC boundary was formally agreed to by
the Torch Lake Public Advisory Council (TLPAC), US EPA and the Michigan Department of Environmental
Quality in 2005.
The 1987 RAP document identified three Beneficial Use Impairments (BUIs) for the Torch Lake AOC:
Fish Tumors
Degraded Benthos
Fish Consumption Advisories
Torch Lake Beneficial Use Impairments
Restrictions on fish and wildlife consumption
Fish tumors or other deformities
Degradation of benthos
April 2008
A-27
-------
Lake Superior LaMP 2008
The Torch Lake AOC Public Advisory Council has requested that the State of Michigan begin the AOC delisting
process for their AOC. A technical committee was developed comprised of staff from state and federal
agencies and the PAC. The technical committee determined to use delisting criteria based on the recently
released Guidance for Delistinq Michigan's Great Lakes Areas of Concern document, released January 2006.
2008 Report - Torch Lake Sediments Report: A Sediment Chemistry Survey of Torch Lake,
Houghton County Michigan. August 7, 8, and 9, 2007. Report # MI/DEQ/WB-08/011 *.
2006 - PCB Study Using Semipermeable Membrane Devices in Torch Lake, Houghton County.
MI/DEQ/WB-06/034*.
August 2001 - Torch Lake AOC RAP Update completed*.
1987 - Michigan Department of Natural Resources Remedial Action Plan for the Torch Lake Area of
Concern completed.
* MDEQ reports available by contacting Sharon Baker MDEQ, Water Bureau at 517-335-3310 or
Bakers9@michiqan.gov.
The 1987 Torch Lake RAP suggested the following actions to enhance the recovery of Torch Lake:
Promote revegetation of tailings to minimize erosion of the particulates associated with the mine tailings
by wind and water into the lake;
Continue the upgrade of local wastewater treatment facilities; and
Institute sauger/walleye restocking.
The Torch Lake AOC included four of 14
Superfund Areas that were divided into operable
units (OU). Two of three OUs, i.e. OU 1 and
OU2, as designated under the two Superfund
Record of Decisions, were applicable to the
Torch Lake AOC. These were:
OU 1 - includes the stamp sands, water
quenched slags and other mining
wastes deposited along the Torch Lake
shoreline.
OU 2 - includes ground water, surface
water and submerged stamp sands and
sediments in Torch Lake, Portage Lake,
the Keweenaw Waterway/Portage Ship
Canal, the Lake Superior Shoreline from
south of the North Entry to Freda/Red
Ridge, Boston Pond and Calumet Lake.
Mason Stamp Sand Parcel of Torch Lake AOC after Superfund
remediation. Note dredge and smelter leftover from the copper
mining days.
April 2008
A-28
-------
Lake Superior LaMP 2008
The selected remedy for OU 1 was to cover with soil and seed down to prevent erosional actions by wind and
water. Remedial actions for the Torch Lake Superfund Site were completed by September 2005. Some parcels
have already been deleted from the National Priorities List (NPL). Once all parcels are deleted, the state will
assume Operation and Maintenance of the areas, including long-term monitoring of all OUs. Under the ROD
for OU 2, natural attenuation was the selected remedy for the lakes. OU 2 has been deleted from the NPL.
Hubbell/Tamarack City Stamp Sand Parcel of Torcn La/
-------
Lake Superior LaMP 2008
2001 - Baseline Study Report: Torch Lake Superfund Site, Houghton County, Michigan, US EPA-
Superfund.
1996 - A Mining Legacy: Torch Lake and Area of Concern (18-minute video), Houghton/Keweenaw
Soil and Water Conservation District.
1994 - Declaration for the Record of Decision for Operable Unit II, Houghton County, Michigan, US
EPA.
1992 - Declaration for the Record of Decision for Operable Units I & III, Houqhton County, Michigan,
US EPA.
Public election of the members of the Torch Lake Public Advisory Council (TLPAC) took place in the spring of
1997. In less than one year the group adopted its by-laws, mission statement, goals and objectives, and
incorporated as a tax-exempt, nonprofit Michigan corporation. It has received contributions from local
governments, businesses, environmental groups, and private individuals to help defray logistical expenses. In
addition, TLAPAC has been awarded over $24,000 from agency grants and private foundations.
Currently, there are seven schools within the AOC that have instituted Adopt-A-Stream projects. The
Keweenaw Waterway Trail Association, in cooperation with local and state agencies, has developed a series of
low-impact boating campsites along the waterway.
Wildlife abounds on the newly vegetated stamp sands of Torch Lake AOC. Small mammal
survey results show wildlife is quite abundant on newly revegetated stamp sands compared
to unremediated stamp sands where we did not find any wildlife at all.
Adams Township
Calumet Township
Chassell Township
City of Hancock
City of Houghton
Elm River Township
Franklin Township
Hancock Township
Houghton Co. Natural Resources
Conservation Service
Houghton County Board of
Commissioners
Keweenaw Bay Indians, Band of
Chippewa
Keweenaw National Historical Park
Lake Linden Village
Michigan Department of Environmental
Quality
Michigan Department of Natural
Resources
April 2008
A-30
-------
Lake Superior LaMP 2008
Michigan Statewide Public Advisory
Council
Michigan Technological University, Center
for Science and Environmental Outreach
Osceola Township
Portage Township
Quincy Township
Schoolcraft Township
Stanton Township
Torch Lake Public Advisory Council
Torch Lake Township
US EPA - Great Lakes National Program
Office
US EPA - Superfund
US EPA RAP Liaison:
Brenda R. Jones, RAP Liaison
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Great Lakes National Program Office
77 West Jackson Blvd. (SR-6J)
Chicago, IL 60604
(312) 886-7188 phone
(312)886-4071 fax
iones.brenda@epa.gov
State RAP Contact:
Sharon Baker, RAP Contact
Michigan Department of Environmental Quality
Water Bureau
P.O. Box 30273
Lansing, Ml 48909-7773
PH: 517-335-3310
FAX: 517-373-9958
BAKERS9@michigan.gov
Torch Lake Public Advisory Council:
Dave Jukuri, Chair
1100 Century Way
PO Box 97
Houghton, Ml 49931
Ph: 906-482-0001
Fax:906-482-1310
c21ncah@up.net
Dan Lorenzetti, Secretary
100 Isle Royal Sands
Houghton, Ml 49931
Ph: 906-482-2731
Fax: 906-482-49931
Dan@superiorblock.com
Local Coordinator:
James Trevethan, SPAC Representative
17463 Osma Plat Rd.
Houghton, Ml 49931
Ph: 906-482-4951
April 2008
A-31
-------
Lake Superior LaMP 2008
LEGEND
MAJOR ROADS
| | SURFACE WATER
^\ URBAN AREAS
EXTENT OF
AREA OF CONCERN
-' (1987 REMEDIAL ACTION PLAN)
o :.ooo 4,000
Feet
TORCH LAKE. MICKIGAX
AREA OF CONCERN
April 2006
A-32
-------
Lake Superior LaMP 2008
A.2.2.B
St. Louis River
St. Louis River Area of Concern
St. Louis River AOC Boundary Map
(click on map to view in separate window)
St. Louis River shape file
Background
The St. Louis River, the largest U.S. tributary to Lake Superior, drains 3,634 square miles, entering the
southwestern corner of the lake between Duluth, Minnesota
and Superior, Wisconsin. The river flows 179 miles through
three distinct areas: coarse soils, glacial till and outwash
deposits at its headwaters; a deep, narrow gorge at Jay
Cooke State Park; and red clay deposits in its lower reaches.
As it approaches Duluth and Superior, the river takes on the
characteristics of a 12,000 acre freshwater estuary. The
upper estuary has some wilderness-like areas, while the
lower estuary is characterized by urban development, an
industrial harbor and a major port. The lower estuary includes
St. Louis Bay, Superior Bay, Allouez Bay, KimbaN's Bay,
Pokegama Bay, Howards Bay and the lower Nemadji River.
April 2008
A-33
-------
Lake Superior LaMP 2008
The St. Louis River System Area of Concern (AOC) is the area being addressed by the St. Louis River System
Remedial Action Plan (RAP). While system-wide in its approach, the St. Louis River AOC focuses primarily on
the lower 39 river miles and the entire 360 square mile Nemadji River watershed. The Nemadji River is split
almost equally between Minnesota and Wisconsin and discharges into the Duluth-Superior Harbor near the
natural outlet of the St. Louis River.
The RAP began in 1989 as a collaborative effort between the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) and
the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR). At that time, the agencies created a Citizens
Advisory Committee (CAC). In 1997, with agency assistance, the CAC opened its doors as an independent
nonprofit organization known as the Citizens Action Committee. Many of the original citizen and agency
partners are still active in the RAP and CAC.
The RAP process
determined that nine of 14
identified beneficial uses
were impaired. Some
impairments were
associated with the physical
loss and degradation of
habitat, with an estimated
7,700 acres of wetland and
open water habitat altered
or destroyed since
settlement. Other problems
were related more to
pollution and toxicity. For
years, the river smelled bad
from industrial discharges.
That changed in 1978,
when the Western Lake
Superior Sanitary District
(WLSSD) wastewater
treatment plant began
operation. Nevertheless,
pollution continues to come
from sources such as
contaminated sediments,
abandoned hazardous
waste sites, poorly
designed or leaky landfills,
airborne deposition,
industrial discharges, chemical
St. Louis River Beneficial Use Impairments
Restrictions on fish and wildlife consumption
o Tainting of fish and wildlife flavor (unclear)
Degradation offish and wildlife populations
Fish tumors or other deformities
o Bird or animal deformities or reproduction problems (unclear)
Degradation of benthos
Restrictions on dredging activities
Excessive Loading of Sediment and Nutrients
o Restrictions on drinking water consumption, or taste and odor
problems
Beach closings
Degradation of aesthetics
o Added costs to agriculture or industry
o Degradation of phytoplankton and zooplankton populations
Loss of fish and wildlife habitat
spills, improperly sewered wastes, and surface runoff.
For further information and details on all of the BUIs, see a corresponding St. Louis River Beneficial Use
Impairments document, the Restoration Goals for Beneficial Use Impairments SLRCAC web page, and the
Remedial Action Plan (RAP) documents listed in the RAP Development and Status section below.
April 2008
A-34
-------
Lake Superior LaMP 2008
In 2004, the SLRCAC proposed restoration goals for many of the impaired uses through a citizen process and
submitted them to the WDNR and the MPCA. The Wisconsin Proposed Delisting Targets were published in
October 2007. The proposed targets for each of the BUIs within the St. Louis River AOC provide a good
starting point for the SLRCAC, in partnership with the WDNR and MPCA, to move forward with the public
comment process (scheduled for Summer 2008) and complete a "delisting roadmap". AOC-wide delisting
targets will be finalized by the end of 2008. The targets will serve as the roadmap for actions to lead to
delisting the AOC.
The SLRCAC was awarded a grant through the WDNR
to facilitate work on the delisting implementation
strategies for the St. Louis River AOC. During this
project, SLRCAC will coordinate information exchange
between federal, state, tribal agencies, and local
governments. SLRCAC will guide public participation in
the implementation strategies development process. In
brief, the SLRCAC will craft, facilitate public and agency
review, publish, post on web sites, and distribute the
delisting implementation strategies for the St. Louis
River AOC.
A progress report containing the CAC's 43 Stage Two recommendations was published in 1995.
Implementation began immediately and continues today. Some recommended actions are well underway or
completed, such as: (1) land acquisition, with 34,000 acres bordering the river permanently protected by
purchase or donation, (2) connection of Fond du Lac, MN, responsible for a high percentage of failing septic
systems, to the WLSSD, (3) programs to reduce sewage bypasses by keeping stormwater out of sanitary
sewer systems, (4) completion of a habitat plan for the lower St. Louis River, and (5) implementation of a three-
phase sediment strategy to reduce impairments associated with sediment contamination.
The Stage One document was published and reviewed in 1992. The IJC gave the RAP high marks for
broadening the geographic scope of the AOC and expanding the definition of the use impairments in order to
fully encompass local environmental concerns.
2007 - Working with harbor partners, WDNR released proposed Delisting Targets.
2004 - The SLRCAC proposed restoration goals for many of the impaired uses through a citizen
process and submitted them to the WDNR and the MPCA.
2002 - Lower St. Louis River Habitat Plan completed. The CAC worked with several partners from city,
county, state, and federal agencies and entities on this document.
1999 - The CAC received funding to implement the habitat plan recommendation.
1996 - St. Louis River Citizens Action Committee formed.
1995 - RAP Recommendation Implementation Status document drafted.
1995 - St. Louis River System RAP Progress Report completed.
1992 - The St. Louis River System RAP Stage One document completed.
April 2008
A-35
-------
Lake Superior LaMP 2008
Erie Pier Management Plan: The Harbor Technical Advisory Committee completed the Erie Pier
Management Plan, converting the designated Confined Disposal Facility (CDF) into a dredge material recovery
and recycle area. A subcommittee is currently developing marketing strategies for the use of materials in
regional projects such as mining reclamation, landfill daily cover, and road construction
(www.dsmic.oroAdredqe).
Hog Island Great Lakes Legacy Act Project Completed:
November 28, 2005, marked the completion of the Great
Lakes Legacy Act sediment cleanup at Hog Island in Superior,
Wisconsin. US EPA Great Lakes National Program Office
(GLNPO) Director Gary Gulezian joined Wisconsin Governor
Jim Doyle and 85 residents, local officials, and legislative aids
to celebrate this event. The $6.3 million project removed
nearly 55,000 tons of petroleum-contaminated sediment from
Newton Creek and parts of Hog Island Inlet.
Cleanup of this Great Lakes Legacy Act site, a joint project of
GLNPO and WDNR, began in July 2005, and the sediment
cleanup portion was completed in November 2005. The banks
of the creek and inlet were landscaped to prevent erosion.
The result will be a healthier habitat for fish and other aquatic
life, and the inlet will be safe for recreation.
Approximately $4.1 million of the funds to pay for this project
were provided by the Great Lakes Legacy Act. The act
authorizes $270 million over a five-year period to clean up
contaminated sediment in Great Lakes Areas of Concern. The
State of Wisconsin and other parties are providing 35 percent
of the project's cost, or about $2.2 million. These are
nonfederal matching funds required by the Legacy Act.
Remediation of Contaminated Sediments:
Surveys conducted in recent years have provided a great deal
of useful information about local sediment contamination.
