LAKE SUPERIOR BINATIONAL MONITORING WORKSHOP Proceedings: Directions for Measuring Progress October 25-27, 1999 Holiday Inn Waterfront, Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario Acknowledgements The Lake Superior Binational Monitoring workshop was generously sponsored by the following agencies: • • • • • U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Environment Canada Algoma Steel Inc. Michigan State University – Water Resources Institute Upper Lakes Environmental Research Network (ULERN) The following Individuals were responsible for the planning and executing the workshop: • • • • • • • Janet Pellegrini, Lake Superior LaMP Coordinator, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Darrell Piekarz, Lake Superior Issues Coordinator, Environment Canada Margo Shaw, Director, Upper Lakes Environmental Research Network Sharon Cuddy, Project Coordinator, Upper Lakes Environmental Research Network Angie Coe, Administrator, Upper Lakes Environmental Research Network Melanie Neilson, Head of Great Lakes Studies, Environment Canada Richard Hassinger, Assistant to Director, Fish and Wildlife, Minnesota DNR We would like to thank the presenters and session chairs who generously gave their time to this endeavor. We would also like to thank Margo Shaw, Amber Lahti, Angie Coe and Craig Zimmerman of ULERN for producing this report. 1 Executive Summary Sixty people from government, industry and local environmental groups met to examine existing monitoring activities within the Lake Superior basin, with a view to developing a coordinated, long-term monitoring program. This co-ordinated program would incorporate Lake Superior Binational Program’s indicators. The workshop represented the first time that monitoring data and indicators were considered at this scale of ecosystem organization for Lake Superior. The tasks of the workshop were five-fold: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. To To To To To review the list of current ‘best bet’ indicators, review and update a metadata summary of current monitoring programs, match monitoring efforts with indicators and identify gaps and overlaps, identify potential funding sources for future monitoring and co-ordination, solicit agency interest and support for future monitoring and co-ordination efforts. Participants reached consensus on nine key recommendations for future co-ordination of monitoring and reporting structure for Lake Superior. Workshop Recommendations: 1. Develop a co-ordinated monitoring strategy for the Lake Superior basin. All of the Lake Superior Binational Program agencies will participate and seek resources for implementation. The monitoring strategy will be peer reviewed and presented in the LaMP 2002. 2. Prepare a revised list of ‘better bet’ indicators for each theme committee. 3. Build a more complete metadata summary. This will involve 3 steps: i) Include additional metadata identified at the workshop in the existing summary table (see Appendix VI, of this report); ii) Approach the International Joint Commission regarding input of complete Lake Superior metadata list to their website. iii) Search for additional metadata. 4. Form ad hoc groups to address sampling protocols, sample analysis and data reporting standardization and comparability identified by theme committees. 5. Identify monitoring gaps and make recommendations on those that are most critical, see Section 3.0 of this report). 6. Facilitate greater co-ordination among agencies and theme groups to address common issues (for examples, see section 4.0 of the report). Establish a co-ordination committee to address these issues. 2 7. Identify funding necessary to address monitoring gaps and co-ordination of monitoring activities, (see Chapter 5.0 and Appendix VII of this report). 8. Report monitoring results in the LaMP 2002. 9. Adjust the existing Lake Superior Binational Work Group functions to achieve items 1 – 8. 3 Table of Contents Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Executive summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Table of Contents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 List of Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 1.0 The Lake Superior Binational Program Ecosystem Principals and Objectives . . 7 1.1 Workshop Goals and Objective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 2.0 Session I: 2.1 2.2 9 3.0 Session II: 11 3.1 11 3.2 14 3.3 16 3.4 20 3.5 3.6 4.0 5.0 Setting the Stage for Lake Superior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 A brief Overview of the Lake Superior Ecosystem . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Important Elements in Monitoring and Assessing the Lake Superior Ecosystem Integrity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Indicator Feasibility and Metadata Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Chemical Contaminants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Aquatic Communities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Terrestrial Wildlife . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Habitat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Human Health . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 Developing Sustainability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 Session III: 4.1 4.2 28 4.3 29 Exploring Monitoring Overlaps and Gaps Between Groups . . . . . 27 Fish Contamination/Human Health Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 Wildlife Contaminant Monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Session IV: 5.1 30 The Challenge of Identifying Funding Opportunities . . . . . . . . . . 30 Federal/State Funding in the United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Biological Non-chemical Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 5.2 Untied States – Environmental Protection Agency . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.3 Ontario Great Lakes Renewal Foundation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.4 Canadian Funding Opportunities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Session V: 6.1 33 6.2 34 6.3 34 6.4 34 6.5 35 6.6 35 Establishing Monitoring Efforts for Gaps – Next Steps . . . . . . . . 33 Chemical Contaminants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Session VI: 37 7.1 7.2 Co-ordination of Interagency Monitoring Efforts . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.0 Session VII: 39 Reaching Consensus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.0 Workshop Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 10.0 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 11.0 Appendices . . . . . . 42 Appendix I: Appendix II: Appendix III: 30 30 31 6.0 7.0 Aquatic Communities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Terrestrial Wildlife . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Habitat Group . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Human Health . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Developing Sustainability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Standardization of Lake Superior Fisheries Monitoring . . . . . . . . 37 Developing Monitoring Co-ordination Councils: Lessons Learned . . 38 ........................................... Workshop Participant List Workshop Agenda Summary of Objectives and Sub-objectives for Six Theme Committees Appendix IV: Summary of ‘best bet’ Indicators for Six Theme Committees Appendix V: Metadata request form Appendix VI: Metadata Summary for Six Theme Committees Appendix VII: List of Funding Sources 5 List of Tables Table 1: 12 Table 2: 15 Table 3: 17 Table 4: 20 Table 5: 21 Table 6: 23 Table 7: 24 Table 8: 28 Table 9: 29 Table 10: 33 Table 11: 34 Table 12: 35 Table 13: Chemical Contaminant Indicators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Aquatic Community Indicators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Terrestrial Wildlife Indicators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Key Indicators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Habitat Indicators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Human Health Indicators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Developing Sustainability Indicators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Wildlife Contaminant Indicators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ecological Community Indicators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Chemical Indicators Gap Analysis. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Habitat Indicator Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Human Health Indicator Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . Sustainability Indicator Gap Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .36 6 1.0 The Lake Superior Binational Program Ecosystem Principles and Objectives 1.1 Workshop Goals and Objectives The purpose of this workshop was to bring together managers and indicator experts from agencies responsible for ongoing monitoring activities within the Lake Superior basin. Approximately 60 people from government, industry and local environmental groups met to examine existing monitoring activities with a view to developing a co-ordinated, long-term monitoring program for the Lake (See Appendix I for a participant contact list). This coordinated program would incorporate the Lake Superior Binational Program’s indicators. The workshop represented the first time that monitoring programs and indicators were considered at the same time at this scale of ecosystem organization for Lake Superior. Specifically, the goals of the workshop were to: 1. Review the Lake Committee Work Group ‘best bet’ indicators; 2. Review and update a metadata summary of current monitoring programs within the basin; 3. Match current monitoring efforts with the suite of best bet indicators to identify monitoring gaps and overlaps; 4. Identify potential funding sources for future monitoring and co-ordination efforts; 5. Solicit agency interest/support for future monitoring and co-ordination efforts, and; 6. Make recommendations for co-ordination of monitoring and reporting structure. The workshop agenda is found in Appendix II. Annex 2 of the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement (GLWQA) requires Lakewide Management Plans (LaMP) to include “a description of surveillance and monitoring to track the effectiveness of remedial measures”. Senior management of Lakewide Management Plans for Lake Superior, Michigan and Erie have embraced a commitment to report progress every two years and will begin reporting in a co-ordinated manner. Beginning in 2002, monitoring results will be reported. This workshop was important for clarifying the needs for a Lake Superior monitoring program. 7 2.0 Session I: Chairs: Agency, 2.1 Setting the Stage for Lake Superior Janet Pellegrini, United States Environmental Protection Darrell Piekarz, Environment Canada A Brief Overview of Lake Superior Ecosystem, Principles and Objectives Speaker: Bob Kavetsky, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service In 1989, the International Joint Commission recommended that Lake Superior be designated as 'a demonstration area where no point source of any persistent, toxic substance will be permitted' (IJC, 1989). The U.S. and Canada responded to this recommendation by forming the Binational Program to Restore and Protect the Lake Superior Basin in 1991. Zero Discharge is an important element of Lake Superior Binational Monitoring Program. Three groups were formed to implement and guide the Binational Program: • • • The Lake Superior Task Force made up of senior managers from government and Environmental Agencies; The Lake Superior Work Group, comprised of representatives from government, environmental and natural resource agencies to provide guidance, policy and technical direction and; The Lake Superior Binational Forum comprised of representatives from the public and industry. The Binational Program originated from 1987 Amendments to the GLWQA, Annex 1, and Supplement 3a. This document proposed the development of an oligotrophic indicator, specifically lake trout (Salvelinus namaycush) and amphipods (Diporeia). The Lake Superior Binational Forum drafted a vision for the lake in 1992 and “Ecosystem Principles and Objectives” were drafted in 1993. The vision statement endorsed by the Forum on January 31, 1992, stresses the desire for a Lake Superior watershed that is free of toxic substances, supports healthy populations, a sustainable economy, and emphasizes the importance of citizen responsibility and co-ordination (Lake Superior Binational Program, 1998). In 1994, interested subgroups and partners of the Superior Work Group drafted ecosystem indicators and targets for Lake Superior. They focussed on simple, easily communicated indicators of complex ecological and cultural phenomena which became “Indicators and Targets” published in 1995. In 1996, the Superior Work Group Committee merged with the Monitoring Committee. The broader Program then examined the six objective areas to form the Organizing Principles and worked them into “Themes” including “Chemicals of Concern” which were subsequently added to the list. The six theme committees of the Work Group that have been formed to address key areas are: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Chemical Contaminants; Aquatic Communities; Terrestrial Wildlife Communities; Habitat; Human Health and; Developing Sustainability. 8 A co-chair from Canada and a co-chair from the U.S.A. headed each committee. These committees have proposed a set of objectives and ‘best bet’ indicators to monitor progress on these objectives. These objectives and sub-objectives are summarized in Appendix III and a list of the indicators chosen by each of the six committees is summarized in Appendix IV. Ecosystem indicators and targets were selected to meet the following criteria: • • • • • Relevance to ecosystem objectives established in Ecosystem Principles and Objectives for Lake Superior; Scientifically credible and based on recent scientific literature on ecosystem monitoring; Simple, reliable for their stated purpose; Thoroughly documented with regard to purpose, technical characteristics, limitations and interpretation; Suitable for serious consideration by U.S. and Canadian agencies with a mandate for environmental monitoring. These are taken from a revised document on Ecosystem Principles and Objectives for Lake Superior (Lake Superior Binational Program, 1998). This document can be found on the web at: www.cciw.ca/glimr/lakes/superior/pdf/lsupind5.pdf. Prior to the workshop, individuals were asked to complete a form summarizing their ongoing monitoring programs within the Lake Superior basin (Appendix V). Details of these monitoring programs (i.e. metadata) are summarized Appendix VI. 2.2 Important Elements in Monitoring and Assessing the Lake Superior Ecosystem Integrity Speaker: Stephen Lozano, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) initiated the Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program (EMAP) to: • • • Monitor the condition of ecological resources; Evaluate the effectiveness of policies and programs and; Identify emerging problems before they become widespread or irreversible. EMAP was designed to encourage research and monitoring partnerships and provide annual statistical summaries and assessments of current status and trends. Several key elements constitute a good monitoring program, including: • • • • Appropriately designed assessment questions (e.g. what percentage of Lake Superior’s deepwater benthic community is in good condition?); The development of conceptual model (i.e. how indicators relate to assessment questions); Careful selection of indicators (e.g. key species, presence of exotic species) and; Attention to design considerations (for EMAP, probability-based designs are georeferenced, adaptable and flexible enough to address new, emerging issues and questions). 9 EMAP, like all successful monitoring programs, includes the following elements: • • • • Based on sound science; Information management; Provides a program fit (i.e. research is designed to fit other organizations’ objectives); Responsive to customers. Of these elements, information management and communication are key. Information management must ensure a uniform data structure, provide a means for sharing and preserving data and be subject to rigorous quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) measures. Good communications involves publicizing results in a wide variety of media, including scientific journals and reports, presentations at scientific meetings, media releases and through engaging scientific colleagues. EMAP has been effective in evaluating long-term ecological changes in Lake Ontario over the past two decades. EMAP monitoring in Lake Superior has been ongoing since 1993. 10 3.0 Session II: Indicator Feasibility and Metadata Summary Session II was intended to bring together the individual Superior Work Group committees to review the list of ‘best bet’ indicators developed and present a summary of ongoing monitoring projects relevant to the indicator list. The chairs of the six breakout groups (chemical contaminants, aquatic communities, terrestrial wildlife, human health, habitat and developing sustainability) were instructed to: 1. Present each groups’ set of ‘best bet indicators’, and rank each of the indicators based on feasibility (low, moderate or high), to be saved for session III; 2. Present the summary of ongoing research projects relevant to each group (metadata summary); 3. Identify additional monitoring information not included in the metadata summary, distribute metadata forms to those present, and identify additional contacts. 4. Match the monitoring information from step 3 with the list of ‘best bet indicators’ (step 1) in tabular form, to be saved for session III; 5. Prepare a brief summary for presentation to the Plenary Session. Each of the breakout groups went on to identify key gaps or indicators for which data were sparse, missing or unknown. This information is summarized below by theme group. 3.1 Chemical Contaminants Chair: Janet Pellegrini, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency The breakout group identified several modifications/additions to the set of ‘best bet’ indicators as follows: • • • • • The chemical lists need to be reviewed and updated (e.g. pesticides, EDC’s); Trends in deposition to forested canopy and retention in terrestrial component; Trends in sediment cores in watershed as a surrogate for Lake Superior; Revise indicators 3, 5, 6 indicated in Table 1 to include concentrations in biota; Revise indicators based on availability of data from other sources. Additional Issues were identified for consideration in the Session III breakout: • • • • • • • Chemical lists, Nitrogen and Phosphorus levels - aquatic community/habitat and organic loadings, BOD, new emerging issues adding/deleting; Surrogate chemical indicators (sustainability), social indicators - sludge and garbage; Co-ordination of efforts to determine contaminant levels in other components: soil, groundwater and forested canopy; Metadata - one time only studies vs. ongoing efforts --> how to compare apples with apples in future; Contaminant trends and chemical effects in aquatic communities (fish and wildlife), human health, biotic vs. abiotic; Terrestrial wildlife, aquatic communities - contaminant effects on biota? basin vs. nearshore vs. open-lake; Terrestrial inputs of contaminants. 11 Table 1 summarizes the ongoing monitoring activities and critical issues for each of the chemical contaminant Indicators. Table 1: Chemical Contaminant Indicators Indicator 1. Progress Towards Zero Discharge & Zero Emission 2. Atmospheric Deposition Trends for Zero Discharge Chemicals 1 Critical Issues/Gaps 2. MISA Program All activities listed Lower detection 22. Michigan’s Fish Contaminant are feasible, but limits for effluent Monitoring Program for the most monitoring; 44. Watershed Export and Speciation of part not Air emissions Trace Metals in the Lake Superior Basin monitored. (Cdn) and U.S. 65. Contaminants in Lake Superior Fish Some small pilot (except studies mercury); underway. Sludge concentration: Mercury containing products; “Clean sweep” information; 15. Turkey Lakes Watershed All monitoring Data for all 34. Integrated Atmospheric Deposition programs are chemicals not Network (IU) considered highly available; 35. Integrated Atmospheric Deposition feasible. Sample Network (EC) frequency; Dry deposition; No. of sites (urban); Monitoring Programs* Feasibility 12 3. Open Lake Concentrations of Zero Discharge & Lakewide Remediation Chemicals 2 2. MISA Program – Municipal Industrial Strategy for Abatement 17. Great Lakes Water Quality Survey Studies 18. Great Lakes Fish Monitoring Program 21. Minnesota Fish Contaminants Program 22. Michigan’s Fish Contaminant Monitoring Program. 