On ffte Weft at:
www.epa.gov/glnpo
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Great Lakes National Program Office
Sign if Scant Activities Report
January 2003
IN THIS ISSUE:
• SOLEC Online!
• Priceless Dunes
• A Closer Look at Waukegan
• Mussel-bound Marsh
• Visiting the Islands
• Saving Tug Hill
• Safety First
• Floating Classroom
• Cruise Schedule Online
• Focus on Lake Superior LaMP:
• WLSSD Gets the Mercury Out
• Habitat Plan for St. Louis River
• Keeping the Basin Superior
SOLEC Online!
Presentations from the 2002 State of the
Lakes Ecosystem Conference (SOLEC) are
now available online from: http://www.epa.
gov/glnpo/solec/2002/index.html.
Tom Skinner, USEPA Great Lakes National Program
Manager gives SOLEC 2002 opening remarks
Slide from SOLEC presentation on Biological Integrity
Streaming video versions of the presenta-
tions are already available for your viewing
pleasure at http://www.epa.gov/glnpo/
solec/2002/plenaries.html. Users can experi-
ence the presentations fully by opening the
video of the presentation and then opening
the corresponding slideshows (Adobe Acro-
bat files) at the same time. The video pro-
vides a cue when to advance to the next
high-resolution slide — it's almost like be-
ing there ... Try it!
The State of the Lakes Ecosystem Confer-
ence, or SOLEC, is the forum for the United
States and Canada to report on the quality
of the Great Lakes ecosystem. Through the
SOLEC process, a partnership of Great
Lakes scientists and managers is developing
a consistent set of ecosystem indicators to
objectively assess the health of the Great
Lakes. SOLEC 2002, held in Cleveland,
Ohio, in October 2002 was the fifth of the
conferences that have been held every other
year since 1994. The theme for SOLEC
2002 was Biological Integrity of the Great
Lakes.
-------
January 2003
Significant Activities Report
More information on SOLEC can be found
at: http://www.epa.gov/glnpo/solec/index.
html.
(Contacts Pranas Pranckevicius, 312-353-
3437, pranckevicius.pranas@epa.gov; Paul
Bertram, 312-353-0153, bertram.paul@epa.
gov; or Paul Horvatin, 312-353-3612,
horvatin.paul@epa.gov)
Priceless Dunes
The December 2002 issue of Coastlines
featured a article by GLNPO's Karen Rodri-
guez on Great Lakes sand dunes. The Great
Lakes sand dunes are the largest system of
freshwater dunes in the world. Coastal
dunes are of enormous ecological value to
the Great Lakes area. They shelter inland
ponds, wetlands, and woodlands from
storms, and provide habitat for wildlife and
rare species. The Federally endangered
pitcher's thistle plant occurs on the dunes
bordering Lakes Huron, Michigan, and Su-
perior. The dunes offer shelter for migrating
neotropical birds that seek quiet areas be-
hind the foredunes to rest and feed. Fore-
dunes, the portions of dunes closest to the
beach, harbor vegetation such as marram
grass, which in turn traps wind-blown sand
and stabilizes dunes. Globally imperiled
communities, such as pannes or interdunal
calcareous wetlands, are protected from
wind and waves behind foredunes.
Sand dunes at Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore
Sleeping Bear Dunes bluffs
Coastal dunes are also economically impor-
tant; coastal dunes supplied sand to Detroit
auto makers and iron and steel manufactur-
ing industries. Although many dunes were
removed by mining, those that remain have
scenic and recreational value and provide
millions of dollars towards local economies
that rely upon tourism and recreation.
Coastal dunes buffer inland areas from
storm winds and waves, thus reducing prop-
erty damage.
In spite of their value, there are many
threats to these dunes. Non-native invasive
plant species such as baby's breath and spot-
ted knapweed have spread rapidly. Habitat
destruction from sand mining and develop-
ment poses the greatest threat. Recreational
use by off-road vehicles and pedestrians
damages vegetation and causes significant
erosion. Along the New York shore of east-
ern Lake Ontario, years of unregulated, un-
controlled public use, including vehicle traf-
fic, recreational activities, and sand mining
caused a large dune to blow out and create a
so-called walking dune. Walking dunes mi-
grate more quickly than foredunes because
there is no vegetation to hold sand in place.