Hog Island Inlet. Because of past pollution, the
inlet has not been safe for swimming or fishing.
Close-up view of the contaminated sediments
being removed from Hog Island Inlet.
At the St. Louis River/lnterlake/Duluth Tar Site in the St. Louis
River AOC in 2006, a 2,000-foot long sheet pile wall was
placed around the eastern portion of Stryker Bay, and a cap of
sand sandwiching a geo-textile mat was placed within the enclosed area. A rock dike with a clay liner was
constructed to cut-off Slip 6 from the river. In 2007, a water filtration plant was constructed to treat water from
the Contained Aquatic Disposal (CAD) facility. The CAD received contaminated sediments from Stryker Bay
and other areas where the dredging of materials containing PAH levels over 13.7 ppb had occurred. Activities
slated for 2008 include dredging a small segment of the St. Louis River, removing the sheet pile wall, and
capping the remaining area. Restoration activities scheduled for 2009 will focus on dredging around Tallas
Island (www.slridt.com).
In Minnesota, clean ups are underway at the two state Superfund sites on the river (USX and Interlake). Each
site has a community work group.
April 2008
A-36
-------
Lake Superior LaMP 2008
In Wisconsin, WDNR and Murphy Oil are working together to clean up the Newton Creek System, which
includes Hog Island Inlet. This is a staged clean-up process that began with Murphy Oil building a new waste
water treatment plant. In Fall 1997, Murphy Oil began cleaning up the headwaters of Newton Creek.
Pollution Prevention:
The RAP helped Oliver, Wisconsin, solve its
wastewater treatment problems. Oliver and the
Western Lake Superior Sanitary District
(WLSSD) in Duluth agreed to lay a pipe under
the river and treat Oliver's waste at WLSSD.
Water quality continues to improve, due to
pollution prevention efforts, better pre-treatment
programs and new stormwater management
activities, including efforts to control storm-
related "inflow and infiltration," which has caused
sewage bypasses in Duluth, with untreated
sewage flowing directly into Lake Superior.
MPCA, WDNR, and WLSSD are encouraging
pollution prevention in outreach programs aimed
at citizens and businesses.
Habitat Protection and Improvement:
In 2002, the Lower St. Louis River Habitat Plan
was completed. The CAC worked with several
partners from city, county, state, and federal
agencies and entities on this document. The Plan
is being used to protect and restore the river. The
plan classifies specific areas of the entire estuary
into habitat types and recommends what actions
are needed to restore, protect or enhance the
river. The Plan has been embraced by all levels
of government and by other groups and
organizations. Most recently it was a basis for the
part of the remediation of a Superfund site
cleanup located in the river at Stryker Bay on the Minnesota side of the river. Recommendations in the Habitat
Plan were also used in the Great Lakes Legacy Act contaminated sediment cleanup site on the Wisconsin side,
Hog Island Inlet. (See above.)
This is an aerial view of the area where contaminated
sediment and soil were removed from Newton Creek and
Hog Island Inlet.
Through a grant from US EPA GLNPO, the University of Minnesota - Natural Resources Research Institute
applied Great Lakes Environmental Indicator data to the AOC to establish ecotype reference sites for six near-
shore ecotypes identified in the St. Louis River Habitat Plan. These reference sites were then field-truthed, and
vegetative assessments were performed.
GLNPO led a design process for a restoration master plan at Hog Island. A multi-agency, stakeholder-driven
collaborative effort defined specific measures for restoring ecological processes and key habitats within Hog
Island and Newton Creek, providing a template for how restorations can occur throughout the Great Lakes
watershed.
The RAP was instrumental in the creation of WDNR's St. Louis River Streambank Protection Project, upstream
of Oliver, which purchased 6,900 acres, including shorelands bordering five miles along the St. Louis River and
13 miles along the Red River and its main tributaries. The project includes most of the Red River watershed,
which is characterized by steep slopes and highly erodible red clay soils.
April 2008
A-37
-------
Lake Superior LaMP 2008
The St. Louis River Board developed an even larger protection project along the St. Louis, Cloquet, and
Whiteface River (all in the St. Louis River watershed). Some 22,000 acres were acquired and transferred to the
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources.
Bio-control is being used on purple loosestrife infestations in wetlands on both the Minnesota and Wisconsin
sides of the lower estuary.
See Priority Action Items in the St. Louis River AOC for a look at current projects and what the RAP partners
hope to accomplish in the near future.
Wisconsin Proposed Delisting Targets, Short Elliot Henderson for Wisconsin Department of Natural
Resources, October 2007.
Hog Island and Newton Creek - Draft Ecological Restoration Master Plan, Biohabitats for
Environmental Protection Agency (GLNPO) and Douglas County, Wl, April 2007.
St. Louis River AOC Sediment Quality Management Plan, Emmons and Oliver Resources, Inc. for MN
Pollution Control Agency, September 2005.
Natural & Cultural History of the Lower St. Louis River: On-the-Water Guide for Canoeists, Kayakers &
Boaters. St. Louis River Citizens Action Committee, August 2001.
Historic Reconstruction of Property Ownership and Land Uses along the Lower St. Louis River. St.
Louis River Citizens Action Committee, October 1999.
Lake Superior/Duluth-Superior Harbor Toxics Loading Study. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency,
September, 1999.
Issue Paper Concerning Wet Weather Flow Issues: Sanitary Sewer Overflows Developed For the
WLSSD Effluent Quality Master Plan Project. Western Lake Superior Sanitary District, 1999.
Wisconsin's Lake Superior Coastal Wetlands Evaluation: A Report to the Great Lakes National
Program Office, US EPA. Wisconsin DNR PUB ER-09599, 1999.
Lake Superior Basin Water Quality Management Plan. Wisconsin DNR PUBL-WT-278-99-REV, March
1999.
Lake Superior Lakewide Management Plan 2000. Lake Superior Binational Program, April 2000.
Erosion and Sedimentation in the Nemadji River Basin. Natural Resources Conservation Service and
U.S. Forest Service, 1998.
Newton Creek System Sediment Contamination Site Characterization Report. Wisconsin Department
of Natural Resources, December 1995.
More information on these publications can be obtained by contacting the individuals listed in the St. Louis
River AOC Contacts section below.
The St. Louis River Citizens Action Committee, or SLRCAC, consists of people of all ages and walks of life who
work together to improve the St. Louis River. The independent nonprofit organization incorporated as a
501(c)(3) organization in 1996 to encourage implementation of the RAP and restoration of the AOC. The
SLRCAC has a successful track record of bringing parties together to implement projects and facilitate multi-
jurisdictional strategies for the AOC. A prime example is the Lower St. Louis River Habitat Plan (2002)
developed by the SLRCAC with federal, state, tribal, and local resource management professionals and
citizens. This plan is used extensively by the resource management agencies and local communities.
The St. Louis River System RAP has been recognized since its inception for its high level of citizen
participation and community involvement. Hundreds of individuals, representing a broad cross-section of the
community, have worked together to identify problems, develop and/or implement recommendations and
April 2008 A-38
-------
Lake Superior LaMP 2008
encourage environmental stewardship. They have provided crucial support for the RAP process and helped to
improve the health of the St. Louis River ecosystem.
Just as the St. Louis River and estuary are important components of the Lake Superior basin ecosystem, the
RAP activities are important to the Lake Superior Binational Program and the Lakewide Management Plan.
RAP actions, from contaminated sediment cleanup to habitat protection, pollution prevention, and community
involvement are all important to meet the Lake Superior basin
goals.
Public Outreach and Education:
River Watch Program in Minnesota and Water Watch Program
in Wisconsin have involved numerous area teachers and school
children in hands-on, field-oriented, water-quality education and
monitoring. These efforts have also included a spring River
Congress, annual stormdrain stenciling and several art/science
collaborations.
The RAP helped get signs posted to warn recreational users
about contaminated sediments at Stryker Bay in Duluth and at
Hog Island Inlet in Superior.
The SLRCAC has organized clean ups at the Connors Point
Recreation Area and Wisconsin Point in Superior as well as
Grassy Point and Erie Pier in Duluth.
. Wtww* _
sidinwWf teMMhobon nro|«a
The sign at the entrance to the Newton
Creek/Hog Island Inlet Great Lakes Legacy
Act Cleanup.
1854 Authority(www.1854authority.org)
Arrowhead Regional Development
Commission (www.ardc.org)
City of Duluth, MN
(http://www.ci.duluth.mn.us)
City of Superior, Wl
(www.ci.superior.wi.us)
Fond du Lac Tribe (www.fdlrez.com)
Harbor Technical Advisory Committee
Lake Superior Binational Program
Minnesota Department of Natural
Resources
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
Minnesota Sea Grant
River Watch Project
River Quest
St. Louis River Citizens Action Committee
The Nature Conservancy
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
US EPA
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Western Lake Superior Sanitary District
(www.wlssd.com)
Wisconsin Department of Natural
Resources
Wisconsin Sea Grant
US EPA RAP Liaison:
John Haugland
US EPA, GLNPO
77 West Jackson Blvd. (G-17J)
Chicago, IL 60604-3590
Ph: 312-886-9853
Fax:312-353-2018
haugland.iohn@epa.gov
Minnesota AOC Coordinator:
Marc Hershfield
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
525 Lake Avenue South, Suite 400
Duluth, MN 55802
Ph: 218-723-2358
Fax:218-723-4727
marc.hershfield@.pca.state.mn.us
April 2008
A-39
-------
Lake Superior LaMP 2008
Wisconsin AOC Contacts:
John Jereczek
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
1401 Tower Avenue
Superior, Wl 54880
Ph: (715)395-6905
Fax:(715)392-7993
John.Jereczek@wisconsin.gov
Megan O'Shea
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
1401 Tower Avenue
Superior, Wl 54880
Ph: 715-395-6904
Fax: 715-392-7993
Megan.OShea@wisconsin.gov
St. Louis River Citizens Action Committee:
Bonita Martin, Chair
9026 Bayfield Road
Poplar, Wl 54864
Ph: 715-364-2896
martinb@charter.net
Julene Boe, Executive Director
St. Louis River Citizens Action Committee
394 S. Lake Avenue - Suite 303B
Duluth, MN 55802-2325
Ph: 218-733-9520
Fax: 218-723-4794
slrcac@stlouisriver.org
Fond du Lac Tribe:
Nancy Schuldt
Water Projects Coordinator
1720 Big Lake Road
Cloquet, MN 55720
(218)878-8010
April 2008
A-40
-------
Lake Superior LaMP 2008
A.2.2.C
Deer Lake
Deer Lake Area of Concern
Deer Lake AOC Boundary Map
Background
Deer Lake is an approximately 1,000-
acre impoundment in central
Marquette County near Ishpeming,
Michigan. The Area of Concern
(AOC) boundary is considered to be
Carp Creek from the discharge point
of the old Ishpeming Township A
Wastewater Treatment Plant, flowing
downstream to the south basin of
Deer Lake and includes Deer Lake
and the Carp River flowing
downstream through the dam from the
north basin of Deer Lake about 20
miles to Lake Superior near
Marquette. International Joint
Commission, Environmental
Protection Agency, and Michigan
Department of Environmental Quality
guidance materials describe that
AOCs should be considered on a
watershed basis. In most AOCs the
watershed is considered a potential EarlY fal1 in South Basin looking toward the narrows.
source area to that AOC. Contaminant sources to Beneficial Use Impairments (BUIs) that are identified within
the watershed, even if not located within the defined AOC boundaries, would be given every consideration for
remedial actions, when meeting all federal and state guidance.
April 2008
A-41
-------
Lake Superior LaMP 2008
In 1981 fish in Deer Lake were discovered to have concentrations of mercury that exceeded the 1.5 mg/kg "ban
on total consumption" by the Michigan Department of Community Health (MDCH). Mercury concentrations in
Deer Lake fish also exceeded the mercury levels found in fish from similar lakes at that time.
There were two known industrial sources of mercury to the Deer Lake AOC. The first industrial use of mercury
occurred in the 1880s in the northwestern portion of the Deer Lake AOC watershed by the Ropes Gold and
Silver Company. Liquid (elemental) mercury was used in an amalgamation process to recover gold from ore
between 1882 and 1897 at a location west of the north basin of Deer Lake. Mine tailings were submerged as
successive dams were built.
The second industrial use of mercury
occurred in the Carp Creek watershed.
Mercury salts were used in iron ore assays in
laboratories of The Cleveland-Cliffs Iron
Company (CCIC). Mercury-containing
wastewater from the CCIC laboratories was
discharged to the City of Ishpeming
wastewater treatment system between 1929
and 1981. During that time the City
wastewater treatment plant discharged
primary-treated municipal wastewater into
Carp Creek which then flows into the south
basin of Deer Lake.
From 1929 to 1963 all wastewater generated
in the City of Ishpeming and Ishpeming
Township was discharged without treatment
through combined sanitary and storm sewers
into Carp Creek. From 1964 to 1985 three
Primary Treatment Plants treated municipal
wastewater before it was discharged into
Carp Creek. In 1970 these primary treatment systems were determined to be inadequate by the State Water
Resources Commission. The combined sewers were separated into sanitary sewers and storm sewers by
1985. An Enhanced Secondary Wastewater Treatment Plant replaced the three Primary treatment plants in
April 1986. The new wastewater treatment system significantly decreased nutrient loadings into Deer Lake; for
example, phosphorus loading decreased by 86 percent.
Sunset view of the South Basin of Deer Lake looking toward the
narrows.
Three beneficial use impairments (BUIs) have
been identified for the Deer Lake AOC. These
include:
Deer Lake Beneficial Use Impairments
Restrictions on fish and wildlife consumption
Bird or animal deformities or reproduction problems
Eutrophication or undesirable algae
Some fish sampled from Deer Lake contain mercury concentrations that exceed the 1.5 mg/kg "do not
consume" threshold that has been established by the MDCH. Currently, there is a possession ban for all fish
from Deer Lake. There is no fish consumption advisory for brook trout in Carp Creek and the Carp River,
however, consumption of other species in these streams is not advised. There are no consumption advisories
for wildlife in the Deer Lake AOC.
The matrix below shows the history of the Deer Lake, Carp Creek, and Carp River Fish Consumption
Advisories. These advisories are all based on methylmercury found in fish tissue. Please review the Michigan
Department of Community Health website at httD://www.michiqan.qov/mdch/1,1607,7-132-2944 5327-13110-
,00.html before consuming fish from Michigan waters.