23b. Fish Contaminant Monitoring Program (IFAP) 29. National Contaminant Biomonitoring Program 33. Great Lakes Surveillance Program 44. Great Lakes Fish Contaminant Surveillance Program All monitoring programs are considered highly feasible. Data for all chemicals not available; Data collected infrequently; Detection limit issues; 13 Table 1: Chemical Contaminant Indicators (continued). Indicator Monitoring Programs* Feasibility 4. Sediment Concentrations of Zero Discharge, Lakewide Remediation & Local Remediation3 Chemicals 64. Ambient concentration Trends of Prevention/ Monitoring Pollutants4 in Water, Sediment, Air/Precipitation 15. Turkey Lakes Watershed 39. Quantifying Vertical Motion Along the North Shore of Lake Superior Not determined. 33. Great Lakes Surveillance Program 17. Great Lakes Water Quality Survey Studies 46. 18. Great Lakes Fish Monitoring Program 29. National Contaminant Biomonitoring Program 23b. Fish Contaminant Monitoring Program (IFAP) 21. Minnesota Fish Contaminants Program 22. Michigan’s Fish Contaminant Monitoring Program. 63. Toxaphene in the St. Louis River 64. Loads of Toxic Contaminants in the St. Louis River All listed monitoring programs are considered to have low feasibility. Critical Issues/Gaps Available for all Areas of Concern (AOC)? Not all chemicals are being monitored; 14 6.Prevention/ Investigation Chemicals 5 17. Great Lakes Water Quality Survey Studies 18. Great Lakes Fish Monitoring Program 21. Minnesota Fish Contaminants Program 22. Michigan’s Fish Contaminant Monitoring Program 23b. Fish Contaminant Monitoring Program(IFAP) 29. National Contaminant Biomonitoring Program 32. Environmental Effects of Industrial Effluents 33. Great Lakes Surveillance Program 38. Persistence and Fate of Pesticides and Industrial Chemicals in Water 46. Great Lakes Fish Contaminant Surveillance Program 64. Loads of Toxic Contaminants in the St. Louis River All monitoring programs are considered to have low feasibility. Not all chemicals are being monitored * see Appendix VI for details of monitoring programs. Zero Discharge Chemicals: chlordane, DDT, dieldrin, dioxin, hexachlorobenzene, mercury octachlorostyrene, PCBs, toxaphene; 2 Lakewide Remediation Chemicals: PAHs, alpha-BHC, cadmium, heptachlor, heptachlor epoxide; 3 Local Remediation Chemicals: aluminum, arsenic, chromium, copper, iron, lead, manganese, nickel, zinc; 4 Prevention/Monitor Pollutants: 1,4-dichlorobenzene, 1,2,3,4-tetrachlorobenzene, mirex/photo-mirex, pentachlorobenzene, pentachlorphenol, gamma-BHC 5 Prevention/Investigation Chemicals: 1,2,3,5-pentachlorobenzene, 3,3-dichlorobenzidine, 2-chloroaniline, tributyl tin, beta & delta BHC, hexachlorobutadiene. 1 3.2 Aquatic Communities Chairs: Ken Cullis, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Don Schreiner, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources The Aquatic Group identified several issues, which cut across one or more of the six committees. These included: • Chemical contaminants in fish (examined more extensively in Session III); • Abiotic vs. biotic indicators - should the aquatic committee consider fish only ?; • Changes in human behaviour and the impacts on chemical loading and emissions; • Throughfall of contaminants through the terrestrial ecosystem; • Open lake concentrations of chemical contaminants and drinking water (human health concerns); • Predator (bald eagle, loon, and herring gull) consumption of small fishes (30-58 cm) (GLNPO program only monitor’s top predators). The Aquatic Group also considered critical sampling protocol issues, which require further discussion and co-ordination across monitoring agencies. These included: • • Sampling time and locations; Random vs. index selection of sites; 15 • • Are sites representative of the zone under consideration? Lack of all necessary parameters (e.g. river flow data) for mass balance studies. Two key areas requiring further data and study were the issue of nutrients in suspended sediments and their effect on water quality, and how contaminants affect aquatic organisms (physiology, tumors, disease). Further critical data gaps are identified in Table 2 below. 16 Table 2: Indicator 1. Offshore Community (> 80 m) 2. Nearshore Community (< 80 m) 3. Harbour/ Embayments/ Estuaries Aquatic Community Indicators Monitoring Programs* 3. Forage Fish Trawling Survey 4. Sport Fish Monitoring 5. Lake Superior Fisheries Monitoring in Minnesota Waters 6. USEPA Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program (EMAP) 14a. Exotic Species Monitoring Program – Zebra Mussels 14b. Exotic Species Monitoring Program – Ruffe Monitoring 20. State-wide Lake and Stream Management Planning 23a. Tribal Commercial Fish Assessments 26. Assessment of Lake Trout Populations in Michigan Waters of Lake Superior 3. Forage Fish Trawling Survey 4. Sport Fish Monitoring 5. Lake Superior Fisheries Monitoring in Minnesota Waters 6. USEPA Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program (EMAP) 14a. Exotic Species Monitoring Program – Zebra Mussels. 14b. Exotic Species Monitoring Program – Ruffe Monitoring 15. Turkey Lakes Watershed 20. State-wide Lake and Stream Management Planning 23a. Tribal Commercial Fish Assessments 26. Assessment of Lake Trout Populations in Michigan Waters of Lake Superior 43. US Canada Great Lakes Islands Project 45. Wildlife Lake Surveys 4. Sport Fish Monitoring 5. Lake Superior Fisheries Monitoring in Minnesota Waters 14a. Exotic Species Monitoring Program - Zebra Mussles 14b. Exotic Species Monitoring Program – Ruffe 26. Assesment of Lake Trout Populations in Michigan Waters of Lake Superior 39. Quantifying Vertical Motion Along the North Shore of Lake Superior Critical Issues/Gaps Need Acoustic Tech. Research Benthos and phytoplankton data are variable – coordination/ standardization are required; Habitat, wetland data very limited; Linkages required between various sampling programs; Require co-ordination of native mussel sampling; 17 Table 2: Indicator 4. Tributary Communities 5. Toxic Contaminants in Aquatic Biota * Aquatic Community Indicators (continued). Monitoring Programs* 4. Sport Fish Monitoring 5. Lake Superior Fisheries Monitoring in Minnesota Waters 12. Indicies of Biological Integrity Development 20. State-wide Lake and Stream Management Planning 21. Minnesota Fish Contaminants Program 61. USGS – Streamgaging Network. 62. Minnesota Milestone Monitoring 63. Toxaphene in the St. Louis River 5. Lake Superior Fisheries Monitoring in Minnesota Waters 6. USEPA Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program 17. Great Lakes Water Quality Survey Studies 18. Great Lakes Fish Monitoring Program 21. Minnesota Fish Contaminants Program 22. Michigan’s Fish Contaminant Monitoring Program 23b. Fish Contaminant Monitoring Program (IFAP) 29. National Contaminant Biomonitoring Program 32. Environmental Effects of Industrial Effluents 37. National Contaminants Information System 38. Persistence and Fate of Pesticides and Industrial Chemicals in Water 46. Great Lakes Fish Contaminant Surveillance Program 47. Great Lakes Fisheries Specimen Bank 63. Toxaphene in the St. Louis R 64. Loads of Toxic Contaminants in the St. Louis River 65. Contaminants in Lake Superior Fish Critical Issues/Gaps Need standardized reporting of stream inventory, electrofishing and harvest data; see Appendix VI for details of monitoring programs. The aquatic community group also identified three key areas where monitoring overlaps occurred: 1. Wetland inventory data; 2. Chemical contaminants; 3. Stream benthic invertebrate, water quality and production data. 3.3 Terrestrial Wildlife Chair: Pam Dryer, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 18 The Terrestrial Wildlife group reviewed the committee’s mission, goals and principles. Several areas requiring work were identified to adequately address the list of ‘best bet’ indicators. Data gaps were identified for several wildlife species or groups, and areas requiring better sampling and data reporting co-ordination. Good sampling protocols for some indicators were identified, including breeding birds, herring gulls, bald eagles, loons (for contaminants and colour marking) and land use/cover. Other indicators required further development of adequate sampling protocols, including loon population surveys, amphibians, medium-sized carnivores and land use classification. Table 3 below summarizes these issues: Table 3: Terrestrial Wildlife Indicators Indicator 1. Breeding Birds Monitoring Programs* 1. Wildlife Assessment Program 24. Forest Bird monitoring in the Great lakes National Forests, Forest Bird Diversity Initiative 30. Effects of Organochlorine Contaminants on Avian Endocrine Sytems 56. Owls 58. Breeding Birds Population and Community Monitoring Program 1. Wildlife Assessment Program 11. Wisconsin Herpetological Atlas Project 59. Frog and Toad Monitoring Feasibility All programs are considered highly feasible. Critical Issues/Gaps Require more intense coverage, especially of Breeding Bird survey routes in Canada; All programs are considered highly feasible. 3. Rare & Important Plants 66. Minnesota County Biological Survey 4. Land use Change 24. Forest Bird Monitoring on the Great Lakes National Forests, Forest Bird Diversity Initiative 43. US Canada Great Lakes Islands Project 58. Breeding Birds Population and Community Monitoring Program This program is considered as low feasibility. All programs are considered highly feasible. Require better data coverage and uniform protocols; Need for co-ordination between sampling agencies; Identified as “back burner” indicator; 2. Amphibians 6.Tree Swallows Require smaller scale resolution (50 m) basin wide; Wetland inventory for Ontario lacking; Update of land cover classification (including water) required; 1.Wildlife Assessment Program. All programs Identified as “back 24. Forest Bird Monitoring on the Great are burner” indicator; Lakes National Forests, Forest Bird considered Diversity Initiative low 27. Tree Swallow Contaminant Monitoring feasibility. 19 Table 3: Terrestrial Wildlife Indicators (continued). Indicator 7. Snapping Turtles Monitoring Programs* 11.Wisconsin Herpetological Atlas Project 13c. Surveillance of Toxic Chemicals in Herpitiles of the Great Lakes. 8. Colonial Birds 9. Nocturnal Owls 1. Wildlife Assessment Program. 13a. Herring Gull Egg Monitoring Program. 13b. Colonial Waterbirds of Great Lakes Population Surveys. 30. Effects of Organochlorine Contaminants on Avian Endocrine Systems. 60. Colonial Birds Populations and Contaminant Monitoring 1. Wildlife Assessments Program 56. Owls 10. Threatened & Endangered Species 55. Federally Threatened and Endangered Species Monitoring Program. 66. Minnesota County Biological Survey 11. Exotic Plants & Terrestrial Animals 50. Beech Bark Disease Monitoring Program 52. Asian Longhorn Beetle Monitoring Program 53. Pine Shoot Beetle Monitoring Program 54. European Gypsy Moth Monitoring Program 58. Breeding Birds Population and Community Monitoring Program Feasibility Critical Issues/Gaps All programs Identified as “back are burner” indicator; considered low feasibility. All programs are considered highly feasible. All programs are considered moderately feasible. All programs are considered highly feasible. All programs are considered highly feasible. Require full basin coverage; Co-ordination regarding uniform sampling protocol required; Lack of sufficient data for all threatened & endangered species, particularly in Ontario; Require systematic approach to define problem; Lack of sufficient data for exotic terrestrial plants; 20 Table 3: Terrestrial Wildlife Indicators (continued). Indicator 12. Mediumsized Carnivores Monitoring Programs* 13. Ungulates (deer, moose, caribou) 16.Status of Wildlife Populations 49. White-tailed Deer Monitoring 14. Ruffed Grouse 48. Ruffed Grouse Monitoring 15. Lichens/ Mosses/ Fungi 50. Beech Bark Disease Program 51. Hemlock Wooly Adelgid Monitoring Program 16. Common Loons 10b. Michigan Common Loon Survey 57. Common Loon Monitoring 17. Bald Eagles 10a. Bald Eagle Biosentinel Project Feasibility All programs would be considered highly feasible. Critical Issues/Gaps Little survey data available, consider using trapping data; Need for co-ordination among sampling agencies; All programs More frequent sampling are for moose populations considered required; highly feasible. This Lack of Ontario data; program is Co-ordination regarding considered sampling protocol highly required; feasible. All programs Identified as “back are burner” indicator; considered low feasibility. All programs are considered highly feasible. This program is considered highly feasible. * see Appendix VI for details of monitoring programs. For several key indicators, data availability was further assessed for population, productivity, demographics and contaminants on a lake wide and basin wide basis. These are summarized in Table 4. 21 Table 4: Key Indicators Monitoring Program Common Loon Breeding Birds Bald Eagle 1. Population X X X 2. Productivity MI*, MN*, ON, WI MI, WI MI, WI 3. Demographics 4. Contaminants Lake Superior only Basin wide Both Amphibians Colonial Birds Ungulates Roadside Counts ON*, WI* Deer, moose Threatened & Endangered Species. X X X X X X X X X X X * MI = Michigan, MN = Minnesota, ON = Ontario, WI = Wisconsin. 3.4 Habitat Chair: Pat Collins, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. The Habitat Committee considered several critical needs and monitoring gaps, which they identified as action items. These included: • • • Adding several metadata projects to the inventory, including U.S. Geological Survey stream flow data, National Water Institute, Urban and Municipal Storm Water Runoff on South Shore, North Shore Highlands Biosurvey, Michigan Water Quality, Fish Creek Geomorphology, Wild Rice Lake Mapping (1854), Bay Mills Biosurvey, Habitat committees Geographic Information System Project, Substrate Mapping for Lake Superior; RiverWatch and NPDES Permits; Reviewing additional metadata; Improving interagency co-ordination to define data parameter collection and interpretation, improving access to data and dissemination; Critical gaps included: • • International stream flow data and on the web (add National Wetland Inventory,1995); Need a national wetland inventory for Canada. Critical gaps and issues are summarized in Table 5. 22 Table 5: Habitat Indicators Indicator 1. Stream Flow/ Sedimentation Monitoring Programs* 12. Indices of Biological Intensity 61. USGS – Streamgaging Network Feasibility Critical Issues/Gaps Both programs are considered highly feasible. Maintenance and future operation of real time gauging stations on key tributaries is critical; What differences exist between U.S. & Canadian data? Consensus on what key tributaries are required; 2. Benthic 14a. Exotic Species Monitoring All programs Consensus required on Invertebrates Program – Zebra Mussels are sampling sites and protocols; 20. Statewide Lake and Stream considered Co-ordination between agencies Management Planning highly is critical; 40. Remedial Action Plan Update feasible. Require more complete 43. US/Canada Great Lakes metadata summary; Island Project Information on reference populations required; 3. Inland Lake 20. Statewide Lake and Stream All programs Requirement to compile Transparencies Management Planning are information on basin wide 40. Remedial Action Plan Update considered perspective; 45. Wildlife Lake Surveys highly Need to differentiate trends feasible. based on individual watersheds; Reconcile differences in international data collection protocols; 4. Forest 7. Forestry Aerial Survey All programs Tremendous overlap in data Fragmentation 8. Landsat Vegetation Mapping are collected; and Change Detection considered Require details of sampling 9. Forest Inventory on State highly protocols for standardization; Lands feasible. Data analysis protocols require 25. Forest Landscape Monitoring standardization; with Remote Sensing 40. Remedial Action Plan Update 43. US/Canada Great Lakes Islands Project 5. Accessible Stream 20. Statewide Lake and Stream All programs Canada needs to map Length/ Wetland Area Management Planning are wetlands and develop shoreline 31. Effects of Global Climate considered inventory; Change on Great Lakes highly Co-ordination and consolidation Wetlands feasible. of data are required; 40. Remedial Action Plan Update * see Appendix VI for details of monitoring programs. 23 The Habitat Group also identified the need to pull together available data, identify international differences in data availability and compile a complete list of information available for the Lake Superior basin for all indicators. 3.5 Human Health Chair: Joyce Mortimer, Health Canada Health Canada originally developed these indicators, but there is now much more diverse involvement within this committee providing increased opportunities for critically evaluation of the proposed indicators. The group emphasized the need to focus on three areas of human health indicators: • • • Environmental exposure as an indirect measure of human exposure (air, water – drinking and recreational, food – fish, and soil); Tissue levels as a direct measure of human exposure; Health outcomes as result of exposure to environmental contaminants. The main gaps identified were: • • • • Monitoring of private groundwater for drinking water quality; The need for a centralized reporting system for microbial data from recreational beaches; The need to tailor the air quality pollutant list to Lake Superior (i.e. mercury, PCB, toxaphene); Research on contaminant body burdens, health effects and cohort indicators of exposure and effects, all of which were identified as highly relevant, but difficult to conduct (therefore of low to moderate feasibility). The group suggested that the radionuclides indication be dropped, since no nuclear plants are located within the basin, hence the low relevance of this type of data. Table 6 summarizes these issues. 24 Table 6: Human Health Indicators Indicator 1. Fish Contaminants Monitoring Programs* Feasibility** 5. Lake Superior Fisheries Monitoring in Minnesota Waters 18. Great Lakes Fish Monitoring Program 21. Minnesota Fish Contaminants Program 22. Michigan’s Fish Contaminant Monitoring Program 23b. Fish Contaminant Monitoring Program – IFAP 29. National Contaminant Monitoring Program 32. Environmental Effects of Industrial Effluents 36. Trends in Disease Incidents and Mortality Rates 37. National Contaminants Information System 38. Persistence and Fate of Pesticides and Industrial Chemicals in Water 46. Great Lakes Fish Contaminant Surveillance Program 47. Great Lakes Fisheries Specimen Bank 65. Contaminants in Lake Superior Fish All monitoring programs are considered highly feasible. 2. Drinking Water Quality H – Municipal Sources L- Private Sources 3. Recreational Water Quality M 4. Air Quality 42. Source Apportionment of Human Exposure to Urban Air Toxins M–H Critical Issues/Gaps Addressed in Session III summary; Missing local monitoring for specific contamination problems, especially private groundwater Require centralized reporting system for microbial measurements Need to tailor pollutant list to Lake Superior situation, (eg. Mercury, PCB,s, toxaphene) of concern to fish eaters; 25 Table 6: Indicator Human Health Indicators (continued) Monitoring Programs* Critical Issues/Gaps L Suggest dropping indicator due to low relevance (no nuclear plants in L. Superior basin) L – M (but Limited or no data in highly relevant) Minnesota, other states? High relevance, but very costly and invasive research L-M (but highly Most relevant relevant) research, but very difficult to do Feasibility** 5. Radionuclides No metadata available other than cow’s milk data (not relevant to exposure via nuclear plants) 6. Body Burdens 28. Assessment of Human Tissue Levels in Great Lakes Population 7. Health Effects 41. Remedial Action Plan (RAPs) and Lakewide Management Plans (LaMPs) Co-ordination 8. Cohort Indicator of Exposure and Effects 28. Assessment of Human Tissue Levels in Great Lakes Population. 