In addition to facts about Great Lakes sand
dunes, the article relates efforts by the Lake
Ontario Dune Coalition and the Lake
Michigan Dunes Alliance to protect and re-
Page 2
U.S. EPA Great Lakes National Program Office
-------
Significant Activities Report
January 2003
store these precious resources. The article is
available on the Internet at: http://www.epa.
gov/owow/estuaries/coastlines/dec02/
sand_dune s. html.
Coastlines is a newsletter intended to pro-
vide information to the public about estuar-
ies and near coastal waters. It is published
by the Urban Harbors Institute at the Uni-
versity of Massachusetts in cooperation
with USEPA's Office of Wetlands, Oceans,
and Watersheds.
(Contact: Karen Rodriguez, 312-353-2690,
rodriguez.karen@epa.gov)
A Closer Look at Waukegan
On January 14th, a media day was held at
Waukegan Harbor, Illinois which brought
together the local community and stake-
holders interested in the Waukegan Harbor
Area of Concern. A new sediment sampling
program for the harbor, set to begin the next
day, was announced. The sampling is part
of a collaborative effort to delineate the ex-
tent of sediment contamination within the
harbor and determine the levels of contami-
nation in these sediments for potential dis-
posal in the Yeoman Creek Landfill. Open-
Waukegan Harbor, Illinois
ing remarks for this event were presented by
U.S. Representative Mark Kirk, Waukegan
Mayor Richard Hyde, Lt. Col. Norm Grady
of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and
U.S. EPA Regional Administrator and Great
Lakes National Program Manager Tom
Skinner.
Then, from January 15th to 17th, GLNPO,
USEPA Region 5, and the U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers collected sediment samples at
sixteen locations from within Waukegan
Harbor. The samples were collected using a
barge-mounted drill rig. The samples are
being analyzed for PCBs, PAHs, mercury,
heavy metals, total organic carbon, benzene,
tricholorethene, and phenols by USEPA Re-
gion 5 Central Regional Laboratory. Results
are expected in approximately 90 days. The
USEPA's Superfund and FIELDS groups
are currently working to gather all historical
sampling data, and plans are to combine this
with the current 2003 sampling data in order
to determine any data gaps in Waukegan
Harbor.
(Contacts: Demaree Collier, 312-886-0214,
collier.demaree@epa.gov or Marc
Tuchman, 312-353-1369, tuchman.
marc@epa.gov)
Mussel-bound Marsh
One of the ecological problems caused by
zebra mussels has been the virtual elimina-
tion of native clams from infested waters.
Zebra mussels readily colonize clam shells,
disrupting feeding, movement, and repro-
duction. Clams generally die within one or
two years after infestation, with near total
mortality reported in western Lake Erie. In
1996, a large population of native mussels
was discovered in Metzger Marsh, a Lake
Erie coastal wetland in the Ottawa National
Wildlife Refuge near Toledo, Ohio.
This marsh was originally protected from
U.S. EPA Great Lakes National Program Office
Page3
-------
January 2003
Significant Activities Report
Metzger Marsh
storm activity on Lake Erie by a barrier
beach that gradually eroded away as sedi-
ment supply decreased due to progressive
armoring of the shoreline. By 1990, much
of the original wetland was gone. In 1996, a
dike was installed to protect the area from
Lake Erie wave-action. When the water
level in the marsh was drawn down to pro-
mote restoration of the marsh, over 6,000
native mussels representing twenty different
species were discovered. The draw-down
was necessary to allow restoration to a func-
tioning coastal wetland, but it would have
resulted in the destruction of the native
mussels. On the other hand, release of the
mussels into Lake Erie would also result in
their destruction from zebra mussels.
To allow the restoration to continue, the
mussels had to be removed and boarded
while a water-control structure was installed
to restore the hydrologic connection with
Lake Erie. The mussels were marked and
measured before being returned to the
marsh, and annual monitoring has shown a
high growth rate. Larval forms of the mus-
sels require a period of attachment to the
gills offish, and although none of these
glochidia was observed, the mussels are re-
producing based on the presence of young.