April 2008
A-42
-------
Lake Superior LaMP 2008
YEAR
1981
1982-
1995
1996-
2000
2001 -
2006
2007
Deer Lake
No
Consumption
Carp Creek
No
Advisory Issued
Carp River
No
Advisory Issued
No Consumption of Any Species
No
Consumption
No
Consumption
No
Consumption
Brook Trout Unrestricted / All Other Species-No Consumption
Brook Trout-Restricted
All Other Species-No
Consumption
Brook Trout & White
Sucker-Restricted
All Other Species-No
Consumption
Brook Trout-No Restrictions
Northern Pike-Restricted
All Others Species-No
Consumption
Brook Trout & White Sucker-No
Restrictions
Northern Pike-Restricted
All Other Species-No
Consumption
Bald eagles maintained a nest at Deer Lake between 1963 and 1980, but did not successfully rear young
during that time. Eagles were documented to be reproducing successfully again beginning in 1998.
Deer Lake was characterized as eutrophic (nutrient-rich) by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (US
EPA) during a national lake survey in 1972. A 1974-75 study by Northern Michigan University concluded that
Deer Lake was hypereutrophic (excessively nutrient-rich). Dissolved oxygen (DO) concentrations have been
used to assess and monitor the trophic (nutrient) status of the AOC.
The Deer Lake AOC Public Advisory Council has requested that the State of Michigan and the US EPA begin
the delisting process for the AOC. An AOC Technical Committee was developed comprised of staff from state
and federal agencies and the PAC's technical committee. The technical committee determined to use delisting
criteria based on the January 2006 Guidance for Delistinq Michigan's Great Lakes Areas of Concern document
to understand the current status of the BUIs identified for this AOC. This investigation has resulted in the
development of BUI Removal documents for the Eutrophication and Reproduction BUIs (currently in the review
process outlined in the Guidance). The technical committee is still conducting investigations related to the Fish
Consumption BUI.
A Remedial Action Plan (RAP) for Deer Lake Area of Concern was published by the MDEQ in 1987. The Deer
Lake RAP Update is currently in draft form and will be used as the basis for the Deer Lake Delisting
Determination Document.
April 2008
A-43
-------
Lake Superior LaMP 2008
As described in the original 1987 RAP,
several restoration milestones were
achieved prior to the AOC listing
process. In addition, many more
milestones have been achieved since
the RAP was published. The 2008
Deer Lake AOC RAP Update will
outline all of the remedial actions and
milestones implemented in this AOC
since the 1987 Deer Lake RAP
(currently in MDEQ Review Process).
Significant recent activities include:
2007 - MDEQ and the PAC
Technical Committee completed
an assessment of the
Eutrophication or Undesirable
A loon swimming during Autumn; from Fred Minnich's Wildlife Survey
conducted July 2004-June 2005.
Algae BUI and concluded that the Deer Lake AOC had recovered from hypereutrophication through
processes put in place prior to the 1989 RAP document. The PAC Technical Committee recommended
that the Eutrophication or Undesirable Algae BUI be removed based on the states Delisting Guidance
criteria (MDEQ, 2006a)
2007 - MDEQ and the PAC Technical Committee completed an assessment of the Bird or Animal
Deformities or Reproduction Problems BUI, which was directly related to former perceived causes of the
bald eagle reproductive failures. The committee concluded that the Deer Lake AOC eagle population had
been effected by historic DDT, and these sources had either been controlled through regulatory actions by
the federal government or the sources were outside of the basin or not under the direct control of the
state. The PAC Technical Committee recommended that the Bird or Animal Deformities or Reproduction
Problems BUI be removed based on the states Delisting Guidance criteria.
2006 - Amendments to the Consent Judgment (CJ) for Deer Lake between CCIC and the state were
completed, which set management, monitoring, and other criteria for Deer Lake. This CJ is available from
the MDEQ-Water Bureau.
2005 & 2006 - Winter monitoring by MDEQ (2005) and CCIC (2006) showed additional improvements in
dissolved oxygen (ELM, 2005). Dissolved oxygen concentrations were sufficient to support fish growth
and survival to a depth of 25 feet.
2005 - Manolopoulos and Hurley, University of Wisconsin, data showed that chlorophyll a concentrations
in the reservoir had decreased significantly since 1972. Data showed that the sediments were still
heavily contaminated with total mercury and methylmercury. It was also observed that the lake still
stratifies in both basins.
2007 - MDEQ and the PAC Technical Committee completed an assessment of the Eutrophication or
Undesirable Algae BUI and concluded that the Deer Lake AOC had recovered from
hypereutrophication through processes put in place prior to the 1989 RAP document. The PAC
Technical Committee recommended that the Eutrophication or Undesirable Algae BUI be removed
based on the states Delisting Guidance criteria (MDEQ, 2006a)
2007 - MDEQ and the PAC Technical Committee completed an assessment of the Bird or Animal
Deformities or Reproduction Problems BUI, which was directly related to former perceived causes of
the bald eagle reproductive failures. The committee concluded that the Deer Lake AOC eagle
April 2008
A-44
-------
Lake Superior LaMP 2008
population had been effected by historic DDT, and these sources had either been controlled through
regulatory actions by the federal government or the sources were outside of the basin or not under the
direct control of the state. The PAC Technical Committee recommended that the Bird or Animal
Deformities or Reproduction Problems BUI be removed based on the states Delisting Guidance
criteria.
2006 - The AOC Technical Committee was developed with representatives from the Michigan
Department of Environmental Quality, Michigan Department of Natural Resources, the Deer Lake
PAC, and US EPA to investigate BUI status and potential for delisting individual BUIs or the entire
AOC.
2005 - The Deer Lake PAC requested that the State of Michigan and US EPA begin the AOC delisting
process for the AOC based on the 2006 MDEQ Guidance for Delisting Michigan's Great Lakes Areas
of Concern.
Eaglet in tree near nest on Deer Lake North Basin, Mink on Rocky shore; from Fred Minnich's Wildlife Survey.
hatched and fledged 2004; from Fred Minnich's Wildlife
Survey.
The Technical Committee has reviewed the status of the BUIs for the AOC as part of the request by the PAC to
delist this AOC. The criteria used for this status assessment was based on the Guidance for Delisting
Michigan's Great Lakes Areas of Concern. Based on this review, the committee has begun the documentation
to remove the Reproduction BUI based on bald eagle productivity and the Eutrophication BUI. This review
determined that the development of a Delisting Determination Document cannot move forward at this time until
known sources of contamination driving the fish consumption BUI are controlled. Monitoring is required by
CCIC under the Consent Judgment. Ongoing projects include:
Ongoing investigations by MDEQ and US EPA, working in consultation with the PAC, to determine
status of the fish consumption advisory. Activities include proposed fish tissue monitoring for 2008.
Ongoing facilitations by MDEQ and US EPA to aid CCIC and the City of Ishpeming to resolve mercury
loadings to Cliffs Shaft Mine via Partridge Creek and the city's stormwaters. After Partridge Creek
exits the mine, it becomes a tributary to Carp Creek and contributes greater than 20 percent of the
mercury load to Deer Lake.
2008 - MDEQ Deer Lake AOC 2008 RAP Update is currently in the MDEQ review process.
2006 - Amended Consent Judgment (CJ) completed between Cleveland Cliffs Iron Company and the
state. CJ and related materials and fact sheets are available by contacting MDEQ-Water Bureau,
Sharon Baker at 517-335-3310 or BakerS@michiqan.gov.
April 2008
A-45
-------
Lake Superior LaMP 2008
2006 - Guidance for Delisting Michigan's Great Lakes Areas of Concern.
2002 - Draft RAP update developed by PAC, work continues on this document.
1999 - Updated AOC brochure produced.
1987 - Remedial Action Plan for Deer Lake Area of Concern completed.
A Public Advisory Council (PAC) was formed for the Deer Lake AOC in 1997. The formation of the PAC was a
very positive step, with strong community support from a large stakeholder base. The PAC has 21 voting
members, plus three non-voting state agency representatives who serve in an advisory capacity. PAC
membership represents a broad cross-section of interests, including:
City of Ishpeming
Cleveland-Cliffs Iron Company
Education
Environmental Organizations
Fishing (2 members)
Human Health Resources
Lakeshore Residents (4 members)
Local Businesses (2 members)
Marquette County
o Board of Commissioners
o Drain Commissioner
o Road Commission
Native Americans
Recreation
Township of Ishpeminq
Wastewater Treatment
Watershed residents at large
Yearly water quality monitoring provided by the PAC.
Local community and PAC members continue monitoring Carp Creek to control beaver populations to
maintain the coldwater fisheries by removal of beaver dams. PAC supplied waders to support these
efforts.
Ongoing volunteer stream bank, lakeshore, public access site, and island cleanup projects.
Water quality signage related to fish consumption advisories maintained by PAC.
Fish spawning bed established by PAC pass-through grant.
Deer Lake Public Advisory Council
Michigan Department of Community
Health
Michigan Department of Environmental
iualit
Michigan Department of Natural
Resources
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Great Lakes National Program Office
US EPA RAP Liaison:
E.Marie Wines
USEPA(G-17J)
77 W. Jackson Blvd.
Chicago, IL 60604
Ph: 312-886-6034
Fax:312-353-2018
Wines.E-Marie@epa.gov
State RAP Contact:
Sharon Baker
Michigan Department of Environmental Quality -
Water Bureau
525 W. Allegan Street
PO Box 30273
Lansing, Ml 48909-7773
Ph: 517-335-3310
Fax:517-373-9958
BakerS9@michigan.gov
COE Contact:
David M. Gerczak
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
April 2008
A-46
-------
Lake Superior LaMP 2008
477 Michigan Avenue
Detroit, Michigan 48226
Ph: 313-226-3387
Fax:313-226-7095
david.m.qerczak@lre2usace.army.mil
Deer Lake Public Advisory Council:
Diane Feller, PAC Chair and SPAC Representative
490 Deer Lake Road
Ishpeming, Ml 49849
Ph: 906-486-9967
dkfeller@aol.com
April 2008
A-47
-------
Appendix E
Proceedings from Making a Great Lake
Superior 2007: A Conference Linking
Research, Education and Management
For the final presentation of the Making a Great Lake Superior 2007 conference, John Austin of the Brookings Institute
spoke about the economic benefits of restoring the Great Lakes basin.
Photo credit: Elizabeth LaPlante, US EPA.
Lake Superior Lakewide Management Plan 2008
-------
-------
Lake Superior LaMP 2008
Proceedings from Making a Great Lake Superior 2007: A Conference Linking
Research, Education and Management
October 29-31, 2007
Duluth, MN
Summary
Planning for the Making a Great Lake Superior 2007 Conference began in 2006, with the goal of
bringing all the partnersresearchers, educators, and managersworking on Lake Superior
issues together to discuss the critical issues facing the lake. A workgroup was formed to help
with the brainstorming, decision-making, and preparations for the event. Workgroup members
included members of the Lake Superior Work Group, Task Force, Binational Program,
Binational Forum and representatives from the Sea Grant Programs in Minnesota, Wisconsin,
and Michigan. Minnesota Sea Grant led the conference preparations and functioned as the event
planner. An Executive Committee, consisting of mayors, managers, industry officials and others
involved with education, research, and management in Lake Superior, was established to help
guide the workgroup. Various sub-committees were formed around particular issues such as
communication and "green" conferencing.
Conference Goals
The overall conference goal was to work toward better integration of research, education, and
management around Lake Superior so as to address those issues most critical to the lake. Issues
selected included Areas of Concern, sustainability, toxic pollutants, non-point source pollution,
water levels, watershed stewardship, human health, invasive species, habitat, fisheries, climate
change and information management. Efforts were made to have equal numbers of talks on
management, research, and education within each topic and to have balanced attendance at the
conference from each of these audiences. To further the goal of integration, the main objective
was to promote discussions on:
Integrating research results into effective protection and restoration of Lake Superior;
How management approaches and projects reflect priorities;
The information needs of land and resource managers, and how this information could
best be provided;
The role of educators in ensuring that accurate information about Lake Superior is
reaching the right audiences in the right way; and
The role of citizen groups in protecting Lake Superior.
Several steps were taken to help achieve these objectives: ensure balance in the presentations
between research, education, and management; schedule 30 minute breaks, an evening reception,
and a banquet to allow for greater networking time during the conference; and schedule 90
minute workgroup sessions for researchers, educators, outreach staff, and managers to discuss
issues, new ideas, and priorities within their group. Pre- and post-conference events were
offered to attendees.
April 2008 E-l
-------
Lake Superior LaMP 2008
Topic Development
A team of "topic shepherds" was identified for each of the 12 main topics addressed at the
conference. The topic shepherds, selected from experts in the field, were given the task of
developing a plan for their session to include discussions on education, management, and
research, while covering the most important and current issues under that topic. Topic shepherds
were also responsible for encouraging other experts to present, recommending the abstracts to be
accepted for their session, and organizing the talks within the session. Overall, the session
presentations were balanced nearly equally between research (30 abstracts accepted), education
(29 abstracts accepted), and management (34 abstracts accepted).
Attendee Characteristics
Over 440 people attended all or part of the conference, representing 72 communities in Canada
and the U.S. Most participants were from Minnesota (187), Wisconsin (112), and Ontario (64),
but with significant numbers from Michigan (28) and Illinois (17), and others from 10 additional
states. Conference attendees were fairly equally distributed between land or resource managers
(33%), educators (24%), and researchers (19%), with fewer local elected officials, non-profit
organization representatives, consultants, and others. Attendees came from a variety of
organizations, including universities (22%), federal and state/provincial governments (20% and
15%, respectively), non-profits and non-governmental organizations (9%), local governments
(8%), K-12 educational institutions (7%), commercial/business/industry (6%), and tribes (5%),
with 8% not listing an affiliation.
Getting the Word Out
Advertising and marketing of the conference was largely limited to electronic means. A
conference website was developed and updated with new information as needed. The website
also included an e-mail sign-up for conference updates, which grew to 198 contacts. Existing
listservs, such as the Great Lakes Information Network (GLIN), and the e-mail networks of
everyone involved in conference planning were used to spread the word about the call for
abstracts, registration, and other conference information. Many participating organizations also
included conference announcements in their newsletters and/or on their websites. No paid
advertising was used. Nearly half of evaluation respondents indicated that they heard about the
conference through electronic means, with another 36% hearing about the event through personal
communications with another individual. Residents, educators, and researchers were slightly
more likely to have heard about the event through electronic means, while land managers were
evenly split between electronic and personal communication.