41. Remedial Action Plan (RAPs)and Lakewide Management Plans (LaMPs) Co-ordination L (but highly relevant) * see Appendix VI for details of monitoring programs. ** H = High, M = Moderate, L = Low. 3.6 Developing Sustainability Chair: Jim Cantrill, Northern Michigan University The group considering sustainability issues and reviewed the diverse set of indicators. Indicator feasibility, data availability and critical issues as summarized below in Table 7. Table 7: Indicator Developing Sustainability Indicators Sub Indicator/ Monitoring Program1 Feasibility 2 Data Collection/ Availability Critical Issues/Gaps 26 1. Reinvestment a. Sustainable forestry (7) of Natural Capital b. Watershed management (20, 41,) c. Native fisheries (4, 5, 26) d. Wildlife stocking e. Exotics control (14a, 14b) f. Reclamation of mines g. Wetland replacement and diversity (66) H M/L GLFC, MNR Automated? ND Available Yes? Sparse, Lakehead U MNR, MNDM DOE? ND M L M Consistency Overlap? Overlap? 27 Table 7: Developing Sustainability Indicators (continued). Indicator 2. Quality of Human Life 3. Resource Consumption Patterns 4. Awareness of Capacity for Sustainability Sub Indicator/ Monitoring Program1 a. Crime incidence b. Migration c. Demands for Social Services d. Transportation & communication infrastructure e. Recreation & cultural opportunities f. Citizen involvement g. Access to Lakeshore h. Population density a. Water use b. Water efficiency c. Energy consumption/use d. Types of power generation e. Incineration f. Solid waste generation g. Recycling programs h. Forestry and mining (7, 8, 9, 25) i. Water quality j. Wildlife depletion? i. Tourism? j. Urban Sprawl a. School curricula b. Promotion of resource conservation c. Building codes d. Zoning e. Support for environmental regulations f. Community outreach k. Media coverage l. ISO 14000 M H L Data Collection/ Availability Stats Can Yes ? Difficult L ? M ? L H H M M Stats Can, provincial/local ? Muncipal? Stats Can. DOE survey Site by site Stats Can M MNR, federal L Site by site L Site by site L Site by site Feasibility 2 Wisconsin Environmental Education Board Critical Issues/Gaps N.S. issue? What to measure? Tells what? Scattered data N.S. issue? Issue here Disaggregate Disaggregate Overlap Overlap Overlap Info. in different spots? 28 Table 7: Developing Sustainability Indicators (continued). Sub Indicator/ Monitoring Program1 Indicator 5. Economic Vitality Measures 1 2 a. b. c. d. e. f. g. h. i. Per capita income Cost of living Poverty level Employment Regional trade balance Diversity of economies Transition economics Value added? Tax base Feasibility 2 H H H H M H L L H Data Collection/ Availability Stats Can. Critical Issues/Gaps Local? EDC? Difficult Site by Site Stats Can. see Appendix VI for details of monitoring programs. H = High, M = Moderate, L=Low, ND = Not Determined. 29 4.0 Session III: Exploring Monitoring Overlaps and Gaps between Groups The purpose of Session III was to explore areas where monitoring gaps and overlaps occurred across one or more groups. For this session, three larger breakout groups were formed to address: 1. The human health effects of fish contamination; 2. Wildlife contaminant issues and; 3. Biological, non-chemical issues. The chair of each group was instructed to: 1. Identify potential for collaboration between agencies where monitoring overlaps occur (using table from session II); 2. For ‘best bet’ indicators identified as feasible in Session II, identify serious monitoring gaps (using table from session II), and rank them from most critical to least critical. These results were to be saved for Session V; 3. For indicators identified as "low feasibility" in Session II, suggest ways to revise indicators, if applicable; 4. Prepare a brief summary for presentation to the Plenary Session. Findings for the three breakout groups are summarized below. 4.1 Fish Contamination/ Human Health Issues Chair: Joyce Mortimer, Health Canada Members of the Aquatic, Human Health and Contaminant groups examined the issue of human health impacts from consumption of fish with contaminant body burdens in Lake Superior. The group acknowledged the need to examine a two-track approach: contaminant body burdens in fish and human dietary choices (i.e. what fish species and sizes are consumed, where are the fish caught, and how often they are consumed). Loons were also considered as a surrogate for exposure to contaminants in fish. However, the Ontario database was not designed to monitor trends in loon contaminant body burdens. Fish Consumption Advisories: Sampling programs for fish consumption advisories was not intended to indicate trends in contaminant levels over time. What types of monitoring could be used instead? Trends in contaminant levels in similar species and sizes over time (percantage change over time), for example the edible portion of fish, for each region within the lake would be suitable. The group considered requirements for soliciting data in order to develop a fish contaminant indicator. A minimum data requirement would need to be identified. Consideration was also given to archiving samples in a tissue bank for retrospective studies as new analytical approaches are developed. The Great Lakes Laboratory for Fisheries & Aquatic Sciences in 30 Burlington, Ontario maintains such a tissue bank. There was considerable discussion over whether a decline in number of fish advisories over time could be used to monitor fish contaminant trends. However, this approach would be difficult because of different criteria for advisories in different regions. In some cases, declines in contaminant levels would not result in a change to consumption advisories. Fish contaminant monitoring is an area, which would benefit from a co-ordinated sampling, analytical and data reporting program. Currently there is a lack of consistency in what is classified as “edible” portion of a fish. Can such inconsistent data be combined (e.g. whole fish data, edible portion) and would this be misleading to identify trends in contaminant levels? The group felt that a monitoring council for fish contaminants would be a good idea. The group proposed to undertake a project to examine the inter-relationships between existing monitoring programs and to work towards developing a suitable indicator. The first step would be to examine archived data on a lake by lake and species-by-species basis. This would represent a large time and cost investment, but would be worthwhile. 4.2 Wildlife Contaminant Monitoring Chair: Pam Dryer, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Members of the Habitat, Terrestrial Wildlife and Chemical Contaminants groups discussed issues related to wildlife contaminant monitoring. They identified a critical need for better co-ordination between monitoring agencies within the basin. A number of high feasibility indicators were identified. However, there were problems with consistency of data availability across countries and states. Table 8 below identifies these indicators and problems associated with data availability. Table 8: Wildlife Contaminant Indicators Wildlife Contaminant Indicator 1. Bald Eagle 2. Herring Gull 3. Common Loon 4. Snapping Turtle Critical Issues/Gaps Data lacking in Canada; Require better diet composition data (contaminant levels for appropriate size classes of fish); Data lacking in U.S.; Data available for Apostle Islands, Keewenaw/Huron Islands Keewenaw Peninsula, Taquamon Island; Good data on contaminants in diet (fish); Contaminant data lacking in Canada; Focus has been on mercury, limited organic contaminant data available; Availability of Minnesota population information is declining; Data for south shore of Lake Superior is lacking; 31 5. Mink 4.3 Could consider contaminant levels in larger inland, sensitive species such as mink. Biological Non-chemical Issues Chair: Pat Collins, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Members of the Terrestrial Wildlife, Aquatic and Habitat groups identified several areas where monitoring overlap and the potential for co-ordination existed. These are summarized in Table 9 below: Table 9: Ecological Community Indicators Indicator 1. Land Use/Cover Change 2. Accessible Stream Length 3. Monitoring of Exotics 4. Common Loon 5. Wetland 6. Breeding Bird Monitoring 7. Benthic Invertebrates Committees Involved Habitat, Sustainability, Terrestrial Habitat, Aquatic, Sustainability Habitat, Aquatic, Terrestrial, Sustainability Habitat, Human Health, Sustainability Habitat, Terrestrial, Aquatic, Sustainability, Chemical Contaminants Habitat, Terrestrial Habitat, Aquatic, Chemical Contaminants Critical Issue Forest fragmentation; Displacement of native species by exotics; Inland lake transparency; Loss of wetlands; Contaminant issues; 32 5.0 Session IV: The Challenge of Identifying Funding Opportunities Chair: Jake Vander Wal, Ontario Ministry of the Environment Each group identified several critical monitoring gaps in Sessions II and III. As well, the requirement for increased co-ordination and collaboration was commonly iterated. Session IV was intended to review existing and new funding opportunities with the potential to fund new monitoring and co-ordination efforts on Lake Superior. A list of all the potential funding sources identified in this session is provided in Appendix VII. 5.1 Federal/State Funding in USA Speaker: Richard Hassinger, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Several potential sources of significant funding may be available to fund monitoring in the U.S. These include funds associated with the introduction of two bills in congress, namely, the Conservation and Reinvestment Act of 1999 (S.25, H.R. 701) and the Permanent Protection for America’s Resources 2000 (H.R. 798 and S.446). These pieces of legislation would involve a reinvestment of 50 – 60% of $4.6 billion for “wildlife and wild places projects”. As well the National Science Foundation (NSF) is waiting approval from Congress to increase environmental research, education and scientific assessment by $1 billion over the next five years. Their report “Environmental Science and Engineering for the 21st Century: The Role of the National Science Foundation” recommends a range of activities including research funding, building laboratories, interdisciplinary research and multi-discipline research. The report can be viewed at the website http://www.nsf.gov/nsb/tfe/nsb99133/start.htm. 5.2 U.S. EPA Funding Opportunities Speaker: Paul Bertam, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency The Great Lakes National Programs Office (GLNPO) is responsible for conducting research and monitoring in the Great Lakes. The program priorities are: • • • State of the Lake (SOLEC) indicators - base program for 5 lakes, monitored once every two years for water quality, contaminants and plankton; Lakewide Management Plans (LaMP); Special studies (e.g. Lake Michigan contaminant mass balance study). GLNPO’s approach to requests for assistance is not to fund external long-term monitoring programs, but to assist with data/information needs through: • • • • 5.3 Existing monitoring programs; Cooperation with other agencies; Funding special studies; Grants and interagency agreements. Ontario Great Lakes Renewal Foundation Speaker: Gail Krantzberg, Ontario Ministry of the Environment 33 The Ontario Great Lakes Renewal Foundation (GLRF) is a recently established funding agency, which is private sector driven, but operates in cooperation with local, provincial, and federal governments. This foundation has a unique opportunity to inspire investment in Great Lakes renewal by engaging others, including industry and the corporate sector, as they have an interest in the protection of the Great Lakes. The mandate of the GLRF is to advance Great Lakes revitalization by increasing available resources needed to help communities move towards a healthy and sustainable Great Lakes Basin Ecosystem. The foundation’s objectives focus on five major areas: • • • • • Cleaning up degraded areas; Revitalizing, protecting and conserving natural systems in Ontario’s Great Lakes; Sustaining action-based community initiatives; Achieving balanced ecosystem needs, and; Demonstrating leadership through partnerships. Information about the Ontario Great Lakes Renewal Foundation can be found at their website: www.greatlakes.on.ca. Eleven projects have been funded to date in Thunder Bay, Nipigon Bay, Severn Sound, the St. Clair River and Niagara Rivers, Toronto and the Bay of Quinte. These projects have supported habitat rehabilitation, research, pollution prevention and community capacity building. The foundation’s current priorities are to: • • • • • • • 5.4 Acquire private sector contributions; Establish a Grant Advisory committee; Forge relationships with other foundations; Network with Great Lakes private and public sector leaders; Demonstrate progress; Ensure AOC receive priority funding, and; Ensure partnerships. Canadian Funding Opportunities Speaker: Margo Shaw, Upper Lakes Environmental Research Network (ULERN) Despite widespread declines in funding for government and academic research in recent years, there has been no reduction in research/monitoring mandates. This necessitates a shift in how we fund programs. More agencies are looking to collaborative agreements and alternate funding sources. Several potential funding sources exist, including new federal and new provincial programs, corporations and private foundations. The Upper Lakes Environmental Research Network (ULERN) was formed in 1997 to facilitate natural resource and environmental research in the Upper Great Lakes basin. This coalition is comprised of more than 140 members from government, academia and the private sector. 34 ULERN’s goal is to tackle research problems that individual agencies cannot for a variety of reasons (i.e. lack of funding, expertise or time). 35 Soliciting funding from non-traditional sources requires in some cases, a change in approach. In general, funding agencies are interested in: • • • The nature of the research or monitoring project i) A project that captures imagination, vision; ii) A good fit with the funding program mandate; iii) Volunteer/public/student involvement, and; iv) Partners with matching funding. Accountability i) Demonstrated good financial management; ii) Past history of success, and; iii) Low project overhead costs. A win for the funding agency i) A tax receipt; ii) Acknowledgement of monetary contributions (publicity), and; iii) The opportunity to influence research/monitoring direction. If the Lake Superior Binational Program were to consider establishing a Monitoring Council, or expanding current monitoring activities there are several potential avenues for funding: • • • • • • Partnerships represent the opportunity for sharing data, resources, expertise and perhaps funding; New foundations such as the Ontario Great Lakes Renewal Foundation, Ontario Research and Development Challenge Fund, the Ontario Innovation Trust and the Canadian Foundation for Innovation may provide capital and operating funding; Corporate foundations, (e.g. Canada Trust Friends of the Environment Foundation); Private foundations (e.g. the Richard Ivey Foundation); Government sources such as Human Resources Development Canada and FedNor, can provide funding for hiring of students and interns; Multinational funds such as the North American Fund for Environmental Cooperation. 36 6.0 Session V: Establishing Monitoring Efforts for Gaps – Next Steps This session was designed to focus on critical gaps identified in sessions II and III. Groups were to consider ways to address these gaps and identify how/who might be involved. The instructions to the chairs were: 1. For critical monitoring gaps identified in the previous breakout sessions, consider the following: i) Can existing information/data be used in novel ways to answer these needs? ii) If not, discuss how, and who should collect monitoring data (i.e. identify agency interest); iii) How can monitoring efforts be supported (identify potential funding sources)? iv) The potential for new monitoring. 2. Prepare a brief presentation for reporting to the Plenary Session. The suggestions from each of the six break-out groups are summarized in sections 6.1 to 6.6. 6.1 Chemical Contaminants Chair: Melanie Neilson, Environment Canada The Chemical Contaminant group considered ways to address critical gaps for several of the committees’ indicators. These are summarized in Table 10 below. Table 10. Chemical Contaminant Indicators Indicator 1. Zero Discharge Chemicals * Issue Sources of chemicals (emission stacks, products, clean sweeps); Critical Gap Need transport models; Need to educate public; 2. Chemical Indicators 2 – 6 (Concentrations in sediment, water, air & fish) 3. Prevention Chemicals* Not all chemicals are sampled due to lack of analytical methods and high cost; Lack of knowledge of available information; Need for data compatibility; Lack of data for these chemicals; Suggested Fix Piggy back on CGLI’s information gathering exercise (under BNS); Promote education about alternatives to these chemicals; Partnering; Website listing who is sampling where; Introduce QA/QC programs (round robin testing); Co-ordinate an intensive sampling year (multimedia) on Lake Superior; Ask GLNPO to consider adding on to their sampling cruises; Who? CGLI Environmental Non Governmental Organizations GLNPO * See Appendix IV for complete list of chemicals. 37 6.2 Aquatic Communities Chair: Don Schreiner, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. This group considered how to address gaps in monitoring the long-term environmental health of the Lake Superior basin. The key data gaps in Canadian waters were identified as: • • • • Diversity and sustainability; Monitoring of exotic species – good data exist for Duluth Harbour, Thunder Bay harbour and Sault Ste. Marie;, No net loss of habitat, and; Contaminant monitoring and consolidation of data. The overriding requirement is the need for better organization and consolidation of data and ensuring its ready availability. 6.3 Terrestrial Wildlife Chair: Pam Dryer, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service The Terrestrial Wildlife Committee spent much of this session examining the list of indicators and outcomes. The group recognized the need to better clarify indicators and outcomes. They identified land use/land cover as a priority for the group and recognized the need to co-ordinate more closely with other committees. The most critical gaps for this committee are: • • • • • • 6.4 Threatened and Endangered species – data is available basinwide, but needs to be pulled together; Amphibian monitoring; Land use/Land cover – 50 x 50 m resolution data analysis has been done for Wisconsin and Minnesota, but needs to be completed for Michigan and Ontario; Data analysis needs to be completed for 1995 and compared with 1985; Classifications need to be standardized; Exotic Plant monitoring. Habitat Group Chair: Pat Collins, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources The Habitat group identified five key areas requiring further work. Table 11 below summarizes these gaps, and provides a suggested solution and agency to address these gaps. Table 11: Habitat Indicator Gap Analysis Indicator/Critical Gap 1. Complete Metadata Summary 2. Linking Data to Indicators Suggested Fix Collect data information for stream flow and identify gaps; Connect process of data collection to product needed and currently being used; Who? U.S.Geological Service (WRD) Habitat Committee 38 3. Data availability Make data more easily available to other agencies and public; 39 Table 11: Habitat Indicator Gap Analysis (continued). Indicator/Critical Gap 4. Benthic Invertebrate & Inland Lake Transparency Indicators Suggested Fix Target additional sources of information; 5. Accessible Stream Length Work with GLFC Technical committee to collect and summarize information; 6.5 Who? Ontario Ministry of Natural Resoures USGS (BRD) Habitat Committee Great Lakes Fishery Commission. Human Health Chair: Joyce Mortimer, Health Canada Three main areas for further work were identified in the area of Human Health. These are summarized in Table 12 below. Table 12: Human Health Indicator Gap Analysis Indicator/Critical Gap 1. Drinking Water – Private Well Water and Municipal Water Supply 2. Body Burden 3. Fish Contaminants 6.6 Suggested Fix Review chemical list; Survey local data sources in the U.S. and add to database; Complete Canadian data for any new chemicals; Investigate raw water quality as an indicator; Tissue level studies have focused on southern Great Lakes; Enhance data set for Lake Superior basin; Summarize subsistence data on the Canadian side of Lake Superior; Develop database on U.S. side; Requires further discussion, U.S. to screen other contaminants of concern; Developing Sustainability Chair: Jim Cantrill, Northern Michigan University This group identified the need to conduct a thorough search to identify what data/information is available; in particular what time trend data exist. These data gaps present the potential for capacity building and opportunities for collaboration. Table 13 summaries these issues. 