One long-term concern is that only a few or
even single individuals of several species
were collected and returned to the marsh.
Their populations were low to begin with,
and even though they survived the boarding
experience, their ability to successfully re-
produce is limited. Without the influx of in-
dividuals of these species from outside
Metzger Marsh, the diversity of mussels
may continue to decline. Since the discov-
ery of native mussels at Metzger Marsh,
they have been found at five other locations.
These additional populations are widely
separated, usually low in numbers of indi-
viduals, and are vulnerable to water level
fluctuations.
The presence of native mussels in these
marshes offers hope that such marshes may
serve as refuges for native mussel popula-
tions, and could serve as brood stock to re-
populate Lake Erie if the zebra mussel
population could be controlled. The project
to protect and restore Metzger Marsh and
the native mussels was undertaken through
an Interagency Agreement between the U.S.
Geological Survey's Biological Resources
Division and USEPA's Great Lakes Na-
tional Program Office.
(Contact: DuaneHeaton, 312-886-6399,
heaton.duane@epa.gov)
Visiting the Islands
From December 10th to 12th, the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service's Great Lakes Basin
Ecosystem Team, along with GLNPO, the
new Great Lakes Regional Coastal/Aquatic
GAP Analysis Project Group, and other
partners, participated in a workshop to for-
mulate products, strategies, and actions to
promote conservation of Great Lakes is-
lands and coastal nearshore habitats. The
Workshop was entitled "Great Lakes Is-
lands Conservation and Coastal Habitat
Restoration and Great Lakes GAP Work-
shop."
Page 4
U.S. EPA Great Lakes National Program Office
-------
Significant Activities Report
January 2003
Great Lakes islands face development pressures
The more than 80 participants committed to
put in place resources and working groups
to:
• Develop a model strategy for conserva-
tion of Great Lakes islands at both the
landscape and local levels;
• Develop an island and coastal habitat
conservation ranking/prioritization sys-
tem;
• Update the State of the Lakes Ecosys-
tem Conference (SOLEC) indicator re-
port;
• Develop a Coastal GAP island pilot pro-
ject and inventory of databases available
for conservation;
• Produce a plan to improve the utility of
the Islands GIS Decision Support Sys-
tem; and
• Come up with a communications out-
reach campaign on Great Lakes islands.
Workshop materials are available on a CD
from Rich Greenwood or at the following
web site: http://www.glc.org/gis/GLBET/
index.html. (Richard Greenwood, 312-886-
3853, greenwood.richard@epa.gov)
Saving Tug Hill
Working in partnership with the Tug Hill
Commission, forest products companies, the
New York Department of Environmental
Conservation (NYSDEC), and a local land
trust, and funded in part by a grant from
GLNPO, The Nature Conservancy launched
a community-based conservation program
to protect the wetlands, rivers and streams,
and working forests on Tug Hill. Tug Hill is
a core forest area of more than 200,000
acres on the eastern shore of Lake Ontario.
It is the source of 11 rivers and one of the
largest intact landscape blocks in New
York.
In conjunction with the NYSDEC, the Tug
Hill Commission and Tug Hill Tomorrow
Land Trust purchased conservation ease-
ments that are targeted towards critical
properties to ensure sustainable forestry.
Forest blocks that can be set aside or placed
on longer rotation in order to restore forest
habitats were acquired. Local communities
were informed about the ecological signifi-
cance of Tug Hill and the contribution
working forests make to both local quality
of life and economic well-being.
Tug Hill Plateau, New York
(Photo courtesy of The Nature Conservancy)
Project managers worked closely with state
land managers to create forested corridors
on state lands that protect aquatic resources
and ensure that management on public lands
avoids sensitive lands. In conjunction with
the Tug Hill Commissions, local stake-
holders and experts explored economic de-
velopment options that diversify the local
economy. The project effectively developed
strong partnerships with public agencies and
U.S. EPA Great Lakes National Program Office
PageS
-------
January 2003
Significant Activities Report
private organizations, protected over 45,000
acres and the headwaters of two river sys-
tems, and reached out locally and state-
wide.