Public Involvement
Knowing that this event would be targeted toward those who have a professional interest in Lake
Superior, some activities for the general public were scheduled to provide the public with
opportunities to learn about the lake. Several events that were open to both conference attendees
and interested members of the public were organized. For example, a kite-making workshop at
the Great Lakes Aquarium was organized on the afternoon of October 28, 2007. This was led by
April 2008 E>2~
-------
Lake Superior LaMP 2008
students and staff from Northland College. That same evening, collaborations with the non-
profit organization Fresh Energy helped to bring polar explorer Will Steger to Duluth for an
evening seminar on global warming. Mr. Steger was joined by several other speakers, including
Dr. Lucinda Johnson from the Natural Resources Research Institute (University of Minnesota
Duluth), who also co-chaired the climate change session at the conference. Monday evening
(October 29, 2007), photographer Craig Blacklock gave a public presentation, using some of his
newest art and video of Lake Superior, and spoke about the need for conservation along the
coast. During the entire conference, an art room was open for public and participant use,
featuring Lake Superior-themed art from over 24 regional artists, and screenings of 10 Lake
Superior-related videos. All events were well-attended, with approximately 200 participants
attending the global warming seminar.
Green Conference
From the beginning, it was agreed upon that the event would have the smallest impact on the
environment possible. The conference environmental statement included aspects of waste
management, using locally-grown and/or produced foods, and making the event carbon-neutral
through minimizing energy requirements and purchasing offsets. This "green" approach affected
many conference decisions, including the hotel chosen, menus, printing and advertising, and the
conference venue.
The conference was held at the Duluth Entertainment and Convention Center (DECC), a leader
in environmental stewardship. All food waste from the event was composted, everything that
could be recycled was recycled, bulk containers were used in place of single-serving disposable
packages for such things as sugar, cream, cream cheese, butter, fruit juice, and yogurt, and all
surplus food from the meals and breaks was donated to the local food bank. The DECC sought
out new suppliers for many food items served at the conference, in an attempt to use as many
locally-grown or produced products as possible. In the end, of 84 menu items, 62 (74%) were
locally grown or produced (within MN or WI). Of the 22 items (26%) that were not local, half
were certified organic.
Carbon emissions from the event were estimated at 75 tons, covering travel of participants,
materials used and produced for the conference, and energy required for food production.
(Considering that locally-grown and produced foods were used as much as possible, it is
expected that this number may be an overestimate but significant research is required to confirm
this). Offsets totaling 75 tons are being purchased from Native Energy to build wind energy
projects. As an additional carbon offset, but also to replace trees used for paper used at and in
preparation for the conference, 300 trees and fencing for tree protection are also being purchased
for the Flute Reed Partnership, a local watershed group in Hovland, MN, to plant in the spring of
2008.
Other steps were taken to reduce the overall impact of the conference. The hotel was chosen
based on its distance to the conference center, the fact that it was connected directly to the DECC
through the sky walk system in case of unfavourable weather, and because it had shuttles to and
from the local airport. Bags and folders were not provided to participants, but publications of
interest were available for those who were interested. A book of abstracts or list of attendees
April 2008 EX?
-------
Lake Superior LaMP 2008
were not printed for the event, but were made available online instead, along with the
presentations. Attempts were made to organize carpools, and chartered buses, but these drew
little interest. Prizes were offered for those who traveled the farthest distance under their own
power, which led to bikers, walkers, carpoolers, roller skiers, and "scooterers". Participants were
asked to bring their own nametags to the event, with additional prizes given to the most
interesting nametags. Materials were made available onsite for those who forgot to bring a
nametag.
Plenary Session Day One: Setting the Stage (October 29, 2007)
Each day of the conference began in plenary session, with day one setting the background for
discussing the most the critical issues facing the lake. After a welcome from Duluth's Mayor
Herb Bergson, U.S. EPA Region 5 Regional Administrator Mary Gade charged the participants
to find ways to "protect, preserve, and maintain this international treasure," while working
together across boundaries. The opening keynote speaker, G. Tracy Mehan III, the former U.S.
EPA Assistant Administrator for Water and former director of Michigan's Office of the Great
Lakes, spoke of the need to find new ways to address problems by looking for new partnerships
across disciplines. He also advocated pursuing technical and social innovation so as to adapt to
and mitigate a changing environment. He concluded with the thought that mitigating and
adapting to climate change will require resilience in communities and technical, economic, and
social improvisation to meet the challenges that arise.
Mr. Mehan's talk was followed by a panel offering perspectives on past and future states of Lake
Superior. Mark Ebener, from the Inter-Tribal Fisheries and Assessment Program
(Chippewa/Ottawa Resource Authority), described how the Lake Superior fishery has changed
over time, while relating the effects of new species on the ecosystem. He also described how
stormwater runoff has had, and continues to have, a big impact on the ecosystem. Dr. Deborah
Swackhamer, with the University of Minnesota's Institute on the Environment, described the
legacy of toxic contaminants in Lake Superior and how Lake Superior is different than the other
Great Lakes. She described how our understanding of the lakes has changed over time, and the
growing concern over many contaminants of emerging concern, such as fire retardants,
Pharmaceuticals, plasticizers, and personal care products. Dr. Swackhamer message concluded
with the hope that we will learn from our past and carefully evaluate new chemicals before they
are released into the environment. Dr. Carl Richards, from the U.S. EPA Mid-Continent
Ecology Division, wrapped up the session with a discussion about the ongoing work to assess
how the Lake Superior ecosystem is functioning and predictions about how it will change in the
future. He also raised questions about whether the right things are being measured in the right
way, and whether there is infrastructure in place to share this information effectively.
Day One Concurrent Sessions
Geographic Information Systems, Great Lakes Observing System, and Information
Management
Tom Kralidis, with Environment Canada, kicked off the GIS session with a discussion of how
the Open GIS Consortium (OGC) has changed how governments and other organizations use
April 2008 E>4~
-------
Lake Superior LaMP 2008
spatial data. The session delved into internet applications and web feature service, online spatial
data, and interactivity, with examples including the COASTAL GIS and Lake Superior GIS
Projects, the Lake Superior Circle Tour, COASTWATCH, and GLIFWC-MAPS.ORG. Critical
needs identified include addressing long-term funding and management, and acquiring new data
across the basin. Extension education and outreach using GIS data, and making data more
readily available for use by the public and decision-makers were discussed as key opportunities
that should be pursued.
Sustalnablllty
The Sustainability Session began with a discussion on a paradigm shift in economic development
that is driven by Sustainability. This "Fourth Wave" offers a new lens through which individuals
and public, private, and non-profit organizations can look through during their decision-making
processes. Measuring Sustainability was featured during the session as well, with Martin Nantel
of Environment Canada discussing the Binational Program's Sustainability Framework, and
Sarah Brace (Puget Sound Partnership) describing how Puget Sound uses ecosystem indicators to
describe "What is Happening?", "How Does This Affect Me?", and "What Can I Do?".
Speakers also described several local initiatives and opportunities for sustainable development,
such as the Sustainable Chequamegon Initiative, focusing on creating a sustainable regional
community. The importance of moving toward a sustainable future was a common theme
throughout the session, with serious ramifications to our environment, economy, and social
institutions if this isn't considered.
Non-Point Source Pollution/Stormwater Runoff
Presentations in this session were varied and included nitrate levels in Lake Superior, interactive
real-time water quality data visualization, regional stormwater education partnerships, managing
woodlands, constructing rain gardens, sand beach dune protection and restoration, and watershed
management. Each presentation related directly to how Lake Superior lands are being used, how
this use is affecting Lake Superior, and what can be done to reduce these impacts, either on
private lands or in the communities. Best Management Practices (BMPs) are vital to reducing
these impacts, but they must work on clay and shallow bedrock soils (which requires effective
assessment and monitoring of these BMPs), and they must be maintained (which requires
funding). Education, in particular hands-on approaches, can be very effective at helping youth
and the public understand how they can help protect Lake Superior. Watershed approaches, as
employed by the Regional Stormwater Protection Team and used in the Marengo River
Watershed Test Case, can be effective from both educational and management perspectives.
Toxic Pollutants
As highlighted in the plenary session, toxic contaminants continue to pose threats to humans,
wildlife, aquatic species and other organisms in the Lake Superior basin. Contaminants of
emerging concern, endocrine disrupters, and mercury were highlighted in this session, as well as
monitoring, reduction strategies, and community activities to deal with these and other
contaminants. Some good news was reported: the levels of substances of emerging concern,
while increasing in Lake Superior, are lower than in the other Great Lakes, and community level
April 2008 &J
-------
Lake Superior LaMP 2008
activities to improve access to recycling and proper disposal of household hazardous wastes are
occurring in many communities. Difficult challenges still exist, however, with little community
ability and activity to deal with toxic contaminants in the numerous small communities all
around the basin. Important new research shows that effluent effects on reproduction in Lake
Superior fish are similar to the effects offish exposed to high levels of female hormones, i.e.,
reproductive and developmental problems.
Fisheries and Aquatic Ecology
Given that there are entire conferences focusing on the Lake Superior fishery, this session
focused on key elements of the ecosystem, and some of the major efforts occurring around the
lake to manage, monitor, and rehabilitate the fishery. Dr. Mary Balcer (UW-Superior) started the
session by discussing Lake Superior's lower trophic levels, the organisms that provide the major
source of food to support fish populations in the lake. While other Great Lakes are experiencing
dramatic declines in these organisms, Lake Superior's populations have remained relatively
stable, potentially due to the inability of zebra or quagga mussels to thrive in the deepwater
portions of the lake. The nearshore zone of the lake was discussed in detail as well, a critical
part of the lake which comprises less than 18% of the area but is a critical area of productivity
and which has been the focus of most commercial and recreational fishing pressure. This area is
recovering from past food web perturbations and moving toward a more natural state, but the
existence of invasive species will likely prevent full recovery. States, tribes, and federal
governments are active in fisheries work on Lake Superior, with significant efforts to rehabilitate
brook trout, walleye and lake sturgeon populations. Key legislation such as the Canadian
Species At Risk Act, which protects rare or endangered species in Lake Superior, such as the kiyi,
shortjaw cisco, blackfin cisco, deepwater sculpin, and lake sturgeon, has been passed, and
significant work has occurred on engaging the public in making fisheries management decisions.
Water Levels and Withdrawals
During 2007, Lake Superior reached all-time record low-water levels. Speakers in this session
shed light on historical lake levels, how water levels are managed in the lake, and impacts of low
water levels to wetlands and shipping, in particular. Since 1921, outflows of Lake Superior have
been completely regulated by the international Lake Superior Board of Control. Current targets
are aimed at keeping Lake Superior and Lakes Huron and Michigan within historic ranges, while
preventing Lake Superior from rising above, or falling below, certain limits. Full control of Lake
Superior water levels is not possible, however, since runoff, precipitation, and evaporation
cannot be controlled or accurately predicted. Climate change scenarios generally predict lower
water levels throughout the Great Lakes (though uncertainty exists); dredging cost estimates to
maintain shipping channels at these predicted levels range from $75 to $125 million, but specific
limits exist on dredging depths, and other infrastructure and dredge spoil issues remain. Dr.
Richard Stewart (University of Wisconsin-Superior) outlined these issues, and how the Great
Lakes shipping community can adjust to these changes. Wetlands are also affected by even
small lake level changes, but Doug Wilcox (U.S. Geological Survey) presented information
showing how coastal wetlands along Lake Superior have adapted to fluctuating water levels, and
even require fluctuations to maintain a diverse range of habitats that can support numerous
species offish and wildlife. In concluding this session, William Werrick described the recently
April 2008 EJJ
-------
Lake Superior LaMP 2008
commenced International Upper Great Lakes Study, as initiated by the International Join
Commission, to "investigate improvements to the regulation of the outflow of Lake Superior
given the impacts regulation may have on water levels, flows, and consequently affected
resources throughout the upper Great Lakes system." The final report is expected in 2012.
Plenary Session Day Two: Climate Change in Lake Superior (October 30, 2007)
From stormwater to human health, each and every topic discussed at the conference was affected
to some extent by climate change. This session was organized to help participants understand
the effects of climate change on the Lake Superior ecosystem from a broad perspective. More
detailed discussions were saved for the climate change concurrent session following the morning
plenary. Dave Phillips of Environment Canada described the changes being seen from a
meteorological perspective, and discussed the social issues about the perception of and
adaptation to climate change. Mr. Phillips ended with a call for action to reduce carbon
emissions and adapt to a changing climate, while maintaining a message of hope that what needs
to be done can be done. Linda Mortsch of Environment Canada described the latest results from
the United Nation's International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), and what climate change
means for the Lake Superior basin. According to the IPCC, "warming of the climate system is
unequivocal..." and requires a balanced response, including mitigation to reduce emissions and
adaptation to respond to the impacts to infrastructure and ecosystems. Impacts in the Great
Lakes basin, predicted and observed, include warmer air temperatures, more precipitation, less
snowpack, more intense rain events, greater evaporation, warmer water temperatures, changes in
thermocline development, and reduced winter ice cover, among others. Past climate is no longer
a reliable guide to the future, according to Ms. Mortsch; climate change information needs to be
mainstreamed into planning and decision-making. Dr. Joel Scheraga of the US EPA focused on
the necessary adaptations to climate change. He also focused on the need for cities,
municipalities and others to incorporate climate change into planning and decision-making, and
to take adaptation actions now. US EPA is currently undertaking a major assessment of the
impacts of climate change on the nation's water quality.
Day 2 Concurrent Sessions
/Areas of Concern
Lake Superior has eight Remedial Action Plan (RAP) Areas of Concern (AOCs): three in the
U.S. - St. Louis River shared by Minnesota and Wisconsin, and Torch Lake and Deer Lake in
Michigan; four in Canada (Ontario) - Thunder Bay, Nipigon Bay, Jackfish Bay, and Peninsula
Harbour; and one binational AOC - the St. Marys River. The AOCs are in different phases of
planning, assessment, and implementation of remedial actions. This session emphasized four
common priority themes across the AOCs: contaminated sediment; habitat degradation;
community engagement; and delisting criteria/beneficial use impairment (BUI) assessment.
Speakers presented on contaminated sediment assessment and management issues/processes; fish
and wildlife habitat assessment and restoration; community engagement processes, including
both Public Advisory Committee/Council perspectives and those of other stakeholders; and
delisting criteria/BUI assessment processes. Case studies highlighted the Thunder Bay, St.