40 Table 13: Sustainability Indicator Gap Analysis Indicator/Critical Who? Gap 1. Demand for Social Health & Human Services sectors Services Municipalities State Government Non governmental Organizations (NGO’s) Lutheran Social Services 2. Recreational National Parks Service, U.S.Forestry Cultural Activities Service Conservation Authorities Ontario Ministry of Tourism 3. Citizen Universities Participation in Decision Making 4. Mining Reserves Ministry of Northern Development and Mines (MNDM) Bureau of Mines Universities 5. Aquifers U.S. Geological Service (Quality/Quantity) Natural Resources Canada Environment Canada 6. Environmental North American Association for Education Curriculum Environmental Education Dept/Ministry of Education Great Lakes Environmental Education Council of Great Lakes Research Managers Universities 7. Popular Support Roger/Gallup/Harris polling for Environmental Universities Policies 8. Media Coverage Society of Environmental Journalists Universities 9. Regional Trade Balance Dept. Of Commerce Federal Reserve Ontario Ministry of Finance Labour Unions Economic Development Corporations FedNor Departments of Labour Lakehead University 10. Transitional Economies Funding Opportunities Federal, State & Provincial Government Agencies N/A ULERN Kellogg Foundation N/A N/A Federal/State Government Agencies ULERN Foundations Federal/State Government Agencies ULERN Foundations Federal/State Government Agencies ULERN Foundations N/A N/A 41 7.0 Session VI: Co-ordination of Interagency Monitoring Efforts Two speakers were asked to address their experiences with collaborative monitoring programs, with a view to applying lessons learned to the Lake Superior Program. 7.1 Standardization of Lake Superior Fisheries Monitoring Speaker: Don Schreiner, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Fisheries monitoring in the Great Lakes have had a long history of successful collaboration and standardization. This began in the early 1960’s with a focus on lake trout rehabilitation, sea and lamprey control. Later, the focus broadened to include non-indigenous species management and work on the Lake Superior fisheries monitoring. These activities are co-ordinated by the Great Lakes Fishery Commission, a not-for-profit organization formed by Canadian and U.S. governments to oversee Great Lakes fisheries management. Membership on the Lake Superior Technical Committee consists of state/provincial natural resource agencies from Michigan, Minnesota, Ontario and Wisconsin, federal agencies (U.S. Departments of Geological and Fish and Wildlife Services and the Canadian Department of Fisheries & Oceans). Monitoring in the lake is divided into 4 major habitat zones; offshore (> 80 m), nearshore (0 – 80 m), harbours, estuaries and embayments and tributaries. Program indicators and sampling details are summarized in Appendix II - Aquatic Communities. Funding for fish monitoring is largely provided by the individual agencies involved. Additional funding is provided by the Great Lakes Fishery Commission and outside partners such as universities, Sea Grants and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. This example of monitoring co-ordination in Lake Superior has worked well because of several factors, including: • • • • • • Central leadership and co-ordination provided by the GLFC; Development of clear guidelines and joint strategic planning; Agency commitment from both policy and field personnel; Focus on relevant projects of shared interest; Regular face-to-face meetings, and; Emphasis on decision making by consensus. As with any program, there are always areas that pose challenges, such as: • • • • • Expanding objectives and the need to re-examine priorities; Recent agency changes and reorganizations; A loss of memory due to personnel changes; Funding and time to address emerging issues, and; Interaction with other agencies and the public who may have divergent interests. 42 7.2 Developing Monitoring Co-ordination Councils: Lessons Learned Speaker: Charlie Peters, United States Geological Survey Monitoring councils are interagency organizations formed to provide a forum to co-ordinate consistent and scientifically defensible monitoring methods and strategies. Monitoring councils focus on collaboration and comparability. Why? Because every year government agencies, industry, academic researchers and private organizations commit enormous resources to monitor, protect and restore water resources and watersheds. There are several reasons for forming a monitoring council: • • • • • To To To To To Reduce monitoring budgets and sites; Reduce agency duplication and costs; better address legislation; Improve reporting of results; Promote awareness of water quality issues. Several examples of water quality monitoring councils exist in the U.S. at the national (e.g. National Water Quality Monitoring Council), regional (e.g. Southeastern Monitoring Council) and watershed (e.g. Big Thompson Watershed Forum) scale. These monitoring councils have provided assistance in several key areas, including: • • • • The design and promotion of goal oriented monitoring strategies for sampling, data analysis, interpretation and reporting; Data methods and comparability; Fostering institutional collaboration, and; Data management and accessibility. Not all monitoring councils have been successful, and there may be several reasons why such an organizations may fail. These include inadequate senior management support, a lack of funding or differences in agency philosophies. An examination of the key elements in forming a successful council include: • • • • A commitment to collaboration and a recognition of the time required to develop trust between partners; Members are in a position to influence organizational commitment; Committed leadership by a few key members; Minimal monetary commitment. 43 8.0 Session VII: Reaching Consensus Chairs: Melanie Neilson, Environment Canada, Margo Shaw, Upper Lakes Environmental Research Network At this plenary session, participants reviewed the workshop progress and made recommendations on the next steps. In the breakout session’s groups had ranked indicator feasibility, identified gaps and overlaps in monitoring programs and considered ways to address key requirements/needs. Possible routes to addressing these needs were identified: • • • • Have existing agencies fill in the gaps; Have theme committees fill in the gaps; Look to other agencies for assistance (e.g. Council of Great Lakes Resource Managers, International Joint Commission), and; Establishing a monitoring council. The idea of forming a Lake Superior Monitoring Council was discussed at length. Pro’s and con’s of such a council were identified: Pro’s - Con’s Increased economies of scale - More meetings (resource drain) Increased efficiencies - Potential for a group to get short shrift Potential for increased funding - Do we want to reinvent the wheel? Remove pressure from overworked committees Get things done Consensus was reached that no one was in favour of establishing a separate monitoring council, but that the program requires additional assistance with co-ordination and fundraising. The group agreed that one way to achieve this was to enhance the role of the existing Binational Work Group. The proposal was to appoint or hire an individual/ agency to work under the supervision of the Work Group. Funding for this could come from several agencies providing seed money into a central pot, or by agency commitment of staff time to the project. However, there was no consensus on this proposal. A list of nine recommendations follows. They are ordered beginning with the most critical. 44 9.0 Workshop Recommendations: 1. Develop a co-ordinated monitoring strategy for the Lake Superior basin. All of the Lake Superior Binational Program agencies will participate and seek resources for implementation. The monitoring strategy will be peer reviewed and presented in the LaMP 2002. 2. Prepare a revised list of ‘better bet’ indicators for each theme committee. 3. Build a more complete metadata summary. This will involve 3 steps: i) Include additional metadata identified at the workshop in the existing summary table (see Appendix VI, of this report); ii) Approach the International Joint Commission regarding input of complete Lake Superior metadata list to their Website. iii) Search for additional metadata. 4. Form ad hoc groups to address sampling protocols, sample analysis and data reporting standardization and comparability identified by theme committees. 5. Identify monitoring gaps and make recommendations on those that are most critical. (For a first cut, see Section 3.0 of this report). 6. Facilitate greater co-ordination among agencies and theme groups to address common issues (for examples, see section 4.0 of the report). Establish a co-ordination committee to address these issues. 7. Identify funding necessary to address monitoring gaps and co-ordination of monitoring activities. 8. Report monitoring results in the LaMP 2002. 9. Adjust the existing Lake Superior Binational Work Group functions to achieve 1-8. 45 10.0 References IJC. 1987. Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement of 1978. – Revised 64 pp. IJC. 1989. Fifth biennial report on Great Lakes water quality. Windsor, Ontario. Lake Superior Binational Program. 1993. Ecosystem Principles and Objectives, Indicators and Targets for Lake Superior. Discussion Papers. Lake Superior Binational Program. 1995. Ecosystem Principles and Objectives, Indicators and Targets for Lake Superior. Discussion Papers, 182pp. Lake Superior Binational Program. 1998. Ecosystem principals and objectives, indicators and targets for Lake Superior Revised. Lake Superior Work Group of the Lake Superior Binational Program, Thunder Bay, Ontario. 110pp. 46 11.0 Appendices Appendix I: Workshop Participant List Appendix II: Workshop Agenda Appendix III: Summary of Objectives and Sub-objectives for Six Theme Committees Appendix IV: Summary of ‘best bet’ Indicators for Six Theme Committees Appendix V: Metadata Request Form Appendix VI: Metadata Summary for Six Theme Committees Appendix VII: List of Funding Sources 47 Appendix I Lake Superior Binational Monitoring Workshop List of Registrants Name/Title Bertram, Paul Environmental Scientist Biron, Thomas A. Coordinator, Groundwater Stewardship Program Blumer, Stephen P. Supervisory Hydrologist Bowerman, William Assistant Professor, Wildlife Toxicology Bradof, Kristine Community Programs Coordinator Cantrill, Jim US Co-chair, Developing Sustainability Superior Work Group Coe, Angie Office Administrator Collins, Pat Lake Superior Habitat Coordinator Cooley, Janet Science Liaison Officer Cuddy, Sharon Project Coordinator Cullis, Ken Unit Leader Lake Superior Management Unit Dawson, Neil Wildlife Assessment Program Leader NW Region Day, Bob Aquatic Biologist Organization/Address US Environmental Protection Agency 77 West Jackson Blvd. Chicago, IL 60604 Michigan State University Extension Programs 300 Court Street Sault Ste. Marie, MI 49783 U.S. Geological Survey Water Resources Division 6520 Mercantile Way Suite 5 Lansing, MI 48911 Clemson University P.O. Box 709 Pendleton, SC 29631 GEM Center Michigan Tech University 1400 Townsend Drive Houghton, MI 49931-1295 Northern Michigan University 1401 Presque Isle Marquette, MI 49855 Upper Lakes Environmental Network (ULERN) 443 Northern Avenue, E. P.O. Box 60 Sault Ste. Marie, ON P6A 5L3 MN Department of Natural Resources 1568 Hwy. 2 Two Harbors, MN 55616 Environment Canada National Water Research Institute 867 Lakeshore Road Burlington, ON L7R 4A6 Upper Lakes Environmental Research Network (ULERN) 443 Northern Avenue, E. P.O. Box 60 Sault Ste. Marie, ON P6A 5L3 ON Ministry of Natural Resources R.R. #1, 25th Side Road Thunder Bay, ON P7E 6S8 ON Ministry of Natural Resources R.R. #1, 25th Side Road Thunder Bay, ON P7C 4T9 MI Dept. of Environmental Quality Surface Water quality P.O. Box 30273 Lansing, MI 48909 Phone/Fax/Email Phone: 312-353-0153 Fax: 312-353-2018 bertram.paul@epa.gov Phone: 906-635-6368 Fax: 906-635-7610 birontho@pilot.msu.edu Phone: 517-887-8922 Fax: 517-887-8937 spblumer@usgs.gov Phone: 864-646-2185 Fax: 864-646-2277 wbowerman@clemson.edu Phone: 906-487-3341 Fax: 906-487-1620 kbradof@mtu.edu Phone: 906-227-2061 Fax: 906-227-2071 jcantril@nmu.edu Phone: 705-759-2554, ext. 497 Fax: 705-759-0731 angie.coe@saultc.on.ca Phone: 218-834-6612 Fax: 218-834-6639 pat.collins@dnr.state.mn.us Phone: 905-336-4915 Fax: 905-336-4972 janet.cooley@ec.gc.ca Phone: 705-759-2554, ext. 497 Fax: 705-759-0731 sharon.cuddy@saultc.on.ca Phone: 807-475-1375 Fax: 807-473-302 ken.cullis@mnr.gov.on.ca Phone: 807-939-3120 Fax: 807-939-1841 neil.dawson@mnr.gov.on.ca Phone: 517-335-3314 Fax: 517-373-9958 dayrm@state.mi.us 1 Name/Title DeFalco, Tony Lake Superior Project Organizer Dryer, Pam Wildlife Biologist Freiman, Jerry Supervisor, Environment Health & Safety Gallagher, Maureen Fish & Wildlife biologist Garcia, Carolyn Water Quality Specialist Garside, Tym Senior Environmental Officer Gostomski, Ted LoonWatch Coordinator Greenwood, Susan Management Biologist Groetsch, Kory Environmental Biologist Hassinger, Richard Assistant to Director of Fish & Wildlife Helwig, Dan Supervisor, Ground Water & Toxics Monitoring Unit Hoff, Michael Research Fishery Biologist Hopkins, Stephen EPA V Lake Superior Team Kaplan, Joe Research Biologist Kavetsky, Bob Great Lakes Biologist Organization/Address National Wildlife Federation 506 E. Liberty Street Ann Arbor, MI 48104 U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service 2800 Lakeshore Drive Ashland, WI 54806 Algoma Steel Inc. P.O. Box 1400 Sault Ste. Marie, ON P6A 5P2 U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service 2800 Lakeshore Drive Ashland, WI 54806 Keweenaw Bay Indian Community 107 Beartown Road Baraga, MI 49908 Ministry of the Environment 747 Queen Street, East Sault Ste. Marie, ON P6A 2A8 Sigurd Olson Environmental Institute Northland College 1411 Ellis Avenue Ashland, WI 54806 ON Ministry of Natural Resources Huron Superior Management Unit 1235 Queen Street, E. Sault Ste. Marie, ON, P6A 2E5 Great Lakes Indian Fish & Wildlife Commission P.O. Box 9 Odanah, WI 54861 MN Department of Natural Res. Fish & Wildlife Division 500 Lafayette Road St. Paul, MN 55155-4020 MN Pollution Control Agency 520 Lafayette Road St. Paul MN 55155-4194 U.S. Geological Survey 2800 Lake Shore Drive Ashland, WI 54806 EPA Region V Nonpoint Source Branch Federal Courthouse 515 W. First Street, #320 Duluth, MN 55802-02320 Bio Diversity Research Institute 195 Main Street Freeport, ME 04032 U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Ecological Services 2651 Coolidge Road East Lansing, MI 48823 Phone/Fax/Email Phone: 734-769-3351 Fax: 734-769-3351 defalco@nwf.org Phone: 715-682-6185 Fax: 715-682-8899 pam_dryer@fws.gov Phone: 715-682-6185 Fax: 715-682-8899 maureen-gallagher@fws.mail Phone: 906-353-6623 Fax: 906-353-7540 garciac@up.net Phone: 705-949-4640 Fax: 705-945-6868 gardsidty@ene.gov.on.ca Phone: 715-682-1220 Fax: 715-682-1218 tgostomski@mail.northland.edu Phone: 705-253-8288 , ext. 249 Fax: 705-253-9909 susan.greenwood@mnr.gov.on.ca Phone: 651-215-0923 Fax: 651-215-0975 Phone: 651-297-1308 Fax: 651-2979-7272 richard.hassinger@dnr.state.mn.us Phone: 651-296-7215 Fax: 651-297-8324 daniel.helwig@pca.state.mn.us Phone: 715-682-6163 Fax: 715-682-6511 michael_hoff@usgs.gov Phone: 218-720-5738 Fax: 218-728-0111 or 218-720-5738 (call ahead) hopk@mindspring.com Phone: 207-865-3302 Fax: N/A piprapipra@aol.com Phone: 517-351-5293 Fax: 517-351-1443 bob_kavetsky@fws.gov 2 Name/Title Keir, Michael Contaminants Surveillance Field Programs Manager Knauer, Douglas Chief, Environmental Contaminants Research Krantzberg, Gail Great Lakes Strategic Coordinator Lozano, Stephen Research Ecologist Marles, Donald Chair, Binational Public Advisory Committee McCann, Pat Research Scientist McKenney, Dr. Dan Chief, Landscape Analysis & Applications Mortimer, Joyce Biologist Co-chair, Human Health Sub-committee Neilson, Melanie Head, Great Lakes Studies Niemi, Gerald Professor/Director Pellegrini, Janet Lake Superior LaMP Coordinator Peters, Charles Supervisory Hydrologist Phenicie, Dale K. Consultant Piekarz, Darrell Lake Superior Issues Coordinator Organization/Address Dept. of Fisheries & Oceans 867 Lakeshore Road P.O. Box 5050 Burlington, ON L7R 4A6 Wisconsin DNR Research Center 1350 Femrite Drive Monona, WI 53716 ON Ministry of the Environment 135 St. Clair Avenue, West Toronto, ON M4V 1P5 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency National Health & Env. Effects 6201 Congdon Blvd. Duluth, MN 55804 69 Broadview Drive Sault Ste. Marie, ON P6C 5Z4 MN Department of Health 121 East Seventh Place P.O. Box 64975 St. Paul, MN 55164-0975 Canadian Forest Service Great Lakes Forestry Centre 1219 Queen Street, East Sault Ste. Marie, ON P6A 5M7 Lake Superior Work Group Health Canada, 4th Floor Jeanne Mance Building P.L. 1094B Tunney's Pasture Ottawa, ON K1A 0K9 Environment Canada 867 Lakeshore Road P.O. Box 5050 Burlington, ON L7R 4A6 Center for Water & the Environment University of Minnesota 5013 Miller Trunk Hwy. Duluth, MN 55811 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 77 West Jackson Blvd., WU-16J Chicago, IL 60604-223590 U.S. Geological Survey Water Resources Division 8505 Research Way Middleton, WI 53562 American Forest & Paper Association 402 Lighthouse Lane Peachtree, GA 30269 Environment Canada 4905 Dufferin Street Toronto, ON M3H 5T4 Phone/Fax/Email Phone: 905-336-4861 Fax: 905-336-6437 keirm@dfo-mpo.gc.ca Phone: 608-221-6354 Fax: 608-221-6353 knaued@dnr.state.wi.us Phone: 416-314-7973 Fax: 416-314-3924 krantzga@ene.gov.on.ca Phone: 218-529-5205 Fax: 218-529-5003 lozano.stephen@epa.gov Phone: 705-254-6344 Fax: N/A donald.marles@sympatico.ca Phone: 651-215-0923 Fax: 651-215-0975 patricia.mccann@health.state.mn.us Phone: 705-759-5740 Fax: 705-7595700 dmckenney@nrcan.gc.ca Phone: 613-954-5991 Fax: 613-954-7612 joyce_mortimer@hc-sc.gc.ca Phone: 905-336-4963 Fax: 905-336-4609 melanie.neilson@cciw.ca Phone: 218-720-4270 Fax: 218-720-4270 gniemi@d.umn.edu Phone: 312-886-4298 Fax: 312-886-4235 pellegrini.janet@epa.gov Phone: 608-821-3810 Fax: 608-821-3817 capeters@usgs.gov Phone: 770-487-7585 Fax: 770-631-7729 dkphenicie@mindspring.com Phone: 416-739-5831 Fax: 416-739-5845 darrell.piekarz@ec.gc.ca 3 Name/Title Ripley, Mike Environmental Coordinator Sandstrom, Paul District Conservationist Schaefer, Karl Resource Economist Schreiner, Donald Lake Superior Area Fisheries Supervisor Semkin, Ray Geochemist Shaw, Margo Director Shutt, Laird Research Biologist Sitar, Shawn Research Biologist Soulier, Ervin Natural Resources Manager Stadler-Salt, Nancy Science Liaison Officer Stewart, Rod District Sueprvisor Tischler, Keren Research Biologist Trowbridge, David Professor, Water Resources Program Organization/Address Inter-Tribal Fisheries Assessment Program 179 West Three Mile Road Sault Ste. Marie, MI 49783 U.S. Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service 4850 Miller Trunk Hwy., Site 2-B Duluth, MN 55811 Environment Canada 867 Lakeshore Road Burlington, ON L7R 4A6 MN Department of Natural Resources 5351 N. Shore Drive Duluth, MN 55804 Environment Canada National Water Research Institute 867 Lakeshore Road P.O. Box 5050 Burlington, ON L7R 4A6 Upper Lakes Environmental Research Network (ULERN) 443 Northern Avenue, E. P.O. Box 60 Sault Ste. Marie, ON P6A 5L3 Canadian Wildlife Service National Wildlife Research Centre 100 Gamelin Blvd. Hull, QC K1A 0H3 MN Dept. of Natural Resources Marquette Fisheries Station 484 Cherry Creek Road Marquette, MI 49855 Bad River Natural Resources Dept. P.O. Box 39 Odanah, WI 54861 Environment Canada 867 Lakeshore Road P.O. Box 5050 Burlington, ON L7R 4A6 Ontario Ministry of Environment 747 Queen Street, East 2 nd Floor Sault Ste. Marie, ON P6A 2A8 BioDiversity Research Institute 195 Main Street Freeport, ME 04032 Sault College of A A & T 443 Northern Avenue, E. P.O. Box 60 Sault Ste. Marie, ON P6A 5L3 Phone/Fax/Email Phone: 906-632-0072 Fax: 906-632-1141 mripley@northernway.net Phone: 218-720-5209 Fax: 218-720-3129 paul.sandstrom@mn.usda.gov Phone: 905-336-4950 Fax: 905-336-8901 karl.schaefer@ec.gc.ca Phone: 218-723-4785 Fax: 218-725-7738 don.schreiner@dnr.state.mn.us Phone: 905-336-4781 Fax: 905-336-6430 ray.semkin@cciw.ca Phone: 705-759-2554, ext. 497 Fax: 705-759-0731 margo.shaw@saultc.on.ca Phone: 819-953-4098 Fax: 819-953-6612 laird.shutt@ec.gc.ca Phone: 906-249-1611 Fax: 906-249-3190 sitars@state.mi.us Phone: 715-682-7123 Fax: 715-682-7118 Brnrd@ncis.net Phone: 905-336-6271 Fax: 905-336-6272 nancy.stadler-salt@ec.gc.ca Phone: 705-949-4642 Fax: 705-945-6868 ENE3N13.stewarro@ene.gov.on.ca Phone: 207-865-3312 Fax: N/A piprapipra@aol.com Phone: 705-759-2554, ext. 633 Fax: 705-759-1319 david.trowbridge@saultc.on.ca 4 Name/Title Vander Wal, Jake Canadian Co-Chair Lake Superior Work Group Verma, Subhash Professor/Coordinator Watkins, Margaret Water Quality Specialist Weseloh, D.V. Chip Wildlife Biologist Whittle, D.M. Ecotoxicology Program Leader Organization/Address Ministry of the Environment 475 James Street, South Thunder Bay, ON Engineering & Technology Trades Sault College of A A & T 443 Northern Avenue, E. P.O. Box 60 Sault Ste. Marie, ON P6A 5L3 Grand Portage Water Quality Dept. P.O. Box 428 Grand Portage, MN 55605 Environment Canada Canadian Wildlife Service 4905 Dufferin Street Downsview, ON M3H 5T4 Dept. of Fisheries & Oceans Lab for Fisheries & Aquatic Sciences 867 Lakeshore Road P.O. Box 5050 Burlington, ON L7R 4A6 Phone/Fax/Email Phone: 807-475-1717 Fax: 807-475-1754 vanderja@ene.gov.on.ca Phone: 705-759-2554, ext. 631 Fax: 705-759-1319 subhash.verma@saultc.on.ca Phone: 218-475-0193 Fax: 218-475-2615 watkins@boreal.org Phone: 416-739-5846 Fax: 416-739-5845 chip.weseloh@ec.gc.ca Phone: 905-336-6437 Fax: 905-336-6437 whittlem@dfo-mpo.gc.ca 5 Appendix II Lake Superior Binational Monitoring Workshop October 26 & 27, 1999 (Opening Reception - Monday, October 25) Holiday Inn, Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario AGENDA Monday, October 25 6:00 - 9:00 PM Registration Main Lobby 7:00 - 9:00 PM Reception/Cash Bar Thompson Suite Tuesday, October 26 - Algoma Ballroom West & Centre 8:00 - 8:30 AM Registration Main Lobby 8:30 - 8:45 AM Workshop Welcome Darrell Piekarz, Environment Canada, Toronto, ON Janet Pellegrini, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Chicago, IL Margo Shaw, ULERN, Sault Ste. Marie, ON 8:45 - 10:00 AM Session I: Setting the Stage for Lake Superior 8:45 - 9:00 AM Workshop Overview & Goals Janet Pellegrini & Darrell Piekarz 9:00 - 9:30 AM Overview of Lake Superior Ecosystem, Principles and Objectives Bob Kavetsky , U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, East Lansing, MI 9:30 - 10:00 AM Important Elements in Monitoring and Assessing the Lake Superior Ecosystem Integrity Stephen Lozano, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Duluth MN 10:00 - 10:15 AM Break - Algoma Ballroom East 10:15 AM - Noon Session II: Indicator Feasibility/Metadata Summary 10:15 - 10:25 AM Charge to Breakout Groups Darrell Piekarz 10:25 - Noon 6 Breakout Groups (6) . Review of Metadata Summary . Feasibility of EPO Indicators Lake Superior Work Group Committee Co-chairs Noon - 1:00 PM Lunch - Algoma Ballroom East Tuesday, October 26 . . . Continued 1:00 - 2:00 PM Session II Cont'd.: Indicator Feasibility/Metadata Summary 1:00 - 1:30 PM Report From Co-Chairs Lake Superior Work Group Committee Co-chairs 1:30 - 2:00 PM Discussion/Analysis of Metadata/Indicator Feasibility Janet Pellegrini & Darrell Piekarz 2:00 - 3:00 PM Session III: Exploring Monitoring Gaps and Overlaps 2:00 - 2:15 Charge to Breakout Groups Janet Pellegrini 2:15 - 3:00 PM Breakout Groups (3) Lake Superior Work Group Committee Co-chairs 3:00 - 3:15 PM Break - Algoma Ballroom East 3:15 - 5:00 PM Breakout Discussions Resume: Exploring Monitoring Gaps and Overlaps 5:00 - 6:30 PM 4:00 - 5:00 PM Plenary Session: Presentation and Synthesis of Gap/Overlap Analysis Chair: Jim Cantrill, Northern MI University Free Time 6:30 PM Theme Dinner - French Canadian Speaker: Traditional Ecological Knowledge of Lake Superior Thomas Biron, Michigan State University Extension, Sault Ste. Marie, MI Native Elder: Willard Pine, Garden River First Nation, Sault Ste. Marie, ON Wednesday, October 27 - Algoma Ballroom West & Centre 8:30 - 8:35 AM Recap of Day I, Introduction to Day II Goals Darrell Piekarz 7 8:35 - 10:15 AM Session IV: The Challenge of Identifying Funding Opportunities 8:35 - 9:30 AM Presentations: Federal/State Funding in the USA Richard Hassinger, Minnesota DNR, St. Paul U.S. EPA Funding Opportunities Paul Bertram, US E.P.A., Chicago Ontario Great Lakes Renewal Foundation Gail Krantzberg, Ontario MOE, Toronto Canadian Funding Opportunities, Margo Shaw, ULERN, Sault Ste. Marie, ON 9:50 - 10:15 Am Panel Discussion Chair: Jake Vander Wal, MOE, Thunder Bay, ON Wednesday, October 27 . . . Continued 10:15 - 10:30 AM Break - Algoma Ballroom East 10:30 - Noon Session V: Establishing Monitoring Efforts for Gaps: Next Steps 10:30 - 10:40 AM Charge to Breakout Groups Janet Pellegrini 10:40 - 11:30 AM Breakout Sessions (6) Lake Superior Work Group Committee Co-chairs 11:30 AM - Noon Plenary Session . Report From Co-Chairs Discussion and Synthesis Chair: Elizabeth Laplante, U.S E.P.A., Chicago Noon - 1:00 PM Lunch - Algoma Ballroom East 1:00 - 3:00 PM Session VI: Co-ordination of Interagency Monitoring Efforts 1:00 - 1:30 PM Developing Monitoring Co-ordination Councils: Lessons Learned Charlie Peters, Lake Michigan Monitoring Council, Middleton, WI 1:30 - 2:00 PM Standardization of Lake Superior Fisheries Monitoring Don Schreiner, Minnesota DNR, Duluth 2:00 - 3:00 PM Plenary Session: Applications to the Lake Superior Experience Melanie Neilson, Environment Canada, Burlington, ON 3:00 - 3:15 PM Break - Algoma Ballroom East 3:15 - 4:30 PM Session VII: Reaching Consensus . What Have We Accomplished? 8 . Where Do We Go Next? Co?chairs: Margo Shaw, ULERN Melanie Neilson, Environment Canada Appendix III: OBJECTIVE Summary of Objectives and Sub-Objectives for each of the 6 Work Groups (Lake Superior Binational Program, 1998). SUMMARY 1. Chemical Contaminants Levels of persistent, bioaccumulative 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. 2. Aquatic Communities Lake Superior should sustain diverse, healthy, reproducing and self-regulating aquatic communities closely representative of historical conditions. 3. Terrestrial Wildlife The mission is ‘ Support a diverse, healthy, reproducing and sustainable native wildlife community in the Lake Superior basin. Terrestrial wildlife includes plants, animals and associated microorganisms.’ SUB-OBJECTIVES Sources: a) Goal of zero discharge and zero emission of 9 designated persistent, bioaccumulative toxic chemicals from sources within the basin (Binational Program to Restore and Protect Lake Superior Basin); b) Atmospheric deposition of persistent, bioaccumulative toxic chemicals of human origin should be virtually eliminated; Environmental Impacts: c) Concentrations of zero discharge/zero emission and lakewide remediation category chemicals should not exceed the most sensitive yardstick of environmental quality (Smith & Smith, 1993); d) Concentrations of chemicals in the local remediation category should meet local sediment and water quality standards and no long cause use impairments; e) Concentrations of chemicals in the prevention/monitor category should not increase in air, water or sediment; f) Sources of prevention/investigation category chemicals should be identified, and presence/absence of sources be confirmed in the basin; Source presence should trigger monitoring of media most likely to concentrate the chemical; a) Lake trout valuable indicators/integrators of ecosystem health, other aquatic species may be useful as indicators; b) Native aquatic species are key elements of a healthy ecosystem; c) Aquatic biota should be free from contaminants of human origin; d) Management of exotic fish (including rainbow and brown trout, Pacific salmon) should be managed in a manner not detrimental to native fish species; e) New exotic/nuisance species must not be introduced into ecosystem; Accidental introductions should be eliminated through prevention; Bait use must not contribute exotic species or genetic stocks to lake; a) There is a diverse, healthy, reproducing and sustainable native wildlife community in the Lake Superior basin. b) There is a wildlife community-based program to monitor the health of ecosystems in the Lake Superior basin. c) Species at risk/concern (T & E) are recovered. 1 Appendix III: Summary of Objectives and Sub-Objectives for each of the 6 Work Groups (Lake Superior Binational Program, 1998) continued. OBJECTIVE SUMMARY SUB-OBJECTIVES 4. Habitat Extensive natural environments such as forests, wetlands, lakes and watercourses are necessary to sustain healthy native animal and plant populations in the Lake Superior ecosystem, and have inherent spiritual, aesthetic and educational value. Land and water uses should be designed and located in harmony with the protective and productive ecosystem functions provided by these natural landscape features. Degraded features should be rehabilitated or restored where this is beneficial to the Lake Superior ecosystem. a) Ecological health of the Lake determined largely by the health of tributary lakes and rivers; Land use planning/regulation should eliminate/avoid destructive water linkages and foster healthy land-water linkages; b) Long-term consequences of incremental landscape change, habitat destruction and fragmentation should be avoided through research and planning; c) Importance of nearshore, shoreline and wetland habitats should be addressed through identification, protection and restoration of sites for reproduction and rearing of fish, water birds, mammals, other wildlife and plants; 5. Human Health The health of humans in the Lake Superior ecosystem should not be at risk from contaminants of human origin. The appearance, taste and odour of water and food supplied by the Lake Superior ecosystem should not be degraded by human activity. a) b) c) 6. Developing Sustainability Human use of the Lake Superior ecosystem should be consistent with the highest ethical and scientific standards for sustainable use. Land, water and air use in the Lake Superior ecosystem should not degrade it, nor any adjacent ecosystems. Use of the basin’s natural resources should not impair the natural capability of the basin ecosystem to sustain its natural identity and ecological functions, nor should it deny current and future generations the benefits of a healthy, natural Lake Superior ecosystem. Technologies and development plans that preserve natural ecosystems and their biodiversity should be encouraged. a) b) c) d) Fish and wildlife should be safe to eat, and consumption should not be limited by contaminants of human origin; Water quality should be protected where currently high, and improved where degraded; communities, industries and regulators outside the basin should be informed of consequences of long-range atmospheric transport of contaminants into the basin; Lake Superior should be safe for total body contact activities, including areas adjacent to urban and industrial areas; Air quality should be protected where currently high, and improved where degraded; communities, industries and regulators outside basin should be informed of consequences of long-range atmospheric transport of contaminants into the basin; Public, private decisions will be right when they tend to preserve the integrity, stability and beauty of the biotic community (Leopold 1966); The ecosystem provides resources (eg. water, fibre, minerals, energy, waste transport and treatment, food, recreation, spiritual sustenance) which should be valued as environmental capital; Institutional capacity to integrate technology and sustainable design should be developed within the ecosystem; Basis for guiding sustainable development should be the pattern of land, water and air use, as these affect ecological, social and economic processes; 2 Appendix IV Summary of Lake Superior Work Group ‘best bet’ Indicators A. Chemical Contaminants Purpose of Indicator Indicator 1. Progress Towards Zero Discharge & Zero Emission To measure progress towards zero discharge & zero emission of 9 designated persistent, bioaccumulative toxic chemicals1; 2. Atmospheric Deposition Trends for Zero Discharge Chemicals1 3. Open Lake Concentrations of Zero Discharge & Lakewide Remediation Chemicals2 Sediment Concentrations of Zero Discharge, Lakewide Remediation & Local Remediation3 Chemicals To indicate progress towards virtual elimination of zero discharge chemicals from the environment; To indicate whether open lake concentrations of chemicals meet water quality yardsticks (most sensitive available standard); Zero discharge & lakewide remediation chemicals: T o indicate whether sediment concentrations meet sediment yardsticks; Local remediation chemicals: To indicate restoration of impaired uses at Areas of Concern (AOCs); 4. 5. 6. 1 Ambient Concentration Trends of Prevention/Monitor Pollutants4 in Water, Sediment, Air/Precipitation Prevention/Investig ate Chemicals5 Illustration of Indicator Interpretation of Indicator Trends of chemical concentrations in water, fish, sediment & other ecosystem compartments; Measurements & estimates of release of chemicals from basin sources; Rates of change in atmospheric loadings of zero discharge chemicals in the wet, dry & gaseous phases; Discharge/emissions (measured as kg/yr, mass or other units for surrogate measures) will be compared to 1990 baseline data to indicate whether progress is being achieved; Measurement of zero discharge & lakewide remediation chemicals every 2 yrs. in open lake (>80 m.); Concentrations will be considered acceptable only if 95-100% of data indicate levels below yardstick; Changes in concentrations of chemicals in sediments at different depths; Upper segments of sediment cores compared to local (AOC) yardstick; Maps of extent of chemical contamination at AOCs; Sediment Concentrations at depths within sediment core expressed in ug/g; To indicate whether concentrations of Prevention/Monitor pollutants increase in air, water or sediment; Bar graphs showing changes in concentrations over time in air/precipitation & water; Trends in sediment concentrations from dated sediment core profiles; To determine presence/absence of chemicals in ambient air, water, sediment; To identify potential sources of chemicals; Decisions to re-categorize these chemicals to be based on information from literature search, presence/absence in lake, & sources; Magnitude of trend indicates whether virtual elimination is being achieved; Trends over time indicates change in 3 classes of chemicals; Sediment Concentrations in exceedance of yardsticks, or causing use impairments indicate need for further reductions; Concentrations in air, water & sediment not increasing over time will indicate levels are not negatively impacting lake; Chemicals may be added to lakewide or local remediation categories; Data from ambient & source monitoring used to determine whether continued monitoring is needed; Chemicals may be added to lakewide remediation, local remediation, or prevention/monitor chemicals; Zero Discharge Chemicals: chlordane, DDT, dieldrin, dioxin, hexachlorobenzene, mercury, octachlorostyrene, PCBs, toxaphene; Lakewide Remediation Chemicals: PAHs, alpha-BHC, cadmium, heptachlor, heptachlor epoxide; 3 Local Remediation Chemicals: aluminum, arsenic, chromium, copper, iron, lead, manganese, nickel, zinc; 4 Prevention/Monitor Pollutants: 1,4-dichlorobenzene, 1,2,3,4-tetrachlorobenzene, mirex/photo-mirex, pentachlorobenzene, pentachlorphenol, gamma-BHC; 5 1,2,3,5-tetrachlorobenzene, 3,3-dichlorobenzidine, 2-chloroaniline, tributyl tin, beta & delta BHC, hexachlorobutadiene; 2 1 B. Aquatic Communities Indicator 1. Illustration of Indicator Interpretation of Indicator Trends in relative abundance of native & non-native fish (benthic, pelagic), plankton & benthic invertebrate species over time; Pie chart to illustrate % of community made up of exotic species; Trends in abundance of native & exotic fish, plankton & benthic invertebrate species over time for each jurisdiction; Graphs illustrating trends in abundance of exotic species; Data will allow measure of how stressors (harvesting, exotics, nutrient loadings) affect the offshore community & indicate what regulatory solutions are needed; To monitor presence & abundance of key species (walleye, yellow perch, pike, small mouth bass) exotic & benthic invertebrates (chironomids, oligochaetes, burrowing mayfly) to measure the impact of remedial action plans in Areas of Concern; Comparison of trends in abundance of native & exotic fish, species over time at for AOC & nonAOC sites; Comparison of density of benthic invertebrates at AOC & non-AOC sites; Data will allow measure of how stressors (as above & including water diversions, dredging, thermal loading) affect harbours, bays & estuaries; Solutions will involve educational, administrative & regulatory actions; To monitor presence & abundance of key species (brook trout, white suckers, walleye, sturgeon, burbot, other salmonines, in selected tributaries to the lake; To monitor growth & abundance or larval sea lamprey in tributaries; Absolute abundance of juvenile salmonine fish species over time; Number of coho salmon, brown trout, rainbow trout, chinook salmon & brook trout migrating up tributaries over time; Larval lamprey growth & survival in different tributaries; Data will allow measure of how reductions in stressors (logging, road & pipeline crossings, sedimentation, pollution, exotics, dams water diversion) tributary communities; Solutions will involve educational, administrative & regulatory actions; To monitor contaminants (PCB, DDT, chlordane, mercury, dioxin, DDE, dieldrin, toxaphene) in 1 prey & 1 predator species of fish from each of 4 habitat types; Table documenting levels of the major contaminants found in each species collected from each habitat type on an annual basis; Changes in levels of contaminants in offshore fish species provides measure of changes in atmospheric loadings to lakes; Changes in levels of contaminants in nearshore fish species provides measure of changes in point-source loadings to lake; Purpose of Indicator Off shore Community - Abundance of Key Species - Presence of Exotic Species To monitor presence & relative abundance of key species (lean & siscowet lake trout, herring) & exotics to evaluate progress toward achieving populations of selfsustaining indigenous species; Nearshore Community: - Abundance of Key Species - Presence of Exotic Species - Habitat Loss or Restoration To monitor presence & abundance of key species (lean & siscowet lake trout, herring, whitefish, longnose & white suckers, walleye, slimy sculpin, Diporeia spp. Mysis relica), exotics & habitat changes to evaluate diversity & long-term sustainability of nearshore aquatic community; 2. 3. 4. 