(Contact: Karen Rodriguez, 312-353-2690,
rodriguez.karen@epa.gov)
Safety First
GLNPO's Deborah Lamberty, working with
USEPA Region 5 Resource Management
Division's Maryann Lafaire, recently com-
pleted a new safety video for use by person-
nel who will be sailing aboard the R/V Lake
Guardian. The video provides guidelines
and instructions on safe use of the ship and
its equipment, as well as a general overview
of safety requirements while working on the
deck and in laboratories. The video will be
made available to anyone using the ship, as
well as anyone interested in the R/VLake
Guardian and can be obtained in VHS or
CD format.
(Contact: Deborah Lamberty, 312-886-
6691, lamberty.deborah@epa.gov)
USEPA GLNPO's 180-foot research vessel
R/V Lake Guardian
Floating Classroom
Five proposals were received in response to
a Request for Proposals issued by GLNPO
for educational courses aboard the R/V Lake
Guardian this Summer. Two proposals
were received for a course in Lake Ontario,
one from Lake Erie, one from Lake Michi-
gan, and one from Lake Superior. The
evaluation of the proposals resulted in the
selection of Niagara University (Lewiston,
New York) and Clarkson University
(Potsdam, New York) for education courses
on Lake Ontario. This year's shipboard
courses will continue GLNPO's well-
received program of environmental educa-
tion courses for Great Lakes educators and
students aboard the Lake Guardian.
(Contact: David Rockwell, 312-353-1373,
rockwell.david@epa.gov)
Cruise Schedule Online
A draft schedule for the R/V Lake Guard-
ian's activities in 2003 has been posted on
the GLNPO website at: http://www.epa.
gov/glnpo/guard/schedule_2003.html. The
upcoming year will include work on Lake
Ontario in cooperation with USEPA Region
2. In 2003, Region 2 is implementing sev-
eral binational cooperative monitoring pro-
jects with Canada and other partners as part
of the Lake Ontario Lakewide Management
Plan, including continuing the binational
LOADS (Lake Ontario Atmospheric Depo-
sition Survey) to measure critical bioaccu-
mulative pollutants to the lake, and an in-
tensive study of the lower food web to de-
termine how the zebra/quagga mussels have
changed the food web. (See April 2002 Sig-
nificant Activities Report for details on the
LOADS project)
The annual Spring and Summer surveys of
all the Great Lakes, and the Lake Erie dis-
solved oxygen surveys will also be con-
ducted. The schedule is preliminary and
subject to change. The schedule will be up-
dated as plans are finalized and links to fur-
ther information about the Lake Guardian
are also available from the Ship's Schedule
Web Page.
(Contacts George Ison, 312-353-1669, ison.
george@epa.gov; or Glenn Warren, 312-
Page 6
U.S. EPA Great Lakes National Program Office
-------
Significant Activities Report
January 2003
886-2405, warren.glenn@epa.gov)
Western Lake Superior Sanitary District
Duluth, Minnesota
(Photo courtesy of WLSSD)
Focus on Lake Superior LaMP:
WLSSD Gets the Mercury Out
Effluent testing using a new sensitive
method for mercury shows the progress
made by the Western Lake Superior Sani-
tary District (WLSSD) in Duluth, Minne-
sota in reducing mercury discharges. Using
a newly approved low-level test method for
mercury, EPA Method 1631, shows that
WLSSD is approaching the water quality-
based limits set by the State of Minnesota to
implement the Water Quality Guidance for
the Great Lakes System, also known as the
Great Lakes Initiative. The new method,
which can measure mercury concentrations
under one part per trillion in water, has been
a useful tool in showing how close the
WLSSD effluent is to meeting the limit.
The old test method couldn't accurately
measure mercury concentrations as low as
that in the WLSSD effluent and skewed the
old data high. WLSSD was pleasantly sur-
prised by the new data showing how clean
their effluent is.