Marys River, and St. Louis River AOCs' public involvement and participation.
April 2008 EX7~
-------
Lake Superior LaMP 2008
Watershed Stewardship
Watersheds provide a geographically-defined, ecologically-based unit for managing water
quality and associated natural resources. In addition, watersheds are a logical unit for addressing
many types of human activities and impacts. Speakers in this session described their educational
programs to help landowners, local officials, students, and teachers understand watersheds and
how they function, and help them make decisions to protect water resources. Dr. Ron Sundell
(Northern Michigan University) focused on the importance of communication between
researchers, educators, and resource managers around the lake, and he proposed developing a
collaborative strategy to link the various institutions around Lake Superior, in an attempt to
foster greater dialogue and communication.
Human Health
The Human Health session included beach monitoring and sources of E. coli, amphibole mineral
fiber issues, fish consumption advisories, and rip currents. Some highlights include the benefits
of eating whitefish from Lake Superior, given their relatively low level of contaminants and high
amounts of beneficial omega-3 fatty acids, and the information shared on how to identify, avoid,
and escape rip currents. One particularly interesting proposal was the development of a cisco
and whitefish fishery, which would benefit the tribes and provide a healthy alternative fish
source to the market. The challenge of communicating health risks without resulting in a
complete avoidance of the behavior was a critical point of discussionfish consumption,
swimming with the possibility of rip currents or E. coll all present as risks to the "user," even
though the risks are low. There is a need to ensure that messages are presented accurately, so
that citizens take the appropriate steps to minimize risks, but don't become so overly fearful that
they avoid fish consumption or swimming altogether.
Habitat Conservation and Species Management
This topic area included a wide variety of presentations relating to terrestrial and aquatic plants,
animals, and their habitats. The session addressed issues relating to status and trends, along with
associated inventory and monitoring efforts and needs, research and management results and
case studies, and educating students, the public, and decision-makers about habitat and species to
ensure that decisions now and in the future are informed by knowledge about these issues. Three
key messages regarding public-private partnerships emerged from the session: government
cannot do it all alone; landowners need to be in the information loop so they understand what's
going on and their permission must be sought for any actions that affect their properties; and
local officials must be made aware of activities in their communities. Educational needs include
a desire to make presentation materials such as those used during this session available for
educators, and the value in having researchers come to classrooms to describe their research to
students.
April 2008 E-8
-------
Lake Superior LaMP 2008
Invasive Species
Presentations focused on the history, ecology, economic impacts, and control of invasive species
in Lake Superior. In the lake, 31 plants, 25 fish, 22 invertebrates, and 9 diseases have been
discovered that are not native, with 55% of invasive species being introduced unintentionally.
Invasive species have been introduced in a variety of ways: 36% in ballast water, 22% through
cultivation, and 14% were stocked. Unfortunately, the rate of introduction has been steadily
increasing in the past 30 years, from 0.7 per year to 1.8 per year. Sea lamprey and smelt are the
two most significant invasive species in Lake Superior, but others are causing ecological harm as
well. New technologies are helping with control; pheromones are being explored for use in
controlling sea lampreys. The economic cost of invasive species in Lake Superior is significant.
Speakers listed public education as a priority, with the suggestion that education is more
important than regulations in controlling invasive species introductions. Suggested management
implications included using climate change information in new aquatic invasive species policies,
and addressing all mechanisms of introduction.
Climate Change
The first half of this session described specific impacts of climate change in the region, followed
by presentations addressing adaptation and mitigation efforts. Ice cover on inland lakes has
decreased in past decades as winter temperatures have increased; earlier ice breakup and later
ice-on dates have been documented on lakes around the region. Water temperatures in Lake
Superior have also warmed in the past decades, and this trend was shown to be closely linked to
ice cover on the lake. Phytoplankton and amphibian populations may also see changes under
warmer climates. Darryl Matson described the City of Thunder Bay's efforts to mitigate climate
change through energy reduction, energy conservation, and recycling. Al Douglas described
how communities can assess their vulnerability to climate change and develop adaptation plans,
and Cindy Hagley (University of Minnesota Sea Grant Program) described^ View From the
Lake, an educational program that focuses on climate change, discussing how the message can be
shaped to help participants understand the importance of both mitigation and adaptation.
Facilitated Workgroups Results
At the conclusion of the concurrent sessions, 90-minute workgroup sessions were held for each
of the conference's target audiences: researchers, land or resource managers, outreach and
public education, and K-12 educators. Each session was designed to build off of the information
presented at the conference up to that point, and to give each of these separate audiences a
chance to discuss the important pieces they had picked up, and share any needs, gaps, or
opportunities that they see.
April 2008 E-9
-------
Lake Superior LaMP 2008
Plenary Session Day Three: Next Steps, Sustainable Communities and
Economics (October 31, 2007)
The final day commenced with leaders from each
facilitated workgroup sharing the main points of their
discussions the prior day. David Ullrich, Executive
Director of the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Cities
Initiative, talked about his work with Great Lakes cities'
mayors to protect and restore the Great Lakes. He then
introduced a panel of local government representatives
from the Cities of Duluth, Bayfield, Superior, and Thunder
Bay, and Fond du Lac Band of Lake Superior Chippewa.
Each speaker shared thoughts on how their community is
attempting to work towards sustainability and protect Lake
Superior. It is clear that each community recognized the
importance of protecting Lake Superior, and each has taken
important steps to this end.
John Austin, of the Brookings Institute, provided the final
presentation, discussing the economic future of the Great
Lakes. According to Mr. Austin, The Great Lakes region
has unique attributes that really matter in today's economy:
an educated population, transportation infrastructure, fresh
water, and natural attributes that are amazingly valuable in
today's economy. Being on the water is one of the engines
of today's economy: people want to be near water.
Waterfronts, transit and transport, historic buildings, urban
streets, and civic and cultural institutions are all amenities that young professionals want in the
places they live; our older industrial cities have (or can have) all of these. Economic analysis of
the Great Lakes region found that if the main parts of the Great Lakes Regional Collaboration
(GLRC) Strategy were accomplished, including fixing sewer overflows, protecting wetlands, and
cleaning up all AOCs, at a current cost of $26 billion, the economic benefit would be $80-100
billion for the region. Mr. Austin recommends the following blueprint for renewing the Great
Lakes region: growing the talent our nation needs to compete in the world, fund the research and
development to create new, clean, and sustainable technologies, sustainably develop the
"freshwater coast" by following up on the GLRC, developing the infrastructure such as transit
and urban housing needed for this renewal, fuel the binational Great Lakes economy, initiate
universal pensions and health care, and provide workforce training and encourage labor
adaptability.
Figure E-l. David Ullrich, Executive
Director of the Great Lakes and St.
Lawrence Cities Initiative welcoming
Lake Superior mayors, tribes and local
elected officials at the MAGLS
conference. Photo credit: Elizabeth
LaPlante, US EPA.
April 2008
E-10
-------
Lake Superior LaMP 2008
Conference Co-Chairs:
Janet Keough
Keough.Janet@epatnail.epa.gov
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency National Health and Environmental Effects
Research Laboratory, Midcontinent Ecology Division
6201 Congdon Blvd., Duluth, MN 55804
Elizabeth LaPlante
LaPlante.Elizabeth@epa.gov
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency-Great Lakes National Program Office
77 W. Jackson, Chicago, IL 60604
John Marsden
John .Marsden@ec. gc. ca
Environment Canada
4905 Dufferin Street, Toronto, Ontario, Canada M3H 5T4
Jesse Schomberg
j schombe@d.umn.edu
University of Minnesota Sea Grant Program
2305 E. 5th St, Duluth, MN 55812
April 2008 E-ll
-------
Appendix F
Making A Great Lake Superior Conference
2007 Evaluation Findings
Polar Explorer Will Steger and Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty
at a news conference during the Making a Great Lake Superior 2007 conference.
Photo credit: Dave Ballard, UMD.
Lake Superior Lakewide Management Plan 2008
-------
-------
Making A Great Lake Superior Conference 2007
Evaluation Findings
February 6, 2008
Prepared for Conference Organizers by Jake Blasczyk, Ed. d., Evaluation Specialist
and Sue Vang, Evaluation Assistant, Environmental Resources Center, University of
Wisconsin Extension, 445 Henry Mall, Room 215, Madison, Wl 53706
-------
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
page
Summary of Outcomes i
Introduction 1
Methods 1
Findings 2
Characteristics of Respondents 2
Outcomes: Knowledge and Use of Information 3
Reactions to the Conference and its Events 4
Networking and Communications Between Targeted Groups 7
Opinions and Effects of the Green Design 8
Interest in Future Conferences 9
Summary and Observations 10
Appendix A: Tables of Comments 13
Appendix B: Text for Web Survey 18
References 24
-------
-------
SUMMARY OF OUTCOMES
Making A Great Lake Superior Conference was held in Duluth, Minnesota, from October 29
through October 31, 2007, with 444 registered participants. Four hundred and two (402) with
valid email addresses were invited to complete an electronic survey and 70% (281) did so. This
represents a robust response rate. Data analysis supports the following outcomes.
Increased Knowledge of Lake Related Issues
Many survey respondents said that their knowledge about Lake Superior issues increased
"somewhat" (55%) or "a lot" (32%) as a result of attending the conference. Those with "low" or
"very low" prior knowledge tended to say that their knowledge increased "a lot".
Large Numbers Used or Anticipated Using Information
Eighty-six percent said that they had already used or foresaw using information from the
conference. Some examples of use, based on comments, were collaboration with contacts
made, using information when teaching, and for media and publications.
Mixture of Lake Researchers, Educators, and Managers Attended
A third of the respondents were from a government or private land or resource management
position. Educators made up about a quarter and almost 20% were lake related researchers.
High Levels of Networking
Almost 60% reported that they networked at least 5 times or more at the conference, and
approximately a third networked 3 or 4 times. Networking was defined as "informal sharing of
information usually requiring you to initiate the sharing and may result in valuable on-going
contacts." In addition, during breaks, between sessions, lunch, and on their own time, high
percentages of individuals talked with an individual having a different affiliation.
Effectively Fostered Dialog and Information Sharing
Fifty-nine percent felt the conference was "somewhat effective" in fostering dialog and
information sharing between the three targeted groups (researchers, natural resource managers
and educators) and 26% said the conference was "very effective".
Green Principles Successfully Demonstrated
Almost 75% of participants were "very aware" of the conference's green design. A similar
portion said that the conference's steps to minimize its environmental impact were "very
important". A small percentage (9%) reported what they considered problems resulting from the
green design (lack of abstracts, nametags, bike racks, or cups and a confusing waste/recycling
system).
Additional Conferences Wanted
A strong majority (95%) said that the conference should be held on a regular basis and about
half favored a biennial conference. A strong majority (81%) said they would attend future
conferences on Lake Superior.
High Levels of Satisfaction
Ninety-seven percent (97%) rated their experiences at the conference as either "excellent" or
"good", indicating high levels of satisfaction with the conference.
-------
INTRODUCTION
Making A Great Lake Superior Conference held in Duluth, Minnesota from October 29 through
October 31, 2007 attracted 444 registered participants. Conference organizers were the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Environment Canada, University of Minnesota Sea Grant
Program, and the Lake Superior Binational Program. Numerous other agencies and
organizations sponsored and helped plan the conference. The University of Wisconsin
Extension's Environmental Resources Center, Madison, Wisconsin conducted the evaluation.
Preceding this introduction is a summary of outcomes. Next is a short methods section, followed
by findings according to survey question categories. A summary and observations section
concludes the report. Appendix A shows categorized comments. Since the evaluation charge
was to only collect data and report findings, the report does not reach conclusions. However, a
few observations about the conference are presented.
METHODS
The Environmental Resources Center (ERC) undertook the evaluation in support of a staff
member, Nancy Larson, University of Wsconsin Extension Lake Superior Basin Educator. She
was involved in planning and conducting the conference and requested assistance. Conference
organizers provided extensive input as the survey was developed. In keeping with the "green"
principles of the conference, the Web was used for survey implementation. The conference was
conducted to minimize impacts on the environment and limiting paper use was important.
ERC administered the survey with the assistance of Jesse Schomberg, Conference Co Chair
and Mary Lucas, UW-Extension Information Process Consultant. Jake Blasczyk, ERC
Evaluation Specialist and his assistant Sue Vang analyzed the data. Neither Jake nor Sue was
involved in planning or conducting the conference.
There were 444 conference participants and 402 participants with valid email addresses were
asked to complete an electronic survey. The response rate was 70% (281/402) with 63% of all
conference participants (281/444) providing data.
The high response rate and the resulting robust nature of the data are likely due to a
combination of three factors: 1) survey procedures, 2) characteristics of participants, and 3)
overall positive reactions to the conference. Survey procedures followed Dillman's (2007)
recommendations, as well as recommended online survey procedures (Ritter and Sue, 2007).
Before having access to the Web survey, respondents received an e-mail announcing the
survey and explaining its importance. During administration, those not responding received two
reminders. These procedures influenced response rate.
Survey responses, especially written comments, suggested that respondents were committed to
learning about Lake Superior issues, as well as concerned about the Lake itself. In addition,
overwhelming numbers of respondents reacted positively to the conference. These two factors
likely also influenced the high survey response rate.
Survey data was entered and analyzed using the statistical software, SPSS. Various tables and
graphs from the survey data were created and examined for central tendencies. Trends in
frequencies were determined. Through a combination of inductive (Thomas, June 2006) and
deductive reasoning, inferences were made which eventually became findings.
Some cross tabulation analyses were also conducted. For example, survey question 5 was
analyzed against question 6 to determine if prior knowledge affected how much increased
knowledge occurred after the conference.
Written responses and comments were entered and coded in Microsoft Word, then sorted using
Excel. Some were coded and counted more than once because they reflected multiple themes.
-------
FINDINGS
The robust data and analysis resulted in six categories of findings (listed A-F below).
A. Characteristics of Participants (Questions 21. 23-24. 5)
Four findings about characteristics of participants are listed below. More details follow.
Researchers, educators, and managers represented.
Many learned about the conference electronically.
About a third never attended a Great Lakes related conference or workshop within the last
two years.
Many had a high level of knowledge about Lake Superior issues prior to the conference.