5. HarbourEmbaymentsEstuaries Community: -Abundance of Key Species - Presence of Exotic Species Habitat Loss or Restoration Tributary Community: - Abundance of Key Species Presence of Exotic Species Habitat Loss or Restoration Self-sustaining Indigenous Species Toxic Contaminants in Aquatic Biota Data will allow measure of how stressors (harvesting, exotics, nutrient loadings, changes to habitat) affect the nearshore community & indicate what regulatory solutions are needed; 2 C. Terrestrial Wildlife Indicator Purpose of Indicator 1. Breeding Birds (50+ species) To monitor diversity, relative abundance & distribution of birds; 2. Amphibian Populations 3. Rare& Important Plants (G1,G2 of TNC list) LandUse Change To monitor the diversity & relative abundance of selected amphibian species within the lake basin; To measure the relative abundance of rare & important plants over time; Illustration of Indicator Interpretation of Indicator No. of taxa, relative abundance & relative distribution of over 50 breeding bird species; Relative abundance of amphibian species through frog/toad call surveys; Relative abundance of rare & important plants; Indicator provides evidence of effects of habitat change on avian communities; To measure land use change over time (ie. forest type, edge density, age structure, landscape characteristics & forest structure); Land use patterns measured at a level not coarser than 200 x 200 m. resolution at 5-yr. intervals; Indicator provides evidence of habitat change; Micro& Invertebrate Soil Organisms Tree Swallows To measure changes in the relative density & abundance of soil organisms over time; To measure contaminant levels in tree swallows; Indicator will track declines which may indicate a problem; 7. Snapping Turtles To measure contaminant levels in snapping turtles; 8. Colonial Birds To measure relative abundance, distribution & contaminant levels in colonial birds; 9. Nocturnal Owls To measure the relative distribution & abundance of nocturnal owl species; To measure the relative distribution & abundance of T&E species; Relative density & abundance of soil organisms over time; Trend in body-burdens of contaminants in tree swallows over time; Trends in body-burdens of contaminants in snapping turtles over time; Trends in relative abundance, distribution maps & contaminant levels in colonial bird populations; Trends in relative distribution & abundance of nocturnal owl species; Trends in relative distribution & abundance of T&E species; Trends in relative distribution & abundance of exotic plants & terrestrial animals; Trends in relative distribution & abundance of medium-sized carnivores; Trends in relative abundance of deer; Trends in relative distribution & abundance of grouse; Indicator will show increases which may indicate a worsening situation; 4. 5. 6. 10. Federally Listed Threatened& Endangered (T&E) Species 11. Exotic Plants& Terrestrial Animals(i.e. Gypsy Moth) 12. Medium-sized Carnivores 13. White-tailed Deer 14. Ruffed Grouse To measure the relative distribution & abundance of exotic plants & animals; To measure the relative distribution & abundance of carnivores; To measure the relative abundance of deer; To measure the relative distribution & abundance of grouse; Indicator will track declines which may indicate a problem; Indicator will track declines which may indicate a problem; Indicator will show changes in levels of contaminants in nearby water; Indicator will show changes in rates of contaminant bioaccumulation in turtles; Indicator will show changes in population levels which may indicate a problem, & changes in rates of contaminant concentrations over time; Indicator will show changes in population levels & distributions which may indicate a problem; Indicator will show changes in distribution & abundance which may indicate a problem; Indicator will show declines which may indicate a problem; Indicator will show population impacts; Indicator will show declines which may indicate a problem; 3 C. Terrestrial Wildlife Indicator 15. Lichens/Mosses / Fungi 16. Common Loons Purpose of Indicator To measure the relative distribution, abundance and growth of lichens, mosses & fungi; To measure productivity & contaminant levels in common loons; Illustration of Indicator Trends in relative distribution, abundance and growth of lichens, mosses, fungi; Trends in population productivity & contaminant levels in common loons; Interpretation of Indicator Indicator will show declines in population/growth which may indicate a problem; Indicator will show levels of mercury bioaccumulation, & effects of habitat alteration; 4 D. Habitat Indicator Purpose of Indicator Illustration of Indicator Interpretation of Indicator Line graphs of mean discharge, stream base flow, peak-to-low ration & sediment loading for streams on annual basis; Graphical illustration of benthic community measures (density, taxonomic richness, diversity indices) & physical properties (pH, turbidity, nutrients) for comparison between site and temporal patterns; Maps of secchi depth readings for lakes to indicate changes in water clarity over time; Bar or line graphs of metrics including class area, mean patch size, patch size variability, total forest edge, nearestneighbor distance etc. to indicate changes over time; GIS-based system providing maps & graphs of changes in wetland area and accessible stream length. Changes in these parameters (e.g. increased frequency of peaking; increased sediment transport) indicate watershed degradation; Water quality & status of benthic invertebrate communities to detect problem sources and indicate need for mitigation measures; 1. Stream Flow/Sedimentatio n To monitor stream flows & sediment transport to track changes in land use patterns; 2. Benthic Invertebrates To monitor trends in density & species richness of benthic invertebrate communities in streams, estuaries, inland lakes; 3. Inland Lake Transparencies 4. Forest Fragmentation To monitor clarity of inland lakes to determine changes in water quality over time; To monitor patterns of landscape composition & pattern to track forest fragmentation; 5. Accessible Stream Length To monitor increases in total wetland area & accessible stream length to track habitat rehabilitation and protection efforts. Changes in water clarity may provide an indication of the overall ecosystem health of inland lakes; Decreases in forested area, mean patch size, increases in nearest-neighbor distance & patch edge indicate increased forest fragmentation, and the potential for forest species declines; Increases in wetland area, accessible stream length will provide indicators in positive change in lake’s ability to produce fish & other aquatic life. 1 E. Human Health Indicator Purpose of Indicator 1. Fish Contaminants To monitor levels of contaminants in fish to provide information on human exposure; 2. Drinking Water Quality To monitor quality of raw, treated and distributed water for comparison to water quality objectives & guidelines; 3. Recreational Water Quality To monitor beach postings and E. coli counts spatially & temporally throughout the lake; 4. Air Quality 5. Radionuclides To monitor concentrations of 9 contaminants at 99 sites throughout the lake to provide an index of air quality; To monitor concentrations of whole milk for radionuclides; 6. Body Burdens To monitor concentration of toxic contaminants in human tissue to determine delivered doses of chemicals; 7. Health Effects 8. Cohort Indicator of Exposure and Effects To monitor the occurrence or change in rate of adverse health outcomes directly linked to contaminant effects; To repeatedly monitor cohort of people within the basin for exposure indicators & expression of health effects; Illustration of Indicator Interpretation of Indicator Bar graphs showing fluctuation of contaminants over time & space; Contaminants will be summed to provide overall indicator of fish contamination; Bar graphs of geometric averages of contaminant concentrations (lead, trihalomethanes, nitrates, benzo[a]pyrene, mercury, etc.) in raw, treated & distributed levels to show trends over time; Bar graphs showing trends over time for E. coli, beach closures & contaminant levels; Data will be used to monitor changes in contaminant levels for remedial plans, & for the issuing of contaminant advisories to public re: consumption limits; Bar graphs of geometric means showing trends for each pollutant & air quality index over time; Bar graphs of cesium & strontium concentrations in milk over time; Bar & line graphs showing total radiation as a % of MAC; Methods for illustrating trends in contaminants in human tissue to be determined; May measure contaminant levels in mother’s milk; Measures such as birth weight, gestational age & malformations of infants will be plotted over time; Epidemiological techniques will be used to illustrate trends in exposure and health effects; Indicator would reveal trends in contaminant levels in water in various locations throughout the lake; Data will show seasonal and local trends in recreational water quality to aid in beach management & prediction of poor water quality episodes; Data will show overall air quality trends & allow regulatory agencies to monitor the effects of remedial plans; Indicator will provide a measure of the overall exposure of the population to radionuclides from weapons fallout; Body burden information is useful to delineate potential from actually delivered doses of chemicals; Trends in such measures may indicate contaminant effects, or changes in prenatal care; Indicator will help link human health outcomes to levels of contaminant exposure; 1 F. Developing Sustainability Indicator Purpose of Indicator 1. Reinvestment in Natural Capital To monitor balance between what is extracted from social & natural basis for life, & what is returned to the land & society; To promote projects designed to facilitate an equitable balance in future; To measure a range of social indicators to indicate the quality of life in the basin; 2. Quality of Human Life 3. Resource Consumption Patterns To monitor types & quantities of resources consumed in basin, such as energy, water use & waste stream loadings; 4. Awareness of Capacity for Sustainability To implement a range of educational programs focusing on sustainability & to assess social conduct; 5. Economic Vitality Measures To understand the threats & opportunities to economic health of watershed, & implement projects to demonstrate sustainable alliance between environmental & economic sectors. Illustration of Indicator Interpretation of Indicator Measures include: amount of sustainable forestry, extent of watershed management & restoration programs, native fisheries & wildlife stocking, exotic species control & native plant repatriation, reclamation of mines and industrial sites, replacement of wetlands & biotic diversity; Measures include: incidence of crime, migration demographics, demands for social services, transportation infrastructure status, recreational & cultural opportunities, citizen involvement in decision making, public access to lakeshores, population density; Measures include: recycling programs, forest & mining resources remaining in basin, types of electric power generation, quality & volume of aquifers, tourism, depletion of wildlife and fisheries, landfill capacity & incineration volume, urban sprawl, loss of native flora; Measures include: environmental & sustainability education in schools, promotion of resource conservation programs, incorporation of ecological design into building codes, zoning regimes, popular support for environmental regulations, community outreach programs by natural resource agencies, media coverage of sustainability-related issues; Measures include: per capita income, cost of living, extent of poverty, local employment trends, regional trade balance, diversity of communities economies, facilitation of transitional economics, valueadded industry, regional & local tax bases. 1 Appendix V Lake Superior Metadata Requirements In 1996, the governments of the Lake Superior Binational Program released the Ecosystem Principles and Objectives, Indicators and Targets for Lake Superior Discussion Draft. One of the goals of the document is to facilitate progress towards a set of informative ecosystem indicators by which the health of the Lake Superior Basin ecosystem can be assessed. Quantitative targets of these indicators are used to measure its physical, biotic and cultural elements. The first step towards meeting this goal is to identify and compile indicator and monitoring information that is being gathered by researchers and resource managers throughout the Lake Superior Basin. To produce a comprehensive inventory of existing monitoring programs within the Lake Superior Basin, the following metadata are required for each monitoring program. (NOTE: This form is based on the International Joint Commission Council of Great Lakes Research Managers (IJCCGLRM) research inventory questionnaire. If you have completed the IJC-CGLRM inventory, complete only questions 1,2, 5, 6 and 7 of this form and we will search for your contribution on the IJC website. Thank you for your cooperation and participation.) ************************************** 1. Title of monitoring / research program: 2. Project Leader or contact person for this program: Name: Organization/Agency: Address: City: State/Province: Zip Code / Postal Code: Phone/ FAX: E-mail: 2 Web page (if any): 3. Briefly describe (1-2 sentences) your monitoring program. 4. Information regarding what is being indicated in your monitoring program: a) Purpose of the monitoring activities? b) Scale of phenomena / process (check as many as apply): physical / chemical organism population c) biochemical community landscape cellular ecosystem other: Type of phenomena / process being monitored (check as many as apply): i. Impact of Pollutants ii. Exotic Species iii. Natural Ecological Processes iv. Natural Physical/Geological Processes v. Treatment/ Manufacturing Processes vi. Land Use and Habitat vii. Resource Management 3 viii. Socio-economic ix. Others d) Briefly describe how the information is collected (i.e. surveys, aerial photography, census, cruises). e) Start date of the program (MM/DD/YY): f) How long is the monitoring program planned to continue? (If not planned to continue, please include end date.) g) Frequency of monitoring? h) Length of time series? i) Geographic scope of the monitoring program? j) Ecological feature being monitored (check as many as apply): nearshore open water tributary mouth watershed other: 4 k) What, if any, are the unmet needs of your monitoring efforts? 5. Reporting Methodologies : a) How are outcomes reported? b) Is data stored in a database? Yes No If "Yes", in what format? 6. Information regarding the Lake Superior Bi-national Program (LSBP): a) Are you aware of the LSBP? Yes No b) Are you familiar with the Ecosystem Principles and Objectives, Indicators and Targets for Lake Superior report? Yes No c) Is your data available to the Lake Superior Binational Program Work Group? Yes No Please contact me d) In the future, LSBP will be compiling results from monitoring programs to report against their ecosystem indicators. Would you be willing to contribute a brief summary of your results (a graph, table, or paragraph) to this initiative? Yes 7. No Comments or suggestions are welcomed. 5 Appendix VI Metadata Summaries for Six Theme Committees Chemical Contaminants No. Monitoring Project Title Contact Person, E-mail, Tel. Tym Garside, garsidety@ene.g ov.on.ca, 705949-4640 Don Schreiner, don.schreiner@d nr.state.mn.us, 218-723-4785 2 MISA Program - Municipal Industrial Strategy for Abatement 5 Lake Superior Fisheries Monitoring in Minnesota Waters (also used in other US and Ontario waters) 6 USEPA Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program (EMAP) - Great Lakes Indicies of Biological Integrity Development Stephen Lozano, lozano.stephen@ epa.gov, 218-5295205 Scott Niemela, 651-296-8878, scott.niemela@p ca.state.mn.us Turkey Lakes Watershed Dean Jeffries, Dean.Jeffries@cc iw.ca, 905-3364969 12 15 Agency Objective Ontario Ministry of Program to monitor/limit effluent discharges to the Environment regulate industrial discharges and track trends associated with abatement applications Minnesota Dep't. of Natural Resources, Fisheries Assess rehabilitation of stocks and monitor stocking events, assess harvesting and effects of various regulations, monitor fish flesh contaminants and biological parameters in fisheries. US Environmental Monitoring to estimate current status and Protection Agency trends in selected indicators of ecological health in Great Lakes (pollutants, exotic species, benthos, etc.) Minnesota Once IBI's are developed the intention is to Pollution Control sample streams on a five year cycle. The Agency results of the sampling will be used to evaluate over-all condition, effectiveness of previous control actions taken, and to gather discharge information on ten basins in Minnesota including the Lake Superior basin. Environment Multi-agency, multi-disciplinary study of air and Canada precipitation, surface, soil and ground waters, terrestrial and aquatic biota in watershed draining into Lake Superior, initiated to evaluate effects of anthropogenic perturbations on ecosystems within Precambrian Shield Relevant Work Group/Indicator Chem. Contaminants/ 1-2, 5-6 Aquatic Communities/ 1-4 Dev. Sustainability/ 1, 3 Chem. Contaminants/ 1 Human Health/ 1 Aquatic Communities/ 1-4 Chem. Contaminants/ 1-6 Aquatic Communities/ 4 Chem. Contaminants/ 6 Habitat/ 1, 5 Dev. Sustainability/ 3 Aquatic Communities/ 1-3, 5 Chem. Contaminants/ 1-6 1 Chemical Contaminants (continued). No. Monitoring Project Title Contact Person, Agency E-mail, Tel. 17 Great Lakes Water Quality Glen Warren, US Environmental Survey Studies warren.glenn@ep Protection Agency a.gov, 312-8862405 18 Great Lakes Fish Monitoring Sandy Hellman, US Environmental Program hellman.sandra@ Protection Agency epa.gov, 312-3535006 20 State-wide Lake and Steam Al Stevens, Minnesota Dep't. Management Planning al.stevens@dnr.s of Natural tatemn.us, 651- Resources, 297-3287 Fisheries 21 Minnesota Fish Pat McCann, Minnesota Dep't. Contaminants Program patricia.mccann of Natural @health.state.mn Resources .us, 651-2150923 22 Michigan's Fish Bob Day, Michigan Dep't of Contaminant Monitoring dayrm@state.mi. Environmental Program us, 517-335-3314 Quality 23B Fish Contaminant Mark Ebener, Inter-tribal Monitoring Program mebener@norther Fisheries nway.net, 906Assessment 632-0073 Program 23B Fish Contaminant Mark Ebener, Inter-tribal Monitoring Program mebener@norther Fisheries nway.net, 906Assessment 632-0073 Program 29 National Contaminant Anthony Frank, US Geological Biomonitoring Program Anthony_Frank@ Survey usgs.gov, 304724-4503 Objective Monitoring surveys of open waters of Lake Superior for biological, chemical and physical water quality data to evaluate long-term trends in ecosystem health Monitoring of fish contaminants for long-term trends and human health implications Relevant Work Group/Indicator Aquatic Communities/ 1 Chem. Contaminants/ 1, 3, 6 Aquatic Communities/ 5 Chem. Contaminants/ 1 Human Health/1 To develop fisheries management plans (lake and streams), evaluate management actions, and monitor long term trends in fish communities and aquatic resources health. Annual contaminant monitoring of fish in lakes and rivers Chem. Contaminants/ 1, 6 Aquatic Communities/ 1-5 Habitat/ 1, 3, 5 Dev. Sustainability/ 1, 3 Aquatic Communities/ 5 Chem. Contaminants/ 1 Human Health/1 Annual contaminant monitoring of fish Aquatic Communities/ 5 Chem. Contaminants/ 1 Human Health/1 Aquatic Communities/ 5 Chem. Contaminants/ 1 Human Health/1 Contaminant monitoring of lake trout and whitefish on 3 yr. basis Contaminant monitoring of lake trout and whitefish on 3 yr. basis Aquatic Communities/ 5 Chem. Contaminants/ 1 Human Health/1 Monitoring to document trends in occurrence of Aquatic Communities/ 5 persistent toxic chemicals in fisheries Chem. Contaminants/ 1 Human Health/1 2 Chemical Contaminants (continued). No. 31 32 Monitoring Project Title Effects of Global Climate Change on Great Lakes Wetlands Environmental Effects of Industrial Effluents 33 Great Lakes Surveillance Program 34 Integrated Atmospheric Deposition Network 35 Integrated Atmospheric Deposition Network 37 National Contaminants Information System 38 Persistence and Fate of Pesticides and Industrial Chemicals in Water 39 Quantifying Vertical Motion Along