The lower concentrations testify to the suc-
cess of efforts to reduce mercury use and
emissions. Federal regulation of mercury in
paint, batteries, and mildewcides and re-
duced use of mercury in consumer products
are starting to show benefits. WLSSD has
been working with customers of all sizes to
reduce or eliminate mercury discharges at
the source. Demonstration grants from
USEPA Region 5 Water Division and
GLNPO and the Great Lakes Protection
Fund have allowed WLSSD to demonstrate
innovative source reduction efforts.
WLSSD's latest effort at reducing mercury
inflow to the wastewater treatment plant is
the voluntary installation of amalgam re-
moval equipment at dental offices. Pres-
ently, 90 percent of the dental practices in
the WLSSD service area are using simple
on-site treatment that captures 95 to 99 per-
cent of the mercury that previously went
into the sewer. WLSSD also works with in-
dustrial customers to substitute cleaner raw
materials containing less mercury. Finally, a
large educational effort is directed at house-
holds and schools to promote the use of al-
ternatives to mercury containing products.
(Contact: Steve Hopkins, 218-340-1257,
hopkins. steve@epa.gov)
Habitat Plan for St. Louis River
The St. Louis River Citizens Action Com-
mittee (SLRCAC), a non-profit group
formed to protect and restore the St. Louis
Great blue heron along St. Louis River, Minnesota
U.S. EPA Great Lakes National Program Office
Page 7
-------
January 2003
Significant Activities Report
River, has completed a multi-year study and
management plan to enhance the habitat on
the Lower St. Louis River, St. Louis Bay
and Superior Bay.
The lower St. Louis River was designated
as an "Area of Concern" by the Interna-
tional Joint commission in 1987 due to re-
strictions on public use of the area caused
by pollutants, loss of habitat for fish and
wildlife, and the threat that this damage
poses to Lake Superior. The SLRCAC fa-
cilitates the restoration of these beneficial
uses. The Lower St. Louis River provides
essential spawning and nursery habitat for
fish populations throughout western Lake
Superior as well as tremendous recreational
and ecological value to the Duluth-Superior
area. This value is the basis for the eco-
nomic survival of the area. The SLRCAC
recognized that a lack of information about
land use and habitats made it impossible to
identify or prioritize projects to restore the
river. With multiple partners, the SLRCAC
set out to gather information and develop a
strategy to restore habitat through a Habitat
Plan for the Lower St. Louis River.
This project was undertaken in cooperation
with a wide host of partners. USEPA Re-
gion 5 Water Division provided some of the
funding for the effort. Participants included
the Minnesota and Wisconsin Departments
of Natural Resources, the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, The Nature Conservancy,
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Min-
nesota Sea Grant, the cities of Duluth and
Superior, the Natural Resources Research
Institute of the University of Minnesota Du-
luth, large landowners, the Western Lake
Superior Sanitary District and many indi-
viduals. Working together, they identified
existing land use and habitat, identified ar-
eas important to maintaining wildlife and
fish populations and provided recommenda-
River flowing into Lake Superior along North Shore
tions for improving the capacity of the area
to sustain native fish, plant, and wildlife
populations.
The Habitat Plan developed by the
SLRCAC provides information and recom-
mendations to the Cities, Counties and
States (Minnesota and Wisconsin) with ju-
risdiction over the lower St. Louis River. It
includes graphical information and mapping
data that allows multiple agencies to pre-
pare maps, do planning and share informa-
tion that will help achieve public, recrea-
tional and ecological goals for the basin.
A side benefit of developing the plan is
building on the historically high level of co-
operation and communication between all
the stakeholders in the basin. Planning and
restoration efforts reflect the community
and allow multiple parties to work together
to accomplish things that none could do
alone. The SLRCAC facilitates a whole host
of activities to clean up contamination and
restore beneficial uses to the lower St. Louis
River. They publish recreational guides to
the St. Louis River, sponsor educational ac-
tivities, and work directly with State and
Local agencies to implement recommenda-
tions outlined in a Remedial Action Plan
for the St. Louis River System Area of
Concern. The RAP was written in response
PageB
U.S. EPA Great Lakes National Program Office
-------
Significant Activities Report
January 2003
to the International Joint Commission desig-
nation of the St. Louis River as an Area of
Concern.