1. Researchers, Educators, and Managers Represented.
As Figure 1.0 shows, more respondents (33% or 93 of 281) had a land or resource
management position, either government or private. Educators made up almost a quarter (24%
or 67) of the respondents and 19% (53) classified themselves as lake related researchers. Less
than 6% each were interested residents, elected officials, media representatives, non-profit
organization employees, consultants, public sector employees, and students.
Figure 1.0: Participant Affiliation
Land or resource
management position
(government or private)
Educator
Lake related researcher
D Other
Interested local or basin
resident
D Elected official
D Media
2. Many Learned About the Conference Electronically.
Nearly half (45% or 125 out of 281) learned about the conference electronically, either through
email or the website. Another 36% or 100 heard about it through personal communications with
an individual. Other ways were meeting announcements (5%), newsletters (1%), invitations to
-------
the conference (1%), workgroups (1%), and through work (1%). Two percent each reported
learning about the conference because they were on a planning committee, the Binational
Forum, or because they were an organizer or involved agency/program for the conference.
Cross tabulation analyses revealed that over half of educators, local residents, and lake
researchers learned about the conference electronically. Land managers were split almost
evenly between talking with an individual (40%) and through the internet (39%).
3. About a Third Had Not Attended a Great Lakes Related Conference or Workshop
Within the Last Two Years.
About a third of respondents (35% or 99 of 281) had not attended other conferences or
workshops on the Great Lakes in the last two years. A fourth (25% or 71 participants) attended
more than three Great Lakes related conferences or workshops in the past two years. The
remainder attended related conferences/workshops once (18%), twice (14%), or three times
(7%) in the last two years.
Land managers (24%) and lake researchers (19%) were less likely to have attended
conferences 5 or more times, compared to interested residents (56%) and educators (49%).
4. Many Reported High Knowledge of Lake Superior Issues Prior to Conference.
Respondents reported high levels of knowledge about Lake Superior issues prior to the
conference. Over two thirds reported "high" (53% or 149 of 281 participants) or "very high" (15%
or 43 of 281) knowledge. Meanwhile 26% (74 participants) reported "neither high nor low"
knowledge. A small portion (4%) reported "low" or "very low" knowledge. Local or basin
residents were split between reporting "neither high nor low" knowledge (44%) or "high"
knowledge (44%), while most lake researchers (66%), land or resource managers (55%), and
educators (51%) reported "high" knowledge.
B. Outcomes: Knowledge and Use of Information (Questions 6. 7)
Outcomes included increased knowledge and plans to use information gleaned at the
conference. Specifically:
1. Most Experienced an Increase in Knowledge.
After attending the conference, respondents reported increases in knowledge of Lake Superior
issues. Most (55% or 155 of 281) reported that their knowledge increased "somewhat". About
one-third (32% or 90) reported increasing their knowledge "a lot". Eleven percent (11%)
increased their knowledge of Lake Superior issues "a little" or "not at all".
2. Most Plan to Use or Have Already Used Conference Information.
Eighty-six percent (238 of 276) have either already used or plan to use the information in the
future. Participants have already used or plan to use contacts made during the conference (42
comments), share information with others (37 comments), or use the information to teach
classes or educate the public (34 comments). Fifteen comments each indicated that use of
information was work related, involved climate change information, and meant now having good
background information, as well as increased understanding of Lake Superior issues. More
educators (99%) and land managers (90%) said that they were likely to use the information
compared to lake researchers (75%) and local residents (67%).
C. Reactions to the Conference and its Events (Questions 2-4. 17-20. 30)
Nine findings are presented below. Respondents felt positive about the conference, rated it as
being "excellent" or "good", and experienced few problems from its green design. Fifty-three
respondents (19%) experienced difficulties due to the number of sessions, their length, and
scheduling of sessions. These issues did not affect their positive reactions to the conference.
-------
Many respondents reported memorable conference events; the plenary sessions were
frequently mentioned, especially the one on climate change. This plenary session also received
a high rating on a four point usefulness scale. Breakout sessions on climate change, water/lake
levels, invasive species, and toxics were often listed as very effective sessions. Percentages
considering breakout sessions as very ineffective were relatively low.
Two less well attended activities were field trips and facilitated workgroups. About 14% of
respondents participated in the field trips with many rating them as "very useful". About a third of
respondents attended the facilitated workgroups and approximately equal numbers rated these
as "very useful" and "somewhat useful".
Attendance at the facilitated workgroups was skewed towards educators with more of them
participating compared to lake researchers and land or resource managers. Otherwise, the mix
of educators, lake researchers, and land or resource managers attending other events
appeared more balanced.
1. High Ratings for Conference.
Just over half (55% or 154 of 281) of the respondents selected "excellent" to rate their
conference experiences, while 42% (118) rated them as "good". The remaining 3% (8) selected
"fair". Nobody selected "poor". Fewer (38%) lake researchers selected "excellent", compared to
75% of local/basin residents, 60% of educators and 55% of land/resource managers.
2. Two Thirds Recalled a Memorable Scheduled Event with Climate Change Plenary
Mentioned Often. This Plenary Also Rated High on a Usefulness Scale.
Almost two thirds of the respondents (62% or 165 of 265) recalled a memorable event. Many
cited the Tuesday plenary session on climate change and specifically mentioned the keynote
speaker, Dave Phillips.
Tuesday's plenary also received high ratings on usefulness. Sixty-six percent (158 of 238) rated
it as "very useful", compared to 46% (71 of 153) who rated the Wednesday keynote as "very
useful". Sixty-four percent (131 out of 206) found the Monday keynote "somewhat useful" and
56% (89 of 158) rated the Wednesday plenary similarly.
Other memorable events included the climate change lunch panel featuring Governor Tim
Pawlenty and Wll Steger (29 comments), John Austin's Wednesday speech (13 comments), the
tours and field trips (12 comments), the luncheon with teachers and scientists (10 comments),
and climate change topics and breakout sessions (10 comments). Also mentioned were the
Sunday night activities, the banquet/presentation, the mayor panel, and the opening ceremony.
3. Almost Half Recalled an Effective Breakout Session.
A little less than half (46%, 120 of 259) of respondents recalled a breakout session which they
considered to be very effective at increasing their knowledge of Lake Superior issues. The five
most frequently mentioned sessions were on climate change (17 comments), water levels and
withdrawals (15 comments), lake levels (8 comments), aquatic invasive species (7 comments),
and toxic pollutants (7 comments).
4. A Few Recalled an Ineffective Breakout Session.
Ten percent (25 of 259) recalled a breakout session which they considered as very ineffective in
increasing their knowledge about issues regarding Lake Superior. The five most commonly
listed sessions for ineffectiveness were facilitated workgroups (4 comments), sustainability and
aquatic invasive species (3 comments each), and water levels and managing woodlands on red
clay plains (2 comments each).
-------
5. Generally All Conference Elements Rated High On Usefulness of Information
Another Indicator of Positive Reactions to the Conference.
As Table 1.0 shows more respondents rated elements of the conference as being "very useful"
or "somewhat useful" rather than "not very useful" or "not useful at all". The trend across the
scale of usefulness shows positive reactions to the various elements of the conference.
TABLE 1: Usefulness of Conference Elements (Percentage of Respondents)
Element
Field Trips to Local Areas of
Interest (N=62)
Global Climate Change Panel
(N=217)
Concurrent Breakout Sessions
Attended (N=246)
Panel: Perspectives on Past and
Future States of Lake Superior
(N=186)
Lake Superior Art and Video
(N=211)
Panel-Sustainable Communities:
Local Governments Help Protect
and Restore the Lake (N=152)
Facilitated Workgroups on
Education, Management, and
Research (N=148)
Poster Session (N=222)
"Very
Useful"
60%
47%
41%
32%
31%
30%
26%
19%
"Somewhat
Useful"
24%
44%
55%
60%
52%
57%
41%
59%
"Not Very
Useful"
16%
8%
4%
7%
13%
13%
21%
19%
"Not
Useful At
All"
0%
1%
0%
1%
4%
1%
12%
4%
6. Low Participation on Field Trips While Being Rated as "Very Useful".
While attendance on field trips was relatively low (62 participants), most who participated
considered them to be "very useful" as indicated in Table 1.0. All local/basin residents attending
the field trips found them "very useful", compared to 58% of educators and 50% each of lake
researchers and land managers.
7. Low Attendance at Facilitated Workgroups With About Two-Thirds Saying That These
Were "Somewhat Useful".
About a third of respondents participated in facilitated workgroups. Sixty-seven percent (67%)
considered them to some extent useful with the remainder indicating workgroups were "not very
useful" or "not useful at all". More residents (50%) and educators (41%) found the facilitated
workgroups "very useful", compared to 14% of land managers and 11% of lake researchers.
8. Attendance at Facilitated Work Groups Skewed Towards Educators. Otherwise
Attendance of Educators, Lake Researchers, and Land or Resource Managers at
Other Events Was More Balanced.
Attendance according to group affiliation reflecting four major groups (see Table 2) showed a
relatively balanced distribution of the four groups at each event, except at the facilitated
workgroups. Attendance at workgroups was skewed toward educators with 81% of educators
responding to the survey attending compared to 37% of lake researchers, 49% of land
managers, and 53% of local or basin residents (see Table 2.0).
-------
TABLE 2: Attendances of Events According to Group Affiliation
Affiliation
Educator
(any type)
Local or
basin
resident
Lake
related
researcher
Land or
resource
manager
Panel:
Perspectives
on Past &
Future
States of
Lake
Superior
71%
80%
80%
80%
Global
Climate
Change
Panel
89%
73%
92%
82%
Concurrent
Breakout
Sessions
97%
81%
82%
96%
Poster
Session
73%
73%
96%
93%
Facilitated
Workgroups
81%
53%
37%
49%
Panel-
Sustainable
Communities:
Local
Governments
65%
60%
38%
55%
Field
Trips
19%
20%
16%
23%
9. Few Difficulties Reported.
Most participants (81% or 225 of 278) reported no difficulties or problems negatively affecting
their conference participation. The 19% (53 participants) who experienced difficulties listed
issues with attending different sessions in different strands. Twenty six comments specifically
addressed the fact that the three different strands had sessions which did not start or end at the
same time, so moving between strands was difficult. Other cited issues were moderators not
keeping sessions on time, and communication problems with organizers prior to the conference.
The comments below illustrate some of the common concerns about concurrent sessions.
"There were too many concurrent sessions. I missed some talks that I really wanted to
hear because I couldn't be in two places at once."
"The timing of the separate sessions was so far off that I ended up missing talks that I
wanted to attend, or interrupt in the middle of someone's talk, thinking I was on time for
the brief break between talks."
"Sessions weren't all clearly organized around a single topic, so to hear speakers on a
topic I'm interested in, I shifted from concurrent to concurrent session."
"Staggered talk schedules and monitors who didn't stick to time schedules made it
difficult to move from session to session."
D. Networking and Communications Between Targeted Groups (Questions 8-12. 22)
Conference organizers valued networking between participants and dialog or sharing of
information between lake researchers, educators and land/resource managers. The majority of
survey respondents agreed that these facets were important, with 58% reporting that they
networked 5 or more times during the conference. About a quarter said that their contact
network increased as a result of the conference. Fifty-nine percent rated the conference as
"somewhat effective" in fostering dialog and information sharing between lake researchers,
educators, and land/resource managers, compared to 26% saying the conference was "very
effective".
-------
High percentages of lake researchers, land/resource managers, and educators talked with
another participant having a different affiliation during breaks, lunches, between sessions, and
on their own times. This indicated a fair amount of inter-group communication.
1. One Half Said That Networking at Conference Was "Very Important".
Most respondents (51% or 144 of 281) felt that networking at the conference was "very
important". Thirty-six percent (102 participants) found networking to be "somewhat important";
while 10% (29 participants) said it was "neither important nor unimportant". One percent (3) felt
that networking was "somewhat unimportant".
Lake related researchers were less likely (33%) to rate networking as "very important",
compared to interested residents (56%), land managers (56%), and educators (54%).
2. Most Participants Networked 5 Times or More.
Respondents networked with others from around the Lake Superior basin. Exactly 58% (163 out
of 281) of survey respondents networked 5 times or more. Over 27% (77) networked 3 or 4
times, while 12% (34) networked 1 or 2 times. Four participants did not network at all. The
majority of each affiliation networked at least 5 times, ranging from 47% of lake related
researchers to 69% of interested residents and 100% of elected officials and media.
3. A Fourth Increased Their Contact Network "A Lot".
A quarter of the respondents (26%, 72 of 281) reported that the conference increased their
network "a lot" compared to 50% or 139 who said that their network of contacts increased
"somewhat". Exactly 21% (59) reported "a little" increase in their network, and 4% (10
participants) stated that their network did not increase at all.
4. The Conference's Emphasis on Dialog and Information Between Researchers,
Managers, & Educators Was Important to Most Respondents.
Fifty-nine percent (167 of 281) felt it was "very important" to dialog between researchers,
managers, and educators, compared to 30% (85) feeling that this was "somewhat important".
Roughly 8% (21) felt that the dialog was "neither important nor unimportant", and 1% each felt it
was "somewhat unimportant" or "very unimportant".
Fewer lake researchers (45%) felt dialog and sharing between the conference's targeted groups
was "very important". Meanwhile, 73% of the educators felt that the emphasis was "very
important", compared to 67% of land managers and 63% of local and basin residents.
5. A Slight Majority Rated the Conference as "Somewhat Effective" in Fostering Dialog
and Sharing.
Fifty-nine percent (167 of 281) rated the conference as "somewhat effective" in fostering dialog
and information sharing between the three targeted groups, compared to 26% (72) that said the
conference was "very effective". Nine percent of all participants (24) felt that the conference was
"neither effective nor ineffective" in this aspect, while 5% (14) felt that it was "somewhat
ineffective". According to cross tabulation analyses more local residents (44%) and educators
(39%) said that the conference was "very effective" compared to lake researchers (23%) and
land managers (22%).
6. High Percentages Talked to Others With a Different Affiliation Indicating a Fair
Amount of Inter-group Communications.
The survey probed for who respondents talked with during breaks, lunch, between sessions or
on their own time to learn the extent of inter-group communications. As shown in Table 3.0 a fair
amount occurred during informal time blocks. For example, 75% of the educators talked to a
lake researcher and 79% of land or resource managers talked to an educator. Fewer local or
basin residents compared to other groups talked with lake researchers, yet nearly 60% did.