the North Shore of Lake Superior Contact Person, E-mail, Tel. Kurt Kowalski, Kurt_Kowalski@u sgs.gov Jim Sherry, Jim.Sherry@cciw .ca, 905-3364813 Serge L'Italien, Serge.L'Italien@c ciw.ca, 905-3364960 Agency US Geological Survey Objective Long-term data on responses of wetlands to warming events through paleoecological analyses of sediment cores Environment Development and use of in vivo and in vitro Canada techniques to assess ability of industrial effluents to cause health effects in aquatic ecosystems Environment Open lake cruises for sampling of trace Canada organics, nutrients, major ions and physical parameters to ensure compliance with water quality objectives, evaluate trends and identify emerging issues Ilora Basu, Indiana University Monitoring to estimate atmospheric deposition ilora@indiana.edu of organochlorine compounds to Great Lakes. , 812-855-2926 Elisabeth Environment Monitoring to estimate the atmospheric Galarneau, Canada deposition of toxic impounds to the Great Lakes elisabeth.galarne au@ec.gc.ca, 416-739-4431 Aaron Carswell, Fisheries & Computerized warehouse of information on toxic carswella@dfo- Oceans Canada chemicals in fish and other aquatic life and their mpo.gc.ca, 905habitats 336-4490 Jim Maguire, Environment Assessment of hazards of organics, jim.maguire@ec. Canada organometallics and metals to aquatic gc.ca, 905-336organisms 4927 Marie Zhuikov, Minnesota Sea Monitoring of upwellings along north shore of eralph@d.umn.ed Grant College Lake Superior, and their impacts on food webs u, 218-726-7677 Program and sediment distribution in the lake Relevant Work Group/Indicator Habitat/ 2, 5 Chem. Contaminants/ 5, 6 Aquatic Communities/ 5 Human Health/ 1 Chem. Contaminants/ 1 Chem. Contaminants/ 1 Chem. Contaminants/ 5, 1 Chem. Contaminants/ 1 Aquatic Communities/ 5 Chem. Contaminants/ 1 Habitat/ 2 Aquatic Communities/ 5 Chem. Contaminants/ 1 Human Health/ 1 Aquatic Communities/ 2, 3 Chem. Contaminants/ 1 Human Health/ 1 3 Chemical Contaminants (continued). No. Monitoring Project Title 40 Remedial Action Plan Update 44 Watershed Export and Speciation of Trace Metals in the Lake Superior Basin 46 Great Lakes Fish Contaminant Surveillance Program 47 Great Lakes Fisheries Specimen Bank 63 Toxaphene in the St. Louis River 64 Loads of Toxic Contaminants in the St. Louis River 65 Contaminants in Lake Superior Fish Contact Person, Agency E-mail, Tel. Gail Krantzberg, Ontario Ministry of krantzga@ene.go the Environment v.on.ca, 419-3147973 Linda Campbell, University of linda@seagrant.w Wisconsin Sea isc.edu, 608-263- Grant Institute 3259 Mike Whittle, Fisheries & whittlew@dfoOceans Canada mpo.gc.ca, 905336-4565 Ronald Russell, Fisheries & russellrw@dfoOceans Canada mpo.gc.ca, 905336-4861 Patricia King, Minnesota patricia.king@pc Pollution Control a.state.mn.us, Agency 651-296-8727 Patricia King, Minnesota patricia.king@pc Pollution Control a.state.mn.us, Agency 651-296-8728 Jerry Flom, Minnesota Gerald.flom@pca Pollution Control .state.mn.us, Agency 651-296-8382 Objective Relevant Work Group/Indicator Annual review of progress towards implementing Aquatic Communities/ 1-5 RAPs and restoring beneficial uses in Areas of Chem Contaminants/ 6 Concern Habitat/ 1-5 Assessment of factors controlling mobility, flux Chemical Contaminants/ 3, 4 and speciation of metals in Lake Superior watersheds Monitoring to determine temporal and spatial trends in contaminant burdens of Great Lakes fish and the forage base Aquatic Communities/ 5 Chem. Contaminants/ 1 Human Health/ 1 Maintenance of a specimen bank/tissue archive for retrospective chemical and biological analyses of aquatic biota representative of Great Lakes aquatic ecosystem To analyze toxaphene in bottom sediment in two locations on the St. Louis River to determine if there was historical sources in the area. To perform source investigations and allocation of loads of eight contaminants of concern identified in the St. Louis River. Aquatic Communities/ 5 Chem. Contaminants/ 1 Human Health/ 1 To determine if there was any regional differences in contamination. Aquatic Communities/ 5 Chem. Contaminants/ 1 Human Health/ 1 Aquatic Communities/ 5, 4 Chem. Contaminants/ 1, 5 Habitat/ 2 Aquatic Communities/ 3, 5 Chem. Contaminants/ 1, 5, 6 Habitat/ 2 4 Aquatic Communities No. 3 Monitoring Project Title Forage Fish Trawling Survey 4 Sport Fish Monitoring 5 Lake Superior Fisheries Monitoring in Minnesota Waters (also used in other US and Ontario waters) USEPA Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program (EMAP) - Great Lakes 6 Contact Person, E-mail, Tel. Ken Cullis, ken.cullis@mnr.go v.on.ca, 807-4751269 Ken Cullis, ken.cullis@mnr.go v.on.ca, 807-4751270 Agency Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources Lake Superior Management Unit, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources Don Schreiner, Minnesota don.schreiner@dnr Dep't. of .state.mn.us, 218- Natural 723-4785 Resources, Fisheries Stephen Lozano, lozano.stephen@e pa.gov, 218-5295205 US Environmental Protection Agency Objective Relevant Work Group/Indicator Bottom trawl survey to monitor changes in Aquatic Communities/ 1, 2, 3 abundance and composition of forage fish, zooplankton (particular emphasis on lake herring, lake trout forage base) Direct management decisions regarding Aquatic Communities/ 1-4 harvest levels, seasons, catch limits and Dev. Sustainability/ 1, 3 identifies angler issues for discussion and resolution. Also, provides fish attribute data for stock status determination. Assess rehabilitation of stocks and monitor stocking events, assess harvesting and effects of various regulations, monitor fish flesh contaminants and biological parameters in fisheries. Aquatic Communities/ 1-4 Dev. Sustainability/ 1, 3 Chem. Contaminants/ 1 Human Health/ 1 Monitoring to estimate current status and trends in selected indicators of ecological health in Great Lakes (pollutants, exotic species, benthos, etc.) Aquatic Communities/ 1-4 Chem. Contaminants/ 1-6 5 Aquatic Communities (continued). No. Monitoring Project Title Indicies of Biological Integrity Development Contact Person, Agency E-mail, Tel. Scott Niemela, Minnesota 651-296-8878, Pollution scott.niemela@pc Control Agency a.state.mn.us 14A Exotic Species Monitoring Program-Zebra Mussels Ken Cullis, ken.cullis@mnr,go v.on.ca, 807-4751231 14B Exotic Species Monitoring Program-Ruffe Monitoring 15 Turkey Lakes Watershed 17 Great Lakes Water Quality Survey Studies 12 Ontario Ministry of Natural ResourcesLake Superior Management Unit Ken Cullis, Ontario ken.cullis@mnr,go Ministry of v.on.ca, 807-475- Natural 1231 ResourcesLake Superior Management Unit Dean Jeffries, Environment Dean.Jeffries@cci Canada w.ca, 905-3364969 Glen Warren, US warren.glenn@epa Environmental .gov, 312-886-2405 Protection Agency Objective Relevant Work Group/Indicator Once IBI's are developed the intention is to Aquatic Communities/ 4 sample streams on a five-year cycle. The Chem. Contaminants/ 6 results of the sampling will be used to Habitat/ 1, 5 evaluate over-all condition, effectiveness of Dev. Sustainability/ 3 previous control actions taken, and to gather discharge information on ten basins in Minnesota including the Lake Superior basin. Periodic surveys at various locations in Aquatic Communities/ 1-3 Lake Superior determine if reproducing Habitat/ 2 populations are present. Dev. Sustainability/ 1, 2 Annual Ruffe monitoring in the Thunder Bay Aquatic Communities/ 1-3 Harbour area will determine distribution and Habitat/ 2 relative abundance. Dev. Sustainability/ 1, 2 Multi-agency, multi-disciplinary study of air and precipitation, surface, soil and ground waters, terrestrial and aquatic biota in watershed draining into Lake Superior, initiated to evaluate effects of anthropogenic perturbations on ecosystems within Precambrian Shield Monitoring surveys of open waters of Lake Superior for biological, chemical and physical water quality data to evaluate long-term trends in ecosystem health Aquatic Communities/ 1-3, 5 Chem. Contaminants/ 1-6 Aquatic Communities/ 1 Chem. Contaminants/ 1, 3, 6 6 Aquatic Communities (continued). No. 18 20 Monitoring Contact Person, Project Title E-mail, Tel. Great Lakes Fish Sandy Hellman, Monitoring hellman.sandra@e Program pa.gov, 312-3535006 State-wide Lake Al Stevens, and Steam al.stevens@dnr.st Management atemn.us, 651Planning 297-3287 21 Minnesota Fish Contaminants Program 22 Michigan's Fish Contaminant Monitoring Program Tribal Mark Ebener, Commercial Fish mebener@norther Assessments nway.net, 906632-0072 Fish Mike Ripley, Contaminant mebener@norther Monitoring nway.net, 906Program 632-0073 23A 23B Pat McCann, patricia.mccann@ health.state.mn.us , 651-215-0923 Bob Day, dayrm@state.mi.u s, 517-335-3314 Agency US Environmental Protection Agency Minnesota Dep't. of Natural Resources, Fisheries Minnesota Dep't. of Natural Resources Michigan Dep't of Environmental Quality Inter-tribal Fisheries Assessment Program Inter-tribal Fisheries Assessment Program Objective Relevant Work Group/Indicator Monitoring of fish contaminants for longAquatic Communities/ 5 term trends and human health implications Chem. Contaminants/ 1 Human Health/1 To develop fisheries management plans (lake and streams), evaluate management actions, and monitor long term trends in fish communities and aquatic resources health. Annual contaminant monitoring of fish in lakes and rivers Chem. Contaminants/ 1, 6 Aquatic Communities/ 1-5 Habitat/ 1, 3, 5 Dev. Sustainability/ 1, 3 Annual contaminant monitoring of fish Aquatic Communities/ 5 Chem. Contaminants/ 1 Human Health/1 Aquatic Communities/ 5 Chem. Contaminants/ 1 Human Health/1 Collection of biological data from lake trout Aquatic Communities/ 5 and whitefish in Native American commercial fisheries Contaminant monitoring of lake trout and whitefish on 3 yr. basis Aquatic Communities/ 5 Chem. Contaminants/ 1 Human Health/1 7 Aquatic Communities (continued). No. 26 29 32 37 38 Monitoring Project Title Assessment of Lake Trout Populations in Michigan Waters of Lake Superior Contact Person, Agency Objective E-mail, Tel. Shawn Sitar, Michigan Dep't. To annually determine; relative abundance, sitars@state.mi.u of Natural length and age composition, sex and s, 906-249-1611 Resources maturity, sea lamprey wounding, growth, and mortality for lean and siscowet lake trout. To periodically determine relative abundance, diet and above listed biological parameters for lake trout varieties, other predators and forage fish at different seasons and depth strata. To determine lake trout total allowable catches. National Anthony Frank, US Geological Monitoring document trends in occurrence Contaminant Anthony_Frank@u Survey of persistent toxic chemicals in fisheries Biomonitoring sgs.gov, 304-724Program 4503 Environmental Jim Sherry, Environment Development and use of in vivo and in vitro Effects of Jim.Sherry@cciw. Canada techniques to assess ability of industrial Industrial ca, 905-336-4813 effluents to cause health effects in aquatic Effluents ecosystems National Aaron Carswell, Fisheries & Computerized warehouse of information on Contaminants carswella@dfoOceans toxic chemicals in fish and other aquatic Information mpo.gc.ca, 905- Canada life and their habitats System 336-4490 Persistence and Jim Maguire, Environment Assessment of hazards of organics, Fate of jim.maguire@ec.g Canada organometallics and metals to aquatic Pesticides and c.ca, 905-336organisms Industrial 4927 Chemicals in Water Relevant Work Group/Indicator Aquatic Communities/ 1-5 Dev. Sustainability/ 1, 3 Aquatic Communities/ 5 Chem. Contaminants/ 1 Human Health/1 Aquatic Communities/ 5 Human Health/ 1 Chem. Contaminants/ 1 Aquatic Communities/ 5 Human Health/ 1 Habitat/ 2 Aquatic Communities/ 5 Chem. Contaminants/ 1 Human Health/ 1 8 Aquatic Communities (continued). No. 39 40 43 45 46 47 61 Monitoring Project Title Quantifying Vertical Motion Along the North Shore of Lake Superior Remedial Action Plan Update Contact Person, Agency Objective Relevant Work E-mail, Tel. Group/Indicator Marie Zhuikov, Minnesota Sea Monitoring of upwellings along north shore Aquatic Communities/ 2, 3 eralph@d.umn.edu Grant College of Lake Superior, and their impacts on food Chem. Contaminants/ 1 , 218-726-7677 Program webs and sediment distribution in the lake Human Health/ 1 Gail Krantzberg, krantzga@ene.gov .on.ca, 419-3147973 US Canada Karen Vigmostad, Great Lakes vigmo@pilot.msu. Islands Project edu, 517-339-2202 Wildlife Lake Ray Norrgard, Surveys Ray.Norrgard@dnr .state.mn.us, 651296-3779 Great Lakes Fish Mike Whittle, Contaminant whittlew@dfoSurveillance mpo.gc.ca, 905Program 336-4565 Great Lakes Ronald Russell, Fisheries russellrw@dfoSpecimen Bank mpo.gc.ca, 905336-4861 USGSStreamgaging Network Ontario Ministry of the Environment Annual review of progress towards implementing RAPs and restoring beneficial uses in Areas of Concern Aquatic Communities/ 1-5 Chem Contaminants/ 6 Habitat/ 1-5 Michigan State Binational collaboration to provide central University base for activities, data, and information about the islands Minnesota Shallow lakes surveyed to monitor Dep't. of macrophyte abundance ,water quality and Natural clarity for evaluation of wildlife habitat Resources Fisheries & Monitoring to determine temporal and Oceans spatial trends in contaminant burdens of Canada Great Lakes fish and the forage base Habitat/ 4 Terrestrial Wildlife/ 4 Aquatic Communities/ 2 Habitat/ 3 Aquatic Communities/ 1, 2, 5 Fisheries & Oceans Canada Aquatic Communities/ 5 Chem. Contaminants/ 1 Human Health/ 1 Maintenance of a specimen bank/tissue archive for retrospective chemical and biological analyses of aquatic biota representative of Great Lakes aquatic ecosystem Steve Blumer, US Geological To maintain and record continuous data at: spblumer@usgs.g Survey, Water streamgaging stations, crest-stage ov, 517-887-8922 Resources stations, and lake level gauging stations. Division Miscellaneous measurements of velocity are also recorded at numerous sites. Aquatic Communities/ 5 Chem. Contaminants/ 1 Human Health/ 1 Aquatic Communities/ 4 Habitat/ 1, 2 9 Aquatic Communities (continued). No. 62 63 64 65 Monitoring Project Title Minnesota Milestone (Routine Stream) Monitoring Contact Person, Agency E-mail, Tel. Sandra Minnesota Bissonnette, Pollution sandy.bissonnette Control Agency @pca.state.mn.us , 651-297-3575 Objective To detect water quality changes over time by continuing to record basic chemical measures of stream water quality for locations at which such measures have been collected regularly for a long period of time. Minnesota To analyze toxaphene in bottom sediment Pollution in two locations on the St. Louis River to Control Agency determine if there was historical sources in the area. Minnesota To perform source investigations and Pollution allocation of loads of eight contaminants of Control Agency concern identified in the St. Louis River. Toxaphene in the Patricia King, St. Louis River patricia.king@pca. state.mn.us, 651296-8725 Loads of Toxic Patricia King, Contaminants in patricia.king@pca. the St. Louis state.mn.us, 651River 296-8726 Contaminants in Jerry Flom, Minnesota To determine if there was any regional Lake Superior Gerald.flom@pca. Pollution differences in contamination. Fish state.mn.us, 651- Control Agency 296-8382 Relevant Work Group/Indicator Aquatic Communities/ 5, 4 Habitat/ 2 Aquatic Communities/ 5, 4 Chem. Contaminants/ 1, 5 Habitat/ 2 Aquatic Communities/ 3, 5 Chem. Contaminants/ 1, 5, 6 Habitat/ 2 Aquatic Communities/ 5 Chem. Contaminants/ 1 Human Health/ 1 10 Terrestrial Wildlife No. 1 10A 10B 11 13A Monitoring Project Title Wildlife Assessment Program Bald Eagle Biosentinel Project Contact Person, E-mail, Tel. Neil Dawson, neil.dawson@mnr. gov.on.ca, 807939-3120 Agency Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources Objective Wildlife Assessment Program established to develop long-term population monitoring of selected terrestrial vertebrates impacted by forest management activities, Monitoring includes nocturnal owl monitoring, spring woodpecker survey, avian migration monitoring, amphibian road call counts, backyard frog surveys, small mammal monitoring, salamander monitoring and forest songbird monitoring, Monitoring to determine annual reproductive outcome, deformities, sex & age, health status of nesting eagles throughout Michigan, contaminants in blood/feathers measured on 5 yr. rotation Lakes surveyed to determine loon occupancy and nesting success of a statethreatened species William Clemson Bowerman, University wbowerm@clemso n.edu, 864-6462185 Michigan William Clemson Common Loon Bowerman, University Survey wbowerm@clemso n.edu, 864-6462186 Wisconsin Gary Casper, Milwaukee Project involves building a distribution data Herpetological gsc@mpm.edu, Public Museum base for all reptiles and amphibians in Atlas Project 414-278-2766 Wisconsin, to determine species range limits and habitat preferences Herring Gull Egg Chip Weseloh, Canadian Annual monitoring of contaminant levels in Monitoring chip.weseloh@ec. Wildlife Service Herring Gull eggs Program gc.ca, 416-7395846 /5845 Relevant Work Group/Indicator Terrestrial Wildlife/ 1, 2, 8, 9 Terrestrial Wildlife/ 8, 10 Chem. Contaminants/ 1 Aquatic Communities/ 5 Terrestrial Wildlife/ 16 Terrestrial Wildlife/ 2 Terrestrial Wildlife/ 8 11 Terrestrial Wildlife (continued). No. 13B 13C 16 24 27 30 43 Monitoring Project Title Colonial Waterbirds of Great Lakes Population Surveys Surveillance of Toxic Chemicals in Herptiles in the Great Lakes Status of Wildlife Populations Contact Person, Agency Objective Relevant Work E-mail, Tel. Group/Indicator Chip Weseloh, Canadian Census of breeding populations of colonial Terrestrial Wildlife/ 8 chip.weseloh@ec. Wildlife Service waterbirds on rotation basis gc.ca, 416-7395846 /5846 Forest Bird Monitoring in the Great Lakes National Forests, Forest Bird Diversity Initiative Tree Swallow Contaminant Monitoring Effects of Organochlorine Contaminants on Avian Endocrine Systems US Canada Great Lakes Islands Project Gerald Niemi, University of gniemi@d.umn.ed Minnesota u, 218-720-4270 Chip Weseloh, chip.weseloh@ec. gc.ca, 416-7395846 /5847 Margaret Dexter, margaret.dexter@ dnr.state.mn.us, 651-297-4962 Gerald Niemi, gniemi@d.umn.ed u, 218-720-4270 Angela Lorenzen, Angela.Lorenzen @ec.gc.ca, 819953-48110 Canadian Monitoring contaminant levels and impacts Terrestrial Wildlife/ 7 Wildlife Service on herptiles Minnesota Dep't. of Natural Resources Annual compilation of hunting and trapping Terrestrial Wildlife 13 harvest statistics and census and survey data to determine populations estimates, hunter harvest estimates and long-term trends in wildlife populations Presence and abundance of forest birds Terrestrial Wildlife/ 1, 4 collected annually in Minnesota to investigate response of forest birds to regional land use patterns University of Minnesota Monitoring of sentinel species to detect Terrestrial Wildlife/ 6 areas of sediment chemical contamination Environment Canada Examine effects of complex mixtures of Terrestrial Wildlife/ 1, 8 environmental organochlorine contaminants on endocrine systems in wild birds Karen Vigmostad, Michigan State Binational collaboration to provide central vigmo@pilot.msu. University base for activities, data, and information edu, 517-339-2202 about the islands Habitat/ 4 Terrestrial Wildlife/ 4 Aquatic Communities/ 2 12 Terrestrial Wildlife (continued). No. 