(Contact: Steve Hopkins, 218-340-1257,
hopkins. steve@epa.gov)
Keeping the Basin Superior
Normally, planning documents aren't par-
ticularly newsworthy, but Minnesota's Basin
Management Plan is an exception because
of it's unique and innovative approach to en-
vironmental planning and streamlining gov-
ernment at the same time.
Ten years ago, Minnesota embraced the
concept of doing environmental planning on
a watershed by watershed basis, and under-
took writing basin management plans for
each of the seven major river basins in Min-
nesota. At the same time, a national effort
was underway to recognize the unique as-
sets and ecological importance of coastal
areas and to manage them accordingly
through a Federal program called Coastal
Zone Management.
When the Minnesota Pollution Control
Agency (MPCA), Duluth Office, undertook
basin planning for the Lake Superior Basin,
they found that over 150 management plans
already existed at the State, County, or Lo-
cal level which influenced water manage-
ment in the basin. They recognized that the
two plans they were working on with the
Minnesota Department of Natural Re-
sources (MDNR) and other state and federal
resource management agencies had tremen-
dous overlap with these existing plans.
There was even more overlap with the Lake
Superior Lakewide Management Plan being
written by the Lake Superior Binational
Program, and the Remedial Action Plan
(RAP) for the St. Louis River, mandated
when the area was designated by the Inter-
national Joint Commission as an "Area of
Fishing for herring on Lake Superior
Concern" because of restrictions on benefi-
cial uses and threats to Lake Superior.
MPCA took the bold step of bringing all the
stakeholders together, including Wisconsin
stakeholders on the St. Louis Bay, and sell-
ing the idea of incorporating the Coastal
Nonpoint Source Management Plan, and
Minnesota's implementation of the Lake Su-
perior Lakewide Management Plan and St.
Louis River RAP, and numerous other plans
into a single document. This resulted in a
four year collaborative effort and a compre-
hensive review of existing information on
the watershed, developing a method to
evaluate resource condition and vulnerabil-
ity and providing a tool for managers to pri-
oritize issues and remedial projects. The
group utilized techniques used by the U.S.
Forest Service to objectively examine how
vulnerable to damage small watersheds are.
The document is now being circulated to the
partners as a first draft of a comprehensive
document and supporting geographic infor-
mation system (GIS) data to provide a deci-
sion making framework which will assist
each partner to maintain and enhance the
unique and valuable resources that are so
important to the economic vitality and qual-
ity of life for people living in or visiting the
basin.
U.S. EPA Great Lakes National Program Office
Page 9
-------
January 2003
Significant Activities Report
Not only is the document unique in it's com-
prehensive, collaborative approach, but the
approach used is one that streamlines gov-
ernment and encourages future cooperation
and collaboration. It will allow managers at
the local level to identify areas of unique or
special vulnerability and to easily see how
their decisions may affect other local gov-
ernments as well as provide a vehicle to
share information and to leverage resources
together to accomplish more than any could
do alone.
Funding for this effort came from multiple
sources, including grants from USEPA Re-
gion 5 and the USEPA Great Lakes Na-
tional Program Office, and the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
(NOAA), support from MPCA, MDNR and
the Natural Resource Research Institute of
the University of Minnesota and countless
hours from a host of stakeholders. This
document will now go through a formal re-
view and approval process and be the basis
for Federal and state funding for projects to
protect or restore the ecology of the area.
The effort built on information developed
under other EPA grants for GIS data and a
habitat plan for the Lower St. Louis River.
(Contact: Steve Hopkins, 218-340-1257,
hopkins. steve@epa.gov)
We welcome your questions, comments or
suggestions about this month's Significant
Activities Report. To be added to or re-
moved from the Email distribution of the
Significant Activities Report, please contact
Tony Kizlauskas, 312-353-8773,
kizlauskas.anthony@epa.gov.
Page 10
U.S. EPA Great Lakes National Program Office
------- |