-------
TABLE 3: Inter-group Communication According to Affiliation
Percentage Who
Talked to Lake
Researchers
Percentage Who
Talked to Land or
Resource Managers
Percentage Who
Talked to Educators
Affiliation
Educator
75%
73%
92%
Interested
local or
basin
resident
58%
85%
71%
Lake
related
researcher
96%
90%
74%
Land/
resource
manager
84%
98%
79%
E. Opinions and Effects of the Green Design (Survey Questions 13-16)
Nearly three quarters of respondents were "very aware" that the conference aimed to minimize
its environmental impact. About the same number felt that the green design was "very
important". The green design did not cause problems for an overwhelming majority of
respondents. Respondents selected composting, minimizing paper usage, and using local food
as the three green-related steps which should be included in future conferences.
1. Almost Two Thirds Very Aware of Conference's Green Design.
A majority (72% or 203 of 281) were "very aware" that the conference was designed to minimize
its environmental impact compared to 9% (26) that were "aware" of this fact, while 16% (45)
were "somewhat aware". Four were "unaware" that it was a "green" conference.
2. Most Felt That Conference's Green Design Was Important.
Seventy-one percent (200 of 281) felt that a green conference was "very important" and 22%
(62) felt that it was "somewhat important". Only 5% (15) felt that minimizing the conference's
environmental impact was "neither important nor unimportant", and less than one percent felt it
was "very unimportant".
According to cross tabulation analyses, less than half of all lake related researchers (45%) felt
the green design was "very important", compared to 84% of land or resource managers, 79% of
educators, and 63% of interested residents.
3. Few Problems Resulting From Minimizing Conference's Environmental Impact.
The conference's green design included encouraging participants to bike, reuse their old
nametags from past conferences, and bring their own reusable mugs. These efforts did not
cause problems for most participants. Nine percent (26 out of 279 participants) reported
problems. Of these 26 participants, the five most common issues were with the lack of abstracts
(9 comments), lack of nametags (7 comments), the waste and recycling system (3 comments),
lack of cups (3 comments), and lack of bike racks (2 comments).
4. Repeat Composting, Minimizing Paper, and Using Local Food at Future Conferences.
Respondents were asked which steps should be taken to make future conferences green. The
top three selected were: compost waste foods and disposable cups, etc. (89% or 249 of 281),
minimize paper usage (88% or 248), and use locally grown/produced food (87% or 243).
Reusing name tags (71% or 200) and carpooling (61% or 171) were also selected. Purchasing
CO2 offset credits was the least selected action, which 36% (102) of respondents chose.
-------
F. Interest in Future Conferences (Survey Questions 25-29)
Interest in future Lake Superior conferences was high with an overwhelming majority favoring a
regularly scheduled conference. Many would likely attend. Slightly more than half favored a
conference every two years while a third favored a conference every three years. Suggested
improvements focused on scheduling of breakout sessions and more diversity. Respondents
seemed satisfied with topics already covered while offering a few additional suggestions.
1. Most Would Attend Future Conferences.
Eighty-one percent (226 of 278 respondents) would attend future conferences on Lake Superior.
Eighteen percent (51) were unsure, and one would not attend. High majorities of lake
researchers (74%), educators (88%), land or resource managers (82%) and local/basin
residents (81%) would attend a future conference.
2. Almost All Want Conference Held on Regular Basis.
Almost all respondents (95%, 260 out of 275) said that a Lake Superior Conference should be
held regularly. High percentages of local residents (87%), lake researchers (90%), land or
resource managers (98%) and educators (97%) agreed.
3. One Half Chose Biennial Conferences and a Third Chose Triennial Conferences.
A little over half (52%, 146 of 281) choose a conference every 2 years, while over a third (35%,
98 participants) recommended one every 3 years. A small percentage (11%, or 32) favored a
conference every 5 years. More lake related researchers tended to want longer gaps between
conferences; 49% suggested one every 3 years, and 19% suggested one every 5 years.
4. Suggestions on Improvements Focused on Scheduling Sessions and Diversity.
Suggestions for improving the conference focused mostly on the scheduling of the breakout
sessions (65 comments) and diversifying the conference in a multitude of ways (29 comments).
Participants had a difficult time moving between strands for different sessions and attending all
the sessions that interested them. Some suggestions for scheduling were: 1) include breaks in
between sessions to allow for travel to other rooms, 2) provide longer sessions, 3) focus on
fewer topics, 4) provide fewer sessions, 5) keep all sessions in the different strands on the same
start/end times, 6) keep sessions on time and on track, and 7) have some repeat sessions.
Suggestions with diversification themes included more interaction between researchers,
managers, and educators, mixing up the audiences and session teams, and including more
participation from aboriginal communities, schools, industries, and the general public.
The following comments show the types of problems participants had with the scheduling.
"Fewer topics with longer presentations would allow for a more detailed discussion of
issues."
"Having each track follow the same schedule so a person could attend breakout
sessions from multiple tracks."
"Coordinate sessions better, especially to keep speakers within their allotted time."
"Too many concurrent session, unable to attend some talks."
"Make it easier to move from strand to strand...maybe a five minute break after every
other session?"
"Provide more time between sessions to network, not running individuals from the same
groups at the same time in different tracts."
Other suggestions included providing more time for networking (11 comments), improving the
poster session (10 comments) and a few advertising and food suggestions.
-------
5. Satisfied With Covered Topics With a Few Suggestions: Climate Change, Diversity,
and Connection With Land.
Most respondents were satisfied with the topics covered at the conference. The top six
recommendations for future topics were: diversifying the presenters and participants to include
Native Americans, teachers, EPA, etc. (17 comments), climate change information (16
comments), more on the lake ecosystem and estuarine ecology (10 comments), predictions of
sustainability and changes (7 comments), education, and toxics (4 comments each). A few
mentioned community involvement, economics, land use, politics, and spirituality.
SUMMARY AND OBSERVATIONS
This report presented findings of a Web survey completed by 70% of 402 participants with valid
email addresses who attended the Make A Great Lake Superior 2007 conference. This means
that 63% of all participants (281/444) provided data. Developed in collaboration with organizers,
the survey ascertained outcomes while probing for reactions to the conference, including how
information would be used. Results included eight outcomes and six categories of findings.
Outcomes
Outcomes identified were:
Increased knowledge of lake related issues.
Large numbers used or anticipated using information gained.
Mixture of lake researchers, educators, and land or resource managers attended.
High levels of networking.
Effectively fostered dialog and information sharing.
Green principles successfully demonstrated.
Additional conferences wanted.
High levels of satisfaction.
Findings
Findings fall into six categories.
1. Characteristics of Respondents
Data showed that researchers, educators, and managers were represented at the conference.
Many learned about the conference electronically and about a third had not attended a Great
Lakes related conference during the last two years. Many reported a high level of knowledge
about Lake Superior issues prior to conference.
2. Outcomes: Knowledge and Use of Information
Two important and frequently reported outcomes were increased knowledge and plans to use
information gleaned at the conference.
3. Reactions to the Conference and its Events
Analysis resulted in nine findings regarding reactions to the conference and its events.
Generally, survey respondents felt positive about the conference, rated it as being "excellent" or
"good" and experienced few problems from its green design. Fifty-three respondents (19%)
reported experiencing difficulties mostly due to the high number of sessions, length of sessions,
and scheduling of sessions; however this did not negatively impact overall reactions to the
conference.
10
-------
Many respondents recalled and reported memorable events at the conference. The plenary
sessions were frequently mentioned, especially the climate change plenary which also received
a high rating on a four point scale. Very effective breakout sessions as listed by respondents
included climate change, water/lake levels, invasive species, and toxics. Percentages recalling
very ineffective breakout sessions were relatively low.
Field trips and facilitated workgroups were two less frequently attended activities. About 14% of
survey respondents participated in the field trips and many felt they were "very useful". About a
third of the respondents attended the facilitated workgroups and approximately equal numbers
rated these as either "very useful" or "somewhat useful".
More educators compared to lake researchers and land or resource managers attended the
facilitated workgroups. At other events, the mix of educators, lake researchers, and land or
resource managers was more evenly balanced.
4. Networking and Communications Between Targeted Groups
Conference planners and organizers valued networking between participants as well as dialog
and sharing of information between lake researchers, educators and land and resource
managers. The majority of respondents agreed that these facets were indeed important, with
58% reporting that they networked 5 or more times during the conference. About a quarter said
that their contact network increased as a result of the conference. Fifty-nine percent rated the
conference as "somewhat effective" in fostering dialog and information sharing between lake
researchers, educators, and land or resource managers compared to 26% saying the
conference was "very effective".
During breaks, lunches, between sessions, and on their own times, high percentages of lake
researchers, land or resource managers, and educators talked with another participant having a
different affiliation. This indicated a fair amount of inter-group communication.
5. Opinions and Effects of the Green Design
Nearly three quarters of the survey respondents were "very aware" that the conference was
designed to minimize its environmental impact. About the same number felt that the green
design was "very important". The green design did not cause problems for an overwhelming
majority of respondents. Respondents selected composting, minimizing paper usage, and using
local food as the three green-related steps that should be included in future conferences.
6. Interest in Future Conferences
Interest in future conferences about Lake Superior was high with an overwhelming majority
favoring a regularly scheduled conference which they would likely attend. Slightly more than half
of the respondents favored a biennial conference while a third favored a conference every three
years. Suggested improvements focused on scheduling of breakout sessions and more
diversity. Respondents seemed satisfied with topics already covered while making a few
suggestions.
Observations
This report resulted in the following observations. First, conference participants reacted
positively to the conference. When asked to rate their conference experiences on a four point
scale from "excellent" to "poor", most selected "excellent" or "good". In addition, measures of
usefulness of information gained from various conference elements showed that an
overwhelming majority of participants considered the entire conference to be highly useful.
Analysis of comments also showed positive reactions to the conference.
Second, conference planners desired dialog and information sharing between groups of
different affiliations, especially between lake researchers, educators, and land or resource
managers. A fair amount of inter-group dialog and sharing seemed to occur. During breaks,
11
-------
lunch, between sessions or on their own time, large numbers of conference participants
reported talking about Lake Superior issues with a conference participant of a different
affiliation.
Third, the conference appeared to have an adequate combination of lake researchers,
educators, and land or resource managers, although the number of researchers attending was
slightly lower. Having a well represented mixture of participants was another aim of conference
planners. About 33% of survey respondents had a government or private land or resource
management position compared to 25% being educators and 19% (53 participants) as lake
related researchers.
Also noteworthy is that approximately one third of the survey respondents had not attended a
Lake Superior related conference or workshop in the last two years. This suggests that the
conference attracted those who do not attend Great Lakes conferences frequently and probably
first timers or a new audience as well.
Fifth among the noteworthy outcomes is knowledge gained. Many participants reported having a
high level of knowledge about Lake Superior issues prior to the conference. Yet these
participants along with others with lower levels of knowledge reported that the conference
increased their knowledge about Lake Superior issues, and for many the increase in knowledge
was "a lot".
Sixth, most respondents favor another Lake Superior focused conference. Many want a biennial
conference. Suggestions for improvement included better scheduling of concurrent breakout
sessions.
Finally, conferences organizers are to be commended for a conference that was relatively
problem free, while successfully minimizing its impact on the environment. The conference was
specifically designed to be "green". To borrow the familiar adage: organizers and planners
successfully "walked their talk". An overwhelming majority of participants recognized efforts to
minimize environmental impact and considered these efforts as being important.
12
-------
APPENDIX A
The following appendix provides summarized tables of the comments from open ended
questions. The survey had a total of 11 questions with possible open ended responses
(Questions 3, 4, 7, 15, 19, 20, 21, 23, 28, 29, and 30). Comments were analyzed for trends;
some had multiple themes and thus were coded more than once. Italicized comments in the
tables below indicate responses that may not be directly related to the question, e.g. a criticism
on the conference in response to a question asking for memorable events.
Difficulties or Problems Experienced (Question 3)
Category
Scheduling of sessions not good (inconsistent start/stop times, too many
sessions at same time, etc.)