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 Monitoring Project Title Ruffed Grouse Monitoring Contact Person, E-mail, Tel. Al Stewart, StewartA@dnr.sta te.mi.us, 517-3731263 White-tailed Deer Robert Johnson, Monitoring JohnsonR@dnr.st ate.mi.us Beech Bark Andrew Gillespie, Disease agillesp@hp1.nen Monitoring a.org, 610-975Program 4021 Hemlock Wooly Noel Adelgid Schneebergern, Monitoring schneeberger@us Program da.gov, 610-9754136 Asian Longhorn Terry Goodman, Beetle terrill.d.goodman@ Monitoring usda.gov, Program Agency Objective Michigan Dep't. Monitoring to estimate population trends of Natural and fall hunting success Resources Michigan Dep't. of Natural Resources USDA-FS, Forest Health Monitoring Program USDA-FS, North-eastern Area, Forest Health Protection USDA-Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, PPQ Pine Shoot Terry Goodman, USDA-Animal Beetle terrill.d.goodman@ and Plant Monitoring usda.gov, Health Program Inspection Service, PPQ European Gypsy Terry Goodman, USDA - Animal Moth Monitoring terrill.d.goodman@ and Plant Program usda.gov Health Inspection Service, PPQ Relevant Work Group/Indicator Terrestrial Wildlife/ 14 Monitoring to assess population trends and Terrestrial Wildlife/ 13 yearly recruitment to set harvest limits and predict hunting success Presence/absence of the disease and or its Terrestrial wildlife/ 11, 15 vectors. Presence/absence in a county. Terrestrial Wildlife/ 15 Monitor at Ports of entry and warehouses. Terrestrial Wildlife/ 11 Presence vs. absence of insect, if present determine if the population locally established. Terrestrial Wildlife/ 11 To monitor population outbreaks in MI and Terrestrial Wildlife/ 11 identify newly established populations in WI and MN. 13 Terrestrial Wildlife continued. No. Monitoring Project Title Federally Threatened and Endangered Species Monitoring Program Owls ? Contact Person, Agency E-mail, Tel. ? US Fish and Wildlife Service and Canadian Wildlife Service Relevant Work Group/Indicator To determine whether the goal of "Species Terrestrial Wildlife/ 10 of Concern (T/E) are recovered in the Lake Superior Basin" is being reached or has been met. ? 57 Common Loon Monitoring 58 Breeding Birds Population and Community Monitoring Program Joe Kaplan, BioDiversity piprapipra@aol.co Research m, (207) 865-3302 Institute for contaminants monitoringindividual state. Neil Dawson, Ontario neil.dawson@mnr. Ministry of gov.on.ca, 807Natural 939-3120 Resources To determine the timing and magnitude of spring and fall migrations, develop longterm migration trends. Collect information toward the understanding and conservation of the Common Loon and to use the Common Loon as an indicator of aquatic integrity. 59 Frog and Toad Population Monitoring 55 56 ? ? Objective To collect data on number of taxa, relative abundance and distribution. The program also monitors indications of habitat changes in the microhabitat, patch, Lake Superior basin, landscape, and Great Lakes region. Also, neotropical migrants breed in the Lake Superior basin and monitoring of those birds may provide indications of changes in neotropical habitats. US Geological To determine declines in toad and frog Survey populations with audio surveys. Biological Resources Division Terrestrial Wildlife/ 9, 1 Terrestrial Wildlife/ 16 Terrestrial Wildlife/ 1, 4, 11 Terrestrial Wildlife/ 2 14 Terrestrial Wildlife (continued). No. 60 66 Monitoring Project Title Colonial Birds Population and Contaminant Monitoring Contact Person, E-mail, Tel. Sumner Mattison, mattes@dnr.state. wi.us, 608-2661571 Agency US Geological Survey Biological Resources Division Minnesota Carmen Converse, Minnesota County carmen.converse Dep't. of Biological Survey @dnr.state.mn.us, Natural 651-296-9782 Resources Objective To determine productivity information, reproductive success and contaminant data. Relevant Work Group/Indicator Terrestrial Wildlife/ 8 To identify significant natural areas and to Terrestrial Wildlife/ 3, 10 collect and interpret data on the distribution Dev. Sustainability/ 1, 3 and ecology of rare plants, rare animals, and native plant communities. 15 Habitat No. 7 8 9 12 14A Monitoring Project Title Forestry Aerial Photography Contact Person, E-mail, Tel. William Befort, bill.befort@dnr.stat e.mn.us, 218-3274450 William Befort, bill.befort@dnr.stat e.mn.us, 218-3274452 Landsat Vegetation Mapping and Change Detection Forest Inventory Gary Cummings, on State Lands gary.cummings@d nr.state.mn.us, 218-327-4449 ext. 226 Indicies of Scott Niemela, Biological 651-296-8878, Integrity scott.niemela@pc Development a.state.mn.us Exotic Species Monitoring Program-Zebra Mussels Agency Objective Relevant Work Group/Indicator Habitat/ 4 Dev. Sustainability/ 3,1 Minnesota Dep't. of Natural Resources Minnesota Dep't. of Natural Resources Aerial photographs taken every 8 yrs. for vegetation interpretation, terrain analysis Minnesota Dep't. of Natural Resources Mapped forestry inventory on 5.3 million Habitat/ 4 acres in northern and eastern Minnesota to Dev. Sustainability/ 3 guide foresters in managing harvesting and other treatments on state forest lands Landsat images used to create detailed Habitat/ 4 vegetation map of the state; to detect forest Dev. Sustainability/ 3 change and prioritize filed inventory plots for revisit Minnesota Once IBI's are developed the intention is to Pollution sample streams on a five year cycle. The Control Agency results of the sampling will be used to evaluate over-all condition, effectiveness of previous control actions taken, and to gather discharge information on ten basins in Minnesota including the Lake Superior basin. Ken Cullis, Ontario Periodic surveys at various locations in ken.cullis@mnr,go Ministry of Lake Superior determine if reproducing v.on.ca, 807-475- Natural populations are present. 1231 ResourcesLake Superior Management Unit Aquatic Communities/ 4 Chem. Contaminants/ 6 Habitat/ 1, 5 Dev. Sustainability/ 3 Aquatic Communities/ 1-3 Habitat/ 2 Dev. Sustainability/ 1, 2 16 Habitat (continued). No. 14B Monitoring Project Title Exotic Species Monitoring Program-Ruffe Monitoring Contact Person, E-mail, Tel. Ken Cullis, ken.cullis@mnr,go v.on.ca, 807-4751231 Ontario Ministry of Natural ResourcesLake Superior Management Unit Al Stevens, Minnesota al.stevens@dnr.st Dep't. of atemn.us, 651Natural 297-3287 Resources, Fisheries Peter Wolter, University of pwolter@sage.nrri. Minnesota umn.edu, 218-7204275 Kurt Kowalski, US Geological Kurt_Kowalski@u Survey sgs.gov 20 State-wide Lake and Steam Management Planning 25 Forest Landscape Monitoring with Remote Sensing Effects of Global Climate Change on Great Lakes Wetlands Remedial Action Gail Krantzberg, Plan Update krantzga@ene.gov .on.ca, 419-3147973 US Canada Karen Vigmostad, Great Lakes vigmo@pilot.msu. Islands Project edu, 517-339-2202 Wildlife Lake Ray Norrgard, Surveys Ray.Norrgard@dnr .state.mn.us, 651296-3779 31 40 43 45 Agency Ontario Ministry of the Environment Objective Relevant Work Group/Indicator Annual Ruffe monitoring in the Thunder Bay Aquatic Communities/ 1-3 Harbour area will determine distribution and Habitat/ 2 relative abundance. Dev. Sustainability/ 1, 2 To develop fisheries management plans (lake and streams), evaluate management actions, and monitor long term trends in fish communities and aquatic resources health. Landsat TM satellite imagery used to detect change in forest cover types, age classes, and landscape characteristics over time Long-term data on responses of wetlands to warming events through paleoecological analyses of sediment cores Chem. Contaminants/ 1, 6 Aquatic Communities/ 1-5 Habitat/ 1, 3, 5 Dev. Sustainability/ 1, 3 Annual review of progress towards implementing RAPs and restoring beneficial uses in Areas of Concern Aquatic Communities/ 1-5 Chem Contaminants/ 6 Habitat/ 1-5 Michigan State Binational collaboration to provide central University base for activities, data, and information about the islands Minnesota Shallow lakes surveyed to monitor Dep't. of macrophyte abundance ,water quality and Natural clarity for evaluation of wildlife habitat Resources Habitat/ 4 Dev. Sustainability/ 3 Habitat/ 2, 5 Chem. Contaminants/ 5, 6 Habitat/ 4 Terrestrial Wildlife/ 4 Aquatic Communities/ 2 Habitat/ 3 Aquatic Communities/ 1, 2, 5 17 Habitat (continued). No. 61 62 63 64 Monitoring Project Title USGSStreamgaging Network Contact Person, Agency E-mail, Tel. Steve Blumer, US Geological spblumer@usgs.g Survey, Water ov, 517-887-8922 Resources Division Objective Relevant Work Group/Indicator To maintain and record continuous data at: Aquatic Communities/ 4 streamgaging stations, crest-stage Habitat/ 1, 2 stations, and lake level gauging stations. Miscellaneous measurements of velocity are also recorded at numerous sites. Minnesota Sandra Minnesota To detect water quality changes over time Aquatic Communities/ 5, 4 Milestone Bissonnette, Pollution by continuing to record basic chemical Habitat/ 2 (Routine Stream) sandy.bissonnette Control Agency measures of stream water quality for Monitoring @pca.state.mn.us locations at which such measures have , 651-297-3575 been collected regularly for a long period of time. Toxaphene in the Patricia King, Minnesota To analyze toxaphene in bottom sediment Aquatic Communities/ 5, 4 St. Louis River patricia.king@pca. Pollution in two locations on the St. Louis River to Chem. Contaminants/ 1, 5 state.mn.us, 651- Control Agency determine if there was historical sources in Habitat/ 2 296-8723 the area. Loads of Toxic Patricia King, Minnesota To perform source investigations and Aquatic Communities/ 3, 5 Contaminants in patricia.king@pca. Pollution allocation of loads of eight contaminants of Chem. Contaminants/ 1, 5, 6 the St. Louis state.mn.us, 651- Control Agency concern identified in the St. Louis River. Habitat/ 2 River 296-8724 18 Human Health No. Monitoring Project Title 5 Lake Superior Fisheries Monitoring in Minnesota Waters (also used in other US and Ontario waters) 18 Great Lakes Fish Monitoring Program 21 Minnesota Fish Contaminants Program 22 Michigan's Fish Contaminant Monitoring Program 23B Fish Contaminant Monitoring Program 28 Assessment of Human Tissue Levels in Great Lakes Population 29 National Contaminant Biomonitoring Program 32 Environmental Effects of Industrial Effluents Contact Person, E-mail, Tel. Agency Objective Don Schreiner, Minnesota Dep't. of Assess rehabilitation of stocks and monitor don.schreiner@dnr. Natural Resources, stocking events, assess harvesting and effects of state.mn.us, 218- Fisheries various regulations, monitor fish flesh 723-4785 contaminants and biological parameters in fisheries. Sandy Hellman, US Environmental Monitoring of fish contaminants for long-term hellman.sandra@e Protection Agency trends and human health implications pa.gov, 312-3535006 Pat McCann, Minnesota Dep't. of Annual contaminant monitoring of fish in lakes patricia.mccann@h Natural Resources and rivers ealth.state.mn.us, 651-215-0923 Bob Day, Michigan Dep't of Annual contaminant monitoring of fish dayrm@state.mi.us Environmental , 517-335-3314 Quality Mark Ebener, Inter-tribal Contaminant monitoring of lake trout and mebener@northern Fisheries whitefish on 3 yr. basis way.net, 906-632- Assessment 0073 Program Joyce Mortimer, Health Canada Initiate an assessment of human tissue joyce.mortimer@hc contaminant levels in the Great Lakes basin -sc.gc.ca, 613-954population 5991 Anthony Frank, US Geological Monitoring to document trends in occurrence of Anthony_Frank@u Survey persistent toxic chemicals in fisheries sgs.gov, 304-7244503 Jim Sherry, Environment Development and use of in vivo and in vitro Jim.Sherry@cciw.c Canada techniques to assess ability of industrial effluents a, 905-336-4813 to cause health effects in aquatic ecosystems Relevant Work Group/Indicator Aquatic Communities/ 1-4 Dev. Sustainability/ 1, 3 Chem. Contaminants/ 1 Human Health/ 1 Aquatic Communities/ 5 Chem. Contaminants/ 1 Human Health/1 Aquatic Communities/ 5 Chem. Contaminants/ 1 Human Health/1 Aquatic Communities/ 5 Chem. Contaminants/ 1 Human Health/1 Aquatic Communities/ 5 Chem. Contaminants/ 1 Human Health/1 Human Health/ 6, 8 Aquatic Communities/ 5 Chem. Contaminants/ 1 Human Health/1 Aquatic Communities/ 5 Human Health/ 1 Chem. Contaminants/ 1 19 Human Health (continued). No. 36 37 38 39 41 42 46 47 65 Monitoring Project Title Trends in Disease Incidents and Mortality Rates Contact Person, E-mail, Tel. Joyce Mortimer, joyce.mortimer@hc -sc.gc.ca, 613-9545991 National Contaminants Aaron Carswell, Information System carswella@dfompo.gc.ca, 905336-4490 Persistence and Fate of Jim Maguire, Pesticides and Industrial jim.maguire@ec.gc Chemicals in Water .ca, 905-336-4927 Quantifying Vertical Motion Marie Zhuikov, Along the North Shore of eralph@d.umn.edu, Lake Superior 218-726-7677 Remedial Action Plans Joyce Mortimer, (RAPs) and Lakewide joyce.mortimer@hc Management Plans (LaMPs) -sc.gc.ca, 613-954Co-ordination 5991 Source Apportionment of Gregory Pratt, Human Exposure to Urban gregory.pratt@pca. Air Toxins state.mn.us Great Lakes Fish Mike Whittle, Contaminant Surveillance whittlew@dfoProgram mpo.gc.ca, 905336-4565 Great Lakes Fisheries Ronald Russell, Specimen Bank russellrw@dfompo.gc.ca, 905336-4861 Contaminants in Lake Jerry Flom, Superior Fish Gerald.flom@pca.s tate.mn.us, 651296-8382 Agency Objective Relevant Work Group/Indicator Health Canada Summary of descriptive analyses of incidence of Human Health/ 1 morbidity data (cancer, congenital anomalies) and mortality in Great Lakes Areas of Concern Fisheries & Oceans Canada Computerized warehouse of information on toxic chemicals in fish and other aquatic life and their habitats Environment Canada Assessment of hazards of organics, Aquatic Communities/ 5 organometallics and metals to aquatic organisms Chem. Contaminants/ 1 Human Health/ 1 Monitoring of upwellings along north shore of Aquatic Communities/ 2, 3 Lake Superior, and their impacts on food webs Chem. Contaminants/ 1 and sediment distribution in the lake Human Health/ 1 Address human health issues in the development Human Health/ 7, 8 and implementation of Remedial Action Plans Dev. Sustainability/ 1-5 and Lakewide management plans (LaMPs). Minnesota Sea Grant College Program Health Canada Minnesota Toxics Indexing System Fisheries & Oceans Canada Fisheries & Oceans Canada Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Aquatic Communities/ 5 Human Health/ 1 Habitat/ 2 Measurement of personal exposure to indoor, outdoor, neighbourhood and central site concentrations of selected volatile air toxics Monitoring to determine temporal and spatial trends in contaminant burdens of Great Lakes fish and the forage base Human Health/ 4 Maintenance of a specimen bank/tissue archive for retrospective chemical and biological analyses of aquatic biota representative of Great Lakes aquatic ecosystem To determine if there was any regional differences in contamination. Aquatic Communities/ 5 Chem. Contaminants/ 1 Human Health/ 1 Aquatic Communities/ 5 Chem. Contaminants/ 1 Human Health/ 1 Aquatic Communities/ 5 Chem. Contaminants/ 1 Human Health/ 1 20 Developing Sustainability No. Monitoring Project Title Contact Person, EAgency mail, Tel. Ken Cullis, Lake Superior ken.cullis@mnr.gov. Management Unit, on.ca, 807-475-1268 Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources 4 Sport Fish Monitoring 5 Lake Superior Fisheries Monitoring in Minnesota Waters (also used in other US and Ontario waters) 7 Forestry Aerial Photography William Befort, bill.befort@dnr.state .mn.us, 218-3274449 Landsat Vegetation Mapping William Befort, and Change Detection bill.befort@dnr.state .mn.us, 218-3274451 Forest Inventory on State Gary Cummings, Lands gary.cummings@dn r.state.mn.us, 218327-4449 ext. 226 Indicies of Biological Scott Niemela, 651Integrity Development 296-8878, scott.niemela@pca. state.mn.us 8 9 12 14A Exotic Species Monitoring Program-Zebra Mussels Don Schreiner, don.schreiner@dnr. state.mn.us, 218723-4785 Minnesota Dep't. of Natural Resources, Fisheries Minnesota Dep't. of Natural Resources Objective Relevant Work Group/Indicator Direct management decisions regarding harvest Aquatic Communities/ 1-4 levels, seasons, catch limits and identifies angler Dev. Sustainability/ 1, 3 issues for discussion and resolution. Also, provides fish attribute data for stock status determination. Assess rehabilitation of stocks and monitor Aquatic Communities/ 1-4 stocking events, assess harvesting and effects of Dev. Sustainability/ 1, 3 various regulations, monitor fish flesh Chem. Contaminants/ 1 contaminants and biological parameters in Human Health/ 1 fisheries. Aerial photographs taken every 8 yrs. for Habitat/ 4 vegetation interpretation, terrain analysis Dev. Sustainability/ 3,1 Minnesota Dep't. of Natural Resources Landsat images used to create detailed Habitat/ 4 vegetation map of the state; to detect forest Dev. Sustainability/ 3 change and prioritize filed inventory plots for revisit Minnesota Dep't. of Natural Resources Habitat/ 4 Dev. Sustainability/ 3 Mapped forestry inventory on 5.3 million acres in northern and eastern Minnesota to guide foresters in managing harvesting and other treatments on state forest lands Minnesota Once IBI's are developed the intention is to Pollution Control sample streams on a five year cycle. The results Agency of the sampling will be used to evaluate over-all condition, effectiveness of previous control actions taken, and to gather discharge information on ten basins in Minnesota including the Lake Superior basin. Ken Cullis, Ontario Ministry of Periodic surveys at various locations in Lake ken.cullis@mnr,gov. Natural Superior determine if reproducing populations are on.ca, 807-475-1231 Resources-Lake present. Superior Management Unit Aquatic Communities/ 4 Chem. Contaminants/ 6 Habitat/ 1, 5 Dev. Sustainability/ 3 Aquatic Communities/ 1-3 Habitat/ 2 Dev. Sustainability/ 1, 2 21 Developing Sustainability (continued). No. Contact Person, EAgency mail, Tel. 14B Exotic Species Monitoring Ken Cullis, Ontario Ministry of Program-Ruffe Monitoring ken.cullis@mnr,gov. Natural on.ca, 807-475-1231 Resources-Lake Superior Management Unit 19 Generating Baseline Kristine Bradof, Michigan Sustainability Data for Lake kbradof@mtu.edu, Technological Superior Basin 906-487-3341 University 20 State-wide Lake and Steam Al Stevens, Minnesota Dep't. Management Planning al.stevens@dnr.stat of Natural emn.us, 651-297Resources, 3287 Fisheries 25 Forest Landscape Peter Wolter, University of Monitoring with Remote pwolter@sage.nrri.u Minnesota Sensing mn.edu, 218-7204275 26 Assessment of Lake Trout Shawn Sitar, Michigan Dep't. of Populations in Michigan sitars@state.mi.us, Natural Resources Waters of Lake Superior 906-249-1611 41 66 Monitoring Project Title Remedial Action Plans (RAPs) and Lakewide Management Plans (LaMPs) Co-ordination Minnesota County Biological Survey Joyce Mortimer, joyce.mortimer@hcsc.gc.ca, 613-9545991 Carmen Converse, carmen.converse@d nr.state.mn.us, 651296-9782 Health Canada Minnesota Dep't. of Natural Resources Objective Annual Ruffe monitoring in the Thunder Bay Harbour area will determine distribution and relative abundance. Relevant Work Group/Indicator Aquatic Communities/ 1-3 Habitat/ 2 Dev. Sustainability/ 1, 2 Construction of baseline ‘best bet’ social and economic sustainability indicators Dev. Sustainability/ 2, 5 To develop fisheries management plans (lake and streams), evaluate management actions, and monitor long term trends in fish communities and aquatic resources health. Landsat TM satellite imagery used to detect change in forest cover types, age classes, and landscape characteristics over time Chem. Contaminants/ 1, 6 Aquatic Communities/ 1-5 Habitat/ 1, 3, 5 Dev. Sustainability/ 1, 3 Habitat/ 4 Dev. Sustainability/ 3 To annually determine; relative abundance, length and age composition, sex and maturity, sea lamprey wounding, growth, and mortality for lean and siscowet lake trout. To periodically determine relative abundance, diet and above listed biological parameters for lake trout varieties, other predators and forage fish at different seasons and depth strata. To determine lake trout total allowable catches. Address human health issues in the development and implementation of Remedial Action Plans and Lakewide management plans (LaMPs). Aquatic Communities/ 1-5 Dev. Sustainability/ 1, 3 Human Health/ 7, 8 Dev. Sustainability/ 1-5 To identify significant natural areas and to collect Terrestrial Wildlife/ 3, 10 and interpret data on the distribution and ecology Dev. Sustainability/ 1, 3 of rare plants, rare animals, and native plant communities. 22 Appendix VII List of Funding Sources Funding Source Conservation and Re-investment act of 1999 Permanent Protection for America’s Resources Michigan Sea Grant Great Lakes Fishery Commission International Joint Commission FedNor Human Resource Development Canada Ontario Innovation Trust Friends of the Environment The Richard Ivey Foundation Contact Information The Heartland Institute – think@heartland.org www.house.gov/resources/106cong/democrat/endorse.html Www.engin.umich.edu/seagrant/ www.glfc.org/ www.ijc.org/ www.fednor.ic.gc.ca www.hrdc-drhc.gc.ca/ www.oit.on.ca www.fef.ca www.ivey.org/ 1