Sessions should stay on schedule
Communication problems with organizers prior to conference, poor
advertising, registration problems
Moderator should keep sessions on time or have consistent introductions
Wanted abstracts; presenter/scheduling related problems
Full day agendas too much; improve poster sessions; topics too
scattered/general; minor teacher related complaint
Many individuals focused on own goals; change date; hearing problems;
IT problems; temperature problems; Monday lunch panel not good; didn't
like foreign aspect of opening ceremony
Felt that attending sessions from different strands was doable
General kudos/no problems
# of Comments
26
12
5
4
3 each
2 each
1 each
1
1
Memorable Scheduled Event (Question 4)
Category
Tuesday Plenary session on climate change
Governor Tim Pawlenty, Will Steger, and/or climate change lunch panel
David Phillips
John Austin (having him speak earlier, not at the end)
Tours and field trips (fisheries, stormwater, boat, rain garden)
Luncheon with teachers; climate change topics/breakout sessions
Opening ceremony and speakers, prayer ceremony
Banquet dinner and/or presentation
Mayor panel, sustainability
Sunday night activities ( Fresh Energy, Wll Steger)
Lake levels
Green aspect of conference; Tracy Mehan; inclusion of teachers
Craig Blacklock; mining; poster session
Art exhibit; ballast panel; closing speakers; Dave Ullrich; exotic species;
GIS; Monday session on Great Lakes; Jerry Hembd; John Robinson;
Jesse Schomberg; Mindy Granley; VMS; state of lake session; "practical"
session; rip currents; shipping impacts; Todd Thompson; USGS
General comment on good keynote speakers, sessions, topics
Conference should include more industry, business, general public
People were able to sneak in to banquet by modifying their name tags
Not enough time
Complaints on keynote speaker; opening ceremony; Robert Caldwell
# of Comments
35
29
24
13
12
10 each
8
7
6
6
4
3 each
2 each
1 each
28
2
1
1
1 each
13
-------
Conference Information To Be Used (Question 7)
Category
Making contacts, for information and future collaborations
Sharing information
Teaching
Media and publications (presentations, articles, websites, papers,
radio/media, videos, posters, and handouts)
Climate change; increased background knowledge; work purposes
Management purposes; plans/strategies/future initiatives
Discussions
Project ideas (including for science fairs)
Aquatic invasive species; community involvement; local projects;
personal life changes
Economic benefits; grants/funding; ice data; monitoring purposes;
research; stormwater treatment; water level; youth symposium
Model for other conferences; case building; fish data; GIS information;
lake stewardship; shipping industry information
Areas of concern; coalition development; discharge issues; freshwater
unit; human health issues; VMS, updating LaMP; fish population
dynamics modeling; oil refineries/pipeline; new resources; furthering
studies; references in talks; State of the Lakes Ecosystem Conference;
sustainability; wastewater treatment of chemicals of concern
Abstracts wanted; don't know
# of Comments
42
37
34
25
1 5 each
9 each
8
6
4 each
3 each
2 each
1 each
1 each
Green Efforts of Conference Which Caused Problems (Question 15)
Category
Wanted abstracts
Name tags didn't work, were inaccurate, did not know about the name
tags prior to conference, or allowed people to sneak into banquet
Didn't know to bring own cup; recycling/waste system hard to find
More bike racks; wanted handouts; food (allergies or lack of salads)
Contact list wanted; not enough green measures; hotel did not encourage
reuse; bad keynote speaker; lights left on during presentation; nothing
new learned; participant list wanted; more time wanted; wanted other
conferences to be green
None
Food (positive comment)
Good kitchen staff (found lost mug)
# of Comments
9
7
3 each
2 each
1 each
4
3
1
14
-------
Effective Breakout Session (Question 19)
Category
Climate change
Water levels and withdrawals (Doug Wilcox)
Lake levels (Jay Austin)
Aquatic invasive species (Doug Jensen); toxic pollutants
Areas of concern; fisheries strand; Jay Austin
Ballast water; GIS sessions; Habitat Conservation and Species
Management; human health session; ice session (Jay Austin); lake levels
(Todd Thompson); teacher luncheon
Mary Balcer; reserve mining; sustainability; VMS session; watershed
stewardship
Jim Meeker; NPS pollution; endocrine disrupters (Peter Sorenson); rip
tides (Robert Caldwell); Monday/Tuesday evening education sessions;
Susan O'Halloran
Biohabitat presentation; biology workshops; Bob Krumenaker; dredging;
Jeff Gunderson; Jerry Hempd; K12 education session; Lake Superior
streams; Binational program; mining; rain gardens/field days; rip tides;
Thunder Bay presentation; water quality issues
General kudos, none
Wanted more time to attend other sessions or GIS
Research not new, too much emphasis on research
# of Comments
17
15
8
7 each
5 each
4 each
3 each
2 each
1 each
6
3
1
Ineffective Breakout Session (Question 20)
Category
Facilitated workgroups (be more interdisciplinary, or have better
facilitation)
Aquatic invasive species; sustainability (too much theory, poor
attendance/moderation)
Managing woodlands on red clay plains (Kristin Shy); water levels;
networking sessions too short or unnecessary
Climate change (not enough perspectives, too focused & repetitive);
facilitator's attitude; talk on fish on east/west coats; GLFWC talk; sessions
with computer use or confusing graphs; John Gulliver; Karen Rodriguez;
Binational forum breakout on public outreach; Marilyn Katz; research
workgroup; rain gardens; Robert Hedy; breakout sessions too focused on
show & tell instead of action; toxic pollutants
# of Comments
4
3 each
2 each
1 each
Other Types of Conference Participants (Question 21)
Category
Non-profit; student
Government or EPA
Municipal
Consultant; industry
Policy & education/community organizing
Planning; organizational interest; stakeholder advisor to governments;
LTWC staff; Binational Forum participant; researcher/educator/resident;
conference speaker; fisheries biologist; tribe-affiliated
# of Comments
7 each
5
4
3 each
2
1 each
15
-------
Other Method of Learning About Conference (Question 23)
Category
Planning committee member
Binational forum member; organizer/partner
Superior Work Group member
Invited to attend/speak; club/association; workplace
Magazine; Cindy Hagley told director
# of Comments
6
5 each
4
3 each
1 each
Suggestions to Improve the Conference Attended (Question 28)
Category
Scheduling of sessions (keep sessions on time, breaks between
workshops, poor timing, longer sessions, fewer sessions, same start/end
times for sessions between strands)
Be more diverse (diversifying sessions/audience/partners, use vocabulary
that non-scientists can understand, collaborating with more groups)
More networking time, free time after lunch
Poster session improvement suggestions
Food complaint
More advertising and information available prior to or during conference
Lunch/dinner speakers/activities unwanted or too long
Have abstracts; change/reduce keynote speakers; keep focus of
conference on sharing knowledge/LaMP/participants/nonpolitical aspects
Advertise art/poster room; diversify facilitated workgroups (less on LaMP);
change focus from research; mix tours into schedule/agenda
Too much information; shorten banquet presentation; dim lights during
presentations; have smaller and more frequent conferences with fewer
topics; include teacher-friendly ideas and supplies; have better trained
volunteers; action-based facilitated discussions; use comment
boards/session highlights
Add workshops to agenda; more on areas of concern; keep building open
until very end; change date; have scientific debate; reduce price of
conference; include interaction with keynotes; get better kick-off speaker;
change location; session on Lake Superior basics of science; more on
land use change; more discussion groups; shorten/cut out mayor panel;
don't reuse name tags; change power point presentations to shows; better
communication between presenters and organizers; registration table by
door; session details outside rooms; replace sustainability with
regional/community initiatives; add terrestrial component; have annual
webcast/ teleconference updates; include daily debriefing workshop
General/none
Good job on green efforts
# of Comments
65
29
11
10
7
6
5
4 each
3 each
2 each
1 each
27
2
16
-------
Recommended Topics for Future Conferences (Question 29)
Category
Be more diverse (tribes, EPA, DMA, east side, public)
More on climate change, better balance on climate change emphasis
More on lake ecosystem/earth science, estuarine ecology
Predictions of future conditions, impact quantification, population growth,
how systems are changing, sustainability
Educational impacts/programs/partnerships; toxics
Community involvement; economics; fisheries/fishing; land use changes;
mining; look at other areas (entire basin, offshore waters, middle of lake)
Aquatic invasive species; local regulations/grassroot efforts; lake levels,
management/NATL legislative issues; politics of water management,
results/success on BMPs; spirituality; updates on trends and progress
Air pollution; agency reporting/goal meeting; animal populations; liked
drum ceremony; funding; changes at grassroots level; green tools for
public education; human history; information booths too expensive;
success stories in implementing indicators; in situ technologies; controlling
erosion; change location; celebrate Lake Superior Day; fewer topics;
river/stream protection; stop all day meetings; pollutants of concern;
plenary on education of critical issues; call for papers and abstracts;
updates through newsletter/journal; societal response to problems; social
dimension; shipping environmentally-friendly; state of lake session for lay
people; stormwater and sedimentation; survey results; sewage; not
enough time for topics; water diversions; work group in morning with
afternoon sessions for solutions
General kudos/none
Don't know
# of Comments
17
16
10
7
4 each
3 each
2 each
1 each
23
1
Additional Comments (Question 30)
Category
General kudos on organizers, green efforts, interdisciplinary efforts,
location/venue, food, sessions, art room, tours, speakers, etc.
Nothing
Scholarship gratitude/kudos
Include Native Americans, local government, industry, students
Information overload, keep presenters on time, reduce concurrent
meetings
Interdisciplinary aspect made conference too technical, how to find all
players?
Need future direction and actions, keep momentum up
Reduce focus on climate change; change location; less politicians; include
diet specification option in registration; nothing new learned; include
session highlights on other works
# of Comments
100
11
7
5
5
2
2
1 each
17
-------
APPENDIX B
Below is the text for the Web survey. Format reflected the Web software program.
Making a Great Lake Superior Conference
Thank you for completing this survey about your reactions to the Making A Great Lake Superior
Conference. We greatly appreciate you taking time to do so. Your feedback is very important to
planning future activities and to evaluating the conference.
The survey takes no more than ten minutes to complete. Please note that you must now
complete the entire survey. You can not stop and log-in later to complete it. Please check one
response unless otherwise directed as well as provide any requested information.
If you have any questions please contact Jake Blasczyk, Conference Evaluator, at
608.890.0718 or jblasczy@wisc.edu.
Your e-mail address
Your e-mail address is needed so we know you completed the survey. It will be removed before
data analysis.
1. Overall how would you rate your experiences at the conference?
O Excellent
O Good
O Fair
O Poor
2. Did you experience any difficulties or problems that negatively affected your conference
participation?
O No
O Yes, please identify the difficulty or problem
3. Was there any one scheduled event that now stands out as being particularly memorable?
O No
O Yes, please identify the event and explain why it was memorable.
4. Before the conference, how would you describe your level of knowledgeable about the
issues facing Lake Superior?
O Very high
O High
O Neither high nor low
O Low
O Very low
5. As a result of attending the conference, how much would you say your knowledge of
issues facing Lake Superior increased?
O A lot
O Somewhat
O A little
O Not at all
18
-------
6. Have you already or do you foresee using any conference information in the near future?
If yes, what are one or two ways you have already or might use the information in the
future?
O No
O Yes, here's how:
7. How important or unimportant was networking at the conference for you? Networking is
informal sharing of information usually requiring you to initiate the sharing and may result
in valuable on-going contacts.
O Very Important
O Somewhat important
O Neither important or unimportant
O Somewhat unimportant
O Very unimportant
8. About how many times during the conference did you network with others from around the
basin?
5 or more
0
3 or 4
0
1 or 2
0
Not at all
0
Can Not Recall
0
9. How much did the conference expand your network of individuals that could now be
contacted?
O A lot
O Somewhat
O A little
O Not at all
10. How important or unimportant to you was the conference's emphasis on dialog and
information sharing between researchers, natural resource managers and educators?
O Very important
O Somewhat important
O Neither important or unimportant
O Somewhat unimportant
O Very unimportant
11. How effective or ineffective was the conference in fostering dialog and information sharing
between researchers, natural resource managers and educators?
O Very effective
O Somewhat effective
O Effective
O Neither effective or ineffective
O Ineffective
O Somewhat ineffective
O Very ineffective
19
-------
12. How aware or unaware were you that the conference was designed to minimize its
environmental impact (i.e. a "green conference)?
O Very aware
O Somewhat aware
O Aware
O Unaware
O Somewhat unaware
O Very unaware
13. How important or unimportant was it for you that the conference took steps to minimize its
environmental impact?
O Very important
O Somewhat important
O Neither important or unimportant
O Somewhat unimportant
O Very unimportant
14. Did efforts to minimize the conference's environmental impact create any problems for
your conference participation? If yes, please explain
O No
O Yes, please explain
15. Which, if any, of the following steps for reducing the conference's environmental impact
would you definitely like to see at future conferences?
O Organizing carpools
O Using locally grown/produced food
O Encouraging re-used nametags
O Minimize paper usage
O Compost waste foods and disposable cups, etc.
O Purchase CO2 offset credits
O None of the above
20
-------
16. How useful were each of these keynotes and plenary sessions?
Keynote and Plenary
Monday Keynote - "Resilience:
Managing the Greatest Lake in
the Face of Changes and
Uncertainty
Tuesday Plenary - "Climate
change in Lake Superior"
Wednesday Plenary - "What
Have We Learned & Next
Steps"
Wednesday Keynote -
Economic Future of the Great
Lakes"
Did Not
Attend
0
0
O
O
Can't
Recall
0
0
O
O
Not at all
0
0
O
O
Not Very
0
0
O
O
Somewhat
0
0
O
O
Very
0
0
O
O
17. How useful were each of these other conference elements for you?
Elements
Panel: Perspectives on Past
and Future States of Lake
Superior
Global Climate Change Panel
Concurrent Breakout Sessions
Poster Session
Facilitated workgroups on
education, management and
research
Sustainable Communities:
Local Governments Help
Protect and Restore the Lake
Field trips to local areas of
interest
Lake Superior art and video
Did Not
Attend
0
0
O
0
O
O
O
O
Can't
Recall
0
0
O
0
O
O
O
O
Not at
all
0
0
O
0
O
O
O
O
Not Very
0
0
O
0
O
O
O
O
Somewhat
0
0
O
0
O
O
O
O
Very
0
0
O
0
O
O
O
O
18. Did you recall attending a breakout session that you thought was very effective in
increasing your knowledge about Lake Superior issues?
O No
O Yes, Please identify this very effective breakout session
A.
21
-------
19. Did you recall attending a breakout session that you thought was very ineffective in
increasing your knowledge about Lake Superior issues?
O No
O Yes, Please identify this very ineffective session
A.
20. Which one of the following best describes you as a conference participant?
Lake
related
researcher
0
Land or resource
management position
(government or
private)
0
Elected
official
0
Educator
(any
type)
0
Interested local
or basin
resident
0
Media
0
Other
0
21. During breaks, lunch, between sessions or on your own time did you talk about Lake
Superior issues with a conference participant who was a lake researcher?
O
O
O
No
Yes
Can't recall
22. During breaks, lunch, between sessions or on your own time did you talk about Lake
Superior issues with a conference participant who was a land or resource manager?
O
O
O
No
Yes
Can't recall
23. During breaks, lunch, between sessions or on your own time did you talk about Lake
Superior issues with a conference participant who was an educator?
O
O
No
Yes
Can't recall
24. Not counting the October conference, how many other conferences and workshops about
Great Lakes issues have you attended in the last two years?
O None
O One
O Two
O Three
O More than three
22
-------
25. Which one of the following was the primary way you learned about the conference?
O Personal communications with an individual
O Newsletter
O Electronic (e-mail, Web site)
O Announcement at another meeting
O Newspaper
O Other (Please identify)
26. Do you have any suggestions for improving the Lake Superior conference you attended?
If yes, please list below.
27. Would you recommend that a Lake Superior Conference be held on a regular basis? If so,
how frequently?
O No
O Yes
28. How often should a Lake Superior Conference be offered?
O Every two years
O Every three years
O Every five years
29. Would you attend future conferences focusing on Lake Superior?
O No
O Maybe
O Yes
30. Do you have recommendations about topics for any future conferences? If yes please list
below.
31. Is there anything else you want to tell us about the conference and its usefulness to you?
If yes, please do so below.
Thank You for Providing This Valuable Information.
23
-------
REFERENCES
Dillman, Don A. (2007). Mail and Internet Surveys, The Tailored Design Method. New Jersey:
John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Ritter, L. and Sue, V. (Fall 2007). Using online surveys in evaluation. New Directions for
Evaluation. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass and The American Evaluation Association, 115
Thomas, David R. (June 2006). A General Inductive Approach for Analyzing Qualitative
Evaluation Data. American Journal of Evaluation, 27 (2), 237-246.
24
------- |